|
|
THE LATE - ANTIQUE FORM SHAV . ‘AL * 82 spread to other non - על ירושלים biblical form supplied, and from there, This scenario was initially accepted by Ehrilich . 5 payyetanic versions . 4 He pointed Menahem Kister called this explanation into question . 6 Most important is the petition, . שב על to two other instances of the form which occurs in Babylonian versions of the , שובה / שוב עלינו בהמון רחמיך 7 . festival Musaf, a reading widely attested in pre - modern witnesses in a passage from Pesiqta שב על Kister identified a second use of Rabbati, and noted that a parallel Arabic form, tāba . ʿalā, . is found For the latter, he posited the existence of an Aramaicin the Qurʾān . 8 9 . תב על model, על ירושלים He thus concluded that the version beginning was using an established form, not an irregular concession to . . . תשוב 10 . the demands of an acrostic Joseph Heinemann, ʿIyyunei . Tefillah , ( Jerusalem : Magnes, 1981 ) , 6 7‒ . . 4 Uri Ehrlich, “Le‒Nusḥan ha‒Qadum shel Birkat ‘Bone ...
To the book |
|
|