Menachem Mendel

Menachem Mendel RSS Feed
 
 
 
 

The Disappearing Talmud Scholar

In the wake of my post about Oat Matzah, Dan R. mentionned to me that there are comments in the Kehati Mishnayot on the first mishnah in Hallah which some people found problematic. I have the original typeset Kehati Mishnayot, so I cannot comment upon the newer version, but in the older version there is the following note on the first mishnah in Hallah.

בנוגע למין כוסמין העיר לי מרן הגרא”י אונטרמן שליט”א, שחשוב לציין כאן, כי רבים משבשים את השם “כוסמין” (“כוסמת”) ומזהים אותו עם מה שקוראים גריק”א בלעז (בוכוויי”ץ בגרמנית) , ובפוסקים: טטרק”י. זוהי טעות העלולה להכשיל את הרבים בכמה הלכות, שכן המין הנ”ל הוא מין קטנית, אינו כלל מחמשת מיני הדגן: והרי יש הבדל רב לעניין ברכה ולדיני חמץ ועוד

The comments continues and then say that “חוקר הצמחיה התלמודית ע’ לעף כותב”, “The Scholar of Talmudic flora I. Loew writes that כוסמין is Triticum dicoccum.” So Kahati quotes the “Scholar of Talmudic flora I. Loew“. Well Dan wondered what was in the English Mishnayot Kehati and today I finally got around to checking what was there. Up until the line containing Loew’s name, the English translation is fairly loyal to the Hebrew and then it says, “Others define it as triticum dicoccum-ricewheat.” So there you have it, Immanuel Loew has now become “others”. I guess that the translator/editors of the English edition didn’t want people to know that Kahati trusted the opinion of Loew and felt that it was important enough to be brought in his Mishnah commentary.

One Response to “The Disappearing Talmud Scholar”

  1. 1
    Menachem Mendel:

    i.e., it’s not buckwheat (which isn’t a type of wheat); it’s emmer wheat.
    check out this excellent hebrew wikipedia entry on the subject:
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7…%93%D7%92%D7% 9F
    adderabbi | Homepage | 05.17.06 – 12:06 am | #

    cot’d – the anecdote w/ RSZA and RYSE at the end is prescious. and the colloquial term for oats in hebrew is apparently קוואקר
    = Quaker!
    adderabbi | Homepage | 05.17.06 – 12:08 am | #

    Thanks for the reference. That is a great story about RSZA and RYSE.
    Menachem Mendel | Homepage | 05.17.06 – 8:12 am | #

    blame not kehati, he was just translating the yiddish mish’ni’os
    amshinover | Homepage | 05.17.06 – 3:29 pm | #

    Amshinover:

    Did you read MM’s post? In the original Kehati, there is the reference to I. Loew, which was removed from the English translation. So Kehati referenced this guy, but that was too treif for translation.

    That’s the point of the post.
    jdub | 05.17.06 – 4:03 pm | #

    my point was perhaps r’simcha quotes loew therefore blame not kehati, he was just translating the yiddish mish’ni’os
    amshinover | 05.17.06 – 4:53 pm | #

    Samuel Heilman noted in his speech at YU last night that the new Soncino edition of the Chumash takes out all references to non-Jewish Bible scholars.
    Anonymous | 05.17.06 – 4:56 pm | #

    who is blaming Kehati? I don’t think anybody here thinks it’s bad that he cited an academic type.

    Also, I take some issue with the notion that Kehati just translated the Yiddish. There was some degree of independent work he put in as well. Can you demonstrate that the Kehati version is just a verbatim translation of the Yiddish?
    jdub | 05.17.06 – 6:43 pm | #

    In the new Mishnat R’ Eliezer (not the one with nekkudot) when referring to Enelow’s edition he writes the abbreviation for hamotzi la’or instead of mentioning Enelow’s name. Enelow ,of course, was a reform rabbi.
    andy | 05.17.06 – 7:12 pm | #

    The gemora already calls אלישע בן אבויה “other” – אחר
    Yehuda | 05.17.06 – 9:52 pm | #

    It is very upsetting this removal of sources for religious/political reasons. It is also idiotic because had they left the source in, leshitasam, it would be suspect. Now it has become mainstreamed. So lema’aseh they did IL a favor.
    david g. | Homepage | 05.18.06 – 12:44 pm | #

    Soncino removed all non-Jewish references from its Nach. It produced two Chumashim, Hertz’s with non-Jewish sources and then, to match the set of Nach, and all-Jewish Chumash (since the other stuff had been covered by Hertz). Both Chumashim remain unchanged.
    Nachum | 05.31.06 – 2:12 pm | #

Categories

Tags

Archives

Recent Posts

Meta

Sign up for an email subscribtion to this blog.

Michael Pitkowsky

Biblioblogs

Daf Yomi

History

Israel

Jewish Law

Judaica

Law and Legal History

Politics

Religion

Talmud