“START WORRYING. DETAILS TO FOLLOW”:

Eliyahu Ḥazzan’s Neve Shalom as a response to modernity

Noam Sienna, August 15, 2010

Presented to Professor Noam Stillman, RIS course no. 01642, Mideast Minorities in Modern Times

No Amon, hayyosheva bayeorim1: Introduction

The Jews of Egypt were profoundly impacted by their contact with the modernizing forces of the

19th century, as were all Jewish communities living in the Middle East. This essay proposes to

examine the ways in which modernity affected the Alexandrian Jewish community2, using the

lens of the halakhic work Neve Shalom, published in Alexandria in 1893 by Eliyahu Bekhor

Ḥazzan (chief rabbi of Alexandria, 1888-19083). In this work, subtitled Minhagei No Amon

[Customs of No Amon], Ḥazzan describes the customs of the Jewish community of Alexandria

from a halakhic standpoint, offering an approving opinion of some but disapproving of others.

1 “No Amon, who sits on the banks of the Nile”. Nahum 3:8. All translations in this essay, unless otherwise noted, are by the author. While No Amon was traditionally used as a name for Alexandria, modern scholarship identifies it with the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes.2 The city of Alexandria, located in the Nile Delta of northern Egypt, on the shores of the Mediterranean, was home to a significant and important Jewish community from ancient times. If we are to trust Josephus, the Jewish community of Alexandria dates back to its very founding: Ἰουδαῖοι δ᾽ εἰ µὲν βιασάµενοι κατέσχον, ὡς µηδ᾽ ὕστερον ἐκπεσεῖν, ἀνδρείας τεκµήριόν ἐστιν αὐτοῖς: εἰς κατοίκησιν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἔδωκεν τόπον Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ ἴσης παρὰ τοῖς Μακεδόσι τιµῆς ἐπέτυχον [For if the Jews had held on {to their quarter in Alexandria} by force, without being driven out, then this would surely be a sign of their valour. However, Alexander gave them that place to settle in, and there they obtained equal honours with the Macedonians], Contra Apionem, 2:4. Somewhat diminished during the Mamluk and early Ottoman periods, it was revitalized by massive immigration in the 19th century (Miriam Frenkel, "Alexandria", Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World, 2010). By the end of the century, Alexandria was one of two main centres of Egypt’s Jewish community (the other being Cairo), and it represented almost half the community (10,000 Jews out of some 25,000 in all of Egypt). See Frenkel, EJIW, 2010, and Zvi Zohar, “Halakhic and Rabbinic Literature in Egypt in the Last Two Centuries,” Peamim 86-87 (2001), pg. 176.3 See Zvi Zohar, “Elijah Bekhor Ḥazzan”, EJIW, 2010.

Within his examination, he also describes some of the changes in the Jewish community of

Alexandria, including responses to the new technologies and ideologies presented by the modern

era. In his treatment of these changes, he shows a progressive yet moderate stance, advocating

for openness towards the changes necessitated by modernity while remaining within the

traditional religious framework. This attitude is significantly documented in his other works,

especially his collection of responsa, Taʿalumot Lev [Mysteries of the Heart], published in

Livorno in four volumes, 1879, 1893, 1903, and 19074.

The arrival of Napoleon and the French forces in Alexandria in 1798, followed by the

British in 1801, heralded an era of great changes for the city. The power vacuum left after the

conflict was quickly filled by the wāli Muhammed (or Mehmet) Ali, the quondam Albanian

commander of the Ottoman army, who began a series of long-ranging projects of reformization

and modernization. These initiatives ranged from the military to agriculture, transportation,

urban development, and manufacturing. The reforms of Muhammed Ali were continued by his

sons and successors, and the modernization of Egypt was furthered by the British annexation of

Alexandria in 18825.

Six years later6, Eliyahu Bekhor Ḥazzan arrived in Alexandria as the new ḥākhām bāshī

(chief rabbi), a post which he had previously held in Tripoli. The rabbi was already a respected

scholar, a published author and well-traveled. He was born around 1846 in Izmir [Smyrna],

4 This attitude towards modernity is examined and eloquently summarized by Norman Stillman, Sephardi Religious Responses to Modernity, 1995, pp. 29-48, et passim.5 See Zohar, 2001, pp. 175-176.6 There is some confusion here regarding dates. Zohar (2001) gives 1848 for his birth (Zohar 2010 gives 1846), and 1888 for his arrival in Alexandria. Bashan (1981) gives 1845 for his birth and 1889 for his arrival in Alexandria, and Stillman (1995) gives 1847 for his birth and 1878 for his arrival. The dates used here are from Zohar, EJIW, 2010.

Turkey, where the Ḥazzans were a well-known rabbinic family, which included rabbis and

rabbinic emissaries in Turkey, Palestine, Corfu, England, and Italy7. The young Eliyahu Ḥazzan

moved to Jerusalem with his grandfather in 1855, and was appointed a member of the bet din

[rabbinic court] there in 1865. From Jerusalem, Ḥazzan traveled as an emissary through Europe,

meeting with philanthropists in England, France, and Italy, and then North Africa, spending time

in Tunis, Algiers, and finally Tripoli, where he was appointed the first ḥākhām bāshī of Libya

(then the Ottoman province of Tripolitania) in 1874. In Tripoli, where he spent 14 years, he

attempted to introduce modern reforms in the educational system, advocating for the teaching of

foreign languages with the support of local scholar and teacher Mordekhai haKohen8. After his

arrival in Alexandria, he served as the chief rabbi there (declining an invitation to serve as chief

rabbi of Jerusalem) until his death in 1908. In 1903 he described his community for the article

“Alexandria - Modern” in the Jewish Encyclopedia9.

His major works are his collection of responsa, Taʿalumot Lev [Mysteries of the Heart], and

his semi-autobiographical novel Zikhron Yerushalayim, a fictionalized account of his travels as

an emissary. In these works, he attempts to balance an openness to modernity with a commitment

to tradition, a stance which Stillman terms “modernist traditionalist”10. His moderate stance led

him to criticize both Maskilim in Europe, whom he saw as overzealous, anti-traditionalist, and

7 See Yaron Ben Naeh, “Ḥazzan family”, EJIW, 2010.8 Harvey Goldberg, The Book of Mordechai: A Study of the Jews of Libya. Selections from the “Highid Mordekhai” of Mordechai Hakohen, 1980, pg. 9.9 Zohar, EJIW, 2010.10 Stillman, 1995, pg. 29.

assimilationalist11, as well as rabbis of his milieu, whom he saw as extremist, close-minded, and

unreasonably unaccommodating12.

This attitude is consistent with the descriptions of customs that we find in Neve Shalom.

This paper suggests four main themes which characterize the ways in which Neve Shalom

interacts with modernity. The first and most prominent theme is:

1. The representation of technological, ideological, and social innovations. Ḥazzan’s

treatment of these issues are compatible with his stance as a modernist traditionalist, as seen

from his other works.

Other themes are:

2. The inclusion of references to the realia of daily life (i.e. the physical and social details

of material life, the names of foods, items of clothing, local places, etc.) in Alexandria at the

end of the 19th century. These help us learn of the relative integration of Alexandrian Jews

into the general society.

3. The relationship between Ḥazzan and his community, including the various ʿedot and

Jewish sub-communities. This gives some context to the reception of Ḥazzan’s proposed

reforms within the Jewish communities of Alexandria.

4. The treatment of the relationship between Jews and non-Jews. This adds to the picture

of a Jewish population struggling with the challenge of modernity, and the pull of integration

versus a traditional ideal of distinction.

11 Eliezer Bashan, “Rabbi Eliahu Ḥazzan”, Hagut Ivrit beArṣot haIslam, 1981, pp. 414-415.12 Zohar, 2001, pg. 205.

Nitḥaddesha halakha: Dealing with Modernity

Throughout Neve Shalom, it is clear that Ḥazzan’s rulings have been impacted by their contact

with technological, social, and ideological innovations of the modern era. His references to these

innovations balance an awareness of the inevitability of change with the commitment to the

eternal truth of God’s Torah. Zohar quotes Ḥazzan as having written in his Zikhron

Yerushalayim: “since the Torah was given to physical human beings, forever subject to changes

stemming from differences in history and time... its words are couched in profoundly wise

ambiguity. Their interpretation is bound up in time, whereas the Torah of truth, inscribed by

God’s finger and engraved upon the Tablets of the Law, will never change and need never be

renewed”13.

In Neve Shalom, Ḥazzan noted in discussing the laws of mourning that some countries bury

their dead immediately, while others wait 24 hours or even 48 hours, and therefore it is necessary

to determine the exact time of burial, to begin mourning. In the discussion, he makes the

following point (45:17): ושדחתנש התע .’וכו רבקי יתמ םיעדוי םניאו ורבוקל תרחא הנידמל תמה חולשל םכרדש ימ םוקבמ אוהש ימב הכלה השדחתנ ,םהלמ לבת הצקבו םוק אצי ץראה לכבו ףארגיליטה יטוח...םש תמו קוחר

Regarding those whose way it is to send the deceased to another country to be buried, and do not know when the burial will take place: today, since there have been innovations in the telegraph cables, and ‘through all the land their line goes out, and to the ends of the earth their words’14, the halakha must innovate, with regards to someone who is in a distant place and then dies there...

13 Zohar, EJIW, 2010.14 A creative use of Psalms 19:5.

This is a clear statement of the philosophy that where the reality has changed, the halakha must

change with it. His final decision is that upon receiving a telegraph notifying one of a death, the

recepient must wait 48 hours to begin mourning, to be sure that the deceased has been buried.

This is a valid halakhic response to a new modality: the potential of instant notification of a

death, even in a distant country. Ḥazzan does not abandon the halakha, nor does he reject the

existence of the new technology; rather, he accepts the new reality and then attempts to construct

a way to interact with it within the framework of tradition and halakha. He also discusses the

possibility of using a telegraph to send notification of a divorce (64:13).

Ḥazzan reacted similarly to the new technology of travel by railway, which also presented a

new modality: the potential of rapid travel. As he wrote (46:18): דחא םויב אביש רשפאש תואסרפ ד’’וי ךלהמ אוהש בורק םוקמב היה םא ’וכו בורק ול תמש ימ ,תואסרפ האממ רתוי קוחר אוה ’יפא אובל לוכי דחא םויבו ,לזרבה תלסמ השדחתנש התע .’וכו לואש ברהו....לזרבה תלסמ תכילה תריהמ ךרעל תואסרפה רפסמ ןניבשח יא קפסה לפנ ונתשי כ’’לאד תושדחתמה תולובחת פ’’ע אלו עבט ךרד אוהש המב אלא רעשל ןיאד ...בישמו יכ ,עבטה ךפה הלובחת לזרבה תליסמ ןיא יכ החילסה ותאו .ש’’יע םויב םוי ידימ הרותה יכרד הרותה יכרד ונתשיש ששוחש המו .לעופל והואיצוה התעו חכב היהו ,רבסומו יעבט רבד אוה םיקו דמוע הזה רועישהו ,דחא םויב אבל רשפאש לכ רועיש ונתנ ל’’זח יכ הזל שוחל ןיא ,ו’’ח .רתוי ףסותנ התעו ,תואסרפ ד’’וי הזל רועיש ונתנ ןמז ותואשב אלא ,ק’’הות יניד לכב םלועל הליסמהש םוקמבש עודי ךא .אחינ אחרפ אלמגכ דימת יוצמ וניאו חיכש אלד רבד היה םאו.ןוטק עגר ’יפא הדיקפת תא הנשמ הניא העובק

Regarding one who has an immediate relative die: if they are somewhere close, which is within a distance of ten parasangs15, and it is possible for them to come in one day, [they must come]. Now, since there have been innovations in the railway16, and it is possible to arrive in one day even if they are at a distance of more than one hundred parasangs, the necessity to calculate the number of parasangs has fallen, in light of the speed of the travel by railway... And Rabbi [Pallache]17 asks [whether this is valid] and answers, that we cannot calculate [the distance] in any way other than a

15. The parasang, or parsa, was a traditional Talmudic unit of measurement borrowed from Persia; its exact length is unknown.16 The Alexandria-Cairo railway, the first in Africa, was begun in 1851 by Robert Stephenson, and the full line from Alexandria to Cairo finished in 1856. See Frederick Ayrton, Railways in Egypt, 1857, pg. 23.17 Rabbi Avraham ben Ḥayyim Pallache, 1809-1899, chief rabbi of Izmir. Ḥazzan is referencing a responsum in his work VaYaʿan Avraham [Avraham Answered], published in Izmir in 1886, chapter Yore Deʿa, section 38. See D Gershon Lewental, “Pallache Family (Turkish Branch)”, EJIW, 2010.

natural way, and not by ruses or innovations, since otherwise the ways of Torah would be changed on a daily basis; look it up there. And he has [my] apologies [for his mistake], for the railway is not a ruse contrary to nature, but is rather something natural and explainable, which was [always] possible and was now brought into reality. And as for what he fears, that the ways of Torah might change, heaven forbid: there is no need to fear this. For the rabbis made an estimate of how far it was possible to travel in one day, and this estimate is still valid and standing for all the laws of the holy Torah. Only in their time, the estimate [of one day’s travel] was ten parasangs, and now [the distance possible to cover in one day] has increased. And if [the railway] was something uncommon and encountered infrequently [i.e. unreliable], such as a swift camel, you would be right. But it is known that wherever the railway has been established it does not abandon its post, even for a short moment.

Here too, Ḥazzan presents a stance of using the tradition as a framework to understand and use

the change of reality in a way that is halakhically productive. He also challenges the attitude of

one of his colleagues, and asserts that his viewpoint is a valid understanding of Torah, which, as

he wrote in Zikhron Yerushalayim, is both eternally true and also eternally ambiguous, and thus

necessitates continuous interpretation in response to the changing realities. In the reality of the

Talmud, one day’s travel meant ten parasangs; but in Ḥazzan’s day, one day’s travel could be

much more. On the one hand, Ḥazzan asserts, it does not mean that the Talmudic concept of ‘one

day’s travel’ is no longer valid; on the other hand, it does not mean that we must restrict

ourselves to the Talmudic definition of ‘one day’s travel’, since our reality is different than theirs.

Another new reality of the modern era was the advent of gas lighting, which dramatically

changed the perception of light and dark. Gas lighting allowed for longer hours into the night, the

invention of “nightlife”, and the illumination of whole cities with bright gas-powered street

lamps18. Ḥazzan discussed whether it is permitted to slaughter by night, noting that it was

permitted by torch, and if so, then certainly by gas lamps19 “which burn so brightly, they are

certainly considered as a torch, since they illuminate more brightly than ten candles” (30:6).

18 See the fascinating new study of the history of artifical light: Jane Brox, Brilliant: the evolution of artifical light, 2010.19 As he writes, זאג ןמש לש תויששע , literally “oil lamps of gaz oil”.

Elsewhere Ḥazzan discussed the use of gas lighting on Shabbat, and clearly recognized how

profound an impact this new modality has had on the perception of darkness (16:4): אוה וילורטיפ ןמשב קילדהל ןינעל .’וכו הליתפה רחא ךשמנה ןמשמ אלא תבשב רנ ןיקילדמ ןיא טשפתנ רבכ התע ךא ...השמ ומש ורפסב ל’’ז ודראפ לודגה ברה ביחרה ךיראה ,תבשב זאגה םא ,אוהה קיהבמה רואב לוחה תומיב ולגרוה רבכש ירחא יכ ,וב קילדהל תומוקמה לכב גהנמה ,ידי יתחנה אל תיז ןמשמ םג לבא .גהונ ינא ןכו ,ךשחב םיכלוהכ םהל המדנ תבשב וב וקילדי אל תדמוע המוקמב זאגה תיששעו ,ונתובא גהנמכ תיז ןמש לש תויששע העבש קילדהל גהונ ינאו.ריפשו םהינש ידי ונאצי הזבו לוחב והשעמכ

One does not light a light for Shabbat other than with oil that is drawn up the wick. Regarding the issue of lighting with petroleum20, that is, gas, on Shabbat, the great rabbi [Moses] Pardo21 expanded on this in his book Shemo Moshe22... However, now the custom has already spread everywhere to light with [gas lights on Shabbat]. Since they have already become used to its brilliant light on weekdays, if they were not to light it on Shabbat, it would seem to them as if they were walking in the dark. I follow this custom as well. However I also do not avoid using olive oil, and it is my custom to light seven oil lamps with olive oil, as the custom of my forefathers, and the gas lamp stands in its place as it does during the week, and in this way our [need for light] is fulfilled by both of them, which is reasonable.

As he demonstrates here, his own personal custom is a compromise between tradition and

modernity: the old-fashioned olive oil lamps, for the sake of minhag avoteinu, and the new gas

lamp, for the bright light to which he was now accustomed. Ḥazzan is clearly not opposed to

using modern technology in a halakhically productive way. Another example is his use of the

modern post system to send a geṭ [certificate of Jewish divorce] by mail23 (64:10, 64:11).

It was not just modern technology that affected the Jewish community of Alexandria, but

also ideological and social changes that accompanied modernization. Ḥazzan dealt with a man

who had separated completely from his wife, with a legal separation from a civil court24 but

20 Since Ḥazzan transliterates it as וילורטיפ , it would appear that he was thinking of the Spanish petroleo, ‘petroleum’.21 Ḥazzan’s immediate predecessor, Moses ben Raphael Pardo, chief rabbi of Alexandria from 1871-1888. See Emil Hirsch, “Egypt”, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1903.22 His Name is Moses, a collection of responsa published in Izmir in 1878.23 As he writes, הטסופה איה ,ראודה יב י’’ע טג תוחילש24 As he writes: םלצא ארקנו ,ןוממבו ףוגב ירמגל םידורפ םהו ,םולכ הז לע הז םהל ןיאש הלשממה י’’ע ותשאמ שורפ היהש שיאב יתלאשנ

ןויסאראפיס , i.e. Spanish separación or French séparation.

without a geṭ. Ḥazzan exempted him from mourning after the death of his ex-wife, noting that

“in this way, done by the government, he is not her inheritor... since they have already been

separated completely, of their own wills, by the laws of the government” (45:16). Ḥazzan noted

that the Jewish community already does not live in a particular quarter, but is “spread out among

the nations” in all parts of the city (15:3). Once in their new neighbourhoods, Ḥazzan wrote that

the Jewish community now comes to the synagogue on Sukkot to eat in the sukka [a temporary

booth, built for the holiday of Sukkot, where it is traditional to eat, and even sleep, in the sukka],

because the buildings have changed and the new courtyards have no room to build a sukka;

furthermore, it is not possible to go up to the roof without having to “climb up many difficult and

dangerous stairs”, and the roof is shared with the other residents of the building, mostly non-

Jewish (26:1).

The Jews had adopted European dress25 as well, and Ḥazzan wrote (15:2): “It is now

customary to send the shirt and the cuffs and the collar, once laundered, to the craftman’s house

to pass over them a reed and hot iron [i.e. have them ironed], and sometimes the clothes are

returned from the craftsman’s house on the morning of the holy Sabbath, and they wear [the

ironed clothes] on that same day; these people have something to rely on [i.e. there is a halakhic

opinion that agrees with them]26”. The tone here is reminiscent of contemporary Victorian

sensibilities: well-pressed cuffs and collars for Shabbat are sine qua non, even if it means having

the clothes delivered on the holy Sabbath.

25 As Ḥazzan writes, אפורייא ידגב26 He writes: ןמואה תיבמ םתוא ןיריזחמ םימעפלו ,םח לזרבו אמוג םהילע ריבעהל ןמואה תיבל םיסבוכמה ראווצהו דיה יתבו תנותכה םיחלוש

וכומסיש המ לע םהל שי .םויב וב םתוא םישבול םהו ,רקובב ק’’שויב .

Ḥazzan also attempted to institute a modern sense of professionality in the Jewish

community. He insisted on having food stamped with an official seal of kashrut, to prevent the

selling of food as kosher without it being certified as such (33:12). He railed against shoḥaṭim

[ritual slaughterers] being allowed to slaughter without certification, and instituted a system of

yearly inspections (done in the month of Elul) for shoḥaṭim to renew their license to slaughter

(29:1 and 29:2). He encouraged mohalim [ritual circumcisers] to visit the newborns on the

seventh day (i.e the day before the circumcision) to give the children a medical check-up: they

are to “put their finger in the child’s mouth to see if it is cold and moist, and also that the child

sucks at the finger, and they should check the child’s nails, palms and soles, which should be

pale, and that the child doesn’t have a deep opening to his stomach, and that his umbilical cord

has fallen off” (35:2). If there was any question of the child’s ill-health, and potential danger in

circumcision, Ḥazzan urged the mohalim to “think carefully and ask experienced doctors to

check the issue carefully”; otherwise they were not permitted to circumcise the child (36:8).

Ḥazzan also discussed the practice of meṣiṣa befe [‘oral suction’, referring to the custom of

having the mohel suck the blood from the circumcision wound orally], and was aware that in his

time there were movements to abolish the custom. He argued that “expert doctors have testified

that there is no danger to the child [in meṣiṣa]”, and therefore it should be continued, but “if it

occurs that the mohel has a contagious disease, then he should not perform meṣiṣa but allow

another to perform it” (36:9). That is, his support for meṣiṣa is based on his best understanding of

the medical issues involved, and he attempts to use those principles while remaining true to the

tradition. He does not cast the use of medical knowledge as oppositional to the traditional

halakha, but he attempts to create a harmony between them, using one to inform the other. This

stance is similar to the way his colleague Mordekhai HaKohen dealt with Darwin, as Goldberg

characterizes it: “Hakohen does not build a barrier between himself and the Darwinian line of

inquiry, nor does he suggest that his readers do so. He states his willingness to abandon

traditional notions of they do not stand up to logical and empirical scrutiny... As for Darwin,

Hakohen attempts to meet him, so to speak, on his own grounds”27.

Ein hadaʿat mityashevet belo kahve: Life in turn-of-the-century Alexandria

Throughout the halakhic rulings of Neve Shalom, we catch glimpses of the daily lives of the

Jewish inhabitants of Alexandria - the foods they ate, the clothes they wore, the tools they

worked with, the songs they sang. These details often reveal similarities between the Jewish

community and the world that surrounded them, forming part of the picture of the modernization

of the Jewish community. For example, in discussing the morning prayers, Ḥazzan noted (3:12): ’יסב א’’סכ ברה :רתומ םימ לבא תותשל אלו לוכאל אלו ’וכו ללפתיש דע ’וכו קסעתהל רוסא ללפתהל ותעד ןיוכל לכויש ידכ ראקוצ אלב י’בהאק תותשל ריתהש חר’’פה םשמ איבה הז תותשל וגהנ רבכ אנדיאהו ש’’יע י’בהאק אלב תבשייתמ תעדה ןיאש םירצמ ץראב טרפבו.והייתעד אבשייתמ אל ראקוצ אלבד ראקוצ םע י’בהאק

It is forbidden to begin the day’s business before reciting the morning prayers, and one must not eat or drink, but water is permitted. Rabbi [Eliyahu Israel28, author of] Kisse Eliyahu, in this section, permits one to drink kahve [coffee]29 without ṣukar [sugar], so that he is able to focus his mind to praying, and especially in the land of Egypt, where the mind does not settle down without coffee; look it up there. And now, it is already an established custom to drink coffee with sugar, since without sugar one’s mind does not settle down.

27 Goldberg, 1980, pg. 21.28 Elijah ben Moses Israel, 1710-1784, rabbi of Alexandria. The work referred to is Kisse Eliyahu [Elijah’s Throne], published in 1811. See Yaron Ben Naeh, “Israel family”, EJIW, 2010.29 Ḥazzan, no doubt thinking of the Turkish coffee familiar to him from his childhood in Izmir and Ottoman Palestine, transliterates coffee as י’בהאק [Turkish kahveh] and not as the expected הוהק or הוהאק [Arabic qahwa].

The honesty of this detail, an acceptance of the necessity of one’s morning coffee before prayers,

is touching. Ḥazzan mentions coffee in other places, including: the custom of drinking coffee

after birkat hamazon [blessing after the meal] (14:1 and 14:2), and the question of drinking

coffee on Shabbat (16:12 and 17:17).

Other foods mentioned by Ḥazzan include: date honey and watermelons, which according

to his ruling both take the blessing shehakol30 (14:6), a type of cheese-filled pastry (14:7),

perhaps the same as the pastilles which he mentioned as having been made on Pesaḥ with ground

maṣṣot (21:21), and a type of small shore-dwelling bird called in Arabic kh̄u̩dīr31, for which the

Jews of Alexandria maintained a tradition of kosher slaughter32 (32:4). He also discusses wine

and alcohol, including ʿaraq (which he also calls יטנידרא האוגא , i.e. aguardiente), which he only

permits if made by a Jew and untouched by non-Jews (34:3 and 34:4). Ḥazzan also mentioned

the custom to use an ibrik [a small copper vessel usually used for coffee] to perform neṭilat

yadayim [ritual handwashing], but forbids the use of ḥanafiyya33, because the water is not poured

by the person themselves (13:1 and 13:2).

Vehu minhag nakhon: Communal Relations and Innovations of Ḥazzan

30 The blessing, concluding with the formula shehakol nihyeh bidvaro, “everything exists by His word”, is said over foods that do not fit into the basic categories of bread, baked goods, wine, ground fruits, or tree fruits, or foods that have multiple ingredients.31 Ḥazzan writes רי’צו’כ . I have been unable to determine exactly what bird he is referring to. He writes that it lives on the banks of the Nile and is very small. 32 In order for birds to be considered kosher, there must be an oral tradition supporting their kosher status and the correct method of slaughter. Ḥazzan describes how he brought two aged shoḥaṭim to the bet din to record the kashrut of this bird, and declares that “no shoḥeṭ may slaughter these birds unless he has gone before them [the shoḥaṭim] and they have certified him to be expert, and shown him the pure variety, so that he does not accidentally slaughter a variety for which there is no tradition.” Unfortunately, these traditions are at risk of dying out today.33 As he writes, אי’פאנאח . He explains them as “metal taps set in the wall with running water from the Nile”.

An important aspect of Neve Shalom is the way in which Ḥazzan interacts with the various

groups comprising the Jewish community of Alexandria. At the end of the 19th century

Alexandria was home to 10,000 Jews, and Ḥazzan writes that the city had 9 synagogues and 4

Jewish schools34. He describes the Jews of Alexandria as being “of various nationalities, and

includ[ing] Syrians, Turks, Rumanians, Russians, Austrians, Germans, Italians, and Frenchmen,

with all the diverse characteristics and customs of each nation”.

In Neve Shalom there are mentions of interaction between various communities, usually in

the form of Ḥazzan instructing the correct minhag to a particular group. For example (4:1): ןכו א’’בות םילשורי ק’’הע גהנמ אוה ןכו ...יודיוה דימו ףכת רמאל יואר הדימעה תרזח רחא םדוק תוניחתב ליחתהל םיגהונ יתיאר יקנארפ לא ק’’קבו .ל’’ז איבנה והילא ק’’קב יתגהנה.ןוכנה אוה יכ ל’’נה גהנמכ גוהנל םהל יתרוהו

After the repetition of the ʿamida, it is proper to begin the confession immediately afterwards... and this is the custom of the holy city Jerusalem, may she be rebuilt in our days, and I follow this custom in the Eliyahu haNavi synagogue. And in the al-Franki synagogue [the synagogue of the Franks, i.e. European Sephardi Jews], I saw that it was customary to begin the supplications beforehand, and so I taught them to follow the custom mentioned above, since it is the correct one.

Ḥazzan also instituted ritual changes in his own synagogue, Knesset Eliyahu haNavi: he saw the

kohanim going up to recite the priestly blessing in shoes, and so he instructed the gabbai

[synagogue beadle] Shlomo Barda to purchase slippers35 and place them under the bench, so that

they would be ready for the kohanim going up for the blessing. Ḥazzan concludes that “this

would be appropriate for the other gabbaim [of other synagogues] to do as well, and may they

receive blessing” (3:1).

34 Ḥazzan, “Alexandria - Modern”, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1903.35. Ḥazzan writes תואלפנא . The context clearly indicates that they are some kind of slipper, but the etymology of this word is unclear. It may be related to the Spanish pantufla (whose etymology is itself unclear; perhaps from Medieval Greek pantophellos “shoe made of cork”, from panto- + phellos cork. Cf. French pantoufle, Italian pantofola).

However, Ḥazzan appears to have been aware of the tensions that existed within his

community, and was careful not to force changes too boldly. In his halakhic decisions he often

insisted on the importance of keeping peace within the community, and he emphasized that unity

takes precedence over halakhic zeal. For example, he preferred that someone who does not know

how to read should not be called up for an ʿaliya [“a going up”, referring to the honour of

making a blessing over a portion of Torah read during the service]. However, as he writes (6:8): .ןבומכ םדיב תוחמל רשפא יאו ,ללכ םיאיקב םניאש םירומג ה’’ע ת’’סל תולעל וגהנ אנדיאה שי םאו .רשפא םא םילוע ’ז ללכמ ויהי אלו םיפסונל םתולעל םבל לא ומישי םיאבגהש יואר מ’’מ.םולשה לודגו לארשיל םהל חנה ,תקולחמל שוחל

“Now it is the custom to bring up to the Torah [for an ʿaliya] complete ignoramuses who have no expertise [in reading Torah] whatsoever, but obviously it is impossible to object to them. In any case, it is appropriate for the gabbaim to make an effort to bring them up for additional [i.e. optional ʿaliyot], so that they are not among the seven [required people honoured] with ʿaliyot, if possible. But if they sense that it will cause arguments, let Israel be36, for great is peace.

Similarly, in the case of the repetition of the ʿamida, he writes (19:2): ץ’’שה ללפתהל ףסומ תליפתב תבשב כ’’ב הזיאב וגהנ ,הריעה הפ שדקב תרשל יאוב םדוקמ פ’’ע ךכ וגהנ רבכש רחא ,ידיב התלע אלו הנשויל הרטעה ריזחהל יתיסנ רבכו ...םר לוקב תקולחמ אלב םריזחהל רשפא יא םאש ...ל’’ז ז’’בדרה בתכ רבכו .ל’’ז ינומדקש םינברה תארוה.םתא הכרבה ’ה וצי םתכלהכ םיתש םיללפתמ םה כ’’בה בורב פ’’כע .כ’’ע ףידע ת’’אוש

Before I came to serve as the rabbi here in this city, it was the custom in some synagogues on Shabbat to have the leader recite the ʿamida aloud... And I have tried to return the Torah’s crown to its splendour [i.e. to restore the original, correct custom] but I have not been successful, since they have had this custom [established] by my predecessors. And the Radbaz37 has written... that if it is not possible to correct them without a dispute, it is better to not do anything, and allow it to remain as it is. And in any case, in most synagogues here they pray correctly [at least] twice, may God command them with blessing.

These incidents demonstrate Ḥazzan’s awareness of his position as head of the community, and

is a testament to his prudence and his willingness to prioritize communal peace over strict

36 A shortening of the rabbinic phrase םה םיאיבנ ינב םה םיאיבנ אל םאש לארשיל םהל חנה , “Let Israel be, for if they are no prophets they are at least descended from prophets”.37 Rabbi David ibn Abi Zimra, 1479-1573, a well-respected Sephardi rabbi and halakhist, who spent some time in Egypt. See Samuel Morell, “Ibn Abi Zimra, David (Radbaz)”, EJIW, 2010.

adherence to his legal opinion. Stillman characterizes Ḥazzan’s work in Tripoli as having the

same aspiration for balance and unity, “steer[ing] a course between the reactionary elements and

the more Europeanized radical modernizers. And true to the role of many a Sephardi ḥakham, he

succesfully endeavored to prevent these polar forces from tearing the communal fabric

asunder”38.

In Neve Shalom, Ḥazzan also demonstrates his interconnectedness with other communities,

both from his personal travels and contacts in other cities, and from the wider net of halakhic

literature which circulated throughout the Jewish world. Jerusalem is constantly mentioned, and

it is repeatedly emphasized where Alexandria follows minhag Yerushalayim [the customs of

Jerusalem]. In the Introduction to Neve Shalom, Ḥazzan emphasized the connection between

Alexandria and Jerusalem: “the majority of the customs of this city are founded on the customs

of the holy city Jerusalem, may she be speedily rebuilt in our days”. Ḥazzan also frequently

mentions both his birthplace of Izmir and his previous post of Tripoli, and quotes halakhic

precedents and rulings of rabbis in both places. Other places mentioned include: Constantinople

[Istanbul], Corfu, Damascus, Rhodes, Tunis, Amsterdam, and Lublin, and Ḥazzan even answers

a question from “the capital city, London the glorified” (12:4).

Yishmaʿelim einam ʿovdei ʿavoda zara: The Relationship with the Non-Jewish Community

Ḥazzan was also aware of the delicate relationship between Jews and non-Jews, and paid careful

attention to how the Jewish community was perceived by its non-Jewish neighbours. At the same

38 Stillman, 1995, pp. 37-38

time he emphasized the religious restrictions that separated the Jewish and non-Jewish

communities. He cautioned his community, for example, that non-Jews may not be counted in

the minyan [quorum], even though “today it is common for goyim [non-Jews] to come to the

synagogue, especially on the High Holy Days, and on festivals and holidays” (2:6).

Non-Jews would also apparently attend the festivities on Purim, and Ḥazzan cited this as

one of the reasons to abolish the custom of drowning out Haman’s name (28:7): תאירקב ןמה ןיריכזמשכ ן’’כהב ילספס לע סודרוקב וא ףורגאב תוכהל םיגהונש תומוקמ שי שאר תולק םיגהונש ,הזה ערה גהנמל וששח אלש םידבכנו םיבר וניצמ רבכ םלואו ...הליגמה םילרעו םיוג םיאב םימעפלש הלוח הער דועו ...הליגמ תאירק תעימש םילבלבמו ן’’כהבב א’’עי רימזא י’’בועב רבכו ...הזה ערהו רזה השעמה םתוארב וננכשל הפרח ונייהו ,ן’’כהבל הפ םגו ,א’’עי סידור ת’’יעב ושע ןכו ...םינברה םשב ףקת לכב ן’’כהבב הזרכהב הז גהנמ ולטב ן’’כהב שמש ,תוכהלו קחשל םירענה ומוקי םימעפל םאו ,הזה גהנמה לטבתנ טעמכ הריעה.םקיתשמ

There are places where it is customary to hit with one’s fist or with one’s shoes on the pews of the synagogue, when the name of Haman is mentioned during the reading of the megilla... However, we have already found many respected [rabbis] who do not concern themselves with [i.e. support] this terrible custom, which encourages frivolity in the synagogue and confounds those listening to the megilla reading... And another terrible harm is that sometimes non-Jews [literally ‘uncircumcised goyim’] come to the synagogue, and we would be disgraced in front of our neighbours when they see this strange and terrible deed... And already in the great city of Izmir, may God protect it, they abolished this custom with a declaration in the synagogue with all the force in the name of the rabbis... They did similarly in the city of Rhodes, may God protect it, and also here in this city this custom has almost been abolished, and if young people occasionally get up to play and hit, the shamash [synagogue official, similar to the gabbai] of the synagogue quiets them.

Ḥazzan also warned against unnecessary interaction with the non-Jewish community, especially

in matters of religious observances. He exhorted his community not to buy meat from Ishmaelite

[i.e. Muslim] butchers, “who only slaughter their meat after turning their face to the qibla [i.e.

towards Mecca, the traditional direction of Muslim prayer]” (30:5), and not to send meat to the

butchers by a non-Jewish servant; if they must, it is best to send a Jewish boy along with the

servant to accompany them (31:1). He opposed the local custom of having a non-Jew come to

synagogue on holidays to write down the sums of money offered by each worshipper for honours

in the service or ʿaliyot (17:15 and 23:11). He also opposed the custom of having non-Jewish

musicians play musical instruments at Jewish celebrations (circumcisions, engagements, a new

Torah scroll) on Shabbat, noting that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to have non-Jews

participate in a Jewish celebration; since he arrived in Alexandria, every new Torah scroll that

was brought to the synagogue was accompanied only by “Jewish musicians singing music with

their mouths and specifically praising God39” (17:20).

At the same time, he permitted the consumption of Muslim wine, saying that it is exempt

from the prohibition on “libation wine” (yayin nesekh), since Muslims are not idol-worshippers

(34:1). He also encouraged conversion, especially as an alternative to, or resolution of,

intermarriage (38:1-39:2), a position on which he expanded in his later halakhic work, Taʿalumot

Lev40. It would appear that while he disapproved of intermarriage generally, he understood the

need to allow those couples ways back into the Jewish community. He wrote (39:2): השא איה םאו תידוהי השאב ןתנ ויניע אמש שיא אוה םא ’וכו םיקדוב רייגתהל רגה אבישכ תונב םע ודכלנו ורבע םיבר הפי המוד וניאש הז ונרודב הנה .לארשי ירוחבב הנתנ היניע אמש ודילוה רבכש םהמ שיו םהיתושנ רייגל םיאבו הרהט חור םהב סנכנ םינשו םימי רחאו ,םילרעה ם’’במרה לודגה וניבר ש’’מ לע וכמס ל’’ז םינברה יאדובו .. .כ’’ג םתוא רייגל םיאבו תונבו םינב תוריחה ןמזב ו’’קו ש’’כ ,ונמזב וניבר רמוא ןכ םאו ...ל’’ק ’יס רודה ראפ ’סב ’ושתב ל’’ז.תותדה לכ תסירה ר’’העב םרוגה הזה רורדהו

When the [potential] convert comes to convert, we check, in the case that he is a man, if perhaps his eye alit upon a Jewish woman, and in the case that she is a woman, if perhaps her eye alit upon a Jewish man. For in our generation, although it does not seem suitable, many have gone and become enraptured by non-Jewish women, and after days or years a pure spirit enters them and they come to convert their women; sometimes they have already had children and so they bring those to convert as well... And certainly the rabbis [who permitted this] based their opinions on what our great rabbi Maimonides wrote, in his answer in Pe’er haDor, section 130... And if our rabbi said this, in his time, all the more so, and how much more so, in this time of freedom and liberty, which leads, may God protect us, to the destruction of religions [i.e. religious boundaries].

39 He writes, אקוד ’הל ללהו הפב רישב םילארשי םינגנמ , i.e. songs performed a capella with specific Jewish content.40 Zohar, EJIW, 2010.

Veyashav ammi bineve shalom41: Conclusion

Neve Shalom, while perhaps less significant than Taʿalumot Lev as a contribution to halakha, and

perhaps less significant than Zikhron Yerushalayim as a work of Jewish thought, is nonetheless

worthy of examination, as a window into a community on the cusp of modernity. Ḥazzan,

regarded as “one of the foremost Sephardic halakhists and religious thinkers of his time”42,

demonstrates in Neve Shalom the same moderate attitude familiar to us from his other prominent

works: an attempt to balance his openness to modernity with his commitment to tradition.

Ḥazzan was a worldly, well-traveled scholar, open to the surrounding society, who by all

accounts was fluent in at least five languages. In Neve Shalom he translates the instructions and

texts for sending a geṭ into Arabic, Ladino, [which he labels simply תידרפס , ‘Spanish’], and

Italian (59:5-63:7). Throughout the work, he shows a tremendous sensitivity to the needs of his

community and the ways they interacted with each other and with the non-Jews around them.

In his treatment of modern innovations, Ḥazzan engaged with them on their own grounds

(in Goldberg’s phrase), and attempted to find ways to use them within a halakhic framework,

creatively and productively. He proclaimed that the halakha must innovate in response to

innovations in society, and he firmly stated that the Torah and its laws necessitate reinterpretation

in response to changing circumstances. His decisions regarding technological innovations, such

as the telegraph, the railroad, and gas lighting, as well as social developments, such as the respect

for modern medical knowledge and the desire for modern industry standards in Jewish

41 “And my people shall dwell in an oasis of peace”, Isaiah 32:18.42 Zohar, EJIW, 2010.

professions, show an understanding of the ineluctability of change. His stance demonstrates

“[the] clear comprehension that the modern era was a time of fundamental change, that it

provided an unprecedented existential situation that required creative Jewish responses, and that

it was not a temporary phenomenon that had merely to be waited out”43.

One surprising omission from Neve Shalom is Ḥazzan’s stance on modern education, which

is a prominent theme in his other activities and writings. We know from HaKohen that Ḥazzan

was very involved in fighting for educational reform in Tripoli44, and it takes up a significant part

of Taʿalumot Lev45. Bashan examines Ḥazzan’s stance on the study on foreign languages, and

identifies ten arguments with which Ḥazzan justifies the study of foreign, and specifically

European, languages from a halakhic perspective46. While the general tone of Neve Shalom is

compatible with this idea, nowhere in the work does he discuss education or foreign languages

(with the exception of the translations of the geṭ mentioned above, where he merely offers the

translations without any commentary), nor does he mention any of those specific arguments in

any other context. The only place where education is mentioned in Neve Shalom is in a short

ruling47 that a bachelor teacher should not be fired, despite worries of inappropriate interaction

with the mothers of his charges, since firing him would impinge on the children’s education;

rather, the mothers should refrain from coming to school (49:7).

At the end of Neve Shalom, Ḥazzan attached two Hebrew songs of his composition; one,

Shir Ṣiyyon [A Song of Zion] declaring his eternal love for Jerusalem, and the other, Kevod 43 Stillman, 1995, pg. 38.44 Goldberg, 1980, pg. 9.45 Zohar, 2001, pg. 202.46 Bashan, 1981, pp. 415-41747 This anecdote is also related in Taʿalumot Lev, and referenced in Bashan, 1981, pg. 414 no. 13.

Melekh [The King’s Honour] in honour of the reigning sultan, Abdul Ḥamid II. The opening of

this song declares: “Protect, O merciful God/ the crown of Ottoman kings/ efendimiz [my master]

Sultan/ Ghazi Abdul Ḥamid Khan”. The song goes on to ask God to protect the sultan and his

kingdom, to call upon all Jews and all nations to honour him, and to proclaim the majesty and

eternity of his dynasty. This juxtaposition of the remembrance of Jerusalem with the recognition

and praise of the Ottoman leadership is a fitting conclusion for Ḥazzan’s work, which similarly

encapsulates respect for both the bounds of halakha and the innovations of modernity.

Bibliography

Ayrton, Frederick. Railways in Egypt: communication with India. London: Ridgeway, 1857.Bashan, Eliezer. “Rabbi Eliyahu Ḥazzan, rabban shel Ṭripoli veAleksandria, veyaḥaso

leHaskala [Rabbi Eliyahu Ḥazzan, rabbi of Tripoli and Alexandria, and his relationship to the Haskala]” in Hagut ʿIvrit beArṣot haIslam, ed. Menaḥem Zohori. Jerusalem: Brit ʿIvrit ʿOlamit, 1981, pp. 410–418 [Hebrew].

Ben Naeh, Yaron. “Ḥazzan family.” Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World. Executive Editor Norman A. Stillman. Brill, 2010.

Ben Naeh, Yaron. “Israel family.” Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World. Executive Editor Norman A. Stillman. Brill, 2010.

Brox, Jane. Brilliant: The Evolution of Artifical Light. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010.

Frenkel, Miriam. “Alexandria.” Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World. Executive Editor Norman A. Stillman. Brill, 2010.

Goldberg, Harvey. The Book of Mordechai: A Study of the Jews of Libya. Selections from the “Highid Mordekhai” of Mordechai Hakohen. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1980.

Ḥazzan, Eliyahu. “Alexandria - Modern.” The Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk and Wagnalls, 1903.Ḥazzan, Eliyahu. Neve Shalom: Minhagei No Amon [Oasis of Peace: Customs of No Amon].

Alexandria: Farag Ḥayyim Mizraḥi, 1893 [Hebrew].Hirsch, Emil, W. Max Muller, and Richard Gottheil. “Egypt.” The Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk

and Wagnalls, 1903.Lewental, D Gershon. “Pallache Family (Turkish Branch).” Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic

World. Executive Editor Norman A. Stillman. Brill, 2010.Morell, Samuel. “Ibn Abi Zimra, David (Radbaz).” Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World.

Executive Editor Norman A. Stillman. Brill, 2010.Stillman, Norman. Sephardi Religious Responses to Modernity. London: Harwood Academic

Publishers, 1995.Zohar, Zvi. “Ḥazzan, Elijah Bekhor.” Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World. Executive

Editor Norman A. Stillman. Brill, 2010.Zohar, Zvi. “Hayeṣira hahilkhatit vehatoranit shel rabbani Miṣrayim bima’atayim hashanim

ha’aḥaronim [Halakhic and Rabbinic Literature in Egypt in the Last Two Centuries]”, Peʿamim 86–87 (2001): 175–213 [Hebrew].