Richard Steiner, Kol Nidre - Yeshiva University Blogs

More documents

Recommendations

Info

38Richard C. Steinerהם שכך שוה בהיותם תיבה אחת להיותם ב'‏ תיבות ובין כך ובין כךהם מורים על העבר....‏ והמדקדק בלשון התרגום ימצא כן שאיןהפרש בין זה לזה כלל....‏ והסומך על לשון זה של הטור נכשלבנדרים.‏And he explained that (the version with) two words 130refers to the past (sic, for future?), whereas when they areone word 131 it refers to the future (sic, for past?), but thisstatement is not correct and it is completely erroneous,because it is the same whether they are one word or twowords, and either way they refer to the past.... And he whoexamines the language of the Targum carefully will findthat there is no difference at all between one and theother.... And those who rely on this language of the Ṭurstumble in (the laws of) vows.R. Jacob Emden:ב"י דנדרנא תיבה אחת כו'‏ די נדירנא ב'‏ תיבות.‏ במ"כ כל זה שבוש.‏ואין ממש בטעם זה.‏ ולא זה דרך ההבדל בין העבר והעתידבארמית.‏ גם אין שום הפרש.‏ בין אם אומר דנדרנא מלה אחת אוחולקה לשתים.‏Bet Yosef: דנדרנא“‏ one word, etc. די נדירנא two words.”With all due respect, all of this is a distortion, and there isno substance in this explanation, and this is not the waythat the past (tense) is distinguished from the future inAramaic. Furthermore, there is no difference at all betweensaying דנדרנא as one word and dividing it into two.We turn now to R. Wolf Heidenheim. He agrees that RabbenuTam’s version of Kol Nidre was based on participles, but theparticiples that he reconstructs are different from those of hispredecessors:132129129R. Abraham b. Mordecai ha-Levi, גנת ורדים (2 vols.; Constantinople: Jonahb. Jacob, 1716-1717), 1:120d (Y.D. part 2, §9).130131‏.די נדרנא I.e.,‏.דנדרנא I.e.,132R. Jacob Emden, מור וקציעה (2 vols.; Altona: Jacob Emden, 1761-1769),2:68c (§619).http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/12-2013/Steiner.pdf
Kol Nidre: Past, Present and Future39ואחרי הדרים ‏(צ"ל הדברים)‏ והאמת האלה ‏(דה"י-ב לא כ)‏ כרתיברית עם הגירסא די נדרינא ודמשתבעינא ודמחרמינא ודאסרינאוכו',‏ כי כל הלשונות האלה ל'‏ הוה הם לרבים וע"פ הגירסאהזאת יהיה הנוסחא כולו על מכונו ולא קשה מידי,‏ וזאת עיקרגירסת ר"ת לדעתי....‏...Pursuant to all of these valid considerations, I committedדי נדרינא ודמשתבעינא ודמחרמינא myself to the versionbecause all of these expressions are the plural of ‏,ודאסרינאthe present tense ... and according to this version, the entiretext will be on a solid foundation and not difficult at all,and this is the true version of Rabbenu Tam in myopinion....This reconstruction is intended as a solution to a problem inherentin the standard reconstruction of Rabbenu Tam’s version of Kol Nidre.In that reconstruction, the enclitic subject pronouns attached toparticiples are singular but the possessive pronouns attached to nounsare plural. This inconsistency, pointed out by R. Mordecai Jaffe, 134 ismost blatant in the phrase נא “I shall impose uponourselves.” Heidenheim tried to fix the problem by making theparticiples plural, instead of making the suffixed pronouns singular asR. Jaffe had done.Here again, however, we have a suggestion that attributes faultyAramaic grammar to Rabbenu Tam. In Babylonian Aramaic, first133אָסַ‏ רְ‏ נָא על נפש ‏(ת)‏person plural participles take the plural enclitic pronoun נן - derivedfrom אנן “we,” not נא - derived from אנא “I.” 135 Thus, the plural ofThe latter form appears to exhibit an ‏.אָסְ‏ רִ‏ ינָא not ‏,אָסְ‏ רִ‏ ינַן is אָסַ‏ רְ‏ נָאinternal inconsistency that is, if anything, even more blatant than theone in, and there is no good reason to assume thatRabbenu Tam was unaware of this.Most of the authorities quoted above believe that Rabbenu Tamchanged the verbs of Kol Nidre from perfects to participles; however,this is not the only possible way of making them refer to the future. Anumber of alternatives have been proposed, some of which we havealready noted. Ralbag and R. Jacob Emden claimed that theאָסַ‏ רְ‏ נָא על נפש ‏(ת)‏ נא133134.8b ‏,מחזור לערבית ליום כפור.619§ 178c ‏,לבוש החור135J. N. Epstein, ‏,דקדוק ארמית בבלית 41. Forms ending in ינא - do occur in ourprinted editions, but, according to Epstein (ibid., 40), they are singular andtextually dubious.http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/12-2013/Steiner.pdf
Page 1: JSIJ 12 (2013) 1-45KOL NIDRE: PAST,
Page 4 and 5: 4Richard C. Steinerנוהגים ה
Page 6 and 7: 6Richard C. SteinerThe recitation o
Page 8 and 9: 8Richard C. SteinerMy lord father c
Page 10 and 11: 10Richard C. SteinerIn the name of
Page 13: Kol Nidre: Past, Present and Future
Page 16 and 17: 16Richard C. Steineruntil I come ba
Page 19 and 20: צ(‏Kol Nidre: Past, Present and
Page 21 and 22: Kol Nidre: Past, Present and Future
Page 37: Kol Nidre: Past, Present and Future

Richard Steiner, Kol Nidre - Yeshiva University Blogs

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?