Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Lord George Gordon's comment about the meaning of Ben Bag Bag

In the Bristol Journal (Dec. 15, 1787) there appears a piece called Lord George Gordon Turned Jew. It contains an account of his initial interrogation by the apprehending officer, a Mr. MacManus. The account is interesting in its own right - Gordon acted with decorum toward MacManus, but told him that he has no authority over him, or any Jew - but especially one part, which perhaps shows some of the instruction in Judaism that Gordon had heard from whichever Jews it was that he heard it from - it is some lore about converts to Judaism.
































That is, Gordon had explained that "Ben Bag Bag" is a notarikon for "Ben Ger, Ben Gera [sic]." Ben Bag Bag is a name that appears in the Mishnah Avot - in fact, is the source for one of its most famous teachings - - and this name certainly does seem like a pseudonym or nickname, rather than the name of an actual person. 

Most commentators have assumed that he was a convert or descended from converts, and some suggested that Bag Bag does stand for "Ben Ger, Ben Giyoret," which is what Gordon says here. (A complementary version is that Ben Heh Heh means the same thing, and perhaps the same person. There are two versions of this, in one these two men are meant to be the same person, the idea is that Heh is the gematriya of Bag = 5.) 

The idea is mentioned in two prominent 18th century sources, both of which were probably fairly popular in Gordon's time, R. Yaakov Emden's commentary on the Mishnah, as well as R. Yechiel Halperin's Seder Ha-dorot, which ascribes it to the Ma'arikh. At first I thought he meant R. Menachem di Lonzano, whose magnum opus Shtei Yadot contains a section called Ma'arikh. However, I think it does not appear in his book at all. I looked it up, and then I looked at another book by that title, and it does indeed appear there. This book was printed in Paris in 1629, and the author was Philip D'aquin. It may be of interest to some that his Ma'arikh Ha-ma'arakhot was dedicated to Cardinal Richelieu of Three Musketeers fame. D'aquin was a Jew named Michael (according to Siftei Yeshenim) or Mordechai according to others, who converted to Christianity and became a professor of Hebrew in Paris; much of his book actually is based on the work of the similar name by Lonzano (see intro to Arukh Hashalem; Kohut says that most of D'aquin's original material is bad. Also see Ohev Ger (p. 133) where Shadal dismisses the book as second rate, saying that it is "only an abridged compendium of the Shorashim by Radak, the Arukh, Meturgeman and Ma'arikh [by Lonzano]." He then points out an error made by Judah Leib Benzeev who conflated the Ma'arikh of Lonzano with this Ma'arikh, by D'aquin, thereby "mixing the holy and the profane." Of course, D'aquin himself wrote that the book consists of gleanings from others - "kolel leket shikcha u-fe'ah" appears on the title page - yet surely he did not credit Lonzano..

At any rate, here is the entry in this book:


























Unless his source was Lonzano (and I overlooked it) then his source may have been the abbreviation dictionary by Johann Buxtorf  published in 1613, or some of the Jewish sources to be mentioned below. Here is Buxtorf:

























Perhaps the first time it appeared in print was in Zacuto's Sefer Yuchasin, at approximately the end of the 15th century. Zacuto writes in his entry for Ben Heh Heh that he heard that this is the same person as Ben Bag Bag, and the gematriya of Ba"g is Heh, 5. He further identifies Ben Bag Bag with Yochanan Ben Bag Bag, who is mentioned in the Talmud, and says that he heard that Ben Bag Bag means "Ben Ger, Ben Giyoret. Another16th century source, the Midrash Shmuel on Avot, quotes this explanation in the name of  R. Joseph ibn Nahmias (although often this is quoted in the name of the famous "Some Say"). Midrash Shmuel continues and cites the Rashbam, who says it was a pseudonym meant to protect the convert from persecution. which is dismissed by R. Yaakov Emden because he too assumes that Yochanan Ben Bag Bag was the same person (rather than, say, the son of this person or persons using the pseudonym). In addition to the Rashbam, Tosafot Chagigah 9b “Bar Heh Heh Le-Hillel” quotes Some Say as explaining that this mysteriously named person was a convert, and the Heh alludes to the letters Heh added to Abram and Sarai’s names and Ben Bag Bag too apparently because of the gematriya. If memory serves, the Machzor Vitry also mentions the Avraham/Sarah connection to Bar Heh Heh, firmly establishing this in Ashkenazic rabbinic tradition.

Incidentally, this whole matter is also discussed in a learned footnote in an article by Y. S. Spiegel (Yeshurun 10) and in his opinion D'aquin's book is packed with exceedingly strange explanations for roshei tevot. Spiegel also calls attention to the endorsement of D'aquin's book by the Pri Megadim.

Finally, I'd like to call attention to the Tamudic term דיירא בר דיירתא - stranger/convert son of a convert, although I'm not sure of the significance - or lack of - this yet. 

Getting back to Gordon, I do think it is possible that he heard this from one of his Jewish friends, but I also found it to be not exactly common, but not completely obscure, knowledge in non-Jewish sources in the 18th century, so it is also possible that Gordon discovered this out of his own understandable interest in converting to Judaism. The fact that he also relates it to Paul's "Hebrew of the Hebrews," explaining it to mean "Jewish on both sides" as opposed to Hebrew (from one parent) needn't mean that he had not heard this from Jews. I would argue that this is exactly the sort of thing a learned 18th century English Jew would say. 

Here is the whole Gordon article (click or right-click to enlarge and read):


18 comments:

  1. The explanation I am familiar with is that "Ben Bag Bag" was just beginning to learn the alef bet and had progressed as far as bet and gimmel, while the same person, once he had advanced to the fifth letter, earned the title "Ben Heh Heh."

    ReplyDelete
  2. The commentary of R. Yosef ibn Nahmias (Talmid HaRosh) indeed cites this explanation of Ben Bag Bag. It appears to be attributed to R. Yehuda ben HaRosh. See the notes of Bamberger there . Ben He He is identified as the same individual proselyte.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Zohar - I didn't realize this commentary was printed!

    I came across a reference to a satirical play about shul politics in London from 1749. As it was written and illustrated under pseudonyms, one of them is "Scriptit Ribi Bagbug," "Written by Rabbi Bag Bag." (The others are Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Zadok.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. "This book was printed in Paris in 1629..."

    Is it just me or does anyone else notice the enlarged 'chof' in the colophon indicating that the year was 1649?

    Interestingly, here is another sefer called Marich HaMarachos http://hebrewbooks.org/36836 by Rabbi Eliyahu Bardach [Junior] (brother in-law of the famed Mayim Chayim Rappaport).

    With regard to the significance (or, as you say, lack of) of דיירא בר דיירתא in those places the connotation was as most say דרך גנאי/בזוי or it indicated as you said, 'stranger' from the root דר.

    The Rebbe here (http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14940&st=&pgnum=408&hilite=) gave a pilpul, more drush oriented, exploring the different aspects of the names Bag Bag and Hei Hei. See also note 74 (ibid) and two pgs. later. I regret not being able to find the Hebrew transl. of the sicha. Maybe someone else can.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ovadya, the Latin date is 1629 (MDCXXIX). However, the khaf is enlarged, I agree. I looked at a few digital versions in case somehow the hebrewbooks one was distorted by the scan, and there is no doubt that it is larger. However, it seems to me that it is still smaller than the letters used for shin-peh-tet, which leads me to guess that the typesetter inadvertently picked a khaf that had been incorrectly sorted, slightly larger than the other letters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh oh, machlokes bet. Chachmei Yisroel and Umos HaOlam, but I'll side with you, the Latin date is probably more accurate (unless they too added some X's by mistake).

      On another topic, it's not exactly "German raid" but European nonetheless. I was hoping you can help me find the Akeidas Yitzchok from R' Bardach who I mentioned. It is supposedly an oratorio of Metastasio's, translated in Hebrew, about the Akeida, presumably 'Isacco figura del Redentore'. Can't seem to locate the sefer but I've seen it mentioned in a few other "Beis Eked" kind of seforim. (As a fun fact, Wiki says Metastasio has pieces translated in dif. languages and doesn't mention Hebrew, i.e. the aforementioned sefer. Also Wiki attributes the above oratorio to both Metastasio and to Jommelli. Comes along a user at YouTube and accredits it to a Portuguese composer, Joao de Sousa Carvalho. I think Moshiach should settle this business.)

      Delete
  6. D'aquin also translated Avos; I found two editions, one only in Latin and one only in Hebrew. Back then you bought the pages and bound them yourself, so I'm not sure if D'aquin published an all-Latin and all-Hebrew edition, or if they were meant to be bound together.


    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. דף סג
    http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/yosef-avot/yosef-avot06.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Perhaps the first time it appeared in print was in Zacuto's Sefer Yuchasin"

    this piece was not in print until 1857, when Herschell Filipowski printed the Sefer Yuchasin from the oxford manuscript.

    see here the first ed. pg. 56:
    http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/books/djvu/1096828/index.djvu?djvuopts&thumbnails=yes&zoom=page

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is an interesting (yidish) critique of 'Dr. Hertz' siddur' by R. Yeruham Leiner reprinted at the end of his collected writings entitled 'Tiferet Yeruham'. Therein on p. 668 no. 3 he is apalled by Dr. Hertz' explanation of ב"ג ב"ג as בן גר בת גר, claiming that Dr. Hertz has rendered him an אנדרוגינוס!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yitzchok, thanks so much. Lazy on my part.

    Maimon, thanks for that reference as well. I had noticed that Rabbi Hertz gave this explanation; I am surprised that Rabbi Leiner had apparently never come across it before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, I missed that. I looked it up and Hertz does indeed say בן גר בת גר.

      Delete
  12. "abbreviation dictionary by Johann Buxtorf published in 1613"

    where can we find it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, sorry. I really have to be a bit better about responding to comments. Been a bit busy lately.

      Anyway, Buxtorf's book is called De Abbreviaturis hebraicis and here is the 1640 edition. There are many others available on Google Books including the first which is, I think, from 1613. There are also numerous later works by Christians on rabbinic abbreviations. I believe Buxtorf kickstarted this genre of Hebraist literature.

      Delete
  13. Perhaps someone can clear something up for me about Lord Gordon's conversion. I had understood that he converted while in prison, and have long wondered how that worked. I suppose it's possible that the Beit Din and mohel visited him in prison, and the mohel was allowed to do his work undisturbed, but what of the mikveh? Were English prisoners (at least of his rank) allowed furloughs from prison, as Israeli prisoners are today, during which he could have met the Beit Din and completed his conversion? I've never heard of such a thing before. Or is it possible that there was a well or cistern in the prison that the Beit Din found to be a kosher mikveh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did not convert in prison. It actually is unclear when (or if! - that's me saying this) he actually did, but it certainly was not in prison. He was arrested many times, but when he was finally arrested and imprisoned (when he famously held court with bearded Jews and his Jewess babe) he already had been circumcised, had a long beard, etc. It is thought that either he converted in Holland (where it was legal) or surreptitiously in Manchester (IIRC).

      Delete