Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Book Review
תלמוד ירושלמי עם פירוש תולדות יצחק ועם פירוש תבונה אשר בירר וליבן
¸ופירש והגיה והאיר וחידש יצחק אייזיק ב"ר דובער זלה"ה קראסילשציקאוו
. תש"מ:ברק-בני
תלמוד ירושלמי עם ביאור מסודר מפי השמועה משעורי מורנו רבי חיים
. תשנ"ז:קניבסקי שליט"א¸ בני ברק
תלמוד ירושלמי עם פירוש ידיד נפש מתורגם ומבואר בתוספת עיונים והשוואות
לתלמוד הבבלי עם פסקי הלכות מהרמב"ם ומהשו"ע יחיאל אברהם ב"ר בנימין
. תש"ס:תקוה-הלוי בר לב¸ פתח
______________________________________________________
Heshey Zelcer, a businessman, is the author of Companion Mishnayot,
Tractate Niddah (1994) and A Guide to the Jerusalem Talmud (2002).
106 : Ḥakirah, The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought
The Yerushalmi
Except for Talmud Bavli, the Yerushalmi is our most important post-
Tannaic source for determining halakhah.4 When a halakhic ruling is
absent, in dispute, or unclear in the Bavli, and it is available in the
Three Commentaries on the Yerushalmi : 107
print quality is very poor, as the volumes sold today are an offset of
an offset, etc. 4. Most of the commentators assume that the reader
already has a great deal of knowledge of the language of the
Yerushalmi and of the topic at hand. 5. The commentators sometimes
try too hard to reconcile the rulings of the Yerushalmi with those of
the Bavli.
Do any of the three commentaries we are reviewing resolve
all or any of these problems? Let us examine them.
R. Krasilschikov
R. Krasilschikov’s Commentary
After struggling with the poor quality of the standard Vilna edition of
the Yerushalmi, the reader quickly appreciates the beautiful and new
typesetting and layout of the Toledot Yiẓḥak Yerushalmi (fig. 1). The
text of the Yerushalmi is in the middle of the page, the Toledot Yiẓḥak
(a Rashi-type explanation) is in the inner margin, and the Tevunah (a
Tosefot-type commentary) is in the outer margin. On the extreme
outer margin are references to halakhic works of the Rambam and the
Shulḥan Arukh. There are also cross references to parallel passages in
other areas of the Yerushalmi, Bavli, and the Tosefta, and to variant
readings in other manuscripts, Yerushalmi fragments, and other
printed editions. On the bottom of each page is another commentary,
which for Berakhot is that of the Sefer Ḥaredim, and for other tractates
in Zera‘im is that of the Gr”a. At the end of the volume (or, in the
case of Berakhot, in a separate volume) are all the standard
commentaries of the Vilna edition—all freshly typeset and corrected.
It is a joy to use these volumes. While the Toledot Yiẓḥak and Tevunah
commentaries were, of course, written by R. Krasilschikov, the
editing and everything else that appears in this edition of the
Yerushalmi was prepared by the group of scholars headed up by R.
Dov Weintraub.
Three Commentaries on the Yerushalmi : 111
R. Ḥayyim Kanievsky
R. Kanievsky’s Commentary
There are two difficulties with the above statements. The first
is that R. Yehudah ha-Nasi seems to be saying that the period of
twilight begins when the bottom of the sun is touching the horizon.
It is unlikely, however, that R. Yehudah ha-Nasi meant to say this.
There is no authority in the Talmud who says that twilight begins
while the sun is totally above the horizon. The second problem is
that even in the middle of the lunar month the sun and the moon do
114 : Ḥakirah, The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought
not set and rise, respectively, at the same time. This can easily be
verified by the layman, for example by checking the times of sunset
and moonrise on the weather page of the New York Times. What,
then, is R. Yehudah ha-Nasi saying?
R. Krasilschikov addresses the first question posed above.
He says that R. Ḥanina is not arguing with R. Yehudah ha-Nasi, but,
rather, that R. Ḥanina is saying that the statement of R. Yehudah ha-
Nasi was corrupted and that R. Ḥanina is correcting it. R.
Krasilschikov does not address the fact that even in the middle of the
lunar month the sun and moon do not set and rise, respectively, at
the same time.
R. Kanievsky, too, deals with the first question and answers
similarly that R. Ḥanina is correcting the wording of the beraita and
that R. Yehudah ha-Nasi is actually saying that twilight begins when
the sun is totally below the horizon. R. Kanievsky, however, also fails
to address the fact that the setting of the sun and the rising of the
moon, even in the middle of the month, do not occur simultaneously.
He does, however, write about the pattern of the rising of the moon
as follows: “The new moon appears while it is still light and it
remains in the sky for only a short while. The moon remains a bit
longer each subsequent night until the middle of the month, when it
rises at the beginning of the night, shines all night, and sets in the
morning. Toward the end of the month, the moon does not appear
until a bit before daybreak. Therefore [our Gemara] says that in the
middle of the month, the moon rises at the beginning of the night at
the time of twilight.”
R. Bar Lev addresses neither of the above difficulties. He
says simply that in the middle of the lunar month the moon rises at
sunset. He also says that R. Ḥanina argues with R. Yehudah ha-Nasi.
R. Bar Lev’s interpretation is troubling. It seems unusual that
R. Yehudah ha-Nasi, the editor of the Mishnah, would say that
twilight begins when the bottom of the sun is on the surface of the
horizon (although in fact the Yereim is of the opinion that twilight
starts approximately eighteen minutes before sunset). Furthermore, is
it possible that R. Yehudah ha-Nasi, the most illustrious Nasi, who
was responsible for declaring the new moon, was not aware that even
in the middle of the lunar month the moon does not rise precisely
when the sun sets?18
Three Commentaries on the Yerushalmi : 115
דתני בשם רבי יודה עוביו של.ואתיא דרבי חייא כרבי יודה
. אדם בינוני מהלך ארבעים מיל ביום.רקיע מהלך חמשים שנה
עד שהחמה נוסרת ברקיע מהלך חמשים שנה אדם מהלך ארבעת
. נמצאת אומר שעוביו של רקיע אחד מעשרה ביום.מיל
Summary
Fig. 1, R. Krasilschikov
Three Commentaries on the Yerushalmi : 123
Fig. 2, R. Kanievsky
124 : Ḥakirah, The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought
NOTES
The author thanks Nina Ackerman Indig for editing this article.
1 The Talmud Yerushalmi is also known as the Jerusalem Talmud, Talmud or
Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West, Talmud de-Ereẓ Yisrael, or, more recently,
as the Palestinian Talmud.
2 On Bavli Eruvin 104b, the Rif writes as follows, “Since the sugya of our
Gemara (the Babylonian Talmud) permits it, it is of no concern to us that
the Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West forbids it, because we rely on our
Gemara since it is later in time, and they (the Sages in Babylonia) were more
versed in the Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West than we are. Were they not
convinced that this statement of the Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West is not
to be relied upon, they would not have permitted it.”
3 The Leiden Manuscript was written in 1289 by R. Yeḥiel (Ano) b. R.
Binyamin ha-Rofeh of Rome, a well-known scholar, poet, copyist, and the
author of a book on piety, Ma‘alot ha-Middot.
4 See Yad Malachi, Kelalei ha-Shas, pp. 177–178.
5 Contrast the reason provided in Bavli Shabbat 24b, ורבנו הוא דתקוני משום
סכנה, with that provided in Yerushalmi Berakhot 8:1, 11d/55 במקום שאין יין
שליח ציבור עובר לפני התיבה ואומר ברכה אחת מעין שבע. R. Krasilschikov
explains that Berachah Me‘ein Sheva serves as an abridged חזרת הש"ץ. During
the weekdays we do not have חזרת הש"ץfor Ma‘ariv because it is רשותand
therefore we are not concerned that one who is unable to recite the Amidah
will not fulfill his obligation. On Friday night, however, if there is no wine
for Kiddush, then one who is unable to recite the Amidah will also not fulfill
his biblical obligation of Kiddush. We therefore recite an abridged version
after the Amidah in the synagogue which enables all those who hear it to
fulfill their biblical obligation of Kiddush.
6 In Yerushalmi Berakhot 1:5, 3c/28 it states: “It would have been proper to
recite the Ten Commandments every day. Why then do we not recite it?
Because of the complaints of the minim (Christians?); they should not say
that only [the Ten Commandments] were given to Moshe at Sinai.”
7 A footnote on p. 788 of the ArtScroll Nusach Ashkenaz Siddur states as
this is not done is את צמח דוד, The offspring of David, since the Purim miracle
came about through descendants of King Saul.” The real reason why there
is no insert for the blessing of את צמחon Purim is because that blessing did
not exist at that time in the Land of Israel. It was combined with the
blessing of בונה ירושלים. See Yerushalmi Berakhot 2:4, 5a/8. See also Tosefot
Ry”d on Bavli Ta‘anit 13a.
8 Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah was published by Prof. Louis
Ginzberg in 1909 and reprinted in 1970. These fragments are referred to as
שרידי ירושלמי.
9 The Vatican Manuscript is referred to as כתב יד רומי.
10 For example, in the Vilna edition, the text at the beginning of Berakhot 1:1
reads: שעה ותרתי ליליא הוא, it is an hour or two into the night. In R. Sirillio’s
manuscript it reads: שעה ותרתי עשורי ליליא הוא, an hour and two-tenths (72
minutes) into the night. This is a very significant difference. However, in his
commentary R. Sirillio writes: שעה ותרתי ליליא הוא כן מצאתי בספרים ונ"ל
דתרתי עישורי הוא דגרסינן. In other words, the version from which R. Sirillio
was copying had the same text that we now have in the Vilna edition, and
R. Sirillio, on his own, decided to emend the text.
11See A Guide to the Jerusalem Talmud, pp. 21–22, for a discussion of where
the Yerushalmi was compiled.
12 On p. 15, in the beginning of the introduction to Berakhot, the Toledot
Yiẓḥak writes, “The saying of our Sages, may their memory be a blessing, in
Zohar, Naso, ‘Everything depends on luck, even a Torah in the Ark,’ proves
true, as witnessed by all, in the Talmud Yerushalmi that was established in the
city that was once referred to as ‘She that was great among nations. The
princess among states,’ a multitude of people in our land, the ‘Land of
Israel,’ in the city of Jerusalem, which is the great city in which R. Yoḥanan
cast a great light on the Mishnayot that the Sages taught in their concise
style.”
13 See, for example, the notes of the editors of the Toledot Yiẓḥak on
Berakhot, pp. 5, 6, 21, 22, 35, 38, and many more.
14 Contrast the mere three years spent by R. Bar Lev on the entire
not. It is unfortunate that R. Bar Lev chose to include the version of the
Vilna edition that does not include the variant readings—especially since he
does not deal with variant readings in his own commentary.
16On his web site it states, “Rav Bar Lev has been privileged to be the first
to publish a commentary on the entire Yerushalmi.” This, of course, is
inaccurate. R. Moshe Margoliot, in the late 1700s, wrote a dual commentary
on the entire Yerushalmi which he titled Penai Moshe and Mar’eh ha-Panim.
17 All references to the Yerushalmi are usually provided in two ways: 1. To
chapter and ruling ()משנה, e. g., 3:5 which stands for Chapter 3, Ruling 5,
and 2. To the page, column, and line number in the editio princeps (first
edition, Venice, 1522–23). Each page of the editio princeps has four columns,
two on the front and two on the back, and are referred to as columns: a, b,
c, and d. For example, 6d/31 stands for page 6, column d, line 31. See A
Guide to the Jerusalem Talmud, pp. 214–235, for a cross reference from the
Vilna Edition to the editio princeps.
18 Both Prof. L. Ginzberg and R. Shlomo Goren deal with this issue
extensively. They both point out that for the moon to rise as the sun sets,
the sun, earth, and moon, at that moment, would need to be in perfect 180-
degree alignment. (The moon at that point would not be visible because it
would be eclipsed—but that is a separate issue.) R. Goren explains that if
we take into account parallax (the distortion based on viewing the sun and
moon from the surface of the earth, as opposed to viewing them from the
center of the earth) and refraction (the distortion based on the fact that
light bends), then, when we see the sun touching the bottom of the
horizon, it is actually totally below the horizon—from an astronomical
point of view (i.e., from the perspective of a theoretical person who is
standing in the center of the earth). There is no question that the effect of
parallax was understood by astronomers at the time of R. Yehudah ha-Nasi.
There is no evidence, however, that the effect of refraction was
understood—but perhaps a case can be made from our Gemara that indeed
it was understood by R. Yehudah ha-Nasi.
19Two hours and twenty-four minutes (2 times 72 minutes) before sunrise,
the first light of dawn is visible.
20 עלות השחר, or seventy-two minutes before sunrise.
21 The Arukh equates the word מילwith the Roman/Greek mile, which is
one thousand steps, or two thousand cubits. The term mile as it is used
today is 1,760 yards. However, the halakhic mil as defined by the Ḥazon Ish
128 : Ḥakirah, The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought
(who defines a cubit as 22.7 inches) is 1,258 yards, and according to Naéh
(who defines a cubit as 18.9 inches), a mil is 1,049 yards.
22An average person, walking at an average pace, can walk a mil in 18
minutes. To walk four mil is thus the equivalent of 72 minutes.
23An approximate translation of roke‘a is heaven, and the Sages account for
seven such heavens.
24 Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi, by Moshe Kosovsky (Jerusalem: The