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 YEMEN. HIS WRITINGS ARE HELD IN GREAT ESTEEM BY THE ARDENT FOLLOWERS OF THE "BALADI RITE," AND HAVE BECOME THE "FINAL VOICE" IN HALACHIC MATTERS WHERE DISPUTES HAVE RISEN. A FORMER STUDENT & DISCIPLE OF RABBI DAOUD MISHREQI (AUTHOR OF COMMENTARY "SH'TILEI ZEITIM" ON THE SHULHAN ARUKH), AND GRANDSON OF ONE OF THE LEADING RABBIS OF SANAA (MORI SALEH), HIS LOVE FOR THE TORAH AND FOR ISRAEL, AND HIS ZEAL TO PRESERVE OLD YEMENITE CUSTOMS AMIDST CHANGING TRENDS, EVENTUALLY GAVE HIM THE RESPECT OF ALL THE JEWS OF YEMEN. BY 1795 C.E., HE WAS ONE OF THREE JUDGES IN THE COURT AT SANAA. HE IS THE AUTHOR OF MORE THAN EIGHT WORKS, MANY OF WHICH ARE QUOTED HERE, IN THESE PAGES. MAHARITZ PASSED AWAY INTO THE OTHER WORLD IN 1805 C.E.

 

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 Yemen being the place of Maimonides, and if one is permitted to change his customs.

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 Yemen in 1797 C.E.

Excerpt # 12-   On shaving one's head during the counting of the Omer.

Excerpt # 13-   On the practice in Yemen to cut down palm-branches (lolabim) from gardens belonging to gentiles.

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. Israel), and Egypt and the land of Yemen are the places of Maimonides, and this fact is well-ascertained by the books and by all the people. Yet, HASHKAG, in Section 128, has written that the land of the West (i.e. Israel) is also the place of our Rabbi, [author] of the "Beth-Yoseph" (meaning, R. Yoseph Karo). Now I have learned from HASHKAG there, in his commentary "Hagahath HaTur," that if there is a dispute regarding the practice of any ruling brought down between Maimonides and the Rabbi of the "Beth-Yoseph," we practice the ruling as it is brought down in Maimonides, even in the place [where the majority of the people adhere to] the "Beth-Yoseph." But in the other issues where Maimonides has not disputed, or where he has made no mention of the ruling in his own words but are mentioned in the words of the "Beth-Yoseph," we then practice according to the "Beth-Yoseph," even if all other exponents on the Halacha disagree with him. Look there, [at his commentary]. Now this thing agrees also with common sense, before even looking at the words of HASHKAG."

 

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  ISRAEL:

(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 Yemen in anno 1797 C.E.

(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 noon, there was a great rain fall in all of the cites. There was not a place where rain had not fallen, while His lightning illuminated the world. The world had found reprieve. Blessed be He who takes mercy upon the earth. Blessed be He who takes mercy upon his creations, may His name be blessed forever!"

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 Yemen to cut down lolabim (palm branches) from gardens belonging to gentiles, after being given consent from their owners. Maharitz had long been perplexed about what he heard from some exponents of the laws who taught that Israel should always purchase from non-Jews such ceremonial objects as citrons, palm-branches, etc. when they came from gardens owned by gentiles. Moreover, it was not permissible for Jews to cut them down themselves. For, otherwise, those objects were deemed as stolen, by reason of the plot of ground on which they grew (i.e. property assumed to have been stolen). But in Yemen, the Jews had always asked permission from the gentile landowners to cut down the palm-branches used by them during Sukkoth, without actually buying them. The responsum of Radbaz allayed all doubts with Maharitz that what the Jews of Yemen practiced in their own land was proper. For the land owned by non-Jews in Yemen was also land which had been stolen (often from the Jews, as in the case of Galuth Mawza, when the entire Jewish population of Sanaa was transferred to a different section of the city). This new "ownership of land" by the non-Jews had the approbation of the king, meaning the land was "legally" the property of him who owned it today. This made it possible for the Jews of Yemen to simply ask permission to take away from their gardens all ceremonial objects such as citrons or palm-branches, without having to purchase them. This is the gist of the matter.

"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 Israel is permitted to glean citrons with his own hand, to fulfill [thereby] his obligations. It is still possible that in those places where there was a landlord of that garden, his case was not so (i.e., his inheritance came unto him without thievery or brigandage), and that he wrote what he wrote (i.e., Rabbi Yoel Ha-Levi, in his responsa[17]) according to that ruling which is found in the Talmud. However, in this place (Egypt), there is not even the slightest doubt here! We have not seen, neither have we heard about anyone who was ever meticulous about this [issue]. It is, [moreover], a well-known thing, and no man has ever raised an objection [in an attempt to repeal the practice]. Know, then, that there is no need for this explanation, except for him who does the gleaning by himself.[18] But he who would buy from them [the gleaned product, though the land had been stolen], it is obvious that he fulfills [thereby] his obligations, for there has been an act of despairing [by the rightful owner][19], as well as a change of domain. Thus is it plainly explained in the Gemara.' So far his words. Now although Hashach (an acronym for 'Siftei Cohen' on the Shulhan Arukh) and Hasama' (Sefer Meirath Ainayim) in Hoshen Mishpat [of the Shulhan Arukh], section # 369, ruled that we do not say, 'The law of a Government is the law of the land,'  except in cases where there is pleasure derived thereby [for the king], rather, the practice is only such in courts of law, but not that they are called, 'the law of a Government is the law of the land.' [Here], the Rabbi and author of the work, 'Kerem Shelomoh,' in the order known as Hoshen Mishpat, section # 31, in the name of several of our great Rabbis, both former and latter, has already contradicted them! He concludes [there] that the halachic ruling is not in accordance with Hasama' and Hashach, of blessed memories. Therefore, I say that the custom of Israel is as the instruction of the Law, and from it you shall not move! May the name of the blessed G-d enlighten our eyes by the light of his Law. Amen, may it be his will."

 

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, 6-7 inch high Osier* baskets were commonly used throughout the year, in Yemen, as a table on which bread was set, or even a hot, soap-stone porringer carrying cooked wheat kernels, or hominy. Subsequently, they required cleaning for use during the Passover holiday. This responsum treats on the proper method used in cleaning them.)

 

"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 Israel's scholars]."

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 Yemen, these baskets were not made from osier, or willow branches, but rather from the split fronds of date palm trees.

 

 

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 5:19, where he wrote that a disciple of the Sages must abstain from wearing perfume because of the suspicion he would cause by wearing it. So, too, Maharitz proves here –as he is so good at doing- that the Yemenite practice & custom had that on which to rely, namely, on Berachoth 43.b, wherein the Gemara concludes that this prohibition only applies to places where men are suspected of having unnatural connexions, and only when the perfume is worn on his clothes- but not on his body. So, too, Maharitz treats on the religious implications of wearing perfume on the Sabbath day.)

 

"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 midday till nightfall is another [division in] time. The night is also broken down into two [divisions in] time. They, [too], have their prototypes in the seven planetary bodies,[31] and [in] the twenty-eight phases[32] of the moon. [33] Likewise, you find [the words of that verse]: The Lo-rd has founded the earth by wisdom, [etc.]ייי' בחכמה יסד ארץ כונן שמים בתבונה (Prov.3:19) are made up of seven expressions, and twenty-eight letters. Likewise [do we find this same numerical representation] in the verse: In the beginning, [G-d] created [the heavens and the earth] (Gen. 1:1), בראשית ברא א-להים את השמים ואת הארץ [which is made up of] seven words and twenty-eight letters' . . . I have also noticed that, behold, many of the kabbalists also agree with the opinion of those great men whom I have already mentioned, which is also in accordance with [certain] esoteric teachings [of theirs]. Now, here, you have what was written by the divine kabbalist, our teacher the Rabbi, even Rabbi Moshe Kalitz, in [his book of ethics and prayers known as] Sefer Hamusar, of which this is his language: 'He who repeats [that part of the Kadish] must answer from Amen till Olemayyo, and no further, for there are twenty-eight letters, etc.' Let him look there [for a more thorough look at this subject]. . . . And in another place, [the kabbalist known as Rabbi Ya'akov Semach] wrote: 'Amen, may his great name be blessed, etc. are made up of eight words, representing the eight days of circumcision, and one begins with [the letter] Aleph [in] Amen, and concludes with [the letter] Aleph in Olemayyo,[34] an allusion to the most Holy, blessed be He, [who is] the sole entity in the two worlds. Likewise has he written [this] in the book, Ma'arecheth Haelohuth, after an esoteric manner, opposite that which was written by MAHARIG on page 206, folio A. So, too, has our teacher, the Rabbi Shalom Korah, explained in [his] book, 'Seguloth,' based upon the Tikunim, Tikun # 25. Let him look there [at that work] . . ."

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 Yemen, marriages were usually conducted in the home of the bride.[35] Once the families and guests had gathered there, the Mori would read aloud the marriage contract drawn up by the groom. Immediately following the reading, the Mori would commence by asking the groom to repeat after him the designated blessings. The practice of Israel since ancient times was for the bridegroom to take out a silver coin from his purse[36] and to show it to the Mori who officiates over the wedding, as also to one of the witnesses. When they have returned the coin to the groom, he takes the second cup of wine and says to his bride, "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." And if she were not a virgin, but a widow or a divorced woman, he would say, "…and you, the widow bride, etc." or, "…and you, the divorced bride, etc." Thus is it stated in the Baladi-rite prayer book. Witnesses stand one on each side of the bridegroom. She then takes the cup from his hand, and drinks from it a little, while the witnesses look on. She returns the cup to the groom, and he, at this time, gives her the silver coin, and says: "Behold, you are sanctified unto me by this silver, according to the religion of Moses and Israel."[37] What remains of the wine is poured out.

 

"… 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 Yemen, preparations for Passover began on the first day following Purim, when the millstones were chiseled in order to remove from them all leavening agents. As early as Sukkoth (five months prior), the grain crop was ready for harvesting in Yemen, when the reapers would go forth into the fields after midday (in the afternoon), at a time when there was no dew clinging to the stalks of grain, and reap a medium sized sheaf, cutting each grain stalk one by one, which was neither over-ripe nor green. This was repeated until the desired number of sheaves had been acquired. Afterwards, the sheaves were laid out in the sun to dry, or in a dry place protected from moisture. After the kernels of wheat had fully dried, they were taken up to be thrashed by the aid of a rod, onto a threshing floor overlaid with stone. No bull or cow was used to tread the grain taken for Passover. Once the kernels and chaff were separated from their stalk, the grain was winnowed by casting it into the air, allowing the wind to drive away the chaff. The clean product was then taken up and put into earthenware jars. Afterwards, the grain was again sorted, checking each kernel one by one, while they were laid out on a clean and straight table. Any bad wheat was discarded. The clean, whole-wheat kernels were then stored in a sealed container made of baked clay, and kept there until Purim, while laid-up in a cool place. Those who wanted a white flour would bleach the wheat by a process of stratification. (See: Excerpt # 10 in this work) When the millstones were chiseled afresh, they began the process of grinding the wheat into flour. Kneading, at Passover, was always done in earthenware tubs.

 

"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 Worms[46] used to permit [the eating of that animal which had] a blain on the extremity [of its lung], contrary to Halachoth Gedoloth. He wrote, furthermore, that also in Germiza they permit [its eating], and that Maharil (Rabbi Yaakov b. Moshe Molin Halevi) also testified in his book that in Magenza[47] and Austria they permit [its eating]. Also Rabbeinu Nissim wrote in the name of Baal Ha-Itur, of which this is his language: 'This is the custom of the sons of exile, in all of the land of Ashkenaz, and no one [is permitted] to add onto the [seventy] defects [that already be.]' Also, my teacher who was my grandfather (Mori Saleh) has written that the custom here is to permit [its eating], and how much more in our place, here, seeing that the gentiles will not eat of the slaughter made by Israel! For no one should be [forced to act] stringently [about it]. Likewise did [the author of] Minhath Yaakov write [about this subject], whose words are as follows: 'But it would seem, in my most humble opinion, that we should ease all strictures over that animal which belongs to Israel, since several exponents of our laws have written to ease [such] strictures, and especially since Maran, himself, did not write [that it is forbidden] rather [said] that they habitually practiced its disallowance. By this we can infer that it is not an [inviolable] rule….' "

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 Yemen, the thirteen attributes of G-d (e.g. E-l, Rahum waHanun, Erech Apayyim, etc.) were formerly said on Hoshanna Rabba, the seventh day of Sukkoth. This practice had been changed by the time of Maharitz, owing to the kabbalistic works of Rabbi Yitzhaq Luria which had penetrated into Yemen. In this discourse, Maharitz seeks to revive the old custom.

 

"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. 7:28-29), which comes after [the passage], 'all suet.' And he brought with him the teaching of the Rabbi, [even] our teacher the Rabbi Yoseph Karo, of blessed memory, in that book of his [known as] 'Keseph Mishne,' in chapter eight of [Maimonides'] Hilkoth Sepher Torah, [where he said] that the passage, 'And the Lo-rd spoke, [etc.] all suet,' is not a section…   And when I searched the [various] compositions treating on the Massorah, to know upon what the sockets of our books of the Law have been sunken down into, I saw in [the book], 'Or Torah,' where [the author][54], of blessed memory, elaborated on this [topic], and at the very beginning [of that work] he wrote the following: 'While you see in the printed books that there is no space made at [the passage], And the Lo-rd spoke, [etc.] all suet, [etc.], also in the books of Spain there is no space [made there], and also Maimonides did not enumerate it, despite all this, I found a [certain] writing where there was found an open section in three scrolls of the Law, and in accurate codices of the Five Books of Moses. And so would it appear in the Halleli [Codex], and in the Egyptian [codices], and in the codices of the Bible from the land of Israel.[55] Also, in two handwritten manuscripts of Maimonides' [Mishne Torah], I found it (i.e. the verse in Lev. 7:22-23) enumerated with the open sections.' [END QUOTE] …And besides this, it is known and popularly acclaimed that our copy [of the Law of Moses] was copied [directly] out of the Scroll which Rabbeinu, R. Moses ben Maimon, wrote in his own holy handwriting, just as the scribes attest in the colophon of their Bible codices, that all [things], [whether it be] in the form of the sections, superfluous and deficient [letters, etc.] are in accordance with that book which was in Egypt, and [which] Ben-Asher proofread many years, [and] which Maimonides alluded to in his Composition.[56] Even in the numeration of the columns,[57] they have not moved right or left from that arrangement [given by] Maimonides, because they had copied it literally from the book that Maimonides wrote. Wherefore, who is it that will fain send forth his hand to spoil that which they have [already] emended according to [the writings of] Maimonides? So too is it explained in his own words in his composition (i.e., Mishne Torah), just as I have written. Certainly, I would have fears about him that he'd committed a [grievous] sin, and I would tell him and not be ashamed, since [in] all of our books [of the Law], [both], former and latter, this is the way it is. There is not even a single one amongst them that contradicts [this]! Surely, if anyone could find now [a person] who would wish to write the passage of 'all suet' (כל חלב) (Lev. 7:22-23) joined to [the one that reads], 'This is the law of ritual slaughter' (Lev. 7:11-21), without a space [before its commencement], and to exchange it for [the passage which reads], 'And [G-d spoke, etc.] he who offers, etc.,' [which for us is neither an open or closed section], certainly if, at first, he had gone up, he has now come down! For with us, we regard them as from the mouth Moses [who, in turn, received them] from the mouth of the Omnipotent. Anything which is found differently we render as invalid. Behold, to what is this like? It is like the deficient and superfluous [letters] found throughout our books [of the Law], [some of which are found to be] opposite [the Massorah] which is in the printed books, or opposite [the Massorah] in the books of Ashkenaz. For if there is found in one of them (i.e., in the Scrolls of Yemen) like unto the version of the printed texts, or like unto the books of Ashkenaz, we render it invalid!  And so is this halachic practice widely spread in the mouths of the ancients, and well-versed in the mouths of their sons after them…."

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 Israel. The congregation attentively listens to the one reading, without repeating the words of the Hallel themselves. Rather, they only repeat the word, "Hallelu-Yah," in a repetitious manner, after each verse. "Hallelu-Yah" is repeated 123 times, like the number of years attained by Aaron. Only in four designated places will they repeat the words of the verses themselves, but soon revert back to saying, "Hallelu-Yah." Yet, when they reach Psalm 118:21, they begin repeating the words of each verse unto the end of the Psalm. The only exception are the words, "Barukh Haba" ("Blessed be he that comes"), where the congregation repeats, instead, "Beshem A-dhonai."[58] This practice is mentioned in the Talmud, Sukkah 38.a - 38.b)

 

"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 YEMEN"

        (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 (1671 C.E.) the King [named] Isma'el died, and there was a famine, and many died. Then Ahmed, the son of Hassan, reigned in his stead, who was called al-[Hassani, who] expelled the Turks, and ruled by force, and was a man of exploits, and went up north and captured [those districts], and went [as far as to] al-Yafa' [64] and captured it… and in the year [of Alexander] one thousand, nine-hundred and eighty-seven (1676 C.E.), he destroyed the synagogues of the Jews. Then in the year [of Alexander] one thousand, nine-hundred and eighty-eight (1677 C.E.) there was [another] famine, and in the year one thousand, nine-hundred and eighty-nine (1678 C.E.), he expelled Israel unto the desert of Mawza, which is a bad place, and [one of excruciating] heat; its air being bad.[65] No man could proceed upon the ground on account of their over [weariness][66] and the blisters which affected [their] feet. Now when the Jews left the city of Sanaa towards the desert of Mawza, there was a certain gentile whom they committed unto his trust and safekeeping several scrolls of the Law [and several books of the Ta]lmud, and of Bibles and of Midrashic literature, in order not to carry them [with them] owing to the hardship of [their] journey, and [especially] since they had been driven out on a sudden, they and their wives and children. Now these books [nearly] filled up one large room, for they were of the opinion that they could appease the king, and return to take them [away]. And it came to pass that when they had left, that wicked one arose and lit by them [a bonfire], and burnt all of them. On that very hour, Israel became impoverished in all things, on account of their meager books and [very few] new commentaries. Nothing remained [except] the smallest portion [of books] which they took with them for their own needs in study. Now while they ventured out, many pious persons perished along the way, and seve[ral] families were taken away entirely from off the face of the earth. It has been told to us that about eighty persons died while en route [to Mawza]. Now this happened on the Sabbath, [during the reading of the Torah section known as] 'Be-Huqothai' (i.e. Lev. 26:3), [67] and there stood up the greatest man amongst them [to read] in the [scroll of the] Law, and when he reached the verse [that says]: 'And I shall bring thee into the land of thine enemies, or at the time when their [uncircumcised] heart should be brought under submission [etc.]' (Lev. 26:41), when he had finished [reading], he began to [exp]ound [on that portion of the Law which he read], and the spirit [of G-d] moved him, and he said that the present decree had been given from the start since ancient times,[68] [even] kept [by him], and neatly arranged in the scroll of the Law. [For the words], 'oyyaveihem [o  az]  yikana' levovom,' אויביהם או אז יכנע לבבם  the last letter of each word spells Mawza! By the end of the year, the blessed G-d took mercy [upon them] and the king was appeased [by agreeing] to bring back the Jews, but [only that they] not go back to their [former ho]mes. Rather, they were to build for themselves houses outside of the city's [walls]. And so it was." This [account] I found [written] in a copy made by Rabbi Yehia b. Rabbi Yoseph b. Saleh (i.e. Maharitz), and I am the copyist, Yehudah b. Yoseph b. Moshe b. Shelomo b. Dowidh b. Sa'adia b. Yehia who was called Qarwani, of blessed memory. END.

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 13: 16), which requires that two blessings be made on the Tefillin; one on the arm phylactery, and another on the head phylactery.

[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] Israel."

[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 Noon, when the sun's heat would have dispelled the dew.

[15]  The city here referred to is Sanaa, Yemen.

[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 Yemen.

[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 Constantinople, Turkey. 

[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 Babylon was to repeat those words up until "olemayyo." (Sifra is an exegesis on the book of Leviticus, formerly studied in the synagogue of Rab in Babylon.)

[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 Israel, so that she would not be taken by another. A small coin (perutah) was the usual amenity provided in such cases.

[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 Israel."

[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 Warsaw printing press, and where it was generally assumed by the publishers that the book was written by Rav Yehudai Gaon, based upon Rashi in the Talmud. Others hold that the book was written by Shimon Kiara, during the Geonic period.

[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 Yemen for many years, even after Maharitz had passed away. For a certain scholar of Sanaa, Mori Yehia b. Yehudah Shukir al-Badihi (1808 C.E.-1888 C.E.), wrote in his commentary known as "Lehem Todah" the following account: "[There was] an adhesion attached to the extremity of the lobe, and below it was a thick adhesion that had somewhat like a button hanging upon it, and in plain view appeared to be full of puss or water. So they asked our teacher [about it], even the honourable teacher and Rabbi, Yehia Cohen (whose inheritance is in the Garden of Eden), and he judged it as a blain in the extremity, according to the opinion of the Taz, [this taking place] in the presence of several men who had thorough knowledge [of the laws of ritual slaughter], and he declared it fit."  

[45]  Variant: Rabbi Yehudah Halevi

[46]  A place in Germany.

[47]  A place in S.W. Central Germany, along the Rhine River. Now called Mainz. (French: Mayence)

[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 Egypt in the year 1009 C.E., after Ben-Asher's death.  Some of the Bibles printed for the IDF and given out to all new recruits are based after the Leningrad Manuscript.  

[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 land of Israel, and not necessarily in Jerusalem. Yet, because of the importance of that city in the eyes of Jewry, the books came to carry the appellation of the city itself.

[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 Temple (Seder Olam).

[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 Yemen, near 'Aden, Lahij and Hadhramawt.

[65]  Perhaps on account of its proximity to the coastal region of Yemen and its high humidity.

[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.