1

I know siddur chabad meant to be meduyak but I'd like to know if other chassidus or their rebbes are makpid on correct dikduk / wording as I often read they are not on pronunciation, accentuation and the like.

Frank
  • 1,163
  • 6
  • 15
  • I would think they are all makpid on correct dikduk. There might be disagreements about what is correct – Daniel Mar 03 '15 at 13:16
  • 3
    @Daniel Unfortunately that's a poor assumption. http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/18529/759 – Double AA Mar 03 '15 at 16:08

1 Answers1

12

Yes, the Minchas Elazar was very makpid (strict) on both dikduk (grammar) and wording.

His hakpada (strictness) is a major subject in the preface to the current main Munkacser siddur, Tzvi Tiferes. It outlines both commonly ignored rules, and points out that the siddur includes clear markings for mil'eil/mil'ra and sh'va na/nach. It also brings sources for the importance of keeping these rules.

Further, it follows the rav's rulings in his extensive work on the proper wordings in prayers. The wordings often resemble nusach ashkenaz ("German" – non-Chassidic – rite) more than sfard (common Chassidic rite).

Unfortunately, the tradition of these hakpados was broken when the rav's son-in-law took up the mantle of leadership after the rav's passing, only to radically depart from his father-in-law's ways. Today's Munkacser rebbe is but a namesake, without proper mesora (tradition) from the Minchas Elazar.

Still, the memory of the past lives on, e.g. in the preface to the official siddur. But it is very telling that the new educational edition intended for children, Tiferes Banim, omits the dikduk features. Another example is in the local Munkacser synagogue here in Montreal: An engraved sign affixed to a candelabra right in eye-height of the sha"tz (prayer leader) recounting these hakpados of the Munchas Elazar.

Preface page 1 Preface page 2 Preface page 3

Adám
  • 6,801
  • 21
  • 54
  • +1 (at first I misread the word recounting as recanting:) – user6591 Mar 03 '15 at 19:27
  • NBZ, aside from the grammatical markings, is the text in the new 'Tiferes Banim' siddurim the same as in Tzvi Tiferes? Also, do you know if Tiferes Banim includes Yamim Noraim amidot? – paquda Sep 03 '15 at 14:32
  • @paquda The text is the same as the newest Tzvi Tiferes. The instructions are in Yiddish, not Hebrew. About Yamim Noraim, I'll take a look, bli neder. – Adám Sep 03 '15 at 15:28
  • @paquda Tiferes banim is in two parts. The Shabbes part has has all shmone esrei's for R"H and Y"K, just like regular siddurim usually have. – Adám Sep 04 '15 at 13:26
  • @NBZ, I've been looking through Tzvi Tiferes and Tiferes Banim. Tiferes Banim is full of what seem to be typos in regard to dageish hazak: a lot are left out without rhyme or reason. Tzvi Tiferes, on the other hand, seems to be meticulously edited. There are also some differences between the two that are more substantial--differences in letters and vowels: Do you know why the Tiferet Banim editors would make changes like that? e.g, "ha-aderes ve-ha-emunah le-chey ha-olamim" vs. "le-chai olamim" – paquda Sep 24 '15 at 13:58
  • @paquda no, i'm pretty upset myself. – Adám Sep 24 '15 at 19:38
  • Is there an old edition available online? – Kazi bácsi Jul 29 '19 at 16:00
  • 1
    @Kazibácsi Siddur Shaar Yissachar Hashalem, Mehaduras Tzvi Tiferes, Published and copyrighted © 2012 by Emes Publishing Inst. Ohr Torah Munkacs, 4607 14 Avenue / Brooklyn, New York, 11219-2610, tel-fax 718 854 3302 / email: hoitzias.emes@gmail.com. To get the book: Ner Lameor, 718 384 1324. No ISBN. – Adám Jul 29 '19 at 17:24
  • I've just seen the 1972 edition, but it doesn't include yet the foreword and the features you were discussing. – Kazi bácsi Jul 30 '19 at 07:22
  • @Kazibácsi Makes sense. At that time, the Munkacser Rav's teachings on the subject were all but forgotten, and the New Munkacs had only been established 10 years prior. The community needed a "good enough" siddur quickly. Only much later were when the resources were available, and the Rav's talmidim were growing old, his ideas were put into new print to save them from oblivion. And just in time, as the new generation seems to not care much at all. – Adám Jul 30 '19 at 08:40
  • @Kazibácsi This may be of interest. – Adám Jul 30 '19 at 08:46
  • I thought they had already printed something in Munkács before the war. I'll check the text you've sent, strangely it is present in the book only until the 5th point. – Kazi bácsi Jul 30 '19 at 09:39
  • Have you seen this siddur? It was suggested in comment of the related question. – Kazi bácsi Jul 31 '19 at 18:20
  • @Kazibácsi I don't recall seeing that, no. – Adám Jul 31 '19 at 18:25