Fascinating. (I don't comment much on this scholarly stuff but I'm always here)
>News of the controversial sefer even reached Eretz Yisrael, and *Chida reports that in Safed a general ban (cherem) against it was drawn up and was to be signed br R' Yosef Caro, but he died before signing it.
Must have been min hashamyim, no?
>Meor Einayim regained popularity in modern days, when the Maskilim misrepresented R' Azaryah as a progressive Jew, a denomination R' Azaryah would surely have resented.
So what else is new?
Fred, this is interesting and (for once) not way over my head.
At least twice in the quoted material, ArtScroll uses "secular" in a zany way (I'm calling it zany because to call it "inappropriate" would be judgmental):
"In his works he draws upon Jewish, Christian, and secular sources"
and
"inquiries into the Talmudic chronology of the first and second Temples, comparing the traditional dates with those given by secular writers"
Fred, this is interesting and (for once) not way over my head.
That's because it was written by Artscroll, not by Fred!
;)
"R' Azaryah as a progressive Jew, a denomination R' Azaryah would surely have resented."
He was still frum so if progressive means outside of tradition he would have objected whether strongly or not.
Don't forget to bring up the Ralbag and also the Rabbi Abohav who served in Amsterdam and the New World.
Actually, the candor in which Artscroll (a) mentions him and (b) knows how to frame him within their concepts, is quite refreshing.
Suddenly, there's a rabbi with a shitah not everything in the Talmud is history? and this is "Orthodox"? not bad.
>Actually, the candor in which Artscroll (a) mentions him and (b) knows how to frame him within their concepts, is quite refreshing.
Suddenly, there's a rabbi with a shitah not everything in the Talmud is history? and this is "Orthodox"? not bad.
It is interesting that they chose to dub him an "Acharon."
This is a relatively early work of Artscroll; they were less "careful" then. The introduction to their Tzenah Ure'enah includes fullsome praise for JTS' library for its assistance. You'd never see that in an Artscroll book today. (Note that they did a volume of Rishonim and "Early Acharonim" but never "Later Acharonim." Recent history, which might, chas v'shalom, mention YU or the State of Israel, is all done under Sha'ar Press.
"At least twice in the quoted material, ArtScroll uses "secular" in a zany way (I'm calling it zany because to call it "inappropriate" would be judgmental):
"In his works he draws upon Jewish, Christian, and secular sources"
and "inquiries into the Talmudic chronology of the first and second Temples, comparing the traditional dates with those given by secular writers."
The Encyclopedia Judaica informs us that De Rossi was a remarkably proficient and expert classicist in Latin (though not in Greek). Greek works he had to read in Latin translation. He was also a profound expert in medieval Italian literature. His many citations to dozens of writers from antiquity and the medieval era astonished his readers. When Artscroll uses the term "secular," I suppose they mean pagan Greek and Latin writers who never were Christians. And they're correct in doing so, it seems to me. So I can't agree with your assessment that it's a "zany" usage.
It's zany because it calls them "secular" rather than "pagan," or at least "classical," a more neutral term, which is what they were, but not "secular."
would most Artscroll readers understand the term "classical"?
"Nevertheless, some later sages, among them Chasam Sofer, and two of Maharal's pupils, *R' David Ganz Tzemach David) and *R' Yom Tov Lipman Heller, cite Meor Einayim, if only to refute its views."
What about the Rashash (Kesuvos 4b from memory) or the Maharitz Chayes (Bava Kamma I think, but not positive) who quote him (to disprove Tosefos) and certainly don't argue with him?
I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of them just now.
I have a general question for you why is it the rambam wrote in arabic today we have english both from host countries, yet in europe they did not have a russian or hungariain,or polish why no translations in the language of the host country?
It's a cultural thing. It wasn't the Rambam innovating something, the idea of Judaica in the Arabic vernacular. Rather, the Jews in Arabic speaking countries wrote in Arabic, which was the language those Jews had adopted once Aramaic fell to the wayside. But the Jews in Europe (I am not counting Spain, which was technically Europe, but Arabic at the time).
I am guessing, but this is only a guess, that the reason why the vernaculars of the Jews of Europe did not become appropriate for religious discourse was because it was too dissimilar to Hebrew or Aramaic, while Arabic was pretty similar. Switching from Aramaic to Arabic probably was not such a stretch, while switching to a European vernacular was. In addition, in the European countries, the gentiles did not use their own vernacular as a language appropriate for scholarship, preferring Latin, while the Arabs did use their own vernacular, Arabic. It probably made little sense for Jews who spoke German to use Latin to write on Jewish topics, so they stuck with Hebrew.
They're using secular in the sense of "not religious," which is a perfectly acceptable usage. Not zany at all.
Commenting by HaloScan
