The Rabbis on the Hunt: From Palestine to Poland, in: Falconry: its Influence on Biodiversity and Cultural Heritage. Edited by U. Szymak and P. Sianko. Podlaskie Museum: Bialystok,

EDITED BY:

Urszula Szymak, Przemysław Sianko

REVIEW:

prof. dr hab. Dariusz Gwiazdowicz, prof. dr hab. Marek Konarzewski, prof. dr hab. Jan Tęgowski, dr hab. inż. Tadeusz Mizera

TRANSLATED BY:

Tomasz Gierejko

�is publication is based on the materials from an international scientific conference titled:“Falconry – its in�uence on biodiversity and cultural heritage in Poland and across Europe / Sokol-nictwo – wpływ na bioróżnorodność i dziedzictwo kulturowe w Polsce i w Europie” Supraśl, 16–17 October 2015.

© 2016 Ośrodek Edukacji Ekologicznej – Sokolarnia and individual articles to their authors

PUBLISHED THANKS THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF:

PUBLISHED BY:

Muzeum Podlaskie w BiałymstokuInstytucja Kultury Województwa PodlaskiegoRatusz, Rynek Kościuszki 10, 15–426 Białystoke-mail [email protected]

ISBN 978–83–87026–59–2

LAYOUT AND PRINT:

Drukarnia Kadruk w Szczecinieul. Rapackiego 2www.kadruk.com.pl

O

RO

DE

K E

DU

KA

CJI

EKOLOGICZNEJ M

U

ZEU

M P

OD

LA

SK

IEG

O

AINRALOKOS

O

A

O

S

Action implemented within the “Ecological Education Centre of the Podlaskie Museum – Falconry Centre”, co-financed by the Operational Programme: �e protection of the biological diversity and ecosystems within the Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area for 2009–2014.

Contents

Introduction 5Urszula Szymak and Przemysław Sianko

Acknowledgements 10

Conference “Falconry – its influence on biodiversity and culturalheritage in Poland and across Europe / Sokolnictwo – wpływ na bioróżnorodność i dziedzictwo kulturowe w Polsce i w Europie” in Supraśl 2015 11

BIODIVERSITY AND FALCONRY 17

Janusz SielickiFalconry as a biodiversity conservation tool 19

Vladimir M. Galushin, Alexander G. SorokinLarge Falcons in Northern Eurasia: recent population trends and conservation status 29

Sławomir Sielicki, Janusz Sielicki=e restoration of the Peregrine Falcon in Poland in 1990–2015 and the falconry 41

Alena LustinaHunting limitations aimed at preserving biodiversity in Belarus from the earliest times until the 19th century 49

CULTURAL HERITAGE AND FALCONRY 61

Andrei V. ZinovievEarly Falconry In Russia: Recent Finds In Novgorod =e Great And Tver 63

Agnieszka SamsonowiczFalconry in Medieval Poland 69

Cezary TrykFalkenfang – Falcon Trapping in 15–16th century Prussia 81

Toma ZarankaitėFalconry in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th–16th centuries 99

Sviatlana Kul-SialverstavaHunting and natural resources described in estate and crown lands (starostw) inventories in Belarus and Lithuania in the 16–18th century 109

Natalino FenechRaptors and falconry in Malta: culture, history and conservation 121

Leor Jacobi=e Rabbis on the hunt: from Palestine to Poland 169

Atef Jenhani=e Cultural heritage of falconry on Cap Bon (Tunisia). Brief history 187

Bogdan BurligaSubici potestati hominum: Falconry as an Exercise in Spiritual (and Social) Snobbery in the “De arte venandi cum avibus” by the Emperor Frederick II 199

Marlena Wilczak=e Position of Mateusz Cygański’s “Myślistwo ptasze” [„Bird hunting”] in Old Polish Literature and its in�uence on the development of ornithology 223

Piotr Gołdyn=e theme and symbolism of the falcon in heraldry. An outline 231

Aliaksei BiletskiVeterinarian training and developments in the study of biodiversity at the turn of the 18–19th century in the area of Grodno 245

Daria Misiak Representation of owls in Polish folklore 267

ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION AND FALCONRY 277

Ewa ŁukaszykA falconry lesson. =e experience of introducing falconry into a transdisciplinary curriculum of studies 279

Artur GawełEcological Education Centre of the Podlaskie Museum – Falconry Centre as the Museum’s novel practice in environmental education 291

Iwona LewkowiczNature in preschool education 303

NEWS REPORTS 309

Elisabeth LeixA view on falconry and education in Europe 311

Nicola DixonSchool Links Programme: using falconry & falcon conservation to instigate international links between schools 323

Jevgeni Shergalin Interviewing Old Falconers – one of the projects of Falconry Heritage Trust 329

169

THE RABBIS ON THE HUNT:

FROM PALESTINE TO POLAND

LEOR JACOBI

Bar-Ilan University

Abstract

&e practice of “Jewish Hawking in Medieval France” is documented in my 2013 paper of that name. &is practice did face Rabbinic opposition in France, Germany and Catalonia, but for purely technical legal reasons: dietary laws and prohibitions on use of animals. Kυνηγέω, cynegeticus, on the other hand, faced strident Rabbinic opposition in both authoritative Talmudic sources and in the medieval period contemporaneous to the actual Jewish practice of falconry. A five-hundred-year lull of Rabbinic expression was suddenly broken in a highly nuanced legal opinion of R. Yechezkel Landau (“Noda Biyehuda”, 1713–1793), a native of Opatów, Poland, and one of the most in=uential Polish Rabbi of all time. His response has become the definitive locus classicus for Rabbinic opinion on hunting. We explain the reason for the lull and show that Rabbinic opinion on hunting is generally, though not always, consistent. Variance of Rabbinic attitude is usually the product of di>erent forms of hunting explicitly under discussion, such as subsistence hunting and sport hunting. Surprisingly, cruelty to animals and needless loss of life or property, Talmudic concerns expressed elsewhere, are not significantly relevant

Falconry – its influence on biodiversity and cultural heritage

170

to hunting. &e Rabbis are concerned primarily with dietary laws, interaction with gentile society, and proper character development.

Key words: Talmud, hunting, falconry, Noda Biyhuda, ethics

How strongly developed this sense of the sanctity

of life is in the Jewish people is admirably illustrated by

a little remark which Walter Rathenau once made to me

in conversation: “When a Jew says that he’s going hunting

to amuse himself, he lies.” �e Jewish sense of the sanctity

of life could not be more simply expressed.

Albert Einstein (1954: 187)

&e Sages frowned upon hunting and associated it with negative violent aspects of gentile culture. On the other hand, we have incontrovertible proof for “Jewish Hawking in Medieval France”, as I detailed in a recent article by that name, and for other Jewish hunting practices. &e topic of hunting touches on many aspects of Jewish law and thought which will be addressed here chronologically.

Biblical Period

Nimrod and Esau are the two great aristocratic hunters mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 10:8–9; 25:27). Esau, the “man of the field who understands hunting” is juxtaposed with the patriarch Jacob, who dwells in tents and tends sheep. As Esau represented neighboring Edom, the hunters were associated with surrounding gentile nations. Furthermore, two wives of Esau the hunter were Hittite women and ancient falconry has been associated with the Hittites (Gen. 26:34; 36:2; See: Canby 2002)1.

To quote Mark S. Smith (Smith 2007: 15–16):

Genesis 25, which attributes hunting to one ancient hero and cultivation to the other, sounds like the representation of the twin culture heroes in Philo of Byblos… Of course, the biblical chapter markedly di>ers in contrasting the two figures in terms of the audience’s identification with them: Esau (Edom) is not Jacob (Israel). &e Jacob–Esau narrative presupposed a perception that the hunt was, emblematically speaking, characteristically Edomite and not Israelite. At the same time, this perception could well represent a relatively agricultural perspective generally or an urban perspective among Israel’s elite.

Leor Jacobi

171

&e Bible also commands the covering of spilled blood from an animal or bird which has been hunted or trapped (Lev. 17:13). Bird traps are mentioned metaphorically by the prophets and in Psalms (e.g. Isa. 8:14 and Ps. 124:7). &us, it appears that in Ancient Israel, a predominantly agricultural and pastoral society, hunting was practiced marginally. Other tribes and nations were the dedicated hunters. Assyrian kings and others in the Near East practiced regal hunting, but this is never recorded in the Bible as an activity of the kings of Israel and Judea. Only at the conclusion of the Biblical period does Josephus relate that King Herod, an Edomite, excelled at hunting2.

Palestinian Rabbinic Rejection of Kυνηγέω

&e Sages referred to hunting with the Greek loan-word: kenigia, related to Cynegeticus, the title of Xenephon’s well-known work on hunting, which literally means “driving dogs”3. &e word can be used to refer to various forms of hunting, but in Hebrew-Aramaic Rabbinic literature it is associated with blood-sports, especially Roman spectator sports in stadiums. In tractate Avodah Zarah of the Babylonian Talmud (18b), R. Simeon ben Pazzi interpreted the first verse of Psalms exegetically:

Psalm 1:1Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful.Walks – to theaters and circusesStands – in kenigion, huntingSits – among sco>ers

&is negative stance of the Sages towards Roman hunting corresponds to our historical knowledge of some sadistic hunting and entertainment practices of the time. According to J. K. Anderson’s “Hunting in the Ancient World” (Anderson 1985: 100):

Varro, Horace, Ovid, and Martial all show that, however seriously some members of the hunting set may have taken the claim that the chase was the school of morals and the martial arts, the attitude of society as a whole was more frivolous. &e example set by some of the emperors did not help. When the degenerate Nero opened a show in the amphitheater by killing wild beasts with his own hand and the gloomy tyrant Domitian amused himself in his private hunting park by slaughtering driven game, it was hard to equate skill in the chase with virtue.

!e Rabbis on the Hunt: From Palestine to Poland

172

&e Sages’ approach to controlling man’s desires can be accommodating. &us, the demand for abstention from hunting does not ambitiously attempt to wean man of his desire, but rather, to channel it. As a reward for refraining from hunting activity in this world, R. Yudan ben Simeon promises the righteous “ringside seats” for a greater attraction: a fight to the death between Behemouth, a giant cow (or land monster), and between the Leviathan, the great sea monster, in the next world4. While there is undoubtedly an element of midah keneged midah, tit-for-tat, in the Sages’ teaching, the banquet metaphorically represents all of the splendors of paradise in the herea�er. According to this Rabbinic synecdoche, Jews who hunt are not only deprived of this particular banquet, but of the herea�er en toto, whose pleasures both include and eclipse those of hunting in this world5.

In contrast to the lambasting of kenigia, the Talmud dispassionately discusses practical laws of tsayid, trapping or hunting, such as whether a deer may be locked into a pen on the Sabbath, methods of covering blood, and the sale of skins to gentiles. &ese hunting practices were not associated with kenigia.

Medieval: Kυνηγέω and Falconry

While the Tosafist Sages of France, Chakhmei Tsarfat, were practicing falconry in their communities and debating which loopholes could be exploited to hunt in a kosher fashion (Jacobi 2013), the Pious Sages of Germany, Chasidei

Ashkenaz, were virulently protesting Jewish hunting. &is opposition was expressed by the Great R. Meir of Rothenburg in the 13th century and amplified by his prolific student, R. Yitzchak ben Moshe of Vienna, the Or Zarua, who included hunting in the poetic acrostic introduction to his great tome. &e adjacent Hebrew letters Tsadi, Quf, Reish, are expanded as “Tsad, Qenigion, Rasha” – Hunting, Cynegia, Evil.

In the words of Marc Epstein: “hunting by Jews was unequivocally condemned throughout ancient and medieval rabbinic literature, which viewed it as a distinctly non-Jewish activity, one of the classical excesses of the gentiles”(Epstein 1997: 19). As per the common hunting metaphor in medieval Jewish literature and art, the hunter represents Esau/Rome/Gentiles, whereas the running prey, deer, hare or sparrow, stands for Israel (See O>enberg 2014: 6).

Nevertheless, we now know that falconry was practiced by the Jews of France. What accounts for the discrepancy between the French and German Ashkenazi communities? &e di>erence may have been cultural, as the Pious Ashkenazi community was o�en more closed o> from gentile culture than the Sages of France, or di>erent types of hunting may have been employed, one acceptable and the other not. I propose that these were both important factors in explaining the discrepancy.

Leor Jacobi

173

Cultural distinctions between the French and German Medieval Jewish communities have been discussed at length by modern scholars such as Abraham Grossman, Ephraim Kanarfogel, and Judah Galinsky (see Grossman 2004:

!e Rabbis on the Hunt: From Palestine to Poland

Figure 1. Above: Behemouth, Leviathan, Ziz (griffin). Below: Feast of the Righteous, Ambrosiana Bible, Ulm (Germany), 1236Milano – Biblioteca Ambrosiana B 30 Inf., end of manuscript

Lampronti

LamprontiMaloikio, appear in Lampronti

175

&e vast Rabbinic Responsa literature covers almost all Medieval and Modern periods over many diverse locations. What is the reason for the sudden appearance of these four response in the mid-18th century about five hundred years a�er the previous mention of hunting by the medieval Ashkenazi sages? I would like to suggest two factors which could each explain the recurrence independently, but quite likely worked in tandem.

First of all, this was a great period of emancipation for the Jewish communities. In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Jews attained ranks of nobility for the first time (Katz 1978: 42–79)8. &e query addressed to the Noda Biyehuda explicitly states that it concerns one who has been blessed with vast lands on which to hunt. It was sent by a R. Gumpfricht Oppenheim, possibly on behalf of a relative who became a nobleman towards the end of the 18th century. &ey may have been descendants or relatives of Samuel Oppenheimer (1630–1703), a court Jew favored by Emperor Leopold I. In additional correspondence, Noda Biyehuda also addressed other issues related to Jewish emancipation (Katz 1989: 122–126). According to Pavel Sládek (Sládek 2011: 235):

!e Rabbis on the Hunt: From Palestine to Poland

Figure 2. R. Yechezkel Landau, Noda Biyehuda

176

Leor Jacobi

Figure 3. Musket, Jerusalem – &e National Library of Israel Ms. Heb. 8°2380, f. 135b

Especially in the later years of his rabbinate, Landau, a representative of traditional rabbinic Judaism, responded to various challenges related to… the actions taken by the Habsburg government towards the emancipation of the Jews.

&e second factor is the invention or the propagation of firearms at this time. Hunting had been the discipline of Esau, not for the sons of Jacob, but the

Animal Cruelty (Tza’arBal

and hence abandoned10

178

slaughter (Nevelah Biyadayim), Entering a Dangerous Situation (Sakanah), and Reinforcing a Violent Character Trait (Akhzariut).

is prohibited by Jewish Law. According to some authorities the prohibition is Biblically based upon the commandment to relieve a donkey of a heavy load, even if the beast belongs to an enemy (Ex. 23:5). Slaughter of animals for food and other means of obtaining human benefit are not prohibited. Surprisingly, according to Noda Biyehuda, since it is permitted to slaughter the prey, animal cruelty is not a concern, even if one does not intend to consume or benefit from the carcass. &e Italian Rabbis were concerned with animal cruelty because o�en in the course of hunting the prey is struck and harmed for extended periods before dying.

Leor Jacobi

Figure 4. Be’er Hetev Commentary to Shulhan Arukh by R. Judah Ashkenazi Treves of Tykocin. Rare second, expanded edition published by Joseph Proops in Amsterdam in 1777.

179

is not an issue for Noda Beyehuda because the wildlife have no human owner and are the property of no one.

is not mentioned by Noda Biyehuda but is a major concern of the Italian Sages, who prohibit hunting because of the high probability of disqualifying the animal during the course of hunting.

A�er ruling leniently on every legal issue, and completely ignoring the precedent of the Medieval Sages, Noda Biyehuda states that the prohibition on endangering one’s own life applies to sport hunting. He takes a most stringent stance concerning this.

&is argument against hunting, mentioned only obliquely by Noda Biyehuda, must be distinguished from the issue of animal cruelty. Here the concern is for the character of the hunter. If one makes sport and entertainment from in=icting su>ering upon animals, his own character will become coarse and violent and a>ect his interpersonal relations and he will come to emulate the wicked Nimrod and Esau. R. Samson Morpurgo emphasizes this factor in particular.

&e likelihood that the Noda Biyehuda was addressing the query of a nobleman may explain his diplomatic strategy in responding. All actual legal issues he permits to the nobleman. According to which two issues does Noda Biyehuda appeal to the nobleman to refrain from hunting? Concern for his personal safety and the importance of proper character building. &ese are tangible, rational issues which appeal to the nobleman’s ego and pedagogically assist him in relating to the law11.

In conclusion, the Sages took into consideration various complex intert-wined factors concerning hunting. We can clearly state that subsistence hunting was universally allowed implicitly in various dry legal discussions without register or even a hint of protest. Hunting for sport or entertainment was strenuously opposed from the early Talmudic era in Palestine, but probably abstention from hunting already became an element of Jewish identity earlier in antiquity during the Biblical period. Due to Jewish emancipation and the proliferation of firearms, the question of Jewish hunting resurfaced in the 18th century. Early Modern Sages clothed their opposition in various legal considerations, without unanimity as to which ones.

Addendum: the Responsum of R. Yechezkel Landau, Noda Biyehuda

About a third of the total responsum has been abridged, containing detailed Talmudic analysis, in the hope that the translation will be accessible to the general

!e Rabbis on the Hunt: From Palestine to Poland

However, I am surprised by the very question posed in the first place

181

of the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Consider this: R. Jacob Weil decided that the custom to bless one who has purchased a new garment by saying “may you wear it out and renew it” is not recited on leather articles of clothing, for “His mercy is upon all of His creatures” [Psalms 145:9]. &is law is cited by R. Moses

Figure 5. Noda Biyehuda, Yoreh Deah Vol. 2, 1833, first edition, published by the author’s son, Samuel, in Sudyłków.

!e Rabbis on the Hunt: From Palestine to Poland

182

Isserles (“Rema”, Cracow, 1525–1572), at the end of Orach Chayim 22313. Even though Rema stated that the rationale for this restriction is weak, he only said that because there is no need to kill the animal in order to obtain its leather; many beasts die on their own and their leather may be salvaged and worn. Despite this, Rema noted that many people are stringent regarding the recital of this blessing [in accordance with the decision of R. Jacob Weil], so how could an Israelite man possibly go out and kill animals with his own bare hands for no reason other than to fritter away his idle time by hunting?

It could be argued that bears, wolves and other predators cause damage; it was taught regarding them that “whoever kills them first has merit” [Sanhedrin 1:4], but that is erroneous… there is no commandment to chase a�er beasts into the forest where they make their own homes so long as they do not approach human settlements. He is simply chasing a�er his desire and the reasoning of his excuses scampers away from him like a deer.

One who depends upon hunting for his livelihood is not at all hindered by the consideration of animal cruelty. We slaughter livestock, animals and birds, and we kill fish for human consumption. What di>erence does it make if their =esh is pure and edible or impure and he obtains livelihood from the skins? All animals were given to man to steward in order to meet his own needs. However, one who does not require them for his livelihood and whose main intention is not livelihood is acting with cruelty.

Up to this point we have discussed morality and behavior which a good man should shun. Now I wish to add that there is also a legal prohibition. Hunters must enter forests and expose themselves to great danger from packs of wild animals. &e Merciful One said: “Guard your souls well” [Deut. 4:15]. Who amongst us is a greater expert in the art of hunting than Esau? Scripture states: “Esau was a man who knew hunting…” [Gen. 25:27]. Look and see what he said about himself: “Behold, I am going to die”[Gen. 25:32]. [Although there are other interpretations] the verse retains its simple meaning. Esau was endangering himself daily from packs of wild animals, as Nahmanides explained [Commentary to Gen. 25:34]. So how can a Jewish man wantonly enter a zone filled with evil, wild animals? If he is poor and doing it for food, the Torah allows it, just as it permits merchants to travel overseas. Anything that he does for food and livelihood is a matter of necessity and the Torah states: “To it he bears his soul” [Deut. 24:15] … but one whose primary concern is not livelihood but rather, fulfilling his desire in a place filled with packs of wild animals and endangering himself, he transgresses the commandment: “Guard your souls well” […]

Now that I’ve shown that there is both a prohibition and imminent danger, a third concern presents itself. He is causing his sins to be recalled, just as one who purposefully walks under a crumbling wall [Berakhot 55a]14. Perhaps the

Leor Jacobi

183

Sages had this in mind in Tractate Berakhot… according to this, one who enters a dangerous place not only transgresses the Torah which states “Guard your souls well” but also causes his own sins to be recalled, which anger the Holy One, blessed be he, more so than other transgressions do. For one whose livelihood is dependent upon it our Sages composed a prayer to recite in times of danger [Berakhot 29b], but if one enters the situation impetuously, how can his prayer be accepted?

Hunting displays the bad character trait of cruelty. &ere is also a prohibition involved, danger, and recollection of sins. &us, one who heeds my words will dwell securely, with peace and tranquility in his house, rather than wasting his time hunting. Were it not for my great love for the nobleman, famous for his good character, I would not even see fit to respond to this question. But as the good reputation of the nobleman and his household is known to me, I must guard the members of his house with all of my might, so as not to allow an opening for the enemies of the nobleman to find an excuse to inform upon him in their great jealousy. Let there be Shalom.

Sincerely, the troubled [Yechezkel Landau]

Acknowledgements

I thank Janusz Sielicki of IAF and the Bialystok Open Air Museum for organizing the conference and book, Malgorzata Stolarska, Tsipora Rakhovskaya and Monika Czekanowska for editorial assistance, Shamma Friedman, Eliezer Brodt, and Sara O>enberg. I’m especially grateful to my wife, Dana, and Jean and Tania Guetta for their constant support and encouragement of this “Rabbi” on the scholarly “hunt”.

Notes

1 See Canby (2002) on Hittite falconry, who focuses exclusively on archaeological evidence, not textual.

2 Cynegeticus. See following note. Josephus 1927, �e Jewish War 1.429–30, pp. 202–203. See the chapter: “Hunting for Herod the Hunter” in: Sievers 2009: 92–95.

3 Rashi’s famous 12th century commentary (Avodah Zarah 18b, loc. qinigon) explains the word as a form of hunting with dogs. It is not clear if his observation is philological or describes a common form of hunting witnessed in France.

4 Leviticus Rabbah 13:3 Later Midrash added a third creature to the banquet: ziz, a great raptor, o�en depicted as a griffin, as in the Ambrosia Bible. See, for example: Midrash Tehillim (Buber) 23, loc. rabannan patri. On this image in the Ambrosiana Bible, the Midrashic literature and various cultural aspects see: Shalev–Eyni 2015 and Frojmovic 2015. On the roots of the legend, see Kiperwasser & Shapiro 2012.

!e Rabbis on the Hunt: From Palestine to Poland

184

5 I thank my teacher, Chaim Milikowsky, for this explanation. &e stringent opposition to hunting of the medieval Ashkenazi sages likely follows it, as will be discussed in the next section.

6 “A bird in the bag”, similar to a well-known Hebrew expression: “bread in his basket”, which figuratively refers to a lack of desire for objects already in one’s own possession.

7 Earlier volumes of the Encyclopedia were published in Italy as early as 1750.8 I thank Maoz Kahana for suggesting Jewish emancipation to explain the resurgence of the

question of hunting in 18th century Responsa literature.9 R. Judah Ashkenazi is listed as a judge in the community leadership rosters of Tykocin from 1744

and 1745. See: Nadav (1996), p. 48, 50.10 &e great sage and bibliographer, R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai (Chida, 1796: 10–11) endorsed

R. Judah of Tykocin’s Be’er Hetev over R. Zecharia’s, stating that it was both more original and more concise. Nevertheless, R. Zecharia’s edition, or a modified version of it, became standard for two of the four sections of Shulchan Arukh. What appears to have happened is that the Proops brothers could obtain rights to only two of the Tykocin sections, first printed by Na�ali Hertz, the physician. So the brothers printed R. Zecharia’s inferior edition in order to compete on the market with a full set, with brother Joseph dissenting. Due to the superior quality and distribution of the Proops brothers’ press, their editions because standard. Perhaps the lesson learned is that the quality of the publisher is more important than the quality of the publication. See Goldrath 1971: 27–28.

&ere was also an extremely rare third Be’er Hetev commentary, composed by R. Yehuda Moshe ben Barukh, and published in 1742 and 1753 in Żółkiew. It did not cite the falconry law. From the author’s introduction cited by Valer, it appears that he had the first Tykocin edition and hence decided not to transmit this law. I would argue that this was probably a result of perceived lack of relevance rather than substantive opposition. &e only hint of opposition or caveat to the talon covers that I have found is o>ered by R. Yona Landsaufer (Prague, 1678–1713) in his Kanfei Yonah. He objects to the transmission of Pri Chadash and requires that the entire foot of the hawk be covered, not just the talons. His caveat probably results from tension between the venom law and early modern scientific knowledge that hawk talons do not produce venom. However, Kanfei Yonah

was not published until the early 19th century, so it probably didn’t cause the omission in the third Be’er Hetev. On modern approaches to the venom theory, see Jacobi 2013: 433, note 25.

11 Note: I am not claiming that Noda Biyehuda was misrepresenting the law, which is always ambiguous when cases are referred to great Rabbinic figures, but simply that he may have tended more towards leniency here than with a more pious inquirer.

12 &e censor’s note reads: “Dozwala się drukować pod tym warunkiem, aby po wydrukowaniu, złożone były w Komitecie

Cenzury trzy exemplarze. Wilno dnia 12 marca 1831 rok. Cenzor Leon Borowski.” “It is permitted to reprint on condition that a�er printing, 3 copies shall be submitted to the

censorship committee. Vilna 21 March 1831. Censor: Leon Borowski” I thank Malgorzata Stolarska for assistance with the transcription and translation. Some of this

selection was previously translated to English by Finkel 1990: 118.13 Surprisingly, Noda Biyehuda did not cite Rema’s transmission of Or Zarua in OH 316:2. It is

probably a simple oversight, but could be a part of Noda Biyehuda’s overall strategy of purifying the halakhic corpus from pietistic sources (Or Zarua was a student of R. Yehuda the Pious, in addition to Maharam of Rottenberg), in opposition to Rema’s program, aspects of Noda Biyehuda described by Kahana (2010), in English abstract: pp. 14–72.

14 For a scathing criticism of a misinterpretation of this phrase, see Soloveitchik 1999: 355–356.

Leor Jacobi

185

Literature cited:

Anderson J. K. 1985. Hunting in the Ancient World. University of California, Berkeley.Azulai, C. Y. D. 1796. Va’ad LaChakhamim. Livorno.Ben Iehuda E. 1980. &esaurus Totius Hebreaitatis. Makor, Jerusalem. Canby J. V. 2002. Falconry (Hawking) in Hittite Lands. Journal of Near Eastern Studies

61(3): 161–201.De Smet I. 2013. La Fauconnerie à la Renaissance. Le Hieracosophion de Jacques Auguste

de &ou, édition critique, traduction et commentaires precedes d’une étude historique de la chasse au vol en France au XVIe siècle, Bibliotheca Cynegetica 7: Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance. Droz, Geneva.

Einstein A. 1954. Ideas and Opinions. Crown, New York.Epstein M. 1997. Dreams of Subversion in Medieval Jewish Art and Literature.

Pennsylvania State University Press.Finkel A. 1990. &e Responsa Anthology. Aronson, Northvale NJ.Frojmovic E. 2015. Feasting at the Lord’s Table. Images 7(1): 5–21.Galinsky J. 2015. Between Ashkenaz (Germany) and Tsarfat (France). Pages 77–92

in Jews and Christians in &irteenth-Century France (E. Baumgarten and J. Galinsky, Eds.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Goldrath A. J. 1971. On the B’eer Heteb Commentary on the Shulchan Aruk – Yoreh Deah (Hebrew). Taggim 2: 5–30.

Grossman A. 2004. Pious and Rebellious. Brandeis University Press.Jacobi L. 2013. Jewish hawking in medieval France. Oqimta 1: 421–504.Josephus 1927. &e Jewish War, Books I–III (H. St. J. &ackeray, Trans.). Harvard

University Press, Cambridge.Kahana M. 2010. From Prague to Pressburg: Halakhic Writing in a Changing World,

from the Noda BeYehudah to the Hatam Sofer, 1730–1839, Hebrew University Hebrew Dissertation. Jerusalem.

Kanarfogel E. 2013. &e Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz. Wayne State University Press.

Katz J. 1978. Out of the Ghetto. Schocken. New York.Katz J. 1989. &e “Shabbes Goy”: A Study in Halakhic Flexibility (Y. Lerner, trans.),

Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia.Kiperwasser R. & Shapira D. 2012. Irano-Talmudica II: Leviathan, Behemoth and the

“domestication” of Iranian mythological creatures in eschatological narratives of the Babylonian Talmud. Pages 203–235 in Shoshannat Yaaqov; Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman (Shai Secunda and Steven Fine, Eds.). Brill, Leiden.

Lamprontini I. 1874. Pachad Jizchak. (L. Silbemann, Ed.). Lyck.Landsaufer Y. 1812. Kanfei Yonah. Prague.Morpurgo S. 1743. Šemeš Zedaqah. Venice.Nadav (Katzykovich) M. 1996. &e Minutes Book of the Jewish Community Council of

Tykocin, 1621–1806 (Hebrew). Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem.Offenberg S. 2014. A Jewish knight in shining armor: messianic narrative and imagination

in Ashkenazic illuminated manuscripts. &e University of Toronto Journal of Jewish &ought 4:1–14.

Shalev-Eyni S. 2015. Between Carnality and Spirituality: A Cosmological Vision of the End at the Turn of the Fi�h Jewish Millennium, Speculum 90(2): 458–82.

Sievers J. 2009. Herod, Josephus, and Laqueur. Pages 83–112 in: Herod and Augustus

!e Rabbis on the Hunt: From Palestine to Poland

Note: some Hebrew words have been transliterated following Yiddish pronunciations common to Poland and Eastern European Rabbinic culture. For example: Be'er Hetev, instead of Ba'er Hetev.