<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/14/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Micha Berger</b> <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</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;">
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 09:18:53AM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:<br>: (1) The Torah nowhere refers to Shavuos as "atzeres." It is the Talmud<br>: which does, and which uses the unmodified term to refer exclusively
<br>: to Shavuos.<br><br>Doesn't the relevence of that observation depend on whether tefillos<br>are written in leshon Tanakh or leshon Chazal?<br><br>Tir'u baTov!<br>-Micha<br>_______________________________________________
<br></blockquote></div><br>lav Davka because my comments and the Rema's wer resricted to a given passage and not based upon global rules. Rema is saying - aisi -that THIS paragraph is using lashon Tanach, he is not making a sweeping generalization. [davar halomeid mei'inyono]
<br><br>so you cannot bring a Rabbinical Term where Rema is saying it must conform to a Biblical Term. Othre pasages might not have that restriction<br><br>IF YOUR WERE RIGHT: then <br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
hag matzos would be Pesach, <br>Shavuos would be Atzeres<br>Sukkos would be Hag<br></div><br> The use of Hag Hamatzos is a tip off to lashon Tanach.<br><br>Rema AISI is dirsregarding broad concepts that other modern Rabbis like to impose and is being sensitive to the text QUA THE TEXT.
<br><br> <br><br><br> <br> <br clear="all"><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>