This is the third of four apocryphal psalms from the Cairo Geniza, MS RNL Antonin 798, vocalized and cantillated per Masoretic norms, and translated anew. The origin of these psalms (found in a few pages of an incomplete manuscript) is unclear, with some suggesting a medieval pious forgery and others suggesting an origin in the Qumran community. (In any case, no sign of them has been found in the Qumran scrolls, although some aspects of the Hebrew may suggest a relationship there.) Preserved in its entirety, the third psalms in Antonin 798 largely focuses on reversal of fortune. It also appears to invoke the memory of Moshe, but not by name. . . .

The story of Bel and the Dragon according to the text of Theodotion, translated into biblical Hebrew. . . .

This is the third of four apocryphal psalms from the Cairo Geniza, MS RNL Antonin 798, vocalized and cantillated per Masoretic norms, and translated anew. The origin of these psalms (found in a few pages of an incomplete manuscript) is unclear, with some suggesting a medieval pious forgery and others suggesting an origin in the Qumran community. (In any case, no sign of them has been found in the Qumran scrolls, although some aspects of the Hebrew may suggest a relationship there.) Preserved in its entirety, the third psalms in Antonin 798 largely focuses on reversal of fortune. It also appears to invoke the memory of Moshe, but not by name. . . .

The following is a cnatillated Hebrew translation of the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the Jewish core of the work — 1:1—3:12 and 5. Also included is the corresponding Geʽez text, and the preserved fragments of the Greek text when available. When proper names are mentioned in the text attested in Greek, the translation follows the Greek. . . .

The Geshem prayer for Shmini Atzeret in the Maḥzor Aram Ṣoba has some things in common with other Geshem texts, but its most unique facets are twofold. First and most obviously, the extensive catena of verses from Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim that falls between the introductory announcement and the piyyutim themselves. And second, several Aramaic passages relatively rare in other texts, which seem to reflect an archaic form predating the adoption of Arabic as the spoken language of the Aleppo Jews. (These Aramaic passages are marked in green in the transcription.) As standard in Eastern practice, especially in the Maḥzor Aram Ṣoba (which shows a surprisingly modern reticence to interrupt the ‘amidah), this prayer is placed after the Torah service and before musaf begins. . . .

The text of the piyyut Ein Keloheinu from a 1483 Judeo-Italian translation of the siddur (British Library Or. 2443), along with a transcription into Italian script, a normative Italian modernization, and the Hebrew and English. . . .

The mantra-like piyyut “Ēin k-Ēlohēinu,” a praise of God’s attributes and uniqueness featuring incremental repetition, is found in siddurim as far back as the siddur of Rav Amram, and may date back to the Hekhalot literature. Many versions of it have been compiled in different languages, most famously Flory Jagoda (zç”l)’s Judezmo variant “Non como muestro Dyo.” Here the editor has compiled traditional Yiddish and Ladino translations, as well as developed new Aramaic and Arabic translations for this piyyut. The post-piyyut verses used in both the Ashkenazi and Sephardic rites have been included. . . .

The text of the prayer Nishmat Kol Ḥai in Hebrew with a Latin translation . . .

The text of the short prayer ha-El b’Taatsumōt Uzekha in Hebrew with a Latin translation. . . .

The text of the short prayer uv’Maqhalōt in Hebrew with a Latin translation. . . .

The text of the short prayer Shokhen Ad in Hebrew with a Latin translation. . . .

The text of the prayer Yishtabaḥ Shimkha, in Hebrew with a Latin translation . . .

A reading from Jubilees (Sefer haYovelim) 6:15-22, including the text of the Mäṣḥäf Ḳədus (the Ge’ez translation of Jubilees) and original cantillated Hebrew and gender-neutral English translations, for Shavuot. Jubilees is considered to be the earliest source connecting Shavuot with the Sinaitic covenant, and emphasizes the latter as a fulfillment of the Noaḥide covenant (in the narrative of Noaḥ) that had only been maintained through the lineage of Abraham. . . .

The story of Toviah (Tobit) in Hebrew translation, in an abridged version arranged for public reading on the second day of Shavuot. . . .

According to Isaac Seligman Baer’s famed Seder Avodat Yisrael, one of the first scholarly siddurim critical editions ever published, there was a custom that on the day of a circumcision, the P’sukei d-Zimra reading of Shirat haYam along with a portion of its introduction would be recited aloud as a call and response by the mohel (circumcizer) and sandaḳ (godfather). Baer’s division of the verses (from Seder Avodat Yisrael, pp. 72-74) is included here, along with a new translation. . . .

An English translation of Psalms 92 set side-by-side with the Masoretic text. . . .

An English translation of Psalm 104 set side-by-side with the Masoretic text. . . .

Psalm 151a is unlike any other psalm, because it is openly and clearly a description of David’s own life. He describes his childhood as the youngest of the family, and his anointing. It may have not been included as part of the Masoretic canon because this dissimilarity leads to just a whiff of pseudepigraphical overcompensation. [The psalm is designated Psalms 151a to destinguish it from the text of Psalms 151 found in the Septuagint. –ANV] . . .

Psalm 154 seems to be a hymn of communal eating, very appropriate for the communal life of Qumran, but also features a very Proverbs-like anthropomorphization of Wisdom as a woman. Of the three apocryphal psalms recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls, this one seems the most likely to have been written with sectarian intent, which may have been why it wasn’t included in the Masoretic canon. . . .

Psalm 155 is an incomplete acrostic (the Dead Sea Scrolls text records it going from ב to נ, and the Syriac can be reconstructed to include up to פ) with similarities to petitionary psalms like Psalm 3, 22, and 143. It is unclear why it was not included in the Masoretic canon, but one can hazard a guess that it was just not familiar to the compilers. . . .