[Mesorah] She'ata / Sha'ata

[HayyimObadyah at aol.com]

Are any of these manuscripts available to view online?

-----Original Message-----
From: mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Mandel, Seth
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:27 PM
To: David Cohen; mesorah at aishdas.org; remt at juno.com
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] She'ata / Sha'ata

Again, some clarification is needed.  Scholarly linguistics is not
prescriptive, but descriptive.  I am addressing the question of what is the
form of the siddur as shown by the oldest evidence, not what a person should
or shoukl not say.  And as hard as it may be to determine what the original
forms are from printed siddurim, interestingly is is not so hard once you
look at the mss. that preceded printing.
This is not by any means to say that mss. all agree.  But the mss. reflect
what the scribe heard, not what his theories about Hebrew are, as is shown
by the multiple places they diverge from Biblical grammar.  The mss. reflect
just what a linguist would expect from an oral tradition: local differences,
smaller the closer the locations are to each other and greater the further.
These differences can be divided into groups, e.g. "German." or "Spanish."
Or, "Ashk'naz," "S'farad" "Teiman."
An example: all mss. that I have seen have a word vocalized as "tushbachot,"
which appears in the b'rakha following p'suqei d'zimra and in nishmat kol
hay.  Since the word appears the same way in Ashk'naz etc., it is
established that that is the oldest form used in mss.  It does not establish
what any Jew "should" say.
But yes, examination of the mss. siddurim tells us a great deal about the
tradition that Jews preserved orally in davening.  And it is clear that
T'fillot were composed in L'shon Hazal from words that are used that are not
Biblical Hebrew.  But Hazal knew T'NaKh by heart, so of course there are
references everywhere to p'suqim, and they are in Biblical Hebrew, like the
original.
Lakh is the proper form  in L'shon Hazal (likh is feminine).  But in
Biblical references you have l'kha varying with lakh if it is a Biblical
reference (as Modim anahnu lakh is).
With regard to the word shvkh: both Ashk'naz and Teimani have sh'vah and
sh'vahakh; only S'farad has shevah and shivhakh.  The Gra may have known of
mss, siddurim, but the oral tradition of Ashk'naz in the g'mara alone is
sufficient proof (umman qoneh bishvah keli, not b'shevah).  Why he did not
say sh'vahakh in q'dusha, the way it is in all mss., probably indicates that
he was not using mss. as his proof.
This is deliberately brief, triying to elicit R. David to come and put in
his two cents.


Rabbi Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
11 Broadway, New York, NY  10004

Voice (212) 613-8330     Fax (212) 613-0718     e-mail mandels at ou.org
________________________________________
From: mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org [mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org]
on behalf of David Cohen [ddcohen at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:19 PM
To: mesorah at aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] She'ata / Sha'ata

R' Akiva Miller expressed his "confusion and continued equivocation about
the concept of correctness."

I feel similarly, since I assume that the magihim "knew what they were
doing," meaning that:
  -- they were familiar with the grammar of Biblical Hebrew.
  -- they were familiar with the grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew.
  -- they were fully aware that the siddur traditionally followed the
latter.

Nonetheless, they felt that they siddur *ought to* follow the former, so
they emended accordingly.

In order to argue that they were "wrong," one needs to do *one* of two
things:

1.  Demonstrate that their premise is objectively wrong because the existing
tradition must, by definition, be "correct."  The debate about this far
predates R' Dr. Haym Solovetchik's article or the Gra's rulings against
traditional Ashkenazi practice, and goes at least as far back as Rabbeinu
Tam and Rabbeinu Meshullam, but an advocate of the mimetic approach could
always attempt to demonstrate why it is objectively the correct approach,
which would make the magihim objectively wrong.

2.  Demonstrate that the magihim made incorrect assumptions because they did
not have access to information that we do have.  The mere fact that early
manuscripts follow Rabbinic Hebrew vowelization almost certainly does not
meet this description, as the emenders were surely aware of what they were
emending.  If it could be demonstrated that the magihim thought that they
were restoring an authentic earlier version of a siddur that had become
"corrupted," whereas *we* know that there was *never* such an earlier
version that followed Biblical Hebrew grammar, then we could say that they
were wrong.  But do we really know that for a fact?  It's hard to prove what
was going on in the pre-nikkud era.

-- D.C.
_______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2113/4823 - Release Date: 02/21/12