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

[Elazar M. Teitz]

R. Jonathan Baker:

<<<< 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 b Hatov ki lo calu rachamecha vehamerachem ki lo tamu chasadecha.>>>>

R. Zev Sero:

<<<Then whence the continuation "ve'al kulam"?>>>

EMT:

<<Probably because unlike Al Hanissim, "v'al kullam" refers explicitly to the string of v'als in Modim, and is thus a continuation thereof.>>

R. Michael Poppers:
 
<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..."?! 

     I don't understand your point.  The claim was made that "al hanissim is sans vav because it is interrupted from the preceding list of "v'al"s by the phrase "hatov ki lo chalu."  I was attempting to give an explanation for the appearance of the vav in "v'al kulam," despite its following that same interruption -- because it refers back to what was listed before the interruption.  Birkas Hamazon, on the other hand, has no interruption, so that the vav could reasonably appear in both "v'al hanissim" and "v'al hakol."  

     (That's just a l'shittasam.  The minhag of most practitioners of Nusach Ashk'naz, including our kehilla, is to say "al hanissim" in both locations.)

RMP:

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.>

     While I agree with the maskana, the example of "r'tzei," I believe, is not comparable.  "Al hanissim" refers to the statement of "Modim anachnu" or "Nodeh l'cha."  By itself, it makes no sense. We can say that we thank Hashem for the nissim and the purkan, but the statement "for the nissim and for the purkan," without reference to hoda'ah, is meaningless. Since it is a continuation, one can question why there is no "and." "R'tzei," on the other hand, is completely independent of the paragraph which precedes it, so there is no call for a vav hachibbur.

EMT

____________________________________________________________
Take a break - you deserve it.  Click here to find a great vacation.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2gGU5GiMoA1y7MaRXNL6KgSt6MtsGM38p35dRao5z7n5Qsa/