[Avodah] al Hanissim (was "Re: 'Al Hanisim")

[Michael Poppers]

In Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 434, REMT responded to RZS, who had 
responded to RJJB:
>>> Baer notes that almost all old siddurim, both Ashkenazic and Sphardic, 
don't use V'al, but Al.  He notes that even those few commentators (Mateh 
Moshe and a couple of others) who add the Vav only do so in Benching, 
where there is a string of V'als.  In Shmoneh Esreh, though, the string of 
V'als is broken by Hatov ki lo calu rachamecha vehamerachem ki lo tamu 
chasadecha. <<<
>> Then whence the continuation "ve'al kulam"? <<
> Probably because unlike Al Hanissim, "v'al kullam" refers explicitly to 
the string of v'als in Modim, and is thus a continuation thereof. <
While (I'm emphasizing the parallels...) "v'al hakol *H' Elokeinu anachnu 
modim* lach" does _not_ refer to the string of "v'al"s in "*Nodeh l'cha H' 
Elokeinu* al..."?!

My tuppence is that one can't change "Al haNissim" to "V'al haNissim" 
based on the "v'al [kulam/hakol]" which follows when we see that other 
insertions, e.g. "R'tzei," do not begin with a vav (e.g. "Urtzei"), but I 
hear RZS' question on what RJJB quoted as a rationale for saying "V'al 
haNissim" in Bircas haMazon and "Al haNissim" in the Amidah.  I would 
argue for consistency :), and the consistent "Al haNissim" in the siddurim 
of Rav Amram Gaon, RaMBaM, etc. is hard to argue with.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090107/c0d1840a/attachment-0001.htm>