Talk:Baladi-rite prayer

Before editing this article for the first time, keep the following in mind

• When adding to this article, e.g. to the "Distinguishing features" section, keeping in mind that there should be some kind of logical order for the placement of the additions. For example, order material from that which is recited earliest in the day progressing to the end of the day, such as bullet #1 relating to פסוקי הזמירות, bullet #2 תפלת העמידה, bullet #3 minchah, bullet #4 rosh hashanah, bullet #5 prayer books' overview of laws, etc. - there should be a logical sequence instead of seemingly random facts.

I agree, and you have done a GREAT JOB in giving some coherence and logical order to the article. The reason for much of the initial incoherence is because it is being pieced together, little by little.Davidbena (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• A lot of information in one bullet point is okay, but to me it seems best to keep each bullet to one topic (as in the example above), so don't be shy about separating different topics into new bullet points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor613 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions and answers

Age of ברוך שאמר

The article states "The most notable changes occurring in the Baladi-rite prayer book during the geonic period are the additions of... and the praise which appears further on and known as Barukh shĕ-amar (Heb. ברוך שאמר)," When you wrote this, did you actually mean to say that ברוך שאמר is a late addition?! Contributor613

Response and discussion

No, I said rather that Adon ha-'olamim and the very famous piece called, "Barukh she-'amar," are both very old additions, added to the Baladi-rite prayer book and dating back to the geonic period, just as explained by Amram Qorah, in his Sa‘arat Teyman (2nd edition), Jerusalem 1988, p. 96 (Hebrew). Perhaps the wording needs revising, in order to make the point more clear to our readers. - Davidbena (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw what is written in סערת תימן and was quite surprised. It would appear that the Rambam holds otherwise, as he includes this blessing in הלכות תפלה וברכת כהנים פ"ז הל' יב noting that ברוך שאמר is a תקנת חכמים; as Rabbi Kapach points out it is the same חכמים mentioned in the first halachah of the chapter. Indeed, it is not like the Rambam to include blessings enacted by post-Talmudic authorities not vested with the authority to enact blessings, such as the blessing שעשני כרצונו which, as Rabbi Kapach notes, is a ברכה לבטלה enacted by someone who didn't even know the reason for the blessing שלא עשני אשה. Contributor613 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Contributor613, actually, there is a very interesting anecdote about "Barukh she'amar" in Rabbi Yihya Bashiri's Baladi-rite Siddur in the Hebrew University library (microfilm), where he writes that the wording of "Barukh she'amar" was initially established by the prophet Ezekiel while in the Babylonian captivity, while standing near a certain river. I copied down the entire section, and it is among my notes and papers at home. The fact that it was used in the Siddurim of the geonim, and from there introduced into the prayer books in Yemen, is no contradiction. Many times, earlier liturgies were only later introduced in Yemen, such as the matter of saying "Kether itenu," etc. during the Mussaf-Prayer, just as it is written in Rav Amram's Siddur. The Sages may have, indeed, been the first to adopt "Barukh she'amar," but according to Amram Qorah, it was only introduced of late (relatively speaking), during the geonic period. Perhaps we can find another confirmation of this.Davidbena (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Contributor613, Shalom! I found something that might interest you. While browsing through the "Pisqei Maharitz" (ed. Rabbi Yitzhak Ratzaby), vol. 1, p. קי"ג, Benei Barak 1993, I came across this interesting quote from Maharitz:

הלכה טל] ברוך שאמר נתקן על פי פתקא שנפלה מן השמים, מצאו אותה בקבר יחזקאל ע"ה (כ"כ הפוסקים). וכתב פרי חדש תמהני אחר שנחתם התלמוד איך יכלו הגאונים לחדש ברכות שלא נזכרו בתלמוד. ותימא על הרא"ש שתמה גבי ברכת פדיון הבן, ובכאן הודה להם וצ"ע (וצריך עיון) עכ"ל. ובמחילה, ברכה זו מיוסדת מימות תנאים, זכרה רשב"י בזוהר פר' ויקהל דף רט"ו ע"ש (עיין שם). וכבר השיבו הרב מעשה רוקח ז"ל מטעם שנזכר בזוהר ע"ש.

Davidbena, I think the testimony that ברוך שאמר "fell from the heavens" is almost as interesting as the testimony of the countless people who told the Rambam that they saw a creature which is part flesh and part mud (Chullin 9:6). Contributor613 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In any rate, the first premise was that it was lately introduced by the Geonim, although it is also mentioned (or recited) in the Zohar. Interesting!Davidbena (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Authorship of המהולל לעולם

The article refers to המהולל לעולם as "a short praise composed by Judah Ha-Levi." Please note a source for "המהולל לעולם" being composed by Judah Ha-Levi. Rabbi Yosef Kapach writes that "המהולל לעולם" was originally found before "נשמת כל חי" and I had thus made the assumption that המהולל לעולם was an ancient text unto the Yemenite siddur. (Any comments?) Contributor613

Response

The short praise המהולל לעלום is explicitly stated by Maharitz (Rabbi Yihya Saleh), of blessed memory, as being the work of the famous Spanish poet, Yehudah Halevi. You can find his statement on page 58b of the "Tiklal Etz Hayim Hashalem," vol. 1, published in Jerusalem by editor, Shimon Tzalach, in 1971. What you read about the piece being before "Nishmath Kol Hai," this refers only to the original order of the Baladi-rite prayer book, which order was later re-arranged. In the words of Maharitz (ibid.), Etz Hayim commentary: המהולל וכו'. שבח זה מרבי יהודה הלוי ז"ל ונהגו לאמרו קודם ברוך שאמר לעורר הלב ולהלהיבו לירוא מפני מלך הכבוד ולשבחו ולהללו בכל שירי דהע"ה ויאמרם בכוונה ובקול רם ובזה ימשיך עליו דבקות באלהיו וכו' - Davidbena (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Did Rabbi Yihyei Kapach actually limit originality of Yemenite נוסחים to those of the Amidah

The article mentions Rabbi Yihya Qafih as maintaining that "the original Yemenite version of the Amidah is the format that was prescribed by the Men of the Great Assembly (Hebrew: אנשי כנסת הגדולה)." Can you provide a verifiable source for this, that he specifically singled out the Amidah as being prescribed by the אנשי כנסת הגדולה? Contributor613

Response and discussion

The claim was made by several of Yemen's great rabbis, namely: Rabbi Yihya al-Qafih in a letter that he wrote on the 12th day of the lunar month Elul, in the year 2,212 of the Seleucid era (27 August 1901), and where he says (after many other things): "...וקיימא לן תפלה נאמרת בכל לשון, כ"ש זה שמתפלל עם הצבור בכתבם ובלשונם לשון הקדש, בנוסח המקובל בידינו מאבותינו, שכן תיקנוהו רבותינו אנשי כנסת הגדולה עליהם השלום, חלילה חלילה שתדחה תפלתו" These words were printed, in full, in the Israeli Academic Journal, Tehuda, vol. 30 (ed. Yosef Tobi), Netanya 2014, pp. 88-90, and also explained by the writer of the article, Professor Aharon Gaimani, as meaning the Prayer-rite used by the Yemenite Jews was established by the Men of the Great Assembly. In particular, see p. 84 of the same Journal, where Dr. Gaimani writes: "Rabbi Yihya Qafih was asked by a man who had been praying in the Spanish-rite, as is the custom of the synagogue where he attended, but who had moved to a different synagogue where the custom was to pray in the original Baladi-rite. Because of this man's transition, one of the people in his former synagogue ridiculed him about moving and changing his prayer rite. Rabbi Qafih answered him that he should not be distraught or discouraged, but rather be assured that it is an accepted truth amongst the Yemenite Jews that their rite that they make use of (i.e. the Yemenite Baladi-rite Amidah) is the version that was drafted by the Men of the Great Assembly (Heb. אנשי כנסת הגדולה), and that the other versions used by the other Jewish communities had undergone changes."

The insertion "(i.e. the Yemenite Baladi-rite Amidah)" limits it to the Amidah. But without this insertion... Contributor613 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Without question, we are referring specifically to the written text of the Amidah, since it was enacted by the Men of the Great Assembly (Heb. אנשי כנסת הגדולה), besides the format used also in many of our blessings = ברכות. We cannot possibly be talking about the entire Prayer Book, since it has undergone many innovations by later scholars.Davidbena (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

One proof of this fact can be found in the Tosafot on Pesahim 115a-b, s.v. כל שטיבולו במשקה צריך נטילה, where we learn at the very end of the Tosafist's response that "in all of the Siddurim it was written that a person is required to bless [over hand washing made when dipping a morsel into a liquid]," although the Tosafist dissented with that view. Today, the only Siddur which requires blessing over the hand washing when dipping a morsel into a liquid (such as at Pesach - Passover) is the Yemenite Baladi-rite Siddur. All other Siddurim have since changed their custom in accordance with the view of the Tosafist. עיין שם. Davidbena (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarified authorship of cited Pisqei Maharitz

You reference "Rabbi Yiḥya Ṣāleḥ (Maharitz) in Pisqei Maharitz (ed. Yizhak Ratzaby)," but is what's therein stated by מהרי"ץ or presented by רצאבי as the opinion of מהרי"ץ? If the latter, please revise this reference to "Pisqei Maharitz" accordingly. Contributor613

Response

What I cited from "Pisqei Maharitz" is explicitly the words of Maharitz alone. Rabbi Yitzhak Ratzaby wrote a commentary on "Pisqei Maharitz," entitled בארות יצחק, and if I should ever wish to quote from Rabbi Yitzhak Ratzaby in that work, I would specifically make mention of his commentary, "Be'erot Yitzhak."- Davidbena (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you. Contributor613 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly differentiating between Rabbi Yiḥya ben Shalom Ha-Kohen al-Iraqi and his father

As mentioned in the second paragraph of the now current article text and cited in footnote 6 thereof, Rabbi Yiḥya ben Shalom Ha-Kohen al-Iraqi is noted for pushing the Sephardic nosach upon the Yemenites.

In his edition of אגדתא דפסחא (p. 10-11), Rabbi Yosef Kapach talks about Rabbi Shalom ben Aharon Ha-Kohen Iraqi, Yiḥya's father. He notes that Rabbi Shalom was so eager to see the Yemenites pray the Sefardic nosach that he would literally go to a different shul each Shabbath with printed Sefardic siddurim, requesting that they pray נוסח ספרד if possible and forcing it upon them if necessary (p. 11).

If possible, I'd like to request that the article incorporate the relevant information regarding Rabbi Shalom ben Aharon Ha-Kohen Iraqi, Yiḥya's father. (I'm not starting to do so because I'm not yet clear on differentiating between the father and son as to exactly who did what.) Contributor613

Response

Shalom b. Aharom Iraqi Kohen and his attempt to make the Sephardic-rite universal in Yemen is explicitly mentioned by me in a footnote in the main article. Perhaps we can take it out of the footnote and put this information in the main body of our article.Davidbena (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt taken from R. Yosef Qafih's “Qorot Yisra’el be-Teman by Rabbi Ḥayim Ḥibshush,” Ketavim (Collected Papers), Vol. 2, Jerusalem 1989, p. 718 (Hebrew): "...And also, [other] men, Talmidei Chachamim, had joined together with the President of the court, the honorable Rabbi Yiḥya al-Ṣaʻadi, [in his fight] to abolish these new customs [which they had taken] upon themselves, but to no avail, for in their time there was a certain wise man great in Torah, stature (Hebrew: ובמעלה), and [knowledgeable in the writings of the] poskim, and above all was infatuated over the books of the kabbalists, [namely] the honorable Rabbi Yiḥya son of the esteemed Minister Shalom Ha-Kohen al-Iraqi. He was the one who stood in the breach to annul the customs of the ancients and to hold onto the new customs, until a great quarrel had been aroused [thereby, whereupon] he went [around] to synagogues to force them to leave the ancient Prayer Books in their possession and to accept the [printed Sephardic] machzors. Now, because of the greatness of his position and the position of his father, the Minister, nineteen synagogues accepted it upon themselves, except for three synagogues [who] prepared themselves within the synagogues to resist him with staves and were unwilling to listen to him unto this day."-Davidbena (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As a full quotation from a book this seems out of place for inclusion in the actual article text. However, as I noted in the question, this footnote (currently #6) focuses on "the honorable Rabbi Yiḥya son of the esteemed Minister Shalom Ha-Kohen al-Iraqi" (emphasis added), not his father Rabbi Shalom. I don't know why you just responded that "Shalom b. Aharom Iraqi Kohen and his attempt to make the Sephardic-rite universal in Yemen is explicitly mentioned by me in a footnote" because this footnote (which I already referred to in the first sentence of my question), in fact, focuses on the son rather than the father. Contributor613

You are absolutely right, and my intention was to Shalom's son and his influence over the community, owing to his father's (Shalom's) position. לְאָדָם מַעַרְכֵי לֵב, ומה' מַעֲנֵה לָשׁוֹן - Davidbena (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation of לפי פירוש הרמב"ם

In the "Tractate Avoth" subsection, I noted that:

Rabbi Yosef Shalom Koraḥ was quoted as pointing out that in the synagogues of Rabbi Yiḥyei Kapach and Rabbi Yiḥyei al-Abyadh, rather than apportioning the learning for the Sabbaths between Pesaḥ and Atzeret, they would learn the entire tractate according to Maimonides' commentary during the two days of Shavuoth.

However, instead of "according to Maimonides' commentary" the text was edited to read "with Maimonides' commentary". The Hebrew original reads "ללמוד מסכת אבות לפי פירוש הרמב"ם" (i.e., "לפי" and not "עם"). In light of this, dear Davidbena, would you be of the opinion that a correct and faithful translation would be "according to"? Contributor613 03:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Response

Yes, Contributor613, you are absolutely correct. However, the implied sense is the same - whether you say he studied the Pirke Avot "according to" Maimonides' commentary, or "with" Maimonides' commentary. As a professional translater I have learnt that often words are best translated when giving its implied meaning, rather than its literal form. Here, however, it makes very little difference. Be well. - Davidbena (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You write that "the implied sense is the same" but this doesn't seem to be the case לענ"ד. Indeed, the awkwardness of translating that a tractate was learnt according to a commentary was not lost upon me; I too was not thrilled with translating "according to Maimonides' commentary." However, although I would prefer "with," I am concerned that the author's usage of "לפי" (vs. "עם") may be to mean that the Rambam's commentary was not directly read but, rather, that מסכת אבות was learnt and explained in accordance with his commentary. Since I do not find the matter to be clear and definite, I said to myself that in this case one cannot go wrong in giving the literal translation, namely, a non-subjective translation which cannot be challenged as being a deviation from the author's words. Don't ever think that I have the last word; by all means if you disagree say so. I'm always happy to be corrected. Contributor613 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Source for specifically covering head with talith during recitation of tachanunim

Shalom Davidbena (talk), your edits continue to be of high quality. I have a question about one detail you added: You edited the article to read "the custom is to recline upon the floor, lean to one's left-side, cover one's head in his talith and to say Lefanekha ani korea, etc." What is your source for covering one's head with the talith during recitation of tachanunim in particular? Contributor613 (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Response

With regard to the Yemenite way of making "Nefillath Apayim", it should be remembered here that, in Yemen, synagogues were without furniture. Floors were covered with rugs over which mats had been strewn. The congregation sat upon cushions strewn across the floor against the wall. After standing in prayer, they returned to sit upon their cushions upon the floor. Here is an excerpt from Rabbi Yosef Qafih's Commentary on Maimonides' "Mishne Torah" (Hilkoth Tefillah 5: 14):

"… In this way has Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon described this [act of] bowing (Heb. Qidah), and this is the language employed in his prayer book, page 24: 'Now a description of his bending over [is as follows]: Let him put his left knee upon the ground while in a sitting posture, and bend his right knee over it, just as he would do when he lies down, so that it is as if he were half lying down and half sitting up.' Until here [are his words]. Now this very language was copied down in all of the ancient prayer books of Yemen, and in this way we used to practice making Nefillath Apayim, according to the tradition of the Geonim."

Original language:

וכך תאר רס"ג (רבינו סעדיה גאון) קידה זו וז"ל (וזה לשונו) בסדורו עמ' כד: ותאור כריעתו, שיניח ברכו השמאלית על הארץ כאשר הוא יושב ומקפל ברכו הימנית עליה כדרכו כשהוא רובץ ויהיה כאלו חציו רובץ וחציו יושב, ע"כ. ולשון זה הועתק בכל סדורי תימן העתיקים וכך היינו נוהגים לעשות בנפילת אפים כמסורת הגאונים

NOTE: Nefillath Apayim, or "falling down on one's face" immediately following the morning and afternoon prayers was a tradition kept in Yemen since ancient times, unlike that which is seen today. This is largely due to the fact that in Yemen they did not have chairs or benches in their synagogues, but sat upon cushions strewn across the floor against the wall. "Falling down upon one's face" was literally a tilting to one's left side, while burying one's head within the bend of his left arm. It is Rabbi Yitzhaq Ratzaby of Benei-Baraq who writes in his "Qitzur Shulhan Arukh" that the Yemenite Jewish custom is also to cover one's head with his talith while "falling down on his face." The Yemenite practice of Nefillath Apayim is also mentioned by Rabbi Yosef Subeiri in his book, "We-yitzbor Yosef Bar," volume 1, chapter 13, section # 15, page 246.

Maharitz also writes about the Jewish practice in Yemen of making Nefillath Apayim. Maharitz describes the practice in the following excerpt, and says that it was done while clasping one's left arm with his right. A man's face and head were entirely covered beneath his shawl (talith) while doing this, and held in the bend of his left arm.

"…And when he falls upon his left [side], let him not fall down upon his hands themselves, but rather opposite his arm. That is, let him clasp [his] left arm with his right, and fall upon his left [side]. (Cf. book "Or Hayashar" ) And know assuredly that there is no difference between Nefillath Apayim on one's left side in the morning [prayer] and in the afternoon [prayer]. A man ought always to do so, unlike Rabbi Moshe Iserlische, and this is our custom, as well as what appears to be the opinion of our teacher, [even] the Rabbi, Yosef Karo, and the expositors of our laws."

Original language: וכשנופל על שמאל לא יפול על ידיו עצמן אלא נגד זרועו דהיינו שיחבק זרוע שמאל בימין ונופל על השמאל (ס' אה"י). ודע שאין חילוק בנפילת פנים על צד שמאל בין בשחרית בין במנחה. לעולם יעשה כן דלא כרמ"א וכן מנהגינו וכן משמעות מהריק"א ופוסקים

Maharitz, in his Code of Jewish Law, known as PISQEI MAHARITZ, Vol. I, Hilkoth Nefillath Apayim, item # 2, also writes:

"The emissary of the congregation (Shaliach Tzibbur) then sits and bows down. Now the manner of bowing is that he puts his left knee upon the ground, in the way in which he leans, and then bends his right knee over it, in the way in which he crouches, so that he is half-crouching and half-sitting. Likewise, the congregation does [exactly] like him."

Original language:

יושב שליח ציבור ומשתחוה. ואופן ההשתחויה, שיניח ברכו השמאלית על הארץ כדרכה כשהוא מוטה, ומקפל ברכו הימינית עליה כדרכה כשהוא כורע ויהא כחציו כורע וחציו יושב. וכן יעשו הציבור כמותו

User:Contributor613, I will try to find the reference of covering one's head in his talith in Ratzaby's book and will add it as a source.Davidbena (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, It's hard to say that the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh can be relied upon as when it comes to Yemenite customs. What more, unfortunately, Rabbi Yitzhaq Ratzaby himself isn't someone who can be relied upon in general for objective testimony about Yemenite customs. I'm not the least surprised that he has long since provoked the ire of a wide range of rabbis, Yemenite and non-Yemenite. Contributor613 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Rabbi Yitzhaq Ratzaby of Benei Barak has provoked many Rabbis because of the way he purposely ignores the writings of Yemen's great Rabbis, such as Rabbi Yosef Qafih (of blessed memory) and his grandfather, or Rabbi Rasson Arusy and his writings. Rabbi Yitzhaq Ratzaby is said to have shown disrespect to a number of great scholars, because of his contention with the Dardea Movement (which is quite unfortunate). He should rather have addressed them with common respect and due honor, just as many other Yemeni Rabbis do who are of the Iqashim party (e.g. Rabbi Shalom Yitzhaq Halevi) and who still quote from Rabbi Qafih, etc. Tammir Ratzon is right in all that he says. I agree with him that Rabbi Ratzaby has shown unnecessary disrespect for Yemen's great scholars. Still, with regard to covering the head in a talith, it is well-known that whenever Yemenite Jews pray, their heads are always covered in the talith. It is the same when they go down to make "Nifillath Apayim." So, in this regard, not everything that Rabbi Yitzhaq Ratzhaby writes should be dismissed. Take everything with "a grain of salt," as the English proverb goes.Davidbena (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

N'filath Panim

@Davidbena: Do you think "to recline upon the floor, lean to one's left-side" is the best language? Do you think writing something like "to lie upon the floor on one's left side" would remove ambiguity? Contributor613 (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Response

Your revision also seems to be good. Davidbena (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The last blessing after קרית שמע of ערבית

@Davidbena: You wrote that "The Evening Prayer (ʻArvith) on weekdays is unique in that, in the second blessing said after Ḳiryat Shema, there is an extension enacted by the Geonim, now abandoned by most other communities." The claim that this Yemenite text is a Geonic enactment appears to stem from application of the cited explanation in Tiklāl Etz Ḥayim to the Yemenite version; this doesn't seem correct. Firstly, although it is mentioned by the Maharitz, it is merely cited from רד"א... Secondly, as Maharitz himself writes to begin with, the Yemenite text is "גם בסדר התפלות של הרמב"ם." Rambam writes "ברכות אלו עם שאר כל הברכות הערוכות בפי כל ישראל עזרא ובית דינו תקנום. ואין אדם רשאי לפחות מהן, ולא להוסיף עליהן. ... כללו של דבר כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות הרי זה טועה" (emphasis added, Hilkoth Qiryat Sh'ma, chapter 1, halakhah 8); it seems clear that he would not validate post-Talmudic blessings and include them in his Mishneh Torah. Thus, it is not at all clear that it's a Geonic enactment. I propose changing "there is an extension enacted by the Geonim, now abandoned by most other communities" to something like "there is a lengthy addition which appears in most ancient Yemenite prayer books." Contributor613 (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on deletions from article

Notice: Relegation to talk page until ready for full treatment in article

Relating to the "Amidah, as prescribed in the Yemenite Baladi-rite tradition" I deleted the following: "The great Spanish Rabbi and philosopher, Maimonides (1138-1204), also brings down this prayer rite in his Code of Jewish Law." To mention Maimonides adaptation of the original Yemenite text only here, is to detract. Contributor613

Response and discussion

Actually, the reference should not have been deleted since it serves as supportive evidence, in some ways, of the antiquity of the Yemenite Jewish prayer-rite. If Maimonides held it to be accurate, and prayed making use of a similar version, it shows that - perhaps - all of Spanish Jewry once did the same. Rabbi Yosef Qafih has written in his Preface to the Baladi-rite Siddur (Siyach Yerushalayim) published by his followers (post-mortem) that he had heard that in the Russian library in Leningrad there is a Yemenite Prayer-Book which has Maimonides' handwriting written in the margins. He speculates that Maimonides received the tradition of his Prayer-rite from the Yemenite Jews. I tend to think that it was once a more universal ritual practiced by all, and later changed because of the kabbalists. Davidbena (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it "serves as supportive evidence" but as I noted, to mention it "only here, is to detract." That's why I deleted it, until the time that it can receive the non-limiting attention it deserves. Contributor613 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be returned to the article, perhaps in a sub-section and expanded. This is not so urgent at the moment, considering that there are more important matters to discuss in the main article. Professor (emeritus), Yosef Tobi, has written extensively about the changes made in the Baladi-rite Siddur, in the journal "Tema," which I hope to read and photocopy at the first available opportunity (next time I visit the Hebrew University in Jerusalem). There are many other good articles and books written about this subject.-Davidbena (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

References

FYI

I deleted "The recital of ’Uvǝkhen (Heb. ובכן) at the conclusion of the third benediction (Kaddushah) during the Ten Days of Repentance" as being "from the teachings of Rabbi Isaac ben Luria" as it appears in the text of Maimonides. Contributor613

Discussion

At first glance, you seem to be correct. I have a copy of Rabbi Yosef Qafih's "Mishne Torah" and commentary in my personal library. I specifically remember reading where the Ari made certain innovations here. I will double-check my sources. By the way, there is still a disparity between Maimonides' version in his Mishne Torah (page תשכ"ד) and the Yemenite Baladi-rite version. In Maimonides' version, he writes that we are to say: אתה קדוש ושמך קדוש וקדושים בכל יום יהללוך סלה, ובכן תן פחדך יי' אלהינו על כל מעשיך, ואימתך על כל שבראת, but in the Yemenite Baladi-rite prayer for Rosh Hashanah we read: אתה קדוש ושמך קדוש וקדושים בכל יום יהללוך סלה, ובכן יתקדש שמך יי' אלהינו על ישראל עמך, ובכן תן פחדך יי' אלהינו על כל מעשיך ואימתך על כל מה שבראת Perhaps in these small discrepancies or dfferences is what was referred to as Ari's innovation. I don't know, but I'll try to look up the source again.Davidbena (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you compare everything in the back of ספר אהבה to שיח ירושלם you'll see many small discrepancies; not just in the instance of our current focus. Contributor613 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Typographical error? [between refs 25 and 26]

Qiryat Shema – surely this should read Qriyat Shema — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.65.42 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the Yemenite pronunciation of קרית שמע is as noted in the article. It is pronounced qiryat shema (קִרְיַת שְׁמַע). See Yosef Amar Halevi, Talmud Bavli Menuqad, vol. 1, Jerusalem 1980, s.v. Berakhoth 21a (in glosses), et al.; Shelomo Morag, The Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic of the Jews of Yemen (ed. Yosef Tobi), in Article entitled: "The Samaritan and Yemenite Traditions of Hebrew: Points of Contact," Tel-Aviv 2001, p. 222, § 3.4 ISBN 965-7247-00-4. In modern Hebrew, the pronunciation is as you noted, qriyat shǝma (קְרִיַּת שמע).Davidbena (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Siddur?

Nice work, but there is one thing that might be incorrect. Did Yemenite Jews even know the term siddur before coming to Palestine/Israel? According to this article, they use the term תכלאל, so the term siddur should be either avoided or used with caution in a Yemenite context to avoid any misunderstanding. I have started a discussion on the topic there, pointing out that Jews from Sepharad, unlike those from Ashkenaz, use the term tefillot (orthography may vary) as can be proven both by the shibboleth list in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (article Sephardim) and at least some prayer books. --2003:F5:FF0B:1400:598:8B4E:2CC7:D029 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry. Yes, the Yemenites knew the word siddur, often written by them as סדר‎, and which word is mentioned by several of their rabbis in different responsa. However, the local use for their siddur was tiklāl (singular), or tikālil (plural), which I've heard had the connotation of "all things combined therein."Davidbena (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That is pretty much the situation I imagined. (I still lack knowledge about responsa, my main interest would be the older ones written in Aramaic.) Thus, the term siddur should only be used in the article as long as it does not imply that local use. The question can be extended, of course, to any other term not used by all Jews, like Heikhal as opposed to aron (yet another example from the mentioned shibboleth list), the article using the former.

I changed some of the occurences, hope there won’t be too many disagreements on my edit. --2003:F5:FF29:D00:35EC:F1DA:AA3F:378E (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Published editions and manuscripts

As I wish to learn more about Yemenite traditions and thus to acquire their prayer book(s), I would like to know how the published editions differ from one another. Is there any such thing as an edition superior to the other ones, which I have to purchase? Besides, manuscripts differing from the printed liturgy would be interesting, too; can you recommend editions or digital facsimiles? --2003:F5:FF0B:1400:598:8B4E:2CC7:D029 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There are a handful of editions, each with slight variations. Generally, all are good. Rabbi Yosef Qafih's edition, entitled שיח ירושלים‎, published by "Mekhon mishnat ha-rambam" in Kiryat Ono, is a good print-out of the Baladi-rite siddur, as it indicates by a footnote the nusach that was prevalent before the people adopted Rambam's emendations. Another good edition of the Baladi-rite prayer-book is one published by the bookstore "Nosach Teiman," in Bnei Brak. This edition is entitled, תכלאל עם פירוש עץ חיים למהרי"ץ זצוק"ל כולל ענף חיים הגהות והערות‎. The editor of this wonderful edition is Sagiv Mahfud.Davidbena (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Bar-Asher uses Qafiḥ’s edition for references to Yemenite liturgy so the name rings a bell beyond the list of editions in this article.

Do these works also cover holidays (like a maḥzor), or are/were there specific Yemenite maḥzorim? I believe the former to be more likely due to the size of several editions listed in the article. --2003:F5:FF29:D00:35EC:F1DA:AA3F:378E (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Depending on the edition, there are works that cover the holidays. Usually, however, the holidays come in subsequent volumes. The Tiklal compiled by Bashiri has all the major holidays, including "The Scroll of Antiochus" (Megillat Benei Ḥashmunai) in its original Aramaic, and which was traditionally recited during Hanukkah.Davidbena (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)