There is a fasincating Rema [orach chaim 668:1] re: <br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">"es Yom HaShimni hag Ho'atzeres hazeh"<br></div>Rmea states this is NOT a hag at all! It reall should say: <br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
"es Yom HaShimni Ho'atzeres Hazeh"<br clear="all"></div><br>Wow! the psychological paradigm shift when I first saw this!. Could the Rema Be RIGHT? All of our siddurim, benchers, etc. are wrong? Didn't the Rema see Artscroll, Birnbaum, Heidenheim etc. Was the Rema from some other planet?
<br><br>This psychology that I had experienced is about forcing the read to fit our comfort zone paradigm. Of course the Rema had none of the above praeyrbookss. So, what DID he have? The Rema had a Humash [or Tanach] - and guess what! Lo and Behold the Humash NEVER uses the term hag in conjunction with Shmini Atzeres! [Chalk one up for the Rema!]
<br><br>Now, after seeing the Rema on HIS level, what's his point? As the G'mara often does with a Tanna, we try to articulate HIS sevara. And based upon what the Rema SAYS, the sevara is this " the terminology of those 4 holidays is Humash-based!" And therefore adding the term Hag is WRONG, because it does not fit the structure because it is inconsistent with the sources
<br><br>Now I know FEW who follow this Rema, nevertheless his underlying presumptions are really usefu and probably valid for even those who do not follow his decision:<br><ol><li>He posits that the format of the terminology must be consistent at some level. Whether or not it adheres to the Humash model per se, may indeed be quibbled, but this assumption that it is a level field is mashma lehedya.
</li><li>The Rema - a Traditionalist - was more concerned with this consistency then the familiar text.</li><li>The Rema was VERY sensitive to the text. And he picked up upon a contradiction that few would notice. [well few non-yekkes would notice :-)]
<br></li><li>I suppose that the Rema might see other structures as having similar consistencies</li></ol>re: #4 is my historical matrix re: Z'man simhoseinu. It is a product of a simlar mindset who sees internal consistency within given pieces of liturgy. Caveat: I do not mean to say all litrugy isconsistent in terminology. Z'man in vatiten lanu is not necessarliy used the same way everywhere. Hekseh yes, Gz'aeira shava not necessarily so.
<br>
<br>On a completely other level, I would love to see published a Siddur al pi Piskei Rema alone - as has been done for GRA, ChIDA, and now RYDS, etc. <br><br> .<br><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<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>