Volume 47 Number 81
Produced: Fri Apr 29 6:09:40 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Av Harachamim
[Tzvi Klugerman]
Be'safa ve'rura
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Exact text of the prayers
[Akiva Miller]
Ha'Aretz
[Jack Gross]
Kaddish - Earliest Reference
[Yisrael Medad]
LeChaparat Pasha
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/Hageshem
[Ben Katz]
Pronounciation / Siddurs
[David Glasner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Klugerman@...> (Tzvi Klugerman)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:58:43 EDT
Subject: Re: Av Harachamim
The tradition ( and it appears that Leopold Zunz was the first academic
scholar to articulate this "well known fact") is that the Av Harachamim
lamentation was composed after the attacks by Count Emich's band on the
Jewish communties of Speyer, Worms, and Mainz during the first Crusade
in 1096. (Cologne and many other communities were also attacked but it
does not figure into the accepted tradition of the prayer).
The attacks happened well into the month of Iyar and extended into the
month of Sivan. Among the sources recording or alluding to the dates of
the attacks on these communties is the Tisha' b'AV lamentation "Mi Yiten
Roshi Mayim" recited by Ashkenazim.
The Av HArachamim prayer is not said on significant Sabbaths except when
these Sabbaths occur during the time of the original attacks. Av
Harachamim should not be recited on the Shabbat Mevorchim of Iyar as it
is still Nisan and the attacks did not happen in Nisan, and we do not
say Tachanun or eulogize during the month of Nisan. The Av Harachamim
would be recited on the shabbat Mevorchim of Sivan as that is during the
period of the attacks and is after Nisan as well. Such is the reasoning,
I believe, behind the recitation of Av Harachamim on Shabbat Mevorchim
Av.
Tzvi Klugerman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:11:35 +0300
Subject: Re: Be'safa ve'rura
Brian Wiener <brian@...>, on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:07:07 +1000,
stated the following:
At the minimum, if there were any possibility, the format would
have to be'be'safa ve'rura U'NE'IMA. Two adjectives, be'rura and
ne'ima modifying be'safa. 'U'Ve'neima' is a noun. The flow is
continued. In fact - although Mark Steiner would appear not to
agree - if we go back a few lines, we have'kulam pothim et
pihem;..bi'k'dusha u've'tohora, be'shira u've'zimra, etc..We have
two relevant points of reference.
That reminds me of the two versions of Sim Shalom.
Ashkenazim say ". . . torat hayyim, ahavat hessed. . . ." Sefardim say
". . . Torah vahayyim, ahava vahessed."
Each has parallel forms; both are equally poetic.
Whenever I chance upon a new siddur, there are a couple of
points of grammar I look for, this being one of them. I have
noticed that in recent times, those editors who appear to be
striving for great accuracy all have u've'ne'ima kedosha. For
example, A Rosenfeld's Kinot - this includes the siddur, and
is very carefully edited. Also Birnbaum, Rinat Yisrael,
Tehillat Hashem and others.
As I have pointed out, in Rinat Yisrael's two versions for Ashkenazim,
the Nusah Ashkenaz has it one way and the Nusah Sefard has it the other
way. It has been pointed out here that Shelomo Tal kept the ". . .
uvin`ima. Qedusha . . . " because that is what Ashkenazim are more
familiar with. My reaction is that both types of Ashkenazim are more
familiar with this version--both those who pray Nusah Ashkenaz and those
who pray Nusah Sefard. Hence I remains puzzled.
Artscroll, in Kabbalat Shabbat in Ana BeChoach,in thesecond
line, has the following;'kabel rinat, am'cha sag'venu,'.
Quite clearly, the comma should be after am'cha; 'kabel rinat
am'cha, sag'venu' Now, I don't believe anybody would try to
justify this -
I understand that there is some qabbalistic reason for grouping the
words in pairs, regardless of their apparent meaning. I have no source
for this claim at the moment.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:33:37 -0400
Subject: Exact text of the prayers
In the thread "Artscroll Siddur", Eitan Fiorino wrote: <<< It has always
been amazing to me (and a demonstration of the power of printing) that
such changes could be accepted over a short time and could so completely
obliterate a 2000 year (give or take) history of pronounciation. How
long would it take for nusach Ashkenaz to return to the correct Mishaic
formulation if Artscroll switched its vocalization back to the
pre-haskala standard? >>>
I think the solution to the puzzle is indeed "the power of printing".
Prior to the availability of cheap books from the printing press, an
author's works would live or die purely on their merits and popularity.
But now we have another factor: the preferences of the publisher. I
first got this idea from people who said that the popularity of Tosafos
is due to the preferences of the original Gemara publishers, and that
the gedolim of the time had preferred to see the Rosh on each page
instead.
I often say that the laws of economics (Supply And Demand, etc.) are
just as basic to the Creation as physical laws (Gravity, etc.), and show
the Ratzon Hashem just as deeply, no less than Halacha does. For
example, halacha does prescribe some guidelines for who gets preference
for our tzedaka dollars. But ultimately, we can give to whomever we
want.
This means that -- in SOME cases -- the amount a tzedaka receives may be
more dependent on a good public relations campaign than on real
merit. We give to the causes which pull on our heartstrings the
most. For example, I'll donate to research on Disease A instead of
Disease B, because *I* know people who were affected by Disease A,
regardless of which disease is the bigger problem worldwide. Similarly,
if an organization's goals have anything to do with Israeli politics,
that will certainly influence who donates and who doesn't.
These same forces will influence the course of Jewish history: In
borderline cases, a budding posek may be drawn to the Tosafos that he
learned in the beginning, more than the Rosh that he learned later. Who
knows how many halachos we might be following differently today, if an
insightful author a few centuries ago had been more able to publish his
ideas?
Is this a good thing, or is it a bad thing? I don't know. It seems to be
one of HaShem's tools for guiding history. That's not to say that He
always agrees with whichever ideas are in vogue at the moment. Rather
that He allows us to control the popularity of those ideas. If there was
enough of a backlash, we could indeed find -- or design! -- a siddur
that we like more than ArtScroll. And ultimately, I'm sure it will
happen, but I don't know whether it will take 5 years or 50.
Many of us learned of the "Golden Rule" as children, and it was some
formulation or other of doing unto others. But there's another version
which some wag once coined: "The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes
the rules." At first, it sounds awfully cynical, but it certainly seems
to conform with certain minhagim, and I think the current discussion --
of the exact vowelization of certain prayers -- is a great example of
it. The halachic authorities do tell us what they think is proper, but
at the end of the day most of us simply recite what is in the most
popular siddurim, even if that goes against what the rabbis tell us.
(For my pet examples of such disputes, compare the text in most siddurim
for Haneros Halalu to what any posek writes in Shulchan Aruch 676, or
what the siddurim have for the additions to Al Hamichya on Yom Tov vs.
Shulchan Aruch 208, and there are many others. In fact, the main text of
Al Hamichya is subject to some dispute, and when the Mishna Berura
208:50 decides from among the various versions, he gives considerable
weight to "what us written in our siddurim".)
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:14:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Ha'Aretz
Jay F Shachter wrote
>...How does the author of the above quote pronounce the last word of the
>benediction over bread (which is clearly a reference to Psalms 104:14 -- in
>which the pausal form of the word appears -- but not a direct quote of that
>verse)?
When the Heh prefix is attached, Eretz becomes Ha'Aretz (never
Ha'Eretz). Nothing to do with position in the phrase or sentence.
Consider "Me'Al Ha-aretz HaTovah", as a rather familar example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:21:50 +0200
Subject: Kaddish - Earliest Reference
Ben Katz asks:
Question: where is the earliest reference to the kadish yatom?
and answers:
Answer: Mahzor Vitri, from the school of Rashi, and it is only mentioned
once there (not every place in davening we find it today) and it is in
brackets in the standard edition, making some scholars believe it is a
later insertion.
Without making any qualitative judgment, Leon Wieseltier's book Kaddish,
notes (pgs. 28-30) that indeed whereas the Kaddish, in various forms,
was a central prayer in that in facilitated a major congregational
participation in praising G-d's name, its appliction specifically as a
mourner's prayer is problematic.
On pg. 36, though, he quotes from a tract entitled Otiyot d'Rabbi Akiba
at the Ot Zayin that the Kaddish can save a soul from hell. The book
appeared no later than the 8th century, maybe 300 years prior to the
Mahzor Vitry. Although it is actually the Kaddish d'Rabanan, it is
nevertheless connected to the dead. On pg. 42, he recounts the story as
recorded in the Mahzor Vitry of Rabbi Akiba and the naked man carrying
wood for coal in the cemetery and also notes that the tractate Sofrim
has the kaddish being said at the cemetery although not as an ongoing
mourner's kaddish as we know it today.
I strongly recommend reading his study passages there.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:37:00 +0300
Subject: Re: LeChaparat Pasha
Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...> quoted RET as follows, on Tue, 19 Apr
2005 05:58:10 -0700 (PDT):
Elazar Tietz wrote:
"The siddur actually says Cheshvan to Adar II, since the
b'racha is not said on Rosh Hashana."
"However, before our fixed calendar, when the decision was
made each year whether or not to add a month, the Talmud in
Sanhedrin states that the decision could not be made until
after Rosh Hashana. Hence, the addition for the leap year is
not made until then."
There appear to be five minhagim on this subject:
1. To say "ulekhaparat pesha" every Rosh Hodesh, every year.
2. To say "ulekhaparat pesha" every Rosh Hodesh, the whole leap
year.
3. To say "ulekhaparat pesha" every Rosh Hodesh until Rosh Hodesh
Nisan during the leap year.
4. To say "ulekhaparat pesha" only Rosh Hodesh Adar II.
5. Never to say "ulekhaparat pesha."
These minhagim are well established; references to who says what and
where they are documented appear in Lu'ah Davar Be`ito for the first day
of Rosh Hodesh Marheshvan.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:12:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/Hageshem
>From: David Roth <davidyonah@...>
> > Rav Kaminetsy in Emet L'Yaakov on the Chumash (I can't remember the
> > exact location but it is the first time that 'atah' appears with a
> > stress on the first syllable but with a patach, rather than a kamatz
> > under the aleph) argues strongly for the non-pausal geshem, but pausal
> > hatol.
> > His reasoning is that morid hageshem is connected to the next phrases
> > mechalkel chayyim etc, but morid hatol is not.
>
>According to Siddur Ezor Eliyahu, the GR"A said tal with a patach.
>Interestingly, his Nusach was mashiv horuach umorid hatal.
I don't know about the GRA's nusach, but in my opinion the
phrase should be "mashiv haruach umorid hatal" just as the phrase is
"mashiv haruach umorid hagashem". Wind is the same winter or summer.
Just look at tefillat tal and you will see the whole phrase there. the
only reason (some) people only say "umorid hatal" is that old sidurim
were too cheap to reprint any words that were the same, so they would
print "mashiv haeruach umorid hagashem" and under "umorid hagashem"
printed "umorid hatal" and people just started saying "umorid hatal" by
itself.
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:15:21 -0400
Subject: RE: Pronounciation / Siddurs
> From memory, it's an explicit statement in the Mishnah Berurah (I
> don't recall where), who writes that the first two words of the
> kaddish are Hebrew and should be pronounced with a tzere.
To which Ira L. Jacobson added
>This MB 56:2 is based on the Gra's contention in Ma`ase Rav that these
>words are Hebrew, which he bases on "vehisgadilti vehisqadishti," in
>Ezekiel 38:23. I do not have the insight to understand why this is a
>proof that the two parallel words in qaddish must be Hebrew. (After
>all, we have the biblical "ma`ala ma`ala," which gets into the qaddish
>as "le`eyla le`eyla".) But even if they are really Hebrew, both
>pairs--yisgadal veyisqadash, as well as yisgadel veyisqadesh--are
>legitimate Hebrew forms.
I always thought that yisgadel veyisqadesh was a Litvishe thing until I
heard qaddish pronounced that way in a vishnitzer shtibel in B'nei Braq.
When I asked my cousin if therer were Litvaks who were Vishnitzers, he
told me that was how Vishnitz pronounced it and that is the way it is
spelled out in their siddurim.
David Glasner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 81