The following comment really belongs in the post, but I decided to put it here:
I had previously posted an interesting excerpt from the Artscroll biography of R. Ya'akov, about a kind of textual criticism of the Targum he did to refute a "maskilic" aspersion on the integrity of the masoretic text (see here). He chose to question the integrity of the Targum based upon his good knowledge of Aramaic.
The Artscroll book is good, and this is in no small part because it is largely based on the research of the aforementioned R. Nosson. But the book certainly does not mention that the whole reason why he knew dikduk, trope and the like was because he learned from maskilic books! Not that it's necessarily necessary to mention it (and anyone with a little sechel would have probably guessed it anyway) but it is interesting anyway.
"the whole reason why he knew dikduk, trope and the like was because he learned from maskilic books!"
You've not presented any evidence to support this claim.
What you've shown is that he read *a* work by a maskil on dikduk, as a kid.
I've read a lot of stuff by maskilim too, but it's not the sum of my knowledge in those areas.
"Not that it's necessarily necessary to mention it (and anyone with a little sechel would have probably guessed it anyway)"
Exactly right. Like the claim that the Chazon Ish gained medical knowledge by learning Eruvin. Or the old bad joke told about the Malbim, that his knowledge of dikduk was "thrown in as a bonus" from heaven, similar to the way stores throw in the packaging when you buy the product, viacm"l. I highly doubt anyone reading this blog actually believes such fairy tales.
>You've not presented any evidence to support this claim.
>What you've shown is that he read *a* work by a maskil on dikduk, as a kid.
First, in my post I wrote that he knew or acquired this knowledge "From books, of course, at least initially." The comment you quoted here cannot be taken in isolation. Secondly, at the time of the story which was only a couple of years after he read Lerner's books, this would seem to have been the basis for his knowledge of these subjects, certainly the foundation.
DF, the reason why I mentioned that anyone would have probably guessed is because although there are other ways of acquiring dikduk and the like in early 20th century Russia, eg, from quote-unquote pre- and therefore non-maskilic sources, most of the 19th century literature in these subjects were maskilic, and the law of averages would suggest that he'd have read at least some such works, as we see that he did. Furthermore, although it is theoretically possible and surely nice to suggest that a 17 or 18 year old bochur can refute textual criticism of Tanakh through textual criticism of the Targum without having any exposure to this kind of literature, it is unlikely.
The bio of Hatzal doesn't mention the book on trup MOAG says RYK read. Do you know anything about it?
No, because I haven't seen it. Not only that, I can't seem to find any independent work on the te'amim in a catalog. The only other candidate would be his book Toldot Ha-dikduk, but that seems unlikely. However, there is a bit of a discussion on the trope in Moreh Lashon. Perhaps this was what was intended, and it's all one work. That being the case, young R. Ya'akov sure as heck didn't acquire a profound knowledge of trope from this book.
What an excellent post about the Raban's knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic! And thanks for the link to his Hebrew grammar! I had heard of this book, but didn't know where to obtain it from.
S. "First, in my post I wrote that he knew or acquired this knowledge "From books, of course, at least initially." The comment you quoted here cannot be taken in isolation. Secondly, at the time of the story which was only a couple of years after he read Lerner's books, this would seem to have been the basis for his knowledge of these subjects, certainly the foundation."
I wasn't commenting on your post, or on the story in the MOAG. I was commenting on your claim in a subsequent comment, which was, again, that "the whole reason why he knew dikduk, trope and the like was because he learned from maskilic books!"
This was and remains an unsupported claim.
That comment here may have been written without exactitude, but like I said, my view is in the post. Taken together, I only mean "at least initially," and I stand by that.
Even initially, it's not conclusive that it was the "only reason" (although it may well have been the case).
FP, do you have any evidence to show his knowledge was gained OTHER than by reading maskillic books? If not, what are you arguing for?
We know there was haskallah literature in Slabodka. We know R Yakov read haskallah literature in Slabodka. [We know he even quotes CD Ginsburg in Emes Liyakov.] And we know dikduk was viewed with suspicion by traditionalist elements in his time. Taken together, it's pretty clear he learned dikduk from maskillim, not traditionalists. You dont think thats conclusive? Nu. Many things aren't.
I will grant that his interest in these subjects is an additional and important reason.
I guess F-P's point is that he could have learned trope from, say, Tuv Ta'am by Elias Levita, he could have learned dikduk from Radak's Mikhlol, etc.
There is no doubt that in time R. Ya'akov learned all or many of these tradionalist works on these subjects, but I am personally skeptical that a young teenager was able to make his way through difficult medieval Hebrew books on these subjects, as opposed to the new maskilic books written in a clear and current Hebrew and systemized and arranged in modern fashion. Also, why wouldn't R. Nosson mention it?
But yes, it could be in addition to Moreh Lashon he read these other books, excuse me, seforim.
S. "I am personally skeptical that a young teenager was able to make his way through difficult medieval Hebrew books on these subjects, as opposed to the new maskilic books written in a clear and current Hebrew and systemized and arranged in modern fashion."
I am not all that familiar with dikduk works, ancient or current. But ISTM that you are displaying a bias in assuming that the modern dikduk works are more understandable because of these factors.
Despite however much maskilic literature as RYK read, he certainly read a whole lot more rabbinic literature. So he was likely more familiar and at ease with the old-time rabbinic Hebrew than the "clear and current" Hebrew of the more recent works. And likely more familiar with the old time ways of organizing the material rather than the "modern fashion".
What you write would apply to someone who was just a maskil, not to a rabbinic student who also read haskala.
In addition, RY was a pretty bright guy, it would seem. It's possible that he was capable of more than you think.
"Also, why wouldn't R. Nosson mention it?"
The context in which he mentioned these works was a point about RYK having read maskilic literature, and he mentioned these works along with other non-dikduk maskilic literature that RYK read. Naturally he did not mention non-maskilic literature, as it didn't happen to be what he was writing about. If he was writing a section about RYK's knowledge of dikduk and only mentioned maskilic works, you'd be right.
>What you write would apply to someone who was just a maskil, not to a rabbinic student who also read haskala.
That's simply not true. First of all, almost no one was born a maskil, and the maskil who had not been a rabbinic student or who did not know his way in rabbinic literature with some amount of reasonableness was rare.
There was a reason why works like Talmud Leshon Ivri by Ben Ze'ev were the Hebrew handbooks of choice throughout Eastern Europe in the 19th century rather than Mikhlol and the medieval works, and it wasn't only because these taught more current theories. It had to do with organization and Hebrew style as well. To posit that R. Ya'akov, as a boy born in 1890, was somehow probably more comfortable in understanding works written 500 years earlier than with works written in his own century, as opposed to maskilim, who generally had his background, more or less, is fallacious. Also, the reason why these books are difficult is because they are not written in "rabbinic Hebrew" like the kind of seforim yeshiva bochurim and talmidei chachomim are familiar with. They are written in "dikdukian" Hebrew, they employ unique terminology, and they don't explain what the terms mean, because after all, if you're a medakdek you know what they mean. They are not elementary books, they're about a foreign subject (until you're familiar with it, of course) and it's not written in the kinds of Hebrew the Shulchan Aruch or the Ketzos or whatever you had in mind are.
Certainly I recognize that he was "pretty bright," and I don't deny that he may have been capable even as a pretty young boy of reading Radak et al. But I think it more likely that he could have and would have wet his feet with current books that would have been easier to understand for him, yeshiva background or no. And lo and behold, we see that he did read such books, or at least two of them (or one, if R. Nosson is mistaken and both books are really Moreh Lashon).
As for the context, the point is that the book is 1450 pages long and is fairly encyclopedic about the period, and R. Ya'akov's influences, ways and doings in those years and I don't recall where it is mentioned that he learned trope and dikduk from the so-called traditional seforim. (Not to mention that those usually contained annotations and commentaries by maskilim anyway, so even if he had read them, most likely the editions he'd have read were not the 2 or 300 year old ones, but those works with nice maskilic hakdamos, etc.)
AS I said, I am not too familiar with dikduk matters. You could be right.
It sounds from what you're saying that virtually anyone who learned dikduk at that time can be assumed to have learned it from maskilim, regardless of whether or not his son wrote something about it in a book about him.
It would follow than that all current works on dikduk (e.g. Lashon Chaim) can be assumed to have acquired their knowledge either directly or indirectly from the maskilim. Is this your claim?
(How did the early maskilim themselves learn dikduk?)
"the point is that the book is 1450 pages long and is fairly encyclopedic about the period, and R. Ya'akov's influences, ways and doings in those years and I don't recall where it is mentioned that he learned trope and dikduk from the so-called traditional seforim."
Actually the book is long but rather rambling and does not treat most subjects in a comprehensive manner. If at any point it discussed his knowledge of dikduk in a thorough manner, you would have a point. But it doesn't seem like it ever did.
It's obvious he learned the science of trope from maskillim. Look at the names he uses for the various symbols of trope, and the gradations between them. (Melachim, Kaisarim, etc.) Also look at which symbols he places within the field of each grade, which is a subject of deabte. His system is from the haskallah system. Not Hiddenheim, not the Bachur, not the Rabeniu Tam's poem - it's haskallah. And if he learned that from haskallah, he probably got other compenents of dikduk from there, too.
[Although it's not clear to me personally just how extensive his knowledge of dikduk was. Though there is a certain degree of overlap, trope is not the same as dikduk.]
[And on the subject I again plug the trope book of R. Naftali Gettinger, Vayavinu Bamikra.]
Heidenheim was a maskil himself.
The truth is that it's somewhat difficult to escape from the old haskalah=evil formula and to really get a true picture of the gradations and relationships of the time, or the earlier period in the 19th century. By any reasonable definition of haskalah, Wolf Heidenheim was of the first generation of maskilim. He was a Meassefist. He was modern in various respects, etc. But he was frum, of course. But there is no reason to deny that he was a maskil, albeit that does not make him David Friedlander and that doesn't make him Lilienblum.
As for later times, I actually have a post in the works about Mattisyahu Strashun, who was certainly one of the leading Vilna maskilim, yet he obviously also had a foot in the traditionalist world. This is illustrated, to my mind, most starkly by something I will show, namely that one of the late 19th centuries big kannoim, R. Yitzchak Elchanan's secretary, Ya'akov Lipschitz, who declared war on haskalah, founded a movement called Machzikei Ha-das, includes letters of bracha from Strashun in his book; clearly (or presumably) neither Strashun thought it strange to give Lipschitz a shkoyach for his good fight for Torah, nor did Lipschitz think it strange that Strashun was giving it to him, or that he should include his letters. If I could compare it to something today, I might see a clearly academic Jewish scholar like David Berger giving a letter of bracha to some kind of right wing kannoi over their common interest, fighting Lubavitch messianism. The point is that even though right wingers do not identify with academic Jewish scholarship or scholars, no one is going to say that Berger is not a frum and knowledgeable guy (apart from the polemics he unfortunately involved himself in). Indeed, Yated published an article by him, and I assume they don't generally publish articles by the heads of the Jewish studies dep't at YU whose area of expertise is medieval Jewish and Christian polemics. I doubt they would publish something by Jacob Neusner.
If I may, I would extend this analogy and suggest that many maskilim were like and were seen as various archetype Orthodox academic scholars. Not rabbis and not quite seen as talmidei chachomim per se, also not totally on the outs with the traditional or yeshiva community.
So maskilim and maskilic works mean many things, some obviously totally antithetical and some less obviously or not at all.
As for the gradations of the trope, by and large the later medakdekim adopted them from the Christian Hebraists. See Aron Dotan's intro to the reprinted Wickes (partially viewable (here). The Hebraists learned Hebrew and all things about it from Jews and from Jewish sources, then made some discoveries of their own, which in turn found its way back into Jewish sources.
As for the interesting account of toldos ha-dikduk, I will try to reply to that as best I can later.
I don't see how this example relates to dikduk or trup. It seems to be a vocabulary issue.
Philology, grammar and cantillation, which is really about syntax and parsing of the text, are all related. There is no medakdek who is not in some ways interested and involved in all three.
but there are ppl who are interested in vocabulary and not in dikduk
R. Ya'akov Kamenetzky was not one of them.
Do any of those who claim that Rav Yaakov's knowledge of dikduk probably came from maskilim have any first-hand knowledge of traditionalist dikduk seforim?
I learned dikduk in depth while in my mid 20s, while learning in kollel. I discovered a sefer in the Otzar Haseforim of Yeshiva, "Sefer HaMesilol" by R. Hayyim ben Naphtali Koeslin (Hamburg 1788). The author, no maskil, published another work, keriat hatorah (Berlin 1814 see http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager....924&st=&
pgnum=1 ) which includes a traditionalist response to reforms in the nusach hatefilla with a letter of blessing (not approbation) from Rav Akiva Eiger. I have found few works as clear as this.
I am totally unconvinced by the claims here.
Do you know that R. Chaim Koeslin wasn't a maskil or is your evidence that he took issue with nussach reforms? Shadal was a maskil, and he too opposed nussach reforms. Furthermore, one of the, shall we say, perpetrators of nussach reforms, R. Wolf Heidenheim, would certainly have received a letter of blessing from a R. Akiva Eger, who certainly did not have a problem with him. Unless you know R. Koelin wasn't a maskil, and I will take your word, if this is your evidence I don't see it.
Furthermore, we don't have to speculate about what R. Yaakov read. He may have, indeed surely eventually did, read traditionalist works on dikduk, but here he is 13 and he is reading works by Lerner. It's not really an open question.
How do you define a maskil?
S.
Why does Dov W need to show you the evidence? You're the one making the claim.
You implied earlier that you were familiar with these matters, and that the two choices before a 13 year old learning dikduk 100 years ago were 1) works by contemporary maskilim or 2) 500 year old works which were "written in "dikdukian" Hebrew, they employ unique terminology, and they don't explain what the terms mean", which supports your conclusion that "the whole reason why he knew dikduk, trope and the like was because he learned from maskilic books!"
But now it turns out that there was at least one clearly written work about 200 years old, and you yourself have no idea if the author was a maskil or not.
And who knows if there could be others? Not you, apparently (or me, of course). It would seem that you're assuming, in the most circular way, that any works on dikduk from the prior century or so can be presumed to have been authored by maskilim, which would make your assertion almost a truism.
Your second sentence is illogical, and seems to ignore the context of the discussion. We know RY read a work by a maskil. What we don't know is that he didn't read other works on the subject by non-maskilim, at that time or earlier. It's very much an open question.
I'm not making any claim. I don't know who R. Chaim Koeslin is, and I asked Dov W if he does, since he brought him up. I even said that I would take his word that he was not a maskil, *if he knows that he wasn't.* But I wanted to know if he knows that he wasn't or was the reason why he mentioned his opposition to nusach reform and RAE's divrei bracha because he had made an educated guess that he wasn't. My point was that I don't see that as relevant either way. He could have been a maskil or not been a maskil with both those things being true.
I did not mean 500 years literally. Of course there were many books on grammar written between 1400 and 1900. The most concise survey of them (almost all of them) can be read here. I will explain more what I meant later, when I get the chance to fully flesh out my thoughts, and why it is my opinion that acquiring Hebrew grammar in the 19th or early 20th century most likely meant reading maskilic material.
>How do you define a maskil?
It depends on time and place. The same definitions will not apply in late 18th century Berlin as in early 19th century Galicia or in mid 19th century Russia, although some common ground will be found between all of them. I cannot offer a concise definition, but I do have thoughts about it and I will happy to dedicate a future post to those thoughts.
Thanks for your response. What really prompted me to ask was that you referred to Heidenheim as a maskil. What makes you say that?
S. "I'm not making any claim."
Yes, you are. Your claim, again, was that "the whole reason why he knew dikduk, trope and the like was because he learned from maskilic books!" That's a claim, and you need to back it up.
You attempted to back it up by claiming that RYK couldn't have learned dikduk as a boy by reading non-maskilic works, since these were very difficult. This has been called into question by someone pointing to a work that was not very difficult. Since you yourself don't know whether that work was written by a maskil or not, you can't use the "non-maskilic works were too difficult" argument to back up your claim that "the whole reason ...". (And, as noted, if there was one such book, who knows if there were 5 others.)
"I cannot offer a concise definition, but I do have thoughts about it and I will happy to dedicate a future post to those thoughts."
That will probably be an interesting post. But bear this in mind. Just because you decide that for your purposes such-and-such is the way to separate "maskil" from "non-maskil", that doesn't mean that everyone else sees it that way, or that your distinction is the relevant one in all contexts. For example, if you find that so-and-so was OK with someone who based on your definition is a "maskil" that doesn't mean that so-and-so was OK with "maskilim". That person might have drawn the line differently. (I once saw an article - in Tradition, IIRC - about the CS's attitude to maskilim that was flawed in this manner, using an overly broad definition of maskilim.)
Also importantly, if your readership on this blog is not clear on your definition of "maskil" than it's confusing for you to make statements about "maskilim", since they are unaware that you are using your own definition of maskil, and they assume your statement applies to their own version of "maskilim".
Since the subject of maskilim comes pretty often on this blog, it might be worth you fleshing out your thoughts about it sooner rather than later, as well as consistantly pointing out what you mean in future posts on the subject.
>But bear this in mind. Just because you decide that for your purposes such-and-such is the way to separate "maskil" from "non-maskil", that doesn't mean that everyone else sees it that way, or that your distinction is the relevant one in all contexts. For example, if you find that so-and-so was OK with someone who based on your definition is a "maskil" that doesn't mean that so-and-so was OK with "maskilim".
Why don't you save your critique for my post? You don't know what I think or what I will write or claim.
>Also importantly, if your readership on this blog is not clear on your definition of "maskil" than it's confusing for you to make statements about "maskilim", since they are unaware that you are using your own definition of maskil, and they assume your statement applies to their own version of "maskilim".
Whose definition should I use? The Oxford English Dictionary ("A progressive, reformist, or intellectual Jew; spec. a proponent of the Haskalah.")? R. Avigdor Miller's (if he ever defined it)?
The readership of my blog should have the same question every time anyone mentions a maskil, since there is no agreed-upon clear definition of the term. Suffice it to say, "my own definition" will not prove to be startling, unlike Gil, who provided a definition sufficiently broad that he even made R. Elchanan Wasserman a possible maskil (link).
"Why don't you save your critique for my post? You don't know what I think or what I will write or claim."
It's already relevant here. You've claimed that RYK got his knowledge of dikduk only (at least initially) from reading maskilic works. But you've also claimed that RW Heidenheim was a maskil. For someone considering the implications of RYK getting his knowledge of dikduk from maskilim, there is a huge difference whether the source is Heidenheim-type maskilim or out-and-out maskilim.
What's the difference? Do you think I'm claiming that RYK picked up some kind of warped version of Hebrew grammar? As for "Heidenheim-type" and "out-and-out" type, what do you mean by this distinction?
>It's obvious he learned the science of trope from maskillim. Look at the names he uses for the various symbols of trope, and the gradations between them. (Melachim, Kaisarim, etc.)
S. If you look at Mahberet the shir of Rabbeinu Tam on taamei hamikra you will find the "maskilic" gradations you refer to. Will you now suggest that Rabbenu Tam too was influenced by an advance copy of one of Lerner's works?
> Do you know that R. Chaim Koeslin wasn't a maskil or is your evidence that he took issue with nussach reforms?
To me, unless I am considering taking him as a son-in-law, then on a subject such as dikduk it's totally irrelevant whether on a personal level Rav Koeslin was a maskil.
What I should have said is that his work is written in a traditionalist as opposed to maskilic style and it conforms with previous traditionalist approaches. This is not always easy to define but for me at least, a good rule of thumb on any given sefer is its prevalence in the otzarei haseforim of today's Yeshivos and Kollelim.
>Shadal was a maskil
and Shadal wrote like a maskil. But surely the point here is your original claim.
>He chose to question the integrity of the Targum based upon his good knowledge of Aramaic.
Had RYK read, as I myself, have read, two traditionalist authors whose works are found in many an otzar haseforim in today's Yeshivos and kollelim he could certainly have had such a vision. They are the Torah Temimah's Mekor Baruch and the works of Rav Reuvein Margolies.
Of course you may be tempted to point out that each of these authors had themselves read and been influenced by maskilic sources. But that is to miss the point entirely.
There is a tremendous difference between someone whose primary knowledge of Greek philosophy is from Rambam and someone whose primary knowledge of Greek philosophy is from secular sources. The first is squarely within the traditionalist camp while the second is not.
I do not know how much RYK read either Mekor Baruch or the works of Rav Reuvein Margolies. But I do know that it is conceivable that he read them and other such works which paints a very different picture than the one you claimed in which his PRIMARY source of knowledge is from maskilic works.
Ultimately, of course, I cannot and will not speak for RYK. I only have my own experience. I have a strong personal familiarity with much that you would have considered could only come from maskilic sources and at least in my case I have read next to nothing maskilic on dikduk, mesorah and trope and I own much excellent clear and easy-to-understand advanced traditionalist material on all of these.
>S. If you look at Mahberet the shir of Rabbeinu Tam on taamei hamikra you will find the "maskilic" gradations you refer to. Will you now suggest that Rabbenu Tam too was influenced by an advance copy of one of Lerner's works?
Ask DF, since that was his comment, not mine.
>To me, unless I am considering taking him as a son-in-law, then on a subject such as dikduk it's totally irrelevant whether on a personal level Rav Koeslin was a maskil.
>What I should have said is that his work is written in a traditionalist as opposed to maskilic style and it conforms with previous traditionalist approaches. This is not always easy to define but for me at least, a good rule of thumb on any given sefer is its prevalence in the otzarei haseforim of today's Yeshivos and Kollelim.
Fair enough. At least now I understand what you were getting at. But FWIW I really doubt that Sefer HaMesilol (Hamburg 1788) is found in too many otzarei ha-seforim in yeshivos, let alone is prevalent.
>Had RYK read, as I myself, have read, two traditionalist authors whose works are found in many an otzar haseforim in today's Yeshivos and kollelim he could certainly have had such a vision. They are the Torah Temimah's Mekor Baruch and the works of Rav Reuvein Margolies.
Mekor Baruch was written after the incident described, and R. Reuven Margolies was a year or two older than RYK, so these aren't great examples of traditionalists with some enlightenment, or however you would call it, influencing him, but I recognize the type and what you mean.
>Of course you may be tempted to point out that each of these authors had themselves read and been influenced by maskilic sources. But that is to miss the point entirely.
>There is a tremendous difference between someone whose primary knowledge of Greek philosophy is from Rambam and someone whose primary knowledge of Greek philosophy is from secular sources. The first is squarely within the traditionalist camp while the second is not.
Sure. That is why RYK is squarely with the traditionalist camp.
>I do not know how much RYK read either Mekor Baruch or the works of Rav Reuvein Margolies. But I do know that it is conceivable that he read them and other such works which paints a very different picture than the one you claimed in which his PRIMARY source of knowledge is from maskilic works.
>Ultimately, of course, I cannot and will not speak for RYK. I only have my own experience. I have a strong personal familiarity with much that you would have considered could only come from maskilic sources and at least in my case I have read next to nothing maskilic on dikduk, mesorah and trope and I own much excellent clear and easy-to-understand advanced traditionalist material on all of these.
If what you write is accurate to your experience, how are you familiar with Shadal's style?
>Ask DF, since that was his comment, not mine.
I apologize S., that was my sloppiness.
> But FWIW I really doubt that Sefer HaMesilol (Hamburg 1788) is found in too many otzarei ha-seforim in yeshivos, let alone is prevalent.
I discovered it in the Otzar Haseforim in the Yeshiva and Kollel I learned in and it's here on Hebrew Books http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpa...eq=7124&
pgnum=1
>>There is a tremendous difference between someone whose primary knowledge of Greek philosophy is from Rambam and someone whose primary knowledge of Greek philosophy is from secular sources. The first is squarely within the traditionalist camp while the second is not.
>Sure. That is why RYK is squarely with the traditionalist camp.
The question we have is whether on dikduk RYK's knowledge came primarily from the traditionalist camp.
>>in my case I have read next to nothing maskilic on dikduk, mesorah and trope and I own much excellent clear and easy-to-understand advanced traditionalist material on all of these.
>If what you write is accurate to your experience, how are you familiar with Shadal's style?
I have to confess that I have read nothing of Shadal on dikduk and have extremely minimal exposure to his peirush on tanach and my characterization is one that is based on a very small sample of his work.
"As for "Heidenheim-type" and "out-and-out" type, what do you mean by this distinction?"
Traditionally religious Jews who shared some characteristics with maskilim as regards to scholarship, and interacted with them, versus Jews who by and large did not have a traditional outlook to Judaism altogether. (This may also answer your first question.)
If you look at Mahberet the shir of Rabbeinu Tam on taamei hamikra you will find the "maskilic" gradations you refer to.
Uh, you won't.
"If you look at Mahberet the shir of Rabbeinu Tam on taamei hamikra you will find the "maskilic" gradations you refer to."
I just checked back here, and was surprised to see how far FP, joined by Dov W., will stretch to claim RYK didn't learn dikduk from maskillim. Such a claim betrays a gross lack of knowledge of the milieu in which RYK developed. Of course he learnt it from maskillim. Others in his environment, also to be worshipped in the future as GEDOILIM, studied math. Who did they learn it from? The Ayil Meshulash? C'mon, gimme a break.
Dov, R'T's poem does not discuss the gradations of the Trop. I'm quite familiar with it, thank you. It's printed in many places, including Weidenfeld's "Taamei Hamikrah". You have to be very careful when speaking of the various strengths of each ta'am mafsik. How many levels are there, three or four? (for example). Look in Breuer's book, also called "Taamei Hamikrah", for a discussion. I myself published a small monograph on the subject in 1999, called "Ta'ama Neimah". RYK's system comes straight out of the haskallah.
[i]I just checked back here, and was surprised to see how far FP, joined by Dov W., will stretch to claim RYK didn't learn dikduk from maskillim. Such a claim betrays a gross lack of knowledge of the milieu in which RYK developed. Of course he learnt it from maskillim. Others in his environment, also to be worshipped in the future as GEDOILIM, studied math. Who did they learn it from? The Ayil Meshulash? C'mon, gimme a break.[/i]
The question is not as you think whether RYK learned dikduk from maskilim.
S. originally wrote,
[i]the whole reason why he knew dikduk, trope and the like was because he learned from maskilic books![/i]
RYK's knowledge of maskilic gradations and other maskilic notions has nothing at all to do with that question. I won't speak for FP but I can readily acknowledge that RYK's approach to dikduk and trop may have been heavily influenced by maskilic works. The question is whether those maskilic works were the sole source of his knowledge on dikduk.
That's why your Ayil Meshulash analogy misses the point. No-one could get a solid knowledge of mathematics from Ayil Meshulash. However that is not the case with dikduk.
R' Wolff Heidenheim was a traditionalist and between the works of the Rishonim such as the Radak and Ibn Ezra, the works of other traditionalist seforim on dikduk such as the Sefer Hamichlol and R' Wolff Heidenheim's works it is possible to have a very sound knowledge of dikduk.
[i]Dov, R'T's poem does not discuss the gradations of the Trop. I'm quite familiar with it, thank you. It's printed in many places, including Weidenfeld's "Taamei Hamikrah".[/i]
DF, out of ignorance I misunderstood your original statement although I still am unimpressed by your argument.
I do have Weidenfeld's Taamei Hamikra and that is how I am familiar with R"T's shir. As I wrote earlier I am not familiar with maskilic works on either dikduk or trop. Furthermore I willingly confess that I am not familiar at all with RYK's writings on either trop or dikduk. Being unfamiliar I misunderstood your original statement about melachim, kesarim and what you called maskilic gradations for the distinctions that R"T noted in his shir which actually are the elementary differences between melachim and mesharsim and not melachim, kesarim.
The chart in the front of Weidenfeld is of course based on R' Wolff Heidenheim's Mishpetei Hataamim and not on Rabbenu Tam. Those gradations appear to be closer to the maskilic gradations you were in fact describing that you refer to now and I recognize my misunderstanding of your original comment.
Getting back to R. Chaim Koeslin, I asked above, was he himself a maskil?
I don't know how to answer that question, but I see that he published an article in Ha-meassef (1785).
Commenting by HaloScan
