<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Rabbi Burton Wax of Cong. Ezras Israel in
Chicago:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>There are several problems with the Rema and with your
analogies. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>First of all, there are three holidays referred to as
Atzeret. One is to the seventh day of Pesach. Another is
Shavuot. The third is Shmini Atzeret. The first two are definitely
in the category of CHAG. So if nothing else, we have a gezera shava
"atzeret - atzeret" to include Shmini Atzeret as a chag.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Second, if you look in Parashat Pinchas, where all of the
chaggim and their respective korbanot are listed, in the last item (Eighth
Day...) it says: Bayom Hashmini (stop) Atzeret ti'yeh
lachem....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Since this pasuk is part of the listing of all of the chaggim,
obviously Atzeret is the name of this holiday of the eighth day.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>This is also why I believe that those who say Shmini Chaga
Hatzeret Hazeh are more</FONT> <FONT size=3>correct than those who say
Shmini Atzeret HaChag Hazeh.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=rolx_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>There is a fasincating Rema [orach chaim 668:1] re:<BR>"es Yom HaShimni hag
Ho'atzeres hazeh"<BR>Rmea states this is NOT a hag at all! It reall should
say:<BR>"es Yom HaShmini Ho'atzeres Hazeh"<BR><BR>Wow! the psychological
paradigm shift when I first saw this!. Could the<BR>Rema Be RIGHT? All of our
siddurim, benchers, etc. are wrong? Didn't the<BR>Rema see
Artscroll, Birnbaum, Heidenheim etc. Was the Rema from some
other<BR>planet?<BR><BR>This psychology that I had experienced is about forcing
the read to fit our<BR>comfort zone paradigm. Of course the Rema had none of the
above<BR>praeyrbookss. So, what DID he have? The Rema had a Humash [or Tanach] -
and<BR>guess what! Lo and Behold the Humash NEVER uses the term hag in
conjunction<BR>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<BR>often does with a Tanna, we try to articulate HIS sevara. And
based upon<BR>what the Rema SAYS, the sevara is this " the terminology of those
4 holidays<BR>is Humash-based!" And therefore adding the term Hag is
WRONG, because it<BR>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<BR>presumptions are really usefu and probably valid for even those
who do not<BR>follow his decision:<BR><BR> 1. He posits that
the format of the terminology must be consistent at<BR> some
level. Whether or not it adheres to the Humash model per se,
may<BR> indeed be quibbled, but this assumption that it is a level
field is mashma<BR> lehedya.<BR> 2. The Rema - a
Traditionalist - was more concerned with this<BR> consistency then
the familiar text.<BR> 3. The Rema was VERY sensitive to the text.
And he picked up upon a<BR> contradiction that few would notice.
[well few non-yekkes would notice :-)]<BR> 4. I suppose that the
Rema might see other structures as having<BR> similar
consistencies</DIV></FONT></DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">See what's new at <A title="http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170" href="http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170" target="_blank">AOL.com</A> and <A title="http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169" href="http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169" target="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage</A>.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>