2

I've seen "yifsok" and "yivtol" but also "yifsuk" and "yivtul." Which is the correct girsa?

Improve this question
5
  • Do you remember where you saw these various versions? Could you also please share the Hebrew nikkud, so no one gets confused by your transliteration?
    – magicker72
    Commented Oct 13 at 20:52
  • @magicker72 and by "o" i mean Cholam.
    – sweatow38
    Commented Oct 13 at 20:55
  • Koren has yifsuk, Rinat Yisrael has yifsok, artscroll has yifsok, Birnbaum has yifsuk, Shilo has yifsuk, and Adler has yifsuk, metsudah has yifsok, Kol Yakov has yifsok, Machzor rabba has yifsok
    – J. W. Tanner
    Commented Oct 13 at 21:46
  • @J.W.Tanner Artscroll pocket-size interlinear Yom Kippur Machzor has "yifsok." Artscroll pocket size Rosh Hashanah Machzor has "yifsuk." Artscroll Siddurim have "yifsuk." Kol Bo with Rav Penimim Machzorim with Yiddish instructions have "yifsok." Other older pocket-size Siddur that I have has "yifsuk."
    – sweatow38
    Commented Oct 13 at 21:50
  • I suppose the main problem is that – in contrast with Tanakh – we don't really have authoritative manuscripts for vocalising Aramaic texts.
    – Kazi bácsi
    Commented Oct 15 at 8:01

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The prayer Yequm Purkan was composed by the geonim after the Talmudic Period and it is written in Aramaic, the spoken language of Bavel at the time. The most fitting dialect of Aramaic used in Yekum Purkan is the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of Talmud and Targum Onkelos. The future tense 3rd person male singular of the binyan קַל in Aramaic has form יִכְתּׂב or יִכתּוֹב according to grammars (1) & (2). Therefore, if one intends to say that the offspring will not interrupt (by themselves) and will not cease (by themselves), then one has to use the forms יִפְסוֹק and יִבְטוֹל. This is the case of the siddur Kol Bo, Rabbi Yaakov miEmden, Siddur שפה ברורה, Siddur בית תפילה, Siddur Shabtai Soffer, Siddur haGR"A, Rinat Yitzchak, and interlinear Artscroll which have יִפְסוֹק and יִבְטוֹל. Shabtai Soffer explains:

יפסוק. יפסק נקד רי"ן היו"ד בשב"א והפ"א והסמ"ך בפתת"ח סדור מהרש"ל. ולא ידעתי למה נקד רי"ן כן והלא כי לא יחדל אביון (דברים ט"ו י"א) תרגומו ארי לא יפסוק מסקינא

RY"N (R. Yaakov Nakdan? - I am not sure, please correct) used nekudos יְפַסַק, as stated in the Siddur MaHaRShaL. I do not know why RY"N used such a vowelization. Does not Onkelos translates Devarim 15:11 כִּ֛י לֹא־יֶחְדַּ֥ל אֶבְי֖וֹן as אֲרֵי לָא יִפְסוֹק מִסְכֵּנָא?

For authoritative critical edition of Targum Onkelos one can consult The Bible in Aramaic by Alexander Sperber. Masekhes shel Tefila by Machon Simanim in its Beurei haTefila quotes Eitz Yosef, which explains the words as the kal binyan:

זרעא די לא יפסוֹק הפסקה כלל כו'. כולם אנו מתפללים שיהיו לנו כדי לקיים התורה שלא יהא לנו שום מניעה מן התורה ע"י שחסר לנו ח"ו אחת מאלו הניזכרות כאן. ודי לא יבטוֹל אפילו בטול קטן ואחר שבטל יחזור ללמודו.

Zera di lo yifsok General interruption. We all pray thay we fulfull the Torah, and that there should be nothing preventing us from learning the Torah, because of lacking of any aforementioned in the prayer things. v'di lo yivtol that there should not be even a small nullification, and if it occurs one should go back to one's learning.

In the tradition of Yemenite manuscripts according to reference (3) the form of the future tense 3rd person male singular of the binyan קַל matches that of the the earlier form of western Biblical Aramaic which is given in the modern grammar books (4) and (5). In Biblical Aramaic the future tense 3rd person male singular is יִכְתֻּב and יִכְתּוּב.

There was also well-documented trend among Ashkenazim over the centuries to "correct" editions of siddur and Targumim to Biblical Hebrew, and it is likely the same were true about "correcting" towards Biblical Aramaic (it certainly happened with kaddish) (Thanks magicker72!). As a result, we find confusion in the older Ashkenazi grammars between the later form of Eastern Aramaic and the earlier form of western Biblical Aramaic. Old European editions of Mikraos Gedolos and sidurim may have been based on such a mixed view.

The Siddur haGR"A illustrates the difference between grammars (1) & (2) vs. grammars that mixed Aramaic dialects:

יִפְסוֹק ... יִבְטוֹל (שניהם בחולם) כ"ה בס"י, בסידור רנ"ה שניהם במלאפום

(Both with holam) so it is in Old Siddurim. Siddur R. Naftali Hertz haLevi - both words with melaphum (i.e. shuruk יִפְסוּק ... יִבְטוּל).

Yemenite siddurim and editions of targumim have have shuruk rather than holam. As mentioned by OP, there are still a number of Ashkenazi siddurim, which also have shuruk, such as Siddur תפילת יוסף with piskei Mishna Berura, many Artscroll Siddurim, Koren, Birnbaum, Shilo, and many older ones.

There is also a possibility for a reading in the passive. For example, siddur Tefilas Yosef explains its girsa:

זַרְעָא דִּי לָא יִפְסוּק - זרע אשר לא יפסיק ולא יתבטל מדברי תורה

The offspring which will not cease and will not be canceled from the words of the Torah.

The comment implies the reading in passive: offspring will not be destroyed by others. However, the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic passive should be using the binyan אִתַּפְעַל as explained in grammars (1) and (2), which in the future tense 3rd person male singular has form יִתַּפְסַק and יִתַּבְטַל. Such a form will create reading offspring will not get interrupted or ceased or nullified by others. Probably, the misunderstanding of Shabtai Soffer regarding the girsa of RY"N in siddur Maharshal comes from the corruption of the יִתַּפְסַק to יְפַסַק.

Sources on Aramaic Grammar for the forms of Aramaic verb binyanim:

Improve this answer
13
  • Not sure I follow what you bring from Siddur haGR"A, מלאפום is a "oo" sound (what most now call shuruk)
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Oct 14 at 0:48
  • @DoubleAA I looked in the old edition and it is indeed with Shuruk
    – Y DJ
    Commented Oct 14 at 0:55
  • 1
    "Does not Onkelos translates Devarim 15:11 כִּ֛י לֹא־יֶחְדַּ֥ל אֶבְי֖וֹן as אֲרֵי לָא יִפְסוֹק מִסְכֵּנָא?" According to whom? Because Teimanim have אֲרֵי לָא יִפְסוּק מִסְכֵּינָא with shuruq.
    – 5784
    Commented Oct 14 at 4:06
  • 1
    @YDJ I can't comment on particular editions, and I don't know the Yemenite tradition, but there has certainly been a trend among Ashkenazim over the centuries to "correct" the siddur to Biblical Hebrew, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true about "correcting" toward Biblical Aramaic (it certainly happened with kaddish).
    – magicker72
    Commented Oct 14 at 20:03
  • 2
    @YDJ I just checked Shlomo Morag's ארמית במסורת תימן, and he has "u" for the Yemenite tradition of Talmudic Aramaic.
    – magicker72
    Commented Oct 15 at 2:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .