Anu ma’amirekha ve’Atah ma’amireinu

You may also like...

No Responses

  1. Bob Miller says:

    See definition #1 here for “bespoken”:

    This might be relevant to your discussion.

  2. micha says:

    I’m sure it is the kind of thought implied by the common translation.

    I was going for a much more esoteric idea. That we are G-d’s words.

  3. That is interesting, but the ‘maamirecha’ means ‘those who speak you (or your name)’ or ‘those who cause your name to be said’, not ‘those who are spoken by you’. ‘maamir’ is one who speaks of something, it is the nominative. Your explanation of ‘maamirenu’ works though.

    Perhaps we could rework the ‘maamirecha’ part to say that we, Israel, are the ones who not only speak G-d’s name and G-dliness in this world, but also we cause others to speak of G-d. It is through our coronation of G-d during the days of awe that G-d is King (kvyachol), for by being subjects, we make him king. Also, we spread the word, so to speak, to the rest of the world, and act as a light unto the nations, to cause G-d to be known to the rest of the world. We brought the world monotheism.

    I think this works better with the hebrew grammar.

  4. Barzilai says:

    Perhaps you are right homiletically, which certainly would be in place in interpreting these poetic words.

    However, we find the term in “es Hashem he’emartoh hayom,” and also in the context of korbonos, “eimurim.” In the korbon context, the term is thought of as “the elevated parts.” Here too, we would say it means elevated, as in the sense of kiddush sheim shomayim.

  5. micha says:

    I’m not sure you can assume “he’emarta” and “ma’amar”. What I found interesting was that the mishnah about creation uses “ma’amaros”.

    Also, the whole pattern of the poem is to acknowledge that Hashem is in control, and we are the controlled. Declaring His kingship or Unity, as Mevaseret Zion suggests and you (Barzlai) seem to agree, or His designating us, which is what Artscroll’s translation says, breaks that pattern.

  6. Barzilai says:

    Micha, do me a favor and look at Devorim 26 17-18, and tell me that you still think the tefilloh is not a rephrasing of the possuk.

  7. micha says:

    We will just have to agree to disagree. A paytan, if he were referring to those pesuqim, would have used “he’emirekha” and “he’emireinu”. It fits the rhythm, keeps the sound of the pasuq, and more importantly, changing the diqduq changes meaning. “He’emir” is to atest to the truth of something particularly because it’s in hif’il conjugation. A “ma’amar”, without the causative, is a statement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *