The authors would like to thank the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, which provided research grants, and the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project, whose facilities were used in the retrieval of pertinent sources.

1. The phrase ṭal u–maṭar (“dew and rain”) is biblical; see 1 Kings 17:1. In the Ashkenazic rite, the changeover from dry season to rainy season is effected by the addition of the words ṭal u–mafar. In the Sefardic rite, the two seasons have different forms for the opening of the benediction: Barekh 'aleinu (with the words ṭal u–mafar) for the rainy season, Barekheinu (without those words) for the dry season. On the ninth benediction of the Shemoneh 'Esreh, see, e.g., Elbogen, Ismar, Der jädische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Frankfurt, 1931; [reprint ed. Hildesheim, 1962]), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

2. Mishnah Ta'anit 1:3; see Henry, Malter, ed., The Treatise Ta'anit of the Babylonian Talmud (Philadelphia, 1928), p. 2 (1967 ed., pp. 4–5). For our purposes, it is not important to determine the accuracy of the talmudic attributions. Later rabbinical authorities, who are our main concern here, took the talmudic material at face value. Thus, our discussion, for instance, of Rabbi Judah's reasoning is based on the later perspective of commentators and decisorsGoogle Scholar

3. From the discussion in both Talmuds (Bab. Ta'anit 4b; Jer. Ta'anit 1:2, 64a), it would appear that Rabban Gamaliel's ruling is applicable only in Temple times. See Heinemann, Joseph, “Le–Verur Peshutan shel Mishnayot Ahadot”, Bar Ilan 3 (1965): 11–17. The current practice in the Land of Israel is to begin the prayer for rain on the seventh of Marheshvan.Google Scholar

4. Whereas the mention (hazkarah) of rain, with the words mashiv ha-ruah u-morid ha-geshem, begins on Shemini Atzeret itself, the prayer (she'elah) for rain, ṭal u–maṭar, is said only in the weekday Shemoneh' Esreh and, thus, could not be said until after Shemini Atzeret.

5. In the third century, the seventh of Marheshvan fell between October 3 and November 1 (Gregorian); see A. A. Akavia, Calendar for 6000 Years (Jerusalem, 1975/76), adjusting his Julian dates for Gregorian by subtracting one day from the Julian to get the Gregorian (for the third century). Although we do not know exactly how Babylonian Jews in the third century calculated the equinox, we can compute that the sixtieth day after the astronomical equinox at that time fell on November 21. Άt the present time, the rules for calculation set down by Samuel (Erubin 56a) are employed, and, as a result, the autumnal equinox is presumed to fall on October 7, and the prayer for rain in the Diaspora begins sixty days later, starting with Maariv of either December 4 or 5; see below, n. 97

6. See Bab. Ta'anit 10a; Malter, Ta'anit, p. 69 (1967 ed., pp. 138–140), Jer. Ta'anit 63d. The “sixtieth day from the equinox [shishim yom ba-tequfah]” ultimately became more precisely defined as the sixtieth day counting from the equinoctial day, or fifty-nine days after the equinox. The reasons for the difference between the dates in the Land of Israel and Babylonia are explored in the authors' “The Jewish Prayer for Rain in Babylonia”, to appear in the Journal for the Study of Judaism.

7. Namely, in Minhah on the eve of Passover; see Mishnah Ta'anit 1:1–2. The mention of rain (mashiv ha–ruabi) is made for the last time on the first day of Passover either in Shaharit (Sefardic and Land of Israel practice) or in the silent Musaf prayer (Ashkenazic rite).

8. The received text is “Nineveh”, the Assyrian city, but Klein, Samuel, “The Estates of R. Judah Ha–Nasi”, Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 2 (1911–1912): 550–554, suggested reading here “Nawe”, a city in Transjordan. His reasoning is that there was no Jewish community in Nineveh at the time of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi. This emendation was accepted by Malter, p. 97 (1967 ed., pp. 194–195), and by Gedalyah Alon, Toledot ha-Yehudim be-'Ereẓ Yisrael bi-Tequfat ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud, vol. 2 (Tel Aviv, 1961), p. 138. This emendation was rejected by Jacob Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien (Frankfurt, 1929), p. 139. For our purposes, it makes no difference whether it was the Jews of Nineveh or the Jews of Nawe who presented this question to Rabbi Judah the Prince. We shall refer to Nineveh throughout this article, since that is the reading familiar to the medieval authorities.Google Scholar

9. Bi-tequfat Tammuz, i.e., during the period of the summer solstice. The term tequfah is used for both the equinox/solstice itself and the entire season.

10. See Appendix.

11. Bab. Ta'anit 14b; translation, with some changes, Malter, Ta'anit, pp. 97–98 (1967 ed., pp. 194–196).Google Scholar

12. Jer. Ta'anit 1:1, 63d; Berakhot 5:2, 9b.

13. This is the reading of Kohut, Alexander, Aruch Completum, vol. 4 (Vienna, 1926), p. 11. The Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 40b, refers to maṭbe'a she-lav'u bakhamim; see below, n. 17. Many later authorities quoted Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi's phrase as maṭbe'a shel tefilah. By itself, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi's answer is unclear. What does the “form of prayer” have to do with the rain fast? In context, however, and in comparison with Bab. Ta'anit 14b, it appears that Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi must be referring to the saying of ṭal u-mafar.Google Scholar

14. R. Yoses statement is based on the statement of R. Ze'eira in the name of R. Huna, quoted directly above the present passage (Jer. Ta'anit 63d).

15. See Mishnah Taanit 2:2–4.

16. Hanina, R. based his opinion on another statement of R. Ze'eira in the name of R. Huna, Jer. Berakhot 4:4, 8b.Google Scholar

17. In Bab. Berakhot 40b, the possibility is raised that one might be able to substitute different formulae for the recognized blessings before food. This is objected to on the basis that one may not change the form which was ordained by the rabbis, maṭbe'a she–ṭav'u ḥakhamim.

18. Some commentators understood Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi's answer as based on the fact that summer rain is bad for most of the world. Therefore, he would not let the inhabitants change the form of prayer to pray for something which most people wish to avoid; see, e.g., Menahem ha-Meiri, Beit ha-Behirah, Ta'anit, ed. Abraham Sofer (Jerusalem, 1968/69), p. 54. Yosef Kafab, “She'elat Geshamim”, Me'orot 1 (Fall 1979): 88–92, suggested that Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi was concerned that the form of Birkat ha-Shanim said in the summer would fall into desuetude if he permitted the saying of ṭal u-mafar in Birkat ha-Shanim other than in the winter. (This theory is based on the supposition that Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi recognized two separate forms of Birkat ha–Shanim, as is the Yemenite and Sefardic practice to this day, rather than one form of Birkat ha-Shanim, with and without) (al u-maṭar, as is the Ashkenazic practice; see n. 1.) This, to Kafaḥ, is the meaning of the prohibition of changing the “form of prayer”.

19. Bab. Ta'anit 10a, Jer. Ta'anit 63d. There are a number of talmudic passages in which Golah clearly means only Babylonia; see, e.g., Ber. 63a, Sanh. 32b, and Qid. 72a.

20. It should be clear already that the widely held belief that Jews in the diaspora pray for rain to fall in Israel is fallacious. Cf., e.g.,Munk, Elie, The World of Prayer, vol. 1 (New York, 1961), p. 138; Barukh Halevi Epstein, Barukh She'emar(Tel Aviv, 1970), p. 128; Mordecai M. Kaplan, Judaism as a Civilization (New York, 1934), p. 188; Ben Zion Bokser, The Prayer Book (New York, 1961), p. 54 (note); Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice. (New York, 1979), p. 23. Apparently, Hayyim of Volozhyn understood Joseph Caro in the Shulhan Arukh to be of a similar opinion; cf. Zevi Kaplan, “Le-Darkho shel Rabbenu Hayyim mi-Volozhin pracba-Halakhah”, Sinai 69 (Nisan-Elul 1970/71): 92 (and cf. his n. 43). Epstein even provided a rationale explaining why a Jew living elsewhere should pray for rain in the Land oflsrael. It is based on the principle (Berakhol 12b) that he who is able to pray for his neighbor's needs and does not do so is considered a sinner.Google Scholar

21. The evidence is somewhat sketchy and is dependent on unreliable MS readings. See Halakhot Gedolot. ed. J., Hildesheimer (Berlin, 1888), p. 175. In the E. Hildesheimer edition (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 360, the passage in question appears only in the textual variants. See, in addition, Aryeh Leib Frumkin, ed., Seder Rav Amram Ha-Shalem (Jerusalem, 1911/12), p. 245, where reference is made to Franqia'. David Hedegard, Seder R. Amram Gaon, vol. 1 (Lund, 1951), p. 91, surmised that this means Africa. In any event, this passage is suspect since it appears only in Oxford–Bodleian MS Opp. 28, which is late and unreliable. See Tryggve Kronholm, Seder R. Amram Gaon, vol. 2 (Lund, 1974), pp. xl–xli. On the North African custom of beginning ṭal u-matar on the seventh of Marheshvan, see below nn. 55–57.Google Scholar

22. See Isaacben, Judah of Mainz, as quoted in Zedekiah ben Abraham ha-Rofe, Shibbolei ha–Leqei, ed. Solomon, Buber (Vilna, 1886 /87; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1961/62), p. 20. For Rashi,Google Scholarsee Israel, Elfenbein, ed., Responsa Rashi (New York, 1943), pp. 10–11; Abraham Epstein and Jacob Freimann, eds., Sefer Maaseh Ha-Geonim (Berlin, 1909), p. 43; Michael Levi Frumkin, ed., Sefer Ha-Pardes Ha-Gadol, (Israel, 1969/70), p. 116; Solomon Buber and Jacob Freimann, eds., Siddur Rashi (Berlin, 1911), p. 23. For Tosafol, see Ta'anil 10a (s.v. hilkhata) and Nedarim 63a (s.v. revi'ah rishonah lish'ol). See also “Rashi's” Commentary ad Ta'anil 10a. (The Commentary of Rashi printed in our editions of Ta'anil is not Rashi's; see Jonah Fraenkel, “Rashi: Commentary to the Babylonian Talmud”, Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 13, col. 1564; and David Weiss-Halivni, “Sheloshah ha-'Amudim ha–Rishonim shel ha-Perush ha-Meyuhas le-Rashi al Ta'anit, Sinai 43 [1957/58]: 211–222, and “He'erah”, Sinai, 67 [1969/70]: 167–68.) For other Franco–German authorities, see also Simeon Levy Hurwitz, ed., Mahzor Vitry of Simbah ben Samuel of Vitry (Nuremberg, 1923), p. 66; Eliezer ben Joel of Bonn, Sefer Ravyah, ed. A. Aptowitzer, vol. 3 (Jerusalem, 1963/64), p. 594; Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, Or Zaru'a, vol. 2 (Zhitomir, 1862/63), p. 163; Moses of Coucy, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol Positive Commandment 19 (Venice, 1546/47; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1960/61), p. 100b; Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel, Ha-Manhig, p. 90; and Asher ben Jehiel, Sefer She'elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rosh (n.p., n.d.), p. 14Google Scholar

23. See ben, Zedekiah Abraham ha-Rofe, Shibbolei ha-Leqet, p. 20; Isaiah ben Mali di Trani (the Elder), Pisqei ha-Rid, vol. 3, ed. Wertheimer, A. Y. et al. (Jerusalem, 197071), p. 183. See also Isaiah ben Elijah di Trani (the Younger), Pisqei Riaz, ed. A. Lis et al. (Jerusalem, 1970/71), p. 91, who may be referring only to Babylonia.Google Scholar

24. See Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel (Ha-Yarhi), Sefer ha–Manhig, ed. Yitzhak, Raphael (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 90; Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili, Hiddushei ha–Ritba, Ta'anit, ed. E. Lichtenstein (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 36–40; Asher ben Jehiel, Teshuvol ha-Rosh, p. 14; Nahmanides' anonymous student, Perush Talmid ha-Ramban 'al Massekhet Ta'anit, ed. E. Lichtenstein (Petaḥ Tiqva, 1977/78), p. 14 (who refers to Catalonia and not to all of Spain; on the identity of this student of Naḥmanides, see Benyamin Z. Benedikt, Kiryat Sefer 29,4 [April 1954]:391–429); and Hayyim ben Samuel of Tudela, Shittah Li-Vaal ha-Zerurot (Tel Aviv, n.d.), p. 35.Google Scholar

25. Commentary ad Ta'anit 10a (on this commentary, see n. 22).

26. See Meshullam ben Moses ben Judah of Béziers, Sefer Hashlamah, in Moshe, Herschler, ed., Ginzei Rishonim (Rosh ha-Shanah, Yoma, Ta'anit) (Jerusalem, 196263), p. 157; and Manoaḥ of Narbonne, Sefer ha–Menuhah, ed. E. Hurvitz (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 66 (in text)Google Scholar

27. See Meiri, Beit ha-Behirah, p. 34; Yeruḥam ben Meshullam of Provence, Sefer Toledot Adam va-Hawah (Venice, 1553; reprint ed., Israel, 1974/75), p. 25a; Asher ben Jehiel, Hilkhot Rabbenu Asher, ad Ta'anit 10a and Teshuvot ha-Rosh, pp. 14–15

28. See Abraham ben Nathan, Ha-Manhig, p. 90; Nahmanides' anonymous student, Perush, p. 15; and David ben Levi of Narbonne, Sefer Mikhtam, in Herschler, Ginzei Rishonim, p. 243. David ben Levi said that the rest of Provence, other than Narbonne, started the prayer on the thirtieth day of the equinox, which is probably a mistake for the sixtieth day (sheloshim/shishiṁ).– In addition, Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne stated that Hananiah's statement about the Golah was understood by some to refer to the whole diaspora, by others to just Babylonia; see Sefer ha-'Eshkol, ed. B. H. Auerbach, vol. 1 (Halberstadt, 1867), p. 26. Riṭba (Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili) and Ran (Nissim ben Reuben) mentioned undesignated places as beginning on the seventh of Marhesḥvan, and Riṭba added that some begin right after Shemini Atzeret; see below, nn. 39–42, 53. Cf. also, Z. N. Jaffe, Qorot Heshbon Ha-'Ibbur (Jerusalem, 1930/31), p. 121.

29. In Tunisia, there is rain all year round, though very little in June through August. The rainy season begins in September, and the months of heaviest rainfall are October to January; see J. F. Griffiths, ed., Climates of Africa, World Survey of Climatology, no. 10 (Amsterdam, 1972), p. 74. Provence (Languedoc), likewise, is relatively dry from June to August, with September through December being the wettest period of the year; see Wallén, C. C., Climates of Northern and Western Europe, World Survey of Climatology, 5 (Amsterdam, 1970), pp. 189–190. These Jewish communities, therefore, would seem to be justified, from the point of view of climate, in beginning the pray for rain in Marhesḥvan.Google Scholar

30. The settlement of Jews in southern France goes back at least to the first century. There was an especial interest in the Jerusalem Talmud in Provence; see Abraham ibn Daud, Sefer ha-Qabbalah. ed, and trans, by Gerson D.Cohen, (Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 66 (Hebrew), 88–89 (translation); Ginzberg, Louis, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud (New York, 1941), pp. 109–110Google Scholar (in introduction). This interest in the Jerusalem Talmud may have been one of the factors which led to the basing of ProvenÇal customs on the practices of both the Land of Israel and Babylonia; see Benedikt, B.Z., “Le-Toledotav shel Merkaz ha-Torah be-Provence”, Tarbif 22 (1950 /51): 93.Google Scholar Jews in North Africa also had customs from both the Land of Israel and Babylonia; see Hirschberg, H.Z., A History of the Jews in North Africa, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1974), pp. 298–300. Spain had an ancient Jewish community, most of which was wiped out before the Muslim conquest (711). During the Muslim period, the Jewish community was very much under Babylonian influence; cf. Eliyahu Ashtor, “Spain”, Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 15, col. 222. In general, not enough is known about halakhic developments in Europe during the first millennium C.E. to come to any definite conclusions about the different customs of saying ṭal u-mafar.Google Scholar

31. See n. 25.

32. On the lack of written records from Provence, see Benedikt, “Le-Toledotav”, pp. 96–98.

33. Hilkhot ha-Rif, pp. 2a, 5a (standard Vilna Talmud ed.).

34. The first three chapters of Ta'anit give instructions for the public fasts to be held in the event of a drought. What Maimonides seems to be saying here is that Jews in a country that needs rain as of the first of Nisan, for example, would begin to say (al u-maṭar on that date. (Since he does not specify the benediction in which it is said, that became the subject of later debate; see below.) They would also institute fasts for a drought as if the first of Nisan were the seventh of Marheshvan. Thus, since in the Land of Israel individuals begin to fast on the seventeenth of Marḥeshvan (Ta'anit 1:4), in this particular country they would begin on the eleventh of Nisan.

35. Commentary on the Mishnah, ad Ta'anit 1:3

36. H. Tefilah 2:16–17.

37. On the problem of contradictions in the Mishneh Torah itself, see Twersky, Isadore, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (New Haven, 1980), pp. 311–320.Google Scholar

38. On the distinction Maimonides himself made between a commentary (perush) and a code (ḥibbur), see Tchernowitz, Chaim, Toledoth Ha-Poskim, vol. 1 (New York, 1946), pp. 242–243.Google Scholar

39. The concept of “produce in the field (peirei be-davra')” is derived from Ta'anit 4b. For its meaning in the talmudic context, see the authors' “The Jewish Prayer for Rain in Babylonia”. Riṭba said that communities which have produce in the field after Shemini Atzeret but need rain before sixty days from the equinox could pray for it in Shome'a Tefilah, but the custom is not to do so; see Appendix.

40. For the possibility that when there is no Temple, the prayer for rain should begin in the Land of Israel right after Shemini Atzeret, see above, n. 3. Isaiah di Trani the Younger was also of the opinion that in post–Temple times, ṭal u-matar in the Land of Israel is said right after Shemini Atzeret; see Pisqei Riaz, p. 91. For Nissim ben Reuben's opinion, see below, n. 53.

41. The text reads the fifteenth of Marheshvan (obviously influenced from “fifteen days after the feast”).

42. See Ḥiddushei ha-Ritba. pp. 36–40. Ritba lived in Seville (as his name Ishbili shows), and, as we have seen, standard Spanish practice was to follow the Babylonian custom (as Riṭba himself admitted). His knowledge of Provencal customs may have been second–hand. In any case, there is no other evidence that some communities in Europe or North Africa began the prayer for rain right after Shemini Atzeret. Ritba's opinion that in some diaspora countries one begins saying ṭal u-mafar right after Shemini Atzeret may have been influenced by his teacher Aaron ben Joseph Halevi (Sefer Pequdat Ha-Leviim [Jerusalem, 1961/62], Taanit sec., p. 4), who, however, was equivocal and said only that this appears to him to be the correct custom. Ritbas own opinion about beginning tal u-mafar at the conclusion of Shemini Atzeret was followed by Joseph ibn ḥabiba (Nimuqei Yosef, ed. E. Lichtenstein [Petah Tiqva, 1977/78], pp. 11–12).

43. Beit ha-Beiirah, pp. 33–34. Meiri was familiar with the view (presumably Riṭba's) that the prayer for rain should begin right after Shemini Atzeret. He claimed that this opinion was not applicable in Provence because of the “fruit in the field”; see above, n. 39.

44. Rosh apologized at the end of the responsum for writing during Ḥol ha–Mo'ed, which was against his custom. Since, however, the matter was so pressing, and since there are elements of the responsum that dealt with the holiday, he made an exception in this case.

45. Abraham Sofer offered an explanation in the name of his father, Simeon Sofer, of why German Jews did not respond to Rosh's arguments. Since in Germany rain was not intrinsically necessary, but was desired in order to keep the rats and chickens away from the seeds, one could do without rain. Instead, one could put up scarecrows to achieve the same end; cf. Meiri, Beit ha-Befiirah, p. 34, n. 2. This explanation appears in a slightly different form in Simeon Sofer, Hit'orerut ha-Teshuvah, vol. 1, printed with Moses Sofer (Schreiber), Sefer Ḥatam Sofer, vol. 7 (Munkacs, 1912), p. 87a.

46. Cf. also Hilkhot ha-Rosh ad Ta'anit 14b.

47. Cf. Hilkhot ha-Rosh ad Ta'anit 10a and Tur's quotation of him, Orafi Ḥayyim 117.

48. Even if Rosh's interpretation of Maimonides concerning the request for rain (ṭal u-mafar) is correct, he seems to have gone beyond Maimonidean boundaries by advocating the continuation of the mention of rain (mashiv ha-ruah) until Shavuot. This practice has no basis in the works of earlier authorities.

49. And the mention of rain; see above, n. 48.

50. This story is told in Teshuvot ha-Rosh 4:10, pp. 14–15. The fact that Rosh did not pray in the main synagogue may indicate that, even before this incident, he already had difficulties getting along with his community. In fact, the whole account hints at the complicated relationship which Rosh and his allies had with the general Jewish populace. This interesting responsum (which, of course, is not really a responsum because there is no question that was the cause of its issuance) provides insights also into both Rosh's halakhic method and his ability to compromise. He was an independent thinker, but he lacked the aggressiveness to fight for his point of view; he was willing to show flexibility to avoid open conflict. See the description of Rosh and his activities provided by Urbach, Ephraim E., Encyclopedia Hebraica, vol. 7 (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 195354), pp. 443–446 (trans., Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2: 706–708). For Rosh's opposition to the use of logic per se, divorced from the halakhic process and authoritative texts, see Teshuvot ha-Rosh 55:9, pp. 103–105Google Scholar

51. Cf., e.g., Joseph Caro in Beit Yosef on Tur, Orafi Ḥayyim 117; Jehiel Michel Epstein, Arukh ha-Shulhan. Orah Hayyim 117:4 (Piotrkow, 1902/3 [reprint ed.,]), p. 202; Ẓevi Pesaḥ Frank, Sefer Har Ẓevi, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 1 (Jerusalem, 1968/69), p. 56. Though Roshs principle that each country has its own proper date for ṭal u-maṭar was rejected, his arguments were not totally in vain. This can be seen by a perusal of the responsa literature on the subject of whether a person who says ṭal u-mafar at the wrong time must repeat the Shemoneh Esreh. If a person asks for rain in the summer in a country that does not need rain, it is clear that he must repeat his prayer. What, though, of someone who asks for rain during the summer in a country that does need rain then, or after the seventh of Marheshvan and before the sixtieth day of the equinox in a country which needs rain at that time? Relying on Rosh, most authorities have ruled that such a person does not have to repeat the Shemoneh Esreh, even though there are many different opinions on this question. For the various points of view, see Caro, Beit Yosef, on Tur, Orah Hayyim 117 (quoting Isaac Aboab, his teacher), and Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 117:2, and cf. Moses Isserles, ad loc; David Ibn Abi Zimra, She'elot u-Teshuvot ha–Radbaz, vol. 6 (Warsaw, 1882; reprint ed., New York, 1967), p. 2; Jacob Castro, Ohalei Yaaqov (Livorno, 1783), pp. 135b–136a; Moshe Mat, Maṭṭeh Moshe, ed. Mordecai Knoblowicz (London, 1958), pp. 84–85; Hayyim Shabbetai, Torat Hayyim, vol. 3 (Salonika, 1712), p. 2b; Hayyim Modai, Sefer Ifayyim Le' Olam (Izmir, 1879), pp. la'b; Yishmael ben Abraham Isaac ha-Kohen, Sefer Sheelot u–Teshuvot Zera Emet, vol. I (Livorno, 1788), pp. 27b–29a; Jehiel Michel Epstein, Arukh ha–Shulhan, Orah Ḥayyim 117:7–8, p. 202; Jacob Hayyim Soffer, Kaf ha-Hayyim. Orah Ḥayyim 2 (Jerusalem, 1963/64), pp. 59b–60a; evi Pesah Frank, Sefer Har Zevi, Orah Hayyim 1, p. 56; and Ovadia Yosef, Sefer Sheelot u-Teshuvot Yabia Omer, vol. 5 (Jerusalem, 1968/69), pp. 49–51. The impression is left that Roshs opinion should be the halakhah but, nonetheless, is not followed. This is said clearly by Feinstein, Moshe, Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim 2 (New York, 1963), p. 293. We see here the seriousness with which the rabbis treat prayer. The assumption is that if one prays for rain, God will send it. Therefore, if the worshipper asks for it at the wrong time, he had better repeat the Shemoneh' Esreh, this time omitting the prayer for rain lest God send rain at an inopportune time. This is the reason also for waiting fifteen days after Sukkot before saying ṭal u-maṭar in the Land of Israel when there are pilgrims returning home. If one prays for rain earlier, it will come earlier, when not wanted.Google Scholar

52. Tur, Orah Hayyim 117. He is followed by Abudarham, David ben Joseph, Sefer Abudarham (Amsterdam, 172526), p. 41a.Google Scholar

53. See Ran's Commentary on Hilkhot ha-Rif, Ta'anit, p. 2a (s.v. ve-ika le-meidaq). Ran suggested that Rif's and Maimonides' codification of starting ṭal u-matar in the Land of Israel on the seventh of Marbeshvan was based on the fact that there were pilgrims to Jerusalem even after the destruction of the Temple. On this subject, see Shmuel Safrai, “Pilgrimage to Jerusalem after the Destruction of the Second Temple” (Hebrew), in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, ed. A., Oppenheimer et al. (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 376–393.Google Scholar

54. Though the Jews were never completely expelled from Provence proper, they were forced to leave many of the cities mentioned here (which are actually in Languedoc). There is some confusion between Provence and Languedoc because the Jewish sources mention the former when referring to the latter; see Bernhard Blumenkranz, s.v. “Provence”, Encyclopaedia Judaica, 13: 1259, and idem, s.v. “Languedoc”, EJ, 10: 1421–22.

55. See Sefer Tashbez, vol. 3 (Lemberg, 1891 [reprint ed.]), pp. 21a–b

56. She'elot u-Teshuvot (n. 51), p. 2. It is unclear from their responsa whether Duran and Ibn Abi Zimra had first-hand knowledge of such practices or whether they were reporting what was written by earlier authorities. If the latter is true, there is no proof that any diaspora communities, let alone North African ones, were beginning to say ṭal u-mafar on the seventh of Marbeshvan in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

57. Palache, Hayyim (1788 – 1869), Arzot ha–lfayyim (Jerusalem, 1876/77), p. 42b, stated that he had heard that it was the custom of the Jews of Tunis and Djerba to begin the prayer for rain on the seventh of Marheshvan. He suggested that this custom might have stemmed from the visit of a Jew from the Land of Israel. He surmised that the visitor, when repeating the Shemoneh' Esreh while leading the congregational service, followed his usual practice of saying ṭal u-maṭar after the seventh of Marheshvan. The Tunisian Jews, because of their great love for the Land of Israel, imitated his practice. Palache apparently did not realize that this procedure may simply have been the long-standing North African custom of beginning the prayer for rain on the seventh of Marheshvan, mentioned above. If this is the case, we see here another example of the tenacity of custom. Palache stated further that, even if the Tunisian custom originated according to his hypothesis, the visitor from the Land of Israel should not have instituted such a change in the public worship. He also expressed surprise that the learned rabbi's of Tunisia allowed such a practice. He concluded that the rabbis silence was a result of the great need for rain in Tunisia at the earlier date. See also Palache's Sefer Ruah Hayyim(Izmir, 1880/81), Oraft Hayyim 117, p. 24a. Abraham Rapoport, Quntras be-Inyan Zeman Sheelat Geshamim be-Virkat ha-Shanim be-Hujah la-Arez (London, 1963/64), p. 15, suggested that no diaspora community should follow the practice of the Land of Israel, even if there are similar meteorological conditions, because the date in the Land of Israel itself is a matter of dispute when there is no Temple; see above, n. 3.Google Scholar

58. For Caros attempts to offer final decisions on halakhic questions, see Twersky, Isadore, The Shulhan Aruk: Enduring Code of Jewish Law, in Faith and Reason, ed. R., Gordis and Waxman R. B. (New York, 1973), pp. 141–158.Google Scholar

59. Beit Yosef on Tur, Orah Hayyim 117. Caro pointed out that even Rosh himself could not get his view accepted.

60. Kesef Mishneh ad H. Tefilah 2:17. Another interpretation was provided by Eleazar Rokeab (18th cent.) in Jurei Even, ad loc. Yosef Kafah used another approach entirely in arguing that there is no contradiction between the two works of Maimonides. According to his view, Maimonides referred in his Commentary on the Mishnah to countries where winter and summer (i.e., rainy and dry seasons) are completely opposite those seasons in Israel. In the Mishneh Torah, he referred to countries that need rain in summer in addition to their need for rain in the winter. See Kafah, “She'elat Geshamim” (n. 18), pp. 88–92. If Kafah is correct, it would seem that Maimonides would have solved the later halakhic problem of Jews who lived in the Southern Hemisphere by ruling that they should say fat u-mafar in Birkat ha-Shanim in their winter; see below

61. Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 117:1. Cf. also 117:2, where Caro specifically rejected Rosh's opinion and referred to Nineveh as an 'ir gedolah (“large city”).

62. Levush ha-Tekhelet, Orah Ifayyim 117:1 (Bereditchev, 1818; reprint ed., Israel, 1967/68), p. 31a.

63. On Tur, Orah Hayyim 117:1.

64. Arukh ha-Shulhan, Orah Hayyim 117:4, p. 202: “Ve-khol ha-mafaqpeq be-zeh raui le–onesh”. Epstein seems to have adopted an attitude of Vox populi, vox Dei. Since Rosh could not convince his fellow Jews of the rightness of his position, it follows that the halakhah should not be according to his view. Epstein's vehemence may have been the result of Reform innovations. Abraham Geiger had decided that since Germany has rain all year long, both the mention of rain and the prayer for rain should be said in all seasons; see Jacob Levinger, s.v. “Abraham Geiger”, Encyclopedia Hebraica 10: 639 (Jerusalem, 1954/55).

65. Some early non-Orthodox American prayerbook compilers seem to have adopted Geiger's innovation (above, n. 64). Since rain falls in America year-round, they must have felt that the prayer for rain was always appropriate. See, e.g., Merzbacher, L. and Adler, S., The Order of Prayer (New York, 1881), p. 68; and Benjamin Szold and Marcus Jastrow, 'Avodat Israel, vol. 1 (Philadelphia, 1907), p. 152. In the newest Reform prayerbook, Gates of Prayer, ed. Chaim Stern (New York, 1975), pp. 40, 64, only ve–ten berakhah (the summer formula) appears.Google Scholar

66. See Wiznitzer, Arnold, Jews in Colonial Brazil (New York, 1960), pp. 66–67. The question was sent by Congregation Zur Israel.Google Scholar

67. Commentary on the Mishnah ad Ta'anit 1:3. See above, n. 35.

68. Ta'anit 14b; see above, n. 11.

69. Hilkhot ha-Rif, p. 5a; see above, n. 33.

70. H. Tefilah 2:17; see above, n. 36.

71. Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 117:2; see above, n. 61.

72. Teshuvot ha-Rosh, pp. 14–15; see above, nn. 44–50.

73. Recife has had, over a period of fifty years in the twentieth century, an average monthly rainfall during the months from March to August (its rainy season) of 8.7 inches. From September to February, the monthly average is 1.8 inches. At least in the present century there are distinct rainy and dry seasons (even though Nisan and Tishrei are not the months that mark them off from each other). It should be noted, however, that the summer there is not completely dry, since there is some rain then. Cf. U.S. Department of Commerce, Climates of the World (Washington, D.C., 1972), p. 12; and Werner Schwerdtfeger, ed., Climates of Central and South America, World Survey of Climatology, no. 12 (Amsterdam, 1976), pp. 244–251, 277.

74. Shabbetais interpretation of Maimonides is essentially the same as Caros in the Kesef Mishneh, although he claims to have seen the latter work only after having come to his own conclusion independently.

75. Torat Hayyim (n. 51), pp. 2a–3a; and see Appendix. On the subject of mashiv ha-ruah, see above, nn. 4, 7, 48,49. Even though mashiv ha-ruah constituted only “mentioning” and not “praying” for rain, Shabbetai obviously felt, in line with Mishnah Ta'anit 1:1, that one does not even mention rain when it is unwanted.

76. Eshel Avraham on Shulfian Anikh, Orafi Hayyim 117 (in standard edition), quoting Hayyim Shabbetai.

77. This question from Buenos Aires is somewhat surprising, since, even though summer and winter are opposite those seasons in the Northern Hemisphere, there is rain all year round. The heaviest rainfall is from October to April (Tishrei to Nisan), and the lightest rainfall is from June to August; cf. Schwerdtfeger, Climates of Central and South America, p. 91, and Climates of the World, p. 12.

78. See Judah Tarrab's responsum in Ezra ha-Kohen Tarrab, Sefer Milei de-'Ezra, ed. ha-Kohen, Tarrab Judah Hayyim (Jerusalem, 1923 /24), pp. 12a–18b. Tarrab's opinion, in agreement with Hayyim Shabbetai, was reached independently by Saul David Sathun (Sithon), Sefer Sheelot u-Teshuvot Diber Shaul (Jerusalem, 1927/28), pp. la-b. Tarrab was also followed by his father, Ezra Tarrab, rabbi in Damascus (see Sathun, p. lb) and Jacob Joseph Tarrab, rabbi in Beirut (Sathun, p. lb and Tarrab, p. 18b). Sathun's view was endorsed by his colleague Aaron Goldman, rabbi of Moisesville (Qiryat Moshe), Argentina, and by three Jerusalem rabbis, Joseph Yedid ha-Levi, Abraham Antebi Adam, and Solomon Laniado; see Diber Shaul, p. lb. (On Sathun and the Sefardic community of Buenos Aires, see Robert Weisbrot, The Jews of Argentina [Philadelphia, 1979], pp. 155–172, esp. pp. 162–163.) Elijah Yiluz, rabbi of Tiberius, agreed with Tarrab only insofar as rain was absolutely unnecessary for Argentinian Jews from Tishrei to Nisan (their summer). If it were at all desirable, Yiluz argued, they should follow the practice of the rest of the diaspora; see Milei de-Ezra, pp. 19a–b.Google Scholar

79. See Shabbetai, Hezekiah, Divrei Yehezqiyahu, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 193435), pp. 18–19. (Shabbetai was chief rabbi of Aleppo, and he once visited the United States; see Joseph A. D. Sutton, Magic Carpet: Aleppo in Flatbush [New York, 1979], p. 131.) His view was endorsed by Solomon Eliezer Alfandari and Abraham Isaac Kook, Ashkenazic chief rabbi of the Land of Israel. The latter went on to say that the setting of the sixtieth day from the equinox as the time for prayer for rain in the diaspora was done without regard for the meteorological factors of countries other than Babylonia. Kook added that if one definitely needed rain between Nisan and Tishrei, he may pray for it in Shomea Tefilah, but he need not necessarily do so; see Divrei Yelfezqiyahu, pp. 19–20 reprinted in Kooks Ora(i Mishpat [Jerusalem, 1979], pp. 30–31). Kooks reasoning on the subject can be seen also in his Mishpat Kohen (Jerusalem, 1966), p. 336. He wrote that Babylonia has a date separate from that of the Land of Israel only because most Jews lived there in talmudic times. If the majority of Jews were to live in some other country with a different climate, perhaps Roshs opinion would be followed in regard to their saying of fal u–mafar. According to this view, the Jews in the Southern Hemisphere, since they do not constitute a majority of all Jews, were not to look upon themselves as a whole community but only as a collection of individuals.Google Scholar

80. See Ben–Ẓion Meir Hai Ouziel (Sefardic chief rabbi of the Land of Israel), Sefer Mishpeṭei' Uziel, Orah Hayyim, 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1946/47), pp. 19–20, who ruled that the general diaspora practice should be followed. For the opinion of Samuel Halevi Wosner concerning Uruguay, see below, n. 93. It is hard to see that meteorological considerations prompted this question. Rainfall is fairly well distributed in Montevideo throughout the year; see Climates of the World, p. 13.

81. See Hirschowitz, Abraham Eber, Beit Avraham, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1922 /23), p. 39. On the authority of the British chief rabbi over the Australian Jewish community, see Israel Porush, “The Chief Rabbinate and Early Australian Jewry”, Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal and Proceedings 2, no. 9 (July 1948): 471–494; Peter Medding, “The Jews of Australia”, Tefutsot Israel 17, no. 2 (June 1979): 23, 33.Google Scholar

82. See Goldman, L. M., The History of Hobart Jewry, Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal and Proceedings 3, no. 5 (1951): 209–237. The same question was asked of Adler by the Jewish community of Melbourne in 1848; cf. Porush, The Chief Rabbinate, p. 485. (Porush did not record Adlers answer). Cf. also, Hirschowitz, Beit Avraham, p. 39.Google Scholar

83. See Sefer Divrei Yosef, vols. 3 and 4 (Jerusalem, 1978/79), pp. 3Ob–31aGoogle Scholar

84. Hirschowitz, Beit Avraham, pp. 34, 38

85. He was supported in this claim by his colleague Kalonymous Ze'ev (Woolf) Davis. On Davis, cf. Goldman, L. M., The Jews in Victoria in the Nineteenth Century (Melbourne, 1954), index, p. 432. Climatic surveys bear out Hirschowitz and Daviss contention that rain does fall in the Australian summer (Tishrei to Nisan), and, in fact, certain localities in Australia (mostly in the northeast) receive most of their rainfall during this period. Cf. J. Gentili, ed., Climates of Australia and New Zealand. World Survey of Climatology, no. 13 (Amsterdam, 1971), pp. 133–163. For charts of Melbourne and Sydney, see pp. 273, 274, 354–355, 364–365. For rainfall in New Zealand, pp. 238–245.Google Scholar

86. Hirschowitz recounted this controversy in Beit Avraham, pp. 34–47; see below, nn. 87–90.

87. Hirschowitz, Beit Avraham, pp. 34–35,40–41. Reinowitz refused, however, to go along with Hirschowitz's edict that his congregants were not to pray with, or answer Amen to, those Jews who disagreed with him (Hirschowitz). Even though Reinowitz agreed with Hirschowitz's opinion on ṭal u–mafar, he objected to such a drastic step. After all, Reinowitz wrote, one is allowed to pray with and answer Amen to much worse sinners. Spektor's responsum is quoted in Hezekiah Shabbetai, Divrei Yehezqiyahu, p. 22, and Amsel, Mayer, Sefer She'elot u–Teshuvot ha-Maor (New York, 1966), p. 474.Google Scholar

88. Hirschowitz, Beit Avraham, pp. 35–39.

89. Ibid., pp. 41–47. Roshkes argued that the real determinant is whether rain in their summer (Tishrei–Nisan) is harmful for the Jews in Australia, as it apparently is for the Jews in Brazil.

90. Hirschowitz was apparently a colorful and controversial individual. His first public appearance in Melbourne nearly caused a riot; see Goldman, Jews in Victoria, p. 368. He set up a “Beth Hamedrash” in Melbourne; cf. Ibid., and Jewish Chronicle, n.s., no. 1197, (March 11, 1892), p. 18. The exact chronological order of the events in the ṭal u–maṭar debate (and the final outcome) is not clearly presented by Hirschowitz. Some of the correspondence is not presented, and references are made to the opinions of other authorities without citations of the sources. Hirschowitz spent only three years in Melbourne before leaving for America, where he served in Toledo, Ohio, and Borough Park, New York. He eventually settled in the Land of Israel. According to Goldman, Jews in Victoria, p. 369, Hirschowitz was forced to leave Melbourne because of a disagreement about his policy of accepting proselytes. One can speculate whether the controversy he engendered about [ṭal u-matar may not also have been a factor in the brevity of his tenure in Melbourne. His correspondence on the issue took place in 1892–93; he left for America in August 1894; cf. Beit Avraham, p. 1, in which Hirschowitz described his journey from Melbourne to San Francisco and considered the halakhic problems occasioned by crossing the international date line.

91. From a private communication to the authors from Chief Rabbi Emeritus Porush, Sept. 12, 1979.

92. Ibid.

93. Ibid. The question of ṭal u-matar rose also among the Jews of New Zealand. Zevi Pesah Frank, Ashkenazic chief rabbi of Jerusalem, ruled that Jews there should follow the normal diaspora practice; see Har Zevi (n. 51), pp. 55–56. Cf., also, his responsum dealing with Tu Bi-Shevat in the Southern Hemisphere in Har Zevi, Orafi Hayyim 2 (Jerusalem, 1972/73), pp. 48–49. See also Abraham Rapaport, Qunlras (n. 57), p. 17, who ruled that the entire Southern Hemisphere should follow the Babylonian practice unless rain is definitely harmful. There are two novel responsa on this question. Jacob Meir, Sefardic chief rabbi of the Land of Israel, in Shabbetai's Divrei Yebezqiyahu, pp. 20–22, suggested that Jews in the Southern Hemisphere should “mention” and “request” dew all year round. If they need rain during their winter, they can pray for it in Shome'a Tefllah, but only in a whisper (see Appendix). Thus, while Jews in the rest of the world were praying for rain, Jews in the Southern Hemisphere would at least be praying for dew. Meir added that this decision should be considered theoretically correct (le-halakhah), but not for practical usage (le-ma'aseh) because of the differing opinion of Rabbis Alfandari and Cook. Samuel Halevi Wosner, Shevef ha–Levi (Bnai Brak, 1969/70), pp. 22–23, suggested to the Jews of Montevideo, Uruguay, that they completely reverse the procedure of the Northern Hemisphere. Hence, they should mention and request rain in their winter (Nisan to Tishrei) and do neither in their summer (Tishrei to Nisan). He cautioned that this opinon should not be implemented unless a well–known authority (ga'on mefursam) agreed with him. Interestingly, neither Wosner nor any other authority, to our knowledge, suggested starting ṭal u-matar in the Southern Hemisphere on the sixtieth day from the vernal equinox. Solomon Braun, Shearim Mezuyyanim ba–Halakhah on Qizzur Shulhan Arukh, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1969/70), pp. 107–108, raised one more halakhic question concerning the practice in the Southern Hemisphere. After reviewing the relevant material (Hayyim Shabbetai and Hirschowitz), he asked what practice should be followed by a resident of the Northern Hemisphere who travels to the Southern Hemisphere, yet intends to return to his original location. Braun ruled that such a person should pray for rain according to the practice in his country of origin. The authors have been unable to ascertain the exact procedure concerning ṭal u-mafar currently in effect in each South American country. Conversations with former Argentinian Jews now resident in Israel have revealed that the Sefardic Jewish communities there follow the opinion of Tarrab and Sathun, and, therefore, they never mention or request rain the whole year round. Only when they came to Israel did these Sefardic Jews learn to say Barekh Aleinu (the winter form of the Birkal ha–Shanim); previously, they had said Barekheinu the year round (cf. n. 1). Ashkenazic communities in Argentina, however, follow the Babylonian pattern.

94. See nn. 73, 77, 80, 85.

95. The first Jews in Brazil were Marranos who had returned to Judaism; they were joined by sundry adventurers. The first Jews in Australia were convicts, even though those who asked about ṭal u-maṭar probably arrived in Australia under more auspicious circumstances. The fact that these Jews were sufficiently versed in, and concerned about, Jewish law to ask about the prayer for rain demonstrates their learning, although in their own day they were probably considered ignoramuses.

96. This may be one of the sources of the widely held fallacy that in the diaspora ṭal u-maṭar is said for rain in Israel (see above, n. 20). In a sense, though, one could say that diaspora Jews are really praying for rain in what was ancient Babylonia. This, indeed, is the opinion of Shlomo Min–HaHar, “Countries That Require Rain from the Seventh of Heshvan and the Summer Months” (Hebrew), Techumin, 1 (Winter 1979/80): 137–148. Min–HaHar argued that in essence all the diaspora prays for the welfare of Babylonia as the seat of Jewish scholarship, and that the separate Babylonian custom came about only after the close of the Mishnah (a doubtful statement; see the author's “Jewish Prayer for Rain in Babylonia”). Just as all Israel accepted the Babylonian Talmud instead of the Jerusalem Talmud, it took upon itself to pray for the Babylonian sages rather than the sages of the Land of Israel. Min-HaHar expressed the hope (p. 148) that soon all diaspora countries will pray for rain from the seventh of Marbeshvan as the centrality of the Torah of the Land of Israel is recognized.

97. See above, n. 50. There is one more element in the trivialization of the Jewish prayer for rain which has not been discussed here. In order to determine the sixtieth day from the equinox for the purposes of 'al u-mafar, the rules laid down by Samuel (Erubin 56a) are employed. They are based on a calculation of the year as being exactly 365 1/4 days long, rather than the more exact 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 46 seconds. As a result of this slight inaccuracy, the calculated equinox has slowly moved forward through the centuries, so that now the autumnal equinox is computed to fall on October 7. The prayer for rain begins, therefore, in Maariv of December 4 (except in the year before a civil leap year, when it begins in Maariv of December 5, since the tequfah falls on October 7 at 9:00 P.M. [after dark]). Since the dates December 4 and 5 have no meaning at all to the average worshipper, the significance of the prayer for rain has been diminished even further. The use of an inaccurate calculation for determining the equinox, despite the knowledge that the astronomical equinox falls on a much different day, is another example of the supremacy of custom over logic. This issue must be dealt with elsewhere. (Another example of the strong effect of custom in ritual even at the expense of logic is the present-day retention in the prayer Yequm Pwqan of the prayers for the Babylonian exilarch and the heads of the Kallah months, positions which have not existed for many centuries.)

98. Meiri is also the one to say that rain in the summer is harmful for most of the world; see Beit ha–Behirah, p. 54. See also (Pseudo) Rashis Commentary ad Taanit 14b; Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne, Ha-Eshkol, p. 26; Mordecai Jaffe, Levush, p. 326.

99. Hiddushei ha-Rifba, p. 40.

100. Bayit Hadash on Tur, Orafi Hayyim 117.

101. Turei Zahav on Shulfian Arukh, Oraht Hayyim 117

102. Shirei Qorban on Jer. Taanit 1:1.

103. See Judah Tarrab in Milei de-Ezra, pp. 12a–18b; Abraham Kook in Divrei Yeftezqiyahu, pp. 19–20; Jacob Meir in Ibid., pp. 20–22. On this issue in general, see Jacob rjayyim Sofer, Kafha-Hayyim (n. 51), p. 60b; and Israelmeir, hakohen, Mishnah Berurah, Oraft Hayyim 117 (Jerusalem, 1959 /60), vol. 1, pp. 286–287.Google Scholar

104. Thus, for instance, if tal u–ma/ar is said at the wrong time of the year, the worshipper must repeat his prayer. See above, n. 51.

105. See above, “Conclusions”, and esp. n. 97. On the trivialization of the prayer for rain, see, e.g., Abraham bar Hiyya, Sefer ha-Ibbur. ed. evi Filipowsky (London, 1866/67; reprint, ed. in Sefer Poal Hashem, vol. 1 [Bnai Brak, 1967/68]), p. 94 (quoting Isaac ben Barukh); Isaac Israeli, Sefer Yesod 'Olam ha-Shalem, ed. H. Goldberg, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1850/51; reprinted in Poal ha–Shem. vol. 2 [Bnai Brak, 1968/69]), p. 24b; Israel of Zamosc, Oiar Nehmad, on Kuzari 4:29; Jaffe, Qorot(n. 28), p. 121. Some authorities have seen the prayer for rain as being merely symbolic at the present time. See Rapaport, Quntras, p. 16, and, quoting him, Immanuel Jakobovits, “Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature”, Tradition 7, no. 1 (1964–65): 96–98; Sholom Klass, Why We Say the Prayer Tal Umatar on Dec. 5th or 6th, Jewish Press, Nov. 30, 1979.