English Hebraica

Rashi script* and other Hebrew examples in Pantographia from 1799

2007-08-30T17:06:00.000-07:00

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):

A rationalist 19th century British interpretation of a Talmudic oracle

2007-07-23T09:45:00.000-07:00

Being that we are on the eve of Tisha B'av, I thought it would be interesting to see an interpretation, or rather reinterpretation, of a famous incident from Gittin 56 (the Gemara which recounts the fall of Jerusalem, which many people study on Tisha B'Av).

The specific piece reads as follows

שדר עלוייהו לנירון קיסר כי קאתי שדא גירא למזרח אתא נפל בירושלים למערב אתא נפל בירושלים לארבע רוחות השמים אתא נפל בירושלים א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (יחזקאל כה) ונתתי את נקמתי באדום ביד עמי ישראל וגו' אמר קודשא בריך הוא בעי לחרובי ביתיה ובעי לכפורי ידיה בההוא גברא ערק ואזל ואיגייר ונפק מיניה ר"מ

He [the Emperor] sent against them Nero the Caesar. As he was coming he shot an arrow towards the east, and it fell in Jerusalem. He then shot one towards the west, and it again fell in Jerusalem. He shot towards all four points of the compass, and each time it fell in Jerusalem. He said to a certain boy: Repeat to me [the last] verse of Scripture you have learnt. He said: (Ezekiel 25) And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel. He said: The Holy One, blessed be He, desires to lay waste his House and to lay the lame on me. So he ran away and became a proselyte, and R. Meir was descended from him.

In 1882, שבת שקלים, Hermann Adler (1839-1911), Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire, delivered a sermon about the plight of Russian Jewry, a theme which justly occupied the attention and concern of Western Jews at that time.

As you can see, the sense of the passage is that Nero asked the boy what verse of Scripture had learned and took it as an oracle. R. Adler, however, responding to the needs of his time interprets it very differently:

"Now, think not, my brethren, that this was a superstitious practice, or a kind of divination. Our Synagogue fathers knew full well that, in a time of national stress, the wise schoolmaster would teach his young charges such Bible texts as would afford some comfort, guidance, and wise practical counsel how to meet the crisis."

But it can easily be seen that such a method was seen as oracular by the Sages themselves, by comparing this with the other instances where the פסוק לי פסוקיך method occurs; e.g., Gittin 67b-68a

א"ל ריש גלותא לרב ששת מ"ט לא סעיד מר גבן א"ל דלא מעלו עבדי דחשידי אאבר מן החי א"ל מי יימר אמר ליה השתא מחוינא לך א"ל לשמעיה זיל גנוב אייתי לי חדא כרעא מחיותא אייתי ליה אמר להו אהדמו לי הדמי דחיותא אייתו תלת כרעי אותיבו קמיה אמר להו הא בעלת שלש רגלים הואי פסוק אייתו חדא מעלמא אותיבו קמיה אמר ליה לשמעיה אותביה נמי להך דידך אותבה אמר להו האי בת חמש רגלים הואי אמר ליה אי הכי ליעבדו קמיה <שמעיה> דמר וליכול א"ל לחיי קריבו תכא קמייהו ואייתו קמיה בישרא ואותיבו קמיה ריסתנא דחנקא חמתא גששיה ושקלה כרכה בסודריה לבתר דאכיל אמרי ליהאיגניב לן כסא דכספא בהדי דקא מעייני ואתי אשכחוה דכרוכה בסודריה אמרי ליה חזי מר דלא מיכל קא בעי אלא לצעורן אמר להו אנא מיכל אכלי וטעמי ביה טעמא דחיורא אמרי ליה חיורא לא עביד לן האידנא אמר להו בדקו בדוכתיה דאמר רב חסדא אוכמא בחיורא וחיורא באוכמתא לקותא היא בדוק אשכחוה כי קא נפיק כרו ליה בירא ושדו ליה ציפתא עילויה ואמרי ליה ליתי מר לינח נחר ליה רב חסדא מאחוריה אמר ליה לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (שמואל ב ב) נטה לך על ימינך או על שמאלך אמר ליה לשמעיה מאי קא חזית אמר ליה ציפיתא דשדיא אמר ליה הדר מינה לבתר דנפק אמר ליה רב חסדא מנא הוה ידע מר אמר ליה חדא דנחר לי מר ועוד דפסק לי ינוקא פסוקא ועוד דחשידי עבדי דלא מעלו

The Exilarch once said to R. Shesheth, Why will your honour not dine with us? He replied: Because your servants are not reliable, being suspected of taking a limb from a living animal. You don't say so, said the Exilarch. He replied, I will just show you. He then told his attendant to steal a leg from an animal and bring it. When he brought it to him he said [to the Servants of the Exilarch], place the pieces of the animal before me. They brought three legs and placed them before him. He said to them, This must have been a three-legged animal. They then cut a leg off an animal and brought it. He then said to his attendant, Now produce yours. He did so, and he then said to them, This must have been a five-legged animal. The Exilarch said to him, That being the case, let them prepare the food in your presence and then you can eat it. Very good, he replied. They brought up a table and placed meat before him, and set in front of him a portion with a dangerous bone. He felt it and took and wrapped it in his scarf. When he had finished they said to him, A silver cup has been stolen from us.1 In the course of their search for it they found the meat wrapped in his scarf, whereupon they said to the Exilarch, See, sir, that he does not want to eat, but only to vex us. He said, I did eat, but I found in it the taste of a boil. They said to him, No animal with a boil has been prepared for us to-day. He said to them, Examine the place [where my portion came from]. since R. Hisda has said that a white spot on black skin or a black spot on white skin is a mark of disease. They examined and found that it was so. When he was about to depart they dug a pit and threw a mat over it, and said to him, Come, sir, and recline. R. Hisda snorted behind him. and he said to a boy. Tell me the last verse you have learnt. The boy said. Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left. He said to his attendant, What can you see? He replied. A mat thrown across [the path]. He said, Turn aside from it. When he got out, R. Hisda said to him, How did you know, sir? He replied. For one thing because you, sir, snorted [behind me], and again from the verse which the boy quoted, and also because the servants are suspect of playing tricks.

in this case, the servants of the ריש גלותא were laying a trap for רב ששת and he used a schoolchild's verse to let him know what to do. Was this a time of national or person stress? רב ששת is using פסוק לי פסוקיך for it's oracular ability.

Finally, and more clearly, Hullin 95b

רב בדיק במברא ושמואל בדיק בספרא רבי יוחנן בדיק בינוקא כולהו שני דרב הוה כתב ליה רבי יוחנן לקדם רבינו שבבבל כי נח נפשיה הוה כתב לשמואל לקדם חבירינו שבבבל אמר לא ידע לי מידי דרביה אנא כתב שדר ליה עיבורא דשיתין שני אמר השתא חושבנא בעלמא ידע כתב שדר ליה תליסר גמלי ספקי טריפתא אמר אית לי רב בבבל איזיל איחזייה א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (שמואל א כח) ושמואל מת אמר ש"מ נח נפשיה דשמואל ולא היא לא שכיב שמואל אלא כי היכי דלא ליטרח רבי יוחנן

Rab used to regard a ferry-boat as a sign. Samuel a [passage in a] book, and R. Johanan [a verse quoted] by a child. During the lifetime of Rab, R. Johanan used to address him thus in his letters: Greetings to our Master in Babylon! After Rab's death R. Johanan used to address Samuel thus: Greetings to our colleague in Babylon! Said Samuel to himself, ‘Is there nothing in which I am his master’? He thereupon sent [to R. Johanan] the calculations for the intercalation of months for sixty years. Said [R. Johanan], ‘He only knows mere calculations’. So he [Samuel] wrote out and sent [R. Johanan] thirteen camel loads of questions concerning doubtful cases of trefah. Said [R. Johanan], ‘It is clear that I have a Master in Babylon; I must go and see him’. So he said to a child, ‘Tell me the [last] verse you have learnt’. He answered: ‘Now Samuel was dead’. Said [R. Johanan], ‘This means that Samuel has died’. But it was not the case; Samuel was not dead then, and [this happened] only that R. Johanan should not trouble himself.

In this case we see most clearly that פסוק לי פסוקיך is regarded as a sign. (And, as it happens, in this case the sign was misleading, albeit deliberately so). The practice itself, called bibliomancy, was used and taken quite literally among Jews in early modern Europe. A variation, called gorel ha-gr"a, persists even today.

This specific sermon was printed in R. Adler's collection Anglo-Jewish memories, and other sermons (1909: New York). In the introduction, he notes that he had recently reached his 70th birthday: "During the present month I shall, by Divine mercy, complete the threescore years and ten ordinarily allotted to man." In addition, it had been about 50 years since he had delivered his first derasha on behalf of his father R. Nathan Adler, who was sick on that occasion. In honor of these anniversaries he decided to publish some of his discourses, with prominence given to "those delivered on occasions which moved our hearts both as Englishmen and as Jews."

You can download the entire "Cry of Our Russian Brethren" sermon here.

All in all, a most interesting, very 19th century interpretation of a well-known Talmudic passage.

Lonely tefillin in an Indian mound.

2007-07-05T13:32:00.001-07:00

One day in 1815 Captain Joseph Merrick of Pittsfield, Massachusets plowed his field on his farm, built on what had been called "Indian Hill" in the 18th century (later a fort was established there in 1754, and so in his time it was called "Fort Hill."

In turning up the earth out popped tefillin--which is what it proved to be, although he didn't know it. A local resident named Elkanah Watson (note the last name; don't be fooled by the first) heard about it and went to investigate. At Merrick's house he found several Christian clergymen, all of whom were excited, realizing it must have belonged to a Jew. This Watson knew of the theory that the Native American Indians were descended from the ten lost tribes of Israel, and was excited.

What is interesting is that he claimed to compare "this phylactery with those described in the Old Testament." I'd like to know where! In any case, he wrote that they "are described in Scripture as composed of five folds of raw hide or leather, sewed completely together by the entrails of animals. In order to understand the appearance of this discovery, imagine five pieces of leather or raw hide, or some composition similar to India rubber, and capable of resisting the ravages of time and exposure, cut into squares of two inches, sewed together with entrails. Suppose, also a hole in the center, half an inch in diameter made to admit a tube two and a half inches long with eyelet holes at the corners to receive strings--and you will have an idea of this article."

In any event, Watson described the difficulty of opening it and how he "drew out from the tube three of four scrolls of parchment, which it contained when found, and inscribed with texts of Scripture, written in beautiful Hebrew in an elegant manner, and the ink of a beautiful jet black. The parchment, writing, ink, were all perfectly fresh."

Locals declared that it belonged to early Jewish settlers in Pittsfield, perhaps one from Germany who was remembered, who had since gone.

On the other hand, some investigators wished that it were Indian, and so declared that it was (the hill happened also to be an Indian burial ground).

Lee M. Friedman, whose article "The Phylacteries Found at Pittsfield, Mass," PAJHS, 1917, 25, pp. 81-85 is where this info comes from, noted that upon investigation an Isaac Isaacs appeared on the Pittsfield military rolls of 1780-1781. However, he sees no evidence that this person was Jewish and in fact might have belonged to the non-Jewish Isaacs of Connecticut.

On the other hand, five separate men called Isaac Isaacs show up in the 18th century in A Biographical Dictionary of Early American Jews by Joseph R. Rosenbloom. However, they are all in New York City or Long Island, and even if one of them is also Isaac Isaacs in the army in Pittsfield, we still haven't even come close to showing that the tefillin were his.

So....

?

On the Pinner Talmud: Chasam Sofer, the Czar, Shadal and little known Big Ideas.

2007-05-21T20:25:00.000-07:00

Part of the story of the Pinner Talmud is here.

This edition, from 1842, was a translation project undertaken by Dr. Ephraim Moses Pinner (1800-1880), intending to translate the entire Talmud (both Bavli and Yerushalmi) into German. Pinner had been a student of R. Ya'akov of Lissa. He garnered some rabbinic support, and financing from Czar Nicholas I.

Only one volume appeared, Berakhot: "Talmud Babli; Babylonischer Talmud. Tractat Berachoth Segensprüche. Mit deutscher Ubersetzung und den Commentaren Raschi und Tosephoth nebst den verschiedenen Verbesserungen aller früheren Ausgaben. Hinzugefügt sind: Neue Lesarten und Parallelstellen in allen Theilen dieses Tractates und der Commentare, Vokalisation der Mischnah, Interpunktion der Mischnah und Gemara, Raschi und Tosephoth, Etymologie und Uebertragung der fremden Wörter, Erklärungen des Meharschal und Meharscha, R. Ascher mit Erläuterung der Halachah und den abweichenden Lesarten, R. Moscheh's Sohnes R. Maimon's, Commentar zur Mischnah mit Berichtigungen, Einleitung in den Talmud, enthaltend Grundprincipien der Methodologie und Exegetik des Talmud."

In the introduction to this volume he wrote:

"[Nowadays many Jews are unable to study Talmud in the original; those who know it can't teach it] Up to now no one has undertaken to translate the Talmud into the vernacular, and there are even some who have distorted the Talmud and accused the rabbis of saying things they never would have said. Therefore, I have taken upon myself to translate the Talmud into German."

That is, there are two reasons: 1) to open the Talmud to Jews and 2) to counter hostile non-Jewish mis-impressions about the Talmud.

What of the Czar's support? According to Adam Mintz (from whom much of this information was drawn) he supported the translation for two reasons: 1) at the time he was trying to Russify Russia's Jews via cultural and religious restrictions on the Jews. This included the discouragement of the use of Yiddish and the encouragement of the use of European languages, like German, which was close to Yiddish and therefore a practical replacement. 2) As a real antisemite, Nicholas commissioned a report to understand what's wrong with the Jews. The report issued found that the Talmud was the cause of the refusal of the Jews to assimilate into Russian society. Nicholas felt that exposing the Talmud would ameliorate this problem, and to do so would require translating it into European languages, and he was prepared to pay handsomely for such translations.

Thus, Pinner planned to use Nicholas and Nicholas planned to use Pinner. Nicholas purchased 100 volumes of Pinner's translation, and so when it was printed, it was dedicated to him! In addition to Nicholas, there were about a thousand subscribers, including Kings Frederick Wilhelm IV of Prussia, Wilhelm I of Holland, Leopold of Belgium and Frederick IV of Denmark.

At the beginning of the volume were 18 haskamot from both traditional rabbis and maskilim. The volume itself was evidently aesthetically pleasing. It included the traditional layout with German translation on the facing pages. In addition, punctuation was supplied for Rashi and Tosafos. At the bottom of each page he included a translation and etymology of selected difficult words.

When Pinner tried to acquire a haskamah from the Chasam Sofer, the latter was incredulous on the grounds that a vernacular translation is basically impossible given that the plain understanding of Rashi alone is subject to many disagreements, so how could anyone think they could manage such a translation? Pinner assured him that he didn't mean that he would do the whole thing himself, rather he would have a team and he would be the editor. One of the rabbis who would serve as translators was R. Nathan Adler (then rabbi of Hanover; later Chief Rabbi of Great Britain). Pinner claimed that he had lined up R. Adler to translate Eruvin and Yevamos. The Chasam Sofer accepted this, and wrote a haskamah.

As it turned out, Pinner had been playing loose with the truth. Pinner used R. Adler's name to receive this haskamah, and then used the Chasam Sofer's haskamah to get more. Apparently R. Adler denied any involvement at all. When the Chasam Sofer found out, he retracted his haskamah. Not only that, when it became known that Pinner continued to use the haskamah, Chasam Sofer issues a kol koreh asking rabbis to ban the printing, buying and reading of the work.

Shadal too did not offer a haskamah on similar grounds (his letter on the matter was printed in Keren Hemed 2 (1836) pp. 174-182. In addition to highlighting certain errors he felt Pinner had made he questioned whether one man could indeed translate the entire Talmud, noting that even Rashi could not complete his commentary on the Talmud.

Interestingly enough, another objection to the work arose in some quarters, best exemplified by a letter written to the Chasam Sofer by a Dutch rabbi, Tzvi Hirsch Lehrin. In it he noted that if there had been so much opposition to Mendelssohn's Bible, which was only a translation into German with Hebrew letters, how much more so must there be something faulty with a Talmud translated into German with German letters! In addition, argued R. Lehrer, although Pinner might have been motivated le-shem shamayim, to defend the honor of the Talmud before detractors, the opposite would occur once its contents were accessible: opponents would use it to denigrate the Sages, noting that a classic denigration of Talmudic Judaism by wayward Jews is the case of the egg laid on a holiday, deemed irrelevant. How much more so would non-Jewish opponents of the Talmud use this translation against it!

Interesting as well is that this was not the Chasam Sofer's objection.

Ultimately the Czar discovered his true motive and support was withdrawn, which was why only Berakhot ever appeared.

So on what basis can this post, about an aborted German Talmud be an English Hebraica post?

On this basis: I discovered a very interesting review of this edition from 1848, by one William Ayerst (1803-1883), in a book called The Jews of the Nineteenth Century: A Collection of Essays, Reviews, and Historical Notices.

Here it is:

Much of the information in this post was gleaned from "The Talmud in Translation," by Adam Mintz in "Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein" and the Encylopedia Judaica article, "Pinner, Moses Ephraim."

Unexpected Recanati quote in a 17th century English Hebraica publication.

2007-05-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

This little booklet from 1647 is basically a compendium of Biblical Hebrew synoyms transliterated into Latin characters, with the occasional definition given in Latin (authored by John Beaton).

What's quite interesting is the Hebrew motto on this frontspiece, which reads

:אין בתורה אפילו אות אחת שאין הררים גדולים תלויים בה

"There isn't even a single letter in the Torah which doesn't support great mountains."

This is a quote from the Kabbalistic Torah commentary by R. Menachem Recanati (a 13th century rabbi from Recanati, Italy) on Deut. 10:17.

Here is the entire passage in context:

(יז) כי יי' אלהיכם וגו' [שם יז]. כבר הודעתיך כמה פעמים כי אין בתורה אפילו אות אחת שאין הררין גדולים תלויים בה, והבן כי הזכיר כאן כי השם המיוחד תחלה, ואחריו אלהי האלהים, ואחריו אדוני האדונים. וכן במזמור הודו ליי' כי טוב [תהלים קלו, א] אחריו הודו לאלהי האלהים, ואחריו הודו לאדני האדונים. והרמז בהם לג' הויות הראשונות, ועל הראשון הזכיר לעושה נפלאות גדולות לבדו כענין הנאמר בספר יצירה [פ"א מ"א] בל"ב נתיבות פליאות חכמה, ועל השני אמר לעושה השמים בתבונה, ועל השלישי לרוקע הארץ על המים וגו

Interestingly, the English book "corrects" one word, exchanging הררים for הררין, for the latter is a Mishnaic Hebrew form (with it's ן ending)--although it is possible that the Recanati text Beaton saw had הררים. In addition, the text is pointed, almost certainly not the case in the edition the editor of this work read, as it is not the practice among Jews to point texts which aren't biblical (and today, also prayer books, poetry and children's books). I suppose the pointing was meant to display erudition, as an aid the reader but also ideologically driven (see footnote 4 to this post, as well as this post).

There is this nifty poem on the second page, a plea to learn Hebrew and spread Hebrew

At Babels building tongues confounded were,
The gift of tongues doth new-Hierus'lem reare,
By language lost Japhet was forc't to stray
From tents of blessed Sem, the ready way
Of his reduction is for every man
To learne anew the tongue of Canaan.
Lo here, a Scholar of great Broughton brings
Some stones and timber-work, free-offerings
To help the building, if that every one
By his example would but bring a stone,
One single beame, or plank, few yeares would show
Hierusalem high-builded, Babel low.
Few yeares would bring that day when Nations all
Will Hallelu-jah sing at Babel's fall.

(typed out so that Google can index it)

Here is a sample of the work itself

As you can see, these are the 12 stones from Aaron's breastplate (Ex 28:17).

Two more examples. Names of God:

and this one, under the entry that begins with גו, a definition from Ibn Ezra

Yes, "vagina"did mean "sheath" or "scabbard" in Latin.

'Pardes,' from a 'Talmud Babylonicum' introduction: complete with a gaping anachronism.

2007-04-19T06:54:00.000-07:00

In the October 1867 issue of the British periodical the Quarterly Review appeared an article called "Talmud Babylonicum," which meant to inform readers "What is the Talmud?" The article noted (claimed?) that "Turn where we may in the realms of modern learning, we seem to be haunted by it," and "that strange production of which the name, imperceptibly almost, is beginning to take its place among the household words of Europe." In short, this article was meant for the curious.

I uploaded the whole thing for download.

Here is an interesting excerpt:

Nothing new, of course, but it is noteworthy that at this relatively late date (1867) Jewish learning was still sufficiently shrouded in mystery that a simple anachronism is committed: pardes as an acronym for peshat, remez, derush and sod is a medieval mnemonic and thus does not apply to anything related to the Talmud, much less to the period of Chronicles (given that the term midrash first appears in that book), when this article assumes the term came into use!

Wacky Hebrew etymologies

2007-03-29T14:51:00.000-07:00

From a review of the 1837 Complete Hebrew and English Critical and Pronouncing Dictionary by William L. Roy:

Take a look, particularly, at the etymology it gives for the word mol מל, to circumcise:

"From yom, a day, an al, a yoke" et cetera

My English Hebraica precursor

2007-03-07T11:16:00.000-08:00

Early blogger Israel Abrahams (1858-1925) seems to have written one of the first English Hebraica posts, which I reproduce below.

(As an aside--Milton? Paging Rav Aharon Lichtenstein!)
(Second aside, this is what Milton looked like? [1] I seriously would have thought something more like this. [2])

[1]

[2]

And to make it text searchable (gotta feed Google):

In April, 1648, Milton tried his hand at a rendering of nine Psalms (lxxx.-lxxxviii.), and it is from this work that we can see how Milton pronounced Hebrew. Strange to say, Milton's attempt, except in the case of the eighty-fourth Psalm, has scanty poetical merit, and, as a literal translation, it is not altogether successful. He prides himself on the fact that his verses are such that "all, but what is in a different character, are the very words of the Text, translated from the original." The inserted words in italics are, nevertheless, almost as numerous as the roman type that represents the original Hebrew. Such conventional mistakes as Rous's _cherubims_ are, however, conspicuously absent from Milton's more scholarly work. Milton writes _cherubs_.

Now, in the margin of Psalms lxxx., lxxxi., lxxxii., and lxxxiii., Milton inserts a transliteration of some of the words of the original Hebrew text. The first point that strikes one is the extraordinary accuracy of the transliteration. One word appears as _Jimmotu_, thus showing that Milton appreciated the force of the dagesh. Again, _Shiphtu-dal_, _bag-nadath-el_ show that Milton observed the presence of the Makkef. Actual mistakes are very rare, and, as Dr. Davidson has suggested, they may be due to misprints. This certainly accounts for _Tishphetu_ instead of _Tishpetu_ (lxxxii. 2), but when we find _Be Sether_ appearing as two words instead of one, the capital _S_ is rather against this explanation, while _Shifta_ (in the last verse of Psalm lxxxii.) looks like a misreading.

It is curious to see that Milton adopted the nasal intonation of the _Ayin_. And he adopted it in the least defensible form. He invariably writes _gn_ for the Hebrew _Ayin_. Now _ng_ is bad enough, but _gn_ seems a worse barbarism. Milton read the vowels, as might have been expected from one living after Reuchlin, who introduced the Italian pronunciation to Christian students in Europe, in the "Portuguese" manner, even to the point of making little, if any, distinction between the _Zere_ and the _Sheva_. As to the consonants, he read _Tav_ as _th_, _Teth_ as _t_, _Qof_ as _k_, and _Vav_ and _Beth_ equally as _v_. In this latter point he followed the "German" usage. The letter _Cheth_ Milton read as _ch_, but _Kaf_ he read as _c_, sounded hard probably, as so many English readers of Hebrew do at the present day. I have even noted among Jewish boys an amusing affectation of inability to pronounce the _Kaf_ in any other way. The somewhat inaccurate but unavoidable _ts_ for _Zadde_ was already established in Milton's time, while the letter _Yod_ appears regularly as _j_, which Milton must have sounded as _y_. On the whole, it is quite clear that Milton read his Hebrew with minute precision. To see how just this verdict is, let anyone compare Milton's exactness with the erratic and slovenly transliterations in Edmund Chidmead's English edition of Leon Modena's _Riti Ebraici_, which was published only two years later than Milton's paraphrase of the Psalms.

The result, then, of an examination of the twenty-six words thus transliterated, is to deepen the conviction that the great Puritan poet, who derived so much inspiration from the Old Testament, drew at least some of it from the pure well of Hebrew undefiled.

Note:

Milton’s transliterations are printed in several editions of his poems; the version used in this book is that given in D. Masson’s “Poetical Works of Milton,” in, pp. 5-11. The notes of the late A.B. Davidson on Milton’s Hebrew knowledge are cited in the same volume by Masson (p. 483). Landor had no high opinion of Milton as a translator. “Milton,” he said, "was never so much a regicide as when he lifted up his hand and smote King David.” But there can be no doubt of Milton’s familiarity with the original, whatever be the merit of the translations. To me, Milton’s rendering of Psalm lxxxiv seems very fine.

The controversy between the advocates of the versions of Rous and Barton–which led to Milton’s effort–is described in Masson, ii, p. 312.

Reuchlin’s influence on the pronunciation of Hebrew in England is discussed by Dr. S.A. Hirsch, in his “Book of Essays” (London, 1905), p. 60. Roger Bacon, at a far earlier date, must have pronounced Hebrew in much the same way, but he was not guilty of the monstrosity of turning the Ayin into a nasal. Bacon (as may be seen from the facsimile printed by Dr. Hirsch) left the letter Ayin unpronounced, which is by far the best course for Westerns to adopt.

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

2007-03-05T13:19:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some quaint 17th century English definitions of Hebrew words

2007-02-27T12:33:00.000-08:00

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

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

2. Another from Florio, תיו:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Phillips, אלישבע:

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

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

7. Phillips, again, ממון:

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

Interesting etymology!

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

2007-02-27T12:14:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When was the Vilna Gaon first mentioned in print in the English language?

2007-01-26T09:51:00.000-08:00

That's what I want to know, and I've been researching it for some time. Here is the earliest I've so far found:

(click to enlarge)

This is from 1824, and is from a book called Missionary Journal and Memoir of the Rev. Joseph Wolf: Missionary to the Jews (nice, huh?).

The search is difficult because---what would he be called? Throughout the 19th century one finds him called many things; Elijah Wilno, Rabbi Elia, Elijah Gaon and more. I'm sure there's something earlier--and I will find it!

Something about Hebrew abbreviations, abbreviature, rashei tevot

2007-01-23T09:21:00.000-08:00

If you're like me, you take ראשי תיבות, and other kinds of Hebrew abbreviations, for granted. רש''י, הנ''ל ,עמו''ש, וא''ת, וגו'י and much, much more. But it is an interesting convention nonetheless, if not necessarily unparalleled.

Apart from simply being interesting, fluency in such abbreviations is necessary for understanding rabbinic literature. So it was that the great Christian Hebraist Johann Buxtorf (the father) wrote De Abbreviaturis Hebraicis (published in 1640) as a key to these mysterious abbreviations.

Below is an interesting excerpt from a little book published in England in 1736 by John Gibbs called An historical account of compendious and swift writing.

The Encyclopedia Judaica has a fine article on Hebrew abbreviations. Here are two interesting excerpts:

Misunderstandings and Misinterpretations

The increasing and inconsistent use of abbreviations has inevitably led to occasional confusion and made the study of Hebrew texts more difficult, a fact recognized in the 16th century by Solomon Luria (Yam shel Shelomo, Hul. 6:6). Misinterpretations have occurred when ambiguous abbreviations were printed in full. In any case, difficulties arise when an abbreviation can be read in more than one way, so that, e.g., in a bibliographical context ד''ו could be read as דפוס ויניציאה (“Printed in Venice), or דפוס וורשא (“Printed in Warsaw”), or דפוס וילנה (“Printed in Vilna”), or דפוס וינה (“Printed in Vienna”). Because of the risk of misrepresentation, no abbreviations may be used in a bill of divorce (Git. 36a and Sh. Ar., EH 126) or other religious documents. Misrepresentations have also occurred in the work of censors and Christian scholars (e.g., three yod's have been taken to denote the trinity. Hebrew abbreviations have been found on Christian amulets, and Christian writers have used kabbalistic methods, such as regarding a complete word as notarikon (e.g., ברא as בן רוח אב). Because of the many obscurities in the Hebrew writings, which Christian scholars were anxious to study, a guide to abbreviations was needed and it was a non-Jew, Johannes Buxtorf the Elder, who produced the pioneer work De Abbreviaturis Hebraicis (1613). The first Jewish work of this kind, by Elijah Levita, concentrated mainly on the masoretic ambiguities; lists of abbreviations were eventually added to Hebrew works and were followed by independent, comprehensive compilations. Of these, the following are the most important: J. Ezekiel, Kethonet Yoseph. A Handbook of Hebrew Abbreviations (Heb.-Eng., 1887); G. H. Haendler, Erkhei ha-Notarikon (1897); M. Heilprin, Ha-Notarikon . . . (1872, 19302); A. Stern, Sefer Rashei Tevot (1926); S. Chajes, Ozar Beduyei ha-Shem (pseudonyms; 1933); S. Ashkenazi and D. Jarden, Ozar Rashei Tevot ... (1965); S. Ashkenazi, Mefa'ne'ah Ne'lamim (1969); A. Steinsalz, Rashei Tevot ve-Kizzurim be-Sifrut ha-Hasidut ve-ha-Kabbalah (1968).
[Ruth P. Lehmann]

Abbreviations in Jewish Folklore

Many abbreviations were misinterpreted (often quite intentionally) and caused misunderstandings which became part of the Jewish folklore. For example, the Yaknehaz abbreviation in the Passover Haggadah. denoting the order of the benedictions (yayin, kiddush, ner, havdalah, zeman), was understood as the German jag'n Has (“hunt the hare”) and pictures of a hare hunt accompany the relevant passage in the printed Haggadah. Many folk etymologies are based upon the notion that the obscure word is an abbreviation; so, for example, the word afikoman is explained by the Yemenite Haggadah as an abbreviation of egozim (“nuts), perot (“fruits”), yayin (“wine”), keliyyot (“parched grain”), u-vasar (“and meat”), mayim (“water”), nerd (“spices”). The abbreviation of Akum for Oved Kokhavim u-Mazzalot (“worshiper of the stars and constellations”) was interpreted by anti-Semitic propaganda (Rohling) as Oved Christum u-Miryam (“Worshiper of Christ and Mary”).
[David Niv]

Pamphlet published by the London Bet Din in 1705 about Haham David Nieto

2007-01-16T07:55:00.001-08:00

Gil posted here about his publication of a new translation of London's Bevis Marks synagogue Haham David Nieto's Matteh Dan ve-kuzari helek sheni, or second Kuzari, his defense of the Oral Torah published in 1714. (The new version is called The Rabbis' Advocate by R. Meir Levin [Yashar 2007]).

Haham Nieto himself was involved in a controversy in which he was accused of Spinozism by congregants because of a derasha he gave in 1703. In it, he attacked the Deist view that nature was a metaphysical entity separate from God. He noted that "Nature" was a term of fairly recent vintage and that it is only another name for God's providence and therefore God and nature are not separate (that is, it seemed, they are the same).

Appeal was made to the Haham Zevi [Ashkenazi] of Amsterdam, who reviewed the matter and cleared him of the charge. Haham Zevi's reason was that for Haham Nieto God created nature, whereas the view he was accused of, Spinoza's, was that God was nature. After the affair, Haham Nieto emerged unscathed and went on to enjoy 25 more years as the esteemed rabbi in London.

Here you can download a 13 page pamphlet from 1705, which includes the question and answer, published in Spanish and in Hebrew: download

(Note how the Haham Zevi is addressed as "el Eruditissimo, Doctissimo, y Excelentissimo, Senor; H.H.R." [Haham ha-rav] "Zevy Asquenazy.")

First page:

Note: Avakesh uses a picture of Hakham Nieto as his avatar. Maybe he can explain what that's about.

edit: A translation of the teshuva of the Hakham Tsevi in Solomon Freehof's "Treasury of Jewish Responsa":

From the officers and leaders in the London congregation in England, the exalted and upright magnates, officers of the sacred congregation Gates of Heaven, in the great city of London. May God bless them with life and peace forever.

Your treasured letter seeking the word of the Lord for guidance has strengthened me and led me to speak on matters beyond my competence. You ask me regarding a dispute in a subject that I cannot search out. But we are commanded, Seek peace and pursue it. The following is the essence of your question.

Question:

The exalted sage, David Nieto, rabbi in the sacred congregation "Gates of Heaven," preached a sermon in the congregation. This is its essence translated from English into our sacred tongue:

"People say (these are the words of Nieto) that I said that God and Nature, and Nature and God, blessed be He, are both the same thing. I did say that, and I will defend and prove it, since David defends the same idea in Psalm 147, as follows: He who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth the rain for the earth, who causeth the mountains to sprout froth grass, etc. But incline your ears to this, O children of Israel, for it is the first principle of our faith: the name 'nature' is only an invention of the later scholars of the last four or five hundred years. It is not found in the words of our older sages. But God causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall, so it is clear that God performs all these actions that the later scholars call 'nature.' There really is no such thing as 'nature.' That thing that they call 'nature' is really God's providence. That is what I mean when I say God and Nature are one. This opinion is right and pious and sacred, and those who do not believe it should be called heretics." (The rest of the question develops Nieto's ideas in his own words.)

Answer:

I note that the words of the exalted sage (i.e., Nieto) are the same as the words of the KuzariKuzari is in all the usual editions), writes after many premises, as follows: "He, blessed be He, is called 'nature' truly; as is mentioned there, He puts His seal on all created things." This, too, is the opinion of those who give exact attributes to God when they say that God sits and feeds all animals from beasts to insects (a phrase from the Talmud, Shab. 106b). (i.e., Judah Halevi) in the first section no. 76 and no. 77. His commentator, Judah Moscato (16-17th century, Italian preacher and scholar, whose commentary on the

So we (says Ashkenazi) congratulate this sage who preached the sermon, since he knows the opinion of the philosophers who speak of nature. He despised the evil (of their opinion) and chose the good with intelligence (a phrase based upon Isa. 7.15), the sacred words of the holy ones of our people who say that everything comes from God's providence.

I have heard but I do not understand the complaints of those who murmur against him. Is it because he said that there is really no such thing as nature, which should include all existence outside of God? Do they consider this a diminution of God, that He works without intermediary? Let them know that those who seek the intermediation of nature for the general management of the world are close to falling over many stumbling blocks. But this is not so with those who believe in God's providence in everything, for wherever they go, they walk securely. Of course if they (the complainers) think that the words of the preacher referred to the detailed facts of nature -- as the heat of fire and the wetness of water -- and they wish to accuse the preacher that he meant to say that the heating or moisture is in itself God, as far as that is concerned there is not a single fool or boor among all the skeptics of the world who would believe that -- let alone a sage among the people of God, who believes in God and His holy Law? All the more then are the words of the preacher clear and definite (when he says) that they (the objects of nature) revolve around the axis of God's general providence, when he says that God alone causes the wind to blow and He causes the rain and dew to fall. From this it is proved that God makes all these things.

Let not the stubborn mocker object, thinking that it is not proper to describe the working of God by the name of nature, and think this is a diminution of His glory. What would they gain by shouting complaints against this preacher? Behold, the great sage, Isaiah Levi (Hurwitz), known for his wisdom and piety, in his famous book, Two Tablets of the Covenant, which is received with love throughout the scattered homes of Israel, wrote at the beginning of his book, in the name of the author of Abodat haKodesh ( Meir Gabbai, 15th century), who was a great and famous Sephardi rabbi and whose books were scattered all through the world, that the reward for those who do God's commandments and the punishment for those who violate them, are all natural rewards and punishments. To this all who have eyes and knowledge in the wisdom of truth agree.

(He continues with this argument:)

So we must congratulate the great sage, David Nieto, for the sermon which he preached, whose purpose it was to warn the whole people not to let their hearts go astray after those philosophers who speak of nature (i.e., as a separate force, as do the Deists), for many stumblings can come from that. He illumined their eyes with his true faith by saying that everything exists through God's providence. So I say to him, may his strength increase. Whoever murmureth against him after seeing my words, I suspect him of sinfulness. Now, although all these things are clear and plain, and do not need further support to refute every complainer, nevertheless, I invited two of the most educated scholars of our city to join me. After discussing the matter, all three of us agreed on the words mentioned above, that they are true and just.

Written here in Altona on the 6th day of the month of Ab, of the year 1705.

Signed,

Zvi Ashkenazi, S.T.

(The initials S.T. are generally used by the Sephardi scholars in signing their name. They are taken by some to mean Siman Tov, an omen of happiness; others take them to mean Sephardi Tahor, a pure Sephardi, which certainly Ashkenazi could not have used in his own name.)

Ravens and Arabians: Hebrew with and without points in English

2007-01-09T13:05:00.000-08:00

I came across a fascinating explanation of Hebrew as an unvoweled language and the fucntion of the vowel points (nekkudot). Typically one sees an example like this: typclly n ss n xmpl lk ths.

While helpful, it doesn't really show what Hebrew is like.

This interesting book, The Parchments of the Faith by George Edmands Merrill published in 1894 by the American Baptist Publication Society, does the best job I've ever seen of it because it combined words in English as they would be in Hebrew ("and the ravens" are three words in English, but just one, והערבים, in Hebrew--"nd th rvns" less accurately shows what Hebrew is like than "ndthrvns"). In addition, the vowel letters are formatted the way nekkudot are, dotting the consonants.

Last but not least, the specific example, wherein it is pointed out that והארבים could read ve-ha-arabim, "and the Arabians," as well as ve-ha-orvim, "and the ravens" is quite interesting--but note: although its a great example which shows the usefulness of nekkudot, it is in fact misleading, as "and the Arabians" would be spelled והערבים and not והארבים. D'oh!

Download Dickdook Leshon Gnebreet - דקדוק לשון עברית

2006-11-28T12:46:00.000-08:00

All the explanation is at On the Main Line but in this clean post you can download Judah Monis' Dickdook Leshon Gnebreet: A Grammar of the Hebrew Tongue (Boston, 1735) (דקדוק לשון עברית).

...and the Rogachever [sic]

2006-11-04T23:07:00.000-08:00

Once we're on the topic--Rav Kook's NY Times obituary

2006-11-04T23:00:00.000-08:00

(click to enlarge, or download as a PDF)

Hat tip: Aishdos

Chafetz Chaim obit in NY Times: a Tale of Research and Results

2006-10-31T13:29:00.000-08:00

A couple of people forwarded me the following email, and I think it bears posting:

I wanted to share the following with you:

About a year ago I heard a shiur in which reference was made to the Chofetz Chaim and Shmiras Halashon. The Baal Darshin mentioned the well-known fact that the Chofetz Chaim lost his hearing later in life and said "And he lived a very long life! According to the New York Times, he lived until 105!" The reference to this newspaper intrigued me - I was unsure if he was simply using the newspaper's name in jest or if the New York Times actually published an obituary for the Chofetz Chaim.

It crossed my mind again this Elul with the Chofetz Chaim's 73rd yohrtzeit. (The Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation hosted a brilliant nation-wide conference-call evening of shiurim. The participating rabbonim ranged in subject from Hilchos Shmiras Halashon to Inyonei D'Yoma to aprapos Elul mussar.)

My interest was piqued and I decided to visit the New York Public Library at 42nd Street, known for its vast research facilities: I wanted to see this obituary.

The search began with an alphabetical index of the NYT Obituaries in the Reference Department. I thought to look under "K" for Kagan. According to Artscroll and other American-based publications, The Chofetz Chaim is always refered to as Rabbi Yisroel Mayer Kagan. ('Kagan' being a derivative of 'Kohen' often used by Lithuanian and/or Polish jews). There was nothing under Kagan in the indicies, so I went to the Microfiche department in the back corner of the library's ground floor. I knew the civil date of death was Friday, September 15, 1933 (corresponding to the yiddish date: Elul 24, 5693) and searched the drawers of NYT microfiche for this date and the week that followed - how soon would a New York newspaper report on the death of a jewish rabbi in Radin?

Attached you will see my findings.

In addition to the feeling of accomplishment one feels in achieving a 'goal,' I was very inspired when reading the small article. I think it speaks volumes to see how a non-jewish publication in 1933 America reported in such a dignified fashion on the life of a eminent tzaddik and gadol ha'dor.

Enjoy!

I don't know who this originates from, but I like the idea; discovering the problem and doing the research and uncovering gold.

(click below to enlarge and read or download as a PDF)

EDIT: I am pleased to be able to attribute this to Avigayil Meyer who notes that this research was hers and the email begun by her.

The research and letter above was done by ME! I sent the e-mail out to a couple of friends and now I see it all over the Internet without credit. Please post THIS response and spread worldwide. Credit should be given where credit is due!

Well done, Ms Meyer!

Bible cantillation news to Albert Schweitzer

2006-09-26T13:10:00.000-07:00

(I shudder to think what sort of googling will turn up a post with this title!)

I know, why don't I just rename the blog English Hebraism already. ;)

I found this interesting letter by theologian, musician and philosopher Albert Schweitzer.

Hebrew influencing Nathan Bailey's 18th century English dictionary

2006-09-05T09:17:00.000-07:00

English is a very dynamic language. It expands at a rate no other language can (or wants to) match. By the 17th century literally thousands of words were being added yearly and people were very conscious of this fact. The language was in a state of ferment, England's power was on the rise and the French and Italians had already established language committees to keep their respective tongues pure (this, 300 years before there was a nation called Italy).

In England it was believed by many that the English tongue had reached a stage of sufficient maturation and magnificence that it now needed to be protected, for its fate would be degradation without some way of fixing it in place. While we now know that this is essentially impossible to do with a dynamic language, at that time, the scientific method was ascending and the necessity of defining and fixing all sorts of things was agreed. Exactly how long was a yard? What exactly is the color red? All those questions and more were being considered and the move was in the direction of precision. So although one might think Jonathan Swift stuffy for objecting to the contraction "couldn't" (*gasp*), few among us would think the idea of a uniform orthography (spelling) is stuffy. In fact, most people can't really understand how there could not have been one. Bear in mind also that at the time the flux and ferment in English was far more extensive, and more importantly, visible than it is for us.

This would mean, at the very least, the assembly of a lexicon or word list. Several modest attempts were made in this direction, such as Henry Cockeram's The English Dictionarie: or, an Interpreter of hard English Words (1623). By the eighteenth century English dictionaries were being produced with many tens of thousands of words. Naturally the most celebrated achievement in that century was Samuel Johnson's, but the march towards better dictionaries continued unabated before and since.

To backtrack before Johnson, one such dictionary of English was compiled by Nathan Bailey, whose Dictionarium Britannicum Or, A Compleat Etymological English Dictionary Being Also An Interpeter of Hard and Technical Words (1721) was a monumental work which served as the bedrock for Johnson's.

In it there are some interesting supposed Hebrew etymologies for English words. Some of them are fanciful and some are, of course, derived from Hebrew. Here are some:

1.

The root here, אבך, is meant in the sense of וַיִּתְאַבְּכוּ in Isa. 9:17 (to roll up, " they roll upward in thick clouds of smoke.") OED knows nothing about it.

2.

In modern Hebrew, אויר avir, certainly sounds a lot like air! Is אויר derived from ו?אור

3.

No comment.

Okay, one comment: I've seen some speculation that ערב is the same root as עבר with some natural letter transposition. In other words, think of Arabs as Herbews. Maybe.

4.

This word seemed interesting in its own right. Before the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) no serious attempt to catlogue every word in the English language was made. The task was too herculean to contemplate (see Simon Winchester's The Meaning of Everything for the ingenious solution the OED used to achieve the feat it did; which even then did not literally catalogue every word, and besides took almost 70 years to do it) . Bailey's dictionary, as others, were generally one-man attempts to catalogue as much as one could. Since they were not exhaustive, the words chosen do reveal some window into the worldview of the lexicographer as well as in some sense into the culture of the time. Words like this are included, as well as many, many other biblical allusions, Hebrew weights, ancient Near Eastern gods etc.

5.

This word is pretty archaic, but according to the OED an athanor is "a digesting furnace used by the alchemists[...]" and made its way into English through Arabic (hence the "a-" prefix) but a tannur תנור should be pretty recognizable to anyone who learns Talmud, or a six year old who learns Mishna (e.g, Akhnai's Oven (תנורו של עכנאי).

6.

Fun archaic word. I doubt that "cock-loft" is from גג. Call me a cynic.

7.

This one is a bit predictable, and interesting also because as far as I can tell a ד should be able to switch to a צ (shouldn't it?). But, alas, the English word "earth" didn't form fully from a Hebrew womb, but comes from a common Old German word. Biblical influences on English are very plausible. Biblical influences on ancient Teutons are less so. Edenics aren't my cup of ch'a.

8.

This one was chiefly interesting to me because I learned that the word comes from the coin it cost to read the newspaper. It would be as if many newspapers were called dimes or whatever they originally cost. The Daily Dime sounds nice.

9.

I think this etymology is a Bailey original. OED and the Online Etymology Dictionary basically have no clue where this one comes from, except that it shows up around 1300. Hebraism in England had already begun by that date, so I leave open the window about a millimeter on this one. If no one knows, then who knows?

10.

One of the many words which are English but are actually Hebrew, thanks to the Bible. Of interest is that its meaning reflects some of the debates in biblical scholarship of the day.

11.

Outsider perception is always interesting.

12.

This reflects the debate which raged for a couple of centuries on the origin and authority of the nekkudot (see here and here). Bailey seems to favor the view that they were originated by Ezra (and in so doing indicates his more traditionalist bent), but is gracious enough to mention the other view.

13.

I have no idea if there is any relationship between the Greek and Semitic סתר, but I suppose its possible. After all, those two regions were only a sea away, and the two language groups did influence each other.

14.

This one is great!

To clarify, Nisan is the first month of the Jewish calendar and correlates, roughly, with April. However, the Jewish New Year is in the seventh month, Tishrei (don't ask! ;) ). Presumably Bailey knew that Nisan is the first month and knew of Rosh Hashanah in the seventh month. As there is no entry for Tishrei, he must have figured that Nisan is the seventh month in which the New Year occurs.

15.

Fanciful, but fun.

16.

This one is really something. I think there are parallels for such etymologies in rabbinic literature, although I can't offer an example at the moment.

17.

Sign of the times. Deism and free-thinking enjoyed a particularly good reputation in the 18th century, thus projecting themselves onto the ancient Sadducees.

Did the NY Times ever say Jews shave with a ram's horn?

2006-08-06T06:35:00.000-07:00

There is a discussion in an email list about an urban legend that the New York Times once reported that Orthodox Jews shave with a ram's horn. (Need I say they don't?) Someone conjectured that this happened because a reporter asked an Orthodox Jew with an accent how he shaved and he answer "Wit ah shafer." The reporter, not realizing that he was told "with a shaver" asked someone else "Do you have any idea what a Jewish ritual item that sounds something like "shafer" is?" and of course the person told him that it's a ram's horn. (Get it? Shafer = shofer. Who knows, maybe the reporter asked a Litvak.)

Anyway, this is an urban legend since no one seems to have actually seen the ram's horn story. But there is the following from December 24, 1922 which might have been the source of it. Note "removed with bone knife":

Here is the entire article.

On Chabad, 1826

2006-07-20T09:12:00.000-07:00

Quite by accident I came across this interesting reference to Chabad Chassidim in an 1834 article. The publication was called The Biblical Repository, founded by Edward Robinson.

The article, from the October 1834 issue, is called The Karaites, and other Jewish sects and contains material from a book called Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia (London, 1826) by Ebenezer Henderson.

He informs the reader that

"The most popular sect among the Jews, is that known by the name of Rabbinists, or Talmudists, i.e. such as yielf implicit obedience to the doctrines and institutions of the Rabbins, as delivered in, or deducible from the Talmud, and who, according to the general acceptation of the term, may be accounted the orthodox....They are precisely, in the present day, what the Pharisees were in the time of our Lord....But although the Rabbinists compose the great body of Jews in Poland, there exist other denominations, the numbers and pecularities of which are too considerable not to strike the inqisitive traveller.

These are the Karaites, the Chasidism, and the Zoharites, or followers of Sabbathai Tzevi."

After describing a version of the history of Chasiddus, he writes

I think it would be interesting to trace the earliest English language reference to Chassidus that there is. I'm on it.

They don't make tombstones like they used to: Judah Monis

2006-06-27T10:24:00.000-07:00

At On the Main Line I once posted about Judah Monis's Hebrew text book which he titled 'Dickdook Leshon Gnebreet,' using an interesting variation of the Italian pronunciation of the Hebrew 'ayin.

I can't resist the opportunity to post his tombstone. They sure don't make 'em like they used to!

You can click it to enlarge, but here is what it says:

Here lies buried the Remains of RABBI JUDAH MONIS, MA late Hebrew Instructor at HARVARD College in Cambridge in which Office Hecontinued 40 years. He was by Birth and Religion a jew but embraced the Christian Faith ? was publiclly baptized at Cambridge AD 1722 and departed this Life April 25 1764 Aged 81 years, 2 months and 21 days.

A native branch of Jacob see
Which once from off its olive brok
Regrafted from the living tree
Of the reviving sap partook Rom xi 17 24

and then followed quotes from Isaiah, Psalms and Iohn.

A Sabbath Among Orthodox Jews in NYC in 1872

2006-06-27T06:02:00.000-07:00

I came across this interesting article called 'A Sabbath Among The Orthodox Jews' by a W.M.R. which appeared in a periodical called The Galaxy in 1872 (Volume 14, Issue 3, September 1872). The Galaxy was the precursor to the Atlantic Monthly, which began where it left off in 1878.

W.M.R. is Jewish--he got an aliyah, giving his name as Moses bar Samuel, although he declined to daven mussaph, having "to confess, humiliating though it was, that to do this second thing was utterly beyond my powers". Unfortunately he doesn't share his background, and it isn't even clear that he is Jewish until well into the article. It is obvious that this synagogue experience among Orthodox Russian immigrants was as foreign to him as a Friday morning in a mosque would be for me. He also said that he understood Hebrew--better, he thought, than probably most of the people in the shul.

Here is the first page (click to enlarge):

You can download the entire article as a PDF here.

An 18th century English language witness to "ribbi"

2006-05-18T12:58:00.000-07:00

Not that witnesses are needed given that centuries old Hebrew mss vocalize r-b-y as ribbi, but appropos this post, here is an interesting thing from the "Minute Book of the Spanish and Portuguese Congregation Shearith Israel in New York, 1760-1786" published by American Jewish Historical Society, Publications, 21 (1913) p.83.

This particular bit is dated The fourth day of the month of Adar, year 5528 [February 22, 1768]. The occasion was "a Meeting of the Parnassim, and Mr Daniel Gomez, Joseph Simson, Hayman Levy, assistants."

Sabato Morais on the unity of biblical books

2006-05-03T10:56:00.000-07:00

One of the very interesting figures in the 19th century American scene was the hazzan* of the Spanish-Portugese synagogue in Philadelphia, Mikveh Israel, the Rev. Sabato Morais (1823-1897). Born in Leghorn, Italy, a follower and lifelong devotee to the legacy and teachings of Shadal.

He was one of the original founders of the JTS, which as many know was originally an Orthodox institution, primarily until Solomon Schechter was brought in--although Orthodox by 19th century American standards, which is not the same thing as 20th century American Orthodox.

After his death an article in the Orthodox newspaper Yudishe Gazeten wrote that he was "der grester fun ale ortodoksishe rabonim in amerike . . . on sofek" ("without doubt . . . the greatest of all orthodox rabbis in the United States").**

And no, I cannot say for sure if he is or isn't wearing a kippah in this photo.

I'm sure Menachem Butler can say a lot about him.

H*. Morais was a prolific writer of popular articles and essays. Here is an interesting excerpt from one article published in The American Hebrew on "Adar 5, 5642." The article was a rejoinder to an article called "Doubts" which had appeared in another newspaper, the Jewish South, concerning Bible criticism. Apparently that article was itself written about a lecture H. Morais delivered refuting Scottish Bible scholar William Robertson Smith's book "The Old Testament in the Jewish Church" (title tells you something about the biases of the age!) By the way, W. R. Smith is cited as a source in the commentary in the Hertz Chumash! But I digress.

This excerpt offers a fascinating window into 19th century American Orthodoxy, from one of its most capable leaders. Note especially the third line, which notes why he believes as he does.

*A Hazzan (or, should I say, Hhazan as an Italian would write it) on the American scene in the 19th century actually fulfilled the role of rabbi, which was why they were usually title Reverend, but not Rabbi, although hhazzanim like Sabato Morais, or Isaac Leeser, who he replaced were certainly rabbis in every sense but name.

**Courtesy of Kiron, Arthur ""Dust and Ashes": The Funeral and Forgetting of Sabato Morais"American Jewish History - Volume 84, Number 3, September 1996, pp. 155-188

1893 review of the Hirsch Chumash

2006-04-10T10:03:00.000-07:00

Here is a review of the Genesis volume of the original Hirsch Chumash by W. Taylor Smith which appeared in The Biblical World in October 1893.

Aleph-bet soup

2006-04-06T10:31:00.000-07:00

Readers of On the Main Line will know how much I love alphabets. This one is from a book of fonts called A compendium of the usuall hands of England, Netherlands, France, Spaine, and Italie with the Hebrew, Samaritan, Caldaean, Syrian, AEgyptian, Arabic, Greek, Saxon, Gotick, Croatian, Slavonian, Muscouian, Armenian, Roman, Florentine, Venetian, Saracen, AEthiopian and Indian characters : with sundry figures of men, beasts and birds. Published in London in 1663, the fonts were devised by Richard Daniel and engraved by Edward Cocker, "philomath."

The script on the left is called 'The letters of the running hands of the Jewes of Germany,' by which is meant the cursive script, and the one on the right is 'The letters of the running hands of the Jewes of Spaine.'

Compare with some of the forms from these images from the Jewish Encyclopedia, taken from actual Sephardic and Ashkenazic manuscripts:

Rabbins and rabbis

2006-04-03T09:20:00.000-07:00

In my research for this blog I noticed something that I hadn't previously known: in English the prevalent tendency, by far, was to write "rabbins" as plural for "rabbi" up to, and including, well on into the 19th century.

Why is that? I knew that in German a rabbi is a rabbiner. English is Germanic &c. But that hardly seems a satisfactory explanation. Given that, when did rabbins become rabbis? And why?

The handy dandy Babelfish translator tells us that a rabbi in certain other languages is:

rabijn in Dutch
rabbin in French (aha!)
rabbiner in German
ραβίνος (rabinos) in Greek
rabbino in Italian
равин (rabin) (in Russian
rabino in Spanish
rabinus in Latin
ラビ in Japanese (sorry, I get lost here!)

And, of course, רב rav in Hebrew. Presumably every other language got its "rabbi" from references in the Christian scriptures, like Matthew 23. And the original language of said scriptures was Greek. In Greek the instances of "rabbi" were written as ραββι which can be written neatly in English as rabbi. Presumably the Hebrew word the writers of the Christian scriptures had in mind was not רב but רבי rabbee (י"א ribbee).

But what are rabbins in English?

Comes the Oxford English Dictionary to shed a little light:

rabbin The source of the n in th[is] forms is obscure: it may have originated in pl. forms (rabbins, rabbini) on the supposition that the pl. of the Heb. word was *rabbin (cf. assassin, bedouin, etc.).]

Aha! But we had a secret: the word they were looking for was rabbeim or rabbanim.

One more OED "fact":

to designate the chief Jewish authorities on matters of law and doctrine, the most important of whom flourished between the second and thirteenth centuries of the Christian era

It's nice to know that the OED decided how rabbis are ranked!

The Jew, Being a Defence of Judaism...

2006-04-03T08:24:00.000-07:00

I came across an interesting periodical

. The Israel's Advocate in the subtitle refers to a publication called Israel's Advocate; or, The Restoration of the Jews Contemplated and Urged, published also in New York between 1823 and 1827.

Jewish Encyclopedia explains that The Jew was a:

Jewish monthly whose avowed object finds expression in its subtitle as "being a defense of Judaism against all adversaries, and particularly against the insidious attacks of Israel's advocate." It was published in New York city and edited by Solomon H. Jackson from March 1, 1823, to March 1, 1825. "The Jew" was the first Jewish periodical published in the United States, and was aimed against Christian conversionists.

The very first issue begins as follows:

It goes on to continue, saying that just as Christian missionaries to the Jews felt that they had a right to go on the attack, as he puts it, Jews are entitled to a defense. The author appeals to equal rights, as a good American would. The author also seeks to establish, for the benefit of cautious Jews, that this publication is not intemperate, citing examples of "the martyr Isaac Orobio, whose crown of martyrdom proves his victory. Rabbi Isaac, the son of Abraham; Rabbi Lipman; David Levy, and Mr. Nicklesburger; of these five worthies, but one met danger, and that was personal only; two wrote in Hebrew, and the two last in English, in England, without damage or danger either to themselves or our community. It is paying a poor compliment to Americans, to suppose them less enlightened than Englishmen."

A very interesting feature of this publication is the following:

Throughout this publication (which ran for two years) one will only find "......ians" and "......ianity" mentioned.

The Jew printed detailed articles reacting to Israel's Advocate, which featured articles with titles like "Conversion of a Jew" and "Gentiles Praying For the Conversion of the Jews" and "Masonry Tributary to the progress of Christianity among the Jews". It looked like this:

אין חדש תחת השמש

We got Canada!

2006-03-31T10:13:00.000-08:00

The content here is not itself so interesting. What is interesting is what it is.

It is the text of the prayer composed by D.R. Joseph Yesurun Pinto (acting) rabbi of Jews Synagogue in New York City on October 23, 1760 on the occasion of the day being "appointed by proclamation for a general thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the reducing of Canada to His Majesty's dominions."

This is only two of seven pages. It's mostly tehillim and some of it is two tefillos he composed himself, one said by shacharit and one by mincha (or maariv?).

Shabbetai Sevi--getting a little more contemporary

2006-03-30T09:52:00.000-08:00

Here is an account of the Shabbetai Sevi event published in 1669, only three years after the climactic conversion of Sevi to Islam. The work is called The history of the three late, famous impostors, viz. Padre Ottomano, Mahomed Bei and Sabatai Sevi, by John Evelyn (1620-1706). This piece is from the third section, called "THE HISTORY OF SABATAI SEVI, The Pretended Messiah of the Iewes*, In the Year of our Lord, 1666. The Third Impostor."

and a few more pages:

1, 2, 3, and4.

If you want to read the entire thing, you can. But only in text. Here it is: sabb.txt

*Iewes--that's us.

Smoking wacky tobaccy: Abram ben Saddi, brother of Nathan the Jew

2006-03-29T13:38:00.000-08:00

Get a load of this:

and the remaining four pages in this pamphlet:

pg. 4

pg. 5

pg. 6

pg. 7

As you can see, this strange document is called The chronicle of the Queen of Hungary, with the mighty acts of George King of England, at the battle of Dettengen; and King George’s psalm of thanksgiving for the victory of his and her enemies written in the manner of the ancient Jewish historians and it purports to be written by "Abram Ben Saddi, brother to Nathan the Jew." It was published in London in 1743, and it mimics the style of the chronicles in the Hebrew Bible.

Abram ben Saddi is a pseudonym for, it is believed, this guy, or perhaps this one.

The long (S) and short of it

2006-03-29T09:42:00.000-08:00

Not every reader of this blog already knows the history of typography, so I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss a curious fact that many readers must have noticed about printing in the 18th century.

Basically, what is the deal with the fs (effs) in place of s?

The short answer is that it isn't an f at all, but a "long s." Happily, there is a good discussion of the issue on Wikipedia. Short answer:

The long, medial or descending f (s) is a form of the minuscule letter s that was formerly used when the s occurred within or at the beginning of the word, for example finfulnefs ("sinfulness"). The modern letterform was called the terminal or short s.

Incidentally, the long s was never identical with an f in any of the fonts in use. It is just that in modern fonts the long s doesn't exist, so here I am using an f to represent it.

How was it used? The short answer is: never at the end of the words, always in the middle and sometimes at the beginning. Thus, you will find examples like this: sufpicious and fufcipious but never fufpiciouf.

A question that might immediately spring to mind is, isn't that stupid? I mean, the letter form looks so much like an f! The answer is basically, yes, it was a little silly and potentially confusin--and eventually the practice was stopped. But the truth is that many letters resemble one another. Take u and v or h and n or q and g (well, in some fonts anyway!) or o and 0 or some forms of i and l and on it goes. Truth is, these are all easily confused (or confufed) with one another. Or take Hebrew, which is also full of letters that resemble each other. Examples: ר/ ד, ב/כ, ו/ז, ע/צ ,ג/נ are all confusing for someone just learning Hebrew, no different than ح/خ are when learning Arabic.

So f/f is just another quirky example, long since corrected. In fact, one of the interesting things I think will be apparent in this blog is that one can see the evolution of the long s from the beginning to the end of the 18th century. Pay attention to the dates of the examples I post and this will be apparent.

Israel Abraham George Gordon

2006-03-27T12:36:00.000-08:00

Before ....................................After

One of the most well known political figures in late 18th century England was a political radical (and radical Protestant) called Lord George Gordon, 1751-1793 (according to Wikipedia, his father was named Cosmo George Gordon. No, you can't make this stuff up!). In July of 1780 he led a crowd of 50,000 people in a protest march to the House of Commons and a riot broke out for five days, for which he was held responsible by the law. He eventually served five years in prison, but not before converting to Judaism, which is a whole 'nuther story.

There is a popular book for children about him:

He appeared in court on January 28, 1793. Here is the Times' account of it the next day. It is well worth reading (just click the images to make them bigger if need be):

In prison caricature, from David B. Ruderman's 'Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key'):

And another one, from 1780:

How to read Hebrew without points (nekudot)

2006-03-27T07:36:00.000-08:00

One of the most hotly contested issues in Hebrew studies in the 18th centuries was what the authority of the nekudot were in reading Hebrew (specifically in reading the Bible, but also more generally in understanding Hebrew). Theology never strayed too far from the debate, even if it also touched on scientific matters. In short, those who wished to have maximal freedom in interpreting the text denigrated the nekudot, while those who wished to place maximal trust on the textus receptus idea, the Masoretic Text, lauded them. The debate touched on many other points (no pun intended!) relating to the authority of tradition and human interpretation of the Bible (seen as favorable to the Roman Catholic Church) or whether to rely on sola scriptura (a popular Protestant position). In addition, a whole crew of idiosyncratic Bible interpreters accepted only the consonants of the Hebrew Bible, and thus, of Hebrew, in order to create towers of implausible Hebrew philology some of which are truly amazing (and wrong).

In the 18th century many Hebrew grammars were published. All of them bore titles like "Hebrew Grammar...with points" or "....without points" and even some "with and without points." It was practically a genre.

One such grammar was published by an anti-pointist Anglican clergyman named Anselm Bayly (1718-1794) (here is music book he wrote for sale with some info about him). It was called A plain and complete grammar of the Hebrew language, with and without points, published in London in 1773.

In the preface Bayly writes that "the hebrew hath never been totally dead; it is alive to this day in the mouths and understanding of the wise and learned Jews who all over the world can converse with each other, and write in biblical ad well as in the rabbinical hebrew. This is a fact*

the asterisk leads to the following footnote:

Bayly continues making his case for the Jews knowing their Hebrew: "It is certain, that the hebrew was pronounced, and its grammar understood by the Doctors at Tiberius in the third and fourth century, otherwise they could not have taught it to Origen and Jerom..."

What is he getting at? That Hebrew is a living language and those who know it can read it quite easily...without nekudot. Therefore they are unecessary.

Of course he has to explain how to read Hebrew then. He does so as follows:

...

What sort of responses this kind of thing evoke? Here is one in a book called Jonah, a faithful translation from the original: with philological and explanatory notes by George Benjoin (the only info I have so far found about him is that he taught at Jesus College and in 1794 an Act of Parliament naturalized him as a British citizen. The book itself is worth a future post, as it is filled with gems. Here is what he has to say on the matter:

On Shabbetai Sevi--a near contemporary account

2006-03-23T14:19:00.000-08:00

Here is an interesting account of Shabbetai Sevi by a French traveler named Jean Dumont, baron de Carlscroon (1667-1727). The letter was written from Izmir/ Smyrna in 1692 when he was traveling through the Middle East (the Levant). It was published in French and then in English translation in London in 1705 under the title A new voyage to the Levant: containing an account of the most remarkable curiosities ... with historical observations ... By the Sieur du Mont. Done into English ; and adorn'd with figures.. (Incidentally, on the very next page there is a nice bit of antisemitic stereotyping.

They don't make letters-to-the-editor like that anymore

2006-03-21T12:17:00.000-08:00

From The Times of London Saturday, Jan 28, 1865; pg. 7; Issue 25094; col G:

Strictly speaking this is seventy years out of date for this blog, but I couldn't resist posting it, or shall I say, couldn't refift pofting it.

edit: Here is A Begginer of Hebrew's letter:

What is English Hebraica about?

2006-03-15T10:08:00.000-08:00

Here is an excerpt from the introduction to Jewish Englightenment in an English Key by David B. Ruderman. It is wordy, but I could not put it better if I tried. Well, actually, I probably can put it in fewer words, only not better.

It captures perfectly the spirit of the time, the 18th century, and the place that English-speaking Jews were in. This is the true backdrop for this blog. I was planning a post along these lines, but lo and behold I discoverd Ruderman's excellent book. In his intro he basically said that this entire topic is virtually unknown and virtually unexplored, which is why he wrote his book. I noticed that myself, which is why I began this blog! But it turned out that I was beat to the punch. Ruderman's book was published in 2000, while I only recently discovered this wealthy topic.

Anyway, I truly cannot expect readers to read such lengthy excerpts (if I am to judge by my own blog-browsing habits). Given that, I will post a shorter, chewed up version of this post at a later date. It will explain the zeitgeist behind this blog. Hopefully readers will at least read the text I bolded.

What uniquely marks the intellectual life of Anglo-Jewry in the modern era is the process of translation into the English language....English Jews living in the eighteenth century, increasingly native-born, felt the acute need of approaching the literary sources of their culture in the only language they eventually could understand, in English. With the relative decline of Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, and even Yiddish as Jewish spoken and written languages, Anglo-Jews, to a degree unprecedented in the rest of Europe, became monolingual....

....In a society that allowed its Jewish minority a relatively higher degree of social integration than anywhere else in Europe, where many professional, educational, and social barriers had practically disappeared by the end of the eighteenth century, despite the failure of the Jew Bill of 1753 and despite a residue of public hostility to both the Jewish upper and lower classes,linguistic assimilation into the English language proceeded rapidly, in the course of one or two generations, across all classes of English Jewish society. The handful of Jewish educators attempting to offer their constituencies an essential textual knowledge of Judaism eventually succumbed for the most part to the weight of this pervasive diminution of Hebraic literacy. Their only recourse was to undertake a massive project of translating the primary sources of their tradition into the language Anglo-Jews could comprehend. Young Jewish students educated in the home, in the synagogue, and in Jewish schools were soon mastering their prayers, their Bible stories, their normative rules of Jewish conduct, and their smattering of rabbinic wisdom through English translations. By the end of the eighteenth century, most English Jews thought about their identity almost exclusively in non-Hebraic, English terms....

As Anglo-Jews sought to define their religious and cultural identity within a linguistic frame of reference, a kind of English playing field, so to speak, common to both Christians and Jews, the ultimate issues that concerned them, the way they reflected on themselves in relation to the other, and their social and religious aspirations were all thoroughly affected. In a society where the English Bible was central in defining the character of the nation as a whole, English Jews became indistinguishable from their Christian counterparts in learning to appreciate sacred scriptures through the agency of the official King James Version. But some soon discovered that the English Bible was not necessarily an authoritatively Jewish one, and that translation could often distort the original meaning of a text, blurring the traditional boundaries that had separated Jewish from Christian readers and believers. If the translation was inferior or theologically spurious, how could a Jew who knew better sit silently by without objecting to the obvious violation of the text and its originally assigned meaning? At the very least, the official English translation had previously been dependent on a traditionally Jewish Hebrew version, the Masoretic text. In an age where Christian clerics were mastering the Hebrew language in an effort to translate anew the original in order to bring it closer to its "authentic" Christian understanding, and when they even questioned the reliability of the Masoretic version, the matter became more complicated for Jewish rabbis and educators alike. Did Christians actually have the audacity to claim that they could understand the Hebrew text better than Jews, the original guardians of the text? If the Hebrew Bible could be made accessible to Jews and Christians alike in English translation, which translation was to be used? And who had the ultimate authority to determine the true meaning of the text in translation, to interpret the authentic words of God?

In the new intellectual world of Christian scholars and clerics armed not only with Hebraic knowledge but also with a new array of paleographical and linguistic methods of reading the text, it became increasingly difficult for the Jews of England, at least their most highly educated, to claim a commanding position as the proper transmitters and interpreters of the Holy Bible. In a Jewish community that had virtually translated itself into an English religious and cultural entity, the challenge of a new Christian ascendancy of master translators of the biblical text, along with their new prerogatives claiming exclusive Christian ownership of the text, was felt acutely and painfully by Jewish leaders and educators. German Jews were to experience a similar encounter with the new Christian biblical scholarship and its alarming claims to undermine the traditional Jewish hegemony over the Hebrew text. But English Jews encountered this threat more directly and more profoundly than others given their already considerable stake in reading and studying the Bible in English translation.

Concerning Jesibot and the Ghemara

2006-03-09T12:29:00.000-08:00

This is from the seven-volume "The ceremonies and religious customs of the various nations of the known world: together with historical annotations, and several curious discourses equally instructive and entertaining" (its nice to have that kind of confidence about one's own work, isn't it?). Originally in French, and featuring plates by Bernard Picart this comes from the translation published by William Jackson in London, between 1733 and 1739. The translation was made by "a Gentleman, some Time since of St. John's College in OXFORD."

The first volume deals with Jews and Judaism and is a treasure trove of interesting material. This excerpt is particularly interesting, not only because it discussed yeshivot ("Jesivod"), but also because it alludes to a historical tragedy: because of campaigns against the Talmud it was possible to speak of "those places where it is permitted to have [the Talmud]," for "where they have it not, they endeavour to make themselves Masters of the Writings of their wise Men, their Paraphrases, or the Abridgement of the Talmud," (Ein Yaakov?).

1798 Encylopedia on Masorah

2006-03-08T13:07:00.000-08:00

Our Sages say אין אדם לומד אלא ממקום שלבו חפץ (Avoda Zara 19a). Well, one of the fields of learning that my heart desires is that related to the Masorah (מסורת). With this spirit, here is the entry for MASORA in the first American edition of the 18 volume "Encyclopaedia; or, A dictionary of arts, sciences, and miscellaneous literature...," published by T. Dobson in Philadelphia in 1798. The encyclopedia was based on the third edition of the Brittanica, issued between 1790 and 1797.

So far I can't figure out who wrote this particular entry, but I when know I'll update accordingly.

Odds and ends about the Rambam

2006-03-07T13:58:00.000-08:00

Here are a couple of early mentions of the Rambam.

The first is from an English translation of an encyclopedia called "Le grand Dictionaire historique, ou le mélange curieux de l'histoire sacrée et profane" by Louis Moréri, published in 1688 under the title "The great historical, geographical, genealogical and poetical dictionary; being a curious miscellany of sacred and prophane history. "

Another view of the Rambam is from Urbain Chevreau's "The history of the world, ecclesiastical and civil: from the creation to this present time. With chronological remarks," (originally Histoire du monde published in London in 1703.

The second page refers to Rashi as "Jarki," Hebraist-speak for Rashi. In this case an explanation is offered that Rashi was so-called because he lived in Lunel. Lunel = moon = month = yarkha = "Jarki."

Stay tuned for posts about the Rambam's views, as seen in early English publishing.

English Hebraica beginsica

2006-03-07T08:49:00.000-08:00

I'm still not sure what to call this blog. 'English Hebraica' might not sound exactly right. Anglica Hebraica? Anglica Judaica? Judaica Hebraica?

In any event, I am launching this blog because of these posts at On the Main Line:

I
II

I have long been fascinated by the phenomenon of Christian Hebraism. Why? Basically because Hebraism is a sort of mirror which reflected Judaism and can show how Judaism was perceived in various times and places, misperceptions and errors often, but right on target often as well. There are some surprises in these works and some things reassuringly familiar. It's interesting to trace the awareness of Judaism throughout the centuries. The trajectory tends to be from religiously motivated contempt for Judaism (antisemitism) to interest and even admiration for Judaism (philo-semitism), with varying degrees of normal curious interest in "the other" mixed in. There are historical and theological reasons for these movements, which I hope to post about.

Also illuminating in many of these works are diagrams contained within pertaining to all sorts of matters Jewish. In addition, the transliterations and definitions of Hebrew terms reveal a lot about the perceptions of Jews and Judaism.

In addition to Christian Hebraism, I've also been fascinated by Jewish works in non-Jewish vernaculars. English being my native tongue, this blog will be dedicated to some of them. Until recently I only had scant awareness of how old such works were. I hope to introduce not just myself, but interested readers to some of these things.

Good luck to me!

2006-03-06T16:46:00.000-08:00

English Hebraica
Hebraica Anglica

or something.

Coming soon.