Sunday, December 10, 2017

Advocated grammar study



About Rabbi Shabtai Sofer of Przemysl(According to Professor Avraham Berliner, Professor David Kaufman, and Reb Yosef Kohen Tzedek.)
Rabbi Shabtai Sofer, who was mentioned by Professor Schorr by the name of Moshe the Grammarian [Mosze Gramatyk in Polish – ed.] – apparently due to an error with respect to his first name – was a native of Przemysl. He became known as a scholar and a writer throughout Poland, and even outside its borders, especially in Czechoslovakia, due to his literary activities. His birth date and death date are not known, but we know some dates from his life. He wrote a poem as an introduction to the important book “Mateh Moshe” of the famous Przemysl rabbi, Rabbi Moshe the son of Avraham “Met”, which was published in 1591. It is also known that he composed the large, 45 stanza Selicha in memory of the martyr Reb Moshe Szmukler who was burned in Przemysl in the wake of the religious libel of the year 1630[iii]
However, the major literary activity of Rabbi Shabtai Sofer was not expressed in the writings of Selichot or poems as introductions to books but rather in scientific research according to the methodologies of the times. These were research works into the theory of grammar, and glosses on the works of the great grammarians Rabbi Moshe and Rabbi David Kimchi (the RaDaK). His glosses were accepted by the scholars of Prague who used them in their works.
In addition to this, Rabbi Shabtai dedicated himself to research into the version of prayers of prayer books, especially in the Siddur (prayer book) that was in common use in Poland, in order to determine the errors and inconsistencies that crept into it throughout the generations. He inspected every dot and dagesh[1], compared them with old manuscripts, and explained them according to his grammatical theories. His stylistic notes on every letter and dash in the Siddur served as the foundation of his valuable research book. He also authored an emended Siddur with explanations. After the publication of the Siddur, the Council of the Four Lands (in 1617–1619), in a circular to all the communities of Poland, requested to obtain at least one Siddur of Rabbi Shabtai for the entire community, so that the prayer leader could use it to conduct services and according to which all the members of the community would be able to emend their Siddurim. This Siddur won the approbations of the greats of that generation. The Siddur was first published in Prague. Due to its great value, it sold out ten years after its publication. At this time, there are apparently no remnants of that edition. The Siddur was published for a second time in Lublin many years later.
There was no follow–up to this historical research work into the formulas of the Siddur. After the death of Rabbi Shabtai Sofer, there were several unsuccessful attempts to publish his work in Western Europe by those who appreciate it. The book found its way to England in some unknown fashion, and is found in the library of the Rabbinical Seminary of London. At the beginning of the 20th century, Professor Dr. Abraham Berliner, one of the great Jewish scholars of Germany, took it upon himself to publish this manuscript, which consisted of 450 folio pages. Berliner published the book in 1909 in Frankfurt am Main, and added a preface in German, with details on the life and literary activity of Reb Shabtai.
Even before this he was held in esteem by Rabbi Yosef Kohen Tzedek, Professor D. Kaufman, and the great expert in manuscripts, M. Neubauer. From the aforementioned preface of Professor Berliner, we learn, among other things that Rabbi Shabtai, even though he did not occupy himself with deciding halacha, wrote several responsa of questions that came to him on matters of religion. These earned great acclaim. He also published a
[Page 39]
book on religious law and jurisprudence. This man is apparently also worthy of esteem in this area, for Rabbi Meir (the Maharam) of Lublin agreed, despite his own busy schedule with questions and responsa, that he could turn to him in any case of doubt, and he promised to give him an answer.
The relations between Rabbi Shabtai and the great rabbi of Przemysl, the Mateh Moshe, were good. He knew Rabbi Shabtai from his youth and held him in great esteem. According to Professor Berliner, there was a certain case where Shabtai publicly expressed an opinion contrary to that of the Mateh Moshe.
Rabbi Shabtai apparently went blind after the year 1630. 39 years had elapsed from the time he wrote the introduction to the book Mateh Moshe until he composed the Selicha, and then he lost the sight in his eyes in his old age.


Original Footnotes
  1. That are not included in the article on the rabbis. Back
  2. See the chapter “Sources”. Back
  3. See the chapter “Sources”. Back
Translator's Footnote

  1. A ‘dagesh’ is a dot in the middle of some Hebrew letters that can change the pronunciation of the letters. Back
Coordinator's Footnotes

  1. An extensive pilpulistic commentary to the Hagadah.
    Rabbi J.J. Halberstamm, the late Grand Rabbi of Klausenberg was often wont to refer to this Hagadah and saw to it that it was reissued in order that “youth will appreciate the complete their husbands, resulting in children absorbing a disdainful atmosphere. He also chides women for their maltreatment of those in their domestic service. Throughout, the author reproves and castigates those “who Talmudic mastery and acuity of the sages of the 18th century.” (Silberman edition, Brooklyn, 1980). The composer of the Brith Mateh Moshe often digresses to bemoan improper social behaviors of his time (he expresses shock of the satiric parody Masechet Purim); he criticizes women who insistently harangue cause many of the social ills of (the) time, a result of a haughty bearing and slothfulness over ethical behavior.”
    R. Moshe, a disciple of Rabbis Moshe of Horodna and Mordecai Ginzburg of Brisk, states he was originally a member of the Chevra Kadisha of Yehudah Chasid. This fact, as well as his interesting, descriptions of the personalities in this fellowship, has escaped the notice of recent scholars. See Z. Shazar (Rubashov), Reshumoth, Vol. II (1927) pp. 461–93; G. Scholem, Beit Yisrael Be–Polin, Vol. II (1949) pp. 36–56; A.Yaari, Shluchei Eretz Yisrael, pp. 322–3; E. Carlebach, Divided Souls (2001) pp. 84–85. (https://www.kestenbaum.net/docs/Auction_29.pdf) Back
  2. see also: https://books.google.pl/books?id=EAiwCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=MET+MarbitzeiTorah&source=bl&ots=FiGUkfRC3E&sig=gIlZE0avdSXOvblo94AwvQRaQ4E&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwA2oVChMIqt2OnL2txwIVY6ZyCh1Z3QAX#v=onepage&q=MET%20Marbitzei–Torah&f=false Back




[Page 40]

https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/przemysl/prz037.html
===========================

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kargau-menahem-mendel-ben-naphtali-hirsch

KARGAU, MENAHEM MENDEL BEN NAPHTALI HIRSCH (1772–1842), German rabbi and author. Kargau was born in Prostibor (Bohemia) and studied under Nathan *Adler and Phinehas *Horowitz in Frankfurt, Ezekiel *Landau in Prague, Joseph Yoske in Posen, and Herz Scheuer in Mainz. For some time he engaged in commerce in Paris, later returning to Germany and settling in Fuerth, where he devoted himself to the study of Talmud. He became friendly with Abraham Benjamin Wolf *Hamburg, in whose works Simlat Binyamin (Fuerth, 1841) and Sha'ar ha-Zekenim (ibid., 1830), many of his halakhic statements are quoted. Kargau wrote hymns and poems, including a hymn in Hebrew to celebrate Napoleon's coronation (Shir u-Mizmor (Paris, 1805) with a free translation into French by Michel Berr). In 1840 he commemorated Moses *Montefiore's return from Damascus in another Hebrew hymn. Kargau died in Fuerth. His commentary on Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah, 201 (dealing with the laws of the mikveh) together with 41 of his halakhic responsa, was published after his death by his pupil Jonah Rosenbaum and by Asher Anschel Stern, later chief rabbi of Hamburg, under the title Giddulei Tohorah (Fuerth, 1845).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

S.M. Chones, Toledot ha-Posekim (1910), 135; D. Hoffmann, Der Schulchan-Aruch (18942), 39; Loewenstein, in: JJLG, 6 (1909), 212–4, 230–3; 8 (1911), 118f., 204–6.

No comments: