Shimon Fogel

One of the most influential scholars of Jewish liturgy of the 20th century was Daniel Goldschmidt (1895-1972). In addition to his prolific research, he published critical editions of poetry and liturgy. Early in the 1960s, Goldschmidt published Siddur Tefilat Israel, a prayer book for daily use. The siddur was intended for a wider audience rather than for scholars. In this article, Goldschmidt's siddur is surveyed alongside unpublished drafts from his archive. This includes a draft of an innovative attempt to edit one prayer book that is useful to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Thus, the article describes the internal tension within this siddur, produced by an academic scholar for a traditional audience.
**
ד"ר דניאל גולדשמידט (1972-1895) היה מחשובי חוקרי התפילה והפיוט במאה
העשרים ובין השאר עסק בפרסום מהדורות מדעיות של מחזורים לימים נוראים, סליחות וקינות. בראשית שנות השישים התפרסם בעריכתו סידור "תפלת ישראל", שיועד לשימוש הקהל הרחב. במאמר זה נסקר הסידור לצד התגובות לפרסומו וחומר מארכיונו של גולדשמידט שרואה אור לראשונה, ובכלל זה טיוטה לסידור שיועד למתפללים אשכנזיים וספרדים המתפללים יחדיו ומעולם לא נדפס. מתוך כך, מתואר המתח הפנימי הגלום בסידור שאמנם הופק על ידי חוקר מובהק, אבל יועד לקהל המתפללים המסורתי.

The nidūy is the primary method of excommunication used by the
early rabbis in the first two centuries CE. This article suggests some
new readings in the earliest texts discussing this practice and their
reception in Talmudic writing from Late Antiquity. By understanding
excommunication as an attempt to set social boundaries and
noticing the differences between the early texts, one can try to see
the texts about nidūy as evidence of the social structures of the
texts’ creators, or at least their views about the proper social order. I
shall argue that earlier rabbinic literature reflects unorganised and
non-institutional rabbinic circles that were, like other groups in the
broader Jewish society, in process of formation. In contrast, the
Talmudic, later texts reflect an effort to form a more organised one
with clearer hierarchies and social roles.

"Yitbarach" is an almost unnoticed genre of homilies, comprised of a unique opening formula, including theological arguments and praises of God supported by proof-texts.  Some "Yitbarach" homilies made their way into the known midrashic corpus, but a larger portion of the corpus is identified thanks to a survey of texts from the Cairo Genizah. A mapping of various modes of performativity in the homilies enables to distinguish between the meta-textual markers of performativity, implied and explicit performative utterances, and to note the use of common stylistic forms which alternate between those implied and explicit modes of performativity. This analysis reveals a key discursive shift from classical midrashic literature to the presumably later "Yitbarach" homilies, reflecting the rise of a unified mediating voice of an implied homilist. This rise of mediacy may be considered an important stage in the move from collective to individual authorship in the Jewish literary poly-system.

This article introduces a unique Midrashic composition from the Cairo Genizah (t-s 20.158) that was not yet published and discussed. The text is made of chains of biblical verses, ideological\theological declarations, and elaborated lists of biblical exemplars. In addition to the unique Midrashic method, which we discuss in length, the manuscript is also unprecedented in its typography. The article contains a full and detailed edition of the manuscript; a comprehensive discussion of its Midrashic method, ideological trends, language, and connections to Rabbinic literature. These discussions also show the distinctiveness of the text in comparison to classical Midrashim. Based on this discussion, we suggest that the composition is linked to shifts in Jewish culture around the 10th century following the encounter with new literary models typical of the rising Judeo-Arabic culture.
מאמר זה מציג חיבור מדרשי ייחודי שעלה מן הגניזה הקהירית (t-s 20.158),
אך טרם זכה לדיון מקיף ולההדרה. החיבור מורכב משרשראות פסוקים, היגדים מופשטים ורשימות ארוכות ומפורטות של דוגמאות מקראיות. לצד מבנה ספרותי חריג זה, כתב היד מצטיין בטיפוגרפיה ייחודית, שכמעט ואין כדוגמתה בספרות המדרשית מן הגניזה. לצד מהדורה מקיפה ופירוש דן המאמר בטכניקה המדרשית של החיבור, במגמות הרעיוניות שלו בלשונו ובקשריו עם הספרות התלמודית והמדרשית – גם אלו מדגימים את ייחודיותו על רקע נופם של המדרשים המוכרים. מתוך דיון זה אנו מציעים כי לפנינו חיבור ייחודי, שעדיין מוקדם לקבוע את ההקשר התרבותי שבו צמח אך נראה כי הוא קשור למפנים שחלו במערכת הספרותית סביב המאה העשירית עם המפגש עם הדמים הספרותיים החדשים של התרבות הערבית-יהודית.

This article reviews the process by which the presence of piyut – liturgical poetry – in (Ashkenazi) Religious-Zionist High Holy Day prayer books was curtailed. Piyut is examined here, in part, as a representative of non-institutionalised prayer reflecting grassroots tradition (and varying ethnic custom) as opposed to the letter of halakhic law. From this perspective, the process of decreasing the use of piyutim will be examined as the result of both the Orthodox movement and modern literary critique of piyut poetics.

Body postures, and particularly sitting, have a prominent role in texts concerning the early rabbinic culture of learning. This article will focus on Palestinian texts (mostly Tannaitic), which use teaching postures, and especially the contrast between sitting and standing, as a medium for discussing the proper hierarchy in the learning space and for shaping the relations between the participants.

`“Yitbarach” poems are literary units beginning
with the formula “blessed be the name of the holy
one, blessed be he” and enlist praises of the divine
related to the following midrashic or homiletic
text. A study of those units – many of them
reconstructed for the first time from Genizah
fragments – points at stylistic and thematic
affinities to various liturgical texts. It seems that
these literary units moved between interchanging
contexts from synagogue performances to
literary formation processes of late midrashic
compositions. The literary and performative
processes presented in the article imply key
developments in rabbinic literature in the East in
the transition from Late Antiquity to the Medieval
period, culminating in the rise of the author’s
status as reflected in Geonic Monographs.
במאמר הפותח דנים שמעון
פוגל ומשה לביא ביחידות ’יתברך' - יחידות פתיחה
המתחילות במילים ’יתברך שמו של הקב”ה', והעוסקות
בשבחי האל בזיקה למהלך המדרשי או הדרשני שבראשו
הן מופיעות. עיון ביחידות אלו - רבות מהן בקטעי
גניזה הנדונים במאמר זה לראשונה - מצביע על זיקות
סגנוניות ותוכניות לתפילה ולפיוט. נראה כי יחידות אלו
נעו בין הקשרי ביצוע בבית הכנסת ובין גיבוש ספרותי
בחיבורים מדרשיים בעיבודיהם המאוחרים. התהליכים
שאחריהם מתחקים מחברי המאמר מסבירים תמורות
יסוד שהתרחשו בספרות הרבנית במזרח בימי הביניים,
ובראשן המִפנה ברב־מערכת הספרותית היהודית מן
הספרות המדרשית־התלמודית הקולקטיבית אל תפיסת
הספר והמחבר המיוצגת ביצירות המונוגרפיות הגדולות
משלהי תקופת הגאונים.

This article discusses the wording for the Ahavah (love) blessing of
recitation of the Shema in the evening prayer. During the first decades of
the study of the Genizah, scholars published only a few unique and semipoetic variants of this blessing, focusing on texts that were substantially
different from the variants that are common in printed prayer-books. By
examining more than 90 prayer-book fragments from the Cairo Genizah,
we were able to depict a solid description of the variants that were used
in the prayers and the variant's distribution. The analysis shows three
distinctive branches. One branch, which includes the majority of the
fragments, is associated with the Babylonian rite. One of the other two
branches, associated with the Palestinian rite, is notably similar to the
Babylonian variant. The connections between the variants lead to the
conclusion that they all developed from one earlier version, which, at this
point, we cannot date.
מאמר זה מתחקה אחרי נוסח ברכת "אהבה" לקריאת שמע של ערבית, כפי שהוא עולה
מקטעי הסידורים שנמצאו בגניזה הקהירית. בעשורים הראשונים לחקר הגניזה
התפרסמו קטעי סידורים בודדים ובהם נוסחים של הברכה השונים זה מזה, ושונים מן
הנוסחים שמאוחר יותר התקבעו בסידורים המודפסים. בחינה של למעלה מתשעים
קטעי גניזה שבהם מובא נוסח הברכה אפשר מבט רחב ומבוסס יותר על הנוסחים
שנהגו ותפוצתם. ניתוח הקטעים מלמד כי ניתן למיין את נוסחי הקבע המיוצגים בגניזה
לשלוש קבוצות עיקריות. הקבוצה האחת, שכוללת את מרבית הקטעים, משקפת את
המנהג הבבלי. הקבוצה השנייה היא המנהג הארץ ישראלי העיקר י וקבוצה שלישית
הבאה גם היא בסידורים ארץ ישראליים משקפת נוסח מעורב משני הנוסחים העיקריים.
בין שני נוסחים אלה קיימת קרבה לשונית רבה המאפשרת לשער את קיומו של נוסח
קדום משותף, גם אם אין לדעת אימתי התגבש.

This article discusses the wording of the ‘Hashkivenu’ (lay us down) blessing, the fourth benediction of the recitation of the Shema in the evening prayers. On the basis of the examination of more than 90 manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza we propose division of versions of the benediction according to branches. Comparison of these branches makes possible the clear identification of two versions of the kernel formulation, which is common to all the variants, both those associated with the Babylonian rite and those associated with the Palestinian rite. The authors suggest that the kernel formulation should be regarded as
the ancient basis for the expanded versions, a conjecture that is consistent with the testimony of the Mishnah (Berakhot 1:4), which states that this benediction is ‘short’.

מאמר זה מתחקה אחר נוסחה של ברכת השכיבנו, הברכה הרביעית של קריאת שמע של ערבית. על סמך בחינה של יותר מ־ 90כתבי יד מן הגניזה הקהירית מוצעת חלוקה של הברכה לענפי נוסח. ההשוואה בין ענפי הנוסח מאפשרת זיהוי ברור של נוסח גרעיני – בשתי גרסאות – המשותף לכל הנוסחים, הן אלו הנמנים עם המנהג הבבלי הן אלו הנמנים עם מנהג התפילה הארץ ישראלי. המחברים מציעים לראות בנוסח גרעיני זה את הבסיס הקדום לנוסחים הרחבים, השערה העולה בקנה אחד עם עדותה של המשנה (ברכות א, ד) שברכה זו היא 'קצרה.

This article reviews the process by which the presence of piyut – liturgical poetry – in (Ashkenazi) Religious-Zionist High Holy Day prayer books was curtailed. Piyut is examined here, in part, as a representative of non-institutionalised prayer reflecting grassroots tradition (and varying ethnic custom) as opposed to the letter of halakhic law. From this perspective, the process of decreasing the use of piyutim will be examined as the result of both the Orthodox movement and modern literary critique of piyut poetics.

Manoach and his wife about the forthcoming birth of Samson (Judges 13). Numbers Rabba (10, 5), however, deals with this story at great length. Also, by way of contrast to the few early homilies ó which are mostly critical of Samsonís parents ó Numbers Rabba depicts them as righteous. In ìThe Midrash about SamsonísBirth (Numbers Rabba 10, 5)î, Shimon Fogel shows that most of these positive homilies were reworked from earlier homilies, which were changed in order to them to the characters of the book of Judges. This process can teach us about the positive attitude towards the protagonists, and the importance of this story, in theyes of the Numbers Rabba redactor (or his sources). It is possible that the origins to this approach should be found in the redactorís place and time ó probably Provence during the 12th century

This paper deals with Samson as Messiah. In some midrashic sources, especially those concerning Jacob’s blessing to Dan (Genesis 49:15-18), Samson is described as a failed messiah. Samson began some messianic activity but did not succeed in completing the task. Some sources are explicit, whereas others use motifs and terms that carry messianic connotations in rabbinic literature.
Portraying Samson as a failed messiah should lead to a reevaluation of rabbinic ideas of messianism. The model reflected here is quite different from the common one: Samson is a lone military hero, not one to stand out for piety. The fact that Samson is not denounced for his messianic activity may point to a “soft” messianic model, in which a messiah is not a predestined redeemer, but a human being with potential to succeed that may or may not be fulfilled.
The appendix deals with Samson’s messianism in the late midrashic literature that is related to R. Moses the Preacher (Provence, 11th century). There we find an explicit statement to the effect that the future messiah will be very similar to Samson. This fact should be connected to the extensive place that messianic issues occupy in this literature.

R. Gershon Henokh Henikh Lainer of Radzin (1839-1891) was the grandson of R. Mordecai Joseph Lainer of Izbica (1800-1854). R. Gershon Henokh's literary activity focused on two main fields – collecting and publishing his fathers' teachings; and his own varied writings. In these activities he deviated from what was the way of the Hasidic dynasty started at Pryzsucha, where writing the oral teachings was considered improper. It is suggested that this activity was, in his own eyes, an answer to the Jewish enlightenment, which was spreading in Poland during the 19th century. Since his youth R. Gershon Henokh dedicated his time to collecting and printing his grandfather's teaching and led a group of Hassidim rewriting the oral teachings of his father R. Jcob (1818-1878).  R. Gershon Henokh added the "preface and introduction" to the first volume of R. Jacob's drushim (Warsaw 1890) this preface should be considered as a prologue to a wide project of printing his and his father's books. In parallel, R. Gershon Henokh was writing and publishing his Halachic books including the famous books about the Tkhellet (Warsaw 1883-1893). R. Gershon Henokh's Hassidic books were mostly published after his death. Careful examination of these books can show that much of them were not a rewriting of oral teachings but independent writing. With this his writing differs from the common Hassidic literature. Furthermore R. Gershon Henokh personally supervised the rewriting of his oral teaching, although some of it was collected and written only after the holocaust. It seems that the closer the writings are to R. Gershon Henokh as a person, and the further they are from oral teachings and rewriters, they are more detailed, more theologically radical and tend to extended use of lurian terminology.

"Since the early stages of the development of scholarship, scholars addressed the question of the physical
venue where the early rabbis used for learning. Until the last two decades, the main focus was on the
problem of the existence of buildings that were dedicated to academic activity and the degree of
organization and institutionalization of the rabbinic culture of learning. In addition to these issues, there is a
need to examine the relations between the ""houses of study,"" the synagogue and other institutions, and
establishments in the Jewish community in roman and byzantine Palestine. Also, we should compare our
knowledge of rabbinic institutions with evidence regarding the non-institutionalized learning that takes place
in private houses. The Tannatiotic literature rarely describes the rabbis as teaching in their private home
(with the exceptions of illness or old age). Compering this literary phenomenon with roman text dealing with
the activity of philosophers can expose a new perspective in the (sometimes tense) relationships between
the rabbis and other circles of their contemporary Jewish society. Examining the Amoraic literature and
especially the Palestinian Talmud teaches us about the ongoing process of the institutionalization of the
culture of learning and the ""house of study."" Thus, it raises more questions regarding the ownership of
buildings that were used (or even dedicated) to education. These questions are relevant both to venues that
appear to be owned by a master and are not his private home and to various types of public-owned
buildings. Therefore it is a window to some essential developments in the rabbinic culture and its
connections to political, social, and economic processes."

ערב עיון לקהל הרחב במסגרת הכנס הבין-לאומי "חינוך ודת בשלהי העת העתיקה"
יום שני, י' בשבט תשע"ז, (6.2) 18:00- 20:00 ביד יצחק בן-צבי, אבן גבירול 14, ירושלים.

ברכות: פרופ' אלון קדיש | ראש המכון לחקר ארץ ישראל ויישובה ביד יצחק בן-צבי
פרופ' פיטר גמיינהרדט | אוניברסיטת גוטינגן, גרמניה

פרופ' דוד רוזנטל I יו"ר
פרופ' שלמה נאה | משנה או תלמוד? סדר היום של התלמיד בבית המדרש בזמן התלמוד
פרופ' ברוריה ביטון-אשקלוני  |החינוך היווני בשלהי העת העתיקה בכתבי איזידור מפלוזיום
פרופ' משה הלברטל | האתיקה של ההוראה בספרות חז"ל