May 31, 2012 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm #603629lakewhutParticipant
What’s the justification for people in europe to go against the tradition? I know the ba’al shem tov was a holy man. But how was he able to daven a nusach that the previous gedolim of Europe established for ashkenazim.May 31, 2012 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #1190155Feif UnParticipant
If that’s the biggest question you have against the new things the Besht instituted, you’re not doing too badly. There were plenty of other things that were far more controversial.
The Vilna Gaon held that chassidus was apikurses, and felt the Besht was a machteh es harabim. He put the Besht in cherem.May 31, 2012 6:49 pm at 6:49 pm #1190156MDGParticipant
There seems to be a difference between the Halachic tradition and the Kabbalistic tradition. The BeShT just incorporated more style from the Kabbalistic tradition into the davening.May 31, 2012 6:53 pm at 6:53 pm #1190157avhabenParticipant
Take it up with the ARIZAL.May 31, 2012 7:01 pm at 7:01 pm #1190158midwesternerParticipant
The change in nusach goes back to the Arizal.May 31, 2012 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #1190159
This question is actually a broader one, and is addressed in many of the tshuvos sforim of yesteryear. I cannot cite the exact reference, but the Divrei Chaim of Tzanz expounds on this issue. The Ashkenazic Jews had been davening what is known as Nusach Ashkenaz (presumably that which is labeled as such today). The adoption of Nusach Sfard (definitely not the nuschaos used by various kehillos of Sephardic Jews) is questioned as a departure. According to the Divrei Chaim, Nusach Ha’Ari is an inclusive nusach, and is avaiable to anyone. There are several different kabalos on what the exact Nusach Ha’Ari was. The siddur used by Chabad is labeled Nusach Ha’Ari, but is definitely not. It is the nusach compiled by the Baal Hatanya, based on Nusach Ha’Ari. There are glaring differences. In any case, it is not considered a departure to daven a general nusach, especially one based on the kabala of the Ari.
What remains a serious question is the marketed Nusach Sfard. It seems clear that the contemporary Sfard is a conglomeration of whatever the publisher decided to include. There are many proofs to this (references available). The common Nusach Ashkenaz is probably more accurate, but also not precise.May 31, 2012 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #1190160
lakewhut: He didn’t. Contrary to popular belief, it was his talmid the Maggid who began to change the Nusach. Your question still stands though. Rav Henkin (who wrote the Ezras Torah luach, I think at the behest of the Chofetz Chaim who should know minhagim) wrote about the halachos of keeping minhagim and changing them and at the end added “except for the chassidim who follow there rebbeim.”May 31, 2012 8:59 pm at 8:59 pm #1190161
Too bad you didn’t catch the Arizal in time.
Define the Halachic problem. The Chasam Sofer didn’t find any actual Halachic problem when he complained about it. Did you find something he missed?May 31, 2012 9:02 pm at 9:02 pm #1190162
You say that the Gedolim of Ashkenaz established their Nusach. What did they have before that?May 31, 2012 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm #1190163ChulentMember
Feif Un: You are entirely incorrect and do not know of which you speak. The Baal Shem Tov lived a generation prior to the Vilna Gaon and the Gaon’s cherem never included the Besht, nor did he consider him what you said he did.May 31, 2012 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm #1190164lakewhutParticipant
they lived in the same era look on wikipediaJune 1, 2012 1:20 am at 1:20 am #1190165Sam2Participant
Chulent: It is well known what the Gra (1720-1897) thought of the Besht (1698-1760). Admitting that fact does not lessen the validity of Chassidism nor does denying reality add anything.June 1, 2012 1:49 am at 1:49 am #1190166Feif UnParticipant
Chulent: I checked, and you are correct. I apologize. The Gra issued his cherem on all chassidus in 1777. The Besht had passed away in 1760. The person who he Gra specifically targeted was the Baal HaTanya.June 1, 2012 3:01 am at 3:01 am #1190167
There are only 2 authentic Nuscho’os:- Ashkenaz!!! & Sephardi!!!
Sefard is so jumbled with so many different versions, because it is far too young/recent and with no basis, 300 years being very recent compared to Ashkenaz & Sephardi having been around for well over a millennium.
It is no accident that most Yeshivas & Young Israel Shuls Daven Nusach Ashkenaz, as it is so exceedingly authentic.June 1, 2012 3:16 am at 3:16 am #1190168
ItcheSrulik, it might not be that clear. His Siddur was a Nusach Ashkenaz Siddur. But, Nusach Ari Siddrim weren’t around yet. He might have made the changes, anyhow. It’s a matter of turning the page this way, that way, and give or take a few words here and there.June 1, 2012 3:45 am at 3:45 am #1190169mddMember
Here goes, HaLevi, the kanoi! Guess what — Magen Avrohom held it’s ossur to change the nusach. Based on a Yerushalmi! Further questions?June 1, 2012 4:21 am at 4:21 am #1190170
It is interesting to take note, that the Jerusalem Great Synagogue Davens Nusach Ashkenaz, and the Shul downstairs [where I have seen the Godol haDor:- hoRav Ovadiah Yosef by Shabbos Mincho, numerous times] Davens Nusach Sephardi, but no Nusach Sefard on their premises.June 1, 2012 5:29 am at 5:29 am #1190171takahmamashParticipant
Magen Avrohom held it’s ossur to change the nusach.
Then I guess I’m in big trouble – I switched from Ashkenaz to Sfard after we made aliyah – of course, with the guidance of our rav. I guess I’ll be joining The Wolf . . .June 1, 2012 10:19 am at 10:19 am #1190172avhabenParticipant
The ARIZAL held it 100% muttar, and even PERFERABLE, to daven with this Nusach.
Go argue with the ARIZAL.June 1, 2012 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm #1190173dullradianceParticipant
Perhaps the author of the Megillas Esther davened Sfard. It says that Achashvairosh was king from Hodu ad Kush. It would have been just as easy to write king from Kush ad Hodu. It is a remez that first you daven hodu and then mir get der tzizzis a kush!June 1, 2012 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm #1190174RainusParticipant
The Gra did not put the Besht in Cherem. He put the Baal HaTanya and the Breslovers in Cherem. The Gra was too young during the time of the Besht.
The Arizal did not make any changes in Nusach. The Ari never made a Nusach Ari. To the contrary, his talmid Rav Chaim Vital quotes him that there are 12 gates of prayer in heaven and since nobody knows exactly which tribe they are from, each person should stick to the Nusach of his ancestors, because if he davens the wrong Nusach, his prayers will not be accepted in Heaven. This idea of the Arizal constructing a Nusach that will go through a 13th gate, this is a Chabad invention that the Arizal never spoke about and never heard of. The Chasam Sofer already wrote against this idea.
Nusach Ashkenaz was transmitted from generation to generation since the time of the Tannaim, as the Rabbeinu Elazar bar Yehudah of Worms z”l (Rokeach) traces his Nusach. He states that one who adds or subtracts words or letters, his prayers are not accepted in Heaven.
Nevertheless, if anyone could find me a Nusach for Avinu Malkeinu that has no more and no less that 247 words, as Rabbeinu Shlomo bar Shimshon (one of the Chasidei Ashkenaz) writes that there may not be more or less than 247 words, I would really appreciate it.June 1, 2012 2:29 pm at 2:29 pm #1190175TheMusicManParticipant
People, look, the Rem”a says that it is ENTIRELY ASSUR to change any minhag yisrael. This debate should be strictly theoretical, conjectural and speculative.June 1, 2012 2:37 pm at 2:37 pm #1190176ohr chodeshMember
While the Arizal davened Nusach Sefard, he wasn’t the first to do so. There are many before the Arizal to rely upon. No nusach can be claimed to be more authentic than any other.June 1, 2012 3:02 pm at 3:02 pm #1190177WolfishMusingsParticipant
The ARIZAL held it 100% muttar, and even PERFERABLE, to daven with this Nusach.
I guess that means that I’m a sinner for disregarding the Arizal and davening Nusach Ashkenaz.
The WolfJune 1, 2012 3:10 pm at 3:10 pm #1190178
Haleivi: That is speculation which cannot be proven one way or the other. We know that the maggid made changes and considered them chiddushim.
Feif Un: The Gra issued his cherem after the Besh”t passed away, but the people he banned were still known as followers of the Besh”t.
147: What’s sephardi? Do you mean S&P, Aram Soba, Shami-Yemenite, or something else? And while we’re talking about autheniticty, why not abolish most of korbanos and b’rikh sh’mei as do the Frankfurt-yekkes (true ashkenaz)? What about suggesting that all of mizrachi Jewry follow the baladi rite? After all they are the closest things we have to the untouched originals of their respective traditions. The fact is minhagim change over time for various reasons, sometimes legitimate, other times less so.
Avhaben: Do you have a halachic argument? Or at least a point?June 1, 2012 3:50 pm at 3:50 pm #1190179
The background to the proliferation of nuschaos is that each shevet had its own nusach that corresponded with its individual derech of avodas Hashem. These nuschaos were lost with the golus, and the prevalent nusach hatefillo was established in each of the major communities, Ashkenaz (Germany and neighboring lands), and Sforad (Spain and neighboring lands, including North Africa). These predate the printing press, so that the central establishment of anything was a fixed thing, though the hand copying of all texts meant that human error and modifications were common. I do not know enough about the nuschaos of Sfard, but the first one to publish the Ashkenaz siddur with any attention to true nusach was R’ Volf Heidenheim, who was a talmid of R’ Nosson Adler, and a chaver to the Chasam Sofer. He published his siddur 8 times, with changes in each printing, as he became aware of nuances that required change.
There was a sefer on tefilloh that was printed in Berlin in 5545 by Yitzchok Stanov (Vaye’etar Yitzchok) in which he proposed various pshotim on tefilloh together with changes in Nusach. A study of history reveals that this fellow, albeit knowledgeable, was a maskil, and far to the left even among maskilim. Despite this status, many of the changes he made became popular and incorporated into the siddur. As R’ Volf Heidenheim became aware of this source as the background for certain aspects of nusach, he changed them back in the next printing of his siddur.
Today’s Ashkenaz is based primarily on R’ Volf Heidenheim. Much of the popular Nusach Sfard is similarly based on Heidenheim.
Bottom line is that today’s popular siddurim, both Ashkenaz and Sfard, lack the exactness that should really be found in the siddurim we all use (though Ashkenaz fares better than Sfard). In this climate, it is worthwhile to address nusach as something that has been established by someone with the knowledge in higher realms. In the Chassidishe world, this would involve any of several mesoros on nusach from the Ari. In the Litvishe world, one should examine the siddur from the Vilna Gaon who also attended to nusach from the realms of halacha and kabbala.June 1, 2012 4:09 pm at 4:09 pm #1190180nishtdayngesheftParticipant
“I guess that means that I’m a sinner for disregarding the Arizal and davening Nusach Ashkenaz.”
Probably your biggest sin is disregarding the fifth chelek of shulchan oruch.June 1, 2012 5:12 pm at 5:12 pm #1190181
“The little I know” seems a little inaccurate as a screen name, no?
I have a couple comments about what you said:
1- You call R’ Heidenheim “the first one to publish the Ashkenaz siddur with any attention to true nusach.” He was the first one to publish one with attention to reconstructing a true nusach. All siddurim try to be accurate. Also, he was anything but a talmid of Rav Nosson Adler later in his life.
2- Which nussach sfard do you mean when you say the “popular” one? Some of them are chassidishe Nuschaos, others, like artscroll are based on R’ Hadenheim
3- Why do you say it is necessary to use nuschaos that are based on kaballa?June 1, 2012 7:13 pm at 7:13 pm #1190182abcd2Participant
As it is Erev Shabbos, it is worth noting one major change in the last few hundred years is the adoption of all Kehillos of using Lecha Dodi as part of Kabbolas Shabbos.
This tefilla is also only a few hundred years old, and in retrospect it is amazing that various Kehillos in Europe were hesitant to incorporate this now essential, universal and meaningful Tefila into the Friday night Davening.
I am very grateful how such a beautiful heart warming Tefila and cohesive song is a part of all our Kabbolas Shabbos.
Good Shabbos:)June 1, 2012 7:27 pm at 7:27 pm #1190183WolfishMusingsParticipant
Probably your biggest sin is disregarding the fifth chelek of shulchan oruch.
I wouldn’t say that that’s the biggest sin I’ve done. However, I’ll admit to occasionally having a lack of common sense — just like everyone else.
The WolfJune 1, 2012 8:17 pm at 8:17 pm #1190184
Itche, put it this way. The Chasam Sofer’s main complaint was that you have to Daven with the Shaar of your Shevet, and that Ashkenazim have one Shaar. The Rokeach mentioned above is also in the same vein.
The Chasam Sofer said that the Arizal Davened Sfard because he was a Sfardi. The Divrei Chayim and Minchas Elazar argued strongly about this, proving that the Arizal was in fact Ashkenazi — just like his cousins, the Maharshal and REb Eliyahu Baal Shem. Also, his Nusach was closer to Nusach Ashkenaz than to Nusach Sfard.
If your problem is getting the Teffila answered due to its corelation to the holy realms, than the Arizal is the one to depend on, unless you go with the Chasam Sofer that the Arizal merely followed his Mesora. It is taken for granted that the Arizal’s grasp in Kabbala was greater than anyone before him, dating back to the Geonim.
I wonder if the Chasam Sofer would have been against the change had he not been in a time where there were many changes going the other way.June 1, 2012 8:21 pm at 8:21 pm #1190185
Point by point response.
1. All siddurim were copies of previous ones, though they were made by publishers, not rabbonim themselves who sought to codify the nusach. In that effort, Heidenheim was the one who took the lead, both historically as well as practically in publishing his siddur. What do you know about Heidenheim later in life regarding being other than a talmid of R’ Nosson Adler? Please provide references. The Chasam Sofer references him often with great kavod.
2. When I refer to “popular” nuschaos, I refer to the common, standard publications of siddurim used in most shuls. The chassidishe nuschaos suggested here are still based on choices made by publishers, who might be nice people, but not necessarily those who I would seek to be koveya a nusach. Artscroll used Heidenheim for reference, but so did many of the earlier published siddurim of Nusach Ashkenaz.
3. As far as kaballah, I do not make specific recommendation about that. All I noted, based on tshuvos from the Chasam Sofer and the Divrei Chaim is that a nusach that is based on the kaballah from the Ari is considered a nusach that is inclusive – it contains all the elements that the specific nuschaos of each shevet had. That is why the Divrei Chaim paskened that one may switch from Ashkenaz to a Nusach Ha’Ari. The logic, as I gather, is that this is not considered a switch away from the original nusach. I also acknowledged the greatness in kaballah of the Gr”a (who needs no haskomoh from me).June 1, 2012 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #1190186
The tefilloh of Lecha Dodi of R’ Shlomo Alkebetz is certainly one of the great inclusions into Kabolas Shabbos. However, it is notable that this beautiful song only references the subject of Shabbos in the first two stanzas. From there to the end, the focus turns to the golus, particularly the desolation of the makom hamikdosh. Only at the end of the final stanza is there casual mention of Shabbos, with Nusach Sfard actually saying the words “Shabbos Malkesoh” in Aramaic, and Nusach Ashkenaz referring to Shabbos only symbolically with “Bo’ey Chaloh”.
The sefer “Seder Hayom” contains a nusach for Lecho Dodi that substitutes completely different stanzas after the first two, and makes no reference to the churban or golus. There is only a song to Shabbos. I am not sure who composed that version of Lecha Dodi.June 1, 2012 9:57 pm at 9:57 pm #1190187
Rainus:- The Nusach of Ovinu Malkeinu in the Sidur Avodas Yisroel & the Sefas Emes Sidur, has 250 words, in 37 stanzas, 37 being predicated by Yitzchok Ovinu’s age by the Akeidoh. I suspect 3 extra words crept in.
Talking about exact # of words, the 2 Siddurim I just mentioned, have Haneiros Halolu, followed by exactly 36 words, as per instruction of Mishno Beruroh [36 candles throughout Chanukah], which other Sidurim’s Nuscho’ous don’t comply with.June 1, 2012 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm #1190188therealemesMember
@rainus: the Gra didn’t put the Baal HaTanya and the Breslovers in cherem, he put all chassidim in cherem. Reb Nachman was five years old when the Gra issued his cherem in 1777. That’s just a misconception people have because they think it makes more sense that the Gra put those two groups in cherem, and not the “regular” chassidim.June 3, 2012 3:31 pm at 3:31 pm #1190189PatriMember
There are no more misnagdim. The Gra’s biggest talmidim today learn Torah with Chasidim, join Chasidish Rabbonim on issues for the klal, consider them gedolim and marry Chasidim. And have been doing so for over a hundred years.June 3, 2012 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm #1190190mddMember
Patri, ther are no non-Chasidishe Rabbonim who disagree with the Chassidishe shittos? Joseph, whom are you kidding?June 3, 2012 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm #1190191
mdd, they might disagree on certain things but it’s a far cry from thinking of them as Apikursim or as Shabsai Tzvi followers.June 3, 2012 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #1190192
True hisnagdus to chassidim is obsolete, B”H. There were once true talmidei chachomim who understood nuances of chassidic thought, and took issue with it. Incidentally, I believe that the Gr”A never actually signed the cherem, but that he did not oppose it. The signatores were his talmidim. That might be verified by others here whose knowledge of history is better than mine. Regardless, the belief at that time was that the chassidic movement was a departure from Torah based Yiddishkeit. There were many events since then that have convinced the Litvishe Torah world that this is untrue.
As Yiddishkeit grew in America after WWII, it became clear that chassidus was one of the elements that facilitated transmission of Torah and Yiddishkeit to the next generation. The yeshivishe world eventually recognized that, and the split was recognized to be artificial, and frankly an obstacle to growth. While others might be equipped to identify specific personalities who helped accomplish this, I think it is safe to say that the past several decades have led to the demise of true hisnagdus. For that, we should all be grateful.June 4, 2012 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #1190193
1-He was against kabbala-yeshivos and was alleged to have written an anonymous pamphlet against Rav Nosson Adler later in life. Like most works about outdated machlokes, the pamphlet is out of print since the machlokes was, thank God, laid to rest a long time ago.
3- I thought that was what you meant when you said In this climate, it is worthwhile to address nusach as something that has been established by someone with the knowledge in higher realms. If you didn’t mean that, my humblest apologies.October 31, 2016 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm #1190194
Given that Hashem melech, the entirety of the Kabbalat Shabbat service, and several other pasuks are technically kabbalistic additions, those saying that Sphardi Nusach is pure and unaltered need to review. Supposedly the Ashkenazim actively avoided kabbalistic customs after the Shabbatei Tzvi debacle (although clearly some still made their way in). If you think the Sphardi Nusach is more accurate, that’s fully in your right, but that’s NOT actually what the academics say, contrary to popular belief.November 1, 2016 9:06 pm at 9:06 pm #1190195
This thread is full of inaccurate and false statements. The Anshei Knesses Hagedolah were mesaken our tefillah more than 2000 years ago. We have no idea what the exact words of their nusach were, since Chazal actually forbade tefillos to be written down. (See Shabbos 115b “????? ????? ?????? ????”). They were only written later (I believe first by R’ Amram Gaon) because of ?? ????? ??’.
In any case, it seems that it doesn’t halachically matter so much. As long as one says the parts of tefillah that Chazal instituted and doesn’t say anything objectionable or false, he is yotzei tefillah. For example, the fourth bracha of Shmoneh Esreh is a request for knowledge. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether one says ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? or ???? ???? ????. Neither would be considered ???? ????? ????? ?????.
If Chazal had established a specific nusach for tefilla that we were halachically bound to follow, mishnayos such as ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ????? ???,??????????, ?????? ???? (Brachos 5:3). Since such phrase were clearly not instituted by Chazal, it would be obvious that it is asur to say them. Similarly, the gemara in Brachos 33b teel sof a certain chazzan who began chazaras hashatz “??-? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????”. Rabbi Chanina waited until he finished Shmoneh Esreh, then took issue with him for saying so many praises of Hashem, as if those he said were all there was to say. However, if he had added other words of his own that weren’t inappropriate, R’ Chanina would not have been bothered to hear a nusach he had never heard before in his life. See also on 34a that R’ Eliezer had no problem with chazzanim adding and subtracting from Shmoneh Esreh at will, as long as they said the substantial parts of tefillah.
In short, all nuschaos of tefillah that have developped, Ashkenaz, Sefard, Moroccan, Yemenite, etc., are kosher. The question is only whether one has a right to change from the nusach that his ancestors davened.November 1, 2016 9:48 pm at 9:48 pm #1190196
The reason for the different nuschaos among Klal Yisrael seems to be simply different versions of the exact words of the tefillah that developed in different countries. If you look in sefarim on tefillah and halacha from the time of the Rishonim, you’ll see that there was never a unified nusach of tefillah (the differences between earlier nuschaos are much greater than the differences between modern-day nuschaos).
The Arizal said that there are 12 she’arim of tefillah corresponding to the 12 shevatim, and each person should daven the nusach of his shevet. He added that there is a 13th sha’ar which is for one who doesn’t know which shevet he’s descended from. The Ba’al Hatanya wrote a siddur in an attempt to identify this 13th sha’ar. That nusach is the so-called “Nusach Ari” davened by Chabad Chassidim to this day.The Arizal himself was an Ashkenazi, and at least on Yamim Nora’im davened with the Ashkenazim.
There seems to be no evidence that the Baal Shem Tov davened anything other than Nusach Ashkenaz, but his talmidim tried to daven according to the Arizal’s kabblistic kavvanos, many of which he (or R’ Chaim Vital) explained according to the nusach of the Sefardim. A cursory look at a few “Nusach Sefard” siddurim shows that no two are the same, but in general they all seem to combine the Ashenazi and the Sefardi nuschaos (sometimes creating absurd phrasing).
The chassidim met with a lot of opposition for changing from their ancestors’ nusach, and many of them defended it on various different grounds. Many teshuvos have been written from in the last 200 years on the topic. But I don’t think anyone is going to change their nusach based on anyone’s arguments either way.November 1, 2016 11:19 pm at 11:19 pm #1190197
“But I don’t think anyone is going to change their nusach based on anyone’s arguments either way.”
This is exactly right. And, I’m glad you brought that up about the 12 nusachs. It’s taught that each corresponded to one of the 12 permutations of HaShem’s name (4!/2!) so that Klal Yisroal collectively covered every possible way of praying to Hashem.
Do you have an example of the case where the combining in Nusach Sphard causes absurd phrasing? I’m just curious.November 2, 2016 2:30 am at 2:30 am #1190198
Reb Nachman was five years old when the Gra issued his cherem in 1777. putting this into perspective for all of us to grasp better:- Rav Nachman was 4 years old at the Declaration of Independence and a 16 year old teenager when President George Washington took the Oath of Office in Lower Manhattan.
Supposedly the Ashkenazim actively avoided kabbalistic customs & instead learn ??? ??????? in compliance with the ???? ?????November 2, 2016 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm #1190199DaMosheParticipant
R’ Moshe Feinstein said that one can switch from davening sfard to daven ashkenaz, but not the other way around.
When I was in college, I learned in a small yeshiva for a year, where one of the Rabbeim was a student of R’ Aharon Kotler. He told us a story where R’ Aharon was traveling with a few students (including this Rebbe) and they stopped to daven Mincha. The shul davened sfard. R’ Aharon asked if he could daven for the amud, and he went up and davened ashkenaz. One of hte students asked him, “But Rebbe, the minhag hamakom is to daven sfard!” He replied, “Minhag hamakom has its place, but this is the proper nusach!”
Ah, good times in that yeshiva. It was where I met Feif Un. We went to the same college and the same yeshiva while in that college!November 2, 2016 8:41 pm at 8:41 pm #1190200
Neville- The worst is ????? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???????. Other places where the nusach can’t make up its mind whether to say the Ashkenazi or Sefardi version are ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? and ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????.November 2, 2016 8:45 pm at 8:45 pm #1190201
147- The reason the Ashkenazim say Bameh Madlikin and not Kegavna before Maariv on Shabbos is not to intentionally ignore Kabbalistic minhagim, but because saying Bameh Madlikin dates back to the time of the Geonim, while Kegavna only entered the siddurim some time after the Arizal. The Ashkenazim never adopted it. The real question is why, when Nusach Sefard started saying Kegavna, did they stop saying Bameh Madlikin?November 3, 2016 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #1190202
“???? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???????”
Wow, yeah. I honestly would have thought that was a typo looking at it in the Siddur and how things line up. I don’t believe it’s said this way in the Chabad Siddur, but I could be wrong. Chabad’s nusach is not as far from Ashkenaz in the Amidah as it could be.
“?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??????”
It’s true that that’s an Ashko-Sphard combo, but does it not make grammatical sense? Seems like it would just mean “because you hear the prayers from ever mouth of the nation of Israel with compassion.”
On 147’s point, I think he’s actually right about the reason for Ashkenazim never adopting it. Not sure where I could find a source, but I know I’ve read that, and I doubt it’s coincidence that he thought the same thing.November 7, 2016 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #1190203
I’m not sure that ?? ?? ??? ????? is really grammatically correct, but in any case what is the idea conveyed in that line of Tefillah? According to the Sefardim, it is that Hashem hears the tefillos of all people, and according to Nusach Ashkenaz, that Hashem hears the tefillos of Klal Yisrael. But what’s added by saying that He hears the prayers of “every mouth of His nation Yisrael”?
As far as Kegavna, it is a highly esoteric section of Zohar. I doubt 1% of those who say it really have any idea of what they’re saying. So the fact the Ashkenazim never adopted it is not at all surprising. Compare it to Berich Shemeih, which is also a section from Zohar, but has made it into almost all Ashkenaz siddurim in the past 300 years, perhaps because its simple meaning is easily understood.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.