Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 3.048 June 25, 1993 1) Wexler (Reyzl Kalifowicz-Waletzky) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu Jun 24 15:32:31 1993 From: Roslyn Kalifowicz-Waletzky <0005943838@mcimail.com> Subject: Wexler Meylekh, Though, I am sure that Wexler's monograph is full of interesting material, I have read of Wexler's theories only in Philologos. But if these are the highlights, there is more than enough meat here to chew on. Since none of the evidence Wexler cites there is unknown to those of us in the field (except the Sorbian connection), I am sorry if anyone thinks my criticism is premature. Wexler's theory is problematic on so many levels one doesn't know where to begin. The mere fact that Yiddish grammar is undoubtedly Germanic is sufficient reason to dismiss the theory, no matter how many examples of lexical borrowing Wexler can amass. Khaim Bochner's first posting said it all and Stankiewicz's letter is excellent. They argued from a linguistic point of view and I will discuss some ethnographic "evidence" he cites. The only point I would like to add to the linguistic argument is that the relexification from Judeo-Slavonic or Kanaanic that he is discussing involves a small population. The sociolinguistic process Wexler is focusing on is somewhat similar to the well-known American case, namely, when the Sephardic character of of the small Jewish community in America receded once large waves of Ashkenazic Jewry began to so totally dominate the whole American Jewish scene. Such events can happen only if the initial community is small and the new immigrant population massive. When one adds up all the facts and figures, the bulk of Eastern European Jewry is still undeniably Jewish and Ashkenazic. The various Turkic barbarian tribes mixed with everyone once they settled in Europe, including the Jews; but to characterize Judeo-Slavonic speakers as a Turkic people is not only impossible by the very definition of a Jewish language of which Wexler is supposed to be a specialist but also historically nonsensical. Some Turkic-origin pagans may have chosen Judaism over Christianity, but there is no historical basis that I know of where what happened with the Khazars happened in Slavic territory, namely, the Khazar king converted to Judaism and he decreed that his subjects had to do the same. Had Wexler had data on large Turkic conversions, he would have presented it. I have been studying Turkic influence on European, Asiatic and especially Jewish arts and crafts for he last five years and I can tell you that `holletzopf' and `treibern' don't prove anything. My biggest problem with Wexler is that he sees Jews borrowing cultural folkways/terminology from the Slavs and it seems to make him very anxious. What he then does is try to find historical explanations that would seem to lessen the amount of borrowing but that then takes him completely so far afield that he has thrown out the baby with the bath water. Er iz azoy vayt dergangen az her hot zey azh gemakht oys Yidn. As he states, Wexler "does not base his argument on any single or central proof; rather, he seeks to build a circumstantial chain of evidence, the sheer weight of which he hopes will be convincing." As I see it, no link that Philologos mentions supports his chain. We could pick on any citation, but let's take `koyletsh' since Philologos mentions it twice as one of the proofs that Yiddish began in the East. First, khale is both a primary symbol and means of creating the beauty and distinction of the sacred time and space of Shabbes. The homemaker's goal is to maximize its beauty and uniqueness of her Shabbes tish and would therefore easily seek out or imitate such an intriguing and clever design as braided bread if she would see it in the marketplace. Decorative foods are usually among the first and easiest of cultural exchanges, especially in view of the decorative goal of the Shabbes tish and the important role of Khale there. Jewish bakers selling to peasants may have decided to bake a few such breads for themselves and this intriguing practice spread. In view of the symbolic importance of khale, no geographic displacement theory of Jewish communities from east to west is necessary to explain dissemination of what was then such a novelty item. Any assumption that Jews must have eaten at Slavic tables is also superfluence in this case. Secondly, making decorative breads in honor of festive occasions was a very common folk activity (in pre-automation times) throughout Europe. As shown in the Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol. 6, p.1419), Jews made many kinds of festive khale shapes, one for each type of occasion and holiday. Although the braided style is common, unbraided was as likely to be found. According to my mother, the older women in her town knew how to braid khale, and those that didn't, e.g., her own mother, didn't braid. The braided styling of khale may or may not have been inspired by the pagan goddess, but the tradition of eating khale on Shabbes was most probably not, since braiding does not seem to be a critical factor here. Furthermore, Jews called a braided khale "a geflokhtene khale" not "a getsopte khale" as far as I know (the Atlas finding can tell us more), and so the "hollentsopf" connection doesn't seem to be so strong here. Other folks probably also made braided breads. Thirdly, just because this kind of bread has Slavic nomenclature, does not necessarily mean that its original source is non-Jewish. It only connotes Slavic geographical origin. Let's not fail to mention that a Slavic `kolatsh' is always round with a large hole in the middle (usually where candles are placed), hence its etymological source meaning `circle' or `wheel'; and a Jewish braided koyletsh is almost always long and there is never ever a whole in the middle. (The Jewish wedding koyletsh with which one dances in front of the bride and groom after the khupe has small candles set into the khale and no holes are made. I had such a khale at my own wedding but I am sorry I can't remember its name right now). Several scenarios to explain the origin of koyletsh are possible: a) Braided and/or round festive bread called `kolatsh' arose among the Slavs and these became so popular among Jews that it even extended into Germanic territory; b) Round and/or braided festive breads arose among Jews in Slavic territory and they selected a co-territorial term to distinguish khales made in this style from those of other styles and these became popular among the Slavs; or c) Jews created this new style and the Slavs named the new item, but among Jews, it seems, koyletsh either always was or became interchangeable with the generic term khale which can mean any style of a festive Jewish bread. That Jews invented round and/or braided khale is quite possible because a) the Slavic terms `kolatsh' and its variant `kalatsh' are found in heavily populated Jewish territories; b) the Slavic `kolatch' is akin to the many round types of khales we know Jews baked; and c) the round braided `kolatsh' is the only such bread known in this territory as far as I know. If anyone knows of others I would love to know. (Its called "karovey" if it's used at a wedding.) Since the Slavic term `kolatsh', according to an etymological dictionary, denotes not a generic festive bread which is what Wexler's comments imply, but rather, only a round, braided type of festive bread, the possibility that Jews learned of khale from non-Jews is most unlikely. As we see from the case of Polish and Ukrainian papercuts, which are so famous all over the world, so much more so than Jewish ones, the Poles usually attribute their origin to Polish genius. But if one delves into the academic literature, one finds that Polish experts clearly state that this very popular Polish craft was learned from Jews in about the 1840-1850 in such and such areas. The same may be for `kolatsh'. The basic problem here, I think, is that Wexler doesn't understand the nature and process of cultural borrowing and makes historical statements on the basis of the existence of such a small lexical inventory, each of which has multiple explanations. Weinreich did not conclude that Germanic Jewry came from Italy solely on the basis of the existence of leynen, bentshn, shprintse,etc. The basis for his "assertion" as I remember is the fact that the earliest Jewish grave markings have "Italianate" names on the headstones. Then he let his lexical findings steer/confirm his theoretical direction. In my book, you don't conclude that Jews came from French territory into Germany just on the basis of the French-source term "tsholent" among Germanic Jews. You must have historical/archaeological evidence to confirm your theory which Wexler admits he doesn't have. Look at the American material culture that is voluntarily sought out abroad (as distinguished by what is commercially exported). Its jeans, records and hamburgers. Foods, clothing, music are always the first candidates in cultural exchanges and the easiest inter-cultural travelers. The same goes for Wexler's other citations, `blintses' and `traybern'-- all being technical innovations in the above categories. My own work shows me that technical innovations generate new terminology both inter- and intra-culturally. Why `traybern' was an innovation, I explained in my previous posting. One of the things that Wexler doesn't understand is the symbolic inversion that happens in cultural exchange which leads him to seek and accept implausible historical explanations. When a hasid heard a military tune of a marching army band and weaved out of it a hasidic nign, it meant that in his head, he can take any beautiful thing out there, internalize it, Judaize it, invert it with what is for him a new Jewish meaning and association and, voila, you now have a new Jewish song. What we have here is the equivalent of someone coming centuries later and saying that the composer of this Jewish nign must have been a ger who knew this song and tried to Judaize it. Going along with this kind of thinking, someone can come and claim that European Jewry are all Christian converts because look, the chief song of Khanuka "Maoz Tsur" is really an old Christian church hymn (which it is). And we will all say, so what if it originally was? Today in Boro Park, Flatbush, Williamsburg a great many orthodox Jews buy Christmas decorations to decorate their sukkas. This may astound you as it first did me. When my fellow ethnographer once asked a hasidic woman how she can disassociate the Christian symbolism from the article or disregard the clear marking on the packaging that says "for Christmas", the woman easily explained how she works it out. But future Wexlers will probably come and say that many Christians who lived in Brooklyn converted during the late 20th century. How else can they explain religious Jews buying such unadulterated `tume' as Christmas decorations and hanging them up yet? I wonder if the French also think that they are of Slavic stock since their crepes so resemble blintses. Furthermore, if Wexler's right, European Jews, who built Israel, have no right to be in the land and should return to the Caucasus. And Bob, even if the Kalif- in my name were to come from Arabic sources, it wouldn't advance Wexler's theory one millimeter. And anyway, remember, Arabic is Semitic, something I and everyone else always considered my dark features to be. Genug shoyn, I am going to make dinner. Reyzl Kalifowicz-Waletzky ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 3.048