[Avodah] a community taking seriously the text of piyutim it says

[Michael Poppers]

In Avodah V26#195, RZS responded to me:
>> Since some point to the pizmon of "B'motzaei m'nuchah" as evidence that
Ashk'nazim should start saying Elul-week S'lichos on Saturday night after
chatzos halayla rather than prior to Shacharis on Sunday morning, I 
thought
I would mention two phrases which those "some" presumably said on the 
first
day of Rosh haShanah (the first phrase is in the yotzros, a/k/a/ the
piyutim said as part of the pre-Shma b'rachah of "Yotzeir or", and the
second is in the q'rovos, a/k/a/ the piyutim said during chazaras haSHaTZ,
of Shacharis; translation taken from JMarmorstein translation of 
Roedelheim
Machzor, (C) Copyright 1965 by VGoldschmidt Publishers, Basle) and invite
comment.... <<
> Actually I said neither, and had never heard of these piyutim until
just now, but never mind. <
RZS, in case he was unaware, is by dint of his response not in the 
category of those "some."  BTW, for an example of another machzor which 
contains these piyutim and, I dare suggest, is in fairly wide use among 
the A/A membership (if not, at least it's more widely available than the 
Roedelheim :)), see pages 270 and 310 of the ArtScroll nusach-Ashkenaz 
RhSh machzor.

> In both cases you have seriously
misinterpreted the piyut, which says nothing even remotely similar
to what you think it does. <
Let us examine each cite again, and let the membership judge.  Especially 
re the second example, as well as at the end of your response, you use 
very strong words against a professional translation.  I would never use 
such strong words in objection to your opinion, even if I disagreed with 
it.  Please remember, a (if not the) hallmark of Rosh haShanah (as 
recently noted by RYReisman in his recent Teaneck, NJ shiur [
http://www.prayingwithfire.org/resiman_yk.html], quoting the S'fas Emes) 
is "ayin tovah," judging others favorably.  'nuf said on that score.

>> -1-
Melech taliso kasheleg m'tzuchtzach/The King whose cloak is like purified
snow....
>> Do you wear an all-white talis/dress in white?  How 'bout your 
community? <<
> No.  Why would we do so?  What do you see in this line to suggest
that we ought to do so?  The reference is obviously to Daniel 7:9
and is completely uncontroversial, but what has it go to to do with
our own taleisim?  If anything it can be taken to (very slightly)
imply that we should *not* wear an all-white talles, unlike those
who do. <
First, y'yasheir kochacha for noting the source (in the Vilna-edition BT, 
the phrase from that pasuq is mentioned in the margin of RhSh 17b [
http://dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=rosh_hashana&daf=17b&go=Go, 11 lines 
down] without indicating the source).  All the commentaries on that pasuq 
were fairly straighforward, but that of RSGaon is especially noteworthy in 
explaining that hQbH is, k'vayachol, enwrapped in a talis whose color is 
like sheleg.  I'm not sure why RZS can't see the imitatio-Dei aspect of 
the custom I noted, but as I said, the point isn't any stronger than 
someone claiming that because a piyut says "B'motzaei m'nuchah," therefore 
we as a community should start saying Elul-week S'lichos on Saturday night 
after chatzos halayla rather than prior to Shacharis on Sunday morning, 
considering that Sunday morning, especially before the chamah rises, is 
also "motzoei Shabbos."

>> -2-
(This time, in order to emphasize that precisely "ten" is meant, I'm going
to quote and then translate the entire stanza, line by line, with the line
in question highlighted.)
Ya'amiru oz malchuyos eser/They revere in ten verses the acknowledgement 
of
divine rule;
T'vuos l'sheim buchan b'eser/They are based on him who was ten times 
tested
(Abraham);
** Chaq zichronos _v'qolos_ eser/the measure of remembrance _and of Shofar
tones_ is ten **;
Zeicher m'vareich g'vir (nusach acheir: g'viro) b'eser/in memory of him 
who
with ten blessings made his son master.
>> Does your community have exactly ten "Shofar tones" during the Amidah 
(or
at least during the chazarah)? <<
> Again, you have seriously misinterpreted this line.  Like every
community we do indeed say ten malchiyos, ten zichronos, and ten
shofros, just as the piyut says we do.  Actually we say more than
ten malchiyos, but -- contrary to your claim -- the piyut does *not*
say we limit ourselves to exactly ten; it just says that we do say
ten, which is perfectly true.  Even if the piyut *had* said that
we blow the shofar ten times, there would be no contradiction, since
we all do that -- and then most of us blow many more; but the fact
is that it doesn't, and doesn't even hint at such a thing. <
and in the next digest, RZS responded to RShW:
> It's *very* clear to me (to the point that any other interpretation is
utterly impossible) that it refers to the ten pesukim of Shofros, and
has nothing whatsoever to do with what sounds are or are not blown, at
this or any other time. <
As noted, MJMarmorstein apparently disagreed with what RZS considers "
*very* clear."  RZS' thought is eminently reasonable, so let us consider 
why she rejected it.  First, let's look at what "eser" represents in this 
piyut.

The Mishna in Maseches RhSh says, "Ein poch'sin meiasarah 
malchiyos...zichronos...shofaros."  The BT (32a), in explicating this 
minimum, notes a series of "Ten"s, e.g. the Aseres haDibros, which are 
definitional and not meant to be less or more than "Ten."  Similarly, I 
posit, the paytan is listing more "Ten"s, e.g. "buchan b'eser" and "
m'vareich g'vir (nusach acheir: g'viro) b'eser."  In terms of the p'suqim 
we say during the Amidah, can we say more than ten?  Yes, but that's a 
question of m'tziyus, if you will, not of the definition of what we're 
trying to accomplish with our verbal act.  Similarly, the base requirement 
for Shofar sounds _is ten_ (and during the Amidah, or at least the 
chazarah).  I grant RZS' point that a community can blow more than ten 
qolos during the [chazarah for the] Amidah (as R'Micha might say, you've 
weakened my argument for a community blowing precisely ten qolos at that 
time but haven't ruled it out :)), so long as it recognizes (especially if 
it says the piyut in question :)) what the definitional act is all about. 
(Tangentially, as I privately noted to RAM, we also see that 
sh'varim-t'ruah is considered _two_ qolos, even as it consists of _one_ 
way of fulfilling the definitional "t'ruah," which I hope answers his 
question re the count for "100 qolos.")

So why not translate the piyut as referring to the p'suqim we say in the 
section known as Shofaros?  Because the paytan used the word "qolos."  If 
anyone knows where "qolos" refer to the p'suqim of Shofaros, please let us 
all know -- in the interim, I see at least a double entendre, referencing 
the actual qolos blown during the [chazarah for the] Amidah, and 
understand why at least one translator, if not one with the cachet of 
R'ArtScroll, saw fit to reference the literal meaning of the word rather 
than link it with the paytan's "malchuyos" and "zichronos" (which, I would 
agree, seemingly reference nothing other than the p'suqim in the sections 
respectively known as Malchiyos and Zichronos).

Best Moadim l'Simcha/Gut Moeid wishes from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091005/206ac11e/attachment-0001.htm>