As Rosh Hashanah approaches, some synagogues are dusting off their prayer books translated by Dr. Philip Birnbaum, just as they’ve been doing for the past 70 years. Here I reflect on the history of the Birnbaum machzor and why it’s still around after so long:
https://www.jta.org/2021/08/31/opinion/why-a-high-holidays-prayer-book-is-still-going-strong-after-70-years
Yosef Lindell 
יישר כחך on your salute to the Birnbaum mahzor. For those of us over 40, the Birnbaum will always have a special place in both our daily and high holiday memories.
There is one point hat you missed in your article. Dr Birnbaum incurred the wrath of HaRav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (aka the Rav, aka Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, זצ”ל) for a number of points in his prayer books (see Rabbi Hershel Schachter’s three books on the Rav and his thoughts. My apologies, but a quick look did not find what I saw last year in one of those books).
Example: The stand Ashkenazic nusach for the Amidah of Shabbat has us saying וינוחו בה (Friday night), וינוחו בו (Shabbat morning) and וינוחו בם (Shabbat afternoon). But if you look in the Birnbaum siddur (both the Daily edition and the Shabbat/Holiday edition) you’ll see that he says וינוחו בה across the board against the consensus of the Ashkenazic poskim. So I asked him why did he do it this way? (I met him at Lincoln Square Synagogue one Shalosh Seudah back in the late 1970s. He was a short guy–no more than 5′ I would say).
His response was that after looking at some manuscripts, he saw that some said בה, some said בו and some said בם. So he came to the conclusion that the early printers wanted to cover their bases and include all three pronouns in the Amidah. They added בה on Friday night, בו on Shabbat morning and בם on Shbbat afternoon. And the poskim went along with that for various reasons. But by going back to the manuscripts, Birnbaum concluded that בה was the oldest and therefore the most accurate pronoun to use. And that is what he used for his prayer books.
The Rav would have none of that. Judaism is based on our מסורה so if the poskim say the prayer should be בה, בו, ובם, then so be it. The Rav had other objections to Dr Birnbaum and his prayer books, but this one stands out in my mind (and again my apologies for not being able to locate it Rav Schachter’s books). The bottom line is that the Rav did not approve of the Birnbaum siddurim. What is interesting is that the Rav was the spiritual head of the OU, RCA and Yeshiva U, all of which used the Birnbaum siddur until the Art Scroll books showed up in the 1980s. The Rav passed away in 1993. I do not know if he had any kinder words for the Art Scroll siddurim.
Best wishes for a שנה טובה ומתוקה!
Rabbi Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
LikeLike
Rabbi Casper, thanks for your comment! I am familiar with Birnbaum’s treatment of the pronouns you mention in the Amidah, and although I did not know about the Rav’s displeasure, I am not surprised. Actually, the RCA, OU, and YU did have an alternative to the Birnbaum — the 1960 RCA Shabbat and Festival Siddur translated by Rabbi Dr. David de Sola Pool of Shearith Israel on the Upper West Side. Rabbi Dr. Charles Chavel was the main person from the RCA involved in that Siddur, but the Rav’s name was on the early editions as well as Chairman on the Halakhah Committee (but he took himself off later). De Sola Pool and Birnbaum had fundamentally different approaches to translation, and Birnbaum was also somewhat upset about the competition. Birnbaum wrote an extremely harsh review of the RCA siddur in the Hebrew periodical Hadoar, to which he was a frequent contributor. (Birnbaum even accused the RCA siddur of translating things in ways that sounded Christian!) This spawned a back-and-forth between him and Chavel that went on for several issues. I’ve also heard that the Rav may have ghostwritten Chavel’s responses to Birnbaum, but I am somewhat skeptical of that, especially since I the Rav later had his name taken out of the RCA Siddur because of the controversy and possibly because he did not want it to look like he had personally approved of the translation. Shanah Tovah!
LikeLike
Thank you for your response.
I am familiar with the de sola Poole siddur as that was what was used at Lincoln Square Synagogue in the 1970s when I was a member there; I do not remember what they used for the weekdays. (Side note: I once asked Rabbi Riskin, שליט”א, if he thought de sola Poole was a תלמיד חכם. Rabbi Riskin said no, he was “very eloquent.”) But the dsP siddur couldn’t be used for weekdays which is the bread and butter of siddur usage. Thus, it’s place as an alternative to the Birnbaum siddur was somewhat limited.
As to Birnbaum’s claim that some translations in the dsP siddur hinted at Christianity…..I read an analysis last year about this issue though I am currently having a senior moment and cannot remember where I saw it. But if I remember correctly, it centered around בריך שמה דמרא. The Rav felt that Birnbaum’s translation had a hint of Christianity. (The Rav originally skipped the line, לא על בר אלהין סמיכנא, as that would imply yes, there is a son of God [meaning you know who]. But in his later years, he just skipped the whole paragraph. I’m probably the only person in the North Miami Beach community who doesn’t stand or sing this prayer!).
As to Dr Chavel being “the man behind the curtain,” that I did not know. My only connection with Dr Chavel was one of my יורה דעה חברים, Freddie Karnefogel (oops, I mean Rabbi Dr Ephraim Karnefogel–so many of these guys in their prime today were at RIETS the same time I was in the late 1970s) expressed amazement that Dr Chavel missed so many “obvious sources” in his critical edition of the Ramban on the Humash.
Again, thank you for responding and again, best wishes for a שנה טובה ומתוקה!
LikeLike
I just remembered where I saw the analysis of Christian appearances in the dsP and Birnbaum siddurim: Hakirah “Letters to the Editor,” Volume 29 Winter 2021 pp 13ff. It can be viewed online at https://hakirah.org/Vol29Letters.pdf, pp. 6ff.
LikeLike
Thank you for pointing these letters to the editors out to me! I had read the original article with great interest, but had not seen these responses. They are quite enlightening! (By the way, I have a review of the new RCA siddur here: (https://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/yes-we-needed-another-modern-orthodox-prayer-book-a-review-of-the-rca-siddur/)
LikeLike
I grew up with Birnbaum, then graduated to Artscroll, and now I use the Koren. Why? The sh’va na and kametz kattan are not indicated in the Birnbaum while only the sh’va na is marked in the Artscroll. I’ve spent the last twenty years trying to teach myself how to properly pronounce Hebrew. Without knowing how to properly pronounce these two vowels, one is doing himself/herself a disservice. Most people, who lead davening, miss these two vowels. I know nothing about Hebrew grammar, but I do know that grammarians specified those vowels for a reason. Shabbat Shalom v’shana tova. Paul L. Newman; Merion Station, PA
LikeLike
Good points! I agree with you. The Birnbaum has several deficiencies, including the lack of shva na — and I feel this lack acutely as I am preparing the davening. I like to think I am getting most of them right, but I likely am missing some. Same with kamatz kattan, although I feel like until Koren, no one ever gave it a second thought. In general, I am not a particularly big fan of the Birnbaum Machzor. I was just trying to think about why it’s lasted as long as it has and provide some of the history.
LikeLike
POI: The רינת ישראל siddur does it the reverse. It does note the kamaz katon from a kamaz gadol. But it does not differentiate between the shva na and the shva nakh. But it does get messy trying to daven from two different siddurim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw your article in the Jerusalem Post
I agreed with you and identified on most everything. I had some comments
1) My Birnbaum is not wrapped in a paper cover; I had to have it rebound many years ago.
2) I love the fact that it is printed in a clear typeface without putting some prayers in small letters and others in large letters.
3) When I was young, I looked at the table of civil dates on which Rosh Hashanah would fall. They all seemed so far away. By now they are far away….the other way.
4) As a Chazan, even when I started davening from Rinat Yisrael, my marked Birnbaum was always under it.
Thank you for a wonderful piece.
Gmar Tov
LikeLike
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed the article and thanks for reaching out. I agree that the single-sized typeface was a great feature of the Birnbaum when it was released. It feels a little dated, however, when compared to the way the ArtScroll and perhaps Koren handle the type face. I find it a little hard to keep the right place in the Birnbaum because everything looks the same.
There are also other deficiencies in the Birnbaum that I am beginning to notice. For one, it does not distinguish between shva na and shva nach. Second, it does not have clear directions for what should be recited by the congregation, what should be recited only by the chazzan, and how responsive portions are recited. For Kol Nidrei and Neilah, it does not reprint the 13 Middos at each recitation, so one has to flip back constantly. These are just some of the things I noticed as a chazzan this year.
LikeLike