Talk:ArtScroll

Give references, not links

This article needed some work, e.g. the names of the imprint's general editors (fixed). I have removed a whole string to mailing list archives that appear to be containing criticism. PLEASE DO NOT ADD SUCH LINKS. They don't help. Do us all a favour and condense the criticism in an encyclopedic fashion. If there happens to be an anti-Artscroll page out there, parfait. But not the archived waffle of mailing list subscribers. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. But I am worried that someone is going to come along and deny that such criticsm exists, that is why I gave the links in the first place. RK

Criticism

Threaded discussion

I have much toned down the criticism section. I'm not aware of official editorial responses to this criticism, so much of it is speculation at its best and hatemongering at its worst.
Minor points:

• Baruch Epstein makes extensive mention of the Netziv's newspaper reading in Mekor Baruch, and this has been faithfully translated by Dombey.

Which publisher, which edition? Mesorah has been forced to recall some editions of its books due to criticism by its readers. They objected to the censorship. RK

Mesorah publications, no idea which edition. Has this book appeared in numerous editions, or are you just guessing?? JFW | T@lk

No guessing. Mesorah has issued multiple editions of many of their books, including even the Artscroll siddur (the version of it that most Jews use (including me) is the 2nd edition.) RK

• Does anyone have the complete reference of the 1991 Schachter article?

With any luck, I will by Tuesday. RK

Great. JFW | T@lk

Here is the 1998 version of his article on this topic.

Jacob J. Schacter, "Facing the Truths of History," Torah u-Madda Journal 8 (1998-1999): 200-276.

Facing the Truths of History]

Reader responses: Facing the truths of History

Did you read these yet? RK

• I recall seeing Rabbi Soloveitchik between Rabbis Kotler and Feinstein in a recent print of Rabbi Moshe Feinsteins biography. He looks positively uncomfortable, but not invisible :-)

Then you have the first or third edition. The first edition sold-out, and the second edition had the censorship. The outcry, by Orthodox Jewish readers, was so great that Mesorah had to re-issue the book and restore the photograph in a third edition. RK 14:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Could you provide a reference to the "outcry"? Wasn't it just because Rabbi Soloveitchik looks so uncomfortable, which would have been an equal insult to his memory? JFW | T@lk

See the discussions on the lists I mentioned; the links I originally gave offer some of this outcry. So does the above link to the Torah Umadda Journal. RK 17:00, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

• The Kamenetsky shirt issue is too petty for words. Unless this has been reported in a serious source, I protest its inclusion in this article. JFW | T@lk 14:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How is this issue petty? It is scary that Artscroll editors faked photographs of rabbis to make them look like their sterotypes of Haredim. However, it is indicative of their worldview, which is to rewrite history and make all of religious Judaism fit into their preconceptions. RK

How is it hatemongering to discuss Orthodox response to this censorship? Check out the archives of Orthodox Jewish e-mail discussion forums, like Avodah and Mail-Jewish. You will find that they are filled with observant Orthodox Jews who view Torah and sages in the same regard that you do. These forums contain both Orthodox rabbis and laypeople (Mail-Jewish has some Conservative Jews as well, but is mostly Orthodox); Both forums are well-represented by Haredi and Centrist Orthodox voices. I am aware that for anyone not familiar with the controversy, this will be uncomfortable. Artsroll is presented by many as the voice of Orthodox Judaism, so criticism of this one publisher is seen as an attack on Orthodoxy. But it just isn't so. RK 14:32, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

It is hatemongering because changing the colour of the rabbi's shirt could have been for esthetic purposes. Where was the picture, anyway? There are no colour pictures in his biography, save for the cover. If you don't provide a serious source, this is based on unsubstatiated rumour and fails to pass any standard of encyclopedicity. Your disaffection with Artscroll alone is no valid reason to include this silly, teenager-fähig, nonsensical argument.

The disaffection with Artscroll is coming almost entirely from within the Orthodox community. It is isn't silly or nonsensical. You don't fake photograohs of rabbis to make them appear as a sterotype of Haredi Jews, or as a stereotype of Yemenite Jews, or as a sterotype of anyone. If someone at Mesorah feel that a rabbi isn't kosher because of the clothes he wears, and fakes photos, then that is indicative of a serious problem on their part. In the secular academic world, a person who did this in a peer-reviewed journal, or book published by a university press, could be fired for academic dishonesty. RK

I am sick and tired of your fleshing out of all conceivable criticism, especially of an organisation that has spread Jewish knowledge and fought assimilation on such a scale. You may not disagree with Artscroll's editorial policies, but your paranoia and Haredi-allergy are truly alarming.

I can honestly not be bothered to scour the archives of some mailing lists. Wikipedia deals with public statements on the record, not with things that have once been floated into the air by an anonymous person somewhere who happens to have a command of English.

RK, is this your view of Jewish unity? JFW | T@lk 16:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JFW, please do not make this personal. Many people have been misled to believe that Orthodoxy = Artscroll, but that is just not so. Orthodox Judaism existed a long time before the early 1980s, when Artscroll came into existence. The disagreement is about the actions of this one publisher, not on Orthodoxy in specific, or against Judaism in general. This has nothing to do with the desire to fight assimilation. I can assure that the all the Orthodox sources I referenced also fight against assimilation. RK

Most of all, note that none of these critical articles and letters were written by me. They are all from Orthodox sources. Please leave me out of it! Also, virtually no one in Reform or Recon. Judaism cares about the issue, and I don't know of any academic critiques of Artscroll even from within the Conservative movement. This is an inter-Orthodox dispute. RK 17:00, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

To be intellectually honest, one has to present the fact that many Mesorah publications are widely accepted and used, even in segments of the non-Orthodox Jewish community. As such, note that I have written a new section for this article about its popular acceptance. Also, I think any criticism should be specific; the criticisms are generally about the biographies and Tanakh commentaries, and not with the Siddurim, Mishnayot, Talmud, etc. RK

JFW writes: "You may not disagree with Artscroll's editorial policies, but your paranoia and Haredi-allergy are truly alarming. I can honestly not be bothered to scour the archives of some mailing lists. Wikipedia deals with public statements on the record, not with things that have once been floated into the air by an anonymous person somewhere who happens to have a command of English."

The people I keep referencing are not what you make them out to be. Their statements are public, some are even published in the Rabbinical Council of America's Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought and in Yeshiva University's The Torah Umadda Journal. These are pro-Orthodox sources, with real names given, and are certainly not anonymous anti-Orthodox attacks! I caution people not to assume that Artscroll Judaism is the one true faith; most Orthodox Jews throughout history have never even heard of Artscroll. Orthodox Jews with opinions that differ are not the enemy. Only Jews with differing standards of kashrut!  ;-) RK 21:21, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Song of Songs

In the item criticizing literalism in Artscroll's translations, I deleted the line: "This is especially in the Songs of Songs where literalism is claimed to reduce the meaning and purpose of the text." This has it backward! Artscroll refuses to provide a literal translation of Shir ha-Shirim, asserting that any such would be unfaithful to the text. Artscroll provides only an allegorical rendering. I'm sure this is controversial, but for the opposite reason. WBcoleman 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is both a great exaggeration and common misconception to say that "Artscroll refuses to provide a literal translation of Shir ha-Shirim." It is indeed true of the version which appears in the ArtScroll Siddur as the prelude to the Friday evening service, and in my opinion this is perhaps appropriate for that situation, where the intention is recital as liturgy. But a person who is intent on studying the text for its meaning is more likely to be reading either the ArtScroll Tanach or the standalone ArtScroll Shir HaShirim, and in both of those cases, a full and complete literal translation DOES appear in the commentary at the bottom of the page. If you want, quibble over their decision to include it in the commentary at the bottom rather than in the translation above, but it is NOT omitted as many claim. --Keeves 13:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I really like the Artscroll translation of everything EXCEPT Shir HaShirim. If King Solomon saw fit to write this the way he did , allegory or not, who are the Artscroll editors to decide they know better? They could have made a true translation, and their interpretation a commentary. Chani 65.74.59.37 09:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The translators give reasons. The obvious reason is that apart from Rabbi Akiva all sages wanted it hidden because the erotic metaphors are easily misunderstood. This is editorial policy, and in line with what ArtScroll's readership would want. I will not elaborate on the incident of Rav Raphael Breuer. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the page so as to bring out that the Artscroll Tanach gives Rashi's allegorical rendering, not the literal translation. It is true that the footnotes give the literal translation, but that makes the text so fragmented that you cannot read it in sequence, and you lose the poetic power of the book. I accept that the eroticism of Shir haShirim may be a problem for orthodox Jewry, but I still find this deviation from the original text a shortcoming of this otherwise superb edition of Tanach. Mkatan 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An appraisal

So far, we've managed to debate the question whether the editorial staff of Artscroll-Mesorah are revisionists and falsificators or dedicated publishers with noble aims. RK is forcefully of the opinion that this is revisionism, and uses individual criticism by individuals aimed at individual publications to draw generalisations.
While I do not claim to be able to read his mind, I am getting the impression that RK does not understand the process of criticism. I refuse to read mailinglist archives. The discussions that have raged on these mailinglists do not pertain (unless, of course, they quote an officially stated criticism, in which case you should insert a direct quote). JFW | T@lk

Huh? You demanded that I present my sources, then you refuse to read them? In any case, I am disappointed that you still try to make this a personal issue. None of these critical articles and letters were written by me. They are all from Orthodox sources. And all of them do "understand the process of criticism". You seem to be angry at all Orthodox Jews who have views that differ from your own, and imagine that they cannot exist; thus you transfer their views to me, and maks personal criticisms of me, instead of discusssing the subject dispassionately. Please leave me out of it! Deal with the issues themselves. RK 12:38, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think JFW is saying that mailing list archives are not a reliable source of information on these topics. I would have to agree; there is little or no editorial process on mailing lists to ensure the contents are accurate, or express anything more than the authors' opinions. Jayjg 14:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a fact that many Orthodox Jews are upset with Artscroll. JFW denies that this is true, yet refuses to read these lists...becasue that would prove that the claim is true. If anyone questions the veracity of these statements, then they can simply see for themselves. Go to a Jewish library and check out the various editions of the books that are made (note that the books in question had multiple editions!) Further, see the discussions in Orthodox journals such as The Torah Umadda Journal. I don't understand this apparent attack on the honesty of these writers. RK

Haskalah, Secular Studies and the Close of the Yeshiva in Volozhin

If it is a fact, then it should be easy enough to show without resorting to unreliable sources like mailing list archives. Discussions in Orthodox journals, are published articles by Orthodox authors, are certainly of more value. Jayjg 16:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is certainly true. As such, I just took a trip to the JTS library and photocopied a dozen articles, one of which is relevant to this topic. (And other mostly unrelated Judaism topics that I am doing reading on.) The relevant paper is "Haskalah, Secular Studies and the Close of the Yeshiva in Volozhin in 1892", by Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter, The Torah U-Madda Journal, Volume Two, 1990 (p.76-133.) He discusses the printing and recall of My Uncle, the Netziv, which was first issued in May 1988 by Mesorah Publications, Ltd., but recalled due to a letter rejecting its sue by the Lakewood Cheder School, on July 7, 1988, by its executive director, Rabbi Baruch Manes. Manes sent a letter to everyone who had received a copy of the book, accusing it of not correctly portraying "the...hashkafos, kedusha and yiras shamayim" of the Netziv. Rabbi Jacob J. Schacter writes:

What was it in this work by the author of the Torah Temimah that was found to be so objectionable? Which aspects of it do not "correctly portray the...hashkafos, kedusha and yiras shamayim" of the Netziv to the extent taht it was deemed inappropriate to read? Was it his description of "my uncle's habit of reading the weekly newspapers even on Shabbat and discussin curent events at the Shabbat take? (1) Was it his noting that the Netziv had secular books in his library? (2) Some have suggested that the opposition to the work was based on R. Epstein's statement in the name of his uncle that had the Rambam studied Torah with a group of scholars, instead of by himself, he would have avoided any number of errors he made in the Mishneh Torah? (3) Perhaps it was this acknowledgement that the Rambam simply erred in his pesak halakhah that made some people feel uncomfortable. In all probability, as the context of the Lakewood Cheder School letter indicates, their reconsideration was related to Rabbi Epstein's assertion that at one point the Netziv did permit secular studies in Volozhin and allowed the yeshiva to be closed only in 1892 when submitting to the escalating demands of the Russian authorities would have changed its entire character. (4) This apparently ran contrary to the tradition accepted by Gedolei Torah referred to in the letter that the Netzviv had made "his decision to close the doors of his famed Volozhiner yeshiva rather than introducing secular studies into its program." (5) [p.78]

Photo doctoring=

• The issue of photo-doctoring is pure paranoia. I debate its relevance until serious sources can be adduced.

Such ad ahomenim attacks on the Orthodox Jews cited does not make their criticism invalid. You need to respond to criticisms with analysis, not ad ahomenin attacks. RK

Whether or not the photos were "doctored" is a question that we may be able to settle, but attribution of motive for any of these alleged doctorings is highly speculative at best, unless the editors of Artscroll have explicitly stated their reasons for (allegedly) doing so. The best we can do is state that certain critics have accused them of doing it for various reasons. Jayjg 14:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg's formulation of what and how we should write in the article. RK 15:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• Robert has still not informed me if there are differences between the editions of "My Uncle the Netziv" regarding Rabbi Berlin's newspaper reading habits. Until then, his suspicion is purely speculative. (Rabbi Berlin read two newspapers, one of which was the polemical Ha-Levanon.)

But I have informed you, in detail! However, you (above) have admitted that you will nonetheless refuse to read the sources that you asked for. This is unlike you. RK

JFW, what would you see as relevant and valid information on this topic? Jayjg 14:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Valid is a documented difference between various version of that book re. the Netziv's newspaper reading habits. If there are none (which I suspect), the issue can be put to rest. JFW | T@lk 14:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I gave you such documentation, such as the articles by Orthodox Rabbi Jacob J. Shochet and the detailed reader responses. RK 15:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Do they specifically discuss this newspaper issue? Jayjg 16:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they do discuss the newspaper issue, and many others as well. In any case, are there any sources which deny this? I am not aware of any. I am still uncertain of why this is so controversial. RK

• When you say "Orthodox", is this to the inclusion or exclusion of Haredim?

Orthodox Judaism includes both Haredi and non-Haredi Jews. In any case, the many sources I offered are all Orthodox Jewish sources. Are you saying that you won't count them as Orthodox if they are not Haredi? The religious views of the person making the criticism is irrelevant here; Wikipedia is not an ultra-Orthodox yeshiva. Here we discuss what goes into an article based solely on intellectual merits and on NPOV. RK 12:38, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful in this case to classify sources as Modern Orthodox or Haredi, since it seems you are trying to frame this as a conflict between the two groups. Jayjg 14:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not making such a claim. Not all Haredim approve of censorship, and I have found some Modern Orthodox who do approve of it. RK

• To speak with Rabbi Soloveitchik, are you a homo religiosus or a homo scientificus? JFW | T@lk 12:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. What does that have to do with the article?

Okay, let's carry on but stop threading questions and answers. The homo religiosus question goes to the heart of the issue and may explain our differences in opinion.
I never said that non-Haredi sources are not valid. Quite the opposite. I'm simply annoyed that you advance [Non-Haredi] Orthodox sources as somehow more valid than Non-Orthodox ones in criticism of Haredim.
I have explained my refusal to read mailing list archives - they're like smalltalk overheard at a petrol station. I will not let myself be influenced by opinions of individuals voiced on public fora. I expect you to extract the relevant information if you'd like it to be appraised in this debate! You still haven't told me if there are differences between the various editions of "My Uncle the Netziv", and I'm getting very suspicious that these differences do not exist in the proportion you're presenting them. Similarly, the photo doctoring claims can be put down to paranoia until this speculative mumble can be buttressed with facts.
So you claim to speak on behalf of the Orthodox readers of some mailing lists that you've subscribed to. Again, these are not sources worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia (unless individual participants happen to have some public standing that makes them authoratitive).
I apologise if I've managed to offend you with certain comments, but I'm getting disgusted with this discussion and it's an utter waste of time. JFW | T@lk 14:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the record, none of the below links suggests that information on the Netziv's newspaper reading was being suppressed. I suggest that Robert withdraws his claims on this matter. JFW | T@lk 14:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is just plain false. These sources do explicitly state this. You really need to read all of the sources, or look at the actual books. RK 15:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

O.K., I haven't had time to read the article by Shochet you mention. Could you quote the relevant sentence or paragraph? Jayjg 16:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. See above. RK 22:25, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

JFW writes "I never said that non-Haredi sources are not valid. Quite the opposite. I'm simply annoyed that you advance [Non-Haredi] Orthodox sources as somehow more valid than Non-Orthodox ones in criticism of Haredim."

I have never discussed this issue. No one is attacking Haredi Judaism. All I pointed out is the fact that many Orthodox Jews are upset at the censorship that exist in a number of Artscroll books. Sheesh. The only way I can understand your interpretation of all this is if you assume that photo-fakery and censorship is typical of Haredi Judaism, and that academic honesty is typical of non-Haredi Judaism. RK 15:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

JFW writes "I have explained my refusal to read mailing list archives - they're like smalltalk overheard at a petrol station. I will not let myself be influenced by opinions of individuals voiced on public fora. "

How convenient for you! This allows you to ignore any citations, references and discussions that run counter to your worldview. In any case, I have offered multiple citations and letters in journals. RK

The issues with mailing lists are listed above; it has nothing to do with JFW's worldview. Jayjg 16:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I expect you to extract the relevant information if you'd like it to be appraised in this debate! You still haven't told me if there are differences between the various editions of "My Uncle the Netziv",

I did, three times, and gave you references to reviewed journals. Now you are again denying this fact?! I am appalled by your behaviour. RK 22:25, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you just give some specific sources (e.g. names of people who said this), and quote them? Jayjg 16:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. But if people won't look at most of the quotes, that is not my fault. In any case, is there anyone who denies these changes occured in the books? Even Artscroll admits that they made these changes. I truly do not understand where this controversy is coming from. RK 22:25, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm actually quite happy with the page in its present form, given Robert's magnaminous retention of the "religiously censored" criticism paragraph. Of all the material presented, I find Rabbi Schacter's article the best intellectual criticism (without paranoia and witchhunting) of "History Artscroll Style". The mailing lists can remain out of the picture.
I suggest we move our efforts to other pages. Shall we give Rosh Hashana the usual treatment? JFW | T@lk 08:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Newspapers

In a comment line, Danny writes "modified, no one views reading newspapers as heretical." Would that were so! But many Jews viewed the reading of non-Haredi newspapers as a violation of Jewish law, for it exposes the reader to putatively heretical thoughts and ideas. That is why this biographical detail was censored from the Artscroll biography of the Netziv. This precise issue is discussed in Orthodox Jewish e-mail discussion forums like Avodah and Mail-Jewish. RK 15:05, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

RK, you're kicking up dust. Are you sure there are differences between the "Uncle Netziv" editions, or are you guessing? There is no heresy involved in reading newspapers. Some will view it as a violation of halakha when the newspapers contain unsubstantiated gossip, immodest pictures and sensual material. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I already told you! yes, there are differences, and I gave you specific references. Sadly, you just admitted (above) that you will refuse to read any of the references I gave you. That is inexplicable behaviour. How can you expect to contribute to an encyclopedia article, when you admit that you refuse to do any research on the very topic you are writing about? RK 12:38, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

JFW, perhaps you and I believe that there is no heresy involved in reading newspapers. But our personal beliefs are not in question here. RK 17:08, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between a violation of Jewish law and heresy. There is no specific prohibition against being exposed to "putatively heretical thoughts." As JFW explained above, some may view it as a violation of halakha "when the newspapers contain unsubstantiated gossip, immodest pictures, and sensual material." Before making statements about the Haredi world, it would help if you tried to learn something about it. Your personal beliefs about what is and is not allowed are really what is irrelevant. Danny 17:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Danny, this is not about my personal beliefs. I am not the author of any of the articles or letters that are referenced herein. Please follow the links provided, and read the articles in question to for yourself. If you think that the issue should be rephrased, that is fine by me. RK

A mailing list is not a source of Jewish law. Danny 21:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why won't you take "yes" for an answer?! I already told you "If you think that the issue should be rephrased, that is fine by me". Once again, if you think that I misrepresented this issue, then please phrase it anyway you like. I am not the only person editing this article, and I invite you and anyone else to join in. RK

Examples of what I am referring to

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i01.html

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i17.html#CEM

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i17.html

http://www.shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume12/v12n4

Criticism by Rabbi B. Barry Levy

Orthodox Rabbi B. Barry Levy writes that "Artscroll is full of errors" in his article in Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought.

what is perhaps most astonishing is the number of plain, old-fashioned mistakes. The translations are frequently accompanied by notes recording the "literal" meanings of words or phrases which have been rendered into idiomatic English. Much of the time these "literal" translations are possible meanings of these words in other contexts or dialects of Hebrew. In their present contexts the literal translations are often misleading, if not totally wrong, and create the impression that the editors would have preferred less accurate translations.

Diqduq (grammar) is anathema in many Jewish circles, but the translation and presentation of texts is, to a large extent, a philological activity and must be philologically accurate. Again, the Artscroll effort has not achieved a respectable level. There are dozens of cases where prepositions are misunderstood, where verb tenses are not perceived properly and where grammatical or linguistic terms are used incorrectly. Words are often vocalized incorrectly.

These observations, it should be stressed, are not limited to the Bible text but refer to the talmudic, midrashic, targumic, medieval and modern works as well. Rabbinical passages are torn out of their contexts, presented in fragmentary form to enable distortion of their contents, emended to update their messages even though these new ideas were not expressed in the texts themselves, misvocalized, and mistranslated: i.e. misrepresented.

...How these errors have managed to escape the eyes of the many sages whose approbations adorn the volumes may seem somewhat puzzling, but again, it is the presentation of these letters - the Madison Avenue blitz - which makes these documents what they are . Anyone who reads these "approbations"...will see that the rabbis who wrote the letters did not read the commentaries themselves. These letters are more like personal good wishes, character references and the like than testimonies to the work's accomplishments.

Judge Not a Book By Its Cover B. Barry Levy, "Tradition" Vol. 19(1), Spring 1981, p.89-95

Artscroll's Talmud

Under prevalence, I've added some notes on the recent completition of Artscroll's Schottenstein Talmud. I would appreciate it if this can somehow be expanded into a full fledged section (as it has been noted as a major event in most Jewish Newspapers) or if at the least it could be clarified with additional facts. Hopefully, what I've added is just a start. SF2K1

I agree that information about Schottenstein Talmud should be expanded. It may even warrant its own article. I am new to Wikipedia, so here is what I propose for the time being. I would rather not add the section to the article right now as I have never edited an article, and would like some feedback before I add anything. Much of the information comes from the introductions to the Schottenstein Talmud Bavli folios, from The Creation of the Schottenstein Edition Talmud Bavli, and from my own experiences with the Schottenstein Family, studying Gemara, and at the Siyum dinner. It is a little technical, so please let me know of anything that is irrelevant or needs further explanation. I also state below that the upcoming Schottenstein Jerusalem Talmud will be the first English translation of this work. (I am not sure if that is totally true.) Please let me know what you think:

===Schottenstein Edition Talmud===

Mesorah has a line of Mishnah translations and commentaries, and followed up with a line of Babylonian Talmud translations and commentaries, The Schottenstein Edition of The Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud). These have received widespread acclaim throughout the Orthodox community, and are also used by many non-Orthodox Jews. In late 2004, the final volume was published, giving a 73 volume English edition of the entire Talmud, only the second complete translation of the Talmud into English. The total cost of the project was $21 million, most of which was contributed by private donors and foundations. Some volumes have up to 2 million copies in distribution, while more recent volumes have only 90,000 copies currently printed. A completed set was dedicated on February 9, 2005, to the Library of Congress, and the siyum (completion dinner) was held on March 15, 2005, the 13th yahrzeit of Jerome Schottenstein, at the New York Hilton.

The first volume, Tractate Makkos, was published in 1990, and dedicated by Mr. and Mrs. Marcos Katz. Jerome Schottenstein was introduced to the publication committee shortly thereafter. He began by donating funds for the project in memory of his parents Ephraim and Anna Schottenstein one volume at a time, and later decided to back the entire project. When Jerome passed away, his children and widow, Geraldine, rededicated the project to his memory in addition to those of his parents. The goal of the project was to, "open the doors of the Talmud and welcome its people inside."

The text generally consists of two side-by-side pages: one of the Aramaic/Hebrew Vilna Edition text, and the corresponding page consists of an English translation. The English translation has a bolded literal translation of the Talmud's text, but also includes un-bolded text clarifying the literal translation. (The Talmud's text is often very unclear, referring to places, times, people, and laws that it does not explain. The un-bolded text explains these situations to name a few. The text of the Talmud also contains few prepositions, articles, etc. The un-bolded text also takes the liberty of inserting these parts of speech.) The result is an English text that reads in full sentences with full explanations, while allowing the reader to distinguish between direct translation and a more liberal approach to the translation. (This also results in one page of the Vilna Talmud requiring several pages of English translation.) Below the English translation appear extensive notes including diagrams from sources ancient to modern.

Mesorah and the Schottenstein family recently began a Hebrew version of the Babylonian Talmud, and an unprecedented first English translation of the Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud).

--Spem 22:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Slifkin

Unless the ArtScroll/Slifkin incident is properly referenced, I am tempted to regard this as dirty laundry and remove it. Who organised the "public pressure"? What this grassroots, or was it astroturfing by excited bloggers? JFW | T@lk 18:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Artscroll or ArtScroll?

As far as I can tell, the "S" is always upper-case in every single ArtScroll publication.

I'll admit that most people -- myself included -- have a tendency to spell it with the lower-case "s", but I think this is mere laziness or ignorance, and is incorrect in either case.

Therefore, I propose changing the title of this page from "Artscroll" to "ArtScroll". Any objections? --Keeves 20:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I think the ArtScroll website itself is reasonable support for this assertion. I've moved it. JFW | T@lk 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Doctored Pics

Re: this thing here:

"Some biographies of important Jewish figures include photos that have been modified to conform to stereotypical images of Haredi Jews."

I removed it earlier, anon put it back in. This is a pretty serious allegation! Admittedly, as a Chareidi Jew, I am not neutral here. BUT: if you're going to throw around serious allegations such as this one, they have to be supported by examples and sources for obvious reasons. Until and unless they are, they cannot be in this article. If anon, or anyone else wishes to talk this over further, feel free to write to me on my talk page (if anon, let me know where to respond). An attempt to put it back in w/o explanation or support will be met with resistance. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section should be criticisms, not general disagreements with Haredim

Citing those who disagree with ArtScroll's approach because it is Haredi is innapropriate in the article. Such citations do not constitute criticism but rather general disagreements with Haredi Hashkafah. I will attempt to edit the section. Shykee 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)shykee

content aside...

Content and translation issues aside, I don't think that the article emphasizes what a key role in the success of the ArtScroll siddur was played its beauty and usability, especially in contrast to it's competitors in the '80s. This article is incomplete until the words "layout" and "order" are included, which were such great contributors to the success of the Siddur. References on this subject would be welcome. Say what you like about the translation; as a tool for helping people say the "right" thing at the right time, it remains a landmark creation. -Vonfraginoff 14:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Artscroll transliteration

I do not feel that Artscroll transliteration merits its own page; at best it seems like a subsection under "editorial policy" or something like that. I have added the merge tags to each page. Comments? --Makaristos 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Artsroll transliteration should be a part of Artscroll Manassehkatz 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it, and prolly won't until hmmmm... a month from today, but the section needs some serious work, beginning with the systemic bias in it...namely, a confusion between the meaning of "Sephardic", which here is obviously interpreted as "what Ashkenazi Israelis call Sephardic" coupled with "what Ashkenazim hear when Sephardim talk". What's there is a good start, but it's so wrong in so many ways that it should probably be removed altogether until it's fixed. 71.87.23.22 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Their transliteration scheme is grossly misdescribed as "generally uses Ashkenazi consonants and Sefardi vowels". The vowels too are generally Ashkenaz. Tzeirei is written "ei" -- אש is "eish", not "esh". They made one decision, that the qomatz gadol (the regular qamatz) be written "a" like a patach instead of a "u" (as in "nut") which looks like a shuruq or an "o" which would look like a cholam but is more common. In personal discussion with Rabbi Scherman I learned that was indeed in deference to Sepharadic accent -- but only because they felt their other choices would be read equally as far from any Ashkenazi variant of the qomatz. -micha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.175.30 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Schottenstein Edition Talmud

Was this renumbered at some stage. I just checked my set and some volumes don't match the numbers on the Artscroll site--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV style

There are a bunch of phrases "the best-selling prayerbook" "The best-selling chumash" "the most popular...". Most are tagged with {{fact}} and if they are not cited in a few weeks I'd like to remove them as POV. Joe407 (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. --Makaristos (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done --RoyBoy 01:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

within yeshivos

in yeshivos the use of Artscroll Talmud by students is frowned upon. It is felt that students shold be able to "learn up" gemarah without the help of the elucidation does anyone have a source for this? (perhaps you could be medayik in the haskamos) Naytz (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That's going to be tough to find a source for. Also, you'll need to specify in what yeshivos. Overall, it sounds like a point better made in an article about style of study in different yeshivos.Joe407 (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It is relavent here because i've heard people claim that if rabonnim knew that Artscroll Talmud would be used by yeshiva students, they never would have supported its publication in the first place. I'm going to read the haskamos. Naytz (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

People claim all sorts of nonsense. Doesn't make it true, let alone verified. (And it's not as if rabbonim weren't aware that yeshiva students were using the Soncino translation at that point.) — Shmuel (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ArtScroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219052818/http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40236&st=&pgnum=43 to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40236&st=&pgnum=43

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ArtScroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609111257/http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/010713/artscroll.shtml to http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/010713/artscroll.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)