Halakhah su Giudici 5:78

The fourth objection: Why should one search in vain for the Hillazon without benefit for even if we would attain this way Hillazon that the Sages of blessed memory intended and we could recognize it according to its signs that is with all certainty the correct Hillazon we still would not be able to use its blood to dye the Techelet, because the Sages of blessed memory have already said in Tractate Megillah (6a) that everyone needs you (Zevulun) because of the chilazon. Judges (5) What is the reason because Naftali received as their portion in the land of Israel the high places of the fields. Zevulun said before G-d, Master of the Universe you have given unto my brother the fields and the vineyards and unto me you have given mountain valleys. To my brother you have given him lands and unto me you have given the seas and the rivers. G-d answered him saying, Because of the Hillazon everyone needs you as it is said in Devarim(33). The nations will call upon the mountains and the hidden treasures of the sand. Rav Yosef taught the "hidden is the Hillazon and the treasures are clear glass (crystal). Zevulun said before G-d 'Who will make it known to me that this is true. Hashem answered him and said There they will offer their righteous sacrifices (ibid). This will be your sign 'Whom takes from you without payment will not be successful in his business - and Rashi explains that if he takes the amount of Hillazon which is worth a Prutah (a small coin) without renumeration for it the color will be ruined and will not be of any benefit at all, Therefore even if we could attain the proper Hillazon we would be taking it without paying for it to the tribe of Zevulun for we have been exiled from our land and Zevulun is not in their inherited place that we are able to pay them therefore the color will be of no benefit and why should we toil in vain. Therefore even if it seems to us (to the naked eye) that we would be able to dye with its blood the color of Techelet we must be forced to say that we are mistaken for certainly the words of our Sages of Blessed memory are alive and everlasting.

And, especially, if by not telling the story, he will not suffer monetary loss, but only, cursing and reviling, it is certainly forbidden [to tell it], and he need not take any note of this at all, knowing in his soul that he will thereby be numbered among the lovers of the Blessed L–rd and his face will shine as the light of the sun, as Chazal have said (Yoma 23a): "Those who are shamed and do not shame [in return], who hear themselves reviled and do not answer, etc." — about them Scripture writes (Judges 5:31): '…and His lovers, like the rising of the sun in its might'" — how much more so, this one, who suffers humiliation for the mitzvoth of the L–rd. (viz. Hilchoth Lashon Hara, Principle I, section 6.)

The Palestinian Talmud declares that such a procedure does not constitute "writing." Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 3, asserts that only a procedure of this nature is excluded by the exegetical declaration "but not spill." That principle, he asserts, does not exclude "pushing" ink in order to form letters. Nevertheless, it seems evident that the rationale reflected in the comment of the Palestinian Talmud "but not drip" is that letters formed without direction, i.e., by merely dribbling a substance capable of arranging itself into words without the hand motions involved in normal writing, is not a form of "writing" for purposes of Halakhah.⁶R. David Friedman of Karlin, Teshuvot She’ilat David, I, no. 7, sec. 2, published in idem, Piskei Halakhot, vol. I, rejects the use of a printing press for such purposes because of this comment of the Palestinian Talmud. Earlier scholars, including R. Moses of Provenςal, Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, no. 73, ruled that a printing press may not be used because the metal letters may cause “etching” or “engraving” (ḥakikah) by means of indentation of the parchment. See also Teshuvot Maharashdam, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 184. It was feared that the printing press would cause depressions in the writing surface in the form of letters. It is because of that consideration that a metal pen is not utilized for such purposes (see Rema, Even ha-Ezer 125:4) and it is for that reason that Rema, Yoreh De‘ah 271, prefers use of a reed rather than a quill. However, Taz, Yoreh De‘ah 271:8, and others express astonishment to the raising of that objection on the grounds that: 1) “engraving” is a recognized form of “writing” (although Torah scrolls etc. require inked letters); and 2) assuming that the letters are indeed impressed upon the writing surface by the printing press and that those letters do not constitute writing, nevertheless, filling those depressions with ink would constitute a valid form of writing no less so than if the ink is applied to a smooth surface. If so, argues Taz, pressing inked letters upon paper or parchment should be regarded as a proper form of writing, “for what difference is there whether he presses the pen against the paper or the paper against the letters of lead.” [Cf., however, R. Abraham I. Kook, Da‘at Kohen, no. 160, who maintain that writing must be in the nature of “moshkhim be-shevet sofer—drawing with the staff of a scribe” (Judges 5:14). Da‘at Kohen would presumably concede that “drawing with the staff” is not to be taken literally since “etching” is indeed a recognized form of writing. The difference then must be in precisely the concept negated by Taz, i.e., between pressing the inked letters against paper and pressing the paper against the letters.] Because of that objection Get Pashut, Even ha-Ezer 125:15, went so far as to develop the highly improbable thesis that the authorities who forbade use of such a process because it constitutes a form of “etching” did so only if the indentations are not filled in with ink. Cf., however, Teshuvot Zera Emet, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 117, and R. Ben-Zion Meir Chai Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 78, sec. 2, who rebut that suggestion.
She’ilat David explains the nature of the objection in a novel manner. She’ilat David expresses the view that transfer of ink from the letter of a press to a writing surface simply by applying pressure, since it involves no hand motion, is tantamount to “spilling.” (Cf., the comment of Da‘at Kohen cited in the previous paragraph.) He compares the process to forming a letter out of some material and then attaching it to the parchment. She’ilat David regards such a procedure as invalid because it represents a form of “spilling.”
Alternatively, suggests She’ilat David, the printing press may make depressions in the parchment in the form of letters. Although “engraving” is indeed a halakhically acceptable form of “writing,” nevertheless, the depressions made by the printing press are likely to be minimal in nature and the writing surface would soon return to its original smooth state; hence, such “engraved” letters would not constitute “writing” because they lack durability and permanence. The ink transferred to the paper or parchment, he asserts, would not itself constitute “writing” under such conditions because it is “thrown” or “spilled” into the previously formed depressions. She’ilat David further observes that, assuming that the depressed letters are indeed of a nature that constitutes a valid form of writing, that writing becomes invalid in the printing process: The ink cast into the “engraved” letters constitutes a “writing” superimposed upon the previous writing. The superimposed “writing,” because it is in the nature of a “spilling” which is an invalid form of writing, serves to negate the original “writing.” Thus, it is because of the fact that the printing press may cause ḥakikah that the transferred ink is rendered an invalid form of writing because it is “spilled” into those depressions.
Also, contrary to Taz, Get Pashut 125:15, and others, She’ilat David asserts that “the manner of writing” requires that ink be brought to bear upon the writing surface to the exclusion of a process that causes the writing surface to come into contact with the ink. Accordingly, She’ilat David suggests that, rather than force the type against the paper, a printing press may force the paper against the type. Hence, if that indeed is the manner in which the printing process is carried out, the process is not “in the manner of writing.”
For this writer’s understanding of the concern expressed by Taz and R. Moshe Provenςal, see infra, note 13. More fundamentally, the exclusion "but not spill" certainly seems to connote the pouring of ink in a manner that allows the ink to form itself into letters. The silk screen process certainly falls within that category.

Anger is also a very evil trait, and it should be avoided it at all costs. You should train yourself not to become angry even if you have good reason to be angry. And when it is necessary to impress your authority on your children and your household, you may pretend to be angry in order to admonish them, while retaining your composure inwardly. [The Talmud relates] "Eliyahu said to Rabbi Yehudah, the brother of Rav Salla, the Pious: "Do not become angry, and you will not sin," (do not become angry, because anger will induce you to sin), "Do not become intoxicated, and you will not sin."⁷Berachos 29b. Our Rabbis of blessed memory said furthermore,⁸Rambam, Hilchos Dei’os 2. "If anyone becomes angry it is considered as though he worships idols, and the torments of Gehinnom will be inflicted on him as it is written, "Therefore, remove anger from your heart and put away evil from your body."⁹Ecclesiastes 11:10. The word "evil" connotes Gehinnom as it is written: "Indeed, even the wicked for the day of evil."¹⁰Proverbs 16:4. The life of angry men is no life. Therefore, [our Sages] ordained that a man should distance himself from anger to the point that he can conduct himself with utter disregard even for things that evoke [justifiable] anger. This is the proper path [to follow] and it is the way of the righteous, [as stated in the Talmud]¹¹Yoma 23a. "They suffer insults but do not insult, they listen to abuse heaped on them but do not answer, they are motivated by love in whatever they do, and they rejoice [even when] suffering pain." Concerning them, the Biblical verse says: "But those who love Him are as the sun when it comes out in its might."¹²Judges 5:31.

Rabbi Gross observes that the silk screen method does not really employ a stencil that allows the letter to be filled in on the underlying parchment in its entirety. Instead it utilizes a series of holes in the screen through which the ink drips onto the parchment. Contiguous letters are the result of a bleeding process, i.e., a series of dots are formed and later merge into a complete letter. Rabbi Gross notes that, unlike Korban ha-Edah in his commentary to the Palestinian Talmud, ad locum, Teshuvot Sho'el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Kamma, III, no. 102, asserts that the Palestinian Talmud disqualifies the get only if the drops of ink were originally significantly distanced from one another but not if they are placed so close to one another as to appear in the guise of a letter. Nevertheless, Rabbi Gross maintains that even such letters are rendered acceptable only if the dots are connected by means of a pen but are unacceptable if the dots merge of their own accord to fill the page. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 3, responds to that objection by contending that the silk screen method does not cause letters to be formed by means of bleeding which serves to connect tiny droplets of ink. Rather, he insists, although the ink penetrates between the strands of the silk screen drop by drop, the ink emerges onto the parchment, not as droplets, but as a complete letter.⁹It is for these reasons, i.e., because the method involves “spilling” or “dripping,” that the silk screen process is less acceptable than a lithograph or printing process. Cf., however, Melekhet Shamayim, Binah 6:12 and Keset ha-Sofer, Lishkat ha-Sofer 28:2, who regard the printing process as also constituting a form of “dripping.” On the other hand, quite apart from Rabbi Abadi’s peremptory dismissal of Rabbi Kook’s view, ibid., sec. 4, the objection to use of printing methods raised by Da‘at Kohen, no. 160, viz., that writing must be in the nature of “moshkhim be-shevet sofer–drawing with the staff of a scribe” (Judges 5:14) does not seem to be applicable to the silk screen process which employs a squeegee. See also R. Abraham David of Buczacz, Da‘at Kedoshim (Lemberg, 5656), in his comments on Bnei Yonah, 271:6, sec. 9.
Although perhaps surprising to present-day students of Halakhah, there were noted authorities who regarded the early, manually operated printing press to be acceptable for the production of sacred artifacts provided, of course, that an acceptable type of ink is used and that the text is printed on parchment rather than on paper. The earliest authorities to address the status of books produced by means of a printing press were Italian authorities, R. Menachem Azaryah of Fano, Teshuvot Rema mi-Panu, no. 93, and R. Moses Provenςal, Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, I, no. 73. Those responsa were written during the early days of the printing press when Italy was the major center of Hebrew printing and address the issue of whether printed volumes are endowed with the sanctity of Holy Writ. [For later discussions of that issue see R. Daniel Trani, Ikkarei Ha-Dat, Oraḥ Ḥayyim no. 8, sec. 12; Afikei Meginim 32:43, sec. 36 (introduction); R. Isaac Elchanan Spektor, Teshuvot Ein Yiẓḥak, nos. 5–7; R. Naphtali Zevi Judah Berlin, Teshuvot Meshiv Davar, II, no. 80; R. David Zevi Hoffmann, Teshuvot Melammed le-Ho’il, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 89; Iggerot Mosheh, IV, no. 40, sec. 10; and Sedei Ḥemed, Pe’at ha-Sadeh, Kellalim, Ma‘arekhet ha-Kaf, klal 12.] Rema mi-Panu and R. Moses Provenςal disagreed with regard to this matter. Rema mi-Panu, as understood by most authorities, regarded the printing process to be comparable to writing while R. Moses Provenςal deemed the process to be an unacceptable form of “gouging” or whittling. Magen Avraham 32:57; Get Pashut 125:15; Mas’at Binyamin, no. 99; and Pri Ḥadash, Even ha-Ezer 125:4, are among the authorities who ascribe a negative position with regard to use of a printing press for such purposes to Teshuvot Rema mi-Panu, no. 93. Cf., however, Teshuvot Zera Emet, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 117 and R. Ben-Zion Meir Chai Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 78, sec. 2 and idem., Piskei Uzi’el, no. 31.
Teshuvot Mas’at Binyamin, no. 99 and Maharaẓ Ḥayes, Yoma 38a, are cited by Rabbi Gross as sanctioning use of a printing process. That is also the position of Taz, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:2 and Yoreh De‘ah 271:8; Bet Shmu’el, Even ha-Ezer 125:3; Eliyahu Rabbah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:1; Be’er Heitev, Yoreh De‘ah 271:8; and R. Issachor Ber Katz whose view is expressed in a responsum appended to Likkutei Ha-Pardes le-Rashi (Amsterdam, 5475), p. 25.
R. Yom Tov Lippman Heller, renowned as the author of Tosafot Yom Tov, in his comments on Rosh, Hilkhot Tefillin 8:23, unequivocally endorses use of the printing press “for every matter that requires writing.” Magen Avraham 32:57, as well as 284:8, is in basic agreement with the opinion of the authorities who endorse the use of a printing press. Nevertheless, despite his refusal to disqualify the printing process as a valid form of “writing,” Magen Avraham discourages use of a printing press for production of Torah scrolls. Magen Avraham, however, rules printed tefillin and mezuzot to be invalid because the letters of the latter must be written in consecutive order. Magen Avraham asserts that it is impossible to assure that such will be the case if a printing process is employed because not all portions of the paper come into simultaneous contact with the metal letters. See also R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 59. The identical position is advanced by R. Eleazar Fleckles, Teshuvah me-Ahavah, III, no. 391, who astonishingly remarks that “no decisor ever noticed” the point.
In apparent disagreement with Magen Avraham, Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, IV, no. 40, sec. 10, asserts that simultaneous transcription, e.g., by means of photography, does not satisfy the requirement of consecutiveness. Da‘at Kohen, no. 160, expresses doubt with regard to this matter insofar as the validity of tefillin and mezuzot is concerned. See, however, Afikei Meginim 32:43, Bi’urim, sec. 35 (3), cited infra, note 20, who asserts that even Magen Avraham would accept simultaneous transcription as satisfying the requirement for consecutive writing.
A permissive view with regard to the inherent validity of the printing process is also adopted by Pri Ḥadash, Even ha-Ezer 125:4 [Cf., however, Pri Ḥadash, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:6, as noted by Matteh Yehudah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:6 and Sedei Ḥemed, II, Ma‘arekhet ha-Dalet, sec. 48. Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 57, regards Pri Ḥadash’s acceptance of printing processes as limited to the drafting of a get.]; Teshuvot Panim Me’irot, I, no. 6; Teshuvot Be’er Sheva, no. 43; R. Jacob Emden, Mor u-Keẓi’ah 32; idem, Migdal Oz, Even Boḥen 2:30; Knesset Yeḥezkel, no. 37; Rav Pe‘alim, II, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 24; Erekh ha-Shulḥan, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:1; Maḥaẓit ha-Shekel, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 490:9 and 559:1; Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De‘ah 271:39 and Even ha-Ezer 125:37; Ikkarei ha-Dat, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 31:5; Petaḥ ha-Devir, I, 32:10, II, Kuntres Shenayim Yeshalem 32:39 and IV, 289f; and R. Yitzchak Pelaggi, Yafeh le-Lev, I, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 32:7 and III, Yoreh De‘ah 271:2. Yafeh le-Lev, however, rules that use of a printing press is valid only post factum. See also Paḥad Yiẓḥak, II, s.v. defus.
As noted by Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De‘ah 271:39 and Even ha-Ezer 125:37, as well as by Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 57, those authorities permit only use of a manual flat-bed press operated by a Jew. The additional problems presented by use of a rotary press powered by electricity in which there is no manual impression of inked letters upon the printed page could not have been addressed by the many scholars who considered the matter before the advent of electricity. See also Da‘at Kohen, no. 160 and R. Samuel ha-Levi Woszner, Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, IV, no. 158. Cf., Sedei Ḥemed, VII, Ma‘arekhet Ḥameẓ u-Maẓah, sec. 13; Teshuvot Maharsham, II, no. 16; Teshuvot Yerushat Peleitah, no. 4; Teshuvot Ereẓ Ẓevi, II, no. 72; and R. Shlomoh Zalman Braun, She‘arim Meẓuyanim be-Halakhah, I, 47:13, note 4 and ibid., III, 110:15, note 23. For sources discussing use of electricity in instances in which a human act is required, e.g., the baking of maẓah and the fashioning of ẓiẓit, see R. Levi Yitzchak Halperin, Ha-Ḥashmal be-Halakhah, I (Jerusalem, 5738), 69–135.
[It seems to be the case that the many authorities, including Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:8 and Taz, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:3, who sanction use of a printed text for the reading of the haftorah permit only the use of a text printed on a flat-bed press manually operated by a Jew. Since these authorities sanction use of a printed text only because they recognize printing as a form of “writing,” it would follow that any form of printing that does not involve a direct human act as the proximate cause of the production of the printed text is in the nature of a gerama, i.e., an indirect cause, and is accordingly disqualified because it is not an act of writing directly performed by a human being.
This is apparently the view of R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv as reported in his name in He‘arot le-Masekhet Gittin (Jerusalem, 5763), p. 77. Rabbi Eliashiv is reported to have remarked that he is unaware of a basis for reading the haftorah from a printed text “in our day” when printing is carried out by means of electricity. A second objection recorded in that work in the name of Rabbi Eliashiv is based upon the fact that the prophetic works are printed on paper rather than on parchment. Magen Avraham, however, explicitly sanctions utilization of works printed on paper for the reading of the haftorah.]
R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, in his glosses to Yoma 38a, makes the astonishing claim that at least a rudimentary type of printing was known and used during the tana’itic period. The Mishnah, Yoma 38a, reports that a certain Ben Kamzar was severely censured by the Sages because he was adroit in executing a certain method of writing but refused to impart it to others. The Gemara, Yoma 38b, amplifies that report in stating that Ben Kamzar was able to seize four reeds between his fingers and write four different letters simultaneously. Rashi explains that this procedure represents the optimal method of printing the Divine Name. [R. Abraham ben Mordecai ha-Levi, Teshuvot Ginat Veradim, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, klal 2, no. 10, s.v. aḥar kakh, explains that simultaneous writing of the full letters of the Divine Name constitutes symbolic affirmation of the unitary nature of the Deity.] Maharatz Chajes questions the plausibility of a literal reading of that account and explains that the reference must be to four letters each cast in the form of a separate press or stamp that could be held between the fingers and wielded simultaneously in order to form four printed letters. The point is reiterated by Rabbi Chajes in his Teshuvot Maharaẓ Ḥayes, no. 11. In that responsum, Maharatz Chajes notes that an empty space of the width of a letter in the middle of a word serves to disqualify a Torah scroll. If reeds were held by Ben Kamzar between his fingers, the space between the letters would have been greater than the width of a letter. Accordingly, argues Maharatz Chajes, the “reeds” held between his fingers must have been lead stamps broad enough not to leave gaps between the letters. Although Maharatz Chajes’ point is well taken, it is entirely likely that the singular skill of Ben Kamzar included the ability to wield the reeds between his fingers in a manner that enabled him to write broad letters so that there were no resultant gaps. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yiẓḥak, no. 53, sec. 4, reports that an alternative explanation of the process employed by Ben Kamzar is presented by Yonat Elem, II, no. 31. Unfortunately, this writer has been unable to identify that work.
Among the many authorities who rule that printing may not be employed in the production of Torah scrolls and the like are Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, I, no. 73; Baḥ, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691; Teshuvot Ḥavvot Ya’ir, nos. 16, 109 and 184; Shiyarei Knesset ha-Gedolah, Hagahot Bet Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:15; Levush, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:1; Eliyahu Rabbah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:5; Bnei Yonah, Kiẓur Arukh, no. 271, p. 2b and Pilpul Arukh, no. 271, pp. 14a-15a; Birkei Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:1 and Yoreh De‘ah 282:1; Teshuvah me-Ahavah, III, no. 391; Teshuvot Maharam Shik, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 6; Hagahot R. Akiva Eger, Yoreh De‘ah 271:9; Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 64; Siaḥ Sofer, Binat Adam 1:1; Ikkrei ha-Dat, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 36:35; Keset ha-Sofer, Lishkat ha-Sofer 28:2 and 28:7; Sha‘arei Efrayim 7:59; Petaḥ ha-Dvir, II, 7a and III, 28a; Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357; Be’erot ha-Mayim, no. 13; Ḥemdat Yamim, I, no. 12; Bnei Ḥayyei, no. 281, p. 63b; Teshuvot Ẓofnat Pa’aneaḥ, II, no. 26; Ḥazon Ish, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 156: le-siman 284; Da‘at Kohen, no. 160; Piskei Uzi’el, no. 31; Yabi‘a Omer, III, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 21, sec. 4; Yeḥaveh Da’at, VI, no. 57; and Ḥazon Ovadiah: Purim, sec. 16. See also Afikei Meginim 32:43, Bi’urim, sec. 35.
For a comprehensive survey of the literature regarding use of the printing process for these purposes see Yitzchak Ze’ev Kahana, Meḥkarim be-Sifrut ha-Teshuvot (Jerusalem, 5733), pp. 272–305. See also Abraham Berliner, Ketavim Nivḥarim (Jerusalem, 5729), II, 118–124.
Photographic processes are explicitly decried by a number of authorities, including inter alia, Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357; Teshuvot Ẓofnat Pa’aneaḥ, II, no. 26; Teshuvot Mishpetei Uzi’el, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 78; Teshuvot Yabi‘a Omer, IV, Yoreh De’ah, no. 21, sec. 4; Yeḥaveh Da’at, VI, no. 57; Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, IV, no. 40, sec. 10; and Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, IV, no. 158. See also Teshuvot Bet Av, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 26; Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357, and Teshuvot Yabi‘a Omer, IV, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 21, sec. 4.

Much earlier, shortly after World War II, Rabbi Yechiel Ya'akov Weinberg was asked by the leaders of Jeschurun, a Jewish youth organization in France, whether it was permissible for them to sponsor programs in the course of which boys and girls sang together. Rabbi Weinberg, Seridei Esh, II, no. 8, reports that, still earlier, he had been surprised to discover that in observant homes in Germany men and women habitually sang Shabbat zemirot together even when guests were at the table and that, at first, he had protested against this custom. However, upon investigation he learned that the practice had been sanctioned by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and by Rabbi Ezriel Hildesheimer. Subsequently he found that Sedei Hemed, Klalim, ma'arekhet ha-kuf, no. 42, cites a Sephardic authority who sanctions this practice on the basis of the principle that "Two voices cannot be heard" adducing as evidence the verse, "Then sang Deborah and Baruch the son of Abinoam on that day" (Judges 5:1). Since Deborah and Baruch apparently sang together this verse appears to demonstrate that there is no objection to mixed singing. However, in another context, Eliyahu Rabbah, Oraḥ Hayyim 75:5, declares that this incident cannot be cited as substantiating any point of normative halakhah since it is to be viewed as an isolated occurrence which was divinely mandated.

Categorization of a preemptive attack as a milḥemet reshut is problematic regardless of the precise circumstances under which such war is justified. Such action is not deemed mandatory but is nevertheless permitted as a milḥemet reshut despite the apparent absence of specific scriptural authorization.⁴⁰Although not explicitly demanding participation in military activity designed to “deliver Israel from an enemy,” Judges 5:23 pronounces a curse against Sisera: “ ‘Curse ye Meroz,’ said the angel of the Lord, ‘curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.’ ” Cf., R. Shlomoh Goren, Maḥanayim, no. 20 (Erev Ḥanukkah, 5714), p. 7, reprinted in Torat ha-Mo‘adim, p. 166, and Maḥanayim, no. 97 (5725), p. 7, reprinted in Torat ha-Shabbat ve-ha-Mo‘ed, p. 360. Korban ha-Edah, Palestinian Talmud, Sotah 8:10, suggests that the legitimacy of preemptive war as a milḥemet reshut is derived by the Palestinian Talmud from the scriptural paradigm of King David's war against the Philistines.⁴¹See, however, Panim Yafot, Parshat Shoftim, s.v. u-mi ha-ish, who notes that the area inhabited by the Philistines, although not conquered by Joshua, was within the boundaries of Ereẓ Yisra’el. Hence King David’s war against the Philistines constituted a milḥemet miẓvah since it served as a war of conquest for territory integral to the Land of Israel. Military action against the Philistines, asserts Korban ha-Edah, was not undertaken in order to conquer territory belonging to the Seven Nations indigenous to the land of Canaan or to expand the boundaries of the Land of Israel, but in order to prevent acts of aggression.

¹The first three of the eighteen verses dealing with God-fearing are missing. The Perush suggests that the following verses be included: ( 1 ) The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7). (2) And did not choose the fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:29). (3) Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord (Prov. 2:5). “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil, pride, arrogancy and the evil way, and the forward mouth, do I hate” (Prov. 8:13). “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the All-holy is understanding” (Prov. 9:10). “The fear of the Lord prolongeth days, but the years of the wicked shall be shortened” (Prov. 10:27). “He that walketh in his uprightness feareth the Lord, but he that is perverse in his ways despiseth Him” (Prov. 14:2). “In the fear of the Lord a man hath strong confidence and his children shall have a place of refuge” (Prov. 14:26). “The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death” (Prov. 14:27). “Better is a little with fear of the Lord, than great treasure and turmoil therewith” (Prov. 5:16). “The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom and before honor goeth humility” (Prov. 5:33). “By mercy and truth iniquity is expiated and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil” (Prov. 16:6). “The fear of the Lord tendeth to life and he that hath it shall abide satisfied, He shall not be visited with evil” (Prov. 19:23). “The reward of humility is the fear of the Lord, even riches, and honour, and life” (Prov. 22:4). “Let not thy heart envy sinners, but be in the fear of the Lord all the day” (Prov. 23:17). “Be not wise in thine own eyes; fear the Lord, and depart from evil” (Prov. 3:7). “My son, fear thou the Lord and the king, and meddle not with them that are given to change” (Prov. 24:21). “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain; but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised” (Prov. 31:30). Behold there are eighteen forms of “fear” corresponding to the eighteen forms of Trefa.²Hullin 42a. Terefah, Lit., torn. The term signifies flesh of clean beasts rendered unfit for food as a result of either being mauled or killed by beasts of prey, injured, found defective or unskillfully slaughtered although in valid fashion. This is to say, even if they take the life of an individual let him not rebel against Him who gives life and sends death.³Berakoth 61b. If you lose your life because of Him, He will resurrect you and if you remain alive in a situation where you are obliged (by law) to part with your life and be sanctified by His name, He will take your life, and who (none) will rescue you from His hand. And because life is dependent upon eighteen points in the body man is called “living”⁴Numerical value of the Hebrew word “living” is eighteen. for as long as there is no injury to them (eighteen points) he is able to live. Moreover, “eighteen fears” correspond to the eighteen points⁵Hullin 42a. upon which life is dependent, for if you fear the Holy One, blessed be He, He will guard your life and this is as it is said, “The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death” (Prov. 14:27). When Abraham wished to take the life of his son Isaac, he was then called God-fearing, for it is said, “for now I know that Thou art a God-fearing man, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son” (Gen. 22:12). The “eighteen fears” correspond to the Eighteen Benedictions of the Silent Prayer. And if you say, what of the verse, “A wise man feareth and departeth from evil but the fool behaveth overbearingly and is confident” (Prov. 14:16) where the blessing of the Lord does not occur, there is, however, the blessing against the heretics.⁶“Fear” in Proverbs stands in apposition to the blessing against the heretics in the “Eighteen Benedictions.” This makes for Nineteen Benedictions! See Daily Prayer Book, ed. Hertz, p. 143. (And if you ask what of the verse) “Who so despiseth the word shall suffer thereby; But he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded” (Prov. 13:13), (it is) in apposition to the first blessing of the Eighteen Benedictions which commences with “Blessed be He.” Why are these “eighteen fears” made to correspond with the Eighteen Benedictions, for when a man prays, he must stand in fear,⁷Berakoth 30b.
/8/ Ibid., 29b. for it is said “Serve the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling” (Ps. 2:11), and it is written “They shall fear Thee while the sun endureth” (Ps. 72:5), which our Rabbis explained (to mean) “pray at the setting of the sun.” Moreover, why as against (in apposition to) “Fear of the Lord” does it state “Blessed is the Lord,” (it is to say) that he should not run in prayer as if (to show) he is happy that he is finished. But with every word and everything that he says let him concentrate to put devotedness into his heart. One should consider, if there is a matter to entreat and ask for of a king of flesh and blood, would he favor you or countenance you if you hurry your words before him? Let alone would he not do your bidding, but he will say that you can mean only to mock, and he would drive you away. Do not regard the Crowner of kings less than the kings who are beneath Him. If you come to praise and adore Him, consider this for a moment, if you were to hear a sweet voice and song of praise rushed and hurried without intonation, how acceptable would it be? Therefore it (prayer) is not to be done hurriedly, but with deliberation and a sweet and loud voice, for it is said “And many shouted aloud for joy” (Ezra 3:12). It is said⁹J. T. Berakoth 1:1. that when they walked in the temple court they walked heel to toe so that the worship of the Lord not appear as a burden. Concerning this it is said “And their course is evil and their force is not right” (Jer. 23:10). Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, created the cock’s crowing that we learn a lesson from him, for it is said, “And maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven” (Job 35:11). You would not be proper if you spoke before a king of flesh and blood, and your words were hurried, and if you sang for your pleasure you would prolong your voice, how then can you hurry before the supreme King of kings. You should therefore bless Him with your voice, and not make it as a chore that issues from your mouth. It is only right that when you utter words of supplication you say them in an entreating manner, for it is said “The poor useth entreaties” (Prov. 18:23). When a man entreats a ruler he does not hurry his words but on each matter he concentrates so as not to be mistaken with his words. Before he entreats a ruler or king he sets forth his petition orderly¹⁰Rosh ha-Shanah 35a. that he not falter nor forget nor skip a letter. So should you do, for it is written, “Will thy riches avail, that are without stint” (Job 36:19), and he says further, “Take with you words” (Hos. 14:3). When you recite blessings and praises, make it as though you stand before a king and he says to you, “Let me hear your voice.” Do not hurry your words and do not be anxious to speak. If you need sustenance, do not put your heart only to that blessing such as the blessing of “years.”¹¹Daily Prayer Book, ed. Hertz, p. 141. If you have an illness do not set your heart only to the blessing for “illness,”¹²Ibid., p. 140. because they (will) say about you on high, “This individual imagines that he has need only of this.”¹³Erubin 65a. Therefore let him (a person) be devoted in all the blessings. For behold the “eighteen fears of God” should be before him and he should be reverent of all the blessings. Do not direct your thoughts only to the supplications, for the essence of devotion is for the blessings and praises. They therefore said,¹⁴Berakoth 34b. let him direct his heart toward all of them. If it is impossible let him direct himself to the blessing of Ovos or toward the blessing of “thanksgiving.”¹⁵Daily Prayer Book, ed. Hertz, p. 148. For if you direct yourself only to the (personal) entreaties there will be a hindrance from above,¹⁶Sanhedrin 44b. it will be said that it is not proper to accept his prayer, for with the honor of the Lord he is not concerned to seek Him with devotedness and with supplication. How can we do his will if he is concerned only with his own welfare and not in adoration. Therefore it is good to pray and to direct oneself with joy and honor to the Holy One, blessed be He, to pray with devotion and not to speak to anyone before completing the service but recite those things that initially subdue the heart with mercy. And when you pray add in each and every blessing your request in keeping with the nature of the prayer ¹⁷Berakoth 29b. for they do best to prepare the heart. If you cannot add because the congregation already finished (the prayer), add in only one or two in order that you do not hurry in another blessing. You may add as we have outlined in the Order of Supplication.¹⁸See S. H. Bologna, Section 171. If you cannot add, search out for yourself other melodies and when you pray recite them (the prayers) in that melody which is pleasing and sweet in your eyes, in that melody recite your prayers and recite your prayers with devotion and let your heart be drawn after that which comes out of your mouth. For a matter of request and entreaty select a melody which prepares the heart. For praise, a melody which rejoices the heart, in order that your mouth brims with love and joy for Him who sees your heart. And you are to praise Him with broad love and rejoicing. All of those things prepare the heart.
Lamed, why is this letter called lamed? Because of the verse “That thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always”¹⁹The Hebrew word “to learn” shares a common root with the letter Lamed. (Deut. 14:23). For this reason David indicated with the letter lamed the teaching of fear “Come, ye children, harken unto me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (Ps. 34:12). Why does he say “children”? Because one who studies in childhood is not like one who learns in his old age. A son whose father led him in good deeds from his early years onward is like one who is accustomed to travel in a wilderness and is trained to find his way to the city. Similarly, he is like one who is accustomed to go by ship on the sea and knows how to direct the ship to the desired harbor. But he who does not know how to go, will go hither and yon, for it is said, “For he knoweth not how to go to the city” (Ecc. 10:15). And again, one who learns in his early years is likened to the sun, moon, stars, and zodiac, for they go in an upright path as it is said, “But they that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might” (Judg. 5:31). And this is as it is said, “But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings” (Mal. 3:20). Therefore it is said, “Come, ye children, etc.… I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (Ps. 34:12). This is the teaching of the secret of fear. The letter lamed is larger than all the letters,²⁰Height-wise, lamed is taller than all other letters. for the discipline of fear is greater than all, for it is said, “O, that they had such a part as this always, to fear Me etc.…” (Deut. 5:26). Behold before him is the greatest of all, therefore lamed is greater than all the letters and its name is greater than all and it is written, “Happy is the man that feareth the Lord, that delighteth greatly in His commandments” (Ps. 1:12).

However according to what it seems, it is not understood that if an Israelite came and began to be wicked to pain his fellow with his bad words, that the listener should not answer him. For it is not possible for a man to be 'like a stone that cannot be overturned' - moreover, that he will be in his silence like one who concedes to the insults. And in truth, the Torah did not command for a man to be like a stone, silent to those who insult him and to those who bless him alike. Rather it commands us to distance ourselves from this trait and that we should not begin to quarrel and insult people. And like this, every man will be saved from all this - since one who doesn't quarrel will not be insulted by people, except for [by] complete fools; and we should not pay attention to fools. And if perhaps some insulting person will force him to answer his words, it is fitting for a wise person to reply to him in a roundabout and pleasant way, and not become very angry; as 'anger rests on the bosom of fools.' And he will [so] save himself before those who listen to his insults, and he will cast the burden upon the one who insults [him]; and this is the way of the best among men. And we should learn this thing - that it is permitted to us to reply to a fool - according to what it seems from how the Torah permitted one who comes to rob secretly to be preceded and killed (Exodus 22:1). As there is no doubt that a man is not obligated to bear harm from his fellow; as he has permission to save himself from his hand - and similarly from the words of his mouth that are full of deceit and cunning - with anything that he is able to save himself from him. However there is a group of people the righteousness of which rises so much that they do not want to include themselves in this teaching - to reply something to those that insult them, lest anger will overpower them and they become involved in the matter more than is necessary. And about them they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 88b), "Those who are humiliated but do not humiliate [back], who hear their insult and do not reply - about them the verse states (Judges 5:31), 'but those who love Him are like the sun coming out in its strength.'"