The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Customs and Rituals: Collected Essays 9781618114921

Citation preview

THE IMPACT of CULTURE

and CULTURES

UPON JEWISH

CUSTOMS and RITUALS

Collected Essays

Judaism

and Jewish

Life

Series Editor: Simcha Fishbane (Touro College, New York) Editorial Board: Geoffrey Alderman (University of Buckingham) Meir Bar-Ilan (Bar-Ilan University) Herbert Basser (Queen’s University) Donatella Ester Di Cesare (Universita La Sapienza) Roberta Rosenberg Farber (Yeshiva University) Andreas Nachama (Touro College, Berlin) Ira Robinson (Concordia University) Nissan Rubin (Bar-Ilan Unviersity) Susan Starr Sered (Suffolk University) Reeva Spector Simon (Yeshiva University)

THE IMPACT of CULTURE

and CULTURES

UPON JEWISH

CUSTOMS and RITUALS

Collected Essays SIMCHA FISHBANE

Boston 2016

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: A catalog record for this book as available from the Library of Congress. Copyright © 2016 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-61811-491-4 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-61811-492-1 (electronic) Cover design by Ivan Grave Published by Academic Studies Press in 2016 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com

Dedicated to my children Gilad, Ayelet, Noam, and Nachshon

Table of Contents

Preface and Acknowledgments vii Introduction x Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual 1 B ehind the Purim Mask: The Symbolic Representation of the Rituals and Customs of Purim 47 In the Absence of Ritual: Customs of the Holiday of Shavuot 125 Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah: The Case of the Arukh HaShulhan 162 The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah 211 Index 251

Preface and Acknowledgments

This book is a continuation of my work Studies in Custom and Ritual in the Judaic Tradition, which analyzed various Jewish customs and rituals.The essays in this book cover a variety of topics. These five themes have led to a fulllength book.Topics include “Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual,” with the focus primarily on the Sabbath candles and fire ritual at the conclusion of Shabbat. I have attempted to place the halakhic rituals of fire within the social scientific understanding of symbolism, as I also do in “Behind the Purim Mask: The Symbolic Representation of the Rituals and Customs of Purim.” As its title implies, the essay discusses and analyzes the rituals found in the Shulhan Arukh and various books of customs. Here I attempt to understand celebration within the context of social scientific constructs, including liminality. The essay “In the Absence of Ritual: Customs of the Holiday of Shavuot” is concerned with the wish to implement rituals to offer color or life to a holiday that the Bible presents as void of ritualistic-historical references. “The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah” is concerned with Torah, a Jewish holy artifact that has become for many Jews the center and focus of their Judaism. Lastly, “Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah:The Case of the Arukh HaShulhan” deals with the effect of magic upon Jewish halakhic behavior in an era when the need for magic had been significantly reduced as a result of modern technology and medicine. I begin this book with an essay concerning the impact of alien cultures upon Jewish ritual and custom. This discussion turns toward the theory of hybridity between cultures, suggesting that when one practice of a religion

viii

Preface and Acknowledgments shares space with another, there is not conflict but rather a type of harmony between them. This introduction, I felt, was needed to realize basic aspects found in Jewish custom. As I point out in my analysis and discussion of custom, there is almost no case that does not include some semblance to a non-Jewish ritual. There are various colleagues whom I would like to recognize for their invaluable contributions to this book as well as to my research in general, especially Dr. Alan Kadish, president and CEO of Touro College and University System, not only for affording me the opportunity to do my research but also for his input into my analysis and conclusions. The leadership and staff of the Touro College library, especially Dr. David Levy and Ms. Carol Schapiro, have shared their expertise, knowledge, and dedication to their profession, and given me the necessary tools to prepare this volume. In addition, I want to thank Ms.Yael Simon and Mr. Gabe Kahn of Touro College for their input in my essays presented in this monograph. I am grateful to professors Michael Shmidman of the Touro College Graduate School of Jewish Studies, Ira Robinson of Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; Nissan Rubin of Bar Ilan University, Israel; Benjamin Brown of Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel; and Elazar Hurvitz of Yeshiva University, New York, for their most valuable assistance with the initial analysis of my research. I would like to offer special recognition to two colleagues without whom my research and this book would not be what they are today, Professor Herbert Basser of Queen’s University, Canada, and Dr. Lynn Visson of Hippocrene Books for their contribution and participation in all aspects of my research and the preparation of this monograph for publication. Their selflessness and generosity in sharing their knowledge and ideas as well as granting me their time is greatly appreciated. I would also like to express my gratitude to my wife Joann for her patience, willingness to listen and offer her input into my theories and thoughts, and proofreading skills. I want to thank the publishers who first published the following essays, either in their entirety or in part, for permission to reprint them, some under different titles, in this volume.They are: “From Magic to Jewish Law: The Incorporation of Magic into the Jewish Codes,” in From Something to Nothing: Jewish Mysticism in Contemporary Studies in Canada, edited by Daniel

Preface and Acknowledgments Maoz and Harry Fox (England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing [forthcoming]), in this present book titled “Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah: The Case of the Arukh HaShulhan”;“Intoxication on Purim,” in The Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual International Interdisciplinary Conference on Jewish Studies, 2013, in this book titled “Behind the Purim Mask: The Symbolic Representation of the Rituals and Customs of Purim”; “In the Absence of Ritual: Customs of the Holiday of Shavuot,” in The Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual International Interdisciplinary Conference on Jewish Studies, 2012; “The Symbolic Representation of Sefer Torah” (short version), in The Proceedings Of The Eighteenth Annual International Interdisciplinary Conference On Jewish Studies, 2011; and “The Symbolic Representation of Sefer Torah,” in Maqom, Journal for Rabbinic Literature (online), volume xxi (Summer 2011).

ix

Introduction

Prior to the Enlightenment (seventeenth century) Jews saw themselves and were seen as a nation set apart from others; afterward (in the eighteenth-­nineteenth centuries) Western European Jews saw themselves as Western Europeans (English, French, Prussian, Italian) while Eastern European Jews saw themselves as a people, if not a nation etc. Geographic reality today locates half of the world’s Jews to be within the state of Israel, almost hermetically sealed off on all sides by either water or unfriendly countries. Only 80 percent of the population in Israel trace their ancestry to Jews; and so “Israeli” is not identical to “Jewish.” The remainder of those of Jewish ancestry live primarily in North America, but some are in Europe, Russia, Australia, and South America. Self-identifying Jews see themselves as belonging to an ethnic group and/or a religion. The assimilation rate outside of the State of Israel is higher than at any time in modern history. In parts of Scandinavia it is at 100 percent, while in Ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities it is in the single digits.There is not and never was total isolation from impact and integration with surrounding cultures and societies.1 Many scholars have even argued that during the biblical period the ancient Israelites were integrally bound up with Canaanite polytheism.2 One might add, argues David Biale (2002, p. XXI), that as a result of the profound engagement with the surrounding milieu, the Jews consciously constructed distinctive identities. Biale (ibid., p. XXIII) continues, “Jewish self-definition  1 See  2 See

Biale, 2002, pp. XVIII-XX, and Rosman, 2007, pp. 82-84. Biale, 2002, p. XX.

Introduction was bound up in a tangled web with the non-Jewish environment in which Jews lived, at once conditioned by how non-Jews saw the Jews and by how the Jews adopted and resisted the majority culture’s definition of them.”The author of this book considers “Judaism” to be that system of shared belief of those  who adhere to the teachings—historical, cultural, and legal—now embodied in the literature we call “rabbinic” (Mishnaic, Talmudic, Geonic, Rishonic, Aharonic) and “the Jewish homeland” to encompass Eretz Yisrael. The contents of the rabbinic corpus are considered to be of some matters divinely revealed and of others humanly legislated. We also surmise that these contents have continuously been refined over the ages by recognized authorities to meet the needs of specific communities in constant succession from the “divinely revealed Torah” to present day rabbis. The works dealing with this material were written by people sharing these premises, but it is not claimed that these assertions are factually true, just that they were and are shared by a conforming psyche, which is not universal. The adherents to this form of “Judaism” were protective of their group, seeing themselves as the True Jews possessing the True Teaching. It would seem that their teachings encompass features compatible with social scientific phenomena which are noted within my studies. Early rabbinic documents dedicate considerable space to discussing and defining the extent to which a Jew must go to distance himself from “the ways of the non-Jew.” For example, Mishnah Avodah Zarah limits interacting with idolaters for more than one third of the year. To restrain social interaction, Rabbis prohibited drinking non-Jewish wine with a gentile. The rulings were later codified in Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulhan Arukh. Maimonides summarizes the rabbinic view, discussing the boundaries erected between Jew and gentile (Mishneh Torah, Avodah Zarah 11:1). We may not follow the statutes of the idolaters or resemble them in their [style] of dress, coiffure, or the like, as [Leviticus 20:23] states: “Do not follow the statutes of the nation [that I am driving out before you],” as [Leviticus 18:3] states:“Do not follow their statutes,” and as [Deuteronomy 12:30] states: “Be careful, lest you inquire after them.” [All these verses] share a single theme: they warn us not to try to resemble [the gentiles]. Instead, the Jews should be separate from them and as distinct in their dress and in their deeds as they are in their ideals and

xi

xii

Introduction character traits. In this context, [Leviticus 20:26] states: “I have separated you from the nations [to be Mine].” [Thus,] one may not wear a garment which is unique to them or grow the tresses of our hair as they do.We may not shave our heads from the sides and leave hair in the center as they do. The Rabbis called this style blorit. We may not shave the hair on the front of our faces from ear to ear and leave a growth at the back of our heads as they do. We may not build Temples in order that many people may enter in the style they do. Whoever performs one of the above or a deed of this nature is [liable for] lashes.

Gerald Blidstein (1997, pp. 52-56) argues that the passage in Leviticus 18 only forbids actions or behaviors whose origins are idolatrous or superstitious. Other cultural patterns or social norms associated with gentiles are acceptable. The Sages were aware of the gentile culture and realities but preferred social and cultural insularity. However, they would incorporate non-Jewish science and culture when it served their needs. Only in aspects of immorality or idolatry did Maimonides attack non-Jewish practices by virtue of their alien origins.3 This approach was not adopted by most rabbinical authorities. Nevertheless, as foreign cultures were seen as primarily rooted in idol worship, most authorities saw almost any manner of non-Jewish behavior as forbidden. The exceptions were the rabbis of Italy, who were open to cherishing the art and cultural achievements of the Renaissance. Their influence outside of Italy was limited. Nonetheless there are notable exceptions where the influence of the Spanish Maimonideans and the enlightened Germans is visible. For the most part, the theoretical schemes of Mary Douglas might be applicable.4 That is, Judaism in the understanding of the Orthodox rabbis could be categorized as a strong group, a strong grid society. They enacted external boundaries against outsiders while offering the group its “life-support” from within. The group and its leaders control the individual’s behavior by defining the roles of its members. As a result, even when idolatry was no longer a concern, the need for isolation went beyond  3 For

an in-depth and encompassing discussion of strictures, see Weinberg, 1966, p. 166, section 94, and Talmudic Encyclopedia, vol. 17, pp. 305-325.  4 Douglas offers this cosmology throughout her works. See, for example, Douglas, 1979, pp. 5-34, and 1983, pp. 205-212.

Introduction the parameters noted by Maimonides and included most interactions and influences from non-Jewish neighbors.5 The convention is to refer to recent post-Talmudic studies as the study of the “new” cultural history (in contrast to the previous nomenclature, “social history”).6 Modern scholars seek to determine the meaning of individual cultural phenomena within a fully articulated cultural-social context, rather than cross-cultural, global phenomena. These Jewish cultural historians have offered various interpretations that reflect the relationship between Jewish and particular non-Jewish cultures. The “older” conception of Jewish culture is that Jews lived in semi-isolation from the gentile world.They functioned in an autonomous and authentically Jewish culture that operated according to its own dynamic.7 Moshe Rosman presents additional principles8 to describe the impact of surrounding cultures upon “Jews” and “Judaism.”9 He approaches his analysis through his research on Polish Jewry.10 He first cites Jacob Katz, who took it as axiomatic that all Jews, whether in Poland or Yemen, Holland or Palestine, saw themselves as members of a single nation.11 It was these scattered Jewish social structures that influenced each other. While separated geographically, they absorbed minimal and insignificant alien influences. These were “Judaized” so as to make the question of origins moot. Jewish culture was perceived to have developed organically, probably beginning from the first recording of the  5 For

different views discussing the post-Talmudic approach to the gentiles and their culture, see Talmudic Encyclopedia, vol. 17, pp. 305-306.  6 See Rosman, 2007, pp. 131-132. To explain his understanding of cultural history, he includes the anthropological work of Geertz, 1973.  7 See Rosman, 2007, pp. 82-83, and ff. 1.  8 For example, Rosman (2007, pp. 86-87 and ff. 10) cites the writings of Yaakov Elbaum, Simha Assaf, Ben Zion Dimir, Israel Halperin, Shmeruk, Elchanan Reiner, Edward Fram, Zev Gries, David Ruderman, and Mendes-Flohr, scholars who discuss this approach.  9 Rosman, 2007, pp. 82-84. 10 Rosman argues that the uniqueness of Polish Jewish culture lies in its success in remaining apart from the non-Jewish surrounding culture. Although one can argue that general conclusions regarding the impact of foreign cultures cannot be based upon one single society, I believe Rosman’s analysis does offer a solid overview and structural theory of the issue at hand. 11 Katz, 1973, pp. 5-8.

xiii

xiv

Introduction books of the Bible or at least from Talmudic times.12 After reviewing various scholarly works, Rosman argues and questions,“Moreover with respect to influences from surrounding cultures . . . [these scholars discussed] lend credence to the idea of an early modern traditional, coherent Jewish culture standing as an equal among and apart from other cultures; not embedded within one or another of them; certainly not indebted to them even while ‘Judaism’ itself modulated into various subcultures, still laying claim to be an integral, continuous whole.”13 He also questions the lack of discussion of the issue of continuity prior to the sixteenth century. Rosman (2007, pp. 88-89) sees in this approach an understanding, especially of the Jews’ and Poles’ (or rather alien cultures) coexistence, a relationship that did not share the same legislative system, economic activity, or languages, and possessed as well diverse religious, social, and general behavior. In sum, they considered each other as the “other.” The “other” was an entity, for the Jew, to be feared and even demonized. A third approach is offered14 where Rosman evaluates the scholarship of Salo Wittmayer Baron, Bernard Dov Weinryb, Jacob Goldberg, and other Polish-born scholars.15  Turning to Polish Jewish history for source material, Baron suggested that there was a lack of significant impact of Polish culture and no strong evidence of either embeddedness or indebtedness. However, Baron focused upon materials dealing with Poland rather than with the Jews. Rosman continues (ibid., p. 90), “Baron for his part, gave so much weight to the Polish focus of the Polish Jewish ellipse, that in many places the reader of his book will be forgiven for thinking that he is reading a textbook of Polish history which happens to highlight the Jewish angle.” Weinryb’s approach developed Baron’s view with some further nuances. “As a minority [the Jews] absorb elements of their environment, but they are also conditioned by the heritage of their own history, religion, and culture, as well as by the possibility of contacts with their place of origins and kindred Jewish groups. This leads to a distinctive Jewish existence, which in the case of Polish Jewry embodied elements of both Jewishness 12 Rosman, 2007, pp. 85-86. 13 Ibid., p. 87. 14 Ibid., pp. 89-92. 15 Ibid., p. 91

and ff. 23.

Introduction and Polishness. Jewish history in Poland thus deals with these two processes: Polish history and Jewish life, often with emphasis on the latter.”16 This approach arrives at its conclusions based upon Polish sources and culture. The actual relationship between the Jewish and Polish cultures is not considered. Where are the rabbinic and educational cultures, including the halakhic development? These played a major role in the formation of this Jewish culture and its relationship with its neighbors. A fourth approach is offered by Rosman (2007, pp. 92-94) based on the work of Gershon Hundert. He argued that the Jews in their daily behavior shared in the Polish culture with their non-Jewish neighbors. The Jews were embedded literally and figuratively within the Polish landscape. Rosman explains, “not only was there a distinctive, identifiable Polish culture style with regard to such things as Jewish ritual observance and communal organization, but that phenomena such as the Jew’s mental universe, aesthetic sensibilities, material culture, and political behavior all indicate a profound identification with Polish values. Metaphorically speaking, Polish and Jewish cultures were at times separate, at times intertwined, at times embedded, and at times coincident with each other along broad bands. Was Jewish culture embedded? Yes. Was it autonomous? Also yes.” This fourth approach to the relationship between the two cultures appreciates the influence of one culture on another. One facet of the polysystemic quality of each culture is its own autonomous dynamic. Most importantly, the cultural interrelationship is fluid and requires description at various points of contact, rather than one all-embracing characterization. Whether or not Rosman has overemphasized the influence or rate of the embedding of Polish culture on the Jews is an issue to be explored by other historians. I choose the term to describe the interaction as the impact of one culture on another and not its influence. Rosman turns to a fifth approach,“hybridity.” Rosman bases his opening arguments on the work of Homi K. Bhabha, who suggests, “Jewish culture develops within the frameworks laid down by the hegemonic culture, and is limited by it as well as trying sometimes to resist it. . . . The hybrid is not a compromise between cultures, but a product of domination 16 Ibid., p. 90.

xv

xvi

Introduction and discrimination. It is always, even when resisting and subverting the hegemonic culture, both embedded and indebted, owing its evolution primarily to energy supplied by the encounter with hegemony.”17 Rosman summarizes his view: “In short what animates Jewish culture is the dynamic interplay of minority and majority in each particular place; not vestiges, such as food restrictions or sexual practices that for unexplained reasons have survived in one variation or another over the ages. Probe virtually any aspect of a given Jewish culture and you will find some practice, belief, or value of the non-Jewish majority at its root. Jewish culture is so embedded in the majority culture that it is of a piece with it, distinguished, perhaps, as a subculture colored by its religious difference. It certainly cannot be understood except in terms of the foundation [of] non-Jewish culture that both helps to unleash its vital forces and subordinates it.”18 Thus it can be argued that it would be incorrect to view cultural parallels through the prism of influence. Rather, the fact that specific behaviorisms found in cultures and/or religions that stemmed from the same place at the same time resulted and could be identified in both cultures with modifications that would conform to their needs. In the words of Rosman, “they are a metaphor of recombinant DNA that originates from [a] widely available repertoire of building blocks, but achieves a unique character by virtue of the combining process.”19 My interest, as presented in this book, focuses upon the impact of cultural practices as manifested in religious ritual and custom rather than solely through Torah law and its rabbinic interpretations. What we have discussed above, although important in understanding the background of religious ritual, primarily reflects the ideas, ideology, and philosophy of the Jews living in a diaspora culture, where they are a minority. The issue changes when the issue is how a person practices his Judaism. What items does he choose to fulfill: halakhic, ritualistic obligations devoid of local custom?; what foods does he eat?; what clothes does he wear?; what music is employed to sing prayers and what natural resources such as earth, fire, 17 Ibid., pp. 94-110. 18 Ibid., p. 97. 19 Ibid., p. 43.

Introduction and water are used to accomplish the performance of rituals? To some extent, Jewish culture has differed from age to age and from society to society and especially from country to country. The Jews of North Africa observed the same Sabbath as the Polish Jew, but how they expressed this observance of the Sabbath was recognizably different in its outward appearance. We find that the Jews in Renaissance Italy were probably embedded in the surrounding culture more than other groups had been in other historical periods.20 As Biale suggests, the Jews were “one organ in a larger cultural organism, a subculture that established its identity in a complex process of adaption and resistance, Jewish ‘difference’ was an integral part of the larger mosaic of Renaissance Italy.”21 This organic model, as suggested by Biale, is how one should approach culture rather than by pursuing theories of influence. It was the interaction with a neighboring alien society that formed the Jewish culture of local social structure. As the Jews inhabited new societies they created new cultures, which in turn introduced a new collective action. They practiced unfamiliar habits until they became familiar, (as minhag) for as Ann Swindler argues (1986, p. 278), “symbol and ritual directly shape action.” These traditions then become articulated cultural beliefs and practices, which are taken for granted and become an inevitable part of one’s life. A type of cultural syncretism was created. The symbols and practices of rituals were the tool kit, offering the image of the culture.22 Thus the fact that we find similar rituals in both Jewish and alien cultures does not mean that the Jew intended to imitate his gentile neighbor. Rather, this is how people living in a specific place and time dressed and celebrated. As Biale states, “It was precisely in their profound engagement with the cultures of their environment that the Jews constructed their distinctive identities.”23 Many of the customs integrated into Jewish practice came from the common folk and not from the instruction of the rabbinical elite. The impact of the surrounding culture and its practices would find its way more readily to less learned and less sophisticated common folk than to the learned class. Jews did not exist in isolation. 20 For

further discussion and sources on the Jews of Renaissance Italy, see chapter 4.

21 Biale, 2002, p. XIX. 22 Swindler, 1986, p. 273. 23 Biale, 2002, p. XXI.

xvii

xviii

Introduction To explain this integration or impact of foreign cultures upon Jewish ritual, I choose to use the term hybrid or hybridity. Robert Young (1995, p. 26) describes it as: “At its simplest, hybridity . . . implies a disruption and forcing together of any unlike living things, grafting a vine or a rose on to a different root stock, making difference into sameness. Hybridity is making one of two distinct things, so that it becomes impossible for the eye to detect the hybridity of a geranium or a rose. Nevertheless, the rose exists, like the vine, only in so far as it is grafted onto the different stock. Neglect to prune either, and the plant eventually reverts to its original state. . . . Hybridity, thus makes difference into sameness, and sameness into difference, but in a way that makes the same no longer the same, the different no longer simply different.” If we use Young’s description, what we have is two plants being grafted, but if not pruned the characteristics of one will be dominant, although the less dominant will be incorporated into the prevailing plant.There will be a new face to this entity, but it will more closely resemble the predominant parent. Using this metaphor to understand the impact of foreign behavior upon Judaism, it can be suggested that no matter how high or how thick the boundaries erected between the Jews and their surrounding culture, there will be cracks in the walls, and behaviors will filter in and become incorporated into the Jewish way of life. This is not a conscious attempt of  the Jew to replicate non-Jewish behavior but rather adoption of the existing social reality. As Swindler comments, “Indeed, a culture has enduring effects on those who hold it, not by shaping the ends they pursue, but by providing the characteristic repertoire from which they build lines of action.”24 Once the ritual or custom has succeeded in slithering through the walls ostensibly guarded by rabbis25 in order to retain the “purity” of the past heritage, a process of adjustment is required for its eventual acculturation into the Jewish rabbinic culture. To achieve this goal, rabbinic rationales cloak the new ritual and give it an identity hidden from its original intent and commensurate with established law and lore.26 Chaim Waxman 24 Swindler, 1986, p. 284. 25 I

intend to discuss the variables for the cause of change in a rabbinic society in an upcoming essay on bat mitzvah in contemporary Orthodox Jewish society. 26 This topic is discussed in Katz, 1960a and 1960b.

Introduction (2015, p. 9), quoting Peter Berger (1967, p. 33), explains this process and writes, “the minutiae of Jewish law is severely weakened when they do not have religious legitimization of being divinely ordained. Sociological theory likewise recognizes the power of religious legitimization.” In Jewish thought, that which is designed by the rabbi is considered to be divinely ordained and thus legitimized. Examples of such rituals occur when an explanation is proffered that explains that the new ritual is directly related to the religious event being recognized by the ritual. Early rabbinic texts or even biblical passages are employed for this purpose. For example, placing greens in the synagogue on the holiday of Shavuot, a holiday that was long associated with the Israelites receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. Although the origins of the seasonal practice can be found in non-Jewish cultures, rabbis attributed the growing custom as being a replication of the physical attributes of Mount Sinai. In this way the custom is projected as a re-enactment of the receiving of the Torah. Even when a totally new behavior is introduced, this process of assimilating it to Jewish motifs will justify its assimilation within Jewish halakhic conduct. In the forthcoming chapters, several discussions include the impact of an alien cultural practice that became integrated into Jewish law and ritual. This impact has gone through the Judaizing process, stood the test of both generations and geographical locations, and today, as earlier, is only considered as part of the tradition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Berger, P. L. (1967). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Biale, D. (Ed.). (2002). Cultures of the Jews: A new history. New York: Schocken Books. Blidstein, G. (1997). Rabbinic Judaism and general culture: Normative discussion and attitude. In J. J. Schacter (Ed.), Judaism’s encounter with other cultures (1-56). New York: Jason Aronson Inc. Douglas, M. (1979). Cultural bias (2nd ed.). London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. ___. (1982). In the active voice. London, Boston, and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. NewYork: Basic Books.

xix

xx

Introduction Jacobs, L. (2000). A tree of life: Diversity, flexibility, and creativity in Jewish law (2nd ed.). London and Portland, OR: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Katz, J. (1960b). Between Jews and gentiles. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. (Hebrew) ___. (1973). Exclusiveness and tolerance (3rd printing). New York: Schocken Books. ___. (1960a, Mar.). Hevrah mesoratit v’hevra modernit. Megamot 10(4), 304-311. (Hebrew) Rosman, M. (2007) How Jewish is Jewish history? Oxford and Portland, OR: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Schacter, J. J. (Ed.). (1997). Judaism’s encounter with other cultures. Northvale, NJ and Jerusalem: Jason Aronson Inc. Swindler, A. (1986, Apr.). Course in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273-286. Waxman, C. I. (2015, Jan. 28). Halakhic change vs. demographic change. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 1-14. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/147 25886.2014.1000061.  Weinberg, Y. Y. (1966). Seridei eish. Volume 3. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew)  Young, R. J. C. (1995). Colonial desire: Hybridity in theory, culture, and race. London and New York: Routledge.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual

RITUAL Rituals convey symbolic meanings. That is, rituals are not simply mechanical or rote procedures for the sake of religious traditions, but actions that carry messages which strengthen its collectivity. This essay is designed to explicate the implicit messages found in Jewish contemporary rituals involving fire. For the purposes of this study I will focus on kindling the light on Friday eve followed by treatment of the Havdalah candle. Prior to expounding on these rituals, I will discuss the phenomenon of fire in history and religion, fire in biblical and Jewish thought, the concept of symbols and symbolism, and the theoretical model to analyze the rituals in which fire is the central prop.

THE PHENOMENON OF FIRE 1 For the ancients, fire was a mystery. It comforted with warmth and light, and yet it was among the most dangerous of weapons. Without knowledge of combustion, chemistry, or nuclear fusion, there was no basis for its comprehension. As with other natural phenomena beyond ancient human understanding, such as the sun and moon, fire influenced the ancients’ personalized 1

The topic of fire is discussed at length in Rossotti, 1993, pp. 239-254.

2

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual deities and religious cults. The procedure the primitives used to create fire in all its shapes and forms, and the ashes that remained after the fire had gone out, were perceived, amongst other things, as relating to fertility and the growth of crops. Almost all ancient religions revolved around associations with fire, including those of peoples who worshiped Sekhet, the goddess of destructive heat in Egypt, the volcano-residing fire goddess of the Ainu people of Japan, Vulcan, the Roman god of fire, the Greek goddess Hestia, who was associated with home and temple fires, and the Hindu god Agni, who represented three facets of fire: growth and fertility; destruction and warmth; and prayer.2 For example, Zoroastrianism, a 3,500-year-old Persian religion, places a special emphasis on fire. The followers of Zoroastrianism believe that the elements are pure, and that fire is a symbol of righteousness and truth, representing the wisdom or light of their deity, Ahura Mazda. The traditional Zoroastrianism temples were called “places of fire.” All rituals, including initiations and protective measures for pregnant women, were practiced in the presence of fire. This basic and mysterious phenomenon, with flames that shoot up toward the heavens, was a natural choice for Zoroastrian rituals and those of other religions. Fire was used as a test of justice, to decide on a person’s guilt or innocence, and was often the accused’s last resort to prove his innocence. If he was able to walk on burning coals or hold his hand in a flame without suffering burns he was deemed innocent, for that indicated divine judgment.3 Fire was also used as a tool for conflict resolution.4 Fire was a central theme for the arts. Hazel Rossotti argues that the main gift of fire to the arts is its symbolism, “which covers much of human experience, evoking desire, passion, sexuality, romance, vitality, curiosity, knowledge, anger, punishment, evil, destruction, purity, domesticity, and comfort.”5 Due to human fascination with fire and its unknown source of power, it became a subject of worship. Most religions developed myths 2

See Bentor, 2000 for a discussion on one specific aspect of the Hindu fire rituals. See Benz, 1971 for a discussion and description of this ritual. 4 See Al-Krenawi, 1999, where this ritual is described in detail. 5 Rossotti, 1993, p. 5. 3

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual surrounding the appearance of fire on earth, in the hands of mankind. Fire, it was believed, was part of the power of the gods and, once in the hands of mankind, gave humans access to godly powers. An example here is the ancient Greek myth of Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods and brought it to earth. Similar legends are found in the cultures and religions of Japan, New Zealand, and the Northwest Pacific.6 Fire was first suggested as one of the four basic elements composing all matter by Empedocles, the Greek philosopher who lived in the fifth century BCE, a theory that lasted over 2000 years.7 Many biblical commentators approached their writing with this ancient Greek theory in mind.

ACCOUNTS OF FIRE IN THE TORAH Although not the topic of this essay, the basis for understanding the symbolism of fire in Judaism, I believe, can be found through how fire is presented in the Torah. There are three separate categories of fire found in the Hebrew Bible: 1. Anti-religious, such as when Aaron’s sons offered a “strange” or “alien” fire (aish zarah) to the Lord: “And Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire in it, and put incense on it, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.”8 2. A-religious, where the practical effects of fire are discussed, as in examining the damage to a field caused by fire: “If a fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the sheaves, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”9 6

See Rossotti, 1993, pp. 255-256 for a more detailed discussion of this topic. For a discussion on the early philosophers and the four elements, see Rossotti, 1993, pp. 256-257. 8 Leviticus 10:1. Also mentioned in Numbers 3:4. Biblical passages translated into English are adapted from the Jerusalem Bible (Jerusalem: Koren Publishers, 1992). 9 Exodus 22:5. Additional examples that express the a-religious manifestation of fire can be understood from passages, such as Exodus 12:9, that discuss the Passover 7

3

4

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual 3. Sacred references. Most instances of fire fall into this category, which can be subdivided into explicit and implicit themes. Explicit themes include the well-known story of Moses and the burning bush: “And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked and behold, the bush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the midst of the bush . . . .”10 Later, when Moses receives the Torah, Mount Sinai, the passage states, was “smoked in every part, because the Lord descended upon it in fire . . . .”11 An additional example is the description of the fire that hovered over the Israelites at night in the desert: “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; that they might go by day and night; he took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.”12 The explicit manifestation of the Lord can be summarized in both of these passages from Deuteronomy, “For the Lord your God is a consuming fire,”13 and “Understand therefore this day, that the Lord your God is he who goes over before you; as a consuming fire. . . .”14

10 11 12 13 14

sacrifice: “Eat not of it raw, nor boiled at all in water, but roast with fire. . .”; Exodus 35:3, discussing the prohibition of lighting a fire on the Sabbath: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day.”Although the use of fire in these instances is the theme of a Torah law, the fire itself does not represent anything sacred. In Leviticus 13:24, while discussing the identification of tzaraat, the Torah states, “Or if there be any flesh, in the skin of which there is a burn caused by fire. . . .” Exodus 3:2. Exodus 19:18. Exodus 13:21. Deuteronomy 4:24. Deuteronomy 9:3. Additional examples of explicit manifestation of the Lord through sacred fire would include Genesis 15:17, when the Lord made a covenant with Abraham: “And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning (eish) torch that passed between the pieces.” In Genesis 19:24 we are told of the wrath of the Lord upon Sodom: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” In Exodus 9:23-24, the Torah writes, “And there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which, when all people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.” Then in 10:2, explaining a punishment to the sons of Aaron, the passage reads, “And a fire

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual Implicit themes include the Torah’s mention of fire in the plague of hail: “And Moses stretched out his rod toward heaven; and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran down upon the ground. . . . So there was hail, and fire flaring up amidst hail. . . .”15 The Torah also commands that an eternal flame should be on the sacrificial altar: “the fire of the altar shall be kept burning in it. . . . The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out.”16 These and other implicit or explicit examples of fire in the Torah seem to symbolize the presence of the Lord in the eyes of the observer. I would suggest that this understanding of fire in Jewish religious ritual and symbolism served as the umbrella or dominant (to borrow a word from Victor Turner)17 message for contemporary religious fire symbols.Notwithstanding additional messages conveyed in specific instances, the basis for nearly all fire symbols found in contemporary Jewish practice is the manifestation or presence of the Lord.

THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Anthropologists understood symbols to be capable of generating notions associated with specific coded meanings.18 In the case of religious symbols, the messages must be interpreted to be properly understood.19 Emile Durkheim set the stage for the social scientist’s understanding of symbols, arguing that within society, symbols are directly related to social structures.

15 16 17 18 19

went out from the Lord and devoured them.” In Numbers 9:15-16, we read, “And on the day the Tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the Tabernacle, namely, the tent of testimony: and at the evening there was upon the Tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire, until the morning. So it was always: the cloud covered it by day and the appearance of fire by night.” In Deuteronomy 33:2, in the final blessing of Moses to the Israelites, the passage states, “From his right hand went a fiery law for them.” Similar concepts are conveyed in Numbers 11:1, 11:3, 14:14 and Deuteronomy 32:22. Exodus 9:23-24. Leviticus 6:2-6. Turner, 1967. For a broader discussion of the social, scientific, and specifically anthropological theory of symbols, see Firth, 1973. Ibid., p. 51.

5

6

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Raymond Firth summarizes this view, saying that Durkheim “was interested in symbols that were expressive of consonance of solidarity of the individual with his society. . . . He drove home the idea of society as a system of active forces involved in and conditioned by the symbolizing process.” Durkheim also suggested that one symbol may have more than a single representation and that the different meanings “probably have some element in common, but not necessarily that two things are the same.”20 Turner and Mary Douglas have each developed concepts of symbols according to their own programs.21 Turner argues that the symbol is the key to understanding a society’s social structure and social process. He writes that, for him, ritual is “as a patterned process in time, the units of which are symbolic objects and serialized items of symbolic behavior.” He felt that the symbols of rituals could rectify conflicts in specific social circumstances. Furthermore, Turner argues that “an important property of symbols [is] their capacity for a single symbol to encapsulate many meanings—to represent many different contexts or at different levels of understanding in the same general context.”22 Douglas, in her introduction to her book Natural Symbols, describes the symbol as a message conveyed through one’s body, emphasizing that these symbols are acquired from social behavior and experience. She writes: When we start to read about bodily metaphor, we soon observe that whatever is inherent in the body could never give rise to the variety of symbolic structures based on it. No doubt certain messages can be transmitted unequivocally on the basis of the body’s direct response to external stimulus, like animal communication. But if the human body supplies a direct system of signals, meanings would be more similar in different societies.The starting point of the argument in this book is that a system of symbols, though based on bodily processes, serves their meanings from social experience. They are coded by a community with shared history. Because of their hidden origins and community background, many such symbols seem to be more natural than language, but they are culturally learned and culturally transmitted. So the preliminary 20

Ibid., pp. 130-131. Turner’s theory of symbols is presented in Turner, 1967, and Douglas’s theory of symbols is presented in Douglas, 1982. 22 Firth, 1973, p. 25. 21

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual starting-point for this argument is that there are no natural symbols; they are all social.23

The symbol, however, does not serve the purely functional purpose of maintaining social stability. Indeed, many scholars maintain that there is little proof for the functionalist approach, and that the theory does not explain the extensive differences between symbols in various cultures. One such scholar is Nissan Rubin, who emphasizes that the meaning of symbols can be clarified even though there are differences from culture to culture.24 While the above-mentioned social scientists introduced an understanding of the meaning and message of symbols, I would like to turn to a unique and obscure source, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, a leading rabbinic authority, who published a monograph titled Symbols.25 He divided this work into two sections, in the first presenting a theoretical framework for symbols, and in the second discussing specific physical symbols such as circumcision, fringes, and phylacteries. He explains in his introduction that he is seeking to understand the message or the concept conveyed and expressed by the Jewish physical symbol, or in his words, “how to interpret symbols and how to derive from a symbol the idea which it intends to express.” The goal of the symbol, he says, is to perpetuate a thought or emotion. Therefore, to understand the symbol it is first necessary to ascertain its intent.26 Hirsch also delves into the subject of social solidarity. He states, “The more a nation [is] dependent on its unity, and the more this unity is borne by specific spiritual principles, the more prominent will be the place of symbols and symbolic acts in its political and religious life. Conversely, if a people’s sense of unity is weak, if they do not feel bound together by a common history or by a common purpose, if they attach no meaning to their own unique ethnic characteristics, if the nation accords first place instead to the personal concerns, ideas and aspirations of the individual,

23

Douglas, 1982, pp. ix-x. Rubin, 1977, p. 50. 25 Hirsch, 1984. 26 Ibid., p. 3. 24

7

8

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual then symbols and symbolic acts will increasingly vanish from that nation’s political and religious life.” He goes on to say that the same symbolic acts accentuate a people’s sense of unity when performed by a great number of individuals simultaneously.27 I would suggest that this argument of Hirsch is somewhat similar to Douglas’ theory of “grid and group,” in that both note that there is a direct correlation between the strength of the group and the commitment to practices observed. Hirsch proposes several criteria for an object to serve as a symbol. First, it needs to be understood and viewed in terms of its representative meaning, rather than its purely descriptive act. Next, the symbol must be examined in the context of the time and environment in which it prescribed. Symbols often are open to various interpretations, and the acceptable answer depends upon the original intent of the individual who envisions it. Rabbi Hirsch writes, “A symbol can be interpreted only by taking into account the person who chose it, the person to whom it is addressed, and the time and place of its origin. In other words, a symbol can be analyzed only in the context of its own local and historical background. Any attempt to explain a symbol outside this context cannot be called a genuine search for the truth.”28 According to this framework, it would seem that once a religious symbol (or for that matter, a ritual) is accepted by the community in its time and place, it is almost impossible to discard it or even offer it a new or expanded meaning.29 Such a ritual object, writes Rabbi Hirsch, achieves its goal when it can “provide a mechanism of continuous activity for the acceptance, the imprinting and the retention of the ideas the symbol intends to convey.” It is not intended to disclose new ideas but rather to impress one with a familiar script: words, props, and truths. Thus, the participant must be acquainted with the physical, social, or historical features of the symbolic object in order to fully comprehend its meaning and message.30

27

Ibid., p. 7. Ibid., p. 11. 29 See Fishbane, 2011, pp. 63-88, where I discuss this suggestion. 30 Hirsch, 1984, p. 15. 28

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual Later, Rabbi Hirsch suggests four points for symbols to be effective:31 1. The symbolic significance of an object or an act is never intrinsic but always metaphoric. 2. Several symbolic messages being conveyed by the object or act must be considered. 3. The symbolic meaning may vary, contingent upon the presumed intention of the person who instituted it, the ideology presumed for the one to whom the message of the symbol is directed, and the historical and local identification of the symbolic act or object. 4. The symbol must have been previously recognized, but should reveal new relationships between known ideas and religious facts. Rabbi Hirsch then turns to the question of whether there is a unique Jewish symbolism. He argues that God’s words are sustained by symbols and symbolic acts that make for a greater impression and lasting retention. He returns to one of his earlier arguments, in which he declared that the purpose of symbols cannot be “to enshroud ideas or communicate secrets in the form of complex riddles.”32 Using Rabbi Hirsch as a guide, we will first examine the symbol of fire in the context of its time and place.

CONTEMPORARY JEWISH FIRE RITUALS I.  Sabbath Candles 33 The lighting of lamps on Friday afternoons as the Sabbath is about to commence is first discussed in the Mishnah, the primary rabbinic document,34 which devotes most of the second chapter of Tractate 31

Ibid., pp. 16-17. He actually offers five points, but I find one to be repetitive of the others. 32 Ibid., pp. 19–46. 33 A comprehensive list and discussion of the rabbinical sources (until the middle of the twentieth century) for Sabbath candles can be found in Verdiger, 1995. For later commenters on this subject, see the Oz Vehadar commentary on Mishnah Berurah section 263; Oberlander, 2012; Mirsky, 1989, pp. 7-20; and Schreiber, 2004. I have based this section primarily on these works. See also the discussion of Lauterbach, 1951, pp. 437-472. 34 Redacted in approximately the second century CE.

9

10

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Sabbath (“With What Do They Kindle”) to the types of materials permitted to use to light the Sabbath lamp. The topic is presented with the assumption that the reader is already familiar with the obligation to light Sabbath lights (or light), and focuses on the details of the ritual that require clarification.35 Toward the end of the chapter, the Mishnah diverges from its primary concern, saying, “On account of three transgressions do women die in childbirth: because they are not meticulous in the laws of menstrual separation; in separating the dough offering; and kindling the [Sabbath] lamp.” Until this point it is assumed that, as all other (positive, time-bound) mitzvoth, the obligation to light the candles is on the man. The Mishnah again is assuming that all are familiar with the reality that women fulfill this obligation and stresses the severity and even threat if they are lackadaisical in the performance of the ritual. Although not explicitly referring to women, the Mishnah redactors stress the importance of lighting candles at the onset of the Sabbath: “Three things must a man state in his home on the eve of Sabbath at dusk. Have you tithed? Have you prepared an eruv?36 [Then] kindle the lamp. If it is a matter of doubt whether or not it is getting dark . . . they do not kindle lamps.”37 The Midrash also emphasizes the importance of the ritual through its allegorical presentation.38 Midrash Bereshit Rabba comments on the following passage in Genesis: “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sara’s tent”:39 “As long as Sarah lived, there was a blessing on her dough, and the lamp used to burn from the evening of the Sabbath until the evening of the following Sabbath; at her death these ceased; but when 35 36 37

38 39

For a discussion on the historical significance of the ritual and analysis of the early sources, see Lauterbach, 1951, pp. 454-470. A boundary where one is permitted to carry an object on the Sabbath. The commentators (for example, see the commentary of Ovadiah of Bartenura on this Mishnah) explain that this refers to even asking a non-Jew to light the lamp, and even in the case when the person desires to light more than one candle, although the requirement is only one candle. This statement does not place the preference on the woman but rather suggests that it is the man’s responsibility. There are rabbinical authorities who suggest that it is the man’s responsibility and the woman lights the lamp as his messenger. Also stated in Yonatan ben Uziel, Genesis 24:67. Genesis 24:67.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual Rebekah came they returned.”40 This was understood to mean that both Sarah and Rebekah practiced the mitzvah of lighting Sabbath candles.41 In discussing the passage “These are the generations of Noah,”42 Midrash Tanhuma43 elaborates on the requirement for women to light Sabbath candles: For how many transgressions do women die at the time of childbirth? Thus have our masters taught [in Tractate Sabbath]: “Women die at the time of their childbirth for three transgressions . . . and in regard to the lighting of the Sabbath lamp.” These three commandments are also from the Torah. . . . And where is it shown about the Sabbath lamp? Where it is stated, “And you call the Sabbath a delight,”44—this refers to the kindling of the lamp for Shabbat. And if you say, “Let us sit in darkness,” that is not a delight, as those who go down to Gehinnom45 are judged only in darkness. . . . And why are the women charged with regard to these commandments? Our Sages have said: In the creation of the world Adam was first. Then came Eve and she shed his blood in that he had heeded her. . . . And the commandment of the lamp exists because Adam was the lamp of the Holy One, as stated, “The lamp of God the Lord is the breath of Adam.”46 But Eve came and extinguished it. The Holy One said; “Let her be given the commandment of the lamp in order that she may have atonement for the lamp, which she extinguished.” Thus women have been charged with the commandments of the Sabbath lamp. The Holy One said, “If you are careful with the Sabbath lamp, I also will be shining for you,” as stated, “For the Lord shall be your everlasting light.”47

40

Bereshit Rabba 60:16. Later midrashim, such as Midrash Lekah Tov (Pisikah Zutra) (Vayakel 35:3), suggest that the mitzvah of lighting Sabbath candles was instituted during the time of Moses. Yalkut Shimoni (B’shalah 230) argues that in the desert the Israelites lit Sabbath candles. 42 Genesis 6:9. 43 Although Midrash Tanhuma can be considered Geonic, I have included it in my discussion of Midrash. 44 Isaiah 58:13. 45 Hell. 46 Proverbs 20:27. 47 Isaiah 60:19. 41

11

12

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual This passage, if taken at face value, suggests that the Sabbath candle lighting ritual may be a biblical requirement, rather than an obligation instituted by the Rabbis.48

Talmud 49 The Babylonian Talmud (BT) contains a discussion over the importance of lighting the respective lights for Hanukkah and the Sabbath: “Rava said: ‘It is obvious to me that if an impoverished person lacked the funds to purchase oil for kindling both a Sabbath light for his house and a Hanukkah light, purchasing oil for a Sabbath light is preferable on account of peace (shalom bayit) it brings to his home.’” The standard explanation of the relevance of shalom bayit in this case is that sitting in darkness on the Sabbath will distress the members of the family.50 The Talmud continues, “Rav Huna said: ‘One who is habitual in kindling the Sabbath and Hanukkah light will have sons who are Torah scholars.’”This statement would seem to suggest that the ritual of lighting candles on the eve of Shabbat is only a custom rather than an obligation or a mitzvah.51 The Talmud proceeds to offer examples of rabbis who lit these candles and were accordingly rewarded—before continuing to address the central question of whether it is truly an obligation: [Rava] said to [Abaye]: “It indeed matters if he then eats his Sabbath meal in the dark, for I say that kindling of a light in the place where one eats on the Sabbath is an obligation.”52 For Rav Nachman bar Rav Zavda said, 48

Yosef, 1992, pp. 132-134 note 1, discusses and explains in detail that although the language of the Midrash says the Sabbath lamp is biblically required, it actually is a rabbinical law. Oberlander (2012, p. 3) terms this action “based upon Kabbalah” (tradition). 49 Translations of the Babylonian Talmud have been adapted from the Artscroll series, Schottenstein edition. 50 This explanation can be found in Rashi’s (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki) commentary on this Talmudic statement. Additional explanations will be discussed below. 51 BT Shabbat 3b. In general, the Rishonim reject this approach. See the Meiri commentary on BT Shabbat 23b, which understands Rabbi Huna’s words to mean that a person who lovingly performs the mitzvah of kindling the Sabbath lamps and fulfills it in a beautiful manner will then be blessed with scholarly sons. 52 Rashi explains the obligation to mean “to honor (kavod) the Sabbath.” I will discuss this issue in greater detail below.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual and some state it, Rav Nachman bar Rava said—Rav said: “The kindling of light in the place where one eats on the Sabbath is an obligation.”53

In the same passage, the Talmud reports an aggadic reference to the mitzvah of kindling the Sabbath lights, quoting a passage in which Jeremiah mourns the destruction of the Temple:54 “‘My soul despaired of having peace, I have forgotten goodness.’ To what does ‘my soul despaired of having peace’ refer? R. Abahu said, ‘This is a reference to the kindling of a light on the Sabbath.’” Elsewhere an additional reason for lighting candles on the Sabbath is offered. While discussing the custom of lighting candles on the eve of Yom Kippur, the Talmud states, “When Yom Kippur falls on the Sabbath, even in a place where they said not to light a lamp in the house on Yom Kippur we must light a lamp for the honor (kavod) of the Sabbath.” Thus the Talmud has offered two different reasons for kindling the Sabbath lamp, shalom bayit and to honor Shabbat.55

Geonim The literary pattern of the Geonim is to present the views expressed in the Babylonian Talmud and to communicate and explain the body of this rabbinic text. For example, the She’iltot of Rabbi Ahai Gaon56 refers to the different opinions in BT Shabbat stating that the purpose of the Shabbat lamp is oneg Shabbat, or taking delight in Shabbat.57 In their respective prayer books, both Rav Amram Gaon and Rav Saadia Gaon follow the Geonic literary style but add a new component, that of making a blessing over the

53 BT

Shabbat 25b. Lamentations 3:17. 55 BT Pesahim 53b. 56 Beginning of Parshat Tetzaveh, Question 64. 57 Rabbi Ahai Gaon, in his opening statements to the She’iltot, also discusses oneg and kavod (honoring) the Sabbath, but in a different context. In this case he is discussing BT Shabbat 103b, which includes special Shabbat dress as kavod and special foods as oneg. Additional Geonic statements concerning the Friday night lighting of the lamp can be found in Teshuvot Rav Shrira and Rav Hai Gaon. See Verdiger, 1995, pp. 23-24. 54

13

14

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual candles. This additional variable might raise the status of the ritual from an obligation to a rabbinical mitzvah.58 The Bahag, i.e. the author of Sefer Halakhot Gedolot, goes a step further and argues that lighting the Sabbath lamp is a biblical requirement.59 Although such an assertion is not found in the Talmud, it seems to be understood accordingly by the Geonim based upon Midrash Tanhuma (discussed above).

Rishonim The large majority of the Rishonim wrote on various issues related to the Sabbath lamp. For the purpose of this chapter I will focus on a select number of related topics and concentrate on Rishonim who delved deepest into this matter.60 A.  The Obligation 61 Following the lead of the Geonic Bahag and Midrash Tanhuma, Rabbi Eliezer of Mintz in his Sefer Yereim includes lighting the Sabbath candles as number 429 in his list of 613 commandments. He explains that the ritual of lighting Sabbath candles is voiced by the prophet Yeshayahu, who said, “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath from doing your pleasure on my holy day and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable.”62 One honors the Sabbath, he argues, by lighting the lamps. Rabbi Mintz is amongst the few rabbinical authorities that view the Sabbath lamp ritual as a biblical obligation.63 58 59 60

61 62 63

See also the commentary of the Meiri on BT Shabbat 25, which quotes the opinion of the Geonim. Bahag no. 139. Schreiber (2004, pp. 102-103) discusses the different versions of this text. Not all the versions include ner Shabbat in the list of biblical requirements. For example, I will not discuss the time of candle lighting since it does not have relevance to the thesis of this essay. Specifically for a discussion of the Rishonim, see Ta-Shema, 1976. For the purpose of this essay I am using the organizational structure of Schreiber, 2004. Isaiah 58:13. Oberlander (2012, p. 5) presents additional Rishonim that argue that lighting the Shabbat lights is a biblical requirement. He includes the Moshav Zekenim of the

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual Other Rishonim view lighting the Friday eve Sabbath lamp as a rabbinical obligation. In his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides writes, “The kindling of a Sabbath lamp is not a matter left to our volition, i.e., [it is not a matter about which] if one desires, one may kindle it, but if one does not desire, one need not. Nor is it a mitzvah that we are not obligated to pursue—e.g. making an eruv for a courtyard or washing one’s hands before eating. Instead it is an obligation. . . . One is obligated to recite a blessing before kindling [the Sabbath lamp], as one does before fulfilling any of the obligations incumbent upon us by virtue of Rabbinic decree.”64 Although lighting ner [lamp] Shabbat is an obligation, Maimonides does not include it in his list of 613 commandments, as the mitzvah is a rabbinic rule. There are those that argue that Maimonides’ approach to Shabbat lights reflects his battle against the Karaites. This cult of Jews, who accepted only the written law and rejected the oral law or rabbinical interpretation of the Bible, argued that one is forbidden to have any light lit on the Sabbath, regardless of when it was prepared. The ner Shabbat, which is specifically obligated by the rabbis in order to have light in the home on Shabbat, was in direct contrast to the Karaite belief. In fact, there is an opinion that this was the original reason for the advancement of the ritual of lighting Friday eve lights.65 Citing different Aharonim, Yitzchak Mirsky finds that Maimonides seems to contradict himself by writing that the Sabbath light is both oneg (pleasure) and kavod (honor). He offers the solution that kavod, as kindling the Sabbath lights, is an activity that must be performed before Shabbat. Oneg is an experience that occurs on Shabbat itself.66 Gedalia Oberlander suggests that kavod refers to having light in all the rooms in the home while oneg, which is the primary purpose of the meal, is specific to a lit room where one eats the Shabbat meal. He offers an additional understanding (cited from Yereim 99) that oneg Shabbat refers to the physical body pleasures Ba’alei Hatosafot, the Midrash Lekah Tov and the Semag (Positive Commandment 30) view this ritual as one commanded by the Prophets rather than the Torah. 64 Mishneh Torah, chapter 5, halakhah 1. 65 See Leshem, 1965, pp. 15-38, who discusses this issue in detail. Also see Oberlander, 2012, p. 5. 66 Mirsky, 1989, pp. 7-20.

15

16

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual acquired on the Sabbath, such as food (in this instance at the Shabbat meal) and sleep. Kavod (honor) is physical but external to the body, such as clothing and washing and, in our case—not to trip in the house on sticks and stones.67 B.  The Nature of the Practice to Light Sabbath Lights From the discussion above, we learn that in the early rabbinic documents the reason for the obligation to light Sabbath candles can be categorized as either oneg—enjoying Shabbat (as explicitly stated in Midrash Tanhuma),68 shalom bayit—tranquility in the home (as stated in BT Shabbat 25b), or kavod Shabbat—honoring Shabbat69 (as quoted above in BT Pesahim 53b). Some of the Rishonim express an alternate understanding of the earlier rabbinic texts. Rashi explains the word hova (obligation) to mean kavod (honor),70 which is to say that light would be required for one to eat the Sabbath meal so as to fulfill the obligation of honoring the Sabbath. The Ba’alei HaTosafot understand the obligation to fall under the oneg (enjoyment) category. The author of Or Zarua offers an interesting insight when he argues that the obligation of kavod refers to the candles on your meal table, whereas shalom bayit refers to the lamps in the remaining rooms of the home. The primary light is to facilitate the possibility of enjoying the Sabbath meal, which would require light in the dining place.The author of 67

Oberlander, 2012, pp. 9-10. Oberlander is not necessarily attempting to resolve the contradiction in Maimonides but suggesting the difference between the two concepts being discussed. See also Sefer Hamanhig, Laws of Shabbat 146. 68 Oneg or delight on Shabbat can be viewed from two perspectives. A. The light allows one to enjoy the Sabbath meal. This approach is cited in Sh’eiltot Derav Ahai (Parshat Teizaveh), Shibolei Leket no. 59, Ba’alei Hatosafot BT Shabbat 25b s.v. Hadlakat and s.v. hova, Rosh BT Shabbat 25b, Rashba Shabbat 23b. B. When the home is illuminated for Shabbat, it creates delight. These views are summarized in Schreiber, 2004, p. 89 notes 6 and 8. 69 Kavod or honoring Shabbat can also be viewed from two alternate approaches. A. Illumination of the home invests the Sabbath meal with importance. See Rashi TB Shabbat 25b, s.v. hova. B. To have light in one’s home simply honors the Sabbath. See for example Maimonides Hilkhot Shabbat 30:15, Yereim, no. 429, Semag Positive commandment no. 30. For a detailed list of sources, see Schreiber, 2004, p. 90 note 7. 70 BT Shabbat 25b.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual Shibolei Leket71 and the Rashba72 also follow the lead of the above-cited She’iltot, arguing that the major reason for the Friday eve lighting ritual is to encourage peace in the home. The author of Mordekhai73 explains that shalom bayit is functional, accomplished when one is able to avoid tripping over sticks and stones due to the presence of light.74 As discussed above, Maimonides cites reasons for both kavod and oneg. The Tur codifies the ritual and writes, “One should be careful to have a beautiful lamp [for the Sabbath ritual] for Rabbi Huna stated that if one is consistent [to light lamps] and make them beautiful he will have male children who will be rabbinical scholars. There are those that have two lights, one for ‘remember’ [the Sabbath] and one for ‘honor’ [the Sabbath].”75 The Tur continues that the importance of the Sabbath lamp is shalom bayit, for there cannot be tranquility in the home without light. In his discussion of ner Shabbat he also refers to kevod Shabbat. To summarize, three reasons were proposed to elucidate the Friday eve ritual of lighting candles: kavod, oneg, and shalom bayit. A close examination of the rabbinical sources will show that there is actually one reason, shalom bayit. This understanding, peace in the home, can be accomplished either through oneg or kavod.

71

Shibolei Leket, section 59. Commentary to BT Shabbat 294. 73 Commentary to BT Shabbat. 74 Schreiber (2004, pp. 90 notes 10 and 11) cites numerous sources for this view: A. Domestic tranquility (shalom bayit)—Rabbi Hananel (BT Shabbat 34a) writes that shalom bayit is rooted in the concept that light is “good,” and Sefer Hamanhig, p. 145, Tur OH 263:3 argues that shalom bayit is accomplished through candle lighting. This tranquility is accomplished, says Rashi (BT Shabbat 23b, s.v. Shalom Beito), by illumination that maintains a normal, functional living condition for the family members. B. Illumination maintains normal, functional living conditions for the family members particularly with regard to dining and mobility. For example, not tripping or eating in the dark. Rashi (BT Shabbat 25b, s.v. Hadlakat Ner Shabbat) and the Maharam (cited by the Mordekhai, BT Shabbat 294). C. The illumination in the home sustains the peaceful relationship between husband, wife, and family. This concept is expressed by Maimonides (Hilkhot Hanukkah 4:14).These different opinions will have a direct implication on where the Sabbath lights are placed. Is it necessary to place light in every room or is it only required to light the area of the Sabbath table? 75 Shulhan Arukh OH 263. These terms are found in the Ten Commandments. 72

17

18

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Oberlander explains that shalom bayit is integrated into oneg and kavod.76 This is because there is no explicit passage in the Bible that connects shalom to the Sabbath.

Later Rabbinical Authorities (Aharonim) Rabbi Yosef Karo in his code summarizes and synthesizes the different views concerning lighting the Sabbath lights. Following the lead of the Tur, Rabbi Karo refers to the need for a minimum of two lights, “one for zachor (remembering) the Sabbath and one for shamor (keeping) the Sabbath.”77 In addition to kavod and shalom bayit, Rabbi Karo stresses the component of oneg, which was not explicitly included in the Tur. He explains that even if someone has nothing to eat he should beg for money to permit him to purchase what he needs to have light, “for this is part of the mitzvah of making oneg (delight) Shabbat.”78 Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein, in his work Arukh HaShulhan, analyzes the various views of both the Rishonim and the Aharonim. He explains that both reasons of kavod and oneg are required to understand the need for Shabbat lamps. In the area in which one eats, it is considered kevod Shabbat to have lights and in the remainder of the rooms it can be classified as oneg, for if it is dark a person might trip and hurt himself. This, he explains, is what is meant by the note in BT Shabbat regarding the statement in Lamentations, “My soul despaired of having peace, I have forgotten goodness”:79 “To what does ‘my soul despaired of having peace’ refer? Rabbi Abahu said, ‘This is a reference to the kindling of a light on the Sabbath.’”80 Rabbi Epstein takes note that Maimonides saw lighting Sabbath lamps as an absolute obligation.81

76

Oberlander, 2012, pp. 9-10. See Oberlander, 2012, pp. 16-19, for a discussion of the number of lights that can and should be kindled. 78 Shulhan Arukh OH 263. 79 Arukh HaShulhan 3:17. 80 BT Shabbat 23b. 81 OH 263. 77

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual Who is Obligated to Light the Sabbath Lamp? After an examination of the Tannaitic and Amoraic texts, it is still unclear upon whom the responsibility for lighting the Sabbath lamp falls. Is it the obligation of the husband or the wife? The Mishnah in Tractate Shabbat states that one is obligated to ask himself three questions in his home before the commencement of Shabbat: “Did you take tithes? Did you make the eruv? Did you light the [Sabbath] lamp?” The Mishnah does not place the obligation upon the woman, but one could conclude that, similar to the first two ritualistic obligations referred to in the Mishnah, the primary responsibility lies with the man.82 In BT Shabbat we are informed of the reward, as we have seen, received for kindling the Sabbath lights. “Rabbi Huna said: ‘One who is habitual in kindling the Sabbath and Hanukkah light will have sons who are Torah scholars.’”83 The Talmud takes a definitive stand, stating “lighting the Sabbath lamp is an obligation,” but it is again a generic statement that does not identify the primary person responsible. One might determine that this is a male obligation and does not differ from other religious responsibilities.84 There are those among the Geonim that seem to follow this line of thinking. Rabbi Amram Gaon says, “One who lights the Sabbath lamp must make a blessing,” without referring to the woman.85 Rabbi Saadia Gaon in his Siddur (p. 109) writes, “On Friday before sunset there is an obligation to light the Sabbath lamp.” Other Geonim discuss this issue within the laws of lighting Hanukkah lights.The author of Bahag writes of the obligation for the same individual, the man, who lights the Hanukkah lamp to light the Sabbath lamp.86 In the responsa of Rabbi Sherira Gaon and Rabbi Hai Gaon (section 82) and in the Shibolei Leket (p. 46), which quotes the Geonim, the language used clearly refers to the man as having the responsibility for lighting ner Shabbat. 82 Mishnah

Shabbat 2:7. Shabbat 23b. 84 BT Shabbat 25b. 85 Seder Rav Amram Gaon, section 2. 86 Bahag, Laws of Hanukkah. 83 BT

19

20

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Returning to the Mishnah, we can find a disparate understanding.The Mishnah Shabbat quoted above explicitly associates the Friday eve lamp ritual with the woman, the wife. Just as the onus of the mitzvah of niddah falls on the wife in that only she can determine her status as a menstruating woman, or in that separating the hallah is her responsibility like other domestic activities, so too the lighting of the Sabbath lamp is in her domain. BT Shabbat expounds on the Mishnah’s theme:“The soul that I have placed within you is called a candle, thus I have cautioned you [the woman] concerning the matters of candles. If you fulfill these responsibilities all is well; but if you do not I will take your souls. But why in particular does this punishment come at their time of childbirth. . . .” Rashi in his commentary of the portion of the Talmud, “I will take your souls,” writes (after citing the Midrash Rabba), “[The obligation to light the Sabbath lights are upon the woman of the household] for she tends to be responsible for the affairs of the house.”87 Furthermore, the Midrash Tanhuma, similar to the Midrash Rabba quoted above, writes: Teach us, our Master: For how many transgressions do women die in childbirth? So do our Rabbis teach: For three transgressions etc. and all three are derived from the Torah: for not observing the laws of niddah, as it is written, “And a woman from whom it flows etc.” (Leviticus 15:25); for not separating hallah, as it is written, “The first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20); for not lighting the Shabbat lamp, as it states, “and you proclaim Shabbat a delight” (Isaiah 58:13)—this refers to lighting the Sabbath lamp. If you will say let us sit in darkness that cannot be considered a delight. For those who go down to purgatory are judged only in darkness, as it is written, “a land whose darkness is like blackness” (Job 10:22). What did they see to claim that women should be commanded to fulfill these three? . . . How do we know the kindling of the Shabbat lamp [is the woman’s duty]? For she extinguished the lamp of Adam, as it is written, “The soul of man is the lamp of the Lord” (Proverbs 20:27). Therefore, she must observe the ritual of lighting the Shabbat lamp.88 87 BT

Shabbat 31b-32a. Tanhuma, Noah 1. A similar statement is cited in YT Shabbat, Chapter 2.

88 Midrash

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual The Talmud offers two anecdotes that suggest that a woman should light the ner Shabbat: “Rav Yosef ’s wife would put off kindling the Sabbath light until just before dark.”89 The other story comes from BT Ta’anit. We are told that on Friday eve, Rabbi Haninah ben Dosa saw that his daughter was sad. He inquired the reason for her sorrow and she answered that when lighting the Sabbath lamp she mistakenly exchanged the olive oil for vinegar.90 Both narratives unequivocally place the woman as the one who performs the ritual of lighting the Friday eve lamp. The majority of the Rishonim write that the primary obligation to light the Sabbath lamp is upon the wife.91 The Ba’alei HaTosafot, however, offer a unique ruling that both the husband and wife are required to light a lamp.92 Maimonides summarizes and codifies the essential actors in this ritual: “Both men and women are obligated to have a lamp lit in their homes on the Sabbath. Even if a person does not have food to eat, he should beg from door to door and purchase oil to kindle a lamp for this is included in [the mitzvah of] delighting in the Sabbath.” Thus the obligation is on anyone, both men and women (of adult age), in the household.93 Maimonides continues, “Women have a greater obligation in this regard than men, for they are normally at home and are involved in the household tasks. Nevertheless, a man should alert them concerning this matter and check that they have done so. He should tell the members of his household on the Sabbath eve before nightfall, ‘kindle the lamp.’”94 Oberlander clarifies the difference between Maimonides’ approach and that of Rashi, cited above. He argues that if we accept Rashi’s interpretation, the law requires the woman to kindle the lights. But according to Maimonides, the primary responsibility is upon the man of the household, and the woman’s actions are a result of a technical reality resulting 89 BT

Shabbat 23b. Ta’anit 25a. 91 For a list of Rishonim, see Verdiger, 1975, p. 24. 92 BT Shabbat 23b. 93 This suggests that the mitzvah, from his perspective, is to light the room or rooms, and not necessarily focused on which individual performs the action. 94 BT Shabbat 5:1. 90 BT

21

22

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual in her being a messenger for the husband.95 Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher in his code of law, the Tur, gives the woman priority status to perform this ritual.96 It would seem that by the end of the period of the Rishonim, it was accepted as proper for a woman, in her own right, to perform the lighting of the ner Shabbat. As a side issue, I find the threat that a women will die in childbirth if she is not careful to light the Sabbath lamp somewhat extreme, and not in line with the literary pattern of the Mishnah. Although biblically ordained laws of niddah and hallah are certainly areas of concern for the woman, the Sabbath lamp seems as though it should be less significant, since it is a rabbinical obligation. I suggest that to understand the Rabbi’s views it is necessary to view the entire ritual of Friday eve lighting as a part of an ongoing dispute between the believers in the written and the oral law.The Rabbis argued that while it is prohibited to light fire on Shabbat itself, any light prepared before sunset on Friday evening can be used for light on Shabbat.97 The Rabbis feared that this ritual, being only a rabbinical concern, would not be taken with the full gravity they desired to see. To emphasize its importance, the Rabbis grouped it together with the biblically required female rituals of niddah and hallah. The threat represents the early Rabbis’ attitude toward women in general, that they are not to be trusted to perform the commandments unsupervised.98 The threat was highly potent in a period where many women died in childbirth.99

95

Oberlander, 2012, p. 24. Arukh HaShulhan 263. 97 This is a general statement.This is not the place to list the prohibitions or allowances with regard to the use of fire on Shabbat. See also Lauterbach (1951, pp. 458-459), who discusses the early historical considerations in establishing the Sabbath candle ritual. 98 I disagree with Safrai (2008, p. 4), who argues that it is not conclusive whether this is a real threat or a tactic to motivate women to be scrupulous in the performance of the lighting. 99 See ibid., pp. 144-147. Safrai also offers additional versions of this Mishnah from YT Shabbat 5:2, where the death is upon the newborn rather than the mother. This dispute is carried over to BT 30a, where they dispute if it is the woman who dies in childbirth or if the child is stillborn. 96

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual Aharonim In his Shulhan Arukh, Rabbi Karo, following his literary pattern, agrees with the Tur’s ruling that a woman is responsible for lighting candles on Friday evening.100 The discussion amongst the other early Aharonim is not if the priority belongs to the women, but the ramifications of this ruling: that it was no longer a voluntary mitzvah but an obligation; that a blessing was required (something that was first instituted by the Geonim); and that a minimum of two lamps or candles should be used. However, the concept of the primary responsibility falling on a woman introduced new considerations for later rabbis. For example, if the husband desires to fulfill the mitzvah of kindling the lamps can he take it away from his wife? Rabbi Yoel Sirkis’ Bayit Hadash commentary on the Tur rules that he cannot. Rabbi Sirkis recommends that if the husband so desires, he can follow the custom of taking another candle and lighting it in the synagogue. Another option is to light candles in a separate room and recite the blessing there. A compromise was suggested by Rabbi Avraham Abale Gombiner in his Magen Avraham commentary on the Shulhan Arukh, namely that the husband would prepare the wicks and thus participate in the mitzvah. This concept is also found in the works of Rabbi Isaac Luria, often known as the Arizal, and Rabbi Yosef ben Moshe in his Leket Yosher,101 who quotes the custom of Rabbi Yisrael Isserlein, author of the Terumat Hadeshen.102 Rabbi Joseph also quotes Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi’s Shulhan Arukh HaRav, who argues that this actually is not a problem, since the wife is a messenger of the husband, meaning that the husband is, in fact, responsible and performing the mitzvah.103 Another topic of discussion concerned a woman who forgot to light the Sabbath candles. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) rules that she is penalized and required to add a light for each time she misses lighting.104 The Shulhan Arukh 100 Shulhan Arukh

OH 263:2. p. 49. 102 The topic discussed would suggest that the reason for the pre-lighting was to improve the light of the lamp, but it also related to our concern. 103 Terumat Hadeshen, 1992, p. 143 note 22. 104 Arukh HaShulhan OH 263:1. 101 Leket Yosher,

23

24

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual HaRav argues that the additional candle or candles is rather a reminder and not a punishment.105 The custom that unmarried women also kindle the Sabbath lamps is not a contemporary innovation. It is cited in the Arukh HaShulhan, which notes that it is preferable for the girls not to light in the same room as their mother, so as to avoid halakhic complications.106 Moreover, Rabbi Hershel Schachter cites Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, who said this ritual was the norm in pre-Holocaust Europe.107 This custom was later propagated through the efforts of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.108

Prayers and Charity at the Time of Candle Lighting The Igeret Teshuvah, authored by Rabbenu Yona Gerondi, is our first written source to recommend that women pray for their children to be Godfearing and scholarly Jews while kindling the Shabbat lights.109 He explains, “This prayer is appropriate and good to pray at the time that the Sabbath candle burns as it is written ‘candle is a mitzvah and Torah is light.’”110 Rabbenu Bachya expounds on this, explaining that because prayers are more readily received during the performance of a mitzvah, and as this mitzvah is the woman’s responsibility, it is an ideal time for her to request that her children excel in Torah study.111 Rabbi Yeshaya haLevi Horowitz (the Shela HaKadosh) cites Rabbenu Bachya but adds that the woman should read the portion from the book of Prophets that tells the story of Hannah’s prayer for children.112 The Kaf Ha-Hayyim offers the following

105 Shulhan Arukh

HaRav OH 263:1. HaShulhan OH 263:7. 107 MePeninei Harav, 2001, p. 62. 108 See Likkutei Sihot, Parshat Hayei Sarah 5736. For a detailed discussion on this topic, see Levine, 1975. Rabbi Yosef in his Yalkut Yosef does not write favorably about this custom. 109 Day 6:81. 110 Exodus 19:3. 111 Quoted in Oberlander, 2012, p. 40. 112 1 Samuel 2:10. Oberlander (2012, pp. 41-42) cites various Aharonim and Hasidic sources that discuss this issue. 106 Arukh

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual prayer text to be recited by woman at the time of Friday evening candle lighting: May it be your will . . . that you have compassion and mercy, and may your kindness to me be increased to grant me children, who will follow Your will, and learn Torah for its sake, and may they shine forth the light of the Torah, in the merit of these Sabbath candles, as it says “for a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah is light.”

The prayer ends: Also, have mercy and compassion on my husband, [Blank] son of [Blank], and grant him long life and full years, filled with blessings and success and help him fulfill Your will fully, may it be your will. Amen.113

A relatively new custom dating back approximately 300 years, reported by Rabbi Azriel of Vilna in the name of the Arizal, is that before the woman lights the Shabbat lamps she should set aside money for charity, even if it is only a very small coin. Charity, he argues, is the most powerful weapon against evil and it protects even those who cannot recite the prayer after kindling.

Accepting the Start of the Sabbath when Kindling the Lamps114 Rabbi Karo in his commentary on the Tur, the Beit Yosef, discusses the various views pertaining to this topic and codifies the ruling. He writes in his Shulhan Arukh, “In the view of Rabbi Simeon Kayyara, author of the Halakhot Gedolot (Bahag),115 as soon as one kindles the Shabbat light the 113 Kaf

Ha-Hayyim, 263:34. a detailed list of opinions, see Verdiger 1945, pp. 63-74. 115 In the Laws of Hanukkah. Agreeing with the Bahag is the Mordekhai 246, 293, Rabbi Nissan on BT Shabbat 23b umed’amrinan. Also see the Rokeah section 226. This view is cited in the Tur 263, Shibolei HaLeket 185 and 59, Tana Rabatti 12, Mordekhai BT Shabbat 23b, section 293, Or Zarua, vol. 2, sections 11 and 256, and the Abudraham in the Maariv Shel Shabbat section. The Arukh HaShulhan OH 263:14 writes that reason of the Bahag is based upon the fact that we find in the early rabbinic sources (quoted above) the final labor of the Rabbis was the lighting of the candles. This, he argues, was a decree not to do any labor since it is a mitzvah to light the Sabbath lamp and fulfill the religious obligation. Thus anyone who lights the lamp will conclude in his heart that Shabbat has begun. 114 For

25

26

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual sanctity of Shabbat takes effect upon him and he is forbidden to do any labor.” Accordingly, it is the custom of some women, after making the blessing and kindling the lights, to throw the wick in their hands with which they kindled the lights to the ground without extinguishing it.116 Other authorities disagree with the Halakhot Gedolot, holding that acceptance of the sanctity of Shabbat is not dependent upon kindling the light, but upon the evening prayer, specifically as soon as the cantor says Borkhu in the evening service. At that point everyone must refrain from labor. Nowadays, Mizmor shir leyom HaShabbat, rather than Borkhu, is in many communities seen as the accepted beginning of the Sabbath.117 Consequently, some authorities note that Shabbat need not begin for her at the kindling.118 She may opt for the alternative beginning of Mizmor shir leyom HaShabbat, or Borkhu recitation, by stipulating such before lighting candles. However, some authorities hold that such a stipulation is ineffective. Rema rules that any woman, unless she stipulates otherwise, by lighting the Sabbath lights accepts the Sabbath. Other members of the household are not bound by this action and may continue to do labor until Borkhu or Mizmor shir leyom HaShabbat is recited. Later codes, such as that of Rabbi Shneur Zalman in his Shulhan Arukh HaRav,119 and Rabbi Epstein in his Arukh HaShulhan,120 also summarized the different views on the point of acceptance of the Sabbath for a woman and her family upon lighting the candles, coming to a similar conclusion as Rema.They add an additional view: according to some, even if the woman makes her lighting conditional upon not accepting Shabbat until later, after lighting—it would

116 Arukh

HaShulhan OH 263:10. view is cited in the Tur 263, the Hagahot Maimoni at the end of chapter 5 in the name of the Ba’alei HaTosafot, Rosh at the end of BT chapter 2, Nachmanides’ commentary on BT Shabbat 23b ner Hanukkah, Rashba on BT Shabbat 23b ha deamar, RabbenuYerucham Netiv 12, vol. 1 and 2.This view is also cited in the Shibolei Leket 59. 118 This is also the view of the Maharam cited in the Tashbetz, section 8. It is also found in the Hagahot Maimoni at the end of chapter 5 and in the Mordekhai op cit. 119 Shulhan Arukh HaRav OH 263:7. 120 Arukh HaShulhan OH 263:14-16. 117 This

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual not be of any value, for she already recited the blessing on the lights “to light the Shabbat candles.”121 To summarize, we have listed four factors: 1. Lighting the Sabbath candles entails the acceptance of Shabbat. 2. A woman may stipulate before she lights that she does not accept the Sabbath until the cantor says Borkhu or Mizmor shir leyom HaShabbat. 3. The above stipulation is ineffective if made subsequent to lighting and does not change the fact that Sabbath began with the lighting of the lamps. 4. The Sabbath begins for others only with the cantor reciting Borkhu or Mizmor shir leyom HaShabbat and thus the lighting has no bearing on the prohibition of labor she assumes with her lighting. In sum, for the contemporary observant woman, kindling the Friday evening candles is akin to accepting the commencement of Shabbat with all its restrictions.

II.  The Saturday Night Havdalah Ritual Havdalah, the ritual signifying the conclusion of the Sabbath, is performed when it is dark outside (three stars are visible), using wine, fire (aish), and spices (bisamim). Stuart Linke portrays the function of the ritual to be “to mark the transition from the sacred and holy time of Shabbat and festival, to the ordinary mundane time of the rest of the week.”122 Lawrence Hoffman understands the Havdalah as “a ritual of categorization in that it presents the Jewish categorization scheme. The ritual is celebrated precisely at that point in time when the categories threaten to break down, when the Sabbath is about to fade into weekday secularity, and light is becoming dark. It thus reinforces elementary categories of opposition, protecting the scheme from breaking down.”123 Hoffman bases this on the anthropological theories of 121 Magen

Avraham OH 263:20. See also the conclusion of Shulhan Arukh HaRav 263:7. 122 Linke, 1999, p. 86. For a discussion of Havdalah, see Talmudic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, pp. 67-102. 123 Hoffman, 1989, p. 22.

27

28

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Turner and Arnold van Gennep dealing with liminal time. While Hoffman presents the Havdalah practice as a protective device to ensure the safety of transition within the natural order, I do not believe that these theories are sufficient to explain this ritual; but that is not the topic of this essay. For the purpose of this chapter we will turn to the lighting of the Havdalah candle. Tractate Pesahim says that this light, in contrast to the Friday evening candles, must be “torch-like (avukah).”124 Furthermore, in this case the main actor is the man, not the woman, who played the lead role in the Friday evening candle-lighting.125 These distinctions may suggest that Havdalah is representative of both strength and weakness. The entering into Shabbat is a time when all physical and weekly labor is ceased and a spiritual time begins. It is when only one lamp, one wick, is kindled, and the individual who performs the ritual is primarily the woman, the perceived physically weaker sex. On Saturday night the transformation from the spiritual to the physical realm is symbolically represented by the large and more potent flame consisting of at least two wicks intertwined, and it is the male, the perceived stronger sex, who recites the Havdalah prayer over fire. Daniel Sperber says that the Havdalah candle is designated as the object symbolizing the beginning of the weekday actions and undertakings.126 He argues that the ritual is an example of the impact of folk customs with no real literary sources that eventually became an integral part of the Havdalah ritual.127 If we take Sperber’s argument a step forward, I suggest that this was an opportunity for the rabbis to take a secular activity, providing light for the home, and to convert it into a sacred ritual. During the Sabbath, a time when it was prohibited to light fire, it is safe to assume that the lights in the home had eventually been extinguished, and there was an immediate need to rekindle them. This activity, analogous with the candle lighting of Friday night, afforded the rabbis an 124 BT

Pesahim 103b. a discussion on women and Havdalah, see Zivotofsky, 2010, pp. 175–187. 126 See Sperber, 1994, pp. 134-135 note 54. 127 Sperber, 1994, pp. 134-135. Hoffman (1989, p. 22) also argues: “Thus we shall see that the Havdalah ritual attracts mythology regarding the perils inherent to the very time frame in which the ritual is celebrated.” See also Hoffman, 1989, p. 40. 125 For

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual opportunity to symbolically convey the transformation of the secular work week to the sacred Sabbath day. They offered a midrashic rationale for this law, as I will discuss below.

Early Rabbinic Sources The Midrash Bereshit Rabba discusses the reason for the lighting of the Havdalah fire on Saturday night: Rabbi Levi said in the name of the son of Nezirah: “That light functioned 36 hours, 12 on the eve of Sabbath (i.e. Friday), 12 during the night of Sabbath, and 12 on Sabbath [day]. When the sun sank at the termination of the Sabbath, darkness began to set in. Adam was terrified, [thinking] ‘surely indeed the darkness shall bruise [envelop] me’ (Psalms 139:11). Shall he of whom it was written, ‘He shall bruise thy head’ (Genesis 3:15), now come to attack me! What did the Lord do for him? He made him find two flints which he struck against each other; light came forth and he uttered a blessing over it; hence it is written ‘But the night was light about me’ (Psalms 139:11), i.e. ‘the night was light in my Eden.’ This agrees with Samuel, for Samuel said: ‘Why do we recite a blessing over a lamp [fire] at the termination of the Sabbath? Because it was then created for the first time.’”128

BT Pesahim, following the version of the fire story in YT (Talmud Yerushalmi) Berakhot,129 presents an abridged version but gives the story greater force when assigning it to a law: We may not recite a blessing over the flame except at the departure of the Sabbath since [that time] is the beginning of [fire’s] creation. . . .Two things entered the thoughts of God to be created on the initial Sabbath at twilight but were not created until the departure of the Sabbath. And indeed at the departure of the Sabbath, the Holy One Blessed is He, placed in the first man an understanding that was reflective of the divine plan. As a result [Adam] brought two stones and ground them together and a flame shot out from them.130 128 Midrash

Bereshit Rabba 11. See also Midrash Bereshit Rabba 82. Berakhot 8:6. 130 BT Pesahim 54a. 129 YT

29

30

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual The rabbis validated the ritual which had pragmatic reasons of rekindling the lights in the home after Shabbat. We noted that the rabbis claimed fire was created on the first Saturday night in an aggadah, a source not usually employed to substantiate a halakhah, the aggadah served the need to take charge of a secular, profane, and mundane practice of lighting fire at the time of “betwixt and between,” when the sacred or holy turns into the profane and to place it in the realm of a religious ritual.

The Laws of Ner Havdalah The laws associated with this ritual are first stated in Mishnah Berakhot: “No blessing is recited over the candle until benefit is derived from its light.”131 The BT Berakhot offers an explanation for the Mishnah’s statement: Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav, “The term ‘until benefit is derived from its illumination’ does not mean that benefit must actually be derived from the flame. Rather it means to include any flame’s illumination even though he is actually standing in a place far away from the light where he himself does not actually benefit from it.”132

They challenged this ruling by quoting the following baraita: “If one has a flame concealed in his lap or in a lantern (panas), or if he saw a flame but did not use its illumination or if he used its illumination but did not see the flame, in all these cases he does not recite the blessing, for no blessing can be recited until he both sees the flame and uses its illumination.” Based upon the above, the Talmud editors seem to ask, “But where can we find an instance of one who saw the flame but did not see the illumination?” The answer offered is a situation where the flame progressively becomes dimmer, and thus even if the person is in close proximity, he cannot benefit from the flame. The Talmud turns its attention to the Mishnah’s statement that, in order to recite the blessing, one must benefit from the flame’s illumination. The editors of the Talmud explain that one must be close 131 Mishnah

Berakhot 8:6 There are additional topics connected with the Havdalah torch discussed in the Mishnah, but these are not relevant to this essay. 132 BT Berakhot 53b.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual enough to the flame to distinguish between two different types of coins. The Talmud concludes by informing its readers that the blessing over the flame is not an intrinsic requirement for Havdalah.133 The YT has its own version of this discussion. It states: “If one has a lamp in his lap or in a lantern or in a glass (aspaklarya), or if he sees the flame but does not use its illumination, or he uses its illumination but does not see the flame, in all these cases one may not recite the blessing over it for no blessing can be recited until one both sees the flame and uses its illumination.”The YT is clear that if there is a barrier between the fire and the person’s view of the flame, reciting a blessing is prohibited. Depending upon the realia of the panas lantern (of see-through glass or not) the YT might be at odds with the understanding of the BT.134

Early and Later Rabbinical Authorities Rabbi Ovadia Yosef writes,“It was a tradition in the hands of the Geonim not to recite the Havdalah ritual (with wine) except when it included the blessing upon the candle.”135 Rabbi ben Asher in his Tur, and Rabbi Karo in his Shulhan Arukh, adjudicate in accordance with the Talmud, which permits omitting the fire ritual if such is unavailable.136 The Zohar (Vayakel) writes that one must search for the fire after Shabbat, and considers it imperative to include the Havdalah light in the ritual. It is an essential part of the Havdalah ritual.The importance of using fire is also emphasized in the ruling that one cannot substitute a star for the Havdalah candle. However, both Pirkei de

133 The

reason offered to explain this law is that the blessing for the Havdalah fire falls in the category of blessings of praise that are only recited when the need for praise arises. This conclusion is found in Nachmanides and Rosh’s commentary to the above Talmudic statement (Rosh Chapter 8:3). These views are summarized and include additional early rabbinic authorities such as Mordekhai, Meiri, Rabbenu Yerucham Netiv 12:2, and Ravyia. See Yosef, 1992, p. 479. 134 YT 8:7.This is discussed in detail in Yosef, 1986, pp. 61-66.The decision to prohibit would depend on the definition of the words discussed primarily amongst early rabbinic authorities such as Rashi and the Rashba quoted in Rabbi Yosef ’s analysis. 135 See Yosef, 1992, p. 480, who offers early rabbinic sources such as the Rashba (responsa vol. 1, section 159), and who quotes the Geonim as well as later rabbinical authorities such as Rabbi Epstein in his Arukh HaShulhan 298:17. 136 Arukh HaShulhan 298.

31

32

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Rabbi Eliezer137 and the Geonim permit such a practice. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, quoting from Geonic sources and the Rishonim, argues that it is permitted to make the blessing on the stars.138 Rabbi Yosef disagrees and explains that the prohibition was adapted to forbid making the blessing meorei ha’esh on the stars, because stars do not have the domestic qualities of fire. A query from the modern period is concerned with the use of electricity to fulfill the mitzvah of the Havdalah candle.139 The rabbis who lived during end of the nineteenth century, when electricity was relatively new, such as Rabbi Chaim of Brisk and Rabbi Chaim Ozer, understood electricity to be fire, and made the blessing for fire Saturday night on an electric bulb. This, it would seem, was their method for sending a message to their followers that electricity could not be used on Shabbat since it was fire. Rabbi Yosef presents four concerns relating to the use of the electric bulb: 1. Is it acceptable for one to make the blessing on a flame that is behind glass and not observed directly without any intervention? 2. Does the fire that is used for Havdalah have to be the same as the type used by Adam? 3. Is it permitted to use electricity that another Jew in the electric station has worked with on the Sabbath, thus transgressing the laws of Shabbat? 4. Since the fire of the Havdalah candle consists of different hues (as in fire), is electricity as seen through the light bulb, i.e. of only one hue, acceptable? After lengthy discussion (and analysis of the BT and YT discussed above), the rabbi rules that using electricity for Havdalah is prohibited.140 Other rabbinical authorities permit it. Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth summarizes the law: “Do not make the blessing (on the Havdalah candle) on 137 Cited

above.

138 Waldenberg, 1985, pp. 129-132. 139 For

a summary of the various views concerned with the use of electricity to perform the practice of the Havdalah lights, see Weisfish, 1978, pp. 26-33. 140 Yosef, 1992, p. 473 note 5. See also Yosef (1986, pp. 61-66), who discusses this issue in great detail.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual f­luorescent bulbs.This is not fire. Also do not bless on regular electric bulbs with glass that is not transparent. Concerning clear, see-through electric bulbs, there is a disagreement amongst the rabbinical adjudicators, some permit and some forbid.”141 In a footnote, Rabbi Yosef explains that even those who permit the clear electric bulb have reservations about whether it fulfills the need for a torch-like flame.142 On the other hand, if one views the ner Havdalah through eyeglasses it is considered as an extension of the body, and not perceived as a barrier, and is therefore permissible. Furthermore, writes Rabbi Yosef, since the fire is fully exposed there is no reason to prohibit it.143 Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is stringent in this case, and prefers that one remove his eyeglasses to be able to view the flame without any intervention. An additional halakhic dilemma concerned the matter of a woman’s obligation in the blessing on the Havdalah light. As a result of this inquiry, an additional issue was presented: if a man who already made the blessing is reciting the Havdalah for women, does he include the blessing on the fire? A number of halakhic considerations are offered, including: 1. A general analysis of whether a woman is obligated in the mitzvah of Havdalah. 2. Whether the blessing falls under the category of time-related laws from which women are exempt. 3. The type of blessing under which meorei ha’esh is categorized. Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen, in his Mishnah Berurah and his additional commentary Beur Halacha, summarizes the views on the woman’s obligation to make Havdalah on wine. He is of the opinion that a woman is obligated in this mitzvah, but that the blessing on the fire is different. He argues that while the blessing on the wine and spices is said when one receives benefit (birkhat hana’ah), such is not the case with the blessing on fire. Otherwise, every time one saw a flame or light he would be required to recite the blessing. Furthermore, since the brakhah on the 141 Neuwirth, 1981, p. 270, note 142 Yosef, 1992, note

105. 143 Ibid., paragraph 8, note 8.

32. See also Auerbach, 2000, pp. 13-14.

33

34

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Havdalah fire was not considered an intrinsic part of the Havdalah ritual in the Talmudic texts, he concludes, “It is preferable to say that according to all opinions she is not obligated in the blessing on the [Havdalah] candle.”144 The leading rabbinical authorities of the twentieth century disputed the ruling in the Mishnah Berurah. They included Rabbi Waldenberg’s opinion in his responsa Tzitz Eliezer,145 Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in his reponsa Iggrot Moshe,146 Rabbi Auerbach in his responsa Minhat Shlomo,147 Rabbi Neuwirth in his halakhic compendium Shmirat Shabbat Kehilkhata,148 and Rabbi Yosef.149 These rabbinical authorities and others rule that a woman may make the blessing on the Havdalah fire, for it is now considered an integral part of the ritual. The upshot of the above discussion concerning the symbol of the ner Havdalah is whether it relates to men or women, the properties of the requisite fire for ritual, and if its physical components convey a message to those who perform the Havdalah ritual. What is clear is that the emphasis is on the fire itself, and not any other substitute for the actual flame.

III.  Fingernails and Palm of the Hand150 Different customs and rituals have developed relating to the Havdalah. One prominent example is to look at one’s fingernails and/or palm of the hand while reciting the blessing over the Havdalah flame. The earliest reference to this custom is found in the Geonic period151 in Midrash Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer,152 which states: 144 Mishnah

Berurah 296, sub-paragraph 34-35. Eliezer 14:43. 146 Iggrot Moshe, Hoshen Mishpat, vol. 2, 47:2. 147 Minhat Shlomo, vol. 2, 53:2. 148 Shmirat Shabbat Kehilkhata, vol. 2, 61:24 note 69. 149 Yosef, 1998, p. 427 note 2. Also in his book of respona Yabiya Omer, vol. 4, Orhot Hayyim 24, he discusses this issue at length. 150 I have based this section primarily upon the sources cited in Finesinger, 1938. 151 Ibid., p. 347 note 4, discusses the statement found in Abraham ben Nathan Yahari’s Hamanig, which argues that the first reference is in the Palestinian Talmud (Yerushalmi). In addition to noting that the source does not exist in our editions of Talmud, he explains the possibility of confusion in the term Yerushalmi.The term can also refer to midrash as the primary source for the midrashim that originated in Palestine. 152 A Geonic document redacted in approximately the eighth century. 145 Tzitz

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual How must a man say the Havdalah blessing? Over a cup of wine at the light of fire. And he says, “Blessed art Thou who creates the lights of fire.” When he removes his hands from the fire he says, “Who divides the holy from the profane.” If he has no wine he stretches his hands toward the light of fire and looks at his nails which are whiter than his body and says, “Blessed art Thou who creates the lights of fire.” And when he removes his hand from over the fire he says, “Blessed art Thou who divides the holy from the profane.” If he has no fire he stretches his hands toward the light of the stars, which are of fire, and looks at his nails which are whiter than his body and says, “Blessed art Thou who creates the lights of fire.” If the sky is dark he tears a stone from the ground and performs the Havdalah ceremony that way and says: “Blessed art Thou who divides the holy from the profane.”

Additional Geonic documents also discuss these practices.153 Rav Amram Gaon in the name of Natronai Gaon writes: At the outgoing of the Sabbath in the blessing, “who creates the lights of fire,” they do as follows in the two academies: they look at the palms of their hands . . . and we have seen that it is taught in Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos that it is a duty to look at one’s nails. But scholars are not in the habit of doing that.

Isaac ibn Gayyat quotes Hai Gaon, saying: As to your question regarding the blessing over the light. The blessing over the light is obligatory upon anyone who is enabled by it to tell the difference between two things which cannot otherwise be told apart. The early teachers had the custom of looking at the lines of the hand until they could tell them apart, for the lines are always around and can be distinguished at night only by light. Therefore it is not necessary to look for anything else to know whether one benefits by the light. For once one has looked at the lines in his palms he already has benefits. And we have heard from the elders that there is in the line of the palm of the hand a well-known sign through which one can be blessed. Further it is

153 All

translations adapted from Finesinger, 1938.

35

36

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual our custom to look at the nails. They say it is because they increase and grow constantly.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Joel HaLevi wrote in Sefer Ra’avyah: I have in the response of the early teachers: As for your asking about our practicing divination by being in the habit of looking at our nails when we make the blessing “who creates the lights of fire” and of pouring water in the Havdalah cup and washing our faces with it. We will reply in the order you have asked. Behold this divination is good (nichush tov) and is for the greater part based upon Scripture and Aggadot . . . and since we have learned so in the Mishnah, this is nothing more than divination connected with a religious act (nihush shel mitzvah).

One can make a distinction between innocuously looking at the palms as a symbol or as a favorable omen to be interpreted, and including the more dangerous divination related to nails.154 Additional Geonim who debate this issue include Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 35, Rabbi Simeon Kayyara in Halakhot Gedolot, and Rabbi Saadia Gaon. It is not my intention to emphasize the individual differences in the Geonic response, but rather to summarize their views concerning the practice of gazing at the hands and/or fingernails, as in the following chart: Source

Useful

Nihush Mitzvah

Nihush Universal Rational Tovah

PRE

X

Natronai

X Palms

HG

X Palms

X

Saadia

X

X

Hai

X

Gaon*

X

ibid., p. 357.

Palms

X X

X Palms X

X

PRE = Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer, HG = Halakhot Gedolot *See Finesinger, 1938, p. 354 note 36.

154 See

Nails

X

X X

X

X

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual Rishonim As the chart shows, the Rabbis’ primary reason for looking either at the hands or fingernails155 is based upon the Mishnah in BT Berakhot 51b, which states that one is required to benefit from the Havdalah fire.That the light reflected on the palms of the hands or the fingernails is considered a benefit suggests a custom deeply rooted in the lives of people, a practice that seems to the layman to carry with it magical or supernatural powers. Thus the Geonim use terminologies such as a “sign [with] which one can be blessed,” or “good divination” (nihush tova) or “divination connected with a religious act” (nihush shel mitzvah). These terms seem to contradict Jewish law by allowing the integration of a pagan belief into a justified religious practice. In the words of Finesinger, “Is it then unwarranted to assume that the divination practiced at the outgoing of the Sabbath by looking at one’s nails was intended for the spirit of the nails?”156 For most Rishonim, viewing the fingernails while reciting the blessing over the Havdalah lights was an accepted practice, and it had a universal application. Finesinger determined the differences between the Geonic statements and the Rishonim, and the changes in the texts found in the works of these post-Geonic rabbis.157 These texts emphasize and exhibit the Rishonim’s overall acceptance of the practice. Included in the writings are the students of Rashi in Sefer Pardes and Sefer HaOrah, Rabbi Avraham ibn Yarhi’s Hamanhig,158 Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg in his responsa (section 538), Rabbi Yitzchak of Vienna’s Or Zarua,159 Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel’s glosses on Mishnah Berakhot,160 Rabbi David Abudraham161 and Rabbi Tzidkiyah HaRofe’s Shibolei Leket.

155 For

the purpose of this chapter I am not differentiating between palms and fingernails. Both are rooted in magical or mystical practices. 156 Finesinger, 1938, p. 365. 157 Ibid., pp. 357-362. 158 Ibid., p. 34. 159 Vol. 2, p. 48b. 160 Mishnah Berakhot 8:6. 161 Shibolei Leket, p. 102.

37

38

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Looking at one’s fingernails during Havdalah is codified by Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher in his code of law, the Tur. He summarizes the different views and simply writes, “It is customary to look at the fingernails.”162 The majority of the Rishonim, including all those referred to above, seem to overlook any correlation between the supernatural and looking at the fingernails. On the other hand, looking at the palm of the hands was less problematic, for this contained signs of blessings rather than divination.The major consideration offered by all these rabbis is that the practice is directly related to “benefiting from the Havdalah flame.” The symbol of fire is returned to its originally intended Jewish message. The anonymous halakhic compendium, the Kol Bo,163 summarizes the majority of the opinions and offers an approach. “You do not make the blessing on the [Havdalah] candle until you can benefit from the light. Therefore you should look at your fingernails before making the blessing.” The author, it would seem, has no concern or hesitation regarding using the fingernails as a tool to benefit from the flames. After discussing other laws concerning the Havdalah candle, Kol Bo returns to the topic of the nails and reviews a reason offered by Rabbi Giat, and later quoted in the Tur: “When he blesses the light he sees in his fingernails the symbol that he should be fruitful as these fingernails.” He then cites the aggadot concerning Adam and the discovery of fire and fingernails, including one 162 OH

298.The full text: “It is customary to look at the fingernails, and so we learned in Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer. This [practice] is based upon what we learned in the Mishnah, ‘One does not bless the [Havdalah] light until he benefits from the light.’ And how much? Said Ula . . . ‘We look at the fingernails to see we can benefit from it and differentiate between one coin and another just as one can differentiate between the fingernail and the flesh.’ So wrote Rabbi Amram ‘Said Rabbi Natronai, in the blessing “who creates the lights of fire,” they do as follows: In the two academies they look at the palms of their hands.’ [The Tur continues] in order to benefit from the light. . . . And the early ones say to look at the lines of the palms until they could differentiate between [the line] since they were readily available. We have heard from the elders that say that in the lines of the palm of the hands is a sign to be blessed by. Furthermore, it is customary for us to look at the fingernails [because] they say that fingernails forever are fruitful and multiply.” 163 The Kol Bo is considered to be an abridged form of Orhot Hayyim of Rabbi Aharon HaKohen of Lunel. What is interesting to note is that in the Kol Bo the topic of fingernails and Havdalah is discussed, but is absent in Orhot Hayyim.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual that proposes that fire came forth from the fingernails of Adam, and another claiming that when Adam discovered fire he realized he was naked except for his long protective nails. At the end of this section, he writes, “Since fire was first created on Saturday night, after Shabbat we make the blessing [over the fire] after Shabbat. Furthermore, it was forbidden all Shabbat and now is permitted.” Again he turns to different rulings concerning Havdalah and concludes,“It is the custom to look by the light at the [lines in the hands]— for the scholars recognize in them a person’s fate (mazal) and the good and worthy things to be yet realized.” While this practice includes some elements of divination, the folk beliefs take precedence and the rabbis incorporate the custom into their legal system. Kabbalah The Kabbalah represented by the Zohar disassociates the ritual of looking at the fingernails from “benefiting from the lights” and places it in a realm of its own with religious mystical connotations. Commenting on the Torah portion Vayakel, the Zohar writes: One must say a benediction over a light of fire because all the other fires are hidden and concealed on the Sabbath day, apart from the single fire of supernal sanctity, which is revealed and comprised in the sanctity of the Sabbath. . . . And at the very moment that we pronounce the benediction over fire, four chariots are summoned, four companies below in order to be illuminated by the fire that is blessed, and they are called “the lights of fire.” We must therefore clench together the four fingers of the right hand to illumine them with the light of the flame that is blessed, and the fingers allude to the lights of fire that shine and rule from the light of the candle that is blessed.164 Aharonim Rabbi Karo, following the lead of the author of the Tur, codifies the ritual in the third paragraph of his Shulhan Arukh, section 298, as follows: “It is customary to look at the palms of the hands and at the fingernails. Rema 164 See Yosef, 1998, p. 476

2013, p. 55.

note 7, for additional kabbalistic sources. See also Faierstein,

39

40

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual glosses: One should look at the fingernails of the right hand while holding the cup in the left hand. One should fold the fingers into the palm of one’s hand, for then one can see his fingernails and palms simultaneously; but one should not look at the inner surface of the fingers.” Rabbi Karo continues in the fourth paragraph, saying, “A blessing may not be made over the flame until benefit can be derived from its light. That is, it should be so close that one would be able to distinguish between a coin of one country and that of another.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS As Rabbi Hirsch required, we have first examined and analyzed the role of fire in Judaism and its script in the context of its time and place, origin, and meaning, so as to understand the local and historical background relevant to the symbol.165 Furthermore, the ability of religious symbols to evoke powerful emotions is derived from shared experience and social conditions. I have, as I will show below, also sought out its intent. Having studied and analyzed the sources, I now turn to the question of the message. A religious symbol without a message can only be classified as empty and purposeless. Language spoken or written is not sufficient to convey a lasting message. Instead, it is the symbolism of a custom that expresses an idea or perpetuates principles. Moreover, the group performing the action must be in agreement regarding the content of the message.The contribution of the symbol to the solidarity or unity of the group requires that the message be uniform amongst its members. Rabbi Hirsch, in viewing the needs of the Jewish nation, strengthens this argument by saying, “The more aware a nation is of its unity, and the more this unity is borne by specific spiritual principles, the more prominent will be the place of symbols and symbolic acts in its political and religious life.” Judaism, a legalistic religion in which a multitude of people follow the same practices, must “underscore their sense of unity and uni165 Hirsch, 1984, p. 11. On

pp. 16-48, Hirsch argues with those who believe that there is such a thing as symbols and symbolism in Jewish practice and law. He presents proofs and makes a convincing case.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual formity and their recognition and acknowledgement of the teachings and principles that hold them together.”166 As stated above, an additional factor is that a message may represent more than one concept, and may encapsulate different meanings.167 Hirsch argued that the symbol would often be open to various interpretations. While this is true, I would suggest that the symbol could be considered or placed on different tiers. There may be an “umbrella” or primary encompassing message initiated by the physical symbol used to perform different rituals. On a secondary level or tier but still under the umbrella, the symbol may imply a more specific message. Once we examine specific fire rituals in contrast to the inclusive message practices, such as ner Shabbat and ner Havdalah, we can seek the secondary message. What then is the primary message of the fire? Whether it be the reason discussed above from the Torah or deduced from other fire symbols as ner neshama, ner tamid, or ner Hanukkah, fire is the representation of the Lord in this world.168 Judaism does not permit objects to be deities, but symbolic representations are acceptable and even encouraged. One can argue that it was the Torah that set the stage for fire to be presented as a representation of the Lord since it had the characteristics required for this purpose (as discussed above). It was the Torah, the holiest book in Judaism, accepted by all believing Jews—its content presenting unquestionable truth with personal and historical credibility, which offered this symbolic message. As Rabbi Hirsch argues, “the choice of a given object or act as the symbolic expression of an idea will always be guided by the relationship of the object or act to the idea it is meant to express.” Furthermore, he suggests, “the symbolic meaning of the object or phenomenon in question is not dependent upon its primary physical features but solely upon a choice or intent imposed upon it from without.” Precisely for this reason, in most cases, the symbol, considered by itself, will suggest many possible interpretations, but only one of these interpretations will be correct, and we may never know which one that is. Likely, it is that 166 Ibid., pp. 7-8. 167 Linke, 1999, p. 90. Sperber 168 See

(1994, pp. 134-136) offers a similar understanding. Hoshen, 2012, for an in-depth discussion that will support this suggestion.

41

42

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual which is most familiar from the imagery of the Torah. Therefore, Rabbi Hirsch argues, since the concept is not new to him, it becomes worthy of acceptance, for no symbol is capable of conveying to its recipient a truth that is completely new to him. “Symbols cannot serve to reveal concepts that are completely unknown to the recipient.”169 With regard to Havdalah, Ismar Elbogen argues that that the entire ceremony resulted from the social reality of the time. Havurot or “tableship” groups would eat community meals at that time. The custom was to drink wine at the end of the meal—hence the blessing on wine. Since fire was prohibited from being lit during the entire Sabbath, it was necessary to light new fires—hence the blessing on the fire. Spices were necessary to remove the smell of the stale food from the meal, thus the blessing on the spices.170 While I cannot argue with the social reality, I feel this view ignores a basic methodology of the rabbis. It was not uncommon for the rabbis to focus upon the normal activity of the Jew and place them within a religious framework. Symbols and the meaning of symbols are above all culturally constructed and culturally bound. This was especially true for transitions, such as rites of passage in birth and death. Friday eve and Saturday night are not only a time of transition, but also show transference from secular to sacred and back to secular.171 This was an instance that demanded religious symbols. Turning to the secondary symbol of fire, there is a need to examine the rituals with which it is associated. Both the Friday night candle lighting and Havdalah candle are directly related to the sacred and the profane, the holy and the secular. These boundaries require ritual markers. Upon entering the Sabbath, all work-related action which is prohibited is implemented and then stopped. The person (in most cases the woman of the household) perceives this final act of labor as the commencement of the Sabbath. The candles symbolize this transition from the time of the secular to the period of the holy, from the time when the Lord permits work to when labor becomes prohibited. Although the Rabbis associate 169 Hirsch, 1984, pp. 10-15. 170 Elbogen, 1972, p. 93. See 171 See

Lessa, 1979, p. 90.

Hoffman, 1989, p. 27, who discusses Elbogen.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual the Shabbat candles with oneg, kavod, and shalom bayit, the message transmitted by the candles states that the sacred has been inaugurated, work is forbidden, and the heavens are now open to accepting special prayers. At the end of Shabbat, the same ritual of lighting marks the resumption of profane time. Applying the terminology of van Gennep172 and Turner,173 the times of ner Shabbat and ner Havdalah can be termed “liminal” or “betwixt and between.” The weekday is concluding, and Shabbat has not yet begun. At the other end (at the conclusion of Shabbat), Shabbat is concluding and the weekday will commence. Hoffman writes that “Havdalah is recited at precisely that time when the oppositions it contains are in danger of confusion. Light is becoming darkness; Sabbath is changing to weekdays; Jews, as members of the ‘holy people,’ comfortably secure in the synagogue or the home, their holy places, are about to emerge into the wilder world of the ‘other peoples,’ just as they enter unholy time as well.”174 The ceremony offers a protective praxis which appeals to the primal fears in the subconscious. For both Friday eve and Saturday night, the primary message of the symbol is the blessing of the Almighty. The Saturday night transition embraces a secondary challenge to the Jew. As Hoffman observes, “Cross cultural studies indicate that in such instances, the recognition of the movement from one or two categorical realms to the other is commonly accompanied by the perception of danger. One must cross the divide that separates these two opposites, a sort of no-man’s land in which no rules can apply.” The fire of the Havdalah candle symbolizes for this Jew the necessary spiritual strength to cross from the holiness of the Sabbath into a neutral zone where he can then transition to the mundane weekly activities.175

172 Van

Gennep, 1960. also Hoffman, 1989, p. 42. 174 Hoffman, 1989, p. 42. 175 Ibid. 173 Turner, 1977. See

43

44

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual I will conclude with Linke’s eloquent description of the Havdalah fire: In symbolic terms, fire is the agent of transformation. It converts the material into nonmaterial, and as such it is an expression of the assumed mystical task of the Jewish people: transforming the material into the spiritual by conscious activity.This, of course, has practical implications. During the ordinary days of the week we are busy, doing our best to perfect the world and to hurry forward the future Messianic age. During Shabbat and festivals we rest from this task and, instead, experience a foretaste of the Messianic era, which becomes available to us during the holy days through its inherent spirituality.176

BIBLIOGRAPHY Al-Krenawi, A., & Graham, J. (1999, Spring). Conflict resolution through a traditional ritual among the Bedouin Arabs of the Negev. Ethnology 38(2), 163-174. Assaf, S., Davidson, B., & Joel, I. (Eds.). (1963). Siddur Rav Saadia Gaon (2nd edition; by Saadia ben Yosef). Jerusalem: R. Mas. Auerbach, S. Z. (2000). Me’orei esh. Israel. Bentor, Y. (2000, Oct.-Dec.). Interiorized fire rituals in India and Tibet. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 120(4), 594-613. Benz, E. (1971). Ordeal by fire. In J. K. Joseph & C. Long (Eds.), Myth and symbols: Studies in honor of Mircea Eliade (241-264). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Daiches, S. (1913). Babylonian oil magic in the Talmud and in later Jewish literature. London: Jew’s College. Di Segni, R. (1981). Le unghie di Andamo. Naples: Guida. (Italian) Douglas, M. (1982). Natural symbols. New York: Pantheon Books. Elbogen, I. (1972). Ha-tefilah be-Yiśra’el be-hitpatḥutah ha-hisṭorit. Tel Aviv: Devir. (Hebrew) Faierstein, M. (2013). Jewish customs of kabbalistic origin. Boston: Academic Studies Press. Finesinger, S. (1937-1938).The custom of looking at fingernails at the outgoing of the Sabbath. Hebrew Union College Annual.Volume XII-XIII. New York: Ktav Publishing House. Firth, R. (1973). Symbols: Public and private. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 176 Linke, 1999, p. 92.

Fire Symbolism in Jewish Law and Ritual Fishbane, S. (2011). The shtiebelization of modern Jewry. Boston: Academic Studies Press. Ginsburg, E. K. (2008). The Sabbath in the classical Kabbalah. Portland: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Hirsch, S. R. (1984). Collected writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Volume 3: Jewish Symbolism. New York and Jerusalem: Philipp Feldheim Inc. Hoffman, L. (1989). Beyond the text. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Hoshen, D. (2012). Fire and water: Philosophical models of the Bible and sages. Israel: Hebrew Reading Press. (Hebrew) Katriel, T. (1987). Rhetoric in flames: Fire inscriptions in Israeli youth movement ceremonials. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73(4), 444-459. Kronholm, T., & Hedegård, D. (Eds.). (1951). Seder Rav Amram Gaon (by Amram ben Sheshna). Lund: Lindstedts Universitets-Bokhandel. Lauterbach, Ja. Z. (1951). Rabbinic essays. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. Leach, E. (1976). Culture and communication: The logic by which symbols are connected. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leshem, H. (1965). Sabbath and festivals of Israel.Volume 1. Tel Aviv: Niv. Lessa, W. A., & Vogt, E. (Ed.). (1979). Reader in comparative religion. New York: Harper Collins. (Hebrew) Levine, S. (1975). Kuntrus nerot Shabbat kodesh. Brooklyn. (Hebrew) Linke, S. (1999). Psychological perspectives on traditional Jewish practices. Northvale, NJ and Jerusalem: Jason Aronson Inc. Mirsky,Y. (1989). Hegyonei halachah. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) Neuwirth, Y. Y. (1981). Shemirat Shabbat kehilkhatah. Volume 2. Jerusalem: Bet Midrash Halakhah Moria. (Hebrew) Oberlander, G. (2012). Minhag avotenu byadenu. Monsey: Merkoz Halacha. (Hebrew) Otzar Iyunim. Metifta oz v’Adar.Tractate Sabbath.Volume 7. (Hebrew) Rossotti, H. (1993). Fire. Oxford, New York, Tokyo: Oxford University Press. Rubin, N. (1997). The end of life: Rites of mourning and burial in the Talmud and Midrash. Tel Aviv: Hakkibutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew) Safrai, S., & Safrai, Z. (Eds.). (2008). Mishnat Eretz Israel Tractate Shabbat (Moed A-B) with historical and sociological commentary. Jerusalem: The E. M. Liphshitz Publishing House College. (Hebrew) Schreiber, D. (2004). Lighting Shabbat candles (part 1). Alei Etzion, 12, 87-106. Soloveitchik, J. D. (2001). MePninei harav. Brooklyn: Flatbush Beth Hamidrash. (Hebrew) Sperber, D. (1994). Minhagei Yisrael. Volume 3. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew)

45

46

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual

Ta-Shma,Y. (1976). Ner shel kavod. Tarbiz, 45, 128-137. (Hebrew) Turner, V. (1967). Forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ___. (1977). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Verdiger,Y. (1995). Ner Shabbat. Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Waldenberg, E. (1985). Tzitz Eliezer. Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Weisfish, E. (1978). Electricity in halacha (part 1). Jerusalem: Institute For Science and Halacha. (Hebrew) Yosef, O. (1986). Responsa Yabiya Omer.Volume 1. Jerusalem. (Hebrew) ___. (1998). Hazon Ovadia.Volume 2. Jerusalem. (Hebrew) ___. (1992). Yalkut Yosef.Volume 4. Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Zevin, S. Y. (Ed.). (1957). Talmudic encyclopedia. Volume 8. Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Publishing Ltd. Zivotofsky, A. (2010). Wine from havdalah, women and beards. Hakira, 10, 175-187.

Behind the Purim Mask: The Symbolic Representation of the Rituals and Customs of Purim

INTENT The intent of this essay is to decode the implicit message encoded within some of the practices and customs of the Purim holiday. As anthropologist Edmund Leach correctly argues, all rituals contain and send a message to their actors. Purim is rich not only in rituals common to other Jewish festivals such as specific prayers, festive meals, and public readings of a scroll (Megillah), it also includes reversals of normative and expected Jewish behaviors.These religious rituals that deviate from established norms practiced only on Purim, which I will discuss below, beg for interpretation and understanding.To create the mold for understanding the customs of Purim I will turn to some theories and models offered by cultural anthropologists.

THE PURIM HOLIDAY Purim is a one-day festival celebrating the victory of the Jews over their enemies as told in the Book of Esther.The story is set in fifth-century BCE Persia and read yearly in the synagogue both in the evening and the morning of Purim. A complete Talmudic tractate, Megillah, is largely devoted to

48

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual the laws and lore surrounding the holiday. Purim is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the Hebrew month of Adar, which usually falls in March and precedes the Passover festival by thirty days. The Code of Jewish Law, Shulhan Arukh, records four laws unique to Purim. For our purposes, we will consider Purim to be, as are all festival observances, a journey into sacred time. Leach, following the sociologist Emile Durkheim, defines these categories as a means of symbolically changing a time from the profane to the sacred (and then the return to the profane).1 The laws include: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Reading the Scroll of Esther both in the evening and day of Purim. A festive meal with a requirement to be joyful. Sending presents of food to friends (Mishloah Manot). Giving presents to the poor, which may consist of either food or money.

Three additional general mitzvoth are required on Purim: the reciting of al hanissim in the daily prayers during the Amidah and in the grace after meals, the special reading from the Torah in the synagogue, and a prohibition against eulogizing and fasting.2 Women as well as men are obligated in all these mitzvoth since they participated actively in the miracle of Purim. Unlike other festival days, all manner of work is permitted on Purim.

Purim in Contemporary Orthodox Jewish Society3 The day before Purim is called the Fast of Esther (Ta’anit Esther). At some point, this day became a fast day from early morning to nightfall.4 The transition from a solemn day of fasting to Purim, which unveils a carnival-like atmosphere, is first demonstrated in the synagogue. Men, together with women and children, gather for the evening prayers and the reading 1

Leach, 1979, p. 228. Tabory (2000, p. 335 note 39), quotes R. Zevin, who divides the rulings into two categories, the first four being active participation and the last three verbal. Tabory points out that the last three do not compare to the first group with regard to date or historical development. 3 For additional examples of descriptions of modern Purim activities and celebrations, see Epstein, 1994; Arden, 1974; Sacks, 1989; Goodman, 1952; and Lewinski, 1956. 4 Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim (OH) section 686; a code of law authored by Rabbi Yosef Karo. 2

Behind the Purim Mask of Megillat Esther. The Book of Esther is required to be chanted from a scroll of parchment, which is written according to specifications and introduced with required blessings. It is common for children and some adults to dress up in costumes ranging from the characters in the story of the book of Esther to popular super heroes.5 Often, humorous signs—satirical or comical statements, or pictures directed at the rabbi and community leaders—decorate the walls and ceilings of the synagogue and its corridors. At the conclusion of the evening prayers, Megillat Esther is read by the cantor or another synagogue representative.Whenever the name of Haman, the villain of the story, is mentioned, an uproar is created by stomping, and clapping; children use noisemakers, whistles, and bells at the appropriate places in the reading. This noisemaking symbolically represents the blotting out of Haman’s name since he is believed to be a descendant of the Amalekite nation, the archenemy of the Jews.6 At any other time of year this raucous behavior would be unacceptable and prohibited in the synagogue sanctuary (with the possible exception of Simhat Torah). At the conclusion of the prayer service, the participants return to their homes to eat for the first time that day. Later in the evening, some synagogues will offer their congregations a Purim party or carnival in which costumes are commonplace. Music, games, prizes, food, drinks, and, in some instances, alcohol are offered. In addition to these activities, it is also customary to compose rhymes, poems, songs, and skits along satirical lines directed at the rabbi and congregational functionaries. The evening is also dedicated to preparing shalah manot—gifts consisting of foods which need no cooking—to be distributed on Purim day. It is written in the Book of Esther 9:22 that “they should make them days of feasting and gladness, days for sending choice portions to one another and gifts to the poor.”The women of the household primarily perform the role of preparing the food items to be placed in the gift package. Often the cooking or baking will begin weeks before the holiday. The Shulhan Arukh rules that not only must the food be ready for immediate consumption, it 5 6

Shulhan Arukh OH 690-692. This is based on the biblical texts in Exodus 17:14-16 and Deuteronomy 25: 17-19.

49

50

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual should also include a minimum of two different food products, and be given to at least one individual.7 Men are required to give to men and women to women. A contemporary practice is that the gift is sent from one family to another.

Contrast to Other Jewish Holidays Purim is a time when there is a reversal of halakhic ritual and social norms. Custom permits the reversal of behavior by alluding to a passage in Megillat Esther, which states that Purim celebrates “the days which the Jews had relief from their enemies and as a month that had turned for them from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday.”8 Zohar Hanegbi correctly points out that the pattern of reversal is the implicit motif found in the story of Esther itself, first with Haman, the villain, and then with Mordekhai, the hero. Haman is elevated to the most powerful position in the kingdom after the king, and is later humorously demoted to the level of a horse driver. Mordekhai, whom Haman had planned to murder, is elevated in his place, borne by a horse from the king’s stable wearing the garments of royalty, and led through the streets by the Amalekite. Instead of killing his rival, Mordekhai, the evil Haman is killed and his high position given to Mordekhai.9 We find a similar situation in regard to Esther and Queen Vashti.Vashti is deposed at the beginning of the story and Esther, who was taken to the palace against her will to compete with thousands of other young women in a “beauty contest,” is crowned queen in her stead. The day that was selected to annihilate the Jews, became the day the Jews prevailed over their enemies by annihilating them instead.The Megillah informs its readers that “Like the days . . . were transformed from grief and mourning to festival and joy.”10

 7

Shulhan Arukh OH 695:4. Esther 9:22.  9 Zohar Hanegbi, “Minhagei HaPurim Bahalakhah Uva-omanut,” in Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 6, ed. Daniel Sperber (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1998), 193–194 [Hebrew]. 10 Esther 9:22. Additional role reversals are practiced during the rituals of Purim. I will discuss this below.  8

Behind the Purim Mask Anthropological Models11 Jeffrey Rubenstein attempts to understand the story of Purim by positioning it within the framework of Victor Turner’s anthropological model for liminality and communitas.12 Turner studied the social process of tribal societies in a state of liminality, or as he terms it, “betwixt and between.” This is a period in which there is dissolution of the ordered structure of society. In an ordered group there are defined hierarchies, roles and statuses, and positions controlled by specific social phenomena, such as laws, customs, institutions, and cultural traditions. Turner points out that within liminality, the most common modality is communitas: As opposed to societas or structure, communitas is characterized by equality, immediacy and the lack of social ranks and roles. A leveling process brings about the dissolution of structure, the absence of social distinctions, a homogenization of roles, the disappearance of political allegiance, the breakdown of regular borders and barriers.13

This openness will manifest itself in a status inversion as well as role reversals and even gender reversals. Rubenstein, throughout his essay, argues that Turner’s model (with refinements) is manifested in the holiday of Purim, through its rituals and customs. Rubenstein explores these rituals by placing them within the context of liminality and communitas. While I accept Rubenstein’s overall approach to the analysis of Jewish ritual and custom with the implementation of the anthropological model, this method requires greater scrutiny.Turner’s theory and model is applicable to tribal societies. In his discussion of anthropologists Max Gluckman and Arnold van Gennep, Robin W. G. Horton argues that the study and conclusions regarding tribal societies, including Turner’s study, differ from

11

For a historical discussion of the origins of Purim, see Lewy, 1939. Rubenstein, 1992, pp. 247-277. Turner discusses this in Turner, 1977, pp. 94-293, 1982, and 1974. I have based my understanding primarily on Rubenstein’s discussion of Turner’s works. 13 Rubenstein, 1992, p. 251. I will deal with Turner’s model in detail in my subsequent discussion. 12

51

52

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual those concerning industrial societies.14 Thus, theories and models based on the one are not directly applicable to the other. James Frazer, a well-known early anthropologist of religion, found Purim of interest.15 He grouped it with holidays resembling Saturnalia (the festival of Saturn, celebrated in ancient Rome), including celebrations characterized by the inversion of social ranks, merrymaking, revelry, and other characteristics of the Purim celebrations.16 Theodor Gaster follows Frazer’s lead and places Purim within the category of pagan rituals and festivals,17 but not before challenging three theories arguing that very point. The first theory to be challenged is that Purim goes back to the New Year festival of Babylonia. He rejects this notion since the New Year holiday fell at a different time of year than does Purim.The second argument he rejects is that Purim is the ancient Persian holiday Farwadigan, celebrated in March. Gaster suggests that other than the time of year, there is no comparison between the two events. The last theory he opposes is that Purim is connected to the Hebrew word purah, meaning wine press, thus linking Purim to a Greek festival of Pithoigia, or “Opening of the Wine Casks,” Gaster contends, however, that wine press is not the same as wine cask; moreover, the holiday is in the fall rather than the spring, and the plural of purah is puroth, not Purim.18 Gaster offers his own understanding of Purim. First, he argues that there is no historical evidence to support the credibility of the Purim story, and believes that Purim is actually the Persian pagan New Year festival. He presents the following arguments to support his theory: 1. The New Year festival began at the vernal equinox, beginning March 25, which is approximately when Purim falls on the lunar calendar. 2. Purim comes from the Old Persian word for first, pur, meaning New Year. 14

Horton, 1979, pp. 244-245. Frazer, 1913. 16 See Rubenstein, 1992, p. 248. 17 Doniach, 1933, p. 56 offers a discussion of theories that consider the story of Purim to be pagan and lacking historical validity. 18 Gaster, 1953, pp. 216-220. 15

Behind the Purim Mask 3. During the New Year festival we find five components similar to Purim: a. The selection of a new queen analogous to the crowning of Esther. b. The parading of a commoner king, as was the case with Mordekhai. c. A fast, similar to the fast of Esther observed on the day before Purim. d. The capital punishment of a felon, as is said to have happened to Haman. e. The distribution of gifts, which is also a ritual of Purim. Solomon Grayzel, quoting Jacob Hoschander, offers arguments that reject the above theories. Hoschander is able to place both the scroll’s characters and the types of behavior found in the Megillah in historical Persia.19 There is an additional consideration: Gaster’s theory is interesting, but not convincing. Although there have been comparable stories and fables for many of the Jewish traditional narratives, this is by no means proof that the Jewish story is not based on real events. Furthermore, throughout Jewish history the Jews have been impacted (in contrast to having been influenced) by their surrounding cultures. In their festivals we find similarities to behaviors found in the societies in which they lived. They would often adopt familiar rituals from their local culture to express or implement Jewish laws, festivals, customs, foods, and even dress. Once the behavior was integrated into Judaism, it became “Jewish” and its origins irrelevant.20 Purim has such components but has evolved with new and additional rituals. Today the practices within Judaism are thoroughly Jewish rituals. The script, the props, and the actors are Jewish, and are part of the Jewish tradition and culture. An interesting theory is presented by Jona Schellekens, a professor of demography and genealogy at Hebrew University. He contends that Purim, in contrast to other Jewish holidays,is an occasion for“tension-management.” Originally, Purim served to reaffirm a political situation by celebrating the 19 20

Grayzel, 1952, pp. 7-13. For further examples, see Fishbane, 2011, pp. 35-62.

53

54

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual ascension of Mordekhai to a position of power. Schellekens states that the salvation of the Jews from impending destruction justified celebrating the meteoric rise of Mordekhai. With time and the loss of this political power, argues Schellekens, in times of persecution, Jews transformed Purim into a day for tension-management.21 There are various flaws in Schellekens’ theory. His bibliography indicates that he can read and understand Hebrew, but he almost totally ignores primary sources, especially Tannaitic ones, which testify to the theological purpose and meaning of Purim. Furthermore, according to textual evidence, the religious and social reality of the Jewish people would not permit a Jewish holiday to be instituted and its documents canonized if there was no theological meaning supporting it. Hanukkah or Purim had to be based on a theological premise of a “miracle.” Although Schellekens argues that the brief discussion in Babylonian Talmud (BT) Megillah 7a-b testifies to the obligation to drink excessively (thus reducing anger), a scholarly examination of the pertinent texts reveals some lack of clarity on this issue. Throughout his essay, Schellekens suggests that tension release is a relatively early phenomenon that began after the failure of the Mordekhai dynasty. Yet in his last footnote he writes, “Most of the other tension-management aspects of Purim are relatively late additions, some of them under the influence of Carnival.” Rubenstein22 presents an additional theory, suggested by Monford Harris,23 that the rituals, including role reversal, play, drink, and costumes, enable the Jew “to cope with a great task: coming to grips with the exile.” I propose that Purim assists the Jew in coping with the Diaspora, as it is a holiday that specifically represents a celebration of an event outside of the Land of Israel. Even a cursory examination will illustrate that all other Jewish holidays are coupled with the Land of Israel. Aware of this dichotomy, the rabbis included walled cities in Israel dating from the time of Joshua’s entrance into the Land in the specific laws of Purim pertaining to walled cities. According to the Book of Esther, in Shushan, the ancient capital 21

Schellekens, 2009. Rubenstein, 1992, p. 249. 23 Harris, 1978, p. 166. 22

Behind the Purim Mask of Persia, Purim was celebrated on Adar 15, while in unwalled cities it is celebrated on Adar 14. A link was formed between a Diaspora celebration and the Land of Israel. This is explicitly stated in the Talmud Yerushalmi (YT) 1:1: “They imparted honor to the Land of Israel, which was desolate in those days and attributed the status of a walled city if it was walled in the days of Joshua the son of Nun.”24 Moreover, in order to emphasize that Purim is different, and on a separate plane than all other holidays, reversal behavior was tolerated, thus highlighting the liminal Diaspora status of Purim. After quoting the rabbinical dictum stating that at the coming of the Messiah all holidays will be revoked while the days of Purim will remain in effect, Harris correctly concludes his essay by saying: In the days of the Messiah, Israel will talk about what happened before peace was established, what happened in exile, the disorder in Jewish existence. For to know, existentially, the new order in history, the order established by the Messiah, one must be aware of the disorder of former days, the disorder of exile, the topsy-turvy world.Therefore, Purim will not pass away; the celebration of disorder will not be revoked. Only through the occasion of disorder can we know order.25

In order to correctly understand the message of Purim conveyed by the rabbis, the individual laws and customs of Purim must be examined both historically and anthropologically. As Gluckman astutely suggests: The simple situation between the ideals of leadership and human frailty is a profitable starting point from which to examine the pitfalls which beset authority, and the devices instituted by custom to evade these pitfalls. For if the authority be inherently frail, we may well expect its frailty to be accentuated in the complex situations which in real life beset all leaders who, however sagacious they be, cannot always measure all the factors involved.26

We will now proceed to explore the customs and laws of Purim.

24

Redacted approximately fifth century CE. All Babylonian and Yerushalmi Talmud translations have been adapted from the Schottenstein Artscroll translations. 25 Harris, 1978, p. 170. 26 Gluckman, 1982, p. 59.

55

56

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual A.  Reading the Scroll of Esther (Megillah) The obligation to read the Scroll of Esther on Purim is based upon the passage in the Book of Esther 9:28: that these days “should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, in every family, province and city.”27 According to the text, the Jews spontaneously celebrated their victory the following day. The Sages derived an obligation to read Esther from the passage quoted above.28 The Mishnah records the obligation to enhance the spread of the Purim story of a miracle. In the first two chapters of BT Megillah, there is discussion of the date and the time of day Megillat Esther should be read, where to read it, how to read it (e.g. the languages), who can read it, and who is obligated to hear it. The only additional Purim obligation (mitzvah) besides the reading of the Megillah cited in the Mishnah29 is the giving of gifts to the poor. This mitzvah is not unique to any specific holiday, and therefore cannot be identified as a distinguishing ritual for Purim.30 Thus, we find an additional message encoded in the Mishnah; that is, that the reading of the Megillah is the primary mitzvah to be identified with the Purim holiday. Other festivals highlight specific mitzvoth, such as eating matzah on Passover, building a sukkah on Sukkot, and lighting candles on Hanukkah. The focus on a mitzvah and obligation to read the scroll of Esther serve to give the celebrations the religious force they need.31 These celebrations are not based on Torah obligations and might be taken lightly. The Babylonian Talmud is particularly concerned with the scriptural legitimacy of Purim.32 Statements are 27

The first mention of Purim is found in 2 Maccabees 15:36. Other early authors such as Josephus also refer to this holiday. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss these sources, but rather to begin with the rabbinic documents which set the stage for Purim as currently practiced. See Tabory (2000, pp. 328-321), who discusses these pre-rabbinic texts. Tabory also points out that these early sources seem to differentiate between the holiday of Purim and the written scroll of Esther, an issue of no consequence for the rabbis. 28 See Tosefta Megillah 1:4,YT Megillah 1:1, and BT Megillah 2b. 29 Mishnah Megillah 1:4. 30 This mitzvah, although required at all times, receives specific rules on Purim. I will discuss this topic below. 31 See my essay on Shavuot. There I show that without ritual the holiday will become defunct. 32 BT Megillah 7a. Redacted approximately in the sixth century.

Behind the Purim Mask made such as, “Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: A Scroll of Esther does not render one’s hands unclean (tamei) [because it is not one of the Holy Scriptures].”33 The Talmud rejects these opinions and proposes numerous texts to prove that the Purim story is part of the Holy Scriptures and was composed with the divine spirit (ruah hakodesh). To strengthen the argument, a portion of the texts are cited in the name of the Mishnah’s rabbinical scholars: “Rabbi Akiva says: Esther was composed with the divine spirit as it is said, ‘And Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her.’” The Talmud assumes that this could not be humanly known. The Talmud says, “It is said, ‘They confirmed and undertook upon themselves,’ which means that they confirmed above in the heavenly court that which the Jews undertook upon themselves [in the earthly court].”34 The heavenly court endorsed the rabbis’ edict to read Megillat Esther on Purim.35 The Talmud’s commentators explain that without the participation and input of the divine spirit, the redactors of the scroll could not have been cognizant of the heavenly court. An examination of the YT Megillah also presents the dilemma concerning the validity of Purim as a mandatory celebration. Rabbi Yirmiyah said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzhak: What did Mordekhai and Esther do in order to have Purim accepted as a holiday? They wrote a letter and sent it to our rabbis that were here [in Eretz Yisrael]. They said to the [rabbis]: “Do you accept upon yourselves to observe these two days, the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, as a holiday and to read the Megillah every year?” [The rabbis] replied to them: “Is it not enough for us that we must deal with the troubles that already come to us that you want to further add for us the trouble of Haman? [By publicizing the Purim miracle as you suggest, we will incite the wrath of the nations against us, for they will accuse us of rejoicing at their downfall].” [Mordekhai and Esther] then wrote a second letter [with arguments that convinced the Sages to accept the annual observance of Purim]. This is [the meaning of] that which is written [that Esther and Mordekhai wrote] to confirm this second letter of Purim [i.e. Mordekhai and Esther 33

See Mishnah Tractate Yadaim 3:5. Esther 9:27. 35 See BT Makot 23b. 34

57

58

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual wrote a second letter to the Sages that convinced them to confirm Purim as a holiday]. What counterargument was written in [the second letter] that caused the Sages to change their minds? [Mordekhai and Esther] said to [the Sages]: “If it is about this matter [i.e. inciting the wrath of the nations by publicizing the events of Purim] that you are afraid, [this is not a reason to refrain from establishing Purim as a holiday and from reading the Megillah in public each year]. Why so? [The story] is already written in the Persian national archives.” [Thus the verse states:] “Are they not written in the book of chronicles of the kings of Medea and Persia?”

The YT’s argument would seem to give credence to the holiday of Purim as scripturally based, even if not recorded in the Torah: Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachama said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Eightyfive elders, among whom were thirty-some prophets, were troubled regarding this matter [of incorporating the Megillah into the Holy Scripture]. They said, “It is written, ‘These are the mitzvoth that Hashem commanded Moses to the Children of Israel on Mount Sinai.’ These are the mitzvoth that were commanded by Moses. By referring to the mitzvoth of the Torah as ‘these’ mitzvoth, this, in effect, is what Moses said to us: ‘Henceforward, no other prophet will ever introduce anything new for you [i.e. after the Sinaitic revelation no changes can be made to the Torah, even through prophecy].’ And Mordekhai and Esther are requesting that we introduce something new, [i.e. that we incorporate the book of Esther into the Holy Scriptures, which would seem to run counter to the Torah’s command].” They did not move from there and were deliberating on the matter, until the Holy One, Blessed is He, enlightened their eyes and they found [a source indicating that] it [i.e. the downfall of Amalek] should be written in the Torah, in the Prophets and in the Writings. For this is what is written [regarding the battle of Amalek]: “Write this as a remembrance in this book” Exodus 17:14. The term “this” refers to the Torah, as it is stated, “This is the Torah that Moses placed before the Children of Israel.” [Thus, the verse teaches that the account of the battle against Amalek had to be recorded in the Torah].The word “remembrance,” this is a reference to the

Behind the Purim Mask Prophets as it is written, “and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear Hashem etc.” [Thus the verse teaches that the battle against Amalek must also be recorded in the books of Prophets.] And the words “in this book,” this is a reference to the Writings, as it is written, “Esther’s ordinance confirmed these regulations for Purim; and it was recorded in the book.” The Sages found the proof text they required to include Megillat Esther in the canon.36

From this time forward all subsequent literature accepts the holiness, historical authority, and legitimacy of the Esther story. The obligation to read the Megillah on Purim serves as a classical example of incorporating a legal system by the rabbis.37 Maimonides, in his code, the Mishneh Torah, Laws of Megillah 1:1, summarizes this rabbinical approach by stating, “A positive commandment based upon the authority of the scribes prescribes the reading of the Megillah at its [proper times].”The designation of the reading as a positive commandment based upon the authority of the scribes shows its status as an important rite.

Customs Relating to the Reading of the Megillah As I suggested above, a holiday requires ritual to give it sustenance and life. The more colorful the ritual and the greater the participation of the actors, the stronger the input and the more powerful the effect of the ritual. Some examples: 1. The reading of a required dry text to a limited group would limit the effectiveness of the ritual. On the other hand, the more varied the actors, the stronger the ritual and, in effect, the holiday. Therefore, Mishnah Megillah 2:4 states, “All are qualified to read the Megillah except for one who is deaf, a deranged person or a minor. Rabbi Yehudah declares that even a minor is qualified.” Although according to a rabbinic principle that women are exempt from timerelated laws, in the case of Megillah, since women benefitted from the miracle, they are included in the obligation. Even a minor who, 36 37

YT 1:5. See Tabory, 2000, p. 336, for a discussion on this topic.

59

60

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual as a rule, is excused from all mitzvoth, is permitted to read the Megillah. The BT Megillah, in discussing the above Mishnah (20a), informs its readers that Rabbi Yehudah said that when he was a minor he read the Megillah before Rabbi Tarfon, the elder in the city of Lod. A similar incident is cited in the name of a rabbi who read the Megillah in front of Rabbi Yehudah. Although the BT takes these statements to task, we can conclude that the incidents did occur. The laws of reading are a matter of wide discussion. 2. To encourage congregational participation in the reading of the Megillah and require the listeners to be active rather than passive, different lines of the scroll are vocalized by each person. For example,YT 3:8 states, “Rabbi Hiyyah, the son of Rabbi Adda of Jaffa, said in the name of Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rabbi Zirah: When reading the Megillah one must say [the names of Haman’s ten sons] in one breath and the words aseret bnei Haman (the ten sons of Haman) together with them.” This law is reiterated in the Tractate Sofrim 13:5.38 The rabbis did not challenge this ruling, and it was finally codified in the SA.39 While this law addressed the reader, a custom developed for all listeners to read these verses aloud in one breath. 3. The biblical rulings in Exodus40 and Deuteronomy41 instruct readers to blot out the memory of Amalek from the world. Since the nation of Amalek no longer exists, the opportunity to fulfill this obligation has been channeled through the holiday of Purim.42 Haman the Aggagite, as the Megillah43 refers to him, is considered a direct descendant of Amalek, and so focusing on him and his family is considered a fulfillment of the biblical obligation. Rituals 38

Redacted approximately eighth century Palestine. OH 690:15. 40 Exodus 17:14. 41 Deuteronomy 25:19. 42 The relationship between Amalek and Purim actually begins before the day of Purim, such as the Sabbath prior when the passages from the Torah reporting on Amalek are read. For a detailed discussion see Lewinski, 1947; Sperber, 1994, pp. 156-159; and Sperber, 1998, pp. 242-246. 43 See for example Esther 3:1. 39

Behind the Purim Mask centered upon “erasing the memory of Amalek” on Purim are widespread. The BT Sanhedrin, while discussing the idolatrous presentation of one’s offspring to the Molech, relates the following: Rav Yehudah said: One is not liable unless he passed [his child] through the fire in the normal manner of passing through. The Talmud asks: What is [the normal manner]? Abaye said: A column of bricks is set up in the center with a fire on this side of it and a fire on that side of it. The child is passed over it. Another opinion: Rava said: It is a Purim style leap (i.e. a fire is lit in a pit) and a person holding the child leaps over it.44

A Geonic45 document,46 cited in Rabbi Nathan ben Yechiel’s work, the Arukh,47 seems to be based upon the BT’s statement in Sanhedrin describing the burning of the Haman effigy: Four or five days before Purim the young men make an effigy of Haman, and hang it on the roof. On Purim itself they build a bonfire, into which they cast the effigy, while they stand around joking and singing, at the same time holding a ring above the fire and waving it from side to side through the fire.48

The non-Jewish sources also show interest in similar types of rituals. Socrates of Constantinople, a Greek Christian church historian, writes that in the time of Flavius Honorius Augustus, the Western Roman emperor, fanatical Christians suspected that it was not the effigy of Haman being burned on Purim, or as they knew it “the Festival of Haman,” but rather Jesus their savior. It seems that Socrates actually believed that the Jews were

44 BT

Sanhedrin 64b. The Geonic period primarily in Babylonia was from approximately 589 to 1038. 46 For a full discussion of this document, see Ginzberg, 1904, pp. 650-651. 47 BT Sanhedrin 64b. There are those who attribute the document to Rabbi Nissim Gaon. 48 Ginzberg, 1904, pp. 650-651. 45

61

62

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual scourging a Christian child in a symbolic remembrance of Haman. These accusations led to various anti-Semitic actions.49 Rishonim 50 This burning of the effigy of Haman was discarded over the centuries51 and replaced with the custom of making noise when the name of Haman is recited during the reading of the Megillah to symbolically erase the name of Amalek.The removal of the effigy ritual can most probably be attributed to the fear of retaliation from Christians who believed the Jews were symbolically burning Jesus. The earliest reference to the custom of making noise when the name of Haman is mentioned52 is first noted by the Sefer Ha’asufot.53 The author, Eliyahu Mekarshona, cites a story about Rabbi Yehudah heHassid: Once the baron (or nobleman) of Regensburg asked Rabbi Yehudah heHassid, “Why do you [the Jews] bang on the walls when Haman is mentioned?” He answered, “As the number of bangs we make, so the evil spirits bang him [Haman] in purgatory.” He [the baron] said to him, “How do you know this?” He answered, “Come and I will show you.”  They went and he showed him that at the entrance to purgatory they were beating him [Haman]. The baron then said, “If I were with you [the Jews], I would assist you in beating him.”54

49 50 51 52

53

54

Horowitz (1994) discusses this topic in detail. Rishon or Rishonim (pl) are rabbinical scholars who lived from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries. This was most probably a result of the anti-Semitic acts resulting from the ritual, especially in Christian countries. For a detailed list of sources and discussions on the topic of banging and making noise when either Haman or Amalek is read, see Friedman, 1997, pp. 109–112; Freund, 2002, pp. 299–323; Lewy, 1997, pp. 244–245; Zinner, 2000, pp. 267–270; and Sperber, 1994, pp. 156-159. Attributed to Eliyahu Mekarshona, end of the twelfth century, Germany. See the introduction to the Sefer Ha’asufot (Jerusalem, 1982), by its editor and publisher Abraham Dezobus. Freund (2002, p. 301) cites an unpublished manuscript and argues that this is the earliest source for the custom of making noise when the name Haman is read.

Behind the Purim Mask A contemporary of Rabbi Yehudah heHassid, Rabbi Avraham Ha-Yarchi, also mentions the custom in his work, the Manhig, a manual of all laws governing Jewish life.55 Discussing a passage in Proverbs, “The name of the wicked should rot,”56 he says, “It is therefore the custom for the children in France and Provence to take from the river smooth stones and write upon them the name of Haman. When the reader reads the name of Haman they bang the stones together.” In the book Tanya Rabbati,57 the author cites a custom of banging with one’s feet, beating stones together, and breaking pots or plates in response to hearing the name of Haman or Zeresh, Haman’s wife. He then adds, “This is not an obligation or a custom but for the joy of the children, for noises before them will gladden them. Furthermore, when they notice a change [in regular behavior] they will ask, ‘What is this?’ This will grant the opportunity to relate to them the wonders of the Lord.” Both customs, the burning of the effigy of Haman and the banging of stones, are quoted in Rabbi Aharon HaKohen’s Orhot Hayyim.This work is a compendium of legal opinions on a variety of subjects.58 Additional Rishonim also showed concern for this custom. Rabbi Avraham Klausner, in his book of customs, Sefer Haminhagim, and Rabbi Isaac Tirna, in his own Book of Minhagim, not only discuss making noise during the reading of the name Haman, but also offer explanations for this practice. Rabbi Klausner says that when one hears the name of a righteous person, “The memory of the righteous person should be blessed.” For a wicked person one should recite the passage in Proverbs, “The name of the wicked should rot.” Rabbi Klausner continues that since children do not recite the passage, they should instead be taught to knock two stones together. Rabbi Tirna, in addition to the reasons offered by Rabbi Klausner, suggests that the last letters of the first three Hebrew words in the passage in Deuteronomy 25:2, “If the wicked man deserves to be beaten,” spell the name of Haman. Not all the Rishonim’s comments concerning making noise or banging 55 The

Laws of Megillah, paragraph 65. Proverbs 10:7. 57 Attributed to Rabbi Yechiel the son of Tzidkiya the son of Benjamin the son of Yechiel, the doctor who lived in the thirteenth century, most probably in Italy. See the introduction to Tanya Rabbati (Jerusalem, 1978), edited by Shaul Horowitz. 58 Laws of Megillat Purim, paragraph 41. 56

63

64

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual refer to Haman during the reading of the Megillah, but some rather refer to the names of the wicked mentioned in the blessings and prayers read at the conclusion of the Megillah.

Opposition to the Custom of Noisemaking During the Reading of the Scroll Most of the opposition to the custom of making noise during the Megillah reading by the rabbis came from the later rabbinical authorities (Aharonim). The areas of concern included disrupting the synagogue decorum, preventing the fulfillment of the obligation to hear every word of the Megillah, and causing damage to synagogue property (i.e. beating on the tables and chairs with different implements, such as hammers). Rabbi Yaakov Moelin, in his book the Minhag Maharil,59 writes that he personally is not concerned about making noise when the name of Haman is recited. Most commentators understood these words to suggest Maharil’s resistance to banging. Aharonim Rabbi Moshe Shik, known as the Maharam Shik, reports an oral discussion with Rabbi Israel David Margalioth, the author of a book of responsa, Milei Davot. There he explains that there was no reason for Maharil’s instruction to bang or make noise at the mention of Haman. “Where does such a custom appear to obligate adults? The ritual is only for children.” The Maharam Shik continues that even if children were to forget to make noise, one would not bother to remind them.60 Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, in his code the Tur,61 does not include the custom of noise-making when the name Haman is mentioned. Interestingly, Rabbi Yosef Karo in his commentary on the Tur, Beit Yosef, discusses this custom but omits it in his code.62 The content of the BeitYosef commentary on Laws of Purim is adapted from the Orhot Hayyim. In the Mapah, his addendum to the SA, Rabbi Moshe Isserles writes: 59

The book was actually written by his student, Zalman of St. Goar. OH, 216. 61 This is the first comprehensive code since Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. 62 SA, OH, section 690. 60 Responsa

Behind the Purim Mask The [authorities] write further that it is the practice for children to draw the image of Haman on [pieces] of wood or on stones or to write the name Haman on them and to beat them one against the other, so that the name [of Haman] should be obliterated. This follows [the injunction], “You should utterly obliterate the memory of Amalek,” and [the verse] “The name of the wicked should rot.” From this, the practice evolved of beating when the name of Haman is mentioned when the Megillah is read in the synagogue. One should not abolish any practice or mock at it, as [the practices] were not established for nothing.63

In his work the Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen Kagan, widely known as the Hafetz Haim, summarizes the various views. He writes “Maharil was not concerned that Haman’s name should be drowned out. Rabbi Yaakov Emden writes that his father, the Hakham Tzvi, would beat and stamp his foot and strike with his shoe when he reached a mention of Haman” (subparagraph 59). Rabbi Yosef ben Meir Teom in his Pri Megadim writes that “the gain of those [who beat at Haman’s name] is offset by their loss, as they considerably confuse [the congregation members who are listening to the reading].” Continuing with this concept, the author of the Mishnah Berurah says: The chazzan must be silent then, at the time when they beat [Haman], in order that all those [present] will hear the reading. As it is very common for mishaps to result from the beating [of Haman] and the youths usually beat several times at the time after the chazzan goes back to the reading, it is therefore desirable and proper for every individual to read a verse or two from [the Megillah in] the Humash when [the youths] are still beating at Haman’s name. This is because then even if one will not hear the chazzan, one will fulfill [his obligation with regard to the reading of the Megillah] as stated in Paragraph Three (Magen Avraham).The Pri Megadim writes, likewise, that it is proper for everyone to hold a Humash at the time of the reading and read from [the Megillah in] the Humash any word that he does not hear from the chazzan.64 63 64

OH 690:17. For an in-depth understanding of the Mishnah Berurah’s approach to minhag (custom), see on this paragraph the Beur Halacha “Ein levatel shum minhag,” “One should not abolish any practice or mock at it, as [the practices] were not established for nothing.” In the Sephardic community there was much greater opposition.

65

66

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual This author, whose writings set the standard for contemporary Ashkenazi halakhah, is apprehensive about the custom but recognizes that beating will always occur when the name of Haman is read. Instead of prohibiting it outright, he offers a suggestion as to how not to endanger the fulfillment of the mitzvah and to hear every word of the Megillah. In the Levush, a code written by Rabbi Mordekhai Yaffe,65 we find that “one should not cancel the custom that is practiced by the children. For it was not in vain they performed it.” Rabbi Yaffe also wrote that when an adult hears Haman’s name read he should recite the passage in Proverbs, “The name of the wicked should rot.” Many Aharonim, such as the Magen Avraham,66 authored by Rabbi Avraham Gombiner, reject this ruling, for it is an interruption in the Megillah reading, which is prohibited. In contemporary Ashkenazi synagogues, children and adults bang and beat when the name of Haman is read. Special devices and noise makers are bought and created to make this disruption.The most common amongst them is the grogger.67 There are different groups that restrict or limit the Haman ritual. For example, the author of Makor Hayyim writes68 that in the synagogue in Worms the congregants only bang when reading the passage “and the Jews smite” (veyaku in Hebrew, which can also be translated as “to hit”).69 In Habad synagogues people only make noise when the full name of Haman (Haman ben Hamdata Ha’aggagi) is recited.The word Haman, when standing alone, will not be an occasion for noise.70 Tuvia Freund, an expert on Jewish customs, lists various alternatives as to when to make noise.71 These include doing so only when the reader recites the names of the ten sons of Haman, when the downfall of Haman is read, during the first and last mention of Haman’s name, and when the verse “and here is the tree” is read, at which point children may bang with wooden hammers. The decision to keep this custom in the Ashkenazi 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

OH 690:17. Commentary on the SA. For a discussion on the grogger, see Lewinski, 1947, pp. 43-46. OH 690. Esther 9:5. See Gur Aryeh, 1999, p. 222. Freund, 2002, pp. 317–320.

Behind the Purim Mask s­ ynagogues can be attributed to Rema, the leading rabbinical authority for the Ashkenazi community. He ruled explicitly, “One should not abolish any practice or mock at it, as [the practices] were not established for nothing.” In the Sephardic community there was greater opposition to the practice. Freund offers72 an extensive discussion on this topic with numerous sources, including Rabbi Rachamim Nissim Yitzhak Palaji in his work Yafeh Lalev.73 The rabbi offers three reasons for eliminating the custom. First, the noise might confuse the members of the congregation who, as a result, will not properly fulfill the mitzvah.74 Second, by banging with such instruments as hammers, the synagogue property could be damaged.Third, the practice might encourage the gentiles’ negative response. Rabbi Refael Aaron ben Shimshon, in his Nahar Mitzrayim, takes a strong stand against the custom, and rules that in Egypt the children should make noise only when the ten sons of Haman are mentioned. Contemporary Sephardic leader and rabbinical authority Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in Yalkut Yosef 75 strongly opposed the custom. In discussions with my Sephardic colleagues, they informed me that many Syrian synagogues in New York follow the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai,76 that noise is only sounded when the chazzan reads the first and last mention of Haman in the Megillah.77 72 73 74

75 76 77

Ibid., pp. 306-316. Vol. 2, section 690, paragraph 16. See, for example, Gaguine (1988, pp. 542–544), who relates an incident that occurred in London when total disruption and mayhem caused by the noise makers made it impossible for anyone to hear the reading of the Megillah. Strong measures were adopted to ultimately abolish the custom, including fines for those who did not obey the ruling. Yosef, 1988, pp. 290-291 and ff. 27. Parshat Tezaveh year one. In Wassertil (1996), we find reports that in the various countries or communities that practice the Sephardic Jewish customs making noise when the name Haman is read was the practice. For example, in Jerusalem (p. 325) the sexton would place wooden boards on the floor for the children to bang upon. In Kurdistan (p. 352), even though the rabbi is requested to explain to the congregants drawbacks of making the noise, the congregation continues to make noise when Haman is read. In Tunisia (p. 512) at home they bang on the table, and in Morocco people bang in the synagogue with their feet. In Morocco (p. 444) whenever the name Haman is read the children bang with an instrument and the adults with their feet. In Afghanistan (pp. 38-39) the children prepare their “Haman ku”: they would draw

67

68

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual To strengthen their arguments, stories of anti-Semitic behavior on Purim, such as the use of firebombs against Jews by gentiles, are recorded. As previously stated, in most contemporary Ashkenazi synagogues, the custom of making noise when the name Haman is recited is prevalent among children and adults, men and women. Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein in his legal work, the Arukh HaShulhan,78 also shows concern over making noise in the synagogue during the Megillah reading, but like the Hafetz Haim, he does not forbid it as long as there is some supervision. That it is an ancient custom gives it a strong position of credibility, he writes. The rabbi instructs the congregants to take care not to use large tools in making noise, for this causes laughter and confusion during the reading. In fact, writes Rabbi Epstein, it is preferable in this situation, especially for the women who cannot properly hear the reading, to read the scroll at home. The custom of making noise, when reading the name of Haman, could not be eliminated.The popularity of the custom, the excitement for both adults and children, prevailed. The rabbis understood this and therefore, following their adjudicative pattern, channeled and supervised the practice rather than forbidding it.

Costumes Children and some adults wear costumes to the synagogue for the reading of the Megillah. The costumes vary from contemporary superheroes to the personalities found in the story of Esther. This colorful addition to the mitzvah of reading the Megillah further enhances the dry ritual. The topic of costumes will be discussed in detail below.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The identifying mitzvah of Purim, the reading of Megillat Esther, has been turned from a dry, possibly even boring ritual into a living, exciting experience. This behavior not only energizes the ritual, but the holiday a picture of Haman and bang it or step on it when the names of the ten sons of Haman were read. The boards used to bang were called “Chak” after the sound of the noise made. Others would prepare wooden gloves for making noise. 78 OH 690.

Behind the Purim Mask itself. Other Purim mitzvoth and rituals were developed over time, but the message and the symbolism of the Megillah stand out in the forefront of the holiday. B.  The Festive Meal (Seudat Purim): The Overall Classification The festive meal embraces many of the rituals or mitzvoth of Purim. Although these practices demand their own specific laws, their objective is to enhance the Purim meal. These rituals include presents to the poor (Matanot La’evyonim), portions of food to friends (Mishloah Manot), joyfulness, and the consumption of alcohol.

The Meal In “Taking the Biscuit: The Structure of British Meals,” Mary Douglas defines British meals as an occasion when food is eaten, without prejudice as to whether it constitutes a meal or not. A “structured event” is a social occasion, which is organized according to rules prescribing time, place and sequence of actions. If food is eaten as part of a structured event, then we have a meal.79

Elsewhere she argues that food is not just used to care for one’s body, but as a “social matter.”80 It is a medium or means of expression of familial relationships. She emphasizes that food is used both to create and to maintain social relations.81 Although a meal is a physical event, it is also a vehicle of communication which anthropologists study in analyzing social relations. Taking this a step further, beyond the actual food served at the meal, the organization of the meal reveals elements of the social organization of the family. Ethnic foods served at a festive meal function as a communicative message of identity with the group.82 Standardized dishes become “the meal format.”83 79

Douglas, 1974, p. 744. Douglas, 1982, p. 86. 81 Douglas, 1984, pp. 10-17. 82 See Kalcik, 1984, pp. 57-58. 83 Douglas, 1984, p. 29. 80

69

70

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Nancy Klavans, who studies social relationships forged through food, argues that food-centered festive events are a way of creating, albeit for a short time, a community of common purpose and vision, understanding how such events are shaped and how their menus and food related behaviors symbolize and communicate powerful images of family and community . . . food often plays a central role in creating a sense of connection with the past memory of the group. Tastes, smells, sights and even tactile sensations provide a direct link through which people can reaffirm a sense of communitas. Food related events provide the prime vehicle through which a sense of tradition, continuity, and community are performed and transmitted to new members.84

To achieve these social goals, most formal Jewish meals will include— either by requirement or by tradition—some type of special food, ritual, and structure. For example, the structured festive meal requires commencing with the Kiddush, a blessing with wine, washing one’s hands, and making a blessing over two hallah breads to be cut according to a specified practice and then sprinkled with salt. The Passover Seder is the epitome of this structure, from the guest list to the special foods and rituals. The festive Purim meal, on the other hand, does not include any formal structure other than that it is mandatory for both men and women. No special foods are required or expected to be served,85 nor are there specific rituals such as the Kiddush or a blessing over the hallah.This is manifested in the SA, which commences with the gloss of Rema citing the Tur that says simply, “It is a mitzvah to have a large Purim feast” (695:1), with no additional requirements. In the attempt to provide structure to the Purim meal, Rema, quoting Maharil, adds “There are [people] who have adopted the practice of wearing Shabbat and Yom Tov clothing on Purim. This is a correct [practice].” Rema quotes the author of the Kol Bo, who says, “There are [authorities] who say that one should eat seed food on Purim in remembrance of the seed food eaten by Daniel and his fellows in 84 85

Klavans, 2007, p. 43. Specific “Purim foods” have been identified in different ethnic groups, but there is no uniformly accepted food for Purim.

Behind the Purim Mask Babylon.”86 These suggestions, however, are not practiced in most contemporary households. Rabbi Gavriel Zinner offers additional customs to be incorporated into the Purim meal to create the necessary structure, such as lighting candles, setting the table as on other holidays, teaching Torah, and relating the Purim miracles.87 The author of the Arukh HaShulhan discusses various rabbinical opinions88 suggesting practices to be implemented at the Purim festive meal. He opens with Maimonides’ ruling that to fulfill the obligation of Seudat Purim, “One should eat meat and in general have as fine a repast as his means would allow.”89 Rabbi Epstein explains that meat gives the meal formality. He explains that foods eaten on the Sabbath and holidays should also be consumed on Purim, for this is what makes the meal significant. In fact, in the seventh paragraph, the author of the Arukh HaShulhan lists the meal format used in his era at festive meals. In contrast to other views that did not require bread to be eaten at the Purim meal (paragraph 12), this format included fancy breads, and Rabbi Epstein also cites the Rema’s suggestion (paragraph 9) of eating foods from seeds on Purim. Rabbi Mordekhai Rabinowitz, in his commentary on the Arukh HaShulhan,90 presents various opinions diverging from Rabbi Epstein’s approach to the Purim meal.A close reading of the Arukh HaShulhan reveals Rabbi Epstein’s sensitivities to his community. Understanding the need for structure for the Purim meal, the rabbi chose to emphasize the meal format and constitution, though these are suggested practices rather than obligatory directives.Thus, these fairly cosmetic additions to the Purim meal reveal the absence of the basic premises for a holiday meal.The meal emphasizes eating well and the consumption of alcoholic beverages, and, as a reversal of other holidays, the materialistic elements dominate over the spiritual.

86

The identity of the author is a matter of dispute. Zinner, 2000, pp. 383-386. 88 OH 695. 89 Laws of Megillah 2:14-15. 90 Rabinowitz, 2007, pp. 177-194. 87

71

72

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Presents to the Poor (Matanot La’evyonim)91 Anthropologist Erica Bornstein writes that charity is best given impulsively.When given spontaneously, or when unregulated, it “becomes deeply moving and an act of freedom.” On the other hand, charitable organizations can weaken this impulse and are often motivated by the desire to control the money more than by a wish to help the needy. Bornstein cites the German sociologist Max Weber, who argues that “the more one orients action toward a value for its own sake, to pure sentiment or beauty, to absolute goodness or devotion to duty for example, the less is he influenced by considerations of the consequences of his action.”92 Since there is no relationship between the giver and receiver, and charity is given with no emotional interaction between these two, charity cannot be categorized as a “gift,” which is a reciprocal action. It is a “one-way street,” in the words of the well-known French anthropologist Marcel Mauss.93 Religions frequently encourage such an arrangement. That is, it provides for the needy without any expectation of return from the recipient. In his Mishneh Torah,94 Maimonides goes into great detail regarding how and to whom charity should be given. Philanthropic behavior is no longer merely a spontaneous good deed but rather a structured component of the Jewish legal system. Maimonides begins his laws of charity stating, “It is a [biblical] positive commandment to give alms to the poor of Israel, according to what is fitting for them, if the giver can afford it. As it is said, ‘Thou shall surely open thy hand unto him,’95 and again, ‘Then thou shall uphold him; as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee . . . that thy brother may live with thee.’”96 Both the Tur and Shulhan Arukh devote twelve sections to the laws of charity.97 Both adopt the language of 91

For an in-depth discussion including textual differences in the Talmud, see Tabory, 2000, pp. 358-360. 92 Bornstein, 2009, p. 623. 93 See Mauss, 1967. 94 Laws of Matanot L’Evyonim, chapter 7-10. 95 Deuteronomy 15:8. 96 Leviticus 25:35-36. 97 247-259.

Behind the Purim Mask Maimonides, beginning their laws of charity by saying, “It is a positive commandment to give alms to the poor of Israel.” Once codified, charity is included within an institutional framework of the religion.

Early Rabbinic Literature 98 The Book of Esther 9:22 reads, “As days on which the Jews got relief from their enemies, and as the month that had been turned for them from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, days for sending food gifts to one another and gifts to the poor.” This passage suggests a script for celebration rather than a legal ruling on how to celebrate. Eat, be merry, and give presents to friends and the poor are recommendations, rather than requirements. Following the above theory, the rabbis could not allow this conduct to be impulsive or spontaneous. In fact, since giving gifts to the poor is recorded in the Megillah as part of the Purim rituals, customary rules of charity would not suffice. The rabbis understood that these laws would require additional legal parameters. Therefore, in addition to reading the Megillah, the only requirement listed by the rabbis of the Mishnah was to give presents to the poor, though the Mishnah does not elaborate on how this mitzvah should be performed. In a complementary Tannaitic document, the Tosefta, we find the law of Matanot La’evyonim described in greater detail: A collection of alms for Purim [must be distributed] on Purim. And the collection of alms for a given town [must be distributed] in that town. They do not investigate too closely [whether the poor are deserving]. But they buy calves [for the poor] and slaughter them and [the poor] consume them. And what is left over should not fall to the fund for charity. Rabbi Eliezer says: Out of funds collected for Purim a poor person should not make a strap for his sandal [but they should be used only for food for the holiday].99

98

For a detailed list of rabbinical sources for Manot Purim, see Lieberman, 1997, pp. 136-143, and Yaari, 1961, pp. 17-29. 99 Tosefta translations are adapted from Neusner, 1981.

73

74

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual These four laws outlined in the Tosefta are rulings going beyond the normative laws of charity. These ideas are further elaborated in both the YT and the BT. The YT describes how charity collectors must distribute their entire Purim income to the poor and needy: “Rabbi Lazar said, [The money is distributed in its entirety on Purim] with the stipulation that the poor person [who receives it] does not deviate [from the money’s designated purpose and use part of the funds to purchase] a strap for his shoe.” The YT adds, “One should not be particular regarding the money for the poor on Purim. Rather anyone who extends his hand to receive charity we give him. One may not divert [i.e. borrow] Purim funds for his own needs.”100 The YT questions why Purim charity is not compatible with all other charity funds that may be diverted for an individual’s own needs. The answer is that there is a difference between Purim and non-Purim funds: non-Purim funds may be diverted before reaching the collector’s hands, while Purim funds may not be diverted at any stage of the donation.These laws further differ from the Yoreh Deah laws of charity, stating that on Purim, without any question or hesitation, one must give charity to anyone who asks. Even if a beggar looks suspicious and unworthy of one’s gift, charity must still be given without consideration. In this instance, the beggars’ needs are not a relevant factor in the charity equation; gifts are distributed without any stipulation. Purim charity is also discussed in the BT:101 Rather [it is] this [ruling of] Rabbi Meir [in the case] of the Purim collection. For it was stated in a baraita [that the charity collectors shall distribute the entire] Purim collection to [the needy for their use on] Purim. [Further, the Purim] collection of [each] city [shall be distributed only to the needy of] that city and we are not exact in this matter rather we purchase calves [in abundance with all available funds] and the poor slaughter and eat them. And the remainder [the meat that the poor were unable to consume on Purim shall be sold and the proceeds] will fall to the general charity fund. Rabbi Eliezer says: [The charity collectors shall distribute 100 YT 101 BT

Megillah 1:4. Baba Metzia 78b.

Behind the Purim Mask the entire] Purim collection to the needy for their use on Purim and the pauper is not permitted to purchase with [these funds] a strap for his shoe [unless he stipulated previously the right to do so] in the presence of the townspeople [and they granted him the right].

The BT emphasizes that funds collected during the Purim drive must be distributed on Purim itself in the city where the funds were collected. The text also suggests, in contrast to the YT, that one should not simply give the money to the needy, but instead buy animals and donate the meat to the poor. Any leftover meat is then sold and the proceeds may be redirected to the general, non-Purim funds. The BT adds an additional variable to the unique rules of Purim char102 ity. The rabbis write, “Rav Yosef taught in a baraita: The Megillah states, ‘and sending portions to one another.’103 [This entails] two portions to one man. The Megillah continues ‘and gifts to poor people.’ [This entails] two gifts to two people [i.e. one gift to each of two people].” BT Megillah, while discussing the prohibition against reading the Megillah on the Sabbath, refers to the law of Matanot La’evyonim:104 Rav Yosef said: Because poor people anxiously await the Megillah reading [in anticipation of receiving the gifts that are normally allocated when the Megillah is read]. Since these gifts cannot be allocated on the Sabbath, the rabbis shifted the Megillah reading from the Sabbath [to another day of the week]. This was also taught in a baraita: Even though the rabbis said that the villages may advance [their reading] to the day of assembly, they must collect gifts for the poor on that day and distribute [them to the poor] on that day. . . . since the rabbis said that villages may advance [their reading] to the day of assembly they should collect [gifts for the poor] on that day and distribute [them to the poor] on that day because poor people [anxiously await] the Megillah reading [in anticipation of receiving gifts]. But [the obligation of] rejoicing [i.e. the Purim feast] applies only in its regular time [Adar 14].

102 BT

Megillah 7a. 9:22. 104 BT Megillah 4b. 103 Esther

75

76

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual YT Megillah 1:1 suggests that the gifts to the poor should be distributed only on Adar 14 or 15 (when the festive meal is eaten), since that is when “the eyes of the poor are set [to receive their gifts].”105 The minor Tractate Sofrim, a Geonic document, follows this line of thought and emphasizes that the gifts should contain food items.To fulfill the mitzvah of giving two gifts, giving one to each of two separate individuals is required (21:4). While discussing Matanot La’evyonim on Purim, Sofrim states,“Some supply bread and wine, others supply bread and fish; in any event not less than two gifts should be given, although they may consist only of wheat and beans.” The requisite rules of Matanot La’evyonim are as follows: 1. The gifts for the poor should be distributed on Purim itself. 2. The poor should use the gifts exclusively on Purim for the festive meal. 3. The monies should be spent on food items to be consumed during the festive meal. 4. The basic obligation is for each of two needy persons to receive one gift. 5. The gift should be given in the town or city where it was collected. 6. Any individual who requests charity should be granted it without questioning whether he or she is deserving. 7. The charity drive and distribution revolves around the time and place the Megillah is read, either at night or during the day. These discussions and concerns make the Purim charity unique. Rishonim These seven topics and others created discussion and debate amongst the Rishonim. For example, Rashi explains that all Purim monies are used for the purchase of animals to be used as meat for the Purim festive meals of the needy. If after Purim meat is left over, Rashi, in accordance with the ruling of the BT, writes that it may be sold and redirected to the general 105 This

seems to contradict the law in 1:4 that suggested the gifts should be distributed with the Megillah reading.

Behind the Purim Mask charity fund.106 Other Rishonim, such as Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides), and the author of the Nimukei Yosef, Rabbi Yosef Haviva, rule in accordance with the text of the YT: they cannot be redirected. In his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides writes:107 . . . the poor, meaning not less than two persons; each should be given a separate gift—money, a cooked dish or some other comestible. For when Scripture says “And gifts to the poor,”108 it implies at least two gifts to two poor persons. . . . It is preferable to spend more on gifts to the poor than on the Purim meal or on presents to friends. For no joy is greater or more glorious than the joy of gladdening the hearts of the poor, or orphans, the widows and strangers. Indeed, he who causes the hearts of these unfortunates to rejoice emulates the Divine Presence, of whom Scripture says,“To revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.”109

Maimonides bases his rulings concerning the number of contributions and recipients, and the contents of the gifts, on the above Talmudic passage. His innovation is the priority that Matanot La’evyonim receives over the other laws of Purim, including a biblical citation for support. Most likely as a result of the social reality during the period of the Rishonim, the question arose as to whether Purim gifts could be allocated to the non-Jewish destitute. The laws of charity state that for the sake of peaceful relationships with neighboring gentiles, charity is given to them as well as to Jews.110 Rabbi Simhah of Vitry, a disciple of Rashi, objects to this ruling in his collection of laws.111 He explains that in Esther 9:22, the phrase “and gifts to the poor” refers to Jews, not gentiles, and if charity is given to gentiles it is stealing from the Jewish poor. He explains that initially, Jews were embarrassed to ask for assistance and sent their children 106 Generally,

whenever there is a contradiction between the BT and YT, the rabbis will follow the BT. 107 Laws of Megillah 1:16-17. 108 Esther 9:22. 109 Isaiah 57:15.Translations of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah have been adapted from the translation of Solomon Gandz and Hyman Klein (Yale University Press, 1961). 110 Basing their ruling on BT Gitin 61a. 111 Laws of Purim, paragraph 9.

77

78

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual with their gentile nurses to collect money. However, people began giving charity to the nurses and maid servants rather than the Jewish children.112 Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg permits the distribution of Purim gifts (or money) to non-Jews if this tradition was already being practiced in a specific location. Starting such a ritual would be prohibited. Maimonides (based upon the Talmudic statement saying that we are not particular about who receives gifts) rules that it is permitted to give Purim charity to a gentile. He adds that not doing so might cause hostile relationships. The Tur succinctly codifies the laws of Matanot La’evyonim and makes the following points:113 1. Every Jew is obligated to give two gifts to two poor persons on Purim. 2. Monies that are collected should be distributed on Purim. 3. The monies collected are used exclusively for the needy person’s Purim obligations and cannot be redirected to other charities. 4. The destitute individual must use the charity he receives on Purim toward the Purim meal. 5. The Jew is obligated to give charity to anyone who requests on Purim without any inquiry. 6. In distributing charity on Purim, one does not differentiate between a Jew and non-Jew.114 An additional charity collection known as Mahatzit Hashekel (half a shekel) was developed during the period of the Rishonim.115 This donation 112 A

similar view is attributed directly to Rashi. See Siddur Rashi, section 346, Sefer Hapardes LeRashi, section 205. See Yaari (1961, pp. 18-19), who cites the various sources that discuss this practice. 113 OH 694. 114 In paragraph 3 of SA, Rabbi Karo adopts the ruling of the Maharam rather than that of the Tur Shulhan Arukh and writes, “In a locality where it is the practice to give [Purim money] even to a non-Jew it may [in fact] be given to [a non-Jew].” If it is not the practice of this locality then it would not be permitted. 115 For a detailed discussion of the half-shekel contribution, see Yaari, 1961, pp. 19-26; Oberlander, 2005, pp. 257-291; Lieberman, 1997, pp. 62-67; and Freund, 2002, pp. 239-273.

Behind the Purim Mask in its original form dates back to Temple times and could be made throughout the Hebrew month of Adar to purchase sacrificial animals throughout the year. The Mahatzit Hashekel was also considered to be a means for atonement (kapara) for one’s sins. The Geonim116 strongly objected to the practice of collecting the Shekalim charity funds after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.117 If an individual were to dedicate his money to the shekel collection and therefore consider it as a donation to the Temple, this money would become holy and could not be used for the poor. Historian Avraham Yaari points out that except for the city of Izmir, the rest of Turkey and the North African Jewish communities adhered to the Geonic reservations and did not practice the ritual of the half-shekel.118 Yaari identified Rabbi Isaac ben Asher Halevi as the first of the Rishonim to discuss the half-shekel contribution on Purim.119 Riva writes that during the month of Adar one should give a third of a shekel as a symbolic remembrance of the shekel ritual offered in the Jerusalem Temple. Riva emphasizes that this contribution is for general charity, not in fulfillment of the commandment to donate half a shekel. Gedalia Oberlander acknowledges Rabbi Efraim of Bonn as the first Rishon to refer to this ritual.120 Rabbi Efraim bypasses the concern that Mahatzit Hashekel is a Temple-bound custom, stating that one should specify that the gift is intended for the poor. In addition, Rabbi Eleazar Rokeah of Worms, in his Torah commentary, Sefer HaRokeah Parshat Ki Tisa, refers to the ritual of giving three coins of Mahatzit Hashekel on Purim as the only “Purim monies” collected. According to the writings of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, the Maharam, we find that the custom of the half-shekel was established in the European Jewish communities by the thirteenth century. The rabbi writes 116 Yaari

(1961, p. 20) argues that the text in the Tractate Sofrim (21:2) that positively discusses the Shekalim contribution after the destruction of the Temple is a later insertion not from the Geonic period. 117 The objection of the Geonim is found in Seder Rav Amram Gaon OT 71, Teshuvot Geonei Mizrach Umaarav, section 40. 118 Yaari, 1961, p. 21. 119 Tosafot Riva. 120 Oberlander, 2005, pp. 258.

79

80

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual that the monies were collected at the minha prayer on the eve of Purim. The custom is also discussed by various students of the Maharam, as well as other Rishonim, such as Rabbi Mordekhai ben Hillel, Rabbi Shimshon ben Tzaddok, Rabbi Yitzchak of Corbeil in his halakhic compendium the Semak,121 and in the Minhag Tov (section 82) from an unknown Italian author from the late thirteenth century. Contrary to the opinion of his colleagues, in Lekah Tov Rabbi Tovia ben Eliezer argues that one should replace the mitzvah of Mahatzit Hashekel with the Purim obligation of Matanot La’evyonim. Rabbi Yaakov Moelin is credited with setting the stage for future generations to adopt the practice. In the fourteenth century he designated two collection plates to be positioned in the synagogue on the eve of Purim, one called Mahatzit Hashekel and the other the Purim fund.The former is dedicated to the needy or the immigrant Jews in Israel and the latter to the destitute, to the exclusion of those immigrants, according to the laws of Purim. Maharil adds that only a person over twenty years of age is obligated in this ritual. The Rishonim disputed when the half shekel should be collected. Three options were suggested: from the beginning of Adar until Purim, on the eve of Purim, or on Purim itself.They also debated the number of coins to be used, three or two, and whether the value of the half shekel should be based upon local currency or the value of the shekel in the era of the Temple.They could not agree on who is obligated to give, nor the contributor’s age, whether twenty, thirteen, or younger. Is a woman obligated, and if so, should she also contribute for a fetus in her womb? Where to allocate the funds was not universally agreed upon, either.Were the funds to be directed to the poor in Israel, to immigrants, to assist scholars in need, or to the reader of the Megillah as payment? The ritual of Mahatzit Hashekel, originally a source of atonement, is not discarded easily by the observant Jew. Similar to what I have written about in the case of kapparot onYom Kippur,122 the rabbis were apprehensive about the shekel ritual because it was embedded in popular Jewish superstition, but they understood the difficulty in prohibiting it. Similarly, we find the practice of half-shekel donation a custom not readily discarded by the Jews. 121 Sefer

Mizvot Ketanot mitzvah 146. Fishbane (2011, pp. 35-62), where I discuss the ritual of Kapparot, a practice rooted in superstition.

122 See

Behind the Purim Mask Therefore the rabbis structured the ritual of the half-shekel and took it under their authority while emphasizing that it was only considered to be in remembrance (lezecher) of the Jerusalem Temple ritual. Furthermore, as stated above, the case of Mahatzit Hashekel, according to the traditional normative pattern of halakhah, should be included among all other cases of prohibited Temple-related rituals. Thus, permitting the collection of Mahatzit Hashekel on Purim actually includes it amongst the other rituals of “reversals” celebrated on this day. Aharonim Though the Tur Shulhan Arukh and Rabbi Karo’s Shulhan Arukh123 choose not to discuss the laws of the half-shekel, the Rema, representing the practices of Ashkenazi Jewry, does: There are [authorities] who say that one should give before Purim half of the coin that is current in that locality at the time, in remembrance of the half a shekel that was given in [the month] of Adar. In view of [the fact] that [the word] contribution (terumah) is written three times in the passage [of the Torah which deals with the obligation to give a half-shekel], one should give three [such halves]. One should give [a half-shekel] on the eve of Purim [to charity]. [He should give it] before the Minha [service] is prayed.This is [in fact] the practice in all these provinces. One should give three half groschen [a European coin introduced in the thirteenth century] in these provinces, as there is no coin which is described [in them] as a half other than this. … Only someone who is twenty [years] of age or more is obligated to give it. There are [authorities] who say that one should give half a shekel to charity apart from these three half [coins], but this is not the practice.

The author of the Mishnah Berurah quotes the Magen Avraham as saying that the practice in his community was to give the half-shekel on Purim morning (694:4), whereas in the Hafetz Haim’s community, the practice coincides with Maharil’s of giving at the minha service on Ta’anit Esther. The Mishnah Berurah adds two new variations: that the obligation for half a shekel begins at the age of thirteen and that an adult should allot a half-shekel for his small children and, in the case of a pregnant woman, for her fetus as 123 OH

694.

81

82

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual well (subparagraph 5).This view is further substantiated in other codes like the Hayei Adam by Rabbi Avraham Danzig (154:4). Yaari writes that the Sefardim, influenced by their Ashkenazi brethren, adopted the ritual of collecting funds under the name Mahatzit Hashekel.124 The contemporary practice of Sefardim is manifested in the writings of Rabbi Yosef and summarized in an abbreviated Code of Laws, section 692, that mostly follows the rulings of the Mishnah Berurah. A survey of the Aharonim reveals additional channels for the Mahatzit Hashekel funds. The monies collected began to be distributed to others, in addition to the needy and immigrants in Israel. In some communities—for example, in Hungary—the monies were offered to the synagogue reader of Megillat Esther.125 Rabbi Mordekhai Yaffe, author of the Levush, writes that the collected funds from Mahatzit Hashekel should be distributed to needy rabbinical scholars who can use the money in order to have a joyful Purim.126 Similarly, the author of the Kaf Ha-Hayyim, Rabbi Yaakov Hayim Sofer, directs that the money gathered in the Diaspora be given to rabbinical scholars in Israel as a means of emulating the period of the Temple (686:22). Rabbi Palagi prefers to offer the funds to rabbinical scholars and Rabbi Yosef suggests giving the monies to the rabbinical academies.127 Others believe the money should go toward the needs of the synagogue, community, or education.128 Numerous rabbinical adjudicators, including Rabbi Judah Ashkenazi, the author of the Minhat Eliezar, in his Be’er Hetev commentary to the SA, agree that the community ought to offer the Mahatzit Hashekel funds to the synagogue reader of the Megillah.129 Rabbi Epstein in his Arukh HaShulhan 694:8 says that the monies collected from Mahatzit Hashekel can be allocated

124 Yaari, 1961, p. 25. 125 See Yaari, 1961, p. 26. 126 OH

section 686:2. Daat, vol. 1, section 6. 128 See Freund, 2002, pp. 262-263. 129 Vol. 1, section 33. 127 Yehave

Behind the Purim Mask to any place desired and not necessarily to refurbish the synagogue.This is so since it [the half-shekel] is only a symbolic memory for the Mahatzit Hashekel that was primarily dedicated to [purchase] sacrifices and presently this is not the case. There are those who allocate the Mahatzit Hashekel for the cantor. There is no issue with this.

Rabbi Epstein clarifies his opinion when he justifies the custom to give “Purim monies” to communities’ religious employees, such as rabbis, cantors, and sextons (694:4). He explains that they depend upon this “bonus” and that to deprive them would not be acceptable behavior. However, Rabbi Epstein also states that one does not fulfill the mitzvah of Matanot La’evyonim if the monies are given to these religious employees, as they cannot be categorized as “needy.” Furthermore, contrary to other rabbinic authorities, the Magen Avraham130 and Rabbi Yosef ben Meir Teom, author of the Pri Megadim, as quoted in Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen’s Beur Halacha,131 write that if the Mahatzit Hashekel monies are allocated to the poor on Purim day, one has fulfilled his obligation of Matanot La’evyonim. A different view that would resolve the Purim obligation is suggested by Rabbi Hayim Margolith in his commentary on the SA, Shaarei Teshuvah. He objected to a general distribution of the Mahatzit Hashekel funds and argued that it should only be offered to the poor to fulfill the mitzvah.132 Nowhere in the laws of charity is it specifically stated that a woman has the obligation of aiding the needy. It can be assumed that since a wife’s property and money belong to her husband, she cannot offer what is not hers. Yet the discussion of Matanot La’evyonim on Purim seems to suggest that women are still required to do so. The Rema writes, “A woman is obliged like a man to [give] gifts to the poor and to send [food] portions (Mishloah Manot).”133 The author of the Mishnah Berurah explains a woman’s obligation as follows:

130 OH

294:3. 294, opening word “Liten.” 132 See Freund, 2002, p. 263 and ff. 25. 133 OH 695:4. 131 OH

83

84

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual [This is] because the miracle [also] related to all [the women] and [therefore a woman] is [also] required to rejoice [herself] and to rejoice the heart of the poor. It is written,“The Jews upheld and accepted, etc.,” and women were also included [among them].The author of the Magen Avraham writes that he did not see [women] being careful about this. It may be that this [requirement] is only [relevant] for a widow, but when a woman has a husband her husband sends for her to [give to] several people. Nevertheless, [even a woman who has a husband] should be stringent [about this].134

The author of the Hayei Adam takes a stance similar to the Magen Avraham and states, “[Even a woman who has a husband] should be stringent.” Rabbi Zinner points out a discrepancy in the Arukh HaShulhan: in OH 695:18, Rabbi Epstein writes that on Purim a woman is obligated to give gifts to the poor even if she is married, yet in OH 694:2 he rules that a man and a woman are considered one person, meaning one can fulfill the mitzvah for both.135 On the other hand, each of their children, even the ones at home, are required to individually give their Purim charity. Rabbi Zinner attempts to resolve the contradiction by suggesting that in OH 695:18 the rabbi is referring to a case when the husband did not want to include his wife in his allotment to the poor, and thus she would be required to provide her own.136

CONCLUDING REMARKS Gifts to the poor on Purim received special attention from the rabbis and impulsive or spontaneous charity could only be given through their guidance. These rulings, as discussed above, would often contradict the normative halakhic decisions. Although elucidations are offered, the deviation from the standard rules of charity persisted. Once again, this halakhic direction of “unusual” continues to be the norm of the holiday of Purim, but only when sanctioned and adjudicated by the rabbis.

134 OH

695:25.

135 Zinner, 2000, pp. 458-459. 136 Rabinowitz

(2007, p. 202, ff. 139) discusses this contradiction at length, citing the opinions of various Aharonim on the subject.

Behind the Purim Mask C.  Mishloah Manot (Gifts to Friends) Claudia Barcellos Rezende, in her analysis of gifts,137 surveys different anthropological theories such as those of Bronislaw Malinowski, Mauss, William Miller, David Cheal, Douglas, and Isherwood.138 She concludes that although it may appear to be spontaneous, the exchange of gifts actually follows strict regulations. These rules concern who receives the gift, what type of gift it is, and how and when it is offered. Rezende notes that because gift exchanges can create, reinforce, or even disrupt social relations, if these rules are not properly heeded the receiver can be insulted or humiliated.The exchange of food as gifts, however, does not require the same level of reciprocity. Furthermore, food gifts have an advantage over monetary ones, as money—though simpler—is impersonal, while food (especially prepared or cooked foods) sends a message of love, interest, and concern.The food gift is a prop that can stimulate positive memories of the relationship between the giver and recipient.This is manifested especially when the giver and receiver eat and drink together, sharing the gift and thus strengthening the bonds of friendship. Mauss discusses the behavior of gift exchange in primitive societies and its function in social orders. In primitive, tribal societies, he wrote, the exchange of gifts was an integral part of the economic and social stability of the group. It related directly to the hierarchy, prestige, and status of the individual as well as to the solidarity of the group and its members.The process of gift exchange often determined relations between rival factions and tribes and offered the groups a form of insurance. While material objects such as tools, weapons, land, trinkets, and even women were used as gifts, the dominant item was food. It was the most accessible and easily shared. Money or coins were not yet part of the economy and the rules of gift reciprocity, whether implicit or explicit—usually an exchange was marked by a ceremony—would determine the success of the practice. The passage in Esther 9:22, “That they should make them days of feasting and joy and of sending portions to one another and gifts to the poor,” suggests, as I argued above, different rituals associated with 137 Rezende, 2007. 138 1976, 1967, 1993, 1988, and

1978, respectively.

85

86

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual celebration and expected behavior in the small organized groups of this era. Feasting was a communal activity that the entire group was required to attend. Gift reciprocity, whether part of the festive meal or not, was anticipated, as were presents for those who did not have the means to give gifts themselves. There is no mention of the mitzvah of giving gifts or of feasting on Purim in the Tannaitic literature.139 The first references in rabbinic works are in the BT 7a-b and the YT 1:4. The YT writes, Rabbi Yudan Nesia sent Rabbi Hoshayah the Great the thigh [of an animal] and a bottle of wine. [Rabbi Hoshayah] sent him [back a message] saying: “You have fulfilled through us [your obligation of] gifts to the poor [but not your obligation of sending portions].” [Rabbi Yudan Nesia] subsequently sent him an entire calf and a barrel of wine. [Rabbi Hoshayah] sent him [back a message] saying “You have fulfilled through us [your obligation] of sending portions to one another.”

BT relates a similar incident, according to which Rabbi Yehudah Nesia was informed that he fulfilled his obligation with just one (generous) gift. Both Talmuds convey the same message, that there is a mitzvah of Mishloah Manot. Whether it is an integral part of the Purim feast or can be incorporated in the mitzvah of gifts to the poor is not clear. What can be derived from the Talmud is that the feast of Purim is not a communal activity but one for individuals, families, or friends. Gifts did not necessarily require reciprocity; there is no implicit message or function to be achieved other than fulfilling the rabbinical requirement. The question of the required content of the gift or the economic status of the recipient was not an issue for the rabbis regarding how to fulfill the obligation of Mishloah Manot. The Talmud offers an understanding of what the content of the portions should include, setting the stage for a later dialogue of the Rishonim.

139 The

Mishnah Betzah 1:9 discusses offering food presents on Shabbat and holidays. This substantiates the view that in such a social structure as in early rabbinic times, present exchange was commonly practiced. This was not sufficient to require it be part of the laws of Purim.

Behind the Purim Mask Mayer Rafeld discusses two different versions of the BT text that suggest the following disparities in the halakhah:140 1. Liquids can be considered an operational food to fulfill the mitzvah of Mishloah Manot. 2. Food gifts to the poor encompass both the obligation of Matanot La’evyonim and also Mishloah Manot without having to offer two separate presents. 3. The food item need not be immediately edible (it can be raw or uncooked). In the Geonic literature there is only one explicit mention of Mishloah Manot. Rabbi Ahai Gaon’s She’iltot states, “One is obligated to send to his friends gifts,”141 citing the BT Megillah that explicitly mentions Mishloah Manot. Landau cites142 the minor Tractate Sofrim 21:4, which states, “From the proceeds, water and food should be supplied for their poor brethren … [some] supply bread and wine, others supply bread and fish; in any event not less than two gifts should be given, although they may consist only of wheat and beans.” Landau contends that this refers implicitly to the law of Mishloah Manot. As we will see later, the early rabbis included Mishloah Manot within the mitzvah of gifts to the poor. Reasons for the Ritual of Mishloah Manot The Rishonim primarily define the mitzvah of Mishloah Manot as a means of fulfilling or enhancing the requirement of the Purim feast. Landau143 cites Maimonides,144 Rabbi Tzidkiyah HaRofe in his Shibolei Leket (p. 202), and Maharil, all of whom associate the Purim meal with gifts to the poor and portions to friends. Other Rishonim, such as Rabbi Yisrael Isserlein, author of Terumat Hadeshen, explicitly state this relationship: “It seems the reason for Mishloah Manot is that everyone should have sufficient [food] so as to 140 Rafeld, 1998. 141 Parshat Vayakel

67.

142 Landau, 1961, p. 175. 143 Ibid., p. 173. 144 Laws

of Purim 2:17.

87

88

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual fulfill the feast [of Purim] according to the law; as suggested in the Tractate Megillah, Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Chanina bar Avin exchanged their Purim feasts with one another and thus fulfilled [the mitzvah of] Mishloah Manot” (7b). Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, in his liturgical hymn “Mi Kamokha v’ein Kamokhah,”145 also uses this approach. While discussing the problem of how to fulfill the mitzvah of Mishloah Manot if Purim falls on Shabbat, Freund cites the examples of Rishonim Rabbi Aharon HaKohen of Lunel in his compendium the Orhot Hayyim,146 the unknown author of the Kol Bo, Rabbi David ben Levi in the Mikhtam, Rabbi Menachem HaMeiri in his work Beit Habehirah,147 Rabbi Levi ben Haviv’s Haralbach (section 32), and Rabbi David ben Solomon Ibn Abi Zimra in his response to Radbaz,148 all of whom associate Mishloah Manot with the Purim meal. Some authorities had trouble understanding why only a poor Jew was not designated to receive food presents to fulfill the mitzvah of Seudat Purim. As for other Jews who had a basic livelihood and food on their table, why would they require such a gift? In his Hatam Sofer, Rabbi Moses Schreiber explains that the primary purpose was not to embarrass the poor.149 By obligating everyone to accept food gifts, poor and rich alike, the needy who require these food items to eat the Purim feast can accept them without humiliation. It was primarily the Aharonim who redirected the purpose of Mishloah Manot. It was their suggestion to institute it because Mishloah Manot stimulates love and friendship between Jews.150 Rabbi Zinner argues151 that this is the opinion of Rabbi Nissim,152 but this understanding is not clearly stated in the text, though it is explicitly explained in the work of 145 For

detailed discussions of the views of these Rishonim, see Freund, 2002, pp. 324-325. 146 Laws of Purim section 36. 147 BT Megillah 5a. 148 Vol. 1, section 508. The latter two rabbis are considered early Aharonim. 149 OH section 196. 150 An interesting discussion related to this approach concerns if one may give Mishloah Manot to a non-Jew. This topic is discussed in detail in Schochetman, 1987. 151 Zinner, 2000, p. 322 ff. 15. 152 In his commentary on BT Megillah 7b.

Behind the Purim Mask Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz. He writes said that since Haman told King Ahasueros that the Jews were a scattered nation, it is our duty to show his error and demonstrate solidarity by exchanging food gifts.153 This approach is further developed by the Rabbi Judah Loew, commonly known as the Maharal of Prague, in his commentary on Megillat Esther, Or Chadash 9:22.154 Freund suggests this approach to the ritual: If the mitzvah were to give money and not food items, people might feel that they were being short changed, thus fraying, rather than strengthening, friendships.155 Food gifts, he argues, are accepted readily and with fewer pretenses. These two approaches created varied halakhic rulings. Rabbi Simhah Rabinowitz offers twenty differences shaped by the two justifications for the ritual of food gifts.156 For example, the Ben Ish Hai, in his work Responsa Torah Leshma (section 188), asks whether one who, prior to Purim, arranges to send Mishloah Manot with the intention of the package arriving on the day of the holiday, has fulfilled his obligation? Rabinowitz answers that it depends on the intended purpose of the gift. If the reason is that the Mishloah Manot must be eaten at the Purim meal and it has not arrived, the sender has not satisfied his requirement. If the mitzvah is based upon love and friendship, this obligation has been realized. The question appears again for one who desires to fulfill the mitzvah with non-food items, such as clothes, jewelry, tobacco, or something similar that would bring pleasure to the recipient. If the purpose of these gifts is directly related to the Purim meal, items like this that cannot be consumed would obviously fall short of the requirement. But if the mitzvah has its roots in collegiality, one would be permitted to send non-edible items. On this point, Rabbi Rabinowitz157 cites different rabbis who sent their own rabbinical discourses as Mishloah Manot, knowing that it would please the recipients.

153 Zinner, 2000, p. 250. This

work, a commentary on the book of Esther, was sent to the Rabbi’s future father-in-law as a Purim gift. 154 Freund, 2002, p. 326 offers his own analysis of this reason of solidarity being the reason why the rabbis decreed the mitzvah of Mishloah Manot. 155 Ibid., p. 328. 156 Rabinowitz, 1997. 157 Rabinowitz, 1997, p. 590 ff. 92.

89

90

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual The ritual of Mishloah Manot is summarized and codified by Rabbi Karo, who states: “One is obligated to send his fellow two portions of meat or of [other] kinds of food. [This is] because it is stated [among the practices to be followed on these days] ‘and of sending portions, one to another,’ [which implies that one should send] two portions to one person … .”158 Rema, in his gloss, writes “If one sent [food] portions to his fellow, but [his fellow] did not wish to accept them or forwent one [receipt of the portions], one will have fulfilled [his obligation].” This opinion is in accordance with the view that the purpose of the ritual is to enhance the Purim meal. The author of the Mishnah Berurah, who agreed with the “friendship” opinion, comments on the ruling of Rema who says that the purpose of Mishloah Manot is to enhance the meal.This suggests that this author would implicitly support the understanding of the Manot Halevi. He states, “The Pri Chadash disputes this [ruling of Rema]. The Chasam Sofer, likewise, in Section 196, is surprised at this [ruling]” (695:24). On the other hand, the author of the Mishnah Berurah, not wanting to dispute the majority view of the Aharonim, says that non-food or drink items are prohibited (695:20).159 He also rules that the food must be cooked and suitable for immediate consumption, though he notes that there are authorities that permit ritually-slaughtered raw meat that can be cooked immediately. I suggest that Rabbi Epstein in his Arukh HaShulhan recapitulates the view of the Aharonim in the clearest fashion (695:13-18). He commences the laws of food gifts with a unique use of language not used by other rabbinical authorities: “It is a positive commandment of the Megillah [Esther] to send [food] gifts to one friend.” This is no longer an issue of reversal in the structuring of halakhic behavior but rather it is Jewish law based upon the adjudicative principles required to make decisions. Rationalizations and time play a role in this process, but the earlier considerations of the Rishonim and early Aharonim hold less weight; it is the evaluation of the later Aharonim that constitute the final ruling. 158 Shulhan Arukh

OH 695:4. Mishnah Berurah are primarily based upon Aharonim. See Fishbane, 1991, for discussion.

159 The rulings of the

Behind the Purim Mask DISCUSSION Douglas, in her forward to The Gift, writes, “A gift that does nothing to enhance solidarity is a contradiction,” and later, “Spelled out it means that each gift is part of a system of reciprocity in which the honor of the giver and the recipient are engaged. It is a total system in that every item of status, spiritual or material possession is implicated for everyone in the whole community.”160 Sociologist Helmuth Berking summarized the influence or weight of a gift, saying, “It binds everything together: sacrifice, duty, debt, war and peace, status and prestige. The gift presents itself at once as symbolic form and material substratum of social synthesis. It constitutes an exchange which irrevocably unifies economic power and morality, cult and culture.”161 This power of communal solidarity triggered by gifts is applicable to specific social structures. Yet while anthropologists like Mauss and Douglas illustrate how gifts continue to function in societies or tribes in different parts of the world with a specific communal socio-economic structure, the gift as a basic variable in the social and economic life of the community ended with the development and growth of urban societies and culture. Similarly, the concept of Mishloah Manot went through various metamorphoses through the years. The language in Esther suggests that giving gifts was an element in the process of the original celebration. By the period of the Mishnah, group solidarity dependent upon food exchange was not relevant, and Mishloah Manot, even though it had little community value, became one of the laws of the holiday, possibly to enhance charity to the poor. Throughout the period of the Rishonim and especially the Aharonim, the laws of Mishloah Manot took on a new form. Two types of food of any quantity or value—a piece of cake or an apple would suffice to fulfill the mitzvah—were sent. Although the social component was suggested as a rationalization for Mishloah Manot, neither that nor the food had real value for the recipient. In fact, the food is often recycled and sent to others so as to rid the house160 Mauss, 1990, p. XXIII. 161 Berking, 1999, p. 32.

91

92

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual hold of “junk food” before the upcoming Passover holiday. Like the other Purim laws and rituals discussed, Mishloah Manot can be classified as part of the “reversal” rituals that were discussed and finally institutionalized by the rabbis, according to the writing of the Arukh HaShulhan. The Mitzvah of Simhah (Joyfulness) The theme of joy is found throughout Purim and all of its rituals, but it is primarily manifested through drunken revelry and a carnival atmosphere that includes costumes, masks, skits, and written parody. While the simhah expressed on other Jewish holidays focuses on the subdued and spiritual side of joyfulness, Purim is a holiday of raucous merriment and fun. Carnival, Costumes, Masks, Skits, and Parody Carnivals can be traced to ancient times at the earliest stages of cultural development, usually in conjunction with religious and agricultural festivals.162 An early example is the Mardi Gras carnivals, which date back to pagan celebrations of spring and rejuvenation. With the Catholic Church hesitant to abolish a popular folk tradition, these celebrations were incorporated into the faith. The excessive, un-Christian behavior and debauchery led to the carnival becoming a prelude to Lent. Daniel Sperber, an expert on Jewish customs, writes that the European carnival in the eleventh century was celebrated with festive parades or processions, including clowns and costumes.163 This, he argues, had a direct influence on Purim behavior, as the European carnival occurred at a similar time of year as the Jewish holiday. It was not until the Renaissance period in Italy that the carnival took on a life of its own, not affiliated with any religious rituals or structures. A detailed description of the Italian Renaissance carnival is presented by the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin in his introduction to the work of Renaissance writer François Rabelais.164 The carnival folk culture was 162 See

Bakhtin, 1984, pp. 6-7.

163 Sperber, 1998, pp. 198-199. 164 Bakhtin,

1984, pp. 1-58. See also Shuv, 1990, for a description of carnival atmosphere and its relationship to Purim.

Behind the Purim Mask similar to the marketplace found outside the boundaries of the medieval church.The carnival behavior could not and would not be tolerated by the church inside its confines, but on the outside nearly all the laws and behavior of daily society—including religious, moral, and ethical behavior— were not in effect. The carnival had its own value (or lack of value) system. Bakhtin argues that there is no life outside the carnival while it is happening; it is governed by its own rules and regulations, and there is a suspension of all hierarchic distinctions. This behavior, as manifested in the literature of the period, included different speech patterns involving abusive, humiliating, insulting, and profane words and expressions.This form of language was used in lengthy oral presentations, and the behavior was carried over to images of the material body, or what Bakhtin calls “grotesque realism.” He explains, “The essential principle of grotesque realism is degradation, that is, the lowering of all that is high, spiritual, ideal, abstract; it is a transfer to the material level, to the sphere of earth and body in their indissoluble unity.” In other words, sexual inhibitions accepted in most western societies were relaxed if not removed altogether. Similarly, food and drink were not limited in any way: one ate whatever and however much he or she wanted, and drunkenness was an acceptable state. Bakhtin expounds on the Renaissance period by comparing it to the Enlightenment. He writes, To a certain degree it was a reaction against the elements of classicism which characterized the self-importance of the Enlightenment. It was a reaction against the cold rationalism, against official, formalistic and logical authoritarianism; it was a rejection of that which is finished and completed, of the didactic and ultimate spirit of the enlighteners with their narrow and artificial optimism.

The carnival spirit had developed its own philosophy of laughter, sarcasm, and a lack of reason. A driving force of this theme was the wearing of masks. Bakhtin believes that the mask is connected to the “joy of change and reincarnation, with gay relativity and with the merry negation of uniformity and

93

94

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual similarity; it rejects conformity to oneself.The mask is related to transition, metamorphoses, the violation of natural boundaries, to mockery and familiar nicknames.” In other words, masks serve to liberate one from all the required and expected norms of daily behavior. The ritual clown throughout history, especially in medieval Europe, was compared to the fool or jester. In addition, for early cultures the fool was associated with seasonal changes, agricultural cycles, and regeneration. In contemporary times the ritual clown lost its symbolic features and acquired the nature of a fool. Behavior could be hidden behind the mask, in the form of a clown, or expressed openly.165 The clown, argues Handelman, is an ambivalent figure of enticement and danger, hilarity and gravity, fun and solemnity.166 It represented paradoxically contradictory attributes, including the sacred or profane, wisdom or foolishness, seriousness or humor, etc.These characteristics can be found in the clown. Handelman identifies two types of boundaries, one that divides and separates, and the other which acts as a paradox. The clown behind his makeup or mask can operate on both sides of the boundary, and serves to dissolve the absolutism of rigid boundaries.167 How closely the carnival portrayed in the literature actually followed Italian Renaissance behavior is unclear. For the rabbis this conduct was unacceptable, but for a society where secular thinking and behavior was the norm, an era when society came out from under centuries of the stranglehold of the Roman Catholic Church, the liberalizing impact on the Jewish population was inevitable.168 Carnival is the incarnation of both secular and pagan culture.169 Some argue that the carnival-like behavior on Purim dates back to the events mentioned in the book of Esther 9:22: “As the days on which the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month 165 On

the symbolism of the clown, see Handelman, 1998, pp. 236-265.

166 Ibid., p. 236. 167 Ibid., pp. 245-248. 168 I

differentiate “influence” and “impact.” The latter is a result of living in a wide culture, while the former can happen even outside the particular social structure and be even sought after. 169 The Italian Renaissance was marked by the beginnings of a wave of sensuality, including color, touch, smell, and sound, perceived as positive phenomena and not as incitements to sin.

Behind the Purim Mask which was turned to them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning to holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions to one another and gifts to the poor.” This type of celebration suggests a materialistic, rather than spiritual, merriment. In her analysis, Sara Shuv sees all the comportments of the carnival in the story of Esther:170 1. An essential component in the carnival is the crowning of a leader for the day, often a fool. Ahasueros was perceived as a foolish king. 2. Esther and later Mordekhai are crowned while Vashti and Haman are impeached or executed and treated as fools. 3. The costume or mask is apparent in Esther disguising herself as a Persian. Mordekhai changes his clothes for sackcloth171 and later dons royal garments as he is led through the streets by Haman.172 Finally, Mordekhai is appointed to replace Haman and is formally dressed in royal garb.173 4. Drink and alcoholism, which play an essential part in carnival behavior, can be considered a central motif of Esther, starting with the feast at the opening of the story and continuing throughout every phase of the story. 5. Loose sexual behavior, also an aspect of the carnival, is represented by the behavior of Ahasueros, who repeatedly sought to bring a parade of young ladies to his bed. 6. The “reversal” mode of carnival behavior is the true theme or message of the Purim story. The Jews, instead of being annihilated, conquer their foes. The day is reversed from sorrow to joy. As opposed to the behavior of their enemies, the Jews did not partake in the spoils of war. Haman sought a reward from the king, but it was ultimately given to Mordekhai. Haman prepared a tree on which he planned to hang Mordekhai, but the villain of the story and his ten sons were hanged there instead. After 170 Shuv, 1990, pp. 34-35. 171 Esther

4:1. 6:8. 173 Esther 8:15. 172 Esther

95

96

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Haman’s death, Mordekhai received his authority and status at the royal court. 7. Parody and comedy. Shuv perceives the story and its supporting narrative as a comedy of errors. The entire absurd story of Vashti, from her solicited appearance at the King’s banquet to her removal from her royal position, for example, or the story of Haman’s fall.174 Shuv concludes her essay by stating that Purim “succeeded in permeating part of the Holy Scriptures with the carnival spirit and giving it sacred legitimization.”175 Without doubt, there is irony in the text of Esther and characteristics of a carnival spirit and atmosphere, but these did not shape the structure of the Purim festivities. Rather, the carnival atmosphere served to give credibility to the decisions of the rabbis. They sought to justify Purim activities—even though at other times of the year these activities would transgress Jewish law and customs. Furthermore, I doubt if the carnival spirit of a celebration influenced the Holy Scriptures. More likely, the Purim spirit was influenced through the written text. The first suggestion as to the origins of celebrating Purim through carnival-like activities is attributed to a BT source stating that in Babylonia, four or five days prior to Purim, boys would create an effigy of Haman and hang it on their rooftops.176 On Purim day they would throw this effigy into a bonfire and sing songs. A ring was placed in the bonfire and the boys would jump over it. Sperber argues that this custom was first practiced in the Land of Israel.177 The fine line between joyful merriment (simhah), which characterized other holidays, and the unbridled revelry on Purim was a major consideration for the rabbis. How much would they stretch the boundaries of halakhah, and how wide would they open these boundaries to permit the impact of surrounding cultures? Inebriation (to be discussed 174 Shuv, 1990, pp. 35-37. 175 Ibid., p. 42. 176 BT

Sanhedrin 64b. See Sperber (1989, pp. 16-17), who cites the sources for this decision. 177 Sperber, 1989, p. 16.

Behind the Purim Mask below) and the wearing of masks and costumes were among the first challenges. The controversy regarding Purim costumes was initiated as a result of the biblical prohibition against a man wearing a woman’s clothes (beged isha).178 The first record of this practice is found in the work of Rabbi Moshe ben Eliezar Hacohen Mekovlantz (a nephew of Rosh and student of Maharam Me-Rotenberg), Sefer Hamaskil. While he did not approve, there is evidence that beged isha was practiced in thirteenth-century Germany. A century later it was referred to in Even Bochan by rabbinic scholar Rabbi Kalonymus ben Kalonymus. The first written rabbinical response permitting the custom is found in the book of Responsa of Rabbi Yehudah Halevi Mintz (section 16). Concerning the wearing of costumes,179 he writes that the young men and women were permitted to exchange clothes because their intention when dressing in the garments of the opposite sex was solely for the purpose of rejoicing on Purim. He also cites early rabbinic German authorities180 from the twelfth century whose children and relatives of different genders exchanged clothes. According to Rabbi Mintz, on Purim this leniency also applies to the wearing of rabbinic mixtures of kilayim, a forbidden mixture. Oberlander argues that Rabbi Mintz is posing two questions: whether there can be an exchange of clothes between men and women, and whether it is permissible to wear costumes.181 Rema codified the law182 based on the opinion of Rabbi Mintz,183 178 Deuteronomy

22:5. See Hanegbi (1998, pp. 194–205), who discusses this topic as well as the other carnival aspects in detail. Hanegbi, especially in his footnotes, offers an encompassing list of sources that deal with this topic. See also Oberlander, 2005, pp. 292-306; Freund, 2002, pp. 443-458; and Fishman, 1937, pp. 204-217. 179 The Hebrew word is parzuf. Hanegbi (1998, p. 195) correctly points out that this word is not used to mean face but rather costume or mask. 180 They are Rabbi Elyakim ben Meshulam and Rabbi Yitzchak ben Asher (Riva). 181 Oberlander, 2005, p. 295 ff. 6. 182 OH 697:8. 183 See also Rema’s Darchei Moshe, section 696, who first argues with Rabbi Mintz but concludes that since the custom has already spread, one should rule leniently as the intention is to celebrate the joy of Purim.

97

98

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual As regards the practice of wearing masks on Purim, with a man wearing a woman’s dress and a woman a man’s garment, there is no transgression of a prohibition involved in the matter, since their intention in dressing in this manner is only for mere rejoicing. This ruling applies likewise to the wearing of something that has the ruling of kilayim, according to rabbinic law. There are authorities who say that this is forbidden, but the practice accords with the first reasoning.

Rabbi Yaffe, in his code the Levush, follows the lenient decision of Rema. Although the custom spread, many of the later rabbinical authorities objected. Among the Rishonim who opposed the practice were Rabbi Eleazar Rokeach of Worms and the Ravyah (Rabbi Eliezer ben Joel Halevi, Germany).184 The author of the Mishnah Berurah summarizes their views (697:30).185 Rabbi David Halevi, the Taz,186 writes in the name of the Bach187 that this practice should be abolished, both on Purim and at the rejoicing for a wedding. Rabbi Moshe Rivkash, the Be’er Hagolah, likewise held this opinion that if all the garments of the revelers are men’s clothing, with only one garment being women’s clothing, so that one can recognize that the wearers are men, there may be no need to protest against them (cited in the Pri Megadim; see also the Knesset Hagedolah,188 and the Shelah,189 who admonishes the people to shun this practice).190 When referring to those in the opposition, it is important to mention both the Italian rabbinical authority Rabbi Shmuel Abuhav191 and a contemporary of Rema, Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim Luntshitz, a leading 184 Cited

in Hanegbi, 1998, p. 195, and Freund, 2002, p. 453. Yoreh Deah section 182. 186 Turei Zahav. 187 Bayit Hadash. 188 His ruling is found in OH section 696. 189 Shenei Luhot haBrit, Rabbi Yeshaya haLevi Horowitz. His ruling is found in his commentary at the end of Megillah. 190 The Bach’s emphasis is that even though it should be prohibited when intentional sinning is not the issue, it is preferred to allow the error. Rabbi Shmuel Abuhav, who strongly opposes the custom, disagrees with the Bach’s reason for leniency. He argues that the principle of permitting a prohibition when an act is not intentional does not apply in cases when the prohibition is biblical, as in instances when men wear women’s clothes. 191 Responsa Divar Shmuel, question 247. 185 See

Behind the Purim Mask rabbinical authority in Prague.192 They considered the stretching of the boundaries a violation of a biblical law. In the nineteenth century, Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein in his nine-volume halakhic work, the Arukh HaShulhan, wrote that in Russia there was no custom of the sexes exchanging clothes.193 Sperber attributes that change to the historical separations of Central and Eastern Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.194 Today, especially in non-centrally located Jewish communities where rabbinical academies and their rabbis have less influence, the custom has greater popularity. Rabbi Yosef prohibits the exchange of clothes and states that it is forbidden to transgress a biblical law in favor of Purim merriment.195 He even discouraged children, who are not yet bound by the letter of the law (save for educational goals), from participating.196 While the overall carnival atmosphere prevailed, the rabbis were cognizant of which boundaries needed to be preserved and which practices they could permit. Although costumes, masks, and clowns are also part of the Purim carnival atmosphere, the rabbis dedicated less attention to these topics. Throughout the year these customs were not sanctioned by the rabbis, but on Purim they offered various rationalizations for the inclusion in the holiday.197 Popular justifications for the wearing of masks and costumes include: 1. The story of Esther presents multiple examples of hiding one’s true identity or changing one’s outward appearance.They include Esther withholding her Jewish identity from Ahasueros, and

192 Olilot

Efraim, p. 309. 496:12. 194 Sperber, 1998, p. 197. 195 Responsa Yechave Da’at, vol. 5, pp. 221-227. 196 Zinner, 2000, pp. 406-410, a contemporary rabbi reflecting the modern day Ultra-Orthodox stringent view. Freund (2002, pp. 457-458) discusses different costumes worn on Purim, including dressing as a non-Jew, soldier, Haman, and clown. In all these instances he shows the stringent approach. 197 An extensive list of these reasons can be found in Freund, 2002, pp. 443-449; Fishman, 1937, pp. 409-410; and Oberlander, 2005, pp. 292-300. 193 OH

99

100

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Mordekhai changing into different types of clothes three times. Vashti, the Midrash tells us, had her physical exterior guise altered. 2. The BT198 asks (and answers): “Where in the Torah is there an allusion to the epic of Queen Esther? Rav Masnah replied: From the verse ‘And I will surely conceal (astir) my countenance from them.’”199 Masks are worn to symbolize God’s hidden presence on Purim, as the miracle of redemption is celebrated without the revealed intervention of the Lord. Fisch argues that children dressing in costumes and wearing masks represent individuals or figures they could never become. While emphasizing the incongruity of such roles, it “reinforces the solidarity of the group and reaffirms the qualities that differentiate this in-group from the outside world.”200 Clown costumes should logically be considered no different than any other costume worn on Purim. Freund cites a rabbi who argues that this should be prohibited, using the rationale that clowns represent the gentile type of merrymaking that is not appropriate for Jews. As an alternative, Freund quotes a prominent twentieth-century rabbi who permits it.201 Another explanation for the acceptance of the practice is that of the Purim parody, a part of the carnival spirit. Purim parodies were first written during the twelfth century.202 Menachem ben Aaron wrote the hymn for the night of Purim, imitating the hymn for the first night of Passover. This Purim parody, a wine song in the form of a religious song, found its way into Rabbi Simhah ben Shmuel’s Mahzor Vitri: “The night [of Purim] is a night for drunkards/A night for wine drinking and rejoicing/On this night all creation is intoxicated/And woe betide the man who should put forth his hand for the bitter water/The day of Purim is a day of feasting and drinking and merrymaking.”203

198 BT

Hulin 139b. 31:18. 200 Fisch, 1994, p. 69. 201 Freund, 2002, p. 458. 202 Davidson (1952, p. 330) points out that in prior Jewish religious literature parody is not found. In the Talmud we find cases of humor, puns, and satire, but not parody. 203 Translated and cited in Davidson, 1952, p. 331. 199 Deuteronomy

Behind the Purim Mask Purim parody was neglected for about a century, but in fourteenth-century Italy it was established as a distinct part of Jewish literature. For example, Rabbi Kalonymus ben Kalonymus204 wrote a satire titled Tractate Purim. Using the structure of the Mishnah and Talmud with its commentaries, as well as the system of Talmudic discourse, he wrote a fascinating Talmudic parody. The theme of the booklet is wine and drink; it ridicules the drunkard and the glutton, laughs at the miser, and reproaches the idler and the professional mendicant. Although it was published two hundred years after it was written, it still became very popular. Rabbi Kalonymus summarized the humor of his work, saying: Wherefore does this tract close with the chapter,“We Are to Read?” Because we are not to read this treatise except when it is neither day or night. For it was written in mere fun, to amuse people on Purim. He who reads this treatise is none the worse for it than if he read books on medicine, and similar topics, which prove beneficial to the body and not harmful to the soul.205

Not all the rabbis were comfortable with this type of literature. Rabbi Shmuel Abuhav saw it as sacrilegious and was responsible for the burning of many copies of Masechet Purim.206 Y. L. Ha’Kohen Fishman argues that Kalonymus ben Kalonymus intended his work as a means of deterring the Italian Jewish community from imitating the secular Italian carnival so as not to infringe on the holiness of the Jewish text.207 Regardless of his intentions, the parody genre stretched the boundaries of Jewish law to the limit. In the years that followed, other Purim parodies emerged. They included Sefer Habakkuk, an anonymous parody based upon the Azharot of Rabbi Elijah HaZaken. The Megillat Setarim, likely by Rabbi Levi ben Gershon, continues the Purim parody literature. Referencing drunkenness, his book begins with: “The bottle received the Laws from Vineyard and handed it down to Noah, and Noah handed it down to Lot, and Lot to the 204 Masechet

Purim was written while he lived in Rome and first published in 1513. from Davidson, 1952, p. 333. All additional parodies cited are also are taken from Davidson, 1952. 206 Responsa Divar Shmuel, section 193. 207 Fishman, 1937, p. 411. 205 Translation

101

102

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual brothers of Joseph, and they handed it down to Nabal the Carmelite, and he to Ben-hadad, and Ben-hadad to Belshazzar, and Belshazzar to Ahasueros, and Ahasuerues to Rabbi Drunkard.” This Talmudic-style parody is similar to that of Rabbi Kalonymus. Davidson points out that after the period of the Italian Purim parody, this humorous genre saw a time of decay lasting almost three centuries.208 He argues that the period between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries are not generally known for humor, especially when applied to sacred texts. The Purim parody returned, not only similar in structure and style to Tractate Purim, but even using the same name.209 While its author or authors remained anonymous, the work appeared in five versions. The last one, writes Davidson, offered a radical change in substance and form. “The arguments are put more compactly, the language is more concise and the diction closer to that of the Babylonian Talmud. In addition, it is also augmented with parodies of the three best known Talmudic commentaries, namely Rashi, Tosafot and the novella of Rabbi Samuel Edels.”210 This version, although only published in 1814, was even more popular than the writings of Rabbi Kalonymus. From the Purim parody literature, the Purim Kiddush, a humorous parody using play-on-words with well-known Jewish concepts, became part of many Purim feasts.211 Other parodies appeared in the form ofYiddish plays and as other rabbinic works, such as the Zohar. While the early parodies had little bearing on the contemporary life of their authors, later works in the nineteenth century reflected the social and intellectual reality of the times. Fishman212 includes the category of Purim disguises and the concept of the “Purim Rabbi” within the Purim parody. In nineteenth-century Hasidic and rabbinical academies, a student usually known for his wit, superior intelligence, and Talmudic knowledge was appointed Purim 208 Davidson, 1952, p. 338. 209 Provence. Rabinowitz (1963, p. 179) writes that the bibliographer Dr. M. Steinschneider

compiled a list of more than 200 Purim parodies. 210 Davidson, 1952, p. 343. 211 There

is no Kiddush, a prayer with a blessing over the wine on Purim. Because the Kiddush requires wine, it would be a natural focus for the Purim parody. 212 Fishman, 1937, pp. 413-414.

Behind the Purim Mask Rabbi. Although this custom is generally believed to have originated in the Volozhin Yeshiva, Fishman argues that the custom of appointing a Purim Rabbi was practiced in earlier times within the Hasidic courtyards and other rabbinical academies.213 The Purim Rabbi was selected by the yeshiva’s leadership to replace for one day, Purim, the Rosh HaYeshiva, the head of the academy. He would be dressed in the clothes of the Rosh HaYeshiva and addressed as “rebbi,” a title otherwise reserved for the yeshiva’s leaders. Also, the Purim Rabbi would be expected to deliver a special Purim lecture using Talmudic and rabbinical sources as his basis and structure but in an entertaining, satirical fashion. His delivery would often include good-natured criticism of the Rosh HaYeshiva and other teachers. Not all rabbinical authorities felt that such behavior was acceptable. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef believed that this custom should be prohibited since mocking rabbinic scholars is a sin. He argued that the commandment of rejoicing is confined to the festive meal.214 It should be noted that during the eighteenth century Rabbi Hayim Yosef David Azulai, who represented the Sephardic community, said that during a visit to Amsterdam he encountered the Purim Rabbi for the first time, for this was not a custom within the Sephardic community.215 Inebriation The consumption of alcohol and especially wine is not prohibited in Judaism. Indeed, wine is an important component of several Jewish rituals, accompanying holy ceremonies and rituals from the time of the Temple until the present. Blessings are said over wine, and some laws stipulate the type and amount of wine to be used while others endorse or prohibit the type of individual who may touch or drink the wine.

213 1806–1892,

located in Volozhin, Belarus. On a smaller scale it was reopened from 1899 through 1934, when World War II forced its closing. 214 Yalkut Yosef, p. 343 and ff. 13-14. See also Obadiia Yosef, Hazon Obadya, pp. 199-201 and ff. 29, and his Responsa Yechave Da’at, vol. 5, responsa 50, where he cites numerous rabbinical authorities to support his view. 215 1724-1806, Israel.

103

104

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Still, the practice or even possibly the requirement to become intoxicated—as opposed to simply drinking—on Purim would seem to directly contradict rabbinic law.216 The origin of becoming inebriated on Purim is attributed to a statement in BT Megillah 7b: Rava said: One is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until one does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordekhai. Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira had their Purim feast together. They became intoxicated. Rabbah arose and slew Rabbi Zeira. The next day, Rabbah prayed for mercy on Rabbi Zeira’s behalf and revived him. The following year Rabbah asked Rabbi Zeira, “Let master come and we will have the Purim feast together.” Rabbi Zeira answered him, “Not every time does a miracle occur.”

Various explanations are offered as to why one should become inebriated on Purim based upon this Talmudic incident. Freund cites twelve reasons to justify this practice,217 the most popular being the same opinion of Rabbi Shmuel from Toledo and the author of Avudram, then concluding with the author of the Hayei Adam and the author of the Mishnah Berurah. They argue that it is accepted because the entire miracle of Purim revolved around wine, beginning with the banquet of Ahasueros and Vashti and concluding with Esther’s coronation and banquet. Just as the miracle of Hanukkah centered on oil and resulted in the lighting of an oil lamp (Menorah), Freund says that Purim encourages a similar relationship with wine. Whether the reason was homiletic or Kabbalistic, it offered the celebrating Jew a rationalization to discard the halakhic norm that forbids intoxication. Some rabbis disagree as to the meaning of inebriation on Purim and their opinions generally fall into three categories: those who object to becoming intoxicated on Purim, those who do not see the practice as an

216 For

secondary sources that are concerned with the topic of drinking on Purim, see Rafeld, 1998, pp. 207-208; Adler, 1991; and Freund, 2002, pp. 404-442. 217 Freund, 2002, pp. 407–415.

Behind the Purim Mask obligation but rather a permitted mitzvah (mitzvah be’alma), and those who hold that inebriation on Purim is required.218 Rabbi Ahai Gaon in his She’iltot quotes the Talmud and adds, “One is obligated to eat and drink and become intoxicated with wine on Purim until one does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordekhai.”219 Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Berlin in his commentary on the She’iltot explains that one must first fulfill the obligation of partaking in the Purim feast and praising the Lord before becoming intoxicated. By following this suggestion, one can argue that the Geonim required Purim inebriation. However, Rabbi HaMeiri, in his commentary to BT Megillah 7b, objected strongly to becoming drunk on Purim. He explains in the name of a “few of the Geonim” that Rabbah’s refusal to celebrate with Rabbi Zeira a second time was for fear of suggesting that inebriation was an obligation on Purim. 1.  Those who object to intoxication on Purim a. Rishonim Rabbenu Efraim of Kila Chamad,220 considered the first to oppose the practice, is quoted in Rabbi Zerahyah Halevi’s Hame’or, a commentary on Yitzchak Alfasi’s halakhot, the Tractate Megillah 7b. Rabbi Efraim is also quoted in other commentaries on Alfasi concerning the same Talmudical discussion. They include Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven (the Ran) and Rabbi Yehudah ben Berechyah (the Ribav). A more complete version of Rabbi Efraim’s view is cited in Rabbi Avraham ben Isaac of Narbonne’s work Sefer HaEshkol.221 He states: Rabbi Efraim wrote: Since the story is brought—(namely that) Rabbah went and cut Rabbi Zeira’s throat because they were drunk, and the next year when he said to him “Let us have the Purim (feast) together,” Rabbi Zeira responded, “A miracle may not happen every time,” it follows that

218 Rafeld

(1998) offers four different approaches, but for the purpose of this chapter I will discuss three. 219 Sh’eiltot Derav Ahai Gaon 67. 220 A student of the Alfasi. 221 Laws of Hanukkah and Purim, 8.

105

106

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual the statement [that one should become drunk on Purim] of Rava is rejected. And it is correct that this should be so.”222

The authors of the Orhot Hayyim (p. 268) and the Kol Bo (p. 334)223 use stronger language, saying that it is “a serious prohibition (issur gamur)” and “a serious transgression (avera gedolah)” to become drunk on Purim. They explain that inebriation can cause such sins as killing and sexual transgressions. Rabbi Meyer ben Rabbi Shimon Hamili used the same argument, but added idol worship and denunciation of divine providence as other potential sins that stem from drunkenness (pp. 320-321).224 A different approach to the rejection of intoxication on Purim was offered by Rabbi Yosef Haviva in his work the Nimukei Yosef. He writes that the type of behavior intended by early rabbis on Purim was “joking,” not drunkenness.225 Other Rishonim sought to reduce the level of inebriation in different ways. Maimonides writes that one should drink until he becomes drunk and falls asleep, thereby being incapable of distinguishing “between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordekhai.”226 The author of Tanya Rabbati writes that one should drink “close to intoxication.”227 These ambiguous statements leave it to later rabbinical adjudicators to determine the parameters of drinking on Purim. 222 The

translation is adapted from Adler, 1991, pp. 7-8. Orhot Hayyim was authored by Rabbi Aharon HaKohen of Lunel. The author of the Kol Bo seems to be an abridged form of the Orhot Hayyim, whose authorship is unknown. Some attribute it as an earlier version of Rabbi Aharon’s and the forerunner to the Orhot Hayyim. 224 Rafeld (1998, pp. 217-220) argues that the majority of the rabbis who opposed drunkenness were from Provence. In additional works of the rabbinical authorities of Provence, we find this approach, such as that in Sefer Hamanhig and Magen Avot of Menahem HaMeiri. Rafeld (ibid., p. 220) argues that the approach of the rabbis to this practice could have resulted from the community’s social and educational needs. 225 Commentary on BT Megillah 7b. 226 Laws of Purim, chapter 2:15. See the Arukh HaShulhan OH 695:2 explaining the view of Maimonides. 227 Section 41, Issues Regarding the Purim Feast, written in the thirteenth century; it is unclear who authored this work. Some attribute it to Rabbi Yehiel ben Rabbi Yekutiel Ha-Rofe. 223 The

Behind the Purim Mask Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, a prominent rabbi in the twentieth century, summarizes the views which object to becoming drunk on Purim and adds that since the story of Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira showing the dangers of drinking follows Rava’s law requiring intoxication, one could only conclude that the Talmud redactors did not support Rava’s opinion.228 An additional interpretation offered other explanations of the quantitative term “ad,” used by Rava, which means “until the point of,” where he cannot differentiate between “blessed be Mordekhai” and “cursed be Haman.” In other words, one should drink only up to the point of drunkenness and not beyond.229 b. Aharonim Rabbi Moshe Isserles, known as Rema, who commented on the words of Rabbi Karo supporting intoxication, writes, There are authorities who say that one does not need to become as drunk as that, but he should merely drink more than he is used to drink and sleep, and being asleep he will not be aware of the difference between “cursed be Haman” and “blessed be Mordekhai.” Whether one drinks more or whether one drinks less, it is commendable provided his heart’s intention is the service of Heaven.230

Rabbi Yoel Sirkis supports the view of Rema. He writes: “And it appears that for this reason the redactor of the Talmud arranged this story of Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira after the statement of Rava: that is, this statement of Rava was the law but that it should not be practiced.” Rabbi Sofer, in his homilies from 1897, argues that there is a mitzvah of joy on Purim that can be fulfilled in ways other than drunkenness. A  similar approach was offered earlier by Rabbi Yeshaya Horowitz. The author of the Pri Chadash emphasizes that as a result of the negative social reality of his time, it is correct to rule as Rabbi Efraim, that on Purim one should drink slightly more than he is used to on other holidays. The Sefer 228 Zevin, 1954, pp. 203-204. 229 See Adler

(1991, p. 11) for a discussion of sources who offer this opinion. OH 695:2.

230 Shulhan Arukh

107

108

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Yosef OmetzYezufa, section 1101, says that if drinking will lead to disgracing any mitzvah, even rabbinical, it is forbidden. Later authorities and commentators (too numerous to present in this essay) offered various explanations for how one should reach such a state of confusion without becoming drunk.231 These approaches have been voiced by more recent rabbinical authorities, such as Rabbi Yaakov Hayim Sofer, author of the Kaf Ha-Hayyim,232 Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach,233 and Rabbi Yosef,234 who all discourage or even prohibit inebriation on Purim. From the language of some rabbinical authorities such as Maimonides, the author of Sefer Hatadir, Responsa of the Radbaz,235 and the author of Rokeah (section 237),236 it can be concluded that only wine can be used to fulfill the mitzvah of drinking on Purim. This restriction prohibiting other types of alcohol consumption, whether consciously or not, is a possible means of curtailing drunkenness. 2. Those who do not see the practice as an obligation, but rather as a proper act (mitzvah be’alma) 237 Rabbi Eliezer ben Joel Halevi of Bonn, the Ravyah, quoted in the Hagahot Maimoni, is the first to rule that drinking is not an obligation but rather a mitzvah be’alma, a recommended practice.238 Maharil responded to the question of drinking on Purim by saying that Rava’s statement means that one is permitted, but not required, to become intoxicated.239 This is because the passage says “days of drinking party (mishteh),” which does not require excessive drinking of alcohol. Rabbi Isaac Tirna also indicates that drinking is an allowable mitzvah, rather than an obligation. 231 See

the Arukh HaShulhan OH 695:1-5; Zinner, 2000, pp. 400-406; Adler, 2001, pp. 8-11; and Freund, 2000, pp. 407–417, who offer many of these reasons. 232 Sofer, 1967, section 695. 233 Auerbach, 2003, pp. 342-343 and accompanying footnotes. 234 Yosef, 1988, p. 340, paragraph 3. 235 Vol. 1, section 462. 236 For a more complete list and discussion, see Zinner, 2000, p. 402 ff. 5. 237 I am basing this section primarily upon the sources found in Rafeld, 1998, pp. 213-216. 238 Chapter 2, Laws of Megillah 15:2. This is a gloss to Mishneh Torah by Rabbi Meir HaKohen. 239 Maharil Section 56:9.

Behind the Purim Mask He writes, “It is a mitzvah to be happy and drink and become very drunk on Purim.”240 In the Be’ur Halakhah, the author of the Mishnah Berurah quotes Rabbi Eliyahu Shapira’s Eliyahu Rabbah, which states that intoxication on Purim is a mitzvah but is not required. This approach softens the impact of the original ruling by permitting—as opposed to requiring—drunkenness for one day each year.

3.  Those who require inebriated on Purim a. Rishonim Alfasi, in his presentation of BT Megillah 7b plainly states: “A man is obligated to become drunk on Purim until he can no longer distinguish between ‘cursed be Haman,’ and ‘blessed be Mordekhai.’” The Talmudic story of Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira is omitted, implying that the Rif believed that there is an obligation to become drunk on Purim. Other Rishonim agree, including Rashi in the Sefer HaOrah,241 Rabbi Yitzchak ben Abba Mari in the HaItur (111a), Rabbi Eliezer ben Natan (Ravan),242 Rabbi Yeshaya of Tirani, in his Piskei Harid, and Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel (Rosh), on BT Megillah. Rabbi Yaakov Ba’al HaTurim, in his code Arba Turim, explicitly states that “One must become drunk,” using the Hebrew word for inebriation, shikur, rather than the Talmud’s language, livsumei (because the Talmud used a euphemism, one might think it meant something other than to get drunk), creating different interpretations of the word. The author of Sefer HaEshkol, after presenting the opinion of Rabbi Efraim, says, “And it seems to me [on the contrary] this provides proof that one must get drunk! For if not, Rabbah should have said ‘Let us have the Purim feast together and not drink.’”

240 Laws 241 Sefer

of Purim.

Haorah is attributed to Rashi. See Rafeld, 1998, ff. 12 for a discussion on this topic. 242 Vol. 2, section 451.

109

110

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual b. Aharonim 243 Following the lead of the Tur Code, Rabbi Karo states: “A person is obligated to become intoxicated (liysumei) on Purim, to the point that he will not be aware of the difference between ‘cursed be Haman’ and ‘blessed be Mordekhai.’”244 Rabbi Moshe Mos of Przemyś l, in his book Mateh Mosheh, reviews the different opinions of the Rishonim on becoming intoxicated on Purim. He asks how the rabbis could permit drunkenness, for the Bible itself refers to the dangers of alcoholism in numerous places. He concludes that drinking on Purim should be only for the sake of heaven rather than a drinking spree with the purpose of gorging one’s self,which would lead to the non-observance of basic Jewish laws. Without this intention, drunken behavior will prevent one from appreciating the spiritual significance of the day (5:1011). This opinion of Rabbi Mos sets guidelines for the modern day practice. The author of the Hayei Adam concurs with Rabbi Mos, albeit with a proviso. He writes that the rabbis obligated one to get drunk, or at least to drink more than usual, in order to remember the great miracle of Purim that was brought about through wine. However, if a person knows that once intoxicated—or even lightheaded—he or she will not be able to perform the daily required mitzvoth, it should be avoided, for all actions should be for the sake of the Lord (155:30). Final Thoughts Concerning Drinking on Purim The message conveyed by most rabbis, especially the Aharonim, is that becoming drunk on Purim is disapproved of, and even prohibited. Drunkenness, they argue, is not worthy of a Jew.Yet the prevailing custom today, especially among Yeshivah students, is in fact to get drunk on Purim. The contemporary rabbinical authorities might discourage this practice but they do not necessarily forbid it. They offer warnings about drinking and driving and even being careful not to miss prayer services, but rarely say much more. Still, numerous rabbinic authorities throughout the generations 243 For

additional secondary sources listing the various authorities who require one to become drunk on Purim, see Zinner, 2000, pp. 400–406. 244 Shulhan Arukh OH 695:2.

Behind the Purim Mask could not accept the literal sense of BT Megillah 7b and believed that such a reading could result in deleterious consequences and therefore, in one form or another, limited the practice of drinking on Purim. The idea that one must reach the level of drinking on Purim “to the extent that he cannot distinguish (ad delo yada) between ‘blessed be Mordekhai’ and “cursed be Haman,’” has been the topic of much interpretation. Some encourage drinking and drunkenness and others discourage this practice; there are some who employ halakhic analysis or use the “plain understanding” (peshat) of the Talmudic sources, and others who use homily (drush). A number of these rabbis concluded that there is symbolic importance in drinking wine to invoke the memory of the miracle of Purim. Scholar Jeffrey M. Cohen suggests that this topic of ad delo yada is a recurring motif in the book of Esther, “of people suffering from the ad delo yada syndrome with their senses dulled by a combination of drink, self-indulgence and self-delusion that the rabbis invite to commemorate and ape.”245 Whether this was the intention and message of the rabbis or not is a topic for discussion elsewhere. Rabbi Daniel Adler argues that intoxication provides a temporary respite from everyday problems of sorting out and making sense of shades of good and evil in the world. It is, he says, the temporary removal of the awareness of the strictures of morality and law.246 One can argue with the theses of Cohen and Adler, but it is clear that the rabbis, knowing and understanding the dangers and prohibitions against intoxication, still permitted and in some cases required it on Purim. Instead of dismissing it, the rabbis actually incorporated it into law.247 Damage and Theft on Purim 248 Rema rules: “There are authorities who say that if someone did damage to his fellow while Purim rejoicing, he is exempt from paying 245 Cohen, 2001, p. 262. 246 Ibid., p. 14. 247 Adler

(2001, pp. 14-15) actually agrees with this line of thinking further in his paper. 248 For a list of rabbinical sources that discuss this topic and discussion, see Zinner, 2000, pp. 406-407 and the adjacent footnotes.

111

112

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual compensation.”249 Another ruling of Rema: “Likewise, when people snatch from each other out of rejoicing, this does not involve a transgression of ‘You should not rob.’ This has become the practice.”250 The explanation for these counterintuitive rulings is that if damage or theft occurs on Purim it is a result of simhat hahag, or holiday rejoicing, which could be a basis for permitting it. It is questionable, however, whether someone drunk is really on a spiritual level of simhat hahag. In fact, the author of the Arukh HaShulhan writes that today we cannot reach the spiritual level required for simhat hahag and therefore we would be responsible for any damage caused (695:10). Based upon BT Baba Kama 27a, Maimonides rules that “A man is always muad (responsible for his actions) whether he does the damage unintentionally or intentionally, whether he is awake or while asleep or whether he is drunk.”251 Even with this ruling on intoxication, the rabbis did not hold one liable for his actions on Purim. Such is the spirit of Purim that the rabbis permitted the nation to cross the normative boundaries of Jewish law, even to the extent of tolerating physical damage to property or the body, as well as stealing from another Jew without consequences.252 This law, as with other practices of Purim, manifests the concept of inversion—behavior permitted and codified by the rabbinical adjudicators throughout the history of halakhah. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 253 It is clear from our discussion that Purim is a holiday filled with examples of ritual reversal or halakhic inversion. As sociologist Edward Norbeck254 explains, the rites of reversal are “the antithesis of behavior at other times …norms for special occasions which oppose norms applying at other times.” Norbeck concludes from his research that the “performance of 249 OH

695:2. 697:8. 251 Mishneh Torah, Laws of Hovel Umazik 1:11. 252 Different rabbinical authorities differentiate between bodily and property damage. See Zinner, 2000, pp. 406-407. 253 For the sake of clarity I have chosen to repeat some of theories discussed at the onset of this essay. 254 Norbeck, 1979, p. 58. 250 OH

Behind the Purim Mask reversals was generally on ritual occasions that had religious or supernatural significance.” So we find the holiday of Purim, at least in terms of religious significance. Whether manifested as representing a festival that emphasizes materialism rather than spiritualism, or whether it be a story with little or no obvious connection to the Land of Israel, Purim contrasts with all other Jewish holidays. Furthermore, we have shown that the customs, rituals, and laws of Purim negate normative Jewish practice. From the almost rowdy conduct in the synagogue, where somber behavior and strict decorum are demanded at all other times of the year, to the requirement for excessive drinking to the point of inebriation, Purim truly exemplifies the concept of ve-nahafochu (used in Esther to describe the turnabout from mourning to rejoicing), things getting turned upside down. The destruction of the normal protocols that represent structure within society and its social divisions were created to induce a day of ecstasy and release, as well as a feeling of communitas, argues Rubenstein. Jewish tradition has developed both strong boundaries and a clearly defined hierarchy supported by a strict and encompassing legal system. It would be an outright threat to its stability if either were to break down.255 Turner believes that suspension of law and norm are the very characteristics of communitas.256 However, Rubenstein says that communitas is not a breakdown of structure but, as in the case of Purim, “pronounced examples of communitas occurring mainly through symbolic action.” Purim behavior, he says, should be considered as a symbolic reversal, not a complete inversion. Rubenstein terms this an “alternate structure” rather than “antistructure.”257 Communitas serves to unify, bond, and transcend structural relationships within the group, thus offering an important purpose to Purim and the Jewish social structure. Or, as Norbeck explains, “We have long heard that the return to the prevailing everyday rules of moral and social life after 255 See

Mary Douglas’ grid–group theory to further understand this argument (Douglas, 1979). 256 Turner, 1977. See Rubenstein, 1992, pp. 267-268. 257 Rubenstein, 1992, p. 273.

113

114

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual a period of playfully overturning them constitutes reaffirmation of the propriety of everyday rules.”258 This application of the communitas model might be applicable in tribal type societies or even the social organization at the time of the Esther story, but I fail to see its relevance, especially in the modern period.259 Others perceive the behavior permitted on Purim as a temporary respite from everyday problems and stress.260 The psychological escape alone could ease the economic, social, and political tensions found in the everyday life of the Jew. Schellekens believes that Purim is devoid of any clear theological meaning, contributing to the reinforcement of shared beliefs by releasing tension from conformity to social beliefs and behavioral prescriptions.261 Still, I wonder if a one-day respite from stress would really make a difference psychologically or sociologically over the course of a year. Similar to the idea of Purim as an easing of the pressure Jews so often face, Harris views the reversal phenomenon as a Jew’s means of coping with the harsh and demanding environment of the Diaspora. Indeed, Purim is an exilic holiday and a major theme of the Book of Esther is the view of Jews as outsiders, even if they did have a queen on the inside. The behavior permitted on this day permits “the reversals of the hostile stranger,” Harris says.262 Even with the above attempts to understand the “why” of Purim, there is still a major question as to how the rabbis, who were governed by the strict letter of the law, would for even one day permit the disregard of conventional halakhah, something that is “antithetical to all Jewish tradition stands for”?263 How, in the words of Harris, can the “topsy-turvy things” that Jews do on 258 Norbeck, 1979, p. 59. 259 There

is a view that the disorder of Purim is really part of the order or strengthens the order (see Rodger, 1978, p. 205). Furthermore, Sacks (1989) argues that the food gifts on Purim in today’s small communities are actually part of female (Jewish) rituals that enhance, produce, and reproduce social relations and therefore construct community. 260 See, for example, Adler, 1991, and Shuv, 1990, p. 33. 261 Schellekens, 2009, pp. 36-38. 262 Harris, 1978, p. 169. 263 Adler, 1991, p.14.

Behind the Purim Mask Purim be sanctioned and even canonized?264 Why would the rabbis permit the holiday to be influenced by—in contrast to influencing—cultural customs? As Adler notes, an “anthropological study would reveal that the holiday of Purim is not unique in providing a time for revelry to lose oneself in the primitively satisfying excess of drink and noise and costumes.”265 It is first important to clarify that even the joyful spirit of Purim does not imitate the non-Jewish carnival. Instead of lengthy days of merriment, Purim is a one-day festival. It does not represent what Bakhtin termed “earth and body in their indissoluble unity,” free completely from all religious and ecclesiastical dogmatism.266 Fish deems Purim as a mini- or symbolic carnival, thus signifying the difference in merriment and rowdy behavior from that of the gentiles.267 To properly understand the rabbis’ approach to Purim, it is first necessary to briefly discuss the development of law and custom and its relationship to folk law. For the purpose of this essay I will divide law into two categories: canon law, or what is referred to in Judaism as Torah law, and folk law, also referred to as customary law. In this context folk law is defined as the informal rules followed by any group of people who share a common linking factor, such as religion, nationality, ethnicity, locality, family, or occupation. Already in the period of the Romans it was understood that in order for a folk law to prevail, it needed the agreement of the people who practiced the law, or what German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies termed the “social will.”268 G. C. J. J. van den Bergh acknowledges269 that folk law can be viewed as: 1. Law that has evolved from implicit and loose rules to explicit and fixed rules; customary law precedes codes, both unwritten and written law.

264 Harris, 1978, p. 168. 265 Adler, 1991

p. 14. Fish, 1994, p. 67. 267 Ibid., p. 71. 268 Tönnies, 1979, p. 37.Tönnies (ibid., p. 38) explains that social will is the general will that serves to order and regulate the individual will. 269 1971, p. 17. 266 See

115

116

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual 2. Law derived from custom and not invented by legislators; early folk custom is an unspecified whole of law, religion, morals, etc. 3. Law is not an autonomous system, but a function of society, even when jurists develop it into a “special skill.” He explains that folk law “is not a system of abstract concepts and normative propositions, but of perceptible, formal acts and words, natural institutions, symbols, symbolic procedures, etc.”270 Tönnies emphasizes that folk law or custom is created through habit and practice and is based upon past tradition.“The fact that our forefathers held and practiced it ‘this way’ will always be given as the decisive reason why we, too, should hold it this way and follow the same practice.”271 Taking the above into consideration, we turn to Judaism’s halakhah and minhag (custom). Menachem Elon writes that custom “operates anonymously and non-directly by the agency of the entire people or of some particular segment of the people.”272 If there is an area of doubt on what the correct halakhah is, the BT instructs us to “go and see what the people do.”273 The YT says: “If the law is unsure then go and see the practice of the people and follow it.”274 Alon says that although rules based upon custom are institutionalized, they are partially and indirectly in conjunction with the halakhic authorities. It is the public or social will that “is the direct creative source of normative rules generated by custom.”275 It is the members of the Jewish social structure, persons whose conduct and beliefs are based upon Jewish values and laws, who are endowed with this decisive power. The words of Hillel in BT further clarify this point: “Leave it to Israel; if they are not prophets, they are descendants of prophets.”276 In a footnote, Elon presents a double function for the above understanding: “It can serve as a historical source of a particular norm that will 270 Ibid., p. 20. 271 Tönnies, 1971, pp. 42-43. 272 Elon, 1994, pp. 881-885. 273 BT

Berakhot 45a, BT Pesahim 54a. Peah 7:5,YT Maaser Sheni 5:2,YT Yebamot 7:3. 275 Elon, 1994, p. 882. 276 BT Pesahim 66a. 274 YT

Behind the Purim Mask later be given the force of law by a different legal source; and it can itself serve as a legal source that gives legal force to a particular practice.”277 Elon’s analysis can be taken a step further and used as a basis to understand the acceptance of the Book of Esther and the various customs and rituals practiced on Purim. The mitzvah of reading the Scroll of Esther resulted in a serious dilemma for the rabbis of the Talmud. It was only after some misgivings, portrayed in BT Megillah 7a, that the rabbis agreed to canonize Esther in the first place. I suggest that this was done as a result of the social will of the people. They believed that only through celebrating Purim would God’s name and His miracles be appropriately glorified. It was through the Purim story, an exciting and intriguing tale in which the Jews, through the (hidden) intervention of the Almighty, were victorious and where good overcame evil. The Purim holiday was therefore instituted as a result of the will of those who conducted themselves in accordance with Jewish law and morals.The rabbis, in order to give Purim full legitimization, offered a Torah source, a path that justifies the acceptance and practice of a custom.The YT Megillah, while discussing the acceptance of Megillat Esther into the canon, reads, until they found a verse written in the Torah which provides for it [Esther] to be included: “Write this for a memorial in a book.”278 “Write this” refers to the passage about Amalek that is written here and in Deuteronomy [25:8-16], “for a memorial” refers to the passage about Amalek that is written in the Prophets,279 and “in the book” refers to what is written in the Megillah.

The canonization of Esther served to legitimize its text and served as the basis for justifying the rituals and practices that were wanted according to the “social will.” These means of celebration were reflections of the cultures in which the Jews lived. The rabbis understood the power of the “folk” and were able to justify and codify selected or modified versions of non-Jewish practices emulating the carnival atmosphere. Once codified, such practices belonged to the authority of the rabbis, thus removing the 277 Elon, 1994, p. 882. 278 Exodus 279 I

17:14. Samuel 15.

117

118

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual danger and threat to their authority and the stability of the social structure. Thus, even though such behavior as found on Purim would be unacceptable during the rest of the year, through the consideration and appreciation of the social will, the rabbis warded off—or at least minimized—the influences of secular cultures, thereby protecting the social solidarity of the Jews.

RABBIS CITED IN THIS CHAPTER (listed in alphabetical order according to first name) Ba’alei Hatosafot (led by the grandchildren of Rashi), twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Northern France and Germany) Rabbi Aharon HaKohen, (Provence), died 1325 (Spain) Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel, known as the Rosh, born circa 1250 (Germany), died 1327 (Spain) Rabbi Avraham Abale Gombiner, known as the Magen Avraham, born circa 1635 (Poland), died 1682 (Poland) Rabbi Avraham ben Isaac of Narbonne, born circa 1110 (Provence), died 1176 (Provence) Rabbi Avraham Danzig, born 1748 (Poland), died 1820 (Lithuania) Rabbi Avraham Ha-Yarchi, born circa 1155 (Provence), died 1215 (Spain) Rabbi Avraham Klausner, fourteenth century (Austria) Rabbi David ben Levi, Michtam, thirteenth century (Provence) Rabbi David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra, born 1479 (Spain), died 1573 (Israel) Rabbi David Halevi, known as the Taz, born 1586 (Poland), died 1667 (Russia) Rabbi Efraim of Bonn, born 1132 (Germany), died 1200 (Germany) Rabbenu Efraim of Kila Chamad, circa 1075 (Algeria) Rabbi Eleazar Rokeah of Worms, born circa 1160 (Germany), died circa 1238 (Germany) Rabbi Eliezer ben Natan, known as Ravan, born 1090 (Germany), died 1170 (Germany) Rabbi Eliezer ben Joel Halevi, known as the Ravyah, born 1140 (Germany), died 1225 (Germany) Rabbi Eliyahu Shapira, born 1660, died 1712 (Prague) Rabbi Elyakim ben Meshulam, born 1030, died circa 1100 (Germany) Rabbi Haim Benveniste, Knesset Hagedolah, born 1603 (Turkey), died 1673 (Turkey) Rabbi Haim Palagi, born 1788, died 1868 (Turkey)

Behind the Purim Mask Rabbi Hayim Margolith, born circa 1780, died 1820 (Russia) Rabbi Hezekia da Silva, Pri Chadash, born 1659 (Italy), died 1698 (Jerusalem) Rabbi Isaac ben Asher Halevi, circa 1130 (Germany) Rabbi Isaac Tirna, late fourteenth to early fifteenth century (Czechoslovakia) Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen Kagan, born 1838 (Belarus), died 1933 (Rad) Rabbi Judah Ashkenazi, born (Germany) 1730, died 1770 (Germany) Rabbi Judah Loew, known as the Maharal of Prague, born circa 1525 (Poland), died 1609 (Prague) Rabbi Kalonymus ben Kalonymus, born 1286 (Provence), died after 1328 Rabbi Levi ben Haviv, Haralbach, born circa 1480 (Spain), died circa 1541 (Israel) Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, known as Maharam, born 1215 (Germany), died 1293 (France) Rabbi Menachem HaMeiri, born circa 1249 (Provence), died circa 1306 (Provence) Rabbi Meyer ben Rabbi Shimon Hamili, born 1190 (Provence), died 1263 (Spain) Rabbi Mordekhai ben Hillel, born circa 1240 (Germany), died 1298 (Germany) Rabbi Mordekhai Yaffe, born circa 1535 (Bohemia), died 1612 (Poland) Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, known as Maimonides or the Rambam, born 1135 (Spain), died 1204 (Egypt) Rabbi Moses Schreiber, born 1762 (Germany), died 1839 (Hungary) Rabbi Moshe ben Avraham of Przemyśl, born circa 1540 (Poland), died 1606 (Poland) Rabbi Moshe Isserles, known as Rema, born 1520 (Poland), died 1572 (Poland) Rabbi Moshe Rivkash, known as the BeHag, Beeyer Hagolah, born circa 1595 (Prague), died 1671 (Vilna) Rabbi Moshe Shik, known as Maharam Shik, born 1807 (Slovakia), died 1879 (Ukraine) Rabbi Nathan ben Yechiel, born circa 1035, died 1106 (Italy) Rabbi Nissim of Gerona, known as Ran, born circa 1290 (Spain), died circa 1375 (Spain) Rabbi Refael Aaron ben Shimshon, born 1847, died 1928 (Egypt) Rabbi Shimshon ben Tzaddok, Tashbetz, born 1285 (Germany) Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz, born circa 1506 (Turkey), died circa 1584 (Israel) Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim Luntshitz, born 1550 (Poland), died 1619 (Prague) Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, known as Rashi, born 1040 (France), died 1105 (France) Rabbi Shmuel Abuhav, born 1610 (Italy), died 1694 (Italy) Rabbi Simhah of Vitry, died 1105 (France) Rabbi Tovia ben Eliezer, late eleventh to early twelfth century (Greece) Rabbi Tzidkiyah HaRofe, Shibolei Leket, born circa 1210 (Italy), died 1280 (Italy) Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, known as Ba’al HaTurim, born circa 1275 (Germany), died circa 1340 (Spain)

119

120

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Rabbi Yaakov Hayim Sofer, born 1870 (Iraq), died 1939 (Israel) Rabbi Yaakov Moelin, known as Maharil, born circa 1365 (Germany), died 1427 (Germany) Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, born 1829, died 1908 (Belarus) Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, Kuzari, born 1080 (Spain), died 1145 (Israel) RabbiYehudah ben Berechyah, known as the Ribav, late twelfth century (Provence) Rabbi Yehudah heHassid, born circa 1155 (Germany), died 1215 (Germany) Rabbi Yehudah Halevi Mintz, born 1408 (Germany), died 1508 (Italy) Rabbi Yeshaya of Tirani, born circa 1180 (Italy), died circa 1260 (Italy) RabbiYeshaya haLevi Horowitz, known as Shelah, born circa 1560 (Czechoslovakia), died 1630 (Israel) Rabbi Yisrael Isser, born 1390 (Germany), died 1460 (Austria) Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi, known as the Rif, born 1013 (Algeria), died 1103 (Spain) Rabbi Yitzchak ben Abba Mari, HaItur, born circa 1122 (Provence), died circa 1193 (Provence) Rabbi Yitzchak ben Asher, known as Riva, one of the early Tosafot, died circa 1130 (Germany) Rabbi Yitzchak ben Joseph, died 1280 (France) Rabbi Yitzchak ben Sheshes Perfet, born 1326 (Spain), died 1407 (Algiers) Rabbi Yoel Sirkis, also known as the Bach, born 1561 (Poland), died 1640 (Poland) RabbiYosef ben Meir Teom, Pri Megadim, born 1727 (Ukraine), died 1792 (Germany) Rabbi Yosef Haviva, late fourteenth to early fifteenth century (Spain) Rabbi Yosef Karo, born 1488 (Spain), died 1575 (Spain) Rabbi Zerahyah Halevi, known as Razah, born 1125 (Spain), died 1186 (Provence)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahams, R. D., & Bauman, R. (1978). Ranges of festival behavior. In B. Babcock (Ed.), The reversible world (193-208). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Adler, D. (1991, winter). Drinking on Purim:When to say when? Judaism, 40(1), 6-15. Arden, S. (1974). San Diego Purim ball in 1888. Western States Jewish Historical Quarterly, 7, 39-43. Auerbach, S. Z. (2003). Halichot Shlomo. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his world. (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Berking, H. (1999). Sociology of giving. London: Sage. Bonfil, R. (1994). Jewish life in Renaissance Italy. (A. Oldcorn, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press; Berkley, Los Angeles, and London: Sage Publishing Ltd.

Behind the Purim Mask Bornstein, E. (2009). The impulse of philanthropy. Cultural Anthropology, 24(4), 622-651. Brown, L. K., & Mussell, K. (1984). Ethnic and regional foodways in the United States. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Cheal, D. (1988). The gift economy. London and New York: Routledge. Cohen, N. J. (2012). Masking and unmasking ourselves: Interpreting biblical texts on clothing and identity. Woodstock,VT: Jewish Lights Publishing. Cohen, J. (2001). Purim and Adloyada. Jewish Bible Quarterly, 29(4), 259-262. Davidson, I. (1952). The history of Purim parody in Jewish literature. In P. Goodman (Ed.), The Purim anthology (330-356). Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Doniach, N. S. (1933). Purim or the feast of Esther: An historical study. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Douglas, M., & Nicod, M. (1974). Taking the biscuit: The structure of British meals. New Society, 30, 744-747. Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1978). The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of consumption. London: Penguin. Douglas, M. (1979). Cultural bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. ___. (1982). In the active voice. London, Boston, and Henely: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ___. (Ed.). (1984). Food in the social order. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Elon, M. (1994). Jewish law: History, sources, principles. Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society. Epstein, S. (1994, spring). The “drinking banquet” (Trink–Siyde): A Hasidic even for Purim. Poetics Today, 15(1), 133-152. Farb, P., & Armelagos, G. (1980). Consuming passions, the anthropology of eating. New York: Washington Square Press. Fish, Stanley, “Reading and Carnival: On the Semiotics of Purim,” Poetics Today 15 (1994). Fishbane, S. (1991). The method and meaning of the Mishnah Berurah. Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House. ___. (2011). The shteibelization of modern Jewry. Boston: Academic Studies Press. Fishman,Y. L. (Nov. 1937-May 1938). Hatachposet B’Purim. Sinai, 2. (Hebrew) Freund, T. (2002). Moadim L’Simcha. Volume 3. Jerusalem: Otzar HaPoskim. (Hebrew) Frazer, J. (1913). The golden bough. Volume 6. London: Macmillan. Gaguine, S. (1934). Keter Shem Tov. Volume 2. London: Superior Printers. (Hebrew)

121

122

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Gaster, T. (1953). Festivals of the Jewish year. New York: William Morrow & Company Inc. Ginzberg, L. (1904, Jul.). Genizah studies: First article; Geonic responsa. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 16(4), 650-667. Gluckman, M. (1982). Custom and conflict in Africa. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Goodman, P. (Ed.). (1952). The Purim anthology. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. Grayzel, S. (1952). The origin of Purim. In P. Goodman (Ed.), The Purim anthology (3-14). Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Guraryeh, E.Y. (1999). Chikrai minhagim. Israel: Machon Ohalai Shem-Lubavitch. (Hebrew) Handelman, D. (1998). Models and mirrors: Towards an anthropology of public events. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Hanegbi, Z. (1998). Minhagei haPurim bahalakha ubaomanut. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Minhagei Yisrael (vol. 6, 192-206). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) Harris, M. (1978). Purim: The celebration of dis-order. Judaism, 27, 161-170. Horowitz, E. (1994, spring).The rite to be reckless: On the perpetration and interpretation of Purim violence. Poetics Today, 15(1), 9-54. Horton, R. (1979). Ritual man in Africa. In W. Lessa & E. Vogt (Eds.), Reader in comparative religion (243-254). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Humphrey, T., & Humphrey, L. (Eds.). (1988). We gather together: Food and festival in American life. Ann Arbor and London: UMI Research Press. Klavans, N. (1988). A Halloween brunch: The affirmation of group in a temporary community. In T. Humphrey & L. Humphrey (Eds.), We gather together: Food and festival in American life (43-51). Ann Arbor and London: UMI Research Press. Kalcik, S. (1984). Ethnic foodways in America: Symbol and the performance of identity. In L. K. Brown & K. Mussel (Eds.), Ethnic and regional foodways in the United States:The performance of group identity (37-65). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Landau, B. (1961). Mishloach manot bhalakhah ubagadah. In Machanaim (vol. 54, 173-176). Israel: Chaplaincy of the Israel Defense Forces. (Hebrew) Leach, E. (1979). The symbolic analysis on ritual. In W. Lessa & E. Vogt (Eds.), Reader in comparative religion (333-337). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Lewinski,Y. T. (1956). Sefer haMoadim. Volume 6. Israel: The Oneg Shabbat (Ohel Shem) Society. (Hebrew) ___. (1947). Haman-smiting in the Diaspora. Tel Aviv:Yeda-Am series. (Hebrew) Lewy, J. (1997). Minhag Yisrael Torah. Volume 3. New York: Ohel Torah. (Hebrew) Lewy, J. (1939). The feast of the 14th day of Adar. Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XIV. New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Behind the Purim Mask Liberman,Y. M. (1997). Sefer yeme haPurim. Bene Berak:Y. M. B. ben Ś. B. Liberman. (Hebrew) Malinowski, B. (1978). Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge and Kegan. Mauss, M. (1967 [1990]). The gift. New York and London: W. W. Norton. Miller, W. (1993). Humiliation: And other essays on honor, social discomfort, and violence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Neusner, J. (1981). The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew: Second division Moed, the order of appointed times. New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc. Noi, D. (1950). Seudat Purim u’mitameha. In Machanaim (vol. 43, 60-63). Israel: Chaplaincy of the Israel Defense Forces. (Hebrew) Norbeck, E. (1979). Rites of reversal of North American Indians as forms of play. In E. Norbeck & C. Farrer (Eds.), Forms of play of native North Americans (5166). St. Paul: West Pub. Co. Oberlander, G. (2005). Minhag avotenu byadenu. Jerusalem: Amudim. (Hebrew) Rabinowitz, M. (2007). Tzafo hatzafit: A commentary on the Arukh Hashulhan, Laws of Purim. Israel: (n.p.). (Hebrew) Rabinowitz, S. (1997). Piskei teshuvot. Jerusalem: (n.p.). (Hebrew) Rafeld, M. (1998). Ad delo yada-hashikrut bPurim-mekorot, parshanut vNohagim. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Minhagei Yisrael (vol. 6, 207-226). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) ___. (1998). Mishloach manot bPurim: Gilgule nusach vNohagim. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. Rezende, C. D. (2007). Gifts of food: Sociabilty and friendship among English middle class people. Vibrant, 4(2), 5-26. Rubenstein, J. (1992). Purim, liminality, and communitas. AJS Review, 17(2), 247-277. Sacks, M. (1989, Jul.-Sept.). Computing community at Purim. The Journal of American Folklore, 102(405), 275-291. Schellekens, J. (2009, Spring). Accession days and holidays: The origins of the Jewish festival of Purim. Journal of Biblical Literature, 128(1), 115-134. Schochetman, E. (1987). Al minhag liten matanot levyonei nochrim bFurim. Sinai, 100(2), 852-865. (Hebrew) Shuv, S. (1990). Megillat Esther, megillah shel carnival. Mechkarei Chag, 2, 31-43. (Hebrew) Smith, D. (2010). Religious giving: For love of god. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Sofer,Y. H. (1967). Kaf Ha-Hayyim. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)

123

124

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Sperber, D. (1989). Minhagei Yisrael. Volume 1. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) ___. (1994). Minhagei Yisrael. Volume 3. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) ___. (1998). Minhagei Yisrael. Volume 6. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) Tabory, J. (2000). Jewish festivals in time of the Mishnah and Talmud. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (Hebrew) Tönnies, F. (1971). Custom: An essay on social codes. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. Turner,V. (1974). Drama, fields and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ___. (1982). From ritual to theater:The human seriousness of play. NewYork: Performing Arts Journal Publications. ___. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ___. (1977). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. van den Bergh, G. C. J. J. (1995). The concept of folk law in historical context: A brief outline. In A. Dundes Renteln & A. Dundes (Eds.), Folk law: Essays in the theory and practice of lex non scripta (6-32). Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Wassertil, A. (1996). Yalkut minhagim (3rd ed.). Jerusalem: (n. p.). (Hebrew) Weiner, A. B. (1992). Inalienable possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford: University of California Press. Yaari, A. (1961). Maot Purim, maot machatzit haskel, umaot megillah. In Machanaim (vol. 54, 17-29). Israel: Chaplaincy of the Israel Defense Forces. (Hebrew) Yosef, O. (1988). Yalkut Yosef. Jerusalem: Makhon Hazon Obadiah. (Hebrew) Zevin, S. (1954). HaMoadim beHalakhah. Jerusalem: Beit Hillel. (Hebrew) Zinner, G. (2000). Nitei Gavriel: Laws of Purim. Jerusalem: Cong. Nitei Gavriel. (Hebrew)

In the Absence of Ritual: Customs of the Holiday of Shavuot

SHAVUOT Along with Passover and Sukkot, the holiday of Shavuot (Weeks) is one of the three pilgrimage festivals (Exodus 34:22; Deuteronomy 16:10): the times when Jews would travel to the Temple in Jerusalem. The festival seems to be identical to the Festival of the First Fruits (Numbers 28:26) and the Festival of the Harvest (Exodus 23:16). The holiday falls either in May or June, when the wheat begins to ripen in the land of Israel. It is from this wheat that the Bible commands that “two loaves” (shetei ha-lehem) be baked in the Temple.The ritual of this loaf offering permitted the eating of the new season’s crops, which otherwise was forbidden. Seven weeks after Passover, an elaborate offering of loaves and animals took place in the Temple. From the beginning of Passover, a period of seven weeks (“Sefirat Ha-Omer”—counting each day of the 49 days from the second day of Passover) culminated with the offering in the Temple on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:16). The term Festival of the First Fruits marks this day as a festival when the fruits of the new crop were first to be brought in a basket to the priests in the Temple, that period extended several months.

126

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual From Scripture, it is clear that Shavuot was designated as an agricultural festival, associated with the crops of the land of Israel. With the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, however, all Temple-related rituals ceased; the Rabbis forbade the practice of rituals such as sacrifices, bread offerings, and water ceremonies, which were replaced by prayer. Although Shavuot is similar to Passover and Sukkot in that specified labor is forbidden, special sacrifices were mandated, and festive meals eaten, it differs from other festivals in that no scripture supplies some historical association of Israel’s sacred past. While Jews are commanded to eat matzah on Passover, and sit in a special booth on Sukkot, there is no unique Shavuot practice other than those associated with the Temple. As a result, following the destruction of the Temple, the holiday of Shavuot became an “orphan holiday,” without any specific practices, customs, or rituals associated with it. In this sense, Shavuot can be compared to the festival of Rosh Hodesh, the first day of each new month. Rosh Hodesh was celebrated as a festival throughout the Bible, and in Temple times, its celebration included a number of rituals practiced both in the Temple and in the home. Special sacrifices were offered,1 and trumpets were blown, as on the three pilgrimage festivals.2 Scripture also indicates that individuals would offer personal sacrifices on Rosh Hodesh and partake in festive meals,3 a practice that apparently persisted even after the destruction of the Temple.4 Rosh Hodesh 1

See Numbers 28:11-14: “And in the beginning of your months, you shall offer a burnt offering to the Lord: two young bullocks, and one ram, seven lambs of the first year without blemish; and three tenth measures of flour for a meal offering, mingled with oil, for one bullock; and two tenth measures of flour for a meal offering, mingled with oil, for one ram; and a tenth measure of flour mingled with oil for a meal offering for every lamb; for a burnt offering of a sweet savor, a sacrifice made by fire to the Lord. And their drink offerings shall be half a hin of wine for a bullock, and the third part of a hin for a ram, and a fourth part of a hin for a lamb: this is the burnt offering of every month throughout the months of the year.” 2 See Numbers 10:10: “Also in the day of your gladness, and at your appointed feasts, and in the beginnings of your months, you shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be as to you for a memorial before your God: I am the Lord.” 3 See Samuel I 1:20; see also Hakham, 1964, pp. 78-79. 4 Nachmani (1964) argues that even after the destruction of the Temple and the dissolution of the Sanhedrin, witnesses to the appearance of the new moon were invited to visit, eat, and offer their testimony, and festive meals continued to be

In the Absence of Ritual was also apparently considered a day to visit prophets;5 in later times, it became customary to visit scholars and teachers on that day.6 Biblical sources indicate that people abstained from work on Rosh Hodesh;7 although both the Mishnah and Talmud offer proof-texts that work is not prohibited, the day is compared to other festivals. After the Temple was destroyed, Rosh Hodesh lost its significance as a festival and just became a marker of new months on the calendar. On the other hand, books of Jubilees (6:17-18) and Acts (2:1-5) suggest that Shavuot was given a commemorative meaning and rituals, imbuing it with life. Centuries before the Destruction of the Temple, the day was considered to be the day for the renewal of the Sinai Covenant— likely because it was considered the date when the Decalogue was given to the Israelites. Hence, in a later period, the Rabbis could establish it as a festival to be observed equally with the other festival. It is only when one knows of the association of Shavuot with the revelation at Sinai that Jubilees and Acts can be understood as referring to the day when God appeared at Mount Sinai.

CUSTOM AND RITUAL While the term minhag (pl. minhagim) is often used to refer to both custom and ritual, Charles Liebman argues that it is necessary to distinguish between the two: Religious ritual connects the participant to some transcendent presence. It provides a bridge to God by engaging the participant in an act that God has commanded. At the very least, it is efficacious in the sense that it is pleasing to God or avoids God’s displeasure. But it only produces the desired results when performed correctly. . . . [Ceremony] affirms the individual’s membership in the order. But since the ceremony is not deemed to be practiced within the family. See also Tabory (2000, pp. 39-40), who suggests that the festive meals referred to in the Bible are not conclusive evidence, and that these meals were meant to honor—and not to sanctify—the day. Some argue that the ritual of the Rosh Hodesh festive meal was practiced only in the Land of Israel, and not in Babylonia. 5 See Samuel I 20:18-26; Kings II 4:23. 6 See BT Rosh Hashana 16b. 7 See Isaiah 1:13-14 and Amos 8:5.

127

128

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual commanded by God, it need not be performed in as precise or stylized a manner as ritual. Because it is a consciously social act and a representation of a social order, it is more amenable to change than ritual. Since it is not perceived as preordained, those in charge are responsible for its suitability and appropriateness. Ceremony is a symbol.8

If a minhag appears in the codes of Jewish law, even if it is only practiced by individual ethnic groups, it can be categorized as ritual. In contrast, self-introduced minhagim can be placed in Liebman’s second category. Social anthropologists have discussed the importance of ritual extensively. Fredrick Bird writes: [Ritual implies] symbolic acts that are intrinsically valued and usually repeated, ritual actors trying to behave in keeping with expected characters and roles by using stylized gestures and words.Whenever we act ritually, we use prepared oral or written scripts that in varying detail, spell out how we should speak, gesture and place ourselves.9

These scripts are, as a rule, prepared by others and adopted by the ritual actor. Bird explains that when a person acts out his role, he simultaneously communicates a message both to himself and others: Ritual is a primary vehicle for communicating the highly valued beliefs and moral codes that, together, regulate communal life. . . . Rituals are models for how men and women, parents and children, and members of the community should interact. Life cycle rituals help define and order life through stages from birth through adolescence, marriage, middle age, old age, and death.

Because scripture ordained Shavuot on the same level as the other pilgrimage festivals, prohibiting work,10 and a day of joy,11 the Rabbis could not to allow it to become a hollow festival after Temple rituals ceased to be. Instead, they emphasized a meaning and purpose to the day to make it relevant even after the destruction and exile. The meaning assigned to Shavuot was its identity as the “Time of the Giving of the Torah.” With this  8

Liebman, 1999, pp. 307-310. Bird, 1995. Bird does not differentiate between ritual and custom. 10 Numbers 28:26. 11 Deuteronomy 16:10-12.  9

In the Absence of Ritual interpretation, different rituals and practices were incorporated, thereby maintaining the observance of the festival and ensuring solidarity in the community. The central event of Jewish belief is the moment of revelation at Sinai. It would be inconceivable if this event were not marked as are other events. The obvious candidate for this commemoration was Shavuot, a festival in the calendar with no explicit association or personal observances.The association had already been made and the Rabbis needed only to justify this date as the date when the Torah was given. Here was an opportunity to solve two problems in one stroke.

The Time of the Giving of the Torah (Zeman Matan Toratenu) In his discussion of the pilgrimage festivals during the Temple period, Shmuel Safrai writes that there is no historical evidence prior to the Talmudic period that Shavuot was associated with the giving and receiving of the Torah.12 Despite this lack of evidence, Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman attempts to demonstrate that Shavuot was celebrated as the festival of the giving of the Torah not only during the biblical and Temple period, but even by the Israelites in the desert.13 Hoffman cites a passage in the Mishnah stating that the Israelites celebrated Shavuot in the desert, and that later, during the Temple period, the holiday was celebrated by the Diaspora Jews in the same manner as in the Land of Israel.14 This, Rabbi Hoffman argues, can only be justified if the festival is coupled with an historical event, since Temple rituals and practices were limited exclusively to the Temple. Hoffman writes that although Philo and Josephus, who are known for their accounts of early Jewish history, do not refer to Shavuot as the festival of Matan Torah, this is because they only reflected on what Scripture presented explicitly.Therefore, although they were aware that Shavuot was also the holiday of the “Receiving of the Torah,” they chose to ignore this aspect in their writings. Rabbi Hoffman cites additional sources in works of Philo and Josephus that take a similar approach to other holidays, assuming these writers were aware of the non-biblical details. This approach 12 Safrai,

1985, p. 189. Hoffman, 1954, vol. 2, pp. 158-168. 14 Mishnah Menahot 4:3. 13

129

130

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual seems to be a stretch; however, his argument to some extent does allow for a Second Temple understanding of the commemoration of Shavuot evidenced in Jubilees and the events of Pentecost in the Book of Acts. Rabbi Hoffman further suggests that the Hebrew word atzeret (assembly), which was used from the time of the Mishnah to refer to Shavuot, is similar to the term that the Torah uses to refer to the giving of the Torah, “Yom ha-Kahal.”15 Rabbi Hoffman somewhat imaginatively concluded that those who returned with Ezra to Judea referred to Shavuot as atzeret to recall its association with the giving of the Torah.16 Oblivious to the apocryphal book of Jubilees, Rabbi Hoffman seems to throw light on the identification of Shavuot with the day of renewing the covenant. He cites a biblical passage concerning the reign of King Asa that describes how the Jews gathered in Jerusalem in the third month (i.e. present month of Sivan—when Shavuot indeed occurs) to sacrifice and “enter into a covenant to the Lord.”17 Like the assembly at Sinai, the celebration was accompanied by the blowing of trumpets and horns. Rabbi Hoffman speculates that this gathering occurred during the festival of Shavuot; all the activities described seem to parallel those described at Mount Sinai, suggesting that even during the period of the First Temple, Shavuot was celebrated as the time of Matan Torah. In the Bible, the term atzeret refers to the last day of Passover and Sukkot,18 but the Tannaim (Rabbis of the Mishnaic period) adapted it as an alternate name for Shavuot. Nachman Tselnik notes that the Mishnah uses this term 23 times, and it appears 39 times in the Tosefta.19 For example: “Until when do they plow an orchard during the year preceding the Sabbatical year? . . . The House of Hillel says until atzeret”;20 “On atzeret, they read [the Torah selection of] Seven Weeks [Deuteronomy 16:9].”21 15

Deuteronomy 9:10, 10:4, and 18:16. A number of biblical commentaries draw this association as well. See, for example, Ha-Ketav ve-ha-Kabalah, Deuteronomy 9:10. For further discussion and additional commentaries, see Nachman Tselnik, 1973; Hamiel, 1957, pp. 21-22. 17 Chronicles II 15:8-15. 18 Deuteronomy 16:8 and Leviticus 23:36. 19 Tselnik, 1973, p. 91. 20 Mishnah Shevi’it 1:1. 21 Mishnah Megillah 3:5. 16

In the Absence of Ritual Targum Onkelos translates the word “Shavuot” as “atzeret.”22 A medieval commentator writes: R. Tuvia, the son of R. Eliezar of blessed memory, stated: I have reviewed the themes of festivals [in Scripture] and I have not found that the festival of Shavuot is called Azeret. Everywhere, [however,] our Sages of blessed memory called Shavuot “atzeret,” and this is the language of the translation that Onkelos, the convert, wrote on the word “be-Shavuotekhem” (“in your weeks”)—“be-atzeretekhem.”23

The Babylonian Talmud (BT) cites a dispute regarding the exact date of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, citing proof-texts to conclude that it was on the sixth or seventh day of the month of Sivan. The holiday of Shavuot, which falls fifty days after the first day of Passover, coincides with these days.24 Elsewhere, the Talmud creates a direct relationship between the festival and the giving of the Torah: R. Elazar says: All authorities concede in the case of atzeret that we require also an assembly “for you (for your enjoyment: lakhem).” What is the reason? It is the day on which the Torah was given. . . . Mar the son of Ravina would fast the entire year except for atzeret, Purim, and Yom Kippur eve. On atzeret He refrained from fasting because that is the day on which the Torah was given.25

We note Talmudic references to atzeret: Letting blood on the eve of any holiday causes weakness, but on the eve of atzeret, it is actually dangerous. Therefore, the rabbis decreed that one should not let blood on the eve of any holiday because of the concern 22

Targum Onkelos, Number 28:26. This is in accordance with the scholarly view that Targum Onkolos was an Amoraic and not Taanaic document. 23 BT Pesikta Zutra, Pinhas. 24 BT Shabbat 86b. 25 BT Pesahim 68b. Three views are presented in this passage regarding how the pilgrimage festivals should be properly celebrated: 1. One should devote himself entirely to the service of God. 2. One should devote the entire day to enjoyment, such as eating and drinking. 3. Half the day should be in the service of God and half for personal enjoyment. This discussion is based on two passages in Scripture: “There should be an assembly (atzeret) for you” (Numbers 29:35) and “There shall be an assembly to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 16:8).

131

132

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual that one might come to do so on the eve of the festival of atzeret, when there is actual danger. For on this day a wind blows whose name is Slaughtering, for had Israel not accepted the Torah, this wind would have slaughtered them, their flesh and their blood.26 On atzeret we read [the Torah selection of] “Seven weeks,” as stated in the mishnah, and conclude with the haftara from the prophet Habakkuk (2:20-3:19). Others say: On atzeret we read the passage “In the third month” (Exodus 19:1-20:23) and conclude with the haftara from the passage of the Heavenly chariot (Ezekiel 1:1-28, 3:12). Nowadays, when there are two days of the festival [in the Diaspora], we follow both views but in the reverse order.27

While the Rabbis of the Talmud did not institute any rituals or practices to commemorate this relationship, the Torah reading chosen for Shavuot reflects the new theological mission of the Shavuot holiday as the holiday of the giving of the Torah. In formulating the text of the prayers on Shavuot, Rabbi Amram Gaon clearly writes that the purpose of the celebration of Shavuot is to honor the day that the Torah was given to the Jewish people: And one stands during the prayer [amidah] and chants [the blessings of] “Patriarchs,” “God’s Might,” and “Holiness of God’s Name,” just as one does on Passover, except that one recites, “This day of the festival of Shavuot, the time of the Giving of our Torah.”28

The Development of Shavuot Observances As noted above, the Rabbis instilled the festival of Shavuot with emphatic theological meaning so that it would not become obsolete in the wake of 26 BT

Shabbat 129b. Megillah 3a. Tselnik (1973, p. 71), suggests that the selection from Habakkuk alludes to the giving of the Torah, making it relevant for Shavuot, but I do not find this argument convincing. The second alternative reading of “In the third month,” however, is a direct association with the giving of the Torah at Sinai. 28 Rabbi Saadia Gaon in his Siddur does not explicitly identify the festival of Shavuot with the holiday of the Giving of the Torah, but other factors indicate that there is a connection between the two. Immediately after the few words he writes on Shavuot, we find two liturgical poems (piyutim), both of which refer to the 613 mitzvoth and the fulfillment of the Torah laws. 27 BT

In the Absence of Ritual the destruction of the Temple. New meaning, however, is insufficient; while theory and theology can stimulate the desire for a living experience, it is ritual that blows the breath of life into the festival. As Liebman indicated, ritual practices help to identify with the theological purpose of the holiday. Bird notes: To express identification with these characters, ritual actors use various techniques: wearing special clothes, putting on make-up or masks, covering or uncovering their heads, wearing broad or narrow shawls, and assuming whatever tones or mentalities are considered appropriate.29

Thus, for example, matzah is eaten on Passover to remind us of the food eaten by the Israelites when they left Egypt. This is so that the participant can identify with the Exodus through this food ritual. On Sukkot, the Jew builds a sukkah, just as the Israelites did during their journey through the desert. The observance of Shavuot similarly became associated with communal rituals to bolster the purpose and significance of the holiday. As we shall see below, an important consideration in the study of ritual and custom is cross-cultural influence, as the geographical location and availability of specific items play a significant role in the choice of the ritual items and activities. For example, water, blood, and fire are ubiquitous, and therefore prevalent in the practices of most cultures. As Mary Douglas notes, food is a common and required element for human existence, a basic prop in ritual plays,30 but the choice of which food to use depends on geographical location and seasonal availability. In an agricultural society, the seasons of the year and the agricultural cycle play an important role in identifying the ritual props. Thus, different religious groups in the same geographical location may share similar props to act out their religious rituals and customs, and it is often difficult to determine which group has influenced the other. The festival of Shavuot encompasses numerous rituals of medieval provenance. Some are performed in the synagogue, such as the reading of the book of Ruth, the chanting of the Akdamut liturgical poem, the recitation of the Azharot prayers, decorating with greenery, and the water rituals. 29 30

Bird, 1995, p. 24. Douglas, 1984.

133

134

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Other Shavuot customs are performed by the family or individual, such as (in Ashkenazic locales) the consumption of dairy products, decoration of the home with greenery, the nocturnal Torah study vigil, and the beginning of Torah studies for children. We now turn to the evolution of these customs and the kinds of meaning attributed to them.

Dairy Products As Douglas notes, many religious rituals include some form of feasting, for eating food is a communicative activity, and not simply a means of consuming nourishment.31 In the context of ritual eating, food or a specific category of foods assume symbolic significance. These are not necessarily the foods that one would usually choose to eat; they might even be more expensive or considered treats. The ritual consumption of these foods, argues Bird, establishes a sense of intimacy: Those who eat together regularly are either families or like families. By eating together, people reconstitute themselves as identifiable groups, represent themselves to each other as such and express their sense of connectedness.32

This social result is accomplished through the traditional family festival meal on Shavuot, which is further associated with the practices of the pilgrimage festivals. In addition, in Ashkenazic lands, it is customary to include a meal featuring a special type of food on the holiday—dairy products.

The Rishonim—Early Rabbinic Authorities The earliest reference to the ritual of eating dairy products and honey on Shavuot is found in the writings of Rabbi Avigdor Tzarfati, who writes: Everyone asks why we eat pladen [a dairy fruit cake] on Shavuot. This is suggested in the Torah (Numbers 28:26): “On the day of the first fruits when you offer a cereal offering of new grain to the Lord at your feast of weeks.” The first Hebrew letters of the words “new grain to the Lord at

31 Ibid. 32

Bird, 1995, p. 39.

In the Absence of Ritual your feast of weeks” (hadashah la-shem be-shevuatekhem) spell the word halav [milk] on Shavuot.33

This suggests that this was a custom popularly practiced in France.34 Rabbi Isaac Tirna offers the same explanation as Rabbi Tzarfati in his Book of Minhagim,35 but he refers to eating all dairy products and not only “pladem.” Rabbi Aharon Ha Kohen of Lunel, the author of Orhot Hayyim,36 offers a similar explanation, as does Rabbi Moshe ben Yehudah Bakir. Rabbi Yitzchak Tessler cites an unpublished manuscript by Rabbi Eleazar Rokeah of Worms, who writes: “My Father, my teacher, saw that his uncle Rabbi Menahem, ate cheese before meat on the holiday of atzeret.”37 It seems that by the time of Maharil,38 the consumption of dairy products of some sort on the festival of the giving of the Torah was an established and accepted custom in the Ashkenazic Jewish tradition. In his Laws of Shavuot, Maharil discusses the halakhic problem with using milk obtained from a cow during the festival to consume it on Shavuot. In the Laws of Hallah, he mentions having a separate hallah on the holiday of Shavuot, “when it is everywhere traditional to bake a large ‘pladen’ . . .”39 Other early rabbinic authorities do not discuss this minhag. Although the practice was well known, it was not considered as an established ritual until the publication of the above monographs, presumably during the period of the Aharonim.While Rabbi Yosef Karo, representing the Sephardic community, does not include this custom in his code of Jewish law, the

33 34

35 36

37 38 39

Quoted in Oberlander, 2005, p. 623 ff. 1. Dr. Ephraim Kanarfogel (Yeshiva University) pointed out to me that although Rabbi Tzarfati was born in France, he studied in Germany, spent time in Italy, and finally served as Rabbi in Vienna. Published in Venice in 1616. Published in Florence in 1750. Some argue that the Kol Bo is an abridged form and the forerunner of the Orhot Hayyim and that both works were composed by the same author. Tessler, 2008, p. 282. First published in Sabbioneta, Italy in 1556. The early rabbinical authorities listed are cited in Oberlander, 2005, p. 623-626. Oberlander notes that an examination of the Rishonim who discuss this minhag shows that in Provence the Rabbis refer to specific dairy foods, while in other parts of France and in Germany, the reference is to dairy products in general.

135

136

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Shulhan Arukh, Rema, representing the Ashkenazic community, writes that it is customary to eat dairy products on Shavuot: It is the custom in several localities to eat dairy products on the first day of Shavuot. It appears to me that the reason is that it is similar to the two cooked foods which are taken on the eve of Passover in remembrance of the Passover offering and remembrance of the festive offering. Similarly, one eats a milk food and subsequently a meat food on Shavuot night, and it is necessary to accompany the meal with two loaves of bread onto the table, which is instead of the altar.This provides a remembrance of the two loaves of bread that were offered on Yom ha-Bikurim (the Festival of the First Fruits).40

The Aharonim—Later Rabbinical Authorities A pamphlet entitled Matame Moshe41 cites eighty-one rabbinical elucidations, primarily suggested by later rabbinic authorities, to explain the custom of eating dairy products on Shavuot. A full discussion of these sources is obviously beyond the scope of this article, but I will present a number of the most popular rationalizations noted therein. The author of Magen Avraham writes that “there are many reasons [for eating dairy on Shavuot].”42 He explains that he found in the Zohar43 that it took seven weeks for the children of Israel to purify themselves between Passover and Shavuot, just as a woman waits for seven clean days during her niddah (menstrual impurity) period. Quoting the Talmud Bekhorot 6b, the author of Magen Avraham claims that it is known that in some women blood can turn to milk, symbolizing the transformation of judgment into mercy.Thus, although there is no direct connection between milk and Shavuot, the fact that it is the Time of the Receiving of the Torah as well as the connection between milk and mercy explains the custom of eating dairy products on Shavuot. The Magen Avraham concludes that “the custom of our forefathers [has the validity of the] Torah.” 40 Rema, Orah

Hayyim 494:3. Author unknown, 1993. 42 Magen Avraham 494:3. Rabbi Avraham Gombiner was born in Poland 1634 and died there in 1682. 43 Zohar, Leviticus 97:2. 41

In the Absence of Ritual The author of Pri Chadash challenges the Magen Avraham’s reasoning, claiming that his argument is weak. The Pri Chadash suggests that since Shavuot is the day on which the Torah was given to the Children of Israel, we consume the three liquids to which the Torah is compared (as per Talmud Ta’anit 7a)—wine, water, and milk. Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen Kagan offers a different explanation in his Mishnah Berurah: I have heard, in addition, on the authority of a great Torah scholar, a correct reason for this practice. He points out that at the time when the Children of Israel stood on Mount Sinai and received the Torah, when they descended from the mountain and returned to their homes, they did not have anything but milk food available that could be eaten immediately. This is because meat requires much preparation: slaughtering with an inspected knife, as the Lord commanded, purging the threads of forbidden fat and the veins, rinsing, and salting. It would also have been necessary for them to cook with new utensils, as the utensils that they had previously cooked in within the previous twenty-four hours became forbidden for their use. Consequently, they chose to eat milk food at that time. We eat milk food on Shavuot in remembrance of that.44

The Mishnah Berurah’s explanation is the most widely known and agreed on, most probably due to the widespread acceptance of the authority of its author. The author of Imrei Pinchas offers an additional explanation. He writes that it is a mitzvah to have a festive meal (Se’udat mitzvah) when one finishes performing a mitzvah. Since Shavuot falls at the completion of the mitzvah of counting 50 days from the beginning of Passover (Sefirat Ha-Omer), the celebration should involve a festive meal. If meat were to be consumed, however, there would be no way to distinguish this special meal from the meat meal required on a festival. A dairy meal was therefore introduced to distinguish this se’udat mitzvah (special meal) from an ordinary holiday meal. Gedalia Oberlander suggests that Shavuot may have become associated with dairy products as a result of another custom mentioned by the 44

Mishnah Berurah 494:9.Translation based on the Feldheim translation of the Mishnah Berurah.

137

138

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Rishonim. The Rokeah, Kol Bo, Orhot Hayyim, Sefer Ha’asufot Ashkenazi, and Maharam Mi-Rottenberg all note the ritual introduction of youngsters to the study of Torah, at which time foods made of milk and honey were prepared, and the children licked the honey that had been spread upon the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Oberlander suggests that at a later period, the practice was split; honey was used for the educational experience, and the consumption of dairy products was moved to Shavuot.45 An additional source of the custom is also possible. The celebration of cheese and milk as part of an agricultural festival was originally associated with the Roman pagan holiday of Parilia, when milk was consumed and used in the worship of the pastoral god Pales. This festival was observed during the harvest time (April 21), a period of rejuvenation marking the end of winter and the beginning of spring or summer, and dairy products were perceived as directly related to this regeneration.46 The pagan rituals and practices celebrated in the Middle East had great cross-cultural influence, as every religion needed to represent the same agricultural phenomena; while the gods referred to differed, the props were similar. Furthermore, once a ritual has been accepted by a group or religion, it is difficult to force its members to abandon it, and the group or religious leaders therefore retain

45 46

Oberlander, 2005, 627. Wikipedia describes the ceremony as follows: “The rural structure of the festival is carried out by the shepherd himself. After the sheep pen had been decorated with green branches and a wreath draped on the gate, the remainder of the ceremony took place in a sequential fashion. At the first sign of daylight, the shepherd would purify the sheep by sweeping the pen and then constructing a bonfire of straw, olive branches, laurel, and sulfur. The noises produced by this burning combination were interpreted as a beneficial omen. The shepherd would jump through this flame, dragging his sheep along with him. Offerings of millet, cakes, and milk were then presented before Pales, marking the second segment of the ceremony. After these offerings, the shepherd would wet his hands with dew, face the east, and repeat a prayer four times. Such prayers requested Pales’ assistance in freeing the shepherd and the flock from evils brought about by accidental wrongdoings (e.g. trespassing on sacred grounds and removing water from a sacred water source).The final portion of the rural festival made use of the beverage burranica, a combination of milk and sapa (boiled wine). After consumption of this beverage, the shepherd would leap through the fire three times, bringing an end to the ceremony” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parilia).

In the Absence of Ritual the same symbols while giving them new meaning or purpose.47 Thus, during the third century, an agricultural festival called Witsunday or White Sunday was commonly observed in Central Europe. The festival was usually directly related to the Christian Pentecost, considered the birthday of the Church, which was celebrated 50 days after Easter. Another name for Whitsunday was the “Holiday of Cheese and Milk,” as the earlier traditions of the time period were still maintained.48 Theodor Gaster writes: In reality, cheese and dairy dishes are eaten at this time because the festival has a pastoral as well as an agricultural significance. Thus, at the analogous Scottish celebrations of Beltane on May 1, dairy dishes are commonly consumed, and churning and cheese-making are a common feature of spring harvest festivals in many parts of the world. In Macedonia, for instance, the Sunday before Lent is known as “Cheese Sunday;” in several districts of Germany, cheese and dairy dishes are (or were) standard fare at Whitsun.49

Accordingly, on Shavuot, the Jews of Europe were certainly not celebrating an agricultural festival, but rather the festival of the giving of the Torah. Nevertheless, there was no need to entirely eliminate the custom of eating dairy products that was prevalent during that time of year; instead, it was incorporated into the central concept of Shavuot—the revelation at Sinai.

Decorating with Trees, Greens, and Flowers The use of greens as decoration in the home and synagogue on Shavuot is a practice that is apparently quite ancient, but for which the source is

47

See Fishbane, 2011, chapter 2. In England (Cooper’s Hill, near Brockworth, Gloucestershire), the tradition of cheese rolling was celebrated; a large round wheel of cheese was rolled down a steep hill and people chased after it. In St. Braivels, Gloucestershire, basketfuls of bread and cheese are still thrown from a wall near the old castle; the local population has been practicing this custom since the thirteenth century. Similar activities involving cheese are practiced in other districts of Britain as well. 49 Gaster, 1953, p. 77. 48

139

140

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual unclear.50 The first explicit mention of the practice of decorating the synagogue with greens on Shavuot is found in the writings of Maharil, an early rabbinic authority in Germany in the fourteenth-fifteenth century: It is the custom to spread on the floor of the synagogue the perfume from grasses and roses in honor of the joyfulness of the festival (simhat ha-regel). If Shavuot fell on Sunday, it was the custom of the Mahari Segel to spread the grass on Friday, before Shabbat.51

Because joy is particularly stressed on Shavuot, greens were spread on the floor to ensure cleanliness and good fragrance, contributing to a festive ambiance.52 Another example is that found in the writings of H. D.Azulai,53 who cites Targum Sheni, an Aramaic commentary on the scroll of Esther, which is supposed to represent Haman’s view of Shavuot: In the month of Sivan, two days of holiday are celebrated. They come to their synagogues, read shema, pray and read from their Torah scrolls, translate the prophets, and curse the king and ministers. They call this day atzeret or Shavuot. They ascend to the rooftop of their synagogue and disseminate [roses] and apples. The congregants [children] collect them and the congregants say, “Just as we collect these roses and apples, so should gather their children from our children.” This is the day the Torah was given to our forefathers at Sinai.54

50

Many of the sources cited below were presented by Oberlander, 2005, pp. 573-604, and Sperber, 1998, vol. 7, pp. 140-154. 51 Maharil, Laws of Shavuot. Maharil also cites the practice of spreading grasses on the floor of the synagogue on Yom Kippur (Laws of Yom Kippur, 1), but for a different reason: so that those praying would not bow directly on the floor during the services. Interestingly, scented spices or flowers were often distributed to congregants in the synagogue during the prayer service, a practice that was questioned by rabbinic authorities. It is first mentioned in the writings of Rabbi Shimshon of Shantz, one of the Tosafists, in his commentary to Mishnah Uktzin 1:2. See also Tselnik, 1973, p. 249, who discusses the halakhic difficulties with this custom. 52 Rabbi Efraim Margolit (nineteenth-century Europe) offers an elaborate description of this practice in his Mateh Efraim 427:14. 53 Birkei Yosef, section 6. 54 Targum Sheni, Esther 3:8. This translation is adapted from the translation found in Patshegen Ha-Ketav. It is not clear when the Targum Sheni was redacted, but scholars are of the opinion that it was probably completed in the late seventh century or

In the Absence of Ritual A similar approach to that of Maharil is demonstrated by other rabbinic authorities, such as Rabbi Isaac Tirna.55 In his Leket Yosher, Rabbi Yosef bar Rabbi Moshe Hoshtat cites the practice of his teacher, Rabbi Moshe Isserlin (author of Terumat Hadeshen), who would place scented grass not only in the synagogue, but also in his home. Accordingly, the ritual is not only a public practice designed for the social group, its loyalty, and the authority of its leaders,56 but it is also a private or family custom. It is noteworthy that Simhat Torah, a festival that also celebrates the Torah, is solely a community or synagogue holiday, while Shavuot is family-oriented as well, involving practices relating to food and decoration. Rabbi Karo does not codify the practice of decorating the synagogue in his Shulhan Arukh. Oberlander argues that the custom of decorating the synagogue and home was practiced primarily in Germany; therefore Rabbi Karo, who represents the Sephardic community, does not include it in his work.57 Rema (Isserles), representing the Ashkenazic community, rules in his gloss that one should decorate the home and the synagogue by spreading greens as a means of symbolically celebrating and remembering the giving of the Torah (zekher lesimhat matan Torah) because Mount Sinai was allegedly surrounded by greens and flowers.58 Rema focuses on the importance of Shavuot as the festival of the receiving the Torah. R. Avraham Gombiner’s Magen Avraham introduces a further element of the custom. In his commentary to the Shulhan Arukh, he introduces the concept of using trees for decoration on Shavuot.59 It is not clear whether he is referring to small trees or branches. He offers an additional rationalization for the custom of adorning the synagogue and home with trees, basing his reasoning upon a passage in the Mishnah stating that the world is judged in accordance with the productivity of fruit trees on atzeret:60

55 56 57 58 59 60

early eighth century CE. For a detailed discussion of this source, see Sperber, 1991, p. 245. Laws of the Month of Sivan. See Eldan, 2011, p. 79. Oberlander, 2005, p. 574. Although this would seem to be factually inaccurate, the myth has become part of Jewish collective memory. Magen Avraham, Orah Hayyim 494:3. Rosh Hashana 1:2.

141

142

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual It is the custom [on Shavuot] to place trees in the synagogue and home. It seems to me that the reason is to remember that [the world] is judged on the [yield] of the fruit trees and one will pray for them.

Other rabbinical authorities offer a similar explanation, including Rabbi Yeshaya haLevi Horowitz (preceding the Magen Avraham),61 Rabbi Yaakov Emden in his Siddur BeitYaakov, the Be’er Hetev commentary on the Shulhan Arukh,62 the Mishnah Berurah,63 and Rabbi Sholom Mordekhai.64 The practice of spreading greens on the floor of both the home and places of worship was common during the Middle Ages in Central Europe. The rituals of the Christian holiday Whitsunday, which, as noted above, is celebrated at the same time of year as Shavuot, include the practice of decorating the church with flowers and greens.65 On the English church holiday called Rushbearing, rushes were collected and spread on the floor of the parish church. This ritual dates back to a period when most structures had earthen floors; the greens were used as a system of renewing the floor coverings, thus ensuring cleanliness and insulation. The greens chosen for this purpose were usually those that provided a sweet smell.66 The practice of spreading perfumed greens was thus not at all alien to the Jew of the Middle Ages. Unless there is a specific theological reason for using a specific item in a religious ritual, the ritual object is generally selected based on availability in a particular geographical location and the group’s common practice. These items are termed “hybrid,” both familiar to the community members and found in the rituals of other religions found in the same location. As David Landes writes: Where all cultures are involved in one another, none is simple and pure; all are hybrid, heterogeneous, extraordinarily differentiated, and unmonolithic.67

61 62 63 64 65 66 67

Shenei Luhot haBrit, (The Shelah) Rabbi Yeshaya Horowitz. Be’er Hetev 494:7. Mishnah Berurah 494:10. Maharsham 494:3. See Gaster, 1953, pp. 75-76. See George, 1966, pp. 17-30, for a detailed description of this ritual. Landes, 2010, pp. 138-140.

In the Absence of Ritual The Jews adopted cultural practices common in their society that they viewed as contributing toward strengthening Jewish custom and practice as well as the society and the communities. As a result of this influence, we find a discussion regarding Shavuot decorations similar to that regarding the use of flowers at funerals. Rabbi Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman Kramer of Vilna (known as the Vilna Gaon or Gra) strongly objected to decorating with trees because of their use in churches; using them would thus fall under the prohibition against hukkat ha-goyim (non-Jewish prectices). This view is shared by other rabbinical authorities as well, such as Rabbi Avraham Danzig,68 Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein,69 the Maharsham,70 Rabbi Moshe Feinstein,71 and the Shulhan Ha-Tahor.72 Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen cites both opinions in his Mishnah Berurah: It is the practice to place trees in the synagogue and in the homes on Shavuot in remembrance of the fact that on Atezret, one is judged with respect to the fruit of the trees [quoting the author of Magen Avraham]. The Gra stopped this practice, because nowadays it is an established Gentile practice to set up trees on the festival.73

Interestingly enough, even though the leading rabbinical authorities of the modern era did not support this custom, the majority of halakhic Jewish communities continue to adorn their synagogues and homes with various types of vegetation on Shavuot, retaining the rationalizations for an old custom. Once a custom or ritual has been rooted in the collective mind of the group, it is very difficult to uproot it or change the rationalization for it. Decorating the synagogue and home for Shavuot has been practiced for hundreds of years, generation after generation; it is not only a public practice, but also a family or home ritual. These customs were

68 69 70 71 72 73

Hayyei Adam, section 131, paragraph 13 and Hokhmat Adam, section 89, paragraph 1. Arukh HaShulhan OH 494:6. Rabbi Sholom Mordekhai Schwadron (Maharsham), in his Daat Torah OH 494:3. Responsa Iggrot Moshe, vol. 8, Yoreh Deah 11:5. Shulhan Ha-Tahor, Aharon Roth. Mishnah Berurah 494: 3.

143

144

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual not discarded or rejected even after instructions from leading rabbinical authorities.74 Various suggestions were offered to justify such actions of the collective memory that were in opposition to rabbinic disapproval. Rabbi Shaul Nathanson argues with the Gra and shows that the custom of decorating with trees does not fall under the category of hukkat ha-goyim, since there is a rational reason for it. He writes that the gentiles whom he asked why they placed trees in their homes, responded that the purpose was honor, beauty, and adornment. As a parallel example, he notes that it is permitted to visit the cemetery during the first seven days after a death—even though the gentiles have the same practice—because this is done out of respect for the dead.75 The Maharsham also adds a defense for the custom that would negate the ruling of the Gra. He explains that the gentiles he is familiar with place trees outside of their churches, while the Jews place them inside houses of worship. Thus, since the Jews are not actually copying the custom of the non-Jews, the practice should be permitted. The Maharsham concludes, “The custom of Israel has the status of Torah law,” and should therefore be maintained.76 Other rabbinic authorities attempt to differentiate between the use of trees and other vegetation, such as grasses and flowers. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, for example, wrote that the Gra intended to prohibit only the former, not the latter.77 These authorities thus avoid rejecting the opinion of a scholar of the Gra’s stature while allowing the custom to continue.78

Sephardic Customs Although the practice is not mentioned in Rabbi Karo’s Shulhan Arukh, many Sephardic communities decorate their synagogues and/or homes on 74 75 76 77 78

I have argued similarly regarding the mourning rites during the Sefirat Ha-Omer period; see Fishbane, 2011, chapter 2. Yosef Da’at, Yoreh Deah 348. Maharsham 494:3. Quoted in Oberlander, 2005, p. 598. Rabbi Epstein and Rabbi Feinstein, in contrast, interpreted the Gra as including both grasses and trees in the prohibition. For different rabbinic opinions, see Oberlander, 2005, pp. 573-601; Zinner, 1999, p. 80.

In the Absence of Ritual Shavuot.79 In fact, Persian Jews call Shavuot “Moda Gol,” the Holiday of Flowers, and the Jews of Bukhara called the festival “Guke Suchre” (the Red Rose). It is their custom to decorate tables with scented flowers during the holiday.80 Rabbi Shemtob Gaguine writes that the custom in the Land of Israel, Syria, and Egypt was to adorn the ornaments of the Torah scrolls with flowers and roses. Trees and flowers were placed to the side of the Holy Ark as well as on the walls and entrance to the synagogue, and roses were flung onto the Sefer Torah when the Torah was removed and returned to the Holy Ark.81 Rabbi Haim Palagi writes of his custom of distributing roses in the synagogue on Shavuot.82 The author of Kaf Ha-Hayyim relates that on Shavuot, roses were placed in a vase in the synagogue, and on the second day of the holiday, these flowers were distributed to the children after the reading of the story of Ruth on that day. Among the Jews of Libya, it is the custom to prepare small leaves with thorns before the holiday to symbolically represent the burning bush in which God appeared to Moses. On Shavuot morning, each child receives seven leaves, which he places in water and then swallows as a merit for the study of Torah. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef supports the custom of decorating the synagogue and homes with perfumed grass, flowers, and tree branches by a rationalization similar to that of the Maharsham. He argues that although there is some question regarding the acceptability of this custom, the practice is allowed, for “their [Israel’s] custom bears the status of Torah.” Furthermore, he writes, it is an ancient custom referred to by the early Rabbis, which should thus overrule any doubts.83 As we noted above, flowers served a central role in secular culture—as opposed to religious worship—in the Islamic world. If we accept the 79

80 81 82 83

See Gaguine, 1954, vol. 4, pp. 12-13, who cites Sephardic rabbinic support for the custom. Rabbi Yosef Schwarz (quoted in Tessler, Peninei Minhag, 62) writes that the Sephardim in Israel do not decorate their synagogues with trees and flowers on Shavuot, but based on personal observation and inquiry, the practice today is to decorate. Tessler, 2008, p. 68. Gaguine, 1954, p. 12. Ruach Hayyim 494:4. Yalkut Yosef, 317-318. In footnote 28, Rabbi Yosef cites numerous rabbinic authorities who support his view, some of whom I have noted above.

145

146

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual hybrid theory of appreciating and sharing similar items and behaviors in a society, we can understand the importance of the Sephardic practice of adorning and beautifying with flowers in synagogues and homes on Shavuot.

Hasidic Customs The concept of hybrid practices can also explain the customs that developed in Hasidic communities. By the eighteenth century, flowers and greens were back in favor in Europe,84 and the Hasidic communities, which were less influenced by the Gra’s ruling, did not hesitate to use vegetation as decoration on Shavuot. Three branches were traditionally placed on each of the four sides of the synagogue bima (Torah reading platform) to symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel. Some Hasidic groups would enhance this practice by weaving together the top branches to form a canopy. It is reported that leaves and flowers were also used to adorn the place where the Satmar Rebbe prayed.85 Yitzchak Tessler records that in the German Jewish communities, children would make colorful chains from scented flowers, which were then used to decorate the Holy Ark and the bima. Flower crowns were also made for the Sefer Torah. The rose was given a special place of importance in both Sephardic and Hasidic rituals on Shavuot, due to numerous references to it in Song of Songs.

Reading the Megillah (Scroll) of Ruth The Rabbis ordained that one—“scrolls” from the Writings—should be read on each of the pilgrimage festivals: Song of Songs on Passover, Ecclesiastes on Sukkot, and Ruth on Shavuot. Y. S. Zevin notes that there are four prevalent customs regarding the reading of Megillat Ruth on Shavuot:86

84

See Goody, 1993, p. 284. Tessler, 2008, pp. 61-77. 86 Zevin, 1955, pp. 327-328. 85

In the Absence of Ritual 1. Sephardic communities do not read Megillat Ruth in the synagogue on Shavuot; they similarly do not read the Megillot associated with the other holidays. Some Hasidic groups, such as Habad, follow this tradition as well.87 2. Some Hasidic groups recite the Megillah quietly and individually from a printed Bible prior to the holiday Torah reading in the synagogue. 3. Ashkenazic communities read Megillat Ruth publicly, either from parchment or from a printed Bible, but no blessing is recited (as is the case with Megillat Esther on Purim).88 4. In Israel, those who follow the practices of the Gra read the Megillah from a valid parchment and recite a blessing. The first reference to the relationship between the book of Ruth and the festival of Shavuot is found in Tractate Sofrim, redacted approximately in the middle of the eighth century, during the Geonic era. After discussing the reading of Songs of Songs on Passover, the redactor informs his readers: Ruth [is read] on the termination of the first day of atzeret to [the end of] its [first] half, and concluded on the termination of the last day of the Festival. Others hold that with all the Festivals, we begin to read [the respective scrolls] on the Saturday night preceding them.89

87 The

Shulhan Arukh of Rabbi Karo does not include this law. Even though Rabbi Karo, representative of the Sephardic rulings, is silent on this matter, Rabbi Yosef (Chazon Obadya on Yom Tov, 320:3) writes that it is proper practice to read Ruth on Shavuot without reciting a blessing. 88 Rema quoting the Abudraham (OH 490:9) simply states that on Shavuot Megillat Ruth is read. No reason is offered. The Mishnah Berurah commenting on Rema writes, “The Megillah Ruth is said on Shavuot because of what is stated in Yalkut Shimoni on Ruth: ‘what is the relevance of the megillah to atzeret? That it should be read at the time of the giving of the Torah, to teach us that the Torah is only attainable through willingness to endure suffering and poverty etc.’ It is the practice to read the megillah of Ruth on the second day.” 89 Tractate Sofrim 14:18.

147

148

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual In the early part of the thirteenth century, the Yalkut Shimoni also associated Megillat Ruth with the holiday of the Receiving of the Torah.90 Numerous explanations for this custom have been suggested.91 As we have noted, although the Torah’s rationale for Shavuot as an agricultural Temple pilgrimage festival has lapsed, many customs and rituals were instituted to provide the holiday with relevant meaning as the Time of the Receiving of the Torah. Most explanations therefore associate the custom of reading Megillat Ruth on the holiday with this later meaning. The Yalkut Shimoni notes that just as Ruth suffered and underwent great material sacrifice and deprivation in order to live as a Jewess in the Land of Israel, those who wish to become faithfully and sincerely attached to the Torah—which was received by the Jewish People on Shavuot—must do likewise. The Midrash Zuta commentary,92 followed by others, such as Rabbi Tovia ben Eliezer in his work Midrash Lekah Tov, suggests that the theme of poverty which pervades the story of Ruth points to a connection with Shavuot, for only through poverty, and not through wealth, can one properly devote himself to the study of Torah.93 Numerous Rishonim, including Rabbi Simhah of Vitry,94 R. Avraham Ha-Yarchi,95 R. David Abudraham,96 and Rabbi MordekhaiYaffe,97 suggest that the story of Ruth is read on Shavuot, the Biblical holiday of the harvest and first fruits, because the story takes place during the harvest season.

90

Yalkut Shimoni 596. It is not clear who the author of this work is and when he lived; some date it to the eleventh century. 91 For a detailed list of the multitude of reasons offered for this fusion, see Tselnik, 1973, 238-245; Maimon, 1952, pp. 269-271; and Zevin, 1955, pp. 327-329. For explanations offered by modern commentators (especially Hasidic), see Tessler, 2008, pp. 405-414. 92 On Ruth 1:1. 93 Midrash Lekah Tov, end of treatise on Ruth. Rabbi Tovia ben Eliezer lived in Kastoria, Greece in the late eleventh century to the early twelfth century. Magen Avraham, Orah Hayyim 590, also cites this reason for reading the book of Ruth on Shavuot. 94 Mahzor Vitri, vol. 2, section 108. 95 Ha-Manhig, Laws of Sukkot, section 58. 96 Abudraham, section on Passover, Sefirat Ha-Omer, and Shavuot. 97 Levush ha-Hur 494:2.

In the Absence of Ritual Rabbi Eleazar Rokeah of Worms notes that the Bible links the commandment to assist the poor during the harvest season specifically with the holiday of Shavuot: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not altogether remove the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them to the poor and to the stranger.”98 It is therefore appropriate to read the story of Ruth during the holiday.99 The author of Mahzor Vitri suggests an additional explanation, suggesting that Ruth, by converting to Judaism, entered into a covenant with God, just as the people of Israel entered into a covenant with God by accepting the Torah at Sinai on Shavuot. A different approach is offered by the author of the Tevu’at Shor, Rabbi Alexander Sender Shore. He notes that King David was born and died on Shavuot, and that therefore the book of Ruth—which presents King David’s lineage as the great grandson of Ruth—is appropriate for the day.100 Y. L. Maimon suggests an alternative reason for the original Geonic association between Ruth and Shavuot. Ruth was a Moabite woman who left her people to join the Jewish nation in the Land of Israel, eventually marrying Boaz and becoming the ancestor of King David. A literal understanding of biblical law would seem to prohibit such a marriage: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord forever.”101 The Rabbis explain that the prohibition does not include the women of those tribes intermarrying; “An Ammonite [is forbidden to marry a Jewess], but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite [is forbidden to marry a Jewess], but not a Moabitess.”102

 98 Leviticus

23:22. Ha-Rokeah, Laws of Shavuot 296. Rabbi Mordekhai Yaffe (Levush ha-Hur 494:2) offers a similar rationalization as well. 100 This explanation is found in his Talmudic commentary, Bekhor Shor, on BT Baba Batra 13b. Maimon, 1952, p. 270 ff., cites others who suggested similar reasons for reading Ruth on Shavuot. See also Tselnik, 1973, p. 241. 101 Deuteronomy 23:4. 102 BT Yevamot 76b.

 99 Sefer

149

150

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual The Karaites, who rejected the Talmud, did not accept this interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:4. Their fiercest opponents, the Geonim, thus declared that Megillat Ruth should be read on Shavuot, the holiday of the Receiving of the Torah, because it epitomizes the traditional reliance on the Oral Law.103

A Night of Torah Study Although the early rabbinical codes, such as those of Maimonides, Tur, Shulhan Arukh, and Rema, do not record the custom of learning all night on Shavuot, this practice is widely accepted. There is a similar custom of remaining awake to study on the night of Hoshana Rabba, the seventh day of Sukkot.104 The first explicit reference to the custom of remaining awake on Shavuot night is found in the Zohar’s discussion of Shavuot: Therefore, the pious ones of old used not to sleep on this night, but they used to study the Torah and say: “Let us acquire a holy inheritance for ourselves and our sons in two worlds.” On that night, the community of Israel is crowned above them and comes to join the Holy King, and both are crowned above the heads of those who are worthy of this. R. Simeon used to say:“Let us go and prepare the ornaments of the Bride, that tomorrow she may appear before the King fitly adorned and bedecked . . . .”105

In the Zohar’s typology, the Torah is compared to a bride and the people of Israel is her groom. On the eve of their marriage—the night before the 103 Maimon, 1952, pp. 271-272. I

have offered a similar argument in my discussion of mourning customs during Sefirat ha-Omer; see Fishbane, 2011, pp. 30-31. Leshen, 1965, vol. 2, pp. 529-533, suggests that Jewish practices regarding the Ten Commandments were similarly influenced by the struggle against Christianity, which claimed that only the laws found in the Ten Commandments were still binding. As a result, the Sages of the Talmud abolished the ancient tradition of reciting the Ten Commandments on a daily basis, so as not to give the impression that these laws are more important than the others. Rabbi Saadia Gaon included Azharot in the Shavuot prayer service for this reason as well, as they note the 613 mitzvoth and thereby implicitly rebuke the Karaites and Christians. 104 This day is considered the culmination of the Days of Judgment, and the kabbalists wrote that the study of Torah during that night would succor the person’s final judgment. 105 Zohar, Leviticus 23:15. I have used the Soncino translation of the Zohar, 123.

In the Absence of Ritual Receiving of the Torah—jewelry and ornaments must be prepared for the wedding. These ornaments take the form of Torah study as preparation for receiving the bride, the Torah. It was the kabbalists, especially Rabbi Isaac Luria (Arizal), who popularized this practice, emphasizing that if one does not sleep on the night of Shavuot and instead studies Torah, he will be protected in the upcoming year from all evil. A second popular justification for this nocturnal ritual is offered by the author of Magen Avraham, in an attempt to suggest a non-mystical rationalization for this practice.106 He writes that the Israelites slept the entire night prior to receiving the Torah at Sinai; Moses needed to wake them to be prepared for the great event. In order to make amends for their forefathers’ laziness, Jews do not sleep on this night, studying Torah instead.107 It was not until the sixteenth century that the custom of maintaining this all-night vigil began to spread amongst the Jewish populace. Although Rabbi Karo did not mention the practice in his Shulhan Arukh, he was aware of it, and may have been responsible for its further acceptance. Rabbi Yeshaya haLevi Horowitz, in his Shenei Luhot haBrit, records a story that, in approximately 1534, when Rabbi Karo still lived in Ottoman Solinka, he studied all night on Shavuot with Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz. Since it was a uniquely kabbalistic practice, Karo did not codify it as common law. Andrew Schein argues that the custom became popular after Rabbi Karo moved to Sefad, and that it further spread throughout the Mediterranean basin and northward throughout Europe. Schein suggests three reasons for 106 Schein, 2011, p. 42. 107 Magen

Avraham, Orah Hayyim 494. These views are summarized in the Mishnah Berurah 494:1: “It is stated in the Zohar that on Shavuot the pious of former times would stay awake all night and engage in Torah study. The majority of Torah students have already adopted this practice. It is stated in the Shulhan Arukh of the Arizal: ‘Note that whoever did not sleep any amount at all on the night of Shavuot but engaged in Torah study is assured of completing the year and no harm will befall him.’ The Magen Avraham writes a reason for this which is based upon the plain facts. This is that the children of Israel slept all night before the Torah was given and the Holy One, Blessed be He, needed to wake them to receive the Torah [as stated in the Midrash]; consequently, we are required to make amends for this.”

151

152

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual this. First, the custom was accepted because of the reputation of Rabbi Karo, who personally adhered to this ritual. Second, it was the custom in sixteenth-century Sefad to rise at midnight to recite prayers mourning the destruction of the Temple and begging for redemption (tikkun hatzot), and those who observed these nightly vigils would also be inclined not to sleep on the night of Shavuot. Finally, Rabbi Luria’s support for the practice was influential.108 Elliot Horowitz offers a unique view into the nocturnal ritual on the night of Shavuot. He notes that the ritual of tikkun hatzot became popular in sixteenth-century kabbalistic circles in Sefad, just as coffee was become popular throughout the Muslim world. In the fifteenth century, in Yemenite Sufi circles, coffee was used to provide the necessary wakefulness for nightly prayers, and by the sixteenth century coffee was available to the general public for both religious and non-religious purposes, which undoubtedly influenced the kabbalistic late-night prayers. In the seventeenth century, both tikkun hatzot and coffee made their way to Europe, in view of these occurences, the acceptance of the custom of remaining awake on the night of Shavuot may be directly related to these developments. Horowitz writes: It may be presumed that significant numbers of those who observed them [the nighttime vigils] fortified themselves with the stimulant which the hidden hand of God had recently brought to their region. . . .The vigils of Shavuot and Hoshanna Rabba, previously limited in their appeal and relatively brief in duration, came to be widely observed as all night affairs.This was due more to the availability of coffee than to the habit of frequenting coffeehouses, but the vogue achieved by the midnight rite of tikkun hazot would seem to have been equally linked to the latter.109

Horowitz further notes that, in contrast to the Sabbath, the days on which these vigils were observed were always days on which coffee could be prepared.110 Meir Bar Ilan notes that the other pilgrimage festivals, Passover and Sukkot, both have nocturnal vigils included in their current ritual 108 Schein, 2011, p. 41. 109 Horowitz, 1989, p. 44. 110 Ibid.,

p. 36. The popularization of coffee was clearly not the only motivation for the practice of remaining awake for prayer and study, but the new stimulant assisted

In the Absence of Ritual practices. The Rabbis did not want Shavuot to be any different, and therefore incorporated and popularized the all-night study practice, linking it to the nature of the day as the holiday of the Receiving of the Torah and thereby strengthening its observances.111 When a ritual or custom develops, a uniform script plays an important role in its formalization; the precise words that the actor must recite are prepared and even canonized.112 Thus, Luria prepared a special compilation of sources, divided into 13 parts, known as Tikkun Lel Shavuot, to be recited on this night.113 This compilation consists of excerpts from the beginning and conclusion of each of the 24 books of the Bible and the 63 books of Mishnah, as well as selections from Sefer ha-Yetzirah, Maimonides’ Book of the Commandments, and the Zohar. Luria recommended that ten Jewish adult men study this compilation throughout the vigil on Shavuot. Not all rabbinic authorities, however, accepted the recitation of Tikkun Lel Shavuot. Rabbi Yaakov Reischer argues in his commentary to the Shulhan Arukh, Hok Ya’akov, that this organized compilation is intended for the uneducated (“amei ha-aretz”), who lack the background required for deeper Torah study.114 In most yeshivot, each individual studies according to personal preferences on the night of Shavuot. Study groups for men and women are increasingly popular today.

The Custom of Reciting Akdamut Milin and Azharot An additional congregational or communal ritual on Shavuot involves poetry and prose chanted during the prayer services in the synagogue. During Ashkenazic services, the liturgical poem (piyyut) “Akdamut Milin,” the popularization of tikkun hatzot and Tikkun Lel Shavuot, which subsequently became embedded in the culture of coffee. 111 Bar Ilan, 1997, pp. 28-48. 112 For a further discussion of this topic, see Bird, 1979, vol. 9, pp. 387-402, and idem, 1995, p. 24. 113 The first mention of Tikkun Lel Shavuot was made by Rabbi Yeshaya Horowitz in his work, the Shenei Luhot haBrit, Tractate Shavuot. He writes that the custom of Tikkun Lel Shavuot spread throughout the land of Israel and the Ottoman Empire and was adopted by young and old alike. Rabbi Yosef Yospa (Germany, 1570-1637) notes this ritual in his work, Yosef Ometz, Seder Hag ha-Shavuot, section 852. 114 Hok Ya’akov, Orah Hayyim 494.

153

154

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual attributed to Rabbi Meir bar Yitzchak, is recited on the first day of the festival, prior to the reading of the Torah portion. It includes praise of God, the Torah, and the Jewish people. The prayer leader and congregation recite the 90 lines of the Aramaic poem responsively in an ancient melody. The custom of reciting Akdamut was originally associated with the practice of translating the Torah reading into Aramaic during the synagogue service, where it served as an introductory poem. Although that practice ceased in the Middle Ages, Akdamut was not discarded.115 The custom of reciting the poem as part of the Shavuot liturgy was first noted by Maharil in the mid-sixteenth century,116 and the recital of the piyyut quickly spread and was adopted into the liturgy in the majority of Ashkenazic communities. Although not directly connected to the theme of the Shavuot festival, it has become the major poem representative of the holiday.117 R. Hoffman argues that Akdamut became widely accepted during the period of the Crusades, when the European Jewish communities suffered terribly at the hands of the Christians. According to a legend circulating at the time, Rabbi Meir bar Yitzchak, the author of Akdamut, saved the Jewish community through his great piety and devotion to God. Rabbi Hoffman writes: The cumulative effect of all the ways in which the piyyut was read in light of the tale is to enhance the figure of Rabbi Meir into one of a victorious champion of his people, and to boost the significance of Akdamut from a prayer offering open-ended encouragement and hope for future redemption to a celebratory hymn of a spectacular deliverance and liberation that already took place. 115 The

instruction to read Akdamut does not appear in the classical codes, and there is a dispute amongst the rabbinic authorities regarding the point in the service where it should be inserted; see Tselnik, 1973, 222-226 and Zinner, 1999, 150-154. The Mishnah Berurah (Orah Hayyim 494:2) summarizes: “It is the practice to say the liturgical poem Akadamut. Several Aharonim agree that it should be said be­fore the Kohen begins to make the blessing over the reading of the Torah. This is in fact the practice today in several communities.” 116 Maharil, Laws of Shavuot, 3. 117 See Schiffman (2011), who discusses the popularity of Akdamut.

In the Absence of Ritual Akdamut served as means for providing encouragement and succor to a community that had suffered greatly, and it has continued to offer comfort and inspiration throughout Jewish history.118 Ashkenazic communities in the Diaspora read another piyyut on the second day of Shavuot, “Yatziv Pitgam,” by Rabbi Jacob ben Meir ha-Levi. This poem describes the grandeur of receiving the Torah at Sinai and includes a prayer to protect those who observe the Torah.119 The Sephardic communities, which did not incorporate Akdamut into their services, recite Azharot, poetic prayers based upon the 613 mitzvoth.120 Sources as early as Rabbi Natronai Gaon refer to the reading of Azharot in the synagogue,121 and many versions of the Azharot developed, beginning in the period of the Geonim. One version of these prayers is found in the Siddur of Rabbi Saadia Gaon. Contemporary practice is to chant the Azharot compiled by Rabbi Shlomo ibn Gabirol.

Discussion—Communal Rituals I suggest that the structural approach advanced by Emile Durkheim and Alfred Radcliffe-Brown is applicable to the social ramifications of Jewish communal rituals. Durkheim argues that religion, as a set of ideas and practices, attempts to sanctify and unify the community’s social structure, primarily through the observance of communal rites and rituals. Catherine Bell explains: As periodic opportunities for the social group to assemble itself and project sacred images that actually represent the community, rituals are designed to arouse a passionate intensity, a feeling of “effervescence” in which individuals experience something larger than themselves.122

118 Hoffman, 2009, pp. 161-184. Hoffman

presents the entire legend regarding Rabbi Meir bar Yitzhak. 119 There are various opinions amongst the rabbinic authorities regarding when during the prayer service Yatziv Pitgam should be recited, as in the case of Akdamut; see Tselnik, 1973, p. 227. 120 See Leshen, 1965, p. 526. 121 Halakhot Pesukot 104. Rabbi Natronai Gaon lived in the second half of the ninth century in Sura, Babylonia. 122 Bell, 1977, p. 24.

155

156

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Durkheim suggests that ritual provides the opportunity to bring people together as a collective group; it “strengthens the bonds attaching the individual to the society of which he is a member”123 by means of a conscious act of affiliation. Observance of the ritual is an experience of the collective representation as a simultaneously transcendent and immanent communality. Thus, religion and ritual are extremely important for the group’s social solidarity. Radcliffe-Brown, who emphasizes the a historical approach to the study of society, similarly analyzes the social function of religions and their contribution to the formation and maintenance of the social order, arguing that the priority of ritual and the importance of its social role is securing and maintaining the unity of the group. Without entering into the differences between these two scholars, they both clearly emphasize the importance of communal ritual for the bonding, strengthening, and maintenance of the social structure. As Bell summarizes: For social functionalists, therefore, ritual is a means to regulate and stabilize the life of this system, adjust its internal interactions, maintain its group ethos, and restore a state of harmony after any disturbance. As such, religion and ritual are social mechanisms with a particularly vital role to play in maintaining the system.124

Thus, the communal rituals of Shavuot, in addition to reinforcing its recall of the giving of the Covenant, sustain and reinforce the group’s solidarity. The observance of the nocturnal vigil dedicated to the study of Torah and the recitation of special prayers bring all segments of the community together, reinforcing communal strength.125

Additional Shavuot Rituals Additional Shavuot rituals are either practiced by specific communities or restricted to individuals. For example, some, primarily Sephardic, communities include in the liturgy the recitation of a “marriage contract” 123 Cited

in ibid., p. 25.

124 Ibid., p. 29. 125 In

the Ultra-Orthodox community, women do not participate in the nighttime study. Increased participation in the practice reflects the evolving status of women in this part of the Jewish community.

In the Absence of Ritual between the Jewish People and the Torah. Less frequently, some choose to donate a Torah scroll on Shavuot, an important celebration for the local community. Some North African communities observe the interesting ritual of spilling or shooting water on other Jews in the synagogue or in a public area on either of the two days of Shavuot. One possible reason for this practice relates to the Rabbis’ comparison of the Torah to water.126 Water also symbolizes the rainfall of the upcoming year; it was believed that the more water spilled on Shavuot, the greater the forthcoming rainfall. The water throwing may also be associated with the story of how Moses was saved from the waters of the Nile, which, according to the Rabbis’ calculation, occurred on Shavuot.127 Daniel Sperber suggests that this is a hybrid custom.128 E.Westermarck identifies the source for this custom in a Berber summer purification ceremony: In Rabat, Mequonez, and Fez, people then pour or … squirt water over each other in the streets or from the housetops. This has often the appearance of a real fight, although nobody is allowed to take offence; so large a quantity of water is thrown about that the streets of Fez become almost as muddy as after a fall of rain. . . . Among the Ait Yusi, Ait Saddem, and Ait Warain, the people on Midsummer morning pour water over each other, and sometimes even on persons who are sleeping or sitting in their tents. . . .129

126 See

BT Bava Kama 82a. BT Yevamot 12b. 128 Sperber, 2007, pp. 84-95. 129 Westermarck, 1926, vol. 2, pp. 262-264, cited in Sperber, 2007, pp. 93-94. Westermarck writes: “The purification ceremonies which are practiced in Morocco at Midsummer are old Berber customs, in some way connected with similar rites encountered on the other side of the Mediterranean. To this day, the Arabic form El-Ansarah is used by the Copts for Witsunday. Considering that the real meaning of the word is feast in general, it is not surprising that the Arabs and Berbers adopted it as a name for the Midsummer festival. Every student of the language of the Berbers know how ready they have been to make use of foreign words; the importation of Arabic expressions in the various Berber dialects is truly immense. Hence, the Midsummer festival may very well be a genuine Berber custom, although its name is derived from the Arabic form of the Hebrew word.” 127 See

157

158

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Sperber concludes that the name of the Berber ritual, Ansarah, is similar to the Hebrew atzeret. He argues that if this early festival is a purification ritual, as Westermarck suggests, it is analogous with Shavuot, for the Bible required the Jew to purify himself in preparation for receiving the Torah. Although the “purification ritual” was practiced on the day of the festival itself, not prior to it, Sperber maintains that there is sufficient argument for a cross-cultural influence.130

CONCLUDING REMARKS A religious festival without purpose and ritual will swiftly become defunct. The performance of rituals serves as a means for communicating and transmitting highly valued beliefs and moral codes regulating communal life. Holidays are opportunities to act out a script, without which the holiday risks becoming irrelevant.131 As Fredrick Bird suggests in his discussion of tribal societies: The most immediate context for learning these is a cycle of rituals in which legendary or mythic lore is propagated through recitation, music, and dance.To participate regularly in these rites is to hear of, recognize and reaffirm these stories and the beliefs they embody. Different beliefs might be cited at weddings and births, at spring festivals and new year ceremonies, at weekly services and daily prayers. But the cumulative impact is to assemble a larger collection of myths and beliefs as they are popularly recognized and understood. These are regularly cited, in turn, to justify communal mores. In this way, ritual plays a pedagogical and socializing role.132

Shavuot, essentially a Temple–agricultural holiday, lost its raison d’être with the destruction of the Temple. In emphasizing Shavuot’s importance as the Time of the Receiving of the Torah, the Sages chose to stress an already existing understanding of the day.The rituals of Shavuot thus communicate the importance of study of and adherence to the Torah. They cement rela130 Sperber, 2007, pp. 94-95. 131 For

a comprehensive study of ritual as a medium of communication and ritual through plays, stage, scripts, and actors, see Bird, 1995, pp. 23-52. See also Geertz, 1973, chapter 7. 132 Bird, 1995, p. 35.

In the Absence of Ritual tionships, induce desirable states of mind, and foster sentiments designed to enhance Torah.133 I further suggest that in introducing new customs for Shavuot, the repertoire of customs on Passover and Sukkot served as a “bank.” Since a Megillah is read on the other two pilgrimage festivals, it was natural to institute one for Shavuot as well.134 The other holidays are associated with special foods, and Shavuot was therefore identified with dairy products. The customs of Passover and Sukkot include decorations and ornaments, and Shavuot was therefore assigned flowers, trees, and greens.The other holidays involve a special event—such as the seder or sitting in the sukkah—and Shavuot was similarly ritualized through the Tikkun Lel Shavuot and other ceremonies. Finally, just as special prayers are recited on the other festivals, the Azharot and Akdamut were instituted on Shavuot. It is significant that the rituals assigned to Shavuot, whenever they were introduced, were to some extent current in the surrounding societies and cultures—what we have termed the “hybrid” phenomenon. Even when these customs dated back to pagan times, they had already become imbedded in and integrated into folk culture, leading to their acceptance in Jewish ritual life.135

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abudraham, D. ben Joseph. (1566). Abudraham.Venice: Be-vet Zor´z de Kabali. Bar Ilan, M. (1997). Tiqun lel Shavuot: Emergence and precedents. Mehkerei Hag, 8, 28-48. (Hebrew) Bell, C. (1977). Ritual perspectives and dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press.

133 See

ibid., p. 45. order or timing of the institution of the Megillah readings is not relevant to this point; the important issue is that Shavuot, like the other holidays, was assigned a Megillah. 135 Dr. Alan Kadish (Touro College) brought to my attention that this hybrid approach was first suggested in the rabbinic discussion of the Bible’s institution of animal sacrifices. Animal sacrifice was a prevalent means of worship in the surrounding society, and the Israelites demanded it as well. Thus, the Torah instructs how to perform the sacrifices, which then became “Judaized.” 134 The

159

160

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Bird, F. (1995). Ritual as a communicative action. In J. Lightstone, F. Bird, et al. (Eds.), Ritual and ethnic identity (23-52).Waterloo, Ontario:Wilfred University Press. ___. (1979). The nature and function of ritual forms: A sociological discussion. In Studies in religion (vol. 9, 387-402). Toronto: University of Toronto Press for the Corporation for Studies in Religion. David, G. (1966). Rushbearing: A forgotten British custom. In Ludus: Medieval and early Renaissance theatre and drama. Amsterdam and Atlanta:Wim Husken Rodopi. Douglas, M. (1984). Food in the social order: Studies of food and festivities in three American communities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Eldan,Y. (2011). Excommunication, death, and mourning. Israel. (Hebrew) Feinstein, M. (1990). Iggrot Moshe. Brooklyn: Moriyah. Fishbane, S. (2011). The shtiebelization of modern Jewry. Boston:Academic Studies Press. Gaguine, S. (1954). Keter Shem Tov. Jerusalem: Makhon Jack. (Hebrew) Gaster, T. (1953). Festivals of the Jewish year. New York: William Morrow and Co. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Goody, J. (1993). The culture of flowers. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hakham, A. (1964). Rosh Hodesh ba-mikra. Mahanayim: Journal of the Israel Defense Force Chaplaincy, 90, 78-79. (Hebrew) Hamiel, H. (1957). Hag ha-Shavuot ba-mikra. In Ma’ayanot: Shavuot (21-22). Jerusalem: Department for Torah and Culture in the Diaspora of the World Zionist Organization. (Hebrew) Hoffman, D. T. (1954). Leviticus: A commentary. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) Hoffman, J. (2009, Spring). Akdamut: History, folklore, and meaning. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 99(2), 161-184. Horowitz, E. (1989, Spring). Coffee, coffeehouses, and the nocturnal rituals of early modern Jewry. AJS Review, 1, 44. ibn Yarhi, Nathan. (1855). Ha-Manhig. Berlin. Landes, D. (2010). Traditional struggles: Studying, deciding, and performing the law at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton. Liebman, C. (1999). Ritual, ceremony, and reconstruction of Judaism in the United States. In R. Rosenberg & C. Waxman (Eds.), Jews in America (307310). Hanover and London: Brandeis University Press. Leshen, H. (1965). Sabbath and festivals of Israel. Tel Aviv: Tiv. Maimon,Y. L. (1952). Haggim u-mo’adim. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) Mekclenburg,Y. T. (1968). Ha-ketav ve-ha-Kabalah. Jerusalem: Am Olam. miVitri, Simhah. (1893). Mahzor Vitri. Berlin: T. H. Ittskovski.

In the Absence of Ritual Nachmani, B. (1964). Seudat Rosh Hodesh. Mahanayim: Journal of the Israel Defense Force Chaplaincy, 90, 68-73. (Hebrew) Oberlander, G. (2005). Minhag avotenu be-yadenu. Monsey: Mercoz Halacha. (Hebrew) Safrai, S. (1985). Pilgrimage at the time of the Second Temple. Jerusalem: Akadamon. (Hebrew) Schein, A. (2011). A brief history of tikkun leil Shavuot. In Shavuot To-Go 5771 (4042). New York:Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future. Schiffman, L. (2011). Yatziv Pitgam: One of our last Aremaic Piyyutim. In Shavuot To-Go 5771 (43-46). New York: Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future. Sperber, D. (2007). Minhagei Yisrael (vol. 8). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. ___. (1998). Minhagei Yisrael (vol. 7). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. ___. (1991). Minhagei Yisrael (vol. 2). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. Tabory, J. (2000). Jewish festivals in the time of the Mishnah and Talmud. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (Hebrew) Tessler,Y. (2008). Peninei minhag. Monsey, New York. (Hebrew) Tselnik, N. (1973). Atzeret. Jerusalem: The Harry Fischel Institute for Research in Jewish Law. (Hebrew) Westermarck, E. (1926). Ritual and belief in Morocco. London: Macmillan. Zevin, S.Y. (1955). Mo’adim ba-halakhah. Jerusalem: Bet Hillel. (Hebrew) Zinner, G. (1999). Nitei Gavriel. Israel. (Hebrew)

161

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah: The Case of the Arukh HaShulhan

FORWARD While mysticism1 has fascinated both rabbis and scholars for generations, the areas of magic, superstition, and Jewish law have been largely overlooked.2 Dov Schwartz, a professor of Jewish thought, correctly notes: The study of magic is arguably the study of ritual in its most concentrated form. Indeed, recently some scholars who are concerned that the category magic is a dubious one have proposed to substitute the term “ritual power.” Ultimately what confronts scholars of magic is what confronts scholars of ritual at large: where are the sources by which we understand ritual? How can we know what it meant to its participants, its literary framers, its imagined objects of devotion? These questions make the study 1

This essay will focus on magic and its place in Jewish law (halakhah). While there has been extensive research on the topic of Jewish mysticism, in the area of magic and halakhah work has been limited. Examples of the research on Jewish Mysticism are Bloom, 2007; Chajes, 2003; Idel, 1998, 1997, 2001; Scholem, 1967; Sharot, 1987; Seidel, 1996. 2 See, for example, Oren, 2010; Lerner, 2003; Gutterman, 2007; Hillel, 1990; Basser, 1977; and Sperber, 1994, who discuss magic and halakhah.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah of magic of significance to the history of religions and the social sciences in general.3

In my attempt to study ritual and custom, this essay will focus upon the  approach and concepts of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, a nineteenth-century halakhist, in regard to magic’s cousin, superstition. Rabbi Epstein compiled a nine-volume book of halakhah, the Arukh HaShulhan, encompassing all areas of Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulhan Arukh. He based his rulings both upon earlier rabbinical authorities and on the social reality of his time.4 In order to expand on the author of the Arukh HaShulhan’s approach to magic or the supernatural, I will first review the theoretical and early rabbinic halakhic writings on this theme, for there cannot be a full, aggregate picture without an understanding of the early rabbis’ outlook on this topic.

THEORIES OF MAGIC In a past discussion of this topic, I asserted, “Magic is considered to be an aggressive activity, performed by individuals with no institutional support by means of physical charms or coercive incantations, for the sake of material benefit.”5 Religion, on the other hand, focuses upon inwardness and spirituality. Jewish law, the structured framework of the Jewish religion, based upon the Talmud6 (as we will discuss below), has incorporated magic into its corpus. Some have considered magic as an appeal to forces outside the divine—a holdover from idolatry. When speaking of enticing God to do one’s bidding, the word “theurgy” is used. For the purpose of this chapter, my conception of magic and superstition follows the view of anthropologists, who recognize magic as something that compels the “world of the supernatural” to do its bidding.7 Furthermore, my use of the term “magic” will be wide-ranging, encompassing most 3

Schwartz, 2005, p. 233. For a presentation of rabbi Epstein’s biography and writings, see Fishbane, 2009. 5 Fishbane, 1979. 6 The Jerusalem Talmud (YT) was redacted during the fourth-fifth centuries and the Babylonian Talmud was redacted during the fifth century. 7 See for example Titiev, 1960, p. 292; O’Keefe, 1983. Also see the classic work of Durkheim, 1995; Malinowski, 1995; and Geertz, 1975, all of whom offer discussions on magic. 4

163

164

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual varieties of verbal incantations, rituals, or the use of physical devices that result in occurrences that cannot be explained by science. It also includes superstitions, demonology, cures, and illnesses that defy natural causes. In the ancient and medieval worlds the divisions between the natural order and the demonic order was not clear cut. Even today it is not. President Nixon suggested demons were responsible for missing conversations on White House tapes. Exorcisms and demon possession remain the subjects of films and news reports. Some Christian and Muslim groups accept the existence of demons as readily as modern scientists accept the existence of atoms. In the first century, Josephus assured his sceptical readers that he himself witnessed an exorcism, and the Gospels report Jesus’ confrontations with demons. The Dybbuk was a popular Jewish play in modern times concerned with spirit possession. Daniel O’Keefe points out that religion and magic “affect each other in strange and dynamic ways. These processes are paradoxical. Thus, religion and magic overlap. Magic borrows symbolism from religion; but it often fights religion. On the other hand, when it enters into permanent relation with religion; religion takes it over.”8 In the case of religion, an additional consideration is the introduction of a stronger counter-magic, the power of the “Holy.” Moshe Idel, in his discussion of Jewish magic, defines magic as a system of practices that presupposes the possibility of achieving one’s desires by non-empirical means or techniques that cannot be explained experimentally. Idel’s straightforward, almost simplistic definition, I believe, accurately describes Jewish magic.9

THE BIBLE AND THE RABBIS The Bible sets the stage for the prohibition of magic. Deuteronomy states: “Let no one be found among you who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, one 8 9

O’Keefe, 1983, p. 150. Idel, 1997, p. 195.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts or familiar spirits or one who inquires of the dead. For anyone who does such things is abhorrent to the Lord. . . .”10 The rabbis derive from these passages both the prohibition against magic and the command not to follow in the ways of the gentile.11 In the days of the early Talmudic rabbis, a clear distinction developed between the magic referred to in the Torah, i.e. black magic, and the magic performed by the rabbis, which was considered holy magic. Jacob Neusner advances this understanding: The rabbis, moreover, usually disapproved of magic.They lived, however, in a world in which supernatural beliefs and phenomena were everywhere taken seriously. They believed in God. They believed in prayer as an effective action, so words could affect the physical world. They believed in angels, astrology, demons, and heavenly revelations. These constituted the supernatural environment, and produced an expectation that miracles could and would be done through divine favor. Torah was held to be a source of supernatural power . . . there was a functional parallelism of the rabbi and magician within their societies. Second, there was the further belief, accepted and perpetuated by the schools, that by mastering the Torah, a man could also master and thereby use directly its creative miraculous powers.12

William Scott Green further elucidates this point: The bulk of the evidence from the first two centuries shows that charismatic types who claimed miraculous powers were antithetical to and played little role in early rabbinism. God might work miracles, but early rabbis could not. Their religious authority was based on mastery of other, less dramatic but no less sacred skills. By the middle of the third century [the beginning of the Talmudic period] the picture had changed, and supernatural powers were a standard element of rabbinic leadership. Although these two different types of religious authority were combined, 10

Deuteronomy 18:10-12. For a list of rabbinical sources that discuss this issue, see Talmudic Encyclopedia, 2013, vol. 32, pp. 406-407; Baumgarten, 1983. 12 Neusner, 1969, pp. 9-10; see also Brown, 1971. 11

165

166

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual the fusion was not balanced. Rabbinic Judaism dealt with the charisma of miracle working by making its validity depend on knowledge of Torah and controlled it by making it a function of the rabbinic system.13

While defining witchcraft, the Babylonian Talmud (BT) says that magic “serves to lessen the power of the Divine agencies.” In other words, sorcery is considered evil because it challenges religious beliefs and seeks to have human control of the forces of nature.14 The rabbis of late antiquity present magic and the supernatural as part of their reality,15 a phenomenon that was not unique to Jews and Judaism, but rather formed a large component of the belief system of religions and cultures of the of Middle Eastern world at that time. The only apparent difference was that when rabbis performed a supernatural action, it was considered a miracle and thus “Holy,” while one performed by a layman was classified as evil. An example: “There is none else besides him” (Deuteronomy 11:35). Rabbi Chanina said: “Even by sorcery (keshafim).” A woman once attempted to take earth from under Rabbi Chanina’s feet [to perform sorcery against him]. He said to her, “If you succeed in your attempts, go and practice [sorcery].” It is written, however, “There is none besides Him.” But that is not so, for did not Rabbi Jochanan say: “Why are they called mekhashefim? Because they lessen the power of the Divine agencies?”16 Rabbi Chanina was in a different category owing to his abundant merit.17

This and many additional statements throughout the text of the Talmud testify to the rabbis’ powers to thwart spells as a result of their status as holy men. 13

Green, 1979, p. 646. Sanhedrin 67b. For a discussion of magic in the Talmud and late antiquity, see Neusner, 1969; Fishbane. 1979; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 2013; Bokser, 1985; Swartz, 1995; Harari, 2005, 2010, 2011; and Bohak, 2011. 15 See, for example, Fishbane, 2007, pp. 67-84; Basser, 1978; Bar Ilan, 1993; and Lightstone, 1985. 16 Derived by a Talmudic “shorthand” word-play. 17 BT Sanhedrin 67b. He was not harmed by the magic only because of his exceptional divine protection—but in general magic is effective and even heaven will not interfere with its success. 14 BT

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah Moreover, this power of the rabbis enabled them also to see and speak with demons, converse with witches,18 and reveal a person’s secrets.19 BT Pesahim recounts a parable of the queen of the demons succumbing to the demands of Abaye as a result of his “holiness.”The same source also includes a story in which Rabbi Aba bar Jacob’s merits allowed him to kill a demon in the guise of a seven-headed dragon.20 The rabbis also had the power to create both humans and animals, as Rabbi Osha did every Friday when, after studying the Acts of Creation, he created a calf and ate it. In one instance a Talmudic scholar was even able to resurrect the dead.21 The rabbis justified using magic for instructional purposes. In BT Sanhedrin 68a, an ailing Rabbi Eliezer laments that his halakhic erudition will die with him: Moreover I know 300 rulings, and some say 3,000 rulings, concerning the planting of cucumbers, and no man had ever asked me about it, except Akiva ben Yosef. On one occasion, I and he were walking down the road; he said to me, “Master, teach me about planting cucumbers.” I said one thing, and the whole field was filled with cucumbers. He said, “Master, you have taught me how to plant them, now teach me how to uproot them.” I said one thing and they all gathered in one place.

The Talmud is concerned with the actions of Rabbi Eliezer because these seemed to transgress the biblical law, which forbid learning from the abominations of the nations (Deuteronomy 18:19). The Talmud, however, responds, “To do you may not learn, but you may learn to understand and to teach,” meaning that though it is forbidden to learn

18 On

witches in the world of the rabbis, see Mock, 2001, and Fishbane, 2007, pp. 42-65. 19 See BT Pesahim 110b. 20 BT Pesahim 112b 21 BT Sanhedrin 65b tells how Rabbah created a man; BT Sanhedrin 67b includes the story of Rabbi Osha; BT Megillah 7b relates the story of the time when Rabbah had become drunk on Purim and cut the throat of Rabbi Zera. The next day he prayed on Rabbi Zera’s behalf, thereby returning him to life. The rationalist commentators, as documented below, advised skepticism in believing these fantastic stories.

167

168

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual to practice magic, it is permissible if it is for the sake of learning and understanding Torah.22 The rabbis, through the secrets of the Torah and achievement of a special level of holiness, purity, and merit, controlled the efficacy of prayer even when it appeared to be magic. An example of the power of such a rabbi’s prayer is found in the aggadah of Honi the circle maker. Honi drew a circle around himself and refused to leave until the Lord brought rain.23 Two components of magic are present in this story, namely the circle, a common ritual employed in magic, and incantation or even mystical prayer.24 The Babylonian Talmud tries to reduce the impact of Honi’s circle by comparing it to the same behavior of the prophet Habakkuk (2:1),25 thus giving it prophetic significance rather than a magical purpose. Incantations and the use of special words and letters, such as those in the Tetragrammaton which are used both as protection against evil and to produce a desired magical result, play an important role in the Talmud’s “holy magic.” For example, in BT Shabbat 67, amongst a discussion of magical formulas and incantations permitted on the Sabbath, various formulas and incantations are offered as cures.26 We also find the following baraita 27 that portrays the above use of magic: A baraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel; when they kill the mad dog they should kill it only with something that is thrown. One who is rubbed by it is in danger. One who is bitten by it will die . . . what is his remedy? Abaye said,“He should bring the skin of a male polecat and write on it—‘I, so and so the son of so and so, on the skin of a male polecat I am writing with regard to you, kanti, kanti, kelirus and some say kandi, kandi, keloros. [He then continues] God, God, Hashem, Master of Legions, Amen, 22 BT

Sanhedrin 68a. Ta’anit 3:8; BT Ta’anit 23a. 24 In a conversation, Professor Nissan Rubin (Israel) explained that the area of prayer is a grey area between magic and prayer. 25 Scholars such as Green (1979), Stone (2005), and Fishbane (1979, pp. 34-35) discuss and analyze the text. This essay does not focus on the scholarly problem, only on the text as it relates to magic. 26 BT Shabbat 67. 27 A Tannaitic document not included in the Mishnah. 23 Mishnah

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah Amen, Selah.’ And he should remove his cloths and bury them in a cemetery until 12 months of the year [have] passed. He should then take them out and bury them in an oven and scatter their ashes at a crossroads. And for those 12 months of the year whenever he drinks water he should only drink through a copper straw for he might see the reflection of the demon and become endangered.” As was the case by Abba bar Matta, who is also known as Abba Mar Manyumi, whose mother made him a gold straw [and he was indeed healed].28

BT Berakhot devotes several pages to the topic of dream interpretation. The rabbis of the Talmud, through their use of the supernatural powers conferred upon them by the study of Torah, understand dreams as omens to be divined.29 They offered meanings for these symbols, as well as suggestions on how to dispel bad dreams and for actions to be taken as a result of the dream interpretation.30 Although I have previously referred to the use of magic as a medicine to cure ailments, I feel it is important to emphasize this theme as it plays an important part in halakhah, especially with regard to the laws of Shabbat.31 Neusner summarizes the supernatural powers of the rabbis, writing: He could bring rain or cause drought. His blessings brought fertility, and his curses, death. He was apt to be visited by angels and to receive communications from them. He could see demons and talk with them, and could also communicate with the dead. He was an authority on the interpretation of omens and of dreams, on means to avert witchcraft, on incantations for cures, knot-tying (for phylacteries), and the manufacture and use of amulets.32

28 BT

Yoma 84a. See Fishbane, 1979, pp. 32-33; 2007, pp. 177-212. 30 BT Berakhot 55a-57b. 31 See Mishnah Shabbat Chapter 6 and BT Shabbat 67a-68b. I feel it is necessary to offer the detailed discussion of magic in the Talmud, since it serves as the basis of halakhah, the theme of this essay. Thus, I have not dealt with other magical documents such as Sefer HaRazim, Sefer HaYetzira, or the magical bowls found at Nippur, and the Heikhalot literature. 32 Neusner, 1969, pp. 10-11. See also Gutterman, 2007. 29

169

170

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual The Geonim The Geonim believed their mission was to teach and disseminate the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud. In the case of magic, which was widely practiced in their era, they did not deny its existence, but they displayed some hesitation and caution. Because they held that they did not possess the earlier rabbis’ knowledge of magic, they warned their readers to exert caution with those who practiced it.33 On the use of magical potions and amulets in place of medicine, they write: Rabbi Sherira Gaon [or possibly his son, Rav Hai Gaon] wrote the following regarding the medical cures suggested in the Talmud: “Our Sages were not doctors and said what they did based on experience with the diseases of their time.Therefore, there is no commandment to listen to the Sages [regarding medical advice] because they only spoke from their opinion based on what they say in their day.”34

The Early Rabbis (Rishonim)35 During this period we find two schools of thought. The rationalistic school was represented by Maimonides,36 who maintained that all magical practices are false and deceptive, and were means employed by the ancient idolaters to deceive the peoples of various countries and induce them to become their followers. Maimonides writes in his code: It is not proper for Israelites who are highly intelligent to allow themselves to be deluded by such inanities or to imagine that there is anything in 33

See, for example, Emanuel, 1995, pp. 121-136, and Lewin, 1931, pp. 27. Quoted from Strickman, 2011, p. 98. 35 The Rishonim and their approach to magic is discussed in Kanarfogel, 2013, pp. 445-488. 36 Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. Maimonides expressed his rejection of magic throughout most of his writings as in his Code (the Mishneh Torah), Commentary on Mishnah, Guide for the Perplexed, Sefer Hamitzvot, and Responsa. See, for example, Strickman, 2011, pp. 74-105 (whom I personally thank for his assistance in understanding the topic of Maimonides and magic); Bazak, 1985, pp. 91-98; Schwartz, 2005, pp 27-54; Gutel, 1998, pp. 150-161. 34

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah them, as it is said, “For there is no enchantment with Jacob, neither is there any divination with Israel” (Numbers 23:23), and further, “The nations that thou art to dispossess hearken unto soothsayers and unto diviners: but as for thee, the Lord, thy God, hath not suffered thee so to do” (Deuteronomy 18:14).

Maimonides also states that if a Jew should consider these things to be true or scientific, in addition to the Torah’s prohibition, he is a fool and wanting in his understanding.37 Maimonides’s rejection of the supernatural encompassed all areas of magic found in early rabbinic literature. He explained away evil spirits (ruah ra’ah) as a result of depression. As he writes, the term is related to the Arabic expression for “melancholy”: a state of mind that has embodied the individual therefore forces unwanted behavior.38 Maimonides in general negates the existence of demons. He either ignores the Talmud’s presentation of demons, or offers alternative interpretations of the Talmudic discussions. For instance, the Talmud writes that one should not enter a ruin so as to avoid demons (mazikim).39 Maimonides simply attributes this directive to the inherent dangers within ruins.40 I feel it is important to reference one additional area of the supernatural, also discussed by Maimonides.41 Throughout all time periods astrology has played an important role in people’s lives, including the world of the 37

Mishneh Torah, Laws of Idolatry, 11:16. Mishneh Torah commentary to Shabbat 2:5. See for example Mishnah Eruvin 4:1: “He whom gentiles, or an evil spirit, have taken outside of the permitted Sabbath limits has no more than four cubits in which to move.” Or Mishnah Shabbat 2:5: “If a person puts out a lamp [on Sabbath eve] because he fears gentiles or thieves or an evil spirit . . . he is not culpable [for desecrating the Sabbath].” I want to thank my son Gilad for his insights into the psychological issues and effects of melancholy. 39 BT Berakhot 32. 40 Mishneh Torah, Hilkot Rotzeah 12:5. For a more encompassing discussion on this topic, see Strickman, 2011, pp.74-92.These topics include washing one’s hands, evil eye (this topic, in Rabbinic Literature, is explained in detail by Ulner, 1994), foods eaten on Rosh Hashana eve, sexual intercourse by light, placing food under the bed, pairs, discarding fingernails, eating fish with meat, changing one’s fate, and amulets. 41 See Langerman, 1991, and Schwartz, 2005, pp. 27-54, who discusses Maimonides and astrology. 38

171

172

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual rabbis. Even those who denied or were skeptical toward magic considered astrology to be a field of science. But Maimonides disagreed with the practice, both in the Mishneh Torah42 and in a letter to the Jews of Marseilles, where he writes, “With abiding conviction we can only affirm the principle validated by men of science that all assumptions of the astrologers are false.”43 Also, in the Guide for the Perplexed he writes, “Do not ask me to reconcile everything that the Sages stated about astronomy with the actual reality, for the science of those days was deficient, and they did not speak out of traditions from the prophets regarding these matters.”This statement manifests much of Maimonides’ approach to magic and his rejection of the early rabbinical sources.44 Schwartz succinctly notes that Maimonides’ “true approach to magic was never universally accepted and did not strike roots in medieval Jewish thought.”45 It would seem that other Rishonim accepted the overall presentation of the early rabbinic literature and the general views of the masses in medieval times and embraced the belief in the supernatural. Rabbi Avraham ben David of Posquières (Ravad),46 Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban), Rabbi Shlomo ibn Aderet (Rashba), and Rabbi Nissim Gerondi (Ran) are among the Rishonim who represent this school of thought.47 For example, in a commentary on Deuteronomy, Ramban writes: Now many scholars [e.g. Maimonides] dispose themselves with regard to . . . enchantments by saying there is no truth in them whatsoever. . . . But we cannot deny matters publically demonstrated before the eyes of 42

Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodah Zara 11:9. In Stitskin, 1977, pp. 113-129. 44 Guide for the Perplexed 3:14. 45 Schwartz, 2005, p. 54. 46 Provence, 1120-1197. For example, in the case of placing food under a bed he writes in response to Maimonides’ law in the Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Rotzeah 12:5), where Maimonides states, “A person should not place food beneath a bed even though he is busy eating for something dangerous might fall into it without being seen. Ravad notes that most commentaries explain the prohibition that was first stated in the BT Pesahim 112a and BT Avodah Zara 2:3 as resulting from ruah ra’ah that rests on the food. See Strickman, 2011, p. 95. 47 It is not surprising that many of Maimonides’ opponents (such as the Ramban) to his views on magic were kabbalists or well versed in the area. For a discussion of Rashba and Ran’s approach to magic, see Klein-Braslavy, 2000. 43

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah witnesses. Our rabbis also acknowledged their existence, as they said in Midrash Rabba: “For a bird of the air shall carry the voice (Ecclesiates 10:2)—this refers to the raven and the craft of ti’arim.” Birds in Arabic are called ti’ar and those versed in the divination of birds are called ti’arin.48

In his responsum, he openly rejects Maimonides’ refusal to recognize the science of astrology. Ramban clearly states that astrology did not fall in the prohibited category of divination, and declares that one is permitted to listen to and believe in its predictions.49 Rashba, a supporter of the views of the Ramban (both rabbis being students of Kabbalah) and a leading rabbinical authority of his period, follows his teacher’s approach to magic. In his book of responsa, he discusses magic and Maimonides’ view of the supernatural. The discussion revolves around talismanic magic—healing amulets shaped in the form of a lion—but also encompasses the whole range of magical practices permitted by Jewish law. After presenting his case against the scientific and philosophical opinion of Maimonides, Rashba offers his own argument legitimizing divination, an argument which serves as the basis for many of those who disagree with Maimonides: the Talmud presents countless cases and stories of both holy and black magic; if there were no credibility to these, why would the Talmud bother? Furthermore, since the rabbis of the Talmud suggested and permitted a magical cure, one can depend upon their advice. Even with the permission and the obligation to seek out a doctor when one is ill, the underlying issue, writes Rashba, is “to perform these practices with one’s thoughts toward heaven, and realize that the medical truth is from Him, and not be dependent upon someone’s medicine or a doctor.”This would similarly apply to the reliance on amulets and other so-called magical relics.50 Rabbi Nissim Gerondi, better known as Ran, born after Rashba’s death, was also a major Talmudic scholar in Christian Spain, and recognized as leading rabbinical authority throughout the Jewish world. In his book, 48

Quoted from Strickman, 2011, p. 81. Teshuvot Hameyuchasot LeRamban, in Responsa of the Rashba no. 283. 50 Rashba no. 413. The same text is originally from his correspondence with Abba Mari’s book Minhat Qenaot, letter 3. 49 See

173

174

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Derashot HaRan (Twelve Sermons), Ran summarizes the principal views of the Rashba without referring to him by name, and adds his own concepts. Klein-Braslavy explains the approach of the Ran, writing: R. Aderet and R. Nissim maintain that some magical practices are actually natural actions, which may be explained within the framework of the laws of nature and in accordance with the principles of Aristotelian physics. It is specifically these practices that are allowed by the halakhah, because they have a scientific basis. As such they are not idolatrous practices, nor do they lead to idolatry. R. Aderet also provides a theological explanation to his theory while R. Nissim is content with repeating R. Aderet’s main idea that these practices are natural and therefore permitted by the halakhah.”51

Rashba and the early rabbinic sources played an important role in the Ran’s consideration of magic. Rabbi Nissim, for example, states explicitly, “No doubt that it [sorcery] is a real thing.” He bases this statement on Talmudic sources that forbid, but do not deny, sorcery. Thus, when Ran discusses a tale of sorcery in BT Sanhedrin and states, “that which comes from it [sorcery] is real and not only imaginative.”52 In his code the Arba Turim, Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, (the Tur), employs Maimonides as one of his primary sources for adjudication. Even so, a cursory examination of the Tur’s ruling will show that he deviated from his literary structure and did not adhere to Maimonides’ view on magic. Rather, Rabbi Yaakov chose to follow the approach of his father, Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel (Rosh), whose magical formulas, such as protecting an individual and his money from thieves or demonic forces, were utilized.53 The Arba Turim became the basis of rabbinic adjudication for later codes, especially that of Rabbi Karo. Jacob Bazak briefly discusses the views on sorcery of other leading rabbinical authorities from the period of the Rishonim.They include Rabbi Yitzchak ben Sheshet Perfet (Rivash), Rabbi David ben Zimra and Rabbi 51

Klein-Braslavy, 2000, pp. 107. Sanhedrin 67b. 53 See Arba Turim, Yoreh Deah 179. For a brief discussion of the Rosh and his son Rabbi Yaakov, see Kanarfogel, 2000, pp. 245-247. 52 BT

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag). These and other Rishonim did not share the Maimonidean view of tolerated magic but, in one form or another, acknowledged its actual existence and permitted its use (when sanctioned by the Sages).54 Ephraim Kanarfogel delves into the subject with regard to the Ba’alei HaTosafot and German Pietists.55 In respect to the Ba’alei HaTosafot, he points out there was a “relative lack of interest in Jewish mysticism shown by Rashbam, Raban, and Rabbenu Tam. Whether by design or by circumstance, these Tosafists did not advocate the mystical, magical, and pietistic teachings and practices that [were] prevalent in pre-Crusade Mainz.”56 Even with such an approach, I have yet to find evidence that they emulated Maimonides’ dismissal of the supernatural.57 The Pietist approach was very different: they were highly aware of the theoretical underpinnings and practical manifestations of demonology and magic commonly available in the world around them. They sought to utilize these secret arts as a means of achieving a connection to the Creator, who they believed operated not only within natural spheres, but in supernatural ways as well. Kanarfogel concludes his discussion noting, “Although the Pietists also developed a unique theosophical system in which Tosafists were not involved, the common level of mystical and magical discourse among Ashkenazic Talmudists was significantly higher than has heretofore been thought.”58

The Later Rabbis (Aharonim) Using the Arba Turim as his literary structure, Rabbi Karo compiled his Shulhan Arukh.59 Although he was himself a mystic, Karo was surprisingly 54

55 56 57 58 59

Bazak, 1968, pp. 104-107. Even the Meiri, Rabbi Menachem HaMeiri, who usually adhered to the views of Maimonides, in this instance did somewhat differ from his view, as in the case of astrology. See Halbertal, 2001, pp. 47-49, 162-169. The major Pietist text is attributed to Rabbi Yehudah heHassid.While he authored various books, he is most known for his Sefer Hasidim. Kanarfogel, 2000, pp. 186-187. He also offers his readers a comprehensive list of sources, both primary and secondary, on this topic. I cannot empirically substantiate this statement since I have not reviewed all the writings of the Rishonim. Kanarfogel, 2000, p. 249. Throughout this essay, SA refers to Shulhan Arukh, AH refers to Arukh HaShulhan, OH is Orah Hayyim, YD is Yoreh Deah, HM is Hoshen Mishpat, EH is Even HaEzer.

175

176

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual quiet for the most part in discussing issues relating to demonology and procedures of a kabbalistic nature. In content, he adhered frequently to the rulings of the Rif (Yitzchak Alfasi) and the Rambam (Moses Maimonides). HaMapah, the addendum of Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) to the Shulhan Arukh, placed Rabbi Karo’s work into an Ashkenazic framework the Aharonim and the European Jew could accept. A significant number of rulings of Rabbi Karo contradicted the accepted way of life for German and Polish Jewry, but Rema amended these rulings based upon the halakhic decisions of Ashkenazic rabbis and practices in central and primarily in Eastern Europe.60 The Shulhan Arukh was rapidly and widely accepted. While the lack of citing sources was a problem for the study of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Talmudic and rabbinical sources were presented in Rabbi Karo’s commentary, the BeitYosef on the Arba Turim, which was considered a companion text to the Shulhan Arukh. In addition, argues Menachem Elon, the commentaries on the Shulhan Arukh made the text highly readable. Elon writes: In composing his Sefer Meirat Einayim, Joshua Falk not only created one of the greatest and most important commentaries on the Shulhan Arukh, but also facilitated the halakhic authorities’ acceptance as the binding and authoritative code of Jewish law. By linking to the text of the Shulhan Arukh, an authoritative commentary that a judge was required to consult before making a decision in reliance on the Shulhan Arukh, Falk completed the codificatory structure of the Shulhan Arukh and at long last solved the perennial problem that had beset every codifier of Jewish law; how to preserve the continuity of the law and its link to the sources, and present the full range of its variant legal opinions.The debates of many generations that had wrestled with the problem had clearly indicated that Jewish law was not prepared to accept a code that categorically stated the law and that was severed—even if only in form—from its sources… and the only way to do this was to attach to the code an authoritative commentary that would be printed alongside each law and that a judge would be required to consult before reaching a decision.61

60 61

For a discussion of Rema’s halakhic process, see Elon, 1973, pp. 1131-1137. Elon, 1973, pp. 1181-1186. The English translation is adapted from the published translation of Elon’s Jewish Law.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah Other commentaries—including Rabbi David Halevi’s Turei Zahav (Taz), Rabbi Shabbetai HaKohen’s Siftei Kohen (Shach), Rabbi Moshe Lima’s Helkat Mechokek, Rabbi Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus’ Bet Shmuel, and Rabbi Avraham Abele Gombiner’s Magen Avraham—quickly followed suit to the various sections of the Shulhan Arukh. Elon also asserts that the historical events of the period served as an additional motivation for the rapid acceptance of the Shulhan Arukh. The pogroms of 1648-1649 brought about the devastation of many European Jewish communities and of several centers of Jewish scholarship. This calamity left a void in the world of halakhah, one quickly filled by the already existing and recently redacted Shulhan Arukh. Rabbi Karo’s Shulhan Arukh became embedded in the halakhic process and consideration of almost every rabbinical adjudicator from the seventeenth century onward. Returning to our topic of magic and Jewish law, Rabbis Karo and Isserles, although both versed in kabbalistic literature, were not interested in offering their readers magical praxis, incantations, formulas, or enchantments. Their focus was on Jewish law, the practices, rituals, and customs that had governed the halakhic Jew for generations. The authors of the codes, beginning with the Geonim through those of the twentieth century, did not consider it their role to offer magical incantations, recipes, or other formulas to ward off evil or solve supernatural problems. Rather, when a law resulted from a background of demonology, it was incorporated into the codex without referring to its origins.62

The Decline of Magic Beginning in the second half of the seventeenth century, in the west there was a relative decline in popular magical beliefs and praxes. Keith Thomas offers several reasons for this phenomenon. The first of these, he writes: . . . was the series of intellectual changes which constituted the scientific and philosophical revolution of the seventeenth century. The union of science and magic, which earlier were considered as one, saw a clear separation. The entire intellectual basis of astrology, chiromancy, alchemy, 62

This issue will be further clarified below.

177

178

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual physiognomy, astral magic and their associates collapsed. There was an appeal for knowledge that could be rationally and empirically elucidated. Indeed this epistemological demand for knowledge was eroding the status of every kind of magical belief. . . . What the scientific revolution did was to supersede this type of reasoning and buttress up the old rationalist attitude with a more stable intellectual foundation, based on the mechanical philosophy.63

At first this quest satisfied the intellectual elite, but by the early eighteenth century it began to reach the reading public as well through various publications. The decline in magic in the west resulted from the belief that there were better explanations to much of the unknown than the turn to the supernatural. Previously, magic had served as a substitute for knowledge and powers of practical control, as man lacked the essential empirical or technical knowledge to deal with difficulties encountered. This changed with agricultural innovations, the improved methods of weather forecasting, environmental control, food production, greater imports (including pharmaceutical supplies), improved communications, deposit banking, greater security, and medical advances. There were notable contributions to the study of physiology, anatomy, botany, and the nervous system. The invention of the microscope enabled the research of the cell and later of the germ theory of disease. The development of the social sciences, including sociology, psychology, and economics, created knowledge that superseded mystical explanations of misfortune in terms of witches, ghosts, or divine providence. Man now had increased control of the environment and life. It was the enlightenment of the intellectuals in regard to these changes that encouraged the decline of magic, even before the arrival of a technical substitute (or a material explanation). The change that occurred in the seventeenth century was not so much technological as mental. The magicians who could not offer controlled experiments and innovations began to lose influence. Over time, as science increasingly came to the fore, people 63

Thomas, 1991, pp. 767-800. Thomas’s research focuses primarily upon England. Even if one would argue this was not true of the rest of Europe, these ideas did not take long to spread to the other European countries.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah depended less on magic. In time, these rational attitudes would permeate the Jewish intellectuals and even more enlightened rabbinic authorities.

The Period of the Aharonim 64 The period following the publication of Rabbi Karo’s Shulhan Arukh introduced a new social and economic reality, one that changed and grew with time. The Enlightenment and the scientific revolution offered to Europe the potential for dealing with problems previously considered possible only through magic. During this period, especially commencing with the eighteenth century, we can divide the Jewish scholarly world into three main groups: Sephardic Jews, found primarily in North Africa, the Ottoman Empire, and Holland; European Hasidim; and European Mitnagdim.65 In the twentieth century, these groups relocated to Israel and the United States. While German Jews were far removed from magic beliefs, the Sephardic and Eastern European Orthodox communities maintained their old-world beliefs in superstition and demonology. As the main focus of my research is the halakhic writings of Rabbi Epstein, a Mitnaged Jew, I will focus upon this community and its rabbinical authorities. Although these rabbinical adjudicators sought to minimize the impact of illicit and apotropaic magic in halakhah, they could not ignore the Talmud and its later commentators. In such instances, the rabbis tended to permit the practice even if they would have preferred to abolish it. Instances where these principles are applied can be found in works such as those of Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, author of the Noda Biyhudah, Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, author of Tuv Ta’am VeDa’at and Teshuvot HaElef Lecha Shlomo, and Rabbi Moshe Schreiber, author of Responsa Hatam Sofer.

64 There

has been no published research on the halakhic writings of the latter Aharonim that concerns itself with magic. While mysticism has played an important role in scholarly literature, halakhah and magic have yet to be investigated. 65 Even many of the village Jews who were not Hasidim could be identified as belonging to lower economic and educational strata. There Judaism was simplistic and blindly adhered to the rulings of the SA. Modern intellectual and technological changes had little influence on their daily life. Magic, superstition and the supernatural still played a major role in their lives. The rabbis could not ignore them or their beliefs. See Petrovsky-Shtern, 2014.

179

180

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual For example, Rabbi Landau, while discussing the superstitions that signaled danger to a man who served as the sandek66 at the circumcision for two brothers, an action considered as influenced by the evil eye, says that such a ruling does not appear in the Talmud or the writings of the Rishonim and therefore one should follow the custom of his community.67 In another instance, Rabbi Landau says that even though the tradition of not reading from the same Torah scroll at a second minyan (prayer meeting), used at an earlier minyan, is of mystical origins, whatever was this community’s custom should remain so.68 Rabbi Kluger expressed strong support for existing customs, even those associated with the supernatural. When he does reject superstitious practices, he often uses principles such as safek sefeka and nishtaneh hateva to argue his paradigm. For example, with regard to refraining from eating meat and fish together in fear of such being dangerous to one’s health, he forbids it since this was the custom—except in particular cases (bedi’avad) where he permits it.69 On the other hand, in the case of a person who excommunicated his friend in a dream, Rabbi Kluger is lenient, but appends his ruling that the dream should be annulled in front of 10 Jewish men.70 In the instance of mitzitzah befeh (sucking the blood from the penis during the circumcision ritual), which was rejected, by the liberal or by those who were considered as the enlightened Jews, Rabbi Kluger supports the custom, even quoting the Zohar, a kabbalistic source which offers mystical reasons for retaining the custom.71 In a responsum in Tuv Ta’am VeDa’at, Rabbi Kluger rejects the use of any type of magic, whether real or illusionary, but later adds that if magic is used for medical purposes and has been seen to be beneficial, it is permitted. This is in accordance with 66

67 68 69 70 71

Sandek is the term for a person honored at a brit milah (circumcision) ceremony, traditionally by holding the baby boy on the knees or thighs while the mohel performs the brit milah. Responsa Noda Beyehudah,YD siman 86. Tanninah OH siman 15. Responsa Tuv Ta’am VeDa’at, book 2 siman 10. Responsa Teshuvot HaElef Lecha Shlomo OH 312. Although eating fish and meat together as well as mitzitzah befeh were attributed to physical and medical dangers, mystical interpretations were also introduced to prohibit these behaviors.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah other rabbinical authorities, who approved this behavior for psychological reasons.72 Lastly, we note an additional illustration from Rabbi Kluger of a custom based on superstition: a pregnant woman with a history of miscarriages was permitted to wrap herself in the covering of a Sefer Torah to protect her fetus. Even the recitation of passages from the Torah over the women was permitted.73 My review and analysis of the many responsa that dealt with superstition leads me to believe that Rabbi Kluger did not personally promote superstitious behavior. To justify his view he was required, as other rabbinical authorities, to follow the halakhic process. Rabbi Moshe Sofer continued the tradition of supporting customs even when they were related to superstitious beliefs and practices. He does not overtly negate superstitious rituals, but rather rejects them within the halakhic structure. For example, he does not accept the practice of the priest (Kohen) who visits a minyan at the home of a menstruating woman and refuses to bless the congregants. To argue his decision, he employs the halakhic principles nishtaneh hateva (nature changed from the time of the original ruling). By adhering to these doctrines—and neglecting to reference the supernatural—he illustrates that magic was not relevant to his time and age.74 Throughout his voluminous responsa, Hatam Sofer discusses a wide range of customs and practices based upon magic and superstition. These are not necessarily unique to Rabbi Sofer, and can also be found in the  literature of other Aharonim. These practices include cases such as dream interpretation and healing remedies.75 Regarding the case of dangers related to a nursing mother, Rabbi Sofer notes, based upon the writings of Rosh, that since the potential hazards originated from superstition and not from reality, observance of these practices is not mandatory.76 Many superstitious beliefs and practices relate to death and dying. In general, Hatam Sofer protects these customs, as in cases related to katlaniyot, a woman who married three times, and each of her husbands 72

Tuv Ta’am VeDa’at, book 2 siman 46, 48. Responsa Tuv Ta’am VeDa’at, book 2 siman 47. 74 Responsa Hatam Sofer OH 23. 75 Responsa Hatam Sofer YD 222, 339. 76 Responsa Hatam Sofer Aben Ezer (AE) 136. 73

181

182

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual died, and wants to remarry for the fourth time.77 Hatam Sofer also examines whether to circumcise a baby whose brother died from circumcision, ruling that it is proper to do so, but only when the baby is older and stronger. In general, the Rabbi does not seem to be concerned with superstition.78 While these three rabbis represent a lenient approach discouraging the use of magic and adherence to superstition, they were nevertheless faced with the Talmud, the Rishonim, and the various codes that accepted magic as part of Judaism. The further down the historical line one goes, the clearer it becomes that it was not only the Rishonim who influenced the rabbinical adjudicators, but also the Aharonim who became a primary source for halakhic decision making. Rather than blindly accepting the interpretations of the earlier rabbis and their support of mystical-based rulings, the later Aharonim used the accepted halakhic principles to redefine earlier decisions.79 In nineteenth- and twentieth-century Eastern Europe, new codes were published, including Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi’s Shulhan Arukh HaRav, Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried’s Kitzur Shulhan Arukh, Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Hayei Adam, Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah, and Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein’s Arukh HaShulhan. While each code requires an in-depth analysis of its understanding and approach to magic, I will focus on the Arukh HaShulhan.

The Arukh HaShulhan Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein lived during the enlightenment, a time of scientific and industrial revolutions and major changes in social and economic structures. He lived in the city of Navahrudak, which itself became an industrial location. I believe that his social reality, in addition to his Mitnaged-based education,80 influenced his approach to Jewish law and 77

Responsa Hatam Sofer OH 23 and 24 and AE 131. Responsa Hatam Sofer YD 245. For additional illustrations (this is not an extensive list), see Responsa Hatam Sofer YD 327, 328, 332, 335, 349, 351. 79 A comprehensive and in-depth analysis is required of these three rabbis. 80 His biographers write that he studied for a short period of time in the Volozhin Yeshiva. See Fishbane, 2009. 78

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah pesak (system of adjudication). I have elsewhere categorized Rabbi Epstein’s pesak as realistic, given his social reality and community.81 While not deviating from the principles of pesak and the view of earlier rabbinical authorities, he was considered a rationalist and a realist. His nine-volume Arukh HaShulhan examines and considers all sections of the Shulhan Arukh. Rabbi Epstein follows the literary format and structure of the Tur and Rabbi Karo’s codes, but his analysis tends toward that of the Shulhan Arukh HaRav (by Shneur Zalman of Liadi), which offers the halakhic development of each topic.82 The topic of magic is scattered throughout the volumes of the Arukh HaShulhan. Subjects include hygiene, health and medicine, defense against threatening forces such as food, drink, dangerous animals and persons, birth and death, etc. In general, whenever a topic in the Shulhan Arukh concerned magic or superstition, Rabbi Epstein addressed it. I believe Rabbi Epstein’s basic approach to the supernatural in Jewish law can be deduced from a statement he makes about the rabbis’ seemingly irrational behavior during sexual intercourse. He writes, “Although we do not understand, this is the tradition of our holy rabbis based upon true knowledge.” To contradict the tradition of the Talmud, Rishonim and even Aharonim would be a serious matter.83 After reviewing six terms in the Arukh HaShulhan that explicitly refer to the paranormal, I suggest classifying his approach within the following five categories:84 1. 2. 3. 4.

81

Outwardly rejecting magical praxis Circumventing the issue Ignoring the issue Accepting magical- or supernatural-related practice

See Fishbane, 2009. See Henkin, 2014, pp. 501, 536, for a presentation on the writing and publishing of the Arukh HaShulhan. 83 Arukh HaShulhan OH 240:18 84 While I have examined all terms related to magic found in the Arukh HaShulhan, I believe that these six terms will be sufficient to understand Rabbi Epstein’s literary and conceptual approach to magic. 82

183

184

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual 5. Allowing customs of the community that follows the mystical practice.85 Before delving into these categories, I will first explore the Arukh HaShulhan’s understanding of witchcraft, and then present and analyze three terms—ruah ra’ah (evil spirit), shedim (demons), and mazikim (diabolic imps).Yosef Yitzchok Lerner argues that these terms are interchangeable, an opinion which would require an in-depth analysis of the rabbis’ usage of these expressions. For the purposes of this paper I will examine each separately, as presented in the Arukh HaShulhan.86

Kishuf (witchcraft) BT Sanhedrin defines witchcraft as an attempt to lessen the power of the divine.87 During the Talmudic era, the rabbis attributed the practice of witchcraft primarily to women. Belief in the power of witchcraft and witches remained strong throughout history and even in Jewish circles these fears remain today, though to a lesser extent.88 1. The topic of behavior in the lavatory is presented in the Arukh HaShulhan. In antiquity there was great fear of what could happen when inside and while using the lavatory. The dangers were attributed to Kishuf, or witchcraft. Rabbi Epstein is clear on his stance: “In the time of the Talmud people feared witchcraft. In our era witchcraft is not realistic and we are not concerned with it.”89 In support here he notes that this is also the opinion of the Magen Avraham.90 This same view is stated in the AH Yoreh Deah.91 It is interesting to note that elsewhere Rabbi Epstein again quotes 85

I have chosen to approach the analysis by terminology rather then by areas where magic was the primary concern. 86 Lerner, 2003, p. 55. 87 BT Sanhedrin 67b. 88 See Trachtenberg, 1974, pp. 11-22 and Dennis, 2012, pp. 278-280, for a discussion of witchcraft and witches. 89 Arukh HaShulhan OH 3:6 90 Magen Avraham, sub-paragraph 11. 91 Arukh HaShulhan OH 312:8 and Arukh HaShulhan YD 156:10.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah the Magen Avraham, who does not require a person to lift up food from the ground in places where witchcraft is feared.92 This statement is based upon BT Eruvin. Rabbi Epstein, lacking the expressed support of earlier rabbinical authorities, is reluctant to contradict explicit Talmudic law. 2. Similarly, in Arukh HaShulhan Yoreh Deah 11:15, the Rabbi quotes Rema (paragraph 12), who writes that the custom of ritual butchers (shohtim) is not to kill geese during the Hebrew months of Tevet and Shevat, as so doing would require them to eat a designated part of the bird’s body, according to Rema. The Arukh HaShulhan dismisses this, writing that “in his day they practiced witchcraft on geese . . . but in our day we do not have to be concerned with it at all.”93 3. The Talmud and early rabbinical authorities attributed the practice of witchcraft to gentiles and feared it. This is manifested in various laws in the Shulhan Arukh and, subsequently, in the Arukh HaShulhan, e.g., in regard to carrying objects on the Sabbath in places where a non-Jew resides,94 or the overturning of a bed during the mourning period.95 Other cases concerning the gentiles can be found in the laws of Passover96 and in the laws of mezuzah.97 4. In the Arukh HaShulhan Yoreh Deah 12:4, Rabbi Epstein is concerned with the Talmudic law of slaughtering an animal whose blood will flow into a pit, behavior which could lead to the suspicion that the shohet (ritual slaughterer) practices soothsaying. Apparently this was not an uncommon practice amongst shohtim, and thus could not be ignored. The Rabbi cites the law that the butcher must be investigated, and if he is found guilty one would be forbidden to eat any animals he 92 93 94 95 96 97

Arukh HaShulhan OH 171:5. See Fishbane, 2011, pp. 46-47, where I discuss aruspicy and Jewish ritual. Arukh HaShulhan OH 382:2-3. Arukh HaShulhan YD 387:3. Arukh HaShulhan OH 433:8. Arukh HaShulhan YD 286:2.

185

186

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual slaughters in the future. Rabbi Epstein concludes that such behavior is not considered idol worship, a frequent parallel to witchcraft, but rather the actions of fools who think only they can see the future.98

Ruah Ra’ah (An evil spirit that may cause physical danger)99 1. Arukh HaShulhan OH discusses the laws of washing one’s hands in the morning upon awakening from sleep and before prayer. Two reasons are attributed to the need for the hand washing: ridding oneself of the dangers from evil spirits, and as a prerequisite for prayer. Concerning ruah ra’ah the Arukh HaShulhan states that if one does not wash his hands he cannot make a blessing, thereby bolstering the latter reason while marginalizing the former without rejecting it outright.100 2. The issue of placing food under the bed (something reclined upon, in Talmudic literature is referred to as a bed) is prohibited.101 This concept, noted in BT Pesahim,102 is based on a perceived danger of ruah ra’ah hovering above. The Arukh HaShulhan refers the reader to the source in YD where he expands on his ruling and states, “Today we are not concerned with this [ruah ra’ah] and Shomer Petayin Hashem (the Lord protects simple folk).” In OH, Rabbi Epstein does not reject the dangers of ruah ra’ah, whereas in YD he circumvents the issue. 3. On the dangers of eating fish and meat together, he first cites Rema, stating that we are dependent upon his ruling, and then

98

One additional reference to Kishuf is found in AH HM 1:23. This is not an issue of attributing witchcraft to a specific action, but rather part of a list of requirements for the members of the high court of 71. 99 For a detailed survey of the early rabbinic definition and understanding of ruah ra’ah see Harari, 2010, pp. 302-312. 100 Arukh HaShulhan OH 4:1-17. 101 Arukh HaShulhan OH 165:4. Also found in Arukh HaShulhan YD 117:11. 102 BT Pesahim 112b.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah offers different sources.103 Rabbi Epstein concludes by quoting the Magen Avraham: “Presently, nature has altered (nishtaneh hateva) and there are things [dangers] referred to in the Talmud resulting from ruah ra’ah that we are not concerned with. Not every country is the same [in other countries where it might be real].”104 The Arukh HaShulhan then cites the Ba’alei HaTosafot, who relate that drinking water after eating fish as a medical means of protection against the dangers of the combination, but emphasizes that the medical remedies used during the Talmudic times are not presently relevant.105 Rabbi Epstein also includes additional leniency for eating fish and meat together. As before, Rabbi Epstein does not explicitly reject ruah ra’ah, but rather circumvents it and argues that we do not have to be concerned with it today. Overall, Rabbi Epstein offers various contradictory opinions without offering a decisive ruling on the topic of eating fish and meat together. As the lenient rulings come at the end of his discussion, I suggest that he supported this behavior and would not suggest prohibiting it. 4. On the laws of washing one’s hands at the conclusion of the meal (mayim aharonim), Rabbi Epstein quotes the Shulhan Arukh (paragraph 2), which rules that one should not spill the used water on the ground “because of evil spirits that rest [on the water].” This refers to the discarded water that is poured over the hands when washing at the end of the meal. He accepts the interpretation of the Shulhan Arukh without reservation, thus acknowledging, in this instance, the notion of evil spirits that infest such water.106 103 Arukh

HaShulhan YD 117:10. section 273, sub-paragraph 1. It is not clear from the Arukh HaShulhan’s language whether he relates the prohibition of eating fish and meat with ruah ra’ah. 105 He also discusses eating spoiled fish and the difference between Talmudic times and his era. 106 Arukh HaShulhan OH 181:7. Also discussed in Arukh HaShulhan OH 162:29. 104 Magen Avraham

187

188

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual 5. Apart from those instances where ruah ra’ah was found in inanimate objects, we suggested that when ruah ra’ah involves a person, the Arukh HaShulhan views it as a form of depression or as a psychological disorder. For example, Rabbi Epstein107 cites Mishnah Shabbat: “He who puts out a lamp because he is afraid of gentiles, thugs, an evil spirit (ruah ra’ah)… ,”108 and then he goes on to explain that “a mara shehorah (phobia) may befall him.” He is relaxed in the dark, for there is a panic reaction attached to the phobia. “On seeing light he will flee and isolate himself from humankind.109 Likewise there are individuals [who] while sleeping in a place with a candle burning, will imagine to themselves things that will cause them to become insane.”110 Rabbi Epstein describes ruah ra’ah when it concerns a person as “a sickness that confuses the mind.”111 1.

There are two additional cases described by the Arukh HaShulhan where ruah ra’ah involves an individual.112 The first concerns situations, described in the Talmuds, in which criminals or evil spirits forced someone to leave the city boundaries on Shabbat. The issue raised is the distance he is permitted to walk?113 The second, similar instance concerns an individual who is forced to eat on a fast day because of a life-threatening danger. One of the dangers listed is when he is enveloped by a ruah ra’ah.114

107 Arukh

HaShulhan OH 278:1. Shabbat 2:5. 109 Adapted from Maimonides’ Commentary to the Mishnah. 110 Prisha section 1. 111 Arukh HaShulhan 121:1. The discussion concerns the status of a man writing or preparing a divorce writ for his wife. 112 In AH concerning a divorce, ruah ra’ah is mentioned. I do not believe this to be relevant to our discussion. 113 Arukh HaShulhan OH 405:7. 114 Arukh HaShulhan OH 571:2. 108 Mishnah

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah 2. Furthermore, in the laws of praying for relief from plaguing situations he again refers to this term as an example of such a situaion.115 Here Rabbi Epstein clarifies his definition of ruah ra’ah. “One who is pursued by ruah ra’ah. This refers to a dangerous sickness.There are those who seek to kill themselves by drowning or strangulation.”116 I suggest that the rabbi is proposing that when the halakhah refers to ruah ra’ah, he is describing the dangerous psychological state of an individual. This can be applied to all cases when ruah ra’ah descends on a person rather than on an object. 3. Regarding a remedy of sprinkling human milk on a person to cure an occurrence of ruah ra’ah, Rabbi Epstein opts to offer an explanation other than the psychological rationalization. He writes “in our day we have not heard of such a practice,” thereby not challenging earlier rabbinical sources.117 In his discussion of evil spirits, Lerner argues that there are different forms or levels of ruah ra’ah. In selected cases they are real and accepted by the rabbis, while in others they are rejected. He does not offer a reason for such distinctions but writes that ruah ra’ah is dangerous and the rabbis warned of it.118 As I have stated above, I do not believe this to be the unequivocal approach of the Arukh HaShulhan.

Shedim (demons)119 Joshua Trachtenberg writes, “Among the various kinds of demons (mazikim), shedim have human forms, and eat and drink like men; spirits are completely disembodied and formless; lilin, which are possessed of human forms, also have wings.”120 Geoffrey W. Dennis opines that “demons are

115 Arukh

HaShulhan OH 288:16. HaShulhan OH 288:17. 117 Arukh HaShulhan OH 328:45. 118 Lerner, 2013, pp. 57-58. 119 For a detailed survey of demons in early rabbinic literature, see Harari, 2010, pp. 298-302. 120 Trachtenberg, 1974, p. 31. 116 Arukh

189

190

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual spirits that act malevolently against humans, usually in the form of disease, illness, confusion, or misfortune.”121 Demons are referred to only in four simanim (sections) of the Arukh HaShulhan. When discussing a demon overtaking an individual, Rabbi Epstein’s understanding runs parallel to his thoughts on ruah ra’ah, that it is a psychological or social dysfunction. 1. Regarding the interpretation of a passage in book of Zechariah, “And dreamers speak lies,”122 quoted in BT Berakhot 55a, he explains that even though the Talmud said the subject was affected by a demon, it is actually referring to a person who is mired in the futilities of the world.123 By using the term, the Talmud is, in fact, indicating that such a person feels guilty of his success. According to Rabbi Epstein, when such an individual eats before sleeping he will become confused, and thus his dreams have no credibility, robbing him (shoded) of insight. This refers to a personality or behavioral issue, not to the work of the shed.124 2. I suggest that Arukh HaShulhan Even Ha’ezer 17:60-65 and 141:99 manifest Rabbi Epstein’s analytical and conceptual approach to demons and references to the supernatural. He commences paragraph 60 by citing Rabbi Karo, who states that a voice heard in a field or in structural ruins saying that a man is dead does not constitute sufficient evidence to permit the allegedly deceased’s wife to remarry.Why not? It could be the voice of a demon.The Arukh HaShulhan continues, stating that, based on BT Yevamot 122a, the system used to identify shedim is to discern the lack of a “double shadow (or shadow of a shadow).” The Arukh HaShulhan cites the opinion of the Tur (in the name of the Geonim) that nowadays we

121 Dennis, 2012, p. 65. 122 Zechariah

10:2. HaShulhan OH 220:1. 124 In Arukh HaShulhan OH 240:13, Rabbi Epstein quotes BT Nedarim 20b that discusses a husband’s behavior while cohabiting with his wife.The BT writes it should be as if he was forced by a demon. The Rabbi continues to offer four explanations of this concept, “as if he was forced by a demon.” 123 Arukh

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah cannot depend upon such evidence, since we do not have expertise in this area. In the following four paragraphs and elsewhere,125 Rabbi Epstein does not outwardly negate demons, but cites arguments that serve to offer various explanations of Rabbi Karo’s view, leaving his own approach to the supernatural unclear. He uses the same strategy in AE 141:99. By circumventing the issue of the existence of demons, Rabbi Epstein avoided a head-on collision with the Talmud and the Shulhan Arukh. A similar example: in an appendage in OH, he writes,“On the Sabbath [it is permitted] to ask a demon [questions], for medical reasons, that one is permitted to ask him on weekdays.”126 Rabbi Epstein rewrote the statement of the Shulhan Arukh (paragraph 18), adding the clarification of the Magen Avraham, “for medical reasons.” By piggybacking on the Magen Avraham, which is hesitant to support the supernatural practices, the author of the Arukh HaShulhan justifies his amendment of the Shulhan Arukh and streamlines the question on the legitimacy of consulting spirits, turning it into a medical issue. Furthermore, we find that even the rationalistic school (discussed above) did not necessarily reject the practices in certain instances of medical placebos. The approach to the supernatural and medicine will further be clarified below.127

Mazikim (diabolic imps) The next category, mazikim, first appears as a late gloss in Mishnah Avot 5:6: “Ten things were created on the Sabbath eve at twilight . . . and some say also the mazikim.” The Midrash sees mazikim as beings that are more than human but less than angelic. They have wings, can fly from one end of the world to the other, and even know the future, but they also eat, sleep,

125 Arukh

HaShulhan EH 141:99. HaShulhan OH 307:11. 127 In AE 264:19, Rabbi Epstein quotes Rema, who mentions “taking an oath from the shed,” but does not feel it necessary to discuss the circumstances. Similarly, in YD 198:26, he quotes Rema (paragraph 6), who mentions the braiding of a woman’s hair by a demon, and concludes by quoting the author of the Levush, where the emphasis is on the result and not the cause. 126 Arukh

191

192

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual bear offspring, and die.128 And, as their name implies, mazikim are harmful and dangerous. Rabbi Epstein, following the lead of the Talmud and Shulhan Arukh, cites mazikim as related to the various topics. In one instance he explains that the reason for prayer when retiring for the night is to ward off the mazikim. That is (the need to recite the prayer), continues the Rabbi, so that the individual will not have illicit thoughts, which will cause ejaculation.129 On the other hand, elsewhere he discusses the recitation of the evening prayer, designed to ward off mazikim, and quotes the Magen Avraham, who says that if one sleeps in the daytime, the prayer is not relevant to mazikim, thus not rejecting the existence of mazikim. Rabbi Epstein also lists various Shulhan Arukh commentaries introducing specific prayers against mazikim, but shows why the prayers are not always effective. For example, the Magen Avot prayer for Friday evenings recited to ward off mazikim is not recited on the first night of Passover, since this night is a “guarded night” and mazikim are powerless.130 While attributing the Talmud’s reasoning for the recitation of certain prayers when entering the lavatory to the danger of mazikim, he concludes that this practice is reserved for “holy” persons, not for “us plain persons.”131 In his analysis of ruah ra’ah, shedim, and mazikim, the Arukh HaShulhan, without directly challenging or acknowledging the Talmud or the Shulhan Arukh, implicitly sends the message that none of these three categories demonstrate definitive rabbinic acknowledgement of the supernatural.

Ayin Hara (evil eye)132 Dennis defines ayin hara as the “reification of desire; the spiritual manifestation of jealousy and ill will. . . . The evil eye is a man-made force that can have negative consequences for any good circumstance or event, even 128 Bereshit

Rabba 7:5. See also BT Haggigah 16a. HaShulhan OH 239:1. The theme of sleep is also mentioned in AH 481:4. The same reason can be attributed to this statement. 130 Arukh HaShulhan OH 587:5. Similar concepts appear in Arukh HaShulhan OH 280:1, 236:5-8, and 481:4. 131 Arukh HaShulhan OH 3:1. 132 For a discussion of the evil eye in the Bible and rabbinic literature, see Ulner, 1994. 129 Arukh

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah physically harming or killing the person subject to this envious urge. Some regard the evil eye as the source of disease, while one sage in the Talmud (BT Baba Metzia 107b) claims that ninety nine out of one hundred die from the evil eye.”133 According to Trachtenberg, the evil eye is a “superstition [that] affirms that certain baneful potencies are inherent in the ‘evil eye’ itself, that are natural properties of such eyes. Not a few unfortunate men are born jettator [jinxes], shedding rays of destruction about them with every glance.”134 1. In contrast to other supernatural superstitions, the fear of and belief in the evil eye continues to be prevalent in contemporary society, just as it was during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Eastern Europe. Cognizant of this, Rabbi Epstein does not refute or exclude these popular beliefs in his writings.Thus, regarding the Shulhan Arukh’s ruling (paragraph 6) that two brothers should not be called one after the other during the reading of the Sefer Torah (Torah scroll), Rabbi Epstein writes: “It is customary to refrain from this practice because of ayin hara.” By adding the word “customary,” he suggests that the ruling is a result of the social reality, yet he refrains from commenting on the ayin hara itself.135 2. Quoting the Shulhan Arukh, Rabbi Epstein writes that a woman “may go out [on the Sabbath] with a bundle used as a [charm] cure to counteract the effect of an ‘evil eye.’” By withholding his own commentary, the Rabbi does not challenge the notion of the evil eye. In contrast to the terminologies discussed earlier, the Shulhan Arukh commentaries avoid any discussion of ayin hara.136 3. Rabbi Epstein again quotes the Shulhan Arukh, writing, “A horse may not go out [on the Sabbath] with a fox tail hung between its eyes to prevent an evil eye having an effect over it.” Here, too, he

133 Dennis, 2012, p. 85. 134 Trachtenberg, 1974, pp. 54-56. 135 Arukh 136 Arukh

HaShulhan OH 141:1. HaShulhan OH 303:8.

193

194

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual is consistent and follows the classic Shulhan Arukh commentators, who do not explain this statement.137 4. On the topic of being present while a non-Jew milks a kosher animal, Rabbi Epstein notes, “I have seen that there are those that are careful in this issue because of the evil eye.”138 This is not a quote from the Shulhan Arukh or its commentators, but rather a commentary on a local custom. 5. Continuing to follow this literary pattern of presenting the discussions of earlier rabbis while keeping silent regarding his own opinion, Rabbi Epstein offers the view of Rema from his book of responsa quoted in the Turei Zahav (Taz) (paragraph 2). In this instance it centers on a scenario in which, in order to hide a pregnancy for the fear of the evil eye, a husband and wife claim that the wife is ritually impure.139 In the case of a double wedding Rabbi Epstein refers to two opinions. One of the opinions, meeting his approval, suggests that the weddings be held separately rather than jointly, with no intermingling of the parties and separate ceremonies.140 The blessings are to be recited separately for each couple and the feasting is to be separate. Holding them jointly would invite the ayin hara. I suggest that since this was a common belief in his time, and may be even today, Rabbi Epstein felt it necessary to include the issue of the “evil eye.” This is so even though it was not explicitly referenced in the Shulhan Arukh in such a case.141 6. A different form of ayin hara is presented in the Arukh HaShulhan’s volume on Hoshen Mishpat (HM). Based upon various Talmudic discussions,142 the concept of nezek re’iyah, (damage through looking) is introduced. The Arukh HaShulhan explains this concept; 137 Arukh

HaShulhan OH 305:10. HaShulhan YD 115:7. 139 Arukh HaShulhan YD 185:16. 140 The author of Arukh HaShulhan refers to this and to the evil eye in Even HaEzer 62:14. 141 Arukh HaShulhan YD 265:24. 142 See for example BT Baba Metzia 107a and Baba Batra 2b. 138 Arukh

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah namely, that people are careful that others should not look at their actions, articles, and work, since the stares of others activate the “evil eye.” The language of the Arukh HaShulhan suggests that Rabbi Epstein is actually advocating privacy and modesty rather than superstition.143 Similarly, this concept is presented in Arukh HaShulhan, in Even HaEzer 158:2, where it is written that staring at another person’s field or garden can be considered dangerous because of the “evil eye.” The Rabbi adds that this rule is meant only for the very pious. I do not believe that the perception of this type of “evil eye,” nezek re’iyah, was prevalent in the time and location of the Arukh HaShulhan. In an additional subparagraph he again circumvents the topic, stating that the issue was not relevant for his time.

Keme’a (amulet)144 Dennis defines the amulet as “an object or device usually with writing on it, which provides protection against harm, whether of natural or supernatural origin. The use of amulets and charms is virtually universal across human cultures and across time, and Jews are no exception. Jewish amulets have been used to ward off a variety of ills: disease, mishap, dangerous animals, sorcery, and/or malevolent spirits. Amulets also serve as love charms and, in particular have been used by Jews to induce fertility, protect women during pregnancy, and to shield newborn infants.”145 Although less popular today as a result of modern medicine, technology, and the advance of science, amulets still can be purchased or specially prepared. At the end of the nineteenth century, especially for the village Jew, the keme’a was used to ward off the “evil eye” or to serve as a prophylactic device. 1. In the Arukh HaShulhan, the keme’a is part of a discussion over what is permitted and prohibited for carrying outside a private domain

143 Arukh

HaShulhan HM 154:6. an extensive discussion of keme’im in early rabbinic literature, see Harai, 2010, pp. 167-178. 145 Dennis, 2012, p. 9. 144 For

195

196

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual on Shabbat,146 including materials used to construct a keme’a if only for psychological benefit. 147 Rabbi Epstein cites Maimonides,148 who was lenient in permitting it. In paragraph 75-80, Rabbi Epstein is likewise lenient in permitting it for health purposes. Rabbi Epstein cites differing opinions from the Talmud and Rabbinic authorities regarding instances in which it would be permitted or forbidden to use the amulet.149 He chooses to conclude this topic with the proviso, “This is clear, that ‘one should be perfect with the Lord your God,’ (Deuteronomy 18:13) and only seek the services of expert doctors, prayer to the Lord and charity—for this certainly is beneficial.”150 Although, the keme’a could be legally permitted even to soothe a person’s psychological state of mind, the Rabbi preferred to suggest a more rational solution alongside a traditional ruling. 2. The debate on the laws of carrying on the Sabbath re-emerges shortly thereafter, this time the issue focusing on an animal owned by a Jew.151 Rabbi Epstein returns to his literary pattern and presents his reader with the discourse and analysis of the rabbis from the period of the Talmud through the Shulhan Arukh and its commentators. I do not believe it manifests Rabbi Epstein’s conceptual understanding of amulets as offered in Arukh HaShulhan OH 301:80. 3. In Arukh HaShulhan OH 308:59, although Rabbi Epstein favors the services of an expert physician over amulets, he understood

146 Rabbinic

law restricts carrying any object outside private property. HaShulhan OH 301:25. 148 Laws of Shabbat, chapter 18. 149 In Arukh HaShulhan OH 303:29, this law is again presented, but only as descriptive. 150 I believe the Arukh HaShulhan is relying on the opinion of Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Laws of Idol Worshipers 11:16 that states: “The masters of wisdom and those of perfect knowledge know with clear proof that all these crafts which the Torah forbade are not reflections of wisdom, but rather, emptiness and vanity which attracted the feebleminded and caused them to abandon all the paths of truth. For these reasons, when the Torah warned against all these empty matters, it advised (Deut. 18:13) ‘Be of perfect faith with God your Lord.’” 151 Arukh HaShulhan OH 305:14. 147 Arukh

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah that the keme’a was part of the culture and so offers leniency concerning its use on Shabbat.152 4. Amulets are indirectly referenced again as related to the Sabbath; the Arukh HaShulhan (OH 321:26-27) recounts the Talmud’s arguments concerning the assembly of the keme’a on the day of rest. Here, too, Rabbi Epstein does not offer his own opinion concerning the supernatural.153 5. Again, the Arukh HaShulhan (OH 334:14) presents the discussions of authorities such as the Talmud, Maimonides,154 and the Shulhan Arukh.155 The subject here revolves around saving a document with words and portions inscribed from the Torah and Rabbinic sources from fire on Shabbat. Since it is forbidden to put the oral Torah in writing, the Talmud or the oral Torah cannot be saved. Similarly, as Hebrew letters and words from the rabbis are inside amulets, it would likewise be forbidden to retrieve them from a fire. Rabbi Epstein adds,“All this was in their times, but today they are permitted to inscribe laws and aggadot and all of the Oral Torah.”While the Rabbi did not support the use of the keme’a, he understood the social reality and ruled according to the needs and customs of his time.156 6. The next example commences with a quote from the Shulhan Arukh 6: “If the amulets are covered with leather it is permitted to enter with them into the lavatory, if not [covered with leather] it is prohibited.” Rabbi Epstein uses this statement as a basis for discussing other types of Jewish writings that may or may not brought into a lavatory. This paragraph, I believe, does not shed any evidence on the Rabbi’s approach to amulets.157 152 Arukh

HaShulhan OH 308:59. HaShulhan OH 321:26-27. In Arukh HaShulhan YD 271:3, Rabbi Epstein writes concerning preparing the leather for a keme’a and then using it for a mezuzah. The issue here, as in the case of Shabbat, is not the amulet but rather the mindset for writing a mezuzah. He also refers again to section 271 in YD 288:1. 154 Mishneh Torah Shabbat 23:27. 155 OH 334:14. 156 Arukh HaShulhan OH 334:32. 157 Arukh HaShulhan YD 282:10. This same law is referred to in AH YD 286:5. In addition, in AH YD 288:11, quoting Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah Chapter 5, law 4, 153 Arukh

197

198

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual 7. The Arukh HaShulhan uses the term keme’a as part of a halakhic discourse158 concerning various rules mentioned in the Shulhan Arukh159 and its commentators.160

Rabbi Epstein’s Approach to the Supernatural in Context Arukh HaShulhan YD 116, entitled “The Laws Prohibiting Dangerous Things,”161 offers the reader a summary of Rabbi Epstein’s understanding of the supernatural. Not all the topics in this siman of the Shulhan Arukh deal with the supernatural; some concern physically dangerous behavior. Although many of these inserts have been discussed above individually, is important to view them within the original, complete context. The following is a list of the topics in this section of the Shulhan Arukh and Rabbi Epstein’s commentary on each: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 9: the prohibition on eating and drinking foods that can be dangerous to one’s health. Rabbi Epstein devotes nine paragraphs to analyzing the first paragraph of the Shulhan Arukh, which deals with the prohibition against drinking an uncovered liquid for fear that it could contain the venom of a poisonous snake. This has nothing to do with fears of the supernatural. 2. Paragraph 10: the laws of eating meat and fish together—Rabbi Karo and Rema do not include references to magic, but Rabbi Epstein, reviewing the various rabbinical commentaries, cites the the author of Magen Avraham and adds, “Today nature has changed and as for prohibitions in the Talmud said to be ‘because of evil spirits’ we do not show concern (nizharim) with them, and God should protect the simple folk.”162 He also cites the cites the term keme’a as an example of one who desires to protect himself. HaShulhan EH 4:49 and 17:186. 159 Arukh HaShulhan EH 4:31 160 Ber Hetev 17:71. 161 Rabbi Karo in his Shulhan Arukh calls the section “Things Prohibited because of Uncovered [Liquids].” 162 Magen Avraham OH 273:1. 158 Arukh

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah Ba’alei HaTosafot: “Today it is not so and possibly [nature] has changed just as the Talmud’s medicine is not beneficial in our times.” 3. Paragraph 11: The Rabbi includes the text of the Shulhan Arukh stating that placing food and drink under a bed is prohibited, and then adds, “evil spirits encompass them . . . and presently we are not concerned with this, and God should protect the simple.” 4. Paragraph 12: Assorted physical dangers—the Arukh HaShulhan commences, “One should be cautious in anything that may be dangerous, for danger is even a greater [prohibition] than [legal] proscriptions.” Rabbi Epstein (citing Rema) offers a list of examples of such dangers, such as walking alone at night (he adds the words in “insecure locales”), drinking water at night from the river, drinking water during the winter solstice,163 and residing in a city that has been infected by a plague. Even though many of the risks listed could be based on supernatural rationalizations, Rabbi Epstein discounts this explanation, as does Rema, and classifies them simply as dangerous. Other dangers Rabbi Epstein discusses here are listed in halakhic commentaries such as the Turei Zahav, but not the Shulhan Arukh itself. Over the next nine paragraphs in this section (paragraphs 15 through 23), the Arukh HaShulhan turns primarily to the Talmud and only at times to the Shulhan Arukh commentators to deal with perceived dangers. These include: 1. The theme of danger—Paragraphs 15 and 16 cite BT Gittin 70a (almost verbatim) in listing dangerous behaviors. Neither the Talmud nor Rabbi Epstein explains the risks. I suggest that this section is a summary of the theme of danger, and thus Rabbi 163 Since

Rabbi Epstein is listing the dangers mentioned in the Talmud, he does not offer rationalizations for these behaviors even if found in the Shulhan Arukh and its commentaries. For example, in the case of solstice fears, the author of Turei Zahav writes, “it is nothing more than soothsaying and thus there is no danger . . . and the earlier [Sages] said it was a means to instill the fear of God into the person and that the Lord should save them from the changing of the four seasons.”

199

200

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual

2.

3.

4.

5.

164 It

Epstein chose to list topics not included in the Shulhan Arukh. In the following paragraph he again cites BT Gittin, but also adds selective dangers from BT Berakhot 44b.164 Paragraph 17:  The danger of eating in paired foods (zugot) is mentioned in BT Pesahim 110a. Rabbi Epstein introduces this topic although it is not discussed in the Shulhan Arukh or its commentaries. The Arukh HaShulhan cites the rabbis who argue that zugot is only relevant if an individual believes it presents a legitimate danger. He concludes, “In our time we have not heard that one is concerned with pairs. However, if someone is disturbed by this matter they should follow the instructions as they are written.” Paragraph 18: Here he cites a ruling in BT Shabbat 151b: one who sleeps alone in a house will be seized by Lilith, the mother of demons. The Arukh HaShulhan presents rabbinic commentators who attempt to rationalize the Talmudic statement. Paragraph 19: Behavior in the lavatory—Rabbi Epstein refers to another section in BT Shabbat 82a and the Talmud’s instructions to refrain from cleaning oneself with something the light can shine through, the cause being destructive magic. The Arukh HaShulhan writes, “Today we use paper and in our times we are not mindful of magic.” He adds in parentheses that he is not sure if magic is truly the reason for this ruling in the Talmud. Paragraph 20: Rabbi Epstein presents the Talmud’s discussion on the repercussions for one who needs to relieve himself but does not. He quotes, “Rav Hisda and Ravina [dispute the consequences]. One said: ‘Ruah ra’ah will take hold of him,’ and one said: ‘Putrid odors (ruah zuhama) will take hold of him.’”165 The Rabbi then cites health issues from BT Bekhorot 44b, BT Shabbat 41a, and Maimonides’ code.166

is not clear why Rabbi Epstein chose some dangers cited in the Talmud but not others. 165 This translation is based upon Rashi’s understanding. He also interprets ruah ra’ah as foul breath, as these are both bodily functions. Rabbi Epstein does not attempt to include any explanation of these terms but just quotes the Talmud. 166   Laws of Forbidden Foods 17:31.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah 6. Paragraph 21: The danger of giving leftover water to an istinis (a person with a delicate disposition)—this discussion comes from BT Tamid 27b and BT Eruvin 99a. 7. Paragraph 22 deals with BT Berakhot 54b, which declares that “three types of persons need protection: These are a sick person, a bridegroom and a bride.” As Rashi points out, these individuals necessitate shielding from mazikim. Arukh HaShulhan cites the Talmud without offering any explanation. 8. Paragraph 23 discusses five actions considered dangerous and life threatening. Here Rabbi Epstein lists cases from a number of Talmudic sources, such as BT Niddah 17a and BT Moed Katan 18a: a). eating peeled garlic bulbs, b). eating a peeled onion, c). drinking a beverage that has stayed overnight in a diluted state, d). sleeping in a cemetery, e). casting one’s nail trimmings into a public area. The Talmud offers two additional dangers: letting blood (for curing ailments) and engaging in marital relations before eating. These cases were selected from a multitude of dangers cited throughout the Talmudic literature. Although many of these cases can be and were attributed to supernatural causes, I suggest that Rabbi Epstein highlighted these specific examples because of specific reasons. These superstitions engendered irrational fears that were to a large extent part of the general culture of the Jewish populace. Many of these “protective” practices remain prevalent in contemporary Orthodox culture. 9. Rabbi Epstein discusses cases “where Satan prosecutes” (situations where one risks death).Yerushalmi Talmud167 is cited with examples: walking on a plank that extends from one roof to another across the street; walking on a road alone; sleeping in a dark house alone; and traveling on the oceans.The Arukh HaShulhan adds that one should also be careful of heat and cold. He concludes this paragraph by adding a warning of his own: “In any instance where

167 Mishnah

Shabbat, Chapter 2:6.

201

202

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual there is a danger to others, it is a positive commandment of the Torah to remove this danger.” The final two paragraphs return to the topics found in the Shulhan Arukh: 1. Paragraph 24 deals with the danger of consuming filthy foods or drinks or using dirty utensils and other practices seen as dangerous. Once again Rabbi Epstein quotes, almost verbatim, from the Shulhan Arukh, after which he quotes the Turei Zahav, paragraph 6, on the subject of letting blood. 2. Paragraph 25 discusses the danger of eating an animal that was already dying during its ritual slaughter. Rabbi Epstein concludes the section with the statement, “In an area of Jewish law where the adjudicators are not in agreement, one may be stringent for himself. Where there is an issue on which all the adjudicators are in agreement it is wrong to be stringent, for it inclines toward heresy (minut).” It is my understanding that the six terms studied earlier—Kishuf, ruah ra’ah, shedim, mazikim, ayin hara, and keme’a, and the 66 paragraphs in the Arukh HaShulhan in which these terms were found168—all of them are summarized in the above-discussed section of the Yoreh Deah. These show us Rabbi Epstein’s approach to the paranormal. It is important to emphasize that a book of Jewish law is not a collection of formulas or incantations for magical and mystical practices. Rather, magical or supernatural terms are employed to elucidate precise laws, or to formalize rulings from the Talmud which offered protection or health cures. Rabbi Epstein, I suggest, was a follower of Maimonides’ rationalistic school.169 His rabbinical training and background would support this theory. As a codifier of Jewish law, he had the obligation to remain loyal 168 Although

there are additional terms, such as segulah (charm), nichush (soothsaying), etc., the six examined here are sufficient for an understanding of the Arukh HaShulhan’s approach to magic. 169 See Henkin, 2014.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah to the classic Rabbinic sources, from the Talmud to the Tur to the Shulhan Arukh. The Arukh HaShulhan explicitly declares this loyalty: “Although we do not understand, this is the tradition of our holy rabbis based upon true knowledge.”170 Only if Rabbi Epstein had the backing of an earlier Rabbinic authority would he contradict the supernatural explanations in the Talmud, and the writings of the Sages. In other instances he attempted to circumvent such Talmudic rulings attributing laws to supernatural causes. He suggested a natural purpose for the legal action. On occasions where he was reluctant to overlook the magic praxis, the reason he put forth was that specific superstitions might have resulted from customs that had become prevalent and rooted in Jewish communities.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Rubin (1995, pp. 52-61) argues that the Talmudic Sages were not supporters of magic, but rather that the references to the supernatural in their writings were merely a means of going along with the culture of the masses. The powerful influence of magic within the surrounding cultures of the Jews, coupled with the absence of modern technology and medicine that could have provided answers to many urgent questions, was so commanding that the layperson could not avoid seeking out the mystical practitioner in order to cope. To borrow a phrase from Mary Douglas, this argument is “culturally biased.” The Talmud would not— and could not—include so many instances of both holy and illicit magic, had the supernatural not been part of the rabbis’ cultural beliefs. There are numerous cases in which the rabbis offered defenses and remedies against black or unholy magic, and although it is true that they often attempted to minimize the dangers of magical beings, nowhere is there any suggestion, either explicit or implied, that they denied the existence of magic or mystical beings. Landes (2014, p. 17) draws on a range of thinkers, but primarily the scholars of the early twentieth century, Lucien Levy-Bruhl and Stanley Tambia. They argued that instead of defining magic as a specific type of 170 Arukh

HaShulhan OH 240:18.

203

204

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual practice, we should instead think of it as a mode of being, reflecting a particular way of interpreting and interacting with the physical world. In other words, magic was an integral part of one’s life and understanding of the surrounding world. The approach to the materialistic and physical aspects of one’s needs and how it was reflected in one’s behavior included their belief in and practice of magic. They believed that one could and even needed to function within a world that included belief in the supernatural. Taking this into consideration, we can turn to the Jewish society in the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries,171 times that posed a dilemma for a rational rabbinic adjudicator such as Rabbi Epstein. He was literate in Russian, unlike many other rabbis, which allowed him firsthand access to scientific information that was unavailable to many other Jews. For the majority of his working years, Rabbi Epstein served as the spiritual leader of the town or city of Navahrudak (or Novogrudok) in the Grodno Region of Belarus.172 In 1888, out of a population of 12,000, Jews numbered 8,270.173 This town, in addition to trade, had the makings of the beginning of an industrial town. Breweries, beehives, and a factory making bricks and ceramics were the first industrial endeavors. The town showed the influence of both secular and religious movements, including the haskala, Hasidim, and musar. Novogrudok even housed a workers’ movement (or the socialist party), the Bund, which began in 1902 under the influence of its intelligentsia. As I said, this was the era of both the industrial and the intellectual revolution in Russia, a period when newly discovered medical cures became available. This broader perspective likely influenced Rabbi Epstein’s thinking and adjudicative process. Nevertheless, the decisive factors in Rabbi Epstein’s thinking were the Jewish tradition and the Jewish people. The tradition of the Sages and rabbinical authorities throughout rab171 For

a general discussion of magic in contemporary Russia, see Lindquist, 2009. information on Novogrudok was obtained from the town’s memorial book. See Yerushalmi, 1963. 173 Other statistics find the Jewish population to be 5,000. 172 The

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah binic history would supersede any of the above considerations, and the long-established customs and beliefs of Epstein’s community could not be ignored.174 In more recent times, controversy still continues over the measures of acceptance, rejection, and circumvention of magic praxis.175

RABBIS CITED IN THIS CHAPTER (listed in alphabetical order according to first name) Ba’alei Hatosafot (primarily the grandchildren of Rashi), twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Northern France and Germany) Rabbi Abraham Danzig, born 1748 (Poland), died 1820 (Vilna, Lithuania) Rabbi Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra, born 1089 (Spain), died circa 1164 (Spain) Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel, known as the Rosh, born circa 1250 (Germany), died 1327 (Spain) Rabbi Avraham Abele Gombiner, known as the Magen Avraham, born circa 1635 (Poland), died 1682 (Poland) Avraham ben David, known as Ravad, born circa  1125 (Provence), died 1198 (France) Rabbi David Halevi, known as the Taz, born 1586 (Poland), died 1667 (Russia)

174 An

example of the subtlety of Rabbi Epstein is found in Hosen Mishpat 307:15. It was widely accepted that the saliva of a father’s firstborn son would cure eye ailments. SA (HM 307:13) and Tur (HM 307:13) cite the Talmudic passage in BT Baba Batra 126b: “One who claims the spit from his bekhor (son) can cure eye ailments informs us that he refers to his own first-born (rather than his wife’s) son. This statement can be used as evidence to establish the special status of his son.The Talmud, Tur, and SA say that such saliva from a first-born is Gamiri, an established tradition of fact. While Maimonides omits this rule, OH says the notion is a precious saying in the mouth of the masses. The implication is that the father says so because he believes it to be so and likewise do the listeners. Thus he meant to say that his son is his own firstborn. Does such saliva really cure ailments? The Rabbi does not say anything beyond noting that such expressions are popular. That he avoids calling spittle-cures Gamiri—established traditional fact—shows us that he does not accept it as such. However, that other people do believe it and that this expression is commonplace allows him to adjudicate the ruling that a father claiming his son’s saliva can cure eye ailments is claiming his son to be his bekhor. 175 See Hillel, 2011, for the contemporary approach to magical practices. See Stampfer, 2010, for a discussion of nineteenth-century Jewish life in Eastern Europe.

205

206

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Rabbi Eliezer ben Natan, known as Ravan, born 1090 (Germany), died 1170 (Germany) Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen Kagan, born 1838 (Belarus), died 1933 (Radin) Rabbi Joshua Falk, born 1555, died 1614 (Poland) Rabbi Judah Loew, known as the Maharal of Prague, born circa 1525 (Poland), died 1609 (Prague) Rabbi Levi ben Gershon, known as Gersonides and Ralbag, born 1288 (France), died 1344 (France) Rabbi Menachem HaMeiri, born circa 1249 (Provence), died circa 1306 (Provence) Rabbi Mordekhai Yaffe, known as the Levush, born circa 1535 (Bohemia), died 1612 (Poland) Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, known as Maimonides or Rambam, born 1135 (Spain), died 1204 (Egypt) Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, known as Ramban, born 1194 (Spain), died 1270 (Spain) Rabbi Moshe ben Yitzchak Yehudah Lema, born circa 1605, died circa 1658 (Lithuania) Rabbi Moses Schreiber, born 1762 (Germany), died 1839 (Hungary) Rabbi Moshe ben Avraham of Przemyśl, born circa 1540 (Poland), died 1606 (Poland) Rabbi Moshe Isserles, known as Rama, born 1520 (Poland), died 1572 (Poland) Rabbi Nissim of Gerona, known as Ran, born circa 1290 (Spain), died circa 1375 (Spain) Rabbi Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, born circa 1640 (Poland), died circa 1700 (Poland) Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried, born 1804 (Ukraine), died 1886 (Ukraine) Rabbi Shabbetai HaKohen, known as Shach, born 1622 (Lithuania), died 1663 (Czechoslovakia) Rabbi Shlomo ibn Aderet, known as Rashba, born 1235 (Spain), died 1310 (Spain) Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, born 1783 (Poland), died 1869 (Galicia) Rabbi Shmuel Abuhav, born 1610 (Italy), died 1694 (Italy) Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, born 1745 (Poland), died 1812 (Russia) Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, known as Ba’al HaTurim or the Tur, born circa 1275 (Germany), died circa 1340 (Spain) Rabbi Yaakov Hayim Sofer, born 1870 (Baghdad, Iraq), died 1939 (Israel) Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, born 1829, died 1908 (Belarus) Rabbi Yehudah heHassid, born circa 1155 (Germany), died 1215 (Germany) Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi, known as the Rif, born 1013 (Algeria), died 1103 (Spain) Rabbi Yosef ben Meir Teom, Pri Megadim, born 1727 (Ukraine), died 1792 (Germany)

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah Rabbi Yitchak ben Sheshet Perfet, known as Rivash, born 1326 (Spain), died 1407 (North Africa) Rabbi Yosef Karo, born 1488 (Spain), died 1575 (Spain)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bar Ilan, M. (1993). Witches in the Bible and the Talmud. In H. W. Basser & S. Fishbane (Eds.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism (vol. 5, 7-32). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Basser, H. (1977, Jan.). Superstitious interpretations of Jewish laws. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, VIII(2), 127-138. Baumgarten, A. (1983). Miracles and halakhah in rabbinic Judaism. Jewish Quarterly Review, 77(3), 283-253. Bazak, J. (1985). A study of extra-sensorial perceptions in biblical, talmudical and rabbinical literature in light of contemporary parapsychological research (2nd ed.). Tel Aviv: Yavne Publishing House Ltd. (Hebrew) Bloom, M. (2007). Jewish mysticism and magic: An anthropological perspective. London, England: Routledge. Bohak, G. (2011). Ancient Jewish magic: A history. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Bokser, B. M. (1985). Wonder-working and the rabbinic tradition: The case of Hanina Ben Dosa. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, 16(1), 42-92. Brown, P. (1971). The rise and function of the holy man in late antiquity. The Journal of Roman Studies, 61, 80-101. Buber, M. (1958). Hasidism and modern man. New York: Horizon Press. Chajes, J. H. (2003). Between worlds: Dybbuks, exorcists, and early modern Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Dennis, Geoffrey W. (2012). The encyclopedia of Jewish myth, magic, and mysticism (5th ed). Woodbury, MN: Llewellyn Publications. Durkheim, E. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life. New York:The Free Press. Elon, M. (1973). Jewish law: History, sources, principles.Volume 3. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (Hebrew) Emanuel, S. (1995). Newly discovered Geonic responsa. Jerusalem and Cleveland: Ofeq Institute, Friedberg Library. (Hebrew) Fishbane, M. A. (1979). Aspects of Jewish magic in the ancient rabbinic period. In The Solomon Goldman Lectures (vol. 2, 29-38). Chicago: (n. p.). Fishbane, S. (2009). The boldness of a halakhist. Boston: Academic Studies Press. ___. (2007). Deviancy in early rabbinic literature. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

207

208

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual ___. (2011). The shtiebelization of modern Jewry. Boston: Academic Studies Press. Frazer, J. G. (1922). The golden bough:The magic art and the evolution of kings.Volume 1. London: Macmillan. Geertz, H. (1975, Summer). An anthropology of religion and magic, I. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 6(1), 71-89. Green,W. S. (1979). Palestinian holy men: Charismatic leadership and rabbinic tradition. Aufstieg ind Neidergang der romischen Weit (Elektronische Ressource) Index; ANRW, 19(2), 619-647. Gutal, N. M. (1998). Histanut hativim bahalakhahh (2nd ed.). Jerusalem: Machon Yachdav. (Hebrew) Gutterman,Y. (2007, Fall). Segulot, superstitions, and Darchei Emori. The Journal of Halakhah and Contemporary Society, LIV, 63-75. Halbertal, M. (2001). Between Torah and wisdom: Rabbi Menachem ha-Meiri and the Maimonidean halakhists in Provence (2nd ed.). Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (Hebrew) Harari,Y. (2011). A different spirituality or “other” agents? On the study of magic in rabbinic tradition. In D. V. Arbel & A. A. Orlov (Eds.), With letters of light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, early Jewish apocalypticism, magic and mysticism in honor of Rachel Elior (169-195). New York: Walter de Gruyter. ___. (2010). Early Jewish magic. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute. (Hebrew) ___. (2005). What is a magical text? Methodological reflections aimed at redefining early Jewish magic. In S. Shaked (Ed.), Officina magica: Essays in the practice of magic in antiquity (91-124). Leiden and Boston: Brill. Henkin, E. (2014, Elul). Sifrei Arukh Hashulhan: Seder ketivatam vhadpasatam. Kovetz Hitzei Giborim, 7, 515-536. (Hebrew) Hillel, Y. (1990). Faith and folly: The occult in Torah perspective. Jerusalem: Yeshiva Hevrath Ahavath Shalom. Idel, M. (1998). Messianic mystics. New Haven:Yale University Press. ___. (1997). On Judaism, Jewish mysticism, and magic. In P. Schafer & H. G. Kipperberg (Eds.), Envisioning magic: A Princeton seminar and symposium (195214). Leiden and New York: Brill. ___. (2001). On magic and Judaism. In S. Antohi (Ed.), Religion, fiction and history: Essays in memory of Loan Petru Culianu (vol. 2, 13-40). Bucuresti, Rumania: Nemira. Kanarfogel, E. (2013). Magic and mysticism in Tosafist literature and thought. In The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz (445-488). Detroit: Wayne State University Press. ___. (2000). Peering through the lattices: Mystical, magical, and pietistic dimensions in the Tosafist period. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Holy and Licit Magic and Halakhah Katz, J. (1998). Divine law in human hands: Case studies in halakhic flexibility. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Klein-Braslavy, S. (2000). The concept of magic in R. Solomon Ben Abraham Aderet (Rashba) and Rabbi Nissim Gerondi (Ran). In A. Doron (Ed.), Encuentros and Desencuentros: Spanish Jewish cultural interaction throughout history (105-129). Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects. Langermann,Y.T. (1991). Maimonides’ repudiation of astrology. In A. Hyman (Ed.), Maimondean Studies (vol. 2, 123-158). New York:Yeshiva University Press. Lerner,Y.Y. (2003). Shmiras haguf vihanfesh. (n.p.): Machon Shaarei Ziv. (Hebrew) Lewin, B. M. (1931). Otzar ha-Geonim. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press. (Hebrew) Lifshitz,Y. H. (1989). Teshuvah shela laharamban za’l. Tzfonut, 1(4), 6-16. (Hebrew) Lightstone, J. N. (1985). Magicians, holy men and rabbis: Patterns of the sacred in late antique Judaism. In W. S. Green (Ed.), Approaches to ancient Judaism (vol. 5, 133-148). Brown Judaic Studies 32. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Lindquist, G. (2009). Conjuring hope: Healing and magic in contemporary Russia. New York: Berghahn Books. Malinowski, B. (1955). Magic, science and religion and other essays. Garden City: Double Day Anchor. Mock, L. (2001). Were the rabbis troubled by witches? Zutot, 1, 33-43. Neusner, J. (1969, Apr.). The phenomenon of the rabbi in late antiquity. Numen, 16, 1-20. O’Keefe, D. L. (1983). Stolen lightning: The social theory of magic. New York:Vintage Books. Oren, N. E. (2010). Lo nachash b’Yaakov. Bnei Brak, Israel: n.p. (Hebrew) Petrovsky-Shtern,Y. (2014). The golden age shtetl: a new history of Jewish life in Eastern Europe. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Rubin, N. (1995). The beginning of life: Rites of birth, circumcision and redemption of the first born in the Talmud and Midrash. Tel Aviv: Hakkibutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew) Scholem, G. G. (1967). Major trends in Jewish mysticism. New York: Schocken Books. Schwartz, D. (2005). Studies on astral magic in medieval Jewish thought. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Seidel, J. L. (1996). Studies in ancient Jewish magic (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Berkeley. Sharot, S. (1987). Messianism, mysticism, and magic (2nd ed). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Sperber, D. (1994). Magic and folklore in rabbinic literature. Ramat-Gan, Israel: BarIlan University Press.

209

210

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Stampfer, S. (2010). Families, rabbis and education: Traditional Jewish society in nineteenth-century Eastern Europe. Oxford and Portland, OR: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Stark, R. (2001). Reconceptualizing religion, magic and science. Review of Religious Research, 43(2), 101-120. Stitskin, L. D. (Trans.). (1977) Letters of Maimonides. New York: Yeshiva University Press. Stone, S. L. (2005, Winter). Rabbinical legal magic: A new look at Honi’s circle as the construction of law’s space. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 17(1), 1-27. Strickman, N. (2011). Without red strings or holy water: Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. Boston: Academic Studies Press. Styers, R. (2004). Making magic: Religion, magic and science in the modern world. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Swartz, M. D. (1995). Magical piety in ancient and medieval Judaism. In M. W. Meyer & P. A. Mirecki (Eds.), Ancient magic and ritual power (167-183). New York: E. J. Brill. ___. (1996). Scholastic magic. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ___. (2005). Understanding ritual in Jewish magic: Perspectives from the Geniza and related sources. In S. Shaked (Ed.), Officina magica: Essays in the practice of magic in antiquity (233-254). Leiden and Boston: Brill. Thomas, K. (1975, Summer). An anthropology of religion and magic II. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 6(1), 91-109. ___. (1991). Religion and the decline of magic (4th ed). London: Penguin Books. Titiev, M. (1960, Fall). A fresh approach to the problem of magic and religion. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 16(3), 292-298. Trachtenberg, J. (1974). Jewish magic and superstition. 2nd ed. New York: Atheneum. Ulner, R. (1994). The evil eye in the Bible and rabbinic literature. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House Inc. Urbach, E. E. (1969). The sages:Their concepts and beliefs. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Wax, M., & Wax, R. (1963, Dec.-Jan.). The notion of magic. Current Anthropology, 4(5), 495-518. Yerushalmi, E. (Ed.). (1963). Navaredok memorial book (Navahrudak, Belarus); Translation of Pinkas Navaredok. Tel Aviv: n.p. Zevin, S. Y. (Ed.). (2013). Kishuf; Kishafim. In Talmudic encyclopedia (vol. 32, 401402). Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Institute.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah

INTRODUCTION Anthropologists argue that symbolism and symbols “typify or represent or recall something by possession of analogous qualities or by association in fact or thought.”1 The symbol is directly related to, constructed by, and bound to the culture and people that it represents. Furthermore, “religious symbols are above all sacred symbols, and as such, they embody to the faithful the unquestionable truth of unverifiable statements about the cosmos and man’s place in it. It is this characteristic of self-confirming assertions about reality that gives religious symbols both intellectual and emotional significance to the people who hold them.”2 Thus for Judaism, and especially rabbinic Judaism, an examination of the attitude toward Torah scrolls or the Sefer Torah within Jewish culture will show it to be considered as the prime symbol of Judaism. This essay will examine the symbolic representation of the Sefer Torah in Jewish society and culture, including the theoretical framework chosen to understand this symbol and the rabbinic literature regarding the “honor” and “sanctity” attributed to the scrolls. Lastly, there will be discussion of the 1 2

Lessa & Vogt, 1979, p. 90. Ibid., pp. 1-2.

212

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual usage of the artifact of the Sefer Torah in contemporary Jewish life. Differentiation between the actual artifact and the content of the Torah is unclear both in the perception of the masses and in the way it is projected in rabbinical texts. Of primary interest here is not the content of the scrolls but rather the Sefer Torah as a religious artifact. In general, the Sefer Torah is the Jewish totem. I am not referring to the classic understanding of totem,3 but rather to a “quasi-totem.”4 In the cultures of primitive tribes, the totem5 is related to an animal or vegetable species, and occasionally (as in the case of the Torah) an object that is made, produced, or manufactured. In some societies a totem is worshipped as a deity (though not in Jewish ones where the equivalent spiritual longings are satisfied through the Sefer Torah) or incorporated into the religion of a member of that society.6 Totemism is the term used by outsiders to describe collective societies which share a mystical unity with the totem and its protective powers. In the case of animals and specific plants, one refrains from eating them. There is acknowledgment and respect as well as obligations and mutual rights between the members of the culture and the totem, which usually becomes the crest or symbol of the group. What is important here is that the totem is the expression of the social collectivity of the group’s members. Rituals arise as a direct expression regarding the totem and the sacredness attributed to it. Feelings related to the totem are projected onto the daily life of the culture, and give rise to the belief in the efficacy of the sacred rituals related to the totem. The belief in the totemic principle thus contributes to both to group solidarity and control by the totem guardians. By inculcating historical traditions, authority, and sanctions, the group is 3

For a detailed description and discussion of totem and totemism, see, for example, Freud, 1965; Radcliffe-Brown, 1952; Levi-Strauss, 1963. 4 I am basing and adapting my description of totem from Goldenweiser, 1965, pp. 270-278. 5 Totems and totemism can be found in almost all primitive tribes, but they function differently and maintain different sets of beliefs and different roles depending upon their culture and geographical location. 6 In the Durkheim approach, totemism qualifies as a tribal religion.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah made stronger. Thus the group’s members are able to express their unity and shared life, a life which stems from the past and becomes available for the future. As Goldenweiser (1965, p. 277) argues, “Evidence is not lacking that mystical and social features, once components of totemism, persist in modern society, if in less integrated form.” As we will see, the Sefer Torah or the Torah Scrolls play a similar role in Jewish culture and society.

THE BIBLE This chapter deals with the representation of the Sefer Torah as the symbol of the “historic covenantal relationship” between God and Israel. Recalling the constructed memory of the Jewish people and their understanding of the Torah scrolls: their structured reality. Neither the unmediated giving to Israel of what is now called the Torah (to the people as a whole) nor the concept of its divine authorship—save some disparate references to the Ten Commandments—is mentioned per se in any text of the Torah. The Rabbis stretched every possible textual sign to refer to the Torah and its giving. “Torah” to be certain is not a rare word, but its meaning as a closed canon of laws and narrative, rather than simply “instruction,” is nowhere clear within its Pentateuchal semantic range. The Rabbis enshrined their sense of Torah by hermeneutic readings, which often violated clear readings. For instance, the Rabbis insisted that Deuteronomy’s injunction concerning love of God, meditating on the Ten Commandments, and teaching them to one’s children pertained to general Torah instruction to the young and one’s self. “In lying down and in rising” is signed by the rabbis as the injunction concerning the reading of Shema; without referring to the Ten Commandments, the direct antecedent of these injunctions. The body of the Torah as an entirely divine, immutable, and all-encompassing document seems to have been a strenuous interpretive labor. It was widely proclaimed, with no lack of proof-texts, that at Sinai the Lord gave Moses the Pentateuch in its entirety as dictated from his mouth. This is the tradition accepted by the majority of believing Jews.To be sure, Deuteronomy refers to the words

213

214

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual “Sefer Torah” several times (17:18, 28:61, 29:20, and 30:10).7 Sefer Torah described here can hardly refer to the five books of Moses rather than some other designated teaching; yet, within the constructed memory of observant Jew, it designates the very Sefer Torah we have today.The sanctity of the Torah is primarily displayed and established by two passages. Deuteronomy 31:9 states: “Moses wrote the Torah, and delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi, who bore the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.” Moses is instructed by the Lord to write the Torah.8 While the likelihood is that “the Torah” refers to the Book of Deuteronomy alone, the tradition is that every word that Moses wrote, that is the Torah, was the word of the Lord. Consequently, the Torah is the word of God and this “Book” is a manifestation of His holiness and therefore holy in and of itself; it was the intimate link with God. According to some rabbinic traditions, the Torah existed prior to its revelation at Sinai. The Midrash Rabba (Genesis 1:1) informs us that when God created the world, He consulted the Torah, which served as His blueprint. Furthermore, in Rabbinic lore it is said that God spends the first hours of every day studying Torah. Only after that does He administer justice, and feed the world.9

THE TORAH Deuteronomy 31:24-26 states: “When Moses had finished writing the words of this Torah in a Sefer (Scroll, Book) to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: ‘Take this Sefer Torah and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God that it may be there for a witness against you.’” The Rabbinic commentaries discussed the actual place of this Sefer Torah in the Ark with the tablets (or broken tablets) containing the Ten Commandments that 7

Examples of additional sources that refer to the Sefer Torah throughout the Bible are: Joshua 1:8, 8:31, 8:34, 23:61; Kings 2:22, 8:3, 10:11, 14:6, 23:2, 21; Nehemiah 8:1-3, 8:18, 9:3, 13:1. Of special interest to this essay is Nehemiah 9:3, which reads: “And they stood up in their place, and read in the Sefer Torah of the Lord their God . . . .” Standing for the Torah will be discussed below. 8 See BT Sanhedrin 99a, which writes that Moses was an intermediary and that God dictated every word and every dot of the Torah to him. 9 BT Avodah Zarah 3b.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah were the unmediated words of God. Placing the Sefer Torah alongside the Ten Commandments meant that its level of sacredness was parallel to that of the Ark of the Covenant and its contents. Thus the Sefer Torah, written by Moses, according to the word of God and possessing the sacredness of the Decalogue, would retain this holy status in the constructed memory of the Jew even after the destruction of the Temples and the loss of the Ark of the Covenant.

The Sacredness of the Sefer Torah Karel Van Der Toorn (1997, pp. 229-248) argues that, since the Israelites did not worship idols and could not use physical entities to represent their deity, they required a substitute image to symbolically instantiate sacredness.10 Pagan households (as found among the Babylonians) had figurines to dissuade demons and dangers from entering their homes, while the Israelites placed mezuzoth containing words from the Scripture on their doorposts. While other nations had shrines housing the images of the pagan deity, the Israelite priest carried an ark containing God’s instructions. On page 234,Van Der Toorn reminds his readers that, although silent, those replicas of cult images had their own way of speaking to convey their message. These smaller images not only retained the memory of the real living object but also stimulated the devotion of the believer. Even for those who did not conceive of the Deity as a physical entity, and for whom any visual representation of the Lord was condemned and forbidden, the image of the Sefer Torah (though not of the invisible Deity) was the expression of the divine and the manifestation of the sacred. The people of Israel were the people of the Torah and the Torah replaced the imageless Deity with the image of his Word.The Torah thus served a dual purpose as a book of law, history, and guidance (considered the blueprint of the world) and as an object that embodied the realm of the sacred. Van Der Toorn (ibid., pp. 243-234) also suggests interesting analogies between religions believing in images and the Sefer Torah. First of all, in the religion of images, as represented by the Babylonians, the followers took an 10

See also Hendel, 1997, pp. 205-228.

215

216

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual oath by touching their idols. In Judaism, people make their oath by touching the Holy Book. “The physical contact with the sacred object exposes the juror to divine punishment may he not speak the truth” (ibid., p. 243). Second, idol worshiping societies would go into battle accompanied by their divine statues. The idol was carried at the head of the military convoy as a symbol that the deity was leading armies into battle and thus protecting them. It was the Ark of the Covenant (the Torah) that accompanied the Israelites to battle. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 2:4) stated that the king, who also served as the military chief, carried with him a copy of the Torah, serving not only as a source of information but also as a symbol of God’s presence. Finally, when the Sefer Torah was damaged or could no longer be used, it was buried, reminiscent of the behavior of the idol worshippers who buried their irreparably broken cult statues.

The Kings of Israel as Seen in the Mishnah11 The Rabbis interpreted the Kings’ relationship with the Torah scrolls as commensurate to the general reverence due these scrolls. The Bible, in Deuteronomy 31:19, states, “Now therefore write this Song. . . .” BT Sanhedrin 21b interprets this passage to mean that the King, in addition to the general obligation for a Jew to write a Sefer Torah, is required to write an additional Torah scroll to carry with him at all times. The Talmud cites as a proof the passage in Deuteronomy 17:18-19: “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah in a book which is before the priests and the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life. . . .” Although the King had a Sefer Torah in the Temple, he carried this additional scroll wherever he went, even when he did not need to read from it. According to the Talmud, additional elaborate ceremonies were bound up with the kings of Israel. At the end of the seventh year, when the king publicly read from the Torah, he used the scroll housed in the Temple. A similar ceremony was performed in the Jerusalem Temple on Yom 11

For a detailed discussion of Sefer Torah relating to kings and leaders, see Zolden, 2002.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah Kippur. The report of such ceremonies served as an additional means of enhancing the sacredness and reverence of the Sefer Torah in the eyes of unlearned Israelites.12 The Mishnah (Sotah 7:8) describes the elaborate ritual: How was the section dealing with the king performed? At the end of the first festival day of the Festival [of Sukkot], on the eighth year, [that is at the end of the seventh year], they make him a platform of wood, set in a courtyard. And he sits on it. As it is said: “At the end of every seven years at the set time” (Deuteronomy 31:10), the minister of the assembly takes the Sefer Torah and hands it to the head of the assembly, and the head of the assembly hands it to the prefect and the prefect hands it to the high priest and the high priest hands it to the king, and the king stands and receives it.

The high status of those receiving the Torah and the physical surroundings prepared for this special occasion contributed to and initiated the reaction and response of the observers toward the Torah. A similar ceremony is found on Yom Kippur in the Jerusalem Temple (in the women’s court). Mishnah Yoma 7:1 writes: “The beadle of the community takes the scroll of the Torah and gives it to the head of the community, and the head of the community gives it to the prefect [of the priests], and the prefect gives it to the high priest. The high priest rises ….” Although the Torah scrolls were brought to the dignitary rather than having the person come to the Torah as required by law, the Talmud (YT Yoma 7:1 and Sotah 7:6) informs its readers that, because these luminaries referred to in the Mishnah were of great stature, the Torah is therefore presented to them.

The Early Rabbinic Period Before examining the rabbinic texts, it is important to clarify one of the agendas of the early rabbis and the redactors of the Mishnah (the first known rabbinic document was redacted in approximately 200-215 CE). As I have

12

Knowledge of the Torah and the oral law was primarily in the hands of the priests and the selected few.

217

218

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual shown in earlier publications,13 unlike most scholars of this period, the redactors of the Mishnah based their work on a utopian Temple society. Whether it stemmed from their longing to return to this Temple-centered world or whether they felt that they required such reliance on the Temple to receive their authority is not the issue here. With the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, the Ark of the Covenant was lost and all that remained was the Sefer Torah. Although the scrolls’ own status as the representative of God’s word had been established, they now fulfilled a second role as the replacement of the Ark in the Temple and its contents containing the Decalogue. The Mishnah Avot 4:6 sets the stage for the sacredness of the Sefer Torah with a short statement: “Whoever honors the Torah himself is honored by people. And whoever disgraces the Torah himself is disgraced by people.” Mishnah Megillah 3:1 places the Sefer Torah at the uppermost level of sacredness. All other holy objects are secondary to the Torah. The Mishnah states: “Townsfolk who sell a street of a town, buy with its proceeds a synagogue. [If they sell] a synagogue they buy an ark. [If they sell] an ark they buy wrappings. [If they sell] wrappings, they buy scrolls [of the prophets or writings]. But if they sell a Torah scroll, they should not buy scrolls.” BT Megillah 27a qualifies the Mishnah by permitting the Torah to be sold if it is for the purpose of Torah study and of marriage. The Talmud states that selling the Torah scrolls to study Torah is justified, [because] it will bring one to the performance of mitzvoth (fulfillment of Jewish law and conduct). Taking a wife is legitimized by offering support from the passage in Isaiah 45:18: “He did not create the world to be a void; He formed it to be inhabited.” The Talmud is thus suggesting that this mitzvah (of study and procreation) supersedes the sanctity of the Torah, for it will also assist one in studying Torah without distraction. The Babylonian Talmud (BT) follows its agenda, which emphasizes the study of Torah and the oral law above all. The Talmud, realizing that it must retain the sacredness of the Sefer Torah and therefore the severity of the prohibition against selling the a Torah, cites a baraita14 stating that a man is forbidden to sell the Torah scroll 13 14

See Fishbane, 2007. These are Tannaitic statements not included in the Mishnah but often quoted in the Talmud.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah even if he lacks food to eat. If he does sell the scrolls he will never see a blessing from the monies acquired from the sale. The status of the Sefer Torah and its sacredness resulted in different rituals, customs, and laws to support and enhance this reverence. As Bell (1997, p. 21) correctly points out, ritual imposes an order, accounts for the origin and nature of that order as the ritual is enacted, and shapes the people’s desire to experience that order in the world around them. Furthermore, Bell writes (ibid., p. 29) that ritual activities regulate the community and enhance the well-being of the individual actor. The majority of these rituals and laws are accumulated in two minor tractates, not in the Talmuds proper, Tractates Sefer Torah and Sofrim (Scribes).These, apparently, were redacted at the end of the Talmudic period.15 The preponderance of Tractate Sefer Torah is devoted to the preparation and writing of the Torah. This includes the type of kosher animal to be chosen, how to prepare the parchment used to write the scrolls, the writing materials, the color of the ink, and what names are holy and therefore may not be erased. Also included is how to write the Torah; for example, the spaces that must be left between letters, words, columns, and books in the scroll. It also deals with the number of columns in a sheet, the width and length of columns and scrolls, the size of the upper and lower margins, blank spaces at the beginning and end of scrolls, and the disposal of worn-out sheets. This and much additional specific detailed information concerning the preparation of the Sefer Torah is encompassed in this minor Tractate. Tractate Sofrim dedicates the first 14 of its 21 chapters to Sefer Torahrelated issues. The first nine chapters deal with the performance of the scribes who copy the text. Chapters nine through fourteen are concerned with the public reading of the Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographa. Chapter fourteen discusses the degree of sanctity of the Torah, the issue with which this essay is concerned. The redactors of Tractate Sofrim were familiar with the laws in Tractate Sefer Torah and thus included much of its material. These detailed instructions had little to do with the layman, his participation, 15

See Higger, 1930, pp. 10-16.

219

220

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual or even contact with the Torah scroll.The underlying concept was that the Torah was a uniform text of the one written by Moses and thus the direct representation of the word of God. Additional rituals dealing with the public acknowledgment of sacredness of the Scrolls of the Law are found in Chapter 14:14. Once the Torah is removed from the Ark, the scroll of the Torah is immediately unrolled a space of three columns and elevated to show the face of the script to the people standing on the right and on the left. Then it is turned round toward the front and toward the rear; for it is the precept for all men and women to see the script, to bend their knees and exclaim, “And this is the Torah which Moses set before the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:44). The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul (Psalms 19:8).” The Torah is then opened on the reading desk for those who are to be called to the reading. Since it is not an honor for the Torah to be left alone, two persons should stand with him, one on his right and the other on his left. The “pure-minded men” of Jerusalem, both when the Torah scroll was taken out of the ark and when it was returned, they followed behind it as a mark of respect.16

The Reading of the Torah The scroll was read publicly and regularly on Mondays, Thursdays, and the Sabbath.17 The Magen Avraham (OH 124:2) quotes Maharil, who writes in his Laws of Reading the Sefer Torah (page 449), that it is a mitzvah for those that are standing and/or praying in the courtyard or at the entrance of the synagogue to come in to witness the removal of the Torah from the Ark. He attributes the reason to the rabbinical concept “the King is honored in the midst of the masses.” In other words, the greater the number participating in the ritual, the greater the respect offered. Rabbi Haim Palagi (1961, p. 19, paragraph 1) reports that some of the Jews in his community in Izmir, Turkey would attend the synagogue service only at the time of the cere16 17

Translations of the minor Tractates are paraphrased from the Soncino Press edition. The congregation also came in contact with the Torah during the holiday of Simhat Torah (see Yaari, 1998 who describes the holiday in detail) and during the dedication of a new Sefer Torah (see Zinner, 1998, who presents the laws and rituals of this ceremony).

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah mony to remove the Torah scroll from the Ark. He reprimanded the onlookers for not participating in the prayer service itself and instructed the synagogue officials to seat them. We now look in detail at the phenomenon of the communal Torah reading. A.  Opening of the Ark In certain congregations, the honor of opening the Holy Ark and carrying the scrolls is considered so praiseworthy and the demand so great that the privilege is auctioned off.18 Rabbi Palagi (1961, pp. 13-14) discusses whether a minor (a boy of less than thirteen years of age) may participate in this ritual. Although the custom is frowned upon by various rabbinical authorities, he attempts to justify permitting a minor to carry the scrolls. Rabbi Palagi cautions his readers that there must be an adult with the child at all times to guarantee that the Torah scrolls do not fall, a situation that would generate severe problems for the congregation. The Aron Hakodesh where the Torah scrolls are housed is draped with a curtain, in most instances an embroidered curtain. The most preferred artwork on the curtain shows two tablets representing the Decalogue. This symbolism manifests the direct relationship between the scrolls and the hand of God represented by the Ten Commandments, thus creating the status for the Torah as the embodiment of the direct relationship between God and Israel. B.  Brikh Shmei The Zohar19 writes that when the Holy Ark is opened and the Torah scrolls are removed from it, the Gates of Mercy are opened in Heaven. At this time, God’s love is awakened. The author of the Zohar then writes that one should recite the Aramaic prayer Brikh Shmei, a prayer of request to God. This prayer was first introduced in Italy in 1540 as an individual’s prayer rather than one to be recited by the entire congregation. Fifty-nine 18

Meller, 2009, p. 19 ff. 2-3, discusses the different sources that are concerned with auctioning the opening of the Ark.

19

The classical text of Kabbalah (mysticism).

221

222

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual years later, it was adapted and inserted into the prayer service.20 Benyamin Shlomo Hamburger (1995, pp. 158–186) presents a comprehensive survey of the rabbinic approach to reciting this prayer, especially in the Ashkenazi communities. He reports that in most of these communities Brikh Shmei was not recited.The main reason for not including it in the liturgy was that it was not part of the tradition of the early rabbis, and consequently does not appear in their prayer books. Even when Brikh Shmei came to be included in the liturgy, specific issues still arose that caused rabbinical skepticism. For example, the rabbis preferred to distance the lay Jew from the Zohar, a work of speculative mysticism concerning which there were many questions as to both the trustworthiness and credibility. In addition, an issue arose as result of this prayer being recited in Aramaic.The Babylonian Talmud 12b teaches that one should not make requests to God in Aramaic because the angels who intervene between the supplicant and God do not understand Aramaic. Although the Talmud finds a reason to allow Aramaic at times, making requests to God in Hebrew is preferable.21 A further objection was raised by the renowned Hida, Rabbi Hayim Yosef David Azulai (Responsa Yosef Ometz section 44), who argued that on the Sabbath one should not make personal requests in prayers.22 Different opinions were offered as to the day on which to recite the prayer. The Kaf Ha-Hayyim argues that since the prayer appears in the Zohar within the discussion of Shabbat, this is the time it should be said. In fact, the Magen Avraham rules that Brikh Shmei should only be recited on the Sabbath. Rabbi Chaim Yosef Abdula, known as the Ben Ish Hai, argues that since it is recited (now) on a regular basis, it is permitted to recite it on the Sabbath.23 Hamburger (1995, p. 178) cites mystics who— with that understanding—argue that the prayer should only be recited during the minha prayer on the Sabbath. Contemporary practice is summarized by Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen in the Mishnah Berurah (134:13): the

20

See Jacobson, 1968, p. 213; Landau, 1958, pp. 362-363. Shulhan Arukh 101:4 and the standard Shulhan Arukh commentaries. 22 This issue, including the views of additional rabbinical authorities, is discussed in Meller, 2009, p. 22 ff. 10 and Hamburger, 1995, pp. 176-177. 23 See Responsa Torah Shelema section 103. 21 See

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah majority of Ashkenazi adjudicators rule that Brikh Shmei should be recited whenever the Sefer Torah is removed from the Holy Ark and read. Others rejected the prayer because of the sentence “nor in the son of God do I trust,” seemingly referring to Jesus.24 In his Baruch Sheamar (pp. 177-178), Rabbi Baruch Epstein responds to this dilemma by suggesting the prayer Brikh Shmei was not authored by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, to whom the Zohar is attributed, but rather by some unknown later individual.25 Thus it would not be sanctioned to include it in the prayers. Objections were also raised to the words “and prostate myself before Him and before the glory of the Torah at all times.” In other words, the congregant is declaring that he is bowing in honor to the Sefer Torah. Hamburger (1995, p. 174) traces the reluctance to permit bowing to the Sefer Torah from the period of the Geonim to the works of Rabbi Haim Benveniste in his Knesset Hagedolah, and finally to Rabbi Shemtob Gaguine in his Keter Shem Tov (part 1, p. 2), who were concerned about the intention of bowing to any symbols. The Sephardim do not accept this objection, and bow while uttering these words. Rabbi Yaakov Hayim Sofer in his Kaf Ha-Hayyim (Orah Hayyim 113:12), based on BT Berakhot 24a, argues that one is only permitted to bow in the liturgy in places designated by the early rabbis. Brikh Shmei is not included in this list. Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein, in his Arukh HaShulhan (OH 113:6), justifies bowing in places not designated by the Talmud. He argues “that if one bows in prayers dealing with praises or pleading before God, or for any reason where one feels the need to bow before the Lord, or if it is the custom to bow in this specific prayer, or if his heart is impassioned by the prayer, then he is blessed and is not adding to the decree of the rabbis.” Rabbi Ha-Kohen, in his Mishnah Berurah section 113:9, summarizes the views of different later rabbinical authorities:“It should be noted that all this normally only applies as regards 24

The accepted explanation is that this refers to angels. The Art Scroll prayer book translates these words “nor on any angel do I rely.” The Siddur Tzalota D’Avraham, vol. 1, p. 362, argues that these words mean “great strength” but objected to the term angels. Rabbi Epstein in his Kitzur Hashela (p. 137) offers the complete text of the prayer and changes these words to read “not on the angels of high do we rely.” 25 Hamburger, 1995, p. 167, cites other rabbinical authorities who are in agreement with Rabbi Epstein. For example, see Rabbi Yaakov Emden in his Mitpahat Sefarim, in Mor Vkiziya section 25.

223

224

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual the eighteen blessings, but apart from during the eighteen blessings one may bow and stoop as he chooses.” He continues to make a distinction between everyone bowing and an individual bowing. The latter case is permitted since this is not the reference made in the Talmud. Perhaps bowing during Brikh Shmei could be justified by either rationalization. Different customs were adopted regarding when to recite this prayer. The Magen Avraham (282:1) as well as the Hidah (Azulai) (in the name of the Arizal)26 interprets the Zohar to mean that the prayer is only to be recited on the Sabbath, because the Brikh Shmei is discussed in the Zohar in the context of Shabbat. Most Sephardic communities follow this ruling. Others interpret the words of the Zohar differently. It is also quoted in the name of the Arizal that since it does not explicitly state that it is to be read on Shabbat, one should include Brikh Shmei even during the week when the Torah is removed from the Holy Ark.27 Aside from the German communities who completely rejected the prayer, most Ashkenazi congregations followed this ruling. There is an additional opinion of the Birkhei Yosef (Haim Yosef David Azulai) (488) that the prayer should be included in the liturgy only during the Sabbath afternoon prayers.28 As stated above, Ashkenazi communities have adapted the custom of reciting Brikh Shmei any time the Sefer Torah is removed from the Holy Ark, be it Shabbat or weekday. Because of the difficulty for those who do not understand the Aramaic text of the Zohar, in some Ashkenazi communities the prayer is recited in Yiddish, as presented by Rabbi Epstein in his Kitzur Hashela. The Sephardic communities incorporate the prayer in the liturgy only on Shabbat. Some Sephardic communities recite the prayer in Ladino rather than Aramaic so that the prayer will be understood.29 The rabbinical adjudicators also discuss the exact time to recite the Brikh Shmei, i.e., when the Holy Ark is opened or when the scrolls are 26

Quoted in the book of Responsa Rav Pealim section 3. See Meller, 2009, ff. 10. Meller (2009, ff. 10) discusses this issue and cites numerous rabbinical authorities who rule that Brikh Shmei is not only said on Shabbat but also on weekdays. See also Hamburger, 1995, pp. 179-180. 28 For a detailed discussion, see Meller, 2009, pp. 21-22 ff. 10. 29 Talmudic Encyclopedia, 1957, vol. 8, p. 479. 27

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah removed. Rabbi Gaguine, the author of Keter Shem Tov, reports that in the Land of Israel, Syria, Turkey, and Egypt, the custom is to open the Torah scrolls while in the Holy Ark, and while they are open recite the Brikh Shmei. Rabbi Efraim Margolith in his Sha’arei Efraim (section 10:1) recommends reciting Brikh Shmei while removing the Sefer Torah from the Holy Ark. Later, in his book Mateh Efraim (paragraph 48), he states that the Brikh Shmei should be recited after the scrolls have been removed. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, a representative of twentieth-century Ashkenazi Rabbis (Iggrot Moshe Orah Hayyim book 4, response 70:9), discusses whether the prayer is said when the Holy Ark is opened before the removal of the Sefer Torah or during its removal. In both instances the Holy Ark is open, but the scrolls are closed. Rabbi Feinstein supports the latter suggestion of recitation after the Ark is closed. But community custom prevailed—some recite the prayer while the Holy Ark is opened, and others after it is closed.30 For the purpose of this discussion, the focus is on the fact that it is recited when the Ark is open, creating an attendant mystical aura. The ceremony of the removal of the Torah scrolls from the Holy Ark gave rise to various customs. The husband of a woman in the ninth month of pregnancy “should be careful to receive the honor of opening the Holy Ark.”31 The Hidah saw this to be a “proper custom” that stemmed from a magic belief that this was capable of reducing the pangs of childbirth. Furthermore, argues Rabbi Palagi, closing the Holy Ark effects a healthy closing of the womb.32 In some communities (primarily Hasidic), before his wedding a groom will also receive the honor of opening the Holy Ark. This also suggests symbolically the opening or beginning of a new life.33 30

See Hamburger, 1995, p. 181. Hidah quoted in Lewy, 1990, p. 242 and Meller, 2009, p. 19. 32 Some hold to a custom of bringing the Sefer Torah and even placing it upon a woman having difficulty giving birth and who is therefore in a life-threatening situation. Passages from the Torah are then recited. The Rabbis forbid such behavior since it was disrespectful to the Torah; they permitted the Torah scrolls to be brought to the door of her room but not to open the Torah, place it in the hands of the woman giving birth, or for that matter in the hands of any woman (see Chazan, 2009, p. 392). 33 See Meller, 2009, p. 2 ff. 3. 31 The

225

226

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual DISCUSSION I have used the terms ceremony and ritual interchangeably. This does not do justice to either of them. Charles Liebman (1999, pp. 307-308) argues that religious ritual is stylized and is religious as well as efficacious. He writes: “It is directed toward a particular goal and becomes, among other things, a mechanism for achieving those goals. Religious ritual connects the participant to some transcendent presence. It provides a bridge to God by engaging the participant in an act that God has commanded. At the very least, it is efficacious in the sense that it is pleasing to God or avoids God’s displeasure. But it only produces the desired results when preformed correctly.” Ritual is generally resistant to change and detailed in its content. In contrast to ritual, Liebman explains that ceremony is connected directly to the social order it represents. For example, in reform synagogues the traditions observed, such as the removing of the Torah, are not based upon law or mitzvoth but are chosen because of their importance in the eyes of the congregants. Liebman describes the ceremony (1999, p. 309). “The Sabbath service in a Reform synagogue may not include reading from the Torah or may include reading only a few lines rather than the entire weekly portion, but it will include a rather elaborate ceremony in which the Torah scrolls are taken out of and returned to the highly ornamented ark in which they are kept. A bar mitzvah ceremony in a Reform synagogue might have the rabbi removing the Torah scroll from the ark and handing it to the parents or the youngster whose bar mitzvah is being celebrated. The parents, in turn, hand the Torah, in this case a symbol of Jewish tradition, to the bar mitzvah celebrant.” In this case, the actors do not believe their actions to be a mitzvah requiring precise and detailed rules determined by generations of rabbinical authorities. Their performance is a symbolic act whose social nature in this case is quite explicit. As Liebman continues to explain, “The ceremony symbolizes the ties between parent and child in a Jewish context; the centrality of generational continuity and the special role of the parent-child relationship in transmitting the Torah (i.e. tradition).

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah The ceremony clearly manifests and affirms the participation and identification of these actors in the Jewish social order. In the words of Bruce Malina (1986, p. 7), a culture projects “collective communication.” Apart from Liebman’s definition of ritual and ceremony, there is also a grey area that he discusses: customs that vary in different communities and Jewish ethnic groups. In our discussion about removing the Torah from the Holy Ark (and as we shall see below), the majority of the rules concerning Sefer Torah differ from community to community, and the rabbinical opinions differ significantly. For both halakhically observant and traditional Jews, identifying with a physical artifact is necessary for the fulfillment of their religious belief and commitment. Since halakhic authorities frown upon the representation of God’s being in any form, an actual embodiment of the divine is required that does not symbolize but extends from God. The Torah is “the written word of God” and as such instantiates the divine will. This further extension of the divine will also partake of the divine realm as distinct from the human realm. Accompanying accessories such as the Holy Ark play an important role in satisfying the human need to have some communion with the divine. Mysticism is the unifying of the human and the divine to the utmost possible degree. The Torah evokes a mental representation and participatory event in the experience of the community.34 Beyond this, the Torah-based rituals achieve collective attainment of social goals, namely the identification of members with its social structure and culture, resulting in conformity. In evoking the sacredness of the divine, the Torah scrolls, its ornaments, and rituals establish a “powerful, pervasive and enduring feeling and motivation in people (the players) by formulating conceptions of value objects and outfitting these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the feeling and motivations which the symbols generate are perceived as reality.”35 A further example involving the Torah scrolls and attempting to achieve such goals is the Torah lifting ceremony—hagbahat haTorah. 34 35

See Malina, 1986, p. 2. Ibid., p. 74.

227

228

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual C.  Lifting of the Sefer Torah As cited above,36 Tractate Sofrim (14:8-14) portrays an elaborate ritual for the removal of the Torah scrolls from the Holy Ark. The scroll of the Torah is immediately unrolled a space of three columns and elevated to show the face of the script to the people standing on the right and on the left.Then it is turned round towards the front and towards the rear; for it is a precept for all men and women to see the script, bend their knees and exclaim, “And this is the Torah which Moses set before the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 4:44) “The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul” (Psalms 19:8).37 … The maftir38 approaches [the Holy Ark], takes the scroll of the Torah and says, Hear O Israel, chanting the first verse, and the people say it after him in response. [The maftir] then elevates the Torah scroll and says:“One is our God, great is our Lord, holy and revered is His name forever and ever.” Then he repeats: “One is our God, great is our Lord, holy is He. One is our God, great is our Lord, holy and revered is His name.” [This is said three times] corresponding—according to some—to the number of the three patriarchs; others hold that it corresponds to the three kedushoth.

Additional prayers are recited.Tractate Sofrim continues to inform its reader that “the Torah scroll must be elevated at Hear O Israel, at the threefold declaration of the unity of God, and at O magnify the Lord with me.” In the Sephardic liturgy and in some Hasidic congregations, the Torah is opened and exhibited to the congregation immediately after the removal of the scrolls from the Holy Ark.39 Nachmanides, in his Torah commentary (Deuteronomy 27:26) on the passage “Cursed be he that does not raise up the words of this Torah,” attempts to 36

Although quoted above, I present it here again for the convenience of the reader. These laws are also later adjudicated in the works of early rabbinical authorities, such as the Mordekhai at the conclusion of Hilchot Ketanot, Rokeach section 52, and the Kol Bo section 20. They are later ruled by Rabbi Karo in his Shulhan Arukh 134:2. 38 Least honor in the reading rituals is given certain compensations. 39 A detailed list of sources and discussion can be found in Talmudic Encyclopedia, 1957, vol. 8, pp. 167-171 ff. 5; Meller, 2009; Sperber, 1989, pp. 78-88; Talbi, 1997, pp. 129-132; and Yosef, 2000. 37

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah find a reference to the Torah raising ceremony in a homily cited by Yerushalmi Sotah. He writes:40 Now I have seen the following text in Yerushalmi Sotah (7:4) that does not raise up—the words of this Torah. And was the Torah fallen! Rabbi Shimon ben Yakim says, “This verse refers to a sexton . . .” And by the way of a homily the Rabbis explained the intent [of the above Yerushalmi passage]: This refers to a sexton who does not raise up the [words] of the Sefer Torah to make them stand properly that they will not fall. It appears to me that it [the cryptic Yerushalmi] refers to a sexton who does not raise up the Sefer Torah before the public by showing the face of its writing to all the people, as it is explained in Tractate Sofrim (14:14) that “they lift the Torah high and show the face of its writing to the people who stand there to the right and to the left of it and turn it frontwards and backwards,” for it is incumbent upon all men and women to see the written words and bend the knee and say “And this is the Law which Moses set before the children of Israel,” and such is the custom.

Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, in his glosses to Shulhan Arukh (134:3), corrects Nachmanides’ text of the Yerushalmi passage and disputes the accuracy of his interpretation of the homily. As a result there does not seem to be any Talmudic source for the custom of raising the Torah mentioned in Sofrim. Daniel Sperber (1989, pp. 78-88) argues that the source for hagbahah is from Nehemiah 8:4-5, which states: “And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden pulpit (migdal) which they had made for the purpose. . . . And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; For he was above all the people, and when he opened it all the people stood.” The opening of the scrolls would imply revealing the text to the congregants, who then stood. Sperber supports his view by quoting an early rabbinic authority, Rabbi Nathan ben Rabbi Yehudah, who in his book Sefer HaMachkim uses the word migdal as in found in Nehemiah, to mean “to lift” and, therefore, seems to suggest that the source of the ceremony of hagbahah is from Nehemiah. Hayim Talbi does not accept this interpretation and explains 40

Translation adapted with minor changes from Chavel’s translation, 1976, p. 320.

229

230

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual that the word migdal is used differently in different rabbinical sources. Talbi suggests that the primary source for hagbahah is the text we quoted above from Tractate Sofrim and not earlier. The text from Sofrim is sufficient to substantiate its acceptance to incorporate it into law.41 The major discussion and dispute in rabbinic literature concerns when and how to lift the Torah scrolls and exhibit their texts to the congregation. To correctly understand the customs that developed concerning hagbahah, it must be understood that the primary purpose of hagbahah is to exhibit the writing on the scroll to the congregation. As stated in Tractate Sofrim, at least three folios of the scrolls must be exhibited. The Rabbi Avraham Abale Gombiner in his Magen Avraham (134:2) suggests that the intention in Tractate Sofrim is that not more than three folios be viewed. Citing mystical sources, the Rabbi also informs his reader that if one is actually close enough to read the letters a great (spiritual) light will shine upon him. In some communities, during this ritual the Rabbi, using a special pointer, has the honor of showing the congregants where the weekly reading begins and in a loud voice recites the passage “This is the Torah that Moses placed before the children of Israel.”42 In many present-day synagogues the reader points to the writing of the Torah with the index or little finger.43 Women have often 41

There is a small minority of rabbinical authorities who do not support the custom of hagbahah, so as not to inconvenience the congregation by making worshippers stand or possibly out of fear of dropping the Torah. See Talmudic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, p. 167 ff. 5. Talbi (1997, pp. 133-135) offers the opinions of various fifteenth and sixteenth-century rabbinical authorities who supported the concept of not lifting the Torah. These include the Orhot Hayyim (c. 1320), Laws of Monday and Friday section 8, David Emet section 4. These rabbis offered different reasons for their objections: 1. The prooftext from Sofrim is only an asmachta and not sufficient to be required as a law. 2. It is relatively a new custom only about 20 communities practiced. This is not sufficient to require it as law. 3. They feared that the Torah parchment might be held without a cloth, which transgresses the Talmud’s statement in Tractate Megillah 22a not to hold the Torah “naked.”The punishment for this action is to be buried naked. 4. There was the constant fear of dropping the Sefer Torah. 5. There are other laws in Tractate Sofrim that are not practiced, thus also providing the possibility of including hagbahah. 42 Keter Shem Tov section 32. In footnote 316 he explains that Rabbi is considered the “Father of the Torah” and thus should receive this honor. 43 Meller, 2009, pp. 336 ff 28 offers sources for this custom.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah expressed a special interest in viewing the Torah while it is being exhibited.The author of Kol Bo (section 20) also reports women pushing to see the Torah and attributes the reason to the statements in Tractate Sofrim (even though the women do not know the reason).44 The author of Turei Zahav suggests that although women are not forbidden to do so, out of respect for the Torah, during her menstrual period a woman is discouraged from looking at the writing while the scrolls are lifted (Orah Hayyim 88:2; amongst others, see footnote 38). After the Torah is removed from the Holy Ark, it is carried to the platform (bima) customarily situated in the center of the synagogue. The procession includes the various honorees who have removed the Torah,45 the Rabbi, and possibly other dignitaries. In some communities the procession circles the entire synagogue, including the outer rows of the women’s section. Rema (Orah Hayyim 149:1) writes “that in localities where the Torah scroll is put away in the sanctuary which is the Holy Ark of the synagogue, it is a mitzvah for all those in front of whom the Torah scroll passes to accompany it until it is in front of the Holy Ark into which it is put.” The same law would seem to apply to the process when taking out the Sefer Torah.46 According to the Arukh HaShulhan Orah Hayyim 149:3, some argue that someone joining the procession—if he is not directly involved in the rituals—would seem to be committing a gesture of arrogance. Therefore, he concludes that “each person may do as he chooses as long as his intentions are holy (la-shamayim).” In contemporary synagogues, only the individuals involved in the Torah rituals accompany the Torah to its place. 44

See also Yosef, 2000, p. 9 ff. 18, who discusses this ruling. Also Yosef, 1980, pp. 27-32, who discusses in general whether a woman during her period can pray and go to the synagogue, look at the Sefer Torah, etc. After citing various opinions he concludes that while they are obligated to pray and recite blessings, they can be strict in observation of the rules and not enter the synagogue, not touch the Torah, and not look at it when it is exhibited to the congregation. 45 This honor was previously sold to the highest bidder. Although it was the shaliach tzibur who usually performed the ritual, it could be done by someone else. The Or Zarua, vol. 2, section 42, writes that it is considered as honoring the Torah to buy the ritual of removing the Torah from the Holy Ark and offering it to the chazzan. 46 On this section of the Shulhan Arukh, see Magen Avraham paragraph 3 and Arukh HaShulhan paragraph 3.

231

232

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Depending on the community, the ritual of hagbahah is acted out on two specific occasions. These times are indicated in Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulhan Arukh (OH section 134:2). In the opening statement to the laws pertaining to Sefer Torah, he writes: “One should show the face/side of the Torah Scroll with the writing to the people . . . ,” suggesting that the lifting and exhibiting of the Torah is at the start of the ritual. Exhibiting the writing of the Torah at this stage of the ritual is based upon the statements we have seen in Tractate Sofrim (14:14). An alternate view is found in Rema’s addendum, for Ashkenazic communities, to this law, where he writes, “It is the practice to do this after reading the Torah.” The Sephardic community adheres to the first ritual, suggested by Rabbi Karo, while the Ashkenazi practice the latter, presented by Rema. Each time frame and locale has developed different rituals depending upon the community.The first ritual practiced prior to the reading of the Torah had different scripts depending upon the community where it was staged. For example, in one community the writing of the scrolls was displayed after they were carried from the Holy Ark to the center stage. The author of Sefer Hamanhig suggests this practice when he writes: “chazzan hakneset, who is the sexton of the synagogue, removes the Torah [from the Holy Ark] and says in a loud voice Shema Yisrael etc.With prayers, he goes up to the platform opens [the Torah] and shows it to the congregants, then places it on its start and all the congregants read the first passage [of the weekly portion] . . . .” This custom is also mentioned by Rabbi Hayim Vital (in his book Pri Eitz Chaim) describing the Arizal’s custom: “It was his custom, during the removal of the Sefer Torah to kiss the Sefer Torah and accompany it. He remained adjacent to the Ark until they opened it [the Torah scrolls] . . . .”47 Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (2000, p. 7) summarizes the opinion that the Torah writing is exhibited while standing in front of the Holy Ark. He writes: “When the Sefer Torah is removed from the Holy Ark [and brought] to the stage (tevah) in order to be read, the Sefer Torah should be opened to show the congregation . . . .”

47

See also Kaf Ha-Hayyim 134:10.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah Rabbi Gaguine, in his Keter Shem Tov (pp. 273-274), writes that the Sephardic custom in London, Amsterdam, Israel, Syria,Turkey, and Egypt is that the Sefer Torah is exhibited while standing at the Holy Ark and that then all the congregants bow48 to it.49 The Torah scrolls are then closed and given to the “carrier,” who opens them for a second time so that the congregants can view the weekly portion and he (the man who is being honored) identifies where it begins. He then takes his fringes and places them on the first word of the weekly portion and kisses them. Then he lifts the Sefer Torah so the women can view it. Rabbi Gaguine offers different reasons for this practice. He cites Tractate Sofrim as well as Nachmanides, discussed above. He also explains the reason for the mitzvah of hagbahah, allowing the congregants to give testimony vocally to the Torah being the word of God transmitted by Moses by declaiming the passages, “This is the Torah that Moses placed before the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:44)—upon the command of God through Moses’ hand (Numbers 9:23).” If the Torah were closed, saying “this” would be unintelligible. The Rabbi also offers kabbalistic reasons for the practice. The Kaf Ha-Hayyim (134:13) cites a different practice. In Jerusalem, he writes, “They circle the entire synagogue with the Sefer Torah to show [the writing] to all [the congregants].” This custom of circling the entire synagogue resulted from the desire to show the Torah to the women. An additional reason suggested was to allow everyone to see the Torah script, something that would not be possible if it were only exhibited on the bimah. Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) writes that the Ashkenazim perform the hagbahah ritual at the conclusion of the Torah reading. Rabbi Haim Benveniste, in his Sheyarei Kneset HaGedolah (Orah Hayyim 134:2), writes that Rema has presented the correct custom.50 Talbi (1997, p. 142) does not 48

Meller, 2009, p. 335 ff. 24, discusses the modern day reality that people do not bow. He cites sources that discuss this issue. 49 Bowing in this instance does not refer to prostrating oneself but rather to slightly bending over as is done in other rituals such as bowing for the modim prayer. See Talmudic Encyclopedia, 1957, vol. 8, p. 170 ff. 44, which cites various sources that discuss this issue. 50 For additional rabbinical authorities who discuss the Ashkenazi practice, see Talbi, 1997, pp. 139-142, and Talmudic Encyclopedia, 1957, vol. 8, p. 117 ff. 14.

233

234

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual see why the hagbahah should be at the end of the Torah reading. He attributes the custom as presented by Rema as dependent on the relationship between lifting and rolling the Torah.The gellilah, rolling the Torah scroll, at the end of the reading was considered (BT Megillah 32a) the greatest honor; for the person chosen “receives the rewards of all of them.” It was auctioned off for large sums of money and offered to persons of stature.The Tur (Orah Hayyim 147) summarizes this law when he writes: “It is customary in Ashkenaz to purchase the gellilah honor for large sums of money to express one’s love for the mitzvah.” If there is no one to purchase the honor of rolling the Sefer Torah, the sexton may award the honor to anyone of proper stature. There would seem to be a dispute amongst the rabbinical authorities as to whether one who purchases gellilah (or hagbahah) also has the right to move or transfer the Torah mantles. Rabbi Karo, both in his Beit Yosef commentary on the Tur and in his Shulhan Arukh (147:2), rules that the purchase of “rolling” does not include taking off the mantles. Rema adds, “Likewise in localities where it is the practice to buy the mitzvah of taking out the Torah scrolls from the Holy Ark and putting them back, the community cannot object as this assignment does not belong to the chazzanim.” In present times, the custom has developed to honor anyone of the sexton’s choice, even children. The Mishnah Berurah (147:7) summarizes this view: “However it has become the practice now not to be meticulous about this, but even average people are honored with this mitzvah because of the need to pursue peaceful relations. Now the present day mitzvah of gellilah is also a mitzvah of considerable value. Despite this, it has become the practice to honor even children with the performance of this mitzvah, once they have enough intelligence to appreciate the concept of a form of sanctification. This serves to educate the children towards the observance of mitzvoth.”51 The contemporary practice of gellilah on the Sabbath was not done following the last portion of the reading (shvi’i) but rather after the maftir.52

51 52

The author based his ruling upon Sha’arei Efraim section 10 paragraph 22. I will not discuss the topic of gellilah in this essay. My focus is on the rituals and customs that have direct influence upon the social behavior of the community. The same applies to many other rituals involved with Sefer Torah.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah To accommodate all opinions, some communities lift the Torah and exhibit its words before and after the weekly readings. The author of Keter Shem Tov (276 ff. 306) explains the reason for twice performing hagbahah is to allow the men and women who missed the lifting during the removal of the Torah from the Holy Ark to fulfill the mitzvah of seeing the Torah’s words. Rabbi Yosef (2000, pp. 7-13) reports this custom in the name of the Maharitz,Yosef Tzvi Doshinsky. When lifting the Torah scrolls to exhibit them to the congregants, the lifter would rotate them in all directions.The rabbinical authorities disagreed both on how to move one’s body and where the writing should be exhibited, toward the roller or toward the lifter.The Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 134:2) summarizes the debate and rules that “the face [writing] of Torah is exhibited to the congregants by showing it to the people standing to his [the chazzan’s] right and his left, then turns around for it is a mitzvah upon all men and women to see the script and bow and recite: ‘This is the Torah that Moses placed before the children of Israel, upon the command of God through Moses’ hand.” Rabbi Karo bases his ruling on Tractate Sofrim and many early rabbinic authorities such as the Kol Bo, Mahzor Vitri section 527, the Or Zarua in Laws of Shabbat section 42, and the Tur Shulhan Arukh section 147. There are those rabbinical authorities, such as Rabbi Haim Benveniste, in his Sheyarei Kneset HaGedolah (Orah Hayyim 134), who write that the lifter should remain in the same place but turn the Torah in various directions so that it can be viewed. The hagbahah ritual developed differently throughout the Jewish world as a result of each community’s social reality. Practices were motivated by the fear of dropping the Sefer Torah, the most holy artifact in Judaism. Talbi (1997, p. 135) writes that in Italy two persons with the help of a rod connected to the poles on each side of the Torah lift the scrolls.53 In Yemen, it is reported that the Torah lies in a case and with a special pole (sharvit) and the parchment is lifted out of the case.54 Talbi (ibid., p. 137) also reports that in the Spanish Portuguese synagogue in Amsterdam, hagbahah can only be performed by four or five especially selected strong men 53 54

Talbi, 1977, p. 153, presents a photograph of this practice. See Talbi, 1977, p. 154, for a photograph of this practice.

235

236

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual called “leantadores.”The rabbis throughout the early and later rabbinic literature argue whether it is permitted to roll the Sefer Torah while it is in its case; they are concerned that the parchment may rip if it is confined to the case. BT Megillah 32a writes that the mitzvah of rolling was awarded to the most prestigious individual in the community. The Manhig (see Laws of Shabbat) explains that the reason for this practice is to honor the Torah, for who else should receive such an important task? The rabbis suggested different views on who is considered prestigious. The Ran and Rashba commentaries on the Talmudic statement above explain prestigious to mean—as it implies—the most important individual in the community. Even if this individual was not called to read the Torah, he should be honored with gellilah. Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah (Laws of Prayer 12:18) argues that “prestigious” in the Talmud means that even the most important person who read from the Scroll should roll the Torah. It is not a disgrace to roll the Torah, for you receive two mitzvoth, reading the Torah and rolling it.55 When performing the hagbahah (and gellilah), the rabbis discuss what direction the Torah script should face, the lifter or the roller? Rabbi Yitzchak ben Abba Mari, author of the Ittur, describes the ritual by stating that when the Torah is rolled (gollel) on its poles to close the scroll, the writing must face the person who rolls it and not the person who had raised it for hagbahah.56 Approximately 300 years later, Rabbi Yosef Colon (Maharik) challenged the author of the Ittur, saying that this is an individual opinion. He argued that the custom is to have the Torah writing face the man who lifts the Torah, not the roller. This, he writes, is the accepted custom in the Jewish communities. Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, in his Arukh HaShulhan, and Rabbi Ha-Kohen, in his Mishnah Berurah (OH 147:9), rule that if the person who is honored with rolling the Torah does both hagbahah and gellilah, the writing will face him (as is the practice in most Sephardic congregations). If there are two people involved, the script 55 56

Talmudic Encyclopedia, 1965, vol. 6, p. 145 ff. 72-78 cites additional opinions. Others who support this opinion are the Mordekhai, the Rosh, and the Tur. See Talmudic Encyclopedia, 1957, vol. 8, p. 117 ff. 23 for a list of rabbinical authorities who hold to this view. See also Rabbi Nissan (Ran)’s commentary to BT Megillah 32a.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah will face the lifter. Rema (OH 147:4) and Bach (147) follow the ruling of Maharik. Rema also adds (149) that the roller is also honored to participate in the procession returning the Sefer Torah to the Holy Ark. D.  Additional Manifestations of the Torah’s Mystical Power Throughout the year, the display of Torah scrolls is used to enhance the solemnity of certain rituals. Such an example is the Kol Nidre service on the eve of Yom Kippur, which recital is accompanied by the display of Sifre Torah held by community dignitaries.Various other carefully chosen prayers, such as the announcements of new months and the prayer for the soul of the dead (el malei rahamim), are also said in the presence of the Torah. The ark is opened to display the Torah scrolls for the poems of Dew or Rain. Prayers such as hagomel (recited after a life threatening incident involving travel, prison, or recovery from serious illness) are recited in front of the Sefer Torah.57 Various customs have developed as to when, where, and what text is used to recite this prayer. Rabbi Gaguine (Keter Shem Tov, pp. 261-263), who discusses these different customs, explains that the presence of the Torah and the aliyah of the person requesting the prayer determine the appropriate time to recite it. They cannot all be listed here, but these are prayers where the power of God is beseeched. The Torah and its Ark act as window into the divine realm.58 Most prominent is the prayer for the welfare of an individual or group— mi shebarakh (He Who blessed the Patriarchs)—which is said in the presence of the Sefer Torah. The occasion of the Torah reading was used to solicit charity such as donations for the synagogue or even for the sexton. Specific holidays such as Simhat Torah were designated to request donations for specific purposes.59 For example, on the last days of the Shalosh Regalim,60 an appeal was made for the poor of the Land of Israel and a mi sheberakh read for those who 57

See BT Berakhot 54b. There is a dispute on the level of illness that would require this prayer. See Shulhan Arukh OH section 220 paragraph 8. 58 Rabbi Shemtob Gaguine (pp. 239–240) lists both for the Sephardic and Ashkenazi communities the times and prayers the Holy Ark and Sefer Torah is required. 59 See Yaari, 1958a, p. 125. 60 Passover, Sukkot, Shavuot.

237

238

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual donated. This custom continued throughout Jewish history in all ethnic groups and geographical locations. The area of solicitation grew to include any form of charity. In the thirteenth century, Rabbi Yitzchak of Vienna, in his halakhic compendium Or Zarua (section Shabbat sub section 50), writes that is was the custom of the reader (shaliach tzibur) who read the Torah Sabbath portion to bless the person invited to the Torah with “mi sheberakh61 the one blessed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, should bless the congregant in that he will pledge a donation in honor of the Torah.” The author of Or Zarua cites his father, who objected to this custom since it looks like business dealings which are forbidden on the Sabbath. Rabbi Yitzchak of Vienna offered a rationalization as to why this ritual is not considered as doing business (especially if the shaliach tzibur is a poor person in need of charity) and permits it.Yaari (1958a and 1958b) cites 63 versions of the mi shiberakh, representing the different communities and ethnic groups beginning with the Geonic period to the twentieth century. They included prayers for communities, the nation of Israel, individuals, leaders, special occasions, and people with problems. In 1942, one was composed in Hungary for those Jews taken to the Nazi labor camps.62 According to the custom in Rome, a mi sheberakh was read for women who prepared the Torah sash (known in Europe as the wimpel). It reads: “He who blesses our Mothers Sarah, Rebeccah, Rachel and Leah, He should bless all the daughters of Israel who prepared the coat or the sash in honor of the Torah and prepares a light in honor of the Torah. May the Lord pay her deserved reward and award her good fortune. And let us say Amen.”63 Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, in Tzitz Eliezer (vol. 5, chapter 17), explains that the reason for blessing the ill during the Torah reading is that it is a time of mercy. Furthermore, since a pious rabbi is present and answers “amen” to the prayer, this endows the request with greater power. The 61

The prayer mi sheberakh is often cited throughout rabbinic literature but is not usually recited at the Sefer Torah. This is especially prevalent in the early rabbinic sources. 62 Cohen (1968) adds an additional 53 mi shiberakhs, including one (52) for those Jews imprisoned by the gentiles. 63 See Hamburger, 2000, p. 362.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah author of Arukh HaShulhan (OH 282)64 supports this opinion: he rules that one should listen and answer amen when hearing a mi sheberakh, for that will then fulfill the mitzvah of “love your neighbor as yourself.” E.  Kissing the Torah Covering Our discussion until now has focused upon the congregants’ mindsets and feelings toward the Sefer Torah and its mystical powers as the word of God in this world. During the rituals, the majority of the synagogue attendees had no physical contact with the Torah scrolls. The possibility for such contact (except on the holiday of Simhat Torah, which is a topic for a separate essay) is available during the procession to and from the Holy Ark when they are permitted to kiss the Torah mantel on the scrolls. The author of Or Zarua (vol. 2, section 48) writes. “After [the Torah] is read the sexton goes and sits on the platform and all the little children go and kiss the Sefer Torah when it is rolled. This is a beautiful custom for the purpose of educating the little children to mitzvoth.”65 Rema 149:1 follows the ruling of the author of Or Zarua and rules accordingly. Rabbi Margolith in his Sha’arei Efraim (410:4) takes a more all-encompassing approach and concludes that all those who are in proximity of the Sefer Torah should kiss it. He summarizes: “All that approach the Torah kiss it with their mouth should recite, “O that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth” (Songs of Solomon 1:2). If he is close enough to embrace the Torah with his arms he should embrace it with his right and say “and his right hand embraced me” (Songs of Solomon 2:6). If he cannot kiss the Torah with his mouth he should kiss it with his hand.66 The author of Leket Yosher testifies that his Rabbi, the composer of Terumat Hadeshen, would hug and kiss the Sefer Torah during the removal of the Torah and also during return of it to the Holy Ark. A halakhic discussion evolved on whether it is considered honorable for the Torah to be transported or Rivam Steinbuch in his Ikarei 64

Quoted in Moshe Sklar’s Hayei Moshe, 2009, section 149, p. 192, note 6. He bases this upon Tractate Sofrim 18:7-8. 66 In his commentary, Pitchei Shaarim, Rabbi Margolith elaborates on his view and presents the view of the Kol Bo and the Kitzur Hashela, who mock those who kiss the Torah with their hands, for it gives the impression that the Torah’s holiness becomes stamped on one’s hand. 65

239

240

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Dinim Lbenei Yisroel writes that anyone who so desires can approach the Sefer Torah by himself and kiss it, but the chazzan should not pause to extend the Torah to a congregant to kiss it. This view is the accepted opinion of the major rabbinical adjudicators: Rabbi Avraham Glick (Responsa Yaad Yitzchak, 3:196), Rabbi Yitzchak Weiss (Siach Yitzchak),67 and Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer, 12:40). The rabbis were concerned with the manner in which the Sefer Torah was kissed. The Kitzur Hashela in Laws of Sefer Torah (137) adds that the mitzvah is specifically to kiss the Torah scrolls with one’s mouth. The Shulhan Arukh Hakatzar from the Yemenite Jewish community adhered to this view and ruled accordingly. Rabbi Eliezer Papo in his Damesek Eliezar (section 40:20) quotes the author of Zecher Nathan, who argues that kissing the Torah with one’s hand was for the ignorant, since the holiness of the Sefer Torah cannot be expressed adequately by a hand kiss. It was reported that the author of Chazon Ish68 would always kiss the Sefer Torah with his mouth. On the other hand, the author of Damesek Eliezer, Rebbe Eliezer Hager of Vizhnitz, retorts that kissing with one’s hand is unquestionably an expression of love for the Torah and therefore permissible. He offers proof from other Jewish artifacts that are kissed, such as tfillin, mezuzah, etc. Nevertheless, this rabbi emphasizes that it is preferable to kiss the Torah with one’s hand only when there is no possibility to kiss it with the mouth. Others objected to the practice of kissing the Torah with the mouth. Rabbi Avraham Meshkenov in his Siddur Tzalota D’Avraham felt that it was unhealthy, for one does not know whose mouth has kissed the Torah and what dangerous germs were left behind. Furthermore, Rabbi Menachem Sofer in Menachem Meshiv69 argues that since so many of the congregants want to kiss the Torah, it is permissible to give them all the possibility to observe this ritualistic behavior and extend the Torah for them to kiss. He offers a proof from BT Yoma 70a, which discusses the bringing of the Torah to the Temple on Yom Kippur.To solve the problem 67

Jerusalem, 1952. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz ben Kosava, born in Belarus 1878, died in Bnei Brak, Israel, 1953. 69 Quoted in Goldhaber, 2005, p. 116. 68

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah of too many individuals struggling to reach and embrace the Sefer Torah, Rabbi Palagi in his Sefer Hayyim (3:6) relates the custom of pointing one’s finger at the Torah and then kissing one’s finger. Also, in Yalkut Meam Loez (Deuteronomy 27:26) it is written that one should point the little finger at the Torah text and then kiss it. Some use the talit fringes. Rabbi Henkin70 was concerned about germs being transferred through the saliva from one individual to another by kissing the Torah cover with one’s mouth.71 F.  The Wimpel While men were permitted some limited physical contact with the Sefer Torah, women’s contact was almost nonexistent.Throughout Jewish history, women were not encouraged to come to synagogue and when they did come they were thoroughly segregated from the men. Even in contemporary modern-Orthodox synagogues, where the approach to women is more liberal than in the past, the parade with the Torah scrolls rarely reaches the women’s section of the synagogue. Even though, as discussed above, large numbers of women would make efforts during the prayer service to see the Torah, Rema (OH 88:1) reports that although not prohibited, it was the custom that menstruating women not be permitted to come to the synagogue or even touch a holy book. The author of Magen Avraham prohibits them from looking at the Sefer Torah. The author of Turei Zahav (quoting earlier rabbinic sources) rules that menstruating women should not look at the Torah when it is displayed during hagbahah. In Germany women adorned the Sefer Torah by sewing and decorating a long sash, or what was popularly called a wimpel.72 It was a linen sash used as a binding for the Sefer Torah. In some cases it was made from the cloth used to swaddle a baby boy at his circumcision. And the child, on some designated Sabbath, would be carried to the synagogue on his father’s shoulders, where he and his father would use it to wrap the Torah. They would be called to the Torah to present the wimpel. If the boy 70

Born in White Russia in 1881 and died in New York in 1973. See Goldhaber, 2005, p. 117. 72 German for cloth—in old German it meant to cover up. In Poland it was called a gartel. 71

241

242

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual was too little to come with the father (e.g., at the age of six months), the mother would bring the baby to the synagogue (and then give him to his father) and, if appropriate, on that visit to the the synagogue, the mother would recite the customary blessing said after birth. If the woman came to pray in the woman’s section, the boy would sit with his mother until called. After the Torah reading was completed, the boy would then return to his mother.Women would also buy the honor of folding the wimpel.There were a number of synagogue functions that were considered women’s tasks and would be auctioned off as their mitzvah; these included preparing candles, sweeping the synagogue and folding the wimpel. Benyamin Shlomo Hamburger (2000, pp. 332–604) offers a lengthy presentation of all aspects of the wimpel from the time of the Talmud to the present. Apparently, from relatively early periods women had been involved in its preparation. It was considered a mitzvah to sew and embroider the wimpel, even on Saturday night when it was customary for women not to work. Illiterate woman had the men prepare the texts customarily written on them, and then they would embroider over them. In some communities, virgins or brides were sought after to perform this task. Others saw this deed as a segula (virtue) for barren women. Not only the folding of the sash but the whole process of its preparation was an occasion for women to physically feel connected to the holiest of Jewish artifacts, the Torah scrolls.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This chapter has focused primarily upon customs and rituals involving the Sefer Torah and its aura of holiness. Historians of mysticism speak of the experience of the “numinous”—an experience of another realm that transcends our normal state of being. Students of mysticism also speak of “mysterium tremendum” (mystical awe), which powerful but transient experience is accessed through trance. For our purposes we dwell on the phenomenology of accessing the holy. The divine realm sits apart from the mundane and is accessed by doorways in time or space that either draw divinity down into the profane or raise the subject into the divine. Early in the twentieth century, students of mysticism saw mysticism as some shared,

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah essential experience of mystics which was cross-cultural. It is still debated today if every experience depends upon modelling and preparation for the experience of a specific religious tradition or not. I take the view that religious experiences are constructed on the inner workings of the founding-story that shapes the religion. To my mind, mystical experience is not pure experience and content neutral. The mystical experience depends on the religious tradition of the observer rather than some essential phenomenon of its own.73 Nevertheless, this discussion is largely irrelevant since it speaks to the individual mystical experience rather than the constructed experience of communal ritual. The classic Jewish model for experiencing the divine is that particular scene described in scriptures where God broke through the separation of “upper and lower” realms to appear in a fog and reveal the Ten Commandments to the people of Israel (Exodus 19:16-25). Thus the separation between the realms was momentarily opened. Almost every religious experience for Jews in some way evokes this “root” experience such that the normative performance of rituals recalls this meeting of the divine. Let me reassert that we speak here of communal experience rather than individual mystic experience. The enactment of this transcendent moment bridging heaven and earth is triggered by strong normative symbols providing heightened awareness of the immediate presence of the realm of the holy. These are the doorways from the upper realm into the lower one, and leaves each member of the community in a state of mind that is part of the familiar poetry of repetitive and mandated ritual. Strict laws governing these rituals would not, in and of themselves, induce and arouse spiritual awareness. This awareness is conditioned by the belief that the Torah represents the word of God. It is true that such habitation and familiarity tend to dull the experience of repetitively rehearsed rituals, performed such that the member of the congregation are more observers than participants. As the community stands during the Torah rituals, be it the opening of the ark doors or responding to blessings praising the King, the observers are drawn into the enactment. Requiring concentrated effort, the Torah is read according to its ritual cantillation as the congregants follow every word of the reading, 73

See Janz, 1995, pp. 77-94.

243

244

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Since we deal with the divine, a very dangerous realm, it is clear that the specific and detailed requirements give the exact way to deal with the incursion into the moment where heaven and earth have joined. This moment extends, as I have said, from the removal of the Torah, through its reading, until it is returned to the ark. I now outline some of the various rabbinic rules governing these contextual laws and specialized preparations that enable this act to engage the divine. From the outset, the parchment on which the Torah scroll was written had to be taken from a kosher animal and prepared according to very precise instructions. Any deviation from the rules prohibited the use of the parchment as well as the ink.The sofer or copyist writes with great trepidation and fear of erring in some detail. His preparation must be flawless. He is well aware of the use of this Torah for the grand ceremony of removing the Torah scrolls from the Holy Ark, and the actual display of its content, crowned by its detailed reading. Writing the Torah scroll is a lengthy process and when the Torah is completed its dedication to a synagogue becomes an event of “seating the symbol of the King” in his new home. The many laws of honoring God through treating the Torah with all due respect begin from the moment of its preparation until its burial, when worn out from its constant use. It is forbidden to touch the written parchment with one’s hands, once the Torah is completed. Thus the trained reader uses a pointing device to keep track of his place as he reads.The one proactive opportunity for engaging in physical contact remains the kissing the Torah—the ultimate expression of the holy as experienced reality and not metaphor. Additional elements, such as art, further enhance the emotions evoked toward the Torah. Rudolf Otto (1958, pp. 65-70) argues,“the most effective means of representing the numinous is the sublime.” Religious sculptures and paintings have throughout history accomplished this. Judaism, based on the explicit ruling of the Decalogue, “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4), could not allow for most of the artwork that can evoke the spiritual ­feelings created by great artistic masterpieces. But some types of artwork are permitted in Judaism. Among such “permitted” works, designs and lettering

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah on the curtain invoke the moment of theophany when God addressed the entire people when bestowing the Decalogue.These designs are not purely for aesthetic beauty but rather instantiate the symbolism that is reflected in the image of the tablets—the divine presence. The models we have discussed for symbolic representation of the Sefer Torah might best be summarized by Malina’s theoretical structure (1986, p. 74) as a “system of symbols generally establishing powerful, pervasive and enduring feelings and motivation in people by formulating conceptions of  value objects and outfitting these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the feeling and motivations which the symbols generate are perceived to be reality.” William Lessa (1979, p. 91) expounds on this understanding: “The ability of religious symbols also to evoke powerful emotions seems to derive both from the historical experiences and social conditions of the individuals and societies as well as from universal features of human psychology.”The discussion throughout this chapter has presented the historical and social experiences of the Jewish congregant that evoke and substantiate such emotions. Furthermore, these individuals who are identified with the society further commit to the symbol and are further socialized into the belief system. Symbols function as communicators.They deliver a message that will cause a specific effect and achieve a purpose. One area in which symbols convey a message—and thus a purpose—is commitment to the society. Malina (1986, p. 78) explains that symbols refer to the “ability to get results in social interaction by appealing to and affecting another person’s personal internalized sense of obligation, sense of duty, or sense of belonging.”The symbolism of the Torah scrolls through its rituals and customs can prompt such an effect of identification of congregants with the Jewish social structure. The message the Torah is sending to the members, the congregants, is that they are part of the whole group who accept the Torah as the word of God.Thus we find that the group will rally around the Torah, and thus rituals such as the mi sheberakh can be recited in the presence of the Torah for the congregants, their leaders, and specific individuals with special needs or status. Furthermore, since the Torah evokes a sense of belonging, the rituals are shared and result in greater unification of its actors. These rituals, as A. P. Elkin (1965, p. 284) states, “preserve and inculcate the historical traditions and social sanctions

245

246

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual (or authority) of the tribe and thereby strengthen the social sentiments; in the second place, they enable the members of the assembled group or groups to express and feel their unity and common life—a life which in the ritual wells up from the past and becomes available for the future.” What we earlier termed pseudo-totemic symbols or artifacts, such as the Torah scrolls, have evoked a relationship between the object and the member where the group is even (as a totem) organized around the scrolls, and thus creates the social solidarity necessary for the group to appropriately continue and function. In his writings, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik summarizes the premise presented in this chapter. He writes (1989, p. 154): “The Torah aspires to bring down the Divine Presence into the worldly arena of space and time, into the midst of earthly life. Not a flight to a higher world that is wholly good, but its mission is to superimpose, however imperfectly, the eternal world upon ‘them that dwell in houses of clay’ (Job 4:19).” After stating that it is the Torah that transports the holiness or sanctification to earth, he continues on to the next level, where the Torah acts as a catalyst of unity for the Jewish people. Rabbi Soloveitchik in his discussion of the Simhat Torah holiday, when the congregant dances around the bima with Sefer Torah, writes (2010, p. 321): “Therefore, the reader (chazzan) should stand before the Holy Ark which contains the Sefer Torah. Through the congregation circling the Holy Ark, their prayers embrace the prayers of all Israel, just as the tribe of Israel encircled the Ark of the Covenant during their encampment in the desert.” The Torah scrolls, God’s written word in this world, therefore create through their presence and centrality a sense of unity for all Israel.

CLASSIC RABBINICAL TEXTS Arukh HaShulhan. Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, born 1829 (Belorussia), died 1908 (Russia) Ben Ish Hai. Chaim Yosef Abdula, born 1832 (Iraq), died 1909 (Iraq) Baruch Sheamar. Baruch Halevi Epstein, born 1860 (Russia), died 1941 (Belarus) Damesek Eliezar. Eliezer Papo, born 1785 (Bosnia), died 1828 (Bulgaria) Beyur Ha Gra. Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, known as Vilna Gaon, born 1720 (Lithuania), died 1797 (Lithuania)

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah Graz. Gaon Rabbeinu Shneur Zalman of Liadi, born 1745(6) (Russia), died 1813 (Russia) Hilchot Ketanot. Mordekhai R.Yaakov Hagiz, born 1620, died circa 1674 (Turkey) Iggrot Moshe. Moshe Feinstein, born 1895 (Belarus), died 1986 (New York) Ittur. Rabbi Yitzchak ben Abba Mari, born circa 1122 (Provence), died circa 1193 (Provence) Kaf Ha-Hayyim. Rabbi Yaakov Hayim Sofer, born 1870 (Iraq), died 1939 (Israel) Keter Shem Tov. Shemtob Gaguine, born 1884 (Israel), died 1953 (England) Kitzur Hashela. Mechel Segel Epstein, seventeenth century Knesset Hagedolah. Rabbi Haim Beneviste, born 1603 (Turkey), died 1673 (Turkey) Kol Bo. Author unknown, first published in Naples, 1490 Leket Yosher. Rabbi Yosef ben Moshe, born circa 1420 (Bavaria), died circa 1490 (Bavaria) Mahzor Vitri. Rabbi Simhah of Vitry, died 1105 (France) Magen Avraham. Rabbi Avraham Abale Gombiner, born 1634 (Poland), died 1682 (Poland) Maharik. Rabbi Yosef Colon, born circa 1420 (France), died 1480 (Italy) Manhig. Rabbi Avraham Ha-Yarchi, born circa 1155 (Provence), died 1214 (Spain) Mekorei Minhagim. Avraham Lewysohn, born 1805 (Poznania), died 1860 (Silesia) Mishnah Berurah. Israel Meir HaKohen, known as Hafetz Haim, born 1838 (Belarus), died 1933 (Poland) Mishneh Torah. Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, known as Maimonides, born 1135 (Spain), died 1204 (Egypt) Mitpahat Sefarim. Yaakov Emden, born 1697 (Germany), died 1776 (Germany) Mordekhai. Mordekhai ben Hillel Ashkenazib, born 1240, died 1298 (Germany) Nachmanides. Torah Commentary. Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, born 1194 (Spain), died 1270 (Israel) Noda B’yehudah. Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, born 1713 (Poland), died 1793 (Czechoslovakia) Or Zarua. Rabbi Yetzchak of Vienna, born late twelfth century (Bohemia), died mid-thirteenth century (Vienna) Pri Eitz Chaim. Rabbi Hayim Vital, born 1543 (Italy), died 1620 (Syria) Rema. Rabbi Moshe Issereles, born 1530 (Poland), died 1572 (Poland) Ran. Rabbi Nissim, born 1290 (Spain), died 1375 (Spain) Rashba. Rabbi Shlomo ben Avraham Aderet, born 1235 (Spain), died 1310 (Spain) Rosh. Rabbeinu Asher ben Yechiel, born 1250 (Germany), died 1327 (Spain) Responsa Yosef Ometz. Rabbi Hayim Yosef David Azulai, known as Hida, born 1724 (Jerusalem), died 1806 (Italy) Responsa Terumat Hadeshen. Yisrael Isserlein, born circa 1390 (Germany), died 1460 (Austria)

247

248

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Sefer Hamachkim. Nathan ben Rabbi Yehudah, late eleventh to early twelfth century Siddur Rabbi Amram Gaon. Rabbi Amram Gaon, died 875 (Babylonia) Siddur Tzalota D’Avraham. Rabbi Avraham Landau, born 1784 (Poland), died 1875 (Poland) Sha’arei Efraim. Efraim Margolith, born 1760 (Ukraine), died 1828 (Galicia) Sheyarei Kneset HaGedolah. Haim Benveniste, born 1603 (Turkey), died 1673 (Turkey) Shibolei Leket. Rabbi Tzidkiyah HaRofe, born 1230 (Italy), died 1300 (Italy) Shulhan Arukh and Beit Yosef. Yosef Karo, born 1488 (Spain), died 1575 (Israel) Tur, Arba Turim. Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, known as Ba’al HaTurim, born circa 1275 (Germany), died circa 1340 (Spain) Turei Zahav (Magen David). Rabbi David Halevi, born 1586 (Poland), died 1667 (Poland) Tzitz Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, born 1915 (Israel), died 2006 (Israel)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspective and dimensions. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blau,Y.Y. (2000). Sefer tzedakah u’mishpat. Jerusalem:Yeshivas Bais Maor. (Hebrew) Chazan, I. (2009). Vata kitvu. Israel. (Hebrew) Cohen, Y. (1968). He’arot u-millu’im le-mekhkaro shel A. Yaari al tefillot ‘mi she-berakh. Kiryat Sefer, 40, 542-559. (Hebrew) Elkin, A. P. (1979). Austrailian totemism. In W. Lessa & E. Vogt (Eds.), Reader in comparative religion: An anthropological approach (278-285). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Fishbane, S. (2007). Deviancy in early rabbinic Judaism. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Freud, S. (1964). The origins of religion:Totem and taboo. London: Penguin Books. Friedman, S. (2005). Shira hadasha. Brooklyn: Hamatik Printing. (Hebrew) Goldenweiser, A. (1965). Totemism. In W. Lessa & E.Vogt (Eds.), Reader in comparative religion: An anthropological approach (270-278). New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Goldhaber,Y. (2005). The communities and their customs. Jerusalem: (n.p.). (Hebrew) Hamburger, B. S. (1990). Sharshei minhag Ashkenaz. Volume 1. Bnei Brak: Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz. (Hebrew) ___. (2000). Sharshei minhag Ashkenaz. Volume 2. Bnei Brak: Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz. (Hebrew) Higger, M. (1930). Seven minor treatises. New York: Bloch Publishing Company.

The Symbolic Representation of the Sefer Torah Handel, R. (1997). Aniconism and ancient anthropomorphism in ancient Israel. In K.Van Der Toorn (Ed.), The image and the book (205-228). Leuven: Uitgeverij, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan Hoffner, E. (1992). Denei kriyat haTorah. Tel Aviv: Mosad Eliezer Hoffner. (Hebrew) Jacobson,Y. (1968). Nitiv bina Sinai. Tel Aviv: Sinai. (Hebrew) Janz, B. (1995). Mysticism and understanding: Steven Katz and his critics. Studies in Religion, 24(1), 77-94. Landau, A. (1958). Siddur zaluta d’Avraham. Israel: (n.p.). Lessa, W., & Vogt, E. (Ed.). (1979). Reader in comparative religion: An anthropological approach. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). Totemism. Boston: Beacon Press. Lewy,Y. (1990). Minhag Yisrael Torah. Brooklyn: Fink Graphics. (Hebrew) Lewysohn, A. (1846). Mekorei minhagim. Berlin: L. Th. Kornegg. (Hebrew) Liebman, C. S. (1999). Ritual, ceremony and the reconstruction of Judaism in the United States. In R. Rosenberg Farber & C. I.Waxman (Eds.), Jews in America: A contemporary reader (309 ff.). Hanover and London: Brandeis University Press. Malina, B. J. (1986). Christian origins and cultural anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox Press. Meller, A. (2009). HaKireah baTorah v’hilchotehah. Jerusalem: (n.p.). (Hebrew) Otto, R. (1958). The idea of the holy. London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Palagi, H. (1961). Sefer Hayyim. Jerusalem: (n.p.). (Hebrew) Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952).The sociological theory of totemism. Reprinted in Structure and function in primitive society (117-132). London: Glencoe. Riefman, D. B. D. (1882). Sefer shulhan hakriyahm. Berlin: (n.p.). (Hebrew) Sklar, M. (2009). Hayei Moshe. Bnei Brak: (n.p.). (Hebrew) Sperber, D. (1989). Minhagei Yisrael. Volume 1. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) ___. (1994). Minhagei Yisrael. Volume 3. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) Soloveitchik, J. B. (1989). Man of faith in the modern world. Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, Inc. Soloveitchik,Y. D. H. (2010). Sheurei harav. New York: Mesorah Commission of the Union of Orthodox Congregations of America. (Hebrew) Talbi, H. (1997). Lminhag hagbahat sefer Torah b’edotYisrael. In Y.Tabori (Ed.), Knishta (vol. 3, 129-154). Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University. (Hebrew) Tillich, P. (1937). Dynamics of faith. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers. Van Der Toorn, K. (1997). The iconic book: Analogies between the Babylonian cult of images and the veneration of the Torah. In K.Van Der Toorn (Ed.), The image and the book (229-248). Leuven: Uitgeverij, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan.

249

250

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Yaari, A. (1958a, Kislev). Mi sheberakh: Hishtalshelotan, minhagehan, vnuschotehen, part 1. Kiryat Sefer, 33(1), 118-130. (Hebrew) ___. (1958b, Adar). Mi sheberakh: Hishtalshelotan, minhagehan, vnuschotehen, part 2. Kiryat Sefer, 33(2), 233-250. (Hebrew) ___. (1998). Toldot chag Simhat Torah. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) Yosef, Ovadia. (2000). Yalkut Yosef. Volume 2. Jerusalem: Yeshivat Hazon Ovadyah. (Hebrew) ___. (1980). Yechave daat. Volume 3. Jerusalem:Yeshivat Hazon Ovadyah. (Hebrew) Zevin, S. Y. (Ed.). (1957). Talmudic encyclopedia. Volume 8. Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Publishing Ltd. (Hebrew). Zinner, G. (1998). Nitei Gavriel kitivat vhakhnasat Sefer Torah. Israel: Shemesh. (Hebrew) Zolden,Y. (2002). MalkhutYehudah v’Yisrael. Israel: Hamachon Hatorani Or Etzion, Mercaz Shapiro. (Hebrew)

Index

A Aaron 3, 4n15 Abaye bar Avin 12, 61, 88, 167-168 Abdula, Chaim Yosef 222 Abudraham, David 148 Abuhav, Shmuel 98, 101 Acts of Creation 167 Adler, Daniel 111, 115 aggadah 30, 36, 38, 168, 197 Ahai Gaon 13, 87, 105 reverse names Aharon HaKohen of Lunel 38n163, 63, 88, 106n223 Aharonim 15, 18, 23, 39, 64, 66, 81-82, 88, 90-91, 107, 110, 135-136, 154n115, 175-176, 179, 181-183 Ahasueros 89, 95, 99, 102, 104 Akdamut Milin 133, 153-155, 159 Akiva ben Yosef 167 Alfasi,Yitzchak 105, 109, 176 Alkabetz, Shlomo 89, 151 Amidah 48, 132 Amram Gaon 13, 19, 35, 38n162, 132 Arba Turim 109, 174-176 Arizal 23, 25, 151, 224, 232 see also Luria, Isaac Aron Hakodesh 221 Arukh HaShulhan 18, 24, 25n115, 26, 68, 71, 82, 84, 90, 92, 99, 112, 163, 182-203, 223, 231, 236, 239 Asher ben Yechiel 37, 109 Ashkenazi 66-68, 81-82, 134-136, 141, 147, 153-155, 175-176, 222-225, 232-233 Ashkenazi, Judah 82 atzeret 130-132, 135, 140-141, 147, 158 Auerbach, Shlomo Zalman 33-34, 108, 144

Augustus, Flavius Honorius 61 Avigdor Tzarfati 134-135 Avihu 3 Avodah Zarah xi, 172n46 Avraham ben David 172 Avraham ben Isaac 105 Avraham ibn Yarhi 37 Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz ben Kosava 240n68 Avudram 104 ayin hara 192-194, 202 Azharot 101, 133, 150n103, 155, 159 Azriel of Vilna 25 Azulai, Hayim Yosef David 103, 140, 222, 224

B Ba’alei HaTosafot 15n63, 16, 21, 175, 187, 199 Babylonian Talmud (BT) 12-13, 31-32, 54, 56, 60, 74-76, 86, 96, 102, 116, 131, 166, 168, 170, 218, 222 Bachya, Rabbenu 24 Bahag 14, 19, 25 Bakhtin, Mikhail 92-93, 115 Bakir, Moshe ben Yehudah 135 Bar Ilan, Meir 152 Bar Nachama, Shmuel 58 baraita 30, 74-75, 168, 218 Baron, Salo Wittmayer xiv Baruch Sheamar 223 Bayit Hadash 23 Bazak, Jacob 174 Be’er Hetev 82, 142 Beit Habehirah 88

252

The Impact of Culture and Cultures Upon Jewish Custom and Ritual Index Beit Yaakov 142 Beit Yosef 25, 64, 176 Bell, Catherine 155-156, 219 Ben Ish Hai 67, 89, 222 Benveniste, Haim 223, 233, 235 Bereshit Rabba 10, 29 Berger, Peter xix Berking, Helmuth 91 Berlin, Nafatali Tzvi 105 Bet Shmuel 177 Beur Halacha 33, 65n64, 83 Bhabha, Homi K. xv Biale, David x, xvii Bible, the vii, xiv, 3, 15, 18, 110, 125-126, 130, 147, 149, 153, 158, 164, 216 Bird, Fredrick 128, 133-134, 158 Birkhei Yosef 224 Blidstein, Gerald xii Book of Minhagim 63, 135 Borkhu 26-27 Bornstein, Erica 72 brakhah 33, Brikh Shmei 221-225 BT Baba Batra 205n174 BT Baba Kama 112 BT Baba Metzia 193 BT Bekhorot 136, 200 BT Berakhot 30, 37, 169, 190, 200, 223 BT Eruvin 185 BT Gittin 199, 200 BT Megillah 54, 56, 60, 75, 87, 104, 109, 111, 117, 234, 236 BT Pesahim 16, 28-29, 167, 185, 200 BT Sanhedrin 61, 167n21, 174, 184, 216 BT Shabbat 13, 16, 18-20, 168, 200 BT Ta’anit 21 BT Tamid 201 BT Yevamot 190 BT Yoma 240

C Chaim of Brisk 23 Chanina bar Avin 88, 166 Chazon Ish 240 chazzan 65, 67, 231n45, 235, 240, 246 Cheal, David 85 Cohen, Jeffrey M. 111 Colon,Yosef 236-237

D Damesek Eliezar 240 Danzig, Avraham 82, 143, 182 Darchei Moshe 97n183 David ben Levi 88 David Halevi 98, 177 Davidson, Israel 102 Dennis, Geoffrey W. 189, 192, 195 Doshinsky,Yosef Tzvi 235 Douglas, Mary xii, 6, 8, 69, 85, 91, 133-134, 203 Durkheim, Emile 5-6, 48, 155-156

E Efraim of Kila Chamad 105 Elbogen, Ismar 42 Eliezer ben Natan 109 Eliezer ben Joel HaLevi 36, 98, 108 Eliezer of Mintz 14 Elijah HaZaken 101 Elon, Menachem 116-117, 176-177 Elyakim ben Meshulam 97n180 Emden,Yaakov 65, 142 Empedocles 3 Epstein,Yechiel Mechel Halevi 18, 26, 68, 71, 82-84, 90, 99, 143, 163, 179, 182-205, 223, 224, 236 eruv 10, 15, 19 Esther 50, 53, 57-59, 68, 95, 99-100, 104 Esther, Book of 47-50, 54, 56-57, 73, 77, 85, 91, 94, 96, 111, 114, 117, 140 Even Bochan 97

F Falk, Joshua 176 Feinstein, Moshe 34, 143, 225 Finesinger, Sol 37 Firth, Raymond 6 Fishman,Y. L. Ha’Kohen 101-103 Frazer, James 52 Freund, Tuvia 62n54, 66-67, 89, 99n196, 100, 1041

G Gaguine, Shemtob 67n74, 145, 223, 225, 233, 237 Ganzfried, Shlomo 182 Gaster, Theodor 52-53, 139

Index gellilah 234, 236 Geonim 13-14, 19, 23, 31-32, 34-37, 61, 76, 79, 105, 150, 155, 170, 177, 190, 223 Gerondi, Nissim see Nissim ben Reuven Gerondi,Yona 24 Giat, Rabbi 38 Glick, Avraham 240 Gluckman, Max 51, 55 Goldberg, Jacob xiv Goldenweiser, Alexander 213 Gombiner, Avraham Abale 23, 66, 141, 177, 230 Gra, the 143. 144, 146-147 Grayzel, Solomon 53 Green, William Scott 165 Guide for the Perplexed 170n36, 172

H Habakkuk 132, 168 Hafetz Haim 65, 68, 81 see also Kagan, Israel Meir HaKohen Hagahot Maimoni 108 hagbahah 229-230, 232-236, 241 hagbahat haTorah 227 Hager, Eliezer 240 Hai Gaon 13n57, 19, 35, 170 HaItur 109 Hakham Tzvi 65 halakhah 30, 33-34, 50, 66, 80, 84, 87, 96, 104, 112, 114, 116, 135, 162-163, 169, 174, 176-177, 179, 181-182, 189, 227 Halakhot Gedolot 25-26, 36 hallah 20, 22, 70, 135 Haman 49-50, 53, 57, 60-68, 89, 95-96, 104-107, 140 Hamanhig 37 HaMapah 176 Hamburger, Benyamin Shlomo 222-223, 242 Hame’or 105 HaMeiri, Menachem 88, 105, 175n54 Hamili, Meyer ben Rabbi Shimon 106 Handelman, Don 94 Hanegbi, Zohar 50, 97n178 Hanina ben Dosa 21 Hanukah 12, 19, 54, 56 Haralbach 88 Harris, Monford 54-55, 114 Hasidic/Hasidim 102-103, 146-147, 179, 204, 225, 228

haskala 204 Hatam Sofer 88, 179 Hatam Sofer 181-182 Havdalah 1, 27-28, 30-39, 41-44 Haviva,Yosef 77, 106 Ha-Yarchi, Avraham 63, 148 Hayei Adam 82, 84, 104, 110, 182 Helkat Mechokek 177 Henkin, Rabbi 241 Hidah 224-225 Hirsch, Samson Raphael 7-9, 40-42 Hoffman, David Tzvi 129-130, 154 Hoffman, Lawrence 27-28, 43 Hok Ya’akov 153 Honi 168 Horowitz, Elliot 152 Horowitz,Yeshaya haLevi 24, 107, 151, 153n113 Horton, Robin 51 Hoschander, Jacob 53 Hoshana Rabba 150, 152 Hoshtat,Yosef bar Rabbi Moshe 141 hova 16 Hundert, Gershon xv

I Idel, Moshe 164 Igeret Teshuva 24 Iggrot Moshe 34, 225 Ikarei Dinim Lbenei Yisroel 239-240 Imrei Pinchas 137 Isaac ben Asher Halevi 79 Isaac ibn Gayyat 35 Isserlein,Yisrael 23, 87 Isserles, Moshe 23, 64, 107, 141, 176-177, 233 see also Rema Isserlin, Moshe 141 Ittur 236

J Jacob ben Meir Ha-Levi 155 Jeremiah 13 Jerusalem Temple 79, 125, 216-218 Josephus 129, 164

K Kabbalah 12n48, 39, 151-152, 173, 176-177, 180 Kaf Ha-Hayyim 24, 82, 108, 145, 222-223, 233

253

254

Index Kagan, Israel Meir HaKohen 33, 65, 137, 143, 182, 222-223, 236 see also Hafetz Haim Kalonymus, Kalonymus ben 97, 101-102 Kanarfogel, Ephraim 175 Karo,Yosef xi, 18, 23, 25, 31, 39-40, 64, 78n114, 81, 90, 107, 110, 135, 141, 144, 147n87, 151-152, 163, 174-177, 179, 183, 190-191, 198, 232, 234-235 Katz, Jacob xiii kavod 13, 15, 16-18, 43 Kayyara, Simeon 25, 36 keme’a 195-198, 202 Keter Shem Tov 223, 225, 233, 235 Kiddush 70, 102 Kishuf 184, 186n98, 202 Kitzur Hashela 223n24, 224, 239n66, 240 Klausner, Avraham 63 Klavans, Nancy 70 Kluger, Shlomo 179-181 Knesset Hagedolah 98, 223 Kol Bo 38, 70, 88, 106, 135n36, 138, 231, 235, 239n66 Kramer, Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman 143, 229

L Landau,Yechezkel 179-180 Landes, David 142, 203 Laws of Hallah 135 Laws of Purim 64 Laws of Reading the Sefer Torah 220 Laws of Shabbat 235-236 Laws of Shavuot 135 Leach, Edmund 47-48 Lekach Tov 11n41, 15n63, 80, 148 Leket Yosher 23, 141, 239 Lerner,Yosef Yitzchok 184, 189 Lessa, William 245 Levi 29, 214 Levi ben Gershon 101, 175 Levi ben Haviv 88 Levush 66, 82, 98, 191n127 Levy-Bruhl, Lucien 203 Liebman, Charles 127-128, 133, 226-227 Lima, Moshe 177 Linke, Stuart 27, 44 Loew, Judah (Maharal) 89 Luntshitz, Shlomo Ephraim 98 Luria, Isaac 151-153 see also Arizal

M maftir 228, 234 Magen Avot 192 Magen Avraham 23, 65-66, 81, 83-84, 136-137, 141-143, 151, 177, 184-185, 187, 191-192, 198, 220, 222, 224, 230, 241 Maharam Mi-Rottenberg 138 Mahari Segel 140 Maharik 237 Maharil 64-65, 70, 80-81, 87, 108, 135, 140-141, 154, 220 see also Moelin,Yaakov Maharsham 143-145 Mahatzit Hashekel 78-83 Mahzor Vitri 100, 149 Maimon,Y. L. 149 Maimonides xi-xiii, 15-18, 21, 59, 71-73, 77-78, 87, 106, 108, 112, 150, 153, 170-176, 196, 197, 200, 202, 236 Makor Hayyim 66 Malina, Bruce 227, 245 Malinowski, Bronislaw 85 Manhig 63, 236 Manot Halevi 89, 90 Margalioth, Israel David 64 Margolith, Efraim 140n52, 225, 239 Margolith, Hayim 83 Masechet Purim 101 Matame Moshe 136 Matanot La’evyonim 69, 72-73, 75-78, 80, 83, 87 Mateh Efraim 225 Mateh Mosheh 110 matzah 56, 126, 133 Mauss, Marcel 72, 85, 91 Megillah 47, 50, 53, 56-60, 62, 64-69, 73, 75-76, 80, 82, 90, 105, 117, 147, 159, 230n41 Megillat Esther 49-50, 56-57, 59, 68, 82, 89, 117, 147. See also Book of Esther Megillat Ruth 146-148, 150 Megillat Setarim 101 Meir bar Yitzchak 154 Meir of Rothenburg 37, 78-79 Mekarshona, Eliyahu 62 Mekovlantz, Moshe ben Eliezar Hacohen 97 Menachem ben Aaron 100 Menachem Meshiv 240 meorei ha’esh 32-33

Index Meshkenov, Avraham 240 mezuzah 185, 197n153, 215, 240 mi sheberakh 237-239, 245 Midrash 10, 12n48, 20, 100 Milei Davot 64 Miller, William 85 minha 80-81, 222 Minhag Maharil 64 Minhag Tov 80 Minhat Eliezar 82 Minhat Shlomo 34 Mintz,Yehudah Halevi 97 Mirsky,Yitzchak 15 Mishloach Manot 48, 69, 76, 83, 85-92 Mishnah 9-10, 19-20, 22, 30, 36-38, 56-57, 60, 73, 91, 101, 127, 130, 141, 153, 216-218 Mishnah Avot 191, 218 Mishnah Berakhot 30, 37 Mishnah Berurah 9, 33-34, 65, 81-83, 90, 98, 104, 109, 137, 142-143, 151n107, 182, 222-224, 236 Mishnah Megillah 59, 218 Mishnah Shabbat 19-20, 188 Mishnah Yoma 217 Mishneh Torah 15, 59, 72, 77, 172, 176, 196n150 Mitnaged(-dim) 179, 182 mitzvah be’alma 105, 108 mitzvah(-voth) 10-15, 18, 20-33, 48, 56, 58-59, 66-70, 73, 76, 80, 83-84, 86-89, 91, 107-110, 117, 137, 155, 218, 220, 226, 231, 233-236, 239-240, 242 Mizmor shir leyom HaShabbat 26-27 Moelin,Yaakov 64, 80 see also Maharil Mordekhai 17, 228n37 Mordekhai 50, 53-54, 57, 95-96, 100, 104 Mordekhai ben Hillel Ashkenazib 80 Mos, Moshe of Przemysl, 110 Moses 4-5, 58, 145, 151, 157, 213-215, 220, 228-230, 233, 2335 Moshe ben Maimon see Maimonides Moshe ben Nachman 172-174 musar 204

N Nabal the Carmelite 102 Nachmanides 228-229, 233 Nadav 3

Nahar Mitzrayim 67 Nathan ben Yechiel 61 Nathanson, Shaul 144 Natronai Gaon 35-36, 38n162, 155 Natural Symbols 6 ner Havdalah 30, 33-34, 41, 43 ner Shabbat 15, 17, 19, 21-22, 41, 43 Nesia,Yehudah 86 Nesia,Yudan 86 Neusner, Jacob 165, 169 Neuwirth,Yehoshua 32, 34 nezek re’iyah 194-195 niddah 20, 22, 136 Nimukei Yosef 77, 106 nishtaneh hateva 180-181, 187 Nissim ben Reuven 88, 105, 172-174 Noda Biyhudah 179 Norbeck, Edward 112-113

O Oberlander, Gedalia 12n48, 14n63, 15, 18, 21, 79, 97, 135n39, 137-138, 141 oneg 13, 15-18, 43 oneg Shabbat 13, 15, 18 Or Zarua 16, 37, 231n45, 235, 238-239 Orhot Hayyim 63-64, 88, 106, 135, 138 Osha, Rabbi 167 Otto, Rudolf 244 Ozer, Chaim 32

P Palagi, Haim 82, 145, 220-221, 225, 241 Palaji, Rachamim Nissim Yitzhak 67 Papo, Eliezer 240 Perfet,Yitzchak ben Sheshet (Rivash) 174 pesak 183 Philo 129 Phoebus, Samuel ben Uri Shraga 177 Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer 31-32, 34-36, 38n162 Piskei Harid 109 piyyut 153-155 Pri Chadash 90, 107, 137 Pri Eitz Chaim 232 Purim 47-61, 68-71, 73-84, 86-90, 92, 94-115, 117-118, 147

R Raban 175

255

256

Index Rabbah 104-105, 107, 109 Rabelais, François 92 Rabinowitz, Mordekhai 71 Rabinowitz, Simhah 89 Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred 155-156 Rafeld, Mayer 87, 106n224 Ran 236 Rashba 17, 236 Rashba 31n134, 173-174 see also ibn Aderet, Shlomo Rashbam 175 Rashi 12n52, 16, 17n74, 20-21, 37, 76-77, 102, 109, 201 see also Yitzchaki, Shlomo Refael Aaron ben Shimshon 67 Reischer,Yaakov 153 Rema 23, 26, 39, 67, 70, 81, 83, 90, 97-98, 107, 111-112, 136, 141, 150, 176 185-186, 191n127, 194, 198-199, 231-234, 237, 239, 241 see also Isserles, Moshe Responsa of Rabbi Yehudah Halevi Mintz 97 Responsa Torah Leshma 89 Rezende, Claudia Barcellos 85 Rishonim 14-18, 21-22, 32, 37-38, 62-63, 76-80, 86-88, 90-91, 98, 105-106, 109-110, 134, 138, 148, 170, 174-175, 180, 182-183 Rivkash, Moshe 98 Rokeah 108, 138 Rokeah, Eleazar of Worms 79, 135, 149 Rosh HaYeshiva 103 Rosh Hodesh 126-127 Rosman, Moshe xiii-xvi Rossotti, Hazel 2 ruah ra’ah 171, 172n46, 184, 186-190, 192, 200, 202 Rubenstein, Jeffrey 51, 54, 113 Rubin, Nissan 7, 168n24, 203

S Saadia Gaon 13, 19, 36, 132n28, 150n103, 155 Safrai, Shmuel 22n98, 129 Sages xii, 56-59, 131, 150n103, 158, 170, 172, 175, 203, 204 Sarah 10-11, 238 Satmar Rebbe 146 Schachter, Hershel 24 Schein, Andrew 151 Schellekens, Jona 53-54, 114

Schneerson, Menachem Mendel 24 Schreiber, Doniel 14n59, 17n74 Schreiber, Moses 88, 179 Schwadron, Sholom Mordekhai 142 Schwartz, Dov 162, 172 Schwarz,Yosef 145n79 Sefer Ha’asufot Ashkenazi 138 Sefer Ha’asufot 62 Sefer HaEshkol 105, 109 Sefer HaMachkim 229 Sefer Hamanhig 106n224, 232 Sefer Hamaskil 97 Sefer Haminhagim 63 Sefer HaOrah 37, 109 Sefer Hatadir, Responsa of the Radbaz 108 Sefer ha-Yetzirah 153 Sefer Hayyim 241 Sefer Meirat Einayim 176 Sefer Pardes 37 Sefer Ra’avyah 36 Sefer Torah 145-146, 181, 193, 211-219, 223-225, 227-242, 245-246 Sefer Yereim 14 Sefer Yosef Ometz Yezufa 108 Sefirat Ha-Omer 125, 137, 144n74, 150n103 Semak 80 Seudat Purim 69, 71, 88 Sha’arei Efraim 225, 239 Shaarei Teshuva 83 Shabbat vii, 11-13, 15-22, 24-28, 30-32, 39, 43-44, 70, 88, 140, 169, 188, 196-197, 222, 224 Shabbetai HaKohen 177 shalah manot 49 shalom bayit 12-13, 17-18, 43 Shalosh Regalim 237 Shapira, Eliyahu 109 Shavuot xix, 125-143, 145-159 She’iltot 13, 17, 87, 105 Shenei Luhot haBrit 151, 153n113 Sherira Gaon 19, 170 Sheyarei Kneset HaGedolah 233, 235 Shibolei Leket 17, 19, 37, 87 Shik, Moshe (Maharam Shik) 64 Shimon ben Yakim 229 Shimon bar Yochai 223 Shimshon ben Tzaddok 80

Index Shlomo ibn Aderet 172, 174 see also Rashba Shlomo ibn Gabirol 155 Shlomo Yitzchaki see Rashi Shmirat Shabbat Kehilkhata 34 Shmuel from Toledo 104 Shneur Zalman of Liadi 23, 26, 182-183 Shore, Alexander Sender 149 Shulhan Arukh xi, 23, 25, 31, 39, 48-49, 72, 81, 136, 141-142, 144, 147n87, 150-151, 153, 163, 175-177, 179, 182-183, 185, 187, 191-203, 229, 232, 234-235, 240 Shulhan Arukh Hakatzar 240 Shulhan Arukh HaRav 23-24, 26, 182-183 Shulhan Ha-Tahor 143 Shuv, Sara 95-96 Siach Yitzchak 240 Siddur Tzalota D’Avraham Siftei Kohen (Shach) 177 simhah 92, 96 Simhah ben Shmuel 100 Simhah of Vitry 77, 148 simhat hahag 112 Simhat Torah 49, 141, 237, 239, 246 Sirkis,Yoel (Bach) 23, 107 Sofer, Menachem 240 Sofer, Moshe 181 Sofer,Yaakov Hayim 82, 107-108, 223 Sofrim 60, 76, 87, 147, 219, 228-233, 235 Soloveitchik, Joseph 24, 246 Song of Songs 146 Sperber, Daniel 28, 92, 96, 99, 157-158, 229 Steinbuch, Rivam 239 sukkah 56, 133, 159 Sukkot 56, 125-126, 130, 133, 148, 150, 152, 159, 217 Swindler, Ann xvii-xviii Symbols 7

T Ta’anit Esther 48, 81 Talbi, Hayim 229-230, 233, 235 Talmud 12-14, 19-21, 30-31, 57, 61, 78, 86, 100n202, 101-105, 107, 109, 117, 127, 131-132, 150, 163, 165-171, 173-176, 179, 183-194, 196-205, 216-219, 222-224, 230n41, 236, 242 see also Babylonian Talmud and Talmud Yerushalmi

Talmud Ta’anit 137 Talmud Yerushalmi (YT) 29, 31-32, 55, 60, 74-77, 86, 116, 163n6 YT Berakhot 29 YT Megillah 57, 76 YT Shabbat 22n99 YT Sotah 217, 229 YT Yoma 217 Tambia, Stanley 203 Tanhuma 11, 14, 16, 20 Tannaim 130 Tanya Rabbati 63, 106 Targum Onkelos 131 Targum Sheni 140 Tehillim 36 Terumat Hadeshen 23, 87, 141, 239 Teshuvot HaElef Lecha Shlomo 179 Tessler,Yitzchak 135, 146 Tevu’at Shor 149 Thomas, Keith 177, 178n63 tikkun hatzot 152 Tikkun Lel Shavuot 153, 159 Tirna, Isaac 63, 108, 135, 141 Tönnies, Ferdinand 115-116 Tosefta 73-74, 130 Tovia ben Eliezer 80, 148 Trachtenberg, Joshua 189, 193 Tractate Purim 101-102 Tselnik, Nachman 130, 132n27 Tur 17-18, 22-23, 25, 31, 38-39, 64, 70, 72, 78, 110, 150, 174, 183, 190, 203, 205, 234 Turei Zahav 177, 194, 199, 202, 231, 241 Turner,Victor 5-6, 28, 43, 51, 113 Tuv Ta’am VeDa’at 179-180 Tzidkiyah HaRofe 37, 87 Tzitz Eliezer 34, 238, 240

V van den Bergh, G. C. J. J. 115 Van Der Toorn, Karel 215 van Gennep, Arnold 28, 43, 51 Vashti 50, 95-96, 100, 104 Vayakel 31, 39 Vital, Hayim 232

W Waldenberg, Eliezer 32, 34, 238, 240 Waxman, Chaim xviii

257

258

Index Weber, Max 72 Weinryb, Bernard Dov xiv Weiss,Yitzchak 240 Westermarck, E. 157-158

Y Yaakov ben Asher 22, 31, 38, 64, 109, 174 Yaari, Avraham 79, 82, 238 Yafeh Lalev 67 Yaffe, Mordekhai 66, 82, 98, 148 Yahari, Nathan 34n151 Yalkut Meam Loez 241 Yalkut Shimoni 147n88, 148 Yalkut Yosef 67 Yatziv Pitgam 155 Yehuda Halevi 88 Yehudah ben Berechyah 105 Yehudah heHassid 62-63, 175n55 Yehudah, Nathan ben Rabbi Yeshaya of Tirani 109 Yeshayahu 14

Yitzchak ben Abba Mari 109, 236 Yitzchak ben Asher 97n180 Yitzchak of Corbeil 80 Yitzchak of Vienna 37, 238 Yom Kippur 13, 80, 131, 140n51, 217, 237, 240 Yoreh Deah 74, 184-185, 202 Yosef ben Meir Teom 65, 83 Yosef ben Moshe 23 Yosef, Ovadia 31-34, 67, 82, 99, 103, 108, 145, 232, 235 Young, Robert xviii

Z Zecher Nathan 240 Zerahyah Halevi 105 Zevin, Shlomo Yosef 48n2, 107, 146 Zimra, David ben Solomon ibn Abi 88, 174 Zinner, Gavriel 71, 84, 88 Zohar 31, 39, 102, 136, 150, 153, 180, 221-224 Zuta 148