[Avodah] Wording of Kaddish

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, June 1, 2007 12:34 pm, Arie Folger wrote:
: On the contrary. Neither the Ma'aseh Rav, nor RCV indicate that the
: Gra had two versions. For either of them, there only exists one
: correct reading. The one point they silently agree on, in fact, is
: that the Gra didn't repeat anything. Hence, any justification for
: repeating the word ZKhR according to two different pronounciations,
: which is justified by a unified theory cannot be the Gra's work.

I don't see the seifa.

I see the Gra created a haqpadah to say the one variant that means
"memorial, commemoration". In his day, which one the Gra held was
correct was known. There was some gramatical theory that made the Gra
believe the difference between tzeirei and segol changed the meaning
of the word. Both sides agree on that, or the machloqes would be a
non-starter.

Subsequently, the identity was lost -- with different talmidim taking
different sides. A consequence of the Gra holding there is a semantic
difference ignorance is a perceived need to do both.

Yes, saying both is new, and might be no older than the MB. It might
even by like wearing tzitzis out -- a hanhagah he endorsed in theory
but didn't do himself. But I see no other possible way of being sure
one fulfilled the deOraisa according to both the SMR's and RCV's
versions of the Gra's haqpadah.

...
: No, but (a) don't credit or blame the Gra with introducing this
: gramatically questionable theory, and (b) recognize that the theory
: is but an ex post facto justification and might not have any basis
: in fact.

Except that there was a reason why each talmid thought the Gra was
maqpid on "zecher" or "zeicher". There was a grammatical theory that
was his. We don't know what that theory was, and his talmidim's
opinions might be mesorah or might be ex post facto. The practice of
saying both, though, is a consequence of knowing a theory exists that
gives semantic content to the difference; not knowing the content of
the original theory.

: Furthermore, (c) understand that there are good reasons to disagree
: with the Ma'aseh Rav and with the MB.

Kamuvan. The question was understanding the MB, not bringing both sides.

As I said, I have problems with being chosheish for both tzedadim,
rather than following minhag Yisrael and assuming that proves one
side's theory as being correct.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha at aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter