[Mesorah] Fwd: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal

[Micha Berger]

I didn't think it's about whether one should use pausal forms. Rather,
as I thought we agreed at the top of this discussion, it's whether one
is speaking in a language that has pausal forms. Leshon Chazal
doesn't.

As for Modim Anakhnu Lakh, the next word only works in a very narrow
stripe of history -- and it doesn't match "Lakh"! Chumash has "asher",
no "sh-" prefix. By the time we get to Shelomo haMelekh, the prefix is
"she-". In Shofetim, Gid'on uses "sha-atah" when speaking to a
mal'akh. There is no "she-atah" in Tanakh, either that or my search
engine skills are lacking. But sure enough Sepharadim have "sheAtah",
normal Leshon Chazal.

1- Nice proof against the Documentary Hypothesis crew: You can see the
evolution of the "sh-" only if one presumes the traditional dating of
texts. So much for the Deuteronomic History (from Devarim to
Melakhim).

2- I tried to suggest it was a sheim, calling Hashem "The You", the
ultimate Thou (Buber) or Other (Lavinas), or some other such
philosophical model. (Perhaps even one articulated by a "frum" ba'al
machashavah!) And thus "sha'Atah" is intended to be "that The You".

But back to the point: "... lakh sha'atah..." is one word in Leshon
Chazal followed by a word in early Leshon Tanakh. Strange.

Khasivah veChasimah Tovah, vesheTir'u baTov!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv