Although I cannot comment on the origin of this particular issue, and whether there was indeed an emendation, there was definitely a move to make (Askenazi) siddurim comply with Biblical rather than rabbinic Hebrew. This was not, however, a project of Maskilim, but predated the Haskalah by more than a century. One of it's prime movers, IIRC, was R. Shabtai Sofer, whose siddur was first published in 1618, and at any rate, was not later than R. Zalman Hanau' Siddur (1725).<div>
Jeremy <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Micha Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:45:38PM -0600, Michael Hamm wrote:<br>
: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Gershon Dubin <<a href="mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com">gershon.dubin@juno.com</a>> wrote:<br>
: <<In Modim and elsewhere. Can someone give me an explanation for the<br>
: komatz for the shin?>><br>
<br>
: Not I, but note also:<br>
: . shakamti with a patach (shiras D'vora)<br>
: . shagam with a patach (end of parasha B'reshis IIRC)<br>
: . shalama with a patach (Shir Hashirim)<br>
<br>
Gid'on refers to a mal'akh as sha'atah.<br>
<br>
Some maskil decided that sha- was more biblically authentic, and laid<br>
in a new course for Ashkenazi siddurim. The same hypercoreection phase<br>
that turned "lakh" into "lekha" (except in the first instance in Modim,<br>
oddly enough), "Toresakh" into "Torasekha", and perhaps also "bori peri<br>
hagefen" (mishnaic diqduq) into "gafen" (Tanakhi).<br>
<br>
Of interest to me, you'll notice a general evolution from "asher" to<br>
"sha-" to "she-" among biblical texts if you take their ages as they<br>
are al pi mesorah. An argument against Higher Criticism.<br>
<br>
Along -- or really I should say "against" -- those lines, the word I<br>
think you are thinking of in the 2nd bullet item is "beshagam" (6:3),<br>
not plain "shagam". According to what I just said, the norm for chumash<br>
would be "ba'asher [hu?] gam". Rashi and Ramban write "kemo 'beshegam',<br>
besegol..." Unqelus translates "bedil", as though "beshagam" means<br>
"mipenei", not from "gam". The Zohar takes it as a noun: "'beshagam<br>
hu basar' -- beshagam zeh Hevel de'ihu Mosheh..." Lehavdil, Genesius<br>
<<a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar_%281910_Kautzsch-Cowley_edition%29.djvu/204" target="_blank">http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar_%281910_Kautzsch-Cowley_edition%29.djvu/204</a>><br>
has "in their error", the root being "shagam", although he does add "there<br>
is also good authority for beshagam from sha- = she- = asher and gam...)<br>
<br>
:-)BBii!<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-Micha<br>
<br>
--<br>
Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure<br>
<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a> as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what<br>
<a href="http://www.aishdas.org" target="_blank">http://www.aishdas.org</a> other people think when dealing with spiritual<br>
Fax: <a href="tel:%28270%29%20514-1507" value="+12705141507">(270) 514-1507</a> matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Mesorah mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org">Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org" target="_blank">http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP<br>Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine (Emergency Medicine)<br>Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics<br>
Columbia University<br>
</div>