Printing in Roedelheim before Heidenheim?

Who knew?

Shadal series #16 - A partial translation of Shadal's letter about the Samaritans and their script

Actually, I plan to complete the translation, but for today it is partial.

In 1851 Raphael Kirchheim - see here about Kirchheim and his cholent - was working on his annotated edition of the Seven Minor Tractates (link) as well as a work about the Samaritans, intended as an introduction to Massekhet Kutim (link). Before these works were finalized at the printer, he asked Shadal to look it over and give comment. Shadal replied that he did not have the time for that, but he would be happy to send him whatever material he had written about the Samaritans, based on his own researches. Most of it was written in Italian, but Shadal rewrote it in Hebrew. Kirchheim printed the entire letter as an appendix in his Karmei Shomron. It contains some interesting thoughts, and here is my partial translation:

I was overjoyed when I heard the news that you are publishing the Seven Minor Tractates, which for many generations languished in obscurity. Today is a holiday! - to find that you are printing them with explanations and notes; among them, your great book Karmei Shomron which, through your broad learning, you elaborated on the history of the Samaritans and all that pertains to them. In your humility, you asked if I would present you with all that I have to say on your words. However, dear friend, time is short, and your printer is demanding. How can I carefully look over and plumb the depths of your work with all the research that your 'pleasant garden' requires [and respond in time]? Therefore, I thought that it would be sufficient for me to present you with all that I have already written (in Italian, for my Grammar of Hebrew, which has yet to be printed) regarding the Samaritan or Old Hebrew script, and on the very old debate about whether the Hebrew script was changed or not. Without elaborating on the matters well known, I will add to that which the researchers have already stated, that if the script was not changed, then it is incomprehensible on what grounds some of the Mishnaic and Talmudic sages would say, from their own minds, such a strange opinion as this, to say that the script with which we write Holy Scriptures is not the original which the Prophets used. Quite the contrary, if the script truly was changed, and some of those sages denied it, we can understand why they would say it: to remove a stumbling block before the masses, for if our Torah is written in a different script from the one Moshe wrote in, this would be bizarre to the weak minded.

However, this proof is external, meaning that it relies on the testimony of the Mishnaic and Talmudic sages. I have an internal proof, from the Holy Scriptures themselves. In my researches, plumbing the depths of our Prophets and Sages, using the critical method, which seeks the truth alone, [this method] not appealing to the old [i.e., traditional Jews] and also not popular among the new [i.e., the Reform Jews], I looked all over the Bible (specifically in the Prophets and Hagiographa, which is not known to them, due to their excess love for the Torah) and found certain words which are errors due to the incompetence of the scribes who copied the books. I did not rush to disclose my findings to the public, because I know about the challenge which such critical research poses, and the many errors which are easy to make. Many scholars and so-called scholars, both uncircumcised and circumcised, boast that they make emendations, but they make errors. In many biblical passages I found what I myself thought was a scribal error, but after days and years I changed my mind and saw that the books' reading was true and correct. With all this, a small bit of the readings which I established in the texts still seem to me correct (now, as a 50 year old man, and after I have passed the passion of my youth) and sustained, above all doubt. Now, of some of these, I discovered that the mistakes happened through the similar appearance of letters, but not in our Hebrew script, but in the Samaritan script.

See how different is the appearance of a yud and a tzade in our Hebrew script (ketav ashuri), but it is the opposite in the Samaritan script, the two letters are almost identical. In Isaiah (11:15) we find: וְהֵנִיף יָדוֹ עַל-הַנָּהָר בַּעְיָם רוּחוֹ (and with His scorching wind will He shake His hand over the River). The root עים is neither Hebrew, nor one of its cognate languages. Therefore it seems to me that Isaiah did not write בעים, but בּעֹצֶם. I wrote this in my notes to Isaiah which I sent the scholar Rosenmueller, alav ha-shalom, and he printed in his 1835 book. Gesenius, in his W?rterbuch, explained עים (following Rabbi Jonah [ibn Janach]) from אָיֹם, but he reversed himself in his great Lexicon, and he took this explanation from me, and wrote that it seems that be-ayam ought to be emended to be-otzem, due to the graphic similarity between the yud and tzade in the Samaritan and other early Near Eastern scripts. [1]

[1] If someone says, maybe Gesenius did not see what you wrote and came up with it independently, much the same way you yourself, [Shadal], in your youth derived "tanur" from "aton nora" without seeing Gesenius - the response is, I have a Latin letter from Rosenmueller dated 24 April 1835, and he wrote this: "Gesenius reviewed all the pages, including your notes, and approved of them." This is not the only thing which Gesenius took from me [Shadal gives three more examples, and the places they can be found in Gesenius' writings - S.]. 

Also the aleph and tav are of similar appearance in the Samaritan alphabet, and from this we can understand what we find in Jeremiah 3:8, "  וָאֵרֶא, כִּי עַל-כָּל-אֹדוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִאֲפָה מְשֻׁבָה יִשְׂרָאֵל, שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ, וָאֶתֵּן אֶת-סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻתֶיהָ אֵלֶיהָ; וְלֹא יָרְאָה בֹּגֵדָה יְהוּדָה, אֲחוֹתָהּ--וַתֵּלֶךְ, וַתִּזֶן גַּם-הִיא," "And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, that yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot." There is no doubt that Jeremiah did not write "וָאֵרֶא," "And I saw," but ותרא, "And she saw." The opposite (e.g., a tav replacing a proper aleph) occurs in 1 Samuel 24:11[sic; it's actually 10]: "וְאָמַר לַהֲרָגְךָ, וַתָּחָס עָלֶיךָ," "and some bade me kill thee; but mine eye spared thee." But its true reading is "."

Next follows quite a few other example, which I will return to and translate, but in the meantime, the two (one and a half, actually) above will suffice. 

Returning to our subject, that the scribal errors we mentioned arose, without a doubt, because of the graphic similarity of letters [only] in the Samaritan alphabet, is in my view a faithful witness that the script changed and that our books were not originally written in our Ashuri script, but in the one which remained in use among the Samaritans. It is true that changing the script, and writing the holy books in a new script, not previously used by the Prophets for their books, does seem extremely odd. Not for nothing was the matter difficult to accept for many Jewish scholars and non-Jewish ones, so it seemed to them false, and they accepted the wrong opinion [i.e., that Ashuri was older]. But all this is because they didn't understand the reason, they merely heard the idea that the Jews changed the script, but lacked any idea about why, until they were left with the wrong view, that it never happened. If they had known the reason, and the circumstances which caused the Jewish sages to change the script, they would have been able to accept it, and would actually have thanked their predecessors [i.e., the sages, for changing it]. For it is known that the Samaritans tampered with their Torah and introduced many changes into it, large and small. This thing was a stumbling block for the simple Jews, because the Samaritans could, for example, point to what is written in their Torah at the end of the Ten Commandments, "And it will be when the Lord, your God, will bring you to the land of Canaan, which you have come to inherit, and you will establish large stone monuments and write this song upon them, etc. and when you will cross the Jordan you should establish these stones which I command you this day on Mt. Gerizim and build their an altar, etc. - from here is proof to say that their Temple [on Mt. Gerizim] was the spot chosen by God, and not the Temple in Jerusalem. So because of such changes by the Samaritans, the Jewish sages were smart and figured out a way to stop this problem and make a clear, lasting change between our proper books and their improper ones. They found no greater change than to write our scrolls in another script, so that even a simple person could see a Torah of a Samaritan and discern immediately that it is unfit. 

This reason for the change of script was hypothesized by my beloved son Ohev Ger, the Lord keep and strengthen him. It is possible that this was what was intended by Jerome on Ezra (from his version of the Chronicon by Eusebius): "[Ezra] collected the holy Scripture, that they might not be mingled with the Samaritans, [and] changed the Jewish letters." [I reject] the understanding of this passage in Eusebius by Rabbi Azariah, that the  script was changed in order to prevent the physical mixing of the Jews and Samaritans, but in order that the Torahs should not mix! - as he wrote, "divinas scripturas"  

Actually, the change in the script did not occur in the days of Ezra, but later, for we find also in the book of Ezra and Chronicles scribal errors which are due to the similarity of lettes in the Samaritan script. Furthermore, when they changed the script they only prohibited its use for Scriptures, but they still used it for other writing (like the rabbis said, it was left for the plain folk). This is the cause of why we find coins from the Hasmonean era in the Samaritan script. In those times there were two Jewish scripts, one used for secular and one for holy writing. In the end the holy script prevailed, and the earlier script which was left for plain folk, was also abandoned, and remained in use among the Samaritans only. 

Now we will discuss the names which the Samaritan script was known by in earlier times. In the Talmud we find it called Ktav Ivri, and also the Samaritans themselves called it Ktav Ivri, for they called our script Ktav Ezra; see their letter to Scaliger of the year 5349 (1589), which was printed in the book Repertorium fur biblische und Morgendlaendische Litteratur vol. 13 [pp. 257 - &c.]. Now, Rashi to Sanhedrin 21 explained "Ktav Ivri" as "of the people who dwelled over the river [i.e., Euphrates]." This explanation is justified on account of Sabbath 115 and Megillah 18, which refer to Coptic, Ivrit, Elamit, Medite, and Greek, and the intention there is to foreign languages. But how could this explanation pertain to the script in which the Torah was given, which was the ancient Jewish script, similar to the Phoenician script used by the people of Tyre and Sidon? Perhaps Rashi believed that the Samaritan script truly came from over the river, and was used in Eretz Yisrael in the time of Abraham, and from their it came to Israel, only he did not know (and it was impossible for him to know) that also the people of Tyre and Sidon used this script. And when I looked into it, and realized that Ktav Ivri [in this Talmudic text] did not mean a script used in the Land of Israel, and this was at the beginning of the Second Temple era, when Israel was reigned by the Persians. The Persians, who dwelled in the east, called the land of Israel and her environs to the west, "Ever Nahara" (Ezra 4, 5, 6, 7). From the expression of the king and the nobles, the Jews themselves, as well as the Samaritans, began calling their script by the name Ktav Ivri; note that the expression "ever ha-nahar" doesn't refer to any one side of the river. It's primary meaning is either side of the river, and depends upon the perspective of the speaker or listener. (To learn more in depth about "ever" see Gesenius' Thesaurus p. 986 and also what I wrote in Hamishtadel at the beginning of Deuteronomy) After the dissolution of the Persian Empire, the term "Ivri" returned slowly but surely to its original meaning, Aram Naharayim (hence the Talmudic list, Ivrit, Elamit, Medit) and the word "Ivri" as referring to Israel was from then only used in the phrase "eved Ivri" (for so it is called in the Torah), and Ktav Ivri (for this was its name as it was used by the Samaritans, who actually used the script). For this reason R. Abraham de Balmes, R. Azariah de Rossi and others who did not call the Samaritan script "Ivri" but "Ktav Ever Hanahar" were being inexact. 

Sanhedrin 22, we find Ktav Ivri called "Ro'etz," and in Yerushalmi Megillah (first chapter) we find it called "Ra'atz" (i.e., without the vav). The scholar R. Moses Landau writes in his book Geist und Sprache, p. 104, that Ra'atz is like La'az. However, the word "la'az" was well known and used constantly in the language of the Mishnah and Talmud, so who could believe that it was mistakenly changed to ra'atz? Or to say, as a few scholars do, that the idea of ra'atz means a broken script (Fractur) is impossible, since the root of ra'atz doesn't mean broken in scriputral Hebrew, but only in the Hebrew language of the Mishnah and Talmud. When I looked into it, this is what I concluded. Now, the Samaritans refer to our script as "Ktav Ezra Ha-arur", the Script of Ezra the Accursed, (see their letter in the aforementioned Repertorium 13 pg. 273). Therefore the Jews, to retaliate, also coined a term of opprobrium for their script, and took the name of Ezra, which they used in referring to ours, and changed the letters around, also exchanging the letter zayin for a tzade, and came up with the term ra etz, intending "breaking." What is this like? Like Bar Kokhba, whose name they changed to Bar Koziva, or like Evangelion, which they changed to Even Gilyon - even though the terms "kazav" and "aven" are atypical for Mishnaic language, and are only used in Biblical Hebrew. [i.e., so it does mean "Broken" after all, and a clever inversion of "Ktav Ezra"] 

When the Talmud asked, "What is Ktav Ivri?" Rav Hisda replied, "Ktav Livuna'ah." Many think this is one of the names for Ktav Ivri (including Gesenius). To me it seems that as the Samaritans lived in Israel, and not in Babylonia, and Ktav Ivri was unknown in Babylonia, so when they asked Rav Hisda "what are the hedyotot" he answered "the Samaritans." Then they asked him, "What is Ktav Ivri" but Rav Hisda did not know to answer "the Samaritan script," since he was unfamiliar with it. So he answered "Ktav Livuna'ah," which did not mean exclusively the Samaritan script, and it must have been a script known at the time in Babylonia, and [perhaps] it was somewhat similar to the Samaritan. And truly these writings are found in the ruins of Babylon and Nineveh on bricks. Some of these [=cuneiform] slightly resemble the Phoenician and Samaritan (see Kopp "Bilder und Schriften" II 152, 154) and Layard in "Nineveh" (Paris 1850) p. 173). R. Moses Landau in his book Ma'archei Lashon (p. 875) explained the word "Livuna'ah" from the term "levenah," (brick), but this is impossible. First, because of the vav after the beit, as it is written in the earlier printed editions, as well as my old manuscript of the Aruch, under the entry Ktav. The second reason is that the bricks [=tablets] in Babylon are not at all similar to the Samaritan, most are written in cuneiform, only the tiniest fraction are alphabetic. So I say that the term Livuna'ah does not refer to the Samaritan alphabet, but another script, and the true meaning of it is not possible for us to determine.

After this follows several pages on the poetic language of the Samaritans.

This is sufficient because of the lack of time. You my dear lerned friend, rejoice in your work, and rejoice all who love Torah and her aids. Peace to you and yours, signed Padua 9 Sivan 5611, your friend Shadal.

An execution by guillotine described in 1818

The execution of a Jew by guillotine - I assume - is described here. Note that the Jews accompanying the man "carefully removed ... even the smallest traces of blood" - to bury with the body.

A Detroit family's conversion to Judaism in 1916

This story is from the Tageblatt (English section) exactly 94 years ago - Jan. 1, 1917.

Kalman Wagner of Brisk came to this country as a child. An orphan, he became a Christian, married, and had five children. One night, he said, his father appeared to him in a dream and told him to return to Judaism. After some resistance from his wife, she agreed, and she and his children were converted. And that is how a whole Detroit family converted to Judaism in December of 1916.

Must have been some concert - a night of leining in 1844

This is an ad for a fun night out in Boston, November 12, 1844. As you can see, Mr. Henry Phillips was to be assisted by Miss Stone and put on a real show, featuring Irish songs and a performance of leining, as taught to him by a Polish rabbi, Dr. Herschel. Afterwards he was to prove that the te'amim are ancient, sing Az Yashir, and then some more songs, including one about Robin Hood.



Detail:

Bareheaded Polish Jews in traditional garb in a Polish church?

This is the demonstrations to which it refers.

Dr. Yastrow is, of course, Marcus Jastrow. See here about this incident.

From the Israelite.

Haftarat Lincoln

From the Israelite March 1, 1861.

Germans*

Ha. From Buxtorf's Abbreviaturis Hebraicis.

* Okay, Swiss.

On winter birthdays

It was my birthday recently (thank you, thank you) and a friend of mine suggested I post about birthdays.

What better way than to record Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela's 12th century observation of a Christmas celebration in Constantinople?

"There is a place of amusement for the king there called Hippodrome. Each year the king makes a great public celebration there on the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth. All types of people from all over the world appear before the king and his queen, a spellbinding display. They bring lions, bears, leopards, wild donkeys, which combat each other, and also birds, which fight. Nothing like this show can be seen in all the world."

Could it be?

Ever seen this before?

Link.

On King Arthur ballads

Here's an interesting paragraph about King Arthur in Zemach David (Prague 1592), interesting really for the end.

"Arthus: the great king of Angleterra, that is England, who is known of throughout the world. He made a great defeat of the Romans and the Gauls in the year [4]297, that is 537 in the Christian date. This is the Arthus whom they composed ballads about which are still popular today among the German minstrels."

So, any experts in German King Arthur ballads?

An English elegy on the death of the much Lamented Death of R. Nosson Adler's rebbe

Here's a fantastic item. This sheet is what it says it is: an elegy printed upon the death of R. David Tevele Schiff, Chief Rabbi of the Duke's Place Synagogue in London. As the post title indicates, R. Tevele Schiff was the rabbi of R. Nosson Adler, who was of course the revered rebbe of the Chasam Sofer.

This ephemeral piece is reproduced from Arthur B. Hyman's A collection of Anglo-Jewish ephemera  in Jewish Historical Studies, Vol. 33, (1992-1994), pp. 97-123:

Lord George Gordon's comment about the meaning of Ben Bag Bag

In the Bristol Journal (Dec. 15, 1787) there appears a piece called Lord George Gordon Turned Jew. It contains an account of his initial interrogation by the apprehending officer, a Mr. MacManus. The account is interesting in its own right - Gordon acted with decorum toward MacManus, but told him that he has no authority over him, or any Jew - but especially one part, which perhaps shows some of the instruction in Judaism that Gordon had heard from whichever Jews it was that he heard it from - it is some lore about converts to Judaism.

That is, Gordon had explained that "Ben Bag Bag" is a notarikon for "Ben Ger, Ben Gera [sic]." Ben Bag Bag is a name that appears in the Mishnah Avot - in fact, is the source for one of its most famous teachings - - and this name certainly does seem like a pseudonym or nickname, rather than the name of an actual person. 

Most commentators have assumed that he was a convert or descended from converts, and some suggested that Bag Bag does stand for "Ben Ger, Ben Giyoret," which is what Gordon says here. (A complementary version is that Ben Heh Heh means the same thing, and perhaps the same person. There are two versions of this, in one these two men are meant to be the same person, the idea is that Heh is the gematriya of Bag = 5.) 

The idea is mentioned in two prominent 18th century sources, both of which were probably fairly popular in Gordon's time, R. Yaakov Emden's commentary on the Mishnah, as well as R. Yechiel Halperin's Seder Ha-dorot, which ascribes it to the Ma'arikh. At first I thought he meant R. Menachem di Lonzano, whose magnum opus Shtei Yadot contains a section called Ma'arikh. However, I think it does not appear in his book at all. I looked it up, and then I looked at another book by that title, and it does indeed appear there. This book was printed in Paris in 1629, and the author was Philip D'aquin. It may be of interest to some that his Ma'arikh Ha-ma'arakhot was dedicated to Cardinal Richelieu of Three Musketeers fame. D'aquin was a Jew named Michael (according to Siftei Yeshenim) or Mordechai according to others, who converted to Christianity and became a professor of Hebrew in Paris; much of his book actually is based on the work of the similar name by Lonzano (see intro to Arukh Hashalem; Kohut says that most of D'aquin's original material is bad. Also see Ohev Ger (p. 133) where Shadal dismisses the book as second rate, saying that it is "only an abridged compendium of the Shorashim by Radak, the Arukh, Meturgeman and Ma'arikh [by Lonzano]." He then points out an error made by Judah Leib Benzeev who conflated the Ma'arikh of Lonzano with this Ma'arikh, by D'aquin, thereby "mixing the holy and the profane." Of course, D'aquin himself wrote that the book consists of gleanings from others - "kolel leket shikcha u-fe'ah" appears on the title page - yet surely he did not credit Lonzano..

At any rate, here is the entry in this book:

Unless his source was Lonzano (and I overlooked it) then his source may have been the abbreviation dictionary by Johann Buxtorf  published in 1613, or some of the Jewish sources to be mentioned below. Here is Buxtorf:

Perhaps the first time it appeared in print was in Zacuto's Sefer Yuchasin, at approximately the end of the 15th century. Zacuto writes in his entry for Ben Heh Heh that he heard that this is the same person as Ben Bag Bag, and the gematriya of Ba"g is Heh, 5. He further identifies Ben Bag Bag with Yochanan Ben Bag Bag, who is mentioned in the Talmud, and says that he heard that Ben Bag Bag means "Ben Ger, Ben Giyoret. Another16th century source, the Midrash Shmuel on Avot, quotes this explanation in the name of  R. Joseph ibn Nahmias (although often this is quoted in the name of the famous "Some Say"). Midrash Shmuel continues and cites the Rashbam, who says it was a pseudonym meant to protect the convert from persecution. which is dismissed by R. Yaakov Emden because he too assumes that Yochanan Ben Bag Bag was the same person (rather than, say, the son of this person or persons using the pseudonym). In addition to the Rashbam, Tosafot Chagigah 9b “Bar Heh Heh Le-Hillel” quotes Some Say as explaining that this mysteriously named person was a convert, and the Heh alludes to the letters Heh added to Abram and Sarai’s names and Ben Bag Bag too apparently because of the gematriya. If memory serves, the Machzor Vitry also mentions the Avraham/Sarah connection to Bar Heh Heh, firmly establishing this in Ashkenazic rabbinic tradition.

Incidentally, this whole matter is also discussed in a learned footnote in an article by Y. S. Spiegel (Yeshurun 10) and in his opinion D'aquin's book is packed with exceedingly strange explanations for roshei tevot. Spiegel also calls attention to the endorsement of D'aquin's book by the Pri Megadim.

Finally, I'd like to call attention to the Tamudic term דיירא בר דיירתא - stranger/convert son of a convert, although I'm not sure of the significance - or lack of - this yet. 

Getting back to Gordon, I do think it is possible that he heard this from one of his Jewish friends, but I also found it to be not exactly common, but not completely obscure, knowledge in non-Jewish sources in the 18th century, so it is also possible that Gordon discovered this out of his own understandable interest in converting to Judaism. The fact that he also relates it to Paul's "Hebrew of the Hebrews," explaining it to mean "Jewish on both sides" as opposed to Hebrew (from one parent) needn't mean that he had not heard this from Jews. I would argue that this is exactly the sort of thing a learned 18th century English Jew would say. 

Here is the whole Gordon article (click or right-click to enlarge and read):

A description of the asceticism of yeshiva bochurim at the Pressburg Yeshiva in a Protestant journal from New York in 1842

Isaac Nordheimer (1809-1842) was a 19th century Hebraist, notable today chiefly for having adopted America as his place of domicile. He was also a former student at the Pressburg Yeshiva. As far as I know there is only one account of his life, and this was written upon his death by a friend, Edward Robinson (yes, of Robinson's Arch fame), in the latter's journal the Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review. This account was published upon Nordheimer's untimely death due to tuberculosis and, to give an idea of how he was seen as a scholar in his own time, the notice about Nordheimer follows one about another recently departed Hebraist, no less than Gesenius. Of course this does not mean that Robinson considered Nordheimer the equal of Wilhelm Gesenius, but he was seen as worthy of mention in the same breath ("Biographical Notices of Gesenius and Nordheimer").

In any case, in the  biography (link) some aspects of Nordheimer's years at the Pressburg Yeshiva are recorded, told to Robinson by the late scholar. For example, Nordheimer had told him that he made the [nearly 400 mile] journey from his hometown in Bavaria to Pressburg at age 13, partly on foot. Robinson says that the Chatam Sofer took a personal interest in the boy.

There is the following description of what some of the bochurim did to make sure they did not oversleep after staying up late to learn in the Beit Midrash:

Famous printers

Came across this interesting picture. Here is the Widow and one of the Brothers Romm, Menachem Gavriel, of the Vilna Romms.

A little-known Talmud parody, Tractate Chanukah

At least I think this is not well-known. The reason why, no doubt, is because it is not a traditional Talmud parody - it is not in Aramaic/Hebrew - but rather described, in English. It goes all the way through a Mishnah, the Gemara, the Rosh and the Rema.

It appears in the pages of Abram Samuel Isaacs' book Under the Sabbath Lamp: Stories of Our Time for Old and Young (Philadelphia 1919) (link).

Here is the description of Perek Trendele (dreidel) in Massekhet Chanukkah:

A gematriya by a Rev. Mr. Hurwitz of Frankfurt who was probably *not* R. Pinchas Horowitz, unfortunately

Here's something very amusing. In 1830 Isaac Leeser translated from German a book of instruction for Jewish children, and he called it Instruction in the Mosaic Religion. Translated From the German of J. Johlson, Teacher of an Israelitish School at Frankford on the Maine (link). The book is in the form of questions and answers and covers the gamut from matters of faith, tradition, and Orach Chaim-type practical law. Compared to the original it's actually quite pale, or, to put it another way, one imagines that the German author perceived a much higher level of learning than Leeser did among his potential audience in the United States. In any case, in a footnote in the section on Tradition, we find the following:

I was excited, as I was pretty sure this gematriya must be referring to something which no less than the author of the Hafla'ah, Rabbi Pinchas Hurwitz, ("The Rev. Chief Rabbi Mr. Hurwitz") had told Johlson (b. 1771), or which Johlson had heard from him indirectly. 

However, whenever possible one should always try to look at the original, and when I did, I realized that Johlson was quoting his son, R. Hirsch Horwiz (original spelling). Probably, anyway. Oh well. 

However, it gets even more interesting because while Johlson does quote R. Hirsch Hurwitz in another place, he does NOT give this gematriya here. Or anywhere in the book. And it isn't like I didn't look at various editions. I looked at the 1819, 1824, 1829 and even 1839 edition. Nothing. Now barring the possibility that I somehow overlooked it - and I looked through the entire book four times over - it seems that Isaac Leeser may have added this in by himself and amazingly ascribed it to the author, Johlson, for his very next note is one signed by himself (L.) in which he explains what a gematriya is. Very curious is all I can say. If you can find it in one of the original books, please do so and let me know.

Here is the one place, as far as I can tell, where Johlson did quote Hurwitz (and in other place, indirectly):

To make matters easier, here is how Leeser translated this footnote:

Finally, for posterity, here is a fascinating footnote by Leeser. The context is, Johlson had asked what is the duty of rabbis? His mildly reformist reply is that they must distinguish between true religion and the accretion of superstition and foolish customs that have been added to the law. In the translation, this continues, and then on the next page Johlson says that the rabbis can abolish customs that assumed the force or law under the principle of Et La'asot - and Leeser gives a lengthy footnote in which he claims to "explain" (rather than contradict) Johlson, about the importance of maintaining Hebrew as a language of the synagogue. Remember, this is 1830:

An Ashkenzi and a Sephardi walk into a 19th century smoking ancedote/ pun in Hebrew

From Zangwill's column, Jewish Standard 10.29.1889.

On Raphael Kirchheim's cholent

Here is a rather unusual anecdote about the time that Raphael Kirchheim, best known for his edition of the Minor Tractates, and his work on the Samaritans (introduction to Massekhet Kutim), tried to have his cholent cooked in a public oven. This is from Israel Zangwill's Marour and Charouseth column in the Jewish Standard 11.15.1889.

See my earlier post on Heinrich Heine and the magical power of cholent (link).

On Maharil Diskin and controversies in Jerusalem

Here's a good line about Maharil Diskin, or 'the Britzker Rav,' as he is called in Elkan Nathan Adler's Jews in Many Lands (Phil. 1905):

You can read the entire book here, including much more on R. Diskin (pp. 55-59) - it continues with the one instance that, to Adler's regret, he got involved in the fray.

On the minhag not to wear a tallis over the head in Rabbi Akiva Eger's synagogue in Posen

The Mishnaic rabbis and women in a beautiful Italian siddur from 1469

Leor Jacobi said in the name of Avi Shmidman that there is a really great Italian siddur from 1469 digitized here. Some great illustrations:

To begin with, we are treated to portraits of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva:





Then there is one of Rabban Gamliel and a nice-looking woman eating (or holding) matzah:

Then there is a woman holding what I guess is a spice box for havdalah, unless it's a candle without flames that I can see:

Then there is a woman counting the omar:

Finally, here is a woman reciting viduy on Kippur:

Shadal series #15 - On Shadal's unusual rabbinic ordination - a guest post by Daniel A. Klein

One day I was lazily browsing through a microfiche reel and I suddenly stopped. It was the long lost semicha certificate of Samuel David Luzzatto! I copied it and promptly took it home and asked Dan Klein to translate it for me. 

Actually, I kid. I was looking for it of course. After Shadal's passing in 1865, his son Isaia made it his business to collect and publish as much of his father's literary legacy as he could (or wanted to; I've seen one too many references to letters in archives that contained more material than was actually published in, e.g., Igrot Shadal). One interesting thing, which he evidently considered fairly ephemeral, he chose to publish in August of 1877 in a magazine called the Corriere Israelitico (and, unfortunately, only in Italian translation without the original Hebrew). This was the text of a certificate of rabbinic ordination awarded to Shadal by the Chief Rabbi of Gorizia. 

In his own memoirs Shadal writes that his primary teacher, Rabbi Eliezer Abraham Ha-levi of Trieste, informed him at age 15 that he could be on track to receive rabbinic ordination at age 20 if he chooses. Shadal, however, did not consider himself suited for the rabbinate, being shy on the one hand, and dramatic and harboring lofty visions of scholarship for its own sake, on the other. So he declined. To which his rabbi remarked: "Luzzatto wants to be a hakham, but not a rav." 

As shocking as this sounds now, apparently in Italy one was called to the Torah as one had been ordained. (I know!) Thus, even if you were already a world-renowned talmid hakham, and even the teacher of a rising percentage of all the Italian rabbis to-be, without rabbinic ordination one could not be called to the Torah as a rabbi, not even Shadal. 

So digging through the dusty, squeaky, heat-emitting microfilms I located Isaia's article, took it home, and shared it with my friend Dan Klein who was inspired to translate it. Read - or skip - to the end. 

Actually, the article consists of two separate documents, and a short letter by Shadal. Isaia explains that the first is a recommendation letter by the Chief Rabbi of Trieste (Abram de Cologna, formerly the Chief Rabbi of Paris) and the second is the text of a semicha granted to his father by Isaac Samuel Reggio's (Yashar) father, Rabbi Abraham Reggio. Included is SDL's reply to the elder Reggio. Although Isaia is not completely sure, he guesses that the reason this ordination was given to his 38 year old father was  that the powers-that-be at the Rabbinical Seminary where Shadal taught considered it unseemly for him, one of its two teachers, to lack ordination, and instructed him to get it. This would make sense, as why else would he have gotten such an honorary degree, so to speak, from his friend's father? Perhaps the rabbi was the only one he didn't feel like a fool writing to ask for it. On the other hand, perhaps someone else (the younger Reggio himself, for example) was the one who asked for it. The latter interpretation might be inferred from Shadal's response to the semicha, also included here, in which he says it was "unexpected." Taken literally  - it was unexpected. In any case, here it is. 

Thanks, Dan! - S. 

PS A partial translation of this article did appear once before, but it is long lost, I believe. If and when I publish my Shadal essays both versions will appear, at least if Dan is kind enough to give his permission to me.

A Certificate and a Diploma for Samuel David Luzzatto

I believe I am doing something that will be appreciated by the readers of the Corriere, and especially by the people of Trieste, by offering them two unedited documents regarding the life of my revered father and their illustrious fellow citizen, extracting these documents from a long series of Materials Concerning the Life of Samuel David Luzzatto that I am busily collecting, and for the compilation of which I appeal for the cooperation of all the friends of S.D.L., but especially that of his scholars, those of the Schools of Padua and Trieste, some of whom have already accepted my proposal most eagerly.

It is only proper that these documents should see the light of day for the first time in that Trieste which gave him birth, and which still preserves so vividly the traditions of that Samuel David son of the "tornidor" of Pondares,¹ who, as long as he lived, gloried in being its son.

The first of these documents is in Italian, because it evidently was made use of in the application for the professorship at the Istituto Rabbinico of Padua.

The second, which is actually a rabbinic diploma, set forth in Hebrew and written in the antique style on parchment, was translated into Italian at my request by my dear friend, His Excellency Moisè Coen Porto, Chief Rabbi of Venice,² overcoming more than a few difficulties that arose in the translation process whenever an exact and faithful version was sought to be made, rather than a free paraphrase. Whenever a request is made to me to publish the original itself in some Hebrew publication, I will willingly furnish a copy.

This document was written on April 26, 1838, and in a letter written two weeks later (May 10, 1838) by the illustrious Isaac Reggio to my father, I find the following postscript: "After having written the present letter, today your paper directly reached His Excellency my father [Abraham Reggio], who renders thanks to you for the courteous expressions used in his regard."

Concerning the relevant request that must have been made by my father, I have found nothing, either in the copies of his letters or the letters in his own hand in my possession. However, from a letter of his of April 19, 1838, I perceive that on the previous day he had arrived in Gorizia, taking lodging in the Reggio home.

With respect to the motive that could have induced him to seek this title of Hakham, although it was quite alien to his nature to seek titles, lacking for the time being any positive information, I will make a simple hypothesis: I suppose that since his distinguished colleague, Prof. Lelio della Torre, had already been bestowed with the title of Rabbi, while my father possessed merely that of Maskil ve-Navon, as may be inferred from this document itself, the director of the Institute wanted my father, for the sake of the Institute's own dignity, to procure a similar title from some distinguished rabbi, especially for the solemnities attending the opening and closing of the Collegio, which were probably conducted in the synagogue, and that my father, having gone to Trieste and Gorizia in April 1838, spoke about it with Reggio.

Dr. Isaia Luzzatto

Padua, June 27, 1877*

* After having written the above, I found within a bundle of various autograph writings of my father a rough copy of a letter addressed, on May 8, 1838, to His Excellency R. Abraham Reggio, which I transcribe here in its entirety:

Most excellent Sir:

The most honorable letter of Your exalted Excellency³ and the attached Diploma were as sweet to me as they were unexpected⁴, and they afforded me a new proof of that goodness which so eminently distinguishes your character. I will always regard as the greatest of my honors the approbation of the venerable Nestor⁵ of the Rabbis of our age, whose wisdom, piety, and virtue I affirm as equally exemplary, notable, and renowned.

May Your exalted Excellency continue to inspire, for many more happy years, the joy of all those who have the good fortune of knowing you, and to receive the deserved homage of your admirers and devotees, among whom will always have the glory of being counted.

Your humble and most obedient servant,

S.D.L.

Padua, May 8, 1838

Here, then, are the two documents:

Certificate by Rabbi Cologna

I attest that Signor Samuel David Luzzatto, a native of Trieste, is recognized here as a man of exemplary morality and of the finest character; that he is distinguished for his vast knowledge in various branches of literature, both sacred and secular; that he is a professor of Hebrew language and sacred exegesis, and is a profound philologist; and that he has acquired a distinguished reputation as the author of various compositions published by him, which have obtained full approbation on the part of the literary public.

I attest, then, that the said S. D. Luzzatto is, in my judgment, indisputably capable of occupying, with respect to said subjects, the chair of Professor in a Rabbinical Institute.

Chief Rabbi A. Cologna

Trieste, November 11, 1827

Diploma

In the Name of God

O contemporaries, see this new flask that is full of old wine, the oldest, without adulteration. An all-containing cluster, a reasoning thinker and intellectual like Halcol and Darda^†, in Bible as well as in Mishnah and Gemara.

This star that emits a splendid light is the wise and intelligent Signor Samuel David Luzzatto, Professor at the Collegio Rabbinico of the famed city of Padua. The lion of society, who points the plain way to men of heart who eagerly learn in his school the statutes and laws of God in clear language. Renowned grammarian of the twenty-four books, celebrated poet in rhyme and meter. Behold, it is he who, from the chair of instruction, guides them on the path so that they may know and make known the things prohibited and lawful, together with morality, until they become chiefs of communities, in whatever places they may find shelter; hence (it may be deduced that) he who causes to be done is greater and more honorable than he who does. Seeing this great phenomenon, of which there has not been the like for centuries upon centuries, and his great wisdom in all and for all, to his friends and acquaintances I say that clear are the courses of the river of his wisdom, and that he has force and vigor. I say, let not his erudition be enclosed in a corner, notwithstanding his pure humility, and notwithstanding that titles and ranks of dignity have no importance to him; everyone should take hold of him as a shield and buckler, and thus the inhabitants of the world will see how great is the office of the law.

Therefore my heart tells me, and I have the word (ready) on my tongue, to exalt him and to crown him, throughout the regions of Israel, with the Rabbinic cloak of royalty, for to him pertains the firstborn's share; and with the assent of the Heavenly King and of the Tanna and Amora^‡, I place my two hands upon him and invest him with a glorious crown, and I authorize him to be called to the Torah with the title of "the most excellent, learned, intelligent, and wise Signor Samuel David Luzzatto (Magnalad Achacham)⁶; this is an honor that comes of its own accord to one who bears the heavy weight; let this be done so that all the Community of Israel may hear and say, "This is the Law, and this its recompense."

And now, with palms stretched forth to Heaven in awe, I pray that God may render great and mighty the Professor of His just law, and that He raise him to all the rabbinical degrees in abundant and overflowing measure, with long life, plentiful sustenance, and riches of every kind. Amen, may this be His will.

These are the words of the weak voice of the one who is placed in the position of religious authority here in Gorizia and its environs, who writes and subscribes with his seal, today, the first of the month of Iyyar of this year (whose number is derived from numerical value of the plene form of the word biyrushalayim in the verse [Zech. 2:16]), "And He shall again choose Jerusalem" ([5]598).

The words of the Hebrew servant whose name is Abraham Reggio.

1 "Tornidor" is evidently the Trieste dialect's equivalent of the standard Italian "tornitore," meaning "turner" or "woodworker." This was the occupation of Hezekiah Luzzatto, Shadal's father. The family lived at 1306 Contrada Pondares in Trieste.

2 Porto (1834-1918) was a student of Shadal at the Collegio Rabbinico.

3 In the original, "Sua Magnalad Ecc.ma," a combination of Hebrew and Italian; magnalad is the Italian Jewish pronunciation of ma'alat.

4 Emphasis in the original as transcribed by Isaia Luzzatto.

5 Nestor, a character in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, came to be a proverbial figure of an elder statesman and wise counselor.

† Names of wise men in the time of Solomon, see I Kings 5:11 [note by M. Coen Porto].

‡ "Tanna" is the author of the Mishnah and "Amora" is the author of the Gemara; here this means, with the assent of the greatest celebrated Rabbis [note by M. Coen Porto].

6 The Italian Jewish pronunciation of ma'alat ha-hakham, "the exalted scholar," i.e. Rabbi.

Huzzah for the King of Prussia! A Jerusalem Talmud commentator's Thanksgiving Sermon

Title page of the Korban Ha-edah's Thanksgiving drosho, 1757.

Also see here, where in the comments I commented.

As its name, so it is

Here's an advertisement in the Jewish Standard (2.28.1890) for the book Eleph Alephin, by the venerable Joseph Kohn-Zedek, which is, as it says, an elegy for Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler using 1000 words beginning with the letter aleph. And that's what it is.

Have got to love the name he gives himself for יוסף כהן-צדק on the title page: אסף אהרני-אמיתי.

Read and download it if you like here.