Ashkenazim and the Sephardic Pronunciation of Hebrew

This post will continue on the theme of a previous post where I discussed how Chassidim switched from the Ashkenazic rite to a modified Sephardic one. Here I will focus more in depth on how and why some Ashkenazic Jews –both religious and (later) secular- adopted the Sephardic pronunciation of Hebrew because they deemed it superior to the Ashkenazi one.

Sepharad in Ashkenaz

In the last 2 decades of the 18^th century, concurrent with the rise of the Chassidic movement [1] in Eastern Europe, a pietist group was emerging in Germany. It was led by Rabbi Nathan Adler of Frankfurt. Rabbi Nathan’s followers regarded him as a man of God and a miracle worker. Under his influence they studied kabbalah, demanded extreme standards of abstinence and self purification and conducted separate prayer service according to a special rite based on the prayer book of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria.

R' Adler was a very controversial figure in the Frankfurt Jewish community and was eventually excommunicated in 1779 and again in 1789. A booklet entitled Maaseh Tatuim was published anonymously in 1790 (a copy of which I have in my collection) which attacked the actions of Adler and his followers. Some of the chief accusations against Adler included the complaint that they introduced substantial changes in both the text and the conduct of prayers; praying in the Sephardic rite known as siddur haari and (unlike the Chassidim) also of using the Sephardic pronunciation in prayer [2] [3].

The Jewish Enlightenment looks to Sepharad as a Positive Model

The literature abounds on the subject of the Reform movement in Germany using Sephardic Jewry as a positive model of what progressive Jewry ought to look like. Interest in all things Sephardic was all the rage among the wissenschaft crowd in Western and Central Europe.

Todd Endelman writes:

From the late 18th century, Sephardim throughout Western Europe, as well as Ashkenazim, deployed the myth to promote their own cultural, political and social agendas...the pioneers of Wissenschaft des Judentums and the leaders of the Reform movement constructed an image of Sephardi Judaism that stressed its cultural openness, philosophical rationalism, and aesthetic sensibilities in order to criticize what they disliked in their own traditions, i.e. its backwardness, insularity, aversion to secular studies. In France, Austria, Germany, Hungary and the United States, communal and congregational boards erected imposing synagogues of so called Moorish design, assertive symbols of their break with the “unenlightened” Ashkenazi past.

Before the end of the century, the myth of sephardi superiority was widely disseminated and available for appropriation by Jews and their enemies alike…in their battle against racial myths about Jewish deformities, Jewish anthropologists drew on the Sephardi mystique to create a counter myth of their own- that of the well-bred, aesthetically attractive, physically graceful Sephardi, a model of racial nobility and virtue. In their work John Efron notes, “the Sephardi served as the equivalent of the Jewish ‘Aryan’…the physical counterpart to the ignoble Jew of Central and Eastern Europe [4].

This Ashkenazic sense of inferiority was obviously something new. As Ismar Schorch put it: "there is little doubt that beyond the worldwide influence of Lurianic Kabbalah(of which Adler's group and the Chassidim of eastern Europe are one example--J.D.), the religious culture of Spanish Jewry held but slight allurement for a self-sufficient and self-confident Ashkenazi Judaism in its age of spiritual ascendancy" [5].

In fact until the 16^th century Ashkenazi culture enjoyed higher status than the Sephardi one, (perhaps since Ashkenazi Jews had not converted to any other religion i.e. had not become Marranos). Around 1500 when the first scholarly Hebrew grammar books were published in Europe, the authors naturally took the language of Jews living in France and Germany, that is Ashkenazi Hebrew , as the basis of their work, and sephardi was regarded as a curiosity. In the epoch making grammar book (De rudimentis Hebraicis, 1506) of Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522), Ashkenazi Hebrew was the living language. It was only in the 17^th century that European Hebraic scholars- the so called “Christian Hebraists”, decided in favor of Sephardi reading. It was accepted by the great grammar (1817) of William Gesenius (1786-1842) as well, which formed the basis of modern Hebrew linguistics. Since the 17^th century everyone considered the Sephardi usage to be the scholarly standard and used it exclusively. Jewish scholarship (wissenschaft) was now committed to Sephardi, and it became the ideal for the initiatives of the Reform movements[6].

Schorsch writes:

With the advent of emancipation in central Europe, German speaking Jews gradually unhinged itself from the house of Ashkenazic Judaism. Inclusion in the body politic sundered a religious union born of common patrimony. Historians have tended to focus on the institutional expression of this rupture-the repudiation of the educational system, the mode of worship, and the Rabbinic leadership intrinsic to Ashkenazic Judaism- with special emphasis on the western tastes and values with propelled the transformation of all areas of Jewish life…with surprising speed German Jews came to cultivate a lively bias for the religious legacy of Sephardic Jewry forged centuries before on the Iberian Peninsula without which they would have cut loose from Judaism itself…..enabled them to redefine their identity in a Jewish mode [7].

The Sephardic Pronunciation of Hebrew vs. the Ashkenazic

The Maskil Nafatali Herz Wessely, whose admiration for the Sephardim of Amsterdam was born of personal experience, had contended in the fourth and final letter of his Words of Peace and Truth that the Sephardic pronunciation of Hebrew was grammatically preferable to the manner in which the Ashkenazim rendered it. A generation later, the teachers and preachers who pioneered the development of a German rite adopted the Sephardic pronunciation for their “German synagogue”. Not a point of Halachic contention, the switch could be defended by Eliezer Liebermann in terms of grammatical propriety or by Moses Kunitz of Ofen (Modern day Budapest) in terms of demography- more than seven eighths of the Jewish world offers its prayers in the Hebrew of the Sephardim but the ultimate motivation of this unnatural and self conscious appropriation of Sephardic Hebrew was the desire to extinguish the sound of the sacred tongue from that of Yiddish, which these alienated Ashkenazic intellectuals regarded as a non-language that epitomized the abysmal state of Jewish culture [8].

Another proponent of "Sephardicism" was Mayer Kayserling (1829-1905) PICTURED TOP who was born in Hanover in 1829, an eventually became the liberal rabbi of Budapest and his generation’s leading scholar on of Sephardic Jewry. In his work entitled Sephardim: Romanische Poesien der Juden in Spanien, he betrays an unmistakable pro-Sephardi bias, contrasting the “lowly” language and manner of the Ashkenazic Jew with the “nobility of character” and “purity of the language” of the Sephardic Jew. He extols the virtue of the Sephardim and maintained that: "persecution had not destroyed the aristocratic bearing, the cultural loyalty, the linguistic purity, and the alliance of religion with secular learning that had distinguished Sephardic Jewry". He also naturally felt that the Sephardic pronunciation of Hebrew was the correct one. [9].

It should be noted that the close resemblance in pronunciation between the biblical Hebrew taught at German universities of the time and the Hebrew of the Sephardim no doubt bestowed a verisimilitude of correctness of the latter.

Schorch also quotes an interesting letter dated 4^th October 1827 by J.J. Bellerman, a well known theologian, scholar and director of the prestigious Berlin Gymnasium. He advised Zunz to teach the youngsters in the Jewish communal school over which Zunz presided the Sephardic pronunciation of Hebrew from the very beginning. Bellerman had been invited to observe a public examination of the children. While expressing his pleasure at the event, he did see fit to challenge the retention of the “Polish pronunciation of Hebrew,” because it managed to offend both the vowels and accents of the language. And in conjunction with the vowels, he pointed out the historical superiority of Sephardic Hebrew.

Bellerman writes in the letter:

As you well know the writings of learned Alexandrian Jews—in the Septuagint, Josephus, Philo and Aquila- show that the Polish pronunciation is incorrect…the learned Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian Jews have the correct one. Why shouldn’t the Jews of Berlin and in fact of Germany choose the better (of the two)? Especially Berlin Jewry which has already adopted so much that is correct? It would indisputably accrue to their honor, if they would offer other communities in this matter an example [10].

Stripping the Sephardic Pronunciation of Legitimacy

Obviously not all Ashkenazim were thrilled with the radical changes now gaining popularity. They were particular disturbed by the change in pronunciation

As early as 1502 the Jewish false Messiah Asher Lämmlein, a German Jew who appeared in Italy and succeeded in attracting a large following of both Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews mocked the Sephardic émigrés in his city . In his writings Lammlein barely hides his contempt for the peculiar Sephardic accent. He publicly excoriated the Spanish Jews (who had recently fled to Italy after being expelled from their home country) for their “corrupt ways” and demanded that they “correct” their prayer liturgy. In his writings he also heaped scorn upon the writings of Maimonides, particularly the latter’s injunction that it is important to distinguish between an ayin and an aleph and between a heh and a chet. He called them

עילג לשון

“stutterers”. Lemlein wrote: “they (the Sephardim) do not distinguish between a samech and a tzadi…and the kamatz and patach is the same to them as is the tzere and the segol…” [11].

Some Ashkenazi Rabbis were of the opinion that an Ashkenazi praying in the Sephardic rite and or using the Sephardic pronunciation rendered the prayer null and void. Some Rabbis took issue with the way Sephardim pronounce Gods name and maintained that one should be careful to say adoinoi [as in oy] rather than the Sephardic adonay [as in aye] (which could be mistaken as a declaration of polytheism) see here.

To be sure, this attitude of contempt is not restricted to the Ashkenazi side, see this piece of recent news.

Controversy in Hungary

Hungary never had a strong tradition of pronouncing the prayers in the Sephardi pronunciation. The aforementioned Hartwig (Naphtali Hirtz) Wessely (1725-1805). PICTURED SECOND FROM TOP who initiated the reform of Hebrew pronunciation, referred precisely to the fact that the Sephardi people read out every phonetic symbol, even semitones of traditional texts, clearly, and claimed that their language sounded nicer than the Ashkenazi reading. In Hungary, Joszef Rajnis (1741-1812), a Jesuit teacher and poet, made a similar statement with an offensive anti-Semitic overtone. In his opinion the accent ("barking" as he called it) of rabbis differed significantly from the original sounds of the ancient Jewish language.

In Hungary there was an attempt to introduce Sephardi pronunciation already in the 19^th century. Following German examples, it was Moses ben Menachem Kunitz (1774-1837) of Obuda, the Rabbi of the Buda community from 1828 until his death, author of some valuable Talmudic works, a Zohar analysis, (Ben Yohai, 1815), and even a drama in Hebrew verse (Beit Rabbi, 1805), who in 1818 published a Rabbinic decision (pesak) which announced that the Sephardi pronunciation should be used in the synagogue instead of the Ashkenazi one. His main argument (as mentioned before) was that seven eighths of the world’s Jews prayed using the Sephardi pronunciation (this figure was obviously exaggerated). Kunitzer was in favor of reforms in general; he even supported the efforts of the radical reformer Aron Chorin. He studied in Prague and was held in high esteem.

The activity of Kunitzer had no real result, but in spite of its failure, it indicates that representatives of the haskalah were unanimously convinced that the Sephardi pronunciation preserved by certain isolated Jewish groups throughout centuries, was closer to the original sound of the Hebrew language than the Ashkenazi one, the common language of European Jews altered under German influence [12].

In the 1950s, the leadership of the Hungarian Jewish community strictly forbade the Sephardi pronunciation which sounded similar to Modern Hebrew. It was even forbidden at the Rabbinical Seminary, lest they be accused of Zionism and thus invite political or police intervention (Hungary was a Communist dictatorship at the time). Those who study Hebrew these days may learn both pronunciations, yet the attraction and impact of the Israeli intonation is powerful. In Synagogues, the Ashkenazi pronunciation is still in use, but younger people, including students of the Rabbinical Seminary, switch to the Sephardi-Israeli reading they became accustomed to during their stay in Israel [13].

Zionism and the Rebirth of Hebrew


Eliezer ben Yehuda PICTURED BOTTOM is considered the father of “Modern Hebrew”.

Ben Yehuda left his native Lithuania and sailed to Palestine in 1881 where he settled in the Jewish quarter of old Jerusalem. In 1890 he helped create the Hebrew Language Council (Va'ad Ha Leshon Ha Ivrit) whose stated purpose was to disseminate works in Hebrew and establish Hebrew as the official language of the Yishuv.

Although Ben-Yehuda was not a religious Jew, he dressed as a traditional Sephardic Jew, sported a long untrimmed beard and regularly attended the local synagogue [14]. It wasn’t long however until he managed to arouse the ire of the Jerusalem Sephardic Rabbinate who responded with 3 separate bans against his and his newspaper “Hatzvi”.

Ben-Yehuda particularly disliked the Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yaakov Shaul Elyashar and considered him be from the old generation of Jews who were hopelessly stuck in the “galut mentality”. He did however form close ties with Elyashar’s successor, Rabbi Yaakov Meir who was highly sympathetic to Ben-Yehuda’s ambitions and the former was instrumental in introducing the modern Hebrew language into the schools of the Sephardic community in Jerusalem[15].

Ben-Yehuda Chooses the Sephardic Pronunciation

Ben-Yehuda, although displaying an attitude of contempt for the older generation of traditional Sephardic Rabbis, harbored a strong admiration for the traditions of Sephardic Jewry; the “golden age in Spain”, was especially cherished by Ben-Yehuda who called it “this most fruitful period” [16].

As Jack Fellman put it:

..the Sephardim as a whole were less inclined to religious fanaticism and more receptive to new ideas from the outside world. This fact can be attributed to various sources. First, unlike the Ashkenazim, the Sephardim had never been directly exposed to the new climate of thought as expressed in the ideas of the enlightenment which were sweeping across Europe during the 19^th century and therefore did not recognize as deeply the possible anti-traditional, anti-religious consequences of these beliefs [17].

It is known from historical records and had also been clear to Ben Yehuda before his arrival in Palestine that the various Jewish groups in the city, while speaking their own languages among themselves, used Hebrew as a lingua franca when it became necessary to meet together, for example in the market place, or to work together, as in the collection of taxes for the government authorities. This situation was particularly applicable to the 2 major sections of the community- Ashkenazim and Sephardim- when they met together, but was also the case when groups consisting only of Sephardic Jews gathered, as these people had no other common means of communication but Hebrew, since Ladino was restricted in use and Arabic was splintered into several dialects. As Ben-Yehuda observed: “When for example a Sephardi from Aleppo would meet a Sephardi from Salonika or a Sephardi from Morocco would come into the company of a Jew from Bukhara, they were obliged to speak in the holy tongue… of all the centers of Jewish population in the world only Jerusalem could boast a spoken Hebrew tradition which had been preserved until Ben Yehuda’s time. As Ben-Yehuda noted: “for me the matter was a little easier, because the Sephardim who knew I was not a Sephardi were already used to the fact that with an Ashkenazi they must speak in Hebrew. As for the Ashkenazim, some of them did not know who I was, and the question whether I might not be a Sephardi made it acceptable to them to speak with me in Hebrew.

This Hebrew was not, of course, the Ashkenazic (European) Hebrew that Ben Yehuda had learned in his youth. In the first place, it was a Hebrew spoken with the Sephardic accent, inasmuch as the Sephardim were numerically and culturally superior to the other groups in Jerusalem and had enjoyed this status for over 300 years and therefore their accent too had become dominant….It should also be borne in mind as a factor initially aiding Ben Yehuda and his ideal that certain groups of Jews in Palestine already spoke only Hebrew, in particular Kabbalists and Hassidim especially in Safed, at least on Sabbaths, but also, it would seem, on weekdays [18].

Adopting Hebrew as the Official Language

After much discussion and debate, a meeting of the Hebrew Teachers Association in 1895 adopted Hebrew as the language of instruction, with Sephardic pronunciation to be used (but Ashkenazic pronunciation was allowed in the first year in Ashkenazic schools, and for prayer and ritual). The next meeting of the association was not until 1903, at the close of a major convention of Jews of the Yishuv called in Zikhron Yaakov by Ussishkin, the Russian Zionist leader. The 59 members present accepted Hebrew as the medium of instruction…and there was general agreement also on the use of Ashkenazi script and Sephardic pronunciation [19].

It should be pointed out that although modern Hebrew is similar to the Sephardic pronunciation, it isn’t exactly alike. For instance, Sephardic Hebrew, as mentioned before, differentiates between an ayin and an alef, as well as between a chet and a khaf while modern Hebrew does not do so in both cases.

While most Zionists were enthusiastic about reviving Hebrew as a spoken language, not all of them were as enthused by the adoption of the Sephardic pronunciation and insisted on using their “native” dialect in conversation.

The Lithuanian Yiddish poet and writer Yehoash mentioned how strange Sephardic Hebrew sounded to him when he emigrated from the US to the new colony of Rechovot shortly before World War I

In stark contrast to the story cited in Schorsch (see above) with Mr. Bellerman and the students of the Berlin Gymnasium, Yehoash (and others) took issue (though ambivalently)with the young Hebrew students at the Herzliyah High School reciting Hebrew poems in the Sephardic pronunciation:

An excellent poem by Frischmann was read, but in the Sephardic Hebrew pronunciation the lines lost their original rhythm. The problem of retaining in the Sephardic accent the rhythm of the Hebrew songs composed originally in the Ashkenazic pronunciation will be very hard for the devotees of the ha-Havarah haSefardit to solve. Yet practically all residents of Eretz Yisroel use exclusively this latter. The most sonorous strophes of Bialik and Shneor must naturally lose the greater part of their melody when uttered in the Sephardic pronunciation. No wonder then that many Hebrew authors in foreign countries look askance at the Havarah Hasefaradit, One of them- a well-known mystic and philosopher, who never in his life cracked a joke-perpetrated his first and only pun at the expense of the selfsame dialect calling it ha-havarah ha-sefardde’it, the language of the frogs.

Yet Yehoash concedes:

And yet after residing in Eretz Yisroel for an appreciable length of time, one begins to feel that the Sephardic accent is the proper one, despite all the historico-philological considerations [20].

On the question of why Ben-Yehuda and the Language Council decided to adopt the Sephardic pronunciation, Jack Follman quotes the noted linguist Dr. Haim Blanc: “for various reasons, they decided to adopt the pronunciation in vogue among Mediterranean and Middle Eastern (Sephardic) communities, but which one of the several Sephardic varieties was actually used as a model is obscure…”

Blanc offered the following reasons among others for this change:

1. The Sephardic variety was already in use as the pronunciation of the Market Hebrew lingua franca of Palestine, and was used even by the Ashkenazim in their face to face dealings with the Sephardim for almost 4 centuries prior to Ben-Yehuda.

2. The Sephardic variety was considered the more ancient of the two, as testified in particular by various transliterations and translations of Hebrew into Latin and Greek, and therefore was considered closer to the original ancient biblical Hebrew of the homeland. A further point was the fact that the Sephardi variant was considered closer to the historical dialect of Judah, the home of Judaism, whereas the Ashkenazic form was thought to be similar to that of secessionist Samaria.

3. The Ashkenazic variety of Hebrew reminded the council too much of Yiddish, the despised language of the exile in the opinion of most of the council’s members, which, in particular contained the same set of vowel phonemes. Conversely, the Sephardic form resembled the sound pattern of Arabic more closely and Arabic was the sister language in the Semitic family which already existed in the locale.

4. The Sephardic variant reproduced the consonantal text of Hebrew more accurate that did the Ashkenazic, as it included at least four more graphemic-phonemic renditions, as mentioned above. Therefore it was considered the more correct of the two by the council, who still conceived of Hebrew more in its written image than in its spoken form.

5. It was the council’s opinion that children who knew the Sephardic system would be equipped to read and write Hebrew texts with greater facility since the Sephardic system resembled the consonantal text more closely. Since children were to be the chief carriers of the language revival, this was an important factor. (However as Hebrew is generally written only in its consonantal shape, the fact the Ashkenazic and not the Sephardic system was closer in vocalization to the vocalized Hebrew text was never given serious attention, although Yellin did mention it at least once in his work, at his lecture on the subject to the Secondary and Grammar School Teachers Union Conference in Gedera in 1904. This step was later to lead to serious problems in the teaching of Hebrew vocalization.)

6. The Sephardic system is closer to the internal grammatical structure (morpho phonemics) of Hebrew than the Ashkenazic system, and had been the system already in use among the European Hebraists as well as in Hebrew grammars. In this sense, it may be said that the Sephardic variety had more codification and thus more prestige than the Ashkenazi variety [21].

Notes:

[1]. the historian Simon Dubnow doubted the existence of a direct link between the formation of Adler’s circle and the emergence of Hasidism, and most other scholars who have considered the question agree. Some reconsideration of this position is now required, as the scholarly world has recently revised its view of the spiritual nature of early Hassidism and embarked on a new assessment of its religious and social features. The new approach studies the beginning of Hassidism in the context of the religious awakening then taking place in the world of kabbalistically oriented pietistic groups active in 18^th century Europe. We are therefore justified in attempting a reassessment of the link between the different manifestations of religious pietism appearing at the same time in eastern and central Europe. The Frankfurt pietist circle and the Hasidic groups in eastern Europe were established at approximately the same time-the early 1770s; both trends looked to the same sources for inspiration and sought to create a new ritual expression for new spiritual currents; both used the Hebrew term Hasidim; they recognized the power of charismatic leaders and their authority to innovate new practices and there was a striking similarity between the two in prayer rites and other customs as well as in the nature of their deviations from accepted norms in their respective communities.
Elior, Rachel "Rabbi Nathan Adler and the Frankfurt Pietists: Pietist Groups in Eastern and Central Europe during the Eighteenth Century," in Karl Erich Grozinger, ed., Judische Kultur in Frankfurt am Main, von den Anfangen bis zur Gegenwart (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1997), 135-177, available here.

[2]. Ibid, p.9 (in PDF)

[3]. the historian H.Z. Zimmels hypothesized that the Chassidim did not switch to the Sephardic pronunciation because it would have been too difficult for them to do so. Adler reportedly had a Sephardic scholar living in his house for over a year in order to teach him the "proper" pronunciations of Hebrew see here. Cf., Chatam Sofer, Responsa, Orah hayyim, para. 15: “therefore my master, the wise, pious, and priestly Nathan Adler, of blessed memory, he would himself lead the services and pray in Sephardic pronunciation from R’ Yitzchak Luria’s prayer book.” Cf. Abraham Lowenstein of Emden, Responsa Zeror Ha-hayim, Amsterdam 1820, sec,. “U-neginotay yenaggen”: “As to what has been testified of the unique sage…R’ Nathan Adler in Frankfurt, that he too used to pray in the Sephardic pronunciation , I too know this….And heard him pray in the Sephardic pronunciation and apart from that…R’ Nathan was at that time quite alone in his usage, counter to all the great authorities of that time in Frankfurt a.M., and no one ruled like the aforementioned R’ Nathan but prayed in the Ashkenazic accent as we do.” According to Adler’s biographers, he had learned the Sephardic accent in his youth from a Jerusalemite visitor to his home. Derekh Hanesher p. 22

Quoted in Elior p. 31 (in PDF)

[4]. See "Benjamin Disraeli and the myth of Sephardi superiority" Todd M. Endelman, Jewish History Volume 10, Number 2 / September, 1996) pp. 31-32

[5]. See "The Myth of Sephardi Supremacy," Ismar Schorsch, reproduced in his From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism (Hanover, N.H., 1994), p. 72

[6]. Jewish Budapest: monuments, rites, history by Kinga Frojimovics, Géza Komoróczy pp. 459-460

[7]. Schorsch, 71

[8]. Schorsch, 77

[9]. Ibid, 85. Cf. “Scientific Racism and the Mystique of Sephardic Racial Superiority”, John Efron pp. 86-87

[10]. Schorsch, pp. 89-90

[11]. Hamburger, Benyamin. Meshichei Hasheker Umitnagdayam pp. 242-243

[12]. Jewish Budapest pp. 457-458

[13]. Jewish Budapest, 461

[14]. Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer. Hahalom Veshivro, p. 107

[15]. Ben-Yehuda, Devorah. Hayav Umifalo pp. 47-48

[16]. Fellman, Jack. The revival of a classical tongue: Eliezer Ben Yehuda and the Modern Hebrew language p. 77

[17]. Fellman, 29

[18]. Fellman, 30-31

[19]. Wright, Sue. Language and the state: revitalization and revival in Israel and Eire p. 14

[20]. Yehoash, The Feet of the Messenger pp. 34-35

[21]. Fellman, 84-85

Please Help Preserve Jewish Family Trees!

I am pleased to post here about a new genealogy collaboration that will help preserve Jewish genealogy for future generations.

MyHeritage.com and Beit Hatfutsot - the Museum of the Jewish People (Tel Aviv, Israel) are now collaborating in a major new project to preserve Jewish family trees.

Under this partnership, online family trees built on MyHeritage.com - with the consent of the tree creators (see below) - will be transferred to Beit Hatfutsot for digital safekeeping.

For three decades, Beth Hatfutsoth has been collecting digital information on many topics, all aimed at preserving the history of the Jewish people, including family trees with millions of records. Its multimedia database includes Jewish genealogy, surnames, communities, photographs, film/video and music.

Read more...

The Origin of the name "shnayer"

Shnayer is a very common personal name, popular both among Chassidic and non Chassidic Jews[1].

Where does this unusual name come from? Unlike most Jewish male personal names, shnayer is neither biblical nor of yiddish origin. Its etymology is somewhat controversial with Anthroponomasticists disagreeing as to its exact origin.

Shnayer= Two Lights?

I recently came across an interesting article by Yechiel Gumperz in TARBIZ Vol. XXV which discusses the origin of the name Shanyer among others. Gumperz writes:

. Rabbi Shmuel Vidaslow in his book Beth Shmuel on the Even Haezer section of the Shulchal Aruch explains the name's etymology: "when both the paternal and maternal grandparents of the child is named Meir, he shall be called shnei-or". The Maharashal in his commentary yam shel shelomo on tractate Gittin, Chapter 3, article 26 relates an incident that occurred in his family ”a son was born to his grandfather who wanted to name the child Meir after his own father, however the mother wanted to name the child after her father whose name was Yair so they compromised by naming the child shnei or". However the name Shneir predates all of this and its origins are much older. shnayer is not equivalent to senior as shenei-or contains an aleph whereas the Sephardic sinior (Ladino for Moses) does not[2].

Gumperz does not expand on it but rather adds cryptically: "see Shem Hagedolim on the entry Shnayer b. Yehuda".

Indeed Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulai in Shem Hagedolim likewise relates the aforementioned story of the maharshal but adds:

However It seems that the name shnayer is much older because Rabbi Yonah already quotes from his teacher Rabbi Samuel b. Shnayer. And likewise other Rabbi were named shnayer and therefore they named the aforementioned child shnayer because this name already existed in the world and it (also) alluded to the “two great lights” Meir and Uri[3].

Romance Elements in the Yiddish Language

Max Weinreich

(considered one of the foremost experts on the Yiddish language)

in  History of the Yiddish language opines that Yiddish arose via a fusion

of Hebrew, Loez (Western Loez is Judeo-French and Southern Loez is

Judeo-Italian) and German.





According to Weinreich, the Ashkenazic community began in what is now

Lorraine, France(referred to as Loter) and absorbed successive waves of

Jews from other parts of France and Italy.



Weinreich also puts forth a possible explanation as to how the

erroneous (in his opinion) etymology for the name

Shnayer may have come about:

The name Shnayer...is very old in Loter-Ashkenaz. Toward the end of the eleventh century there lived in Loter, apparently in Worms, an eminent Halachist, R. Shneur son of R. Judah son of R. Baruch. Among the victims of 1096 (the "First Crusade") the name Shneur is found four times in Mainz, once in Cologne, once in Worms. Despite its Hebrew orthographic garb, the name is of Loez derivation. Its proto ancestor is Latin SENIOR (the older). The traditionalization of the orthography came apparently in Ashkenaz, where the coterritorial population spoke no Romanic and the Jews no longer understood the original meaning; the /sen/ could have been conceived as a shin with a shva and a nun, and thereafter the name was interpreted by folk etymology as shne+ur (two lights)[4].

George Jochnowitz writes here:

French Jews fled to what is now Germany. Their language may have survived for a generation or more, but there is no record of it. Instead, we have Isolated words: cholnt from an Old French word meaning hot, related to Spanish caliente and modern French chaud; bentshn, 'to bless', perhaps from French but more likely from Provencal benzir or Italian benedicere; leyenen, which we have already mentioned. Then there are given names: Beyle from belle, meaning 'beautiful', which coexists with the names Sheyne and modern Yafa; Yente, probably from Judeo-Italian yentile, standard Italian gentile, meaning 'noble' and a man's name, Shneyer, from French seigneur meaning 'nobleman' or 'lord'. Nowadays people say Shneyer comes from Hebrew shnai or 'two light', but there never was such a Hebrew name before there was Yiddish.

I would also add an additional reason why shnayer can't mean "2 lights", because it would be grammatically incorrect. In Hebrew 2 lights would be "shnei orot", ("or" being the singular noun and "orot" being plural).

NOTES:

[1]. particularly Chabad where boys are often named after the founder of the movement, Rabbi Shnayer Zalman of Liadi[photo left]) and the Lithuanian "yeshiva world" ,particularly Lakewood, where boys are often named after Rabbi Shnayer Kotler[photo right]).

[2]. See Gumperz, Yehiel. Keriat Shemot B’yisrael in TARBIZ Vol. XXV April 1956, p. 346

[3]. See Shem Hagedolim p. 128 and Kuntres Achron ibid.

[4]. Weinreich Max, History of the Yiddish Language. p. 399

Claiming Descent from the Maccabees

The Talmud in tractate Bava Batra 3:1 relates that the Hasmonean dynasty came to a tragic end with the death of the last survivor of Herod’s purges, a young woman whose name is not given.

Herod was a servant of the Hasmoneans, and there was a “little girl” among them upon whom he cast his eyes. One day he heard a voice saying that a servant who should rebel that day would succeed. Then he slew all his superiors except this little girl; and when she saw that he intended to marry her, she ascended to the roof and proclaimed: "If it happen that one shall claim himself descended from the Hasmoneans, be it known that he is a slave[1], for all the Hasmoneans were slain except myself, and I now commit suicide by throwing myself from this roof.

Likewise in tractate Kiddushin 70b:

Whoever says that he is from the household of the Hasmoneans is surely a slave.

The Talmud is unclear as to who the “little girl” was. Some assume that she was Miriam, the daughter of Alexander and Alexandra, both of whom were descended of Alexander Jannai and Shlomit Alexandra (see genealogical chart top right). The problem with this interpretation is that (according to Josephus) the aforementioned Miriam did actually marry Herod and bore him four children: Alexander, Aristobolous, Shlomzion and Cyprus.

The Hasidic thinker Rabbi Zadok of Lublin puts forth a different explanation. In his book Resisei Layla (Paragraph 57) he writes (translation mine):

Even after the death of the young maiden, there remained remnants of the Hasmonean house, however they were forced to go into hiding out of fear. And what the Talmud relates that nothing remained (of the Hasmonean house) means that they hid and disappeared from the public eye. God forfend to say that the seed of those who brought such great salvation to the Jewish people (the Hasomenans), became extinct.

Josephus indeed writes that Herod had to contend with claimants to the Hasmonean throne well into his reign.


Are Descendants of the Hasmoneans Really Slaves?


The Talmudic dictum(?) that Hasmonean descent constitutes tainted ancestry apparently was never taken too seriously. How else to account for numerous families of distinction, throughout Jewish history claiming Hasmonean ancestry (although one may counter that those claims should likewise not be taken seriously, however just the fact that these devout Jews would make such a claim proves my point).

The following are several examples:


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS


The great Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (alleged bust, top) in the opening chapter of his autobiography Vitae, writes:

The family from which I am derived is not an ignoble one, but hath descended all along from the priests; and as nobility among several people is of a different origin, so with us to be of the sacerdotal dignity, is an indication of the splendor of a family. Now, I am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another, I am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus חשמונאי from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. My grandfather's father was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus : he lived at the same time with that son of Simon the high priest, who first of all the high priests was named Hyrcanus. This Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias, called Ephlias: he married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest, which Jonathan was the first of the sons of Asamoneus, who was high priest, and was the brother of Simon the high priest also. This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first year of the government of Hyrcanus: his son's name was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was born in the tenth year of the reign of Archclaus; as was I born to Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar.

Josephus considered himself a Pharisee (the antecedents of Rabbinic Judaism). Assuming the "problem" of Hasmonean ancestry was known during the time of Josephus (the Tannaitic period), why would Josephus make such a claim?


THE SEPHARDIC PERAHIA FAMILY



The Perahia ha-Cohen family (some link the Perahias to the Pereiras of Sephardic reknown) were a distinguished family of Rabbis and and scholars in the Balkan Peninsula (particularly in Salonika) . This family prided itself with their pedigree, and traced themselves to the aforementioned Jewish historian Flavius Josephus[2].

The Sephardic historian Michael Molho wrote a monograph on the Perahia family under the title Essai d’une Monographie sur la Famille Pérahia à Thessalonique (Salonica, 1938) that also records this claim and mentions the founder of this branch who came to Salonika from southern Italy in 1502.

This claim is also cited by the historian David Conforte in his book Kore ha‑Dorot, among others.

Some members of this family living closer to our time includes the contemporary Kabbalist Rabbi Chaim Hacohen Perahia, also known as the "Milkman", because he rolls up his sleeves every morning to go milk the cows at his sisters farm see here

See also the accomplished Pianist and Conductor Murray Perahia

THE GOLDSMIDS OF ENGLAND

The Goldsmids were a family of wealthy Anglo-Jewish bankers and barons.

A.M. Hyamson in A History of the Jews in England records an early family tradition among the Goldsmids claiming “descent from Moses Uri haLevi (1544-1622) who had come to Emden from Poland, the first recognized Ashkenazi rabbi of Amsterdam, brought there by the earliest of the ex-Marrano settlers. But there is a far more distinguished ancestry to which the family more or less lays claim – one however which the Heralds are not as yet prepared to accept – and that is the princely Hasmonean family of Judaea and the Maccabee hero-sons of Mattathias the priest. Rabbi Uri claimed this illustrious ancestry and the Goldsmid family, inheriting the claim, took as its motto Mi Camocha Baelim Adonai, “who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the Gods”, the basis of the name of Maccabi if an acrostic is accepted.

The descendants of Rabbi Uri haLevi formed several branches, known severally as Moses, Levi, Letteris, as well as Goldsmid. ... The name Goldsmid is supposed to be a kinnui or civil name, the equivalent of Uri. According to Exodus, Bezalel ben Uri was the goldsmith employed in the decoration of the Tabernacle”.

Some Distinguished Members of the Goldsmid Family

*Isaac Lyon Goldsmid was born in London and entered the family firm of Mocatta and Goldsmid bullion brokers to the Bank of England. He became a very successful financier, his estate at death being valued at over £1 million. Throughout his lifetime he used his wealth and status to advance educational, social and religious reform and to pursue Jewish political emancipation, playing a pivotal role in the founding of UCL. Goldsmid abhorred the division of the London Jews into distinct Ashkenazi (German- and Yiddish-speaking) and Sephardi (Spanish and Portuguese) communities. In an attempt to remedy this he was instrumental in founding a distinct “British” synagogue – the West London Synagogue of British Jews, opened on 27 February 1842.

It is also interesting mention that when Theodore Herzl visited England in 1895, he found an instant ally in the person of a wealthy and well- connected Colonel Goldsmid who became an enthusiastic supporter of Herzl's plans.

CONVERSOS IN BRAZIL


I came across an additional curious anecdote, this one about a converso family that settled in Brazil which claimed to possess a deed of nobility proving its descent from the Maccabees. A similar claim existed in the family of Joseph Salvador, an eccentric thinker of converso origin who lived in 19th century France [3].


Notes:

[1]. see here for discussion on the halachic status of Herod's descendants



[2]. Unfortunately, many people tend to confuse Josephus (whose hebrew name was Yosef Ben Matityahu) with another obscure figure Yosef ben Gurion who was his contemporary. The popular medieval work Sefer Yossifon is not the Hebrew version of Josephus History of the Jews (which Josephus-by his own account- did write but has subsequently been lost) but rather a later medieval adaptation. see here and here for a more in depth discussion on this.

In the Venice edition of Yosifon, first published in 1544, there are numerous gushing approbations by leading Italian Rabbis, testifying to the saintliness of the man (whom they evidently thought was Josephus, one of the commanders of the Jewish War) , some went so far as to call him, Yosef Hacohen "Hagadol"(literally, the High Priest)!.

Apparently Italian Jewry took great pride in one of their own sons (after all Josephus was the first famous Italian Jew) and obviously looked at the man from a biased perpective(Ironic, since Josephus adopted the name of his patron[and the Jews' persecutor], Flavius Vespasian Caesar, the father of Titus.). As mentioned, the Perahias too were of southern Italian origin.

First Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Isaac Herzog wrote a short article of his observations after reading Josephus works. In the article he attempts to address several difficulties, including the question of whether the man should be considered a traitor (he leaves the question open). He also comes to the conclusion that Josephus was no big torah scholar. He was assailed for this by Rabbi Greenwald in the latter's Toledot Hacohanim Hagedolim. see here

Mireille Hadas-Lebel in Flavius Josephus: Eyewitness to Rome's First-Century Conquest of Judaea writes:

Whether Josephus was a traitor or a wise man who tried to salvage the Jewish kingdom is a question that modern historians still argue. In 1937 a group of law students in Antwerp reopened the case of Flavius Josephus, and after a mock trial found him guilty of "treason." In 1941, in the midst of the Second World War, a group of young resistance fighters who were strong supporters of Zionism reacting as French and Jewish patriots accused Josephus of "collaboration." Today, Josephus' works are read more widely in Israel than in any other country. Archaeology, Israel's "national sport," could not do without him.

[3]. See Bodian, Miriam Hebrews of the Portugese Nation; Conversos and Community in early modern Amsterdam p. 89

The Curious Case of Benedict Spinoza

Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza (1632 – 1677) was a Sephardic Jew whose forbears had fled Catholic persecution in Portugal and settled in Amsterdam.

Young Spinoza attended the local Jewish Sephardic school and studied under Rabbis Saul Morteira and Manasseh ben Israel.

His early life was one of hardship and suffering. His mother Chana Deborah died when he was only six. His father, Michael followed her to the grave 12 years later and the family fortune was lost. Spinoza decided to retreat from normal life and devote himself to the study of philosophy.

The Jewish community of Amsterdam did not look with favor on his new enterprise. They held his views to be anathema to normative Judaism (specifically his views on the immortality of the soul) and he was eventually excommunicated (put into herem) as a result. Subsequent to that we find Spinoza living a modest life as a lens grinder and living in a simple apartment owned by the painter Mr. Henryk Von Der Spijk.

Spinoza died at the age of 44 of a lung illness (which may have been caused by his profession which caused him to ingest particles of glass on a daily basis), and was buried in the churchyard of the Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague, or was he?...


WHO STOLE SPINOZA'S CORPSE?

Antonio Damasio in Looking for Spinoza describes a "pilgrimage" he made to Spinoza's grave site (pictured bottom) thus:

Gates surround the churchyard but they are wide open. There is no cemetery to speak of, only shrubs and grass and moss and muddy lanes amid tall trees. I find the grave much where I thought, in the back part of the yard, behind the church to the south and east, a flat stone at ground level and a vertical tombstone, weathered and unadorned. Besides announcing whose grave it is, the inscription reads Caute! which is Latin for "Be careful!". This is a chilling bit of advice considering Spinoza's remains are not really inside the tomb and that his body was stolen, no one known by whom, sometime after the burial when the corpse lay inside the church [1].

Damasio wonders why Spinoza- who never formally converted to Christianity, was buried in a Christian cemetery. I would also add, moreover, that his excommunication by the Jewish community was motivated in large part by the concern that his ideas, were as offensive to "normative" Christians (even in liberal Holland) as they were to Jews, and it would endanger the limited freedoms that the Jews had achieved in Amsterdam[2] (Spinoza's works also made the Index Librorum Prohibitorum [List of Prohibited Books] by the Roman Catholic Church).

Why is Spinoza, who was born a Jew, buried next to this powerful Protestant church? The answer is as complicated as anything else having to do with Spinoza. He is buried here, perhaps, because having been expelled by his fellow Jews he could be seen as Christian by default; he certainly could not have been buried in the Jewish cemetery Ouderkerk. But he is not really here, perhaps because he never became a proper Christian, Protestant or Catholic, and in the eyes of many he was an atheist. And how fitting it all is. Spinoza's God was neither Jewish nor Christian. Spinoza's God was everywhere, could not be spoken to, did not respond if prayed to, was very much in every particle of the universe, without beginning and without end. Buried and unburied, Jewish and not. Portugese but not really, Dutch but not quite, Spinoza belonged nowhere and everywhere[3].

But before we attempt to decipher who may have been behind the theft of his corpse (stealing bodies from graves is apparently still in vogue, see this piece of recent news), let us examine Spinoza's connection to Judaism.


SPINOZA'S JEWISH SELF-IMAGE

Steven Smith in Piety, Peace, and the Freedom to Philosophize examines Spinoza's relationship to Judaism and to the notion of Jewish self determination. He writes:

Despite his attack on the ceremonial laws of Judaism as an instrument of worldly well-being, despite his denigration of Moses and the prophets as men of vivid imagination and feeble intellectual powers, Spinoza remains a recognizably and unmistakably Jewish thinker...Spinoza was, in the first place, the first modern thinker to advocate the restitution of Jewish sovereignty and a Jewish state. ...(in Theologico-Political Treatise) we read the following surprising sentence: "If the foundations of their religion did not effeminate their hearts, I would absolutely believe that some day, given the opportunity, they will set up their state again, and that God will choose them anew, so changeable are human affairs".

On the basis of this statement Spinoza has entered the history of Jewish thought as the spiritual ancestor of Zionism and the state of modern Israel. At least this is the way it was read in the last century by Moses Hess and Leon Pinsker and in this century by David ben Gurion. It is on the basis of this passage that Joseph Klausner on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of Spinoza's birth opened his speech at Hebrew University with the call "Baruch Spinoza, you are our brother[4]."

Likewise, Yirmiyahu Yovel in Marrano of Reason writes in a more tempered tone:

Was Spinoza a "closet Zionist"? Perhaps he saw in the renewal of Jewish sovereignty an answer to the anomaly of Jewish existence in the exile. After all, Zionists of three generations regarded him as their forerunner- all on the basis of his somewhat obscure, though moving remarks at the end of the third chapter of the Theologico-Political Treatise. After explaining that the hostility of the gentiles is what preserves the Jews, Spinoza goes on to say:

"The sign of circumcision is, I think, so important that I could persuade myself that it alone would preserve the nation forever. Nay, I would go so far as to believe that if the foundations of their religion have not emasculated their minds, they may even, if occasion offers, so changeable are human affairs, raise up their empire afresh and that God may a second time elect them."

This passage appears in the chapter entitled "Of the Vocation of the Hebrews" which is designed to demolish the entire concept of election (Jews as the "chosen people" j.d.)....he argues that even from the viewpoint of the bible, the election of the Hebrews refers solely to "dominion and physical advantages". This also implies that the election is temporal, not eternal; and while Spinoza as a philosopher recognizes neither, he uses the Bible's own language and authority as a weapon against itself. If the election of the Hebrews is a mere temporal, earthly event, nothing will remain of the idea of eternal transcendent election... All things happen in accordance with the laws of nature- and this is the meaning (and part of the intent) of Spinoza's remark about the return to Zion.

Although Spinoza's point is strictly philosophical, it has a particular bearing upon current issues of his time. Spinoza is writing only a few years after the upheaval fomented by Shabbetai Sevi, the false Messiah who unleashed a wave of mystical enthusiasm throughout the Jewish diaspora...the effect was particularly fierce in Amsterdam....In Theologico-Political Treatise, Spinoza says, the renewal of the Jewish kingdom is not inevitable but if the return to Zion should take place, it will be because of the immanent laws of nature and not by providence, divine revelation or messianism. For Spinoza, the Jewish vision of redemption is thus not devoid of sense but the content is entirely historical and secular.

This then is the import of Spinoza's Zionist dictum, to which later Zionists clung. They failed to see that Spinoza does not recommend the establishment of a Jewish state; he merely posits it as one of the possibilities offered by secular history.

...still Spinoza clings to several of the deepest motifs in Jewish consciousness-the eternity of Israel, the vision of redemption (understood as political liberation), and the covenant with God as symbolized by circumcision. But true to himself he submits them all to an utterly prosaic, natural and secular interpretation.

Spinoza discloses that at some level of consciousness he views himself too as a Jew-perhaps by deterministic necessity...Thus in generalizing his critique of Jewish history into a message for humanity Spinoza does not commit the kind of "apostasy" or "defection to the enemy" that Jews had seen in converts to Christianity. From that standpoint, too, it is significant that Spinoza refused to convert even while following the Pauline pattern-which he reenacted, in contrast to Paul, on the level of universal reason...

Jewish life in the diaspora is another example of the medieval conception of polity that Spinoza seeks to expunge...Spinoza's ideal state is a single, all-embracing sovereign body, independent of any prescriptive authority, in which the citizen or subject is recognized by virtue of his individual identity rather than any collective quality vested in him....

The logic of Spinoza's analysis seems to favor a quasi-Zionist solution...the Jews must either relinquish all self-rule and disperse as individuals among the gentiles or establish their own political state. This implication may well have attracted Zionists like Ben-Gurion, Nahum Sokolow, and Joseph Klausner.

...was Spinoza then the first secular Jew? What can be said confidently is that Spinoza took the first step in the eventual secularization of Jewish life by examining it empirically as a natural phenomenon...the concept of Jewish national existence, as separate from religion, did not yet exist for him as a defined theoretical concept. Existentially, in his singular life and experience, Spinoza was indeed the harbinger of this idea but he did not articulate it consciously[5].

Jonathan Edelstein wrote an entertaining fictional account about Spinoza's secretary Chacham Saltiel establishing -with the tacit support of his master- a settlement of "rational Jews" in the holy land .

AN ORTHODOX RABBI'S DEFENSE OF SPINOZA

Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn translated parts of Spinoza's Ethics into Hebrew. He wrote a commentary on selected portions of it entitled Sources and Spider Webs. In his writings Hirschensohn vacillates between unrestrained criticisms of Spinoza and almost blind reverence. I won't focus here on his criticisms but rather his remarkable defense of Spinoza against charges of atheism and idolatry. In fact Hirschensohn writes: "The nature of Spinoza's faith in God's unity is clearer and more understood and of purer faith than all those who preceded him in the matter"[6].

Hirschensohn came to this conclusion based on the following passage from Ethics:

"No attribute of substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that substance can be divided".

This opinion, writes Hirschensohn, "redeems Spinoza and saves him from the idolater's valley of the dead and puts him in the company of the completely righteous who believe in the absolute philosophic unity of God, for his concept of extension is not at all physical extension" [7].

However Hirschensohn explained that Spinoza's error was in substituting primordial matter for the spiritual God. But this was merely an error on Spinoza's part, rather than heresy, which is why he concludes that the Herem against Spinoza was justified.

I also wish to advocate for Spinoza that he only erred and is not an idolater, for an idolater is one who considers a creative being as divine, but one who says that God is created is a heretic (apikorus) and not an idolater. Spinoza did not consider the primordial matter divine, he only said that God is physical and has extension, and this is not included in the prohibition of idolatry [8].

SPINOZA RETURNS TO HIS PEOPLE IN DEATH


Is it possible that members of the Jewish community or perhaps one of his admirers (or maybe even extended family) decided to remove his body from the church and give him a proper Jewish burial somewhere? I would venture to say yes, but we will probably never know for sure (the mysterious disappearance of Spinoza's corpse conjures up the story of another Jewish bachelor whose body mysteriously disappeared from his tomb about 1500 years earlier. Not for naught did Gilles Deleuze refer to Spinoza as "the Christ of philosophers"....., see Ben Atlas's post here).

Interestingly enough, the German philosopher Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi in a letter to Moses Mendelssohn writes: "perhaps we will live to see the day when a dispute will arise over the corpse of Spinoza, like that over the corpse of Moses between the archangel and satan...." (Jacobi is here referring to a passage in The New Testament, see here )

And indeed like Moses "no man knows his (true) burial place until this day"....

Yirmiyahu Yovel writes:

...I was interested to note on a visit to the newly reopened Jewish Museum in Amsterdam, that without fanfare, Spinoza has been readmitted by his erstwhile community. In a section devoted to "Jewish Identity", the has a text explaining that for many centuries, being Jewish had entailed belonging to the Orthodox Jewish community; but ever since the act of civil equality (1796), granting political emancipation to the Dutch Jews"every Jewish person could decide what expression to give to her or her Jewishness" ....the text is illustrated by an impressive gallery of Jewish characters...at the very end the severe and distinguished face of Rabbi Isaac Aboab, one of the signatories of Spinoza's ban. So finally the banned dissenter and the banning Rabbi end up together in this minor pantheon of Jewish diversity. What better way for the Amsterdam Jewish community to readmit Spinoza, not by a declamatory gesture like lifiting the ban, but by recognizing, with good historical sense, the new situation which Spinoza's own case had anticipated and tragically embodied[9].

DID SPINOZA LEAVE ANY PROGENY?


Amadeo Modigliani (1884-1920) was a famous Italian Jewish artist born in Livorno (Leghorn) into a Sephardic family. He was a tragic figure who struggled with drugs and alcohol throughout his life and ended up dying destitute and emaciated in Paris. Modigliano was born into a family of means but his family went bankrupt shortly after his birth. He also, strangely enough, claimed descent from Benedict Spinoza through his mother Eugenia Garsin. All the biographies of Modigliani mention this "fact", which makes it apparent that Modigliani prided himself with his supposed pedigree. There is only one problem with this claim. All the biographical sources regarding Spinoza's life expressly state that Spinoza never married or had any children (although the aforementioned fictional account of Spinoza's life by Edelstein has him marrying and starting a family) .

It's also interesting to add what Modigliani's close friend and fellow artist, Jacques Lipchitz said about his relationship to his faith. While Modigliani's work -unlike Chagall for instance- does not reflect his roots, he was a man aware (and perhaps even proud) of his heritage

"Modigliani was not a physically strong man," he wrote, "yet one day in a cafe, he attacked all by himself a gang of royalists, who in France are known for their soldierly courage. He wanted to fight them because he heard them speaking against the Jews in a dirty way. Modigliani was naturally conscious of his Jewishness and could not bear any unfair criticism of a whole people [10]."

NOTES:


[1]. Damasio, Antonio R. Looking for Spinoza: joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain p. 19

[2]. Another "tortured soul" Uriel Acosta (1585-1640) preceded Spinoza and met with a similar fate; he was placed in Cherem by the Sephardic community of Amsterdam for his views against both Judaism and Christianit. Acosta eventually committed suicide out of isolation and humiliation.

[3] Damasio, p. 22

[4] Bagley, Paul J. Piety, peace, and the freedom to philosophize p. 205

[5] Yovel, Yirmiyahu. Spinoza and Other Heretics: The Marrano of Reason pp.190-204

[6] cited in Schwartz, Dov Fascination and rejection: Religious Zionist attitudes toward Spinoza, Journal of Israeli History,(1993) p. 166

[7] Ibid

[8] Yovel, p. 167

[9] Yovel, p. 204

[10] Lipchitz, Jacques Amedeo Modigliani (1884-1920) p.7

Sephardim in Eastern Europe. The Sephardi Synagogue in Sighetu, Rumania

My good friend Ian Pomerantz directed me to this series of great photos of the Synagogue in Sighetu Marmatiei, Romania (Incidentally the birthplace of Eli Wiesel). The edifice was built between 1900 and 1904 by the Sephardic community and was frequented by both the Sephardi and Ashkenazi communities of Sighetu.

It is one of the only remaining examples of a completely intact Romanian Sephardi esnoga with full Moorish architecture from the mid 19th century.

More on the the Jewish community of Sigheti Marmatiei.

How's Nimrod for a Nice Jewish Name? How about Balaam? Call me Ishmael?

Anyone who has read any of my posts probably knows by now that I am fascinated by names, especially Biblical names. Names reveal a great deal about the beliefs, hopes, superstitions and fears of the people that bear them.

With the birth of Zionism and the first and second aliya, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish settlers in Eretz Israel began giving their children names that probably had not been utilized since Biblical times. For the first time in Jewish history since the days of the Bible, nice Jewish boys were walking around with such names as Nimrod (a particularly evil Mesopotamian king who some identify with Gilgamesh), Omri (another evil Israelite king), and Amatziah (an evil Judean king).

But is it true that these names (among many others) were considered non-kosher throughout Jewish history (as Rabbi Avi Shafran would have us believe, see here ) until the Zionist movement made them Kosher again[1]?

Let's first begin with the name Nimrod and its seemingly inexplicable popularity in Israel. The following article sheds some light on that particular phenomenon.

The main founders and leaders of Zionism in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century were mostly non-religious, sometimes anti-religious. Zionist thinkers, historians and writers reinterpreted the whole of Jewish history (including, and especially, the Bible) from a secular nationalist viewpoint considerably different from and sometimes diametrically opposite to the religious Jewish tradition.

Specifically, the search went on for past historical or mythical figures who could be depicted as National Heroes, such as those which inspired the European national movements of the 19th Century. Those fitting the role were often placed on pedestals even when Jewish tradition frowned upon or strongly condemned them (for example King Omri of ancient Israel, which the Bible describes as an evil idolater but which Zionists approved of as a victorious warrior king and the founder of a strong dynasty).

Sculptor Yitzhak Danziger, who was born in Germany and emigrated to the then British Mandate of Palestine, created his statue "Nimrod" in 1938-1939 (pictured top).

The "Nimrod" statue is 90 centimetres high and made of Red Nubian Sandstone imported from Petra in Jordan. It depicts Nimrod as a naked hunter, uncircumcised, carrying a bow and with a hawk on his shoulder. The style shows the influence of Ancient Egyptian statues.

The unveiling of the statue caused a scandal. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem which had commissioned Danziger's statue was not happy with the result and religious circles made strong protests.

Within a few years, however, the statue was universally acclaimed as a major masterpiece of Israeli art, and has noticeably influenced and inspired the work of later sculptors, painters, writers and poets up to the present.

The Nimrod Statue was also taken up as the emblem of a cultural-political movement known as "The Cannanites" which advocated the shrugging off of the Jewish religious tradition, cutting off relations with Diaspora Jews and their culture, and adopt in its place a "Hebrew Identity" based on ancient Semitic heroic myths - such as Nimrod's. Though never gaining mass support, the movement had a considerable influence on Israeli intellectuals in the 1940s and early 1950s.

One tangible lasting result is that "Nimrod" has become a fairly common male name in present-day Israel. In the 1940s, bestowing it upon a newborn child was something of political statement. In the present generation, however, it is taken simply as a name like any other (as English-speaking parents giving their child the name "George" do not necessarily spend much thought on the legendary dragon-slaying saint who bore that name)

An alternate explanation offered for the popularity of Nimrod has to do with the politics of the Yishuv during the British Mandate. The name Nimrod which means "rebellion" was used as just another weapon in the Zionist struggle against British rule.

Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli a senior editor at MEMRI was born in Iraq in 1933. Perhaps his parents gave him the name for the reason mentioned in the article or maybe Nimrod was an acceptable name for a nice Jewish boy living in Iraq in the 30s.

Nimrod as an Insult

In English, Nimrod has a very negative connotation. From the Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears. Fourth Edition.
2007 :

nimrod [ˈnɪmrɑd] n. a simpleton; a nerd. : What stupid nimrod left the lid off the cottage cheese?

I feel bad for those Israeli expats named Nimrod who now live in LA and Miami....


Controversy


In 2007, Rabbi Avraham Yosef, Chief Rabbi of the city of Holon and the son of former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef came under heavy criticism after he publicized a ruling on his weekly radio show stating that people who possess such"wicked names" as Herzl (in Israel, Herzl as a proper name used to be quite common especially among mizrahi Jews) and Nimrod must change them immediately (see here).

It was his condemnation of Herzl that aroused the ire of many. Religious Zionist commentator Uri Orbach took issue with Yosef's characterization of Herzl as wicked and accused him of pandering to anti-Zionist Charedim.

The Name Ishmael

One of the stranger recurring names throughout Jewish history is that of Yishmael. In the Bible, Yishmael is considered to the be the wicked son of Abraham and is banished from his household along with his mother Hagar. In later Rabbinic tradition Yishmael is considered to be the ancestor of the modern Arab nation.

In the Midrashic tradition however, Yishmael repented towards the end of his life and reconciled with his brother Isaac thus rendering the name Kosher (?).

The question still remains why the name Yishmael pops up even after the rise of Islam, when the name would probably have taken on a "heavier" connotation. Yet we see at least 2 Yishmaels, one in 18th century Italy (see here) and one in 16th century Egypt (see here) . S. from the onthemainline blog opines that Yishmael was an acceptable name only among Cohanim because of Rabbi Ishmael the High Priest who was martyred in circa 70 c.e. (the aforementioned 2 were indeed cohanim).

The Name Balaam

Balaam son of Beor though a prophet is reviled in the Bible as a "wicked man". Balaam attempted to curse the Israelites after being commissioned to do so by the evil Moabite king Balak. He failed all three tries, each time producing blessings, not curses (Numbers 22-24).

In Numbers 31:7 the text mentions in passing that the Israelites killed him"They warred against Midian, as God commanded Moses, and killed every male. They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain ... and they also slew Balaam the son of Beor with the sword".

Later Rabbinic views are likewise harsh. In Tractate Sanhedrin 2:90A the Rabbis state that he has no share in the world to come.

Given all the above, it is astonishing to find a major Jewish grammarian in medieval Spain by the name of Rabbi Judah Ibn Balaam(!) see his commentary on Judges here

Update:

After digging around for some more information. I came across an interesting clue here

את שמו יש לבטא, ככל הנראה, בפתח: אבן-בַּלְעָם; השם 'בַּלְעָם', על פי הידוע כיום, אינו אלא קיצור של אבן-אלעם, שם
המופיע בכמה כתבים שנמצאו בגניזת קהיר.

Translation:

The name should be pronounced with a patach, Ibn Balaam (and not Bilam with a chirik). Balaam is a shortened version (or a corruption?) of the name Ibn Alam, which appears numerous times among the documents found in the Cairo Genizah

This is all a bit confusing because in the English language Balaam is always pronounced Balaam and never Bilam. However in Hebrew it's always Bilam בִּלְעָם and never Balaam בַּלְעָם.



The Name Amnon

Amnon is an interesting case. In the Biblical account, Amnon one of King David's sons is portrayed as a rapist and an overall unsavory individual, yet the name does appear sporadically throughout Jewish history (not to mention modern times where it is but another very popular name in Israel among religious and secular Jews alike, examples include Amnon Yitzchak, Amnon Lipkin-Shachak and many others). Among the most notable Jewish figures with the name Amnon was a German Rabbi Amnon of Mainz who is said to have composed the most important prayer of the High Holidays liturgy, namely "unetaneh tokef". Some historians maintain however that this Amnon never existed and he was certainly not the composer of that prayer [2].


The Name Korach

The Biblical Korach is another figure in the gallery of Biblical villains. He was severely punished for daring to foment a rebellion against the leadership of Moses. Some Rabbinic authorities were also of the opinion that he has no share in the world to come. It is perhaps fitting then that the name Korach does not reappear (at least to my knowledge) anywhere in Jewish literature. Well, that's not entirely true, it doesn't appear as a proper name but it does appear as a surname. There is a prominent Rabbinic family of Yemenite origin in Israel with the surname Korach (apparently there are also Ashkenazic Jews with the surname Korach, see here ). The most well known member of this family is Rabbi Shlomo Korach, Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Bnei Brak. The tradition maintained in this family of Levites is that they are directly descended of the Biblical Korach.

By the way, I should point out that in Rabbinic sources, the sons of Korach are said to have repented and they hold an exalted position in the Jewish narrative. Many of the compositions found in the book of Psalms are attributed to the sons of Korach.

Here is a video of Rabbi Korach:



A Tosafist Rabbi named Peter?

I may as well also direct the interested reader to a fascinating post by my good friend S. over at onthemainline blog regarding the use of the (christian) name Peter among Jews.


NOTES:


[1]. If the reader thinks that Nimrod is a strange choice for a Jewish name, see here for an example of 14th century Polish Jews with names like Canaan(!) and Jordan.

[2]. Thank you to Professor Menachem Kellner and Menachem Butler from the Seforim Blog for posting the following wealth of sources on Rabbi Amnon and "unetaneh tokef".

For a useful discussion of what is actually known about the poem (as opposed to what we have all been taught about Rabbi Amnon), see Ivan G. Marcus, "Kiddush HaShem in Ashkenaz and the Story of Rabbi Amnon of Mainz,” in Isaiah M. Gafni and Aviezer Ravitzky (eds.), Sanctity in Life and Martyrdom: Studies in Memory of Amir Yekutiel (Jerusalem; Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1992), 131-147 (Hebrew); Menahem Shmelzer, “Sefer Or Zarua and the Legend of Rabbi Amnon,” in Adri K. Offenberg (ed.), Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana: Treasures of Jewish Booklore: Treasures of Jewish Booklore Marking the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Leeser Rosenthal, 1794-1994 (Amsterdam University Press, 2003), available online; David Golinkin's discussion online; as well as Jacob J. Schacter's lecture, "U-Netaneh Tokef Kedushat Ha-Yom: Medieval Story and Modern Significance" (sources [PDF]).