[Avodah] shma kolenu

[Zev Sero]

On 16/09/2013 1:19 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>>> Since in shma kolenu it is in plural it should not be said by the
>>> entire congrgation out loud. Instead we say that one phrase quietly
>>> so it is similar to being in singular

>> So why not say it in the singular?  We change it to the plural davka so
>> that it refers to all of us collectively; so why not say it aloud? >>>

> I am just quoting
> see ketze hamateh in mateh ephraim on Hebrewbooks.org
> Note not all versions have ketzeh hamateh I used the second on the list
> It is in siman 582 seif katan 40 in ketzeh hamateh

Thank you, but I don't understand what he's saying.

1. He starts out by misquoting the Shulchan Aruch.  He quotes the SA that
if a pasuk is written in the singular, it's permitted *in public* to change
it to the plural in a way of tefillah.  The key word in that quote, "in
public", does not appear there, and on the contrary, the whole point of the
SA there is that it's permitted for an *individual* to change a singular
pasuk to plural, so long as he does it derech tefillah and doesn't change
an entire mizmor.

2. Having said that it's permitted in public, he then says that changing
this pasuk "would be permitted", nevertheless each one says it quietly, so
we're not really a tzibur but just a set of individuals.  How does that
make it better, it would seem, given his premise, that it would make it
worse.  So what exactly is he saying.

3. Then he says we are worried lechatchila about changing it, since it's
only a minhag and not an explicit takanah of Chazal.  But then how is it
different from the other pesukim in that paragraph, that are also changed
from singular to plural, and are said aloud?  Is he saying that those
pesukim are a takanas Chazal but Yihyu leratzon is only a minhag?!


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
zev at sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan