Rosh Hashana 23b – The Missing Map – Were We Deprived of a Map Drawn by Rashi?

Eli Genauer

The Mishnah on Rosh Hashana 22b discusses the signal fires which were lit to inform the residents of Bavel of the Kiddush HaChodesh in Yerushalayim.

מַתְנִי׳: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מַשִּׂיאִין מַשּׂוּאוֹת…..

MISHNAH: Initially, after the court sanctified the new month they would light torches on the mountaintops, from one peak to another, to signal to the community in Babylonia that the month had been sanctified.[1]

The Mishnah continues

וּמֵאַיִן הָיוּ מַשִּׂיאִין מַשּׂוּאוֹת?

And from which mountains would they light the torches?

מֵֵהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה לְסַרְטְבָא וּמִסַּרְטְבָא לִגְרוֹפִינָא וּמִגְּרוֹפִינָא לְחַוְורָן וּמֵחַוְורָן לְבֵית בִּלְתִּיןִ..…

The Daf Yomi Advancement Forum provides us details of the places mentioned.[2]

From HAR HA’MISHCHAH- the Mount of Olives (to the east of the Old City of Yerushalayim)

To SARTAVA- a mountain in the Jordan valley

To GEROFINA- most probably a tower or rise heightened by Agrippa II near Ceasarea Philippi (modern-day Banias in northern Eretz Yisrael)

To CHAVRAN- Auran, a mountain located in the area of Aurantis east of the Jordan River

To Bait Baltin, which will be discussed on 23a and b. It is identified as BIRAM, a city on the border of Eretz Yisrael and Bavel

The Gemara 23a (on the bottom) and 23b (on the top) continues (Davidson Talmud):

וּמֵאַיִן הָיוּ מַשִּׂיאִין מַשּׂוּאוֹת כוּ׳ וּמִבֵּית בִּלְתִּין, מַאי בֵּית בִּלְתִּין? אָמַר רַב זוֹ בֵּירָם

What is this place called Beit Baltin? Rav said: This is the town called Biram.

The Gemara continues

תַּנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר אַף חָרִים וּכְיָיר וּגְדֹר וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי הֲווֹ קָיְימִי אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לְהָךְ גִּיסָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲווֹ קָיְימִי מָר חָשֵׁיב דְּהַאי גִּיסָא וּמָר חָשֵׁיב דְּהַאי גִּיסָא

It is taught in a Baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Torches were also lit at Ḥarim, and Kayar and Geder, and its neighboring places. There are those who say that the places added by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar are located between the places mentioned in the Mishnah, whereas there are those who say that they are located on the other side of Eretz Yisrael, on the side nearer Babylonia. The Sage in the Mishnah enumerates the places found on one side of Eretz Yisrael, whereas the Sage in the Baraita enumerates the places found on the other side.

Rashi comments on the relationship of Eretz Yisroel to Bavel[3]

באידך גיסא – של א“י לצד בבל, שני צדדים של א“י נמשכין לצד בבל:

On one side – of Eretz Yisroel towards Bavel. There are two sides of Eretz Yisroel which extend to Bavel

The language of Rashi is a bit unclear. It would be helpful if he included a map so we could visualize it better. As you can see, there is no map included in the authoritative text of the Vilna Shas.

A missing map of Eretz Yisroel and Bavel

The first printed edition of Massechet Rosh Hashana was done by the Soncino family in Pesaro, Italy circa 1511.

It shows the two sides of Eretz Yisroel as it extends towards Bavel, with the places in the Mishnah listed in order on the top side, and the places listed in the Baraita on the bottom side. The map most correctly should have been placed underneath the Rashi which begins with the words באידך גיסא.

https://digitalcollections.jtsa.edu/islandora/object/jts%3A395714#page/59/mode/1up

What the map shows is the stretch of land which extended all the way from Eretz Yisroel to Bavel, and that there were two routes to get there.[4] The places named are different because the Tanna of the Mishna discusses the route on one side of Eretz Yisroel, and the Tanna of the Baraita discusses another route. Please note that even though it seems on the map that Bavel is to the west of Eretz Yisroel, this is only a convention of modern maps.[5] Clearly Rashi knew that Bavel was to the east as Eretz Yisroel was known as Ma’arava.

The first complete edition of the Talmud printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice (c.1520-1523) retained the space for the diagram but left it blank.[6] This was carried through in his later printing of Rosh HaShana.

https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21208&st=&pgnum=47

The Giustiani edition (Venice 1548) also left a blank space

The space disappeared from the next printed edition, that of Basel 1579.

https://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/zoom/22850827

 

It reappeared in an edition printed in Cracow in 1603, and it was now in the right place.

The next complete edition of the Talmud was printed in Amsterdam by Immanuel Benveniste (c.1644-1648). It did not contain a space, this despite its claim that it was patterned after the Giustiani edition of 1548.

The map (or an empty space) did not appear in the influential Amsterdam edition of 1717 and that most likely doomed it to oblivion in the printed Gemarot which followed[7].

Dr. Aharon Ahrend (“Rashi’s Commentary on Tractate Rosh Hashana: A Critical Edition,” Bialik Institute Jerusalem 2014) lists a number of manuscripts as his sources (3 complete, many partial) and does not indicate that this map is in any of them.[8]  The Pesaro edition is the only one with this map. (p.218, last line”, במקור ״מ״ נוסף followed by a reproduction of the map- מקור ״מ״ is Pesaro).

The conclusion one might reach is that since no other manuscript contained this map, the manuscript on which the Pesaro edition was based had this map added by someone after Rashi’s time, perhaps in the margin to help the reader understand Rashi.

Is The Pesaro Edition of Masechet Rosh HaShana the Only Source For This Map?

Let us turn to the commentary of the Malechet Shlomo on Rosh Hashana. This commentary was first introduced in a new edition of Mishnayot printed by the Romm printers in Vilna. The Romm printers explain how they were able to access this heretofore unpublished manuscript which was found among the papers of the Chida.

The author of the Malechet Shlomo was Rav Shlomo HaAdani (1567, Saana, Yemen-1625 Chevron, Eretz Yisroel) who wrote this commentary while he was in Chevron. He states that his two main teachers were Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi (the author of Shita Mekubetzet) and Rav Chaim Vital.

In this first printed edition of his commentary on our Mishna in Rosh Hashana we find a map very similar to the one in the Pesaro edition, only it is missing the cities on the top listed in the Mishna.[9] (Possibly because his “Kazeh” applies only to the cities on the other side of Eretz Yisroel and not the ones mentioned in the Mishnah).

This is the Ktav Yad of Rav Shlomo HaAdani from his commentary on Rosh Hashana:

Library of the Emanuel Ringelblum Jewish Historical Institute Warsaw Poland Ms. 267

We mentioned that Rav Shlomo HaAdani was a Talmid of Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi. In his own copy of Rosh Hashana ( Bomberg Venice 1521) Rav Betzalel added many notes. Here is what 23b looks like in his Gemara:

The Russian State Library, Moscow, Russia Ms. Guenzburg 816

https://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/digitallibrary/pages/viewer.aspx?&presentorid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990001466800205171-1#|FL77457080

You can see that he drew in some sort of map in the empty space.

On the top of that same page, we find another map which he drew. The words on the top left are כל זה בספר יד.ⁱ[10] The Vilna Shas in its Acharit Davar says that he would do that quite often.

The Bach also drew in his Gemara, a Bomberg Rosh Hashana of 1531. The National Library of Israel owns a Gemara which was copied from the personal copy of the Bach.

The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel Ms. Heb. 24°174

Paleographic Note

אין זה אוטוגרף המחבר, ככל הנראה הועתק מהש“ס שלו

Here is how it looks

https://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/digitallibrary/pages/viewer.aspx?&presentorid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990044116070205171-1#|FL78289377=

There seems to have been a concerted attempt in the 1500’s and 1600’s to retain some sort of map in the Rashi. Whether it appeared in the “original Rashi” we will likely never know.

[1] Sefaria, the William Davidson Talmud, English translation of Rav Steinsaltz, here.
[2] There are many other opinions as to where these places were.
[3] The Girsa in the Dibur HaMatchil in Rashi is slightly different than in the text of our Gemara.
[4] Rashi seems to indicate that Pumpedita (alternatively Nehardea) could be seen from the border of Eretz Yisroel whereas the Meiri indicates that once the fires got to the Israel/Bavel border, they were relayed from mountain to mountain in Bavel until Pumpedita.
[5] Please see Marc Shapiro’s article on map orientation which recently ran on the Seforim Blog here.

Interview with Rabbi Moshe Maimon About his Edition of R. Avraham b. HaRambam’s Peirush on Chumash

By Eliezer Brodt

Last year I wrote:

The second volume of R. Avraham b. HaRambam’s peirush on Chumash Shemot was released (832 pp.). This new edition was edited by Rabbi Moshe Maimon and was published in a beautiful edition by Machon Aleh Zayis. Last year, Rabbi Maimon published the first volume (678 pp.) I hope to publish very shortly, on the Seforim Blog, an interview with the author where he describes in greater depth his work on R. Avraham b. HaRambam, and his new edition of the Peirush.

The following interview with Rabbi Maimon is the fulfillment of the that promise.  I would like to note that from time to time, I hope to include interviews of this nature with authors and publishers of books on the Seforim Blog.

A few weeks ago, the second slightly updated version of R. Avraham b. HaRambam’s Peirush on Chumash Bereishis was published. [If you want a PDF of the updates, email me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.co]

Eliezer: Rabbi Maimon, can you briefly tell us a bit about yourself?

Rabbi Maimon : I was born in Monsey to a rabbinic family with Turkish-Sephardic roots that claims ancestry to the Rambam. After marriage to my wife Dena (nee Elbaz) of Cleveland OH, I settled in Lakewood where I learned and taught in BMG for many years. I currently reside with my wife and children in Jackson NJ, which may be the fastest growing Jewish community outside of Lakewood. I’m employed as the eleventh grade Rebbi in Yeshiva High School of Monsey, NY.  Being a lifelong bibliophile drew me into professions such as teaching Holocaust and Jewish history classes in different yeshivahs, and consulting auction houses on antique sefarim and manuscripts. I also spend many hours a week editing and publishing various of works of Torah scholarship.

Eliezer: Can you give readers a brief profile of R. Avraham b. HaRambam?

Rabbi Maimon: Rabbenu Avraham was the Rambam’s only son, and the Rambam took great pride in him, extolling his virtues and predicting that one day R. Avraham would take his place among the Torah greats of the nation. R. Avraham was only 19 years old when his father passed away, yet his father’s careful tutelage had already prepared him to assume the Rambam’s mantle of leadership. He was immediately recognized as his father’s able successor in every endeavor – including holding the position of senior physician to the Sultan. By the time of his untimely passing at the age of 51, R. Avraham had left behind a number of original works, as well as various works dedicated to elucidating his father’s legacy.

Eliezer: What makes this peirush unique?

Rabbi Maimon: The Rambam wrote many works, covering all aspects of Torah sheba’al peh. Yet, he never wrote on Torah shebichtav (the work attributed to him on Megillat Esther is more than likely spurious; it is reminiscent of other Judeo-Arabic Midrashic compendiums that were popularly, if falsely, attributed to the Rambam’s school). True, his voluminous writings contain many rich insights from which various commentarial compendiums have been culled. But scholars have long recognized the dearth of a systematic exposition of the Chumash according to the Geonic pshat system informed by the Rambam’s sparkling ethical and philosophical system. Rabbenu Avraham’s peirush, hewn from the almost forgotten Geonic and Andalusian sources and permeated entirely with the spirit of the Rambam’s original thought, fills this void perfectly.

Eliezer:  What was his Relationship with His father, the Rambam?

Rabbi Maimon: The Rambam’s influence on the Peirush is readily apparent from even a cursory acquaintance with it. Besides for the various peirushim that R. Avraham cites in his father’s name, and the many references to his father’s works, numerous individual peirushim are presented in obvious accordance with the Rambam’s shittah (such as the assertion that Yaakov’s encounter with the malach occurred in a dream). Yet, a closer look at the Peirush reveals that the Rambam’s influence on the Peirush is actually all encompassing. It is present in the way R. Avraham references various pesukim in Tanach, in his penchant for citing ma’amarei Chazal, his usage of Hebrew, as well as Judeo-Arabic phrases, and even his distinctive spelling of various words (such as ירושלם). Throughout R. Avraham’s works, the influence of his father is always present.

Eliezer: Any favorite pieces or themes to which you would like to draw readers’ attention?

Rabbi Maimon: One of the very unique features of R. Avraham peirush, which has almost no parallel in the writings of Rishonim, and was only popularized in recent generation through the Alter of Slabodka, is the view that the various individuals in Tanach whom we view as evil in accordance with their depiction in Midrashim, were actually not entirely wicked. According to this opinion, Eisav, Yishmael, Lot, Lavan, and even Korach and his cadre, all possessed higher spiritual capacities and inclinations that at times straddled the boundaries between good and evil. In line with this approach, R. Avraham asserts that the generation that left Egypt, with all their seeming lapses in the midbar, was a generation of tzadikim, whose spiritual level we can hardly conceive of. They alone are referred to as tzivot Hashem by the Torah; no other generation was ever given this appellation, no other compares to them.

In addition, Rabbenu Avraham’s sefarim opened a window for me to a fascinating but little-known world. I found them to be both illuminating and inspirational, full of his original insights and interpretations, and packed with penetrating mussar and exhortations to embrace a rational, yet mystical, form of chassidus.

Rabbenu Avraham’s oeuvre is also a thoroughly Maimonidean work, and through him one can gain a deep and comprehensive appreciation for the Rambam’s weltanschauung.

Eliezer: Are there any Halacha pieces in this work?

Rabbi Maimon: Many insights into R. Avraham’s halachic approach can be gleaned from the peirush, and this is even true of peirushim on the non-legal aspects of Chumash. Parshat Mishpatim in particular is replete with examples of R. Avraham’s pshat-based understanding of the Halacha, whereby he insists that the simple reading of a passuk be understood as binding to the extent that the rabbinic interpretation can accommodate it. As such, R. Avraham understands that the verse, “thou shall stay far away from falsehood,” is not merely an injunction about perjury in court, as it has been codified by the basic commentators, but also contains a basic admonition for anyone not to lie. There are many examples of this unique approach; I have expanded on this topic in the introduction to volume one.

Eliezer: As is evident from your work and notes, you compared him to other Rishonim, so how would you characterize R. Avraham’s peirush in terms of his comparison to other mefarshim?

Rabbi Maimon: In many respects, R. Avraham is certainly from the rodfei hapshat, to use a term the Ramban coined for the likes of the Ibn Ezra who always prefer the pshat of passuk over the allegorical commentaries proffered by midrashim and preferred by Rashi. Yet, R. Avraham also places a strong emphasis on the underlying intent of Torah’s narrative sections that teach moral and ethical imperatives, as well as the underlying intent of the legalistic sections, often couched in the rational basis for these sections (more on this introduction to the current volume). This synthesis can be found to some extent among other mefarshim like the Ralbag, and even the Ramban on some level, though the commentary of Radak to Bereshit is probably the most similar to that of R. Avraham.

Eliezer: Would you call him a mechadesh? What makes him unique?

Rabbi Maimon: Rabbenu Avraham’s close read and extreme common sense leads him to ask many original questions, and to offer many original interpretations. In some cases he anticipated explanations only offered centuries later by the acharonim, such as the Malbim and the Netziv, and in some cases he is the only source for his original explanations. A good sample of his original interpretations can be found in R. Sholom Spitz’ index of original peirushim appended at the end of each volume.

It must also be noted that the peirush is an invaluable repository for interpretations from his predecessors that would otherwise be lost to posterity. These include many peirushim from R. Saadia and R. Shmuel b. Chofni Gaon and a good number of peirushim quoted by R. Avraham in the name of his Grandfather, R. Maimon ha-Dayyan.

Eliezer: In light of your extensive seven plus years “immersed” in the world of RABH, do you have any thoughts or comments on his famous essay on Aggadah, especially in regard to his views about Chazal and science. More specifically, do you think that it’s a forgery as some have claimed, at the height of some controversies a few years back? Or you think the views expressed in this essay on Aggadah are consistent with his work on Torah?

Rabbi Maimon: In my separate work on that Essay on Aggadah, I endeavored to demonstrate conclusively that Rabbenu Avraham’s statements in the Essay are perfectly in line with the views of the Geonic-Andalasuian Beit Medrash. This is the school of thought espoused by R. Saadia Gaon and his followers through the era of the Kadmonim, who thrived in Muslim Spain until the middle of the 12th century when the Rambam and his family were force to flee. Rabbenu Avraham is a prominent example of this school of thought, and we find ample expression in the works of the Rambam and R. Saadia Gaon among others as well. The claim that some of these statements constitute a Maskilic forgery is ill-informed in my opinion. It is based on the notion that the ideas expressed in the essay are controversial and were created by Maskilim. However, once we realize that these ideas were the accepted norm in the Beit Medrash in which R. Avraham was reared, it becomes quite clear that there is nothing particularly controversial in R. Avraham’s presentation.

The decline of the Judeo-Arabic world caused much of the important works of the Geonic-Andalusian school to go lost. Additionally, the spread of Kabbalah and the influence of the Arizal were very influential in giving rise to a perspective contrary to the one expressed by R. Avraham, with the result that many people today are not aware that R. Avraham’s viewpoint ever held sway.

Yet, even if today we follow a different perspective, that should not mean that we must deny that previously it was Rabbenu Avraham’s perspective that ruled the day. I feel, and this is how I was taught by my rebbis, that our awe of the Rishonim and our fealty to them requires that we study their words and endeavor to understand them, even if we do not subscribe to aspects of their particular viewpoints. As my father writes in his beautiful introduction to the volume on Shemot, this was the way of Beit Hillel who would ponder the opposing views of Beis Shammai before declaring their own, and in fact, this is the very reason why we follow Beit Hillel.

The views in the essay are evident in the Peirush as well, even if they are not prominently featured due to the different nature of the work. For example, in Bereishit, R. Avraham speaks of the sciences as a body of accumulated knowledge, amassed over the generations. This fits well with his stated view in the Essay that the scientific knowledge of Chazal was of the sort that was available to savants at that time, and was not a separate branch of wisdom received by oral tradition from on High.

More importantly, throughout the Peirush, it is clear that R. Avraham’s approach to Aggadah is consistent with his statements in the Essay that Aggadic statements of individual members of Chazal were their own stated opinions and were not part of the authoritative oral tradition of Torah shebaal peh.

Eliezer: How long ago did you begin working on this project?

Rabbi Maimon: Already as a teenager, I was drawn to the Peirush of Rabbenu Avraham and began studying it then to the best of my abilities, though many times I found the Peirush too much to handle and I could not make much sense of it. The impetus to undertake the project of re-issuing it in a new edition came during a moment of inspiration one Rosh Hashanah, about seven years ago.

Eliezer: How did you, a Yeshivish-trained scholar get into this field of study in the first place?

Rabbi Maimon: At first, I thought I would just re-issue the Peirush, newly typeset and punctuated with little intrusion into the text and accompanied only by small marginal commentary. Yet, the more I got into the project, the more invested I became, and each subsequent recension saw the Peirush growing exponentially in terms of elucidation of the text in the notes, and also in terms of improving the translation, where I felt that doing so would enhance readability and comprehensibility.

Eliezer: Were you able to use Friedberg genizah in the course of your work?

Rabbi Maimon: The Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society (https://fjms.genizah.org/) has been an indispensable resource for me. I have made frequent use of all its resources, and I feel my work has been immeasurably enhanced as a result. The Genizah portal was key in locating as of yet unpublished fragments of Sefer Hamaspik which were useful in elucidating corresponding passages in the Peirush, and the Judeo-Arabic corpus portal was especially crucial in establishing accurate translations for many of R. Avraham’s unique usages of Judeo-Arabic phrases.

Eliezer: Did you find any new passages of the Peirush?

Rabbi Maimon: To date, no corresponding fragments to the Peirush have been found in the Genizah, which lends credence to my contention in the foreword to Volume One that the Peirush was never disseminated. It appears that a lone manuscript (likely an autograph) made its way to Aleppo with R. David Ha-Naggid II, a fifth-generation descendant of R. Avraham, where it was copied over into what is today the sole surviving manuscript of the Peirush. Yet, in two instances I have located fragments of Hamaspik which contain references to the Peirush (incidentally, this was significant on its own because it helped shed light on the ongoing editing process of Hamaspik, which I detailed in the introduction to Volume One). In one of these instances, the reference pertains to a portion of Parshat Bereshit that is missing from our manuscript. I translated this piece and appended it to my addition. Other genizah fragments that were significant are transcribed in the notes where relevant. I shared my discovery of another one of the relevant Genizah fragment from Sefer Hamaspik with Prof. Friedman who was able to use it for an article of his that was recently published (see here).

Eliezer: What challenges were involved in translating the work from Arabic?

Rabbi Maimon: First, it was mostly troubleshooting. Anytime I felt that the language was cumbersome or obscure, I would attempt to re-translate key phrases to improve the flow and make it more understandable. At the same time, I would mine the publications of key Judeo-Arabic experts such as Professors Blau Friedman and Ilan for their observations regarding R. Avraham’s use of difference phrases. As I developed an appreciation and understanding of R. Avraham’s individual “flavor” in his language and syntax, I began to highlight his consistency in the usage of various terms and phrases in specific contexts, which was sometimes lost in the original translation. In all these cases I carefully noted the correction in the notes, typically with a brief explanation for the change.

Eliezer: Can you describe in short, your goal in your comments to the work?

Rabbi Maimon: My notes focus on all the aforementioned qualities for the Peirush. Basic sources have been incorporated into the text, but where some expansion was needed, I moved the discussion to the footnotes. <The rest of this response is detailed at length in the Overview>

Eliezer: Who did you consult while working on this project?

Rabbi Maimon: In the course of my work, I reached out to talmidei chachamim and experts from across the spectrum, and I have been careful to credit them all wherever appropriate. Professors Mordechai Akiva Freidman and Nahem Ilan, both of whom have spent years of research into the writings of Rabbenu Avraham, were particularly helpful in assisting with specific issues related to various translations I was working on. Rabbis Yaakov Wincelberg of Miami and Yehuda Zevald of Bnei Braq, both talmidei chachamim with ample experience in the Judeo-Arabic writings of the Rambam and Rabbenu Avraham, were helpful in this regard as well.

Rav Sholom Spitz, Rosh Yeshivah of Sha’ar HaTorah of Queens was quite gracious in sharing his personal notes on the Peirush and elucidating them when necessary, and I have incorporated these into my own notes with proper attribution.

In general, I have consulted a wide variety of published scholarship pertaining to research into Rabbenu Avraham’s writings, and I have referenced their contribution to my work, in accordance with the Rambam’s own dictum to accept truth regardless of its source.

Readers may also find Rabbi Maimon’s interview on The Seforim Chatter Podcast (here) interesting, and a nice review of Rabbi Maimon’s edition has recently appeared in the Fall issue of Jewish Review of Books here.

Purchasing information:

Email me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for parts of the introduction and some sample pages of this special new work.

Copies are available for purchase at Biegeleisen (Brooklyn), Judaica Plaza (Lakewood), Tuvia’s (Monsey) as well as through many other fine retailers.

On can also purchase it online (or in person) through Mizrahi Book Store at this link.

To purchase a copy in Eretz Yisrael, contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

New book announcement: Chochmo Ba’goyim Taamin, By Rabbi Yonason Rosman

By Eliezer Brodt

I would like to announce a concise new work which deals with some topics that are sure to be of interest to many of the readers of the blog.

The sefer is titled Chochmo Ba’goyim Taamin, written by Rabbi Yonason Rosman (182 pp.). The goal of the book is to deal with the famous issue of to what extent has Jewish thought and religion been influenced by foreign cultures? This new work explores the above question with its various controversial aspects. From Talmudic times to the contemporary period, from philosophy to music; information is culled from rabbis and academics alike, bringing the relevant material to the reader’s attention.

Here is the Table of Contents and the index of topics discussed in the book:

Currently the book has been printed in a very limited run; for people in the US it is available here at Mizrahi Book Store. If there is an interest, more copies will be printed.

For those in England and Eretz Yisrael please contact eliezerbrodt@gmail.com to reserve a copy.

Daf Yomi: Seforim on Masseches Rosh Hashanah

By Eliezer Brodt

Daf Yomi just started learning Masseches Rosh Hashanah this week. This past Monday evening I had a conversation with Rabbi Moshe Schwed of All Daf.

The purpose of the conversation was to briefly highlight some of the Rishonim and Achronim “out there” on this Messechtah, adding some tidbits of interest about them. We recorded it and it’s available for viewing here or here.

It’s only half an hour long. Many aspects could have been discussed at greater length but R. Schwed had mercy on potential listeners!

This is an experiment which we are trying on the Seforim Blog and we hope to have other presentations from others over time. Feedback or comments of any sort are appreciated.

This is the third such conversation I had with him of this kind this year (earlier we discussed Yerushalmi Shekalim [here] and Masseches Yoma [here]).

Book Announcement: Links to Our Legacy: Insights into Hebrew, History, and Liturgy by Mitchell First

By Eliezer Brodt

The Seforim Blog is proud to announce the publication of our frequent contributor Mitchell First’s newest book Links to Our Legacy: Insights into Hebrew, History, and Liturgy (236 pp.)

Mitchell First’s 66 short articles address interesting questions about the Hebrew language, Jewish history, and liturgy. For example:

• On Hebrew language: insights into the original meanings of the words chamushim, totafot, kohen, minchah, nefesh, netzach, selah, tefillin and many others.

• On Jewish history: the order of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet, the absence of the book of Esther among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the distinction between Neviim and Ketuvim, Rashi’s motivations in writing his Torah commentary, biography of Nehama Leibowitz, and the symbolism of the Israel Postal Company logo.

• On Jewish liturgy: the meaning of sekhvi, the authorship of U-Netanneh Tokef, and the origin of the reading of each of the Five Megillot.

For an article that originally appeared on the Seforim Blog see here.

The book can be ordered here and here

Some reviews of the book can be seen here and here

Here are the Table of Contents:

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 7^th 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)