AUTHORITY

AND

COMMUNITY
Polish Jewry in the Sixteenth Century

www.hebre wbooks.org

AUTHORITY
AND

COMMUNITY
Polish Jewry in the Sixteenth Century

by

NISSON E. SHULMAN

www.hebrewbooks.org

KTAV PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC. HOBOKEN YESHIVA UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW YORK, N.Y. 1986

Copyright 1986 NissonE. Shulman Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shulman, NissonE. Authority and community. Based on the authors thesis (doctoial-Yeshiva University) "The second part of this volume contains the case histories' themselves, as recorded by Rabbi Slonik"--P. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Jews Poland- -History-16th century. 2. Judaism Poland-History-16th century. 3. Responsa -1040*1600. 4 . Poland-Ethnic relations. I. Slonik, Benjamin Aaron ben Abraham, b. ca. 1550. Mas at Binyamin. English. 1986. H Title. DS135.P6S58 1986 943. 886-7843 004924 ISBN 0-88125-101-1 Manufactured in the United States of America

www.hebre wbooks.org

To my wife,

to her mother, and in memory of Rabbi Moses Isaac and Bose Shulman of blessed memory, and Rabbi Yechiel Michel Kossowsky, of blessed memory

CONTENTS
Foreword Preface Acknowledgments xi xiii xv

PARTI
Chapter 1 THE LIFE OF POLISH JEWRY STANDARDS AND OBSERVANCE Scoffers and Rebels Apostates and Informers Moral Standards CUSTOMS Changing Customs Customs of Marriage Friday Weddings The Synagogue Kaddish Synagogue Seats Home and Family Women and Men Chapter 2 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN AN ALIEN SOCIETY Milieu The Jew and the Overlord The Jew and the Burgher 26 26 26 27 31 3 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 19 20 21 22

The Jew and the Peasant The Attitude of the Clergy POLITICAL STABILITY TRADE AND TRAVEL OTHER OCCUPATIONS Chapter 3 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION LAY LEADERSHIP Elections Election Procedures Functions of Officers The Judges Gabbaim (Supervisory Officials) Shamaim and Maarichim (Tax Assessors and Collectors) Memunim (Appointed Ones) Parnasim and Tovim (Community Heads and Best Men) Tenure Authority TAXES Chapter 4 THE RABBI AND THE CANTOR THE RABBI How the Rabbinate Began Two Types of Rabbis Tenure Community Service Limitations Income Abuses in Obtaining De Jure or De Facto Rabbinic Recognition Othei Abuses THE CANTOR A Change in the Cantors Position Election Salary and Income Tenure

34 36 37 39 43

49 49 49 50 53 53 54 54 54 55 55 55 57

64 64 65 66 67 68 72 73 74 75 76 76 78 79 79

Abuses in the Cantorate Conflict Between Rabbi and Cantor Chapter 5 EDUCATION LANGUAGE LITERACY Elementary Education Academy Education: Elementary Academy Education: Advanced Criticism of the System

79 81

82 82 84 85 87 87 88

PARTII
Digest of Responsa law s of Tzitzit, Prayer, Blessings and the Synagogue Laws of the Scroll of Torah and Torah Reading Laws of Sabbath and Eruvin Laws of Hametz Laws of Shofar and Lulav, and Purim and the Ninth of Av, and Fast Days Laws of Forbidden Foods Laws of Wine Forbidden Because of Libation, and Laws of Usury Laws of Haliah, Bechor, and Charity Laws of Niddah and Ritual Purification Laws of Divorce and the Levirate Marriage Laws of Marriage Contracts and Dowry Laws of Marriage Laws of Aguna The Responsa Appendix A BENJAMIN AARON B. ABRAHAM SLONIK BIOGRAPHY CITIES HE STUDIED IN AND SERVED HIS PERSONALITY 177 177 179 181 93 93 94 94 95 95 97 98 98 99 100 100 101 102

HIS WORK The Masat Binyamin Other Works STYLE AND STRUCTURE OF THE RESPONSA DATES OF THE RESPONSA HIS APPROACH TO SOURCES AND CASE HISTORIES Appendix B HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS HIS CHILDREN HIS RELATIONS BY MARRIAGE HIS TEACHERS AND THEIR INFLUENCE HIS CONTEMPORARIES Epilogue Notes Bibliography Index

188 188 190 191 192 194

197 197 198 200 211 220 222 255 260

FOREWORD
I am pleased that Rabbi Nisson Shulman, a dear friend for many years, has decided to expand upon and publish his thesis of fifteen years ago on R. Benjamin Aaron Slonik and his che/ d ,oeuvre, the renowned halakhic masterpiece, Mas'at Binyamin. An original work of great importance to both Talmudists and histor ians, Mas'at Binyamin reflects as well the influences of two seminal thinkers of the period, R. Mosheh Isserles and R. Solomon Luria. It is one of the great contributions of Palish Jewish scholarship. Dr. Shulman is to be congratulated for bringing to the attention of the English-reading public this literary-halakhic jewel of one of the most creative periods in all Jewish history. It is an act of redemption for a Jewry that is, alas, no more. NORMAN LAMM Lag Ba-Omer May 9,1985

PREFACE
It is possible to recreate many facets of bygone societies from rabbinic responsa. This is especially true of Torah-observant societies in which life was governed by requirements of Torah as interpreted by the rabbis. The responsa written by Rabbi Benjamin Aaron ben Abraham Slonik, when viewed against the background of the writings of his teachers and contemporaries, as well as other sources available to us, present a detailed picture of the religious, cultural, social, communal and eco nomic life of sixteenth-century Polish Jewry. Polish Jewry is important, for from it came the greater part of East European Jewry. Poland in those years comprised the greater part of central Europe. Its domain stretched from Silesia in the southwest to the Balkans, the border of the Ottoman Empire. To the northeast, the Muscovite Kingdom still denied Jews entry. Lithuania, Latvia, Czecho slovakia, Romania were all names and countries to take form later. In early times, most of their territory was called Poland. Even parts of Hungary were incorporated into the domain of Poland whose Jews were governed by The Council of Four Lands. Poland was therefore the center of central Europe. The heritage of the twentieth-century Jew, and especially what we now call Tiaditional Judaism/ derives largely from this community and its antecedents. East European Jewry was born in Poland, where French and German Jews (Ashkenazic Jews) had settled in great numbers during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, fleeing the persecutions and growing hardships they had encountered at home. By the sixteenth century, a teeming, vibrant community had emerged. It suffered a sudden decline because of the catastrophe of the Chmielnicki Cossack uprising in 1648. In the wake of that crisis, Jews of Poland began emigrating westward, first to Silesia, Bohemia, and then back to Germany. They reached as far as Amsterdam* Hamburg, and even London. In subsequent centuries they traveled even further westward, many settling in America. They also fled eastward, to Russia, and some even to the land of Israel. East European Jews are actually Polish Jews and their descendants. A large proportion of those who settled in Great Britain, the United

States, Canada, and Latin American countries also came from this community. By the middle of the twentieth century, when the world was recUperating from the Nazi holocaust, the descendants of Polish Jewry constituted the bulk of world Jewry.1 The first important works produced by Polish Jewish scholars which have survived till today began to emerge at the end of the sixteenth century. They are the works of Rabbi Moses Isserles and Rabbi Solomon Luria. Rabbi Benjamin Aaron ben Abraham Slonik, author of the responsa collected under the title Masat Binyamin, was an outstand ing student of both these luminaries. His responsa were highly re garded in their own right by later generations of scholars and sages and were extensively quoted in the commentaries and supercommentaries of Rabbi Joseph Caros Code of Jewish Law. They are especially impor tant in studying that period of history because (1) the author was a student of both Rabbis Isserles and Luria; (2) he served in important cities and was sent some of the most pressing questions of the day for his decision, and (3) he engaged in correspondence with contempo raries who were fellow students of one or the other of the two masters and who wrote about these matters of community concern. The first part of this book recreates facets of cultural, political and social life of the Jews in Poland as perceived through the responsa of Rabbi Slonik and his contemporaries. Early Polish rabbinic responsa are analyzed and relevant information is collected; together these serve as a background against which the picture of Rabbi Sloniks life and society can be drawn. The responsa are treated like case histories, for that is what they really are. Together, these authentic histories create a surprisingly detailed picture of Rabbi Sloniks life and times. The second part of this volume contains the case histories them selves, as recorded by Rabbi Slonik. They are a digest of Rabbi Sloniks responsa. The digest contains 112 responsa dealing with subjects and issues relating to private and community life. They reflect a proud, autonomous community which wielded considerable power in its own defense, possessed rights and privileges of self-government, and ex erted strong control over its members. Many of the responsa reveal conflicts and problems generated from tensions between the commu nitys inner life and its relationships with neighbors. These responsa also reveal the high cultural and economic status of sixteenth-century Polish Jewry. I have placed biographical material about Rabbi Slonik, places in which he studied and for which he served as rabbi, his family connec tions, as well as an analysis of his literary style and scholarship with some information about some of his leading contemporaries, in the Appendixes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book began as my doctoral dissertation submitted in 1970 to the faculty of Yeshiva University Bernard Revel School of Higher Jewish Studies. At that time I received great help and guidance from my dissertation sponsors, Dr. Irving Agus, Dr. Isaac Lewin and Dr. Gershon Churgin. Dr. Shlomo Edelberg also gave much time, encouragement, and many valuable insights. Thanks are also due to Dr. Lewin for encouraging me to take up the original manuscript, rework it, amplify it and prepare it for publication. Mr. Gideon Chagy and Rabbi Jacob J. Schacter read the manuscript and made many valuable suggestions. I am deeply grateful to both of them. My beloved wife, Rywka, has given constant encouragement and inspiration. Her wise, patient and gentle counsel has enabled me to persevere in this work in spite of pressing, heavy community demands. Her keen insights and perception have added much to the substance of the material as well. To her this book is dedicated. It is many years since my beloved and revered parents died. They were fully involved in the beginning of this work. Their wisdom, idealism and inspiration are constantly before me.

Chapter H

THE LIFE OF POLISH JEWRY

Medieval Germany and Austria declined as the center of Jewish cul tural life during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries because of the increased incidence and intensity of persecutions and expulsions. Their place was taken by centers of Torah in the eastern part of Europe, especially Poland. There, Jews continued to develop their system of community organization, their scholarship, their institutions and their culture, which together form the bedrock of the heritage of the twenti eth century Ashkenazic Jew. Rabbi Slonik's responsa, and those of his colleagues, reflect the nature of this community, its cultural develop ment and its institutions.

STANDARDS AND OBSERVANCE

The vast majority of the Jews who lived in Poland during the sixteenth century were pious. Some were even ready to jeopardize their lives in order to observe the law. Rabbi Slonik describes how six Jewish travelers left the safety of their caravan in lawless territory in order to push on ahead so that they might arrive at their destination in time for the Sabbath day. This excessive zeal cost them their lives1 Jews who made a living in the manufacture or sale of wine and whiskey were severely inconvenienced by the laws forbidding the use of wine handled by Gentiles. Nevertheless, Polish Jews strictly adhered to these laws. Rabbi Slonik records a question dealing with such wine transported by Gentiles without Jewish surveillance. This was obvi ously a sensitive issue. Gentiles often resented this rule which seemed to indicate they were unfit to handle Jewish wine. Jews often had to rely on Gentile drivers in order to ship liquor products which they had manufactured. They were afraid that the drivers might break the seals and thus contaminate the wine. They were suspected not only of

attempting to drink the wine but also of purposely defiling it in protest against this law. Rabbi Slonik deals with such a case in Responsum No. 29. In some editions this responsum is omitted because of censorship.2 In contrast to the meticulous religious observance of Polish Jews, Rabbi Luria states that Jews of Germany were not so careful, and that on occasion some even partook of wine and food prepared by Gentiles. Rabbi Luria severely criticized the indifference of the German-Jewish community to these violations, and their hypocrisy in dealing lightly with these matters, while treating less unimportant observances more strictly than they deserve. He says: And now I will reveal the shame of German Jews, who most assuredly drink nonkosher wine in Gentile inns, and eat fish cooked in their utensils. And the stricter among them merely accepts the word of the Gentile innkeepers that they were cooked in fresh pots, without investigating the matter. They honor such people because they, are wealthy and powerful, while he who eats and drinks only kosher products, and merely sits without a hat, is criticized and ostracized. . .

Scoffers And Rebels

Even among the pious Jews of Poland some sinners and scoffers were occasionally to be found.4Rabbi Slonik wrote a responsum about such a man who asked a mocking, derisive question of the sages. It was evident that he was antagonistic to Jewish law, yet conversant enough with Torah laws to ask a sophisticated question concerning the reckon ing of the Jewish calendar. He attacked the concept that allows the Sanhedrin, the High Court of Israel, to regulate the calendar, saying: By what authority do the rabbis meddle with the calendar and change it at will? The Bible and the Prophets surely give them no such authority. When, for instance, they postpone the New Year by adding a day to the preceding month of E lu l. . . they delay all the holidays of the year and thus force us to eat hametz on Passover!5 Rabbi Slonik delivered an elaborate and detailed reponse which he introduced with a very strong criticism of the skeptical attitude of the questioner.& Other sages, such as Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Rabbi Solomon Luria and Rabbi Moses Isserles, also mentioned the many transgres sors with which the times are plagued. While this is obviously a standard complaint of sages in each generation, the language of these

rabbis indicates that there was indeed a recent change for the worse in religious observance. Thus, Rabbi Meir of Lublin declares: In our time, many are the transgressors .. .7Rabbi Solomon Luria describes certain witnesses as empty, impetuous, and suspect; one in whose posses sion stolen goods were found, and another who had informed against the community leaders to Gentiles and did not hesitate to invoke the name of idolatry: He gave the community officers into the hands of the Gentiles even while they were sitting in the house of meeting . . . and always swore falsely, and sometimes blasphemed and invoked the name of idolatry.. . Rabbi Isserles, too reproved those who do not come for enlightenment, but to provoke and scoff.9 Although communities were disciplined and virtually autonomous,1 0 there were individuals who refused to be bound by community disci pline. We find such rebellious individuals mentioned by Rabbi Slonik in two cases dealing with men who refused to obey the rabbis when they were commanded to divorce their wives. In one of these cases, the individual appears to have been well known for his stubbornness and high-handedness: And particularly since this man, Reuben, is known and recognized as a powerful person whom it is impossible to appease even with a great deal of money.1 1 It is possible that the man's intransigence was directed only against his wife. The allegation that he was a powerful man, however, bears the connotation of stubbornness; someone well known for his antago nism. In the other case, certain rabbis had ordered a man to issue a divorce because of the report that he had violated many Torah laws. Rabbi Slonik objects to the use of force to compel such a person to give a divorce. But he does not object to the idea that a man who violates Torah ought be prevailed upon, without the use of force, to do so.1 2 Rabbi Moses Isserles cites a similar case, in which a woman sought a divorce on the grounds that her husband was a thief and a forger, and had deserted her and their son.1 The indication is that although there 3 were some who violated the Torah, such violations were not wide spread. Otherwise, the rabbis would not have required a divorce on such grounds.

Apostates and Informers

Apostacy was one of the tragedies of exile. The effect of a militant, evangelical church upon the Jews varied from age to age. In pious communities such as we find in Europe, we would expect fewer cases of apostacy than in more open, assimilated societies such as in Spain before and during the Inquisition. Nevertheless, there were isolated instances of Jews who forsook their faith even in pious societies, such as that of Poland during Rabbi Slonik's period. The community of Cracow was rocked by the scandal which devel oped when the first Jewish publishers in Poland converted to Christian ity and began to publish for the church. The printers fought the boycott which the Jewish community imposed upon them by appealing through the church officials to the king. A commission of inquiry was appointed. On the basis of the commissions findings the Jewish com munity was compelled to buy up the entire stock which the printers had on hand.1 Cases of apostacy are frequently found in the responsa 4 literature of the time. Rabbi Meir deals with levirs who were converts to Christianity,1 and with a woman who sought a divorce from her 5 apostate husband.1 Rabbi Joel Sirkes records similar cases, in one 6 instance mentioning a Jew who converted and joined the army.1 Rabbi 7 Moses Isserles deals with the question of whether a boy can be called to the Torah using the name of his apostate father,1 and he mentions a 8 case where a divorce was being issued by a man whose father had converted.1 Rabbi Slonik deals with a case in which he declares as 9 valid a divorce which was finally obtained from an apostate after much hardship.1 " Occasionally there was a convert who braved the wrath of the church and changed from Christianity to Judaism. Dire consequences might ensue. Balaban reports the public execution of a well-known lady of Cracow who had embraced Judaism.2 Rabbi Luria warns against ac 0 cepting converts and of the harm that might ensue, writing: Now that we are in exile and subservient to the masters of this land, anyone who accepts a convert rebels against the government and forfeits his life . . . , I therefore warn anyone who participates in accepting a convert nowadays, in places where the rulers forbid it, that he is endangering his own life and the lives of those who know about the matter. And would that our people could simply survive the darkness of the long exile without this added problem about which we must be extremely careful.2 1

During this period of history we also find the troublesome problem of informers with which the rabbis sought to deal severely. Rabbi Joseph Katz writes that merchants were regularly forced to set aside amounts of money with which they would have to bribe state officials not to pay attention to informers,2 Rabbi Luria states that sometimes Jewish 2 courts were unable to administer justice for fear of informers.2 Rabbi 3 Meir of Lublin deals with a case which was probably the most common informer problem, that of simple extortion. The issue concerned a Jew, R, who took S before the overlord with a monetary claim. In the course of the litigation, he accused S of violating oaths and pledged word, probably in connection with taxes. The overlord found S guilty and required him, under threat of imprisonment, to pay an exorbitant amount of 3,000 gulden to R, who presumably would share the money with the overlord. S claimed that the community must come to his aid in paying the damages, since such was the long-standing agreement in any case when informers would threaten a member of the community. Rabbi Meir answers that Jews who summon others to Gentile courts are not technically informers, but are nonetheless serious transgressors. Every community is responsible to control its members in order to prevent recourse to Gentile courts through litigation. It is a matter which is vital to the interests of the entire congregation. Therefore the community must share in the burden of the fine. This would make it less likely that any such as R would in the future be successful in extorting money from the community in this way. And it is well known that had the man carried out his evil intentions and succeeded in obtaining the money with the help of the overlord, the number of informers would have increased.2 4 In one case Rabbi Luria went so far as to declare: I would have allowed the victims family to take the life of the informer, if need be, to save themselves.2 8 He expressed the same sentiment in Yam She! Shlomo, indicating that merely inflicting physical harm on the informer by means of some kind of corporal punishment, or even maiming him, might be counterpro ductive. It might cause the informer to convert entirely and do irrepara ble harm in his search for revenge. The informer is to be considered even worse than a pursuer (with intent to kill), since the whole community is endangered by his actions. It is better to have him killed, thus eliminating the potential for further evil.2 6

Moral Standards
In general, the Jews of Poland adhered to the high moral standards required by the Torah. Nevertheless, there were sometimes to be found individuals who lapsed from these standards and acted in ways that were contrary to Jewish law. This naturally worried the sages, who perceived among their functions the defense of law and morality, and who were concerned that this function was being undermined. Rabbi Slonik complains about the laxity in moral standards which had begun to set in, and indicates that the characteristic modesty of the Jewish woman was being lost. He considers this a matter of grave concern and cause for immediate action.2 7 Rabbi Slonik, of course, was comparing contemporary morality with that of previous generations. We must, however, make allowances for the tendency to idealize earlier times. In fact, if we are to judge only by the responsa Rabbi Slonik left us, we must conclude that he rarely, if ever, faced problems dealing with adultery or degeneracy. The questions which disturbed him most dealt with matters of breach of promise of marriage, such as an attempted extortion through blackmail of a maidens family by a spurned suitor threatening to defame her name and character. Rabbi Solomon Luria describes a similar case, where a jealous, thwarted suitor spread a rumor accusing a woman of unwittingly marrying her own brother and realizing the mistake by means of similar birthmarks.2 8 Girls were still strictly chaperoned, and their desirability as marriage partners would naturally be damaged if they were suspected of encour aging clandestine, romantic meetings.2 9 Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen, in his pamphlet summarizing the delibera tions of the 1607 Lublin synod, writes that the rabbis ordained special care in chaperoning women in the city and on the road. This does not necessarily indicate, however, that Jews had become negligent in this matter. The step was taken especially because of the danger of violation by Gentiles. Thus, the decree states: Owners of remotely located liquor concessions must sometimes travel on business, thus leaving their womenfolk at the mercy of the Gentiles who drink there and are often inebriated. The heads of the Council have therefore decreed that no one should rent a liquor concession alone, but rather only in partnership with another Jewish family.3 0 Chaperoning women in these situations was especially important, since they helped their husbands in business, as in this case, and since

men sometimes had to leave concessions in their wives hands while they were away on business trips. The cases of extortion with which Rabbi Slonik dealt were especially harmful because if it could be proven that a girl had become betrothed, or even if a rumor to that effect could be established as having a probable basis in fact, she would either be forced to accept the spurned suitor or would need to compel him to grant a divorce before she could marry another. In such a case, damage to her reputation would be coupled with a reduction of the amount set aside for her in the marriage contract, the ketuba, when she would later remarry. The blackmailers would therefore have to be bribed to either desist from their accusation or to at least grant a divorce so that the girl could remarry. We find men who were even ready to swear falsely in order to invalidate a divorce so that the girl's family would have to pay for another one.3 1 Rabbi Slonik therefore did all in his power to eliminate the possibil ity of such extortion, and he dealt with the problem several times.3 He 2 called upon all his contemporaries to do whatever they could to halt this practice and to overset the designs of the wicked. He writes: It is a great mitzvah to overset these deceivers who spew poison about the modest daughters of Israel in order to extort money or to aggravate. Let such rumors and statements cease. How deep the wound and how grievous the harm that, God forbid, can ensue if their wicked will is carried out and their designs abetted... .3 3 A variation of this problem is found in Rabbi Sloniks responsa in the case of a rumored clandestine engagement. The girl was accused of having responded to a whistled signal and of having stealthily crept out into the yard to accept a ring of betrothal from her suitor. The fact that the witnesses sought this method to damage her reputation indicates that such a clandestine engagement was conceivable and even possible in those times. The arguments by which Rabbi Slonik discredits the witnesses, however, indicate that although possible, such an act was extremely rare. He writes: And the whole matter from beginning to end is very strange and irrational. For is it possible that one of the daughters of Israel, so modest, should do such a thing, acting without the knowledge of her father and mother and family members? This must surely be the product of the wicked imagination and machinations of Reuben the matchmaker and the witnesses. ..

Sometimes an unscrupulous Jew would buy stolen goods from Gen tile thieves for resale, although the Jewish community did all it could to halt this immoral and extremely dangerous practice. The community even went so far as to remove the protection of the Jewish community from such Jews by banishing them. This was Rabbi Sloniks decision in the case of a Jew who received articles stolen by a Gentile from a church.3 Rabbi Luria underscores the danger this practice creates for 5 the entire Jewish community.3 Rabbi Joseph Katz, too, states: 6 From the point of view of the safety of the Jewish community alone, it is important to punish these people severely in order that they be made an example, because they cause us to be despised by the Gentiles . . .3 7 The problem of dealing in stolen goods is an old one. We find it in the middle ages.3 The temptation was great, because Jews were better able 8 to sell these goods through their trade contacts and also because they could dispose of them in remote areas where identification of the material would be unlikely. There were Jewish goldsmiths and silver smiths, thus making it still easier for a Jew to dispose of such goods.3 9 Rabbi Slonik deals with gifts of silver ornaments of the Torah scrolls. These were probably made by Jewish silversmiths.4 0 Although Rabbi Slonik himself does not deal with manifestations of other types of immorality, they did occur, though infrequently. Such questions did occasionally come to the attention of Rabbi Sloniks teachers and colleagues. Thus we find a Jewish boy who was caught with the town prostitute by Gentiles. Rabbi Meir of Lublin indicates that this was not an isolated case, writing: And particularly in our times, when, because of our many sins, many are caught in this transgression. .. .4 1 The boys captors threatened to put him to death unless he consented to conversion. The Jewish community sought to ascertain whether they were required to redeem him as if he were a captive or whether they were permitted to abandon him to his fate because of the magnitude of his sin. Rabbi Meir instructed them to redeem him. It is possible that the incident took place near Constantinople, or in Wallachia, lawless territory which Jews had to traverse for trade. The prostitute, as well as the boys captors, were described as Turks. The question, however, came from Opatow, and it is apparent that the boy came from that community and was probably on a journey when the incident took

place. It is also possible that Rirks were not involved at all, but that the faith of the captors and of the prostitue was disguised so that Christian censors would allow it to pass.4 2 We also find children born out of wedlock,4 hasty marriages to hide 3 pregnancies,4 and adultery. Rabbi Meir of Lublin deals with cases of a 4 woman who claimed that she cohabited with a spirit of a devil who came first in the guise of her husband, then in the guise of the overlord;4 of a man who suspects his wife of adultery and of murdering 5 her baby, born six months after their marriage, in order to make it appear stillborn;4 and of a respected, scholarly Jew who became 6 intoxicated, cohabited with another mans wife, and then asked for a program of penance.4 In the latter case Rabbi Meir accused the woman 7 of acting the part of a seductress. Rabbi Moses Isserles wrote of a woman who was accused of adultery by her neighbor who was herself the guilty party.4 We even have an accusation of attempted abortion in order to hide an adulterous pregnancy.4 We also find cases dealing with 9 gambling. Card playing seems to have been a pastime in which even the more respected members of the community sometimes indulged. An altercation had arisen between two cardplayers in which one insulted the other by calling him a nadler, or bastard. The maligned card partner is described as an honored member of the community. How shall his sin be atoned, when he has maligned an honorable man, one of the leaders of the land and therefore he has insulted the entire community!5 0 In this entire responsum, Rabbi Luria does not once censure the parties for engaging in gambling. In another case, however, he does censure the practice.5 There were cases of drunkenness,5 and we also 1 2 find Jews patronizing public drinking halls. The synod of 1607 at Lublin issued a decree prohibiting Jews from frequenting Gentile public drinking halls and prohibiting anyone who does so from any appointments to community responsibility, from receiving any titles such as Haver, and, of course, from any appointment as rabbi of a community. Obviously, even respected members of the community indulged in this practice.5 Rabbi Luria bemoans the moral laxity of 3 young men and women drinking and dancing together. He writes: My heart is a fiery furnace, aflame about the so-called People of God, the chosen ones, a holy nation, who drink, sing a n d . . . dance with maidens .. . Satan is active and the generation is abandoned to sin .. .5 4

Rabbi Solomon Luria records a case of a man who whispered obscen ities into the ear of a matron and was severely punished for it.5 Suicide, 5 too, was not unknown, and in one instance Rabbi Sirkes indicates that the motive was business reverses.5 There is even a Jewish murderer 6 discussed by Rabbi Meir of Lublin. The matter was considered so strange and so heinous, that it was omitted from some editions of the responsa.5 7

CUSTOMS
Custom plays an important role in Judaism, and often becomes law, either through popular usage that can assume the force of law or by means of rabbinic legislation which confirms the usage and gives it the force of law.5 Sometimes, when the law is in doubt, the sages relied on 8 the usage of the people to ascertain what the law ought to be.5 9 The institution of custom was therefore revered and accepted throughout the entire diaspora, and Poland of the sixteenth century was no exception.6 0

Changing Customs
At first glance, however, it appears strange that though Polish Jewry came largely from German antecedents, and must have brought their ancestral customs with them, they nevertheless developed many unique customs and usages divergent from those of the vast majority of German Jewish communities. Rabbi Slonik pointed this out, declaring that Polish Jewrys customs are so different from those of the mother country that in many instances Poland may be considered a land without a set custom. He indicates this in connection with certain customs applicable to mourners, such as rending the garments (keriah) when the death and burial occurs during the intermediate days of the festivals of Passover and Tabernacles. On these days, the mourning period does not begin until after the holiday is over. Should the keriah also be postponed, or should it be performed at the time of burial? He writes: And that great sage8 was of the opinion that when it is written 1 Such is the Ashkenazic custom . . it includes us, since we are everywhere called Ashkenazim. He therefore decided that we must emulate the German custom of tearing keriah on the interme diary days of the festival only for parents but not for other relatives for which one must mourn. For all other relatives the keriah is

performed after the holidays, when mourning begins. In this he erred. . . . And Rabbi Moses Isserles my teacher is correct in his decision that this practice only applies in Germany proper, for there only was the distinction made between parents and other relatives. But for us in all the kingdom of Poland there is no custom that pertains, and Rabbi Isserles decision stands that when there is no precedent custom, the garment must be rent for all relatives.6 2 Myer Lew points out that Rabbi Isserles included many local Polish usages in his Torat Hatat and called them "the Ashkenazic custom. He was criticized for this by his contemporary Rabbi Hayyim b. Bezalel in his Vikuah Mayyim Hayyim.8 Rabbi Hayyim, a fellow student of Rabbi 3 Shalom Schachna, attacked Rabbi Isserles for his endeavor to establish the Polish usage as the usage of Ashkenaz. In his view the two were distinct and Rabbi Isserles had no right to identify them with each other. From Rabbi Benjamins statement, however, it is obvious that Rabbi Isserles knew the distinction well and merely called the Polish custom by the Ashkenazic appellation, though acknowledging that in reality Poland must usually be considered a land without a set custom / To understand why he gave the Polish custom the Ashkenazic appellation, we must consider why and how customs change, and apply this to the strata of Polish Jewish settlement. Change of custom might occur for several reasons. A local custom practiced by only a small group of German Jews might have taken root and spread when they came to Poland. This minority group might have migrated early. The German Jews who came after them might then have found the custom of their predecessors in force and would have accepted it. The Polish custom would therefore begin to differ from that of the majority of Germanys Jewish population. It is even possible that the new Polish usage had eventually disappeared entirely from Ger many, due to the fact that all, or the majority of Jews who practiced it, had migrated to Poland. There are other ways customs might have changed. Early immigrants would have found some few Jews present from a much earlier immigra tion and mingled with them, for there existed a small Jewish commu nity in Poland as early as the tenth century. We find a growing Jewish community, though few in number, from the twelfth century. We have also suggested that Byzantine Jewish refugees might have reached Poland and found refuge there as early as the seventh, and possibly the sixth, century.6 Though relatively few in number, their early arrival 4 would have enhanced the force and tenacity of some of their usages.

There might also have been some influence from the Sefardic refugees of the Spanish Inquisition. Some of them found their way to Poland, among them some intellectual and spiritual leaders such as Rabbi Jehiel, his son Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Levi Kikines who was rabbi and head of the rabbinical court in Lemberg.8 German Jewish immigra 5 tion did not begin in earnest until the fourteenth and fifteenth centu ries.6 The new influx of immigrants mingling with the earlier settlers 5 would, in some cases, create a conflict of customs. This would give Poland the status of a land without a set custom, thus enabling new customs to grow and take root more freely. For the same reason America, too, has this status, for many different streams and cultures form the background of the Jews who settled in the United States. Rabbi Isserles called the Polish custom Ashkenazic because the majority of settlers were, in fact, from Germany. He recognized the uniqueness of Polands customs, but indicates that Germanys customs were predominant over the Sefardic customs brought by Jews who came from Byzantium. Consequently, Polish customs could change from actual German usages because of the interaction of the communi ties rendering it a land without a custom. But it was closer to German usage than Sefardic. So in his Darkei Moshe commentary to the Tur and in his glosses to Caros Code of Jewish Law, he uses the term Ashkenazic for both Franco-German and Polish customs to distinguish them from those of the Spanish and other Oriental Jewish communities on which the decisions of Rabbi Joseph Caro and Rabbi Asher, author of the Tur, were based.

Customs of Marriage
Some information concerning Polish Jewrys marriage customs is obtained from Rabbi Sloniks responsa. Engagements were usually arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. It is forbidden by Jewish law, however, to marry without the consent of both parties. The principles would therefore go to see and be seen, and to consent to the proposed engagement. Gifts would be brought by the groom when he made this visit.6 7 Rabbi Slonik was careful to point out that in his generation and in the lands in which they were living, gifts were brought before the betrothal was formally made. We, in this generation and in these lands, all first bring the gifts and then betroth."6 Rabbi Solomon Luria emphasizes 8 that Nowadays there isnt even a small minority who first betroth and then bring gifts.6 This matter had been under discussion from tal9 mudic times, and depended on local custom.7 0

The groom's gifts usually consisted of jewelry, and frequently in cluded a ring. The ring was not, however, to be considered a ring of betrothal.7 Rabbi Slonik deals with the case of a messenger who, in a 1 joke, placed the ring on the brides finger saying, Thus will the groom say to you under the canopy: ,With this ring I betroth. . . . A ring was also frequently given by bride to groom, together with other gifts: And the father of the bride sent the groom a golden ring and raiment, as is customary.7 No betrothal was made until the actual wedding cere 2 mony. The two stages of the marriage ceremony, betrothal (erusin) and marriage (nisuin), had in earlier times been performed separately. By Rabbi Sloniks time they were combined into one ceremony, as Rabbi Meir of Lublin attests: In these lands it is no longer customary to betroth any woman before the hupa ceremony.7 The separate erusin 3 ceremony was now replaced by a ceremony of contractual arrangement of engagement conditions, called tenaim, at which financial and calen dar arrangements of the marriage were finalized between the families.7 4 The marriage documents were usually written by the cantor.7 The 5 ceremony itself was performed by the rabbi with the cantor assisting.7 An interesting picture of a marriage ceremony is found in Rabbi Sloniks first responsum. After the ceremony, the guests would gather around a table on which, together with refreshments, was a large haiJah. To this day Jewish wedding celebrations usually include such a large bread. This haJJah was so large, that many women participated in kneading it, each kneading one piece which was then packed together into the whole for baking. The bread was not cut, and the refreshments remained untouched, until after the address.7 While Rabbi Slonik does 7 not mention who delivered this address, it was probably the groom himself. The rabbis, relatives and well-wishers might have their turns after the refreshments were served. There was even a professional preacher, a darshan, who might also be called upon to speak.7 The 4 groom, however, was first given his chance to show the assembled that he was indeed a worthy scholar. The praise of the elders would later be heaped upon the deserving groom. From Rabbi Sloniks description, it appears that such an address was an accepted part of every wedding festivity.7 Rabbi Luria writes that the derasha creates the character of a 9 seudah shel mitzvah, a sacred feast. While he refers to a bar mitzvah, requiring the child to deliver a Torah discourse, the principle obviously applies to a groom at his wedding feast as well.8 0 Rabbi Slonik mentions that after the address the haliah would be divided and a piece sent to the home of each person, probably each guest, possibly to each resident in the town. The piece of haiJah was considered a good omen, and participating in the wedding feast in this

fashion would extend even to those who were not directly invited or could not be present for some other reason. The women who had kneaded the haJlah, of course, were greatly privileged to do so. Even though the custom prevails that after the derasha a piece of that bread is sent to each ones home. . . .B 1 The language is somewhat ambiguous. One could possibly infer that there were no other refreshments and that the bread was divided and sent to each guests home. This is not likely. The wedding feast was a seudah shel mitzvah, a feast of religious obligation. Special blessings of the bride and the groom would be repeated by the assembled during the grace after meals. There obviously was food on the table, and a meal was eaten. In fact, the rabbis had to legislate for moderation in such feasts, which were fast becoming inordinately lavish.8 His statement, 2 after the derasha, means after the feast. He probably called it derasha because of the grooms address, which was first, or because the address was the most important part of it. The wedding feast is mentioned in contemporary responsa. In fact, we even find Jews practicing the Gentile custom of toasting the bride and groom with glasses which were then dashed against the wall.8 3

Friday Weddings
Rabbi Isserles, in a controversial responsum, discusses the case of a Friday wedding in Cracow. Because of financial disagreement between the families, and because the girl, an orphan, might otherwise lose her chance to marry, Rabbi Isserles delayed the Friday evening service in his synagogue until the matter was settled. He then performed the ceremony at least an hour and a half after the onset of the Sabbath.8 4 Because of that celebrated case, the Cracow community forbade Friday wedding ceremonies within its precincts, a decree which remained in force till modern times.8 Otherwise, Friday weddings were usual. 5 Rabbi Isserles indicates that in Cracow there were sometimes up to five and six weddings a day.0 Since he adds that some of the celebrations 6 last into the night and no one complains, it is obvious that he refers to Friday weddings. The prohibition of such weddings was decreed only for Cracow, so they continued to be celebrated in other communities. The practice had given rise to the custom of yihud, discussed by Rabbi Slonik particularly in connection with Friday weddings. After every religious ceremony today, the bride and groom are taken

to a private room, and there they remain alone for a short period of time. This is called yihud. In Rabbi Sloniks time, however, y hud was not always practiced after a maidens wedding. It was deemed neces sary only after the wedding of a widow or divorcee, and only if the marriage were to take place on Friday, so that a symbolic consumma tion of the marriage might take place before the Sabbath. The reason for this is as follows: Contractual obligations may not be finalized on the Sabbath day. In the case of a marriage, it is desirable that even the mere appearance of a Sabbath finalization of contract is to be avoided. The wedding contract is completed by the meeting of the minds of both parties to agree to the marriage. In Jewish law this takes place at the moment of the ring ceremony under the hupa. If one considers the psychological aspects of marriage, however, there might be another moment when a true agreement of marriage takes place. That moment, though not actually a finalization of a contract in the strict sense of the terms, is also to be avoided on the Sabbath. A maiden thinks of marriage differently than does a widow or divorce. To the maiden, the most important moments are, indeed, the solemnization and the cele bration of the marriage. A contract in her case would therefore be psychologically completed before the onset of the Sabbath, for she deems most important that part of the marriage that takes place before sunset. A divorce or a widow does not give much importance to the ceremony and the celebrations. For her, the marriage itself is most important, and the sexual consummation of the marriage is therefore the moment of the psychological completion of the contract. It was therefore desirable that in a symbolic way this moment also take place before the Sabbath. This was achieved by taking the bride and groom into a private room, called the yihud room, where they could be alone. In this way, the appearance of the psychological completion of the contract taking place on Sabbath was avoided. Of course, as the controversial issue discussed by Rabbi Isserles indicates, strict Torah law does not even forbid the actual ceremony from taking place on the Sabbath. He therefore felt justified in overlook ing the rabbinic legislation in the case of the orphaned bride, arguing that the rabbis did not intend their legislation to extend to a dire emergency where it would do the girl irreparable harm. It is only in the context of the rabbinic legislation that marriage ceremonies be forbid den on Sabbath that Rabbi Sloniks words are to be understood. He simply took the legislation one step further, applied its intent to the customs then being instituted, indicating that a yihud before Sabbath is a help in terms of appearances, though not necessarily in terms of the

actual law. He then went even further, and advised that even in the case of a maiden's wedding it would be well to introduce the custom of arranging yihud before the Sabbath. Rabbi Slonik goes on to say that it had come to his attention that some communities practiced yihud at every marriage without excep tion. Though he considered this a suitable practice to introduce, he does not go so far as to advocate its universal acceptance, but requires its introduction only for Friday weddings."7 In the course of time this practice was indeed universally accepted and is today required at every religious marriage ceremony. Rabbi Benjamin also mentions some objection to the modified hupa, or marriage canopy, in current use. The hupa used to take the form of a tent, insuring complete privacy. In Rabbi Sloniks time they had begun making the hupa by spreading a canopy over four poles. The customary procedure for dissolving engagements and marriages as it was practiced at the time of Rabbi Benjamin, is worthy of note. When an engagement was to be dissolved, the conditions agreed upon and set down in the engagement contract, or tenaim, had to be revoked. Consent of both parties was necessary. Often the consent of a party could only be obtained by payment of a prearranged fine. Sometimes, in the case of unscrupulous individuals, bribery was demanded.8 9

The Synagogue
The synagogue was the center of all communal activities. The kahaJ (community council) met there. The beth din convened and sat there in judgment.9 According to Jewish law, it was considered the property of 0 all Jews, wherever they were, even if an individual had built it. This presented a problem when a synagogue, or any part of it, had to be sold or torn down. Under what conditions could this be done? What were the limitations? Could the salvaged materials be reused, and if so, under what conditions and for what purpose? Rabbi Slonik dealt with many of these issues and summarized the talmudic rules which apply. He concluded his summary with an observation about the new rules and customs which apply because of the changing times and commu nity practice, writing: Nowadays, however, the foregoing rules do not apply. It is now permissible to sell even a city synagogue. In the days of the Talmud, government depended on common consent of all the members of the community. This means that when a synagogue was built with visitors and merchants in mind, (called in halakhic

terms a city synagogue, to be distinguished from a synagogue built for private use called a village synagogue,) the consent of such visitors or their representatives would also be required before the synagogue could be sold or destroyed (unless the local resi dents provided another synagogue in its place). Today, however, it is our usage to give our elected officials more power and jurisdic tion to act on their own in behalf of our communities. There is consequently no longer any difference between a city and a village synagogue. In both instances the community officers may sell the synagogue for any purpose and the sanctity of the proceeds may be declared by them null and void (so that they may be used for any purpose they designate.) They may now do this even in spite of the objections of the community, since, when a synagogue is first built, the power to dispose of it is vested by the community in the hands of the elders,9 1 Rabbi Slonik also indicates the origin of a synagogue custom which had developed by his time and which has persisted till this day. Throughout Poland during this period, cantors used to read the Torah in the synagogue. Rabbi Slonik discussed the origin of the synagogue custom that requires two trustees to stand on either side of the cantor while he reads from the Torah, declaring that this probably developed because cantors began to lose the ability to read properly. The trustees would therefore correct him when he erred. Rabbi Slonik declares that congregations had begun to choose cantors on the basis of vocal ability at the expense of erudition and scholarship.9 Rabbi Slonik deplores 2 this use of prompters, saying that the practice is strictly forbidden. The practice of two trustees posted on either side of the reader has persisted till this day, despite Rabbi Sloniks ruling. Kaddish Rabbi Slonik also comments on the mourner's kaddish. This prayer is recited several times toward the end of each service. In some syna gogues, when a worshiper observes yahrzeit, the anniversary of a death, one of these prayers is allotted to him after an appropriate announcement is made. The other mourners defer to him, permitting him to recite this kaddish alone. This custom stems from early times, when, as Rabbi Slonik observes, the privilege of reciting the kaddish prayers was distributed according to an established order of prece dence to the mourners and yahrzeit observers who were present.9 It 4 also appears that, at least in some synagogues, mourners sat in a special

section reserved for them.9 Ashkenazic communities probably began to 5 accept the custom of reciting kaddish in unison when synagogues grew larger and the problem of omitting a mourner grew more acute. This can also be perceived from Rabbi Sloniks responsa, where he deals with the pToblem of not enough kaddish prayers for all those observing yahrzeit and mourning, stating: Occasionally, there are too many mourners within the thirty-day period and yahrzeit observers, and it is impossible to apportion a kaddish to each one.9 6 He does not, however, go so far as to counsel recitation of the prayers in unison. Such a departure from the accepted usage of his time was not to be considered. In some German communities the most recent mourner was allotted all the kaddish prayers. Some Sefardic Jews allowed all mourners to recite the kaddish prayers in unison.9 Synagogue Seats In Polish synagogues, it was customary for the members to purchase seats which they held for life and which they were able to bequeath to their children." A seat holder could also give the seat away as a gift,0 A 0 widow could inherit her late husband's seat, and though she could not, of course, use it herself, she could dispose of it as an asset of her estate. A seat could be given as a dowry. In short, it was valuable property. Rabbi Slonik states: And they shall also have the house as their father has bequeathed, and the seat in the mens synagogue, and in addition, the widow has her ketuba (marriage contract settlement) . . . and before the marriage ceremony, let them make a settlement with the groom that he shall take the synagogue seat and sell it, and whatever the difference between that income and the bridal settlement should be paid to him from the value of the h o u se.. . .1 0 Rabbi Sloniks inclusion of the phrase mens synagogue indicates that the practice of buying seats for life applied to the womens section of the synagogue as well. Rabbi Solomon Luria cites a case of a man who gave two seats as dowry, one next to his own and the other in the womens section of the synagogue.11 Wealthy members of the commu 0 nity would buy several seats for their children and sons-in-law whom they were supporting.

For this is the practice of wealthy members, who purchase seats for their children and in-law s... .12 0 Of course, not everyone was wealthy enough to purchase a seat in this manner. Seats were also rented for a period of time, usually by the year. Frequently, a seat holder would rent his seat to another member. The cost of seats varied according to their location. Rabbi Sirkes tells of an altercation between two men, one of whom had a seat in a cheaper section of the synagogue than the other.13 0 Synagogue seats were not luxuriously furnished. It was not usual, for instance, to place cushions upon them.14It was considered praisewor 0 thy to sacrifice comfort during prayer, since a greater reward would be due those who expend effort and suffer inconvenience in order to fulfill God's commandments.15 Communities had no right, however, to add 0 seats in such a way as to inconvenience or crowd prior seat holders.18 0

Home and Family

An important family usage is discussed by Rabbi Slonik, who states that while it was once customary for relatives to enter into complete mourning in sympathy with the bereaved, it was no longer proper to do so. Relatives who wished to express their sympathy could enter only into a state of partial mourning, accepting only some of the mourners restrictions.17 It is obvious that the ties of family were so strong that 0 even comparatively distant relatives, such as second and third cousins, sought to enter into mourning in order to give expression to the depth of their sorrow.1 Rabbi Slonik also has some information concerning customs of dress, as well as a description of certain items of clothing. Thus, he mentions the usage of wearing a white shirt in honor of the Sabbath.19 0 One garment in particular is interesting, for it appears to have been worn only in Poland. Rock is a jacket, probably a long one, worn under an outer sleeveless cape, sarbal, which was also called mantle. The sarbal was worn in Cracow by certain elders during synagogue ser vices, as well as at the cemetery while engaged in a burial. It served as a sort of coat of dignity, designated specifically for use while performing a commandment of God. From Rabbi Luria we learn that it did not originate in Cracow, but was worn in Germany as well. He writes: On the Sabbath we ought to be covered and distinguished like angels of heaven . .. therefore we wear a sarbal called a kittel, and such is the German custom. . . .10 1

The rock was found only in Poland. It was customary to wear it even indoors, and sometimes, for protection against the cold, a fur shoulder cape was attached to it.1 Rabbi Slonik also identifies with the sarbal or " mantle a type of old French cape which as worn in Germany as well, and which he calls gurnak.12 1 From information Rabbi Slonik offers, we can deduce that in general Jews in Poland during this time dressed very much like the local Gentiles. Otherwise the Gentiles could not have borrowed clothing from the Jews to wear on their holidays during church service.13 1

Women and Men

The book Rabbi Slonik wrote for women, Ein Shein FreuenbuchJein,14 used the Yiddish-Deutsch dialect then commonly spoken in 1 Poland. Jewish women prayed in Hebrew but spoke the vernacular they brought from Germany. Some, however, possibly descendants of earlier settlers who had come from the east, did not speak Yiddish.15 1 In general, women had a high degree of independence during this period of time. They participated in business, some of them actually as heads of firms.16A printing house in Lublin was owned by a woman.17 1 1 Rabbi Joseph Katz cites the case of a man who sued his ex-fiance. He had liquidated his own business in order to join hers. When he broke off the engagement he claimed high damages in compensation for his lost business, which he had given up in favor of her more lucrative one.18 More often, they were active in family businesses such as 1 arander concessions, helping and sharing with their husbands.19 1 It is because of the business activity of women and their need to travel, and sometimes to take care of the business at home alone while their husbands were away on business trips, that the synods were forced to pass decrees governing the chaperoning of women and forbidding them to venture out on the roads alone or to remain in business without help readily available, should they be molested. Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen's pamphlet describes the conditions of the time. Owners of remotely located liquor concessions must sometime travel on business, thus leaving their womenfolk at the mercy of the Gentiles who drink there and are often inebriated.. . .1 2 We know that women also traveled, probably on business trips. They were also taken captive by the Tatars on their border raids which endangered the frequently used trade routes to Constantinople. Rabbi

Yaakov Yekel, son of Rabbi Slonik, describes such a captive in the hands of the Turks, and her husbands six-year effort to obtain her release. She was an exception, however, because throughout most of that time she willingly chose Tatar captivity, living with her captor as his wife and bearing him two children. Usually, as described in Rabbi Yaakov Yekels responsum, the release of Tatar captives was almost a routine. The physical and simultaneous exchange of money for people would take place at the actual border.11 2 Women bought houses, sometimes in their own names.12 Husbands 2 sometimes pledged houses as security for their ketuba, marriage contract, so that should the husband die or divorce his wife, the house would be security for the settlement Jewish law required.13 2 Divorce could only be given by mutual consent. Womens consent was required by rabbinic decree, while the requirement of the hus bands free will for issuing divorce was of Torah origin. The rabbis tried to bridge the gap. Much effort was expended to help women who needed a divorce to obtain one. Not always, however, did rabbis acquiesce when a woman wanted to dissolve her marriage. Rabbi Luria deals with the case of a woman who claimed her husband had violated Jewish law, and she could no longer tolerate being married to a scoffer of her faith. Rabbi Luria distinguishes between one who sins against Judaism, which he does not deem sufficient cause for divorce, and one who sins against his wife which he does consider sufficient cause to force her husband to release her.14 2 Desertion was therefore sufficient cause for forcing the husband to divorce his wife.15 When a certain scholar used a business trip as an 2 excuse to run away from his wife, Rabbi Luria threatened him with excommunication, in a letter otherwise full of prayerful hope that the scholar would relent and fulfill his obligations to wife and children.18 2 Though there were instances of violation of moral standards,17 in 2 general women were moral, pious, though usually unlearned. Rabbi Slonik tells of communities where women had acted more strictly than the law requires as a precautionary measure. The issue was bathing on Sabbaths, holidays, and fast days. He first outlines the way one may bathe on Sabbaths and holidays, and the fasts of the Ninth of Ab and the Day of Atonement. He then writes: In many communities, however, women have altogether stopped following the above procedures on the Sabbaths and holidays. Perhaps this is precautionary, since many women are ignorant of the distinction between water that was heated before the Sabbath and water that was heated during the Sabbath; nor are they likely

to be careful not to wring out a cloth. Where such precautions were introduced, they should be maintained. Otherwise, the above procedures may be followed.18 2 Rabbi Slonik also describes methods of ritual immersion for handi capped women. Obviously there were very few violations of ritual law. Even those severely handicapped would go to the mikve.19Rabbi Luria 2 writes that in certain ways the piety of women was excessive. Women had begun to extend the prohibition against eating meat from the nine days preceding the fast of the Ninth of Ab to the entire three-week period beginning with the fast of the Seventeenth of Tammuz. Rabbi Luria disapproves, declaring this to be excessive.10 3 In another context, however, Rabbi Slonik encourages womens de sire for pious expression. In discussing whether a blind man or an illiterate (who is therefore functionally blind) may be called up to an aliya to the Torah, he gives an impassioned plea to permit them the right to accept the yoke of the kingdom of heaven. He supports his argument with documentation concerning the encouragement rabbis had always given to those seeking a religious experience, and espe cially to women who seek to express themselves in piety. He writes: I am surprised at those who forbid (this practice). How could they decide to remove from these people the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and especially in such an important commandment. Not so were we taught by our sages of the Mishna and Talmud. For had they not said, Michal, the daughter of King Saul, used to don tejiliin (phylacteries) and was not discouraged from this practice! And the wife of Jonah used to go up to the Holy Temple on holiday pilgrimages and would bring pilgrim offerings! And the women used to bring such offering into the Temple Court itself, and place their hands upon them, as stated in Tosefta, Chapter XIX . . . for every positive commandment with a time deadline (from which women are exempt) is optional for them, and if they chose to perform these commandments they utter blessings over them. . . . Behold, you have evidence before you from the sages of the Mishna and Talmud who were lenient in permitting daughters and sons of Israel to perform and fulfill commandments and utter blessings over them, even when not specifically commanded to do so. And even in some cases where, prima facie, it might appear not fitting to do so, like the daughter of Saul who donned tejillin even though tejiilin require a pure body, and this doesnt always apply to a woman (during the time of menstruation), and the pilgrim offer-

ings of the wife of Jonah where it might appear as if she is bringing animals forbidden because they are unsanctified into the court yard, nevertheless the sages overlooked these objections because they regarded the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven as more important; and to give spiritual satisfaction to them, as it is stated, Not because semicha (laying of hands on the offering) applies to women, but because they sought to give spiritual satis faction to women. If so, in the matter before us, too, we must allow the blind and the ignorant to be called to the Torah and to utter blessings, in order to include them in the acceptance of Gods dominion and in order to give them spiritual satisfaction.11 3

Chapter

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS

IN AN ALIEN SOCIETY
The struggle of the Jew for economic survival in an alien society influenced his relationships with the Gentiles around him. The study of the relationships of Polish Jewry to overlord, burgher, peasant, and clergy helps us to better understand the Jewish community, its society and its culture.

Milieu
We know that wherever possible Jews voluntarily chose to live in their own neighborhoods. Rabbi Joseph Katz states that when a Jew bought property in a Jewish neighborhood from a fellow Jew, a stipula tion was usually required that the purchaser would not in the future sell the house to a Gentile.1Rabbi Isserles says of Cracow: In our city where not a single Gentile lives in the street . . ., it is nevertheless a thoroughfare for Gentiles who traverse it contin ually.2 There were, however, exceptions. We find the interesting phenome non of Jews taking pains to insure that a few Gentiles retain residence in their midst. Rabbi Joel Sirkes tells us that this practice afforded them some measure of added protection. In order to prevent arson in the Jewish quarter, or expulsion of the Jews from the city . . .

He cites the case of the Lubomil community, which in 1557 agreed, for that reason, not to purchase any more homes within the city walls from Gentiles so that Gentiles continue to reside in the Jewish quarter. Nine years later (1566), the communitys leaders reiterated this ordi nance.3 If Gentiles lived among them, other Gentiles would hesitate to put the Jewish neighborhood to the torch. These Gentiles, who had developed good-neighbor relations with Jews and who often depended for their livelihoods on the Jewish community in the midst of which they lived, could be expected to intercede for their Jewish neighbors w ith the overlords and the church if their neighbors were to be threatened with expulsion. We also find many Jews who were unable to live in the Jewish quarter. The general populace was scattered, and many Jews who did business with them were forced to live among their clients, probably in villages, completely isolated from their fellows. Such a situation is mentioned by Rabbi Slonik, where witnesses were not available be cause the two Jewish claimants lived in areas where there were no other Jews. This naturally presented great problems, such as insuring ' the safety and proper chaperonage of women.5 The problems were not overriding, however, judging from the frequency of such situations where Jews chose to live in Gentile neighborhoods.

The Jew and the Overlord

It is well known that many Jews in Poland during this period, as in Germany during medieval times, made their livelihoods as business agents and middlemen for overlords. Rabbi Slonik informs us that this was how Jews survived in the diaspora, by gaining the overlords protection through their service and usefulness to him. He quotes Rabbenu Asher b. Jehiel, who says: What use would some nations have for us that would cause them to shield us and permit us to dwell among them, if not for the benefit they derive from us. .. .B In Poland this effort assumed added significance. Weinryb writes: Beginning with the fourteenth century, as each successive dynasty expired, or even on the death of a king, the next ruler was obliged to pander to the nobility to insure their su p p o rt... . Thus nobility became the states major force. The king was assigned a secondary role.7

The nobility, on the other hand, had its own troubles. They were concerned about the growing power of the cities. The burghers, with their regulatory, monopolistic, protective policies were often perceived by the overlords as a threat. Against this threat the Jews were a ready ally." As Gershon Hundert writes: The ability of the Jews to forge alliances with the Polish nobility was essential to the Jews' security. Their relative success accounts in significant measure for the relative peace in which Polish Jewry lived.9 Jews therefore sought to serve powerful overlords so as to safeguard their position as a protected minority group. They found ways not only to be useful but even to be indispensable. Tax-farming was a lucrative occupation. So was estate supervision.1 Rabbi Joel Sirkes tells of a 0 Jewish estate supervisor who ships boatloads of wheat for sale to foreign buyers. He was in conflict with Jewish royal tax farmers who demanded that the shipper pay a high shipping tax to the king. The overseer complained that the overlords for whom he ships are exempt from such taxes.1 Jews purchased moneylending concessions from 1 overlords. Rabbi Luria writes: And behold, the man negotiating for the purchase of the moneylending concessions from the overlord of the city who was pre preempted by another, has no claim to demand the other be designated wicked, for the concession is to be considered like a found object, since there is no other such concession to be had in that city. For it is customary for the overlord to give only one such moneylending concession in each city.1 2 Indeed, they were sometimes employed, as Rabbi Slonik attests, as go-betweens by overlords in their business dealings with one another. Thus we find: Reuben became the agent between the overlord of the city and the new overlord in the matter of mortgaging the city . . .,3 Rabbi Slonik cites several instances of Jews acting as the business agents of the overlord and engaging in trade on his behalf. He writes about a Gentile named Habrila (Gabriel?) who sent a Jew and another Gentile to engage in business for him. The Jew probably made the business contacts. The Gentile could have gone along for the sake of

security, or as is more likely, in order to perform menial tasks, such as driving the cattle. The overlord later sent after them to discover what had befallen them both. He was powerful enough to influence the thieves to the extent that his stolen merchandise was returned. The trade goods included merchandise and money which the Jew and Gentile were taking to Wallachia in order to trade for livestock which they were to bring back to the overlord.1 4 Hundert suggests that in Poland the money with which Jewish merchants and traders purchased their goods was generally lent to them or invested with them by noblemen and, to a lesser extent, by clergy and church institutions.1 He makes his suggestion tentatively, 5 since the frequent partnerships and agencies such as described in the responsa literature can be more easily explained by the mutual advan tage each partner would gain. The overlord would gain in the Jew an agent for trading and a weapon to use against the burghers. The Jew would gain a powerful protector enabling him to engage in business pursuits. These partnerships do not preclude Hundert's thesis. It is quite possible that in addition to a powerful protector, the Jews needed the business capital which the overlord could provide. Besides the impressive evidence for his thesis that Hundert has gathered, there is a statement by Rabbi Luria supporting his suggestion. Rabbi Luria writes: Now that most of the Jews live on the community dole, and most of those who are called merchants have meager capital, and what ever is in their hands comes from Gentiles on loan for a specified time, since they borrow merchandise until such and such a fair, it is not proper to withhold payment of money owed (such a merchant) beyond the time when he must repay his debts, lest he be found in default and lose his means of livelihood, becoming prey to the Gentile creditors and losing his credit standing among merchants. I have also heard of many merchants, Jew and Gentile, who, because of rumors that they were economically unsound, have come to great harm and could never thereafter regain their footing all the days of their lives.1 8 On the other hand, we have evidence from Rabbi Isserles that overlords borrowed from Jews.1 Obviously there were rich and poor 7 overlords, as well as rich and poor Jews. Loans were made in both directions. Trade was particularly important, since it was easier for Jews to trade in remote localities which the overlord could not reach without an armed force. Jews could travel with relative ease by moving from

Jewish community to Jewish community along the way. Each commu nity had purchased local protection from the overlords for themselves and their "relations, which, of course included all their fellow Jews.1 6 Ti-ade was therefore still largely in Jewish hands, and the business contacts a Jew could call upon, as well as the protection afforded through his contacts with local Jewish communities, were vital for the success of such ventures. The course of this type of business did not always run smoothly. Not always would overlords encountered upon the journey or at the destination, be as friendly as those in more centrally located areas of Poland. Rabbi Slonik cites the case of a Jew imprisoned and murdered by a duke with whom he had attempted to do business.1 And the journeys, in spite of the protection afforded by 9 local Jewish communities, were often dangerous. Security of the roads against bandits and raiding Tatars was not only a Jewish problem, but the concern of the whole society.2 The hospitality Jews were afforded 0 by their coreligionists in communities along the way, did not always serve to protect them.2 Thus, Rabbi Sloniks responsa are full of 1 questions dealing with missing or murdered traveling businessmen.2 2 Of course, even at home, there were overlords who sometimes permit ted their prejudice or passion to overcame their judgment and who persecuted their Jews. Rabbi Sirkes tells of a Jew who was pushed off a bridge by overlords. A Gentile passerby who saw the body was afraid to pull it out of the water lest the Jews accuse him of murder.2 Rabbi Meir 3 of Lublin tells of overlords who denied permission to rebuild a fireravaged synagogue, saying that it was too near their own church.2 We 4 also find an overlord confiscating a home in order to extort money from the Jewish inhabitants. The Jews sought people with influence to intervene on their behalf.2 Such instances of confiscations and incar 5 cerations were, as Rabbi Isserles testifies, rare in Poland.2 6 The greater experience, ability, and contacts of the Jewish business men enabled them to produce higher revenues in taxes, and often to lend the overlords much-needed funds. Rabbi Isserles tells us that to the Jewish businessman it was evident that the overloxd would repay short-term loans more readily than those with a long term of repay ment. Too much interest would accrue on the long-term loan, so that the overlord might be tempted to simply cancel the debt because of his inability to pay. It was to the overlords advantage to repay the loan, so that his credit standing for the future loans on which he depended would not be impaired.2 Such business acumen and contacts fre 7 quently enabled Jews to bid higher prices than could their Gentile competitors for monopoly rights, such as milling and liquor conces sions, which they sought to purchase. This, too, caused the overlord to

favor them. Thus we find, in Rabbi Sloniks responsa, a case in which a Gentile begs a Jew, and attempts to bribe him, to take over a high-priced milling concession. The Gentile had previously attempted to outbid the Jew and then found that he could not manage to run the concession with profit at the price he was forced to pay. The Jew was the only one who could generate profit at the level of the concessions cost Then, when the Gentile saw that his plot failed, he begged Reuben to take over the concession himself, and offered fifty thaler to him, for releasing him from the concession.2 Sometimes the overlord would even give the monopoly rights to a lower-bidding Jew because of friendship or past service or because of the added financial security his stewardship would represent. Reuben testified that he became very close to the overlord who was willing to forego one hundred pieces of gold in order to award him the conces sion.2 Jews, therefore, usually showed great loyalty to the overlords 9 and occasionally became quite friendly with them. Rabbi Isserles describes how an overlord was to insure the proper execution of the last will of a Jewish man. Such a clause would never have been inserted 0 into the will unless the Jew had been on close terms with the overlord.3 Rabbi Meir of Lublin describes how a Gentile overlord trained his Jewish subjects to bear arms in defense against the Tatars.3 Rabbi Sirkes 1 describes how loyal Jews sought to ransom Polish noblemen who had been taken prisoner by the Tatars.3 They were probably better able to 2 negotiate the release since, as Rabbi Yekel, son of Rabbi SLonik writes, certain Jews could regularly go beyond the border into Tatar land to negotiate with them for the release of captives.3 After all, the Jews were 3 not Christian; nor were they, strictly speaking, part of the Polish populace.

The Jew and the Burgher

The position of the Jews with regard to the overlord was politically much better in Poland than in Germany, whence they had come. Economic conditions might sometimes be harder, but Rabbi Moses Isserles remarks: Perhaps (it is better to have) a dry crust in tranquillity which we enjoy in these provinces . . . where there is not as much hatred for us as there is in the German communities.3 4

With regard to the burgher, however, a great deal of friction was developing. Beginning with the thirteenth century, Polish noblemen began to import German burghers in order to develop the economy.3 5 These burghers brought with them the German animosity toward the Jew. The flames of this hatred were fanned by the burghers ever growing economic competition with their Jewish neighbors.3 6 The German burghers transplanted to Poland were not altogether successful in instilling their hatred toward Jews into the hearts of the local populace. Polish people were at first less ready than their German counterparts to accept the attitude of anti-Semitism. First, because the church in Poland was not yet as strong as that of Germany. The Byzantine and the Catholic Churches had expended much energy in their competitive efforts for influence and power, with the result that the Catholic Church, though having emerged the victor, was at this period still testing its strength and consolidating its hold over the populace. They still had not yet gained such control over king and nobleman that would have caused the hatred to erupt. And the Jews themselves were one of many minorities which comprised the Polish population. For, as Weinryb writes: Internally, the Polish Lithuanian state was polyglot, multinational, and multireligious. The union in 1569 brought together in one state, Poles, Ukrainians, White Russians, Lithuanians, and a num ber of smaller minorities [Jews, Germans, Armenians, Tatars, and others), with ethnic Poles constituting only about two-fifths of the total. Religious affiliation in Poland included Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Uniates or Greek Catholics (Byzantine rites and ceremo nies coupled with acknowledgment of the popes supremacy), Lutherans, Calvinists, Bohemian Brethren, Arians (anti-Trinitari ans) in addition to Jews, adherents of the Armenian Church, and Muslims.3 7 In such a country, without an overpowering element of population, it is harder to turn masses against a minority, even if that minority is Jewish. The burghers constantly sought to limit the rights of Jews and contended with them for the acquisition of monopolistic privileges. They lost no opportunity to encroach upon Jewish rights to such concessions.3 One of their targets was the liquor concession. Rabbi 6 Slonik deals with a case in which burghers sought to prevent R from repurchasing a supply of liquor which, in accordance with religious law, he had been forced to sell to a Gentile for Passover. They unlaw

fully seized the liquor for themselves, claiming that R was not autho rized to be a concessionaire and therefore could not sell the liquor. Rabhi Slonik declares that the burghers acted against the law, which does not impose any restrictions on merchants such as R who sell large quantities at once but was instituted only to limit retail competition.3 It 9 is possible that the burghers had enlisted the aid of the local Jewish concessionaire, and it is against his action that the decision of Rabbi Slonik would have force and significance.4 0 Bitter feuds of a similar nature can also be found in the response of Rabbi Sloniks contemporaries. Rabbi Solomon Luria tells of a dispute between two Jews who had been bidding for the liquor concession. The burghers, in their effort to seize control of the monopoly, sought to control the overlords choice of concessionaire by obtaining an agree ment that he could not be chosen without their approval.*1 The liquor 1 monopoly was probably the first target of the burghers, since it was a concession they all patronized and was very profitable. It probably rankled them to owe debts to Jewish concessionaires who were the proprietors of the inns in which they drank up their money.4 2 In this responsum we find a new element entering the controversy. The queen, probably the queen of King Sigismund August, intervened and overruled the overlord and the burghers.4 She was powerful 3 enough to force her decree to be obeyed, As Rabbi Luria explains: They were compelled to obey the queen without recourse.4 4 She was probably defending her own control over these monopolies through which she might have been earning a private income. She therefore would be incensed to learn of bribes extorted by overlords and burghers, since this graft diminished the amount of profit she herself could realize. She demanded that all bribes be returned and that a new contract be written in her own name.4 5 The overlords had reason to be more favorably disposed toward the Jews then were the burghers. Weinryb explains that Jews did not generally come under the city governments jurisdiction but rather under the king's and (in the private cities) under the nobles. Neither king nor noble was ready to support all the regulatory monopolistic tendencies of the city burghers. The nobles held trade and artisanship in contempt, were jealous of the wealth acquired by some burghers, and as consumers were opposed to the monopolistic practices and regula tions of the cities. They were thus inclined to regard Jewish competi tion with burghers favorably. Noblemen, and sometimes the kings themselves, would interfere to help them.4

Rabbi Lurias responsum also records a disagreement among the burghers themselves concerning the way the matter was handled by their compatriots.4 Disunity among the burghers would, of course, be 7 to the advantage of the more united Jewish community. It was an added factor, enabling Jews to compete favorably against forces which other wise would have been far stronger than they. Thus, as Rabbi Joseph Katz indicates, Jews were able to obtain favored positions in spite of the burghers and their growing power.4 8

The Jew and the Peasant

The very low cultural and social state of the Polish peasant, espe cially those of Eastern Poland, prevented them from posing any eco nomic or political threat to the Jew. Nevertheless, there were already signs on the horizon of dissatisfaction and friction. On the surface, the relationship with the lower class of the Gentile populace seemed pleasant enough. Jews frequently employed Gentiles, even as menials.4 There were Gentile servant girls in Jewish homes. We 9 find a statute passed by the Council of Four Lands that as a precaution ary measure, non-Jewish servants were not to sleep overnight in their Jewish employers homes. The precaution was presumably to prevent collusion between the servants and outside troublemakers or bandits.5 0 Rabbi Slonik cites the case of a mother who requested a program of penance because of the accidental death of her child. Rabbi Slonik discusses what the mother should do but disregards the maid who was suspected of infanticide and was therefore at least as culpable in the childs accidental death. Obviously, the servant girl was not Jewish.5 It 1 is probable that the servant was of Eastern Orthodox origin, rather than Roman Catholic. For when the Church of Rome gained ascendency in Poland, they relegated those who followed the Byzantine Church to menial positions and banished others to the eastern frontiers. From the latter came the Cossacks. The church frequently legislated against Jewish employment of Christians as servants. The frequency of the legislation indicates that it was probably honored in the breach. Never theless, one can assume that the Roman Church was more willing to overlook violations of their legislation if the servant was Eastern Orthodox. Nathan Hanover writes: And the Greek people grew more and more impoverished and downtrodden, and became slaves to the Polish people and to the Jews, except for the mighty warriors among them . . ., 30,000 of

which they took as soldiers and made them Cossacks, freeing them from the special tax to king and overlords, but requiring them to settle and remain on the border between the province of Russia and the Kingdom of the Kadars to guard against their traditional en emy.5 2 Rabbi Slonik deals with Gentile wagon drivers transporting wine for Jews,5 and with Gentile cattle drovers serving Jewish employers.5 Of 3 4 course, Gentile laborers were commonplace.5 5 Jews lent money to peasants as well as to members of other classes of society, and as Rabbi Slonik indicates, sometimes received farm prod ucts in payment. He deals with a case where a Gentile gives a Jew a gestating cow in payment of a debt.5 In another instance, a question 6 came from a certain Rabbi Elimelech who had received swine in payment of a debt. He could not sell them immediately without losing half their value, for the market had dropped. He asked whether in this case it was possible to hold them for a time, despite the prohibition against Jews raising swine. Rabbi Slonik answers that he may keep them until he finds a buyer at their proper value.5 In another case, 7 Rabbi Slonik was asked about clothing Gentiles had borrowed from their wealthier, better dressed Jewish neighbors for use in church during their holiday services. Rabbi Slonik permits the lenders to reuse the clothing upon their return, even though they were worn while the wearers were celebrating their religious rites.5 8 The relationship with peasants was, however, a seething cauldron. Polish peasants had a history of progressive repression. Weinryb out lines this history. Most peasants had been tenants of the overlords who owned the land. With the German colonization, beginning in the second half of the thirteenth century, new settlements grew with a new system in which peasants received a portion of the land in return for which they paid an annual sum in cash and goods. Eventually old communities converted to the new system. Now peasants were re garded as free men with the right to move away. During the fifteenth century, however, this tenancy system was changed into a system of servitude. By 1518, when the king ceased to consider their complaints against the overlords, the peasants had become serfs.5 Against this 9 background of ancient glimmerings of freedom and new servitude entered the Jew who became the middleman between overlord and peasant. This created a great potential for bitterness and hatred which was much later to erupt in the holocaust of the 1648 peasant 49 uprising under Bogdan Chmielnicki.

The Attitude of the Clergy

The anti-Jewish attitude of the church in Poland grew with the growth of church power. Nevertheless, officials of the church who had Jews as leaseholders on their estates or as tenants in their houses or who lent them money, tended to be interested in the well being of their Jews despite the general anti-Jewish attitude of the church.6 For the 0 economic usefulness of Jews extended to the clergy as well. Jews were as useful to priests as to overlords. Rabbi Meir of Lublin tells of a murdered Jew who was found to possess a note of indebtedness from a priest.6 We find trade relationships and even instances of friendship 1 between clerics and Jews. Rabbi Slonik tells of a priest who was so friendly with a Jewish trader, that he opened his residence to him and was his host. Later, when the Jew fell victim in a local war and the soldiers, realizing that he was circumcised, refused to bury him, the priest himself performed that service.6 Rabbi Joel Sirkes describes a 2 similar episode, where a priest physically attacked other Gentiles in an effort to move them to help a drowning Jew.*3 This friendship is not to 3 be construed as a softening of the attitude of the church towards the Jewish people.6 In a case cited by Rabbi Meir of Lublin, overlords who 4 had denied permission to the Jewish community to rebuild their synagogue, had been incited by the church. The synagogue in Lukow was destroyed by fire. When the congre gation wanted to rebuild it, they were prevented from doing so by the government and the priests who claimed that the synagogue was located too close to their church. . . . The matter came before the king. Finally the community was forced to forsake their ori ginal site and rebuild the synagogue elsewhere . . .6 5 It is probable that the Jew who enjoyed the priests hospitality had business relations with him, for we know that he was on a business trip.6 But it is also obvious that there was a personal element to the * friendship, for otherwise the priest would not have made such an effort to bury his friend. Jews were naturally very careful to maintain good relationships with the church. Rabbi Slonik indicates that when a Jew was discovered to have received goods stolen from a church, the Jewish community itself conducted a thorough investigation, meting out punishment of tempo rary exile to the offender.6 In this case, however, it is possible that the 7 punishment would also serve to place the Jew beyond the reach of the church. The church had a description of the Jew, and knew of his part

in the theft, for the thief had been caught and had confessed his sale of the articles to the Jew. Obviously, the authorities were content to allow the Jewish community to bring its own offenders to trial and to punish them. Members of the clergy, whose influence on the Gentile populace was certainly enormous, sometimes caused great anguish through false accusations. Rabbi Sirkes tells of a Jew of Kalish who, in 1619, was executed after having been accused of stealing a host. The Gentile community was incited, and demanded that the Jews also turn over the victim's father-in-law, the sexton, for judgment. They threatened that otherwise they would hold the entire Jewish community liable.6 H On the whole, however, in Poland during Rabbi Sloniks period, such accusations were rare.0 Nor, it appears, did Jews dread pogroms. There 6 were many Jews mingling with the crowd in Kalish while they led the accused through the streets. Thus Rabbi Sirkes describes the scene: And while they were leading him to his execution, he took his pouch and gave it to Jews who were mingled with the many Gentiles. And now, after he had sanctified God's Name, the Gen tiles returned and accused his father-in-law, the sexton, of taking from him a pouch in which was their redeemer. . . .7

POLITICAL STABILITY
The relative tranquility in which the Jews of Poland lived during this period was marred by few outbreaks of persecution. Such incidents as the one mentioned by Rabbi Slonik in Responsum 109, appear to be isolated cases, most of which did not even take place in Crown Poland itself, but in more remote, lawless areas. The victims in Rabbi Slonik's case were on a journey to Constantinople via Wallachia.7 1 There were also relatively few oppressive restrictions. The rulers, in fact, issued a series of protective edicts, granting privileges to Jewish residents. The standard wisdom is that these privileges began with that of Prince Boleslas the Pious of Great Poland and Kalish, in 1264, and served as a legal basis for those to come after. The document guaranteed them religious freedom and protection for their personal property. It was later reconfirmed many times by subsequent monarchs.7 Asher 2 Siev, however, cites a document as early as 905, giving German Jews permission to settle everywhere in Poland, to engage in all manner of mercantile and agricultural endeavors, to own real estate and to elect their own internal government, rabbis, and judges.7 These privileges 3 had their effect. Such repressions as did take place were mild. In 1548,

a special meeting took place of noblemen of the Waiwoda in Warsaw, 1548, which forbade Jews to serve among the aides of the Waiwoda as court judges. Even this mild repression was delayed a fortnight in order to give time for any appeal.7 Small wonder that Rabbi Isserles wrote: 4 In this country there is no fierce hatred against us as there is in Germany. May it continue so until the Messiah comes.7 5 This atmosphere of tolerance was in stark contrast to conditions in neighboring countries. Rabbi Meir of Lublin described how German repression Teached eastward as far as Silesia on the Polish border where there was a decree of expulsion. The Jews of Prague bribed the king to rescind the decree. Part of the cost was paid by the Jews who lived on the Polish side of the border.7 Rabbi Meir also indicates that in 8 Italy this was a time of inquisition. He describes the proceedings, indicating that when a MarTano was caught by the inquisition, he would first be cross examined privately, and forced to confess the names of Jews who had helped him backslide. In the case Rabbi Meir cited, it was a moheJ (ritual circumciser) who had circumcised him. The lives of those thus incriminated, would of course be forfeit.7 In 7 fact, Rabbi Joseph Katz reports that Rabbi Meir of Padua, a Polish contemporary and colleague of Rabbi Isserles who headed the Padua academy,7 had no copy of the Talmud available to him, for every last 8 copy had been put to the torch.7 9 In spite of their fortunate situation, Jews of Poland sought to assure additional safety and protection by every means at their disposal. They had always done all they could to petition the Gentile authorities to redress wrongs done to Jews. The fact that such petitions were com monly successful proves that they did attain a measure of security and influence. During the Middle Ages the Jewish community in Germany would go to great lengths in order to bring a murderer to justice and punishment for having killed a Jew.8 In Rabbi Slonik's responsa we 0 discover that the Jews of Poland were likewise successful in their effort to protect themselves. Rabbi Slonik cites instances of wrongdoers against Jews who were brought to justice and punished. He tells of bandits who were apprehended for the murder of six Jews, tortured till they admitted their guilt, and then put to death.0 He also tells of a Jew 1 who suspected a Gentile of murder, brought him to justice, and caused him to be incarcerated by the authorities, who declared him under suspicion of having murdered a Jewish traveler.8 The sentence of death 2 was pronounced after the Gentile confessed in fear of the torture which

the authorities always applied in such cases in order to elicit confes sions. This was a high degree of civil protection for those times and was obtained only because Polish Jews enjoyed a great deal of influence and power. There is a case in Rabbi Sloniks responsa which prima facia seems to be an exception. A Gentile, H, sent two agents, one Jewish, the other Gentile, to Wallachia with goods to trade for cattle. Both were murdered and robbed by bandits. When H heard about the murder, he sent two more agents, both Gentile, to investigate. They returned, identifying the location of the murder as well as the names of the murderers. H did recover his goods, but the murderers remained unpunished.8 In actual fact, however, this case is no exception. There 4 is no evidence of prejudice. The victims were a Jew and a Gentile. The area of Wallachia where the murder took place was generally unstable. Rabbi Slonik describes how banditry flourished openly and unchecked there. The murderers were known by name, but they could not be brought to justice.8 5

TRADE AND TRAVEL

Jews of Poland tried to safeguard their communities and to avoid the tragic persecutions which befell their forebears and their contempo raries in Germany. Yet, with all the safeguards with which they sur rounded their community life, they were in at least one important respect the most vulnerable group of the population. They might be able to strengthen their economic, social, and political condition, but they could not avoid exposure to danger on their frequent business trips. Since they were the most active business travelers in Poland, they were often forced to traverse dangerous frontiers and lawless territory. Consequently, some were killed while traveling. The responsa of the sages in Rabbi Sloniks time contain many questions of aguna, deserted wives who did not know whether their husbands were alive or dead. Rabbi Slonik, who served for part of his life in Podhajce,8 was near 7 an area of great danger. In fact, he himself was, on at least one occasion, a refugee in flight from the "Ishmaelites, as the Jews of Poland called 8 the Tatars.8 9 Podhajce was located in southeastern Poland, due north of Sniatyn which was on the border of Hungary and Moldavia. Both cities were northwest of Wallachia. The chief trade routes which were in use for hundreds of years between Western Europe and Constantinople, crossed Poland, Hungary

and Bohemia.9 Part of this route traversed the land of Wallachia. 0 Wallachia was bordered on the north by Moldavia, on the south by Bulgaria, on the northeast by Hungary. From Poland to Constantinople the most direct route was south to Eastern Hungary, then southeast via Wallachia, crossing the tip of Bulgaria and what is now Romania to Constantinople. In addition to bandits, an ever-present danger, the Tatars (Kadars) raided and terrorized the southeastern reaches of this route for a period of over one hundred years, from 1550 until 1650.9 1 These Tatar hordes had at one time even extended their sovereignty to the principalities of Kiev and Moscow.9 They came from Southern 2 Russia (Southeastern Poland; not Russia of today) and frequently burst forth to terrorize the Eastern provinces of Poland.9 It was because of 3 these periodic raids that there were Cossacks in the Ukraine. Scholars generally assume that the inhabitants of the Ukraine were compelled to organize themselves into warlike companies, or Cossacks, in order to fight off the invaders.9 From the contemporary Nathan Nata Hanover, 4 however, it becomes apparent that the Cossack warriors, 30,000 in number, were required by the king to dwell in the Ukraine in order to serve as border guards against the Tatars. They were selected from those who followed the Byzantine Church. This duty was a form of exile imposed upon these warlike men by the king under the influence of the ascendant Roman Catholic Church.9 Not all those who guarded the 5 border were Cossacks. Even the Jews who resided in the area some times bore arms against the Tatars.9 6 This is probably one of the reasons that Rabbi Sloniks responsa contain a larger proportion of problems of deserted wives (agunot) than do some other collections of sages who lived in more westerly areas of Poland. Rabbi Isserles, who served in Cracow further west, for instance, has one such question in his entire collection of 150 responsa.9 7 Similarly, Rabbi Solomon Luria and Rabbi Joseph Katz have none. In the one case Rabbi Katz cites of a man who died while on a business trip, it is obvious that his death was due to natural causes.9 In contrast, 8 Rabbi Slonik has 10 problems of deserted wives in his collection of 112 responsa. Since in the published work are collected only a fraction of the questions which came to him, we can only judge the frequency of such cases by the proportion of space given to them. Making allow ances for the fact that these would get special attention because of the important and difficult subject matter, we must still acknowledge that over ten percent of the total space is devoted to these problems. It is a large proportion.9 Rabbi Joel Sirkes also dealt with many such ques 9 tions,10 possibly because members of his community also traveled 0 these routes. Rabbi Sirkes served in several remote and sparsely settled

areas such as Pruzany, Lukow, Luboml, and Brest-Litovsk, before assuming the rabbinate of Cracow.11He had also served in Belz, which 0 was not far from Podhajce, Rabbi Sloniks community. It is also possi ble that, serving as he did in the great community and rabbinate of Cracow, important questions came to him. This explanation, however, would leave us with a problem. For Rabbi Isserles also served in the Cracow rabbinate. Yet, as we saw, he received only one such responsum, about a man who went to war and was killed there.12 0 Other factors may therefore account for the preponderance in Rabbi Slonik's work of such questions which express the most severe and difficult problem of the day. First, Rabbi Slonik was recognized as a great authority in these matters, especially during his later years.13 Secondly, like Rabbi Sirkes, 0 proportionately more people from his area traveled the dangerous routes on their business trips. The wives left behind, therefore, were likely to bring their problems to him. Most important, however, is the fact that he tended to decide these tragic questions leniently, with compassionate concern for the unfortunate widow.14 In this he was 0 joined by Rabbi Joel Sirkes. For Rabbi Sirkes, too, decided these matters leniently. He engaged in voluminous correspondence with other sages on this subject, and frequently overrode their stricter interpretations.15 0 A similar situation is described by Mordecai Breuer concerning Rabbi Jacob Weil and Rabbi Israel Isserlein. Each accused the other of placing too much emphasis on delicate pilpullistic distinctions, and both con cluded, on the basis of their arguments that a certain agunah was forbidden to remarry. Since the matter was being argued back and forth in correspondence, it gave the relatives of the woman a chance to travel to Italy where the rabbis accepted a more lenient ruling and permitted her to remarry. Obviously, wherever possible, the family posing the question of agunah would seek the sage whose reputation for leniency in these matters was well known.16 0 In 1612 the Russians successfully revolted against Polish dominion and reconquered the territory of Moscow. The Muscovite war also claimed its share of Jewish victims,17 although Rabbi Slonik has no 0 responsa dealing with them. It is interesting to note that the problems which came before our author and his contemporaries mirror the unique conditions prevailing in each of these two areas of danger. The Muscovite war was actually a revolution by Russians against Polish domination and lasted a short time, from the spring till October of 1612, with the actual fighting toward the end of this period. An attempt during the early months of the previous year by the Russians to throw off the yoke of the Polish invaders had failed.18 Trade fell off in 0

that area, and the only Jews to be found were the residents of the battlegrounds and those who willingly endangered themselves because of their relation to the campaign itself, whether by serving in the army or by supplying it. Rabbi Meir of Lublin tells of a meeting of two Jews who resided in a city which had been under siege.19 There were very 0 few Jews in the territory, however. Muscovites had long excluded Jews from their borders. Only after Polish ascendency did Jews dare to follow the army into Moscow.10 1 In Wallachia, on the other hand, we find victims who were inadver tently caught in unexpected raids. The battles erupted suddenly, and engulfed the victims without warning. They subsided just as sud denly.11 Captives were hastily spirited away by the Tatars, and were 1 afterwards ransomed.12 1 The Wallachian area was only sporadically troubled. The raids of the Tatars took place over so long a period of time that people grew accustomed to them and accepted them as routine hazards to be endured in the normal pursuit of business travel. There was probably a long interim between raids, and people were ready to accept the risk for the sake of their continuation in a type of venture that had proven so lucrative in the past. It is probable that some Jews felt each Tatar raid to be the last. Rabbi Slonik describes the attitude of the populace in a testimony he records as follows: After approximately three weeks, when the news came that the land was tranquil again, I traveled to the battlefield and found.
113

Rabbi Slonik therefore attests to many Jews traveling through Walla chia, which for our authors locale was the gateway to Tbrkey. For everyone knows that many Jewish travelers go and come through the land of Wallachia. .. .1 M This does not mean that Jews became heedless of the danger. Jewish businessmen took the dangers of travel into account and tried to circumvent them. Some traveled armed. Rabbi Isserles tells of a Jew traveling in a carriage accompanied by a servant who acted as his driver. On the way, the Jew sought to test his rifle which accidentally discharged, killing the servant.15 They set out in groups16 and traveled 1 1 in caravans.17 They would, in desperation, even seek out the company 1 of warlike men of doubtful character. Rabbi Slonik records the case of a traveler who sought the company of a soldier who was little betteT than

a bandit. The soldier promptly turned upon the Jew and murdered him for his merchandise. For this Gentile was one of the soldiers who was called Heiduki", whose hands are always outstretched to rob and steal and murder.
118

Heiduki means soldier in Ukranian. The term was used, however, to denote a bandit.19 1 In spite of the danger, Jews continued to travel. Great profit could be made from trade, and the very danger of the road would cause a scarcity of imported goods and increase the chances of a large profit at the conclusion of a successful journey.

OTHER OCCUPATIONS
There were not many occupations open to Polish Jewry at home. Jews did not usually make their livelihoods by owning and working land, since in times of persecution or expulsion the land would become worthless. So Jews had long ago learned to invest in the kind of goods that could easily be taken with them in times of exile. They therefore had little interest in buying business property or real estate, but would usually rent quarters in which to conduct their business.10Thus, Rabbi 2 Luria explains that Jews do not purchase property because of their relative insecurity."11 The exception was domicile. Jews did usually 2 own their own homes which they purchased outright, usually from other Jews, but on occasion from Gentiles, though they also rented homes for periods of one to three year leases.12Rabbi Isserles describes 2 how the deeds were to be recorded and registered with the municipal authorities. Deeds of conveyance, too, were usually drawn up.13 * Generally, Jews sought occupations which could offer them as much economic security as possible, since, as Rabbi Slonik attests, Their wealth could buy them a measure of political security.14It was 2 also desirable to find occupations which would allow them time to pursue the study of Jewish law. TYade was ideally suited to this purpose. So was the purchase or acquisition of an agency which made them middlemen between the overlords and their subjects. Rabbi Slonik tells us that the majority of Jews in his time made their living by purchasing monopoly rights to concessions from overlords. He adds that these concessions were most frequently in the sale of liquor and beer. They were called arrendas, from the medieval Latin arrendare, to rent. The word signifies a lease, originally of a farm,

subsequently of the tavern and other sources of revenue on the estate of a nobleman.15 According to Rabbi Slonik, the liquor monopoly only 2 restricted retail competition. Wholesale merchandising of liquor was unprotected by monopoly rights.16 2 The liquor monopoly afforded many opportunities for employment. If a group or community obtained the concession, they could distribute the franchise in such a way as to enable many Jews to sell liquor in inns, stores, or homes.17 This type of concession presented special 2 problems during Passover, when no Jew was permitted to possess any liquor, so that the entire stock had to be sold to a Gentile. The sale had to be final, for no product containing fermented wheat, such as beer or whiskey, could remain under Jewish ownership during the holiday. It was tacitly agreed that the Gentile would sell the merchandise back to the same Jew after the holiday was over. On occasion, however, unscrupulous Jews, who knew that the sale had been final, outbid the original owners and themselves bought the entire stock from the Gentile who had originally paid but a fraction of its total value. Rabbi Slonik tells of sleepless nights he spent in his effort to find a way to protect the Jewish liquor merchants from these unscrupulous men.10 2 Sometimes, burghers would interfere with these arrangements. We have seen reflected in Rabbi Slonik's responsa the keen competition between burghers and Jews for these concessions.19 2 Jews supervised the overlords estates10 and farmed taxes for over 3 lord and king,11 often earning thereby the enmity of many Gentiles. 3 Rabbi Joel Sirkes testifies that Gentiles began greatly to resent Jews who performed this function. Rabbis in certain areas therefore decreed that Jews were forbidden to engage in this work altogether. Thus, the community leaders passed a statute in 1599 prohibiting Jews to lease royal mints, large arrendas, and to farm the tolls and excise taxes.12 3 Rabbi Sirkes mentions a Cracow community statute prohibiting Jews from farming the czopowe, or liquor tax, because of the special resent ment it produced: They decreed, under strong penalty, for several provinces in our kingdom, that no Jew was to farm the czopowe because of the great danger of resentment by Gentiles in most of the locations where Jews rule over them and act towards them like kings and over lords.13 3 They engaged in importing and exporting commodities such as wheat for the overlords and sometimes for themselves.14 They also lent 1 money on interest to Gentiles, sometimes buying the money-lending

concession from the overlord. It was usually necessary to purchase the money-lending right as a concession, since debts could more easily be collected if the overlord stood behind the lender.15Part of the money 3 lending activity included pawnbroking.16 3 The rabbis were sometimes troubled by violations of the religious statutes prohibiting usury. These laws permitted income from loans to Jews only when they were made in the form of a partnership arrange ment whereby the lender acted as a silent partner sharing in the risk as well as the profit of the borrowers venture.17 Rabbi Slonik refers to 3 certain lapses, and says that occasionally strong measures might be indicated to prevent further violations of this law.18 This was an old 3 problem, as Rabbi Slonik himself implies.18 The rabbis of his day felt 3 that the problem was sufficiently important to discuss at length at the Gromniczej synod of 1607. Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen summarized their deliberations in a pamphlet which he concluded with an exhortation to take the laws against usury seriously. The record book of the Council of Four Lands describes the deliberations and the pamphlet.10 4 Jews also engaged in the processing of dairy products, largely be cause observance of the kosher laws required that they be especially careful in the production of these items lest milk from nonkosher animals be used as an ingredient. Jews would therefore refrain from purchasing any dairy products made by Gentiles without Jewish super vision. Thus, we find in Rabbi Slonik's responsa a Jew whose work ordinarily was butter and cheese, but who lost his life when he changed his occupation to the more profitable, but also more dangerous one of trade.11Rabbi Meir of Lublin cites a case in which the procedure 4 is clearly outlined. He tells us that a Gentile milks the cow and makes butter and cheese for the overlord, but has an agreement to sell to a Jew a certain number of cheeses and barrels of butter according to a prearranged price.12 4 It was the same necessity for kosher products which compelled many Jews to engage in the production, importing and exporting of wine.13 4 There were Jewish jewelers, goldsmiths, and silversmiths. A statute is recorded regulating their trade, forbidding them from dealing with youths, and with any persons, Jewish and Gentile, who are of ill repute. Obviously, the statute was meant to prevent their receiving stolen goods.14 Jews purchased the salt-mining concession. Rabbi Luria re 4 cords a one-year agreement of this nature.15They dealt in timber. Rabbi 4 Luria records that two Jews contracted with a Gentile merchant to deliver 10,000 boards.16 They also exported it abroad. A Jew rafted 4 timber from Brest-Litovsk to Danzig.17 4 There were Jewish doctors, including specialists who were consulted

by Gentiles.18 Rabbi Joel Sirkes tells of Jewish physicians treating 4 Gentile nobles and high city officials.19 Rabbi Slonik cites a case 4 concerning T h e wealthy, honorable, skilled physician, Rabbi Abra ham. It would appear that medicine was a lucrative and honorable profession.10 5 Many meat suppliers were Jewish.11 They may have initially entered 5 into this field because of the need for kosher products. Eventually, however, they became cattle importers on a large scale. Wallachia and other remote areas were especially rich in cattle. Jews purchased cattle there for import to more northerly areas. Some Jewish communities specialized in cattle trade.12 The help of Gentile drovers was often 5 necessary to bring cattle to market. Rabbi Slonik mentions such an arrangement in his responsa. So do Rabbis Meir of Lublin and Joel Sirkes.13 Rabbi Samuel b. Moses David Halevi (1625?-1681), author of 5 NahaJat Shiva, indicates that the bulk of the meat supply business was in the hands of Jews. Rabbi Samuel, however, wrote after 1648. We must make allowances for the catastrophic social and economic changes which took place because of the 1648-49 Cossack uprising which decimated and impoverished Polish Jewry. Many of their usual occupations were suddenly closed to them. They probably gravitated to the few occupations still open. One such occupation was the meat supply business. This would not .have been possible unless they had previously been familiar with this business.14 5 We find Jews supplying goods, and especially whiskey, to the sol diers of Poland fighting in the Moscovite war.15 We also find Jewish 5 soldiers amongst them, some who distinguished themselves on the field of battle. Rabbi Joel Sirkes and Rabbi Meii of Lublin describe a particularly heroic Jew named Beracha, son of the martyr Aaron of Tyszowce. He had three horses shot from under him during the course of the battle as he repeatedly charged at the Muscovite ranks. Finally, he lost his life. The Cossacks were so shaken by the loss of this valiant comrade, that they honored him according to their fashion by cremat ing his body, and vied for the honor of wearing his armor. Weeks later his exploits were being recounted around their campfires.16 5 Of course, on their journeys, Jews bought and sold many other products besides cattle and wine. Other merchandise mentioned by Rabbi Slonik as part of the stock of Jewish traders includes textiles. In a case he cites, the victim had four commodities to trade. He carried a garment, probably made so as to be of great value, bender (fringes?), and two barrels of whiskey. He had bought likritz, probably licorice, used in making a medicinal beverage.17 Wax is also mentioned as an 5 item of trade.18 Of course, citrons for use on the Tabernacles holiday 5

were imported.19Olive oil was also traded. Rabbi Isserles indicates that 5 it was imported from Italy in wooden barrels which had been treated with lard to prevent leakage. Rabbi Isserles ruled that the lard treatment did not render the olive oil nonkosher, since the taste of lard had a spoiling effect, and since there was more than sixty times the volume of oil to lard, thus overcoming the lard taste altogether. He mentions that often there is a lard coating used in the process of curing salmon, and everyone accepts all smoked salmon as kosher.30 6 There were surely many other kinds of merchandise traded, since Jews dealt in whatever commodities were needed by the residents of their local communities and by the overlords. Many of Rabbi Sloniks responsa mention trade merchandise in general without indicating the nature of those goods.11 The traveling merchant knew that by wise 6 trading he could capitalize on his ability to travel and turn a profit by bringing scarce goods to a market where they were in demand. He usually set out with merchandise looking for the opportunity to trade. Such trips, when safely completed, were generally very profitable. On the other hand, opportunities at home in the few fields open to Jews were growing more scarce. Once a concessionaire had been in possession of his monopoly for three years, he could not, according to Jewish practice, be encroached upon or dispossessed by any other member of the Jewish community. Decrees and ordinances protecting such monopoly rights were legislated by local community leaders as well as by their representatives at the public fairs and synods.1* For * that reason, concessionaires tried to obtain three-year contracts wher ever possible. Thus, Rabbi Luria, when citing a case involving a Jew who purchased the mill concession from the overlord, indicates that the purchase was for three years as is the custom in our lands.13 In 0 order for the concessionaire to be entitled to such protection he had to be mentioned in the contract specifically by name.14 Rabbi Slonik 6 testifies that this method of protection of prior rights was frequently inadequate. He mentions other methods used by the Jewish community to protect businesses, such as limiting domicile15 and requiring that 6 taxes be paid in such a way as to guard against unfair outside competi tion.18 6 Sometimes the law of Maarujia was invoked, protecting a persons exclusive right to serve as the agent of a Gentile customer. According to Rabbi Slonik, this law of the exclusive customer applied only when evidence showed that the Jew was indeed preferred due to the regular ity of his commercial dealings with the Gentile.17We have already seen 6 how the Jewish community called upon civil authorities and the overlord to protect their monopolistic rights.10 8

The result was that relatively few members of the community had the opportunity to become wealthy at home. Of those who stayed at home, many would be forced to struggle along, employed as shopkeepers,1 butchers,10 tailors,11 and even tanners,12 Sometimes we even find 7 7 7 Jewish servants. Rabbi Slonik describes the case of a man who signed on a number of divorces which were issued in a community over a period of years. He later was accused of having received stolen goods and ignoring the ban proclaimed in the synagogue at that time. Servants testified that this took place more than twenty years ago, before he signed on the divorces. Since a thief is disqualified from bearing witness, the issue was whether all the divorces he had signed in the interim were retroactively invalid. While Rabbi Slonik decides that the divorces were not invalid, he bases his decision largely on the fact that there is evidence the man had repented before he signed the divorces, and also on the principle that we do not disqualify a man from his honorable status as long as he offers some plausible excuse for his actions. The servants who testified must have been Jewish. Testimony of non-Jewish servants would not have been accepted in such a mat ter.13 7 Competition from burgheTS was another factoT which weighed heav ily, influencing Jews to take to the road to make a living by trade. Small wonder, then, that Jews were ready to brave the dangers of travel. They could earn much more with less effort. Because of the avenue of trade open to them as well as their ability, through commercial solidarity, to protect the concessions they ob tained, Jews on the whole lived in greater luxury than the Gentiles around them.11 7

Chapter

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
The Jewish community of Poland in the sixteenth century had inheri ted its outward forms of government from the communities of medieval Germany. They adapted these forms to local conditions.1

LAY LEADERSHIP
Rabbi Sloniks responsa touch upon at least two important aspects of community organization: the election of its lay officials and the extent of their power and authority.

Elections
In a responsum dealing with an election dispute which had taken place in the community of Satanow, Rabbi Slonik alludes to the elected officers as roshim, gabbaim, and shamaim.2 Other titles were also used during this period, with some variations between communities.3 Borerim (electors):'1Members of a committee elected by the commu nity or selected by their representatives to choose officers;5 Parnasim (community heads) or Roshim (chiefs): The heads and highest elected officers of a community. Rabbi Slonik mentions the community head of the month. This refers to the highest-ranking parnas who served in this capacity for a month's time, rotating with his fellow community heads.6 Tovim (best men): Members of a committee which served under the community heads as a sort of legislative council; Berurim (elected ones), Nevrarim (selected ones): Additional elected or selected officials who comprised a subgroup under best men and represented the entire community. Together with best

m en and the community heads, they formed a community coun cil, called kahal. Gabbaim (supervisory officials): Officials generally appointed by the kahal through the community heads or their representatives to supervise synagogue and charity functions, but who serve in a supervisory capacity in other areas as well; Memunim (appointed ones): Officials appointed by the kahal, with supervisory duties. Gabbaim and memunim were in charge of specific tasks. Neemanim (trustees): Officials who carried out the orders of gab baim and memunim; Shamaim and Maarichim (tax assessors): Officials who assessed the taxes; Shamashim (sextons): Paid functionaries who ministered to the needs of officials. Henceforth the officials will be called by their Hebrew titles, in transliteration.

Election Procedures
Methods of election differed from community to community. In general, a committee of borerim was chosen by one of several methods outlined below. Their function was to select the officers.7 They would first take a solemn oath to act without favoritism and would then proceed to make their choice. Rabbi Slonik indicates that in some communities the electors were chosen by direct majority vote.9We also find communities in which the borerim were chosen by lottery.1 The 0 important consideration was to insure scrupulous fairness. A lottery had the advantage of chance, so that prior agreements would be precluded. It has a precedent in the Bible. The land of Israel was divided among the tribes with the help of a lottery (Numbers 26:55). The first king of Israel, Saul, was chosen by lottery (Samuel 10:24). The tradition of selection of community leadership by lottery began even earlier. The staff of Aaron flowered before the Tent of Meeting to indicate that he was elected above others to be the High Priest (Deuteronomy 17:16-24). The Yom Kippur service was marked by a lottery determining which goat would be offered on the altar and which would be the scapegoat to be cast off a desert cliff (Leviticus 16:8). The outcome of the lottery was considered a sign from the Almighty. The Talmud and the Code of Jewish Law state that the outcome may not be questioned.1 On the other hand, direct majority vote represents the 1 will of the members of the community. A complicated electoral system

was therefore devised, often employing both methods of election and selection. A problem raised by some communities was whether relatives of candidates should be disqualified from voting, just as relatives are disqualified from bearing witness for or against each other. Some suggested that perhaps each group of relatives should have only one vote between them, instead of a vote per capita. Rabbi Slonik and Rabbi Joseph Katz were both asked to rule on this issue, and both decided that the local custom superceded any legal tradition in matters of voting. If the community had established the custom that consanguinity is to be ignored, then that usage might continue. Another issue often raised was whether financial restrictions should be placed on the right to vote. Pressures from the wealthier elements within communities sought to limit the franchise so that people who paid the largest share of the taxes should have greater influence in the election of community officials.1 Generally, as in Cracow, the franchise 3 was limited to tax-paying permanent residents.1 4 A picture of community elections is to be found in a Cracow ordi nance of 1595.1 Rabbi Slonik mentions that he himself had seen these 5 elections many times, probably when he resided in that city.1 6 The ordinance states that elections should take place during the intermediary days of Passover. Rabbi Slonik deals with the case of a recalcitrant community which failed to hold elections during that holiday. The local rabbi felt he was required to force his community to hold their elections immediately, since the appointed time of Passover had come and gone. Obviously, throughout Poland, Passover was the time set aside for elections despite the extra preparations that holiday requires and despite the fact that unnecessary work was forbidden on the intermediate days of the holiday, for elections were deemed in the spirit of Passover and appropriate to its observance. Since Passover is the holiday celebrating the birth of the Jewish nation, it is appropriate for all communities to appoint that nations leadership. All communi ties were therefore to declare a new beginning" at the same time that our peoples beginning was being celebrated. They did this by renew ing community government by means of elections. The first possible moment for such elections was the first of the intermediate days of the holiday. Elections could not, of course, take place on the first and last two days of the holiday. This would have caused many instances of holiday violations on days when all work other than food preparation was forbidden. The term of the old officers was therefore to conclude on the first day of Passover, and elections were to take place immedi ately thereafter, on the first day practicable.1 7 The officials to be elected, and the specific procedures of the Cracow

elections, emerge as follows: Four parnasim, seven tovim and fourteen berurim were to be chosen, comprising a total of twenty-three, a number reminiscent of the lesser sanhedrin.1 They would comprise the 8 community council, or kahaJ. The name kahaJ was at times used to denote only the fourteen tovim.1 In a broader sense, of course, kahal 9 refers to the entire congregation.2 It is therefore also used to denote the 0 entire council, since they all represented the congregation and collec tively spoke in the congregations name.2 In addition, nine judges, 1 comprising three courts of law, were selected. They were called the ,,lowest court, the * secondary court, and the tertiary court/2 Also 2 selected were three auditors to help the tovim. The appointment procedure was as follows: The old community council would convene and take an oath that they would enter into no agreement with any group or individual but would act wholly for the sake of heaven and for the common good. The sextons would then place the names of all the taxpayers in a box and would draw out nine names of men who were unrelated to each other. If names of relatives were chosen, the first man chosen served and the second was disquali fied. The Lithuanian Synod of 1623 required that electors be disquali fied from serving in that capacity two years in succession. This limita tion applied only when they were elected by vote. When chosen by lottery, we find no such limitation.2 The nine electors then swore a 3 solemn oath that they would choose five wise, understanding men from the entire congregation2 and that they would enter into no prior 4 agreement with any person or with each other. The five so chosen proceeded in turn to select the new officials, including the judges and auditors. They were also charged with the responsibility of appointing five gabbaim and an undetermined number of supervisors of the affairs of orphans.2 5 All members of the community, including the nine electors as well as the old officers, were eligible for selection to serve in any capacity.2 6 Sometimes the civil government would refuse to grant permission to hold elections, thus withholding recognition of the new officers. If such recognition was withheld for longer than a fortnight, the new officers would function within the confines of the Jewish community, and the old officers would pretend to continue in office, representing the community to the civil officials until such time as new authorization could be negotiated. There are many reasons why the overlords might choose to withhold recognition from newly elected Jewish officials. The most usual reason was financial. The overlord would withhold recognition until he would be paid a sum that would purchase protec tion, or a measure of autonomy. There were other reasons too. An overlord who had grown especially close to one of the old officers of the

community might simply refuse to recognize the new officers and would just continue dealing with the old. Sometimes unscrupulous men might attempt to purchase their appointments from civil authori ties.2 7

Functions of Officers
The Cracow ordinance also details the precise functions of many of these elected officials. The Judges The lowest court convened every weekday except Friday and the day before a holiday. The justices of this court were authorized to adjudicate all disputes involving sums up to ten zloty. They were paid a fee which varied according to the amount in dispute.2 The fee expense was to be shared 9 by both litigants. They also judged cases of contempt of court, provided the fine was less than ten zloty.3 0 If after three days a litigant still did not obey the decision of the court, the courts messenger would go to his home and seize valuables as security for his debt or fine. If he had no security, or if he persisted in his refusal to pay, the court could, on their own authority, order his arrest and incarceration. No other official, not even the parnasim or tovim, could interfere.3 1 The judges were required to keep their own records and to decide each case within a maximum of three days. Sextons were appointed to be present at all court proceedings in order to minister to the needs of the judges and to help them implement their decisions. The secondary judges were authorized to adjudicate disputes involv ing amounts from eleven to one hundred zloty. Their fees were also paid by both litigants and varied according to the amount in dispute.3 2 They, too, kept their own Tecords and adjudicated cases of contempt of court. They could not delay a decision longer than five days, under penalty of a fine levied upon the judges themselves. The parnas of the month was charged with collecting the fine.3 3 The tertiary judges would convene at least twice a week, Sunday and Thursday, and when necessary would convene on Monday as well. They were authorized to judge cases from one hundred zloty and above, with no maximum. They were to take no fee. One of the city scribes was appointed to transcribe the proceedings and to enter them in a record book. He was paid two grosz for every case.3 4 If a judge of this court was related to a litigant, he was disqualified. A

substitute was appointed by the parnas of the month in consultation with other parnasim .3 5 If one of the three courts failed to convene as scheduled, the sexton was required to inform the parnas of the month of this fact so that he might take the necessary steps in order to rectify the situation.3 6

Gabbaim (Supervisory Officials)

The gabbaim were appointed to collect all income from the sale of synagogue seats and synagogue honors. They were also appointed over almshouses and burial charities. They were required to sustain the poor and to provide for their burial needs; to supervise ritual slaughterhouse personnel and butchers; to care for the hostel for transients and the hospital; and also to provide candles with which to light the academy of learning.3 7 Women served in this capacity too, appointed specifically to oversee the dowering of poor brides and the childbirth expenses of impover ished mothers.3 8 These officials also supervised the bathhouse attendants, to insure their heating the bathhouse at least three times every two weeks. It was heated two Fridays and one Thursday, except for the period when many were away at a fair. Then the bathhouse was heated only on Fridays.3 9

Shamaim and Maarichim (Tax Assessors and Collectors)

Three tax assessors were appointed. They were required to attest their intention to act in scrupulous fairness and honesty. Two paid sextons were chosen to collect the taxes thus assessed. Parnasim, tovim and memunim were required to pay their own taxes first. Afterward the tax collectors stationed themselves in the syna gogue lobby to collect the tax from the other householders. A person who did not pay within three days was publicly proclaimed a sarban, a rebellious one. Three days later, he was placed under a ban. The sexton held up the prayers until he left the synagogue. If he refused to leave, he was incarcerated. If he left but remained under ban for three more days without paying his taxes, he was then incarcerated.4 0

Memunim (Appointed Ones)

Four memunim were chosen by the council to supervise all proce dures which required measurement or production. They supervised the

production of wine, liquor, meat, butter, and cheese. They also super vised the weights and measures and dispatched neemanim (trustees) monthly to test their accuracy. They fined violators, punished them, and issued proclamations of sarban in all the synagogues. They were also charged with supervision of night watchmen and street cleaners. Twice a year they were to collect a fee from each householder to cover the expenses incurred foT this purpose. They were also required to supervise the proper disposal of trash, and to fine those who violated the precautions for sanitation.4 1

Parnasim and Tovim (Community Heads and Best Men)

The parnas of the month was to take office on the first day of the month.4 He was vested with primary responsibility for insuring obedi 2 ence to the statutes which served as the community's bylaws. The rest of the parnasim were to assist him in this function. They were also empowered to punish wayward members of the community.4 3 The tovim were required to insure that this function would be carried out without prejudice or favoritism. If the parnasim did not heed the admonition of the tovim, the latter were authorized to bring the violation before the entire council. The tovim and the council were authorized to punish the parnas of the month as they saw fit.4 4

Tenure
No position was granted for life, nor was any post hereditary. Rabbi Joseph Katz tells of a community that voted to hold full elections annually.*5 Rabbi Slonik attests to witnessing the elections of Cracow and Lemberg (Lwow) many times.4 Those two cities may also have 6 elected officials annually.4 Sextons, scribes, and other minor office 7 holders, however, were sometimes appointed for an unlimited period, though their appointment could be terminated as punishment for dereliction of duty or for other infractions of law or community practice.4 Most community officials were elected for a term of one year, 8 although many officials were probably reelected for additional terms of office.4 6

Authority
The Jewish community exercised great power of compulsion over its members. They were able to impose fines, limit domicile, seize prop erty, excommunicate, exile, incarcerate, and even whip recalcitrant

members.50Rabbi SJonik dealt with a question concerning a community that went to great lengths to compel a man to give a divorce, even placing him in irons, beating him, incarcerating him, and then march ing him under guard to another community.5 Rabbi Joseph Katz tells of 1 a man who was prevented by the community from going on a business trip until he accepted an obligation of a debt. They simply locked him up.5 Rabbi Solomon Luria cites the case of a man who was incarcerated 2 four weeks by a community and who died before coming to trial.5 3 Rabbi Slonik also commented on the great powers vested in elected officials of the day. He declares: In our time and in these lands, where the custom of the communi ties is to appoint leaders and officers, entrusting into their hands the ,,rod and the w hip (of authority) over all the community's members, to do as they see fit in all community matters. . . .M One of the most severe punishments the Jewish community could impose was to surrender a wanted man to the non-Jewish authorities, Jews recognized that the Gentile court would be much more severe than the Jewish court. If the Jewish society were to withdraw its protection, the victim would be utterly abandoned to his fate,5 The 5 power of excommunication, always a potent weapon in the hands of the community leaders, thus assumed, in an alien society, awesome proportions.5 Rabbi Slonik wrote of a community which exiled one of 6 its members for a period of time since they suspected him of receiving goods stolen from a church. Exile in such a case exposed the suspect to the wrath of the church, by removing from him all of the usual protections afforded by the Jewish community.5 We may not, however, 7 overlook an element of self-defense in this particular communitys actions. They were unwilling to turn the Jew over to the power and possibly torture of the church, yet they were all in danger if he remained in their midst. There were, however, limitations to the communitys power to pun ish. Rabbi Slonik opposed the harshness shown to a man who was reluctant to divorce his wife, saying that physical force may only be used in those instances when the Talmud clearly indicates that it is permissible. Rabbi Slonik therefore forbids the use of force in a divorce case but permits it to compel the husband to choose to either give his wife the support that is her due or give her the alternative of divorce.5 8 The problem of whether a community could legally impose corporal punishments not found in the Talmud was dealt with by the sages and discussed in historical literature.5 Rabbi Luria mentions that there 9

were communities fearful or powerless to impose corporal punish ment, and he advised that in such cases they should resort to fines instead.6 0 There were two sources of the communitys power. The civil govern ment recognized the Jewish communitys autonomy and allowed the Jews self-government in return for their loyalty, service, and taxes. There was usually an agreement between them, since the privilege of autonomy was purchased and was frequently a matter of protracted negotiation. Thus Rabbi Meir of Lublin states: If not for the taxes, the judicial power of the Jews would be an n u lled .. .6 1 We have seen that the civil government would sometimes withhold recognition of new officials. This obviously was part of the negotiation 2 pTocess.8 Sometimes they won the privilege by loyal service. In Cra cow, 1595, Sigismund the Third and his court were routed by a fire which Jews worked mightily to extinguish. Sigismund was grateful and awarded the Jews greater freedom as a reward.6 3 Besides the power of the civil government, Jewish public law helped maintain a rigid discipline. According to Jewish law, elected officials could enact laws for the community's welfare as well as for the strengthening of Jewish law. Laws based upon these principles were considered as if made by the common consent of the governed.6 4

TAXES
Jews of Europe had always maintained their own institutions: courts, synagogues, schools, almshouses, orphanages, hospitals, and cemeter ies. They paid the salaries of the functionaries who led their com munities and administered these institutions, while at the same time paying more than their fair share of taxes to the king and overlord. The Jewish community viewed their taxes and levies to the civil government as payment for the right to dwell in the land and do business. The principle was clearly enunciated by Rabbi Slonik. It was not a new one. He quotes Rabbi Asher b. Jehiel as his source. We rely on the words of Rabbi Asher who wrote: It appears to me that all matters dealing with taxes are for the sake of maintaining the safety (of the Jewish community), for they keep us from harm among the nations. For what use would some of these nations have for us that would cause them to maintain our safety and allow us to

dwell in their midst, if not for the benefit they derive from the taxes and levies. . . .a fi Rabbi Israel Isserlein stated the same principle: For we see that all the rulers customarily demand payments and assess taxes, and on the basis of these payments we are able to dwell in their domains, and for this reason we accept their domin ion, yoke, and burden.6 7 The Jewish community organization, the kahaJ, therefore assessed taxes and made itself responsible for its collection.6 9 Jewish laws of taxation are firmly rooted in talmudic jurisprudence.6 9 While the Jewish code of law, the ShuJhan Aruch, gives a general view of the laws of taxation and Rabbi Isserles applies these laws specifically to Eastern Europe,7 they were nonetheless flexible and wholly adapt 0 able to local custom. Indeed, Rabbi Isserles tells us that the law gives priority to custom over principle in matters of taxation.7 He cites the 1 opinion of his predecessors, especially Rabbi Isserlein: In matters of taxation we always follow custom, provided the custom is established by virtue of being in use three years in succession. .. .7 2 In general, taxation conformed to Talmudic law. Yet this law was flexible, since local custom could supercede Talmudic law.7 Usually 3 taxes were levied according to wealth7 and according to profit made 4 through business activities.7 Income from interest owed on loans was 5 usually not taxable, because of high risk. Rabbi Joel Sirkes, however, did not extend this exemption to business debts for merchandise. He argues that taxes should be paid on profits made in the sale of merchan dise, even when the purchaser has not yet paid his bill in full and although the merchandise was not yet delivered. He distinguishes such profits from interest owed on loans which is usually not taxable because of the high risk involved.7 Investment capital was usually 6 taxed, as Rabbi Slonik indicates, by the community in which the business was conducted. The question concerned several members of the community who had money in their possession which was en trusted to them by others, either as loans or as investment capital. Is this money taxable? He responds: If the money is entrusted to them for an indefinite time as active investment capital, they must certainly pay taxes on it. Communi

ties often arrive at compromise agreements in this matter, however, and such is the case in Cracow. If the lender shares in the profits, then the lender and borrower must each give half the tax on such money. If each resides in a different city, they pay taxes to the city where the money is put to u s e .. . There was also a per capita tax which was levied equally on all members of the community. In a question dealing with whether or phans are to be exempt from taxes, Rabbi Slonik indicates that they are not and that they must pay taxes in the same way as do householders: Half according to their wealth and half per capita. Orphans who are dependent upon their mother for sustenance, however, are covered by her own payment of the per capita portion of the tax.7 We shall see later that this was a matter of controversy, part of the larger issue of whether people should be taxed equally or according to wealth. Rabbi Slonik also mentions that the per capita tax is imposed by the king and therefore applies to the entire Polish Jewish community.7 9 The Talmud exempts sages from payment of all taxes, for taxes were considered a means of safeguarding the Jewish community against harm and the sages needed no such safeguards, since the study of Torah would protect them. Although in some earlier periods of history this rule was ignored by the communities,8 it was applied during Rabbi 0 Slonik's time. In discussing the matter, Rabbi Slonik declares that the exemption of rabbis applies even when the king expressly demands their inclusion. It is possible that since rabbis of medieval Germany were not paid functionaries of the community but made their living engaged in business like everyone else, there was agitation to tax them accordingly. In Rabbi Sloniks time, however, rabbis had become paid functionaries of the community and were usually salaried.1Thus, there was more reason to exempt them from paying taxes. The earlier Rabbi Bruna raises the point, and demands that even rabbis who were engaged in business be exempt. Obviously, since the rabbinate was in transition during his time, the issue of rabbinic taxation was raised and was controversial.2 On the other hand, scholars who were not rabbis, but who studied all day long and did not engage in business, usually received only a partial abatement of their taxes.8 Eric Zimmer correctly 3 points out that tax exemption of scholars was impossible in earlier times, when there was no professional rabbi and a large proportion of the income-producing community members were scholars. He indi cates, however, that the rarity of true scholars during the fifteenth century made it possible to exempt them from taxes. This is not the

case. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there was also a large proportion of scholars. Yet the communities did grant full tax exemp tion to rabbis and partial exemption for heads of academies. The reason, as we indicated, is that the rabbinate became a profession. Consequently, only the official community rabbi received full tax exemption.0 4 Rabbi Slonik's strict decision in taxation of orphans, requiring that they too share the tax burden,8 was not universally accepted. They had 5 previously been exempted from most taxes, but by Rabbi Benjamins time this became a matter of dispute. Widows would usually pay according to their ability.8 Exemptions were also given to elementary 6 school teachers, scribes, servants, and the poor. The cantor was also frequently exempt.8 These exemptions were granted from the tax on 7 wealth. Only the rabbi would be granted an exemption from the per capita tax. Abatements were given for loss by fire, or other cata strophic occurrences.6 In 1626, for instance, half the taxes of the 9 community of Brest-Litovsk was excused because of losses due to fire. Taxes were usually not levied on jewelry, household articles, wardrobe items, books, and charity funds, for according to talmudic law, only active capital was to be taxed. Jewelry worn as an ornament or held by a householder as an heirloom was therefore nontaxable. If, however, it were to be used as an item of trade, it became taxable.9 0 Because of the basic flexibility of these laws, we find not only local differences, but also important disputes which reflect the conditions of the times as well as undercurrents of deep communal and economic rivalry. Rabbi Slonik deals with a dispute concerning the overlords demand that a certain member of the community supply him with horses. The community refused to help.9 In earlier times there would have been no 1 question that the entire community would be collectively responsible for any such extraordinary levies. Although the individual singled out might, under certain circumstances, be required pay a larger sum of the whole, all would come to his aid.9 Rabbi Slonik also deals with a 2 dispute concerning where taxes are to be paid when capital earns profit in another community and when partners do business in various locations.9 Rabbi Moses Mintz deals with a similar subject: the respon 3 sibility of outlying communities to share in the tax burden of the central community in cases where extraordinary levies were imposed by the civil government.9 Many tax disputes had arisen in the Jewish 4 community. Rabbi Jacob Weil comments on this and records the Tal mudic principles of taxation in order to clarify some of these matters.5 Harkavy and Rabinowitz claim that the synods of Lithuania were

organized and gained acceptance and strength because of the per capita tax, since it was levied on the entire Jewish population of Poland and Lithuania. The government therefore found it expedient to charge the leaders of the Jewish community with the responsibility of collecting that tax.6It is quite evident that collecting this tax was a major function of the synod.9 The synods, however, crystallized into far more than an 7 agency for tax collection. They became the seat of government for the autonomous Jewish community, as well as its religious, intellectual and economic focal point. Possibly the most important of these disputes is touched upon by Rabbi Slonik in a brief responsum. He describes how the communities assessed the taxes, saying that they were levied half as a per capita tax and half according to wealth.9 0 The question of whether all residents should share equally in the tax burden regardless of wealth or whether taxes should be assessed and apportioned according to the ability to pay, has a long history and reflects the struggle between the wealthy members of the community and those who were not so well off. These tensions are reflected in the earlier statement by Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg: If not for this rule (that no one may pay taxes independently of the community), equitable distribution of the burden of taxation would be impossible and endless quarrels would ensue-----9 9 Rabbi Joseph Katz decides in favor of the poorer members, and requires that taxes be paid according to wealth.10The Lithuanian Synod had to 0 appoint special officials to travel from community to community in order to properly assess the taxes. Their function must have been largely one of arbitrating the many disputes. They were qualified to constitute a rabbinic court.11 The wealthy members argued that the 0 government imposes taxes according to population and not according to possessions. Furthermore, the purpose of payment is to purchase residency rights (hezkat hayishuv) in a community.12In this, all benefit 0 equally and should be equally taxed. Rabbi Slonik himself cited this argument in this responsum concerning the taxation of orphans, but he did not agree with the conclusion that all should be taxed equally. Rav Papa stated that orphans are included in payment of all expenses from which they derive personal benefit. It appears to me that all taxes are means of buying protection, for why would many of these nations permit us to dwell in their midst, if not for the financial benefit they derive through taxes and levies. . , . The

orphans should therefore share in this burden, in the per capita tax as well as in the income tax, like all the other householders.13 0 Finally, many argued that the Talmudic requirement that taxes should be levied according to wealth, does not apply when the levy is for the sake of protecting human life, as is the case regarding these taxes. For failure to pay them would result in exile at best, and at worst, in great and imminent danger to life and limb. These arguments were cited in earlier times by Rabbi Jacob b. Asher and Rabbi Isserlein.1 Although M times had became easier during Rabbi Slonik's period, the principle and the issue persisted, so that Rabbi Slonik in the sixteenth century reflected the arguments of these sages of earlier times. The members of the community who were not so well off argued that the taxes should be paid according to wealth, since that was the principle set down in the Talmud, and our tax burden is not for the protection of life but rather for the purchase of privileges, and the rich enjoy greater privi leges than do the less affluent. Rabbi Isserlein states: It appears clear that the overlord stands to lose much more by destroying the Jewish settlement, and demands only financial benefit, but does not really desire to lay the city waste. Therefore the assessment should be according to income.15 0 They also argued that the government is aware of the wealth of the more affluent members and raises its demands accordingly. Thus, Rabbi Isserles writes: He who sold his house and the government then imposed an additional tax on the community must share in the burden, be cause the amount levied was increased because of his profit.16 0 The question is discussed at length by Rabbi Isserlein.17 A compro 0 mise was generally reached, similar to the one mentioned by Rabbi Slonik, whereby the residents all paid a head tax, while the affluent also paid additional taxes according to their wealth.18 0 There were other problems which arose from the same concern. For rabbis and community leaders were concerned about the economic prosperity of the community as a whole. They were afraid that if tax burdens grew too oppressive upon the wealthy members of the commu nity, they would simply move to another domain where the civil and Jewish community authorities might offer them more lenient, attractive tax abatement terms. Gifts, too, when made to residents elsewhere,

would lower the total capital available for taxation and place an additional burden on other members of the community. Rules were therefore made governing taxes due on money to be removed from the community. Marriage gifts and dowries to sons and daughters who would live elsewhere were taxed.19 In one case, a wealthy man was 0 refused permission to leave the community on a journey until he paid the money due because of the dowry gift he had made, or until he agreed to an equitable settlement with them.10 There were rules about 1 the amount of funds that could be removed from the community. Sometimes there was an absolute ceiling on the total amount to be removed, and even those funds that came within this ceiling were to be taxed. A sliding scale was devised, so that the more money a person contemplated removing, the higher the percentage of taxes on that money he was required to pay.11 Rabbi Isserles, in the Code 0/ Law, 1 stated a principle that once a man was assessed a tax, he must pay it even if he moves away from the community.12 1

THE RABBI AND THE CANTOR

THE RABBI
The lay leader, however powerful, was subordinate to the rabbi, who was the most influential functionary of the Jewish community. His influence reached its highest point at the time of Rabbi Slonik. Irving Agus writes: Neither Rabbi Gershom, Rabbi Simon the Great, nor Rabbi Judah the Great, was endowed with the type of authority exercised by the rabbi of a Polish community in the sixteenth through the nine teenth centuries. For in the latter community a question in the ritual law would naturally be asked a rabbi. No other scholar, no matter how profound or erudite, would dare to express an opinion, in accordance with the Talmudic decision (Sanh. 5b), A scholar may not render decisions about ritual law in his teachers locality.1 Rabbi Hayyim b. Bezalel of Prague, speaking of Poland, his land of origin, declares: And throughout these lands, but for the rabbi, no one will move hand or foot to issue decisions of law in his locality.2 The institution of the professional rabbinate was comparatively new. In fact, until the thirteenth century, a professional rabbi who was paid for his services was nonexistent in Europe. Agus points out that during the time of the Tosaphists we find no mention of any controversy between sages concerning conflict of interest or authority. Nor do we find any controversy about methods of appointing a rabbi for the

community. There is no mention of a rabbi holding an official position, but we do find the cantor holding an official position. We therefore find controversies about conflict of cantor's interests, as well as discussions about appointing the cantor.3 Only after the fourteenth century did it become the general practice of European Jewish communities to engage professional rabbis. We therefore begin to find such conflicts concern ing rabbis too.

How the Rabbinate Began

Economic conditions probably were the primary cause of the growth of the professional rabbinate. During and after the crusades and throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, German and French Jewish communities experienced economic decline. Much more time than before had to be spent in earning a livelihood. Often, the kind of work available was not suited to the honored position of head of the academy. It would be natural for a scholar to seek to make a living from work which was not time-consuming in order to concentrate on his studies. Rabbenu Gershom writes in a tenth-century responsum: A Talmudic scholar, however, especially one who spends much of his time in doing the Lord's wishes and in public instruction, is entitled to special privileges. "For the people of a town are obliga ted to do the work of a scholar residing in their midst" (Yoma 72b).4 The purpose of doing a scholars work was, of course, to allow him to concentrate on his studies. This attitude persisted and, by the sixteenth century was crystallized into the institution of the professional rabbin ate and the salaried head of the academy. Thus, Rabbi Hanover writes: The head of each academy was given an ample salary so that he could maintain his school without worry, and that the study of Torah might be his sole occupation.5 It became advantageous to both sage and community that he be supported financially in order to pursue his studies and teaching without interruption. Rabbi Simon b. Tzemach Duran writes: If he [Maimonides] had been aided by good fortune to become close to the ruler and honored in his generation because of his medicine and wisdom, and did not need to receive any renumera tion from the community, what shall the rabbis and sages of today,

who have engage in selves the Torah, the

not this good fortune, do? Shall they die of hunger, or work not befitting their honor, or remove from them yoke of Torah? This was surely not the intention of the commandments, and the Talmud.6

Thus, salaries began to be paid. The practice was brought to Poland, Even though, in the course of time, Polish Jewry began to prosper, the institution of the paid community rabbi, having taken root, remained. With this development came an increase, not only in the power and influence of the rabbis, but also in problems of encroachment, competi tion, conflict, and even violations of rabbinic standards of integrity. One such case of conflict came before Rabbi Isserles, who attempted to bring peace between two sages vying for the same position. One of them took the case to the Gentile courts, a violation of Jewish law, even were it to have been done by a layman."

7too Types of Rabbis

From the thirteenth century we begin to find the rabbis assuming community leadership. In the course of time their influence grew till it became supreme. They were able to legislate without the consent of the community in ritual as well as socio-economic matters.* By the end of the fifteenth century there could be distinguished in Europe two types of professional rabbis:1 0 1. A scholar who was not officially appointed by the community, but who took up residence there, established an academy and con ducted himself as their rabbi. He depended on his academy for his authority. Students were required to obey and respect the aca demy head, or master." The importance of tutorial authority can be gauged by Rabbi Isserles' statement in which he claims author ity for a rabbi even if he were not to lead an academy, on the basis of his teaching, since deciding Jewish law is tantamount to teach ing.1 Rabbi SiTkes describes the extent of this authority, likening 1 it to that of the high priest and the king, and requiring that the community see to it that he be wealthy, since the law required that the community enrich king and high priest above any of the populace.1 He was supported by means of fee income.1 He was a 2 3 rabbi de facto. The responsa of Rabbi Israel Bruna give us an insight into some of the problems of a de facto rabbi during the early times of the professional rabbinate.1 He came to Regensberg 4 in 1457, established a yeshiva (academy), and began to serve as the de facto rabbi. His controversy with Rabbi Anshel, an older

rabbi of that community who accused him of encroaching on his domain, was brought before Rabbi Jacob Weil who decided in Rabbi Brunas favor.1 5 2. A scholar who was appointed by the community, whose plary was paid from community funds and supplemented by fee in come. He was a rabbi de jure. The de jure rabbi was, of course, more powerful, since he derived his authority from two sources. He too generally served as the master of the academy, thus developing tutorial authority over his community. In this respect he was similar to the de facto rabbi. Since the de jure rabbi also derived his authority by direct appointment from the Jewish community, he was elevated above his de facto colleague, and in effect personified the collective authority of the Jewish community. Of course, such derivative authority could be limited by the specific conditions imposed by that community.1 But these limitations were 6 negligible when compared to the added power and prestige he derived from the communitys appointment.1 7 Eric Zimmer indicates that at first the authority of the rabbi was based on community acceptance. He suggests that then there was a setback in community acceptance because of the extensive destruction suffered by the Jewish communities as a result of the pogroms which accompanied the 1348 Black (bubonic) Plague. Subsequently, tutorial authority grew because so few outstanding scholars remained that the communities had no choice but to rely on those few outstanding principal teachers who survived.1 It must be observed, however, that the early community acceptance does not denote an official community rabbi resembling the profes sional rabbi of the sixteenth century. Zimmer himself acknowledges that No official professional rabbi was existent during the first four centuries of Jewish communal life in France and Germany.1 The 9 communitys acceptance in those early times was also based purely on the teacher-student relationship. They were in fact de facto rabbis. T community appointment did not come till the end of the fifteenth Yue century, when salaries began to be paid.

Tenure
The rabbi's contract was written for a specific time. Rabbi Sirkes states: In these lands where congregations customarily engage rabbis for specific periods. . . .2 0

Even during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when rabbinic tenure became unwritten law, contracts continued to read for a maxi mum of five years. At the time of Rabbi Slonik, they were usually for three years. Thus, Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller enumerates his various positions mentioning three-year agreements in each case with only one exception of a four-year period in Wlodzimiers.2 Tenure was 1 far from secure. In fact, in 1623 the Lithuanian Council declared that notice was not necessary in cases when communities chose not to renew the rabbis contract, but that merely not renewing the contract was tantamount to dismissal.2 In 1628, however, they reversed them 2 selves and required that six months notice be given, and that failing such notice, his contract was to be automatically renewed.2 3 There were communities who tried to abrogate their contract with the rabbi before the expiration date. A decision by Rabbi Isserles declared this to be against Jewish law. Since the institution of the rabbinate was relatively new, Rabbi Isserles based his decision on conduct required towards a teacher, saying that the same rules of contractual arrangements that govern teachers apply to rabbis, since rabbis are teachers and derive their basic authority from their tutorial function.2 4

Community Service
Rabbi Slonik writes about a trip from Podhajce to Buczacz (a distance of approximately thirty kilometers) that he was hurriedly forced to make in connection with his rabbinic duties.2 Unfortunately, he does 5 not write the reason for this trip. It could have been a joyous occasion in the family of a member of the community, an ad hoc court of law, a lecture, or a matter of concern to the local rabbi. For there was hardly a facet of community life in which the rabbi was not involved. He was concerned about all the institutions of the community and their proper functioning. He decided matters of Jewish law, was the leading religious judge, was the spiritual head of the local community and was consulted on all matters of communal government.2 We have 8 seen that Rabbi Slonik dealt with a question in which the rabbi was impelled to intervene in the case of a community which had postponed an election.2 Later, the same rabbi forced the elected assessors to 7 perform their tax-assessment function. The rabbi often supervised the distribution of charity funds. He also supervised the communitys income from fines imposed by the rabbinic court.2 He was concerned with social conduct too, and on occasion attempted to prevent exces sive ostentation. When members of certain communities began to hold

inordinately large and expensive wedding feasts, the synod of Lithua nia called upon the rabbis to join with community leaders in supervis ing wedding preparations, limiting the number of invited guests, and restricting expenditure to within reasonable limits.2 9 The rabbi performed weddings and was the only one who could grant others permission to do so.3 He conducted divorce proceedings 0 and the levirate ceremony of release.3 At joyous occasions, such as 1 weddings and circumcisions, he would be called upon to speak. Rabbi Bruna, a century before Rabbi Slonik, addressed three young men who wanted to form their own study group in order to learn a tractate of their own choice, thus breaking away from the academy headed by the rabbi. Rabbi Bruna permits them to do so, provided they perform none of the functions reserved for rabbis thus clearly demonstrating that their motive was purely for the sake of studying Torah. He writes: These young men are not to take upon themselves any act of responsibility . . . or power . . . or even to speak at weddings.3 2 Obviously, the Rabbis addTess at weddings was an old custom. It continued in Poland. Rabbi Slonik called the wedding feast the derasha, obviously because of the emphasis on the wedding speeches, and probably referring to a Torah lecture that the groom himself delivered as a central attraction of the wedding feast. But the rabbi spoke too.3 3 To the rabbi came all questions of Jewish law, and the most tragic of them involved agunah, wives whose husbands were missing and who sought permission to remarry. Rabbi Slonik tried, in every possible way, to find legal means of releasing these women from their suffering.3 4 The rabbis tried to uphold the standard of religious observance by means of ordinances at synods, and through their own personal author ity in their communities. In 1607, the Council of Four Lands authorized Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen to write a pamphlet containing their official pronouncements designed to strengthen religious observance throughout the land. The pamphlet cautioned the community rabbis to guard against violation of ritual law. It dealt with kosher slaughter, requiring care in the examina tion of slaughtering knives and requiring that the rabbi periodically examine slaughterers for proficiency in the applicable laws. It cau tioned that rabbis should advise women to be sure to soak and salt meat themselves and not to delegate the task to Gentile maidservants. It dealt with drinking wine together with Gentiles, forbidding Jews to drink at their parties. It dealt with the production of clothing, requiring that the

rabbi check clothing manufacture for violations against the prohibition of wearing clothing made of a combination of linen and wool. It dealt with chaperoning women on the road and in the city and required that women should not be left alone in certain businesses, such as liquor sales concessions, where they would have to serve Gentile customers.3 5 The synod of 1628 required the rabbi, or the district rabbi, to sign every letter which was sent by the community to the surrounding area. Otherwise, the letter was to be disregarded.3 6 Special attention was given to wine making. Together with the community leaders, the rabbi would choose three men who would share with him the task of supervising wine making to insure that it would be ritually fit for drinking.3 7 He would supervise the merchants of the town to ascertain that everything sold was ritually fit to eat.3 Often Gentiles would hold 8 market days on Saturday. The rabbis would take special care to prevent members of their community from succumbing to the many tempta tions this would present to violate the Sabbath.3 Often this would 9 require intervention with overlords, kings, and princes of the church, seeking to enable Jews to open their businesses on Sunday, since religious law required them to close for Saturdayan intervention which was only rarely successful.'1 A Jewish farmer, or any property 0 owneT who employed a Gentile, was required to consult with the closest rabbi to ascertain what he may and may not permit the Gentile to do for him on the Sabbath.*1 The rabbi was also concerned with the professional integrity of his colleagues. Unqualified people were not permitted to serve in any rabbinic function, and the rabbis themselves were required to be vigilant in guarding against this. Rabbi Slonik wrote about the way the rabbis disciplined their colleagues. When a certain rabbi acted without integrity by advising a relative to renege on a contractual obligation into which he had entered, his colleagues admonished him, corrected him privately and publicly, and finally denounced him publicly. In spite of the authority of the rabbis stemming from their official commu nity appointment, and in spite of the teacher-student relationship which enhanced their authority, and also despite the support of the strong centralized Jewish government embodied in the Council of Four Lands, the rabbis were not always successful. In this case their efforts were to no avail, even though as a last resort they issued public denunciations of the recalcitrant rabbi at the Jaroslaw fair of 1611 and the Krzemieniec fair of 1612. The principle that rabbinic discipline was the responsibility of rabbinic colleagues was stated by Rabbi Jacob Weil of Germany:

Since [this rabbi who violates the law] is in your neighborhood, it is your responsibility to remove the stumbling blocks and to prevent [him from functioning] in the entire province... .4 2 In effect, sages of greater renown and influence generally refused to intervene in local matters of other communities, even if, as in Rabbi Weils case, the sage's own student was serving as the local rabbi. This served to counterbalance, in some measure, the powerful tutorial authority which the master could otherwise have wielded.4 3 One of the most important functions of the rabbi was his role as interpreter and judge of Jewish law. Difficult questions of ritual law were brought to the rabbi. Such questions came in every area of life. In all matters of law, the rabbis decision was supreme. Even the synod could not overrule him if he had a legal basis for his decision, so that Rabbi Meir of Lublin overruled a decree of the Council of Four Lands on the basis of the supremacy of Jewish law.4 4 The rabbi could force litigants to appear before him in judgment. As rav demata, (local officially appointed rabbi), he had precisely the same authority as the community beth din. The people of that commu nity had to follow the decisions of their court and could not go elsewhere. This applied if summoned by the rabbi as well.4 Thxe, lay 5 judges could also summon local residents to appear. A litigant could, however, reject a lay judge in favor of a more erudite or competent court, even if it meant traveling to another community. Rabbi Isserles informs us that when a rabbi issued a summons, the litigants could not go elsewhere for judgment except by mutual consent.4 Dr. Landman 6 indicates that even mutual consent was not sufficient if the rabbi stood on his right to try the case. Should a change in venue be indicated, it can only be initiated by the litigants.4 This was not the case in an 7 earlier time. Eric Zimmer points out that in the fourteenth century, rights of jurisdiction could be contested by litigants under certain conditions, such as when there was a Talmudic basis for the disqualifi cation, when one litigant was extremely influential in the community, or when one litigant declared the court incompetent to judge the case.4 8 Certain communities also officially appointed laymen as judges, but they could only compel local residents to bow to their authority. Temporary residents from another community could refuse to answer their summons. A rabbis authority, however, also bound temporary residents who had originated from other communities to appear. The rabbis authority actually extended far beyond his citys boundaries, for the tutorial authority of the rabbi extended to all his students, wherever they settled. And while rabbis were reluctant to interfere in the local

decisions of their students, they did reply to their questions. Thus, renowned scholars upon whom other rabbis relied for answers to difficult points of law would in fact be considered the highest authori ties of their students communities as well. Members of those outlying communities would be also obliged to heed the master.4 9 Rabbis did not judge all litigations that came before them strictly according to the letter of Jewish religious law. The rabbi's primary concern was to make peace among his people. This was a universal requirement of Talmudic law and applied to Sefardic as well as Ashkenazic communities. A picture of this striving for compromise, peace, and agreement is found in the words of Rabbi David Ibn Yahya, an Italian rabbi who died in 1524. He wrote; I wearied myself and used to go to each litigant's home in order to . . . bring peace between them. . . . A litigation never came before me which I decided strictly according to the law, but rather only according to compromise, because of my intense labor.5 Rabbi Jacob Weil said much expected that rabbis go to Rabbi the search for compromise and always took precedence over the the same thing.5 While it was not 1 Ibn Yahyas or Rabbi Weils extreme, peace in disputes between litigants strict application of Jewish law.

Limitations
The rabbi was not always obeyed. Rabbi Slonik acknowledges that rabbis were sometimes powerless to correct certain improper practices, even among their own colleagues.5 They sometimes found difficulty 2 controlling cantorial practices.3 Perhaps the closing words of Rabbi 3 Sloniks responsum No. 106 declaring the need to strengthen the authority of the judiciary are more than figures of speech; perhaps they express a genuine plea, reflecting the rabbi's constant struggle to maintain rabbinic authority and community discipline. He writes: It is a divine command to break the fangs of the wicked and overset their evil plots and punish their evil measure for measure . . . so that all the world shall know that there is God and [His] judges in the land.5 4 Rabbis were sometimes even afraid of physical violence against themselves. A Jew came to plead with Rabbi Binesh of Brest-Litovsk for

the sake of his relative. When the visitor knocked, the rabbi became so frightened that he carried a heavy box to barricade the door and because of the strain, took sick and died.5 Rabbi Solomon Luria wrote 5 of the power of a certain layman of whom everyone was afraid.3 Rabbi 6 Joseph Katz denied the possibility of intimidation in a case before him.5 7

Income
In addition to his salary, the rabbi earned fee income from the following sources: Court fees: Rabbis were paid for judging litigations. To safeguard judicial independence, the principle generally prevailed that each party would pay one half the fee. In some localities no fee would be quoted, but the judges would accept whatever was offered, as long as each side gave an equal share. Sometimes the fee would vary according to the amount at stake in the litigation. Rabbi Joel Sirkes discusses the rationale for permitting payment to judges in spite of the Talmudic prohibition. He cites the Tosaphists view that pay ment is permitted only when the judge forsakes all other work and occupies himself solely with judgment. He sees no impediment, however, for a rabbi to receive an equal salary from both litigants, if the rabbi was involved not in rendering judgment but in arbitra tion, seeking a compromise between the parties.5 9 Marriage and divorce: the rabbi was usually paid a percentage of the dowry and of other gifts of parents to bride and groom. Since fees would also be paid to the cantor and the sexton, these pay ments from weddings gradually assumed the name rehash, an abbreviation of rav, hazzan, and shamash, the three beneficiaries. Those who were supported by charity funds, however, paid fees only to the cantor and sexton, and orphans paid no fees at all.6 We 0 also find that the provincial chief rabbi also received part of the fee.6 1 Writing documents of sale, partnerships, or gifts. Accepting testimony and validating it. Administering the necessary oaths to women in order to enable them to claim their dower rights. Gifts on the holidays, especially Hanukka and Purim. Conferring titles of honor. A fee was accepted, for instance, for conferring the title haver and morenu to those who were worthy

and who had been declared eligible by the community or the district. There was also a smaller fee for giving authorization to ritual slaughterers and for answering questions submitted by butchers for decision.6 2 Sometimes, as can be inferred from a responsum of Rabbi Slonik, the community would build a home for the rabbi. For he cites a case of a community which asked whether they could use materials taken from a destroyed synagogue building in order to build a home foT the cantor. If the community built a home for the cantor, they surely built one for the rabbi.6 3

Abuses in Obtaining De Jure or De Facto Rabbinic Recognition

In Poland, a disproportionately large number of men had obtained the title of morenu, haver o t rav (our teacher, scholar or rabbi.) The supply of rabbis was therefore far greater than the demand. Rabbi Hanover states that a community of fifty members would contain twenty so titled.6 According to Rabbi Solomon Luria, some rabbis 4 would ordain men who were improperly and insufficiently prepared for the rabbinate for the sake of an ordination fee. For our many sins, the ordained are proliferating and the learned are diminishing, and the arrogant are increasing, and not one of them knows his place. And as soon as he is ordained he begins to rule, and to gather young men by offering bribes, like the overlords who hire servants to run before them . . . and there are some (socalled) sages who do not understand even one discussion of Talmud . . . but are only sage in years . . . who rule over communities and over the learned, excommunicating, and permit ting (that which is forbidden) and ordaining (so-called) students who never studied before them, but who only pay for the privilege . . . [of ordination]. And even sometimes, when we do find sharp minds, they often do not study sincerely. . . but engage in casuistry to aggrandize their fame.5 5 The inevitable result was a proliferation of unqualified rabbis who became a thorn in the side of the rabbinic authorities. There developed an intense competition for rabbinic posts. Some rabbis even tried to obtain appointments by means of bribery. Some positions would thus be obtained by unqualified men, whose decisions in Jewish law made a mockery of the rabbinate. Rabbi Joseph Katz writes:

For it is known that many now have achieved prominence who are wise only in their own eyes, and who have not learned even half of what they ought, and who seize an academy by means of monetary bribes. It isnt enough that they distort the meaning of the lessons in their lectures, and once used to mistakes, persist in them, but also, since they have become so-called masters, questions of what is permitted and forbidden come before them, and because they are embarrassed [to ask], they decide by guesswork [by dreaming], usually seizing the stricter interpretation .. .w Simcha Assaf sees the origin of this practice in the fact that in Poland all state offices were bought, so that the usage carried over into the appointment of rabbis too. This is hardly likely. Jews were very reluctant to accept Gentile practices. It is more likely that this practice resulted from competition for de jure rabbinic positions. The situation deteriorated so markedly that in 1587 the Council of Four Lands had to decree that no rabbi should attempt to buy a rabbinic position through loans or gifts, by themselves or through others, nor should any rabbi attempt to renew his contract by means of gold or silver.8 Three years lateT, the Council reiterated the decree, which was 7 signed by thirty leading rabbis. This was not the only time the decree was reissued. It continued to be repeated at several synods, through and including that of Jaroslaw, 1640. Rabbi Slonik was probably one of the thirty cosigners of the 1590 version.6 In the Lithuanian Council a 9 similar decree ws passed. In 1628 they reiterated that the Lithuanian rules governing rabbinic appointments should follow those laid down in Poland.6 9

Other Abuses
Abuses also crept into the payment of court fees. Rabbi Sirkes complained about these fees, saying that they encouraged certain judges who were paid by the case to rush their deliberations and make hasty decisions in order to increase their case volume, and also to split their cases into smaller units, making several cases out of one and accepting a fee for each.7 0 Allowances must be made for the fact that the vast majority of the rabbis were dedicated and upright men and felt it to be their duty as guardians of public morality and ethics to raise an outcry against all such unethical practices. Perhaps they were most vociferous when those violations were perpetrated by men who professed to be their colleagues.

THE CANTOR
Rabbi Slonik has only two responsa which deal directly with the cantor.7 Yet these two responsa contain a great deal of information, 1 touching on the cantor's status, election, income, functions, art, and especially his relationship to the rabbi. Several other contemporary responsa help round out the picture of the cantor in sixteenth-century Poland.

A Change in the Cantor's Position

The Polish cantor of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries differed from his predecessors of Talmudic and medieval times. In the Talmud, the title hazzan is used to denote an overseer, whether of a city, court of justice, the Holy Temple, or a synagogue. The hazzan had many functions similar to that of the later shamash (sexton), teacher, preacher, reader. In Geonic times and medieval Eu rope, many of these functions remained. Throughout medieval Europe, the hazzan was often also a religious poet, composing liturgical po etry.7 He performed other public functions too, such as pronouncing 2 the ban when necessary, and deciding the order of honors to the Torah as well as calling up the congregants so honored.7 As time passed, 3 many of these functions were eliminated, until the cantors major function crystallized as representing the congregation in prayer. From Rabbi Slonik we see that in his time, in addition to chanting the prayers, the cantor continued to read the scripture in the synagogue, and the Scroll of Esther on Purim.7 He also announced the ordinances 4 passed by the communitys leaders and the rulings of the Rabbinical Court.7 5 In fulfilling his major function, vocal art, skill, and talent had not previously been as important as knowledge of the words, understand ing the meaning of the prayers, Torah learning, and piety. Indeed, beauty of voice had been considered incidental.7 6 In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, however, this situation changed. Voice and talent became paramount, and other qualities were sacrificed for them. Although the rabbis considered this a problem in earlier times, in Sefardic as well as Ashkenazic communities,7 we can 7 perceive an aggravation of the issue and a growing concern by fifteenth and sixteenth century Polish sages which indicates that in those communities and at that time the problem had grown to severe propor tions.7 Thus, Rabbi Slonik was critical of the many ignorant cantors 8

who were given positions in communities because of their excellent voices and at the expense of their piety and scholarship.7 9 Rabbis complained bitterly about this development. Thie, these com plaints were heard in earlier times as well.8 Now, however, the com 0 plaints seem to increase in number and sound more urgent in tone. Rabbi Luria writes: The law requires that the rabbis should choose the cantor from among his students, but should the rabbi dare to exercise this right, his recommendation would be rejected by the congregation. It would be futile for the rabbi to protest. The communities retain for themselves and withhold from the rabbi the power of appointment in order that the cantor should remain accountable to them alone and free from the control of the rabbi. As a consequence, the piety of the reader is subordinate to a pleasant voice and clear diction.8 1 Rabbi Luria was concerned, not only because of the synagogue service, but especially because the cantor was often also the ritual slaughterer, and therefore directly under the supervision of the rabbi who was responsible that standards of kashrut be maintained. This aggravated the tensions between rabbis and lay leaders concerning the cantor.8 2 Rabbi Ephraim of Leczycza also criticized cantors of little piety: And I bitterly oppose the cantors who extend the singing of their melodies, readily admitting that while they do this they do not concentrate on their prayers at all. In fact, most of them concen trate only on pleasing the audience so that they may marvel at their power and talent. In actuality, their shouting in the synagogue brings shame upon us in the eyes of Gentiles among whom we live and who frequently go to the synagogue to observe the service.8 3 It is possible that the advent of printing contributed to the change in the role of the cantor and the conflict this change created. The earliest Jewish publishers in Poland began their output with a heavy concentration of prayerbooks and synagogue service volumes. When the scandal of their conversion to Christianity erupted*1with the resultant decree by the king that the Jewish community of Cracow purchase their entire stock, it was found to consist largely of prayerbooks.8 Not all printers specialized so heavily in prayerbooks. Many ? early works of other printers were halakhic. It is probable that the

Hallek brothers conversion was for economic reasons, since afterward they began printing books for use in church. Besides a weak Jewish identity, they might have been manifesting an obsession with prayerbook printing as well as poor business sense. They were eventually failures at church-book printing too. Even so, it is probable that the use of standardized prayerbooks affected the nature of the cantorate and accelerated profound changes which were taking place.8 The Hallek 6 brothers concentrated on prayerbooks because they anticipated a great demand, since for the first time each Jew could have his own, without laborious hand copying. Prayerbooks became accessible to all worship pers and grew increasingly standardized.8 Until then, the congregation 7 used to rely heavily on the cantor. A great deal of freedom of poetic innovation in the form of prayers that sages and cantors composed and called piyyufim prevailed. These prayers were actually poems ex pressing in words and theme the innermost feelings of the composer and the congregation. Great sages were usually the authors. Musical ability was not necessary to compose them, and not essential in reciting them. They were pure poetic additions to the basic text of the prayers. With the standardization of the prayerbook, congregations began to oppose innovations and deviations from the text. The free expression of the religious poet, the paytan, became limited and was finally elimina ted. The cantor therefore strove to find other avenues through which he could express his inner feelings and in which he could excel. And so he began to emphasize the vocal art by which existing and standardized prayers could be sung, the cantorial art. The basic change was from an emphasis on poetic creation to musical creation. But while religious prayer poetry was usually created by sages or people known for their piety and learning, music depended on talent and vocal gifts. It could very easily be copied, and in fact was "borrowed freelyeven, as we shall see, from sources not acceptable to the rabbis. Such vocal demon strations and borrowing from other sources was not necessarily a new problem. Cantors sought to impress with their talent at a much earlier period.9 But it was a problem which reached much greater proportions, 8 and gave rise to many abuses during Rabbi Sloniks time, as we shall later see demonstrated from one of his responsa.0 9

Election
Rabbi Joseph Caro and Rabbi Moses Isserles, in enumerating the qualities required of the cantor, stress piety, learning, personal con duct, and acceptance by the members of the congregation he will

represent in prayer.9 Rabbi Slonik writes that in actual practice, during 0 his time, most of these requirements were often overlooked.9 1

Salary and Income

The salary of the cantor in many communities was small and insuffi cient. Often, in order to make a living, he had to engage in collateral functions such as teaching. In fact, teaching had been mentioned as a function of the cantor in a responsum of Rabbi Eliezer of Behm to Rabbi Judah HaHasid, over a hundred years earlier than Rabbi Slonik.9 This 2 usage persisted in poor communities through the time of Rabbi Slonik.9 Cantors also engaged in ritual slaughter.9 They were also 3 4 scribes.9 The Lithuanian Council, in 1623, decreed that: 5 No person should dare to write any deed except the communal scribe, or when the community has no permanent scribe, the cantor or sexton.9 6 To supplement his income, some communities donated to the cantor the collections made on the Hanukka and Purim holidays. Rabbi Slonik was asked whether this was permissible, since the money was collected for the purpose of charity. He responded in the affirmative. The custom seems to have been well established and widespread.9 7

Tenure
Rabbi Solomon Luria informs us that a cantor was engaged for a specified time, but a unanimous vote was required to engage him, since he represented the entire congregation in prayer.9 Once engaged, 8 however, he could not be discharged until the expiration of the con tract.9 9

Abuses in the Cantorate

As the congregations began to turn to musically talented but ignorant men to lead them in prayer, and as these men began to demonstrate their vocal ability, the complaints about the length of the service increased. The Lithuanian synod of 1623 tried to limit the number of melodies a cantor may sing, to three on an ordinary Sabbath and four on a special Sabbath. No special melodies were permitted before the Shema.10 0

Rabbi Slonik complains not only about the ignorance of many can tors, their slipshod preparation, and the length of their singing,11 but 0 also and especially about the source of their musical compositions. He accuses them of borrowing melodies from Gentile songs of the theater, and even from the church. He protests that everyone overlooks this terrible practice which had often before been denounced by sages. Instead, cantors are judged by the quality of their singing and are often accepted by congregations even when totally ignorant of the laws of prayer and the Torah reading. For they have been taken from the voice of the children of Gentiles, and many of the melodies were learned in their theaters. And how indignant was the author of Sefer HaHasidim about this m atter... . Nevertheless no one seems to care. The longer the singing the more praiseworthy in their eyes, and even though the cantor never studied even one law of prayer and reading!12 0 Rabbi Slonik may have been referring to church melodies when he says: from the voice of the children of Gentiles. The codes and commentators of his generation used that phrase to denote the melo dies they sing to their idolatry.13 He also complained that many 0 ignorant cantors . . . do not even read one sentence of the Torah correctly and completely disregard punctuation, cantillation, and grammar. For most of the cantors . . . do not know the difference between their right and left, when it comes to the ToTah reading. . . . Nor do they read even one sentence of the Torah correctly, according to proper grammar, punctuation, and cantillation, nor do they know the difference between good and bad, because the congregations choose those cantors who know how to sing the prayers and kedusha sections long and sweetly, and from month to month and Sabbath to Sabbath the melodies continue to increase in ways our forefathers abhorred. . . .14 0 Rabbi Joel Sirkes was as strongly opposed to cantorial abuses as was Rabbi Slonik.15On the other hand, Rabbi Sirkes attempted to vindicate 0 certain practices of the cantors such as borrowing melodies, saying that they may be excused on the grounds that the Gentiles do not have exclusive rights over the melodies, and that they themselves did not originate them. He also advanced the opinion that they were justified

because of ,art for art's sake," saying that the melodies must be judged on their own merits.16 0

Conflict Between Rabbi and Cantor

These practices caused conflicts between rabbis and cantors. Perhaps the element of jealousy aggravated the tensions. It is possible that rabbis felt their position in the community to be threatened by the developing status of certain popular cantors. It is also possible that the rabbis were determined to preserve certain traditional melodies. Rabbi Slonik opposed the innovation of new melodies, saying they were novelties that our forefathers never dreamed of.17 While it is clearly 0 evident that there were abuses in the cantorate, that these abuses were new, and that the rabbis felt it was their duty to oppose them, it is also evident that rabbis were hampered in their efforts by the cantors following amongst the community members. Sometimes a rabbi who opposed the cantor would simply not be heeded. Indeed, in some instances the rabbi himself might find his own position threatened. Rabbi Slonik therefore adds the following cautionary words: He who has the power to prevent these practices, let him do so. As for him who does not, I say, leave the Jewish people alone. Let them sin accidentally rather than purposely.16 0

CHAPTER

EDUCATION
LANGUAGE
Rabbis corresponded with each other in Hebrew, though when citing testimony they would often quote it in the Yiddish vernacular, espe cially when they sought to render the quotation exactly as given,1 Responsa literature therefore developed in Hebrew, though the every day spoken language of the Jewish community as well as the language of instruction in the schools was Judeo-German, or Yiddish. Rabbi Solomon Luria calls Polish Yiddish corrupt German.2 The curricu lum of the schools used Yiddish" as the language of instruction.3Some Hebrew was studied in the schools, and a knowledge of grammar was usually deemed necessary. Rabbi Hayyim ben Bezalel defended the study of grammar in the schools and indicated that it had become a controversial matter.4Rabbi Solomon Luria criticizes Rabbi Isserles for incorrect grammar, saying . And with a thousand pardons, you would have been better off studying the science of grammar [than philosophy!.5 Rabbi Slonik mentions a Lemberg Jew who knew many languages.6 He also tells of a Wallachian Jew in conversation with a priest in a language not understood by a Jewish bystander, who asked that the priest repeat his story in Wallachian.7It is obvious that the language in which they conversed was neither Wallachian nor Polish, since most Jews knew Polish. Its study was part of the regular Jewish schools curriculum, prescribed by the ordinances of the Council of Four Lands as follows: Let them also learn the letters of the vernacular as used in printing of their language, in order that they should be able to read their

books. . . . Let them also learn the skill of writing in the spoken language.8 Thus, also, Rabbi Shabtai Cohen writes: For the custom has become widespread that most of our coreligion ists who live in this locality [Brest-Litovsk, usually called Brisk] speak the local language.9 He also mentions a case where a man betrothed a woman, using the Polish language.1 Knowledge of Polish helped them in their contact 0 with the authorities as well as in their commercial dealings with nonJews.1 1 It is important to note that in spite of widespread use of Yiddish, there were nevertheless some Jews who knew only the language of the land and had no knowledge of Yiddish. Thus, Rabbi Luria indicates that at least some Wallachian Jews did not speak Yiddish. The mother and daughter involved in a case he cites spoke only Wallachian, and therefore could not make themselves understood to the Jewish travelers conversing with them. They were forced to converse through inter preters. It is unlikely that the interpreter was really a go-between in this case of a boy proposing marriage to a girl. The question concerned whether he had recited the betrothal formula which should have been spoken directly to her. An interpreter would have been of no use in such a case. He was obviously used only to translate from one language to another to make the parties to the conversation understood to each other.1 It is possible that in remote Jewish settlements, such as in parts 2 of Wallachia where Jews were isolated from the rest of the community and from centers of learning, they began to converse only in the vernacular and allowed Yiddish to be forgotten. It is also possible, however, that the Jews of Wallachia who spoke no Yiddish were indeed of T \iT kish origin and had come to the Crimea from nearby Constantino ple. This is not very likely in the case in question, however, since the girls brother-in-law was not Turkish, but a renowned and scholarly physician, Rabbi Shlomo HaRophe. In fact, there is some basis to the theory that at least two levels of immigration had formed the Polish Jewish community. Weinryb out lines the various hypotheses explaining early Jewish entry into Poland. They essentially divide Poland's Jewry into two parts; the early immi grants, some of whom might have even come as early as the fifth and sixth centuries, and again during the eighth century, when the Byzan tine Church drove many Jews from Byzantium. The emergence of the

Khazar Kingdom and their conversion to Judaism in 740, served as a further inducement to Byzantine Jews to emigrate northward. Others fled the Tartar invasion of the Ukraine in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. These Eastern Jews comprised a minority of the Jewish population of Poland. The vast majority came from the Germanic lands to the West.1 Obviously, the Judeo-German brought by the majority 3 from Western Europe became the spoken language, even of those to whom this dialect was not native and who learned it through their Jewish contacts within the Jewish community. There were some, how ever, in more remote aieas, who remained ignorant of this dialect. In most areas, however, Yiddish in its early Judeo-German form was the language of the Jewish community, and Polish was used in dealing with Gentile neighbors.

LITERACY
Many of Rabbi Slonik's responsa were written in reply to queries posed by other sages, and almost invariably his salutation addressed the correspondent not only as Rabbi, but also as Academy Head. When he addressed his own sons, his salutation to them as Academy Head is obviously counted as their greatest praise. Rabbis played a key role in the education of the community members, young and old, and the most important institution for the survival of the Jewish commu nity was the academy that the rabbi would lead. The training and qualifications needed to function as a community official or leader were attained through the system of thorough ToTah education which was the hallmark of most Polish Jewish communities. And the ability to function as a respected member of a community, also depended on that system. By the sixteenth century, Polish Jewry had advanced to a high level of Jewish learning. There were no Jewish illiterates except in very remote regions of the more sparsely settled areas of southeastern Poland, at that time called Russia. Evidence of this is to be found in Rabbi Sloniks work. He was asked whether a blind man could be called to the Torah. In his answer he equates physical blindness with illiteracy, saying that neither are able to actually read from the Torah, and yet, both may be called to receive the honor of an aliyah. After marshalling and presenting his arguments, he seeks a precedent to prove that his teachers were of the same opinion. He is forced to recall his youth, when he studied in the land of Russia where there actually were some illiterate Jews, and his masters did allow them to be called to the Torah. In all the Four Lands he could not remember a single

illiterate, but only in the far reaches of sparsely populated areas where, though the majority of Jews were educated, there were to be found some who could not read!1 The very fact that in his youth Rabbi Slonik 4 traveled there to study, indicates that even there scholarship was to be found. The scholarly talk given by each groom at his wedding feast, and to which Rabbi Slonik refers in his first responsum,1 is further evi 5 dence of the widespread Jewish learning that characterized Poland. The first Hebrew book printed in Cracow appeared in 1534, only sixty years after the first Hebrew book ever to be printed.1 In the forty-year 0 period between 1559 and 1602, two editions of the Tblmud were printed.1 On the other hand, there were many who, though not illiter 7 ate, were nevertheless considered unlearned by their peers. Rabbi Slonik implies this, telling us that not everyone knows the laws.1 We 8 have seen that he also discusses ignorant cantors who were chosen for talent rather than erudition.1 In fact, the level of erudition varied from 9 com m unity to community. Rabbi Luria describes a certain community as particularly erudite, where all its members were Torah scholars and followed a certain course of action because they decided the law for themselves, thinking that they were right and knew a point of Jewish law better than others, even if the others might be rabbis.2 0 What kind of educational system produced the splendid erudition shown by the vast majority of Polish Jews? Formal education of Polish Jewry can be divided into three levels. Primary, or elementary education; yeshiva, or elementary academy education; and advanced academy education.

Elementary Education
Schools were either private or communal. There were two institu tions for private education: the heder (private school) and the private tutor. In the private school, parents would engage a teacher and pay him privately. Classes took place in the teachers home.2 1 This system had weaknesses. The selection of the teacher could not easily be controlled by communal authorities, and a poor teacher might therefore be engaged. Competition between teachers forced them to strive to please parents rather than build a firm foundation of scholar ship for their students.2 Rabbi Slonik tells us that teachers could not 2 hold householders to an agreement but were required to release a student if a better teacher became available. In discussing the matter, Rabbi Slonik says that every person has the right to leave the teacher with whom he is studying in favor of another. There is no way a teacher can prevent him from doing so. While Rabbi Sloniks language is

slightly ambiguous and allows the possibility that he was dealing with a teacher engaged to instruct adults, it is more likely that the instructor in question was engaged for children. Adults could usually find part ners with whom to study and could join in the many classes given in the synagogue or academy. Furthermore, he employs the term leinyan hashaot (by the hour), a term which is usually used in connection with childrens instruction.2 Other drawbacks were the unsatisfactory scale 3 of salary for private teachers; the poor classroom conditions, since the instruction was usually given in a single room in the home of the often impoverished teacher; and the pupils of different ages who were grouped together in the same room without regard to theiT varied levels of training and attainment.2 4 The private tutor lived in his employers home and instructed the children in return for room, board, and salary. Rabbi Slonik alludes to such an arrangement.2 Here too, inexperienced and ignorant tutors 5 were sometimes employed, especially in rural areas.2 6 The communal schools, called Talmud Torah, were established pri marily for the poor students whose parents could not afford to pay for a private tutor or even for a private school. The Cracow decree of 1551, reiterated in 1628, states: You know that from of old there was established in our community the Talmud Torah Committee to supervise the studies of the poor children from whom Torah shall proceed, and to strengthen them in their studies.2 7 Although the communities also attempted to control the private schools and tutors, greater control could be exercised over these public institutions.2 Thus all too frequently, the level of education in these 8 schools was superior to that which was offered in the private schools. Wetstein cites a Cracow decree of 1551 which governs the size of the class, the Yiddish language of study, and the curriculum.2 In most 9 communities special trustees were appointed to oversee the communal school a&well as to supervise the teachers of all children.3 0 Elementary education was compulsory for children until the age of thirteen.3 The subject was Bible in the original, accompanied by a 1 Judeo-German translation,3 and as soon as possible, selected treatises 2 of the Talmud with commentaries.3 Houts were from eight in the 3 morning till noon each day.3 4 The goal of elementary education was to turn children into Talmudic scholars as soon as possible. This could not be achieved without the academy, the next step in a boys education.

Academy Education: Elementary

Boys of thirteen and older were educated in the academies, the yeshivot, which were to be found in almost every community.3 Most 3 communities had academies, of which the rabbi was the master.3 The 6 communities would therefore choose rabbis for qualities which in cluded ability as teachers and educators. Students, too, would seek the most qualified masters and would even travel great distances for this purpose, as did Rabbi Slonik.3 Thus, Rabbi Solomon Luria mentions a 7 student who came from a foreign country to study in the academies of Poland, and stayed for two years.3 Rabbi Slonik indicates that wher 8 ever a great sage is to be found, many people gather to imbibe his learning.3 9

Academy Education: Advanced

Rabbi Slonik refers to two categories of students in the advanced academies as well. He describes them as bahurim young men, and haverim, mature scholars.4 The haverim formed a distinct group of 1 advanced students. Unless a student had no ability at all, it was usual for him to continue his studies in the academy until his marriage, and frequently some years thereafter. If, however, he showed no promise, he would be given until the age of fourteen as a trial, and would then be taught a trade.4 2 He would not be called a haver until he had studied at least two years after marriage, and usually did not win the title morenu, or master, until at least four or five years thereafter.4 3 Although training for religious vocations, preachers, teachers, scribes, and sextons was not formalized, the rabbi did require ordina tion. The title morenu, once conferred, was considered ordination and carried with it permission to found an academy. Not every rabbi could grant this title. Only a rabbi of an important community, or in a district capital city, was authorized to do so.4 4 There were two terms of study in the academy, each three-and-a-half months long. The first term lasted from the first day of the month of Iyar, after Passover, until the fifteenth of Ab in midsummer. The second lasted from the first of Heshvan after Tabernacles, until the fifteenth of Shevat. At the synod of 1639, the rabbis criticized the terms as being too short, and they extended them.4 5 While the students concentrated on Talmud, codes were also studied, especially during the second half of the term. At the end of each semester, the students would accompany their masters to the great

fairs, such as those which took place at Lublin and Jaroslaw, where they would have the opportunity to hear the lectures of other sages expounding the law.4 6

Criticism of the System

While this system of education produced an educated populace and many outstanding scholars, it was criticized by some of Rabbi Sloniks contemporaries as possessing great failings. Some allusion to these failings can be seen in Rabbi Sloniks responsa.4 His protest against the 7 conduct of ignorant cantors indicated that even synagogue function aries were sometimes inadequately educated. His statements concern ing the prevalent ignorance of women of his day reveal the wide chasm which existed between the generally educated men and the generally uneducated women.4 For women were not formally educated, but 8 usually received their training at home.4 It was partly to correct this 9 condition that works such as Rabbi Sloniks Ein Schoen FreuenbuchIein, were w ritten in Judaeo-German (Yiddish), specifically for women.5 0 The most severe critics [besides Rabbi Luria)5 were Rabbi Judah 1 Loew b. Bezalel of Prague, Rabbi Solomon Ephraim of Leczycza, and Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz.5 2 They criticized the system of education on all levels. On the elemen tary level their greatest criticism was leveled against teaching children Bible according to the portion of the week, necessitating skipping many sections; the omission of Mishnah from the curriculum; the commence ment of the study of Talmud at too early an age; the discouragement of students from continuing to learn other subjects and on another level only because they were not qualified to grasp the Talmud; and the casuistic hair-splitting and empty argumentation of those studying Talmud by means of the method called hiiiuk developed by Rabbi Sholom Shachna and used in the Yeshivot. Rabbi Loew considered this method intellectually dishonest, and claims that it destroys the charac ter and perverts the values of his students. He felt that dishonest argumentation can lead to dishonest behavior.5 3 Rabbi Ephraim also protested strongly, saying that it was dreadful to contemplate that some venerable rabbi, in his anxiety to discover and to communicate some new interpretation, should offer a perverted explanation of the Talmud, even though he himselfand everyone elsewas fully aware that the true meaning was different. Can it be Gods will that we sharpen our minds with such sophis tries?5 4

The program these educational reformers sought to institute, empha sized a systematic study of Bible, Prophets and Hagiographa, as well as the Hebrew language and its grammar.5 5 This was to be followed by an extensive study of Mishnah, and only afterward, at the age of approximately fifteen, was the student to be introduced to the Talmud.6 6 Rabbi Slonik must have shared some of these views. We have evidence that he too rejected the method of hii/uk in deciding ques tions of Jewish law. In fact, while he had great regard for Rabbi Sholom Shachnas brilliance in Jewish law, and acknowledged that it was he who introduced the new casuistic method into the curriculum in Poland,5 nevertheless he regarded the method with reservations, and 7 rejected it as a means of reaching practical decisions of law.5 In his 8 description of Rabbi Shachnas brilliance, he uses the word pilpul. PiJpuJ is to be distinguished from hilluk. PiJpui had been practiced since the time of the Talmud to reconcile contradictions in texts or to analyze the law into components to determine elements relevant to a problem at hand. HilJuk is a casuistic perversion of piJpul. In actual fact, p!7puJ antedates Rabbi Schachna. It was long practiced as an exercise to sharpen the mind. In the fifteenth century, and probably earlier as well, German schools regularly set aside daily hours for such study, calling it tos/ot (additional) time.5 Very often the distinction 0 between pilpul and hilluk is made, identifying hilluk with the extreme to which students of Rabbi Schachna carried this practice. It is there fore frequently used in a pejorative sense. Rabbi Slonik and his stu dents used the word pilpul when referring to Rabbi Schachnas method. In effect, he accepts pilpul and rejects hilluk, and declares neither authoritative enough to cause a change in an accepted halakhic tradition.8 Rabbi Slonik was probably politely rejecting fliJiuk, while 0 expressing his respect for pilpul. A study of his own methodology shows an avoidance of casuistic arguments and a reliance on primary sources.6 Rabbi Ephraim and Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, two of the three 1 chief proponents of educational reform shared teachers with Rabbi Slonik; Rabbi Ephraim and Rabbi Slonik studied under Rabbi Solomon Luria, and Rabbi Horowitz joined him as a fellow student under Rabbi Solomon ben Leibish of Lublin.6 Rabbi Luria himself regretted the ex 2 cessive amount of time he spent in the study of hilluk when young, say ing that it was to the detriment of other subjects, such as the study of prayer. In fact, he uses strong words, saying Woe for that which is lost and cannot be recovered.Also, having rejected the method of hilluk 3 in deciding Jewish law, Rabbi Slonik tended to seek underlying princi ples that would relate and even unite opposing views. This was just the reverse of the method of hilluk. He used as his model the fact that

earlier sages sought to unite and compromise different views as much as possible, so that agreement could be found.6 Finally, Rabbi Slonik 4 must have agreed with their view that grammar should be introduced into the curriculum. He himself knew and quoted the grammarian Rabbi David Kimhi, a controversial figure in the polemic for and against the inclusion of grammar into the curriculum /5 In spite of its failures, however, the system produced a learned laity. Male members of families would frequently gather to study together. Parents would study with mature children. They would regularly set aside time from their occupations for this purpose. Rabbi Slonik was asked a question that arose out of such a situation, where a father and his sons gathered regularly for study.6 6

Pact U L

DIGEST OF THE RESPONSA

Laws of Tzitnt, Prayer, Blessings, and the Synagogue

No. 48. It is a common practice of travelers to wear their fringed prayer shawl while still folded like a scarf so that the fringes hang down on either side. Is this acceptable for prayer? No. 55. The Ashkenazic(?) custom regarding th text of the blessing Bonei Yerushalayim, has closing verses which do not exactly corre spond to the opening verses. Is this acceptable? No. 96. The law that the closing verses of a blessing must corre spond to the opening verses, applied to the blessings for the Torah, the Kiddush of Sabbath, holidays, Rosh Hashana, and Yom Kippur. No. 101. The blessing of He who performs acts of creation is recited at the beginning of the spring equinox when it falls on Hiesday night (which occurs once every twenty-eight years). Is this usage correct? No. 4. A synagogue had stood for many years, and now its elders have agreed to erect a new candelabrum in it. One of the worshipers seeks to prevent them from doing so, claiming that it constricts his place of worship. Who is right? No. 33. Is one permitted to sell stone and wood used in an old synagogue or to reduce their sanctity by using them for mundane purposes? What is the difference between village synagogues and city synagogues? What is the status of our synagogues today? Are they considered city or village congregations?

Laws of the Scroll of Torah and Torah Reading

No. 6. A grammatical analysis of the Torah reading of the Ten Commandments on regular Sabbaths and on Pentecost, explaining the upper and lower (major and minor) cantillation symbols, as well as the reason for the change in punctuation which occurs in the words and verses. No. 56, If a scribe omitted a portion of a scroll of the Torah, or if he omitted the spaces required after a portion, may he correct the omis sion by erasing several lines and writing them again in a smaller script so as to make room for his omission? No. 57. A scribe skipped the letter Yod in God's name; must he remove the section because of this error and bury it, or may he scrape off the name of God and write it again correctly? Or can he hang the Yod above the line in its place?

No. 62. May a blind man or one who is illiterate be called to the Torah to recite the blessing? No. 99. Do the new printed Bibles have the same sanctity as Bibles written by hand? No. 100. When sacred books are printed and part of the margin is cut away, is it permissible to discard the cuttings, or must one treat them as objects of sanctity?

Laws of Sabbath and Eruvin

No. 8. Catching geese and chickens which are enclosed, on Sabbath and holidays; catching other animals and fowl; what is permitted and what is forbidden? No. 92. What must one do to make it permissible to carry on Sabbath in a crooked alley or into an alley which has other alleys leading from it? No. 93. A man who must fast on Sabbath because he had a bad dream the night before is therefore required to fast again to atone for his fast on the Sabbath since fasting is normally forbidden on that day. If the following day is a public fast day such as the seventeenth of Tammuz, can he rely on the required fast, or must he fast yet again in atonement?

Laws of Ifametz
No. 43. A man had whiskey which he sold to a Gentile before Passover, relying on the Gentile to sell it back to him after the holiday for a small sum, in the manner Rabbi Isserlein suggested. Immediately after the Passover another Jew bought the stock from the Gentile. Now the original owner accuses the Jewish purchaser of causing him great loss by acquiring his whiskey in this underhanded way, and demands that the whiskey be returned to him. The purchaser refuses, claiming that the sale to the Gentile was authentic and final, and he was therefore within his rights in purchasing it from the Gentile. Who is right? No. 58. Is it forbidden to have any benefit from whiskey which had not been destroyed or sold to a Gentile before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan? For many say that (the rule forbidding any benefit from such products does not apply, since the whiskey) is derived from the original Hametz product by means of distillation. No. 59. If the whiskey is in the home of a Jew, and before it becomes forbidden, he sold it to a Gentile with a monetary transaction alone,

without additional acts of acquisition such as "pulling and rental of the place upon which the whiskey stands; is this sufficient? No. 69. A grain was found on Passover inside a salted piece of meat. What is the disposition of that piece of meat, the other pieces that were salted together with it, and the utensils used to cook them? No. 96. A Gentile made another Gentile his messenger to acquire Hametz from a Jew by means of ,pulling and by means of payment of money from his own pocket. This was done. Does the pulling and the transfer of money help to complete the sale or not? Also explained are the laws of what happens to Hametz after the Passover (when held during the holiday by a Jew in violation of the prohibition).

Laws of Shofar, Lulav, Purim, the Ninth of Av, and Fast Days
No. 2. On which day of the two days of Rash Hodesh Elul is it proper to begin blowing the Shofar? No. 9. A beautiful reason why Rosh Hashana is so scheduled so as never to fall on Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday, and why it is appro priate to reschedule all the holidays for what superficially appears to be mere convenience. No. 17. May one recite a blessing on Tabernacles over a dried-out citron when it is impossible to obtain another? No. 54. Regarding the custom prevailing in some communities to give the money collected by donation at the reading of the Megillah to the cantor; does one fulfill thereby the requirement to give gifts to the poor? Must one distribute these funds to the poor of the city? No. 93. A man who must fast on Sabbath because he had a bad dream the night before, is therefore required to fast again to atone for his fast on the Sabbath since fasting is normally forbidden on that day. If the following day is a public fast day such as the seventeenth of Tammuz, can he rely on the required fast, or must he fast yet again in atonement? No. 5. If a womans time to wear white (cessation of menstrua tion) occurs on Sabbath, Yom Tov, Tisha BAv, Yom Kippur, or the seven days of mourning, how should she act (regarding the required ablutions)?

Laws of Forbidden Foods

No. 18. A milk pot cover which was not used within twenty-four hours was placed on a meat pot which had been used (for meat) within

twenty-four hours, and vegetables or water was cooked therein. What is the law? No. 19. Water or vegetables boiled in a pot which had been used for meat within the last twenty-four hours was covered with a milk lid which had not been used within twenty-four hours. Are the lid, the pot and its contents fit for use? No. 20. If boiling water was poured from a clean meat pot in which meat was cooked during the last twenty-four hours onto a milk utensil, or if boiling water was poured over meat and milk pots together, and both are dirty; what is the law? No. 21, Coagulated blood was found on a liver. A piece of the liver was missing, equal in size to the clot. The liver underneath the clot was firm. May the meat of the animal be eaten? No. 25. May one kill goats without resorting to kosher slaughter, in order not to spoil their hides? No. 30. When there are no other utensils available, may one soak meat prior to salting in (nonkosher) utensils belonging to Gentiles? No. 36. A man received swine in payment of a debt and cannot sell them without great loss. May he hold on to them until he can find a buyer? No. 37. A kosher slaughterer slaughtered fourteen lambs and cut them into pieces. Afterwards water was found in one of the heads in such a way as to make it impossible to tell whether the water had been covered (completely by the brain) or not, and because of the doubt we consider it nonkosher. What about the Test of the pieces? All have been mixed together. No. 38. A rebuttal of the opinion of the old Rabbi Joseph Katz of Cracow concerning the difference in law when one becomes aware of an item's being nonkosher before it became mixed with kosher items, and w hen the awareness comes after it was mixed. No. 39. A piece of meat was soaked and put up to salt. Before the salting time was up, it fell into a basin. Is the meat permissible? What is the law when the basin contains liquid and when it does not? No. 40. The wing of a chicken was broken far from the body and the break knit together imperfectly. The chicken was slaughtered, salted and cooked together with the broken wing. The chicken was not 60 times more in volume than the wing. Is it nonkosher or kosher? No. 41. A broken or dislocated wing is kosher when there is a double doubt, such as a doubt whether it broke before or after the chicken was slaughtered, and even if it was indeed broken while the chicken was alive, there is also doubt as to whether it perforated the lung or not.

No. 50. A responsum to my son Rabbi Abraham who had ques tioned my decision to permit a chicken with a broken wing because of the double doubt, and a discussion about our inability to properly examine the lung. Is this considered questionably forbidden, or cer tainly forbidden? No. 53. Meat was prematurely rinsed before the salting time was up. May it be resalted? Or are the properties of the surface of the meat so changed that it will no longer exhude the bood contained therein? No. 61. What is the law if the membrane of the lungs little roselobe is missing or if it has two membranes? No. 64. Meat was properly salted and fell on ground which was wet with the liquid which had dripped from the meat while it was salting. Is it fit for use? No. 66. When an extra rib is found in a slaughtered animal, how much shall be left with the hindquarters to be sold as nonkosher? No. 87. A wild animal in a small space where there is little room for the prey to escape makes all the animals in that space unfit for use. What constitutes a small space and a large space? No. 89. A whole fowl was cooked without being properly deveined. What is the law? No. 103. A duck liver was found to have decayed in its narrow side. Is the duck fit for use? No. 108. A shoulder cut of beef had been lightly washed but not deveined within three days of slaughter. May the meat be cooked for use if it is deveined after three days have passed and then soaked and salted?

Laws of Wine Forbidden because of Libation, and Laws of Usury

No. 29. Is kosher wine transported by Gentile drivers for three days without supervision of Jews still fit for use? No. 34. A creditor lent money at a specified interest rate which was recorded in the contract together with the principal. May he collect the interest? Shall we fine the creditor by withholding even the principal? Shall we fine the borrower by making him give up the interest he was ready to pay, dividing it amongst the poor? No. 66. R was Ss creditor. When the time came to pay, and S did not have the money, he asked R to borrow the money from Y at interest, using the legal machinery set up by our sages to make such a transac tion possible. S gave R a pawn for security. Now S refused to pay the interest. Is S liable? Must R indeed pay the interest to Y?

Laws oflfallah, Bechor, and Charity

No. 1. It is the custom in some places that a Jewish or Gentile baker prepares a large dough on Friday, and all the women come and buy a part of the dough, enough to require the taking of Hallah, and each woman separates the HaiJah offering herself on her own piece. At weddings too, it is customary to make a very large dough which is then divided for kneading into smaller pieces, though large enough for each to be subject to the separating of the HaJiah offering. Here, too, women separate Hallah from each piece. They then put all the pieces together and bake it as one large bread. Is this practice proper? No. 35. A gentile gave a Jew a gestating cow in payment of his debt. He innocently mentioned to other Gentiles that the cow had previously born several calves. It was obvious from the conversation that he had not intended to enhance the value of his merchandise. The Jew did not take possession of the cow, but left it in the care of the Gentile until after the calving. The cow gave birth to a male. Is the bullock suspected of being a first-born? No. 60. Two men bet on the outcome of their litigation. The loser was to donate ten zioty to charity. Is this to be considered a binding vow, or is he free of any obligation since he had not expected to lose his case?

Laws ofNiddah and Ritual Purification

No. 5. If a womans "time to wear white4 (cessation of menstrua tion) occurs on Sabbath, Yom Tov, Tisha BAv, Yom Kippur, or the seven days of mourning, how should she act (regarding the required ablutions)? No. 42. A bride counted seven clean days since the cessation of menstruation and was ready for immersion in the ritualarium in preparation for the wedding which was set on the New Moon of Nisan. When that day came, the groom failed to arrive. On the following day a messenger came from the groom stating that he had been unavoidably detained on the road, and that in a day or two the impediment was likely to be overcome and he could resume his journey. He would then proceed immediately to the wedding. They finally made the wedding two or three days after the New Moon of Nisan. Does the bride have to count seven clean days all over again, commencing from the day she received the grooms message, or are the first seven days she had already counted sufficient? She claims that she had examined herself

every morning and every evening without fail during the intervening time. No. 47. A maiden married and bled each of the three successive times she had intercourse. On the fourth, fifth, and sixth times, she had a severe and unnatural flow of blood. Women have testified that such an unnatural flow cannot be attributed to the rupture of the hymen. Do we require an internal examination by means of a tube, or may we still attribute the flow to the rupture of the hymen, despite its severity? No. 49. Method for internal vaginal examination. No. 81. How does a handicapped woman who cannot stand on her feet immerse herself in the ritual bath?

Laws of Divorce and the Levirate Marriage

No. 10. The levirate ceremony is performed only when it is certain that both parties to it have reached the age of maturity. Is giving birth or begetting children sufficient sign of maturity for this purpose? Or must we still examine for pubic hair and ascertain correct age? Is breast development in a woman or beard growth in a man sufficient evidence in themselves? No. 22. A man claims that the divorce he issued was given under constraint and against his will. Is the divorce valid? No. 23. An apostate granted a divorce and left the country. Before delivery, the paper on which it was written was slightly torn and the letter yod was damaged. Is the divorce valid? No. 24. Another version of No. 23. No. 51. A number of divorces were issued in a community, upon which was the signature of a witness who later was alleged to have been a thief and thus disqualified from testimony. Some of the women affected have already remarried and bore children. Others have not as yet remarried. What is the law regarding each group? A discussion about how a witness becomes disqualified by stealing, and how he can be restored to his trustworthiness. No. 52. In a divorce document, can one separate letters which touch one another by means of a knife? No. 75. A husband was alleged to have been drugged to induce illness, in order that, thinking he was in extremus, he would issue a deathbed divorce. He expected the divorce to be nullified should he recover. The wife's relatives also promised that should he recover she would remarry him. Is the wife free to remarry someone else? No. 76. Another responsum to the same question.

No. 77. A man and woman agreed to divorce but made a condition that neither would remarry for a year thereafter. A fine of 100 thaler was deposited in the hands of a third party to be forfeit should either party violate the conditon. On the following day the parties agreed to abolish the condition and destroy the notes of indebtedness. The husband then swore not to return to the community for at least three years. Is such a conditional divorce valid? No. 111. How does one write the womans name, MiIka, in a di vorce: with a yod or without? No. 112. A man and woman who had performed the ceremony of halitzah (release from the !evirate marriage obligation), live in proxim ity. May they live in separate apartments in the same house?

Laws of Contracts and Dowry

No. 11. An orphan was given her dowry by relatives, and died w ithin a year of her marriage. To whom does the dowry revert; to her heirs, or to those who provided the dowry? No. 12. Rabbi Falk Cohens comments on the previous responsum. No. 13. My response to Rabbi Falk Cohens objections. No. 14. The comments of my relation by marriage, Rabbi Moses, on my opinion and that of Rabbi Falk Cohen. No. 15. My response, taking issue with Rabbi Moses. No. 102. A man died, leaving only the seat he owned in the syna gogue. His widow claimed it as her dower right. The trustees of the synagogue claim the seat as payment of an outstanding pledge he had made. To whom does the seat belong? No. 110. A man died without issue and left an estate. To whom does the estate belong; to the levir, or to the father of the deceased? He had already dividied the estate with the widow, according to the ordinance of the communities of Spiers, Worms, and Mayence.

Laws of Marriage
No. 17. A maiden was engaged to a young man who broke the engagement. Afterward a rumor was started that the maiden was betrothed by means of the gifts the groom had sent before the engage ment was broken. Does she need a divorce? No. 88. A rumor of betrothal was spread about a maiden. Does she need a divorce? No. 90. What is the proper procedure of yihud for a widow who marries on Friday?

No. 91. A maiden who married on Friday, who could not be im mersed in the ritual bath before the marriage; what is the law regarding the completion of the contract (JdnyanJ? No. 106. A rumored engagement about the daughter of Rabbi Ephraim the physician, where the witnesses changed their testimony. Do we give any credence to the rumor?

Laws of Agunah
No. 44. Three men and three boys [servants?] left the city of Jasse of Wallachia to go to the land of Ishmael (Constantinople?) and were murdered on the way. I permitted their wives to remarry. No. 45. A Jew from Lwow, Isaac Glazer, was killed in Wallachia, in the city of Galitz, and my :relation by marriage, Rabbi Moses Meth permitted the widow to remarry. No. 46. My objection to Rabbi Meths decision. No. 63. A woman whose husband had disappeared, and Gentiles testified that they had found his body in the river. A discussion of what constitutes a definite identification, what is an identification of middle degree, and what constitutes an identification of lesser degree. The difference between the three kinds of identification marks. No. 65. Moses of Sniatin died, and his body was found decapitated, the head far from the body. He had an identification mark on a finger. No. 68. Joseph of Sniatin was killed and the murderer was caught and confessed to the crime without being tortured. No. 98. The decision about the agunah daughter of Kalman of Lwow. No. 104. The decision about the agunah, wife of Nahman of Skole. No. 105. The decision about the agunah, wife of Solomon of Sniatin. No. 109. The wives of Reuben and his son Simon who were killed in Wallachia, as witnesses testified before a rabbinic court. It that testimony sufficient to permit their wives to remarry?

RESPONSA

Responsum No. 1
Q. In some places it is the custom that on Fridays a baker prepares one large dough. Women buy amounts large enough to become subject to the laws of HaJJah.1 Each woman then takes HaJJah from the dough she bought. At weddings too, one large dough is prepared from which portions are separated for several women to knead. Each woman takes HaJJah from her portion. They then combine all the portions to bake a large bread. Is this proper? Or since it was kneaded as one large piece, should only one Hallah be taken for the entire dough? A. Hallah should not be taken at all from dough baked by a Gentile, even if he intended to sell it to a Jew. When buying from a Jewish baker, however, HaJJah must be taken from each piece, since it was his intention when kneading the dough to separate the pieces and sell them separately. Moreover, it is desirable that every Jewish woman have the opportu nity on Friday to personally participate in the commandment to take HaJJah. The custom you describe enables them to do so without going to the trouble of kneading their own dough. In the case of the wedding bread which is placed on the table during the discourse,2 however, only one portion of HaJJah should be taken from the entire dough. The only reason the women knead the pieces of dough separately is to make the kneading process easier, since the finished bread is to be so large. It is therefore still considered one large bread. The intention to later divide the finished bread into portions that will be sent to the homes of the guests does not affect the taking of Hallah.

Responsum No. 2
Q. The law requires that the shofar be blown during the month of Elul. When is it proper to begin? Some communities begin on the first and some on the second day of the New Moon, since technically the latter is the first day of the month of Elul. A. It is proper to begin from the first day of the New Moon, as my teacher, Rabbi Solomon Luria had written. Our custom to blow the shofar during the month of Elul is based on a midrash found in Pirke de-Rabbi EJiezer, where it is stated that God commanded Moses to ascend the mountain to receive the second tablets on the New Moon of Elul. A shofar was then blown throughout the entire camp as a sign that Moses ascended the mountain. According to the calculations of the Midrash, he ascended on the first day of the New Moon. We therefore

begin to blow the shofar from that day on. Those who begin on the second day are mistaken.

Responsum No. 3
Addressed to the congregation of Hotzenplotz.3 I shall give brief replies concerning the disagreements in your com munities, for my eyes hurt and I cannot write at length. Q. Are orphans exempt from paying taxes? A. Taxes we pay to the king are our means of protection, for the sake of which we are tolerated and are given the right to dwell in the land. Orphans must pay taxes in the same way as do the householders: half according to their wealth and half per capita. Orphans who are depen dent upon their mother for sustenance, however, are covered by her own payment of the per capita portion of the tax. Q. A engaged B to teach his children. A then changed his mind and engaged C instead. B is suing for his salary. A. A is not liable. We cannot compel a person to learn from a particular instructor. Each man must have the right to choose which ever instructor best suits him. For the same reason a man may engage an instructor who had already been engaged by someone else. Q. The overlord demanded that the community supply him with horses. The members seek to make A, who has many horses, bear the expense. A claims that the community must share the cost of the horses. A. If the overlords demand was from the community as a whole, then even those who have no horses must share in the expense. But if the overlord made his demand from a particular individual, then the entire community is not required to assist him, since the agreement upon which a community is founded does not include the requirement to aid in such specific, extraordinary levies. Q, For many years Rabbi Jacob lived in the community and was exempt from sharing in the payment of its taxes. Now the community claims that he must share the burden with them, because the law exempting sages no longer applies to the sages of today. They further claim that the official mentioned him specifically so that he must pay at least the per capita tax. A. Even if the law exempting sages from paying taxes did not apply nowadays, since learning is no longer the sage's exclusive occupa tion," nevertheless, Rabbi Jacob would still be entitled to a tax exemp tion, since he served the community as Rabbi for a long time during which they had set the precedent of exempting him from all taxes. It is as if they had agreed that as long as he could remain their rabbi he

would be granted an exemption. The community's claim that the official mentioned him specifically is not valid. Even if the overlord himself had demanded he pay a tax, the community would still be responsible to pay it for him. Q. Several members of the community have money in their posses sion which was entrusted to them by others, either as loans or as invested capital. Is this money taxable? A. A man need not pay taxes on money borrowed for a specific time. But if the money is entrusted to him for an indefinite time as active investment capital, he must certainly pay taxes on it. Communities often arrive at compromise agreements in this matter, however, and such is the custom in Cracow. If the lender shares in the profits, then the lender and the borrower must each give half the tax on such money. If each resides in a different city, they pay taxes to the city where the money is put to use. If it is used in both cities or in a third location where both lender and borrower may do business with the capital, then each pays half the taxes to his own city. We are not particular, in such a case, about the precise proportion of the money used by each.

Responsum No. 4
Q. A man who had a seat on the north side of the Holy Ark and used it for more than three years died and left it to his sons. The community then erected a candelabrum near the seat, leaving enough space for the occupant. The heirs protested, claiming that the community had no right to limit their space, that they desired to place their reading stand at a distance from their seat so that they may conclude the Amida prayer by taking three steps backward without hindrance, as was heretofore their own custom and that of their father, and that it was with the understanding that he would have that extra space that their father had bought the seat from the community. The congregation claimed that it was the universal custom in all synagogues to erect candelabra on both sides of the Holy Ark, that such was their intention from the moment the synagogue was built, that they delayed in doing so only because at first there were too few worshipers to require a second candelabrum, and that no restrictive conditions were explicitly made with them by the father when he purchased the seat. Who is right? A. The congregation is right. While in connection with private property the rights of an individual are stressed, in connection with a synagogue the individual's rights are subordinate to the rights of the community. Consequently, an individ

ual may restrain his neighbors from constructing doors to a courtyard which might restrict his entry. But he cannot similarly restrain a congregation since it was not built for private use. Furthermore, it is to his advantage that he be inconvenienced to provide space for the use of other members of the community, since his reward for prayer and study is increased in proportion to the inconvenience he must undergo for their sake. For the same reason a community may cause individuals discomfort by restricting their space through the addition of seats in order to make room for people who would otherwise be excluded from the synagogue. I would normally require that before my decision be accepted, the great sages of the generation should endorse it. Nevertheless, in our case there are additional factors which determine that the heirs have no basis whatsoever for their claims. It is customary in all synagogues in our land to erect candelabra on both sides of the Holy Ark. The heirs therefore have no right to interfere with this practice. Their claim that their father made conditions acquiring rights to the space when he bought the seat is invalid. If their father had made such conditions, he should have insisted on a contract or arranged for witnesses. For a community property rights are acquired neither through occupancy nor through tacit agreement, but only by written contract or by witnesses. Their claim that their fathers occupancy for the prescribed number of years gave them rights to the space is also invalid, for the father and his heirs may be considered partners with the congregation in the space of the candelabrum. Partners gain no rights through use and occu pancy, unless they demonstrate their exclusive rights by building a partition or otherwise changing the structure of the space. The heirs neither built nor changed anything. The community, on the other hand, could not restrain the father or the heirs from using the space as long as they remained unready to use it themselves, because of the principle that if A benefits without loss to B, B may not restrain A from enjoying such benefit. B, however, does not thereby lose his right of ownership. Moreover, the fathers occupancy through use was a relatively minor one. For he placed the reading stand there only during the Amida prayer. This cannot be construed as true occupancy.

Responsum No. 5.
Q. If a womans time to wear white4 occurred on Sabbath, holidays, the Ninth of Ab, the Day of Atonement, or on one of the seven days of mourning, how should she act?

A. On all of these days she may wear white garments and spread white bed sheets just as she would on any other time. As regards to washing, the following rules apply: On Sabbaths and holidays, she may wash her entire body in cold water only. In water heated before the onset of the Sabbath or holiday, she may wash her limbs, but not her entire body at once. In water heated on the holiday, she may wash only her hands, face, and legs. She may not use a washcloth, however, in order to avoid the possibility of wringing it out, which would be forbidden on those days. On the ninth day of Ab and on the Day of Atonement, as well as on the seven days of mourning, she may wash between her thighs and the private parts of her body only. Such washing is permissible on those days, since it is not for the sake of pleasure, but for the sake of fulfilling a commandment. This is the law. In many communities, however, women have alto gether stopped following the above procedures on the Sabbaths and holidays. Perhaps this is precautionary, since many women are igno rant of the distinction between water that was heated before the Sabbath and water that was heated during the Sabbath; nor are they likely to be careful not to wring out a cloth. Where such precautions were introduced, they should be maintained. Otherwise, the above procedures may be followed.

Responsum No. 6
Q. 1. Why are there two sets of cantillation symbols, designated as upper symbols and lower symbols respectively, for the Ten Commandments as found in the printed text of the Torah? 2. Why do some of the passages have only one set of cantillation symbols? (Ex. 20:7,11,12,14) 3. Why are some sentences combined and read together as one sentence? (Ex. 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 6; and 8, 9, 10,11) 4. Why does the reader separate Exodus 20:13 into four sentences of two words each? 5. Why does the punctuation of the taw of the word tirtzah (Ex. 20:13) indicate that it is both stressed with a dagesh and unstressed without a dagesh at one and the same time? 6. Why is a punctuation symbol to be found under the yod of the word panai (Ex. 20:3) and under the het of the word tirtzah (Ex. 20:13), and how are these words to be read? 7. Why are the punctuation symbols under tirtzah reversed in Deuteronomy 5:17? In Exodus 20:13 the patah precedes the kamatz, and in Deuteronomy the kamatz precedes the patah?

A. The lower symbols, taam tahton, indicate the beginning and the end of each sentence. Biblical sentences generally have a semistop, esnahta, and always conclude with a fullstop, sof-pasuk. In very short sentences, the semistop may be omitted. In long sentences, it is sepa rated from the so/-pasuk by other cantillation symbols. The upper symbols, taam eiyon, indicate the beginning and the end of each of the ten commandments, regardless of the division by sen tences. They therefore combine or separate sentences as required. These upper symbols also combine the first two commandments, Exodus 20:1-6, into one passage. This combination occurs because these commandments were heard directly from God, without recourse to Moses as intermediary. The upper symbols also combine verses 8-11 f/bid.J. In the last of these verses, however, the two sets of symbols correspond, since the semistop under the word shevi'i, well removed from the fullstop at the verses conclusion, is used for both the upper and the lower symbols. This cannot be achieved in verse 6 (Ibid.J because according to the reading of the lower symbols the sentence is short, thus requiring a semistop under the word JaaJa/im, very close to the full stop at the end; while according to the upper symbols, the great length of the com mandment necessitates a semistop earlier in the passage. The entire verse is therefore given a double set of cantillation symbols. Verse 13 (Ibid.J contains four commandments. It therefore has a separate set of upper symbols in order that each commandment be read separately. When the entire commandment corresponds to the text of a full sentence, only one set of symbols is used, for then the upper symbols are not needed to combine or to separate sentences. This is true of Exodus 20:7,12, and 14. Consequently, in those passages the upper and lower symbols correspond. I have only discussed fullstops and semistops, because once the location of these is known it becomes easy to distinguish between the upper and the lower symbols. Vowel punctuation of certain words varies according to the location of the pauses, since a patah changes to a kamatz at a fullstop or semistop. When this happens, the printed Bible records both punctua tion symbols. Sometimes, when there is little space, one of the symbols is placed under a contiguous letter. The last word of Exodus 20:3, panai, is in the middle of the com mandment. Therefore, according to the upper symbols, the nun is written with a patah. According to the lower symbols, however, panai is a full stop and the nun is to be written with a kamatz. The printed Bible includes both signs. It imprints the kamatz under the nun, while

the patah is placed under the adjoining letter yod since there is no room for two vowel symbols under the nun. The same applies to the word tirtzah in verse 13 (Ibid.]. The patah does not belong under the het. It is the alternative reading of the tzadi according to the lower symbols, and is printed under the adjoining letter het. For the same reason the taw in the words tirtzah, tinaf and tignov of that verse are written both stressed and unstressed. When reading according to the upper symbols, a tipJia symbol separates the two words of each commandment in order to give them the structure of an entire sentence. The grammatical rule that a taw after the letters EHEWI (Aleph, Heh, Waw and Yod] is unstressed, does not apply in such a case. But when reading according to the lower symbols the two words of each commandment in this verse are read together. The aleph of Jo forces the contiguous taw to become unstressed. In the same way, the first taw of the word tahas in verse 4, Ibid, should take both a patah (upper symbol reading) and a kamatz (lower symbol reading). The patah, however, cannot be printed under the adjacent letter het since it already has its own patah. We must therefore rely on the alert and learned reader to differentiate between the upper and lower reading in this word. The differences in punctuation between the Ten Commandments in Exodus and the Ten Commandments as recorded in Deuteronomy arise because the Deuteronomy Decalogue is always read according to the lower symbols, while the Exodus Decalogue is read according to the lower symbols on a regular Sabbath and according to the upper sym bols on Pentecost. This emphasizes the fact that the revelation at Sinai occurred on that day. Consequently, in the Deuteronomy Decalogue, whenever the upper and lower symbols require variant punctuation, the lower symbol punctuation is given primacy and placed first, as in tirtzah of Deuteronomy 5:17. While in Exodus, both upper and lower symbols are given equal force. Hence in Exodus 20, we sometimes find the upper symbol punctuation printed first, as in tirtzah of verse 13. At other times the lower symbol punctuation is given priority, as in panai of verse 3 and taJias of verse 4, Thus all your questions are answered. I replied in detail because of my zeal for the sake of the Lord. For in our lands and times the vast majority of cantors are ignorant of the laws governing the Torah reading. They read the upper symbols, which are reserved for the Pentecost holiday, on ordinary Sabbaths. If they would only be consistent, reading only according to the upper symbols or only according to the lower, all would be well. But they are altogether

inconsistent, climbing from the lower to the upper symbols and down again like demented beings. This causes them to mix up the sentences and commandments and to err in punctuation. Moreover, they don't even read one sentence of the Torah with the proper cantillation and grammatical punctuation, because the communities choose those can tors who sing the liturgy and kedusha prayers beautifully and at length. From month to month and from week to week new melodies are sung which our forefathers never heard nor wanted to hear, for they are borrowed from churches and theaters! Yet, no one seems to care. The longer the cantor sings, the better they like it, even if he knows not one law of prayer or of Torah reading. Consequently, the cantors themselves pay no attention to these laws and do not prepare themselves to read fluently in public as the law requires. As a result, the congregations find it necessary to appoint a man to stand next to the cantor during the Torah reading in order to read aloud before the cantor from a punctuated Bible, This is a severe violation of the law, because the helper himself does not properly prepare and often causes the reader to stumble. Furthermore, the congregations' obliga tion to hear the Torah reading is not fulfilled when there are two readers. Perhaps this is the reason why many people have begun to read aloud from their Bibles instead of paying attention to the cantors reading, since his reading is not acceptable in any case. Therefore, he who has the power to rectify the situation in his community should do so. He who is powerless ought to say nothing so that the transgression be accidental rather than intentional.

Responsum No. 7
Addressed to: Rabbi Leba Segal of Satanow. Q. In Satanow for many years it was the custom to elect community heads, supervisory officials and tax assessors on the intermediary days of Passover. The community would assemble and choose electors by majority vote, regardless of whether some of the voters might have been related to each other. The electors would then select a committee from the members of the community, who would in turn choose the commu nity officers. Once the members of the community neglected to hold elections until finally, on the New Moon of Iyar, the rabbi compelled them to do so. When by majority vote, several electors had been chosen, the minority began to complain that amongst the majority were relatives whose votes should be combined and counted as one. If this were done, the larger group would no longer be a majority.

The members of the majority countered that for many years they had paid no attention to the fact that there were relatives amongst the voters. The members of the minority however, claimed that it was time such an improper usage was abolished. The rabbi, impatient with the argument, decided that the matter would be decided by the casting of lots. Lots were cast, and the minority won. The majority, however, refused to submit. The rabbi then decreed that the minority electors should immedi ately proceed with their selection, and should also immediately pro ceed to fulfill their function of assessing the taxes. He imposed a ten zloty fine upon any electors who would refuse to obey him. One of the electors indeed did refuse to obey the Rabbi. In the meantime it became known that among the smaller group there were also some that were related to each other, so that even if relatives were to be given only one vote among them, the larger group would still constitute a majority. The latter now claimed victory, while the smaller group insisted on relying on the rabbi's lottery. The smaller group also claimed that if the vote were to have been delayed until absentee members of the commu nity had a chance to return, they would have been able to win a majority of the votes. Who is right? A. The members of the majority are right. It is the custom in our communities to elect our supervisory officials and electors without regard as to whether some voters are related to each other. So I have observed several times in Cracow and in Lemberg. If your community had followed this custom for the elections of at least three preceding years, it is binding and takes priority over the law. Furthermore, since it was later found that some members of the minority were also related to each other, the larger group remains in the majority, even without the votes of its related members. If this had been known, lots would not have been cast. The lottery is therefore in error and has no validity. The minority's claim that when certain absentee members should appear, they would become the majority, is not valid. For otherwise they would never be able to choose officials until every member of a community is present. This would upset the stability of the communi ties, about which our sages were most concerned. Furthermore, the practice in all the communities is not to wait for absentees to return. Moreover, at the time of the elections the minority knew of the absence of several members, yet said nothing to prevent the vote, thus signify ing their acquiescence. Therefore, the electors of the larger group, which has a clear majority with and without the votes of those who were related to each other,

should choose the community's officers and evaluate the assessments according to the communitys usage. However, the elector who defied the rabbi should be punished and fined for his wicked intention even though the law was decided in his favor, just as he who intended to eat swine and ate lamb by mistake needs atonement and forgiveness. He also violated the commandment Thou shalt not veer right or left from the words of the sages of your time (Deut. 17:11), Even if they tell you right is left and left is right (Sanhedrin 89a).

Responsum No. 8
Q. May one catch chickens and ducks on the Sabbath and on the holidays? A. On Sabbath and holidays it is forbidden to trap any animals in ways forbidden by the Torah, even if the animals are domesticated. They are considered domesticated if at night they return by themselves to their roosts or pens. Rabbinic prohibitions against trapping, how ever, apply only to the Sabbath but not to the holidays, provided that the animal is needed for consumption on the holiday and thus is used for the holiday celebration. Consequently, on Sabbath and holidays it is forbidden to trap any animal which is loose in the field. In a large open corral, however, it is forbidden to trap nondomesticated animals on both Sabbath and holi days. IVapping domesticated animals, however, is only prohibited by rabbinic decree. It is therefore permitted to catch them on the holidays but not on the Sabbath, even when they are found in large enclosures. For the same reason, it is permitted to catch all animals on holidays if they are in a house, yard, or small corral. Flying birds, however, may not be trapped unless the enclosure in which they are found is covered. Theoretically, it should also be permitted to catch domesticated animals on the holidays even if they are outside a corral, since this prohibition is only rabbinic. In practice, however, this particular rab binic prohibition is applied to the holidays as well. On the Sabbath, if it is seen that domesticated animals are escaping from the house so that monetary loss would ensue, it is permitted to push the animals back, provided they are trapped in an unusual way, for in such a case the rabbis did not issue their prohibition. It is forbidden to catch the animal by hand, since a living creature is muktzah and therefore may not be held on Sabbath. A chicken may not be pushed by its wings lest it raise itself off the ground. Other animals and birds may be pushed from behind.

Responsum No. 9
Q. By what right and authority do the rabbis meddle with the calendar and change it at will? The Bible and the Prophets surely give them no such authority. When, for instance, they postpone the New Year by adding a day to the preceding month of Elul only for the sake of avoiding a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday New Years festival, they delay all the holidays of the year and thus force us to eat hametz on Passover! A. I reply to this scoffer in spite of his ignorance and arrogance, in order to demonstrate his error and make his sinfulness manifest. Our primary reason for regulating the calendar is in order to render it mathematically exact, not to satisfy our own needs or desires. The Bible commands us to make the lunar year correspond to the solar year, as stated in the verses ,Guard the month of spring and make the Passover (Deut. 16:1) and . . . a festival of the harvest at the turn of the year (Exodus 34:22), teaching that Passover must always be in the spring time and Tabernacles in the fall. In order to accomplish this we add seven months to each nineteen-year cycle. While we lived in our own land, we were able to perform this required calendar regulating function and to create the prescribed number of leap years in a way that would incidentally benefit the populace. We would thus add the required months to those years in which the roads were muddy and impassable, the bridges were unsafe, or the outdoor ovens in which the Passover lambs were roasted were damaged by rain and were in need of repair. When we were exiled, there was no longer any reason to take the convenience of the populace into account. Nevertheless, the commandment to make the lunar and solar years correspond continued in force, and we therefore continue to regulate the calendar. We did so by adding a month to the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth years of a nineteen-year cycle. For the same reason we are also sometimes required to add a day to the months of the year. If the lunar months would have been twentynine days and two hours long, a regular year of alternate twenty-nine and thirty day months would be comprised of the mathematically exact total of three hundred and fifty-four days. Since, however, this is not the case, there accumulates a yearly shortage of eight hours and four hundred and seventy-six parts (approximately twenty-six minutes and twenty-four seconds). We must therefore sometimes add a day to the year in order to keep the calendar correct. The addition of these days is made to incidentally serve the religious

needs of the people in just the same way that months added to form leap years were arranged to also serve the advantage of the populace. The extra day was therefore added when Rosh Hashana would other wise have fallen on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday, so that the Day of Atonement should fall on neither Friday nor Sunday, and so that the seventh day of Thbernacles, Hoshana Raba, should not fall on Satur day.5 Finally, the Bible gave our sages full authority to regulate the calen dar, designate the days on which the holidays should fall, as it is stated: These are the holidays of the Lord which you shall declare . . (Leviticus 23:37).

Responsum No. 10
Q. The levirate ceremony is performed only when it is certain that both parties to it have reached the age of maturity. Is giving birth or begetting children sufficient evidence of maturity for this purpose? Or must we still examine for pubic hair and ascertain the correct age? Is breast development in a woman or beard growth in a man sufficient evidence in themselves? A. Breast development is sufficient by itself only when the breasts are fully developed as in a grown woman. If they are semideveloped (neither elongated nor spreading apart), however, they have the same value as two small pubic hairs, and it must therefore also be ascer tained that she is twelve years and one day of age. However, age, pubic hair, or semi developed breasts are each in themselves sufficient when found in a girl whose height is that of a grown woman. Childbirth has the same value as pubic hairs. It is considered a sign of maturity only when accompanied by some other manifestation of maturity. Consequently, a girl who has given birth must also be twelve years and a day, or found to have two pubic hairs, or semi developed breasts, in order to be considered mature. Otherwise, her maturity is in doubt. It seems to me that if she has given birth and is as tall as a full-grown woman, she is also considered mature even without any other sign, for giving birth surely cannot be considered a weaker sign of maturity than hair, age or breast development. In the case of a man, facial hair is not by itself a sufficient sign of maturity unless the boy has grown to a man's stature, or unless it is accompanied by clear evidence of his having reached the age of maturity.

Only after the above requirements for proof of maturity are met shall the levirate ceremony be performed.

Responsum No. 11
To Rabbi Eliezer Yerushalmi. Q. A woman died childless during the second year of her marriage. A court was convened, and in accordance with the ordinance of the communities (Spiers, Worms, and Mayence), it gave half the dowry to the husband. To whom does the other half belong: to the woman's heirs or to those who originally gave the dowry? The disputed half of the dowry is being held by the court, pending the decision. A. Since the purpose the ordinance was to protect the giver of the dowry from the tragedy of giving his strength in vain (Lev. 26:20), logic would dictate that the money should be returned to those who gave it. This matter is an old, undecided controversy, however, and there is no established custom governing it. Therefore, if the disputed money would have been held by one of the claimants, we would recognize his claim of possession. In this instance, however, the money is in the hands of the court. It is therefore to be divided equally between the woman's heirs and those who originally gave the dowry.

Responsum No. 12
From Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen to Rabbi Benjamin Slonik. Rabbi Falk Cohen takes issue with Rabbi Benjamin, and declares that the half dowry in dispute belongs to the wifes heirs. He asserts that sages and community leaders testified to the wide spread acceptance of this custom. Furthermore, the vast majority of engagement contracts refer to the ordinance of the communities, thus implying that the intent was to return the money to the wifes heirs in the event of her death. We fulfill the purpose of the ordinance of protection against giving strength in vain even when we return the half dowry to the wifes heirs and not to those who furnished it, since the ordinance was intended merely to insure that the dowry not be left in the husbands possession.

Responsum No. 13
From Rabbi Benjamin Slonik in reply to Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen. Rabbi Benjamin upholds his opinion that the money is to be divided.

He claims that Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen did not correctly understand the testimony of the leaders and sages of the communities. Their declaration was only that in the event of death during the second year of marriage one half the dowry should be returned, just as during the first year of marriage the entire dowry is returned. They did not, however, specify to whom it is to be returned. The evidence either way is inconclusive. True, logic dictates that the money should revert to those who provided the dowry. However, in deference to the opinions of great sages who had arrayed themselves on both sides of the controversy, the matter cannot be decided conclu sively either way.8

Responsum No. 14
From Rabbi Moses of Przemysl to Rabbi Benjamin Slonik. Rabbi Moses takes the position that the money should be returned to those who provided the dowry. The woman's heirs have no valid claim. He points out that Rabbi Benjamin himself agreed that this view is more logically coxrect.

Responsum No. 15
From Rabbi Benjamin Slonik to Rabbi Moses of Przemysl. Rabbi Benjamin continues to maintain his position that the disputed money should be divided. He demonstrates that there is logic on both sides, and therefore logic alone cannot be the deciding factor. Moreover, our great sages knew all the arguments proposed, yet continued to remain in doubt. Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg probably copied the original ordinance on which was signed Rabbi Jacob Tam and his contemporary sages. Yet even he did not decide one way or the other. He adds that when the wife herself had given the dowry, then there is no disappoint ment and aggravation because of giving strength in vain," and there fore no reason for the ordinance. In that case, the husband is her heir. In his conclusion he states that since so many sages from the time of Rabbenu Tam until the present remained in doubt, we too will not decide. Whenever we have such disagreement among sages of previous times, it is possible to decide the issue only according to conclusive evidence one way or another. Such conclusive evidence is lacking here.

Responsum No. 16
Q. A young man, Abner son of Aaron, was engaged to a maiden, Rachel, the daughter of Isaac Halevi of Ostrog. As is customary, he came to Ostrog to meet the bride. Before his visit, he sent her gifts by

messenger. His visit, however, was not successful, for all did not go smoothly between the bride and himself. As a result, on the following day, the bride and her father withdrew from the engagement and arrived at a financial settlement with the groom. The young man and his relatives returned to the community of Podhajce. Until that time, there was no rumor of marriage. About two weeks or more later, a rumor began to circulate in Podhajce that the messenger had betrothed the maiden for the young man by means of the gifts he had been commissioned to bring. The court investigated the rumor. They issued a ban in the synagogue, requiring any witnesses who knew the source of the rumor to come forward and testify. The court suspected the young man and his relatives of having spread the rumor maliciously in order to force the girl to marry him or to elicit money from the father as blackmail for a divorce. Two witnesses testified that they had heard the boy's relatives say that the messenger had indeed betrothed the maiden by means of the gifts. The messenger corroborated this, stating that when he had deliv ered the gifts he had placed the ring on the girls hand and in jest had spoken in Yiddish as follows: Thus will they speak at the wedding: ,You are betrothed but he did not say the word to me, [li in Hebrew] nor did he say to the groom. He also stated that when he had delivered the gifts there were no Jews present, but only several Gentile girls. He further stated that when he had returned to Abner, he had said in Yiddish: Dont be downcast; I betrothed your bride. Abner, the groom, testified that when he sent the gifts he mentioned no word of betrothal and that whatever the messenger had done was of his own volition and in jest. The groom had never intended the gifts for betrothal but only as presents. Nor had the groom authorized the messenger, who had been chosen by the grooms brother-in-law, to act in his behalf. The maiden, her relatives, and her father vehemently denied the allegations of the messenger. They also maintained that Isaac, the maiden's brother-in-law, and another woman, Sarah, daughter of Moses Gash, had been present while the gifts had been given and had heard no mention of betrothal. The maiden said that when the messenger had handed her the gifts she had not accepted them herself because she was bashful. She claimed that the messenger had spoken only the following words in Yiddish at the time: Don't be offended by the gifts. They will give you more at the wedding. May the maiden marry without first obtaining a divorce?

A. She needs no divorce. No rumor is to be credited unless corrobo rated by the courts investigation and found to have a probable basis in fact. The facts do not corroborate this rumor for the following reasons: 1. The rumor was not heard immediately but only after two weeks had passed and only in another city. 2. The messenger retracted his statement which he had made to witnesses. He may do so, since the statement had not been made in court as testimony. 3. Our sages required that we be lenient in cases involving rumor in order to discourage malicious slander and blackmail. B. The gifts Abner sent Rachel signify nothing for the following reasons: 1. No betrothal need be suspected, since it is the universal custom throughout all our communities for a groom to send his bride engage ment gifts, which are given even in the presence of witnesses. Engage ments are frequently broken, and we never suspect a possible betrothal. 2. Both Abner and Rachel deny that a betrothal took place by means of the gifts. 3. Rachel claims that she herself did not accept the gifts, nor did she instruct anyone else to do so on her behalf. 4. Rachel also denies that the messenger made the alleged state ments to her. A girl is believed when she denies that she has been betrothed. Furthermore, even if the alleged statements of the messenger were taken at face value, they still would not constitute a betrothal. By saying ,Thus will they say at the wedding, he indicated that the wedding had in fact not yet taken place. 5. Finally, the groom, Abner, accepted the fine Rachel's father paid him without any demur or claim of betrothal. Rabbi Shalom Shachna had written at length about this case and accepted a strict view on the basis of his new and brilliant interpreta tion of the pertinent talmudic sections. We do not, however, base decisions of Jewish law on novel ways of interpreting the Talmud. We rely on Rashi and Tosaphot and other authors who preceded us, and do not veer from their words and explanations. All my teachers and other great sages of that generation were Rabbi Shachna ,s students, and they did not accept his new interpretation. The girl may therefore marry without need of a divorce. I require, however, the endorsement of the great sages of our province to this decision. (This responsum was endorsed by Rabbi Moses ben Abraham, Rabbi Joshua ben Alexander Falk Cohen, and Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim ben Aharon of Leczyza.)

Jtesponsum No. 17
Q. Can one recite the blessing over a dried citron in an emergency? A. Yes, if there is no other alternative. The rules governing a dried palm branch, myrtle and willow apply to a dried citron as well. The sources dealing with this question mention only the palm branch because it is more likely to arrive in a dried out condition. The same is true in out land. We receive new and fresh citrons every year, while we generally have trouble obtaining fresh palm branches. Four rules should be followed: 1. If there are fresh specimens available, only they may be used. A blessing may not be recited over the others. 2. If there are semidry specimens only, they may all be used and we need not pick and choose the freshest among them. 3. If the specimens are dry but there are among them some which are less dry than the others, we must choose the best available. The blessing may not be recited over the poorer specimens. 4. If all the specimens are completely dry, they may all be used and a blessing recited over them.

Responsum No. 18
Q. Water or vegetables were boiled in a pot which had been used for meat within the last twenty-four hours. It was covered with a milk lid which had not been used within twenty-four hours. Are the lid, pot, and its contents fit for use? A. Yes. The meat taste absorbed first in the pot and then transferred to the boiling water or vegetables was twice diffused before it reached the milk lid.

Responsum No. 19
Q. A lid used for milk that same day, and then washed, was placed on a meat pot in which meat had been cooked but which was now removed from the fire. It was still too hot to hold. Are the lid, pot and the contents fit for use? A. If the pot is so hot that the hand becomes scalded from its steam, it is forbidden. But if the vapor does not scald the hand, it is permissi ble even if the meat itself in the pot is scalding (too hot to hold). However, if the cover itself is too hot to hold, it is forbidden even when the steam is cooler, since the lid was used for milk within the last twenty-four hours.

Responsum No. 20
Q. Boiling water was poured from a clean pot which had been used for meat within the last twenty-four hours, onto a milk utensil. Is the utensil kosher? A. Yes, the utensil is kosher. The meat taste absorbed first in the pot and then transferred to the boiling water, was thus twice diffused before it reached the milk utensils.

Responsum No. 21
Q. On a liver coagulated blood was found. A piece of the liver was missing equal in size to the clot. The liver underneath the clot was firm. May the meat of that animal be eaten? A. If the liver is partially missing the animal may be used. If the liver is partially dissolved, however, the animal is not fit for use. In our case, the remaining part of the liver is not dissolved. If it were, when the clotted blood was removed the liver underneath would not have been firm, but would have been found rotten. The animal may therefore be used for food.

Responsum No. 22
To Rabbi Joseph Katz and Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen. Q. A divorce was issued by a court in the city of Winnica to a woman whose husband had previously agreed to either support her properly or divorce her. The husband caused a second court to be convened which stated that the divorce was given under duress. According to the deposition of this court, many people testified that in the city of Pohebryszcze the husband was chained, beaten and put in jail. Al though they removed his chains in order to transport him to the city of Winnica, they nevertheless kept him under arrest and led him every where under guard. Others also testified that the Rabbi had himself threatened to return the man to his original captors if he would not consent to give the divorce. The womans relatives had also threatened him. However, they also paid him well in order to obtain his consent to give the divorce. The deposition of the court summoned by the husband is entirely in his handwriting, and we are not acquainted with the names and reputations of the judges and the witnesses signed thereon. The court summoned by the Rabbi of Winnica who officiated at the divorce denied that they used illegal compulsion. The Rabbi did admit that the husband came to him privately to state that he was unwilling to

give the divorce. Later, before the court trustee, the husband denied having spoken to the Rabbi, Is the divorce legal? The womans father had a ban issued by sages against the husband for proclaiming the divorce invalid. Is this ban legal? A. If the woman did not yet remarry, we must consider her divorce invalid. From the deposition of the husbands court it appears that he acted under duress. TVue, he was paid. Nevertheless, accepting money does not constitute consent as long as the compulsion still exists. We suspect that he accepted the money because he was afraid to refuse it. The witnesses of the Winnica court who say they saw no compulsion are contradicted by those of the husbands court who say compulsion was used. This is enough to invalidate the divorce. Furthermore, the Winnica witnesses might not have been aware of the pressures which did in fact exist. The Rabbi himself admitted that the man had come to him privately to state his unwillingness to give the divorce. The very fact that later, before the court trustee, the husband denied that this interview had taken place indicates his great fear of retribution. In a letter from Rabbi Isaac to Rabbi Getz it is claimed that the sages who officiated at the divorce proceedings thought that in this case compulsion was justified since the man was alleged to have violated the Torah and sinned in many ways. This view is not correct. We do not even use physical force to constrain an apostate to issue a divorce. Even when permitted, compul sion must be limited to the methods described in the Talmud. Further more, there are people who deny that this man is indeed a sinner. I therefore require the woman to obtain a second divorce. It might be argued that compulsion was legally used in order to force him to comply with his agreement to either support his wife or grant her a divorce. If the compulsion was applied only to force him to give the support which the law requires, it would have been legal. However, it appears from the deposition of the husbands court that force was used in order to obtain the divorce. The judges assumed that since he violated his agreement to support his wife, he could therefore be forced to divorce her. This assumption is false. The ban against the husband is not valid. While a man may not cast aspersions on a divorce which was legally given, he is nevertheless quite right to issue a proclamation attacking the validity of a divorce illegally or unwillingly given. It is possible, however, that the record of the court summoned by the

husband is false, and perhaps forged by him, for the signatures thereon are not validated. We therefore require that the husband validate the deposition of his court, and we must give him time to do so. We must seek the basic facts from the communities involved, establish the veracity of the husbands court, as well as the reputation of the witnesses who testified there. The foregoing was written hurriedly and superficially. I have not gone into the details of the law because of distractions, for I was forced suddenly to proceed to the community of Kolymyja to officiate at the issuing of a deathbed divorce. Furthermore, the deposition of Rabbi Getzs court is not in my hands. Perhaps it contains some information which might prove the divorce valid. If you discover such evidence after examining the deposition, please act as you see fit.

Responsum No. 23
To Rabbi David Alkosh Halevi Segal of Basel. Q. An apostate was prevailed upon to give a divorce to his wife. Paper was used, since parchment was not readily available. The apos tate gave the divorce to the messenger and immediately left the coun try. Before the divorce was delivered to his wife, it was torn slightly on one side. The tear reached the lower part of the letter yod in the text of the document. The letter was not mulitated by the tear. Is it a valid divorce? A. A divorce is only invalid if torn by the court across and down. An accidental tear does not invalidate it. This applies even if the tear occurred before the divorce was delivered into the wifes hands. It also applies even though the tear reached the letter yod, since the appear ance of that letter was not changed thereby. In this case, since it was a divorce sought by the wife of an apostate, she would be considered divorced even if the document was entirely destroyed and never delivered, since it is our usage to have the apostate say to the messengers, Accept the divorce on behalf of my wife. By means of this she is immediately divorced, for We may benefit a person even when that person is not present. This is especially true in our case, where the apostate left the country. The messenger informed me of the supreme effort this woman made, and the danger to which she exposed herself, by pleading with many people to obtain a divorce from her apostate husband. Let the messen ger, however, go through the formula of delivering the divorce to her in the presence of the court as is customary.

This is as clear to me as the sun at noon. Nevertheless, I require another sage's consent before this decision shall be accepted as final.

Responsum No. 24
Another version of the previous responsum. An endorsement is appended from Rabbi Joshua ben Alexander Falk Cohen.

Responsum No. 25
Q. May a man kill he-goats for the sake of their skins without resorting to kosher slaughter? A. He may. The Talmud says that a man may kill an animal for the sake of the blood in order to make a red dye. Hence, he may kill an animal for commercial use without rendering it fit to eat. (In a note, Rabbi Abraham ben Benjamin Slonik adds that he had discussed this law with his father many times. He pointed out that when a kosher animal is killed without resorting to kosher slaughter, the carcass may be fed to dogs but may not be sold commercially, even to non-Jews. Rabbi Abraham tells us that his father wrote toward the end of his life: This responsum must be studied in the light of what my son Rabbi Abraham replied. He died before he had the opportunity to restudy the matter. Rabbi Abraham indicates that he added the note in order that the reader be aware of his father's reservations in this matter.)

Responsum No. 26
Q. A woman placed her child in its crib and went to sleep in her bed. When she awoke from sleep she found the child dead in her arms. The servant claims she brought the child to the mother and placed a breast in its mouth. She says that the mother received the child from her but grew angry at her and cursed her. The mother has no recollection of any of this but has now come seeking ways of doing penance in case the servant girl is telling the truth. This is her second child to die in this manner. A. We are severe in matters that have to do with life and death. However, we may not be as severe with this woman as we are with other women who lie on their children and crush them. Every other such case, although admittedly accidental, nevertheless carries some guilt. For the mother was aware that the child was with her, and so she

should have been more careful not to fall asleep. Furthermore, however you regard it, it is inescapable that in those cases the mother did in fact kill her child. Our case, however, is different, since it is possible that the child was dead before it was brought to the mother. The maid is not a reliable witness that the child was alive at the time, for she herself is suspected of having caused the childs death. Even if we assume that the mother did in fact kill the child, she bears no guilt, for she had no awareness that the child was with her. The woman is therefore not liable at all. Nevertheless, we cannot altogether overlook a case of bloodshed, and we are unable to free the mother entirely, especially since this is the second time such a tragedy befell her. She should therefore fast forty consecutive days, exclusive of Sab baths and holidays. During those days she should eat no meat and drink no wine, even at night. She should not sleep with pillows or blankets. Afterward, she should fast on Mondays and Thursdays for at least a full year of 365 days, exclusive of those days when Tahanun prayers of supplication are omitted. She should not fast, however, during a time when she is pregnant or nursing but must make up these days afterward. She should wear no jewelry during the entire year, including Sab baths and holidays. She must stay away from parties, gatherings and weddings. She should humble her heart in contrition, recite the confes sion prayer in Yiddish, and pray that the Lord forgive her. Immediately after 365 days she is permitted everything as before. However, she would do well to fast one day a month for all the rest of her life, except for the days of pregnancy, nursing and menstruation, or when she might be ill with any sort of indisposition. She should also fast on every anniversary of this dreadful happening. Finally, she should be especially careful never to lie down with her child next to her. Let her return in perfect repentance, and the Lord will help her.

Responsum No. 27
Q. Reuben bought the monopoly rights to a milling concession from the overlord of his town. The overlord then gave the town and its income as security to another overlord. Reuben bought the concession again from the second overlord and held it for almost ten years. Last year a Gentile attempted to outbid him for the concession.

Reuben reached a compromise with him, and they entered into a oneyear partnership. At the end of the years time, the overlord redeemed the town and proceeded to give it as security to yet another overlord. Reuben acted as agent for the overlords in this transaction. He had an agreement with the new overlord that as commission for his services he would be granted exclusive rights to the mill concession at the rate he used to pay of five hundred zloty. The new overlord agreed but did not give him a written contract. The Gentile who had been his partner during the previous year, began once again to bid against him for the monopoly, and offered seven hundred zloty. Reuben reminded the overlord of his promise. The overlord Teplied that he did not realize that the Gentile would make him such an attractive offer. He was quite prepared to give up one hundred zloty in order to keep his word, but he would not sacrifice more than that amount. Reuben sensed that the Gentile had no real intention of buying the concession but only wanted to do him mischief by making him pay an exorbitant price. He therefore withdrew his claim and yielded to the Gentile. The overlord offered the Gentile the concession in the presence of the other Jews. The Gentile withdrew his offer. This angered the overlord. He wrote the contract for the monopoly to Reuben and the Gentile in partnership, asking Reuben for two hundred and fifty zloty and forcing the Gentile to obligate himself for three hundred and fifty zloty, half the sum he had offered. The Gentile then began to plead before Reuben to buy out his half of the concession, offering him fifty thaler7to induce him to do so. Reuben held out for one hundred zloty. The other Jews who were present, as well as the overlord himself, tried to make a compromise between them for eighty zloty. Reuben, however, thinking that the money was as good as in his pocket and seeking to aggravate the Gentile, put off his decision for about a week. Thereupon, the partners Simon and Levi bought out the Gentiles share. Reuben claims that Simon and Levi have violated the ordinance of our province prohibiting a Jew from encroaching on the monopoly of another who held it for at least three years. The penalty is to require the violators to return the monopoly to its original concessionaire, paying all damages and other fines. Reuben further claims that he had shown Simon and Levi a rabbinic document warning all and sundry against doing him damage and

encroaching on his monopoly. He had no witnesses, however, that he did in fact show them the document, for Simon and Levi dwell in a place where there are no Jews. Reuben demands the return of his concession and all damages, especially the fifty thaler which, before many witnesses, the Gentile had agreed to pay. Simon and Levi claim that they had not encroached on his share but merely bought the Gentiles half, that Reuben had not concluded the bargain with Gentile and so had no right to claim the fifty thaler, and that Reuben showed them the document and warned them only after they had already bought the Gentiles share. Furthermore, the ordinance of our province should not apply in this case for two reasons: a. This is a new overlord from whom Reuben had not yet received the concession, much less held it for the prescribed three years. b. Reubens previous exclusive right of possession was lost during the previous year since he had been in partnership with the Gentile. To this Reuben replied that: a. It is well known that I am very close and in extremely high favor with the towns overlord, to the point where the overlord would not grant the concession to anyone else even for a great deal of money. Witness the fact that although the overlord sometimes gives the town away as security for a loan, he stipulates that the concession should be given only to me. Because of this, I relied for my living exclusively on this monopoly and had even transferred my residence from another town to this. b. Last year I was constrained against my will to enter into partner ship with the Gentile. I have since done everything in my power to remove the Gentile from the concession. In fact, the Gentile admitted that he had offered to buy the concession this year only at the instiga tion of other Jews who are my enemies. c. 1 did not accept the final offer immediately because I was confi dent that the Gentile would offer still more money, since he was not financially able to maintain his part of the concession. I did not consider the possibility of Jews harming me, because I relied on the ordinance of our province. A. The court requires the payment of damages in cases of encroach ment of a mans prior rights, when the following conditions apply: a. The object was not being sold, but was he/ker, ,,ownerless, or was being sold at such a great bargain that it was not otherwise obtainable. b. The man seeking to acquire this object makes his living thereby.

c. When the man has in fact expended such effort as to insure attaining the object, so that he has come to rely on the object being his own, as if it were already in his possession. These conditions are all met in our case. It is the only such conces sion in town; profit from it is secure; it is not otherwise obtainable. It is well known that the monopoly was Reubens sole means of livelihood for many years. He had held the concession much longer than the prescribed minimum of three years, thus establishing his claim of right of possession. He also relied on his influence with his overlord, who assured him his position even when renting the towns income to other overlords. This is further borne out by the fact that the new overlord was willing to give him the concession for one hundred zloty less than the Gentiles offer. Reuben, in seeking to safeguard his claim, made supreme efforts and went to great expense in order to catch the Gentile in his trap, forcing the latter to offer fifty thaler so that Reuben take the concession off his hands. The partners must therefore return the share of the concession they bought from the Gentile to Reuben, for the sum Reuben offered to the Gentile. Furthermore, still another principle applies here. When a man wishes to sell his share of a property held in partnership, the partner must be given the first opportunity to buy him out. The buyers had no right, therefore, to purchase the other half of the monopoly from the Gentile before Reuben had his opportunity to buy it.

Responsum No. 28
A continuation of No. 27. Q. Reuben further claims fifty thaler, the sum the Gentile had been ready to pay him to buy out his share. A. Our sages punished perpetrators of frequent and usual types of causal damages even though they be remotely caused. The case in question is just such a frequent and usual type of damage. Daily we see how lawless men, observing someone obtaining a concession and making profit thereby, spring up before the overlords and outbid the holder of the monopoly, causing him great damage. They deserve punishment and should be fined. Even without recourse to this fine, however, the law would still require the partners to make restitution, for they themselves did the damage by buying the Gentiles share. This was tantamount to placing Reuben's money in the hands of the Gentile.

The fact that Reuben did not yet receive the money from the Gentile has no bearing on the case, since were it not for the partners, the Gentile would surely have been forced to pay him. It was therefore as good as in his pocket.

Responsum No. 29
Omitted from the Sudylkow edition because of censorship. Q. Moses of Lemberg made eleven large casks of wine in the land of Wallachia in the city of Kutno. He then loaded them on wagons belonging to Gentiles. The barrels were new and had no spout or opening, and where it is usual to place a seal, each one was closed tightly with grape vines, in the middle of which was stuck a fairly long stick which tightened the closure. He pitched around the vines thickly with tar, as is customary among those who transport new wine. It was therefore impossible to touch the wine and drink it without undergoing a great deal of trouble to undo the closure. The wagons were covered with bark on top and on all sides, and tied securely with cord. In the wagons the Gentiles placed their meat and cheese and other provisions. They set out in the company of Jews from the city of Sokal" who were transporting their own wine. Moses remained in Kutno and asked the other Jews to guard his wine until he should come to claim it. On the way the other Jews changed their plans and decided to take a short-cut to their own city. They permitted the Gentile wagon driver to continue alone with Moses wine, with no Jew to supervise them. Three days later Moses caught up with his wine. When he saw the Gentiles without any Jew to supervise them, he became greatly upset and immediately checked his wine to ascertain that the barrels had not been opened. He found everything just as he had left it, and with no sign of having been touched. May the wine be used? A. It is very difficult for me to give a response now, since I have none of my books with me at the present time. We were forced to evacuate our city for fear of a Tartar invasion,3 so we sent all our heavy belongings to the fortress. Nevertheless, 1 recognize Moses difficult position and the great loss he faces. I shall therefore attempt to answer the question. In our case there was only one effective seal on the barrels. For the covering of the wagon and the manner in which it was tied is not an effective seal since the Gentile might untie it daily for any reason, such as to gain access to his own provisions.

Ordinarily two seals are required as an added measure of safety when sending wine to another Jew by means of a Gentile, because the sender will not see the wine again and will therefore be unable to check his seal to see if it has been violated. In our case, however, the sender himself collects his own wine and is therefore able to check his seal to ascertain that it was not broken. Even so, two seals are still required, except in emergencies or in cases of great loss such as this, when one seal is ex post facto acceptable. However, if the wine should bubble up through a crack in the barrel, as new wine sometimes does, then the tar with which the barrel is pitched and the vines with which it is tied are no longer an effective seal and the barrel is considered open, for the pitch falls off the vines when soaked in wine, and it must constantly be reapplied. Access to the barrels is no longer prevented by the need to break the seal of pitch, and the wine is then forbidden.

Responsum No. 30
Q. Is it permitted to soak meat prior to salting it in a utensil belonging to a Gentile, when there is no other utensil available? A. It is permitted to soak meat in such a utensil provided the water is cold, even when other utensils are available. Since the utensil is used for soaking, there is no reason to forbid its use, for in such a case we are not concerned lest a man inadvertently use it unwashed.

Responsum No. 31
Q. Reuben sat on his father-in-law Simons synagogue seat for more than three years prior to his fatheT-in-laws death. He continued using the seat for at least three years thereafter. Simons heirs claim that the seat had only been lent to Reuben. Reuben admits that the seat had belonged to Simon, but claims that he received it from his father-in-law as a gift. There is no written document. To whom does the seat belong? A. A claim based on right of occupancy or possession must be accompanied by two conditions in order to be valid: a. Occupancy must be for a minimum of three years. b. There must be a clear indication that the occupancy was in the form of ownership. When there is neither contract nor monetary transaction nor exchange, there must be at least an improvement in the property, a benefit enjoyed from the property, or some important change made in the structure of the property. The only one of the above conditions which accompanied Reubens

occupancy was the direct benefit he obtained from sitting on the synagogue seat. Such benefit, however, does not demonstrate ownership, since it is usual for father-in-law to lend extra seats that they possess to their sons-in-law. Reubens occupancy can only be construed to have arisen out of such a loan, especially since his father-in-law did in fact possess another seat which he used himself. Since Reuben has no witnesses or documentary proof that the seat was given to him as a gift, his ownership for longer than three years gives him no right of ownership and the seat reverts back to Simons heirs. Rabbi Falk Cohen commented at length on this question and came to the opposite conclusion. In the light of the foregoing, I hope that his modesty and integrity will prompt him to agree with me.

Responum No, 32
Q. A debtor had many creditors and not enough assets to satisfy them all. One of his creditors seized assets equal in value to the fifty zloty he was owed, plus another fifty for the sake of another creditor. Does the prohibition against seizure for another when it will harm a third party apply, since some of the creditors are bound to be left unsatisfied; or is the seizure valid, since the man who seized the property was himself a creditor? A. One man may acquire goods on behalf of his neighbor, even when a third party suffers, only in a case where he could just as easily have acquired the entire property for himself. For example, when a man finds an object he may acquire it for another, since he merely transfers his own rights to his neighbor. In our case, however, the first creditor had no right to acquire for himself more than fifty zloty, the amount of the debt due him. He therefore may not seize anything to his neighbor. If, however, he should first have seized the goods to satisfy the debt of his neighbor, leaving his own debt still unsatisfied, and then seized assets to cover his own debt, the seizure would be valid. In that case he still retains the right of seizure for himself at the time he seizes on behalf of his neighbor.

Responsum No 33
Q. A congregation built a new synagogue on the site of the old one. May they build a house for the cantor out of the wood and stone left over from the old synagogue? May they sell such materials? Does it make any difference if the synagogue was in a city or a village? What is

the status of our synagogues of today; are they considered city or village congregations? A. According to Talmudic law, the following rules apply: 1. With regard to the sale of a synagogue: a. When the elders of a community sell its synagogue with commu nity consent, it loses its sanctity and may be used for any purpose. Although the proceeds of the sale have a derivative sanctity, the elders may declare that sanctity null and void so that the money may also be used for any purpose. b. If they do not obtain community consent, the proceeds of the sale retain the synagogues original sanctity and may be used for purposes of similar or greater sanctity. The buyer is also restricted. While he may use the synagogue for mundane purposes, he may nevertheless not apply it to a profane use, such as turning it into a tannery, a bathouse, or a tavern. c. The sanctity of a synagogue cannot be voided without selling it, even if the elders obtain community consent. It may not then be used as a residence. d. Community consent need not be explicitly given. Tacit consent to a public sale is sufficient. 2. With regard to the use of materials taken from a synagogue building: a. It is permissible to use building materials taken from a synagogue which has been replaced by a new one, since the sanctity of the synagogue has been transferred to the new building. b. Even when the synagogue has not been replaced material removed from it may be reused, since all synagogues outside the land of Israel were built on condition that they may be dismantled when the Messiah should come. While this condition does not give us the right to tear the synagogue down or to use the buildings for mundane purposes, it does nevertheless make it possible for us to use materials removed from them for mundane purposes. We may use this material for any decent use without community consent. 3. With regard to towns and villages: a. Villages may vote to sell a synagogue even without replacing it with a new one. b. Towns may not do so, however, since their synagogues were built to serve travelers and merchants who visit the town and who have the right to demand that they be provided with a convenient synagogue in which to pray. They must therefore replace a synagogue they raze. c. The distinction between a town or a village synagogue depends only on the purpose for which it was built. If it was built for local

residents, it has the status of a village synagogue. If it was also built to serve merchants and visitors who regularly visit that city, whether on business or to learn Torah from a great sage located there ot for any other such purpose, then it has the status of a city synagogue. Its status has nothing to do with the source of the contributions for its building and upkeep. Nowadays, however, the foregoing rules do not apply. It is now permissible to sell even a city synagogue. In the days of the Talmud, government depended on common consent of all the members of the community. This means that when a synagogue was built for the sake of visitors and merchants, their consent would also be required before the synagogue could be sold. Today, however, it is our usage to give our elected officials more power and jurisdiction to act on their own in behalf of our community. There is consequently no longer any difference between a city and a village synagogue. In both instances the community officers may sell the synagogue for any purpose and the sanctity of the proceeds may be declared by them null and void. They may now do this even in spite of the objections of the community, since, when a synagogue is first built, the power to dispose of it is vested by the community in the hands of its elders.

Responsum No. 34
To Rabbi Ziskind Segal. Q. A creditor lent money at a specified interest rate which was recorded in the contract together with the principal. May he collect the interest? Shall we fine the creditor by withholding even the principal? Shall we fine the borrower by making him give up the interest he was ready to pay? A. Even if the borrower made a large profit through the use of the money, he does not have to pay one cent of interest. The creditor may, however, collect the principal. We do not punish him by withholding it. The borrower should not be fined. He will not thereby be deterred from borrowing on interest again, for he had been ready to pay the interest in any case. However, if you deem that fines are called for in order to prevent lending and borrowing on interest, you may impose them. Our sages gave the power to each law court in every generation to impose fines and punishments for the sake of maintaining law and order.

Responsum No, 35
Q. A Gentile gave a Jew a gestating cow in payment for his debt. He innocently mentioned to other Gentiles that the cow had previously borne several calves. It was obvious from the conversation that he had not spoken with intent to enhance the value of his merchandise. The Jew did not receive the cow but left it in the Gentile's care until after the calf should be born. Is the calf suspected of being a firstborn? A. The calf is not suspected of being a firstborn. a. Since the cow was still in the possession of the Gentile until she should give birth, the Gentile can redeem his cow by paying its value and is therefore considered to have rights in the object itself. This is sufficient to remove the sanctity attached to a firstborn. b. The fact that the Gentile is still responsible in case of theft or death of the animal also indicates that the Gentiles rights in the animal were not yet entirely removed. This too is sufficient to remove the sanctity of the firstborn.

Responsum No. 36
To Rabbi Elimelech HaCohen. Q. Swine are received from a Gentile in payment of a debt, There are no buyers at present, even for half their value. Is it permitted to keep them until a buyer should be found? A. It is forbidden to keep swine in order that they grow fat so that their value increases. It is not, however, required to sell them at a loss. One must sell them as soon as a buyer who will pay their value is found. You may therefore keep the swine until you find a buyer.

Responsum No. 37
Q. A butcher slaughtered fourteen sheep. After he cut the animals into large pieces and mixed them all together, he opened one of the heads and found water in the brain. It was impossible to determine whether the water was completely encased by the brain or not. Because of this doubt, that particular animal is no longer fit for use. Since the meat was mixed together, is the meat from the other animals also forbidden? A. All the pieces of meat may be used. In such a case we can apply the rule that the animal is considered kosher in cases of double doubt. TYue, the doubts are not directly related. One doubt concerns the

animal itself and whether it was fit for use, while the other arises out of having mixed the pieces together. However, the question of the dam aged brain was raised only after the pieces had been mixed together. Both doubts are therefore construed to have arisen at the same time, and the rule of leniency in the case of double doubt therefore applies.

Responsum No. 38
Rabbi Slonik defends the decision of the previous responsum and takes issue with Rabbi Joseph Katz, who in his responsa Sheerit Yoseph, decides a similar case otherwise.

Responsum No. 39
Q. A piece of meat was soaked and put up to salt. Before the salting time was up, it fell into a basin. Is the meat permissible? A. The meat is forbidden even if there was no juice in the basin. If, however, the meat should fall onto a surface which permits the blood to continue oozing out, then it is permissible even if it had fallen into a pool of juice.

Responsum No. 40
Q. A chicken's wing was broken far from the body. The break mended, but did not knit together properly. There is no blemish, however, in the skin and flesh which covers the break. The chicken was slaughtered and cooked together with the wing. May it be used? A. We should not eat the wing; we must discard it before cooking the fowl. If this is not done, however, the chicken may still be used. The above decision is theoretical. Since, however, none of my predecessors had decided leniently in this matter, I require that we do not use the chicken unless it is an emergency, such as for the sake of Sabbath or in the case of severe loss.

Responsum No. 41
Q. The wing of a chicken was dislocated or broken close to the body. The wound did not become discolored. It was not determined if it was broken before the chicken was slaughtered or afterward. Is the chicken fit for use? A. There is a double doubt, in this case: whether the wing was broken while the chicken was still alive or after it was slaughtered; and

even if it was broken before the chicken was slaughtered, perhaps the broken bone did not pierce the lung after all. The chicken is therefore fit for use.

Responsum No. 42
Q. A bride counted seven clean days since the cessation of menstru ation and was ready for immersion in the ritualarium preparatory for the wedding which was set on the New Moon of Nisan. When that day came, the groom failed to arrive. On the following day a messenger came from the groom stating that he had been unavoidably detained on the road and that in a day or two the impediment was likely to be overcome and he could again resume his journey. He would then proceed immediately to the wedding. They finally made the wedding two or three days after the New Moon of Nisan, Does the bride have to count seven clean days all over again, commencing from the day she received the grooms message, or are the first seven days she had already counted sufficient? She claims that she examined herself every morning and evening without interruption during all this time. A. She does not have to count seven days all over again, even if she had not examined herself daily, provided seven successive days did not pass without examination.

Responsum No. 43
Q. A had liquor in another city. When Passover drew near, he requested of B, who lived in that city, that he sell the liquor to a Gentile before the Passover, according to the procedures which we currently follow. B did so. After the Passover, B bought the liquor back from the Gentile. He now claims that he obtained the goods from the Gentile for himself and that A has no claim or rights of ownership. A pleaded with the sages to examine his case in order to find a way to save his investment, since the loss is extensive. The judges found no way to do so. A was forced to pay B a large sum in order to prevail upon him to return the liquor. A. If this state of affairs were permitted to continue, it would do great damage to many of our people whose sole means of support are the concessions of the sale of wine and liquor. It is impossible for them to destroy their stock before Passover. Their only recourse is to sell it to Gentiles for a small amount, on the assumption that these Gentiles who are close acquaintances will return the goods to them after the Passover. If it became known that B was permitted to keep the liquor, no man would be safe from his neighbors designs.

I therefore studied the case well, spending sleepless nights over it, until I found that A is right, and no man has the right to buy As hametz from the Gentile. B must return the liquor to A. If he does not, the judges shall cause it to be removed by force. A had always been certain that the Gentile would sell his liquor back to him. He relied on this and had no reason whatever to doubt the outcome. If he had not full confidence in his ability to recover his goods from the Gentile, he would not have sold it to him before Passover for a pittance but would have sold it on the open market for a much larger amount, even if for less than the actual value. Furthermore, if B had paid the Gentile more than was necessary in order to buy back the liquor, A is not required to make good the difference.

Responsum No. 44
Q. Approximately two weeks before Pentecost of the year 1596, on Thursday, three men from Lemberg, Isaac Turkel, Mendel the son of Papus, and Faibush, set out from Jasse in Wallachia for Tlirkey in the company of a group of Turks. With them they took three boys.1 They 0 were murdered, and their bodies were found on Sunday in the valley of Lapusna,1 one days journey out of Wallachia. Some Tlirks arriving in 1 Jasse reported that they were told by the I\irks who had escorted the travelers that the six Jews had pushed on ahead alone because of the oncoming Sabbath. Later, the robbers were apprehended and executed, after having confessed under torture to the crime. The wagons and merchandise were also recovered. Several Wallachian Gentiles identified Isaac Turkel (Mecklei) of Lemberg, one of the victims, by name, by the fact that he spoke several languages, and by the fact that his wife lived outside the city of Lemberg. What is the status of the wives of the three men? May they remarry? A. Not only the wife of Isaac ,Rirkel, who was identified by name and by the city he came from, but also the wives of the other two victims may remarry on the basis of the testimony innocently offered by the TYirks that the bodies were identified and recognized. Their identifica tion is further corroborated by the fact that the wagons and merchan dise of the victims were recovered. This is equivalent to the identifica tion of the victims clothing. Such identification is accepted when accompanied, as in this case, by personal recognition within three days of the murder. From the testimony we can deduce that the victims were indeed

found less than three days after the murder. Even in cases when there is doubt about this, we ought to be lenient and to assume that they were found within three days. For nowadays brazenness has become wide spread and modesty rare, so that if a woman be left in the status of a deserted wife, many pitfalls might ensue.

Responsum No. 45
From Joshua ben Alexandri to Moses ben Rabbi Abraham of Opatow, dated Sunday, the seventh of Ellul, 1605. Q. Mordecai Morduch, son of Rabbi Shlomo, gave testimony in Yiddish as follows; A Wallachian Jew and I were in Jasse, Wallachia, together with Isaac Glazer of Lelow, who produced butter and cheese. Against our advice, Isaac Glazer insisted on setting out for Galatz1 in 2 order to trade in licorice.1 He took with him a valuable garment 3 (karzia),1 fur trimmings for garments (bender),1 and two barrels of 4 5 liquor which the Wallachian Jew gave him. Soon thereafter we heard a rumor of war in Galatz and we became concerned about Glazers welfare. 7\vo Jews arrived in Jasse and related particulars of the war. They told of the death of a Jew in Galatz, explaining that he was hit by an arrow while attempting to climb into a boat together with other refu gees and that he fell into the water. They did not know the victims name. Later, in Jasse on a market day, a priest approached the Wallachian Jew and told him about the war and the Jews death. I drew nearer, but the priest was talking a strange language, much of which I could not understand. I asked him to repeat his story in Wallachian. Thereupon, he told me that he had entertained as his guest a certain Jew who had with him merchandise consisting of a karzia coat, fur trimmings, two barrels of liquor, and licorice which he had just bought. He tried to save himself from the battle by jumping into a boat on the river shore. He was hit by an arrow and fell into the water. The following day the attackers fled. The corpses were dragged from the water and laid out, naked, ready for burial. When the soldiers saw that one of the victims was circumcized, they refused to bury him, since he was obviously a Jew or a Moslem. The priest then revealed that this was a Jew who had been his guest, and himself buried the Jew, for the soldiers persisted in their refusal to do so. The priest also said that he still had the licorice in his possession, but the karzia coat, the fur trimmings and the liquor were all taken in Galatz.1 6 All this the priest repeated in the Wallachian language. I do not

know, however, whether the priest had innocently volunteered this information to the Wallachian Jew or whether the Wallachian Jew had first broached the subject to the priest. A. Mordecai Glazers wife may remarry. Although the victim's name and the name of his city were not mentioned, the karzia coat, fur trimming, and liquor barrels, as well as the licorice he had bought, are sufficient means of identification to offset the failure to mention his name. No other Jew with these goods left Jasse for Galatz. In identifying corpses we accept testimony when innocently volun teered, provided the corpse is still in an identifiable condition. We assume this to have been the case, since the body was in the water scarcely a day and was probably identified soon after it was recovered. The circumstantial evidence surrounding Glazers death is so strong that the priest would have been believed even if asked directly. We therefore accept the priests testimony in spite of the possibility that it might not have been innocently volunteered. I require, however, that two sages concur with my decision before this woman be permitted to remarry. I ask every rabbi and sage who opposes my view to write to me directly, clearly stating their arguments. If I am mistaken, I shall acknowledge my error. Let them not, however, write to one another without my knowledge and behind my back, as has indeed happened to me many times. (Signed) Moses b. Abraham

Responsum No. 46
Rabbi Benjamin takes issue with his in-law, Rabbi Moses ben Abra ham of Opatow, who had died soon after he wrote the above respon sum. Rabi Benjamin gives five reasons why the woman may not remarry. 1. The victims name and either his city of origin or his fathers name were not mentioned by the witnesses. Circumstantial evidence alone does not suffice to permit a woman to remarry, especially in our case where the death occurred on the well-traveled road from Wallachia to Constantinople, so that it is possible that the victim was another man carrying the same kind of merchandise. It is also possible that Glazer had sold the merchandise and that the buyer was the victim. 2. The Gentile is not to be believed unless he innocently volunteers his information. In our case it is not known whether the Wallachian Jew asked the priest for the information concerning the victim. 3. Identification of a body must be made immediately, within one hour from its being taken from the water, even if it was in the water less

than three days. In our case the body could not have been identified within one hour, since the victim was not recognized to have been a Jew until all the dead were laid out, then stripped. 4. The Gentile saw or knew that a Jew had been struck by an arrow and fell into the water. We therefore suspect he assumed that the victim he saw was the same man he knew, instead of relying on actual recognition. 5. Identification cannot be made when the body had suffered a wound such as is made by an arrow, for we suspect that the water which entered the wound changed the body's appearance. Rabbi Benjamin then proceeds to rebut each of Rabbi Moses argu ments in the light of the above five points. He concludes with the observation that Isaac Glazer was a poor man who had few connections. Consequently, it is possible that he is alive but unbeknown to anyone. This is especially to be suspected here, since the attacking Tatars are known to take theii captives far away beyond the sea,1 there to sell them as slaves. 7

Responsum No. 47
To Rabbi Ziskind Sfegal, written after the authors return from a trip to Buczacz. Q. A maiden married and bled each of the three successive times she had intercourse. On the fourth, fifth, and sixth times, she had a severe and unnatural flow of blood. Women have testified that such an unnatural flow cannot be attributed to the rupture of the hymen. Do we require an internal examination by means of a tube, or may we attribute the flow to the rupture of the hymen, in spite of its severity? A. When a child under twelve marries, we attribute any flow of blood to the hym ens rupture, until the wound heals. When a pubescent maiden (from twelve years old until twelve years and six months) who has not previously menstruated marries, we allow her four successive nights. If she has previously menstruated, she is allowed only the first intercourse. When a girl over twelve years and six months of age marries, she is allowed only the first intercourse, even if she has not previously menstruated. After these limits, we can no longer attribute a flow of blood to the rupture of the hymen. In that case, when she experiences a flow of blood three consecutive times, she must either be examined internally by means of a tube or divorced.

This applies only when a woman no longer feels pain during inter course, so that we are sure that the hymen has been completely ruptured. If, however, she continues to feel pain, we may assume tljat the hymen has not yet been fully ruptured, no matter how long it should take. In our case, the woman felt a great deal of pain. We may therefore attribute the flow to a partially ruptured hymen, and the excessive flow to the internal aggravation of the wound by successive acts of intercourse.

Responsum No. 48
Q. It is a common practice of travelers to don their fringed prayer garments while they are still folded and to wear them around their necks like scarves so that the fringes hang down on either side. May they do so? A. The commandment to wrap oneself in a fringed garment is not fulfilled in this manner, and this practice should be abolished. It is also forbidden to go out in this fashion on the Sabbath, since wearing the garment in this way is tantamount to carrying it.

Responsum No. 49
To Rabbi ]oshua Falk Cohen. Q. What is your opinion of the fallowing set of requirements for internal vaginal examination by means of a tube and probe1 . a. That the tube be inserted far enough to reach the mouth of the womb. b. That the internal procedure should be accompanied by a manual internal examination by a pious, God-fearing woman, who should place the tube at the mouth of the womb in order to prevent the womb from slipping aside. c. That the woman performing the internal examination must forc ibly open the mouth of the womb so that the probe and cloth should actually enter the womb. The probe must therefore be longer than the tube. A. It is physically impossible to fulfill all the requirements you propose. Our practice, which does not require these procedures, is based on the tradition we have received from our early sages, upon which Maimonides expanded from his own anatomical knowledge as a surgeon. Moreover, were a woman to be examined by the method you propose,

the excessive manual probing would certainly generate a flow of blood from one of her sensitive internal parts. Our sages were very careful to avoid any such danger. Maimonides explained that the probe and cloth need only be in serted until the point where the vagina begins to narrow and not beyond the point to which it may be easily inserted. The depth of the insertion is therefore measured according to the estimate of the woman making the examination. I have also seen the examination tube you sent me for inspection and have found that it is not made of lead. I agree that the tube need not necessarily be of lead and that it may be any other material except wood. Wooden instruments were precluded because of the danger of splinters. I believe, however, that the instrument you recommend is thinner than it ought to be.

Responsum No. 50
To his son Rabbi Abraham, in defense of the authors responsum No. 41. Rabbi Abraham questioned the decision permitting the use of a fowl with a dislocated wing, and brought evidence from Rabbi Solomon Luria's statements in his book Jssur Veheter. Rabbi Benjamin observed that he had not seen the book at the time he wrote the responsum, since it had only recently been printed. Never theless, our author does not change his mind but defends his decision permitting the use of the fowl. He criticizes Rabbi Solomon Luria for neglecting to give the sources on which he based his strict decision. He concludes by saying that although his own lenient ruling is correct, he finds it difficult to contradict his teachers, Rabbi Solomon Luria and Rabbi Moses Isserles, and therefore desires that his own decision be followed only in an emergency such as might arise if the chicken be needed for the oncoming Sabbath.

Responsum No. 51
This question is also dealt with by Rabbi Meir of Lublin in his Responsa, number 81.ia Q. A number of divorces were issued in a certain community over a period of years. R, one of the witnesses who signed these divorces, was recently rumored to have been a thief. Many women had remarried and

raised families on the strength of these divorces. Some of the divorces have not yet remarried. The rumor was investigated and the following facts were brought to light through the testimony of servants. More than twenty years ago, S made the suspect R a bailee over a package containing a wallet of money, notes, and other valuables. There were no witnesses to the bailment. Later, S reclaimed his package and discovered that the wallet containing the money was missing. R completely denied the theft. The matter came before that month's community head, who commanded that R be seized and jailed, and his property searched. The money was found stuck into a wall of his house. R persisted in his denial of the theft, however, suggesting that his wife or children might have hidden the money. The servants also testified that once when a church had been robbed, the community leaders proclaimed in the synagogue, under penalty of the ban, that anyone with information concerning the theft must come forward to testify before them. The thief was subsequently found, and he admitted that he sold the stolen goods to a Jew whom he described. The community leaders suspected R, sent for him, and cross-examined him. He denied all knowledge of the matter until they searched his premises and found the stolen goods. As punishment, the community leaders banished him from the city for a period of time. He later returned. The servants testified that all this happened over twenty years ago, long before he signed on any of the divorces in question. R is still alive, and was therefore summoned to answer the accusa tions. He attempted at first to deny them. Afterward, however, he admitted that he had been guilty but claimed that he had subsequently repented fully and sincerelybefore he had signed the divorces. He tried to prove the sincerity of his repentance by citing a case where, unbeknown to L, he had a thaler of Ls money in his possession, which he voluntarily returned to its rightful owner. He also cited a case where he returned two zloty to Ys heirs after Ys death, although the heirs knew nothing of the bailment. L, and Ys heirs, corroborate Rs state ments. R also justified his violation of the ban pronounced in the synagogue, saying that he was afraid to come forward, lest a certain community leader who had been his enemy would denounce him to the authorities and thus endanger his life. A. The divorces are legal. Even those divorces who have not yet remarried, may do so on the basis of their divorces. There are two reasons for this:

1. We cannot withdraw Rs status of being an acceptable witness. We do not disqualify him as long as he has some excuse with which he can justify his actions, such as his statement that his wife or children might have committed the theft. Nor can we disqualify him on the basis of his later admission, since a man may not incriminate himself. His violation of the ban does not disqualify him either. In our time and in our land, the ban is not pronounced with the formula of an oath or a curse. Furthermore, he claims he feared enemys vengeance. 2. Even were we to disqualify the witness for any of the above reasons, he regains his status by means of his repentance which we accept as being sincere. There can be no better evidence to the sincerity of his repentance, than Ls testimony and that of Ys heirs that he returned money to them of which they had no knowledge.

Responsum No. 52
Q. A divorce was written but not yet signed by the witnesses. Nor had the last three words of the divorce, According to the laws of Moses and Israel, been written. It was found that the final nun of the word minyan was barely touching the preceding yod. The scribe was certain that the letters were separated at the time he wrote it but that the ink must have spread. Can these letters now be separated? A. Yes, they can be separated with a knife at the command of the husband who is issuing the divorce, since the correction is on the outside and not the inside of the letters and the scribe was certain that they had been separated when written. This would not be permitted, however, if the witnesses had already signed the divorce, unless a new divorce was unobtainable.

Responsum No. 53
Q. Meat was washed and partially salted but prematurely rinsed. May it be resalted to complete the full period of time required by law, or are the properties of the surface of the meat so changed that it will no longer exhude the blood contained therein? A. The meat may be resalted to complete the full term required.

Responsum No. 54
Q. In many communities all the money collected at the reading of the scroll of Esther on Purim is given to the cantor instead of being distributed to the poor. Is this permitted? Should we not abolish this

custom in favor of the original intent that the money go to the poor for the expenses of the Purim feast? A. It is preferable to give the money to the poor as required by the Talmud. All our sages indicated that such charity funds cannot be reallocated to another cause. This applies, however, only when it was stipulated that the money was collected for the poor, or even without stipulation, if such was the established custom of the community. In those communities where it has become customary to donate the money to the cantor who reads the scroll, it is permissible to do so, since the donors were aware of this practice when they gave their offerings. This money no longer has the status of Purim money which may only be given to the poor, although it may be so called. Furthermore, since the community consented unanimously to give the money to the cantor, it even becomes permissible to reallocate funds which had originally been collected for the poor. For a commu nity may decide, by unanimous vote, to reallocate charity funds toward the fulfillment of another commandment. Many sages of earlier genera tions permitted the practice you speak of. In such matters the rule applies that we should follow the accepted usage.

Responsum No. 55
Q. The text in our prayerbooks of the fourteenth benediction of the silent Amida prayer concludes with the words and speedily establish therein the throne of David. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Builder of lerusalem. Does this not violate the rule that the penultimate phrase of a blessing must be similar in theme to the final signature?1 What 9 connection has the throne of David with the theme of the benediction, that the Lord rebuild Jerusalem? It appears that the Sefardic version of the prayer is more correct, since it reverses the clauses of the previous sentence, concluding, Establish Thou speedily therein the throne of David, and build it soon in our day as an everlasting structure; blessed art Thou, O Lord, Builder of Jerusalem. In this way it states the theme of building Jerusalem in the penultimate phrase. Maimonides skips the reference to the throne of David altogether. A. The text in our prayerbooks is correct. The appointment of the ideal leader of out people, symbolized by the throne of David, is a prior condition to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This can be seen in the passage of I Kings, 8:16, From the day I took my people Israel out of Egypt I did not choose a city from all the tribes of Israel, and I chose David .. and from the Zohar's elucidation of this passage:

Should not the passage have concluded with the words And I chose Jerusalem? When the Lord seeks to build a city, he first chooses the leaders who will lead its people. Then he builds the city and causes it to be inhabited. Therefore the passage states, T did not choose a city until I chose David to be the shepherd of Israel therein/ for if the leader is good, well to him, well to the city, and well to the world. If the leader is bad, woe to him, woe to the city, woe to the people.

Hespojisuin No. 56
Q. If a scribe omitted a portion of a scroll of the Torah, or if he omitted the spaces required after a portion, may he correct the omis sion by erasing several lines and writing them again in a smaller script so as to make room for his omission? A. When the omission is three lines or less, he can correct it by such a procedure. However, he must be careful to be bound by the following limitations: He may erase one and write two lines in its stead, or erase two and write three lines in their stead. He may not, however, insert additional lines on an erasure of three lines. In an ex post facto situation, however, when the scribe violated these rules and erased more than three lines or inserted too many lines, the scroll remains, nonetheless, fit for use. My son Rabbi Abraham, cited a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud as evidence that when four lines or more are inserted, the scroll is invalid even ex post facto. Our scribes do not observe this rule, but that is not surprising since they do not know the Jerusalem Talmud. Would that they should be conversant with, and carefully observant of that which is in the Babylonian Talmud and in the well-known codes. They must therefore be taught this law and instructed not to correct such an extensive omission. They must instead remove that section of the scroll and replace it.

itesponsiun No. 57
To Rabbi Meir; to Rabbi Abraham, our authors son; and to Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen. Q. When a scribe omits the letter Yod from Elokenu (Gods name) in a Torah scroll, how may he correct the error? Must the entire section be removed and buried, or may he instead black out the name of God with ink and then write it properly? May he scrape off the final Nun and Vav and complete the name again correctly? Or should he insert the Yod above the line?

A. He should not remove the section, since it is possible to correct it. It is wrong to desecrate the sanctity of the Torah and the holy names of God by removing them from their sacred function and causing them to be buried. Scribes have long resorted to the practice of inking out the word. I have seen a book written in the year 1376 objecting to this usage, which was then practiced by scribes in France, The practice was obviously widespread even before that time. It is mentioned as being permitted in the Tblmudic tractate Scribes. Nevertheless, many great sages have objected to this method of correction. Some have even gone so far as to prefer removal of the section and burying it. My son, Rabbi Abraham, suggested that erasing the suffix letters Nun and Vav and then rewriting the Name properly, is the preferred proce dure, even though under ordinary circumstances changes should not be made even in the suffixes of the Name of God. This is based upon the assumption that the name has not yet been sanctified since the Yod was omitted. I do not agree, however. The name of God is sacred even without the letter Yod. TYue, the Torah is not fit for use if the Yod is missing. The sanctity of the name of God, however, is not thereby affected. The correction should therefore be made by suspending the Yod above the line. This is permissible in such cases as this when the suspended letter is not part of the root of the word.

Responsa Nos. 58 and 59

To his son Rabbi Yekel. Q. R and S, two brothers, were partners who owned a supply of whiskey. Before Passover, S went on a business trip from which he did not Teturn until after the holiday. R did not sell the whiskey or dispose of it before Passover, but only recited the formula by means of which he declared that he considered it null and like the dust of the earth. Is this sufficient? Later S returned from his trip and claimed that he had not relied on Rs disposing the whiskey but did so himself by selling it to a Gentile. They did not complete the transaction by means of pulling or by the Gentiles acquisition of the location where the whiskey was kept. They made the transaction only by means of a cash deposit. Is this sufficient? A. Whiskey is considered pure hametz, fermented wheat, and not a mixture. R therefore violates the Torah prohibition by keeping it in his possession over Passover. The formula for nullification of hametz is ineffectual in this case, since he has no intention of relinquishing ownership since the whiskey will continue to remain in his possession. Nullification is effective only when he has no intention of ever reclaim*

ing the object nullified. Unless the whiskey is sold before Passover, the flasks must be broken and the contents immediately destroyed. If S indeed had sold the whiskey, it is sufficient. Cash and one of the other two methods of acquisition are both required. A cash transaction alone, however, is acceptable ex post facto. You must ascertain, however, that S is telling the truth. He may be deceiving you. Since he is one of the lower class of people, it is unlikely that he should bear in mind the obligation to sell the hametz in time, especially since he was away on a trip and the whiskey was at home. He is more likely to have relied on his older brother whom he had left at home.

Responsum No. 60
To his son, Rabbi Yekel. Q. Two men bet on the outcome of their litigation. The loser was to donate ten zloty to charity. Is this to be considered a binding vow, or is he free of any obligation since he had not expected to lose his case? A. He is not bound by this vow. It was made in error, since he was under the impression that he would win his case and a man is not required to fulfill vows made in error.

Responsum No. 61
Q. If a defect is found in the pouch of the little rose-lobe of the lung, is the animal fit for use? A. Rabbi Solomon Luria, my teacher, ruled that if the pouch of the lobe is missing, or if the lobe is not in its pouch, the animal is unfit for use since the lobe would be damaged severely enough to be fatal to the animal. He is correct. He also ruled that the animal is unfit for use when an extra pouch is found. In this ruling he is incorrect. The principle of Talmudic law that considers an extra limb as if that limb was missing only applies when the animal would be rendered unfit for use because of the missing limb. In our case, however, the lack of the pouch would not in itself render the animal unfit, since the pouch only serves as protection of the lung, which would be damaged fatally as a consequence of the loss of the protective membrane. We therefore do not consider an extra pouch as harmful, and the animal remains fit for use. Anyone who gives a strict interpretation in this case is causing Jews needless monetary loss.

Responsum No. 62
Q. May a blind man be called to receive a Torah honor? A. Yes, he may. Indeed, if he were not permitted to receive an honor, I myself would be disqualified, for in my old age my sight has become dim. The same applies to a person who cannot read Hebrew. Anyone wishing to decide a question of Jewish law which is the subject of rabbinic dispute must do so in one of the following three ways: a. He must demonstrate the law clearly from the Talmud or the geonic decisions. b. If he has no such clear talmudic or geonic evidence, he must decide on the basis of a majority of the sages. c. When there is no clear majority of the sages, then the decision is according to earlier sages until Abaye and Rava, and from their time and on according to the later sages. According to each of these three principles, my decision is correct. a. From the Talmud we know that though a man be exempt from a commandment, he nevertheless recites a blessing when voluntarily performing that commandment. The blind man therefore recites the blessing. Since one reader reads for all who are honored, and even a sighted person must remain silent listening to the reading, the blind mans blessing applies to the portion read, according to the Talmudic principle hearing is like reading. b. The majority of sages permit the blind man to be called to the Torah. Furthermore, the Zohar permits it, and the Zohar outweighs all the other sages. The Zohar is to be followed even if it is in opposition to everyone else, and surely in our case where the majority of sages agree with the Zohar. c. Those who permit this practice are sages of more recent times, and therefore to be followed, especially since amongst them we find Rabbi Jacob Levy Moelin, (MhRIL), who was so great a sage that almost all the usages of Ashkenazic Jewry are based on his decisions. We may therefore call a blind man or an ignorant man to the Torah. When I was young, and in the land of Russia2 where there were many 0 ignorant people who cannot read even one letter of the Torah, I observed that they were called to the Torah. All my teachers saw this, and none objected. Furthermore, I am surprised at those who forbid (this practice). How could they decide to remove from these people the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and especially in such an important commandment. Not so were we taught by our sages of the Mishna and Talmud. For had they

not said, Michal, the daughter of King Saul, used to don tejiiJin (phylacteries) and was not discouraged from this practice! And the wife of Jonah used to go up to the Holy Temple on holiday pilgrimages and would bring pilgrim offerings! And the women used to bring such offering into the Temple Court itself, and place their hands upon them, as stated in Tosefta, Chapter XIX . . . for every positive commandment with a time deadline (from which women are exempt) is optional for them, and if they chose to perform these commandments they utter blessings over th e m .. . . Behold, you have evidence before you from the sages of the Mishna and Talmud who were lenient in permitting daughters and sons of Israel to perform and fulfill commandments and utter blessings over them, even when not specifically commanded to do so. And even in some cases where, prima facie, it might appear not fitting to do so, like the daughter of Saul who donned tejilJin even though te/ilJin require a pure body, and this doesnt always apply to a woman (during the time of menstruation), and the pilgrim offerings of the wife of Jonah where it might appear as if she is bringing animals forbidden because they are unsanctified into the courtyard, neverthe less the sages overlooked these objections because they regarded the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven as more important; and to give spiritual satisfaction to them, as it is stated, 4 'Not because semicha (laying of hands on the offering) applies to women, but because they sought to give spiritual satisfaction to women. If so, in the matter before us, too, we must allow the blind and the ignorant to be called to the Torah and to utter blessings, in order to include them in the acceptance of Gods dominion and in order to give them spiritual satisfaction.11 3 After I wrote this responsum, I found two sages who concurred with my decision: Rabbi Moses, who died four years ago in 5366 (1606), whose decision appears in his book Mate Moshe, Staff of Moses, and Rabbi Mordecai Yaffe in his book Levush MaJehus, No. 141.

Responsum No. 63
Q, Perel, daughter of Hanan of Brzezany and her husband Yitzchok Isaac, son of Moshe went to live in one of the border towns. He set out on a trip with a young man and then disappeared. A court was convened in Biala Cerkiew. Isaac, son of Jacob testified that Gentiles informed him of finding two murdered men some distance apart on separate days, in or near Byszow, and that one of the victims had a mark under one of his eyes. Perel identified the victims clothing as belonging to her husband.

Several months later, Shmuel Zanvel testified that other Gentiles iden tified the victim as having a mark above one of his eyes. May the woman remarry? A. The woman may not remarry. From the conclusion of Isaacs testimony it is evident that he himself did not see the victims, but was informed of their death by Gentiles. We must therefore clearly ascertain whether the Gentiles offered their information voluntarily and innocently, or not. As long as this matter remains in doubt, we must assume that the information was elicited from them by questioning and is therefore inadmissible. This assump tion is strengthened by the fact that it is natural for a Jew to inquire after a fellow Jew. Furthermore, even if the Gentiles had offered their information innocently and voluntarily, it would still be inconclusive, since they mentioned neither his name nor his father's name nor the name of his city. We must therefore suspect the possibility that the victim might be another man. The identification of clothing is also inconclusive, since we suspect that the victim might have borrowed Yitzchok Isaacs garments. The contradiction between the information offered by the two groups of Gentiles as to the location of the mark can be reconciled, since they might have been speaking of two different victims, especially since the information was reported by two men who testified several months apart. Nonetheless, we do not consider such a mark sufficient for positive identification. There are three classes of identifying marks. Conclusive identification can be made when the victim is minus a limb, has an extra limb, or any such strange and unique characteristic. Identification is insufficient when the mark, such as a mole or wart, can frequently be found in other people. Such a mark can, however, be considered conclusive when taken in conjunction with one or more other marks of this type, provided they are not the kind of characteris tics, such as birthmarks, which are likely to change after death. Identifi cation can never be made on the basis of such changeable marks, nor on the basis of such common characteristics as girth, size, or complexion. The identifying mark in this case was of the third category, since it had been caused by a birthmark that fell out. Furthermore, the Gentiles mentioned that his facial appearance had indeed changed after death. No identification can be made on the basis of the fact that the two victims correspond in number to the two individuals who set out on the journey. Number is an acceptable identification only when all the victims are found in one place and at one time. These two victims were found far from each other and on different days. Furthermore, number

is only a sufficient identification when coupled with the mention of the victims destination.

Responsum No. 64
Q. Meat was being salted on a board, and before the salting process was completed, a piece fell onto the ground and into the drippings from the salted meat. Is that piece fit for use? A. It may be used, and the surface of the meat which was in contact with the drippings need not even be scraped. The first drops to fall to the floor consisted of the water remaining on the surface of the meat after it was soaked. Each drop of blood which subsequently fell into the water was diluted by it. Drippings diluted by even only a little water, cannot render meat unusable through contact. I decided leniently in a similar case where the meat fell onto the floor after the salting process was completed.

Responsum No. 65
Q. The decapitated body of Moses, son of Jehiel Halevi, of Sniatyn was found more than three days after he had been murdered. The head was subsequently found some distance away from the body. He was recognized by a hole in the thumb which was made when a surgeon removed a tiny bone which had been infected. A. His wife may remarry. We do not generally accept identification made after three days from death. In this case, however, the identifica tion mark is so unusual as to be considered incontrovertible proof of identity. The Rabbis of Lemberg agreed with this decision.

Responsum No. 66
Q. An animal was found to have an extra rib on each side. It is our custom to leave the lowest rib with the hindquarters, using only the first eleven ribs of the forequarters. Must we leave the twelfth and thirteenth ribs with the hindquarters of this animal, or may we use the twelfth rib, rejecting only the lowest one? A. While the custom of rejecting one rib with the hindquarters has become common usage in our lands, there is no source for it in the codes, nor is there any reason for it. Although we adhere to this custom, we need not reject more than the lowest one, even when the animal has extra ribs.

After I wrote this, I found corroboration in the name of Rabbi Sholom Shachna, who ruled in the case of an animal with fourteen identical ribs on one side that thirteen were fit for use. This sage was the greatest of his generation and may be relied upon in his rulings.

iiespoiisuin No. 67
To his son Rabbi Yekel. Q. R had S's note for 100 zloty. When the note was due, S claimed that he did not have the money to pay his debt. He asked R to borrow the amount elsewhere at interest, and promised to repay R both the principal and the interest. He immediately gave R a pledge for the interest. R borrowed the money from Y, adhering to the regulations set forth by Jewish law. Now S refuses to pay the interest and requests that his pledge be returned. R claims that he acted as Ss deputy when he gave the interest to Y in a permissible way. A. R cannot be considered S's deputy but is his creditor. Therefore Y has no connection with S at all. Therefore S may not pay R interest. Even if he had already given the interest to R, it would have to be returned, for it is considered fixed interest which is forbidden.

Responsum No. 68
Q. In a court convened in Podhajce, the following testimony was heard: Joseph, son of Menahem from Sniatyn went to Jasse in Wallachia where he bought merchandise. When he set out with his merchandise for his return journey, a certain Gentile and his wife joined him. Not long thereafter, Shevah, a Jew from Lemberg, came to the city of ,IVembowla2 in Poland, recognized the Gentile couple, and found in 1 their possession the horse, wagon and merchandise belonging to Jo seph. Having stayed with Joseph in the same inn, Shevah was able to positively identify his possessions. He recognized the couple as the Gentiles who joined Joseph upon his departure from Jasse, and he immediately suspected foul play. Shevah thereupon strove his utmost to bring the couple to justice. He succeeded, and they were incarcerated where murderers are generally kept. When the Gentile recognized that he was doomed, he confessed, without any recourse to torture, that he had killed Joseph of Sniatyn in Wallachia and stolen all his posses sions. He had shot him, then searched him while he lay lifeless. The Gentile was then sentenced to death. Thereupon he cried aloud that he

now knows that God is a true judge and is avenging the blood of the murdered Jew, Joseph, which he had shed with his own hands. Before the sentence was carried out, he made confession to a priest who attested that he again admitted the crime. May Joseph's wife remarry? A. While ordinarily we do not accept a Gentiles testimony unless it is innocently volunteered, in this case the Gentile had no intention of testifying on behalf of Joseph's widow, but only about himself in the desperation of his plight. Coupled with the weight of circumstantial evidence pointing to the Gentile as the murderer, we accept his testi mony and Josephs wife may remarry. We do not suspect that the Gentile purchased the wagons. This Gentile is one of the soldiers called Heiduki who are nothing more than robber bandits. He obviously didn't even have enough money for his own subsistence. How then could he have afforded to buy Josephs wagon? Besides, he sold the merchandise worth one hundred zloty for the paltry sum of thirteen. This corroborates the fact that the goods were stolen. Furthermore, a man does not sell his horse, wagons, merchandise, clothing, utensils, and everything else all at once, especially since among the effects was a little box Joseph had inherited from his father in which he kept his notes, records, and money, and which he would certainly never have lent or sold. All this clearly indicates that Joseph was murdered by the Gentile. The truth of the Gentiles confession is further verified by his actions after his condemnation and by the testimony of the priest to whom he made confession. The mere threat of torture does not disqualify his testimony. Only if the confession were to have come after the actual torture had begun would it have been inadmissible. We do not suspect the Gentile couple of having hastily surmised that the victim was actually dead in their haste to get away from the scene of their crime. They had searched the victim thoroughly, so they had ample time to ascertain the fact of death beyond any doubt. Although the accused did not mention the name of Josephs father, he did mention Josephs city, and that is sufficient. Josephs wife may therefore remarry. I require, however, that two great contemporary sages endorse this decision. (The following paragraph was added to the responsum later on.) After all this, the victims body was found in a decomposed state, except for his legs. Josephs wife claimed that her husband had a birthmark on one of his legs. 1 have already written that a birthmark is insufficient identification. The woman, however, has already remarried

on the strength of the ruling I gave above, since is was endorsed by great sages.

Responsum No, 69
Q. On Passover, a chicken was salted together with pieces of meat. The meat and the chicken were cooked and eaten. The cooking spoon used to mix the pot in which they were cooked was also used to mix other kettles. The spoon and the utensils were lent to neighbors. Afterward, a grain of wheat was found in the chicken's esophagus. What is to be done with the utensils, the food cooked therein, the cooking spoon, and the pots of food mixed therewith? A. Theoretically, the surface of the piece of chicken in which the grain was found need only be peeled away in order to render it fit for use. Our custom, however, it not to use that piece at all. The meat is fit for use even without peeling. The cooking spoon and the utensils may all be used. The fact that the chicken was cooked in the pot without having been peeled does not render it and its contents forbidden. Peeling is only required whenever possible. In an ex post facto situation such as this, failure to peel is not considered critical, and therefore does not disqual ify the meat and material from use. Do not heed Rabbi Joseph Katz who wrote that the ruling was given in Cracow rendering all meat salted together with the chicken unfit for use. Rabbi Moses Isserles was in Cracow several years after the incident took place, and he agreed that the meat had been fit for use. I myself did not hear of any such prohibition in Cracow.

Responsum No, 70
Q. A man married on the eve of the Tabernacles holiday. On the holiday itself, he became a mourner. Ordinarily he cannot count the first seven days of married life towards the thirty days of mourning, since on these festive days he may not be forbidden to wash his clothes or to have his hair cut. These days and the laws of mourning are therefore mutually exclusive. On the intermediary days of the holiday, however, he is in any case forbidden to cut his hair and to wash his clothes, because of the holiday. Can the days of the holiday therefore be counted toward the thirty days of mourning even though they coincide with the seven festive first days of married life? A. The days of the holiday are counted as part of the thirty days of

mourning. Although the matter is the subject of controversy, we accept the more lenient ruling in all matters pertaining to mourning.

Responsum No. 71
Q. When burial takes place on the Tabernacles holiday, how does the Eighth Day of Solemn Assembly affect the thirty-day period of mourn ing? Is it counted as seven days since it is a separate holiday, or is it only counted as one day? A. It counts as seven days. Since the holiday is counted toward the thirty-day period, each new holiday is counted as one week.

Responsum No. 72
Q. When burial takes place during the holiday, are the mourners obliged to tear their garments on the intermediate days of that holiday? A. In Germany it is the custom to tear the garment on the holiday only in the case of the death of a mother or father. Other mourners wait till after the holiday. Since Poland has no such custom, our ruling, therefore, is that all mourners must tear their garments on the interme diate days of the holiday.

Responsum No. 73
Q. Who has prior claim to the privilege of reciting the Kaddish prayer: the mourner within thirty days, or the man commemorating the anniversary of death (yahrzeitj; for instance, on Sabbath where three Kaddish prayers are said, which of these men recites two of them? When there are more yahrzeits and mourners than there are Kaddish prayers, who takes priority? A. When there are more Kaddish prayers than people who are required to recite them, such as might occur on Sabbath which has three Kaddish prayers, the mourner within thirty days takes prece dence over the yahrzeit and is permitted to recite two of the Kaddish prayers. When, however, there are more people required to recite the Kaddish than opportunities to say the prayer, so that at least one of the people must defer in favor of the others, the yahrzeit takes precedence over the mourner within thirty days. The mourner who defers may recite Kaddish on the following day. If the yahrzeit, however, does not recite his Kaddish on that day, he loses his opportunity to do so. During the first seven days after death, however, the mourner always takes prece

dence. However, even in this eventuality, wherever possible, one Kaddish should be reserved for the man who has yahrzeit.

Responsum No. 74
Q. Burial took place just before the onset of a holiday so that a full hour of mourning was not observed. The mourners did. however, remove their shoes for a few minutes before the sun set. Does the holiday still suspend the seven days of mourning? A. There is no logical reason for requiring a full hour of mourning before the holiday can suspend the sevenday period. All laws of mourning are based on logical reasoning or deduction from verses of the Torah. We must therefore conclude that as long as a token mourning period was kept, even if only for a few minutes, the holiday suspends the balance.

Responsum No. 75
Q. A rumor circulated in the Jaroslaw fair of 1611 to the effect that a certain young man, Faivush, was drugged to induce illness, so that thinking he was in extremus, he would issue a deathbed divorce to his wife Bath Sheva. It was also rumored that Faivush told the rabbi that although the sages required that he issue the divorce uncondition ally, nevertheless he expected the divorce to be nullified if he should recover from his illness. Furthermore, the relatives of Bath Sheva promised Faivush she would remarry him should he recover. With this understanding Faivush consented to issue the divorce. Bath Shevas relatives deny all these allegations, accusing their enemies of starting the rumor. May Bath Sheva remarry without an other divorce? A. Although I was very busy at the fair, and in spite of the fact that I do not have access to a library, I must nevertheless give my opinion in this matter. The divorce is valid beyond any doubt, and the rumor is groundless. A rumor is not to be credited unless circumstances indicate that it is probably true. Furthermore, the rabbi who arranged this divorce was the great sage Rabbi Falk Cohen, who was accompanied by Rabbi Hendel, and they did not suspect any irregularity at the time. Faivush himself admitted to the court convened in Lemberg that the divorce was issued unconditionally and without any irregularity. In all such cases we must do everything we can to frustrate the wicked

intentions of evil men who seek to place women in the status of deserted wives.

Responsum No. 76
Q. The author rewrote the previous responsum at greater length and with more careful documentation, afterward, when his library was available and he could give the matter more concentrated attention. The following points of information are not included in the previous responsum: 1. All the contemporary sages had gathered in Jaroslaw in the following year, 1612,2 and together they investigated the rumor and 2 found it to be without foundation. 2. The rumor did not begin in the same city and at the same time as the incident took place, but began in Jaroslaw several months after the divorce was issued in Wien. 3. Rabbi Falk Cohen, who issued the divorce, was himself at the Jaroslaw fair and vehemently denied the allegations of the rumor. He also stated that he had remained in Wien several days after the divorce was issued, and heard no criticism of the divorce nor any rumor questioning it. Rabbi Hendel, however, had passed away before the fair took place. 4. While the divorce was being issued, important personages from Prague and other communities had been present. According to the accepted custom, a public announcement was made that anyone who saw a hindrance or impediment to the validity of that divorce was to speak up or thereafter hold his peace. None of the assembled voiced any objection whatsoever. 5. Even if the rumor were true, the divorce would still be valid since the condition on which Faivush relied did not fulfill the necessary condition or reciprocity. It merely indicated what was in his mind at the time, and we pay no attention to this in matters of divorce. 6. It is our accepted custom that the rabbi who arranges the divorce nullifies all existent conditions before the husband transmits the docu ment to the wife.

Responsum No. 77
(Responsum no. 77 deals with a case similar to the one discussed in nos. 75 and 76. This case was also discussed at the Jaroslaw fair of 1611 and again at the Krzemieniec fair of 1612. It is surprising to find so many similarities between the two cases. They are, however, probably

two separate incidents, and should not be identified with each other. If we are to take the dates at face value,2 the second discussions took 3 place at different fairs. In responsum no. 77 there is no mention of libelous rumor which comprises the essential point of responsa 75 and 76. There was an agreement between the two parties in No. 77 after the recovery of the husband, while in the two earlier responsa this is not mentioned, nor apparently was it likely. The responsa are therefore treated here as two separate cases.) Q. A man issued a deathbed divorce to his wife, making no condi tions or stipulations. The husband and wife entered into a separate agreement according to the formula devised by Rabbi Yehiel of Paris, that should he recover they would consent to remarry, or be liable to a fine. The man recovered, but withdrew from his agreement to remarry. A compromise was reached, and the fine was waived by mutual consent. Afterward, heeding the advice of relatives and friends, amongst whom there was a certain sage, the man changed his mind again, and demanded that the woman either consent to remarry him or pay him a large sum before he would issue a new divorce. May the woman remarry without a new divorce? A. The sage who wrote that the original divorce was nullified as soon as the patient recovered, was admonished personally by his colleagues at the 1611 Jaroslaw fair, and again in 1612 at the Krzemieniec fair. The intention of Rabbi Yehiel of Paris was, beyond a doubt, that the original divorce be unconditionally valid. The stipula tion that they remarry was a new agreement, with no other penalties than those stated in it; namely, that if one of the parties refused to remarry before a certain time, he would be in violation of the ban and would be forced to pay a fine. Since both parties had waived the fine and agreed not to remarry, the woman is liable to no penalty whatso ever and is free to marry whomsoever she chooses. I have written the above because the rabbi paid no attention to his colleagues, and all the contemporary sages have written responsa on the subject, hoping thereby to convince their stubborn colleague. They also requested that I give my opinion on this matter. (The above responsum is followed by a declaration restating the decision, written by our author with the endorsement of his col leagues.)

Responsum No. 78
Q. May a transaction where the acquisition of ownership is com pleted by means of the transmission of a scarf, called kinyan sudar, be

arranged after dark? There is a popular saying that the acquisition of ownership may not take place at night. A. There is no substance to that popular saying. A transaction of this type may certainly take place at night. All commandments of Jewish law are equally applicable by day and by night, except when otherwise specified by the law itself, such as is the case in connection with the commandment of fringes on garments, shofar, megillah, the diagnosis of blights, and judicial processes which concern capital punishment. These apply only by day. The commandments of the Paschal lamb, unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs apply only on Passover eve.

Responsum No. 79
Q. When the report of death reaches the mourners within thirty days from the day of death, are children required to perform the ceremony of rending the garment? A. The day the report is heard is treated like the day of burial. The seven days of mourning begin, and the garment is rent by adult mourners, as well as by children old enough for their fathers to be liable for their instruction. Children below the age of instruction are never required by law to rend their garments. We require them to do so, however, in order to encourage onlookers to sorrow and sympathy. This applies only at the time of burial, but not afterward. They are therefore not required to tear their garments upon hearing a belated report of death.

Responsum No. 80
Q. Is the mourner required to rend the jacket, called rock? A. Those who identify the jacket with the outer garment or cloak (Sarbal) which Rabbi Isserles stated is not to be rent are mistaken. The jacket is a garment and must be torn. The cloak which Rabbi Isserles exempted is an outer garment which a man places around his neck allowing it to fall all about him. It is completely open in front and has neither sleeves not any other opening. Some elders in Krakow wear it in the synagogue during prayers, and when a mourner attends the funeral he wears it at the cemetery. It is not a true garment; a man has no benefit from wearing it, nor is it worn at home or in the market. Its sole purpose is to lend its wearer dignity and modesty, when going to perform a commandment of God. The jacket, on the other hand, is a true garment, and was treated as such by my teachers and other sages. It is the outer garment worn under the cloak, worn frequently in the house, and also in the street while a man does his business.

The jacket is only found in the kingdom of Poland. Sometimes a fox collar or some other fur collar is sewn onto it, in order to shield its bearer from the cold. It is to be torn in mourning wherever the rending a garment is required.

Responsum No. 81
Q. How does a woman who is unable to stand on her feet perform the ceremony of immersion in the ritual bath? A. Two women support her arms and immerse her in the ritual bath. However, their hands must be moist in order that they not interfere with the penetration of the water to all parts of the subject's body. Alternatively, a mat which does not become ritually impure may be used. The subject lies on the mat, the corners of which are held by four women, and is then lowered into the water. A cloth sheet may not be used for this purpose, since it becomes ritually impure.

Responsum No. 82
Q. When a report of death reaches the mourner after the burial has taken place, must he don phylacteries on the first day of his mourning? A. The day he hears the report of death is to be treated in the same way as the day of burial would normally be treated. This applies to the rending of his garments, and to the counting of seven days of mourn ing. It also applies to the exemption from wearing phylacteries on that day, since it is a day of bitterness (Amos 8:10). When my daughter Leah died, her husband Rabbi Menahem was out of town. On the third day thereafter when he returned and learned of her death, he refused to don tefillin.

Responsum No. 83
Q. Relatives of the mourners conduct themselves in sympathy with them by partial mourning. Which relatives are required to do this? How must they conduct themselves? A. Customs vary in different localities. In some places second cous ins also mourn in sympathy with the bereaved. Elsewhere only those who are so close to the mourners that they are disqualified from bearing witness about them may do so. Where no precedent exists, we must show sympathy-mourning with those bereaved whose death would require us to go into mourning ourselves. This period lasts until after the first Sabbath. During that time they

wear no Sabbath clothes, nor do they wash in warm water. They wash their heads only in cold water. They do not eat out, even if it is a meal celebrating a mitzvah. However, they do not change their seat in synagogue, and do wear a white shirt in honor of the Sabbath day. After the first Sabbath, none of these restrictions apply to any relatives, no matter how close to the mourners, except the restriction on eating out.

Responsum No. 84
Q. When is the yahrzeit, the annual commemoration of death, ob served at the conclusion of the first year of mourning? A. Many people cease all practices of mourning with the yahrzeit. In some cases, the burial might have been delayed several days. The year of mourning began with the burial, so that a full twelve months of mourning would not have been commemorated if the first years yahrzeit was to have been observed on the day of death. The first yahrzeit is therefore always observed on the day of burial.

Responsum No. 85
Q. A debtor and creditor agreed to post the note of indebtedness with a third party, specifying under what conditions he was to return the note. The third party, through negligence, violated the conditions and gave the note up to one of the parties. Is he liable to pay foi the damage he caused? A. He is not liable if he returns the note to the creditor since the damage is not done immediately, (gerama) but only comes later, after the matter is adjudicated in court. The very act of returning the note to the debtor, however, causes the damage directly and immediately (garmi). The third party is then liable for the damage he caused.

Responsum No. 86
(Omitted from the Sudylkow and Vilna editions.) Q. Christians2 borrow clothing and jewelry from Jews during their 4 holiday season in order to wear them to church. May we lend them such items in order to maintain peace? A. They borrow these garments to enhance their own pleasure and prestige, not for dedication to idolatry or use in its service. We may therefore continue the practice.

Responsum No87
Q. On what authority do certain sages decide that when a wild animal enters a small space with little room for the prey to escape, all the animals in that space are unfit for use, but when the space is large enough to permit escape we do not consider the animals in that space unfit for use? How do we judge what constitutes a small and a large space? A. The Talmud describes the wild animal as entering among the flock." This can only apply to a closed space. The distinction is therefore made between a closed corral and a larger, more open space. The criterion for classifying an enclosure as small or large, should, it appears to me, be based on the measurements defined for Sabbath violations. By this criterion, the enclosure is classed as small, if the animal it contains can easily be caught with one movement. It is large if catching an animal requires a chase where the prey must be trapped by means of strategy.

Responsum No. 88
To Rabbi Abraham Ashkenazi and Rabbi Mordecai Katz. Q. A rumor of an engagement between the young man L and the maiden B was flatly denied by them both before a court convened at Buczacz. Subsequently, in Elul of 5372 (1612) before a court convened in Skole, S testified that he heard other young men state that L had indeed betrothed B. May B marry without obtaining a divorce? A. The rumor investigated by the court of Buczacz is without founda tion since the two concerned denied its truth. We cannot dismiss the testimony of S, however, without further investigation. If S cannot identify the young men from whom he had his information, then his testimony is to be disregarded. If he can identify them, however, they must be called to testify exactly what they heard and saw. I therefore cannot permit B to remarry until S is recalled before a truly competent court, well skilled in laws of betrothal, for cross-examination. (Rabbi Falk Cohen and Rabbi Meir of Lemberg endorsed the above decision.)

Responsum No. 89
To his son Rabbi Yekel. Q. Forbidden blood vessels were left in a piece of meat which was then cooked together with other pieces in a large pot. The vessels

themselves were less than one sixtieth of the total contents of the pot. The piece in which the vessels were left, however, was more than one sixtieth of the contents of the pot. May we use the contents of the pot? A. We may not. The piece of meat in which the blood vessels were left becomes unfit for use and in turn renders the entire contents of the pot unfit.

Responsum No. 90
Q. When a widow is married on Friday, the bride and groom aTe led to a private room and there left to themselves. In some communities this is done before the wedding takes place instead of afterward. Is this proper? The purpose of this private meeting is to complete the acquisi tion of ownership, kinyan, in order to prevent this from taking place on Sabbath. The kinyan is achieved by means of the act of intercourse. Is the act itself required at such a meeting, or is a symbolic private meeting sufficient? A. It is wrong to arrange the private meeting before the wedding. It achieves nothing, since the marriage has not yet taken place, and besides, it is an immoral practice. Our sages decreed that it is forbidden for a man to be alone with an unmarried woman. This applies to his fiance as well. This practice should therefore be abolished. In the case of a second marriage, the symbolic meeting after the wedding is necessary in order to consummate the kinyan. The act of intercourse itself is not required, but rather only that the meeting be completely private so that the act itself is potentially possible. Without this prior meeting, it would be prohibited for the couple to cohabit on the Sabbath since a kinyan is forbidden on that day. When a maiden marries, the ceremonial marriage canopy, the huppa, is considered sufficient to consummate the kinyan. The customs of huppa have changed, however. The huppa used to be an elaborate tent with decorated curtains into which the bride and groom were ceremo niously led. The honor and the beauty of the ceremony were sufficient to cause the bride to accept the legal relationship of marriage without reservation. Many sages are doubtful, however, if our practice of spreading a prayer shawl on four poles beneath which the bride and groom are led, is sufficiently ceremonious to cause the bride thereby to accept the marriage relationship without reservations. Any reserva tions in the bride's mind would prevent the kinyan from taking place, since kinyan depends on the true meeting of the minds of both parties concerned. In order to avoid this problem, the practice of certain communities which arrange a private meeting after a maidens marriage

just as after a widows, should be instituted when that marriage takes place on Friday.

Responsum No. 91
Q. It is our custom to perform a maidens wedding on Friday, and thereafter she purifies herself in a ritual bath. Does not the fact that she was impure at the time of the wedding prevent the kinyan from taking place then? If so, how can we permit the bride to be alone with the groom at night, since the kinyan would be completed on Sabbath through the act of intercourse? A. Most authorities agree with the opinion that the kinyan, the groom's acquisition of ownership, does take place by means of the marriage canopy ceremony, even when the bride is in a state of ritual impurity. Only the additional sum added to the amount of the basic marriage contract is not acquired by the bride when she is in this state.

Responsum No. 92
Q. The Talmud requires that a crooked alley be treated as it if were open through and through, and consequently arrangements must be made at the point of its bend to give it the status of private domain in order for the users to be permitted its use on Sabbath. The same is true of an alley with passageways leading from it at intervals. Why do the majority of Jews today disregard this requirement? A. A correction of a crooked alley is necessary whenever it opens onto public domain. Our streets today have the status of public domain, for they are more than fifteen cubits wide. We do not accept the view that requires 600,000 pedestrians before a street can be considered public domain. The practice of disregarding the crookedness of an alley probably arose because the streets of a city with walls and gates which are closed during the night are not considered public domain. A correction would not be necessary in alleys opening onto such streets. In the course of time people probably began to neglect making the correction even in towns that were not enclosed. This error must be corrected.

Responsum No. 93
Q. A had a bad dream on Friday night which obligated him to fast on Sabbath. It therefore became incumbent upon him to fast once again in atonement for fasting on Sabbath. The following day was the seven

teenth of Tammuz, a public fast day. Can he fulfill his requirement to fast a second time by fasting on that day, or must he fast yet again on the eighteenth? A. The reason for the second fast is to atone for his neglect of the requirement to enjoy the Sabbath through eating and drinking. The fast of the seventeenth of Tammuz was established for other reasons and does not fulfill this purpose. He must therefore fast once again on the eighteenth.

Responsum No. 94
Q. What is the meaning of the term found in the Talmud utensils made of gelalim? A. Rashi (Bab. Tal. Sabbath 16a) states that it means utensils made of marble. Maimonides (Laws of Utensils, chap. X) objects to this defini tion, asserting that the term refers to utensils made from a mixture of cattle dung and earth. Rashi himself later changed his mind and adopted a definition similar to that of Maimonides.

Responsum No. 95
To his grandson Rabbi Faivel, who asked Rabbi Benjamin to com ment on his criticism of certain statements by Rabbi Joseph Karo, in connection with the proper identification of the names of the parties to a contract. The author defends Rabbi Karos view. He concludes with comments made by his son, Rabbi Abraham, on the same subject.

Responsum No. 96
Q. In our prayer books, the concluding blessing of the prophetic portion read on Sabbath fha/tarah), does not include a penultimate clause similar to the final signature. Why are this blessing's concluding words not preceded by a penultimate phrase similar in theme, as is the case with all other blessings? A. It should indeed contain such a phrase. Every long blessing must conclude with a phrase introducing the final words of the blessing, and of the same theme. The Se/er Minhagim indicates that the penultimate phrase And Thy word is true and established forever be included before the blessing's final signature on the High Holidays. The author did not intend to imply thereby that these were the only days on which such a phrase was added. It is quite possible that during this time, on every Sabbath and holiday an appropriate phrase was inserted in the

text. The author meant only to indicate that the text used for Rosh Hashanah differed from that used on the holidays. It is therefore an error to omit an appropriate penultimate clause in this blessing.

Responsum No. 97
To Rabbi Yohanan Levi, his relative marriage. Q. Before Passover, A sold his liquor to a Gentile, G. G appointed another Gentile, F, as his messenger, and arranged for him to pick up the liquor before Passover and take it home. F did so, and paid A two edomom (Czerwony zloty)2 of his own money for the liquor. Is A 5 thereby protected from the transgression of possessing hametz on Passover? In that city there is a ruling by the overlord that only the concession aire has the right to sell liquor. When the burghers realized that As liquor was in the house of the Gentile, they seized the liquor by force with the excuse that the Jew had violated the city ordinance. The local Jewish concessionaire had incited them to do this, and was later held responsible by rabbinic court for the loss of As liquor. F demanded his money back, declaring that A had sold the liquor under violation of the law. A was forced to return Fs money. Does this invalidate the sale? A. The sale is valid, and A is fully protected from violation of the prohibition against possession of hametz on Passover. Although a Gentile may not be considered the messenger of a Jew, he is a valid messenger of another Gentile like himself. Therefore F was fully authorized to act on Gs behalf. F acquired the liquor for G by pulling, since ex post facto we accept pulling by a Gentile as a valid form of legal acquisition. He also acquired the liquor by means of monetary transfer. Although F offered his own money on behalf of G, we consider such a transaction valid. Full payment is not required. A deposit alone, is considered sufficient to complete the transaction for the entire stock of liquor. Furthermore, the local merchants custom of transaction is always considered binding and takes precedence over methods of acquisition stated in Jewish law. This is more especially so in dealings between Jew and Gentile, where we apply the ruling that the law of the land is binding. This ruling does not apply, however, to the burgher's seizure of the whiskey, since it is to be regarded as theft, and only just laws of the land are binding. The local law was probably no different from the ordinances prevailing throughout the cities of our land which only forbid retail competition with the concessionaire, but permit unlimited

and unrestricted wholesale trade. The amount of the liquor involved, as well as the amount of the deposit, definitely place this sale in the wholesale category and therefore render it perfectly legal and valid. You yourself agreed to this, for otherwise you would not have required the Jewish concessionaire who incited the mob to make good to A the damage caused by the loss of his liquor.

Resonsum No. 98
To Rabbi Abraham Ashkenazi, and Rabbi Mordecai Katz. Q. A claimed to have knowledge of the death of Fs husband B, who had not returned from a journey he had undertaken together with his father-in-law, C. A refused to testify, however, unless he was paid a certain price for his trouble should his testimony be rejected, and a higher price should his testimony be accepted. F consented to these terms. Before testifying, however, A agreed to a change in the terms of payment, accepting a fixed amount regardless of the effect of his testimony. He was then administered an oath that he tell the truth. Thereupon he testified that B, son-in-law of C, died in the village of Kaniow, at the home of M, and that M had shown him the clothing, belongings and documents of the deceased. A second witness, Z, testified that he had asked Y about C of Lemberg and his son-in-law B, Fs husband, and Y replied that B had died. Can A's testimony be accepted so that F be permitted to remarry? A. I am withered bough, confined to my house, blind and poverty stricken. Nevertheless, I shall reply to your question. F may remarry, but not on the strength of As testimony, which is valueless since he has been bribed to testify. A witness may not be paid to testify, just as a judge may not accept a salary for judging. If A should return the entire amount he received and then testify all over again, he can be believed. He is, however, entitled to accept reimbursement for expenses he incurred, such as in travel to the courts place of venue. You seem, however, to have completely disregarded Zs testimony, which, in my opinion, is alone sufficient to permit F to remarry. The identification by means of C, his father-in-law from Lemberg, is specific enough to be accepted in lieu of the name of his father and native city. Although A, whose testimony I reject, entered into far more detail than Z, these details are superfluous. We accept the ruling that when the witnesses are no longer available, such as in this case, we may do without detailed investigation and cross-examination. A statement by the witness that he buried the deceased is not required, except in the case of a wife testifying to the death of her own husband where we suspect she might have imagined some of the circumstances.

Although not all sages agree that we may dispense with the statement of burial, we accept the more lenient ruling in cases of deserted wives, in the spirit of our Rabbis who made many concessions in such matters, such as accepting testimony from Gentiles and relatives. Rabbi Isserlein and my teacher Rabbi Moses Isserles sought the stricter ruling in all matters connected with marriage. Nonetheless, I agree with Rabbi Elija Mizrachi, who wrote that in such questions we must be lenient. Furthermore, Rabbi Mizrachi is a later sage, and the opinions of the later rabbis take precedence.

Responsum No. 99
To his son Rabbi Abraham. Q. Do the new printed Bibles have same sanctity as the Bibles written by hand? A. They have exactly the same sanctity. We know that the process of engraving, such as was used to produce the tablets of stone and the diadem of the High Priest, produces the same sanctity as does the process of script. The printing process resembles engraving in that pressure is used to produce the letter, and script in that the letter appears by direct application of ink to the paper surface. We do require conscious consecration of God's name. The scribe must assert aloud that he writes the Holy Name in a spirit of dedica tion. When many Names are written, one such dedication is sufficient, provided the scribe did not interrupt between them to write or do something else. Only when writing the actual scroll of the Torah must a new dedication be uttered for each Name. Printing can produce many such Names on one page, but they are all printed at once and therefore require only one consecration.

Responsum No. 100

To his son Rabbi Abraham. Q. The printers bind the pages of the Bible together, and then trim the edges, discarding the waste trimmings. May they do this? Does not the entire page become sacred once the Name of God is printed on it? A. We treat all books of the Bible reverently, burying them when they can no longer be used, since they do contain holy writings and therefore have sanctity of a lesser order than that of the scroll of Torah, teflJIin (phylacteries), and mezuza (the doorpost scroll). Nowadays, this sanctity should apply to all books which contain the oral tradition, as well as prayer books, since we are now permitted to transcribe them in order that they should not be forgotten.

In spite of this, the marginal trimmings have no sanctity. The entire page becomes sacred only in the case of the Torah scroll, teflllin, and mezuza. Even then, only that part needed for the scroll becomes sacred, but not extra parchment which might be trimmed away. Furthermore, since all books are covered and bound, it is as if the stipulation were made that the trimmings were not to become sacred.

Responsum No. 101

Q. It is customary that when the spring equinox occurs on T\iesday evening, on Wednesday morning after services the congregation gathers outside of the synagogue and recites the blessing ,Blessed art Thou, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who fashioneth the work of creation. Is this usage correct? A. It is correct. I have seen my teacher, Rabbi Solomon the second (MhRSH Hasheni), do likewise. I myself did so in the year 1589 and intend to repeat the performance this year, 1617. This is based on the 28-year cycle calendar of Samuel. Although we accept the 19-year cycle calendar of Rabbi Ada for all other purposes, we are constrained to follow Samuels calendar in connection with this blessing. The reason is that according to Rabbi Adas calendar, the first spring equinox of the cycle does not consistently fall out on Tuesday evening as it always does with Samuels calendar.

Responsum No. 102

To his son-in-law Rabbi Mann; Q. A died, leaving only the seats he owned in the synagogue. R, his widow, claims them as her dower Tight. The trustees of charity funds, however, claim the seats in lieu of pledges A made, saying that such pledges have priority over dower rights. To whom do the seats belong? A. The seats belong to R. The obligation to charity was oral, while the dower rights stem from a written contract. Besides, the Ketubah was written before the pledges were made.

Responsum No. 103

Q. A ducks liver was found to have decayed on its narrow side. Is the duck fit for use? A. The duck is kosher as long as a small amount of liver remains attached to the kidneys and the bile. Rabbi Isserles, my teacher, required that the amount be equal in size to at least one olive. I shall not

contradict and override his decision, unless the duck was needed for Sabbath, or if the case was one of extensive loss.

Responsum No, 104

Q. N from the community of Skole did not return from a trip through Wallachia. Y of the community of Gzortkow testified that while in Wallachia during the winter of 1616, a certain Gentile sent them a message about a group of Jews who had been killed. The report could not be immediately investigated because of the war then raging throughout the countryside. About three weeks later times became quiet and they set out to search for the victims. Their bodies were found covered wtih snow and ice. When the snow and ice were removed Y immediately recognized N from Skole, since his appearance had not changed at all. He had been killed from behind, and his face was undamaged. May N's wife remarry on the basis of Ys testimony? A. Ns wife may remarry, providing that there was no thaw in the weather from the day the victims were reported to have been killed until the identification. In fact, since it takes time for thaw to set in, and the victim's body would therefore not become bloated for some time, we should be more lenient and accept the identification on the mere assumption that the frost did not thaw, as long as there is no testimony or evidence to the contrary. This decision is novel and not to be found in previous works. I therefore request that the contemporary sages corroborate this decision before it is accepted. After I wrote the above, I found that my decision agrees fully with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Nathan, and therefore is to be accepted without need for further corroboration.

Responsum No, 105

Q. H, A gentile from the city of Sniatyn, sent a Jew, R, together with a *Gentile, S, to Wallachia in order to buy cattle. He gave them money and goods to use in trade. Later, in a court convened in 1616, the following testimony was given: N testified that while in Wallachia, G, a Gentile, approached him with the request that when he should return through Sniatyn he should tell his friend H not to worry about his stolen money and goods. He knew how to recover them and he would see that they are returned to their owner. N then asked G about the victims, who replied that he

knew R and S, whom H had sent with money and goods to buy cattle in Wallachia, and that both were killed and thrown into the water. D testified that while in Wallachia a Gentile approached him, offering to show him the graves of the Jew of Sniatyn and S, the Gentile, who were murdered and thrown into the water. He also testified that a Gentile woman innocently volunteered the information that she was in a treetop when she saw robbers leading R, husband of A, the daughter of Aron of Kolintz, and the Gentile, by the lake shore. They then murdered the victims and tossed them into the water. A testified that when H heard the rumor that his agents were murdered, he immediately sent two Gentiles to Wallachia to investigate the matter. They returned, identifying the place where the agents were killed and naming the murderers. R's wife, A, did not wait until the Rabbinic court issued their decision, but immediately remarried. The Court required her to sepa rate from her second husband pending the outcome of the case. A. Since I am related to the victim, I have consented to render an opinion in spite of my infirmity. In spite of N's question, Gs testimony fulfills the requirement of being innocently volunteered, since it was begun in that fashion, and he did not intend, in any of his statements, to offer testimony to enable the woman to remarry. There can be no suspicion of mistaken identity in this case. The requirement that the victim's name and city be mentioned is more than adequately met by the identification of the victim as R, sent by H of Sniatyn, in the company of the Gentile, S. Although G did not specify how he came to know of the death; whether by personal identification, by hearsay, or by general report, we can be fairly sure that G had himself investigated the deaths thor oughly. This is corroborated by his statement, I know they were murdered. It is further corroborated by his having traced the stolen goods, his ability to recover them, and his readiness to return them to H, his friend. Furthermore, he had a valid motive for not revealing all he knew to N, since he might have been afraid his friends the robbers would be apprehended through him, or he might have been anxious to avoid the Wallachian government tax.2 6 Ds testimony is also accepted. We disregard the Gentiles demand for money, since he was ready to show him the grave. The truth of his statements can therefore be ascertained, and we do not suspect false hood in any matter which is ascertainable. The Gentile womans testimony is also accepted, with the reservation that we must assume she did not know the victims name, which was supplied by D himself when he repeated her statement.

Hs messengers, however, are not believed. Since they were sent to investigate the deaths, they surely must have initiated all inquiries, thus eliminating the possibility of receiving innocently offered testi mony. On the basis of the foregoing, A should be permitted to remarry. Since I am infirm and aged, I refuse to decide such matters without the consent of the contemporary sages. Let it be understood, however, that the Rabbis should accept the lenient view in all such matters of deserted wives, a point of view expressed so well by Rabbi Elija Mizrachi. If my teacher, Rabbi Moses Isserles, had seen the words of Rabbi Mizrachi, he would surely have agreed with him in this ap proach. A is not to be punished for having remarried hastily, since the matter is not entirely her fault. When the question arose as to whether the wedding could proceed, a man wrongly testified that I had already decided the matter in her favor, and had given her permission to remarry. On the basis of his testimony they proceeded with the wed ding. She should therefore not be forced to leave her husband.

Responsum No. 106

Q. In the community of Ber, two witnesses came to the rabbi in the dead of the night, awakened him, and while he was still in bed told him that they saw R betroth L, the daughter of the eminent physician Abraham, in his yard, and with no other people present. They attested that R entered the yard and whistled. When L heard the sound she came out of the house and willingly received the betrothal in the presence of witnesses. After the witnesses left the house of the rabbi, one of them returned that same night and confessed that their statements were all false. Later that same night, the second witness confessed before the community elders. R is a tough character, who is not likely to agree to give L a divorce even if offered a large bribe. Does L need a divorce from him? A. I had determined to have no more to do with matters of marriage and divorce since I have grown old and infirm, and so blind that I can no longer look into books. I have for a long time been confined to a sickbed suffering great hardships which render me unable to swallow. Nevertheless I could not refuse the worthy Dr. Abrahams plea to decide the case of his daughter. No divorce is necessary. Their testimony was not given in a duly constituted court since the rabbi was alone and a court requires three judges; he was reclining in bed and the judges must be seated; it was

given at night and testimony must be received by day; and they did not offer their testimony in the presence of the parties concerned. Further more, their statement was incomplete, since they did not specify which of As single daughters they had seen. They are therefore empowered to change their statements and their confessions are accepted. We are not concerned lest the rumor of marriage should spread and be generally accepted, since the testimony was almost immediately rejected and the community would correctly assume that the court found the accusation without foundation. We cannot require a divorce merely in order to make the matter amply clear to all that they are not married, since this would disqualify L from marrying a priest and would create a situation where girls would be vulnerable prey for wicked blackmailers who might only start a rumor of marriage to require a divorce. In this particular case, the circumstantial evidence clearly shows the accusation to be entirely false. 1. R had previously been engaged to L. Dr. Abraham withdrew from the engagement after a disagreement with R and came to terms with him so that they tore up the agreement they had made. From that time on they were enemies and had no further contact until the accusation by the witnesses. It is inconceivable that they could have so suddenly changed their minds and agreed to a marriage. 2. The witnesses claimed the incident took place in the middle of the night when all were asleep. How could the maiden have been permit ted to go out to the yard by herself to accept the betrothal? 3. The witnesses stated that the girl heard a whistle and immediately came out into the yard. This is fantastic. Is it possible to accuse one of the modest daughters of Israel, claiming that she would go out without the knowledge of her parents and her family? We must therefore attribute all this to Rs wicked machinations. We must foil such evil plots and punish their perpetrators.

Responsum No. 107

Q. Reuben, an Italian, married a woman from the community of Jazlowiec, in Russia. Approximately a year later he began to long for his family and sought to journey home for a visit. His wife and father-inlaw objected because of the danger of travel, especially in those lands, since they were in a state of warfare. They therefore agreed that he should divorce his wife without any reservations or conditions. Before he gave her the divorce, Reuben and his wife agreed not to remarry until a full year had passed, and that should he return within the year

they would be obliged to remarry each other. Each side deposited in the hands of a third party a 100 thaler promissory note as a bond to be forfeited should either violate the agreement. Rabbi Leb and Rabbi Mann who arranged the divorce attest that on the following day the father-in-law came to terms with Reuben, paying him fifty thaler in return for his agreement to abolish the condition and destroy the notes of indebtedness. Reuben then swore that he would not return to Jaslowiec for at least three years. There is much criticism of this divorce. Many claim that when the divorce was issued the existence of the agreement, and the 100 thaler bond, prevented the complete severance of husband and wife which was necessary in order for the divorce to be valid. May Reubens wife remarry? A. The rabbis did not act properly in arranging a divorce while a condition existed binding husband and wife to remarry within a stated time. Ex post facto, however, the divorce is valid. Even if the conditions had been valid, they would have been abol ished by the procedure we have instituted before a divorce is given, of declaring all other conditions and agreements between husband and wife null and void. Furthermore, in this case the woman herself never agreed to any conditions. Only her father had agreed, and he posted the bond for her. In any case, the withdrawal on the following day would validate the divorce retroactively. She is therefore permitted to re marry.

Responsum No. 108

To Rabbi Jacob and Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh. Q. A shoulder cut of beef had been lightly washed but not deveined w ithin three days of slaughter. May the meat be cooked for use if it is deveined after three days have passed and then soaked and salted? A. Washing the meat within three days is sufficient. The meat may be used in cooking. Furthermore, the meat need only be washed lightly.

Responsum No. 109

To his in-law, Rabbi Moses ben Rabbi Menahem Mendel. Dated Friday, Sabbath of Reeh,271619. Q. On a business trip, Reuben from Lublin had dealings with Duke Kretsky. The Duke had him incarcerated. Simon, his son, set out to free him, accompanied by a Wallachian Gentile. Simon succeeded in ran soming his father, and they set out on the journey home but never

arrived. Y testified that he asked the Wallachian Gentile if the Jew who traveled with him had succeeded in ransoming his father. The Gentile replied that he had, but that on the way back both were killed. O testified that in Satanow and in Kamieniec he was told by certain Jews that Reuben and his son Simon were killed on t h e i T journey home. A testified that Gentiles had told him of two Jews from Lublin who had dealings with Duke Kretsky, were imprisoned, ransomed, then killed. May the wives of the victims remarry? A. Though I am a withered bough, blind and toothless, I have nevertheless applied myself to answer your question. Ys testimony is accepted, although the victim's names are omitted, since they are identified through the Wallachian Gentile who went with Simon. We may assume from his statement that he saw or did the murder himself, or at least had positively identified the victims within three days of their death. When, as in this case, the witness is not present, we do not demand further investigation of these facts, Y had questioned the Gentile about the ransom, but had not asked about their death. We may therefore consider the information about the murder as having been voluntarily and innocently offered, and it is therefore acceptable. Os statement is also accepted. We may assume that a Jew would carefully ascertain the truth of his testimony before offering informa tion in so serious a matter. As testimony is also accepted although the Gentiles were guilty of a discrepancy in their version of the facts. Simon had never been impris oned, but had gone to ransom his father. This is a natural mistake to have made, and therefore does not disqualify their statement. The identification of the victims through their place of origin, their dealings with the Duke, the imprisonment, ransom, and murder, is sufficiently accurate to be accepted. The victims wives may therefore remarry, provided you concur in this decision, since I do not wish to rely on my judgment alone in this matter. I answered this question at length since I know many of my col leagues are afraid to decide controversial issues. This is as it should be in other areas of Jewish law. In questions of deserted wives, however, the sages of former generations have taught us to seek lenient rulings with all our might.

Responsum No. 110

To his elder son Rabbi Yekel. Q. A levir divided his deceased brothers possessions equally with

the widow, according to the ordinance of the communities (Spiers, Worms, and Mayence], The levirs father and brothers each claim a share in the inheritance. The levir insists that the ordinance was made only for the benefit of the levir himself. Who is right? A. The intention of the ordinance was to benefit the leviT. Therefore any share of the marriage contract settlement, the ketubah, is his alone. However, any additional sum realized above and beyond the ketubah is to be shared with the father, and if he were deceased, with the brothers. The ordinance was primarily made with the benefit of the widow in mind. It was in order to prevent the levir from insisting on marrying the widow for the sake of her money and also to make it less likely for him to insist on marriage against her will. Therefore the community saw fit to sacrifice only the rights of the widow, but not those of the father and brothers. Nowadays we do not clearly know the details of the ordinances of the communities, since many traditions have been lost. We must therefore surmise their intent and assume that they did nothing to overset a Talmudic law. The Talmud gives the leviT no greater rights than his father and brothers.

Responsum No 111
To his son Rabbi Yekel. Q. On a divorce should the name Milka be written without the letter yod as it is found in the Torah, or with the yod in order to distinguish it from the name Malka? A. It should be written with a yod.

Responsum No. 112

This question was also answered by Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Responsa, No. 131. Q. In Lemberg, R, a widow, and Y, her levir, live in two apartments in one house with a common exit. While his brother was still alive, Y used to join him for daily study together with their father. When guests would be entertained, Y would be invited. When the brother died, Y and R both fell ill and were nursed in the lower apartment where they partook from the same dishes. This continued during eight days of their convalescence, after which R moved back upstairs. They still eat together at the table of Y*s mother. May they continue to dwell in the same house, or should they be forbidden to do so, lest this breed

overfamiliarity? May they continue to eat at the same table together with the rest of the family? A. A great deal has been written on this matter. I myself see no reason why they cannot continue as they are. We are afraid of overfamiliarity only in cases where there has already been a marriage, such as when a man and a woman had been divorced, or when there is an indication of love, such as an engaged couple or a man who provided for his niece over a period of many years. In the case of a levir and a widow, none of these conditions apply. We certainly cannot attribute their visits to love, for the brothers obviously used to join their father for Torah study. God forbid us from suspecting those who learn the Torah regularly as these men did. During their illness, R and Y had no choice, and people do not think of such matters when they are sick. They may continue to eat at the same table together with the rest of the family. Even if we would require a utensil to be placed as a sign of separation such as is necessary between a husband and wife during her period of menstrua tion, in this case the presence of other members of the household is a sufficient sign of separation.

BENJAMIN AARON B. ABRAHAM SLONIK

BIOGRAPHY
Many rabbinic scholars of the past considered only matters of Jewish law important enough to record in writing. Consequently, even when their works survived through time, they shed relatively little light on the personal lives of the authors. What little we know of them must therefore be gleaned from chance statements in their books and papers or from observations of contemporaries. Just so with Rabbi Slonik. We know little about him. His responsa give us only occasional glimpses of his life and family. Almost nothing emerges from the writings of contemporaries and students. It is possi ble that his students themselves knew little about his early life, since he was not native to the area he served as rabbi.1 Even his place of birth is a matter of disagreement. Marcus Brann accepts Grodno as his birthplace,2following Jacob Heilbronn, who calls him Benjamin of Horodno, or Grodno.3 Gotthard Deutsch, however, suggests that he was so called because he served as rabbi near Grodno.4 There is no mention of this in his responsa. The places we know he served as rabbi5 are not nearby. It is more likely that he was born or studied there. It was customary to call a student after the name of the town where he was born or had previously studied. One of Sloniks teachers was Rabbi Nathan Nata Spiro of Grodno, who died in 1577.6It is therefore possible that he was identified with Grodno because he studied there when young and then continued his studies at other academies. We do find the name Rabbi Benjamin Aaron Harif of Tykocin, among thirty cosigners of a 1587 Lublin decree of the Council of Four Lands.

The decree forbade rabbis to offer bribes in order to acquire rabbinic posts. It was an important decree, and judging from the number of times it was reissued at the Jaroslaw fair1590, 1597, 1640, and 1656it was sorely needed.7 Israel Halperin is surprised that this sage is not mentioned in any of the Tykocin records." If he was indeed so highly respected as to be signed on that important document, we would expect to find him active in community matters, and mentioned in other records too. If this sage is to be identified with our Rabbi Slonik, however, there is an answer. Tykocin bordered with Grodno. The two communities disputed sovereignty over a large territory, including Horodok and neighboring towns.9 If Slonik was born in or studied in that area, he could have been considered to have come from both communities, and his name would have been sometimes Rabbi Ben jamin Aaron of Grodno, and sometimes of Tykocin. The pronunciation, (Solnik, or the more accepted Slonik) and the derivation of his name is in doubt.1 It might have been derived from 0 Sol, which in Polish means salt, and therefore pronounced Solnik. Near Cracow, where he lived for a time, were salt mines.1 Perhaps a 1 forbear made a living mining salt. If his family had come from Silesia where German was spoken, his name might have been derived from Col, which in medieval German means taxes. One who is concerned with the collection of taxes is a Coinik. There is also a town by the name of Solnek, possibly the town of the origin of his family. Rabbi Joel Sirkes quotes a witness who mentions the town in his testimony: I was in the holy community of Solnek on Yom Kippur 377 (1617), and was in the synagogue of the Solnek holy community, and we entered into conversation with Polish Jewish householders. . . .1 2 There is today a community of Szolnok 55 miles southeast of Budapest. It is not likely, however, that Rabbi Slonik came from Hungary. He lived and worked in Poland and studied there; the area he influenced, and from which came the responsa addressed to him, does not include Hungary. The Solnek to which Rabbi Sirkes refers is obviously in Poland. The encyclopedias (Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopaedia Judaica) accept the Slonik spelling. We have therefore used it through out this woTk. He lived to an old age. His last responsum was dated 1619. In it he complains about illness brought on by age and apologizes for not writing at length due to his infirmities.1 We have nothing from his pen 3 dated later than this responsum and may assume he died shortly thereafter, possibly in 1620.1 He was buried in Podhajce. His monu 4

ment remained intact till World War II.'5In 1930 Rabbi David Horowitz of Stanislaw was asked if an ohel, a monument of large proportions, could be built to enhance the modest marking on the grave. Rabbi Horowitz refused to permit it.1 6 We know that he suffered from blindness, respiratory trouble, and inability to swallow. He was in much pain. He says: And I am a dry stick, for the grinders have decayed, and the orbs have darkened in their sockets . . [a paraphrase of Eccl. XII, 3 and Ex. XXIII, 5.] The words of he who crouches under his burden of great afflications days without e n d .. . .1 7 He mentions his blindness many times.1 From one of these statements, 8 however, it might be inferred that he was almost, but not totally blind. For he declares only that his sight was curtailed so that he can no longer look into original sources: And the orbs have already darkened in their sockets until my ability to look into sources has been curtailed [ad shenimna yecholti].1 9 He also complained of an ailment that made it difficult for him to breathe and swallow.2 In a responsum dating from his younger days he 0 also mentions infirmity. That illness was probably of short duration since he does not mention illness again till his old age. And then he mentions it several times.2 1 Every sixteenth-century Polish Rabbi had a yeshivah, a group of students who considered him the master and who were under his tutelage.2 Rabbi Slonik, too, was the head of such a yeshivah, although 2 we find no mention of his students in his responsa. We know this from contemporaries who addressed him as Academy Head.2 It is odd that 3 no mention of his students is to be found. Perhaps his most distin guished students were his own sons, Rabbi Yaakov Yekel and Rabbi Abraham whom he does mention frequently.2 4

CITIES HE STUDIED IN AND SERVED

Rabbi Slonik indicated that he was in Russia when young, as a student: And in my youth, when I was in the land of Russia where there were many ignorant Jews who could not read even one letter in the

Torah, and yet they were called to the Torah in the presence and with the acquiescence of all my masters. . . *Russia at that time meant that part of Southeastern Poland which included the provinces of Braslav and Podolia. Jaroslaw, where annual fairs took place, as well as Lemberg, were in Russia. So were Przemysl, Kremieniec, and Satenow. Its eastern border reached to the Ottoman empire. Rabbi Slonik claimed that many Jews of that area were so ignorant that they could not read any Hebrew. Braslav and Podolia were more sparsely settled than the rest of Poland. In such areas many Jews might not have been afforded the opportunity to gain an education. Nevertheless, there was enough scholarship there to entice the young Rabbi Slonik as a student, and the academy heads were of sufficient renown to have their usage quoted by Rabbi Slonik as a precedent for the solution of a very important problem of the day. He lived in Cracow for a time, remaining there some years after Rabbi Isserles died in 1572.2 He served in Silesia as a Rabbi,2 but we do not 6 7 know whether before or after his residence in Cracow. Rabbi Meir of Lublin, in his correspondence with him, addresses him as "The venerable sage, Rabbi Benjamin Shalom, Rabbi of Podhajce.2 8 By calling him Shalom," Rabbi Meir referred to his second name, Aaron, whose biblical namesake was known to be a rodeph sha/om, a seeker of peace. There is no doubt that the responsum is addressed to our author, since it refers to a case cited by him concerning a Jewish trader of Sniatyn who dealt in wax which he brought from Jassy to Wallachia. All the facts are repeated in Rabbi Meirs responsum, including a list of the victim's merchandise. Rabbi Meirs salutation venerable sage indicates that Rabbi Slonik served in Podhajce during his later years and remained there till he died.2 9 The most important and interesting institution of Polish Jewry was the Council of Four Lands, through which all their communities were united and organized.3 The Council met and deliberated at the fairs 0 which convened during the summer at Jaslow and Jaroslaw, and during the winter at Lemberg and Lublin.3 Great scholars accompanied by 1 many students of their academies would gather at the fairs, together with Jews from all over the land. There, business was conducted and social contacts were developed. There, also, fellowship of scholars and discussions of important issues and religious questions were the order of the day. Above all, the scholars and community leaders looked after matters of community concern.3 Rabbi Slonik participated in this 2 council. We find him at the fairs, and especially at the fair of Jaroslaw.3 3 His influence was not limited to his immediate locality. It radiated

throughout the area surrounding Podhajce, and to a lesser extent, throughout Silesia. Consequently, we find him journeying to outlying communities such as Buczacz (about 40 kilometers from Podhajce)3 4 and answering correspondence from every part of the province. Ques tions came to him from communities all over Russia,3 Little Poland, 5 Greater Poland, as well as the provinces of Lublin and Vohlin. He dealt with questions of concern to Wlodzimiers,3 Skole,3 Krze6 7 mieniec,3 Bazalia,3 Brzeziny,4 Trembowla," Buczacz,4 Cortkow,4 Ka8 9 0 2 3 mieniec,4 Jaslowiec,4 Sniatyn,4 Satanow,4 Galatz,4 Lemberg,4 Kolo4 5 8 7 * mea,5 Posen,5 Przemysl,5 Wien,5 and as far eastward as Winnica in the 0 1 2 3 province of Braslav,5 Sde Lavan5 and Probobycz5 in the province of 4 5 6 Kiev. To Podhajce also came questions from Wallachia, especially from the communities of Kutina5 and Jassy.5 From Silesia we find a question 7 8 from Hotzenplotz,5 a community located south of Zulz. Since it is an 9 early responsum, we have additional reason to believe that he served in Silesia before coming to Podhajce, and possibly even before he lived in Cracow.6 0 We find no questions addressed to him from communities around Cracow. Perhaps the published responsa date from a later period. It is also possible that he did not serve as rabbi in that city but only resided there. This seems to be borne out by his statement that he ,,resided in Cracow at the end of Rabbi Isseries' lifetime and for a few years thereafter but his omitting to state that he served there as Rabbi. Of course, his failure to mention this might be due to modesty and to the fact that he was referring to his teacher, Rabbi Isserles, and would therefore be especially reluctant to assume any titles, in the spirit of the talmudic principle that a student may not serve as rabbi in his teachers locality.

His Personality
Rabbi Slonik did not follow his teachers opinions in all their pronouncements. The law, which demands deep reverence for a teacher, caused him to make every effort to understand his masters points of view and to attempt to reconcile them with his own. He sometimes deferred to the master's opinion where there was no great loss, but he decided independently when great loss would ensue: Nevertheless, since the matter was stated by my teacher, Rabbi Moses Isserles of blessed memory, . . . far be it from me to decide leniently in disagreement with him, except in such cases when it is for the sake of honoring the Sabbath or to prevent a great loss.. . .6 1

He did in fact disagree with them frequently, when he felt that it was warranted. Thus, he said of Rabbi Isserles: With all due respect, I dont agree with his opinion at a l l . . . ,6 and in another responsum he said of 2 Rabbi Isserles and Rabbi Joseph Caro: I am amazed at the Beth Yoseph (Rabbi Joseph Caro) and my master, Rabbi Isserles.. . . Even though they are the pillars of the world and it is from their waters that we drink, nevertheless their words are not, in my opinion, correct.6 3 He did not even hesitate to disagree with his master par excellence, Rabbi Luria, though he was more circumspect in his choice of words: My teacher, Rabbi Solomon Luria, is, in my opinion, incorrect. . .6 4 and in another responsum: I dont wish to question the words of my master. Nevertheless, it is the Torah, and I must learn. And therefore I must ask, according to his words.5 5 Nor did he accept sources as quoted, even by his teachers, unless he had seen them with his own eyes.6 He criticized respected sages for not 6 following this practice, even implying that his own teachers were sometimes at fault. Thus he wrote that Rabbi Isserles and Rabbi Caro misinterpreted the words of a sage upon which they base a decision, since they had not seen the original source.7 In another instance he explained that his teacher was wrong because his view was based on a source which was in error. He accused Rabbi Isserles of neglecting to adequately check on the sources of Rabbi Joseph Caro.6 He refused to accept a statement of Rabbi Luria without having seen the source upon which it was based.7 0 One of the areas in which the influence of the master is most strongly felt is methodology. Till this day the influence of the master over the student is spoken of largely as imparting a derech, a path, or approach to learning. One of the most important elements of methodology, is the assignment of relative value and authority to predecessors and contem poraries. How one regards other sages will, of course, determine the weight one gives to their decisions and opinions of Jewish law.7 1 Rabbi Slonik demanded that other sages recognize this. He had harsh words for those who disregarded this critical faculty. For that reason he thought little of the method and judgment of Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe,

accusing him of copying every source he found without any discrimi nation as to its value. He wrote of Rabbi Jaffe: However, one cannot bring evidence from the decision of Rabbi Jaffe, for the method of this sage in his book is always to copy everything he finds in the words of the later sages, whatever it may be, without paying any attention to whether the matter is worthy of being transcribed into a book according to the law or not---- I have already personally spoken to that sage about this matter, and he had no justification or excuse.7 2 His attitude in matters of deserted wives, agunot, is interesting. Ashkenazic rabbis usually accepted the stricter interpretation of the law regarding such questions whenever they were in doubt, as they did with most matters which are based on Torah commandments. Sefardic sages were usually more lenient in agunah cases. Though they ac knowledged the Torah source of the laws governing agunah, they accepted lenient interpretations in matters which concerned the estab lishment of the veracity of the testimony that the missing husband was indeed dead. They reasoned that testimony of this kind dealing with family matters was, after all, a matter governed largely by Rabbinic rules, and the rabbis have indicated that they meant to be lenient in these matters.7 Thus, Rabbi Israel Isserlein and Rabbi Isserles, Ashke 3 nazic sages, accepted stricter interpretations in agunah matters. The Sefardic Rabbi Elija Mizrachi, however, was of the opinion that wher ever possible the more lenient view should prevail. Although Rabbi Slonik followed his Ashkenazic predecessors in most decisions of Jewish law, in questions dealing with deserted wives he followed the path of Rabbi Mizrachi with the avowed intention of seeking to give agunot every possible help thereby, writing: For in every case of agunah we must seek to follow the path of those who are lenient, and not those who decide strictly, even though Rabbi Isserlein in his decisions . . . wrote that whenever there is a controversy in these matters one must take the stricter view. So too, my teacher, Rabbi Isserles wrote in a comment to the Code of Jewish Law. Nevertheless, Rabbi Elija Mizrachi, in his Responsa, No. 36, wrote clearly that in matters of controversy concerning agunah we take the more lenient view.7 4 In this approach he had support from the responsa of Maimonides, which he quotes as follows:

And especially according to Maimonides in his responsa where he wrote: "And one should be lenient in accepting testimony con cerning agunah. And anyone who investigates and cross-examines the evidence in these matters strictly does not do well, and the sages are displeased with him.7 5 He chided contemporary sages for their conservative and negative approach to these problems, writing: I had, in fact, dealt with this matter at length because I am familiar with the approach of some of our present day sages . . . always to avoid all matters of doubt, and ail for the sake of heaven, being fearful of erring in decisions of law, requiring always a clear source. Their method is good and proper in all other matters and decisions, but not in matters of agunah. In matters of agunah I act differently, and follow the path of the early sages and those of the later sages who sought every possible excuse with all their might to decide leniently in matters of agunah. . . . And this opening that our early and later sages have found, is the door though which the righteous shall pass."7 6 He even went so far as to say that if Rabbi Isserles would have seen the words of Rabbi Mizrachi, he would have changed his mind and agreed with him .7 We cannot avoid the suspicion that this was hardly likely 7 and was only stated by Rabbi Slonik in order to strengthen his stand in following a Sefardic sage and forsaking Ashkenazic sages in matters of agunah. He would, of course, issue lenient rulings in these matters only when the law allowed him to do so. He readily acknowledged the serious nature of such problems and the importance of extreme care in making such decisions.7 It is noteworthy that Rabbi Sloniks own son, Rabbi 6 Abraham, did not follow his fathers example in this respect but was strict in his interpretation of Jewish law in agunah questions.7 Ap 9 parently Rabbi Sloniks opinion did not prevail, and Rabbi Abraham felt constrained to follow the opinion of his teachers and contempo raries. Rabbi Slonik had the courage of his convictions. He criticized rabbis who were afraid to take strong stands on important matters when warranted. Yet on occasion he also showed compassionate restraint when scathing words might have been justified. This can be seen, for instance, in the case of a girl who terminated her engagement but was sorely beset by her ex-suitor and his family. They circulated rumors that the maiden had been betrothed by messenger on behalf of the

suitor by means of the gifts he was delivering. The messenger had in fact placed a ring, gift of the groom, on the girl's finger, saying: Thus shall you be told under the bridal canopy; With this ring I betroth thee to me according to the laws of Moses and Israel. Rabbi Sloniks decision was that there is no basis for betrothal, despite the gifts which are merely the customary engagement presents usually sent by groom to bride. The messenger, however, acted irresponsibly and deserves a severe reprimand. Rabbi Benjamins language shows forbearance. He says: There are other indications from the testimony of the witness [which would serve to discredit the messenger and] permit [the girl to marry without obtaining a divorce from the rejected suitor], but I have no desire to dishonor a human being by mentioning them; and the Lord knows what is in the heart.. . .fll We also find frequent disagreements between Rabbi Slonik and other sages of great renown. In Rabbi Sloniks defense of the practice of calling a blind and illiterate man to the Torah, the leading advocate of the strict view was Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel.8 Rabbi Slonik's frequent 2 disagreements with Rabbi Joseph Caro no doubt followed the lead of his teacher Rabbi Luria, who was an outspoken and severe critic of that sage. His teacher Rabbi Isserles, in his glosses to the Code of Jewish Law, also frequently disagreed with Rabbi Caro.8 Rabbi Slonik also 3 disagreed with Rabbi Israel Isserlein,8 Rabbi Joseph Colon Rabbi Meir 4 of Padua,8 Rabbi Moses of Przemysl (his relation by marriage and 6 fellow student of Rabbi Solomon Luria),8 and others. He was ready to 7 disagree even with his closest friends and relatives, and when war ranted, used very strong language to demolish the arguments of even those sages for whom he declared he had high regard. Thus, he attacked Rabbi Moses of Przemysl saying: Indeed this man was great in our generation. Nevertheless there is no favoritism in matters of Jewish law, and when the matter concerns desecration of God's name not even a master may be respected_ In summation, there is, in the words of the aforemen _ tioned sage, my in-law, not a single argument that is acceptable.8 8 He claimed to be among those who are reluctant to issue definitive decisions, writing: Although the matter is obvious to me, nevertheless I am amongst those who fear to make decisions of Jewish law until another elder sage agrees with me.8 9

Yet, his work belies this. He obviously was courageous and unafraid of controversy. To Rabbi Liba Seligman he wrote: I know you only wrote me this query to avoid controversy, placing all the burden upon me. Nevertheless, out of love for you I shall answer to the best of my ability,9 0 Even while a relative newcomer to Podhajce, he courageously op posed the opinions of the rabbis who had been long established in the area and declared a decision of theirs to be in error, writing: Thie, when I came to this province, I found some of the sages declaring it forbidden [treifa] . . . but 1 say that is a mistake. Although he does not specify which province is meant, it is probable that the incident took place in his later years when he came to Podhajce, after his reputation was assured.9 1 He was so highly regarded, that his contemporaries usually deferred to his view. In a case concerning a woman divorced by her apostate husband, we find that all the rabbis of Vohlyn refused to issue a decision in the matter, while his decision was issued and finally accepted. The issue was a divorce, finally attained from the apostate husband, which was slightly torn before the actual delivery to the woman. The apostate was no longer available to issue a replacement. The question had been debated for a year and a half before it was finally submitted to Rabbi Slonik for his decision. Rabbi Slonik declared: And the sages of the province of Vohlyn refrain from deciding either w ay,. . . and my heart tells me to avoid issuing a decision for several reasons, but I finally consented and wrote that it is my opinion that the divorce is valid.9 2 |Ie was not afraid to enunciate entirely new principles on which to base his decisions. We have already seen that in the case of a missing husband who was killed during the wintertime, he accepted testimony of witnesses who identified the victim long after the three-day limit which ordinarily would apply to such cases, because, he held, the victim must immediately have frozen solid. Observation teaches that in such cases the body can be preserved for long periods of time.9 3 He showed love and tolerance for the estranged. It is especially evident in the passage we cited earlier4 in which he criticized other sages of his day and of earlier times for showing a hardness of heart

towards the incapacitated and the ignorant, and pleaded that they be enabled to gain the satisfaction of performing commandments even if the strict letter of the law might indicate otherwise. In his argument in favor of blind and illiterate people called to the Torah even though they cannot read the written words, he also included a plea that women, wherever Jewish law permits, be given the satisfaction of performing commandments of Torah, citing talmudic proof that such was the approach of our illustrious forbears. He closed his arguments with a plea that the incapacitated and deprived be given the opportunity to accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven and come emotionally closer to their Father in Heaven. He did not hesitate to contradict and even criticize Rabbi Asher b. Yehiel, who had written: Let those who are learned read and the others refrain, and let them be shamed into learning the portion... .9 5 He frequently followed the practice, common in those days, of requiring endorsement or concurrence of leading contemporary sages when issuing controversial, novel, or daring decisions.9 This served to 6 create at least the appearance of the added authority of a rabbinical court. He was generally afforded this endorsement, another indication of the high regard in which he was held. Even when the endorsement was not included in the responsum, it was probably forthcoming. Res. No. 68 which deals with an agunah case, does not include the endorse ment, possibly omitted by his grandson, the publisher, or perhaps because there were too many endorsers to name. For the responsum contains a postscript, telling of the discovery of the victims corpse at a much later date, and concluding with the words: This woman had been permitted to remarry, and has already remarried according to the agreement of great sages of the genera tion who had given their concurrence to my decision. He showed an interest in mysticism. Though he kept kabbalistic tendencies well hidden in the vast majority of his responsa, hints of his familiarity with Kabbalah and interest in it can be perceived from time to time. Thus, he referred to a 4 secret wisdom of great holiness,1 and in one responsum distinguished between the kabbalistic mysteries of Torah and the simple exposition, saying that: Even though there is a great secret of the mysteries of the Torah connected with this matter, as is well known to the scholars of the true wisdom, . . . nevertheless there is need to give a sound explanation and clear understanding according to the peshat hanigle, the open [nonkabbalistic] exposition.9 8

He gave extraordinary weight to the Book of the Zohar, saying that the authority of its author outweighs that of all the other sages who lived since the close of the Talmud: If all the other sages were to be placed on one side of a scale, and the Book of the Zohar, alone, were on the other, the Zohar would outweigh them all!" This cannot be attributed to the belief that the Zohar is of mishnaic authorship. Rabbi Solomon Luria, his teacher, also accepted Rabbi Simon b. Yochais authorship of the Zohar, yet he gave little weight to the Zohar as an authority in decisions of law. Thus, he wrote: All my holy teachers and forefathers who studied at the feet of the greatest sages, nevertheless did not [follow the Zohar] but rather the Talmud and the later codifiers. And if Rabbi Simon b. Yohai were to be standing before us and crying out (to us) to change the custom instituted by the early sages, we would not pay any attention to him, for in most matters the law does not follow his opinion.10 0 His teacher Rabbi Moses Isserles was also a Kabbalist and had written a commentary on the Zohar which is now lost, as well as an extant work with kabbalistic overtones.11 There is no evidence, however, that in 0 Halakhah Rabbi Isserles afforded the Zohar any greater credibility than did Rabbi Luria. It is possible that Rabbi Slonik veered closer to a reverential acceptance of the Zohar because of his association with Rabbi Solomon b. Leibish of Lublin under whom he studied for a time. Rabbi Solomon ("Maharshl Hasheni) was described by his grandson as a great kabbalist. Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, founder of Lurianic (Practical) Kabbala, was a fellow student of Rabbi Solomon b. Leibish.12 0

HIS WORK

The Mas ,at Binyamin

The name Masat Binyamin, or Portion of Benjamin, is derived from the biblical verse And the portion of Benjamin was fivefold that of the others (Genesis, 43:34). The book contains 112 responsa and several pages of the author's collected hiddushim (new interpretations) to Rabbi Joseph Caros Code of Jewish Law. It is indexed with a brief summary of the subject matter

of each responsum. The index, as well as the hiddushim, are arranged according to the order of Rabbi Jacob b. Asher's code of law called Tur.13 The work was first published in Cracow, 1632, approximately 0 twelve years after Rabbi Sloniks death, by the authors grandson, Rabbi Israel Isaac, son of Rabbi Chaim Menahem Man, Rabbi of Wien. Israel Isaac is not mentioned in the Res. of Rabbi Slonik, but his brother, Rabbi Faivel, is.1 In the book are several notes by Rabbi Sloniks son, M Rabbi Abraham. The notes are not uniform, and not all are by Rabbi Abraham. One was added to the work by Rabbi Abraham, in order to indicate that his father had changed his mind since writing the respon sum, and no one should rely on the decision as it appears in the responsum. The change came after Rabbi Slonik had discussed the matter with Rabbi Abraham many times. The question dealt with whether a person could kill goats for the hides without resorting to kosher slaughter. Rabbi Slonik had permitted the practice. Rabbi Abra ham pointed out that when a kosher animal is killed without resorting to kosher slaughter, the carcass may be fed to dogs, but may not be sold commercially, even to a non-Jew. The hide must be considered part of the carcass. According to Rabbi Abraham, his father wrote towards the end of his life: This responsum must be studied in the light of what my son Rabbi Abraham replied.15 0 Another note, written during Rabbi Slonik's lifetime, was based on a discussion between father and son, and might even have been included in the work as a gloss by the author himself.16There is a note by Rabbi 0 Slonik himself,17and the authorship of another note is unknown.18The 0 0 responsa were later reprinted in Metz, 1776, Sudzialkow, 1883, and Vilna, 1894. The first edition carries a poetic introduction by ;Rabbi Israel Isaac, his grandson, and a note indicating that he had been so careful to eliminate printing errors that there is no need for an adden dum with corrections. A compilation of responsa is not written as a book with a beginning and an end. As the master continues to reply to questions of Jewish law, his work continues to grow. Masat Binyamin contains a question dated 1619, probably within the last year or two of Rabbi Slonik's lifetime.19 0 The publication of such a volume, never truly complete in the usual sense of the word, is likely to be postponed as the material continues to expand. Responsa numbers 29 and 86 are omitted from the Vilna and Sud zialkow editions because of censorship. Number 29 deals with wine

forbidden because it was handled by Gentiles, and number 86 deals with a question of clothing borrowed by Gentiles from Jews for use in church during their holiday worship, and whether it may afterwards be worn again by the lenders. The Metz edition, printed by Gottschalk Speyer, contains an ac knowledgment to King Louis XVI and mentions his censor, Don Etien Ebert, professor of Hebrew. In the printer's introduction he states that it is his intention to reprint rare and important Hebrew works, of which this is one. His name is signed "Elyakim Gottschalk Speyer. An endorsement to the Metz edition containing a ban on reprinting the book in competition with the publisher was written by Rabbi Aryeh Leb, author of Shaagath Aryeh. Rabbi Aryeh Leb, writing as the Rabbi of Metz, explained that the rarity of the book was caused by the great demand for it which arose because of the authors skill and scholarship. He indicated that everyone uses it and therefore it was no longer obtainable: It has become famous and highly regarded, and the diligent were first to buy out the stock. And because of its value and erudition, everyone used the books until most of the volumes are gone (no longer usable or obtainable). Many therefore implored the printer to reprint the volume, and their voices were heard. To benefit the many, this book of responsa, more precious than jewels, is being reprinted.10 1

Other Works
Rabbi Slonik wrote a treatise on the leap year of the Hebrew calendar, called Se/er Haebronot, which was lost. .. , and this matter is clearly explained by Maimonides in his Laws of the Sanctification of the New Moon, as I wrote in my Se/er HaEbronot.11 1 Also lost is his Seder Halitzah, a work on the ceremony of release from the requirements of the levirate marriage. One portion of this work is preserved in Mas'at Binyamin, since Rabbi Slonik states that he copied it word for word in responsa to a question dealing with the same subject.12 1 Rabbi Slonik also wrote a popular little book dealing with the commandments specifically addressed to women, called Seder Mitzvot Nashim. It was translated into Yiddish as well as Italian.13 1

The Seder Mitzvot Nashim was printed four tiroes during the authors lifetime. He wrote an introductory statement to the first edition, stating his intention to make the book available to the public.14 1 Women were not usually educated in schools, but received their instruction at home.15 The purpose of Rabbi Sloniks work was to 1 supplement the education of women. The ostensible purpose was to teach those laws which are specifically applicable to women: laws pertaining to the procedure of taking HalJah during baking whereby a small portion of the dough is separated and thrown into the fire, pertaining to the procedure of taking haJlah during baking whereby pertaining to lighting the Sabbath candles; and laws of conduct during the period of niddah, menstruation. The work, however, includes much moTe. It is a complete moralistic work, addressing itself to the lifetime of a woman, her relationship to God, to her family, to her community, to her possessions. It speaks of manners and morals, of the ritual laws pertaining to food, of modesty, of rearing children, of the love between husband and wife, of happiness in marriage, of the role of women in society. It has a section addressed to the husband as well.17 1 Its one hundred and thirty eight chapters are written with warmth and feeling, with depth of thought and with many inspirational pas sages, including a vision of Messianic times and how women can help bring about the ultimate redemption.

STYLE AND STRUCTURE OF THE RESPONSA

Examination of Rabbi Sloniks responsa reveals a writer of rare organization. We sometimes actually find the author's outline as part of the text of a responsum. Rabbi Slonik followed his outlines precisely. For instance: And at the outset I shall arrange the opinions of all the previous scholars, each in its place and category as I have found them in earlier and later compilations, on both sides of the question. I shall arrange them camp against camp, and examination of the two camps will clarify the matter, and reveal the true decision. First I shall organize the camp of those who forbid (caling a blind man to the Torah), and then those who permit it.18 1 In fact, his son Rabbi Abraham also relied on this kind of organiza tion.19 He sometimes clarified a subject by the expedient of classifica 1 tion and differentiation between its categories.10 2

The responsum in Rabbi Sloniks hands was a pedagogic tool. Sometimes he delved into a subject at length even if the decision could have been made without the full discussion, in order to teach some thing valuable. Thus, he discussed many types of decisions a judge can make in cases of disputed funds, and then indicated that only the last category suited the matter in question. He gave the full discussion in order to present a definitive analysis of the judicial process involved in monetary disputes. In the same way he developed the subject of encroachment on anothers livelihood.11 2 He criticized his predecessors for not dealing sufficiently with im portant matters such as agunah (deserted wives), saying that the paucity of detail in their treatment of the subject makes misunderstand ing likely. He himself attempted to bring clarity and precision to this important area, reconciling what superficially appeared to be divergent opinions.12 Three factors probably contributed to his concentration on 2 this important issue. His stature caused many questions from other sages to be addressed to him. By itself, this might not have been sufficient. For there were other contemporary sages of great renown, such as his own teacher Rabbi Isserles, who dealt with few such questions. There were, however additional factors which probably contributed to his involvement in this troubling issue. Podhajce, where he was situated, was located near an important and dangerous trade route to Constantinople. Many questions of agunah were therefore addressed to him as the greatest sage of the district.13 Finally, his 2 decisions in these matters were liberal and lenient. He sought every possible justification, within the law, to permit such unfortunate women to remarry. Many in desperate straits would therefore turn to him.14 2 We do find different versions of the same responsum included in the work.15 Perhaps the publisher of the responsa, Rabbi Sloniks grand 2 son, Israel Isaac, was reluctant to exclude the first, less organized material, possibly because of the great veneration in which the masters every utterance was held. The repetition of these responsa is added proof that the actual compilation of the work was done by a hand other than the authors. Rabbi Slonik himself would have surely discarded the earlier, less perfect, version. One must also remember the authors near blindness at the end of his life which would have compelled him to rely on others for compilation and editing.

DATES OF THE RESPONSA

Only a few of the responsa are actually dated, but internal evidence indicates that they are arranged in chronological order. The dates of the

following responsa can be ascertained: Res. No, 11 was written scarcely thirty years after Rabbi Moses Isserles demise. If we accept 1572 as the date of Rabbi Isserles death,16 the responsum must have 2 been written in 1602. Res. No. 23 is dated 1603. Though the incident recorded in Res. No. 44 took place in 1596, the responsum itself was written much later. The author says that the woman has long since remarried on the basis of the permission given by our earlier ruling." This responsum, therefore, was probably written sometime after 1603. The testimony recorded in Res. No. 45 is dated 7 Elul 1605 (5365). The responsum was written sometime afterward. Res. No. 62 is dated 3 Tammuz 1611 (5370). No. 71 was written during the winter of 1612 and Res. No. 70 at approximately the same time. Res. Nos. 75 and 76, dealing with the same case, are a year apart. The author may have erred in dating the testimony therein recorded, since there is a discrepancy of one year between the two references. In No. 75 he discusses the matter of the divorce given in Wien and of which he heard at the fair in Jaroslaw. He dates the discussion in 1611. In No. 76, however, discus sing the same case, he dates his discussion at the same fair a year later, in 1612. It is, of course, possible that the matter was discussed two years in succession. The context, however, belies this. The events recorded in Res. No. 105 also took place in 1616, and this responsum was probably written in 1617. Res. No. 109 is dated 1619. The only apparent discrepancy in the chronological order is in connection with Res. No, 50 which the author indicates was written shortly after Rabbi Solomon Lurias responsa appeared in print. He refers to Res. No. 40, written some time before, saying that when he wrote that responsum he could not have seen Rabbi Lurias book which had been recently published. Since Res. Nos. 44 and 45 were written in 1604 and 1605 respectively, it would appear that Res. No. 50 was written thereafter. Rabbi Lurias responsa, however, appeared in print much earlier, having been published in Lublin in 1575 and in 1599. We can only infer that Res. No. 50, and probably 40 as well, are out of place and were actually written much earlier. It is possible that the author did not begin to collect his responsa until long after they were written, and these two were then improperly inserted out of chronolog ical order, possibly by mistake. It is also possible, that the publisher, his grandson Rabbi Israel Isaac, discovered the responsa after the collec tion was made, and himself inserted them out of place. It is interesting to note that there is no date earlier than 1602, (although some of the nondated responsa, such as No. 40, might have been written much earlier).17Since he died in 1619 or 1620,10the dated 2 2 responsa span a period of no more than twenty-two years. It is therefore possible that the collection is limited for the most part to the later

responsa which he wrote while in Podhajce.19This might explain why 2 no responsa are included from Cracow.10 3

HIS APPROACH TO SOURCES AND CASE HISTORIES

Rabbi Slonik lived at a time when printing had finally supplanted laborious manuscript copying. Books had become vastly easier to obtain. The printed work had the advantage of standardization and avoidance of the errors frequently made by copyists. Of course, if there was an error in the manuscript from which the text was printed, or if the printer made a mistake, then that error was compounded by duplication in all the printed copies of the work. Furthermore, there is a psychological tendency to give special credence to the printed word, even when printing is carelessly done. Rabbi Slonik was therefore critical of the written word, not only in manuscripts, but also when it appeared in print, double-checking the document against his own knowledge of the sources, his instinctive sense of whether a sage would say what was attributed to him, and especially against his own first hand familiarity with original sources. In fact, he would not rely on any source that was quoted unless he had seen the original with his own eyes.11 He did not trust his memory unless it was absolutely necessary 3 to do so. He was therefore reluctant to answer questions when his books were not available.12Even when constrained by circumstances to 3 rely on his memory, he would, when he deemed it advisable, later rewrite his answer in order to include proper documentation of sources. Thus, responsum No. 76 repeats the answer given in No. 75, but in a far fuller form. He was also judicious in his selection of sources, and weighed the relative importance of the authors of citations. For example: We should rely on the words of Rabbenu Jonah who is a great sage, rather than on the comment of anonymous authorship, unsigned by anyone of renown.13 3 In his unwillingness to accept anything he had not seen with his own eyes, to trust his memory unless absolutely necessary, and to take things written or printed at face value, he followed the pattern set by his teachers, Rabbi Isserles, and especially Rabbi Lurya.14Rabbi Lurya, 3 in his talmudic commentary Hochmath ShJomo (Cracow, 1581) cor rected hundreds of faulty readings of talmudic passages. Rabbi Slonik, too, discovered errors in decisions of law which were based on corrupt texts of source material. He ascribed these errors to careless copyists or

printers. For instance: He declared that a passage in Caros Code of Law was in error, and attributed this either to the printer, or to Rabbi Caro himself.15In another instance he indicated that Rabbi Joseph Caro had 3 a variant version of Maimonides text.16He said the same thing of Rabbi 3 Nissim.17In still another instance, he declared that the text must be in 3 error, for otherwise the difficulties and contradictions in the sources would be impossible to reconcile.18 3 He emphasized rationality in the decision-making process, using logic as a test of law, saying: Logic does not allow this . . . and the Torah requires that all its paths be sweet.19 3 And: I say this decision is compelled by logic... .1 4 He stressed the dimension of logic especially in the laws of mourn ing, rejecting any ruling which appears inconsistent, and for which there seems to be no apparent reason.11 Rabbi Slonik argued that there 4 is a special reason for this. For, although the laws of mourning are based on Torah sources, they are functional in nature, designed to help the mourners in their bereavement, to teach them lessons important to the understanding and acceptance of the reality of death, and to inspire them with faith in the hereafter. Consequently, these laws have certain unique characteristics. For instance: When there is disagreement in other Torah laws, the stricter view prevails. In questions dealing with the practice of mourning, however, the more lenient view is accepted, even though these laws are also derived from the Torah. Since they have been ordained in order to help the mourner in his hour of bereavement, they must all be logical and psychologically acceptable.12 4 His emphasis on logic extends to case histories themselves. In one instance he examined the events which led to a questionable engage ment, and skillfully reconstructed the true facts by means of logical deduction.13 4 Rabbi Slonik analyzed the words of the sages with due regard for the period of their lifetime and the context in which they were spoken or written. Thus: It is unlikely that Ri Hazaken (Rabbi Isaac b. Samuel) would disagree with Rabbenu Tam (Rabbi Jacob b. Meir) since the inci dent happened when the Ri was young and unlikely to disagree with his master, Rabbenu Tam.14 4

And in another case: All these sages were students of Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg and yet did not follow his opinion, but remained in doubt. Certainly then, we . . .5 He also based several decisions on empirical observation. He rejected a method of internal vaginal examination proposed by Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen, claiming that it is physically impossible to perform with out causing internal bleeding. He accepted instead, the method pro posed by Maimonides, stating that Maimonides spoke with scientific knowledge based on his anatomical research, surgical skill and experi ence.16 He brought evidence based on his own observation, and as we 4 have seen,17 was ready to rely upon these observations even when it 4 meant formulating new and according to some, revolutionary princi ples of Jewish law.18Thus, when accepting witnesses identification of 4 a frozen corpse he pointed out that temperature records indicated that the victim had immediately frozen, writing: Empirical observation teaches that in such cases the body can be preserved for long periods of time.19 4 Since it was a new principle, however, Rabbi Slonik required concur rence of other sages with this view. His teacher, Rabbi Luria, also based decisions on empirical observation, as when he wrote: And I have heard that Gentile courts sometimes decide that if water is left in an open utensil and then mice come and destroy clothing, he is not liable, because mice only attack clothing due to thirst. Such matters must be entirely dependent on our empirical observation insofar as the judge perceives the matter, the circum stances, the changing times and locale.10 5 Having rejected the method of pilpuJ in deciding Jewish law,ts1 he tended to seek underlying principles that would relate and even unite opposing views. He pointed out that: Earlier sages sought to unite and to compromise different views as much as possible, so that agreement could be found.12 5 He himself sought to follow their example wherever possible.

Appendix IB

HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS

HIS CHII.IJKhN
Rabbi Slonik bad five children; three sons and two daughters. Two of his sons, Rabbi Yaakov Yekel, the elder,1 and Rabbi Abraham were scholars of renown. Rabbi Yaakov in particular was singled out for particularly laudatory poetic titles by his father. Rabbi Abraham, though highly praised by Rabbi Slonik, is not called by such flowery titles as his brother Rabbi Yaakov.2 Rabbi Slonik, in his salutation, emphasized his son Rabbi Yekels role as a teacher of Torah, master of an academy, where great scholars hang on his words.3 Rabbi Yaakov Yekel wrote Se/er Nahalat Yaakov, a supercommentary to Rashi on the Pentateuch, including Rashi's talmudic source references. Se/er Naha Jat Yaakov was first published in Cracow, 1642.4 In it he pays special attention to the comments of the earlier commentary on Rashi, Se/er Mizrahi, by Rabbi Elija Mizrahi. Rabbi Abraham studied under Rabbi Meir of Lublin in Cracow.5Rabbi Abraham himself calls Rabbi Meir his teacher.6 Surprisingly, however, Rabbi Meir does not call Rabbi Abra ham my student, though he addresses him with love and shows regard for his scholarship. Perhaps this is an added mark of regard. If the master considers a student to have become a colleague, that student is highly regarded indeed.7 It is also possible that Rabbi Meirs refer ence is to another Rabbi Abraham. Both Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Abraham were heads of academies and presided over rabbinical courts. Rabbis were usually heads of academies as well, but only outstanding sages were court fathers, i.e. presidents of rabbinical courts.8 Rabbi Abraham was in Lemberg in 1632 on a market day, whence he wrote a very respectful letter to Rabbi Joel Sirkes,1 asking a question 0 about an agunah, a deserted wife. In the salutation, Rabbi Abraham calls Rabbi Sirkes his in-law. From the letter it appears he resided

near Lwow and Janow. Isaac Lewin therefore places him in nearby Tarnopol during this early period of that Jewish settlement, suggesting that he w probably the first Rabbi of Tarnopol." Four years later we as have his own statement that he was Rabbi in that city.1 Tarnopol was 2 near Podhajce where Rabbi Slonik served as Rabbi during the later period of his life, and where he was buried.1 3 There was a close relationship between Rabbi Slonik and his sons. He wrote to them frequently, and included their queries and comments in his collected responsa.1 Rabbi Abraham wrote several notes to his 4 father's responsa,1 and added a postscript to one of them.1 One of his 5 6 comments showed his great concern that his father's responsa be properly interpreted and accepted.1 7 Rabbi Abraham did not publish his fathers responsa, despite the close relationship with him and their proximity of location. It was left for a grandson to do. Perhaps a generation had to pass before the reputation of Rabbi Slonik spread sufficiently to create a demand for his work. Rabbi Sloniks responsa mention two daughters. Both married rab bis.1 One of them, Leah, died suddenly during her fathers lifetime 8 while her husband, Rabbi Menahem, was away from home.1 A grand 9 son, Rabbi Faivel, is also mentioned in the responsa, and is described as a brilliant and learned scholar.2 Another grandson, Rabbi Israel 0 Isaac, son of Rabbi SLoniks daughter Leah, published Rabbi Sloniks Responsa in 1632.2 1

HIS RELATIONS BY MARRIAGE

The Hebrew word, mehutan, does not refer to a specific relationship. It can mean any member of the family into which a relative has married, no matter how near or distantly related. It is therefore impos sible to ascertain the exact relationship of anyone referred to by this title. Rabbi Slonik showed great respect and regard for his mehutan and fellow student of Rabbi Luria, Rabbi Moses b. Abraham Meth of Przemysl.2 Rabbi Moses is the author of the halakhic treatise Se/er Hoil 2 Moshe, and probably also wrote Se/er Mate Moshe. If so, the name of the book is a pun of his own name, Mate Moshe and Moshe Meth.2 He 3 signed, together with Rabbi Slonik, on the 1603 proclamation of the Jaroslaw fair authorizing the printing of a new abridgment of two works by Don Isaac Abravanel, NahaJat Avot and Zevah Pesah. Requiring such authorization was a means of preventing plagiarism, since it served to rigidly control printing. It was also, obviously, a means of controlling the quality and even subject matter of the material. The

practice of endorsement of books for printing has persisted till this day.2 We have already noted the printers scandal when the first Jewish 4 publishers in Poland, Samuel, Asher and Eliakim Halec, converted to Christianity and began to publish works for the Church.2 Jewish 5 printing in Poland came to a temporary halt, not to be resumed until a new press was established more than ten years later, in Lublin. It was not, however, until 1569, with the establishment of a press in Cracow by Isaac b. Aaron of Prosnitz, that the Hebrew printing industry in Poland gained impetus. It is likely that the early bitter experience of the community had much to do with the careful regulation with which the synods governed the printing industry.2 The cosigners on the synods 0 decree of 1603 were the important men of the day, amongst them Rabbi Solomon Ephraim b. Aharon of Leczyca, author of the biblical com mentary KJi Yakar, Rabbi Joshua b. Alexander Falk Cohen, author of Sema, and Rabbi Samuel Eliezer b. Judah Halevi Edels, author of the Talmud commentary, Maharsha.2 7 Rabbi Moses died in 1606. Samuel Fuenn and S. B. Nissenbaum believe that he died by 1580.2 This is impossible, since he was alive 8 when he signed the Jaroslaw statement. Halperin assigns 1606 as the date of his death. He is correct, since Rabbi Slonik tells us: The great sage Rabbi Moses the living who has been summoned by the heavenly court four years ago, in 366 (1606]. 2 He was therefore 9 frequently quoted posthumously by Rabbi Slonik who euphemistically calls him Rabbi Moshe Ish Hai (the living), rather that Meth which suggests death. He does this after 1606 as well, to suggest eternal life.3 0 Other relations by marriage included Rabbi Abraham Hayyim b. Rabbi Naftali Hirsch Shor of Belz,3 the author of the talmudic commen 1 taries Tzon Kedoshim and Torat Hayyim,3 and Rabbi Moses b. Mena 2 hem Mendel of Vladimir, to whom Rabbi Slonik wrote: To the great sage, pride of the Rabbis and glory of the wise, .. my beloved relation by marriage Moses, may his life be long, son of the pious sage Rabbi Mendel of blessed memory.3 His son was probably the Rabbi Chaim 3 Menahem Man who married the authors ill-fated daughter Leah.3 4 There were other rabbis of the same name: Rabbi Moses b. Menahem Mendel of Posen mentioned together with Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller in connection with the Lublin fair of 1639,3 and Rabbi Moses b. 5 Menahem Mendel of Krzemieniec mentioned in connection with the Jaroslaw fair of 1631. These men, however, were active too late to be identified with the mehutan of Rabbi Slonik. It is probable that Rabbi Moses had died before 1613. On a 1613 ordinance concerning printing authorization of certain works of Jewish law, appears the signature of The young Menahem Mendel, son of the great sage of our generation,

Rabbi Moses of bJessed memory. . . 3 Obviously the signer of the 6 document lost his father before 1613. This man, probably the son-inlaw of Rabbi Slonik, was the author of Se/er Ateret Zekenim, which comprises comments on the Code of Jewish Law.3 7 There is an obscure reference in Rabbi Sloniks responsa to a relation by marriage named Rabbi Mendel, and to comments he wrote on the Semak.3 The reference may be to particular notations, possibly mar " ginal notations, ratheT than to work of annotation; or it may refer to a comment in the Ateret Zekenim. If so, the reference should be to Rabbi Sloniks son-in-law rather than connection by marriage; hatani rather than mehutani. Among his connections by marriage, we find two Rabbis Segal; Rabbi Ziskind Segal,3 and Rabbi Jonathan David Segal of Vohlin.4 Rabbi 9 0 Ziskind was younger than Rabbi Slonik, who calls him a new flask full of old wine. 4 He probably served as rabbi in a community near 1 Podhajce, since Rabbi Slonik assumed that Rabbi Segal knew well the reason for a local journey that he had undertaken to Buczaz, some thirty kilometers away from Podhajce.'1 Others related by marriage to 2 Rabbi Slonik are Rabbi Jonathan Levi,4 Rabbi Abraham Ashkenazi,4 3 4 and Rabbi Mordecai Katz.4 The latter two were from the same commu 5 nity, probably serving near Lemberg (Lwow), since they served together on a Lemberg rabbinical court.4 It is probable that Rabbi Ashkenazi is 6 to be identified as Rabbi Joseph Jacob Abraham b. Joel Ashkenazi Katzenelenbogen who in 1618 added his own endorsement to an edict originally issued at Lublin during the previous year protecting the rights of an author against plagiarists.4 In 1614 he signed on a similar 7 edict, this time to protect the rights of the printers of Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohens works.4 He died on the sixth of Iyar, 1637, and was buried in 8 Lemberg where he had served as Rabbi for twenty three years.4 9

HIS TEACHERS AND THEIR INFLUENCE

Rabbi Slonik refered to four men as his teachers; Rabbi Solomon Luria,5 Rabbi Moses Isserles,5 Rabbi Solomon b. Leibish of Lublin, 0 1 andonly onceRabbi Nathan Nata Spiro of Grodno. A comparison of masters and student is enlightening. Rabbi Luria probably taught him for a longer period of time than the others. He appears to have had the most profound influence upon him, for often Rabbi Slonik pointedly gives Rabbi Luria a special place of honor over his other teachers. He does this by frequently omitting the title of Master before the names of his other teachers when they are

mentioned together with Rabbi Luria. Thus, when Rabbi Slonik must refer to Rabbi Luria and Rabbi Isserles in the same responsum, he will refer to the former as "my great teacher, the great Rabbi Luria, while omitting the respectful title of 4 master he customarily affords Rabbi Isserles. Sometimes, he even stresses the contrast with Rabbi Luria by omitting titles altogether from Rabbi Isserles name, and doesn't even call him my teacher.5 2 Rabbi Slonik tells us that he resided in Cracow towards the end of Rabbi Isserles lifetime, and for several years after his death, presum ably in 1572.5 It appears, therefore, that Rabbi Isserles was Rabbi 3 Sloniks teacher only during the few years when the latter resided in Cracow. Rabbi Slonik was a young man at that time, and had probably already been Rabbi Luria's student. As the great sage of Cracow, Rabbi Isserles would be regarded by all resident scholars as their teacher. Indeed, Rabbi Slonik tells us that Rabbi Isserles was the accepted master of all Ashkenazic Jewry: Furthermore, in all Ashkenazic communities Rabbi Isserles words are accepted as law, and we follow him in all m atters... .M Rabbi Luria, however, was probably the sage to whom Rabbi Slonik travelled to gain his education. This would explain Rabbi Sloniks pointed differentiation between the two sages when he refers to them in the same responsum. Similarities between the writings of masters and student may be considered more than mere coincidence. Rabbi Lurias influence can be perceived in Rabbi Sloniks clarity, expository skill, graceful prose style, grammatical precision, and skill ful use of Biblical allusion and poetic expression.5 In one responsum, 5 for instance, Rabbi Slonik gives a thorough and detailed grammatical analysis of the Ten Commandments. In it he complains about the cantors of the day who pay little heed to grammatical precision in their Torah reading.5 Rabbi Luria and Rabbi Isserles did, in fact, engage in a 6 polemic concerning style of Rabbinic writing. Rabbi Luria admonished Rabbi Isserles, and chided him for stylistic lapses and grammatical errors, saying: And with a thousand pardons, you would have done better to study the science of grammar, because your writing is full of errors of person, gender and case. ..

Rabbi Isserles justified his lapses as conscious stylistic digressions for the sake of poetic beauty with which he attempts to clothe his responsa.5 Rabbi Slonik follows Rabbi Lurias simplicity of expression 7 and stylistic precision, allowing himself poetic flights only when introducing responsa and addressing contemporary sages. These are skillfully executed.5 Rabbi Slonik knew and quoted the works of the grammarian, Rabbi David Kimchi, who was at that time a controversial figure in the polemic for and against inclusion of grammar in the schools curricu lum.5 9 Rabbi Sloniks approach to Jewish law was similar to that of Rabbi Luria. Both master and student felt that Jewish law must take changing times into account. Empirical evidence must also be taken into consid eration. Rabbi Slonik waived the three day limitation for corpse identifi cation in the case of an aguna (missing husband) when the body was found frozen, and therefore preserved, for a much longer period of 0 time. He uses the expression our eyes perceive this to be the case.6 Rabbi Luria too evinced a flexible approach to Jewish law, declaring that in some ways it adapts to changing times and conditions: I say that no evidence can be cited from the physical constitution of people of long ago, for they were healthier and stronger than we . . . and the law changes according to the perception of the judge [and his analysis of empirical evidence.]6 1 Rabbi Luria and Rabbi Slonik were also both concerned with the dynamics of the decision making process. Rabbi Slonik writes: And now I shall explain that anyone who seeks to decide the law and mediate between sages who are in dispute, may only do so in one of three ways: 1. He shall demonstrate the law clearly from the Talmud or the decisions of the Gaonic sages; 2. Even without clear evidence from such sources, if the major ity of respected, authoritative sages agree with one side, we decide the law according to them, for in such cases we follow the majority; 3. When there is no clear majority, we follow the later sages (from the time of Abaye and Rava and on), giving them the greater weight. And you will see that in all three ways, the law in our case is according to those who decide leniently.6 2

Rabbi Luria also alludes to the dynamics of Jewish law, indicating in one responsum that the law is not [only to be derived] from a book, [but also from unwritten sources such as custom and tradition].6 3 An obvious parallel can be seen in the master's and student's own words about their method. Rabbi Luria writes: This is my method; to cite all the opinions, of early middle and later sages, codifiers and commentators, as well as customs, law by law, authors of responsa, writers of letters, gatherers and compi lers. . . . And I cite all their opinions without omission. I analyze them sevenfold, investigating all their sources with much weary research and little sleep, and much discussion with colleagues and students . . . and anyone who reads my work will know that I have not overlooked a single author before deciding the law.M The very same approach is perceived in Rabbi Sloniks work, and is described in one of his responsa. . . . And at the outset I shall bring and cite the opinions of all the authors, each one at his banner' [i.e., in order] as I have found them in their works, early and late authors, those who permit and those who forbid [calling a blind man to the Torah], and I shall arrange them rank against rank, and from both of these camps shall the essence of the discussion be made clear and the true law shall emerge with the help of the Almighty. And first I shall arrange the words of those who permit the practice, and then those who forbid it.flfl Both master and student discuss the problem of sources which appear to be contradictory. Both suggest that codifiers cite contradic tory sources for the sake of amplification and clarification, but issue the definitive decision in the section of the code in which that law belongs. Thus, Rabbi Slonik states: In such cases where the law is written differently by the same codifier in two locations, we must abide by the decision as set down in the location where the central theme is discussed.0 6 And Rabbi Luria: For behold, this is the method of the codifiers, who write all the opinions of the controversy in the main discussion of the issue,

without deciding who is right. Afterwards, open your eyes to see that you will find they have written every law and its decision in specific places.6 7 Master and student also show similar attitudes towards Rabbi Sha lom Schachnas method of analysis called piJpul, a style of study of minutae of Talmud and Rabbinic teachings especially characterized by the use of subtle legal, conceptual and casuistic differentiation. Rabbi Schachna had introduced these new refinements into the methodology of study which his master, Rabbi Jacob Poliak, had brought to Poland from the German academies.5 In its extreme form, the method was 8 given the additional name of hilJuk, i.e. division and analysis. It consisted primarily in taking an apparently unified Talmudic subject, and with fine analytic ability dissecting it into its component parts, drawing fine distinctions in their implications, and then building up a new subject out of these newly defined parts.6 Concentration on pilpuJ, 9 became widespread during Rabbi Lurias time. Most of Rabbi Luna's student days were spent in "piJpulistic analysis to the detriment, by his own attestation, of his study of other subjects. He bemoans the cost in the sacrifice of time during which he could have derived greater benefit in the study of other subjects, such as prayer. In describing his education, he writes: When 1 was young, I wearied myself in the study of Talmud and pilpul, but not in the analysis of prayer, and woe for that which is lost and cannot be recovered. . . .7 n In his Hokhmat Shlomo, Rabbi Luria disparages Rabbi Schachna and his method in even harsher terms. He writes: Do not be misled by the books based on IRabbi Schachnas] incorrect text. For this is his usual practice: that which he is unable to understand, he strikes out and amends to suit his purpose.7 Rabbi Isserles, who was a student of Rabbi Schachna,7 also offered 2 criticism, though in milder form, of his masters decisions, declaring: Although the very great sage, Rabbi Schachna, takes the stricter view in this matter, nevertheless all the early and later sages disagreed with [his opinion).7 3 Rabbi Slonik also regarded pilpul with reservations. He maintained an attitude of very respectful rejection, between the harsh criticism of

Rabbi Luria and the very mild statement of Rabbi Isserles, stating that though important, new and novel decisions of Jewish law may not be based on its conclusions. TYue, he possessed great regard for Rabbi Schachna and his decisions of law, as is evident in Rabbi Slonik's decision concerning an animal which was found to possess an extra rib on each side. The issue was whether to leave an extra rib with the hind quarters to be sold as non-kosher, or only the last rib as is our usual practice. He writes: And after I wrote this, I found written in the name of the great sage, my Master, Rabbi Schachna Shalom, of blessed memory, who had such a case brought to him . . . and he decided it was kosher . . . And that sage is very learned, great in his generation, and worthy of [our] reliance in matters of practical law.7 4 Even so, he refused to accept novel decisions from him, when they were based on the new method of pi/pui which he considered merely an exercise for sharpening the mind, but not reliable enough to use as a basis for forging new directions in HaJakha. The case concerned a young man who had sent his betrothed gifts by messenger. After the engagement was terminated, rumors began to circulate that an actual betrothal had taken place by means of these gifts. The messenger had indeed stated words of the betrothal formula on the grooms behalf, but only in jest, and not before reliable witnesses. Rabbi Slonik decides that no betrothal had taken place, and thus no divorce was needed. In his responsum he writes: And I saw that the great sage Rabbi Schachna, of blessed memory, argued mightily and intricately for the stricter view in a respon sum. I, however, decided not to quote him here, since, though that sage is extremely brilliant and erudite, he relied on his greatness and brilliant analysis, discovering a new explanation of the discus sion in the Talmud [upon which this decision must be based.] Because of his new analysis, the law would have to be decided strictly. We, however, do not accept these new theories and expla nations [as authoritative for changes in the law] but rather rely upon the tradition of Rashi, and the Tosaphists, and the other early authors whose waters we drink, and from whose words and expla nations we will not veer right or left. And all my masters and other great sages of this generation were all students of this great sage, and nevertheless they did not give weight to his decision in this matter. You need only go out and observe the usage of the people.

For we have never seen or heard a single sage in all these provinces requiring a divorce when an engagement is broken, even though gifts had been sent before witnesses.7 5 Rabbi Slonik obviously accepted Rabbi Schachnas reasoning when in corroboration of an existing principle of law. When it forged new directions which were contrary to accepted usage and tradition, he did not rely upon it. Rabbi Slonik had an even earlier precedent for this attitude than that of his teachers. Mordecai Breuer makes a case for an early beginning of the method of pilpul, and bases his thesis on a statement of the fifteenth century German Rabbi Bruna in a responsum to Rabbi Eliezer of Prague, where he declares: And I am further surprised at this great sage [Rabbi Israel Isserlein], who chooses to base a lenient decision of law [concerning an aguna] on minute distinctions. When we engage in pilpul and study to sharpen our minds, as in tosfos time [a special period of time set aside in German academies for studies that were designed to discipline the mind], we engage in minute and delicate differen tiations similar to drawing an elephant through the eye of a needle [Baba Mezia 38b], But deciding a matter of Jewish law or permit ting something otherwise forbidden must be based on cleaT evi dence from Talmudic discussion, and not upon such minute dis tinctions.7 Rabbi Isserles also left a stylistic imprint on Rabbi Slonik. Although Rabbi Slonik avoids Rabbi Isserles flowery and obscure prose style, there is a similarity in the way they structured their responsa. Like Rabbi Isserles, Rabbi Slonik sometimes introduces responsa with a statement describing how he intends to approach the problem under discussion. Also, like Rabbi Isserles, and unlike Rabbi Luria, he frequently omits the case and the question which came to him, relying on the readers reconstruction of the problem from the information in the reply. To Rabbi Slonik, the responsum was a forum for a thorough discus sion of an issue in Jewish law. He used it as a classroom lecture. In this regard too, he follows the style of Rabbi Isserles, who writes: Thus speaks the young [man] . . . who writes for purposes of discussion,7 to learn and to teach, Moses Isserles of Cracow. 8

Earlier sages used to write short answers to queries wherever possi ble, recording only those points which were necessary for the decision of the point of law. At this later period, however, it became popular to elaborate on selected queries, including all material necessary for a complete discussion, so that the responsum could be used as a forum for discussion by the students in the master's academy. Rabbi Luria, the older sage, apparently belonged to the old school which regarded the responsum only as a statement of a legal decision bolstered with proof of its validity, while the younger Rabbi Isserles had begun to use it as material for study in his academy. Rabbi Slonik, too, followed the new trend. In Rabbi Sloniks unwillingness to accept a source unless he had seen it himself, he was also probably influenced by Rabbi Isserles. Thus, Rabbi Isserles writes: I cannot discuss the matter with precision, since my books are not accessible... .7 9 And Rabbi Slonik writes: It is very difficult for me now to enter into a discussion of a decision of law because I have no access to books at this time since, fearing attack by the Turks we have lightened our baggage and sent everything heavy to the walled city. Especially do I lack the book of Beth Yoseph upon which we all rely for practical decisions of law .. . .ao He also writes an implied criticism of Rabbi Joseph Caro [author of Beth Yoseph] claiming that Rabbi Caro erred in his interpretation of a source because he failed to look it up and see it for himself, relying instead on a secondary source.8 1 An interesting parallel in the personality of all three sages, Rabbis Luria, Isserles and Slonik, can be seen in their compassion, regard for the dignity of the human personality, and the softness and kindness towards even erring and ignorant fellow Jews. Rabbi Slonik shows concern for human dignity and tolerance for the ignorant and physically handicapped. He deals with a question of whether a blind, or an illiterate man, [who is therefore functionally blind,] may be called to the Torah to recite the blessings since they cannot read the actual text. The issue hinged on whether reading ability was necessary, since an aliyah was originally a call to read the Torah

portion. Perhaps even today, since the reader is acting only as the agent of the oleh [honoree], the potential ability to read the portion is required. After presenting the halakhic arguments and concluding that a blind or an illiterate man may indeed be called to the Torah, Rabbi Slonik adds: Furthermore, I am surprised at those who forbid the practice. How could they decide to remove the yoke of the kingdom of heaven from any group of people, and especially in such a great and public commandment as the Torah reading? Our sages of the Mishna and Talmud permitted people to fulfill commandments even in such cases where they had doubts as to whether it was permissible. They overlooked their objections in order give spiritual pleasure, and in order to give people a chance to serve the Lord. In the same way, the blind and the ignorant should not be deprived of the spiritual pleasure of assuming the yoke of the kingdom of heaven by being called to the Torah.8 2 Rabbi Luria also shows a high regard for the dignity of the human being. For instance: He is very much upset about witnesses who attempted to malign the morality of a man and a maiden. He even castigates the court for listening to their testimony, declaring that they were too ready to accept the testimony of people whose motives were suspect. He indicates that one must be especially careful about accept ing testimony which might unjustly ruin a reputation. Such witnesses, and the court of law which is too ready to accept it, violate the commandment *Thou shalt not bear false report.0 3 Rabbi Isserles compassion is evident in many lenient rulings based on hefsed merubah, considerable loss. In the introduction to his work, Torat Hatat, he explains his lenient attitude, writing: So that the reader may not suspect me of undue leniency . . . 1 did so only in cases where considerable loss was involved, or where the people were poor, or where the food was needed for the Sabbath. In such cases the lenient view was in full accord with the law, even though in conflict with the strict view of later authori ties.4 It is also evident in his lenient approach to prescribing penance and punishment for sinners who ask for a program that would lead to forgiveness for their sins. He writes:

He ought to fast,. . . confess his sin privately . .. but we must not make it too difficult for him in order to encourage repentant sinners, as we have seen that the Almighty Himself opens his hands to repentant sinners and does not seek the death of the wicked.
By contrast, Rabbi Meir of Lublin was harsh in similar cases.8 0 Rabbi Solomon b. Leibish of Lublin6 was the youngest of his teach 7 ers, and is mentioned least by Rabbi Slonik.0 He is one of the co-signers 0 of the ordinance of the Council of Four Lands of 1587 (347), forbidding a rabbi to offer a bribe or gift in order to obtain a position. In a later version of the ordinance (1640), he is called the young Rabbi Solomon of Lublin/1probably alluding to his being younger than his namesake, Rabbi Solomon Luria.6 His is the second of thirty signatures, and 9 follows that of Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe, preceding the signatures of such luminaries as Rabbi Ephraim of Leczyza, (author of Kli Yiotkar commen tary to the Pentateuch), Rabbi Falk Katz, (Joshua Falk Cohen, author of Se/er Meirot Einayim, popularly known as the "SEMA," Rabbi Meir of Lublin (author of Responsa, Maharam LubJin and Maharam, haJakhic novellae to the Talmud), and Rabbi Samuel Edels (author of Se/er Maharsha, haJakhic and agadic novellae to the Talmud). We do not know where Rabbi Slonik studied with the second Rabbi Solomon; in Cracow, Lublin,9 or in Posen, where Rabbi Solomon had also served 0 1 as rabbi. Unfortunately, we know very little of Rabbi Solomon b. Leibish of Lublin, since he left no published works. Dr. Isaac Lewin sheds some light on this great, but obscure sage and reconstructs some of his decisions through statements of his students. The fact that Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz and Rabbi Joel Sirkes were also students of Rabbi Solomon b. Leibish, attests to his greatness. Only Rabbi Slonik, however, calls him Maharshal Hasheni," The second Maharshal.9 Rabbi Slonik differ 3 entiates between his two teachers in this way. Neither of his younger contemporaries, Rabbi Sirkes and Rabbi Horowitz were old enough to have studied under both masters, since Rabbi Luria died in 1574 and Rabbi Horowitz and Rabbi Sirkes were very young at that time.9 4 Rabbi Slonik also contributed towards the preservation of the mem ory of Rabbi Solomon b. Leibish by mentioning him in connection with the following three decisions:

1. The blessing for the completion of the solar cycle, recited every twenty-eight years;

2. Which herbs qualify as maror, the bitter herbs of the Passover seder;9 6 3. Delaying the Kiddush prayer of sanctification on the second night of Pentacost, so that it be recited only after nightfall.9 7 While all his teachers were versed in JCabbaJa, it is likely that Rabbi Slonik became close to that science of mysticism in large measure through his teacher, the second Rabbi Solomon. Rabbi Solomons grandson, Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Krotoshin, testifies to his grand fathers Kabbalistic interests erudition, describing him as "a great sage who was clear in celestial matters.9 0 It is possible that the seeds of Kabbala Rabbi Solomon sowed in the hearts of his students influenced Rabbi Sloniks colleague, Isaiah Horowitz, even before the latter went to Israel. Rabbi Horowitz went to Israel in 1621 where he became a leading exponent of Lurianic (practi cal) Kabbala, a school of Kabbala which strove, through Kabbalistic mysteries, to hasten the coming of the Messiah. An intimation of this may be perceived in the blessing Rabbi Horowitz received from his master before his wedding, commanding him to sanctify himself in food and sexual matters, since they are the only two commandments which make a lasting physical impression." If such an influence did exist, we may imagine that Rabbi Slonik was similarly influenced by the master. It is possible that Rabbi Slonik knew those writings of his colleague Rabbi Horowitz which had appeared before the latter left for the land of Israel.10 Rabbi Slonik, who probably died the year before 0 Rabbi Horowitz left for the Holy Land, was not, of course, familiar with his colleagues kabbalistic work, the Shelah, which appeared in 1649. It is also possible that Rabbi Slonik had his Kabbalistic influence directly from his teacher, Rabbi Isserles, who was also a Kabbalist of note. He was a contemporary of the Safed circle of Kabbalists, Isaac Luria (1533-72), Moses Cordovero (1522-70), and Hayyim Vital (15431640).11 He must have been influenced by their writings, as is evi 0 denced by his own commentary to the Zohar. While lost to us, Rabbi Isserles himself refers to it.12 Isserles Torat HaOlah also indicates that 0 he was well versed in Kabbalistic lore.13 0 Rabbi Slonik mentions his fourth teacher, Rabbi Nathan Nata Spiro, only once. He indicates that he is the author of Mavo HaShearim,14 which is a commentary on Rabbi Isaac b. Reuben of Duras Shaarei Dura.15Rabbi Spiro also wrote a Torah commentary called Imre Sha/er, 0 as well as commentaries to the Grace After Meals, Sabbath table songs.16 0 Rabbi Spiro served as Rabbi of Grodno, and died in 1577.17 It is 0

therefore clear that he taught Rabbi Slonik in the latters younger days. It is possible that he was amongst his earliest teachers, since, as we have seen, there is reason to believe that Rabbi Slonik was born in Grodno.10 0 It is possible that Rabbi Spiro wrote commentaries and glosses to the Zohar.9 Be that as it may, he is known as a Kabbalist, and might also been among those who influenced Rabbi Slonik in this regard.10 1

HIS CONTEMPORARIES
Poland at the time of Rabbi Slonik, was the center of Jewish scholar ship. It was teeming with sages of high repute around whose pro nouncements revolved all communal life.11 1 Time has obscured their mark. Many of their works were irre trievably lost in later persecutions and wars. Many names, mentioned with reverence and honor in those works which have survived, are strange and unknown to us. Some names are more familiar, since their works were saved for future times, in spite of the hazards,. . . pogroms, migrations, etc., to which they were exposed. Rabbi Sloniks responsa contain information about these sages. He corresponded with many of them, honored them, debated with them, and deliberated with them at the various synods and fairs. Many sought him as an arbiter, spokesman and consultant. Throughout the pages of Mas ,at Binyamin we find fleeting mention of names long forgotten; salutations and allusions with some bits of stray information about them; as well as many discussions with well known sages which reveal new facets of their personalities. Noteworthy among the rabbis mentioned by Rabbi Slonik are the following: A. Rabbi Eliezer b. EJiahu Ashkenazi was a sage with whom Rabbi Slonik had personal contact. Born in Germany, he moved to Egypt in 1561, then to Famagusta, Cyprus, and then to Venice.12 He had a 1 disagreement with Rabbi Samuel Katzenelenbogen of Padua, and was finally forced to leave. He settled in Prague, later in Cremona, and finally came to Poland where he became rabbi of Posen and Cracow.13 1 Rabbi Slonik writes to his son that Rabbi Eliezer is a great sage upon whom one may rely.14 Nevertheless, Rabbi Slonik strongly disagrees 1 with him concerning a widow who was married on Friday, and the procedures the couple should follow on the Sabbath eve. Rabbi Eliezer permits the marriage to be consummated on Sabbath eve. Rabbi Slonik strongly objects, arguing that this finalizes the contract between them, and contracts may not be completed on the Sabbath. The widow and

her groom must therefore meet in private after the wedding, but before the Sabbath, thus avoiding the problem of completing the contract on the Sabbath. Even a symbolic meeting is sufficient to enable the contract to take effect. His words are strong. He says: It is unnecessary to quote Rabbi Eliezers arguments, for none of them would be deemed acceptable to anyone with sufficient learn ing to understand the matter in question,15 1 Although Rabbi Slonik wrote that Rabbi Eliezers error must be consid ered accidental, he nevertheless implies that the scholarship of this 1 sage is faulty and easily refuted.18Another contemporary, Rabbi Joseph Katz,17 also saw fit to strongly criticize decisions rendered by Rabbi 1 EliezeT.1 1 He wrote Maase Hashem, a mystical work in which he predicted that Messiah would come in 1595. He also wrote a supercommentary on Nahmanides Bible commentary.19 The decree of the synod of 1614 of 1 the Council of Four Lands gave permission to reprint his Penitential Prayers.10According to Rabbi Judah Leow of Prague, he was signed on 2 a letter to the synod of 1588 requesting that they forbid the utterance of the imprecation nadler, (a term of opprobrium casting aspersions on a persons parentage and family.)11 2 B. Rabbi EJija b. Abraham Mizrachi, (1450-1525),12 robably died 2 before Rabbi Slonik was born. Nevertheless, both Rabbi Slonik and his son Rabbi Yaakov Yekel bear a special relationship with him. He was a Sefardic sage whose lenient decisions in matters of deserted wives were accepted by Rabbi Slonik in preference to that of Rabbi Moses Isserles and other Ashkenazic sages.13 The high regard in which 2 he held Rabbi Elija prompted Rabbi Slonik to say that if Rabbi Isserles had seen his words, he too would have surely agreed with him.14 He 2 also indicates that Rabbi Elija is to be given preference over Rabbi Israel Isserlein (1390-1460) because Rabbi Elija, as the later sage, knew Rabbi Isserleins work, and nevertheless disagreed.15 2 Rabbi Elija was a rabbi in Constantinople in 1493, not long after it changed from Byzantine to TVirkish rule. He was learned in secular as well as religious subjects, and taught these subjects to his students along with their Jewish studies. He became the secular as well as the religious leader of Rirkish Jewry, and while in that position, tried to influence the Karaites through a gentle and kindly attitude. In this he followed the tradition of Maimonides who stated that he himself sought to reach out to the Karaites of Egypt, where he came to settle, by means of gentleness and kindliness.16 2

He was the author of a collection of responsa, of novellae to Sejjpr

M itzvot Gadol, of notes to Rabbi Isaac Alfasis talmudic digest, of

responsa contra the Karaites, of a mathematical treatise, a commentary to Ptolemys Almagest, and of a commentary to Rashis work on the Pentateuch.17 2 Rabbi Sloniks son, Rabbi Yaakov Yekel, wrote a supercommentary to Rabbi Elijas work on Rashi. This soon generated polemic works for and against Rabbi Elija. It was Rabbi Elijas tendency to take Rashis part, answering all the difficulties raised by Nahmanides, and other critics of Rashi. Rabbi Yaakov Yekel, on the other hand, took the part of Rashi,s opponents. Rabbi Jacob b. Naim, a follower of Rabbi Elija, stridently defended his masters views against Rabbi Yaakovs critique. C. Rabbi Solomon Ephraim b. Aaron of Leczyca (Luntschitz) (died 1619),1 8 who, toward the end of his life became rabbi of Prague19 2 2 endorsed the decision of one of Rabbi Sloniks responsa,10 and signed, 3 together with Rabbi Slonik and six other sages, a 1603 Jaroslaw ordi nance permitting the printing of a digest of some of Abravanels works.11 Rabbi Ephraim is also signed on later ordinances, (1609,1614, 3 1617), regulating the printing of Hebrew books.12 He is also found 3 amongst the thirty cosigners of the Lublin decree of 1587 forbidding 3 rabbis to offer bribes or gifts in order to obtain positions.13It is possible that Rabbi Slonik appears among the signers of that decree as Rabbi Benjamin Aaron, hari/ of Tykocin.14 3 Rabbi Ephraim was, like Rabbi Slonik, a student of Rabbi Solomon Luna. He served as rabbi in Lemberg (Lwow) before coming to Prague in 1604. He wrote two Bible commentaries, entitled Kli Yaka ran d Sefer Sifsei Daas, two collections of sermons under the titles Se/er OJeJot Ephraim and Se/er Amude Shesh, and a commentary on the laws of the Torah, Se/er Rivevot Ephraim which has not yet been published.15 3 D. Rabbi Joshua b. Alexander FaJk Cohen, the author of the famous commentary on the Code of Jewish Law called Se/er Meirot Einayim (SMAJ, was Rabbi Sloniks colleague and fellow student of Rabbi Moses Isserles and Rabbi Solomon Luria. Rabbi Slonik records a well known controversy between Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen and Rabbi Meir of Lublin, devoting three responsa to the issue.16 Rabbi Meir had insisted on invalidating a deathbed 3 divorce issued under Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohens supervision. (A deathbed divorce takes effect as of the moment it is issued, with the proviso that should the husband survive, the couple is pledged to remarry. It is given for the sake of the widow, in order to eliminate the requirement that she undergo the ceremony of haJitzah. Since such a document had severed the bond with her late husband while he still

lived, there is no longer a connection with a brother-in-law that requires halitzah as a release of a levirate marriage.) Rabbi Slonik indicated that the stormy controversy was continued at the Jaroslaw synod of 1612, where a majority of the rabbis present sided with Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen. Rabbi Slonik too, agreed with his colleague and praised his scholarship.17 He also indicated that the sages gathered at 3 the 1611 synod had chided Rabbi Meir for his obdurate stand. Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe, however, sided with Rabbi Meir and wrote an unavail ing letter on his behalf to the Lublin synod.11 31 Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen joined Rabbi Slonik in cosigning the 1603 Jaroslaw decree authorizing the printing of digests of two of Abravanel's works.19 3 Rabbi Slonik corresponded with Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen.10We find 4 the latter among the sages who endorsed Rabbi Sloniks decisions when such endorsement was necessary.11 On several occasions, however, we 4 find them in sharp disagreement.12 In one instance, Rabbi Slonik 4 expressed disbelief that so great a sage could be so much in error, and wrote: Because of the modesty and the humility characteristic of Rabbi Joshua, I hope he will not be angry, but will nod his head in assent, and will not be ashamed to admit that he was wrong.13 4 Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen disagreed with Rabbi Sloniks decision concerning the true and original intent of a decree issued in medieval times by the Rhine communities of Spiers, Worms and Mayence, concerning the return of a portion of a brides dowry in the event of the husbands death during the first two years of marriage.14 Rabbi Joshua 4 Falks responsum on the subject is included in Rabbi Sloniks collec tion.15 Rabbi Slonik, in his reply to Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen, grew 4 impatient, criticized Rabbi Joshuas arguments, calling them weak, and finally implied that he considered some of Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohens comments entirely uncalled for. He first politely expresses surprise at Rabbi Joshua Falks reasoning, and then grows more vehement when refuting Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohens rebuttal of his own arguments.16 4 Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen is the only signer of the pamphlet issued in the name of the rabbis gathered at the Lublin 1607 synod, restating and emphasizing the laws limiting the practice of usury. He explained that after thoroughly discussing the matter, the other sages departed for their communities while he remained behind alone in order to record the results of their deliberations. He was probably able to do this because in his later years he served no community, but resided in

Lemberg with his students, supported by the generosity of his wealthy father-in-law.7 Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen is among those who signed the 1587 decree of the synod forbidding rabbis to offer bribes in order to obtain rabbini cal positions.1 4 E. Rabbi Joseph b. Mordecai Gershon Katz of Cracow, author of Responsa Sheerit Yoseph,1 9 was the brother-in-law of Rabbi Sloniks 4 teacher, Rabbi Isserles,10 and was possibly related by marriage to his 5 other great mentor, Rabbi Solomon Luria. For Rabbi Luria states: For my relation by marriage, the great and learned Rabbi Joseph Cohen, before whom I am like a student before his teachers, has consented to adjudicate the m atter.. . .11 5 This does not necessarily mean, however, that Rabbi Luria was directly related to Rabbi Katz by marriage. Rabbi Luria was himself related to Rabbi Isserles, and could have been referring to this more indirect relationship. Rabbi Katz presided over a rabbinical court in Cracow for fifty years, and died in 1591 at the age of eighty.12 5 An interesting correspondence between Rabbi Slonik and Rabbi Katz is recorded in the collected responsa of both sages. Rabbi Slonik refers to a decision by Rabbi Katz wherein the custom of Cracow is given as a precedent in connection with the procedure for salting meat in the koshering process. Rabbi Slonik not only disagrees with Rabbi Katz decision, but also denies that Cracow ever had such a usage.13 5 In Rabbi Katz collection of responsa, we find three questions from Rabbi Slonik.1 The first question deals with two ducks that had been M slaughtered, and afterward an entire ring of the esophagus was found on the floor nearby. Although Rabbi Katz declared the ducks unfit for use, he nevertheless expressed his own uncertainty in the matter, promising to investigate the law thoroughly, and send Rabbi Slonik his final decision at a later date.15 A similar case was considered by Rabbi 5 Meir of Lublin, who would have declared the fowl fit for use were it not for the strict decisions of Rabbi Isserles and Rabbi Katz.16 The second 5 query concerned the period of baking time necessary to render it impossible for matzoh to ferment, thus insuring its fitness for Passover use.17The third query concerned errors in a scroll of the law.18 5 5 In spite of Rabbi Sloniks very high regard for Rabbi Katz, he did not hesitate, occasionally, to sharply disagree with him,1*indicating in one 5 responsum that there was no substance whatsoever to Rabbi Katz arguments.1 0 8 F. Rabbi Joseph Kazi was very highly regarded by Rabbi Slonik.

When Rabbi Kazi joined Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen in requesting Rabbi Sloniks decision on a point of Jewish law, Rabbi Slonik responded with rhapsodic praise, and calls himself their student. Making allow ances for customary politeness and exaggerated mode of address, we see nonetheless, a sage worthy of the highest regard and respect. It is also noteworthy that Rabbi Slonik mentions Rabbi Kazi before Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen.11 5 In 1606, Rabbi Meir of Lublin had a dispute with Rabbi Joseph Ashkenazi, and appealed to several sages for their support.12 One of 6 them was Rabbi Joseph Kazi.13 Rabbi Kazi was a cosigner, together with Rabbi Slonik, on the 1587 Lublin decrees forbidding rabbis to offer bribes in order to obtain positions.14 6 G. Rabbi Meir b. Gedalia o f Lublin was another important contempo rary of Rabbi Slonik. He was a talmudic commentator, and author of the responsa collection Manhir Einei Hachamim.15 Simon Moses Hones16 6 6 wrote that Rabbi Slonik was a student of Rabbi Meir of Lublin. This is an error. Rabbi Meir died in 1606, fourteen years before Rabbi Slonik.17 6 He was the master of his son Rabbi Abraham,18 and addressed Rabbi 6 Slonik as an older colleague.19 6 In Rabbi Meirs responsa we find three questions which Rabbi Slonik had discussed. One of these dealt with the validity of a number of divorces signed by a man whose qualification to be a witness became suspect. Rabbi Slonik stated that the question was first sent to a great contemporary sage who then asked Rabbi Slonik for his opinion in the matter.10It is possible that the question came to several sages, and was 7 not referred to Rabbi Slonik by Rabbi Meir, but by someone else. According to Rabbi Slonik, the inquirer was unsure how to decide the matter.11 Rabbi Meir, on the other hand, had dealt with the matter in a 7 very decisive fashion stating: And one may rely on all I have said without any reservations or hesitation, and validate all the divorces the witness had signed.
172

In another instance, Rabbi Slonik requested Rabbi Meirs opinion in a case concerning the status of a woman whose husband was reported to have been murdered. The details of the case are given by both authors, although Rabbi Meirs version is more complete.13 A third case dealt 7 with, by both authors, concerns a widow and her brother-in-law, and whether they violate standards of morality by continuing to live with

the rest of the family in one house. Both sages decide leniently in this matter.14 7 H. Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe b. Rabbi Abraham of Bhmen, author of Se/er Haievushim,15 had an interesting relationship with Rabbi 7 Slonik.16 Although Rabbi Slonik frequently disagreed harshly with 7 Rabbi Jaffe, criticizing his method and his work, on one occasion even deriding his reasoning as coming from his stom ach/'17 he neverthe 7 less admits that Rabbi Mordecai was one of the greatest of the contem porary sages, writing: After I wrote this, I found corroboration in the words of the two greatest sages of our generation .. . and the second, the very great and very old Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe, may the Almighty add years to his y ears... .18 7 Rabbi Jaffe, who died in 1603, served in the communities of Grodno, Lublin, and Krzemieniec.1" 7 I. Rabbi Moses b. Abraham of PrzemysJ, who was related to Rabbi Slonik by marriage, has also been mentioned above.10 Rabbi Slonik 0 addresses him warmly,11 and quotes Rabbi Moses endorsement of one 0 of his decisions.1 2 In one instance Rabbi Slonik refused to render a decision in a particular matter, since Rabbi Moses remained in doubt on the subject.13Only once in the writings of Rabbi Slonik do we find a 6 disagreement with Rabbi Moses. Even so, Rabbi Slonik copies Rabbi Moses' entire responsum before proceeding to record his own reply.14 6 Rabbi Slonik included in his work a responsum of Rabbi Moses which, in poetic prose, praises Rabbi Sloniks decision in a case dealing with an interpretation of a decree issued by the Rhine communities during the Middle Ages. The precise intent of the original decree had become shrouded in antiquity. It dealt with the dowry of a woman who died childless during the second year of her marriage. The decree stated that half the dowry should go to the widower. Doubt had arisen about the other half. To whom does it belong: to the womans heirs, or to those who originally furnished the dowry? Rabbi Benjamins deci sion was that when the money is in the hands of the court, it should be returned to those who gave it, for so logic dictates. If, however, the money is held by one of the claimants, the court should recognize his claim of possession. Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen took issue with Rabbi Benjamin. Rabbi Moses supported him. The entire controversy is recorded in four of Rabbi Sloniks responsa.1 Rabbi Moses wrote Se/er Mate Moshe dealing with laws and customs pertaining to Sabbath and the holiday prayers.16 8

Rabbi Slonik wrote that Rabbi Moses died in 1603.17 In addition to 8 the direct testimony of Rabbi Slonik, this information can also be ascertained from evidence extrapolated from the dates of Rabbi Sloniks responsa. The testimony in Res. No. 45, written by Rabbi Moses,1 is dated 7 Elul, 1605. Res. No. 46, Rabbi Sloniks reply, was M written not long thereafter, and yet it refers to the late Rabbi Moses, of blessed memory. He was buried in Opatow. Rabbi Slonik wrote: May he rest in peace in the community of Opatow, and before he was called to the heavenly court, he (acted on behalf) of the woman and wrote a responsum permitting her (to remarry.)1 6 J. The most important personality of early Polish Jewish scholarship, Rabbi Shalom Shachna, teacher and father-in-law of Rabbi Moses Isserles,10left no published works. Very few of his responsa are extant. 9 Rabbi Slonik mentions him and comments on his methodology and the extent to which one may rely on his new method for practical decisions of Jewish law. While on the one hand indicating a high regard for his scholarship,11 he rejects the novel interpretations based on Rabbi 9 Shachna's new method pilpul, and does not accept decisions of law based upon it.12 9 In addition to these great sages, Rabbi Slonik corresponded with the following sages: Rabbi Abraham b. Joel Ashkenazi Katzenelenbogen of Cracow;13 9 Rabbi Abraham Hayyim b. Naftali Tzyi Hirsch Shor, of Bels;14 Rabbi 9 Meshulam Faibisch of Cracow;15 Rabbi Jochanan b. David Essrim 9 YeArba Halevi, president of the Rabbinical Court of Lemberg;16 Rabbi 9 Jacob of Hotzenplotz;17 Rabbi Liva of Satanow;18 Rabbi Meir of Lem 9 9 berg;19Rabbi Mordecai b. David Hacohen of Lemberg;20 Rabbi Moses b. 9 0 Menahem Mendel of Vladimir;21 Rabbi Seligman of Galatz;2 2 Rabbi 0 0 Suskind b. Elchanan Halevi of Lemberg;23 Rabbi Eliezer Yerushalmi;24 0 0 Rabbi David Alkosh of Basel, in connection with an apostate who was prevailed upon to give a divorce to his wife, then left the country.25 He 0 also corresponded with Rabbi David b. Samuel Halevi Segal whom Rabbi Slonik calls his relation by marriage.20 0 Questions came from these correspondents, from all parts of the Jewish settlement of Poland, and from many remote areas. There is Hotzenplotz, in Silesia, far to the West; Przemysl, in South Central Poland, the area called White Russia; Leczyca in Northern Greater Poland Tykocin and Grodno, probably Rabbi Sloniks birthplace;27 0 Lublin in the center, Lemberg in the South East, and Satanow even further to the South East; in short, from almost everywhere Jews

settled, and where there were rabbis and rabbinical courts. From all these areas and from many of the sages questions came to the rabbi of the little town of Podhajce in White Russia, dealing with crises of family, social and religious life, relationship with Gentiles, livelihood, and personal joy and tragedy. It is these case histories which have given us the opportunity to catch glimpses of their society in its vibrant, living form.

EPILOGUE
We have attempted to recreate a picture of the Polish Jewish commu nity of the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth centuries, relying heavily on the responsa literature of the time, and using as our starting point Rabbi Benjamin Aaron Slonik. He, his teachers and colleagues help round out a picture of a time of transition and consolidation for Polish Jewry; a time when communities recently formed by great waves of immigration sought to strengthen their institutions, and succeeded in creating one of the most organized and learned communities of our history. It was a community that arrived on demographically fertile ground, one of many minorities in a Poland that was finding its national character and which needed the skill, ability and contacts of the new Jewish immigrants. Relatively tranquil, the Jews of Poland increased in numbers and power, making themselves indispensable to rulers and overlords, and developing a vibrant religious, social and economic life. A new scholarship arose in an area once considered of secondary intellectual and religious importance. The phenomenon of one or two men creating a school of scholars that transformed a community is not new in Jewish history. The students of Rabbi Isserles and Rabbi Luria made Poland famous for learning and scholarship, and have left a profound effect on Jewish intellectual and religious history till this day. The scholarship methods of Rabbi Schachna and the subsequent debate concerning educational methods and content, is still felt in the schools of today. And the literacy and learning of that community and age has rarely been matched. It was a community with failings too. One of the greatest of shortcom ings was the creation of economic and social foes; the burghers, with the hatred they brought from Germany, and the oppressed serfs with enmity newly born because of contact with Jewish middlemen who in their minds stood for the hated nobility, and because of the inflamma tory preaching and teaching of a Church which had not yet learned tolerance.

The economic and political end of the era came in the aftermath of the 1648 Cossack uprising. Polish Jewry never recovered from the physical blow. But its spiritual and intellectual strength remained. Its institutions, its forms of inner government, its religious values, its style of learning, its customs, and its usages have left a profound effect on Jewry till this day and have become a large part of the heritage of contemporary Jewish communities which are descended from Ashkenazic Jews.

NOTES
NOTE, PREFACE
1. See Bernard D. Weinryb, The Jews of Poland (JPS:Philadelphia, 1973), Preface.

NOTES, CHAPTER 1
1. See Rabbi Benjamin Aaron b. Moses Slonik, flesponsa (Vilna 1894], Res. No. 44. 2. See Res. No. 29, omitted in Vilna edition, but included in Metz, 1776. 3. See Rabbi Luria, Responsa (Lemberg, 1859), Res. No. 72. 4. See in/ra, p. 56. 5. See Res No. 9. 6. See ibid. 7. See Rabbi Meir, b. Gedalia of Lublin, flesponsa Maharam Lublin (Brook lyn, 1961), Res. No. 15. 8. See Res. No. 33. 9. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, Responsa (Jerusalem, 1971), Res. No. 41. See also Nos. 17, 36, and 96. 10. See in/ra, pp. 55ff. 11. See Res. No. 106. 12. See Res. No. 22. 13. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 96, and No, 36 for a similar incident. 14. See in/ra, p. 77. 15. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. Nos. 37 and 56. A levir is a surviving brother who is required by Torah law to marry his childless deceased brothers widow. 16. See op. cit., Res. No. 110. See also Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 62. 17. See Rabbi Joel Sirkis, Responsa Bah HaYeshanot (Ostrog, 1834), Res. Bah HaYeshanot, Nos. 70, 92, 95, and 103. 18. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 41. 19. See op. cit., Res. No. 55. 19a. See Res. No. 23. 20. See D. Majer Balaban, History of the Jews in Cracow and Kazimiers, pp. 77f.

21. See Rabbi Luria, Yam Shel Shlomo, (Stettin, 1860/61), Yebamoth Chapter IV, No. 49. 22. See Rabbi Joseph b. Mordecai Gershon Katz, Sheerit Yoseph, (Cracow, 1767), Res. Nos. 38, 70. 23. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 28. 24. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 120. 25. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 11. 26. See Yam Shei ShJomo, Yebamoth Chapter X, No. 20. This discussion is placed in the larger context of extralegal punishments which communi ties are empowered to inflict in emergency conditions. 27. See Res. No. 105. 28. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 106. Cf. Yam She! ShJomo, Yebamoth Ch. VIII, No. 54. 29. See Res. No. 106. 30. See Israel Halperin, Pinkas Vaad Arba Aratzot (Jerusalem, 1944), p. 17. See also, ibid, p. 487, where he cites a decree of Rabbi Meshulenm Faibish of Cracow, 1590, which states: We must also warn Jewish women against going unchaperoned in the streets and to Gentile houses.. .. 31. See Res. No. 76. 32. See Res. Nos. 76,17, 88, and 106. 33. See ibid. 34. See Res. No. 106. 35. See Res. No. 51. 36. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 19. 37. See Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 32. See also Res. No. 7. 38. See Agus, Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg (Philadelphia, 1947), Vol. I, p. 290, and Vol. II, pp. 597, 679. 39. See Otzar HaSi/rut IV, p. 594; cf. Jahrbuch der Jdisch-Literarischen GeseJlscha/t, X, p. 305. 40. See Res. No. 4. 41. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 15. 42. See S. Baron, The Jewish Community (Philadelphia, 1948), Vol. II, p. 311315. 43. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. No. 23. 44. See ibid, Res. No. 100, and Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Res. Bah HaHadashot (Jerusalem, 1959), Res. Nos. 56 and 57. 45. See Rabbi Meir, Res. No. 116. 46. See Res. No. 80. 47. See Res. No. 45. 48. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. Nos. 12 and 45. See also Rabbi Joel Sirkes, fles. Bah HaYeshanot, Res. Nos. 8 and 98, and Res. Bah HaHadashot, Res. Nos. 56 and 57. 49. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Res. Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 99. 50. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 101. 51. see op. cit., Res. No. 69.

52. See ibid. 53. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 16, citing Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohens summary of the decree. 54. See Yam SheJ Shlomo, Gitin, Chapter I, No. 18. 55. See Rabbi Luxia, Res. No. 59. 56. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, op. cit., Res. No. 60. 57. See Res. No. 138. 58. See Joseph Caro, Code of Jewish Law Yoreh Deah, 371:4. 59. See Bab. Talmud, Berachot 45a and Pesachim 66a. 60. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 7. 61. Rabbi Slonik does not mention his name. 62. See Res. No. 72. 63. See Introduction to Vikuah Mayyim Hayyim quoted by Myer Lew, The Jews of Poland, p. 64. 64. See infra, pp. 83f. 65. See Asher Siev, Rabbenu Mashe Isserles pp. 3f. and n. 7. 66. See Salo Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York, 1965), Vol X, pp. 31 ff. See also Asher Siev, Sheelot U-Teshuvot Haflama (New York, 1970), No. 63, p. 288 and nn. 6, 7; and Res. No. 95, p. 417. See also Siev. Rabbenu Moshe Isserles, p. 2 and nn. 2, 2*. 67. See Res. No. 16. 68. See ibid. Cf. Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. Nos. 64 and 82. 69. See Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 21. 70. See ibid. 71. See ibid. 72. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 49. 73. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Ioc. cit. 74. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 30, and Sheerit Yoseph, Res. Nos. 2 and 4. 75. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 125. 76. See ibid. 77. See Res. No. 1. 78. See Myer Lew, op. cit, pp. 143f. 79. See ibid. 80. See Yam Shel Shlomo, Baba Kama, Chapter VII, No. 37. 81. See ibid. 82. See Dubnow, Pinkas Medinat Lita (Berlin, 1925), Nos. 109 and 128. 83. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 62. 84. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 125. See also Asher Siev, Sheelot t/-Teshuvot HaRama pp. 488-495. 85. See Siev, ibid, Introduction, pp. 56f., and p. 57 n. 185. 86. See Asher Siev, ibid, p. 495 and n. 69. 87. See Res. No. 90. 88. See ibid. 89. See Res. No. 106. 90. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 88. 91. See Res. No. 33.

92. See in/ra, pp. 76-81 [3.4] for a discussion of the cantor as a religious functionary. 93. See Res. No. 6. 94. See Res. No. 73. 95. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin Res. No. 107. 96. See Res. No. 73. 97. See Shlomo Eidelberg, Jewish Life in Austria in the Fi/teenth Century (Philadelphia, 1962) p. 99, and n. 43. 98. See Res. No. 31. 99. See ibid. See also Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 1, and Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 6. 100. See Rabbi Slonik, loc. cit. 101. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 74. 102. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 31. 103. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 39. 104. See Rabbi Slonik, loc. cit. 105. See Res. No. 4. 106. See Rabbi Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 106. 107. See Res. No. 83, where he specifies which restrictions apply to such relatives. 108. See ibid. 109. See Res. No. 83. 110. See Rabbi Luria, Commentary to Zemirot (Venice, 1603), p. 23a; cited by Simcha Assef, Mashehu LeToldot MHRSH'LJubilee Volume, Louis Ginzberg, (New York, 1946), p. 52. 111. See Res. No. 80. 112. See ibid. 113. See Res. No. 80. See also Bernard D. Weinryb, The Jews of Poland, (Philadelphia, 1973), pp. 83f. 114. See infra pp. 190f. 115. See supra, pp. 82-84. 116. See Weinryb, op. cit., p. 99. 117. See Baruch Friedberg, HaDe/us Haivri BeCracow (Cracow, 1900), p. 12. 118. See Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 16119. See Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 72. 120. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 17. See also Sheerit Yoseph, Res. Nos. 72, 77. 121. See Isaac Lewin, "Teshuvat HaGaon Rav Yaakov Yekel . .. Belnyan Heter Herem Deftabenu Gershom, Sinai (Sivan-Tammuz, 5744), Vol. HI, No. 3, pp. 165-170. 122. See Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 75. 123. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 50. 124. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 41. Cf. Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 106, where he states that violation of Jewish law is indeed sufficient cause for divorce. Nevertheless, the court must not go so far as to use force in their efforts to convince the recalcitrant husband to issue the divorce. See also supra, p. 5.

125. 126. 127. 128. 129.

See ibid, Res. No. 14. See ibid, Res. No. 55. See supra, pp. 8-lOf. See Res. No. 5. See Res. No. 81. See also Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 2, where he also discusses a case of strict adherence to the rules of sexual discipline and ritual ablution. 130. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 54. 131. See Res. No. 62.

NOTES, CHAPTER 2
1. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, Sheerit Yoseph Res, No. 29. 2. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 132. Rabbi Isserles, in Res. No. 109, gives information concerning real estate transfer procedures and the way in which transactions were recorded. 3. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 4. 4. See Res. No. 27. Cf. Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. No. 85, where he tells us of a lone Jew living in a Gentile city. 5. See supra, p. 8. 6. See Res. No. 3. See also in/ra, pp. 37-39 for a discussion of political stability. 7. See Weinryb, op. cit., pp. 7, 42,120f. 8. See in/ra, p. 33. 9. See Gershon David Hundert, Seventeenth Century Polish Common wealth: The Case of Krakow.,J Jewish Social Studies Vol. XLIII, Nos. 3-4. (summer-fall 1981), p. 261. 10. See supra, p. 44. 11. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. Nos. 19, 27. 12. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 36, 42 and 52. See also Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 50. 13. See Res. No. 27. 14. See Res. No. 105. 15. See Gershon D. Hundert, op. cit., p. 262. 16. See Yam Shel Shlomo, Baba Kama, Chapter I, No. 20. See also Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 33. 17. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 22. 18. See Agus, The Heroic Age of Franco German Jewry (New York, 1969), pp. 23-42. 19. See Res. No. 109. 20. See Weinryb, op. cit., p. 151. 21. See Res. No. 109. 22. See Res. Nos. 44, 45, 46, 63, 65, 68, 98, 104, 105, 109. 23. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 75, and Bah HaHa dashot, Res. No. 63. 24. See Rabbi Meir, Res. No. 59.

25. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah Ha Yeshanot, Res. No. 21. See also Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. No. 46. 26. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. No. 46. 27. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 22. Conversely, we find wealthier overlords lending Jewish businessmen funds and merchandise too. See Rabbi Luria, quoted supra p. 29. 28. See Res. No. 27. 29. See ibid. 30. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 27. 31. Res. No. 43. 32. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 77. 33. See Isaac Lewin, op. cit., pp. 169ff. 34. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 95. 35. See S. M. Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland (Philadel phia, 1916), Vol. I, pp. 95-102. See also Weinryb, op. cit., p.8. 36. See Res. No. 27. 37. See Weinryb, (op. cit.J, p. 108. 38. See infra, pp. 30f. See also Asher Siev Rabbenu Moshe isserles, (New York, 1972) p. 3, where he indicates that the hatred of the burghers caused many Jews to leave the cities and settle in more remote areas. This accelerated their transition to service as middlemen to overlords who perceived in the Jews a weapon against the burghers. 39. See Weinryb, op. cit., p. 137: In premodern cities occupational rights were to a great extent connected with citizenship and were deemed to be the monopoly of the burghers. Strangers or guests were usually barred from retail business, being permitted to engage in wholesale transactions only. 40. See Res. No. 97. 41. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 35. 42. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. Nos. 60 and 61. 43. King Sigismund August ruled from 1548 till 1572. Rabbi Luria died in 1573. 44. See Rabbi Luria, Joe. cit. 45. See Ibid. 46. See Bernard Weinryb, op. cit., pp. 42,129f. 47. SeeJbid. 48. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, Res. No. 3B. 49. See Res. No. 51. See also Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 102. 50. See Jahrbuch der jdisch-literarischen Gesellschaft, Chapter IX, p. 101. 51. See Res. No. 26. 52. See Rabbi Nathan Nota b. Moses Hanover, Se/er Yeven Metzula (Israel, 1966), pp 19f. 53. See Res. No. 29. 54. See Res. No. 105. 55. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 66 and Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 100 .

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88.

See Res. No. 35. See also Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. Nos. 50 and 69. See Res. No. 36. See Res. No. 86. See Weinryb, op. cit., pp. 9,108 See Weinryb, op. cit., p. 131. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 89. See Res. Nos. 45 and 46. See Rabbi Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 79. See supra, p. 6. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 59. See Rabbi Slonik, ioc. cit. See Res. No. 51. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 43, omitted from the edition published in Ostrow, 1834, possibly by the Jewish publishers themselves who might have felt that the inclusion of a responsum dealing with such a subject was dangerous to the security of the Jewish commu nity. See in/ra, p. 38f. See ibid: See Res. No. 109. See also Nos. 44, 45, 65 and 105. For a listing of all persecutions encountered in Poland from 1348 till 1500, see Weinryb, op. cit., p. 47; an average of one incident every eight years. See Weinryb, op cit, p. 33. See also Elijah J. Schochet, Rabbi Joel Sirkes, His Life, Works and Times (Feldheim Publishers: New York, 1971), pp. 2-4. See Asher Siev, Rabbi Moses Isserles p. 1, n. 1. See Shlomo Baruch Nissenbaum, LeKovot HaYehudim BeLubJin (Lublin, 1920), p. 7. See also Dubnow, Divrei Yemei Am Olam (Tel Aviv, 1961), Vol. VI, pp. 146 ff. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 95. See also Nos. 63 and 64. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 40. See also ibid, Res. No. 61. See ibid. See Asher Siev op. cit., pp. 25-32. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, op. cit., Res. No. 1. See Irving Agus, Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade Europe (New York, 1965), Vol. I, p. 103. See Res. No. 44. See Res. No. 68. See ibid. See Res. No. 105. Rabbi Slonik, in Res. No. 105. See Simon Dubnow, op. cit., Vol. VI, pp. 146 ff., and Baron, Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), Vol. X, 41-49. See infra, pp. 178f. See Res. No. 29.

89. See B. Z. Katz, Lekorot HaYehudim Be Russia Poiin VeLita (Berlin, 1899), ch. ii, p. 44. 90. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 57, where he tells of the many caravans which traveled between Prague and Poznan. See also Agus, op. cit, Vol. II, p. 89,107. 91. See B. Z. Katz, op. cit., p. 43. 92. See Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, (Philadelphia, 1916) pp. 33-34. 93. See supra, pp. 22f and p. 30. Jewish Tatar captives were routinely ransomed. The prisoners were brought to the border. Money was brought to the other side. There was a simultaneous exchange. There were even Jewish go-betweens who could travel into the territory of the Tatars to arrange the exchanges (See Isaac Lewin, op. cit., pp. 168f.). 94. S. Dubnow Joe. cit. See also V O. Kluchevsky, A History o/ Russia (New . York, 1960), Vol. HI, pp. 107-108. 95. See Nathan Nata Hanover, op. cit., pp. 19f. 96. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 43. 97. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. No. 101, which refers to the Moscovite wars. 98. Rabbi Joseph Katz, Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 67. 99. See Res. Nos. 44,45, 46, 63, 65, 68, 98,104,105, and 109. 100. See Rabbi Sirkis, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. Nos. 55, 56, 57, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, and 77; and in Bah HaHadashot, from Res. Nos. 59-79. 101. See Schochet, op. cit., pp. 23f. 102. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 101. 103. See in/ra, pp 192-194. Most of the agunah questions are to be found in the latter part of his work. They probably came to him during the later years of his life. 104. See in/ra, pp 183f. 105. See Rabbi Sirkes, Res. Nos. 59-79. 106. See Mordecai Breuer, Aliyat HaPilpuJ VeHaHillukim BiYeshivot Ashkenaz, Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 2, n. 7. 107. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. No. 101, and Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 128. 108. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 128. Judging from the information in this responsum, the war lasted from Tabernacles at least until Hanukah of that same year, 1611. Though Rabbi Meir might have been referring to the earlier campaign, it is more likely that his date should be amended, and that he referred to the revolt of 1612 which roughly corresponds to the seasons of which he speaks. See Beazly, Forbes and Birkett, Russia from the Varangians to the Bolsheviks (Oxford, 1918), pp. 158-165. 109. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 128. 110. See Dubnow, op. cit., pp. 242-244. 111. See Rabbi Slonik. Res. Nos. 44,45,46, and especially 104. 112. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 46. Cf. Rabbi Joseph Katz, Res. No. 72, and

113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143.

Rabbi Meir of Lublin who tell of the haste with which the Tatars made off with their captives. See Res. No. 104. See Res. No. 46. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 37. See Res. No. 44. See Res. No. 104. See Res. No. 68. See S. M. Dubnow, Pinkas HaMedina p. 9, No. 40. See Agus, Urban Civilization, Vol. I, pp. 438-445. See Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 36. See Rabbi Luria, Res. Nos. 2, 38, 43, and Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 20. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 109. See Res. No. 3. See Res. No. 43. See also Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 27, where he describes the process of beer making in which Jews were engaged. See also Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 17, and Rabbi Luria Res. No. 35. See Res. No. 97. See also Bernard Weinryb, op. cit., p. 65, for a discussion of protectionist laws devised by burghers to restrict retail trade. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, op. cit., Res, No. 60. See also Rabbi Slonik, Res. Nos. 43, 58, 59, and Rabbi Luria, Res. Nos. 35 and 36. See Res. No. 43. See supra, pp. 31-34 for a discussion of the disputes arising out of the competition for a milling concession and liquor monopolies. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah Ha Yeshanot, Res. Nos. 19, 26, and 50. See also Agus, Urban Civilization, Vol. I, p. 193. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, Res. No. 11. See also Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah Ha Yeshanot, Res. No. 27. See Jahrbuch X, pp. 310-311. See also Asher Siev, Rabbenu Moshe Isserles, p. 2, n. 3, where he discusses the antiquity of Jewish mintners in Poland, dating back to the 12th and 13th centuries. See Bah Ha Yeshanot, Res. No. 61. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, op. cit., Res. No. 26. See Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. Nos. 36, and 52. Cf. Res. 42. See also Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah Ha Yeshanot, Res. No. 146. See Gershon David Hundert, op. cit., Vol. XLIII, Nos. 3, 4, p. 263. See Res. Nos. 3 and 34. See also Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 42, and Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. No. 22. See Res. No. 34. See ibid. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 23. See Res. No. 45. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 104. See Res. No. 29; censored, and expurgated from some editions. See in/ra, pp. 189f. Cf. Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaHadashot, Res. No. 29.

144. 145. 146. 147. 146. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153.

154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161.

162.

163. 164. 165. 166. 167.

168. 169. 170.

See Otzar HaSifrut IV, p. 594r Jahrbuch X, p. 305. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 100. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 42. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 96. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. No. 51. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, op. cit., Res. No. 2. See Res. No. 106. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 21. See Rabbi Leb b. Henoch, Hinuch Beth Yehuda, (Frankfort a. M., 1706), Res. No. 20. See Res. No. 105, and supra, pp. 28f. See also Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 31; Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. Nos. 21, 37 and 77. See also Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 87, Rabbi Luria Res. No. 99, Sheerit Yoseph Res. No. 24, and Rabbi Slonik Res. No. 35. See Rabbi Samuel HaLevi, NahciJat Shiva (Fiordo, 1692), Res. No. 70. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 128, and Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 101. See Rabbi Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 57. Cf. Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 137. Weinryb, op. cit. pp. 38f., discusses Jews receiving military training in Poland. See Res. Nos. 45 and 46. See Res. No. 68. See Res. No. 17. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 54. See Res. Nos. 22,33,44,46 and 105. See also Asher Siev, Rabbenu Moshe Isserles, p. 3, where he indicates that there were 1500 Jewish merchants in Poland, hundreds of craftsmen, some farmers, fishermen, and other agriculturalists. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 28, and Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 62. See also Rabbi Joseph Katz, Res. No. 17, and Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah Ha Yeshanot, Res. No. 60 where a decree is cited by the representatives of all the communities prohibiting encroachment on anothers monopoly. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 38. See Rabbi Katz, Res. No. 53. See Res. No. 28. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 73. See Res. No. 43. For the origin of Maarujia, see Agus, The Heroic Age of Franco-German Jewry pp. 79-86. See also Eidelberg, Maarufia Problem in the Responsa of Rabbenu Gershom, Historic! Judaica, (New York, 1953). See supra, p. 33. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 144. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, Res. No. 11, and Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No.
20 .

171. See Res. No. 80, and Rabbi Isserles, Gloss to Shulhan Aruch Yoreh Deah 298.

172. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 25. 173. See Res. No. 51. 174. See supra p. 35.

NOTES, CHAPTER 3
1. See Agus, Urban Civilization, Vol. I, p. 427, and Vol. II, pp. 536-537. See also Salo Baron, The Jewish Community (New York, 1948), Vol. I, pp. 99 ff., where he describes the Graeco-Roman antecedents of the diaspora leadership. See also Eric Zimmer, Harmony and Discord in Fifteenth Century (New York, 1970), pp. 14-29. See also Siev, flabbenu Moshe Isserles, p. 4, where he discusses the beginning of the Council of Four Lands. See also H. N. Dembitzer Otzar HaSi/rut, Vol. IV, pp. 193-215. See also Halperin op. cit., pp. 23f. 2. See Res. No. 7. 3. The titles and descriptions here listed are based on the 1595 Cracow ordinance. See P. H. Wetstein, Kadmoniyot MiPinkasaot Yeshanim LeKorot Yisraei BePolin (Cracow, 1891/92), pp. 9-22. See also Baron, The Jewish Community, Vol. II, pp. 55 ff., for corresponding titles used during other periods of history. See also Jacob Katz, Masoret U-Mashber (Jerusa lem, 1963), 95-111. 4. All titles are listed in the Hebrew plural form; borerborerim. 5. See in/ra, pp. 50 for election procedures. [3.1.2] 53 6. See Res. No. 51. 7. See Res. No. 7. 8. See Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 30. See also in/ra, p. 52. 9. See ibid. See also Dubnow, Pinkas Hamedina, No. 63. 10. See Dubnow, op. cit., Nos. 160 and 161. 11. See Bab. TaJmud Tractate Shabbat 156, Tosafot. See also Code of Jewish Law, Yoreh Deah 179. 12. See Rabbi Slonik, Ioc. cit.. See also Rabbi Joseph Katz, Res. No. 30. 13. See Dubnow, op. cit., Nos. 919, 986, and 1015. 14. See infra, pp. 59ff. 15. See P. H. Wetstein, op. cit. pp. 9-22. See also Jahrbuch Vol. X, pp. 308310 and pp. 314-318. 16. See Res. No. 7, and in/ra, p. lBOf. 17. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 7, and Rabbi Joseph Katz, Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 41. See also Wetstein, op. cit., p. 9, Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, No. 63, p. 107. 18. See ibid. Cf. Halperin, op. cit., p. 109, n. 8, 21 men; p. 460, 23 men of Posen; and pp. 76, 77, and 463, where 32 men of Posen are mentioned. The 32 men of Posen would gather for very important matters, especially the election of a rabbi. See also ibid, p. 544. 19. See Wetstein, op. cit., pp. 10 and 13. 20. See ibid., pp. 9 and 22.

21. See also Dubnow, op. cit., Nos. 114,115,154 et passim, and Halperin, op. cit., pp. 2, 3, 9,12 et passim. 22. See Wetstein, ioc. cit.. 23. See Dubnow, op. cit. No. 63 with Nos. 161 and 162. 24. See Wetstein, op. cit., p. 10. 25. See ibid. 26. See ibid. 27. See Wetstein, Joe. cit. See also Eric Zimmer op. cit., p. 21. 28. See ibid. 29. See ibid. 30. See ibid. and p. 11. Cf. with the decree of the Lithuanian Synod of 1628, Dubnow, op. cit., No. 152. 31. See Wetstein, op. cit., p. 11. 32. See ibid. 33. See Wetstein, op. cit., p. 11. 34. See Lithuanian Synod, decree of 1623, Dubnow, op. cit., Nos. 54 and 55. 35. See Wetstein, Ioc. cit. 36. See ibid. 37. See Wetstein, op. cit., p. 12. 38. See Wetstein, loc. cit. They were sometimes given other tasks as well. See the decree of the Lithuanian Synod, 1628, Dubnow, op. cit., p. 131. 39. See Wetstein, Joe. cit. 40. See Wetstein, op. cit., p. 13. 41. See Wetstein, op. cit., pp. 13 and 14. 42. See ibid. 43. See ibid., pp. 21f. 44. See ibid. 45. See Rabbi Katz, op. cit., Res. No. 30. 46. See Res. No. 7. 47. See infra, pp. 66ff., for a discussion of the election of the rabbi. 48. See Dubnow, op. cit., No. 157. 49. See ibid., No. 63. See also Frank, op. cit., p. 3. 50. See Dubnow, op. cit.: corporal punishment, Nos. 39,116,145, 277; exile, Nos. 144, 163, 201, 241, 242; excommunication, Nos. 2, 17-20, 44, 123, 212; fines, Nos. 10, 29, 53, 145, 188, 209, 285; stripes, No. 44; incarcera tion, Nos. 15, 21, 333. See also Halperin, Nos. 1, 37, 50, et passim. See also Assaf, Bate HaDin USedarehem, (Jerusalem, 1924) pp. 25ff., and his work on Onshim Ahare iiasimat HaTaJmud (Jerusalem, 1922). 51. See Res. No. 22. 52. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, op. cit., Res. No. 57. 53. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 33. 54. See Res. No. 33. 55. See Rabbi Solomon Luria, Yam She! Shlomo, Kiddushin, Chap. I, No. 28. 56. For a discussion concerning when a ban was used, see Agus, Urban CiviJization, Vol. II, pp. 533-534. 57. See Res. No. 51.

58. See Res. No. 22. 59. For instance, see Eidelberg, op. cit., pp. 88-91, L F. Baer, The Religious and Social Tendency of the Sefer Hassidim (Hebrew), Zion, Vol. Ill (1938), p. 18ff. 60. See Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 28. 61. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 120. 62. See supra, pp. 52f. 63. See Harkavy, Hadashim Gam Yeshanim, end of Graetz (Hebrew) (War saw, 1899) Vol. VII, p. 21. See also Dubnow, Divrei Yemei Am OJam, pp. 174ff. 64. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 60. For a discussion of the nature and foundation of Jewish community government, see Agus, Urban Civilization, pp. 446ff., and Baer Joe. cit. The community took whatever steps it could to safeguard the power and authority of its representatives, even to the extent of limiting the rights of its members to free assembly when a protest gathering might undermine the power of its officials. See Dubnow, Pinkas HaMedina, p. 11, No. 56. 65. See Eidelberg, op. cit., pp. 70, 74, and 75 n. 94. At a time when care for the sick in the Christian society was still in the hands of the monastery, among Jews it was considered a communal responsibility. 66. See Res. No. 3. 67. See Rabbi Israel Isserlein, Terumat HaDeshen (Warsaw, 1881/82), Res. No. 341. 68. See Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 38. 69. See Shulhari Aruch, Hoshen Mishpat, Chap. 162, for a systematic discus sion of these laws. 70. See his gloss ad Jocum, and his commentary Darkei Moshe to Rabbi Jacob b. Ashers Tur Hoshen Mishpat, Chap, 163, nn. 4-7. 71. See ibid., n. 7, where Rabbi Isserles discusses the force of custom and its precedence over all the laws of taxation. 72. See Rabbi Isserlein, op. cit., No. 342. 73. See Eric Zimmer, op. cit., pp. 50f. 74. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, Res. Nos. 18 and 70. 75. See Rabbi Isserles, op. cit.. Chap. 162, n. 5. 76. See Rabbi Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 65. 77. See Res. No. 3, where he instructs a Silesian community, Hotzenplotz, in the procedures of taxation. See also Rabbi Isserles, op. cit., Chap. 163, n. 7. 78. See ibid. Cf. Rabbi Isserlein, op. cit., No. 178. 79. See ibid. See also Halperin, op. cit., pp. 5-9,13f. 80. See Agus, Teshuvot BaaJe HaTos/ot (New York, 1954), pp. 18f. See also Baron, The Jewish Community, Vol. II, pp. 276f. 81. See infra, pp. 66ff. 82. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 3. See also Rabbi Israel, Bruna Responsa (Stettin, 1860), Res. No. 102, and Rabbi Isserlein, op. cit., No. 342. 83. See Dubnow, op. cit., Nos. 198, 233. Cf. Rabbi Isserlein, loc. cit., who

84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

96.

97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108.

would extend the exemption to sages even if they did not head acade mies. See Eric Zimmer, op. cit., pp. 40-43. See Res. No. 3. See also Rabbi Isserlein, op. cit, No. 178. See Rabbi Isserlein, ibid. See ibid. See also Eric Zimmer, op. cit., p. 44. See supra, p. 59. See Dubnow, op. cit., No. 97, See Rabbi Isserles, op. cit., Chap. 163, No. 7. Rabbi Isserles also cites opinions requiring taxation of gems when they would be used in busi ness. See also Dubnow, op. cit., No. 338, for an exemption of gems from taxation. They were classed with gold and silver. Obviously, the reference is to heirloom, passive capital. See also Eric Zimmer, op. cit., p. 54 and on. 99,100. See Res. No. 3. See Agus, The Heroic Age of Franco German Jewry, pp. 233-35. See also Zimmer, op. cit., p. 37. ibid. See Rabbi Mintz, Res. No. 1. See Rabbi Jacob Weil, Responsa [Jerusalem, 1958/59), Res. No. 133. Cf. Agus, op. cit., p. 232. See also Chaim Ben Sasson, Hagot VeHanhaga (Jerusalem, 1958), pp. 158-59, 229 ff., who discusses the tensions be tween rich and poor in matters of community government and control. See also Rabbi Isserlein, op. cit., Res. Nos. 343, 344, and 345. See Harkavy, Hadnshim Gam Yeshanim, end of Graetz (Hebrew), Vol. VII, p. 24, and Shaul Pinchas Rabinowitz, notes to Graetz, Vol. VH, No. 10, pp. 435 438. See also S. Arthur Siegelman, "Iske HaJdrut She! Yehude Polin VeKishuram LeHishavat Vaad Arba Aratzot," Zion (5742), Vol. XLVII, No. 2, p. 1. See Halperin, loc. cit., pp. 5-9, 13f., 24 et passim, and Dubnow, op. cit., Nos. 3, 90,91,108,125,178, 253, 255, 263, 291 et passim. See Res. No. 3. See also Rabbi Jacob b. Asher, loc. cit. The per capita tax is called mas hagiJgoJet in Hebrew, and in Polish Poglowne. See Agus, Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg, Vol. II, Res. No. 551. See Sheerit Yoseph, Res. No. 70. See Dubnow, op. cit., No. 125. See Zimmer, op. cit., p. 23. See Res. No. 3. See also Eric Zimmer, op. cit., p. 44. See Rabbi Jacob b. Asher, ioc. cit. and Rabbi Isserlein, op. cit, No. 345. See also supra, p. 27. See Rabbi Moses Isserlein, ioc. cit. See Rabbi Isserles, Joe. cit.. See also Rabbi Isserlein, op. cit., Res. No. 341. See Rabbi Isserlein, op. cit, Res. No. 341 and 345; cited by Rabbi Isserles, op. cit Chap. 163, n. 7. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 3. See also Rabbi Isserles, loc. cit., who concludes that in such matters it is wise to compromise.

109. 110. 111. 112.

See Weinryb, Teudot, p. 55, No. 133. See ibid., pp. 55f., No. 134. See ibid., pp. 56f., Nos. 135-137. See Rabbi Isserles, op. cit., Chap 163, no. 5.

NOTES, CHAPTER 4
1. See Agus, Urban Civilization, Vol. I, pp. 487-4. For the condition of the rabbinate in the late middle ages, see Hayyim Hillel B. Sas son, op. cit. pp. 160-228. See also Leo Landman, "Some Legal Prerogatives of the Official Communal Rabbi, Habbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (New York 1980), ed. Leo Landman, pp. 231-242. 2. See Introduction to Vikuah Mayyim Hayyim. 3. See Agus, Teshuvot BaaJe Hatos/ot pp. 18-29, esp. p. 19, See also Rabbi Isaac b. Moses of Vienna, Se/er Or Zarua (Zitomir 1862), part 1, pp. 41ab, Nos. 114-115. See also Landman, op. cit., p. 234: It was apparent that during the Middle Ages leadership at first was in the hands of the laity. The parnassim were the ones to whom the government addressed itself. The rabbis were not mentioned." 4. See Agus Urban Civilization, Vol. II, pp. 206-208. 5. See N. Hanover, Yeven Metzulah, p. 83. 6. See Rabbi Simon b. Tzemach Duran, Se/er Tashbatz, (Lemberg, 1891), Part I, p. 53b, No. 147. 7. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. Nos. 51 and 52. See also Rabbi Solomon Luria, Yam Shel Shlomo, Hulin, Chap. Ill, No. 9. 8. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. N. 63. Resorting to Gentile courts was strictly forbidden, unless by consent and approval of community leaders. The rabbis violation of this rule branded him as reckless and unscrupu lous. See also Eric Zimmer, op. cit., pp. 81-89. 9. See Landman, op. cit., p. 234 and n. 15. 10. See Agus, Teshuvot BaaJe HaTos/ot, pp. 22-25, nn. 37, 39, 40, 45. 11. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 50. 12. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 52. See also Landman, op. cit., pp. 235 and 238. 13. See infra, pp. 73f. 14. See Rabbi Israel Bruna, Res. Nos. 32, 56, and 253. 15. See Rabbi Jacob Weil, Res. Nos. 11, 118, and especially 150. See also Rabbi Bruna, op. cit., Res. Nos. 153, 227, and 281. See also Eidelberg, op. cit., p. 64. See also Ben Sasson, op. cit., pp. 163 ff. See also Leo Landman, op. cit., pp. 235-239. Dr. Landman identifies the title rav with the officially appointed rabbi, and rabbi with the de facto rabbi. He cites additional examples of such conflict, one involving a student of Rabbi Bruna. See also Eric Zimmer, op. cit., pp. 124-126, where he cites several cases of rabbinic controversy of the same kind where rabbis sought to establish tutorial authority in conflict with others. Rabbi Israel Brunas students were involved.

16. See F. H. Wetstein, Kadmoniyot, pp. 18f., No. 4, from the synod of Cracow, 1595, and Dubnow, Pinkas Hamedina, p. 224, No. 516 from the synod of 1720. 17. See Landman, ibid, especially p. 238. 18. See Zimmer, op. cit., pp. 104-107. 19. See ibid, p. 115. 20. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 40. 21. See Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, Megilat Eivah (Vilna, 1900), pp. 11b14b. 22. See Dubnow, op. cit., synod of 1623, p. 10, No, 48. 23. See ibid, p. 39, No. 171. 24. See Res. No. 50. 25. See Res. No. 47. 26. See Weinryb, Teudot, p. 31, No. 81; p., 52, No. 127; p. 53, No. 130; p. 75, No. 171. 27. See Res. No. 7, and supra, p. 51. 28. See Dubnow, op. cit, No. 109 and 128. 29. See Dubnow, op. cit, Nos. 109 and 128. 30. Dubnow, op. cit., p. 11, No. 52, synod of 1623. 31. A levir is the brother of a man who dies childless. He is commanded by the Torah to mary his brother's widow. In the event that either he or the widow refuse such a 1evirate marriage (yibum), they must submit to a ceremony of release, called haJitzah before she is free to marry elsewhere. 32. See Rabbi Bruna, Res. No. 227. 33. See Res. No. 1. 34. See Res. No. 105, and infra, p. 183f. 35. See supra, p. 8. It regulated the market for citrons, requiring that the rabbi supervise for kashrut and care that the citrons be dispatched in sufficient time to reach outlying communities before the holiday. The rabbis were to appoint men to check tefilin, phylacteries, throughout the land. It re quired that the Rabbi see that the prayerbooks which had recently been printed be checked for errors. The rabbi was also warned to carefully supervise the administration of oaths, and especially oaths administered to electors at election time. They were also given the task of ascertaining that there were no violations of the Jewish laws governing moneylending and restricting usury. The substance of the pamphlet is described and excerpts quoted by Alexander Harkavy, op. cit, pp. 42-43. 36. See Dubnow, op. cit., Nos. 153 and 221. 37. See F. H. Wetstein, op. cit., p. 19, No. 4. 38. See Dubnow, op. cit., p. 35, No. 143, the synod of 1628. 39. See ibid, p. 34, No. 136. 40. See Weinryb, The Jews of Poland (Philadelphia, 1976), p. 144. 41. See Dubnow, op. cit., No. 137. Cf. ibid, p. 53, No. 261, the synod of 1632. 42. See Rabbi Jacob Weil, Res. Nos. 85 and 128. 43. See Landman, op. cit, p. 240. 44. See Res. No. 50.

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

73.

See Leo Landman, op. cit., pp. 237f. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. No. 17. See Landman, op. cit., p. 240. See Eric Zimmer, (op. cit.), p. 73ff. See Rabbi Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 51. See Alexander Marx, Responsum of David Ibn Yahya, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. I, (1924), pp. 605-624. Rabbi Ibn Yahya served for a time in Lisbon. See Res. No. 146. See Res. No. 77. See Res. No. 6. See Res. 106, EJokim vesho/tim, implying both the Lord and the judges who are, in the Bible called by the name of God. See Exodus, 21:6, 22:7, 8. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 44. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 33. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, op. cit.f Res. No. 40. See Wetstein, op. cit., p. 10, the Cracow decree of 1595. See also D. Majer Balaban, Die Krakauer Judenghemeinde Ordnung von 1595 und ihr Nachtrage, /ahrbuch der Jdisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft, (Frankfurt a. m., Vol. X, 1912), pp. 331-332. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, op. cit., Res. No. 51. See Wetstein, op. cit., p. 58, No. 280, Synod of 1634. See ibid. See Wetstein, op. cit., p. 17, Cracow ordinance of 1595. See also S. Dubnow, op. cit., p. 10, No. 50, and p. 11, No. 52, synod of 1623; p. 38, Nos, 166 and 169, synod of 1628. See Res. No. 33. See Rabbi Nathan Hanover, Yeven Metzuiah, p. 84. See Yam She! Shlomo, Baba Kama, Chapter VIII, No. 58. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, Sheerit Joseph, Res. No. 19. See Joseph Perles, Pinkas Posna, Monatschri/t, (1867), p. 222. Ibid., p. 223. Cf. A. A. Harkavy, op. cit., p. 17. who tells the history of this ordinance. See infra, p. 177f. See S. Dubnow, op. cit., p. 43, No. 207. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 51. See Res. Nos. 6 and 54. Leo Landman, Shaliah Tzibur (New York, 1972), pp. 5, 9ff. Landman indicates that the Cantor ultimately earned his community power and the position of overseer because of his learning and leadership, claiming that to recite the piyut prayers required a special individual. Baron, The Jewish Community, Vol. I, pp. 102-104 and Vol. II, pp. 100-105 indicates that he was first a community functionary, an assistant to the archisynagogus or rosh ha-kenesset with general tasks of administration to perform, and only later did the position become limited to the leader of prayers and related functions. See Agus, Urban Civilization, Vol. I, pp. 334 and 494.

74. See Res. No. 6 and 54. 75. See Rabbi Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 127. 76. See ShuJhan Aruch, Orah Hayyim, No. 53, and Rabbi Moses Isserles, ad. Jocum. See also Landman, op. cit., pp. 6-8. 77. See Rav Hai Gaon, Tfeshuvot HaGeonim, Ed. Miller, p. 208; Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, Res. No. 281; Rabbi Yehuda of Barcelona, Se/er Haitim, Res. No. 173; Maimonides, Commentary to Avot, Chap. I, No. 17. See also Land man, op. cit., pp. 9-14. 78. Rabbi Slonik, in Res. No. 6, quotes earlier Ashkenazic sages who dis cussed the problem, including Rabbi Isaac b. Moshe of Vienna, Or Zarua, (also quoted by Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 20), and Se/er HaHasidim, No. 238. 79. See Res. No. 6. 80. See Landman, op. cit., pp. 9-14, p. 46 and nn. 354 and 355. 81. See Yam She] ShJomo, Hulin, Chapter I, No. 49. 82. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 20. 83. See Rabbi Ephraim of Leczycza, Amude Shesh, (Prague, 1617), p. 63. 84. See supra p. 76. 85. The stock consisted of 85 slihot (penitential prayer books), 800 mahzorim (holiday prayerbooks), 400 yotzrot (poetical prayer compositions for special Sabbaths and other occasions), 200 zemirot (Sabbath songbooks) large edition, 300 zemirot small edition, 300 minhagim (handbooks of local ritual custom), and 500 sets of Tlinm. The last is the only strictly halakhic work in the stock. See Friedberg, LeToJdot Ha De/us Halvri, pp. 7f.; and Nissenbaum, LeKorot HaYehudim BeLublin, pp. 145ff. 86. See supra p----87. See Wetstein, Pinkas Vaad Arba Aratzos p. 35, where he cites a 1618 decree which bemoans inaccuracies in prayer book punctuation and re quires every synagogue to purchase at least one copy of an accurate prayerbook from which the cantor should pray, meticulously following that text. 88. See Landman, op. cit., pp. 9-14. 89. See in/ra p. 80f. 90. See ShuJhan Aruch, Orah Hayyim ,No. 53. Rabbi Moses Isserles, ad. locum. 91. See Res. No. 6. 92. See OrZarua, Vol. I, No. 113. 93. See Landman, op. cit., p. 42. 94. See ibid, Rabbi Luria cites the case of a cantor-ritual slaughterer who could not make a living when that source of income was closed to him. See also Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 20. 95. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 125. 96. See Baron, op. cit, Vol. II, p. 113, and Vol. Ill, p. 139, n. 65. See also Landman, op. cit., pp. 40f. 97. See Res. No. 54. 99. See Rahhi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 20.

99. 100. 101. 102. 102.

104. 105. 106. 107. 108.

See ibid. See Dubnow, op. cit., No. 62. See Res. No. 6 See ibid. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, gloss to Shulhan Aruch, Orah Hayyim, No. 52, par. 25: And the cantor who defiles his mouth, or sings the songs of Gentiles, is to be stopped, and if he will not change, is to be removed, and Magen Avraham, ad Jocum.; ,Songs of Gentiles: i.e., the melodies they sing for their idolatry. See Res. No. 6. See E. J. Schochet, op. cit., pp. 40-42 where a personal difficulty with a cantor is presented, and p. 171 where his complaints about cantors and their ignorance and indifference are discussed. See Rabbi Sirkes, Bah HaYeshanot, Res. No. 127. See Res. No. 6. See end of Res. No. 6. NOTES, CHAPTER 5

1. See Res. Nos. 16, 22, 45, et passim. The same is true of Rabbi Slonik's teachers and contemporaries. See, for example, Rabbi Luria, Res. Nos. 4, 16, 96, and 101, and Rabbi Joseph Katz, Res. Nos. 32 and 53. 2. See Rabbi Solomon Luria, Yam Shei Shlomo (Gittin, 28b). 3. See Wetstein, Kadmoniyot, p. 4. 4. See Rabbi Hayyim ben Bezalel, Se/er Etz Hayyim (MS Oxford 1579), Introduction; quoted by Simcha Assaf, Mekorot LeToidot HaHinuch BeYisorel (Tel Aviv, 1954), Vol. I. 5. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 6. 6. See Res. No. 44. 7. See Res. Nos. 45 and 46. Romania of today includes Wallachia. 8. See Wetstein, Joe. cit. 9. See Rabbi Shabtai Cohen, Gevurot Anashim, Res. No. 1. 10. See ibid. See also Abraham E. Harkavy, HaYehudim U-Se/at Ha SeJavim (Vilna, 1867). 11. See supra, pp. 26ff., [2.2.1.5 ]for a discussion of the relationship of Jew and Gentile. 12. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 21. 13. See Bernard D. Weinryb, The Jews of Poland pp. 19ff. See also Elijah Judah Schochet, Bach, Rabbi Joel Sirkes, pp. If. 14. See Res. No. 62. Even there, illiteracy was the rare exception. Rabbi Luria indicates that great scholars and academies of learning were to be found in that locale. See also Res. No. 37. 15. See Res. No. 1. See also supra, pp. 15f. [1.6.2] 16. See Myer Lew, op. cit., p. 168. 17. See Friedberg, op. cit., pp. 6f. 18. See Res No. 7. 19. See Res. 6, and supra, p. 80.

20. See Res. No. 15. 21. See Isidore Fishman, The History of Jewish Education in Central Europe fcom the End of the Sixteenth to the End of the Eighteenth Century (London, 1944), p. 18. 22. See ibid. 23. See S. Assaf, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 239, No. 50. 24. See Fishman, op. cit., pp. 18-20. 25. See Res. No. 3. 26. See Fishman, op. cit., pp. 22f. 27. See F. H. Wetstein, op. cit., p. 3. 28. See Assaf, op. cit., pp. 98-99, for rules governing all elementary education, followed by the decisions of the TaJmud Torah committee which governed the communal school. Such control included periodic examinations of the students by the rabbi or someone acting for him. 29. See Assaf, op. cit., pp. 1-9. Also see Rabbi Moses Isserles, ShuJhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat, Chap. 163, No. 3, where he deals with support of the free schools. 30. See Wetstein, loc. cit. and Fishman, op. cit., p. 25. 31. See Assaf, op. cit., p. 99, where he cites a Cracow statute of 1595. See also Fishman, op. cit., pp. 77f. 32. See supra p. 82ff for a discussion of the language of Polish Jewry. 33. See Wetstein, ioc. cit., and Assaf, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 101. An interesting comparison can be made with the schools of Italy during the same period. See Alexander Marx, Joe. cit. 34. See Assaf, op. cit., p. 98, the Cracow statute of 1595, See also Fishman, op. cit., pp. 79ff. 35. See the Cracow statute, Assaf, op. cit., p. 99. 36. See Hanover, op. cit., Chap. XVI, pp. 110-116, and S. Assaf, BeOhoJe Yaakov (Jerusalem, 1942), pp. 66-71. 37. See Res. No. 62. 38. See Rabbi Solomon Luria, Res. No. 65. 39. See Res. No. 33. 40. See S. Dubnow, op. cit, No. 354. See also Hanover, loc. cit, and Assaf, Mekorot, Vol. I, p. 78 and n. 2. 41. See Res. No. 70. Haverim refers to the expression talmid haver which bears the connotation of a student who is a mature scholar. 42. See Wetstein, Joe. cit.: And when the young man reaches the age of fourteen and is not able to master the study of Talmud, he shall be apprenticed to trade... 43. See Dubnow, op. cit., Nos. 592-594, 891 and 928. See also Fishman, op. cit., pp. 30-33. 44. See Dubnow, op. cit., Nos. 592, 593. See also Assaf, ioc. cit. 45. See Dubnow, op. cit., No. 354. 46. See Hanover, Joe. cit. 47. See Res. No. 7: Not everyone knows the laws. 48. See Res. No. 5.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

See Fishman, pp. 118ff. See infra, pp. 190f. See supra, p. 82. See Assaf, MeJcorot, Intro, p. xviii. All three, especially the two latter, were colleagues and friends of Rabbi Slonik. See Assaf, op. cit., p. 51. See Assaf, op. cit., p. 63. See also Dubnow, ioc. cit., where a criticism of the schools is recorded. Some Hebrew was studied in the schools, and a rudimentary knowledge of grammar was usually deemed necessary. See Wetstein, Kadmoniyot, p. 4 Rabbi Hayyim b. Bezalel, older brother of Rabbi Judah Loew, who also criticized the system, wrote a book of Hebrew grammar, Sefer Etz Hayyim (Ms Oxford 1579), and in the introduction argued for the inclusion of that subject into the academy curriculum. He also advocated including some general studies for outstanding students. See Asher Siev, Rabbenu Moshe Isserles, pp. 60f. See also Assaf, Mekorot LeToJdot HaHinuch BeYisroel (Tel Aviv, 1954), Vol. I. See also Rabbi Moses Isserles, Res. Nos. 6 and 7, for the polemic between Rabbi Luria and Rabbi Isserles regarding the study of grammar. See Assaf, op. cit., Intro, pp. xx-xxiii. See Res. No. 16, and Israel Zinberg, ToJdot Sa/rut YisroeJ (Tfel Aviv, 1958), Vol. Ill, p. 171. See Res. No. 16. See Mordecai Breuer, Memoria] Volume Babbi Jacob Weinberg (Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 1-4, especially his citation of Rabbis Bruna and Isserlein. See infra, p. 204f. See ibid, and his discussion of methodology in Res. No. 62, where he describes the principles to be used in deciding a question of Jewish law. See infra, pp. 201 and 209f. See Res. No. 64. See Res. Nos. 17 and 51. See Res. No. 57. See Res. No. 112.

NOTES, RESPONSA
1. A small portion of the dough is separated and thrown into the fire, reminiscent of the time when it had to be given to the priest. This is called taking HaJJah. 2. Derasha: A talmudic discourse, probably delivered by the groom to show his erudition. 3. Hotzenplotz: a community south of Zulz in Silesia. 4. At the cessation of the menstrual flow, when a woman begins to count seven clean days before her immersion in the ritualarium, she washes herself thoroughly, dons white undergarments, and spreads white sheets on her bed. This makes it easier to perceive any staining which would cause a delay in her immersion.

5. If Yom Kippur should fall before or after the Sabbath, the body of a deceased would lie unburied for over two days and might begin to decompose. If Hoshana Raba were to fall on Saturday, it would be forbid den to perform the ritual which includes striking willow branches. 6. See infra. Res. No. 110, where Rabbi Slonik again comments about the vague knowledge we have of the details of, and the intent behind, the ordinances of the three communities. 7. In Judeao-German, taler. Dubnow, Pinkas HaMedina, glossary, defines this coin as Reichsthaler, worth from 3 to B gold-pieces during the seventeenth century/' In Rabbi Slonik's time it must have been roughly equivalent to a zloty, since the compromise figure between 50 thaler and 100 zloty was 80 zloty. 8. In Hebrew, Skahle, possibly Sokal, north of Lemberg. They would then be traveling in Moses* direction. Also possibly Skole, in southern Poland, southeast of Lemberg. 9. See supra, pp. 42f. 10. The text has nearim boys. Not Jewish servants, but rather unmarried young men. The question only refers to the wives of the three men mentioned by name, but not of the boys. 11. There are three cities with the name Lapusna, but only one of them can be identified with the Lapusna referred to in this responsum. Lapusna (Lopuszna) Bucovina, Rumania, is North of Wallachia and therefore would not lie on the route to Turkey. Lapusnia (Lapusnya) Rumania, would not have been accessible, since to reach it they would have had to cross back over the Carpathian Mountains. Lapusna (Lapushna) Rumania, is probably the city in question. It would lie on the route to Hirkey only if the traveler would set out eastward to the coast of the Black Sea, then follow the coast southward to Constantinople. 12. Galatz is south of Jasse, on the way to Constantinople. 13. The word used is lakritz; probably Licorice, referring to an herb used in preparation of a beverage. It also has medicinal properties. 14. A karzia was probably a sort of valuable coat which he took for trading purposes. Rabbi Benjamin calls it a karzia coat." 15. Bender are trimmings or fringes. It is probable that Glazer was carrying fur trimmings to Hirkey where fur was scarce. 16. Probably by the Tatars as spoils of war. 17. Beyond the Black Sea, to Tartary, Crimea or Circassia. 18. See Supra, pp. 19. The signature of a blessing is the final phrase, Blessed art Thou, O Lord, and the words following. The previous verse must lead directly into this final phrase, and therefore must have the same theme. 20. See Supra p. 21. Probably Trembowia, or possibly Tarnopol. The text has 'Itepowli. 22. Although the date indicates that the gathering took place a year later, it might possibly be a misprint or a copyist's error, and actually refer to the original investigation in 1611.

23. See supra, p. 24. The text has Turks. It is probable that Christians are meant, and that the allusion to Turks was for the censor's benefit. 25. See Dubnow, Pinkas HaMedina, glossary. 26. Possibly a tax on stolen goods. 27. The portion read on Sabbath towards the end of the summer month of Ab.

NOTES, APPENDIX A
1. See infra, pp. 179ff. 2. See Marcus Brann, Geschichte der Juden in Schlesien, Jahrenbericht des Jdisch Theologischen Seminars, (Breslau, January, 1910), p. 192. 3. See Rabbi Jacob b. Elchanan Heilbronn, Mitzvot Na shim Meiumada (Venice, 1606, Padua, 1625), title page. 4. See G. Deutsch, Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London, 1905), Vol. XI, 408. 5. See infra, pp. 179ff. 6. See infra, Appendix B. 7. See Israel Halperin, Pinkas Vaad Arba Aratzot, p. 63; and J. Perles, Urkunden zur Geschichte der Judeschen Provinzial Synoden in Polen. Monatschrift/ur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums Vol. XVI, (Breslau, 1667), ed. Dr. Z. Frankel, pp. 222-226.
8. Ibid.

9. See Simon Dubnow, Vaad Arba Aratzot bePolin VeYihuso el HaKehilot, Sefer HaYovel, Nahun Sokolow (Warsaw, 1904), pp. 250 ff. 10. For the derivation of his name, see Deutsch, loc. cit. 11. See Weinryb, op. cit., p. 39, n. 3, and p. 109. 12. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Res. No. 73. 13. See Res. No. 106. 14. See Ibid. 15. See Dr. Isaac Lewin, MiBoker Ad Erev, p. 168 and n. 9. 16. See Rabbi David Horowitz, Res. Imre David, No. 158. 17. See Res. No. 106. 18. See Res. Nos. 62, 98> 105,106,109. et passim. 19. See Res. No. 109. 20. See Res. No. 106. 21. See Res. No. 36. 22. See Rabbi Nathan Nata b. Moses Hanover, Sefer Yeven Metzula, p. 83. 23. See Rabbi Joseph Katz, Sheerit Joseph, Res. No. 46, and Rabbi Moses Meth in Rabbi Slonik's Responsa, No. 14. 24. See infra, p. 194f. for a discussion of his children. 25. See Res. No. 62. 26. See infra, pp. 181,194, and supra, pp. 51 and n. 16. 27. According to Brann, ioc. cit., p. 192, he did not originally come from Silesia but was born in Grodno. See supra, pp. . . . . . . . . 28. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Responsa, No. 110. 29. See ibid., Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 110.

30. See Hanover, op. cit., pp. 90ff. See also the Introduction to Halperin, Pinkos Vaad Arba Aratzot. 31. See ibid. 32. See supra, Chapter 3. 33. See Res. Nos. 22 and 75. 34. See Res. No. 80. 35. See supra, p. 84f. and n. 14. 36. See Res. No. 109. 37. See Res. No. 29: "A caravan of Jews from Skohle. It could refer to Sokai, Northwest of Podhajce, or to SkoJe, to the west. Res. No. 88 concerns testimony given in Res. No. 104 concerning a man from SkoJe* Brann identifies this city as Skala; op. cit., p. 196, n. 11. SkaJa is Southeast of Tarnopol. See The Columbia Uppencott Gazetteer, ed. Leon E. Seltzer (New York, 1962), pp. 1779,1780,1790. 38. See Res. No. 24, concerning a divorce issued in Krzemieniec. 39. Ibid., a question from Rabbi David Aikash of Bazalia. 40. See Res. No. 63. 41. See Res. No. 68. 42. See Res. Nos. 47, 88. 43. See Res. No. 104. 44. See Res. No. 109. 45 See Res. Nos. 2, 22,105. 46. See Res. Nos. 65, 68,105. 47. See Res. Nos. 7,109. 48. See Res. Nos. 45,105. 49. See Res. Nos. 7, 29, 44, 68, 88,104. In Res. No. 112 two sages of Lemberg ask him to decide which of them is correct in their decision. 50. See Res. No. 22. 51. See Res. Nos. 22 and 90. 52. See Res. No. 14. 53. See Res. No. 75. 54. See Res. No. 22. 55. See Res. No. 63. 56. See Res. No. 22. 57. See Res. No. 29. 58. See Res. Nos. 44,45, 68,105. 59. See Res. No. 3. 60. See supra, p. 180. 61. See Res. No. 42. Cf. Res. No. 103. 62. See Res. No. 5. Cf. No. 52. 63. See Res. No. 69. 64. See Res. No. 8. 65. See Res. No. 27. 66. See in/ra, p. 207. See also Res. No. 50, where he refused to comment on a source since he hadnt seen it. 67. See Res. No. 41.

68. See Res. No. 67. 69. See Res. No. 70. 70. See Res. No. 50. See also Asher Siev, Rabbenu Moshe Isserles, pp. 57ff. Dr. Siev characterizes Rabbi Luria as a man of truth, unhesitatingly critical of anyone he considered wrong. Like master, like student. 71. See infra, pp. 204ff. for a discussion of his critical rejection of Rabbi Schachna's novel applications to Jewish law of his method of hiluk. 72. See Res. No. 32. 73. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 105. 74. See Res. No. 105. 75. See ibid. 76. See Res. No. 109. 77. See Res. No. 105. 78. See Res. Nos. 46 and 47. 79. See Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen, op. cit., Part II, where Rabbi Abraham's Responsum is included, No. 55. 80. See supra, p. and Res. No. 17. 81. See Res. No. 16. 82. See Res. No. 62. 83. See Res. Nos. 10, 41, 47, 62. 84. See Res. No. 16. 85. Ibid. 86. See Res. No. 10. 87. See Res. No. 46. 88. See ibid. 89. See Res. No. 24. 90. See Res. No. 7. 91. See Res. No. 21. 92. See Res. No. 24. 93. See Res. No. 104, and supra p p .. . .f. [0.21 94. See Res. No. 62. 95. See Res. No. 62. 96. See Res. Nos. 4,16, 23, 68,104,105, et passim. 97. See Res. No. 99. 98. See Res. No. 6. 99. See Res. No. 62. 100. See Rabbi Solomon Luria, responsa, No. 98. 101. See infra, p. 210. 102. See infra, pp. .. .f. [0.2] 103. Arbaa Turini, composed of: Tur Orah Hayyim, Tur Yoreh Deah, Tur Even HaEzer, TV Hoshen Mishpat, first printed together in 1475. See Otzar ir HaSefarim, p. 207. 104. See Res. No. 95. 105. See Res. No. 25. 106. See Res. No. 49. 107. See Res. No. 49.

108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113.

114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143.

See Res. No. 63. See also Lewin, op. cit., p. 169. See Res. No. 109. See Masat Binyamin (Metz, 1776), facing title page. See Res. No. 101. Cf. No. 9, where he does not mention his treatise although dealing with a calendar problem. See Res. No. 10. See Friedberg, op. cit., II, 664, No. 3304. Also called Ein Shein Freuenbuchlein. Printed in Cracow, 1577 and 1585; Hanau, 1627; Dessau, 1699, (24 pp.); Frankfort a.m., 1714; Fiorda, 1776, (32 pp.); and under the title Mitzvot Nashim MeJumada, in Italian, trans. by Jacob b. Elchanan Heilprin, Venice, 1616, (101 pp.); Padua, 1625; Venice, 1711, (56 pp.). See Steinschneider, Catalogue Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, II, 786 fM 4543. No. See Isidore Fishman, The History of Jewish Education in Central Europe (London, 1944), pp. 118 ff. See Res. No. 1. Chapter 102. See Res. No. 62. See Lewin, op. cit., p. 175. See Res. Nos. 11, 27. See Res. No. 11, and a similar discussion in No. 27. See Res. No. 63. See Res. Nos. 44,45, 46, 63, 65, 68, 98,104,105,109. See supra, pp. 39-42. Res. Nos. 23, and 24. No. 24 is not a copy, but a completely different version of the responsum containing all the basic material to be found in no. 23, but in a more organized form. The same is true of Nos. 75 and 76. See infra, p. 201. See supra, p. 189. See supra, pp. 178 f. See supra, pp. 180 f. See ibid. See Res. Nos. 11, 50, 75,109. See also supra, pp. . .. f. [0.3) See Res. No. 26. See Res. No. 37. See infra, pp. 203 f., and 207. See also Asher Siev, Rabbenu Moshe Isserles pp. 50-52. See Res. No. 38. See Res. No. 57. See Res. No. 98. See Res. No. 51. See Res. No. 90. See Res. No. 109. See Res. No. 72. See Res. No. 72. See Res. No. 106.

144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

See Res. No. 38. See Res. No. 15. See Res. No. 49. See in/ra, pp. 207 f. See Res. Nos. 68,108, and especially 104. See Res. No. 104. See Yam She! ShJomo, Baba Kama, Chapter II, No. 23. See also Assaf, op. cit., p. 50. 151. See infra, pp. 204 ff. 152. See Res, No. 17. See also Res. No. 51.

NOTES, APPENDIX B
1. See Res. No. 57: Several years after this, my oldest son Rabbi Yekel asked me .. " See also No. 58. Rabbi Abraham calls him my older brother. See his responsum, printed with Rabbi Joshua Falk b. Joseph Cohen, Re sponso Pnei Yehoshua, (Lemberg, 1860), part II, No. 55. 2. See Res. Nos. 50, 70 and 99. 3. See Res. No. 70. See also Dr. Isaac Lewin, Teshuvat Hagaon Rav Yekel, Baal ,Nahalat Yaakov, Belnyan Heter Herem DeRabenu Gershom Sinai, Vol in, No. 3 (Sivan-Tkmmuz 5744), p. 95. 4. See Otzar Hase/arim, p. 396, No. 124. See also Isaac Lewin, ibid. 5. See Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen, op. cit., part II, Res. No. 63. There he indicates that Rabbi Abraham was one of Maharams students. See also S. B. Nissenbaum, Lekorot HaYehudim BeLubJin, pp. 31 ff., and M. Zunz, Ir HaTzedek, p. 30. 6. Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen, Joe. cit. 7. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 127. 8. See a discussion of this in Isaac Lewin, MiBoker LaErev, p. 171 and n. 19. 9. See Res. Nos. 57, 70, 101, and 110 regarding Rabbi Yaakov; and nos. 50 and 99 regarding Rabbi Abraham. 10. See Rabbi Sirkes, Bah Hahadashot, Res. No. 66. 11. See Lewin, Joe. cit., p. 168. 12. See Rabbi Sirkes, op. cit., Res. No. 86. 13. See Isaac Lewin, op. cit., p. 168 and n. 9. 14. See Res. Nos. 50, 58, 67, 70, 89, 99,101,110, 111. 15. See Res. 21, where Rabbi Slonik quotes Rabbi Abraham, and indicates that his son's halakhic argument found favor in his eyes, and on its basis Rabbi Slonik decided the law. See also No. 56 where Rabbi Abraham disagrees with his father's explanation. See also Res. No. 98 where Rabbi Slonik quotes Rabbi Abraham and agrees with him. In Res. Nos. 57 and 95 Rabbi Slonik refers to questions asked by both his sons which were similar. Res. Nos. 58, 59, and 60 are to questions asked by Rabbi Yekel. 16. See Res. No. 25. 17. See ibid. 18. See Res. Nos. 82 and 102.

19. See Res. No. 02. See also C. Dembitzer, KJiJat Yofi, (Cracow, 1888) part [, pp. 21 ff. 20. See Res. No. 95. 21. See supra, pp. 189. 22. See Res. Nos. 14,15,44 and 46, et passim. 23. Mate Moshe was first published in Cracow, 1591. HoiJ Moshe was completed in 1596, but remained unpublished until 1612, when it was printed in Prague. Cf. OtzarHaSefarim, p. 135, No. 252, with Ibid, p. 322, no. 1047. Ben Jacob does not indicate that both works were written by the same man, but ascribes only the later work to Rabbi Moses b. Abraham Meth. 24. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 15. CF. I Cohen Tzedek, Shem Usheerit (Cracow, 1895), pp. 30 ff. See also Asher Siev, Rabbenu Moshe fsserles, p. 36, where he mentions the protection of the copyright of the Padua publishers, the sages Rabbi Meir b. Isaac Katzenelenbogen MaHaRaM Padua and his son Rabbi Samuel MaHarShiK. 25. See B. Friedberg, HaDe/us Haivri BeCracow, pp. 5f. 26. See Friedberg, op. cit, pp. 6f. Cf. Shlomo Baruch Nissenbaum, Lekorot HaYehudim BeLublin, p. 145ff. See also supra, pp 77 f. [3.4.1] 27. See Halperin loc. cit. For a discussion of his relationship to his contempo raries, see in/ra, pp__ff. 28. See Rabbi Samuel Joseph b. Isaac Fuenn, Kiryah Neemanah (Jerusalem 1968), IV, 56 and S. B. Nissenbaum op. cit., p. 21. 29. See Res. No. 62. 30. See Res. Nos. 14, 44, and 62. 31. See Res. No. 88. 32. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 491. He indicates Rabbi Abraham Hayyim died in 1632. 33. See Res. No. 109. 34. See supra, pp. 198. (0.4] 35. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 61. 36. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 267. 37. See Chaim Yoseph David Azulai, Shem HaGedolim HaShalem (New York, 1957/58), part I p. 89, No. 57; Part II p. 77, No. 36. 38. See Res. No. 80. 39. See Res. No. 47. 40. See Res. Nos. 23 and 24. 41. See Res. No. 47. 42. See Res. No. 47. 43. See Res. No. 97. 44. See Res. No. 98. 45. See Ibid. 46. See Ibid. 47. The author was Rabbi Shabtai HaSofer. See Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jews College (Oxford, 1886), p. 13. In his old age, they added the names Jacob Joseph to his own.

48. See ibid., p. 490. 49. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 33, n. 3. See also S. J. Fuenn, Knesset Yisroel (Warsaw, 1886), p. 60, for the text of the inscription on his monument. 50. See Simcha Assaf, Mashehu LeToldot MHRSHL, Jubilee Volume, Louis Ginzberg (New York 1946), pp. 45ff. 51. See Asher Siev, SheeJot UTeshuvot HARAMA (Jerusalem 1970), Introduc tion. 52. See Res. Nos. 8 and 27. See also Moshe Meth, Responsa Mate Moshe, Introduction, where he describes his teacher Rabbi Luria as the greatest teacher of the age, and his academy as the largest. See also Rabbi Luria Res. No. 8, about his own academy. 53. See Res. No. 80. Rabbi Isserles died young. According to Y M. Zunz, Ir , Hatzedek (Lemberg, 1874), pp. 4, 5, he died in 1572. Asher Siev, in HaRama, p. 23 and n. 44, accepts this date on the basis of the testimony of Rabbi Isserles student, David Ganz. 54. See Res. No. 27. 55. For examples, see the original text of Res. Nos, 16, 32,41, 62,105,109, et passim. See also infra, n. 58. 56. See Res. No. 7. 57. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 6, where he quotes Rabbi Lurias criticism, and gives his reply. 58. See introductions to the original texts of Res. Nos. 6,11, 22, 23, 34,47,49, 50, 58. 67, 70, 75-77, 89,95,97-99,101,102,108,110, and especially 62. 59. See Res. No. 57: .. As RADAK wrote in Se/er MikhJoi section eleven ... and in his commentary on the book of Kings. (I Kings 10:15). 60. See Res. No. 107. See also supra, p. 181-186, and pp. 194ff., for a discussion of Rabbi Slonik's critical spirit. 61. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 45. 62. See Res. No. 62. 63. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 8. 64. See Yam Shel Shiomo, Introduction to Gittin and Hullin. See Assaf loc. cit, pp. 47f. 65. See Res. No. 62. 66. See Res. No. 41. 67. Res. No. 36. 68. See Israel Zinberg, Tbldot Sa/rut YisraeJ (Tel Aviv, 1958), vol. Ill, p. 171. 69. See Meyer Waxman, A History of Jewish Literature (New York 1943), Vol HI, p. 115. 70. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 64. See also supra, p. 89. 71. See f^okhmat SheJomo, Eruvin 61a, and SanJiedrin 60b. Luria refers to the tractate Hullin which was edited by Rabbi Schachna with emenda tion. See S. Hurwitz, The Responsa of Solomon Luria [New York 1938, pp. 21 and 159, nn. 93, 94. 72. See Rabbi Asher Siev, SheeJot Uteshuvot Harama (Jerusalem 1970), p. 10, n. 7. 73. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 30.

74. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 66. 75. See Res. No. 16. 76. See Mordecai Breuer, Memorial Volume to Rabbi Yehiei Yaakov Weinberg (Jerusalem 1970J, pp. If. See also Responsa Rabbi Jacob Weil (Venice 1549), Res. No. 144. 77. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 10, where we find introductions and comments about the structure of the responsa to follow. Cf. Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 62, et passim. 78. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 3. See also the end of Res. No. 7. 79. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 34. 80. See Res. No. 26. 81. See Res. No. 47. 82. See Res. No. 62. 83. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 11. 84. See Rabbi Moses Isserles, Torat Hatat, Introduction. See also Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 124, where he permits use of wine touched by Gentiles because of the great loss involved, and cf. Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 50. See also Myer Lew, The Jews of Poland (London 1944), pp. 31-34. 85. See Rabbi Isserles, Res. No. 37. 86. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 43. 87. See supra, p. 201. 88. See Res. No. 101, and Novellae, boUnd after the Responsa, Ihr Orach Hayyim, Nos 3 and 4, 89. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 62. 90. See Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 50. 91. See Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, Shnei Luhot Habrit (Amsterdam, 1698), cited by Dr. Lewin, op. cit., p. 8. 92. See Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Responsa, Bet Hadash HaYeshanot (Ostrog, 1834), Res. No. 86. 93. See Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 101. See also Novellae, bound after the Responsa, TUr Orach Hayyim, Nos. 3 and 4, where he refers to him in the same way. 94. See Dr. Isaac Lewin, Teshuvot Maharshal Hasheni Mishnat 1579 Bidvar Zechuyot HaSocher Hadarom, XXII (Tishrei, 5726), pp. 5-18. 95. See Res. No. 101. 96. NoveJJae, bound at the end of the Responsa, Tur Orach Hayyim, No. 3. 97. Ibid., No. 4. 98. See his introduction to Sefer Ateret Zekenim. 99. See Rabbi Horowitz, op. cit., p. 73b, quoted by Lewin, Joe. cit. 100. Notes to his father's Emek BeraJcha on benedictions, (Cracow, 1597); Notes to his fathers ethical will, Yesh NohaJin (Cracow, 1597). 101. See Schecter, Studies in Judaism 2nd series, (Philadelphia 1908), pp. 202-285. 102. See Darkei Moshe, Orach Hayyim 61. See also Azulai, Shem HaGedolim, I, p. 58. 103. Torat HaOJah, completed 1569, first published in Prague, 1570. It is

104. 105. 106.

107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129.

130. 131. 132.

divided into three parts: Har, Sadeh and Bayit. In it, he gives symbolic and Kabbalistic interpretations of the Temple, its structure and its service. Res. No. 69: " . . . and also my teacher Maharan in his book Mavo HaShearim. . Included in the Lublin 1695 and Jesnitz 1724 editions. See Isaac BenJacob, Otzar HaSe/arim (Vilna 1880), p. 606, No. 1163. See Rabbi Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Shem HaGedolim HaShaiem (New York, 1957/58), Part II, p. 160, and the notes, Menahem Tziyon, where some doubt is raised as to whether Rabbi Spiro is really the author of the Rashi super-commentary. Ibid. See supra, pp. 177f. Published in Lublin, 1623. See Rabbi Azulai, loc. cit. Rabbi Azulai indicates that there is some doubt as to Rabbi Spiros authorship. See Zinberg, op. cit., pp. 220-221. See Nathan Nata Hanover, op. cit., pp. 83ff. See Hayyim Michal, Or Hahayyim (New York, 1965), p. 199, No. 418. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 29. See Res. No. 58. See Res. No. 90. See ibid. See in/ra pp. 214 f. See Res. Sheerit Yoseph, Res. Nos. 19 and 23. Rabbi Katz was, however, very respectful in his criticism, even though he himself was hurt by Rabbi Ashkenazis decision. See Asher Siev, Rabbenu Moshe IsserJes, pp. 65 67. See Michal, Joe. cit. See Halperin, Joe. cit. Ibid, pp. 4-5. See Simon Moshe Hones, ToJdot HaPoskim (Warsaw, 1929), p. 553. See supra, pp. 183 f. Ibid. See Res. No. 98. See Hones, Joe. cit. See also David Yellin and Israel Abrahams, Maimonides (Philadelphia, 1903), p. 63. See Hones, Joe. cit. See Michal, op. cit., pp. 241-43; M. Grunwald, Rabbi ShJomo Ephraim Luntschitz (Frankfort a M., 1892); Israel Bettan, The Sermons of Ephraim Luntschitz, HUCA, VIII, IX, 443-80. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 62 who quotes the 1656 ordinance of the Jaroslaw synod which indicates that he was signed upon the original, earlier ordinance, and adds the identifying comment, He who in the end was Rabbi in Prague. See Res. No. 16. See Halperin, op. cit., p. 15. See ibid., pp. 26, 33, 456.

133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170.

See ibjd., pp. 62-65. See supra, pp. 75. See Michal, op. cit., pp. 241-245, and Zinberg, op. cit., pp. 210-212. See Res. Nos. 75-77. See ibid. See Haiperin, op. cit., p. 27; Harkavy, Hadashim Gam Yeshanim, Vol. VII, p. 33. See Haiperin, loc. cit., p. 15. See Res. No. 88. See Res. No. 88. See Res. Nos. 31, 49 and 57. See Res. No. 31. See Res. Nos. 12-14. See Res. No. 12. Though the original correspondence in Res. No. 11 was to Rabbi Eliezer Yerushalmi, Rabbi Joshua Falk Cohen took up the cudgel and attempted to refute Rabbi Sloniks decision. See Res. No. 13. See Rabbi Joshuas introduction to his commentary, called SMA, Se/er Meirot Einayim, on the Code of Jewish Law: Hoshen Mishpat. See Haiperin, op. cit., p. 62. See Ben Jacob, op. cit., p. 562, No. 180. See also Asher Siev, Rabbenu Moshe Isserles, pp. 63-71. See Sheerit Yoseph, Res. Nos. 58 and 77. See also Rabbi Isserles, Re sponsa o/RAMA, Res. Nos. 24 and 101. See Rabbi Luria, Res. No. 24. Katz is an abbreviation for Kohen Tzedek, righteous priest." Rabbi Luria therefore substitutes the name Cohen for Katz. See Yehezkel Matityahu Zunz, Ir HaZedek (Lemberg, 1874), pp. 23-28. See Res. No. 69. See Sheerit Yoseph, Res. Nos. 47,48, and 49. See ibid., No. 47. See Rabbi Meir, op. cit., Res. No. 54. See Rabbi Katz, ibid., Res. No. 48. ibid., Res. No. 49. See Res. Nos. 38, 69. See Res. No. 38. See Res. No. 22. See Haiperin op. cit., p. 455. See Rabbi Meir, Res. No. 88. See Haiperin, op. cit., p. 62. See Otzar HaSefarim, p. 278, No. 90. See Simon Hones op. cit., p. 366. See ibid. See supra, p. 178. See supra, p. 197. See Res. No. 51. Cf. with Rabbi Meir, Res. No. 81.

171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207.

See Rabbi Slonik, loc. cit. See Rabbi Meir, loc. cit. Cf. Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 68, with Rabbi Meir, Res. No. 110. Cf. Rabbi Slonik, Res. No. 112 with Rabbi Meir, Res. No. 131. See Otzar HaSefarim, p. 255, No. 57. See also Asher Siev, op. cit., pp. 96101 .

See supra, p. 183. See Res. No. 90. See Res. No. 62. See Hones, op. cit., pp. 314-316, and Zinberg, op. cit., pp. 187-188. See supra, pp. 198 ff. See Res. No. 15. See Res. No. 44. See ibid. See Res. No. 45, which though in Rabbi Sloniks collection, is signed by Rabbi Moses. Cf. with Rabbi Sloniks own responsum on the same subject, No. 46. See Res. Nos. 11,12,13 and 14. See supra, p. 198, n. 23. See Res. No. 62. See Res. No. 45. See Res. No. 46. See Nissenbaum, LeKorot HaYehudim BeLubiin, p. 18. See Res. No. 17. See supra, pp. 204 ff. See Res. No. 98. See also Rabbi Meir, Res. No. 14. See Res. No. 88. See Res. No. 46. See Res. No. 97. See Res. No. 3. See Res. No. 70. See Res. No. 88. See Res. No. 98. See Res. No. 109. See Res. No. 63. See Res. Nos. 34, and 47. See Res. No. 12. See Res. Nos. 23 and 24. The question had first been asked of Rabbi David Segal. After a year and a half of rabbinic debate and discussion, it was finally submitted to Rabbi Slonik. See Res. No. 23. He is also mentioned by Rabbi Meir of Lublin, Res. No. 76, and Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Res. No. 113. See supra, pp. 177 f.

Bibliography
Abrahams, Israel and Yellin, David. Maimonides. Philadelphia, 1903. Agus, Irving A. The Heroic Age of Franco German Jewry. New York, 1969. --------. Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg. 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1947. --------. Teshuvot BaaJe HaTosfot. New York, 1954. -------- . Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade Europe. 2 vols., New York, 1965. Assaf, Simcha. "Mashehu LeToJdot MHRSH'L, Jubilee Volume, Louis Ginzberg. New York, 1946. -------- . BeAhaJe Yaakov. Jerusalem, 1942. -------- . Bate HaDin U-Sedareyhem. Jerusalem, 1924. -------- . Mekorot LeToldot HaHinuch BeYisrael. Vol. I., Tel Aviv, 1953/ 54. -------- . HaOnshin Ahar Hatimat HaTalmud. Jerusalem, 1922. --------. LeKorot HaRabanut. Jerusalem, 1927. Azulai, Hayyim Yoseph David. Shem HaGedolim HaShaJem. Brooklyn, New York 1957/58. Balaban, D. Majer. ,Die Krakauer Judengemeinde Ordnung von 1595 und ihr Nachtrage, Jahrbuch der Jdisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft. Vol. X, (1912), pp. 296-361. --------. History of the Jews in Cracow and Kazimiers. Cracow, 1913. Baron, Salo W. The Jewish Community. 3 vols., New York, 1948. --------. A Social and Religious History of the Jews. Vol. X, New York, 1965. Bear, Isaac. HaMagama HaDasit-HaHevratit Shel Sefer Hasidim, Zion. (Sidra Hadasha) Third year, Jerusalem, 1930. Beazly Forbes and Birkett. Russia from the Varangians to the Bolshe viks. Oxford, 1918. Ben Jacob. Otzar HaSefarim. Vilna, 1880. Ben Sasson, Hayyim Hillel. Hegot VeHanhaga. Jerusalem, 1958. Bettan, Israel. The Sermons of Ephraim LuntschitzH ebrew Union College Annual. VIII-IX (1932), 443-80.

--------. Studies in Jewish Preaching. Cincinatti, 1939, pp. 273-316. Brann, Marcus. Geschichte der Juden in Schlesien, Jahrenbericht des Jdisch Theologischen Seminars. Vols. V Breslau, January, 1910. VI Breuer, Mordecai. Memorial Volume to Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg. Jerusalem, 1970. Bruna, Israel. Responsa. Stettin, 1860. Caro, Joseph. Code of Jewish Law. Jerusalem, 1970. Cohen, Rabbi Joshua Falk b. Joseph. Responsa Penei Yehoshua. Lem berg, 1860. Cohen, Shabtai. Sefer Gevurot Anashim. Warsaw, 1879. Cohen Tzedek, I. Shem Usheerit. Cracow, 1895. Columbia Lippencott Gazetteer, ed., Leon E. Setzer, New York, 1962. Dembitzer, Hayyim Natan. Kelilat Yoji. Cracow, 1888. --------. Michtavei Bikoret Beinyanei HaVaadim D'Arba dAratzot DMedinat Polin VeLita VeGam Ketzat Hakirot VeHe'arot BeToldot Gedolei Yisrael Asher Hofiu BeOr Toratenu VeHochmatam BaMedinot HaNal, Otzar HaSifrut IV, pp. 193-254. Deutsch, Gotthard. "Slonik, Benjamim Aaron b. Abraham, in Jewish Encylopedia. Vol. XI, p. 408 New York and London, 1905. Dubnow Simon, Vaad Arba Aratzot bePolin VeYihuso el HaKehilot, Sefer HaYovel, Nah um Sokolow. Warsaw, 1904. -------- . Divre Yeme Am Olam. 10 vols., Vol. VI. Tel Aviv, 1960/61. --------. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland. Philadelphia, 1916. -------- . Pinkas Medinat Lita. Berlin, 1925. Duran, Simon b. Tzemah. Sefer Tashbatz. Lemberg, 1890/91. Eidelberg, Shlomo. Jewish Life in Austria in the Fifteenth Century. Philadelphia, 1962. --------. "Maarufia Problem in the Responsa of Rabbenu Gershom, Historic! Judaica. New York, 1953. Ephraim of Leczycza. Amude Shesh. Prague. Finkelstein, Louis. Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages. New York, 1924. Fishman, Isidore. The History of Jewish Education in Central Europe. London, 1944. Frank, Azriel Natan. Halronim VeHayehudim BePolin. Warsaw, 1921. Frank, Moshe. Kehilot Ashkenaz U-Bate Dineyhem. Tel Aviv, 1938. Friedberg, Baruch. Bet Eked Se/arim. Tel Aviv, 1951. --------. HaDe/us Halvri BeCracow. Cracow, 1900. Fuenn, Rabbi Samuel Joseph, b. Isaac, Kiryah Neemanah. Vilna, 1914; Jerusalem, 1968. --------. Knesset Yisrael. Warsaw, 1886. Grunwald, Moritz. Rabbi Solomo Ephraim Luntschitz, Oberrabiner in Prague vom Jahre 1604-1618. Ein Lebensbild. Frankfort a. M., 1892.

Halevi, Samuel. NahaJat Shiva. Fiordo, 1783/84. Halperin, Israel. Pinkas Vaad Arba Aratzot. Jerusalem, 1944. Hanover, Rabbi Nathan Nata b. Moses. Se/er Yeven MetzuJa. Hakibbutz HaMeuchad, Israel, 1966. Harkavy, Alexander. Hadashim Gam Yeshanim. end of Graetz, History (Heb.) Vol. VH, Warsaw 1899. Trans, to Hebrew by Pinhas Rabinowitz, Warsaw, 1914. -------- . HaYehudim l/Se/at HaSelavim. Vilna, 1867. Heilbronn, Rabbi Jacob b. Elchanan. Mitzvot Nashim Meiumada. Ven ice 1606; Padua, 1625. Heller, Yom Tov Lipmann. Megilat Eiva. Vilna, 1900. Hones, Simon Moshe. ToJdot HaPoskim. Warsaw, 1929. Horowitz, Rabbi David. Res. imre David. Horowitz, Isaiah. Shnei Luhot HaBrit. Amsterdam, 1698. Hundert, Gershon David. Seventeenth Century Polish Commonwealth; the Case of Cracow Jewish Social Studies Vol. XLII1, Nos. 3-4 (Summer-Fall, 1981). Hurwitz, S. The Responsa of Solomon Luria. New York, 1938. Isaac b. Moshe of Vienna. Or Zarua. Zitomir, 1862. Isserlein, Israel. Se/er Terumat HaDeshen, (Responsa). Warsaw, 1881/ 82. Isserles, Rabbi Moses. Responsa. Sudylkow, 1835; Jerusalem 1971; ed. Asher Siev. --------. Darkei Moshe. Jerusalem, 1968. --------. Torat HaOJah. Lwow, 1858; Israel, n.d. --------. Torat H atat Tel Aviv, 1962. Jacob b. Asher. Ttirim. New York, 1953. Jewish Encyclopedia. New York and London, 1905. Katz, Ben Zion. LeKorot HaYehudim BeRussia Polin VeLita. Berlin, 1899. Katz, Jacob. Masoret U-Mashber. Jerusalem, 1963. Katz, Rabbi Joseph b. Mordecai Gershon. Sfteerit Joseph. Cracow, 1767; New York, 1984 (ed. Asher Siev). Kleinberger, Aaron Fritz. HaMachshava HePedagogit Shel HaMaharaJ MiPrague. Jerusalem, 1961/62. Kluchevsky, V. O. A History of Russia. New York, 1960. Kossover, Mordecai. The Responsa of Rabbi Joel Sirkes (Sources for the History, Manners and Customs of the Jews in Poland in the 16th17th Centuries,)( Yiddish), YIVO Studies in History. II (1937), pp. 605-624. Krutushin, Rabbi Menahem Mendel. Se/er Ateret Zekenim. Pietrokow 1897. Landman, Leo, *Some Legal Prerogatives of the Official Communal

Rabbi, Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial VoJume. New York, 1980. ed. L. Landman. -------- . ShaJiah Tzibbur. New York, 1972. Leb b. Hanoch. Hinuch Bes Yehuda. Frankfort a. M., 1708. Lew, Myer. The Jews of Poland. London, 1944. Lewin, Isaac. MiBoker Ad Erev. Mosad Harav Kook: Israel, 1981. -------- . 'Teshuvot Maharshal Hasheni Mishnat 1579 Bidvar Zechuyot Hasoche r Hadarom. XXII, Tishrei 5726 (1966). -------- . Teshuvat Hagaon Rav Yekel, Baal Nahalat Yaakov, Belnyan Heter Herem DeRabenu Gershom Sinai. Vol. Ill, No. 3, SivanTammuz 5744. Luria, Solomon. Yam She! ShJomo. Stettin, 1860/61. -------- . Responsa. Lemberg, 1859. -------- . Hokhmat Shlomo. Cracow, 1581. Meir ben Gedalia of Lublin. Responsa Maharam Lublin. Brooklyn, 1961. Marx, Alexander. ,,Responsum of David Ibn Yahya, Hebrew Union College Annual. Vol. I, (1924), pp. 605-624. Meth, Moshe. Responsa Mate Moshe. Jerusalem, 1978. Michal, Hayyim. Or Hahayyim. New York, 1965. Mintz, Moses. Responsa Rabbi Moses Mintz. Przemysl, 1882/83. Neubauer, Adolph. Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jews' College. Oxford, 1886. Nissenbaum, Shlomo Baruch. Lekorot HaYehudim BeLublin. Lublin, 1920. Perles, J. Urkunden zur Geschichte der Judeschen Provinzial Synoden in Polen, Monatschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden thums. Vol. LXXX. (Breslau, 1867), ed. Dr. Z. Frankel, pp. 108-111, 152-154, 222-226, 304-308, 344-348. Schipper, Ignaz. The Composition of Four Lands, (Yiddish), YIVO Studies in History. Vol. I. (1929) pp. 73-82. Schochet, Eliya Judah. Rabbi Joel Sirkis, His Life, Works and Times. New York, 1971. Shaagat Arye (Rabbi Aryeh Leb, author of Shaagath Aryeh). Introduc tion to Metz edition of Mas'at Binyamin. Metz, 1776. Siegelman, S. Arthur, Iske Hakirut shel Yehude Polin. Siev Asher, Sheelot UTeshuvot HARAMA. Jerusalem, 1970. -------- . Rabbenu Moshe Isserles. New York, 1972. Sirkes, Rabbi Joel. Responsa Bah YaYeshanot. Ostrog, 1834. -------- . Responsa Bah HaHadashot. Jerusalem, 1959. Slonik, Benjamin Aaron b. Moses. Responsa. Vilna, 1894; Metz, 1776. -------- . Seder M itzvat Nashim. Also called Ein Shein Freuen buchlein.

Printed in Cracow, 1577 and 1585; Hanau, 1627; Dessau, 1699 (24 pp.); Franfort a.m., 1714; Fiorda, 1776 (32 pp.); and under the title Mitzvot Nashim MeJumada, in Italian, trans. by Jacob b. Elchanan Heilprin, Venice, 1616, (101 pp.); Padua, 1625; Venice, 1711. Slonik, Yaakov Yekel ben Binyamin. Sefer Nahalat Yaakov. Cracow, 1642. Steinschneider. Catalogue Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana. 3 vols. Berlin, 1931. Waxman, Meyer. A History of Jewish Literature. 3 vols., New York, 1943. Weil, Rabbi Jacob. Responsa. Jerusalem, 1958/59. Weinryb, Bernard D. The Jews of Poland. JPS: Philadelphia, 1973. --------. Teudot LeToldot HaKehilot HaYehudiyot BePoJin. 1950/51. Wetstein, P. H. Kadmoniyot MiPinkesaot Yeshanim LeKorot YisraeJ BePoJin BichJal U-BeCracow BeFrat. Cracow, 1891/92, Zimmer, Eric. Harmony and Discord in Fifteenth Century Ashkenaz. New York, 1970. Zinberg, Israel, Toidot Safrut YisraeJ. Tel Aviv, 1958. Zunz, Yehezkel Matityahu. Ir HaZedek. Lemberg, 1874.

INDEX
A bra van el, Don Isaac 198 academy 38, 60, 65, 66, 67, 75, 84 adultery 11 agunah 39,41,69,101,136,137,148,149, 151, 166, 169, 170, 174, 1B3, 184, 187, 192,197, 202 Agus, Irving 64 aiiyah 84, 208 America xiii, 14 Amsterdam xiii anti-Semitism 32 apostates 6,10,121,186,199 appointed ones 50, 54 Armenian Church 32 Armenians 32 army 6 arrendas 43 Aryeh Leb ben Asher fShaagath Aryehj 190 Asher ben Jehiel 14, 27, 57,185 Ashkenaz 13 Ashkenazi, Eliezer ben Eliahu 211 Ashkenazic custom 12,13,14 Ashkenazic Jews 1, 3 Ashkenazic rabbis 183 Assaf, Simcha 75 auditors 52 Austria 3 authority 55, 56, 64,66, 69, 71, 72 autonomy 52 bah urim 87 Balaban, D. Majer 6 Balkans xiii ban 76,120,141 bandits 30, 39, 43,152 banishment 10 bar mitzvah 15 bastard 11 Bazilia 181 bekhor 98 Belz 41 Benjamin Aaron, Harif of Tykocin 177, 213 Ber 171 berurim 49 best men 49. 55 beth din 18, 71 betrothal 9, 15, 18, 83, 115, 116, 161, 171, 184,185 Bible 86, 88,89,202 biography 177 Black Plague 67 blackmail 8, 9,171 blessings 92, 208 blindness 24, 84,147,185,187. 208 Bohemia 40 Bohemian Brethren 32 Boleslas the Pious 37 borerim 49 Brann, Marcus 177 Braslav 181 Brest-Litovsk 41,45, 60, 83 Breuer, Mordecai 41 bribes 18, 33, 74, 75, 178 bride 16, 20, 73,134 Bruna, Israel 59, 66, 67, 69 Brzeziny 181 Buczacz 68, 161, 181, 200 Bulgaria 40 burghers 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 44 burial 155 business 12, 27, 28, 29, 37, 39, 42, 46,173 butchers 48,132 Byzantine Church 32, 34,40, 83 Byzantium 13,14, 83 calendar 4,112,113, 190 Calvinists 32 Canada xiv cantillation 106,107, 202 cantors 15,19,60,64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 81, 88, 108, 129,142, 143, 202 captives 10, 31,42 card playing 11 Caro, Joseph xiii, 14, 78,182,185,188, 207 Catholic Church 32, 34, 40

cattle 46 censorship 4,11 chaperones 8, 22, 27, 70 charity 68,98 Chmielnicki, Bogdan xiii, 35 Christianity 6, 77,160,199 church 6, 27, 29, 35, 36, 40, 56, 70, 78, 80, 199 circumcision 38, 69 citrons 46,118 clergy 26, 29, 36, 37 clothing 21,22, 3 5 ,15B, 160 Code of Jewish Law xiii, 14> 50, 58,63, 87, 188 Cohen, Joshua ben Alexander Falk 8, 22, 45, 69,114,119,136, 155, 161, 196, 199, 200, 209. 213 community 3, 7, 11, 18, 19, 21, 26, 29, 30, 34, 36, 39, 49, 52, 55, 56, 58, 63, 76, 104, 130,131 community council 52 community government IB community heads 49, 55 compassion 207 concessions 8,22,28,31,32,33,43,44,45, 47, 70, 123, 124, 125, 126, 165 Constantinople 10, 37, 39,40, 83,192, 212 converts 6,10,199 Cordovero, Moses 210 corporal punishment 57 Cortkow 181 Cossacks xiii, 34, 35, 40, 46 Council of Four Lands 1, 8, 34, 45, 69, 75, 82,177,180, 209, 211 courts 7, 52, 53, 54, 57, 61, 68, 71, 73, 75, 78,119,197 Cracow 6, 6, 16, 21, 26, 40, 53, 55, 57, 59, 77, 85, 86, 178, 180, 194, 199, 201, 207, 209 Crimea 83 crusades 65 cultural life xiii curriculum 82, 87, 88, 89, 202 custom 12,13.14, IB, 47, 51, 58, 159 Czechoslovakia xiii czopowe 44 Danzig 45 darshan 15 daughters 198 David ben Yahya 72 David Horowitz of Stanislaw 179 Decalogue 107, 202 derasha 16, 69 Deutsch, Gotthard 177 divorce 5, 6, 9, 17, 23, 48, 56, 69, 73, 99,

116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 137, 140, 141, 142, 155, 156, 157, 171, 173, 185,186 domicile 43, 47, 55, 61 dowry 20, 63, 73,100,114 Duran, Simon ben Tzemach 65 Eastern Orthodox Church 34 Ebert, Don Etien 190 economic status xiii Edels, Samuel Eliezer ben Judah Halevi 199,209 education 85 education, academy 87 education, elementary 85 elected ones 49 elections 49, 50, 51, 52, 68,109,110, 111 electors 49 Eliezer of Behm 79 encroachment 125 equinox 168 eruv 94,163 estate supervision 28 Esther, Scroll of 76,142 Europe, Western 39 excommunication 23, 55, 56, 74 exile 6, 26, 38, 43, 55 exporting 44 expulsion 26, 27, 38, 43, 56 extortion 7, 9, 30 fairs 88,157 family 21, 197 fast days 95 feasts 16, 69, 85 fees 73, 74, 75 France 67 franchise 51 freedom 57 friends 197 Fuenn, Samuel 199 gabbaim 49, 50, 52, 54 Galatz 181 garments 139 Gentiles 3 Germany xiii, 3, 13, 14, 21, 27, 31, 32, 35, 38,49,59,67,70, 84, 89 goldsmiths 45 government 52, 57, 68 grammar 82, 89, 90, 106, 202 Great Britain xiii Greek 34 Greek Orthodox 32 Grodno 177,178, 210

Gromniczej 45 groom 15,16, 20, 73, 85,117

ha/tarah 164
Hagiographa 89 Halakha 205 ha Hah 15,16, 98,191 Halleck brothers 78, 199 Haiperin, Israel 178,199 Hamburg xiii hametz 94, 145 Hanover, Nathan Nata 34, 40, 65, 74 Hanukka 73, 79 Harkavy, Alexander 60 haver 11, 73, 74, 87 Hayyim ben Bezalel of Prague 13, 64, 82 hazzan 76 Hebrew 22, 82, 85, 89,180, 190 heder 85 Heilbronn, Jacob 177 Heller, Yom Tov Lipmann 68,199 hilluk 88, 89, 204 holidays 111, 155 holocaust xiv home 21 Horodno 177 Horodok 178 Horowitz, Isaiah 88, 89, 209, 210 Hotzenplotz 102 Hundert, Gershon 29 Hungary xiv, 39, 40 hupa 15,17, IB

Jaroslaw 70, 88, 155, 156, 178, 180, 199, 213 JasLow 160 Jaslowiec 172, 181 Jassy 181 Jerusalem 143 jewelers 45 Jewish law 8 ,1 4 ,1 7 ,1 8 , 43, 57, 69, 71, 72, 89,130,183, 202, 203, 204, 207 Jews, Ashkenazic 20, 72, 76, 147, 201 Jews, Byzantine 13, 84 Jews, Franco-German 14 Jews, French xiii Jews, German xiii, 4, 12, 13, 14, 20 Jews, Oriental 14 Jews, Polish 12, 26 Jews, Sefardic 14, 20, 72, 76 Jews, Spanish 14 Jews, TUrkish 212 Judah Hahasid 79 Judah Loew ben Bezalel of Prague 88 Judaism 1, 6 judges 52, 52, 53, 68, 71, 73, 75,192

Kabbalah 187,188, 210 Kabbalah, Lurianic (practical) 188, 210 Kadars 35 kaddish 19, 20,154 kahal 18, 50,52,58 Kalish 37 Kamieniec 181 Katz, Joseph ben Mardecai Gershon of Cra cow 7, 22, 26, 38, 40, 51, 55, 56, 61, illiteracy 24, 187 73, 74, 119, 214 immigration 83 Katzenelenbogen, Jacob Abraham ben Jael importing 44 Ashkenazi 200 income 79 Kazi, Joseph 215 infanticide 122 Khazars 84 informers 7 kiddush 210 Inquisition 6 Kiev 40,181 Isaac ben Aaron of Prosnitz 199 Kimchi, David 90, 202 Isaac ben Samuel (Ri Hazaken) 195 king 6, 27, 28, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40, 44, 50, Isaiah Horowitz 188 57, 59, 66, 70, 77,103 Israel xiv kinyan sudar 157 Isserlein, Israel 41, 58, 62, 183 kittei 21 Isserles, Moses 1, 4, 5, 6,13,14,16, 26, 30, 31, 38, 40, 41, 43, 47, 58, 63, 66, 68, Kolomea 181 kosher 45, 46, 47, 69, 77, 95, 96, 118, 119, 71, 78, 180, 181, 182, 183,164,168, 122, 128, 132, 133, 142, 146, 150, 192, 193, 194, 201, 202, 205, 206, 153, 164,168,173,189, 215 207, 208, 213, 214 Krzemieniec 70,181 Italian 190 Kutina 181 Jacob ben Asher 62,189 Jacob ben Meir (Rabbenu Tam) 195 Jail 55 Janow 198 Landman, Leo 71 language 62, 83,136 Latin America xiii

Latvia xiv lay leadership 49 Lemberg 14, 55,180,161, 200, 213 Levi, Jonathan 200 levirate marriage 99,190 leviis 6, 69,113,174,175 Lewin, Isaac 198 liquor 8, 22, 33, 44, 55, 70,134,135, 165 literacy 84, 85,185 Lithuania xiv, 32,61 Lithuanian Synod 52, 60, 68, 75, 79 livelihood 3, 8, 10, 12, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 58, 60, 70, 102, 122, 123, 125, 130, 131, 132, 159, 164, 168,172,173 London xiv lottery 50, 52,110 Lublin 11, 22, 88, 177, 180, 181,199, 199, 200, 209 Luboml 27, 41 Lukow 36, 41 lulav 95 Luria, Solomon 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 21, 23, 24, 29, 33, 34, 40, 43, 47, 56, 73, 74, 77, 79, 82, 83, 05, 88, 89, 182, 188, 193, 194, 196, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 214 Lutherans 32 Lwow 197,198 maarichim 50, 54 maaru/ia 47 Maharshl Hasheni 188, 209 Maimonides 65,140,183,184,195, 196 Man, Chaim Menahem 198 Man, Faivel 189,198 Man, Israel ben Chaim Menahem 189,192, 193,198 marriage 8, 9 ,1 1 ,1 5 , 63, 73, 87, 100,138, 153,162,163,166,169, 172,198 Mas'at Binyamin 1,188 maturity 113 meat suppliers 46 mehutan 198 Meir ben Gedalia of Lublin 4, 5, 7 ,10,11, 12,15, 30, 31, 36, 38, 42, 45, 46, 57, 175, 180,197, 209, 215 Meir of Lemberg 161 Meir of Padua 38 Meir of Rothenberg 61,115 memunim 50, 54 Menahem Mendel of Krutushin 210 merchants 18, 29, 33

Meth, Moses ben Abraham of Przemysl 196 methodology 191, 194, 202, 204 Metz 189,190 middlemen 35 mikve 24, 96,159 milieu 26 minority 32 Mintz, Moses 60 Mishnah 86,89 Mizrahi, Elija ben Abraham 183,184,197,

212

modesty 8, 9 Moelin, Jacob Levy 147 Moldavia 39, 40 moneylending 28, 29, 30, 44, 58,103,129, 131,132, 160 monopoly 28, 30, 32, 33,43, 47,123 moral standards 8,11, 23 Mordecai Jaffe ben Abraham of Bhmen 209, 216 morenu 73, 74, 87 Moscow 40,41 Moses ben Abraham of Opatow 136,137 Moses ben Abraham of Przemysl 216 Moses ben Menahem Mendel 173 Moses ben Menahem Mendel of Przemysl 115,185 Moses ben Menahem Mendel of Vladimir 199 mourners 12,19,20, 21,153,156,159,195 muktzah 111 murder 12, 30,148,152 Muscovite Kingdom xiv Muscovite war 41, 46 Muslims 32 mysticism 187, 210 nadler 11,212 Nazis xv neemanim 50, 55 New Moon. 102 Niddah 98,105,134,138,191 Ninth of Av 95 Nissenbaum, S.B. 199 nivrarim 49 noblemen 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 38, 44, 46 officers 50, 52,131 Olive oil 47 Opatow 11,136,137, 217 ordination 87 Ottoman Empire xiv overlords 7, 11, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 44, 52, 57, 60, 70,103,123,124,165

Sabbath 94, i l l Safed 210 salary 73, 79 salt-mining 45 Samuel ben Moses David Halevi 46 Sanhdrin 4, 52 Satanow 49,181 scholarship 3 schools 57, 82, 202 scoffers 4,112 scribes 55, 79, 87,144 scroll of Torah 92 Sde Lavan 181 Seder Halitzah 190 Seder Mitzvot Nashim 190 Sefardic Jews 14 SeferHaebronot 190 Segal, Jonathan David of Vohlin 200 Segal, Leba of Satanow 109 Segal, Ziskind 138, 200 selected ones 49 self-government xiv Seligman, Levi 186 servants 34, 48 sextons 37. 50. 52, 54, 73, 76, 79, 07 Shabtai Cohen 83 Shalom Schachna 13,88,89,117, 204, 205, 206, 217 shamaim 49, 54 shamash 76 shamashim 50 shofar 95,102 shopkeepers 48 Shor, Abraham Hayyim ben Naftali Hirsch queen 33 of Belz 199 Sigismund August 33 Sigismund the Third 57 Rabbenu Gershon 64, 65 Rabbenu Tam 115 Silesia xiv, 180,181 rabbi, Sefardic 212 silversmiths 45 Simon ben Yochai 188 rabbis 11, 15, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 84, sinners 4, 5 87, Sirkes, Joel 6,12, 26. 28, 37,40, 41, 44, 46, 110,178,179,181 58, 66, 67, 73, 75, 80,197, 209 rabbis, Ashkenazic 183,184 Sirkes, Joel 36 rabbis, Sefardic 183,184 Sirkes, Joel 46 ransom 10 rav 74 Skole 181 reader 76 Slonik, Abraham 140, 184,189,197, 198 Slonik, Benjamin Aaron ben Abraham xiv, real estate 37, 43

parnas 54, 55 parnasim 49, 52, 53, 55 partnership 126 Passover 4, 12, 32, 44. 51, 87, 134, 135, 145, 153,165 pawnbroking 45 paytan 76, 78 peasant 26, 34 penance 11,122,123 Pentecost 210 persecutions 39 personality 181 physicians 45, 46 piipul 69, 196, 204, 205, 206, 218 piyyutim 78 Podhajce 39, 41, 68, 151, 178, 180, 181, 192, 194, 198, 200 poet 76 poetry 202 pogroms 37 Poland xiv, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 3B, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 64, 66, 69, 74, 75, 82, 84, 89,181, 199 Polish 83 political life xiv Political stability 37 Posen 181 prayer B9, 92, 143, 164 prayer shawl 139 prayers 46 preacher 76, 87 priest 66 printers 199 printing 6, 22, 77, 167,194 Probobycz 181 Prophets 89 prostitute 10 protection 39 Pruzany 41 Przemysl 181 Purim 73, 76, 79, 95, 142,143

rehash 73 relations 198 religious observance 3 repentance 141 responsa 91 Romania xiv, 40 roshim 49 Russia xiv, 84, 172, 179,181

5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 114, 115, 177, 178, 179, 183, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 2D2, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213, 218 Slonik, Yaakov Yekel 23, 31,151,161,175, 197, 212 Sniatyn 169,180,181 social life xiv Solomon ben Leibish of Lublin 188, 201, 209 Solomon Ephraim ben Aaron of Leczycza 77,88, 89,199, 209, 212 Solomon Leibish of Lublin 89 sources 194, 204 Spain 6 Spanish Inquisition 14 Speyer, Gottschalk 190 Spiro, Nathan Nata of Grodno 177, 201,
210

tos/os-time 206 tosaphot 89 tovim 49, 52, 53, 55 towns 130 trade 10, 29, 30, 33, 36, 39,41,43,45, 60 trapping 111, 161 travel 3, 39, 169,173 TYembowla 181 trustees 19, 50 Tlir 14,189 T\irkey 42,135 TUrks 10, 11, 23,135 Tykocyn 177,178 tzitzit 92 Ukraine 40, 43,84 Ukranians 32 Uniates 32 United States xiv, 14 usury 45, 97 villages 130 Vilna 189 Vital, Hayyim 210 Vohlin 181 voting 51 Waiwode 38 Wallachia 10, 29, 39, 40, 42. 46, 83, 135, 136, 137, 151, 169, 170, 173, 180, 181 weddings 16,17,18, 69, 73 Weil, Jacob 41, 60, 67, 70, 71, 72 Weinryb, Bernard D. 27, 32, 33, 35, 83 Wetstein, P.H. 86 whiskey 3, 46,145,146 White Russians 32 widows 20, 60 Wien 181,193 wine 3, 55, 70, 97,127, 189 Winnica 181 Wlodzimiers 68, 181 women 8, 22, 24, 25, 27, 54, 70, 88, 148, 187,191 work 188 yahrzeit 19,160 YerushalnJ, Eliezer 114 yeshiva 66, 85, 179 Yiddish 22, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88,190 yihud 16,17,18 Zimmer, Eric 59, 67, 71 Zohar 188 Zulz 181

stolen goods 10, 29, 36, 48 structure 191 style 191,202 Sudzialkow 189 supervisory officials 50, 54 swine 132 synagogue 1&, 19, 30, 48, 54, 57, 76, 92, 104, 129,130,131,168 Synagogue seats 20, 21,104,168 synods 8,11, 60, 61, 70, 71, 79, 199 Tabernacles 12, 46, 87,154 tailors 48 Tfclmud 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,188 Talmud Torah 86 tanners 48 Tarnopol 198 Ihtar 84 Tatars 30, 31, 32, 39, 40, 42, 138 tax assessors 50, 54 tax collectors 54 tax-farming 28 taxes 7,26,30,35, 44,51, 57, 59,60,61, 62, 63,103, 104 teachers 76, 79, 87,103,177,181. 201*210 Temple 76 tenure 55, 67, 68, 79 timber 45 Torah reading 19, 92,106, 202 Ibrah scroll 144 Tosaphists 64, 73