1

Impression hébraïque en Amérique 1735-1926

– Revue II
|
Le post ci-dessous est la suite de ce post précédent.

L'Amérique a posé des questions uniques concernant les lois sur le mariage et le divorce. Au début de
l'histoire juive américaine, beaucoup de gens n'étaient pas érudits. Dans un effort apparent pour pallier
cette lacune, en 1901, R. Dov Baer Abramowitz publia son Sefer Ketubah. Ce livre contient des
déchirures, pro forma ketubot. Ainsi, le rabbin pouvait simplement en arracher un quand il en avait
besoin. (n° 588). Un autre ouvrage traitant des questions de mariage est une petite brochure publiée en
1909. Celle-ci traitait de la question d'un homme qui était incité à épouser une femme « mentalement
déséquilibrée ». Le mari a été autorisé à épouser une seconde femme via un heter me'ah rabbanim (le
consentement de cent rabbins). Typiquement, ces 100 doivent provenir de pays différents, cependant, ici,
pour la première fois, R. Rosenfeld, l'auteur, « a expliqué qu'il pouvait être délivré par des rabbins
américains seuls parce qu'à une certaine époque [les États-Unis] étaient des pays séparés. Et aujourd'hui
encore, chaque État est, dans une certaine mesure, [une] [entité] distincte' » (n° 1144).

Alors que d'une part il y avait beaucoup en Amérique qui étaient au sens juif, analphabètes, il y avait
aussi ceux qui se trouvaient à l'opposé du spectre comme c'était le cas, qui publiaient des travaux
savants. Dr Louis Ginzberg, publié en 1909 Seriedi HaYerushalmi min HaGeizah asher b'Mitzrayim. Ce
livre contenait, comme son titre l'indique, des fragments de la Genizah du Caire qui ont permis à
Ginzberg de proposer une correction à l'édition standard du Talmud de Jérusalem. Il semble que cela ait
été jugé si important même en dehors des États-Unis puisque « les recherches de Ginzburg ont été
incluses – sans attribution – dans l'édition de Vilna 1922 du Yerushalmi » (n° 606).

This copyright infringement was actually a two way street. In 1919, The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the
United States and Canada published, for the first time in America the complete Talmud. While this
signaled a new era in the Jewish learning in the US, it seems that the publishers did not secure all
necessary rights before embarking on this printing. Specifically, this edition is a photo-reproduction of
the Romm, Vilna edition of the Talmud. This did not go unnoticed. “Moses Rosenberg wrote to R. Hayyim
Ozer Grodzinski of Vilna on behalf of the Romm publishing house. He accused Agudath Harabbonim of
reproducing the Romm edition without permission and requested that Agudath Harabbonim be
summoned to a rabbinical court.” (No. 635). This letter is reproduced at the end of volume II of the work.
(p. 1181). The end of the second volume contains many historical letters from Yosef Goldman’s collection.
Additionally, there are photographs and autographs of some famous American Rabbis as well in this last
section.

On the theme of lack of religious observance, there is no lack of books dealing with this. Moses
Weinberger’s book, which Sarna translated into English, “People Walk on their Heads” is but one
example. R. Elijah Kochin, Sefer Aderet Eliyahu (Pittsburgh, 1917) where he complains “the city of
Pittsburgh is still hefker [anarchic] and it lacks everything necessary for the highest level of observance.”
He decried the “accepted evil custom in this land which says that he who lies the most by bluffing, as it is
called, is to be praised.” (No. 784).

Already in 1872, Nahum Streisand who I have no idea if any relation to the now woman singer Barbara,
which would be rather ironic in light of the fact this book “contains an analysis of the rabbinic debate
over the prohibition for a man to hear a woman singing. Streisand had originally sent its contents to
Henry Vidaver after the latter issued a ruling permitting women to sing in the choir of his congregation,
Bnai Jeshurun.” (No. 1091).

Other issues which came up include metzizha b’peh and whether one can use a sponge. See nos. 1117. In
1915 a book on circumcision was published which, in part dealt with metzizah b’peh by the milah board.
This board was “recognized by the New York City Commissioner of Health . . . [who said] the educational
value of such work as the Milah Board has done in this matter is of the greatest help to the City, and
particularly to our department.” (No. 1158).

Another issue was the use of wine during Prohibition. Dr. Louis Ginzburg published a responsa which
argued that grape juice was sufficient for ritual that would otherwise require wine. He did this as
“during the era of Prohibition, the government granted special licenses allowing the sale for sacramental
purposes. Some Jews abused these licenses.” Ginzburg, wanted to void the use of wine, thus obviating
the need for such licenses. This responsa “elicited enough interest in the secular world to merit a press
conference and coverage in a major newspaper [i.e. the New York Times].” (no. 1177).

This was not the only work influenced by Prohibition. Isidore Koplowitz published “Midrashic Exegetics
on Wine and Strong Drink.” He endeavored to prove “that the Hebrew prophets and a host of Talmudic
Rabbins, were outspoken in the great cause of prohibition.” No. 1179.

To be continued. . .

New Book Lists

|
There are two new list of out-of-print seforim available. The first, is via email, you can request the list
from sba-at-sba2.com. The second is mainly a list of German imprints (it includes a couple of books
Solomon Schechter owned) and can be viewed here. Additionally, Kestenbaum recently had their latest
auction, unfortunately their catalog is no longer available online, but if you previously downloaded the
catalog you can see the price results here.

Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926 –

Review I
|
There is a new work in Jewish bibliography focusing on American Jews. This work “Hebrew Printing in
America 1735-1926: A History and Annotated Bibliography” by Yosef Goldman. (It can be obtained by
contacting Y. Goldman at ygbooks -at- yahoo.com). As the subtitle states, is much more than a
bibliography. This work, is at the very least the starting point for any research on American Jewery, and
can be viewed as a history of American Jewry.

The book includes a listing of all the books published in American under the covered time relating to
Jewish topics. So we have books done by non-Jews, apostates, and, of course, Jews. It includes Rabbinics,
Drama, Fiction, Missionary and Humor to name but a few topics. Each entry aside from listing the
publication data also includes a short biography on the author, as well as a description of the contents of
the book, especially highlighting interesting tidbits. Each book is cross referenced and sources are
provided. The sources include references for further reading as well as where the person’s portrait can
be found.

The bibliography for this book is in itself a wonderful reference for American Jewish history. The books
are divided by topic which enables the reader to see the growth or trends in a particular area.

I wanted to highlight some of the more interesting entries to enable people to see the comprehensiveness
of this work; as well as to discuss American Jewish history.

As Goldman notes, America provided a unique home for the translation. Although, in other places in the
world, whenever either the Talmud or the Torah was translated this was generally accompanied by
controversy. In America that was never the case. Books were almost immediately published in English
without anyone raising an eyebrow. This is evident throughout the subjects. Whether it be in Torah or
Prayer or law. It is almost as if America was made for Artscroll and the like. There is but one exception is
the book (no. 612) Ohel Sara 1902 which discusses laws for women. The author, Abraham Ever
Hischowitz states in the preface “in 1902 when I considered the publication of this first edition of this
work, I found great difficulty in obtaining a written statement admitting the advisability of putting this
book on the market. The objection being of course, the Law concerning Niddah.” It seems that including
in English the laws relating to menstruation were possibly problematic, although the author was able to
overcome it and publish this work. However, as is noted, “there was apparently still some opposition as
late as 1912, since some copies of the second edition were printed without the section on menstruation.”

The first section is the Liturgy section. No. 41, the First Reform Siddur in America, 1855, by Dr. Leo
Merzbacher. Apparently, aside from this siddur, he also received ordination (semikah) from R. Moses
Schreiber of Pressburg (Hatam Sofer) the leading adversary to the Reform movement. In 1860, in light of
the differences in the highest governmental position, between the US and other countries, a siddur is
published which alters the traditional prayer for the government from ‫ הנותן תשועה‬to ‫ רבון כל העולמים‬this
was done so “whereas ‫ הנותן תשועה‬refers to a monarch, ‫ רבון כל עולמים‬refers to the president, vice
president, governor, lieutenant-governor, mayor, city council, and the residents of New York City.”
Additionally, a copy of the page with the new prayer is provided. (no. 46). On the issue of the prayer for
the government, in 1912, one Siddur the prayer for the government included a prayer for the Supreme
Court as well. (No. 114).

We have Marcus Jastrow’s Siddur which “creatively modified the classical contours of the Siddur . . . and
added many new prayers.” (no. 58). As well as his edition of the Haggadah which changed ha lahma anya
from the traditional words to “whoever is now a slave, next year he should be free.”

The Siddur l’Bet Sefer u’Lam which was designed for “school children and the general public.” The
author, R. Joseph Magil, sarcastically states “Don’t purchase this prayer book if the extra five cents that
this one costs is worth more to you than the tens and hundreds of dollars you spend on tuition for your
children.” (No. 97)

N’gintoh Baruch Schorr, which contains songs by the noted hazzan Baruch Schorr from Lemberg. In the
biographical portion of the entry we learn that Schorr “was a pious Jew.” And that he immigrated to the
US after “his Yiddish opera Samson was performed . . . he appeared on stage with the main actress
following a performance, he was censured by his congregation and suspended from his position for four
weeks. Insulted, he immigrated to America.” Five years later his congregation was able to convince him
to return. (No. 98).
There is what appears to be an error in this section. In one entry (no. 70) the note states “the text is
identical to the regular evening liturgy, the only change being the insertion of the two sentances into the
Kaddish prayer (‫… יהי שם‬and ‫ )עזרי מעם‬there is no precedent for adding these two sentances.” This is
incorrect. Many siddurim, including many of the German Rite, include these sentences in the kaddish.

For the Bible Studies entry, we have a very timely one. R. Hayyim Hirschensohn published a book on
Jewish chronology to “to prove that historians erred in their chronologies.” This book in turn,
engendered “a libelous criticism” “to which R. Hirschensohn answered” in another book Anah Kesil
(Answer the Fool). However, as is almost always the case “the author testified that the criticism was good
for sales.” (No. 208).

Beginning in 1912 R. Moses Alberts began an English dictionary on Old French terms used in the
commentary of Rashi. Unfortunately only volumes on Genesis and Exodus appeared. Nos. 212, 218).

In 1908, Judah D. Eisenstein published a broadside (one of the few single page broadsides included in the
bibliography. The majority of broadsides are multi paged ones, thus making it more apparent how they
qualified as a books rather than ephemera) for advertising his encyclopedia Otzar Yisrael. This included
a portrait of the Vilna Gaon, which was included in the Otzar Yisrael. However, although this is
“identified . . . ‘as a copy form a picture in the house of Samuel Wilner of New York’ a direct descendant
of the Vilna Gaon. This picture does not appear in the collection of Vilna Gaon portraits in Vinograd.”
(No. 231).

Ephraim Deinard, who was the first to catalog American prints and was a real character, when he
produced a catalog of Judge Mayer Sulzberger included some nasty comments about Solomon Schechter.
Specifically, he accused Schechter of” being ignorant in matters of Hebrew paleography . . . and was
‘irrelevant, since he does not know how to distinguish between old mss. [manuscripts].'” Sulzberger did
not want this printed and told Dienard to remove that leaf. So Dienard did so . . . for the copies he gave
Sulzberger. (No. 255).

On Hebrew Grammer no. 283 is of Abraham Kohn’s “Hebrew Reader and Grammar.” Kohn was “a
radical maskil. . . . He and his youngest son died from poisoning in 1848. Two Orthodox Jews were
arrested and charged with murder, but they were released after one year due to lack of evidence.” [For
more on this see Hirschowitz’s book on the Mahritz Hiyot p. 103-05 and the sources cited therein as well
as Zinberg (English translation) vol. 8 103-09.]

In 1915 Reuben Grossman’s book “MePri Ollel” (From the mouths of the Youth) which as its title implies
was written by a young boy. Grossman was 10 years old at the time! He was the youngest Hebrew author
in America. He published (with the help of his father) other books as well. (No. 352). There is also a
picture of the ten year old with white shoes and a bow tie.

One book listed and explained the acronyms of 129 from 1080-1880. (No. 517). Another did a play on the
Talmud (Kiddushin 49b) and stated “ten measures of telegraph and electrical lines descended to the
world – nine for America and one for the rest of the world. . . ten measures of rest and enjoyment the
Sabbath and holidays descended to the world- one for America and nine for the rest of the world.” (no.
518)

“In 1909, [R. Ezekiel Preisser] attempted to establish a daf yomi program whereby the study of the
Talmud could be completed every seven years.” This was 15 years before such a program was
established under R. Shapiro. (no. 734).

To be continued…
The Vilna Gaon’s Talmud
|
Mississippi Fred McDowell, has posted re: the Vilna Gaon’s Yerushalmi edition. However, I would like to
discuss which edition of the Bavli the Vilna Gaon had. This is a rather important especially in light of the
numerous emendations to the text the Vilna Gaon made. As when one is amending something it is
important to know what exactly they have amended.

Every morning Birkat HaShahar are recited. Among these blessings are three anomalous ones. These
there, as opposed to the rest, are in the negative. Specifically, these blessing are for ones legal status,
gender, and religion. It is the last one, religion is the one we will focus on.

The Talmud has these blessing, however, there is some difficulty with the text of the religion one. Some
editions have this blessing in the positive, i.e. “thank you for making me a Jew,” and some have it in the
negative, “thank for not making me a non-Jew.” This confusion prevailed into the medieval period, with
some texts containing one iteration of the blessing and some the other. What is unclear, however, is
whether this change to the positive was wrought due to censorship or is there some reason this blessing
should be in the positive.

R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, in his Ma’adani Melekh, claims any passage which is in the positive (“thank
you for making me a Jew”) is due solely to censorship. And with this, we get to the crux of our discussion
here – the Vilna Gaon’s edition of the Talmud.

The Vilna Gaon, in his commentary on Shulhan Orach says that one should say this blessing in the
positive form. He comes to this conclusion because “our editions of the Talmud have the blessing for
‘making me a Jew.'” In theory, the Vilna Gaon’s conclusion is dependent upon whether “our editions” are
corrupted or not. That is, if “our editions” are censored then they prove nothing. This contention, that
the Vilna Gaon used a corrupted edition is noted by R. Shmuel Feigenshon in the Otzar HaTefilot.
Specifically, R. Feigenshon claims that had the Vilna Gaon seen the Amsterdam 1644 edition he would
never made this mistake. [Additionally, based in part upon this, Y.S. Speigel notes the Vilna Gaon did not
use manuscripts or earlier printed editions when he amended the text.]

It is worthwhile noting that R. Raphael Natan Rabinowich, in his Ma’amar ‘al HaDpasat haTalmud
(which has just been reprinted by Mosad HaRav Kook) claims that the Vilna Gaon used the 1644 edition
of the Talmud, the very one if he had used it would have avoid this error!!

In the end, we don’t know exactly which edition the Vilna Gaon used and according to Speigel, it is likely
that the Vilna Gaon did not use one edition. Instead, it is likely the edition was dependent on the
particular volume of the Talmud he had and for each volume it may have been a different edition.

Sources on the blessing: T.B. Menachot 43,b; Dikdukei Sofrim ad. loc.; Rosh, Berakot chapt. 9; Ma’dani
Melekh id. at note 24; Tur Orakh Hayyimno. 46:4; id. Bach; Shulchan Orakh and Rama id.; see also, first
edition of Rama Prague, 1588 for the proper placement of his comments available here; Biur HaGra id.;
see also R. Y. Satnow, Va’yetar Yitzhak, no. 44; R. Jacob Emden, Luach Eres Toronto, p. 24 no. 64; Siddur
Otzar haTeffilot, on the blessing in question; On the Vilna Gaon’s edition of the Talmud: Y.S. Speigel,
Amudim b’Toldotha Sefer HaIvri: Haga’ot U’Magim, 404-405, 416 and the sources cited therein.
R. Yechiel Heller and the Status of Non-Jews
|
Some have recently posted regarding the status of non-Jews vis-à-vis Jews.
Although, they are more focused upon the medieval time period, I though it
would be instructive to discuss a more contemporary view. This view, is
striking in its breath as well in its authorship.
R. Yechiel Heller, author of the teshuvot Amudi Ohr, is well-known in Yeshiva
circles. While respona literature is generally not studied as one of the
commentary on Talmud, there are at least two of R. Heller’s responsa which are
standard fare in Yeshivot when studying Talmud. (One is a discussion regarding
toch k’edi dibur k’dibur and the second deals with misasek). However, R. Heller
has a lesser known responsum, which does not appear in his Amudi Ohr but in
a different and rare work. This work, Sheni Perakim’al Davar haHov l’Ohev
haKazar (Two Chapters on the Obligation to Love the Czar) printed in St.
Petersburg in 1852. One of these chapters is authored by R. Heller. In this
chapter he makes a very novel and very important arguement regarding the
status of non-Jews.

R. Heller argues that non-Jews today, have the status of Geri Toshav. This is so even without any formal
acceptance of that status. R. Heller explains that such formal acceptance is necessary only for
individuals, but when an entire nation (he focuses on Christians) falls into the category there is no need
for any formal acceptance. Today, he argues, the nations of the world more or less follow the seven
Noahide laws (he explains idolatry for this catogry allows for shituf) and therefore automatically
considered geri toshav.

This position has tremendous ramifications which R. Heller himself notes. Specifically, all the laws in the
Talmud regarding non-Jews are not applicable to geri toshav. Thus, R. Heller explains, that yayin nesach
is not applicable with a ger toshav. Nor is the special prohibition against selling weapons, returning a
lost object, or yihud (seclusion). Additionally, one can lend with usery to a ger toshav. All of this, R. Heller
explains, is applicable to the non-Jewish people we find our self living with.

This stunning opinion did not go unchallenged. There are those who question whether, without a formal
acceptance one can be considered a ger toshav. In fact, there is an entire work written to refute R.
Heller’s position, however, this work is still in manuscript form and has never been printed. (If someone
is willing, I would like to get a copy of this from the JNUL- you can email me).

However, it is important to note, that irrespective of whether this position is the correct one, at the very
least it is an important historic position, one that bears further dissemination and study.

Sources: For more on R. Heller see R. E. Katzman’s biography, “Mofet haDor, HaGoan R. Yechiel Heller
ZT”L – Ba’al Amudi Ohr” in Yeshurun 4 (1998) 648-681; 682-695 (reprint of the eulogy of R. David Luria
for R. Heller); R. A. Mandelstamm, Sheni Perakim, St. Petersburg, 1852; Peli [R. Pinchas M. Heilprin]
Iggeret Cheil Bet HaElyi, The Jewish National and University Library Ms. Heb. 8°5224, [1855].

Inverted Nuns
|
While Mississippi Fred recently discussed the missing nun (that is the Hebrew letter and not the people),
last week we were treated to those Oh, Inverted World Nuns. Although, today this odd textual device is
standard at least in its use, although there are some variations as to exactly how one does it (Sefardim do
it more like a z and Ashkenazim have the upside down backwards nuns -more about this later). You can
see some examples here, including one where the text was changed.

In fact, it is far from clear whether one should do this at all. Most notably, R. Shlomo Luria (Maharshal)
argued that the Talmudic passage this custom is based upon only mandates the typical break for a
parsha and not any upside down or otherwise letters. The passage only states that a sign should be made
for this parsha and nothing more. He argues that such letters in the Torah render the Torah passul (unfit
for use). R. Luria also notes the lack of uniformity in presenting such nuns, there are 19 different ways
he came across to make the nuns. Some even flip the nuns of the text of the Torah and do not place the
strange letters prior to and after the parsha in question. Thus, according to R. Luria, all of our Torahs
which contain such nuns are passul.

R. Yechezkial Landau (Noda B’Yehuda), however, among others, defends the custom. He claims that the
use of such a non-letter i.e. an upside down or z shaped non-letter is the key to allowing such a practice.
As since this is not a letter at all therefore it is just a sploch of ink which doesn’t render the torah unfit
for use.

Although the nuns in last weeks reading are almost universal, there is another inverted nun in the Torah
that is attested to by R. Shlomo Yitzhaki (Rashi) which, it seems, is not accepted at all. Rashi at the end of
Parshat Noach says that the name of Abraham’s father, Haran has an inverted nun. But this doesn’t
appear at all. (Another missing nun as it was.)

For more on this topic see here and here. Read She’alot u’Teshuvot Maharshal, no. 73; She’alot
u’Teshuvot Mahram m’Lublin, no 75; She’alot u’Teshuvot Noda B’Yehuda, vol. 1 yoreh Deah no. 73; R.
Menachem Mendel Kasher, Torah Shelmah, vol. 29 p. 124-130 (where he provided pictures of the various
methods of writing the nuns); C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico Critical Edition of the
Hebrew Bible p. 341; Shnayer Z. Leiman, “The Inverted Nuns at Numbers 10:35-36 and the Book of Eldad
and Medad” in Journal of Biblical Literature 93:3 (Sept. 1974): 348-55; Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in
Jewish Palestine, 38-43; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible p. 54-55.