I didn't know they are even allowed to mention the Dead Sea Scrolls in Yated Ne'eman

Normally I stay above the fray. Sniff. But this seemed post-worthy.

The Faithful Peg printed an article, which can be read here, about quasi-rabbinic ordination of women and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. This is their second extensive treatment of YCT, both written by someone called Yisroel Lichter (who, evidently, is a bit of a maven in J-blogs).

A part jumped out and bears highlighting:

This is perhaps why we continue to find so many serious breaches in the so called “scholarship” of YCT.

For example, YCT published a companion to Sefer Shmuel in which one contributor posits that our version of Sefer Shmuel is corrupt. He bases his opinion on a study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Obviously this is outright kefirah.

This refers to the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Tanakh Companion on the Book of Samuel. As only one article in the book mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls, "The Nachash Story and the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Leeor Gottlieb, this is the place to look. Fortunately the entire article is viewable on Google Books, pg 57-77 (you can search for a word like "sea" in the book and pop right to it). Or you can buy it from its publisher, Ben Yehuda Press.

What does Leeor Gottlieb write about that relates to what Yisroel Lichter wrote? Here I will only reproduce the conclusion of the article, but a little summary first. He discusses a problematic text, compares it with the Septuagint text of Samuel which does not contain the problem because it is a little more expansive. He then refers to a fragment of a Hebrew text found at Qumran which does not read like our text, the massoretic, but agrees with the expanded version of the Septuagint. He then concludes:

You can read the whole article yourself. I ask, is this "outright kefirah"? What do you think, Inquisitive reader?

How did R. Ya'akov Kamenetzky acquire his proficiency in Hebrew language, grammar and trope?

From books, of course, at least initially.

Here is an interesting excerpt from his son's Making of a Godol:


Chaim Zvi Lerner (1815-1889)

By : Herman Rosenthal Max Rosenthal

Russian grammarian and teacher of Hebrew; born at Dubno 1815; died at Jitomir 1889. His early education in Bible and Talmud he received from his father. At the age of thirteen he was married. In 1833, when Wolf Adelsohn went to Dubno and gathered around him a circle of Maskilim, to whom he taught Hebrew grammar and philosophy, Lerner became one of his disciples. He went to Odessa in 1835 and entered the model school of Bezaleel Stern, where Simḥah Pinsker was his teacher in Hebrew grammar. In the same school he also acquired a thorough knowledge of the Russian, German, French, and Italian languages. In 1838 Lerner returned to Dubno and became a teacher of Hebrew; from 1841 to 1849 he taught in Radzivilov; on Nov. 16 of the latter year he was appointed government teacher of the Jewish public school of Berdychev; and in 1851 he was appointed teacher of Hebrew at the rabbinical school of Jitomir, in which position he remained until the school was closed by the government (July 1, 1873).

Lerner's reputation among Hebrew grammarians was founded on his "Moreh ha-Lashon." It is written in a pure, popular Hebrew, and follows the system of grammar of European tongues, enabling the student to acquire the language more easily than did the works of his predecessors. The first edition appeared in 1859; six editions were issued during Lerner's lifetime; and many more have appeared since his death. Lerner was criticized for having adopted his methods from his teacher Pinsker; he himself acknowledged his indebtedness in the second edition of his work (p. 136, note).

Besides this grammar, Lerner wrote "Diḳduḳ Lashon Aramit" (Warsaw, 1875), an Aramaic grammar; "Ma'amar Toledot ha-Diḳduḳ" (Vienna, 1876); and a translation of S. D. Luzzatto's "Diḳduḳ Leshon Talmud Babli" (St. Petersburg, 1880). He left in manuscript: "Yalḳut," a collection of commentaries on the Bible and Rashi, together with critical and literary articles; "Arba' Middot," on the Baraita of the thirty-two Middot; and a Hebrew translation of Young's "Night Thoughts" and other poems.

Bibliography: Ha-Meliẓ, 1889, Nos. 76-79;
Sokolov, Sefer ha-Shanah, i. 62;
idem, Sefer Zikkaron, p. 66.H. R. M.

At least one of the books he read, presumably the "extremely intricate Hebrew grammar book" can be download or read here. Not bad for a 13 year old, huh?

R. Ya'akov Emden's son R. Meshullam Zalman's divorce described in 1778

This account is from The Gentleman and London Magazine, pg. 701 of the 1778 volume, December issue.

R. Meshullam Zalman Ashkenazy was R Jacob Emden's son. He was the rabbi of the Hambro' Synagogue in London, a position he held from 1764 to 1780. His tenure was not without controversy, not the least of which was that this synagogue was itself a secessionary one; R. Meshulam Zalman's cousin, R. David Tevele Schiff was the "official" Rabbi of the Great Synagogue, and thus the Chief Rabbi of the Ashkenazim in England. Prior to that point, the Hambro' Synagogue had typically regarded the rabbi of the Great as their rabbi too.

R. Jacob enjoyed some small satisfaction in life because of his son's appointment, but apparently my version is all backward, for in his it was the other shul which seceded!

It's worth reading the following from R. Ya'akov Emden's autobiographical Megillas Sefer (pp. 209-10) :



Here's a translation in Charles Duschinsky's The rabbinate of the Great Synagogue, London, from 1756-1842 (1921) (pp. 74-75) (with some minor modifications of my own):

"In the month of Nisan of the same year (1765) my son Rabbi Meshullam Zalman was elected as Rabbi of the Hamburger congregation in London, likewise a result of my activity and endeavors for some time past, and after I nearly gave up every hope for it. For he had many opponents on the part of the Synagogue in Duke's Place (דוקספלעס), which separated from the community (!) and elected another Rabbi, R. Tevele Schiff from Frankfort-on-the-Main. It was, however, from God, and so all the plotting and obstacles, the opposition placed in my son's way, could not frustrate his election. Even after he had duly been elected they conspired against him, and people wrote me letters threatening that, if he came to London, they would attack and abuse him. All this was done at the instigation of that man "Laze", a pupil of "that man" (ie, R. Jonathan Eybeschutz) who made special efforts and wrote me letters, full of perversions and untruths, with the intention of frightening me so that I should prevent my son from accepting the position. The congregation of the Hamburg Shul , however, was anxious to have him, and they had warned me beforehand to take no notice of that shameful letter. He visited us here, and remained during the past Shavuot festival, and all the most notable men of the three Kehillahs (Hamburg, Altona, and Wandsbeck aka Ah"u) gave evidence of the respect they felt for him. He left us and entered upon his duties in London at the middle of Tammuz, and was welcomed with great honors and with joy. I have since heard that even his former enemies have now become his friends. May God grant that he rise higher and higher and be blessed with children."

There is extant a printed prayer recited by R. Meshullam Zalman in December of 1776 on the occasion of a fast day declared for the success of the British soldiers fighting in America, but as of yet I haven't located it.

Historical candle-lighting times pt II; plus, the pleasant discoveries inside used books.

This post is an addendum to my earlier post about the time's for lighting shabbos candles in London circa 1840 (see here).

But first a detour. Here you can read or download Elias Haim Lindo's 64 year Jewish calendar from 1838.



One of the things which is great about library books--really old books in general, but of course those are found in great abundance in libraries--is that they often contain annotations by a former owner or reader. The book הנ"ל is a good case in point. It is on Google Books, digitized from Harvard's library. But it contains the following additions which give it a real person touch:









Not only are these a personal touch, but the latest note is from 1907, fully 70 years after the book was published. Perhaps the book was not acquired by a member of this family as early as 1838, but it certainly is suggestive. Furthermore, one of the names is a boy called חיים בן חיים, a name which is suggestive of the tragedy of a boy who lost his father before he was born. There may be other notes, I didn't look.

On this point, as Google Books contains digital copies from great libraries, many of the books were formally owned by great scholars. Thus, their version of Mortimer Cohen's Jacob Emden, a Man of Controversy was owned by Salo Baron, who actually wrote a critical review of the book which appeared in Jewish Social Studies (a copy of which is included with, and perhaps bound in this book itself). Unfortunately most of these notes are barely readable, but most are simply question marks, which at least indicate that these are points by which Baron wanted further clarification, or a more direct source, or had some question. So this is more theoretically interesting and useful than it actually is, although it is interesting to see that many of his corrections are page numbers in sources (and Hebrew spelling) which shows that Baron indeed looked up sources, at least when reviewing a book.



In any case, the real point of this post was the image below, from the 64-year calendar. As you can see, the time given for when shabbos ends is rounded off to the fives, but is still more specific than every half hour:



Also have a look at pg 101, which lists English Jewish institutions, their dates of establishment and a word or two about them. For example:

A bris milah gemach (for Ashkenazim!) founded in 1745:


Some of the institutions had great, picturesque names. For example, from 1830:



The book also includes an interesting chronological table from the creation to the present (1830s) and words of approbation from the Chief Rabbi Solomon Hirschell and acting Sephardic Chief Rabbi David Meldola.

When a Rav is a Raf.

I always find possible pronunciation cues that are found in transliterations from one language to another interesting. Now to draw too much from this, but I did spot something interesting. This bit is from a book called "Kabbalah Disrobed" (by Christian von Rosenroth, 1648). This book is a Latin translation of parts of the Zohar.



As you can see, it is one of those שלשלת הקבלה lists. What I find interesting is that he transliterates רב as Raf, while in other uses of the letter ב we find bh or bb or b, such as Akibha, Abbaja, Ukba, Rabina. Barring the question of how f sounded to this writer, this suggests to me that for the familiar term, namely רב, he used a familiar pronunciation. For the names, he simply transcribed the letters according to whether it had a dagesh or not.

Another example:



It's probably a German thing. Here's a bit from a 1772 book from Olav Gerhard Tychsen (who was involved in the early/ late burial dispute of the time):



And to show that such transliteration was by no means universal, here is a sample from a book by Jacob Trigland:



I have, incidentally, seen mid-19th century American synagogue literature (contracts and the like) which spelled it Rauf.

Edit: As above, see below:

America in the Bible

One of my favorite parts of Tanakh is the table of nations in Genesis 10.

I thought it might be interesting to investigate if and how America figured in some old Bible commentaries on those tables.

Simon Patrick's Commentary Upon the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis (1695):





More to come . . . perhaps.

Vintage Agudath Israel of America

You can read an entire book for children, published by the Agudah in 1948, right here. The book is called The Jewish Face; a Portrait Gallery selected by Miriam L. Elias (text, presumably, by R. Joseph Elias). Title page with more info below.

It is, of course, important not to read too much into the selected list, but nevertheless it is interesting to see which rabbis throughout medieval and modern history were selected to fulfill a didactic purpose in 1948. It is possible that the list was influenced by who had available depictions (eg, it is difficult otherwise to see why R. Itzele Peterburger is here but not R. Yisroel Salanter). No surprises, sorry. I am sorry that credits for the images are not given, but what can you do.

How R. Samson Rafael Hirsch is written up:

A photo of R. Elchonon Wasserman I'd never seen before:

And the index:

Why did Hebrew scholarship flourish among Christians in England?

According to this Account of Books for 1778 it had the following distasteful origin:

A Jewish convert has a conversation with his, uh, you know what -- in 1798.

What follows is a parody song called The Newly-Dubb'd Jew in a book called Hilaria. The song is meant to be sung to the tune of "Derry Down." I did not do my homework yet, so I can't explain all the allusions (how "Crop" the convert refers to George Gordon, as it seems to, who was "Cods"?, what was "Akerman's synagogue," and who was "Tommy Erskine.")

As you can see, in this lovely song, the convert is about to be circumcised when suddenly his penis speaks, in an appropriately obscene manner. It is scared.

For YU/ RIETS fans

Here's an ad for RIETS from 1918:

I review "The Search Committee" by Rabbi Marc Angel

Having read R. Marc Angel's novel The Search Committee, I figured I'd review it.

The premise is as follows: the rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Lita, a bastion of American yeshivishe Orthodoxy, has died. His son, Rav Shimshon Grossman, is the presumptive heir. After all, the yeshiva was founded by his grandfather 50 years earlier. His father succeeded him as rosh yeshiva, and under his leadership Rav Shimshon gave the highest shiur. Furthermore, we are informed, Rav Shimshon is widely regarded as . . . the godol hador! However, for some reason quite puzzling to Rav Shimshon the yeshiva's board does not rubber stamp his appointment, but has decided to review him as well as another candidate. The other candidate is Rav David Mercado, who somehow gives a shiur at Yeshivat Lita, despite being some kind of combination of Reuven Malter, Jeremy Wieder and, one presumes, Marc Angel himself.

Each of these candidates is quite different. Rav Shimshon is an archetypal exponent of yeshivishe Orthodoxy. His style of learning and teaching is lomdus. He embraces the principle of Daas Torah, and encourages conformity and submission of the individual to the group for the higher, greater good. He is undoubtedly brilliant, and a great scholar, but his approach is monochromatic, and looking backward rather than forward (of course). Rav David is quite different. He is certainly a talmid chochom as well, but he has a wider range of interests. He believes in incorporating the insights of a wide range of literature and disciplines to enhance Torah study. He eschews lomdus, and embraces textual research. He belongs to his local community board, and chairs a Jewish committee on medical ethics. He jogs three to five miles every morning. He encourages his talmidim to participate in their community and to learn from all people.

What on earth is he doing in Yeshivas Lita? A fair question. As it turns out, he was a kind of baal teshuva. Having been raised in a traditional Sephardic family of Turkish origin near Portland, Oregon, he graduated college with a wide ranging liberal education. However, he wanted more, and was eager to search for higher truth. It isn't entirely clear if David is observant, or how observant he is, but suffice it to say his knowledge of Jewish texts consists mainly in being able to read them in Hebrew, but without real comprehension. He happened to meet a rabbi who was traveling to raise funds for Yeshivas Lita. The rabbi recommended that he get in touch with Rav Yosef Grossman (Rav Shimshon's father). Rav Yosef expressed concern that he was far too behind in Jewish studies for an advanced yeshiva like Yeshivas Lita. However, if he spent a year in intense study with a mentor, then perhaps he could join the yeshiva and continue to grow there. David then spends the year in intense study with a Sephardic rabbi (of course). They commence with studying Hebrew and Aramaic grammar and language, and only then progress to texts. First Bible with commentaries, then Mishnah, and finally Talmud. Wessely would be proud! (So would the Maharal!) Thrilled with his studies, and feeling stimulated and alive as never before, he does enter Yeshivas Lita, where he buckles down, putting in tremendous effort. Rav Yosef takes a liking to him, and admires his diligence, decency, clear thinking and broad range of knowledge. He quickly advances to a point where he is comparable to other students, and advances through the shiurim. Rav Yosef finally places him in the highest shiur, his son Rav Shimshon's, promising him that after two years in this shiur he would be willing to hire him to give his own shiur. Rav Shimshon basically can't stand him. He considers him an eyesore on the yeshiva's landscape. Although he reveres his father, he thinks his father is simply mistaken about David. Not quite considering him a heretic, he does not trust him hashkafically. And he mistreats him in the shiur. Although David is unhappy about this, he generally takes it, and Rav Yosef assures him to hold steady and everything will be fine. On one occasion Rav Shimshon provokes him to the point where he finally responds, in a scene right out of The Chosen. In response, Rav Shimshon gives him the cold shoulder for six months. David can't take it, but under the guidance and assurance of Rav Yosef, he endures. Finally, after two years Rav Yosef gives him semicha and a shiur of his own. Rav Shimshon can't believe it, still thinks his father is mistaken, but has no say in the matter. His father compares Rav David to yeast, which causes bread to rise. Rav Shimshon counters that yeast is also chometz.

The years pass. Although the yeshiva is in every way a Modern Orthodox stereotyper's fantasy of a rigid yeshiva (this one is even worse in every way than basically any real one), somehow Rav David Mercado is there giving his shiur. He is jogging in the morning, he is bringing insights from psychology and critical texts. There is obviously a wing in the yeshiva that appreciates him, although it is unclear how. Let me just say that before reading it I found the premise to be highly implausible. While it is, I was gratified to see that R. Angel basically admits that it is, calling attention early on to that fact. It seems that Rav Yosef had a broadness to him and an appreciation for a talent like David Mercado. It is just that he himself, being of the old school, was unable to change and unwilling to effect change. It is his son, however, who not only can't and won't change, but also is incapable of appreciating anything different. I was surprised that there would be a "search committee," but so was Rav Shimshon, who says so right away.

The novel takes the format of statements made before the search committee. First Rav Shimshon has his say, then Rav David. Then Rav Shimshon's wife, and then Rav David's wife (more about her below). Then two rabbeim make statements. One staunchly supports Rav Shimshon, and the other is in favor of Rav David (which is . . . implausible). Then two bochurim give statements; each a student of one. Then two financial backers give statements, each favoring one for very different, and plausible reasons. Finally the head of the chair gives his statement. After the committee votes each candidate then gives a final statement.

Rav Shimshon begins, with a complaint. He doesn't understand why this basically illegitimate charade is taking place. Of course he will be the next rosh yeshiva. It's his right. Furthermore, how dare the committee of laymen presume to think it is their decision? This leads us to a major problem I have with the book. Rav Shimshon is, frankly, a jerk. Now, there are people in his situation who are jerks, but there are also people in his situation who are fine people. I am sure the reader has already figured out that the book is a metaphor not for the ascension of a particular rosh yeshiva in a particular yeshiva, but for the future direction of American Orthodox Judaism. After all, in reality there would not be nor could there be a Rav David Mercado in Yeshivas Lita. But there are and can be Rav David Mercados on the landscape of American Orthodoxy, just as there are and can be Rav Shimshon Grossmans. I feel it is a pity that R. Angel chose to make Rav Grossman a jerk, because his views and style can speak for itself without him personally being not a very nice person. He didn't need to persecute Mercado as a bochur. I suppose R. Angel feels that he offset this in the following ways: one, Rav Shimshon's father, a genuine Lithuanian godol was not a jerk at all. Two, Rav Mercado has supporters both from the student body and the faculty. Three, even Rav Shimshon's supporters who speak, the rebbe and the bochur, really come off quite well. It may be the wrong viewpoint, but they're basically quite decent about it. Fourth, R. Angel does put a disclaimer into Rav Shimshon's mouth that not only does he find the situation humiliating and pointless, but he also feels that they're forcing him to speak leshon ha-ra about Mercado, which he had no intention of doing. Given these factors, I think it's quite possible that R. Angel felt that he gave the yeshivishe point of view a very fair shake, but there is something unsettling about portraying the man widely considered to be "the godol hador" (Rav Shimshon acknowledges this about himself, not so reluctantly one senses) and the stand-in for all of yeshivishe Orthodoxy as not a nice man. Not that this isn't possible, but this is a work of fiction, so the personality of the characters are R. Angel's invention. Even with the realization that these are really stand-ins for types of Orthodoxy, and even if R. Angel simply believes that the type of Orthodoxy represented by Rav Shimshon is, well, jerky, it seems to me counter-productive to be blatant about it in this way. But I digress. Rav Shimshon continues his statement to the search committee, in the same vein. He doesn't see the point, feels that it shows a lack of respect to Torah, he deserves the position, and he will have the position. Not only that, but his rival Mercado is a nothing. He is not a talmid chochom, he doesn't belong in the yeshiva, and in fact his first act as rosh yeshiva will be to fire him. He urges the committee to move quickly, appoint him, and let this distraction pass.

The next day is Rav Mercado's turn. He relates his personal story, how profoundly grateful he is to the yeshiva from which he has gained so much, and to Rav Yosef who believed in him. Yet obviously he has criticisms of the yeshiva's ways, and is not content with his little corner and his small group of students. He feels that as rosh yeshiva he has the duty to not simply allow things to run as they've always been run, but to lead the yeshiva in a new, fresh direction. After all, if he is being considered then his way is a definite possibility for the future of Yeshivat Lita. His criticisms run the gamut from the predominant style of learning, to the conformity in dress and thought, to the lack of interests and exercise among the students. While he is generally positive, and respectful of differing viewpoints, not to mention that he has to be tolerant to have spent to many years in an environment which he basically felt is so in need of vast change, his vision for the yeshiva essentially calls for a total revision of its character. Again, as stand-ins for Orthodoxy it makes sense, but given the scenario of the novel, it seems to me that it isn't really so tolerant to change the character of a yeshiva completely, or to put it another way, it is surely understandable why those plans would be perceived as threatening -- they are! All in all, though, Rav Mercado is clearly not a jerk, a humble, thoughtful, learned and pious man. Sigh!

The next statements are delivered by their wives. Rav Shimshon's rebbetzin is perfectly suited for him. She is him, in a sheitel. She recounts the tree questions the search committee asked her to respond to; does she want her husband to be rosh yeshiva? What role should his wife play? And presumably so that R. Angel can also discuss another pet peeve about the yeshiva world, what does she think of the shidduch system prevailing among their students? She then not only affirms that her husband should be rosh yeshiva, but also that the yeshiva is actually a family business, "in a sense." She then affirms that both her husband and her are Torah royalty based on who they are as well as their distinguished lineage. She sees the role of the rosh yeshiva's wife to offer him full support, encouragement and help guide him. In addition, she should serve as a role model for the younger women in the community. Which leads to the next point, Rav David's wife. Not only is her name Sultana (!), she doesn't cover her hair, dresses stylishly, speaks as an equal among men, and writes poetry! (Just kidding, she doesn't denigrate her name, although more about the name will be explained shortly.) Most of this is due to the unfortunate fact that she went to college. Having absorbed foreign ideas, she once confronted her about her literary work. She told her that many of the women are upset by it (one senses that Rebbetzin Sultana's publisher isn't Artscroll). And she responded that she didn't care! Then Rav Shimshon's wife (Deena Leah is her name) hints to some dark allegations about Rav David's wife's background, but of course she won't gossip. Finally, she notes that she and her husband personally tried to convince her late father-in-law to banish them, because they're nothing but a bad influence, but sadly he wouldn't listen. As for shidduchim, well it's perfect! They take into consideration yichus, midos and gashmiyus, and of course there's nothing better than for a girl to marry a boy who learns Torah. Girls who went to college need not apply. And Sultana opposes the system! Tsk,tsk. She ends by noting that the yeshiva is a perfect, time-tested tradition and it needs her husband who will stay the course.

Next up is Rav David's wife Sultana. She gives her back story, which is that she is a convert to Judaism. First, the literary element (this is, after all, a novel). Sultana was the daughter of a Greek Orthodox Christian. That being the case, it is highly unusual that she should have the name Sultana, which was a name used by Muslim and Jewish, but not Christian women. How did she get her name? As it turns out, Rav David's grandmother was a Jewish girl named Sultana back in Turkey. As a young girl she fell in love with a Christian man. Both her parents and his parents opposed this relationship, and her father sent her to live with relatives in America to remove her from her boyfriend. Ultimately she moved on and married and had a family. However, Mikael, her boyfriend, did not. He pledged never to marry and never to forget her, although he too emigrated to the United States. As he got older he did feel lonely, and he married. He had a daughter, whom he named Sultana, after his long-lost love. And that is why this Greek Orthodox girl was named Sultana. Years passed, and Sultana the Jew's grandson David Mercado became a young man, and Sultana, Mikael's daughter, became a young women. Quite by chance Sultana the elder met Mikael at a Greek heritage festival in Oregon. Happy to see each other over so many years, they introduced each other's family. David and young Sultana hit it off. They kindled a relationship, but it disturbed David. He had already begun studying Torah, and was already in Yeshivas Lita, and he knew that he could never marry a Christian. She too felt that her father wouldn't approve (which is strange, given that in his own youth he had wanted nothing more than to marry a Jewish girl). Because they both know that the relationship wasn't headed anywhere, it cooled. Around this time she confided to her father how she felt about David, and he counseled her that she must find a way to marry him, to do what he and David's grandmother never could. She protested that she couldn't, as she wasn't Jewish. Mikael told her that she should become Jewish then, which greatly surprised her. Being that she was a student at college in New York, she found a rabbi who was serving the students of Barnard and Columbia. She began studying Judaism with him, and figured she would see if Judaism was for her. Meanwhile she wrote David a note, telling them that they should not see each other again. She felt that it wouldn't be fair to tell him what she was up to, and to raise his hopes. Furthermore, R. Angel critically notes, that she didn't want her conversion to be contingent on her relationship with him. After the passage of time, and more studying, and observance, and the realization that Judaism was for her, she converted. She chose to keep her name, Sultana, which she told the Beth Din was a name used by Turkish Jewish women. She tracked David down at Yeshivas Lita, asking him to meet her that night. He was surprised and confused, but agreed. That night she showed him her conversion certificate, pretending she couldn't read it because it was in Hebrew. Astonished that she had converted ke-halakhah, but happy as can be, they caught up, resumed their relationship, became engaged and then married. Not only is this quite a story, but those who have been following the news no doubt recognize an issue near to R. Angel's heart.

Getting back to the same three questions asked of Rebbetzin Deenah Leah, Sultana maintains that her role as rosh yeshiva's wife should simply be to continue to be a good wife to her husband, fully supportive, but she has her own interests and goals which will continue. Then follows a critique of yeshivishe notions of modesty ("dumpy hats and snoods"), and the fact that the men wind up seeing other women dressed and looking far more attractive than their own wives, causing their own wives to be less attractive to them. Then is a perfunctory reference to Litvishe roshei yeshivas whose wives and daughters had already ceased covering their hair in Europe, as had occurred in an even more traditional community, like Morocco. Then she critiques the shidduch system, or yeshivishe marriages mostly, which subordinates a woman's spirituality and goal's to her husbands, places and unbearable financial burden on the women, puts girls with disadvantages shidduch resumes in a bad position, etc. At the same time, it inculcates bad values in the men, who do not learn the value of eating bread they heave earned. The P word is mentioned ("cadre of parasites"), and the whole things is called psychologically unhealthy and morally repugnant. She doesn't think that Yeshivat Lita alone can change the entire yeshiva world, but it can make important strides.

The next testimony is offered by two rabbeim. The first one, in support of Rav Shimshon, strangely acknowledges that among the other rabbeim only Rav David poses any kind of realistic challenge to the post. He gives a discourse on the threats posed by Hellenism and the modern world, and the important role the yeshiva plays and has always played in standing firmly against these threats. He gives a defense of an isolating strategy as the only way to succeed in imparting a precious tradition. Then he gets to Rav David. He notes that he knows him well, and knows his strengths and weaknesses. He acknowledges that he "is an impressive Torah scholar" is "enthusiastic, charismatic and energetic," is "an inspiring and thoughtful teacher." He has "genuine virtues." But the bottom line is that he doesn't share the yeshiva's philosophy, is naively unaware of the dangers of American materialism and hedonism. What's more he is the exception to the rule. Maybe he somehow escaped the truly negative effects of college and American culture, but how can anyone expect the same of most bochurim in the yeshiva? Not only that, but he has students in the yeshiva, and one can see his influence on them. They are not heretics, of course, but they are also "no longer truly pious." Under him they become, in fact, "restless and questioning." In its earliest stage this "pseudo-intellectualism" is merely annoying to the other bochurim and rabbeim. But in the long run, it is a threat to how things are done, which is how things should be done. Thus, Rav David Mercado is part of the problem and not the solution. Next follows an interesting and thoughtful analysis of precisely why and how the deceased rosh yeshiva, Rav Yosef, believed in him. Yet this cannot be taken as evidence that he wanted him to succeed him. No doubt, he'd have wanted his son, his only worthy successor.

Next follows a rebbe who supports Rav David's appointment, although I am still unclear how this is possible, if the yeshiva is so monochromatic outside of Rav David's dales amos. He misattributes a midrash in support (see below), and asks a very pertinent question in need of affirmation or a serious response: "Can we imagine that God took the trouble to reveal His glory to us at Mount Sinai only so that we would later confine ourselves to our own neighborhoods and self-imposed ghettos?" Who is this masked rebbe?! He then criticizes the conformity of the yeshiva, typified by nearly identical dress. He ends off by predicting that appointing Rav Shimshon would lock the yeshiva into a stale pattern, but Rav David is a chance to really shape the yeshiva into a dynamic, and forward-looking entity. He ends by appealing to the committee itself to give themselves a voice, which they can only do if they appoint Rav David Mercado.

Finally follows the strongest chapters, two yeshiva bochurim themselves (yungerleit, actually) speak up. In my view R. Angel well nigh succeeds in capturing authentic, as opposed to practically caricatured, voices on these two divided positions. Neither offers any great insights, but the way they speak is worth reading. Each gives an impassioned and ennobling defense of the yeshiva as it is and the yeshiva as it could be. If penguin dress seems constricting, one should know that within the yeshiva there aren't an endless stream of blurry faces, but individuals with different strengths, weaknesses and temperaments. If this is discernible only to insiders, so what? It is true. The first paints a moving portrait of the electrifying effect the Beis Midrash has on those who frequent it. He mounts a defense of lomdus. He says that years ago he did spend a year in Rav David's class, and has this problem: it was too enjoyable. It didn't feel like work, and didn't require toil. He knows full well that Rav David is an authentic denizen of the Beis Midrash, and he really gets talmud Torah, but his classes were problematic. They were interesting, and covered diverse ideas. His style is humorous, non-authoritarian and a pashtan. But it just doesn't feel right, because it is less authentic! He even compares Rav Mercado's classes to diamonds, and that of other rabbeim to coal. But any way you slice it, Rav David is simply less authentic than Rav Shimshon. One is in a yeshiva to participate in an authentic, timeless tradition, not to have a great time. It is great to be a part of an authentic, timeless tradition, but it is not a great time. He ends by falsely assuming that Rav David is not a revolutionary and would not change the character of the yeshiva, but despite himself cracks would set in, and the structure would be harmed. However, the reader knows that Rav David actually does desire to change things, so . . . Rav Shimshon is Old Reliable, and he is therefore the only one for the job.

The second student is a devoted disciple of Rav David, having spent three years in his shiur. He recounts that he had a typical yeshiva upbringing, and spent three years in Yeshiva Lita, at the end of which he felt stuck in a rut, until he encountered Rav David. Another student recommended he join his shiur, which he decided to do for a year, and it wound up changing his life. He describes the electrifying effect that the sources Rav David brought to bear on the texts had on him. He found his character to be very noble, his teaching qualities to be sterling. He describes his principal teaching, which should have been self-evident, but was not. Rav David Mercado taught him that we are human beings! Then follows some discussion of Rav David's extra-curricular activities; community board, chairing a Jewish medical ethics committee, an area where he is a great expert. How does he sit with non-Orthodox members? He reasons that the board exists without him too, but his participation brings a true Torah viewpoint. Not only that, but his colleagues wound up respecting him and his views so much, that they nominated him chairman! Rav David jogs, in a jogging suit no less. He inspires the same from his talmidim, who are physically fit, who volunteer time to help others, including tutoring public school children. Then another issue, evidently of concern to R. Angel, pops up. The student notes how every Thanksgiving Rav David takes the entire shiur to daven at the Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue, founded in 1654, which has observed every Thanksgiving since 1789. There they participate in its prayer service, complete with a type of Hallel after davening. Rav David has taught them to appreciate the goodness and greatness of America and American society, and also to participate in it. Just as we can enjoy the benefits of living within it, so must we be not only takers, but contributors. Etc.

Finally, two supporters speak their piece. One is an old man born a Kalman, but Americanized to Clyde. He recalls an immigrant father who had a pushcart, which he kept open every shabbos, feeling he had no choice. And how he would cry over it! This made an impression on young Kalman, but raised with only slight Jewish education, he built his father's business into an empire, and never cried about keeping stores open on shabbos. Today it is a wildly successful chain of 91 stores. None of his kids married Jews, which bothered him tremendously, although he doesn't let them know, and he knows that given the way he raised them, he had no right to expect otherwise. He points out that the trouble is that even though he never cried for shabbos, he remembers a father who did. His kids don't even remember that. By chance he ended up pouring his heart out to Rav Yosef, who gently tried to prod him to teshuva. He realistically acknowledged that he would never stop eating treife and would never keep shabbos, and it pains him that he is the end of the line of Jews in his family. Rav Yosef suggests that at least he can have a share in the Jewish people by contributing financially. Clyde is careful to note that he never told him to give money to Yeshivas Lita, but that is what he decided to do, to the tune of $100,0000 a year. He acknowledges that for him it is guilt money, but he is happy to do it. He thinks it is of utmost importance that really authentic places like Yeshivas Lita continue in a traditional and eternal fashion. He knows Clyde is lost, but he wants the Jewish people to continue and for that he needs Yeshivas Lita to remain a bulwark, and therefore it needs Rav Shimshon.

Next is an elderly American-born yekke (German Jewish) woman. She, too, is a big supporter. Not only that, but her family are long-time pillars within the yeshiva itself. Beginning with her husband, a refugee from Germany, who studied at the yeshiva while her father supported him, to her many sons and grandsons. Her husband was only interested in learning, and was unable to succeed his father-in-law in his successful business, so she did. In time she raised a large, wealthy, and royal yeshivishe family. And yet, she always resented her husband's inability to leave the yeshiva and make a living. She recalls with particular distaste a time when her son asked his father not to use a kiddush cup that had belonged to his own grandfather, a distinguished German rav of the old school, on the grounds that the shiur was too small. About to comply, she insisted that he use it. Furthermore, knowing that her family had a distinguished and rich tradition of its own, she always resented the cultural imperialism imposed on her family by the yeshiva. She resented that her family learned to pronounce Hebrew the yeshivishe, and not German way. She even discussed this with both Rav Yosef and Rav Shimshon, both whom she liked very much. Yet they were firm: the yeshiva has its own minhagim, and the bochurim need to conform. In this issue in particular, she sees Rav David Mercado as being in full sympathy. He too comes from an alternative tradition with its own deep and valid roots. She has seen in practice how this issue is important to him, as it relates to students in Yeshivas Lita. She is, of course, fully committed to the yeshiva and its future despite her criticisms. Furthermore, she has never believed in throwing her weight around because of her donations. Yet, this is her opinion. She thinks Rav David is the right choice. By the way, she notes that her eldest son now uses his great-grandfather's kiddush cup!

Finally, the chairman of the committee gives a short, not particularly noteworthy address, impressing the point that their task is important.

I wish the book ended here, "Lady or the Tiger" style.

But it doesn't, probably because R. Angel had one more point to make. The novel concludes with final statements by both protagonists, and to do so, it must reveal who won!

Rav Shimshon Grossman addresses the committee, and notes that of course they appointed him rosh yeshiva. How could it have been in doubt? Not only that, but he fired Mercado, like he said he would. Furthermore, the committee must know that it was basically abominable what they did. How dare they act as if they had an opinion, or the power. As the yeshiva board, all they are there for is to raise money and ask him how to spend it. He threatens to fire them, the board, but benevolently notes that he believes in the Yissachar/ Zevulun relationship, which he defines as follows: you raise money so that we can learn Torah, but you can't have anything to say about it. However, since your domain (i.e., earning money) is encompassed by the Shulchan Aruch, of course there is much we have to say about it, and your duty is to listen. He then tells the committee that the chairman had asked him if there was the possibility of appointing Mercado assistant rosh yeshiva. After summarily dismissing that idea, and some more ridicule that they dare have opinions, he tells them that Mercado won't put up any resistance to his decision (to fire him), especially because he is prepared to discredit him, and especially his wife, should he go down that route. Finally, he makes the following demand: they must destroy the tape recordings of the statements, they must not write or keep private notes, and there must be no leaks. The whole process must be as if it never happened. Or else! Or else, how will your sons and daughters get shidduchim? How will your community continue to be friends and associate with you? All this is for the good and the prestige of the yeshiva, of course, but they had better listen. He finishes off, lecturing them that "You have no voice in the inner affairs of the yeshiva. You have no voice in all areas where Torah knowledge is required. You have no voice, no voice at all!"

While it pains me to say this, given my whole "Why is Rav Shimshon a jerk" spiel above, this attitude is not at all inauthentic.

Finally, Rav David adjusts his halo, tells the committee that he is obviously disappointed, but he is not a ba'al machlokes, and will move on, and he and his family will be fine. There will be no din Torah or any other kinds of fight. He thanks them for recommending that he be assistant rosh yeshiva. He tells them that he is saddened because he really thought this was a special moment for the yeshiva he loved. However, after a special vacation (relating to he and his wife's family history) they plan to reestablish themselves in Jerusalem, where he will teach Torah, and start a yeshiva, "a place of light and truth."

He knows that in a short time it will be like he was never at Yeshivas Lita at all . Surely Rav Shimshon will do all he can to bury his memory. Yet, his voice will be heard all the way from Jerusalem! Some day his students will reach this yeshiva, and others like it. His vision will become actualized! He then reminds them that they are not, in fact, without a voice and asks the search committee for one final request:

Save the tapes and publish the transcript.

Originally I had intended to give a synopsis and then some thoughts, but not only did I somehow practically rewrite the book, but I seem to have offered quite a lot of commentary. Thus, at this point I want to make a few points.

First, I wish that R. Angel had included references. I know this is a popular book, but it is pregnant with allusions that should be footnoted and discreetly cited at the end. For example, very early in the book (pg. 31) Mercado is discussing his tenure as Grossman's student. Reference is made to a famous 18th century case of a chicken that apparently had no heart. Mercado mentions that he didn't like one rabbi's explanation of the "phenomenon" and it must have shown, and this led to a real belittling by Grossman, who was in a rage. This is indeed a famous case, and I think it deserves at least some kind of citation (Shu"t Chacham Tzvi #74, for instance, or Kresi U-plesi on YD 40.4). There are several references to Gemaras, which might be footnoted. The rebbe who supports Mercado cites (pg. 84) a fake midrash about two brothers who loved one another and the spot chosen by God for the Beis Ha-mikdash. Of course, this shows that R. Angel doesn't read On the Main Line! Not that this is a huge deal, even R. Moshe Feinstein apparently could see a really nice statement as a ma'amar Chazal (see here) -- although there are other possibilities, which I'm sure we'll get to discuss in the comments. I would loved to have seen R. Angel footnote this fake midrash; it probably would have led him to try to locate it, and then it would not have appeared at all. While we're on the subject, in my opinion the fact that the midrash features two brothers might be a clue that it is not really a rabbinic teaching, vhmv"y.

In the same discussion of the unpleasant encounters in Grossman's class, Mercado notes that he made the mistake of trying to debunk a convoluted explanation of a stira in the Rambam by citing the text of "a Yemenite rabbi, a scholar of Maimonides." I know it, and you know it, but why not a footnote mentioning that R. Yosef Kafih is intended? (How do you think Rav Shimshon reacted?)

Finally, another footnote should be given to explain the kiddush cup allusion.

What of his writing style, and the back stories he injects to make it a novel? What of it's literary merit? It's really not bad. I think it is engaging enough. But it's clearly meant to be about content, not language and not story.

All in all, it was quite interesting, and probably said as much about R. Angel as it did about the yeshiva world, which is a good thing. Would that every rabbi write a novel or at least something that tells us who they are and what they think! People who have been J-blogging will find much of it to be old hat, but of course not everyone has nitpicked these very issues over and over and over again. I must say that despite some problematic portrayals and misperceptions of the yeshiva world, the book succeeds in accomplishing what it sets out to do, which is to analyze a big divide in contemporary Orthodoxy, and to take a side.

Edit 7/16/09: It occurs to me that the name Yeshivas Lita might also be a play on R. Reines's Yeshivas Lida, which would seem to be a potential prototype for the kind of yeshiva Rav David Mercado would like Yeshivas Lita to become. Something to think about.

18th century Hebrew fonts

Here's an interesting sample of Hebrew fonts available to English printers in the 18th century, from a 1787 Printer's Grammar.







The book contains a history of printing and samples of many other (non-Hebrew) fonts.

Filosseno Luzzatto's explanation for the term Maccabee

There was an interesting post at Tradition Seforim (back when it was just Seforim) about The Name Machabee. Although the following suggestion is cited (and dismissed -- unjustly, in my view) in a work mentioned in Dan's post, the suggestion itself was not.

In Shadal's 1848 work Il Giudaismo Illustrato (Judaism Illustrated) there is an interesting conjecture by his son Filosseno (who was 18 years old at the time this was written):



Which means the following: "My son Filosseno suggests that the word maccabee was an inversion of the Greek biaiomachas, meaning valiant warrior."

Not knowing Greek, I consulted dictionaries and saw that βιαιομαχας is not itself a word, however it is a combination of two words, βια and μαχας. The first word has the meaning of force, power, bravery, violence (see here). The second has the range of meaning of sword, knife, authority, force of justice, and even mercenary (see here). Thus, the meaning of biaiomachas certainly does seem to be something like valiant warrior. What is being posited here is that the title biaiomachas was given to the Maccabees, but through some process, either the rigors of time and faulty copying, or some kind of natural linguistic process, the consonants βμχ became transposed as μχβ, eventually producing the familiar Maccabeus, or מכבי in Hebrew letters.

The book cited by Dan (here) rejects this derivation, arguing that "Mattathias and all his followers entertained a bitter hatred for every thing that was Grecian." The problem is that this is not true. Furthermore, linguistic penetration happens even when there is "hatred." This is only a guess, but I have a feeling that many of the mujahideen fighting the US and Britain in Afghanistan and Iraq have adopted many an English term in their regular discourse. Also, I don't think there's any reason to assume that the term was used by the Maccabee's themselves. Either way, the real point of this post was to show the image below.

Filosseno Luzzatto (who published under the Latin name Philoxene) was actually named אוהב גר, for he was born around the time that his father produced his work on Targum Onqelos of the same name. A scholar of promise, who made his father exceedingly proud, he died at age 24.

The strange literary history of a part of Akdamus in English literature

In the August 1746 edition of the London Magazine and Monthly Chronologer (pg. 421) we find the following poem called The Precaution, which written by Christopher Smart, a popular 18th century English songwriter. This is from a series of songs he wrote, attributing authorship to Chaucer:




As you can see, the four lines beginning with "Could we with ink . . ." seem to be taken from the famous medieval Shavuos piyut אקדמות מילין. In the original Aramaic those four lines read

גְוִיל אִלּוּ רְקִיעֵי, קְנֵי כָּל חוּרְשָׁתָא:
דְיוֹ אִלּוּ יַמֵּי, וְכָל מֵי כְּנִישׁוּתָא:
דַיְירֵי אַרְעָא סַפְרֵי, וְרַשְׁמֵי רַשְׁוָתָא:
הֲדַר מָרֵי שְׁמַיָא, וְשַׁלִיט בְּיַבֶּשְׁתָּא

which means (Artscroll translation):

Even if the heavens were parchment, and the forests quills,
If all the oceans were ink, as well as every gathered water,
If the earth's inhabitants were scribes and recorders of initials--
The glory of the Master of heaven and the Ruler of earth.

This is unexpected.

The lines appear in several other 18th century collections, only no longer attributed to Chaucer. An example from 1783, in a song collection called The Humming Bird, collecting 1400 English, Scotch and Irish songs. Here is is part of the section "Songs for Gentleman" (as opposed to Songs for the Ladies)




What is even more interesting is what happens to these lines in later literature.

In an 1804 book called the Columbian Miscellany:



The Columbian Miscellany was mostly taken from things which appeared in the Philadelphian Magazine in 1788 and 1789. As you can see, the lines are no longer secular, and are said to "have been written by a person reputed to be an ideot."

A version printed in 1796 in Francis Grose's The Olio, yet obviously predating 1779:



And this is the form it remains.

Two from 1839:


and


Finally, an odd attribution to the "George Brothers," from 1834:



In addition, these verses are frequently given in discussions about the poetic form known as hyperbole.

What gives? Could they have been penned by Christopher Smart, and expanded by "an idiot" in prison? Was Smart himself the idiot? (According to the bio on Wikipedia he was locked away in a mental asylum. However, he was not living any longer in 1779.)

In the mid-19th century there was a fascinating periodical called Notes & Queries (which still exists). The object of the magazine was for readers to pose questions on nearly any topic under the sun, and learned readers would reply with whatever answers they could supply. (A free N & Q archive from 1849 to 1869 can be found here.)

In the August 6, 1853 issue someone signing himself Naphtali asked if "any of [the] numerous and able correspondents" could "inform [him] who is the bona fide author of [these lines."

The next issue, August 20, 1853, included a response from Britain's Christian authority on thing's Jewish, the apostate Rev. Moses Margoliouth. He writes that the "bona fide author" is "Rabbi Mayir ben Isaac. The . . . eight lines are almost a literal translation of four Chaldee ones, which form part of a beautiful ode on the attributes of God, not unmixed with a condsiderable proportion of the fabulous, which is sung in every synagogue during the service of the first day of the feast of Pentecost."

He then posed a query of his own, asking if anyone knew who was responsible for the English translation, which was "often quoted by itinerant advocates of charity societies as having been found inscribed, according to some, on the walls of a lunatic asylum, according to others, on the walls of a prison, as occasion requires."

Another writer responded that there is a Chaucer ballad usually titled "A Warning to Men to Beware of Deceitful Women," which contains, in part:



In addition, the writer notes, a 1759 Encyclopedia had the following to say about רבי יוחנן בן זכאי:



Several other suggestions and references are given, including one who believes that the lines were given impromptu, at a party, by Isaac Watts. Uh, thanks.

Subsequent issues give further suggestions, all off the mark. But the October 29, 1853 issuesintroduces a new and interesting piece of information. J. W. Thomas does not challenge the assertion that Rabbi Mayir ben Isaac penned the lines, having no idea when he lived (11th century) he suggests that the author of the Koran is indebted to Rabbi Mayir ben Isaac, for the 18th Sura ("The Cave") contains the following line (random English translation I found online):

109 Say, "If the ocean were ink for the words of my Lord, the ocean would run out, before the words of my Lord run out, even if we double the ink supply."

Thomas then asks, when did the rabbi live in relation to the Koran?

The next issue contained a note that the final verse of the Gospel of John seems to be similar, and several things in the New Testament influenced the Koran. The verse reads

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Another suggestion occurs in a later issue, giving a slightly different form of the verses. The writer says that the person who showed him that variant version believed it to be an English rendering of a "sublime passage of the great St. Augustin," and although the writer is inclined to thnk it sounds Augustinian, he was unable to locate it in any of Augustine's writings.

Finally, one more writer (June 16, 1855) gives a verse from about the year 1200 (quoted by Berington in his Literary History of the Middle Ages):

What time is shabbos? in 1842.

Some time ago the Lion of Zion had a very interesting post called How Did Jewish Women Know When To Light Shabbat Candles in the 18th C.?

Take Shabbat, for example—we begin and end at a precise minute, and one that varies from week to week. I always wondered, however, exactly how did people know when to light Shabbat candles in an era before clocks and watches were household items. I assume most people did not own a sundial and you can’t always rely on the skies. So how did they know it was 4:53 pm and time to light the candles? Or that the eighteen minutes were up and you had to park your horse and walk home?

A few years ago I discovered the answer of how they knew the difference between 4:53 and 5:07.

Answer: they couldn’t tell the difference.

He showed various examples of old calendars. I don't have much to add, but I did come across some interesting examples in 1842 issues of the British periodical Voice of Jacob:





As you can see, people were told that candle-lighting time was on the half-hour or on the hour, for basically four weeks in a row. Then the time moved forward by a half-hour.

In case anyone is tempted to think that this was an ignorant periodical, unconcerned about zemanim, below is a discussion about זמן קריאת שמע.



Finally, I thought this add was fantastic; someone wants to buy a sukkah, so he asks if anyone has a good size Tabernacle to sell.

Even if you don't understand Dutch . . .

. . . you'll understand this:



From the Kerkelycke historie, van de scheppinge des werelts, tot 't jaer des Heeren 1666 (1696).

Close encounters of the Eybeschuetz kind; Christian Solomon Duitsch, an 18th century Jewish apostate recollects.

Below are some excerpts of a most interesting account by a Jewish apostate named Solomon Duitsch. Originally written by him in Dutch, excerpts are from the English translation¹ published in 1771, under the title "A Short Account of the Wonderful Conversion to Christianity of Solomon Duitsch, Lately a learned Rabbin and Teacher of several Synagogues."

Born in 1734 in Timişoara (then Hungary, today Rumania) , his father died when he was four years old. After he became bar mitzvah in 1747, he was sent to the Prague yeshiva on account of his proficiency in learning. At the age of 20 he returned home and married a woman named Yentl (Jentil), who was the daughter of a wealthy man. Living with his in-laws, he enjoyed a good marriage, and studied intensely--"Being exceedingly fond of Talmud, I commonly staid in my study till after midnight." So he lived for six good years. Then suddenly his wife died, leaving him with a six-month old daughter named Esther. Three months later, at the urging of his father-in-law, he married Yentl's sister Sara. At this point he continued and excelled in his studies to the point that the Chief Rabbi of Moravia ordained him morenu in 1760 ( he doesn't name him, but it seems that this position belonged to a R. Gershon Pullitz or Pollitzer, whom I know nothing of).

Sometime in November of 1761 he read a book which warned men to "arise out of darkness" and repent. He does not say which book it was, but I have no reason to assume it was something other than some kind of mussar book. He became obsessed with it, and began to wear a hair shirt and give all his money to the poor, all the while trying to repent of his sins. Other Jews, becoming aware of his ascetic lifestyle began to regard him as a kind of tzadik. This itself greatly distressed him, and he publicly declared himself a sinner in the synagogue. At this point the translator inserts a note, because he realizes what you are thinking: "Wack-o." The translator reminds the reader that it was the Holy Ghost working through him, but his behavior was conditioned by his Jewish environment, as well as the Catholic form of Christianity in his environs.

He then describes his continued obsession with sin, and how one night he had a kind of terror and thoughts of Jesus Christ flashed through his mind. Then Satan battled with him, telling him that Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah, and why should he bring shame to the learned among his people and his righteous ancestors? At this point, he was in the closet, weeping, and his wife, baby in arms, woke up and asked him what was wrong. She tried to calm him and also to ask him why he was doing the things he was doing. He should think of her and his child and wasn't he pious enough when her sister was alive? He responded that she was wrong, he was a terrible sinner, etc.

But "my wife was subtle, and cunning and serpent-like" for she said no more. Then she moved in with her parents, taking the baby with her, and he had no more contact with her. The rabbis forced him to write her a get, and placed him in cherem (the real thing in those days).

I won't spoil the rest, but it is exceedingly sad, capital-c Crazy, and interesting.

A good long time later, although he had mentally converted to Christianity long before, he had remained attached by habit and conviction to Jewish observance. Eventually he gave it up, describing the process as follows. By chance he read Ezekiel 5:1 וְאַתָּה בֶן אָדָם קַח לְךָ חֶרֶב חַדָּה תַּעַר הַגַּלָּבִים תִּקָּחֶנָּה לָּךְ וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ עַל רֹאשְׁךָ, וְעַל זְקָנֶךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ מֹאזְנֵי מִשְׁקָל וְחִלַּקְתָּם ; And thou, son of man, take thee a sharp sword, as a barber's razor shalt thou take it unto thee, and cause it to pass upon thy head and upon thy beard; then take thee balances to weigh, and divide the hair, and thought to himself that this seems to expressly contradict Leviticus 19:27 לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ; Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Not understanding how God could command the prophet to expressly violate the law, and Ezekiel lodged no objection even while he objected to another command to violate the law in 4:14, he began to feel very emotionally that the words here were addressed to himself, and he began to think "How long wilt thou remain in bondage to the law? How long wilt thou oppose the word of God?" He writes that he fell on his knees, sighed, prayed and grabbed scissors and a mirror and and cut off his beard. "It is inexpressible," he writes, "what emotions I felt in my heart, during this transaction, which lasted nearly two hours." He then fell asleep and woke up feeling wonderful and comforted. The next Sunday he went to a church for the first time. He didn't care for the sermon, but was greatly impressed by the worship service.

I will say, by the way, that when it comes to these kinds of accounts I do not necessarily take anyone at their word regarding just how much of a תלמיד חכם they were. Basically all of the Jewish converts who wrote about themselves claimed to have been scholars. Some of these accounts clearly show that they were not exaggerating, but I have seen no evidence from the content of Solomon Duitsch's of his rabbinic learning. This is not to say that it wasn't there, or that he lied about receiving his ordination, or staying up often past midnight learning Talmud, only that I was unable to detect it in his account. However, the English version is an abridgment, and moreover, the translator may have been unable to make heads of tails out of the kind of material I am talking about, and left it out. Indeed, in the introduction he writes as much, that the original (and the German translation) "is extended to a great length, particularly by the interspersed accounts of the doctrine of the present Judaism." So I am not skeptical of what he claims about himself, I only note that I've seen no evidence of it in this account.

Below are some interesting excerpts. First, of his meeting with R. Yonasan Eybeschuetz (after his wanderings begun, before the scene described just above).





Next is an interesting note by the translator. In the 18th century, the only place in Europe where it was legal for a Christian to convert to Judaism was Amsterdam (it being a sever crime to convert to Judaism, or for Jews to convert a Christian). Consequently, those Christians who did convert tended to do so in Amsterdam, and there were always a number of them. The translator has this to say about it:




Finally, Duitsch recollects an interesting encounter with a rabbi about studying Tanakh:




No, this story has no happy ending.

Update:

Here is Christiaan Salomon Duitsch himself:



¹ The translator's name is Gustavus Burgmann, a Lutheran minister in the Savoy Church in London. He remarks in a note that he made the acquintance of Duitsch, having been a character in his narrative (basically, the claim is that two missionaries addressed Jews in a synagogue in Wesel. Their mastery of Hebrew impressed Duitsch, who writes that he assumed they were Jewish converts. For his part, Burgmann acknowledges that he was one of the missionaries, and in fact Duitsch knew the New Testament so well, that he could not believe that he had not already converted.)

Jacob Emden in the news

New York Herald March 23, 1857

Weird.

Now this would be a nice book sale. Sigh.



The Athaeneum August 1868

Some Emden/ Eybeschutz stuff, when it was current events (1753) (Jacob Herschel is R. Ya'akov Emden):




Not to mention this, R. Yaavetz's personal copy of Azaryah de Rossi's Me'or Enajim (in the JTS library).



Detail:



By the way, should one infer from לה' הארץ ומלואה that R. Yaakov Emden intended everyone to read this book? (Groan. If you get it, you get it.)

What does a Chinese chumash look like? Part II; how did Chinese Jews describe their Tanach?

Follow-up to this post. The account below is from the 1816 (first) volume of the missionary journal The Jewish Expositor and Friend of Israel. Since I know that not every reader will actually read the somewhat lengthy excerpt below, here is a sample of the interesting information contained: the word בראשית was pronounced by them as pielechitse; דברי הימים as tiveli haiamiim. More about their pronunciation and r/ l confusion to come in another post.

The first judischteutsche Bibel (Yiddish Bible) reviewed in a German periodical from 1749

Yekuthiel ben Isaac Blitz translated and produced a complete Yiddish Bible in Amsterdam in 1679. In addition to this noteworthy fact, Blitz's attitude has long been celebrated. For example, in his introduction he praised the exact and grammatical knowledge of Hebrew, differentiation between pshat and drash, singling out the Sephardim and Italian Jews of his time. I have not been able to see his introduction, but a well known passage is reproduced in Simcha Assaf's Mekoros Le-toledos Ha-chinukh Be-yisrael (Vol. I pp. 152-153):

Not having seen it, I must rely on the judgment of others. It seems his heart was in the right place and his intentions were good, but his skill as a translator? Not so much. Describing the situation, someone wrote that "Blitz's Hebrew was less than adequate and he relied heavily on translations into German, including that of Luther, often leaving his Yiddish translation resembling the German more than the Hebrew original.

In Rambaman"s introduction to the Nesivos Schalom pentateuch, the Or Le-nesivah there is a review of the Jewish Bible translations which preceded his own version, and here is what he writes¹ of Blitz:

Another German (ie, Yiddish) translation by R. Yekusiel Blitz of Wittmund was also printed at Amsterdam, 5439, with haskamos and sanctions of many distinguished rabbis of that time. R. Yekusiel says in his preface that he had seen the German (Yiddish) translation of the Pentateuch printed at Konstanz, and found it so faulty and unfit that he was convinced the translation could not emanate from the celebrated German grammarian (ie, Elijah Levita). I, the writer of this have never seen the translation attributed to R. Elijah, as it cannot be found in our country, but I have seen that of R. Yekusiel, and discovered that he finds fault that he himself is guilty of. Though he may have had good intentions, and that is why the scholars of his time gave their approbations,the results of his work is not deserving of praise, because he was quite ignorant of Hebrew, and therefore could not penetrate into the depths of the Hebrew style, but what he understood he rendered into a corrupt language, so that one who has been accustomed to clear language is disgusted with it.

In view of this, I was quite interested to find a review of this very Yiddish Bible in a German periodical from 1749, the Nachrichten von einer hallischen Bibliothek.



This review is preceded by a review of another judischteutsche Bibel. (pp. 95-110) Needless to say, this review is not so impressed with Blitz's feeling for pshat, to say nothing of his language, as far as I can make out.

¹ Unpaginated. Haha, it is on the 26th and 27th page of the JNUL file I linked above.

Maharatz Chajes and Isaak Markus Jost's History; when a period is really a comma...

Shmuel Feiner's highly interesting book Haskalah and History: The Emergence of a Modern Jewish Historical Consciousness (trans. by Chaya Naor and Sondra Silverston) contains a really fascinating anecdote about R. Zwi Hirsch Chajes (pg. 130. In a chapter ironically (? see below) called The Manipulation of History in Nineteenth-Century Galicia, we find the following:

An anecdote about Chajes told by Jacob Bodek reflects how studiously Jost's books were read in Galicia:

Once when I traveled with him to Brody, and we came at night to an inn in the city of Zloczow, I rested upon my bed, reading the eighth volume of a book on the chronicles of the Jews by the great and wise rabbi Mordecai Jost, which I had with me on my journey so that I might read it when the travelers stopped to feed the horses or for an overnight stay. And when Rabbi Chajes saw that book in my hand, he asked me about various interesting matters written about in this book and what I thought of them, and if I did not recall them at that moment, he said to me: But they are written for you in that book, in such and such a volume, on such and such a page, or in such and such a footnote, and he spoke to me of all the first seven volumes which I had read as if they lay open before him, just as the pages of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, and the books of the geonim and the ancients were open before him.<sup>262

262</sup> From the biography of Tsevi Hirsch Chajes in the unpaginaged supplement added by J. Bodek to Triebesch, Korot ha'itim (Lemberg, 1851).

The book was previously available at Hebrew Books, but without Bodek's supplement. In its complete form it is now on Google Books (courtesy of Harvard):



Jacob Bodek was one of the famous "Spectators," and he was described elsewhere as one of the "Right-wing disciples of Nachman Krochmal," presumably like his friend R. Chajes (who refers to Bodek in the following manner ]Imre Binah pg. 948 in Kol Sifrei vol. II], ידידי הרבני החכם השלם המופלג מוהר"ר יעקב בודק נ"י, in case you are wondering if Chajes even knew him!). Any way you slice it, this story is amazing. Amazing memory, amazing book for R. Chajes to be so familiar with in this way. Let's just say that Jost's History is not the דורות הראשונים.

However, I was disappointed to see that the excerpt quoted in Feiner's book does not quite say what it claims to say (recognizing here that I have not seen his original Hebrew edition, and this might be a translating error and not a deliberate "manipulation of history").

Here is the quote exactly as it appears in Feiner:



What looks like a period at the end is actually a comma, and the passage continues. See below:



This is even more amazing, and in certain respects more radical. However, it most definitely does not say that Maharatz Chajes knew the eight volumes of Jost's Allgemeine Geschichte des Israelitischen Volkes by heart, down to it's minutest detail, just as he knew the Bavli and Yerushalmi, geonim and ancient authors (although it seems that he did!). Rather, it says that Jost's volumes were committed to memory as if open before him. Period, not comma. Then it continues, and in this manner he knew the Bavli, Yerushalmi, the halachic works of the Rif and the Rambam, as well as the Guide for the Perplexed, the Kuzari, Ramban, Albo's Ikkarim, the Akedah, Abarbanel, all the works of Moses Mendelssohn, which are filled with divine philosophy, in accordance with our Torah, all the contemporary [Wissenschaft des Judentums] books from Germany by Jewish and non-Jewish scholars, whether written in German or French, so long as it pertained to Jewish subjects, as well as all their source material, in short, he knew Hebraische literatur, and all of it was at his disposal to recall.

I do not see these as identical statement at all. Now, don't think a deliberate distortion was in order, as evinced by the continuation of the phrase Bavli and Yerushalmi to encompass also the works of the geonim and ancient scholars. However, to me it looks too much like it is trying to say that he knew Jost like he knew both Talmuds, while it really says that he knew Jost down to it's smallest detail. And also down to the minute details is how he knew both Talmuds, etc. Does anyone else see the semantic difference?

In addition, I am not a fan of the "unpaginated" mode of citation, which makes it that much harder to look the source up yourself. So what if it's unpaginaged? How about this: "twenty-nine pages from the end." That is exactly where you will find it, and it will take you two minutes instead of an hour to find it, as you would with that citation.

(By the way, Bodek recounted the same anecdote a few years later in nearly identical language an early issue of Ha-maggid [January 30, 1857, #9, pg. 33]:

)

The unhappy Abraham Pass, the story of an 18 year old Jew executed Jew in England, 1743

Abraham Pass was charged with breaking and entering the home of Thomas Beate and John Dawson and stealing 250 ells of linen cloth on July 28, 1743. For this he was convicted and executed on November 21, 1743. Described here as "He did not commit Street Robberies, neither did he practice Shoplifting, but other sorts of Theft he made free with upon every opportunity. He was a most profligate, wicked young Man, wholly void of the Fear of God, disobedient to his Parents and Superiors, and unwilling to follow any settled Business."

Below is the entire story, which is well worth reading.

Prozbul: Was Hillel True to Tradition?

Menachem Mendel notes that the archives of a short-lived journal called S'vara are available here.

Volume 2.2 (1991) contains a symposium called "Prozbul: Was Hillel True to Tradition?" containing Prozbul and Legal Fiction by Pinchas Shiffman, Prozbul and Rabbinic Power by David Kraemer and Prozbul and Poseq by David M. Gordis. (link). I haven't read it, but it's an interesting idea for discussion.

A shocking doctor's prescription written by Ephraim Luzzatto

In 1840 Franz Delitsch asked David Aaron de Sola to write a piece on the poet and physician Ephraim Luzzatto (1729-1792) for the Literaturblatt des Orients. Below is a shocking, if not entertaining excerpt (Literaturblatt des Orients I (Jan 4, 1840), pp 9:



For the benefit of those who don't read Blackletter, here is my translation.

One Saturday, summoned to the Chief Rabbi, [Luzzatto] requested a quill, ink and paper so he could write a prescription; but neither the rabbi nor anyone in his family would give these to him, because he was only a little inconvenienced, and he had his office nearby¹. But he had quill and ink in his bag, and tore out a page from his book and wrote something like this:

"Today on this holy Sabbath day, in the month of Shevat, in the year 5500 (ie, 1740) , [when the weekly reading containing the verse, Ex. 21.19, Parshas Mishpatim) וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא, healing for the perfect haham, the distinguished judge, the pious, the modest, etc. "greater than the title 'rabbi' is the name," his honor, the rabbi . . . the Lord will send him healing . . . "

Then came the prescription in Latin, followed by four satirical lines in Hebrew, which could no longer be recalled by the person who told me about this. This was rude and callous to play with the patient's feelings and beliefs. I hope this anecdote is not true and question it's authenticity, especially because of the well-known saying de mortuis nihil nisi bene, which מליצים have given with the same truth and more wit: אחרי מות קדושים אמור.²

¹ I assume this meant that Dr. Luzzatto could have gone to his office and gotten the medication, rather than write out a prescription. Alternatively, maybe they wanted him to go to the office and get the ink, etc. himself rather than handle it for him. Or maybe it means that the rabbi's illness was itself only an inconvenience and not life-threatening, therefore no prescription should have been written at all?

² On the one hand this is surprising. It would seem to indicate that the story was true. After all, if אחרי מות קדושים אמור holds water then would the story be said if it weren't true, despite that tendency? On the other hand, I suppose it depends on why the story was being told. It certainly seems to bolster Luzzatto's quick wit and way with a pen, thus in that sense it could be a case of inflating his reputation after death. In addition, it is worth having a look at what Rashi comments on those two words (see here). Razor sharp! In any case, at least one detail of the story is obviously wrong, the date. In 1740 Ephraim Luzzatto was all of 11 years old. In addition, the overly flowery prose in the rabbi's title raises questions (גדול מרבן שמו כמהו"רר ? You've gotta be kidding me.) Indeed, one scholar identified the rabbi as Moses Cohen d'Azevedo (which would place the story after 1761) on the basis of the poor esteem which he was held as a scholar (which even caused a distinguished dayan to resign when d'Azevedo was appointed to the Bet Din).

You have to really know trop to know how to do this...

The final pages of Shadal's Kinnor Na'im (1825). I leave it to the experts to dispute his cantillation.