<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In Avodah V26#195, RZS responded to
me:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">>> </font><tt><font size=2>Since
some point to the pizmon of "B'motzaei m'nuchah" as evidence
that<br>
Ashk'nazim should start saying Elul-week S'lichos on Saturday night after<br>
chatzos halayla rather than prior to Shacharis on Sunday morning, I thought<br>
I would mention two phrases which those "some" presumably said
on the first<br>
day of Rosh haShanah (the first phrase is in the yotzros, a/k/a/ the<br>
piyutim said as part of the pre-Shma b'rachah of "Yotzeir or",
and the<br>
second is in the q'rovos, a/k/a/ the piyutim said during chazaras haSHaTZ,<br>
of Shacharis; translation taken from JMarmorstein translation of Roedelheim<br>
Machzor, (C) Copyright 1965 by VGoldschmidt Publishers, Basle) and invite<br>
comment</font></tt><font size=2 face="sans-serif">.... <<</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">> </font><tt><font size=2>Actually
I said neither, and had never heard of these piyutim until<br>
just now, but never mind.</font></tt><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> <</font>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">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.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">> </font><tt><font size=2>In
both cases you have seriously<br>
misinterpreted the piyut, which says nothing even remotely similar<br>
to what you think it does.</font></tt><font size=2 color=#000080 face="sans-serif">
<</font>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">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 [</font><a href=http://www.prayingwithfire.org/resiman_yk.html><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u>http://www.prayingwithfire.org/resiman_yk.html</u></font></a><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">],
quoting the S'fas Emes) is "ayin tovah," judging others favorably.
'nuf said on that score.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">>> </font><tt><font size=2>-1-<br>
Melech taliso kasheleg m'tzuchtzach/The King whose cloak is like purified<br>
snow....<br>
</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">>> </font><tt><font size=2>Do
you wear an all-white talis/dress in white? How 'bout your community?</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">
<<</font>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">> </font><tt><font size=2>No.
Why would we do so? What do you see in this line to suggest<br>
that we ought to do so? The reference is obviously to Daniel 7:9<br>
and is completely uncontroversial, but what has it go to to do with<br>
our own taleisim? If anything it can be taken to (very slightly)<br>
imply that we should *not* wear an all-white talles, unlike those<br>
who do.</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana"> <</font>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">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 [</font><a href="http://dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=rosh_hashana&daf=17b&go=Go"><font size=1 color=#800000 face="Verdana">http://dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=rosh_hashana&daf=17b&go=Go</font><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">,
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."</font></a>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">>> </font><tt><font size=2>-2-<br>
(This time, in order to emphasize that precisely "ten" is meant,
I'm going<br>
to quote and then translate the entire stanza, line by line, with the line<br>
in question highlighted.)<br>
Ya'amiru oz malchuyos eser/They revere in ten verses the acknowledgement
of<br>
divine rule;<br>
T'vuos l'sheim buchan b'eser/They are based on him who was ten times tested<br>
(Abraham);<br>
** Chaq zichronos _v'qolos_ eser/the measure of remembrance _and of Shofar<br>
tones_ is ten **;<br>
Zeicher m'vareich g'vir (nusach acheir: g'viro) b'eser/in memory of him
who<br>
with ten blessings made his son master.<br>
</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">>> </font><tt><font size=2>Does
your community have exactly ten "Shofar tones" during the Amidah
(or<br>
at least during the chazarah)?</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">
<<</font>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">> </font><tt><font size=2>Again,
you have seriously misinterpreted this line. Like every<br>
community we do indeed say ten malchiyos, ten zichronos, and ten<br>
shofros, just as the piyut says we do. Actually we say more than<br>
ten malchiyos, but -- contrary to your claim -- the piyut does *not*<br>
say we limit ourselves to exactly ten; it just says that we do say<br>
ten, which is perfectly true. Even if the piyut *had* said that<br>
we blow the shofar ten times, there would be no contradiction, since<br>
we all do that -- and then most of us blow many more; but the fact<br>
is that it doesn't, and doesn't even hint at such a thing.</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">
<</font>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">and in the next digest, RZS
responded to RShW:</font>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">> </font><tt><font size=2>It's
*very* clear to me (to the point that any other interpretation is<br>
utterly impossible) that it refers to the ten pesukim of Shofros, and<br>
has nothing whatsoever to do with what sounds are or are not blown, at<br>
this or any other time.</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">
<</font>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">As noted, MJMarmorstein apparently
disagreed with what RZS considers "</font><tt><font size=2>*very*
clear</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">." RZS'
thought is eminently reasonable, so let us consider why she rejected it.
First, let's look at what "eser" represents in this piyut.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">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.")</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">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 "</font><tt><font size=2>malchuyos</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">"
and "</font><tt><font size=2>zichronos</font></tt><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">"
(which, I would agree, seemingly reference nothing other than the p'suqim
in the sections respectively known as Malchiyos and Zichronos).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Verdana">Best Moadim l'Simcha/Gut
Moeid wishes from</font>
<br><font size=4 color=blue face="Monotype Corsiva">Michael Poppers</font><font size=4 color=blue face="Verdana">
</font><font size=3 face="Verdana">*</font><font size=4 color=blue face="Verdana">
</font><font size=4 color=blue face="EngraversGothic BT">Elizabeth, NJ,
USA</font>