A Galician maskil defends Yiddish against its detractors in 1815.

Here's an interesting letter on the subject of Yiddish, which was printed in Kerem Chemed 1 (1833). The actual action had taken place around 1815. The author was Yaakov Shmuel Bick, who was probably the only Galician maskil who was sympathetic to Chasidim. (I want to know which Chasid was sympathetic to the maskilim.) 

What happened was, Mendel Lefin (probably most well known nowadays for adapting an excerpt from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography in a manner suitable for mussar) had made a Yiddish translation of Mishlei (Proverbs) for the benefit of the masses. This was naturally seen as uncouth pandering to the uneducated people by those who were at the time devoted to developing the prestige and capabilities of Hebrew on the one hand, and trying to promote and teach German, rather than Yiddish, on the other. One of them, a scholar named Toviah Feder (1760-1817) attacked Lefin in a pamphlet in which he accused him of terrible things, including pandering to women and whores and that Lefin had gone crazy in his old age. Yiddish? Feh. In the pamphlet he assembled a group of heavenly luminaries, including Rabbis Menasseh ben Israel, Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, and Moses Mendelssohn, who can't understand Lefin's debased Yiddish translation. Ben Israel and Luzzatto are really left scratching their heads, until finally an ignorant melamed is able to explain it. In addition, several other leading maskilim of the previous generation, such as Itzik Euchel, who translated Mishlei into German, men who personally knew and admired Lefin, are present in this fantasy scenario and feel puzzled and betrayed by Lefin's betrayal of enlightened ideals. The overarching attiude which Feder was expressing was that Yiddish is not a real language. What Lefin should have done was write in correct High German, especially considering that Lefin was highly educated, knowing German and French perfectly well. Was not his role to educate, not descend to the level of the lowly?

Lefin's friend Bik took up the cudgel to defend Lefin, and in doing so defended Yiddish as a legitimate language, with a lineage, usefulness, and a possible future. Here is his letter, followed by Feder's reply (scroll down to the end for my summary):

After praising and rebuking Feder, he quotes Jacques Basnage's History of the Jews that the foremost quality which God perceived in Moses was his empathy for the people!

He goes on to point out that the vernacular of the people is the proper medium for instructing them, noting that Tissot's famed medical book was translation in the various vernacular language of Europe; in fact, Lefin himself translated Tissot's book into Hebrew (for the benefit of Jews who knew no European language), and no less than the foremost of all translators, Mendelssohn himself, praised Lefin's translations.

For example, Cheshbon Hanefesh, which is based on a wonderful work by the scholar Benjamin Franklin of Philadelphia, in North America. This scholar is famed all over the world, and is a "Non-Jew who lit a lamp which is used as light for Israel." So R. Mendel undertook to present the good in this work to our people, and the rabbis in their approbations acknowledged that it was a lofty, new thing. And the book was well received by the people. 

Now, he continues, the language of the Proverbs translation which, to you, is like chirping birds and braying cattle; do not forget that this is the language of our fathers and ancestors here in Poland for some four centuries! [Yiddish] is the tongue in which the ge'onim the Bach, Rema, Sema, and Shach spoke, thought and preached. This is the language with which we heard the Gaon of Vilna. Not only that, the scholar Fabre (?)* in his geographical work numbered this language as a daughter tongue of German. If German is the beloved firstborn to you, why don't you denigrate the Tzeena Reena and various other translations like it? These - which were very useful in their time - were written in a very debased German, with a very sparse vocabulary. None of those were able of making an impression on a tasteful person, like the translation of Lefin, who with wisdom clarified in the best methods of translators, even without the language having been improved as of yet. 

He goes on to point out that there are vernacular newspapers throughout the Austrian-Hungarian empire, and this in the capital cities, where pure and proper German is used by the authorities! If this is so then certainly Jews who live isolated in Ukraine, who do not know how to read books in any other language. The way of scholars is out of good will and righteousness they do not neglect the people who need help, and they write works in their vernacular. This is in exchange for the hard work which the common people do to sustain their needs.

Note that French and English are also admixtures of Germanic, Gallic, Latin and Greek languages, and it was purified as a result of the work of scholars over these past 300 years. Now the most sublime poetry and the best thoughts can be expressed in these tongues, still mixed from many tongues. Only 100 years ago German was still debased. Eighty years ago Russian was a crude tongue. Even the classical languages, Greek and Latin, originally they were crude, until their scholars polished it, discoverd and expounded their grammatical principles, over generations, until they were perfected, and are the wonders we behold. The masses created the language! - and so it is in every nation. There's no difference in this stage between any language, all are originally somewhat crude, and then the sages take the formless mass (homer and golam) and shapie it, purify and perfect it. 

He closes by telling him that if when all is said and done he still didn't like the translation, why heap abuse upon Lefin, rather than focusing on the defects in it? Do you have harsh words for the incomrehensible aggadot of Rabbah bar bar Hannah? It wasn't right to write such a pamphlet, and he ought to reach out to Lefin and ask for pardon. 

Feder's reply, which you can see below as well, tries to be conciliatory, denying that such an illustrious maskil like Lefin could possibly have been wounded by his words. But he was says he will not to publish his pamphlet, which had already been paid for - if Bick pays or raises funds to reimburse him. And so it happened.

When all is said and done, eventually Bick's sympathies for the masses (which in his native Brody meant the Chassidim) led to a dramatic act of identification with them, not the misnagdim and the maskilim: he sold his copy of the Guide of the Perplexed! Allegedly, anyway. Here is the reference to this dramatic action, in a letter to Bik from Samson Bloch. I have my suspicion that Bloch meant it metaphorically although all the historians took it literally:

* I'm not exactly sure which Fabre (Fabro, Fabreaux, etc.) is intended or which work. He says he used the edition printed in Halle 1815.

A description of the 'Mitzvah Tanz' circa 1600.

Here's Buxtorf the Elder's discussion of the Mitzva Tanz in the 1643 German edition of his Synagoga Judaica (Juden-Schul; 1603). From Chapter 28.

Translation from the 1657 English edition:

After these sports and childish fooleries, they fall to feast their bellies in good earnest ; after dinner they dance many Giggs, and Capering Currantos, and when they are about to depart and to put a period to these nuptial sports, dance a dance called Mitzuah, The commandment, or marriage pavia, because it was commanded by God himself.  

This they dance in this manner, the chief man at the table takes the Bridegroom by the hand, he another, and so every one his fellow, even so many as have any skill in dancing, takes one another by the hand. So likewise the chief matron and most honourable woman in the company joynes hands with the Bride, and all the rest with one another. Dancing hand in hand and making great noise with their feet, and in this manner put an end to their marriage rites and sports. 

Here is a modern translation, which is simply not half as fun:

After this enjoyable entertainment, the real meal is offered. They are happy, and do not think much about Jerusalem. They dance and leap, as everyone who has seen it knows. 

At the end of the wedding they hold a dance which they call the Mitzva dance, that is a dance which is held at a wedding because of the law of God. The most eminent person present takes the groom by the hand, and they follow one another. Also the preeminent woman takes the bride, and all women follow, and they all dance round in a large circle. It is a horrible tossing about, and with that they conclude the joyous wedding feast.

Moses Mendelssohn for the kids

You don't see this every day. Here's a "Teacher's Guide To Moses Mendelssohn, Pioneer in Modern Judaism," published by the Union of American Hebrew Congregation's Commission on Jewish Education. Although I don't see a date, my guess is approximately 1960. It is a guide for a teacher to use while slides are shown on a projector. You can download it here. The original comes from here.

Many parts of it are interesting, such as this note toward the beginning addressing what to say if a student brings up the fact that Mendelssohn's children converted to Christianity:

Then there is the page which illustrates the saying that 'From Moses to Moses, none came unto Israel like Moses' (see here).

Mostly (or entirely) based on Euchel's Toldot Ha-Rambaman, the filmstrips begin at the beginning, with a portrayal of baby Mendelssohn's cradle placed next to his father teaching Torah to children:

He is shown leaving home for Berlin, where he will continue to study with his rebbi, R. David Fraenkel:

Iconic images, based on the painting of him playing chess with Lessing:

Here is seen explaining to Kaiser Friedrich why he dared write a critical review of his book of poems. They were in French, and Mendelssohn argued that it is a shame that he didn't write in German. And his wedding to Fromet Guggenheim is depicted:

Of course it would get around to his Chumash and opposition:

And a scene depicting him catching ill, which finally did him in. The reference to his letter meant to "prove Lessing's loyalty to ethical religion" refers to the posthumous outing/accusation that Lessing was a Spinozist, which which meant atheism in 1780s Berlin, and still a shocking charge.

Notable Torah Codes rabbis

Here is the list of notables rabbis names used in the Torah Codes thing. R. Elijah Levita was included? Cool.  

I don't know why "Eliyah Hamedakek" was out, or why by the Vilna Gaon "Rabbi Eliyahu" and "Ha-gaon" was in but "Ha-gra" was out. I like how the Noda Beyehuda is called the "Baal Ha-Tzlach." 

Here's the entire paper (link).

And now for something completely different.

Here's a really old man, looking pretty good for a man born in 1483:

Henry the 8th's Court Jester:

A witch, or so they said:

From what I think you will agree is a fantastic book, James Caulfield's Portraits, memoirs, and characters of remarkable persons from the reign of Edward the Third to the Revolution (link).

When hocus pocus peddlers would actually say hocus pocus! An 18th century Yiddish medical and superstition smashing book.

Here's a really interesting excerpt from a medical book called Sefer Refuos (ha-nikra) Ezer Yisrael, which was printed in 1790.

This book was written by a Jewish physician named Moses Marcuse. The point of it was to teach the masses proper hygiene and health concepts in accordance with the best 18th century medical knowledge, which was not as bad as it sounds. He instructs, pleads and cajoles with people to be aware of the issues, to keep clean, get fresh air, avoid witches and baalei shem, and other charlatans (bleigiessen, which people somehow still believe in, makes a starring appearance). He has harsh words for these people whom he holds responsible for murder - murdering their patients by their lack of knowledge and ineptitude. He calls them "memitim." Doctors who kill. As indicated by the title, it is not only an "ezer yisrael," "help[ful] for Jews," but a "sefer refuos," a book full of remedies for various ailments.

It was written in Yiddish rather than Hebrew so that it could be understood by more people (in this time virtually the only books written in Yiddish were moralistic or novels). Interestingly, he writes in the book that the reason why he chose to write in Yiddish was at the urging of none other than R. Rafael Kohen Hamburger, the rabbi of Altona-Hamburg-Wandsbeck, telling him that there are already plenty of scientific and medical works in Hebrew, but the people need one in Yiddish.

Also of interest - on the title page he calls the language the book is written in Polishtaytsch, meaning the "German spoken by the Polish Jews." He gives his name as Moshe hanikra Marcuze Doktor. In the seven or eight haskamos he is "Moshe ben mhr"r Mordechai" which is to be expected, as Marcuse is clearly some variant of Marcus, which was a common kinnuy for Mordechai.

The book deserves its own post, and will get one. But here is the passage where he decries fake doctors who wear "half-beardelach" (to impress the people with their physician-like look, but don't want to shave it all off, so the people will think they are pious) and who chant "hocus pocus []" so that the people think they know Latin! Now I don't really know what the third word is; it says "Ocus Bocus Taryocus? Triyocus?" I wasn't able to identify this pseudo-Latin word, or the words which follow.

Marcuse was from Koenigsberg, or so he claimed. While he undoubtedly lived in Lithuania and other parts of Poland, there seem to be some indications that he was actually a "Polish" Jew himself, not Prussian, as would have readers believe. In any case, Hocus Pocus!

The Chasam Sofer's ruling on Metzitzah Be-peh

Metzitzah be-feh has been in the news lately, as it will be every few years. I thought it might be nice to translate two important documents relating to this controversy since, to my surprise, I discovered that neither seems to have ever been translated and published in its entirety. I mean the question which R. Elazar Horowitz of Vienna sent to his teacher the Chasam Sofer in 1837, and the response he received. I once posted the letters as they were printed in the first volume of Kochve Yitzchak (1845) (link). Here are the letters and the translation:

I have of course taken some liberties. Obviously Rabbi Horowitz's letter did not begin "Dear Rabbi Sofer," but I didn't want all the titles, which aren't meant to be translated, to be distracting. On the other hand I also didn't want to completely remove the flavor of rabbinic writing, so I kept some of it in. But the main purpose is simply to make these documents accessible.

Sheviti, etc. Sunday 16 Shevat 5597 (1837) Vienna

Dear Rabbi Sofer,

Teach me, Rabbi, what is the rule regarding a question which my local friend Dr. Wertheim asked of me. According to the law of our religion is a mohel required to make that suction which is performed after the circumcision specifically with his mouth? Or perhaps it is proper to peform the suction through some other means, such as to soak a sponge in wine or water and squeeze the place of the wound with it a number of times, and through this achieve the healing effect for the infant no differently than through oral suctioning? The circumstances behind this question is that some months ago in our city many children who were circumcized by a certain expert mohel developed festering sores all over the genitals and from there it spread to the entire body. Many infants died because of this, and were unresponsive to any medical attention. Some of them lived, but were in great pain. The doctors judged that this condition was caused by the mohel's orally suctioning the wound (ha-metzitzah she-be-feh). The mohel was examined and proved to have a clean bill of health, and they could not diagnose anything like this illness in him. However, we need to know what to do in a situation like this in general. Now, I answered that in my opinion I see nothing in this suggestion which is opposed by our holy Torah. Even though Rav Pappa said (Shabbat 133b) "a circumcizer who does not suction is dangerous, and we dismiss him" nevertheless it is not explicit that the suction must be specifically with the mouth and lips, and so certainly it is alright to also do it in some other manner, so as to draw blood from the 'far places.' See what is the reason why Hazal required suction: for the healing of the circumcision. Qualified physicians attest that a sponge or something like it also does this. If so, these accomplish the purpose of healing. So why shouldn't we believe the physicians in this in the same way that we accept the many medical accomplishments and advances in recent generations, which were unknown in earlier times?

Do not reply that the expression מייץ mentioned by Rav Pappa refers only to oral suction, since we find in Shabbat 88a that the word has an expansive definition, for we find the very term in the case where "There was a certain Sadducee who saw Raba engrossed in his studies while the finger[s] of his hand were under his feet, and he ground them down, so that his fingers spurted blood." (See here.) Rashi there explains that he was pressing his fingers with his foot, and this is what drew blood from the fingers. Thus we see that מייץ refers to pressure and not only suction (he gives some similar examples in German). Also Rashi explains (Lev. 1:15) the words "its blood shall be drained out" that it is like the term mitz apayim "wringing of the nose" (Prov. 30) and "afes ha-metz" "the wringing out is at an end" (Is. 16) and "He presses the place of slaughtering against the side of the altar" ve-hadam mitmatzeh ve-yored, "the blood is wrung out and goes down" (Zevachim 65). Also Rashi explains the same verse in Prov. 33:3 mitz chalav "churning of milk" mitz skhitah "squeezing" (and he uses the Old French term empreindre, which means to press or stamp). From all this it seems to me clear and simple to permit it. However, with all this, I don't want to authorize something new like this until you my master concurs with me. So please pardon me, respecting your honor's Torah, to let me know your exalted opinion on these things. I have not been feeling well lately, so please send me your words.

Your student and beloved friend, I bow toward your honor and glory.

Ha-kattan Elazar Ha-levi Ish Horovitz

The Chasam Sofer replied as follows:

Sheviti, etc. Pressburg, Monday, 20 Shevat 5597 (1837)

Greetings and long life to my student and friend Rabbi Elazar Halevi Segal Horowitz, Chief Rabbi of Vienna.

Your nice letter reached me, and it is correct what you wrote, that we do not find the metzitzah (suction) is specifically with the mouth, save for the position of the Kabbalists who say that [the process] enacts a neutralization of strict judgment through the lips and the mouth. We are not engaged in mysteries when there is some concern for physical danger. Now, the roots mitz and matzat are the same, c.f., Proverbs 30[:31] mitz apayim and Judges 6:38 "and wrung dew out of the fleece." In all these places Rashi explains them in terms of squeezing, compressing, and suctioning something with force. Radak and Ibn Ezra similarly explain them. If so, we only need to draw the blood from the 'far places' though whichever method we are able, and we can rely on experts who assure us that some method accomplishes it. I further say that even if it was explicit in the Talmud that the suction is meant to be oral, nevertheless since this is not an integral part of the circumcision, but only adjoined because of a health measure, so if one circumcised and did not suction the blood, he has already performed the commandment, and the baby is permitted to eat terumah, and the father may make a Passover sacrifice. However he is in physical danger so long as the blood was not suctioned from the far places. In Chapter Rabbi Eliezer De-mila we find that Rav Pappa understood that suction is similar to the dressing and cumin, which are health measures. Now, we do not presently use the [particular] dressing [specified in the Talmud] and cumin, nor the particular type of dressing mentioned in the Talmud by Abbaye and Rava. Therefore we know that since these are for healing, we are not particular about which remedy we use in its place, and the same thing applies to suction - even if oral suction had been mentioned in the Mishnah, we would be able to change it to another method which accomplishes the same thing, so long as we heed qualifies physicians who will attest that in truth a sponge accomplishes the same thing as oral suction. More than this we needn't be concerned with, in my opinion. God should heal you and make you feel good!

Moshe ha-kattan Sofer mi-Frankfurt di-Main

For a listing of some people and places were doubts about the authenticity of this exchange see Shlomo Sprecher's article Mezizah be-Peh - Therapeutic Touch or Hippocratic Vestige? in Hakirah 3. He, like me, does not find such charges convincing, although whether anyone likes it or not they have to be grappled with - as Sprecher did - in contemporary debate. Maybe in the future I will translate some of the documents relating to that charge.

I want to conclude with a quote from Buxtorf's Synagoga Judaica (The Jewish Synagogue). This 17th century book was and is considered hostile to Judaism, and properly so, but it is also highly interesting. It is believed that R. Yehuda Aryeh Modena's book describing Judaism, his Historia de' riti hebraici, was written partially as a response to Buxtorf's book. So I will quote what Buxtorf writes (from an English translation of 1657) :

. . . he cuts away so much of the fore-skin that the top of the yard may be seen bare and naked, which he throws in haste into the Bason filled with sand, restoring the knife to him from which he took it, and takes on the Cips full of red Wine, out of which he sucks so much as he can hold in his mouth, which he presently spnes out again upon the Infant to wash away the blood, and also some in his face, if he perceive him to faint: instantly upon this he takes the childs yard in his mouth, and sucks as much bloud out of if as he can possible, to the end that it may sooner leave bleeding, which bloud he casts out again, either into one of the bowls of red Wine, or into the bason of Sand. this he doth three times at the least, which the Hebrews call mezizah, which Moses Commanded not, but was instituted by the Rabbines and wise men amont the Jews, as it seemed good unto them.

Similarly, Modena writes (this is from an English translation of 1650) nothing more than

the Circumciser going on in his businesse, with his mouth sucketh the Blood, which abundantly floweth from the wound, doing thus two or three times, and so spitteth it forth in a Bowl of wine.

I believe it is important to not forget the therapeutic intention behind MBP, no matter where one falls on the spectrum of opposition. This was still clear in the 17th century, when a hostile writer could think of nothing worse to say about it than that "Moses Commanded [it] not" and the apologist who wanted to portray Judaism in its most positive light left out of his book the belief in gigulgim, but not a description of MBP - in fact, he did not even see the need to explain that this was meant for the health of the baby.

Finally, it is also interesting to note that the Chasam Sofer's permission to use a sponge relies on the attestations of physicians that it accomplishes the same healing as oral suction. I wonder if this leaves a conundrum since according to modern medicine suctioning blood from a sterile wound accomplishes nothing at all.

Lord George Gordon's Haggadah connection

In an earlier post about Lord George Gordon, an 18th century rabble-rousing British nobleman who did the most radical thing he could think of, converting to Judaism, I pointed out that there was a Pesach angle to his story.:

His inspiration toward Judaism began when he noticed a sign painted above the house of a Jew named Isaac Titterman which read "Let all who are hungry enter and eat," which is from the Passover Haggadah. Intrigued, he met the owner of the house, and in no time at all he was circumcised and grew a long beard.

Some who discussed it assume that Gordon already knew [some] Hebrew in 1785, but to me it is doubtful that he could have translated the Aramaic כל דכפין ייתי ויכול; unless the story actually was that the Hebrew itself intrigued him, and when he found out what it meant he liked it even more.

Interestingly, in the records of the time his Jewish name is given as "Israel Abraham George Gordon." He adopted the Ashkenazic custom of adding the father's name as a middle name (probably the most famous exemplar of this fairly widespread custom was Rabbi Samson [ben] Raphael Hirsch). In this case, Abraham was Avraham the Patriarch.

From here.

Pesach posts

I always have grandiose plans for Pesach posts, but the harsh reality is that there is not enough time. (I also have grandiose plans for hitting all the Genizah trucks, but there is obviously not enough time either, so I just have to sit and imagine all the 18th century machzorim being snatched up by rivals or, more likely, chipping and dirty copies of 1910s Chaye Adams - or, also likely, all those 18th century machzorim ending up in the ground).

I'm sure I'll do Pesach posts after the fact, as I usually seem to do. In fact I have some pretty good ideas for them, if I do say so. In the meantime, here is a roundup of past posts - which I haven't read just now, so I can't say what I think holds up, although I remember some of them fondly:

1) What's an afikomen? Some 19th century sources for discussion

2) So where did Chad Gadya come from anyway?

3) Naftali Herz Imber plays historian in 1889 - a half-baked theory of the origin of Chad Gadya.

4) On the Mrs. Chasam Sofer Haggadah, Mendelssohnian German, Hannibal and Yiddish.

5) A savage, hilarious review of a Haggadah from 1890.

6) On the first English Haggadah; a short summary of Alexander Alexander's translation and comments.

7)Should you really eat grated horseradish on Passover? Evidence from an Angleterrish Haggadah from New York, 1837. In this one I also discuss some evidence that, actually, if horseradish is used as maror then it is supposed to be the leaves, not the root (and see the prior post). And here's an old one about "grating horseradish in some little town in Lithuania, Poland, Hungary or Syria."

7) On the Damascus Blood Libel Haggadah and a Kafkaesque Yom Kippur in Upstate New York, 1928.

8) A Karaite Haggadah.

9) The 17th century tunes for two Passover Seder songs. and its recent follow-up:

10) What Passover sounded like 370 years ago - sung today.

Enjoy Pesach!

The righteous women of the Chasam Sofer family

Here's the Chasam Sofer's daughter Simcha Lehmann (1821-1911).



Just thought it was interesting. It was reproduced in Ketav Zot Zicharon (Jerusalem 1976).This was included among a couple of pages of photographs of the daughters and grand-daughters of the Chasam Sofer. Unfortunately I didn't make very good copies of them I mean, look at this:



I'm sure some people ill wish to look at a copy so they can analyze each and every hair covering. In any case, the aforementioned daughter was probably one of the righteous women who kicked the Chasam Sofer out of his study so they could clean for Pesach, as he noted in a responsum #136 (היותי חוץ לחדר לימודי כי גרשוני נשים צדקניות המכבדים לי"ט של פסח ע"כ לא יכולתי להאריך ככל הצורך). Although it is undated, it is addressed to R. Joseph Joel Deutsch in Tarnopol, where he served as dayan beginning in 1832.

Can't say I've ever eaten a Matzah Monkey.

Have you?



From Israel Abrahams' The Book of Delight: and Other Papers (Philadelphia 1912) p. 296.

What Passover sounded like 370 years ago - sung today.

Here's something very cool. In January I posted a Pesach post, featuring a 17th century Latin Haggadah (link). The translator, Johannes Rittangel, happened to have included the musical notation for two Passover night hymns according to the tune which they were sung among Western European Jews in his time. I jokingly, but hopefully, asked talented readers if they would care to play those tunes on a harpsichord and upload it so we could hear it. One polymathic reader did just that (link; although I suspect that we ought to call that "harpsichord" style).

Paul Shaviv, principal of TanenbaumCHAT in Toronto was so intrigued by those tunes that he asked the school's music directors if they could transcribe the music in modern notation and arrange it for the school's choir to perform, and they did. Here it is!

As was already noted in the comments, Adir Hu in particular, while certainly sounding antique, is recognizable as the common tune still sung by Ashkenazim. The other one, Ki Lo Na'eh, sounds very medieval and both of them sound great. One teacher at the school said "It is not exactly what I would describe as jaunty . . . it is more of a dirge than a toe-tapper" which I cannot disagree with - as quoted in the National Post, which did a nice story about it here.

I should repost the music as it appeared in Rittangel's Haggadah, so here it is:

I should also mention that I asked Paul if he could get his choir to give life to Christian Gerson's notation for Talmudic chant circa 1600 [1]:

Gerson, a convert, printed this sample. Note that it is set to be to a tune which rhymes "herring" and "pfenning." I'm not sure if Gerson's point was that this traditional chant for reading the Talmud was to this folk tune, or if he was mocking the Talmud and setting it to trivial words. Alternatively, they may actually be a translation of a few lines in the Talmud - of course trivial seeming ones - but I'm not sure.

In any case, whether or not I ever got to hear a good version of Christian Gerson's rendition of The Lady Gets a Herring for Three Pfennings to a tune probably used by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Eidels">Maharsha, I couldn't be happier than with what Paul did with the Pesach songs. Many thanks to him for thinking of it, and for his talented students and teachers for making it happen.

[1] I'm not sure if it's a good idea to give a hat tip to the individual who supplied me with this image, so let me just say thank you.

To wear a "yarmulke" when giving a Hebrew lecture on a Jewish subject in a Jewish institution or not? A controversy of 1919.

In 1919 the scholar A.S. Yahuda (Abraham Shalom Yahuda, 1877-1951, best known, I think, for his work on the relationship of the ancient Egyptian language and the Torah) lectured in Hebrew at Jews' College in London. Here is Yahuda:

Dayan Harris M. Lazarus (1878-1962) of the London Beth Din attended the lecture and while he had words of praise for the lecture generally, he felt that Yahuda had committed an affront to Jewish sensibility by giving this lecture with a bare head. So he fired off this letter to the Jewish Chronicle (July 25, 1919):

Lazarus says that he assumes that Yahuda has covered his head when visiting mosques and speaking to Arabs about their sacred literature. Should not respect be heeded to Jewish modes of propriety? He particularly found the fact that he was quoting biblical verses bareheaded to be objectionable. He thinks there were no gentiles present, and even if there were, well, there presence was mooted by the larger number of Jews, and therefore it is Jewish custom that ought to have been respected. Furthermore, felt Harris, Yahuda's display plainly contradicted that of another speaker, who explained that no one should think that Palestine reborn will become Westernized. It ends with a complaint about Zionists (Nationalists) flouting ancient Jewish customs.

Not surprisingly Yahuda did not agree that he did anything wrong. He wrote back (Aug. 8, 1919):

Yahuda responds to the charge that he showed "little deference for Jewish custom" as follows.

It happens that he personally has no preference for Jewish or Western customs, but always wishes to be considerate. Also, it was neither a religious service, nor a sermon, or even a religious lecture. It was "a simple lecture on a literary matter from a purely scientific point of view" that happened to be delivered in Hebrew.

He goes on to say that he hardly needs to quote halachic opinions about head covering, which state that head covering is permitted outside of "religious exercises." (He probably has in mind sources like the Maharshal.) Since the Dayan seems to be particularly perturbed that it was a Hebrew lecture, he is making the same mistake as as many others (i.e., the Ultra-Orthodox in Palestine) who consider speaking Hebrew to be a religious act. Hebrew is being reborn at the moment, and is not only restricted to prayer and learning, etc. So Lazarus either must side with the extremists or acknowledge that he is correct.

He then cites an unnamed "very pious and learned Rabbi in Jerusalem" (Rav Kook?) who was asked how it was possible to tolerate Hebrew-speaking by bareheaded people, and replied that if speaking Hebrew was a religious ceremony then simply speaking secular matters in it would be forbidden (i.e., and that plainly isn't true, ergo headcovering is not required when speaking Hebrew either).

He then says that he objects to Lazarus' characterization of him as "a man who does not mind hurting Jewish feelings, but who, when having intercourse with them, would make every effort to avoid hurting the feelings of non-Jews. Really," he says, "I always endeavour to behave with due courtesy to everyone."

And he continues: Besides, what is Lazarus talking about? Aside from the women [who were wearing hats, fashionable ones pinned to their hair, presumably] there were probably not even a minyan of men sitting in the audience with a covered head. So all the talk about sensibility, whose sensibility was wounded? A bareheaded Jew was talking to an audience of bareheaded Jews. Actually, he suggests that many of the audience would have considered covering the head on such an occasion hypocrisy rather than proper deference ot Jewish custom.

After dismissing the presumption that he must have adhered to Arab customs and paying them respect when discussing their sacred literature with them, he addresses what he realizes was the Dayan's major objection: quoting pesukim, biblical verses. Lazarus wrote "passages from the Bible verbatim." Yahuda says that his quotations were not, in fact, verbatim, but he "adopted some alterations of the traditional text." This is most interesting, and I wish he had explained. It sounds like he was either following halacha in not quoting scriptural verses by heart, or perhaps even not being willing to recite them bareheaded. Alas, he does not explain. But since he is annoyed with the letter, he gets in a little dig about how Lazarus seemed not to notice such alterations in the text despite his weekly reading shenayim mikra ve-echad targum. On the other hand, from reading on it seems that Yahuda meant that his quotations were of emended verses. If that's the case, he's ridiculing Lazarus' seeming insistence that he cover his head to read emended pesukim which "from an orthodox point of view, gives better ground for challenge."

Finally, he is sorry that the only takeaway Lazarus got was that his head was uncovered. He agrees that the New Palestine should not be frivolously Westernized, and that's why he thinks that Orthodox customs imported from European Christianity, such as the insistence of covered head like among Catholic priests, also have no place there. (Yahuda was Jerusalem-born, but descended from an Iraqi and, I think, Indian Jewish family.)

In the same issue someone called E. Carmel wrote as follows:

On the New York cheders of 1906

During the heyday - or was it the waning days? - of the cheder as an institution, it faced a lot of criticisms for being pretty much everything terrible; educationally unsound, stifling and unsanitary. Here is a long article which appeared in the New York Daily-Tribune April 1, 1906. about the "Jewish Boys Who Risk Health By Long Study in Foul Rooms." They "Learn Hebrew for Hours in Private Ghetto Seminaries After the Public Schools Have Let Them Out." The cheder which would become Yeshiva University makes an appearance as well. Also interesting is the discussion of a kindergarten ("gan yeladim") where 130 three-to-six year olds learn how to cut out paper kittens in Hebrew "so to speak." The article is not quite as hysterical as the headlines.

How do you say "Extra soul" in Latin? A guest post on neshama yetera by Leor Jacobi

Ever wondered how to translate “Neshama Yeseira” into Latin?

Spiritu Excellentiori!

That's from the translation of Surenhusius (1664-1729) described here. He is translating the phrase as it appears in Rav Ovadia Bartenura six lines up from the bottom (click to enlarge and view the whole page).



Yes, he translated the entire Mishna, Rambam and Bartenura commentaries and then some. Here is the translation.

By the way, it appears that the Hebrew transliteration transliterated to English in common speech as "Bartenura" is in fact an accurate spelling of the name of the town in the regional dialect, as opposed to the “proper” Italian Bertinoro which many scholars insist upon. (So informs me Shemuel-Deborah Sa.)

The Talmud Bavli Betza 16a concludes that the gentiles know not of the nature of the Neshama Yeseira:

ואי בעית אימא: מתן שכרה נמי אודעינהו, נשמה יתירה לא אודעינהו

I leave it to the reader to decide to what extent this may apply to Surenhusius himself, the learned Christian translator.

It seems like his “rationalist” approach is in fact discussed by the Meiri:

הקדמה לבית הבחירה למאירי

וזה אצלי גם כן ענין נשמה יתירה יש בו באדם בשבת ולמוצאי שבת נטלה הימנו ואע"פ שהדברים נראים בתחלה דברי הבאי הם אמת ודבריהם אמת וכבר פירש בו זולתי שבאה מלת יתרה ליתרון מעלה לא ליתרון מספר כאלו אמר נשמה פנויה ומרווחת להתבודד על דרך נכון לא יבלבלהו דבר אבל אצלי לבאר יתרה ממש ליתרון מספר וכמו שכתוב בקצת הספרים להדיא שתי נפשות יש לו לאדם בשבת ולמוצאי שבת ניטלה אחת מהן והוא שכבר ידעת שנפש האדם עם היותה אחת תחלק לג' חלקים יאמר על כל אחת נפש עד שיאמר דרך העברה שיש לאדם ג' נפשות והם הצומחת והעיונית והמשכלת

בית הבחירה למאירי מסכת חולין דף סא עמוד א ומפרשים יתרה גדולה על הדרך שביארנו בנשמה יתרה והיא אמורה על אצבע האמצעית כלומר שיש להם שלש אצבעות והאמצעי הוא הגדול והנשר אין לו אלא שתים לפניו ואחת לאחריו

However, it seems highly doubtful that Rav Ovadia himself had this rationalist approach in mind since he felt no compunction in immediately before citing the even more mystical interpretation from Ta'anit 27b: “quia dies tertius est creationis hominis.”

Soon I hope to discuss Rambam's take on the Neshama Yeseira . . . the floor is open for sources.

Before I sent this post to S. I had asked some people if they could guess what "Spiritu Excellentiori" is in Hebrew.

Kudos to Marc Epstein who correctly guessed the Hebrew from the Latin translation! This is a good opportunity to mention his beautiful new book on the Medieval Haggadah, which in the first chapter alone solves the even greater riddle of the birds-heads and shows how a bright 10-year old kid can outsmart the whole scholarly community with his Hebrew Day School knowledge of Midrash. This is the all-time lomdus of coffee-table art books.

S. adds: Now would be a good time to mention that I, too, was struck by the very acute observation made by Epstein's son who successfully decoded an image in the famed Bird's Head Haggadah in a way that is very probably correct. Apparently not only was Epstein receiving נחת, but Leor and I were independently as well. I will save more discussion of that for my own review of his beautiful book.

As for Surenhusius (or Surenhuys, in his native Holland), although as I have posted before, he did not translate the entire Mishnah - he included whatever already existed in Latin translation, numbering a fine handful of tractates - the fact is that he did translate most of the Mishnah, along with the commentaries of the Rambam and Bartenora, as well as countless learned notes of his own. Not bad at all. And as long as we're talking about him, do you know how he translated Beit Hillel? Schola Hillelis. For some reason Shammai is still Schamai, not Schammeus. Here is my prior post on the Chida and his examination of the Latin Mishnah (link).

Finally, here are Leor's prior two guest posts: I, and II.

An impressive, socially conscious English Beth Midrash described in 1888.

A gentleman named Simon Cohen owned a private Beit Midrash called Beth Hamedrash Lomdi Torah in London in the late 19th century. Cohen was extensively involved in charitable works, as can be seen in his letter to the Jewish Standard from 1888:

As you can see, this Beit Midrash was opened from 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM daily (I assumed that 12:00 PM is a mistake). Anyone could learn there at any time. There were constant minyanim, to accommodate those wanting to say kaddish. In addition, it was responsible for creating a school for children (where "they now teach Gemora for one hour a day") and numerous charities for the poor and for women. It provided a place for poor people to take shelter and warmth. He contrasts it with another Beit Midrash which is only open for a few hours in the evening (and the gas lights go out at 9:00 PM).

Not mentioned in the letter is that the Beit Midrash which Cohen founded in 1879 actually encompassed even more than what he outlined. For example, attached to it were public baths for the poor, who presumably had nowhere else to bathe. Cohen established a fund to aid persecuted Jews in Russia, for which 100,000 were raised. Initially three hot meals per week were provided for as many as 200 people, but the amount was raised to five. Cohen petitioned the Shah of Persia and the Pope in Rome to assist persecuted Jews. It took steps to promote Shabbat observance. It took on landlords who were raising rents to very high amounts in the (poor) East End. In addition, Cohen cultivated good political connections, especially with the British royalty.

See A review of the work and correspondence of Simon Cohen, on behalf of the East End Jews and the Beth Hamedrash Lomdi Torah (1901).

Naphtali Herz Imber on Freedom

Here is an interesting letter from the Jewish Standard (9.14.1888) from Naphtali Herz Imber, most known for writing Hatikvah. He gives his view of "Judaism and Freedom," which is different from what many would think in light of the criticism which was leveled at the poem which speaks of "a free people" but does not mention God (one statement of this viewpoint goes like this: "הרוצים להיות עם חפשי מן התורה.")

The 1843 Circumcision Regulations issued by the Frankfurt Dept. of Health

Here are the circumcision regulations the Department of Health in Frankfurt issued on February 8, 1843, following the death of some children, which were believed to have been caused by improperly performed circumcisions:

They are:

1. No mohel (circumciser) will be allowed to perform a circumcision, who hasn't reported to the Health Department and demonstrated anatomical and physiological knowledge, as well as competence in circumcision.

2. Any circumcision must be carried out in the presence of a physician, even when the circumcision if performed by an approved mohel (i.e., don't think otherwise).

3. Jewish residents, insofar as they want to circumcise their children, this is only if they use a circumciser approved for this purpose, who takes proper precautions (i.e., but they don't have to circumcise their children).

4. Those who violate these regulations may be fined or imprisoned, depending on the case.

Frankfurt a.M.

8 February 1843

Health Department

The High Priest in his Finery

Yes, the joke only works in English, but come on, it's funny.

From Johann Lund's Die Alten Jüdischen Heiligthümer (Hamburg 1701)

Ditto

Here's a great entry in the 1769 catalog listing books in the (very enviable) library owned by Hermann Samuel Reimarus. As you can see, it records a redundancy as "דיטא."



From Bibliotheca Reimarianae (Hamburg 1769), p. 101.

1841 Purim in New York

These are two pieces that ran a week apart in the New York Herald (Tribune) in March of 1841. They describe Purim before, and after. The quality of them is not the greatest, so I also typed them below:

March 3, 1841: On Saturday evening and on Sunday morning next, all pious Jews and Jewesses attend the Synagogue, on which occation the Book of Esther, Megillath Estar, will be chaunted by brother Jaques Lyons, and perhaps by brother Ellis, also, both very competent hazanim, readers, and very frum withal. On Sunday, most of the Jews will receive calls, similar to those made on New Year's day. Tables will be set out, furnished with the choicest viands and liquors. Presents of various kinds will be given to the poor, whose hearts will, on this day at least, be made to rejoice. A piece of advice, and we close. Let there be no hammers or mallets used in the Crosby street , when the name of Haman is mentioned; but, in its proper place, let every one exclaim at the top of his voice, zachor letob. We wish one and all, a happy, happy Purim.

March 9, 1841: Purim - This feast, in commemoration of the Salvation of the Jews by the lovely Queen Esther, was very merrily and delightfully kept. We were deprived from visiting the Shule on account of the tremendous storm; and very sorry we are that we could not listed to the sweet chanting of the Megilla by the Reverend Jacques Lyons. We understand that there were only about forty-five who attended. On Sunday, however, it was somewhat pleasant; which afforded an excellent opportunity to hear the Magilla, and to pay Purim calls. The Spanish Jews behaved well throughout the day and evening; but some of our Tiche friends eat and drank too much. They must learn to deny themselves both in the Succa and on Purim day,- and indeed, on all other holy days. They must not "make their God their belly." We are happy to learn that no noise was made when the name of Haman was read; and also that with one shout of triumph every Hebrew cried out zachor letob after the word leharbona, following the good advice of the Herald.

Sure wish I knew who wrote these. First published use of "frum?" Maybe.

Jacques Lyons (b. 1813) was the hazzan-minister of Shearith Israel ("the Crosby street Shule) from 1839-1877.

How Moses Montefiore spent his time on Purim

From the Atlas, March 9, 1844.

The Shaagat Aryeh is recalled in Metz, 1828.

Here's a fascinating footnote about the Shaagat Aryeh included in a book published in 1828, less than 45 years after his death. He was then still a living memory. In fact his son was then a rabbi, as mentioned in this footnote.

"Msr. Lyon-Asser was promoted to the much-sought after position of Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community of Metz, on the reputation of one of his works titled Schagatharié (the lion's roar), a folio volume printed in Germany. I acknowledge that I am unqualified to pass judgment on such a work. According to the testimony of our learned Hebraists, especially of Mr. Gerson Levy, considered very astute in Hebrew literature, this book, full of the subtleties and controversies that make the base and seasoning of Rabbinic scholarship, demonstrates that had Asser Lyon chose to train for instruction in another career, he would have made a name in the literary world because of his elevated mind.

"He died in 1784, leaving a son who is today the rabbi of Karlsruhe, in the Grand Duchy of Baden, and whose name is still dear in Metz. The scholarship of Asser's son has not been merely to fathom the depth of rabbinic scholasticism, to seek clarity amid the darkness of the Talmud, the Midrashim and Zohar - it is learned and literate in our own way; to whit, he was the friend and rival our learned countrymen [Moses] Ensheim, who now lives in Bayonne, and Isaiah-Berr-Bing, who died twenty years ago, who was the administrateur général of Salines de l'Est.

"To conclude this brief notice of Lyon Asser, allow me to link a name dear to France with the Metz rabbi. The Comte de Provence (Louis XVIII), during his stay at Metz in 1782, went to visit the synagogue, where he attended the Friday evening service. He was received by the trustees, headed by Lyon Asser, a venerable looking old man, whose noble and serious mien recalled the idea of ​​a priest of the old law (i.e., a biblical kohen).

"The prince received the tributes of the Israelites and did not despise the blessing of the chief rabbi, who presented him with a Bible written on a scroll. The memory of this old minister remained in his memory; one was surprised to see praises of a Jew coming from his mouth. "Jew or Christian, what do I care," said the brother of Louis XVI to me, whose virtue I honor wherever it presents itself. These words were not wasted. Judge if the Jews of Metz saw this same prince happily return to the throne of his fathers!"

Guillaume Ferdinand Teissier, Essai philologique sur les commencements de la typographie à Metz (Metz 1828), pp. 144-45 (link).

In case it isn't clear, Lyon Asser is the Shaagas Aryeh. Lyon = Leib, or Aryeh, and Asser = Asher, his father's name. His son was known as Asser Lyon. For a time he was the rabbi of Wallerstein, and he took that as his surname. Eventually he became rabbi of Karlsruhe, as mentioned in this excerpt, and he was about 74 at the time of this writing, 1828. It's interesting that it says that he is remembered well in Metz, because according to Jay Berkovitz (The shaping of Jewish identity in nineteenth-century France p. 95) he was going to become the rabbi of Metz (actually, the consistorial grand rabbi), but then accepted a different position "dismay[ing]" and "anger[ing]" communal leaders.

ETA: This is an image of the Shaagat Aryeh made after his death, from his actual body as it lay on a bed. It is supposedly authentic -



The image is reproduced on pg. 134 of Nathan Netter's Vingt Siècles d'Histoire d'une Communauté juive (Metz et son grand passé) (Paris 1938).

There, Rabbi Netter writes that he learned of the image's existence from R. Isaac Herzog in Dublin (he describes him as the successor to R. Kook in Jerusalem, which indeed he was then). He was able to obtain this very image through Esther Herzog-Goldberg of Paris, who I guess was his sister. She explained the origin of the image as follows. Their father, R. Joel Leib Herzog, who was a rabbi in Paris, met Louis Bloch, who was a sixth generation descendent of the Shaagas Aryeh. Rabbi Herzog asked him if the family had any portrait of him, and to his surprise he was informed by Bloch that his sister owned an oil painting of the Shaagas Aryeh, executed while he lay on his deathbed! Rabbi Herzog paid to have a reproduction made, and this is it. The section of the book concludes with a well-known story which Esther Goldberg told him, about how the Shaagas Aryeh was already aged - nearly seventy - when the community of Metz appointed him. He came highly recommended, and his reputation, because of his work Shaagat Aryeh, was high indeed. However, when they met him he appeared quite old, and this concerned them. He told them that he realizes they think he is too old; how long do they want their rabbi for? They replied "twenty years." He assured them that he would be their rabbi for twenty years, with God's help - and he was.

And here is the Lion Asser's son, Asser Lion (R. Asher Wallerstein) mentioned in the post, from the same book:

Grant grants a $25 donation

I don't usually do reposts, but I was reading Prof. Jonathan Sarna's article "Gen. Grant’s Uncivil War Against The Jew," and I was reminded of a post I did 2 years ago about how "Ulysses S. Grant donated $25 to a Yerushalmi Jew's hachnosas kallah fund," and received a micrographic portrait in Hebrew letters in return.

From The presidents I have known from 1860-1918 by Simon Wolf.

Here was the original post (link).