<html><body>
<p>Thanks, RDB (haZaqein :))!<br>
<br>
> shenishtalcha (not ha-nish...) <<br>
Yes, my error. FTR, I was going to send a "P.S." to the list today re it as well as Baer's thoughts. <br>
<br>
> R' Wolf Heidenheim accepted many of these changes and the<br>
Roedelheim editions have ha-shlucha. <<br>
Actually, all of my Roedelheim prints (admittedly, 20th-cent. CE reprints) have "shenishtalchah," as I mentioned yesterday evening. <br>
<br>
> R'Seligmann Baer in<br>
his Siddur Avodat Israel recorrected back to she-nishtalcha and explains the error in RY"S's logic (shlucha is present, nishtalcha is past). In his comms he also mentions se'ir<br>
ha-mishtaleach of the present thread as well as words like<br>
nitrahaknu, nishtanah etc. <<br>
The only comment I saw from him (made re the Musaf liRgalim nusach) was that "shenishtalchah" was the proper form, the form in all kisvei v'sifrei yashan, and l'ayein his comment on "nitztavu" (Musaf l'Shabbas), where he speaks of the nispaeil form. Could you point me to where he quotes and disputes "hash'luchah"? Thanks. <br>
<br>
All the best from<br>
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager</body></html>