Talk:Yedid Nefesh

Untitled

I'm not sure whether there should be a vav in "m'shōch" in the second line of the first verse and also in "ehōv" in the penultimate line of the final verse. Does anyone know? DBJC 6 November 2006 ¶ Judging from the photo of the ms page, which is not easy to read, no vav in m'shoch but yes a vav in "ehov". However, the first printed version (1601) has a vav holem in "m'shoch" and also one in "ehov" Sussmanbern (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Original Hebrew" is not the original version, only traditional

What is here called the original Hebrew is actually not that. The manuscripts show that the version printed (according to ms, of course) in the siddurim "Sim Shalom," "Koren," and "Rinat Yisrael" is the original. Whether it is "correct," modest, interesting, traditional, etc, I don't know, but it seems to be the way Azikri wrote it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattcarl (talk • contribs) 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC). ¶ With reference to the mention of Koren, I assume this means the Koren-Sacks Siddur, as I cannot find Yedid Nefesh in the all-Hebrew original Koren Siddur.Sussmanbern (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a women's Sephardi siddur, Tefillat Chana, in which a manuscript of Yedid Nefesh in R' Azkiri's own handwriting is reproduced. While the Sephardic script (similar to "Rashi") is difficult for many modern readers, in every instance where the Sephardic and Ashkenazic versions of this piyut diverge, the Sephardic version follows this "ketav yad" version. Shoshani (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The new (2009) Koren-Sacks Siddur uses the manuscript text of Yedid Nefesh. 173.79.234.183 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) ¶ Ditto, Rinat Yisrael uses the ms text.Sussmanbern (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph and some references regarding the manuscript version. I hope this meets with everyone's approval. Sussmanbern (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yedid Nefesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071107103050/http://www.usy.org/songs/view_song.php?songID=40 to http://www.usy.org/songs/view_song.php?songID=40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Authorship re 143[7] Commentary on Numbers

I see that @DoritG has removed a claim that "The Hebrew Manuscripts at Cambridge University Libraries by Stefan C. Reif (1997, page 93) refers to an appearance of Yedid Nefesh in the Commentary On the Book of Numbers by Samuel ben David ben Solomon, a manuscript dated to about 1438—long before Azikri's birth." This book does indeed say that the poem is found in that manuscript, but doesn't itself challenge the attribution to Azikri. The poem is found f.146v, near a transition between scribes. Reif seems to imply that the poem is transcribed by the first hand (f.144r-f.148r), but the NLI entry says that the poem is written "בכתיבה מאוחרת מעל דף ריק" = in a different hand on a blank page. Certainly a great many manuscripts have liturgical poetry scrawled on endpapers, margins, etc., which are of a much later date than the original scribe's colophon. I'm noting this just because it was sort of sourced and to allow @Sussmanbern (who added it) to respond; plus maybe someone has access to the manuscript itself? Happy editing! GordonGlottal (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)