<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br><span class="gmail_quote">From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Richard Wolpoe</b> <<a href="mailto:rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com">rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Sep 25, 2007 6:21 PM
<br>Subject: Re: [Mesorah] FW: Re: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal<br>To: David E Cohen <<a href="mailto:ddcohen@gmail.com">ddcohen@gmail.com</a>><br><br></span><div><span class="e" id="q_1153ec2c89bd0c1b_0"><br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">David E Cohen</b> <<a href="mailto:ddcohen@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">ddcohen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:<br>> FWIW the Regalim paragrpah of EL. Vel. Avoseinu Melech<br>> Rachaman should imho NEVER have retzei bimnuchoseinu.<br>> {R. Artscroll is ambiguous.} Both Birnbaum and Heidenheim<br>
> consider this a paragraph about Reglaim and the reference
<br>> here to Shabbos is out of place. It belongs ONLY to the final<br>> paragraph "v'hasi'einu which has a combined theme<br><br>Using that logic, how about "selach umchal la`avonoseinu beyom hashabbas
<br>hazzeh uvyom hakkippurim hazzeh"? I'm not referring to the final paragraph<br>of the kedushas hayom berakhah, where we fully expect (and find) a mention<br>of Shabbos, but to the paragraph between the "short" vidui and the "long"
<br>vidui. Thematically speaking, the mention of Shabbos in that paragraph<br>would seem to be out of place, yet it's there in every machzor I've checked.<br><br>I suspect the difference is that once we're already mentioning the day
<br>("beyom hakkippurim hazzeh"), we want to mention all of the kedushos that<br>apply to the day. "Retzei vimnuchaseinu," on the other hand, is simply<br>another bakashah that has to do with the fact that it is Shabbos, is no more
<br>relevant to the paragraph of "melech rachaman racheim `aleinu" than it is to<br>any other paragraph besides the concluding paragraph of the berakhah.<br><br>--D.C.<br><br></blockquote></div><br></span></div>
Ein hachi Namei You are right there are other inconsistencies.
E.G. we certainly do not do a "gilgul" of YK or YT re: Birkas achas mei'ein sheva [aka Magein Avos]! Yet on Shabbos Hulo shel Mo'ed Sukkos, Sukkos is mentioned in the Haftara Blessing even though "hulo shel Mo'ed" by itself never triggers a Haftara! Lich'ora just as YT/YK does not trigger "magain avos" and therefore is ignored same for HShM Sukkos and the Birkas haftara!!
<br><br>The case of Reztaei Bimnuchaseinu in Melech Rachaman however is specifcally addressed by Birnbaum and implicitly by Heidneheim and Baer as not belonging. [Since Baer omits any mention in the notes, this is a fairly strong indication that it was probably not even a "hava aminah" - if one is permitted to construe from silence]
<br> <br>Disclaimer: am not familar with Siddur Hagra nor much with Ya'vetz.. AISI, Heidnheim,Baer, and Birnbaum [and as far as I can tell the Ba'al Hatanya] really worked very hard at being consistent. I see other "authors" as approaching nusach on a more ad hoc basis.
<div><span class="e" id="q_1153ec2c89bd0c1b_2"><br>-- <br>Gmar Tov<br>Best Wishes for 5768,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
</a><br>Please Visit: <br><a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>
</span></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Gmar Tov<br>Best Wishes for 5768,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>Please Visit: <br><a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
</a>