"Well, finally, things have been changing. There is a serious alternative to ArtScroll, which finally marks a publishing renaissance for Religious Zionist, Centrist and Modern Orthodoxy: Koren. Koren is the only Jewish publisher aside from ArtScroll to have a comprehensive publishing vision. They are putting out siddurim, machzorim, chumashim, and a series of works on Tenach. And the flagship project is, of course, the Talmud."
"Only in the last year or so have I started to examine the ArtScroll Talmud on a regular basis and I am continuously impressed. This has to be one of the most significant Torah publications of the twentieth century. Since that is the case, I don’t see why such effort is being put into producing the new Koren Talmud. While it sometimes has points that do not appear in ArtScroll, I don’t know why anyone would prefer it over ArtScroll."
"And yet, for many years, Religious Zionist, Centrist and Modern Orthodoxy ceded this important field almost entirely to the Charedi community...Koren is the only Jewish publisher aside from ArtScroll to have a comprehensive publishing vision. "
I love Koren and use their works on Tanakh extensively. But their patented exclusive Hebrew font sucks badly. I hate it. It's the main thing stopping me from using their Hebrew works- they're unreadable.
Consider their stunning illustrated Tehillim. The pictures are great, but the font is terrible, which means it just takes up space on my bookshelf.
Unfortunately, I must agree with you. I, too, do not like their font. And I have one further gripe: the pages (at least from their siddurim/machzorim) are too thin. It's difficult to turn pages. I'm always worried I might accidentally tear a page.
This post makes two massive mistakes, one about Kehati, and one about Koren. The first is rooted in ignorance; the second, in politics.
First, re Kehati. You claim its "obsolete". Oh, really?? Anyone with school age boys knows it still remains today one of the most popular bar mitzvah gifts boys give and receive. The set is still found and used in homes and yeshivahs and schools of all stripes, all around the world. Even Artscroll quotes from it. (Not often, but recall, it is not a primary source.) They reissued it a generation ago with the Bartenura commentary precisely to make sure it stayed fresh, and indeed, so it has remained. I don't know how its possible for so masterful a work - in which the author was at pains to minimize to leave his own ideas in the background, and focus only on the classics - to be "obsolete", but I guess some people will say anything to knock down A, if they think it helps prop up B. Which brings us to the second claim...
You gush on about Koren, but its painfully obvious to all that the primary benefit of in your eyes is that it "isnt Artscroll". How else can someone who hasn't even gone through most of the material give it such an enthusiastic review?
You mention the pictures. OK, that's definitely a plus, pictures can't hurt. But 3D diagrams and pictures of difficult subjects (eg, Eruvin, Kelim) have been around a long time. Moreover, not all pictures are equally helpful. Pictures of the vaunted "realia" only do so much. Far more valuable, in many cases, are pictures actually illustrating the views and opinions of the Tannaim. Such pictures need to illustrate opinions, not pots and pans. Those funny cartoon illustrated mishnayos do a great job of this. Does Koren? How do they display the complicated farming patterns of Kilayim, for example? It would be valuable to know this, as this might represent a real benefit. NS doesn't even mention it. Its more important to him that its not Artscroll.
NS also says Koren knows how to use "white space". Sure doesn't look like it from the examples I've seen. Looks more to me like a riot of arrows and highlight circles and sidebars. Kid books today are filled with such things, and I've seen zero evidence to show that kids today know more than kids of the past, who actually read straightforward paragraphs to lean. To me, this kind of learning is similar to "sugyot" learning with source sheets, as opposed to simply learning the Gemara straight on through. I have yet to meet the Baki b'shas produced by learning sugyot with source sheets.
I would also note that the sister publication mentioned by NS, the Koren siddur, was enthusiastically endorsed by the "Jewish Orthodox Feminists Alliance", the only siddur I know so acclaimed. I don't know if the Koren Mishna translation will be fortunate enough as to receive a similar commendation; however, I hope we get an update if and when the designation is handed down.
In all events, you're hopelessly biased in these areas, and should not be pretending as though you werent.
"How do they display the complicated farming patterns of Kilayim, for example? It would be valuable to know this, as this might represent a real benefit. NS doesn't even mention it."
I'm currently learning Kilayim and the diagrams are even more helpful than the photos.
Mesivta decided to use pictures instead of diagrams, and the problem is highly noticeable.
Diagrams are more accurate, and they deal with the crux of the Halacha, not the extraneous details. Pictures disturb the concentration and distract the reader from the Halacha.
(Since you mention it though, be more specific, there are more than 130 Mesivta volumes. I havent gone through them all, but I did use them as reference for parts of Eruvin, and Kodshim like Tamid and Midos, and found their 3D color pictures incredibly valuable. I got a far better understanding from them of the Temple layout, particularly the interior, than I ever got elsewhere.)
This is very simple: the modern orthodox crowd that has family nights at the movies watching all sorts of dubious production understands that when it comes to Torah they and their rabbies aren't the best source. They want authenticity. There is very little depth in Steinsaltz' Tanach or Gemorah and I found them to be poor aids to study, I havent seen his Mishna yet. But I'm glad if it works for some.
"There is very little depth in Steinsaltz' Tanach or Gemorah and I found them to be poor aids to study,"
That's a strawman argument. The Steinslaz provides translation, not thought. And that's a good thing. Rav Steinsalz was very clear as to what his agenda was. It was not about providing depth. Once the student gets the basic translation, he's supposed to progress on his own.
Artscroll thinks for you. Artscroll researches for you. And that's a good thing too. (My only complaint, is that it's not clear which of their expansive note are really necessary for a daf yomi student under time constraints.)
I didn't know what was the idea of Steinsalz' Talmud, but it had become obsolete before it was completed. Even before Steinzlsalz Ben-Shemen's gemorahs were superior. Have you ever heard of anyone completing the Shas using it? Can it even come close to ושננתם, מתיבתא or Artscroll's? It was a חידוש when it came out and it's possible that it had set the whole process of making Talmud accessable in motion, but, unlike Kehati, it became outdated long before its completion.
I have Steinsaltz on Job and Mishlei and I found it useless. Job with דעת המקרא or Mishlei with Meiri are good expositions. Steinsaltz' biur on Tania was excellent. He was a genius who had meant well but it seems that he had misjudged the times and the audience.
"I didn't know what was the idea of Steinsalz' Talmud",
So how can you judge it?
" but it had become obsolete before it was completed."
You just wrote that you don't know the criteria and you're making conclusions? And what do you mean by obsolete? The Steinsalz has been through many updates and editions!
"Can it even come close to ושננתם, מתיבתא or Artscroll's?"
You're being vague. What metric are you using?
I can put the entire Steinsalz ש"ס translation onto the shelf space taken up by one single tractate of מתיבתא. The rest of the space I can use for real primary source ספרים!
If someone want an inexpensive sleek no-frills basic translation, and will use that small amount of assistance to continue independently with Rashi, Tosfot & Rishonim etc.. then Steinsalz has no rivals.
If you want (much) more than a translation, that you shouldn't use Steinsalz.
"...it seems that he had misjudged the times and the audience. "
No. You weren't his intended audience. He was very clear what his agenda was. He doesn't have to change his message to fit your particular needs and desires.
Rav Steinsaltz's gemara fueled a renaissance in gemara learning among ba'alei battim. He made gemara accessible in a way never previously seen throughout Jewish history. The number of people going to daf hayomi shiurim exploded.
Were you an adult living in EY at the time? I was and I saw it. An absolute explosion.
And not just in the Dati Leumi world, although that would have been sufficient.
Even in Ger, where not only many (most) Daf haYomi participants used it, but the maggidei shiurim did as well. That's why Ger refused to go along with the ban.
Everything subsequent (Artscroll, etc) was built upon Rav Steinsaltz's vision and concept.
It's been years since I've looked at an ArtScroll for more than a few minutes at a time. I didn't notice that. So, thanks for the correction.
The rest of my comment stands: Steinsalz's purpose is more focused than ArtScroll. For simple no-frill pshat- go with the Steinsalz. For further depth, either do it on your own, or use ArtScroll or its Hebrew rivals.
"They have failed to make a basic effort to perpetuate themselves"... In yiddishkeit. Full stop. ...Which is why they ceded this area to Charedim, aka ממילא.
Publishing & educators are the least relevant examples of the failure to perpetute.
A well formated mishnayos won't change that, but a well formated plan to bring MO from the brink of irrelevance might help.
I was thinking that this article is written like an advertorial. Then I saw Koren publisher's responded to a comment. So just confirming this isn’t an advertorial.
One small criticism; I have the Steinsalz Koren Nach. The paper is extremely thin and flimsy and creases far too easily. My guess is that given the number of pages they decided to use very flimsy paper to keep the size of the sefer manageable. However the expected life a sefer like this will suffer.
I personally prefer a sefer with quality paper albeit a bigger volume resulting.
That's been a problem with koren for years. For example in their siddur. I can't understand why they use such thin, slightly yellow paper, while artscroll uses thick nice bright white paper.
Agreed, I dont like Bible paper, tho I'm OK with the yellow. And their font too, which they believe is a selling point, isnt very good for actual learning. Possibly it works for the Bible, with which Koren was always synonymous, with its heavy emphasis on distinguishing letters and dikdik minutia. But for learning, which requires long periods of close reading, the font has a very "old timey" look, and somehow doesn't lend itself to learning.
(Best font in the seforim world, my opinion: Miller Beis Tefilah siddurim.)
Obviously you are writing from the perspective of someone who lives outside of Israel. Koren is huge in Israel, non-Charedi schools, such as the Torani school my kids attend, use Koren for their Mishna and Chumash.
I think it is great that we are blessed with this abundance of collections, be Artscroll, be Koren, they stimulate each other to improve and offer different perspectives.
As the author of the blog noted, Koren have an excellent use of page space and visual sense that really helps learning, in particular their collections for children are outstanding... You will of course need Hebrew to benefit from them.
Regarding calling him a "weirdo", see (for instance) the following.
And also see the Artscroll commentary to the cited gemaras.
"It should go without saying that embarrassing or insulting another person is a serious transgression of the Torah. The Talmud even equates embarrassing another person with murder.[1] We are taught that one should sooner have oneself killed rather than embarrass another person.[2] This idea is derived from Tamar who was ready to have herself killed rather than allow Yehuda to be embarrassed.[3] One who embarrasses another person has no share in the World-to-Come.[4] Some authorities suggest that this remains true even for one who has repented from having done so.[5]"
Well, here's what Cambridge online dictionary says about snark:
"Criticizing someone in an annoyed way and trying to hurt their feelings."
Again, see above.
I see that you think it's OK to make stuff up (negative stuff) about known people and publish it online (implying that someone does not daven in synagogue, even though you have no evidence for this).
And you did this because you "could not help yourself."
While I have a great amount of respect for R' Steinsaltz ztl, is my understanding correct that some of the criticism directed at his English Bavli translation revolved around him "Soloing" the project, rather than the more "large group, collective effort" approach from Artscroll. Is this correct or false?
It's called inventing a reason after the facts. The facts are that Steinsalz sinned by being a gaon who was:
1) Not a Litvak
2) A Chassid
3) A Chabadnik
Everything else is just סניפים להחמיר.
And of course, there's the general elitist notion that nobody is allowed any kind of assistance in understanding gemara and they should stick to עין יעקב and תהילים.
Half right, on 2 and 3. The non-substantive "complaints" against Steinsaltz weren't so much who he was, but who he wasn't - a part of the yeshivah world. As noted by many others in connection with techeles, the yeshivah world will look to passul up any jewish initiaive that doesnt come from them. Indeed, that's why Soncino was treif for so many years until Artscroll came around. Because it wasnt from them.
Having said as much, there is also no shortage of substantive complaints one can have against Steinsaltz, and yes, that includes changing the צורת הדף. These are judgment calls, granted, but for me and many others, no mishna format was ever "cannonized", and so there were no issues with Kehati. The Gemara, on the other hand, was a different story, and Steinsaltz crossed the line by tinkering with it.
צורות הדף was invented long after the sealing of ש"ס, and certainly didn't exist at the close of the תוספות period. It's a populist argument that is thin on substance and was concocted simply to attack Rav Steinsalz. We know the history of the printing of Shas, and צורת הדף is nothing more than a convenient standard. Rav Steinsalz is on the record that the printing technology imposed the two page format- and that the idea came from the Rebbe himself.
The צורת הדף is not sacred and is certainly not דעת תורה. Bomberg and Soncino did not consult with the מועצת or with ספר הדפסה כהלכתה before inventing their צורת הדף.
And you know what? ArtScroll has also deviated from the צורת הדף by bold-facing דברי המתחיל, by including פסוקים instead of just references and by repeating the same דף over and over again. All these are deviations from the traditional way the ש"ס was printed.
The Gemara format was never canonized, it was standardized.
I understand this point of view, but dont agree with it. While it was never formally "canonized", it was, just as you say, "standardized." That means, all over the world, when a sefer cited Sanhedrin 21a or Sotah 15b, everyone knew where to look. Steinzaltz tinkering with that harmed rather than helped the cause of learning. Moreover, it disrupted the achdus and uniform standard of learning, a form of פורץ גדר. He could have done what many others actually DID, which is to retain the צורת הדף and print his commentary in a different format. He either didn't want to do this or didn't think of it, and it was a big mistake.
(On many other things tho, I have already said the criticism was specious. Some of his alleged heresies were said centuries ago in other seforim.)
No one ever claimed the siddur had a צורת הדף, no one ever claimed the Mishna did, and no one ever claimed the yerushalmi did. But the Bavli DOES, in fact, have a standardized look and pagination system. It makes learning and looking things up much easier. (Just try to look up citations to the Yerushalmi, to get a sense of what I'm saying.)
Other commentaries left the page alone, and printed their translations as a second page. They made no attempt to change the classical format. Even Soncinio left the Hebrew alone. Steinsaltz, unfortunately, did not. It was a poor choice on his part.
Um, there were complaints about kehati (rav chaim kanievsky ) They blaimed it on the first print not having RA"V and how this showed he didn't have the proper respect for mesora! ( this was a mistake because later prints added RA"V and took the steam out of the ban )
"And of course, there's the general elitist notion that nobody is allowed any kind of assistance in understanding gemara and they should stick to עין יעקב and תהילים."
They should. Or stick to Mishna and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. Gemara is for the big boys.
כלל ישראל have paskened against you. Even with the dependence on Schottenstein and rivals, the general community have decided that they love learning Gemara. And there's nothing you or your fellow elitists can do to stop them.
They can pretend to learn Gemara all they want. Just like my 5-yr old kid can dress up like a doctor and pretend to be a doctor. Klal Yisrael paskening against me doesn't change the reality.
Sure, but that doesn't change the reality that reading through an Artscroll is not learning Gemara. Even if it's in the wee hours of the morning. They are learning Torah though. Nothing wrong with admitting that they are learning Torah but not Gemara.
I assumed Ephraim was exaggerating when he said "general elitist notion that nobody is allowed any kind of assistance in understanding gemara", otherwise it would be a false statement about elitists. All the elitist yeshivas use many tools to assist in Gemara, and the truth is that no number of tools is enough. But the typical Artscroll Daf Yomi learner is simply not learning Gemara. He may think he is, but he's not.
“But the typical Artscroll Daf Yomi learner is simply not learning Gemara. He may think he is, but he's not.”
I think (I could be wrong) that your point isn’t about Artscroll or Steinsaltz or any other “tool”. I think your point is about the lack of depth in the Daf Yomi Model generally.
That’s for R. Meir Shapiro and the Moetzes to answer for. But my understanding is that the whole purpose is less a deep understanding and rather 2-fold:
1. Achdut - everyone (who wants) learning the same thing at the same time. (I still sing the “agudah achas” song that I first heard at my first siyum hashas in 1997)
2. Breadth - learning Masechtot that were often “ignored” and still are by many who don’t make the effort to “learn” them (a tautology, I know) at least superficially.
After 100 years of Daf Yomi next week, seems like they did something right.
Correct, it is about the lack of depth in the typical baalebatish Daf Yomi learner, who is usually just going through it with an Artscroll (because he doesn't even have the time or ability to make a laining, let alone learn it properly).
I generally trust da'as Torah, and very likely they did something right. After all, Daf Yomi is responsible for Limud Torah on a massive scale. But I see no reason to call it something it is not. I maintain they would get more Torah knowledge learning Kitzur and Mishna. But perhaps that is not as motivating as "finishing Shas", showing the wisdom of Da'as Torah that promoted this.
The Church had the same attitude. Only elites were allowed to study.
You like that approach because it means the hoi polloi have no way of challenging 'da'as torah' and the latest diktakes from rabbonim. Fortunately that is changing as people become more learned.
Where is that view found in 'the mesorah'? My mesorah teaches all of torah is for everybody with whatever assistance is necessary.
Oh yeah, the hoi polloi are really challenging the da'as Torah by going to their Artscroll Daf Yomi shiur and sitting at the Agudah Siyum Hashas. I'm telling you, the revolution is coming tomorrow!
The Dati Leumi world has tons of publishing from its yeshivot. Gush and Maale adumim publish sefarim and torah journals as well as mossad harav Kook and khosen yeshuot from har hamor, just to name some off the top of my head.
"Well, finally, things have been changing. There is a serious alternative to ArtScroll, which finally marks a publishing renaissance for Religious Zionist, Centrist and Modern Orthodoxy: Koren. Koren is the only Jewish publisher aside from ArtScroll to have a comprehensive publishing vision. They are putting out siddurim, machzorim, chumashim, and a series of works on Tenach. And the flagship project is, of course, the Talmud."
Noted right wing fanatic Marc Shapiro-
https://seforimblog.com/2015/07/artscroll-and-more-2/ (Footnote 2)
"Only in the last year or so have I started to examine the ArtScroll Talmud on a regular basis and I am continuously impressed. This has to be one of the most significant Torah publications of the twentieth century. Since that is the case, I don’t see why such effort is being put into producing the new Koren Talmud. While it sometimes has points that do not appear in ArtScroll, I don’t know why anyone would prefer it over ArtScroll."
"And yet, for many years, Religious Zionist, Centrist and Modern Orthodoxy ceded this important field almost entirely to the Charedi community...Koren is the only Jewish publisher aside from ArtScroll to have a comprehensive publishing vision. "
Huh? What about Mossad Rav Kook?
Unlike Artscroll, Mossad Rav Kook is mostly for the scholarly crowd. There is very little overlap between ArtScroll and them.
I love Koren and use their works on Tanakh extensively. But their patented exclusive Hebrew font sucks badly. I hate it. It's the main thing stopping me from using their Hebrew works- they're unreadable.
Consider their stunning illustrated Tehillim. The pictures are great, but the font is terrible, which means it just takes up space on my bookshelf.
Unfortunately, I must agree with you. I, too, do not like their font. And I have one further gripe: the pages (at least from their siddurim/machzorim) are too thin. It's difficult to turn pages. I'm always worried I might accidentally tear a page.
Yes, I have poor eyesight and find it hard to distinguish between their reish and dalet.
Is this an add ?
If it is this should be disclosed in a clear manner.
This post makes two massive mistakes, one about Kehati, and one about Koren. The first is rooted in ignorance; the second, in politics.
First, re Kehati. You claim its "obsolete". Oh, really?? Anyone with school age boys knows it still remains today one of the most popular bar mitzvah gifts boys give and receive. The set is still found and used in homes and yeshivahs and schools of all stripes, all around the world. Even Artscroll quotes from it. (Not often, but recall, it is not a primary source.) They reissued it a generation ago with the Bartenura commentary precisely to make sure it stayed fresh, and indeed, so it has remained. I don't know how its possible for so masterful a work - in which the author was at pains to minimize to leave his own ideas in the background, and focus only on the classics - to be "obsolete", but I guess some people will say anything to knock down A, if they think it helps prop up B. Which brings us to the second claim...
You gush on about Koren, but its painfully obvious to all that the primary benefit of in your eyes is that it "isnt Artscroll". How else can someone who hasn't even gone through most of the material give it such an enthusiastic review?
You mention the pictures. OK, that's definitely a plus, pictures can't hurt. But 3D diagrams and pictures of difficult subjects (eg, Eruvin, Kelim) have been around a long time. Moreover, not all pictures are equally helpful. Pictures of the vaunted "realia" only do so much. Far more valuable, in many cases, are pictures actually illustrating the views and opinions of the Tannaim. Such pictures need to illustrate opinions, not pots and pans. Those funny cartoon illustrated mishnayos do a great job of this. Does Koren? How do they display the complicated farming patterns of Kilayim, for example? It would be valuable to know this, as this might represent a real benefit. NS doesn't even mention it. Its more important to him that its not Artscroll.
NS also says Koren knows how to use "white space". Sure doesn't look like it from the examples I've seen. Looks more to me like a riot of arrows and highlight circles and sidebars. Kid books today are filled with such things, and I've seen zero evidence to show that kids today know more than kids of the past, who actually read straightforward paragraphs to lean. To me, this kind of learning is similar to "sugyot" learning with source sheets, as opposed to simply learning the Gemara straight on through. I have yet to meet the Baki b'shas produced by learning sugyot with source sheets.
I would also note that the sister publication mentioned by NS, the Koren siddur, was enthusiastically endorsed by the "Jewish Orthodox Feminists Alliance", the only siddur I know so acclaimed. I don't know if the Koren Mishna translation will be fortunate enough as to receive a similar commendation; however, I hope we get an update if and when the designation is handed down.
In all events, you're hopelessly biased in these areas, and should not be pretending as though you werent.
"How do they display the complicated farming patterns of Kilayim, for example? It would be valuable to know this, as this might represent a real benefit. NS doesn't even mention it."
I'm currently learning Kilayim and the diagrams are even more helpful than the photos.
Very good. That's an important point, and should have been noted. (Artscroll also has diagrams, as does Kehati, and probably others.)
Mesivta decided to use pictures instead of diagrams, and the problem is highly noticeable.
Diagrams are more accurate, and they deal with the crux of the Halacha, not the extraneous details. Pictures disturb the concentration and distract the reader from the Halacha.
Mesivta is on shas, not just mishnayos.
(Since you mention it though, be more specific, there are more than 130 Mesivta volumes. I havent gone through them all, but I did use them as reference for parts of Eruvin, and Kodshim like Tamid and Midos, and found their 3D color pictures incredibly valuable. I got a far better understanding from them of the Temple layout, particularly the interior, than I ever got elsewhere.)
I found the פירוש חי on Eiruvin much better than theirs.
This is very simple: the modern orthodox crowd that has family nights at the movies watching all sorts of dubious production understands that when it comes to Torah they and their rabbies aren't the best source. They want authenticity. There is very little depth in Steinsaltz' Tanach or Gemorah and I found them to be poor aids to study, I havent seen his Mishna yet. But I'm glad if it works for some.
"There is very little depth in Steinsaltz' Tanach or Gemorah and I found them to be poor aids to study,"
That's a strawman argument. The Steinslaz provides translation, not thought. And that's a good thing. Rav Steinsalz was very clear as to what his agenda was. It was not about providing depth. Once the student gets the basic translation, he's supposed to progress on his own.
Artscroll thinks for you. Artscroll researches for you. And that's a good thing too. (My only complaint, is that it's not clear which of their expansive note are really necessary for a daf yomi student under time constraints.)
I didn't know what was the idea of Steinsalz' Talmud, but it had become obsolete before it was completed. Even before Steinzlsalz Ben-Shemen's gemorahs were superior. Have you ever heard of anyone completing the Shas using it? Can it even come close to ושננתם, מתיבתא or Artscroll's? It was a חידוש when it came out and it's possible that it had set the whole process of making Talmud accessable in motion, but, unlike Kehati, it became outdated long before its completion.
I have Steinsaltz on Job and Mishlei and I found it useless. Job with דעת המקרא or Mishlei with Meiri are good expositions. Steinsaltz' biur on Tania was excellent. He was a genius who had meant well but it seems that he had misjudged the times and the audience.
"I didn't know what was the idea of Steinsalz' Talmud",
So how can you judge it?
" but it had become obsolete before it was completed."
You just wrote that you don't know the criteria and you're making conclusions? And what do you mean by obsolete? The Steinsalz has been through many updates and editions!
"Can it even come close to ושננתם, מתיבתא or Artscroll's?"
You're being vague. What metric are you using?
I can put the entire Steinsalz ש"ס translation onto the shelf space taken up by one single tractate of מתיבתא. The rest of the space I can use for real primary source ספרים!
If someone want an inexpensive sleek no-frills basic translation, and will use that small amount of assistance to continue independently with Rashi, Tosfot & Rishonim etc.. then Steinsalz has no rivals.
If you want (much) more than a translation, that you shouldn't use Steinsalz.
"...it seems that he had misjudged the times and the audience. "
No. You weren't his intended audience. He was very clear what his agenda was. He doesn't have to change his message to fit your particular needs and desires.
Rav Steinsaltz's gemara fueled a renaissance in gemara learning among ba'alei battim. He made gemara accessible in a way never previously seen throughout Jewish history. The number of people going to daf hayomi shiurim exploded.
Were you an adult living in EY at the time? I was and I saw it. An absolute explosion.
And not just in the Dati Leumi world, although that would have been sufficient.
Even in Ger, where not only many (most) Daf haYomi participants used it, but the maggidei shiurim did as well. That's why Ger refused to go along with the ban.
Everything subsequent (Artscroll, etc) was built upon Rav Steinsaltz's vision and concept.
I think the hebrew one is better. Its very popular here in Israel
Yes it is clear. The comments not in [ ] are essential to peshat. The comments in [ ] are not essential to peshat.
It's been years since I've looked at an ArtScroll for more than a few minutes at a time. I didn't notice that. So, thanks for the correction.
The rest of my comment stands: Steinsalz's purpose is more focused than ArtScroll. For simple no-frill pshat- go with the Steinsalz. For further depth, either do it on your own, or use ArtScroll or its Hebrew rivals.
"They have failed to make a basic effort to perpetuate themselves"... In yiddishkeit. Full stop. ...Which is why they ceded this area to Charedim, aka ממילא.
Publishing & educators are the least relevant examples of the failure to perpetute.
A well formated mishnayos won't change that, but a well formated plan to bring MO from the brink of irrelevance might help.
I was thinking that this article is written like an advertorial. Then I saw Koren publisher's responded to a comment. So just confirming this isn’t an advertorial.
One small criticism; I have the Steinsalz Koren Nach. The paper is extremely thin and flimsy and creases far too easily. My guess is that given the number of pages they decided to use very flimsy paper to keep the size of the sefer manageable. However the expected life a sefer like this will suffer.
I personally prefer a sefer with quality paper albeit a bigger volume resulting.
That's been a problem with koren for years. For example in their siddur. I can't understand why they use such thin, slightly yellow paper, while artscroll uses thick nice bright white paper.
Agreed, I dont like Bible paper, tho I'm OK with the yellow. And their font too, which they believe is a selling point, isnt very good for actual learning. Possibly it works for the Bible, with which Koren was always synonymous, with its heavy emphasis on distinguishing letters and dikdik minutia. But for learning, which requires long periods of close reading, the font has a very "old timey" look, and somehow doesn't lend itself to learning.
(Best font in the seforim world, my opinion: Miller Beis Tefilah siddurim.)
Obviously you are writing from the perspective of someone who lives outside of Israel. Koren is huge in Israel, non-Charedi schools, such as the Torani school my kids attend, use Koren for their Mishna and Chumash.
I think it is great that we are blessed with this abundance of collections, be Artscroll, be Koren, they stimulate each other to improve and offer different perspectives.
As the author of the blog noted, Koren have an excellent use of page space and visual sense that really helps learning, in particular their collections for children are outstanding... You will of course need Hebrew to benefit from them.
It's a values problem. The culture that values learning for its own sake will out-learn the culture that doesn't.
Rabbi Yigal Ariel writes excellent seforim on Tanach.
Why didnt you mention their Mishneh Torah?
Hi.
Thanks for explaining.
Regarding calling him a "weirdo", see (for instance) the following.
And also see the Artscroll commentary to the cited gemaras.
"It should go without saying that embarrassing or insulting another person is a serious transgression of the Torah. The Talmud even equates embarrassing another person with murder.[1] We are taught that one should sooner have oneself killed rather than embarrass another person.[2] This idea is derived from Tamar who was ready to have herself killed rather than allow Yehuda to be embarrassed.[3] One who embarrasses another person has no share in the World-to-Come.[4] Some authorities suggest that this remains true even for one who has repented from having done so.[5]"
https://outorah.org/p/49535/
Regarding your last paragraph, oh, it was snark.
Well, here's what Cambridge online dictionary says about snark:
"Criticizing someone in an annoyed way and trying to hurt their feelings."
Again, see above.
I see that you think it's OK to make stuff up (negative stuff) about known people and publish it online (implying that someone does not daven in synagogue, even though you have no evidence for this).
And you did this because you "could not help yourself."
Got it.
While I have a great amount of respect for R' Steinsaltz ztl, is my understanding correct that some of the criticism directed at his English Bavli translation revolved around him "Soloing" the project, rather than the more "large group, collective effort" approach from Artscroll. Is this correct or false?
I don't know, but from what I do know, this mishnah has very little to do with R. Steinsaltz and much more to do with a team.
Excellent, then I'm looking forward to it and more from Koren. Always room for more quality publishing houses and projects like this.
It's called inventing a reason after the facts. The facts are that Steinsalz sinned by being a gaon who was:
1) Not a Litvak
2) A Chassid
3) A Chabadnik
Everything else is just סניפים להחמיר.
And of course, there's the general elitist notion that nobody is allowed any kind of assistance in understanding gemara and they should stick to עין יעקב and תהילים.
Half right, on 2 and 3. The non-substantive "complaints" against Steinsaltz weren't so much who he was, but who he wasn't - a part of the yeshivah world. As noted by many others in connection with techeles, the yeshivah world will look to passul up any jewish initiaive that doesnt come from them. Indeed, that's why Soncino was treif for so many years until Artscroll came around. Because it wasnt from them.
Having said as much, there is also no shortage of substantive complaints one can have against Steinsaltz, and yes, that includes changing the צורת הדף. These are judgment calls, granted, but for me and many others, no mishna format was ever "cannonized", and so there were no issues with Kehati. The Gemara, on the other hand, was a different story, and Steinsaltz crossed the line by tinkering with it.
" that includes changing the צורת הדף"
צורות הדף was invented long after the sealing of ש"ס, and certainly didn't exist at the close of the תוספות period. It's a populist argument that is thin on substance and was concocted simply to attack Rav Steinsalz. We know the history of the printing of Shas, and צורת הדף is nothing more than a convenient standard. Rav Steinsalz is on the record that the printing technology imposed the two page format- and that the idea came from the Rebbe himself.
The צורת הדף is not sacred and is certainly not דעת תורה. Bomberg and Soncino did not consult with the מועצת or with ספר הדפסה כהלכתה before inventing their צורת הדף.
And you know what? ArtScroll has also deviated from the צורת הדף by bold-facing דברי המתחיל, by including פסוקים instead of just references and by repeating the same דף over and over again. All these are deviations from the traditional way the ש"ס was printed.
The Gemara format was never canonized, it was standardized.
I understand this point of view, but dont agree with it. While it was never formally "canonized", it was, just as you say, "standardized." That means, all over the world, when a sefer cited Sanhedrin 21a or Sotah 15b, everyone knew where to look. Steinzaltz tinkering with that harmed rather than helped the cause of learning. Moreover, it disrupted the achdus and uniform standard of learning, a form of פורץ גדר. He could have done what many others actually DID, which is to retain the צורת הדף and print his commentary in a different format. He either didn't want to do this or didn't think of it, and it was a big mistake.
(On many other things tho, I have already said the criticism was specious. Some of his alleged heresies were said centuries ago in other seforim.)
" That means, all over the world, when a sefer cited Sanhedrin 21a or Sotah 15b, everyone knew where to look. ...Steinzaltz tinkering with that"
I have yet to meet someone who can't find " Sanhedrin 21a or Sotah 15b" in a Steinsalz gemara. And neither can you. You made it up!
" it disrupted the achdus"
Explain how. Go into almost any shul and see the variants of צורת הדף among the siddurim there. No achdus problem there.
" uniform standard of learning, "
There is no uniformed standard of learning. Not even in Ponevezh.
" He could have done what many others actually DID, which is to retain the צורת הדף "
No he couldn't. You're making up stuff that is simply not true.
"He could have done what many others actually DID"
But nobody did what you claim he could have done at that time. You're making things up. Please specify who these typographical savants were.
No one ever claimed the siddur had a צורת הדף, no one ever claimed the Mishna did, and no one ever claimed the yerushalmi did. But the Bavli DOES, in fact, have a standardized look and pagination system. It makes learning and looking things up much easier. (Just try to look up citations to the Yerushalmi, to get a sense of what I'm saying.)
Other commentaries left the page alone, and printed their translations as a second page. They made no attempt to change the classical format. Even Soncinio left the Hebrew alone. Steinsaltz, unfortunately, did not. It was a poor choice on his part.
Um, there were complaints about kehati (rav chaim kanievsky ) They blaimed it on the first print not having RA"V and how this showed he didn't have the proper respect for mesora! ( this was a mistake because later prints added RA"V and took the steam out of the ban )
If there was indeed a ban before the Ra"v was added in the 21st century, it was a spectacular failure. By 1977 it was already in its ninth edition.
ממראה המקומות הנכבדים בענין הוא משמר הלוי (שולזינגר) באחד מן החלקים שמעתיק מהר"א פייפר (מא"י וג'והניסברג) תגובותיו על פרשת שטיינזלץ
"And of course, there's the general elitist notion that nobody is allowed any kind of assistance in understanding gemara and they should stick to עין יעקב and תהילים."
They should. Or stick to Mishna and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. Gemara is for the big boys.
"Gemara is for the big boys."
כלל ישראל have paskened against you. Even with the dependence on Schottenstein and rivals, the general community have decided that they love learning Gemara. And there's nothing you or your fellow elitists can do to stop them.
They can pretend to learn Gemara all they want. Just like my 5-yr old kid can dress up like a doctor and pretend to be a doctor. Klal Yisrael paskening against me doesn't change the reality.
Klal Yisrael have changed reality. The widespread acceptance and practice of daf yomi is a direct effect of the availability of such translation.
These people wake up in the wee hours of the morning to get to shiur and you reject them. You're not very nice.
Sure, but that doesn't change the reality that reading through an Artscroll is not learning Gemara. Even if it's in the wee hours of the morning. They are learning Torah though. Nothing wrong with admitting that they are learning Torah but not Gemara.
I think Rashi would be turning over in his grave to hear this.
Rashi gave us an entire peirush on Gemara to hold our hands and lead us through step-by-step.
Rebbe / Talmid relationships do the same - though they change over the years.
Elitists are outside of the mesorah.
One tiny little correction. Rashi didn't complete his work on the entirety of Shas. But Steinsalz did.
I assumed Ephraim was exaggerating when he said "general elitist notion that nobody is allowed any kind of assistance in understanding gemara", otherwise it would be a false statement about elitists. All the elitist yeshivas use many tools to assist in Gemara, and the truth is that no number of tools is enough. But the typical Artscroll Daf Yomi learner is simply not learning Gemara. He may think he is, but he's not.
“But the typical Artscroll Daf Yomi learner is simply not learning Gemara. He may think he is, but he's not.”
I think (I could be wrong) that your point isn’t about Artscroll or Steinsaltz or any other “tool”. I think your point is about the lack of depth in the Daf Yomi Model generally.
That’s for R. Meir Shapiro and the Moetzes to answer for. But my understanding is that the whole purpose is less a deep understanding and rather 2-fold:
1. Achdut - everyone (who wants) learning the same thing at the same time. (I still sing the “agudah achas” song that I first heard at my first siyum hashas in 1997)
2. Breadth - learning Masechtot that were often “ignored” and still are by many who don’t make the effort to “learn” them (a tautology, I know) at least superficially.
After 100 years of Daf Yomi next week, seems like they did something right.
Correct, it is about the lack of depth in the typical baalebatish Daf Yomi learner, who is usually just going through it with an Artscroll (because he doesn't even have the time or ability to make a laining, let alone learn it properly).
I generally trust da'as Torah, and very likely they did something right. After all, Daf Yomi is responsible for Limud Torah on a massive scale. But I see no reason to call it something it is not. I maintain they would get more Torah knowledge learning Kitzur and Mishna. But perhaps that is not as motivating as "finishing Shas", showing the wisdom of Da'as Torah that promoted this.
The Church had the same attitude. Only elites were allowed to study.
You like that approach because it means the hoi polloi have no way of challenging 'da'as torah' and the latest diktakes from rabbonim. Fortunately that is changing as people become more learned.
Where is that view found in 'the mesorah'? My mesorah teaches all of torah is for everybody with whatever assistance is necessary.
Oh yeah, the hoi polloi are really challenging the da'as Torah by going to their Artscroll Daf Yomi shiur and sitting at the Agudah Siyum Hashas. I'm telling you, the revolution is coming tomorrow!
I clicked on the link to order. It noted that I was in Israel and sent me to some Israeli page
which it then claimed could not be found.
Not a good start
Hi thanks for the feedback, we fixed the link :)
The Dati Leumi world has tons of publishing from its yeshivot. Gush and Maale adumim publish sefarim and torah journals as well as mossad harav Kook and khosen yeshuot from har hamor, just to name some off the top of my head.
Those are all for scholars. Very few Maale Adumim or Gush publications are suitable to beginners or ami haaretz.
Yeah, at least as far as anglos are concermed. Besides for the peninei halacha series from machon har bracha which has been translated.