Some info about the 93 Maidens of Cracow's Beis Ya'akov

There's a discussion in the comments to this thread about the Soloveitchik-Twersky Rabad thing.

Someone opined that the Soloveitchik review revealed some bad blood, a grudge or a feud, since it's otherwise difficult to see why S. would choose to write a review (and a harsh one at that) of his brother-in-law T.'s book, thirty five years after it had been published. Similarly, R. JJ Schacter must have had some sort of a grudge against R. Leo Jung, whose pulpit he filled, since he co-wrote a lengthy article called "The 93 Beth Jacob Girls of Cracow: History or Typology?," ( Reverence, Righteousness, and Rahamanut: Essays in Memory of Rabbi Dr. Leo Jung, New York: Jason Aronson, 1992, pp. 93-130).

The story of the "93 Beth Jacob Girls of Cracow," is that 93 Beis Yaakov students and teachers killed themselves, rather than be forced into Nazi brothel. It is based on a letter written by one of the girls, Chaje Feldman. The incident was apparently first publicized in America during WWII by R. Jung himself. R. Schacter makes the case that this specific event did not occur.

In other words, the contention is that the story or legend of the 93 girls is highly associated with R. Jung. Thus, debunking the legend has to mean something deeper, some enmity.

R. Schacter edited this volume in memory of R. Jung, and frankly, I think it's crazy to accuse him of harboring some sort of grudge against R Jung, who he seems to have had a great deal of affection and admiration for.

In any event, this is what was reported in the New York Times on January 8,, 1943:



(Download the entire Times article.)

The text of the letter was translated from Yiddish into Hebrew and appeared in Hadoar 23,12, and an English translation of that letter appeared in the Reconstructionist:



(Download this as well.)

Neusner's Knives

and

When Rav Elyashiv says to print something, Artscroll prints it

at What's Bothering Artscroll.

Or, why this translation and why now?

From Moshe to Moshe...From Paul to Paul? And inside look at R. Eliyah Bahur's (Elijah Levita) preface to the Hebrew lexicon Tishby

Here is a very interesting excerpt from the introduction of R. Eliyahu Bahur's¹ (Elijah Levita 1469-1549) Hebrew lexicon Tishbi.

This work was published in Isny, Germany by the Christian printer Paul Fagius. It features Hebrew words that require clarification, such as words stemming from foreign languages, and words that were not defined in earlier lexicons like the Aruch of R. Nathan ben Yechiel of Rome.



As you can see, he effusively praises Fagius, with whom he developed a close relationship.

It's really quite extraordinary that he writes, of Paul Fagius:

באמת ראוי שבני עמו יקראו עליו כמו שאנו קוראין על רבינו משה בן מיימון ממשה עד משה לא קם כמשה כך יאמרו עליו מפאולוש עד פאולוש לא קם כפאולוש

"The truth is it would be fitting for his people (e.g., Christians) to say of him what we say about Maimonides--'From Moses to Moses, there has been none like Moses--they should say about him 'From Paul to Paul, there has been none like Paul.'"

Since it is important to be as inclusive of as many readers as possible, here is a translation of the entire excerpted passage:

Upon coming here I examined his barrel and found it full of old wine. I hadn't been told of even half his wisdom and knowledge. Many draw from the wells of his instruction, he teaches good to his people. He expounds and interprets nicely. The truth is it would be fitting for his people (e.g., Christians) to say of him what we say about Maimonides--'From Moses to Moses, there has been none like Moses--they should say about him 'From Paul to Paul, there has been none like Paul. When he saw this book that I'd written, and recognized its great worth and utility, he hastened to translate it into Latin, which our ancestors called Leshon Romi (e.g., 'Roman'), and he put the two languages together, facing pages, and he didn't add or omit. We agreed to print them together, and we will put our concentration and great efforts into it, he from one side, and me from another. And each of us calls to our God that we might succeed in our work.

(Image is from page ד in the Grodno תקס"ה edition [1815]. Indeed, the original edition featured Hebrew with Latin translation on facing pages.)

A sample of Levita's writing:




¹ I posted about Elias Levita (רבי אליה' הבחור אשכנזי) here.

When Rav Elyashiv says to print something, Artscroll prints it

But doesn't necessarily translate it...



This note appears at the beginning of the haskama (rabbinic approbation) section of some volumes of their Schottenstein Talmud translation (this is from Babba Metziah).

As you can see, Artscroll quotes R. Eliashiv saying that "Because of the times we live in it is a great mitzvah to proceed with this project." Indeed, from the verbatim Hebrew text of his message, which he requested be inserted, the last five words say this.

But that's five words out of thirty three. What do the other 85% of the words mean?

Well, if you can understand Hebrew, you know. So there is it. But what if you can't?

I find this interesting because it seems to sort of typify the approach one sometimes finds in Artscroll publications. The Hebrew text is the Hebrew text; they aren't going to tamper with the text. It's there for you to see, and very literally, המבין יבין. But much of the audience of these publications cannot understand much Hebrew, or any, and in that case abridgments must suffice.

Before I translate the words (noting that most of this audience doesn't need the translation and already sees what I'm getting at) I'd like to point out that Artscroll doesn't translate any of the haskamos that appear in these books. While it certainly would be useful if they did, it doesn't seem like any sort of big deal that they don't. It seems like this is common practice in English books that are accompanied by Hebrew haskamos. Surely sometimes haskamos are not as unqualified or praising as one would like, and therefore authors and publishers often would like readers to look at the names rather than the content of the approbations, and that's true across the board. So nothing funny here, or at least nothing funnier than usual.

What's interesting is that while R. Elyashiv does commend the work (Talmud translation)--"because of the times we live in it is a great mitzvah to proceed with this project"--he also explains what sort of times he is referring to.

"Since we live in a breached generation with many translations by lightweights who put their hands on the holiness of the Talmud and the Oral Law, I think there is no es la'asos le-Hashem₁ greater than this, and it's a great mitzvah to proceed with this project."

In other words, the complete context of R. Eliashiv's strong suggestion that Artscroll go ahead with their project to translate the Talmud is that this is something that is necessitated by other, bad translations of the Talmud. (I am sure he had in mind the Steinsaltz edition; I am less certain if he also meant the older Soncino or academic editions like Neusner's. That would be a question of whether it was on the Rav's radar or not, and I am in no position to speculate about that.)

All in all, most interesting. As I said, it's right there, black on gray. Obviously a sizable portion of the buying public knows exactly what it said. But many don't, and won't. It's understandable why they don't translate large haskamos (R. Aharon Schechter, rosh yeshiva Yeshivas Chaim Berlin wrote a particularly long one, for example). But this is less than 35 words. I suppose that the editors didn't necessarily want to make a big deal about the fact that R. Elyashiv gave what amounts to very qualified support for their work. No big deal, but interesting, and the wise will understand.

₁ The reference is to Psalm 119:126:

קכו עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַיקוָק הֵפֵרוּ תּוֹרָתֶךָ 126 It is time for the LORD to work; they have made void Thy law.

Rabbinically this verse is given as justification for--at times--'making void Thy law,' that is, to violate halakhah because "It is time" to do the Lord's work, that is, to repair a breach, to safeguard the Torah, sometimes the time gives no other choice than to breach it.

In this case, R. Elyashiv is asserting that in this time a translations of the Talmud [like Artscroll's]--which normally, in other times, is undesirable at best, if not forbidden--is necessary and a great mitzvah.

Sometimes you have time...

...sometimes you don't.

A güt yontov and shanah tovah to all my friends, adversaries, lurkers, commenters and everyone. :)

Maimonides was the first what?

The Rev. S. Lee, B.D. (in his GRAMMAR
OF THE
HEBREW LANGUAGE,
COMPRISED IN A
SERIES OF LECTURES;
COMPILED FROM THE BEST AUTHORITIES, AND DRAWN
PRINCIPALLY
From Oriental Sources,
DESIGNED
FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS IN THE UNIVERSITIES, London 1832):



Me, to Lee: Yes, I'm sure you were a genius. :)

Weise rabbis? Historical studies of Judaism and Orthodoxy, part 250

Having previously posted about the controversy about Rabbi Dr. David Zvi Hoffmann's thesis Mar Samuel (and, really, his approach to his non-biblical and non-halakhic* studies of Judaism), I thought it worthwhile to quote a selection from David Ellenson's book Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy:

What, however, was the nature of Hoffmann's scholarship in his other major field of academic study, rabbinics, which Hirsch had labeled "heretical"? In examining this area of Hoffmann's academic work, it is clear that some of the same patterns evident in his biblical studies are present here, too. In nearly all of his works, the same, seemingly obligatory statements about the nature of authentic Jewish faith are found. In his rabbinic investigations, in contrast to his biblical studies, however, Hoffmann appears to be more of the contemporary academic. Throughout his works he cites the scholarship of Rappoport, Frankel, Geiger, and Graetz, sometimes approvingly, sometimes disapprovingly--but never, it seems, tendentiously. In this way, Hoffmann becomes one among several academic scholars involved in a community of research. In addition, Hoffmann often employs an approach to the field of rabbinic history which marks him as a practitioner of Religions-Wissenschaft in the broadest cultural sense, an approach that allowed him to consider the ways in which the surrounding culture of the ancient Near East may have influenced rabbinic civilization, something he would never have considered doing in his biblical studies. For example, in his Mar Samuel, Hoffmann points out that the rabbis were identified as Hachamim, "Weise." Then, in a footnote, he states, "One also designated the Savants of other peoples with the selfsame title." It was remarks such as this, along with his citation of "heretics" such as Graetz and Frankel, which undoubtedly aroused the ire of Orthodox colleagues like Hirsch and caused them to view at least this work of Hoffmann as kefirah, heresy.

Hoffmann's writings on the evolution of the literary structures, forms, terminology, and modes of interpretation in both midrash and Mishnah would seemingly be even more dangerous to the foundations of Orthodox Jewish faith. Yet there is no question that Hoffmann did investigate these texts in a manner that makes it difficult to distinguish him from Frankel, Geiger, or other scholars of rabbinic literature. This does not mean that Hoffmann agreed with them either on particular points or specific theories. But Hoffmann was clearly involved in discourse with these men. Like Frankel Darkhe HaMishnah, Hoffmann First Mishna reveals that he saw development and variety in the different strata of mishnaic literature. His notion that there was a "First Mishna" before the destruction of the Second Temple and that there were disagreements among the later tannaim as to its form; his efforts to reconstruct and discover that form; his willingness to investigate the disparate strata which undergirded that form; as well as his work on the halakhic midrashim, all combine to reveal the seminal nature of his studies in the academic area of rabbinics. Proactive as opposed to reactive, his scholarship in this area is clearly distinct from his efforts in the discipline of Bible.



* I mean not relating to halakhah, rather than against halakhah!

Pinner prospectus

Regarding the aborted Pinner Talmud of the 19th century, I came across a prospectus, translated into English, published in an 1835 edition of R. Morris Raphall's Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature.



Download it here.



Morris J. Raphall (1798-1868) Link

How to use a Hebrew dictionary...

I never say "ontological" (and I try to dial back on the "mimetic")*

"If the obscurantists are not yet shaking in their feet, once they see our ever-forthcoming translation of the Arukh ha-Shulhan, which will bring back the 1950’s and the “mimetic tradition”, this will put them in their place."

"For a while I thought that I could impress those ever-impressionable Shabbat guests by pointing out that contrary to what the Arscroll siddur, p. 807, states, R. Eleazar Kalir was not a tanna. But again, this is not something that most people care about. Besides, someone always ended up pointing out that no less than Tosafot claims that he was a tanna, and my protestations about what Shir proved were always met with blank stares, for what does a Prague song have to do with anything?"

Good post with a hilarious introduction by Marc Shapiro, at Seforim.




* Not that I'm a Modern Orthodox intellectual.

Rashi script* and other Hebrew examples in Pantographia from 1799

Over at the Main Line I posted about a beautiful book called Pantographia; containing accurate copies of all the known alphabets in the world; together with an English explanation of the peculiar force or power of each letter (by Edmund Fry, London, 1799).

Great examples of many different kinds of alphabets included, with sources given. In addition, the Lord's Prayer is presented in each alphabet (and language) along with English transliteration. It is the nature of the beast that such a work would include lots of examples which look a little bit strange to the modern eye that has seen many of the actual scripts, as opposed to Western renderings of them (see, e.g.).

From his presentation of Hebrew (pp. 142-151):

1. The regular Hebrew script:



The source given for this example is Claude Duret, which is to say it is from a 16th century book.

Later an example of the modern Hebrew is given:



2. This one, also from Duret, is described "very early used by the Jewish Rabbis
in Germany, by whom it was much esteemed, as a handsome current letter, and easy to be written on account of its roundness, wherefore they generally used it in their commentaries-
and translations."

That is, it's purports to be an Ashkenazic script.**



3. This one is a Sephardic script, also from Duret, but it cites as an authority notable Hebraist Sebastian Muenster.**



4. To me this one is the most interesting. As you can see, it's the script we call Rashi script:

"The alphabet of Rabbinical Hebrew, of which there are three sizes at the Type-Street Foundery."



And a typical printed example is supplied (but no source is given):




* I know; don't hassle me. Mashait, blah blah.

**It's worth comparing with these two charts from the Jewish Encylopedia entry on the Hebrew alphabet (click to enlarge):

An 18th century English version of Raschi script

What's this about?

Rashi script* and other Hebrew examples in Pantographia at English Hebraica.


*See asterisk over there.

A 1500 year old list of Hebrew Bible books in Latin characters

As one of the early Church Hebraists, Jerome's writings contain many interesting elements to people interested in Hebrew and Tanakh, among them issues of pronunciation.

Here is a list of the names of the books of Tanakh, as the Jews called them, in his introduction to Kings:

Bresith
Hellesmoth
Vaiecra
Vaiedabber
Addabarim
Iosue Bennum
Sopthim
Ruth
Samuhel
Malachim
Esaias
Hieremias
Cinoth
Hiezecihel
Thareasra
Iob
Psalmorum
Masaloth
Accoeleth
Sirassirim
Danihel
Dabreiamin
Ezras
Hester

It should be noted that I merely copied this list from someone who translated his Latin introduction into English. I didn't compare it to any other versions; I realize the anachronism of using the letter J rather than I in some of the words (but then, it is also an anachronism to call him Jerome) (ed.--thanks to Reb Berel I was able to correct the list; minor things like Daniel to Danihel, I to J have been corrected). Furthermore, these words were obviously subject to the same potential copyist errors that all manuscripts are, particularly as most scribes over the years did not know Hebrew (which could account, for instance, for Iosue bennum or Dabreiamin).

I recently came across a wonderful and fascinating book called Pantographia; containing accurate copies of all the known alphabets in the world; together with an English explanation of the peculiar force or power of each letter (by Edmund Fry, London, 1799).

In the entry on Hebrew it contains the following, on the authority of Jerome:

"St. Jerom, in his preface to the books of Kings, puts
"this matter in a still stronger light : he says, the Samaritans
"often copy the five books of Moses, in the same number
"of letters as the Jews do, but their letters differ in form,
"and the use of points

This last line is interesting because Jerome lived in the 4th and 5th century. He did receive Hebrew instruction from Jews living in Israel. Doesn't this quote confirm the widely believed traditional view that the points, that is the nekkudot, were not invented by the Masoretes after the Talmudic period?

In fact, the Pantographia is in error, but it's understandable. Jerome wrote "The Samaritans still write the Pentateuch of Moses in the same number of letters, only they differ in shapes and points (apicibus). The misunderstanding is in the meaning of apicibus in this context. It can mean points, but it also means endings. Jerome's intention was to note the existence of final forms in Hebrew letters used by Jews (מנצפ"ך). See.

More on the Pantographia will be at English Hebraica.

Palm reading in pre-war Eastern Europe

There's a historical point in these Shana Tova cards (click to enlarge). Does anyone know what it is?

Louis Ginzberg: Good historians avoid a common pitfall

R. Moses Sofer combined all the great virtues of the old Jewish scholar with fighting courage and determination, and therefore he was not only the head of a Yeshibah, but also the leader of a strong party, especially strong in Hungary, which opposed the new tendency in Judaism with success. It was not lack of comprehension of the new tendency that made Sofer its violent opponent; his keen vision gave him insight sooner than anyone else into the radicalism into which it would degenerate. And it was [Eisik Hirsch] Weiss who, in his sketch of Sofer in the Hebrew monthly Mi-Misrah umi-Ma'arab (Vienna, 1896) meted out full justice to this great personality, although Weiss did not adopt Sofer's conception of Judaism as his own. Moreover, Weiss did not descend to the manner of the so-called historians who are incapable of appreciating a great personality or a spiritual movement in its totality, but lose themselves in details and designate as characteristic the most insignificant points if they are bizarre, and the most unessential minutiae if they are curious. They judge accordingly, and as a result we hear opinions of the Jewish past and of certain tendencies in Judaism which, if the same logic were applied to the interpretation of general history, would give something like the following: Aristotle was a fool; he believed that the heavenly spheres were animated. Kepler understood nothing at all of physics, because he did not know so much as the law of gravitation, which is now known to every school-boy. And the fathers of the Dutch Republic were mischievous reactionaries, for in their political program they did not adopt universal suffrage.

Louis Ginzberg, 'Isaac Hirsch Weiss' in Students, Scholars, Saints (Philadelphia, 1928), pp. 235-236.

Fascinating Footnotes II

It may be somewhat remarkable that Bernard of Clairvaux, who records so many miracles of his friend St. Malachi, never takes notice of his own, which in their turn, however, are carefully related by his companions and disciples.

Chap. 15, n. 81, Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 474.

Who drew Rashi and when?

Zev asked me (and others) if I knew where this ubiquitous image of Rashi comes from and hold old it was. More specifically, could I point to somewhere from before the 20th century?

I could not. However, in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-05) entry on Rashi this image is not include, while other Rashi-related images are. Furthermore, the ubiquitous image of Maimonides is included, as are images of the Rif, Maharsha, the Gaon of Wilno and many images of lesser figures. Therefore I think I do not draw an unwarranted conclusion that when the JE was prepared the image either didn't yet exist, or at least wasn't popular.

This question is almost as important as knowing what color shirt Rashi wore or what brand of tobacco he smoked. Anyone know anything about where this image came from, and when?

Another Ari K. post: A Geonic Precursor of Wissenschaft?

Ari posts: A Geonic Precursor of Wissenschaft? -- about an 11th century Ga'on's critical reading of a text.

I commented that the טענה of Wissenschaft pioneers (at least the more pious ones among them) was that many of their methods had noble antecedents in traditional sources.

This of course continues today--with Ari's post, for example (however tongue-in-cheek he meant it). But it also continues with nearly every volume of the Orthodox Forum series, it continued with the writings of Louis Jacobs, it continues all over the place, including my own posts. "Look, Rashi interpreted a passuk against the interpretation of Chazal." "Look, Heidenheim changed the nussach based on grammatical principles." et cetera

These scholarly pioneers often posited a Jewish Dark Age beginning right about the end of the European one and lasting until their own period. Let's say from 1600 to 1800. They pointed to poets and playwrights and physicians and astronomers in the Jewish past; to correct vernacular usage (overstating the case) and reasoned that present state of Jewry around them was not the traditional one.

Of course not only Wissenschafters and Reformers posited this. R. Samson Raphael Hirsch did as well. It was a self-serving claim, but not totally lacking in all merit. (It should be borne in mind that in truth these centuries were very creative ones for Jews. They were just centuries that were diametrically opposed to rationalism and various things which they advocated. They perceived the earlier period as one of liturgical creativity, and the later period as one of liturgical freezing. The earlier period as more conducive to critical study of rabbinic texts, the latter the age of pilpul, etc. Of course the dates were not fixed and figures who flourished in that period--such as the Ga'on of Vilna--were regarded as precursors to their type of thinking.)

In any case, certainly manuscript criticism dates back to the time when all books were ms! Before printing, any literate person would have been puzzled by the idea that all texts don't need correcting.

An Ari K. post is always interesting

Ari's Hebrew for the Ignorant: An Historical Overview. Have a look!