Did Ozzy Osbourne ever moonlight as Abraham Geiger?

Of course not. They were born about 140 years apart. But close to three years after making the observation that they really, really look alike, finally: proof that I am not the only one who noticed it:





This person was searching and found this.

[sic] דעת בעלי בתים היפוך דעת תורה

(Click to enlarge)





Heh heh.

How do I do it?

Recently people have been asking me "where do you come up with your posts?" I don't think it's egotistical to admit that I think my posts are interesting. Of course they interest me! Anyone else who is interested enough to read or ask seems to find some of them interesting too. I was thinking about doing an "Anatomy of an On the Main Line post," and I'll do that sometime. But for now, I'll reveal some of my secrets, which should not be such a secret. First, there are generally two kinds of OtML posts. One is an analysis of a topic, be it some kind of biblical question concerning language or interpretation, or a historical question. The other is of the "here is a cool picture/ paragraph/ quote/ article/ essay/ antiquarian something-or-other." There used to be a third kind, a rant about something (generally Jewishly) political, or cultural, but I've gotten most of that out of my system! Here I will concern myself with the second type of post.

The answer is that I read a lot. Point a leads to point b, and that leads to point z, and sometimes it leads to point zxwr3$35. You never know. I don't have an amazing collection of seforim, books and periodicals, but I believe what I do own is judiciously chosen to interest me. I find material and leads there. I also go to libraries when I can, sometimes in search of something specific, sometimes not. But I usually come away with something of interest to explore further.

But then there are the riches and resources that are online, some free and some available via subscription.

Google Book Search is free, and it gets better every month (despite some real flaws). Not only is it a good resource, but if you play around with it you can even crack some of it's limitations. Their new agreement will only make it better.

Sometimes books which are unavailable there can be read (at least the parts I want) on amazon.com or bn.com. You never know, always check.

There are other digitization projects to check out, like the one on archive.org. The University of Michigan's Mirlyn library catalog was and is a good resource, as it incorporates all of the books Google has scanned from them but not placed online (provided there is no copyright issue).

Recently many libraries joined with U Mich and formed the Hathi Trust, which is like Mirlyn, only includes many more libraries. It will work as a backup of Google Books, and at the moment includes many things which Google did not yet put online.

There are free collections of digital material on many university web sites, such as this:

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/ilej/

and this

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html

and this

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/browse.journals/

Many Jewish universities and libraries have valuable material.

There is the JNUL which has these:

http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/eng/digibook.html
http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/newspapers/index1024.html

TAU which has

http://jpress.tau.ac.il/view-hebrew.asp

JTSA's digital site is small, but really good

http://sylvester.jtsa.edu:8881/R?RN=710246460

There is this

http://www.compactmemory.de/

Then there are paid archives, which one can access through university subscription if one has such access, which one, of course, does.

There is JStor, there are databases by Proquest, Gale and Chadwyck-Healy.

There is the amazing, amazing hebrewbooks.org. There is still the very valuable seforimonline.com. There is Otzar Ha-chochma, the Bar Ilan Responsa Project, Daat, and there are great friends who I send things to and who send things to me. Of course, there are also the most valuable comments, emails I receive and posts by other bloggers to stimulate and inform me.

I can go on, and maybe later I will. But in short, there are TONS of material available for my posts, or any sort of posts. If my passion was the history of invention I could probably run a fascinating blog about that, at least one that fascinated me.

Ishim U-shitos figured it out.

What on earth is a "taghmical"?

Some time ago I came across a work on the trop from 1698 called The Taghmical Art ; or, the Art of Expounding Scripture by the points usually called Accents, but are really Tactical : a Grammatical, Logical, and Rhetorical instrument of interpretations by Walter Cross.

And it looks like this:



and includes gems like this:




Here's a fun table:



A reviewer from 1824 had this to say:



It seems this book fascinated and confused quite a lot of people who only wanted to learn about how the Jews cantillate their Bible!

For a long time I wondered what the heck he meant by "taghmical." It seemed to be a neologism, a word coined by himself. From context I understood that it related to the biblical accents. Did it mean "pertaining to the taggin"? That made no sense, but that doesn't always stop everyone.

Then I had a brainstorm: the Oxford English Dictionary.

And they came through:




Taghmical is from טעמים, with Cross taking the liberty of wackily transcribing the ע as gh. Clever.

(Other clever English words of that era: mecubalist and alcoran. But I bet you can tell what these mean)

Put away your Ben-Ze'ev books; where JL Benzeev wrote them and where he died

Here's a very funny notice from a 1928 issue of Beis Va'ad Le-chachomim:



As you can see, it suggests retiring the most famous works by Yehuda Leib Ben Ze'ev, who was one of the Me'assfim, and part of Mendelssohn's circle. As a great hebraist, the works mentioned here were hugely popular in eastern Europe, giving the keys to the Hebrew language and grammar to many generations. The footnote (citing Lev Ha-ivri) claims that he wrote תלמוד לשון עברי on shabbos, never married and died on the toilet!



For an earlier list of books one ought not read, see here, same publication.

(Since I can't resist mentioning Shadal, the Jewish advocacy for the utility of Syriac for plumbing the depths of Aramaic, and therefore Hebrew, is often attributed to him. But he himself attributed the inspiration for the idea to Ben Ze'ev, although it was Shadal who first mastered Syriac and showed how it could be useful. See Ohev Ger (2nd ed. pg. 93):



This was called to my attention in the course of reading Rubin's translation of Shadal's Prolegomeni. Shadal mentions Giuda Löwe ben Zeev here.)

Speaking of Syriac, Here is R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, Even Ha-azel vol. vi Korbonot 1.8, pg. 2, quoting Kohut:



Verily, the line of progress that made this passage possible begins among Jews with Ben Ze'ev, goes through Shadal, to Kohut, and then to R. Isser Zalman.)

An interesting contemporary critique of R. Nathan Marcus Adler's Nethina La-ger on Targum Onkelos

In the 19th century there was a great deal of Christian missionary activity directed toward the Jews emanating from England. This activity was concentrated in the lands under British imperial rule, but also in eastern Europe, and in England itself. For example, there was the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews. This society, and others, produced Hebrew and Yiddish translations of the New Testament, and printed Hebrew Bibles without Jewish commentaries for distribution among Jews. Many of the missionaries were themselves Jewish. It is my sense that there was no small amount of evangelical Jewish Christians in England during that century.

Famous among them was Christian David Ginsburg, but there were others as well. (You can hear a most interesting lecture by Shnayer Leiman on a former Chassid, Ezekiel Stanisław Hoga, who translated a famous missionary tract into Hebrew, here. The tract was The Old Paths by Alexander McCaul [1837], and was translated as נתיבות עולם by Hoga. The lecture discusses various Jewish legends surrounding the mis-identified author of this book, including a story told by R. Kook)

Previously I had posted on some interesting information by one such Jewish missionary, Moses Margoliouth (here and here). Margoliouth was born in 1820, became a Christian in 1838, was ordained a minister in 1844, and died in 1881. In an obituary I read, it was noted that he had been a student of the aforementioned McCaul in his youth. He wrote a number of books aimed at refuting Judaism, and was editor of a journal called The Hebrew Christian Witness, from which the following very interesting material is culled.

The first is a review of an amazing Rabbinic Bible (מקראות גדולות) published in 1874 by British Chief Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler, under the title תורת אלהים. Take a look at this:




As you can see, in addition to a very good choice of rabbinic commentaries, the edition includes the rare Masorah of the Targum Anqylas, with notes by Shadal, as well as publishing for the first time the apparently anonymous commentary on that targum, which had been known as the יאר, after the date (רי"א is יאר , that is 5211, or 1451 CE) written in the manuscript, which was then residing in the British Museum (I think). It's previous owner was Shadal. It was he who discovered this manuscript (as a teenager, in a dusty geniza in his hometown) and he made great use out of it in his commentary אוהב גר on the Targum , as well as in his המשתדל commentary on the Torah. Rabbi Adler also refers to this commentary by its true title, as identified by Shadal: Pathshegen פתשגן, (from Esther 3.14), as it is now known. In addition to that commentary, he also included his own commentary on Targum Onkelos (י"א Anqylas) called נתינה לגר.

Here is the preliminary review by Margoliouth:



As you can see, he was not a fan of Adler, and took to harping on the name of his commentary as a means of ridiculing him. In truth, it is highly unlikely that Adler did not remember the origin of the term netina la-ger; rather, in keeping with the spirit of melitzah (for better or worse) he chose a clever name for his work.

What follows is from a later issue, allegedly a letter received from a reader (as opposed to written by Margoliouth). As you can see, this critic takes the interesting tack of attacking Adler for writing his magnum opus in rabbinic Hebrew, rather than English, and publishing it in Vilna, rather than in Britain. He assumes that Adler did so to basically hide it from his public.

I review the Koren siddur

Rabbi Elli Fischer of ADDeRabbi has already reviewed the forthcoming The Koren Sacks Siddur (here), but I was sent a copy too, so I feel I should review it as well (which is, after all, why I received it).

Since Reb Elli dealt primarily with translation and it's treatment of women-friendly and Israel centered themes, I feel I should comment on other aspects.

First of all, it is beautiful. It so happens that I love the Koren font, but that is only part of it. It is layed out neatly, and the binding seems to be exceptional -- very important for a siddur that is to be used daily for many years. Elli already commented on the innovative move to place the Hebrew on the left and the English on the right. It does indeed take getting used to (say, a minute) but once you do it seems so complementary and natural. A good layout technique; my compliments to whomever thought of it. There are little quirky things which look nice; an asterisk marks the aliyos in the section of weekday Torah readings. A tiny sideways isosceles trinagle marks the point where the chazzan reads from. The English is in normal font, rather than italics (coughyouknowwhocough). From a layout-design perspective, the only complaints I have is that there is too little variation in font size. This isn't really a problem for someone who is comfortable with a siddur, but I can see this being difficult for some. Also, the section on berachos is not found after shacharis, as in most siddurim. Again, not a huge deal, but unless there is some significant improvement, changing the familiar layout should be reconsidered.

In the comments at Elli's review, someone suggested that the te'amim (cantillation signs) be included on all biblical verses. That may be extreme, but they are properly included for the Shema. However, I wondered why they were not included for Az Yashir; while it is a kabbalistic custom to say Az Yashir with the trope, this siddur does not eschew the kabbalistic influence on the siddur generally. Thus, all the expected le-shem yichuds are included, even if a little note that "some say" them precedes. I noticed, with my approval, that morid ha-gshm is pointed with segols.

I didn't get the chance to read the commentary and translation extensively (besides, Elli already commented on the quality of the translation), but I have a few words about it. British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks's erudition and inspirational ability is known to all who have heard or read works by him. The little I did preview didn't reveal any earth-shattering commentary, but that is to be expected (preferred?) in what should be a popular and reliable siddur. I noticed that he had fun in his translation of the zemer Yah Ribbon Olam; in keeping with the rhyming Aramaic (ve-olmaya, malchaya, ve-simhaya, le-hachavaya, etc.) he rhymed all the stiches in English (adored, Lord, applaud, accord), keeping it true for all five paragraphs. Pretty cool. Upon request, I'll scan that page if anyone wants to judge how well he accomplished this.

I began to compile a list of sources cited in the commentary, but did not get very far. I noticed R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. Jacob Zvi Mecklenburg, Ibn Ezra, Radak, R. Avraham Maimonides, and, of course, the siddur of Rav Amram, and Tolstoy. A great deal of the commentary seems to be original; at least that is the assumption I make for unattributed commentary. Since the edition is still not released, and improvements can yet be made, I'd like to go on record suggesting a complete bibliography at the end!

Finally, a little thing I noticed and thought was interesting. In Az Yashir (pg. 80, Ex. 15.3) we see יהוה איש מלחמה translated as "the Lord is a master of war." In the introduction to the Birnbaum siddur we find some of the principles which Birnbaum followed, and the reasons why he felt his siddur was a vast improvement over those which had come before him. We find the following example:

"Every student of Hebrew knows that בן is not always equivalent of a son. It frequently denoted age, membership in a definitive class, or the possession of some quality. Similarly, איש and בעל are often used interchangably to characterize a person. Thus, איש לשון, (Psalm 140.12) means a slanderer, and איש מלחמה, (Exodus 15.3) a warrior. Hence, the rendering "the Lord is a man of war" is erroneous and nothing short of sacrilegious." (Ha-siddur Ha-shalem; pg. xiv). Birnbaum goes on to call this type of "literalness . . . typical of what has crept into the Siddur's translation as a result of copying from men unfamiliar with idiomatic Hebrew."

Is R. Sacks's "master of war" the same as "man of war"? Maybe, maybe not. In any event, Birnbaum was not a native English speaker; Sacks is. Speaking of idiomatic English, I couldn't help but to think that "master of war" evokes - at least unconsciously - Bob Dylan's Masters of War. I can't imagine that Sacks wished to apply the message of that song to God; but I can imagine that the phrase was rolling around in his mind, just as it is in the mind of everyone who knows that song, and to him it seemed very good idiomatic English, that is, normally a phrase like that would seem stilted, but in this case "the Lord is a master of war" seems very natural to the reader.

In all, I like the siddur very much. I like how it looks, how durable it is, how relaxed with itself and its modern Orthodox ideology it is, how halachically normative it is, and that font! Love it. You also get R. Sacks's commentary on Pirke Avot free. You won't be disappointed if you buy it.

Oh, that rapscallion William Wickes

Haw, haw.

Yossele Rosenblatt phonograph ad

Menorah Journal 1918 (Back cover)

Rabbis gowns - you have to buy them somewhere

From 1905.

Bochurim, 'Remember! Your blood is no redder than the blood of others.' A message to Israeli yeshiva bochurim from E. E. Urbach and others, 1967

I found the following interesting message to the yeshiva bochurim of Israel from an English periodical from 1967 called Steps at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/. Steps issued from the "Movement For Torah Judaism," based in Jerusalem, and the articles apparrently are from their Hebrew publications He-hadash yitkadesh we-ha-kadosh yithaddesh ("The New will be Sanctified and the Sainted Renewed") and Mehalechim ("Steps"). The former name (He-hadash etc.) was coined, I think, by Professor E. E. Urbach in his speech at the dedication of the Hebrew University in 1925. Articles in this publication were written by Urbach, Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal and others. You can read the opening address by Urbach at the Movement for Torah Judaism's initial meeting here.

Who am I?

Oy, vay! That quintessentially Jewish expression is Greek?

"Elementi grammaticali del caldeo biblico e del dialetto talmudico babilonese," pg. 105, by Shadal.



At least "oy" is Hebrew. (link, etc.)

Those 127 years of Sarah's life, interpreted by Rashi

If I'd have had the time, this post would have appeared last week in honor of חיי שרה.

The first verse reads

וַיִּהְיוּ חַיֵּי שָׂרָה מֵאָה שָׁנָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְשֶׁבַע שָׁנִים שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי שָׂרָה

And the life of Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty years; these were the years of the life of Sarah (Gen. xxiii.i).

The very well known comment on this verse appears in Rashi's commentary:

ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים - לכך נכתב שנה בכל כלל וכלל, לומר לך שכל אחד נדרש לעצמו, בת מאה כבת עשרים לחטא, מה בת עשרים לא חטאה, שהרי אינה בת עונשין, אף בת מאה בלא חטא, ובת עשרים כבת שבע ליופי

And the life of Sarah was one hundred years and twenty years and seven years The reason that the word “years” was written after every digit is to tell you that every digit is to be expounded upon individually: when she was one hundred years old, she was like a twenty-year-old regarding sin. Just as a twenty-year-old has not sinned, because she is not liable to punishment, so too when she was one hundred years old, she was without sin. And when she was twenty, she was like a seven-year-old as regards to beauty. — from Gen. Rabbah 58:1]

(Judaica Press translation from here).

Indeed, Genesis Rabbah reads

ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה (תהלים לז) יודע ה' ימי תמימים ונחלתם לעולם תהיה כשם שהן תמימים כך שנותם תמימים, בת כ' כבת ז' לנוי, בת ק' כבת עשרים שנה לחטא

Modern Orthodoxers and children of little faith have wondered, for decades at least, at this exegesis. It would seem to them that beauty is the more noticeable characteristic of twenty year old women than seven year old girls, while innocence most properly characterizes seven year olds over twenty year olds. A lot can happen in thirteen years.

Shadal commented:

כלל שאתר הפרט (נתיבות השלום) ; ונ"ל כי טעות נפלה בלשון המדרש שהביא רש"י וצריך לומר בת ק' כבת כ' לנוי בת כ' כבת ז' לחטא, ומפני שמצא רש"י הנוסחא הפוכה (כבת כ' לחטא כבת ז' לנוי) נדחק לפרש שאינה בת עונשין והמילות הללו אינן במדרש. ואח"כ מצאתי כדברי בפירוש קדמון כ"י על בראשית רבא הנמצא בקובץ היקר הכולל פי' סי יצירה לר"י ברצלוני, אחוזת הגבירים היקרים בני המנוח משה אריה טריאסטי ז"ל, וכן כתוב בו : היה לו לומר מאה ועשרים ושבע שנה, אלא כך הוא אומר בת מאה כבת עשרים לנו

In my opinion, an error fell into the language of the midrash that Rashi cited [Bereshit Rabbah 58], and it ought to say, "When she was a hundred, she was like twenty in regard to beauty; when she was twenty, she was like seven in regard to sin." But since Rashi found the text reversed ("like twenty in regard to sin, like seven in regard to beauty"), he was forced to explain that [at age twenty] she had not yet reached the age of responsibility, and these words are not in the midrash.

I have since found an explanation similar to mine in an ancient commentary in manuscript on Bereshit Rabbah, which is found in the precious collection that also includes a commentary on the Sefer Yetsirah by Rabbi Y. Barceloni, in the possession of those beloved masters, the sons of the late Moses Aryeh Trieste. This is what it says: "The text should have said me'ah ve-esrim ve-sheva shanah ["one hundred twenty-seven years"], but this is how it says it: [me'ah shanah ve-esrim shanah ve-shevah shanim, lit. "one hundred years and twenty years and seven years," meaning] when she was a hundred, she was like twenty in regards to beauty." (elegant and accurate trans. by the intrepid Shadal scholar Dan Klein.)

In his critical edition of Rashi on the Torah, R. Abraham Berliner is inclined to agree that the the emended version is preferable--or at least he cites it in his footnote (link). He refers the reader to Shadal, but also Yalkut Tehillim 37, which actually reads this way:

ודע ה' ימי תמימים כשם שהם תמימים כך שנותיהם תמימים, בת ק' כבת כ' לנוי, בת עשרים כבת שבע לחטא

Note that Genesis Rabbah is an exegesis of Psalm 37 as well. Thus, we have two conflicting readings. Assuming one is an error (as opposed to these being two independent exegeses), might it not be the one that raises questions?

Rabbi Hertz has "the rabbis" interpreting the verse according to the emended version (well, the Yalkut's version, which is not emended. He simply doesn't mention Rashi here.). It then informs the reader that 'This, according to Luzzatto and Berliner, was the original form of the saying.' Thus, two kinds of readers are addressed. Those who are unfamiliar with Gen. Rabbah or even Rashi's comment are given the smoother reading. Those who would be thinking "That's not what Rashi said!" are informed the yichus of the version presented in this commentary.

An ass walks into a bar and orders a glass of wine

I spent many hours of my childhood learning with my grandfather. He was a very precise person , and did everything he could to counter my childish tendency to accept generality and 'basically getting the gist,' whether in terms of pronunciation, phrasing or translation. All three were very much neglected in my formal education, and he posed a frustrating but valuable counterweight. He always used to say that you have to pay attention to where the חמר is. Is it in the barn or in a barrel?*



Midrash Kohelles Rabbah i. iv

חנינא בן אחי ר' יהושע אזל להדיה כפר נחום ועבדון ליה מינאי מלה ועלון יתיה רכיב חמרא בשבתא, אזל לגביה יהושע חביביה ויהב עלוי משח ואיתסי, א"ל כיון דאיתער בך חמרא דההוא רשיעא לית את יכיל שרי בארעא דישראל, נחת ליה מן תמן לבבל ודמך תמן בשלמיה

I found this footnote here, a publication from 1910 called The Monist, a Quarterly Magazine Devoted to the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XX..

The footnote continues, and it's amazing:



In other words, Lowe saw the חמרא--which חנינא was riding, no less (רכיב חמרא)--and put it in the barrel, or in the wine goblet as the case may be. Wow!

Unfortunately not every dusty old tome is online in digital form (yet) and I don't have any scheduled appearances in a great library for a little while, so I did not get the chance to see what exactly William Henry Lowe's The Fragment of Talmud Babli Pesachim: Of the Ninth Or Tenth Century in the University Library, Cambridge says. So I'm taking the Monist's word for it (for now).

What of W.H. Lowe? He is quoted in this very book in JQR vol. xiii, 1901 The Talmud in History by Abram Isaacs of NYU:




That is, he was a friend of the Talmud. Just not necessarily one who allowed his love of חידוש to get in the way of common sense.

* Thinking about it, this doesn't sound like the sort of quip that is original. I wonder, if it is not original, when and from whom did he hear it?

Rabbi Hertz on the Mesilas Yesharim, the emerging mussar movement, and Rabbi Leone da Modena

I came upon this interesting passage in an appendix to the Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Convention of the Jewish Theological (1898) by Rabbi J. H. Hertz (1872-1946). Hertz, as you'll recall, would go on to become the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, but at the time he was the first rabbinical graduate of the JTS and about to begin a position as rabbi in Johannesburg.

The appendix is called "Bachya, the Jewish Thomas À Kempis." (All spelling a formatting preserved accurately.)

מסלת ישרים (Mesillath Yesharim), a short ethico-ascetic book of rare beauty. It is more interesting to-day than it ever was, as it is fast assuming a semi-canonical character in the eyes of the "Men of Morals," (בעלי מוסר) Baale Mussar, a sect-in-the-making in Russia, founded twenty years ago by R. Israel Salanter.

From pg. 31, n. 20.

Note 21 is not nearly so interesting, but worth quoting as well:

"Geographical Judaism" is more or less a reality. It would, however, require a great deal of scholarship, coupled with ethnic psychological training, to explain why Spanish Judaism has found its ethical expression in the Chaboth Ha-lebaboth, German Judaism in the Sefer Chassidim and Italian Judaism in the Messilath Yesharim (or would Leo Modena's Tzemach Tzaddik better typify a synagog which two hundred years ago allowed a rabbi to speak of the "divine Diana" in the pulpit?). We doubt not but some day it will be done.

English lo'azim, qerobatz or qerovos?

An interesting book called שטרות Hebrew Deeds of English Jews Before 1290 was published in 1888 in conjunction with the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition. (Read or browse through it here.)

The introduction contains a useful table of what amounts to English lo'azim:


שמיץ for "smith" strikes me as interesting. It appears to me that the reason why צ was used for "th" - however it was pronounced, either as /t/ or /th/ (thorn, theta) was because the צ sounded very much like an /s/ in the pronunciation, at least of the writer of that particular deed. This dovetails with my pet theory as to why the tav without dagesh is pronounced as an /s/ among Ashkenazim - /s/ being a Germanic form of /th/. In addition, this dovetails with a theory of R. Elijah Levita regarding the traditional - yet certainly mistaken - name for a type of liturgy, namely the kind that are traditionally called קרובץ. According to a traditional explanation, this word is a notarikon for קול רינה וישועה באהלי צדיקים (Psalm 118.15). Not convinced by this (as Artscroll machzorim are), Levita noted that the correct term ought to be קרובות. Where then did the spelling with the צ, which is no word, become traditional, and then the explanation? He theorized that it occurred under the influence of French Jews who had been expelled, winding up in German Ashkenazic lands. According to him, their pronunciation of the צ was very much like their pronunciation of the ת. This led to the confusion as to what the word proper was, and so on. Incidentally, in traditional German Ashkenazic, the צ does sound very much like an /s/.




Sefer Tishbi, Pg. 215, Isny edition (thanks hebr.books.)

Also of interest: Richard is (of course) transliterated as ריקרד, instead of what one might erroneously expect based on how this name is now pronounced: רישרד.

About the Collectio Davidis

The library of Prague's Chief Rabbi David Oppenheim (1664-1736) is famous. He is regarded as the first real collector of Jewish books, amassing about 6000 seforim and 100 manuscripts. His collection was so complete and so impressive that it formed the basis for one of the landmark books in the history of Jewish bibliography, Johannes Christoff Wolf's 4-volume, 5000 page Bibliotheca Hebraea (1715-1733). Incidentally, if it seems odd for an אב"ד to allow his seforim to be examined and cataloged by a Christian Hebraist for a major bibliography written in Latin and aimed at the wider scholarly world, one considers that the oddity is with thinking it odd.

The details regarding this library, the fact that R. Oppenheim was unable to keep it in Prague with him due to fear for the safety of his most valuable collection, can be read elsewhere. However, where it ended up and how it got there is most interesting. After he died, his library was kept in crates, in the home of a relative. It was offered for sale, with a catalog created for that purpose in 1764, but for decades no interested buyer purchased it. It's value was presumed to be high. Moses Mendelssohn estimated it should fetch 60,000 Thaler. Later, it was estimated to be worth over twice that. Ultimately, the Bodleian Library at Oxford made what has to be considered one of the best deals of all time (at least for a bibliophile) and bought it for 9000 Thaler, in 1829. This was the equivalent of £1350 (a rough search on the internet reveals that this was equivalent to about £95,000 pounds in 2007. A very, very good price. Ultimately, this library formed the core of the Bodleian's great Hebrew collection.

Solomon Schechter reminisced about the rumors surrounding this famed collection of Hebrew books in his native country:




Prior to the sale, it was cataloged once again (in 1826, by Isaac Metz) and printed as Collectio Davidis, or קהלת דוד. This fascinating book is now available online (link). You can also view a digital version of one of Oppenheim's manuscripts here (Ms. Opp. 154; a 15th century work called by its author משל הקדמוני.)

Messing up archive.org

A user called tpb is messing up archive.org's text section by flooding it with Judaica culled from Google Books. links

Putting aside the questionable legality of this (not my business), what is the point? You can get these texts on Google. Before, if you searched for things on archive.org you could find many things which were not (yet?) digitized by Google. Now, the search is getting ruined.

So, tpb: please stop this senseless vandalism.

Another face: R' Chiyos

I'd never seen a portrait of R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes other than the one in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:



Here's another (or, perhaps, a better quality version of the same):

Rambama"n's glasses

From here.

By the way, to all those who are concerned - I'm fine, I've just been too busy to really blog. Thanks for asking. Hopefully I'll have more time - the blog is not shutting down, either overtly or due to benign neglect.

Italian wedding poetry: Shadal's piyyut in honor of a monarch and his consort

I once posted about the excellent JTS Digital site, and the wedding poem in honor of R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto that I found there (see here).

I discovered an interesting - error? I'm not exactly sure that what follows was placed in the wedding poem section in error, but judge for yourself.

The following description appears for this poem: Wedding poem for Joseph Franz and Elisheva by Samuel David Luzzatto (Shadal). The description is no different from the other poems. For example, here is another poem by Shadal in honor of Avraham Shalom and Rosa Cohen (written in Syriac, no less, with Hebrew translation).

Here is the poem in honor of the choson Joseph Franz and his kalloh, Elisheva:



(Click to enlarge)

As you can see, this is not a typical wedding poem for a local couple. Franz Joseph, of course, was the emperor of Austria, and Elisheva was his wife, Elisabeth [Amalie Eugenie of Bavaria]. I guess it's kind of funny that the this is not apparent from the listing.

Can you imagine living in a society where good citizenship and patriotism, or the appearance of that, called for the writing of such poetry?

Here is the poem for Avraham Shalom and Roza Cohen. Note how they become "Avraham Shalum and Roza Chahen," ostensibly in accordance with the requirements of Syriac grammar:

Youthful textual criticism of the Targum to Joshua 9.4 by R. Yaakov Kamenetsky

Here's an interesting excerpt from the Artscroll biography of R. Yaakov Kamenecki, Reb Yaakov: The Life and Times of HaGaon Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky by Yonason Rosenblum Based on the research of Rabbi Nosson Kamenetsky (NY, 1993), pg.53:

The following is from the Slabodka period, which begun in 1906.

Another time he used his knowledge of Aramaic to refute aspersions cast by maskilim on the accuracy of the Masoretic text that we have today. In Yehoshua (9:4) the word וַיִּצְטַיָּרוּ appears. Rashi interprets the verb as referring to making oneself an agent. But the maskilim pointed to the Targum ואזדודו which means to load oneself with provisions and is the Aramaic for the Hebrew ויצטידו Thus they concluded that our text is corrupt and that the Hebrew letter reish, ר replaced a dalet, ד. But Reb Yaakov noted that by changing only one letter in the Targum it would become ואזדגדו, which is the Aramaic translation of our text and conforms perfectly to Rashi's understanding. Thus the error was in the Targum not the text of Yehoshua.

Incidentally, the King James Version translates according to Rashi: "and made as if they had been ambassadors."

However, Gesenius, notes the problem:



See also what Emanuel Tov writes on pg. 168 of Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible:



Note that some Masoretic manuscripts do read ויצטידו, and also that "all the ancient translations" translate "provisions" as against the masoretic text, a point which is not mentioned in the book, which makes it a purely a Targum vs. Masoretic text issue.

Furthermore, although the solution is brilliant (especially considering his youth) it may or may not be the case that the error was in the transmission of the Targum (that is, the Targum originally read ואזדגדו but a textual corruption caused it to read ואזדודו , which happened to agree with all the other ancient translations - Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta - but not the Masoretic). Conversely, this may be what happened after all. Either way, it's a good example of responsible - some would say maddening - conservatism in textual criticism of the Bible. However, it must be noted that this conjectural emendation comes at the expense of a less than conservative attitude toward the Targum, coming against the manuscripts and against other witnesses, of the Targum.
Incidentally, the prior paragraphs in the book read:

The Alter built up individuals to such an extent that they could even reject his advice. He once walked into a room as Reb Yaakov was demonstrating to Reb Laizer Yudel, the Alter's son, that if he knew the trop (cantillation) on the first two words of any verse in Tanach he could work out the trop for the rest of the verse. The Alter grew furious at what he considered to be, at best, a diversion from more important Gemara studies.

Yet the Alter's displeasure did not deter Reb Yaakov from continuing to pursue his studies in Biblical grammar. Many of his published chiddushim reflect his unparalleled knowledge of this subject. He once amazed the students in Torah Vodaath by reading the Haftarah flawlessly from a scroll without prior preparation. One time he showed Rabbi Joseph Elias how a respected posek had erred with respect to an issue of the correct halachic measure because of a failure to distinguish between an etzba beinoni, the finger of an average sized person, an an etzba beinonis, the middle finger.

Hebrew by the hand of a 17th century Christian Hebraist

I've always been interested in seeing Hebrew as written by non-Jews. More on that another time. Here's an interesting excerpt from a Hebrew letter by Joannes Stephanus Rittangel to fellow Christian Hebraist John Selden, sent in 1641:



Note the honorific Seldenus כמהר"ר on the 10th line!

An image of the entire letter, along with transcription and translation, was published by Daniel Lasker in Karaism and Christian Hebraism: A New Document, Renaissance Quarterly 59.4 (2006). The content of the letter concerns Rittangel's request for Selden's assistance in publishing Karaite manuscripts. The content is interesting, and you can download a copy here, but I think the beautiful appearance is what really makes it post-worthy. Note the hybrid Ashkenazi-Rashi character of the script itself.

Like a stiletto

Haven't done one of these in a while.

Sharp (?) comment:

David Zevi Hoffman demolished it,
Modern literary approaches offer a unity,
You can use Rav Breuer if you want.
You see, the critics were wrong- camels were known in the time of Abraham.
Look the Daat Hamikra does use historical data.
Bar-Ilan is "orthopax" and you dont want to wind up like them.
Nahmanides, as interpreted by the Shem mishmuel, presents Devarim as a different voice.
We cant really do Pentatuch history but to question Abraham would be a post-modern attack against Judiasm [and Zionism].
One can pick holes in the theories of the minimalists.
Rebbe Tsadok had a historical apporach.
We can only do the Dead Sea Scrolls.
We understand the text through hazal or meforshim and then there are not real problems.
Using modern literary techniques to explain meforshim makes us very modern and up to date- unlike the Biblical critics who are still in the 19th century.
Rav Bin-Nun [or Leibtag] will be visiting in town next week, save your question and ask him.
Look there is an entire cadre of Orthodox Bible scholars, like Grumet, Leibtag, Helfgot, Zornberg, and Carmy- if they are not bothered by your question then it is not a real question.

link

Photoshopping women out of the Chofetz Chaim's vicinity

Ishim ve-shitos notes that a yeshiva mailed a photograph of the Chofetz Chaim that was visited by the Photoshop Fairy:

Original:



Doctored:

Of course it is not clear if this particular yeshiva was responsible for removing the women from the photo. Perhaps their source (e.g., a book) was the photo already doctored. But one thing is certain: someone removed two women from the private garden photo.

Some aspects of the Netziv's youthful bookshelf

Holy Hyrax called my attention to the 5th annual Ariel Avrech z"l Yahrzeit Lecture at the Young Israel of Century City (listen).

The lecturer was Gil S. Perl; the topic "What Was the Rosh Yeshiva Reading? Intellectual Openness in 19th Century Lithuania?" Drawn from his research for his dissertation on the Neziv (see my prior post On the alleged average intelligence of the Neziv), a couple of points he raised are worth mentioning (although this should not absolve you of listening to the very interesting talk - but if you don't want to, here is a summary of the lecture topic: link).

The first point (discussed in his dissertation on pp. 345-46) concerns the great depth and breadth of Hebrew grammatical knowledge in possession of the Neziv. The memoir by his nephew R. Baruch Epstein contains the following story:

The maskil Joshua Steinberg asked the Neziv how it was that he was had become so adept at grammar, Bible and cognate studies, when clearly he was a traditional talmid chochom who occupied his time entirely with Talmud and rabbinic literature? Furthermore, he - Steinberg - achieved his expertise in these subjects only after many years of hard toil in these subjects.

The Neziv, says Epstein, replied with a parable of two linen merchants. One has a huge business, the other barely anything. Noticing that the bales of linen in the stock of the larger merchant are bound by fine straps that are worth something in and of themselves, the lesser merchant asks the other where he gets those straps. He is told that he gets them from his supplier. Thinking of an opportunity the small merchant tries to get many straps from the supplier, who charges for them in accordance with what they're worth. The merchant doesn't understand; why are they thrown in for free for the larger merchant? He is told that they are free if you buy a great amount of linen, but not if you only came for the straps.

Is the message of the parable not clear?

(It does not need to take up four pages, as it does in the memoir. Therefore I put them in a pdf, which you can read if you like: link)

Now, it is not possible to know if this exchange took place or not, or if it did exactly as recounted, but the implication is certainly that the Neziv kind of acquired this great knowledge by osmosis, and with divine help. It certainly does not imply that he learned grammar by reading books on grammar, for example, or at least it skirts the issue.

Yet Perl notes that the Neziv quotes such works in his early work on the Sifre (which was published under the title עמק הנצי"ב fifty years after his death). For example, see the following (Shoftim, vol. iii, pg 189):



As you can see, he directs the reader to the introduction of the grammatical work אשכול הכופר by the Karaite scholar Yehuda Ha-dassi, which obviously was on his reading list. The commentary contains references to other works, like Levita's Massores Ha-massores, so it's obvious that the Neziv was familiar with high level standard grammatical and massoretic works.

It should be noted that even though the Neziv's knowledge is therefore no mystery, that doesn't mean that the exchange never took place - only that the significance of it is not as it appears. This is similar to a popular belief that the Chazon Ish was very knowledgeable about medical topics, without having perused medical literature. In fact, it appears that he was very knowledgeable about medical topics, and he had perused medical literature.

The second interesting point concerns the very same passage (this is discussed on pp. 56-58 of the dissertation).

As you can see, another source is the introduction of חומש באסו ות"א. This looks like a chumash with Targum Onkelos, but the title or publication place of the chumash is unclear. באסו? Besso? Bessau?

Of course readers of this blog already understand that its an error and should read דאסו, Dessau, and that means that ת"א stands for Targum Ashkenaz, with German translation. This means that the reference is to the introduction of Mendelssohn's edition of the chumash, the אור לנתיבה. As there seems to be no באסו chumash in existence, and as Perl looked up the reference and found it in the אור לנתיבה, it seems beyond doubt that this is what was meant. The only question is whether it was an honest error (for example, the ב looked like a ד in the manuscript or just a simple typo) or a willful one.

Perhaps the latter is less likely, because removing the reference would have accomplished the same purpose without possibility of discovery (the manuscript is in possession of descendants of the Neziv). However, Perl found that when he wished to see the manuscript he was allowed by them to do so, but under difficult conditions.* First, he was seated in between two people. Second, he was not allowed to actually look at it freely. He had to tell them what he wanted to see, then they looked at it and decided if he could see it, sometimes letting him, sometimes not letting him. Perl realized what was going on, so he began to ask to see passages a little before the ones he was interested in, hoping that what he was interested in would be on the same page. In this particular case, he only got a quick glance at the reference and he couldn't see if it was written with a ד or a ב, or a ד that looked like a ב. But he did see that it was underlined in pink pencil, which suggests at least that this passage was noted by someone, perhaps the publisher of the work, and perhaps it was a willful distortion of the text.



Paranthetical side point: can you imagine today's gedolei yisrael posing for a studio portrait with an open sefer sitting on a table next to them? Times (and conventions) do, indeed, change.

* Of course, it was nice of them to give him the time of day at all, especially considering the fact of their own religious sensibilities and that his research was for a university doctorate.

So, was Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher a Karaite?

I doubt it.

In the comments in the Rema post below the issue of Karaism and masoretes was raised, so I thought it's an opportune moment to review some of the discussion concerning this matter.

It seems that ever since Simcha Pinsker published his monumental and groundbreaking history of Karaites and Karaite literature Likute Kadmoniot (Vienna 1860) , the following assertion by him was widely accepted as reasonable: when dealing with the grammarians and masoretes (including Ben Asher and BEn Naftali) of the ge'onic period if there is otherwise no indication that they had anything to do with the Talmud then they should be suspected of Karaism, or at least Karaitic leanings, since Rabbanites did not solely occupy themselves with Bible and grammar to the exclusion of Talmudic learning! This applies before R Saadya especially. Of course once Rabbanites began to more closely study the Bible exegetically and grammatically in response to the challenge of Karaism this rule loses it's force, even without evidence that such grammarians engaged in Talmudic learning as well.

Pg. ל"ב:



So this view was accepted and applied to Ben Asher by Graetz, and accepted ever after (although Aron Dotan notes that O.H. Schorr rightly dismissed Pinsker's axiom as arbitrary in his review of the book):



(Unfortunately the German original of this volume (V) of Graetz's History isn't yet digitally available. Although my German is limited, the popular English translation is insufficient - it is much, much less scholarly, and in this case all the evidence Graetz marshaled is omitted, but it will have to do for an illustration.)

His arguments are that in some texts Ben Asher is titled "מלמד" (see post below!), and that was a Karaite title of the time, Dunash records that Rav Saadya wrote responsa directed against a Ben Asher, whom he did not respect. (Paranthetically, Harry Orlinsky used to say that the authority of Ben Asher over Ben Naftali lies solely on the basis of Maimonides' endorsement - not that this is really true - and really Rav Saadya would have been a better judge, and he would have endoresed Ben Naftali over Ben Asher!) Additionally, Dunash and his students did not mention Ben Asher in their arguments with Menachem and his students, despite being Palestinian and therefore surely familiar with him. They would have done mentioned him, unless they realized he was a Karaite! Finally, a bonafide Karaite (Yehuda Ha-dassi) seems to have thought Ben Asher was a Karaite, judging by the favorable and respectful ways he refers to him.

Other arguments, brought by other scholars, included the evidence found in the treatise Dikduke ha-te'amim (said to be written by Ben Asher), where it seems to be say that all of Tanakh is useful for determining halakhah, not just the Torah.¹ This is the Karaite, not Rabbanite view. Additionally, he sometimes uses specifically Karaitic hermeneutical terminology. Finally (and rather lame) is the argument that since the colophon of the Cairo Codex of the Prophets (codex written by Moshe ben Asher) said that it was commissioned by a Karaite, and indeed this codex remained in possession of Karaites, that he himself must have been a Karaite!

Suffice it to say these arguments are insufficient, as Aron Dotan meticulously showed half a century ago in Sinai 41 (his article ? האמנם היה בן-אשר קראי was expanded and published in English as Ben Asher's Creed).

Dotan reviews in detail all the arguments that were made until his time, pro and con. Some of the arguments that Ben Asher was not a Karaite focused on the idea that Maimonides would not have considered him authoritative if he was a Karaite. The insufficiency of this idea on several grounds needn't be stated. More potently, no Rabbanite ever accused Ben Asher of being a Karaite until 1860! Others disputed that the Ben Asher that Saadya argued against was our Ben Asher.

Dotan's work is really well argued, but I will only review his specific objections to Graetz's proofs.

- it can be shown that מלמד was not only a Karaite title, but also a technical term - teacher - also used by Rabbanites

- the fact that Dunash doesn't mention Ben Asher is meaningless. Neither does Menachem (who was not Palestinian and therefore would be unlikely, according to the argument, to know that he was actually a Karaite)

- Ha-dassi's respectful language is not unusual. Fortunately outside of polemics we do find cordial references between Karaites and Rabbanites. The same Ha-dassi also refers to Yehuda Hayyuj and Yonah ibn Janach (known Rabbanites) in a pleasant, cordial way.

- the idea that Ben Asher's expression that the Prophets "complement" the Torah is Karaitic in intent is faulty, since Karaites viewed the Prophets as Torah itself - there was no tripartite division in the Bible for the Karaites. Rather, this is a Rabbanite view. In addition, the Hagiographa is not included here, and that is not a Karaite view. In addition, the issue of halakhah being derived from the Prophets is far more complex than Graetz presents.

In all, Dotan convincingly refutes the contention (originally based on little more than a tantalizing and contrarian assumption) that Ben Asher was a Karaite. Yet prior to his work it was almost a dogma that Ben Asher was a Karaite. For example, Paul Kahle wrote (1956) "We know with certainty that Moshe b. Asherand his son belonged to the community of Karaites and it is therefore very likely that also the other members of the Ben Asher family were Karaites." ("The Masoretic Text of the Bible and the Pronunciation of Hebrew, JJS 7).

We do not know this with certainty.

Finally, a note to potential Karaite readers of this blog (and I know I have such readers): I personally would not mind at all if Ben Asher was a Karaite. It's only a matter of the evidence and arguments for me. For another point of view, see the following post and comment in this post by Nachum::

"Oh, and one more thing- it seems there's a growing number of Orthodox (again, leaning right, not part of any of the categories listed above) who have taken a real interest in Masoretic issues. An offhand reference to Ben Asher and Karaism by a speaker at the conference brought an impassioned reaction from one audience member, for example, and I've been seeing quite a bit of this in recent times. I'm getting the strong feeling that a lot of people are starting to grasp that something's not quite right with the party line ("every letter from Sinai" is just the tip of the iceberg). Lord knows where it will end, especially when combined with the other sentiments above."

I asked what that was about and was told:

"One of the speakers made an offhand reference to the Leningrad Codex as having been written by a Karaite. One audience member (no one was asking questions mid-speech) protested vehemently, and wouldn't let it go, even though it was off-topic and the speaker conceded the point."



¹ סדר הנביאים האשמרת התיכונה שלום התורה כמעמד התורה ומורים מהם הוריה כתורה