[Avodah] "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh"

[RallisW at aol.com]

Rabbi Burton Wax of Cong. Ezras Israel in  Chicago:
 
There are several problems with the Rema and with your  analogies.  
First of all, there are three holidays referred to as  Atzeret.  One is to 
the seventh day of Pesach.  Another is  Shavuot.  The third is Shmini Atzeret.  
The first two are definitely  in the category of CHAG.  So if nothing else, we 
have a gezera shava  "atzeret - atzeret" to include Shmini Atzeret as a chag.
Second, if you look in Parashat Pinchas, where all of the  chaggim and their 
respective korbanot are listed, in the last item (Eighth  Day...) it says:  
Bayom Hashmini (stop) Atzeret ti'yeh  lachem....
Since this pasuk is part of the listing of all of the chaggim,  obviously 
Atzeret is the name of this holiday of the eighth day.
This is also why I believe that those who say Shmini Chaga  Hatzeret Hazeh 
are more correct than those who say  Shmini Atzeret HaChag Hazeh.


There is a fasincating Rema [orach chaim 668:1] re:
"es Yom HaShimni hag  Ho'atzeres hazeh"
Rmea states this is NOT a hag at all! It reall should  say:
"es Yom HaShmini Ho'atzeres Hazeh"

Wow!  the psychological  paradigm shift when I first saw this!. Could the
Rema Be RIGHT? All of our  siddurim, benchers, etc. are wrong?  Didn't the
Rema see  Artscroll,  Birnbaum, Heidenheim etc.  Was the Rema from some  other
planet?

This psychology that I had experienced is about forcing  the read to fit our
comfort zone paradigm. Of course the Rema had none of the  above
praeyrbookss. So, what DID he have? The Rema had a Humash [or Tanach] -  and
guess what! Lo and Behold the Humash NEVER uses the term hag in  conjunction
with Shmini Atzeres!  [Chalk one up for the  Rema!]

Now, after seeing the Rema on HIS level, what's his point?   As the G'mara
often does with a Tanna, we try to articulate HIS sevara. And  based upon
what the Rema SAYS, the sevara is this " the terminology of those  4 holidays
is Humash-based!"   And therefore adding the term Hag is  WRONG, because it
does not fit the structure because it is inconsistent with  the sources

Now I know FEW who follow this Rema, nevertheless his  underlying
presumptions are really usefu and probably valid for even those  who  do not
follow his decision:

1. He posits that  the format of the terminology must be consistent at
some  level.  Whether or not it adheres to the Humash model per se,  may
indeed be quibbled, but this assumption that it is a level  field is mashma
lehedya.
2. The  Rema - a  Traditionalist - was more concerned with this
consistency then  the familiar text.
3. The Rema was VERY sensitive to the text.  And he picked up upon a
contradiction that few would notice.  [well few non-yekkes would notice :-)]
4. I suppose that the  Rema might see other structures as having
similar  consistencies




************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071010/6871cca5/attachment-0001.htm>