Megillah 25b ~ Censoring the Torah

On today’s page of Talmud is a discussion of how the person translating the Torah that was read out loud should behave. There were, it turns out, portions that were not to be translated, because they described episodes that were not particularly elevating.

מגילה כה,ב

ואלו נקרין ולא מתרגמין (רעבד"ן סימן) מעשה ראובן נקרא ולא מתרגם ומעשה ברבי חנינא בן גמליאל שהלך לכבול והיה קורא חזן הכנסת ויהי בשכון ישראל ואמר לו למתורגמן (הפסק) אל תתרגם אלא אחרון ושיבחוהו חכמים

The Tosefta also states: And these sections are read but are not translated….The Tosefta states that the incident of Reuben is read but not translated. And there was an incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, who went to the village of Kavul, and the sexton of the synagogue was reading: “And it came to pass, while Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it” (Genesis 35:22). Rabbi Ḥanina said to the translator: Stop, translate only the end of the verse. And the Sages praised him for this.

Another passage that is not to be translated is that of the Golden Calf:

מַעֲשֵׂה עֵגֶל הַשֵּׁנִי נִקְרָא וְלֹא מִתַּרְגֵּם. אֵיזֶה מַעֲשֵׂה עֵגֶל הַשֵּׁנִי — מִן ״וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה״ עַד ״וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה״

The second narrative of the incident of the Golden Calf is read but not translated. What is the second narrative of the incident of the Golden Calf? Aaron’s account of what had taken place, from “And Moses said to Aaron” (Exodus 32:21) until “And Moses saw” (Exodus 32:25).

Some holy words in the Torah are best left untranslated. It is an odd way of viewing what is, after all, considered by traditional Judaism to be the word of God, but it is a view that goes back to the Talmud itself. And it has some surprising modern correlates.

Modern Examples of Censoring the Torah

In what is popularly called the Silberman English translation of Rashi published in London in1929, the risque Rashis were not translated. But more recently the Jewish censorship of the Torah was taken to a whole new level by the Hasidim of New Square in New York.

As David Assaf pointed out several years ago, the Hasidim of New Square published their own version of the Torah, in which several sections are just missing. It was (not surprisingly) published “for girls.”

This and all the images here are from here.

Here, for example is the story of Lot and his daughters. You may recall that in the Torah, Lot’s two daughters get Lot drunk and seduce him, committing a horrible act of incest. Twice. Here is the story as told in the Torah:

בראשית יט: 29–38

(לא) וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל הַצְּעִירָה אָבִינוּ זָקֵן וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הָאָרֶץ. (לב) לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת אָבִינוּ יַיִן וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ זָרַע. (לג) וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן יַיִן בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא וַתָּבֹא הַבְּכִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב אֶת אָבִיהָ וְלֹא יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקוּמָהּ. (לד) וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל הַצְּעִירָה הֵן שָׁכַבְתִּי אֶמֶשׁ אֶת אָבִי נַשְׁקֶנּוּ יַיִן גַּם הַלַּיְלָה וּבֹאִי שִׁכְבִי עִמּוֹ וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ זָרַע. (לה) וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ גַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא אֶת אֲבִיהֶן יָיִן וַתָּקָם הַצְּעִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב עִמּוֹ וְלֹא יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקֻמָהּ. (לו) וַתַּהֲרֶיןָ שְׁתֵּי בְנוֹת לוֹט מֵאֲבִיהֶן. (לז) וַתֵּלֶד הַבְּכִירָה בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מוֹאָב הוּא אֲבִי מוֹאָב עַד הַיּוֹם. (לח) וְהַצְּעִירָה גַם הִוא יָלְדָה בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בֶּן עַמִּי הוּא אֲבִי בְנֵי עַמּוֹן עַד הַיּוֹם.

Thus it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain and annihilated the cities where Lot dwelt, God was mindful of Abraham and removed Lot from the midst of the upheaval. Lot went up from Zoar and settled in the hill country with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar; and he and his two daughters lived in a cave. And the older one said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to consort with us in the way of all the world. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may maintain life through our father.” That night they made their father drink wine, and the older one went in and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. The next day the older one said to the younger, “See, I lay with Father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go and lie with him, that we may maintain life through our father.” That night also they made their father drink wine, and the younger one went and lay with him; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. Thus the two daughters of Lot came to be with child by their father. The older one bore a son and named him Moab;dAs though me-’ab “from (my) father.” he is the father of the Moabites of today. And the younger also bore a son, and she called him Ben-ammi; As though “son of my (paternal) kindred.” he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

And here is the passage as printed in the Square Chumash for Girls:

Can you see what they did? The text jumps from 19:30 to chapter 20, skipping the eight verses that describe the incestuous encounter.

Want another example? Ok, how about the passage in Genesis 38 that describes Yehudah’s encounter with a prostitute, who turns out to be his daughter-in-law, who he then condemns to death until she produces proof that Yehudah had in fact been the one to get her pregnant. It’s not exactly material for young ears. So in Square, they censored it. As you can see below, their version of the Torah for Girls jumps from chapter 37 straight to chapter 39. No prostitution here.

Silly, or Educational?

But before we condemn this as silly, let us pause for a minute. The rabbinic leaders in Square (which, incidentally, is named after Skver or Skvyra, in present-day Ukraine) had a precedent from today’s page of Talmud: the translator would just leave these passages untranslated. Of course then, the original text of the Torah was still being read out loud, but if no-one understood it (which is why there needed to be a translator in the first place) that doesn’t really do very much.

If you are a parent or a grandparent or a teacher, would you choose to read these stories from the Torah to your young charges? If not, why not? And if not, what’s wrong with not including them in a childrens’ Torah? Perhaps, not very much.

Berachot 3a ~ Which Text Are You Using?

As we start at the very beginning of Talmud, it is worth pausing to ask this very simple question: which version of the Talmud are you reading?

Over the centuries, those editions of the Talmud that escaped physical destruction faced another challenge: censorship. The text that survived and is found in nearly all editions today is based on the so-called "Vilna Shas" edition, first published by The Widow and Brothers Romm in 1886.  It is also the basis for the text used in the Schottenstien Talmud. But it is a text that was in some places heavily censored by Christian authorities, and using this censored text can lead to some silly outcomes. One example is found in today’s page of Talmud that describes God sitting through the night, mourning the loss of his Temple. The original uncensored text reads:

ברכות ג,ב

 אוי לי שהחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתים לבין אומות העולם

Woe is me, for I destroyed my Temple, and I burned my Sanctuary, and I exiled them among the nations of the world.

However, the text of the English Schottenstein (and the Soncino) edition reads as follows: 

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

Woe to the children, because of whose sins I destroyed my Temple, and I burned my Sanctuary, and I exiled them among the nations of the world.

The additional words  לבנים שבעונותיהם were added by Christian censors to make a theological statement about the fallen state of the Jews.  The corrupted text was noted in Dikdukei Soferim, but none of this seems to have been evident to the editors of the English Schottenstein Talmud, who compounded the error by adding the following homiletic note to the corrupted text.

Detail from Schottenstein English Talmud Berachot 3a.

In its effort to comment on (nearly) everything, the Schottenstein edition added a homiletic explanation of a corrupt text written (almost certainly) by a Jewish apostate serving as Christian censor. Fortunately, the Hebrew and English editions of the Koren, together with the Hebrew edition of the Schottenstein (ArtScroll) Talmud returned the text to its original and uncensored form. No homiletic gymnastics needed.

So now, as we embark on a new cycle of study of the Babylonian Talmud which edition will you be using? And which edition should you be using?

[Partial repost from here.]

Tractate Avodah Zarah ~ Which Version Do You Use?

Today marks the start of a new tractate in the Daf Yomi cycle: Avodah Zarah, which largely deals with the relationships Jews may and may not have with their idol worshiping neighbors. While most of these neighbors are described as idol worshipers or heretics, in at least three places the text refers to them as נוצרים - Christians. 

The problem is that you might never know this if you are using the censored version of the Talmud.  Over the centuries, this version became the standard Hebrew text. It is found in nearly all editions based of the so-called "Vilna Shas" edition, first published by The Widow and Brothers Romm in 1886.  It is also the basis for the text used in the Schottenstien Talmud.

Censorship in Masechet Avodah Zarah

Consider this section from Avodah Zarah 6a, which discusses rules about business dealings. As you can see, the standard text makes no mention of with whom we may not do business on a Sunday. In the Schottenstein (Art Scroll) edition the translation adds this explanation: It refers to "Babylonian pagans who observe a sun-worshipping festival every Sunday."

Except, it doesn't. Or at least it didn't. Here is the same text found in a 14th century manuscript, from the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (Suppl. Heb 1337).

The text reads: 

אמ[ר] שמואל נוצרי לדברי ר[בי] ישמע[אל] לעולם אסור

Shmuel says: According to Rabbi Yishmael, it is always prohibited to engage in business with Christians, [as their festival takes place every Sunday].

In the original, pre-censored Talmudic text, it is Christians with whom we are forbidden to do business on a Sunday. Not Babylonian pagans. The more recent Koren Talmud restores the text to its original:

There are at least two other instances in Avodah Zarah (6a and 7b) in which the Koren Talmud restores  the text and uses the word Christian.  Later on (17a,) an entire passage containing the words ישו הנוצרי - Jesus of Nazereth has been redacted.  It can be found in the restored Koren edition:

Koren Avodah Zarah 17a

The Truth and Its Consequences

Using the original uncensored text raises its own set of uncomfortable questions about our original relationship to Christianity. But using the censored text can lead to some silly outcomes. Here is an example, (based on a review essay of the Koren Talmud I wrote here).

The text of the Talmud in Berachot 3a describes God sitting through the night, mourning the loss of his Temple.  The original uncensored text reads:

 אוי לי שהחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתים לבין אומות העולם

Woe is me, for I destroyed my Temple, and I burned my Sanctuary, and I exiled them among the nations of the world.

However, the text of the English Schottenstein (and the Soncino) edition reads as follows: 

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

Woe to the children, because of whose sins I destroyed my Temple, and I burned my Sanctuary, and I exiled them among the nations of the world.

The additional words  לבנים שבעונותיהם were added by Christian censors to make a theological statement about the fallen state of the Jews.  The corrupted text was noted in Dikdukei Soferim, but none of this seems to have been evident to the editors of the English Schottenstein Talmud, who compounded the error by adding the following homiletic note to the corrupted text.

Detail from Schottenstein English Talmud Berachot 3a.

In its effort to comment on (nearly) everything, the Schottenstein edition added a homiletic explanation of a corrupt text written (almost certainly) by a Jewish apostate serving as Christian censor. Fortunately, the Hebrew and English editions of the Koren, together with the Hebrew edition of the Schottenstein (ArtScroll) Talmud returned the text to its original and uncensored form. No homiletic gymnastics needed.

Where did Avodah Zarah Go?

One of the early editions of Talmud was printed in Basel in 1580.  According to Marvin Heller, (who knows everything about early Hebrew printing and the printing of the Talmud) it was "the most heavily censored edition of the printed Talmud. One tractate, Avodah Zarah was entirely omitted, the name alone being sufficient to disqualify it."

There were Christian censors to be sure.  But Elisheva Carelbach, in her essay The Status of the Talmud in Early Modern Europe, notes that ironically, the Talmud may have been spared further decimation because of the intercession of Christian scholars:

“In the aggregate, the positive interest of the hebraists paved the way for the printing and survival of the Talmud in Europe by assuring Europe’s rulers of its value. Christian talmudists set the foundations for the modern academic study of the Talmud. The preservation and study of the Talmud by Christian scholars in any measure might be regarded as one of the small miracles of the early modern period.”

— Elisheva Carelbach. The Status of the Talmud in Early Modern Europe. In Mintz and Goldman (eds). Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein. Yeshiva University Museum 2005. p88.

So now, as we embark on the study of tractate Avodah Zarah, which edition will you be using? And which edition should you be using?