[Avodah] Wording of Kaddish

Arie Folger afolger at aishdas.org
Wed May 30 12:56:11 PDT 2007


RMB wrote:
> Why? The idea behind the change is specific to the pair of words
> "yisgadal vayisqadash". The later "tisqabal" isn't an idiom whose
> origin in nevu'ah warrants being pointed to by a shift in language.

Mima nafshakh. If yitgadal is proper Hebrew, there is no need to change it. 
If, however, it isn't proper Hebrew, neither is titqabal. And finally, if 
yitgadal and yatgadeil are different valid Hebrew forms, then one should 
apply the same analytical rules to decide whether the grammer dictates 
reading titqabeil rather than tiqabal. In fact, that was a reason why one 
siddur did exactly that, changing the -als to -eils. Interestingly enough, 
the suggestion that -al is wrong antedates the Gra.

More info available on 
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/01/perils-of-ignoring-precedent.html

> I am perfectly fine assuming that when the Gra's talmidim argue about
> what he did and give diqduq reasons for their tzedadim, that the
> difference actually comes from the rebbe. Yes, it could be a
> post-facto explanation by the talmidim. I would agree it's not
> muchrach, merely an assumption.

Eh, it is hardly convincing that such is anything but a post facto explanation 
by the synthesizers of the talmidim.

> But behind that assumption:
> (1) Why would it matter to R' Chaim Vilozhiner so much that the seifer
> had it wrong?

You are referring to RCV's opposition to the Sefer Ma'aseh Rav's statement 
that the Gra read zekher (with twice segol). (I just added that for search 
engine wielding posterity;-)). Or are you referring to what RCV might have 
written about qaddish, which I ignore? (oplease elucidate me)

If the former: Because RCV knew that the Gra didn't pronounce zeikher in such 
a strange fashion. RCV wanted to avoid the theory popularized by the MB, that 
there are two words, zeikher and zekher, and we need to read both into the 
text by repeating the whole matter.

> and
> (2) Is it /that/ less powerful of an argument besheim RCV, anyway?

Nisht farshtanden.

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com



More information about the Avodah mailing list