Perfect Mis-Understandings 1 - Akdamuth

I began a series of postings a while back on the issue of "perfect mis-understandings"…

In reading R. Eliyahu Kitov's Sefer Hatoda'ah I was reminded of several separate mis-understandings about Akdamauth.

1. It is in Aramaic due to some esoteric reason – such as to keep the angels from understanding it
2. The old custom of reading Akdamuth after the Torah Reader reads the 1^st verse must be abolished. This is why most congregations read it PIROR to the Cohen's blessing on the Torah., otherwise it would constituted an interruption of the Torah reading.
3. Akdamuth is an introduction to the Torah reading.

This mis-understanding is understandable. The mis-perception is based upon the way we read the Torah today and trying to retrofit that model onto Akdamuth. In Talmudic lore this is Hazakah dehashta, viz. that the status quo of today is projected back in time – and her it is most anachronistic.

The competing principle in Talmud is. Hazakkah demei'ikara; i.e. the presumptive status quo is from the beginning of the process. In this case how was the Torah read in Talmudic times? I'm glad you asked! Following EACH AND EVERY verse a translation was rendered into Aramaic! There was no hefsek, or interruption by using Aramaic, indeed it was part of the process! Furthermore, Aramaic was colloquial, hardly esoteric.

Thus, the entire point of Akdamuth is as an introduction to the TARGUM on the Torah reading. Thus is MUST follow the first Torah verse and it would naturally be in Aramaic!

Rabbi Wolpoe- this is a nice hypothesis, but have you ANY evidence at all for this phenomenon!? I'm glad you asked! The Yatziv-Pithgam poem on the 2^nd day of Shavuoth is recited following the 1^st verse of the haftarah {at least in those congregations that recite it at all}. It is in Aramaic, and yet no move has been made – As far as I know – to relegate it to prior to the Haftarah. Why not? Answer: It is an introduction to the Targum on the Haftarah! There, the connection is more obvious - because the final line actually names Yehonathan – the author of the Targum on the Haftara – explicitly. We thus have a parallel on Shavuoth demonstrating this model clearly and concisely. The Artscroll book on Akdamuth makes a similar point in a more speculative fashion. The "ancient" custom of reciting Akdamuth following the 1^st verse is maintained in the German rite. Without necessarily know the precise mechanism, the presumption was that this was indeed a correct phenomenon and ought not to be tampered with. While blind trust can lead to unfortunate mis-understandings, too it appears that the critics of this custom simply failed to make the correct sense out of the structure as it was.

We can now debate that since we no longer use a meturgeman a translator- ought we not shift the Akdamuth to before the Torah reading? That is indeed a good point, after all it recognizes the validity of the original structure, and the reality of it now being a bit obsolete where it is. But, at least this shift would be based upon a deeper and more empathic understanding of the dynamic.

Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe

Previously Posted: 5/22/07

Comments:

Well Put Rabbi Wolpoe!
MY Artscroll Shavuoth Machzor had the Y'ztiv pithgam was
1. Esoteric/Qabbablistic, - although the material seems pretty straightforard!
2. It claims that Yehonathan the humble is an oblique reference to Moses our Teacher when it is really a reference to Yehonathan ben Uziel!
-RRW

May 24, 2007 10:17 PM

Rabbi Richard Wolpoe said...

And the Reference in context to Moses MAKES NO SENSE! This is a HAFTARA! Why would the poet refer to Moses our lawgiver in an intro to a Haftara! this is not oblique, it is misleading! And would be a perfect mis-understanding!
-RRW

May 24, 2007 10:18 PM