3

In this censored version online at chabad.org, Hilchot Avoda Zara 9:4 says:

"The Canaanites are idol worshipers [sic], and Sunday is their festival..."

(And it says Canaanites in both the hebrew and english, so, censored in both)

Whereas in the uncensored version, nicely provided by mechon mamre - index here, it says Notzrim.

And I see in Hilchot Melachim 10:9, the uncensored hebrew version has Goy, and the censored hebrew version has Akum i.e. idolators - (עובדי כוכבים ומזלות, (עכו״ם (though funnily enough the english in the censored edition has gentile).

Who was it that put together the censored version and changed notzrim to canaanites and goy to akum?

barlop
  • 2,117
  • 15
  • 26
  • 1
    Very few of these issues can be identified back to a certain edition. – Double AA Sep 19 '16 at 03:26
  • @DoubleAA well, one can at least sometimes identify the earliest one we're aware of, or a well known or widely published early one. For example, in the case of the Talmud, Soncino famously censored. – barlop Sep 19 '16 at 04:25
  • barlop, we can be sure that this was in a European edition and it was also likely fairly early, as post-Emancipation editions are usually uncensored, whereas pre-emancipation editions (such as the Vilna Sha"s) are invariably censored by state authorities. – Noach MiFrankfurt Sep 19 '16 at 17:32
  • @NoachMiFrankfurt Moznaim one which is the one with the translation by eliyahu touger, is at the chabad link, and looking at amazon, seems to be published in 1998 and as evidenced in my question, is censored. And this link here http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?sefer=14&hilchos=83&perek=10&halocha=9 by Friedberg seems perhaps to be artscroll, (possibly independent of artscroll too), and is censored. So both seem to be post emancipation and censored. – barlop Sep 19 '16 at 23:37
  • Somewhat related: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/81528/proper-translation-of-%D7%A2%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9D – ezra Jun 19 '17 at 23:32

1 Answers1

1

The Vilna edition, is 19th century.

The first censored edition may be the Vilna.

The Vilna edition has a reason to be censored, that being, it was written pre emancipation. Many modern publications unfortunately use the Vilna edition hebrew, which is censored.

And further info on censored editions or manuscripts, is mentioned in Rav Shabse Frankel's edition.

Some further info below- which at least elaborates a bit and may to an extent, point in the right direction of an answer

Of The Moznaim edition (this is the one translated by Rabbi Eliyahu Touger and available on chabad.org)

http://dev.ronware.org/p/targum/home mentions regarding translations..(and he comments on the censored hebrew too).

That link says of it "the Hebrew text is based on the censored (and otherwise inaccurate) Vilna printed editions. In addition, the translation is often inaccurate (straying even from the poor source text used!) and incorrect.").

I notice it translates bnai noach as gentile.

Ron mentions there's a Yale edition translation, though not sure what source text it uses so can't comment on whether that source is censored.

And he mentions a Birnbaum edition which only has what the author thought were highlights. Noach(of this thread/mi yodea/judaism.stackexchange), points out in comment that the Birnbaum edition, is 20th century.

Mechon Mamre says similarly to Ron of ronware.. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/index.htm "popular printed version of Mishneh Torah generally photocopied from the old Vilna version, which is generally used in almost all houses of study and Jewish homes despite that it is not at all an accurate text." and " We have noted with horror the corrupt Hebrew text underlying some of the popular English translations widely available today. We have also been disappointed by the quality of the translation, even of those based on a good Hebrew text; while they are generally written in good English, their content is often hardly parallel to the Hebrew supposedly translated, and sometimes it is the very opposite of the Hebrew. "

I have found there is a publication by Friedberg which may have been done post 2000, but uses a censored text. As we see in hilchot avoda zara 9:4 http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?sefer=1&hilchos=4&perek=9&halocha=4&hilite=
and in hilchot melachim 10:9 http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?sefer=14&hilchos=83&perek=10&halocha=9&hilite=

I would guess that Friedberg (which - as seen - is censored), is using the same censored source as Moznaim, And Ron of the Ronware link, says that Moznaim's source text is a censored Vilna edition.

Perhaps it's the Vilna edition that is the "original"/first censored text, or perhaps just the first text with censoring that was a complete published text?

This link

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/index.htm

mentions an edition by Rav Shabse Frankel that contains "thousands of fine notes on changes in the text between the manuscripts and the printed versions at the end of each volume of the excellent set edited by the Rav Shabse Frankel (and especially his introductory notes on this matter at the start of volume 2)..........Frankel does not bring the correct text "inside" but in his end notes only."

barlop
  • 2,117
  • 15
  • 26
  • Have you checked out the Kafiḥ edition? Or the Mifa'al Mishneh Torah? – Noach MiFrankfurt Sep 20 '16 at 01:46
  • @NoachMiFrankfurt I haven't checked out Mifaal.. I understand the Kafih (understandably), isn't censored, and mechon mamre mentions it.. Mechon Mamre also has an uncensored edition and online. But checking the Kafih or any uncensored, doesn't really address/answer the question , which is asking about which censored version is first. I don't know if the vilna preceded the birnbaum and how censored the birnbaum i(though the birnbaum is just author "highlights". We know how censored the vilna is 'cos it's the one most commonly used nowadays eg in the moznaim one online at chabad's site. – barlop Sep 20 '16 at 01:55
  • @NoachMiFrankfurt birnbaum might precede vilna 'cos since it's incomplete, just highlits, but would be interesting to see the year, and ideally see the censoring, if it's the same as in the vilna. – barlop Sep 20 '16 at 01:58
  • Birnbaum is 20th century, Vilna is 19th. – Noach MiFrankfurt Sep 20 '16 at 03:05
  • Did you try checking the dozens of old editions on Hebrewbooks? – Double AA Sep 21 '16 at 23:42
  • @DoubleAA I'd love to but I figured maybe my hebrew isn't up to scratch.. I just did a search for mishneh torah משנה תורה and it said 1000+ seforim found so I am not sure if there is something better to search for.. AH.. I see I get 45 seforim if I look for mishneh torah in the title But i'm still too ignorant to figure out who the authors are e.g. http://hebrewbooks.org/11792 just lists the author as moshe ben maimon but it was published in venice – barlop Sep 22 '16 at 09:42
  • Vilna edition is quite late if I'm not mistaken, while there were three printed editions in the 15th century. I strongly suppose they were the first censored editions, because they needed a papal permission to print. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_incunabula – Kazi bácsi Nov 08 '17 at 19:40
  • @Kazibácsi I wouldn't be too sure about that, unless your saying the papal power of censorship didn't extend outside Rome (where only one of the two editions, mentioned in the Wikipedia page you linked to, was printed, maybe), or into the 16th century. I say this because the earliest edition I could find at HebrewBooks, from Venice in 1524, mentions "נוצרים" in Teshuvah 3:17[8] and in Ma'akhalot Asurot 11:4[7], and uses the only slightly more ambiguous "אדומים" in Avodah Zarah 9:4. – Tamir Evan Dec 10 '17 at 06:41
  • @TamirEvan I don't really get your point. All book publishers in current Italy needed papal approval to print. Venice was no exception, even though Daniel Bomberg was known to minimise this as much as possible. Fortunately in the case of Rambam there is indeed an authoritative manuscript that was personally signed by him, so we know the original. – Kazi bácsi Dec 10 '17 at 08:07
  • @Kazibácsi My point is that if the Venice 1524 edition needed and got papal approval, and still used "נוצרים" for 'Christians' like the original manuscripts do, so could those from the 15th century. Them needing papal permission to print, is not enough to strongly suppose they were censored. – Tamir Evan Dec 10 '17 at 08:36
  • @TamirEvan The extent changed over time (see my answer here on Aleinu), it obviously depended on the given official. Please look at the photo on the following site for example: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4170-censorship-of-hebrew-books – Kazi bácsi Dec 10 '17 at 09:17
  • @NoachMiFrankfurt Mifaal Mishne Torah says notzrim – mbloch Jan 07 '18 at 19:17
  • @mbloch, unsurprising, it's uncensored. – Noach MiFrankfurt Jan 07 '18 at 23:08