R. Moshe ben Yitzchak Edri, Sambatyon1 scholar, on the most appropriate languages to translate Hebrew into

Rabbi Moses Edrehi (1774-1842) was born in Morocco and spent several years traveling and living in Europe while, apparently, on the way to settling in the the land of Israel. He wrote several Hebrew works (Yad Moshe, Toras Chaim and Ma'aseh Nisim). Apparently he became quite popular in England, being a very interesting character. The last named work of his, having been printed in Amsterdam in 1817, was translated² into English and published in London in 1834 as "The Book of Miracles; Being an Important Account of the River Sambatyon in the East." The book was a pet project about a very important issue to him, namely the whereabouts of the Lost Ten Tribes. Bibliophiles will note and appreciate his stated use of the library of Salomon Dubno in Amsterdam.



The book, which was printed with the money raised from subscriptions, begins with several approbations (called "certificates") from non-Jewish and Jewish acquaintances attesting to Edrehi's good character and the interesting content of the work. Below is one from the Spanish-Portugese Chief Rabbi Haham Rafael Meldola (who died in 1828, two years after writing this, which shows how long it took for the book to actually be published).



As indicated, he was a resident of London for years, and became quite well known, to the extent that he and his peculiar manner of speech (a mixture of English, Hebrew, Aramaic, French, Spanish, German [Yiddish?] and Arabic) was parodied in a play-like format printed in the Noctes Ambrosianæ section of the periodical Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine from 1829. Here's a sample:





Wow!

As I said, he was quite popular and his accounts of the Ten Tribes and the river Sambatyon made a great splash among an interested public, much to the exasperation of more rationalist elements. A footnote in a book about fairy tales from 1833:



(The author of this book was an acquaintance; he cites Edrehi for providing a translation for him.)

Or this:



There you have it. An"extremely orthodox river." This in an English translation of Tseʾenah U-reʾenah, no less!

The book is well worth reading, it is very, very interesting. A 2nd edition was printed in America in 1853, and you can download that version here. At the end is appended his ethical will to his children. It contains the usual exhortations to study Torah, give tzedakah and ma'aser and a command to raise funds for the establishment and maintenance of a yeshiva (not in the modern sense, of course; his vision is for a steady group of at least ten).

One senses that this version, in English, is truncated from the original Hebrew (which I have not seen) because he then goes on to explain what he thinks about translation from Hebrew:

All I have here stated to you is confirmed from
the Holy Text, and various sacred writings; and I
could add much more, but I cannot transfuse the
force and beauty of the original Hebrew into an
English translation. Indeed the sacred tongue can
only be translated, with propriety, into the Spanish
language, which has been used in all the congregations
of the Sphardim from the time of their first
establishment in Spain to the present day, in all
parts of the globe, wherever the Spanish and Portuguese
Jews have been scattered, in Europe, Asia,
Africa, and America. This language is used by
them in all kinds of ceremonies ; and the best Hebrew
authors have written and published in the Spanish
language.

The principal languages into which the Hebrew
can be properly translated are : 1st, Arabic ; 2d,
Spanish; 3d, Italian; 4th, High German; 5th, French.
It is true that Hebrew admits of being rendered into
other languages, so as to have its meaning explained;
but not in so correct a manner as in those languages
I have enumerated. But this is a digression from my
subject, though I thought it necessary to allude to this
matter in case of any criticism upon my translation of
Hebrew into English.

Now that is quirky.

You can read a very positive review of the work here. For more information about him, some of which is quite sad and some of which is highly unfortunate, see here. Apparently after many years of misfortune he achieved his goal and arrived in the Holy Land in 1841.

¹ The Sambatyon is a legendary river of rabbinic literature, which is cannot be crossed six days a week due to raging currents which spit up boulders. However, the waters are still every Satruday. Beyond the river Sambatyon live the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel! The connundrum is apparent: neither they nor other Jews (all of whom were assumed to be Sabbath-observant) can cross on Saturday, the only day it would be possible. In legend, the Ten Tribes live a kind of idyllic existence, much like the dreamed-of Messianic future. If you're childhood yeshiva education was like mine, you were taught that such a place definitely exists. The problem is, if you violated Shabbat and crossed it, you'd promptly be tried and stoned.

Josephus has a parallel to the Sabbath River, basing himself on Pliny the Elder, only his is dry six days a week and fills and flows every Shabbat.

In Edrehi's book, he notes that he personally has seen sand timers made of gravel from the Sambatyon--and it doesn't move and it doesn't work on Shabbat!

Last year there was a widely reported hoax about the discovery of a never-encountered Amazon tribe. This blog referred to it as a positive sign regarding the Sambatyon, being that previously unknown corners of the earth are still being discovered (via). That may be, but this lost tribe in the Amazon wasn't really undiscovered.

It is interesting to note that in the late 1830s a group of four young whippersnapper maskilim of Lemberg published two volumes of attacks, called Ha-roeh [The Spectator and Critic of Contemporary Works], on the scholarship and religious commitment of the heavyweights of their time (eg, Shir Rapoport, Samuel David Luzzatto, etc.). Among the charges leveled at a scholar (none of the aforementioned) was that he denied the existence of the Sambatyon, contra the Talmud!

While this might sound amazing today, and it might also seem amazing that R. Moshe Edrehi garnered such an interested audience, it should be borne in mind that in the first part of the 19th century the world was not a global village, and Europe had begun making forays into the unexplored corners of the Asia and Africa (we'll not discuss the horror they brought in their wake). Quite literally every week new and amazing things were brought to the attention of the European literary world. New peoples, new customs, new artifacts. Humankind's secrets were being revealed to the West. In volume II of Iggerot Shadal there is a letter from Luzzatto to Abba Isak, an elder Ethiopian Jew, with a list of twelve questions about their heritage and beliefs. It was written in 1849 and is reminiscent of such famous epistles as Shemuel ha-naggid's to Joseph, king of the Khazar Jews. Not quite the way one relates to the remoteness of the world today. Thus, it hardly would have seemed unlikely to many that there really is a Sambatyon.

² It remains unclear to me if he himself translated it. At the very least, he must have had someone review and edit his text, if the translation was his own.

?ספק דרבנן לחומרה

What's even more interesting is that on the same web site (but presumably from a prior year), it says:

Quinoa is not one of the five grains that can create chametz (wheat, oat, barley, spelt and rye). Nonetheless, there is a difference of opinion among Rabbinic decisors (machloketh haposkim) as to whether quinoa is considered kitniyoth (Ashkenazic custom is not to eat kitniyoth on Pesach). We suggest asking your local Orthodox Rabbi if it is or is not kitniyot. here

On the one hand I'd want to tell the OU that the public is watching and knows what you're doing, but on the other hand, I don't know what they're doing.

On the Main Line reader who subscribes to the Jewish Chronicle?

If this is you, please email me. My address is at the sidebar, below the picture of Mississippi Fred.

Thanks.

The history books of R. Berel Wein, I: lack of appreciation for predecessors

A while back I promised a post about the popular Jewish history books of R. Berel Wein. First of all, let me make clear that whether he is a "historian" or not is immaterial. I say this because I have seen him dismissed because he is an amateur history buff. Well, so am I.

It's hard to know where to begin, so let's just begin in the middle of things. One bone I have to pick is R. Wein's very negative attitude toward his predecessors who essentially created the field of Jewish history. Three or four or ten chronicles over a millenium are not why R. Berel Wein has an abundance of historical materials and libraries full of journals and books to learn about the Jewish past. It is because of the determination of scholars, Jewish and non-Jewish, to uncover the Jewish past using modern research methods.

I will get back to that point, and show specifically how he shows no appreciation for the pioneering work of those who came before him, but in the meantime, I want to mention that his books constantly cite "neutral" scholarly historical works about the time periods he discusses. The scholars who wrote those books and studies use the same modern research and the same critical methodology as the Jewish scholars whom he disapproves of. Furthermore, although he is very dismissive of the early generations of Jewish historians and scholars who created and worked in Wissenschaft des Judentums, many of their successors of the second and third generation after the pioneers are cited by him as authoritative sources. I'm not sure why the work of Abraham Berliner, H.J. Zimmels, Cecil Roth, Irving Agus and Jacob Katz are reliable, but not Zunz and others. Yes, I am aware of the flaws and biases that could be found in the early works, but the later work also contains them, and rely on the earlier ones, and most importantly, use the same methods and consider them valid. 150 years removed from the Zeitschrifts it might be easy to pretend that they are not a layer in the foundation of which he works, but they are there.

One sort of criticism I find that R. Wein engages in is against the skepticism regarding legends that were assumed to be true in traditional sources. Thus, in Herald of Destiny (covering the years 750 to 1650), pg. 26, we encounter the legend--yes, he calls it "Jewish legend"--that Spanish kings were allies of Nebuchadnezzer who actually participated in the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple. "Spain's influence was known in ancient Israel as well," he writes. In n. 1 we find the following:

The legend is first recorded in Shevet Yehudah, a historical work written by Shlomo ibn Verga at the turn of the 16th century. Modern secular scholars, as is their wont, disregard the account as fiction.

Now, the problem with the legend is that--according to Wein--it first appears in writing 500 years ago. This, in a discussion of events of two thousand years earlier. "As is their wont"? Is it disrespectful to view a report from 1500 CE regarding the political situation in 500 BCE as simply not admissable as a historical source? Incredible.

Incredible, I say, because R. Wein reserves the right to be skeptical and dismiss things which were traditionally believed to be historical as legendary. See pg. 64 n.11:

There is no basis, except for the love of Rashi shared by all of Israel, and their wish somehow to be identified with him, for the legend that Rashi visited all the major communities of the Jewish world. Neither is there any basis to the legend that Rashi met Rambam in Egypt. Rashi died in 1105 and the Rambam was born in 1135.

Okay, the last bit is just impossible, but what of the first part?

Getting back to the legend (Spain fighting in Jerusalem), on the very next page (pg. 27 n. 2) there is a footnote which clarifies that the biblical Hebrew place 'Sepharad' is 'Spain' according to Rashi following Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, "However, many Biblical commentators describe Tzorfas and Sepharad as names of Phoenician or Elamite cities. Nevertheless, in the early Middle Ages, and from then onward, the words came to mean France and Spain exclusively."

Thus, we see just how tenuous a legend this is, yet "Spain's influence was known in ancient Israel" and the skepticism of "modern secular scholars" about the historicity of a legend appearing 2000 years after the fact is sneer-worthy?

More posts to follow, including praise of R. Wein's work that I feel is due him.

Additions to the Chefetz-Gentili post

here.

I found a mention of him, while he was still alive, in an Italian literary journal from 1710:



As you can see, here it is explained that the title of his work, מלאכת מחשבת, is also an acronym for משה חפץ שוכן בן-עיר טריסטי.

In addition, I found an earlier assertion that he was 100 years old when he published this work (the other post mentioned an Italian book from 1819). In Giovanni Bernardo de Rossi's great ripoff of the שם הגדולים* Dizionario storico degli autori ebrei e delle loro opere (published in 1800) one finds the following on pg. 86:

"morì nel 1713 in età di 103 anni," which means that he passed away in 1713 at 103 years of age. de Rossi did not explain his source for this piece of information, but it evidently is the title page. What makes this even more amazing is that the very entry preceding the one for our subject is a short entry for his son who died in 1700 aged 17. If his father did die thirteen years later at 103, that would mean that his son was born to him when he was 73 years old. Not impossible, but not likely!

* While sort of true, I jest. The work cites שם הגדולים (pt ii) and ועד לחכמים consistently. But the fact remains that a great deal of the information in the book is just the שם הגדולים put into Italian (although it uses other sources, and de Rossi's own research). Incidentally, this same work mentions the Chida as being aged and still living in Livorno (this from the entry on his great-grandfather).

Cecil Roth's eltere zeide -in-law*; London's Ba'al Shem.

One of the interesting characters of British Jewish history is the person of the so-called Ba'al Shem of London; alchemist, kabbalist, alleged Sabbatean, miracle-worker, healer, eccentric.

As I posted here, his portrait is very often confused with that of the Ba'al Shem Tov.



Here is a very interesting anecdote concerning his portrait, from Irene Roth's loving biography and tribute to her husband, "Cecil Roth, Historian Without Tears." Irene was a descendant of this Ba'al Shem of London:





As you can see, the original painting hung in the Roth home! His wife, surnamed Collins, was actually descended from Hirsch Kalisch - the Ba'al Shem's secretary. (The name "Collins" was Anglicized from Kalisch.) According to Collins family lore, their ancestor's son married the Ba'al Shem's daughter. Thus, Irene Roth was not only a descendent of Hirsch Kalisch, but also his father-in-law, the Ba'al Shem himself!

It is well known that this Ba'al Shem (recently blogged about by Menachem) was a special target of R. Ya'akov Emden for his Sabbatean leanings. He is also mentioned in a very interesting excerpt from the Chida's travelog:




For those who don't understand Hebrew well, the upshot is that while traveling in France, the Chida (R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai) was visited by a Marquis and a Marquise, who asked him to pray for her. She also told him that she is learned in Scripture and can conjure up angels. However, if the angels and apparitions are from the dark side, she spurns them! She donated a Louis coin for the cause of Hebron Jewry (which the Chida was collecting for). Then she mentioned the Ba'al Shem of London and that someone had given her a kabbalah book, and many things about the subject! ("Amazing!" is the Chida's reaction.) She also claimed to have saved many Jews of Avignon from the Inquisition, has noble lineage, etc. etc. All this nonsense that she and many non-Jews were speaking of is all due to this so-called Ba'al Shem, who in his arrogance is revealing 'practical' kabbalah and incantations to nobles, for his own aggrandizement. Many asked him about it, and he replied. (It would be nice to know what.)

"The next morning I went to the Bibliotheque..." (22 years previously the Chida had been the first Jew permitted to visit the Hebraica collection of a great European library, in this case, the Bibliotheque Nationale de France. Here he describes what he looked at in a new visit.)

In any case, in European society he was known as Dr. Falk, or Falkon. There is a well-known reference to him in a French-language study of contemporary England, here as "A picture of England," (1789, 2 vols.) translated by Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz:



Incidentally, the reason why he is called "Cain Chenul Falk," in this passage (his name was Chaim Shmuel) must be because for some reason there was an /m/ /n/ confusion, a common enough and explainable error. Perhaps the reason here is because the French author had only heard the name spoken. The /Ch/ in "Chenul," is simply the French for /sh/. Thus, the name is "Cain Shemul Falk," in English spelling.

Finally, here is a rather, uh, illuminating foray into Falk's subconscious from Michael Oron's paper on Falk:




*"Eltere-Zide" = Great-grandfather.

It wasn't only the printers in Warsaw that saw R. Moshe Hefez Gentili as a 100 year old author

I came across the following description of Hebrew writers in Italy from a review of Della illustrazione delle lingue antiche by Cesare Lucchesini, 1819, in an 1828 edition of The Monthly Review. I was pleased to see the depiction of the Chida as "the principal Jewish writer of Italy."



What really jumped out at me was this: "the Philological Commentary on the Pentateuch, by Moses Chefetz, of Trieste, who began printing it when he was a hundred years of age..."





(Incidentally, I found a mention of him in an Italian literary journal from 1710 -- here -- it just isn't available for viewing yet.)

This romantic image, of a centenarian author publishing his magnum opus, is not true, of course, but there is a rather interesting reason for it. To find out the reason one should read Dan Rabinowitz's article Yarmulke: A Historic Cover-up?, Hakirah v.4, pp. 221-237, or just continue reading:

The frontispiece of [R. Moshe Hefez Gentili (1663–1711)]'s commentary on the Torah, Melekhet Mahashevet, displayed a portrait of the author . . . (fig 1). Beneath the portrait appeared a legend reading, “Here is Moshe Hefez’s portrait during the year e”t ben m”ea shana.” Translated literally, the final phrase means, “at the time one hundred years old.” With a quick glance at the portrait, one can easily deduce that R. Gentili is not one hundred years old. Rather, the oversized letters and the accompanying quotation marks indicated that the letters’ numerical value should be used and not their literal translation. Based on this, the legend reads, “Here is Moshe Hefez’s portrait during the year [5]470 (1710), forty-six years old.” When the work was published in Venice in 1710, R. Gentili was forty-six years old. While the date of the publication is not readily apparent from the portrait, the author’s lack of a yarmulke is.

In the second edition of the work, a slightly altered portrait of R. Gentili appeared on the frontispiece (fig. 2). This edition, published in Koeningsberg in 1860, boasted a picture of R. Gentili wearing a large yarmulke. The new portrait also displayed an aged R. Gentili, which conforms to a literal reading of the phrase et ben mea shana, at the time one hundred years old. In the second edition, the letters of the legend indicating the year were not enlarged. Remarkably, the printers published a disclaimer in the back of this edition in which they stated that one should not be upset with them for publishing an obviously incorrect legend “this portrait was done at my one hundredth year” as the printers explain, “we have not changed a thing, this is the way the portrait appeared in the original edition.” Since the printers misunderstood the legend of the original portrait, they were forced to age Rabbi Gentili and then print a disclaimer professing their fidelity.

Fig 1



Fig 2

Jewish Arabic texts with Hebrew pointing

This is a really interesting image, because I say so.

Actually, it's interesting, I think, because while it was written in the Arabic alphabet, it uses Hebrew vowel points. The manuscript is Karaitic, and the practice was not uncommon in Karaite writings in Arabic, whereas Rabbanite writings in Arabic invariably used the Hebrew alphabet.

It's quite striking, because Arabic has its own system of diacritics. Why Rabbanites chose not to use--or didn't learn--the Arabic alphabet, and why Karaites did, but chose not to use--or didn't learn--the Arabic vowels is an interesting question. Speculators welcome.

A Croation proselyte who suffered a similar fate to אברהם בן אברהם in Vilna in 1753

The tale of אברהם בן אברהם, Abraham ben Abraham, the Polish Count turned Jew and then martyr in 18th century Vilna is well known. This traditional tale was even written in a German language children's book (trans. into English by R. Yehoshua Leiman z"l in 1978, link). Like many stories, the trouble is that this one has never been verified to be historical fact. No record of a Count Valentin Potocki (a true name of Polish nobility) converting to Judaism, much less being executed for it, has ever been found. It is true that by the 19th century this story was accepted as absolute fact among Lithuanian Jews, and there was even a grave in the Jewish cemetary in Vilna--near the sepulchre of the Gaon of Vilna--that was believed to be where the count was interred. I take no opinion on the matter.

In any case, I came across something quite interesting, from 1753, just four years after the alleged execution of Avraham ben Avraham:



(From v.22, The London Magazine, Or, Gentleman's Monthly Intelligencer)

I'm not suggesting that this is in any way related; I am suggesting that this is interesting. Here is a summary of the historical evidence, or lack of, for אברהם בן אברהם.

Edit (07/01/09). Here is, incidentally, a mention of the story from 1824:



The Rabbi Mendel in question is Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov, one of the original Perushim in Eretz Yisrael, and a talmid of the Vilna Gaon. Although he was born in 1750, and thus after the entire incident is alleged to have occurred, it is also evident that the story is considerably older than the date it is here recorded. It certainly cannot postdate 1808, when he arrived in Eretz Yisrael, and in fact must predate the death of the Gaon (1797). In fact, to me the way it is mentioned here has all the hallmarks of a story known to R. Mendel all his life, which puts the story even closer to 1749, when it is said to have occurred.

What was Brisk like in 1762?

From The Modern Part of An Universal History: From the Earliest Accounts to the Present Time v. 34, London, 1762:




This same Radziwil features as a villainous (or at least cruel and stupid) figure in Salomon Maimon's autobiography.

Complete Gutnick Chumash on Google Books

Whoever is responsible for allowing the complete Gutnick Chumash (Pentateuch) online, יישר כחך to you!--either author, publisher, or both. Let this also serve as a gentle rebuke to other publishers of popular Chumashim, including publishers which double as a non-profit fit to give one's tzedakah to. This Chumash can be completely viewed and searched, but not downloaded, which seems to make good finanical sense. Of course the bottom line is the bottom line so it is hard to expect the makers of other Chumashim to do the same, but the folks behind the Gutnick Chumash must be specially commended, even if the cynic in me realizes that a partial motivation might be a sense of mission in spreading the Lubavitcher Rebbe's word by making it available (the commentary Toras Menachem adorns the edition, along with a section called Classic Questions, which anthologizes many of the famous commentaries).

However, the Gutnick Chumash is a quite good Orthodox Chumash, with an interesting bibliography, which can be perused here. It is light on the Litvaks, truth be told, and delightfully describes the Vilna Gaon as "Lithuanian Talmudist, Kabalist, grammarian, and mathematician." However, the sheer grace of making the entire text available is applaudable indeed.

I had planned to review this Chumash a long time ago. Perhaps now that I will be able to do so more easily I will get around to it.

First mention of a Chief Rabbi of New York; May 25 1796.

I'll bet you didn't know that New York had a Chief Rabbi 92 years before Rabbi Jacob Joseph moved from Vilna to New York to assume that office.



Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, published in Leipzig. Fourth line from the bottom; Gershom Mendes Seixas.

R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz in a beautiful book from 1773

Merely a few weeks ago I titled a post R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz in a nearly contemporary German periodical , the reference being to an article from 1792. I found an earlier and more interesting book called Abbildungen böhmischer und mährischer Gelehrten und Kunstler, which would seem to mean something like "Pictures of Czech and Moravian scholars and artists," and that is indeed what the book contains.

Published in 1773 in Prague, this beautiful book contains many portraits with short discussions about their subjects. Apart from the (token?) two rabbis, I confess that the only one I recognized was John Huss.

The rabbis are Prague Chief Rabbi David Oppenheim and Chief Rabbi of the so-called "Three Communities,"Altona, Hamburg and Wandsbek, Jonathan Eybeschutz (here the name is spelled "Ionathan Eibenschitz."




His section lists his publications:




Here is R. David Oppenheim:



Incidentally, the artist seems to be either "J. Kleinhardt" and/ or "J. Balzer." Anyone have information they can share?

Balashon has a great post on the origin and correct meaning of the word בירה, as in שושן הבירה. The post has everything I like: Semitic philology, peshat exegesis, Mendelssohnian Bibles, Maharil Zunz, Isaac Leeser and Artscroll. Full disclosure: Dave and I had some nice email exchanges about the subject in question. So, read it!

Who am I?

Edit 03-07-09: R. Salomon Pappenheim. See comments.

Southern, by the Grace of God

You never know when you'll find something interesting.

Take a look at the opening paragraph of this review of the new Journal of the American Oriental Society from learned Antebellum Southern periodical The Southern Quarterly Review, v.7, 14, April 1853:



Just to give you an example of the sort of journal in question, this article is followed by one called Calhoun on Government.

R. Hayyim Palaggi meets a British missionary

I came across an interesting description of an encounter with R. Chaim Palaggi, Chief Rabbi of Izmir (Smyrna). The narrator is a 19th century Jewish Christian missionary, Moses Margoliouth (of whom I've written about here, here and here).








The work referred to in the account is חיים תחילה ודרכיו למשה (read it here.)

Incidentally, the Dr. Herschell referred to above is Solomon Hirschell, the de facto Chief Rabbi of the British Ashkenazim. His brother, incidentally, was Saul Berlin, forger and creator of the Besamim Rosh (although, it has to be said, this is but a footnote). Dr. Adler, of course, is Nathan Marcus Adler of Hanover, his successor as Chief Rabbi.

The Chofetz Chaim's ban of a condensed Chumash

From the 1928 volume of בית ועד לחכמים:




As you can see, the Hafetz Hayyim was shown a büchel (a little book) which was an abridged version of the Torah for beginners, called התחלת חומש. I am only guessing that it was shown to him to see a reaction which to the presenter was predictable: chagrin. As it turned out, this Bible stories for children skipped many important verses and parts of verses relating to matters of faith and the greatness of the Patriarchs. As an example, in its version of Genesis 14:19, instead of reading "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth," it only says "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." He therefore ruled that it is prohibited to read or study this book, or even to bring into one's home!

The book in question was edited by by David Frischmann and was fully titled התחלת חומש ספורי התורה ערוכים בלשון הכתוב לילדים מתחילים עם ציורים., and if anyone wants to flip through the many volumes of his collected works and find it, they are most welcome. link

On Sforno's introduction to the Torah in variant copies of the 1724 Mikra'os Gedolos

You never know what arcana you'll come across. Having recently posted about the 1724-28 edition of the Mikra'os Gedolos, the 7th edition, published in Amsterdam by Mosis Francorutensis (or, R. Moshe ben Shimon Frankfurter) I found the following interesting information regarding its printing of the commentary of Sforno, this being the first Mikra Gedolah to print Sforno's commentaries.

Charles Butler, in his 1797 work Horæ Biblicæ* wrote the following:



Is this not fascinating? Of course it is. First of all, "Rabbi Abdias Sporno" is, of course, R. Ovadiah Sforno. His treatise de Scopo Legis refers to his כוונת התורה, and it is quite interesting to learn that this short introduction was generally omitted from copies sold to Christians.

Apparently this was well known in scholarly Christian circles, for we find the following from an 1838 book**:



Another note, from 1827:



Sadly, the trail runs cold and I can't find this reference (undoubtedly to a work of Gerhardus Tyschen [aka Oluf Gerhard Tyschen]) to know whether he noticed or publicized this omission in some editions before Butler or not.

Here is a translation of said introduction by R. Raphael Pelkowitz shlit"a in his edition of Seforno published by Artscroll. I suppose one can see why it was omitted from particular copies:




*Full title: Horæ Biblicæ, Being a Connected Series of Miscellaneous Notes on the Original Text, Early Versions, and Printed Editions of the Old and New Testament.

**Notes on the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles Illustrations of the Doctrine Principle and Practice of the Church of England by Frederic Martin.

Hang this up in your sukkah

Clockwise from upper left: David Cassel, Moritz Lazarus, Heinrich Graetz, Hermann Steinthal and Senior Zachs.

From Nahum Sokolow's yearbook Ha-asif (1887).

The diligence of Julia E. Smith

"Julia E. Smith, when over seventy years of age, translated the whole Bible into English in one year and seven months, having no other helps than a Hebrew and Greek grammar and dictionary." So writes Edward James Young in The Value of the Study of Hebrew for a Minister, The Unitarian Review and Religious Magazine, May 1879.

The truth is less dramatic, but only a little less. In truth, it took Julia E. Smith (1792-1883?), of Glastonbury, Connecticut seven years, by her own account.

Since literalness was her stated goal, she felt confident in writing "It may be thought by the public in general, that I have great confidence in myself, in not conferring with the learned in so great a work, but as there is but one book in the Hebrew tongue, and I have defined it word for word, I do not see how anybody can know more about it than I do. It being a dead language no improvements can be made upon it." Naive, but wonderful in its simplicity! (She knew Greek and Latin from her education, but our concern here is not with her New Testament translation.)

In addition to literalness, it was apparently her understanding that tenses do not exist in biblical Hebrew--

"It is very possible that the readers of this book may think it strange that I have made such use of the tenses, going according to the Hebrew grammar. It seems that the original Hebrew had no regard to time, and that the Bible speaks for all ages. If I did not follow the tenses as they are, I myself should be the judge, and man must not be trusted with regard to the Word of God. I think the promiscuous use of the tenses shows that there must be something hidden, that we must search out, and not hold to the outward, for the " letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

--and her translation reflects this in a most jarring manner:



Read the fruit of her labors here.

Some samples of her unique method:

Help me decide the fate of English Hebraica

There are one of three options:

1) Revive http://englishhebraica.blogspot.com/
2) Leave it dormant
3) Incorporate it into On the Main Line, which means gradually reposting everything (or at least the posts I like) right here

What do you think?

Parenthetically, look at this great search string which led someone to my blog:

What does Moshe Finkel- the chicken man- look like?