And Now For Some Academics Praising Artscroll

Just thought I’d pass along a few compliments/ whimsical notes from academics/modern orthodox types.

.

Rabbi Dr Moshe Miller (I couldn’t figure out how to copy and paste from the format. I’ve highlighted the relevant part in the picture. Or just read at the link.)

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch's Nineteen Letters on Judaism: Orthodoxy Confronts the Modern World

Robert Klapper:

Meta-Halakhah by Moshe Koppel (review essay.)

Koppel cites only three twentieth century thinkers-R. Kook, the Nazir, and the Rav. This is presumably not because Centrist Orthodox books work on the principle that any contemporary whom ArtScroll quotes cannot be quoted, simply because ArtScroll seems to use that principle in reverse. Rather, it is because the opinions of many if not most regular ArtScroll citees are based on assumptions so different from his as to be substantially irrelevant.

And then there’s the man who needs no introduction, Marc Shapiro.

ArtScroll and More

[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. I have had a chance to use both ArtScroll and Koren in reviewing some sugyot in Berakhot with my son, and in my mind ArtScroll always comes out on top.

In an earlier post I cited Professor Menachem Kellner’s review of Artscroll’s kisvei ha’rambam: That review opens as follows:

ArtScroll is the most important publisher of Judaica since the Soncino Family Press (Northern Italy, fifteenth-sixteenth centuries) and Daniel Bomberg (Venice, died c. 1549). Both Soncino and Bomberg were motivated by commercial interests (in Bomberg’s case, that was obvious: he was a Gentile with no apparent interest in converting the Jews to Christianity). ArtScroll, however, is different: while one assumes that it is not interested in losing money, its publications not only express an ideology, but also seek to strengthen its readers’ allegiance to that ideology.

====

Let me close by again citing Doctor Marc Shapiro.

Marc Shapiro: What Do Adon Olam and ס”ט Mean?

It is no secret that Modern Orthodox intellectuals like to look down on Artscroll, and to let others know about this. So we must find places where Artscroll makes mistakes. It is not enough to point to the vastly different historical conceptions between us and Artscroll; we need to find places where Artscroll simply got it wrong (for one such example see here). This will show that even if they are conquering the world, they shouldn’t think that they are so brilliant. I am not speaking about the Artscroll Talmud (which we use when no one is looking) or the Artscroll “History” series, which is not popular with the Modern Orthodox.[5] I am referring to the Artscroll siddur and chumash which have taken over the Orthodox world. (The Modern Orthodox intellectuals must have been so busy these last twenty years producing articles read by each other that it never occurred to them to produce their own siddur and chumash.

I think that these highly self-aware (as well as utterly hilarious) comments really sum up why a large segment of the frum world defaults to using Artscroll: Whether or not you like their shittos or approve of their revisionist history books, they make a really engaging and user friendly product. And as a bonus, if you go through shas with Artscroll, you’ll not only get the shakla vetarya- along with assorted pashut pshat additions in the footnotes, you’ll be among the select few who know what levirate marriage is, how to expound an exegesis, and a fortiori you’ll be able translate the agaddeta gemaras.