[Mesorah] Fwd: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal

[Seth Mandel]

Far be it from me to take issue with my elder and superior.  But two half cents worth:
1) if one counts vocalized mss. of siddurim and payet as sources, then there are quite a few.
2) The Teimanim, especially the Baladi, who share R. DB view of changing things based on mystical sources, have always said (at least according the mss. that I have seen) haggeshem but hattol (with a qomatz).  They also have a qomatz in similar words, like z'mon and 'om.  I think that their tradition of L'shon HaZaL held that even words with doubling in the last consonant have a qomatz in the singular.
OK, perhaps only a quarter pence worth.
Seth 

> From: dbnet at zahav.net.il
> To: rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:11:36 +0200
> CC: mesorah at aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Fwd: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal
> 
> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org

_________________________________________________________________
Kick back and relax with hot games and cool activities at the Messenger Café.
http://www.cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_SeptWLtagline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070919/d14452dc/attachment-0010.htm>