thankyouthankyouthankYOU

 I caught a few minutes of the awards show at which Adam Sandler was awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. A comedian (not so much a humorist IMHO) being lauded by the people he has given jobs to over the years. As only a somewhat-fan of Sandlers vast and uneven body of work I wasn't particularly impressed or interested in the show. Famaous people congratulating each other on being famous. Feh.

Anyway, the Walter Mitty lobe of my brain kicked in to high gear as I supposed that i would be the recipient of said award at some point in the near future. because how could I not? Amirite? Damrite.

Here's what I would do. I would go to the event people and ask to rent out the exact space (the Kennedy Center) the evening before and I would have the same camera set up. I would then have the cameras record me, in a tux, sitting alone for 4+ hours, possibly either responding to imagined speeches, or sitting stolidly for the entire time or maybe slowly becoming more and more concerned by the lack of anyone else in the venue.

I'm not saying that this is to be played as "I was there on the wrong night" bits. That's cute, but not nearly strange enough. I imagine an opening which plays the theme song of the eveing. Oh, didn't I mention that I'm working on a show starting (and stopping!) show tune to be played? Here are the lyrics that I have so far:

A litle bit of Kaufman!

A little bit of Glass!

A little bit confusion

A whole lotta crass

Watch me for four hours

just sitting on my ass

because

a little bit of Kaufman and

a little bit of Glass!

[I have sketched out 6 more verses and a wicked lute solo...]

The award would be on the front podium for about 3 and three quarter hours. Then, after the umpteenth commercial break, I smile and wave and make my way down to the stage where I accept my award.

At this point, I could deliver a speech, full of random pointing to non-existent people, inside references and knowing winks so that the TV audience will feel even more left out. Or maybe I'll just stand there awkwardly, looking around for a full minute, then take the award and slowly back off stage. There are many possibilities.

Anyway, I hope not to see you all then, and thank you for this award!

Just an opening

 To say that he never saw the deer that his car crashed into would be wrong. He had, in fact (though he didn't know it), seen that exact same deer on three separate occasions prior to that day. That subtlety, that truth, went unrealized and unappreciated as his face was pressed into the airbag.

Happy New Year!

 Rosh Hashana Thoughts

 

Yes, yes, yes, I know it is not time for the “Jewish new year” and you probably think that I set my clock ahead 5 months instead of 1 hour but sometimes one cannot control when questions and thoughts arise. So read at your own peril.

I wondered if Rosh Hashana is about the “new” year when it is so centrally about repentance. I mean, why do we even call it by the name of the new year when that seems secondary to the days of awe. Look at the textual references to the day – they point out that this is the seventh month and never, biblically, do they associate a new year with this date. There is nothing in prayer about “new year”— there is one phrase that people like to use to connect to an idea of “new year” which is “hayom harat olam.” But that phrase more accurately means “today is the day of the conception of the world” or “today is the day of the pregnancy of the world.” There is nothing about the birth/beginning itself.

If one were to look in the Talmud to see why the date is also connected to a new year one would read up in tractate Rosh Hashana. The first mishna (explained on 8b) lists all sorts of things for which this date is a new year, including many mitzvot which require yearly observance. The Talmudic text explains some tenuous connections to how one knows that this is the date of this particular notion of new “year” (there are 3 other ways of considering the year, with 3 other dates) but the items that are defined in terms of a Rosh Hashana based year are mainly agricultural (Sabbatical and Jubilee computing, figuring the tithing cycle and the age of a tree in terms of permissibility beyond the first 3 years). So other than its coincidental placement on the day that is Yom T’ruah, there is nothing relevant, it seems to the celebration of the day that has to do with the year-computation cycle. The beginning of Nisan, which is the first day of the year for a number of practical purposes (a king's rule and the holiday-celebratory cycle) isn't celebrated as a new year in any prayers or with any fanfare and yet IT, because it governs our entire holiday schedule should be (one might think) a new year's marker to remember and celebrate.

But I think that the naming plays an important part in establishing our correct attitude towards our religious identity and purpose. By calling it by the name Rosh Hashana, and recognizing it in its roll of refreshing our obligations to nature, our servants/debtors and our fellow Jews we stress that the value of the day is in the opportunity to embrace and fulfill obligations. The primary purpose of the day can’t be the “asking for forgiveness” – if that were primary, we would have made sure to ask forgiveness at the close of the previous year so that we could start the new year with a clean slate. But our Yom HaDin is not until a week after this new year begins. And yet we celebrate the new year!  We aren’t asking forgiveness at the close of year, but at the BEGINNING because we are showing that forgiveness is not the central aim but instead, our acceptance of a whole new set of mitzvot and obligations which will drive our practice for the next year and our pre-emptory fear that we will fall short in fulfilling these obligations. This makes the month before Rosh Hashana vital in terms of clearing away sins and makes Rosh Hashana act as a forward thinking repentance. For a month we have asked for forgiveness for what is passed and now we accept that we have to start over again – the cycle is never done. So we focus on being written into the book of life through our zealousness regarding all the commandments which are refreshed. Tithes are about charity and we say in our prayers that Charity can remove the evil decree against us. We pray out loud because a loud voice in prayer has the same effect (Yom T’ruah can be understood as “a day of loud noise”). We have been repenting in order to go into the year and start new adherence properly.

Rosh Hashana is about moving forward into a new year, not being stuck in our pasts. We recognize this by calling it by that aspect of its identity which looks ahead to treating others and our world better.

Going for [the] one

 Just some linguistic thoughts regarding a certain word in biblical Hebrew.

Is “echad” ordinal, cardinal or something else? Who decides, using what rules and with what expectation of consistency? Are there subtle differences in meaning depending on the precise form?

 

In the korban tamid (related in Bamidbar 28:1-8) the two lambs are required. The text writes of them as follows:

Pasuk 4: ד אֶת-הַכֶּבֶשׂ אֶחָד, תַּעֲשֶׂה בַבֹּקֶר; וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי, תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

 

So why is the first lamb keves echad, one lamb?

The Stone edition has “The one lamb shall you make in the morning and the second lamb shall you make in the afternoon.” Echad is used as an cardinal, the one lamb – not an item in a list. Contrast this with the word HA-sheini. Sheini is the ordinal form, showing that this is the second (some translations have “the other”).

Question 1 – why not list the keves echad as keves rishon (the first) if the second item is in ordinal form as a CONTINUATION of a list. Rishon is a word which was used in the biblical text (cf Ex 12:2 and the Aramaic “reish” for it).

As a comparison, the version of the Tamid in Sh’mot 29:39 has

אֶת־הַכֶּ֥בֶשׂ הָאֶחָ֖ד תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה בַבֹּ֑קֶר וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבָּֽיִם

The label for the one lamb is HA-echad, not "echad". The Ibn Ezra deals with this (sort of)

https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.29.39?lang=bi&with=Ibn%20Ezra&lang2=en

and makes the case that the construction leads one to understand this verse as meaning “the lamb, one lamb”. But before that he makes a comment about how the text SHOULD read and then lists it exactly as we have it, indicating either a variant written text or a memorial mistake on his part.

Pesukim 7 and 8 have

וְנִסְכּוֹ֙ רְבִיעִ֣ת הַהִ֔ין לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ הָאֶחָ֑ד בַּקֹּ֗דֶשׁ הַסֵּ֛ךְ נֶ֥סֶךְ שֵׁכָ֖ר לַהֹ׃

Its libation [shall be] one fourth of a hin for the one lamb, in the Holy [Sanctuary], you shall pour an intoxicating libation [of aged wine] to [before] Adonoy.

וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָֽעַרְבָּ֑יִם כְּמִנְחַ֨ת הַבֹּ֤קֶר וּכְנִסְכּוֹ֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַהֹ ׃ {פ}

Offer the second lamb in the afternoon…

Sh’mot 29:40-41 has

וְעִשָּׂרֹ֨ן סֹ֜לֶת בָּל֨וּל בְּשֶׁ֤מֶן כָּתִית֙ רֶ֣בַע הַהִ֔ין וְנֵ֕סֶךְ רְבִיעִ֥ת הַהִ֖ין יָ֑יִן לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ הָאֶחָֽד׃

And a tenth [of an ephah] of fine flour mixed with one fourth of a hin of pressed olive oil, and a libation of a fourth of a hin of wine for the first lamb.

וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָעַרְבָּ֑יִם

And the second lamb shall you make in the afternoon.

The above translation is from the Sefaria website using the Metsudah Chumash translation – others have “one lamb” except for the Stone edition which has “each” which would make no sense because why list the inclusive “each” when the verses explicitly list the wine libation for each separately? There are no others to be included who aren’t listed.

Why would this one translation go with “each” and why would the other go with “first”?

Question (group) 2 – While, again, the second number is present (HA-sheini) the first is now introduced with the specifying definite article הָאֶחָֽד and the translation has it as “the ONE.” It still isn’t first, just 1. If the point is to use the word for the cardinal, what changes by adding the letter hey in front of it? What is lost by the text of verse 4 NOT having that letter?

Question 2 continued – the first biblical use of “HA-echad” is Bereisheet 2:11:

שֵׁ֥ם הָֽאֶחָ֖ד פִּישׁ֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסֹּבֵ֗ב אֵ֚ת כׇּל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽחֲוִילָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־שָׁ֖ם הַזָּהָֽב׃

The name of the first is Pishon which surrounds all the land of Chavilah, where there is gold.

Somehow, the English (in multiple translations) sees ha-echad now as “first” instead of any other ordinal (rishon). No commentator that I could find addresses either the use of “echad” instead of “rishon” or the specific use of “HA-echad” as opposed to just echad though the Radak does spend time on the use of the introductory hey on the word Hachavilah in the same verse.

Side note – the Targum Onkelos has, for “echad “ the word “chad” in BOTH CASES. The addition of a hey in verse 7 makes no difference to the Aramaic! [in Gen 1:5, the Hebrew “echad” is translated by Onkelos as “chad” so the precedent seems clear]

Question 3 – taking a look a little further, one can read pasuk 13 “וְעִשָּׂרֹ֣ן עִשָּׂר֗וֹן סֹ֤לֶת מִנְחָה֙ בְּלוּלָ֣ה בַשֶּׁ֔מֶן לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ הָאֶחָ֑ד” which is translated in multiple versions as “And one tenth [of an eiphah] of fine flour as a meal-offering mixed with the [olive] oil for each lamb…” In this case, suddenly, HA-echad is now “each”, neither ordinal nor cardinal. And in the Aramaic, the same word, “chad” appears. Though this connects to the translation cited above for Sh’mot 29, the contexts are numerically different as the Bamidbar use is in a case of 7 lambs (28:11) and the Sh’mot case has 2, both addressed explicitly.

 Entertaining any answers...