Or 17055

Jewish law: responsa, brief guides, and glosses; giving concepts, applications, and practices. Each of these items is either explicitly or implicity connected with Hakham Ezra Reuben Dangoor (HED) - as author, scribe, participant, contributor, etc.

[Or 17055 (1) – Or 17055 (3): Laws of Blessings]

Or 17055 (1). (Hebrew; responsum): Exceptions to the rule, ‘To any blessing that a person hears, in any place, he responds “Blessed is He (= God) and blessed is His Name! / barukh hu u-varukh shemo / ברוך הוא וברוך שמו”’ (Code of Jewish Law, Oraḥ Ḥayim, 124:5). (The right-hand column seems to be a follow-up from the left-hand column.)

Or 17055 (2). (Hebrew; responsum): Background: the blessing recited before partaking of a food item that is contextually dominant (‘iḳar / עקר) covers the accompanying subordinate item (ṭafel / טפל), too. In a letter to Rabbi Abraham son of Ephraim, HED adduces recent authorities to consider the following ambiguous case: If, during the winter, one breakfasts on quasi-bread (‘pocket-bread’), which is not as prominent as real bread, accompanied by cheese, yet during the summer one breakfasts on the same but with the addition of fruit, is the fruit, too, (as is the cheese) considered subordinate to the pocket-bread?

Or 17055 (3). (Hebrew; responsum): similar to Item 2, the issue at hand is whether ‘mirḳaḥat / מרקחת in honey’ which, in context, seems to mean a fruit-mix held together by honey, is subordinate to quasi-bread (‘pocket-bread'), and is thus covered by the blessing recited before partaking of the ‘pocket-bread’. In addition to the legal issue, the party making the query and date of the response are noteworthy. The query is from a rabbinic family with which HED has a friendship; and this engenders a florid, rhymed introduction filled with warm praise and encouragement. The letter is dated Thursday, 22 Kislev, 5651 Anno Mundi = 4 December 1890. Alluding to the topic of the responsum, in the letter’s heading, HED notes that this is the day upon which the recitation of barekh ‘alenu / ברך עלינו = ‘Bless, for us …' is begun. I.e., on this evening, for the 9th blessing of the 'Amidah, which asks God to provide food and sustenance, the annual liturgical switch was made from the summertime version barekhenu / ברכנו = ‘bless us’ to the wintertime version barekh ‘alenu / ברך עלינו = ‘Bless, for us …’.

Or 17055 (4). (Hebrew; brief guide): Laws and customs for Rosh Ḥodesh / ראש חדש = the beginning of the month, and the blessing over the renewed moon. A list of 22 brief items.

Or 17055 (5). (Hebrew; brief guide): ‘Customs practiced by the virtuous as well as by the many, on the “Yahrzeit” - the anniversary of the passing of one’s father or mother’. A list of 35 brief items covering the above as well as basic laws of mourning.

Or 17055 (6). (Hebrew; responsum): Query regarding profit earned on the Sabbath in a partnership between a Jew and gentile. The response is not a black-and-white answer, but rather an exploration of the issue, citing various views, with additional edits – and as such may be addressed not to the Jewish business partner, but rather to his rabbi, who would have brought the matter to an advanced expert or experts in Jewish law.

Or 17055 (7). (Hebrew; rabbinic pronouncement): The use of electricity on the Sabbath in Jerusalem neighborhoods. Statement by the Rabbis of the Ashkenazic congregations. In Do'ar ha-Yom, X, 140, 16 March 1928. (See also MS Or 17086, where this statement is dealt with in several places.)

Or 17055 (8). [A] Side a: (Hebrew; responsum): In the case described below, can betrothal be annulled, or is a divorce required? Case: In reaction to the information that she had been betrothed [by her father], a certain Farḥa responds ‘Woe, what has this one done!’. A certain rabbi claims that this an expression of non-acceptance, in which case the betrothal is annulled, by analogy to the precedent set by a ruling of Rabbi S. ha-Levi (?) of blessed memory. However, the author (possibly HED, as the responsum is in his handwriting) contends that this is merely an expression of displeasure in the way that the betrothal was carried out, that it was sprung upon her, but not an underlying objection to the betrothal itself; and thus a divorce would be required to terminate the betrothal. [B] Side b: (Hebrew; responsum). Caption: No. 13; Sh.U.T Y.D. / נמ ۱۳; שו"ת י"ד = No. 13; Responsa, Yoreh De‘ah. Topic: the categorization of a creative act of work to be forbidden on the Sabbath (cf. Exodus 35:2) is determined by whether it was part of the workings of the Tabernacle of the Wilderness. Application: Blowing (on coals, etc.) to build a fire was done in the Tabernacle (cf. ibid. verse 3), and thus it is included under the biblical prohibition. In contrast, indirectly transferring objects from one domain to another – for example, pouring out water indoors, which then flows outdoors – was not part of the workings of the Tabernacle, and thus it is not biblically prohibited.

Or 17055 (9). (Hebrew. Responsum by Jewish court): Inheritance law; upon the death of a certain Menaḥem Suliman, a compromise is negotiated between his widow, Rachel, and his heirs, viz. his mother, Rebecca, and his sister, Farḥa.

Or 17055 (10). (Hebrew; responsum): Background: Deuteronomy 25:5-10 discussed ‘Levirate Marriage’, in which a widow whose husband died childless marries a brother of her husband. Subtopic: if, without good reason, the widow is unwilling to go through with levirate marriage, she is considered a ‘refuser’, and forfeits her marriage settlement (viz. money that she is entitled to upon divorce or the demise of her husband). Issue: the views of various medieval and early modern authorities are explored, to resolve the following question: If the widow is willing to marry one of her late husband’s brothers, but he is unwilling to marry her, while another brother is willing to marry her, but she is unwilling to marry him, is she considered a ‘refuser’?

Or 17055 (11). (Hebrew; responsum): The legal scope of ‘fear for their lives’, in the ruling (Code of Jewish Law, Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ, 46:37), ‘We believe witnesses who said: we were compelled [to sign a document] for fear of our lives’, includes fear of affliction and intimidation, not only fear of death. The issue arose in the Baghdad Jewish court, when Hakham Rabbi Ezekiel Ezra ha-Levi (Baghdad 1852 – Jerusalem 1941) charged witnesses with testifying untruthfully. It is unclear whether this is written in HED’s hand: it resembles his handwriting, incorporating most of his orthographic nuances; but it has other nuances that are rare or otherwise unknown in his handwriting.

Or 17055 (12). (Hebrew; responsa): Background: These items constitute a 'copy of responses to the queries, ... sent to the Mullah Joseph [Fakhar Or] יוסף [פ'כר אור], may the Lord preserve him … of the city Yazd [Iran], may the Lord preserve it, 29th day of the month [Shevaṭ] 5653’ [= 15 February 1893]. The responses come from the Great [Jewish] Court of Baghdad, in which HED was secretary, and which was headed by Rabbi Elisha Nisim Sasson Dangoor, who was also head of the academy, and chief rabbi of Baghdad. This was taken from the court records of the years 5640 – 5665 AM (= 1879/80 - 1904/5 CE). The material is published in chapter 31, pp. 112 – 117, of Ma‘aśeh Bet Din / מעשה בית דין. Contents: [1] A series of questions on kosher laws, unfolding from whether in a particular case a fowl is to be considered ṭerefa / טריפה = having a terminal injury, and thus unkosher; [2] A series liturgical questions relevant to the 10 days of Awe: is Avinu Malkenu / אבנו מלכנו = ‘Our Father, our King’ to be recited on the Sabbath? Is tashlikh / תשליך = ‘casting away’ [of sins], which is ordinarily recited on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, recited on that day even if it falls on the Sabbath? [3] The status of studying Torah not for its own sake; [4] rectifying the procedure established in the city Yazd to ensure that butchers will not be tempted pass off unfit meat as kosher; [5] Why the fixed liturgy of the ‘18 Blessings’ does not contain a blessing with a request to bear children (with two answers, including one by the kotev / כותב = writer / scribe, apparently HED); and [6] A series of two questions on the status of a woman who claims to have had an extramarital affair nine years earlier, and to thus be forbidden to her husband.

Or 17055 (13). (Hebrew; glosses): Glosses on the legal decisions given by Rabbi Yosef Ḥayyim ben Elijah of Baghdad (known in Baghdad by his acrostic ReYaḤ Tov / רי”ח טוב = ‘pleasing fragrance’; famous as the author of Ben Ish Ḥay / בן איש חי) in his work Rav Pe‘alim / רב פעלים. These glosses are often lenient and accommodating to the human condition, against Rabbi Yosef Ḥayyim’s stringencies. [Sheet 1] On Rav Pe‘alim, Vol. 2, Section on Oraḥ Ḥayyim / אורח חיים, Question numbers:15 (At the end of the recitation of the shema in communal prayer, should the word emet / אמת = ‘true’ be said only once, or twice: once upon the individual’s completion of the shema, and again upon the prayer-leader's completion?), 19 (According to Baghdadi practice, how late can one pray minḥa / מנחה = the afternoon service?), 22 (May secular subjects, such as mathematics and Arabic writing, be taught in a synagogue or study hall of religious texts?), 25 (the correct vocalization of certain words within sacred texts), 58 (On festivals, it is permissible to generate fire by rubbing certain sticks together?), and 65 (The walls of the sukah / סכה booth, and whether a common Baghdadi way of making them is valid); Section on Yore De‘ah / יורה דעה, Question numbers: 10 (is it permissible to fry fish in butter?), 34 (correction of a typographical error), and ibid. (May a husband postpone the fulfilment of his conjugal obligation to his wife in order to perform a non-obligatory religious act?); Section on Even ha-‘Ezer / אבן העזר, Question number 24: (acceptable spelling of a word in a bill of divorce); [sheet 2, side A] Section on Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ / חושן משפט, Question numbers: 5 (finds an inconsistency with the financial case put forth for consideration), Folio 108, column 3, end of line 26 (supplies the apparently omitted word ‘נוטה’), 10 (What if a contract is made for a year, then it is discovered that the year is intercalated?), and 12 (on the question: If X sold ‘glazed earthenware utensils, which come from the cities of Europe, which are called porpuri’ [= potpourri?] to Y, who later discovered that X had first hired them to Z, who made them unkosher, is the sale binding?, the gloss challenges the categorization of those utensils and the resultant premise that those utensils became [irrevocably] unkosher); Section Sod Yesharim / סוד ישרים, Question number 3 (based on both science and idiom (شق ال فجر, cf. English ‘crack of dawn’), validates the phrase ‘Who pierces the apertures of the firmament’, used in the Sabbath morning liturgy); Volume 3, Two textual corrections, Gloss on Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ / חושן משפט, Question numbers 5 (If Y robbed X, may X take something from Y without Y’s knowledge, in order to recoup the value of what Y robbed?); Volume 4, Section on Oraḥ Ḥayim / אורח חיים, Question numbers: 4 (Are liturgical adjustments for special occasions [such as a circumcision] made in the synagogue when the celebrant [such as the father of the child to be circumcised] attends synagogue services, even if the event [such as the circumcision] will be held at home, not at the synagogue?), 9 (Are the old customs on which ways one should not eat salt to be maintained nowadays?), 33 (What to do with a sheet [of paper, parchment, etc.] containing passages from the Prophets, not the Torah viz. the Five Books of Moses, upon which Deuteronomy 4:44, ‘this is the Torah that Moses placed before the Children of Israel’, was written as a heading), Textual correction, 42 (The rule not to end a section of the Torah-reading on a bad note is not transgressed even if the final word is bad, as long as in context that bad thing is being negated (e.g. ‘... so that he does not die’); Section on Yore De‘ah / יורה דעה, Question number 7, towards the end (When does bread baked by a non-Jew embody the non-personal relationship between a professional baker and the consumer, and when does it embody a personal relationship?), Two textual corrections and a cross-reference; [sheet 2, from side A to side B] Section on Even ha-‘Ezer / אבן העזר, Question number 2 (When does a marriage that was never valid / binding nevertheless require a divorce ‘for appearances sake’, so that people who mistakenly think that the marriage was valid will not think that a marriage can be terminated without a divorce?); Section on Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ / חושן משפט, Question number 1 (Consideration of the ruling put forth in the book Netivot Mishpaṭ / נתיבות משפט [by Rabbi Jacob Lorberbaum of Lissa, 1760-1832]: since the Rabbis [Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metsi‘a 104b] categorise investment-money as half-loan and half-deposit, the presence of the half that is a deposit overrides Deuteronomy 24:10-11, ‘do not go into his house to collect the item that he gives as a pledge’, which applies to loans only); Addendum, relevant to Yore De‘ah / יורה דעה, question number 1, from folio 21d, ‘והגם שכל זה’ – folio 22d ‘גם דע’ (Can the laws of precedence in paying past debts be applied to giving a worker an ultimatum mid-job to accept lower wages or to leave?).

Or 17055 (14). HED's Prozbul [transfer to the religious court of his debts, thus enabling him to collect them (cf. Mishna Shevi‘it 10:3-4 and Babylonian Talmud Gitin 36a-b)] dated 25 Elul 5677 = 12 September 1917. Signed by ששון כצ'ורי יחזקאל עזרא יצ"ו = Sasson Khadouri, eventually the head and chief rabbi of the Baghdad Jewish community, and הצעיר עזרא יחזקאל כהן = Rabbi Ezra Ezekiel Kohen, disciple of Hakham Abdallah Somekh and head of the kosher slaughterers in Baghdad. At the time of this document, HED and both signatories were amongst the Baghdadi community's kosher slaughterers.

Or 17055 (15). Reasons for Jewish practices, 15 numbered items excerpted from the anthology Divre tsadiḳim / דברי צדיקים = 'words of the righteous'.

Or 17055 (16). Judeo-Arabic responsum on the laws of the palm-branch used on the Festival of Sukkot - whether a certain type is acceptable. Recto: Query from Shanghai, China, requesting a speedy response, from 'the youth, [who desires] to learn, keep, and fulfill' the law. Verso: Answer, from 'the youth, who answers according to the law'.

[End]