_The Mendele Review_: Yiddish Literature and Language (A Companion to _MENDELE_) ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 02.012 3 April 1998 1) Yiddish Matters: From the Editor (Leonard Prager) 2) _Selected morpho-syntactic changes in literary translations of Sholom-Aleichem from Yiddish to Hebrew_ (Hana Sagi) 3) "khezhbm-ha|nefesh," _muser|nikes_ (Khayem Grade) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 April 1998 From: Leonard Prager Subject: Yiddish Matters 1. In this issue We continue with the third installment of Khayem Grade's _Muser|nikes_ and also give the table of contents and English abstract of a recent Bar-Ilan University dissertation on the influence of Yiddish on Hebrew (which, the author informs me, can be purchased only from Robinson Books, Nakhlat Binyamin 31, Tel Aviv 65162). 2. In future issues FIRST ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: the next issue (vol. 2, no. 13), the forty-first (41st) since _The Mendele Review_ was launched on 13 April 1997, will appear on 13 April 1998. 2)--------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 April 1998 From: Leah Krikun Subject: _Selected morpho-syntactic changes in literary translations of Sholom-Aleichem from Yiddish to Hebrew_ by Hana Sagi Selected morpho-syntactic changes in literary translations of Sholom-Aleichem from Yiddish to Hebrew A study of the influence of Yiddish on the structure of modern Hebrew By Hana Sagi Department of Hebrew Language and Semitic Languages Ph.D. Thesis Submitted to the Senate of Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel March, 1997 This work was carried out under the supervision of Prof. Menahem Zevi Kaddari, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Prof. Joseph Bar-El, The Rena Costa Center for Yiddish Studies Bar-Ilan University Table of Contents Hebrew abstract................................................Alef O.Introduction...................................................1 0.1 The subject and purpose of the paper.......................1 0.2 The structure of the paper.................................6 0.3 The method.................................................7 0.4 The choice and description of the corpus...................8 0.5 Theoretical background.....................................12 0.5.1 On the theory of interpretation......................13 0.5.1.1 Literary interpretation as a means of cultural dissemination..........................13 0.5.1.2 The Hebrew interpretation..........................14 0.5.1.3 The interpretion of Sholom- Aleichem's works...................................16 0.5.2 The revival of Hebrew in the light of Hebrew-Yiddish diglossia........................19 0.5.2.1 A thousand years of Yiddish influence on Hebrew writing........................19 0.5.2.2 Rabbinicl language -- one of the medieval languages.................................21 0.5.2.3 Rabbinical language a combination of Hebrew and Yiddish..............................22 0.5.2.4 Rabbinical language and the language of the "Golden Age" Poets of Spain....................24 0.5.3 Spoken Hebrew -- the climax of Hebrew revival..........26 0.5.3.1 Influences of Hebrew-Yiddish diglossia on spoken Hebrew.........................29 0.5.3.2 Various linguistic changes in Hebrew under the influence of Yiddish.....................31 0.5.3.2.1 Some changes in pronunciation.................31 0.5.3.2.2 Some morphological changes....................37 0.5.3.2.3 Some lexical changes..........................39 0.6 Summary..................................................47 1. The diminutive in contemporary Hebrew.........................48 1.1 Introduction...............................................48 1.1.1 Indirect means of miniaturization......................48 1.1.2 Direct means of miniaturization........................49 1.1.3 Discussion of the diminutive and its origins...........53 1.1.4 Different varieties of the diminutive in Hebrew........55 1.1.4.1 Inner changes of the morpheme......................55 1.1.4.2 External changes of the morpheme...................61 1.1.4.2.1 The suffix _l_...................................61 1.1.4.2.2 The suffixes _an_ and _iy_.......................62 1.1.4.2.3 The suffixes _on_ and _O'net_....................62 1.1.4.2.4 The suffix _it_..................................64 1.1.4.2.5 The suffix _iya_.................................65 1.4.4.3 Double miniaturization.............................66 1.2 The diminutive in contemporary literature..................67 1.2.1 The diminutive in the original Hebrew literature.......68 1.2.1.1 Is the rate of use of the diminutive a stylistic feature?....................71 1.2.2 Examining the diminutives in the original Hebrew literature.............................74 1.2.2.1 The first period: 1896-1929........................74 1.2.2.2 The second period: 1950-1969.......................82 1.2.2.3 The third period: 1980-1995........................93 1.2.3 The diminutive in literary translations................108 1.2.3.1 The diminutive in translations from Yiddish........108 1.2.3.2 The diminutive in translations from Russian........122 1.2.3.3 The diminutive in translations from English........132 1.3 The findings...............................................138 1.3.1 The diminutive: original literature compared to translated literature.....................143 1.3.1.1 Suffixes..........................................145 1.4 Summary....................................................147 2._Lo_ as a redundant negator....................................156 2.1 The phrase _kimat shelo_...................................156 2.1.1 The structure of the phrase............................158 2.1.2 Occurrences of the phrase _kimat shelo_................159 2.1.2.1 Occurrences of the phrase in the classical concordances..............................160 2.1.2.2 Occurrences of the phrase in the 'sheeylot uteshuvot' [Y. shayles-tshuves] data in Hebrew texts before the Enlightenment......................160 2.1.2.2.1 The phrase _kimat shelo_ and its alternates in the 'sheeylot uteshuvot' data..................164 2.1.2.3 The phrase in selected literary texts from the beginning of the century until these days...........169 2.1.3 Discussion of the redundant negator....................171 2.1.4 Assumptions about the origin of the redundant negator in the phrase _kimat shelo_....................172 2.1.4.1 Is the redundant negator in _kimat shelo_ a result of a process within the language?...............172 2.1.4.2 Is the redundant negator in _kimat shelo_ a result of an extra-linguistic influence?...............173 2.1.4.2.1 An examination of the influence of Yiddish: a comparison between the phrase in the translation and the phrase in the original text....................173 2.1.4.2.2 Is the origin of the redundant negator in _shier nit_ intrinsic in the language?.................176 2.1.4.2.3 Is the origin of the redundant negator in German or in other languages?.......................179 2.1.5 An interim summary 2.2 Two structures with the redundant negator _lo_ in contemporary Hebrew....................................181 2.2.1 The phrase 'Indefinite pronoun + _shelo_'..............181 2.2.1.1 Between a phrase and a non phrase..................182 2.2.1.2 The identification of the phrase and it cognitive perception.........................................185 2.2.1.3 Stability and mobility of the negator..............186 2.2.1.4 A semantic shift from negation to the superlative..188 2.2.1.5 Occurrences of the phrase in literature prior to the Enlightenment..................................190 2.2.1.6 Occurrences of the phrase in contemporary literature.........................................194 2.2.1.7 Discussion of the formation of the redundant negator............................................197 2.2.1.7.1 Does the redundant negator result from a process within the language?...................197 2.2.1.7.2 Did the redundant negator penetrate Hebrew through an external influence? (Yiddish and Slavic languages)..............................202 2.3 Summary...................................................205 3. The hierarchy of attributes following a noun phrase...........207 3.1 Frequency and length as measures of the order of components in noun phrases...............................207 3.2 The features of the hierarchical structure of attributes...............................................208 3.3 A comparison between various corpuses.....................209 3.4 Categories of attributes following a noun phrase..........210 3.4.1 Compounds 3.4.2 Adjectival attributes..................................215 3.4.3 The prepositional phrase as an attribute...............217 3.5 Various connections in the hierarchical structure of attributes............................................218 3.6 The order of attributes in the hierarchial structure......219 3.6.1 A comparison between the findings in the literary translations and other texts.........................222 3.6.1.1 A comparison between Sholom-Aleichem's interpreters and other Yiddish interpreters......222 3.6.1.2 A comparison between the translations and traditional language.............................224 3.7 A comparative summary of the findings of various texts....226 3.8 Summary 4. The subject predicate order in the sentence...................232 4.1 Summary of the literature of previous studies...............232 4.1.1 Discussion of the literature of previous studies........238 4.2 A description of the distribution of subject-predicate in various translations.....................................242 4.2.1 The subject-predicate order in an independent sentence..243 4.2.2 The subject-predicate order in follow-up sentences......248 4.2.2.1 The subject-predicate order in a structure with an opening complement which is not a sentence..........249 4.2.2.2 The subject-predicate order in follow-up sentences of a subordinate nature.............................255 4.2.2.3 The subject-predicate order in follow-up sentences of a conjunctive nature.............................257 4.2.3 The subject-predicate order in interrogative sentences..259 4.3 The influence of Yiddish on the subject-predicate order.....260 4.3.1 The model of complement-subject-verb in the present tense...........................................261 4.3.2 The model of verb in the present tense-subject in a subordinate clause.................................266 4.3.3 The model of subject-finite verb in a subordinate clause....................................267 4.3.4 The model of finite verb-subject in a compound sentence.....................................269 4.3.5 The order of components in interrogative sentence..................................271 4.4 Summary......................................................275 5. _aval_ in contemporary Hebrew.................................277 5.1 Introduction...............................................277 5.2 Discussion of the literature of previous studies...........277 5.3 The shift of _aval_........................................283 5.4 Examining the acceptability of the shift of _aval_.........285 5.5 Was the mobility of _aval_ influenced by the original text in Yiddish?..............................285 5.6 The mobility of _ober_ in the Yiddish sentence.............288 5.7 Equivalents of _aval_ in other languages...................294 5.8 Assumptions................................................294 5.9 Does the shift of _aval_ cause a semantic differentiation?..................................295 6. Summary.......................................................304 Bibliography.....................................................305 Appendices.......................................................I Abstract This paper studies various linguistic changes which have occurred in contemporary Hebrew. The focus has been on morpho-syntactic changes which may not be conspicuous yet have a considerable effect on the nature of a changing language. The linguistic changes in Hebrew which are studied in this paper may have occurred under the influence of Yiddish. Those who revived contemporary Hebrew were also those who spoke it first. They exchanged their mother tongue for their national language because of ideological reasons. Hebrew was absorbed on the basis of the linguistic mechanisms of Yiddish. Therefore, we assumed that Yiddish has played a significant role in shaping contemporary Hebrew. We studied literary texts that were translated from Yiddish under the assumption that in this kind of texts it would be easier to expose the influence of Yiddish on Hebrew, at least its influence on the language of Hebrew translations. Our study focuses on Sholom-Aleichem's _Motl Peysi dem Khazns_ and its four different Hebrew interpretations: Former Interpreters Latter Interpreters Ch.N.Bialik and Y.Ch. U. Ofek (1976) Ravnitzky (l907) Y.D. Berkowitz (1929) A. Aharoni (1980) The findings were compared with other interpretations of literary texts and also with original literary texts. The frequency of the findings and their range of use were also examined. This study deals with five subjects where implicit linguistic changes were found. Each change was described, its range examined and its possible origins discussed. Chapter A: The diminutive in contemporary Hebrew The aspect of size used to be expressed in Hebrew indirectly: a minimizing lexeme, minimizing adjectives, imagery and metaphors. Hebrew did not contain any active diminutive mechanism which expressed size morphologically. However, under the influence of Yiddish (and Slavic languages) Hebrew has formed a rich diminutive mechanism. The diminutive is an expression of the calque which characterizes contemporary language. This Hebrew calque originates in Russian and Yiddish. Following these languages, also in Hebrew the calque denotes affection and intimacy besides miniaturization. The diminutive mechanism in Hebrew probably started in the spoken language from which it spread on to the literary language. An examination of the diminutive mechanism in the literary works at the end of the twentieth century reveals the following: A. Fixation -- A process of neutralization of the miniaturization of the morphemes '+it' and '+iya'. B. The miniaturization effect is expressed in contemporary literature by two kinds of diminutive: 1. An inner diminutive which is formed by doubling one of the syllables. This diminutive is predominant in literature as opposed to the findings of Bolozky who examined the dictionary vocabulary. This diminutive comprises a shift of category: since the 1950's there has been an increase in doubling a noun component. Words such as (_zkankan_ ['small beard'], _tsikhkuk_ ['giggle'], _sfamfam_ ['small mustache'], _lakhashushim_ ['whispers']) have become increasingly frequent. 2. An external diminutive formed by adding the suffix '+on' to a given base. (_kheder katan_ = _khedron_; _mitbakh katan_ = _mitbakhon_). There has been a shift of category also in the external diminutive: diminutive forms which are based on an adjective become increasingly frequent. For example: (_tipshon_, _razonet_, _khamudi_, _tseironet_). This study deals mainly with the written language; however, diminutive forms are easily noticeable in the spoken lanugage. Forms containing a double component and forms with an external diminutive suffix are well integrated in spoken Hebrew. These forms can be frequently heard on the media and they are mainly used to emphasize miniaturization. Chapter B: Redundant use of the negator 'lo' Two phrases containing a redundant negator were examined: _kimat shelo_ and indefinite pronoun + 'lo'. We found that the latter type has been well integrated in contemporary spoken Hebrew but also in the literary language. The phrase _kimat shelo_ which existed in the written language in previous periods has been eliminated in contemporary Hebrew. The use of the redundant negator adds semantic and pragmatic qualities to the utterance. The use of a redundant negator conveys a message of the superlative. In this case it would be reasonable to argue that it is not actually redundant as the negator has semantic and pragmatic qualities. The redundant negator also exists in Yiddish, German and Slavic languages in phrases similar to Hebrew ones. The redundant negator may result from other languages or from a development of Hebrew itself. Chapter C: The hierarchy of attributes following a noun phrase Research has shown that the hierarchy of attributes following a noun phrase is a pattern of a fixed layering order as follows: Noun Phrase (the Kernel) + genitival or possessive pronoun + adjective + 'shel' phrase prepositional phrase + sentence. Because it would result in awkward style, there are no five attributes from different categories, following a noun phrase (although this is possible). Linguistic texts did contain structures with four attributes from different categories following the noun phrase. However, for many generations the most common structure in Hebrew has been hierarchy of two attributes following the noun phrase. This is also the most common structure in the language of literary translation. This chapter examines the hierarchy of attributes and combination types (the layering order of attributes according to their categories) among the interpreters of Sholom-Aleichem. The findings were compared with those that were found in the study of the hierarchy of attributes in the following texts: a. Biblical and traditional language. b. The language of other Yiddish interpreters. c. The language of contemporary literature and journalism. It seems that the hierarchical structure of attributes is rather conservative. This applies to the length of the common structure (two attributes from different categories following the noun phrase) and to the order of attributes (from different categories following the noun phrase). Yet, few changes have occurred. First, there have been changes in the hierarchical structure of attributes with regards to its distribution. The distribution of structural hierarchy of attributes in the Bible (0.9%) is similar to that of the Mishna (0.65%). The distribution of hierarchies of attributes in the language of Sholom-Aleichem's interpreters (1.6% on the average) is almost three times wider than that of the traditional language. The number of structural hierarchies in the original literature studied is double that of Sholom-Aleichem's interpretations. As for the use of structural hierarchy of attributes, the interpretations of Sholom-Aleichem are uniform despite the decades of generation gap between the former and the latter interpreters. The distributions of hierarchical patterns of attributes in the interpretation of the 90's is similar to that found in contemporary original literature, and it is five times wider than the distribution of that pattern in the traditional language. Secondly, this process of multi-hierarchical patterns in the literary text coincides with multi-hierarchical structures of three attributes following the noun phrase. Thirdly, the hierarchical structure of attributes has been thickened by concatenation (that is, the addition of corresponding attributes from the same category beside the existing attributes). In addition, the monotonous use of combination types (two frequent combination types) both in biblical and traditional language, and in the interpretations of Sholem-Aleichem becomes increasingly varied (four frequent combination types) both among the other interpreters as well as in the original literary language. Chapter D: Subject-predicate order The issue of subject-predicate order was studied in independent clauses and also in follow-up clauses(**). The results of the study show that in independent clauses both generations of interpreters express preference for the pattern subject-predicate also when the predicate is a verb. This order is not new. In fact, this is the order of Biblical (archaic) language, if we are to consider Waw marking the past as an initial complementary component. With regards to the follow-up clauses opening with a complement which is not a sentence, the various generations of interpreters differed. While the former interpreters abide by the traditional order, applying the alternation rule only when the predicate is a verb, the latter apply the alternation rule also when the predicate is in the present tense. A personal pronoun which does not allow for the alternation rule in the written language does not function this way in the translation. The interpreters of Sholom-Aleichem were influenced in this matter by the order of components in the writer's own language. In follow-up conjunctions on subordinate clauses there is a definite tendency (except Berkowitz) to put the subject first in any case, even when the predicate is a verb. This is contrasted with the traditional order. It seems that it is not the Yiddish that caused most of the changes. Only in single patterns may the Yiddish have had any influence. With regards to the order of sentence component one may say that the interpreters were flexible to the point of random which is in compliance with the contemporary general tendency toward flexibility and disregard for linguistic rules. Chapter E: The conjunction _aval_ -- from stability to mobility A comparison of the location of _aval_ as the equivalent of the Yiddish _ober_ in early-twentieth-century and contemporary translations of Sholom Aleichem revealed that in one modern translation, by Arie Aharoni, the location of _aval_ has shifted from its natural position between two clauses to the consequence clause. However, this shift, which was not found in the other translations, is acceptable in colloquial Hebrew. A study was carried out to test the acceptability of this literary shift. The results indicate that _aval_ was accepted as a mobile component in the consequence clause by a considerable number of respondents and that none found the proposed constructions unacceptable. Although the Yiddish influence may be a significant factor in the mobility of _aval_, the shift may also be the result of an internal linguistic development. _aval_ is not the sole case of a connector that has acquired mobility; for example, _lakhen_, _al ken_ and _im ken_ nay appear within the consequence clause. No semantic changes emerge from this shift; however, it has several practical results: (1) _aval_ in the consequence clause serves as a type of parenthetical clause denoting contrast or concession; (2) the use of _aval_ at the very end of a consequence clause has gained unexpected popularity, perhaps as a means of expressing an afterthought; (3) the shift of _aval_ into the consequence clause involves a change in intonation. Yiddish speakers noted that the shift of _ober_ to the consequence clause created a colorful effect. It appears that the changed intonation in Hebrew can be attributed to the influence of Yiddish rhythmic-melodic patterns. _____________________ (**) Namely a sentence which comes after a complement: a morpheme or a sentence. 3)--------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 April 1998 From: Itsik Goldenberg Subject: muser|nikes (Khayem grade) muser|nikes fun Khayem grade [3] khezhbm-ha|nefesh 001 der shleferiker vaad hot zikh in gas tseshaydt. 002 Yoysef kovler hot zikh oyf a bank tsunoyfgedreyt, 003 er iz gelegn inem vaybershulkhl un ge|kholem|t fun der mamen. 004 s'hot khlavne a geergeter arayn geshpant, 005 s'iz prikre im geven, ven er hot zikh dermont, 006 az er badarf mit dem farkvetshtn ostrovoler nekhtikn tsuzamen... 007 der ostrovoler hot arumgeshprayzt oyf der kvartir, 008 geleygt zikh -- oyfgeshtanen vider, 009 er flegt a kuk ton yede rege oyf der tir, 010 an umruiker, a tsebrokhener, a mider. 011 er hot gehorkht a shtarer, a banumener, 012 dem durshtikn geveyn fun zayne glider, 013 gekhlipet hot zayn guf, an opgetserter, opgekumener, 014 vi a kind, farlozn in der nakht, -- 015 hot er zayn kop fargrobn inem kishn, 016 gevolt zikh mit der finsternish farmishn -- 017 un umetum zayn heysn layb gefunen. 018 zayn guf hot im gebrent, 019 tayve|ke dimyoynes hobn im farshpunen, 020 un arayngedreyt tsvishn zayne kni -- di hent... 021 o, der gehenem hot aroysgeshosn fun zayn bet in fayertsungen, 022 iz er vi fun a brenendikn hoyz aropgeshprungen, 023 a naketer genumen umloyfn in kheyder; 024 mit zayn layb aleyn nit tsu farblaybn -- 025 geshlept oyf zikh malbushem, kleyder -- 026 un dem kaltn shmeykhl fun dem rosh-yeshive|s bas-yekhide 027 nit gekent fartraybn... 028 er hot arayngenumen in di hent dem kop dem midn, 029 im, dem eltstn, vos der rosh-yeshive ken zikh nit a rir ton on im, 030 ken farbaytn khlavne -- epes dort a yingl mit a sheynem ponem... d31 di tir hot zikh geton an efn. 032 khlavne hot zikh fun reb Abe|s vaad tsurikgekert -- 033 hot er gerekhnt trefn 034 dem ostrovoler a tsunoyfgekortshetn, fargelt, 035 zitsn oyf der erd?.. 036 der ostrovoler hot zikh oyfgeshtelt, 037 dem mantl bizn kolner shtolts un beyz farkneplt: 038 -- oyfn tish ligt ayer khaluke-gelt, 039 in elmerl ligt broyt, in kikh shteyt tey in tepl, 040 er hot zayn breyte gombe inem kolner bizn moyl farrukt 041 un aroys mit an aroysgeloztn kop. -- 042 s'hot khlavne lang nokh oyf der tir gekukt, 043 der shmeykhl fun zayn ponem iz arop... 044 der ostrovoler iz gehunken durkh di umetike geslekh, 045 gevaklt oyf tsedreyte trotuarn, 046 gevolt mevatl makhn zikh -- vi ash tsesharn; 047 vi zayn kranker hinkediker fus, 048 iz itst im iberik zayn gantser bidner lebn, -- 049 dos gantse muser lernen iz a shtus, 050 oyb dos ken nit keyn menukhe gebn. 051 der ostrovoler hot zikh opgeshtelt farvundert -- 052 di geslekh hobn zikh geshtoysn arum im, tsunoyfgeplontert, 053 hot er gepruvt ayede gas tsu oysteyln bazunder: 054 ot iz di kikh, un ot derkont er 055 dos gesele, vos falt arayn in rosh-yeshive|s tir, 056 antkegn firt tsu dem beys-medresh a beys-oylem-vant, 057 do kholem|en di bokherem in ovnt oyf shpatsir -- 058 iz er a mider tsu der kloyz avekgehunken, 059 vi a kranker ferd dem kop aropgezunken, 060 un der beys-oylem hot im nokhgeshpant... 061 a beys-hakvores, an arumgetsoygener mit drot, 062 shteyt in mitn shtot, 063 eyder gasn hobn do a fleyts geton, vi shturemdike taykhn -- 064 zol er zikh mitn altn feld farglaykhn? 065 der kupishker, tsu unterdrikn zayn pakhdones, 066 flegt geyn in meysem-shtibl shlofn oyf di taare-breter, 067 un er -- tsu unterdrikn zayne glustungen -- tsi vet er 068 leygn zikh oyf shtekhedikn drot? 069 o, neyn, s'iz oyf zayn guf im a rakhmones, 070 zayn kranke harts a shod... 071 a beys-hakvores shteyt in mitn shtot, 072 dos lebn falt tsu biz der vant un shtarbt mit eyn mol op, 073 di hoykhe fenster kukn gayve|dik tsum grinem feld arop, ... 074 shmeykhlen di anives|dike kvorem shtilerheyt: 075 o, hoykhe moyern, 076 hot ir zikh kvorem ongegreyt?.. 077 der ostrovoler iz gezesn in baynakhtikn beys-medresh un gevigt zikh nokhanand. 078 aropgelozt dem kop, dem shtern ayngedrikt in shtenderkant, 079 di oygn tsugemakht -- di fintsternish zol zayn nokh greser, 080 un mit a kvorem-shtim, vi mit a meser, 081 gevolt aroysshnaydn fun zikh di treyfe odern: 082 vi kumt a muser|nik tsu hobn tvies -- 083 a navaredker zol fodern? 084 "hot ir shoyn ongegreyt zikh kvorem?" -- 085 vi men pruvt aroysnemen fun tayf a shteyn a shvern, 086 hot er gevolt aroysnemen fun zikh dem bitern fardrus: 087 oyf vos hot er azoy fil yorn muser opgelernt? 088 git es im nit keyn menukhe -- iz es shtus... 089 "hot ir shoyn ongegreyt zikh kvorem?" -- 090 a sheker ken men nor barekhtikn durkh naye shkorem. 091 er hot zayn kop akhzoryes|dik in shtenderrand geshlogn 092 nit oyfgehert in shtenderlokh arayntsuklogn: 093 vos-zhe iz geven der sheker fun zayn lebn? 094 er iz arumgeforn iber rusland un ukraine, 095 gebushevet hot hunger, di milkhome un mageyfe, 096 un zeyer alter rebe, er, un di khaverem zayne, 097 flegn khapn yingelekh, vi fun a sreyfe; 098 geloyert in di shtet, oyf ale banen, 099 arumgenishtert in der shtetldiker svive: 100 "vu fort a bokherl? vuhin -- fun vanen?" 101 un glaykh avekgefirt in der yeshive. 102 Shloyme|le babunitser un khlavnen -- ale yunge vaad|n, 103 hot er aher gebrakht in kurtse hayzlekh biz di kni -- 104 krigt khlavne itst dem rosh-yeshive|s tekhterl, un di yeshive oykh -- in nadn... 105 der ostrovoler filt in kop a shvindl, un in harts -- a bri: 106 efsher demolt, ven men hot gefirt zey tsen mol shisn, 107 geshvolene fun hunger, ungeotemte mit toyt, 108 tseleygte fun kholere un fun krets tsebisn, -- 109 efsher dan anshtot tsu zayn a bolshevik, 110 iz er gevorn gor a muser|nik? 111 "hot ir zikh kvorem ongegreyt?" -- 112 der ostovoler hot gezukht fun zikh dem flam aroystsukrign, 113 vi fun shteyner -- fayer far a knoyt: 114 ken zayn, az er iz frum geven bloyz in der nont fun rebe|n -- 115 es flegt im varemen dem altns shtim; 116 men ken oykh far a toyre makrev zayn dos lebn 117 nit tsulib ir emes -- nor tsulib dos vos trogn im... 118 der ostrovoler hot genumen hekher voyen, 119 geshlept fun zikh mit gliike optsvengen, 120 gevolt zikh oyfn sharf fun khalef brengen: 121 shver aribertrogn a farshtanenem bizoyen, 122 tsen mol shverer ven men veys afile nit farvos? 123 in vos bashteyt zayn biterer fardros: 124 hot er aleyn zikh ayngeshmuest? -- neyn! 125 khotsh men hot im gornit tsugezogt -- nit opgenart, 126 veys er, az der rosh-yeshive hot gevust zayn meyn, 127 un keyn mol nit, afile fun der zayt, zayn falshe hofenung tseshart; 128 efsher iz be'emes mir a shod di toyre un di mi -- 129 entfert zikh aleyn der ostrovoler in vikuekh -- 130 a bokherl, vos hot nit lang getrogn heyzlekh biz di kni, 131 zol iberfirn dem beys-medresh mit zayn ruekh? -- 132 o, neyn, er meynt es nit leshem shomayem! 133 er vet zikh moyde zayn -- vi groys s'iz nit der veytik: 134 im art nit far dem gayst dem nayem, 135 nor vos er, der ostrovoler, iz shoyn mer nit neytik 136 der ostrovoler heybt on hekher klogn: 137 zol zayn, az zi -- iz es geven der meyn fun zayne yorn? 138 vi lang es veys nit keyner, vestu zikh aleyn nit unterzogn 139 dayn bahaltenem khesorn... 140 der ostrovoler hot zikh ayngeboygn, 141 di tseyn farshtshemet, 142 vi er volt epes fun der tif aroysgetsoygn: 143 gemeynt hot er, az zi bagleyt a frume zayne trit, 144 vil er -- ken er glaykh zi nemen, 145 un zi -- vil nit?!.. 146 er hot gemeynt zayn prishes iz a fraye, nit getsvungen, 147 s'iz alts on im gevendt, -- 147 dervart im nit di velt mit fule hent?.. 148 un s'iz der ostrovoler oyfgeshprungen -- 149 er hot zayn tsar derkent. 150 in heyse nekht hot er gehat a treyst: 151 zay shtolts, du bist a poresh -- eygnvilik! 152 umzist hot er zikh ober der gepaynikter gegreyst -- 153 er iz durkh noyt, durkh tsufal an asket... 154 er vet farshteyn dem khilek 155 der -- vos es derhert un es derzet. 156 er hot arumgevisht dem shveys, 157 oyfgeshtelt zikh ernst, fayerlekh un bleykh! 158 bay zayn gantser maternish un groys, 159 hot er, der ostrovoler, nit gekent dergreykhn, 160 vos a yingl hot dergreykht. 161 der ostrovoler hot zikh in a vinkl ayngetulyet, 162 der shturem in zayn harts hot opgehulyet. 163 itst vet er zikh lozn shtaygn tsu azelkhe heykhn, 164 vu es vet nit keyn mol shtaygn der -- 165 vos zigt in lebn, ken tsu alts dergreykhn, 166 vayl der bazigter -- kon dergreykhn mer. 167 zayn guf der ongetsoygener, der ongeshpanter, 168 hot opgetsitert, vi der shtrik fun a bafraytn boygn, 169 zayn harts hot oysgeveynt dos lid fun reb yisroel dem salanter, 170 un mit brenendike trern hobn mitgezungen zayne oygn: 171 odem -- 172 der mentsh iz in zayn dimyen fray, 173 un a gebundener -- durkh zayn gedank. 174 zayn dimyen krayzt arum zayn harts, 175 vi a roybfoygl arum zayn fang. 176 in zind ligt di bashtrofung, 177 un zol a mentsh nit zogn: 178 far vos zol ikh a fremde shtrof 179 b|khinem darfn trogn? 180 o, keyner kumt dir nit tsu hilf, 181 dir oystsuleyzn fun yesurem, 182 zol vern der gedank dayn ruderer, 183 un er vet firn dir in shturem. 184 der ostrovoler hot dem ponem fun di dlonyes oyfgehoybn, 185 es hobn opgetsukt fun zayn gezikht di letste blitsn. 186 dos groye toglikht iz arayngerungen durkh di shoybn, 187 a fargliverter iz er geblibn zitsn. 188 er hot derhert a khlipen a farvorgenem, 189 hot er zikh oyfgeshtelt, un vi a blinder, 190 vos geyt nokh dos geveyn fun zayne kinder, 191 gelozt zikh firn fun dem khlipen dem farborgenem - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 192 Yoysef kovler iz gelegn oyfgedreyt in vaybershul, 193 ayngedekt in mantl un gefibert, 194 di oyfgerisene shvartsaplen trern ful, 195 di benkshaft in zayn harts ariber: 196 er hot gezen in groyen shtibele zayn mamen. 197 fartog. zi veynt un sheylt kartofl, 198 zi veynt di oreme, an elnte, un shofl, -- 199 un fun der vayt hot er geveynt mit ir tsuzamen... ______________________________________________________ End of _The Mendele Review_ 02.012 Leonard Prager, editor Send articles to: lprager@research.haifa.ac.il The editor of _TMR_ can also be reached via _Mendele_'s homepage: http://www2.trincoll.edu/~mendele Subscribers to _Mendele_ (see below) automatically receive _The Mendele Review_. Send "to subscribe" or change-of-status messages to: listproc@lists.yale.edu a. For a temporary stop: set mendele mail postpone b. To resume delivery: set mendele mail ack c. To subscribe: sub mendele first_name last_name d. To unsubscribe kholile: unsub mendele ****Getting back issues**** _The Mendele Review_ archives can be reached at: http://www2.trincoll.edu/~mendele/tmr