Vayechi: Minchas Eluzer's Teshuva On The Gap - pt iii

For previous segments of this teshuva, see part 1 and part 2.

And so, even between one verse and the next verse, even though the Rema in Orach Chaim siman 32 seif 32 ruled to leave a bit blank between one verse and the next verse, and so is ruled in the Shach Yoreh Deah (siman 274 seif katan 6), even so the Magen Avraham there, siman 32, argues on this. For the Rema brings this only from the Rivash (siman 286), and in the Rivash is is explained that only if he did this, it does not invalidate after the fact. And therefore the Magen Avraham ruled that one should not leave anything between one verse and the next verse, except as between other words.

And so too in Benei Yona, he writes that one should not leave any {extra} gap between one verse and the next verse, like the opinion of the majority of decisors and like the girsa of Masechet Soferim which is before us: "A sefer shepasak veshenakad rashei hapesukim, one should not read it in." And this is that it has separations between the verses.

And also in the Shulchan Aruch of the Tanya and in the Biur haGra, they rule like the Magen Avraham and not like the Rema.

And even though in Eliyahu Rabba he leans to justify the position of the Rema, since in the sefer Baruch SheAmar he rules like it, behold, he already wrote in Benei Yona that this written in Baruch SheAmar is according to the girsa which was in front of him in Masechet Soferim, and so is this girsa brought down in the Aguda: ספר שנפסקו ואוקרעו, etc., and in Semak he writes, "between one verse to the next verse like the length of a small word." But according to our girsa, with which all decisors rule, certainly one should not make a separation at all, even between verses, as I have brought down above a proof from the words of the Tur. For if this were not so, the words of the Tur are difficult, as mentioned.

(And also, without this, it is a novelty that which is written in the Semak that between one verse and the next verse like the length of a small word. And the Benei Yona wrote that there is to say that they had such a girsa in Masechet Soferim. And perforce one must say that "a small word" is at least 2 letters, and a setuma according to the Masechet Soferim is 3 letters. If so, there is almost no recognizable distinction for a setuma, since on every single pasuk there is a gap of two letters, at least, such that the distinction is almost not recognized.

And further, that which is stated also according to the words of the Rabbenu Tam in the name of the siddur hakadmonim, that a setuma is also only two letters. And even though for the Semak this is not a true difficult, even so, it is a novelty, and requires consideration.)

Therefore, certainly one should not make a gap also between one verse and the next verse, except for that which is between any word and the next word, which is the fullness of one letter.

And thus, according to this, it is prohibited to leave also in the place of the end of the parsha of the 7 readings (printed in Chumashim) any separation or distinction. And chalila to do this in a sefer Torah, and whoever changes, he has the lower hand. For who permitted them to make a gap and a difference ab initio, in a place where there is no petucha or setuma? Chalila to do this in a sefer Torah!

And this is, in my humble opinion, frivolity of the one who does this in our days. And also since the division of these parshiyot are not at all a received tradition in our hands, and as is known in the position of the Gra of Vilna, as is written in sefer Shaarei Rachamim in his name, that one should not conclude the 7 readings, where possible, except in a place where there is a petucha or setuma, and not specifically as is established in the parsha in Chumashim.

It is true, that I have heard from a certain Torah scholar who saw, in the holy community of Krakow (in the synagogue of the Rema, z"l), in an old sefer Torah attributed to the Rema, z"l, he saw there in parshat Bechukotai, in the pasuk {Vayikra 26:6} וְנָתַתִּי שָׁלוֹם בָּאָרֶץ {The entire sidra begins at pasuk 3}

there, there is a slight separation, such that it is before the second parsha {that is, the second aliyah, which is from pasuk 3 to pasuk 5, see here}. (And I did not see this, because they only take out this specific sefer Torah as set intervals, because of its great worth.)

And I responded to him that from this, there is no proof, for the Rema is consistent in his position, for he rules in Orach Chaim siman 32 that one should place a gap between one verse and the next verse, and therefore it is fine that such is found in his sefer Torah, a little gap. And also it is possible that there is not there a measure of 3 letters, but rather a gap which is recognizable a bit to one who is careful {medakdek} on this.

Butm the Lechem Chamudot, the Magen Avraham, and the Acharonim in the sifrei stam from whose mouths we live in our generations regarding these halachot -- all of them rule in this not like the Rema. Therefore, certainly, one should not place any gap at all.

And behold, even though we wrote above that the Mordechai brought from Masechet Soferim that the measure of a setuma is 9 letters, behold, in Masechet Soferim which is before us, such is not found. Rather, it is explained that the measure of a setuma is 3 letters. And also the Gra, who carefully analyzes and emends {/corrects}, does not emend in Masechet Soferim another nusach there.

And also, the nusach which the Mordechai brings from Masechet Soferim, that he writes, "the gap between one parsha and the next parsha, or the gap of the parsha, is 3 words of 3 letters" -- there is no proof that this is going also on a setuma, and one can say that his intent that a parasha petucha requires 9 letters, and this is like the conclusion of the Rosh and the Tur that a petucha is 9 letters and a setuma is 3 letters. And specifically, that in our nusach, in all printings of Masechet Soferim, it is found explained as mentioned, that a setuma is 3 letters.

Therefore, certainly it is so for a stringency, that it is forbidden to place a gap like this in a place where there need not be a setuma, as mentioned.

the conclusion, in another post...

Daf Yomi Nedarim 5b: Does Rabbi Yehuda Really Insist On Explicit Yadot?

(Related, but not equal to this, is the following video, of Rif on Nedarim daf 5 through daf 7. Also available on my Rif blog.


)

On Nedarim 5b:

כר' יהודה דאמר ידים שאין מוכיחות לא הויין ידים דתנן גופו של גט הרי את מותרת לכל אדם ר' יהודה אומר ודין דיהוי ליכי מנאי ספר תרוכין ואגרת שבוקין:

like Rabbi Yehuda, who said that handles which are not explicit are not handles. For we learnt: The essential part of a get is "Behold you are permitted to any man." Rabbi Yehuda says: And this {document} should be from me to you as a book of dismissal and a letter of release."

This would appear to be of similar type as the above, about Rabbi Meir holding a certain principle -- a far-reaching extrapolation of principle from a local law, by the setama digmara, in order to read the point of dispute of Abaye and Rava first into the earlier generation, in Shmuel, and then into Rabbi Yehuda, the Tanna.

But just perhaps this is not the point of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages. Rather, the question is how one makes a derasha from the pesukim. The pesukim say {Devarim 24}:

א כִּי-יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה, וּבְעָלָהּ; וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר--וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ. ב וְיָצְאָה, מִבֵּיתוֹ; וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר.

The Chachamim hold that there is no specification in pasuk 1 about the content of the sefer keritut. Rather he writes her this sefer and puts it in her hand, and sends her out. And the idea is that she is divorced, and can marry anyone else. This is the result, as found in pasuk 2. And so there must be some words to that effect in the sefer.

In contrast, Rabbi Yehuda makes a specific derasha. Pasuk 1 states וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, which we may interpret as "And he wrote to him: 'A book of divorce, and he gave it in her hand'."

Thus, Rabbi Yehuda holds that part of what is required to be written in the get is what is mentioned in pasuk 1. And his formulation is essentially a translation of the pasuk into Aramaic:
"And this {document} should be from me to you as a book of dismissal and a letter of release." Note the mention of the book of dismissal = sefer keritut, and that it should be from me to you, which is = to וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ.

But the setama digmara instead reads this as an established principle about yadot in general, and how specific they must be.

Vayechi: Minchas Eluzer's Teshuva On The Gap - pt ii

Continuing the Minchas Eluzer's teshuva about the gap, or lack thereof, at the start of parshat Vayechi. The first segment is available here.

My rough translation of the teshuva now continues:

And behold, this which they leave in this, as the beginning of parshat Vayechi, and so too in all places where there is the end of a parsha which is etched in Chumash for the 7 readings, even in a place where there is no petucha or setuma at all, and they leave a gap of something like 2 or 3 yuds at times.

And according to the opinion of Rabbenu Tam, the Rosh, and the Tur, and so is it explicit in masechet Sofrim, that the measure of a setuma is 3 letters, as is brought in Beis Yosef siman 275. And see the Derisha there, what he writes upon the Tur who ruled like the Roash in the name of Masechet Soferim in the measure of the stuma as 3 letters. And he asks there from what is implied, that also by p'tucha, the measure is three letters. And {if so}, why does the Tur rule like the Rosh that by a petucha, it needs to be 9 letters?

And he answers that it is possible that in this the Tur relied on Rabbenu Tam brought in the siddur hakadmonim, that a petucha is the measure of three words or three letters each. And he leaves it as something that requires further investigation in the Drisha.

And in my humble opinion, the words of the Tur are still difficult ever more in this. For if we says that he relied on the words of the siddur hakadmonim, which Rabbenu Tam brought, that a petucha needs to be 9 letters, if so, it is also made clear there that a setuma there is of two letters. And why does the Tur rule that a setuma needs to be three letters. And perforce, we are pressed to say that the Tur is stringent like both of them, both that which is explained in the siddur hakadmonim in the matter of the petucha, as well as what is written in masechet Soferim that a setuma is 3 letters. And this can work only when it is stated that one may not place between one verse and another anything at all. But it is not so if we say that one can place a little {gap} between one verse and the next, in accordance with the opinion of the Rema which we will bring later on, with the aid of Heaven, except that you do not leave like the measure of a setuma.

If so, it is a stringency which leads to a leniency. For in truth, the measure of a setuma according to the siddur hakadmonim (in accordance with which the Tur ruled in terms of a petucha, as written above) is only 2 letters, and when it is stated that a setuma is 3 letters, if so, it is permitted to place two letters gap between one verse and the next verse (and as is in truth brought as a girsa in masechet soferim according to the opinion of the Baruch SheAmar). And in truth this is a setuma {rather than an acceptable inter-pasuk gap}. And if so, this is a stringecy which is a leniency.

Rather, certainly they did not have the custom at all to place a space between one verse and the next verse. And this is a proof to the words of the Magen Avraham who argues on the Rema in siman 32, as we will mention later on. And therefore, the Tur did not worry that this will bring to a leniency via this stringency,
since it is uncommon that they leave a gap the measure of two letters in the middle, and to make a gap for nothing.

And also that which the Bet Yosef wrote in siman 275 there according to the opinion of the Rambam, that he requires 9 letters {gap} also by setuma, that the Rambam writes there himself that there are things which are not stated in the Talmud, but was received via the hands of the scribes, one man from the mouth of the previous man, and such as the space of 9 letters -- that all of these matters are for fulfilling the precept at its best {mitzvah min hamuvchar}, and if he changed, he did not invalidate. End quote of the Rambam.

And based on this, the Bet Yosef wrote there that where is does not invalidate, this is specifically where he did not leave a gap of less than 3 times "asher" {??}, but wherever there is not a gap of 9 letters, even of small letters, then it is invalid as well. End quote of the Bet Yosef.

And in the poverty of my opinion {or in my humble opinion}, I have not merited to understand the words of our holy master the Bet Yosef in what he wrote there. For the Rambam wrote not like Masechet Soferim, for he wrote that the measure of a petucha and a setuma are 3 letters. It appears from this that he holds that that which is written in Masechet Soferim that a setuma is such to write there of 3 letters, this is primary, and not like what the Mordechai wrote there in the name of Masechet Soferim that a setuma is three words consisting of three letters each. And if so, the Rambam, who requires 9 letters, wrote afterwards that this is only that which was received via the scribes, and it does not invalidate based on that.

And if so, what basis do we have to invalidate, according to the opinion of the Rambam, when there is not 9 small letters, since this has no source at all in Masechet Soferim, this requirement of 9 letters, but rather it specifies three letters according to the words of the Bet Yosef, not like the girsa of the Rosh. And the Mordechai wrote that one should not invalidate, after the fact {bedieved} when it is not found such, for it is not according to the law {as an absolute requirement}. If so, what basis do we have to invalidate a sefer Torah from its holiness?

And we cannot say that we are being stringent here {as a chumra}, for behold, there are times, when it is not possible to erase {letters} and extend the setuma, such as where it is written proximate to it some Name, and via this, the sefer Torah will come to be invalidated. Perforce, I have
not merited to understand at all the opinion of the Bet Yosef, unless it be stated that he leans towards the doubt like the words of the Mordechai which he brings from Masechet Soferim, which is 9 letters. And it does not appear so from his language.

However, to be practically lenient lehalacha against our master the Bet Yosef, who would dare? It will be as it will be. Even so, to be lenient in the other direction, and to say that that when he left an empty space in a certain place, to say that since there is not in this 9 yuds, this is not a setuma and it does not invalidate, this we certainly cannot say, since in Masechet Soferim it is explained that it {a setuma} is 3 letters. If so, what basis do we have via this accepted custom, according to the Rambam? -- for the Rambam himseld wrote upon it that one should not stand upon it a basis in terms of after the fact {dieved} -- and all the more so to be lenient based on this against the law in Masechet Soferim which is detailed there. And even though the Mordechai brings in the name of Masechet Soferim the measure of a setuma as 9 letters, and thus in the words of the Masechet Soferim, there are variant girsaot, and we do not know which one is original.

However, at any rate, there is a doubt, and if so, there is to wonder about why this is not brought down in Shulchan Aruch, that one should not leave a measure of 3 letters in a place which is not a setuma, for this is the measure of a setuma according to the opinion of Masechet Soferim, and for stringency, certainly we should not deviate from the measure of Masechet Soferim, as mentioned.

And see in sefer Be'er Yaakov, siman 32 in Orach Chaim (page 4b, in the statement beginning "achar katavti zot), that which he answers according to the opinion of the Taz there. In in truth, my mind is unsettled why this is not mentioned in Shulchan Aruch, that one should not leave a space of 3 letters. For behold, there in Bet Yosef he brings in the name of the Rosh only that the Yerushalmi is primary against Masechet Soferim in a place that the Yerushalmi argues, but in a place where they do not argue on it, but only the custom which the Rambam brought, and he himself wrote that it does not hinder {its being valid}. If so, to be lenient in this against Masechet Soferim, where do we have?

And I have seen in the Shiyarei Knesset haGedolah, siman 275, in hagahot of the Tur, seif katan 2, what he writes in the matter of a setuma or petucha in a place it is not required. And he is already argued against in She`elot uTeshuvot Devar Moshe (chelek 1) to Maharam Ameralaow zz"l, siman 60 of Yoreh Deah, that this that the Kenesset haGedolah wrote was his own opinion. Behold, it comes out explicitly in the Rambam (perek 10 from hilchot sefer Torah, halacha 3) that if he leaves blank in a place where there is not a petucha or setuma, it is invalid. And in Kenesset haGedolah he brings there to the Radvaz, see there what he writes on this in Devar Moshe there [and this is in Razvaz in chelek 4, siman 82 (folio 153)].

And it appears from the Radvaz that he is able to leave between one word and the next a space of three letters. And it astounding that he is not stringent like the opinion of Masechet Soferim, as written above. And if it is stated like the words of the Bach, in siman 275, that he derives from the words of
the Rivah that he argues on the Rambam, and holds that even if he leaves a space the measure of a setuma or a petucha in a place where there is not {supposed to be} a setuma or petucha at all, there is no harm in it, and it is valid. And based on this, we may answer why it was not brought in Shulchan Aruch in the matter of leaving 3 letters {gap}. And also the position of the Radvaz is that since, after the fact {bedieved} it is valid.

However, this is not so, for the Taz pushed off his words and wrote that there is no legal decisor who argues on the Rambam in this. And so wrote the Shach, seif katan 1, there, that the words of the Bach are not compelling. And in Panim Meirot (chelek 1, siman 13) he writes as well, and concludes that in matter of legal decision, the opinion is settled like the words of the Taz who argues on the Bach in this. If so, this still needs delving, as we wrote above.

Even so, certainly it is forbidden to place, ab initio, a space of three letters, for this is the space of a setuma according to the position of Masechet Soferim, and the Rishonim and the Tur who ruled like this. And also not the space of two letters, for this is the space of a setuma according to the position of the Rabbenu Tam in the name of siddur hakadmonim. And so is written in sefer Melechet Shamayim on stam {sefer Torah, tefillin, mezuzot} (at the end of rule 12) to be careful in this not to leave even the measure of two letters leyud-gimel (it appears his intent is to the words of the siddur hakadmonim). And so is explained in the sefer Keset haSofer, siman 16, seif katan 7, and in the rest of books about sta"m.

to be continued in another post...

Interesting Searches That Took People To Parshablog

1. i was converted by a rabbi in the meah shearim, am I a jew now?
2. always a bridesmaid, never a bride (there were a lot of these)
3. how to make a floating wick
4. in hebrew just like hashem opened the eyes of hagar so to please open my eyes and help me find what i have lost

Daf Yomi Nedarim 10b-11a: Does Rabbi Meir Not Hold Of Michlal Lav Ata Shomea Hen?

A thought or two about the gemara Nedarim's analysis of the Mishna on Nedarim 10b. (Girsaot and translation taken from my Rif blog.)

Nedarim 10b:

Mishna:

לא חולין שאוכל לך לא כשר לא דכי לא טהור וטמא נותר ופיגול אסור כאימרא כדירים כעצים כאישים כמזבח כהיכל כירושלים כא' מכל משמשי המזבח אע"פ שלא הזכיר קרבן הרי זה נדר בקרבן.
ר' יהודה אומר האומר ירושלים הרי זה לא אמר כלום

{IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR}, 'THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE NOT CHULLIN, NOT KOSHER, NOT PURE, NOT RITUALLY CLEAN, AND IMPURE, LEFTOVER, PIGGUL {with improper intent}, FORBIDDEN, LIKE THE LAMB {of the daily sacrifice}, LIKE THE SHEDS OF CATTLE, LIKE THE WOOD, LIKE THE FIRE, LIKE THE ALTAR, LIKE THE TEMPLE, LIKE YERUSHALAYIM, LIKE ONE OF ALL THE UTENSILS OF THE ALTAR, THEN EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT MENTIONED A KORBAN, HE HAS VOWED BY KORBAN.
RABBI YEHUDA SAYS: IF ONE SAYS "LIKE YERUSHALAYIM," HE HAS NOT SAID ANYTHING.

The gemara:

{Nedarim 11a}
Gemara:

סברוה מאי לחולין לא חולין הוי אלא קרבן
מני מתני' אי ר"מ הא לית ליה מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן דתנן רמ"א כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי ב"ג וב"ר אינו תנאי
ואלא ר' יהודה?
אימא סיפא רי"א האומר ירושלים לא אמר כלום
ומדסיפא ר"י רישא לאו ר"י
לא קשיא כולה ר' יהודה והכי קתני
שר"י אומר האומר ירושלים לא אמר כלום

וכי אמר כירושלים לר"י מי מיתסר
והתניא ר' יהודה אומר כירושלים לא אמר כלום עד שידור בדבר הקרב בירושלים.
כולה ר' יהודה ותרי תנאי אליבא דר' יהודה.

They thought that what is lechulin {in the Mishna, in a certain girsa}? la chullin is it, but rather an offering.
Who is the author of our Mishna? If it is Rabbi Meir, behold he does not have the principle of from the negative you can infer the positive! For they learnt {in a Mishna}: Rabbi Meir says: Any stipulation which is not like the stipulation of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuven is not a valid stipulation.
But can we say it is Rabbi Yehuda? The sefa {latter part of the Mishna} states: Rabbi Yehuda says, "One who says Yerushalayim does not say anything." And from the fact that the sefa is Rabbi Yehuda, the resha is not Rabbi Yehuda.
This is no question. It is all Rabbi Yehuda, and this is what it means to say: For Rabbi Yehuda says, "One who says 'Yerushalayim' has not said anything."

But if he said "Like Yerushalayim, would Rabbi Yehuda forbid?" But they learnt {in a brayta}, "One who said 'like Yerushalayim' has not said anything, until he vows with what is sacrificed in Yerushalayim.

{The answer:} It is all Rabbi Yehuda, and it is two Tannaim within the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

This explanation of the Mishna, as being in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, seems quite a bit forced. It would have been much easier to make it accord with Rabbi Meir, except of course that Rabbi Meir does not hold of the principle of מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן.

But is this really so? The basis for this assertion is what he says in a Mishna in Kiddushin:

ג,ד רבי מאיר אומר, כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי בני ראובן ובני גד--אינו תנאי, שנאמר "ויאמר משה אליהם, אם יעברו בני גד ובני ראובן איתכם . . . ואם לא יעברו חלוצים, איתכם . . ." (במדבר לב,כט-ל). רבי חנניה בן גמליאל אומר, צורך היה הדבר לאומרו--שאלמלא כן, יש במשמע שאף בארץ לא הונחלו.

But, this is a statement in the context of stipulations. Who says that a simple statement in the form of negative cannot imply a positive by Nedarim, where after all both yadot and kinuyim are in force? Indeed, who says that this is anything which should be extrapolated out of the specific context of stipulations? It is, after all, derived from a pasuk, and Rabbi Chanania ben Gamliel has a reply in the context of the intent of that pasuk. Perhaps it is a gezeirat hakatuv only by stipulations. Instead, we make this more general rule that Rabbi Meir purportedly subscribes to, and this causes problems to a local understanding of the Mishna in Nedarim.

Indeed, the same extrapolation presents another problem, with a Mishna in which Rabbi Meir explicitly speaks. On Nedarim 11b:

תנא חולין החולין כחולין בין שאוכל לך בין שלא אוכל לך מותר.
לא חולין שאוכל לך אסור
לא חולין לא אוכל לך מותר

It was taught: Chullin, haChullin, keChullin, whether "that I eat of yours," or "that I do not eat of yours," is permitted.
It is not chullin, that I eat of yours, it is forbidden.
It is not chullin that I do not eat of yours, it is permitted.

רישא מני ר"מ היא דלית ליה מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן
אימא סיפא לחולין לא אוכל לך מותר

The resha is who? Rabbi Meir, who does not have the principle of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement. But then the sefa says "lachullin {=not chullin} I will not eat from you, it is permitted!
{And this cannot be Rabbi Meir, because:}

והתנן לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר
וקשיא לן
הא לית ליה לרבי מאיר מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן
וא"ר אבא נעשה כאומר לקרבן יהא לפיכך לא אוכל לך
ה"נ לא חולין ליהוי לפיכך לא אוכל לך

האי תנא סבר לה כותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא ס"ל בחדא דלית ליה מכלל לאו וכו' ופליג עליה בחדא בקרבן

רב אשי אמר הא דאמר לחולין הא דאמר לא חולין דמשמע לא ליהוי חולין אלא קרבן

But we learnt {in a Mishna}: lakorban {=not a korban} that which I do not eat of yours, Rabbi Meir forbids. {With the simple understanding that: since that which I do not eat is not a korban, that which I would eat of your would be forbidden like a korban.} But Rabbi Meir does not hold of the principle of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement?!
And Rabbi Abba {there} says: He is made as if he said "for a korban {=lekorban} it should be, and therefore I will not eat of yours."
So too {here, by the sefa of the brayta, we should interpret it as} "it is not to be chullin, and therefore I will not eat of yours."

The answer: This tanna holds like him {Rabbi Meir} in one and argues upon him in one. He holds in one {=the resha} that there is no principle of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement. And he argues with him in one of them -- by the korban. {and the meaning of lakorban.}

Rav Ashi said: This {=resha} is where he said leChullin, and this is where he said la chullin, which implies that it should not be chullin but rather korban.

Yet it would be simpler to say that Rabbi Meir indeed holds of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement. But in the brayta, which states

לא חולין שאוכל לך אסור
לא חולין לא אוכל לך מותר

it is not about whether one can make such a derivation. Rather, the former implies that that which I eat from you is not chullin {but rather korban}, and thus is forbidden. While the latter, with the double negative, implies that that which he did not eat is not chullin, but that which he would eat is chullin, and thus permissible. Indeed, this would appear to be like (part of) Rav Ashi's resolution.

In terms of the Mishna, which states:

והתנן לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר

this is not an issue of deriving a positive from a negative statement, but rather since it says lekorban, rather than la korban, in two separate words. And indeed, that is how it appears in the citation from the Mishna. While in the Mishna, it is la chullin as two separate words.

And this appears to accord with Rabbi Abba, above.

This is all complicated, or hidden, by the fact that the girsa as it appears in our gemara, as opposed to how it appears as cited above from the Rif, does not have these marked distinctions.

And if so, we do not really need to have the prompting the setama digmara gives in these places for Rav Ashi and Rabbi Abba. And this prompting is the claim that Rabbi Meir does not hold of michlal lav ata shomea hen. But as above, we can dispense with that.

And once we do, we do not need the claim for the first Mishna that it is a Tanna based in part or Rabbi Yehuda and who argues on him in part. And we do not need the claim in the latter case that it is a Tanna who agrees with and disagrees with Rabbi Meir.

I would suggest that all of this is a later stammaic reworking of the gemara, from a particular extrapolation from Kiddushin about Rabbi Meir's views.

Vayechi: Minchas Eluzer's Teshuva On The Gap - pt i

I am splitting the following teshuva, about the gap between Vayigash and Vayechi, into several parts, because it is long and complicated. This is from the Minchas Eluzer, chelek 1:

Siman 10:

Question:
I have seen, and have placed it in my heart. Behold, it is found in several sifrei Torah, both new and old, at the beginning of parshat Vayechi, where there is no need for there to be a setuma at all, and despite this the scribes place there a gap equal to the width of three letter yuds, of that font, and perhaps even more than that. And also in the place of the close of the parshiyot of {each of} the 7 readings, which they etch and print in Chumashim, even where there is no petucha or setuma at all, they leave a space of two or three yuds. And also, in sifrei Torah from expert sofrim, I have seen this, and they are certainly following in this custom after the scribes who preceded them. There is to consider if they are acting correctly, since there is in this a fear of a{n unwarranted} setuma, according to opinions of the Rishonim, as will be explained in the answer, with the aid of Heaven.

Answer:
Behold, when I saw like this in one sefer Torah, in parashat Vayechi, I was astounded at the sight. For it is obvious that there need not be there any gap between the word meod (the close of parashat Vayigash) to the word Vayechi, except as there is between the word Vayechi to the word Yaakov which is after it (as we will explain later on with the aid of Heaven, that even between one pasuk and the next pasuk, one should not place a gap, ab initio, more than between one word and the next). And who learned and permitted them to make such a large gap there? And so too in Tanach and Chumashim.

Ezra the scribe and other exacting scribes wrote {in the Masoretic note}: This parasha, there is not in it a gap at all, except for a gap of a single letter. And the simple explanation is that this is the single letter gap which needs to be between one word and the next, in every place. And so too here it should be so, with no distinction in gap.

And thus, it comes out that it was a minhag of ignorance of the soferim, that they appear to have thought that the explanation of it was that there needs to be an additional gap of a letter more than there is between other words, one to the other.

And so too informed be one sofer, even though he is a Torah scholar! And I told him that this is a mistake.

And so too informed me a certain person who was wise in his own eyes, that perhaps the explanation was "a large letter," such as a resh or a daled, and at times they expand and elongate it {the resh or daled}. And thus is comes out that it is able to be, because of this, a large gap of whitespace. And this is an error which it is not worth responding to, for if so, when they measure {gaps} in terms of letters, they are able to extend to elongate the letter, and if so, there is no measure to the gap! Rather, it is obvious that this {one letter gap here} is the width of a full, small letter, which is what it is every place, between one word and the next. And it comes to say that "expect for the width of a single letter," this is that there is no gap at all, but rather that its law is as it is between every other pair of words.

And I have seen in Masoretic books, in the sefer Or Torah from Maharam di Lunzano, z"l, in the beginning of Vayechi, he writes:

In all scrolls we have seen this verse connected with the end of parashat Vayigash, with nothing between them, not even a hairsbreadth. Also the Rambam z"l does not list it. And therefore the printers erred, in that they placed at the beginning of this parsha a gap just as occurs by a parsha setuma, for there should not be a gap at all, neither a petucha nor a setuma. Etcetera.

And in sefer Em laMesoret (printed in Mantua, 508 = 1732), he suggests on this which was written in Or Torah, "there is not between them even a hairsbreadth," that this is not

hyperliterally so, for we need to leave space between one word and the next word the width of a letter, see there. And the intent of the Or Torah is obviously that they do not leave more than that, even a hairsbreadth, more than other instances of between one word and the next word, and not like the erroneous minhag of certain scribes in this, as mentioned.

[And I kind of thought that perhaps they were drawn in this, and the minhag developed in this for them, from one boor who thought that the explanation in Rashi {who is citing Bereishit Rabba} who said "parasha zo setuma," that it is a setuma rather than a petucha. And therefore he left a space of three yuds like the law of setuma from Masechet Soferim, as we will mention in this with the help of Hashem, may He Be Blessed. And see the explanation of the Maharzu {Rav Zev Wolf} in Midrash {Bereishit Rabba}, Vilna printing, who writes that "this needs delving," because he thought to explain like this, that "parasha zo setuma" is that there is a setuma {rather than a petucha}. However, after this, he resolves it and explains it appropriately. And see Mizrachi there, and Gur Aryeh to the Maharal miPrague, z"l, and Siftei Chachamim, that also {initially} wish to make it enter their minds explain like this, and they write that this is not so, but rather that it is obvious that the explanation is that there is no gap at all.]

And also in Zohar haKadosh, on Vayechi (216b):

Why is this parasha satum, etc. וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ, וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד {=the end of Vayigash} and it is written וַיְחִי יַעֲקֹב, that it is not fit to have a separation between this and that, etc.

Until here are the words of the Zohar.

Thus, he explains like our words, that one should not make a separation between וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד and וַיְחִי יַעֲקֹב.

And see in Kli Yakar, parashat Vayechi there, that he writes, and these are his words:

And here there is no gap at all. Certainly, the intent of Ezra the Scribe was to juxtapose the pasuk of Vayechi Yaakov to the pasuk beforehand, of וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן; וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ, וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד, as if it were that all of it were a single pasuk.

It appears from this that also according to the opinion of the Rema, that one should put a bit of a space between one verse and the next verse in every place {in Tanach} (as will be mentioned later on), here however, one should not leave any {extra} space at all, for we must say that it is as if all of it were a single verse. However, it comes out of this that also, if in every place, we do not have this minhag in this like the Rema, as is mentioned later on, therefore certainly we should not leave any gap in this.

to be continued...

Vayechi: How Big A Gap Between Vayigash and Vayechi? pt iii

We may eventually translate this teshuva from the Minchas Eluzer, chelek 1, siman 10. For now, just the Hebrew. It is about the gap, or lack thereof, between Vayigash and Vayechi.

Vayechi: How Big A Gap Between Vayigash and Vayechi? pt ii

Over Shabbos, I did a little research into this. I asked three baalei keriah in the neighborhood (KHG). One said there was no gap at all, but rather it was just the next work. Another (my brother-in-law) said he seemed to recall it was a gap of two letters. And another (my father-in-law) was sure it was a gap of two letters. So a machloket.

We looked in two different tikkunim. One, from Ktav (1946) had a gap of exactly two letters. Another, more modern one, had a gap of exactly one letter - that is, there was no gap, but rather the regular gap between words. Thus, a machloket.

The masoretic note (brought down e.g. in the Stone Chumash) says "besefer Torah ain piska ela ot echat," that in a sefer Torah there is only a gap of a single letter. Even before seeing this, I intuited that the masoretic note would say this. My guess is that both traditions (of one gap or two) stem from this one masoretic note.

That is, there are two possible interpretations of this masoretic note. It could be that it is saying that there is no gap at all, and so there is only the gap of a single letter - namely, the gap of a single letter that is always present between two words. Or, it could mean that *in addition* to the usual inter-word gap, there is an additional gap of one letter space, thus making it a very tiny setuma. (I would further posit that the former is more likely the true meaning, but feel free to draw your own conclusions.) This may also work with the two interpretations I offered in the previous post, that there are two readings of "mi" in "lama parasha zo setumua *mi*kol parshiyot shebaTorah.

(Indeed, in the commentary in Stone Chumash, and in the Judaica Press translation of Rashi, they indicate that it is *entirely* closed.)

Also, a 19th century acharon (prior to Aruch haShulchan), in the sefer Shulchan HaKeriah, in the commentary of the Misgeret HaShulchan, writes specifically about the gap or lack thereof by Vayechi. He writes that there need not be a gap of more than one letter ("ain tzurich lihyot pitcha ki im revach ot achat") which perhaps means it is allowed, or perhaps means there should be. (Thus, this is in accord with masoretic note, whatever it means.) If there is a gap of up to five letters, it is fine, because this is not a parsha setuma, but it would be good thing to correct it, if it is easy to correct it (but otherwise not). If there is gap of a parsha setuma (which all over we say is a 9 letter gap), then one should seek another sefer Torah. But, if there is no other sefer Torah available, one should read from that sefer Torah, *with* brachot.

(Both the masoretic note and the Shulchan haKeriah credited to my father-in-law.)

Also, the fact that there were seforim with larger gaps *perhaps* shows a masoretic dispute in what sort of gap should be there, again perhaps based in interpretations of either the masoretic note or interpretations of the statement in Bereishit Rabba.

Someone on that group (credit upon request) also pointed me towards the Minchas Eluzer. Perhaps a scan and translation in the next post in this series.

Vayechi: How Big A Gap Between Vayigash and Vayechi? pt i

(Unrelated to this post, I wish to note that today daf Yomi starts Nedarim. You can see Rif on Nedarim [daf 2a - 5b] here, at my other blog. Now on to the actual post.)

On the Yahoo Leining group, someone (credit upon request) posted that in their sefer Torah, there was a gap, not a full setuma (an enclosed gap 9 letter spaces wide) but less than that, between the end of Vayigash and the beginning of Vayechi. Does this require fixing? What follows is the first of my two responses. The second response is better, and continues where this left off. I'll post that response later. But here was my initial take:

Fascinating question.
I don't know the answer to this, or even how it is supposed to look in a sefer Torah (my assumption was just one space as a divider between words). But Rambam in general considers petucha changing to setuma and vice versa to be a pesul in a sefer Torah.

See here in the Rambam, halacha 11. Based on Shabbat 103b.
Here, it is not a real setuma, because of the small gap. In which case, perhaps it could be that it would not invalidate. But rather an issue of mitzvah min hamuvchar, as he speaks about in 9.(Rambam is actually talking about swapping petucha for setuma, but the same would presumably be true for omitting the gap, or putting a gap where it should not be.) Again, I don't know.

Can you contact the sofer and ask him about it? It seems to me likely that this was deliberate, and so he may well have a tradition for this. Indeed, I could argue that this comes directly out of the Midrash. That midrash, in Bereishit Rabba, stated "lama parasha zo setuma mikol haparshiyot shel Torah."

Now, the source (which Rashi cites) in Bereishit Rabba 91:1. And Bereishit Rabba is very early, and is from the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael. In Eretz Yisrael, they did not have our laining, which is called sidra. Rather, they had something called parasha, which was about 1/3. Or alternatively, parasha all over means something delineated by petuchot and setumot. So it is likely that it is not talking about sidrat Vayechi, but rather just this segment, up to the petucha at the end of the perek.

But why call this a parasha? And the use of setuma here *seems* different than other uses, for here it means *entirely* closed.

I would suggest that the key may be the word "mikol" in the question "lama parasha zo setuma mikol haparshiyot shel Torah." It can mean "of." That is, "of all the parshiyot in the Torah, why is this one entirely closed?" In which case we have difficulties in terms of what makes this into a parsha (not a sidra, but a parsha, with implications of being bounded on both sides by a gap)?

But it can also mean "more than." That is, "Why is this parsha more closed than other parshiyot in the Torah."

In which case, this particular Torah scroll makes sense. It is a parsha, in that is delineated on both sides by gaps. But the setuma there is *more* setuma than any other setuma in the Torah.

If so, it would be a pity to obliterate this fascinating variant.

Anyhow, I don't know the halachic answer to the question.

Shemot: Why Stretch Out Her Arm?

From Chabad.org's parsha in depth:

And Pharaoh's daughter... saw the box among the rushes; and she sent her maid and fetched it (Exodus 2:5)

The Hebrew word ammatah ("her maid") can also be translated "her arm." This, says the Talmud, is to teach us that "her arm was extended for many arm-lengths" (to enable her to reach the basket).

But if Moses' basket lay "many arm-lengths" beyond her reach, why did Pharaoh's daughter extend her arm in the first place? Says the Lubavitcher Rebbe: Often, we are confronted with a situation that is beyond our capacity to rectify. So we resign ourselves to inactivity, reasoning that the little we can do won't change anything anyway. Yet Pharaoh's daughter heard a child's cry and extended her arm. An unbridgeable distance lay between her and the basket, making her action seem utterly pointless. But because she did the maximum of which she was capable, G-d did the rest.

This is not just a cute pshetle, in my opinion. Rather, the Lubavitcher Rebbe's explanation here is quite possibly the pashut peshat of the midrash, and captures the theme the midrash is trying to convey with the miraculous extension. There are other slight variances in explanation which might instead be the peshat in the midrash, but this is generally a good way of thinking about midrash.

Interesting Posts and Articles, #9

1. OnTheMainLine has a Samaritan parallel to a saying in Pirkei Avot, that of lefum tzara agra. He suggests, based on evidence, that this was a common, popular saying, that was attributed to different Rabbis and authorities.
   This makes sense, and strikes me as similar to the golden rule being attributed to Yushke, Hillel, and in the book of Tobit.
2. TheYeshivaWorld has an interesting letter about rabbinic names being wrongly associated with the rental vaad, which tries to keep rental prices low. Also a bunch of images to letters signed by various Rabbonim. Fascinating.
3. A commenter on one of my old posts, about Whether a Potential Bride Must Mention She Has Not Yet Experienced Menarch, suggests that Dorkatei is Androgen Insensitivy Syndrome. It certainly makes sense.
   
4. "A convicted criminal has moved in with a married couple against their wishes after giving their address in court as his home."
   Choice quote:
   "How can he get away with giving false details? Can crooks pick anywhere they like and just move in? Who needs to break into a house when the courts will do it all for you?"
   His claim is that the daughter said he could move in.
   
5. E-Lamdan On Whether Lomdus is ahistorical.
6. The "Consensus" on Global Warming:
   "Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. "
   ...
   "Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated."

Demonstrate To Help Agunot

Received from the Center for the Jewish Future:

Our esteemed chaver and RIETS Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Hershel Schachter is once again asking our participation in a demonstration at the home of a Brooklyn rabbi who has engaged in activities that have prolonged the agunah status of a number of women. To see the appeal from Rav Schachter, and for further information, please click here.

The demonstration will take place 9:45 AM this Sunday at 534 East 4^th Street in Brooklyn.

The link is to a PDF of a signed letter by Rav Schachter calling on people to join in the demonstration. The Brooklyn rabbi in question facilitates improper heter meah rabbonims.

I last mentioned this issue in this prior post.

Veyeitzei, Vayechi: Was Gad, The Son of Yaakov, Named After The Deity?

So asked an anonymous commenter on a previous post talking about the deity of Fortune named Gad. One could ask the same about the Navi Gad, though there we can simply say that he was named after Gad son of Yaakov.

Indeed, there is an irregularity in terms of krei and ketiv where Gad is named. In parshat Vayeitzei, in Bereishit 30, we read:

ט וַתֵּרֶא לֵאָה, כִּי עָמְדָה מִלֶּדֶת; וַתִּקַּח אֶת-זִלְפָּה שִׁפְחָתָהּ, וַתִּתֵּן אֹתָהּ לְיַעֲקֹב לְאִשָּׁה.	9 When Leah saw that she had left off bearing, she took Zilpah her handmaid, and gave her to Jacob to wife.
י וַתֵּלֶד, זִלְפָּה שִׁפְחַת לֵאָה--לְיַעֲקֹב בֵּן.	10 And Zilpah Leah's handmaid bore Jacob a son.
יא וַתֹּאמֶר לֵאָה, בגד (בָּא גָד); וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, גָּד.	11 And Leah said: 'Fortune is come!' And she called his name Gad.
יב וַתֵּלֶד, זִלְפָּה שִׁפְחַת לֵאָה, בֵּן שֵׁנִי, לְיַעֲקֹב.	12 And Zilpah Leah's handmaid bore Jacob a second son.
יג וַתֹּאמֶר לֵאָה--בְּאָשְׁרִי, כִּי אִשְּׁרוּנִי בָּנוֹת; וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, אָשֵׁר.	13 And Leah said: 'Happy am I! for the daughters will call me happy.' And she called his name Asher.

While the krei is Ba Gad, the ketiv has it as one word. One could translate it in many different ways.

But one possibility is that with the ketiv as it is, it could be read as "with {the help of} Gad." In which case it refers to an idol, rather than to Hashem's intervention. Of course, even if we do have the sheva under there, Gad there could just mean Fortune.

Indeed, fortune, rather than the specific deity of fortune, would seem to be the context given by the Biblical Author here, and indeed the intent of Leah, for see what she names her next son from Zilpah: Asher, because of "BeAshri." The JPS translation about is "Happy," or one could say "overjoyed." However, many translate Ashrei as Fortunate. Thus, "With My Fortune," and for Gad, "With Fortune." It makes a nice pair, and so I think this is the correct translation.

Yet, perhaps because of the potential negative theological overtones, it was pronounced Ba Gad, with the implication that Fortune has come, with the arrival of this son.

Shadal only says that one need not read it as with the krei to have it mean Fortune. He writes:

בגד : אין צורך לחלק התבה לשתיים. אך הכוונה במזל טוב, כמו למטה באשרי, וכן בתרגום אלכסנדרי ; ומ"מ עומק הכוונה אינו אלא בא גד, כלו' הבן הזה בא לי במזל טוב, וכן באשרי, הבן הזה בא לאשרי , כי עתה יאשרוני .

Thus even with the ketiv, it means he has come to me "with luck." And finds in the Alexandrian Targum this. But still, the deep intent is the same, even if the word בא is not explicitly present.

Wonderfully, we have a Karaite scholar, Aharon ben Yosef, come to boost the Oral tradition of the pronunciation of the word as the only literal meaning. He claims, based on other Biblical precedent, that the aleph is chaser, but this irregularity is something that can happen in Biblical Hebrew. He cited the word במה from I Kings 3, but I could not find it there and so do not know which pasuk he is referring to. Still, he writes:


Thus, he understands Gad as troop. And rejects as silly and falsehood the idea that it comes from Gid, the male reproductive organ.

And thus, the literal meaning of both the krei and the ketiv is Ba Gad, a band of troops has come, from the Hebrew word Gedud.

It is possible that in this, he is influenced by the pasuk in our parsha, Vayechi. In Yaakov's blessing, he says:

יט גָּד, גְּדוּד יְגוּדֶנּוּ; וְהוּא, יָגֻד עָקֵב. {ס}

19 Gad, a troop shall troop upon him; but he shall troop upon their heel. {S}

{Update: As Shadal notes in his vikuach al chochmat hakabbalah, Karaites accept the nikkud, so this is unsurprising.}

Setting A Table Of Eliyahu, pt. ii

The following is from the sefer Midrash Eliyahu, mentioned at the end of the previous post on the subject, and which is mentioned by Birkei Yosef on YD 179.

And if you see, in these days of ours, many righteous women who have pain of pregnancy and pain of childbirth, this is because of various sins found in them. And because their merits are greater, this is the reason for their salvation {from death}. And they undergo pain at the time of childbirth to demonstrate that they have to them some aspect of sins in their hands.


And if you see women who are not fit, who are saved from death at the time of childbirth, this is because of repentance which the contemplate at that specific time, and her sin is expunged with the pain of childbirth, and a person who repents {baal teshuva} is like a newly born person {J: heh}.

And I, the author, have seen many women make a table of Eliyahu which they vowed at the time of their childbirth, if the Holy One, Blessed Be He, saved them.


And since we have arrived at this matter, about how they are accustomed to make a "Table of Eljah," I will write to you what I have found from a manuscript {attacking the practice}. And I, the author, do not approve of his words, for the reason I will elaborate, with the help of Heaven. And this is the language recorded in the writing that I have found, but I do not know his name or the name of his son:
I, the youth, have seen that some Jews, both in our locale and in other places, that at a time that distress or accident comes upon them, they vow that if they are saved, they will make a feast for Eliyahu the Prophet, the memory of a righteous one for a blessing, thinking that via this they will be saved from their distress. And they think that he is the one who makes the dead live and who grants weath, because we find that he brought to life the son of the Tzarfatit {see I Kings 17:17} and the jar of grain and the cruse of oil {in 17:12-16} which did not decrease, etc. And all of this is fixed in their hearts -- for I have seen one who is accustomed to place, from time to time, a barrel of wine especially saved for this meal, and he has basically forbidden it upon all men until the time of the feast.

And I have always been pained by this custom, and it appears in my eyes like the prohibition of yayin nesech for another purpose (??) and like the offering to idols, chas veshalom. And in truth I asked my teachers, and to all the Sages with whom I corresponded, if they knew a reason to the matter, and none of them responded. And if it is only that the idolaters are accustomed to make it as a set practice for all their festivals, every year, it would be fitting for us to refrain from it. For it is known to all who understand and know the reason of wisdom and has seen the reason of the commandments, that the majority of the commandments which the Torah writes are only in order to distance from him the set practices of the pagans, as the great Rav z"l wrote in Moreh Nevuchim, part 3, in the known chapters of it. And upon this, Yitzchak our forefather came, of blessed memory, and said know, to our Father in Heaven, that I am not anything -- in order that they not make him into an idol, chas veshalom. And as we learn from the burial of Moshe Rabbenu, peace be upon him, that that which is stated "and no man knew the place of his burial" was so that the gentiles should not make him into an idol. For just as the worshipers are punished, so too the worshiped are punished, for it is stated "to make in them judgments, and in their gods." And so did Yaakov Avinu, of blessed memory, worry, and commanded to Yosef, "do not bury me in Egypt," so that they would not make him into an idol, for the land was blessed for his sake. And the gentiles say that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, requires an intermediary between them. And we, the congregation of Israel, do not say this, but rather Hashem is one and his Name is one.

End quote.

And I, the author, it appears to me that they are acting appropriately. And certainly since there many geonim, pillars of the world, did not protest the matter, there certainly is some basis {/support} to the matter. And what with that Chazal already said that a man needs to vow at a time of distress, to do charity and the like, and they learned this from Yaakov, etc.

And those who vow to make the feast of Eliyahu, their intent is to vow to feed and support paupers, and the feast is called the feast of Eliyahu because a miracle is done suddenly for the paupers, in that they are called to eat and to restore their soul. And Eliyahu is prepared and appears on the miracle, as Chazal say, and as we find in several place in the Talmud, etc.

And because of this it is called


the feast of Eliyahu, for it is as if Eliyahu appears to the paupers to make for them a miracle. And always, when one vows to make a feast of Eliyahu, their intent is to vow charity to paupers.

And it may also be stated that those who vow in the merit of Eliyahu are doing well, for we find in the gemara, in Bava Metzia {84b}, by the incident or Rabbi Eleazar bar Shimon, that "60 sailors came and brought to him 60 servants carrying 60 purses, and prepared for him 60 kinds of pap, and he ate it."

And Rashi z"l explains that "they brought him 60 servants because they had encountered a problem {e.g. a violent storm} at sea, and they prayed to be saved in the merit of Rabbi Eleazar, and they were saved in his merit. When they came out from the sea, they sent him a present."

Thus we learn that a man is able to vow at the time of his distress that Hashem should save him in the merit of whichever righteous person he wishes to mention. And so too those who vow in the merit of Eliyahu at the time of their distress.

And in a place where they are unable to give a gift, such as those sailors gave to Rabbi Eleazar, they make a feast for paupers or for Torah scholars, for the fact that Hashem saved them in the merit of Eliyahu.

And if you say that those sailors were gentiles, and they erred by praying to be saved in the merit of Rabbi Eleazar, if so, how did Rabbi Eleazar accept the gift, and eat of it? Rather, certainly it is permitted for someone to pray that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, save him in the merit of a specific righteous person who he wishes to mention. And what with that the sailors were Israelites, as is understandable, etc.

And furthermore, in the matter of the Golden Calf, where Moshe Rabbenu, peace be upon him, prayed that Hashem save them in the merit of the forefathers, for it is written "recall Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yisrael, etc."

And that which he writes that there is one who places a barrel of wine from one time to the next for this feast, etc., this is certainly good, for it is making the commandment dear to him, for since it is encumbent upon him to make this feast for paupers every year, he prepares this from the beginning of the year.



And further, those who vow do not say that they are making a table for Eliyahu, in which case it would appear like an offering, chas veshalom, but rather they say that it is a table of Eliyahu. The intent of this is that they vow to make a feast of Eliyahu, which is a feast of paupers, becayse they were saved in the merit of Eliyahu, z"l, and on this it is called the feast of Eliyahu.

And this that he says, "and if it were only that the idolaters are accustomed to do such a thing as a fixed practice for all their festivals, every year, we should have refrained from it," the appearance of this is not like the appearance of that. For there, the entire nations does this on a day known to them, and it is a fixed practice for them for idolatry. And in this, the Jew does not make the feast with them, at the day of their festival, but rather for another day, in order to praise the Great and Awesome Name, who performed wonderously with him, and to publicize his Blessed Godhood, before those partaking in that particular meal, and the power of His Great deeds, in that he performs wonders at all times. And thus, this one sanctifies, publicizes, praises and makes dear during every single year His Great Name during this feast. And with absolute certainty, Eliyahu and all the angels accompany in this feast, in order to hear the voice relating the greatness of our God. And blessings should come upon all who make this feast called the Feast of Eliyahu, z"l.

And also this that this one accepts upon him to make this feast every year at a certain known day of the miracle, the result of this is that the Good that Hashem, and so that it is known how much the value of the righteous is worth


before the Holy One, Blessed Be He, for behold, he was saved in the merit of Eliyahu, z"l.

And the reasons that they vow in the merit of Eliyahu is that he is found among the living and is prepared on each miracle, etc.

End translation. Perhaps some analysis in another post, perhaps not.

As an interesting note, in the Jewish Quarterly Review, in an article called "The Karaites in European Turkey," Abraham Danon notes that the Karaite scholar Calev Afendopolo recorded various Karaite customs, and makes mention of "The Table of Elijah." Thus the Karaites also apparently practiced it: