In Praise of the Soncino Talmud

In Praise of the Soncino Talmud

In Praise of the Soncino Talmud
By David S Farkas*

Not long ago one of our local schools hosted a Giveaway day in its library, making many of the older seforim in its considerable collection free to a good home. As expected, the local citizenry plundered and pillaged, carrying off large numbers of books, many still in quite good condition. I was only able to attend towards the end, “after the last of the gleaners had gone.”[1] Only a few scattered Siddurim and Chumashim were left, when I spotted a box in a corner of the room, filled with small red volumes. Close inspection revealed that the books were none other than the Soncino Talmud, a complete set. My heart sank a little to see this classic work, neglected and abandoned. I felt, in a small way, as though I had seen the tongue of Chutzpith the Translator lying in the dust.[2]

The Soncino Press sees no press at all these days, it seems. Its groundbreaking complete English translation of the Talmud has almost entirely been supplanted by Artscroll’s Schottenstein edition. Indeed, studying with the latter presents a very much different type of engagement with the Gemara, and Artscroll has undoubtedly done a master job of it. Yet for all of its depth and analysis, Soncino to this day brings to the table things that Artscroll does not. What follows, then, is not an attempt to sing the praises of one at the expense of the other, but only to point out some of the unique features of the now-neglected Soncino, and to suggest some of its alleged flaws may have been greatly exaggerated.[3]

To begin with, the canard so many of us heard in our yeshiva days – that Soncino was edited by less than fully-religious Jews – is a terrible misimpression that, to the best of my knowledge, seems to be based purely on the evidence that it was edited by a man named Isidore. Yet Rabbi Yechezkel Epstein (as he is in fact identified, in Hebrew, on the opposite front-page of most volumes) was very much an observant Jew, who attended the Pressburg Yeshivah founded by the Chasam Sofer, and was said to know Shas by heart. The project began with Seder Nezikin in 1935 with a heartfelt prayer to Almighty God, capped with the traditional phrase יה”ר מלפני ה’ כשם שעזרתני לסיים סדר נזיקין, כן תעזרני להתחיל סדרים אחרים ולסיימם.  It concluded in 1948, as printed in Seder Kodshim, with a heartfelt תם ונשלם שבח לבורא עולם, and the traditional Hadran written out nearly in full. We can certainly say of Soncino, if we may modify R. Yosi’s summation of Kelim, “Happy art thou, Soncino – thou began in purity, and finished in purity.”[4]

Moreover, a review of the individual contributors to each volume – a list that, to my knowledge, has never before been assembled – reveals that each and every one of them were strictly orthodox, and not identified with any other stream of Judaism.[5]

The entire series is written in the best of the King’s English. Somewhat amusingly, this itself has sometimes been offered as a reason not to use the Soncino, as though students today are incapable of understanding proper English. It is true that the series occasionally uses words no longer current (such as “dam” for a mother bird or animal, or “usufruct”.) It also actually translates Biblical or Talmudic concepts, rather than simply transliterating them, a device that has become popular today. Still, the language is eminently readable to anyone devoting to it the proper attention, and it is precisely the insistence upon proper translations that sometimes leads to a better grasp of the text.[6]

Turning to more substantive matters, one key item that jumps out is the brevity of the work. In its most compact English-only edition, the entire set – and that includes all sixty tractates, plus a full-length Index volume – comes in at a trim eighteen volumes. Even with the facing Hebrew page, the set numbers no more than 30 or 35 volumes, depending on the edition.[7] Artscroll, by contrast, which incudes only those tractates with Bavli (plus Shekalim, Eduyos, and Midos) comes in at a jaw-dropping, new-bookshelves-requiring, 73 volumes.[8]

And there is something to be said for concision. At times, when I have encountered a difficulty in the (original) text, checking with Artscroll has only made things more difficult. The Artscroll method is generally to translate or paraphrase the entirety of Rashi, and doing so in English sometimes leaves the reader confused. By contrast, Soncino tends to collapse the entirety of every question and answer into one or two lines. Keeping things short and to the point, I have found, often leads to better understanding of the basic give and take of the Gemara.

This brevity is especially important – and here is a key distinction between the two translations – for those who can learn the Gemara in the original, but either lack the time or the patience to do so. Artscroll effectively prevents the user from doing anything on his own. The text is spoon-fed to the user, and because of the interlinear format, the reader never gets entirely away from the English. Though one can go to the full Hebrew text, the Hebrew woven into the English also means users can – and do – simply use the translation.  It is quite often tedious and time consuming to read, in part because the sentences are broken up every few words, and in part because of the copious long and involved footnotes. Soncino, on the other hand, rather than leading the reader by the hand, simply gives him a head start. Quickly perusing a few English-only paragraphs provides the reader with an overview of the upcoming sugya, and allows him to go back into the regular text and then read everything on his own. In essence, it requires the reader to still go back to the traditional Hebrew text, especially if he wants to fully understand the discussion.

That, of course, might well be considered a flaw, rather than a feature. As noted by R. Gil Student, the Soncino does have “limited value in helping one understand the “sugya” (progression of ideas at large).”[9] Artscroll does an excellent job of laying out for the reader where the passage is heading, and identifying what the Gemara intends to accomplish with each step of the discussion. Soncino does none of this, expecting the student to do this on his own. In some volumes, however, the text is broken up into shorter paragraphs, which on their own help the astute reader realize the Gemara’s direction.

Footnotes help, too.  Soncino very often paraphrases Rashi, only without calling attention to the fact. Moreover, it also regularly cites traditional commentators. As noted in the Introduction, these include, in addition to Rashi, “the Tosafists, Asheri, Alfasi, Maimonides, Maharsha, the glosses of BaH, Rashal, Strashun, the Wilna Gaon, etc.” I have also seen cited Rishonim like Rabbeinu Chananel or Ritva, and Achronim like R. Yaakov Emden and R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes. Of course, and again, in no way does it approach the information provided by Artscroll. Readers with questions will often find them addressed in the lengthy notes of Artscroll, and will even more frequently encounter issues they had never considered. For sheer depth of analysis, Artscroll stands alone. Still, it is a mistake to think that Soncino gives the reader only the bare Gemara by itself.

Yet Soncino also provides information often absent from Artscroll. As the Chief Editor wrote, while he did not attempt to secure uniformity among the several authors – more on that in a moment – he himself added footnotes in brackets containing matters of historical and geographical interest. (To be sure, R. Epstein also added in many pshat based comments, though both functions noticeably decline in frequency as the series progresses into Kodshim.)

Citations to journals like the Jewish Quarterly Review or other German-language periodicals abound. Where parallels to the Gemara exist in Josephus or Apocrypha like Ben Sira, we are informed.  Likewise, parallels in Greek and Roman sources are also frequently noted.[10] Most place names are identified via Obermeyer’s 1929 geographical guide to Talmudic Babylon. Textural variants from the Septuagint are sometimes noted. Herford is also cited on anything that relates to Christianity, though, it may be said, Soncino displays somewhat of an obsession on this topic, and often perceives statements of the sages to be a disguised polemic, with very little justification.[11]

Each of the six Sedarim has its own introduction. The introductions to each of the individual volumes contain very useful summaries of the topic of each chapter, an important feature for learning the Talmud (and quite helpful for review), where the forest can easily be lost sight of. An appendix to Gittin gives what I believe to still be the best short summation of the Talmudic-era medicine described in the 7th chapter of that Masechta, as well as a similar lengthy passage in Avoda Zara. In one of the volumes (Eruvin) diagrams are gamely used, though the technology of the time did not permit anything much more than rudimentary line drawing and shading. Similarly, the anatomical skeleton of an ox is presented in Chulin.

I noted above that the editor did not seek to achieve uniformity of style, and the uneven quality shows. Some volumes are simply better than others. In one or two cases the translation can only be called wooden, and the notes do little more than add an emphatic “Surely not!” after obviously rhetorical questions. Happily, though, in most cases the individuality of the authors accrues to the benefit of the overall translation, providing different perspectives and viewpoints. Thus, for example, the translations of Chulin and Menachos done by Eli Cashdan, a European-born Talmid Chacham of note, are particularly lucid and clear. The translation to Moed Kattan by Dayan Lazarus preserves the poetry of the original in the elegies of the third chapter by translating them into English poetry, in the classic British style of Israel Zangwill and Nina Salaman,[12] The work to the first half of Kesubos by Samuel Daiches, the only barrister at law to participate in the series (though also an ordained rabbi), is particularly rich with citations to both Roman Cannon law and English jurisprudence.[13] And a number of these highly-educated authors find parallels in Talmudic sayings to classics of literature. [14]

In short, there is much to say in favor of the Soncino Talmud. It contains many gems of scholarship and interpretation, some of them not found, to my knowledge, in any other sources. If it is not perfect – no translation ever is – it is far better than it is often given credit for. The Soncino Talmud was, and fill forever remain, a landmark of Torah literature. To echo (via paraphrase) the words of Dr. Shnayer Leiman in these pages a number of years ago, said in connection with a different classic series thought to be out of date: “Hold on to your Soncino Talmuds! Public libraries and private collectors will do well to retain them and keep them precisely on the same shelves they have now occupied these many years.”[15]

Note from the Seforim Blog editors: Prof. Saul Lieberman refers to “responsible English translations of rabbinic texts (like those of Soncino Press)” at the end of his classic poison-pen review of Jacob Neusner’s acumen as a talmudic translator. See Lieberman, Saul. “A Tragedy or a Comedy?” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 104, no. 2, 1984, pp. 315–319.

* Mr. Farkas received his rabbinic ordination from Ner Israel Rabbinical College in 1999. He lives with his family in Cleveland, Ohio, where he serves as Senior Corporate Counsel for a large energy company.   

[1] See Peah 8:1, Bava Metzia 21b

[2] See Chulin 142b.

[3] I have used the device of contrasting with Artscroll to highlight certain aspects of the Soncino. It should be self-understood that these points of preference are in no way intended to derogate that outstanding work, which enjoys deserved worldwide popularity. In the same vein, I use Artscroll as a contrast simply because of its wide-spread use, and not from any intent to disregard the also excellent Koren and Steinsaltz editions.

[4] The foreword and epilogue to the set – what we might today call הסכמות – contain similar sentiment. They are cited, along with brief comments on the Soncino series, in Words, Meaning, and Spirit: The Talmud in Translation (A. Mintz, Torah U’Maddah Journal 1995).

[5] The Complete list of Contributors to the Gemara include the following Rabbis, Doctors, and Misters, in alphabetical order: I. Abraham (Chagigah); Eli Cashdan (Menachos, Chulin); Abraham Cohen (Sotah, Avoda Zara); Samuel Daiches (Kesubos); H. Freedman (Sabbath, Pesachim, Nedarim, Kiddushin, Bava Metzia, Sanhedrin, Zevachim); M. Ginsberg (Betzah); L. Jung (Yoma, Arachin); E. W. Kirzner (Bava Kama); B. D. Klein (Nazir); L. Miller (Bechoros, Temurah); I. Porusch (Kerisos, Meilah); J. Rabinowitz (Taanis)  Jacob Shachter (Sanhedrin) H. M. Lazarus (Moed Kattan, Makkos); A. E. Silverstone (Shevuous);  Maurice Simon (Brachos, Eruvin, Rosh Hashana, Megilah, Gittin, Bava Basra, Bechoros, Tamid); and Israel Slotki (Sukah, Yevamos, Horayos, Bava Basra, Nidah).

The additional Mishnayos were translated by the aforementioned Israel Slotki, and Rabbis/Dcotors H. Bornstein, Phillip Cohen, Isidore Fishman, J. Israelstam, S. M. Lerhrman, and M. H. Segal.

Biographical data is available for many of these figures in Encyclopedia Judaica or Wikipedia. Information can also be found in the Jewish Communities and Records of the United Kingdom database, by clicking on the “rabbinic profiles” tab. (Available here: https://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/Profiles) Note that all the figures listed here are found in the section designated for Orthodox Ministers & Cantors.

I am grateful to Dr. Marc Shapiro, who provided me with very interesting information on some of these men, and who also referred me to Rabbi Benjamin Elton, of the Great Synagogue in Australia, who likewise did the same. R. Elton, in turn, referred me to Professor David Newman, who sent me some photographs of some of the contributors – looking very rabbinic indeed.

[6] This is particularly true for the realia of the Gemara. See for example Pesachim 37a, סריקין מצויירין  which Soncino translates as “Syrian cakes”, but Artscroll transliterates as “decorated Sirikin”; Yoma 38a נחושת קלוניתא which to Soncino is Corinthian Bronze, but to Artscroll, “refined copper.”; In Moed Kattan 27a, in the context of items a mourner may sit upon, such as the chair or ground, אודייני גדולה is listed and translated by Artscroll simply as a “large mortar”, with no additional comment. Soncino translates it as “a large bench for water jugs”, footnoting to the Roman Uranariun and showing the term in parallel passages as אורנריי. Many such examples can be cited.

[7] For more on these different editions see Words, A. Mintz, Id., at fn. 49.

[8] Though this set too, now looks small, compared to the complete Hebrew-language Mesivta edition – a stupendous 136 volumes.

[9] “Tackling the Talmud: One Daf at a Time” (Jewish Action, Fall 2012)

[10] See for example Nazir 4b, showing parallels to the story described therein to the tale of Narcissus found in Ovid.

[11] See, for example, the Commentary to Sukkah 5a, Nedarim 38a and 64b. (I hasten to add, as someone once observed, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” I myself recently wrote, of a Mishna in Beitzah, that it too, contained a hitherto unnoticed reference to Christianity. See my article Of Fish and Fishermen: An Unknown Christian Passage in the Talmud (Tradition 52:3 2020).)

[12] See also his nifty rendering of the phrase found there on 9b בת שיתין כבת שית לקל טבלא רהטא : “As sixty as six: the sound of a timbrel makes her nimble.”

[13] See there, for example, 17b and 20a.

[14] See Chagigah 13b, in connection with Sandalphon, referencing Longfellow’s similarly named poem; Avoda Zara 4a, comparing R. Chanina’s advice to pray for the government for without it men would swallow each other alive to a phrase in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus.

[15] The New Encyclopedia Judaica: Some Preliminary Observations. (Shnayer Leiman, Seforim Blog, June 5, 2007)

image_pdfimage_print
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

131 thoughts on “In Praise of the Soncino Talmud

  1. Many, many years ago, before the days of the Artscroll gemara, I would come to shul in the morning and be slightly in awe of the two men who were finishing their pre-shacharis chavrusa of learning the daf, each with their Soncino talmud. The Soncino got them over the initial hump for anyone, especially for someone who may not have attended (or paid attention in) many years of yeshiva, which is translating the language and filling in the punctuation of the gemara. But as you said, to really understand the gemara with a Soncino, you still have to use your brains, and I would see how they would “horva”, as we would say in yeshiva, over the daf.

    I contrast that to how I see what appears to be people merely reading the daf with their Artscrolls today.

    It’s a shame that young yeshiva students also tend to pick up an Artscroll if they are struggling with a gemara they were taught or tackling a new gemara on their own. They would be much better served with a Soncino that would help get them over that hump, but would then encourage them to develop their own skills in understanding the gemara.

    1. What they might be well advised to do, actually, would be to refer to the Dafyomi Advancement Forum (https://dafyomi.co.il/), specifically its Point by Point section, which gives what might be called a more colloquial Soncino-type translation without much interpolation (and then leaves things like background and analysis for other sections).

  2. Is there a way to access the Jewishgen.org link? I keep receiving a “you do not have permission to view this page” message

  3. I would add that the Soncino Talmud utilizes a superior system of transliteration that for some reason is unpopular in Orthodox circles, and that even though the original Vilna edition of the Talmudic folios were presented unchanged, censored or altogether missing passages were reintroduced in the footnotes. Thank God the Soncino Talmud has been available on line for may years.

  4. The Soncino reflects an earlier era in Orthodoxy when general/secular knowledge and sophistication was not disdained or held to be suspect–all to the contrary. Can you imagine Artscroll mentioning the Septuagint’s text?!

  5. Eli Cashdan Was my teacher. He was born and brought up in Liverpool, had Smichah, And served as an RAF chaplain during the Second World War. He qualified as a barrister (lawyer) and practised for a few years but was not particularly successful and reverted to teaching at university level

  6. Check out the footnote on מסכת בבא מציעא דף עה עמוד ב
    תניא, רבי שמעון אומר: מלוי רבית יותר ממה שמרויחים – מפסידים, ולא עוד אלא שמשימים משה רבינו חכם ותורתו אמת. ואומרין: אילו היה יודע משה רבינו שיהיה ריוח בדבר לא היה כותבו.
    It certainly wasn’t written by an orthodox person

    1. Yeah, there’s good reason for the widespread assumption that [at least some of] the Soncino writers weren’t orthodox. I remember seeing that line years ago and my hair stood on end. And it was a gratuitous swipe too.

      1. “‘Had Moses our Teacher known that there is profit in this thing [sc. usury], he would not have prohibited it.’”
        They seem to be saying that Moshe decided himself to prohibit it, afra lepumei.

          1. If memory servers correct the comment was ” The 20th century was not the only one to conclude that some biblical enactments are the result of ignorance of life and lack of its practical requirements !” On that, afra lepumei. I refrained originally from quoting in for that very reason . But it seems I need to as the printed version is not so accessible . וה’ הטוב יכפר . I only mention it in relation to the question on whether they were all orthodox as that clearly cannot be the case.

            1. I really don’t see what’s so offensive. If you read that as having been written by an Orthodox Jew- as it was- then it’s obviously- stunningly obviously- written as *dis*approving of such sentiments, both in modern and classical times.

              Only if one begins with the mistaken assumption that the Soncino was written by non-Orthodox Jews, and this review makes it clear that many do, can one possibly think otherwise, and even then it’s a stretch.

              1. There’s nothing obvious about it at all. Simply because you *decided* that it is obvious (or the more convincing “stunningly obvious”) – with nothing in the wording to support it – doesn’t make it so. The fact that you think it’s a stretch even if it was written by unorthodox Jews who presumably would write such a note approvingly, is demonstration enough that you don’t appreciate the issue.

                1. No, I stand by my words. Only someone going into the Soncino determined to find fault with it would have his “hair stand on end” by such a comment.

                  By the way, I have an original edition I have yet to check, but so far I see no evidence the comment ever existed.

                  1. Nachum is obviously correct. There is nothing to discuss. I am quite surprised that anyone is making the mistake of reading it otherwise.

                    1. Found it! I have no idea why it’s missing in the online versions:

                      “The twentieth century is not the only one that has discovered that some Biblical enactments are based on ignorance of life and its practical requirements!”

                      This is so self-evidently sarcastic that it need not be said. (By the way, the exclamation mark means something different in the UK than it does in the US.) They could have put “discovered” in quotes, but I don’t think that was a thing back then.

                    2. I also thought like Nachum even before he posted the text of the original, when I saw Simcha Ross’ paraphrase.

                      It also makes sense to give the benefit of the doubt in interpreting the comment based on what is known of the authors and editors.

                      I am curious , however, what was changed elsewhere , per Nachum’s other comment(” …redid its Bible series to remove all “treif” material and edited much of its Zohar introduction for the same reason”).

                    3. It’s really silly to say that only someone looking to find problems would see that as a problem, even if you strongly disagree. Maaseh shahayah: I used to use the Soncino for no reason other than to help me learn Gemara and I was very bothered by that comment. Of course, you can disagree but it’s silly to think only someone with an agenda can see it that way.

                      You’re imputing sarcasm. Do you have any evidence for that other than an a priori assumption that they were orthodox?

                    4. Dave I can’t reply to you so I hope you see this. Rabbi Freedman was a well known Orthodox rabbi. Rabbi Isidore Epstein was a well known Orthodox rabbi, and a teacher of rabbis. They were both very committed to Torah. Rabbi Freedman wrote the comment and Rabbi Epstein left it in. Do you think these Orthodox rabbis were really inserting apikorsus in the Soncino Talmud? This whole discussion is stupid and Nachum is obviously correct.

                    5. It’s interesting that you all can’t understand why the line was removed from the online version, but the reason seems very obvious to me.

                    6. Shades of Gray:

                      Soncino published R’ Hertz’s Chumash, which draws on a wide range of commentaries, classic and modern, Jewish and non-Jewish, etc. Soncino then produced a whole set of Nach on the same principles. Finally, they made their own Chumash as part of the set, and in the introduction they explain that as Hertz’s Chumash already fits their Nach pattern, they would limit the Chumash to classic perushim, like Rashi and Ramban.

                      A number of decades later the entire Nach was redone, by the same editor as Judaica Press’s Tanach. (I think Judaica Press took over Soncino somehow.) In the introduction, they explained that as Orthodox Jews have gotten better, they don’t need all that goyish stuff anymore, and so the publisher was taking it out. (The Chumash, of course, didn’t have to be changed.) So now the Soncino Nach is no different than Artscroll’s or Judaica Press’s, using only “kosher” sources, because someone decided unilaterally that Jews don’t need all that other stuff.

                      As to the Zohar, I once saw a new reprint of the Soncino Zohar in a bookstore. It has a huge introduction, like a 150 pages, but I noticed that it skipped from, say, page 50 to page 70 or something. So I went to the YU library and found and original edition, and sure enough, the missing pages are the ones that point out who actually wrote the book, and how it wasn’t Shimon Bar Yochai.

                    7. No, Dave, that still doesn’t cut it. If you saw a line like that in, say, any Artscroll book, you’d assume it was OK. But because you went into Soncino assuming it was a little krum, you convinced yourself you’d found “proof.” Simple as that.

                      Generally people who don’t respect halakha don’t spend decades translating the Bavli.

                      And that Tzvee Zahavy, who put the thing online, took out that line, is no proof. Zahavy is very far from caring what the frum velt thinks. Ask him why it’s not there.

            2. That line appears sarcastically. it saying that there’s nothing new with sinners imputing ignorance to sources of our traditions, or that Moses made up Judaism. The Talmud also says that the Sadducees explained their conception of certain commandments as being the result of “Moses loving Israel,” and making, e.g., their holidays on Sundays.

              1. As Nachum wrote: “This is so self-evidently sarcastic that it need not be said.”
                That the sarcasm is not explicit & is not spelled out clearly, epitomizes Soncino’s style. Soncino assumes the reader will think and figure it out. Sure it may take 30 seconds to interpret the comment correctly- but Artscroll doesn’t think its readers have that sort of time. Artscroll leaves nothing to the reader’s imagination or common sense.

                1. It’s hilarious that you think Artscroll assumes the reader has LESS time than soncinco. You could read the entire soncinco shas in the time it takes to read a single masechta of Artscroll. (Not to say longer is necessarily better, but your claims about Artscroll’s assumptions on the reader’s time is obviously wrong)

                  1. As Herman Wouk wrote back in 1959, you can read the Soncino, but you still won’t understand the Gemara without putting in a lot more work than you need with Artscroll. Shorter (and Soncino isn’t *that* much shorter) doesn’t necessarily equal faster.

                    1. It’s silly to pretend that Artscroll thinks the reader doesn’t have time.
                      You can have legitimate problems with Artscroll but that claim is belied by their enormous notes, some of which delve into unnecessary asides, with questions raised by Tos. and others. We can debate the wisdom of such an approach but they obviously weren’t concerned with the reader having enough time. And yes, Soncino is way shorter. (obviously I exaggerated above though).

                    2. You’ve lost the thread Nachum. I was responding to Ephraim who says “Artscroll doesn’t think its readers have that sort of time. Artscroll leaves nothing to the reader’s imagination or common sense.” Your reference to the common practices of ignoring Artscroll footnotes is a complete non sequitur.

                    3. No, I haven’t lost the thread. Ephraim said that Artscroll makes it easy to spend less time on a Gemara. I pointed out that that is entirely true. I have learned with people, one with an Artscroll and the other with a Soncino or Steinsaltz. The former can read the whole shiur aloud from the top of the page alone, the latter has to spend time hashing it out in his mind. That doesn’t mean the Artscroll person really gets it without work…but that is undoubtedly how a lot of people use the Artscroll, and Artscroll has to know it. You *can’t* do that with a Soncino, or even a Steinsaltz.

                  2. ” You could read the entire soncinco shas in the time it takes to read a single masechta of Artscroll. ”
                    The same thing could be said for reading the non-translated Shas without Rashi. Faster, but you wouldn’t understand it. I stand by what I wrote: Artscroll, unlike Soncino, does not expect its readers to have the patience to work through a line of Gemara. (This is not a critique. Both Artscroll, Steinsalz & Soncino are tools. You choose the tools depending on what you want to accomplish.)

                    It’s quite clear. The gemara cites some heretical statements made by usurers. Soncino footnotes are there to explain things in the Gemara. Here too they are explaining the Gemara. Thus, they are explaining what the usurers are saying, by noting that some present day scoffers say the same thing. To insert a footnote which does not explain the Gemara would be straying from their style.

                    There is no other legitimate reading of the footnote.

                    Now watch: The twentieth century is not the only one that has “discovered” that some Biblical enactments are based on ignorance of life and its practical requirements!
                    Is that clearer?

                2. The problem that people have with this clearly sarcastic comment is because they lack any acquaintance with the dry British sense of humor. Comment was actually very sharp and funny. The person saying Afra lepumei should beg for Mehilah.

              2. Of course it’s obvious that the footnote disapproves of the twentieth century thinking. Contrast the following..

                Text: “In 1918, some health officials, based on the best scientific research of the time, attempted to mandate mask wearing in public.”
                Footnote: “Anthony Fauci is not the only who tried to force the public to wear masks!”

                vs.

                Text: “In 1918, some health officials, ignoring all civil liberties, attempted to mandate mask wearing in public.”
                Footnote: “Anthony Fauci is not the only who tried to force the public to wear masks!”

                Same footnote, but isn’t it obvious that the 2nd footnote disapproves of mask mandates?

    1. For the record, the online edition is the product of Tzvee Zahavy. He made it, at least partially, because until that point the only online version was a partial version presented by an anti-Semitic website out to “prove” that the Talmud is evil. I’m not sure if Zahavy took the parts already prepared by the anti-Semites and incorporated it into his own. (This would have been legal, as of course the anti-Semites had no copyright on Soncino’s work. In fact, Soncino’s work is out of copyright, at least in the US, which is how there were “pirated” copies. Plus, of course, Zahavy is presenting it for free.)

      The anti-Semites, if they were the ones who deleted this, probably couldn’t care one way or another about the implications of the line. Zahavy himself is kind of left-wing Orthodox (he’s a disciple of Jacob Neusner and indeed contributed to Neusner’s translation of the Talmuds) and probably couldn’t care if the line, read literally, is offensive to charedim. I suppose the best you can say is that Zahavy was offended by the *sarcasm*, but he doesn’t seem to be the type.

      1. Serious question: do you really mean to imply that if the line is read literally it would be offensive to “Haredim” only? You’re arguing it’s not meant literally – fine. But now you seem to indicate that non-haredi people wouldn’t find it offensive even if it was read literally?

        1. Of course it would be offensive to all Orthodox Jews, or should be. What I meant was that the phenomenon of picking up a sefer, or listening to a shiur, with a negative preconception and with an express purpose of finding something “krum,” is limited to the more charedi end of the spectrum, almost by definition. (Of course, this is something the Woke do as well.) And it would be very difficult to be religiously offended by this obviously sarcastic comment absent that preconception and purpose.

          But, you know, thanks for finding one misplaced word in my post that enables you to attack me as well. You’re kind of proving my point.

          1. I guess it was blindingly obvious that the word was misplaced. Sorry for reading all of your words and thinking you meant all of them.

  7. I could not agree more. Additionally I find that when reading the Soncino English straight, I can hear the rhythm of the Talmudic dialectic. I can hear the shakla ve-tarya in my head, so to speak. When reading the Artscroll or Steinsaltz, I may understand it quicker, but it takes a lot longer to figure out how the Talmud says what the English says it says.

  8. I am eternally grateful to Soncino for teaching me how to “lain” a Gemara as a bochur, something no rebbe ever taught me. Basic translation is the first step, and the hardest, biggest hump that most kids encounter. In high school, it was no different than Greek or Chinese to me, and I had long given up. Towards the end, I was getting ready to go to college, without ever really having learned Gemara. But then I discovered the utility of Soncino. With careful, curated use of it, copying various words into my other, regular Gemara, I was able to teach myself how to lain in just a few months. And because of that, I had many fruitful years in yeshiva and kollel, and am able to learn seriously now, many years later. All because of Soncino.

    1. It’s been pointed out that one issue is that students are never actually told that the Gemara is written in an entirely different language (Aramaic) than Tanach and the Mishna. The lack of Hebrew education can’t help either, but knowing that it’s not even Hebrew may help as well.

  9. The compact “small red volumes” of the Soncino translation referred to at the beginning of Rabbi Farkas’s article have long-been rumored to be an unauthorized “pirate” or knockoff edition of the original full-size volumes.

    1. Their was a small-format, english only edition produced as an ‘Anniversary’ edition (not sure which!) some years ago; dark red binding and beautiful Indian paper. There was a later pirated edition, but I think it was nearer full size. The English of Soncino is certainly elegant. In the 1980’s I was told by a senior Artscroll executive that they were deliberately ’dumbing down’ the level of English in their books, as their readers were complaining that it was too difficult. Apropos Elkan Levy – Eli Cashdan z”l was one of the (many) unappreciated treasures of the UK Jewish community. Immensely knowledgeable. Unfortunately he seemed over-reluctant to publish, limiting himself (AFAIK) to translations.

      1. ” In the 1980’s I was told by a senior Artscroll executive that they were deliberately ’dumbing down’ the level of English in their books, as their readers were complaining that it was too difficult”

        See link and excerpt below from Mishpacha interview with Artscroll Shas editors on 12/25/19:

        https://mishpacha.com/they-toil-that-we-may-toil/

        ” …has the ArtScroll Shas remained exactly as it was when first published, or have changes taken place over the years?”

        Rabbi Yechezkel Danziger…One of the things I would like to do someday is go over some of the masechtos, especially ones used by younger students, and just lighten up the language, which is over the heads of many people today. The young generation today doesn’t speak English at that level.

        Rabbi Eli Herzka: Even in the secular world, you can open up any secular publication and compare the writing with that of the same publication from 20 years ago, and it’s a completely different level of English. You don’t notice it because it’s happening so slowly and it’s subtle, but if you make the comparison, you see it’s not the same at all.

        Rabbi Zev Meisels: It’s not just a matter of which words you use, it’s also the style of writing. It’s about keeping the sentences shorter, and not making sentences with 14 clauses.

      2. Sorry, but this seems like a mixture of nostalgia and a general feeling of “things used to be better.” The English in Soncino wasn’t elegant but serviceable. I also get the feeling that some confuse archaic with elegant.

      3. Soncino itself completely redid its Bible series to remove all “treif” material and edited much of its Zohar introduction for the same reason.

    2. Soncino was originally published from the 30’s to the 50’s in thirty-five red all-English volumes of a medium size (like a standard hardcover book). Some years later, in the 70’s there was an “anniversary” edition- I think the 500th anniversary of the original Soncino publishers (which have no connection to the modern ones) and the 400th of Oxford University Press (which co-published) in slightly smaller red all-English volumes, eighteen total. (The paper was much thinner.)

      In between there was a pirated (I think) edition in much smaller red volumes which had Hebrew (the “half-daf” edition) on one side of the volume and English on the other, like Koren’s Steinsaltz of today.

      In the 1980’s there were pirated (although legal) editions in the US by MP and Traditional Presses (I think they were the same company) that had Hebrew pages facing the English. They weren’t of the best quality- English continued in the back when there wasn’t room, footnote numbers were a bit butchered, etc.

      Soncino then produced their own Hebrew-facing edition, much nicer (they repeated Hebrew pages when there wasn’t enough room) and including Mishna and Mesechtot Ketanot (which had previously been published in a separate set of two volumes.) That was aoout thirty volumes. (The index wasn’t included, as it was with the all-English editions.) Soncino’s own website now only has less than a dozen of the last set, and a leather edition of the smaller all-English set, for sale.

  10. Just read your Tradition article about the fish in Beitza, very interesting!

    Curious- what’s the Soncino suggestion about a Christian polemic in Sukkah 5a? Guessing it has something to do with Eliyahu and Moshe not going up, but wondering specifically what it says?

  11. I had the honour of knowing Rabbi Dr. Harry Freedman (who, in addition to his contributions to the Soncino Talmud, translated other works, including the first few volumes of the English edition of Rav Kasher’s Torah Shelema) and Rabbi Dr. Israel Porush. Both of them were certainly Orthodox in every sense, with Rabbi Porush being the rabbi at Sydney’s Great Synagogue.

    1. R’ Freedman was also the Orthodox representative to JPS’ Torah translation, and was one of the translators of the Midrash Rabbah for Soncino and translated some of the Encyclopedia Talmudit. He also wrote some of the volumes of the Soncino commentary on the Bible.

  12. Soncino also published a translation of the Mesechtos Ketanos (Sofrim, Derech Eretz, etc.) which ArtScroll has not yet done for unknown reasons.

    1. Artscroll did translate Avot D’Rabbi Natan not long ago. My favorite feature was their reference to the “Vienna edition” without a word about who edited that edition.

  13. I remember coming across passages in Artscroll which were copied word for word from Soncino. I just wish I could remember where…

    (An early review in Tradition pointed out that passages in Artscroll’s Tanach are copied word for word from JPS.)

        1. This article makes some valid points but clearly has a major axe to grind. It argues that Rus isn’t “more laden with halachic implications” than Esther because there’s an entire masechta on it and a number of simanim in SA while Rus is tucked away in the laws of Pesach. What a strange argument, as if the entire masechta (or even most of it) deals with halachic questions from the text of the megillah. Furthermore, the compared translations are not, on the whole, impressive. There are only so many ways to translate a string of a few words, and the fact that that’s the best he found, makes the plagiarism argument very unconvincing.

          1. Halakha is in the Torah. The most Nach can do in that respect is complement the Torah; if it disagrees, it has to be explained. That’s how halakha enters into Ruth. The one big exception is Esther, which actually contains d’rabbanans. Ruth doesn’t.

            The words chosen are *way* too close to be a coincidence. I can think of quite a few ways they could have phrased it if they weren’t plagiarizing.

            1. You’re quibbling over the meaning of “laden with halachic implications” and Gottlieb’s vague gesturing to an entire masechta (which deals with all kinds of issues which do not relate to the text of the megillah) is a lazy and weak form of argument.

              Now, let’s take a look at some of what one would imagine were Gottlieb’s more illustrative examples of “plagiarism:” דבקה בה as clung to her. The other option would be “cleaved to her” but of course that’s the old JPS translation; do bad for them, damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
              ותשב – she stayed [at home], perfectly natural rendering, nothing unique.
              ובעז עלה – Boaz meanwhile etc. again, perfectly natural.
              ויאמר הגאל, So, when the redeemer said. A weak argument can be made regarding the word “so;” the rest is perfectly natural.

              What’s the more natural alternatives you would’ve given for these words?

                  1. Sure it is. Just look at the list. That’s not a coincidence. English is a big language; that’s too many “coincidences” to actually be one.

                    1. Of course, it’s not a coincidence; they’re translating the same words. How many comparable options are there? 3, 4? Over the entirety of the megillah there’s bound to be plenty of overlap. Until you give an idea of how many appropriate options there are (not merely gesturing at the English language as a whole), there is no way to evaluate your argument.

                    2. OK, I get it. I’ll keep going by what I see. And that, as I said, I once found a multi-sentence copy of Soncino in Artscroll’s Gemara.

  14. Mr. Cashdan (he never called himself rabbi, which he was), taught me when I attended Jews College as an occasional student. He was a brilliant teacher, and his translation is first rate. I agree with the author that Artscroll becomes a crutch, and unlike Soncino, essentially (though not deliberately of course) removes any incentive to read the amud itself–so that one loses Tosfos, among other things. And, with all due respect to ArtScroll, the Sncino’s English is more elegant having studied at universities in both the US and UK, I am sensitive to the variations in diction and syntax). And yes, all the translators were Orthodox, some more modern some more frum.

  15. Many years ago, on my way to visit my father, I happened to see Artscroll’s siddur, and I thought I’d bring my father a present. Opening it, I realized it was not up to his standards and decided to find something else. On arriving at my parents’ home, I saw the siddur on a shelf, brand new. Asked about the new acquisition, my father said he was sorry he bought it.

  16. the writers (except Rabbi KIrzner who even built the first mikvah in Stamford hill which was not at all fashionable in London of the 1930s and rabbi b.d klein son in law of reb elya lopian ) in socino shas their wives did not go with head covering and did not send their sons to yehivah the writers of artscroll their wives go with sheitlach and send their sons to yeshivah
    that is the difference
    please prove me wrong
    p.s by the way i have printed a booklet in Hebrew of a short biography the rabbis of the last 100 years in England if any of the readers want a copy please email me with your name and address to
    maurice@pallmallestates.co.uk and a copy will be sent free of charge

    1. Is that the best you can do? Even some of the most religious Litvish women, including the wives of some of the greatest roshei yeshiva, didn’t cover their hair until relatively recently. Like choosing an education for your kids, it’s a matter of time and place. (R’ Herzog, also raised in England, didn’t go to yeshiva. Rav Soloveitchik didn’t go to yeshiva, and his wife didn’t cover her hair. Nor did the Lubavitch rebbetzin. I could go on.)

      That you think that somehow makes a difference in the quality of a translation, especially considering the quality of your own English, is quite telling.

      1. FTR you could’ve pointed to figures far more accepted in the Haredi sphere whose wives didn’t cover their hair than the ones you listed (although I suppose they “went to yeshiva”).

      2. Nachum

        I am a researcher in English rabbonim has rav hertzog got any grandchild a frum yid again I am not speaking about other countries

        By the way reb getzel Berger from London sent his children from London in the thirties to yeshiva in Hungary

        1. You know, the list of very, very great rabbanim – including Haredi rabbanim who served in the UK – whose children and grandchildren lived lives far from the model their fathers established, is very long. It includes Communists, campaigners against Brit Milah, and sundry others. What are you trying to prove???

  17. TO UK EXPAT
    rabbi shmelke pinter said that that hitler ימ”ש did not need to to come to england to kill the yiden they did it by themselves the assimilation the lack of chinch and the will to become anglicized did his job just take a look at the Jewish chronicle of this week the sections of birth and deaths and the jewish chronicle of 1950 you will see the difference for this sad state of affairs the rabbis who wrote the socino shass are partly to blame

    nachum regarding rav hertzog frum decedent’s
    frum means the men cover the head their wifes cover the hair and they send their children to yeshivas (like rav hertzog who send to his 2 boys to chevron yeshivah ) any of them like that then you are right

    have a gut shabbbos

    1. It’s “Herzog,” you know. And “wives.” And there’s a concept in English of “capital letters” and “punctuation.”

      You’re the one claiming to be the big expert on British rabbis. If you don’t even know who R’ Herzog’s descendants are, then I can seriously doubt that claim.

    1. You’re the big expert on British rabbanim and you don’t know? That’s curious.

      R’ Herzog’s son Yaakov, the ambassador, was religious (Michlelet Herzog and a lot of other religious educational institutions are named for him); his children are as well, they include, for example, Yitzchak Herzog, a professor at Bar-Ilan. His cousin of the same name, the current president, is- I have personal testimony to this account- religiously observant himself. (Imagine, Israel’s current president *and* prime minister are religious.)

      Of course, none of this matters to the question of the greatness of the Chief Rabbi. We don’t judge gedolim by their kids, and for good reason. Look up Shoftim 18:30 for the greatest example of this.

      And please don’t start giving me that nonsense that they weren’t religious because they weren’t up to *your* standards of religiosity. I’m going to guess that not even the Chatam Sofer himself was up to your standards.

  18. The reason why people thought/think Soncino were written by non-religious is because they were also called Rev. and anyone younger than 40, especially in america, automatically thinks he’s reform or conservative.
    As a side, I was in a top yeshiva in America and when we got to a difficult Aggadata Gmara the reflex was to open an ArtScroll. The Rosh Yeshiva saw this and told us you’re not learning it and you won’t remember it. When pressed for an alternative he said better use a Jastrow for the difficult words and if you’re too lazy then use a Soncino where you have to still figure out what the Gmara is saying and at the very least you’ll work on the English!

      1. Sounds to me like the American born Rabbi Gifter. Who once told us as high school students in the local non-yeshiva high school during a bechina:
        I’m not speaking Chinese, I’m not speaking Japanese, I’m speaking plain Oxford English.

        But, of course, just guessing ….

      2. I don’t think the Rosh Yeshiva would care if I said it was him but many of the talmidim might. Let me think about it before I post his name.

    1. Ironically, I’ve never heard a Reform or Conservative rabbi called “reverend.”

      I think the reason the term was used in England was because there was an idea that the Chief Rabbi was the *only* rabbi, and everyone else was a “reverend.” (I think that’s also why high-ranking rabbanim in England were called “dayan”- if they were on the Chief Rabbi’s beit din, of course.)

      I imagine a lot of them may not have had traditional yoreh yoreh semikha either, which is of course also not such a big deal- lots of early American rabbis didn’t, and (little secret) lots of American Orthodox rabbanim today don’t either. Even Chief Rabbi Hertz was a graduate of JTS, which doesn’t give (even though it has a concept of) yoreh yoreh, although I imagine Rabbi Hertz had a traditional semikha from elsewhere, or from a JTS faculty member, as was done back then.

      What used to strike me about mid-century English rabbis was that some still wore Christian priest-style collars. Again, not the biggest deal- R’ Hirsch wore them too- but these are the modern style “dog collars” rather than the 19th century jabots rabbis wore back then, so they strike us more.

  19. מר נחום זאת ברור כי נכדי הרב הרצוג לא היה מתקבלים כחברים בקהילות היראים מיסודו של החתם סופר בארץ הגר

    הreverends באנליה לא היה מדברים לקהלתם אודות יסודי הדת ועיקרי הדת ולכן היה החורבן גדול מאוד עד כדי כך שחבר שלי דיבר בערב יום הקדוש דהאינשתא ליהודי אנגלי ושאל אותו אם כבר אכל הקרעפלעך שנוהגים לאכול ערב יום כפור ענה לא הוא יאכל אותו בלילה רחמנא ליצלן וזה אשם הרעבנים שלהם הנקראים reverends שלא נתנו חינוך יהודי ומוקרי לקהלתם

    ואסיים בסיפור הרב גרבר היה הרב באדינבורו מדינת סקוטלנד וסידור גט בעירו וזאת היה למורת רוח של הרב ראשי אדלר ותבע אותו למשפט בבית משפט של עכום והשופט שאל הרב גרבר מי נתן לך הסמכות לסידור גיטין באנגליה ענה החתם סופר בשו״ת שלו ענה השליח של הרב ראשי שכאן באנגליה יש רק הסמכות של הרב ראשי והרב גרבר מביא איזהו רב מעיירה קטנה בארץ הגר שנתן לו הסמכות לסדר גיטין

    למותר ציין שהרב גרבר הגיע לאדינבורו בשנת תר״נ ונכדיו וניניו ויוצאי חלציו כולם שומרי תורה ומצות בדרך ישראל סבא
    והם מהמשפחות היחידים שהם הגיע לפני מאה ושלושים לאנגליה והם כולם בלי יוצא מן הכלל שומרי תורה ומצות

    דרך אגב על דבר לבישת בגדי הגלחים יעיין בצואת הרב משאץ אודות jews college ששם מדבר על דבר הנ״ל

    1. I’m just wondering why you wrote this frankly bizarre comment in Hebrew (or “Hebrew”) when you clearly translated it in your head from your own English (or Yiddish, very likely), you’re clearly not a native Hebrew speaker, and this is an English language blog. That’s before I begin to address the howlers therein.

      I also wonder how someone with such poor English can present himself as an expert in English Jewish history.

      Just for the record, the Hebrew word for “priests” is כומרים and the Hebrew word for Hungary is הונגריה. (Yes, I know what “הגר” is. You wouldn’t call Russia ” כנען”, would you?)

      Oh, and the Chatam Sofer wasn’t Hungarian, but that’s another story.

    2. יש לי חדשות בשבילך

      הסבא רבא שלי היגר לעיירה מסוימת בהונגריה, והצטרף לקהלת האורתודוכסים שמה. פעם עשה הראש הקהל של האורתודוכסים ברית לנכדו ואמר להמוהל “אתה יכול לברך ולצפצף, אבל אל תעז לחתוך משהו. אני לא רוצה שיהיה לנכדי מילה”. ולכן עזב הסבא רבא את הקהלה והתחיל להתפלל בה’קלויז’. הקהלות האורתודוכסיות היו מקבלות אנשים שנשותיהם לא כיסו שערותיהן והרבה יותר.
      אל תשלה את עצמך

  20. I would think most of the discussion misses the point.

    Yeshiva students should never use either Artscroll or Soncino, for reasons discussed here.

    The point of these translations are a different audience entirely. It’s for 1) tired baal habatim who come home from a long day’s work too tired for anything beyond having some gemara spoonfed to them, and 2) baalei t’shuva or others who have never had a yeshiva education and aren’t going enrol now.

    In sum, they’re not for teaching people how to learn gemara. They’re for specific Gemaras to people who can’t learn them themselves, for whatever reason.

    Therefore, the comparison of one vs the other has to be in terms of how they meet the need which they were intended to meet.

    1. I thought the point here was that the Soncino translation is much simpler, or more basic, than Artscroll. And considering that no yeshiva student today is a native Aramaic speaker and no yeshiva offers courses in Aramaic, certainly not in lower elementary levels (YU has it in their catalog and actually has a professor capable of teaching it, but I think it’s never actually offered), what should they do? Learn the language by learning Gemara? Use a Jastrow for every word? Or use a simple Soncino or Steinsaltz type translation?

    2. “having some gemara spoonfed to them”
      I’ve heard this line hundreds of times in my life, and it makes no sense to me. Setting aside whether learning should be easy or hard (what’s the groise maaleh of learning being hard, anyway? Is there a maaleh to learning a hard masechta over an easy one? Or certain commentators who write in more difficult language than easier ones?), the implication that learning Gemara with Artscroll is really easy (comparable to being spoonfed) is a major exaggeration of its incredible contribution. Certain easy passages surely are easy with Artscroll; agreed. But there are innumerable extremely complicated passages that are far from easy even with Artscroll (I sometimes find them easier to understand without the Artscroll actually). Maybe people mean to say that with Artscroll its easy to fool yourself into thinking that you understand the Gemara easily, but that’s not the same as being spoonfed.

      1. Shlomo, I would say it’s the difference between understanding the words of the Gemara yourself, vs. having somebody else explain it you. Frankly, I don’t see the difference between using an Artscroll, listening to a daf yomi shiur (a good one), and using a “Mesivta” gemara. In all cases, you are getting the Gemara explained to you, instead of understanding yourself. Is there a ma’ala to understanding the gemara yourself? I would say there is a great ma’ala. And I would venture that most people who have done so at some point in their lives would agree.

        1. My point is that very often the Gemara is difficult enough that even when it is being explained it cannot be understood without significant effort on the part of the reader, whether in a shiur or through Artscroll or Mesivta. Essentially a lot of shas is tough enough that it is impossible for it to be really spoonfed.

          By the way, the Meiri or Ritva at times make the Gemara easier to understand than Rashi does (by providing certain background and technical points that Rashi ignores). Is there a maaleh to learning the Gemara only with Rashi rather than those Rishonim because they make it too “easy?” (Obviously, you can gain other points from learning those Rishonim and shouldn’t neglect them, I mean learning the Gemara initially). For that matter, is there a maaleh in learning the Gemara initially without Rashi?

          1. See R. Nosson Scherman in “The ArtScroll Revolution: 5TJT Interviews Rabbi Nosson Scherman”(12/3/09), available online, on great people who use the ArtScroll Gemara:

            “Rav Elyashiv goes through the ha’aros in the Hebrew edition when he is learning on his own to see if he missed anything and to jog his memory. He is not ashamed of it. He even keeps it on his desk. Rav Shteinman says a shiur in the Yerushalmi. He is saying his shiur on Yerushalmi from the ArtScroll Gemara itself.”

          2. I’m not talking about using Artscroll or different sources as references, to understand pshat in the Gemara. I don’t mean to make the Gemara needlessly hard. So sure, using the Meiri, Ritva, Artscroll, whatever, doesn’t necessarily make one have a deficient understanding. I’m talking about going through the Gemara straight with the Artscroll. I believe someone who does that is going to have a fundamentally deficient understanding, compared to one who goes through the Gemara himself.

            Here’s my mashal for how I view it. Some math textbooks are particularly well-written and easy to understand. So you can go through the whole thing, chapter by chapter, and convince yourself that you learned some math. But if you didn’t go through the problems yourself, with a pencil and paper, you haven’t really learned it.

            So too with Gemara. If you just read through Artscroll, you haven’t “done the problems”. You just had somebody explain everything to you, and that’s it. But if you sweat through each line trying to understand yourself what the Gemara says, what it’s asking, what it’s answering, what it’s addressing, who is saying what, what does he mean, what does Rashi mean, then you have “done the problems”. Your understanding is fundamentally different. Even if you sometimes do look up different sources, including Artscroll.

            As for initially learning through a sugya without Rashi, I actually do that, and some of my rebbeim recommended it. And the ones who were against it held that for whatever reason, it’s impossible to understand Gemara without the aid of Rishonim, so don’t even try.

            1. Basically you just mean (I think) that after reading the Artscroll you should read the Gemara yourself afterward (similar to doing the math problems). If so, I have no argument with that view.

              Whatever your rabbeim hold about learning the Gemara without Rashi (for some reason that feels chafetz chaimdik, but I could be totally wrong about that), it is far from a widespread view that there’s any maaleh in trying to do so.

              1. Yes, if you use Artscroll as a complement to your overall learning, nothing wrong with that. It’s possible to learn seriously with Artscroll, or to learn non-seriously from a regular gemara. Just in practice, that’s not usually what happens with Artscroll, at least from my observation.

                About learning without Rashi, I agree it’s definitely not the mainstream approach.

      2. Two things.

        1) if you work though it yourself you get a better understanding and also a better memory for what you’ve learned than if you read it from someone who broke it down and “spoondfed” it to you.

        2) if you work through it yourself, then in addition to understanding the specific sugya that you’re learning, you also gain an increased ability to learn future sugyos with less assistance. You don’t get that nearly to the same extent if you’re reading a version which explains it all for you. (This is why it’s of particular importance that yeshiva guys don’t use such gemaras.)

  21. מר נחום
    א מה נשאר נכדי הרב הרצוג היה מתקבלים בקהילות חרדית בארץ הגר כן או לא

    ב כמה מהרבנים שכתבו בסוציאנו שלחו בניהם לישיבות ונשיהם הלכו בכיסוי ראש ואם ידוע לך שמותם נא לכתוב לי

    ג אם רצונו בחיבורי על רבני אנגליא בלשון הקודש נא להודיע לי האדרעס ואשלח לו על הדואר בלי נדר

    אני משתדל לכתוב לשון הקודש ולא הלשון איווריט כמו שאמר הגה״ק רבי שימעלע זעליחובער הי״ד שמצאנו כל לשון יש ההגיון של אותו אומה כגון אשכנז רציחה צרפת תאוה אנגליה שקר פולין גאווה לכן ההגיון של מדברי איוריט הוא נהיה ככל הגוים בית ישראל נמצא שהאי לשון כולל אפי. ההגיון של עם היאפני עכ״ל על הגה״ק הנ״ל יש חיבור בשם נהרי אש שהו״ל מו״ר עמוד האמת והאמונה הרב ירחמיאל ישראל יצחק דאמב ז״ל

    1. 1. Thank you (publicly!) for the nicely produced and interesting booklet “Otzar Rabbanei Britannia” which you were kind enough to send me. The ‘michtavim’ are interesting, too. Slowly, the existence of a network of traditional Rabbanim in the UK is coming to light – some, isolated individuals in unlikely places (eg Grimsby!), largely ignored by the ‘ standard Anglo-Jewish historians. (What was the deviation from minhag in Liverpool which so alarmed R’Unterman?)

      2. Leaving aside the other attributions of linguistic character, is the English language (of Shakespeare, Churchill, Dickens and even the King James Bible r”l) really a language of “sheker”???? I have never heard that, nor thought it.

      3. I think you are unfair to the Soncino scholars. I don’t know the family details of all of them, but those, that I do know something about (rabbi Epstein, rabbi Cashdan, and others) were fine, honest, upstanding men. They devoted their lives to spreading Yiddishkeit in incredibly difficult circumstances. The same can be said of many of the “Reverends” whom you are so negative about. Firstly, some (especially in earlier years), were ‘Reverends’ because of C R Adler’edict forbidding the use of the term ‘Rabbi’. The most obvious example is ‘Rev. Simeon Singer’, he of the ‘Singer’s Prayer Book’, who had Eastern European Semichot, but never used them. Similarly some of the Dayanim of the Adler Beth Din. Secondly, there were no real opportunities for learning semichah in the UK. Thirdly, the achievements of some of the ‘Reverends’ in the post-war years in the London suburbs were considerable -Rev Hardman in Henson, Rev Amias in Edgware, Rev Black in Ilford, and of course the ultra-Anglo Rev Livingstone in Golders Green. None were, or claimed to be, great Rabbinic scholars – but all commanded the respect and great affection of thousand of Jewish families most of whom were children and grandchildren of the Jewish East End, and most of whom had been completely cut off from Jewish life either through service in the Armed Forces during the war, or through compulsory evacuation.

      As was once said – you cannot blame the Isle of Wight (an island off the UK South Coast!) for not being Australia!!!

      1. ” is the English language (of Shakespeare, Churchill, Dickens and even the King James Bible r”l) really a language of “sheker”????”

        I think the point was that the language somehow contains elements of the nation’s culture, so the British people are a people of sheker, as the Germans are a people of retzicha and the French a people of taava.

      2. Forgive my pedantry, but Simeon Singer was ordained by the Moravian-born Isaac Hirsh Weiss, author of the seminal and highly influential work, Dor Dor VeDorshav. I believe that Singer wrote an appreciation of Weiss in one of his books. Rabbi Weiss was was a great scholar but was very contreversial for many in the orthodox community.

    2. You’re a very strange man. You wrote posts in a bizarre form of “English” under the name “Moishe Kennedy” and now you’re writing in a bizarre form of “Hebrew” under the name “Maurice Kennedy.” “Kennedy” is, of course, an Irish name.

      And it’s kind of funny that you refuse to use the word “כתובת” for “address” (presumably because it’s too modern or some nonsense- of course, the word for email address usually used in Israel is מייל), but you write “address” in Hebrew letters instead, all the while claiming that you don’t want to write in English.

      There’s something strange going on here.

      Oh, and it’s kind of bizarre that you’d claim that Modern Hebrew indicates a desire to be like all nations when, um, Israel is the only country in the world that speaks Hebrew.

      By they way, why should I care whether Rav Herzog’s descendants would be accepted in charedi communities in Hungary? They’re Dati Leumi Jews living in Israel, just like me. You do know that not every religious Jew is charedi, right? Not even the Chatam Sofer was, as he lived before charedism was even invented.

    3. אכן נודע הדבר!

      אתה מביא משיטותיו המפורסמות של מוכר הצלמים של לונדון
      הוא הגבר אשר חרת על דגלו את בזיון תלמידי חכמים כשיטה ביהדות, וכל המבזה תלמידי חכמים ביותר, הרי זה משובח

      לדעתי, כל שמתרגמי הסונצינו לא מכרו צלמים, הרי הם חרדים.

  22. מר נחום

    אני חוקר תולדות הרבנים שהיה כאן באנגליא משנת תר״מ עד שנת ת״ש והרבה מהרבנים הבנים לא הלכו בדרכם למשל הרב הרצוג הבן חיים לא הלך בכלל בדרך אביו יעקב כן הלך נו חמישים אחוז הצלחה אבל אצל הנכדים אם שומרים תורה ומצות והנשים הולכים בצניעות והבנים הולכים לישיבות אזי זה הצלחה לא משנה אם זה מזרחי או לא למשל אני רוצה לדעת מה קרה להבנים של אלו שתרגמו הש״ס לאנגלית איך נראה הבנים והנכדים

    אפי הכופר בן גוריון שר״י אמר שאם הנביאים היה נכנסים לכנסת המינים הם לא הי מבינים מה מדברים כך אומרים

    לענ״ד רצונו של הנהגה רוחנית של היהדות האנגלי לפני מאה וחמישים שנה היה להשכיח שפת האידיש מהצעירים ולדבר ענגליש ועל ידי כך יהא English man ואחד מן הדרכים היה לתרגם השס לענגליש שיכולים ללמוד שס בענגליש ולא אידיש ולא יהא להבנים שייכות להאבות שרק דיברו אידיש כמו שאמר לי נכדה של הרב פרבר מחבר הרבה ספרים שהוא לא היתה יכולה לדבר עם זקנה כי הוא רק ידע אידיש והיא רק ידעה אנגליש וזה גורם לנתק מהזקנים לבנים וזה גורם לקלקול גדול והחדר הראשון כאן בסטאמפורד הילל יסודי התורה שנתיסד באמצע המלחמה על ידי הרבי משאץ והרב ראבינוביץ היה קפידה שהלימודי קודש יהא רק באידיש מחמת טעם זה כמובן איני אומר קבלו דעתי אבל זה מחשבה ואשמח לשמוע דעת הקוראים הנכבדים והחשובים

    1. 1. To my certain, personal knowledge the late Chaim Herzog – who studied in Hebron Yeshivah btw – kept kosher and attended shul regularly. He also was extremely reverent of his father’s memory, and was instrumental in publishing his seforim in the 1980’s.
      2. To describe Yaakov Herzog as following in his father’s derekh “50%” is an appalling insult to an outstanding Talmud Chacham and Rav, whom only illness prevented from taking up the post of UK Chief Rabbi.
      Mr. Kennedy: speaking Yiddish is not a guarantee of righteousness. Secular, anti-religious Yiddish culture thrived in Poland and in the East End of London. The “heim” from which the British, American, South African and, yes, Israeli Jews came was far less observant or learned than the rose-coloured retrospective view beloved by, apparently, you and others. European Jewish history is much, much more complex – and less frum. If our ancestors were such tsaddikim – how do you account for Sabbateanism ? Or, worse, Frankism? I don’t understand why you are so obsessed with the saintly Rav Herzog, when you might be concerned with the families of others, much much closer to N16; out of politeness and respect I won’t name names! Enough of this. We are still in the period when the ledger is open and our deeds and fate are in the balance. Gmar tov!

      1. In fairness, I think that by “50%” he meant that 50% of R’ Herzog’s sons turned out OK. Not that that makes things much better.

        Let’s see:

        Adam HaRishon: 66% of those we know OK, maybe 33%.

        Noach: 66% OK tops.

        Avraham Avinu: We don’t know much about the Bnei Keturah. What’s left, 50%.

        Yitzchak: 50%.

        Yaakov: 10 of 12 sons did something very, very bad. And some of those did worse.

        Aharon: 50%, maybe better.

        Moshe: See above. Moshe Rabbenu!

        David, Shlomo, Chizkiyahu: Yeah. You should learn Tanach.

        I could go on.

    2. עכשיו אתה נכנס להכוונות של המתרגמים של ש”ס סונצינו, ללא שום מקור או ראיה. אתה החלטת כן, ונגמר!
      לא זו הדרך ולא זו העיר.
      נכון, ר’ אלחנן אמר שהרעווערענדס גורמים חרבן לדת, וכן היה באמת. ולכן כל אשר בשם רעווערענד יכונה הוא חרבן הדת? האם ההבדל אינו מובן מאליו?

      יעצט קריכסטו אריין אין די כוונה פון די דאלמעטשערס פון די סונצינו ש”ס, אן קיין שום דעקונג. דו האסט מחליט געווען אזוי, וחסל!

      אנטשולדיגט, אבער לא זו הדרך ולא זו העיר.
      יא, ר’ אלחנן האט געזאגט אז די רעווערענדס זענען א חרבן הדת. און דאס איז ריכטיג. דאס מיינט ען אז יעדער אשר בשם רעווערענד יכונה איז א חרבן?! קענסט נישט פארשטיין אליינס?!

      You are now entering the mindset of the translators of the Socnino Shas, with no backing at all. You decided so, and that’s it!

      That is no way to decide things.
      Yes, Reb Elchonon said that the Reverends cause a disaster for our religion. Does that mean that everyone with the name Reverend is a disaster?! Is the folly not self-understood?

  23. See also the first footnote in David Assaf’s essay on Moshe, the sad son of the Alte Rebbe, which has a long list of sons of Gedolim who went “off the derech”. I am afraid mr. Kennedy has a fundamental misconception. Parents are not responsible for their children’s lifestyle, religious or ideological choices. Sometimes you can identify extreme parental behavior which fairly obviously causes a reaction – but by no means always. Children grow up and make their own choices, of which you might be sympathetic or not. It is also counterproductive to set impossible standards for kids to live up to; this is known as the “Fallacy of the Artscroll Biographies”. (“I”ll never be able to live up to that so why should I even try???”)

    1. Not to mention the circumstances of the times. Every gadol in the nineteenth century knew that all of Mendelssohn’s descendants had eventually converted, and yet not a single one- even the ones who were very opposed to Mendelssohn- held that against him or even brought it up, because they knew full well what was going on at the time and that אין בית אשר אין שם מת (and “There but for the Grace of God…”).

      Only people who live in a very self-assured bubble can make claims like this.

      And this is not to mention that, of course, lots of the kids of these people stayed firmly on the derech. Maybe not Mr. Kennedy’s derech, but that can’t be helped.

  24. This tangential discussion about Anglo-Jewish clergy – the ‘Revs’ and the ‘Robs’ – has just serendipitously been immensely enriched by the publication of a massive compendium of UK Chazanim, ministers and rabbis! This is an extraordinary work by a London physician and eminent Anglo-Jewish researcher and historian, Dr Michael Jolles. It is available to download free of charge – an act of great generosity. Details are here – BUT before you email the link and request your copy, note that the correct email link is jollesencyclopaedia@cantors.eu ,and not as listed. There is a whole section which discusses the issue of Rabbinic/Ministerial titles. See: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1787947124835490/?hoisted_section_header_type=recently_seen&multi_permalinks=2637605193203008

    Enjoy!

  25. If Mr Kennedy has indeed written a book I pray it is not in Hebrew, but the English he despises so much, as his atrocious Hebrew is excruciating to read.

    The concepts he writes are far more disturbing and bespeak a sneering derision that some Charedim have for those who aren’t Charedi like them.

    He conveniently ignores the great Charedi Gedolim who didn’t produce sons quite like them. Rav Shach for one!

    He also gets terribly excited by the term Reverend, ignoring that this is the unfortunate epithetic on Rav Leyzer Gordon’s Kever when he died during his London trip, his only crime being that he wasn’t the Chief Rabbi.

  26. ידידיי היקרים א. גיט אין געזונטע ווינטער וזה לשון הגה״ק רבי אלחנן וואסערמאן הי״ד אודות המצב באנגליא ״כי הקריזוס שורר גם באנגליא,וביותר הקריזוס הרוחני הגרוע הרבה מהגשמי.כי מנהגי הדור שם באנגליא הם הרעווערענדס והן ברובן עמי הארץ השונאים את התורה ולומדיה ונשותיהן יותר מהן והרבנים שמה הם שמשים כפופים תחת ידי הפרעזידענטען וכל המיצר לישראל נעשה פרעזידענט עכ״ל הגאון הקדוש הי״ד המכתב נכתב להעסקן הרב חיים ישראל אייז ז״ל מציריך ונדפס בספר מאמרים ומכתבים מאת הגאון הקדוש הנ״ל הי״ד עמוד קפ

    1. R’ Elchanan also refused to speak at Yeshivat R’ Yitzchak Elchanan when he visited New York because he felt (or, more likely, he was told) that they weren’t frum.

      Great as he was, he’s not exactly the authority to refer to when discussing the frumkeit or lack thereof of other communities.

      1. You added your own explanation to why he refused to speak there. He said that he doesn’t think the Yeshiva is אויסגעהאלטן. Which does not mean it is not frum.
        He believed that a Yeshiva should not be a college. I think he is entitled to his opinion.

          1. The idea of אויסגעהאלטן is subjective, it is a matter of opinion.
            If he would have said, like you quote, that it’s not frum, he would not be telling the truth. But he believed that the system of YU was wrong, and as a man of integrity, he refused to say a Shiur there.
            I don’t see how that is unacceptable.

            If you want a discussion about the idea of a Yeshiva with a college, about mixing limudei chol with limudei kodesh, by all means. But until Eliyahu Hanavi comes, we will not have a definitive binding answer.

  27. הפוסט האחרון כתבתי לע”נ מו”ר הרב הגה”צ הרב ברוך זאלצמן זצ”ל הרב דקהל יראים אילפורד אשר אהב את הבריות וקירבן לתורה ויראת שמים והעמיד תלמידים לאלפים בת”ת יסודי התורה בלונדון היה תלמיד הגה”צ הרב אליהו לופיאן זצ”ל בישיבת עץ חיים ור’ אלייהו בקש שהוא יהא הגבאי של הגה”ק רבי אלחנן וואסערמן הי”ד כשביקור בעיר לונדון ורבי אלחנן אמר עליו פלא והפלא כזה אתרוג גדל במדינות הקרות כמו אנגליה היא”צ הוא היום זי”ע

  28. Thanks, everyone, for all the great feedback, I appreciate it. Thinking it over, especially in light of all the comments, it might be interesting to write a similar review, again via the device of contrasting Soncino with Artscroll, only this time with תורה שבכתב, rather than תורה שבעל פה – the Bible translations, in other words. Both publishing houses have translated all 24 books. How do they fare, one compared with the other? I think this would make an equally interesting article – for someone else to write.

    In that regard, permit me here to note the recent passing of R. Avrohom Yosef (AJ) Rosenberg z”l, who died in August of this year. R. Rosenberg was a giant in the field, who translated both Biblical books for Soncino, and Mishnayos for Artscroll. Such versatility requires enormous erudition and skill. He might be best known for the Judaica Press Tanach, the “Red Books” which for many years were, and may still be for many, among the most popular of all Bible translations. I recall searching years ago for more information about this man but being unable to find much, so humble and self-effacing he was. Through his many works, he taught Torah to many tens of thousands. יהי זכרו ברוך

    1. I mentioned this above, but I think this is a chronology:

      1. Soncino re-published R’ Hertz’s Pentateuch. The first edition had been published by Macmillan, in five volumes. It was not a success, and Soncino made some non-content related changes and it became a huge, decades-long hit. The translation was the (old) JPS translation; R’ Hertz and his editors were responsible for the commentary and essays.

      2. Soncino then published the rest of Tanach in thirteen volumes. Like R’ Hertz’s Chumash, commentaries came from varied sources.

      3. Then Soncino published their own Chumash, to go with their set. (Although the first edition was actually a larger volume than the others, between R’ Hertz’s Pentateuch and the much smaller Nach volumes. Later editions were the same size.) This had only “traditional” commentaries, as Soncino explained in their introduction, so as not to duplicate R’ Hertz’s work. Again, the translations were all the old JPS.

      3. Many years later, Soncino completely revised their Nach to remove all “non-traditional” commentaries, explaining in the introduction that modern Jews were now frum enough that they “didn’t want” (or Soncino dictated that they didn’t want or need) all that “modern” stuff. The Chumash wasn’t touched, or maybe only lightly, as it was all “traditional” all along. (Soncino kept and keeps publishing Hertz, unchanged.) The translation stayed old JPS. This is the Tanach Soncino sells to this day.

      The revised Nach (and maybe Chumash) was the work of AJ Rosenberg. I believe he had already started his “red” series from Judaica Press by that point. At around this time Soncino came under Judaica Press’ marketing (I don’t think it is anymore), so maybe that had an influence. I’m not sure how similar or different Rosenberg’s Judaica Press and Soncino Nachs were- I know the former translated every word of Rashi. The translation in the Judaica Press volumes actually looks like King James, or maybe one of the Jewish adaptations of the same from the 1800’s. (King James was the source of every Jewish Tanach translation until the new JPS in the 1960’s, including the old JPS.)

      Rosenberg eventually finished Nach for Judaica Press too. He started the Chumash but I think only every published Bereishit and Shemot. But the Chabad website (I think) has the whole set, including the whole Chumash, so it seems he did finish all 24 books but just didn’t print some.

      By the way, Soncino at one point made a CD-ROM that included their Talmud, Zohar, and Midrash Rabbah. Interestingly, while they included the text of Tanach, they didn’t include any of their commentaries, old or new.

  29. ר. נחום

    קשה להגיד על ר׳ אלחנן שהיה כאן באנגליא חצי שנה והגיע עד גלאזגוי שבסקוטלאנד( כי היה לו גיס הרב דשם ויסד שם ישיבה )שלא הכיר המצב היהדות מדינתנו רק הסתמך מה שאחרים אומרו

    מספרים שרבי אלחנן הקפיד לקרוא כל יום בבוקר עיתון כדי
    לדעת מה קורה בעולם הוא גם כתב מאמרים בעיתונים של אותו תקופה

    הפלא הוא איך הוא כתב הלשון על נשות הרעורענדס ששונאים התורה יותר מבעליהן מנא ידע זאת

  30. Yasher kochacha to Rabbi David Farkas for this article. There are a few errors. Just to mention one. Rabbi Arnold Mishcon is not mentioned among the contributors. He translated the early part of Avodah Zarah. I assume he did not complete it on account of illness or his death in 1935.
    There are obviously several differences between the Soncino contributors and the Art Scroll contributors.
    An obvious one is that all or almost all the Soncino contributors had university degrees.
    Another is that most of the Soncino translators were full-time community rabbis and ministers and were translating for Soncino in their spare time.
    While the Soncino contributors were orthodox and many worked in kehillot where they were among the very few shomrei mitzvot, there maybe an occasional exception. Is the Philip Cohen mentioned the same Philip Cohen who was Minister of the Central Synagogue before WW2 and then a non-orthodox minister after WW2? If so, he would have been orthodox at the time of his work with Soncino.
    The Soncino Talmud translators made use of the translation into German by Lazarus Goldschmidt, whose shemirat hamitzvot was far from the Slabodka of his youth. In doing so, they were willing to learn from anyone with knowledge, much the same as Rav Meir learned from Acher.
    The Soncino Books of the Bible were likewise the work of orthodox rabbis and scholars with at least one noticeable exception. Victor Reichert was the commentator on Job and on Ecclesiastes (Kohelet), although the editor, Rev Dr Abraham Cohen, made extensive changes to the later.
    Rabbi / Mr Yehudah / Eli Cashdan (Cohanim Sheluchei D’rachamana Ninhu / Cohanim Sheluchei Didan Ninhu) related how, when he was learning for the Bar – presumably in the mid or late 1920s, he gave over to his father a detailed legal analysis from one of the judges of the time, and his father responded that this was so wonderful – like a complicated Tosafos. There is no way an Art Scroll Talmud commentator would relate such an experience.

  31. ר. מאיר

    דרך אגב האם ידוע לך יותר פרטים על חיי הרב משכון שהיה הרב בריקסטון

    בברכת תודה רבה ושבוע טוב
    מחבר ספר שם הגדולים לחכמי אנגליא

  32. My formal Jewish education was in the 1950s at a Sunday School run by a Conservative Suburban Jewish Center. We did not learn how to read Hebrew, and in fact we never heard the word “Talmud”. Today when I study Talmud Bavli by myself I use Artscroll Hebrew/English because of the super-commentary. However, when I study in a group with three Yeshiva educated “advanced” rabbis I use the Soncino Hebrew/English Babylonian Talmud, while my study mates use respectively Artscroll Hebrew/English, Steinsaltz Hebrew/English, and a modern Hebrew only “enhanced” Vilna shas. I am able to hold my own, especially because of the Rashi glosses and extra references that Soncino gives at the bottom of each page. Frequently found for a $1.00 a volume in used book stores, the Soncino Hebrew/English Talmud has to be the best Jewish book bargain around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *