‘Aleinu: U’moshav Ye’Karo or Kisei Khe’vo’do?

Someone asked on my previous post on ‘Aleinu:
1 - What is the meaning of U’moshav Ye’Karo, the seat of His homage is in the heavens?
2 - Why do some not say it?

This is the nusach in the Siddurim of R. Amram Gaon and R. Sa’adia Gaon. The Tur (Orach Chaim , Siman 133) mentions that some say, v’kisei khe’vo’do (Mahzor Roma), but that U’mosahv Ye’Karo should be said because the Sefer Hekhalos has the nusach, U’moshav Ye’Karo.

The combination of kisei and kavod is common in Tanach. Two examples:

Tehillm 9 has, ya’shav’ta le’khi’sei and has, yei’sheiv parallel to kis’o:

5: …Yashavta le’khisei shofet tzedek
For you have maintained my right and my cause; you sat in the throne judging right.

8: Va’Hashem le’olam yeshev konen la’mishpat kis’o
But the Lord shall endure for ever; he has prepared his throne for judgment.

Tehillm 103:
19: Hashem ba’sha’ma’yim hei’khin kis’o u’malkhuso ba’kol ma’sha’lah
The Lord has established his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom rules over all.

According to the Gra, the nusach should be: ve’kisei khe’vo’do, the throne of His glory.

In Mail-Jewish (http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v33/mj_v33i61.html#CSX) , Gilad J. Gevaryahu translated Professor Ismar Elobogen as saying:

The acceptance of this tefila was very controversial in Germany, where
there were repeated charges against the Jewish religion. These did not
subside for hundred of years and eventually led to the elimination of
the sentence 'shehem mishtachavim lahevel varik umitpalelim le'el lo
yoshia,' which still exists in manuscripts and Sephardic and other
siddurim. In about 1400 a Jewish mumar (an apostate) went to the
authorities and told them that in this sentence the Jews refers to
Jesus. His proof was that the gematria of varik equals 316 as does the
name Jesus. Liefmann-Milhausen, in his book _Nitzachon_ proved the
charges wrong [claiming inter alia that this tefila preceded
Christianity], nonetheless, the charges were repeated again and again.

The commentary, Barukh She-a’mar (p.199), by the author of the Torah Temimah, points out that ye’karo, has the same gematria as yeshu. Therefore, he concludes that the correct nusach should be, v’kisei khe’vo’do, which avoids this Christian leaning gematria.

Eliezer Segal says:

It did not take long for our nimble numerologists to run into an unexpected problem. The consonantal text of varik forms an anagram of the word yekaro, which means that the two words share the same gimatria. Yekaro means "his glory," as in the clause "and the throne of his glory is in the heavens above."
(University of Calgary: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/000928_Aleinu.html)

In answer to the questions:
What is the meaning of U’moshav Ye’Karo, the seat of His homage is in the heavens? Why do some not say it?

The meaning is easily subjected to Christian interpretation and reference to yeshu by use of gematria. The other nusach, v’kisei khe’vo’do, is supported in earlier texts, as well, and has none of these issues.

The Miracle of Chanukah: Why Doesn’t ‘Al haNissim Mention the Miracle of the Oil?

On Chanukah and Purim we insert prayers of thanksgiving specifically for the miracles of those holidays in the berakhos of hoda’ah, thanksgiving, in the Shemoneh Esreh and the birkas ha’mazon, grace after meals.

The story of Chanukah in ‘al hanissim is a condensed account of the struggle of the Chashmonaim against the Greek-Syrians. The ‘al ha’nissim texts for both Chanukah and Purim are found in the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon, the first siddur. ‘Al hanissim does not mention the miracle of the oil.

The question is: Why Doesn’t ‘Al haNissim Mention the Miracle of the Oil?

I believe the answer lies in the nature of the berakha of modim. We say:

We gratefully thank You, for it is You Who are Hashem, our God and God of our forefathers for all eternity; Rock of our lives, Shield of our salvation are You from generation to generation. We shall thank You and relate your praise – for our lives, which are committed to Your power and of our souls that are entrusted to You; for Your miracles that are with us every day; and for Your wonders and favors in every season – evening, morning and afternoon. The Beneficent One, for Your compassions were never exhausted, and the Compassionate One, for Your kindness never ended – always have we put our hope in You. For all these, may Your Name be blessed and exalted, our King, continually forever and ever. Everything alive will gratefully acknowledge You, Selah! And praise Your Name sincerely, O God of our salvation and help, Selah! Blessed are You Hashem, Your Name is ha’tov, the Beneficent One and to you it is fitting to give thanks. (Artscroll translation)

There are two types of nes, miracles: Nes nigleh and nes nistar, Obvious miracles and hidden miracles. The miracles mentioned in modim are exclusively nes nistar, hidden miracles that follow the course of nature created and controlled by God every day for:

our lives…
salvation from generation to generation…
our lives…
our souls that are entrusted to You…
Your miracles that are with us every day…
Your wonders and favors in every season – evening, morning and afternoon…
Your kindness never ended…
Everything alive will gratefully acknowledge You.
The miracle of the oil is a nes nigleh, an obvious miracle, a clear demonstration of God’s power to change the course of nature and make the oil burn longer than it normally would burn.

This different type of miracle would be out of place in a berakha dedicated to the hidden miracles of everyday existence. Hence, the miracle of the oil is left out in ‘al hanissim and the victory of the Chashmonaim, a nes nistar of battles fought and won according to the laws of nature is included in modim.

Rambam on Divine Attributes in Prayer: The Limits of Human Power

One should also not add to the enumeration of Hashem’s attributes in the Shemoneh Esreh and say: ha’el ha’gadol ha’gibor v’ha’nora he’chazak v’ha’amitz v’ha’izuz, the great, mighty and awesome God, strong, brave and powerful. It is beyond human ability to fully praise God, except to say what Moshe said. (Tefillah 9:7)

This Rambam follows the Gemara:
A certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina and said, O God, the great, mighty, terrible, majestic, powerful, awful, strong, fearless, sure and honored. He waited till he had finished, and when he had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your Master? Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say, had not Moses our Master mentioned them in the Law (Devarim 10:17) and had not the Men of the Great Synagogue come and inserted them in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to mention them, and you say all these and still go on! It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver ones. Would it not be an insult to him? (Berakhos 33b)

The Rambam explains this mashal in Moreh Nevukhim:
Consider, first, how repulsive and annoying the accumulation of all these positive attributes was to him; next, how he showed that, if we had only to follow our reason, we should never' have composed these prayers, and we should not have uttered any of them. It has, however, become necessary to address men in words that should leave some idea in their minds, and, in accordance with the saying of our Sages," The Torah speaks in the language of men," the Creator has been described to us in terms of our own perfections; but we should not on that account have uttered any other than the three above-mentioned attributes, and we should not have used them as names of God except when meeting with them in reading the Law. Subsequently, the men of the Great Synagogue, who were prophets, introduced these expressions also into the prayer, but we should not on that account use [in our prayers] any other attributes of God. The principal lesson to be derived from this passage is that there are two reasons for our employing those phrases in our prayers : first, they occur in the Pentateuch; secondly, the Prophets introduced them into the prayer. Were it not for the first reason, we should never have uttered them; and were it not for the second reason, we should not have copied them from the Pentateuch to recite them in our prayers: how then could we approve of the use of those numerous attributes! You also learn from this that we ought not to mention and employ ill our prayers all the attributes we find applied to God in the books of the Prophetq: for he does not say," Were it not that Moses, our Teacher, said them, we should not have been able to use them": but he adds another condition-" and had not the men of the Great Synagogue come forward and established their use in the prayer," because only for that reason are we allowed to use them in our prayers. We cannot approve of what those foolish persons do who are extravagant in praise, fluent and prolix in the prayers they compose, and in the hymns they make in the desire to approach the Creator. They describe God in attributes which would be an offence if applied to a human being; for those persons have no knowledge of these great and important principles, which are not accessible to the ordinary intelligence of man. Treating the Creator as a familiar object, they describe Him and speak of Him in any expressions they think proper; they eloquently continue to praise Him in that manner, and believe that they can thereby influence Him and produce an effect on Him. If they find some phrase suited to their object in the words of the Prophets they are still more inclined to consider that they are free to make use of such texts-which should at least be explained-to employ them in their literal sense, to derive new expressions from them, to form from them numerous variations, and to found whole compositions on them. This license is frequently met with in the compositions of the singers, preachers, and others who imagine themselves to be able to compose a poem. Such authors write things which partly are real heresy, partly contain such folly and absurdity that they naturally cause those who hear them to laugh, but also to feel grieved at the thought that such things can be uttered in reference to God. Were it not that 1 pitied the authors for their defects. And did not wish to injure them, I should have cited some passages to show you their mistakes; besides, the fault of their compositions is obvious to all intelligent persons. You must consider it, and think thus : If slander and libel is a great sin, how much greater is the sin of those who speak with looseness of tongue in reference to God, and describe Him by attributes which are far below Him; and I declare that they not only commit an ordinary sin, but unconsciously at least incur the guilt of profanity and blasphemy. This applies both to the multitude that listens to such prayers, and to the foolish man that recites them. Men, however, who understand the fault of such compositions, and, nevertheless, recite them, may be classed, according to my opinion, among those to whom the following words are applied:" And the children of Israel used words that were not right against the Lord their God" (2 Kings xvii. 9): and" utter error against the Lord" (Isa. =ii. 6). If you are of those who regard the honour of their Creator, do not listen in any way to them, much less utter what they say, and still less compose such prayers. knowing how great is the offence of one who hurls aspersions against the Supreme Being. There is no necessity at all for you to use positive attributes of God with the view of magnifying Him in your thoughts, or to go beyond the limits which the men of the Great Synagogue have introduced in the prayers and in the blessings, for this is sufficient for all purposes, and even more than Sufficient, as Rabbi Haninah said. Other attributes, such as occur in the books of the Prophets, may be uttered when we meet with them in reading those books; but we must bear in mind what has already been explained, that they are
either attributes of God's actions, or expressions implying the negation of the opposite. This likewise should not be divulged to the multitude; but a reflection of this kind is fitted for the few only who believe that the glorification of God does not consist in uttering that which is not to be uttered, but in reflecting on that on which man should reflect.

We Will now conclude our exposition of the wise words of R. Haninah. He does not employ any such simile as:" A king who possesses millions of gold denarii, and is praised as having hundreds" : for this would imply that God's perfections, although more perfect than those ascribed to man are still of the same kind: but this is not the case, as has been proved. The excellence of the simile consists in the words: who possesses golden denarii, and is praised as having silver denarii" this implies that these attributes, though perfections as regards ourselves, are not such as regards God; in reference to Him they would all be defects, as is distinctly suggested in the remark," Is this not an offence to Him ?" '
(Moreh I,59)

I always suspected that there is also anti-Islamic polemic here because the Muslims list a hundred attributes of God.