Who?

The pronunciation of 'Ehud' at the BBC

Sometimes a rabbinic derashah allows the letters ח and ה interchange with one another. They're so close in sound (and appearance) that it's understandable. (See here for a post which supplies an example and sources for further research.)

The average person probably doesn't realize that in Semitic languages there are consonants which are not found in Western languages until it is pointed out to them (although they may have some sense that Middle Easterners seem to be clearing their throat a lot when they talk). Of the two letters already mentioned, one (the ה) is more or less pronounced just the same as the H is in English, while the other (ח) is nowhere to be found. But it's close to the same sound. That's why in English transliteration words containing these two consonants usually just write them with an H: 'Hanukkah', '[Shalom] Haver,' 'Hizbullah' and so forth, although they all begin with a ח rather than a ה.

Why do I mention this? Because I say that the average person probably doesn't know it, but not everyone is average and some people know this well. But that doesn't stop some of them from making mistakes. It seems that BBC reporters in the Middle East forgot that there is an H sound in Hebrew as well as a ח (leaving aside the question of how the ח is actually pronounced in MIH (=Modern Israeli Hebrew).

It must be five or six times already that I have heard a BBC correspondent in Israel refer to the Israeli Prime Minister as Echud (אחוד) Olmert. Some of these reporters can do a pretty good Middle Eastern ח, and they spit out "אחוד" in a way that would sound clear and authentic from Baghdad to Beirut. Others can't do it and pronounce it the way Ashkenazim and Israelis would: ח, and they spit out "אכוד".

But both, of course, are wrong. It's Ehud (אהוד) with the actual H. No need to get fancy (and wrong). Of course, I've also heard it pronounced correctly!

Another milestone

Thank you! (I)

What happens when a traditional yeshiva is compelled1 to conform to a foregin format on paper

Ishim ve-Shitos presents an amazing excerpt from what must be an amazing dissertation²:

Now, I'm sure that if someone requested a curriculum from BMG this is what they could receive (of course it might have been modified since 1981). After all, BMG is a university, students have to register for courses (I would think) and it can grant degrees.

I remember having to register for "classes" when I was in (other) yeshiva(s). We'd have to write down what Bible books we would study, what Jewish philosophy, ethics, and so forth. All these forms would be neatly filed away, against the outside chance that anyone ever wanted to check them over to make sure that the yeshiva was offering a full theological university curriculum. As I recall, someone from the yeshiva office would even tell us with a wink that we're actually responsible to learn these things - or else it wouldn't be honest, and it was on us to ensure that we completed our courses. Then we'd go back to the Beis Midrash, resume seder and attend shiur on Tuesdays.

I think I wrote that I'd take a course in Chronicles one time. Perhaps Radaq was involved, but I can't recall.

Anyway, someone should have advised Lewitter to do some real research and go to the yeshiva, rather than the mail order kind. I think I wrote the Delaware Chamber of Commerce when I was doing a report on that state in the 3rd grade, but past that point it's appropriate to go to Delaware itself when writing about it.

¹ Of course no one is compelling BMG to be a degree-granting university.
² A school for scholars: The Beth Medrash Govoha, The Rabbi Aaron Kotler Jewish Institute of Higher Learning in Lakewood, New Jersey: A study of the development and theory of one aspect of higher education in America

S. R. Lewitter - 1981 - Rutgers University

Chaim Potok at Yeshiva University, JTS - Bible study & the history of the Hebrew language

Here's an interesting excerpt from an essay¹ by Chaim Potok in A Sign and a Witness: 2,000 Years of Hebrew Books & Illuminated Manuscripts (exhibit book from a 1988 showing at the New York Public Library):

Over the words of the teacher I hear the rustling of newspapers. I am in my senior year in Yeshiva College. The school authorities have decreed that students of Talmud ought also to be studying Bible. And so each Thursday one hour has been taken from Talmud study and given over to the Bible. For reasons known only to the faculty, the text that has been selected is the Song of Songs.

Most of my classmates are angry at this theft of precious time from Talmud. They manifest their anger by openly reading newspapers in class as the teacher-a mild, mustached Bible scholar in a rumpled gray suit, steel-rimmed spectacles, and a wide-brimmed gray fedoraattempts to cut a path through the text. The noisy pages of the Post, PM, the Times, the Herald Tribune display an open disdain of the harried efforts of the teacher of Song of Songs.

He is teaching the text in the traditional manner: it is a love song between God and His people Israel, written by King Solomon in his lusty youth. How hard he tries to arouse our interest in its bizarre similes! It is all in vain; the air of the classroom is dense with stoney resentment. Clearing his throat, he gazes down at his text. In a suddenly lowered voice, he reads the words, "Your breasts are like two fawns, / Twins of a gazelle, / Browsing among the lilies," and explains them by saying, "This refers to Moses and Aaron." Behind me a newspaper rustles. All around me there is a low buzz of conversation. The classmate to my right yawns audibly and without embarrassment.

Eight months later, I am sitting in a Bible class in the Rabbinical School of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. We are studying Song of Songs.

The tradition of Solomonic authorship has been briefly explained by
our professor, and dismissed. "If Solomon wrote Song of Songs, there is no history of the Hebrew language. " He dates the book to the third century B. C.E. (A book of the Bible with a specific date! What a rousing notion that was to me!)

¹ "Text and Texture: Early Adventures in the Fourth Dimension"

JNUL adds Yerushalmi Kodshim forgery

link

Via Hagahot.

I'm no Hebrew paleographer . . .

. . . but neither was William Chomsky.

William Chomsky was a Hebrew scholar who wrote one of - if not the best - popular histories of the Hebrew language in English ( Hebrew: The Eternal Language Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1957). In addition, he authored scholarly articles and translated, annotated and reorganized the important medieval Hebrew grammar and dictionary, the Mikhlol of Radak (unfortunately without including the Hebrew text).

It is probably impossible to not mention that his son is MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, so I did not do the impossible.

Getting back to "Hebrew: The Eternal Language." The book is full of most interesting information presented in a very clear and engaging format. It contains a wealth of technical information which doesn't seem technical. It is suffused with a very Jewish spirit and a love for the Hebrew language and literature. t's a very good book.

Yet, it is not without factual error and the favoring of pet theories. For example, Chomsky adopts Solomon Zeitlin's war against the Dead Sea Scrolls view that the Dead Sea Scrolls are medieval and Karaitic (p. 298 n. 2) - although he does present the prevailing scholarly view regarding their antiquity, if not the identity of their authors (which can now be considered fact) and gives his reasoning for rejecting that view.

In any case, on pp. 87-88 we find the following about the Yiddish cursive script:

" . . . the Yiddish or neo-Hebraic current script . . . [along with the Rashi script] . . . of course, evolved from the square script, in different localities and periods. . . . Although the cursive script is clearly traceable to the square script as its origin, it also possesses traces of the old Hebrew script. This is particularly evident in the case of the Aleph letter, which in the Yiddish cursive form is closer to the old Hebrew than is the same letter in the square script."
(The letter he is talking about looks like this: )

One wonders, what could Chomsky have meant by this? Now, as trivia - as opposed to useful information - it is true that the letter aleph in the "neo-Hebraic current" script does more closely resemble a Ktav Ivri/ paleo-Hebrew aleph than does a square aleph. In fact, I once wrote out the Ktav Ivri script for a 12 year old who promptly told me that he thought the paleo aleph looked like the cursive aleph he was used to. But what could Chomsky have meant that "it also possesses traces of the old Hebrew script"? Traces? Does he mean this literally? How would that be possible?

As I said, I'm no Hebrew paleographer, but actually it seems to me that the aleph of the "current neo-Hebraic," or "Yiddish cursive" is derived from the form of the aleph in the Hebrew cursive form known as Rashi script.

Here are some examples.

This title page from a mid-19th century siddur for travelers to America is interesting in its own right, but take a look at the aleph in the name Ephraim (and the others). In virtually all respects this signature facsimile is written in the current cursive script, but instead of the right side of the aleph being a semi circle, it is more like a "greater than" sign.


Detail:



This well known signature of Wolf Heidenheim appears on the title pages of all the books outputted by his printing firm in Roedelheim. Same form of aleph appears.



Many, many more examples can be supplied, but here is a sample of 19th century writing (this word happened to have been written by R. Yosef Feimer, rabbi of Slutzk).



Virtually all the letters (written by Ashkenazim) reproduced in the excellent series Shenos Dor Vador (by Reuven Dessler, publ. Mesorah/ Artscroll) show that this was by far the common way this letter was written until the 20th century.

Here is a chart from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:



Note that in every example prior to 1900 in this chart has the two elements making up the letter attached - granting, that in the 19th century there were also those who wrote the aleph as a line with a half circle. But that was a later development in this script.

As near as I can tell, originally this particular letter was essentially of the the same appearance as the Rashi aleph. It was written in an easy way, by writing a line and a little <-like stroke. What basically happened later was, the right side rounded and detached from the left bar. Today one usually sees it written that way, but on occasion one sees it the older way as well (although often the < attaches in the center of the bar, instead of closer to the top, as it used to).

Now, it is true that the rounded form, the current one, looks kind of like that paleo-Hebrew aleph. But did the original form look like a paleo-Hebrew aleph? I submit that it did not. It looked kind of like a ches, as the Rashi script aleph tends to look. Does the Rashi script aleph "possess traces of the old Hebrew script"? I highly doubt it - how would it? I am sure there are excellent charts showing the development of that letter from a regular, garden variety square aleph.

The faces of Rav Ha-ketav ve-hakabbalah and Rav Yachin u-Boaz

It's always interesting to put faces to names, so I thought I'd do a part II of sorts for this post.

Below is from a photograph of R. Ya'akov Zvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865), author of the commentary Schrift und Tradition על חמשה חומשי תורה:





You can download his commentary from the links here. His work is normally grouped with 19th century Jewish exegete Malbim, although similar in kind (eg, for its devotion to uniting the rabbinic interpretation with the pshat on grammatical and critical, rather than homiletical grounds) R. Mecklenburg's found more use for contemporary quasi-non-traditional sources than Malbim (although this factoid should not be blown out of proportion). For example, Ha-qetav We-ha-qabbalah cites Julius Fürst and the Biurists, while Malbim will not cite contemporary maskilim and only occasionally cites someone like Philo (in his commentary) or Shadal (in Ya'ir Or, on Hebrew synonyms).

R. Mecklenburg corresponded with modern Jewish Bible scholars of his day. See below for a letter he wrote to יוליוס פורסט (and check out the umlauts he placed atop the letter ו!):




(I found this letter in article on Fuerst in the 1905 issue of Ost und West: illustrierte Monatsschrift für modernes Judentum. Click to enlarge.)

For good measure, here is a depiction of the author of the Tiferes Yisrael commentary on the Mishnah, R. Yisrael Lipschuetz of Danzig (1782-1860):



On him, see this post.

Both these images come from volume two of Gedolei Ha-dorot by Yechiel Michel Stern, a set of books which are a treasure trove of photographs and images of early modern and modern rabbis, many of whom are well known, but not their faces.

And that, my friends, is how you spin a post out of very little at all. ;)

Mother's milk segulah

Here's an interesting excerpt from a most interesting book, מעגל טוב, the travel diary of R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulay. The entry is dated 12 Iyyar, which correspondeded to May 1, 1776:



Señor Sabbetai Fano sent Giaronomo, a gentile, to escort us to Lugo. Also with us was the lad Señor Michael Solomon Hazaq. Two miles before our destination, people from the town came out to meet us. We arrived safely in Lugo and we stayed in the home of Señor Sabbetai Shemariah Fano, in a beautiful room, at the community's expense.

An elder named Rabbi Judah Fano told me that the Rem'a of blessed memory wrote on a small parchment שמע ישראל with the milk of mother and daughter that were nursing mixed with lemon juice.¹ Accompanied by fasting and immersion, this is a wonderful segulah for whomever swallows this parchment, that he should not apostasize. It is tried and true.

Update: Later on Rav Chida applies this segulah, as follows:

27 Kislev (5538; Dec. 27, 1777). I ate with Rabbi David, and dining with us was his wife's husband Señor Elia Perpignan and his wife, who were having major marital problems; the state of their marriage was going downhill, and they asked me to make peace between them.

28 Kislev (Dec. 28). Sunday Vayigash. Señor Elia Perpignan and his wife came to me, and I gave her a שמע ישראל to swallow, the segulah of the Rem'a, because they were afraid that she had thoughts of apostasy, God forbid. I gave them marital advice in order to make complete reconciliation between them.

¹ I don't know if this was the intention, but many a child knows that lemon juice makes for a fine invisible ink, which becomes readable when exposed to heat!

Artscroll: Modern scholarship buttresses the Rashbyic authorship for the Zohar

A חבר (in both senses of the term) pointed out to me an amusing bit in Artscroll The Rishonim,* (Brooklyn: 1982), p. 98.

The entry for R' Moshe de Leon:

"R' Moshe earned his livelihood as a traveling scribe, copying old manuscripts. Thus, he discovered and published the Zohar, the principal book of the Kabbalah, compiled by the Tanna R' Shimon bar Yochai. . . .

Modern scholars have pointed out that the kabbalistic ideas expressed in R' Moshe's own works do not accord with those of the Zohar, making untenable the supposition, first recorded in Yuchasin and echoed by subsequent generations of the Kaballah's opponents, that R' Moshe himself authored the Zohar."

Interesting in itself that the question of Ben Yochoic authorship should find mention in a book by Artscroll. More interesting is that it marshals "modern scholarship" (whom?) in implied defense of Ben Yochoic authorship (compileship?), while modern scholarship definitely opposes the idea that the Zohar is a true tannaitic work, that is, compiled or taught mainly in the 2nd century by R. Shimon ben Yochoi (friendly trends which credit the Zohar for containing pre-13th century material that may in fact be many centuries old is not the same thing).

Still, it's worth mentioning! Happy Lag Le-omer!

*This book, and it's sequal The Early Acharonim, is a biographical compendium of the Shem Ha-gedolim genre. It is unclear if another volume in this series was ever intended, but the second volume ends at the end of the 18th century. Once you get into the 19th century, the ideological purity headache begins, and perhaps the company wished to avoid it. Perhaps not. In any case, over at What's Bothering Artscroll? I had begun a series of posts on "controversial rabbis" as covered by the company, particularly in their Early Acharonim (link). I would have - and probably will - posted about R. Yehuda Aryeh Mi-Modena, R. Eliyahu Bachur and others . These books are an example of a type of openness which Artscroll exhibited in its early years, which it later learned to check. Thus, it is doubtful to me if today they would include De Rossi and Modena in such a collection. Incidentally, in this post I acknowledge that The Early Acharonim elucidated one of my Main Line posts - even if The Early Acharonim doesn't 'fess up to its sources. ;)

A blow to Maharatz Chajes's reputation put into the mouth of the Chasam Sofer by a seminal zealot of the 19th and 20th centuries

In the history of Hungarian Orthodoxy (and /or Ultra-Orthodoxy), the name Akiba Joseph Schlesinger (c. 1838-1922) is well known. He is credited with virtually creating a 'cult' of the Chasam Sofer. His father-in-law had been a student of the CS. He saw himself as following in the line and as totally faithful to the teachings and legacy of the CS (who died when he was only a year old).

He published a buch called Lev ha-Ivri (Lemberg, 1865), which includes the text of the Chasam Sofer's Last Will & Testament, along with a commentary. Although in his preface he writes that the work contains only the CS's teachings, one wonders how a short text (the Will) became a 330 page text if it truly contains none of Schlesinger's own ideas. But I digress.

After a discussion about how terrible it is that works of Torah content are being published in his generation by wicked people, there is the following interesting note on pg. 92 (text below)regarding "one of our contemporaries who wrote notes on the Talmud - all soulful people should not study Torah from it, because I know those who asked Rabbenu z"l why he would write to this individual with praises for him in the text of his responsa, and he told them a secret: this person has one foot chasing after Aher**, and if he didn't keep him close he too would join the assembly of the wicked with his scholarship - God forbid - and who knows what the end was? Therefore he put in efforts to draw him close.

Schlesinger is speaking here of none other than 'the Mahritz Chiyos,' ie, Maharatz Chajes (R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes [1805-1855]) whose Talmud commentary (published first in 1850) is printed in practically every Talmud edition today. Accessible, if not essential, reading on him is the Ph. D. thesis of Bruriah Hutner link. Paranthetically, my impression of doctoral work is that generally the student is attracted to the topic, if not admiring. Hutner (David) must have been attracted to her subject, but ultimately he repels her, too, and this attitude predominates. I just found that interesting.



Oh, and is his charge true? Did the Chasam Sofer really write him in a respectful, praising manner only to keep him within the good group? In my opinion: maybe.

* The versions I am reading are that of Hebrewbooks.org - 1868 - and Otzar Ha-chochma - 1870. Apparently there are differences between the first and other editions. For example, in the first addition the acronym RMD is not fully explicated to mean "Rasha Moshe Mendelssohn." In later editions, M is even changed to read "Moritz." (Info courtesy of Meir Hildesheimer's exhaustive articles on the attitude of the Chasam Sofer and his disciples toward secular study, and his attitude toward Mendelssohn [in PAAJR]).

** Aher= 'Aharon Choriner Rabbiner,' ie, proto-Reform rabbi Aaron Chorin.

Witty philosophe-y self-awareness

"A philosopher who is a bad Catholic implores a philosopher who is a bad Protestant to grant a residency privilege to a philosopher who is a bad Jew. There is too much philosophy in all this; reason cannot but support the petition."*

- Jean-Baptiste de Boyer, Marquis d'Argens to Frederick II the Great of Prussia, petioning the latter for permission for Moses Mendelssohn to reside in Berlin.

*("Un philosophe, mauvais catholique, supplie un philosophe, mauvais protestant, de donner le privilège à un philosophe, mauvais juif. Il y a dans tout ceci trop de philosophie, pour que la raison ne soit pas du côté de la demande". )

The most popular On the Main Line post ever is

No nun in Ashrei - in case you were wondering.

I know this because it is the one the receives the most hits and searches. Apparently there are a lot of people who want to know why the nun verse is missing in this psalm, a seemingly never ending stream for two years, a few a day.

(I should revise it to make it more clear and more accurate. I should do a lot of things.)

Acquiring and not acquiring Hebrew; A comparison with Latin's traditional role in education.

Here's an interesting excerpt from an essay by Shaul Stampfer called 'What Did "Knowing Hebrew" Mean in Eastern Europe?' printed in Hebrew in Ashkenaz, A Language in Exile, ed. Lewis Glinert. (From pp. 132-133, below):

"Not surprisingly, an analysis of how Latin functioned in Christian society sheds light on the place of Hebrew in Jewish society.The similarities between the role of Hebrew and that of Latin are many. The higher educational program of most European societies took a knowledge of Latin for granted. This was not a simple matter, for learning Latin was a long process which could take over eight years.12 However, it was necessary for the individual who wanted to go on to advanced study. The curriculum of the medieval university was based on texts written in Latin, and much scholarly work, depending of course on time and place, was done in Latin. Therefore, "Before the student could profitably attend university lectures, he must have learned to read, write, and understand such Latin as was used in the schools," ¹³ and this knowledge was the basic academic precondition for admission to the medieval university. University freshmen were "as a rule . . . between thirteen and sizteen"¹⁴ and most of their pre-university study was devoted to learning Latin.

"Much, if not all of this advanced education could have been in the spoken language. Indeed, the rapid spread of use of the vernacular in post-Renaissance periods shows how little education is dependent on knowledge of Latin. There is little doubt that the classical literature is well worth studying. However, for the level of understanding that most people reach, a translation is almost as good as the original. What the concentration on Latin did achieve was to weed out the number of students who reached advanced study. Tuition itself cost money. Moreover, it required long-term commitment, for the study of Latin was worthwhile only if the long course of study necessary to reach even an elementary proficiency in Latin was completed. This meant that only children of a certain level of society could in practice prepare themselves for admission to university and higher study. Access was restricted, by using language as a hurdle on the way to valuable knowledge. This in a sense is what kept up the value of the knowledge since it was not readily available to most people. To get information most people had to go to one of the individuals who had learned Latin and had access to the knowledge written in it. The change to the use of the vernacular as the language for scholarly and religious writing meant that one major barrier to the direct acquisition of information was eliminated.
. . .
"One of the virtues of Hebrew appears to have been the fact that a good knowledge of the language and of the literature¹⁶ was limited. The relative failure of the heder to produce graduates with a good knowledge of Hebrew was in this respect a very desirable goal from the point of view of the elite. It should be emphasized that both the elite and the masses were totally unaware of this function of education.<sup>17

13</sup> Rashdall 1936, 3:341-42; (RASHDALL, HASTINGS. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden, eds. New edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936.)
¹⁴ Ibid, p. 353
¹⁶ I am well aware that the Talmud is written in Aramaic but at the time there was no distinction between the knowledge of the two languages - he who knew one knew the other.
¹⁷ For an explanation of this theme from a very original but somewhat different approach, see Funkenstein and Steinsaltz 1987. (FUNKENSTEIN, AMOS and ADIN STEINSALTZ. Sociology of Ignorance. Tel Aviv: University of the Air, 1987.)

See old post (which really could use some revision): 'Semi-talmidei hakhomim, or semi 'amei ha-'aretz: A unique modern challenge to rabbinic authority.'

Jameel and family visit Samaritans

Jameel at the Muqata has a fantastic series of posts on the trip he and his family took to visit Shomronim (Samaritans).

I
II
III

There are fantastic photos and commentary. Jameel also took a wonderful video of a fellow named Yefet Ha-cohen reciting the שמע in the Samaritan dialect of Hebrew (first post, or watch and listen below).

The half-century battle for new English translation of Jewish classics

On Shabbos I was perusing the Jewish Press and saw an ad for a new Artscroll edition of Avos De-Rabbi Nassan.* The ad noted that this classic is "now available in English."** Funny, I thought. It was also available in English a month ago, a year ago, forty years ago. There is the Soncino version in the Minor Tractates set (admittedly, hard to find now) and the Judah Goldin version. Searching on Google Books yields yet two more versions. (link)

Did Artscroll really mean to say that the work is available only now, for the first time in English? Or is the implication that the previous, existing versions are simply irrelevant? I must say, that I heard Nosson Scherman address this topic in a speech. Cognizant of criticism of the Artscroll oeuvre from the right, he attempted to demonstrate that they have the support of the gedolim at the highest level. He recounted his and Meir Zlotowitz's meeting with Moron Rov Chaim Kanievsky. They came merely to seek his blessing, but instead he (a) stood up when they walked into the room and (b) spoke to them for 15 minutes - highly unusual. He compared their Schottenstein Shas project to the projected German Talmud translation (Hebrew commentary, actually)** proposed by R. Yisrael Salanter in the 19th century. However, noted R. Kanievsky, that edition was necessary for the non-Jews to see what the Talmud was all about (so they could overcome their prejudice against it). Today - the Schottenstein Shas is necessary for Jews to see what the Talmud is all about, for the same reason. R. Scherman admitted he was surprised at such a powerful endorsement. He then noted that a lot of frum people don't realize the vast amount of classic Jewish material there is in translation, however they are faulty! Thus, Artscroll can correct this breach by presenting well translated classics to the Jewish (and non-Jewish) public.

In any case, once upon a time a book called Making of a Godol was banned and various denunciations of the book were written. Here is a piece of one missive (in translation):


As you can see, the writer of this piece is of the opinion that over the past half-century the gedolim have endeavoring to uproot foreign matter from the study of Torah.*** See above and see prior post: Soncino Talmud statistics. Now one will no longer have to read what Zunz opined, for example, when reading Avos de-rabbi Nathan in English.

* UPDATE: Well, as it turns out this isn't an Artscroll ADRN; it is by Judaica Press. In the newspaper, the full page had combined Judaica Press and Artscroll ads and to my tired eyes it looked like one ad!
** Suprisingly, the web site still does not have this book listed. It must be very new indeed. See the Pirkei Avos section.
*** There is a widespread perception that R. Yisrael Salanter intended to translate the Talmud into German. However, his vision was really for a straightforward Hebrew commentary to the entire Talmud, which would have made independent Talmud study possible for the non-learned (albeit, Hebraically literate). His vision was that 100 great Talmud scholars would pledge to write a comentary on 30 Talmud folios. He did, however, advocate the inclusion of Talmud into the curriculum of gymnasia and universities, hoping to raise the prestige of the Talmud in society in general so that Jewish youth would also become interested.
*** This doesn't only refer to printed matter, but surely it includes it.

An 'Index of Prohibited Books' from Satmar, Rumania 1927

Thanks to HebrewBooks.org I found an interesting Hebrew periodical published in Satmar (Satu Mare) in the 1920s, edited by one Shimon Pollack, called Beis Va'ad Le-chakhomim.

It looks like this:



In the 11-12 issue from 1927 the following appears:



As you can see, books by these authors are to be stored away so they cannot be read (and these are heavy duty heretical classics, not bush-league types like 'One People, Two Worlds, 'Making of a Godol' or 'The Science of Torah'):

1. Works by R. Abraham Isaac Kook.

2. Works by R. Aaron Chorin.

3. Works by R. Samuel Glasner.

4. Works by the rebbe of Muncacz, the Minchas Elazar.

5. The 'Bi'ur' of R. Moses Mendelssohn.

6. Works by R. Naphtali Hirtz Wessely.

Chorin's Chasam Sofer-coined euphemism אח"ר (for 'Aron Choriner, Rabbiner') is supplied. It is explained that the acronym רמ"ד for Mendelssohn means 'רשע משה דעסוי,' and, oddly yet somewhat understandably, the older Wessely is counted as a disciple of Mendelssohn.

It of course must be pointed out that it is eminently better to call for books to be 'put away' rather than to destroy them.

A German translation of a Hebrew book dedicated to Moses Mendelssohn

UPDATE 7.17.2012:

I have been accused by Dr. Edward Breuer of plagiarizing the main idea of this post from his book The Limits of Enlightenment. Without further ado I hereby credit him and his excellent book and apologize for any anguish I caused.

In 1771 German Bible scholar Johann Salomo Semler (1725-91) produced a German translation of R. Eliyahu Bahur's (Elias Levita) מסורת המסורת titled Übersetzung des Buchs Massoreth Hamassoreth.(Semler was the editor; the translation itself was done by an apostate Jew called Christian Gottlob Meyer; Meyer also eventually translated Moses Mendelssohn's prospectus to his Bible translation, the עלים לתרופה into German.)

Fortunately this edition of Massoreth Ha-massoreth is now available online (link).



A sample of the book:



Following the title page we find the following dedication:



Semler dedicated this to Moses Mendelssohn, a man he greatly admired. As a fellow Aufklärer, he assumed that Mendelssohn shared his views of modern Bible scholarship, the מסורת המסורת representing a key component of the modern view, namely that the nekkudot and te'amim were late additions to the Bible text (at least the graphic symbols, if not what they represented). In fact, Mendelssohn did not. He vigorously upheld the dominant Jewish traditional view that they were old (from Ezra, if not from Sinai). In Mendelssohn's Introduction to the Torah, the אור לנתיבה he defended the antiquity of the points and accents, citing the work of R. Azariah min ha-Adumim (de' Rossi) who was the foremost Jewish rebutter of Bahur's thesis (see here for a sample of that - in English - from 1860).

Paranthetically, it is worth pointing out that when I bring this up many are surprised Mendelssohn would uphold the more traditional, non-critical view - especially as Bahur's view would seem to cost nothing. But this is based on a misunderstanding of Mendelssohn's approach to the Bible (and the assumption that Bahur's view costs nothing!). Perhaps Mendelssohn was non-traditional, but his overall approach was not that of contemporary 18th century Biblical scholarship, but more closely resembled the peshat oriented exegesis of those rishonim who concentrated mainly on peshat.

In Semler's introduction he explains that he shares (so he believed) with Mendelssohn the struggle to rid the people - Christian and Jew alike - of superstitious sort of beliefs about the Bible. It is true, one might suggest, that Mendelssohn's peshatian orientation could be seen as closer to Semler's than whatever the superstitious Bible beliefs among Christians and Jews which Semler had in mind. But given the true nature of Mendelssohn's views about the Bible, views which actually ran counter to almost every modern and enlightened work about the Bible, it would seem to be ironic that this book specifically should be dedicated to him. It just goes to show how people can give off mistaken impressions.

R. Azariah de'Rossi in - or out of - Artscroll

link

Orthodox unity, Schmorthodox schmunity

Marc B. Shapiro prescribes "a complete break with the haredi halachic authorities and the establishment of religious courts that share at least some of the values and worldview of the community in which they serve" (link).