I take it the reprinted edition is Arachim's handiwork?
Excellent post. That was a lot of work.
>I take it the reprinted edition is Arachim's handiwork?
I am only assuming so, since the back has their logo and frontispiece has it written that "this edition is for the friends of 'Arachim'" (or something like that). Anyways, like I said in my last paragraph, this edition may have already existed. Perhaps kind of like a Birkon you get for a wedding where the printer simply adds your name to an already existing print.
>Excellent post. That was a lot of work.
thank you.
Excellent work! I am surprised, however, that the Arachim editors (or whomever did it) would simply erase the face on the moon rather than remove it altogether. Normative halacha prohibits the rendering of a 2-d representation of even a partial moon (a whole sun wouldn't be a problem)!
You may also want to send a link of your post to Marc Shapiro. He is doing a book on censorship in Judaism and would probably find this interesting.
Excellent post!
BTW, in the Tznius one, it looks like they missed something and included a naked elbow. The woman in the (is that orange?) Dress.
In the first picture of the set ("Egyptians dying") the editor/Photoshopper appears to have also modified the right-hand side of the image. If you look you will see a person standing in front of a group of women running out of a house. The 'skirt' on the person was extended to modern tznius levels. The thing is the person with the 'skirt' looks like they might be a man. (Hat is similar to the other men in the image. No obvious bosom.) He/she appears to be standing on one leg for no obvious reason.
Like Orwell said: "He who control the present controls the past."
Great post!
Interesting, where was this brought to your attention?
Smoo, there's an assumption on my part, that it does not indicate anywhere that the artwork was altered.
Daganev, I'm just curious, does this photoshopping without saying so, bother you in the least bit?
>Smoo, there's an assumption on my part, that it does not indicate anywhere that the artwork was altered.
Sorry, I mean HH.
"Daganev, I'm just curious, does this photoshopping without saying so, bother you in the least bit?
Baal Habos | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 12:01 pm | # "
Depends how good it is. 
Also, it depends if it was actually photoshoped, or if it was redrawn. It also depends who did the edits and why.
If the edits are old, I find them interesting and not bothered. If the edits are from the modern publishing company, I find that bothersome. Assuming there is no mention in fine print on some page saying it was edited. (which I'm not going to assume)
Lubab
Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice catch. I am sure there is plenty more that can be found.
>If the edits are old, I find them interesting and not bothered.
Really?
>If the edits are from the modern publishing company, I find that bothersome
Can you articulate why? Besides the obvious.
But no matter what your answer is, it belies the Chareidi assertion that the "norm" has always been the same.
"But no matter what your answer is, it belies the Chareidi assertion that the "norm" has always been the same.
Baal Habos | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 2:02 pm | # "
You know what esle "belies the Chareidi asseion that the "norm" has always been the same"? THE TALMUD, and just about any other widely accepted Jewish text. (But I don't believe that that is actually the Charedi claim, but rather the "mindset" they claim is the same)
And these pictures say nothing to that claim.
I'm really just not sure what you are asking.
Are you unware that historically people change pictures and texts when re-printing them, especially when new additions are made? Its not that big a deal.
What bothers me is if someone is selling a book saying "this is an ancient book, you can see what they had" but infact its not the ancient book, but rather a version of the ancient book. But if they sell the book as the "Arachim version of the Venetian Hagadah" then I don't think it is such a big deal, because it is anybody's right to alter and change a public work and sell it to thier own market.
It is a common thing to do in all areas of life.
But again, I think there are too many assumptions being made by you that HH explicitly went out of his way to counter.
What I find most interesting about the pictures, is the things it teaches us about the "Baseline assumptions" that the artist/editors had about society and the world at that time.
"The 'skirt' on the person was extended to modern tznius levels."
Actually, it looks to me like they turned a man into a woman so that there would not be mixed dancing.
The very fact that the pictures are colored and not straigh woodcuts, should allready let you know that they were edited, and the hagadah should have mentioned that fact somewhere in the fine print.
It is really interesting some of the changes they have made to Hollywood movies between the b&w and the color versions of the film. (especially with hitchock who was very particular about his frame setups)
From the Yale University Library version of the Hagadah, can anyone tell if the text on the side is Landino or Yiddish? I'm having a hard time translating what its saying, and wondering if it is commentary or straight translation.
>Actually, it looks to me like they turned a man into a woman so that there would not be mixed dancing
Right, which is an example of catering to modern sensitivities.
Also, you can't compare adding color or perhaps a remake of a movie or you know its a remake to deliberately altering images. These are not accidental changes, it is a deliberate distortion of things that were well accepted in the past and part of Judaism.
>then I don't think it is such a big deal, because it is anybody's right to alter and change a public work and sell it to thier own market.
Its not a question of rights, its a question if its the right thing to do. Now, clearly, they might say for their community, they do need it. But then that is a sad commentary on their community.
"Also, you can't compare adding color or perhaps a remake of a movie or you know its a remake to deliberately altering images."
I'm not talking about a remake of a movie, I'm talking about a coloring of a movie. Where they go in, frame by frame and paint it, or they use other technology to add color to a black and white film.
"Its not a question of rights, its a question if its the right thing to do."
Depends what they are selling and how they are selling it. (Does your version of the hagadah have 0 english in it?)
"These are not accidental changes, it is a deliberate distortion of things that were well accepted in the past and part of Judaism.
"
Actually, none of the changes you have pointed out make any changes at all about Judaism.
All the changes are questions of what people and place look like, and what images are shown.
The whole hagadah looks like people in 17th century Italy, not ancient Egypt, so its really just commentary on the soceity of that time and place. And so the remake, is also a commentary on the society of that time (1990s, or whenever it was made)and place. (America)
HH, does your hagadah make you aware that the original hagadah was not in color?
Daganev,
> Actually, it looks to me like they turned a man into a woman so that there would not be mixed dancing.
I think you may be right! That explains why his foot is up in the air. Looks like they also changed the man in the background (with the beard) in to a woman by coloring him pink.
>Actually, none of the changes you have pointed out make any changes at all about Judaism.
I think you need to look at the bigger picture here. For example, there is picture of a famous Italian rabbi ( I think R' Modeno). In the original frontispiece, he has no kippa, because it was not an issue for Italians. But when it was republished, a kippa was drawn in.
Now, this does no change some core part of our faith, but it is part of historical revisionism to portray things in the past as they are today. Well, they were not. Things were accepted without an issue. But now, its a problem, but we don't educate our people to say "yes, they did this in the past but we don't hold to it anymore," instead, they simply grab the nearest eraser
>HH, does your hagadah make you aware that the original hagadah was not in color?
no.
"Things were accepted without an issue. But now, its a problem, but we don't educate our people to say "yes, they did this in the past but we don't hold to it anymore," instead, they simply grab the nearest eraser
>HH, does your hagadah make you aware that the original hagadah was not in color?
no.
"
Well, thats why I choose not to live in those communities. But is it really any different from the school boards who say that you can't show an elderly person in a textbook doing "passive" activities?
I do find it odd that these communities would want to mention Italian Jewery at all, as their customs were very secular.
HH, do you know the answer to the Yiddish vs Landino question, and does your hagadah have english in it?
>I do find it odd that these communities would want to mention Italian Jewery at all, as their customs were very secular.
Well, they aren't mentioning Italian Jewry. In fact, most people don't know anything about it. They just saw a famous haggadah and used it.
>HH, do you know the answer to the Yiddish vs Landino question, and does your hagadah have english in it?
No, I don't have an answer to that. At least not right now. But no, there is no english in it.
"Well, they aren't mentioning Italian Jewry. In fact, most people don't know anything about it. They just saw a famous haggadah and used it.
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 3:11 pm | # "
The title of your post made it seem like its called the Venitian hagadah (Or do they think it refers to Venice beach? )
Yes, but that does not strike anyone with any sort of uniqueness toward Italian Jewry. For the average person, it could have said the Polish Hagaddah and it would not made any difference
"For the average person, it could have said the Polish Hagaddah and it would not made any difference
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 3:40 pm | # "
I don't agree with that.
Daganev
Most people don't know anything about Italian Jewry. They don't know that culturally, they were much more open. So Arachim choosing this haggadah is just reflecting that. Its a very famous haggadah and Arachim simply want to show it to people.
The Hagadah isn't even mentioned in this list of hagadahs
http://www.library.yale.edu/
juda...troduction.html
Again, I dissagree with your asumptions.
But I did find the answer to my question:
This 1609 Venetian Haggadah was issued in three versions, each with a different vernacular translation, Judeo-Italian, Yiddish or Ladino; this copy with Judeo-Italian translation placed in the architectural columns on each page. Ornately engraved title page. Aschkenazi hymn “Allmächtiger Gott nun bau dayn Tempel” (Adir Hu) on final page in wayber-taytsch letters with inscription of censor: “Visto per me Gio[vanni] Domi[ni]co Carretto 1617” (see Wm. Poppers, The Censorship of Hebrew Books, pl. III, no. 7). Yudlov 47. Yaari 37. Title page remargined; paper repairs with marginal losses in places, expected ritual staining. Handsome Sangorski & Sutcliffe binding fine
But I can't even find a reference to this hagadah (Arachim version) on the internet save your post. (But I didn't search very hard either, but maybe you can show us an official link to the hagadah?)
An official link the Arachim version of the haggadah?????
>The Hagadah isn't even mentioned in this list of hagadahs
Click on
"early printed editions"
which then takes you to the site that I link in the beginning of my post.
>Again, I dissagree with your asumptions.
Whats my assumptions? Ask your average joe and he won't be able to tell you the siginficance of Italian Jewry. They were different then the rest, but nobody knows that.
" An official link the Arachim version of the haggadah?????
"
You know, where they advertise the hagadah? Where one could buy it. etc.
"Whats my assumptions? Ask your average joe and he won't be able to tell you the siginficance of Italian Jewry. They were different then the rest, but nobody knows that.
"
You assumption that Avarchim didn't know the signifcance of the venetian community when they chose to give away that particular hagadah. (There are many old famous hagaddas that one could choose from)
"Ask your average joe and he won't be able to tell you the siginficance of Italian Jewry." Does your average Joe know the significance of German Jewery or any other Jewery? (Just wondering what your opinion on that subject is)
My personal uneducated stereotype of the Italian Jewish community is that of your stereotypical Federation Board Member but that might just be me.
btw, the easiest way to find a book online is to look at the books ISBN number, and search for that.
Or put the full exact title of the book from the inside front page.
I didn't buy his hagaddah, it was sent out to donors for free. There is no ISPN number.
>You assumption that Avarchim didn't know the signifcance of the venetian community when they chose to give away that particular hagadah. (There are many old famous hagaddas that one could choose from)
They might, but to the people they are sending out these hagaddahs to... Especially considering they are probably BT's.
all that photoshop work and they arn't even selling them? Thats really good photoshop work too!
I find it even stranger that BT wouldn't know about the difference with the Italians...
>I find it even stranger that BT wouldn't know about the difference with the Italians...
How on earth would they know. How would a BT know that Italian Jewry was different then your average European Jew that was willing to incorporate secular scholarship and definitely had their own culture. How would they know that rabbis such as R' Leon Modena did not wear kippot. (there was another one also, but the name escapes me)
"How on earth would they know. "
Because that is the type of stuff I learned before I became frum?
That is the type of stuff that intrests the accademics and PBS and the Discovery channel? And if someone cares about an old book as being an old book, (i.e. they care anything about history) then they would have picked these things up.
Its definitly NOT something I ever heard talked about in a yeshivah setting.
Great post!
Yasher Kochacah!
Boruch Hashem, we now understand why the aibishter created such a thing as Photoshop!
>"How on earth would they know. "
Because that is the type of stuff I learned before I became frum?
That is the type of stuff that intrests the accademics and PBS and the Discovery channel? And if someone cares about an old book as being an old book, (i.e. they care anything about history) then they would have picked these things up.<
It looks like you were into academia before you became frum (maybe your still into it), but most people are not into academia and don't really care for these things and therefor don't usually know these things.
Apart from the changes that were made for purposes of tzniut, it appears that the editors wanted to avoid:
1) Depicting Abraham. I'm not sure why this is a halachic issue, but it is. Maybe because the Kisei haKovod had an image of Yitzchok on it.
2) Depicting angels.
3) Depicting idols.
4) Depicting an astronomical body. Note that the moon has been changed to a blank circle, rather than a circle with a crescent in it. As such it represents the moon rather than resembling it.
I should have said - depicting Abraham's full face. That's why the new picture shows him standing sideways.
I think the facing text is in Italikan or, rather, it's precursor. Italikan is a dialect of Veneto, which is spoken in Venice and the surrounding region. (itself a dialect [or distinct language, depending on which Italian you're talking to] of Italian). Italikan developed in the Venetian ghetto.
Commenting by HaloScan
