She’eloth u-Teshuvoth Peri Etz hayyim [“Fruit of the Tree of Life”: Journal of legal responsa produced by the scholars of the Midrash Etz Hayyim of Amsterdam]

(DUTCH JUDAICA).

Joseph ben Solomon Proops

Amsterdam

1782

Title within typographic border. Front end paper appears to be a title intended for a Pentateuch with Abravanel’s commentary, from the press of Leib Sussman, Amsterdam

Vinograd, Amsterdam 2120; Treasures from the Library Ets Haim (1980), no. 56

THE FIRST TORAH JOURNAL Between the years 1691-1808 nearly 1000 responsa by students of the Amsterdam rabbinical seminary Etz Hayyim were published in an ongoing series of 13 volumes. Our volume is the ninth in this series. While many of the themes dealt with in our volume - especially as concerns monetary and matrimonial issues, and the kashering of vessels and the rinsing and salting of meat - are commonplace, others are of a more exotic variety. Thus, chapter 27 deals with what would be termed today an “environmental issue” of smoke pollution (see Bava Bathra 23a; Maimonides, Hil. Shechenim 11:4). Chapter 6 tackles which blessing to recite before eating a certain berry-like form of vegetation, “branbozas.” Chapter 33 discusses whether a kohen whose voice has been impaired, and who is physically incapable of raising his voice aloud, may yet pronounce the priestly benediction. Another responsum addresses the kashruth of “cochineal” powder, a red, sour flavoring, used in drinks and sweets, obtained from the insect by that name (ff.117r.-119r.). Of interest is the fact mentioned on the title that the final decision concerning all of the responsa remains for Haham David Cohen d’Azevedo. As supreme authority, he may concur or differ with the findings of the students. David d’Azevedo served as Haham from 1781 until his death in 1792, at which time he was succeeded by his son Daniel. See M.H. Gans, Memorbook (1977), p. 197. Besides the requisite responsa for the years 1782-5, our volume contains earlier responsa from the following years: 1748, 1750, 1755, 1760-1, 1769, 1771, as well as later ones from the years 1786-7. Because of the integrity of the volume, bespoken by its contemporary binding, it is difficult to conceive that anyone would have randomly collected these responsa between two covers. Rather, it is conceivable that the present volume was intended as a a sort of reader’s digest of responsa issued by the Seminary during the second half of the eighteeenth century.