BE NOT RASH WITH THY MOUTH. When you are in the house of God, do not rashly utter words before the Lord.
AND LET NOT THY HEART BE HASTY TO UTTER A WORD BEFORE GOD. [Utter words before God] only if you understand their meaning,1 for the heart is lost and wanders, for it is occupied with things of this world.2 It is for this reason that God's anointed3 says, therefore hath Thy servant taken heart [to pray this prayer unto Thee] (2 Sam.7:27).4
[GOD IS IN HEAVEN, AND THOU UPON EARTH]. Know that God stands over you. He sees you and hears your words. God is in heaven.5 He is in the highest of the highest places. You are on the earth. There is nothing lower than you. Let thy words be few, so that you do not put yourself in danger. Act as the High Priest who on the Day of Atonement offered a short prayer [in the Holy of Holies] and then left.
Abraham the author says: I now begin to speak: The glory of the "Place" (ha-makom)6 fills every place (makom).7 A person cannot be on guard in each and every place (makom).8 Therefore a fixed place (makom) was prepared for a person to offer his prayer. A person is obligated to honor this place.9
A person is also obligated to give thanks and praise to his God every moment,10 for God's loving kindness is with him every instant and gives him life so that he can enjoy his senses. However, because a person is busy with the affairs of the world, a set time was established for him to pray.11 The latter are the well-known times: evening, morning, and noon, for whoever has eyes knows when the sun rises,12 when it inclines,13 and when it sets.14
A person15who prays must guard the opening of his mouth.16 He should imagine himself standing before a king who has it in the power of his hands to give life and take life.17 It is therefore forbidden for a person to pray and insert in his prayers liturgical poems [henceforth piyyut (singular) or piyyutim (plural)] whose basic meaning he does not know. He should not rely on the original composer of the poem,18 for there is no person who never sins.19 It is also possible that the copyist sinned.20
Let me state a general rule. The poems of Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kalir,21 whose rest is glorious, presents four major problems.
One. Most of his piyyutim consist of riddles and parables.22
I will give an example by citing one of his poems. [The piyyut opening with the words Ansikhah Malki.23]
[The poem reads] l-r-i-y (לראי) yakpil va-chodashim yakhpil / le-Yom zeh pur hippil: u-me-tzion yimlokh.24Some say that the lamed of l-r-i-y, should be followed by a yod.25 [The word should be read, liyre'iy (ליראי) (to the one who fears Me).]26
[According to this interpretation] liyre'iy (ליראי) (to the one who fears Me) refers to the Messiah.
Yakpil means He will fold, [that is, God will fold,] the earth before the Messiah.27
Va-chodashim yakhpil means, He will fold the months of the year and hasten his coming.28
Others say that l-r-i-y is to be spelled without a yod. It is to be read liriy (לראי) (to what I see).29 [They also say that: Yakhpil] means, He will remove.
[According to this interpretation] the word
re'iy (ראי) is similar to the word
re'iy (ראי, see) in,
See thy way in the Valley (Jer. 2:23).
30
Va-chodashim Yakhpil means, He will remove the new. The reference is to the newly introduced idols.31
The wise men of this generation interpret
liriy (לראי)
yakpil to mean, God will remove the heavens—which are compared to a molten mirror (ראי)
(Job 37:18).
32 Va-chodashim yakhpil33 means that God will double the new heavens.
34
Also this interpretation is incorrect, for the only [possible] meaning of liriy (לראי) yakpil / va-chodashim yakhpil [according to this interpretation] is: God will remove the mirrors and the new mirrors will be doubled (Va-chodashim yakhpil). Perhaps the mirrors will very thick. It will be hard to deliver a blow to35 them.36
Is it correct for a person to say that there is no being among the living creatures [that is as exalted] as an
ayir (a wild ass),
37 for the word
ayir (a wild ass) means a man in
when a wild ass's colt (ayir)
is born a man (Job 11:12)?
38
Is it correct for a person to say, “Happy are the people who worship fire and bow to the sun” because Scripture refers to God, the glorious and awesome, as “fire [and sun]”39 in For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God (Deut.4:24).
Would it be correct for a person to argue that God can
40 be referred to as the sun because Scripture states,
For the Lord God is a sun and a shield (Ps. 84:12)?
One can argue for using the words "fire" and "sun" for God
41 because these words refer to God
42 in
For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire (Deut.4:24) and
For the Lord is a sun (Ps. 84:12). This is certainly so in view of the fact that these words do not have a
kaf (prefixed to them, as does the word
43 ke-re'iy (like a mirror) in
strong as a molten mirror (Job 37:18). Scripture compared the heavens to a mirror only with regard to strength.
44
Will a person pray, “Blessed art Thou O Lion” because they find that Scripture states
the Lord... shall roar like a lion (Hosea 11:10)? Will such a prayer find favor in the eyes of God?
Why should we not learn from King Solomon? There was no man who came after him who was as wise as he. Now the prayer which Solomon uttered
45 is well known. Whoever knows Hebrew understands it. It does not consist of riddles and parables. Similarly, the prayer of Daniel,
46 "who loosened knots"
(Dan. 5:12).
47
All of these people employed only understandable language in their prayers. These men were wise. How much more so must one who prays on behalf of many people48that are not [especially] wise, employ understandable language.
All the prayers composed for the weekdays and holy days, which the early Sages49 composed, do not contain riddles and parables.
What purpose is there in saying that God will double the new heavens? Will there be two heavens?50 For [according to those who interpret re'iy as referring to heaven] the poem says that God will make two heavens.51
[The above quoted line from the piyyut continues as follows: le-yom zeh pur hippil / u-me-tzion yimlokh (God cast lots for this day.52 He will reign from Zion.) It is wrong to say that "God cast lots for this day,” for the one who casts lots, does not know what the results will be.53 The poet should have run away from the phrase “God cast lots," for it is only used in the place [where Scripture speaks] of the enemy of the Jews.54
Furthermore, [the line of the piyyut concludes with]: "He will reign from Zion." How can God reign from Zion after He makes the heavens and earth pass away, when Zion is part of the earth?55
One of the wise men of the generation said that the poet had to employ the phrase pur hippil (He cast lots) because it rhymes with yakpil (will destroy).56
I answered him:
We do not find the prophets employing rhyme in all their prayers. Why did the poet insist on riding an elephant (pil)57 and then throw it down (yappil)?58 If he dreamed59 that he must compose a poem that rhymes with pil, and then when he awoke he felt compelled to act in accordance with the meaning of his dream,60 then he should have written as follows:
Lochetz yapil (He will cast down the oppressor into a dark place). Le-mitnase yappil (He will throw down the haughty)
Ve-ramei lev yashpil (He will lower the arrogant). Umi-tzion yimlokh (He will reign from Zion).
Two. Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kalir's poems contain Talmudic terminology.61 I t is well known that there are many words in the Talmud that are not in the Holy Tongue.62
Now the Rabbis said: the language of Scripture stands by itself, and the language of the Talmud stands by itself.63
Who brought this pain; that is, the pain of praying in foreign languages, up on us?64
Did not Nehemiah chastise those who spoke in the language of Ashdod
(Neh. 13:24)? How much more so [would he be opposed] to praying [in the language of Ashdod]?
Why should we not learn from the established prayers65 which are entirely composed in pure Hebrew?
Why should we pray in the language of the Medes, Persians, Edomites,66 and Ishmaelites?67
Three: Even the words that are in the holy tongue [in the piyyutim of Rabbi Elazar] contain major mistakes. The word aniskhah (I will pour a libation) in aniskha malki le-fanav (I will pour a libation my king before him)68 is an example.69
We find a word similar to
aniskhah in
nasakhti (I have established)
70 in
va-ani nasakhti malki (Truly it is I that have established My king)
(Ps. 2:6).
71
Nasakhti (I have established) is a kal.72
It follows the form of
nafalti (I am fallen)
(Micah 7:8), and
nadarti (I have vowed) (2 Sam.15:7).
73 The [first person] imperfect of
nasakhti is
essokh or
ensokh. It follows the form of
eppol (I will fall)
74 (1 Chron. 21:13) and
eddor (I will vow).
75
The [third person perfect]
hifil form [of the root
nun, peh,
lamed] is
hippil (he threw down). The [first person] imperfect form [of the root
nun, peh, lamed] is
appil (I will throw down). Similarly, in the imperfect [first person], the word
hissikh (he poured a drink offering)
76 becomes
assikh (I will pour a drink offering),
77 or
ansikh if the
nun is present.
78 Compare,
lanpil (to fall away)
79 in
ve-lanpil yerekh (and the thigh to fall away)
(Num. 5:22). Thus (according to the rules of Hebrew grammar), the meaning of
ansikhah80 malki would be, "I will make of him
81 drink offered."
82 Compare,
assikh (I will
pour a drink offering) in
I will not pour their drink-offerings of blood (Ps. 16:4).
83
Some say that
nasahkti malki (Ps. 2:6) means “I anointed my king.”
84 If so, then we have a second error here.
85
Why didn't Rabbi Elazar say, “I will exalt my king,” or “I will praise or give thanks (to my king),” or “I will sanctify (my king).” He employed the word aniskhah86 only because he wanted to display his wisdom to his audience.87
We are obligated to know Hebrew grammar so that we do not err like those who employ the word zenenu (feed us)88 in the [third] blessing recited following a meal.89 Those who do so do not realize that zenenu comes from zanah (turn aside).90 It is like anenu (answer us) which comes from the word anah (answered).91 The imperative of zan (feed) is zunenu (feed us).92
Zunenu is like
shuvenu93 in
shuvenu Elohei yishenu (Restore us, O God of our salvation)
(Ps. 85:5).
[Furthermore, Rabbi Elazar] occasionally uses an imperative in place of a perfect. We find this to be the case when people pray on a fast day, and many say
she-chal anov panekha (that the humble entreated You). [Now] it is well known that the
shin prefixed to a word is in place of the word
asher (who, that, which, for). Compare,
mah she-hayah94 hu she-yihyeh95 (that which hath been is that which shall be
(Kohelet 1:9).
Chal (entreat) is an imperative regarding the future.
96 Compare,
chal entreat) in
Entreat now the favor of the Lord (1 Kings 13:6).
97 The proper way of saying "that he entreated" is
she-chillah.
98 Compare the word
chillah (entreated) in
he entreated the Lord his God (2 Chron. 33:12).
Additionally, the Holy Tongue in the hands of Rabbi Elazar is like a city with breached walls or without walls, for he employed the masculine for the feminine and the feminine for the masculine. [Thus, one of his poems reads:]
Shoshan emek uyyemah (the frightened lily of the valley).
99 It is well known that the
heh in the word
shoshannah (lily)
(2 Chron. 4:5) indicates that the word is a feminine. The
heh changes into a
tav when the word is in the construct.
100 Compare,
shoshannat ha-amakim (a lily of the valleys)
(Song of Songs 2:1). When the
heh or
tav is dropped the word is masculine.
101
Rabbi Elazar refers to the shoshan (lily) as uyyemah (frightened).104 Why did he run away from the biblical verse [which reads shoshannat ha-amakim (a lily of the valleys) (Songs of Songs 2:1)]? Why didn't he employ the clause shoshannat emek uyyemah? Furthermore, why does he describe the lily as "frightened"? What connection is there between a lily and fright?105 Can a lily be frightened? The only adjectives applicable to a lily are cut, fresh, or dry.
One of the wise men of this generation said that Rabbi Elazar had to use the term uyyemah (frightened)106 because he wanted his verse to be "rich."107 I replied: If you call this line "rich" then Rabbi Elazar's piyyutim contain rhymes that are so poor and poverty-stricken that they have to go begging door to door.108 For [example], he paired109 har (mountain) with nivchar (chosen).110 If he did so because the heh and chet are gutturals, then he should also pair the alef and ayin. And with the bet and the vav, for he also pairs the word levi (Levite) with the word navi (prophet),111 he should similarly combine the mem and the peh.112 There should thus be five types of rhyming [of stich endings], for there are five sources that produce letters.113
If Rabbi Elazar combined the
heh and the
chet114 because they are similar when written
115 then he should combine the
resh and the
dalet.
116 He should certainly have done so, because we find
Deuel (Num. 1:14) and
Reuel (ibid. 2:14), and
Dodanim (Gen. 10:4) and
Rodanim (1Chron. 1:7).
117
Rabbi Elazar should also pair
118 mishpatim (ordinances)
119 with
pittim (pieces of bread)
120 because they have one origin.
121 Furthermore, the
tet is found in place of the
tav in the words
nitztaddak (clear ourselves)
(Gen. 44:16),
hitztayyadnu (we took for our provision)
(Joshua 9:12), and
va-yitztayyaru (and made as if they had been ambassadors) (ibid. 9:4).
122
Rabbi Elazar also paired
123 yom (day) with
pidyon (for redemption) and
elyon (most high).
124 The latter is also incorrect. Now even though we find a
mem in place of a
nun and a
nun in place of a
mem125 in
chayyin (his own life)
(Job 24:22) and
chittin (wheat)
(Ezek. 4:9), how could the
mem of
yom—which is a root letter—interchange with the
nun of
elyon or
pidyon which is not a root letter? For the root of
elyon is
ayin, lamed, heh and the root of
pidyon is
peh, dalet, heh.
Furthermore, what purpose is there to rhyme, aside from the fact that it be pleasant to the ear when it senses that the end of a line rhymes with the end of its counterpart?126 Perhaps Rabbi Elazar had a sixth sense,127 and perceived that the mem sounds like the nun even though they do not come from one source.128
Rabbi Elazar also matched
129 osher (wealth)
130 with
asser te-asser131 (Thou shalt surely tithe)
(Deut. 14:22). This too is incorrect unless the one who prays comes from the tribe of Ephraim.
132
Some say: We do not question the lion after he dies.133
The response to the above is as follows:
God's spirit made all of us. Those who came before us, like us, were made out of clay,
134 and the ear trieth words
(Job 34:3).
We all know that Daniel was a prophet.135 He was chief prefect over all the magicians and wise men of Babylon. Nevertheless, our Sages of blessed memory said that Daniel erred in his calculations.136 Now, calculations are simple.137 Furthermore, Jeremiah the prophet was a contemporary of Daniel.138
After the Rabbis offered proof that Daniel erred, did anyone say to the Sages: If Daniel were alive today, would he not point out the mistake of those who claim that he erred?139
Others (the Sages) said: The merciful God seeks the heart.140 If this be so, why the need to verbalize prayer?141 The Book of Psalms says that God knows what is hidden in the heart.142
Didn't the ancients ordain that we pray on the Day of Atonement: "[Our God and God of our fathers,] be with the mouth of the messengers of Your people, the house of Israel... May they not stumble in their speech"?143
Four. All of Rabbi Elazar's piyyutim are saturated with midrash and aggadot. However, our wise men said: A verse never loses its plain meaning.144 This being so, one should employ only unambiguous language when he prays.145 One should avoid employing secrets or parables. One should not pray in a way that is not in keeping with the halakhah,146 or employ a prayer that can be interpreted in many ways.
Do we not know that the midrash on Song of Songs writes that every time the word Shelomoh (Solomon) is mentioned in Song of Songs, it refers to the Holy One, for the meaning of "Shelomoh" is “the King whose peace (shalom) is His”? Now, is it proper for one to pray: “Save me, O King Solomon”?147
Now Scripture relates that there were those who asked:148What is the massa of the Lord (Jer.23:33)?
It is known that the word massa at times means a prophecy.149
The prophet Jeremiah did not understand what the people speaking to him were saying
150 when they asked him: What is the
massa of the Lord?
151 [The prophet thought that the people asked: What is God's message? However, in reality, the people] employed the word
massa in the sense of “burden," as in
massa'o (his burden) in
every one to his service and to his burdenn (Num. 4:49). [What the people really meant was: O, how burdensome is the word of God!].
The One who knows hidden things152 told the prophet to tell them: for every man's own word shall be his burden;153 and would ye pervert the words of the living God, of the Lord of hosts our God? (Jer.23:36).154 Thus shall ye say, everyone to his neighbor, and every one to his brother:155 What hath the Lord answered? and: What hath the Lord spoken? (ibid.23:35). In other words, employ a word whose meaning is not in doubt.156
Similarly,
and shalt call Me no more baali (Hosea 2:18).
157 [Why not?] Doesn't
the ba'al of her youth (Joel 1:8) refer to a man?
158 The prophet says,
and shalt call Me no more baali, because the word
ba'al might mistakenly be taken to refer to an idol. The prophet says that a word
159 that might mistakenly be taken to refer to an idol shall not be used with reference to God. Hence, the prophet states
thou shalt call Me no more banal but shall call Me ishi (my man)
(Hosea 2:18).
Rabbi Saadiah Gaon avoided the four pitfalls160 mentioned above in his two supplications.161 No composer ever composed supplications equal to his formulations. His compositions employ the language of Scripture and follow the rules of grammar. They do not contain riddles, parables, and midrashic interpretations.
There was a wise man in France. He, too, composed a prayer.162 It opens with: "O Lord: Give ear to my words." His composition contains errors.
One of them is:163 "You created worlds; they have no boundaries."164 Now that which has no boundaries cannot be created.165
The wise man wrote:
166 "Your Name is in You, in You is Your Name." If the poet knew the [true] meaning of the word
shem (name), [composing such a line] would not have entered his mind.
167 Furthermore, once the poet said, "Your Name is in You," he implied "In You is Your Name."
168 For what difference is there between: “peace be unto you and unto you be peace”; "Re'uven are you, you are Re'uven";
take them alive (1 Kings 20:18), and
alive take them (ibid);
the Lord bless thee and keep thee, and
the Lord keep thee from all evil (Ps. 121:7).
169 This is not the manner of prayer. It is the manner of mockery.
Another wise man joined two words and made them into one.170 He made up the word avarmil. The meaning of avarmil is, “I will explain a word (ava'er millah),” or “I will clarify a word (avarer millah).”171 He did the opposite of what he said. He did not explain the word [that he intended to explain] and he did not speak clearly. He mixed up the Hebrew tongue in his use of language. I cannot [bother to] explain one out of the thousands of errors made by the payyetanim.172
In my opinion, a person should not employ these poems in his prayers. He should pray using the fixed liturgy, [and] keep his words to a minimum so that he is not punished when judged
1. Only if he understands their true meaning. Ibn Ezra speaks of a personal prayer. He tells the worshipper to carefully consider what he is praying for.
2. The heart is occupied with things of this world. It therefore requires special effort to direct it to God. Ibn Ezra refers to people who are occupied with things of this world to men who are lost and wander about.
3. King David.
4. David carefully considered the wording of his prayer. One of the High Holy Day prayers uttered by the Cantor during the Musaf service reads: " May [those who pray on behalf of the congregation] not err in their language... may they never say a thing against Thy will."
5. Literally, for God is in heaven.
6. The Rabbis refer to God as ha-makom (the Place). Ha-makom is usually translated as the Omnipresent. I have rendered it literally because Ibn Ezra engages in word play with the term makom (place).
7. God is omnipresent.
8. A person cannot always be in a state in which it is proper to offer prayer.
9. The place set aside for prayer.
10. A person is not only obligated to pray in a place set aside for Divine worship, he is also obligated to give thanks and praise to God every moment of his life.
11. Literally, to pray in.
12. The time set aside for morning prayers.
13. The time set aside for afternoon prayers.
14. The time set aside for evening prayers.
15. Literally, therefore a person.
16. What his lips utter.
17. Literally, put to death.
18. People who recite piyyutim without knowing their meaning should not assume that the piyyut that they are reciting is acceptable before God because it was composed by an intelligent and pious man.
19. The poet may have made a mistake or composed a poem that is not in keeping with accepted theology. For example, some Rabbis believe that the piyyut “Middat Ha-Rachmim" (attribute of mercy) should not be recited. This is because it involves praying to an attribute of God which Jewish theology opposes. Others say that Shalom Alekhem (the popular Friday eve song) not be chanted because it involves praying to angels rather than God.
20. A copyist inserted improper words in an otherwise theologically acceptable poem.
21. Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kalir (c. 570 – c. 640 C.E.) was one of the early paytanim, He composed piyyutim for the Sabbath, festivals and fast days. Many of his piyyutim have entered the prayer book and are recited till this very day. "Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kalir was a master of the Hebrew language and very creative in his use of Hebrew.... Ha-Kalir made a critical contribution to the development of the Hebrew language by endowing the language with flexibility, thereby paving the way for the development of modern Hebrew. Ha-Kalir was the father of the paytanim, and he dared to do more than any other paytan. (R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Kinot Mesorat HaRav, edited by R. Simon Posner, pp. 386-387.) Also see: Yahalom, Yosef. Atz Kotetz in: Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature, Hebrew University 1981.
22. We do not know what they mean. Hence, they should not be used as prayers.
23. Ansikhah Malki, is recited as part of the malkhiyut blessings on Rosh Ha-Shanah, during the repetition of the Amidah. See Machzor Rabba He-Chadash; Rosh Ha-Shanah; Reprint by Eshkol; Israel; 1994 p. 429.
24. This piyyut, which begins with the words ansikhah malki, is recited as part of the malkhiyut blessings on Rosh Ha-Shanah, during the repetition of the Amidah. See Machzor Rabba He-Chadash; Rosh Ha-Shanah; Reprint by Eshkol; Israel; 1994 p. 429. The piyyut reads: לראי יקפיל, וחדשים יכפיל, ליום זה פור הפיל, ומציון ימלוך.
25. According to this interpretation, liyre'iy should be spelled lamed, yod, resh, alef, yod.
26. According to this interpretation, liyre'iy comes from the root yod, resh, alef (to fear).
27. Literally, before him. See Is. 33:4. According to this interpretation liyre'iy yakpil means: God will fold the earth, before him that fears Me (the Messiah). In other words, God will hasten the coming of Messiah. He will fold the earth to shorten the way to the Land of Israel for the Messiah.
28. According to this interpretation va-chodashim yakhpil means: God will fold the months of the year for the one who fears Me. In other words, God will make time pass quickly so that the Messiah soon arrives.
29. According to this interpretation, re'iy (ראי) comes from the root resh, alef, heh (to see).
30. In other words, לראי is to be read liriy (to what I see). Liriy yakpil means: He will remove what I see (the idols).
31. According to this interpretation, liriy (לראי) yakpil / va-chodashim yakhpil means: He will remove what I see (the idols)/He will remove the new (the newly introduced idols).
32. Re'iy (ראי) means a “mirror.” Job 37:18 refers to the heavens as mirrors. The Stone Tanakh notes that ancient mirrors were made from thick burnished metal, rather than glass. The latter was pointed out to me by Dr. Rick Strassman.
33. This interpretation connects the word yachpil to kefel (double).
34. God will create new heaven (Is. 65:17), which will be the double the old heaven.
35. It will be hard to break them.
36. Ibn Ezra is being sarcastic. He is saying that there is no meaning to a line reading that God will create a thick heaven.
37. Would it be correct for someone to say "There is no one among the living creatures who is as distinguished as a wild ass” if he intends to say that there is no being among the living creatures that is as distinguished as man.
38. Ibn Ezra's point is the following. If Scripture compares two objects to make a point, this does not mean that the two objects are identical. For example, if Scripture compares the birth of a man to the birth of a wild ass, this does not mean that “wild ass” takes on the meaning of “man.” Similarly, if Job compares the heavens to a mirror, it does not mean that henceforth the word “mirror” means the same thing as “heavens.”
39. Literally, for Scripture states.
40. Literally, can also.
41. Ibn Ezra is being sarcastic. He argues that a stronger case can be made for employing the words “fire” and “sun” for God than can be made for employing the term “mirror” for “heavens." Scripture does not say that the heavens are a mirror; it says that the heavens are like a mirror.
42. Ibn Ezra is being sarcastic He argues that a stronger case can be made for employing the words “fire” and “sun” for God than can be made for employing the term “mirror” for heavens. Scripture does not say that the heavens are a mirror; it says that the heavens are like a mirror.
43. The word esh (fire) in For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire and shemesh in For the Lord God is a sun do not have a comparative kaf prefixed to them. That is, Scripture does not read For the Lord thy God is as a devouring fire, or For the Lord God is as a sun.
44. It does not mean that the heavens are mirrors. Ibn Ezra's point is that “mirror” cannot be used as a synonym for heaven.
45. When he dedicated the Temple. See 1Kings 8:22-53,
46. See Dan. 9:4-19.
47. Daniel was able to interpret dreams and other signs which were unclear.
48. A cantor who recites the prayers on behalf of the congregation. Very few, and in many cases none, of the congregants in medieval times had prayer books with the piyyutim in them. The cantor inserted them in his recitation of the prayers on behalf of the congregation.
49. The Rabbis of the Talmud.
50. What purpose will two heavens serve?
51. Literally, two of them.
52. God cast lots to choose when the day of judgment should fall.
53. However, God does. What point is there for God to cast lots if He already knows the outcome?
54. Scripture tells us that Haman cast lots (hippil pur)
(Esther 3:7). We should not employ the same phrase in reference to God. It is possible that Ibn Ezra uses the word "place” (
makom) here in an ironic sense; for as noted above, “Place” (
makom) in rabbinic literature at times refers to God.
55. The piyyut says that God will create a new heaven. This concept is based on Is. 65:17. However, Is. 65:17 also speaks of the earth passing away. How can God reign from Zion, if the earth passes away? Actually, Is. 65:17 says that heaven and earth shall pass away, and then God will create a new heaven and earth.
56. The line reads:
liriy (or
liyre'iy) yakpil / va-chodashim yakhpil / le-yom zeh pur hippil / u-me-tzion yimlokh. The poet needed a word that ended in -"
pil” so that it would rhyme with
yakpil and
yakhpil. Hence, the choice of
hippil. Once he had chosen
hippil — which is a verb — he needed an object for the verb. He chose
pur because the Book of Esther reads:
hippil pur (Esther 3:7). However, I,E. believes that this was a wrong choice, for in the book of Esther it was Haman who cast lots (
hippil pur). Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kalir obviously did not share Ibn Ezra's point of view. He believed that it was good to give new and clever meanings to Biblical terms.
57. If, for the purpose of rhyme, the poet sought a phrase that ends with pill, why did he choose pur hippil? He could have composed a poem whose stitches end in pill without using pur hippil. Ibn Ezra plays with the word pil. Pil means an elephant. He asks:“Why did the poet ride on an elephant (pil) and (like Haman) cast a lot (pur)?” In other words, “Why did the poet employ the phrase pur hippil?”
58. Why did he employ the phrase pur hippil? That is, if Rabbi Elazar felt compelled to rhyme the stiches of the poem with words ending in-pil, why did he employ the phrase pur hippil? “Throwing pil to the ground" is a sarcastic way of saying he should not have chosen the phrase pur hippil in order to rhyme something with -pil.
59. If heaven informed the poet in a dream that he had to compose a poem that ends in -pil, then he could do so with a phrase other than pur hippil.
60. Literally, in accordance with the interpretation of the dream.
61. Literally, are mixed with Talmudic terminology.
62. The Talmud is mainly written in Aramaic. It also contains words of Greek, Latin, and Persian origin.
63. Biblical Hebrew and Talmudic speech are two different languages.
64. Ibn Ezra was clearly opposed to public prayer offered in non-Hebrew languages, including Aramaic.
65. The prayers handed down by the Talmudic sages.
66. Christians.
67. Arabs.
68. Translated literally.
69. Translated according to Ibn Ezra The piyyut Ansikhah Malki, is recited as part of the malkhiyut blessings on Rosh Ha-Shanah, during the repetition of the Amidah. See Machzor Rabba He-Chadash; Rosh Ha-Shanah; Reprint by Eshkol; Israel; 1994 p. 429. See note 23.
70. Aniskhah and nasakhti both come from the root, nun, samekh, kaf.
71. ne can therefore argue that aniskhah malki (I will pour a libation for my king) is proper Hebrew for Scripture reads va-ani nasakhti malki. If we relate aniskhah malki to va-ani nasakhti malki, then aniskhah malki means “I will cause my king to be established”; or more literally, "I will establish my king." Ibn Ezra will later reject this interpretation.
72. In other words, aniskha malki is not similar to nasakhti malki for aniskha is a kal and aniskha a hifil.
73. Nasakhti, nafalti and nadarti come from roots that have a nun as their first letter. They are first person perfect kal forms.
74. Literally, I will fall.
75. Eppol and eddor come from roots that have a nun as their first letter. The word eddor is not found in Scripture.
76. Hissikh is a hifil, from the root nun, samekh, kaf.
77. Translated literally.
78. The nun is usually dropped in the imperfect kal form in words whose first root letter is nun. Hence Ibn Ezra's comment.
79. Lanpil is an example of a word where the nun is not dropped in the hifil in a word whose first root letter is a nun.
80. Ansikha is a hifil.
81. My king.
82. For the root nun, samkeh kaf in the hifil means I will make into a drink offering.
83. Translated according to Ibn Ezra
84. The root nun, samekh, kaf also means to pour. These commentators say that by extension it also means to anoint, for anointing consists of pouring oil upon the head. According to this interpretation ansikha malki means “I will anoint my king.”
85. The first error is that Rabbi Elazar used a hifil (ansikha) when he should have used a kal (esokh). The second error is the implication that a human being can anoint God as king (Filwarg, Meijler).
86. Literally, he only did this.
87. Literally, his listeners. R. Elazar Ha-Kalir tried to impress people by introducing new words and new forms of words. Ibn Ezra was opposed to this when composing religious poetry. "Before Ha-Kalir, the Hebrew language was very rigid. For example, the nouns and verbs were fixed in their form." Posner, S., R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Kinot Mesorat HaRav (R. Simon Posner ed.), pp. 386-387.) It should be noted that in medieval France and Germany, Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kalir was held in great esteem, and that commentaries were written on his poems.
88. Rather than zunenu, the accepted reading.
89. The blessing opens with the word rachem.
90. Thus, zenenu means “turn us aside.” This is an improper request. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with a blessing that thanks God for giving us food.
91. Anenu comes from the root ayin, nun, heh. Similarly, zenunu comes from the root zayin, nun, heh meaning “to turn aside.”
92. Ibn Ezra's point is that the word for “feed” comes from the root zayin, vav, nun, not zayin, nun, heh. This being the case, our blessing should read zunenu.
93. The root of shuvenu is shin, vav, bet.
94. She-hayah means the same as asher hayah.
95. She-yiheyeh means the same as asher yiheyeh.
96. It commands a person what to do, in this case “to entreat,” now or in the future. Hence, one cannot say she-chal when speaking of the past. One cannot command anything be done in the past.
97. Chal is the imperative “entreat,” not the perfect “entreated.”.
98. That is, to use chillah and not chal when one wants to say “entreated” in the past tense.
99. See Machzor Rabba He-Chadash; Yom Kippur Second piyyut; Musaf; Reprint by Eshkol; Israel; p. 441.
100. Ibn Ezra later says that this is the form of the word that Rabbi Elazar should have used, not shoshan.
101. In other words, shoshan is the masculine form of shoshannah.
102. Tzedakah is feminine.
103. Tzedek is masculine.
104. Shoshan is masculine. uyyemah is feminine. Rabbi Elazar thus combined a masculine noun with a feminine adjective, contrary to the rules of Hebrew grammar.
105. Lilies do not have emotions.
106. Rather than the masculine uyyam.
107. A verse that employs words that end in three identical sounds (Meijler). The first line of Rabbi Elazar's piyyut reads: Shoshan emek uyyemah, Shabbat shabbaton le-kayyemah (This God-fearing people, likened to a lily in the valley, observes Yom Kippur as a day of complete rest). Uyyemah (fearing) rhymes perfectly with kayyemah (observes). Hence, Rabbi Elazar used the word uyyemah. The problem is that shoshan is masculine. The poem should have read shoshannat emek uyyemah.
108. If “rich” means “rhyming,” then there are many verses’ endings in Rabbi Elazar's piyyutim that are improperly rhymed.
109. He rhymed a line ending with heh, resh with a line ending with chet, resh.
110. Har and nivchar are not rich verses, for among other things their consonants do not rhyme perfectly.
111. Rabbi Elazar wrote a piyyut for parshat ha-chodesh which reads: chadashot le-havi, be-yad ish navi, mi-shevet levi (to bring new things, by the hand of the prophet, from the tribe of Levi). Levi is spelled with a vav, and navi with a vet, both are labials. Poem is quoted by R. Goodman p. 63, note 79.
112. Since both of these letters are also labials.
113. Dentals, guttural, labials, linguals, and palatals. Ibn Ezra's point is that if “rhyme" is determined by the origin of the letter, then we should not only combine similar sounding letters but also those that have a common origin. However, we only rhyme letters that sound the same (Meijler). R. Goodman explains: If rhyme in poetry is based on the origin of letters, then only letters that have the same origin should be combined.
114. That is, in har and nivchar.
115. If one maintains that Rabbi Elazar paired the heh and the chet because they are similar when written then he should have also balanced the resh with the dalet.
116. He never does this.
117. We thus see that Scripture interchanges the dalet and resh.
118. Literally, combine.
119. Mishpatim is spelled with a tet.
120. Pittim is spelled with a tav.
121. They are both linguals.
122. Hence, Rabbi Elazar should match the tet and tav. However, he does not.
123. Literally, similarly combined.
124. In the piyyut opening with the words odekha ki anafta bi. This piyyut is recited in the shacharit service on Yom Kippur in the Italian tradition. The pertinent line is quoted by R. Goodman in note 83, p. 104
125. Literally, and its opposite.
126. In other words, why did, Rabbi Elazar match yom with pidyon when they do not rhyme? The piyyut to which Ibn Ezra refers is quoted by R. Goodman, p. 64, note 83.
127. Ibn Ezra is being sarcastic.
128. The mem is a labial. The nun is a lingual. They do not sound the same and cannot be matched in a rhyme. However, maybe Rabbi Elazar had a special sense, and to him the nun and mem sounded the same. Ibn Ezra is obviously being sarcastic.
129. Literally, combined.
130. Spelled with a shin.
131. Both spelled with a sin.
132. People from the tribe of Ephraim could not distinguish a shin from a sin. They sounded both as a sin. See Judges 12:4-6.
133. See Gittin 83b.
134. See Job 33:4-6: The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty given me life.... Behold, I am toward God even as thou art; I also am formed out of the clay. Ibn Ezra's point is that we are as good as the ancients. They were mere human beings. So are we. Hence, we may differ with them if we can prove that they erred and that we are correct.
135. See Ibn Ezra on Dan. 1:17; 8:17.
136. Jeremiah prophesied that the Babylonian exile would last 70 years. See Jer. 29:10. According to the Talmud, Daniel erred in calculating when the 70 years would come to an end. See Megillah 12a.
137. Yet, Daniel erred in his calculations.
138. Jeremiah's prophecy was not an ancient prophecy, for Daniel and Jeremiah lived at the same time. According to Ibn Ezra, it is strange that Daniel a prophet erred in understanding the words of a contemporary prophet. Nevertheless, the Rabbis say that he did.
139. In other words, no Rabbi said, “How can we say that Daniel erred? He couldn't have erred. He was a prophet. If Daniel were alive today, he would show that those who accuse him of error are themselves in error.”
140. Sanhedrin 106b. Those who quote the Talmud to the effect that “God seeks the heart” maintain that one need not adhere to the rules of grammar when one prays. Because God knows the intention of the supplicant, if his intentions are correct, a mistake in grammar will not invalidate the prayer.
141. If God knows what we mean, even when we employ ungrammatical language, and allows us to use improper language, why pray at all? God knows what is in our hearts.
142. See Ps. 44:22.
143. Ashekenazi Yom Kippur musaf service.
144. Shabbat 63a.
145. Literally, it is proper for one to pray only.
146. According to halakhah, certain types of prayers are not to be offered.
147. The intention being, "Save me O God."
148. Literally, said.
149. See Nachum 1:1, Chavakkuk 1:1, Malachi 1:1.
150. Literally, the prophet did not know their secret.
151. Literally: The prophet Jeremiah did not know the secret of those saying to him: What is the burden of the Lord?
152. God. God knew what they meant. They meant that God's word was a burden. However, Jeremiah thought that they were asking: What is God's message?
153. What they say will be their burden, for they referred to God's word as a burden.
154. Would you pervert the words of the living God by referring to it as a burden?
155. They should not employ the word massa when asking: What has God spoken?
156. Do not employ the word “burden” when you speak of God's word, for the word "burden" is vague. It can refer to God's message in a positive way, or it can refer to God's word as a burden. Hence do not ask: What is God's burden? Ask: What is God's message?
157. The prophet Hosea says that in the future Israel "shall not call Me
ba’ali but shall refer to Me by the term
ishi (my man
(Hosea 2:18)." This can be taken to mean: You shall not longer call Me “my
ba’al.”
Ba’al is the name of an idol. It also means “husband.”
158. Why shouldn’t Israel refer to God as “my ba'al” when ba'al also means "husband”?
159. Literally, even a word.
160. Literally, things.
161. The two supplications are found in the Siddur of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, p. 47-87. R. Goodman, p. 66; note 110.
162. Literally, a request.
163. Literally, one of them reads.
164. Literally, You enlarged worlds, they have no boundaries.
165. Hence, it is wrong for one to say: "You created worlds, they have no boundaries."
166. Literally, he says.
167. According to Ibn Ezra, the word shem is connected to the word sham, “there.” The word shem means that the one whom we call, so-and-so is there; that is, the name takes the place of the subject. This being the case, one cannot say, "Your name is in You,” for a name is not something that is in a person—it merely indicates the person. See Ibn Ezra on Job 23:7.
168. “Your Name is in You" implies "In You is Your Name." The question arises: why did the poet repeat himself?
169. The clauses merely repeat themselves.
170. Literally, made them one in his mouth.
171. In other words, avarmil is a combination of ava'er millah or avarer millah.
172. What point would there be noting one error, when there would be thousands more to list?