[Mesorah] More on "pausal forms"

[Mandel, Seth via Mesorah]

Most of this is wrong, according to the evidence, but I do not have time to argue now.

BUT what is clearly wrong is what is quoted about the mss. evidence.  On certain things the mss. disagree, that is correct.  But on the major items they do not.  ALL mss. have tushbachot, for example, whether S'faradi or Teimani.  And certain other things, such as k'no'omakh at the end of birkhost QS in the morning, in all old Ashk'nazi mss.

It is a methodological error to say since mss. disagree on some things that they disagree in everything.

I invite you to look for yourself, rather than quoting what anyone told you.

I have to go, but I will get back to this at a future date.


Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel

________________________________
From: Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 11:52 AM
To: Mandel, Seth; mesorah at aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] More on "pausal forms"

" As is well known, the b’rakhot and t’fillot that were used by Chazal, and attributed to Ezra and Anshei K’nesset haG’dola, were omposed in L’shon Chazal except for Biblical quotations and references.  "

Kehatti said that with regard to  Borei p'ree ho'etz instead of Ho'illan shows us that in B'rachos Lskhon Mikra trumped l'shon Hazal.

Many Many editors of the Siddur operated with that same assumption, namely that l'shon Mikra was preferable‎.

Also I'm not sure how Rabninic Anshei K'ness Hag'dolah was. They were there for siyyum Tanach, and many years before L'shon Hamishna, before the influx of Greeks during Alesander.

I would presume adderabba, that they goal was to sound more like late Tanach than post MIshna‎.

‎The correctors probably felt they were restoring the nusach that had evolved due to a lack of attention to detail.  The GRA made many such hagahos to many seforim that had mistakes, EG Maseches Sof'rim.

No one who makes fixes is free of all prejudices, they usually operate with an assumption.

saying L'shon ‎Hazal was somehow more authentic is an assumption, it runs contrary to what many editors did. Just because it is contrary to a trend, does not make it superior, albeit it might be more popular due to current zeitgeist.

At any rate I discussed this with Rabbi Dr. Kanarfogel several times and he insisted that manuscript evidence is mixed.   Anyone with a fixed agenda can make their case, but I would suspect confirmation bias due to the mixed nature of the evidence as reported to me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170507/67c3469f/attachment-0005.htm>