Merchants

Here's an interesting picture called Die Polacken/ Les Polonais by George Emanuel Opiz (1775-1841) depicting Jews coming to the famous Leipzig fair in the 1820s (I think).

Beyond the Dikdukei Soferim - A Powerful Free Tool for DIY Talmudic Text Research - a guest post by Leor Jacobi

A powerful resource for Talmudic research is now available freely on-line. The latest version of Eidei Nusah. This site contains the text of almost all manuscripts of the Talmud Bavli. Previous versions were available on CD-ROM. Many geniza fragments have been added to this version. Some actual images of Talmud and Mishna manuscripts are also available.

Many of my own studies would have been practically impossible without heavily utilizing previous versions of this database. Obtaining microfilms of these texts, locating the desired texts contained therein, and then deciphering them are daunting tasks for even the best of scholars. The time investment involved prohibits everyone from fully exploring manuscripts in most cases. As a result, in the past, most talmudic scholars have relied almost solely on the monumental Diqduqei Sofrim of Rav R.N.N. Rabinovicz. However, it should be noted that this database contains several times more manuscripts than those available in the 19th century, and that many of these “new” Eastern, Yemenite, and Geniza manuscripts are simply much more accurate than those European ones previously utilized, literally of a higher class.

Now, in a few mere moments one can obtain significantly more and higher quality information than could have been acquired in many excruciating hours. Furthermore, the database can be searched powerfully to yield much more textual information than could ever have been found before.

Allow me to provide a simple tip for utilizing this database which serve as an illustration. When searching for all the variants of a particular text, it is most prudent to search not for the text itself in which variations appear, but rather, for a text located near the words in question which is more likely to be found in many or all of the manuscripts. Then, one receives an output list of results which will probably contain more of the variant readings. An added side-benefit of this method is that, if cleverly exploited, it often enables one to instantly obtain results from parallels located in other locations in the Talmud which the researcher may or may not be aware of. In fact, many sugyot of the Talmud which relate to sugyot of different tractates are often repeated in more than one location, especially where the Talmud undertakes comparisons of laws from different branches of Jewish Law. This is a very familiar phenomena, especially well attested to in the Talmud Yerushalmi (whose manuscripts are unfortunately not yet contained in this version). There is occasionally significant variation among talmudic manuscripts as to the length of certain texts, particularly when it appears that one sugya is quoting another. Manuscripts may contain a version of a sugya that one may be interested in, but not in the location that we are familiar with from working with printed versions of the Talmud. הפוך בה והפוך בה.

The text of the manuscripts has been painstakingly typed in by hand. I have personally checked a considerable number of these texts against photo images found on the Hebrew University manuscript site and I have found them to be highly accurate. However, the user should be warned that, as would be expected, in a small minority of cases there is considerable room to debate the particular readings, but this is primarily restricted to individual letters such as ד and ר in locations where texts have been erased or substituted, always well indicated by a proliferation of square and round parenthesis indicating added and original texts.

A desideratum would be basic bibliographic information on the various manuscripts and fragments. The most important would be country or region of origin. One is currently reduced to checking obsolete and incomplete lists of manuscripts or taking a stab by viewing an actual sample photo image. However, this drawback of the anonymous, generic nature “pure” computerized text is indeed a small price to pay for the ability to search and compare texts automatically.

It would be considerably more efficient if the site would enable the reader to open all manuscripts of a particular folio at the click of a button, rather than manually opening up each one. Indeed, this process is considerably more cumbersome now than on the previous version 5 on CD-ROM. I suspect that most users are more interested in always seeing all variants of a particular page while using the Browse feature than in ever selecting from particular manuscripts. Only while using the Search feature is the user interested in which particular manuscripts are returned as the result of a query.

Basic access to the site is free of charge. All information is briefly viewable, but one must subscribe for a fee in order to copy freely and view and print texts at leisure. The casual user can make do by making a “screen-shot” of a particular text before the viewing time expires, and then recopying that text by hand as required. The frequent user will no doubt benefit greatly by subscribing and supporting this project expand and in turn make more manuscripts publicly available, and perhaps most importantly, practically usable and useful.

Superficial study of the words of the sages of the Talmud Bavli without even a minimum of verification that their words were recorded accurately can now no longer be excused. The lens has been focused and placed in the public domain. Thanks are due to the Lieberman Institute for providing these tools to the entire gamut of those engaged in in-depth study of the Talmud.

What's the difference between

proud Americans of the Jewish faith and germans of the mosaic persuasion?

I guess you have to know the narrative in order to follow it?

An 1850s response to biblical criticism in Yitzchak Baer Levinsohn's Guide to the Perplexed.

In 1839 Isaac Baer Levinsohn printed his book Beis Yehuda, which he had written ten years earlier. It was a sort of history of and explanation about Judaism and a sequel to his Te'uda Be-yisrael. (It's the book which I quoted in one of my favorite posts, about the word "daven.") Ostensibly written in answer to queries from an official of the Russian government - the questions are in the beginning; indeed, the book is subtitled "Collected responses which I sent on 1 Iyyar 1837 to the great scholar and Nobleman, the wonderful Christian teacher, Immanuel Liven" - it was in reality nothing of the sort and Immanuel Liven wasn't a real person.

What happened was that once Levinsohn sent his sheets to the printer and word got out what was contained within them the rabbis became upset. The printer then refused to print it. So Levinsohn, in his letter to some of the rabbis opposed to the book, told them that the aforementioned government official had asked him those questions, and this was his responses. The person didn't exist, but his name was very similar to the actual minister of education, so the opposition was withdrawn. These facts arise from a letter printed 36 years after his death, where he explains to a friend what had happened.

I think it's reasonable to note that it was not, evidently, the content of the answers per se which were opposed, but the very format in which they were discussed together. After all, once it was "known" that the questions were posed by the government, if the answers were totally objectionable then how could opposition to it be withdrawn? I think the problem was a book of this style was not appreciated, much the way contemporary books raising questions and giving answers in accordance with classical and traditional sources may well be opposed. Perhaps you will agree with me once you read the questions (at the end).

Interestingly, when it was reprinted in 1859 I noticed that it included an interesting footnote that was not present in the first edition (1839). It says page 579, but it's really 179. Here it is:

and by comparison, here is the same passage, without the footnote, in 1839:

As you can see, the footnote attempts to refute nascent biblical criticism, specifically the idea that Ezra really wrote the Torah, not Moshe. It should be noted that nothing had changed in Western European bible scholarship between 1839 and 1859 in the sense that in 1839 it was accepted that Moses wrote the Torah, but not in 1859. On the contrary. So my guess is that what had changed in those 20 years is what Jews in Eastern Europe had been, or could have been, reading.

Levinsohn provides four objections to the suggestion that the Torah is the work of Ezra. They are

1) The Samaritan Torah is in essence the same as ours, except for some minor differences, including many that are clearly intentional changes. The Samaritans arrived on the scene some 200 years before Ezra, and there was great mutual hatred between them and the Jews, and especially between them and Ezra.

2) How could Ezra have fooled the remnants of the Kohanim and Levi'im, who were the elders and sages of the generation? Even after the building of the Second Temple there were many elders among them who remembered the First Temple. They knew the Torah and its commandments, and were raised on it. Furthermore, Chagai, Zechariah and Malachai, Daniel, Chanania, Mishal, Azariah, Nechemia, Mordechai and Zerubavel were around, and these knew Yirmiyahu, Yechezkel and Baruch.

3) All the books of the Early and Later Prophets, and the Hagiographa, are intimately tied to one another, and all are connected with the Torah of Moshe, and its commandments and narratives. Those who argue that Ezra wrote the Torah implicitly must claim that these books and Psalms, and Proverbs, all were written by Ezra. It is also known that every prophet and writer and poet has a distinct writing style, and all differ greatly in terms of clarity, strengths, etc. So how could Ezra have written so much literature in so many styles?

4) Isn't the books of Ezra and most of Chronicles, which were written by Ezra, written in a different style from the Torah and the Prophets? Not only that, Ezra's writings are inferior in quality.

All these responses are sufficient to shut the mouths of these allegedly wise men who sow doubt amongst people, says Levinsohn.

================================

Here is a vintage postcard (?) of Levinsohn who, incidentally, considered his greatest works to be his works against the blood libel (Efes Damim) and against Alexander McCaul's Old Paths, the 19th century's most successful and widely disseminated missionary attack on Judaism (Zerubavel):

================================

Here are the questions which the book is supposed to answer - and, incidentally, after the 1858 edition the subsequent editions do not even give the questions:

1) What are the fundamentals of the faith of the religion of Moses according to the Talmudic rabbis and their counterparts among the rabbis who followed them?

2) Is it true that the Jews possess books that are earlier in time than the Torah? If this is the case, why didn't Moses or another prophet mention them?

3) With which form of script was the Torah written?

4) Are they other books apart from the Bible, but from the same period?

5) Is it true that the commandments in the Torah, according to the view of the Talmudic rabbis, lack any rational explanation? If so, what about the fact that the Torah itself gives reasons for many mitzvos?

6) Is it true that the Talmudic and later rabbis considered the commandments in the Torah regarding behavior between people, to apply only concerning Jews, but not people of other religions? Is it permitted for a Jew to to do any bad thing to a non-Jews, particularly against Christians whom they harbor a great hatred toward; that it is even a mitzvah to wrong them?

7) What is the Talmud like? What's it about? What can it be compared to? Which time and place and in what language is it?

8) Which books are considered "the Talmud"? Do you have other books considered to be as important? If so, who wrote them and what are they about?

9) Are there wise things in the Talmud? Because rumor has it that it is filled with disgusting things and baseless, irrational stories?

10) How did the sages of the Talmud permit themselves to add and subtract from the commandments of the Torah, to the extent that today the rule of the Torah appears different from what is inside it, although the Torah says one may not add or subtract from it? And many of these things are built upon explanations of the verses which go against the plain meaning of the text and the rules of the Hebrew language? And an amazing thing - the sages did not enact leniencies, only stringencies?

11) Are there any remnants today of the Jewish sects which were around during the Second Temple period? What are the Karaites? When did they begin?

12) Is it true that today there are Jews of the sect of the Pharisees of the Second Temple period?

13) What are these millions of laws and fences which you are concerned with all your days?

14) Who enacted millions of baseless customs, and is there not a spirit of idolatry in them? What is the Pesach Seder like, with all its practices, about which Jews were at times suspected of consuming the blood of Christians on that night?

15) Is it true that in the Jewish books there are passages against the Christian religion in general, against its savior and apostles, which generate great hatred against us [Christians] and against the relgion in general, and our Messiah in particular? This is alleged by many Jews who converted, and by certain Christian writers.

16) Is it true that according to the Talmud and related rabbinic literature to learn foreign languages, or secular wisdom, or mathematics, of farming and the like? This is what many Jewish scholars who converted allege in their books. Similarly, such is alleged by born Christians who have mastered the Talmud and rabbinic literature - specifically the Italian priest Chiarini, who tried to translate the Talmud into French in order to prove to everyone that the Talmud is that cause of every aforementioned bad habit of the Jews. Furthermore, we see that today's Karaites, who did not accept the Talmud, are very honest men, for they pursue the Torah of Moses alone, a Torah of truth which is in their mouth, the source of which is the living God, master of the universe. Apparently this priest admired them very much. We see that they are multilingual, whereas the greatest rabbis do not even know the vernacular of their country, and certainly no foreign language, and a fortiori secular knowledge they do not know, and all the more so the masses of Jews. For it is prohibited according to Talmudic law? Is it true that you don't have any thinkers or farmers? If one were to teach them languages or some sort of wisdom, is it true that in your view they are heretics and excluded from the grouping of the Jews?

17) Who established the prayers of the Jews? What are they like?

18) Who established the melodies for prayers which seem to have no order and whomever hears them believes they hear wailing? Why are there many small minyanim? Isn't it better to pray together in one synagogue? Do you not conduct yourself frivolously in the synagogue?

19) Is it true that your prayers contain content against believers of other faiths?

20) What is the Zohar? Who wrote it? What is Kabbalah, both theoretical and practical? Who originated it? When?

21) What is the "Shechina"? What are Kelipos and Satanim? What are the 'secrets,

the kavvanot and the kabbalistic names?

22) Is it true that the Zohar and the Kabbalists consider the Torah of Moses to be entirely allegorical, both in its commandments and in its narratives?

23) Is it true that the Zohar contains material opposed to the religion of the Talmud? And that it took some of its principles from other religions? That it's holier in your eyes and more accepted than the Talmud, for it is believed that its teachings come from Elijah the Prophet, angels and God Himself? It is alleged that it contains much that is far stranger than things in the Talmud, and practices that are bizarre to God and man?

24) Is it true what I heard from one rabbi, a great Kabbalist, famed among the Jews, who derived from the Kabbalah the Christian belief in the Trinity, which can be found in the Zohar and other Kabbalistic books?

25) Are they secular books of learning among the Jews? Who wrote them? When? What do the masses think of them and their authors? After all, without a doubt the masses must consider them to be opposed by the Talmudists and the rabbis?

26) Do the Jews have schools of secular learning?

27) Is it true that the faith of Shabbetai Zvi still exists today?

28) Is it true that the Shabbatian faith is premised on the Zohar and Kabbalah?

29) Are there good takkanot which Jews established for the benefit of their poor, their sick and their poor students? Are there today schools for those in need?

30) What about the Chassidim of this country? Who established them and when? Which cities are they found? Do they have separatist synagogues?

31) How many sects are they divided into today?

32) Are there still new sects being established among the Jews these days?

33) Is there yet hope that the Jews will be able to repair many of their ills? How?

34) What is the Messiah which they hope and pray for? Who is the Messiah, son of Joseph, who will be killed? If it is true that they hope to rule the world when their Messiah comes? Is it true that because of the belief in the Messiah the Jews do not labor for the good of the country which they live in? Is it not for this reason that many monarchs will not give them citizenship?

35) How can Jews become closer to the Christians, if the Jews distance themselves from them every way possible? If it is prohibited, as I wrote, according to the Talmud to learn any language or secular subject, or even manners? And all the customs which Jews learn from their babyhood, even good ones, aren't their instances where they ought to accept good customs and manners of the nations?

================================

You can see that these "questions" are designed to elicit the answers, i.e., the discussions in the book. For example, what kind of questions are the 2nd and 4th one? Clearly they are meant to generate a discussion about the books mentioned in the Torah and other Prophets, which we do not possess, as well as the Apocrypha.

Lest one thinks from the content of these questions that Levinsohn's book is a gigantic attack on rabbinic Judaism, it is nothing of the sort. It is a defense of it. The antisemitism and so forth was highly plausible in the mouth of a Russian official, and Levinsohn's points were that the answer to questions of the "Aren't the Jews just awful?" sort is no, to the contrary. Is it true that the Jews are forbidden to learn languages? No, on the contrary, etc.

Maimonides and his faithful frum servant Peter.

If you are like me, there is a good chance that you heard the following legend concerning Maimonides as a child. My version:

Maimonides was suspected of heresy by the rabbis of Spain. The rabbis of Germany decided to send an emissary to meet him personally and see if the charges were founded (I know!). They sent a Rabbi Meir. Upon arriving, Rabbi Meir was, uh, perplexed at the things he witnessed in the Maimonides household. First, a servant placed food which looked like human hands on the table. Secondly, the Rambam summoned another servant, named Peter, to fetch wine for the guest. Finally, Maimonides ordered that a calf be slaughtered for him in a quite unlawful fashion. Completely shocked at the obviously unkosher food (human hands, wine served by a non-Jew, and unschechted meat) Rabbi Meir managed to mumble excuses and didn't eat. Later Maimonides approached him and asked him his impressions. Not being able to answer for fear of offending his host, but obviously assuming that Maimonides was guilty of preparing the treifest of treif dishes, the Rambam explained. First of all, the human hand was a special kind of vegetable which only looks like it is a human hand. Secondly, his faithful servant Peter is Jewish. Hasn't Rabbi Meir ever heard of the Talmudic sage Rabbi Yose ben Patrus? Thirdly, the calf was removed from the womb of a pregnant cow that was slaughtered according to halacha. As you know, the law is that such a calf does not need to be slaughtered according to the method of shechita. Rabbi Meir understood the lesson: do not jump to conclusions about other people without understanding the complete picture. Having learned this great lesson, he returned to Germany and reported that the Rambam is no heretic.

This is only the quickie version. A more fleshed-out version of the story can be read here. If you are like me, you probably read this story in the Tales of the Geonim section of the Jewish Press. Perhaps you read it in Nathan Ausubel's Treasury of Jewish Folklore, or even in Moses Gaster's Ma'aseh Book. I somehow remember someone trying to explain that the food which looked like a hand must have been asparagus. Apparently taking this story as historical, someone suggests that it was a Chinese citron which is, admittedly, a pretty crazy etrog (also known as Buddha's hand):

The aforementioned Ma'aseh Book is in fact the written source of this story[1].

The Ma'aseh Buch was first printed in Basel in 1602. It is a compendium of nearly 300 stories from the Talmud, Midrashim and later sources. For example, there are many stories about Rabbi Yehuda Ha-chassid, and some about Rashi. Some of them are from known written works, others seem to have been passed down orally (or invented). Here is the title page:

As you can see, the full title was Ein Schein Maaseh Buch ("A Beautiful Story Book"). The title page begins by asking the "dear Men and Women to come here" and peruse the book. The stories, it says, are all from the Gemara, with some from the Midrash Rabbos, Bachya, and that the stories about Rabbi Yehuda Ha-chassid are not to be missed. In addition, there are stories from the Sefer Chassidim, Sefer Mussar and the Yalkut. Then comes a great line: איר ליבן ארויאן איר האט פון דיא טייטשי ביכר אל ואר איצונדר האט איר אך דיא טייטשי גמרא / Dear ladies, you already had German books; now you will have the German Gemara! And who published it? A Litvak. Okay - he was from Mezerich.

Interestingly, on the inside page are some other words explaining that the hope is that the reader will read this pious book, but not read from the Book of Cows. The reference it to the קויא בוך, which was printed in Verona a few years earlier, in 1595. Evidently the Cow Book was popular enough that the compiler of the Story Book hoped that it would supplant the other in popularity. In addition and in particular, it was hoped that such books would not be read on Shabbos. The publisher advises women to buy it quickly before it sells out. Here is the Koy Buch's title page:

I don't know how many copies of the 1602 Maaseh Buch there are, but the first edition of this book would seem to be incredibly rare. In a late 19th century catalog of the Bodleian Library I saw it claimed that only one copy was known (its copy). A few decades later Israel Zinberg writes in History of Jewish Literature that there are three known copies. For all I know a few more have turned up. In addition, there are extant a couple of manuscripts of the book. Gaster's English translation (1934) was preceded by Bertha Pappenheim's translation of the 1723 Amsterdam edition into German (which you can read here).

In any case, here is the story about the Rambam as it appeared in the 1703(?) ורנקבורט edition (click to enlarge):

Some random tidbits. Throughout this version (and three other Maseeh Buchs I looked at) the Rambam is called רבי משה מיימנו. No, that is not a typo. מיימנו. Evidently for the not-so-learned audience, just who he is is explained very carefully. He is a "Gevaltiger Herr in der Torah." As in the Jewish Press version, the story takes place in Spain (which the Rambam fled as a young man). The משרת, or servant, is called פיטר (so all those fancy versions which call him Patros aren't actually being faithful to the source). Not surprisingly he is not called a גוי but איין כותי, a "Samaritan." The Rambam informs Rabbi Meir that Peter is not only Jewish, but he is איין פרומר יוד, he is a pious Jew! The identity of the Talmudic rabbi named Peter (the father, really) is not given. Rather, we are told that a talmid chochom in the Gemara was called Rabbi Peter. After asserting that this Rabbi Meir is the one who coined the famous aporophism that "From Moshe to Moshe there was none like Moshe," at the end the reader is exhorted that חושד בכשרים לוקה בגופו, for suspecting the innocent, the penalty is flogging.

Here is the title page:

Incidentally, the Maaseh Buch was so interesting and so popular, that only a few years after it was printed Christoph Helwig translated dozens of its stories, in two volumes (1611 and 1617) called the Juedischer Historien der Thalmudischer Rabbinischer wunderbarlicher Legenden. Interestingly, while the Maaseh Buch does not carefully list its sources, Helwig apparently researched them, because he gives the rabbinic source of each legend. Before each story he gives the number that it appears in the Maaseh Buch and its source in the Talmud or Midrash, if there is one. In case anyone was wondering, the Rambam story is supposed to be #200. Unfortunately Helwig left it out (but see the note [1]). By the time of the Frankfurt 1703 edition, which I used, it is #214! The Maaseh Buch grew some maasehs. Here is Helwig's title page:

In case anyone thought that the idea that the content and doings of a Chassidisher newspaper in New York can quickly become general knowledge is something new (for example), one should consider that many oral tales of the Jews were already available in translation only 9 years after their first printing. The pace may have quickened, but the concept is really the same.

[1] Or the supplement Ma'asei Adonoi, which was subsequently incorporated in later editions. Since I could not see the original 1602 edition of the Ma'aseh Buch, or a copy of Ma'asei Adonoi, I'm not sure where it first appears. Steinschneider in his article on the Maaseh Buch in Serapaeum seems to say that it's in the original, but I'm not 100% sure.

What the British Chief Rabbi was allowed and not allowed to do in 1827.

New HebrewBooks update, more fun stuff. This time there are several Takkanos (regulations) books, such as the following one.

Printed in 1827, the Laws of the Congregation of the Great Synagogue, Duke's Place, London (A. M. 5587), or, תקנות לעדת ישורון דק"ק בהכ"נ הגדולה דוקס פלעהס בלאנדאן, are the revised statutes of this center of Ashkenazic Jewish life in England (or at least it's elite).

This edition (revised from prior ones) is interesting because for the first time it was translated to English (the text is in Hebrew and in English). Contrast it with the 1791 edition, with only a few English words in sight. That text is almost entirely in Yiddish - plus small amounts of Hebrew, with occasional English words, by my count 10. They are:

Resolutions,

Auditors,

the casting vote,

Minute Book,

Quorum,

Hearse Driver,

Suspend,

Emoluments,

Extract and

Proxy.

The 1827 one has this very interesting one:

I will post all the regulations concerning the rabbi. The one I just showed is #163, for non-Hebraist readers. I will also show the entire regulation concerning the appointment and regulations of the chief rabbi since, after all, the appointment of rabbis is so interesting. If there's one thing everyone can agree on, it's that.

As you can see, #163 (in Hebrew, above) states that the Chief Rabbi is not empowered to enact a cherem against any person without the consent of the Commitee. Interestingly, #161 says that "In case the Chief Rabbi should think to confer the degree of חבר or מורינו on any Member of the Congregation, it is expedient that he obtain the concurrence of the Wardens thereto." That is, the granting of semicha in its greater or lesser form (in case the Chief Rabbi should think to do so) must be approved. Ouch. No wonder the Chief Rabbi of that time preferred to sit and learn all day.

Another regulation concerns the responsibility of the Chief Rabbi to conduct investigations into unspecified bad rumors about potential brides or grooms, and then has the right to decline to perform the marriage; instead he may hand it off to someone else (subject to approval). Read the rest, concerning his other duties, privileges and responsibilities. Indeed, read the entire book. And you thought your shul was a pain in the neck?

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

Continuing my tradition of Pesach posts after Passover - for example, see my Chad Gadya post from last year, which is one of my favorite posts of all time. I hardly need to explain that there isn't a lot of time for posting on Chol Ha-mo'ed. There almost isn't enough time for doing Yom Tov-appropriate things. A friend of mine told me that he printed up the 18th century English Haggadah which I posted about here, and he "aspire[d] to use the Prague Haggadah on the first night and this one on the second, but will probably be stuck with a Maxwell House Hagaddah in one hand and a kid in the other." I know how it is. But I digress.

On Pesach I discovered a Haggadah that I'd heard about, but never seen. It turns out that my grandfather owned a facsimile copy of a famous Haggadah. The Haggadah was beautifully written by a student of the Chasam Sofer in honor of the latter's wedding to Sorel, daughter of R. Akiva Eger, in 1815. It was evidently intended as a present for Sorel. I am unclear regarding the circumstances, if the Chasam Sofer commissioned this Haggadah as a present for his wife, or if it was essentially a present for him and the initiative was from the student. If that were the case, that's pretty bold of him to write it for the Rebbetzin (and it is written for her, as can be seen from the blessing for her husband in the bentching). In any case, my grandfather had a facsimile copy. Not only that, to my pleasure it was wine-stained, which meant that he didn't only own it, he used it.

The facsimile edition which I now have was printed in Brooklyn in1951. Unfortunately it is black-and-white, while the original was colored. In Meir Hildesheimer's essay "The Attitude of the Hatam Sofer toward Moses Mendelssohn" (PAAJR 60 1994) he refers to this Haggadah and its reprints - Berlin 1924, Bnei-Brak 1980 and Brooklyn 1986. But he missed Brooklyn 1951.

In any case, as it happens the JNUL just put up a digital copy of the 1924 facsimile a few weeks ago (link), and I will use pictures from that edition.

There are numerous interesting things about this Haggadah. To begin with, obviously, is the fact that included a translation into German (with Hebrew letters). Now I know that some might prefer to think that the translation is Yiddish, but it is not. Not only is this clear from the translation itself, but as it happens this student copied his translation from the Berlin 1785 Haggadah (link, to the 1786 reprint). This Haggadah's translator was Joel Brüll, who was one of the most notable students of Moses Mendelssohn. He was a Meassephist (editor and contributor to Ha-Me'asseph, the Hebrew periodical of the emergent Haskalah) and a Biurist (German translator and Hebrew commentator to many books of Tanach). He is also the first to translate the Haggadah in German. Here is the title page

It shouldn't really surprise anyone that this became a sort of typical template for a German version of the Haggadah. Surely no one would expect that the student would make his own translation. So it is Brill's that he used.

Regarding the language, even without the knowledge of the source and the ability to compare them, it is clearly German and not only that, it is clearly Mendelssohnian. For example, in the Mrs. Chasam Sofer Haggadah God's name is translated עוויגר, or Ewiger, which means (in this context) the Eternal One. This is not a traditional term for God (although it's use is quite clever and well-reasoned). It is in fact Mendelssohn's idea. In his Torah translation he uses עוויגע. In his comment to Exodus 3:14 ("Ehyeh asher ehyeh") he explains his use of this term, namely that he wanted to capture the meaning assigned to the Tetragrammaton by rabbinic tradition (God was, is, and will be) with one German word that connoted eternity. He also noted that other translations had used the same idea. The translations he is referring to would seem to be Calvin's Geneva Bible, which uses l'Eternel, and also the apocryphal book of Baruch, which used a Greek word with the same meaning.

As an aside, I just came across something very interesting. Here is the inside page of a sefer owned by the Chasam Sofer and his son, R. Avraham Shmuel Binyamin, the Kesav Sofer.

What makes this interesting is that it apparently contains the youthful handwriting practice doodles of the Kesav Sofer. That's "Samuel Wolf Schreiber" on the upper right. You can also see שמואל וואלף written numerous times. The image comes from this item, auctioned by the Kedem Judaica auction house March 2. The particular sefer is the 1832 Lemberg edition of מגן גבורים.

All this talk about the Chasam Sofer and German, and the fact that he made sure his own children knew the language (also see here) got me thinking. I think his views on Yiddish have been greatly misunderstood and misrepresented. First of all, the Yiddish spoken by his native German Jews was much closer to German than the dialect spoken in the East. Secondly, it was close to the native tongue. In Poland or Russia it was very different from the native tongue. Given this fact, given the fact that he ensured his children knew the language, given his contention that Yiddish was a planned corruption of German in fulfilment of a Yerushalmi, but that of course the correct vernacular was known (see here), and given that he opposed the use of German in preaching, I think these create a sort of confluence. His intention was never that the people should be so estranged from the language around them that they could not function. Knowing and speaking in the Judeo-German of his time was probably more analogous to the you-know-what dialect of English people speak today. It definitely set Jews apart. Getting up in shul and giving a speech that begins "There's a peledige Rashi on this week's parsha" is probably closer to what he had in mind than "Es shtayt in posuk." Of course there is the matter of alphabets. What I think he did have a problem with would have been something like "The commentators offer a striking explanation of the verse." This is, I think, the kind of German he was against. He was, in other words, a proponent of Yeshivish English - not Yiddish. This is of course an impressionistic, still-formulating idea. Feel free to rip it apart.

Back to the Haggadah. As you can see by the title page, the student (Moshe ben Nosson ha-Kohen) was a very talented calligrapher, but not necessarily such a talented artist. I grant that this is only my opinion, but I think I will be able to persuade you.

Immediately following is a rather tasteful colophon, which requires a lot of Haggadah-twisting to read.

Since I don't think you'll find it anywhere online (or necessarily even in a book) I'll write it out. I almost feel like this is hardly appropriate to have been written by the student, so I wanted to say that that it was written by the Chasam Sofer himself - almost a love note - but it's also a love note to him, and definitely signed and therefore written by the student:

שייך להרבנית האשה החשובה, צנועה מכל הנשים באהל תבורך, מפז היא יקרה, ומפנינים מפוארה, לאישה היא עטרה, כל כבודה פנימה, פרשה לעני כפה, ושלחה לאבין ידיה, אילת אהבים ויעלת חן, אשת חיל מרת שרל אשת הגאון הגדול מוהרר משה סופר אב"ד ור"מ דק"ק פ"ב יע"א, לשם תפארת ותהלה, ולתת שבח והודיה, לשמות הגדולים הנזכרים, ונעשים פה בראשי תיבות, ואלו הן * שירות רוממות להגיד אף שארי תהלות הבורא, גבורותיו אגיד ורב נפלאותיו, הוא גדר דרכי, ויפנה לי מסילה, ויביאני האהלה רב רבי משנתו שמנה ההלכות סגולתו ותפארתו, פועל רברביא, איש ברורה דברתו, והוא ריש מלכיא דאורייתא, קול קדושת פיו בוטא יקרת עילת אלהא דשמיא וארעא יתברך בפי על כי הגדיל לעשות לי כל הכבוד הזה, להעביר מנחה הבאה בידי ה"ק משה הכהן

The acrostic, of course, spells out שרל אשת הגאון הגדול מוהרר משה סופר אב"ד ור"מ דק"ק פ"ב יע"א, or, Sorel, wife of the great Gaon my Master and Rabbi Moshe Sofer, Chief Rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva of the Holy Congregation of Pressburg, God protect it.

As I said, Moshe ben Nosson Ha-kohen was a beautiful calligrapher, but not a terribly great artist. The Haggadah contains 4 full page illustrations. The individuals depicted aren't fully developed or well-proportioned. Some might wish to argue that they aren't fully developed for pietist reasons, but I think that would be more plausible if the artist had demonstrated ability. Here's an example:

Since I don't want to belabor the point of his lack of artistry, and concentrate on what he did do beautifully, I'll give only one more example because it is so interesting. Everyone always wants to see how the Four Sons are depicted in a Haggadah. Here it is:

This is a famous image; a couple of weeks before Pesach I posted Israel Zangwill's review of a Haggadah. It used this same image. Zangwill was not a fan. He wrote:

Another piece of rich artistic humour is the illustration of the four sons. The חכם is represented in a long gabardine and with his right hand extended as it to receive a stroke from a cane. The " wise son " is the oldest and tallest of the four and lifts up his gabardine as though crossing a muddy road. The רשע is depicted as a warrior with buckler on arm and spear in hand, and he is running away as fast as his legs can carry him. Presumably from the Seder. תם, the simple son who artlessly observes: " What is this? " is drawn as a ploughboy idiotically digging a spear or a staff (it is not clear which) into the ground. But the fourth son, the one who "hath no capacity to enquire," takes the (Passover) cake. He is represented as a dwarf (the four sons grow smaller by degrees and beautifulyl less.) He is clothed in a gaberdine which only reaches to his stockings, and in a black skull-cap. His right arm is held out slightly curved, while his left hand points perpendicularly to the sky. What this attitude, which looks like that of a vociferous Maggid, has to do with an incapacity for enquiry, I will not even pretend to guess.

This illustration has been used in many Haggadahs. For example, Wolf Heidenheim's 1822 Haggadah, which I use, uses it. I checked two random 18th century Haggadas - both use it (here and here).The illustration originally appeared in the 1695 Amsterdam Haggadah. A reader pointed out the early history of this illustration, recounted by Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi in his seminal Haggadah and History (this famous book on the history of the Haggadah was recently called "Yerushalmi" by "Yosef Hayim" in the My Machberes column of the Jewish Press (link).

Here is the picture from the 1695 Haggadah:

The engraver, whom some say was a convert but according to my reading of his name (הבחור כמר אברם בר יעקב ממשפחת אברהם אבינו) he was more likely a grandson, or son, of a convert, based his illustrations on the engravings of Matthäus Merian. I realize that I'm taking on big guns like Steinschneider and Cecil Roth, but until I see the proof that he was a convert, I'm sticking with my interpretation of his name. More on him and the issue of whether he was a convert below.

Merian's engravings are primarily from the 1630 Historische Chronica and the figures are as follows: the Wise Son is Hannibal's father making his son swear eternal enmity to Rome, the Wicked Son is a soldier from one of Merian's battle scenes, the Simple Son is from Merian's illustration of Saul being anointed by Samuel, and the Son Who Knows Not to Ask is Hannibal himself, from the same engraving. Incidentally, it appears that Yerushalmi made a mistake. I stress that I don't have his book in front of me, but I saw various descriptions online which seem to be citing from him, and it seems that he gave the wise son as Hannibal, and the sone who cannot ask as another figure in the illustration. The wise son is Hannibal's father. And, therefore, the son who cannot ask is Hannibal himself.

Here are two view of the Hannibal engraving from the Historische Chronica:

Rachel Wischnitzer already pointed this out in 1931 (link; but also in a more accessible form in Commentary in 1951 - link). Frankel, cited above, gives the image:

Here are all the illustrations from Wischnitzer's 1939 article:

Incidentally, in the link to Wischnitzer's small letter to Commentary in 1951 it says that the image is David, rather than Saul, being anointed. Rather than assume that she made a mistake and forgot her own research, my guess is that a less-than-biblically-literate editor at Commentary was insufficienly familiar with the Book of Samuel, and "corrected" her mention of "Saul" to "David bending his head while receiving the anointing oil was used for the dull son."

Getting back to the issue of whether this engraver was a convert - it has been noted that when the Haggadah was reprinted in 1712, although his illustrations were used again, his name does not appear. Assuming that he was a convert, Cecil Roth had the following interesting thing to say: "In the 1712 reprint, however, the plates are ascribed to 'a most zealous workman in the craft of engraving'. Clearly, the publishers were by now no longer so happy in his collaboration, and it is not out of the question that his experience of Judaism had not in the end turned out so satisfactorily as had formerly seemed to be the case. It is however not without its significance, in view of the constant allegations of narrow-minded exclusiveness that are levelled against Judaism even today, that the most familiar illustrations to the most beloved of Hebrew service books are from the hand of a proselyte!"

I already explained my reason for doubting that he was a convert. As I'm composing this post I noticed that David Frankel, too, doubted that Abram ben Jacob was a convert. See Illustration, allusion, and commentary: Choosing the four sons in 1695 in Images 4 (2010). He basically notes that it's "an oft repeated story" based entirely on the man's "surname" ממשפחת אברהם אבינו.

What he doesn't note is that there is a somewhat formidable reed which this "of repeated story" is based upon. Namely, Johann Christoph Wolf apparently mentions him in Vol. 3 of his Bibliotheca Judaea (1727):

And, perhaps, once again in Vol. 4, (1733), pg. 763:

As you can see, he is described as a Swiss Minister living in the Rhine region. He converted to Judaism in Amsterdam, and produced a Hebrew map of Palestine. Since the same engraver we have been discussing did indeed engrave the Hebrew map of Israel, which was printed in the 1695 Amsterdam Haggadah (indeed it was advertised on the title page), it is clear that according to Wolff he was a converted minister. The second mention by Wolf - if it is him - claims that he produced a 130-year Jewish-Christian calendar in 1714. Still, I find the lack of any other documentation and his unusual name to be a reasonable objection and more proof is wanting. If the proof already exists then of course I will be very happy to know what it is. Of course opposing my problem with the name is Wolf, who apparently had no problem presenting an Abraham ben Jacob as a convert - perhaps two of them, if these aren't the same men, which is also possible.

Here is what the aforementioned Frankel writes about the question:

Abraham ben Jacob, the engraver who illustrated the 1695 Haggadah, is rarely mentioned without the epithet “the proselyte.” Another often repeated story identifies him as a German clergyman who moved to Holland when he converted to Judaism, while Roth goes so far as to suggest that his name was omitted from the revised 1712 edition because “his experience of Judaism had not turned out so satisfactorily as had formerly been the case.” Dr. Edward van Voolen of the Joods Historisch Museum, Amsterdam, has suggested to me that this common view may well be mistaken. He proposes that אברם בר יעקב on the title page of the Amsterdam Haggadah could be read as Abraham b[en] r[abbi] Jacob rather than as Abraham bar Jacob: that is, seeing Abraham as the son of a rabbi, not as a proselyte.

It is possible that the identification of Abraham ben Jacob as a convert has also been encouraged by three general if unjustified assumptions and attitudes. The first is that there were few, if any, trained Jewish craftsmen; the second, the often mentioned irony that these most popular Jewish illustrations were based on the work of a non-Jew and prepared by a convert; and the third, that his non-Jewish (perhaps educated or religious) background would have given Abraham ben Jacob an unusual knowledge of Merian’s biblical and other secular work. None of these need have been so. In addition, it is important to recognise that, despite the generous praise of his efforts and inspiration on the title page of the 1695 Haggadah, Abraham ben Jacob is unlikely to have been solely responsible for selecting the images: this must have been done in close consultation with, or following the advice of the publishers, editors, and printers involved in the production of the Amsterdam Haggadah.

I must point out that "בר" doesn't mean "son of a Rabbi." I mean, it means that too, but it also means anyone and everyone. In the 17th and 18th century (and the 19th and 20th and 21st) everyone and anyone gets an "ר," especially if you're referring to your own father! Even a כמוהרר doesn't really mean that we're talking about a rabbi. Frankel's other point is excellent, particularly the first of the three, that the fact that there were few trained Jewish craftsmen may have encouraged the identification of the man as a convert. As I said, Wolf apparently makes the claim but, not insignificantly, he only mentions the map and not the Haggadah. Looking at Wischnitzer's 1939 article, she cites Haggadah-collecter Albert Wolf as making my same observation, and also doubting that he himself was a convert. Wolf noted that the appellation referring to Avraham Avinu doesn't appear in his own signature in the illustration to the 1698 Shelah, and that "בר" also has the dual meaning we discussed.

Speaking of the 1698 Amsterdam Shelah, this talented man also illustrated the title page, which he signed simply אברם בר יעקב. He also engraved this, and several other pages in Amsterdam seforim of the late 1690s - early 1700s.

Incidentally, I mentioned before that Wolf mentions him in 1727 (and, possibly, 1733). There is another source from 1727 mentioning him. I am speaking of Hermann von der Hardt's Historia Universalis Judaeorum In Aenigmate, In Liturgia Festi Paschatis, of course. This work, which also has a Hebrew title "חד גדיא," mentions the 1695 Haggadah and basically writes what we already know, that he was a convert, etc. However, he seems to have derived this information from reading the Haggadah's title page, whereas Wolf somehow has detailed info about his origin (Swiss, Rhenish, etc.).

Following the text of Chad Gadya Hardt prints Greek, Latin and German translations of the song. So you know it's a good book.

But this is a Chasam Sofer Haggadah post, is it not?

The Haggadah written and illustrated for Sorel has a few more points of interest. There if the aforementioned blessing in the bentching:

This is custom written for her, את בעלי מורי מורינו רב בעל הבית הזה. The formula מורי מורינו רב is very regional. In Hungary and related regions rabbis were called to the Torah with the title מורה מורינו הרב.

It is notable (to me) that the text is fairly vulgar. I'm not sure if the author copied any one particular text, but the vocalization is hardly precise. For example, it uses the idiosyncratic שֶׁנֶאֵמַר.

The use of Rabbi with a patach, rather than the authentic traditional chirik is, I think, probably less a nod to newfangled grammarian theories, and more just a general cluelessness over the issue:

Sof davar, I hope I wasn't too hard on poor Moshe ben Nosson. He was more artistically talented than I'll ever be, and he produced a beautiful, tasteful work that is worthy of its many reproductions. I'm glad to own a copy, and I imagine I will be using it for many years to come.

A 19th century Yom Kippur solidarity prayer for victims of the Spanish Inquisition.

Here is a rather striking passage in the Yom Kippur mahzor, a misheberach "prayer for all our brethren confined by the Inquisition," or מי שברך על כל אחינו האסורים בבית הסהר מן החקירה. (I dare Hakirah to give itself the English subtitle "Inquisition.")

According to Hhm. Shemtob Gaguine the custom to recite it amongst a number of Misheberachs appended to the Kol Nidrei was common to the Amsterdam and London communities (כתר שם טוב v.4-5 pp. 297-99 London 1954). He writes that the Amsterdam Sephardim, however, had ceased to make the Misheberach once the Inquisition(s) had officially ended. As you can see, the prayer incorporates a few words of Portuguese in the Hebrew - "to all our brothers arrested by the Inquisition."

This particular Machzor is the Forms of Prayers According to the Custom of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews by Abraham de Sola. The Machzor first appeared around 1852-57, but this edition was printed in Philadelphia 5638/ 1878.

This prayer was intended to be recited by the Shaliach Tzibbur, and is part of a whole series of prayers included as an appendix to the Kol Nidrei. Before the Torah scrolls are returned, and immediately following Kol Nidrei is a prayer for the Queen (or, "a Republican Government" in the case of Holland or the United States), another for the congregation itself, then one for - of all things - the Hatan Torah, then another one for the Hatan Bereshit, then one for all Jewish congregations, then the one for the captives of the Inquisition, a prayer for those traveling by land or sea (although this is general, it appears to me to have been intended to bless those escaping the Inquisition, because of the Portuguese words incorporated within it), and finally, a prayer to be recited in the event of some specific calamity, should there be one (like a war, I suppose). Then the Torah scrolls are returned and Arbit ensues.

Since it was also part of the Kippur liturgy of the Amsterdam Sephardim, I thought it would be interesting to show how it appears in Dutch translation in the 1791-3 Dutch Machzor the Gebeden der Portugeesche Jooden.

Here is the title-page of that four-volume Machzor (and a link to all the volumes):

Since I recently posted about translations of mei raglayim (here) I thought it worthwhile to show the translation as it appears in the same Dutch Machzor, from 1793:

As you can see it did not translate the term. It transliterated it as mé raglaïm. However, the footnote clarifies that Eenige Rabbynen zyn van gevoelen, dat mé raglaïm water van eene bron, genaamt Rogel, is ; anderen, dat het urina betekent, or, Some of the Rabbis feel that mei raglayim means water from a spring called Rogel; others hold that it means urine.

In any case, if it's true that "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition," sadly, for well into the 19th century for some Western Sephardim it was only all-too expected.

The Chasam Sofer's not-as-unlikely-as-you'd-think approbation to an 1833 German translation of Rashi.

Leopold (Leib) Dukes was born in Pressburg in 1810, and not surprisingly he learned Torah in the Chasam Sofer's yeshiva. After receiving ordination, he travelled to Wuerzberg, where he was able to continue studying Torah, and secular subjects. (Apparently this was not possible in Pressburg - see more below.) He was quite bright, as he brought to light a German translation of Rashi on Genesis (Prague 1833). Given the transitions of the period, the German text was printed with Hebrew letters, which was still the most comfortable way of reading for many, if not most, Central European Jews.

Not only don't I know too many 22 year olds who are capable of translating Rashi, but this volume featured his learned footnotes and 33-pages of introductory essays, signed 3 Elul 5592.^[1]

The essays gave a synopsis of parshanut, a small biography of Rashi, a section on Tradition (=Oral Law in the Torah), another on Symbolism and Allegory, Middah Ke-negged Middah, Personification, Smichus ha-Parshios, Hebrew linguistic puns, and Gematrios. At the beginning of the volume were haskamos, or congratulatory letters, from the Chief Rabbi of Prague, RabbiShmuel Landau (son of Noda Beyehuda) and R. Shmuel Freund, who was on his Beis Din. In addition, there is a letter to Dukes' father from Moshe Landau, who was R. Shmuel's nephew, the printer of this work, a community leader of Prague, and a famous scholar in his own right. Toward the end there is a 12 page letter, including an epic poem, by Dukes' very good friend and Pressburg native, Mendel Stern.

But without a doubt the coup de grâce is the effusive haskamah from none other than Rabbi Moshe Sofer, the Chasam Sofer, demurely placed after the work proper (after the Rashi translation is about 30 pages of haftaros, and then the haskamah). This haskamah was singled out by both R. Landau and R. Freund in their own approbations. Here it is:

Essentially, the Chasam Sofer writes that Dukes learned in his Beis Midrash from his youth, and grew in studying Gemara, Rashi and Tosafos, and afterward entered "other vineyards," and grew wise in secular studies and languages, and he did well. Upon seeing him back home in Pressburg, he was impressed with his continuing piety and fear of Heaven. He presented his rebbe with his translation of Rashi, from Hebrew to German, and "I saw a great purpose for it," because many Jews in these days speak a foreign tongue (=German) and only read books printed in foreign languages. Furthermore, most translations of the Torah only adhere to the peshat (plain, literal sense) without giving attention to the interpretations of Chazal. But Rashi, the foremost commentator, who followed closely in the footsteps of Chazal, brings the Sages' interpretations that are closest to the plain sense. But since his commentary is in Hebrew, only a few in this generation learn it - it is almost being forgotten!

However, a very mighty young man, a scholar and expert in [these] two languages, who understands Rashi and knows where to find his sources in the writings of Chazal, has translated Rashi into German - this is a great thing for the Jews. He presented to me his translation of all of Genesis with its wonderful introduction (emph. mine), and I looked at much of it, and found it to be correct, and his words beautifully illumine the subject. Therefore I "place my hands upon it," and once it is printed I will purchase one copy at whatever the asking price is, and others should do the same as me, and help support the work of [Dukes].

Not bad, huh?

Interestingly, there is a behind-the-scenes look at the matter of obtaining the haskamah. Although it seems clear that Dukes personally met with the Chasam Sofer, and presented him with a copy of his work, evidently he did not receive a haskamah straight away (which makes sense, since naturally it would take some time to look over the work - the approbation happens to be dated 2 months after the introduction, which must have been written after the translation was completed). It seems that Dukes' friend Mendel Stern actually picked up the haskamah from the Chasam Sofer, and sent it to Dukes. Mendel Stern, by the way, would go on to publish the influential journal Kokheve Yizhak. At the time he was employed by the Chasam Sofer to teach his children Hebrew language and dikduk.

In any case, Ignaz Reich's Beth-el: Ehrentempel verdienter ungarischer Israeliten included a biographical sketch of Leopold Dukes in its first volume (1867). Aside for the interesting fact that Dukes was so pious (per the essay) that he wore Rabbenu Tam tefillin after his Bar Mitzvah, it includes a fascinating letter, dated München 4 November 1832, from Dukes to Mendel Stern. If all that I have written about the haskama thus far doesn't impress you, dear reader, in the article itself it says that Stern obtained it from "dem als hyper-orthodox verschrienen Sophar!" - "the one who is decried as Hyper-Orthodox, Sophar!"

Dukes had just received the haskamah in the mail, and the letter is his acknowledgement of its receipt. Dukes thanks Stern, and then referring to "Die Haskomoh von meinem Lehrer — (den Gott lange erhalten möge!)" says, rhetorically, that one knows the drill about all haskamos (=they exaggerate about the greatness of the author). He will need to work hard to make everything written in the haskamah true about himself! He then says that the haskamah makes him respect the Chasam Sofer, whom he has long respected a great deal, even more. He didn't really expect to receive a haskamah, and if he did receive one, he thought it would be only a few lines so that a former student would not go empty-handed. But now that he sees it, it's a different matter - the Chasam Sofer is perfectly happy with his work! Both Dukes and the pious buying public ("dem frommen kaufenden Publikum") can't be happier with such words as those written by the Chasam Sofer.

He then asks a very good question: Who knows if anyone had done this 20 years earlier, if the Chasam Sofer would have said the same things! This Godol ("der große Mann") is attuned to the "Zeitgeiste" (the spirit of the time). Evidently he ignores the shrill, ignorant "Frömmler" (bigots) in their dear hometown (=Pressburg). And what a bad light this haskamah puts these Pharisees (!) ("jene Pharisäer") in, those who combine ignorance and conceit! Many things would not have happened if two decades earlier the luminaries, the rabbis ("die Koryphäen unserer Rabbinen") had given a little attention to the spirit of the age. They could have saved themselves and their orthodox brethren some annoyances. What they did not then do willingly, they will be forced to do by the times.

On the one hand one wonders if the Chasam Sofer would have been so keen if he had known what Leib Dukes' private thoughts were. On the other hand why should anyone think that the problem of today's generation didn't exist then? Furthermore, according to some, private thoughts don't count. Of course either way the facts laid out by the Chasam Sofer do not change: in his opinion it was a very good work, and very badly needed.

Dukes would go on to complete the work in four more volumes, printed in 1838. He also spent many years in the greatest Judaica libraries in Europe, including a 20-year stint in England where he worked at Oxford's great collection in the Bodleian Library, publishing and revealing much of our great works of the past. He died in 1891.

^[1] I mentioned that I am impressed at the ability of this 22 year old, but in fairness it should be pointed out that a translation of Rashi into a European language already existed. In 1710 Johann Friedrich Breithaupt published his Latin translation of Rashi, R. Salomonis Jarchi, Commentarius Hebraicus, etc.. Dukes refers to it in his own introduction.

Interestingly, in the same year (1833) one L. Haymann printed Rabbi Salomo Jarchi's ausführlicher Commentar über den Pentateuch in Bonn. This translation of the Genesis commentary was entirely in German letters and although I cannot say if there was anything in it content-wise of which the Chasam Sofer would not have approved, the format indicates that it was from and for a different world (it didn't even include the Hebrew text of Rashi, as Dukes did). Considering CS's gloomy prognostication about Rashi in his time - see later in the post from above (if you actually came to this footnote in its proper place in the post) - it seems that the immanent existence of Haymann's volume should cast at least a little doubt on that same gloomy outlook. Clearly there was a perceived audience for Rashi in German, even if Haymann's was apparently more connected with European Bible scholarship than the edification of a lay Jewish public. There can be little doubt that Dukes and Haymann worked entirely independently and neither's edition has anything to do with the other.

If anyone is interested, here is the book's front matter, which included our friend Karl Fischer, the censor of Prague's, note. He too references the Breithaupt translation:

On the photographic treasures of a barely known 80 year old Jewish encyclopedia.

The Judisches Lexikon, a very good but often overlooked Jewish encylopedia produced in the 1920s Berlin, is now online. Naturally it's in German which means it isn't accessible to everyone, but it includes many fantastic pictures and it's really worth looking through them for the pictures alone.

For example, in volume 5 (S - Z) pg.756 there is the following, captioned "Prager jüdischer Student im 18. Jahrhundert" (Jewish student of Prague in the 18th century):

Unfortunately the sources for these pictures aren't given, but I assume that it is an authentic image. So if you ever wondered what a Central European yeshiva bochur looked like in the 18th century, now you know.

I also saw a portrait of Shlomo Yehuda Leib Rapoport which I don't think I'd seen before:

The entry on R. Jacob Emden called to my attention the illustrations in his ספר שמוש (Amsterdam 1758), which I had never seen before. Check out this one:

Yes, that gargoyle is a Christian, Jew, and a Muslim (per the caption). The point is that the Frankists are creating a monster-hybrid, with no legs to stand on.

Here's a picture of Herz Homberg. I have a vague idea that I've seen a portrait of him before, but not this one. I have to say, he looked just like you'd think he would.

This is just from the standard portrait of R. Yonasan Eybeschutz, but it has his signature in the Latin alphabet.

This is Rabbi Jacob Joseph Oettinger, the last traditional rabbi of Berlin. As I posted here, he is really the one who claimed that while Zunz knows with what sort of tobacco Rashi indulged, but he knows what Rashi said and taught. This notable quip is regularly misattributed to Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger, a far more famous rabbi with a similar name.

Here's a portrait of Isaac Hirsch Weiss, which differs from the more commonly seen one.

Here's R. Chajim Soloweitschik, drawn by the master judaica sketcher of the time, Hermann Struck.

There are, needless to say, many beautiful pictures of objects and places, but since the scan quality isn't so great I'm not going to show them. At the end of each volume is two or three pages listing all the images and their page number.

One of the things I always like to look for in any work of this sort is how aware and how comprehensive are they in covering people and things outside their comfort zone. Thus, in an Orthodox oriented almanac or encyclopedia the thing to look for is how it covers contemporary non-Orthodox Jews and things, and in a non-Orthodox publication like this one the thing to look for is how aware it is of contemporary Orthodoxy. In this case, it's almost a double task because of the issue of how German Jews related to Eastern European Jewry (although admittedly the situation was worse before WWI). This is one reason why the first Encylopedia Judaica gets high marks and the newer second edition gets very low marks. The first EJ knew and cared all about who was who in Orthodoxy. The second edition doesn't seem to have heard of the major 21st century players.

Naturally it has entries on the Chasam Sofer, R. Akiva Eger and the Vilna Gaon, but of course it would. I was more interested in contemporary coverage (in this case, late 1920s). I looked in vain to see if the Chafetz Chaim is in the Judisches Lexikon, but it has entries on R. Moshe Mordechai Epstein, R. Kook, R. Jechiel Weinberg, R. Yitzchak Elchanan, R. Bernard Revel, R. Yissachar Dov Ber Rokeach of Belz (includes a picture), many German Orthodox rabbis, and, as you can see from above, an entry on R. Chaim Soloveitchik (and his father). It also has entries on davening ("dawnen") and mitzva tanz, and many other small details about Jewish life and culture and, most importantly, bibliographies in each entry. The importance of a pre-war encyclopedia like this one is also that, sadly, there is almost no doubt that many of the pictures are of objects that are forever lost. While the Judisches Lexikon was not as comprehensive or detailed as the original German Encylopedia Judaica, which was published during the same period, the EJ only went up to Lyra. The other advantage is that quite simply the prominence of people, things and places changes over time. There are doubtlessly entries which merited a certain amount of attention in the late 1920s which would scarcely be mentioned at all today. So you have little choice but to consult an older work such as this one; that applies to the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 as well and, indeed, to all older reference works.