A tallit-and-tefillin-wearing woman in a traditional Conservative synagogue?! An unorthodox—and non-orthodox—perspective on Jews and Judaism from a perpetual misfit. This blog, welcoming the entire Jewish community, is dedicated to those who take Judaism seriously, but not necessarily literally.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Another "misplaced comma" special :)
As the holder of a B.A. in French who spent the last 18 years of her career editing 200+-page documents, I have something of an ear for language--and my "language ear" often conflicts with my musical ear. You're welcome to do a search on this blog for "comma" to read other posts in this "series" and get an idea of what hurts my ear a bit.
Here's a gem that I just spotted on YouTube last spring. These are the words:
Yi'h'yu l'ratzon imrei fi v'hegyon libi l'fanecha HaShem, tzuri v'goali.
Here's a translation:
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to You HaShem, my rock and my redeemer.
It might help if I posted a more literal translation:
May they be acceptable, the words of my heart and the meditation of my heart, before You Hashem, my rock and my redeemer.
Here's the way the baritone soloist sings it:
Yi'h'yu l'ratzon
imrei fi v'hegyon
libi l'fanecha
HaShem, tzuri v'goali.
May they be acceptable,
the words of my heart and the meditation of
my heart, before You
Hashem, my rock and my redeemer.
Yes, "l'ratzon" and "v'hegyon" rhyme, but it still sounds a bit weird, doesn't it?
The #MeToo movement has a problem: People are only discussing part of the reason for the delayed revelations of sexual harassment.
It's not just that many women were afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs.
It's also that it's hard to report a problem that doesn't have a name.
Some 40 years ago, when I was being sexually harassed on a regular basis by a co-worker, not only was sexual harassment not a crime, but, in addition, the term "sexual harassment" didn't exist yet. How could I accuse someone of a nameless non-crime?
You can't fight a ghost--you need to be able to name a problem before you can protest against it.
Perception can affect language
I'd like reconsider my recent post, Don't call me a girl.
Why is it considered an insult to call a grown Black man a boy, while it's considered a compliment to call a grown woman, no matter how old, a girl?
In the bad old days, Black adults were rarely treated as adults.Consequently, calling a grown Black man a boy is considered racist.
But our current culture seems to think that every woman is supposed to stay young until her dying day. Consequently, calling an older woman--which, in this culture, could conceivably be any woman over 30--a girl serves to reassure her that she's living up to the myth.
I have no interest in the eternal-youth myth. I'm perfectly happy to be 68--it sure beats the alternative. Related: Discrimination is discrimination
Will the real # please stand up and explain itself?
Until about 20 years ago, the only meaning of which I was aware for the symbol "#" was "number." I took tests using a #2 pencil, and yelled "We're #1!" at sporting events.
More recently, as electronic and other technical devices became commonplace, I learned that "#" was also called the "pound" sign. What the heck is that supposed to mean? Does # refer to the British pound sterling? Is # something that one does to a nail with a hammer?
In its most popular current (re)incarnation, the # sign has become a "hashtag." I've made a hash of things by making a mistake or getting something mixed up. Where does the "tag" part come in? Alternatively, can you make a hashtag on the stove, as you can with hash browns and corned beef hash?
I don't use Twitter and have mostly managed to avoid getting hooked on Facebook, but I guess a little education can't hurt. Here's The Beginner's Guide to the Hashtag.
And here's one explanation for the origin of the hashtag that answers some of my questions:
"Typewriters made in the UK had the monetary symbol for pound (£) sharing the same key as the number 3. If you look at your modern day keyboard, you will see that our friend the hashtag also shares a key as the number 3. Coincidence?" . . . "As I mentioned before, a pound in the UK means something different than a pound in the United States. So if the symbol for pound in the UK is £, then what did they call #? They called it a hash."
Can I get scrambled eggs with that?
I have a B.A. in French and I edit 200-page documents for a living. So, of course, talking about language(s) is one of my pet interests. Let me see whether I can link some of my language discussions under a new label:
That still happens to me occasionally, even though I'm 68 years old. And my response is always the same: "Any female who's old enough to vote is not a girl."
I'm as vain as any other human being. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand why some women express their vanity by allowing themselves, or even preferring, to be labeled as children, rather than admitting that they're no longer Sweet 16. Imagine what would happen if an employer called a 68-year-old black man a boy--they'd be sued for discrimination faster than you can say "Jim Crow." How can one infantilizing term be considered an insult, and the other a compliment?
I recommend that you click on The Rachel Maddow Show --sorry, but I can't figure out how to link to an individual episode--and check out this video:
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 1/12/18
White House
mired in crisis as Russian hackers target U.S. Senate
A White House that
can’t even organize a conference call[bold and italics mine]is struggling to keep up with the
more-than-daily crises created by Donald Trump, plus, past crises like [sic]
alleged affairs with porn stars, while Russian hackers remain undeterred. Rachel Maddow reports. Duration: 16:42
When many of the people in the Trump government are Cabinet Secretaries, department heads, and other upper-management-level personnel, often new to government, while fewer are experienced administrative staff members, who's going to sweat the small stuff? There's an old joke that some people can't see the forest for the trees. But being unable to see the trees because of the forest is just as much of a problem. It's been my experience that many higher-level staff are quite skilled at determining what should be done, but may not know all of the technical details involved--that's why they have assistants.* But the Trump administration, like Trump himself, can't be bothered with details. Related: A schoolyard fistfight morphs into a full-fledged war?
*As I said here: (Sometimes, the difference between administrator and support staff is that the administrator sees the forest while the support staff sees the trees--the administrator knows what, but doesn't always know how. Some administrators have only a vague idea of what the support staff has to do to complete a project and/or how much effort goes into our work.)
It never occurred to me, even though I was a feminist, to report my co-worker for propositioning me practically every other workday when I was in my mid-twenties. That may seem surprising, but what's even more so is the reason--not only was sexual harassment not illegal some 45 years ago, the concept of sexual harassment did not yet exist. There was no name for what that low-life was doing to me. Being pestered by a heterosexual male co-worker just because one was a woman was considered normal--that was just the price a woman paid for "being employed while female."*
And that's why I support the football players who are kneeling during the U.S. national anthem. Decades ago, segregation was considered normal, too. It should not still be the case that anyone who's not a white Christian U.S.-born heterosexual male who speaks English as his first language is fair game for discrimination in the United States. "Liberty and justice for all" should not be an empty slogan.
As for the notion that kneeling during the national anthem is an insult to our military, what are they defending if not American values such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Aren't our constitutional rights what our troops are defending?
9 They are abundantly satisfied with the fatness of Thy house; and Thou makest them drink of the river of Thy pleasures.
Here, the translation of "deshen" is "fatness." In the Birnbaum siddur (prayerbook), it's "choice food," and, if memory serves me correctly, it's "rich plenty" in the Koren Sacks siddur.
Not for nothin' we've been doing "sacrifice readings" for the past few weeks--doesn't "deshen" actually mean "ashes?" My Hebrew-English dictionary translates "deshen" as "dust," or even, if you'll pardon the expression, "manure." What gives? Why would anyone want to eat HaShem's dust?
Also, check out B'reshit/Genesis, chapter 11, verse 2: Within a single verse, Lot address his guests as--depending on your point of view--my lord or my Lord (again, ignore the incorrect English translation), then switches from the singular to the plural.
Judging by the inconsistent grammar, it would appear that two or more stories were cobbled together to create this parshah/weekly Torah reading.
Here's another goodie to consider: What, exactly does B'reshit/Genesis, chapter 21, verse 6 mean? In this case, I don't think that the grammar is garbled, but rather, that the Hebrew is deliberately ambiguous. After all, G-d has already rebuked Sarah for having had the supposed chutzpah/gall to laugh when she was told she'd have a child at her ridiculously-advanced age. (See chapter 18, verse 13.) I don't think she would have dared to say, straight out, "G-d has made a laughing stock of me, everyone who hears will laugh at me." But, if, as some theorize, Yitzchak was intellect-challenged, and particularly if he had the visible difference in appearance that's common in those with Down's Syndrome, Sarah may, indeed, have thought that someone who'd waited well over a decade to have a child only to bear a baby with an obvious disability would be a victim of communal mockery.
As promised, here are links to some previous Vayera posts of mine, along with some new thoughts:
Parshat Vayera: Something old, something new (Monday, November 09, 2009) New title: "Sarah, abused by men and G-d" "why does Sarah disappear from the text? Where is her reward for having ensured the perpetuation of Avraham's lineage by offering her handmaid as a surrogate mother? Where is her reward for having waited over a decade after the birth of her handmaid's son to have a son of her own? [why is that the only time G-d ever speaks directly to Sarah, it's to yell at her?] Where is her reward for having saved Avraham's life twice--and enriched him in the process--by allowing herself to be passed off as only his sister and not his wife? Her reward is to have G-d, with her husband's cooperation, threaten the life of her only child? My own midrash: No wonder she dies in the next parshah--if this is her reward, why live?"
"What's the big deal about Avraham having served his guests dairy and meat in the same meal? The laws of kashrut couldn't possibly have been binding then because the Torah hadn't been given yet! (In my opinion, the rabbis created unnecessary problems for themselves by articulating the idea that there's no early or late [ein mukdam u-meuchar?] in the Torah.)
Sarah did not lie when she told G-d that she had not laughed--the text says quite clearly that she laughed "b'kirbah," "within herself," which is not the same as laughing out loud."
This year's thought: Look carefully at the Hebrew of B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 18, verse 10. Never mind that the English translation uses an upper-case H--the Hebrew says that "he" said that Sarah would have a son. The Hebrew does not indicate that it was G-d who was speaking. How could she have known that G-d would read her mind?
"It appears that HaShem wasn't so thrilled with the fact that Avraham went along with the Akeidah without protest--afterward, HaShem never spoke to Avraham again. (I don't think that this observation originated with either of us, but I can't remember where I read it.)
Last but not least comes my big gripe of the year: Why is Avraham nicer to strangers than to his own family? He argues repeatedly with G-d not to destroy S'dom and Amorah (Sodom and Gemorah), but says not a word when G-d tells him to sacrifice his son Yitzchak. He shows hospitality to total strangers, yet sends his son Yishmael packing with nothing but bread and water. All HaShem said was "Sh'ma b'kolah," listen to her (Sarah's) voice. HaShem never suggested that Yishmael and his mother Hagar should be sent off into the desert with limited means of short-term survival and no means of long-term support. Judging by the text, Yishmael had to have been over 14 years old at the time of his expulsion. Avraham could have given him a parting gift of, for example, a small flock of goats. Why didn't he?"
This year's thoughts:
I'm not terribly impressed with either Avinu sheh-ba-Shamayim (Our Heavenly Father) or Avraham Avinu (Abraham Our Father) as role models for fatherhood. Yishmael/Ishmael was expelled with no means of survival; Yitzchak/Isaac nearly had his throat slit. Is either "father" serious about creating and preserving the lives of children? Both G-d and Avraham treat both boys as toys, born only to make a point. Let's call a spade a spade, folks--in our day, this kind of treatment would be called child abuse, child endangerment, child abandonment, and/or attempted murder.
Nor am I impressed with either G-d's or Avraham's callous indifference to the suffering of Sarah, who seems to be present only to help Avraham acquire greater wealth and to prove that G-d can perform a miracle and enable a barren woman to become pregnant at any age--if and when G-d jolly well feels like it.
How many b'rachot/blessings are there in the Birkot HaShachar/Morning Blessings, and/or how are they divided, if at all?
I'm working from memory here, so please bear with me. Feel free to correct me in the comments, if corrections are needed. I'm also working from the oldest to the newest of the following siddurim/prayer books, to the best of my recollection.
All references are to Nusach Ashkenaz 'cause, hey, I'm Ashkenazit, and that's what I know. :)
The Birnbaum Siddur starts a new paragraph at "Yehi Ratzon/May it be Your will . . . "
The ArtScroll Siddur notes say that a new paragraph should start before there, at the b'rachah "hamaavir sheinah mei-einai/Who makes sleep pass from my eyes . . .," and proceeds to start one right at that point.
The Koren Sacks Siddur doesn't indicate a clear paragraph break, and seems to treat all of the b'rachot as one big long b'rachah (or b'rachot series), stating that one should stand for the entire "list," a practice that I've never seen (but perhaps that's British minhag/custom).
So who's right?
In typical Jewish fashion, maybe they all are. :)
The ArtScroll version "frames" the final b'rachah, "gomeil chassadim tovim/Who bestows good kindnesses" with an "opening" b'rachah "hamaavir sheinah mei-einai/Who makes sleep pass from my eyes . . .," "
The Koren Sacks ignores the fact that there's a "Yehi Ratzon/May it be Your will" smack dab in the middle of the series. B'rachot are so inconsistent in their structure that there's probably another one like that somewhere else in the siddur that I can't think of, at the moment. :)
Personally, I rather like the Birnbaum's paragraph break. All of the b'rachot preceding "Yehi Ratzon/May it be Your will . . . " are either in the first-person singular ("sheh-lo asani/who did not make me . . . " or sheh-asani/who made me . . .," depending on your haskafah/religious perspective) and/or talk about HaShem in the third person ("Who gives sight to the blind"), ending with "hamaavir sheinah mei-einai/who makes slumber pass from my eyes." Starting with "Yehi ratzon/May it be Your will," however, the rest of the series is entirely in the plural, except for the closing b'rachah, which, just for inconsistency's sake :), goes back to praising HaShem in the third person ("gomeil chassadim tovim l'amo Yisrael/Who bestows good kindnesses on His people Israel.")
On the other hand, one could also argue that Koren Sacks has it right--a third-person b'rachah "asher natan/Who gave" at the very beginning is topped off at the end by another third-person b'rachah "ha-gomeil/Who bestows."
Have fun with this question. Don't worry--I'm not grading. :)
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 update:
I took another good look at the Birkot HaShachar this morning while davvening/praying, and it occurred to me that I'd missed something that should have been obvious--the b'rachah beginning with "Yehi ratzon/may it be Your will . . . " is not only all one b'rachah, it's also not the same kind of b'rachah as the previous ones. To quote Entering Jewish Prayer, by Reuven Hammer, "Blessings are words of praise for what God has done. Prayers are requests for God to help us. Sanctifications are those that hallow the name of God—kiddush ha-sham. Havdalot would be those in which a distinction is drawn between categories such as light and darkness, day and night, the holy and the profane." All the earlier b'rachot are "blessings," but Yehi ratzon is a "prayer." (Some might call this type of b'rachah a "petition."). I'm delighted that I've learned something new.
Praying on autopilot,&other language-maven laments
“It’s no wonder I can’t hear your “mem sofits”—when you turn around and davven (pray) facing the congregation, I can see that you don’t close your mouth.You can’t make an M sound without closing your mouth!You do that all the time—you don’t pronounce all of your sounds.”
[ ¶ ]
“Well, you know it all anyway.”
[ ¶ ]
“Whether or not I know it all is irrelevant—as shaliach tzibbur (representative of the congregation [in prayer]), your responsibility is to recite the prayers for those who don’t know them.If they haven’t heard every word clearly, have they fulfilled their prayer obligation by listening to you pray and saying "Amen" after every b'rachah (blessing)?As a baal tefillah (prayer leader), you have to know not only when to open your mouth, but when to close it, too.”
[ ¶ ]
Okay, okay, I’ll try to enunciate more clearly.”
[ ¶ ]
For the record, this is an ongoing discussion.(Sigh.)He’s so busy worrying about the music that he doesn’t pay sufficient attention to the words.
[ ¶ ]
He’s not the only one.
[ ¶ ]
“Why do you say it this way:
‘V’al kulam, yitbarach v’yitromam,
shimcha malkeinu, l’olam vaed.’
Don’t you pay any attention to what the words mean?Listen!
‘For all of these things, blessed and extolled,
be Your name our Sovereign, forever and ever.’
Why do you break up the phrase by putting a pause there?”
[ ¶ ]
“But that’s the way the nusach (traditional tune) goes!”
[ ¶ ]
“Then fiddle around with the nusach until it matches the meaning of the words.The music should follow the words, not the other way around!When you put a “comma” in the wrong place in a prayer, you sound like an am ha-aretz (Jewishly-ignorant person) who doesn’t understand the words.Not only does that put you in an embarrassing position, it also puts the synagogue in an embarrassing position because of kavod ha-tzibbur (the honor of the community).It’s less than ideal to have an am ha-aretz leading services.”
[ ¶ ]
I can’t help it—I'm a language maven ("maven = expert" in Yiddish, from "mavin," meaning "understand" in Hebrew). As a former foreign language major with a B.A. in French and a few semesters of Spanish under my belt, not to mention a year or two of Hebrew Ulpan, I tend to notice it when people are playing fast and lose with language.
[ ¶ ]
Mind you, my ear for languages has not always stood me in good stead.
[ ¶ ]
Many years ago, a co-worker accused me of being a racist because I’d imitated her West Indian accent.I had to explain to her that race had nothing to do with it—it’s just that, as an ex-foreign language major, imitating accents is what I do.
[ ¶ ]
My all-time winner, though, was the time I was having a conversation with my then-rabbi and didn’t realize, until the conversation was over and I’d walked away, that I’d been “echoing” his British accent right back at him.Oy, how mortifying.I hope he got over being annoyed eventually.
I've gotten a couple of surprises reading translations recently. "Hu asanu, v'lo anachnu" (Psalm 100) is one example. I thought it meant, "He made us, and not we ourselves." But, a few weeks ago, I was reading the translation, and discovered that I was way off base: I hadn't notice that, in this case, "lo" is spelled lamed vav, not lamed alef--it means, "He made us, and we are His . . . "
Then there's a passage from the K'dusha d'Yotzer prayer. Here's the translation from my "baby Birnbaum" siddur/prayer book (the one I have at the office--the cats are away for Pesach, so this mouse is enjoying the rare opportunity to blog during work hours): "Kulam omdim b'rum olam--all of them stand in the heights of the universe--umashmiyim b'yir'ah--and reverently proclaim--yachad b'kol, divrei Kelokim chaim . . .
Say what?
Oh, "kol" with a kuf, not a kaf! So it doesn't mean, as I thought, "all of them together, the words of the living G-d," it means "all of them 'in a voice' (that is, aloud), the words of the living G-d . . ."
I misunderstood that phrase for years! Thanks to the Koren Sacks Siddur's penchant for splitting phrases onto separate lines, with "yachad b'kol" on a separate line from "divrei Kelokim chaim," I finally noticed the spelling, and understood that I'd goofed.
Here are samples of, for lack of a better description, "prayer-section markers" found at the tops of pages, as they appear in the following siddurim (prayer books). All siddurim are Nusach Ashkenaz unless otherwise specified.
Hertz Siddur, 1948
Hebrew page--Tefillat Shacharit l'Shabbat
English page--Sabbath Morning Service
DeSola Poole Siddur According to the Custom of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews (Minhag haS'faradim), 1941
Hebrew page--Shacharit shel Shabbat
English page--Sabbath Morning Prayers
Birnbaum Siddur, 1949
Hebrew page--Shacharit l'Shabbat v'Yom Tov
English page--Morning Service for Sabbath and Festivals
ArtScroll Siddur, 1984
Hebrew page--Shacharit l'Shabbat v'Yom Tov
English page--Shacharis for Sabbath and Festivals
Koren Sacks Siddur, 2009
Hebrew page--Shacharit l'Shabbat v'Yom Tov
English page--Shaharit for Shabbat and Yom Tov
Do you notice a trend here? I certainly do. The "prayer-section markers" in the siddurim that have a first-edition date in the 1940's are all fully translated, whereas those in the newer siddurim are half translated and half transliterated. Is the Orthodox community as a whole really that much better educated now than it was in the forties that they simply take it for granted that every Jew understands all Jewish references and terminology? Heaven help the person who doesn't (yet) know any Hebrew find his/her place in a siddur that's loaded, on the English page, with such so-called translations as Shabbat, Shacharit, and, noch besser (even better), tongue-twisters such as Yom HaAtzmaut.*
As a native English speaker with a B.A. in French, I should know better than to expect logic from languages. Still, since I use the siddur (prayer book) as one of my tools for learning Hebrew vocabulary, I find that the multiple meaning of many milim makes milah mastery, er, challenging. (Sorry, I ran out of m's. :) )
Let me illustrate the problem I have with the siddur's milim (words).
Take the milah (word) "chiktah," for example.
In the early part of the P'sukei D'Zimrah (Verses of Song) section of Shacharit (Morning Service), there are a number of paragraphs/sections (depending on a siddur's layout) of miscellaneous biblical quotes. The paragraph beginning "Hoshiah et amecha (Save Your people)" contains the verse "Nafsheinu chiktah laShem . . .," from Psalm 33. At this place in the Koren Sacks Siddur, it's translated "Our soul longs for the Lord . . ." Yet, on Shabbat (Sabbath) and Yom Tov (Festival), when we read the entire psalm at a later point in P'sukei D'Zimrah, the Koren Sacks Siddur translates the exact same words "Our soul waits for the Lord . . ." There are two different translations for the same verse in the same siddur?! It's a conspiracy to confuse me, I tell ya. :)
Then there's "misgav," found in the first brachah (blessing) before the Sh'ma in the Shacharit l'Chol (Weekday Morning Service).
Here's the way it's laid out in the Koren Sacks Siddur:
"Lord of our strength, Rock of our refuge,
Shield of our salvation, You are our stronghold."
A short pronunciation and grammar lesson is necessary here. First, Ashkenazi Jews pronounce the letter "vet" like a V if it has no dagesh (dot) in the middle, but like a B if it has a dagesh. Second, almost all Hebrew words are built on a three-letter shoresh (root). One of my strengths, when I was in Ulpan Hebrew class a few years ago, was that I could spot a shoresh a mile away, and it's clear to me that "misgabeinu" is just a possessive form of "misgav." It means, "our X," whereas "misgav" means "X." But what's "X"? In one line, "misgav" (misgabeinu) is translated "(our) refuge," and in the very next line, it's translated "stronghold"!
It gets better, folks. In my opinion, the winning entry comes from Maariv l'Shabbat v'Yom Tov (Evening Service for Sabbath and Festival):
"And it is said,
'For the Lord has redeemed Jacob
and rescued him from a power stronger than his own.'
Blessed [is the One], who redeemed Israel."
Holy mismatched milim, Moshe!
1) Is "redeemed" the translation for "fadah" or for "ga'al?"
2) Since "g'alo" is obviously a form of the verb "ga'al," why is "g'alo/ga'al" translated "rescued (him)" in one sentence and "redeemed" in the very next sentence?
3) Does "podeh" (past tense "fadah") mean "redeem(ed)," as it's translated here, or "liberate," as it's translated in the Sabbath and Festival morning Nishmat Kol Chai prayer?
[I realize that the formatting errors are getting quite annoying, but I have no clue how to edit html, so we're stuck with them. Sorry.]
[New paragraph ¶ ]
Yes, I know this is an old story, but I'm still upset about it.
[ ¶ ]
I said:
1) I find it annoying that the Rabbi Yishmael Omer quotation at the end of Birkot HaShachar continues the differentiation of "echad (one)" in verse 9 and "acher (other)" in verse 10, a difference, in Hebrew script, of exactly one letter. I assume that this error resulted from the similarity of appearance between the letters daled and resh, and probably originated with a typesetter of a previous siddur. The same error appears in the 1941 siddur of Sacks' predecessor as Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, Rabbi Hertz. If anything, the manner in which these two verses are laid out in the Koren Sacks Siddur makes it even more obvious that this is an error. As recently as the 1949 Birnbaum Siddur (Ashkenaz) and the 1977 DeSola Pool Siddur According to the Custom of Spanish and Portuguese Jews, the word was correctly spelled "acher" in both verses 9 and 10. When did this obvious typo become so sacrosanct that it can't be corrected?”
. . . With respect to Rabbi Yishmael omer, I’m curious as to why you think that this is a mistake. This would indeed be a grevious mistake and would change the way we learn Torah. Can you please give some evidence basing your theory?
Frankly, I don’t think either of us came up smelling like a rose on this question.My complaint was not phrased respectfully enough.“Annoying” was not the best choice of words.On the other hand, all I said was that there was a spelling error.I certainly didn’t say anything about changing the way we learn Torah!Why did the editor not address my point?It was perfectly obvious to even this am ha-aretz (Jewishly-illiterate person) that the only way to determine the correct spelling of that word was to check the original source and see how Rabbi Yishmael himself had spelled it. Why wasn’t it obvious to the editor?
Concerning the Rabbi Yishmael question, I e-mailed the following to my "G-d Squad" (rabbis and rabbinical students) list:
"Please hold the rotten tomatoes and forgive me for being an am ha-aretz--I really did believe that I was looking at a simple spelling error. But that begs the question: If the Birnbaum and DeSola Pool spell that word one way and the Hertz, ArtScroll, and Koren Sacks spell it another way, it seems to me that *someone* made a spelling error, unless there is more than one version of the Rabbi Yishmael Omer text. Could some kind soul with access to Sifra kindly check the beginning/introduction, where the various siddurim say that this text originates?"
Received by e-mail from Rabbi Gil Student, of the Hirhurim blog (see my blogroll):
Birnbaum made emendations based on conjecture and he was knowledgeable but not a major talmid chacham. However, De Sola Pool's Hebrew was put together by R. Chaim Chavel who was a major talmid chacham.
That notwithstanding, I checked Dr. Seligmann Baer's Siddur Avodas Yisrael -- Dr. Baer was a famous German grammarian from the mid-nineteenth century -- and he has it with the first as echad and the second as acher.
My suspicion is that the standard siddurim had the split but their source, the Sifra, did not (I checked and it doesn't, at least in the Weiss edition). It is possible that both Birnbaum and R. Chavel decided that to change the siddur text to fit the Sifra. Just a speculation on my part.
Gil Student Have you seen my new book? http://www.YasharBooks.com/Posts.html
Gil's last comment was essentially what I was going to reply. Birnbaum explicitly addresses the echad/acher issue in the introduction to his siddur. He refers to it as an error in most siddur editions, which he corrected based on the original source of the beraysa, the first page of the Sifra.
Given the above, how could it be argued that the split version is anything but a copyist's error? Are there editions of the sifra which have it the other way?
As I said in the comments to this post, "Mr. Freeman never responded. I’m quite peeved. I take it for granted that he assumed that an am ha-aretz (Jewishly-illiterate person) couldn’t possibly be correct." Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the final score is Shira Salamone, Am HaAretz--1; Raphael Freeman, Talmid Chacham--0. I may be ignorant, but I'm smart enough to ask an intelligent question--and I expect an intelligent answer.
Targum:A precedent for translation, like it or not
Pardon the usual formatting problems. :(
A few years ago, a former colleague of mine (since retired) told me that her synagogue's new rabbi had insisted, much to her distress, that every single book of any kind that included an English translation be removed from the sanctuary. My response was to say that her shul might as well hang a huge banner over the entrance saying, "Baalei T'shuvah ("returnees" to Orthodox Judaism) and Gerim (converts) not welcome here." :(
Have you read my previous post? Isn't this rabbi aware that there are translations from the Hebrew on the Hebrew pages of a bilingual siddur (prayer book)?
Rabbinic Intern Braham Weinberg shared this information on "The Language of Tefilla":
"While only certain select non-Hebrew prayers were included in the formal liturgy (Kaddish, Kedusha D’Sidra, Brich Shmey, Yekum Purkan, and some sections of the Selichot), the rabbis of the Talmudic and post-Talmudic periods permitted us to recite any of the other prayers in the vernacular as well.The Shulchan Aruch, the Code of Jewish Law, rules that a person may recite any of the prayers including the shma and the amidah in any language that he or she understands (OC 101:4) provided that it is a direct translation of the text of the siddur and not a paraphrase or a personally composed prayer newly invented by the translator (Igrot Moshe OC 4:70).It would even be permissible for an entire congregation that didn’t understand Hebrew to pray together in a different language that they understood more clearly (Mishna Berura 55:1).
[New paragraph ¶ ]
The Chatam Sofer writes that the Shulchan Aruch only permitted a congregation to pray in a language other than Hebrew in order to understand what they are saying on a temporary basis.They would not be able to establish the official language of prayer in that synagogue to be any language other than Hebrew (Chatam Sofer, OC 84 & 86)."
[ ¶]
My guess is that the original precedent for praying in languages other than Hebrew came from the Targum. "To facilitate the study of Tanakh and make its public reading understood, authoritative translations were required. . . . Targum Onkelos was read alternately with the Torah, verse by verse, and Targum Jonathan was read alternately with the selection from Nevi'im (i.e. the Haftarah)."
[ ¶]
If the ancient sages authorized the translation of even the Torah (Five Books of Moses) and the N'vi'im (Prophets) to ensure that they would be understood, what's wrong with providing worshippers with a Hebrew-English siddur and Chumash?
[ ¶]
In addition, this rabbi seems never to have considered the possibility that translations might be an educational tool. He has no idea how much Hebrew I've learned by reading translations of the Tanach (Bible) and siddur.
[ ¶ ]
And he's obviously given no thought to the difficulties of newcomers to prayer, such as baalei t'shuvah and gerim/converts, and to those with learning disabilities. A couple of former fellow congregants (from our Manhattan days) and current Israeli-folk-dancing buddies of ours have a child who's sufficiently dyslexic that s/he can barely read English, much less any other language. Is s/he not allowed to pray?
[ ¶ ]
I don't even know this rabbi, and I dislike him already. :(
This is my last opportunity to post some Chanukah fun before I shut down the computer for Shabbat/Sabbath. Enjoy!
More Chanukah music, courtesy of DovBear Here's Basya Schechter and her group, Pharaoh's Daughter, singing and playing Maoz Tzur.
Making a short story long or a long story short, depending on your point of view
Yesterday, I was too exhausted to get up in time to hop the subway to morning minyan, so I davvened bi-y'chidut (prayed alone) at home. I davvened at my preferred nice slow pace, and included all the parts of P'sukei D'Zimrah that I say on weekdays when I have time. If I include the time it took me to put away my tefillin and tallit, it took me almost an hour and 25 minutes.
Today, my "kaddish minyan" did the entire Chanukah Rosh Chodesh (New Month) service, complete with Hallel, Torah reading, and Musaf (Additional Service) for Rosh Chodesh, in about half that amount of time. It finally "clicked"
To paraphrase a quote from the Haggadah, I am a women of 60, but I never understood why the "Al HaNissim (For the Miracles)" text was placed in that particular place in the Amidah prayer until, well, my Hebrew and my knowledge of the siddur/prayer book were finally up to the task.
Rough translation and summary:
"For the miracles that are daily with us . . . "
"In the days of Matityahu (Mattithias) . . . the evil Greek kingdom stood against Your People Israel. . . And You, in Your great compassion, stood with them in their time of trouble . . . enabling the many to be defeated by the few . . . After that, Your children came . . . to purify Your sanctuary . . . and established a set eight days of Chanukah . . . to laud Your holy name.
For all this, praised and extolled be Your name . . . "
Oh, that's why Al HaNissim is recited right there!
Of course, that should have been obvious from the siddur's translation, but either I'm a slow learner, or I understand some things better when I figure them out for myself, or both. :)
Enjoy Shabbat Chanukah!
I suppose that, just as part one came to you courtesy of my egalitarianism, part two, here, comes courtesy of my background as the holder of a BA in French with a built-in sensitivity to language.*
Anyone who's ever been a baal(at) koreh/leiner/Torah reader, chanting directing from a sefer Torah, knows all too well that Hebrew grammar was not always as stable as it is now, as evidenced by the numerous times that a baal(at) koreh has to read "hee" ("she," or the feminine form of "it") where the word is actually spelled "hu" ("he," or the masculine form of "it") in the text, because the tradition recognizes that "hu" is no longer grammatically correct.
The instability of the grammar in older Hebrew texts is visible in the siddur/prayer book, as well.
For example, there's this prayer, from Birkot HaShachar/Morning Blessings: "U-t'neinu hayom, u-v'chol yom, l'chen u-l'chesed u-l'rachamim b'einecha u-v'einei chol roeinu, v'tigm'leinu chasadim tovim." The usual translation is roughly "And give us this day, and every day, grace, kindness, and compassion in your eyes and in the eyes of all who see us, and bestow upon us good kindnesses."
For openers, the phrase "chasadim tovim, good kindnesses," a term used frequently in Jewish tradition, is interesting in itself. There's such a thing as bad kindnesses?
But what about that other major detail, namely, the repeated use of l' (l'chen u-l'chesed u-l'rachamim? If my limited understanding of Hebrew is correct, l' usually means "to," "for," " of," or "by." The l' is conveniently ignored in the translations that I've seen. Honestly, I was going to deem the l' anachronistic grammar and skip it, and say simply "chen, chesed, v'rachamim" until it occurred to me that the l' opened the possibility of a completely different interpretation: "And give us this day, and every day, for grace, for kindness, and for compassion," actions that we could do, and HaShem, for His part, would bestow "good kindnesses" upon us.
Further along, we get to the weekday "Yotzer Or (Who forms light)" b'rachah/blessing. There, we find the phrase "L'Kel baruch n'imot yiteinu, l'Melech Kel chai v'kayam, z'mirot yomeiru v'tishbachot yashmiyu," which the Koren Sacks Siddur translates "To the blessed God they offer melodies. To the King, living and eternal God, they say psalms and proclaim praises." This time, there's a different problem with l'--it doesn't include "the." The text should read laKel . . . laMelech . . . to the God. . . to the King . . ." The literal translation of the Hebrew as written would be "to (a) God . . . to a King."
Here's another instance of the same grammatical inconsistency, this one occurring just before the Amidah prayer: " . . . l'Melech Kel chai v'chayam . . ." To a King, God who lives and endures?? Nu, last I heard, there's only one King who qualifies as God. The text should be written ". . . laMelech, to the King . . . "
Reversing course, there's an unnecessary "la" in the "Yotzer Or" b'rachah of Shabbat/Sabbath: "Zeh shevach sheh-la-yom ha-sh'vii . . . " This is the praise that is of the seventh day . . . ," which should logically be written "Zeh shevach shel yom ha-sh'vii, This is the praise of the seventh day . . . "
In my opinion, the winner is this beauty (also from the "Yotzer Or" b'rachah of Shabbat, just a few lines farther down): "Shevach y'kar u-g'dulah yitnu l'Kel Melech yotzer kol," which I would translate, as literally as I'm capable of doing, "Praise, precious and great they will give to the G-d, King [___] forms (formed?) all." Say what? No, there isn't a "who" in the original Hebrew--not for nothing I left a blank there! Dikduk/grammar geeks, help me out: How should the Hebrew be written, "haMelech hayotzer et hakol?"
The floor is open, especially to the aforementioned dikduk/grammar geeks. Have fun with the siddur, Haggaddah, and other liturgical texts.
I wouldn't dignity this post with the description "review." For that, I recommend that you read the one by ADDeRabbi, republished here. I'll just say a few words about this new siddur/prayer book. (Okay, when have I ever written just a few words? :) )
As ADDeRabbi/Rabbi Ellie Fischer points out, "Koren characteristically breaks lines up thematically, as in poetic verse. This results in an abundance of white space, but makes the prayers more intelligible. " I do find it easier to follow the prayers because of this arrangement. Sometimes I get lucky, and the English is lined up to match, more or less. At other times, one language flows onto the next page before the other, making it tough for someone not fluent in Hebrew, but that's not unusual for siddurim/prayer books in general. The only thing I miss from the ArtScroll Siddur is the way ArtScroll sometimes goes out of its way, using bold letters or starting new lines, to indicate that a portion of a prayer (Kel Baruch G'dol Deiach, in the first brachah/ blessing preceding the Sh'ma) or a psalm (see Psalm 34, p. 377 in the ArtScroll Siddur Kol Yaakov, Nusach Ashkenaz) was carefully written in alphabetical order. I tend not to notice that, unless it's pointed out to me. The Koren does mention the alphabetical order in the commentaries at the bottom of the page, but it would have been a nice touch to make it obvious in the typeface. Overall, however, I think the Koren Sacks Siddur is easier to read.
Much has also been made of the more female-friendly nature of the Koren Sacks Siddur. (See JOFA endorses Koren Sacks Siddur, especially the ADDeRabbi's comments, not to mention his linked post re the ArtScroll Women's Siddur, for which he has no kind words). I certainly appreciate the fact that the grammatically-correct "modah" ("thank") is given for women reciting prayers that include the masculine "modeh." The simple acknowledgment that women actually use siddurim is already something new (to the best of my knowledge) and commendable.
Rather than enumerate more of the female-friendly points, I'll copy ADDeRabbi/Rabbi Ellie Fischer's comment (see link immediately above), since he's more learn
-->èd and a better writer:
"The Koren Siddur is more inclusive of women both in terms of its content and in terms of its instructions. The content includes the liturgy (imported from the Sephardic rite and increasingly prevalent in Israel) of the “Zeved ha-Bat” celebration upon the birth of a daughter (it appears in the excellent “Life Cycle” section of the siddur). It furthermore includes the thanksgiving prayer recited by a women after childbirth, which includes “Birkat ha-Gomel”. The ArtScroll Siddur makes no mention of this obligation (and the practice is even discouraged in the ArtScroll Women’s Siddur, which follows the minority opinion of the Mishna Berura on this matter without recording dissent). With regard to zimmun, the ArtScroll Siddur applies the practice to “three or more males, aged thirteen or older”. The Koren Siddur, on the other hand, states that “when three or more women say Birkat ha-Mazon with no men present, then substitute “Friends” for Gentlemen”.
I am sorry, though, that Sacks didn't think to rearrange the order of B'fi yesharim. Some siddurim arrange the words in such a way that the third letter of the third word of each phrase spells out the name of the matriach Rivkah (Rebecca), just as the first letter of the second word of each phrases spells out the name of her husband, the patriarch Yitzchak (Isaac). It would have been nice if that prayer had been arranged this way:
*Note that, in Hebrew, the b and v sound are sometimes written with the same letter.
Major gripe: As if the Hoshanot aren't incomprehensible enough already, you had to skip the translation, too?
Minor gripe: The textual variants (page 1237) do not include all of what appear to me to be spelling and/or grammatical errors.
1) I find it annoying that the Rabbi Yishmael Omer quotation at the end of Birkot HaShachar continues the differentiation of "echad (one)" in verse 9 and "acher (other)" in verse 10, a difference, in Hebrew script, of exactly one letter. I assume that this error resulted from the similarity of appearance between the letters daled and resh, and probably originated with a typesetter of a previous siddur. The same error appears in the 1941 siddur of Sacks' predecessor as Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, Rabbi Hertz. If anything, the manner in which these two verses are laid out in the Koren Sacks Siddur makes it even more obvious that this is an error. As recently as the 1949 Birnbaum Siddur (Ashkenaz) and the 1977 DeSola Pool Siddur According to the Custom of Spanish and Portuguese Jews, the word was correctly spelled "acher" in both verses 9 and 10. When did this obvious typo become so sacrosanct that it can't be corrected?
2) What's with the l', la, business? In K'dushah D'Yotzer, the text clearly calls for "laMelech Kel chai v'kayam," not l'--we're talking about The King who lives and endures, not a king. Same with the blessing after the Sh'ma, "b'rachot v'hodaot laMelech, blessings and thanksgivings to The King." These errors (and probably a few more that I've missed) are found in most siddurim, but I was rather hoping that Sacks would correct them.
Some have also complained that the Koren Sacks Siddur does not include the entire Sefer Tehillim/Book of Psalms, which is included in many other Orthodox siddurim. That would have been nice, but the drawback would have been a much longer and heavier book. What's your opinion?
Okay, enough nitpicking.
I strongly recommend Rabbi Sack's very informative introduction, which I'll have to reread--I began writing this post on June 8, and, having sat shiva for my late mother (deceased/niftar June 12) in the interim, have forgotten what I wanted to say about it.
Bottom line: Nitpicking to the contrary notwithstanding (independent soul that I am, I ignore anything I dislike in any siddur anyway and "correct" it to my preference), I find the Koren Sacks Siddur outstanding in both lay-out (readability) and content, and strongly recommend it to anyone seeking a first-time or new Orthodox siddur.
June 23, 2009 update
Here are some major kudos than I neglected to mention:
1) The lay-out of Hallel makes it very easy to read. The lines that are supposed to be repeated, starting with "Od'cha ki anatani," are printed first in "regular" size, then, directly underneath the first reading, in smaller script. The Birnbaum's "Each line is repeated twice," with the verses laid out on successive lines, isn't hard to follow, but the ArtScroll Kol Yaakov Ashkenaz's "Each of the following four verses is recited twice," with the verses laid out with nothing but commas in between, is a real pain. I've davvened (prayed) Hallel from all three of these siddurim, and the Hallel in the Koren Sacks is the easiest to follow, by a long shot.
2) The clear differentiation in print between the kamatz katan ('oh' sound) and the kamatz gadol ('ah' sound, in S'fardi pronunciation), and between the sh'vana (pronounced) and the sh'va nach (silent) makes for far greater ease in using the proper pronunciation than even the ArtScroll's differentiation in print. The kamatz katan and the sh'vana are both printed in a larger size. For me, davenning from the Koren Sacks is actually something of a pronunciation lesson, and a very welcome one, indeed.
June 24, 2009 update
I have one small request: In future additions, could the citations/"sidenotes" (printed in the margins, which makes them easier to find, I'm happy to say) include not only the chapter numbers, but the verse numbers, as well? This would make it so much easier for those of us who have a limited Jewish education to track down quotes. Thank you.
Remember this post? I've come across a few more "misplaced commas"--pauses in the music of songs that break up phrases in the lyrics--since then.
Here's a quote from the aforementioned post that might serve as an illustration, not to mention a lead-in, for this one:
"Open your siddur to K'riat HaTorah, the Torah-Reading Service.
This quote (Eicha/The Book of Lamentation, chapter 5, verse 21) is the last thing that we sing at the end of this service before the Aron Kodesh/Holy "Ark" (in which the Torah scrolls are stored) is closed:
"Hashiveinu AdoShem eilecha v'nashuvah"
Three of the tunes that I know for that passage in the Torah Service "break" in that same place.
Again, read the same passage in translation:
"Turn us, HaShem to You and let us return" (Birnbaum Siddur's translation, more or less.)
As with a p'sik in a Torah reading, you have to stop there in the song."
On to the new--While we're on the subject of the songs sung during Hotzaat haTorah, the Torah Service (the "taking out" of the Torah), let's try this one from the beginning of that section:
"Ki v'cha l'vad batachnu"
For in You alone do we trust
Given the meaning of the words, that's an odd place for a "break" in the music.
But then again, as I said, when it comes to words, "language" people like me (BA in French) listen for meaning, whereas songwriters listen for sound.
Then there's the interesting "break" in the first paragraph of Birkat haMazon, the Grace After Meals. Check this out:
baavur sh'mo hagadol, ki hu Kel zan u-m'farneis lakol . . ."
Attempting my own translation:
" . . . and in His great goodness, never has He deprived us and never will He deprive us of food for the sake of His great name, For He is the G-d who feeds and sustains all . . . "
Okay, I tipped my hand by capitalizing the word "For": Folks, once you put a "ki" in there, it's a given that you've started a new sentence or phrase. Clearly, "baavur sh'mo hagadol, for the sake of His great name" belongs with the previous sentence.
One of my all-time favorites for "breaks"--though this is a question of punctuation, not of music--is the second part of the prayer "Baruch Sheh-Amar, Praised is the One who spoke." Here's a classic case of "two Jews, three opinions"--the "breaks" fall all over the place.
Open in front of me are the following siddurim/prayer books:
ArtScroll Siddur Kol Yaakov Nusach Ashkenaz (copyright 1984 and 1990)--Orthodox
Siddur Sim Shalom (1985 edition)--Conservative
I'm going to copy some of the words (with the ArtScroll translation, more or less, that being the most contemporary and, I hope, accurate of the four), showing you which punctuation is used in each book.
". . . m'shubach u-m'foar bil'shon chassidav va-avadav
. . . praised and glorified by the tongue of his devout ones and his servants
[ends with a comma in ArtScroll, Hertz; ends with a period in Birnbaum, Sim Shalom]
u-v'shirei David avdecha
and in the songs of David Your servant
(period in ArtScroll; comma in Hertz, Birnbaum; no punctuation in Sim Shalom]
N'halelcha HaShem Elokeinu bi-sh'vachot u-vi-z'mirot
We will laud You, HaShem/Lord our G-d in praises and songs . . .
We have here two different variations on the meaning of the words:
1) . . . .praised and glorified by the tongue of his devout ones and his servants, and in the songs of David Your servant. We will laud You, HaShem/Lord our G-d, in praises and songs . . .
2) . . . praised and glorified by the tongue of his devout ones and his servants. And in the songs of David Your servant we will laud You, HaShem/Lord our G-d. In praises and songs . . .
[Tangent: I was startled to see that Psalm 30, Mizmor, Shir Chanukat HaBayit, L'David, A Psalm, A Song for the Dedication of the House (Holy Temple), by/of/for/to (depending on your translation and/or belief) (King) David, does not appear at all in the Hertz Siddur between the Rabbi Yishmael quote from the Gemara and the prayer Baruch ShehAmar. I was even more startled to see that, according to Hertz--Rabbi Joseph Hertz was the late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire--the tallit and tefillin were to be put on just before Baruch ShehAmar. I also just noticed that, according to the ArtScroll's editors, one puts on a tallit and tefillin before even going to synagogue--Ma Tovu, recited upon entering the synagogue, appears later in this siddur. I am totally unacquainted with either of those minhagim/customs. In every synagogue that I've ever attended, tallit and tefillin were/are put on immediately upon entering the shul. However, my rabbi tells me that he saw men wearing tallit and tefillin on the way to synagogue in Jerusalem. Perhaps this is minhag Yerushalmi, the (a?) custom of Jerusalem.]
Ahem. Where was I before I so rudely interrupted myself? Oh, yes: Here's where I have fun. Check out the line just before the closing brachah/blessing:
Yachid, chei haolamim, melech m'shubach u-m'foar adei ad sh'mo hagadol.
ArtScroll translation: O Unique One, Life-giver of the worlds, King Whose great Name is eternally praised and glorified.
My translation: Only One, life of the worlds, king praised and glorified, forever is His name the Great One.
Once upon a time, I belonged to a left-wing egalitarian Conservative synagogue, where I was one of a number of women who wore a tallit—and one of the few members who used an Orthodox prayer book (adding the Mothers, of course). Having moved since then, I now belong to a right-wing traditional Conservative synagogue, where I’m almost always the only woman wearing a tallit—and one of the few members who adds the Mothers. I seem destined to be forever . . . on the fringe.
