Back

Mendele
22 April 2005

Words on Fire
by Morrie Feller

Dovid Katz, Words on Fire: The Unfinished Story of Yiddish. New York: Basic Books, 2004. ISBN 0-465-03728-3

I thought that my comments to Prof. Dovid Katz about his very important and timely book might be of some interest to those who are concerned with the present state of Yiddish, and the prospects for its future. With his permission, I am presenting them here.
Morrie Feller
Phoenix

Sholem aleykhem, Prof. Katz! As one who is very interested in the future of Yiddish, and of ways to ensure a long future for Yiddish, I have read and saved pertinent articles about this subject by some of the most prominent observers of the language.

For example, Prof. Ruth Wisse (Harvard) in the New Republic, May 27, 1996, wrote an article entitled "Shule Daze" in which she states: "Language is the expressive instrument of a community that is sufficiently separate to sustain a separate language. Jews could only effect a Yiddish revival today if they were prepared to 'deassimilate' enough to regenerate their own language. Having reaped the benefits of English, they are not likely to conduct this experiment in reverse... The imagined Yiddish revival only seems so benign because it ignores both the requirements and the consequences of linguistic separation."

Then, in its Spring, 1998 issue, the Pakn Treger published your letter in "a bintl briv" with the banner "Fear of a Yiddish Planet." This letter was apparently the nucleus from which "Words on Fire" evolved. It made the argument that Yiddish is perfectly safe in the hands of many Hasidic communities scattered far and wide across the globe. You said: "What a calamity it would be if we gave up on living Yiddish language and literature, either because of trumped-up fears of being called 'Yiddishists' or because we have convinced ourselves that it cannot be done. It can."

In May, 1999, in Mendele Vol. 08.153, there appeared a very long article by Prof. Janet Hadda (UCLA) which was originally published in the Jewish Quarterly. Prof. Hadda, in addition to being a professor of Yiddish, is a practicing psychoanalyst, and she uses her expertise to explain the how and why of mourning over the death of Yiddish. It was after she wrote her Singer biography that she "...finally admitted to myself that I could no longer hope for the continuity of Yiddish."

Also in that same issue of Mendele, Iosif Vaisman, who at that time was the moderator of Mendele, wrote a letter (originally published in the Jewish Quarterly) with the subject: "The Life and Death of Yiddish." This was an extended refutation of Prof. Hadda's argument. The key sentence in his refutation is: "Unfortunately, Professor Hadda is not the only one who does not see the Yiddish-speaking Hasidic communities." Vaisman's final comments are worth quoting: "Most modern scientists consider language and culture as integral parts of a unified semiotic space, which needs all its components for proper functioning. What I do know is that as of today, Yiddish has not exhausted its vital energy and its potential for the future. And we have nothing to gain and a whole lot to lose by prematurely proclaiming it dead."

In this same issue is printed Prof. Hadda's response to Vaisman. In it she proclaims that she is anguished as she contemplates the death of Eastern European Yiddishkeyt and its international offshoots. She also recognizes that the Hasidim will certainly somehow contribute to the future of Yiddish in America, but she questions the quality and efficacy of their Yiddish. Her final words are: "My colleagues and I agree that the thriving pre-World War II Yiddish world has permanently disappeared. And we do not see authentic regeneration. However, although we believe we are facing what seems to be inevitable, we would like nothing better than to be wrong."

Several months ago I read Zachary Sholom Berger's review of "Words on Fire" which appeared in the Jewish Journal. This review was so favorable that I was prompted to buy and read the book. I enjoyed reading the book because in addition to its history of Yiddish, it filled in numerous lacunae in my knowledge of Jewish history.

Your case that the Hasidim will ensure the survival of Yiddish for a long time to come seems to be quite valid, and it is very reassuring. It also counters the argument of Prof. Weiss in that the Hasidim are prepared to deassimilate enough to regenerate their own language. Actually, the Hasidim are merely continuing their daily use of the language, and so there is nothing to regenerate.

I agree with you that all the current efforts which are consciously made to preserve and foster the growth of Yiddish may be inadequate to accomplish his task. However, I think we should not overlook the possibilities which modern technology can create. For example, someone I know said: "A loshn muz hobn a gas." It is my contention that computer technology and the Internet can be the "gas" for Yiddish. Even Hasidim can benefit from the ability to correspond with fellow Hasidim anywhere in the world in real Yiddish via the Internet. Thanks to the efforts of the "mevinim" who conduct UYIP (understanding Yiddish information processing) Web site, this ability to interact is constantly being improved.

The teaching of Yiddish, which you yourself are very much involved with, can be greatly expanded by offering on-line courses. I am disappointed that the NYBC (National Yiddish Book Center) has done nothing to create such a course. The NYBC is planning to put all of Yiddish literature on the Internet, but is doing nothing to create the readers who will read this material.

I believe that the current efforts to preserve Yiddish will result in a long lived Yiddish which is different from that of the Hasidim. What we need now is to find some way to utilize the strengths of each group to create a merger which will be of benefit to all.

Thank you for bringing the question of the survival of Yiddish to the fore again, and for your optimistic views. I think you have done Yiddish a great service with this most excellent book.

Back