(a) Couple of Questions: in 28b at bottom the Gemoro brings down the Tono Dbay Eliyahu, However, it brings it down without the words "bchol yom" just Hashoneh halochos etc. Why? (in Nidah does say Bchol yom as we say every day in davening)
(b) By the way, is this the only two places in shas where this memra is brought down?
(c) Also, I saw in the sefer Nefesh Chaya on Megilla end of his kapitel on this sugya that he brings down - look in my droshos and you will see the answer and also in sefer Beer Sheva - I don't know where to find his droshos and I found the sefer Beer sheva on Hebrew books .org but cant find where he is referring to
thx Kol tuv, moshe
(a) Although the Vilna print of Nidah says "b'Chol Yom", the early prints (Venice, Soncino) and manuscripts (Munich) do not have those words. In fact, a number of the commentaries in Nidah wonder where the Pasuk cited infers to anything about "every day".
I assume those words were added to the Gemara at some point from the Sidur. In the Sidur they appear at the end of the daily Davening to emphasize that "today also" one should learn Halachos. In truth, the Rambam even in his Nusach ha'Tefilah leaves out the words "every day".
(I should point out, however, that in Menoras ha'Maor (4:2:2:1) we find the opposite - he quotes the Gemara from Megilah with the words b'Chol Yom!)
(b) The only two places where this statement is cited are Megilah and the end of Nidah. The Be'er Sheva (in the pieces at the end of the Sefer, #78) discusses why those are the only places where it is cited (and concludes pretty much the opposite of the Maharsha in Megilah, that it is emphasizing to learn things other than Nidah as well...), but he does not discuss the difference in wording.
The Nefesh Chayah (on Megilah, authored by R. Yisrael Landau, descendant of the Noda b'Yehudah), who does note your question, writes that he discusses it in his work of Drashos by the same name (printed in Nadborna, 1909, according to Beis Eked Sefarim). Unfortunately, it does not seem to be available in Hebrew Books or Otzar ha'Chochmah or the Hebrew U. library.
Best wishes,
M. Kornfeld, Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rebbe,
This addition to a gemara's text brings to mind the whole problem of siddur publishers adding words on their own. I had heard that the original words of l'olam yehei adam yiray Shamayim include only b'seiser in private not uvgaluy and publicly. That memre was composed for historical reasons. When one's life is in danger by nochrim he should just say the Shma privately. The publisher did not understand the reason for bseter and added b'galuy and now it found it's way into most siddurim and most people add b'galuy.
It seems to me that siddur publishers should be very careful when adding or subtracting from an original text and mispallelim should also study the siddur to know which nusach is more correct and not just say anything any publisher put in a siddur.
B'kavod,
Sam Kosofsky
(a) The Tefilah "l'Olam Yehei Adam Yerei Shamayim b'Seser" is first found in Seder Rav Amram Gaon, and this is the text of the Rambam in Nusach ha'Tefilah and the Tur at the end of OC 46. The Beis Yosef there brings from Shibolei ha'Leket (Siman 6) that the source for this prayer is in Tana Dvei Eliyahu (end of ch. 20), which uses those words in the context of a future generation which will be starving for Torah.
The Beis Yosef continues that the Sidur Rashi protests this wording - should we then only fear Hash-m in private and not in public? The Beis Yosef provides two answers:
1. We mean to pray that we should fear Hash-m even in private.
2. Rav Binyamin, brother of the Beis Yosef, suggests (as you mentioned) that the Tefilah was instituted when it was prohibited by the dominant religion to say Shema, and one could only serve Hash-m in private. That is why this Tefilah is followed by the recitation of Shema, and by the declaration "Blessed is one who sanctifies Hash-m's name publicly"; i.e. we long to say Shema in public.
In either case, as you see the original Girsa was indeed b'Seser, and that is the Girsa which appears in most Nusach Ashkenaz Sidurim today.
(b) The Pri Chadash (OC 46), in order to avoid the question raised by the Sidur Rashi, suggests to emend the text of the Tefilah to read b'Seser K'vGaluy. This indeed is the text which appears today in most Sefardi Sidurim and the Arizal (Sha'ar ha'Kavanos), and it is the text which Rav Chaim Falagi (Kaf ha'Chaim OC 12:26) favors.
(c) The Nusach Sefard Sidurim have the Girsa "U'vgaluy", which is also meant to avoid the question of the Sidur Rashi. This Girsa is introduced in the Seder ha'Yom (Venice 1599 - in the Shabbos prayers). The Chesed l'Avraham (Rav Eliezer Papu, 1835) brings this Girsa noting that today, even in public we don't always demonstrate fear of Hash-m, and therefore we may as well pray for that too. (The problem with this is that we should be saying b'Galuy uv'Saser, like we say on Yom Kipur, since we normally start asking the smaller request and then move on to the bigger one.)
(d) Some Chasidic Sidurim have both texts - "b'Seser uv'Galuy, b'Seser kiv'Galuy", explaining that if a person lives in a place where most people do not keep Mitzvos, he needs encouragement to keep the Mitzvos not only at home, but also in public - whereas if he lives where people do keep Mitzvos, he needs encouragement to keep them even at home! (Ma'amar ha'Lekutos of the Minchas Elazar, #44)
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
For many reasons, I don't think that any copies of the sefer listed in Beis Ekked Seforim, Nefesh Chaya (#593), are still extant. Even if a copy exists in some private collection, I doubt it will have the derashah you seek.
1. There is an international catalogue, called WorldCat. It lists every printed sefer in every major public library in the world (including the National Library in Yerushalayim, the largest seforim library in the world; Harvard University; New York Public Library; Jewish Theological Seminary; Hebrew Union College, and the like). No public library has a copy of Nefesh Chaya (Nadvorna, 1909, 25 pages). Clearly, it was a pamphlet, perhaps unbound, and these are easily lost. It may have been an offprint of an article he published in a Torah journal. If you can identify the journal (Nadvorna is a hint), you may find the essay. And it may have been a hand-copy, never published.
2. The author of Beis Ekked Seforim did not hold in his hand, or see, many of the seforim he lists. He wrote down whatever he saw on some list, or catalogue, or was told. The volumes are filled with errors, and with imaginary printed editions of seforim. The great bibliographers (from 1950 on) do not rely on his works. When you lean on him, you lean on a slender reed.
3. Read carefully the volume of Nefesh Chaya (on Maseches Megillah) that you did see. On p. 5a he states rather clearly that this is the first sefer (of his own) that he has ever published (and it was published in 1910). He mentions other seforim of his such as "Chuddushei on Sefer Zera'im" and "Sefer Ha-Derushim" and "Kuntres Zikhron Yehuda."
None of these have appeared in print. But Nefesh Chaya (Nadvorna) allegedly appeared in print in 1909! Note too that almost no seforim were published in Nadvorna, and none in 1909, so far as anyone knows.
4. He mentions specifically "Derush Khaf" (i.e., number 20). It is hard to believe that in a 25 page sefer there is a drush number 20. So what he means when he says "see my sefer x" is that he plans to publish all these seforim, and make sure you see what he has to say when they are in print. In a 25 page sefer, he wouldn't have gotten beyond Derush 2.
5. I don't doubt for a moment that he wrote all these seforim. And he clearly is influenced by chasidus (see the Zikhron Eleazar that he edited on behalf of his brother), which fits in with the description in Beis Ekked Seforim 593 "bedarkei ha-chasidim." The only question is whether the 25 page sefer was a manuscript, or was it actually printed. If a manuscript, it is not likely that any copies survived. If printed, a copy can always turn up. Will it have the derashah you seek (on the stirah between Megillah and Nida re "be-khol yom) ? Not very likely.
Sorry, I can't really help.
Kol tuv,
Shnayer Leiman
I found that Rav Gad Yudaikin shlit'a (Bnei Brak) in his wonderful work on Agadah, Divrei Shalom (3:33), discusses your question.
He explains that the quote in full obviously included the words "b'Chol Yom". However, the statement was abridged in Megilah. The reason it was abridged has to do with why it was mentioned there at all (since it has nothing to do with the Sugya). The reason it is mentioned there and in the end of Nidah, according to the Maharsha, is in order to encourage people to learn the Halachos of Nidah, including the arduous mathematical calculations of the Veses mid'Oraisa, despite the fact that the Rabanan simplified things tremendously with the Chumra of Rav Zeira (just sit 7 clean days for any drop of blood!). It is important to learn these mid'Oraisa calculations since they are Gufei Torah (Avos 3:18), despite the fact that they are no longer practiced.
The statement "One who learns Halachos is promised a place in Olam ha'Ba" includes one who learns these "obsolete" Halachos as well, and that is the reason that it is cited in Megilah after quoting Rav Zeira's Chumra, and that is why it also appears at the end of Maseches Nidah. It is not necessary to mention anything about learning "every day" in order to get this point across, so those words were omitted and the statement of Tana d'Vei Eliyahu was abridged in Megilah.
Why, then, are those words included at the end of Nidah? This is addressed by Tosfos, who states that the statement of Tana d'Vei Eliyahu was used to end Nidah "in order to end on a positive note" (i.e. the promise of Olam ha'Ba). But this 'positive note' was not used to end every Maseches; it was only used to end Nidah (as the Maharsha points out). The reason for this is that the statement of Tana d'Vei Eliyahu has nothing to do with other Masechtos. However, it does have to do with Nidah (as we mentioned). Tosfos is not asking why the statement was used to end Nidah altogether, since the answer is obvious (as the Maharsha suggested). He must be asking why the entire statement was quoted here, including the words "b'Chol Yom". There must be a second reason for ending with this statement which warrants bringing it in its entirety. This reason is to end the Maseches on a positive note. That is why the words "b'Chol Yom" were included at the end of Nidah!
(Divrei Shalom points out that the Rambam also brings the Tana Dvei Eliyahu in his Nusach ha'Tefilah in the context of Rav Zeira's Chumra - see the Rambam there. Thus, we may conclude that the proper Girsa in the Rambam is that which leaves out the words b'Chol Yom, since there is no point in mentioning that when it is brought exclusively in the context of Rav Zeira's Chumra.)
Best regards,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf