[Mesorah] She'ata / Sha'ata

[Mandel, Seth]

The cognoscenti on Mesorah have already noted most of the salient meat to the discussion.  What I will do is add some spices, which will hopefully clarify the broth and enhance it:
1) It is clear from the T'NaKh that asher is used almost exclusively in most books .  The form she- is found extremely rarely, and almost always in the form sha-.  However, In some books, the form she- is the most common.  For example, in Shir haShirim, she- is always used except in the first pasuq.  Qohelet uses both forms.  In the Mishnah, she- is almost exclusively used.
Linguistically, such a pattern points unambiguously to the form she- being the standard form in later Hebrew and asher in earlier.  However, since holy scriptures are expected to use more archaic language, the earlier form will be used in either quotations from earlier sources, in poetry, and when the author is trying to use more archaic forms.
The implication for prayers composed by Anshei K'neset haG'dola would be that we would expect she- to be the standard form, unless using archaising language, and that is what is found.
2) Most talmidei chachomim have no linguistic training.  This is true nowadays, and all the more so 200 years ago and more when the science of linguistics was in its infancy.  Most people who can speak and read a language mistakenly think that they understand its rules and how it is used.  Nowadays English speakers usually discover this when they try to teach English as a foreign language to non-English speakers.
Saying that a godol does not know linguistics is not insulting his gadlus.  It is akin to saying that a godol does not know shechita or safrus.  The example I use for chareidim is to ask if they would let their RY do mila on their son.
Talmidei chachomim, being very smart people, and knowing Hebrew better than most Jews, often made remarks about language in their s'forim or suggested corrrections.  Many of these cannot be supported from the standpoint of facts about languages and Hebrew.  And qal vachomer when the person doing the correcting was not a talmid chochom, as is the case in most of the corrections made in European siddurim.  Fortunately, with nusach Ashkenaz most changes were just grammatical.  So although they may be mistaken, at most you are making a grammatical mistake, unlike those who changed words.
However, these changes were made by the thousands, and are clear when one compares a manuscript siddur with today's printed editions.  R. Yaakov Emden was one of those rew who had the curmudgeonly temperament to protest many of the changes; most rabbonim just shrugged, since there were more important things to complain about.
An example of an innocuous change, but a change nevertheless: from shabbat qodshakh, which is in all mss., to qodshekha, made by someone who did not understand that L'shon Chazal is different than L'shon Miqra.
The nusach in all old mss., whether Ashk'naz or S'farad or Teiman, was she'atta, in both bentshing and davening.  But some editors noted that this appears in the T'NaKh once, and is vocalized sha'atta, and so changed it.
Even the siddurim that have begun to appear noting when certain changes were made mostly ignore changes in vowels, and I do not have the library to point to the first printed siddur that changed the word to sha-atta.  But I have looked at many mss. siddurim, so I can attest that it was a change from the traidition.
In the T'NaKh, the vowel under the shin in a qomatz, as is standard before a guttural in a position where a patah followed by doubling would otherwise appear.  The qomatz is the complementary form of a patah in such a position, but not a segol.  That is clear from the many examples in Shir haShirim, e.g. she'ani (which would be sho'ani if it were a replacement for sha-).

Rabbi Seth Mandel

________________________________________

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin at juno.com<mailto:gershon.dubin at juno.com>> wrote:
In Modim and elsewhere.  Can someone give me an explanation for the komatz for the shin?  Thank you.