Trends in Contemporary North African Prayer Books

Studies in the Cultureof North African Jewry

Collection of the Lectures Presented in the Workshop at Yale University, October 15–24, 2012

Editors

Moshe Bar-Asher and Steven D. Fraade

The Center for Jewish Languages and Literatures The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

The Program in Judaic StudiesYale University, New Haven

Contents

Preface V

Moshe Bar-Asher Moroccan Traditions on Worshippers of the Golden Calf and Profaned Priests 1

Nathalie Akun Vestiges of Eretz Israel in the Hebrew of Morocco 21

Avishai Bar-Asher Tablets and Fragments of Tablets: Some Notes on R. Yehuda b. Yoseph Al-Carasani’s Aron ha-‘Edut 33

Yaakov Bentolila The Nineteenth-Century Book of Records from the Jewish Community of Tangier and Its Contribution to a Dictionary of Hebrew Elements in Haketía 49

Ephraim Hazan and Rachel Hitin-Mashiah

Mi Khamokha— ‘מי כמוך’ Local Piyyutim on Miraculous Deliverance in North African Jewish Communities 63

Yehudit Henshke The Judeo-Arabic Origins of Modern Israeli Idioms and Proverbs 75

Naḥem Ilan A Letter of Intervention on Behalf of the Greek Patriarch in Egypt 85

Aharon Maman Textual Metonymy in Jewish Languages 99

Jessica M. Marglin Cooperation and Competition among Jewish and Islamic Courts: Double Notarization in Nineteenth-Century Morocco 111

Ariel Shaveh Trends in Contemporary North African Prayer Books 131

Joseph Tedghi An Unpublished Responsum by Rabbi Yoseph Messas about Jewish Marriage Contracts 141

Ofra Tirosh-Becker A Reflection of a Linguistic Reality: An Algerian Judeo-Arabic Book for the New Year 193

IndexesIndex of Sources 219Index of Subjects and Texts 222Linguistic Index 230Index of Words 234Index of Names 237

131

Trends in Contemporary North African Prayer Books

ARIEL SHAVEH

The Academy of the Hebrew Language

Whoever surveys the array of Jewish prayer books published during the last few decades can hardly ignore the increasing stream of new titles of the Sephardic rite. The reasons for this phenomenon originate mainly in social and political changes that have taken place through the years among the Sephardic congregations in Israel1 and will not be discussed here. Regarding the phenomenon itself, this has certainly brought to light heretofore unrecognized diversity within the Sephardic liturgy, which awaits study and evaluation. Hence, I would like to again thank Prof. Moshe Bar-Asher for encouraging me to carry out a comprehensive registration of contemporary Sephardic prayer books and to compare them on various aspects and details of the texts.

It was quite clear from the outset that I would not be able to complete my task without limiting the scope of the cataloging according to several criteria. Thus, at the conclusion of a thorough selection process, 102 prayer books were left2— only those that contain the complete text of the daily prayers, that were printed in Israel after the establishment of the

1 See, for example, Leon 2009, 83–109. 2 This number is correct until 11 August 2010.

Ariel Shaveh

132

state and that are included in the collection of the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem.

Simultaneously, I prepared a list of issues which could help distinguish between the various prayer books. Some of them concern the general character of each prayer book, such as the inclusion of a commentary or kabbalistic instructions; others illustrate the world view of the editors, such as the presence of pro-Zionist elements. But the majority of the issues that I examined are related to questions of text and vocalization.

I would like to focus on prayer books which reflect the North African rite. Such prayer books began to spread in Israel mainly during the nineteen-nineties and onwards as part of a wider renaissance of North African religious traditions that were pushed aside until then by the local Sephardic traditions.3 Out of the North African prayer books, two dominant groups are easily distinguished: the Moroccan prayer books and the prayer books belonging to the school of Rabbi Meir Mazuz, which can be defined as a certain branch of the Tunisian rite.4 These groups are particularly interesting because they happen to represent two contradictory approaches to the question of preserving the original language and text of the prayers. In fact, the rest of the Sephardic prayer books can be placed in between these two groups. I will try to demonstrate this statement by citing several examples, beginning with a somewhat famous grammatical one which introduces the basic approach of Rabbi Mazuz.

In biblical Hebrew, the suffix of the singular masculine second person which represents the accusative and the genitive usually has the form - (דגנ ,5.(אהב However, liturgical Hebrew texts tend to adhere to the grammar of mishnaic Hebrew,6 and in the reliable witnesses of mishnaic

3 Two important figures who ought to be mentioned in this context are Rabbi Obadia Yoseph and Rabbi Shalom Messas who opposed him. See, for example, Zohar 2001, 312–52 (especially from p. 347 onwards); Picard 2007, 38–50.

4 The Mazuz family originates in Djerba, while Rabbi Meir himself was born and brought up in Tunis.

5 See Joüon-Muraoka 2011, §§61d, i; 94c, h. 6 See Rabin 1958, 154–5.


133

Hebrew, the form of this suffix is generally 7.-ך This difference has been thoroughly discussed by several noted scholars of post-biblical Hebrew traditions, but Kutscher’s description8 is the most appropriate to mention here. First, he praises the Sephardic prayer books, which managed to retain the suffix ך- “to this day.” He then says:

In the Ashkenazi community however, due to the zealous efforts of the grammarians whose only standard was Biblical Hebrew, the prayer-book has been ‘purged’ of various ‘corruptions,’ and the lot of this suffix has been no better than that of many other similar substandard usages.9 [...] But even in the Sephardi community this suffix has not enjoyed an undisturbed existence. It stood in the centre of a serious controversy which convulsed the Sephardi communities in the 18th century, even the Italian communities. Rabbi H. J. D. Azulai was consulted and he rendered the following decision: ‘Any reading which has become accepted usage in the community is to be regarded as if it were a prophetic dictum.’10

As to Kutscher’s positive appreciation of the Sephardic prayer books, I wish to stress that these prayer books do not preserve the authentic form in each and every occurrence of the second person suffix within the -ךtext. In fact, the frequency of this form in the famous nineteenth-century Siddur Tefillat Ha-Ḥodesh, for example, was found to be quite similar to the frequency of its biblical alternative.11 Nevertheless, this ratio can be considered satisfactory when compared with the findings in common Ashkenazic prayer books. More important to note is that this state is the result of a slow, gradual and almost inevitable penetration of the biblical

7 See Yalon 1964, 13–5.8 Kutscher 1974, 45–9 (the following quotation above is taken from p. 48). Quite a

similar description is given by him also in Kutcher 1984, §46.9 Kutscher refers here mainly to Ashkenazic prayer books of the modern era. As to

earlier prayer books, see Beit-Arié 1972, 322, 347. 10 The full discussion from which this quote was taken has been published as part of

the decisor’s responsa Yoseph ’Omets, §10 (Livorno: 1798, 10b–11a).11 See Tourgeman 1984, 68.

Ariel Shaveh

134

form into the liturgical language, and not from a conscious and deliberate effort to impose biblical grammar on liturgical forms.

Surprisingly, during the last fifteen years new prayer books have appeared on the shelves of many Sephardic synagogues, explicitly instructing users to prefer the biblical form rather than the mishnaic ך-, namely the various editions of Ha-Siddur ha-Meduyyaq ’Ish Maṣliaḥ, which follow the teachings of Rabbi Meir Mazuz. The formal explanations of this decision, given in a special appendix,12 can be summed up by two main arguments: Firstly, Harav Ḥida (Rabbi Ḥ. J. D. Azulai), who justified the widespread use of the mishnaic form, represents— in the eyes of Rabbi Mazuz— a minority opinion among the halakhic decisors in this matter. The second argument emphasizes the inconsistency characterizing the use of mishnaic Hebrew elements in liturgical texts. More interesting, in my opinion, is the fundamental idea behind these arguments, suggesting that living traditions and accepted customs are not relevant when dealing with questions of practical liturgy. In fact, such considerations are completely absent from this ruling. In contrast with the full trust given by Harav Ḥida in “vox populi,” or, in his own words, in “any reading which has become accepted usage in the community,” the standard of the liturgical language should be set, according to Rabbi Mazuz, by scholars and not by the common people.13

The attempt to reeducate the worshippers as to the proper form of the suffix indicating the singular masculine second person, which is relatively common in Jewish liturgy, is definitely radical and outstanding. But considering it enables us to understand the meaning of other corrections, more specific ones, which find their way into contemporary Sephardic

12 Mazuz 1997, מב–ג (this appendix has been omitted from the recent editions of the Siddur); and cf. Mazuz 2009, 576–85, 1051–7.

13 The abandoning of the well-established tradition in favor of the conclusions of a learned study is one of the prominent characteristics of Orthodox Jewry from the second half of the twentieth century; cf. Soloveitchik 1994; Friedman 1987. These studies describe the Ashkenazic communities, but the Sephardic communities in Israel seem to have experienced a similar development (although for different reasons), as described by Leon (cf. fn. 1).


135

prayer books. Since the issue discussed concerned the masculine suffix, it is only natural to deal now with the suffix of the singular feminine second person.

The feminine suffix in mishnaic Hebrew is usually יך-; this form is confirmed by a wide variety of witnesses from mishnaic literature, ancient as well as late. But in the prayer books, this form, appearing only in the prayer recited on the appearance of the new moon, was liable to being corrected even more than the masculine form. Here, too, the activity of correction according to the biblical precedent was more widespread in Europe than in North Africa and the Middle East. Thus, instead of the original ברוך יוצריך, ברוך עושיך, ברוך קוניך, ברוך בוראיך, כשם שאנחנו מרקדים ביך ליגע יכולים אנחנו ואין we find in Ashkenazic prayer books a ,כנגדיך, slightly different version combining the familiar biblical form: יוצרך, עושך ?What about the modern Sephardic prayer books 14.קונך, בוראך, כנגדך, בך

About three quarters of the prayer books that I have examined have the mishnaic form in each of the six mentioned occurrences of the feminine suffix. The rest can be divided into two groups: the first one, including seven prayer books, reflects an uncompleted penetration of the biblical form into the text. These prayer books offer various combinations of the biblical form with the mishnaic one. Some of them include hybrid forms such as יוצריך, in which the vowels of the biblical form have been grafted on to the original consonants. However, it is not this group but rather the second that should attract our attention. This group consists of no fewer than fourteen prayer books, in which not a single trace of the feminine suffix in its mishnaic form can still be found. The reforming actions have been carried out deliberately and thoroughly, and once again we find among them prayer books edited by Rabbi Mazuz and his followers. The explanation given by Rabbi Mazuz himself should be quite predictable by now: the form יך- “does not exist in the Bible, and even in the sayings of our sages of blessed memory it is not so frequent.”15

14 Cf. Kutscher 1977, פח–צא.15 Mazuz 1997, כו.

Ariel Shaveh

136

* * *The two examples being discussed so far were chosen to point out the special approach of Rabbi Mazuz of Tunisia. Through the next examples I will try to highlight the opposite end of the scale, represented by the Moroccan prayer books.

The first of the two blessings preceding the reciting of שמע in the morning service includes a poetic description of the angels sanctifying God: ובנעימה ברורה בשפה / רוח בנחת ליוצרם להקדיש / לזה זה רשות ונותנים קדוש קדוש קדוש ביראה: ואומרים באימה עונים כאחד כלם / etc. This ,קדושה is the version emerging from Geniza fragments,16 Maimonides’ Code17 and ancient prayer books.18 However, this is not the version which is to be found in most Sephardic prayer books nowadays. Instead of the division כאחד עונים / כלם קדושה ובנעימה ברורה a different division ,בשפה is made: עונים כאחד כלם קדשה / ובנעימה ברורה in which the noun ,בשפה This .(holy) קדושה replaces the adjective (declaration of sanctity) קדשהalternative version apparently originates in the ancient French rite,19 and was made widely known throughout the Jewish world thanks to Rashi’s commentary to Isaia 6:3: “And this is what they have established in the blessing of Yotser Or: קדושה כולם כאחד עונים.” In practice, it was inserted into the Sephardic prayer books due to the instructions of HaAri, Rabbi Yiṣḥaq Luria, as they are worded by his disciple Rabbi Ḥayyim Vital in Sha‘ar ha-Kavvanot (Jerusalem: 1902, 51a): “One should pause between

16 See, for example, Oxford— Bodleian Library, Heb. e. 95 (fol. 7a): טהורה ובנעימה .(the text is fully vocalized) קדושה

17 The famous Oxford manuscript of the first two books of Mishneh Torah (Bodleian Library, Hunt. 80), which includes Maimonides’ full versions of the prayers and blessings, reads (fol. 168a): כאחד כולם טהורה )קדושה( ובנעימה ברורה etc. (the ,בשפה word קדושה is erased). This version too makes it impossible to pause after the word .ובנעימה

18 The famous Aleppo prayer book (Venice: 1527) reads in the daily morning service .p) ובנעימה טהורה קדושה and in the Shabbat morning service (p. 39b) ובנעימה קדושה103a).

19 See the twelfth-century French prayer book, MS Oxford–Corpus Christi Collection 133 (fol. 41b), and Maḥzor Vitry, MS Sassoon 535 (fol. 37a). Both texts are vocalized .(קדושה or קדשה)


137

the word ובנעימה and the word קדושה, and moreover, one should say קדושה with Shurek.”

Nevertheless, about one quarter of the contemporary Sephardic prayer books that I have registered still retains the version קדושה This .ובנעימה group mainly consists of various editions based on the classic prayer books that were printed in Livorno and were very popular in North African synagogues, and of new prayer books that intend to reflect the Moroccan versions of prayer, such as Ve-Zaraḥ ha-Shemesh, Siddur ’Avotenu, and more. In contrast, the prayer books following the teachings of Rabbi Mazuz have all adopted Rashi’s version. This fact is especially remarkable considering that the original Tunisian version, up to the very last generations, was ובנעימה קדושה, as Rabbi David Settbon reports in his book ‘Ale Hadas (pp. 129–30) according to the elders of the community.

From the blessings of שמע in the morning let us go forth to the blessings of the evening. In most of the Sephardic prayer books, the second blessing concludes with the words לעולמים ממנו תסור לא But nearly 30 .ואהבתך percent of them suggest, sometimes in brackets, to recite this sentence in a slightly extended manner: תסור לא וחמלתך The general .ואהבתך preference of the short version is apparently related to the grammatical disagreement between the two nouns ואהבתך וחמלתך and the singular form of the following verb תסור. But, in fact, this does not present a serious problem; similar structures occur here and there in classical Hebrew. In another blessing of שמע, for example, we read ומלכותו ואמונתו לעד קיימת, not 20.קיימות Furthermore, both versions— the one lacking the word וחמלתך and the one including it— can be traced already in Geniza fragments.21

Is there something in common between the various prayer books which do not ignore the extended version? Yes, there is. Again, this group consists, for the most part, of prayer books that clearly follow the Livorno

20 Cf. Tsuberi 1976, 306.21 Cf. Cambridge– University Library, Taylor-Schechter Collection NS 273.98 (fol.

1v): ואהבתך לא תסור; New York– Jewish Theological Seminary, E. N. Adler Collection 1983.1 (fol. 1v): ואהבתך וחמלתך לא תסור.

Ariel Shaveh

138

model and of Moroccan prayer books; and yet again, it is missing in prayer books from the school of Rabbi Mazuz, which preferred to omit the addition completely in spite of the clear fact that it existed beforehand in Tunisia.

It is true, though, that Rabbi Meir Mazuz was not the first Tunisian rabbi who was bothered by this version’s irregular grammar. Some decades earlier, Rabbi Moshe Zaken Mazuz of Djerba wrote a short halakhic code named Hora’at Zaqen, in which he ruled (Djerba: 1916, part II: Pi Tsaddik, 10a): “In the evening prayer one should recite ואהבתך תסיר לא יסורו or וחמלתך both suggestions are meant to replace the ;”לא rather tricky singular feminine form תסור.

In conclusion, a close look at the many dozens of Sephardic prayer books that were printed during the last sixty years reveals two main attitudes towards authentic forms and versions that deviate from the normative grammar or other authoritative sources. Both attitudes are found in North Africa. The conservative attitude is best represented by the Moroccan group, while certain Tunisian prayer books seem to adopt a new, daring line which rejects traditional forms and versions— in the name of orthodoxy.

Bibliography

Beit-Arié 1972 = M. Beit-Arié. “The Vocalization of the Worms Maḥzor.” In: M. Bar-Asher (ed.), A Collection of Articles in Mishnaic Hebrew. Jerusalem: 1972, 302–47.

Friedman 1987 = M. Friedman. “Life Tradition and Book Tradition in the Development of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism.” In: H. E. Goldberg (ed.), Judaism Viewed from Within and from Without: Anthropological Studies. Albany: 1987, 235–55.

Joüon-Muraoka 2011 = P. Joüon & T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: 2011.

Kutscher 1974 = E. Y. Kutscher. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (I Q Isaa). Leiden: 1974.


139

Kutscher 1977 = E. Y. Kutscher. Hebrew and Aramaic Studies. Jerusalem: 1977.

Kutscher 1984 = E. Y. Kutscher. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: 1984.

Leon 2009 = N. Leon. Gentile Ultra-Orthodoxy: Religious Renewal in Oriental Jewry in Israel. Jerusalem: 2009.

Mazuz 1997 = M. N. Mazuz. “Kuntres Le’okome Girsa: Corrigenda and Comments to the Liturgy.” In: HaSiddur HaMeduyyak Ish Matsliaḥ HaShalem. Bne Brak: 1997, א–מג.

Mazuz 2009 = M. N. Mazuz. “On the Vocalization of the Liturgy.” Or Tora 41 (2009): 576–85, 685–94, 780–90, 866–76, 959–66, 1045–62.

Picard 2007 = A. Picard. The Philosophy of Rabbi Ovadya Yoseph in an Age of Transition: Study of Halakha and Cultural Criticism. Jerusalem: 2007.

Rabin 1958 = C. Rabin. “The Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew.” In: C. Rabin & Y. Yadin (eds.), Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV: Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem: 1958, 144–61.

Settbon 2010 = D. Settbon. Alé Hadas. Kiryat Sefer: 2010.Soloveitchik 1994 = H. Soloveitchik. “Rupture and Reconstruction:

The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy.” Tradition 28, 4 (1994): 64–130.

Tourgeman 1984 = R. Tourgeman. “The Linguistic Tradition of the Liturgy in the Siddur Tefillat Ha-Chodesh.” Thesis. Ramat Gan: 1984.

Tsuberi 1976 = Y. Tsuberi. Siddur Keneset HaGedola. Tel Aviv: 1976.Yalon 1964 = H. Yalon. Introduction to the Vocalization of the Mishna.

Jerusalem: 1964.Zohar 2001 = Z. Zohar. The Luminous Face of the East: Studies in the

Legal and Religious Thought of Sephardic Rabbis of the Middle East. Tel Aviv: 2001.

Trends in Contemporary North African Prayer Books

Documents