[Avodah] Retzei

[Jonathan Baker]

RMSS:

> The way my father explained it to me is the following: If one will
> say, "Ve-ishei Yisrael utefilatam be-ahava tikabel..." "And receive
> with love the fire-offerings of Israel and their prayers....", he has
> just said something incomprehensible. There are no fire-offerings
> these days (unfortunately). The most logical construct is, "vehashaiv
> et avodah lidvir betacha ve-ishei Yisrael" "and return the service and
> the fire-offerings of Israel to the Holy of Holies of your house".

RMSS quotes his father, but for most of us, Dad has just as much an
idiosyncratic reading as we might.

RMKop:

> We are davening that HQBH will "Retzei b'amcha yisrael uvisfilasam", and
> one day he will "hasheiv es ha'avodah lidvir beisecha," and THEN "v'ishei
> yisrael us'filasam b'ahava s'kabeil b'ratzon." IOW, this is a
> chronological progression

> Why do none of the meforshim on siddur say this? (Caveat- I haven't looked
> all the meforshim on this issue, but am being someich on (I think)
> Artscroll's commentary which mentions only the two pshatim that RES

More interestingly, why does Artscroll use the "chronological" inter-
pretation when it's not brought in the MB's summary? 

ORAF:

> There is one medaqdeq in my community who punctuates it exactly that way.

Which follows from the following evidence, since the German siddurim
I was able to find which bother to punctuate, punctuate it that way.
I'm assuming Schweiz is more or less German in minhag.

From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel at gmail.com>
> [period before V'ishei] is the conclusion of the Gra. I don't understand
> why most siddurim do not punctuate it this way.

I suppose it's a good thing I'm at the office; at home I would have
turned to the Baer siddur and the Eizor Eliyahu first.  Being here, 
my main source is the Mishna Brurah, and he brings several opinions 
(in his sole comment to OH 120).

First, he notes that the Mechaber is referring to a minhag which skips
the beginning of Retzei, starting from V'ishei Yisrael; said minhag
is denigrated, although perhaps not so far as the Pri Megadim would,
who said it denied the text of Hazal; still one shouldn't do it.

That custom supports grouping "V'ishei Ysrael" with Utfilatam.

He then lists three explanations:

Tur: V'ishei Ysrael Utfilatam: tefillot are in place of korbanot.
Yalkut Shimoni: Angel Michael sacrifices tzadikim on a Supernal Altar,
  so Ishei Ysrael == Anshei Ysrael, and links with Utfilatam.
Some comment: Return the fire offerings along with the Temple service.
  And accept our prayers...

Taz prefers the second, Gra prefers the third explanation.  M"B doesn't
say which he prefers.  So three sources (the old custom, YS and Tur)
support one grouping, while the Gra supports the other grouping.

If I look at it, I prefer "V'ishei ysrael utfilatam", following the
Tur's explanation, coupled with grammar: 

Return the service to Dvir Your House, and the fire-offerings of
Israel.  And receive the prayers... - doesn't make sense grammatically.  

  1) it looks like an afterthought;

  2) the service IS or at least INCLUDES the fire-offerings, esp. since we
  can't ever do bamot again, so it's a redundant afterthought. 

  3) Lack of an "et" to indicate a direct object to "Hasheiv" also argues
  against it.  In fact, that also makes it group better with "utfillatam":

     a) v'...u'  to distinguish two types of "and"; the first indicating
     "here's a similar sentiment to the last" and the second indicating 
     "this is grouped with the previous"

     b) neither of the objects of Tekabel gets an "et", while the object 
     of "hasheiv" has an "et".

If they wanted to group it together with "Divine service", leima "Hasheiv
et ha-avodah v'et ishei yisrael lidvir beitecha".

* * *

Evidence from antique siddurim (via http://jnul.huji.ac.il)

1616 Hanau: lidvir beitecha v'ishei yisrael utfilatam [period] b'ahava
tekabel...  {yet a third punctuation}

1713 Berlin: Retzei H Elokeinu b'amcha yisrael ubitfilatam.  V'hashev
ha'avodah lidvir beitecha.  V'ishei yisrael: Utfilatam mehera b'ahava
tekabel beratzon.  Utehi leratzon tamid.  Avodat Yisrael amecha:  {this
siddur advertises itself as being "corrected according to grammar"} 
Comment thereto says that "all opinions have a pause after "yisrael".

1766 Siddur Shlah: lidvir beitecha v'ishei ysrael: utfilatam

The last three sources can be found at 
http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/Retzei.pdf

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker at panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com