1

According to the talmud, Rosh Hashanah 10b,

  1. On Rosh Hashanah, Sarah, Rachel and Chanah were designated to give birth, Yosef was released from prison, and the slavery in Egypt ceased.

from here.

This is referenced in the Artscroll Rosh Hashanah machzor in the footnotes on page 312 ("She was one of the four childless women...")

But later in the Shacharit (day 1) service, there is a prayer which begins "Em asher b'tzedek nityashna" (page 318). This prayer has the line "v'shalosh akarot shehafk'du b'zeh yom" -- the THREE barren ones who were remembered on this day.

Was it 3 or 4, and why (if it is 4) would this text refer to three?

|improve this question
  • 1
    Perhaps you could clarify this; it appears that the piyyut is consistent with te Gemara, but not with Artscroll, right? (As it appears now, it looks like you are saying that Artscroll is consistent with the piyyut). – mevaqesh Oct 5 '16 at 2:43
  • 1
    Could this just be a typo in Artscroll? What edition did you check? – Double AA♦ Oct 5 '16 at 4:45
  • The Artscroll says "one of the four childless women including..." and the "including" is followed by the list of 3 which made me wonder if there was a fourth. – rosends Oct 5 '16 at 10:12
3

There were, indeed, four woman (the fourth being Rivka).

Only the first three were "remembered" on Rosh Hashona. Hence, the Artsroll is correct when referring to the historical fact that four women were baren. However the piyut intended to invoke the merit of which they were remembered on Rosh Hashona, and hence only mentioned those that were remembered. (See Marsh"a Rosh Hashona 10b for a partial explanation of why these were remembered, and why on Rosh Hashona)

|improve this answer
  • 1
    How do you Rivka was the fourth? And why doesn't the Talmud include her in the list? – Double AA♦ Oct 5 '16 at 15:32
  • The footnote specifically mentions her. As to why only the talmud doesn't mention her: the talmud is listing those barren woman who were remembered on Rosh Hashana. Obviously Rivka wasn't one of them! Se Marsha, ibid, for an (unsatisfying) allusion as to the reasoning. – Mbrevda Oct 5 '16 at 18:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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