[Avodah] Wording of Kaddish

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, May 22, 2007 1:38 pm, Arie Folger wrote:
: RMB then wrote:
:> As far as I know, c and d are errors caused by (a). IOW, someone is
:> about to give some reason I never heard for them.

: Beme'hilat kevod toratkha, it isn't obvious that c and d are errors. I
: would argue the opposite....

No need for mechilah. I stated my certainty that someone would point
out that I don't know far enough.

However, I do not understand your response:
: If the Gra's explanation requires the change which the
: Mishnah Verurah suggests ..., then, we should be consisten and apply
: the correction accross the board...

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.

: Eh, but as RAB pointed out (mentioned in RMB's post I am replying to),
: the Gra probably didn't say what some rightly highly respected others
: have theorized he did.

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.

But behind that assumption:
(1) Why would it matter to R' Chaim Vilozhiner so much that the seifer
had it wrong?
and
(2) Is it /that/ less powerful of an argument besheim RCV, anyway?

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