[Mesorah] Fwd: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal

[D&E-H Bannett]

Re" <<wondering how pausals became so ubiquitous in 
Siddurim/Machzormi/haggados at such a late date...It is hard 
for me to believe that  if the non-pausals were the 
exclusive  way of davening until the 17th century that they 
were altered w/o great  opposition so thoroughly &  so 
quickly.   By late 18th Century can you find any 
haggados/Siddurim w/o Pausals in  any Ashkenazic - East or 
West? >>

Sorry for the delay in reply.  Busy with other things.

We cannot be sure of whether there were more or less pausals 
in use in "ancient" times because we are limited to written 
sources with nikkud and there aren't that many.

Roedelheim press was famous for its diyyuk. Seligmann Baer 
too.  They accepted the changes of RZ"H and RY"S as 
improvements in the texts and, the influence of their books 
spread beyond Western Ashkenaz.  The siddurim of R' 
Shabbetai and of R' Eliyahu ben R' 'Azriel were considered 
the best and they made many corrections that spread. With R' 
Shabbetai and R' Eliyahu began the era of correcting errors 
by examining  old sources. By the time of RZ"H and RY"S it 
developed to inventing improvements.  The earlier work was 
accepted without much problem.  The later development 
aroused some opposition but its acceptance by RVH and SB 
aided and abetted the textual  "improvement" or "reform".

It is only in the last 25-40 years that there have been 
attempts to return to older forms.  Siddur Hagr"a Eizor 
Eliyahu was the result of examining a  large number of older 
siddurim in addition to the writings of the Gr'a to find the 
"original" nusach or pronunciation.  Rinat Yisrael and 
others have changed hagashem back to hageshem - despite RMF 
in IM that as it is a hefsek it should be hagashem.  Is it a 
hefsek? It is preceded and followed by others in a long list 
of different attributes of HKBH.  The only hefsek is that 
the printers separated it because it is said only part of 
the year.  BTW, those who corrected back to hageshem do not 
usually correct back to hatal with patach instead of the 
pausal kamatz.  Some give mystical reasons for that kamatz. 
No, I don't remember the details. Although neither Litvak 
nor Yekke, I am not one who goes for mystics.

All we can do is look at the evidence of the written 
nikkuded sources available to us. It is natural to then 
assume that these are the facts and therefore correct.


gh"t,

David