[Avodah] Wording of Kaddish

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, May 30, 2007 3:56 pm, Arie Folger wrote:
: Mima nafshakh. If yitgadal is proper Hebrew, there is no need to
: change it....

I disagree. Perhaps the Gra was saying make a point of switching it to
be very specifically in Hebrew rather than say words that could be
taken as Aramaic. IOW, la'afuqei Aramit and any other language rather
than point being to say it in Lh"Q. But this is less important to me
than my next point.

: If, however, it isn't proper Hebrew, neither is titqabal....

But what's wrong with that? Tisqabal tzelosehon is supposed to be in
Aramaic. It's only the first two words that parallel the nevu'ah in
Yechezqeil, and therefore the only words for which we would have any
motivation to leave Aramaic.

: Interestingly enough,
: the suggestion that -al is wrong antedates the Gra.

Not surprised. I would think there would be meqoros, often rare, (and
sometimes limited by the best he could do with his access to girsa'os)
for all of his changes to minhag Yisrael. Not merely sevara with not
even a da'as yachid predating the norm. Otherwise, the Gra would be
diverging in practice from his own shitah about how pesaq works.

:> 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). ... Or...

The first. (I wasn't under the impression RCV opposed the switch of
vowels in Qaddish.)

: 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.
...

Did the theory exist yet? No, it was created by the fact that the
author of the SMR and RCV both thought enough about which the Gra said
to try to remember what he did. RCV went further and decided was worth
disputing in writing. That kind of significance given to a detail does
imply the Gra probably considered it important.

As I said, not muchrach by a long shot, but does lend real credibility
to the MB's lomdus.

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

: Nisht farshtanden.

Whether the distinction between zekher and zeikher was made by the Gra
or by a machloqes the SMR and RCV, it still points out a valid issue.
I have problems with not pasqening either way and doing both, but
that's on the principle of how I think pesaq ought to work, unrelated
to the originator. The question of who first made the chiluq is
theoretical, and doesn't weaken the motivation by all that much.


Note that earlier today RELPhM argued on the thread about "Hashem" in
Ashkenaz (rather than "Hasheim") that both segol and tzeirei were
pronounced /e/ in a closed syllable. (We certainly hear it in some
havaros in the reverse, open syllables as /A/ -- "meilekh" for
"melekh".) "So I'm not sure how the SMR and RCV could debate based on
recollections of which the Gra said / had the qorei say.

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