[Mesorah] Fw: Fwd: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal

[D&E-H Bannett]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D&E-H Bannett" <dbnet at zahav.net.il>
To: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Fwd: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal


> Re:<<Shelo asani Oved [not eved]
> Morid hagOshem
> usnemuah maf'apOy
> Ki mochel v'solieach OTOH>>
>
> As I wrote, hagafen instead of hagefen was a change made 
> by R' Shabbetai Sofer (1615 or so)
>
> I have no data on aved instead of eved.
>
> morid hagashem instead of hageshem was changed by R' 
> Yitzhak Satanov 1780's.
>
> me-afapai kamatz,  again no data, but if it is the last 
> brakha in the series it is logical.  Note, however, that 
> me-'einai had a patach in sheina me-'einai ut'numa ..
> Siddur Eizor Eliyahu says it was changed to a kamatz by R' 
> Zalman Henne, 1725.
>
> v'soleach ata with kamatz. Again from Eizor Eliyahu, it 
> had a patach and was changed to kamatz by RZ"H. It is a 
> patach in R' Shabbetai Sofer and R' Eliyahu b' "Azr.. 
> Note however the line before Ki t'hilatenu atah has a 
> kamatz because it's almost a quote from Yermiyahu 17:14.
>
> As R' Seth has just noted, tefilot are usually in l'shon 
> chazal but are l'shon Torah when based on a quote. This is 
> for your leishev basukka query also.
>
> BTW, be careful to avoid my error. I looked up atah with a 
> kamatz and mileil meteg and was told it is not in the 
> Tanakh.  When I  repeated the search with a silluk instead 
> of a meteg, I got dozens.
>
> gh"t,
>
> David
>
> Most of the modifications of R' Shabbetai were accepted 
> and copied by R' Eliyahu ben R' 'Azriel. Both these 
> siddurim were considered to be authoritative.
>
> The chiddushim of RZ"H aroused opposition, among others, 
> R' Yaakov Emden, Gr"a, R' Mordekhai Dusseldorf. 
> Heidenheim and Zeligmann Baer accepted most of the changes 
> of RZ"H and RY"S (a.k.a. Vaye'tar Yitzhak) and so they 
> spread thru Ashkenaz.
>
>
>
>