[Avodah] Fwd: [Mesorah] FW: Re: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal

[Richard Wolpoe]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
Date: Sep 25, 2007 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] FW: Re: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal
To: David E Cohen <ddcohen at gmail.com>



On 9/25/07, David E Cohen <ddcohen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> > FWIW the Regalim paragrpah of EL. Vel. Avoseinu Melech
> > Rachaman should imho NEVER have retzei bimnuchoseinu.
> > {R. Artscroll is ambiguous.} Both Birnbaum and Heidenheim
> > consider this a paragraph about Reglaim and the reference
> > here to Shabbos is out of place. It belongs ONLY to the final
> > paragraph "v'hasi'einu which has a combined theme
>
> Using that logic, how about "selach umchal la`avonoseinu beyom hashabbas
> hazzeh uvyom hakkippurim hazzeh"?  I'm not referring to the final
> paragraph
> of the kedushas hayom berakhah, where we fully expect (and find) a mention
> of Shabbos, but to the paragraph between the "short" vidui and the "long"
> vidui.  Thematically speaking, the mention of Shabbos in that paragraph
> would seem to be out of place, yet it's there in every machzor I've
> checked.
>
> I suspect the difference is that once we're already mentioning the day
> ("beyom hakkippurim hazzeh"), we want to mention all of the kedushos that
> apply to the day.  "Retzei vimnuchaseinu," on the other hand, is simply
> another bakashah that has to do with the fact that it is Shabbos, is no
> more
> relevant to the paragraph of "melech rachaman racheim `aleinu" than it is
> to
> any other paragraph besides the concluding paragraph of the berakhah.
>
> --D.C.
>
>
Ein hachi Namei  You are right there are other inconsistencies.  E.G. we
certainly do not do a "gilgul" of YK or YT re: Birkas achas mei'ein sheva
[aka Magein Avos]!  Yet on Shabbos Hulo shel Mo'ed Sukkos, Sukkos is
mentioned in the Haftara Blessing even though "hulo shel Mo'ed" by itself
never triggers a Haftara!  Lich'ora just as YT/YK does not trigger "magain
avos" and therefore is ignored  same for HShM Sukkos and the Birkas
haftara!!

The case of Reztaei Bimnuchaseinu in Melech Rachaman however is specifcally
addressed by Birnbaum and implicitly by Heidneheim and Baer as not
belonging.  [Since Baer omits any mention in the notes, this is a fairly
strong indication that it was probably not even a "hava aminah" - if one is
permitted to construe from silence]

Disclaimer:  am not familar with Siddur Hagra nor much with Ya'vetz.. AISI,
Heidnheim,Baer, and Birnbaum [and as far as I can tell the Ba'al Hatanya]
really worked very hard at being consistent. I see other "authors" as
approaching nusach on a more ad hoc basis.
-- 
Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/


-- 
Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070925/e3538f5c/attachment.htm>