Singer's siddur commentary, and how to translate בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳

[lethargic_man]

I'm currently reading the commentary volume to the first edition of the Singer's Prayer Book. Why I like it, and dislike the ArtScroll, may be summed up by what both siddurim have to say about the origins of בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָמַר. The commentary to the Singer's says:

The whole passage, much as we have it, is, apparently, at least as old as Moses Gaon (about 820) and in germ is much older. (See Vitry, p. 5, and commentaries on Shulḥan Aruch, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, §51, 1.) Several of its most characteristic phrases are already cited in the Mishnah and Talmud.)

Whereas the ArtScroll says:

The commentators record an ancient tradition that this prayer was transcribed by the Men of the Great Assembly approximately 2400 years ago from a script that fell from heaven.

Here's one interesting thing I've learned from this volume. How do you translate בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳? In English, the pretty much universal translation is "Blessed are You, Lord." But in German, the standard translation is gelobst seist du, Ewige, "Praised be You, Eternal," using a subjunctive that I don't really see the Hebrew supporting. I did a little experiment with aviva_m the other day and discovered that how she translated the phrase depended on which language she was translating it into!

Actually, it's not just the first two words that the two languages differ translating, but the third one as well. I've already blogged about how the Reform movement translates the Tetragrammaton as "the Eternal", based on the traditional interpretation of it as encapsulating הָיָה, הוֹוֶה, יִהְיֶה "[God] was, is, and will be".

However, something I recently learned from the Plaut chumash commentary, which neither the Hertz nor Etz Chayim mention, is that if the pronunciation scholars say was the most likely for the Tetragrammaton, viz. "Yahweh", is correct, then the Tetragrammaton ceases to be something looking vaguely like the verb "to be", from which we have to extrapolate a meaning, but becomes, very simply and regularly, the third person future imperfect of the הִפְעִיל of the verb stem הוה, and thus can be assigned an unambiguous meaning, "[the One Who] will cause to be".

I'm surprised (but also unsurprised) that this isn't better known amongst Jews.

Comments

interesting post

[michaelkoplow]

Very interesting post.

I sometimes look stuff up in ArtScroll, but only for purposes of making fun of it. I'm ashamed of my immaturity, but not so ashamed that I won't mention it.

"Barukh" is an interesting word. The root b-r-kh seems to have to do with blessing, but in most contexts it's God who does the b-r-kh'ing; He's usually not on the receiving end. And what kind of b-r-kh can we give God anyway? I recently picked up a Satmar hasidic Haggadah shel Pesah at a used-book sale (I surmise this because the haskamot are all from heads of institutions with "Satmar" in their name). It has a Yiddish translation, and it translates "barukh" (actually "burikh") with the Yiddish cognate of "gelobt." This surprised me, since I assumed the gentile and Reform influence in a Satmar Yiddish targum is minimal.

Very very very interesting, translating "Yahweh" as a hif'il. But wouldn't "[the One Who] causes to be" be "Mahweh" instead of "Yahweh"? "Yahweh" would be more like "He causes/will cause/continually causes to be." I think.

In case I forgot to mention it, this is an interesting post. Thank you and yasher koah.

Re: interesting post

[lethargic_man]

"Barukh" is an interesting word. The root b-r-kh seems to have to do with blessing, but in most contexts it's God who does the b-r-kh'ing; He's usually not on the receiving end. And what kind of b-r-kh can we give God anyway?

Indeed. I already blogged a set of notes on that subject.

But wouldn't "[the One Who] causes to be" be "Mahweh" instead of "Yahweh"? "Yahweh" would be more like "He causes/will cause/continually causes to be." I think.

Whoops; quite right. <corrects text> "He continually causes to be" is also quite interesting; it encapsulates the theology of the Mutakallimun (viz. that the world does not operate by natural laws, but by being continually brought into existence by the active intervention of God) that Maimonides devotes so much space to fighting against in The Guide for the Perplexed.

Re: interesting post

[lethargic_man]

More thoughts on "Yahweh" as הִפְעִיל: Some verbs ending ה seem instead to put a furtive פתח (and מפיק) in it in the הִפְעִיל, for example "תַגְבִּיהַּ" at the end of the last בְּרָכָה of בִּרְכוֹת הַשַּׁחַר. Some siddurim have this verb in the קל instead—תִגְבַּה—in which this is not the case; I don't know why not. However, this isn't the end of the story: other verbs don't do this, e.g. מַרְאֶה, not מַרְאִיהַּ (and this isn't because the example is in the present participle; we say מַגְבִּיהַּ, to use the verb from the first example, in the בְּרָכָה after the Shema in the morning).

My grammar isn't geeky enough to know why this difference exists, and whether it sheds any light on whether "Yahweh" matches the הִפְעִיל form, sadly.