:ז New face(s)?

Good to be back.

ת"ר מברכין ברכת חתנים בעשרה כל שבעה אמר רב יהודה והוא שבאו פנים חדשות

There is an anonymous opinion mentioned in the שיטה מקובצת that since פנים חדשות is in plural, we require two new individuals in order to make all of the ברכות. Shockingly, this opinion is invalidated based on the explanation that the pluralization of פנים חדשות is applied to all of the days of שבע ברכות and doesn't imply a plural number of faces on one given night.

So what's so shocking about that? What's shocking is that the word פנים is always plural. There is no singular. I recall this question being posed of one of the rebbeim in נר ישראל some 20 odd years ago. Quite an intriguing answer was given. The reason (source unknown) why פנים is plural is because a face is capable of expressing many various different feelings and emotions. While most of your body parts look exactly the same no matter the situation, the face is multi-faceted. During the week of שבע ברכות, however, it is demanded of us to restrict our expressions to only one emotion - that of sheer joy and happiness with the new union. Since the face is not expected to be multi-faceted during this week, it is conceivable to suggest that the pluralization of פנים might imply more than one individual.

.ל"א What to read on חנוכה

בחנוכה בנשיאים ומפטירין בנרות דזכריה ואי מיקלעי שתי שבתות קמייתא בנרות דזכריה בתרייתא בנרות שלמה

If you had to choose which of these two הפטרות were more directly pertinent, which would you intuitively choose? Would it not be the מנורות of שלמה? After all, they do speak of actual מנורות in the בית המקדש whereas זכריה speaks only of a מנורה he saw in a dream. And wouldn't the "אחרונים" defer to the "ראשונים"? Why then is the הפטרה of זכריה given precedence and we only read that of שלמה if we have to שבתות חנוכה?

Perhaps there is more to the הפטרה of זכריה. On חנוכה we are not just celebrating the נס of the מנורה but also השם delivering us from the hands of the mighty Syrian Greeks who sought to completely destroy Judaism. The נבואה of זכריה foretells the eventual return to ירושלים and rebuilding of the second בית המקדש following the 70 bitter years of גלות בבל. Therein lies the message to never lose hope even in the darkest of days for השם's salvation is just around the corner, a pertinent theme indeed for חנוכה. 

:ל What to read on הושענא רבה

רש"י ד"ה בקרבנות החג. ...יום ראשון של חול המועד שהוא ספק שני ספק שלישי קורא ראשון ביום השני ותניינא ביום השלישי תליתאה ביום הרביעי הרביעי שהוא נוסף בשביל חש"מ הוא קורא את ספיקי היום ומה הן ספיקי היום ביום השני וביום השלישי וכן למחר קורא ראשון ביום השלישי שני קורא ביום הרביעי שלישי קורא ביום החמישי והרביעי ביום השלישי וביום הרביעי שהן ספיקי היום וכן תמיד הרביעי קורא מה שקרא ראשון ושני חוץ מיום אחרון של חש"מ שא"א לקרות ביום השמיני לפי שאינו מימי החג אלא רגל לעצמו לפיכך יום ז' של חש"מ ראשון קורין ביום החמישי שני קורא ביום הששי שלישי קורא ביום השביעי והרביעי קורא ביום הששי וביום הז' שהן ספיקי היום:

A number of years ago, I was puzzled by this רש"י, specifically as it pertains to what we end up reading on הושענא רבה. I did receive some answers but I'm still unsure. See for yourself.

:כ"א Death Frequency

דרוקרת עיר המוציאה חמש מאות רגלי הוה ויצאו ממנה שלשה מתים ביום אחד גזר רב נחמן בר רב חסדא תעניתא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כמאן כר'מ דאמר ריחק נגיחותיו חייב קירב נגיחותיו לא כ"ש

See this Shtikle from שמיני עצרת on the well-known tactic of reciting משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם enough times such that one is considered accustomed to saying it. The conclusion there is that despite the fact that the הלכה follows ר' יהודה in בבא קמא that the three gores must occur in three days, that is only based on the specific wording of the פסוק from which ר' יהודה derives his position. However, he certainly subscribes to ר' מאיר's reasoning in general. This passage from our גמרא, however, would seem to challenge that. For if it were so, not only ר' מאיר but even ר' יהודה would agree that three deaths in one day constitute דבר.

:ט"ז Forgot Again

ההוא סמיא דהוה מסדר מתניתא קמיה דמר שמואל, חזייה דהוה עציב, אמר ליה: אמאי עציבת? אמר ליה: דלא אותיבי ערובי תבשילין. אמר ליה: סמוך אדידי. לשנה חזייה דהוה עציב, אמר ליה: אמאי עציבת? אמר ליה: דלא אותיבי ערובי תבשילין. אמר ליה: פושע את. לכולי עלמא שרי, לדידך אסיר.

רש"י ד"ה לשנה - לשנה אחרת וראש השנה היה שאין יכול להניח ולהתנות:

A question and an observation:

• Why must רש"י state it was ראש השנה? Couldn't it have been any יום טוב and already Friday? The תנאי trick only works on Thursday.
• Perhaps what can be gleaned from this comment of רש"י is that if it were a case where he could make the תנאי, that would actually be preferable, in general, to relying on the רב. This would have halachic implications.

.י"א The Tallest Building

ואמר רבא בר מחסיא אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב כל עיר שגגותיה גבוהין מבית הכנסת לסוף חרבה שנאמר לרומם את בית אלהינו ולהעמיד את חרבותיו וה"מ בבתים אבל בקשקושי ואברורי לית לן בה

As I saw in the Artscroll - according to the רא"ש, the reason why קשקושי ואברורי are not a problem is because they do not serve a functional purpose i.e., they are not inhabited. It would therefore stand to reason that the roofs of present-day houses, which are often sloped and therefore cannot be used for any purpose, need not be lower than the shul.

I believe there is some requirement in Muslim villages that no building be higher than their house of prayer and that is partly the purpose of the minaret. If this is true, it is quite ironic that this גמרא is immediately followed by a passage discussing working for an Ismaelite. 

:נ"ט Niagara Falls

הָרוֹאֶה פְּרָת אַגִּשְׁרָא דְבָבֶל, אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ … עוֹשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית״. וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּשַׁנְיוּהּ פָּרְסָאֵי — מִבֵּי שַׁבּוּר וּלְעֵיל.

An interesting שאלה that arises for me quite often is whether or not one should make a ברכה when they see Niagara Falls. A significant component of that discussion relates to the above passage. A good friend of mine, Rabbi Mordechai Hochheimer, who used to be a Rav in nearby Rochester, NY wrote an essay on the subject. Unfortunately, the blog no longer exists but Google Cache was able to help restoring the source:

Part I

Part II

Now, there is an opinion (mentioned in this exchange in the name of R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach) that a natural wonder that "formed later" is not subject to this ברכה since it is not literally part of מעשה בראשית. I have always had difficulty with this approach. When we make the very same ברכה on lightning, this is not a bolt of lightning that HaShem created in the first 6 days. Rather, HaShem infused the בריאה with the energy and power to create these wonders over time. Can the same not be said about natural wonders that were formed naturally over the course of history, without human intervention? Niagara Falls might not have existed when HaShem created the world. But the forces that would eventually make the Falls a reality certainly were.

:נ Respect for Bread

והתניא כשם שאין זורקין את הפת כך אין זורקין את האוכלין א"ל והתניא אף על פי שאין זורקין את הפת אבל זורקין את האוכלין אלא לא קשיא הא במידי דממאיס הא במידי דלא ממאיס ...וזורקין לפניהם קליות ואגוזים בימות החמה אבל לא בימות הגשמים אבל לא גלוסקאות לא בימות החמה ולא בימות הגשמים

רש"י ד"ה אבל לא גלוסקאות. שהרי אף בימות החמה הן נמאסין בזריקתן

It seems clear from the גמרא that although throwing food is only problematic if the food will become disgusting as a result, such a stipulation does not exist for bread. It would seem that it is more than a matter of whether anything will actually happen to the bread. Because bread is considered more חשוב we are forbidden from throwing it under all circumstances. 

That makes the above רש"י somewhat puzzling. The גמרא asserts that one doesn't throw גלוסקאות - definitely a bread product - in the winter or the summer. Based on the preceding a גמרא, I would have explained that it is because throwing bread is always forbidden. Why, then does רש"י explain that the reason it is forbidden is because bread will become disgusting if thrown even in the summer? Whether or not it becomes disgusting is not the issue.

[5780 addendum] See the discussion in the comments below. It certainly seems that תוספות understood the גמרא the same way I am proposing:

תוספות ד"ה אין זורקין... ואין זורקין את הפת אפילו לא ממאיס

:מ"ח Joining the מזומן

הלכתא אכל עלה ירק ושתה כוס של יין מצטרף

I find this to be a common misconception among the masses. When two people have eaten bread and trying to join up with another for a מזומן people seem concerned as to whether or not the other has had a מזונות. It is clear from here and the הלכה that a מזונות is not needed. As long as the third (or for 10 - 3 out of the 10)  has eaten or drunk anything requiring a ברכה אחרונה other than water, they may combine.

(The הלכה that emerges from the previous עמוד, that only 7 out of 10 need to have eaten bread in order to say אלוקינו also seems to be one that is not as well-known as it should be.)

.מ"ב No more eating.

תכף לנטילת ידים ברכה

From here we derive that once one washes מים אחרונים, he should not eat anything further before ברכת המזון. [The language would definitely seem to imply, on the surface, like it is referring to נטילת ידים before eating and the גליון הש"ס points out that we find in other places that is the actual intent but it clearly is not here.] The משנה ברורה קע"ט:א is quite strict on this matter and adds that even talking or any other form of הפסק should be avoided, based on the specific language of the גמרא as תכף obviously implies immediacy. Indeed, you do find individuals who are careful in this matter. However, ערוך השלחן in קפ"א:א very strongly disagrees and asserts that speaking is not a הפסק of any concern in this situation. 

.מ"א Dip the Apple ...

דאמר רב יוסף ואיתימא רבי יצחק כל המוקדם בפסוק זה מוקדם לברכה שנאמר ארץ חטה ושעורה וגפן ותאנה ורמון ארץ זית שמן ודבש

[5772]It is most fitting that we encounter this גמרא leading up to ראש השנה. One of the very first songs any Jewish child learns is "Dip the apple in the honey, say a bracha loud and clear." Unfortunately, there is a halachic issue with this song. Although there is some disagreement between אשכנזים and ספרדים when it comes to קדימה, we are in agreement (או"ח רי"א:א) that if we have in front of us two fruit of identical ברכה, i.e. העץ, and one is from the שבעה מינים e.g. dates or pomegranates, the ברכה is to be recited on the fruit from the שבעה מינים, not on the one that is more favoured (חביב). Therefore, if one has dates or pomegranates on the table, which we usually do on ראש השנה night, the העץ is to be recited on one of those (the date preferably, based on the מסקנא of the גמרא) rather than the apple.

Perhaps the ברכה in the song is referring to the יהי רצון.

:המוציא ל”ח

מה הוא אומר המוציא לחם מן הארץ רבי נחמיה אומר מוציא לחם מן הארץ אמר רבא במוציא כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאפיק משמע דכתיב אל מוציאם ממצרים כי פליגי בהמוציא...והלכתא המוציא לחם מן הארץ

תוספות here ask a very simple question: If everyone agrees that מוציא fits the bill, why don’t we just go with that? They answer that it is preferable to say המוציא in order to make a separation between the מ”ם at the end of העולם and at the beginning of מוציא. They go on to explain that while a similar concern exists with לחם – מן, since that phrase comes from a פסוק we aren’t going to change it. We have already seen that it is important to be careful with pronunciation of קריאת שמע and of course קריאת התורה as well. But this תוספות shows us the importance of דקדוק with ברכות as well.

That said, there is a discussion as to the proper pronunciation of the word המוציא. The rule of נסוג אחור would determine that since the accent on לחם is on the first syllable, the accent on המוציא is moved back and it would be ha-MO-tzi. The discussion revolves around whether or not this rule is applicable to ברכות. Indeed, we do employ that rule for ברכת התורה as we say אשר בחר בנו – BA-char, instead of ba-CHAR. Nevertheless, the סידור עליות אליהו maintains that the rule is not applied to המוציא and it should be pronounced ha-mo-TZI.

I was recently referred (by the brother of the מחבר סידור עליות אליהו, ironically) to a ספר דרכי הנסיגה which is dedicated to the rules of נסוג אחור. Therein, he states that as a rule that a word with a ה הידיעה will not have its accent pushed up by נסוג אחור. This would explain המוציא.

.ל”ח Beer

תוס' ד"ה האי דובשא דתמרי מברכין עלויה שהכל. וכן משקין מכל מיני פירות בר מתירוש ויצהר כדאמרינן גבי ערלה ולאפוקי מה"ג שפירש דמיירי שנתן לתוכן מים ושכר דידן אע"ג דשמא יש בהן כזית בכדי אכילת פרס לא מברכין עליו בורא מיני מזונות אלא שהכל ואפי' לרב ושמואל דאמרי כל שיש בו מחמשת המינין מברכין עליו בורא מיני מזונות הכא לא הוי בהו ממש שעורים ואין שכר אלא טעמא בעלמא ועוד משום שיש בו עלויה אחרינא בפת ועוד בשתיה אומר שהכל:

Has anyone ever wondered why we don’t make בורא מיני מזונות on beer? If so, the above, quoted תוספות has the answer. It includes some important limitations to the rule of כל שיש בו.

:ל”ה Avoiding מעשר

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אר"י (ר’ יוחנן) משום ר"י בר' אלעאי בא וראה שלא כדורות הראשונים דורות האחרונים דורות הראשונים היו מכניסין פירותיהן דרך טרקסמון כדי לחייבן במעשר דורות האחרונים מכניסין פירותיהן דרך גגות דרך חצרות דרך קרפיפות כדי לפטרן מן המעשר דא"ר ינאי אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר עד שיראה פני הבית שנא' בערתי הקדש מן הבית ור' יוחנן אמר אפי' חצר קובעת שנא' ואכלו בשעריך ושבעו

Something doesn’t quite add up here. ר’ יוחנן holds that the חצר is already קובע for מעשר. So according to him, this “trick” of the דורות האחרונים wouldn’t even work. That’s all fine. But isn’t this the same ר’ יוחנן quoting רבי יהודה בר’ אלעאי contrasting the two in the first place? Why would he quote this position if it does not concur with his own halachic position?

UPDATE: The note in the Artscroll mentions this point and points out that when this piece appears in other locations, the words "דרך חצרות" are not included, which would solve the problem. However, the צל"ח apparently keeps the גרסא as is and has an explanation but I have not seen that yet.

.ל”ה When you’re hungry

לא קשיא דאתיא בקל וחומר כשהוא שבע מברך כשהוא רעב לא כל שכן

This קל וחומר bothered me for quite some time. How does the logic actually work? Wouldn’t you be more thankful after being given something than you would before receiving it? I found an answer to this quandary in the most unlikely of sources – a Jerry Seinfeld comedy routine. He was going on about how difficult it is to pay the bill at a restaurant at the end of your meal, when you are full and satiated since you no longer appreciate how much you wanted the food. And I realized that this was indeed quite a profound observation. If you go to a fast food restaurant and pay for your food up front, somehow, it’s not as difficult. You’re really hungry. You really want that burger. You’re staring straight at it. So you can easily part with the money to obtain it. But when you’re finished eating and fully satisfied, the food is out of sight and you no longer appreciate how much you needed and wanted that food and thus, paying for it becomes more difficult. Likewise, with ברכות, it is not as easy to appreciate how indebted we are to השם for providing us with sustenance when we are satiated. But still we are commanded to do so. How much more so, when we are hungry and in need, we should certainly more easily come to the recognition that HaShem provides us with all and express that by means of a ברכה.

.ל”ה What happened to מזונות?

ועל פירות הארץ הוא אומר בורא פרי האדמה חוץ מן הפת שעל הפת הוא אומר המוציא לחם מן הארץ

רש"י: כיצד מברכין וכו' חוץ מן היין. שמתוך חשיבותו קבעו לו ברכה לעצמו וכן הפת

As רש”י explains, the משנה lists the exception where the ברכה is changed due to a certain level of importance. Indeed wheat is elevated to המוציא when in the form of bread. But it can also be elevated to a בורא מיני מזונות when in a processed form. Why is there no mention of that in the משנה as here would seem to be the proper place for it. Upon further inspection, it doesn’t seem בורא מיני מזונות is mentioned anywhere in the משנה at all! Why would that be? Was it only instituted by the אמוראים? Did know practical food applications exist for it prior to that?

.ל Which Direction to Face?

היה עומד בח"ל יכוין את לבו כנגד ארץ ישראל שנא' והתפללו אליך דרך ארצם היה עומד בארץ ישראל יכוין את לבו כנגד ירושלים שנאמר והתפללו אל ה' דרך העיר אשר בחרת היה עומד בירושלים יכוין את לבו כנגד בית המקדש שנאמר והתפללו אל הבית הזה היה עומד בבית המקדש יכוין את לבו כנגד בית קדשי הקדשים שנאמר והתפללו אל המקום הזה היה עומד בבית קדשי הקדשים יכוין את לבו כנגד בית הכפורת היה עומד אחורי בית הכפורת יראה עצמו כאילו לפני הכפורת נמצא עומד במזרח מחזיר פניו למערב במערב מחזיר פניו למזרח בדרום מחזיר פניו לצפון בצפון מחזיר פניו לדרום נמצאו כל ישראל מכוונין את לבם למקום אחד

There are many interesting discussions related to the topic of which way to face when davening. If we assume that we should at least attempt to face ירושלים directly from wherever we are (more on that later) there are two ways to accomplish that. The לבוש and others seem to suggest that we should draw a straight line to ירושלים as if on a flat map in order to establish the proper direction. This is known as the Rhumb Line.The ספר אמונת חכמים (somewhere in פרק כ"ד) takes umbrage with that approach and maintains that we should follow what is known as the Great Circle Route. That is the shortest actual distance between two points on the globe, taking into account the curvature of the Earth. For example, when a plane travels from New York to Israel, it will actually head out North-East as it will get there faster. To get an idea of how this works, take a string and place it on the two points on a globe and make the string as tight as possible. You will see that the path does not start out South-East as you might have suspected.

So this is all fascinating but what do we do with all this information? That's where KosherJava.com comes in. This is a brilliant site dedicated to software development for the purpose of calculating זמנים and זמנים-related issues. One of the more fascinating creations found there is the Zmanim / Bearing to Yeushalayim Map which allows you to click on any point on a Google Map (or search) and get not only the זמנים for that point but the exact bearing to ירושלים according to the above שיטות.

I will bring in some concrete examples of this map in a moment. But first, I want to discuss the position of the ערוך השלחן. He discusses (או"ח צ"ד:ז-ח) this issue at great length. He has a fascinating observation on the גמרא to support his conclusion. The פסוקים brought in reference to one davening outside of ירושלים or ארץ ישראל read "והתפללו אליך דרך ארצם," and "והתפללו אל ה' דרך העיר." But for someone in ירושלים, the פסוק states "והתפללו אל הבית הזה," and so on. The word דרך does not appear. He suggests that outside of ירושלים, although one's mindset should be focused on the בית קדש הקדשים, there is no way face exactly in that direction. Rather, one should simply face in the approximate direction. If I am understanding correctly, according to this, in North America, it would be sufficient to simply face East. But it would seem that wherever you are, you should at least make sure to face towards the principal direction. In other words, since ארץ ישראל from North America is certainly more East than South (or North according to אמונת חכמים) it is East that is important. 

This leads further to a statement made by רמ"א צ"ד:ב that since where he is situated is West of ארץ ישראל, they face East (sounds a lot like the ערוך השלחן.) Let us return to the handy bearing map from KosherJava.com. Below is bearing map from the רמ"א's home city of Krakow (you can drag the map around to move it) showing that the angle to ירושלים is at least 142° which is more South than East. So shouldn't they have been facing South?
[Update תש"ף: It should be noted that רמ"א is quoting the טור who lived in Toledo, Spain, which is much more to the west than Krakow is.]
(IFrames for the site are not supported. Static screenshot is below. Please see the interactive map here.)

Let us use this fabulous tool for even further investigation. It is important to note the language of the אמונת חכמים in taking the לבוש to task:

במ״ש הרב בעל הלבושים סימן צ״ד סעיף ג׳ ז״ל, ודע שכל הארצות האלו אשר אנו מפוזרים בהם כולם הם כנגד מערבית צפונית של א״י ואינם מכוונים במערב של א״י ממש וכו׳ לפיכך נ״ל וכו׳ שיזהר שיעשו הכותל מזרחי כו׳ שיהא נוטה קצת לצד מזרחית דרומית וכו׳ עכ״ל, ואמת הוא שבארץ אשכנז ופולוניא וכו׳ האמת הוא כדבריו וכו׳ אבל כל מ״ש בטעם זה אחרי המחילה הראוי טעות הוא בידו ואינו ענין לדבר זה כלל, וכבר נמצאו כמה מקומות ומדינות שאעפ״י שנמצאו בהם אותם תנאים שכתב הרב בעל הלבושים עכ״ז הרוצה לפנות כלפי א״י ממש צריך לנטות קצת כלפי צפון עכ״ל.

Now, let us observe the lines from the לבוש's home city of Prague, below. Due to the proximity to ארץ ישראל the actual difference between the two is minute, at best. If you click around, you'll find that you have to go as far South as Morocco to find a discrepancy which would lead to a dispute as to whether to turn slightly North or South. And there also the difference is minimal. (The אמונת חכמים lived in Mantua, Italy where the difference would also have been minimal.) The actual significance of this discrepancy is really only truly felt in the Western Hemisphere. (It does seem the אמונת חכמים acknowledges that the לבוש's פסק would be sufficient for his own land.)
(IFrames for the site are not supported. Static screenshot is below. Please see the interactive map here.)

As long as this post is, it only really scratches the surface of this vast topic. For more reading, please see the following extended essays (links also thanks to KosherJava.com):
ישורון article
Which way shall we turn?

:כ"ט Something New

מַאי ״קֶבַע״?... רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּבָר

רש"י ד"ה לחדש בה דבר. בבקשתו והיינו לשון קבע כיום כן אתמול כן מחר:

So what exactly constitutes חידוש דבר? I have seen a modern translation explain this as any addition to the standard text. According to that definition, however, if someone inserts his own personal prayer - the same one each time - it will still constitute חידוש. This does not seem to jive with רש"י's approach. If your תפילה today is the same as it was yesterday and the day before, that would appear to fit רש"י's definition of קבע.

I have an interesting distinction to offer on this topic. Let us contrast two different types of personal prayers. Suppose someone has a test coming up next week and he inserts a prayer asking for success on that test. If he once again prays for success on that test in a subsequent תפילה, it can certainly be suggested that nothing has changed and there is nothing new from the previous prayer to this one.

However, suppose you are inserting a prayer for a present need such as someone who is sick and needs a רפואה שלמה. You want that prayer to be answered immediately. If you prayed for it in the morning, and now it is the afternoon and the subject of the prayer is still in need, that is essentially a new need. Even if the words of the extra prayer are exactly the same, I suggest that the mere fact that this need is ongoing should be enough of a "newness" to satisfy the definition of חידוש דבר.

.כ"ז The right time for מנחה

השתא דלא אתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר דעבד כמר עבד ודעבד כמר עבד

At first glance, this statement certainly seems to present a leniency when it comes to when מנחה and מעריב should be davened. Much has been written about what can be done on a daily basis as well as leniencies that might exist for ערב שבת. However, the ערוך השלחן או"ח רל"ג:ז has and interesting take on it. He writes that the intent of the גמרא is not to give you a choice. Rather, ideally, one should account for both opinions by making sure to finish מנחה before פלג המנחה like רבי יהודה but then not to start מעריב until after שקיעה like the רבנן. Of course, that is very difficult to do, especially in the winter.

.כ”ז What is תדיר?

היו לפניו שתי תפלות אחת של מוסף ואחת של מנחה מתפלל של מנחה ואחר כך של מוסף שזו תדירה וזו אינה תדירה

Interesting little observation on this halachic tidbit. This seems to be a blanket statement which applies across the board to ראש חודש, חול המועד. שבת and יום טוב. When it comes to שבת or יום טוב, one might have suggested that since the structure of the תפילה has changed, the מנחה is no more תדיר than מוסף. That is to say, we say מנחה of שבת just as often as we say מוסף of שבת. Nevertheless, we see that is not the case. Despite the change in structure, we still judge the overall regularity of מנחה in whatever form it may take. I can’t think of any other case where this rule would be applicable. But I’m sure there’s one out there.