How Christian David Ginsburg romanticized Jewish maskilic scholars: a contrast between apostate attitudes towards Jews and Judaism

Through the ages Jewish apostates have often been a thorn in the side of Jewish communities they left behind. Names such as Donin and Pfefferkorn (to mention a small sampling) evoke bad memories, not only because they were perceived as traitors and followers of falsehood but also because men such as these waged war on the Jews they left behind. Nicholas Donin and Pablo Christiani goaded secular authorities in forcing Jews to debate them. If the speech of the Jewish disputant wasn't restricted, one or even both hands were still tied behind their back since they could not be sure that debating freely wouldn't lead to severe consequences. Johannnes Pfefferkorn waged a war on the Talmud and managed to obtain edicts against the Talmud. (See further in Rodkinson's Talmud introduction.)

However, not all apostates were antisemitic or anti-Judaism. Benjamin D'Israeli maintained fond feelings for Jews and Judaism throughout his life (his father, who converted him as a child? Well, not so much. "[The Talmud] is a complete fyftem of barbarous learning of the Jews.")

Christian David Ginsburg was one of the most famous and accomplished Bible scholars of the 19th century. Born a Jew in Warsaw in 1831 (as you'd imagine, they said "Duvid" at his bris and not Christian David) and in receipt of a traditional yeshiva education, he eventually converted to Christianity while a teenager (under what influence and circumstances, I have no idea) and parlayed his early education into a career as a Bible scholar and missionary of note. He prepared a Hebrew translation of the New Testament intended, obviously, to aid in converting Jews. He wrote a still-valuable introduction to Tanakh called the "Introduction to the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible." Working with rare and valuable Hebrew manuscripts at the British Museum (now the British Library) he produced a monumental four volume work called "The Massorah, compiled from manuscripts alphabetically and lexically arranged," which you can download here). He produced high quality Bibles, wrote numerous essays on Jewish subjects and many entries for the excellent "Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature," originally edited by John Kitto (1862-66). He was involved in debunking the Shapira forgery (posted about here, here, here and here).

In any case, let us get to the point of this post already! There is no question that valuable though some of his contributions were, he fairly well assimilated into British society (but for de eccent, I guess) and apart from trying to convert Jews (which they always love, dontcha know?) he as most definitely a Christian David, not a Duvid. But he obviously always maintained an abiding and respectful interest in his heritage and he also knew a thing or two and most importantly, he usually managed to avoid letting his personal religious bias color his interpretation of Judaism's sacred texts when explicating the Jewish point of view.

Furthermore, he seems to have had some romantic notions about Jewish scholars. Read the following excerpt from his entry on the book of Ecclesiastes in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. Note that the audience was to be Christian.



Since I would like this text to be google searchable, I will post some of it:

"[literary Jew[s like] Geiger...Luzzatto...Zunz...Krochmal...Jost...Steinschneider...Graetz...and a host of others affirm that this book is one of the latest productions in the O.T. canon. And be it remembered that these are men to whom Hebrew is almost vernacular, and that some of them write better Hebrew, and in purer style, than that of Coheleth."

One imagines a tiny swell of pride in his chest as he wrote this exaggeration for his learned audience.

(On the attitude of Jews toward him, see this post and also this one. On a translating blunder made by him because of religious bias, see here.)

Do you subscribe to the London Jewish Chronicle?

If so, perhaps you will do me a favor (and perhaps I will do you a favor one day!).

If so, pllease email me. Thank you!

גדול מרב רבי גדול מרבי רבן גדול מרבן שמו

gadol me-rav rabbi, gadol me-rabbi rabban, gadol me-rabban shemo


The title rabbi is greater than the title rav. Rabban is greater than rabbi and a name is greater than the title rabbi.

If a sentence like "Maimonides, at first was termed only Ben Maimon after his degree, then was he called by his own name, added to his fathers, Moses Ben Maimon: at last being licensed to teach, then was he called רמבם , which abbreviature consisting of Capital Letters, signifieth" fires your imagination, then read A 17th century Hebraist imagines how rabbis receive their titles at English Hebraica.

A 17th century Hebraist imagines how rabbis receive their titles.

The historical critical sense of Christian Hebraists of the early modern period is appropriate to the era they lived in, which means that one often finds little awareness on their part of the differences between rabbinic practices of the Talmudic period and the periods following, even including to their own present. It was generally assumed that a statement about rabbinic culture from the Talmud would be true for rabbinic culture of their own day.

An illustration of this point can be made by perusing a very interesting excerpt from a 1678 English book called Moses and Aaron: Civil and Ecclesiastical Rites, Used by the Ancient Hebrews by Thomas Goodwin. (Note his reliance on the 10th century Arukh [1] of R. Nathan ben Yechiel of Rome)





As you can see, on the second page Goodwin illustrates the naming principle he just outlined using the example of Maimonides and Gersonides: "Maimonides, at first was termed only Ben Maimon, the son of Maimon, after his degree, then was he called by his own name, added to his fathers, Moses Ben Maimon, Moses the son of Maimon: at last being licenses to teach, then was he called רמבם Rambam, which abbreviature consisting of Capital Letters, signifieth, Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, Rabbi Moses the son of Maimon. So Rabbi Levi, the son of Gersom, in his minority was called the son of Gersom, afterward Levi the son of Gersom at last רלבג, Ralbag, Rabbi Levi the son of Gersom. This distinction of Scholars, Companions & Rabbies, appeareth by that speech of an ancient Rabbi, saying I learned much of my Rabbies, or Masters, more of my companions, most of all of my Scholars."

Whatever one makes of Goodwin's interpretation of rabbinic literature (ספרי חז''ל)--certainly he is correct to reference the Arukh which cites R. Sherira Gaon (אדונינו שרירא ראש ישיבת גאון יעקב) on the different titles used by the חכמי התלמוד, the sages of the Talmud, I am most certain his scenario of How the Rambam Got His Name was wholly imaginary.

Modern historical research, of course, shows that rabbinic titles and how they are conferred vary from time to time and from place to place. For example, Moreinu was a European title no longer extant (so was haver).

[1] Here is the entry under the heading אביי Abbaye (from the 1553 edition of the Arukh printed in Venice by Alvise Bragadin):

A King Jamesism in Artscroll's Esther

A King Jamesism in Artscroll's Esther

Artscroll consistently translates סריס (eunuch) as chamberlain, following the JPS as it is wont to do, which followed most English Bibles in rendering סריס as chamberlain after the King James. 14th century English Bible translator John Wycliffe translates as "onest seruant."

(The Latin Vulgate translates as eunuchi; the Greek LXX as ευνονχω.)

Michael, write me

A little while ago a reader named Michael wrote me a lengthy email with much food for thought that deserved a good response. Unfortunately I never did respond, although I meant to, and the email has since disappeared. If you are still reading, please resend that email. I really would love to respond to you, and my apologies for not having done so already!

Didja hear the one about...

An American girl boarded an Egged bus in Jerusalem, asking the driver “כמה ממון? Kama mamon?”. Without missing a blink, the driver snapped “תרי זוזי - Trei zuzei!” link

I hear your dad can get one little kid for תרי זוזי as well.

Why should we prefer the Masoretic text? Should we? An ahalakhic defense...kind of.

On another post a reader posed the following question:

"If there are many earlier translations from which we can infer a non-masoretic underlying text, or if we have different non- masoretic versions of the text as in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, & if some/many of these agree that a word is X and not the masoretic Y, can you explain one more time why Y is to be preferred to X. Most if not all non-Orthodox bible scholars, Jews and non Jews do not accept this rule and frequently choose the word X over Y. Are they all making a fundamental mistake?"

I started to type a short reply but it turned into a long reply. And here it is:

Y as in the whole (masoretic) text or Y is in the (masoretic) reading? If for the text, the answer is simple. Pound for pound its a better text than all the others. If for readings, you are correct, sometimes the others have the better reading. Why, whether and how Y (ie, masoretic) should be preferred then is a good question, and I will address that (although first let's get this point out of the way: if you mean from a halakhic point of view[1], it isn't even a question. The halakhah can't get into revising the Bible text every few years, so it simply has to prefer one stable text and that text is the masoretic text. I will get to Bible scholarship soon).

>Most if not all non-Orthodox bible scholars, Jews and non Jews do not accept this rule and frequently choose the word X over Y. Are they all making a fundamental mistake?

I assume then that you meant the readings and not the text. In other words, to prefer specfic non-masoretic readings over specific masoretic ones. There are a few issues involved.

First of all, it sounds like you're advocating what's called an eclectic text, that is, a Bible text with eclectic readings, the best readings, culled from the different versions, witnesses and, perhaps, the most sound textual emendations. Now, you should know that you are not alone in this opinion--but it is a minority opinion. Bible scholars mainly prefer to append variant readings as notes to the masoretic text rather than changing the text and presenting a new Hebrew text. A new text, by the way, which is a projection as to what a text might have looked like at some point. The exception is in Bible translations. Some Bible translations are happy to present a variant in the notes, but some are willing to incorporate the variant into the translation itself, and present the masoretic reading in the notes. That's a form of back door emendation that is not uncommon. But changing the Hebrew text itself is rare. Right now work is being done on a critical edition of the Bible which uses an eclectic text rather than the masoretic text as its base, but that's a departure from the norm.

Now obviously this is a conservative position. But conservatism is not necessarily a bad thing. For one thing, we have to determine what you're aiming for. Although the hunt used to be for the urtext, the presumed original text of biblical books, it is now widely believed that such an urtext is a chimera because it never existed. Like my siddur example[2] earlier. If you're trying to find what, say, Tehillim looked like when only one single text of it existed you may well be chasing after a rainbow if no original Tehillim ever existed. Based on the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls basically three families of Bible texts have been detected. One is like the Septuagint (but in Hebrew), one is proto-Samaritan (ie, like the Samaritan text but without the Samaritan changes) and one is proto-masoretic. Now, it used to be assumed that all families emerged from one text, but what if it didn't and these three emerged from three traditions, just as three siddurim based on three minhagim did? So an eclectic text, if this be true, is compiling a Bible which never existed. That's certainly one compelling reason not to do it.

Another thing to consider is that one of the canons of textual criticism is that difficult readings are generally to be preferred, unless it is an impossible reading. Why? Because we know that sometimes readings which seem strange to us aren't.

Here are two quick examples. In 1992 when Clinton ran for president his affair with Gennifer Flowers was revealed. Now, in 2000 years when someone finds a copy of the New York Post with her name on it, what should he do? Should he assume Geniffer is a typo? He should be cautious before doing that, and he'd be right to since it is not a typo. That's this principle in action with regards to spelling. But what about with regard to word choice, when the word seems to be a mistake? Well, before deciding it is a high level of proof needs to be met, otherwise you might just be projecting our own present ignorance onto the past. Do we correctly understand the full range of meaning of the Hebrew word or phrase? If not, perhaps the word or phrase is not an error at all.

An example I find interesting is this one. When the Oxford English Dictionary was being compiled, its idea was to scour English literature for every word, to judge what it meant from the context of how it was used. This was a departure from earlier dictionaries which kind of relied on the judgment of what the compiler thought the word meant or should mean (prescriptivism). The people who wanted to make the OED thought a superior method would be to find out how people use words and then present that as the meaning (descriptivism). To comb through almost all of English literature (books, newspapers, letters, manuals--you name it) required volunteers who agreed to write down words they read along with citations and the full quote. These were to be sent in and then the millions of slips of paper were edited and these were used in defining the words. The project took 70 years to complete! (By which time, of course, extensive appendices were already required) In any case, the head of the project was a guy named James Murray (quite a character, read about him in Simon Winchester's "The Meaning of Everything"). One of the OED's greatest volunteer contributors was a guy named Dr William Minor, an American physician who happened to be incarcerated in England in an asylum for the criminally insane for a murder he committed. The man was insane. He was haunted by demons (and Irishmen) and eventually he castrated himself. But he was brilliant. In any case, Minor had some money and was able to cultivate an extensive library of rare books in his confinement, and he dutifully sent in slips for something like twenty years. He was the most prolific and best organized contributor. Murray always wanted to meet him and he had no idea that he was 1) locked up 2) a murderer 3) mentally ill. The letters would arrive bearing a return address with the name of the asylum (and the word asylum) on it. But the thing is, in the 19th century asylum did not mean or imply anything about mental illness. It simply meant refuge (which is still one of its meanings). So Murray assumed that Minor lived in some retreat. Boy, was he in for a surprise when he finally went to visit him! (Read Winchester's "The Professor and the Madman")

Assuming your eyes haven't glazed over by now, my point was that it would be a mistake to read the word "asylum" in a 19th century text through 21st century eyes. If you read that someone lived in, I don't know, Shadybrook Asylum in 1878 we might assume something about him that is simply unwarranted. Now, multiply the ambiguities which come from changing languages manifold in the case of Hebrew and the passage of time. Before we can say "This text is corrupt" we need to have a high degree or probability to be sure the corruption isn't in *our* understanding of what might have been a perfectly fine Hebrew idiom. By the way, I see people making this mistake all the time, whether its reading the famous Gemara about the four tannaim who entered the "Pardes" in light of the medieval acronym Pardes (peshat, remez, derush and sod) or, say, assuming that "talmid chochom" in the Mishna means what it does today.

How about two simple, famous examples from the Torah? In Gen. 22:13 it says "וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה-אַיִל אַחַר נֶאֱחַז בַּסְּבַךְ בְּקַרְנָיו" - which the 1917 JPS translates as "And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns." The difficulty is the word אַחַר. Although the JPS kvetched that word in such a way that the sentence makes sense in English, it is difficult to see how he looked up and saw a ram behind him. It is particularly difficult when you consider that all the versions translate as "one ram," which means that they had איל אחד before them (presumably) and not איל אחר. When you consider that the daleth and resh look extremely similar, only a drop of ink separates them in both modern and paleo Hebrew characters, when you consider that in speaking /r/ and /d/ can sometimes be confused (at least by veddy British people) and when you consider that he looked up and saw "a ram," which is what איל אחד means it seems overwhelmingly likely that originally the Torah actually said איל אחד, and not איל אחר.

But the thing is this: not necessarily. It is the more difficult reading, but it is plausibly the more original one. Can we truly say that we understand the sentence enough to know that it isn't a perfectly fine sentence with a perfectly sensible meaning for the time it was written? It could be that by the time of the Septuagint the sentence didn't make sense and so daleth was substituted for resh, assuming that was correct. It could be that someone reading it out loud to a scribe made the mistake. In short, even though I think this is as close as you can get to 100%, that the original reading is ehad and not ahar, it isn't 100%. Perhaps further research will reveal that it is the correct reading, as the difficult ones often are.

My second example is the confusion between the people the Torah calls Dodanim (Gen. 10:4) and Chronicles calls Rodanim (Chronicles 1:7). Part of the question is which ancient people are these to be identified? No one knows for sure, but if indeed it is the Rhodians then it would seem that Gen. 10:4 has a textual error (and, by the way, all the versions have Rodanim instead of Dodanim). It would therefore seem that Chronicles reads correctly and not the Torah. Putting aside that it might not be the Rhodians--another candidate is the Dardanians, in which case either could be correct--what if it was? Is the masoretic Genesis an error?

Not necessarily, if we want to know what the text originally said. As I alluded to earlier, /d/ and /r/ actually can be confused in speech. Unless you can tell me with certainty how ancient Israelites pronounced Hebrew, I am not at all sure that /d/ and /r/ were not sometimes interchangeable in speech, or at least in writing, when spelling had not yet been standardized. In fact, English spelling wasn't standardized until the 18th century, and even then spelling keeps changing and standardization continues up until the present. So I am not at all sure that when ancient Israelites thought of those sea people we are talking about some might have thought it proper to spell it with a daleth and some with a resh and each could have correctly been representing the sound they heard their own mouths make. It would be sort of like trying to decide, sight unseen, to use a het or a khaf in spelling an unfamiliar word. Again, the question is what the very first Torah text had. Can we say with 100% certainty that it was spelled with a resh and not a daleth? I submit: no. It's close, maybe, but not 100%. (see for a 19th century take on it)

In any case, the question is, what does it mean to favor an eclectic text? To replace the Bible or book with it? Because obviously unless you are doing that the question is which of the many versions to prefer, and the answer will be the masoretic every time. Why? Because it is the best text. Period. Pound for pound it beats the Septuagint (its projected Hebrew vorlage). It beats the Peshitta, it beats the various Dead Sea texts. It is simply the text with the best integrity.

There was an 1882 article by Willis Beecher in The Hebrew Student called "Had the Massorites the Critical Instinct? and he more or less concluded they did. But, of course, in reality that's somewhat anachronistic. Not only that, the joke is on Beecher of whom we may ask "Had Beecher the Critical Instinct?," if he was seriously asking if men of the 7th-10th centuries might have approached text or reasoning in a manner similar to 19th century critical thinking. It's like conflating what being a rationalist meant in the 12th century and what it does today, or conflating what "asylum" means in two different eras. Which leads me to another point: in the 19th century there was a very, very great sense of self-assuredness in the world of scholarship. Man, they thought they knew everything and they thought they were just sooooo critical. Not to minimize the fact that an amazing amount of great, sound scholarship and thinking did take place, but surely we know that man's critical instinct had yet then--as now--to improve. In fact I would argue that the very fact that today we understand this while then they did not perceive that they were not as detached, not as critical as they could be, is proof that they were specifically lacking in something we have developed. And who knows how much off the mark we are in this regard? In the 19th century many brilliant people posited many brilliant emendations of the Bible, a lot of which turned out to be sound thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Kol ha-kavod to them. They were shown to be brilliant and right (for the record, Wellhausen was a fantastic textual critic, contra. apologists whom I have heard claim he didn't even know Hebrew[!]).

But a lot were dead ends and were mistakes, often because of faulty information or methodology. For example, until the second half of the 19th century and the discovery of paleo-Hebrew inscriptions it was believed that the Samaritan script was basically identical with paleo-Hebrew and on that basis lots of emendations were made. Sometimes it makes no difference, since indeed these emendations are borne out whether we are dealing with the actual paleo-Hebrew of the Biblical period or the Samaritan. But sometimes it does. For example, in the Samaritan a heh and a yud look awfully similar and can be confused by a scribe. But in paleo-Hebrew they do not look that similar and won't be confused. So if one were to suggest that a yud and a heh got mixed up on the basis of how the Samaritan script looks one would be wrong, wouldn't one? On the other hand, daleth and resh are awfully close in both scripts, so that wouldn't make a difference. Another difference is that we possess written as opposed to inscribed paleo-Hebrew and we know that the script was not written on leather or papyrus exactly the same way that it was chiseled into stone. (See)

And, of course, we now know a TON more about Hebrew philology then they did then. Back then there was an overemphasis on Arabic, which was thought to be the most useful Semitic language to compare Hebrew with as it was a spoken language and might have preserved many nuances of Semitic roots. We've since discovered an ancient Semitic language in Ugaritic which they didn't know existed. The relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic is better understood and a sense of proportion has been restored. The study of language in general is far more advanced.

The point is that an eclectic text from then would have made major blunders. Why would not an eclectic text of today not make major blunders too on the basis of unyet made discoveries? Sure, we could revise the text again and again, but en le-dovor sof. It happens to be that producing a serious critical text of a Bible book, to say nothing of the whole thing, takes years and enormous mental energy. It's hard to see how a version which probably would need to be revised as soon as it is done is practical. So, the minhag is to show the best masoretic text possible (usually today it is the Codex Leningrad B 19a; Hebrew U likes the Aleppo Codex, as we all do) and note the variants in the bottom or be sneaky and put them into the translations.

But putting all that aside, that doesn't mean that there aren't better and more original readings in other texts. It doesn't mean that emendations are worthless (many have been confirmed by witnesses). But as I said before, one has to be careful not to produce a "better" text which happens to be a fake text, not one which ever existed. Does the rebel in me like seeing variants? Yes, I do. I enjoy a good emendation. I wouldn't mind seeing that eclectic text when its produced. But it doesn't make good sense, to me, to replace the Bible with an eclectic text. If your goal is more accuracy, you might be able to fine tune it in slight ways, but to mix Septuagint and Peshitta, a reading attested to in a midrash and a conjectural emendation is not likely going to produce the original Bible. (and don't forget that each version and each witness have their own textual problems that are even graver in all cases than the masoretic text)

[1] This is different from the question of whether playing with textual criticism for intellectual reasons or homiletical reason (like to derive a new peshat to tell over), is halakhically permissible, rather than changing the text itself. In the latter case it simpy isn't, in the former there were posekim who felt that there is nothing wrong with textual criticism, without actually changing the text--for Nevi'im and Kethuvim (I am thinking specifically of R. Dovid Zvi Hoffmann* and R. Chaim Hirschensohn; not to mention R. Shmuel David Luzzatto, who wasn't a posek, but was an ehrliche Yid)--but as far as I know no one extends this to the Torah, for various reasons.
[2] The question of "urtext," what the original copy of the Bible books looked like is disputed, with some asserting that no such urtext ever existed, but that from the very beginning biblical books were circulated in (perhaps slightly) different versions. Before one can say that's impossible, I would point out that this is exactly the case with siddurim (Hebrew prayer books, which exist in versions according to regional custom). There is simply no way one can say that there was ever an ur-siddur. Rather, as Jewish prayer books came to be written (perhaps a thousand-ish years ago) the different versions emerged, all of which are clearly representing the same prayers, albeit differently.

*This is a later edit. R. Hoffmann indulged in emendations of rabbinic, not biblical texts, which he did not approve of.

When Midrash becomes Rabbinic homiletic literature and Goyim remain goyim...at least to a newspaper

On 2/26 Matthew Wagner wrote this article for the Jerusalem Post, about an effort being spearheaded by one Yitzhak Batzri to get 10,000 children to pray about Ahmenadijad.

In quoting Batzri, who almost certainly said the quote in Hebrew, it said:

"Rabbinic homiletic literature tells the story of how Mordechai the Jew got 10,000 little children to wear sackcloth and ashes and pray that God would foil Haman's diabolical plans," Yitzhak Batzri said. "Their prayers prevented a calamity. My father hopes to do the same against Ahmadinejad."

The very next day, 2/27, Wagner wrote this story, about an American pastor who heard of this story and thought "Why not try to get 6 million kids to pray for Israel?," and is speaheading that effort. That days' Batzri quote:

"Hopefully, it will awaken the entire world to the Iranian threat," said Batzri. "If the goyim have come to the realization that we are in danger, maybe the Jews in the Diaspora will finally wake up."

Now, obviously Batzri was speaking in Hebrew and someone at J Post, probably Wagner translated. So, why does "midrash" or "aggadah" become "Rabbinic homiletic literature" but "goyim" doesn't become "gentiles" or "non-Jews?"

There is a lot you can learn about newspapers and people by the way they handle translation issues. Although I obviously suspect that words are being put into Batzri's mouth, since he didn't say "If the goyim..." as it reads in English anymore than he said "Rabbinic homiletic literature," I'm not 100% sure how to interpret this, but I'm putting it out there.

Hat-tip: Enigma4U

In Defense of YCT

(I hope post titles aren't copyrighted!)

In light of Hirhurim's spirited defense of YCT, I thought it might be worthwhile to post R Nati Helfgot's letter to Gil, which for some reason is posted at a newly created blog without comments enabled.

=====

Shalom Uverakah! The mean-spirited attack on Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School as well as some of its faculty and musmachim recently printed in Yated Neeman has generated a lot of discussion. I do not have the desire to engage in a lengthy rebuttal to or discussion with people who are so antagonistic towards YCT and do not genuinely care about it or the real people (whose lives) are involved with it.

However, a number of people have asked me for some personal comment and so I feel impelled to share some disjointed thoughts. By the nature of my time constraints (teaching Torah and preparing shiurim, attempting to be a good husband and good father to my three little boys, and a grave illness in my immediate family which is sapping much of the emotional strength I have left) I will be briefer than I might have otherwise chosen to be.)

But first four disclaimers:

1. I write as an individual, not as a representative of the Yeshiva. Only R. Avi Weiss, the President and R. Dov Linzer, the rosh ha-Yeshiva can speak for the institution as a whole. I simply write from my personal perspective. R. Weiss and R. Linzer are dear friends and colleagues who tirelessly work on behalf of Torah and the Jewish people who do not deserve the harsh critique and demonization reflected in the article.



2. I am writing based on my knowledge and understanding of the facts. Like all human beings I may be mistaken or I may be recalling something in error. Please do not attribute any nefarious motives if I get a detail wrong. All human beings make mistakes, and a bit of generosity of spirit would help us all a long way in this difficult world in which we live.



3. There is something profoundly disturbing and unethical and lacking in basic derekh eretz and kevod ha-beriyot in a “Torah “newspaper not doing basic fact checking nor in engaging in the simple journalistic (and ethical) protocol of calling up the subjects of one’s reportage for comment, reaction, clarification, questions before publishing a lengthy and harsh attack. I weep for us as a community that this passes for “Torah-true journalism”.



4. The nature of quickly drafted comments intended for the blogosphere under great time and personal pressures means that the formulations may not be as robust, crisp and elegant as I might have desired.

A.

R. Linzer’s quote about struggling with difficult mitzvot that challenge our ethical notions and our conception of a just God (a conception that emerges from many parts of the Torah) is a badge of honor. God implanted within us a moral sensibility and did not want us to be morally insensitive or obtuse. Gedolei olam from time and immemorial struggled with difficult mitzvot such as the commandment to obliterate Amalek. Read some of the writings of Rav Lichtenstein in English and in Hebrew or the recent essays by Rabbi Shalom Carmy and Rabbi Norman Lamm in the new volume on “War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition” for any more citations.

B.

The citation from Rabbi Linzer’s essay in Milin Havivin was taken out of context. An even simple reading of the entire essay debunks any notion that somehow calls for “changing” or “breaking” halakhah in any fashion. Anyone who has a sat a day in his halakhah shiur on Hilkhot Niddah or Hilkhot Shabbat knows the care and seriousness with which he, a true talmid hakham of outstanding middot and sensitivity, approaches the halakhic process.

C.

YCT has never claimed it follows in the footsteps of the Rav zt”l as Hasidim follow a rebbe. This is simply a straw man to selectively cite some of the most polemical statements of the Rav (I would like to see the Yated cite some other statements of the Rav such as his insistence on the importance of women as well as men learning Gemara intensively or some of his critiques of the yeshivish world in Hamesh Derashot etc.)

Indeed, the idea that all Modern Orthodox rabbis, shuls or institutions (and even Yeshiva University) slavishly follow every major p’sak or public policy directive of the Rav is an illusion. Just to cite one example (amongst many), the Rav was vigorously opposed to liturgical innovation such as writing or adding Kinot for the Holocaust on Tisha be-Av. He was also opposed to the institution of Yom ha-shoah and many of the liturgical additions that have become de-rigueur in Yom Ha’atzmaut celebrations. Yet, there are dozens, if not hundreds of modern-Orthodox shuls throughout North-America led by rabbis, many of whom were close talmidim of the Rav who have adopted those very elements that the Rav was opposed to. YCT takes inspiration from the teachings of the entire panoply of great rabbinic figures of previous generations as well as the current generation. We are inspired by the teachings and writings of Rav Kook, Rav Hutner, Rav Hirsch, Rav Hildesheimer, Rav Hoffman, Rav Weinberg, Rav Herzog all of them zt”l as well as many others (including a number who might be pegged as Hareidi) too numerous to list here. We have never claimed to be the bearers of the specific mesorah of any one individual gadol or leader.

Substantively on the interfaith issue:

First, let us get some facts down correctly, irrespective of reports on blogs or newspapers. As far as I understand, The World Jewish Congress asked YCT (as well as Yeshiva University) to host a visit of prominent Catholic cardinals who also wanted to see how a beit medrash functions and what hevruta learning is. YCT acceded to this request for many reasons far beyond the scope of this short post, (a decision I believe was correct and necessary) and indeed hosted the Cardinals for this event which included a very powerful speech by R. Weiss describing his inner conflict with hosting the event given the Church’s historic anti-semitism and his personal battle over the crosses at Auschwitz. Yet he also spoke of his hopes for the future and for a world where people can come together for the good of all of mankind and touched on many other themes. After a few more speeches and the singing of a niggun the program concluded with a half an hour of learning a small passage on the origin of Jewish prayer from Masechet Berakhot. (Though it has not been mentioned, Yeshiva University-Stern College for Women hosted the Cardinals the very next day and they also learned Gemara be-hevruta with some of the women in the Stern Graduate Talmud program as I recall it was reported in the YU-Stern College Observer). While this may not be every one’s cup of tea and the images are jarring to many people because of the historic and sociological experiences that we carry as Jews in relation to the Church, it did not formally cross any of the Rav’s formal public policy guidelines that he articulated in the mid 1960’s. The Rav had very specific things in mind that he felt should be restricted such as formal debate and dialogue about topics such as the Seder and the Eucharist and Jesus as the Jewish Messiah as he wrote explicitly a number of times (see Community, Covenant and Commitment, pgs. 260-261). He did not believe that any and all contact of any religious character was automatically out of bounds.

Moreover, if the writer wanted to truly discuss the application of the Rav’s guidelines written almost fifty years ago to the contemporary scene, a more serious analysis is needed. This analysis should include an honest discussion as to whether in the aftermath of the radical changes that have occurred in the last decade in the Catholic Church such as the recognition of the State of Israel, the beginning of a process of owning up to historical Christian anti-semitism and their share of responsibility for the Shoah, the change in attitudes towards Jews and Judaism that has seeped into Catholic practice and education and the rise of the radical Islam and its threat would (all things that have come on the scene after the Rav’s death in 1993), the Rav’s own assessment of the public policy issue of interfaith dialogue might have undergone a shift.

Finally, it is a fact that there are currently are (and in truth always were) substantial voices within the Orthodox community and leadership that differ with the wholesale application of the Rav’s guidelines in our current reality. Indeed since the recognition of Israel by the Vatican, many of the Chief Rabbis of Israel, including some who are recognized poskim, as well a great rabbanim such as Rav Shear Yashuv ha-Kohen and Rav Menachem Fruman have engaged in full fledged religious dialogue in many countries and in many venues. Even in the United States there have been dissenters from the Rav’s guidelines in the last three decades who remained in good standing in the Orthodox community including such well-known figures as Prof. Michael Wyschograd, who continues to teach at Yeshiva University and is a member of the editorial board of Tradition magazine. Thus, on a practical level, I do not believe that YCT should automatically restrain students or rabbis who desire to engage in that type of dialogue. It is should at least be obvious that those who do choose to engage in that dialogue do not somehow become “non-orthodox” by virtue of taking that track.

D.

The Hareidi world and the Modern-Orthodox world differ as to whether there should be any interaction between Orthodox rabbis and clergy from the other Jewish denominations. This issue has long divided various segments of the Orthodox community and revolves around the tenuous balance between working together on programs and causes on behalf of the Jewish people and the fear that Orthodoxy is legitimizing heterodox movements and approaches to Judaism. Even within the Modern-Orthodox rabbinic which has generally taken a more liberal approach to this issue there are differences of nuance and perspective on this question. Thus, some Modern-Orthodox rabbis will not participate in joint board of rabbis, but might join together in a occasional lecture series with Reform or Conservative rabbis, while others will not even do that, while still others (especially beyond the narrow confines of the NY area) will join in on joint boards. These issues have bedeviled the community for half a century and there are and always have been various practices within the Modern-Orthodox community. For example, while some talmidim of the Rav did not sit on any joint boards, there were others, also talmidim of the Rav, who did in fact do that and rightfully remained in good standing in the Orthodox community.

YCT Rabbinical School as I understand it, while emphatically rejecting a hard pluralism that comes close to relativism, strongly feels that interaction and cooperation, without blurring distinctions can be beneficial for the greater good of the Jewish people and ultimately spreading the message of Torah to Klal Yisrael as a whole. We are driven by the Rav’s vision of a shared community of fate as well as Rav Lichtenstein’s clarion call some two decades ago which went even further:

With respect to reducing polarization, I am convinced that the best approach does not call for minimizing differences but rather for maximizing community. Basic ideological differences exist and to blur them is both irresponsible and anti-halakhic...We can , however, place greater emphasis upon the factors which without denying difference, transcend it; upon confraternity, upon historical and existential ties, upon essential components of a shared moral and spiritual vision, upon elements of a common fate and a common destiny. We should not only concede but assert that, whatever their deviations, other camps include people genuinely in search of the Ribbono shel olam. (Leaves of Faith, Vol. 2: pg. 360)

We also are animated by the teachings of Rav Kook who dialectically saw some partial truths and kernels of holiness and insight even in movements and ideologies that on the whole were in conflict with the basic world-views of fidelity to traditional Torah outlooks that he espoused. A full-blown treatment of the sof-pluralism of Rav Kook is beyond the scope of these short comments. I would also refer the reader to the excellent articles by Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm “Seventy Faces” in his collection Seventy Faces Vol 1 and R. Shmuel Goldin “Why Can’t We All Just Get Along: An Orthodox Rabbi’s View on Pluralism” in the Edah Journal 1:1 which nicely articulate many of the perspectives that guide us at YCT. In short, the approach adopted by the Yeshiva has very good Orthodox pedigree and is one that while open to critique should not be caricatured or demonized.

E.

In that spirit, there is much to be gained in the areas of pastoral counseling, leadership training, speaking skills, making life-cycle events meaningful, homiletical ideas and even in selected areas of Jewish thought from non-Orthodox speakers and clergy. While the core faculty of the Yeshiva are classical talmidei hakhamim and fully Orthodox rabbanim and professionals, we appreciate and value the insights and experiences of others beyond our immediate community when they can help us train our students to be effective, compassionate and professionally trained rabbis. In that context, in addition to inviting other Orthodox rabbis and professionals to occasionally speak to our students in various areas of the curriculum we have also opened our doors to non-Orthodox rabbis and professionals in areas where they can contribute positively to the education of our students.

F.

Rabbi Jonathan Milgram is a first rate talmid hakham, scholar, and ehrlicher yid. The attempt to besmirch him is painful and inappropriate. R. Milgram is a fully Orthodox rabbi, a musmach of YU-RIETS, who learned for a number of years in R. Baruch Simon’s shiur at YU, before going on for his doctorate in academic Talmud. He lives in Teaneck, NJ and is an active member of R. Kenny Schiowitz’ shul.

R. Milgram does indeed teaches full-time at JTS (there are not many positions available in academic Talmud in most of the yeshivot in Brooklyn and Monsey that I know) and teaches a once a week afternoon class in the history of Talmudic literature and the history of rishonim at YCT. This is a supplemental course to the regular Gemara and halakhah learning of the Yeshiva akin to a YU-Revel course taken by RIETS students who are studying at Revel as their afternoon program while they are in the semicha program. There too they may study academic Talmud studies or even take other courses occasionally taught by professors such as Dr. Benji Gampel, who are full-time professors at JTS but sometimes are invited to teach a semester or two at Revel.

The Hareidi world and many in the Modern-Orthodox rabbinic world view academic Talmud with a very jaundiced eye. This is certainly their right. However, it is highly unfair to claim that those who integrate these methods into their learning are somehow automatically out of the pale and to be tarred as “non-orthodox”. Great gedolim such as Rav A. Hildesheimer, R. D.Z. Hoffman, the Seridei Eish and many other lesser known Orthodox rabbinic figures would certainly take strong umbrage at that accusation. Moreover, many great, fully Orthodox scholars and rabbanim continue to integrate those methodologies in their learning. To demonize the whole pursuit of academic Talmud study is ultimately to tar and feather such Orthodox rabbonim as: R. Jeremy Wieder (Rosh Yeshiva-YU), R. Ozer Glickman (Rosh Yeshiva-YU), R. Mayer Lichtenstein (Rosh Yeshiva-Yeshivat Kibbutz ha-Dati and grandson of the Rav zt”l) Rabbi Dr. Yaacov Elman (YU-Revel) and many others. The issue of the parameters and limits of integrating academic Talmud study into traditional learning of Gemara may be an important one, but it deserves a serious and measured discussion, not argument by screed and name calling.

G.

R. Zev Farber is a wonderful young talmid hakham and musmach of YCT. The vituperative language and calumny heaped upon him was hurtful and inappropriate.

His essay analyzing some of the life choices of Yaakov Avinu raised the ire of the author of the Yated essay. I do not want to address the cogency of the specific ideas of the essay or whether I would have used this or that formulation or more nuanced language. These are all issues which one can calmly debate. The issue at hand, however, is much more fundamental. Learning and teaching about the greatness, achievements, holiness and stature of our biblical heroes such as the Avot and Imahot coupled with an honest and rich understanding of the human dimension, feelings, as well as struggles, mistakes and errors of those very characters has been discussed in many forums. It is one of the dividing lines between contemporary Hareidi (and Hardal and right wing-Modern Orthodox) parshanut and classical modern-and contemporary open Orthodox parshanut. In general terms we at YCT are animated and guided by the sentiments expressed by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein:

Advocates of hagiographic parshanut, which portrays the central heroic figures of scriptural history as virtually devoid of emotion, can only regard the sharpening of psychological awareness with reference to tanakh with a jaundiced eye. But for those of us who have been steeped in midrashim, the Ramban, and the Ha’amek Davar-in a tradition, that is, which regards the patriarchal avot and their successors as very great people indeed but as people nonetheless, and which moreover sees their greatness as related to the their humanity—enhanced literary sensibility can be viewed as a significant boon. (Judaism’s Encounter With other Cultures, pg. 226)

In oral comments Rav Lichtenstein made in 1984 at a melaveh malkah he was even sharper. Asked about this general topic he pithily replied: “There are two approaches to the humanity of the Avot, that of Rav Aharon Kotler and that of Hazal!” He further went on to bemoan that the Hareidi perspective ultimately turns the Avot and Imahot into “ossified figures of petrified tzidkus”.

Below are some basic marei mekomot and essays that are worthwhile exploring for those who want to pursuer this further. What is fascinating to me is that in this issue it is really the Hareidi position which is really "modern” as Hazal and the Rishonim were much more open to these nuances than contemporary Hareidi writers. Indeed if one reads Bereishit and Shemot Rabbah systematically one sees Hazal's deep assessment of the humanity, struggles, failings, emotions of the greatest of the great. Anyway here are some very selective basic sources and readings (besides dozens of examples in Midrash that are too numerous to list here).

1. Ramban on Genesis 12-story of Avraham and Famine; Ramban on the story of Hagar's first banishment by Sarah-Gen 16
2. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch-Gen 12:10;Gen 25:27;Exod 6:14
3. Rav Yitzhak Hutner- Igrot U-Ketavim- Letter #128
4. R. Aharon Lichtenstein, "Torah and General Culture" in "Judaism's Encounter With Other Cultures", pg 227
5. Joel Wolowelsky, "Kibbud Av and Kibbud Avot" Tradition 33:4 (199) pg 35-44
6. H. Angel, "Learning Faith From the Text" in "Wisdom From All My Teachers"
7. A. David, Perspectives on the Avot and Imahot", Ten -Daat 5:2 (1991)
8. Z. Grumet, "Another Perspectives on the Avot and Imahot" Ten-Daat 6:1(1992)
9. H. Dietcher, "Between Angels and Mere Mortals: Nechama Leibowitz' Approach to the Study of Biblical Characters" in Journal of Jewish Education 66:1-2 (200)
10. E. Shapiro, "Approaching the Avot" , www.atid.org
11. On the “Hatzofeh” website, a few years ago there was a whole debate on this topic; Havikuach al ha-tanakh and you can access many essays including an excellent one by Rav Yoel Bin Nun

H.

I have had the good fortune to visit many of the YCT musmachim in the field and I am constantly overwhelmed by their commitment to Torah, the Jewish people, and helping Jews grow spiritually in their connection to God. I am proud of all of the work that they are doing in teaching the devar Hashem, comforting the bereaved and the lonely, energizing their communities and touching lives and hearts throughout North America.

All of us are human and occasionally a young musmach can and does make a mistake in p’sak or in a d’var Torah or in dealing with a difficult text or attempting to formulate a theological concept. I know that in the 18 years since I received semicha, I (as well as many of my colleagues) have made mistakes in all of those areas. Today, of course, mistakes are instantly magnified by the power of the Internet and world-wide communication. In addition, sometimes, in a desire to present an idea in a meaningful and arresting way young musmachim and students do not judiciously choose careful language. Moreover, sometimes radical ideas are actually rooted in kabbalistic or hassidic sources, (such as the writings of the Ishbitzer, Rav Zadok or Rav Kook) but are not familiar to mainstream traditional Orthodox audiences. It is important for writers in those contexts to properly source and explain where they are coming from. It is clear to me that in our history a musmach or a student has occasionally made a mistake (out of sincere conviction) in a number of the areas that I listed above.

Here and there, there have also been formulations that I would consider have crossed some lines. Whether, when and how an institution should respond to such phenomena is a difficult issue touching on serious issues that include a whole panoply of considerations. One thing I am sure of, the forum for such a discussion is not a mean-spirited attack article that reflects no generosity of spirit nor understanding of the real people involved, the work and context in which they operate and the world-views and perspectives that they come from.

I.

The attempt to somehow tar YCT and some of its faculty with the taint of being anti-Israel is beneath contempt. YCT is a proudly religious-Zionist yeshiva whose faculty and student body affirm both the historical and religious significance of the State of Israel. On every Monday and Thursday in its Beit Medrash, the mi-shebeirach prayer for the welfare of the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces is movingly recited after Keriat ha-Torah (highly doubt that this is the custom of the minyanim attended by the authors and editors or readership of the Yated!). The president and dean of the Yeshiva, R. Avi Weiss was and is one of the heroes of pro-Israel activism in the United States. The Yeshiva pulsates with connection and love for Israel, its people and the IDF (indeed a number of our students have proudly served in the IDF and have seen combat).

Guilt by association is not an honorable tactic and in America is usually associated with the specter of McCarthyism. It is a fact that some of the faculty of YCT spoke last year at a conference on human rights abuses in the United States at the invitation of the North American Rabbis For Human Rights. The conference was to focus on the American front and not on issues related to Israel (that being the condition that the YCT faculty agreed to participate in the first place). The fact that this group is also allied with a group in Israel that has harshly critiqued the IDF and the Israeli government does not in any mean that everyone whoever has anything to do with the North American branch magically agrees with every or anything posited by the Israeli organization (That is guilt by association squared!) Furthermore, the fact that one or two students in our history participated in a left-wing rally or signed on to a petition five years ago critical of the tactics of the IDF (positions, that despite my personal opposition to them, are part of the legitimate discourse that takes place amongst committed Zionist and supporters of Israel both and in the Israel) no more means that this is the position espoused by a majority or even a significant minority of students at YCT. This is no more cogent than saying that most students in RIETS are supporters of the Shira-Hadashah partnership type minyanim because one of the founders of the Darkei Noam Minyan on Manhattan’s upper West Side was student at RIETS when the minyan was founded!

How the Bible militates against parochialism and ignorance

I thought I'd try my hand at that inspirational pull-a-quote genre.

Thomas Huxley said, of the Bible:

"[I]t forbids the veriest hind who never left his village to be ignorant of the existence of other countries and other civilizations, and of a great past, stretching back to the farthest limits of the oldest nations in the world."

Google goofles

Haha. Link

Masoretic text: the other side of the story

I enjoy hearing the other perspective on issues. Well, not always, but I do when I barely even knew there was another perspective. For example, I would probably find an ancient Philistine chronicle fascinating. What was their version of events? We have something of that nature in the Mesha Stele.

Blogger a Goy for Jesus has a couple of posts about textual criticism of the Bible (see here and here.) In the first one he links to two audio clips of short lectures on textual criticism and the masoretic transmission by a preacher named Fred Butler. I listened to the second clip (the masoretic one). Butler is an engaging speaker and it isn't a bad overview (and I don't mean to knock him, but I was amused by some mispronunciations; an amusing one was Jacob ben Tschaim)--don't get me wrong, I'd probably do the same if I was saying aloud Greek or Arabic words which I only learned from books--if anything it's just an object lesson in the limitations of the Latin alphabet for portraying the sounds of Hebrew). An Evangelical Christian, a major focus of these lectures seems to be to combat King James Onlyism (and indirectly "the" masoretic text, which it was based on), hence his interest in textual criticism. (Or at least that's my take.)

In any case, after discussing why and how there is a uniform text for the Hebrew Bible he turned to the why and how there are so many texts of the Versions with many thousands of differences. As many of my readers will knows, this fact is thought to impugn the integrity of the Christian Bible by many non-Christians. You will find this remarked upon at Aish seminars and also by Muslims. Although we can argue how meaningful this really is, it's somewhat irrelevant from a Christian perspective, since Christians relate to their Bible in a different way from Jews and Muslims. Jews and Muslims expect a basically uniform text, because they have basically uniform texts. Christians don't, because they don't. Furthermore, although there is some sense that a particular language version has special sanctity (ie, Latin Vulgate for Catholics, Syriac Peshittha for some eastern churches, King James for many Anglo Christians, etc) it is my understanding that many Christians expect Bibles in dozens of versions, in as many languages as possible. So there simply cannot be the same sense of "this text is THE Bible" in the same way Jews can have it or Muslims can have it. Everyone who places the Vulgate at the top is aware that it is a translation.

In any case, what of all the differences? Isn't it clear and obvious that a perfect text with no differences is better and has more integrity? You might think that. But Mr Butler has another viewpoint and it is specifically directed at King James Onlyists, who wish to invest all their eggs in one basket, with one version. Using the Qur'an as a foil, he says that it originally had a multiplicty of texts, but under the auspices of the third khaliph one version emerged, all others being confiscated and destroyed (he makes an error in saying that the Sunni and Shi'a Muslims have two texts which don't agree).

Here's the argument: there is a pitfall to having ONE text and it is the following. If you have one text of sacred scriptures there is always the danger that some heretic could alter the text (!). Obviously he would have to be a despot with great power (he'd also have to, I suppose, destroy the internet).

"A multiplicty of copies helps prevent any one heretic from gathering them all up and inserting error into it. Because if you get one little group of that, and you do mess up the text--if he was to do that, well you'd have three or four other families [of texts]...that would witness against this guy's corruption that he put together. You see that with the New Testament as well....There are so many copies that there is no way a heretic could gather them all up to changedGod's word. You don't have that with the Qur'an. There's only one copy of it now."

I haven't had the chance to turn this argument over in my mind much, but one thing is for sure: it's a new perspective and I was glad to hear it.

Purim is coming

Posted at Mail-Jewish in 2005 by the talented Martin Stern (via Manuscript Boy):

Classic line, in my opinion:

Ibn Shakhran notes that, throughout the Torah, the name of Noach is
spelled chaser, yet in the Megillah, we find it spelled malei in three
places, a hint to be livesumei bePurya ad delo yada, in that one should
be as malei yayin as Noach (Gen. 9,21).

==========

Book Review

Shorshei Kerem Rosh Nevolim by Mordekhai ibn Shakhran
edited with introduction and notes by Rabbi Alter Brandwein
(240 + xii pages, $100)

reviewed by Shimmy Benkish,
Emeritus Professor of Palaeooinology, University of Weinburg

As has been reported widely, the Sefer Shorshei Kerem Rosh Nevalim
by the 10th century exegete, Ibn Shakhran, was found recently in the
wine cellars of the Vatican where its folios had been used as stoppers
in ancient amphorae. Until now he was only known from scattered
quotations but now we can appreciate his deep understanding of the
Tenakh in all its brilliance.

The author obviously chose this name for his sefer as an acrostic of
his name. It is also a reference to his home town, Gibraltar, which had
been known, previous to the Arab conquest, as Nebelberg from the
Visigothic word meaning 'foggy mountain', because of the clouds that
often envelope its summit, or el Pe'on, the Rock, as it is still called
by its residents, HaTsur in mediaeval Jewish works. The Arabs renamed it
Gebal Tariq, the mountain of Tariq, after their leader. In defiance, the
indigenous population called it 'el Pe'on del cabecilla', literally the
rock of 'the head of the gang of scoundrels', rosh nevolim.

It seems that his idea that Hebrew words were derived from four letter
roots from which one letter was removed to give different nuances of
meaning, drew the ire of his contemporary, Dunash Ibn Labrat, who wrote
of him "Ben Kaf keVen Quf ", implying that, with such opinions, his name
should have been with a quf rather than a kaf. This may also be the
earliest reference to the colony of Barbary apes which still live in
Gibraltar. Ibn Ezra was moved to defend our author against this calumny
in his comment on Tehillim (81,17) "umitsur devash asbi'eka - kemo
hamefaresh hagadol Ibn Shakhran me'ir Tsur shemidevarov anu sevei'im
devash." This may itself be an allusion to Ibn Shakhran's introductory
comment to the Megillah "Why is Shushan always referred to as 'HaBirah'
- because it was the centre of beer production in Achashverosh's
empire." In Biblical usage devash invariably refers to date honey, the
raw material for beer manufacture in Bavel, barley beer being peculiar
to the land of Madai ('Beer Production in the Bible and Talmud' by
Professor Yehoiyada Felix, Beer Sheker University Press, 5715*)

To give the readers a better idea of his approach, we quote some
further insights on the Megillah which will whet their appetite for
more.

Noach and the Megillah

Ibn Shakhran notes that, throughout the Torah, the name of Noach is
spelled chaser, yet in the Megillah, we find it spelled malei in three
places, a hint to be livesumei bePurya ad delo yada, in that one should
be as malei yayin as Noach (Gen. 9,21).

He notes (Esth. 9,17) that this must be the source of the beraisa
brought in the Avos deRabbi Natlan (Schlechter edition, 1,1-3, Van
De'Stijl Brothers' Press, Weinheim, Baden, 5526*):

"HaBakbuk kibel haYayin meKerem umesarah leNoach (Gen. 9, 20-21),
veNoach liVnos Lot (19, 31-36), uVenos Lot leOved Edom haGitti (2
Sam. 6, 10), veOved Edom haGitti leNaval haKarmeli (1 Sam. 25, 36)
[There seems to be a chronological inaccuracy here since Naval was prior
to Oved Edom, but perhaps this is a case of ein me'uchar umukdam
beshikhrus - when drunk one has no perception of time - S.B], veNaval
haKarmeli leBelshatsar (Dan. 5), uVelshatsar leAchashverosh,
veAchashverosh asah mishteh lekhol sarav ve'avadav (Esth. 1, 3) " Noach
hayah omer 'Al sheloshah devarim haOlam omed, al haYayyin ve'al
haShekhar ve'al haSaraf' " Hu hayah omer 'Im ein kerem ein yayin ve'im
ein yayin ein shikhrus' ''

Its repetition (9,18), supports Rav Yeina Saba's memra in Massekhes
Shikurim. (Falsher edition 7,12, Tokayer Press, Martha's Vineyard,
Mass., 5716*) that 'livesumei applies to both days of Purim, umeshum
sefeika deyoma machmirin bazeh"!

In his comment on "ya'asu eits gevoah chamishim amah" (5,14), Ibn
Shakhran brings Midrash Shekhar Tov which explains that Haman obtained
this piece of timber from Noach who had used it as one of the cross
beams of the ark (Gen. 6,15):

"How is it that Noach was drawn into the Megillah? Our Sages teach
that when Zeresh told Haman to hang Mordekhai on a gallows fifty amos
high, he asked her where such an enormous piece of timber might be
found. To this she replied 'Did not your ancestor Noach build his ark
with such mighty beams? Go to him and ask for one!' This advice greatly
pleased Haman and he did so. When he came to Noach with his request
Noach refused, so Haman grabbed one end and tried to make off with
it. At this, Noach grabbed the other end to prevent its loss but, being
an extremely elderly man, could not stop Haman who thereby dragged him
with the beam into the Megillah."

Since it says (Esth. 9,16) "veNoach mei'oyeveihem", which he
translates as "and Noach from among their enemies", Ibn Shakhran points
out that Haman's hatred of Jews must have come from Noach together with
the rest of his junk

The mothers-in-law of Achashverosh

It seems that surrogate motherhood was still known in his days since
he comments on the verse "Gam Vashti haMalkah asesah mishteh nashim"
(1,9) "HaKesiv 'mishteh' im hei, vekakri 'mishtei' im yud, vezeh sod
gadol - achas lezera' veachas le'ibbur" and notes that both are named in
the Megillah, "Bo'arah" (1,12) and "Keshokh" (2,1). The former was
obviously the biological mother as he explains "venikreis al shem zeh
mipnei shehe'erah bah ba'alah", so the latter must have been the
surrogate. He notes that it is clear that these two must be the mothers
of Vashti since they are brought in connection with her downfall.

He comments "al tikri 'kam bechamaso' (7,7) ela 'beKam chamoso'
vezeh shemah shel imah shel Esther " she was also known as "Shokhakhah"
(7,10) and this is no contradiction to the verse 'she had no father or
mother' (2,7) because her mother's name had been forgotten. Though some
say Esther had two mothers like Vashti, this is a mistake: her mother's
name was 'Kam', and 'Shokhakhah' was rak kinnui be'alma".

There are many further insights brought by Ibn Shakhran for which
the reader is recommended to obtain a copy and intoxicate himself with
its wisdom, "halo hem kesuvim al sefer (10, 2)".

*Note that hashtus, hashikor and hashasui have gematrias 5715, 5526 and
5716 respectively. Also this year 5765 is the gematria of hashetuim
(with two yuds from the shem hameshulav of course!)

Some quaint 17th century English definitions of Hebrew words

1. From John Florio's Italian-English dictionary, "Queen Anna's New World of Words," 1611, הושענה:



Osánna signifies in Hebrew, saue or quicken vs now we pray thee our viuification. The Iewes called so the willow branches, which they bare in their hands at the feast of Tabernacles. Some vnderstand it for inexpressible ioy.

2. Another from Florio, תיו:



Tháu an Hebrew letter vsed often misteriously for the crosse of Christ, as also for the number of 400.

(See "X and Th," appendix to R. Saul Lieberman's Greek in Jewish Palestine which discusses the relationship between the paleo-Hebrew form of ת (which resembled an X) and the Greek letter Chi (also resembling an X) , remarked in several obscure midrashim. The Christians, of course, interpreted both ת and Chi for the sign of the cross. See also Ezekiel 9:4)

3. Edmund Bolton's "The Elements of Armories," 1610, מצרים:

MIZRAIM. The Hebrew, or MOSAICAL name of the ÆGYPTIANS, which I vse, the rather to signifie thereby those ÆGYPTIANS that were of the oldest times. HEB.


4. Randle Cotgrave's "Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues," 1611, שקל:



Cicle; m. A Sheicle; an Hebrew coyne, or weight of two drammes, worth about foureteene pence ster­ ling. Cicle du Sanctuaire. Was twice as much as the ordi­narie one; foure drammes in weight; in value, two shil­ lings foure pence sterl.

5. Edward Phillips' "The New World of English Words," 1658, קבלה:

Cabala, an Hebrew word, signifying receiving, also a science among the Jews, comprehending the secret wayes of expounding the Law, which were revealed by God to Moses.

6. Phillips, אלישבע:

Elizabeth, the proper name of a woman, from the Hebrew words Eli, and Shavang, i. e. the Oath of God.

This one is interesting, because he uses the /ng/ pronunciation for `ayin i.e. Western Sephardic.

7. Phillips, again, ממון:

Mammon, the God of wealth, the word signifying in the Syriack tongue riches, or wealth, and is derived from the Hebrew word Hamon, i. plenty, having M. Hemantick added at the beginning.

Interesting etymology!

George Bush @ English Hebraica (alsos something for the pedants)

1. Learn about Professor George Bush and download a very interesting review of his 1835 Hebrew grammar at English Hebraica.

2. For the pedants and dictionary readers: quaint 17th century definitions of Hebrew words at English Hebraica.

NYU's Hebrew Professor George Bush (1796-1859)

George Bush (1796-1859), an ordained minister, was professor of Hebrew and oriental literature at NYU from 1832-1846. He would have been long forgotten if not for the fact that he was a George Bush. He is indeed a relative of the president; not an ancestor, but a cousin five times removed.* Indeed, the very existence of a Wikipedia page on him would have been exceedingly unlikely, in my opinion, if not for his name.

Although specialists in the field of Christian Hebraism knew of him, no one else would have had not Shalom Goldman brought it to wider attention after "discovering" him in 1988. Intrigued to discover the president's name in an article by Raphael Loewe's in the Encyclopedia Judaica ("European Christian Hebraists") that mentioned "George Bush (USA)," Goldman was spurned to investigate. In 1989 Newsweek reported the existence of this long forgotten professor, quoting Goldman.

With the publication of a 1991 article in the American Jewish Archives called "Professor George Bush: American Hebraist and Pro-Zionist," the White House noticed. "It" sent a letter to Goldman, "artfully written," connecting it with the adminstration's "search for peace in the Middle East".

Also of note is that he wrote a book called The Life of Muhammad, a fact which has been noted in the Islamic world today.

Of interest--and, in fact, this is why I wrote this post--is a 27 page review from 1835 of a 298 page Hebrew grammar he wrote, from the Princeton Theological Review. I uploaded a copy which can be downloaded here.

The review is basically favorable, with some qualms. I was very amused by this part of the review, where Bush is taken to task for a couple of decisions he made:

[The grammar] sort of [takes] for granted that the reader knows what he cannot know if he is a beginner....Thus, for example, when Professor Bush talks of letters being sounded theoretically one way and practically another, the terms are in themselves perspicuous enough, and any one who had a previous smattering of the language, would at once perceive their meaning. But what idea can a novice form of a theoretical sound as distinguished from a practical one?

...Another circumstance which strikes us very early is the author's adoption of Professor Stuart's [method of transliteration] of certain Hebrew letters. [Stuart] represents the aspirated Daleth by dh, which was long since pointed out by Sir William Jones as a proper symbol of the natural relation between the soft th and the ordinary d. Professor Bush denoted it by th, and assigns as a reason that "its sound is practically that of th in though."....he carries it so far as to use the form Begath-kephath, where the very object of employing the word at all is to keep its elements distinctly in the memory, which design is thus defeated by repeating the th....This sort of trifling...is very apt to fascinate grammarians, but a little thought will show its mere inanity.

...In relation to the aspirates, Professor B. is not sufficiently explicit. He states that the letter Beth has the sound of "bh i.e. v." Now, perspicuous as this may be to philologians, might not a beginner very reasonably ask, what connexion there can be between these letters, and how the insertion of a point can transform one consonant into another?

*Although Goldman writes that he is an ancestor of Presidents George Bush (pg. 10, God's Sacred Tongue: Hebrew & the American Imagination), on a Department of State web site meant to counter misinformation about the US government--in this case to effectively provide hasbarah to enhance the US's reputation among Muslims--the government clarified that Professor George Bush is not a descendant:

"Two independent genealogies show Reverend Bush was the cousin of Obadiah Bush, who was the great-great-great grandfather of the current president. This makes the Reverend Bush a distant relative of the current president, five generations removed, but NOT his direct ancestor"

Yated Neeman's text of Mishna Avot

On the whole Yated/ YCT brouhaha J-blog newcomer Rejewvenate asks "how they can [publish] a piece like this and then get the one piece of actual Torah [it] cite[s] wrong."

From the Yated article:

Nevertheless, after watching YCT develop and spread with barely a peep of public outcry from the Modern / Centrist Orthodox establishment we felt compelled by the injunction of our sages, that state, “Bemakom she’ein ish, hishtadel lihiyos ish: In a place where there are no leaders; strive to be a leader (Avos 2-6).”

As Rejewvenate notes the Mishna in Avot says במקום שאין אנשים השתדל להיות איש and not במקום שאין איש השתדל להיות איש.

Come on! Get the basics right! How are you not ashamed! How dare you disrespect your audience like that? What a failure! Do you take us for fools? Exactly how many people laid eyes on this article before it was published? How serious could your reservations truly have been if you let such a glaring error through? The Yated isn’t a blog, and its making a serious charge. Is it too much to ask that you at least quote correctly from Pirkei Avot?

Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Post I: Heidenheim and Baer

Having access to the new version of Encyclopedia Judaica through Spertus' wonderful Feinberg e-collection (see here), I thought it might be interesting to do some occasional posts on what I find in it, for better or for worse.

Even though I am beginning with a mistake, I have not yet formed an opinion on this new edition, though I will say that it is very aesthetically displeasing, especially in comparison to the first edition. But the real issue is content and perhaps it will show itself to be an improvement in that regard, even though many photos are missing from the new edition.

In its entry on BAER, SELIGMAN ISAAC it says "(1825–1897), Hebrew grammarian, masorah scholar, and liturgist. Born at Mosbach (Baden, Germany), Baer was a pupil of Wolf Heidenheim, who left him many of his manuscripts. "

The trouble is that it also has "HEIDENHEIM, WOLF (Benjamin Ze'ev; 1757–1832)"--Heidenheim died in 1832. Was Seligman Baer actually "a pupil of Wolf Heidenheim," despite being 6 or 7 when the latter died? As far as I know, Reb Wolf was not a heder melamed and Baer was not the Mozart of the Masorah.

In Dotan's prologemena to Wickes (referred to in the post directly below) he writes (pg XIII):

Seligman Baer might be regarded as the direct follower of Heidenheim, thought it seems the two never met.24

24 Baer was only 7 years old when Heidenheim died so it is astonishing that Kahle could say: "Seligman Baer (1825-97) in his early youth seems to have been in contact with Wolf Heidenheim (1757-1832)" (The Cairo Geniza2, Oxford, 1959, p. 113).

And yet, the Encyclopedia Judaica entry on Baer, written by Isaak Dov Ber Markon*, does not cite Kahle and furthermore says far more than that they seem[ed] to have been in contact. He says that he was a pupil and that Heidenheim left him many manuscripts.

Where did this come from? I suppose that, perhaps, Baer did eventually possess many of Heidenheim's manuscripts. Could that be how this yarn was spun? I have no idea.

Does anyone know how these articles were written? Did Markon write it in Hebrew and someone translated it? Did the article originally written mean to say just what Dotan says, that Baer "might be regarded as a direct follower" of Heidenheim? Alas, it is a mystery to me.

*This is not, I assume, a revised article.

Rabbi Mordechai Breuer (1921-2007)

ADDeRabbi notes the passing of a giant of scholarship, Rabbi Mordechai Breuer z"l.

edit: Also Lamed, Mar Gavriel, Ari Kinsberg and Seforim.

I put up this post yesterday when I had about two seconds, so I decided to edit it a little. Other blogs have already said much about Rabbi Breuer, so little more needs to be said on my part. Mar Gavriel called him "the greatest Massorete * of our day," and that was something that crossed my mind, along the lines of what Aron Dotan wrote in his prologemena to the 1970 edition of Wicke's Two treatises on the accentuation of the Old Testament about Wolf Heidenheim and Seligmann Baer:

"they both continue the work of the ancient Masoretes who edited Biblical manuscripts and who labored with the subtleties of the vocalization, the accentuation, and the Masora of the Bible. The line of Masoretes never ceased to exist even after the printing of "the Masora," that random compilation published by Ya`qov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah in the Second Rabbinic Bible (Venice, 1524-1525), a complilation which today, unfortunately, represents to many the Masora in general. On the face of it, it might have been expected that after the "codification" of the Masora there would be no further Masoretes. But this is not the case, as testify, for instance, Menahem di Lonzano, אור תורה (first published in 1618), Solomon Jedidiah of Norzi, מנחת שי, and other important works of the same kind. Heidenheim and Baer should be regarded as additional links in this chain of Masoretes, their main interest also being the exact transmission of the Bible text."

Add to this Menachem Breuer (and this was only one aspect of his work).

*Evidently Mar Gavriel takes a side in the debate about the proper spelling of מסורת/ מסורה--does the ס recieve a daghesh or not? In days of olden the overwhelming consensus was that it did, hence massorah. Today the convention mostly favors dropping one s. See A Contribution to the History of the Term "Massorah" by Wilhelm Bacher, JQR, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Jul., 1891), pp. 785-790

(I am pleased to say, by the way, that I created the Wikipedia page on Rabbi Breuer).

Chassidishe textual criticism and emendation

This tendency of the Hasidim to encourage gladness and enjoyment is well illustrated by the view taken by R. Zebi Hirsch of Zhidachow (Zydaczow) (d. 1831) of the custom of the firstborn fasting on the eve of Pesah. According to him this is based on a mistake in the spelling in the treatise Sopherim, which should read הבכורות מתענגין בערב פסח (the firstborn should enjoy themselves on the eve of Pesah), instead of הבכורות מתענין בערב פסח as we have it in our texts.

Pg. 245 Ashkenazim and Sephardim: Their Relations, Differences and Problems as Reflected in the Rabbinical Responsa by HJ Zimmels.

Dinim de Sehita y Bedica

I'm not sure what audience there is for something like this, but it definitely is of antiquarian interest.

You can download a small booklet (48 pages) printed in London in 1733, called Dinim de Sehita y Bedica, authorized by del Señor Haham and (I think) written by one Aaron Mendoza. It is a guide to shehita in Spanish, based on the Shulhan Arukh (I think).

Includes illustrations like this one:

Did Elias Levita become a Christian? Also, teaching Torah to non-Jews.

R. Eliyahu Bachur (but known by many names: "R. Eliyahu Ha-medakdek" "R. Eliyahu Ashkenazi" "Elias Levita" "Elia Levita," and today, "Elijah Levita") (1469-1549) was an interesting character. Known chiefly in some circles for authoring the Yiddish Bobe-Buch (which eventually gave birth to the name "Bubbe mayseh" for tall-tale), but in others for his work on Hebrew grammar and the massorah. He was the author of an Aramaic dictionary, a detailed introduction to the massorah called Massores Ha-massorah, served as editor and proofreader in the famed Bomberg press in Venice (much more info).

In addition, he became, for Christian Hebraists the great authority in all matters Hebrew and, particularly, the masorah of the Hebrew Bible.

In a book by Richard Mayo (1631?-1695) called "A conference betwixt a Protestant and a Jevv, or, A second letter from a merchant in London to his correspondent in Amsterdam," London, 1678. A fictional account of a conversation between "Mr B" and "Rabbi J." we find the following:




On what grounds did a 17th century writer say that he became a Christian? Did he, in fact, become a Christian in his seventies? (To say nothing of "bringing some 30 Jews more with him to be baptiz'd, about the year 1547")

I believe the answer is no, that this is but a rumor. The source of the rumor may have come from any combination of two facts. One, better known, that Elias Levita resided with a Catholic Cardinal for ten years, during which time he taught him Hebrew (and the Cardinal in tutored him in Greek). The second is that two of his grandsons became Christians (but both after he died). The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that Vittorio Eliano, a Catholic censor, was his grandson. After he converted, his brother traveled to him with the aim of convincing him to return, but apparently he himself became converted and became a Jesuit called Giovanni Salomo Romano Eliano Baptista. This great guy, along with two other converts, denounced the Talmud as blasphemous to Pope Julius III. I was able to find a reference to him as Levita's grandson in a snippet in a 1722 publication, provided by Google Books: Elias Levita was his Grandfather by the Mother's Side, and took care of his Education. This younger Elias, who went by the Name of Joannes (and that's all Google will give up!)

In short, Elias Levita was a celebrity among Christian scholars. His works were translated into Latin, German and English and were studied in the original Hebrew as well. He had a close working relationship with a Cardinal, was mistrusted because of it by his fellow Jews (more of that below) and two of his grandson's did convert. Perhaps the convergence of all these created the story that he did become a Christian, such that a 17th century writer would mention it in a polemic against Jews, in which a list of Jewish converts was being recounted.

In the rhyming introduction to Massores Ha-massores, Elias Levita discusses his relationship with the Cardinal, that other Jews criticized him for teaching Torah to non-Jews and how he understood the prohibition not to apply to what he was doing. The relevant passages from the Ginsburg edition are reproduced below.

Perhaps of some importance is a particular line in this piece, where he writes the following, in his own defense:

והנה הכלל העולה
הנני מודה בפה מלא
כמודה בפני בית דין חשוב
דבר ולא ישוב
כי מלמד לגוים הייתי
אך דעו כי אפילו הכי
תהלה לאל עברי אנכי
ואת האלהים אנכי ירא
שמים וארץ בורא
וחלילה לי מרשע
וזך אני בלי פשע

and Ginsburg's loose translation

"In conclusion, I fully acknowledge it, as one confesses before a solemn tribunal, and shall not withdraw it, that I have been a teacher to Christians; yea, I have assuredly been; but nevertheless, know that I am a Hebrew, praise the Lord, and revere the Lord, who made heaven and earth; I have not sinned, and am innocent and guiltless."

Is this an acknowledgment and rebuttal of the rumor that he had become a Christian? And also, did Ginsburg translate correctly? Did he meant to say "I am a Hebrew, praise the Lord" or did he say "I pray to a Hebrew God"? And if the latter--is there some room for ambiguity? (If I am not mistaken I may have seen this alternate translation noted in something by Jordan Penkower--or perhaps I remember incorrectly)

But I digress.

(click below to enlarge and read, or see here, pp. 96-101.

--I know my own habits and it's quite possible that I wouldn't take the time to read those five pages if it were suggested to me on someone else's blog--but I highly recommend reading these pages. They are extremely interesting, especially his defense as to why he believed he was not violating halakhah by teaching Torah to non-Jews)








Finally, a sample of his handwriting I found somewhere.



Edit: I have since come across some more relevant sources.

1. Joshua William Brooks writes, in 1841, in his "history of the Hebrew nation: From its first origin to the present time":

"There were however numerous instances of conversion from among the Jews, arising from the attention drawn to the nature of real Christianity by the proceedings of the Reformers. Among the more eminent was Rabbi Elias Levita, commonly called the Grammarian, with thirty of his followers.

2. John Kitto's "Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature" (1862-66) references "Alsted's strong assertion that he died a Christian, see Wolfii Bibl. Hebr. i. 161, and for Bartolocci's strong regret that he continued in Judaism, see his Bibl. Rabbin. i. 137.

Fascinating