קטעי תרגום לדברי
מהרי"ץ זצוק"ל
מאת דוד בן – אברהם
B"H
THE FOLLOWING EXTRACTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE VARIOUS
WRITINGS OF MORI YEHIA SALEH, KNOWN BY THE ACRONYM OF "MAHARITZ."
WITHOUT QUESTION, MAHARITZ WAS THE GREATEST RABBI AND EXPONENT OF JEWISH LAW
EVER TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY
TABLE
OF CONTENTS:
Excerpt #
1 - On adherence to Yemenite customs on the
night of the Passover.
Excerpt #
2 - On Maimonides and his scope of influence.
Excerpt #
3 - On the Yemenite tradition regarding the
"massorah" in Parashath Noah.
Excerpt #
4 - On constricting blood in meats by a process
of boiling (Heb. "Halita").
Excerpt #
5 - On
Excerpt #
6 - On the Yemenite practice of saying the "Supplication" without
Psalm 25.
Excerpt #
7 - On priests who stand to bless the people, and say "We have done,
etc."
Excerpt #
8 - On the Yemenite custom of saying only one "Musaf" Prayer on Rosh
Hashana.
Excerpt #
9 - On preparing victuals for the Sabbath.
Excerpt #
10- On bleaching wheat.
Excerpt #
11-
On the famine that plagued
Excerpt #
12- On shaving one's head during the counting of the Omer.
Excerpt #
13- On the practice in
Excerpt #
14-
On the proper method of cleaning baskets made from the fronds of
date-palms, and which are used at Passover.
Excerpt #
15- On Maimonides' prohibition of wearing perfume and the Yemenite custom in
this regard.
Excerpt #
16-
On the Yemenite practice in answering the Kaddish.
Excerpt #
17- On the ancient Yemenite custom in betrothals & marriages.
Excerpt #
18-
On Matza Sh'murah at Passover, and how the grain is to be
preserved.
Excerpt #
19- On inflammatory swellings (or blains) found on the lower part of
the lungs in animals.
Excerpt #
20- On the Yemenite custom of checking not only the lungs, but also the
reticulum.
Excerpt #
21- On restoring the old practice of saying the Thirteen Attributes on Hoshanna
Rabba.
Excerpt #
22-
On the Yemenite tradition in writing the Scroll of the Law, especially
in Parashath Sau, where there is an open section marked by a space.
Excerpt #
23- On giving a child his first haircut.
Excerpt #
24- On reciting the Hallel (Psalms 113-Psalms 118)
Excerpt # 25- On
the expulsion of Jews from Sanaa (Exile Mawza')
1) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's "TIKLAL ETZ HAYIM," or
YEMENITE PRAYER BOOK (SIDDUR) OF THE BALADI RITE:
(Vol.II, facsimile edition published by Karwani Yaakov of Rosh Ha-Ayin, at the beginning of that volume.)
"The least one of all who imports to write this record has said that,
behold, in my younger days (being now about eighteen years), my hand has taken
it upon itself to write out the ritual known as the Passover Haggadah, with all
of its Commentaries and peculiar practices which belong to the ritual of that
night, [and] as the good hand of G-d was
upon me. And I have just now observed, with regard to some of those practices
which are brought down there, that this is not the way that it should be,
seeing that there has crept within the very midst of those practices a few customs
which are the sole opinion of the Shulhan Arukh and the latter exponents of the
Talmud, and which are not agreeable with the custom that our earliest
forefathers practiced, in reliance on their own books, and in accordance with
the great instructors of the Law, such as Maimonides and the Geonim.
But now, I have retracted and gone back [on those things], both by having
tempered and diacritically analyzing those peculiar practices, and by comparing
them with the old custom, each practice with the merits of its own author. And
I am reminded, may my soul be gladdened thereby, of what they asked the great
teacher, our Rabbi Ya'akov Hajiz in his book, 'Halachoth Ketanoth,' whether or
not a Sephardic Jew is permitted to make two blessings over the Tefillin
(phylacteries).[1]
To which [question] he replied, 'Great joy would have been mine had I been of
an Ashkenazi family, for thus is it explained in [Midrash] Tanhuma,[2] etc.,
but what can I do now that it's been taught me that I should not abrogate from
the custom of my forefathers.' Let him look there at his responsum. By this,
you see here that the earliest of our exponents have made a fence [about the
traditional practices], and no man ought to break down their hedge and fence.
Moreover, the prohibitive command which says 'Thou shalt not turn away [from
hearing their instruction],' applies to our continued adherence to
custom."
המקור: "אמר הצעיר הכותב הנה בימי בחורותי זה לי כמו ח"י שנה אשר
כוננה וטִפְּחָה ידי סדר אגדתא דפסחא בכל הפירושים והדינים השייכים לסדר
הלילה כיד ה' הטובה עלי. וראיתי עתה בקצת דינים הבאים שם כי לא זה הדרך יען כי שם
באו תוך הדיני' בקצתן לדעת הש"ע ואחרונים, לא לפי המנהג שנהגו בו אבותינו
קמאי דקמאי ע"פ ספרים וע"פ סופרים הרמב"ם והגאונים. והשתא הדרי בי
וחזרתי וליבנתי וביררתי הדינים ע"פ המנהג הקדום, כל דין ודין בשם אומרו.
וזכור אזכור וְתָשוֹ"חַ עלי נפשי מה ששאלו להתנא הגדול מהר"י חאגיז
בספרו הלק"ט (הלכות קטנות) אם הספרדי יכול לברך שתי ברכות על התפלין. והיתה
תשובתו. שמחה היתה לי אם הייתי ממשפחת אשכנזים, דהכי מפורש בתנחומא וכו' אבל ומה
אעשה ואין לי לשנות ממנהג אבותי וכו' . יע"ש. הרי לך דסייג סייגו הראשונים
ואין לשום אדם לפרוץ גדרן וסייגן, ובלאו דלא תסור קאי עליה."
2) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol. II, Responsum # 251)
"Let it be known that the land of the West (i.e.
המקור: "דע דארץ המערב ומצרים וארץ התימן אתריה
דהרמב"ם הוא וזה גלוי ומפורסם בספרים ובפי כל. וכ' השכ"ג סי' קכ"ח
דגם ארץ המערב אתריה דרבי' הב"י. ולמדתי מהשכ"ג שם בהגהת הטור דאם יש
מחלוקת באיזה דין בין הרמב"ם ורב"י דנהיגינן כהרמב"ם אפי' באתריה
דהב"י . ובשאר מלי דלא פליג
הרמב"ם או שלא נזכר בדבריו ונזכר בדברי הב"י נהיגינן כהב"י אף דשאר
פוסקים פליגי עליה ע"ש. וזה דבר מוסכם גם מהסברא בידינו קודם ראותי דברי
השכ"ג דוק (דקדק וקל להבין)."
3) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's "HELEK HA-DIKDUK," or
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, ACCORDING TO THE ANCIENT WRITTEN TRADITION of
(On Seder Noah, Gen. 9:29)
" 'And all of the days of Noah were, [etc.]' (Gen. 9: 29) Our teacher, Rabbi Yehia Bashiri, wrote: 'It would seem
that the correct version here is ויהי
, for there are three which are written in this way, their acronym being H'L'N'
(ח'ל'ן')[3] , but
there are those who are divided over it, and we do not know which is the truth,
if this way or that way." End quote. It is a wonder how he ever doubted
where the truth lie! For, behold, the composition of our Rabbi, Saadia Gaon of
blessed memory, was before him, as also his rhymed prose and his song! For of
him are the issues of life, his countenance shall favour the poor; [Each] with
its counting and number! Now if Maharal (R. Menahem Lunzano) has decided contrary [to the
tradition of R. Saadia], it is because they did not put before him this
tradition of our Rabbi, Saadia Gaon of blessed memory, whose words are the
words received by [an unbroken chain of] tradition. What more, your eyes will
presently observe how many great men are mentioned by Haras (Harav Saadia ? Variant, Harav
Menahem) , all of
whom in one accord do testify and say that this [verse in the section] of Noah
is written ויהיו , with the letter "waw." And
you have, [no doubt], already seen the long edict written about this by our
teacher the Rabbi, even our Rabbi Shalom Sabatani, who rests in Eden, in the
hand-writing of his disciple, our teacher and Rabbi, even Rabbi Saleh of
blessed memory, along with the signatures of several elders, the disciples of
the Sages. Now the principal thing they had, and on which they based their
decision, is the counting of the letters "waw" by the traditionalists
in the entire [book of the] Law. And it was there that they testified that they
were able to make a count of the letters "waw" in the Law. Now this
"waw" was found numbered [among the whole]. Moreover, they strongly
rebuked the man that dared try to correct [the text of the written Law], or to
erase the "waw." They concluded, there, [in their discourse about
this subject], 'The written tradition (Heb.
"masoreth")
is a fence about the Law,' and that a book of the Law which is found lacking
this letter "waw," behold, it is to be considered invalid, and like
an ordinary printed manuscript of one of the Five Books (Heb. "homash"). Now their decision is final, for
it has come by way of an [unbroken] tradition. From it, you are not allowed to
move. Now, He who sees future events did see that one day men would be divided
over this one word and, therefore, He did put within the heart of his
Counselors and Savants to make a count of the letters in the Law, since the
truth would, at one time, become rare."
המקור: "ויהיו כל
ימי נח. כתב
מהרי"ב (מורינו הרב יחיא
בשירי) מסתברא
דהוא ויהי דאינון ג' סי' חל"ן ופליג ביה ולא ידעינן מה הוא קושטא אי האי אי
האי, עכ"ל. ותימה עליו איך נסתפק היכן האמת. והנה פניו ירצו דלים. במנין
במספר. ואם מהר"ל (מורינו
הרב מנחם לונזאנו)
הכריע בהיפך לא סיימוה קמיה האיי מסורתא דרבי' סעדיה ז"ל דדבריו דברי קבלה.
מה גם דעיניך לנוכח יביטו כמה רבוותא שמביא הר"ס דכולהו פה אחד יעידון יגידון
דהאי דנח ויהיו בוי"ו. וכבר ראית פסק ארוך ע"ז שנכתב ממהר"ר שלום
צבטאני נ"ע בכת"י תלמידו מהר"ר צאלח זלה"ה בחתימת כמה זקנים
ת"ח. ועיקר יסודם שבנו עליו הכרעתם הוא המנין שמנה המסורה ווי"ן שבכל התורה ושם העידו שעמדו למנין ווי"ן
שבתורה ואשכחו וי"ו (זה) בכלל הנמין. והכו על קדקד מי שכבר רצה להגיה ולמחוק
את הוי"ו. ומסיימי שם ומסורת סייג לתורה, וס"ת שנמצא חסר וי"ו זה
הרי הוא פסול כחומש בעלמא, והכרעתם תכריע שהם דברי קבלה. ומינה לא תזוז. וצופה
עתידות נגלה לפניו שעתידין לאתפלוגי בהאי תיבתא ונתן בלב יועצים וחכמי חרשים לספור
אותיות התורה להיות האמת נהדר"ת."
_________________________________________________________
4)
EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol. II, Responsum # 143 - a)
"I was asked concerning the halacha touching meat which went
three days without salting, for that entire duration of time,[4] [and]
whether or not there is a provision [in the laws] to roast it, and to cook it
afterwards. …" (Maharitz brings
down here a lengthy discourse on the subject by quoting the words of many erudite
men of Jewish learning, in which he concludes the following:) "…Now after I have written
all this it would seem, being my most humble opinion, that under extenuating
circumstances, such as when it is the Sabbath eve or great loss [is to be
otherwise incurred], he may soak the meat approximately one hour or half an
hour, and rub it well with his hand, washing [it] in order to do away with the
blood which lies on its surface, and to salt it with the prescribed measure of
salting, just as the other meats [are done], and when he wishes to cook it, let
him boil the water very, very well [before throwing it into the pot]– for
thereby will it become constricted by the boiling process,[5]
whereby no longer is there any fear of the blood discharging. And proof of this
may be shown by what was said by Rabbeinu Yerucham, II Orah Hayim,
and also Rabbi Y. has quoted him in sect. 69, where they had cooked the meat
without salting, and several rabbis permitted [it] for all practical purposes.
Now how much more this, since it has gone three days, for certainly the blood
within it has dried up! Now what the exponents of our religious laws (Heb. poskim) have forbidden to cook it, even after it had been
salted, their reasoning is that by its being cooked in water the meat is softened
and the blood is discharged. Wherefore, their reason is contingent upon their
view which does not agree with the view of Maimonides that [such] meat must be
placed in [a vat of] boiling water.[6] Now
as for us, whose practice is in accordance with the view of Maimonides, to
require this stringent measure, it seems well to do as we have written [here],
but let him look at volume three, responsum # 94, what I have written there, as
well as further on in this volume, responsum # 186, by the help of G-d."
המקור: "נשאלתי בדין בשר ששהא
ג' ימים בלא מליחה מעת לעת אם יש תקנה לצלותו ולבשלו אח"כ. (ואחרי שקלא וטריא ארוך בנידון, ואשר בו מביא מהרי"ץ דעתם של פוסקים שונים, הוא מסכם מסקנותיו בכך:) ... ואחרי אשר כתבתי כל זה נלע"ד דבשעת
הדחק כגון ע"ש (ערב שבת) או הפסד מרובה ישרה הבשר בכמו שעה או חצי שעה
וישפשפנו בידו היטב, לרחוץ להעביר הדם שעל פניו, וימלחנו שיעור מליחה כשאר בשר
וכשירצה לבשלו ירתיח המים יפה יפה שאז תהיה לו חליטה שאין לחוש עוד לשיצא דם.
וראייה לזה מההיא דרבי' ירוחם ב' א"ח וגם רב"י הביאו בסי' ס"ט
שבישלו הבשר בלא מליחה והתירו כמה רבנים הל"מ (הלכה למעשה). וכ"ש זה
ששהה ג"י דודאי נתייבש דמו בתוכו. ומאי דאסרי הפוסקים לבשלו אף אחר שמלחו
טעמייהו דע"י הבישול במים יתרכך הבשר ויצא הדם היינו דלית להו סברת
הרמב"ם דמצריך ליתן הבשר במים רותחין. ולדידן דנהיגינן כסברת הרמב"ם
להחמיר ש"ד (שפיר דאמי) למעבד כדכתבינן ועיין בח"ג סי' צ"ד
מש"ש (מה שכתבתי שם) ולקמן בחלק זה סי' קפ"ו בס"ד."
5) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA "PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol. II,
Responsum # 180)
(Anyone
familiar with the writings of Maharitz knows that in all of his
correspondence, whether in his responsa,
or in his Compendium of Jewish Law, or in his Commentary on the Baladi-rite
prayer book which he called "Etz Hayim," he quotes extensively from
the Shulhan Arukh of Maran, Rabbi Yosef Karo. Even so, he makes this
one, stupendous statement about "the lord of our place" being none
other than Maimonides, whom the Yemenites as a whole came to admire long before
Maran. The following response concerns butter made by the gentiles, and how
that on Passover it is forbidden to take from them butter, &c.)
"…Now you have already known that Rambam (Maimonides) is the
lord of our place, just as it was attested in the book "Shalsheleth
Ha-Kabballah" that the land of Yemen is the place of Rambam,
for they have accepted him over themselves; as also in the book Aguna
De'itata whom our teacher the Rabbi, Hayim Shivtai, compiled, he has
written in the second section, page 85, folio A, the following words: 'It is
known that in all of the land of Yemen they have, in all of the words of the
Law, taken upon themselves the words of Maimonides, of blessed memory, as
though they had come directly from Moses [our lawgiver] who received them from
the Omnipotent, etc.' Refer there [for a more comprehensive view of that
statement]. Likewise, our teacher the Rabbi, Yaakov Castro, has testified in Hoshen
Mishpat, section 14, and these are his words: 'Rabbi David Ben-Zimra has
written that Egypt and its immediate surroundings, and the land of Yemen, and
the West, are the places of Rambam, and no petitioner to a lawsuit is
able to say that we hold the opinions of the Geon so and so, as opposed
to the words of that Rabbi, of blessed memory!' Likewise has Rabbi Yaakov
Castro testified [of this] in his
responsa, responsum # 93, as it is so marked in my memory, in his book known as
"Dan" (an acronym for Dinei Neziqim, or
"indemnity laws"), the part of Hoshen Mishpat, in section 15.
Refer there [for a more comprehensive view of that statement]. Also in the book
Ha-Leket (i.e. "the Gleaning"), volume I, section 182, he has
written that he received from his grandfather that in all of the periphery
touching upon the land of Israel, no one can say that we hold [the opinions of
so and so] against those of Maimonides and those of Rabbi Yosef Karo. … And in
the book Ha-Doroth (i.e. "the Generations"), page 54, at the
end of folio B, it is written that Ramban (Rabbi Moses, the son of
Nahman) has testified in the epistle Ha-hemda which he wrote, that in all
of the districts of Yemen it was once enacted that they say in the Kaddish,
'In thy lifetime, and in thy days, and in the lifetime of our lord Maimonides,
etc.' Refer there [for a more comprehensive look at this subject]. Now in the
book Matei Yosef, volume II, the part on Yoreh De'ah, section 1,
he gave a protracted response concerning the changing of one's customs, wherein
he concludes with this statement: 'The general rule arising from our words is
that the Ashkenazi Jews who come to settle in Egypt, and in all of the
countries of the Sephardic Jews, whilst they hold to certain restrictions on
the Passover according to the custom of their places, the obligation squarely
rests [upon us] to inform them that the Sephardic Jews practice leniency in the
matter. And if he shall say thus, that what he practiced as a stringent measure
[in his former country] was [only] because of his apprehension over what
Maimonides and the other exponents voiced as their opinion, whose opinion is
that [the leaven] returns to its full
potency, he has no right [to change] for a more lenient practice. And even if
he shall ask [to change his custom], no one allows him! For he has no release
[from his strictures], ever! For, lo, it has become like a thing which the Law
itself prohibits upon him! Even Rabbeinu Asher and his company agree
with this, that he has no release [from his strictures], etc. Refer there for a
look in depth [into this subject].
So, now, who is it that will fain attempt to break down the fence made
by the former exponents of our laws, may peace rest upon them!!? Which [said
fence] has become firmly established by the mouth of several of [our] great
Rabbis, let them please stand up and show proof, etc. etc."
המקור: "וכבר
ידעת דהרמב"ם מאריה דאתרין הוא כאשר העיד בס' שלשלת הקבלה דארץ התימן אתריה
דהרמב"ם הוא שקבלוהו עליהם, וכן בס' עגונא דאתתא שחיבר מהרח"ש כ' בסי'
שני דף פ"ה ע"א וז"ל: ידוע שבכל ארץ התימן קבלו עליהם דברי
הרמב"ם ז"ל בכל דיני התורה כמשה מפי הגבורה וכו' ע"ש. וכן העיד
מהריק"ש בח"מ סי' י"ד וז"ל: כ' רדב"ז דמצרים וסביבותיה
וארץ התימן והמערב אתריה דהרמב"ם הם ולא מצי שום בעל דין לומר קי"ל
כפלוני גאון נגד דברי הבר ז"ל. וכן העיד הריק"ש בתשובותיו סי' צ"ג
כרשום בזכרוני בס' ד"ן חח"מ סי' ט"ו יע"ש. גם בס' הלק"ט
ח"א סי' קפ"ב כ' שקיבל מזקינו דבכל תחום א"י אין לומר קי"ל
נגד הרמב"ם ומהריק"א. ... ובס' הדורות דף נ"ד סוף ע"ב כתוב
העיד הרמב"ן באגרת החמדה שחיבר שבכל ארצות תימן התקינו והיו אומרי' בקדיש
בחייכון וביומיכון ובחיי דמרנא הרמב"ם וכו' ע"ש. ובס' מטה יוסף ח"ב
חי"ד סי' א' האריך בענין שנוי המנהגי' והעלה וז"ל: הכלל העולה מדברינו
שהאשכנזי' הבאים לדור במצרים ובכל גלילות הספרדי' והם מחמירי' בפסח כפי מנהג
מקומותיהם צריך שיודיעום שהספרדי' הם מקילים בדבר ואם כה יאמר שמה שהיה נוהג
להחמיר הוא משום שהיה חושש לסברת רמב"ם ושאר פוסקי' דס"ל דחוזר ונעור
אין לו להקל ואף אם נשאל אין מתירין לו דאין לו התרה לעולם דהרי הוא עליו כאיסור
תורה, ואף הרא"ש וסעיתו מודים בזה דאין לו התרה וכו' עש"ב.
מעתה מי יערב אל לבו לפרוץ
גדרן של ראשוני' ע"ה אשר נתיסד ע"פ כמה מרבוותא יעמדו נא ויוכיחו וכו'
וכו'."
6)
EXCERPT
FROM MAHARITZ's "TIKLAL ETZ HAYIM," or YEMENITE PRAYER BOOK (SIDDUR) OF THE BALADI-RITE:
(Vol.
I, page 74, folio B. First Edition of
5731 Anno Mundi)
(Maharitz practiced great humility
whenever disputing with any of his contemporaries on any given subject, as
shown in the case before us when he insisted on continued adherence to
tradition & customs, in spite of attempts by some to discredit the Yemenite
tradition in its prayer ritual, or to bring it into conformity with the Zohar.)
"If he might but accept, herewith, my apologies, and [especially]
after kissing his feet, even though this matter was explained in the Zohar [to
be like what is done by them in their prayers], nothing would suggest that he
who practiced saying other words must change his custom and [begin] to say, 'Unto
David, [etc.]' (Psalm 25). For they have already said in the
Jerusalem Talmud: 'They sent word from there, [saying]: Even though we have
sent unto you the set-order of prayers, do not change from the custom of your
fathers.'
… It is good and right to cling unto the custom of [our] forefathers,
which they limited by saying the Supplication (Heb.תחינה), which the men of the Great Assembly
have established, and it being what Maimonides, of blessed memory, mentioned in
his book. Now who is it amongst us who fares greater than they in the Law, and
in their fear of sin? And even if it were so, they never resolved to say the
Psalm, Le-dhowidh elekho, [etc.] (i.e.
Psalm 25), at the time
of their falling down on their faces, due to their concern over the matter. For
who is able to make the profound mental concentration [required at his saying
the Psalm], as was taught to us by the greatest of the shepherds, the Rabbi,
Shimon the son of Yochai?"
המקור: "ובמחילה ואחר נשיקת רגליו, אעפ"י שנתבאר
זה בזוהר אין הכרח למי שנהג לומר דברים אחרים לשנות מנהגו ולומר לדוד. (מזמור
כ"ה) וכבר אמרו בירושלמי, שלחו מהתם אעפ"י ששלחנו לכם סדר התפלות אל
תשנו ממנהג אבותיכם.
...טוב ונכון לאחוז מנהג אבות, אשר גבלו לומר תְּחִנָה שיסדו אנשי
כנה"ג והיא שזכרה הרמב"ם ז"ל בספרו. ומי לנו גדול מהם בתורה וביראת
חטא ואפי' הכי לא מלאם לבם לומר מזמור לדוד אליך בנפילת אפים מדאגה מדבר. כי מי
יוכל לכוין כדת שהורה לנו אביר הרועים הרשב"י. "
_________________________________________________________
7)
EXCERPT
FROM MAHARITZ's "TIKLAL ETZ HAYIM," or YEMENITE PRAYER
BOOK (SIDDUR) OF THE BALADI-RITE:
(Vol.
I, page 73, folio B. First Edition of
5731 Anno Mundi)
On why the priests say, after blessing
the people, "We have done that which thou hast decreed upon us,
etc."
"I have heard from my lord, my father (whose inheritance is in
Eden), a thing passed down unto him in the name of our teacher, even the Rabbi,
Rabbi David Qafih, the father of my mother, of blessed memory, that the reason
they make use of the expression 'decree,' [7] is
because it was never viewed as proper, or conducive to good ethics, to have
one's back-end facing the recess in the wall [containing the scrolls of the
Law]. But just as the matter is [taught elsewhere in the Scriptures]: 'And
their back-ends were facing the sanctuary of the Lo-rd,' (Ezekiel) [so, too], he said that when we do the same thing, it is
not that we mean thereby to be irreverent, may G-d forbid. Rather, thus hast
thou decreed upon us, as if it were a decree made upon us to act accordingly,
although we would never have done so otherwise. Look at Lavoush, section 150, [for a
more thorough discussion on this subject]."
המקור: "מפי א"א נ"ע (אדוני אבי נחלו
עדן) שמעתי משם מהר"ר דוד קאפח אבי אמא ז"ל דמאי דנקטה בלשון גזירה הטעם
הוא דאינו מדרך הכבוד והמוסר להחזיר אחוריהם אל ההיכל וכענין ואחוריהם אל היכל ה'
אמר כי מה שאנו עושים כן לא ממיעוט מוסר וכבוד ח"ו אלא שכך גזרת עלינו
וכביכול גזירה היא עלינו לעשות כן מה שאין ברצוננו לעשות כן, ועיין בלבוש סי'
ק"ן."
_________________________________________________________
8) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's "TIKLAL ETZ HAYIM," or YEMENITE PRAYER BOOK
(SIDDUR) OF THE BALADI RITE:
The Yemenite Custom of Praying only one Musaf
during the New Year and Yom Kippur (A custom which is
similar to a teaching brought down in the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Berachoth,
chapter 4, 36.a – 36.b[8]). Taken from the "Tiklal Etz
Hayim" facsimile edition published by Karwani Yaakov of Rosh Ha-Ayin,
Vol. II, on the morning of Rosh Ha-Shana, s.v. תפלת מוסף
"…'Moreover, it can be stated that the benedictions [made in our
prayers] on New Year's day and on the Day of Atonement are different, for [on
these days] the emissary of the congregation who leads them in prayer fulfills
everyone's obligation.' Wherefore, it was thought by Rabbi Yonah that even if
someone had turned his heart to other things while in the midst of [saying] a
benediction, the emissary of the congregation [still] fulfills his obligation.
Yet in the other blessings he does not [fulfill his obligation]. So has it been
stated under this man's name. For our purpose, I have copied down all of his
words where a lesson was to be learned by such words of an exemplary nature as
far as several halachic practices were concerned. And in the Tiklal
that our teacher wrote, even the Rabbi, Yehia al-Bashiri of blessed memory, it
is written in the Arabian tongue, of which this is its content: 'Let it be
known that, throughout the entire course of the year, men ought to pray
silently. After which, the emissary of the congregation prays with a loud voice
in order to fulfill the obligation of those who do not know [the prayer
themselves]. However, during the Musaf prayer on the New Year's Day the
custom is not to begin by praying silently, but rather the emissary of the
congregation begins praying aloud and he fulfills the obligation of, both,
those who know the benedictions in their entirety and those who do not know
them. The reason for this being that the benedictions are long [during these
days of the year] and not everyone is familiar with them as is the emissary of
the congregation. Yet during the other days of the year, the emissary of the
congregation does not fulfill the obligation [of any], except only of that
person who knows not [the benedictions].'
You have, herewith, been shown [the matter] so that you might know just
how many great multitudes of men confirm our customs, even the custom of our
ancient most forebears [as it has been passed down unto us] nearly since the
days of the destruction, as it is generally held and accepted by us, [which is
to say], the traditions of our forefathers. So who is it that after considering
these mighty kings (who all agree with common consent, and all walk with
perfect persuasion of the affirmative [saying] that there must be only one [Musaf]
prayer), will yet incline his thoughts, as it were, to contradict their
practice? Certainly he ought to be apprehensive and wary lest they [come and]
crush his skull…. Hear my son the instruction of thy father, and do not thou
forsake the law of thy mother. Be
attentive to this and note it."
המקור:
"...ועי"ל
דברכות ר"ה ויוה"כ שאני שש"צ מוציא את הרבים י"ח. הלכך
ס"ל (סבירא ליה) להר"י (להרב יונה) שאע"פ שבאמצע הברכה פנה לבו
לדברים אחרים ש"צ מוציאו. אבל בשאר ברכות לא. עכ"ל. לעניינינו העתקתי כל
דבריו דאיכא למילף מהני מילי מעלייתי כמה דינים. ובתכלאל שכ' מהר"י אלבשירי
ז"ל כ' בל' ערבי וז"ל (וזה
לשונו) ואעלם אן טול אלסנה גמיעהא לא בד ממא יתפללו אלנאס בלחש ובעד ד'אלך יקדמו
ש"צ יצלי בצות עאלי ליכ'רג ואגב מן לם יערף. אלא פי צלאת מוסף ר"ה לא יצלו
בכ'פא בל יקדמו ש"צ מן אוולהא והו יכ'רג ואגב אלד'י יערפו ואלד'י לא יערפו
לכונהם ברכות טול וליס כל מן יערפהם יקדר אן יכוין בהם מת'ל ש"צ פלד'אלך
ש"צ יג'ני אלגמיע. ופי באקי אלסנה לא יכ'רג ש"צ אלא ואגב מן לם יערף
פקט. עכ"ל.
הראית לדעת כמה רבוותא מאשרים
למנהגינו מנהג קדמונים דקדמונים כמעט מימות החרבן כמקובל בידינו מנהגי אבותינו.
ומי הוא זה אשר יראה המלכים האדירים האלו מסכימים והולכים בקום עשה שצריך להיות
תפלה א' ויערב אל לבו לסתור מנהגם ח"ו בודאי דיש לו לחוש שמא ירוצו את
גולגולתו ... שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטוש תורת אמך. שמענה ואתה דע לך."
_________________________________________________________
9) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol.II, Responsum # 256)
Preparing Victuals for the Sabbath
"I have deemed it necessary to lay before you the halachic
ruling of covering up the hot stew pot on the Sabbath, and leaving it untouched
for the duration of that night,[9] just
as we do for the hot stew on the night of the Sabbath which had been prepared
on the eve of the Sabbath; how it is that we ought to act in accordance with
that custom which was practiced since the days of our ancient-most forefathers,
even though the exponents of our religious laws have already laid forth this halachic
ruling in their own books, particularly, Maran of the Shulhan Arukh, of
blessed memory. At any rate, since this matter is disputed by the exponents of
our religious laws, some holding the lenient opinion, while others the more
stringent, I shall remind you forthwith the opinion of each, and afterwards, I
shall make mention of the custom [held by our forebears], so that you might
know upon what its sockets were sunken down into.
Moreover, I have deemed it necessary to lay before you the ancient halachic
ruling concerning leaving the pot within the oven for the entire duration of
the night for one's use on the morrow, as well as for one's use on that night;
what must be done. Behold, the meat that they lay up within the oven for one's
use on the morrow, its preparations are done in this way: They boil water very
well, and afterwards, they put the meat and the spices within the pot, which is
then put into the oven for one's use on the morrow. But if they make porridge,
they throw wheat kernels into the pot also, and cover it up, which is also the
case for kettles of coffee- [first], they fill them up with cold water, and add
the coffee plant to them, and cover them up. Yet, before one covers it up, they
must brush aside [the hot coals & cinders] of that oven which was used to bake
in, and they cover it over (i.e., the pile of hot coals & cinders which
have been brushed to the side) with ashes, which act is called in the Six
Orders [of our Mishnah], "qetimah u'ghriffah." [10] Then
they put everything within the oven, which they afterwards cover over with a
large, earthenware vessel which has a lip-like structure. They also add old
rags around this vessel used to cover up the oven, in order to make the oven
impervious to air around all the sides of the vessel. Moreover, they do not open
the oven until the morrow, when the victuals have already been thoroughly
cooked. They also seal up the mouth of the oven which is on the side. If the
seal should have fallen during the night of the Sabbath when the cooking of
those victuals has yet to be completed, they are not permitted to replace it
since, in this case, the sealing would hasten its cooking. And after they have
sealed up the oven with the large, earthenware vessel, they then put upon this
vessel (during the previous day) [11] all
of the victuals which one stands in need of for the evening, in order to be
kept warm until the hour of meal time. This is the ancient practice, but
afterwards, I shall explain whether or not he had done well who changed this
custom for another, as far as those pots used in the night are concerned . .
."
המקור:
"ראיתי להציע (כאן) לפניך דין הטמנת החמין בשבת והשיהוי
שמשהין חמין דליל שבת מע"ש כיצד להתנהג ע"פ המנהג הנהוג מימות אבותינו
קמאי דקמאי אף שכבר ערכו הפוסקים דין זה בספריהם ובפרט מר"ן הש"ע
ז"ל. מ"מ להיות שיש בדבר מחלוקת בפו' להקל ולהחמיר אזכיר לך הנה דעת הכל
ואח"כ אזכיר (לך) המנהג כדי שתדע על מה אדניו הטבעו.
וראיתי להציע לפניך המנהג הקדום בענין
השיהוי בתנור לצורך מחר ולצורך הלילה כיצד עושין. הנה הבשר שטומנין בתנור לצורך
מחר כך עשייתו. מרתיחין המים יפה ואח"כ נותנין הבשר והתבלין בקדרה לתתה בתנור
לצורך מחר. ואם עושים דייסא משליכין החטים לתוך הקדרה ג"כ וטומנין אותה. גם
קומקומין של קאהוי ממלאין אותם מים צונן ונותנין העשב של קאהוי לתוכן וטומנין אותן
וקודם שיטמינו גורפין התנור שאפו בו לצד אחד ומכסין אותו באפר והיינו קטימה וגריפה
שבש"ס. ונותנין הכל בתנור ואח"כ מכסין אותו בכלי גדול של חרס שיש לו שפה
ונותנין בלאי בגדים סביב זה הכלי שמכסין בו התנור כדי שיהיה סתום התנור מכל צדדי
הכלי. ואין פותחין התנור עד למחר שכבר נתבשלו כל התבשילין היטב. גם סותמין פי
התנור שמצדה ואם נפלה הסתימה בליל שבת שעדיין לא גמרו התבשילין להתבשל אין מחזירין
אותה לפי שהסתימה גורם הבישול. ואחר שסתמו התנור בכלי הגדול של חרס אז נותנין ע"ג כלי זה מבע"י (מבעוד יום) כל
התבשילין של צורך הלילה לשמור חומן עד שעת אכילה. זהו המנהג הקדום ואח"כ אבאר
אי שפיר עבד מי ששינה המנהג לעשות בהיפך זה לצורך הלילה."
_________________________________________________________
10) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol.I, Responsum #171)
ON BLEACHING WHEAT
(The Jewish custom of old was to bleach wheat flour
on Passover, in order to produce a clean and white massah, or unleavened bread.
This was done by spreading whole wheat kernels upon a floor, and then spreading
stratified layers of African rue leaves upon the wheat kernels; a layer of
wheat followed by a layer of African rue, which process was repeated until all
wheat had been covered over with the astringent leaves of this plant. The wheat
was left in this state for a few days, until the outer kernels of the wheat
were softened by the astringent vapors emitted by the African rue. Afterwards,
the wheat was taken up and sifted, to rid them of the residue of leaves. They
were then ground into flour, which left a clean and white batch of flour.)
"I have seen those destined for the world to
come[12]
asking, [and] seeking, [even] diligently making inquiry by the seven methods
employed [by us] in inquests & inquiries, into the weed called African rue
(Ar. "harmal")[13] with
which they bleach the wheat for Passover, and [saying] there is a slight fear
to bleach with it because of the dew which lies upon it [and which has not yet
vaporized], which causes leavening, [and] whether or not there is a remedy to
have it spread out in the sun, in order that the dew will evaporate from its
leaves. Now, behold, the Peri Hadhash, [in] section 466, has brought
down [this teaching] in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud, of which these are
his words: 'Can one bleach [wheat] with weeds? There was one who forbade [the
practice]; there was another who permitted [it]. He who permitted [its
practice], referred to when he picked them after the sixth hour [of the day],[14] when
the dew had evaporated from them.' Such were his words. Lo! Even he who
permitted [its practice] did not do so except when he had picked them after the
sixth hour [of the day], when the dew had already gone away from them and had
vanished! And as for the absorption of the dew within the weeds in the
meantime, while as yet the sixth hour had not expired, we have no apprehension,
since when the actual absorption [of the dew] took place, the weeds were still
attached [to the ground by their roots]. For there is, then, in them strength
to undergo a metamorphosis, and it (i.e., the dew) becomes like the [oozing] of
juice [found upon] the fruits. Notwithstanding, after they have been uprooted
[from the ground], that same absorption which happens in the meantime, it
(i.e., the dew) has no strength to change their nature. Imagine to yourself
[what would happen] if he soaked dry, uprooted weeds in water, and afterwards
spread them out in the sun in order to dry them, [and that] while he had dried
out all the watery dampness from without, they remained damp from within, and
he [went] and bleached with them wheat! Would we say of them that they do not
cause leavening since the water was changed in their bulk?! These can be no
more than the words of bewilderment! … Whatever the case might be, we have
learned from all this that where there is reason to believe that what has been
uprooted [still] has water absorbed [within its leaves], there can be no easing
of strictures regarding it! Wherefore, if those weeds were uprooted in the
morning, when they were still full of dew, we suspect [that which happens] in
the meantime, during their actual spreading [in the sun], when they were to
absorb the dew, and this is also [true] whether or not those weeds [still] had
flowers or roses. But when they are still attached [to the ground by their
roots], there is power in the sun to dispel the dew from their leaves. Yet,
when they have already been uprooted [from the ground], there be many that are
withered, and the dew [still] lies within them, and the sun no longer has the
power to dispel it, for it is sealed off and closed-up. …Now, I know that he
who loves the truth, for the honour of him who is the author of [all] truth,
will admit herein that it is forbidden. And [even] if it were on account of his
seeing a multitude of people picking it (i.e., African rue) in the early
morning and spreading it in the sun, this [still] would not be enough to
contradict what I have written, without [his bringing] valid proof to the
contrary. …Now he whom the fear of G-d has touched, and the love of the truth
is within his heart, will see that these words are clear, and it is fitting for
him to be apprehensive about them, and to reprimand those who send forth the
hands of him who would cut down the bush before the sixth hour [of the day].
For the matter of leaven is not a light thing, for which reason it was not necessary
for the Sage to recite it at the end of Avodah Zarah, along with those
other things whose prohibition is in even the smallest amount! Now what they
say about the early exponents of our laws not opening their mouths [about the
matter], I am amazed at how they would know such a thing! Now as for me, I call
heaven and earth to my witness, that from my youth, being about six or seven
years old, when these weeds were laid up in the streets of the city[15] for
selling, and [the first] drops of rain began to fall, they would say with a
full voice and with a mouth unmistakable, 'Invalid! Invalid! Leaven! Leaven!'
And no more would they be able to find that of this weed to buy [in the
marketplace]. Then they would spread it out to dry, to be used in stoking the
oven and brazier, or to roast his egg [therewith], owing to these impositions.
Let this suffice those who love the truth. Let them see and rejoice!"
המקור:
"ראיתי בני
עליה שואלין ודורשין וחוקרין בז' חקירות ודרישות על ענין העשבים שקורין חרמל
שמטננין בו חטים של פסח ויש חשש לטנן בו מפני הטל שעליו שהוא מחמיץ אם יש תקנה
לשטחו בשמש כדי שילך הטל מעליו. והנה הפר"ח (הפרי חדש) סי' תס"ו הביא משם הירושלמי ז"ל: מטננא בעשבין חד
אסר וחד שרי. מאן דשרי בלוקטן אחר שש שעות מא דטלא פייגא מנהון ע"כ. הנה אפי'
מאן דשרי לא שרי אלא בלוקטן אחר שש שעות שכבר כלה ונסתלק הטל מהן. ולבליעת הטל
בעשבים דביני ביני עד כלות שש שעות לא חיישינן כיון שהבליעה היתה ועדיין העשבים
במחובר דיש כח בהם לשנות לטבע הפרי והו"ל (והוי ליה) כמי פירות. אך אחר שהן תלושין ההיא בליעה דביני ביני אין בה
כח לשנות טבעם. הגע עצמך אם שרה עשבים יבשים תלושין במים ואח"כ שטחם בחמה
ליבשם עד שיבש כל לחלוחית מים שבהם מבחוץ ונשארו לחים מבפנים וטינן בהם חטים. האם
נאמר בהם שאינם מחמיצים כיון שנשתנו המים בגופן. אין אלו אלא דברי תימה. ... איך
שיהיה למדנו מכל זה דהיכא דחיישינן לדבר תלוש שבלוע מים שאין להקל בו. א"כ
אלו העשבים אם יתלשו אותם מהבוקר שעדיין מלאים טל חיישינן לביני ביני במשך השטיחה
שבולעים מהטל וגם שיש בעשבים אלו פרחים ושושנים. וכשהם עדיןן במחובר יש כח בשמש
להפריח טל מעליהם, אבל כשהם כבר תלושים יש הרבה מהם כמושים ןהטל בתוכם ואין כח
בשמש לכלותו כי הוא סגור ומוסגר. ... וידעתי כי מי שהוא אוהב האמת לכבוד בעל האמת
יודה בזה דאסיר. ואי משום דחזי להמון העם שלוקטין אותו בבוקר בבוקר ושוטחין אותו
בשמש, אין זה כלום לסתור מ"ש (מה
שכתבתי) בלתי
ראיה מכרחת. ... ואשר נגע יראת ה' ואהבת האמת בלבו יראה דדברים ברורים הם וראוי
לחוש אליהם ולמחות בשולחי יד הקוטפים שיח קודם ו' שעות. דדבר חמץ לאו זעיר הוא
דלכך לא הוצרך התנא לשנותו בשלהי ע"ז (עבודה זרה) עם אותם דאיסורן בכל שהן. ומה שאומרים שהראשונים לא היו
פוצים פה. תמיה אני מהיכן ידעו זה. ואני מעיד עלי שמים וארץ כי מקטנותי כבן שית
כבן שבע, כשהיו עשבים אלו ברחובות עיר למכור והתחילו טיפי גשמים לנטף אומרים בקול
מלא ובפה צח פסול פסול. חמץ חמץ. ושוב אין מי שמוצא לקנותו ושוטחים אותו ליבש
להסיק תנור וכירים ולצלות ביצתו בקנסות אלו. ודי בזה לאוהבי אמת יראו וישמחו."
(Questions & Responsa "Peulath
Sadiq," Vol. III, Responsum # 13)
"In our
place, where they practice bleaching wheat used for Passover with weeds, on
account of [that fact that] fruit juice does not cause leavening,
notwithstanding, the custom is widespread not to bleach barley grains in order
to make of them roasted grain, since the matter [of doing so] is not
well-known, [and] they fear lest they come and err [thereby] by soaking them in
water. Even though the fear [of their doing so] is but small, behold, there is
another reason for [their abstaining] in this practice. Namely, [with] wheat
kernels they have not seen it necessary to make strictures on account of the
honour due to the festival day, [and that they] might make a clean bread, and
do with it differently than on the profane [days of the week], which is not the
case with barley grains to make of them roasted grain. For it is possible to
make use of several kinds of fruit. Moreover, and this [seems to me] the most
important reason, since they are accustomed all throughout the year to spread
over them salt water in order to make them more palatable, and lest [by doing
so] they are not adequately roasted [at the time of Passover] and they reach a
state of leavening. Proof of which [can be shown] by what Maimonides has
written in the 5th chapter of Hilkoth Hames u'massah, the 5th
ruling [there]: 'Green barley which they roast in the fire, and [which] they
grind, its flour cannot be cooked in water, lest it has not been sufficiently
roasted in the fire, and it be found to cause leavening when it is cooked.'
Thus are his words. Likewise did the Shulhan Arukh address [this
situation] in section # 463.
Now in my younger days, we heard about one person who
wanted to bleach [his] barley grains, in order to make of them roasted grain.
And in the presence of several erudite men, and an assembly of Israel numbering
some six-hundred men, within the largest synagogue [and] with the consent of
the entire congregation, our teacher the Rabbi, Yehudah Sa'di of blessed
memory, stood up and excommunicated any man or woman [who would do so], in
order [that they would learn] not to do so. And if so, he who wishes to ease
[such strictures], is [as the man] who breaks down the fence, and a snake shall
bite him! It suffices with this…"
המקור: "במקומינו שנהגו לטנן חיטי הפסח בעשבים
משום דמי פירות אין מחמיצין. עכ"ז (עם כל זה) מנהג פשוט שלא לטנן השעורים
בעשבים כדי לעשותן קליות לפי שאין הדבר מפורסם חששו שמא יבואו לטעות לשרותן במים.
ואע"פ שחששא חלושה הנה יש טעם אחר למנהג. משום דבחטים לא ראו להחמיר משום
כבוד י"ט (יום טוב) לעשות פת נקייה לעשות בו שינוי מהחול. משא"כ (מה
שאין כן) בשעורים לעשות קליות דאפשר בכמה מיני פירות. ועוד י"ל (יש לומר)
והוא העיקר משום שרגילין לפזר עליו בכל השנה מי מלח כדי להטעימו לאכילה ושמא לא
נקלה יפה ובא לידי חימוץ. וראיה לזה מהא דכ' (דכתב) רמב"ם פ"ה מה'
(מהלכות) חמץ ומצה דין ה' כרמל שמהבהבין אותו באור וטוחנין אותו אין מבשלין את
הקמח שלו במים שמא לא נקלה באור יפה ונמצא מחמיץ כשמבשלין אותו. עכ"ל (עד כאן
לשונו). וכ"פ (וכן פירש) הש"ע סי' תס"ג.
ובימי
חרפי נשמע על א' שרצה לטנן שעורים לעשותן קליות ובמעמד כמה חכמים וקיבוץ מישראל
כשש מאות איש בבית הכנסת הגדולה בהסכמת כל הקהל עמד מה"ר (מורנו הרב) יהודה
צעדי ז"ל והחרים על כל איש ואשה שלא לעשות כן. וא"כ (ואם כן) פורץ גדר
הוא הרוצה להקל וישכנו נחש ודי בזה. . . "
11) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ
Concerning the Famine that Plagued
(Found in the handwriting of
Maharitz, the following account was first published in the book "Sa'arath
Teman," by Rabbi Amram Korah, pp. "kaph" –
"kaph-aleph.")
"On account of our great iniquities, there was a famine in the
land, year after year, for nearly seven years in duration, while each year it
only worsened. So the people took counsel from the principal persons of the
congregation [what they should do] on the Ninth of Av [Fast Day], in the year
2,108 [of the year of Alexander], [when it was decided] to take out the Scroll
of the Law and to bring it into the graveyard, which [same] happened to be the
ancient-most book in our synagogues. So there was made a great shout in the
city by the men, women and children during their procession there. And all of
the people went out after it, before noon-time, and it was there that they sat
down with it until the evening, with weeping and sighing, and [a voice of]
shouting, while they scattered dust upon their heads. There, they prayed the
Afternoon prayer, and read from the Law, and prayed [also] the Evening prayer,
and then returned to their homes with the Scroll of the Law. [All this was
done] with great weeping; [the people] mourning while they went along the way.
On that very day there was a great marvel, as it were, the sun was brought out
of its protective sheath, so that almost [every] foot that walked the ground
was burnt. On the second day, which was the tenth day of Av, the congregation
went out in the morning and made their prayers there[16], as
also their supplications. And on that very day, a little after
המקור:
"בעוה"ר (בעונותינו
הרבים) היה הרעב
בארץ שנה אחרי שנה קרוב לשבע שנים וכל שנה הולך וחזק. ונתיעצו אנשים משרי הקהל
ביום ט' באב שנת בק"ח להגלות ס"ת (ספר תורה) לבית הקברות הוא הספר הזקן אשר בבהכ"נ (בבתי הכנסיות) שלנו, והיתה צעקה גדולה בעיר, אנשים
ונשים וטף, בעת שהוליכוהו לשם. ןיצאו כל העם אחריו קודם חצות ושם ישבו עמו עד הערב,
בבכי ואנקה וצעקה והעלו עפר על ראשם. ושם נתפללו מנחה וקראו בתורה והתפללו ערבית
וחזרו לבתיהם עם הס"ת בבכי גדול, מקוננים בדרך הלוכם. ואותו היום היה פלא
גדול, כביכול, הוציא חמה מנרתיקה כמעט שהרגל נכוית בדרך על הקרקע. וביום השני שהוא
עשירי אב יצאו הקהל בשחר ונתפללו שם ונתחננו. ובאותו היום אחר חצות היה גשם גדול
בכל המדינות. לא היה מקום שלא ירדו גשמים והאירו ברקיו תבל וריוח היה בעולם. ברוך
מרחם על הארץ. ברוך מרחם על הבריות ית"ש (יתברך שמו) לעד."
12) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol.II, Responsum #76) – Here, Maharitz addresses
a question about the practice of shaving one's head, even during the counting
of the 'Omer.
"…It has now been about
twelve years since we re-enacted this practice of shaving one's head [during
the `Omer], that is, a few of the more zealous ones amongst us, in accordance
with the instruction of our teacher and Rabbi, even the honorable teacher and
Rabbi, David Mishreqi, whose inheritance is in the Garden of Eden, who was the
most able Rabbi of the city, and who did practice the same, by himself, and so
did I practice the same, and many others with me. Now the proper rule of
conduct is thus, to be inclined after the Rabbi of one's generation, as it is
written: 'and unto the judge' (Deut. 17:9),
even if it were a thing which stood contrary to the first custom, the Law has
given him authority to decide in such matters as his eyes shall see fit, in
order to put the matter in question in
its rightful place, and by his mouth shall they encamp, and by his mouth shall
they journey, just as RASHDAM (R. Shemuel Di Medina) has written, in Yoreh
De'ah, Section 40."
המקור:
". . . וכבר נהגנו כן היום כמו י"ב שנה להסתפר קצת
יחידים ע"פ הוראת מרנא ורבנא כמה"ר (כבוד מורנו הרב) דוד משרקי
נע"ג (נחלו עדן גן) שהוא היה רב מובהק של עיר וכן נהג הוא בעצמו וכן נהגתי
אחריו ורבים עמי. והדין כן להטות אחרי רב של דור דכתיב ואל השופט אפילו שהוא היפך
המנהג הראשון התורה נתנה לו רשות לפסוק כפי שיראה בעיניו להעמיד הענין על דינו ועל
פיו יחנו ועל פיו יסעו כמ"ש (כמו שכתב) מהרשד"ם יו"ד (יורה דעה) סי'
מ'. . ."
13) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol.II, Responsum #98)
The
following is an unabridged translation of a responsum written by Maharitz
concerning the practice in
"Since I have seen from my youth up until this
very day the custom in the camp of the Hebrews for an Israelite to go, in broad
daylight, and to glean by himself the palm branches out of their garden (i.e.
the gentile's garden), and to fulfill thereby his obligation, while they do not
suspect what Rabbi Moshe Iserlische has written about it in item 1, of section
# 649, when commenting on what Maran had written, [saying] that he does
not fulfill his obligation with a stolen palm branch, etc., of which this is
his language: 'For this reason, one ought to be careful that an Israelite does
not cut down by himself one of the four kinds used in [joining with] the palm
branch, for use in his own palm branch, for [it is a generally accepted
principle with us that] land cannot be stolen and the ordinary worshippers of
stars and of the horoscopes are [natural] thieves of property, and thereby what
comes into his hand [would have come there] by way of theft. Rather, let the
worshipper of stars and of the horoscopes cut it down, and let [the Jew] buy it
from them.' Let him look there [for a more thorough discussion on this subject,
where it was taught] in the name of Rabbi Shelomo ben Adereth (known by the
acronym of Rashba), in Responsum # 892 [of his Questions &
Responsa], as well as [by] Hagash, in the Talmudic chapter 'Lolav
Ha-Gazul,' as also he (i.e. Rabbi Moshe Iserlische) did write [it] in item
3, of section # 637, with regard to one's cutting down the natural growth used
in covering the make-shift booth [on the Sukkoth holiday], which teaching he
brings down in the name of Maharil. The Rabbi, Magen Avraham, has
renewed for us [this teaching] in section # 649 [of the Shulhan Arukh]
that this would also apply when Israel cuts it down and gives it to his friend,
it now being permitted [unto him in this case], since it came to him after [the
original owner] had despaired of ever retrieving it. Let him look there [for a
more thorough discussion on this subject]. But Turei Zahav has written
[in his commentary on the Shulhan Arukh], in item 3 of section # 637,
that wherever there is permission for the people of a given place to take wood
from the forest, by the authority of that maxim which says, 'The law of a
Government is the law of the land,' there is no prohibition [in this case] if
Israel takes [wood] from there in order to cover withal his make-shift booth.
This, then, would be similar to what we've seen in the latter Talmudic chapter,
'Ha-Gozel' (Baba Kama 113.b), that 'they uproot palm trees and
make from them bridges, and they pass over them.' Such is the language used
there. Now, it stands to reason that had
they (i.e. the Yemenites) done according to this [ruling, to wit], to
cut down [the palm branches] and to give them away to others alone, while he
himself would have taken a palm branch from others who had cut them down from
their garden, [they would have done nothing amiss]. Yet, they do not suspect
[of any wrongdoing] in the manner in which they do it, at all!
We must, then, seek to find out where they relied
upon [such practices] to act accordingly. For all my days were spent in sorrow
over this [matter], until the blessed name of G-d enlightened my eyes [to the
matter] and I found that great Rabbi, Rabbi David ben Zimra (known by the
acronym Radbaz), in his Responsa which has just now been printed anew,
where he was asked concerning this in responsum # 514, [Viz., whether or
not] we require that a gentile person do the gleaning [of what he would take
from another's orchard], and to sell [it] to an Israelite man, in order for
there to be a despairing [over the stolen object] and a change of domain. And
he answered [that query] by giving this reply: 'Know [of a certainty] that
there is not in all of this province, neither house nor garden, nor that of a
field, which has not a bill of conveyance which is called by them maktoub,
and it is [always] written and sealed in their courts of law. It bears the
writing of the chief judge [amongst them], or else one who has been appointed
by him to arbitrate, who is called by them Na'ib al-Qathi (Deputy Judge).
In all [those things] wherein he acts as arbitrator, or where he passes
judgment, that [sentence] becomes final, and not even the chief judge has the
power to rescind it. Thus, we find that anyone who possesses land, he possesses
that land in equity. Even if you should say that he stole it, or that his
fathers [stole it], nevertheless, since he has the maktoub in his hand,
behold, it belongs to him!' For the law of a Government is the law of the land
(meaning, it is sanctioned in heaven). Now the king has said that anyone who
has in his hand a maktoub, presently the land becomes his possession.
'Wherefore,' [says Radbaz], 'there is no theft here, and
המקור:
"לפי שראיתי מילדותי עד הנה המנהג
במחנה העברים הולך ואור ללקוט הישראל הלולבים בעצמם מגן שלהם לצאת בו י"ח
(ידי חובה) ואין חוששין למ"ש (למה שכתב) רמ"א בסי' תרמ"ט ס"א
אהא דכ' (דכתב) מר"ן דאינו יוצא בלולב הגזול כ' וז"ל: ומשום זה יש ליזהר
שלא יקצוץ הישראל בעצמו א' מד' מינים שבלולב לצורך לולבו דקרקע אינה נגזלת וסתם
עכו"ם גוזלי קרקע הם ויבא בגזילה לידו אלא יקצצנו עכו"ם ויקנה מהם
ע"ש ב' רשב"א סי' תתצ"ב והגא"ש פ' לולב הגזול, וכ"כ (וכן
כתב) ג"כ סי' תרל"ז ס"ג לענין קציצת הסכך בש' (בשם) מהרי"ל,
והרב מ"א (מגן אברהם) סי' תרמ"ט חדית לן דה"ה (דהוא הדין) כשקוצץ
ישראל ונותן לחבירו שרי כיון דהוי לאחר יאוש ע"ש (עיין שם). וט"ז בס'
תרל"ז ס"ק ג' כ' (כתב) דבמקום שיש רשות לאנשי המקום ליקח עצים מן היער
בדינא דמלכות' אין איסור אם לוקח הישראל משם לסכך ודומה למאי דאי' (דאיתא) בפ'
הגוזל בתרא [ב"ק קי"ג ע"ב] דקטלינן דיקלא ועבדי מהן גשורי ועברינן
עלייהו עכ"ל. וניחא אלו הוה עבדין כגוונא דא לקצוץ וליתן לאחרים לבד והוא
עצמו יקח לולב מאחרים הקוצצים מגן שלהם אמנם אין חוששין לעשות באופן זה כלל.
וצריך לבקש להם מאיזה מקום סמכו להם לעשות כן וכל ימי הייתי
מצטער על זה עד שהאיר הש"י (השם יתברך) את עיני ומצאתי להרב הגדול
הרדב"ז בתשובותיו הנדפסו' עתה מחדש שנשאל ע"ז (על זה) בסי' תקי"ד
דבעינן שילקט הגוי וימכור לישראל כדי שיהיה יאוש ושינוי רשות והשיב וז"ל (וזה
לשונו): דע כי אין במחוז הזה לא בית ולא גנה ולא שדה שלא יהיה לו שטר קנין הנקרא
אצלם מכתוב והוא כתוב וחתום בערכאותיהם וכתב השופט הגדול עליו או אחד מהממונים
מתחת ידו לדון הנק' אצלם נאיב אלקאצ'י וכל מה שהוא דן ופוסק עשוי ואפי' השופט
הגדול לא יוכל לבטל דינו ונמצא כל המחזיק בקרקע כדין מחזיק ואפי' תאמר שגזל אותו
הוא או אבותיו מ"מ (מכל מקום) כיון שיש בידו מכתוב הרי הוא שלו דדינא דמלכות'
דינא ומלכא אמר שכל מי שיש בידו מכתוב יהיה הקרקע שלו. הלכך אין כאן גזל ומותר
לישראל ללקט האתרוגי' בידו לצאת בהם. ואפשר שבאותם המקומות של בעל הגינה לא היה
הענין כן וכ' (וכתב) לפי דין התלמוד מה שכתב. אבל במקום הזה אין כאן בית מיחוש ולא
ראינו ולא שמענו מי שהקפיד ע"ז (על זה) ודבר מפורסם ולא ערער אדם בדבר. והוי
יודע דלא צריכין להאי טעמא אלא ללוקט בעצמו אבל לקונה מהם פשיטא דיצא דהוי יאוש
ושנוי רשות והכי אי' (איתמר) בגמ' (בגמרא) בהדיא עכ"ל. ואע"פ שהש"ך
והסמ"ע בח"ש (בחושן משפט) סי' שס"ט פסקו דלא אמרי' דינא דמלכותא
אלא בדבר שיש בו הנאה [למלך] אלא שכן הדין בערכאות דלא מיקרי דינא דמלכותא כבר
השיג עליהם הרב בעל כרם שלמה בחלק ח"מ (חושן משפט) סי' ל"א בש' (בשם)
כמה רבוותא ראשונים ואחרונים ומסיק ודלא כסמ"ע וש"ך ז"ל (זכרונם
לברכה). לכך אני אומר מנהגן של ישראל תורה היא ומינה לא תזוז. הש"י יאיר
עינינו באור תורתו אכי"ר (אמן כן יהי רצון)."
14) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol.I, Responsum # [173] 172)
(Small, 6-
"With regard to osier baskets made like unto tables, [20] I
have observed the custom of the early generations which has come down unto us,
[which custom is] to rub them and clean them very well with hot water, after
which they pour boiling water onto it from a vessel which has direct contact
with the fire. Now I have heard those say that this can only be practical with
regard to tables made of wood, but of osier baskets* there can be no benefit by
doing so.
(After a lengthy spate of
dialectics, where he brings down the opinions and counter-opinions of many
erudite men of Jewish learning, Maharitz then concludes the following:)
…And so from now on, the ruling is established, that [all] is well. One
is able to render fitness unto osier baskets by pouring over them [hot water]
from a vessel which has direct contact with the fire. For as is the absorption
[of a thing], so is its emission. This is how it seems to me, which is my most
humble opinion, in an effort to rectify the custom [with that of
המקור:
"בענין השולחנות העשויות מסלים. ראיתי מנהג הראשונים משתלשל
ובא לשופם ולנקותם יפה במים חמין ואח"כ מערין עליהן רותחין מכלי ראשון.
ושמעתי אומרים דוקא בשולחנות של עץ אבל בשל סלים לא מהני עובדין אלו.
(אחרי משא ומתן
בנושא הערוי ע"ג סלים, מסקנתו כך היא(:
ומעתה קם דינא דשפיר. מצי
להכשיר שולחנות העשויים מסלים ע"י ערוי דכלי ראשון, דכבולעו כך פולטו. זהו
הנלע"ד (הנראה לעניות דעתי) לישב המנהג."
·
In
15) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol.III, Responsum # 266)
(Maharitz
shows clearly in this response that the Yemenites did not follow Maimonides'
ruling in Hilkoth De'oth
"I have seen the popular custom among several of
[our] great men to put rose water upon their hands on the Sabbath, and on the Festival
day, and no man of repute rebuked this [practice], neither are they fearful
that the rose water will spatter upon their clothes, and [thereby become
culpable for] bringing into existence a fragrant scent [which had not been
there before]. But just now I have seen in the book, "Leket
Hakemah," [21]
which was taken from the book, "Halachoth Ketanoth," section
#..., who wrote to forbid putting rose
water on one's hands and beard on the Sabbath and on a Festival day, because of
that [prohibition] of causing a fragrant scent to come into existence [which
had not been there before]. And he concludes there: 'I call against them [those
words from the Scriptures which say], And he shall also take away the beard.'
(Isaiah 7:20) Let him look there [for a more
thorough discussion on this subject]. I then browsed through the books
belonging to the exponents of our laws, and saw in the book of Taz ("Turei
Zahav" on the Shulhan Arukh), section # 521 (should rather be section # 511), that he forbids [it]. Let him
look there [for a more thorough discussion on this subject].
In the book, 'Gan Hamelech,' [22]
section # 61, his manner of speech is thus: 'We say in the Gemara (Betza 23.a), To turn upside down a [perfumed] cup [and to lay it] upon
silk [cloth] on the Festival day is forbidden, because he [thereby] brings a
fragrant scent into existence [which had not been there before]. Therefore, a
man ought to be careful when taking up perfume on the Sabbath or Festival day
in order to douse [with it] his face, that he not wipe it on [his]
handkerchief, because he would thereby bring upon that handkerchief a fragrant
scent [which had not been there before]. And in my Responsa I have given my
opinion that so long as [a man] does not purposely intend to bring into
existence a fragrant scent [which had not been there before], it is [all] well.
But to douse [with it] his hair and beard, it is [all] well, etc. Let him look
there [for an in-depth look at my responsum].' Lo! You have it explained unto
you that only when one purposely intends to put it on his clothes [does he
become liable], similar to turning upside down a cup which he willfully intends
[to do] for such [purposes]. But when rose water falls [of itself] upon his
clothes, since he had no intention of it, [in this case], it is permitted. And
in his book, Ginath Waradim,[23]
volume III, responsum # 16, he prolongs to show proof that it is permitted,
based upon what Rashi wrote in Tractate Betza p. 26, [saying]
that the prohibition of causing a thing to come into existence [which had not
been there before] is only a Rabbinic ordinance. When he has no intention [of
doing so], it is permitted, even though it be tantamount to 'pesiq reisheh.'
[24] No
one should contend [by saying here] that when he puts [rose water] upon his
hands and face, behold, surely he intended to bring upon them a fragrant scent
[which had not been there before]! For we must say that this fragrant odour
[which lies] upon his face and hands is not a lasting [fragrance], since [his]
sweat removes it. Proof of which we find [the following statement] in the Shulhan
Arukh (Orah Hayim), section # 322: 'It is permissible to carry
[uprooted] aromatic woody plants, and to break them off [at their stems], and
to rub them [between his fingers], in order that an ill person might smell
them, etc.' (i.e., on the Sabbath). And not only [for] an ill person [is it
permitted to do so], for he has mentioned only what is its common usage, which
is also proven by the plain sense of the Gemara. We have to admit [here] that,
[by this provision in the Shulhan Arukh], a fragrant scent was imparted
by the hands that rubbed the aromatic wood [which had not been there before]!
What more, he intended for it [to happen], and he is contented [thereby]! Even
so, [we say that] it is permitted. Now the reason why it is permitted is
because [the fragrance] is not lasting.[25]
Now Maimonides, in the 5th chapter of Hilkoth
De'oth, [wrote] that a disciple of the Sages [should not go out in the
marketplace] when he is perfumed, etc. There, he ruled stringently because of
suspicion.[26]
Yet, at our present time, when men are no longer had in suspicion, it is
permitted, and one's own sweat removes its [pleasant odour]. Furthermore,
ordinary hands are continuously meddling. Now [to say somewhat] about our
requiring them (i.e. the hands) to undergo a purification (i.e. by
handwashing), with respect to his hair and to his beard we ought also to ease
[all strictures]! Seeing that there are two [contradicting] statements amongst
the disciples of the Sages, and they become like a thing disputed by the
Rabbis, we are admonished [here] to follow the more lenient opinion.[27] Now Turei
Zahav of blessed memory has written that to put fragrant oil into [a bath
of] water is alright [to do], but what he forbade in putting it on the hands
cannot be understood! In the final analysis, it is permissible to put rose
water upon the hands, face, beard, as also to wipe them and to dry them with a
handkerchief, and there is nothing to fear [by doing so]! Up until here [we've
brought down] his language in rapid succession of utmost brevity. Also here,
[we find] that in [the book], 'Ginath Waradim,' he changed his opinion
concerning what he wrote [there] in 'Gan Hamelech,' that to wipe them
with a handkerchief is forbidden. And they are his final words (i.e. to permit
rose water on the Sabbath) . . ."
המקור:
"ראיתי המנהג פשוט בפני כמה גדולים
ליתן מי ורד בידיהן בשבת וי"ט (ויום טוב) ולא מיחה שום גדול בזה ואין חוששין
אם מתפזר המי ורד בבגדים משום אולודי ריחא. ועכשיו ראיתי בס' לקט הקמח והוא מס'
הלכות קטנות סי' ... שכ' (שכתב) לאסור בשבת וי"ט ליתן מי ורד בידים ובזקן
משום אולודי ריחא ומסיים שם וקורא אני עליהם וגם את הזקן תספה ע"ש (עיין שם).
ועיינתי בספרי הפו' וראיתי בס' ט"ז (טורי זהב) סי' תקכ"א (צ"ל סי' תקי"א) שאסור יע"ש.
ובס'
גן המלך סי' ס"א ז"ל (זה לשונו): אמרינן בגמ' (ביצה כ"ג ע"א) סחופי כסא אשיראי בי"ט אסור
משום דקא מוליד ריחא. לכן יש ליזהר כשאדם לוקח בשמים בשבת או בי"ט ונותן על
פניו שלא לקנח במפה משום דקא מוליד ריחא במפה. ובתשו' העליתי דכל שאינו מתכוין
לאולודי ריחא ש"ד (שפיר דמי) אבל ליתן על שערו וזקנו ש"ד (שפיר דמי)
וכו' ע"ש (עיין שם). הרי לך מבואר דדוקא כשמכוין לתת על בגדיו דומיא דסחופי
כסא שמתכוין לכך אבל כשנופל המי ורד על בגדיו כי לא מכוין שרי. ובספרו גו"ר
(גנת ורדים) ח"ג (חלק ג') סי'
י"ו האריך להביא ראיות להתיר מטעם שכ' (שכתב) רש"י במ' ביצה דף כ"ו
דאיסור מוליד אינו רק חומרא דרבנן. כי לא מכוין ליה שרי, אע"ג דהוי פסיק
רישיה. ואין להקשות דכשנותן בידיו ובפניו הא ודאי מכוין להוליד בהם ריח די"ל
(דיש לומר) דריח זה שעל פניו וידיו אינו מתקיים דזיעה מעברא ליה. וראיה לזה
מש"ע (משולחן ערוך) [א"ח] סי' שכ"ב מותר לטלטל עצי בשמים וקוטמו
ומוללו להריח בו חולה וכו' ולאו דוקא חולה דאורחא דמלתא נקט וכן מוכח פשט הגמ'
(הגמרא). ועל כרחין איכא אולודי ריחא בידים שמולל עצי הבשמים וגם מכוין לכך וניחא
ליה ואעפ"כ שרי. וטעמא דשריותא משום שאינו מתקיים.
והרמב"ם בפ"ה (בפרק ה') דה' דעות [אסור] לת"ח
להתבשם וכו'. התם פסק לחומרא משום חשדא. ובזמן זה דלא חשידי שרי וזיעה מעברא ליה
וגם דסתם ידים עסקניות. ולענין להצריכן טהרה גם בשערו וזקנו יש להקל כיון דהוו תרי
לישני בת"ח (בתלמידי חכמים) והוי מידי דרבנן אזלינן ביה לקולא. והט"ז
(והטורי זהב) ז"ל (זכור לטוב) ליתן שמן של ריח לתוך המים שפיר כתב אבל במה
שאסר ליתן לידים לא מיחוור. סוף דינא דשרי לתת מי ורד בידים ובפנים ובזקן ושרי
לקנחן ולנגבן במפה ואין חשש. עכ"ל (עד כאן לשונו) בקיצור נמרץ. ובכאן
בגו"ר (בגנת ורדים) הדר ביה ממ"ש (ממה שכתב) בגן המלך לקנחן במפה דאסור
והם דבריו האחרונים . . ."
16) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's "TIKLAL ETZ HAYIM," or YEMENITE PRAYER BOOK
(SIDDUR) OF THE BALADI RITE:
(Vol. I, pp. 29.b - 30.a. The following extract was
copied from that edition published in 5654 Anno Mundi/1894 C.E.)
In the
following polemics, Maharitz discusses the Kaddish said by the
Yemenites, whose practice differed from what Maran, R. Yoseph Karo, wrote in
his Shulhan Arukh (Hilkoth Berachoth, sec.# 56, item 3). Maran wrote
that when the congregation repeats the words of the shaliah sibbur (the
emissary of the congregation who leads them in prayer and who says the Kaddish),
they are to repeat that part of the Kaddish which says, "Amen. May
his great name be blessed forever, etc." (Hebrew: יְהַא שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא מְבָרַךְ לְעָלַם
וּלעָלְמֵי עָלְמַיָּא יִתבָּרַךְ ) as far as the word,
"Yithborach" יתברך .The
Yemenites, however, when repeating these words, do so as far as the
word,"Olemayyo" עלמיא. Maharitz
shows here the origin of that practice of his beloved community.
"May his great name be blessed forever
and ever, [etc.]
The ancient custom is to answer only as far as [the word], 'olemayyo.'[28] But
now there are many who have practiced saying 'yithborach' in a
whispering voice, immediately following the word, 'olemayyo.' Behold, I shall explain to you the root of,
[both], this ancient practice and that of the latter one. Harada (Rabbi
David Abu-Derahem) wrote: 'There are people who repeat [the words], Amen.
May his great name be blessed, etc., as far as [the words], and let them
say Amen (ואמרו אמן), but I have received from my teachers
that no one should repeat [those words] except only, Amen. May his great name
be blessed forever and ever, and thus would it appear from the words of Rabbeinu
Saadia [Gaon], and, likewise, I have found it written in the name of Rabbeinu
Asher. Now Rabbeinu Asher has written that until olemayyo, there
are a total of seven words with twenty-eight letters.[29] And
the word, Amen, does not belong to that counting, for it stands in
connection with, [May his great name] be magnified, [etc.]
(יתגדל),
which means that one must repeat [only as far as the words], forever and
ever, in order for there to be a total of twenty-eight letters. Moreover,
the same language is used in the verse (Dan.7:18): And they shall possess the
kingdom forever, even forever and ever (ויחסנון מלכותא עד עלמא ועד עלם עלמיא).
Likewise did Or Hadash write that one should break off [his repetition]
between Amen and May his great name [be blessed forever and
ever], since the word, Amen, stands in connection with what is
written above, [May his great name] be magnified. (He taught this
teaching in the name of Shenei Luhoth Habarith.) Also, the [author of
the book known as], Kol Bo, has written likewise that there should be
twenty-eight letters. Now you find that [a person] says the Kadish seven
times a day, which, [by the way], you also find in Ecclesiastes (Ecc.3: 2-8) seven verses beginning with, There is a time to
be born, unto [the words], And a time of peace, and in each one of
those verses there are to be found [the words], A time, written four
times[30],
which in all of them comes to twenty-eight times, which [same numerical
representation] stands for the seven days of the week, which [also] have in
them twenty-eight [divisions in] time; from the [dawn of] morning till midday
is one [division in] time. From
המקור:
"יהא שמיה רבא מברך לעלם ולעלמי עלמיא יתברך. המנהג הקדום לענות עד
עלמיא לבד. והרבה נהגו עתה לענות סמוך לעלמיא יתברך בלחש. והנני מבאר לך שורש
המנהג הקדמון והאחרון. כתב הרד"א (הרב דוד אבּוּ-דְּרַהֵם) יש אנשים שעושים איש"ר (אמן יהא שמיה רבא)
מברך כו' עד ואמרו אמן ואני קבלתי מרבותי שאין לענות אלא איש"ר מברך לעלמי
ולעלמי עלמיא בלבד וכן נראה מדברי רבי' סעדיא וכן מצאתי כתוב בשם הרא"ש
והרא"ש כ' (כתב) כי יש עד עלמיא ז' תיבות וכ"ח אותיות. ומלת אמן אינה מן
המנין כי היא קאי על יתגדל. ולפי זה צריך לומר ולעלם עלמיא כדי שיהיו כ"ח
אותיות. ועוד כי כן הוא לשון הפסוק ויחסנון מלכותא עד עלמא ועד עלם עלמיא. וכ"כ
(וכן כתב) אור חדש יפסיק בין אמן ליש"ר (ליהא שמיה רבא) כי אמן קאי לעיל על
יתגדל (ב' של"ה). וגם הכל בו כתב ג"כ (גם כן) שיהיה כ"ח אותיות
ותמצא כי אומר קדיש ז"פ (שבע פעמים) ביום וכן תמצא בקהלת ז' פסוקים מעת ללדת
עד ועת שלום. ובכל פסוק מהם ד' פעמים עת ובכלם יש כ"ח עתים כנגד ז' ימי השבוע
שיש בהם כ"ח עתים. מהבקר ועד חצי היום עת אחד. ומחצי היום עד הלילה עת אחד.
והלילה שני עתים וכנגדן ז' כוכבי לכת וכ"ח מחנות הלבנה וכן תמצא ה' בחכמה יסד
ארץ [וגו'] ז' תיבות וכ"ח אותיות. וכן בפ' (בפסוק) בראשית ברא ז' תיבות
וכ"ח אותיות. . . ואראה והנה גם הרבה מהמקובלים מסכימים לדעת אלו הגדולים שזכרתי גם
לפי הסוד והא לך מה שכתב המקובל האלהי מהר"ר (מורנו הרב רבי) משה כלץ בס'
(בספר) המוסר וז"ל (וזה לשונו) וצריך העונה לענות מאמן עד עלמיא ולא יותר כי
יש כ"ח אותיות וכו' ע"ש (עיין שם).
. . .ובמקום אחר כ' (כתב) [מה"ר יעקב צמח המקובל] איש"ר וכ'
(וכולה) ח' תיבות כנגד ח' ימי מילה ומתחיל באלף אמן ומסיים באלף עלמיא. רְמָז שהקב"ה (שהקדוש ברוך
הוא) יחיד בשני עלומות וכ"כ (וכן כתב) בס' (בספר) מערכת האלהות ע"פ (על
פי) הסוד בהיפך מהרי"ג בדף ר"ו ע"א. וכ"פ (וכך פירש) מה"ר
שלום קרח בספר סגולות משם התיקונים, תקון כ"ה יעו"ש . . ."
17) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's "TIKLAL ETZ HAYIM," or YEMENITE PRAYER BOOK
(SIDDUR) OF THE BALADI RITE:
(Vol.I, facsimile edition
published by Karwani Yaakov of Rosh Ha-Ayin, towards the end of that
volume.)
In
"… After which he makes the benediction [known as] 'the blessing of
betrothals,'[38]
and they drink (i.e. the groom and the
Mori who officiates over the wedding). After which he sanctifies her in any language which she
knows, and fills up the cup a second time,[39] and
says: 'You, the virgin bride so and so, the daughter of so and so, are
sanctified and betrothed unto me, I, the groom so and so, the son of so and so,
by the wine in this cup, and by this silver, which by them you shall come into
my domain, for myself, according to the religion of Moses and Israel.' She
then takes up the cup, and takes up the silver in the presence of the two
witnesses, etc. (Maharitz, in his "Etz Chayim Commentary"
on the Baladi-rite siddur, in those pages treating on Betrothals & Marriages,
makes there the following remarks:) …Now the [first] cup is not
absolutely necessary, for it is only a custom. Let him look there [at that
former treatise mentioned] and at Haham, of blessed memory. The Rabbi
[who is the author of] 'Kitzur Shenei Luhoth Habarith' has written to
read the marriage contract after the blessing of betrothals. Let him look there
[at what he wrote]. But our custom is to read it before the blessing, the
reason being to inform the bridegroom in what [things] he has become obligated
unto her, before they become bound in wedlock. And if he should go back [on his
decision], let him go back . . . "
המקור:
". . . ובעד ד'אלך יבארך ברכת אירוסין ושותין. ובעד ד'אלך יקדשה באיי לג'ה
תערף וימלי אלכוס פעם שנית ויקול מקודשת לי ומאורסת לי אנא חתנא פלוני בר פלוני ואנתי כלתא בתולתא (או גרושתא או ארמלתא או חלוצתא או יבמתא) פלונית
בת פלוני בחמרא דבכסא הדין ובכספא הדין
דבהון תיעלין לרשותי לדידי כדת משה וישראל. ויעטיהא אלכוס ויעטיהא אלכסף במחצ'ר
אלשני עדים וכו'
(עד
כאן לשון התכלאל הבלדי. ומהרי"ץ מפרש אותו כדלקמן)
ואין כוס מעכב שאינו אלא מנהג
עי"ש ובהה"מ ז"ל. הרב קיצור של"ה (שני לוחות הברית) כ' (כתב) לקרות הכתובה אחרי ברכת
אירוסין ע"ש (עיין שם). ומנהגינו לקרותה קודם הברכה והטעם כדי להודיע לחתן
במה יתחייב לה קודם שיתקשרו בזיווג ואם יחזור בו יחזור."
_________________________________________________________
18) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol.II, Responsum #135)
The following
polemics treats on Massah Shemura, or the Preservation of Grain used in
making the unleavened bread at Passover. In
"You
asked me to explain
unto you that position taken by the exponents of our laws regarding how one is
to undertake the effectual preservation of [grain used in making]
unleavened-bread [and which is to be eaten] after a biblical injunction [on the
first night of Passover], [and] if [the actual keeping of those grains] begins
with the harvest, or perhaps they can also be [kept] at the time of grinding
and kneading.
ANSWER: We have found this matter to be a thing of dispute between the
exponents of our religious laws. Now here you have the language of Rabbi
Yitzhaq al-Fasi in the Talmudic chapter, Kol Sha'ah: 'A man must preserve the flour [to be used
at] Passover from the time of its harvest. . .'
The Gaon, Rav Yehudai,[40] in
the book 'Halachoth Gedoloth,' [in] the chapter known as Kol Sha'ah,
wrote the following words: '[On] those two nights are we all required to eat massah
(unleavened bread) which has been kept under watch, and no man fulfills his
obligation save with the massah which has been kept from leavening. We
are [also] required to watch it at [the hour of] kneading, that it not come
into a state of leavening, as it is written: And thou shalt keep the unleavened
bread, [etc.]' (Exo.12:17) End quote. But now, if we should
diacritically analyze the words of the Gaon, of blessed memory, why has he
doubled his use of these words, [saying], 'we are [also] required,' when it was
sufficient [to say this thing] only once (either in the first or second
clause), if not that he most certainly held the same opinion of Rabbi Yitzhaq al-Fasi
and of Maimonides, and those that are with them, namely, that we require
watching [of that grain] at the hour of harvest! Wherefore, we find that his
intention in that first clause was to [infer] keeping a watch [over the grain]
from the very beginning, that is to say, from the hour of harvest. He then also
reiterated [that statement] in order to warn us about keeping it also at the
hour of kneading . . . But there is
another opinion concerning this [matter] by the other exponents of our
religious laws, of blessed memories. The Tur, [in] section # 503, has
written that there is no need to watch over it, except from the moment of
grinding, while Kol Bo on page 51.b has written that the choicest way of
performing this commandment is by keeping it from the hour of harvest . .
. Rabbeinu Asher, in the Talmudic
chapter, 'Kol Sha'ah,' page 132.b, has written extensively about this,
and it would seem there that his opinion is that [the grain] plainly requires
no watching, except from the hour of kneading and thereafter . . . The
conclusion of all that we have written [here] is that there are four opinions
to be had here in [the writings] of our exponents of Judaic law, of blessed
memories. The first is that opinion of Rabbi Yitzhaq al-Fasi, and of Baal
Halachoth Gedoloth, and of Maimonides, and of Sefer Mitzvoth Gedoloth,
and of the Rokah, and of Harashbatz, and of the Peri Hadash,
and of Orhoth Hayim, that we require keeping [of the grain] from the
hour of harvest, and that the validity of that unleavened bread is dependent
upon its being watched from that hour. Magid Mishne [41] has
also written that such has become the widespread practice. . . . The second
opinion is that of the Tur, of blessed memory, and the Kol Bo, in
the name of an anonymous teacher, as also Orhoth Hayim in the name of an
anonymous teacher. . . [whose opinions are] that watching over [the grain] is
not required, except at the hour of grinding and thereafter. This happens to be
[also] the opinion of Rabbeinu Nissim, of blessed memory. . . . Now, behold! I, the younger, have come
across a certain finding, [written] in one of the ancient books from the men of
Sanaa who were of eminent learning, [even] a Question & Response concerning
this [matter], part of which is in the Arabian tongue, which same language has
been copied out of the Arabian tongue in 'Hilkoth Hamess u'Massah.' [The
question begins by saying]: 'Our Rabbi has said that he who does not have
unleavened bread which has been [duly] watched, save only an olive's bulk, when
he finishes his supper with that unleavened bread which has not been watched
over, he makes the blessing: [Blessed art thou, O Lo-rd our G-d, King of the
Universe, who hast sanctified us by Thy commandments, and hast commanded us]
to eat unleavened bread, and then he proceeds to eat of that olive's
bulk, but does not taste anything after it. Is the unleavened bread mentioned
here [and] which has been watched over that [same] which has been taken from
the kept grain that is laid up with Israel from the hour of harvest, and it
[alone] is worthy of making over it a blessing, [i.e.], to eat unleavened
bread? [If so], it would naturally fall out [in this case], that that wheat
which the gentiles bring to the market place, and which we have no truthful
knowledge about it's nature, although its form would attest that no water had
fallen upon it, there is no permission to bless over the unleavened bread which
is made by it. Neither would one fulfill his obligation of unleavened bread by
it. Or, perhaps all [such grains used at the Passover] are called unleavened
bread which has been kept [from leavening], and it is still permissible to make
a blessing over it as well? [In this case], the word, kept, which has
been spoken here would have a different connotation [altogether]! We have [an
urgent] need to know this. What is that thing that is called unleavened bread
which has not been [duly] kept, about which it was said, when he finishes
his supper with that unleavened bread which has not been [duly] watched over?
Answer: Nothing can be called unleavened bread which one keeps a watch
over, save that unleavened bread which is made from wheat grains kept [in
preparation fitting for the Passover], and which they had been careful not to
bring into contact with [any] water from the hour of its harvest. We, moreover,
take this one extra precautionary measure with regard to them, [id est],
not to tread the wheat kernels used in [making] the unleavened bread with [any]
beasts, out of fear lest the beast should drop excrement, or saliva should fall
from his mouth upon it. Indeed, [if] he (the gentile) will reap them before an
Israelite, it is [still] fit. And he (the gentile) may thrash them with rods
before an Israelite, and store them away in a place where there is no concern
that water will penetrate therein. Behold! Wheat grains which have been
prepared in this manner, they are what is called unleavened bread kept [in
preparation fitting for the Passover], and it is this which is worthy of making
a blessing over, [Blessed art thou, O Lo-rd our G-d, etc. who hast
sanctified us, etc. and commanded us] to eat unleavened bread. And
let him eat with it the afikoman,[42] for
any unleavened bread which is not prepared after this manner is called
unleavened bread that has not been [duly] kept. Yet, he may eat of it during
all of [those remaining] days of Passover, since it was not known unto us
whether or not water had actually fallen upon it. This [ruling] is in
accordance with a principle with us [that states] we do not assume an ordinary
thing to be under a prohibition. Now, according to this, [all persons] are
required to watch over [their] grain crop used in making unleavened bread, as
the Blessed One has said: And thou shalt keep the unleavened bread (Exo. 12:17), meaning, keep it for the sake of unleavened bread.' Unto
here [we have copied down] his words.[43] Lo!
I have written unto you this Question & Response as a testimony that thus
was the practice plain unto the former [generations], [even] to be strict at this
[practice], and just as we, the offspring of their sons, [are wont to be] after
them . . . "
המקור:
שאלת ממני לבאר לך דעת הפו'
(הפוסקים) בענין שימור מצת מצוה דפסח אם היא משעת קצירה או אפילו משעת טחינה
ולישה.
תשובה: דבר זה מצאנוהו
במחלוקת בין הפוסקים והא לך ל' (לשון) הרי"ף בפ' (בפרק) כל שעה ומבעי ליה
לאיניש לנטורי קמחא דפסחא מעידן קצירה...
הגאון רב יהודאי בס' (בספר) הלכות גדולות פ' (פרק) כל שעה כ' (כתב)
וז"ל (וזה לשונו): והני תרין לילוותא מיחייבינן למיכל מצה דמנטרא ולא נפיק
איניש ידי חובתיה אלא במצה דמנטר לה מחמץ ומיחייבינן לנטורה ללישה דלא תיתי לידי
חימעא שנ' (שנאמר) ושמרתם את המצות עכ"ל (עד כאן לשונו). והשתא איכא לדייוקי
בדברי הגאון ז"ל (זכור לטוב) אמאי כפל הדברים זה פעמים ומחייבינן בחדא תסגי
ליה או בלישנא קמא או בבתרא, אלא ודאי דס"ל (דסבירא ליה) כסברת הרי"ף
והרמב"ם ודעימייהו דבעינן שימור משעת קצירה ונמצא א"כ כוונתו בפסקא קמא
למנטר לה מעיקרא דהיינו משעת קצירה והדר ג"כ (גם כן) אזהר לן למנטרה אף משעת
לישה... ויש סברא אחרת בזה לפוסקים אחרים
ז"ל, הטור סי' (סימן) תנ"ג כ' (כתב) דאין צריך לשמרן רק משעת טחינה והכל
בו דף נ"א ע"ב כ' (כתב) ומצוה מן המובחר לשמרה משעת קצירה... הרא"ש בפ' (בפרק) כל שעה דף קל"ב
ע"ב כ' (כתב) באורך בזה ודעתו נר' (נראה) שם פשוט דא"צ (דאין צריך)
שימור רק משעת לישה ואילך... העולה מכל מ"ש דארבע סברות יש כאן לפוסקי'
ז"ל. א' היא דעת הרי"ף ובה"ג והרמב"ם והסמ"ג והרוקח
והרשב"ץ והפר"ח והרח"א (אורחות חיים) דלעיכובא בעינן משעת קצירה
וכ' (וכתב) המ"מ (המגיד משנה) שכן המנהג הפשוט... הדיעה השנית היא דעת הטור ז"ל והכל בו בשם
י"א (יש אומרים) והאורחות חיים ב' (בשם) י"א (יש אומרים)... דא"צ
(דאין צריך) שימור רק משעת טחינה ואילך וזוהי דעת הר"ן ז"ל.... והנה אנכי הצעיר מצאתי מציאה בספר קדמון מחכמי
צנעא שאלה ותשובה על זה, קצתו בל' (בלשון) ערבי וז"ל (וזה לשונו) מועתק מל'
(מלשון) ערבי בהלכות חמץ ומצה. אמר רבי' (רבינו) מי שאין לו מצה משומרת אלא כזית
כשגומר סעודתו ממצה שאינה משומרת מברך על אכילת מצה ואוכל אותו כזית ואינו טועם
אחריו כלום אם זאת המצה המשומרת הנזכרת כאן היא הלקוחה מן החטים המשומר
אצל ישראל משעת קצירה והיא אשר ראוי לברך עליה על אכילת מצה. ויהיו החטים המביאים
הגוים לשוק אשר אין לנו ידיעה אמיתית בהם אבל צורתם מוכחת שלא נפל עליהם מים אין
התיר לברך על המצה הנעשית מהם על אכילת מצה ולא יצא ידי חובת מצה מהם או אם הכל
יקרא מצה משומרת ויהיה מותר לברך גם על זה והשימור הנאמר כאן יש לו כונה אחרת
צריכי' אנו לדעת זה ומהו הדבר שיקרא מצה שאינה משומרת אשר נאמר עליה כשגומר סעודתו
ממצה שאינה משומרת.
תשובה: לא תקרא מצה משומרת כי
אם המצה העשויה מחטים השמורים והנזהרים בהם מהמים מעת קצירתו ואנחנו נעשה בהם
זהירות ביותר שלא לדוש החטים של מצה ע"י בהמות מחשש פן תטיל הבהמה גללים או מים
יפלו מפיה עליו ואמנם יקצור אותם בפני ישראל כשר. ויחבוט אותם במקלות בפני ישראל
ויצניעם במקום שאין לחוש בו ממים הנה החטים הנעשים ע"ז (על זה) האופן הם אשר
יקראו מצה משומרת והיא אשר ראוי לברך עליה על אכילת מצה ויאכל ממנה האפיקומן. וכל
מצה שאינה עשויה על אופן זה תקרא מצה שאינה משומרת ויאכל ממנה כל ימי הפסח כיון
שאין ידוע לנו שנפל עליו מים כפי העיקר שבידנו אחזוקי איסורא לא מחזקינן.
ולפ"ז (ולפי זה) מחויבים לשמור דגן המצה לאמרו ית' (יתברך) ושמרתם את המצות
שמרוה לשם מצה. עכ"ל (עד כאן לשונו).
הנה כתבתי לך שאלה ותשובה זאת
לעדות שכך היה מנהג פשוט לראשונים להחמיר בזה וגם אנחנו בני בניהם אחריהם..."
19)
EXCERPT
FROM MAHARITZ's COMMENTARY KNOWN
AS "ZEVAH
TODAH" (On the Shulhan Arukh of Maran, Rabbi Yoseph
Karo)
(Shulhan
Arukh, Yoreh De'ah, H. Terefoth, section # 37, item 4)
[Concerning] an inflammatory swelling that is found on the extremity of
the lung, the habitual practice is to disallow [its eating] if there be not the
slightest amount of flesh which surrounds [the blain] on every side. By
'extremity' is meant the lower part of the lobe [of the lung] or the 'ear' [of
the lung], [etc.]
(Maharitz,
in his commentary known as "Zevah Todah," ibid.)
"Know [assuredly] that our custom is to declare fit the
inflammatory swelling which is on the extremity [of the lung], whether it was
on the ears [of the lung], or lobes [of the lung],[44] and
so did they testify in Hagash concerning [those] few places where they
eat [the animal that had] a blain on the extremity [of its lung]. And in [the
book], 'Shiltei Giborim,' [on] page 684, folio A, he brings down the
words of Halachoth Gedoloth, and concludes [by saying], 'there are those
who say that because this defect is not mentioned in the Talmud, we are not
able to add onto the defects [which already be], and [that] Rabbi Yaakov Halevi[45] was
among those who declared fit [such cases].' Unto here [we have copied down] his
words. Also, [that commentary known as] 'Ha-Mordecai,' page 730…, wrote
that Rabbi Y. of
המקור:
שו"ע: אבעבוע שנמצא בשפולי הריאה נוהגין
לאסור אם אין בשר כל שהוא מקיף בכל צד. ושפולי היינו תחתית האומא או האונה אבל לא
החתוכים שבין אונה לאונה.
פי' זבח תודה:
"דע
שמנהגנו להכשיר בועא בשפולי בין באונות בין באומות וכן העידו בהגא"ש על קצת
מקומות שאוכלים בועה בשפולי ובש"ג (ובשלטי גבורים) דף תרפ"ד ע"א
הביא דברי ה"ג וסיים וי"א דכיון דטרפות זה לא הוזכר בתלמוד אין להוסיף
על הטרפיות ור"י הלוי היה מהמכשירים. עכ"ל. גם המרדכי דף תש"ל ריש
ע"ד כ' (כתב) שר"י מוורמיש היה מתיר בועה בשפולי נגד ה"ג ועוד כ' שגם בגרמיזא
מתירין ומהרי"ל ג"כ (גם כן) העיד בספרו שבמגנזא ואוסטריך מתירין וגם
הר"ן כ' (כתב) בשם ב' (בעל) העיטור וז"ל (וזה לשונו) זה המנהג של
בה"ג (בני הגולה) בכל ארץ אשכנז ואין להוסיף על הטרפיות. גם מו"ז (מורי
זקני) כ' (כתב) מנהג זה להתיר וכ"ש במקומנו כאן שאין הגוים אוכלים משחיטת
הישראל דאין להחמיר. וכ"כ (וכן כתב) מ"י (מנחת יעקב) וז"ל (וזה
לשונו) ולענ"ד נר' (ולעניות דעתי נראה) דיש להקל בבהמת ישראל מאחר דכמה פו'
(פוסקים) כתבו להקל ובפרט כי מר"ן גופיה לא כתב אלא נהגו לאסרה משמע ולא
מדינא ולא כתבו רק כפי המנהג ולא כפי הדין. עכ"ל."
20)
EXCERPT
FROM MAHARITZ's COMMENTARY KNOWN
AS "ZEVAH
TODAH" (On the Shulhan Arukh of Maran, Rabbi Yoseph
Karo)
(Shulhan
Arukh, Yoreh De'ah, H. Terefoth, section # 39, item1)
It is not necessary to check after any defects, [hoping to find them],
out of those [organs] which have not been expressly stated, other than the
lung, for one must check [the lung] in domesticated animals and [in] wild
beasts if [perchance] there is in it an adhesion. And all who break down the
fence to eat, without checking, a snake [shall come and] bite him.
(Maharitz,
in his commentary known as "Zevah Todah," ibid.)
"And be apprised that here, in our place, [in] the land of Yemen,
the reticulum[48]
is most likely to be punctured by needles, on account of their being plenteous
here, and therefore, my teacher, [even] my grandfather, our teacher and Rabbi
Saleh, enacted and made it a practice (with the consent of the chief of [this] diaspora,
our teacher the Rabbi, Aaron the son of the honourable Rabbi Shalom Cohen
Araqi, whose inheritance is in Eden, as well as of the erudite men of his
generation) to check the reticulum in a thorough way, to see if there be any
perforation or needle [clinging to its wall], which becomes similar [in this
regard] to the lung, whom the Sages of blessed memories have required its
checking owing to the likelihood [of finding there a hole], etc. Now look at
the book, 'Devar Shemuel,' items # 208 and # 209 [who brings] support of
this …"
המקור:
שו"ע:
אין
(צריך) לבדוק אחר שום טרפות מן הסתם חוץ מן הריאה שצריך לבדוק בבהמה וחיה אם יש בה
סרכא. וכל הפורץ גדר לאכול בלא בדיקה ישכנו נחש.
פי' זבח תודה:
"דע
דבמקומנו זה ארץ התימן הועללו הבית הכוסות להנקב במחטים לרוב מציאותם כאן וע"כ
(ועל כן) תיקן והנהיג מו"ז
מהר"ץ (מורי זקני מורנו הרב צאלח) בהסכמת ראש הגולה מהר"ר אהרן
בן כה"ר (כבוד הרב) שלום הכהן עראקי נ"ע (נחלתו עדן) וחכמי דורו לבדוק
הבה"כ (הבית הכוסות) היטב לראות אם יש נקב או מחט ודמי לריאה שהצריכו
חז"ל (חכמים זכרונם לברכה) לבדקה מפני שעלולה וכו' ועיין בס' (בספר)
דב"ש (דבר שמואל) סי' ר"ח ור"ט סמך לזה..."
21)EXCERPT
FROM MAHARITZ's "TIKLAL ETZ HAYIM," or YEMENITE PRAYER BOOK (SIDDUR) OF THE BALADI-RITE:
(Vol. treating on the Three Festivals,
page 74, folio B – 75, folio A. First
Edition of 5731 Anno Mundi)
In
"The old custom here is to say 'we-ya'avor' ויעבור,
and so is it in all of the [Baladi-rite] prayer books (Tikalil). But now
this custom has been cancelled because of Rabbeinu Ha-Ari (R. Yitzhaq
Luria Ashkenazi), whose memory [lasts] unto the world to come. Yet, for naught,
they have rejected the former custom, since each river has its source. [49] Even
Rabbeinu Ha-Ari, of blessed memory, did not say [the thing], nor did it
come into his heart, in order to decide one way or the other, or to cancel the
customs of the ancients [in] the cities of their dwelling places. For his
special rules of practice were for himself alone, may he have peace, and for
those who were his contemporaries,[50] just
as it is known and as he [himself], of blessed memory, announced in his
Admonitions (Heb. "Azharoth"), [saying] that although he renewed
several matters [of an esoteric nature], notwithstanding, let each man hold on
to his [own] custom..."
המקור:
"המנהג הקדום בכאן לומר ויעבור וכן הוא בכל התכאליל ועכשיו
נתבטל המנהג מטעם רבי' האר"י (רבינו האלוהי רבי יצחק) זלה"ה (זכרו לחיי העולם הבא) ובחנם דחו
מנהג הראשון כי נהרא ונהרא ופשיטיה ואפילו רבי' האר"י ז"ל לא אמר ולא
עלתה על לבו להכריח ולבטל מנהגי הקדמונים מדינות מושבותיהם כי לא היו מנהגותיו רק
לו ע"ה (עליו השלום) ולאשר כגילו כנודע וכאשר הוגיע הוא ז"ל באזהרותיו
שאע"פ שחידש כמה עניינים עכ"ז (עם כל זה) כל א' יחזיק במנהגו..."
22) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol. I, Responsum # 24)
Yemenite
Jews have always followed the Massorah (Tradition of Writing the Divine Law) which
was bequeathed unto them from Aaron Ben-Asher, in the Aleppo Codex of the
Bible, or what is also known as "Keter Aram Tzova." Maimonides writes
(H. Sepher Torah, 8:4) that Ben-Asher was the sole authority whom all Jews
relied upon in his day, because of his having established an accurate tradition
of the words of the Law which was given to us at Sinai. This tradition has
about fourteen changes, in comparison to what we see today in the printed texts
of the Pentateuch. This has often led to no small confusion.[51]
"One of the people of understanding, may G-d keep him and give him
life, had difficulty with what is found [written] in all of our Torah scrolls,
in the section [known as] Sau (צו), where they
have made an open section in the verse which says, 'And the Lo-rd spoke,
[etc.] all suet' (כל חלב) (Lev.
7:22-23),[52] a thing not found in all of the
printed editions.[53] For
the printed editions have no space there at all, only in [the passage which
reads], 'And the Lo-rd spoke, [etc.] he who offers' (Lev.
המקור:
"הוקשה לא' ממשכילי עם הי"ו (השם ישמרהו ויחיהו) על מה
שנמצא בכל ספרי תורה שלנו בפ' צו שעשו פ' וידבר ה' דכל חלב פתוחה מה שלא נמצא בכל
הדפוסים. כי בדפוסים אין שם פסקא כלל רק בוידבר ה' דהמקריב שאחרי כל חלב וכו'.
ואייתי מתנייתא בידיה דברי הרב מהרי"ו (מורנו הרב יוסף) קארו ז"ל בס'
כ"מ (כסף משנה) שלו בה' ס"ת (בהלכות ספר תורה) פ"ח. דוידבר דכל חלב
אינו פרשה. . . ומדי חפשי במחברי המסורות
לידע על מה אדני ס"ת (ספרי תורה) שלנו הטבעו, ראיתי להרב א"ת (אור תורה)
ז"ל שהאריך בזה ובתחלה כתב וז"ל (וזה לשונו), זה שאתה רואה בספרי הדפוס
שאין פסקא בוידבר דכל חלב גם בס"ס (בספרי ספרד) אין בו פסקא, וגם הרמב"ם
לא מנהו. אך מצאתי כתוב שנמצא בג' ס"ת (ספרי תורה) ובחומשים מדויקים פתוחה.
וכ"מ (וכן משמע) בהללי ובמצרים ובירושלמיים, וגם בשני רמב"ם כ"י
מצאתיו נמנה עם הפתוחות. . . ומלבד זה
ידוע ומפורסם כי העתק שלנו הועתקו מספר שכתב רבינו הרמב"ם בכתב יד קדש שלו,
כמו שמעידים הסופרים בסופי התיגאן שהכל בצורת הפרשיות מלא וחסר כפי הספר שהיה
במצרים והגיהו בן אשר שנם רבות שאליו רמז רבינו בחבור. ואף במנין הדפים לא זזו
ימין ושמאל מסידור הרמב"ם, יען שהעתיקוהו ממש מספר שכתב הרמב"ם.
וא"כ (ואם כן) מי יערב אל לבו לשלוח יד לקלקל מה שתיקנו הם עפ"י
הרמב"ם. וכן מתפרש מלשונו בחיבור כמ"ש (כמו שכתבתי). בודאי דחוששני לו
מחטאת ואמינא ולא מסתפינא דכיון דכל ספרינו ראשונים ואחרונים כך הוא אין גם אחד
בהם פליג. בודאי אם המצא ימצא מעתה מי שירצה לכתוב פ' כל חלב סמוכה לזאת תורת זבח
בלא פסקא ולהחליפה בוידבר דהמקריב, שבודאי שאם עלה ירד כיון דלדידן מחזקינן להו
כמפי משה מפי הגבורה, כל שנמצא היפך מזה פסלינן ליה. הא למה זה דומה לכמה חסיר
ויתיר שנמצאו בספרינו היפך מהדפוסים והיפך מספרי אשכנז, שאם ימצא בא' מהם כנוסחת
הדפוס או כספרי אשכנז שפוסלין אותו. וכן הלכה רווחת בפי הקדמונים ושגורה בפי בניהם
אחריהם. . ."
23) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol. III, Responsum # 236)
A Child's First Haircut - Halagah
"The practice, when they begin to cut the hair of a small child of
about two or three years, is to make a supper at the commencement of his
[first] haircut, accompanied with dancing of merriment. And this supper is
called a religious ceremonial supper, and so have I heard [this] on several
occasions by my teacher [who was] my grandfather. Now it seems to have been
explained that anyone who vowed not to go into any voluntary supper [thrown at
large], or a disciple of the Sages who is not permitted to enjoy a voluntary
supper [thrown at large], at this supper they are permitted to go [there]. And
there is an explicit reference about this in the book, 'Gan Hamelech,'
by the Rabbi Aaron Halevi, in section # 62. Again, I found in the writings of
the Divine Rabbi Yitzhaq [Luria], of blessed memory, [that] anytime a man
performs a commandment, it is not enough that he [simply] does it. Rather, he
must intend thereby to perform the commandment of his Creator, in the thing
which He commanded him. So, too, [is the act of shaving the head and leaving
the side-locks]. For when a man gets a haircut, let him intend [thereby] that
he will not allow [the barber] to cut the side-lock of his head, on both sides,
neither will he destroy the corner of [his] beard, etc. So are his words. From
this, we learn also that it is [considered] a commandment (Heb. מצוה),
[simply] by not allowing [another] to shave his side-locks. And although this
[child] is yet small, the commandment rests squarely upon the father, just as
[in] all the other commandments that fall upon the father to perform for his
small son…"
המקור:
"הנהוג כשמתחילים לגלח לקטן כבן ב' או ג' תחלת תגלחת הקטן
עושים סְעוֹדָה ומחולות של שמחה ולזו הסעודה קורין לה סעודה של מצוה וכן שמעתי כמה
פעמים ממו"ז (ממורי זקני). ונ"מ (ונראה מפורש) למי שנדר שלא ליכנס לשום
סעודה של רשות או ת"ח (תלמיד חכמים) שאינו רשאי ליהנות מסעודת הרשות בסעודה
זו מותרים ליכנס ויש גילוי לזה בפירוש בס' (בספר) גן המלך להרא"ה בסי'
[ס"ב]. ושוב מצאתי בכתבי האר"י ז"ל בכל פעם שאדם עושה מצוה אין
מספיק במה שעושה אותה רק צריך שיכוין בעשייתה שמקיים מצות בוראו במה שצוהו. כך
(הפיאה). כי כשאדם מסתפר יכוין שאינו מניח שיחתכו לו הפיאה של ראש משי צדדיו וגם
אינו משחית פאת הזקן וכו' עכ"ל (עד כאן לשונו). ומזה אנו למדים ג"כ (גם
כן) שזו מצוה במה שאינו מניח לגלח הפיאות. ואע"פ שזה קטן הוא המצוה היא של אב
כשאר מצות שמוטל על האב לעשות לבנו קטן [מטעם חנוך] דוק (דקדק וקל להבין) ."
24) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA
"PE'ULATH SADIK:"
(Vol. I, Responsum # 48)
(The Yemenite custom in reading the Hallel
differs from that of other communities in
"The custom here since the days of old, with regard to [our]
reciting the Hallel[59] on
those days when we complete the Hallel,[60] is
this: The emissary of the congregation begins [by saying], 'Hallelu-Yah"
(Psalm 113:1), and the congregation says,
"Hallelu-Yah." Then he says, 'Hallelu 'Avdhei A-dhonai' (i.e. "Praise ye, Thou servants of the
Lo-rd"), and the congregation answers after him, 'Hallelu-Yah.' And so in this
way, [the word, 'Hallelu-Yah,' is repeated after each verse] until [he reaches the verse], 'Odhekha Ki 'Anithani, etc.'[61] (i.e. "I shall thank thee, for thou hast
answered me, etc.),
which thing is in keeping with Maimonides, in chapter three of Hilkoth
Hanukka, the twelfth ruling [there]. He finishes [there by saying], 'We
find that they repeat [the word], Hallelu-Yah, one-hundred and twenty-three
times. A sign of which [we also find] in the number of years attained by
Aaron.' Rav Hamagid[62] has
written that in like manner is it explained in the Midrash [known as] 'Tilim'
(Psalms). End Quote. .…Now this custom has been the custom of the ancient of
ancients, going back nearly as far as the Temple, just as it has been received
by us as a tradition, [namely], that all of our practices with regard to our prayers
are from the days of the destruction of the first Temple. For this [reason],
you will find that on account of that custom's beauty, and majesty, and
pleasantness, the mighty one of Israel, [even] Maimonides (peace be upon him),
has praised it when he said that he had seen different customs with regard to
reading the Hallel, but this custom was the custom of the early Sages, and it
was worthy of emulating…"
המקור:
המנהג בכאן מימי קדם בקריאת
ההלל בימים שגומרים בהם את ההלל כך הוא: מתחיל ש"צ (שליח ציבור) הללויה
והצבור אומרים הללויה. והוא אומר הללו עבדי ה' והצבור עונים אחריו הללויה
וע"ד (ועל דרך) זה עד אודך כי עניתני וכו' והוא עפ"י הרמב"ם
פ"ג (פרק ג') מה' חנוכה דין י"ב וסיים. נמצאו עונין הללויה קכ"ג
(פעמים) סימן להם שנותיו של אהרן. וכ' (וכתב) הרב המגיד שכן מבואר במדרש תִּלִּים
עכ"ל... ומנהג זה מנהג קדמונים
דקדמונים כמעט מימי הבית כמקובל בידינו שכל מנהגותינו בעניני תפלות מימות חרבן בית
ראשון ולזה תמצא שליפיו והדרו ונעמו של מנהג זה קלסיה אביר ישראל הרמב"ם ע"ה
(עליו השלום) באמרו שראה מנהגים שונים בענין קריאת ההלל ומנהג זה מנהג חכמים
ראשונים ובו ראוי לילך...
25) EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's "MEGILLATH TEIMAN" or
"THE SCROLL OF
(Taken from a broken manuscript copied from the
handwriting of Maharitz, and which has since been transcribed into print, with
annotations & ca. Maharitz was twice
acknowledged as the author of this work, once by himself who wrote:
"Now I, the younger, Yehia Saleh, saw in a page of the Zohar, etc.,"
and once by the copyist himself, Yehudah Qarwani, in the colophon of the
manuscript. Many of the words in this broken manuscript were reconstructed by a
second manuscript belonging to a certain Ezra Jamil of Tel-Aviv.)
A DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPULSION OF JEWS FROM SANAA
"… In the year [of Alexander][63] one
thousand, nine-hundred and eighty-two (
המקור:
"[בשנ]ת אתתקפ"ב מת המלך אסמאעיל והיה רעב וימותו רבים.
וימלך תחתיו אחמד בן חסן והוא אל[חסני אשר]
גירש את התורגמים וימלוך בחזקה ויהי איש מצליח וילך אלשאם וילכדה וילך
אליאפע וילכדה [...] [ובשנ]ת אתתקפ"ז החריב בתי כנסיות של יהודים ובשנת
אתתקפ"ח היה רעב ובשנת אתתקפ"ט הגלה א[ת ישראל] [א]ל מדבר מוז"ע
והוא מקום רע וחם ואו[יר] רע לא יוכל איש להלך על גבי קרקע מרוב [היגיעה] והחלודה
זה [העולה] ברגלים. ובצאת היהודים מעיר צנעא אל מדבר מוזע היה אחד גוי והפקידו
אצלו כמה ספרי תורה [וכמה ספרי] [תל]מוד ומקרא ומדרשים כי לא לנשאם מפני טורח הדרך
ונתגרשו הם ונשיהם וטפם וספרים אלו [כמעט] [מלאים] חדר גדול כי סבורים היו שיפייסו
למלך ויחזרו ללקחם. ויהי בצאתם ויקם הרשע ההוא ויצת [אש] בם וישרפם כולם. ובאותו
עת דלה יד ישראל בכל ענין ממיעוט ספריהם וחידושיהם ולא נשאר [רק] [מ]עט מן המעט
אשר לקחו בידם לצורך עיונם ומדי עברם בדרך וכמ[ה] [מש]פחות ספו תמו והוגד לנו כי
כמו פ' נפש מתו בנסיעתם והיא היתה שבת בחוקתי ויקם הגדול שבהם [לקרות] בתורה
וכשהגיע לפסוק והבאתי אתכם [ב]ארץ איביכם או אז יכנע לבבם וכהשלים התחיל [לדרו]ש
ורוח נוססה בו ויאמר כי זאת הגזרה מראש מקדם נסוכה שמורה ערוכה בס"ת (בספר
תורה) אויביהם [או אז] יכנע לבבם ס"ת (סופי תיבות) מוזע. ולסוף השנה ריחם
הש"י (השם יתברך) ונתפייס המלך להחזיר היהודים אבל לא לחזור [לבת]יהם כי אם
לבנות להם בתים חוץ לעיר ויהי כן." זה שמצאתי בהעתק ר' יחיא בן ר' יוסף בן
צאלח ואני המעתיק יהודה בן יוסף בן משה בן שלמה בן דוד בן סעדיה בן יחיא מכונה קרואני
ז"ל. תם.
[1] The Ashkenazim make
separate blessings on the two Tefillin (head & arm phylacteries), according
to the teachings found in Rabbeinu Asher, Tur and in Rabbi Moshe Iserlische.
[2] q.v. Midrash Tanhuma, Parashath
Bo, end (Exodus
[3] The acronym stands for: H=חנוך, L=למך, N=נח. In actuality, there are differences between them.
[4] Lit. "[each day]
made up of twenty-four astronomical hours"
[5] Meaning, the blood locked up within the meat will no longer ooze out.
[6] See: Maimonides'
"Mishne Torah," Hilchoth Ma'achaloth Asuroth 6:7.
[7] It was enacted that the
priests of Aaron's lineage should say, upon concluding the blessing which they
make while standing before the people with their arms outstretched: "We
have done that which thou hast decreed upon us. Even so, do with us what
thou hast promised us. Look down from thy holy dwelling place, from the
heavens, and bless thy people, [even]
[8] There, we find it
written: "There, we recite [in our Mishnah]: 'Rabban Gamliel says the
emissary of the congregation fulfills the obligation of the majority.' Rabbi
Huna the Great of Sepphoris [said] in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that the
halachic ruling is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel during those [days of the
horn] blasts. (i.e. New Year's Day), etc.
[9] This long, drawn-out expression in English is defined by one word in Hebrew, Viz., והשיהוי.
[10] Lit., "covering over
with ashes & brushing aside."
[11] i.e., Friday, or the day
before the Sabbath.
[12] The word used in Hebrew is, בני עליה, an expression found in the Talmud meaning, literally, "sons of the ascension." In the "Pesikta deRav Kahana," the word has been explained to mean, "those destined for the world to come."
[13] African rue, or what is sometimes called, "Wild White Rue" (Peganum harmala). In modern Hebrew, the plant is called שַׁבָּר לָבָן. The same result can be had by bleaching wheat with a type of sorrel leaf (Rumex nervosus), the stratified layers of these leaves left on the wheat for about one week.
[14] i.e. after
[15] The city here referred to
is
[16] i.e., in the Jewish cemetery.
[17] Radbaz, in responsum # 514, had
responded to a
query where the inquisitor had mentioned Rabbi Yoel Ha-Levi's Questions &
Responsa and his view that there must always be a cutting down of the
ceremonial object by the gentile, himself, as also a purchasing of that
ceremonial object by the Jew for it to be of any validity to Jews who would
make use of those objects. (see: Succah 30. a-b, s.v. אונכרי)
[18] i.e., Without the
consent and approval of the owner of the land.
[19] Since that land and its encumbrances
were conferred upon the squatters/thieves by the court.
[20] The Hebrew words used
here are literally, "tables made from basket fronds." Maharitz
was, no doubt, alluding to the Arabic word, "mayda," (lit.
table) used to describe these baskets when writing this responsum. Large,
wooden tables customarily found in the West were not used in
[21] Written by Rabbi Moshe
Hajiz (1672-1751). See: "Leket Hakemah," (Hilkoth Shabbath),
Part II, 20.
[22] A collection of rulings
from Rabbinic Courts, compiled by Rabbi Abraham ben Mordecai Ha-Levi
(1650-1712), and published first in
[23] The Questions & Responsa written by Rabbi Abraham ben Mordecai Ha-Levi (1650-1712).
[24] "pesiq
reisheh" is an expression often employed in the Talmud when referring
to the Sabbath day, and meaning literally, "the severing of a chicken's
neck." It is used to imply that a man cannot say that he only needs the
head of a live chicken for his child's play. For by severing the head from the
neck of the chicken on the Sabbath day (to be used strictly as a child's toy),
he brings death upon the chicken, and becomes thereby culpable for violating
the Sabbath. The alibi that he never intended to kill the chicken does not hold
up, in this case, since it was obvious to all that the chicken would die.
[25] Such is the conclusion of
the Gemara (Berachoth 43.b), where we find there that the prohibition of
wearing perfume only applies to where men were suspected of having illicit
connexions, and this, too, applied only when the perfume was worn on his
clothes, but not on his body. For the sweat of one's body removes the scent of
the perfume.
[26] The man who did so was
formerly suspected of drawing illicit attention unto himself, in order to give
himself over to lechery and to vice, and to unnatural connexions.
[27] Perhaps the reference
here is to Rab Pappa in Berachoth 43.b, where one disciple of the Sages
says in his name, "a man's hair is like unto his clothes" (i.e.
forbidden), while another disciple reported in his name, "a man's hair is
like unto his body" (i.e. permitted).
[28] We also find in Sifra
that the ancient custom in
[29] This is so only when the
word, שְׁמֵיהּ,
is written without the letter "Yod," as in שְׁמֵהּ.
[30] In the handwritten manuscript of "Etz Hayyim," Maharitz had written here, "two times." This mistake was later emended with the printed edition of 1894.
[31] The ancients knew these
as Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Mars, Jupiter, the Sun and the Moon.
[32] Hebrew lit., "stations," or "camps."
[33] A lunar month is always
made up of appx. 29 and one-half days, and forty-five minutes, but the first
day is not considered as a phase, since the New Moon is not usually seen in the
night sky when it begins its new cycle.
[34] That is to say, the
last letter of this word.
[35] The young girl always sat
in an inner room, or chamber, beside her mother and friends, and an elderly woman
known as "the dresser." This inner chamber was symbolic in that when
the groom had finished making the statement of betrothal, the young girl's
father immediately stood up and took out a key, and opened the door of the
"inner chamber," signifying that his daughter is capable of receiving
her own betrothals. ("Halichoth Teman," pg. 142)
[36] Rabbi Yoseph Kapah, in "Halichoth
Teman," says that the groom usually received the silver coin as a gift
from his mother. According to Shoshanna Cohen, in some cases, the young girl
was betrothed by her husband one month before the actual marriage, in the
presence of ten adult men of
[37] Thus does Rabbi Yoseph
Kapah bring down this practice in his "Halichoth Teman," first
edition, pg. 142. However, this is not stated in the Tiklal.
[38] Which blessing is:
"Blessed art thou O Lo-rd our G-d, King of the Universe, who hast
sanctified us by Thy commandments, and hast distinguished us from [all] acts of
fornication, and hast made forbidden unto us those women who are betrothed
[unto us], but hast permitted unto us those women who are married [unto us], by
way of the canopy and kiddushin. Blessed art thou O Lo-rd who sanctifies
[39] According to Rabbi Yoseph
Kapah in "Halichoth Teman," the father of the groom fills up the
second cup, after the groom and the Mori have, both, drunk from that first cup.
[40] Perhaps Maharitz
was relying upon his edition of "Halachoth Gedoloth," published by a
[41] Rabbi Vidal of Tolosa
(known also as, Harav Hamagid), who wrote an excellent commentary on
Maimonides "Mishne Torah."
[42] i.e., that unleavened bread which is put aside for the very last part of the Passover supper, in remembrance of the Passover lamb or kid of the goats which was eaten only after the party had been filled and satisfied with the main course of the meal. The word, "afikoman," is a loan-word from the Greek, literally meaning the desserts offered after a supper, such as nuts, almonds, dates and raisins, and roasted seeds, &c. Since it was not lawful to eat desserts, or anything else, after eating the Passover lamb, the "afikoman" (or what is now "unleavened bread") has come in place of that sacrifice.
[43] Believed to have been the
response of Rabbi Yehia b. Suleiman al-Tabib (known also as Zechariah Harofe).
[44] Note: This remained the
customary practice in
[45] Variant: Rabbi Yehudah
Halevi
[46] A place in
[47] A place in S.W. Central
Germany, along the
[48] i.e., the second stomach of cows and other ruminants, into which the coarse food regurgitated from the rumen is reswallowed. (Webster's Dictionary)
[49] A proverb often found in the book of Israel's great expositors, meaning, we have no authority to cancel the ancient custom of any particular group, since every group has learned its practice from a reliable source.
[50] The Hebrew, ולאשר כגילו ,
carries also the sense of "he was born under the same horoscope influences."
[51] To our great dismay and
consternation, much of the Aleppo Codex's section of the Pentateuch was
destroyed by fire in December of 1947. Only portions of Deuteronomy and those
books of the Prophets (excluding Kings) and the Hagiography were preserved.
However, a second codex of the Bible, known as the Leningrad B 19a Codex, has
been preserved intact. It, too, contains the proofread texts of Aaron
Ben-Asher, written in
[52] In Hebrew, the Scripture
reads: וידבר יי' אל
משה לאמר דבר אל בני ישראל לאמר כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו וגו'
[53] In the printed editions, this
passage of Scripture is made without an open or closed section.
[54] This important work was written by R. Menahem Lunzano.
[55] The word used here is ירושלמיים,
which word has been used of old to represent those books containing an accurate
rendition of the Massorah, or the Hebrew tradition of writing the words in the
Law, with their accents and vocalizations. These books were written in the
[56] See: Maimonides' Mishne
Torah, Hilkoth Sepher Torah, ch. 8, vs. 4.
[57] According to the Yemenite
tradition, there are a total of 226 columns in the entire Scroll of the Law. (כמנין רכ"ו).
[58] See the Yemenite handwritten manuscript of Maimonides' Mishne Torah, Hilkoth Hanukka 3:12-ff.
[59] The "Hallel,"
or "Praise," is a collection of Psalms said together by the
congregation. They comprise Psalm 113-Psalm 118.
[60] i.e., on the first day of
Passover, the festival day of "Shavuoth," the eight days of "Sukkoth,"
and the eight days of Hanukka.
[61] i.e., Psalm 118:21, when they begin
here to repeat the words of each verse.
[62] Rabbi Vidal of Tolosa
[63] Also known as the
Seleucid Era, but often called by Jews, "the Era of Contracts" (למנין שטרות),
which counting begins in the sixth year of Alexander the Great (cf. Rabbeinu
Hananel in Avod. Zar. 10.a), which same year corresponds with 3449 Anno
Mundi, which was also the 41st year after the rebuilding of the second
[64] The exploits
aforementioned were said to have been done by Ahmad's father, Hassan, who was a
brother of the former king, Isma'el. Ahmad accompanied his father in his
battles. Yafa' is a place in the far south of
[65] Perhaps on account of its
proximity to the coastal region of
[66] The words here in the
brackets have been completed on account of a second manuscript which has here מרוב היגיעה.
[67] This reading falls in mid-Summer.
[68] The wording used here, מראש מקדם נסוכה,
was taken from the liturgical poem "Lekha Dodhi," written by Rabbi
Shlomo al-Kabetz Halevi , and read aloud in the synagogues on the night of the
Sabbath. The phrase also alludes to the Sabbath. For each of the Hebrew letters
of the word, ראש , come in their order of sequence directly before the Hebrew
letters in the word, שבת. However, in our case, the plain sense was obviously intended
here.