"Room" one hundred and seventy-one in the hall of Hayom Yom.
Monday, 12 Iyar, 27th of the Omer, 5703.
Shiurim: Chumash, Parshas Behar, Sheni, with Rashi's commentary.
Tehillim, 12th of the month, we say chapter 66 up to and including chapter 68.
Tanya, on this day we continue chapter 48. The daily shiur is on page 134, from the words "vehinei peratis", and concludes with the word "chashivei".
The daily teaching is a continuation of the previous day's teaching, 11 Iyar. We have here another short list of grammatical notes and corrections for specific words in the tefillah. The previous teaching dealt mainly with sections at the beginning of the tefillah, up until before Shemoneh Esrei; and today's sections deal with the part after Shemoneh Esrei - in Tachanun, in "Uva Letziyon", and in one section from the Maariv tefillah.
Let us look at the first quote. In the section said every day that Tachanun is said, after "Ashamnu bagadnu", there is the section beginning "VeE-l erech apayim atah", and in it - until we mention the words "mimidot harachamim" - all the sections conclude in the same way, like a rhyme: "Berachamim nikrasa vederech teshuvah horisa", "Ki atah hu baal harachamim", "Betachanun uvitfillah panecha nekadem", "Kehodaata le'anav mikedem" - they are all rhyming phrases.
In this rhyme, when we reach the concluding sentence, it is written "taazin shavasenu vesakshiv minu maamar, keyom vayikra veshem Hashem vesham ne'emar". Seemingly, for the sake of the rhyme, the vowelization of the ending of the word "maamar" and the vowelization of the ending of the word "ne'emar" should have been identical - either a patach in both or a kamatz in both. In modern Hebrew the difference is not heard, but in Ashkenazic pronunciation the question is whether one says "MAAMOR" or "MAAMAR", and thus they would not conclude in the same way.
Yet nevertheless the Rebbe says here: "In tefillah we say: minu maamar, the third mem has a kamatz", meaning that we say "minu MAAMOR" with a kamatz; and the conclusion, "yom vayikra veshem Hashem vesham ne'emar", there the mem has a patach (NE'EMAR). Even though this does not result in a rhyme, this is how it should be said in this section of the tefillah.
The next correction is at the conclusion of Tachanun. Before Kaddish we say a verse originating in Tehillim chapter 103 verse 14: "Ki Hu yada yitzrenu zachur ki afar anachnu". The question is how to vowelize the word "zachur" - "zachur" or "zachor"? In Siddur Torah Ohr it was vowelized with a cholam, "zachor".
Also in the sefer Shaar Hakolel he justifies that the vowelization should be with a cholam. But nevertheless the Rebbe decides here that it must be "zachur" exactly as in Tehillim. And these are the words of the teaching: "Zachur - with a melafum - ki afar anachnu". A "melafum" is like a shuruk - the chaf is vowelized with a shuruk and not with a cholam.
The next section refers to the tefillah section "Uva Letziyon". In that section we say a verse from the book of Yechezkel, chapter 3 verse 12: "Vatisaeni ruach vaeshma acharay kol raash gadol baruch kevod Hashem mimmekomo". Afterwards we say in the tefillah the Targum Yonasan ben Uziel on the passage.
What is the translation of the first word, "vatisaeni"? The wording familiar to us in the tefillah is "unetaltani" - which is the translation of "vatisaeni". However, for this word there are several different methods and variations in vowelization: there is the version found in our siddur, "unetaltani"; and there are other ways, for example the Yaavetz writes "unetaltani" with a kamatz. And here the Rebbe decides, and these are his words: "Unetaltani, the tes has a patach, the lamed has a shva, and the saf has a dagesh and a patach" - as is already printed in our siddur, "unetaltani"; this is how the version of the vowelization of the word should be in Targum Yonasan ben Uziel.
The last section is what appears in the Maariv tefillah, at the conclusion of the second brachah before Krias Shema. In the siddurim the wording "ve'ahavascha lo sasur" is written, and afterwards in parentheses a different version: "al tasir mimenu". Meaning both appear - one in parentheses as an alternative version, and the version without parentheses is "lo sasur".
There is a reference to this in the sefer Shaar Hakolel, which says that the phrase "al tasir" never appears in the Tanach, whereas the phrase "lo sasur" appears several times in the Tanach - and he brings a list of all the places where it is written. He says that it is preferable to choose a version that appears in the Tanach over a version that does not appear in it, and therefore reinforces that one should indeed say "lo sasur". And in this way the Rebbe also writes this at the conclusion of the teaching: "Ve'ahavascha lo sasur - and not al tasir", meaning that we say "lo sasur" like the version that appears without parentheses in the siddur.