<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/20/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jonathan Baker</b> <<a href="mailto:jjbaker@panix.com">jjbaker@panix.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">RMKop:<br><br>> We are davening that HQBH will "Retzei b'amcha yisrael uvisfilasam", and<br>
> one day he will "hasheiv es ha'avodah lidvir beisecha," and THEN "v'ishei<br>> yisrael us'filasam b'ahava s'kabeil b'ratzon." IOW, this is a<br>> chronological progression
<br><br>> Why do none of the meforshim on siddur say this? (Caveat- I haven't looked<br>> all the meforshim on this issue, but am being someich on (I think)<br>> Artscroll's commentary which mentions only the two pshatim that RES
<br><br>More interestingly, why does Artscroll use the "chronological" inter-<br>pretation when it's not brought in the MB's summary?</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I should have been more clear. The "chronological" interpretation is my own chiddush. I was someich on Artscroll re: the existence of the dichotomy of shitos.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I didn't completely follow your presentation of the Tur, but it seems to be similar to what I'm saying (without explicitly discussing the chronological progression, but I don't think that's crucial). Is there a significant difference that I'm missing?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I don't have a MB on me now, but when I get a chance I'll look this up and see if I mean the same thing as the Tur.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>KT,</div>
<div>Michael</div></div>