Daf Ditty Eruvin 74: der Shammes

Photo of a shammes in Poland in 1926,

shown knocking on the shutters of a home
summoning men to a shule service

“ikh ken dem shammes un der shammes ken di gantze shtot,

“I know the shammes and the shammes knows the whole town.”

Der shammes shteyt oybn on,

“The shammes stands above everything.”1

1
This is a play on words, since Hebrew shamash, besides meaning a beadle or minor functionary, designates the Hanukkah candle
that, not itself one of the eight lit on the eight nights of the holiday, is used to light the others. In Hanukkah menorahs this candle
is placed above the others, even though it is ritually less important.

1
2
3
4
5
6
Rav Beruna sat and recited this halakha stated by Shmuel, that an alleyway containing one
house and one courtyard can be rendered permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross
beam. Rabbi Elazar, a student of a Torah academy, said to him: Did Shmuel really say this?
Rav Beruna said to him: Yes, he did. He said to him: Show me his lodging and I will go and ask
him myself, and he showed him. Rabbi Elazar came before Shmuel and said to him: Did the
Master actually say this? Shmuel said to him: Yes, I did.

Rabbi Elazar raised the following objection: Wasn’t it the Master himself who said concerning
a different issue: With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, we have only the wording of our mishna.
The mishna states that an alleyway is to its courtyards like a courtyard is to its houses, which
indicates that an alleyway must have at least two courtyards in order to be considered an alleyway
and be rendered permitted for carrying through a side post or cross beam. Shmuel was silent and
did not answer him.

7
The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel’s silence indicate that he accepted Rabbi Elazar’s objection and
retracted his statement, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara attempts to bring a proof
from the following incident. Come and hear: There was a certain alleyway that Ivut bar Ihi
lived in, which contained only one house and one courtyard. He erected a side post for it, and
Shmuel permitted him to carry in it.

Following Shmuel’s death, Rav Anan came and threw the side post down, thus indicating to Ivut
bar Ihi that it is prohibited to carry in the alleyway, as a side post is effective only for an alleyway
that has at least two courtyards containing at least two houses each. Ivut bar Ihi said with
resentment: The alleyway in which I have been living and walking based on a ruling in the
name of Master Shmuel, shall Rav Anan bar Rav come now and throw its side post away from
me? The Gemara comments: Learn from the fact that this side post remained intact throughout
Shmuel’s lifetime that he did not accept Rabbi Elazar’s objection.

8
The Gemara rejects this proof. Actually, you can say that Shmuel accepted Rabbi Elazar’s
objection and retracted his opinion, and here there was a synagogue attendant [ḥazzana] who
would eat bread in his own house that was located elsewhere, but would come and sleep in the
synagogue, which was open to the alleyway.

And Ivut bar Ihi holds that the place where a person eats his bread determines his place of
residence.

Therefore, he did not consider the synagogue a residence, as the attendant would eat elsewhere,
and Ivut bar Ihi thought that Shmuel had permitted him to set up a side post for his alleyway even
though he lived there by himself.

In fact, however, this was not the case, as Shmuel followed his regular line of reasoning, as he
said: The place where a person sleeps determines his place of residence.

Since the attendant would sleep in the synagogue, it was considered a residence. Consequently,
the alleyway contained two houses and courtyards, and could be made permitted for carrying by
means of a side post or a cross beam.

9
10
11
Summary

Rav: A Korah or Lechi cannot permit carrying in a Mavoy unless there are houses and
Chatzeros opening into the Mavoy.

Shmuel argues and says that even if there is only one house and one Chatzer opening into a
Mavoy, a Korah or Lechi permits carrying in the Mavoy.

Rav Yosef explains Rebbi Yochanan's statement that carrying in a Mavoy can be permitted with
a Korah or Lechi even if it contains a ruin.

Rebbi Yochanan specifically refers to a Mavoy that contains a ruin that is suitable to be used as
a house, as opposed to a Mavoy that contains only a vineyard.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

It was stated above: Rav said: One cannot carry in a mavoi that has been adjusted with a korah or
a lechi unless the mavoi has courtyards and houses opening into it. [The mavoi must function as a
thoroughfare for people residing in the mavoi in at least two courtyards that contain two houses.]

Shmuel said: Even one house (without a courtyard) and one courtyard (without two houses)
suffice. Rabbi Yochanan maintains: Even a ruin (on one side of the mavoi and on the other side
was a courtyard with one house in it) is sufficient.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Rabbi Yochanan maintain his view even in the case of a path
between a vineyard (instead of the ruin)? Rav Yosef replied; Rabbi Yochanan spoke only of a ruin
since it may be used as a dwelling, but not of a path between a vineyard, which cannot be used as
a dwelling.

Rav Huna bar Chinena said: Rabbi Yochanan here (in allowing the use of a mavoi to become
unrestricted by means of a lechi or korah if there was a ruin in that mavoi instead of a second
courtyard with a house) follows a principle of his, for we learned in a Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon said: Roofs, enclosures and courtyards are all one domain in respect of utensils
which rested in them (from the beginning of Shabbos; for then, they may be carried from one to
the other – even without an eiruv), but not in respect of utensils which rested in the house (from
the beginning of Shabbos; for then, they may not be carried into the courtyard without an eiruv);

and Rav stated that the halachah is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, provided no eiruv had been
prepared (for in such a case, since its tenants are forbidden to carry any objects from their houses
into their courtyard, no objects that were in the houses when the Shabbos commenced could be
found in the courtyard; therefore there is no need to provide against the possibility that the tenants
might, by mistake, carry any such objects into some other courtyard), but where an eiruv had been

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Eiruvin_74.pdf

12
prepared (so that the tenants of each courtyard were thereby permitted to carry objects into their
courtyards from their houses), a preventive measure had been enacted against the possibility of
carrying objects from the houses of one courtyard into some other courtyard.

And Shmuel stated: Whether an eiruv had, or had not been prepared (the halachah is in either case
in accordance with R’ Shimon).

And likewise, Rabbi Yochanan said: The halachah is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,
irrespective of whether an eiruv had, or had not been prepared.

The Gemora concludes: Thus it is evident that no preventive measure had been instituted against
the possibility of carrying objects from the houses of one courtyard into some other courtyard, and
so also here (where there was a ruin in the mavoi), no preventive measure had been instituted
against the possibility of carrying objects from the courtyard into the ruin.

[Although the ruin belongs to some owner, it constitutes a domain of its own - into which no objects
from the mavoi may be carried. Since a ruin is excluded from the category of dwelling-places, it
does not affect the use of an mavoi by the tenants of its courtyards and does not join in its shituf.]

Rabbi Beruna was sitting at his studies and reporting this ruling when Rabbi Elozar said to him:
Student of the Yeshiva! Did Shmuel say this? Rabbi Beruna replied: Yes. Rabbi Elozar said to
him: Show me his lodgings. Rabbi Beruna showed it to him.

Rabbi Elozar approached Shmuel and asked him: Did the master say this? Shmuel replied: Yes.
Rabbi Elozar objected: But didn’t the master state that in the laws of eiruvin, we can only be guided
(in establishing leniencies) by the wording of our Mishna, and it states that a mavoi to its courtyards
(emphasizing the plural form) is as a courtyard to its houses (so how can you rule that even one
courtyard may grant a mavoi status)? Shmuel remained silent.

The Gemora inquires: Did he, or did he not accept it front him?

The Gemora attempts to resolve this from the case of a certain mavoi in which Ivus bar Ihi lived.
He furnished it with a lechi, and Shmuel allowed him to carry in it. Rav Anan (after Shmuel’s
death) subsequently came and threw it (the lechi) down (because the mavoi contained only one
courtyard and one house).

Ivus exclaimed: I have been living undisturbed in this mavoi under the direction of Shmuel; why
should Rav Anan bar Rav now come and throw it (the lechi) down? The Gemora notes: May it not
then be deduced from this that he (Shmuel) did not accept it from him?

The Gemora rejects the proof: Actually, it may still be maintained that he did accept it from him,
but in this case, a Synagogue sexton who was having his meals in his own home came to sleep at
the Synagogue (whose door opened into that mavoi). [He was, therefore, regarded by Shmuel, as
a resident.

13
After Shmuel’s death, however, the sexton discontinued that practice and the Synagogue was
entirely unoccupied at night. That is why Rav Anan took down the lechi.]

The Gemora notes: Ivus bar Ihi thought that one’s dining place is the cause (regarding the laws
of eiruv, and therefore, as the sexton only slept in the mavoi but dined elsewhere, he could not be
regarded as one of its occupants; he, therefore, gained the impression that Shmuel acknowledged
the validity of his lechi on the ground that one house and one courtyard suffice to constitute a
mavoi), while Shmuel (in reality) was merely following his own reasoning that one’s lodging place
is the cause (for the eiruv).

[The Synagogue, since its sexton lodged in it at night, could therefore be regarded as an inhabited
courtyard, so that together with the courtyard of Ivus bar Ihi, the mavoi actually had two
courtyards and it can be permitted to carry in it by means of a lechi even according to Rav.]

Sefer Yad Shaul (Vol. 2, Yoreh De’ah, #286:3) discusses whether it would be required to place a
mezuzah upon the door of a shul if there is an apartment situated in the shul.

Our Daf tries to clarify the view of Shmuel, and whether he allows carrying in a mavoi (by placing
a lechi/pole in it) only if it has two chatzeiros open to it (with two houses open to each), or whether
he allows this even if the chatzeiros have only single dwellings open to them.3

The Gemara brings a story of a chatzer where Ivus bar Ihi lived, and it was open to a mavoi which
had only one other chatzer open to it. That chatzer had a synagogue in it, and that synagogue had
an apartment in it, which was occupied.

Shmuel had authorized that the mavoi could be fixed with a lechi/pole. This seems to prove that
Shmuel allows a mavoi to have even a single occupant and to eligible for a lechi. However, the
Gemara notes that there was a sexton of the synagogue who ate at his own home, but then came to
sleep in the shul.

After the death of Shmuel, the sexton no longer came to sleep in the shul. Ivus bar Ihi felt that
the residence of a person is determined by where he eats, and therefore the attendant of the shul
who only slept there was never a factor in the residence of the chatzer of the shul.

With his now being absent, nothing had changed, and the mavoi with its lechi should have still
been valid. Rav Anan came and dismantled the lechi. He knew that Shmuel held that one’s

3
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin%20074.pdf

14
residence in a chatzer is a function of where one sleeps (see 73a), and that Shmuel had only
permitted the mavoi to be fixed with a lechi was due to the chatzer having two residents, the
occupant of the apartment and the sexton, who slept there.

Now that the sexton no longer slept there, the mavoi could no longer be used for carrying. What
caused Ivus to misunderstand and think that where one eats determines his residence?

Perhaps we can say that the shamash not only cleaned and maintained the shul, but he also served
as a guard, and it was therefore necessary for him to stay overnight in the shul. If the shamash
could sleep in the shul in order to guard it properly, this would also allow him to eat there, as well.
We could not expect him to stay there for extended hours without eating.

The Gemara (73a) taught that shepherds who sleep out in the fields with their flocks are to have
their eruv measured from the field, and not from the city, where they sometimes go to eat. Yet, this
did not prove that an eruv is measured from where one sleeps, because although these shepherds
eat in the city, we know that they would certainly prefer if the food would be brought out to them
in the field. Therefore, the field is not only considered the place where they sleep, but it is
considered the place where they eat, as well.

Similarly, even in our case where the shamash of the shul slept in the shul and ate at home, the
shul could be defined as the place where he eats as well, because we know that this person would
prefer to eat where he guards, and not be bothered to go home to eat.

This being the case, why was Ivus wrong? We must say that we do not consider a place to be an
eating station unless one actually eats there, and we do not rely upon the fact that the person would
prefer to have his food brought to where he is working.

Although this is the way we looked upon the shepherds on 73a, here by a shul it is different. It is
generally unacceptable to eat in a shul, and it is especially inappropriate to eat bread and to have
an official meal in a Beis HaKnesses.

Rav Anan, however, knew that Shmuel had allowed the eruv due to the sleeping arrangements of
the shamash, and now that the shamash no longer slept in the shul, Rav Anan dismantled the lechi
and the eruv. The shamash was no longer a member of the chatzer, for he did not sleep or eat there
anymore.

15
 THE TYPE OF MAVOY IN WHICH CARRYING MAY BE
PERMITTED
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

In order to permit one to carry in a Mavoy (with a Lechi or Korah, and with Shituf Mavo'os), Rav
requires that at least two houses in two Chatzeros open into the Mavoy. Shmuel says that it suffices
to have one house in one Chatzer that opens into the Mavoy, with one other house that opens
directly into the Mavoy without a Chatzer. Rebbi Yochanan adds that the other house that opens
into the Mavoy may even be an uninhabited Churvah (a ruin).

What is the Halachah?

TOSFOS to 12b, DH u'Batim; ROSH 6:20; see BEIS YOSEF OC 363 rule like Rav, because
Rav Nachman earlier (12b) follows his opinion. Even though there is a general rule that in the
laws of Eruvin, the Halachah follows the lenient opinion (and Rav's opinion is the more stringent
one here), this rule applies only when Tana'im argue, but not when Amora'im argue. Furthermore,
the Gemara later (74b) says that Shmuel himself accepted Rav's opinion.
However, RABEINU CHANANEL rules like Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan because of the rule
that in the laws of Eruvin, the Halachah follows the lenient opinion.

RAMBAM Hil Shabbat 17:8

A courtyard the length of which is more than its width is surely like an alley; so it is permitted with
a [single] post or a beam. But an alley into which houses and courtyards do not open, such as if
there is only one house or one courtyard on it; and likewise an alley the length of which is not
[minimally] four ells—is only made permissible with two posts or a board of four [handbreadths]
and a bit.

RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 17:8) writes that the Mavoy must have more than one house and
more than one Chatzer (see also RASHI to 12b, who also says that a Mavoy needs two Chatzeros
with one house in each Chatzer, or a total of two houses).

4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-074.htm

16
MAGID MISHNEH explains that the Rambam understands Rav to mean that it is necessary to
have two Chatzeros that open into the Mavoy, and two houses that open into the Mavoy. The
houses need not open into the Chatzeros.

HALACHAH: The Poskim (see SHULCHAN ARUCH OC 383:26) rule in accordance with most
of the Rishonim, that a Mavoy requires two houses in two Chatzeros in order to for one to be
permitted to carry in it/

Defining an Alleyway

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

Our Daf is interested in clarifying the definitions of some of the terms that it uses in describing
the courtyards that need eiruvin and the relationships that exist between them. Generally speaking,
a mavoy is the closed alleyway into which a number of hatzeirot – courtyards – open. As we have
learned, the residents of the courtyards can arrange to carry by placing a symbolic board at the
entrance to the mavoy (see 2a-b).

According to Rav, this is only the case if a number of courtyards open into the mavoy (that is to
say, the mavoy must have at least two courtyards opening into it, and each courtyard needs at least
two houses in it), but Shmuel rules that as long as one hatzer and one house opens into the closed
area, it is considered a mavoy.

Rav Beruna sat and recited this halakha stated by Shmuel, that an alleyway containing one house
and one courtyard can be rendered permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross
beam. Rabbi Elazar, a student of a Torah academy, said to him: Did Shmuel really say this? Rav
Beruna said to him: Yes, he did. He said to him: Show me his lodging and I will go and ask him
myself, and he showed him.

Rabbi Elazar came before Shmuel and said to him: Did the Master actually say
this? Shmuel said to him: Yes, I did. Rabbi Elazar raised the following objection: Wasn’t it the
Master himself who said concerning a different issue:

With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, we have only the wording of our mishna. The mishna
states that an alleyway is to its courtyards like a courtyard is to its houses, which indicates that
an alleyway must have at least two courtyards in order to be considered an alleyway and be
rendered permitted for carrying through a side post or cross beam. Shmuel was silent and did not
answer him.

Shmuel’s silence is not unique in the Gemara; we find many instances where one of the Sages does
not respond to a question posed to him. How to interpret the lack of response, though, is not clear.

5
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/eiruvin74/

17
It could be that the Sage does not have an answer to the question, but it could also be that the Sage
does not think that the question is a good one, and feels that it does not deserve a response. Some
suggest that every question needs to be evaluated according to the relationship between the people
involved. Tosafot suggest that if a student asks the question, the silence may simply indicate a
rejection of the question.

If a peer asks the question, it likely shows that he had no answer. Nevertheless, even if the Sage
has no answer to the question, it does not prove that he is retracting his opinion. The question may
not be of great importance (in this case, for example, Shmuel may retain his belief that
the mavoy does not need two hatzeirot opening into it, and will back away from his general
statement about how to read Mishnayot in this tractate), and not strong enough to reject
the halakha.

Our Daf discusses the case of a Beis HaKnesses that opens to a mavoi. The halachah is that a
mavoi could be adjusted with a lechi or korah only if there are houses and chatzeiros that open to
the mavoi and the question is whether a Beis HaKnesses is considered a house for this purpose.

Rema writes that the ancient custom was to place the eruv in
the Beis HaKnesses. He suggested that the rationale behind this position is that our eruv in reality
is a shituf and for that reason it is unnecessary for it to be placed in a residential building and may
be stored even in a non-residential area such as a chatzer, and a Beis HaKnesses has the status of
a chatzer.

Mishnah Berurah explains that Rema is troubled by the custom to place

the eruv in the Beis HaKnesses when the eruv must be placed in a residential building, meaning a
place where people eat and due to its sanctity it is prohibited to eat in a Beis HaKnesses and thus
it is not a residential building. In response to this concern,

Rema explains that the custom could be justified by the fact that our “eruv” is in reality a shituf
for a mavoi since it combines numerous houses and yards and a shituf does not have to be placed
in a residential structure, just a place where the food will be protected.

Bach challenges this rationale based on the following logic. If our eruv
serves the dual role of a shituf and an eruv the requirement that it should be stored in a residential
building should apply and it should not be acceptable for it to be stored in the Beis HaKnesses.

He answers that in reality our eruv does serve as the eruv and shituf but the decision was to store
it in the Beis HaKnesses since there are authorities who maintain that just like an eruv must be
stored in a residential building, so too a shituf must be in a non-residential building.

18
Being that it cannot satisfy both needs fully it was decided that it should be placed in the Beis
HaKnesses. One of the reasons is that we no longer have houses that lead to chatzeiros that lead to
a mavoi. Since our houses lead to the mavoi directly it makes more sense to satisfy the mavoi
obligation of making a valid shituf than to make an eruv and thus it is preferred to leave the food
in the Beis HaKnesses.

Mystery of the Movuy

Rabbi Mendel Weinbach zt'l writes:6

Carrying in a movuy (a walled inner street into which courtyards pour and which leads to a public
thoroughfare) is permitted only if a lechi (pole) or koreh (beam) is placed at its entrance to remind
the residents of the courtyards not to carry into the reshut harabim (public thoroughfare).

Whether this arrangement is valid only if there are at least two courtyards with two houses in each
was initially a matter of dispute between the Sages Rav and Shmuel.

The latter once gave a man named Eivos bar Echi approval for putting up a lechi for the movuy in
which his was the only courtyard leading into it. After Shmuel passed away, Rabbi Anan came
along and removed the lechi to the great wonder of Eivos who had relied on the ruling of Shmuel.

The first assumption of the gemara is that Shmuel had approved the lechi of Eivos in accordance
with his own halachic position that a lechi could be effective in a movuy which had only one house
with a courtyard plus a house without a courtyard leading into it.

Since this was contrary to the position of Rav that two courtyards with two houses in them were
necessary for a lechi to be effective, Rabbi Anan removed the lechi after Shmuel was no longer
around to be offended.

This assumption is challenged by the gemara by offering a totally different scenario. There is an
earlier account of a Sage challenging Shmuel by presenting a contradiction in his rulings. It can
then be assumed that Shmuel retracted his position and conceded to Rav that two courtyards
leading into the movuy were necessary. He nevertheless approved the lechi of Eivos because there
was a synagogue which had a courtyard leading to the same movuy in which the sexton would
sleep at night, although he ate his meals in his home somewhere else.

6
https://ohr.edu/this_week/talmud_tips/2426

19
Since Shmuels position was that the place of sleeping was the decisive factor in determining
residence in regard to eiruv, he considered the synagogue and its courtyard as fulfilling the
requirements of the position of Rav to which he had conceded.

After Shmuels passing the sexton ceased sleeping in the synagogue so that it and its courtyard no
longer constituted a residence to qualify the movuy for a lechi. This is why Rabbi Anan removed
the lechi.

Shammes & shamus –!!

Rabbi Raymond Apple writes:7

Is there any connection between a shammes and a shamus?

A. A shammes (or shammas) is an official acting as the beadle, sexton, and caretaker of a
synagogue (from the Hebrew shammash, “to serve”).

What my dictionary says about shamus is “US slang: a police or private detective, probably
from shammes, influenced by Irish Seamas, James”.

The origins of the shammes go back to Talmudic times. In those days his title was chazan, which
did not denote a cantor but a synagogue overseer.

He was a versatile individual with responsibility for the synagogue building, the conduct of
services, the allocation of seats, the supervision (and sometimes teaching) of children, and even
acting as court official and sheriff.

In time the offices of chazan and shammes were separated. The chazan chanted the services;
the shammes became the general factotum whose duties ran from community administration to
announcing lost property and proclaiming the results of law suits.

In old Anglo-Jewry, the beadle was regarded by some as a lowly servant, but this was far from the
case in terms of his own self-estimation.

In his own eyes, the beadle, with his top hat and robe and in some cases real livery and staff of
office, was the real ruler of the synagogue. The wardens and ministers came much lower down
and could not move an inch without his approval.

7
https://www.oztorah.com/2008/02/shammes-shamus-ask-the-rabbi/#.X5DHX0Izb_Q

20
Even if the dictionary is right and the shamus derived from the shammes, there is a major
difference between them in that the shammes would and could never leave the public gaze and go
under cover.

‫וְַא ְיבוּת ַבּר ִאיִהי‬

A sexton is an officer of a church, congregation, or synagogue charged with the maintenance of

its buildings and/or the surrounding graveyard. In smaller places of worship, this office is often
combined with that of verger. In larger buildings, such as cathedrals, a team of sextons may be
employed.

Historically in North America and the United Kingdom the "sexton" was sometimes a minor
municipal official responsible for overseeing the town graveyard. In the United Kingdom the
position still exists today, related to management of the community's graveyard, and the sexton is
usually employed by the town/parish or community council.
The words "sexton" and "sacristan" both derive from the Medieval
Latin word sacristanus meaning "custodian of sacred objects". "Sexton" represents the popular
development of the word via the Old French "Segrestein".

It is also referred to in Greek as neokoros

Parnas
par·nas
variants: or parnass \ pärˈnäs , ˈ⸗ˌ⸗ \
plural parnasim or parnassim\ ˌ⸗ˌnäˈsēm , -sim \

Definition of parnas: the chief administrative officer of a Jewish congregation

Gabbai
.
A gabbai (Hebrew: ‫)גבאי‬, also known as shamash (‫שמש‬, sometimes spelled shamas)
or parnas or warden (UK, similar to churchwarden) is a beadle or sexton, a person who assists in
the running of synagogue services in some way.

The role may be undertaken on a voluntary or paid basis. A shamash (literally 'servant')
or gabbai can also mean an assistant to a rabbi (particularly the secretary or personal assistant to
a Hassidic rebbe).

21
The word gabbai is Aramaic and, in Talmudic times, meant "collector of taxes or charity" or
"treasurer".
The term shamash is sometimes used for the gabbai, the caretaker or "man of all work" in a
synagogue.
The synonym parnas (‫ַפּ ְרָנס‬, also spelt parnass; plural parnasim or parnassim) is from parnās,
originally literally "manager".

In translating Agnon Alan Mintz (my thesis advisor) wrote of the difficulty in translating Hebrew
words like Shamash:8

“Our first item of editorial business, therefore, was to establish a stylesheet for the romanization
of Hebrew and Yiddish, which aimed to achieve a sleek, modern look as unobtrusive as possible.
We chose to de-hyphenate Hebrew (not me-ha-Tanakh as catalogers do, but mehatanakh, as
Hebrew does) and to de-italicize those culturally specific terms that were indispensable for Judaic
discourse.

“There were many Hebrew terms that were often translated awkwardly,” as Alan would later note
when he explained the method adopted by his team of translators for the great Agnon project that
he spearheaded.

8
Alan Mintz:: A Prophet in His City. Roskies, David G. Prooftexts. 2019, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p397-419.

22
9

THE MISSING RABBI10

The congregation, assembled in the synagogue for the Kol Nidre service scheduled to begin

before sunset, waited impatiently for the arrival of their rabbi, Israel Lipkin Salanter. The sun

9
Ronald Eisenberg:Dictionary of Jewish Terms : A Guide to the Language of Judaism, 2011 Schreiber Publishing Rockville MD
10
© 1971 by The Jewish Publication Society of America, VII Hassidic Tales

23
had already set over the treetops. The Jews were bewildered, for their saintly rabbi always came

to the synagogue very early on the eve of the holiest night in the year.

Fearing that some tragedy might have befallen the rabbi, the congregants left the house of

worship and sought to locate him.

Rabbi Israel was not found in his home. The streets and alleys were searched in vain. About to

give up hope of locating the rabbi, the sexton noticed a light in the window of a shack, and he

peered inside. To his amazement, he saw the saintly sage seated by the side of a cradle, rocking it

gently.

Entering the shack, the sexton angrily exclaimed:

“Rabbi, the entire congregation is looking for you. The time for beginning the Kol Nidre service

is already past. What are you doing here?”

Motioning silence from the sexton, the rabbi softly rejoined:

“On my way to the synagogue long before sunset, I passed this house and heard a baby crying.

Receiving no reply when I knocked, I entered and saw the baby was alone. Since the infant’s

mother had evidently gone to the synagogue, I remained here to rock the baby to sleep and watch

over him.”

24
 S.Y.Agnon

Aryeh Wineman writes11

In more than one of his works, the twentieth-century Hebrew author, Shmuel Yosef Agnon,
expressed a sense of kinship with Hassidut Ashkenaz::., the pietist upsurge in the Rhineland during
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which produced, as the central work of its literary legacy, Seper
hasidim ("The Book of the Pious"). In his work, "Hadom v~lcisse,"- for example, the narrator,
who can be closely identified with Agnon himself, states that his soul was attracted to the
generation of the hasidim of Ashkenaz for their wholeness and righteousness and faith, even

11
AGNON'S USE OF NARRATIVE-MOTIFS FROM SEfER lfASIDIM: https://library.osu.edu/projects/hebrew-
lexicon/02005_files/02005344.pdf

25
though it did not elect to descend to the world in their era "due to the distance in time from the
generation of the Messiah."

Though the narrator is saddened by not having chosen to be part of the generation of the pietists
of Ashkenaz he adds:

Agnon' s relationship to Seper hasidim (hereafter S. H.) involves also his use of narrative-motifs
from that work in certain of his stories and novels. Some of these I will attempt to examine in this
study. In the early decades of his writing, Agnon drew upon motifs from S.H. in two of his short
stories, while in each case remolding the basic story-type in ways which merit attention and
analysis.

While building upon the pattern of the paradoxical story which praises the ka1Tana of the simple,
unlearned Jew, the tale of Ezriel Moshe, at the same time, extols intellectual qualities as all the
hero's love is directed toward the world of learning. Agnon' s achievement in this tale was to
transform the pattern of the paradoxical story into a story which emphasizes, in the same work,
two seemingly contradictory values. Let us tum to another type of story in S. H. In both printed
editions we find the following:

Y. Levinsky (1973, p. 152), who traced the motif of the prayer of the dead at night in Jewish
folklore, mentions that this story from S. H. marks the first explicit appearance of the motif in
Jewish literature.

Agnon's short story, "Yatom V 'almana" ("Orphan and widow"), closely reflects the complex of
elements found in this little story. In "Yatom V 'almana" we read of a sickly boy who went to the
synagogue to recite the qaddis on the anniversary of his father's death.

When he returned to the synagogue the following evening to hear a cantor and choir on the evening
of the Sabbath, the orphan remained in the synagogue after the sexton had locked the door and the
boy's father, who was among the dead who gathered there to pray, gave him a ta/lit (prayer shawl).

When the mother, in searching for her son who had not returned home following the service,
looked through the keyhole in the door and saw her son among the dead, she understood that he

26
was being taken from among the living. The macabre and the supernatural break in at the end upon
what is, until that point, a realistic story. If Agnon constructed "Ya tom V'almana" upon this
narrative-motif from S.H .. he added nuances not found at all in the source, e.g. the call of death
serves as a comment upon life.

The story includes questions such as, ''Why does [the dead father] not recommend good for them
[the boy and his widowed mother]? Can it be that he doesn't see how she struggles together with
his orphan-son?" (Agnon, l953d, p. 166).

And further on, the mother says," .. let him go to the synagogue and say qaddis, perhaps his father
will see and he will awaken mercy for him" (p. 169).

Irony marks the story in that while the dead father sees the distress of his family and their
difficulties in holding body and soul together, his concern for his son, it turns out, is expressed in
the unexpected act of drawing him into the world of the dead.

The conclusion of "Yatom V'almana" is a crescendo of the mother's feelings about death
undergoing a sudden change. When the mother first sees her son praying together with the dead in
the locked synagogue, she intuitively regards death as a thing of dread and is severely agitated.

A turning point then occurs with her realization that death can be positive in character and so "the
heart of that woman became filled with joy" (p. 169), and then the story goes still further to identify
death with redemption.

The last words in the story are taken from the synagogal chant "L’cha dodi" ("draw near to my
soul, redeem it").

Paradoxically, in the story, it is death which redeems man from his intolerable lot in life.

Philologus writes:12

One never knows where one will find a Jewish linguistic question answered. It can even be in an
old Humphrey Bogart movie.

The movie I was watching on TV the other night was “The Big Sleep, “starring Bogart and Lauren
Bacall. Made in 1946, it was directed by Howard Hawks and its highly entertaining screenplay has
the distinction of having been adapted from a Raymond Chandler novel by an even better-known
American writer — William Faulkner. In it, Bogart plays detective Philip Marlowe, who is asked
by wealthy and retired invalid General Sternwood to deal with the attempted blackmail of his
dissolute young daughter, Carmen. Asked by her at their first meeting what he does, Bogart replies:
“I’m a shamus” — and when Carmen is mystified, he explains: “A private eye.”

12
https://forward.com/articles/5064/bogie-speaks-yiddish/

27
I’ve often wondered about the derivation of “shamus.” Some dictionaries say it is the Yiddish
word shammes, from the Hebrew shamash, meaning a synagogue beadle, while others point to the
Irish name Séamus or present both possibilities. In favor of Séamus is the fact that shamus is
commonly pronounced “SHAY-mus,” like the Irish name. The Yiddish word, on the other hand,
is pronounced “SHAH-mus.” There are dictionaries that give both “shaymus” and “shahmus” and
dictionaries that give only “shaymus.”

Humphrey Bogart, however, tells Carmen Sternwood, “I’m a shamus” – and the word occurs twice
more in “The Big Sleep “with the Yiddish rather than the Irish pronunciation. Since Faulkner,
Hawks and Bogart all were non-Jews, one can’t suspect them of favoring “shahmes” for that
reason. Apparently, then, in the mid-1940s this was the way that — if you knew the word at all —
you said it, even though the spelling of “shamus” would incline you to say it the Irish way.

This makes it quite likely that the Yiddish derivation of “shamus” is the correct one. But why
would a Yiddish word for a synagogue beadle become American slang for a detective?

Two Yiddish sayings provide the answer to this question. One goes, ikh ken dem shammes un der
shammes ken di gantze shtot, “I know the shammes and the shammes knows the whole town.” In
his collection of proverbs, “Yiddishe Shprikhverter,”the folklorist Ignacy Bernstein explains that
this comes from a story about a Jew who, in this manner, answered a stranger wanting to know if
he was acquainted with a certain person in his town. It was enough, said the Jew, to know
the shammes, because the shammes knew everyone else.

The second saying in Bernstein’s collection is Der shammes shteyt oybn on, “The shammes stands
above everything.” This is a play on words, since Hebrew shamash, besides meaning a beadle or
minor functionary, designates the Hanukkah candle that, not itself one of the eight lit on the eight
nights of the holiday, is used to light the others. In Hanukkah menorahs this candle is placed above
the others, even though it is ritually less important — and so, Bernstein writes, the saying is a
jocular reference to “the synagogue whose leading Jews are not actively involved in the running
of it, leaving the shammes as its most influential person.” This is akin to the well-known maxim
that if you are looking for useful connections in a business, don’t befriend the boss — befriend his
secretary.

The shammes in an Eastern European synagogue indeed had to know everyone in town. To begin
with, he had to know where everyone lived, since it was his job, in the month of selikhes (the
middle-of-the-night penitential prayers before the High Holy Days), to knock on each Jew’s door
and rouse him for the service. And it was his job to know each Jew’s name and father’s name so
that he might be called up correctly to the Torah; to know who was getting married, had given
birth, was ill, or had recovered from an illness or escaped danger, so that the appropriate blessing
might be made for him or her; and even to know what each family’s economic situation was so
that he might advise the synagogue’s parnosim, its officials, how big an annual contribution to
expect.

The shammes was in a sense the “private eye” of the shtetl: If you wanted to know something
about somebody, he was the logical person to ask. It was natural, therefore, for Jewish immigrants
to America, encountering professional sleuths for the first time, to jokingly call them that, and

28
from there the word spread to non-Jews. And why did the pronunciation of “shay-mus” eventually
triumph? Perhaps, indeed, because of the spelling. Perhaps, too, because the Irish, who made up a
high percentage of the police force in large American cities like New York and therefore dealt all
the time with detectives, associated shamus with Séamus. This is the logical conclusion of Harold
Wentworth and Stuart Berg Flexner’s 1960 Dictionary of American Slang, which observes that
the “most common” pronunciation of shamus “rhymes with Thomas but that the Irish of New York
City pronounce it ‘shay-mus.’” In the end, the Irish won out. “The Big Sleep,” though, is evidence
that the Jews were there first.

Shamash
GEORGE E. JOHNSON writes13

In the 1946 film The Big Sleep, based on the Raymond Chandler mystery of the same name,
Carmen—the promiscuous, drug-addicted younger sister of Lauren Bacall’s character—sizes up
Philip Marlowe, played by Humphrey Bogart, and asks him, “What are you, a prizefighter?”
Bogart responds, “No, I’m a shamus.” “What’s a shamus?” she inquires. “It’s a private
detective,” he answers.

13
https://momentmag.com/jewish-word-shamash/

29
Yes, Bogart is using the Yiddish version—more popularly spelled “shammes”—of the Hebrew
word, “shamash.” But how did a Yiddish word for the ninth candle on a Hanukkah menorah turn
into a term for “private detective”?

Shamash wasn’t originally a Hanukkah word. It first appears in the Mishnah (c. 200 C.E.) and
Talmud (c. 500 C.E.) to describe a person who is a “helper,” “servant,” “assistant” or
“functionary.” The festival of Hanukkah was celebrated for more than 1,000 years before the word
became associated with it. The first written mention of a shamash light to kindle the other candles
of the menorah appeared in the 16th century. Joseph Karo’s Code of Jewish Law, the Shulchan
Aruch, stated that “One should place it [the shamash] at a distance somewhat from the other lights
which serve for the mitzvah.” In other words, the service light was placed next to, not attached to,
the menorah. Over time, the role of the shamash as “helper” or “service” candle became as much
a part of the menorah as its “holy” counterparts.

By the 13th century, the word’s general meaning as a helper or functionary had come to be applied
to a synagogue sexton or beadle, according to Israel Abrahams, a British rabbinics scholar at the
turn of the 20th century, in his seminal book, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages.

Some of his tasks were indeed servant-like or ministerial, such as handing out candles to students
studying in the evenings in the synagogue study hall, blowing the shofar to announce the coming
of Shabbat, knocking on doors to call people to the synagogue—the schulklopfler (literally
“synagogue knocker”). However, the shamash was not a lowly position.

He played two critically important functions in the Eastern European synagogue, says Jeffrey Saks,
who has edited and translated many of Nobel Prize-winner S.Y. Agnon’s Hebrew short stories,
including a tale about a Galician shamash, “Until Elijah Comes.”

First, while the rabbi was the community’s “holy man,” making halachic decisions and
pronouncements about what “should be,” it was the shamash who “saw things as they really are
and got things done,” whether they pertained to money matters, implementing policy or resolving
personal conflicts—combining functions that today are performed by two synagogue officers, the
president and the executive director, Saks observes. In addition, he notes, the shamash was the
rabbi’s “eyes and ears” in the community, alerting the rabbi about people “falling through the
cracks,” a poor soul needing a Sabbath meal or a bride in need of a chuppah.

It’s this meaning of shamash that likely led to its use as a word for detective. Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary suggests that the connection comes “from a jocular suggestion of
similarity between the duties of a sexton and those of a house detective in a department store.”
However, there is another possible reason why shamus and detective are linked.
The 1961 Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English suggested that the word’s derivation
came from the popular Irish name Seamus. The plethora of Irish cops earned them the nickname
Seamus, and it later morphed into a term for police detective or simply detective.

Sarah Bunin Benor, author of the Jewish English Lexicon website and professor of contemporary
Jewish studies at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, thinks it’s likely that both

30
the Irish and Yiddish words influenced this use. She notes that a detective story called “The
Shamus” was published in 1920, and the term was in common use in the 1920s and 1930s.
Raymond Chandler’s novel, The Big Sleep, was published in 1939.

Bogart’s shamus did follow the Yiddish pronunciation (like “promise”), while the 1973
comedy Shamus starring Burt Reynolds pronounced it like the Irish name “Seamus” (“shay-mus”)
as does the private eye in the 1998 cult favorite The Big Lebowski.

As recently as 2007, the Yiddish pronunciation made somewhat of a comeback in Michael

Chabon’s novel, The Yiddish Policemen’s Union. The novel’s main character, Meyer Landsman,
is a jaded homicide detective and “the most decorated shammes in the District of Sitka,” the
Yiddish-speaking Alaskan Jewish homeland. However pronounced or spelled, the word is being
used less and less to refer to a sexton or a detective. Fortunately, it shines once a year in the
Hanukkah menorah.

31