Volume 48 Number 42
Produced: Wed Jun 8 4:51:39 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Besamin Rosh/Artscroll
[D. Rabinowitz]
Errors in Siddurim (formerly Artscroll)
[Yisrael Medad]
Kaddish
[Martin Stern]
Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct? (5)
[Yaakov Gorlin, Martin Stern, Gilad J. Gevaryahu, Martin Stern,
Ira L. Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: D. Rabinowitz <rwdnick@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 05:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Besamin Rosh/Artscroll
Paul Shaviv stated that "It is inexplicable to me that the ArtScroll
siddur, p. 758, in its commentary on Simchas Torah, quotes the 'Besamim
Rosh' as a source. 'Besamim Rosh' is one of the most notorious
forgeries in Rabbinic literature, fabricated by R. Shaul Berlin in the
eighteenth century." However, in this instance, Artscroll did nothing
wrong. Mr. Shaviv has confused two books that have the same name.
There was a book published in Berlin 1793 that was titled Besamim Rosh
and was attributed to the Rosh, R. Asher b. Yeheil. There is a question
as to its authenticity.
There was another book also titled Besamim Rosh that is a collection of
laws relating to the Teffilot which appears in the Otzar Teffilot. This
is the work that the Artscroll is referencing.
As a side note, there are many legitimate sources that do quote the
Besamim Rosh. Although many did take issue with it, some people
accepted that it was from the Rosh. Others claim that portions of it are
from the Rosh. Others still, claim that even if it is was not from the
Rosh its contents are fine just not from the time of Rosh (early 14th
century) instead it from the late 18th century.
Dan Rabinowitz
<rwdnick@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:18:16 +0200
Subject: Errors in Siddurim (formerly Artscroll)
Just to prove the point about errors in Siddurim here are from three:
1. In the new Go'el Yisrael siddur for Yom HaAtzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim,
in the Sfard edition, p. 44, the Psalm 122 has a typo. Instead of
"yishlayu", it reads "shlayu".
2. A particularly embarassing one for me is in the Koren Sfard mahzor
for Rosh Hashana, p. 42. The Pslam L'David Mizmor, the 8th verse reads
"mi hu zeh melech", just like in the final verse but it should read "mi
zeh melech". As I once davened here in Shiloh, and was intent upon
reading every word distinctly and correctly, I ended up being corrected
three (!) times before I finally realized what all the commotion was
about and the congregation finally realized that it was not my fault but
the book I had in fromt of me.
3. There's a new Rosh Hashana mahzor out, "Beit Raban", and its page
layout and print font are quite outstanding. Nevertheless, the old folk
wisdom proved correct again, towhit, always buy the second edition. I
found 6 errors or semi-errors including alterations of the same text in
different places!
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:43:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Kaddish
on 3/6/05 11:21 am, Jack Gross <jbgross@...> wrote:
>> Martin Stern wrote (m-j 48#20):
>> "Apart from [kaddish after aleinu], which is part of the seder
>> hatephillah, like chatsi kaddish and kaddish shaleim, and therefore an
>> obligation on the tsibbur as a whole, there is no obligation whatsoever
>> that any other kaddish be said."
>
> In the sense you use, the last Kaddish of "the seder hatephillah" is
> Kaddish Shalem ("titkabel").
I think Jack is not entirely correct since it has been accepted in all
communities for at least the last 700 years to say aleinu at the end of
shacharit. So this kaddish became the last one in the seder hatephillah
and hence acquired the nature of an integral part of it. Sephardim who
do not follow the Rema's opinion that it justifies a kaddish because it
contains pesukim, therefore attach the same importance to the kaddish
after the mizmor they customarily say immediately before it.
The other occasions where a kaddish may be said were introduced in order
for more aveilim to have the opportunity since, according to the
original Ashkenazi custom, only one aveil said each kaddish. Where there
are no aveilim, this reason does not apply and so they may be omitted.
The custom of adding the shir shel yom is, however, relatively recent,
and was anyway said originally after korbanot, before pesukei dezimra
(see Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger's note in his introduction to his edition
of the Customs of Worms by Yuzpe Shamash vol.1 p.16 and the references
he quotes there). As a result, the kaddish after it has not displaced
that after aleinu in importance among Ashkenazim. I suspect that the
custom of shifting it to the end was because some aveilim came too late
to shul missed it when it was so early. In its place the custom, due to
the Arizal, of saying mizmor shir chanukat habayit was later introduced
at that point in many (but not all) communities.
> Seder hatefilla varies widely with era, "eda" and locality -- but
> whatever the shul sets up as its standard practice is obligatory.
Undoubtedly this is true but that does not mean that innumerable extra
kaddeishim should be said where there is no real need, as is the case in
those congregations which have adopted the custom of several aveilim
saying kaddish together.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yaakov Gorlin <ygorlin@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 14:37:16 -0400
Subject: Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct?
I am puzzled by Mark Steiner's claim in his post of 1 June, that a
dagesh would not be placed into the peh of pesax if the preceeding word
is "naturally" mil'el. I believe he is discussing the rule known as
"asei meraxik" which applies when the first word is mil'el, ends in a
kamatz and the next word has the accent on the first (or only) syllable.
As far as I know that rule is the same no matter why the first word has
penultimate stress. I'm not big on rules though, I much prefer
examples: In the passuk directly preceding the one quoted is the phrase
"v'asisa pesax". "V'asisa (despite the fact that it includes a vov
ha-hipukh) is "naturally" mil'el (see e.g. Ber 47:29, Shmos 25:23 and
dozens of others) and yet it is still followed by "pesax", not "fesax".
There are many other examples but a there is a particularly salient
example at the beginning of Ki Setze (Deut 21:14): "...im lo xafatzta
bah" where xafatzta is the same form as vezavaxta without the vov
hahipukh (so it is clearly "naturally" mil'el) and yet the following
word gets the dagesh.
The upshot is of course then that if one were to read fesax rather than
pesax in the original example cited, there would be no basis for
correcting the baal koreh.
Yaakov Gorlin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 06:20:55 +0100
Subject: Re: Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct?
on 1/6/05 10:38 am, <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu) wrote:
> Kaf Lamed in the Torah are spelled exclusively with a Kamatz Katan (875
> times) or Cholam (92 times), thus always pronounced by both Asahkenazi
> and Sephardic readers as "Oh" and never "Ah". There is a but single case
> in the entire Bible where Kaf Lamed has a Kamatz Gadol and that is in
> Tehilim 35:10 per the masorah.
I have done some further research on this. First I checked the masoretic
notes in my Mikraot Gedolot and could not find any reference to the
kamats being a kamats gadol, all that was said there was that there was
no makkaph (hyphen) and it was accented which is not quite the same
thing. Secondly it gave four other places where this phenomenon of an
accented kamats occurs in this word: Tehillim 35:10, 138:3, Mishlei 19:7
and the one I mentioned previously Yeshaya 40:12 where it has a prefixed
vav. Of these Tehillim 138:3 does not seem to carry an accent in our
texts so this requires further investigation.
In the Da'at Mikra commentary there is a footnote on this point on both
Tehillim 35:10 and Mishlei 19:7 to the effect that this irregularity is
because the merekha is a very weak conjunctive which is not strong
enough to change the kamats katan into a cholam even though it does
remove the makkaph. Its conclusion is that it is nevertheless pronounced
as a kamats katan and not a kamats gadol in these two places. Tsarikh
iyun.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 14:11:26 EDT
Subject: Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct?
Martin Stern replies to my statement that the only Kaf Lamed (without
prefixes) that has a Kamatz Gadol is in Tehilim 35:10 and says:
<<First I checked the masoretic notes in my Mikraot Gedolot and could
not find any reference to the kamats being a kamats gadol>>
Mikratot Gedolot does not indicate on any Kamatz if it is a Kamatz Gadol
or Kamatz Katan - so I do not understand why suddenly it is expect to
tell us a kamatz gadol only here?
Martin Stern continues <<Secondly it gave four other places where this
phenomenon of an accented kamats occurs in this word: Tehillim 35:10,
138:3, Mishlei 19:7 and the one I mentioned previously Yeshaya 40:12>>
My mikraot Gedolot and BHS have a note on Tehilim 35:10 that this Kaf
Lamed with a ta'am appears two times, this note appears also for Mishlei
19:7. This note does not appear Tehilim 138:4.
So why did I say that the masorah has only a Kamatz Gadol to Tehilim
35:10?
1. Biblia Hebraica by Augustus Hahn, Isaaco Leeser et al (Philadelpia
1849) to Tehilim 35:10 says in a footnote :"Kamatz Rahav" and there is
no such note to Mishlei 19:7.
2. Shlomo Tal in his introduction to siddur "Rinat Israel": However in
the pasuk "Kal Atzmotai tomarnah" we left the kamatz [gadol] because of
the testimonial of the Masoretes and old medakdekim that it is a "Kamatz
Rahav". (p. 6) (My translation)
3. Indeed there are some masorot that say that the Kamatz to Mishlei
19:7 is also Kamatz Gadol. See support for a Kamatz Gadol in both places
in MInchat Shai to Tehilim 35:10. I did not mention this before as this
masorah is not unanimous as compared to Tehilim 35:10, but on a second
thought I should have mentioned it.
And last, Martin Stern concludes <<Its conclusion is that it is
nevertheless pronounced as a kamats katan [in both places] and not a
kamats gadol in these two places>>.
If we follow this suggestion every Kaf Lamed (without prefixes) in the
entire Tanch will be pronounced always kol/chol whether there is a colam
or a Kamatz.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 20:44:36 +0100
Subject: Re: Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct?
on 5/6/05 7:11 pm, Gilad Gevaryahu at <Gevaryahu@...> wrote:
Mikratot Gedolot does not indicate on any Kamatz if it is a Kamatz
Gadol or Kamatz Katan - so I do not understand why suddenly it is
expect to tell us a kamatz gadol only here?
It was precisely because I had never seen such a massoretic note that I
was puzzled by Gevaryahu's original statement and checked my Mikraot
Gedolot.
If we follow this suggestion every Kaf Lamed (without prefixes) in
the entire Tanach will be pronounced always kol/chol whether there
is a cholam or a Kamatz.
I was merely paraphrasing the note in the Da'at Mikra commentary which I
find difficult to understand. These two cases (Tehillim 35:10, Mishlei
19:7) are the only ones in the whole of Tenakh in which the word
kaf-lamed pointed with a kamets appears where it is not connected to the
next word with a makkeph (hyphen).
Where it is so joined, it is treated as part of a composite word and,
being unaccented, must be a kamats katan. The reason it does not carry a
cholam, as it would when it is free-standing, is because a long vowel
cannot appear in a closed unaccented syllable and is replaced by the
equivalent short one, in this case a kamats katan. A similar situation
is the word aleph-tav which has a tsrerei when it stands alone but a
segol when attached by a makkeph to the next word.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:17:44 +0300
Subject: Re: Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct?
Akiva Miller stated:
az b'kol
raash gadol
adir v'chazak mashmi'im kol
which translates to my ear as:
Then, with a sound,
A great noise,
Mighty and Strong make a sound heard...
What is this? Are "Mighty" and "Strong" the names of two of these
angels?
A case has been made for this being the misinterpretation of rashei
tevot. What was written "alef vav gershayyim het" originally meant
"ofanim vahayyot," which would answer your question in the affirmative,
and is a phrase used in the piyyutim.
When I'm leading the davening, I phrase it like this:
az
b'kol raash gadol adir v'chazak
mashmi'im kol
An interesting approach to making sense out of chaos.
Which reminds me; Mr. Teich (Benny's father) used to phrase in Adon
`Olam:
"Beterm
"Kol yetzir nivra"
to deal with a theological problem involved with postulating the
existence of beings before creation.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 42