chapter 9 Prague: Berakhot—1728; Talmud—1830–1835

Berakhot, the first tractate printed of the Prague Talmud The intended result was that a reader not familiar with the (1728–44), is notable for the extensive expurgations and Talmudic text would be unaware that it had been altered.5 modifications to the text, exceeding those in the Basel An example of a change for harmonization is the expres- Talmud. I discuss the background and development of sion yoshevei keranot from Berakhot 28b (those who sit this Talmud in the previous chapter. In the current chap- on street corners), modified to yoshevei letsim (those who ter, I provide examples of the excisions and alterations to visit stadiums) from Avodah Zarah 18b.6 the text. First I present Pawel Maciejko’s insightful obser- An example of the expurgation of a large section of the vations as to how the censorship of Berakhot, apart from gemara is Berakhot 6a (Figure 9.1). The text of that page, the actual textual changes and expurgations, varies from with the expurgated text in bold print, states: the censorship of the Basel Talmud. Maciejko suggests that to the best of his knowledge, R. Jose ben R. Hanina says: He is rewarded with the the censorship of Berakhot is the sole example of what he blessings enumerated in the following verse: Oh that characterizes as “comprehensive” censorship of Hebrew thou would hearken to My commandments! Then books in the early modern period. Other censors, such as would thy peace be as a river, and thy righteousness Marco Marini, lead censor of the Basel Talmud, no matter as the waves of the sea; Thy seed also would be as the how sophisticated, were either unaware of, or were indif- sand, and the offspring of thy body like the grains ferent to, the consistency of their work. Expurgations and thereof, etc. amendments show a lack of concern “for coherent argu- It has been taught: Abba Benjamin says, if the eye ments or narratives or even the grammar and syntax of the had the power to see them, no creature could endure censored texts.”1 Entire paragraphs were deleted with no the demons. Abaye says: They are more numerous concern as to how the deletion affected other paragraphs. than we are and they surround us like the ridge round Nouns were substituted for other nouns, and gender and a field. R. Huna says: Every one among us has a thou- number were changed without adjustment to affected sand on his left hand and ten thousand on his right words. “[S]ubordinate clauses were removed, leaving hand. Raba says: The crushing in the Kallah lectures crippled and meaningless sentences.”2 Moreover, most comes from them. Fatigue in the knees comes from censors did not attempt to conceal the results of their them. The wearing out of the clothes of the scholars labor; instead they left blank spaces for deleted words and is due to their rubbing against them. The bruising of phrases. Maciejko notes that “in postprinting censorship, the feet comes from them. If one wants to discover it was commonplace to physically cut out or blacken the them, let him take sifted ashes and sprinkle around censored content.”3 (For examples, see Chapters 3 and 4 his bed, and in the morning he will see something about the Frankfurt on the Oder editions.) like the footprints of a cock. If one wishes to see In contrast, Maciejko notes that Eybeschuetz showed them, let him take the after-birth of a black she- “an amazing awareness of the interconnectedness and cat, the offspring of a black she-cat, the first-born totality of the text of the Talmud.” Many of his amend- of a first-born, let him roast it in fire and grind it ments to the Talmudic text were made solely to make the to powder, and then let him put some into his eye, text consistent with earlier amendments. He notes that and he will see them. Let him also pour it into an in at least one instance, an expression was substituted iron tube and seal it with an iron signet that they with a synonymous expression to “harmonize the text should not steal it from him. Let him also close his of tractate Berakhot with the texts of other tractates.”4 mouth, lest he come to harm. R. Bibi ben Abaye did These modifications extended to Rashi and Tosafot; some changes were for grammatical or stylistic reasons.

1 Maciejko, “Rabbi and the Jesuit,” 168. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 6 Ibid., 183n71.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004376731_011 144 chapter 9

so, saw them and came to harm. The scholars, how- or the Gemara in this edition of Berakhot vary from that ever, prayed for him and he recovered. tractate in the Basel and the 1715 Frankfurt editions. It has been taught.7 He divides the censors’ amendments, as defined by Hasel- bauer, into two categories, expurgare et corrigire. An About the above passage, Mississippi Fred MacDowell example of illicit contents subject to expurgation is Ber- observes that “[e]vidently the problem here is the how-to akhot 6a (Figure 9.1), which consists of sixty-four words instructions for seeing demons rather than the discussion that discuss the after-birth of a black she-cat that allows about them itself. Of course the relevant Rashi glosses are one to see demons. According to Maciejko the lengthiest simply missing as well.” He continues, instance of expurgation in the tractate, consisting of 193 words, concerns God wearing tefillin (phylacteries); that Rabinowicz notes that the passage about God wear- entry, among the anthropomorphic expressions system- :atically deleted, begins א“ר אבין בר רב אדא א“ר יצחק מנין שהקב“ה ,ing tefillin is entirely missing. He only meant to ,מניח תפילין give a sampler, so I will note another change on the R. Abin son of R. Ada in the name of R. Isaac says very same page not mentioned by him. In the very [further]: How do you know that the Holy One, passage after the demon-seeing-recipe, the Gemara blessed be He, puts on tefillin? For it is said: The Lord hath sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His תניא אבא בנימין אומר אין תפלה של אדם נשמעת :says It has been taught: Abba Benjamin strength. By His right hand: this is the Torah; for it ,אלא בבית הכנסת says: A man’s prayer is heard [by God] only in the is said: At His right hand was a fiery law unto them. Synagogue. I scarcely had to look to know that And by the arm of his strength: this is the tefillin; as .it is said: The Lord will give strength unto His people תניא it would certainly not say this. Instead it says אבא בנימין אומר תפלה של אדם נשמעת ביותר בבית A man’s prayer [by God] is heard more in the Yet another example is the discussion concerning the ,הכנסת Synagogue. My guess is that this version passed composition of the benediction al ha-minim (on heretics) muster because although a zealous Christian cen- (28b–29a) consisting of fifty-eight words, altered in the sor could not have agreed with this, he certainly Basel and Frankfurt editions to read malshinim (slander- realized that at the end of it all the Jews believed in ers, informers) and eliminated in its entirety in this edition their own religion. Thus elevating a synagogue was of Berakhot in both the gemara and in Rashi.8 Other dele- not good, but understandable. But to mark it as the tions referred to references to, or passages understood to only place where prayer is heard was unacceptable. refer to, Jesus of Nazareth. Alternatively, the Christians could have under- Rabbinovicz provides the following examples of the :in the sense of Church, but could deleterious effect of the censor בית הכנסת stood not accept the idea that God only hears prayers in Church/ Synagogue. That it’s a better place to pray [Abaye says: In one moment of those first three was in consonance with Catholic theology (I think). hours of the day,] when the comb of the cock is If these are the changes on only one ammud, there white [and it stands on one foot. Why, in each hour must be countless and I invite readers to find them. The shame of it all is that it is a beautiful, clear edi- 8 An explanation of ve-la-malshinim, the twelfth benediction in the tion. In particular, its printing of the Rosh in square Amidah prayer, was included by R. Menahem ben Aaron ibn Zerah letters (similar to a page of Rif, surrounded by pri- (c. 1310–85) in his Tzeidah la-Derekh (Ferrara, 1554). The entire sec- mary commentaries) is a pleasure. tion, comprising almost an entire folio, was omitted from the next edition of Tzeidah la-Derekh (Sabbioneta, 1567), and the enumera- Maciejko informs that apart from obvious misprints, tion of the prayers comprising the Amidah was correspondingly adjusted. Although Tzeidah la-Derekh has been reprinted several there are 191 instances in which the text of the Mishnah times, subsequent editions are based on the Sabbioneta edition, and the offending discussion on malshinim has never been reprinted 7 This example can be found in MacDowell, “R. Jonathan Eybeschutz, (Marvin J. Heller, “Variations in and between Early Hebrew Books,” Censorer of the Talmud,” http://onthemainline.blogspot.com, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch [2009]: 147–56, reprinted in Further Stud- where there are examples of both an uncensored page and a facing ies, 329–44). Also, ibid., The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book, vol. 1, censored page with the censored text highlighted for contrast. Sev- 406–7; and Shlomo Eidelberg, “Menachem Ben Aaron Ibn Zerah,” eral of the following examples cited here are also taken from that Medieval Jewish Ashkenazic History. Studies in European Jewry vol. 2, article. Hebrew Essays [Hebrew] (Brooklyn, 2000), 204–26.