On some new seforim, Copernicus, saying Ledovid , Moses Mendelssohn and other random comments

By Eliezer Brodt

Here is a list of recent seforim and books I have seen around in the past few months. This is not an attempt to list everything or even close to it; rather it’s just a list of seforim and books on many random topics, which I have seen while shopping for seforim. I enumerated a few titles which I have a Table of Contents for. Please feel free to e-mail me for them.

1.   רשב”ץ על מסכת ברכות, אהבת שלום, עם הערות של ר’ דוד צבי הילמן

In this work they claim to have double checked the manuscript, thereby fixing some mistakes in the earlier edition of Rav Hilman. They included all of Rav Hillman’s notes

2.    חידושי הריטב”א, מהדורא בתרא, על מסכת קידושין מוסד רב קוק

3.   מנחת יהודה פירוש לתורה לר’ יהודה בן אלעזר מבעלי התוסופת, מכתב יד, על ספר בראשית, מוסד רב קוק, מהדיר: פר’ חזוניאל טויטו, מבוא של 176 עמ’ ורכ עמודים טקסט

4.     אבן עזרא, קהלת, מוסד רב קוק

5.    ספר המחלוקות, ספר הפשוטים, ר’ יהושע בועז [בעל ה’שליטי גיבורים’] ג’ חלקים, נדפס לראשונה מכתב יד על הספר ראה כאן

6.    אגרות ותשובות רבינו חיים בן עטר, בעל האור החיים הקדוש מכתב יד, כולל תפילה, ליקוטי

שמועות, תשובות ופסקים, מכתבים, קינות, הספדים, רעה עמודים.

This volume is nicely done, and it contains many new pieces never before printed. One thing that I found strange is when citing the sources for the various pieces, he did not bother to mention that some of them were already printed many years ago by Binyomin Klar in various journals. Later on they were collected in a volume called Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar, printed by Mossad Rav Kook in 1951. Oddly enough they do quote some of the original places where Klar had printed the pieces first

7.    עטרת ראש לר’ לוי מקאנדי, על מסכת ברכות.

8.   יין ישן בקנקן חדש, על מסכת ברכות, מכון הדרת חן, תתקצב עמודים, אסופות חיבורים עתיקים מגדולי האחרונים שהיהו גנוזים מעיני הלומדים, בעריכה חדשה בתוספות מראה מקומות מפתחות ותולדות, [עשרים ספרים]. בין הספרים, ולא עוד אלא, בכור שור, גפן פוריה, ויאמר שמואל, לווית חן, מלך שלם, מירא דכיא, גנזי יוסף, למנצח דוד, זרע יעקב, ארץ החיים, איי הים, רוב דגן, מעיל שמואל, קהלת יעקב, צרור החיים, לשמוע בלימודים, ברכת דוד, מכתב לחזקיהו, ילקוט הגרשוני.

9.     מבוא המסורה, ר’ יוסף קלמן מקאסוויע, נדפס בווארשא תרמ”ט, 112 עמודים.

This work, first printed in 1862 and again in 1889 deals, with the subject of the Masorah by Rabbi Yosef Kalman. One of the points of interest to me about this work is that it received many different haskamot from gedolim of the time. This of interest because the first 15 pages of the work quotes many passages from R. Eliyahu Bachur’s classic work on the subject, including his controversial opinion about the post-Talmudic origin of the nekkudot. Now in the comments on the bottom of the page the author writes that this was already disproven (more on this shortly) but he had no problem to quote this controversial opinion in the main text of the work without arguing on it in the main body or censuring the Tishbi in any form. This is in sharp contrast to the work Nekudot Hakesef printed in 2001.

Now what is interesting is that the person who just printed this new work (someone from Bnei Brak) felt he had to add in one comment to this sefer, so right in the beginning of this long quote from R. Eliyahu Bachur he added in the following:

עיין בספר מגדל עוז מר’ יעקב עמדין בעלית הכתיבה ראיות מכריעות נגד דעת הנ”ל של רא”ב

What’s interesting is that on the next page the original author of the sefer writes:

אמר המאסף וכבר השיג עליו בזה בעל אמרי בינה מהזוה”ק והאידרא שהנקודות היו קודם חתימת התלמוד ע”ש באורך הביאו הרמבמ”ן בהקדמתו על התורה ע”ש

I am positive that the recent printer of this sefer did not realize who this was. The original author of this sefer is quoting the Meor Einayim from Rabbi Azariah Min Hadomim who is quoted by Moses Mendelssohn in the introduction to his Chumash, where Mendelssohn quotes him in regard to the origin of the Nekudot. Possibly we can see from this another piece of evidence that it was not considered so bad to quote from Mendelssohn at that time, and especially how well known Mendelssohn’s introduction was. Apparently the printer did not realize the initials הרמבמ”ן refers to Mendelssohn. For a recent case of someone not realizing what these initials are see he work on the Koheles falsely attributed to the Malbim by Oz Vehadar [See Yeshurun 25 pp. 724-735, (PDF available upon request)]

One more addition to all this, in 1870 Rabbi Yosef Kalman put out another sefer on the subject called Shaar Hamesorah which received haskamot from Litvish Superstars of the time. In the introduction he returns to the subject of the origin of nekkudot and again he quotes the Meor Einayim of Rabbi Azariah, who is quoted by Moses Mendelssohn. However here he makes a strange mistake of thinking that the Rabbi Azariah quoted by Mendelssohn was the Rama Mepano!

Returning to the work Mevo Hamesorah, one last discussion of his worth nothing is about Ibn Ezra and his opinion of the origin of Nekudot (pp. 104-105).

[For more on the subject of Nekudot see Dan Rabinowitz’s excellent article available here; Jordan Penkower, The Dates of Composition of the Zohar and the book Bahir (Heb.) Cherub Press; Rabbi Dovid Rothestein work available here. See also my Likutei Eliezer, pp. 71-72]

10. יד יהודה, ר’ יהודה לנדא, תשובות פסקים וכתבים, מכתב יד, קלו עמודים

11. חמודי דניאל עם פ’ רחבת ידים

12.  חמודי דניאל על הלכות נדה, נדפס לראשונה מכתב יד בתוך ספר מעין בינה על מסכת נדה

13. קשר תורה, [לקשר סוף התורה לתחילתה] נדפס פעם ראשונה ווילנא תרסז, ר’ יצחק מו”צ בעיר ריטווא, 112 עמודים.

14. קול חיים, סדרי לימוד ותפילות להגיע האדם לגיל שבעים שנה ואילך, ר’ חיים פאלאג’י, מכון אהבת שלום

15. הקללה לברכה, הלכות איסור קללה, ר’ מרדכי גרוס, קמה עמודים

16.  מנהג אבותינו בידינו, ר’ גדלי’ אבעלראנדר, ביאורים ובירורים במנהגי ישראל מקורותיהם ושרשי טעמיהם, שבת, נישואין שונות, תסד עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.

This volume is a collection of Rabbi Oberlander’s articles originally printed in the journals Or Yisroel and Heichel HaBesht as well as other places. These essays are very organized and well written on a wide range of interesting topics, all based on a nice collection of sources. I highly recommend this work. Of course one can always add to such collections of material here but לא המלאכה עליך לגמור .

17. אני לדודי, שיחות מוסר וחיזוק לחודש אלול וימים נוראים, ר’ שריה דבליצקי, קעג עמודים

18. ישא יוסף, אורח חיים חלק ב, ר’ יוסף אפרתי, רכו עמודים

19. הטבילה בהלכה ואגדה, ר’ משה סופר, תסד עמודים

20. ביד נביאך, בעניני הפטרות ונביאים, כולל אסופות תשובות ומאמרים בהלכה ואגדה, פרקי הלכה בעיני הפטרה וכתיבת נביאים, כולל כת”י של האדר”ת  על נביאים וכתובים בשם ‘נביאים טובים’, הלכות הפטרה להגר”ש דבליצקי, וס’ סימנים על עניני הפטרה  ונביאים, תרב עמודים

21. שעות שוות בהלכה, כולל מחקר וסקירה על תולדות הפחתות מדידית הזמן לאורך הדורות, ר’ יצחק זילבער, שצ עמודים

22. שמות בארץ, שמות אנשים, ממשנתו של מרן ר’ חיים קניבסקי, דיני וענייני שמות  אנשים ונשים ובשווי שמות בשידוכין, וקו’ שמות נשים, ר’ צבי יברוב, קלט עמודים

23.  ברכת הלבנה, הלכות ומנהגים, ר’ יוסף אדלר, קב עמודים

24.  בים דרך, מאמרי עולם חלק א, ר’ מיכל זילבר, שסז עמודים

25. גם אני אודך על ענייני ברכת כהנים, ר’ גמליאל רבינוביץ, תרלב עמודים

26. ספר פת שחרית כהלכה, ר’ יששכר דוב הופמן, צו עמודים

This is another work from the author of the now-famous recent work all about sneezing in Jewish law..

27. מאורות הגר”א, חלק ב, ר’ רובין, שפ עמודים

28. ר’ ראובן פרידמן, כי עת לחננה, הליה וישיבה בארץ ישראל, 490 עמודים, מוסד רב קוק

29. ר’ ישראל גארפינקל, כיצד מרקדין, בענין ריקודין של מצוה מצוה טאנץ, רמח עמודים

30. חזון עובדיה, שבת חלק ה, ר’ עובדיה יוסף הל’ צובע, קושר ומתיר, תופר צד ממחק כותב ומוחק, השמעת קול, בונה, אוהל, מתקן מנה, תד עמודים

31.הלכה ברורה חלק יג, ר’ דוד יוסף, סי’ רמב-רנב, תקלו +צ+נד עמודים

32. זהב לבושה, איסור פאה נכרית, הלכה הגות מחשבה, שכד עמודים

33. לוח ההלכות והמנהגים לשנת תשע”ג, 372 עמודים

34. קוטנרס האינטרנט בהלכה, קב עמודים

35. ישועות כהן, ר’ יהושע אדלר, ביאור סוגית קוי התאריך, צג עמודים

36. ספר תהלים עם פירוש מפורש, כולל ביאורים על תרגום כתובים ר’ לייביש דיייטש, תק”ח עמודים

37. שערי חג הסוכות, הלכות סוכה, ד’ מינים הו”ר שמיני עצרת ושמחת תורה, ר’ יהודה טשזנר, תקל עמודים

38. קובץ תשובות חלק ד, ממרן ר’ אלישיב זצוק”ל,  שכט עמודים, כולל מפתחות על לארבע כרכי קובץ תשובות, 73 עמודים

39. הערות במסכת ברכות, מר’ אלישיב זצוק”ל, תקמא עמודים

40.  כתבי הגרי”ש, בהלכה ואגדה, מכתבי יד של ר’ אלישיב זצוק”ל, ימים נוראים וסוכות, קס עמודים

41.  אשרי האיש, פסקי מרן הגרי”ש אלישיב זצוק”ל, יורה דעה, ב’ חלקים נלקט ע”י ר’ יחזקאל פיינהנדלר

42.  רישא דגולתא הספדים על ר’ אלישיב זצ”ל

43. שו”ת פוע”ה מניעת הריון, קובץ שאלות רבני פוע”ה ותשובות של פוסקים, 141 עמודים

44.  באמונה שלימה, ר’ יוסף בלאך, תרם עמודים

This work is written by Rabbi Yosef Bloch, who is a well-known Talmid Chacham from Monsey. In this volume Rabbi Bloch deals with many “hot” issues related to Emunah, bringing many interesting discussions to the table. Just to list a few side points of his: he brings that some say that the Chazon Ish’s work Emunah Ubitachon was never supposed to be printed (pp. 69-70) as the Chazon Ish never wanted it printed. He also deals with a piece that was censored from later versions of the Emunah Ubitachon (p. 39). He brings numerous sources against the Ralbag (pp. 140-141). He has a radical statement about what chazal mean when they say “there is wisdom by the Gentiles” (pp. 301-302):

דכל חכמת הגוים הוא בדברים גשמיים דוקא וכגון מכוניות סעלפאון כלי השחתה למלחמה וכדומה, שם ורק שם יש להם חכמה,… ברוחניות אין להם שום מגע והבנה כלל, ותיקון העולם הוא עצמו איבוד חכמיהם וזה כלל גדול בהבנת ענין חכמת האומות בברזל ובעצים ואבנים ובאלקטריק יודעים קצת, בצומחים יודעים פחות מזה בגופות בעלי חיים יודעים הרבה פחות מזה, בגוף האדם עוד הרבה פחות מזה, בחכמת התכונה השמיימית עוד הרבה פחות בנפשיות האדם

יודעים משהו ממשהו ממש , בחכמה עליונה אפס מוחלט לא כלום!

He has a radical explanation for the famous Gemarah about killing lice on Shabbas (pp. 305-307). Another very interesting discussion of his is about the sugyah of Elu Ve-elu Divrei Elokim Chayim (pp. 308-323).

A few years ago I wrote a few comments (here) about Rabbi Bloch’s work against Copernicus. I recently revisited the topic in the last issue in Hakirah. In this new volume Rabbi Bloch includes his anti-CopernicanEssay but with various updates. If one reads the essay carefully one can see many of these updates he is referring to points in my article. Hopefully in the future I will deal with all the issues he raises but for now I would just like to mention two points at one point he writes (p. 358):

ולא מצאתי אחד מגדולי ישראל מכל הדורות שיחזיקו אפילו במקצת דמקצת כדעת התוכנים ומה שהעידו בשם קדוש ה’ המהרי”ל דיסקין זצוק”ל דהיהו סבר ככה, שקר העידו בו דלא כך היה מעשה אלא שענה שלואל דאין הכרח נכד

התוכנים מלשון הברכה כמדומה ממה שנקראת ברכת החמה אבל מעולם לא יצא מפיו הקדוש דנקט איהו כהתוכנים.

I honestly have no idea what he is talking about but as I brought in my article (p.29) the source says as follows:

“וכן אמר לי ידידי הרב וכו’ ר’ אבנר נ”י בעל המחבר סי’ ציר נאמן, בתורת עדות ששמע מפי רבנו הקדוש רשכבה”ג מהרי”ל דיסקין זצוק”ל שהשיטה החדשה אינה מופרכת. ושאל לו מן הכתוב בקהלת א’ וזרח השמש ובא השמש וכו’ הולך על דרום כו’ וענה לו שהכתוב אמר לפי ראות עיני האדם”.

I also explained there (p. 31) why this sources is very reliable. But what bothered me even more was what he writes there on pg. 359.

 ומה שכמה מהמשגיחים וראשי הישיבות מהדור הקודם נ”ע כתבו דרך אגב בין הדברים בספריהם… כשיטת קופעריקוס, אין מזה שום הוכחה כלל לדעת התורה בענין הזה, דלא באו אותם הגאונים זללה”ה ליקח עמדה בהדיון הזה, דלא היתה זו הסוגיא שלהם ולא ידעו שיש בזה סתירה להשקפת התורה שלא ניסו בכגון אלו ולא עיינו בה, ונסתמכו דכיון דככה אומרים הכל מסתמא הוכיחו התוכנים דהאמת כן הוא, ולא ירדו לסוף דעתם של התוכנים לידע שכוונתם עקירת האמת ואין מדבריהם ז”ל הוכחה של כלום, וכאילו לא אמרו כלום בנידון הזה

Now besides for the haughtiness of this statement the only Rosh HaYeshiva I quoted in my article that wrote an essay very pro Copernicus was Rabbi Yonah Mertzbach someone who had a college degree in these areas so I am not really sure what he is talking about.

One last source related to this topic of Copernicus was brought to my attention in a collection of things by Rabbi Zerach Shapiro who was close with the Chazon Ish (part of this booklet was printed in Yeshurun volume 26) where he asked the Chazon Ish about Copernicus:

בענין מה מסתובב השמש או כדור הארץ, אמר שאין הכרעה בדברי חז”ל.

One last point in regard to Rabbi Bloch’s book is he prints an unprinted essay of his father’s, extremely anti Zionistic and the Mizrachi from 1943 (p. 115-116). I think the reason why he is printed this letter here, while it may otherwise seem out of place, is rather simple. In the same issue of the Hakirah where my essay about Copernicus appeared he saw another article froms Elazar Muskin, When Unity Reigned Yom ha’azmaut 1954 which deals with Rabbi Bloch positive attitude to Yom ha’azmaut.

קבצים

1  המעין גליון 203, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים

2. אור ישראל גליון סה, שפג עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים

3.  היכל הבעל שם טוב, גליון לד, קצב עמודים

4.  מוריה גליון שעג-שעד

5.  ארזים, גליון א, גנוזות וחידושי תורה, מכון שובי נפשי, תקפח עמודים [כולל רס עמודים של כת”י על ענינים שונים]

6.    קובץ בית אהרן וישראל גליון קסב, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.

This issue includes another attack on Rabbi Dovid Kamentsky (PDF available upon request].

7.  עץ חיים גליון יח, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים

8.   ישורון חלק כז,  תתקמ”ב עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים

One piece worth mentioning in this issue is the complete manuscript of the Meishiv Nefesh printed for the first time, edited by Rabbi Yehudah Hershkowitz (59 pp).

מחקר ועניינים שונים

1.  גאון ההוראה אחרי 50 שנה:  היסטוריה, הגות, ריאליה; קובץ מחקרים בעקבות יום העיון במכללת אפרתה על הרב צבי פסח פראנק / עורך – ישראל רוזנסון, קע עמודים, מכללת אפרתה.

2.  המסע האחרון, מאתיים שנה למסעו בעל התניא בעיצומה של מלחמת נפוליאון תקע”ב-תשע”ב, [לאור מסמכים ותעודות, חדשים גם ישנים, וגם סיפורים ושמועות דרושים ומאמרים], יהושע מונדשיין, 378 עמודים.

3.  נתיבי מאיר, אסופות מאמרים, מאיר רפלד, 456 עמודים ]ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים]

This is a beautiful collection of Dr. Rafeld’s articles on a very wide range of topics. Some of the articles relate to Rishonim on Chumash and many others relate to the world of minhag and Tefilah. There is also a nice collection of important articles related to the Maharshal and his generation (one of Rafeld’s specialties). All these articles show a great breadth and depth in each of their perspective subjects.

4.  הרב פנחס הירשפרונג, מעמק הבכא הנאצי, זכורנות של פליט, 215 עמודים

5.  ר’ יחזקאל סופר, במאי קמיפלגי, הפולמוס המשיחי בתנועת חב”ד, 408 עמודים

6.  הלבוש היהודי באירופה במהלך הדורות, הלכה, מנהגים, גזירות מאבקים, תקנות, מנחם מקובר, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.

7. אביר הרועים, קורות העתים הנהגתו ומשנתו של ר’ עובדיה יוסף, משנת תרפ”א-תשי”א,יעקב ששון, 320 עמודים

8.  רבן של ישראל, מראות קודש ממרן פוסק הדור הגרי”ש אלישיב זצוק”ל, 219 עמודים

9.  יש”א שלום, הערכתו של הגרי”ש אלישיב זצ”ל כלפי מרן הראי”ה קוק זצ”ל, 58 עמודים

10.  הדף היומי, ר’ דוד מנדלבוים

11.  רועה ישראל, על ר’ ישראל יעקב פישר, חלק ב

12. יהדות התורה והמדינה, ר’ אוריאל צימר, בירור רעיוני קצר בשאלת היחס לציונות ולמידנה עם קצת פרקי היסטוריה מן העבר הקרוב, 47 עמודים,

13.  מפיהם אני חיים, ר’ משה קנר, מאמרים על תלמוד בבלי וירושלמי, רב האי גאון, רבינו גרשום, רש”י בעל התוספות, מהר”ם מרוטנבורג וגדולי ספרד, 375 עמודים.

14.   משונצינו ועד וילנא, תולדות הדפסת התלמוד, ר’ יעקב לופיר, 310 עמודים,

I hope to review this book at length here shortly.

15.   משה אידל, שלמויות בולעות קבלה ופרשנות, ידיעות ספרים, 695 עמודים

16.   רשימת הפירסומים, יוסף דן, תשי”ח-תשע”ב, 205 עמודים

17.   יעקב לאטס, פנקס קהילות רומא, שע”ה-תנ”ה, כולל מבוא והערות, מכון יצחק בן צבי, 409 עמודים

18.   משנת ארץ ישראל, שמואל, זאב, וחנה ספראי, מסכת פאה

19.    משנת ארץ ישראל, שמואל, זאב, וחנה ספראי, מסכת כלאים

After recently completing Seder Moed they are now almost finished with Seder Zerayim.

20.  צדיק יסוד עולם, השליחות הסודית והחוויה המיסטית של הרב קוק, סמדר שרלו, 444 עמודים, אונברסיטה בר אילן

21.  דעת גליון 73

22.  מקראות גדולות – `הכתר`-שמות א`-מהדורה מוקטנת

23.  משה פלאי, עטרה ליושנה, המאבק ליצירת יהדות ההשכלה, 501 עמודים, קיבוץ המאוחד

24.  ללמוד את שפת המולדת, מאמריו של י”ל גורדון בשנים 1881-1882, [מאמרי ביקרות על ספרים ועוד], מוסד ביאליק, ספריית דורות, 367 עמודים

25.  כִּתַאבּ אַלנֻּתַף: פירושו הדקדוקי של ר’ יהודה חיוג’ לספרי נביאים בעיבוד עלי בן סלימן מאת אהרן ממן ואפרים בן-פורת, אקדמיה ללשון העברית

26.   פרקי עיון בעברית החדשה ובעשייה בה מאת משה בר-אשר, אקדמיה ללשון העברית  

27.  מקורות ומסורות, סדר ניזקין, דוד הלבני, מגנס

28.  ההלכה: הקשרים רעיוניים ואידאולוגיים גלויים וסמויים, מגנס

29.  סידור תפילות בלאדינו, סלוניקי, המאה השש עשרה, מכון יצחק בן צבי

30.  רעואל וחבריו פרשנים יהודיים מביזנטיון מסביבות המאה העשירית לספירה, גרשון ברין, אוניברסיטת תל-אביב

31.    רבי חיים בן עטר ופירושו אור החיים על התורה, אלעזר טויטו, 291 עמודים, מכללת אורות ישראל

32.  מחשבת ישראל ואמונת ישראל, בעריכת דניאל לסקר, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון, 293 עמודים בעברית, 186 עמודים באנגליש, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.

This volume has many interesting articles. Worth mentioning is Marc Shapiro’s Is there a Pesak for Jewish Thought and  David Shatz ‘s article Nothing but the truth? Modern Orthodoxy and the Polemical uses of History. In the first footnote Shatz mentions Marc Shapiro’s posts on the Seforim Blog. Much can be added to this essay but of note is footnote 28 where he writes:

To be clear, academics, I find, generally shun blogs that are aimed at a popular audience because the comments are often, if not generally, uninformed (and nasty). A few academics do read such blogs, but do not look at the comments. One result of academics largely staying out of blog discussions is that non-experts become viewed as experts. Even when academics join the discussion, the democratic atmosphere of the blog world allows non-experts to think of themselves as experts and therefore as equals of the academicians. Some laypersons, though, as I said earlier, are indeed experts in certain areas of history.

33. חקרי קבלה ותפילה, משה חלמיש, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון, 458 עמודים ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים

This work is a collection of twenty five articles by Professor Hallamish about tefilah and kabbalah. Some of these articles appeared in print in various journals, festschrifts and memorial volumes, others are supposed to appear soon, and some were written specially for this volume. They all share the common denominator that they are based on research of an incredible amount of manuscripts and rare volumes. I have no idea how he had patience to open up that many books! Based on these discoveries Hallamish shows the influence of Kabbalah on tefilah. One can also find wealth of information on nussach of Tefilah in these volumes. There is a lot to comment on different points on this volume.

Just to make one small comment as it relates to Elul and a subject I have written about. In chapter thirteen he deals with sources for the custom of saying Ledovid in Elul. He brings early sources for saying it all year around. He quotes the Siddur Shaarei Rachamim which brings this custom to say Ledovid. Now the importance of this find is that this siddur is based on R.Chaim Hacohen who was a Talmid of Rabbi Chaim Vital. If this source is reliable then we have an earlier source for this custom. The first person (not noted by Hallamish) to point to this siddur for an early source for saying Ledovid in Elul was Rabbi Yakov Rokeach in his work Shaarei Tefilah, first printed in 1870. Now it’s well known that the editor of this siddur, Chaim Abadi, added in lots from the Chemdas Yamim and other sources so it’s not so simple if one can consider this siddur a reliable source. However, recently Rabbi Goldhaber checked up the many manuscripts of the actual siddur of R. Chaim Hacohen and found that the custom of saying Ledovid does not appear anywhere in it. Recently part of this siddur was printed by Mechon Zichron Aharon and the custom of Ledovid does appear inside this siddur. So based on this new printed siddur Hallamish has a very early source for saying Ledovid.

First of all what is clear is this is not a source to say Ledovid specifically during Elul but rather an early source to say Ledovid the whole year around. Earlier in this siddur where R. Chaim Hacohen has various chapters of Tehilim to be said on special days he does not include Ledovid to be said during Elul. However at the end of davening Ledovid appears in this new siddur. But more importantly one has to be careful to read the fine print on the page as above where it is printed to say Ledovid in small print the editor adds in that saying Ledovid here does not appear in the original manuscript! Now all this is rather strange; why did he bother adding this in? This is not the place for it as it should be earlier in the siddur with the other chapters said on special days. Even more interesting is that the editor of this siddur says that they decided that four of the manuscripts are authentic but all others have parts added in so they are not going to print all added in pieces  so the question is why did they choose to add in Ledovid

and add nothing else in this printed version.

What’s Wrong With Wealth and Honor? 

by Eli Genauer

Below, we will present some timely notes regarding an English/Hebrew Machzor for Rosh Hashana which was printed in England in 1807.  We will touch upon a variety of issues, and thus first present general backgrounds regarding Hebrew printing in London, the prayer for the state, and Kol Nidrei.  

Hebrew Typography in London  

The earliest use of Hebrew typography in England is sometime in the middle to the late 1520s.  Of course, at that time, Jews were banned from England and the earliest works containing Hebrew type in England were produced for non-Jews.  

The prize of first was thought to go to Thomas Wakefield’s publication of his address regarding “Three Languages” – Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldean (Oratio de laudibus et utilitate trium linguarum [link]). The type, as you can see, was quite primitive.

This lecture was given in 1524, and as the book itself is undated, it was assumed that the lecture was published soon after it was given.  Thus, many dated it to 1524/25.  Wakefield, a noted Hebraist, actually spends the majority of the book discussing Hebrew and the other two languages get short shrift.[1]   

Recently, however, the dating of this work has been challenged and been shown to likely incorrect.  The author, in the self-described “Holmesian manner,”[2]   highlights the various persons Wakefield claims to have tutored in Hebrew and the honorifics used to describe those persons.[3] Based upon some of the descriptions, it seems likely that Wakefield’s work was not published prior to 1527 and most likely in 1528.   [4] This conclusion, coupled with the dating of another work by a different author, unseats Wakefield’s book claim to first.  Instead, Richard Pace’s Praefatio in Ecclesisten, printed in August 1527, is the most likely candidate for the first use of Hebrew typography in England.[5] Here is a sample:

It took nearly two hundred years after the appearance of Hebrew typography for the first Hebrew book published for a Jewish audience in England.  The controversy surrounding R. David Nieto’s remarks and their affinity or lack thereof to Spinoza would produce the first printed Jewish Hebrew book in England.  The first was a very small one, only a few pages, of a responsum written by R. Tzvi Ashkenzi, in R. Nieto’s defense, and published in 1705. It included both Spanish as well as Hebrew (available here).[6]   For more on R. Nieto and this controversy, see the Seforim Blog’s earlier post here. 

The Prayer for the Welfare of the State

The prayer for the welfare of the king or ruler is ancient.  Many point to the statements of Ezra as well as the passage in Avot as early sources for the prayer.  A variety of rationales are offered for this obligation.  For example, Rabbenu Yonah interprets the need for these prayers as indicative of a Universalist worldview, which requires all humans to display empathy for one another.  In order to effectuate that goal, Jews therefore pray for not only the Jewish leaders but also the secular one.  R. Azariah di Rossi, claims that the prayer carries a pacifist message as he emphasizes the lack of allegiance to a specific ruler or country and thereby transforms the prayer into one arguing for peace among all nations. 

The earliest extant prayers are from the Geniza, and can be dated to between 1127 and 1131.  The prayer is for the “Fatimid caliph al-Amir bi-ahkam Allah who ruled Egypt and its regions during the years 1101-1131.” See S.D. Goitein, “Prayers from the Geniza for Fatimid Caliphs, the Head of the Jerusalem Yeshiva, the Jewish Community and the Local Congregation,” in Sheldon R. Brunswick, ed., Studies in Judaica, Karaitica and Islamica: Presented to Leon Nemoy on His Eightieth Birthday (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1982), 47-57.[7]   In this instance, the prayer includes not only a prayer for the secular ruler, but also a prayer for the local Rosh HaYeshiva.  Additionally, it blesses all of the Rosh HaYeshiva’s deceased predecessors, providing a nice genealogy. Goiten posits that these prayers may have been written in response to specific historical events and may not be indicative of the general practice in 12th century Egypt.  See id. at ___. 

The earliest sources, however, do not include the modern formulation of HaNoten Teshua.  Instead, early on there was a lack of conformity regarding this prayer.  Kol Bo records the custom but indicates that each community had its own practices.  But, none used the HaNoten Teshua formulation.  The first extant example of HaNoten Teshua is found in a Spanish manuscript dated between 1479-92.[8]   Ironically, this example was prepared for King Ferdiand V, who, in 1492, issued the expulsion order.  

It appears that with the expulsion and dispersion of the Spainish Jews, the HaNoten Teshua was disseminated throughout the Jewish world.  Indeed, the inclusion of this prayer in Yemenite rites, appears to undermine a major thesis of the noted Yemenite scholar, R. Yosef Kapach.  He asserts that the rite presents a pristine rite, unchanged over hundreds of years.  But, as the Yememite rite includes HaNoten Teshua, which is from the 15th century, indicates that the Yemenite rite is less pristine than Kapach would have it. [9]  

The prayer is also linked to the readmission of Jews into England.  Menasseh ben Israel in his plea  for readmission of the Jews to England (link) provides the full text – in English – of the HaNoten to demonstrate the Jews’ loyalty to their rulers.[10]

A English Hebrew Machzor Printed in London

The Jewish Encyclopedia notes “In 1794 David Levi published an English version of the services for New-Year, the Day of Atonement, and the feasts of Tabernacles and Pentecost, and thirteen years later gave a new version of the whole Mahzor. This second edition was “revised and corrected” by Isaac Levi, described as a “teacher of the Hebrew Language.”

The Machzor features a frontispiece with various engravings of the Jewish holidays. The engraving for Shavuos features Moshe Rabbeinu dressed in a manner probably unknown 3,000 years ago, and holding the Aseres HaDibros with the numerical sequence from left to right. Yom Kippur correctly shows two identically sized “Se’irim” as per our tradition.

If you look closely at the name of the engraver, you will see that it was done by an R. Gavey.

I tried to find out more about R. Gavey and finally came upon a website which dealt with his family. I sent an email to the address listed and waited and waited. Two years later, I received the following response from a fellow in Australia:

It turns out that Robert Gavey’s Australian descendent had a copy of his certificate of indenture as an engraver to a goldsmith named William Norris. Robert was 15 years old at the time (1790) and his period of indenture lasted for seven years. He promised not get married during that time period or play cards or dice. He also was forbidden to frequent taverns or playhouses or engage in any act which would cause his master a loss of money. (Click to see a large, high-resolution image.)

The certificate of indenture was signed in May of 1790 which was noted as the thirtieth year of the reign of George III who is described as the king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland.

Speaking of George III, he received much better treatment in this Machzor than in our American Declaration of Independence. On our side of the pond, we know George III as a man who “ has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” As part of the agreement by Cromwell to allow Jews back into England, the Jews promised to always pray for the welfare of the ruler. Accordingly, this Machzor blesses King George in this manner:

This is not the only edition that continued to praise the monarch.  Isaac Lesser, published the first complete machzor in the United States in 1837-38, for the Spanish and Portuguese rites with an English translation.  Lesser’s translation relies heavily upon that of David Levi’s translation.[11]   In an attempt to sell his machzor in both the United States as well in other English-speaking locals, he includes two version of the prayer, one asked that God “bless, preserve, guard, assist, exalt, and raise unto a high eminence, our lord the king.”  The other, replaced this phrase with the request that God “bless, preserve, guard, and assist the constituted officers of the government.”[12]  

The person who finally brought the prayer for the government more in keeping with American democratic values was Max Lilienthal (1814-1882).[13]   While some had been willing to change the prayer, they did so only in the vernacular but retained the Hebrew HaNoten Teshua.  Lilienthal, however, totally reworked the prayer, altering its tone and focus.  Lilienthal removes all mention of kings, focuses on the country more than its rulers, and seeks to bestow God’s blessing, not on the ruler but on all the inhabitants of the land.  This version was included in Henry Franks’s Teffilot Yisrael, a siddur containing the Orthodox liturgy. This siddur was first published in 1848, and reissued in more than 30 editions.  As Sarna notes, the acceptance of the prayer is somewhat ironic in that Lilienthal, later became part of the American Reform movement, was the author of a prayer that became the standard even in Orthodox siddurim.[14]  Id. at 436.

Aside from changing the text of the prayer to fit American sensibilities, how the prayer was recited was also changed.   Congregation Shearith Israel, in New York, after the revolutionary war, “ceased to rise for Hanoten Teshu’ah. According to an oral tradition preserved by H.P. Solomon, ‘the custom of sitting during this prayer was introduced to symbolize the American Revolution’s abolition of subservience.’”[15]

The United States was not the only country to undergo significant changes to its governmental structure.  France, in 1787, abolished (temporarily) the monarchy.   After which the prayer for the welfare of the government was radically changed.  Instead of praying for the benefit of kings and rulers, the French prayer focuses upon the Republic and its people.  All the biblical verses included bless the people and not the king.   [16] The prayer begins “Look down from your holy place on our land, the French Republic, and bless our nation, the French people, Amen.”

Other changes to the prayer, due to time and place, were common. For example, during the height of the Sabbati Zevi messianic frenzy, two versions of the prayer were produced, not asking to bless the secular ruler, but, instead, blessed Shabbati Zevi.

Today, the most significant change to this prayer has been the new prayer on behalf of the State of Israel.  The authorship of the prayer as well as its use is subject to controversy.[17]

In the most recent “Prayer For the State” news, French President François Hollande, specifically invoked this prayer when discussing French Jews’ relationship to the state.  He included in his remarks, translated in NYRB, commemorating the round-up of Jews at the Vélodrome d’Hiver: “Every Saturday morning, in every French synagogue, at the end of the service, the prayer of France’s Jews rings out, the prayer they utter for the homeland they love and want to serve. ‘May France live in happiness and prosperity. May unity and harmony make her strong and great. May she enjoy lasting peace and preserve her spirit of nobility among the nations.'” 

The Yom Kippur volume of this set contains a detailed “apology”for the Kol Nidre prayer. The Jews endeavored to incorporate themselves into general society and felt the need to emphasize that their word was binding on them. Kol Nidre was seen as indicating otherwise, so an explanation of the prayer was seen as necessary, both for Jew and Gentile. (See Y. Goldhaver, Minhagei Kehilot, Jerusalem: 2005, pp. 209-19 on the history of Kol Nidre and the controversy.) It concludes as follows.

Finally, I would like to focus on the special prayer said during the Yamim Noraim when the Torah is taken from the Aron Kodesh. It first appeared in the Siddur Shaarey Tzion of Rabbi Nathan Hanover and begins with the words “Ribbono Shel Olam”.

In it we ask Hashem to remember us for a long and good life, with everything that comes along with that. We include in our request that Hashem should provide us with “Lechem Le’echol, Beged Lil’Bosh, V’Osher V’Chavod”.  Let us see how David Levy translates these words.

As you can see, the request for “wealth and honor” is nowhere to be found in the English translation. I was curious about this and asked Dan Rabinowitz for his opinion. He offered that it is possible that this Machzor was printed at a time when the English community was quite interested in the Hebrew language. Non-Jewish scholars eagerly bought any books printed in Hebrew. As such, it could be that Levy decided to leave out the reference for our desire for wealth and honor because, well, maybe it was a bit too pushy on our part.

I hope all of you are blessed with a Shana Tova, even one that includes within it the promise of wealth and honor.

[1]  See Marvin J. Heller, The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book, Brill, Leiden:2004, entry for Oratio and pp. 959-60 and the sources cited therein. But see Brad Sabin Hill, Incunabula, Hebraica & Judaica . . .” Ottawa:1981, #52 asserting that 1561 is the earliest introduction of Hebrew typography to England. It is unclear what the basis of that assertion is.

[2] Richard Rex, “Review: Robert Wakefield On Three Languages 1524,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 42:1 (Jan. 1991) 159.
[3] Richard Rex, “The Earliest Use of Hebrew in Books Printed in England: Dating Some Works of Richard Pace & Robert Wakefield,” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, Vol. 9, No. 5 (1990), 517-25.
[4] Id. at 517-18.
[5] Id. at
[6] See B. Roth, The Hebrew Printing Press in London, Kiryat Sefer 14 (1937), pp. 97-99.
[7] See also, Fenton,
[8] See Aaron Ahrend, “Prayers for the Welfare of the Monarchy and State,” in Aaron Ahrend, ed., Israel’s Independence Day: Research Studies (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998), 176-200 (Hebrew). This date is contrary to Schwartz who incorrectly posits that there is no evidence of HaNoten Teshua prior to the 16th century, and none in pre-expulsion Spain. See Barry Schwartz, “Hanoten Teshua: The Origin of the Traditional Jewish Prayer for the Government,” in HUCA, 57, (1986) 113-20. Sarna appears unaware of Ahrend’s article as he continues to assert that HaNoten Teshua was not composed prior to the 16th century. See Jonathan Sarna, “Jewish Prayers for the United States Government: A Study in the Liturgy of Politics and the Politics of Liturgy,” in Ruth Langer & Steven Fine, eds., Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue: Studies in the History of Jewish Prayer (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 207 & n.9 (link).
[9] See Ahrend, “Prayers for the Welfare,” at 183.
[10] See Menasseh ben Israel, The Humble Address to his Highness the Lord Protector, 1655.
[11] Leeser was not the first American to utilize Levi’s translation. The first Hebrew prayer book published in the United States, The Form of Daily Prayers (Seder Tefilot), New York, 1826, also includes an English translation by Solomon Henry Jackson. Jackson, who emigrated to the United States from London, also relied heavily upon Levi’s translation. Jackson, in the introduction, indicates that HaNoten Teshua was adapted for U.S. audience, in fact, the Hebrew remained the same, only the “translation” was altered. See Sarna, Jewish Prayers, 213.

Additionally, some time in the 1820s, there was an attempt to reprint Levi’s machzor in the United States. A prospectus was issued, but Levi’s machzor was never reprinted in the United States. See Yosef Goldman, Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926, Brooklyn, NY, 2006, no. 33.
The first appearance of HaNoten Teshua in the United States is found in the first prayer book published in the United States. Isaac Pinto’s holds that honor. In his English only edition whose first volume was published in 1761 with the second volume published in 1766, he includes HaNoten Teshu’ah.
[12] Jonathan Sarna, “Jewish Prayers for the United States Government,” at 215.

[13] See Jonathan Sarna, “A Forgotten 19th-Century Prayer for the United States Government ,” in Hesed ve-Emet, Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, ed. Magness & Gitin, Atlanta, Georgia, 1998, 431-40.

[14] Today, however, the most widely used Orthodox siddur in the United States, Artscroll, does not include the prayer in any form in its standard editions. It is unclear why Artscroll omitted this very old prayer.

[15] Sarna, Jewish Prayers, at 210.

[16] Moshe Katon, “An Example of the Revolution in the Hebrew Songs of the French Jews,” Mahut 19 (1997) 37-44, esp. 37-8.

[17] See Aharon Arend, “The Prayer for the Welfare of the Monarchy and Country, in Arend ed., Pirkei Mehkar le-Yom ha-Atzmot, Ramat Gan: 1998, 192-200.

[1] R. Moshe Zuriel kindly sent me the following additional sources that should be added to my list.

A Preliminary Review of  The New Koren Talmud Bavli:  A Goldilocks edition

by Jeremy Brown

We are only weeks away from finishing the seven-year cycle of Daf Yomi.  Right on cue, publishers are ready to meet the demand of those ready to study Daf Yomi the first time as the cycle begins anew, or perhaps students who wish to learn Talmud at a slower pace.  We are promised Daf Yomi apps (“apps” did not exist seven years ago) and the publication in English of a new translation and commentary on the Talmud: the Koren Talmud Bavli, with a commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel, better known as Adin Steinsaltz.  The team is led by Rabbis Tzvi Hersh Weinreb (formally executive Vice President of the OU) and Joshua Schreier (formally at Midreshet Lindenbaum) both of whom have stellar reputations, and the project will eventually comprise the entire Talmud Bavli in 41 volumes.  The regular price of each volume will be $49.95, but Amazon is advertising Berakhot at a significantly discounted rate of $29.54.  If these prices are maintained, the entire English Steinsaltz could be purchased for about $1,200; by comparison the entire (full size) ArtScroll English Talmud in 73 volumes, costs about $2,450  – twice as much.   Inevitably, comparisons will be drawn to both the older translation by Isidore Epstein and much more recent ArtScroll English translations, and even a cursory glance reveals striking differences between the productions. (To keep things simple, we will refer to the Koren edition as the “Steinsaltz” Talmud; the ArtScroll Schottenstein edition will be called the “ArtScroll” edition; and the translation by Isidore Epstein will be called the “Soncino” edition.)  

First, there are significant production differences. While the ArtScroll production team included several women proofreaders, the Steinsaltz team includes women as translators as well as language consultants.  This change does not guarantee a better product of course, and the outcome must be judged on the basis of its merits alone. However this approach demonstrates a commitment to a refreshing worldview in Jewish publications in which outstanding scholars are no longer barred from contributing simply because they do not carry a Y chromosome. With the repugnant attempts to marginalize women occurring in some fundamentalist sectors of Jewish society today, the Steinsaltz Talmud reminds us that Talmudic scholarship and teaching are no longer male dominated spheres. It is a message needs to be heard in Jerusalem and in Brooklyn.

Another difference also points to a subtle but palpable embracing of the modern: the approach to transliteration. The Steinsaltz team has adopted a transliteration schema that generally reflects the Academy. Thus the letter ח is transliterated as H with a dot under the letter, a כ is  kh, and ת is t. ArtScroll published Berachos, Steinsaltz published Berakhot. Again, such differences do not guarantee a better product, but imply that the Steinsaltz Talmud has an approach that might include lessons from the academy and modern scholarship. Finally, the designers have added a magnificent full color cover to the book, which is both eye-catching but utterly impractical if the volume is to be carried every day since the translucent paper easily scars.  Still, there is a simple solution to this. Just remove the cover while learning from the Talmud. If you do this you will notice the warm red tone of the volume, which is remarkably similar to many editions of the standard Hebrew only ש”ס today. Was this a clever way to disguise the book for those who feel the need to do so? 

Haskamot

Interestingly the Steinsaltz Talmud includes five haskamot from rabbis who died recently or long ago. Two are from R. Moshe Feinstein dated from 1970 and 1983.   An even earlier haskamah from R. Menachem Schneerson, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, dates from 1969, or some 43 years before the publication of the English edition. There is an undated haskamah from R. Moshe Zevi Neriah who died in 1995, and the final haskamah is from R. Mordechai Eliyahu, who served as the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel and died in 2010.  Quite what these haskamot are doing here is not clear; do such things persuade the reader to that the work is indeed appropriate, or do they serve instead as a kind of spiritual shield, meant to deflect any criticism of the project? The five haskamot printed in the Steinsaltz Talmud are all translated, so perhaps the target audience is indeed the reader who is not fluent in Hebrew, although I doubt there is much persuasive power in the haskamah as a book blurb. In comparison, ArtScroll printed twelve signed haskamot, but translated none of them. (Essay question: Compare and contrast the haskamot of the Steinsaltz and ArtScroll editions of the Talmud.)

Introduction

The Steinsaltz Talmud contains an introduction to Masekhet Berakhot which is more or less a translation of the original Hebrew, but generally improves on it.  Here perhaps the editors faced an important question: should this opening volume of 
ש”ס contain introductory essays about the place of the Talmud in Jewish thought and history, its development and why it must remain a meaningful foundation of Jewish identity? Or should the reader instead be thrown headfirst into the project, learning what Talmud is by, well, learning Talmud. In fact such a guide already exists, written by Steinsaltz and published by Random House in the 1989 English language Reference Guide. This work will soon be reprinted in a re-edited book as part of the larger Steinsaltz English Talmud set.  Such a guide will help many of those taking their first steps along the path of Talmud study. 

The introduction that is provided is both inspiring and welcoming, as the following will demonstrate.  Consider for example, the ArtScroll Talmud, which (after some 37 pages listing the sponsors) opens its introduction to Berachos in this way: 

Here in comparison is the Steinsaltz introduction: “Tractate Berakhot is the first tractate in the order of “Faith.” The primary focus of the tractate is the myriad ways in which a Jewish person expresses faith throughout his life.” There is a certain grandeur here that is captured, a certain look at the big picture that lies behind the detailed halakhic discourse.  This theme is echoed later in the introduction when the reader wonders just how the detailed halakhic path can lead to greater appreciation of the divine.  

This introduction addresses one of our great challenges, and yet it is rarely acknowledged. Every day life is often, well, just ordinary everyday life.  Although we may, at times, be keenly aware that life is a gift that cannot be taken for granted, in truth, there are many “minor and uninspiring” moments, and these do indeed constitute the majority of life. Yes, there is indeed chasm that separates faith and real life, and the introductory essay addresses this existential reality head on. 

Content

The layout of the Talmud is a radical departure from that of the Vilna 
ש”ס  and follows the earlier decision of Steinsaltz when his Hebrew translation and commentary no longer stuck to the Vilna format.  In that version each single amud was split into two pages, whereas in this English edition there is no allotted page format, and hence no automatic rubric that ties the page of the English translation with that of the Vilna 
ש”ס . For the ArtScroll translation the need to retain the look and feel of the Vilna 
ש”ס  was a guiding editorial principle that resulted in the same Hebrew page being reproduced several times in order to accommodate the English translation alongside.  The editors of the Steinsaltz Talmud made the wise decision that assumed their reader would be comfortable reading a page of Talmud in a form that no-longer resembled the standard page of Talmud, and the decision works.  Should the reader wish to refer to the page of the Vilna 
ש”ס , the entire masekhet is reproduced at the back (or front depending on your orientation) of the volume but with the addition of vowels. The result is that Masekhet Berakhot is in one volume, unlike the ArtScroll edition in which the Berachos is spread over two.  

Despite this break with traditional formatting, the Steinsaltz page maintains a Talmudic feel with its central text in Hebrew to the left of the English translation, surrounded by notes, just as in the Vilna 
ש”ס  there is a central Talmudic text surrounded on three sides by later commentaries.  In the original Hebrew Steinsaltz edition the various comments were largely to be found at the bottom of the page, whereas in the English edition they are where Rashi and Tosafot are usually to be found.  The result is a central ancient text surrounded by later comments – which is very Talmudic indeed.

The actual text is a pleasure to read, using Koren’s by now very familiar fonts.  Phrases in Hebrew are widely separated from each other, and the English translations are also printed in a paragraph style, rather than as a running text, which was generally how it appears in the ArtScroll.  The Steinsaltz presentation is, as a result, a greater pleasure to read and the Talmudic arguments are easier to follow than the page presented in either the traditional Vilna format or as translated in the ArtScroll or Soncino editions.  Small notes direct the reader of the English text to notes found at the borders of the page.  Like the original Hebrew Steinsaltz, these comprise of Notes on the Talmudic discussion, Background on material, Halakha (which references the Shulhan Arukh and Rambam), Language and Personalities.  These notes are supplemented with high quality color illustrations (although only in black and white in the Steinsaltz Daf Yomi edition). The illustrations are generally a superb addition and aid.  In a discussion of ritual impurity (36b), the illustration of the crown of the pomegranate is critical to understanding the text. Similarly the illustration of the issar (28b), a small coin, helps the reader understand the discussion. However the text states an opinion that one must bend down during the Amidah “until he can see an issar [on the ground]” so here the discussion might have been better illustrated with a reproduction of the actual size of the coin since this is most germane to the issue.  Some illustrations are vital – like that of a katedra or chair from the Talmudic era (43a) which was significantly different from the modern chair, and Talmudic era burial cave (14b). Others seem rather unnecessary; does the modern reader really need a color picture of a lion (56b) or elephant (57a)? And there are some errors too: Ursa Major is not “the largest a star in Taurus” (59a). Indeed it is not a star at all, but rather a constellation. Nor is it “the eye of the ox;” that would be Aldebaran. Elsewhere we correctly learn that polycythemia vera is one of the only conditions for which bloodletting remains an effective therapy. This is true, but the description of the disease causing excessive bleeding from the gums and from ordinary cuts is not; that would be hemophilia. (There is a subgroup of patients with PV who have thrombocytosis and dysfunctional platelets in whom bleeding can occur, but this is an obscure detail).   Perhaps, to complement the impressive group of translators and language consultants, the publisher should add a scientific consultant. These (relatively) minor quibbles aside, the notes provide important clarifications and points of interest which change the often dry Talmudic texts into accessible and even enjoyable reading material.

The censored text

The publisher’s preface to the Steinsaltz Talmud notes that the standard “Vilna edition was read against other manuscripts and older print editions, so that texts which have been removed by non-Jewish censors have been restored to their rightful place.” This is evident with the inclusion of a censored text on 17b in which the censored Vilna (and ArtScroll) text reads  שלא יהא לנו בן או תלמיד שמקדיח תבשילו ברבים  .  The original uncensored text identified the student who caused others to sin by name:שלא יהא לנו בן או תלמיד שמקדיח תבשילו ברבים כגון ישו הנצרי.  No mention of the censored text is mentioned in the ArtScroll Talmud, which instead directs the reader to the Ritva “for a specific reference.” The Ritva indeed mentions the reference to Jesus, but why did ArtScroll decline to amend the censored text? Of what precisely, were they afraid?  

This is not an isolated example. The text of the Talmud is also censored on 3a.  The original uncensored text reads  אוי לי שהחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתים לבין אומות העולם

However the Hebrew text of the English ArtScroll (and the Soncino) reads as follows:

אוי לבנים שבעונותיהם החרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתים לבין אומות העולם

The additional words  לבנים שבעונותיהם  were added by Christian censors and the corrupted text was noted in Dikdukei Soferim. None of was evident to the editors of the English ArtScroll, who compounded the error by adding the following homiletic note to the corrupted text.

In its effort to comment on (nearly) everything, the ArtScroll edition has added a homiletic explanation of a text written (almost certainly) by a Jewish apostate serving as Christian censor. Fortunately, the Hebrew and English editions of the Steinsaltz, together with the Hebrew Schottenstein (ArtScroll) have returned the text to its original and uncensored form.  

While the number of such censored Talmudic texts is not especially large, the modern reader should expect no less than the most accurate text of the Talmud, and the editors of the Steinsaltz Talmud seem to have been sensitive to this need.

Side by side comparisons

The real test of the new Steinsaltz Talmud is how it feels to use it, and how that experience compares to the older ArtScroll and much older Soncino translations.  What follows is a comparison of a section of text chosen at random. The comments are preliminary; an in-depth comparison of the three editions would require far more space than this review allows. First the Talmud itself, from ברכות ז:

Here is the Soncino translation togther with the foonotes, (which are not found on the same page in the orginal):

Next, the ArtScroll:

And finally the Steinsaltz with the Notes as they appear on the printed page:

In elucidating the meanings of this passage, the Soncino provides the minimalist approach, which consists of a translation of the biblical verse as it is cited in the Talmud, together with a translation of the comments of R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish.  The English text is understandable, but only with some effort. (What exactly are “stripes”?) In order to appreciate the biblical proof text cited the reader would have to look up the verse in its entirety. The notes provided in the Soncino edition are at the foot of the next page, so that in order to know where the verses are from, the reader must divert her attention from the text to the notes.   Finally, having studied this passage, the reader is left wondering just why regret is preferable to punishment.  Should her skills allow she could read Rashi’s explanation (who emphasizes that regret is reached through a personal reckoning), or provide an explanation of her own.  

The ArtScroll translation does more work for the reader, filling in the missing biblical text so that the verse is understood in its entirety without the need to actually reach for a Bible to look it up.  But the explanation, like the reference explaining where the verse comes from, is to be found in a footnote under the text, which is distracting.  Even more disruptive is the explanation of the verse provided in note thirty-two.  It explains how the verse may be understood metaphorically in the context of Hosea’s rebuke of Israel’s infidelity, but this is of no relevance in understanding the Talmud here.  Finally, following Rashi’s explanation, the ArtScroll translation of the verse from Proverbs used as the proof text for Resh Lakish is unnecessarily verbose: “The humbleness following from reproof…”

The Steinsaltz Talmud adopts a different approach than the ArtScroll, placing the references into the flow of the text so that the reader never has to search for the biblical citation.  Like the ArtScroll translation, it fills in the words missing from the biblical quotes, but it also provides a psychological explanation in the body of its translation, noting that “remorse is more effective than any externally imposed punishment.” The reader’s attention is directed to a note that appears immediately next to, (rather than below and distant from) the text that is being studied, and it here that the text is explained; it reveals an educational methodology in which a student learns best when “approached in a sensitive manner.”  This insight is acknowledged to come from Ein Ayeh, although the opportunity to tell the reader that this is a work of Rabbi A. I. Kook was sadly missed.  Finally, in its translation of the verse from Proverbs, the less verbose Steinsaltz translation is more germane and better understood: “A rebuke enters deeper into a man of understanding…”

The Soncino translation, once of great service as the only English translation, uses language that is anachronistic. It is difficult to use, and lacks the kinds of explanations that the modern reader is looking for. The ArtScroll translation is busy both esthetically and in its content, with so many references that the reader is often not able to distill what is of true value – namely, understanding the meaning of the Talmud and using it whenever possible to guide contemporary Jewish living. The Steinsaltz approach provides a Goldilocks translation, one that is just right, providing the reader with enough detail and explanation to discern the meaning of the Talmud, and to leave its study with a profound lesson that is applicable to contemporary society. For the student who wishes to study the Talmud in depth but who lacks the Hebrew skills to do so, the ArtScroll translation provides plenty of references and additional material.  For the more casual student, and for the reader engaged in the challenge of following the Daf Yomi cycle, the Steinsaltz translation is more readable and the page less overwhelming, without sacrificing any of the ability to understand the text itself. Less is certainly more.  Much more.  

Conclusion – the Talmud evolves

Writing some one hundred and forty years ago, Raphael Nathan Rabbinovicz described the 1554 edition of the Sabbioneta Masekhet Kiddushin as “the most becoming and beautiful. If the entire Talmud had been printed, it would have been the glory and most beautiful jewel of Israel.  All the editions before and after would not have compared to it…” The new English Steinsaltz Masekhet Berakhot deserves no less an accolade.  Aesthetically attractive, and containing new and important elucidations of the text, it is not simply a “me-too” translation, but a statement of the relevance and evolution of the central text of rabbinic Judaism.  It deserves a place on the shelf of every English speaking modern-Orthodox house and Bet Midrash, or better yet, every English speaking Jewish home.  The Koren Steinsaltz Talmud invites us to savor the Talmud. It shows us that far from being a work that is difficult and at times frustratingly opaque, the Talmud can be a colorful work that is not only easy to understand, but a pleasure to read. Ravina and Rav Ashi would have been proud.