More on “New Notes Added in the Koren Talmud”

Shalom Z. Berger

In what seems like another lifetime but was just over a year ago, the Jewish world celebrated the 13^th Daf Yomi Siyum HaShas. The beginning of the 14^th cycle led to a revisiting of the Koren Talmud Bavli that had appeared in print for the first time in concert with the previous cycle. In a Seforim Blog post, Chaim Katz pointed out that the new English edition included some additional notes based on Rav Kook’s Ein Aya, and I responded with a post that offered some background on the efforts put into adding (and, occasionally, subtracting) notes, how it was done and to what purpose.

As I wrote in that earlier post, “Our assumption was that the audience for the new English Talmud would be less familiar with concepts and personalities appearing in the Gemara than Hebrew speakers, so we aimed to make sure that when new concepts or personalities appeared, they would receive a background or personality note.” This was done by creating a database of existing translated notes from the Hebrew Steinsaltz volumes, and inserting them as appropriate.

In a response to my post, Chaim Katz graciously acknowledged the contribution that these additional notes make in the new edition, writing: “But for English speakers that aren’t going to learn the language, or learn Tanach, or Mishna first, the “English” section of your edition is almost perfect. In any case the difficulty for students of the Talmud is not the language; it’s the missing concepts, circumstances, realia and all the other background information that the Koren Edition includes. Ashrekhem and Yasher Kohakhem!”

With that background, I would like to share two examples of additional notes, the first of which appears towards the end of Massekhet Pesahim, which, I hope, makes this a timely contribution. As we are in the midst of the year-long mourning period for Rav Steinsaltz, perhaps this could also serve as a tribute to his memory.

Presenting this on the Seforim Blog will also give me the opportunity to publicly thank individuals who helped me develop the new notes and to acknowledge sources that do not appear in the Koren Talmud Bavli itself. In doing so, I am emulating Rav Steinsaltz in his Gemarot, where, from Massekhet Hagiga until the beginning of Seder Kodashim, there often appears a page at the very end of the volume acknowledging individuals who made contributions to a given volume in various fields. In the first few volumes where this appears, it is a concise paragraph thanking his team of editors, graphics people and those who prepared the indices. Beginning with Massekhet Nedarim, he begins to thank medical doctors who helped him with medical issues in the massekhet (as an example, Prof. Jacob Steinberg of the Einstein Medical School gets a shout-out at the end of Nazir). Baba Kamma has additional thanks to those who helped him with questions of geography, while Sanhedrin mentions by name people who assisted in such areas as climate, botanica, zoology, medicine, geography, Rashi’s use of Old French and more.

Beginning with Massekhet Zevahim these pages ceased to appear, which may be connected with the appointment of senior editors in that volume, as now Rav Steinsaltz is listed as “Editor-in-Chief,” with Yonatan Eliav serving as editor. (I will note that each volume of the Koren Talmud Bavli lists editors, translators, copy editors, language consultants, etc., and the team grew in number as we moved though Shas.) Yonatan Eliav tells me that Rav Steinsaltz was “interested in everything,” that he had a large number of reference works at his disposal that he frequently turned to. It would appear that as time went on and the project became larger and larger – and Rav Steinsaltz became involved in more and more things – that he came to rely on experts in various areas of knowledge for the original Hebrew notes and commentary.

Yonatan Eliav also shared that Rav Steinsaltz was not necessarily interested in making use of the background material in order to explain the Gemara, rather his natural curiosity led him to include edifying information about the topic at hand in the Gemara even if it was not essential to understand the sugya. While I did include some material like that in Massekhet Berakhot, it was no longer a priority for my team as we moved forward. Still, there were a number of occasions when understanding the realia was essential for understanding the Gemara, as exhibited in the two examples below.

Pesahim 75a – Lead from its source

One of the editors, Micky Siev, reached out to me just before Massekhet Pesahim was finalized with the following question: In discussing how the Korban Pesah had to be roasted, the Gemara segues to a discussion about how the punishment of execution by burning was to be conducted. The translated text of the Steinsaltz Gemara originally read:

The Gemara asks: Once there is the reason of Rav Naḥman, why do I need the verbal analogy derived from the sons of Aaron? Even without it, Rav Naḥman’s ruling would require the court to carry out the execution with molten lead, which provides an easier death. They say in answer to this question: If not for the verbal analogy, I would have said that burning the soul while the body remains is not considered burning. And if it were just due to the statement of Rav Naḥman that one must select a kind death, we should add many bundles of branches so that she would die quickly. It therefore teaches us through the verbal analogy that executing with molten lead is considered burning. But if this is so, that the verse says: She shall be burned, to include all methods of burning, for what do I need the expression: In fire? The Gemara answers: To exclude lead from its source; when lead is extracted from the ground it is burning hot and this burning lead cannot be used for executions because its heat does not come from fire.

The original text of the Talmud reads לאפוקי אבר מעיקרו, which is translated here as “To exclude lead from its source.” The underlined sentence at the end is a direct translation of the Hebrew Steinsaltz, which is based on Rashi.

Siev asked me the following question:

“The underlined section is the Gemara as explained by Rashi. The question is simply that lead is mined from the ground, and as far as we are aware, is not burning hot when it is extracted from the ground.”

My first reaction was to turn to the Steinsaltz Gemara itself. A parallel sugya appears in Hullin 8a, and the Hebrew Steinsaltz Gemara has a note there that explains how it may be possible for lead that is newly mined to be molten hot, and I suggested translating that note for this sugya, as well. But Siev would have none of that. He insisted that to the best of his knowledge and research, lead is never molten when it is freshly mined.

I am not sure that this question would gain much traction in a traditional bet midrash setting, but it certainly was appropriate to ask in the context of the Steinsaltz effort that puts significant emphasis on questions of realia (in fact, at a family wedding that I attended at the time, a relative who gives shiur at one of the prominent one-year Israel programs and is a serious talmid hakham asked me “what are you learning these days?” I shared this question with him and his reaction was “this is learning?!” But surely, if it appears in the Gemara, תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך).

None of the usual sources offered me anything, so I tried to be creative. I called a neighbor who is a geologist. What I learned was that although both he and his wife studied geology, they studied in Israel, which has no lead deposits, so they could not be of any help. Recognizing that I needed to broaden my search, I posted the question on H-Judaic, a listserv for Jewish studies academics (full disclosure – today, as a measure of hakarat hatov, I serve as one of the volunteer editors at H-Judaic). Within a day Prof. Gerrit Bos, Chair of the Martin-Buber-Institut at Cologne University wrote to me simply “Dan Levene and Beno Rothenberg deal with this problematic issue extensively in their: A Metallurgical Gemara: Metals in the Jewish Sources, London: 2007, pp. 101-107.”

While I could not locate the volume in a search of academic libraries in Israel, the Yeshiva University library had a copy, and my sister, Shulamith Berger, who heads their special collections, had a scan for me in a few hours. All this networking led to the removal of the underlined explanation of “lead from its source,” and its replacement with the following note:

This is an opportunity for me to thank Prof. Bos for the reference, acknowledge that the suggestion appears in the book by Dan Levene and Beno Rothenberg, and thank my sister, Shulamith, for making their work accessible to me.

~~~

Shevuot 23a – Pressed figs from Ke’ila…honey or milk

I mentioned this case in my last post, but would like to come back to it in order, again, to acknowledge the assistance of others in the research I did when developing the note that ultimately appeared in the Koren Talmud Bavli volume.

In this case, I believe that the editor involved was Jonathan Mishkin, who pointed out that the Gemara takes for granted that someone who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank honey or milk could not perform the Temple service because they were likely to be intoxicated.

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the intoxicating substance referred to in the verse is pressed figs from Ke’ila, as it is taught in a baraita: A priest who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank honey or milk and then entered the Temple and performed the sacrificial rites is liable for violating the prohibition against conducting the Temple service while intoxicated.

The Hebrew Steinsaltz Gemara offers a laconic explanation in a note suggesting that figs from Ke’ila have a high sugar content, which may lead to fermentation, but it says nothing about the other substances that appear to be even more problematic. The page in the Koren Talmud Bavli appears as follows:

The first thing to catch your eye has to be the illustrations – none of which appear in the original Hebrew Steinsaltz Gemara – but there is more. The Background note about the prohibition to enter the Temple when intoxicated is taken from the Steinsaltz Reference Guide to the Talmud, which served as the source for many of the additional notes aimed at giving context to a discussion in the Gemara.

The note on “Pressed figs from Ke’ila…honey or milk” expands on the original Steinsaltz note that figs may ferment. The real challenge is why milk should be considered intoxicating (the story of Yael and Sisera in Judges 4:19 notwithstanding). The two suggestions raised in the note are that milk, too, can ferment and become alcoholic, or that “milk” in this context refers to white date wine, the latter suggestion attributed to Rav Menachem Kasher’s Torah Temimah.

Both of those suggestions, again, came from responses that I received on the H-Judaic list. While the Torah Shelemah is credited with the idea that “milk” may be white date wine (Vol. 28 pp. 273-274 in the milu’im), I would like to acknowledge that I was directed to this source by Prof. Admiel Kosman, who serves as professor of Talmud and Rabbinic Literature at Potsdam University.

After a time, I began to turn to both Bos and Kosman directly with questions like these, as they both proved to be invaluable resources in questions of realia. My public thanks to both.

In closing I would like to reiterate my thanks to Rav Steinsaltz zekher tzaddik li’vrakha and yibadel le’hayyim tovim, Meni Even Yisrael for allowing me to play a role in this project that aims to spread Torah among all Jews. A friend recently sent me a still photo taken from an interview with Amar’e Stoudemire that shows the Koren Talmud Bavi on the shelf behind him. The power of Rav Steinsaltz’ vision to make the library of Sifrei Kodesh available to all Jews who desire to learn is a powerful legacy that is now being fulfilled.

Rabbi Dr. Shalom Berger szberger@gmail.com served as Senior Content Editor for the Koren Talmud Bavli project. He is now involved in developing English language educational programming for Herzog College’s Tanakh department.

New Notes Added in the Koren Talmud Bavli
Shalom Z. Berger

I would like to thank Chaim Katz for his close reading of the Koren Talmud Bavli, focusing on the new notes that were added in Tractate Berakhot, which he shared in a recent post on the Seforim Blog. His post offers an opportunity to share some of the background to the changes in the new English edition as compared to the original Steinsaltz Talmud Hebrew edition.

Perhaps the most important thing to clarify is the thinking that went into the decision to produce a new translation of the Talmud in English. What has driven much of Rav Steinsaltz’ publishing is his belief that basic Jewish texts should not be confined to a specific group in the Jewish world. Jewish texts belong to all Jews, and all Jews should be given access to the wisdom of Jewish thinkers and writers. This was the idea behind the original Steinsaltz translation of the Talmud Bavli into modern Hebrew, and it is what led to the decision to develop an English translation that would be based on it. From the current chatter on social media, it appears that the combination of the availability of this English edition of the Talmud Bavli and the publicity given to Daf Yomi study following the recent Siyum HaShas has confirmed the wisdom of this undertaking.

When the team involved in the translation first gathered to discuss what changes – if any – would be made to the English edition, many possibilities were discussed. First and foremost, was the layout itself. It would have been impossible to fit a side-by-side translation next to the tzurat hadaf of the traditional Vilna Shas, yet there was a strong feeling that the tzurat hadaf was essential. Was an interlinear translation important – following the tradition of the Steinsaltz Hebrew (and competing English) translation – or were there other, perhaps even better, ways of presenting a translation that matched the original Aramaic text? Without going into details (perhaps that is for another Seforim blog post), the decision was made to create a volume that could serve as a pedagogic tool, with the original text facing an English translation that highlights the literal translation, while interspersing language that helped with transition and clarification. A separate section had the tzurat hadaf with full punctuation and vowelization for both Gemara and Rashi, and light punctuation for Tosafot. The idea was that someone with little background in Talmud study would start with the translation, following it to learn terminology and cadence, and work their way up to the “Hebrew” side of the Gemara while having the English translation as a reference.

Beyond the standard contents, the Hebrew Steinsaltz Gemara includes a number of additions that appear on virtually every page. The bottom of the page contains iyunim and halakha, while the side bars have girsa’ot, lashon and a number of different categories, e.g., hahayyim, ha’olam, ishim, etc. Another addition that is not nearly as obvious to the reader is the replacement of censored lines, like the addition of כגון ישו הנוצרי (Berakhot 17b). I do not believe that the idea behind these additions was to produce an “academic” edition of the Talmud, rather the point was to make the Talmud as accessible as possible – to introduce the personalities of the participants in the Talmudic discussions, to clarify the realia that often leaves the reader confused by means of maps, charts and images, to show how the discussions on the Talmud page lead to a conclusion in the codes, and so forth.

Many hours were spent deciding which of these to include and whether the English edition required changes or updates. For example, there was talk of adding contemporary responsa to the halakha category (a suggestion that was ultimately rejected). The final decision was to leave out girsa’ot, to update lashon with an advisory group of academic scholars, to review the iyunim, adding new ones or removing old ones as necessary, to update the “personalities” biographies and to combine most of the different additional categories into a single “background” category. Perhaps the most obvious changes apparent to anyone who opens the Koren Talmud Bavli are the image upgrades that appear throughout the different volumes. Far from the simple sketches that appear in the original, the new images are clear, full-color (in the standard edition) representations that make these volumes aesthetically appealing and offer greater clarification of the issue at hand.

When making changes in the notes, it was essential that the Talmud being produced in English remain the “Steinsaltz Gemara” in that the new material would reflect Rav Steinsaltz’ approach to teaching and learning. As such, it was necessary for someone familiar with Rav Steinsaltz’ somewhat eclectic approach to compiling notes in his Gemara to spearhead that effort. I had just finished a multi-year project reviewing Rav Steinslatz’ notes on the entire Shas, producing a daily essay based on his teachings (see here), and I was tasked with heading up the team that was to work on the English notes in the new edition.

Our assumption was that the audience for the new English Talmud would be less familiar with concepts and personalities appearing in the Gemara than Hebrew speakers, so we aimed to make sure that when new concepts or personalities appeared, they would receive a background or personality note.

The most obvious method of adding relevant material was to “borrow” from Rav Steinsaltz’ own work – from other tractates in the Hebrew Talmud Bavli, from his Reference Guide to the Talmud and from his other published works. To assist in this, a database was created of all the notes that appeared in the original Steinsaltz Hebrew Gemara, from which notes could be readily accessed and inserted, as appropriate. Beyond that, decisions would have to be made about where to insert new notes (or change existing ones), and research would need to be done to ensure the quality and consistency of those notes.

The new audience presented other challenges, as well. Translating holy texts is a weighty matter, indeed (see b. Megillah 3a). It is well-known that select quotes from the Talmud have been used as the basis for anti-Semitic screeds since medieval times.[1] Making the Talmud available in English exposes it to an impossibly broad populace, and we believed that it would be necessary to offer background explanations to sections that could be viewed in a negative or questionable light. Heated online discussions that included the Editor-in Chief, Rav Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, other members of the editorial team, and outside experts, led to the creation of new notes that were inserted in the volumes.

What kind of notes would be added? Here are some examples:

– Notes were inserted to offer explanations for Talmudic statements that cast Gentiles in a bad light. Here we repeatedly turned to the well-known Meiri, “who explains that the Sages in the Talmud were referring to pagans whose way of life was completely lacking in ethical or moral constraints, and who for many centuries cruelly persecuted and murdered the Jews. The Meiri claims that by his time in the thirteenth century, all of humanity had adopted the moral and ethical codes of the major monotheistic religions. Therefore, statements like the one in the mishna do not apply to contemporary gentiles.”[2]

– Another example is how to deal with statements in the Gemara that appear to present beliefs that are contradicted by modern science. The following note appears in Sanhedrin 91a:

Akhbar that today is half flesh and half earth: Post-talmudic sages, ranging from Maimonides to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, have asserted that Talmudic beliefs about the natural world were an outgrowth of the prevailing views of the wider society in Talmudic times. The Sages of the Talmud lived many centuries before the development of modern science and were influenced by contemporaneous scientific theories. Therefore, their notions of the natural world, some with halakhic implication, are at times inconsistent with modern science. In the case of the creature discussed here, the Sages may have heard reports of a creature of this kind, or may even themselves have observed a creature emerging from the earth that superficially appeared to be half-flesh and half-earth. It is apparent that some commentaries (Rashi, Meiri) hold that it is a product of spontaneous generation, a phenomenon that was universally accepted well in the nineteenth century but is rejected by modern science.

On the one hand, this type of note is typical of the Steinsaltz realia background notes that attempt to make the Gemara explicable to contemporary understanding. At the same time, it does depart from the usual approach by recognizing the fact that scientific beliefs appearing in the Talmud may be incorrect.

– We also added notes to explain passages in the Gemara that are hard to understand from the perspective of the natural world. As an example, the Gemara in Shevuot 23a quotes a Baraita that teaches: “A priest who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank honey or milk and then entered the Temple and performed the sacrificial rites is liable for violating the prohibition against conducting the Temple service while intoxicated.” An existing Hebrew language Steinsaltz note suggests that the figs from Ke’ila may have caused intoxication because their high sugar levels could lead to fermentation that produced alcohol. No mention is made about how honey or milk might lead to intoxication. In this case, the new note was based on a suggestion made by Rav Menachem Kasher in his Torah Shelemah,[3] leading to the following:

Milk can also ferment, and in some cultures it is common to drink fermented alcoholic milk beverages known as Kefir. In the Bible there are references to the intoxicating powers of milk (see Judges 4:19). Another possibility is that the word halav here, rather than denoting milk, is referring to white date wine. This usage appears a number of times in rabbinic literature. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 19:5) discusses halav in the context of teruma, which can consist only of produce. Similarly, the Targum translates the word halav in the Song of Songs (5:1) as referring to white wine (Torah Shelema).

– As noted above, perhaps the most attractive additions were the enhanced images. Accompanying the above-mentioned note were new images of figs, together with a map of Israel showing the location of Ke’ila. On more than one occasion, I received a request from editors asking for suggestions of images that could be added to tractates that were lacking visual enhancements to the text.

Tractate Berakhot, which is what Chaim Katz focused on in his review, posed a problem of a different order. Simply put, Berakhot has a lot of words on each page.⁴ This led to a situation where the original Hebrew Steinsaltz, which limited to a single amud to a two page spread, had little room for explanatory notes, given that the text of the Gemara, Rashi and the Hebrew translation took up almost all the room on the page. This was especially true on pages of aggada, where the Gemara text took up even more room on the page, so that on pages where Rav Steinsaltz’ commentary would have been especially helpful, there was little to be found. The English translation pages did not have these limitations – indeed, English translation guaranteed that there would be quite a bit of “white space” – and it became necessary to add material that matched Rav Steinsaltz’ writings, which include Jewish philosophy, kabbalah and hassidut. Most of the new notes in the tractate have their roots in this perceived need.

As Chaim Katz writes, many of the new notes are from classical commentaries on the aggadic portions of Gemara. While it is correct that the vast majority of the original Hebrew notes in Berakhot are from classical sources, there are some contemporary scholars referred to in those notes (e.g., 28b, where Rav Isaac HaLevi Herzog is brought alongside Rav Sa’adia Ga’on and others in explaining why Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived that King Hezekiah was coming to escort him to the next world).

In consultation with Rav Steinsaltz – who was involved in several other projects and was unable to turn his attention to writing a new commentary on these sections of Berakhot – I suggested Rav Kook’s Ein Aya as an approach that would dovetail nicely with Rav Steinsaltz’ own writings and an ideal source for the kind of ideas that would enhance the study of the tractate, both on their own merits and by introducing an important thinker to the English reading public. Previously, the Ein Aya had changed my personal experience when I taught Berakhot, inasmuch as contemporary questions on aggadic portions of the Gemara that go undiscussed by the classic commentaries are given voice by Rav Kook. Studying this work, choosing which pieces would engage the contemporary English reader, and distilling them into concise prose for inclusion in the new volume, was a challenging labor of love. As Chaim Katz notes, the Ein Aya is considerably longer than standard commentaries. Furthermore, Rav Kook’s language is difficult and often obscure. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether I succeeded in capturing and conveying Rav Kook’s ideas accurately in the limited space available.

After almost 20 years of working on various Steinsaltz-related Talmud projects efforts, this is a fitting time for me to express my appreciation to Rav Adin Steinsaltz and to Rav Meni Even-Yisrael for having been given the opportunity to play a role in fulfilling Rav Steinsaltz’ vision of spreading Torah to as wide a spectrum of Jews as possible.

Rabbi Dr. Shalom Berger szberger@gmail.com served as Senior Content Editor for the Koren Talmud Bavli project. He is now involved in developing English language educational programming for Herzog College’s Tanakh department.