On the Main Line

An appeal to readers - please donate

2012-01-31T23:55:00.000-05:00

Dear Readers,

Necessity has compelled me to appeal for donations. If you enjoy On the Main Line, please donate something, whatever you can in accordance with your capability and how much you feel I've given you. I am doing this once again because my family and I need me to use my blog as a platform to generate much-needed income.

Please note that you do not have to have a PayPal account to click the link below and donate. Thank you.

Note: I am constantly adding new posts. Please check below - and comment!

The unwanted Samaritan Pentateuch notes in Bibles distributed in Jerusalem in the 1820s.

2012-01-30T14:18:00.005-05:00

Recently I've been posting some interesting material from the journals kept by Joseph Wolff, a Jewish-born missionary active all over Asia in the 1820 - 40s, distributing tracts and Bibles (including Hebrew, Arabic and Persian translations of the New Testament) and engaging infidels in conversation and disputation.

He spent considerable time in the Holy Land in 1822. He writes about a controversy which occurred because of the specific content of the Hebrew Bibles which he was distributing (here we are talking about Tanakh, not the New Testament). The Bibles used a variety of symbols to indicate footnotes, one of which was a cross. In addition, the specific edition he was distributing also included the readings from the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Here's what he writes:

That is, as soon as his shipment of Bibles arrived, a fellow named Abraham ben David (Schleifer, as he writes elsewhere) whom he had converted (or more accurately, was in the early stages) bought 5 copies, and when he tried to distribute them, the cross was seen in the margins, and the people became very angry and flogged him (on the feet!) one time for every piastre he spent. So Abraham returned the Bibles.

He continues, discussing what happened when he met with a rabbi named Joseph ben Wolf, to discuss the Zohar with him. He noticed that a few pages of his copy of one of the Bibles were ripped out, and Joseph told him that an "enthusiastic Jew" (wouldn't it be great if we started calling the kannaim "enthusiastic Jews?") had torn them out because of the cross markings. He continues to relate how a rabbi, Solomon ben Menachem Shapira, substantially critiqued the specific edition of the Bible for its errors. (Read more about this student of R. Chaim Volozhin here.)

Next follows a situation where the aforementioned Abraham Schleifer informed Wolff that the rabbis had declared that the Jews must burn the Bibles, because of the cross marks and the Samaritan text in the notes. As we will see, while the crosses were bothering the masses, the quotation from the Samaritan text seems to have been the chief reason that it bothered the rabbis:

Wolff, alarmed, wrote a Hebrew letter to "Rabbi Iom Toph Danum, Morenu Meyahis and Abraham Hadid" the foremost Sephardic rabbis. He informed them that he would rather the Bibles returned to him than burned. If not, he demanded that they pay for them. He said that he distributed them so that people should learn from them, not burn them. "Woe be to you shepherds of Israel" is how he closes, and adds a postscript that the sign of the cross is simply meant to mark the Keri and Ketib.

The rabbis asked him to meet with them and drink coffee. They addressed him in Spanish and asked him if they could talk in Hebrew, and Wolff replied that they could. One of the rabbis began, explaining that many of the poor Jews are ignorant, and they (the rabbis) are not "bad shepherds" but they have a problem with the notes that print the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, particularly to Duet. 5 (the Ten Commandments). The rabbi said that the rabbis know full well that the Samaritan version referring to Mt. Gerizim is not in the text, and "that it is not the intention of the English nation to make us believe in the Samaritan Codex." However, he said, only us rabbis know this. There is a fear that the unlearned young people, who might learn Hebrew from this edition, will be led to believe the Samaritan text. Without even mentioning the signs of the cross, he added that New Testaments are simply out of the question.

Wolff's rejoinder is that he received permission from Rabbi Mendel of Shklov to distribute Hebrew Bibles. As for New Testaments, although he vigorously disagrees with them, he said that since he doesn't want them burned he's going to stop giving them away for free, and he signed a paper to that effect.

The rabbis finished the conversation on a conciliatory note, one of them adding that they would be glad to receive Bibles from the English, "but without notes, without comment, without any preface, and without any Latin character." Wolff agrees to this.

At this point Rabbi Mendel arrived, and Wolff says that he asked him if it's true that he granted him permission to distribute Tanakhs, and Rabbi Mendel affirmed it. The other rabbis then explained their position, and Rabbi Mendel conceded it. He did, however, praise the edition of the Prophets and Psalms. They closed by asking him once again not to distribute the New Testament, and he agreed since they would burn them. No doubt he crossed his fingers when he said this (and signed) because "this does not prevent my lending copies of the New Testament to those, who, I am sure, will not burn them."

Although this is not the precise edition of the Bible which he distributed (there are no signs of the cross in it, for example) that edition is based on this one - and here you can see the disputed Samaritan text in the notes:

Finally, here is Wolff, a couple of decades later:

The 17th century tunes for two Passover Seder songs.

2012-01-26T12:32:00.000-05:00

In 1644 Johann Stephen Rittangel published a Haggadah with Latin translation and commentary, called Liber Ritum Paschalium. Rittangel was without a doubt one of the most proficient Christian Hebraists of his time, so much so, that later scholars were divided as to whether he was born Jewish. It seems that there is no evidence for that and some compelling reasons to doubt it, but that gives an indication of how superior his knowledge of Hebrew and rabbinic literature was seen. Rittangel made a guest appearance in an extremely popular work called Dod Mordechai - Notitia Karaeorum , published by Jacob Trigland. This book consists mainly of the extensive Hebrew response of a Karaite rabbi named Mordechai ben Nissan to Trigland's questions about the history of Karaism. Mordechai refers to Rittangel as follows:

"Any wise and learned Christian or German scholar acknowledges the the true original faith received from Sinai through the hands of Moses was preserved by the Karaites. As an example, in 1641 the German scholar Rittangel visited Troki and [displayed] his warm regard for Karaism, and intently sudied their books and visited many locations where they dwell. He praised their faith in the works which he wrote in those communities. His memory ought to ascend for good before the Lord!"

Back to the Haggadah. Although not the first Latin translation of the Haggadah (see here for the 1512 book which gets that honor, which was translated by a converted Jew) this one is far more interesting. Actually, the 1512 one is interesting too, so before I continue about Rittangel, here is the final page with the traditional prayer for "Anno futuro in hierusalem."

Without a doubt what makes Rittangel's Haggadah so interesting is that he included musical notation for two songs! (Modern notation can be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia as in, e.g., here.)

If anyone wants to break out the harpsichord and upload a recording, be my guest.

The Haggadah is also a good source if you wish to impress or annoy your family by, for example, singing Chad Gadya in Latin ("Unum hoedulum, unum hoedulum"). The Latin price of little kids is duobus solidis, by the way. And if you really want to annoy people, you can introduce the Birkhat Hamazon in Latin (if Yiddish, why not Latin?):

Finally, here is a piece of a letter of his which he sent to John Selden, and which was published, transcribed, translated and annotated by Daniel Lasker in "Karaism and Christian Hebraism: A New Document" Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 1089-1116.

"The Karaites [scholars] have had a good name for 1900 years or more. They girded their strength to propound true Scriptural *interpretations; they did not follow the way of the vipers, and did not interpet using letter permutations and gematriot of the *Pharisees. Rather only in God's Torah did they desire, and with straight and clear writings, as I have seen in many of their works."

Lasker printed the entire letter, and the next page continues to say that these works are in manuscript "בכתב מטושטש" which Lasker wisely realizes means "cursive writing," not messy. I think it would have puzzled me.

It is important to note that perushim means both explanations and Pharisees, and Rittangel is obviously punning. He of course also used the term nechashim/ vipers alluding to Matthew 3:7.

Portrait of the artist as a young mapmaker.

2012-01-25T11:54:00.000-05:00

Here's the famous self-portrait of Ya'akov ben Avraham Zaddik (aka Jaacob Justo) in his 1621 map of the land of Israel printed in Amsterdam. You can read his entire inscription by clicking the image below to enlarge it. See the complete map here.

Sort of makes you wonder about "all of our grandfathers." (link)

A proverb about London among Polish Jews, 1822.

2012-01-24T17:22:00.003-05:00

An almost unending fount of interesting material is the Missionary Journals of Joseph Wolf, which I've quoted many times before (see here, for example, for a bit about how the rabbis of Jerusalem stood for Rabbi Yaakov Emden's granddaughter when she walked into a room).

The protagonists in this exchange areWolf, the missionary, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov, disciple of the Vilna Gaon and leading Ashkenazic sage in the Land of Israel at the time (1822).

I admit that it took me a minute to understand this "proverb:" "We Jews in Poland have a proverb; The wicked one draws a Jew after him to London, but as soon as the Jew is arrived in London, the Jew draws the wicked one after him."

I think it means to say that the spiritual environment in London is so bad for Jews that the Jew in London, who was after all lured there by Satan, once there he has fallen so far that he lures the very Satan himself. Have you got a better interpretation?

A rare approbation from the Gaon of Vilna

2012-01-24T11:26:00.004-05:00

Here's something that's not found in abundance. It's the Vilna Gaon's haskamah to a work printed in Koenigsberg in 1764, Darke Noam by R. Shmuel ben Eliezer of Kalwaria, on the Rabbah bar bar Hannah aggados. As you can see in the little rhyme in the beginning, the Gaon signed because the other rabbis signed. Perhaps wisely, this wasn't something he would repeat very much.

My thanks to Eliezer Brodt for drawing my attention to this.

Serious about crime

2012-01-23T22:28:00.003-05:00

This is from the Gentleman's Magazine August 1801:

Comments

2012-01-20T10:36:00.003-05:00

Blogger did something to the comments recently. Aside for the fact that I don't like the default font (I'll see if I can change it) two people told me that they can no longer comment. Gosh, thanks Blogger. But I want to know if this is a more widespread problem. If you have found that you aren't able to comment anymore then clearly you can't say so in the comment, so please do me a favor and email me. Thanks.

And because this post is boring, here's something which isn't - A Yiddish poem trying to get kids to feel good about their nose, and teaching them to drink milk at the same time. (Or, unintentionally teaching them not to drink milk is probably more like it):

From Edward A. Portnoy's PhD dissertation "The creation of a Jewish cartoon space in the New York and Warsaw Yiddish press, 1884--1939."

On the original "Kosher Jesus" by R. Chaim Volozhiner's grandson, Universalist Dreamer.

2012-01-19T12:25:00.002-05:00

Kosher Jesus, Shmuely Boteach, etc.

As already noted by Dr. Marc Shapiro, Rabbi Elias Soloweyczk (Soloveitchik) wrote a sort rabbinic commentary on the Book of Matthew [and also Mark]. Although it was written in Hebrew (titled Kol Kore), I haven't seen it. However, I have seen the French and German translations. (An earlier, anonymously published version exists, but it is different in content.)

I thought it would be worthwhile to print the substance of his introduction to the French edition (Kol Kore La Bible, le Talmud et l'Évangile, tr. par L. Wogue. Évangile de Marc. Évangile de Matthieu Paris 1875). Note that his purpose is to show that the New Testament and the Talmud do not oppose each other.

But before I do, here are some worthwhile images. This is the "haskamah" to his edition of the Mishne Torah printed in England in in 1863, collected in 1857, signed by various rabbis, and written by R. Jacob Oettinger of Berlin. As you can see, it makes mention of his grandfather, "Rabbi Chajim Wolozin."

Here is our author, who was blind and very poor in the period under question:

Here is the substance of his forward to Mark (from the French translation).

In the preface to my first volume of Kol Koreh I promised to show that the New Testament, contrary to popular belief, is neither in disagreement with the Old or even with the Talmud. I fulfilled my commitment regarding the first Gospel, and now I work on the second.

A few words of explanation. Many people of high intelligence of rank applauded my work, either because they agreed with me in advance or were persuaded after having read them. This encourages me.

But what a pity, there are extremists, and also those who laugh at what they think is an attempt to reconcile opposing views. Aside for the positive feedback, I was also assailed by Jews and Christians, and I think it is useful to answer their objections.

My fellow Jews said "To mention the Gospel and the Talmud together? What brazeness this author has! Doubtlessly there are good things in the former, but we do not know its source, or what the authority for such things are. By contrast, in the Talmud nothing is anonymous, everything is stated by name and by tradition, going back to Moses, from God - or else it contains the views of individuals who are known to us, respected rabbis, and tradition tells us their names and [scholarly] lineage, often going back to a very remote period. "All their words are like fiery coals" (Avoth 2:15) and this author is not afraid to destroy it! His book is an attack on the holiness of the Talmud, to blend it with the New Testament; it is sacrilege.

In parallel, my fellow Christians say the same thing. The New Testament is the Word of God, the Talmud is a human work. Not only human, but full of contradictions and inconsistencies. What one doctor disputes, another defends. One says with, the other says black. The New Testament is very different, a single doctrine, very beautful, holy and so beneficial to man that it could only come from God.

This is what they say, and here is what I answer. Jewish Brothers, I know the sanctity of the Talmud, like you. It's value is high. I have been raised on a diet of Talmud since childhood, and I learned to revere it. But believe me, these arguments do not glorify it, and our doctors would disavow them, were they alive. Those men were fair and impartial, they rarely condemned either a man or a book, and even to that which they comdemned, they knew how to do it in a just way. Look at what they say about Ben Sira (Sanhedrin 100b) "It is (generally) not permitted to read books of heretics. Rab Joseph said, this refers to Ben Sira" (Ecclesiasticus, because, Rashi said, foolish and exaggerated things are in it). However, says R. Joseph, the good things in [Ben Sira] may be read and expounded. So a book which the Talmud forbids reading, yet it does not reject that which is good in it, and it even approvingly cites it a number of times, which is evidence that it accepts the good and true whenever it encounters it. Doesn't this [approach] bring peace and harmony between people? The same Talmud which you think is a cause for discord, doesn't it contain the most beautiful sentiments? To cite but one example, we read in Sukkah 53b that ""If, for the purpose of establishing harmony between man and wife, the Torah said, Let My name that was written insanctity be blotted out by the water, how much more so may it be done in order to establish peace in the world!" This is precisely my goal, the goal that all friends of the Torah should aspire, to, every Jew and every man worthy of the name, and you my brothers, you condemn me for my effort? I say, this is not the talk of the wise.

And you, my Christian brothers, who claim that it is an offense to put the Gospel on the same footing as the Talmud, do you not know that the Talmud has a right for your gratitude, and that without if the name of your Christ may have fallen into oblivion? Many famous writers have denied the existence of Jesus Christ, and many deny it today, lacking knowledge of the Talmud which, as we shall say, excplicitly affirms his existence. . .

As for your disdain of comparing the Talmud and the Gospels, you should know that the Talmud is a unique monument of jurisprudence, deep legal reasoning and wisdom? Allow me to explain . . . (He goes on to describe Maimonides and the Mishne Torah - noting that he published the first five sections with a Hebrew commentary and German and English translation [although he doesn't note that the English translation was by Hermann Hedwig Bernard]). He suggests that he is willing to supply a French translation of any part of the Mishne Torah that one would like. One could compare those Talmudic laws with the laws of any European nation on the same subject, and see if the Jewish laws do not fare well by comparison. They will be amazed at what was produced nearly 2000 years ago, by the sheer force of the intelligence of these doctors, so abused by [these] Christians!

He ends his introduction by repeating that the Jews and Christians are unfounded in their attacks upon him. He refers to Ex. 16:8 "(your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord") saying that he is no one, and they are not complaining against him, but against truth and peace, his only goals! He cites David in Psalms "Ani shalom vekha adabber hemmah lammilchama", which he explains as "All my desire is for peace, and even when I make war" it is only for peace. The same with me, he says, if I have come to do battle with the ancient interpreters of the New Testament, it is to bring peace and understanding between people, for false doctrines have long divided them.

He prays that he succeeds in his holy enterprise, that the favor of the Lord descend upon his work, that that it produces much and wholesome fruit in the heart of readers, and that with one spirit they embrace the worship of one God, and that it could help accomplish the words of the Prophet (Zephania 3:9) "For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent."

Rabbi Elias Soloweyczsk

A few years later he printed a German translation, with another preface. In this one, he again addresses critics, but this time he includes a translation of a source which evidently he had discovered, and he feels will adequately answer them. He quotes R. Yaakov Emden ("foremost authority," "known for his tremendous piety and learning") in his edition of Seder Olam (Hamburg 1757):

"For thirty [sic] years the abominable sect of Shabbetai Zevi has newly arisen, and caused more evil than the Flood. God forbid that this accursed sect should ever mix with our Christian brethren. The principles of the Christian religion is a strict morality, even stricter than ours, for it prohibits things allowed by Mosaic law, e.g., marriage among cousins. These principles drive them from excess, self-denial and forgiveness for wrong, and their true saints are characterized by their exemplary virtues. We would be glad if Christians would, as we would, scrupulously observe their own law, if they (as we) would follow the good examples of their virtuous kings and saints and all their ways. People know that I flatter no one, have never lied, and that my zeal for the Jewish religion has never hindered me from acting justly. I will repeat what I have said often, that Jesus has done a double act for manking. On the one hand he has confirmed all the teachings of Moses, he explained that he did not come to abolish them or to change one iota, he claimed with equal vigor that the law is eternal and unchanging."

Although Soloweyczk does not quote the other hand, and I do not have the time to look it up now (but it is on this page, I imagine it says something positive about what Jesus's teachings did for Christians. He continues that he has just developed this idea further, and once again, that his purpose is to effect a reconciliation of the two Testaments, and two peoples, and that we should see the joyful day when Jews and Christians will shake hands and fulfill the words of the prophet, "On that day the Lord and his name will be one."

There may be a part II to this post, where I discuss the content of his work.

"I concede the omission of the first yekum purkan." - on Orthodox reform in the 19th century.

2012-01-18T14:35:00.005-05:00

A very interesting topic that to my knowledge has never been fully explored is reforms which the Orthodox at times adopted, or were instituted or permitted by Orthodox rabbis. The reason this is so interesting is because the very early opposition to the Jewish reformers tended to be very harsh and absolute, defending the sanctity of the slightest custom and the absolute prohibition of intentionally ending even one of them. Yet while this was occurring Jews who were definitely Orthodox were adopting some of the changes advocated by reformers.

It would be good to point out here that we should probably exclude changes like this which were implemented away from the battlefield over reform (or in an earlier period). For example, R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes advocated a more moderate position about customs, namely that while it is true that customs can and do change, the only legitimate way for that to happen is naturally. As an example, he mentions piyutim (liturgical poems). In Western Europe the reciting of piyutim became a major, major flashpoint. Removing or advocating for their removal was almost seen like apostasy. Yet, wrote Chajes, in Eastern Europe they had been quietly fading away without fanfare. Eventually this is what happened in, what I think is safe to say, most of Orthodoxy. (No need to give counter examples; I know loads of shuls say piyutim and say 'em all with gusto.) Another example would be shluggen kaporos with a chicken. While there has been a major, visible revival in recent decades, it also almost became extinct and I assume that happened without fanfare or a struggle. So even though this type of thing should also be documented, I take it as a related phenomenon. What I want to discuss is an example of reforms which took place on or near the battlefield, even if technically late in the battle.

Before I do, it would be good to cite from R. Akiva Yoseph Schlesinger's Lev Ha-ivri (Lemberg 1864) because it is a good example of the strict, Change-Nothing attitude. His book is a 100+ page commentary on the Chasam Sofer's ethical will to his family (which is only a couple of paragraphs long). Commenting on the Chasam Sofer's words that they should not get "close to the modernists who arose to distance us from God and his teaching, due to our sins," Schlesinger gives examples of what it is that the modernists have done in his time. He writes "at the time they only began to assert their new ways on small things, such as to abolish undecorous customs like the following: schul kloppen, haman kloppen, mitzvos ausrupen" (i.e., knocking on windows to wake people to come pray, knocking when Haman's name is read on Purim, announcing the sale of honors in the synagogue [at least that's what I think he means]) "and announcing the day of the omer count, announcing the time for Kabbalat Shabbat an hour before the time, and not announcing the name of a person as he is called to the Torah [instead, a card was given and they would just walk up at the right time]."

In a footnote he gives his view that perhaps the underlying cause of the end to selling aliyos and the like is because it indicates that these are unimportant in the public's eyes and they do not chase after God's commandments, and do not value them. Rather, they are embarrassed of them. In the next footnote he calls attention to the din that the child of a mamzer is not called to the Torah by his father's name, nor the son of an apostate, and the point is not to embarrass him. He sarcastically asks why the reformers didn't use this as a precedent. He then asks, seriously, why didn't the great rabbis of the past abolish calling up by the fathers' name altogether, in times when it was literally dangerous for a convert, yet they required that he be called up by name, Avraham ben Avraham?

The point is that this is the attitude that I was referring to above. Small customs should also not be abolished, and ultimately having a cavalier attitude toward them leads and led to much larger breeches. There's another fascinating footnote here about the Rema and his attitude toward minhagim, even ones which seem bad, but I'll leave that for another time (or, you can read it here).

In 1892 four British congregations under the auspices of the United Synagogue wanted to make some liturgical reforms. Their rabbis ("Ministers") got the Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler's attention, and the approach he took was to carefully review what they had in mind, and to respond what he would and would not permit. This was published as a pamphlet called The Ritual - the Reply of the Chief Rabbi. In the introduction (and the text) he makes it clear over and over again that the whole matter was not something he was happy about. He makes it clear that that which he allows should be regarded as optional by other congregations, and it would definitely be better if they did not adopt these changes but retained everything exactly as it was.

Should any congregation seek to adopt them, he strongly urges them not to "mar the peace and brotherly union" which is supposed to exist in shul, and that great care must be taken not to alienate anyone who is opposed. Nothing should be changed without a majority of members approving it; what's more, these members must be the ones who actually attend the prayers.

He makes it clear that he permitted everything that does not violate the din. In addition, he takes them at their word that their sole intention is to enhance the "impressiveness" of the services, and for this reason he also adds some suggestions of additions they could make which would "stir prayerful sentiments." He writes that these additions are not "innovations."

He ends his introduction with some advice that to really make their prayers meaningful they should make strenuous efforts with their children. Make sure they acquire a sound knowledge of Hebrew. Make sure there is prayer at home. You must be observant at home. Teach your children, and lead by example. Let them see that the daily practice of Judaism enhances life. And if you do this, then they will "preserve the same deep reverence, the same unbounded love, the same true-hearted loyalty to the Synagogue and its services which inspired their fathers of old" i.e., not you.

He then holds his nose (figuratively) and gets down to the business of permitting liturgical reforms. I will only mention the ones I found most interesting as examples (note that the pamphlet is highly organized. Each item - 44 in total - includes a little note as to which synagogue(s) requested that particular change).

1. The first one concerns the minyan (quorum of ten men) itself. He writes that some people believe that without a minyan there should be no prayer service at all, but this is a mistake. This being an issue in some of the smaller congregations out in the boondocks, he says that what they presently do, which is to wait for a minyan, and then leave if none is assembled, is wrong. A shaliach tzibbur should lead, with the same solemnity as with a minyan, only certain things which require a minyan should be omitted, such as kaddish, barechu, and the repetition of the Amidah with kedusha. He even says that the Torah should be taken out and read - only without aliyos. The haftarah should also be read, only without a blessing. If a mourner is present, instead of saying kaddish he should say Anah adonay maleh rachamim. And he closes this section with a reminder to make great efforts to ensure that there is a minyan.

2. The second is one which he does not permit. The suggestion that men would recite "who hast made me according to Thy will" is not allowed by him. He repeats the standard explanation that "hast not made me a woman" refers to relative number of commandments.

3. One of the more interesting ones. Regarding the hazzan's repetition of the Amidah, on shabbat and holidays: "After the gravest consideration of the subject, I have come to the determination that I am justified in following herein the practice of the Sephardim congregations, both here and in Amsterdam, whose rigid adhesion to our traditional enactments has never been impugned. These congregations read the Tefillah at at the Week-day Afternoon Services, and at the Mussaf on Sabbaths and Festivals only once. I therefore concede that the Amidah of Mussaf on Sabbaths be recited in the following manner:

He continues that all other times, including of course the Mussaf of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the repetition must be retained.

4. A very interesting item. He writes that the time Shabbos begins was fixed "by the learned Chacham Nieto" (in the 18th century) and there is no reason to make a change, without the concurrence of "the present Chacham" (i.e., Moses Gaster).

5. He allows the omitting of Bameh Madlikin, but recommends it being read prior to Minchah.

6. He allows an early service at 8:00 or 8:30 AM on Shabbat or holidays. (He doesn't say it, but my guess is that at least some of the people who wanted this wanted to get on with their day; likely some wanted to work. However, neither hour seems particularly late, and I can't see how he would have allowed it if he perceived that as the motivation for the request.)

7. Definitely one of the most interesting. He says that they asked that the Decalogue be read in the synagogue on Shabbat. The intention was to impress the minds of young and old. Furthermore, they claimed, they hoped that reading the 4th Commandment would stir some of the congregants to revere the sabbath and prevent them from desecrating it. Adler of course notes that this is forbidden by the Shulchan Aruch OH 1:5 based upon BT Berachot 12. However, based upon the Maharshal #54 he decided to permit it. (This is by far the most explicit halachic discussion he made in the pamphlet. Everything else comes off as if by fiat. I assume he was aware that some would know that the reading of the Ten Commandments is explicitly prohibited.) He says that based on this Maharshal he allows the Decalogue to "form part of the Bible Reading on Sabbaths." He says that it should be read after the Torah reading, and he also suggests that several other Bible passages (he gives five) be alternated with the Decalogue, so as to further prevent the impression that this is the only part of the Torah divinely inspired (as per the heresy which the Talmud meant to guard against).

8. Addressing one shul in particular, he "concede[s] with great reluctance" that they may begin praying at the late hour of 9:45. He hopes that this will induce more people to come on time, and gives the caveat that all three paragraphs of the Shema be read "at the first recital." Also in this section, he approves of regulating each section of the davening by time, with the caveat that this not cause anything to be hurried.

9. The mother of all: "I concede the omission of the first yekum purkan."

10. The Birkhat Kohanim must not be omitted. In those days many people were uncomfortable with the idea of a hereditary priesthood, and, besides, many kohanim did not hold themselves worthy. Adler (himself a kohen) says this is a misperception; it is not the kohen, but God, who blesses the Congregation.

At this juncture I relate a story about how in fact the gradual dissolution of Birkhat Kohanim was common in those times. In the pulpit occupied decades later by Rabbi Louis Jacobs, it would have disappeared as well, were it not for Rabbi Hermann Adler's own half-brother, the bibliophile Elkan Nathan Adler, who prayed there and asserted his right to bless the congregation.

12. Although he allows Adonay adonay to be recited only one time when the Torah is taken out on holidays, he says "there is no valid reason why the ancient usage of chanting the kol nidrei three times should be altered."

12. Although he rejects the proposes substitution for the Torah portion read at Minchah on Yom Kippur, he takes it seriously ("claimed my most serious attention"). He said that the Talmud Megillah 31 is clear and precise and it was indeed relevant and important to "inculcate . . . the great duty of sexual morality" on Yom Kippur. He endorses a suggestion that a little essay be inserted into future editions of the machzor explaining the importance of it.

13. He rejects the idea to not recite Ma'ariv at the conclusion of Yom Kippur. He says that in many synagogues it is read while people are bustling about noisily to leave and go home. He gives a solution for trying to make Ma'ariv more decorous, with more time left for it.

14. He does not allow sounding the Shofar on shabbat.

15. In response to a claim that the monetary obligations in the ketubbah are not fulfilled, and that the text should be revised accordingly, he denies that there is a reason to assume that "in all cases" it is not fulfilled. He also suggestions that changing the wording of the ketubbah might have the effect of "impair[ing] the recognition of the religious validity of the marriage."

16. In one of the appendices (including additional prayers, and lists of piyuttim and selichos that he allows to be omitted) there is one called Questions That May Be Addressed to the Bridal Couple. Here is one he allows:

Mesader Kiddushin: "You A.b. and C. D. are about to be wedded according to the law of Moses and Israel.

"Will you, A.B., take this woman, C.D., to be your wedded wife? Will you be a true and faithful husband unto her? Will you protect and support her? Will you love, honour and cherish her?"

Chosson: "I will."

you may read or download the entire pamphlet here.

They destroyed the tea, sacré bleu!

2012-01-18T13:11:00.001-05:00

Here's a really interesting paragraph from Isaac de Pinto's pamphlet against the American Revolution. This is from the English translation (of course) called Letters on the American Troubles, printed in London 1776.

He also describes the revolution as caused by "the temper of Oliver Cromwell which has unhappily taken root, and germinated in the wilds of America."

Pinto, a Dutch Sephardic Jew, is probably best known for taking on Voltaire for his antisemitism - in the course of which he argued that maybe the Polish and German Jews are pretty bad, granted, but the Spanish-Portuguese ones aren't. (In fairness to him, this was an apologetic argument designed to prove that Voltaire was wrong about the Jews, that they have to be terrible and alien, that it was intrinsic. It probably was not designed to wound the sensibilities of Ashkenazim at all, even if we allow ourselves to assume that he personally probably harbored a casual sort of snobbery toward Ashkenazim.)

Here is how The Monthly Review reviewed his book against Voltaire (which was published anonymously) in 1763:

It basically says that even though the author is rumored to have influenced and softened Voltaire's stance on the Jews, he is kind of guilty of the same thing as Voltaire - slandering the many on the account of the few.

Sneaky Olomeinu!

2012-01-16T18:09:00.003-05:00

Hehehe. I suppose inquiries can be directed to Torah Umesorah.

Hat-tip to be given with permission.

R. Chaim Yoseph David Azulai's controversial position on divorce as it was discussed in the Parisian journals. Etc.

2012-01-16T14:14:00.001-05:00

Pre-Revolution, divorce was not legal in France, in accordance with Catholic belief and, of course, the morals of a society shaped by that belief. French Jews, however, were allowed autonomy in matters of marriage, and therefore they were allowed divorces. In 1775 a banker named Samuel Peixotto (b. 1741) decided to divorce his wife Sara (Mendes-D'acosta), his elder by ten years, whom he had married in England. They moved to Bordeaux and had three children. She refused to be divorced and apparently some rabbis supported her refusal. So he took his case to the Paris courts, arguing that as a Jew he had a right to get divorced and the court should affirm it, just as it legalized Jewish marriages. The case dragged on for years, because no one was quite certain what the exact status of the Jews in France were.

As a result, much discussion of their status, as well as public debates about how the French ought to deal with minority values that conflicted with their own, emerged. In addition to this, in the background was the movement in favor of divorce, championed by men of the Enlightenment. The case dragged on, and both he and she dragged rabbis into it, their opinions being cited in legal briefs (which were published, and dissected by the press). Tiring of the endlessness of the wrangling, ultimately Peixotto fixed upon a solution - he converted to Christianity in a ceremony before the king of Spain, apparently hoping that this would automatically dissolve the marriage. Two years later Sara died, but Samuel tried to inherit her possessions then! - he was married to her, you see.

We know from more than one source that both Peixotto and his wife tried to enlist the Chida (R. Chaim Yosef David Azulay) on their side, enticing him with promises of donations to the Jews of Hebron. From the Chida himself we see that more than he was willing to support Sara (as he in effect did) he was unwilling to support Samuel. Samuel had promised him a very, very large donation for Hebron, which he refused to accept. Sara made a donation, which he did accept. When asked his view about the case, he vaguely answered that so long as the wife was not guilty of licentiousness, if they had children, then the husband has no grounds to divorce her against her will.

This opinion was cited - and ridiculed - in one of Peixotto's legal briefs, on the grounds that the Chida had only cited an aggadah (that the very altar weeps when a man divorces his wife, as you will see below) but not the halacha!

We see, for example, the following pro-Peixotto position in "Causes Célèbres, Curieuses et Intéressantes, etc." (Paris 1780), which claimed that Peixotto's enemies were claiming that he was trying to divorce his wife so that he could convert and then marry another women. They also tout a "ban" of Rabbi Haim-Joseph Azulai. This "ban" (l'anathême) - I think it means legal decision - by him does nothing for the case, they say. His decision (against the divorce) references the Bible, the Mishnah and the Talmud, but doesn't quote them. Why doesn't Azulai give the volume, and the page number? We can read the Bible as well as him, and we can see many places in the Bible, where divorce is allowed. The Mishnah, a very authoritative work among the Jews, was translated into Latin, and is to be found in the royal library (where, ironically, the Chida himself had the opportunity to examine it, as I posted about here). Anyone can see this Mishnah and read it. As opposed to Haim-Joseph Azulai's vague words, Chapter 14 of Jebamoth presupposes that divorce is permitted.

The Talmud, it continues, is a 24-volume commentary on the Mishnah, and clearly we have not consumed the entire 24 volumes for the joy of guessing what Azulai claimed to speak about, but would not quote. However, we can still rest assured that the Talmud is far from against divorce, since the commentary must be consistent with the text (i.e., if the Mishna is not against divorce, neither is the Talmud). In fact, the piece continues, in Gittin 55 it says that a man may divorce his wife without her consent. So where did Haim-Joseph Azulai get his opinion from?

Actually, Sara's supporters resorted to trickery in getting him to support her. He was asked, if a woman is modest and virtuous, can she be divorced? Was this descriptive of the case? To divorce a modest, virtuous woman, without blemish? What kind of monster would divorce such a wife? A man would pay a price in blood to keep her, such a treasure is she. But this wife was unfaithful (says Peixotto) and such a woman can only ruin the life of her husband, people of all classes and religions know that this is so.

And as a matter of fact, it continues, when the facts were presented properly, the following rabbis disagreed with Azulai:

Saul Levi, rabbi of the Hague, in his reply, decided that since Sara asked for the property to be divided in court, Samuel can divorce her by force, and the Cherem de-Rabbenu Gershom (rabbin Guerson) does not apply.

Also Ezekiel Landau, Chief Rabbi of Prague, asked on the same issue, knows of no difficulty by law, and that the claims of the lady Peixotto are worthless. This woman, who wants to be separated from her husband, but still remain connected with him all their life, is a rebellious woman, and the Choulchan Arousels [sic] 154 teaches the rule regarding her. After a long excursus, he comes to his legal decision: the husband is not obliged to support her with food and her other needs, because she is rebellious, neither accepting the divorce or living with him.

And it continues in this vein. Here's a sample from this article, and you can read the entire thing here:

Now let's turn to the Chida's side of the story. Since Chida was keeping a diary at the time of his travels in Europe we are in a position to know his thoughts about the major things which occurred to him during that period of his life. The particular passage most relevant to this case was published three times.

Here's a summary:

This is dated 14 Tammuz 1778. As you can see, what he says is that someone (a big name in French Sephardic Jewry of the time) asked him if a man is allowed to divorce his wife against her will. He said no, and was asked to put it in writing. Since he didn't want to be disagreeable, he wrote that it is forbidden to divorce a first wife if she is virtuous, without fault, and has children with the man.

Regarding the Peixotto case, his lawyer used this opinion. The lawyer described him as an honest man, but not learned. His written opinion was written either for money, or out of ignorance. He gives no Talmudic authority for what he wrote, only quoting the Aggadah that the "altar weeps for him who repudiates his first wife."

All of this was written in a brief, printed, and distributed to the Parliament. This was advised by a half-apostate Jews named Calmer, and another named Raba (both big names, like the aforementioned Gradis). Between the three of them, Peixotto, Calmer and Raba, you get PaKaR. Chida continues that all of this stuff was printed and is going to get widely distributed in Amsterdam, Bordeaux and London (ABeL, i.e., mourning) and all this, which is very troubling to him, is for his sins.

He continues that Friday night he was further disturbed because Mordechai Venture (more on him below) brought Peixotto's printed text to the synagogue and read them to several people. He wasn't intending to humiliate the Chida, but to show what a terrible person Peixotto was. Nevertheless, he felt terribly ashamed, and tried to think of what sin this could be punishment for. And then he had a change in humours that night, so it was a bad time all around.
In 1879 parts of this diary, called Ma'agal Tov, were published in Livorno by Eliyah Benamozegh (link). Here is how the relevant passage appears:

A perfectly adequate translation of this appears in Elkan Nathan Adler's Jewish Travellers, published in 1930:

This is not the only place where Chida mentions Peixotto or his wife. On 29 Kislev (end of December 1777) he writes that

On this night the great wealthy man Sr. Peixotto spoke to me concering the matter of his wife, that I should help him try to obtain his divorce. He pledged 1000 escudos for Hebron if I would take his cause. I said to him, if you want me to make peace between you and your wife, I will do that for free, since everyone says that your wife is modest. Impose any condition on me that you want, and I will strive to fulfill them. But to cause a separation [between spouses] - that would be Hillul Hashem. I told him that according to the law it is forbidden to divorce a faithful wife, if she is the mother of the man's children, and his first wife. I told him more along these lines. Another time a man had pledge me four Louis D'or if I would sign a legal decision written by a famous rabbi allowing one Israel Vidal to remarry, and I said that even if the decision is correct, as it presumably is, in the eyes of the masses it will cause Hillul Hashem. So I did not want to even see the legal decision, much less sign it.

In any case this is more or less the story, from the point of view of Peixotto and from the point of view of Hida himself. It should be mentioned that eventually he did read the pesak concerning Israel Vidal, and he writes that it was wrong.

Incidentally, the aforementioned Calmer (Liefmann Calmer), whom he says goes to Church, etc. - Hida had some nicer things to say about him earlier in the year. Writing on 2 Tevet 5538 (Jan. 1, 1778) he describes his background (Ashkenazi, from Holland) and his powerful position at the royal court. He also says that he went to visit him, and Calmer greeted him beautifully, and gave him a donation of two Louis D'or. They also played some Jewish geography, and the Hida pointed out to him that a relative of Calmer's was in financial need, and Calmer promised to send him money. He wasn't yet part of the PaKaR trio yet.

Hida also mentions Mordechai Venture, who inadvertently embarrassed him, by bringing the pamphlet arguing Peixotto's position to the synagogue and publicly discussing the abused heaped upon himself. Mordechai Venture is a very interesting person; the Chida mentions him numerous times in his diaries. Venture (in French his name was Mardochee Venture) was a scholar who is famous for his translations; of the Sephardic liturgy into French, and of the Targum to Esther into Hebrew (Patshegen Ha-ketav Amsterdam 1770). In addition, there are a series of Hebrew and French prayers composed by him for various occasions, such as the health of King Louis XV or for the success of Marie-Antoinette's pregnancy (on the title page of these works he is described as a "teacher of Hebrew, Chaldee, Talmud, Italian and Spanish). Hida describes him (26 Kislev 5538/ 1777) as a "medakdek u-vaki be-leshonot." Venture accompanied him to Versailles in the first week of January of 1778.

Here is a sample page from his prayer for the sick king:

What is, essentially, a devar Torah by Mordechai Venture, appears in a most unlikely place. Given his skill, scholarship (and, one imagines, his connections) he obtained a position at the Royal Library. There he made the acquaintance of an Englishwoman named Mary Freeman Shepherd, whom he taught Hebrew. The following excerpt from one of her letters to to Adam Clarke (1760-1832) concerning gratitude.

She writes that how gratitude and humanity are a trait of the Jews ("the Hebrews" who do not hunt, race, bull-fight, cock-fight, etc.) and this can be attested by their "Scriptures, their law, their history." She continues to praise the Jewish belief that the damned do not suffer in hell on Shabbat, and that for this reason the Jews begin the Sabbath early and delay its close. This, she writes, is far kinder than our priests (she was a Catholic). The Jews prolong the suffering of the lost spirits without getting a penny for it. "No penny, no Pater," says she. She then goes on to quote something that Mordecai Ventura told her about the process by which Moses redeemed the Israelites and afflicted Egypt, how it was filled with symbolism of gratitude, for Egypt had reared Moses, the water had harbored him, etc. Essentially, he told her Rashi to Exodus 7:19 (from this week's sidra) based on the Tanhuma.

Finally, one point of interest. In Chida's Ma'agal Tov he transliterated monsieur as "מוסו."

Shadal series #10 - historical notes to a book on 2nd Temple sects, and how the Master understood the story of Shimon ben Shetach and the 80 witches.

2012-01-15T17:28:00.001-05:00

In 1844 Aurelio Bianchi-Giovini (1799-1862) pulbished a history of the Jews and their sects during the 2nd Temple period (Storia degli Ebrei e delle loro sette e dottrine religiose durante il Secondo Tempio; link).

Here is Giovini, who was a Protestant convert, and is noted as a very anticlerical (specifically anti-Catholic) writer:

This book includes an appendix of thirty pages of notes by Shadal, whom Bianchi-Giovini calls "mio amico." The author writes that most of the notes only correct small things, and some of the more major ones are just differences of opinion relating to their differing worldview. However, he says, this isn't the place for a controversy, where everyone ends up still thinking as they did before anyway, so he prints them so that the reader can read them and decide and form their own opinion. Nice!

On pp. 108 - 09 of his book there is the following paragraph:

A tradition has been preserved documenting the bloody tendencies of the time, when passions and prejudices reigned. Under Alessandra, her brother Giuda [sic] Ben Scetah and Giuda Ben Tabai ascended to power as Nasi and Patriarch of the Sanhedrin. In charge of that body, they allowed violence of all kinds, under the veil of religion and justice. Under the pretext of sorcery, Simone once arrested 80 women in Ashkelon, who fled to a cave, and he hanged them all in one day. To justify this atrocity, it was said that Simone was incited by a holy man who told him of his vision of Hell, where he saw the punishment for the Nasi of Sanhedrin if he did not exterminate the witches.

For his part, Giuda Ben Tabai cut of the head of a man accused of being a false witness, solely to refute the view of the Sadducees who did not subject a false witness to extreme punishment unless he had caused the death of the accused through false testimony. The public was very upset by this act, and word spread among the masses that you could hear groans every night at the tomb of the executed man. Simone Ben Scetah confronted his colleague, who it is said did penance, but Giuda did not fail to rebuke him too for being quick to shed blood. Each one complained to the other of cruelty, and both pretended to be more moderate and pious. It is said that Simone was so quick in judgment that the sentence was often not sufficiently established to prevent an unfortunate death. Because of the incident with the witches, his son was falsely accused in retaliation, and the council condemned him to death according to the code set by its Nasi. Realizing that he was at fault, [Simone] condemned the extreme sentence for the youth, and with the sorrow of a father, the execution would have proceeded if the false accusers had not admitted the truth.

In the table of contents, this section is called "Simon Ben Scetah e Giuda Ben Tabai, loro severita," "Shimon ben Shetach and Yehuda ben Tabbai, on Their Severity."

Shadal inserts a note for this section (pp. 606 - 08). Here is what he writes, quoting directly from the book, and commenting afterward:

On pp. 108 - 9 - Giuda ben Tabbai and Simeone ben Sciatach (Note: I have preserved both of their Italian spellings of these two names, as I did in the text translated above) are gratuitously represented here as men who "allowed violence of all kinds under the veil of religion and justice." Jost, a sufficiently bold writer, paints a very different picture (III, 84 - 93). "Under the pretext of sorcery, Simone once arrested 80 women in Ashkelon, who fled to a cave, and he hanged them all in one day." Why on a pretext? What militates against a legal presumption in favor of the judge's sentence? Is it likely that a man (and note that this is not a celibate monk, but the father of a family) secretly harbored deadly hatred toward 80 women? But — it will be argued, the accusation is itself absurd — imaginary accusations of witchcraft is a crime no less than water poisoning, and the like, which in barbarous times served as a pretext for many, many atrocities.

My answer: I do not know if witchcraft (its effects, apart from the causes to which they are attributed) is absolutely absurd (see Ennemoser "Geschichte der Magie," Leipzig 1844). Suppose it is. But the Mosaic Law expressly recommends (Exodus 22:17) to not allow a witch live. What could this judge do? He had left things alone for a long time, but when this scandal came out among the people who began to dream or say that he deserved Hell for his negligence, he could not help but to make legal inquiries into the matter, and he found that those women were practicing what was then called witchcraft and he could do nothing but condemn them to death. It happened then that his son was falsely accused of a capital offense and also sentenced to death. As the innocent young man was about to be executed, the accusers recanted. Simeone wanted to save his innocent son, but the son said: Father, if you want to do something positive for the public good, let me be like the threshold that is stepped on by everyone, without regard for me. Simeone let his son perish according to the law so that this terrible example would ensure respect for the law. It would frighten slanderers and also the wealthy, who would fear playing the courts if they would make them pay dearly for their retractions. (i.e., it shows that false testimony, where witnesses can't retract, is a grave matter. - S.)

Moving on to Giuda ben Tabbai. The Sadducees claimed that false witnesses were not to suffer the penalty of death (to which the Mosaic Law already condemned them) unless the accused had already suffered that undeserved punishment. It happened that only one of the two witnesses in this case could be proved false. The testimony was therefore left ineffective, and the slandered one was acquitted. But the witness was not found less guilty [even though the other witness was not discredited]. Giuda ben Tabbai wanted to punish the false witness to give an example, so that all should realize that the law punishes false witnesses. Despite Giuda's good intention, Simeone reproved him rigorously, and reminded him that the traditional law acknowledged that the witnesses did not incur the death penalty for slander when both of them were not proven false. The book says: "something positive for the public good," etc. Why not report it as it says in the Talmud (the only source for these stories)? It says that Giuda was going to prostrate himself on the tomb of that witness asking forgiveness. A voice was heard. The people believed that it was the voice of the dead, and Giuda said: The voice, when I am dead, you will not hear it anymore. " (i.e., it was Giuda's own voice, lamenting his guilt.) But "Giuda did not fail to rebuke [Simone] too for being quick to shed blood," the Talmud does not say this.

His reference to Jost may be unclear. Jost was a very celebrated Jewish historian who wrote a multi-volume History of the Jews (and translated the Misnah into German, which is interesting because the Tiferes Yisrael sometimes cites him, unnamed of course). He was not exactly particularly sympathetic to the Talmudic rabbis and could hardly be called an apologist for the rabbis or Talmudic tradition. Zinberg writes of him "בכלל, די פירושים, ווי זייערע גייסטיקע יורשים - די רבנים פון די שפעטערע דורות, זיינען יאסטן ניט וויניקער פארהאסט ווי [דוד] פרידלענדען," "In general, he hated the Pharisees and their spiritual heirs, the rabbis of later generation, no less than [David] Friedlaender . . . " Even if Zinberg exaggerates, this is what Shadal meant by noting that Jost was a "bold" writer, and it is therefore worth citing him since his non-apologetic portrait of Shimon ben Shatach and Yehuda ben Tabbay portrait is softer. Shadal's personal relationship with Jost is interesting. This is not the place to explore it in full, but suffice it to note that when Shadal assumed his post as Professor at the Padua Rabbinical Seminary he was recommended Jost's volumes of history to use for teaching his students, and he was appalled by what he read. So he began to write his own teaching material.

A lot of the Shadal correspondence to Bianchi Giovini is printed in Epistolario, his collected Italian, French and Latin letters. On page 441 is a letter dated Dec. 18, 1844, apparently Shadal had not heard from him in a few weeks, so he writes: "Nel mentre che il di Lei silenzio mi faceva temere che le 80 streghe fatta avessero qualche malia a danno della nostra amicizia" "Your silence made me think that 80 witches and their witchcraft came between our friendship." He then goes on to discuss his son, whom he was very proud of, who was "conceived amid criticism and antiquities" and his work on the Ethiopian Jews.

Writing once more, Feb. 3, 1845, Shadal congratulates Bianchi Giovini for the immanent appearance in Italy, for the first time, of a volume on the history of the Jews written in a spirit of fairness and impartiality. He then returns to the Talmudic story discussed in in this post, writing that he simply can't resist returning to the 80 witches.

Admittedly, he says, it is possible that some Pharisees took advantage of their favorable political moment to break down their opponents (though not with the same cruelty as the Sadducees dealt with their opponents). He says that it isn't impossible that some partisan female Sadducees were changed by legend into a coven of witches. But, we may ask, how could the Sadducees, who denied angels and demons as part of their doctrine, be susceptible to the charge of sorcery? Assuming than that the Pharisees had acted on a pretext to attack the Sadducees, something other than witchcraft would have been invented, for it is a crime which was incompatible with the principles of that sect. Why were women hiding together in a cave altogether? To practice their esoteric arts. Also, the fact that they lived in Ashkelon and not Jerusalem is significant, for they lived far away from the Court, and could hardly have aroused in the Pharisees a politically motivated hatred. As for the Pharisees, if following the law and putting criminals to death is cruel, then they are cruel and vindictive. If they do not pursue the law vigorously and make few executions, then they are the cause for the demoralization of the people through lawlessness.

Peace out,
SDL

Since Dr. Alan Brill recently posted about Chief Rabbi Hertz's treatment of "Haggadah" in his introduction the Soncino Talmud, which he calls "legend pure and simple." On pg. 313 of the Hertz Pentateuch there is nearly one-and-a-half columns about Witchcraft (Ex. 22:17 'Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live'). The comment

- denies there was any reality to witchcraft
- asserts that it negated the unity of God and was "an abominable form of idolatry"
- points out the Septuagint translated "mechashefa" as "poisoner"
- notes that some commentators understand it as a prohibition to allowing witches to thrive, rather than a command to put them to death
- denies that the medieval horrors associated with witch-hunts can be traced to this verse
- asserts that witchcraft, as a "sinister danger to Jewish social life" had ceased long before the 2nd Temple period
- affirms that "both-Jewish and non-Jewish scholars" have studied the Shimon ben Shetach episode and concluded that "it is merely Haggadic"
- that medieval Jewish sages denied the existence of witchcraft
- that torture to exact a confession was unknown and impossible in Jewish judicial procedure
- that Christianity casually disregards the Old Testament, even including portions of the Ten Commandments, and therefore its attitude toward any one thing cannot possibly be based entirely on a single verse in the Old Testament
- the New Testament is a demon-haunted book
- that is is estimated that in Germany alone 100,000 women and girls were killed for witchcraft over the ages
- that as late as 1709 a woman and her daughter were hung in Huntingdon for causing storms by witchcraft

Got that?

For further details on Jewish scholars who concluded that the Shimon ben Shatach story is historical, see the footnote on pg. 220 of Harvey Meirovich's A Vindication of Judaism the polemics of the Hertz Pentateuch.

By the way, I am not certain, but I think that the Hertz Pentateuch is mistaken about Huntingdon in 1709. It seems to me that the said witches were hung in 1593. However, it is no joke that a woman named Jane Wenham ran into a whole lot of legal trouble in 1712. Her case aroused a great debate about whether witchcraft was real.

Finally, I include an 1883 representation of Jost's presentation of the Shimon ben Shatach/ Judah ben Tabbai story. I include it especially because of what is written at the end which shows how their story was definitely viewed in those times, an "illustration of the hatred of the two parties, both zealous for the written law, but sacrificing their own lives and those of others for their own interpretation of it. "

The most important archaeological find in the history of the world?

2012-01-15T13:24:00.002-05:00

From the Massachusets Spy November 1783:

A few days ago, a man digging in Seadbury Park, near Chislehurst, in Kent, found a small urn, in which were contained five small coins, nearly the size of a crown piece. On one side of which is the device of the ark, with a dove and an olive branch for the head, and round it in Hebrew characters, "Shem, Ham, and Japhet." On the other side is the head of Noah, and these words, "Noah, King of the new world, year of the new world, twice five."

Did Congress ever contemplate adopting Hebrew as the official American language?

2012-01-13T11:07:00.000-05:00

I was reading an article called 'Spreading the Hebrew word' which is a liiiiiitle overblown. The author writes that "Hebrew [was] a language so admired by early Americans that William Gifford argued in his Quarterly Review that some members of the Congress wanted it to become the national language rather than English." This contention has been repeated many times, but what is the evidence? At most, something quite different.

While Gifford was editor of the Quarterly Review, the source for this statement is an aside in an annotated edition of Ben Johnson's works, from 1816, not the Quarterly Review. Here is what Gifford wrote in his notes to The Alchemist:

According to him during the American Revolution a person of "that state" (i.e., New England) proposed to the Congress that English be suppressed and Hebrew raised in its stead.

H.L. Mencken famously called attention to this passage in his The American Language. He refers to the Marquis Francois Jean de Chastellux's book about his tour of America, from whence Gifford "seems to have picked up the story." Here is what Chastellux wrote, in the English translation of his book, Travels in North-America, in the years 1780, 1781, and 1782, printed in 1787:

"Some persons." No mention of Congress. As you cans see, these are slim reeds for this urban legend to rest on.

***

Here is a resolution passed by General Assembly of the state of Massachusetts-Bay in March of 1777:

Newly formatted Soncino Talmud freely available

2012-01-12T13:15:00.003-05:00

Here's a very happy announcement to make. Reuven Brauner worked with diligence and toil on an important labor of love, to make the Soncino Edition of the Talmud (which had been available as barely formatted text) into a highly readable and attractive two-columned format that is a pleasure to consult.

It is now being hosted at halakhah.com. Kol hakavod to Reuven, who's website is http://www.613etc.com/ (and to halakhah.com for hosting it).

And no this is not a paid advertisement - in fact it was I who contacted Reuven to congratulate him and I expressed my wish to link to it.

Shadal series #9 - Samuel David Luzzatto's Letter to the Ethiopian Jews

2012-01-12T13:04:00.004-05:00

This post is going to have a second part, since there is some intrigue about this letter, which I will mention at the end. First, here is my translation of a fascinating letter printed in Iggerot Shadal Volume II, pp. 1027-29.

19 May 1847 4 Sivan 5607

To His Honor the Great Sage Abba Yshaq, Father and Teacher to our Brethren the Israelites in Abyssinia, Blessings and Peace without Limit:

We learned with great joy that even in Abyssinia there are Jacob's children who observe the Torah of Moses, the Man of God. However, the news which has arrived from your land has been through the medium of men who are not Israelites, and their words are unclear and insufficient to quench our thirst to know the true facts. Therefore I, the small Samuel David Luzzatto who dwells in Padua, Italy, who instructs our God's Torah and is a father and teacher to the youths who study Torah in this land, have sent this epistle to you, inquiring from you to do us a kindness and enlighten us with your reply to the questions which I send to you this day.

First, I ask you to tells us what is the meaning of the name "Falasha" and how did you come to be called by this name.

Second, I ask you when did your branch of the Israelites arrive in Abyssinia.

Third, I ask if the Israelites came to Abyssinia at one time, or gradually, in disparate groups, and if they came in large or small numbers.

Fourth, I inquire of you to know if the Israelites were ever self-ruled in Abyssinia, and if so at what point did you become subjects to others? Were there Israelites who kept their self-rule, and if so are there any today? Are you at peace with the gentiles surrounding you; are you beloved or hated by them?

Fifth, I am yearning to know what language you speak. Is it the Holy Tongue, biblical Hebrew, with which the Torah is written, or another language? What is the origin of the language among you? Would you please write me a bilingual sample of your language, in Hebrew and the language you speak.

Sixth, please tell me when you circumcise your children, and is it true that you also circumcise the girls.

Seventh, please tell me how many months are in your year, what are their names, how many days are in a month, and if your years and months are always the same, or if occasionally you have a longer year than others, and a longer month than others.

Eighth, please inform me which festivals and holidays do you observe, and the month and day in which you practice each one of them. What are your fast days when you refrain from eating and drinking in memory of the travails of your ancient fathers?

Ninth, I ask of you if you have the books of Torah and Prophets, written in their original language, the language of Moses and the Prophets, and what is the number and the names of your prophetic and other holy books?

Tenth, please inform me if you have books other than the Torah and Prophets, and if you have prayer books with which you pray to God?

Eleventh, I ask you to know if you believe as us in the coming of a redeemer, the messiah, who will gather the scattered Israelites from the four corners of the earth, and return us to the land of our forefathers, the Holy Land?

Twelfth, I ask you to inform me if all the Israelites in Abyssinia are called 'Falasha,' or if some are called by another name. Also, do all of you share the same faith and Torah, or are there various sects and customs?

Please do me a kindness and write a learned response to my twelve questions, and give the letter to the man who brings my letter to you. I am also prepared to assist you and do anything good for you in my power. The God of Israel will bless you and all the Israelites who dwell in your land. God bless and keep your eternally, Amen. These are the words of your brother who desires good for you, written here in Padua, 4 Sivan 5607 years from the creation of Heaven and Earth as we reckon it.

The small Samuel David ben Hezekiah Luzzatto.

Now, the context is that at this time reports were reaching Europe about practicing Jews in Ethiopia. Their existence had not been unknown by any means, but only in the mid-19th century was there a sufficient and consistent European presence in Africa. There were reports printed in newspapers and journals about the Beta Israel, and this intrigued Samuel David Luzzatto and, especially, his son Filosseno. The latter, who was only 17 when this letter was sent to Abba Ishak, a Beta Israel elder, became a noted expert on that community, authoring an important book - to the extent that one could be an expert without having actually traveled there.

What is especially interesting about this letter is that Filosseno would also send such a letter; or at least that is what all the literature on the subject says. His letter is extremely similar (but not identical). A couple of years later his letter and the reply from Abba Ishak - there is a reply - were printed in journals and newspapers. My next post will show these. But I wanted to mention here that I have not found a single reference in any scholarly literature on the Beta Israel that acknowledges this letter in Iggerot Shadal. My conjecture is that Filosseno's famous letter was written by his father, Shadal, and he allowed his son to use it to help make a name for himself, or else that letter was a guide for his son. It's really quite amazing that no one seemed to have noticed this before. Stay tuned.

Table manners for good little Dutch Jewish boys and girls of 200 years ago.

2012-01-11T19:57:00.003-05:00

In the first decade of the 19th century, several educators in Amsterdam formed a society for the furtherance of Jewish education. Their motto (and name) was Chanoch Lanangar Gnal Pie Darkoo, as they spelled it in their Sephardic pronunciation, and Dutch orthography. The first fruits of their project was a volume printed in 1809 called Bikkure Chinuch, compiled by Mozes Cohen Belinfante, an exemplar of an elite Dutch Sephardic family which had produced rabbis and scholars. Bikkure Chinuch was intended as a kind of sampler of a teacher's edition of a text book for teachers and parents, so that students could properly be taught and tested in Hebrew and Dutch. The point of this work was to whet the public's appetite.

Here is the society's seal on this first book, along with a note saying that all authentic works of this society will bear this seal:

I don't have a picture of Belinfante, but here are images of other individuals from his circle (albeit at a later date). So you can get a sense of what he must have looked like, at least with regards to dress. One of these men, in particular, is quite important and will be featured in another post:

Title page:

The book has several parts. The first is a word and phrase list in good Hebrew and Dutch for common, polite words and interactions. For example, "Shalom adoni," "Goden dag, Mijnheer!" "Mah hiddush?" "Wat is er nieuws?" and "Lamah khol-ha-kavod ha-zeh?" Waarom doet gij mij zoo veel eer aan?"

Next are sample letters from a father to his beloved son, again, Hebrew and Dutch (as they all are). The first is for a good son, and the second is to reprove one who has strayed. Then there is a cute poem for kids, exhorting them to be good. There's a little essay about yomim tovim, prohibited work and so on. Then there is an essay on the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, and another of moral instruction on patriotism.

Finally, there is a great piece on table manners (it closes with a prayer to God). Here is the essay on table manners - tighten that tie!

"These few lines" about "courtesies" describes how of all the human actions with which one can distinguish a good and orderly person, nothing is so visible as the way a man eats at the table, whether at home among his household, in the company of friends, or among strangers. Although cleanliness in deed is not sufficient to tell us about the character of a man, experience, which is the father of wisdom, tells us that any man who is not clean and neat at the table, also lacks good character in others areas of life, for he does not act as wise and civilized men do.

It admonishes, be careful son, about your behavior at the table, that no one should discover in you something outrageous and contrary to public norms. A man who keeps this in mind keeps a good name.

Listen, son, it continues, and I will teach you several things, each one is small by itself, but are very important collectively. I will tell you what to do at your own table, or your parents, or a stranger's table.

Make sure you have releaved yourself before sitting, so you will not have to leave the table.

Do not ask what the food will be, that will make you seem a glutton.

Don't eat between meals, otherwise people will say that you have an insatiable appetite; or that your parents don't give you enough to eat!

Wash your hands thoroughly until they are clean, leaving nothing sticky or grimy, and do not take too much time doing so. Afterward say the prayer (i.e., blessing) which are commanded you.

Don't rush to take your seat, wait for your parents or betters, or until you are told to sit.

Don't sit with your arms and hands on the table, like a rude person. Don't slouch.

Do not unfold your napkin too quickly, and don't reach too quickly as if you are starving.

When the food is on the table, don't be anxious to move the dish so you can peak what's inside it, or to choose what you like the best for yourself. Wait until others have a chance to take, also do not say that "I like this, but I do not want that."

Eat calmly and slowly, without appearing greedy. Do not drink first, or speak more than necessary.

If someone brings a full serving bowl to you, don't take from it before offering your table-mate to take a serving.

And that is how a good little child must behave at the table in Amsterdam in 1809.

Luigi Chiarini, and anti-Talmud author's use of Rashi to deflect a slur posing as medical terminology, away from Poles, toward Jews.

2012-01-10T13:15:00.000-05:00

The gemara Berachot 58b discusses blessings to be recited upon seeing people of unusual appearance. One of them is called פתויי הראש. The Soncino translation gives this as "flatheaded," which follows the Aruch. Rashi commented that this means that ששערו כנמטא כל שערו דבוק זה בזה פלטדי"ר בלעז, his hair is matted and stuck together, feltrer in French, which, according to Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050 - 1350, Volume 2, meant "to cover with felt."

It seems like we are talking about a hair disease which used to be known as Plica polonica, or Polish plait. Not surprisingly, in Germany this was also called Judenzopf. See, for example, this entry from a fascinating German-English dictionary printed in the 1790s in Leipzig (compiled by John Ebers):

If you want to really enhance your day, here are some other entries in that dictionary that you can read:

Interestingly, in various medical books and journals of the 19th century I've seen it asserted that this was actually uncommon among Jews. Of course we have to take all of it with a grain of salz given the nature of the discussions about what they saw as barbarian's diseases.

Here are two examples:

The different names given to the plica indicate more or less the ideas that prevail regarding its nature. The poles call it gwozdiec or gwodziec, which signifies a nail that splits the wood into which it is driven. In the district of the Roxolans it is termed koltun, a stake. In Germany superstitious fancies have also given it various curious denominations. It is called alzopf and schraitelzopf, as being the result of the malefices of vampires and incubi. By some it is asserted that the Moravians, natural enemies of the Poles, not having been able to conquer them by their arms, had recourse to magical art to inflict this scourge; hence they term it mahrenflechten, mahrenwichtung. To this day it is called hexenzopf and bichteln, or unbaptised, alluding, no doubt, to the Jews, who were accused of having introduced the disorder in the deadly hate they bore the Christians; hence was it also known by the name of Judenzopf (Coma Judaeorum).

and:

Plica judaica, Judenzopf, are commonly met with in writers, and yet I was informed by my colleagues, in Cracow, that the plica was rarely to be met with among the tribes of Israel. If such be the case, it affords negative evidence, at least, to the opinion that this malady is engendered by filth alone; for if there is a mass of living filth in human shape, it is to be found in a Polish Jew, who stalks up and down the streets in a long gown, and fur cap upon his head, nor changes his gabardine till it falls piecemeal off his body, rotted by age. His long flowing hair, falling m ringlets upon his shoulders, and curling at the extremity, would seem to offer a fine nursery for plica: still, as I was informed, he is seldom attacked by this disease, but enjoys, as a substitute more generally diffused over his body, the psoriasis. It was not asserted that no cases are to be found among the Jews of this malady, but that there were but few, comparatively with the peasants. I recollect seeing but one Jew affected with plica, during the time I remained at Cracow.

In 1831 Luigi Chiarini (aka Louis, Ludwig, etc.) printed the first two volumes of his translation of the Talmud into French. Chiarini (1789-1832), an Italian-born cleric, was a professor at the University of Warsaw, and the official censor of Hebrew books. He was not particularly a fan of Judaism or the Talmud. In fact, his translation was partly the catalyst for Moses Ephraim Pinnner's proposed translation (of which, like Chiarini, only the first tracate, Berachot, ever appeared). Many of the Jewish scholars of the day were particularly chagrined by Chiarini's work. For example, Leopold Zunz wrote a short book refuting Chiarini's earlier publication "Theorie du Judaisme."

In his translation, Chiarini gives the following as a note to our piece about פתויי הראש:

Although Chiarini translated the Gemara as "quelqu'un qui a la tête trop large" or his "head is too large," the footnote, above, is a translation of Rashi. The only thing to point out is that he gave the la'az (langue barbare) as Platider. Above, I used feltrer, following Moshe Kattan's Otzar Lo'azei Rashi, which made use of all the earlier sources, like Darmester and Blondheim.

What does Chiarini add? "Il serait done prouvé par ce passage que la Plica Polonica devrait être plutôt appelée Plica Judaica," "It could therefore be proved by this passage that Plica polonica should instead be called Plica judaica." Normally I would let this go without comment, since it speaks for itself, but sometimes people tell me to spell things out explicitly: this Talmudic passage is not speaking about Jews or non-Jews, but rather people in general. It mentions a כושי, an African person, which I suppose was unusual to see. It should also be pointed out, as alluded to in the post's title, that Chiarini was employed in Poland. One imagines that some Poles were not thrilled that the rest of Europe named a peasant's hair condition after them.

Shortly thereafter, the Gemara mentions a blessing to make when one sees an elephant, an ape, or a קפוף, which Rashi elsewhere translates as an owl (Soncino gives "a long-tailed ape", same as Jastrow). Chiarini approves of Rashi and translates an an owl, which has some facial resemblance to a human. What does he write in the notes? "Le Koran sert de Commentaire au Talmud lorsqu'il parle fi souvent des hommes changés en singes et en d'autres animaux," "The Koran is a Talmudic commentary, often speaking of men changed into apes and other animals."

For more on Chiarini, see Roman Marcinkowski "Luigi Chiarini (1789-1832) - An Anti-Judaistic Reformer of Judaism" Studia Judaica 7 (2004) 237-248.

"That Jews stink," on early modern rational inquiry.

2012-01-10T10:27:00.000-05:00

One of more interesting books in the development of, well, human thought, is Sir Thomas Browne's "Pseudodoxia Epidemica, or, Enquiries into Very many Received Tenents and commonly presumed Truths," first published in 1646. The book attemps to dispel many myths through making sense out of empirical observation, reason and what is written in books.

The book touches on topics such as

That crystal is nothing else but ice strongly congealed
That porcellane of China dishes lie under the earth an hundred years in preparation
That the root of Mandrakes resembles the shape of a man
That an elephant hath no joints
That a beaver, to escape the hunter, bites off his testicles or stones
Of the pissing of Toads
Of the basilisk
That a salamander lives in the fire
That men weigh heavier dead han alive, and before meat than after
On saluting upon sneezing
Of the picture of Adam and Eve with navels
Of the picture of our Saviour with long hair
Of the picture of Moses with horns

and many more besides, on magnets, electricity, all sorts of animals, real or imagined.

Below is his treatment of the belief That Jews stink:

In the 1835 reprint, in the Collected Works, some notes by other authors are included. Here is the note on the Jews stink question:

4 That Jews stink.] The Jews anxiously observing the prohibited eating of blood keepe their flesh covered with onyons and garleek till itt putrifie,[1] and contracte as bad a smell as that of rottenes from those strong sawoes ; and soe by continual use thereof emit a loathsom savour, as Mr. Fulham experimented in Italye at a Jewish meeting, with the hazard of life, till he removed into the fresh air. Teste ipso fide dignissimo.— Wr.

Howell, in a letter written to Lord Clifford, in reply to his enquiries respecting the Jews, does not hesitate to adopt the common opinion as one so well known as to need no proof. "As they are," says he, " the most contemptible people, and have a kind of fulsome scent, no better than a stink, that distinguisheth them from others, so they are the most timorous people on earth, &c"—Familiar Letters, book i. § 6, letter xv. p. 252.

Here's Sir Thomas resting in peace:

[1] See Maria Diemling, “'As the Jews Like to Eat Garlick': Garlic in Christian- Jewish Polemical Discourse in Early Modern Germany,” in ed. Greenspoon, Food and Judaism, 215–34.

Ben Gurion said what?

2012-01-09T10:55:00.000-05:00

This is what was happening in May 1960. It seems that David Ben Gurion had expressed his belief that only 600 Israelites left Egypt - not 600,000 - and joined their Israelite brethren in Canaan, where most had remained in the first place. This talk was broadcast on the radio, and Agudath Israel tried to bring down the government.

Here's some of the coverage in Maariv:

May 17:

May 18:

May 19:

On the Hebrew pronunciation controversy in England of 1952.

2012-01-08T12:15:00.002-05:00

In mid-1952 a controversy concerning Hebrew pronunciation erupted in England (reference should be made to the Hebrew pronunciation controversy in Amsterdam circa 1808, but a fuller treatment will be in a future post). The question was, was it appropriate for Chazzanim or Torah readers in Ashkenazi synagogues to change their pronunciation to "sefaradit"? Undoubtedly the desire to do so was precipitated by the rise of modern Israeli Hebrew and, indeed, Israel itself. According to the first notice from the Jewish Chronicle (Jul. 11, 1952) the background is that three years earlier a particular prominent synagogue had resolved that the Torah reading would be read according to the Sefaradi pronunciation. In 1952 one member set a motion to rescind that resolution; the Chairman then ruled that both the original resolution and the motion to rescind were improper. He seems to have based himself on a ruling by the Chief Rabbi (Israel Brodie) the year before, in which he states that "the Ashkenazi pronunciation will be retained throughout the entire service."

The report continues, that the Torah reader in the Hampstead Synagogue continues to read it in sefaradit. The editorial line here is that while the nusach ha-tefilla surely comes under the purview of the Chief Rabbi, and therefore a change in nussach from the "Polish or German ritual" would be properly forbidden or confirmed by him, that pronunciation should be different, for different pronunciations of the same language aren't really meaningful.

The writer acknowledges that this argument can be used *against* switching to sefaradit, which "in some quarters has been turned into a fetish." However, "on the whole . . . conformity to Israeli practice would outweigh all the disadvantages." Adopting the Israeli pronunciation is good, because Israel leads the world's Jews in the development of Hebrew, and this is a good way for Jews to maintain good contact with Israel.

On Aug. 8, the Jewish Chronicle printed a report concerning the Chief Rabbi's ruling on Hebrew, which he confirmed. The only exception which Brodie made was for classes conducted in synagogues for teaching Hebrew as a modern language. In all other synagogue contexts, including outside prayer services, the Ashkenazic pronunciation must be retained.

Since the Chief Rabbi referred to a 1949 letter by Rabbi Dr. Alexander Altmann, the JC summarizes its contents. Altmann had asked Rabbi Brodie whether he would agree that the Prayer for the Welfare of Israel be read in the Israeli/ sefaradic pronunciation "so as to identify ourselves, by this symbolic gesture, with the spiritual revival of our people in Israel." The reply was that he had no objection, provided the person who read it used the pronunciation properly. Brodie further quoted M.H. Segal, the famed Hebrew linguist (among his accomplishments was proving decisively that Mishnaic Hebrew [leshon hakhamim] was a real language, rather than an artificial scholar's construction), on Hebrew pronunciation. Segal had written that in his view the Israeli pronunciation should be used in synagogues in Israel so long as the majority of worshippers use that pronunciation in their speech. In synaogues of new immigrants, their pronunciation should be retained, until the majority used Hebrew as their vernacular. The idea was that pronunciation should not seem strange or interfere with the prayer of worshippers. Brodie pointed out that in England, while modern Hebrew use and knowledge was expanding, the Israeli pronunciation was still limited, and therefore his ruling stands.

On Oct. 31, a JC reporter noted that the London Board of Jewish Religious Education decided to comply with the Chief Rabbi's ruling in their Hebrew classes.

On Nov. 11, the JC printed a lengthy letter from Rabbi Dr. Louis Rabinowitz, Chief Rabbi of Johannesburg, South Africa,taking issue with Brodie's ruling. Rabinowitz was "sorry" to read it, so he decided to inform the Jewish Chronicle readers what had occurred in South Africa on the question. When he came to the country he noticed that in the various Zionist groups the modern pronunciation was being used, while in the synagogue the Ashkenazic was used. He decided that a uniform pronunciation was "essential" and that it ought to be the Israeli one. Rabinowitz writes that he competely agrees with Brodie, that the same pronunciation must be used in school and in synagogue. So it was that after a delay of one year he introduced the Israeli pronunciation simultaneously. That had occurred four years earlier (1948).

Rabinowitz explained how he dealt with the point raised by M. H. Segal, quoted with approval by Brodie, that the pronunciation used in the synagogue should not appear strange to worshippers. Rabinowitz said that he agreed, but realized that those fears were without foundation. His point was not that he expected individual worshippers to change their own pronunciation, but that frankly "I do not think that worshipper[s] will be unable to understand the reader when he says 'Baruch Atta' instead of 'Boruch Atto' to which he has hitherto been accustomed."

He says that the change would inevitably come, and once it was introduced into the schools it would simply be a matter of time until that was the normal pronunciation of most worshippers. Meanwhile, the change was accomplished without incident. He even relates an anecdote about how, after the pronunciation was changed, the hazzan read 'Simon Shalom' instead of 'Sim Sholowm.' At that, a 5-year old boy excitedly extended his hand to his father, and said 'Shalom, Abba!' It was the first time that he realized and recognized the word from the tefilla, as a word he knew from home!

Rabinowitz acknowledges that there was a greater Israeli influence in the South Africa than in England, with a greatger percentage of Hebrew speakers,but he still feels that the same arguments which made it work in South Africa apply to England. He notes that on the same page as the Chief Rabbi's ruling was an advertisement for a Hebrew Seminar at Carmel College. If Brodie's ruling were adhered to then what would happen, in effect, was Shacharis in Ashkenazis, breakfast with Birchas Hamazon in Ashkenazis, followed by the Seminar in Sefaradit, lunch with Birchas Hamazon in Ashkenazis, Seminar in Sefaradit, Mincha in Ashkenazis, etc. The point? Absurd.

He also points out that in the synagogue advertisements in the Jewish Chronicle one advertises for a Baal Tekiah (S) and another for a Baal Shachris (A). There is a Board of Shechita (S) not Shechitoh (A) and Chazanim (S) are not called Chazonim (A). He gives several more examples along these lines. In any event, he asks, "Has not the time arrived to remove all this confusion which sets up a barrier between the Hebrew of Israel, of the street and of literature, and that of synagogue and school? Nothing but good can emerge from the change."

On Nov. 14, we see a letter from Dr. Sidney S. Woolf concerning Hebrew transliteration. Wishing to "ventilate the topic" of the Jewish Chronicle's own use of Sefardic Hebrew in its transliteration, which is the 'organ of "British Jewry"', Woolf writes that as the Sefardim do not outnumber Ashkenazim, then the Ashkenazic pronunciation should be favored. Words like "Shabbat" and "Simchat Torah" are "cold and forbidding renderings" of words like "Shobbos" and "Simchas Toura" which evoke warm and fuzzy feelings. "Berishis" is more pleasant to the English Jewish ear than "Bereshit." To be fair to Woolf, he does suggest as a possibility printing Hebrew words in Hebrew letters.

Then a Dr. S. Fundaminsky points out what must have been his pet peeve, that the zayin in "Ashkenazi" has a dagesh, and therefore nothing by Ashkenazzi could be correct.

On Nov. 21 the JC received a couple of letters concerning Woolf's letter on the transliteration of Hebrew. One writer fondly recalls his mother admonishing him "Nochum Itshe, nem dem shiddur und stell sech davenen," in her "Litwachke" prounciation. "Gut sabbes!" But his point is that nostalgia for our upbringing is not a very powerful argument in the face of the modern revival of the nation and language.

The next writer thinks it absurd that the Jewish Chronicle has a role as "the organ of British Jewry," and therefore has a duty to print Hebrew words transliterated in Ashkenazis. He says that if that logic were taken to its logical conclusion, then the JC would no longer be entitled to an editorial point of view of its own. Furthermore, it must also always reflect the majority view, always ignore the minority. So Dr. Woolf has to make a choice: deal with it, and continue to read the JC on Shabbat or celebrate his Shobbos sans Jewish Chronicle!

Finally, from the same issue (Nov. 21) the Jewish Chronicle itself replies to a speech by Brodie in which he deplored that the JC had a "distinct tendency to denigrate authority" - his authority, and that of the Chief Rabbi's Beth Din. The paper believes that the basis of the accusation was its publication of some letters critical of their decisions.

The JC maintains that it has supported the authority of the Chief Rabbinate ("strenuously and assidously") and offered it the support and publicity which is its due. Same goes for the Beth Din. However, that is not the only duty of the newspaper. It's obligation also extends to the whole community, and that means that it has to act as a forum for a wide variety of views, including criticisms and dissent. The paper thinks that Rabbi Brodie was referring, among other things to letters challenging his ruling on retaining Ashkenazic pronunciation as arbitrary. Et cetera.

Note: this is not exhaustive. Clearly there is other material on a controversy which references rulings made a couple of years earlier. I have not looked into those. A full accounting and treatment of this would no doubt be interesting. One point to note is that a reference to the Aug. 8, 1952 piece mentioned in this post was included in H.J. Zimmel's Ashkenazim and Sefardim in his appendix on pronunciation in the responsa. He noted that Chief Rabbi Brodie's ruling (which he takes to agree entirely with M.H. Segal, although I have my doubts) agreed with Rav Kook. For an overview of some of the halachic positions on this issue, see E. Turkel "Variations in Sephardi and Ashkenazi Liturgy, Pronunciation and Custom," Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Volume 18, 5-34, 1989.

British pushke collections for Volozhin

2012-01-05T12:25:00.000-05:00

Here's the notice in the Jewish Chronicle (Feb. 11, 1876) about the sum collected from charity boxes for the Volozhin yeshiva:

And here's one of the nicest pictures I've ever seen. Always makes me feel good. I'm not sure, but my guess is it's an outtake from Life's 1955 issue, part V in a series on The World's Great Religions; Judaism, which you can see here. This is apparently research, not a Beis Midrash, so my guess is that this is behind the scene at the Encyclopedia Talmudit, Mossad Horav Kook or something like that.

On Reverend's Handbooks of a century ago, Pt. II.

2012-01-04T12:22:00.002-05:00

Having posted last week about Reverend handbooks (link), by which I mean sort of do-it-yourself guides for quasi or would-be rabbis to minister to the American immigrant Jewish masses, I thought I would post about an even more interesting example, from 1898.

Note: I know this post is long, but I saved the most interesting part for the end, so by all means look there are least.

This particular book featured an English and Yiddish section (of course) and was published by someone called Pinkus Friedman. It was called, on the English side, "The Holy Speech" (ספר אמרות טהרות) and claimed to present many appropriate speeches, sermons and laws by "Dr. Jellinek, Dr. Graetz, Dr. Adler, Dr. Karpeles, Dr. Kohut, Dr. Manheimer . . . " etc. I've seen no evidence in the book for that claim, these being prominent 19th century Jewish preachers, rabbis and scholars. I suspect that Pinkus Friedman was being a little loose with the facts and trying to sell his book. Here is the title page:

As you can see, he called himself a "Hebrew Book Dealer" / "Mokher Seforim."

The big includes many oddities and miscellanies, particularly in the way of illustrations. For example, it includes this 'Gedolim' poster (click to enlarge) for no apparent reason:

In perhaps the only place in the book where he demonstrates some organizational skill, Friedman included the following acrostic poem, forming his name:

Something I'm sure some would find troubling - here is his image of a get (bill of divorce)

Lest anyone think that it was meant to be purely academic, or just for illustration purposes - I'm pretty sure this is not the case.

Here is the index of the English side, followed by one speech for a funeral, which I print because the owner of the book (see below) marked it the best one!

The owner who wrote "The best in the book. May 26, 1903" - who also underlined many words in the book, probably to learn them is my guess, was called Rev. Solomon Goldenstein.

The book includes some seemingly random miscellanies. For example, for no special reason there is a short section called History of the Great Men of Israel, and it is so sparse, a real non sequitur, that one wonders why it was included at all (although I have a theory):

My theory is that the book was as much for Pinkus Friedman's practicing writing and translating English as anything else. The Yiddish side is more full (although no less odd in many respects). For example, it includes an assortment of short essays missing in the English, such as essays on the Talmud, the Sanhedrin, Judah Maccabee, 'Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes,' and biographies of R. Yehuda Halevi and Moses Mendelssohn. The History of Great Men section in Yiddish is also odd, to say the least, but not quite like the English:

His list is Rabbis Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, David Kimhi, Amon of Mainz, Isaac Abarbanel, the Khmielnitzky massacres, the Holy City of Tiberias, uriel D'acosta, the Gaon of Vilna, Rabbis Joseph Karo and Azariah de' Rossi. How's that for eclectic?

Among the speeches, he includes a poem appropriate for a Bar Mitzvah, which could be recited by a parent or mentor:

I saved the best for last, so this is the reward if you are still reading. He includes a section of She'elot u-teshuvot/ questions and responsa. Halachic purists will probably cry seeing this attempt to address common questions of terefa in this fashion. The questions and answers are naturally in Yiddish and in English. I am guessing this makes a statement about what was expected of the people and their rabbi-reverends in those times:

Finally, after these questions is a section he calls "International Questions and Answers," which he means "Jewish responses to Christian missionaries." To read all of these, and the rest read or download the book here.

On the "source of merit" of reciting verses corresponding to Hebrew names.

2012-01-03T12:12:00.002-05:00

On pg. 118 of The Artscroll Weekday Siddur, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we read

"Some recite verses pertaining to their names at this point. See page 400."

On page 400-02 we see a list of such verses (102 in total), and the explanation that

"Kitzur Shelah teaches that it is a source of merit to recite a scriptural verse symbolizing one's name before יִהְיוּ לְרָצוֹן at the end of Shemoneh Esrei. The verse should either contain the person's name or else begin and end with the first and last letters of the name."

Many people who may not know the precise sort of "merit" this is a source of, might have heard that something more is going on; that a person will be asked their name by an angel after they die, and saying these verses every day helps them remember it. Some may have even heard more, but the preceding was as far as it went in my childhood, and I don't think it was ever revisited.

On pp. 33-34 of the 4th edition of The Obligations of Christians to Attempt the Conversion of the Jews (London 1813) we read:

As you can see, this says that an angel is supposed to come and knock upon the coffin, crying at the dead 'Wicked! Wicked! What is thy name? Where is thy name recorded in the scriptures?" If the deceased cannot recite his verse, the angel beats him with a hot iron, breaking his bones. The writer of this passage tries to show that Jews believe that women have no souls, and as proof, that there are no verses for their name - even though the Jews deny that they believe that women have no souls. Actually, some old machzorim do have verses for women's names - but the one's I've seen are probably 75-100 years later than this.

Elsewhere in this very book, the author writes "It is supposed that above 400 Jewish females are the victims of ignorance and vice, wandering about the streets of London to gain a precarious and miserable livelihood by the wages of prostitution." He footnotes that the blame for this must surely be "that the Rabbies teach, that previous to marriage, females have nothing to do with religion or the observation of any of the commandments; and after marriage, have only to observe three. viz. first, her purification; second, to bless the sabbath bread, viz. to take a small piece of dough, repeat a prayer over it, and throw it into the fire; and, third, to light the candles on the eve of the sabbath, or of any holiday, and repeat a prayer whilst doing it, duly observing these three, she is in a state of safety." He then quotes the Mishnah "Shelosha mitvot nashim metzuvim" and "al shalosh averot nashim metot beshe'at ledatan."

Getting back to the iron rods, this is more than a source of merit. What is he talking about? Since Artscroll refers to the Kitzur Shelah - which may or may not be the actual first source for these name verses - let us look at the Kitzur Shelah. The edition this is from is Amsterdam 1701, which is the second or third:

At the very end, in the section called Tikkun Chibut Hakever, Rabbi Mikhl Epstein writes: "It is known what is written above in Massekhet Gehennom, and also in the Sefer Kavvanot, regarding Chibut Hakever; the wicked do not know their name in the grave, and are subjected to cruel beatings. Whoever recites, while alive, every day a verse that begins with the letter of his own name, and ends with the letter by which his name ends, specifically regarding the name which he is called to the Torah, his Shem Kodesh. In other words, one who is known as Isaac, but is called to the Torah as Yitzhak, needs to begin with a verse starting with yud and ending with quf. Certainly one whose name is contained in a verse, such as Shalom or Dan or Reuven, doesn't need a verse which ends as his name does. Whoever recites a verse like this, it is a segulah that he not forget his name. In Sefer Ben Zion is printed the names of people, so I said to myself, I'll print it here to benefit the public. One should say it in the Shemoneh Esrei prior to Yihyu Le-ratzon, at the end of the prayer.

As you can see, he actually gives his own source, the Sefer Ben Zion. Thus, the Kitzur Shelah, while much more influential than the Sefer Ben Zion, is perhaps the source for the custom gaining such traction, but is not the source at all. Before I get to Ben Zion, here is something concerning this Massekhet Gehennom, and Chibut Hakever. There are numerous sources, but the one I'd like to show is from the Tishbi of Elijah Bachur:

Chibut Hakever. It is is written in the midrash of Rabbi Isaac ben Parnach that students of Rabbi Eliezer asked him regarding the judgment of Chibut Hakever. Said he to them, when a person is removed from the world, and angel comes and sits on his grave. Immediately his soul reenters his body and he stands upon his feet. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi added, and in his hand is a chain, half fire and half ice, and he is hit; the first time, his limbs are broken. The second time, his bones are broken. Angels come and gather and beat him a third time, until he is pulverized to dust, and then he is returned to the grave, etc. Rabbi Meir added, the judgment of Chibut Hakever is worse than the judgment of Gehennom, for even complete Zaddikim, and nursing babies, and even stillbirths, are judged - apart for one who died on Erev Shabbath, or one who is buried in the land of Israel.

This is actually excerpted from the much longer Massekhet Gehennom, which happens to mention the angel's request for the name, but gives no solution. "A source of merit" is quite the understatement!

The Sefer Ben Zion, mentioned by the Kitzur Shelah, was published in Amsterdam in 1690, and it has the following:

As you can see, the author cites Sefer Kavvanat ha-Ari, quoting the Zohar, that everyone ought to honor their name, and recall it every day by reciting a verse that is appropriate for it, a verse corresponding to the beginning and end of the name. I am somewhat sure that no one has succeeded in locating what he refers to. He gives the explanation about Chibut Hakever, and explains that a person's name, while given by their parents, actually corresponds to a heavenly name, inscribed on God's throne, and it is God who inspires the parents to name their child. It is for this reason that a person's name, which is known and used in heaven, is so important.

He continues, citing a siddur by a R. Hirz, that gives a verse in this manner, for his name Naftali. Therefore, writes the author, he selected verses from the Bible for a selection of Jewish names, and printed them here. A facsimile of the R. Hirz siddur's title page can be found in this very good article on the subject by Shmuel Krauss (link).

I've heard some rumblings about whether or not the Kitzur Shelah was first published in 1683 or 1693; the issue focuses on how to add up the chronogram on the title page. The correct date is 1693, and here is proof: the Kitzur Shelah himself cited a book printed in 1690. In any case, you can see that the lists are not identical. For your edification, I have compared them.

Sefer Ben Zion has Elyakim, Gavriel, Mahshava, Amram, Azariah, Shneor and Shabbetai, which the Kitzur Shelah do not have. He also includes a verse for tet (but no name examples) which KS does not. Likewise, the Ben Zion also does not include the names Ithamar, Asher, Avigdor, Avner, Gad and perhaps a few more, which KS did list. Here is the KS's list:

Avraham
Aharon
Eliyahu
Ephraim
Elisha
Eliezer, Ithamar, Asher, Avigdor, Avner
Avi Ezri
Berachia
Baruch
Boaz
Bezalel
Bunem
Gedalya
Gad
Gershon
Gavriel
David
Dan, Daniel
Zevulun
Zekharyahu
Zerach
Ze'ev
Hayyim
Hanokh
Hisda
Yitzhak
Yaakov
Yosef
Yehuda
Yishai
Yisrael
Yerucham
Yair
Yeshaya, Yirmiya
Yissachar
Yonah
Yehoshua
Yonatan, Yochanan
Yoel, Yekutiel, Yerachmiel, Yechiel
Kalev
Levi
Moshe, Menashe
Menachem
Matityahu
Meir
Meshulem
Mikhael
Nehemia
Nahman, Nissan, Natan
Naftali
Akiva
Ezriel
Ozer
Orah
Petahya
Zevi
Rephal
Reuven
Shemuel
Shelomo, Simha, Shemaya, Shemarya

Louis Jacob's ordination

2012-01-02T14:15:00.003-05:00

Here's Rabbi Louis Jacobs' semicha certificate, dated 23 Adar II 5703, 30 March 1943, awarded by Rabbi Moshe Yitzchak Segal, the rosh yeshiva of the Manchester Yeshiva.

A primitive guide to safrut from Boston, 1763.

2011-12-30T10:06:00.002-05:00

Here's a great page in Stephen Sewall's 1763 Hebrew Grammar (patterned, according to the subtitle, on Mr. Israel Lyons' Hebrew grammar). It attempts to teach the rudiments of Hebrew writing, even giving instruction for the best way to cut the pen nib.

A responsum on "ladies assisting with their vocal powers" from 1847.

2011-12-29T17:14:00.004-05:00

Here's an interesting letter from London Chief Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler printed in the Occident in August 1847, concerning whether or not it is "correct to permit ladies to assist with their vocal powers at the consecration of a Synagogue":

The questioner, the Rev. Ansel Leo (1806-78), was a chazzan in New York's Bnai Jeshurun (aka Elm Street Synagogue). He refers to R. Max Lilienthal as "Chief Rabbi here," because he had been appointed rabbi of a United German" kehilla in 1845.

This was picked up by quite a few newspapers across the country. Here is a mention of it in the New Jerusalem Magazine, 1848:

A review of a review of a review

2011-12-29T12:32:00.000-05:00

There seems to be a hierarchy in printed matter. Books are more permanent than journals, and journals are less ephemeral than newspapers. And comic books are at the top, at least if their wise owners kept them in mylar since the 1930s, and Batman is doing the Charleston with Groucho Marx on the cover.

One of the most interesting things about books and even journals are the reviews. Because they are often published in the most ephemeral format sometimes they get lost. Oh, there was and is Microfiche, and sometimes libraries even have the physical copies. But it's safe to say that more people have read the 2nd issue of the Jewish Quarterly Review than the review of it printed in London's Jewish Standard on May 31, 1889.

So here is an excerpt from said review. The piece I post concerns Isidore Harris's (still) excellent article series "On the Rise and Development of the Massorah." The writer makes some interesting points and, most interestingly (this is 1889!), also rejects R. Elias Levita's groundbreaking position that the accents and vowels are post-Talmudic.

Another interesting thing is his mention of Claude Montefiore's essay on Purim. He writes that "Mr. Montefiore should not be always riding his hobby [horse] that the Book of Esther is not based on historical evidence. The feast of Purim kept from generation to generation furnishes sufficient evidence to that book, besides the internal detailed and clear evidence of places, names and date. It is, therefore, unjust to believe in Greek and Roman books and statements, and to disbelieve our canonical Jewish Book of Esther.

Here is Montefiore's review, to which he refers. Paulus Cassel, born Selig, was the convert brother of David Cassel:

Marc Shapiro on the question of obligation of belief in the authorship of the Zohar.

2011-12-28T05:59:00.002-05:00

You can read or download Dr. Marc B. Shapiro's article in the new issue of Milin Havivin here. The article is called "?האם יש חיוב להאמין שהזוהר נכתב על ידי רבי שמעון בן יוחאי"("Is There An Obligation To Believe that the Zohar Was Written By Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai?" ). While I thought the question was settled years ago (see here) and subsequently had to reconsider (here) you can read what Shapiro has to say in his interesting article. He brought some interesting sources to my attention, such as a Darke Moshe which says "שמעתי כי בעל ספר הזוהר הוא סתם רבי שמעון המוזכר בתלמוד שהוא רבי שמעון בן יוחאי," sounding a lot less committal than you'd think.

Once can also read some classic works on the question of the Zohar's authenticity:

R. Elijah Del Medigo - Bechinas Ha-das here
Yaavetz - Mitpachas Sefarim here
R. Moshe Kunitz - Ben Yochai here
Shir Rapoport - Nachalas Yehuda here
R. Leone Modena - Ari Nohem here
Shadal - Vikuach al Chochmas ha-Zohar, etc. link
R. Elia Benamozegh - Ta'am Le-shad here
R. Eliyahu Nissim - Ana Kesil here
R. Shlomo b"r Eliyahu Nissim - Aderes Eliyahu here
R. Moshe Yisrael Hazzan - Shearis Ha-nachalah here
R. David Luria - Kadmus Sefer Ha-zohar here

The above list is not meant to be exhaustive.

The entire issue of Milin Havivin 5 can be downloaded here.

Abolitionism and eugenics in R. Elia Benamozegh's exposition of Gen. 9:25

2011-12-27T10:49:00.001-05:00

Here is a very interesting comment, to say the least, in the commentary Em Lemasores of R. Elia Benamozegh (1822-1900). He says, commenting on Gen.9:25 ("Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.") that the Anti-abolitionists of England (he calls them אוהבי השעבוד Non abolizionisti באנגלאטירא, so he renders it as "lovers of slavery" in Hebrew) contend that black slaves aren't entirely human, but are partially descended from apes, specifically orangutans. The proof they bring is the size of their skull, which they say is smaller than all other men, and consequently their brain is smaller and similar to an ape's. But one should see the scholar Tiedmann who wrote a special book refuting this.

Now, I have to say that I doubt that he meant England, which already abolished slavery long before. As I noted here well into the 19th century some European Jews didn't seem to fully grasp, or care, that the United States wasn't English. I know that he says Angleterre, but it really only makes sense if he means the United States of America. If so, here would be another example of an inability to distinguish between the mother and the child, fully 85 years after the Declaration of Independence.

On Reverend's Handbooks and Bar Mitzvah speeches for American boys of a century ago.

2011-12-26T14:08:00.000-05:00

One of the interesting phenomena of American Jewish life a century ago was the Jewish educational literature which reflected the relatively simple education available at the time - sometimes on the part of the author, sometimes on the part of the projected audience. There as a genre of "Reverend's hand-books," the best-known example by Simon Druckerman, published by Hebrew Publishing Company. These usually consisted of simple sermons in English and Hebrew for many occasions, and some basic texts, like the Kaddish; I think I've even seen one which included documents like a Get! (Jewish bill of divorce.)

One book in this genre was The Jewish American Orator (Der Idish-Ameriḳaner redner: a bukh fun 521 redes in Idish, English un Hebraish) compiled by George (Getzel) Selikovitch, a Yiddish writer who sometimes wrote under the pseudonym "Litvisher Philosoph" ("Lithuanian Philosopher"). In this book, some of the sermons are ascribed to himself, Selikovitch, and some to the aforementioned Litvisher Philosoph, which is also quaintly rendered as "Lithvassian Philosopher." The title pages of this book, printed in 1907 (Chanukah, no less, according to the Yiddish section), looked like this:

Selikovitch (1863*-1927) was not an ignoramus; he was writing and compiling these sermons and speeches for a simple audience. Before emigrating to the United States, he was an interpreter for the British army in Sudan and Ethiopia; the results of that experience were printed in a Hebrew book called Tsiurei Masa. Among other interesting things he writes is a conversation with a 16 year old slave girl named Aziza in the Sudanese King's harem (pg. 33).

The introduction includes two short biographical pages, where he informs us that he was born near Kovno and received a traditional education (Torah, Talmud, and the poskim). Orphaned at 16, an "Honorary Lieutenant" in Egypt at 22, where he learned Arabic and English, he eventually returned to Europe, where he penned many articles for Hameliz and Hamaggid, and befriended future celebrities like Eliezer Ben Yehuda. After another trip to the East, he emigrated to the United States, studied at the University of Pennsylvania, and moved to New York. There he wrote many articles and books in Yiddish, including a Yiddish guide to Arabic . For more complete biographical info, including a detailed description of the Arabic book, see Simon, Rachel - "Teach Yourself Arabic - in Yiddish" (MELA Notes: The Journal of the Middle Eastern Librarians Association; link).

Here he is:

An example of a table from his Arabic book:

Getting back to The Jewish-American Orator, here is the English Table of Contents, which gives an idea of what sort of occasions are meant to be addressed:

As you can see, it is heavy on the Bar Mitzvah material and also includes some sad signs of the times - For an Orphan to [sic] his Bar Mitzva, Funeral Oration at a Young Men's Bier, etc. (Not that I am under any illusion that such sadness has really diminished.)

Here are some samples. A "pshetel" for a Bar Mitzvah boy:

Another one penned by Selikovitz himself:

And here is an Address at the Engagement of an Orphan Girl, where her fiance is told that he is to be her father and mother, as well as husband:

* Mayer Waxman says he was born in 1856, but Selikowitch himself writes 5623 (1863) in Tsiurei Masa.

Shadal series #8 - To what does "Nothing Jewish is Alien to Me" refer?

2011-12-22T16:53:00.001-05:00

People say that Franz Rosenzweig said "Nothing Jewish is alien to me" (Google rosenzweig "nothing jewish"), and perhaps he did. This was a play on a famed quotation from Terence (Terentius) "Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto" - "I am a human, I hold that nothing human is alien to me."

Some people, but not everyone, know that this Jewish twist on Terence was apparently first stated by Shadal (although it needn't take a genius to have punned it, and perhaps others before or after did so independently). Before I get to the location and context of Shadal's version, Judaeus sum, judaici nihil a me alienium puto - I want to show something wacky. Here is the first page of a missionary magazine called The Peculiar People:

As you can see, the motto of this magazine from Plainfield, New Jersey is "I am Jewish," etc. This is dated 1898. Shadal's letter, from 1842, was printed in the second volume of Igrot Shadal, published in 1894. However, we should not be misled in assuming that the magazine got it from Igrot Shadal, because it existed for a few years before 1894. Writing in 1892, a book about evangelism to the Jews explains that "Die Zeitschrift "Peculiar People" aber, an welcher auch Lucky, ohne seinen Namen zu nennen, mitgearbeitet hatte, wird von dem Sabbatharier Rev. William L. Daland (Westerly, Rhode Island) unter dem Motto: "Judaeus sum, Judaici nihil a me alienum puto" fortgesetzt." This may be before the second volume of the Igrot was published. I say may, because even though the second part was completed in a single volume 1894, it had been appearing in sections first.

In any case, writing in 1842 to Michael Sachs (the piyyut scholar and preacher about whom I wrote here; the same Sachs who was contemplated in Frankfurt as rabbi of the separatists, before hiring Hirsch) Shadal says the following:

"Since you mentioned in your letter the Hiddushei Maharsha, I will tell you a new thought I had about the Maharsha this week. 'About the Maharsha? What do you have to do with the Maharsha,' you ask?

"I reply, "Judeus sum, judaici nihil a me alienum puto" - "I am a Jew, nothing Jewish is foreign to me."

"In Tractate Makkot 3b Rashi writes "if a borrower asks, 'Loan me money on condition that the Shemitta will not cancel my debt. . . " The Maharsha emends this Rashi to read "if a lender says . . ."

"At first though I agreed that this seemed correct, since it would be the lender who would need to say to the borrower "I loan it to you for ten years, on condition that you cannot default claiming that the Shemitta [which occurs every seven years] cancels it." But this explanation is difficult for me, since it seems to me that we should not ascribe this to a copyist's error. While it's possible that a scribe wrote "borrower" instead of "lender" (in Hebrew the difference is the addition or omission of a single letter), but to add the word[s] "loan me" would have to be his own invention, and this is uncommon [for a scribe to add something, rather than merely omit a letter by mistake]. So without another option, I said that Rashi did not write carefully due to haste. After that I thought, that perhaps he was old at the time, and his strength had waned, since when he reached page 19 of Tactate Makkot [it is written that] he died. After that I changed my mind and returned to Rashi's side, because his words seem to me to mean the following: in truth it is the borrower who needs to make this condition, not the lender, for the pauper required the sum for ten years and it is he who requests the loan. Because of the Shemitta, he would need to stipulate to the wealthy man that he will wave his right to the Shemitta cancellation of all debts. Then I considered that the requirement of release falls onto the lender (Deut. 15:2), not the borrower. Then my eyes were opened and I noticed that the language of this passage of the Gemara says "on condition that the Shemitta does not cancel it to me" meaning "that you should not cancel it to me." Rashi found himself compelled to to explain that it was the borrower who said this to the lender, for the lender is unable to say "on condition that the Shemitta should not cancel it to you," he could only say "on condition that the shemitta should not cancel it to me." Thus was Rashi blessed, that to the end of his days his words were pure, and they require study and exactitude. I said to myself, see how far a critic must go in moderately assessing something before passing judgment on the words of God-fearing men, who do not write their books in haste, for financial reward, or for honor. They write constantly to pursue the truth or that which is good."

And before anyone says anything, yes, I am aware that he is acting like he discovered America, while this is, at least in theory, the way a Talmudist is supposed to read Rishonim and do this all day every day. However, Shadal's point here was that he of course knew that no one would have thought that he spent his spare time learning Gemara with Maharsha. In reality he was someone who went through Shas in 18 months beginning at age 16, and it is pretty clear that he knew his way in the sea of Talmud, even if he had instrumental motives for studying it - for example, he could not have written his grammar of Aramaic without becoming totally familiar with the language of the Gemara, and he could not have become familiar with it without studying it. Also, throughout his writings he exhibits a very great broadness in all types of Jewish learning; he quotes the Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosafot, Rif, Tur, Zohar, She'elot u-teshuvot, and much more. While one imagines that this meant that he knew when, how and where to look things up when he needed to (like most scholars) it is apparent that he was no stranger to the traditional canon.

All in all, this is a most interesting aside and it appears to be the origin of the saying ascribed to Franz Rosenzweig (and others): "I am Jewish, and nothing Jewish is alien to me." It was written by Shadal in 1842 to explain to someone that they shouldn't be surprised that he knows the Maharsha.

The Schutzjuden thank Karl Theodor

2011-12-21T14:13:00.003-05:00

And here's part of a prayer service for the 50 year rule of the late, great Karl Theodor; the date of this service, held in Sulzbach, was July 20, 1783:

Candlemas or Chanukah?

2011-12-21T13:42:00.003-05:00

Here's a post from a few months ago, that I think is relevant.

The English side from the Birkhas Hamazon A. Alexander's 1770 siddur סדר התפלה לפאר ותהלה:

Candlemas? That's quaint. In a way I wish that's the way the Jewish-English language went. If Passover, why not Candlemas?

There's more in the post.

Here's some Chanukah news from 1788 (The New lady's magazine, or, Polite and entertaining companion for the Fair Sex). So you get a piece about Chanukah and steaming a cow's buttock in the Home News for December 31:

Hebrew prayers for three condemned Jews, 1739.

2011-12-20T11:53:00.001-05:00

Here's a pamphlet of a Hebrew prayer that a Dutch Clergyman named Willem Muilman prayed for three Jews who were sentenced to death and executed in the Hague in 1739. The Dutch translation is included. You can download the entire thing here: Gebed Van Willem Muilman Voor Drie Misdaadige - תפלה לגוליעלם מולמן בעד שלשת מרעים.

Here are some sample pages.

dsds

On the patriarch Abraham's Hassidic clothing and appearance

2011-12-19T12:46:00.004-05:00

Here's a really interesting post on the question of whether Avraham Avinu wore a shtreimel and bekeshe, from Yeedle. He quotes a perceptive comment from a 20th century Chassidic rebbe about how the perceived garb of Abraham would be in the eye of the beholder.

Add Yeedle's על דא ועל הא blog ('On This and That') to your reader (link).

Doctor, doctor

2011-12-15T13:26:00.002-05:00

Here are some typical images of Jewish doctors.

This is Yissachar Baer Teller of Prague:

His teacher, Yashar (Yosef Shalom Rofeh/ Delmedigo) :

Toviyah ben Moshe ha-Kohen (I guess that answers that question):

Abraham ha-Kohen (ditto) of Zante:

An anecdote evolves into an 18th century Jew joke.

2011-12-14T17:14:00.003-05:00

Frederick II, Emperor of Prussia, was a historian. So he wrote a book called Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire de Brandebourg, published in 1750. (Write in German? Ew. Actually, Moses Mendelssohn would chastise him in a book review of his Poesies Diverses 10 years later, for writing his poetry in French, rather than German.) In 1751 an English version appeared, called Memoirs of the house of Brandenburg.

The following appears in it:

The Jewish Encyclopedia informs us that this Dutch Jew named Schwartzau was actually a Suasso, namely Antonio Lopez Suasso (link):

When William III. undertook his expedition to England in 1688, Suasso advanced him 2,000,000 gulden without interest and did not even ask for a receipt, merely saying: "If you are successful you may repay me; if you are not successful, I will be the loser." Frederick II. of Prussia commemorates this instance of self-sacrifice as the act "of a Jew named Schwartzau."

"Schwartzau" was evidently either a sort of Dutch version of his name, or Frederick himself Germanized it, the same way I Anglicized "Friedrich."

So that's the story: William of Orange borrowed 2 million something-or-other from a Jew named Schwartzau, who told him that he could pay it back if he succeeds in his military campaign against England. If not, he is prepared to lose it.

In 1800 an Encylopaedia of Anecdotes was published in Dublin, and here is how it tells it (under the heading Jewish Liberality):

Now it's almost Jew joke: "If you are fortunate I know you will pay me, if you are not, the loss of my money will be the least of my afflictions."

"Shlomo" Shlomo Shlomo Shlomo Shlomo - an oral tradition about Rashi revisited

2011-12-14T15:50:00.003-05:00

A few months ago I posted a little about a popular legendary story about Rashi. The story - with many variations, including variations about the hero of the story - is that Rashi was traveling in a foreign land, and he was unknown. Accused of thieving, he wrote שלמה שלמה שלמה שלמה שלמה on the door of the home where the robbery occurred. Puzzled by this cryptic message, the stranger - Rashi - was asked to explain himself. He vocalized the five words and showed that it meant "Shelamah shalma Shlomo salma shelemah?" or "Why should Shlomo pay for the entire [missing] garment?" From this they knew that Rashi was no thief, but a talented, profound scholar.

Here is one version presented as a riddle on an Ask the Rabbi forum (link:

Dear Yiddle Riddle people: The following is a story I read about Rashi in a child's Hebrew biography in perhaps fourth grade. Nobody I know has been able to solve the question without help. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak) once went on a journey to a foreign city. On his trip, he wanted to visit a wealthy man to collect money for poor people. When he visited, the man was not at home, but his servant was. The servant said that he recognized the great Rashi as a thief who had previously run off with a set of his master's clothing and forced Rashi to pay for the clothing! Rashi wrote the following Hebrew word on the door five times in a row: The word was spelled "Shin Lamed Mem Hey." What did the message mean?

As I said in the other post, this appears in R. Elijah Levita's Massoret Ha-massoret, as a quotation from a certain book called Smadar, which is quoted in various sources, but unknown to us. The context is completely different. The author of Smadar attempted to show that the Hebrew punctuation is necessary to understand it, therefore it cannot be said to have been invented much later than the writing itself. Here is what I wrote:

Masores Hamasores (third introduction) quoted the unpreserved Sefer Hasmadar by one Rabbi Levi ben Joseph which is the actual source for the observation that "שלמה" can produce the following five variations: "שֶׁלָמָה שַׁלְמָה שְׁלֹמֹה שַׂלְמָה שְׁלֵמָה."

C.D. Ginsburg's translation is:

R. Levi b. Joseph, author of the book Semadar, says, at the beginning of his work, as follows: "If any one should ask, Whence do we know that the points and accents were dictated by the mouth of the Omnipotent? the reply is, It is to be found in Scriptures, for it is written, ' And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly' (Deut. xxvii. 8). Now, if the points and accents, which make the words plain did not exist, how could one possibly understand plainly whether שלמה means wherefore, retribution, Solomon, garment, or perfect? " Thus far his remark. I leave it to the reader to judge whether this is reliable proof.

As you can see, this quote by R. Levi ben Joseph is not a sentence at all! He merely gives 5 wods in a row, not meant to be strung into a sentence. This explains rather well why it is such an awkward sentence. ("salma shelema" - "the entire garment"? is this not strange?) As clever a mind must be to have thought of it, it is decidedly less clever to have taken R. Levi ben Joseph's five words and shaped it into a sentence.

Be that as it may, what is the origin of this legend concerning Rashi? The proper place to look for the legend and a bibliography relating to it is in Y. Berger's article Rashi be-aggadat ha'am (Rashi in Folklore) in a volume called Rashi: Torato Ve-ishyuto (New York 1958) and he does not disappoint. On pp. 162-63 he brings the story and the sources known to him. He quotes Rabbi Y. L. Maimon's version (which I posted in the first post) , and a close parallel where the hero is Ibn Ezra, printed by Naftali ben Menachem in his collection of Ibn Ezra legends (that version concerns Rashi too - on the other side!). The earliest source he found is the following, in a book printed in Chicago in 1902. The author, Abraham Hyman Charlap (b. 1862), says it is something he heard orally from his father, Rabbi Joseph Charlap. He also says that it has never before been printed in a book - but I will show that this is mistaken:

However, I found an earlier source. The Frankfurt University Library has a copy of a Yiddish book called Sefer Ma'aseh Rashi Z"L, which it placed online (link). Unfortunately no useful bibliographical data appears on the book itself, and the catalog entry is not much more useful. However, it does state (claim) that it is from circa 1800, and from some internal evidence I suggest that this is about right. (One piece is that the book is entirely vocalized, and it seems to me that the spelling and fonts suggest that period, rather than later. In particular, I note that it vocalizes the word רבי with two chiriks, something which disappears in the 19th century.)

It quotes the usual sources one would expect, such as Shalsheles Hakabbalah and Sefer Yuchasin. It also quotes She'erit Yisrael, a popular Yiddish book by Menachem Mann Amelander, printed in Amsterdam in 1743/4. This book presents itself as Sefer Josippon Part II. It was sufficiently popular that more than a century letter Gabriel Isak Polak published an annotated Dutch translation.

Now, legend had long made Rashi into a world traveler. The Shalsheles Hakabbalah even has a whole piece about how Rashi met the Rambam in Egypt, even though he admits that some people told him that they had a tradition that Rashi lived before the Rambam. Still, he writes, his heart tells him otherwise. This sort of thing was decried by Zunz at the end of his Toldot Rashi (link; "סוף דבר הכל הבלים").

But the makers and tellers of legends never asked Zunz for permission, so legends they made and legends they passed on. The Sefer Ma'aseh Rashi brings the legend of the five words spelled the same, and it brings it gleefully:

In this version, the story occurs in Egypt, where Rashi is trying to meet the Rambam, but only the servant is at home (maybe Peter?).

As you can see, the passage begins by quoting Amelander's She'erit Yisrael and it is not clear where or if it ends. If you look up the part that deals with Rashi in Egypt to meet Maimonides, you see that this story is not mentioned.

In case there's any misunderstanding, Amelander was also published in a Hebrew translation in Vilna in 1811. You can read the identical passage here or even here, in Dutch, if you are so inclined.

Thus, we have seen the Shlomo Shlomo Shlomo &c. story not only in 1902, but even in 1800. It gives no source, and in fact the source it has just cited (about Rashi meeting the Rambam) doesn't mention it. It seems that this is indeed a Rashi legend. A genuine oral tradition. We also saw the probable source of the riddle used in the story, which is either the Sefer Smadar itself or (more likely) the Massores Hamassores of R. Elijah Levita.

Finally, it is most interesting to note that the story is such a good one, and the riddle so clever, that a variation of the legend was printed in 1911, by a great-grandson of R. Shlomo Kluger (b. 1783) - and he says it happened to his ancestor! (link)

Finally, finally, here is Ben Menachem's version where it is Ibn Ezra who tried to meet Rashi, rather than Rashi who tries to meet Maimonides:

A work by Abraham Ger of Cordoba.

2011-12-13T12:03:00.001-05:00

You can read or download a very important and interesting manuscript here. I am referring to Rabbi Mordechai Luzzatto's (1720-99) Hebrew translation of a polemic by Abraham Ger (more properly Guer, but also known as Gher) of Cordoba, a 17th century Spanish convert to Judaism, formerly named Lorenzo Escudero. His book, writtenin approximately 1650, was called Fortaleza del judaismo y confusión del estraño. Luzzatto called it צריח בית אל (Judges 9:46).

As you can see, the copyist of this manuscript apparently believed that he was of Converso descent (מאנוסי קורדובה). This is strange, in light of his name. I believe Yosef Kaplan showed that he was not a New Christian at all.

Here is the introduction:

Readers who are interested in a sample of the work in English should see pg. 290 in The Fifty-third chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters edited by A. Neubauer and S.R. Driver (1877) (link).

A responsum from a British Chief Rabbi concerning why Jews eat fish, wear wigs, etc.

2011-12-12T13:59:00.002-05:00

There is a chapter called 'The Jews' Fish-Market in London' in Frank Buckland's Notes and Jottings from Animal Life (1882). Writing in 1878, he discusses his impressions from visiting a Jewish fish market. Almost everyone spoke in a language he didn't understand and all signs were in what he thought were Hebrew. It was right before Passover, and he noticed Matzos being packed and sold. He noticed fried fish and cucumbers in saltwater (I can't tell if these are pickles or not) being sold, and he especially noticed women wearing wigs:

The thing that struck me most was the custom of the Jewish women wearing wigs. When standing at the corner I counted no less than nine Jewesses wearing wigs. Some of these wigs were brown and some black. They were apparently not worn for show purposes; some were low down on the forehead, some all awry, and some at the back of the head. I cannot conceive how the Jewesses can wear these hideous wigs. I believe this custom of wearing wigs is not confined to the poorer classes.

He then quotes a letter from Rabbi Hermann Adler, who would go on to become the Chief Rabbi (and was already assistant to his father) in which Adler explains all these phenomena to him:

My learned friend Dr. Adler, the eminent Jewish Minister, and son of the chief Rabbi, wrote me to the following effect:—' We Jews eat fresh-water fish simply because we like them, and because the poor can afford to buy them better than meat, which is more expensive. We eat cucumbers simply because we regard them as a delicacy, and most of our poor come from Holland and Germany, where everybody eats cucumbers.

'The origin of eating fresh-water fish and cucumbers may possibly be derived from the fifth verse of the eleventh chapter of Numbers: "We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick."

'With reference to the wigs worn by the Jewish women, these wigs are only worn by married women, mostly Polish. The object is to cover the hair so as not to be so attractive as before marriage.

'Our Passover is the eating of unleavened bread, but the Paschal lamb is not offered any more, as the Temple is destroyed.

'The language you heard in the market was not Hebrew; Hebrew is not spoken any more as a living language. The conversations you heard were carried on in a kind of German or Dutch mixed up with a few Hebrew words. The advertisements in the shop windows were not Hebrew, but German in Hebrew letters. A few Hebrew words are used, such as kosher, "that which is lawful to eat." Meat of an animal that has died without being properly slaughtered, or suffering from any disease, is called tryfer.'

How is Sforno's name really pronounced?

2011-12-08T22:32:00.004-05:00

So how is "Sforno" - ספורנו as in רבי עובדיה ספורנו - actually pronounced? In 2008 Dikdukian noted that he "must have heard five different pronunciations of that name over the years: Siforno, Siporno, Sipurno, Sforno, etc."

I don't have a definitive answer, and my research is tentative. But here are some points to consider. First, it seems to me that the confusion stems from the fact that on the one hand this obviously is not Hebrew, but on the other, we only see his name spelled in Hebrew (except not really, as we shall see). In Hebrew a word cannot begin with a consonant cluster - that is, a word like "stop" can't really exist; it would have to be pronounced "s'top" or something like that. Thus if you would treat ספורנו as a Hebrew word it could neither be "Sporno" or "Sforno." It would have to be "S'porno" or "S'forno" (I would generally prefer to spell that with an "e", like "Seforno"). Secondly, this first consonant, a mobile sheva also will change the hard /p/ to a soft /ph/ or /f/. Thus, once again, treating the name as Hebrew it could really only be "Seforno." But again, it is not Hebrew.

Although it seems that the origin of the name must be some Italian town or city, I have been unable to locate this place. But we can see that it is a place by the title page of a book written by him and published in 1537, while he was still very much alive. His name is given (incorrectly) as עובדיה מספורנו, Ovadyah of ספורנו. Thus it is clear that it is a place, for a contemporary of his (perhaps his publisher) assumed that this was the proper form of his surname. In the text itself, the book begins נאם הצעיר עובדיה בכמה"ר יעקב ספורנו ז"להה מתושבי בולוני"יא. And no, I did not copy it exactly correctly. I was not able to read the letters he gives after his own name. Feel free to have a look and interpret them. See it here or here and let me know.

So what can we do besides this? We can look if or how his name is written in the Latin alphabet. In Christian sources his name is often given as "Abdias Sporno," but also "Sphorno" and "Sporno." And others besides (Siporno, etc.). So this is not incredibly helpful, especially as they are later (at least the ones I've seen).

However, there are at least two highly significant sources. The first is the actual Latin text of his medical diploma, which was published in the journal Rassegna Mensile di Israel in 1962. However, I only saw it cited, but I didn't see it.

The second may be even more significant, because it likely reflects the actual pronunciation used by the man himself. Johann Reuchlin - who was taught Hebrew by R. Ovadya Sforno - writes the following "Abdia filio Jacobi Sphurno" (Johann Reuchlins Briefwechsel p. 92). This letter is dated 1506, when the man in question was still only 30 or 31 years old, very much alive, with nearly 45 years left to go. Reuchlin knew him personally. So perhaps we should say that Sfurno (to use a more modern English spelling) wins. Not S'furno, not Sporno, and not even Sforno. Of course we also note that Reuchlin also Latinized Ovadiah as well as Jacob in this letter, so perhaps he somehow did the same to the surname as well. Furthermore, we also have to be sure how this deceptive word is pronounced. We must bear in mind that the pronunciation of Latin vowels by a German man in 1506 may not match our idea of how these vowels should sound.

Another line of evidence should be considered, which is that the Sforno family was very real and persisted for many generations, perhaps into recent times or even today, hopefully. So it is possible that there is a living tradition within this family of how to pronounce the name, and maybe it is "Sporno." That said, consider the Abarbanels, who have people who pronounce it Abarbanel and Abravanel (and other pronunciations besides). So family traditions aren't necessarily so strong or authoritative I know, for example, that some last names were pronounced one way in the old country, but Americanized (or Anglicized, or Israelized or Canadized, etc.) . There are countless examples. Shterns became Stern, Shapiras became ShapirO, and many more like it. If any particular person is unaware of how their own name's pronunciation was changed, than what good would their conviction about how it is pronounced be? Not very. Similarly, if there is a living tradition from descendents of this family of how Sforno was pronounced, then that should be noted, but not necessarily regarded as authoritative.

As for the origin itself, surely that will shed light. Maybe an intrepid Google Mapper can enlighten us. In the meantime, in light of Reuchlin, I would put my money with Sforno over Sporno or Seforno, but perhaps even Sphurno is really best of all.

The Geiger brothers; on taking pride in an accomplished sibling with a very different point of view.

2011-12-08T13:48:00.000-05:00

Abraham Geiger (1810-74) is noted as one of the most influential and important early Reform rabbis, as well as a pioneering Wissenschaft scholar. Less well known was his much older half-brother Salomon (1792-1878), who was a rav and dayan in Frankfurt, and also Abraham's childhood teacher and mentor (their father died when Abraham was only 12 or 13 years old). He is chiefly remembered for his important book, the cleverly-titled דברי קהלות (Frankfurt 1868), a study of the minhagim of the venerable Frankfurt community.

In Scrolls Gotthard Deutsch describes him as "perhaps the last representative of old fashioned Frankfurt orthodoxy, reaching back into ghetto times." A little dramatic, but indeed he represents a certain pre-Neo Orthodox type that was not uncommon in Germany, a certain kind of critical textual scholar, which Mordechai Breuer nicely described in his Modernity Within Tradition. He listed 18th century luminaries like Rabbi David Frankel and R. Isaiah Berlin Pick, as well as grammarians like Wolf Heidenheim, and Yehoseph Schwarz (who, although he was university educated, realistically belonged to this school).

Thus, Rabbi Zalman Geiger was also a sort of Wissenschaft scholar; in him we see that Abraham Geiger did not come fully formed from out of the ether. Even though there is no doubt that in the end they were far apart religiously, it is not as if Abraham was raised on Brisker lomdus.

It came as a surprise to me that this older brother was evidently proud of him and his scholarship. Thus, we find the following in an essay of his printed in Zion:

". . . my much-younger brother, who matured on my knees, and who exceeded me in wisdom and knowledge, Rabbi Abraham . . . "

Granted, this was written (or published) in September of 1841, which was still a couple of years before the infamous Reform rabbinical conferences of the 1840s and his much-objected book the Urschrift (1857 - even Graetz denounced it) - it was, however, after an earlier such conference which Abraham participated in, in 1837. In addition, the Geiger-Titkin confrontation* occurred in 1838 and, besides, Geiger had been publishing things which many would consider radical for about a decade already.

*In 1838 the community of Breslau appointed him to assist, and eventually suceed, Breslau's rabbi Zlman Titkin. Rabbi Titkin refused to allow the appointment and a furor and polemical battle was waged in the community by the two factions.

Here's a portrait of Abraham Geiger, similar to other portraits, but I have never seen this particular one reproduced:

Rabbi Akiva and cigarettes - or was it King Solomon?

2011-12-06T20:45:00.003-05:00

Apparently Rabbi Akiva hawked cigarettes? Quite an endorsement. From the Illustrated London News July 12, 1902.

Shadal series #7 - on alienation from his teachers, and a public retraction.

2011-12-06T13:00:00.002-05:00

Shadal was largely an autodidact, but he had four primary teachers. One was his father, with whom he studied Torah from the time he was 3 years old. Another was his adult cousin, with whom he studied daily for two and a half years beginning from the time he was 16. In between he also had some formal schooling in the persons of Rabbi Mordechai Yitzhak Cologna[1] and Rabbi Abram Halevi.

Cologna taught in the local Talmud Torah school, and from him he learned Mishnah, Dikduk, Rashi, Radak, and Latin. As I've mentioned before, he wrote at least three separate autobiographies. In the first one, written in Hebrew in 1837, he says that he felt the following about Cologna: את המלמד הזה היה ש"ד ירא יראת הרוממות גדולה מאד, והיה עושה אזנו כאפרכסת לכל דבריו ולכל שיחה קלה שהיה מדבר עם מי שהיה, והיה האיש ההוא בעיניו לאות ומופת and Shadal credits him with arousing within him a love and appreciation for Hebrew grammar and other good qualities ממנו באה לש"ד אהבת חכמת הדקדוק ואהבת הדיוק בכל פעולותיו ובכל עניניו, וגבורה למשול ברוחו ולכבוש את יצרו ולמאוס בתענוגים; והתכונה הזאת היתה לו לישועה גדולה ולפורקן בימי בחורותיו. Not surprisingly, if someone is viewed with such awe they can fall far from the lofty view, especially if the person is very sensitive, as we shall see.

Shadal stopped attending the school due to an illness at age 13. While in school, he had been studying Talmud with Rabbi Avraham Eleazar Halevi, the Chief Rabbi of Trieste. After recovering from this illness, he continued studying him for several years, until an incident occurred which caused him to stop coming to him.

He writes that sometimes his fellow students misbehaved and would horse around, and at times he would also join in. For example, he writes, sometimes he would say something very pretentious and intellectual sounding and give his friends cause to laugh. The rabbi would rebuke the students when this occurred. One time he mistakenly chastised Shadal, saying "Se non avete a venire che per fare il לייצן (buffone) potete fare a meno di venire," "If you came here to play the fool, don't bother coming." Evidently this was more than this sensitive boy could take, so he stopped coming.

In the meantime, he had been visiting Cologna, who had become blind in his advanced age. He would read to him and assist him in other ways, such as taking dictation. After he had stopped going to his Gemara shiur, naturally he still continued to visit Cologna. He writes that unfortunately coming into close contact with this teacher, whom he venerated as a child, caused him to diminish his opinion of him. One or two months after the incident with the rabbi, when it happened to be Shadal's 16th birthday, Rabbi Avraham had returned home from his summer vacation, and Cologna asked Shadal to send him his greetings. This he was unwilling to do, as he had stopped coming to his class! He says that he lacked the courage to either send the greeting or confess to Cologna the reason why he would not go. Finally, in disgust, Cologna instructed him to accompany him to the rabbi himself, and all the while he lectured him in the finer points of Derech Eretz, how it precedes Torah, etc. Shadal said he became more and more embarrassed and apprehensive, but he had no choice but to go along with him.

Lucky for him, the rabbi was out. His widowed daughter answered the door, and Cologna conveyed a very poetic greeting, quoting the Talmud Taanit 5a "Tree, O Tree, with what shall I bless thee? Shall I say to thee, ‘May thy fruits be sweet’? They are sweet already; that thy shade be pleasant? It is already pleasant; that a stream of water may flow beneath thee? Lo, a stream of water flows already beneath thee; therefore [I say], ‘May it be [God's] will that all the shoots taken from thee be like unto thee’. So also with you . . ." He added, to the daughter, who was simple and unlearned, that he knows that she understood what he had said in Hebrew. All the way back he continued lecturing Shadal on Derech Eretz. Shadal felt nauseated by the display. He felt it was not Derech Eretz at all, but a form of false flattery since he was of the belief that Cologna didn't really hold such a high opinion of the rabbi, who had been born in Eretz Yisrael, and dressed and acted in typical 'Asian', rather than Italian, fashion. It was also a showy display which in reality shamed the daughter. So he stopped coming to him. It was at this time, he writes, that God sent him his older cousin with whom he would study daily . . .

Not surprisingly, when this appeared in print - all the sources will be shown below - there were other students of Cologna who were appalled by this, notwithstanding that Shadal had prefaced the good, the bad and the ugly in his autobiography with a kind of disclaimer about how, gosh, he has no choice but to speak the truth. After speaking to some of these people on a visit to his hometown of Trieste, he sent Hamaggid a public retraction, where he sings Cologna's praises and notes that his other students experiences him in a different way, and they are the fine products of his tutelage. However, he hardly denies that he experienced what he experienced. This is interesting, because Shadal's general way was that he was ready, willing and able to retract his opinion publicly when he became convinced that he had been mistaken. This seems to me to be the only example where he budged on his opinion at all, where he was not quite convinced that he had been mistaken!

In any case, here are some of the sources. The first, below, was written before the Hebrew, but was published second, in 1878:

The second was published in Hamaggid in 1859 (August 16):

As you can see, he explains that before forming his negative opinion he had viewed Cologna as almost an oracle. He also says that he became convinced that his sermons were empty, because he eschewed the peshat, favoring the style of derash. Furthermore, they were designed to show off his bekius (breadth) and charifus (sharpness) rather than to discover the truth. He says that his concept of Derech Eretz was political, and he saw him as a flatterer.

A little over a year later, Shadal sent in his retraction, as described before. Here it is:

He basically says "In Trieste I heard from some honest and honorable men, students of Rabbi Mordechai Yitzhak Cologna z"l, that they were a bit pained by my detraction from his honor. What could I do? The love of truth caused me to tell things which aren't Derech Eretz to say. But for the honor of the truth, I will reiterate that this scholar, apart for his great knowledge in Torah, secular subjects, and languages, was a tzaddik and chassid, a propounder of Torah to many, and implanted in the hearts of his students yirat shamayim and good traits; lucky is the community which had a man like him dwelling in their midst. I see that the negative impression which he formed on me from his sort of Derech Eretz was not formed on his other students; not even one of them attributed it to him. Not even one of them was able to accept a dimunition of his ways and attributes, and they studied and assisted this scholar. From this I see that the man was guiltless, and his manners elevated all who were close to him. Therefore, he was good and lofty in all his ways; and this one student annuls his . . . " Now, I know that some could be forgiven for seeing this as sarcastic. I suspect though that it isn't, since I truly think he would not have thought twice about openly standing by what he wrote. I assume that he was genuinely surprised that the others didn't perceive Cologna this way, but seeing as they didn't, he took it back.

I thought it would be interesting to bring up an unrelated context, where Shadal mentioned Cologna as an exemplar of an Italian rabbinic type. In 1840 the Archives israélites has written a little bit about the Rabbinical College in Padua (which Shadal co-headed) and described it negatively as belonging to the last century, being inspired by the principles of reason espoused by Mendelssohn, and the "Biourim et des Measphim" (the Biurists, i.e., Mendelssohn and his circle, and the Meassephim, i.e., the early Hebrew Haskalah writers). But, it continued, real successors are supposed to take the end point as a starting point. The school may decline to listen to the voice of Reason calling out, "March, March!" but no amount of training in oratory or flowery poetry is powerful enough to drown out that voice. In other words, the school is too frum.

So Shadal sent Jost a letter, which was printed in his Israelitische Annalen (1840 p. 320) and later in the original Italian in Epistolario (p. 375) in which this is quoted, along with Shadal's reply, which was as follows:

If under the rubric of Mendelssohn's principles is the belief that Moses was a true prophet, worker of true miracles, and that his law is still binding for all of Israel, then he is quite right that Reggio and Luzzatto adopt the principles of Mendelssohn. But they do not recognize these principles by Mendelssohn; they recognize them from the same ancient source which Mendelssohn took them.

This great man exercised a great influence over the Jews of Germany and the Northern countries, but only a little over the Jews in Italy, who were not in any century strangers to scientific culture. My principle teacher, Rabbi Mordechai Isac Cologna, was a profound Latinist and a good surveyor. My father, only a turner by trade, knew mechanics well, and studied the works on physics by Benjamin Martin . . .

Getting back to R. Abraham Eliezer, although it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines and realize there was more going on besides a perceived insult, Shadal never wrote a negative word about him. In fact, everything he wrote about him shows that he admired him. He describes how when the rabbi was pained with gout, he didn't cancel the lessons; he would have the pupils come to him while he lay in bed, in pain, and taught. Although his style of learning and teaching didn't match with Shadal's conception of peshat to say the least, he praises him for it. In the Italian, he writes: "Era profondo ed acutissimo nel Pilpul, ma era un Pilpul rotto, nòn mai sofistico, come pure la sua religiosità era rigida, ma sincera./ His style was deep and sharp Pilpul, but not a broken sort of Pilpul, and without sophistry. His style of religion was rigid, but sincere."

Indeed, part of the Cologna incident was over the fact that he felt that Cologna didn't sufficiently respect Rabbi Avraham! He does, however, write that after he stopped coming to his class, he didn't speak to him again for another 9 years, when some communal leader gave the rabbi a copy of Shadal's newly published Kinnor Na'im. Evidently the rabbi liked it, for he bestowed upon him the title Maskil (the Italian equivalent of Chaver). the practical implication is that the title would be used when he would be called to the Torah. He also wrote that while he was still learning with him, the rabbi encouraged him to learn, promising him that if he did he would ordain him at age 20. Shadal, however, had other plans. So the rabbi remarked, "Luzzatto wants to be a Chacham, not a Rav."

Here is what he writes about him in Hamaggid:

I will have more to say about Rabbi Avraham Eliezer of Trieste, who corresponded with the Chasam Sofer, in another post.

Finally, here is Sabato Morais's fine English translation of the incidents, from the Italian:

But while frequenting Rabbi Levy's school I had been in the habit of visiting Cologna—he who had in my childhood inspired me with love for Hebrew grammar. The unfortunate man had become blind, and I would read to him, or write under his dictation what he needed. For, though deprived of sight, the old man continued preaching every Sabbath, and in his lectures he used to quote not only Hebrew authors, but also Italian and Latin.

And here let me acknowledge that the profound veneration I had conceived in my earliest days for that teacher of mine lost much of its depth when I learnt to know him thoroughly. What I had deemed vast knowledge seemed to me now to have been an effort of the memory to retain a given number of things rather than the offspring of a far-reaching intellect. The ideas, which his mind created and which ran through the whole of his sermon, were hair-splitting arguments. His character also, assumed in my eyes the appearance of Egotism, when I perceived that he never would ask me to read what might have contributed to my improvement, but only what proved to his advantage. I felt so, more particularly, because my father had begged that he would let me practice Latin occasionally. His self-love was of a lower grade, for he enjoyed hugely the applause of shallow-pated fellows who admired some of his hackneyed remarks.

The poor man might deserve a less severe judgment, and I do not mean to set myself up for a judge; but as my own historian I register the opinion formed upwards of thirty years ago. The opinion was strengthened by what follows.

Rabbi Levy, who had been staying for some time in the country, had returned to the city. Cologna requested that I would go and welcome him in his name. I, who had left abruptly and not attended the Talmudical lessons for several months, did not have the heart to do the errand, nor could I summon moral courage to confess the cause. Cologna noticed my embarrassment and attributing it to my natural timidity and want of politeness launched into a long dissertation on Derech Eretz (good breeding), quoting the Sages to show that even before the Law had been delivered the world was governed by the inborn sentiment of what is due to one another, and so he went on, preparing to go himself, under my lead, to the Rabbi's house. My embarrassment increased, but there was no alternative, I had to submit. Luckily Rabbi Levy had gone out. His widowed daughter, however, was in, and Cologna lavished upon her compliments, which he asked might be conveyed likewise to her father, concluding with the Talmudical parable of the traveler and the tree. “O tree! What blessing shall I bestow on thee?....... May thy fruit be always as sweet as it is now;” adding, that he knew well she understood what he had said in Hebrew, though he knew better than that. We left the house together and going back he did nothing the whole way but preach to me his “Derech Eretz,” the meaning of which, if I had not rightly caught before, I learnt perfectly from the visit just made.

It was flattery and vile deception. So nauseated did I get with it, that I did not repeat my visits to Cologna's from that very day, which happened to be the 25th of August corresponding with the 1st of Elul, the anniversary of my birthday. The disgust I experienced at that false politeness, practiced towards a man, lightly esteemed—because he was Asiatic and deficient in European culture—and little loved by Cologna, stirred within me a sense of greater appreciation for the unvarnished virtue of him who had been born in Jerusalem, and of distrust for very polished manners.

[1] In some sources he is called Angelo Isach. 'Angelo' was the common Italian kinnui for Mordechai, some say because the Talmud identifies Mordechai and Malachai. As it happens, Shadal himself calls him "Marco Isac" or "Mordechai Isac" in his own writings in Italian, never Angelo. In any case, this aforementioned rabbi died in 1824. I'm not sure what year he was born (even Asher Salah doesn't seem to know, for he doesn't mention a year of birth (or death) in his Le république des lettres: rabbins, écrivains et médecins juifs en Italie au XVIIIe siecle).

However, Cologna's half brother was the more famous Rabbi Abram Hai de Cologna, who served as a leader in Napoleon's Sanhedrin, and subsequently as Chief Rabbi of Paris, and eventually Padua. He was born in 1755 and died in 1832. Presumably then Mordechai Yitzhak was born a little before or after 1755. In addition to teaching in the Trieste Talmud Torah, he also served as the interim Chief Rabbi, before R. Avraham Elazar Halevi was picked. Afterwards, he served as a kind of vice-rabbi; for example, one of his duties was delivering sermons in the synagogue.

I don't know of any picture of Cologna, but here is one of his brother:

In Paris to sell subscriptions to Rabbi Akiva Eger's Mishnah.

2011-12-05T12:01:00.003-05:00

Here's an article in the Archives israélites Volume 7 advertising the fact that R. Binyamin Wolf, the son of Rabbi Akiva Eger, was then in Paris collecting funds to finish the publication of the Mishnah with his father's tosafot, four out of the six parts having already appeared.

It states that Rabbi Akiva Eger* was one of the most profound Talmudists and was not only a famed theologian, but he met all the qualities of a true minister of God, being charitable and unselfish to all, without distinction to religion. During a cholera epidemic the poor of all faiths came to him for amulets. Since trust is the beginning of healing (a reference to the placebo effect), there were many cured, and they revered him as a saint, and the king of Prussia sent him a laudatory letter after the plague abated.

The piece continues that like all men of heart and devotion, he did not hoard and therefore only left the memory of his righteousness to his family - except that he also left them his manuscript of his comment on the Mishnah, which is of utmost importance for Talmudists. It also is providing a good source of income for the family. His son has already received a good reception in Alsace and Lorraine, and the journal trusts that he will receive the same in Paris. It concludes with the address he is staying, with a Monseiur Weil.

*It refers to him as R. Jacob M. Eger, because that was his secular name. To take the name apart: it seems that Rabbi Akiva Eger used "Jacob" because it was the closest phonetic equivalent to "Akiva." The "M." is a reference to "Moses," or "Moshe." This was his father's name, and like many Ashkenazim of the time, he sometimes used his father's name as a second or middle name. Thus in secular documents he was known as Jacob Moses Eger.

Here's the title page for Nashim (Altona 1841):

The unlikely connection between heavy metal burnouts and kashrut

2011-12-05T10:13:00.002-05:00

From Spin October 2000:

Glikl Hamel's memoir

2011-12-04T12:10:00.006-05:00

This is nice. You can download the original manuscript by Glueckel of Hameln, one of the most famous Jewish memoirs of all time - if not the most famous (download or read it here).

Here is the first page:

Here's the page as it appears in David Kaufmann's original publication of this manuscript from 1896 (זכרונות מרת גליקל האמיל משנת תז עד תעט):

Did Moses Mendelssohn ever deny or affirm the coming of the Messiah?

2011-11-30T22:40:00.007-05:00

In the 150 year old sport called "What Was Wrong With Mendelssohn?" an interesting contender is that he did not believe in the coming of the Messiah. Since his religious behavior was impeccable, no one could say that he didn't put on tefillin or was not kovea ittim, but if his innermost thoughts could be revealed? Check mate.

The way this is derived is from a penetrating analysis of his Chumash Nesivos Shalom's commentary, which was composed by 5 people, and anthologized from Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, with original exegesis by these men as well. Everyone knows that the classical exegetes interpreted verses in varied ways, sometimes agreeing and supporting one another, sometimes disagreeing. There are a number of places in the Torah where one exegete will interpret a verse in a Messianic sense, but another doesn't. So, says this analysis, when Rashi interprets one verse as referring to the Messiah, it will adopt the Rashbam who didn't. When Rashbam interprets a verse messianically, it will adopt Rashi, and in this way the Moshiach is missing from the Bi'ur.

Here is how R. Yitzhak Nissenbaum put it (Alei Cheldi p. 96):

המשכילים הללו פרשו את התורה לפי הפרושים המסורתיים, אלא מה עשו? הטו לצדדין, למשל, כך: בענין האמונה בביאת המשיח, מבאר רש"י את הכתוב, ,,עד כי יבא שילה" על משיח, והרשב"ם מבאר אותו על זמן אחר, לעומת זה באר הרשב"ם את הכתוב ,,דרך כוכב מיעקב" על מלך המשיח ורש"י מבאר אותו על דוד. בין כה וכה גם ברש"י וגם ברשב"ם יש זכר בתורה לביאת המשיח. ומה עשו בעלי ה,,באור" הם בארו את הפסוק הראשון כרשב"ם ואת הפסוק השני כרש"י, ובין כה וכה אין ב,,באור" כל זכר לביאת המשיח

These Maskilim explained the Torah according to traditional commentaries, but what did they do? They marginalized traditional viewpoints, for example, with regards to the belief in the coming of the Messiah, Rashi interprets Gen. 49:10 to refer to the Messiah, but Rashbam interprets it as referring to another time period. On Numbers 24:17 Rashbam interprets it to refer to the Messiah, but Rashi explains it as referring to King David. Either way, there is a reference to the coming of the Messiah in the commentary of both Rashi and Rashbam. The commentators of the Bi'ur explained the first verse according to the Rashbam, and the second according to Rashi. Either way, there is no reference to the Messiah in the Bi'ur.

Similarly, I am told that this is reported in the name of the 'Minsker Gadol,' R. Yeruhem Leib Perlman. In that case, the second verse cited is Deut. 33:5, which Ramban interprets messianically, and Rashi explains it otherwise. Since it is unlikely that Rabbi Nissenbaum was the one to discover this, it's safe to assume that this was something which was noted by many, whomever first discovered it.

The first question is, is this entirely accurate? Is there no reference to the Messiah in the Bi'ur? Although I have not discovered such a reference, I believe it is notable to point out that Mendelssohn specifically writes (in a paranthetical comment to Wessely in Lev. 26:39) that the Jews were exiled from their land by God for their sins. The continuing travails of the exile are natural, since sons cannot be punished for the sins of the fathers. However, only a miracle by God can restore the Jews to their land, even if the present conditions of the exile are natural, rather than supernatural. As far as I can tell this is awfully close to a reference to the coming of the Messiah, and it is literally written by Mendelssohn himself.

The red brackets is his paranthetical insertion, and the arrows are the comments I wish to highlight.

Putting this aside - although I believe the post could really end there - here are some objections to the original suggestion.

First, five people wrote the commentary, so it is hard to see how there could be a unified policy. The first example is from Genesis, and it was written by Solomon Dubno, whom no one would accuse of not believing in the Messiah. Although I do not know enough about the author of the Numbers commentary, Aaron Freudenthal of Jaroslaw, it's is difficult to suggest that he interpreted there according to Rashi in order to ensure that there would be no reference to the Messiah in the book. Thus, we have to dismiss the suggestion that any one individual commentator interpreted his verse non-messianically because he personally did not believe in it, because this idea requires more than one verse. The only other possibility is that Mendelssohn himself is responsible for this through editorial interference. While one could posit this, one could posit anything. We should like some evidence. As we see from the Wessely example, he carefully noted where his own hand touches the commentary.

Second is how loaded was the suggestion that there is no future coming of the Messiah. In his time, this could only be understood by the many, many gentile scholars looking over Mendelssohn's shoulder as meaning that the Messiah already came. This is something which surely he wished to avoid at all costs, and it is hard to say that this theme was therefore presented on purpose. Indeed, this is likely the reason why Dubno, for example, would interpret ad ki yavo shilo according to Rashbam, a verse which is given a christological interpretation. Thus it is not so understandable if the book avoids messianic interpretation, even intentionally.

Aside for this, we should examine Mendelssohn's other writings to see if or how he refers to the Jewish belief in the coming of the Messiah. An interesting case in point is his book Jerusalem. I will use the 1838 English translation by M. Samuels. In volume 2 page 44, he writes:

In the system of man's duties, the duties to God, in the main, form no distinct division. All the duties of man are duties to God, some concern ourselves, some our neighbours. Out of love of God we are rationally to love ourselves, his creatures ; out of rational love of ourselves we are bound to love our neighbours.

[God] only designs our good, the good of every individual . . .

This common-place is so trite, that good sense is surprised that people could ever have been of a different opinion. And yet mankind have, from the beginning, acted against those plain principles! Well will it be for them, if in the year 2240 they leave off doing so.

In other words, it will be good for people if finally, in the year 2240, they will come around and stop acting against the obviously correct principles that God really wants people to be good to one another.

What is the year 2240? Alexander Altmann ingeniously noted that it is the year 6000 according to the Jewish calendar, the year posited by the rabbis as the final date for the Messiah's arrival. Here is what he writes in his notes to Alan Arkush's translation of Jerusalem:

Although I would agree that we cannot deduce his belief or lack of belief in a literal coming of the Messiah from this comment, it surely is interesting.

However, we should see that it is not so simple that it refers to the years 6000 (cleverly called 2240). Although Altmann was not the first person to do the math - it was already written this way in the Hebrew edtition translation by Abraham Dov Baer Gottlober (Zhitomir 1866):

apparently Altmann overlooked the note in the 1838 edition, for he did not even mention it to dismiss it. Here is what it says:

Note 8: L'an Deux Mil Deux Cent Quarante, by Mercier.

Thanks to the miracles of modern research this can be explained in 10 seconds. It refers to Mercier's 1771 book The Year 2440: A Dream If Ever There Was One (which, funnily enough, was changed to 2500 in the English edition). Wikipedia helpfully describes it as "a utopian novel set in the year 2440. . . . [it] describes the adventures of an unnamed man, who, after engaging in a heated discussion with a philosopher friend about the injustices of Paris, falls asleep and finds himself in a Paris of the future."

Thus, it is pretty clear that in 1783 when Jerusalem was released "the year 2440" was a well-known reference to the literati of Europe. It meant "the future."

Edited 12.1.11: I was never good with numbers, and a sharp-eyed commenter pointed out that the book uses the year 2440, while Mendelssohn wrote 2240. Therefore Altmann's point (preceded by Gottlober) is stronger. While I still feel that Mendelssohn was almost certainly alluding to Mercier's book, he also changed 2440 to 2240, which is indeed the year 6000, and therefore he is alluding to the yemot ya-mashiach.

Be that as it may, I ask you, is this the face of a man who didn't believe in the Messiah?

What does Maccabee mean? We will never know, but it sure is fun to guess.

2011-11-30T11:09:00.001-05:00

It's almost Chanuka time, so I figured I'd post about the Maccabees. Or, more precisely, what the name may have meant. I stress that no one knows. All we have our theories, some more convincing, some less, but not proven. Have a look at the pitiful Wikipedia entry on the name (link).

I once posted Ohev Ger Luzzatto's theory, as explained by his father Shadal (link). I will give it in further detail below, but first I wanted to post this little article by שזח"ה (S .J. Halberstamm) in Halevanon (10 Adar 5628/ 4 March 1868).

First a note about Halevanon. This was the newspaper representing the interests and point of view of the Yerushalmi perushim and was considered very frum. Here is how Joseph Margoshes described it in his memoir:

Here is what Halberstamm writes:

As you can see, he writes that in an earlier issue a writer had explained that 'Maccabee' is an acronym for Mattathias Cohen ben Iohannan, and he wanted to take issue with this explanation (which was accepted by the Chasam Sofer, to the point where he wanted to use it to determine the proper way of writing a get; on this see Dan's excellent post on the Seforim Blog from three years ago (link).

Now, here is what Halberstamm is referring to:

That writer reasonably makes the point that the popular explanation that MKBY, an acronym of Mi Khamocha Be'elim Y"Y was written on their banners, is exceedingly weak, because "who saw the banner of Judah Maccabee's camp?" He gets in some snarky remarks about how he is not one of those Jews who are sloppy in their use of language, says that he is precise in his language, and then cites the language of Beyemi Matisyahu from the Chanukah prayer, and notes the previously mentioned acronym. He does not claim that this is how it is written in the prayer, only that we cannot avoid noticing that Matisyahu Cohen Ben Iohannan gives the acronym Maccabee. He relates this to the common Jewish practice of using acronyms to give one's name and father's name, and suggests that this is proof that it goes back to antiquity.

This is the article that Halberstamm was referring to. He notes that in Shadal's Lezioni di Storia Giudaica, this explanation was already given in the name of Franz Delitsch, so it's not original (yes, and I'm sure the Chasam Sofer got it from Franz Delitsch! Actually, it is not the Chasam Sofer's original idea either). Furthermore, Jost also brought this explanation and refuted it, just as Shadal had. Herzfeld in Geschichte des Volkes Israel (v. 1; it says v. 2 by mistake) also refutes the notion that it is an acronym for Mi Khamocha Beelim Hashem (or michamocha baelim Jahweh, as he writes it). I looked it up, and the reason Herzfeld cites is because the Syriac Peshitta spells it with a quf (מקבי). Frankly, that is weak - but so is the Mi Khamocha acronym. It is also entirely ripped off from Johann David Michaelis, who made this suggestion in 1778 in his Übersetzung des ersten Buchs der Maccabäer:

As you can see, Michaelis derives it from the wrote מקב, Aramaic for hammer, a popular suggestion which is still common today (Jastrow refers to Bekhorot 43a-b, where מקבן is used to mean a physical deformity resembling a hammerhead). You can also see that Michaelis rejects the Mi Kamocha acronym, since he prefers the Syriac spelling מקבי. To this I would say that, yes, it is a good illustration of how we do not even know for sure how the term is spelled in Hebrew letters (to say nothing about whether it comes from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic) but we also cannot over-rely on spelling. As you will see, others reject it because of other diyukkim in the Greek spelling. Here would be a good time to point out that the term does not appear in the Talmud or early rabbinic sources. Thus, the only early sources we have are Greek. We are therefore not entitled to ignore them.

For those who would like to read a discussion of the acronym theory in English, see the following from 1775:

So Halberstamm chooses to give Ohev Ger's explanation cited in Shadal's Lezioni di Stori Giudaica in full, which is that the word maccabee was the Greek biaiomachas, meaning valiant warrior, with the letters /b/ and/m/ transposed, as happens frequently in language. Seemy original post where I delve into if and how this is a Greek word. Halberstamm is surprised that no later scholars mentioned this clever suggestion.

I am surprised that Halberstamm did not mention that the contention that Maccabee is a Greek word was already given as the primary reason by the 18th century Litvishe R. Yechiel Heilprin in Seder Hadoros. He rote (Seder Hadoros, Karlsruhe 1769, pg. 40) מכבאי בלשון יון גבור ואיש מלחמה וי"א שכך היה כתוב על דגלו ר"ת מי כמוך באלים יהוה, 'Maccabee' in Greek connotes a hero, or a warrior. Some say that it was written on their banner, an acronym of Mi Khamocha, etc."

How old is the Mi Kamocha explanation? Before we get to that, I thought it would be nice to show a comment from a 1709 siddur printed in Sulzbach. A daily reminder that Mi Khamocha forms the acronym 'Maccabee':

Several sources claim that Shlomo Molcho, during his involvement with David Reuveni, had a banner with MaKaBY on it. In Dan's Seforim Blog post he points out that the Tzeror Hamor (a Spanish 15th - early 16th c. source) mentions it. In light of this it would have been attractive to suggest that it is a Spanish idea from around that time period, but we will have to reject this, below. Dan also quotes Azariah Di Rossi, in his Me'or Enayim, also a 16th century source. The translation is from the great Joanna Weinberg:

According to Samotheus, "Maccabee" is a Greek word that is translated as paladino (fighter) in Italian. But I have been told by others that he received the designation Maccabee because it was inscribed on his banner and derived from the acrostic based on the words Mi Kamokha Ba-elim Hashem. But this interpretation is not consistent with the fact that On the Maccabees is the title Josephus gave to the work in which he describes the sufferings of Eleazar and Hannah and her seven sons, and this episode predated the rise of Hasmonean dynasty. But the first explanation would fit, since they, too, [i.e. Eleazar and Hannah who suffered martyrdom] were also fighters.'

Dan pointed out that the explanation is given by R. Elazar Rokeach of Worms in his siddur (link). I have absolutely no idea of the provenance of this commentary, but if it is really his then it dates to his period, namely 1176 – 1238. What he says is that ט"א על דגל יהודה במלחמות חשמונים שנצחו ליוונים כתי' מי כמוך באלים ה' שעזרת לנו לנצח הרשע זהו שיסד הפיוט מכבי יהודה מכב"י נוטריקון מי כמוך באלים ה. The piyut to which he refers which says 'מכבי יהודה' is the yotzer for Shabbos Chanuka Odekha ki anaphta bi va-tashav.

In his beautiful machzor from 1826 (link) Meir Ganz writes מכבי יהודה. ראיתי בסדור ישן שהיה כתוב על דגליו מי כמוך באלים יי ר"ת מכבי, 'Makhabai Yehuda. I saw in an antique siddur that it was written on their banner Mi Khamocha, etc., in the form of an acronym, Maccabee.'

Gee, thanks for telling us more about this סדור ישן. My guess is that it was nothing more than the same manuscript that the Rokeach's commentary is based on, or at least something from his circle even if some generations removed. Here is Ganz's machsor:

In short, it would seem that the idea that it is a notarikon for Mi Khamocha Be'elim Hashem comes from the Rokeah, or at least it is no later than him. This would fit well with this mystic's use of notarikon. It's interesting how eventually it would inspire what we might describe as a more . . . scholarly conjecture, that it stood for Matisyahu Kohen Ben Yochanan. But of course this is also entirely conjectural.

There have been many other suggestions. Some adopt Michaelis's position that it refers to a hammer (in one of the Levanon excerpts above it relates it to Martel, a surname given to Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne; see Rashi to Shabb. 122b - קורנס. מרטי"ל). Others suggest that Judah Machabee had this physical deformity! Still others, that he was a blacksmith. Delitzsch proposed the fun but utterly implausible idea that is is a contracted word from the rhetorical question "?מה כאבי." He compared the term to two biblical names, מכבני and מכנדבי, found in Chronicles and Ezra respectively. Since "מכ" cannot be explained, he says that it is a contraction of מה, similar to מי as used in other names, like Michael. He thus explains Machbannai to mean "Who is like my children?" and Machnadebai as "Who is like my benefactors?" Others laughed him out of the running, saying that it is a "monstrosity." One critic pointed out that in 1 Chron. 2:48 'Machbenah' is a city. "מי כאבי" might be more plausible, but that would yield 'Miccabee,' not 'Maccabee,' to which I say - not necessarily.

The trauma wrought by scissors

2011-11-30T09:12:00.002-05:00

Here's an illustration of Czar Nicholai I's soldiers carrying out one of the ukases to cut the beards and peyos (side curls) of Jews, as part of his policy of forcible Russification.

From Ost und West (1916).

On the Golem of Chelm

2011-11-29T13:11:00.001-05:00

Eli Eshed has a really nice post about Chelm and the 16th century Rabbi Elijah, the Ba'al Shem of Chelm's golem (link). I have previously posted en passent about Rabbi Elijah, as famously referred to by Chacham Tzvi and R. Jacob Emden (link), and how they were descendents of his, not grandsons.

Eli refers to a famous account of it in a letter printed in 1674 - less than a century after R. Elijah lived. I believe Gershom Scholem first called attention to this letter. I figured I would post it.

It appears in a mammoth work called Sota by Johann Christoph Wagenseil. It is in the section of notes sent to him by Christopher Arnold. Here is the relevant excerpt:

It describes how the golem is created from lime for being a servant, to do housework. It is animated by writing 'Emet' (truth) on its forehead. But it keeps on growing and gets stronger. To cause it to stop, the thing to do is to erase the aleph, leaving the word 'met' (dead).

He says that the Jews in Poland say that one Elias Baal Schem, the name being derived from those who practice magic using divine names, created such a golem. The problem is that the golem grew so big that he couldn't reach up and erase the aleph. So he ordered the golem to bend down and take off his boots. Upon removing the letter, the heavy golem fell onto him and crushed him.

The foundational myth of Algerian Jewry, featuring the Rashbatz, as told in 1833.

2011-11-27T19:01:00.001-05:00

Here's a fascinating story told by Claude-Antoine Rozet in his famous 1833 book on Algiers. It is a legend which he heard from Jews about how their community got started from a group of Spanish exiles who arrived in 1390 led by their rabbi "Simon Ben Smia," who can only be the Rashbatz, R. Shimon ben Tzemach (1361 - 1444).

The story refers to him as the rabbi of Seville, which he was not, but judging by the name it almost certainly is referring to him. He writes that Rabbi Shimon, along with 60 leading families of Spanish Jews and several Moors, were arrested by the king of Spain. About to be executed, the Rashbatz took a piece of charcoal and drew a picture of a ship on the prison wall. Addressing the despairing people, he told them that whoever believes in God should touch the wall. As soon as they (and he) did, the picture turned into a real ship, slid through the prison wall and the streets of Seville to the water and they all landed in Algiers, where they applied for and were granted asylum.

Here is an English translation of this story from April 1837:

"Whilst the Moors were in possession of Spain, they had allowed the Jews to establish themselves there and to occupy themselves in commerce. The people of Israel did there as in Egypt; they multiplied fast, and in a short space of time became extremely numerous. They had their magistrates, their temples, and the free exercise of their religion. When the Christians had driven the Mussulmans from Spain and reconquered that fine country, they permitted the Jews to continue to dwell there and to carry on their commercial speculations, on condition of their submitting to the laws of the new state. To the great riches which they had amassed under the empire of the Moors, they added still more, until at last the Christians became extremely jealous of them. In 1390, the chief rabbi of Seville (Simon-ben-Smia), a man of first-rate capacity, who possessed great wealth, was seized and thrown into prison by order of the king of Spain, with sixty of the principal heads of Jewish families and many Moors who had remained in that city. Immediately after this arbitrary act, the Spaniards subjected the Jews and Moors established ih the kingdom to all kinds of exactions. Soon after the imprisonment of the rabbi, the king ordered him and all who had been shut up with him to be put to death. On the evening which preceded the day appointed for the execution, at the moment when all his companions in misfortune were abandoning themselves to despair and grief, Simon took a bit of coal and drew the figure of a ship on the wall. Then turning to those around him who were weeping, he said,' Let all those who believe in God, and who are willing to quit this place immediately, put their finger with me on this ship.' They all did so, and in an instant the ship sketched with coal became a real ship, which put itself in motion; the wall opened to give a passage; it traversed Seville, to the great astonishment of the inhabitants, without running against any of them or even touching their houses, and went with all its crew direct to the sea. We are not told if the rabbi took the helm, or if his companions served as sailors; but this we are assured, that the vessel never stopped till it suddenly anchored in the bay of Algiers, a town then only inhabited by Mahometans, Moors, and Arabs. The rabbi, having dispatched in all haste some of his companions to the Algerines, to tell how they had been brought to their coast, and to solicit an asylum, the latter answered that it was no concern of theirs, but that they would consult Sydi-Ben-Yousef, a famous marabout who dwelt at Meliana. Immediately a party of horse set off at full gallop and soon arrived at the residence of Sydi-Ben-Yousef, whom they informed that certain Jews and Moors, who had escaped miraculously from Spain, had arrived in the port of Algiers, begging to be received as inhabitants of the town. Receive them and treat them in the best manner possible,' was the answer of the marabout. The messengers hastened back with the order of the holy man, and it was immediately announced to the Rabbi that he might land with all his companions. The inhabitants of the town, with the chiefs of religion and of the law at their head, marched out to meet them, and offered them every thing of which they were in need. They gave them lodgings in the town, where they settled."—vol. iii. p. 210.

It goes on to say that the Sydi-Ben-Youscef wrote a charter for them, enumerating their various rites, and the charter is preserved by the Jews to that day (1833). Rozet says that he wanted to laugh at the story with one of the Jews, a man who struck him as very learned, who knew several languages, including perfect French, but the man silenced him saying, "C'est un article de notre foi," "It is an article of our faith."

The Jewish Jimi Hendrix of the 1830s.

2011-11-25T10:27:00.000-05:00

Mikhl Yosef Gusikow (1806-1837), a Klezmer musician from Shklov, became a musical sensation in Germany and France in the 1830s, playing a musical instrument allegedly of his own invention. His exotic image, lack of formal training, primitive instrument, as well as his musical virtuosity, made a strong impression, not unlike the person mentioned in the post title (although there was nothing primitive about a Fender Strat). Or maybe a comparison to Django Reinhardt is more apt.

Here is how he is described in Grove's Dictionary of Music (1879 ed.):

GUSIKOW, Michael Joseph, an artist of rare musical faculty —' a true genius,' says Mendelssohn—born of poor Jewish parents and of a family which had produced musicians for more than a century, at Sklow in Poland, Sept. 2,1806. He first played the flute and tympanon, a kind of dulcimer. At the age of seventeen he married, and a few years after discovered that weakness of the chest would not allow him to continue playing the flute. He thereupon took up the Strohfiedel, an instrument of the dulcimer kind, composed of strips of fir on a framework of straws, which he improved and increased in compass. (See Xylophone.) Upon this he attained extraordinary facility and power. In 1832 he and four of his relatives began a long tour, through Odessa—where he was heard by Lamartine; Kiev—whore he was much encouraged by Lipinski; Moscow; and thence to south and north Germany, Paris, and Brussels. He travelled in the dress and guise of a Polish Jew—long beard, thin, pale, sad, expressive features—and excited the greatest applause by his astonishing execution and tho expression which he threw into his unlikely instrument. Mendelssohn heard him at Leipzig, and called him 'a real phenomenon, a killing fellow (Mordkerl); who is inferior to no player on earth in style and execution, and delights me more on his odd instrument than many do on their pianos, just because it is so thankless. . . . I have not enjoyed a concert so much for a long time' (and see the rest—Letter, Feb. 18, 1836). But it wore him out; he was laid up at Brussels for long, and died at Aix la Chapelle, Oct. 21, 1837, adding another to the list of geniuses who have died shortly after thirty. (See Fetis, who saw much of him.)

I guess that's mid-19th century German slang; he was a Mordkerl ("a killing fellow"). Do people still say "killer musician"? I guess "shortly after 30" was the 27 of the 19th-century. His instrument, the Strohfiedel ('straw fiddle') was basically a kind of xylophone. He allegedly invented it, but the truth about that appears to be more complex.

Here is what he and his instrument looked like:

And if you prefer to see him in his Litvishe yarmulke:

Here is a letter Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy sent to his mother in 1836:

You can listen to what is described as his "single surviving composition," for Shir Hamaalos:

Maimonides's Own True signature

2011-11-24T11:30:00.003-05:00

Originally posted as a guest post here.

Edit 11.28.11:

I would wager that most of us are familiar, or vaguely familiar with, a sample of the Rambam's handwriting. Numerous fragments in his own hand were recovered from the Cairo Genizah (see here for many). In it's own way, the Nesher Hagadol's own handwriting is famous just like his alleged visage (on his portrait, see here and here).

Here is said sample:

Now, this particular piece is very special. It says "Corrected from my copy. I, Moses ben Rabbi Maimon z"l (at least z"l is what it may say - some assume it says zatza"l and others zaqa"l; I read it almost certainly as a tzade). This is found at the very end of the Huntington Manuscript 80 (Ms. Hunt. 80) owned by the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

There is now an entire website dedicated to displaying this precious manuscript which was personally reviewed by Maimonides. (link).

And here is another sample, of many, from the Genizah:

In Jews in Many Lands (1905) Elkan Nathan Adler (himself no Genizah neophyte) writes that

"Four or five autograph letters of [Maimonides] have been found in the Fostat Genizah. One is a genuine twelfth century שו"ת, i.e., "question and answer."

We have come a long way in 105 years!

A few years earlier (1898) an article in a peculiar Christian journal called A Peculiar People wrote, quite correctly, that before the Genizah there was only one example of Maimonides' writing (available to the general public, as will see):

Needless to say, there are things we take for granted. How fortunate are we that we can sit in our own home, with a bowl of Cheerios at our side, and look over something as mind blowing as this! Interesting times - which is not necessarily a curse.

It really was not so long ago where most people did not have access to such things, and even the people who did have access, only had access to the things in their own grasp. To see a snippet of writing by the Rambam? This was a rare, almost impossible sight. I will describe when and how and why this changed below.

The Hebrew collection in the Bodleian Library was in reality so awesome, that legends and rumors arose about it. For example, Solomon Schechter writes in The Hebrew Collection of the British Museum (Studies in Judaism, First Series) that

"The Hebrew collection in the British Museum forms one of the greatest centres of Jewish thought. It is only surpassed by the treasures which are contained in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The fame of these magnificent collections has spread far and wide. It has penetrated into the remotest countries, and even the Bachurim (alumni) of some obscure place in Poland, who otherwise neither care nor know anything about British civilisation, have a dim notion of the nature of these mines of Jewish learning.

All sorts of legends circulate amongst them about the "millions" of books which belong to the " Queen of England." They speak mysteriously of an autograph copy of the Book of Proverbs, presented to the Queen of Sheba on the occasion of her visit to Jerusalem, and brought by the English troops as a trophy from their visit to Abyssinia, which is still ruled by the descendants of that famous lady. They also talk of a copy of the Talmud of Jerusalem which once belonged to Titus, afterwards to a Pope, was presented by the latter to a Russian Czar, and taken away from him by the English in the Crimean war; of a manuscript of the book Light is Sown} which is so large that no shelf can hold it, and which therefore hangs on iron chains. How they long to have a glance at these precious things! Would not a man get wiser only by looking at the autograph of the wisest of men?

But even the students of Germany and Austria, who are inaccessible to such fables, and by the aid of Zedner's, Steinschneider's, and Neubauer's catalogues have a fair notion of our libraries, cherish the belief that they would gain in scholarship and wisdom by examining these grand collections. How often have I been asked by Jewish students abroad: "Have you really been to the British Museum? Have you really seen this or that rare book or manuscript? Had you not great difficulties in seeing them? Is not the place where these heaps of jewels are treasured up always crowded by students and visitors?"

Although it already had a Hebrew collection since the days of Sir Thomas Bodley in the early 17th century, it was not until 1829 that its collection went from good to astounding. In that year the library acquired the Oppenheimer Collection, named after it's collector, the av beis din of Prague, Rabbi David Oppenheim (1664-1736). The library itself describes this collection as "thought to be the most important and magnificent Hebraica collection ever accumulated." It consisted of "780 manuscripts and 4,220 printed books in Hebrew, Yiddish and Aramaic, many of which are the only surviving copies." Rabbi David was not only a proficient collector, but a man of wealth and taste. Thus, many of his books were special orders, printings on colored paper or vellum (that is, klaf). You can read the original catalog prepared for the sale, Kohelet David - Collection Davidis (Hamburg 1826), here. If I recall correctly, this collection remained unsold (but available) for 70 years (or was it 90?). When the Bodleian finally acquired it, they got it for a song. I once calculated how much it was in today's dollars, and I think it came out to less than $1 million. (My memory is blurry; part of me seems to remember that it was only about $250,000, but in all likelihood that was pounds, not dollars.)

However, the Bodleian was already in possession of Hebrew treasures. Two such treasures were Rambam manuscripts acquired by Sir Robert Huntington in Aleppo, Syria in the late 17th century. One is a manuscript of the Perush Ha-mishnayot written by Maimonides himself! (In Arabic, so it's the Kitab as-Siraj) The other is a very special codex containing Sefer Madda and Ahavah of the Mishneh Torah. This is Ms. Hunt. 80, and it contains the Rambam's own seal of approval. Apparently these were sold to Huntington by the Rambam's own descendents.

The manuscript's existence was a national treasure, but it had not been a national secret. At least one rabbinic authority refers to it several times in his responsa. Here is one such place in the teshuvot of the Radbaz:

As you can see, he writes that he "searched in the correct manuscripts which were checked according to the book checked with the Rabbi's own book, that is in Aleppo." Thus it sounds like even in Egypt, where he lived, there were copies circulating which was checked from this very manuscript, known to have been approved by the Rambam himself.

Who brought this signature to the attention of the world? The answer lies in a great book published in 1851 called Ginzei Oxford - Treasures of Oxford. This work was a joint effort of two great scholars, Leopold Dukes and Hirsch Edelmann, who described the treasures of Oxford. The book was written in Hebrew by them, and translated to English by Marcus Heinrich Bresslau, and thus the book contains a Hebrew and English section. The introduction is by Edelmann. Here is what he writes:

Note: he says that Huntington acquired it in Cairo. This is, I believe, a mistake. In any case, here is the fac-simile that is given for the first time ever, in the Hebrew section.

As you could see above, Edelmann explained that he noticed the signature and asked Bresslau to request from the librarian Bandinell that they be allowed to make a facsimile (presumably Edelmann didn't speak English).

The rest of the facsimile is of a few lines in the same handwriting, thus also written by the Rambam, in the beginning of the manuscript. It is a tribute to the owner, evidently a deceased student of the Rambam's, named R. Elazar ben Perachiah. It is hard to read, so for this we need a transcription. Since the Hebrew section includes a transcription, here it is:

The translation is pretty faithful, but not exact. Since I am always going on about the ס"ט acronym, note that the Rambam doesn't merely mention "Rabbi Elazar of blessed memory, the son of Perachjah." He writes "מ' אלעזר ז"ל ול"ת בר פרחיה ס"ט."

While Ginze Oxford was published in 1851, apparently Edelmann had not kept it a secret, for already in the April 22, 1850 issue of the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums there is an article about it. In a footnote, the editor hopefully asks "Koennte nicht dieses autograph lithographirt werden? Wie Diesen waere dies eine willkommne Gabe!/ Might not this autograph be lithographed? That would be a welcome gift!" So Edelmann obliged.

It didn't take very long before this signature became a desirable thing to reproduce in works by the Rambam. Thus, in the 1861 Kovetz Teshuvos (ed. by Abraham Lichtenberg) we see this:

Actually, this particular signature, as produced in this sefer, even became used as a source in a certain valuable book on names for gittin, but I won't get into that since that is for another post in the works.

And a beautiful fold-out facsimile in the 1864 Vienna edition of the Moreh Nevukhim (with German translation, called Moreh Nebochim, ed. Max Emanuel Stern):

The same volume is available on Google Books, but look what it has:

A frustrating example of how Google Books messes up - too frequently - with no evident plans to correct these errors.

Here's a luxury, deluxe, full-service example from the periodical Achiasaf:

I thought it was from volume 12 (1904) but now I'm not sure. It includes a snippet of text from his Moreh Nevukhim, and it post-dates the Cairo Genizah.

And here's one from a book from 1918. It just uses the image from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Rather than go on and on and on in this vein, I will supply one more example. Rabbis Moses Hyamson and Chaim Brecher produced a fantastic edition of Sefer Madda and Ahavah, based on this manuscript. It consists of the Hebrew text and translation. They were careful to print and translate this manuscript, and thus they even included the poems and asides, such as the signature certification. The translation of the Rambam's signature is on the bottom:

Finally, to bring things back full circle - how amazing it is that the Bodleian spent effort, time and money to place this invaluable manuscript online for the entire world to use at leisure? Here is an advertisement on the very last page of Yeshurun 3 (1997) for a facsimile edition of this precious manuscript, in a limited run of 300 copies:

It would still be nice to own it, but it is no longer necessary. Viva democracia digital!

A review of Maharatz Chajes's Darkhei Hora'ah

2011-11-22T21:44:00.003-05:00

Here's Franz Delitzsch's review of Darkhei Hora'ah by Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes, for Rudelbach's Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche (1844).

Here's a rough translation:

Chajes, known already for several books defending Maimonides (his favorite writer) against recent Jewish aspersions (מאמר תפארת למשה, עטרת צבי, דרכי משה), on the Targums (לקיים דברי אגרת, אגרת בקרת for Rapoport's review) and on the principles and inviolability of Scripture and Tradition (תורת הנביאים, משפט ההוראה) is one of a few Jewish scholars who combines a comprehensive knowledge of the Talmud and midrashic literature with a historical sense and critical skill. The aforementioned work is (after a general prologue on the purpose of man in general and Israel in particular) a historical-critical study of the Oral Law, its extent, and the reasons for its continuing bindingness. He offers, apart for its ephemeral apologetic aspect, an abundance of material useful even for Christian theologians. Because the gradual formation of the rabbinic Synagogue is an important subject for religious and Church history, and partly depends on linguistic studies, some solutions for questions in the history of the Apostolic period depend upon such as when the Temple sacrifices ceased; usually thought to be immediately with the destruction of the Temple. Chajes, discussing the question in the Israelitische Annalen (1840 26 38), answers using the Talmud, that the offering of sacrifices and the Passover sacrifice continued until the destruction of Betar. This confirms the testimony of Polycarp, that he kept a Passover with the Apostle John.

Artscroll miscellanies

2011-11-22T10:18:00.000-05:00

I haven't done an Artscroll oriented post in a while. I shared this list with someone whom I thought would be interested, and do something with it, but he urged me to post it myself.

So, here are a few things from the machzorim:

Shavuos machzor, pg. 226, they write "The piyutim [known as kerovos]," which is subtly a change from their normal policy of explaining it is kerovotz, a notarikon for קול רינה וישועה באהלי צדיקים.
pg, 232, it actually cites the midrash that anokhi is an Egyptian word ("closely resembled the parallel word in Egyptian") and "this Midrash apparently disagrees with the Midrashic teaching that the Jews in Egypt retained their Hebrew language and did not adopt Egyptian." !!! But then you turn to pg. 265 (beit yaakov meam loez) and the comment says "Even the Jews who were forced to communicate with the Egyptians in the language of the land did so only under duress. Among themselves, however, they spoke only the Holy Tongue and regarded Egyptian as a foreign language." Note the source cited - none.
In the machzor's Ruth, it bizarrely quotes from the Torah Temima (pg. 527) to explain why Ruth says "na'arim" while Boaz said "na'arot. "As a Moabite, Ruth was not intimately familiar with Hebrew differentiations between the masculine and feminine forms. In the Moabite language (!), like English, most nouns did not have separate male and female forms. Ruth mistakenly used the masculine without meaning to be suggestive, because, as the Midrash interprets 'She was a Moabite!' Naomi tactfully corrected her mistake [next verse]."
Rosh Hashana machzor, pg 156. After explaining Yigdal, it says "They comprise the basic principles of the Jewish faith. In Rambam's view, to deny any of them constitutes heresy.
pg. 450 it explains that "the Prophets are of a higher order of holiness than the Writings - for the Prophets are the word of God while the Writings are direct prophecies" - what does that mean?
pg. 477, Kalonymos ben Meshullam is described as "a great Talmudic and Kabbalistic scholar."
Yom kippur machzor, pg. 60 on Kol Nidrei "two explanations are offered, one rational and one Kabbalistic"
Pg. 175, it admits that the authorship of Shir Hayichud is "uncertain," but "the general consensus is that it was composed by R' Shmuel bar Klonymos" They then refer to Maharal, Emden, Heidenheim and Baer. That is, they entirely omit any mention of the fact that far from there being a "general consensus," there was a major controversy about the Shir Hayichud. Some thought it was written by a Karaite, and others by a Christian monk named Michael Basilios. And when I say "some," I don't mean "Zunz." Even the Vilna Gaon reputedly subscribed to the view that the author was Michael Basilos (מכאל בזלוש). They mention the Maharal, but not that he was against saying it!
Pg 205 - maybe the most amazing thing yet - they explain that "Scripture in those days was unvowelized (like our Torah scrolls)." But see pg. 61 of The Early Achronim, where it says that "In the preface to [Mesores HaMesores] R' Eliyahu [Bachur] presented his assertion that the punctuation marks used to indicate the vowels are not of Sinaitic origin and had been introduced by the Tiberian Massoretes in post-Talmudic times. This raised a great controversy in rabbinic circles and R' Eliyahu's view was not accepted.
Pg. 532, for some random reason they decided to quote the Arukh about the meaning of "Kalir," who "became wise as a result of eating a cake upon which certain kabbalistic formulas had been inscribed." I'm sure this will edify all the masses in Peoria who bought Artscroll machzorim.
Finally, a general comment, that their "infinitely more than inspired poetry" line about the piyutim seems to be a direct response to Birnbaum, who wrote that Kalir's "numerous prayer-poems" were "imitated by inspired payyetanim on succeeding generations."

As for why one book contradicts another, I guess this is probably because of the actual complexity of the tradition. If there is an attempt to keep a unified position, this can break down in the details.

What did Rebbetzin Chorin wear on her head?

2011-11-21T13:03:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting, and unexpected reference, to Rabbi Aharon Chorin, in Solomon Schiller-Szinnessy's edition of the Radak to Psalms (Cambridge 1883).

Listing his teachers and influences, he mentions Chorin, from whom he received one of his semichas:

25) The great rabbi and critical scholar, the Chief Rabbi of Arad. He was very erudite, and author of learned works. I call Heaven and Earth as witness, that I was in his house in 1843 to receive ordination from him, and practically did not leave his side for three weeks. He was involved in Torah study (particularly Shulchan Aruch Yorah De'ah and Even Ha-ezer) night and day. I saw that he was exceedingly meticulous in observance. Even though he was very aged, he walked the distance to the synagogue morning and evening. This great rabbi raised the flag of Israel, enhancing her reputation among the nations. He was called by God to the Heavenly abode on the Sabbath, 9 Elul 1844. "Let the lying lips be dumb, which speak arrogantly against the righteous, with pride and contempt." (Psalm 31:19)

Hm. Probably not what one would expect.

Here's an opportunity to post the portraits of Chorin and his Rebbetzin:

These two portraits come from Grace Cohen Grossman's Romance & Ritual: Celebrating the Jewish Wedding.

Since we see how his wife covered her hair (actually in all likelihood, there's no hair under that) it's worth mentioning an anecdote I posted about earlier, at the beginning of this post. I honestly have no idea how to square all these circles.

Here's another portrait of Chorin, from the 1848 Magyar Zsidó Naptár:

The Responsa in English controversy of 1966.

2011-11-21T11:23:00.003-05:00

Here's an interesting bit of letters in the October 1966 issue of the Jewish Observer.

Future-British Chief Rabbi Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits had written a book called called "Jewish Law Faces Modern Problems." Evidently the Jewish Observer had harsh words for the book in its review, and we can see what they are by Rabbi Jakobovits' reply.

He notes three points.

1. He is not responsible for the Forward by Dr. Leon Stitskin, which had obviously been criticized. His views and Dr. Stitskin's are obviously different.

2. The Jewish Observer had said that Jakobovits wrote that "there is no rabbinic authority opposing the [Manhattan] Eruv." I'm not too concerned about this reply.

3. This is the most interesting angle: the review had criticized the very fact of printing rabbinic responsa in English, because it presents a "grave danger" to the "ordinary reader." Rabbi Jakobovits makes several points, and also notes that in Israel where Hebrew is the vernacular, should the rabbis write their responsa in English or Latin?

Read his complete response, several other letters also criticizing this particular point, as well as defending Stitskin, and the editor, Rabbi Joseph Elias' response.

The format I'm posting it may be a little unwieldy, but it's very interesting and well worth reading.

Actually, just one more thing to point out: the following little box appears under Tziviah Donin's letter on the subject (yes, you read that name correctly):

A sign of the times.

The Civil War in Hebrew garb

2011-11-17T17:31:00.003-05:00

Here's an item about the Battle of Bull Run from Hamaggid Aug. 22, 1861. "חיל ממשלת הנגב המתפרצים" (link) seems like a mouthful.

A Mormon elder meets an av beit din

2011-11-17T11:33:00.005-05:00

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.

Unexpected experiences in Jewish Berlin, 1860.

2011-11-16T15:28:00.000-05:00

Ah, old newspapers.

This piece from Hamaggid (1860) describes a visit to Berlin. The writer describes how he went to shul (or shall I say, schule) Friday night and was most impressed by the beauty, the spirituality, the quality praying. It even had gas lamps! "Is this Berlin," he thought, "about which they say that most of our brethren nowadays lack faith and reverence for God?" He mostly praises the cantor, named Lichtenstein. And notes that there was a choir of children.

(There was an old joke about a yeshiva bochur who went to Paris, and the entire time he was in a Beis Midrash. After his trip he said, "I don't get what everyone's always going on about Paris [how immoral it is]/ What are they talking about? I learned Torah the entire time I was in Paris!)

The visitor goes on to describe the next morning, which featured an excellent baal kriah (Torah reader). Then he describes the sermon by the famous Michael Sachs, and boy was he impressed. He really, really like Sachs's sermon, which was a major feat of oratory, exhorting the masses to observe the sabbath meticulously. It was unlike the sermons of the Reformers, who stand before the Ark without reverence, like they are on stage in a theater, and they preach a new Torah, etc. Sachs ascended and descended the bimah reverently. He addressed everyone sweetly. He explained Tanach, Talmud, Midrash and the other holy books to his flock. He labored faithfully for the needs of his congregation, and at home one could find him studying Gemara, Rashi and Tosafos. He also had a great and precious personal library. Lucky is the congregation which chose someone like him!

Sigh . . . Dr. Michael Sachs.

Then he had a nasty surprise on Sunday. He was shown the new cemetary, which was renowned. He says that if not for the gravestones you'd have thought you were in a beautiful park. etc. etc.

Then he was shown the row reserved for rabbis and scholars and !!!!!!! he saw the grave of Dr. Samuel Holdheim, the Reform rabbi in Berlin, and he was also buried in the rabbi's row. His community had erectd a nice head stone, and one of the Russian maskilim wrote a poem, which was inscribed on it. At the top it said "Here lies, etc. "Gadol me-rabban Shemo . . ."

The traveler's reaction can best be described by the extra large type he used and the pregnant "!?" "Woe," he writes, "to the generation that saw this!"

Then he saw the hospital, but didn't get the chance to visit.

As you'd expect, there was a whole history to this. It wasn't happenstance that Holdheim wound up in the rabbi's row. In fact, the aforementioned Michael Sachs opposed it.

First, a note about Holdheim. He was one of the most radical reformers, so even people who were for some reforms felt he went much too far. For example, it was he who infamously moved Shabbat to Sunday. A word about a very, very famous quotation of his is in order. Everyone says that Holdheim said "The Talmud was right in its day and I am right in mine." Even a responsible, meticulous scholar like Jay M. Harris quotes this ("How Do We Know This? Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism," p. 167), albeit the correct version (in translation): "The Talmud speaks out of the religious consciousness of its age and for that time it was right; I speak out of the higher consciousness of my age and for this age I am right."

Now, there isn't much about the context that changes the meaning - yes, he meant what it sounds like - save for one important point. In context it is not nearly so arrogant as it sounds, since he did not mean to say that he alone, Samuel Holdheim, was right. What actually happened was that the reform rabbis at the 1844 conference in Braunschweif were giving their opinions, but they were all trying to ground them in the Talmud in some way. Holdheim believed that this approach was erroneous. He believed that the Talmud truly did not support Reform Judaism, but that was alright, because the Talmud is not binding. And the reform rabbis should have the courage to acknowledge it. So he said ". . . Dr. Herzfeld should not place before us so absolute and general a statement as: "The Talmud is right." Rather, he should say, "The Talmud speaks out of the religious consciousness of its age and for that time it was right; I speak out of the higher consciousness of my age and for this age I am right." (Translation by W. Gunther Plaut, and quoted by Michael Meyer.)

See the difference? He was not saying "The Talmud was right then, but I, Holdheim, am right now." He was saying "The Talmud was right then, but we are right now." It could of course be argued that it is still arrogant to say that a room full of a couple of dozen men were "right" when millions of other Jews would not agree, but to serve truth it is important to note that he did not place himself, alone, as the one person on earth who was right. (Maybe he did so in practice . . . )

So when Holdheim died, the members of his congregation wanted him buried in the rabbi's row in the aforementioned Berlin cemetery. Michael Sachs, the modern preacher (and Wissenschaft scholar) mentioned above - who was, incidentally, considered by the Frankfurt separatist Orthodox community who hired Hirsch instead - opposed it. However, the Chief Rabbi Jacob Oettinger (he of the "Zunz knows what Rashi smoked, I know what Rashi taught" quip - see here) decided that it was okay for Holdheim to be buried there. Which is interesting, I suppose. This Yiddish-speaking, 'last traditional rabbi' of Berlin didn't oppose it, but Michael Sachs, very much a modern rabbi - not even exactly a rabbi, actually - did. If you think about it, perhaps it's not so surprising. However, it certainly seems ironic on the surface.

See this post at the lamented Ishim Veshitos blog for Rabbi Oettinger's reported words: ""Holdheim is dead? Boruch dajin emmes--he was a great lamdan; whatever else he did and his turn of thought--for that he will now have to render account to God. Death blots out everything. I have nothing against his being buried in the row of the rabbis." (This translation is by Michael Meyer, from "Most of My Brethren Find Me Unacceptable": The Controversial Career of Rabbi Samuel Holdheim Jewish Social Studies - Volume 9, Number 3, Spring/Summer 2003 (New Series), pp. 1-19.)

Here is how Rabbi Oettinger appeared in 1860:

and here is Dr. Sachs:

And to remind, here was Shadal's mention of Holdheim in a note to Geiger, where he compared Rabbi S.R. Hirsch's use of German to Holdheim and Geiger himself:

Thinking about it, I wonder what Geiger thought about being equated with Holdheim - or Hirsch. From here.

How Jewish communities ought to view one another, according to R. Yehuda Azsod

2011-11-15T11:11:00.006-05:00

Here's a fantastic, interesting paragraph buried in a very lengthy responsum on the kashrut of the turkey and related birds. It is #92 in R. Yehuda Aszod's יהודה יעלה (link).

The issue concerns the apparent requirement of a mesorah, a tradition, of kashrut for any bird, despite the fact that this is not a Talmudic requirement (see Rema YD 82:3). Since the turkey is a New World bird, there could never have been a mesorah, and yet it is clear that the bird was accepted as kosher. By the 19th century the question was more about how or why it could be, rather than any serious attempt to rule that it isn't kosher. The question often focused on whether or not a community may rely on another community's tradition, and especially whether this is permissible when previously one's own community had not availed themselves of relying on another tradition. That being the case, maybe not eating the bird in question is itself a tradition, not to be discarded. (On this issue generally, see this article by Rabbi Ari Zivotofsky.)

In addition, the sources also reveal a certain confusion as to whether or not everyone is even speaking of the same bird, as well as what the actual place of origin of the bird is. It is no secret that the turkey was widely thought to originate in India, or somewhere else in the East. In this excerpt, addressed to R. David Deutsch, R. Aszod discusses the idea that perhaps we cannot accept a tradition from India, since it lacked great Torah scholars. He rejects this suggestion as worthless, because actually we don't know that they don't have Torah scholars. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. He gives the analogy of Eretz Yisrael which at present has 7000 Sephardi men residing there. There is no doubt, he writes, that they have many gedolim, ge'onim in Torah and the two Talmuds and the posekim. We simply have never heard of them, and we never read their writings. Similarly, in India there are many cities and villages with Jews, in the thousands, as we can see in Sefer Shevilei Olam by Rabbi Samson Bloch. We also see this in Maggid Chadashos (the essay on the Cochin Jews) by Rabbi Naftali Herz Wessely Zatza"l, in Hameassef 5550 (1790). Israel is not orphaned in any place they reside. Every large settlement has posekim, gedolim, zaddikim, and scholars, in all times, even if we have not heard of them. If it is permitted in a location, it is because their Bes Din established that their mesorah is valid, with proper procedures, and therefore it was permitted to them.

He then cites an unnamed German rabbi who states that in locations where itis known that there are no Bnei Torah, gedolim or posekim, then you cannot bring proof from their practice.

All of this pertains, by the way, not only to India, but also to England. He had conducted a correspondence with Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler of London about the kashrut of the English hen, and he was assured that in London they have a mesorah to eat it. He goes on to continue that this unnamed rabbi took London out of the equation, because it is and was a town full of Jewish sinners. He even quotes the Chasam Sofer to that effect, that even 80 years earlier, that was how London was to be characterized. R. Aszod dismisses that point, because at the time London had a great ga'aon for an Av Bet Din, namely Rabbi Tevele Schwar [sic; a printer or transcription error; I am pretty sure he means Tevele Schiff, who was the rebbe of R. Nathan Adler, the Chasam Sofer's own rebbe. On him, see here). This same rabbi exerted great efforts to make sure that things were conducted according to halacha.

We see important things here.

1. He expresses what I believe is the real traditional attitude toward other Jewish communities, that their status as kehila kedosha is real and undisputed (it derives from the presumed presence of scholars and pious people).

2. He quotes Samson Bloch and Wessely (from Hameasseph, no less) and he adds Zatza"l.

Rabbi Yehuda Aszod (1796-1866) wasn't some liberal, nor was he unaware of or disconnected from the struggles over Reform and other kinds of changes in the religion of the day.

Incidentally, the story around his portrait is pretty gruesome and outrageous. For pietistic reasons he refused to pose for a photograph. It is claimed that the following portrait was taken upon his death, when he was dressed, given a Gemara to hold, and his body arranged in the pose. However, it should at least be mentioned that reportedly the proceeds from the sales of this portrait were used to help marry off his daughters.

For more information, see the sources cited in Richard I. Cohen's Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe. and this great Seforim Blog post (link).

Getting back to the idea I was discussing, we may find a similar thing in the writings of the Chasam Sofer. An issue arose concerning whether or not a shaliach tzibbur should not wear wool, which developed as a Chasidic custom. The Yismach Moshe defended it, and also claimed that the Sephardim have such a custom, and it is Lurianic. The Chasam Sofer writes (OC 16) that he knows that of the Western Sephardim of Amsterdam, London and Hamburg, this is not true. What do we see from this? Even though the Western Sephardim were clean-shaven, even though they were mostly descended from Conversos, even though they didn't cover their heads all the time, even though they dressed like English or Dutch or German gentlemen, even though their rabbis were called Reverend Dr (at least in London) - they are the Sephardim, and their customs will tell us what the authentic Sephardic custom is, and that's how to establish the facts.

This, by the way, was the Haham of the London Sephardim at the time:

So what's up with 'Shamshon'?

2011-11-14T12:11:00.003-05:00

So what's the deal with the name "Shamshon," which somehow only seems to be applied to Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch?[1] Now, here is a case where that "drop of tradition is worth a ton of acumen," as Ludwig Blau reputedly would say. A living tradition would be best. Lacking that, let's apply some acumen.

It seems that "Shamshon" is simply how the name was pronounced in Lithuania, and indeed, Russia. For example, we find the historian Jacob Schamschon of Kovno:

One might surmise that the Lithuanian tendency to exchange /sh/ and /ss/ sounds was at work. (Most people know that Lithuanians did not pronounce the shin. Less well known is their tendency to change a sin to a shin. Sibboleth, indeed.) So "Shamshon" was simply the pronunciation of "Samson" in that particular Yiddish dialect. Do not be surprised at the idea of a "Yiddish" name being based on the Gentile version of the name (Zalman = Salomon). Here's a page from a subscription list from an 1818 edition of the Five Megillot:

And these are only some of the Moses. (Or is that Moseses?) The next page has 17 more.

An extremely useful book, published in Warsaw, 1908, makes it clear that this is the pronunciation in what it calls Russia (Rusland):

And note that it also transliterates it Schimschojn, the Polish (or shall we say Pojlish) pronunciation. (See יודישע שפריכווערטער און רעדענסארטען by Ignatz Bernstein and B. W. Segel)

So we've solved that element. If anyone wants to know why yeshivishe people say "Shamshon Refoel," it's because that's what the man was called in the heartland of where yeshiva culture developed.

But it's not as simple as that. Although I surmise that Rabbi Hirsch actually went by Samson - pronounced something like Zamzun, but with the "u" being more like a combination of the English "u" and "o" - there are also many sources indicating that "Schamschon" was a German pronunciation as well.

Before I get to these, let's go back to the beginning. Although the Masoretic text of the Bible spells it with a chirik, and thus "Shimshon," the vocalization in Tanakh is late. So although an ounce of tradition is worth a ton of acumen, and we are not to disregard this, the Septuagint is an earlier vocalized source, and it uses an alpha - Σαμψών, not Σιμψών. This is why the name is "Samson" in English and the various other tongues. Interestingly, with the rise of Protestantism and an interest in the Hebrew Bible, the alternate form Simson, based on the Masoretic text, entered the Christian consciousness. See, e.g., Luther's Bible, where he writes "Simson." I guess we have to thank Martin Luther for the Simpsons, whom otherwise might be the Samsons, or more likely, the Smiths.

In any case, there are a number of (Jewish) German sources which use "Schamschon." For example, this excerpt from an 1887 article in the Israelit refers to Rabbi Schamschon Ostropolle:

Lest it be argued that this was an attempt to give his name in "Jargon," as he was a 17th century Polish rabbi, here is an anecdote about the 17th century Viennese Court Jew Rabbi Samson Wertheimer, where he is called "Rabbi Schamschon Wien," evidently his 'traditional' name:

Thus, it seems to me that there was at least the perception that this was the traditional way in which German Jews pronounced the name, no less so than in Rusland. In reality, probably many German Jews pronounced it that way still in 1905, which is when the excerpt above appeared. Since it is a great anecdote, I will explain what it says.

Rabbi Samson Wertheimer employed a tutor for his family named David, who was an apt Talmudist. He later received a position in the rabbinate, on R. Samson's recommendation. Since he was just the tutor working for him, he couldn't bear to call him "Rabbi," but continued to call him David, as before. Once R. Samson was on a trip, and stayed in the community where David was. He visited him, and saw that Rabbi David was studying Mishnah Shabbat 3:12, where it says "If he wrote [two letters; the name] 'Shem' (shin-mem) of 'Shimon' or of 'Shemuel'." So he asked Rabbi David, why didn't Rabbi, the Redactor of the Mishnah (and in fact the direct source of this statement!) say "Shimon, Shmuel, or Shimshon"?

David answered, "The reasons seems to be that Rabbi did not say "Shimshon," because Shimshon did not say "Rabbi!"

Here is what "Reb Shamshon Wiener" looked like, by the way. From Wikipedia.

Hopefully we have proved our case, that "Shamshon" is simply what the Jews over a wide geographic area actually called their Shimshons.

Finally, I came across the following in a list of Jewish folk expressions, from 1898.

Schimschon in Ruh und Schamschon in der Wickel.

Something like "Shimshon in calm, and Shamshon in distress." Does anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean? If I had to guess, I would say that it is like a reference to correctness, Shimshon, and the vulgar jargon, Shamshon. When calm, he is a sedate gentleman, and he says Shimshon. Rile him up, and he reverts to the ghetto Jew, Shamshon.

[1] Of course, strictly speaking this is not true. There are many people today who are named for him, or named for those named for him, who also use the form "Shamshon."

Shadal series #6 - On facing the truths of history and autobiography

2011-11-11T01:00:00.004-05:00

Much attention has been given over the past 20 years to a phenomenon which, rightly or wrongly, has been linked to Artscroll, namely the question of sanitized, legendary or inaccurate biographies which are supportive of ideology (or inspirational).

It will probably come as not too much of a surprise that Shadal, whose 146th yahrzeit was this past Yom Kippur, already had much to say on the subject, and it was the very opposite of the supposed Artscroll approach.

Some background: Shadal wrote a lot of autobiographical material. This was motivated by his belief that ideally every human being - great or small, good or evil - should write an autobiography, provided that it is truthful. As one who derived great pleasure from the smatterings of biographical material scattered over all of Jewish literature, he lamented the fact that we will never know the inner life of great (and regular) people, and we will never know how they developed. The only cure for this is not to make the same mistake, and so we should truthfully record our own history and our own development.

That was written in 1858. In 1862 he wrote the following:

Thus he did not neglect his own duty, and wrote a great deal of his own autobiography, in several versions, with a special emphasis on his first 20 years. Predictably many readers were puzzled by certain trivial things he mentioned, e.g., he writes about how he remembers one night that the family's cat gave birth to a litter on his bed, so rather than disturb it he sat up all night translating a poem by Mestasio, which can be found on pg. 84 of his Kinnor Na'im. But for Shadal this was the point. Obviously it would be impossible to truly write of everything one ever did, every thought one ever had. But the point of autobiography could not be to write with the reader in mind. That would compromise truthfulness and, frankly, lead a person to self-censor so as not to be embarrassed.

I'll save the history of his autobiographies for the footnote,[1] but suffice it to say that here is a quote from the one he wrote in Italian, right at the end:

"La mia fiducia fu anche per qualche temp alimentata da un accidente da nulla accadutomi nel 3 Ottobre (la notte di Kippur), del 1816, e da me, dietro il Talmud (in fine di Joma) superstiziosamente interpretato qual pegno della celeste protezione. Anche questo avvenimento fu da me nell'Ottobre del 1817 celebrato in un- Ode di ringraziamento a Dio."

"My confidence was fueled by an accident which happened to me on October 3, 1816 (the night of Yom Kippur), which I superstitiously interpreted as a pledge of heavenly protection, following the Talmud in Yoma. This event was celebrated by me in October of 1817 in an ode of thanks to God."

At which point most people are probably thinking, Huh?

Whether we will want to say that Shadal was being completely truthful in Italian, or not, can be debated. But he certainly was being truthful in the version of his autobiography published as a serial in Hamaggid where we find the following (Hamaggid, Year 6, #16, April 23, 1862, pg. 125):

Which is probably not what you were expecting. What he says is that on the night of Yom Kippur 5577 (1816) he experienced a nocturnal emission. Since it is written in the Shulchan Aruch (OH 615b) that a person who has such an emission on Yom Kippur should worry the whole year that he will die, but if the year passes it is a good sign that he is destined for Olam Habah (which follows Yoma 86a), then that is just what 15-year old Shadal did. He marked off the year, until it had passed, and then he wrote a song of thanks to God. These "memories," incidentally, are actually based on entries from his diary from that era.

Contrast this with Moshe Leib Lilienblum's description of the same event in his youth, which caused him absolute terror. Lilienblum's own autobiography, which he says was in part inspired by Luzzatto's (although he says that Shadal's is as dry as corn) ,was called חטאת נעורים, the 'Sins of Youth.' Lilienblum quotes Shadal as saying that he much prefers autobiographies to novels, and non-fiction to fiction, while Lilienblum says that he gained nothing from biographies, but gained much from novels. However, Lilienblum agrees that a good biography caould be much more inspirational than the best novel.

His book is a record of his life beginning as a standard, traditional Jewish boy, a proficient Talmud student, and an early marriage, to his time as a young rosh yeshiva, and then his transformation to a persecuted heretic.

A theme in the book is that he did not want to become a heretic. Whenever he had doubts, he looked for some Talmudic source to lean on. If he couldn't find one, he would force himself to believe, even though as of the writing he recognizes that you can't force yourself to be a believer.

He writes that his "stupid" uncle told him two real gems:

1. you shouldn't sleep on the night of Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur. Rosh Hashanah, in case you will have a nightmare, which is an ominous omen for the coming year.

2. Yom Kippur, in case you will have a nocturnal emission, as mentioned.

He says that he was never concerned about bad dreams, but the Yom Kippur issue terrified him. In 1861 (so he was then 17) he had a particularly spiritual Rosh Hashanah. He managed to concentrate on God wherever he went, in accordance with the expression "שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד." He maintained this state of spiritual ecstasy for the two days of Rosh Hashanah and Shabbos Shuva - three days in a row, like this past year - but on the fourth day he began to have doubts about God. He says that his doubts were not rational. If they had been rational, then he could have addressed it rationally. But he believed that it came about because of his intense concentration on God, and he was tormented by an inner voice saying "Who knows if there is a God?" He tried desperately to rid himself of his thoughts, to no avail. Then:

אחרי תפלת "כל-נדרי" התודיתי את הוידוי הגדול, קראתי את הארבע פרשיות הראשונות של תהלים, כדרכי תמיד, שהן סגולה למקרה לא טהור – ועליתי על משכבי לישון. באמצע שנתי נתעוררתי בחזקה, וימת לבי בקרבי... ראיתי... כי חייב אני לדאוג כל השנה

.אל תשחק, קורא משכיל, שמא תלבין פני ברבים

After Kol Nidre he said Viduy and the four chapters of Tehillim considered a segulah against a nocturnal emission, and then he went to sleep. He awoke, and his heart sank because of what he saw. He'd have to worry all year . . . "Don't laugh at me," he warns the reader. He continues that he was terrified and haunted. For the next 30 days he recited a certain litany of prayers meant to counteract the evil effects of what he experienced. Evidently this mentally exhausted him. He says he throw himself back into Shas and Poskim.

Getting back to Shadal, was that TMI, perhaps? Apparently it was for some. In a letter to Eliezer Lipmann Silbermann, the editor of Hamaggid, Shadal writes about these

[negative responses aren't] directed toward me; they are toward my Autobiography, because they are of the view that I expound on minor and irrelevent things. I know that many readers feel this way. However, I will not change from my way, and if the reader won't be receptive, I won't respond. But to tell my autobiography without referring to small matters, and minor things that are in my memory, what I did and what I thought in my childhood - God forbid that I would not - for my purpose is to reveal the truth, and now that I am engaged in that enterprise, should I not fulfil it? All my days I have been disturbed by the sparse records of our earlier and more recent ones, which we only know through spotty references and legends. So should I not do what depends completely on me? How much good has been lost through fear of the scoffers! In my old age I shall not neglect this important duty. Is there anything more unappealing than a nocturnal emission? But see the recent edition of Kochebe Yizchak, where I published my hymn of thanksgiving that I wrote 46 years ago. I was not ashamed to see it in print. I was glad to see what my contemporaries have to say about it. Maybe now, people will be forthcoming. I'm also glad that now that I have written about it, there is a context for that hymn which I published, which otherwise would be lost on readers. (Igg. Shadal Vol. II pg. 1388 - 89).

Now that is laying down the law.

There's also a letter, date Feb. 2, 1842, where Shadal writes Shir (=S.J. Rapoport) about a letter he had written which contained some personal information. He had wanted it printed (in Kerem Chemed, presumably) but Shir thought it was private and should not be printed for the public. So here is what Shadal writes back to him:

I'm surprised that a scholar of your caliber, engaged in careful researches into antiquities, how could you rob the historians of 800 years from now of such gems as these [that I wrote in the letter]? Wouldn't you yourself rejoice if you found a letter like it from the ancients? - even an insignificant one like myself (if it were possible for a rishon to be minor, like an acharon) although us Jews know that "there is no generation which doesn't have one like an Abraham, a Jacob, a Moses, or a Samuel" (Midrash Samuel 9).

There are many other interesting things in his autobiograph(ies) and here are a couple: Although he makes it clear that he was quite the child prodigy, he nevertheless offers plenty of material showing his childish mistakes and immature ideas. (In fact, his childhood seems to have been a curious blend of, well, childhood, and deep immersion in books and ideas that one generally would think are too big for a child's britches.) For example, he writes that when he was 8 years old he was convinced that he would write commentaries on the Bible that were as good as Rashi's. Apparently he boasted of his own innovative Bible comments to his classmates, who asked for samples. So he proudly told them that he had solved the mystery of which land is "the land of Uz" (Job 1:1). It was Bet El! For we find in Gen. 35:6 as well as Joshua and Judges, that Uz is the former name of Bet El: "So Jacob came to Uz, which is in the land of Canaan--the same is Beth-el--he and all the people that were with him." To his chagrin, he later realized that the verse actually reads "So Jacob came to Lutz," not "Uz!"

As I said, there were two-three versions of the autobiography. The Italian one (which was translated to English, German and Hebrew) contains his family's history. Here is an interesting sample from that. Shadal, whose great-grandfather was R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto's brother, was quite poor. His father was employed as a wood-turner, and the son attests that his father was quite skilled -indeed his chair and writing desk were built by his father - but he never made an adequate living. Although the son does not say that this is the reason, he describes his father as spending every spare minute learning, and one sometimes gets the sense that he didn't vigorously pursue work at all so that he could learn. On the other hand, Shadal dramatically describes how his father did plan for him to have a career, first ensuring that he learned Latin so that he could become a physician, then apprenticing him in wood-turning. When it became clear that the boy had no intentions of doing any of these things, no intentions of doing anything besides learning, writing and teaching (although no one knew that yet) his father wrote him a dramatic document basically saying that he fulfilled his duty as a father to teach his son a trade and now it's on his son's head. In any case, the Luzzattos were a famous Italian Jewish family - and a wealthy one. Or had been. Why was his branch poor?

Shadal writes that there had been money in the family, but his grandfather was disinherited over the following incident, which occurred in Venice in 1737: his grandfather Benetto (Baruch; b. 1713) was as yet unmarried, and he spotted a woman reciting Psalms, very exactly and impressively. He was smitten. He said, If I found a woman who could read Psalms like that, I would marry her! The woman politely declined - because she was already married, but said that her sister wasn't married, and she could zug tehillim with the best of them (better than herself, is how Shadal tells it). And that's the woman he married. Rachel, the daughter of the deceased Rabbi Anselmo Isaac Grego, came with a dowry of 1100 ducats, but it never materialized. Because of this his mother did not approve of this match and threatened to disinherit him if he married her. He did anyway, and she did, and the rest was history. Shadal says that the portion he lost was 2000 ducats, and this plunged him into poverty. He says that his grandfather worked as a teacher and a dealer of cloth, iron and wood, and his grandmother spun silk, and that is how they honorably eked out a living.

A second, minor point of interest is that Shadal refers to a Hebrew translation of the poem La Liberta a Nice by Metastasio made by a relative of his, which contained the following superscription: העתקתיה במצות המשורר הקיסרי כ"מר ממסטזיאו. Thus it was commissioned by Metastasio himself. He says this is "la prima volta che io trovo il titolo כ"מר, cioe: l'Onorand Ecc. Rabbi כבוד מעלת רבי applicato a un non ebreo," "the first time I saw the title "כבוד מעלת רבי" applied to a non-Jew." Thus, we see another example of a non-Jew with "rabbinic ordination." (See here.)

Since we began by speaking of Yom Kippur, the day of Shadal's yahrzeit, the anniversary of a . . . memorable moment in his life, it makes sense to mention that when he was 15 he wrote his own version of the Seder Avodah for Yom Kippur, which he included in his poetic collection Kinnor Na'im (Vienna 1825). Here it is:

Shadal - Kinnor Naim 1825

[1] Regarding his autobiography, the first published version appeared in Isidor Busch's German periodical in the late 1840s, and it covered his family history and his youth up to age 18 (which he considered a distinct period in his life). Busch had asked him for a contribution, suggesting an autobiography. Shadal's introduction explains and justifies why it is that he, who is of little account, should comply. He quotes Massekhet Shabbat 118a "יודע אני בעצמי שאיני כהן אם אומרים לי חבירי עלה לדוכן אני עולה," "I know that I am not a kohen; but if they say to me 'Ascend to the platform,' I will ascend." It was written in Italian, and Busch or someone else translated it to German. Part of this appeared in English translation in the pages of the Jewish Chronicle, and then again in the M.H. Bresslau's Hebrew Magazine in 1859. A Hebrew version, actually written earlier than the Italian one, appeared in a Hebrew book of letters, מכתבי שפת קודש in 1857. Finally, a much fuller Hebrew autobiography was serialized in Hamaggid from 1858 to 1860 and then 1862 to 1863. The complete Italian autobiography was serialized in the periodical Mose in 1880, and was eventually published as a single volume called Autobiografia. This version was also translated to German, to English (by Sabato Morais) and finally, to Hebrew, by M.A. Shulvass and published in Yeshiva University's Talpiot, and then printed as a separate volume called Pirke Chaim. All these versions agree on particulars, but they all include information or details that the others omitted, so all should be read.

On the Main Line themes

2011-11-10T12:59:00.002-05:00

I'm working on a list of what this blog is really about. Here are some.

1) The details are fiendishly interesting.

2) Accept the truth from whatever the source is the better approach.

3) Everything you've thought of was already hashed out more than 100 years ago.

4) It's fun to give the microscope treatment to the Christian Hebraists/ ethnographers who did that to the Jews.

5) Fancy wig curls and beards go together very nicely, thank you very much.

Kadish, or shall we say, Kadosh

2011-11-10T12:41:00.002-05:00

Here's the Kaddish as it appears in the siddurim of the West London Synagogue, Britain's first Reform synagogue, established in 1840.

The text was translated by its rabbi, David Woolf Marks. The purported reason for the Hebrew version of such a famous Aramaic text is that it was meant to imply a sort of anti-Talmudic statement. Note that this is not the first edition of this text; the first edition contained some grammatical mistakes, such as יתגדל ויתקדש שם הגדול for יתגדל ויתקדש שמו הגדול, which were eventually corrected to what you see here.

How to save an On the Main Line post

2011-11-09T09:09:00.003-05:00

More than one person has asked me how to save or print a post without all that extra stuff on the side. The best solution I found was to begin by using the mobile version of the blog.

How do I use the mobile version, you ask? By adding /?m=1 to the url, so instead of http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/ you would use http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/?m=1.

You would now have a cleaner version of the blog without most the extras.

You could print up a post directly that way, or save it as you would any page, or convert it to a pdf. Some browsers make it easy to save a page as a pdf. But there is another option. There are several free services which will convert a web page, such as http://pdfmyurl.com/. The instructions are simple; it is probably just best to use the mobile url of any given post which, recall, is the same as the normal post, only adding /?m=1 to the end.

This of course works for any blog. Mobile url = cleaned up version of the page.

Sliding to the Right in Denmark in 1909.

2011-11-09T00:35:00.001-05:00

Here is a fiendishly interesting article printed in The Reform Advocate (Oct. 9, 1909). This was translated from the German original in the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums.

This 'chapter treating of the history of modern orthodoxy' discusses the many contradictions the German (reform) writer perceived in the Orthodoxy of Copenhagen, combining the fasts of בה"ב with the singing of poems in Danish; confirmations of boys and girls, with 6 hours of kinnos on Tisha B'av; with the dropping of piyuttim and yekum purkan with the banning of umbrellas on the sabbath. Basically, everything which had been flashpoints in Germany seemed to have had no effect at all in Denmark. On the other hand, the writer perceived the encroachment of German-style orthodoxy. First kosher butter - who knows what will come next!

Lucky fishes?

2011-11-08T13:18:00.001-05:00

From here.

A portrait of the Orientalist as a bar mitzvah boy

2011-11-08T12:46:00.003-05:00

Here is the bar mitzvah portrait of Ignaz Goldziher (1850-1921).

And as a young bachur (1870):

For more on him, see this post.

More on the 'Sephardi Signature'

2011-11-07T11:35:00.002-05:00

I have a few candidates for Subjects That I Can and Probably Will Post About a Dozen Times. This must certainly be one of them.

Here is an interesting exchange of letters in the April 1888 Jewish Standard:

This elicited a reply from S. M. Schiller-Szinessy, a bona fide character if there ever was one.

And then a week later he added:

Here are at least four earlier posts which touched on the subject (I, II, III and IV).

Three students

2011-11-03T11:53:00.000-04:00

In Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg's Seride Esh Vol. IV, in the back, there is an essay on mussar. Writing about R. Yisrael Salanter, he says that he had three primary students, each possessing a unique quality.

R. Itzele Peterberger was the lamdan (scholar), R. Naftali Amsterdam was the chassid (pietist) and R. Simcha Zissel Ziv was a chacham (wise).

Obviously this is not R. Weinberg's own formulation, but probably what "they" used to say.

As soon as I read this I remembered an earlier, very similar list. After Israel Baer Kursheedt (1766-1852) died, R. Morris Raphall wrote his obituary in the Asmonean (May 7, 1852). Noting that in Frankfurt he studied under the

"Chief Rabbi, Nathan Adler, the uncle and namesake of the president Chief Rabbi of London. Among his fellow students two were particularly distinguished and attained considerable eminence - R' Abraham Bing, subsequently the Chief Rabbi at Wurzburg in Bavaria, and the celebrated translator and commentator of the Machsor, R' Wolf Heidenheim at Rodelheim. With these two great men, I. B. K. was held in equal estimation by their gifted teacher, who used to say that R' Abraham was a churiph (acute logician), R' Wolf was a medackdeck (grammarian and philologist), bur R' Israel was a chochem, a wise man, because his attainments were universal."

I, of course, preserved the original spelling. I normally would like to post an image of the actual page, being a lover of typography and all, but in this case I only have a badly photocopied page, which was subsequently sent as a fax, and then scanned into a pdf. My thanks to Dr. Yitzchok Levine who sent it to, and indeed, wrote a fine article on Kursheedt (link and here).

Note two things: (1) R. Nosson Adler was not the Chief Rabbi of Frankfurt at all. (2) Guess which student of R. Nosson Adler is not mentioned?

I don't know what Raphall's source is. On the one hand it would be hard to believe that Kursheedt told him that himself. On the other hand, you never know. On the third (and hopefully final) hand, the source could well have been a story floating around, just the same as R. Weinberg's reference to R. Yisrael Salanter's students. I will even permit myself to conjecture that it is even possible that in other versions of the story it is indeed the Chasam Sofer who is the chochem, but that never made it across the Atlantic, and when it did it was transformed to fit America's own rabbinic scholar, Israel Baer Kursheedt. There is another possibility, which is that the idea of the Chasam Sofer as being considered R. Nosson's most prominent pupil may not actually date to the time when he was his pupil.

Here is his portrait:

And here is a Kevarim.com post about his burial location in Queens (link). Evidently people come to oren at his kever: