So it's 1841. You're an LDS and you receive your latest copy of
Times and Seasons in the mail. (Or buy it in the General Store? I have no idea.) You open it up to page 570 and you get to read
Orson Hyde's fascinating letter from Ratsibon about his attempt to deliver a letter to Rabbi Solomon Hirschell of London and engage him in a little theological dialog. Sounds like Hirschell played (and played up) the "No speak English!" card a little. Still, some interesting talk did ensue. Rabbi Solomon made two interesting comments:
1. The land of Israel is not really big enough for all the Jews.
2. He connected the messianic era with the
aliyot taking place in the 19th century.
Is that really "Dutch" as in Hollandish, or Taitsh [=Yiddish]?
ReplyDeleteMost assuredly the latter. It's true that part of his extended family was Dutch, but that has nothing to do with it (or him).
ReplyDeleteIt's true that part of his extended family was Dutch
ReplyDeleteI.e. Hollandish?
LOL Yes.
ReplyDeleteSo I wonder when the word "Dutch" came specifically to mean Hollandish, and nothing else. Clearly after 1841.
ReplyDeleteThat is was after 1841 was no hiddush to me.
ReplyDeleteI assume it was before 1941, though.
ReplyDeleteYou can find another great encounter between early Mormons and Jews (or, well, a Jew) in I.J. Benjamin's Drei Jahre in Amerika. He describes a personal meeting with Brigham Young in the office near his Harem and everything. Hilarious stuff.
ReplyDeleteToo much bekius and not enough havanah. The rabbi he discussed with is not R' Solomon Hirschel, but the rabbi of Rotterdam, whoever that was.
ReplyDeleteWow, you're right. I have an excuse, but I'm not going to give it. Thanks for pointing that out.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Mar G, therefore let's scratch that prior exchange. The presumption now is Hollandish.
If it was the CR of Rotterdam, as opposed to another rabbi, then it was Rabbi E.J. Lowenstamm who, ironically, part of Hirschel's extended family, to whom I was referring.
OK! Just goes to show that I rĕad this piece no more carefully than you did.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, let's not scratch the exchange entirely, because we got an important result out of it -- namely, when we want to speak of "Hollandish" in future posts and comments, we can't just say "Dutch". We either have to say "Hollandish", or, best of all, "Dutch (i.e. Hollandish)".