The Power of Tefilah during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah

By Eliezer Brodt

The following is a
chapter from my sefer Ben Kesseh
Le’assur [still available for purchase, for more information contact me at
eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.]

מעלת התפילה בעשרת ימי תשובה

אליעזר יהודה בראדט

א.
ר’ יונה מגירונדי בספרו ‘שערי תשובה’ מדריך את האדם כיצד
יתנהג בעשרת ימי תשובה:

וראוי לכל ירא אלוקים למעט בעסקיו, ולהיות
רעיוניו נְחִתִּים, ולקבוע ביום ובלילה עתים להתבודד בחדריו ולחפש דרכיו ולחקור,
לקדם אשמורות, ולהתעסק בדרכי התשובה וכשרון המעשה, ולשפוך שיח ולשאת תפילה ורינה
ולהפיל תחינה, שהעת עת רצון והתפילה נשמעת בה, כענין שנאמר: ‘בעת רצון
עניתיך, וביום ישועה עזרתיך’; ואמרו רבותינו ז”ל (ראש השנה יח ע”א):
‘דרשו ה’ בהמצאו‘, אלו עשרת ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים[1].

מבואר
בדבריו, שעשרת ימי תשובה הינם ימים המסוגלים לקבלת התפילה. גם בן דורו, ר’ משה
מקוצי, כותב כיוצא בזה: “אף על פי שהתשובה והצעקה יפה לעולם, בעשרה
ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים היא יפה ביותר, ומיד היא
מקובלת שנאמר: ‘דרשו ה’ בהמצאו’; במה דברים אמורים? ביחיד, אבל בציבור
– כל זמן שצועקין ועושין תשובה בלבב שלם מיד הם נענים”[2].
וכך גם כותב ר’ בחיי ב”ר אשר ן’ חלאווה 
בספרו כד הקמח: “שכן בעשרה ימים אלה שהן ימי הדין והמשפט הנוראים,
הנקראים בכל ישראל ‘עשרת  ימי תשובה’, ומיוחדים
לעולם לתפילה ולבקש שערי תשובה”[3].

באותה תקופה נתחדד הרעיון בדברי ר’ מנחם המאירי
, בעל בית הבחירה: “אף על פי שהתפילה חביבה אף ביחיד, תפילת הציבור חביבה
ביותר… ומכל, בזמן, רצוני לומר עשרת ימי תשובה, מתוך שהתורה נתנה הערה
לכל, הרי אף תפילת היחיד חביבה חיבוב יתר“[4].
כלומר, מחמת שבעשרת ימי תשובה האדם קרוב ביותר לאלוקיו, איננו נצרך להתפלל בציבור
כדי שתתקבל תפילתו כמו בשאר ימות השנה, והיינו משום שבעשרת ימים אלה הקב”ה
מצוי לכל יחיד ויחיד[5],
בימים אלו יש השראת שכינה מיוחדת, “בהללו עשרה ימי תשובה הקב”ה
שרוי ביניכם“[6],
לפיכך אפילו תפילת היחיד מתקבלת, שהרי תפילה במקום או בזמן השראת השכינה – מתקבלת[7].
כך כתב גם ר’ אהרן הכהן מלוניל (נפטר בשנת ה’צ), בעל ‘ארחות חיים’: “שלשה
תפילות נשמעות: תפלה בדמעות… תפילת יחיד בין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים”[8].

התפיסה שבימים אלו
מתקבלת ברצון גם תפילת יחיד– שנזכרת גם בדברי כמה מהאחרונים[9]
– לא נשארה בעולם הרעיוני בלבד. ר’ חיים עוזר גרודזנסקי פוסק, שבמקרה הצורך יש
להקל בחובת התפילה בציבור בעשרת ימי תשובה, משום שתפילת יחיד בימים אלו שווה
לתפילה בציבור[10]
ועוד, גם כשמתפלל ביחידות אינו צריך להכליל תפילתוו עם הציבור, לאומרה בלשון
רבים כדי שתתקבל תפילתו, כפי שיש לנהוג כל ימות השנה[11],
אלא יאמרה בלשון יחיד![12]
ולא עוד אלא שיכול לאומרה בארמית, שלא כמו בשאר ימות השנה[13].

ב. סגולת עשרת ימי תשובה
בקבלת התפילות אינה רק בנוגע לתפילות שנושא בימים אלה, אלא גם כל תפילותיו הבלתי
ראויות ששפך בכל ימות השנה מתקבלים ומתרצים לפני בוראו באמצעות תפילה
ראויה שישא בימים נשגבים אלה. כך כותב ר’ דוד ב”ר אברהם הנגיד, דור שלישי
לרמב”ם: “…אם היה נעור ומדבר דברים בטלים, בשמחה והוללות, ובסוף הלילה
הולך לישון עד שליש היום ויקום להתפלל – אותה תפילה תשאר תלויה ועומדת; לא
תוכל לעלות לפני ה’ עד שיגיע יום הכיפורים ויתפלל בכוונה ובתשובה שלמה, אז יעלו
תפילותיו, זו עם זו“[14].

אכן במקורם נאמרו דבריו על יום הכפורים בלבד[15],
אך ברור שסגולת יום הכפורים להכשרת התפילות של ימות השנה היא משום שיום זה הינו
שיאו של עשרת ימי התשובה בהן התפילה רצויה ביותר מחמת קרבת
הקב”ה (‘קראוהו בהיותו קרוב‘). ולמרות שבמקורות קדומים לא נמצא במפורש
שהתפילות בעשרת ימי תשובה (ולא רק תפילות יום הכפורים בלבד!) מכשירות
את התפילות של ימות השנה, זכר לדבר יש. ר’ רפאל עמנואל חי ריקי (תמז-תקג), מגדולי
מקובלי איטליה ששהה בצפת ובירושלים מספר שנים, כותב בשנת תפב בספרו משנת
חסידים: “ובעשרת ימי תשובה… המתענה בהם ועושה תשובה גמורה, מוחלין לו
בכל יום מימי השבוע שבעשרת ימי תשובה מה שחטא ביום ההוא לעולם“[16].
אם כל יום מעשרת ימי תשובה מכפר אפילו חטאים חמורים שחטא בימי השנה, אם כן
ודאי שאדם הרגיל להתפלל שלא בכוונה, תפילות ימים אלה יתקנו את תפילותיו שלא בכוונה.
מה עוד, שהדברים מתקבלים על הלב אם נצרף לכך את סגולת קבלת התפילה הקיימת בעשרת
ימי תשובה.

כמו חיבורים אחרים, גם משנת חסידים הינו סיכום
מתורתו של האר”י כפי שקיבלו המחבר מתלמידי גורי האר”י, ואכן עיקרו של הרעיון
מצוי בכתבי ר’ חיים ויטאל, אשר רשם את כל תורת רבו:

אמר לי הרב משה גאלאנטי, ששמע
ממורי ז”ל: שאם האדם יתענה בשבעת ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים ויעשה
בהם תשובה גמורה, כל יום מהם מכפר על כל העונות שחטא כל ימיו ביום שכיוצא בו…
ואם התענה ועשה תשובה בכל שבעת הימים ההם, יתכפרו לו כל עונותיו שעשה כל ימיו[17].

בחיבורים מאוחרים יותר נאמר מפורש
שהתפילה בעשרת ימי תשובה מכשירה את כל התפילות של ימות השנה. כך כותב ר’ יעקב
ב”ר יוסף, בעל זרע ישראל: “…מבואר גם כן בכמה ספרי מוסר מגודל מעלת
התפילה, באם שמתפלל בכוונה באותם הימים מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים, דאף מי
שלא היה מכוון בתפילתו בשארי ימות השנה, באם שהיה מכוון בתפילתו באותם הימים – בזה
הוא מתקן התפילות של כל השנה“[18].

ג. הסיבה שתפילה בכוונה
הנאמרת בעשרת ימי תשובה מכשירה ומעלה עמה את התפילות הפסולות שהתפלל אותו אדם
בימות השנה היא גם משום, שבימים אלו מצוי גילוי שכינה, ואנו כבר מקובלים
מרבותינו הראשונים כלל גדול שתפילה הנאמרת בזמן או במקום השראת שכינה מתקנת עמה
תפילות שאינן ראויות. כך מוסר לנו אחד מגדולי המקובלים בדורו, ר’ יוסף
ג’יקאטיליה (ספרד ה’ח – סה) בספרו שערי אורה (נכתב בשנת ה’לד[19]),
בבואו לבאר את החילוק שבין תפילה שביחיד לתפילה בציבור:

וכשהיחיד מתפלל… [תפילה ש]אינה
הגונה, קורים [המלאכים] לאותה תפילה ‘תפילה פסולה’… והכרוז קורא: אל תכנס אותה
תפילה לפני השם יתברך… ואם תאמר, נמצאו רוב התפילות שמתפלל היחיד נפסדות ונאבדות,
כי אחת מני אלף יכול להתכוון בתפלת יחיד בענין שתהא ראויה להתקבל. דע כי אין הדבר
כן, אלא כל אותן התפילות הפסולות… כשדוחין אותן לחוץ ואינן נכנסות, השם יתברך
נתן להם מקום להכנס בו, שהשם יתברך ברא רקיע ומסר עליו ממונים ושומרים, וכל אותן
התפילות הפסולות הנדחות, מכניסין אותן באותו רקיע, ועומדות שם. ואם חזר זה
היחיד שהתפלל תפילות פסולות… ועמד והתפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה, ותפילתו זו
הגונה ושלימה – אז אותה התפילה הכשרה מסתלקת והולכת ונכנסת באותו היכל החיצון
שהתפילות הפסולות שהתפלל מקודם עומדות שם, ומוציאה משם כל אותן התפילות הפסולות
שהתפלל, ועולות כולן עם אותה התפילה הכשרה…[20].

וכל העניינים האלו שאמרנו הם
בתפילות היחידים, אבל בתפילת הציבור – אין כל ממונה וכל שוער יכול לעכב, אלא
כשהציבור מתפללים תפילתם נכנסת ומתקבלת על כל פנים[21]…
כשהיחיד מתפלל – בודקין את תפילתו אם היא ראויה להתקבל, וכמה מערערים יש עליה; אבל
כשהציבור מתפללין – ‘לא בזה את תפילתם’, אף-על-פי שאין תפילתם כל כך הגונה, מקבלים
אותה מלמעלה…[22].

הסיבה שתפילת ציבור מתקבלת אפילו שאינה בכוונה,
היא משום שתפילתם נאמרת במקום השראת שכינה, ש”כל בי עשרה – שכינתא
שריא”[23].
ובכך שר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה משווה את תפילת היחיד שבכוונה לתפילת הציבור שלא בכוונה,
מוכח שהגורם להתקבלות תפילת היחיד הוא הכוונה, ש’התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה
גדולה‘, היינו יחיד האומר תפילתו ב’כוונה גדולה’ – שכינה שרויה אצלו,
וכאמור תפילה זו מתקנת את כל תפילותיו הבלתי ראויות. הוי אומר: תפילה שנאמרה
במקום השראת השכינה – מתקנת עמה תפילות שאינן ראויות[24].

יסודו של ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה שהתפילות הפסולות
מעוכבות עד שיכוון בתפילתו, אינו חידושו שלו אלא נטלו מספר הזוהר שהיה מצוי אצלו,
ובו נאמר:

ההוא
ממנא קדישא דקיימא על ההוא פתחא, כל אינון צלותין דבקעי אוירין ורקיעין למיעאל קמי
מלכא, אי צלותא דסגיאין אינון – פתח פתחא ואעיל ההוא צלותא, עד דאתעבידו כל צלותין
דעלמא עטרא ברישא דצדיק חי עלמין; ואי צלותא דיחיד – סלקא עד דמטי לפתחא דהיכלא דא
דהאי ממנא קיימא ביה, אי יאה ההיא צלותא לאעלא קמי מלכא קדישא – מיד פתח פתחא
ואעיל לה, ואי לא יאה – דחי לה לבר, ונחתא ואתשטיא בעלמא, וקיימא גו רקיעא תתאה
מאינון רקיעין דלתתא דמדברי גו עלמא. ובההוא רקיעא קיימא חד ממנא די שמיה
סהדיא”ל, וממנא על האי רקיעא ונטיל כל הני צלותין דאתדחיין, דאקרון צלותי
פסילאן, וגניז לון עד דתב ההוא בר-נש לגבי מאריה כדקא יאות, וצלי צלותא אחרא זכאה,
ההיא צלותא זכאה כד סלקא, נטיל ההוא ממנא סהדי”אל האי צלותא וסליק לה לעילא
עד דאערע בההיא צלותא זכאה וסלקין ואתערבון כחדא ועאלין קמי מלכא קדישא[25].

תפיסה זו מופיעה גם בכתבי האחרונים. ר’ יהונתן
אייבשיץ אמר באחת מדרשותיו : “חטא היוצא מפי איש ואשה כל יום, וביחוד שיחה
ובטלה בבית הכנסת, ומכל שכן בעת תפילה, הכל הוא עולה בעב וענן, ומונע לתפילה
לעלות. אך אם אדם התפלל אחר כך בכוונה ובבכי ודמעה – מעלה כל תפילות מכמה
שנים אשר סביב נקבצו לו, כי נשארו עומדים ברפיון מבלי עלייה, וכעת על ידי
תפילה הם עולים במעלה בית אל”[26].

מעתה, אם השראת השכינה מחמת תפילתו
בציבור מתקנת את תפילותיו שהתפלל בעבר, ודאי שתפילה בציבור מתקנת את תפילתו
של עתה. וכך אכן כותב המבי”ט: “תפילת היחיד, בהיותה בלתי הגונה
או בלתי נאמרת בכוונה – אינה מקובלת כלל. וכשאומרה ברבים, לפעמים תתקבל בזכות
תפילת הרבים, כי אפילו לחובה היחיד נגרר אחר הרוב…”[27].

חידוש נוסף אנו למדים מתורתו של המבי”ט
המתקשר באופן ברור לתפיסת תיקון התפילות של ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה; כשם שהשראת שכינה
הבאה מחמת איכות התפילה (שנאמרה בציבור) מעלה ומתקנת את תפילותיו הקודמות,
כך גם השראת השכינה הבאה בגלל סגולת המקום, היינו שקבע מקום לתפילתו[28], מתקנת את תפילתו הקודמת. וכך
כתב המבי”ט בבואו לבאר את מאמר התלמוד (ברכות ו ע”ב): “כל הקובע
מקום לתפילתו – אלהי אברהם בעזרו”:

היינו, אדם שהתפלל תחילה תפילה שאינה ראויה
(שהרי לא נתקבלה תחילה), אם בימים הבאים יהפוך את מקום תפילתו למקום תפילה קבוע – תתקבל
תפילתו של קודם. ואם יתמה המעיין מדוע, הנה הדברים ברורים כי בכך שמקום תפילתו הפך
למקום תפילה קבוע – שורה בו השכינה, והרי כבר מקובלנו מר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה
שהשראת השכינה מתקנת ומעלה את תפילותיו![31]

ולא זו אף זו. ר’ שמואל ראבין מחדש על פי היסוד
האמור דבר נפלא. וזו לשונו:

בכל התפלות צריך לפרש ולבאר היטב הכוונה, לבל
ישאיר מקום למקטרג שיקח הדברים על כוונה אחרת, זולת הכהן גדול ביום כיפור בקודש
הקדשים לא היה נצרך לזה, אחרי ששם היה התפלה מגיע אליו יתברך זולת אמצעות המלאכים,
שאפילו מלאכי השרת לא היו יכולים להכנס לקדש הקדשים[32].

הוי
אומר, התפילות הנאמרות בקודש הקודשים מתקבלות ברצון ואפילו ללא כל כוונה,
בגלל שהוא המקום בו מצוי גילוי שכינה הגדול ביותר.

ד. רבותינו האחרונים הזכירו
הרבה –
גם אם לפעמים לא ידעו מבטן מי יצאו הדברים – את פתרונו של ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה
לתיקון תפילות, ושקלו וטרו בדבריו; יש מהם שצמצם את פתרונו ויש מהם שהרחיב, ויש
שהקיש את הרעיון והסיעו גם לענין אחר. 

1. לתפילה פגומה באותיותיה
אין אפשרות תיקון. אם היה ניתן להבין משיטת ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה שכל תפילה
מקבלת את תיקונה אגב תפילה ראויה, בא ר’ ישראל איסר מפוניבז’ ומחלק בין שתי מיני
תפילות פגומות – זו מחמת חוסר כוונה וזו משום חסרון אותיות
ותיבות, שלשיטתו, לפגם מן הסוג האחרון אין אפשרות תיקון, שהרי היא ‘מחוסרת
אבר’. ואלה דבריו:

אף שכתוב בספרים, שאם אדם
זוכה להתפלל תפלה אחת בכוונה רצויה, עולין עמה כל התפלות שלא בכוונה שהתפללו עד
הנה ונדחו, ומסתברא שכך הוא אם התפלל כל תיבה בשלמות, רק בחסרון כוונה,
והיא כמתה, תוכל לקבל חיות על ידי התפילה החיה. אכן, אם התפלה חסרה אותיות,
והיא כמו מחוסר אברים, איך אפשר שימלא אבר החסר?…[33]

2. תיקון תפילות פסולות
של אדם שנפטר. לעומת צמצום פתרון התיקון של ר’ יוסף גי’קאטיליה, היו
שנהגו להפך והרחיבו את פתרונו והסכימו שאף ניתן לתקן תפילות של אדם שנפטר
לבית עולמו. כך כותב ר’ ידידיה טיאה ווייל (אשכנז תפב – תקסו), בעל לבושי
בדים, לאחר שהעתיק תורף הדברים שנאמרו בספר שערי אורה:

אמנם נראה, אם מת אותו יחיד
ולא התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה, וכי יעלה על הדעת שח”ו יפסיד כל התפילות שהיה
מתפלל?! ואולי יש לומר, אם בנו היה מתפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה, אז מעלה בנו
כל תפילות של אביו (ואפשר דזה הטעם דאבל מתפלל בציבור), כי ברא מזכה דאבא.
ויען, אם גם בנו לא התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה או אם אין לו בן, אם כן הפסיד כל
התפילות, לזה אם יגולגל נשמתו לבוא בעולם ויתפלל עוד תפילות אחרות בכוונה גדולה
– מעלה כל התפילות הפסולות שהתפלל בגלגולים אחרים[34].

3. תיקון אכילות פסולות.
אמנם למרות שר’ ישראל איסר מפונביז’ צמצם את יכולת התיקון של תפילות,
מאידך גיסא הרחיב את השיטה לענין תיקון אכילה, היינו, אכילה שלא ברך
עליה בכוונה ראויה. ואלו דבריו:

בברכת אכילה ושתיה תכוין
להשפיע בהם נפש השכלית. ודע, שאף אם לא יעלה בידך הכוונה הרצויה הזו אלא פעם
אחת בחודש, מעלה גדולה השגת; ואף שלא תזכה לזה כי אם פעם אחת בשנה –
דבר גדול הוא. כי הספרים כתבו, שתפילה אחת בכוונה גוררת אחריה את כל התפילות
שבלא כוונה להעלותם איתה[35]. 

The
Meaning of the Word Hitpallel (התפלל)

By
Mitchell First[1]

MFirstAtty@aol.com

It is clear from the many places that it
appears in Tanakh that התפלל connotes praying. But what was the
original meaning of this word? I was always taught that it meant something like
“judge yourself.” Indeed, the standard ArtScroll Siddur (Siddur Kol Yaakov) includes the following in its introductory
pages: “The Hebrew verb for praying is מתפלל;
it is a reflexive word, meaning that the subject acts upon himself. Prayer is a
process of self-evaluation, self-judgment…”[2]

More recently, when I searched Jewish
sites on the internet for the definition that was offered for hitpallel and mitpallel, I invariably
came up with a definition similar to the above. Long ago, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch
(d. 1888) and R. Aryeh Leib Gordon (d. 1912) also gave definitions that focused
on prayer as primarily an action of the self.[3]

In this post, I would like to share a different
interpretation offered by some modern scholars, one based on a simple insight
into Hebrew grammar. This new and compelling interpretation has unfortunately
not yet made its way into mainstream Orthodox writings and thought. Nor has it
been given proper attention in academic circles. For example, it did not make
its way into the widely consulted lexicon of Ludwig Koehler and Walter
Baumgartner.[4] By sharing this new interpretation of התפלל,
we can ensure that at least the next generation will  understand the origin of this critical word.

                                                            
——

There
are two issues involved in parsing this word: 1) what is the meaning of the
root פלל? and 2) what is the import of the hitpael stem, one that typically implies
doing something to yourself?

With
regard to the root פלל, its meaning is
admittedly difficult to understand. Scholars have pointed out that the other
Semitic languages shed little light on its meaning.[5]

If
we look in Tanakh, the verb פלל is found 4 times:[6]

    

What
I would like to focus on in this post, however, is the import of the hitpael stem in the word התפלל. 
Most students of Hebrew grammar are taught early on that the hitpael functions as a “reflexive” stem,
i.e., that the actor is doing some action on himself. But the truth is more
complicated.

One
source I saw counted 984 instances of the hitpael
in Tanakh.[10] It is true that a
large percentage of the time, perhaps even a majority of the time, the hitpael in Tanakh is a “reflexive” stem.[11] Some examples:

        But it is also clear that the hitpael transforms meanings in other
ways as well. For example: 

Now
let us look at a different word that is in the hitpael form in Tanakh: התחנן. The root here is חנן which means “to be gracious” or “to show favor.”  חנן
appears in the hitpael form many
times in Tanakh (התחנן, אתחנן, etc.). At I Kings 8:33 we even have a hitpael of פלל
and a hitpael of חנן adjacent to one another: 
והתחננו והתפללו.  If we are constrained to view התפלל as doing something to yourself, then what
would be the meaning of התחנן?  To show favor to yourself? This
interpretation makes no sense in any of the contexts that the hitpael of חנן
is used in Tanakh.

Rather,
as recognized by modern scholars, the root חנן
is an example where the hitpael  has a slightly different meaning: to make
yourself the object of another’s action.
(This variant of hitpael has been
called “voluntary passive” or “indirect reflexive.”) Every time the root חנן is used in the hitpael, the actor is asking another
to show favor to him. As an example, one can look at the beginning of parshat va-et-ḥanan. Verse 3:23 states
that Moshe was אתחנן to God.   אתחנן
does not mean that “Moshe showed graciousness to himself.” Rather, he was
trying to make himself the object of God’s
graciousness.

Let
us now return to our issue: the meaning of התפלל.
Most likely, the hitpael form in the
case of התפלל is doing the same
thing as the hitpael form in the case
of התחנן: it is turning the word into a voluntary
passive/indirect reflexive.[13]  Hence,
the meaning of התפלל is to make oneself the object of God’s פלל (assessment, intervention, or judging). This is a much
simpler understanding of התפלל than the ones that
look for a reflexive action on the petitioner’s part. Once one is presented
with this approach and how it perfectly parallels the hitpael’s role in התחנן,
it is very hard to disagree.[14]

  

Some
Additional Comments

2.
There are other examples in Tanakh of
words that have the form of hitpael
but are either voluntary passives (like  התפללand התחנן)
or even true passives, as the role of the hitpael
expanded over time.[18] Some examples:[19]

              

3.  As we see from this post, understanding the
precise role of the hitpael is
important to us as Jews who engage in prayer. Readers may be surprised to learn
that understanding the precise role of the hitpael
can be very important to those of other religions as well. A passage at Gen.
22:18 describes the relationship of the nations of the world with the seed of
Abraham:

.והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ 

(The phrase is found
again at Gen. 26:4.) Whether this phrase teaches that the nations of the world
will utter blessings using the name
of the seed of Abraham or be blessed
through the seed of Abraham depends on the precise meaning of the hitpael here. Much ink has been spilled
by Christian theologians on the meaning of hitpael
in this phrase.[20]

                                                                ——

Whoever suspected that grammar
could be so interesting and profound!

         

             !ונתחזק  חזק חזק

(Does the last word
mean “let us strengthen ourselves,” “let us continually be strengthened,” or
“let us be strengthened”?   I will leave
it to you to decide!)

Notes:

[1] I would like to
thank my son Rabbi Shaya First for reviewing and improving the draft.

[2]  P. xiii.

[3]   The edition of Rav Hirsch’s Pentateuch
commentary translated by Isaac Levy includes the following (at Gen. 20:7): התפלל means: To take the element of God’s truth,
make it penetrate all phases and conditions of our being and our life, and
thereby gain for ourselves the harmonious even tenor of our whole existence in
God….  [התפלל
is] working on our inner self to bring it on the heights of recognition of the
Truth and to resolutions for serving God…Prior to this, the commentary had pointed
out that the root פלל  means “to judge” and that a judge brings
“justice and right, the Divine Truth of matters into the matter….”

R.
Aryeh Leib Gordon explained that the word for prayer is in the hitpael form because prayer is an
activity of change on the part of the petitioner, as he gives his heart and
thoughts to his Creator; the petitioner’s raising himself to a higher level is
what causes God to answer him and better his situation. See the introduction to Siddur Otzar Ha-Tefillot (1914), vol. 1,
p. 20. The Encylcopaedia Judaica is
another notable source that uses the term “self-scrutiny” when it defines the
Biblical conception of prayer. See 13:978-79. It would be interesting to
research who first suggested the self-judge/self-scrutiny definition of prayer.
I have not done so. I will point out that in the early 13th century
Radak viewed God as the one doing the judging in the word התפלל. See his Sefer
Ha-Shorashim, root פלל.

[4] The Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (1994). The authors do cite the
article by E.A. Speiser (cited in the next note) that advocates the
interpretation. But they cite the article for other purposes only. The
interpretation of התפלל that Speiser
advocates and that I will be describing is nowhere mentioned.

[5]  For example, E.A. Speiser writes that
“[o]utside Hebrew, the stem pll is at
best rare and ambiguous.” See his “The Stem PLL
in Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 82 (1963), pp. 301-06, 301. He mentions a few references in
Akkadian that shed very little light. There is a verb in Akkadian, palālu, that has the meaning: “guard,
keep under surveillance.” See the  פללarticle in Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 568 (2001), and
Koehler-Baumgartner, entry פלל, p. 933. This perhaps
supports the “assess” and “think” meanings of the Hebrew פלל.

[6]  Various forms of a related noun, פלילים, פללים, פלילי and פליליה, appear 6 times. The meanings at Deut. 32:31 (ve-oyveinu pelilim), Job 31:11 (avon pelilim), and Job 31:28 (avon pelili) are very unclear. The
meaning at Is. 16:3 (asu pelilah) is
vague but could be “justice.” The meaning at Is. 28:7 (paku peliliah) (=they tottered in their peliliah) seems to be a legal decision made by a priest. Finally,
there is the well-known and very unclear ve-natan
be-flilim of Ex. 21:22. Onkelos translates this as ve-yiten al meimar dayanaya. But this does not seem to fit the
words. The Septuagint translates the two words as “according to estimate.” See
Speiser, p. 303. Speiser is unsure if this translation was based on guesswork
or an old tradition, but thinks it is essentially correct.

[7]  Note that Rashi relates it to the word maḥshavah. Sometimes the verb is
translated in this verse as “hope.” Even though this interpretation makes sense
in this verse, I am not aware of support for it in other verses. That is why I
prefer “think” and “assess,” which are closer to “intervene” and “judge.” Many
translate the word as “judge” in this verse: I did not judge (=have the
opinion) that I would see your face. See, e.g., The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, entry פלל. 

[8] Brown-Driver-Briggs translates ויפלל using a similar verb: “interpose.” See
their entry פלל.  Alternatively, some translate ויפלל here as “executed judgment.”

[9] It has been
suggested that the “judge” meaning is just a later development from the
“intervene” meaning.

[10] The exact number
given varies from study to study. I have also seen references to 946, 780 and
“over 825.” See Joel S. Baden, “Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew:
Semantic and Morphological Overlap,” Vetus
Testamentum 60 (2010), pp. 33-44, 35 n.7.

[11]  We must be careful not to assume that the hitpael originated as a reflexive stem.
Most likely, the standard Hebrew hitpael
is a conflation of a variety of earlier t-stem forms that had different roles.
See Baden, p. 33, n. 1 and E.A. Speiser, “The Durative Hithpa‘el: A tan-Form,” Journal of the American Oriental Society
75 (2) (1955), pp. 118-121.

[12]  See the above article by Speiser. For example,
with regard to the hitpael of אבל, the implication may be “to be in mourning
over a period of time.” With regard to התמם
(the hitpael of תמם; I I Sam. 22:26 and Ps.18:26.), the implication may be “to be
continually upright.” Some more examples: משתאה  at Gen. 24:21 (continually gaze),  תתאוה
at Deut. 5:18 (tenth commandment; continually desire), ויתגעשו  at Ps. 18:8 (continually
shake), and  התעטף
at Ps. 142:4 (continually be weak/faint ). Another example is the root נחל. When it is in the hitpael, the implication may be “to come into and remain in
possession.”

[13] See T. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (1971),
pp. 249-250, and Speiser, The Stem PLL,
p. 305.

[14] Rav Hirsch views התחנן as “to seek to make himself worthy of
concession.” See his comm. to Deut. 3:23. This is farfetched. Hayim Tawil
observes that there is an Akkadian root enēnu,
“to plead,” and sees this Akkadian root as underlying the Hebrew התחנן. He views the hitpael as signifying that the pleading is continous (like the
import of the hitpael in hithalekh). See his An Akkadian Lexical Companion For Biblical Hebrew (2009), pp.
113-14. But there is insufficient reason to read an Akkadian root into התחנן, when we have a very appropriate Hebrew
root חנן.

[15]  See Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 568, Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of
the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987), p. 511,
Brown-Driver-Briggs, entry פלל, and
Koehler-Baumgartner, entry פלל, p. 933.

[16] The Soncino commentary
here remarks that this was “a form of worship common to several cults with the
purpose of exciting the pity of the gods, or to serve as a blood-bond between
the devotee and his god.”

[17] See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
vol.  11, p. 568,  Klein, p. 511, and Koehler-Baumgartner, entry
פלל, p. 933.

[18] One scholar claims
to have located as many as 68 such instances in Tanakh, but does not list them. For the reference, see Baden, p.
35, n. 7. Baden doubts the number is this high and believes that the true
number is much lower. Baden would dispute some of the examples that I am
giving. Hitpaels with true passive
meanings are found more frequently in Rabbinic Hebrew. The expansion of the
meaning of the hitpael stem to
include the true passive form took place in other Semitic languages as well.
See O.T. Allis, “The Blessing of Abraham,” The
Princeton Theological Review (1927), pp. 263-298, 274-278.

[19] These and several
others are collected at Allis, pp. 281-83. 
For a few more true passives, see Kohelet 8:10, I Sam. 3:14, Lam. 4:1,
and I Chr. 5:17.

[20] See, e.g., Allis,
and Chee-Chiew Lee, “Once Again: The Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך in the Abrahamic Blessing for the
Nations,” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 36.3 (2012), pp. 279-296, and Benjamin J. Noonan, “Abraham,
Blessing, and the Nations: A Reexamination of the Niphal and Hitpael of ברך in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Hebrew Studies 51 (2010), pp. 73-93.

Daily
Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora *

By Rabbi Daniel
Sperber

Question: May
Cohanim outside the Land of Israel give the priestly blessing (Birkat
Cohanim, or Nesiat Kapayim) on weekdays and on regular Shabbatot?

Answer: The
Torah explicitly requires the Cohanim to bless the people (Numbers
6:23), but does not tell us where or when they should do so. Rambam (Sefer
ha-Mitzvot, Mitzvat Assei 26) who gives no details, but refers us to
B. Megillah 24b, Taanit 
2b, and Sotah 37b, to work out the details. However, there are
versions of the Rambam’s text (edited by R. Hayyim Heller and R. Yosef Kefir)
when there are the additional words “every day”, and this, indeed, is
his ruling in the heading of his Hilchot Tefillah and Birkat Cohanim;
and see further ibid chapter 14, and this also is the ruling in Sefer
ha-Hinuch, Mitzvah 367. However, there we find the additions that
“the Mitzvah applies in all places at all times…” Hagahot
Maimoniyot, to Rambam Hilchot tefillah 15:12 note 9 writes, on the
basis of R. Yehoshua ha Levi’s statement in B. Sotah 38b, that any Cohen
who does not bless the people transgresses three commandments, splitting as it
were the biblical verse in Numbers ibid. thus: “So shall you bless
the children of Israel/ say unto them”, adding verse 27 ibid., “And
they shall put my name upon the children of Israel…” The Hagahot
Mordechai modifies this by adding that if the Cohen has not been summoned
to bless the people, he does not transgress by not doing so, referring to the
Yerushalmi text, and this view is accepted by the Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim
128. There is also a minority view, rejected by mainstream authorities, that of
Rabbenu Manoah, that even if the Cohen was not called, if he did not bless the
people, he transgresses at least one commandment.

Outside
Israel it is the practice for the Cohanim not to give the priestly blessing, even
though the mitzvah clearly applies abroad (see R. Hayyim Hezkel Medini, Sdei
Hemed vol.3, p.271, vol.8 pp.177 and 381), and for the congregation not to
request that they do so, – this with the exception of musaf on the
foot-festivals and Yom Kippur – even during Neilah. The Beit Yosef was very
perturbed by this practice. He writes (Orah Hayyim 128):

The Agur wrote that Mahari Kolin [the Maharil] was
asked why the Cohanim do not give the priestly blessing every day, since it is
a positive commandment. And he answered that it was the custom of the priests
to make a ritual ablution [in the Mikvah] before blessing,

* This is
an expanded version of an article published under this title in Conversations
20, 2014, pp.150-155.

as is recorded in Hagahot Mordechai, and to do so
every day in the winter would be very difficult for them.

Hence, the custom evolved to do so only on the
festivals. Furthermore, [doing so] would curtail the business activities (mi-taam
bitul melachah), and in any case if the Cohen is not summoned he
does not transgress.

However,
the Beit Yosef continues:

He forced himself to justify his local custom; but the
reasoning is insufficient. For that which he said that they were accustomed to
make a ritual oblution every day, this is a stringency – i.e. it is not really
required – which leads to leniency… Since ritual ablution as a requirement for
the priestly blessing is not mentioned in the Talmud. And even if they took
upon themselves this stringency, why would they cancel three commanments, even
if they were not transgressing since they had not been summoned. Surely it
would be better that they carry out these three commandments clearly and not
make the ritual ablutions, since there are not required, and by not doing so
they could fulfill the three commandments.

He ends
by saying:

And praise be to the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael and
all Egypt who give the priestly blessing every day, and do not make ritual
oblutions for it.

Indeed
there are some congregations that still follow the Beit Yosef’s position. Thus,
the Syrian community has birkat Cohanim every day, (see H.C. Dobrinsky, A
treasury of Sephardic Laws and Customs, Hoboken N.J., New York 1986, p.168).
This too was the Amsterdam custom of the Portuguese community, (Shemtob
Gaguine, Keter Shem Tov, vol.1, Kédainiai 1934, pp.222-227 note 268, who
also quotes Even Sapir, that this was the practice in Yemen, and
possibly in some Moroccan congregations), while in Djerba they did it on
Shabbatot and festivals, (R. Moshe HaCohen, Brit Kehunah, Orah Hayyim,
pp.101-102, and note 30). Thus, there are several precedants for this practice.

However,
the Ashkenazi Rema, R. Mosheh Isserles, in his Darkei Mosheh ibid. 21,
seeks to justify the Ashkenazi custom. He writes:

Because [doing so] would curtail business activities
for the people in these countries, for the Cohenim are struggling to support
themselves in the exile, and they can barely support their families, other than
the bread they gather by the sweat of their brows daily, and they are not
happy. And it is for this reason that they do not carry out the priestly
blessing, which leads to bitel melachah la-am. And even on Shabbat they
do not do so, because they are troubled and concerned about their future…, and
they are only joyful on the festivals. And thus the custom evolved only to
bless the people on the festivals. So it would appear to me.

The
notion that the Cohen must be joyful when blessing the congregation has its
roots in the early Rishonim, (in Rash’s teacher, R. Yitzhak ben Yehudah).

The Mateh
Efraim, of R. Efraim Zalman Margaliot, added that this was an ancient
practice, even more than five hundred years old, going back to the Tashbetz
ha-Katan, a disciple of the Maharam Mi-Rothenburg, and the Kol Bo
sect.128, and accepted by the Maharit, the Agur, the Darkei
Mosheh etc., “and one may not stir from this custom” . He also
gives additional reasons to support this custom.

R. Efraim
Zalman Margaliot (1760-1811) in his response, Beit Efraim, Orah Hayyim 6,
Lvov 1818, also suggested that the reason for the absence of birkat Cohanim
abroad is because in our days the pedigree of Cohanim is questionable, and a Zar,
non-Cohen, may not bless the people (see B. Ketubot 24b), and doing so
several times every day would be making a berachah le-vatalah – an idle,
that is to say, unnecessary, blessing, which is forbidden – on numerous
occasions by many people. However, since birkat Cohanim is a mitzvat
aseh, a positive commandment, and we rule that even in questions of
uncertainty – safek -, when we are dealing with a mitzvat aseh,
we rule le-humra, stringently; and certainly it is superceded by the
seriousness of the mitzvah. Furthermore, if the Beit Efraim‘s
argument were correct, how come the Cohanim abroad do bless the people
on festivals during musaf?  [1]

The
Sefardi Kaf ha-Hayyim, R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, on the other hand (Orah
Hayyim ibid note 16), cites French R. Yaakov of Marvege, (in his Shut
Min-ha-Shamayim no.38), who writes that:

In a place where there are suitable Cohanim to bless
the people, and they do not do so even once a year, both the congregation that
do not call them to do so, and the Cohanim themselves, who do not make the
blessing, transgress, also because they seem not to be relying on their Father
in Heaven.

This was
cited by the Egyptian Radbaz, R. David ben Zimra, and especially  the Hesed le-Avraham of R. Avraham
Azulai, who writes at length censuring those who do not bless the people, enumerating
the negative effects of their flawed thinking, concluding that “it be
proper to do so in every place, and not to seek out strategies to avoid doing
so.”

And even
the Ashkenazi Hafetz Hayyim, in his Mishnah Berurah 128:12 in the
Beur Halachah wrote:

It is only because of weekness that the Cohanim can go
out and not go up [to bless the people. For if not so, certainly they are not
acting well to needlessly nulify a positive commandment.

Indeed,
there are some Ashkenazi congregations where they do carry out the priestly
blessing at least once a month, as we learn from the Sefer ha-Miktzoot,
or even every Shabbat, as is mentioned in the Mateh Efraim.

Finally,
we may cite the words of R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, in his Aruch ha-Shulhan,
Orah Hayyim 128:4, who writes:

And behold, it is certainly the case that there is no
good reason to nullify the mitzvah of birkat Cohanim the whole
year long, and [it is] a bad custom. And I have heard that two great
authorities of former generations – probably the Gaon Eliyahu of Wilna and R.
Hayyim of  Volozin – each one wished to
reestablish birkat Cohanim daily in their location, and when they
decided on a given day [to begin], the issue become confused and they did not
succeed, and they said that from Heaven it was thus decreed.

In view
of all the above we may state that Birkat Cohanim does not require
ritual oblution, and in present day diaspora countries, blessing the people
will not effect or curtail any business activities, and people in the diaspora
are not downtrodden nor do they live in permament misery, so that they cannot
be joyful enough to bless the congregation. And according to some opinions
(e.g. the Pri Hadash) even if they are not called to give the blessing,
they may/should do so, (see e.g. Piskei Maharitz, Orah Hayyim vol.1,
Bnei Brak 1987, pp.259-260, with the note of R. Yitzhak Ratzabi ibid. Note 7,
ibid. Beerot Yitzhak). Thus, the reasons given for avoiding giving the
priestly blessing are for the main part largely irrelevant in present-day diaspora
conditions.

On the
other hand, not doing so means not carrying out three positive biblical
commandments, and according to some ,albeit minority, opinions this is also the
case when the congregation does not summon the Cohanim. Some, somewhat mystical
sources also stress the great spiritual benefits of the priestly blessing, and
the considerable negative effect of their absence. Furthermore, we have seen
evidence that in some Ashkenazi communities Birkat Cohanim was practiced
on Shabbatot or monthly, and not merely on the festivals.

Taking
into account all of the above, I would think that nowadays, there is little
justification for not carrying out the priestly blessing daily in our diaspora
congregations.

I would
like again to refer to the Hesed le-Avraham:

מי שאינו
מברך מאבד טובה הרבה ומראה שאינו חפץ במצות ולא חפץ בברכה, ובז לדבר יחבל לו, לכן
הכהן הירא את דבר ד’ ובמצותיו חפץ, לא יעבור מלברך לעשות נחת רוח ליוצרו, כי טוב
בעיני ד’ לברך את ישראל ומה טוב ומה נעים מנהג איזה מקומות, שהכהנים נושאים כפיהם
בכל יום וכן ראוי לנהוג בכל מקום, שלא לבקש תחבולות לבטל מ”ע מן התורה.

To
summarize:

This is a
biblical commandment obligating the Cohanim to bless the people.

Not doing
so means not fulfilling that biblical commandment, and, according to some
authorities, even transgressing three biblical commandments.

Here we
may add yet another element to our discussion. There is a well-known opinion of
R. Eliezer Azikri, in his Sefer Haredim chapter 4 (with the commentary
of R. Yitzhak Leib Schwarz, Kunszentmiklos 1935, p.19), that “those who
stand before the Cohanim in silence and direct their hearts to receive the
benedictions as the words of God, they too are included in the mitzvah
as parts of the 613 [mitzvot]”.

The
commentator, ad loc. (note 18-19) discusses this opinion, printing out that it
is a subject of considerable controversy among the greatest of authorities, but
he quotes the author of the Haflaah, R. Pinhas ha-Levi Horowitz, (in his
notes to Ketubot 24b and Rashi ibid.), that just as there is a
commandment to the Cohanim to bless Israel, so too is there a commandment to
Israel to be blessed by the Cohanim. He states that there are other examples
where the torah, explicitly commands only the active partner and not the
passive recipient, but nonetheless both are obligated. He brings as one example
to mitzvah of yibum which devolves both on the levir (yavam)
as well as the sister-in law (yevamah), even though the Torah
commandment is directed towards the levir alone. The Haredim‘s novum was
widely accepted, even though his source remained to many unclear.

Furthermore,
the Gemara in B. Sotah 38b states in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi, that God
Himself yearns to hear Birkat Cohanim, basing himself on the verse in Numbers
6:27, “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel; and I will
bless them”, further adding that “Every Cohen who blesses [the
people] is blessed”, and he that does not do so is not blessed”, as
it is written, “And I will bless them that bless thee” (Genesis
12:3).

This view
is already found in a statement of the Tosafist R. Yaakov of Mervege,
Sheelot u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim (ed. R. Reuven Margaliot, Jerusalem
1957, no.37, p.69), already briefly 
cited above, who writes as follows:

I was also uncertain as to those places where there
are Cohanim who are suitable to carry out birkat cohanim and were
accustomed not to do so even once a year. And I asked [advice] concerning this
issue, whether [in their not doing so] there is a transgression, or whether one
can rely upon R. Yaakov who said that the Cohanim are not obligated to bless
other than when the people tell them to do so.

And they [i.e. from Heaven] replied: Both these and
these transgress; namely, the people (literally: Israel who do not tell  them [to bless], and appear not to be  fearful of [the requirement to receive] the
blessing of  Father in Heaven, and the
Cohanim, who do not bless on their own accord the nesiat kapayim, for is
it not written, “And I will bless those that bless thee” (Genesis
12:3), and from the positive [statement] we may deduce the negative, (i.e. that
from the positive statement that God will bless the blessers, we may deduce
that he will curse them that do not bless).

Admittedly
this is an opinion of a Kabbalistic nature, and we do not necessarily rule
accordingly when there is an opposing view of the niglah (the
rationalist position), as is well known. However, this same view was also
indicated in the commentary attributed to the Raavad to Tamid 33b, [2] but
which is actually by the rationalist Tosafist R. Baruch be-R. Yitzhak Vermaiza,
[3]  the 
author of Sefer ha-Terumah. This commentary in this instance
bases itself on (the largely lost) Sefer Miktzoot. [4]  The editor of this commentary pointed out (in
note 48) that this was the view of the Haredim, adding that it was also
noted by R. Zeev Pomeranchik, in his Emek Berachah, Jerusalem 1948,
sect.7, further cited by R. Pinhas Horowitz, in his Sefer Haflaah (to Ketubot
24b), and so also in Hagahot R. Akiva Eiger to Shulhan Aruch, Orah
Hayyim 128:1, and similarly in the Beur Halachah ibid.

It should
however not be overlooked that this point of view was not accepted by all
authorities. Thus, it was questioned by R. Yosef Babad, in his Minhat
Hinuch, Mitzvah 378, (ed. Machon Yerushalayim, vol.3, Jerusalem 1991, p.66)  [5],
basing himself on the Ritba to Sukkot 31b,  [6]  who writes explicitly that there is no
obligation on the part of “Yisrael to be blessed. [7]

Nonetheless,
considering the gravity of the iussue, [8] we
should surely take servious account of the Haredim’s view, appearing as
it does in a number of significant rishonim and aharonim, and not
deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora from having opportunity to participate in
this important mitzvah.

The
reasons given by the various authorities for not fulfilling this mitzvah
regularly in the diaspora, are, of themselves problematic, but in any case
quite irrelevant to present day diaspora communities. There exist precedents in
different congregations, even outside Eretz-Israel, for daily, weekly or
monthly priestly blessings. [9]

In
Jerusalem and in some parts of Eretz Yisrael the priestly blessing is carried
out daily.

This
being the case, why should we deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora and its
Cohanim, and even, as it were, God Himself, from the opportunity to participate
in this all important mitzvah?

In view
of all of the above, I see no reason why the daily, or at least weekly,
blessing on the part of the Cohanim not be reinstated in diaspora communities.

Keser vs. Kesher: What’s In A Name?[1]

 

I – The Puzzle

Kesher Israel (KI) Congregation has enhanced Jewish life in Pennsylvania’s capital of Harrisburg for almost 115 years. During that time, KI has been blessed with outstanding rabbinic leadership: The famed Rabbi Eliezer Silver[2] first headed the congregation from 1911-1925. He was followed by Rabbi Chaim Ben Zion Notelovitz who served KI from 1925-1932. Rabbi David L. Silver (a son of Rabbi Eliezer Silver) led the congregation from 1932-1983. Rabbi Dr. Chaim E. Schertz served KI as its rabbi from 1983-2008.

Soon after arriving in Harrisburg in 2007, I found myself intrigued by the synagogue’s name. Since the congregation is called Kesher Israel, I just assumed its Hebrew name was קשר ישראל (pronounced ‘Kesher Israel’, meaning Bond of Israel). However, I soon learned that upon being founded in 1902, the synagogue was in fact named כתר ישראל (pronounced ‘Keser Israel’ in classic Ashkenazis – which KI’s founders surely spoke – meaning Crown of Israel). I soon noticed that below the words ‘Kesher Israel Synagogue’ on the cornerstone of KI’s current building (pictured above), appears the Hebrew name כתר ישראל.

This seemingly minor detail puzzled me greatly. Why did a congregation whose proper Hebrew name was כתר ישראל choose to call itself Kesher Israel? Had anyone ever taken note of – or attempted to correct – this inconsistency? During the summer of 2015, I found time to research the matter, and I now have a theory to propose.

II – An Enigmatic Account

In 1997, KI honored its beloved Rabbi Emeritus – Rabbi David L. Silver (1907 – 2001)[3] – with a community-wide weekend celebration on the occasion of his 90th birthday. As part of that celebration, the congregation published “Silver Linings” – a 90 page book of Rabbi D. Silver’s memoirs. Those memoirs were excerpted from some 35 hours of taped interviews conducted from April, 1996 – April, 1997. On pages 43 – 44 of that book we find the following account:

When the shul was founded, it was called Keser . . . which means a crown. Some fellow who was a Hebrew teacher . . . spelled it as C-a-s-s-e-u-r. He should have put it down as K-e-s-e-r. Some people – Lithuanian Jews, I want you to know, because I am of that breed – pronounced and spelled it “sh”. Kesher means “the bond” . . .

My father came here in 1907. He was a good Hebraist and he didn’t like the name. He said, in the Bible when there is the term “kesher” it’s “kesher bodim”[4]. A bond of bodim means rebels, period[5]. My father said that’s no name for a shul and changed it from Kesher Israel to Keser Israel, a crown of Israel. I don’t know whether it happened on the first day he came here but that’s what it became.

Rabbi D. Silver’s eye-opening account of the history of KI’s name is quite enigmatic. In attempting to understand this explanation, the following questions must be answered:

1)      If the congregation’s original name was in fact ‘Keser Israel’ (כתר ישראל), why would Lithuanian Jews have pronounced it ‘Kesher Israel’?

2)      If the congregation’s original name actually was ‘Keser Israel’, what exactly did Rabbi Eliezer Silver change?

3)      As the synagogue is called ‘Kesher Israel’ to this very day, what did Rabbi D. Silver mean when he reported that his father had successfully changed its name from ‘Kesher Israel’ to ‘Keser Israel’?

III – Sabesdiker Losn

In the Book of Judges, we learn of a terrible civil war that flared up between the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. As the beaten forces of Ephraim attempted to retreat across the Jordan River we read (Judges 12:5-6):

5 – And the Gileadites seized the crossings of the Jordan that belonged to Ephraim; and it was that when any of the survivors of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” and the men of Gilead said to him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” and he said, “No.”

6 – And they said to him, “Say now ‘Shibboleth,’ ” and he said “Sibboleth,” and he was not able to pronounce it properly, and they grabbed him and slew him at the crossings of the Jordan; and there fell at that time of Ephriam, forty-two thousand.

At that point in Jewish history, the tribe of Ephraim was unable to correctly pronounce the hushing sound of the Hebrew letter “Shin” in the word “Shibboleth”. They instead pronounced the word with the hissing sound of the Hebrew letter “Sin”, and the word came out as “Sibboleth”.[6] With their identities compromised, many Ephraimites lost their lives.

In the course of my research, I learned that the inability of many Lithuanian Jews to properly distinguish between the hushing and hissing sounds of the Hebrew letters “Shin” and “Sin” was once common knowledge. Like the Ephraimites before them, many Lithuanian[7] Jews also pronounced the word ‘Shibboleth’ as ‘Sibboleth’.[8] As a result of their enunciation, other Yiddish speakers jokingly referred to the Lithuanian dialect of Yiddish as ‘Sabesdiker Losn’. In an often quoted article on Sabesdiker Losn, Prof. Uriel Weinreich writes:

One of the most intriguing instances of non-congruence involves a peculiar sound feature of the northeastern dialect of Yiddish: the confusion of the hushing series of phonemes (š, ž, č) with the hissing phonemes (s, z, c), which are distinguished in all other dialects . . . This dialect has come to be known as sábesdiker losn ‘solemn speech’ (literally ‘Sabbath language’), a phrase which in general Yiddish is šábesdiker lošn, with two š’s and an s. This mispronunciation of it immediately identifies those who are afflicted with the trait; to them the term litvak is commonly applied.[9]

Later in that same article Weinreich writes:[10]

The Ephraimites . . . paid with their lives for their inability to distinguish hissing and hushing phonemes in a crucial password. No litvak has ever been slain for his sábesdiker losn, but he has been the butt of innumerable jokes. The derision with which the feature was regarded by other Yiddish speakers sent it reeling back under the impact of “general Yiddish” dialects from  the south . . . In addition to dialectical pressure from the south, there were other influences tending to introduce the opposition, as it were, from within. There was for example, the growing need to learn foreign languages in which hissing and hushing phonemes are distinguished, and the promotion of Standard Yiddish by the schools, the theater, and political and educational organizations.[11]

As we have seen, many Lithuanian Jews were unable to distinguish between hushing and hissing sounds. While this led many to pronounce ‘Shibboleth’ as ‘Sibboleth’ (hence the term Sabesdiker Losn), this was not always the case. There is much evidence that in some locales, the inability of Lithuanian Jews to distinguish between the hushing and hissing sounds resulted in the exact opposite: they pronounced the word ‘Sibboleth’ as ‘Shibboleth’.[12]

In his article dealing with Sabesdiker Losn, Prof. Rakhmiel Peltz[13] quotes sources showing that many Lithuanian Jews mispronounced their words in the following manner:

. . . šuke ‘Sukkoth tabernacle’, šimkhe ‘joy, festivity’, šeykhl ‘reason, sense’, šider ‘prayer book’ . . .  [14]

A fascinating episode involving none other than Rabbi Eliezer Silver himself relates to this point, and can be found in the book “A Fire In His Soul”. A good part of that volume documents the activities of the Vaad Hatzala – the emergency rescue committee which worked so hard to save Jewish lives during the dark years of the Holocaust.[15] Soon after the fighting ended, the committee sent Rabbi E. Silver to the war-ravaged European continent to aid Jewish refugees and survivors. The following colorful incident is recorded:[16]

Rabbi Eliezer Silver, acting as a Vaad representative and president of the Agudas Harabonim, spent three months visiting Holland, Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia, Germany and Poland. Wearing a surplus American Army uniform purchased for this mission, he moved about freely, distributing funds to build mikvaos, yeshivas and kosher kitchens. He also located children who had been in hiding throughout the war.

This bearded rabbi in uniform did experience some awkward moments. When an allied soldier saluted him, Rabbi Silver did not respond in kind, causing the soldier to doubt his credentials. When Occupation officials asked to see his military identification – after all, he was a man in uniform – Rabbi Silver stared defiantly and proclaimed, “I don’t need papers. I am the Chief Rabbi of the United States and Canada!” (It came out “United Shtates” in Rabbi Silver’s characteristic accent.) Understandably, the American authorities did not believe him and were not inclined to let him go.

Chagrined, Rabbi Silver pointed to the telephone and barked, “Call Shenator Taft. Tell him Shilver’s here!” The officials looked at each other. They didn’t know that the small man, seething with almost comical anger, enjoyed a personal and political friendship with the powerful Ohio Senator Robert Taft.[17]

Rabbi Silver’s “characteristic accent” described above is a rare glimpse into how his Lithuanian upbringing and pronunciations affected his ability to articulate his words. Rabbi Eliezer Silver was born in the hamlet of Abel – in the Kovno province of Lithuania in 1881.[18] His pronunciation of “Shtates”, “Shenator”, and “Shilver” was most likely the result of his growing up in an environment where no distinction was made between hissing and hushing sounds in the Yiddish spoken all around him. In his case (and probably in the case of many others in his locale), words that should have been pronounced with a ‘hiss’, were instead pronounced with a ‘hush’.[19]

With this better understanding of how many Lithuanian Jews pronounced their words, I believe we can now solve the mystery of KI’s name.

IV – Solving the Puzzle: A Theory

Making use of KI’s historical records, I propose the following theory:

KI was founded in 1902. The congregation was officially named כתר ישראל in Hebrew, and was given the English name of ‘Casseur Israel’ – instead of the more straight-forward ‘Keser Israel’. This can be clearly seen from a document – dated January 1, 1903 – presented to Mr. Max Cohen (a founding member) which stated that he had purchased a pew in his new Harrisburg synagogue. This certificate was signed on behalf of “The Trustees of the Congregation – Casseur Israel, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania”. The document was also embossed with the new congregation’s official seal. In English, the stamp reads “Congregation Casseur Israel – Harrisburg, Pa.” In Hebrew it reads, “חברה כתר ישראל – האריסבורג פא”  [20]

Although KI was chartered as ‘Casseur Israel’ in October of 1902, the Lithuanian founders and members of this new synagogue pronounced its name as ‘Kesher Israel’. This was a result of the manner in which their version of Sabesdiker Losn Yiddish affected their enunciation of the hissing and hushing sounds.[21] As a result of the way in which the congregation’s members pronounced their own synagogue’s name, local newspaper articles began referring to the synagogue as ‘Kesher Israel’ – as early as 1903 (just months after the congregation was founded).[22]

Though Rabbi Eliezer Silver arrived in Harrisburg in 1907, he was not officially hired by KI to serve as their spiritual leader until February 11, 1911.[23] In 1908, shortly after Rabbi E. Silver arrived in Harrisburg – but still three years before he would become KI’s first rabbi – the six-year-old congregation hired a local Yiddish printer to write up its constitution.[24] The following detail on the constitution’s cover page[25] is striking: Although the synagogue’s official seal used in 1903 listed the new congregation’s Hebrew name as חברה כתר ישראל (Keser Israel Congregation), KI’s 1908 constitution records the Hebrew name of the synagogue as חברה קשר ישראל (Kesher Israel Congregation).[26] This was a result of either:

A)   The printer – unfamiliar with the congregation’s official Hebrew name of  כתר ישראל – published a document in which he spelled the congregation’s Hebrew name true to the way its own members all pronounced it – קשר ישראל – Kesher Israel.

B)   The version of Lithuanian Yiddish spoken by so many of the congregation’s founders and members caused them to refer to the synagogue as ‘Kesher Israel’ from the day it was founded. Perhaps by 1908 a movement arose within KI to have its Hebrew name officially changed from כתר ישראל (Keser Israel) to קשר ישראל (Kesher Israel). This proposed switch would enable the young congregation to have complete consistency between; 1) the synagogue’s Hebrew and English names, 2) what all of KI’s founders and members already called it, and 3) the name used by all the newspapers when referring to the congregation.

When KI hired Rabbi Eliezer Silver as its rabbi in 1911, he accepted the pulpit of a synagogue whose Hebrew name had begun as כתר ישראל (Keser Israel), but for one reason or another, was now given the Hebrew name of קשר ישראל (Kesher Israel) in its official constitution. Rabbi E. Silver could live with the fact that everyone pronounced the congregation’s name as ‘Kesher Israel’ (and from what we have seen above, he most probably pronounced it that way as well) – and did not even mind if they spelled it that way in English. However, seeing the synagogue’s name spelled in Hebrew as קשר ישראל was too much for Rabbi E. Silver to bear. Having mastered Biblical and rabbinic literature, he clearly knew the negative connotations of the word קשר . He associated that word with conspiracies and rebellions – concepts which he strongly believed had no place in a Jewish house of prayer that was to be loyal to G-d and Jewish tradition. As such, Rabbi E. Silver insisted that KI’s official Hebrew name should revert back to כתר ישראל (Keser Israel). He insisted on this Hebrew name for the synagogue despite the fact that (he and) his fellow Lithuanian Jews pronounced the congregation’s name as ‘Kesher Israel’ – and would continue spelling it that way in English as well.[27]

Rabbi E. Silver’s efforts to ensure that KI would retain its original Hebrew name of כתר ישראל (Keser Israel) can be seen in two early projects of his.

In addition to explaining Rabbi David L. Silver’s above-cited enigmatic account, I believe the puzzle of how a synagogue, with the Hebrew name of כתר ישראל (Keser Israel), ended up with the English name of ‘Kesher Israel’ has now been solved.

VI – Conclusion

Upon reflection I realize that the only time the membership of KI hears the congregation referred to as כתר ישראל (Keser Israel) is after the solemn Yizkor memorial prayers, which are recited during the holidays. At the conclusion of Yizkor, special collective Kel Maleh memorial prayers are recited on behalf of the deceased members and relatives of the congregation.[34]  Since my arrival in 2007, I listened closely as KI’s Cantor Seymour Rockoff would clearly enunciate the words קהילת כתר ישראל (Keser Israel Congregation) during that prayer – pronouncing the synagogue’s Hebrew name exactly as Rabbi Eliezer Silver would have wanted.

Following Cantor Rockoff’s sudden passing in the summer of 2015,[35] I recited those collective Kel Maleh prayers at KI this past Shemini Atzeret (5776). As I clearly pronounced the words קהילת כתר ישראל, I thought about all the history behind KI’s name. I also envisioned Rabbi Eliezer Silver grinning as he tipped his signature black silk top hat in my direction.

___________

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה כְתָרִים הֵם, כֶּתֶר תּוֹרָה וְכֶתֶר כְּהֻנָּה וְכֶתֶר מַלְכוּת, וְכֶתֶר שֵׁם טוֹב עוֹלֶה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן.

Rabbi Shimon would say: There are three crowns – the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty – but the crown of a good name is the most valuable of them all.

(Pirkei Avot 4:13)

Evening
Prayer Revisited

Chaim
Sunitsky

There is a dispute in
Tamud Bavli (Brachot 4b) as to whether one should say Shma with Brachot
before or after Shmone Esre during the evening prayer. The opinion of R.
Yohanan is that Shma is said first while the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi is
that Shmone Esre is said before the Shma. Moreover, while R. Yohanan holds that
Shma is followed by Shmone Esre immediately, according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi
Shmone Esre can be recited separately and Shma with its blessings does not have
to follow immediately after. The practice of all Jews today is to follow R.
Yochanan.

Most Rishonim[1] and
the Shulchan Aruch rule like R. Yohanan and indeed this seems to be the opinion
of the Babylonian Talmud. This is called being “Somech Geula leTefila”, meaning
the blessing of Gaal Yisrael (Who Redeemed Israel) is recited immediately
before the Shmone Esre.   At first sight
it seems that the last blessing after evening Shma (Hashkivenu – let us go to
sleep) only makes sense according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi. Indeed, Talmud Bavli
(ibid) asks how the blessing of Hashkivenu would not be considered an
interruption between Geula and Tefila according to R. Yochanan? It answers that
it is considered “long Geula” (or continuation of the Geula). Our thesis is
that in Palestine in Talmudic times, the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi was
the more accepted shita and moreover that they used to say Hashkivenu as the
last blessing before going to sleep (as we say Hamapil[2]).

Rashi (Brachot
2a) brings in the name of Talmud Yerushlami: Why do we say Shma in the
synagogue in the evening, even though this is done before[3] the
earliest time to fulfil the obligation? It answers that we do this  כדי לעמוד בתפלה
מתוך דברי תורה

While it seems from
Rashi that they said Shma with the blessings before Shmone Esre[4], the Tosafot
(ibid) in the name of R. Tam[5] says that
they used to simply recite Shma without blessings before Maariv, just like we
say Ashre before Mincha. Later on they would say Shma with the blessings
following R. Yehoshua ben Levi.  Indeed
the sugia further in the same Yerushalmi (1:1) supports this interpretation entirely[6]:

מילתיה אמרה שאין אמר דברים
אחר אמת ויציב מילתיה דרבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר כן רבי שמואל בר נחמני כד הוה נחית
לעיבורה הוה מקבל רבי יעקב גרוסה והוה רבי זעירא מטמר ביני קופייא משמענא היך הוה
קרי שמע והוה קרי וחזר וקרי עד דהו’ שקע מיניה גו שינתיה ומאי טעמא רבי אחא ור’
תחליפא חמוי בשם רבי שמואל בר נחמן רגזו ואל תחטאו אמרו בלבבכם על משכבכם ודומו
סלה מילתיה דר’ יהושע בן לוי פליגא דרבי יהושע בן לוי קרי מזמורים בתרה …

It discusses if it’s
permitted to speak after one already said the blessings after evening Shma[7]. It
mentions R. Yakov Grosa used to not speak after he said Shma with blessings,
and then mentions R. Yehoshua ben Levi[8] who
used to still say various psalms afterwards[9]. 

From the Yerushalmi it
seems that most people used to say Shmone Esre during the daytime, and later
ate their meal[10]
and laid down to sleep[11] saying
the evening Shma with blessings.[12]

We can also explain from
here how the shita of Bet Shamai regarding saying evening Shma while laying
down could have developed. It is unlikely that Shma in the evening was
pronounced in normal position and then in some generation Bet Shamai suddenly
ruled that one has to literally lie down to say it. A more likely scenario is
that it was the norm to recite the evening Shma while lying down and the
dispute of Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai arose as to whether this is the
requirement or is merely done for convenience so as to not interrupt and fall
asleep immediately.

Another obscure shita
we can now explain is in Zohar Hadash (Bereshit 17d in Mosad HaRav Kook
edition). It mentions that the idea of praying with “redness of the sun”
applies to Maariv, not Mincha[13] like
our Talmud (Brachot 29b). In light of the shita of R. Yeshoshua ben Levi
we can understand this. It seems the ideal time for Maariv according to this
was around sundown. However one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of Shma at this
time. It is also interesting that in Tosefta (Brachot, 3:2) the opinion
of R. Yossi is mentioned that Maariv should be recited at the time of “Neilat
Shearim”.

In conclusion, it seems
that there were some communities where the norm was to recite Shmone Esre of the
evening prayer before Shma with blessings, and these communities apparently
recited the last blessing of Shma (Hashkivenu) in place of our Hamapil.