[Avodah] Zechor/zachar

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:58:48AM +0200, R Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
: So I've been trying to discover at what point this minhag of reading it 2
: times came into being...

We've discussed it in the past.

The Maaseh Rav says that the Gra advocated reading it with six points
(zekher), wheras in his haskamah in the front R' Chaim Volozhiner
disagrees and says it should be with 5 (zeikher). (Which are pretty
much the same in havarah Sepharadit and the Israeli accent, so I don't
know why someone leining in either would repeat himself anyway.)

The theory I like for why the Gra made a point out of the matter was
suggested by R Jack Love. He believes the Gra held they mean different
things.

One means "reminder", constructing the noun from the hif'il (that which
causes one to remember).

The other means "memory".

The Gra is saying (according to this) that the meaning here must be
"reminder" -- "Erase all memorials to Amaleiq", becuase otherwise
it would contradict the "Zekhor eis asher asah lekha Amaleiq" and "lo
sishqach". We're *supposed* to remember who they were and what they did,
but destroy all memorials to them. (Perhaps because they might inspire
emulation.)

But the Gra's talmidim argue over which one the Gra said meant which.

R' D Bannet writes (13-Nov-2002)
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n056.shtml#07>:
> Side remark: Just as 'eshen is the s'mikhut of 'ashan, so zekher could 
> be a s'mikhut of zakhar. As in timcheh et zakhar 'Amalek.

However, that assumes the concept is zakhar, not mizkeret. RJL's
sevara would muddy this clarity.


I had thought the first to advocate turning this ambiguity into practice
was the MB. Realize the Gra held saying one over the other, so his
talmidim each said the one version they thought was correct. So, perhaps
the Gra made a point (pun seasonably intended) about the subject because
it was already immersed in controversy.


R' Zev Sero reported (4-Jun-07; quoted in full):
> It's older than the MB.  Lubavitchers say both, and even have a specific
> minhag as to the order (in Ki Teitzei zeicher is first, in Beshalach
> zecher is first), and they're unlikely to have got the minhag from the MB.

But they are unlikely to have a minhag that is attributed to a machloqes
among Talmidei haGra about what their rebbe held altogether.

In any case, if you define "ancient" as before the late 18th cent CE,
I don't think there is a minhag for a source to discuss.


Let me conclude with this witticism from that post by RDB, after he
shifts to the subject of "Yisgadal" vs "Yisgadeil". After establishing
meqoros that we had clearly originally said "Yisgadal", he writes:
> I won't argue with the Gra and therefore, as posted in the past, I 
> decided many years ago to change from patach to tzeireh right after the 
> shabbat on which we will read parashat va'etchanein. I'm still waiting.

(Perhaps leining /that/ twice really will be next!)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
micha at aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov