The Structure of Adon Olam

I was recently encouraged to look closely at the piyut of Adon Olam. Despite having said it since kindergarten, I never realized until now that I had no idea what it was about as a complete entity (beyond the first line).

The first three lines form a set expressing HaShem's malchus in the past, present, and future - His activity (malach) prior to Creation, His status (melech) at the time of Creation, and the acknowledgement of His continued activity (yimloch) following the destruction of all Creation.

The fourth line appears to parallel the chronology of the first three, focusing on HaShem's eternal existence rather than His eternal kingship. At first glance, this seems to be logically inverted, as kingship is usually built upon the premise of existence. However, several midrashim (e.g., heavenly bodies, burning castle) imply that Avraham's knowledge of HaShem's malchus was, indeed, the prerequisite to his recognition of His metzius, mostly likely due to an inability to directly and unambiguously experience HaShem (save through prophecy, which only came later).

The fifth line expresses Yichud HaShem - an infinity orthogonal to that of the previous stich.

The sixth line seems to be similar to the fourth line in its chronological dimensionality, although utilizing the terminology of reishis and tachlis, which may be acknowledgements of HaShem's elevation over causation - that nothing causes Him and that He is independent of His effects (I'm not sure if my understanding of tachlis is correct).

Hence, once HaShem's complete malchus is established in lines 1-3, one can build upon this foundation the logical conclusions that He exists, that He is unique (as two kings cannot share a crown), and that He is completely independent (being that He is stronger than any other force).

At this point, the piyut changes its focus from a transcendental God to a personal One.

Lines 7 and 8 express that HaShem is Keili, Go'ali, Tzur chevli, Nisi, M'nusi, and M'nas kosi, which are all general concepts describing HaShem's interactions with us that are predicated on the postulates of lines 5 and 6.

Finally, lines 9 and 10 express a final thought, that every night I place my spirit in the stewardship of HaShem, with the fearless expectation that I shall again awaken, a confidence that follows from the postulates of lines 7 and 8.

It is interesting that we say this piyut upon waking up in the morning (in addition to sundry other points of the day), when we are as distant as possible from our future need to rely on HaShem in this manner, but perhaps it is precisely then that we need to remind ourselves of such as a means of influencing our actions over the course of the day.

B'rich Sh'mei

Someone on a discussion list inquired about the line near the end of B'rich Sh'mei which states "Lo al enash rachitzna v'lo al bar elohin samichna ela b'Elaka dishmaya", the middle clause of which appears to imply the existence of a son of God, in whom we merely do not rely.

I noted that the Rambam[1] (Y"hT 2:7) states that one of the levels of angels (immediately below Elohim and above Keruvim) was called B'nei Elohim. The "Pirush" on the side of my Choreiv Rambam (anyone know who this is?) notes that Elohim is the level of angel that rules over the world. Hence, perhaps the author of this line used the term Bar Elohin to refer to an angel in this general range rather than the more equivocal "Elohim" to express that not only do we not trust in man, but we do not even rely on more powerful spiritual beings, but rather only on HaShem.

However, according to MiPninei HaRav cited in Hanhagos HaRav in the beginning of the Machzor Masores HaRav, R' Joseph Soloveitchik stated that his grandfather R' Chaim was makpid not to say this line precisely because of the implication of "bar" mamash. (I recall reading that eventually RYBS stopped saying B'rich Sh'mei altogether, but can't find the source for this - maybe it's in the RH edition which I don't have handy.)


[1] who, in Moreh Nevuchim 2:6, states that interaction between angels and man only occurs in prophetic visions, not in the physical world, but that they still definitely exist, to oppose the words of the counterclaimant.

The use of cholanis in the mi-shebeirach for the cholim

There's a discussion over at the End The Madness message board about use of the word "cholanis" in the mi shebeirach for the cholim. (The thread is located in the Madness Watch forum, under the title "New Degree of Separation"). In a comment there, I posted:
__
In a discussion of the matter at mail-jewish (38:48) , someone quoted the Meiri on Kesubos 51b who explains that a cholanis is borderline sick (cholah v'ainah cholah) while a cholah is someone who's outright sick. On MJ 38:41, someone noted that Siddur Tefillah Yesharah (aka the Berditchever siddur) uses the word cholanis in the mi shebeirach, perhaps out of a desire not to say that someone is outright sick and therefore needs a greater yeshuah in order to be healed.

One can ask why they use the nonparallel terms of choleh and cholanis; perhaps cholani is never found in divrei Chazal, so the authors of this version of the mi shebeirach did not feel comfortable inventing it. (On a side note, I'd be curious to know when the original text of this mi shebeirach was composed, in order to determine how much of an innovation the word change from cholah to cholanis (or vice versa?) really was).

Brachos 21b - Interruptions during the Amidah

According to Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shim'on the students of Rabbi Yochanan, one is allowed to respond Y'hei Shmo HaGadol (Shmei Rabbah) Mevorach during the Shmoneh Esrei, as one is even allowed to respond YSh"R while engaged in Ma'asei Merkavah. (The gemara notes that we do not hold like them.)

Why is this a proof? Why would we think that one should not be able to respond YSh"R while engaged in Ma'aseh Merkavah - is it not merely an exceptionally deep form of talmud torah, which, to the best of my knowledge, has no restrictions on responses to dvarim she-bikdushah?

My chavrusa wanted to suggest that learning M"M involves a more direct connection to HaShem than regular learning does, akin to the connection that one creates during the amidah. Tzarich iyyun.

Yom Kippur 1 - Machzor Masores HaRav to the Rescue!

The minyan where I davened maariv, mincha, and ne'ilah this past Yom Kippur utilized the newly published Machzor Masores HaRav, with the commentary gleaned from the works of the Rav. Two consecutive comments that I read in the commentary were of special importance to me, one because it answered a question that had bothered me for a long time and one because it resolved a halachic question that I had.

The first issue was regarding the omission of Aleinu from the end of Mussaf. The commentary on the bottom of the Artscroll Zichron Yosef machzor, Aleinu is omitted because Mincha usually follows Mussaf immediately, so that they are considered one long service, and thus should not be separated by Aleinu, which is used to conclude a tefillah. However, why is Aleinu still not said even in minyanim in which there is a break between Mussaf and Mincha (as was the case in the two shuls in which I davened, enabling me to walk the 1.5 miles between them during their concurrent breaks)? The Rav, based on the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuvah (2:4), suggest that even where there are physical breaks in the davening, our tefillos have still not reached completion as long as the day of Yom Kippur continues, and for this reason, we do not say Aleinu. Based on this, though, I don't understand why we would say Aleinu at the end of maariv.

The second issue was a halachic question regarding which trop to use for the leining of mincha, whether it should be the special trop of the Yamim Nora'im or the regular trop. The Rav ties this question to a machlokes between the Mechaber and the Rema over whether one should say the full 4 brachos following the haftara of mincha (Mechaber) or whether the reader should conclude with the bracha of Magen David (Rema), implying that Yom Kippur afternoon has the status of a Ta'anis Tzibbur, rather than the same unique status of the morning and to a teshuva of R' Akiva Eiger in which he says that, while one not fasting is allowed to get an aliyah on Yom Kippur morning, he is unsure if the same applies to the afternoon, due to its possible status as a ta'anis tzibbur. The question of the proper trop to use in the afternoon, concludes the Rav, is also dependent on whether the leining is mi-din Yom Kippur or mi-din Ta'anis Tzibbur. (The Rav notes that the haftarah of Yonah is also thematically a support to the idea that it's a ta'anis tzibbur).

Aseres Y'mei Teshuvah 1 - Shemoneh Esrei thoughts

Earlier today, I was thinking about the 6 additions that we added to the Shemoneh Esrei of the last week.

In the first two brachos, each of the additions are of similar structure to the proceeding line. The addition to the first bracha is a prayer that we be remembered and written within the Book of Life. This follows an acknowledgement that HaShem remembers the kindnesses of the Forefathers in bringing a redeemer to their descendants. The bracha as a whole is known as Avos, emphasizing its purpose as providing an opening for us to even dare approach HaShem in prayer, by using the names of our righteous fathers as a passkey of sorts. Were it not for this "in", we would never be able to muster the pure gall to approach the King of Kings and to lay forth our requests, or even to praise him. Since the bracha already asks HaShem to recall our fathers' righteousness, we proceed to ask Him to remember us for life. The two types of memory, though, are of disparate types, as one is a passive memory of the past, while the other is an active memory of the present, more akin to a p'kidah. The addition, then, is the only request ever included in the first three blessings, which makes it somewhat odd.

The addition to the second bracha is a statement acknowledging HaShem's mercy. This follows a statement acknowledging HaShem's might. Both statements begin with the phrase "Mi Chamocha", "Who is like you?", acknowledging God's uniqueness. Once we have been granted permission to approach HaShem in prayer, we begin by praising His all-powerfulness, which is the reason why prayer unto Him is worthwhile from a practical standpoint. During these days, we also add in praise for his great mercy.

In the third blessing, the emendation is not an addition, but rather is a change, in that we switch the word "Keil", God, for "Melech", King, which emphasizes his specific interaction with us during these days. The theme of this blessing is God's "holiness", as well as that of His name and that of those who praise Him. This is the only time that we excise the word "Keil" from the Shemoneh Esrei. We do not make the change in the first blessing by "HaKeil HaGadol", ostensibly because the phrase was used by Moshe. Nor do we make the change by "Keil Elyon" immediately following, perhaps in order to keep the phrases parallel (I'm not sure if its use by Malkitzedek is significant). The word also appears in Shome'a Tefillah (ki Keil shome'a tefillah v'sachanun ata), Modim deRabbanan (Baruch Keil ha-hoda'os), and the end of the bracha of Hoda'ah (ha-Keil yeshu'aseinu v'ezraseinu selah), but is not changed in any of these.

The only change during the middle blessings is a switch from "Melech oheiv tzedakah u-mishpat" to "Ha-melech ha-mishpat", which seems to be a change from the theoretical to the practical for these days.

The blessing of Avodah is the only one of the 6 primary blessings that is not altered during these days.

In the bracha of Hoda'ah, we add in a prayer that we be written for good life (compare to the first blessing, in which the prayer was to be written in the *book* of *life* (with no mention of the word "good")). I have no idea how this fits in to the concept of thanksgiving, as the addition is a linchpin connecting a summation that God's name shall be exalted for all of the goodness that we mentioned in Modim and a generalization that all living things shall praise God. The insertion of this request line would bother me a lot less if we were consistent in inserting some sort of request in all 6 primary blessings.

In the last bracha, we conclude with a plea that we be remembered and written in the book of life, blessing, peace, and prosperity. The last blessing, about peace, is also a somewhat general request, so the insertion, changing the focus from a general request to a recording in the book, makes sense.

Birchos HaShachar out of order

There are two major machlokos of Acharonim brought down in O.Ch. siman 46 regarding one who inverts the order of the birchos ha-shachar.

The first, brought down by the Mishnah Brurah (p.16), is regarding the brachos of she-lo asani aku"m, she-lo asani aved, and she-lo asani ishah. The Magen Avraham, N'siv Chayim, and Chayei Adam say that because the three brachos follow an upward procession, that an ishah is superior to an eved, who in turn is superior to an aku"m/goi (the M.B. uses both terms), if a person says she-lo asani eved or ishah prior to saying she-lo asani goi, he has already by implication given hoda'ah for not being made a goi, and therefore can no longer say this bracha. However, the Maharshal, Bach, P'ri M'gadim, Taz, and R' Akiva Eiger all argue, and say that one may still say the omitted bracha.

The second machlokes is found in se'if 5, in which the Mechaber, quoting the Siddur of R' Amram Gaon, says that if he said zokeif k'fufim prior to saying mattir asurim, he may not go back and say the latter bracha, and many acharonim, including the Taz and the P'ri M'gadim pasken this way (The Mishnah Brurah notes that some argue, but the Sha'ar HaTziyyun doesn't say who they are).

At first glance, the Taz and the P'ri M'gadim seem to contradict himself, as the two cases seem to be analogous, yet they paskens one way by the former and the other way by the latter. However, the Taz says that the difference between the two brachos is that, while zokeif k'fufim entirely includes matir asurim and eliminates any need for it, the same cannot be said for shelo asani ishah and the two brachos that precede it, as a woman has a gri'usa with respect to the other two categories in that she has no possibility whatsoever of ever being able to become a Jewish man, while a nochri has the option to and an eved, at the very least, has the possibility to, if his master frees him (it is because of this latter difference, by the way, that everyone agrees that a geir can say the bracha of eved (in addition to ishah), because despite his overall gri'usa, he still has the ma'alyusa of his choice to become a full Jew not being in the hands of someone else).