Page 266 - גנזי קדם יא

Lyrical Aspects of Samuel the Thirdʼs Poetry 41*

that was not spoken in real life; yet, he succeeded in creating a literary reality
that would invite the listener or reader to become or remain involved in
Jewish religious tradition and culture.

Who was this man, who can be historically associated with the main
centers of Jewish learning and legislative activity at the time, Ramleh, Fustat,
and Jerusalem? His paytanic oeuvre was to put down roots in Palestine, Egypt,
and even Syria and Iraq, where it was destined to attain great status in liturgy
and prayer. This edition demonstrates that Samuel’s poetic achievements were
reached within the confines of conventionalised structures like the yotser,
although a number of formalistic modifications were applied. His personal
stamp has been put on ways of inserting alphabetical or name acrostics, the
ways certain types of strophes and refrains are arranged, and modes of using
Torah and Haftarah verses. This is, perhaps, not the main feature of Samuel’s
poetry that makes him an exceptional paytan, since each of the synagogue
hymnists adds small elements of arrangement and adaptation to his individual
works. Samuel’s main contribution is a novel Hebrew expressivity, which
is at the same time a clear reflection of his individual approach to Jewish
religious culture. Samuel seems to be particularly endowed with an innate
sense of language, a kind of Sprachgefühl for how Hebrew, and to a lesser
extent, Aramaic can create a delicate idiom with an appreciation for semantic
coloration and elegant sonority suitable for recitation or declamation by
the chazzan, the synagogue cantor. Again, this was not a language anyone
spoke, but given a comprehensive familiarity with biblical and rabbinic
sources, Samuel may have counted on an audience whose acquaintance
with synagogue liturgy and poetry allowed it to accept the poet’s invitation
to learn and enjoy his yotserot for the weekly readings and the festivals.
Moreover, studying Samuel’s literary heritage provides a rare opportunity
to involve his personal history. He was a significant persona who aspired to
the highest ordination next to patriarchy in the Jewish community at large
and played a major role in the Jerusalem “supreme court,” or academy. This
religious institution was ruled by the chavurah, a fellowship or council of
notables (translated by Saul Lieberman as “college”) that exercised judicial
authority for the Jewish community, or, perhaps, a Jewish commonwealth,