[Mesorah] She'ata / Sha'ata

[Nehemiah Klein]

ushvachacha - see R' Chaim Volozhin's footnote on the maasei rav for
what he heard from the Gr"a.  I do not have it in front of me but I
believe he writes that it is with a shva under the shin and a kamatz
on the beis - this does not need to be ushvachacha - it can be
ushvachecha - in the plural.  One of the things that bother me most
about these issues is that probably almost the entire world grew up in
shuls where this was not practiced and it was veshivchacha - why then
change unless you are 100% sure that the world is wrong or you follow
minhag haGr"a in everything and you believe that this is what the Gr"a
said (which is questionable).  Why it is starting to become Yeshivish
to say ushvachacha.

Similarly, Geshem/Goshem - almost every siddur any of us grew up with
had Gashem, only in recent years has geshem gained popularity - were
our fathers/grandfathers all mistaken?  Hard to believe.  If you are
one who is meticulous about dikduk/pronunciation and you believe this
is right that is one thing, but why has this too become Yeshivish to
say geshem?

On 2/22/12, R. Rich Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> SBA:
> «I truly know nothing about these matters but just in case itis relevant
> the posuk Vayeira 18 25
> Chalila lecha me'asos kadovor hazeh.....chalila lach hashofet kol haaretz...
>
> lecha and lach in the same pasuk - both referring to Hashem»
>
> In Tanach
> It's a function of trop and pause.
>
> L'cha is the form in the middle of a phrase which becomes
> Loch, the corresponding  pausal form, at the end of a phrase.
>
> The question on the floor is, do the rules of Tanach apply to davening, too?
> And if so, how much? And it does apply, does it make sense to change forms
> of words so as to comply.
>
> For example, shelo assani oved presupposes that the pausal form oved is at
> the end of the b'rachah.  Otherwise, it would be the non-pausal eved.
>
> Well, if this conforms to a valid rule, then gefen does not
> So gefen at the end fails "pausalbility". Now we need to decide, is that
> "wrong"?
>
> Here are some possibilities
> 1.  It's kinda random so why bother with consistency?
> 2. It's an error, fix it
> 3. It's a valid exception for midrashic or Kabbalistic purposes even though
> it defies grammar.
> 4. We're not sure what it is so therefore -
> A. Make it conform
> Or
> B. Leave it alone.
>
> --------------------
>
> Many Baalei Dikduk, even before the Haskalah, decided that davening ought to
> conform more closely to Tanach "Norms". Or given that Davening sometimes
> conforms, why not make it smoother and more consistent?
>
> Others disagree and say Manuscripts [Mss.] Are a better source
>
> The grammarians then counter that errors crept into the Mss.
>
> Still Others follow Minhag Avos.
> Shalom and Regards, RRW
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
>