A Historiography of Julius (J.D.) Eisenstein

A Historiography of Julius (J.D.) Eisenstein Fischer 1

Caleb Fischer

Professor Steven Fine

Historiography of J.D. Eisenstein

8/23/2013

A Historiography of Julius(J.D.) Eisenstein

Centenarian, third degree Freemason1 and honorary doctor of

Hebrew Literature, Julius (Judah David) Eisenstein was one of the

most important figures in American Jewish scholarship. He was a

very prolific scholar, best known for his massive compilations of

Hebrew writings called תתת for which he was called the ,תתתתתת

Master of Anthologies,” by his colleagues. His most“ ,תתתתתתת

famous work in this regard was the תתתת תתתתת, Otzer Yisrael, the

first Jewish-American encyclopedia, but each serves as a תתתת

significant collection of Jewish text, practice, and literary

works which were largely self-published. He also served as a

major contributor to the 1906 Jewish encyclopedia, a premier

scholarly compendium in the field of Jewish studies. Despite

1 Eisenstein, American Jewish Archive (AJA) interview, q. 20


having accomplished such greatness, we are left wondering where

such a man came from and what influenced his writings. In

researching this paper, I have been able to grasp a sense of the

personality of Eisenstein and hope to present a window into the

life and mind that produced a wealth of Judaic scholarship. This

will be done through a brief presentation of the author’s

biography as well as a discussion on the literary efforts of

select works, primarily those in English.

J.D. Eisenstein was born November 12, 1854 in Międzyrzec

(Mezeritch) Podlaski, a city in Biała Podlaska County, Lublin

Voivodeship, Congress Poland.2 There he had an education that

amounted to attending a small elementary school which focused in

teaching Hebrew and the Bible. At the age of ten, he began to

study with his grandfather, Aziel Selig, who taught him how to

learn the Mishnah and Talmud along with a strong focus on the

commentary of Isaac ben Jacob Alfasi ha-Cohen, also known as the

“Rif.” The arrival of J.D Eisenstein’s grandfather in his home

town of Mezeritch coincided with the departure of his father, Zev

Wolf, for America in 1864 where Zev wound up in San Francisco.

2 Ibid, pg. 1


Once J.D. had reached the age of fifteen, he reports that he

became autodidactic in both secular and sacred literature,

utilizing Mendolsohn’s German Bible translation as a springboard

to accelerating his consumption of Germanic books. It was then

that his fondness for Hebrew seems to have grown as he began

writing letters in the Hebrew language to friends as a hobby as

well as studying any Hebrew works he could get ahold of. On July

15th 1872, Eisenstein immigrated to America with his entire

family and they were reunited with his father in New York. His

father had been working for eight years peddling small garments,

though he had made a business venture when he attempted to enter

the diamond business, going so far as to visit South Africa, but

without success. Eisenstein, along with his sister Hannah, spent

a few years assisting his father by peddling five cent

handkerchiefs before marrying Rebecca Cohen on August 13th, 1874.

Making use of four hundred of a promised one thousand dollar

dowry, Eisenstein opened up a textile firm with his sister under

the name Eisenstein and Rogen, her husband Nathan’s family name.

The profits from this business allowed Eisenstein the opportunity

to finally pursue his latent drive to become a scholar.


By 1885, Eisenstein’s business had become successful enough

to allow him to retire from the textile business at the age of

thirty one.3 Free to devote himself to literature, it was not

long before he began publishing significant works. Eisenstein’s

first Hebrew book, Psukey de Zimra: The Classified Psalter was published in

1899, but he was already an established author for over two

decades. At a young age, he had contributed articles to Hebrew

newspapers, Hazefirah in Warsaw, Hamelitz in St. Petersburg and

the New York Periodical Ner ha-Ma'arabi, Eisenstein also wrote

Yiddish articles in the weekly “Die New Yorker Jüdische Zeitung,”

a Hungarian-Yiddish paper founded by Rabbi Morris (Moshe)

Wechsler in 1885.4 One article that he wrote in 1886 was titled

the "The Foundation of the New Seminary." This article is a

bifurcated discussion prompted by the founding of the Jewish

Theological Seminary (JTS) earlier that year. The first section,

which is the majority of the article, presents the state of

sectarian Judaism in America. Needless to say, Eisenstein is a

staunch traditionalist. He does not take a positive view of

3 Ibid, pg. 24 Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 9 pg. 632, Rabbi Wechsler took the name of an earlier paper which was only published briefly in 1872 by K. H. Sarasohn whichwas a German paper in Hebrew characters. Wechsler’s paper ran until 1889.

http://kevarim.com/rabbi-moshe-wechsler/


either Reform Judaism nor towards Conservative Judaism,

preferring to sing the praises of the path laid down by

Orthodoxy. The Orthodox practice is viewed by Eisenstein as being

driven by two aspects: Faith and authority. Showing this,

Eisenstein relates the following story:

I remember once that the cantor begun to sing “AvHarachamim” in a loud voice on a Sabbath on which it isnot sung. He was making a mistake. The Rabbi whowas praying there also forgot. And suddenly a shrillvoice, the voice of a twelve year old boy, was heardfrom the far side of the synagogue. A staff in hishand, he called out and warned the cantor that he muststop. He proceeded to show the law in his prayerbookthat “Av Harachamim” is not sung on that Sabbath. For amoment silence reigned, then everyone shook his head,and the cantor did not finish singing.5

This “proof of [the Shulchan Aruch’s] supremacy” is understood

as a depiction of the laws of the Shulchan Aruch (as were certainly

referenced within the prayerbook) imbuing such authority that

allows even a child able to overcome Rabbis and other

authorities. It enables the most unlearned to guard the tradition

and emphasizes the greater faith placed in the text themselves

than in others. This understanding of the functionality of

Orthodoxy presents us with Eisenstein’s own reason that he so

5 Eisenstein, Foundation, ppg. 3-4


strongly maintains a traditionalist position. As is shown in his

later works, Eisenstein firmly believes in the supremacy of

Biblical and Rabbinic texts. Authority figures are useful so long

as they do not stray from the texts themselves, regardless if

they are rabbis, scientists, astronomers or academic bible

critics. Eisenstein is clearly empowered by his texts.

Further in the article, Eisenstein sums up his view of

Reform Jews as “…call[ing] themselves Jews only because the world

in not yet cosmopolitan enough to discern the irrelevance of a

man’s origin or place of birth,”6 an apt description of the

Pittsburgh platform’s zeitgeist. When it comes to the

Conservative movement, Eisenstein believes they have more

redeeming features. He views them as the middle ground,

attempting to balance tradition with innovation. Despite this, he

deems them equivocating hypocrites whom are “neither wild nor

domesticated.”7 He feels that “the Torah of the conservatives is

that one observes the religion of Israel only in the house of

prayer, but when he goes out from there he is free from all the

6 Ibid, pg. 47 Ibid, pg. 2


commandments of the law.”8 Interestingly, many of the complaints

Eisenstein levies against these movements could just as easily

have been written in modern times. His mindset would not seem out

of place if written as an article found on the website of more

aggressive fundamentalist Jewish writers.9 The second section of

the article is focused on the founding of JTS and uses the

opportunity to compare this with the founding of Hebrew Union

College a decade earlier. He urges JTS to take a more traditional

approach to the education of their Rabbis, with the warning that

not heeding his advice will lead them down the same path as the

“radicals,” as he refers to the Reform sect, resulting in a

redundant and superfluous institution.10

Eisenstein’s first independent publication was a translation

of the constitution of the United States in 1891. This

translation was the first to put the document into both the

Hebrew and Yiddish languages. The introduction to this

8 Ibid, pg. 79 See Avi Shafran, “The Conservative Lie” Moment Magazine, February 2001for a modern example.10 Perhaps ironically, the suggestion was made both by Conservative and Reformleaders that Conservative Judaism as a whole has become too similar. See Jennifer Siegel, “Conservative Rabbi, in Swan Song, Warns Against Liberal Shift” The Jewish Daily Forward March 24, 2006 and Joe Berkofsky “Reform Leader’s Swipe Sparks Angry Rebuttals from Conservatives” Jewish Telegraph Agency March 3, 2004.

http://www.jta.org/2004/03/03/archive/reform-leaders-swipe-sparks-angry-rebuttals-from-conservatives

http://www.jta.org/2004/03/03/archive/reform-leaders-swipe-sparks-angry-rebuttals-from-conservatives

http://forward.com/articles/6796/conservative-rabbi-in-swan-song-warns-against-li/

http://forward.com/articles/6796/conservative-rabbi-in-swan-song-warns-against-li/

http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/features/ConLie.cfm


translation provides us with an insight to Eisenstein’s sense of

loyalty toward his new country:

The translation... is intended to benefit the Russo-Jewish class of immigrants... His native country isruled by an absolutistic autocrat who, moreover,deprives his Jewish subjects of their most naturalrights... He should, therefore, as soon as possibleacquire a perfect knowledge of the principles whichunderlie our government [and] the rights and duties ofcitizenship… The idea of democratic government shouldbe brought home to him to quicken his loyalty and hislaw-abiding spirit, and to inspire him with admirationfor, and love of, his adopted country.11

Eisenstein’s feelings about his former Eastern European home

can be summed up as hostile to a place that so heavily persecuted

the Jews. At an early age, Eisenstein experienced a sampling of

the sort of anti-Semitism that existed then which strongly

influenced his view of this home country. When he was five years

old, Eisenstein went to local drug store to fetch some medicine,

having been sent on the errand by his mother. Upon entering, the

clerk commanded him to remove his cap and he obeyed out of

fright. On his way home from the store, an officer took notice of

him and cut off one of his payot, side locks.12 For comparison,

Eisenstein claimed to have never experienced any mistreatment11 Eisenstein, The Constitution of the United States, Translator’s introduction12 AJA interview, q. 30, first paragraph


worth mentioning in America.13 The acceptance that he found in

America drove him to express positive and patriotic feelings

towards what he now viewed as his country. The introduction also

highlights his desire to help promote his fellow immigrant Jews

to a higher station. Though his publishing seems to have been

encouraged by what he saw as the need to improve the quality of

life for his Hebrew educated peers, this desire influenced the

reasons behind his later works in which he specifically sought to

enable the English only reading public to be also be able to

engage and respond to counter-traditional scholarship.14

However, while the majority of Eisenstein’s work was done in

Hebrew for the benefit of the more traditional population, there

were several works in which he sought to reach out to the greater

world of scholarship. This necessitated writing in English. He

began contributing to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, providing

them with one hundred and fifty nine entries ranging the spectrum

of Jewish studies.15 This included such entries as those on

Suspended Letters16 (superscript letters found in the Hebrew13 AJA interview, q. 2814 Eisenstein’s Commentary on the Torah (Commentary), Forward by Ira Eisenstein, pg. vii15 Commentary, pg. viii16 Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 11 pg. 603


Bible), Halukkah17 (the division of funds for Jews living in the

Holy Land), and the Menorah18. Perhaps innocently, he contributed

an entry on his home town of Mezeritch19 in which he provides

data that was likely based on firsthand knowledge. This includes

valuable statistics of the era, a recounting of the town’s rabbis

and even informing us that there is a congregation in New York

comprised of expatriated Mezeritch natives at which Eisenstein

likely prayed. Many articles not written by Eisenstein also made

use of earlier research he had done in Hebrew, underlining the

impact of his work on scholarship at the time, and merited his

own entry.20

Eisenstein’s opinion of the encyclopedia was positive, but

given his traditionalist inclinations, understandably mixed. He

approved of the encyclopedia’s treatment of Midrash, but felt

that many of the legal articles suffered from significant

flaws.21 This ended up as a set of correspondence in which

Eisenstein submits his lengthy list of complaints to the American

Hebrew spanning thirteen pages, and this was only regarding the17 Ibid, V.6 pg. 17918 Ibid, V.8 pg. 49319 Ibid, V.8 pg. 58120 Ibid, V.5 pg. 8421 Eisenstein’s Critical Review, ppg. 1-13


first volume. This list was called a “bulky manuscript,” as the

review would be referred to by Lewis N. Dembitz (attorney), a

fellow contributor to the encyclopedia with which Eisenstein took

issue. Dembitz was not the only one to earn his wrath, however.

Eisenstein also had criticisms for the articles of Moses

Mielziner (Rabbi and PhD Prof Talmudic Literature at Hebrew Union

College), David Werner Amram (Attorney), Max Leopold Margolis

(Rabbi and PhD Professor of Semitic Languages at the University

of California) but primarily with Samuel Mendelsohn (Rabbi with

an honorary doctorate of law from the University of North

Carolina) and Dembitz. The latter two felt the need to respond to

Eisenstein’s accusations, though their defensive arguments rely

primarily on technical considerations.22

A significant number of JDE’s complaints are questions of

encyclopedia’s quality. For the purposes of this paper, the most

significant characteristic of the critical review is that

Eisenstein attacks what he perceives to be an ignorance and

willful misreading and misrepresentation of rabbinic scholarship

in the Jewish Encyclopedia. He views the legal articles of the

22 Ibid, see Dembitz’s first response on ppg. 14-15


mentioned Reform rabbis, lawyers and professors as unqualified or

insufficiently familiar with rabbinic literature and wonders why

such a person could not have been utilized.23 He enumerates

eleven issues in particular with the Jewish Encyclopedia, with

the non-technical complaints presenting more useful insight:

... (8) Comments that a certain ruling in Talmudis not good law without consulting the usualcommentaries which give good legal reasons for it. (9)Remarks about obscurity in the Mishna and of theGemara's commenting as "too scanty to elucidate it,"whereas the subject is perfectly clear and intelligibleto the average Talmudic scholar. (10) Failure to bringout all the points of the law, and state the exceptionsand modifications of the latest authorities...24

Each point unmistakably shows Eisenstein’s apologetic and

traditionalist stance. Number eight and ten are similar in that

they both call for a heavier reliance on the understanding of the

commentators and less of an analysis of the Mishnaic and Talmudic

texts themselves. This could also be viewed as a struggle between

two competing schools of thought when constructing an

encyclopedia of Judaism. Eisenstein would prefer to see Jewish

law as a living breathing entity, where later commentators do

have a role, while the approach of the wissenschaft des Judentums type

23 Ibid, pg. 1724 Ibid, ppg. 12-13


scholars, in the manner of Graetz and Zunz, preferred a critical

historical method that had a tendency to present aspects of

Judaism as an outdated relic. Point nine, however, is simply a

disguised ad hominem, accusing the other scholars of lacking the

proper training to recognize that which is obvious to Eisenstein.

It would not be until 1937 that Eisenstein would publish his

next English work: The Tales of Rabbah Bar Bar Hana. This short book is

a collection of the aggadata of Rabbah Bar Bar Hana. Eisenstein

felt the need to compile this anthology due to a lack of

awareness of the fantastical tales as well as a dearth in the

comprehension of their meaning.25 To solve this problem, he

offers a collection of stories along with a complete set of tools

for comprehension. He provides us with the following categories

to highlight storytelling archetypes from rabbinic literature

that are found in Bar Bar Hana’s stories: Language by Gesture,

the Language of Pantomime and the Metaphor. A glossary is given

providing a breakdown of terminology for similes and styles. He

also makes available the original Aramaic, a Hebrew translation,

and an English translation. These are finally followed by his own

25 Tales, pg. 4


commentary where he does his best to explain the story using his

categories as well as background information found in history,

bible and, on occasion, other rabbinic texts. On the whole, the

work is not especially scholarly, but is typical of Eisenstein’s

style of categorizing information, similar to the ways in which

his many Hebrew anthologies were written.

The final and most interesting English work was published

after Eisenstein’s death at the age of one hundred and one on May

17, 1956.26 The work was a response to the biblical criticism

that he strongly opposed; a refutation that was eventually titled

“Eisenstein’s Commentary on the Torah: A Defense of the

Traditional Jewish Viewpoint.” It was in preparatory stages from

1947 until 1952 and until his death, he worked on the

manuscript.27 This was despite failing health which prevented him

from holding a pen. Knowing he would be unable to finish this

opus in English, he left specific instructions in his will for

the book to be published. To fulfill this instruction,

Eisenstein’s grandson Ira Eisenstein (Rabbi and a founder of

26 “Judah Eisenstein, Jewish Author, Dies in New York; Was 101” Jewish Telegraph Agency, May 18, 195627 Commentary, ppg. viii-ix

http://www.jta.org/1956/05/18/archive/judah-eisenstein-jewish-author-dies-in-new-york-was-101


Reconstructionist Judaism) served as editor alongside Bernard

David Perlow (Rabbi, Loop Synagogue). Neither seems to have been

particularly enthusiastic about the contents, given that they

prefer a more modern and critical perspective. Ira Eisenstein

considered it the work of “a generation, fast disappearing, which

rejected modern historical criticism and relied entirely upon the

Talmud, the Midrashim and the Commentators for an authentic

interpretation of the Tanakh.”28 Perlow’s opinion is more muted,

being more traditional himself as well as the Rabbi of a

traditionalist synagogue, and considered the book a “valuable

contribution to Jewish apologetics,” and “a noteworthy

presentation of the traditional viewpoint.” Regardless, together

they completed the editorial work and it was finally published in

1960, serving as the largest and final window into Eisenstein’s

feelings regarding biblical criticism and its proponents.

Eisenstein’s “commentary” was written as a rejection of the

system of biblical criticism as it existed up through the 1950s.

The subtitle makes it clear that it is a “Defense of the

Traditional Jewish Viewpoint” and, as Ira Eisenstein and Perlow

28 Ibid, vii


warn us, Eisenstein comes off as a very staunch traditionalist

while discussing very non-traditional questions that assault the

text. In particular, he views most bible critics as woefully

ignorant or likely anti-semites in their lack of comprehension

and “intentional” misreading of the bible and Jewish texts.29

However, being more of an intellectually honest character, he

doesn’t entirely reject non-traditional questions outright but

prefers to analyze the opposing positions carefully. As a result,

the book as a whole actually does offer a number of legitimate

responses to the scholarly criticism of that era, though some of

them depend on outdated evidence and lack the hindsight of modern

archaeology. His biggest flaw of course is how he believes that

the answer to all problems can be found in Jewish tradition

itself and that the only explanation for biblical criticism is a

“paucity of knowledge of Hebrew which resulted in mistaken

interpretations of the text.”30

In the introduction there are five sections, of which the

initial ten pages of the introduction are ad-hominem attacks,

arguments from authority and other fallacious arguments. The

29 Ibid, ppg. xvii, 1-230 Ibid, pg. 2


first section is devoted to the non-Jewish critics. He attempts

to create a history of the origins of biblical criticism by

citing major figures which range from antiquity to modern,

starting with the Roman philosopher Celcus and ending with Karl

Ploetz. Eisenstein makes his prejudice against them unambiguous:

“The criticism of some German writers is motivated by prejudice

against the Jews and their literature. Other scholars who follow

the German method are influence by the belief that the New

Testament will gain by the weakness revealed in the Hebrew

Bible.”31 Eisenstein here shows that he sees non-Jewish

scholarship as coming from anti-Semitic trends that only want to

degrade the Jews, either for their own sake or to increase the

status of their own religion.

The second section follows a similar style to the first in

that he traces a short history of Jewish authorities that

questioned the dependability of the Biblical text. Notably, he

quotes figures such as Ibn Ezra, Baruch Spinoza, and Abraham

Geiger, but groups them all into one to form a straw man of

supposedly aimless differences of opinion, “proving” their lack

31 Ibid, pg. 7


of scholarship or integrity. Not satisfied with this, he views

them as self-hating Jews, playing Uncle Tom for the Gentile

critics they seek to emulate.

In the third section, Eisenstein establishes his priorities

by openly placing great faith in the authority of the rabbis over

that of modern scholars:

The Rabbis of the Talmud, who lived in the earlycenturies of the common era and devoted their lives tothe study of the Hebrew Bible, are certainly morequalified to judge the authenticity of the Bible ingeneral and the Torah, upon which the details of theJewish faith and practices are based, in particular.The Rabbis scrutinized every question raised byapparent variants, contradictions, misplacements, oranachronisms, and introduced certain rules by whichthese discrepancies might be solved and explained.32

In other words, Eisenstein is making an argument from

authority. It also assumes a certain amount of intellectual

honesty on the part of the rabbis, that if they had found an

unsolvable problem, they would have declared the inauthenticity

of the Torah. Or as he already summarized in his forward to the

book, “the Rabbis of the Talmud and Midrash did not oppose an

honest search into the composition of the books of the Bible and

their textual formation. No later scholar ever scrutinized with32 Ibid, pg. 13


such minute application and critical care each letter of the text

as did these Rabbis.”33 As the book is focused on answering Bible

critics, he (intentionally?) misses the opportunity to analyze

whether the rabbis are really begging the question (petitio principii)

when discussing the authenticity of the Torah tradition, and

instead falls into that trap himself.

The fourth and fifth sections focus on the history and issue

with translations. Their purpose here is to establish the

superiority of the “original” (Masoretic) Hebrew text over the

various translations that have come into existence. Beyond

explaining the Masoretic text as, “the text established by Hebrew

scholars, known as the Masoretes, who concluded their labors not

later than the 15th century,”34 Eisenstein seems to have no

awareness of either the delicate nature of scribal transmission

or the problems and variations that led to the creation of the

Masoretic manuscript in the first place. This fits with his

fundamentalist viewpoint that the Masoretic text is the divinely

preferred version, but one would expect he would have treated

manuscript problems seriously.

33 Ibid, pg. xviii34 Ibid, pg. 1


When it comes to answering away other textual versions,

Eisenstein believes that they are insufficiently distinguishable

from the Masoretic text itself, at least originally: “The fact

that in all early translation we find no variations of any major

importance from the Masoretic text conclusively proves the

authenticity of the Mosaic Torah.”35 Several pages (15-18) are

spent quoting and commenting on the Talmudic legend from Megilah

9a of the fourteen supposedly intentional errors that are

ascribed to the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew text. He

acknowledges that our Septuagintal versions do not contain most

of these errors, save five, but believes this is because the

Talmud has access to an earlier version of the Septuagint that

has since been lost.

As an American Orthodox scholar, Eisenstein would be remiss

to pass up the opportunity to chastise the 1917 translation of

the Jewish Publication society, as he states, “all… translations,

from the Septuagint down to the English translation of the Jewish

Publication Society of America remain faulty,”36 which then

received a treatment similar to his criticism of the legal

35 Ibid, pg. 1836 Ibid, pg. 19


articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Naturally, he does not take

issue with the rabbinically approved Aramaic translation Targum

Onkelos, which he defends as being more of a paraphrase than a

proper translation.

Through the various chapters of the book Eisenstein proceeds

through numerous topics where the scholarship of his time had

raised difficulties, and points out how they can be solved from

answers already in Jewish tradition. One such example from the

first chapter, which discusses the creation story of Genesis,

involves Eisenstein quoting Rashi to explain the creation doublet

with the second chapter providing details regarding the first.37

However, he does not read Genesis as a rejection of all things

scientific. He maintains that the entire creation account is

simply a non-scientific story intended to instill a belief in

God,38 quotes a Midrash to say how the flood was really

localized,39 and even understands the Tower of Babel story to be

a metaphor for how the post flood generation reacted

sociologically.40 Such brief insights do show that Eisenstein is

37 Ibid, ppg. 24-2538 Ibid, pg. 2239 Ibid, pg. 2840 Ibid, pg. 29


not a theological fundamentalist but will retreat to uncommon

understandings of the biblical text where he believes tradition

allows it. Other chapters cover the topics of Legends, Hebrew

Script, Genealogy, Chronology, Authorship and Rituals, each of

which are examined according to the issues of Eisenstein’s day

and primacy given to traditionalism, with some room left for

intellectual analysis where applicable. It is beyond the scope of

this paper to analyze each chapter of Eisenstein’s final book in

detail, but each undoubtedly shows the culmination of the work of

an aged scholar who contributed much to the field of Jewish

studies in America.

Bibliography

Eisenstein, J.D., interview by American Jewish Archives.

Biographical Questionnaire New York, New York, (October 4, 1951).

—. Critical Review of the Legal Articles of the Jewish Encyclopedia. New York, 1901.

—. "The Foundation of the New Seminary." Die New Yorker Jüdische

Zeitung, 1886.


—. Eisenstein's Commentary on the Torah: A Defense of the Traditional Jewish

Viewpoint. Edited by Ira Eisenstein. New York: Pardes

Publishing House, 1960.

Eisenstein, J.D., interview by Abraham Krantz. Interview with

Eisenstein New York, New York, (November 22, 1954).

—. "Letter to Felix Frankfurter." New York, June 28th, 1953.

—. Otzar Dinim u-Minhagim: A Digest of Jewish Laws. New York: Hebrew

Publishing Co., 1917.

—. Otzar Maamare Hazal: A Concordance of quotations, sayings, and phrases from

Talmud and Midrashim. New York: Hebrew Publishing Company,

1922.

—. Otzar Ma'amare Tanakh: A Concordance of Words, Phrases, and Idioms in The Holy

Bible. New York, 1925.

—. Otzar Masa'oth: A Compendium of Jewish Travels. New York, 1926.

—. Otzar Midrashim: A Library of Two Hundred Minor Midrashim. New York, 1915.

—. Otzar Musar U'midoth: A Chrestomathy of Morals and Ethics. New York:

Shulsinger Bros. Linotyping & Publishing Co., 1941.

—. Otzar Perushim we-Ziyurim: A Compendium of Authoritative Commentaries and

Original Illustrations on the Hagada. New York, 1920.

—. Otzar Vikukhim: Polemics and Disputation. New York, 1922.


—. Otzar Yisrael. Edited by J.D. Eisenstein. Vols. 1-10. 10 vols. New

York: Pardes Publishing House, 1906-1913.

—. Otzar Zikhronotai. New York, 1929.

—. Otzer Drashot: Anthology of Jewish Sermons. New York, 1919.

—. Tamzit Shulchan Aruch. New York: Joel Aaronson, 1900.

—. The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence in

English, Hebrew and Jewish-German. New York: J.D. Eisenstein,

1891.

—. The Tales of Rabbah bar-bar Hannah. New York: Behrman's Jewish Book

House, 1937.

Singer, Isidore, and Cyrus Adler. The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York,

New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901-1906.

A Historiography of Julius (J.D.) Eisenstein

Documents

Transcript of A Historiography of Julius (J.D.) Eisenstein