Zakhor Et Yom HaShabbat LeKadsho (Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.) This is the seventh sentence of the Ten Commandments (counting Anochi at the beginning of the first sentence) and it starts with the letter Zayin, because Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. There are five words in the sentence, to teach us that whoever keeps the Sabbath is like one who observes all the laws of the five books of Moses (See Shemot Rabba, Parashah 26,12).
The Ten Commandments commence with the letter Alef (Anokhi) and conclude with the letter Khaf (LeRe’ekha). These two letters form the word AKH alluding to Psalms 73:1 Akh tov Leyisrael. He is, surely good to Israel.
There are 620 letters in the Ten Commandments, representing the 613 commandments of the Torah and the seven Noachide Laws. 620 is the numerical value of the word Keter (crown). It tells us that whoever studies the Torah for its own sake (Lishma) will be crowned with the glory of the Torah, but one who doesn’t study Lishema, his fate will be Karet (which consists of the same letters as Keter. See B.T. Taanit 71).
The above is taken from the “Gematriot and Interpretations of the Mesorah ” on the Ten Commandments in R. Yaa’akov ben R. Asher’s commentary on the Torah.
Rabbi Yaakov, a son of Rabbi Asher ben R. Yehiel (Rosh) accompanied his father, when the latter– fearing a fate similar to that of his teacher Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg who was imprisoned by the Emperor Rudolph I and died in captivity, emigrated from Germany. The Rosh and his family arrived in 1303 in Barcelona, where they stayed for a short time with Rabbi Shelomo ben Abraham Adret (Rashba). In 1305 he was chosen rabbi of Toledo. His son Yaakov settled in that city about 10 years later. He taught and fulfilled rabbinical functions, but lived in great poverty because he refused to accept remuneration for his services to the community. He died around the year 1343 and was buried next to his father.
His ethical will reflects — to use the words of the late Avrahahm Chaim Freimann, who wrote a beautiful book about the Rosh and his family — the purity of his soul and his Jewish personality in all their grandeur.
Here are a few lines from the will (in the translation of Israel Abrahams, Hebrew Ethical Wills, J.P.S. (1936): “Love G-d, hallow His name and do him reverence with thy soul, thy body and they wealth, surrendering thyself, if need be, to the sword or the stake. … Give alms, exercise, loving kindness, show hospitality to the wayfarer. But when thou giveth alms, see to it that thy act be done for the glory of G-d, beware lest thou seek thine honor or win a reputation for generosity. Study the law for its true end… to know the right and to avoid the wrong… Be a diligent student all thy days…”
His magnum opus was the Arba’ah Turim, the famous code, which unlike Maimonides Mishneh Torah cites its sources as well as differences of opinion. The “Tur” was widely accepted. It was one of the first Hebrew books to be printed. In the final decades of Hebrew printing, 10 editions of the work or parts of it were published.
Rabbi Yosef Karo who wrote a commentary on the “Tur” followed the latter’s arrangement and order in his Shulkhan Arukh.
Rabbi Yaakov also composed a commentary on the Torah, in which he quoted earlier commentators, particularly Ramban. In the beginning of each parsha he wrote condiments (“parparaot”)of Gematriot and interpretations of the Masorah to entice the “heart” of the reader.
The “Gematriot and interpretations of the Masorah” were printed separately in in 1514 in Constantinople and reprinted many times. They were even included in editions of Mikraot Gedolot as well as in Humashim, whereas the main part of the commentary was printed for the first time only in 1806 in Zolkiew.
Over the years many errors crept into the editions of the “Gematriot and Interpretations of the Mesorah” ; chiefly as a result of erroneous explanations of the Gematriot and other misunderstandings.
In 1971, Rabbi Yaakov Koppel Reinitzon the basis of manuscripts and the editio princeps, accompanied by source references and excellent explanatory notes. The edition which carried letters of approbation by the late Rabbi Yossi Stern, the editor of Derashot Hatam Sofer and other books and Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, the editor of the Talmudic Encyclopedia, was very well received. In the following years, four new enlarged editions of the work appeared.
Some time ago, Feldheim Publisher put out a sixth, revised and enlarged edition.
Continued next week
The Jewish Press, Friday, May 27, 1994
(Conclusion)
Rabbi Reinitz is the scion of a well-known Hungarian rabbinical family. The foreword to his edition of the Ba’al HaTurim’s commentary opens with thanks to the L-rd who saved him from Budapest in the winter of 1945 and brought him to the Land of Israel, where he studied in the Yeshivot of Ponivez, Hevron, Slobodka and Petah Tikva.
In the introduction, Reinitz presents us with a thumbnail biography of Rabbi Ya’akov ben Asher (including the full text of the inscription on his tombstone) and tells us about the manuscripts which he used. He also discusses the methods employed by the Ba’al HaTurim to deduce his Remazim (allusions) from the text, mentions earlier commentators of the Ba’al HaTurim. and explains the features of his own edition.
Reinitz has indicated in the commentary’s text proper, the places in the Talmud and in the Midrashim to which the Remazim allude.
Below the text of the commentary are printed variant readings and extensive, very erudite notes. The latter include full citations of some of the sources indicated in the text proper, additional source references, explanations by the editor as well as such that he culled from the books of others, parallels to the Ba’al HaTurim’s explanations found elsewhere in his commentary or in the Turim, and discussions of the Ba’al HaTurim’s views. At the end of the two-volume edition, are found Milluim and Hossafot (supplements and additions) to the editor’s notes. They consist, in great part, of extracts from books by various authors clarifying certain comments of the Ba’al HaTurim.
Space permits us to quote only one of Reinitz’ explanations.
On “Lo Tirtzah” (Thou shalt not murder) in the Decalog, the Ba’al HaTurim comments: “This is the sixth commandment and it consists of six letters to tell you that man was created on the sixth day.”
Reinitz explains, that the Ba’al HaTurim — in referring to the creation of man — alluded to the
Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5: “For this reason was man created alone, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes guilt to him as if he had destroyed a complete world.”
Reinitz adds that a comment similar to that of the Ba’al HaTurim is found already in the commentary on the Torah of Rabbi Eleazar of Worms (“Rokeah”).
The beautifully printed volumes also contain a commentary on the Ba’al HaTurim by Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim, who was rabbi of Ponivez, Mir and Jerusalem (the commentary remained in manuscript for many decades, and was prepared for publication by Rabbi Reinitz) and a reprint of Sefer Tagin.
Rabbi Reinitz reprinted the latter, which deals with the script of Torah scrolls, Tefillin and Mezuzot because the Ba’al HaTurim deduces his Remazim also from the Tagin on letters as well as from the irregular forms of some of the Hebrew letters.
May we attach some notes to this short review of Rabbi Reinitz excellent edition of the Ba’al HaTurim’s commentary.
In Bereshit 3:12 Adam defends himself why he had eaten from the fruit of the Etz HaDa’ath: ‘‘He Natna Li Min HoEtz” (“she — the woman — gave me of the tree”). According to the Ba’al HaTurim the above words should be interpreted as follows: She gave me of the wood (for it doesn’t say she gave me MiPeri HaEtz — of the fruit of the tree), i.e, she hit me.
Ya’akov Reifmann U818-1895) pointed out that this explanation is found in Immanuel’s Mahbarot, in a chapter devoted to humorous interpretations of Biblical verses, and he suggested that it did not come from the pen of the Ba’al HaTurim. but was added by a prankster.
Reinitz observes that the above explanation is found in all manuscripts of the Baal HaTurim’s commentary. Moreover, it is found in the Tossafists’ Sefer Moshav Zekenim and is cited as a Midrash by the Hafetz Hayyim in his Shem Olam. Ergo, there is no reason not to ascribe this explanation to the Ba’al HaTurim.
Rabbi Reinitz is right, but not 100 percent. One has no difficulty in accepting the above explanation as a Derush (whether it is found in the Midrash or in the writings of the Tossafists), but one cannot do so with regard to the Ba’al HaTurim. The latter calls this explanation the Peshat (plain meaning) of the verse. Is it the plain meaning?
On Bereshit 32:5 Im Lavan Garti, comments the Ba’al HaTurim; “Though I lived (Garti) with Lavan, I kept the Taryag Mitzvot.” Reinitz indicates the source in the text: Midrash HaGadol. In his notes he adds a reference to Rashi here, who says the same.
This makes it appear as if the Midrash HaGadol was the source of the Ba’al HaTurim, which is not very likely. The Ba’al HaTurim, probably, never saw the Midrash HaGadol. As for Rashi’s comment, see Rashi Hashalem here.
The Jewish Press, Friday, June 3, 1994