AHARONI, ISRAEL To AH ERIM (Jews and Judaism)

AHARONI, ISRAEL

(1882-1946), Erez; Israel naturalist and zoologist. Aharoni was born in Vidzy, near Vilna, and studied at the University of Prague. In 1904 he settled in Jerusalem, where he taught French and German in a Sephardi talmud torah, and later, Hebrew in the newly founded *Bezalel School of Art. Aharoni’s interest in zoology led him to begin a natural history museum and he was among the first settlers in Erez Israel to study the local fauna. His zoological explorations extended over all of Palestine, parts of Syria, and the Arabian Peninsula. In 1924 Aharoni became a staff member of the new Institute of Natural History of Palestine. In the following years he wrote extensively on local birds and made a survey of the mammals of Palestine. Over 30 new species of mammals, birds, and insects were named in his honor. In 1930 he made an expedition to Syria, from which he returned with a pregnant female golden hamster. From the progeny of this single animal a colony was established at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The golden hamster proved to be a useful subject for biological and medical research and thousands of hamsters, all offspring of Aharoni’s original animal, were provided to laboratories all over the world. Aharoni was custodian of the Zoological Museum and taught at the Hebrew University. He influenced the development of biology in Palestine through his pioneering fieldwork, his university teaching, and his textbook, Torat ha-Hai ("Animal Life," 1930).

AHARONI, YOHANAN

(1919-1976), Israeli archaeologist. Aharoni, born in Germany, settled in Palestine in 1933 and was a member of kibbutz Allonim from 1938 to 1947. From 1948 to 1950 he served in the Israeli Army. He was inspector in Galilee for the Department of Antiquities from 1950 to 1955. An archaeological survey conducted by him in Upper Galilee shed new light on the early Israelite settlement during the Early Iron Age. Among his activities during that period were the first explorations in the caves of the Judean Desert, a preliminary archaeological survey of *Masada, and excavations at Kedesh in Galilee and Tel H arashim near Peki’in in Upper Galilee. Aharoni served for four seasons as a staff archaeologist on the *Hazor expedition. He became a research fellow at the Hebrew University and rose to the rank of associate professor (1966). At *Ramat Rahel he uncovered the remains of an impressive Judean citadel. Aharoni also participated in two seasons of intensive exploration of the caves in the Judean Desert (1960-61). From 1963 to 1967 he conducted five seasons of excavation on the Iron Age fortress at Tel *Arad. Subsequently, Aharoni investigated the small temple at *Lachish for comparisons with that at Arad and found there an older Israelite shrine. In 1968 he became chairman of the department of ancient Near Eastern studies at Tel Aviv University and director of the Institute for Archaeology. In 1969 he commenced the excavation of Tel Be’er Sheva (Tell el-Sabi), the site of the biblical *Beer-Sheba. Besides his numerous articles in the field of historical geography, he wrote Hitnahalut Shivtei Yisrael ba-Galil ha-Elyon (1967) on the settlement of Israelite tribes in Upper Galilee, and the comprehensive study Erez Yisrael bi-Tekufat ha-Mikra (1962; The Land of the Bible, 1967). His Hebrew work, Atlas Karta bi-Tekufat ha-Mikra (Jerusalem, 1964), was combined with a complementary work by M. Avi-Yonah to form The Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York, 1968). Aharoni was joint editor of the Encyclopaedia Judaica’s department on the historical geography of Erez Israel.

AHARONIM

(Heb. it. "the later" [authorities]), a term used to designate the later rabbinic authorities, in contrast to the *rishonim, the earlier authorities. Although scholars differ as to the exact chronological dividing line between the two, some antedating it to as early as the period of the *tosafists (12-13^ century) and others to the appearance of the Shaarei Dura of Isaac ben Meir *Dueren (beginning of 14th century), the general consensus of opinion is that the period of the rishonim ends with the death of Israel *Isserlein (1460) and that of the aharonim begins with the appearance of the *Shulh an Arukh of Joseph *Caro with the additions of Moses *Isserles (1525-1572). Caro in his monumental work Beit Yosef, of which the Shulhan Arukh is a codified digest, had taken into consideration the works of all his predecessors, but had tended to ignore the decisions of the Ashkenazi posekim of Germany and Poland since the appearance of the Arbaah Turim of *Jacob b. Asher, and this omission was filled by Isserles. It is therefore a fitting point at which to commence the later period.

As a result of the introduction of the method of *pilpul by R. Jacob *Pollack (d. 1530) and the increasing study of Torah in Poland, the desire to discover new interpretations and to raise problems in the Talmud and resolve them by means of pilpul became particularly vigorous in that country, and the second half of the 16th century saw the appearance of some of the greatest ah aronim and commentators of the Talmud and gave a powerful impetus to the study of Torah in Poland.

R. Solomon b. Jehiel *Luria (the Maharshal; 1510-1573) opposed the Beit Yosef and the Shulhan Arukh on the same grounds as Isserles. Relying on the Talmud itself as the only source for halakhic ruling he established in each case the halakhah of the Talmud and after comparing the different views of all the posekim decided the halakhah only as it reflected the statement of the Talmud itself. In his Yam shel Shelomo, he took care to determine the correct version of the talmudic text; his Hlokhmat Shelomo comprises annotations on the Talmud, Rashi, and the tosafot. To the same era belong R. Abraham b. Moses di *Boton (1545-1588), author of the Leh em Mishneh, and R. Bezalel *Ashkenazi (d. 1592), author of the Shitah Mekubbezet, covering most tractates of the Talmud and giving the explanations of the rishonim to the topics of the Talmud. He also compiled responsa. Others are R. Solomon b. Abraham ha-Kohen (the Maharshakh; d. 1602), one of the greatest rabbis of Turkey and author of four volumes of responsa, to the first of which is appended explanations of and novellae to Maimonides’ Yad; R. Jacob b. Abraham *Castro (the Maharikas; 1525-1610), author of Erekh Leh em on the four parts of the Shulh an Arukh, regarded as the basis for halakhic decision by the rabbis of Erez Israel and Egypt; and R. Elijah b. *H ayyim (Maharanah; 1530-1610), author of Teshuvot ha-Ranah.

17th Century

The opposition to the Shulhan Arukh was continued by R. Mordecai *Jaffe (1530-1612), author of the Levushim (issued 1590-1599), which summarizes the halakhah, explaining the reasons, sources, and grounds for deciding between the divergent views of different posekim, but taking a stand against the prolixity of the Beit Yosef on the one hand and the exceptional brevity of the Shulhan Arukh on the other. He, too, relies in the main upon the views of the Ashkenazi and Polish scholars, and in this respect also opposes Caro’s tendency to decide in favor of the view of the Sephardim; R. Joseph b. Moses *Trani (Maharit; 1568-1639), who compiled commentaries to most tractates of the Talmud, to Maimonides’ Yad, and to the Turim; also R. Joshua *Falk b. Alexander ha-Kohen (the Sema; d. 1614), author of the Derishah u-Perishah and the Sefer Me’irat Einayim (Sema), endeavored to explain the Tur and the Shulh an Arukh at length and to supplement those laws whose sources and reasons are not given in the Shulhan Arukh, attempting at the same time to compromise between Caro and Isserles. The method of R. Meir b. Gedaliah *Lublin (Maharam of Lublin; 1558-1616) was to penetrate deeply into the meaning of the Talmud and the tosafot, the final decision being based on examination of the talmudic sources and the early posekim, which caused him to oppose basing halakhic decisions upon the Shulhan Arukh. His best-known book, Me’irEinei Hakhamim, consists of novellae and interpretations of the Talmud. R. Benjamin Aaron *Slonik (d. 1620), a distinguished pupil of Isserles and the colleague of the "Sema," the "Levush," and Meir of Lublin, compiled the responsa Masat Binyamin (1633) and was regarded in his generation as an outstanding posek. Another contemporary of the Maharam, Samuel Eliezer b. Judah *Edels (the Maharsha; 1555-1631), penetrated deeply into the plain meaning of the Talmud and the tosafot. His opposition to the Shulhan Arukh is not so obvious, since he does not deal with halakhic rulings. Despite this he complains about those "who give halakhic rulings from the Shulh an Arukh without knowing the reason for each matter." He compiled Hiddushei Halakhot (2 pts.; 1612-1621) and Hiddushei Aggadot (2 pts.; 1627-1631). This latter work makes the Maharsha’s commentaries different from most others. Maharsha endeavors to understand the often cryptic aggadot through allegorical and symbolic interpretations. The Shenei Luhot ha-Berit of R. Isaiah b. Abraham ha-Levi *Horowitz (the Shelah; 1560-1632) contains laws following the order of the festivals, an enumeration of the 613 commandments (see *Commandments, the 613), and their reasons. Halakhah is only a small portion of the Shenei Luhot ha-Berit. This encyclopedic work includes philosophy, Kabbalah, biblical and talmudic interpretations as well as ethics (musar) and discussions of talmudic methodology. His son, R. Shabbetai Sheftel (1590-1660), was the author of the Sefer Vavei ha-Ammudim, appended to his father’s work. R. Nathan Nata b. Solomon *Spira (1585-1633) published novellae to the Hilkhot ha-Rif entitled Hiddushei Anshei Shem (1720). R. Meir b. Jacob ha-Kohen *Schiff (Maharam Schiff; 1608-1644) compiled novellae to the whole Talmud and the Turim, of which only those to five tractates were published under the title Hiddushei Halakhot (1741; 1747). R. Joel b. Samuel *Sirkes (the Bah; d. 1640) was aware, as was the Sema, that the Beit Yosef could not explain the Tur in a sufficiently satisfactory manner because its main purpose was to arrive at halakhic decisions and, in consequence, in his Bayit Hadash wrote "an extensive commentary on the Tur having at the same time the aim of restoring it to its former authority and glory in halakhah in order thereby to diminish" the value of the Shulh an Arukh. One of the greatest scholars of Salonika, a great posek and one of the greatest re-sponders, was R. *H ayyim Shabbetai (Maharh ash; 1557-1647). R. *Joshua Hoeschel b. Joseph of Cracow (d. 1648) endeavored in his Meginnei Shelomo (1715) to defend the views of Rashi against the criticism of the tosafists. A colleague of the Bah, R. Eliezer b. Samuel H asid Ashkenazi, who was one of the rabbis of the Council of Four Lands, wrote halakhic pilpulim into his Dammesek Eliezer (1646), which were utilized by Hayyim *Benveniste in his Keneset ha-Gedolah. R. Yom Tov Lipmann *Heller (1579-1654), author of the Tosafot Yom Tov, also opposed the Shulh an Arukh, his aim being to make the Mishnah the basis for authoritative halakhah, taking into consideration the early and later commentators and posekim. He compiled an extensive commentary in two parts on the Rosh: (1) Maadanei Melekh and (2) Lehem Hamudot. R. Moses b. Isaac Judah *Lima (d. 1658) made a summary in his commentary Helkat Meh okek on the Shulh an Arukh, Even ha-Ezer, which is based upon a comparison of talmudic sources and the views of the rishonim with the Shulhan Arukh, while emphasizing the method of pilpul. There are extant from R. *Joshua Hoeschel b. Jacob, known popularly as the "Rebbi Reb Hoeschel" (d. 1663), halakhic novellae to tractate Bava Kamma and novellae on the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol. Two commentators on the Shulhan Arukh, known from their works as the Taz and the Shakh, through whom the Shulhan Arukh attained its most developed state and widespread acceptance, were active during the period of the *Chmielnicki pogroms of 1648: R. *David b. Samuel ha-Levi (the Taz; 1586-1667) intended through his commentary Turei Zahav to restore authoritative decision to its proper place, arriving at the definitive halakhah through comparing the different views in order to arrive at a final decision, yet in his eyes the Shulh an Arukh was the decisive hal-akhic ruling. In 1978, C. Chavel published a definitive edition of the Taz’s novellae on Rashi’s commentary on the Pentateuch. R. *Shabetai b. Meir ha-Kohen (Shakh; 1621-1663) in his Siftei Kohen explains the Shulh an Arukh and decides between its author and Isserles, striving at the same time to harmonize their views. In the Siftei Kohen on the Tloshen Mishpat he summarizes the views of all the rishonim and aharonim, trenchantly criticizing and negating the existing views and laying down new legal principles. R. Menahem Mendel b. Abraham *Kro-chmal (1600-1661), a disciple of both the Bah and the Taz, is the author of the noted responsa Zemah Zedek (1675) on the four parts of the Shulh an Arukh.

In the generation of the Shakh there was in Poland-Lithuania, particularly in Vilna, a concentration of outstanding Torah scholars. R. *Hillel b. Naphtali Z evi (1615-1690) compiled the novellae Beit Hillel (1691) on the Shulh an Arukh, Yoreh De’ah and Even ha-Ezer. R. Moses b. Naphtali Hirsch *Rivkes of Vilna (second half of the 17th century) compiled the Beer ha-Golah (1662), giving the talmudic sources of the laws of the Shulh an Arukh, in Maimonides’ Yad, and in the works of the rishonim. R. *Ephraim b. Jacob ha-Kohen (1616-1678) wrote the well-known responsa Shaar Efrayim. R. Aaron Samuel b. Israel *Koidonover (Maharshak; 1624-1676) wrote the novellae Birkat ha-Zevah (1669). R. *Samuel b. Uri Shraga Phoebus (mid 17th cen.) was the author of the commentary Beit Shemuel (1689) to the Even ha-Ezer. R. Hayyim b. Israel Benveniste (1603-1673) in his Keneset ha-Gedolah gave a digest of the particulars of all new decisions cited in the responsa of outstanding ah aronim from the time of Joseph Caro to his own time. This work, the first after the Shulhan Arukh to assemble an anthology of responsa, was accepted in Sephardi and Ashkenazi rabbinical circles as an authoritative work that could be relied upon for practical rulings. Of other responsa anthologies mention must be made of the Panim Hadashot (1651) of Isaac b. Abraham Hayyim *Jesurun (d. 1655) and the Leket ha-Kemah of R. Moses *Hagiz (1672-1751). R. Aaron *Alfandari (1690?-1774) in his Yad Aharon supplements the Keneset ha-Gedolah from works not in the possession of Ben-veniste. He also wrote Mirkevet ha-Mishneh, novellae to Mai-monides’ Yad.

The following authoritative commentaries to the Orah Hayyim should be noted: the Olat ha-Tamid (1681) of Samuel b. Joseph of Cracow, and especially the Magen Abraham (1692) of Abraham Abele b. H ayyim ha-Levi *Gombiner (1637-1683), who endeavored to arrive at a compromise between Caro’s rulings and the amendments of Isserles, and in whose eyes the Shulhan Arukh was the final authority; Gershon b. Isaac *Ashkenazi (Ulif; d. 1693), compiler of the responsa Avodat ha-Gershuni (1699) and Hiddushei ha-Gershuni (1710), notes and novellae to the Shulhan Arukh, is known for his strictness in laws of marriage; Jair H ayyim Bacharach (1638-1701), whose reputation rests on his responsa Havvat Ya’ir (1699) and was opposed to pilpul; Aryeh Leib *Gunzberg (1640-1718), author of the responsa Sha’agat Aryeh, Sha’agat Aryeh ha-Hadashot, and novellae to tractates of the Talmud. Among the rabbis of Jerusalem in that generation were: Moses b. Jonathan *Galante (1620-1689), author of Zevah ha-Shelamim (1698) and Korban Hagigah (1709); Moses b. Solomon ibn *Habib (1654-1696), author of novellae to tractates of the Talmud and of Get Pashut (1719). Peri Hadash (1692), a commentary compiled by *Hezekiah b. David Da Silva (1659-1698), added to the Shulhan Arukh and contains pungent criticism of the posekim, including Caro himself. Abraham b. Saul *Broda (1650-1717) wrote novellae on talmudic tractates entitled Eshel Avraham and Toledot Avraham. Elijah b. Benjamin Wolf *Shapira (1660-1712) was the author of Eliyahu Rabbah, novellae on the Sefer ha-Levush. Zevi Hirsch b. Jacob *Ashkenazi (H akham Z evi; 1600-1718) published in 1712 his responsa, novellae, and comments. His son, Jacob *Emden (1698-1776), compiled Mor u-Keziah, comments and novellae to the Orah Hayyim. Jacob Emden also wrote an extensive commentary on the prayer book as well as various philosophical works. Samuel b. Joseph Shattin ha-Kohen (Maharshashakh; d. 1719), an outstanding German scholar, published Kos ha-Yeshuot (1711), novellae to the tractates of the order Nezikin. Judah *Rosanes (d. 1727), one of the greatest Turkish scholars, achieved fame with his Mishneh la-Melekh (1731), novellae on the Yad, and Al Parashat Derakhim (1728). Jacob b. Joseph *Reischer (d. 1733) compiled the commentaries Minhat Ya’akov, Shevut Ya’akov, and Hok le-Yaakov on the Shulhan Arukh. Most of the halakhic works, novellae, and responsa of David *Oppenheim (1664-1736), famed for his large library, remain in manuscript. Alexander Sender b. Ephraim Zalman *Schor (d. 1737) was the author of Simlah Hadashah (1733), rulings in the laws of shehitah and terefot together with a pilpulistic commentary Tevuot Shor that became an authoritative source on matters pertaining to sheh itah. Elazar Rokeah of Brody (d. 1741) compiled Arba Turei Even (1789), novellae to the Yad and the Tur. A contemporary of the Peri Hadash, Hayyim b. Moses *Attar (1696-1743), author of the Or ha-Hayyim on the Pentateuch, wrote Peri Toar, a commentary on the Yoreh Deah, in which he defends the Tur, Beit Yosef, and all rishonim from the criticisms of the Peri Hadash.

18th Century

Among outstanding ah aronim in the 18th century are Meir b. Isaac *Eisenstadt (Maharam Esh; 1670-1744), author of Panim Me’irot (3 pts.; 1710-1738); and Isaac Hezekiah b. Samuel *Lampronti (1679-1756), author of the halakhic encyclopaedia Pah ad Yizh ak. The Yad Malakhi (1767) of his contemporary *Malachi b. Jacob ha-Kohen is a methodology of the Talmud and posekim in three parts. Jacob Joshua b. Zevi Hirsch *Falk (1680-1756) achieved fame with his extensive talmudic work Penei Yehoshuah (4 pts.). Nethanel b. Naphtali Zevi *Weil (1687-1769) was the author of Korban Netanel (1755), a commentary of the Rosh of Asher b. Jehiel to the orders Mo’ed and Nashim, and of Netiv Hayyim, notes to the Orah Hayyim. Aryeh Loeb b. Saul *Loewenstamm (1690-1755) of Amsterdam republished the responsa of Moses Isserles (1711), adding to it Kunteres Aharon, parallels from the responsa of the Maharshal. Jonathan *Eybeschuetz (1690-1764) wrote the pilpulistic and acute commentaries Kereti u-Peleti (1763) to the Yoreh Deah and Urim ve-Tummin (1775) to the Hoshen Mish-pat. Zedakah b.Saadiah *Hozin of Baghdad (1699-1773) published novellae to all four parts of the Shulhan Arukh. Among the works of Judah b. Isaac *Ayash (1700-1760), an Algerian scholar who settled in Erez Israel during his last years, known also to German and Polish scholars, are Lehem Yehudah on Maimonides’ Yad and the responsa Beit Yehudah. Eliezer b. Samuel De *Avila (1714-1761), a great Moroccan scholar, compiled Magen Gibborim, novellae to talmudic tractates, and Milhemet Mitzvah (1805) on the sources of halakhot in the Talmud and posekim.

Exceptional prominence was achieved by Ezekiel b. Judah ha-Levi *Landau (1713-1793), the author of the Noda bi-Yehudah, who in his novellae established new halakhic rulings. Solomon b. Moses *Chelm (1717-1781) became known through his Mirkevet ha-Mishneh in which he defends Maimonides from the strictures of *Abraham b. David of Posquieres (the Rabad), at the same time explaining the views of Maimonides and the commentators on the Yad. David Samuel b. Jacob *Pardo (1718-1790) is known through his Shoshannim le-David on the Mishnah and Hasdei David on the Tosefta. Meir *Margoliouth’s (d. 1790) responsa Me’ir Netivim reflect the precarious basis of Jewish life in Poland and Lithuania.

Samuel b. Nathan ha-Levi of Kalin’s (1720-1806) Mahazit ha-Shekel (1807) is a commentary on the Magen Avraham to the Orah Hayyim and on the Shakh to Yoreh Deah Hilkhot Melihah. One of the most prominent personalities among aharonim in the 18th century is *Elijah b. Solomon Zalman, the Gaon of Vilna (ha-Gera; 1720-1797). In his commentary on the Shulhan Arukh he stresses the connection between its decisions and the primary sources in the two Talmuds; when explaining the talmudic view the Gaon indicates his sources at the same time as he examines the different versions and determines the talmudic text. Noted for its terse style, the Gaon’s commentary on the Shulhan Arukh reflects his outstanding scholarship and genius. Hayyim Joseph David *Azulai (the Hida; 1724-1806) wrote halakhic laws and responsa, as well as the Shem ha-Gedolim, a comprehensive compilation of Jewish authors and their works up to that time. In 1771, about a century after the publication of the Shakh and the Taz, Joseph *Teomim (1727-1792) published his commentary Peri Megadim, whose main purpose was to comment on them, adding new laws he had collected and laying down halakhic principles. Another well-known commentary is the Levushei Serad to Orah Hayyim and Yoreh Deah of David Solomon Eibeschutz of Soroki (Safed, 1809). Pinhas ha-Levi *Horow-itz of Frankfurt on Main (1730-1805) became known from his Sefer Haflaah and Sefer ha-Makneh. In his well-known commentary Kezot ha-Hoshen on Hoshen ha-Mishpat, Aryeh Leib b. Joseph ha-Kohen *Heller (1745-1813) used the method of pilpul, at the same time stressing the need for rational understanding. Particular note should be taken of *Shneur Zalman of Lyady (1747-1812), the founder of Habad Hasidism and author of the Tanya, who prepared for his hasidic followers a new Shulhan Arukh which was issued in five parts in 1864. Abraham b. Samuel *Alkalai (1749-1811) wrote Zekhor le-Avra-ham on the Turim, which was relied on by halakhic authorities in Erez Israel. Hayyim b. Isaac *Volozhiner (1749-1821), the distinguished disciple of the Gaon of Vilna and founder of the Volozhin Yeshivah, continued the latter’s method of shunning pilpul and stressing the literal and straightforward meaning in halakhah. The vast majority of his writings were destroyed by fire at the end of his life, leaving us with only a small number of responsa and his philosophical work, Ne-fesh ha-Hayyim. Meshullam *Igra (1752-1802), an outstanding Galician and Hungarian scholar, compiled Igra Ramah on the orders of Moed and Nashim, and responsa. Mordecai b. Abraham *Banet (1753-1829) wrote Be’urMordekhai, novellae on the Sefer ha-Mitzvot of the Mordekhai, as well as other novellae. Jacob *Lorbeerbaum of Lissa (1760-1832), in his commentary Netivot ha-Mishpat on the Hoshen ha-Mishpat, summarized the sources of the halakhah, while his Havvat Daat to the Yoreh Deah is of decisive importance for halakhic ruling. The following Yemenite rabbis living in the second half of the 18th century should be noted: Yahya b. Joseph *Salih, av bet din in San’a and author of the responsa PeullatZaddik dealing with the practical problem of Yemenite Jews; David b. Shalom *Mizrahi (1696-1771) and his son Yihya (1734-1809) in San’a wrote the responsa Revid ha-Zahav (1955) on Orah Hayyim and Yoreh Deah on the customs of Yemenite Jews.

19th Century

Of the most notable 19th century scholars, the following deserve mention: Joshua Heschel b. Isaac *Babad (1754-1838), author of the responsa Sefer Yehoshua (1829); Baruch b. Joshua Ezekiel Feiwel *Fraenkel-Teomim (1760-1828), known from his Barukh Taam; one of the greatest aharonim in this period was Akiva b. Moses *Eger (1761-1837), famous for his novellae, his Gilyon ha-Shas, and responsa; Moses b. Samuel *Sofer (Hatam Sofer; 1762-1839), known by his responsa, novellae on the Talmud, and Pentateuch commentary; Abraham Samuel Benjamin *Sofer, author of Ketav Sofer, son of the Hatam Sofer, and his son Simhah Bunem, author of Shevet Sofer; *Israel b. Samuel Ashkenazi of Shklov (d. 1839), author of Peat ha-Shulhan on laws connected with Erez Israel that were not dealt with by Caro in his Shulhan Arukh; Ephraim Zalman *Margolioth (1760-1828), author of Beit Efrayim on all four parts of the Shulhan Arukh, Shaarei Teshuvah, and Pithei Teshuvah; Abraham b. Gedaliah *Tiktin (1764-1821), author of Petah ha-Bayit on the Talmud and Shulhan Arukh; Jacob Meshullam *Ornstein (1775-1839), author of Yeshu’ot Yaakov; Israel b. Gedaliah *Lipschutz (1782-1861), famous for his Tiferet Yisrael commentary on the Mishnah; Solomon b. Judah Aaron *Kluger (Maharshak; 1783-1869) wrote novel-lae on the Shulhan Arukh and compiled works on halakhah and aggadah; Menahem Mendel Schneersohn of Lubavitch (1789-1866), author of the responsa Zemah Zedek; Hayyim b. Leibush *Halberstam, the hasidic rabbi of Zanz (1793-1876), author of the responsa Divrei Hayyim, characterized by its blending of scholarship and Hasidism; Judah b. Israel *Aszod (1794-1866), outstanding Hungarian rabbi, became widely known through his Sheelot u-TeshuvotMaharia and Hiddushei Maharia; Jacob b. Aaron *Ettlinger (1798-1871), known from responsa Binyan Ziyyon (1868), his Arukh la-Ner, novellae to tractates of the Talmud, and his Bikkurei Yaakov; Isaac Meir Alter of Gur (1799-1866), known for his Hiddushei ha-Rim and Sheelot u-Teshuvot ha-Rim; Samuel b. Joseph *Stras-hun (1794-1872) wrote haggahot (notes) to the Talmud; Joseph *Babad (1800-1875) became famous through his Minhat Hinnukh (1869), extensively used especially among yeshivah students, its main aim being not to determine the halakhah but to stimulate further study by raising new problems. The Minhat Hinnukh is an extensive commentary of the medieval work, Sefer ha-Hinnukh. Mention must be made of the abridgments of the Shulhan Arukh by Abraham *Danzig (1748-1820) in his Hayyei Adam and Hokhmat Adam and by Solomon *Ganzfried (1804-1886) in his Kitzur Shulhan Arukh; Zevi Hirsch b. Meir *Chajes (1805-1855) wrote the Darkhei Horaah and Mevo ha-Talmud (1845) on talmudic methodology, the responsa Maharaz (1849), and notes and novellae on most tractates of the Talmud; Moses b. Joseph *Schick (Maharam Schick; 1807-1879), a Hungarian posek, author of about 1,000 responsa; Joseph Saul *Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875), the posek of his generation, who opposed pilpul; David Dov *Meisels (1814-1876), known from his responsa Ha-Radad on Orah Hayyim and Even ha-Ezer (1903); Naphtali Zevi Judah *Berlin (the Neziv; 1817-1893) of Volozhin, author of Haamek Davar on the Pentateuch and Haamek Sheelah on the She’iltot of R. Ahai; Moses Joshua Judah Leib *Diskin (Maharil Diskin; 1817-1898), the rabbi of Brest-Litovsk, who served as rabbi of Jerusalem from 1877, compiled Torat Ohel Moshe and responsa; Jacob Saul b. Eliezer Jeroham *Elyashar (1817-1906), Sephardi chief rabbi of Erez Israel wrote thousands of responsa in answer to inquiries; Isaac Elhanan b. Israel *Spektor of Kovno (1817-1896), author of the responsa Be’er Yizhak, Nahal Yizhak on the Hoshen ha-Mishpat, and the responsa Ein Yizhak; Joseph Baer *Soloveichik of Volozhin (1820-1892) wrote the novellae Beit ha-Levi and responsa with the same title; Shalom b. Yahya *Habshush (1825-1905), dayyan and head of a yeshivah in San’a, published novellae and comments on the laws of shehitah and terefot; Isaac Judah b. Hayyim Samuel *Schmelkes (1828-1906) of Lemberg is known for his responsa Beit Yizhak in six volumes; Jehiel Michael *Epstein’s (1829-1908) Arukh ha-Shulhan aims at bringing some of the rulings of the Shulhan Arukh up to date; he also wrote Arukh ha-Shulhan le-Atid; Shalom Mordecai b. Moses *Shvadron (1835-1911), known as Maharsham, whose genius is reflected in the seven volumes of his responsa; Abraham Bornstein of *Sochaczew (1839-1910), author of the responsa Avnei Nezer on the Shulhan Arukh; Isaac Jacob *Reines (1839-1915), who in his Hotam Tokhnit and Urim Gedolim eschewed pilpul and introduced a purely logical approach to halakhah. Of noted commentators on the Jerusalem Talmud in the 18th-19th centuries, mention must be made of *Elijah b. Loeb of Fulda (Raf; d. 1725); David b. Naphtali Hirsch *Fraenkel (1707-1762), author of the Korban ha-Edah; Moses b. Simeon *Margoliot (1710-1781), author of the commentary Penei Moshe; Jacob David b. Ze’ev *Willowski (Ridbaz; 1845-1913), who settled in Safed in his last years and whose commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud and his responsa are regarded as classics.

Among Oriental aharonim the following are worthy of note: Hayyim *Palache (1788-1869) of Smyrna, author of 26 books, including the responsa Lev Hayyim and comments on the Shulhan Arukh; *Joseph Hayyim b. Elijah Al-Hakam (1833-1909) of Baghdad, a great posek known from his Ben Ye-hoyaddah and Ben Ish Hai, which embrace halakhah, aggadah, and homiletics.

20th Century

Until 1933 the study of Torah was centered in the great and famous yeshivot of Eastern Europe – Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. During that period centers of Torah also began to be established in the United States. From 1933 on, and following World War 11, as a consequence of the liquidation of these centers, the center of spiritual life passed to the United States and Israel, and some scholars immigrated to these new centers during the latter part of their lives: *Meir Simhah ha-Kohen of Dvinsk (1843-1926), author of the Or Sameah on Maimonides’ Yad and Meshekh Hokhmah on the Pentateuch; Zevi Hirsch *Shapira of Munkacz (1850-1913), author of Darkhei Teshuvah on the Shulhan Arukh, and his son Hayyim Eleazar (1872-1937), author of the responsa Minhat Elazar; Elijah b. Naphtali Herz *Klatzkin (1852-1932); Hayyim b. Joseph Dov *Soloveichik (Hayyim Brisker; 1853-1918), who wrote novellae on tractates of the Talmud and the Yad and devised a new system of talmudic dialectics, and his son Isaac Ze’ev (1886-1960); Joseph *Rozin ("the Rogachover"; 1858-1936), known from his responsa Zafenat Pa’ne’ah and commentary on the Pentateuch with the same title; *Israel Meir ha-Kohen (Hafez Hayyim; 1853-1933), author of the Hafez Hayyim, dealing with the laws of slander and gossip, and Mishnah Berurah on the first section of the Shulhan Arukh. The Mishnah Berurah rapidly became the most widely accepted work of halakhah among Ashkenazi Jewry since the publication of the Shulhan Arukh. Moses Samuel *Glasner (1856-1924), who compiled Dor Revi’i and Shevivei Esh on the Pentateuch; Joseph b. Judah *Engel (1859-1920), whose works on halakhah, aggadah, and Kabbalah are arranged in an encyclopedic manner, in most cases alphabetically; Judah Leib *Zirelson (1860-1941) of Kishinev, author of the responsa Azei Levanon, Gevul Yehudah, Lev Yehudah; Hayyim Ozer *Grodzinski (1863-1940), author of the responsa Avi’ezer (3 pts.); Abraham Isaac ha-Kohen *Kook (1865-1935), author of the novellae and responsa Mishpat Kohen and Iggerot ha-Reayah; the Galician rabbi Menahem Munish b. Joshua Hes-chel *Babad (1865-1938), author of the responsa Havazzelet ha-Sharon; Zalman b. Ben-Zion *Sorotzkin (1881-1966), author of the responsa Moznayim le-Mishpat and Oznayim la-Torah on the Pentateuch; Ben Zion Meir Hai *Ouziel (1880-1953), Se-phardi chief rabbi (rishon le-Zion) and author of the responsa Mishpetei Ouziel, Shaarei Ouziel, Mikhmannei Ouziel; Isaac ha-Levi b. Joel *Herzog (1888-1959), Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, wrote Divrei Yizhak (1921), Torat ha-Ohel (1948) on Maimonides’ Hilkhot Sanhedrin, and the responsa Heikhal Yizhak (1960; 1967) on Even ha-Ezer, in which he also discusses problems arising from the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel; Dov Berish b. Jacob *Wiedenfeld (1881-1965) of Trzebinia, Galicia, author of the responsa Dover Meisharim (2 pts.; 1958); Moshe Avigdor *Amiel (1883-1946), chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, published Darkhei Moshe, Ha-Middot le- Heker ha-Halakhah; Menahem Zemba (1883-1943), outstanding Polish talmudist of the last generation whose works reflect a blending of acumen and erudition combined with logic and profundity, was the author of the responsa Zera Avraham (1920), Ozar ha-Sifrei (1929), Ozar ha-Sifra (1960); Jehiel Jacob ^Weinberg (1885-1966), author of the responsa Seridei Esh (4 vols.; 1961-1969) on practical problems arising in recent generations; Moses Mordecai *Epstein (1866-1934), author of Levushei Mordekhai, novellae and expositions on topics in tractates Zevahim and Menahot; Baruch Ber *Lei-bowitz (1866-1939), author of Birkat Shemuel on tractates of the Talmud; Isser Zalman *Meltzer (1870-1954), author of Even ha-Ezel in eight parts; Zevi Pesah *Frank (1873-1960), chief rabbi of Jerusalem, who followed the methods of Isaac Elhanan Spektor and Samuel Salant; Elhanan Bunim *Was-serman (1875-1941), who followed a middle path between pilpul and erudition, stressing the decisions of the rishonim; Meshullam *Rath (1875-1963), a member of the Israel chief rabbinate council, author of the responsa Kol Mevasser; Avraham Yeshayahu *Karelitz (Hazon Ish; 1879-1954) published 23 volumes entitled Hazon Ish (the first in 1911); his novellae and halakhot embrace the whole Talmud and all four parts of the Shulhan Arukh. Karelitz had an enormous impact on the halakhah of the latter half of the 20th century, especially in Israel. Reuven *Katz (1880-1963), rabbi of Petah Tikvah, author of the responsa DegelReuven and Duda’eiReuven; Isser Yehuda *Unterman (1886-1976), who, with the object of consolidating practical halakhah, established a methodological theory of talmudic research, wrote Shevet Yehudah on halakhic problems; Ovadiah Hadayah (1893-1969) wrote Yaskil Avdi in six parts; Moses *Feinstein (d. 1986) of the U.S., author of the responsa IggerotMoshe and the accepted posek of Orthodox American Jewry during the second half of the 20th century; Isaac *Nis-sim (d. 1981), chief rabbi of Israel and rishon le-Zion, published his responsa in his Yein ha-Tov; Eliezer Judah b. Jacob Geda-liah Waldenberg (b. 1917), dayyan in Jerusalem, is the author of Ziz Eliezer; Shlomo Goren (d. 1994), chief rabbi of Israel, published, among others, Yerushalmi ha-Meforash (1961), and Torat ha-Moadim (1964); Ovadiah *Yosef (b. 1920), Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel, is the author of the volumes Yabbi’a Omer published in Jerusalem between 1954 and 1969.

The ah aronim laid down many rules for halakhah. The fundamental principle is to take care to act in accordance with the decisions of the Shulhan Arukh. Some have insisted that those giving authoritative rulings from the Shulhan Arukh must know their sources in the Talmud (Maharsha to Sot. 22a, s.v. ary). On the other hand the author of the Pithei Teshuvah holds that after the addition of the well-known commentaries such as the Taz, Shakh, and Magen Avraham it is permitted to rule from the Shulhan Arukh itself (Yoreh Deah 242:8). In the view of many ah aronim the authoritative works are to be regarded as "our teachers" and anyone failing to take them into consideration in deciding the halakhah is regarded as guilty of "giving a (different) halakhic decision in the presence of his teacher" (Peri Megadim, beginning oh, section 3).

There is a well-known rule that halakhah may not be learned from the aggadah and the Midrashim (Tosefot Yom Tov, Ber. 5:4; Noda bi-Yhudah, 2nd ed., Yoreh De’ah, no. 161), but one may derive from them a custom being practiced by Jews (Noda bi-Yhuda, ibid.). On the other hand, several ah aronim hold that where the aggadot and Midrashim do not contradict the Talmud but merely add to it they may be relied upon (Mayim Hayyim of the Peri Hadash, no. 128; Shevut Ya’akov, pt. 2, no. 178).

The novellae of the ah aronim reflect a tendency to pilpul and to expand the subjects under discussion with the object of arriving at new halakhic rulings. The conclusions arrived at by outstanding ah aronim are accepted as new halakhic rulings.

The responsa of ah aronim discuss a variety of different problems occasioned by the times. These topics reflect local and temporal conditions: World War 1, the condition of Jews in the world after it, World War 11, the Holocaust, the establishment of the State of Israel – all these raised problems which are dealt with by the great ah aronim with the object of finding solutions in conformity with the halakhah. Indeed, their contribution to our understanding of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds cannot be underestimated. Throughout the last five centuries the ah aronim advanced our knowledge and comprehension of Jewish law, while constantly and rigorously applying it to everyday life. The decision process in Jewish law in the 21st century is not complete without careful consultation with all previous sources, including those of the ah aronim.

AHARONOV, YAKIR

(1932- ), Israeli physicist. Aharonov was born in the Haifa suburb of Kiryat H ayyim and received his B.Sc. from the Haifa Technion (1956). While working under Professor Boehm on his doctorate at Bristol University in England in 1959, Aharonov discovered the Aharonov-Boehm Effect, essential to quantum theory and of far-reaching impact on modern physics. After receiving his Ph.D. from Bristol University (1960), he taught at Brandeis University (1960-61) and Yeshiva University (1964-67) in the U.S. From 1973 he held a joint position as professor of theoretical physics at Tel Aviv University and at the University of South Carolina. Aharonov is a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the Israel National Academy of Science, and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Prizes and awards include the Rothschild Prize in physics (1984), the Elliot Cresson Medal (1991), and the Wolf Prize in physics (1998). In 1989 he was awarded the Israel Prize in physics.

AHARONOVITCH, YOSEF

(1877-1937), writer, editor, and Palestinian labor leader. Aharonovitch, who was born in Kirovka, in the Ukraine, acquired his general education in Odessa. On his way to Erez Israel, he was a Hebrew teacher in Brody, Galicia, where he also established a youth movement, H alutzei Zion. He arrived in Erez Israel in 1906, and worked as a laborer and watchman in the Nes Ziyyonah and Rehovot orange groves. A year later he became editor of Ha-Poel ha-Za’ir, the first journal of the Palestinian labor movement. During World War 1 Aharonovitch was exiled to Egypt, where he edited the anthology Ba-Nekhar ("On Foreign Soil") in Alexandria in 1918. After the war he returned to his editorial work in Palestine and to public life. Aharonovitch retired from Ha-Poel ha-Za’ir in 1922 to become director of Bank ha-Po’alim ("The Workers’ Bank") in Tel Aviv. A leader of the Jewish community in Palestine, the Zionist movement, the Ha-Po’el ha-Z a’ir Party, and later Mapai, he helped to formulate the ideology and practical character of the Palestinian labor movement through his articles, speeches, and personal example. Aharonovitch believed in adapting to a dynamic new reality without being chained to dogmas and beliefs. He proposed that practical agricultural and industrial work should be carried out by Jews, and that the concerted efforts of pioneers were needed to prepare the ground for mass immigration. He crusaded for integrity in public life and efficiency in the country’s social and economic institutions. His articles appeared in numerous newspapers and journals, including Ma’barot, Davar, Moznayim, Ha-Olam, Ha-Yom, Ha-HHinnukh, and Haaretz.

His pseudonyms included Temidi, Y.A., and Ben Sarah. In the last two years of his life he was chairman of the Hebrew Writers’ Association. Two volumes of his selected articles, Kit-vei Yosef Aharonovitch, were published in 1941 by his wife, the novelist Devorah *Baron, and Eliezer Shohat.

AHASUERUS

(Heb. king of Persia, who according and seventh years of his reign, Xerxes settled down to a life of self-indulgence, reflected in the account of Ahasuerus in the *Scroll of Esther, which agrees with the Greek authors in its conception, or even caricature, of life at the Persian court. Ahasuerus is represented in the Book of Daniel as the father of *Darius the Mede (Dan. 9:1) and, in one recension of the Book of Tobit, as allied with Nebuchadnezzar at the capture of Nineveh (Tob. 14:15). Since Nineveh was actually captured (in 612 b.c.e.) by kings Cyaxares of Media and Nabopolassar of Babylon, it is natural to surmise that later generations confused Cyaxares with Ahasuerus-Xerxes just as they confused Nabopolassar with Nebuchadnezzar. The Book of Esther does not mention the death of Xerxes in a bloody court coup.

In the Aggadah

Ahasuerus generally is portrayed as vacillating, lacking in character, and easily swayed. But the positive aspects of his personality are also emphasized. He is depicted as one of the few kings in history who ruled over the entire earth (Meg. 11a; Targ. Sheni to Esth. 1:2). Before his death Nebuchadnezzar had placed all the treasures of the world he had looted in a ship, and sunk it in the Euphrates to prevent anyone finding them. God, however, had revealed their location to Cyrus when He gave orders that the Temple was to be rebuilt. Ahasuerus’ great wealth derived from this treasure. But he neither succeeded in sitting on Solomon’s throne nor in erecting a similar one (Midrash Abba Guryon). It was through Esther’s influence that he appointed *Mordecai as his counselor, for she told Ahasuerus that whereas his predecessors, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshaz-zar, had consulted prophets, he invariably turned for advice to ordinary mortals. Ahasuerus is said to have desecrated the Temple vessels and priestly robes at the feast he made for all the provinces of his kingdom even though he knew what had happened to Belshazzar for such conduct (Meg. 11b). Other aggadot declare that his hatred of Israel exceeded Haman’s but he feared he might suffer a fate similar to that of the other enemies of the Jews.

AHASUERUS-XERXES

(Heb. Aram. Papyri Dura Synagogue Old Persian Xsayarsa; Gr. Hep^r|0. If one ignores the vowels, the biblical consonantal text is a close approximation of the king’s name. The Persian king known to the Greeks as Xerxes 1 (reigned 486-465 b.c.e.) was the son of *Darius 1. As soon as he ascended the throne, Xerxes was confronted by a revolt in Egypt. At the same time, the enemies of Judah apparently tried to incite him against its inhabitants (Ezra 4:6). After reducing Egypt "to a worse state of servitude than it was in under Darius" and crushing another revolt in Babylon, he attempted a more ambitious undertaking, the subjugation of Greece. After the disastrous outcome of this adventure, which took place between the third versions of the second of the two benedictions preceding the recitation of the Shema in the morning and evening services. In the Talmud there is a difference of opinion as to which is the correct version (Ber. 11b) and a baraita is quoted which definitely favors Ahavah Rabbah. This controversy continued even into medieval times (see Levin, Ozar, vol. 1, p. 29; et, vol. 4, p. 391). As a compromise decision Ahavah Rabbah was adopted for the morning service and the other for the evening (Tos., mg Ber.). The Sephardi and Italian rites, however, only have Ahavat Olam. It is not clear whether the difference between the two versions was limited to the opening formula or whether it extended to the content. From the prayer book of *Saadiah Gaon it would appear that the former is the case. In their present form the two prayers have the same basic theme, but they differ considerably in presentation, and Ahavah Rabbah is much the longer and the more complex of the two. Both benedictions tell of God’s love as the explanation for Israel’s receiving the Torah. The prayers introduce the Shema which is basically a Torah reading – and promise, in consequence, continual preoccupation with its study and observance. In both, God is besought to continue bestowing His love on His people, but in Ahavah Rabbah the idea of the election of Israel is stressed. Ahavat Olam ends, "Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who lovest His people Israel," whereas Aha-vah Rabbah closes with "Who has chosen His people Israel in love." The Mishnah (Tam. 5:1), as interpreted in the Gemara (Ber. 11b-12a), records that Ahavah Rabbah was the benediction with which the priestly prayer service in the Temple commenced. According to the halakhah (Sh. Ar., oh 47:7) either of the two can serve as a substitute for the *Birkat ha-Torah, the blessing to be recited before study.

In the Middle Ages various piyyutim were composed for insertion into Ahavah Rabbah and Ahavat Olam on festivals. Those for the latter are still recited in some synagogues. Both benedictions appear with minor textual variations in the different rites; Ahavat Olam much less, however, than Ahavah Rabbah. The Reform ritual has retained the traditional text of the former but has abbreviated the latter considerably, omitting the messianic passages. Ahavat Olam has been set to music by Mombach and others, and forms part of the repertoire of most synagogue choirs.

AHAVAH RABBAH

(Heb. "With great love"); AHAVAT OLAM (Heb. "Everlasting love"), two ii Kings, Ahaz was buried in the royal vault in the City of David, but according to ii Chronicles, merely in Jerusalem. In the Talmud (Pes. 56a) his son Hezekiah is commended for giving Ahaz a pauper’s funeral as an atonement for Ahaz’ sins and in order to disassociate himself from his father’s religious policies. Although Ahaz’ own record was tarnished, the rabbis credited him with having been the son and father of righteous kings as well as having accepted Uzziah’s reproof, which secured him a share in the world to come (Sanh. 104a).

AHAZ

(Heb as shown by the reference to him as Ya-u-ha-zi in cuneiform (the inscription of Tiglath-Pileser ill), meaning "yhwh holds fast"), king of Judah (743-727 B.c.E.), son of *Jotham and father of *Heze-kiah. Ahaz succeeded to the throne at the age of 20 and ruled for 16 years. It seems, however, that he ruled alone for seven years only, sharing the first nine years with his father as regent for his grandfather *Uzziah (785-733 B.c.E.), who was incapacitated by a terrible skin disease. Ahaz apparently refused to join the anti-Assyrian alliance of Aram, northern Israel, the Philistines, and others, no doubt believing Assyrian power to be irresistible. This refusal led to the "Syro-Ephraimite war" of 733, when Israel and Aram invaded Judah (ii Kings 15:37; ii Chron. 28:5ff.), carried off many captives, and planned to conquer Judah and to set up, under a certain Ben Tabeel, a regime favorable to an anti-Assyrian alliance (for a different motivation, see H.L. Ginsberg in Bibliography). In the course of the war Ahaz lost control over the Negev and the western slopes of the Judean hills to the Philistines (ii Chron. 28:18), and of Elath to the Edomites (ii Kings 16:6).

Ahaz turned for help to the Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser iii whose suzerainty he, or Uzziah, had probably recognized one or more years previously. Tiglath-Pileser thereupon advanced against Aram and Israel. Ahaz went to Damascus to pay homage to the victor; from there he sent instructions to the high priest Uriah to introduce Aramean (Assyrian?) cults into the Temple in Jerusalem and, in particular, to build an altar modeled on an (Assyrian type?) altar he had seen in Damascus. Later, he himself made sacrifices on this altar (ii Kings 16:7ff.). Ahaz made other far-reaching changes in the Temple and, besides despoiling the Temple treasury and his own, melted down some of the Temple vessels for his tribute to the Assyrian king. He also installed a sundial in the Temple (ii Kings 20:11). Of his ministers, the names of Shebna, the steward (?; Isa. 22:15), and Eshna, "servant of Ahaz," are known, the latter from a recently discovered seal (see: em, 1 (1950), 207). More recently, a seal impression reading "belonging to Ahaz (son of) Yehotam, King of Judah" was published.

Ahaz, accused of practicing ancient Canaanite cults, such as the Moloch fire rite, is one of the kings who did evil in the eyes of the Lord (ii Kings 16:3-4). According to

AHAZIAH

(Heb. "yhwh holds firm"), the name of two biblical kings.

(1) Son of *Ahab, king of Israel (c. 853-852 B.c.E.). The biblical account of his two-year reign (i Kings 22:52-ii Kings 1:18) faults Ahaziah for following his father and mother in sponsoring the cult of the Tyrian Baal, inquiring of Baal-Zebub of Philistine Ekron in addition to his maintenance of the calf-cult initiated by Jeroboam i. The defeat of the army of Israel and the death of Ahab in the war with the Arameans (853 B.c.E.) encouraged *Mesha, king of Moab, to free himself from Israelite suzerainty and to engage in war with Ahaziah. Apparently the Ammonites also gained their freedom at that time (ii Chron. 20:1). The traditional alliance between the house of Omri and Judah suffered when *Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, refused partnership in the maritime commercial venture organized at the port of Ezion-Geber which was proposed by the king of Israel (i Kings 22:49-50; see, however, ii Chron. 20:35-37). In the second year of his reign Ahaziah was severely injured in a fall from the window of an upper story of his palace and sent to ask for an oracle of Baal-Zebub, god of Ekron. *Elijah reproved him for this act and prophesied that he would die (ii Kings 1:2ff.). Given the fantastic elements in the topic, i.e., repeated fire from heaven called down by the prophet, we might do well to explain the account of Ahaziah’s deeds as a theological justification for his brief reign and premature death. Ahaziah left no sons and was succeeded on the throne by his brother Jehoram.

(2) The son of *Jehoram, king of Judah, and *Athaliah, daughter (or sister) of Ahab, king of Israel. Ahaziah ascended the throne at the age of 22 and reigned for one year over Judah (c. 842-841 B.c.E.; ii Kings 8:25ff.). His name is misspelled "Johoahaz" in ii Chronicles 21:16-17 and "Azariah" in ii Chronicles 22:6. He followed his mother Athaliah in all matters relating to the cult. The political alliance with the dynasty of Omri was revived and he and his uncle or cousin King Jehoram of Israel went to war against H azael, king of Aram (ii Kings 8:28-29; ii Chron. 22:5-6). Jehoram was wounded in the battle, and Ahaziah visited him in Jezreel. Because of this kinship and friendship, *Jehu killed him as well as Jehoram (ii Kings 9:27-28; 11 Chron. 22:9).

AH DUT HA-AVODAH

Zionist Socialist Labor Party in Palestine founded in 1919. First steps toward its formation were taken in 1918 by soldiers of the *Jewish Legion at Tell el Kabir, Egypt, where many Palestinian Jewish workers and members of *Po’alei Zion from America were serving as volunteers in the Jewish battalions of the British Army. The majority of the volunteers belonged to an influential non-party group, led by Berl *Katznelson and Shemuel *Yavneeli, and to Po’alei Zion, led by Izhak *Ben-Zvi and David *Ben-Gurion. There were also a few volunteers who were leading members of the other Labor Party, *Ha-Po’el ha-Z a’ir, among them Levi Shkolnik (*Eshkol) and Abraham Haft, although their party objected to participation in the Legion. In February 1919, a conference of Po’alei Zion unanimously called for unity, but a Ha-Po’el ha-Z a’ir conference rejected the proposal. Immediately afterward, at Petah Tikvah, a conference of the Agricultural Workers’ Union, which included members of both parties, voted 48 to 12 for the establishment of a workers’ federation to be responsible for all political, economic, and cultural activities, and for settlement on the land. Most Ha-Po’el ha-Z a’ir members did not join, but established separate labor exchanges and a separate agricultural settlement center. A founding conference resulting from the agricultural workers’ decision was elected by 1,871 workers, with 47 rural delegates, 15 urban, and 19 representing the legionnaires from abroad. It met shortly afterward and decided to establish the Zionist Socialist Federation of the Workers of Erez Israel, Ah dut ha-Avodah, as an autonomous body, comprising all workers and members of the professions living solely from their labor without exploiting others. It was to participate in the World Zionist Organization and the Socialist International; to organize the provision of work, cooperative supplies, vocational training, and general education; to protect the workers’ dignity and interests; and to enhance the creative capacity of the working class. Ahdut ha-Avodah aspired, through organized mass immigration, to mold the life of the Jewish people in Erez Israel as a commonwealth of free and equal workers living on its labor, controlling its property, and arranging its distribution of work, its economy, and its culture. Only a minority of Ha-Po’el ha-Z a’ir members joined, and, in order to avoid competition in labor matters, both groups agreed to establish the General Federation of Jewish Workers in Erez; Israel (*Histadrut), which was founded in December 1920. Ahdut ha-Avodah became dominant in the Histadrut, of which Ben-Gurion was elected secretary-general. It also became dominant in the Elected Assembly of the yishuv, but continued to aim at complete workers’ unity. After prolonged negotiations, Ahdut ha-Avodah and Ha-Po’el ha-Z a’ir merged in 1930 to form Mifleget Po’alei Erez Israel ( Mapai).

A study of Ah dut ha-Avodah, Ah dut ha-Avodah ha-His-torit, by Jonathan Shapiro (1975) traces the consolidation of the party out of various factions and how the veteran leadership from the Second Aliyah period kept the reins of power in their hands. Shapiro attributes the party’s organizational strength to its social and ideological roots going back to the Jewish experience in Russia.

AHDUT HA-AVODAH

The name of several publications issued by the different labor movements in Erez Israel at various times. (1) The first such periodical was published in 1919, a few months prior to the formation of the Ahdut ha-Avodah Party, under the editorship of B. *Katznelson. It dealt with the ideology of the new party, labor questions, and contemporary problems of the yishuv. (2) After the Ahdut ha-Avodah Party merged with *Ha-Po’el ha-Za’ir in 1930 to form *Mapai, an anthology was published under the title Ahdut ha-Avodah (2 vols., 1929-32). It contained articles on all aspects of Jewish life in Erez Israel and in the Diaspora – political, economic, and social – by different leaders of the Ahdut ha-Avodah Party. The editors were B. Katznelson, Shaul *Avigur, and Mordecai Senir. (3) A new social literary monthly, Ahdut ha-Avodah, was established in 1930 and edited by C. *Arlosoroff. It continued until 1932. (4) A number of works, collections of articles, published by Mapai appeared under the same name between 1943 and 1946. (5) When Ahdut ha-Avodah left Mapai to form a separate party in 1944, it published the weekly Ha-Tenuah le-Ahdut ha-Avodah (abbreviated to Le-Ahdut ha-Avodah).

AHDUT HA-AVODAH-PO’ALEI ZION

("Unity of Labor-Workers of Zion"), Zionist Socialist Party established in 1946. *Ahdut ha-Avodah emerged as an independent party in 1944 after a faction in Mapai calling itself Siah Bet (b Faction) seceded from it because of its objections to the policies of the *Histadrut leadership. In 1946 it united with the left-wing Po’alei Zion, assuming the name Ahdut ha-Avodah-Po’alei Zion. In 1948 the new party joined with Ha-Shomer ha-Za’ir to form *Mapam and ran within its framework in the elections to the First and Second Knessets. In August 1954, due to ideological differences set against the background of antisemitic "show trials" in Moscow and Prague, it resumed its independence. Ahdut ha-Avodah-Po’alei Zion ran independently in the elections to the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Knessets, winning ten, seven, and eight seats, respectively. In the elections to the Sixth Knesset it ran on a single list – the Alignment – with *Mapai, and in 1968 it united with Mapai and *Rafi to form the *Israel Labor Party.

The core group of the party membership was made up of members of Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uhad (see *Kibbutz), and among its best-known leaders were Yitzh ak *Tabenkin, Yigal *Allon, Yisrael *Galili, and Yitzh ak *Ben-Aharon. Throughout its independent existence the party was radical in its Zionist and social outlook, advocating a Jewish state with full rights for the Arab minority within what later came to be known as "Greater Israel." It opposed the various partition plans and, during the *War of Independence, demanded that the idf occupy the whole territory of Eretz Israel within the boundaries of the British Mandate. Both in 1949 and again in 1957, following the *Sinai Campaign, it opposed the withdrawal of the idf from the Sinai Peninsula, unless the Arab states accepted a peace settlement.

During World War ii Ah dut ha-Avodah-Po’alei Zion favored not only participation of Jewish youth in the British Army, but also the establishment of an underground military force under the sole authority of the *Haganah. Its members played an important role in the foundation and leadership of the *Palmah. It advocated a comprehensive struggle against the British Mandatory regime, the organization of large-scale clandestine immigration, settlement in areas forbidden to Jewish settlement, and, after the war, sabotage operations against British installations in Palestine. However, it objected to acts of personal terror, such as those practiced by the two dissident underground organizations i.z .l. (*Irgun Z eva’i Le’ummi) and Lehi (*Loh amei H erut Israel), though it objected to cooperation between the Haganah and the Mandatory police in the apprehension of members of these organizations, advocating instead their detention in Haganah undercover prisons.

The party adopted the philosophy of "scientific socialism," containing distinctly Marxist elements, but advocated "Zionist socialism" unfettered by any international, ideological, or organizational authority. Although sympathetic to the social experiment in the Soviet Union, it rejected the dictatorial regime in that country, and criticized manifestations of violence and persecution in it as well as its policy toward the Jews and Zionism. At the same time it maintained ties with other left-wing socialist movements and groups around the world. Ahdut ha-Avodah opposed David *Ben-Gurion’s policy of rapprochement with West Germany.

From 1959 until 1965 Ahdut ha-Avodah-Po’alei Zion was a member of governments led by Ben-Gurion and Levi *Eshkol. It was also an active member of the Histadrut leadership, advocating the preservation of the Histadrut’s independence, and the maintenance of full ideological and organizational democracy within it. After the establishment of the Labor Party, one of its leaders, Yitzhak Ben-Aharon, served as secretary general of the Histadrut in the years 1969-73. In 1954 it started publishing a Hebrew daily, Lamerhav, that survived until 1971, and for a while after 1967 it published a Yiddish weekly, Folksblat.

AH ERIM

(Heb, lit. "others"), a pseudonym for sages whose teachings are quoted anonymously in the tannaitic literature. According to the Talmud (Hor. 13b, 14a), ah erim was used as a pseudonym for R. *Meir so that his teachings would not be propounded under his name in the bet ha-mi-drash – this, in punishment for his attempt, together with R. *Nathan, to assail the dignity and authority of the nasi, *Simeon b. Gamaliel ii, and to remove him from office. The punishment, however, did not remain in force very long, the Talmud continuing that on one occasion Judah ha-Nasi, son of Simeon b. Gamaliel ii, was teaching a certain Mishnah to his son Simeon with the words, "aherim say," whereupon Simeon said to his father, "Who are they whose waters we drink but whose names we do not mention?" at which Judah deferred to his son’s opinion and in place of "aherim say" stated explicitly, "On Rabbi Meir’s behalf it is said" (ibid.). In point of fact, in the Mishnah, which Judah edited, the expression "ah erim say" does not occur. The tosafists, however, have pointed out the difficulty in the identification of "aherim" with Meir, for in many passages the words "aherim say" occur in opposition to Meir’s view. One tosafist suggested that only those teachings which Meir received from his teacher, *Elisha b. Avuyah, later called Aher, were introduced under this pseudonym. The tosafists themselves, however, found this explanation unsatisfactory, and suggested instead that those opinions which he changed after he was punished and referred to as ah erim are cited under this pseudonym, while his earlier views appear under his own name (Tos., Sot. 12a).