A Few Nusach Questions (Birkos Hashachar to Shmone Esreh)

More
08 May 2009 01:59 #1013 by rallisw
Why according to our nusach is the order of Birchous HaShachar "Malbish Ahrumim" - "Pokaych Ivrim" and "Asher Haycheen Mitzaday Gover" - "Sheoso Li Kol Tzorkee" reversed?

By the way, is it "Sheoso Li Kol Tzorkee" or "Sheoseeso Li Kol Tzorochoy"?

Why is the Yehi Rotzoun after Brochous in the ancient nusach in the personal tense? Why and when was it changed to the more common plural tense?

What is the connection between the end of the Shiroh and the posuk of Shema Yisroel?

Is the word properly pronounced Uv'makhalous or "Uv'mikhalous following Shouchayn Ad?

Why is the order in the Brocho of Chounayn HaDoas, "Binoh, Dayoh, V'Haskayl" instead of "Dayoh, Binoh, V'Haskayl" like most siddurim?

At the end of the brocho Mekabaytz Nidchay Amo Yisroel is there any authentic source in Minhag Ashkenaz to conclude, "mayarbah kanfous ho-oretz l'artzaynu"?

Why in the Brocho of Al HaTzadikim is the vov attached to the word "Ul'oulom lo nayvoush" instead of reading the phrase, " "v'sim chelkaynu imohem l'oulom, v'lou nayvoush"?

Rallis

Minhag Avoseinu Torah Hee!

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
08 May 2009 15:23 #1014 by Daniel
RE: “What is the connection between the end of the Shiroh and the posuk of Shema Yisroel?”

The Chasam Sofer writes (Parshas V’Eschnan) that one may think that since we end off the shira with the Pasuk bayom hahu yihyeh Hashem echad…that the nations will be on the same level as Yisroel (umul'ah ha’aretz…). We assert at the end by adding the Pasuk of Shema, that we will still always be on a higher level of understanding and have a closer relationship with Hashem than the nations, even during this time period.

Daniel

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
08 May 2009 15:25 #1015 by Daniel
RE: “Why is the order in the Brocho of Chounayn HaDoas, "Binoh, Dayoh, V'Haskayl" instead of "Dayoh, Binoh, V'Haskayl" like most siddurim?”

See “R’ Schwab on Prayer” page 442, were he says that, “Binoh, Dayoh, V'Haskayl…is in conformity with the very old Siddur of the Kabbalist Rav Hertz Shaliach Tzibur printed in the year 1560…In Tanach, there are many examples in which binah comes before dayoh, as well as dayoh before binah, and, basically, the order really makes no difference. Either it means that through the binah of the Torah one recognizes Hakadosh Boruch Hu, which is called dayah; or the reverse is also true: As a result of the recognition of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, Dayah, one proceeds to learn his Torah, which is called Binah."

Daniel

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
22 Jun 2009 01:45 #1080 by rallisw
By the way, over Shabbos I was looking through the Sefer Maharil. He states that the reason we say "Atoh Hounantonu" after the word Binoh rather than after the word Haskayl, is because the word Binoh can be seen as Roushei Tayvous; Bsomim, Yayin, Ner, Havdoloh.

Just wanted to share!

Rallis

Minhag Avoseinu Torah Hee!

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
25 Jun 2009 13:22 #1087 by rallisw
From when does the brocho of "Sheosani Kirtzounou" originate? Were there other forms of this brocho the predate it?

In some siddurim it states that the Kehilloh Kedoushoh of Metz adds the following brocho to the morning B'rochous "Boruch .... HoOulom, magbihah sh'folim.

From where and what time period, does this brocho date from? If it is of ancient origin why does almost no one recite it today?

Rallis

Minhag Avoseinu Torah Hee!

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
26 Jun 2009 16:44 #1089 by Michael
Magbiah Shfolim was Minhag Ashkenaz. The Beis Yosef says that it shouldn't be said because it is not mentioned in the Gemoro, and that it has the same meaning as Zokef Kefufim. It is interesting to note, that although this Brocho did not appear in the Gemoros used in Sepharad, it did appear in the Gemoros used in Ashkenaz.
The Brocho was stopped in most of Ashkenaz mostly by Polish influence. We see among the Polish poskim a debate about this Brocho, with the Bach and the Levush holding that it should be said, the Taz holding that it shouldn't, while the Mogen Avrohom holds that both options are acceptable.

The Pri Megodim is the most extreme in the opposition to this Brocho, and holds that one should be מוחה at anyone saying it.

Michael FRBSH

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
08 Jul 2009 15:40 #1113 by Michael

Rallis wrote: Why according to our nusach is the order of Birchous HaShachar "Malbish Ahrumim" - "Pokaych Ivrim" and "Asher Haycheen Mitzaday Gover" - "Sheoso Li Kol Tzorkee" reversed?


There were many different old Nuscho'os, and the nusach that was used in Frankfurt was Malbish before Poke'ach and Asher Heichin before Sheoso.

Rallis wrote: By the way, is it "Sheoso Li Kol Tzorkee" or "Sheoseeso Li Kol Tzorochoy"?


The old manuscripts are without the vowels (Nikud). The nusach used is Tzorkee.

Rallis wrote: Why is the Yehi Rotzoun after Brochous in the ancient nusach in the personal tense? Why and when was it changed to the more common plural tense?


A Sephardic sage, 400 years ago, learned Pshat in the Gemoro that talks about Tefillas Haderech and say that it should be said in the plural tense, that it applies also to Birkas Gomel Chasodim Tovim.
The Mogen Avrohom mentioned this opinion, and although he doesn't necessarily agree with it, the fact the Mogen Avrohom mentioned it made this opinion well known. After that the Siddurim changed to the plural tense. But R' Yeshaya Berlin and the Oruch Hashulchon were against the change. It is interesting to note that the Sephardim in the last generation changed back to the personal tense.

Rallis wrote: What is the connection between the end of the Shiroh and the posuk of Shema Yisroel?


Above is a very nice explanation posted by Daniel. Historically speaking, the Shema Yisroel was added by the French Jews, who made many additions to the Davening (of words like "Tovim" and of Psukim). Usually Gedolei Ashkenaz stood against their additions, but since in Pesukei dezimroh one can add Psukim there was no opposition to this addition and it came in.

Rallis wrote: Is the word properly pronounced Uv'makhalous or "Uv'mikhalous following Shouchayn Ad?


The old manuscripts are without the vowels (Nikud). The nusach used is Uv'makhalous.

Rallis wrote: Why is the order in the Brocho of Chounayn HaDoas, "Binoh, Dayoh, V'Haskayl" instead of "Dayoh, Binoh, V'Haskayl" like most siddurim?


Above is a very nice explanation posted by Daniel. The Reason in FFAM this nusach was used is since in most old Siddurim the nusach was Bino Dei'oh, (in the Roke'ach both Nuscho'os appear).

Rallis wrote: At the end of the brocho Mekabaytz Nidchay Amo Yisroel is there any authentic source in Minhag Ashkenaz to conclude, "mayarbah kanfous ho-oretz l'artzaynu"?
Why in the Brocho of Al HaTzadikim is the vov attached to the word "Ul'oulom lo nayvoush" instead of reading the phrase, "v'sim chelkaynu imohem l'oulom, v'lou nayvoush"?


In the old Siddurim, and the Sephardic Nuscho'os it is Ulelom Lo Nevosh.

Michael FRBSH

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
04 Aug 2009 04:22 #1180 by MPerlman

Rallis wrote: Why is the Yehi Rotzoun after Brochous in the ancient nusach in the personal tense? Why and when was it changed to the more common plural tense?


Because this is the way that it is brought in the Gemara (Brachos 60b).

MPerlman

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
09 Aug 2009 02:59 #1234 by Michael

MPerlman wrote:

Rallis wrote: Why is the Yehi Rotzoun after Brochous in the ancient nusach in the personal tense? Why and when was it changed to the more common plural tense?

Because this is the way that it is brought in the Gemara (Brachos 60b).

The Gemoro in Brochos (דף ס עמוד א) mentions Tefillas Haderech in the personal tense. The Gemoro there (עמוד ב) also mentions the Yehi Rotzon after Borkos Hashachar in the personal tense.
On the other hand the Gemoro (דף כט עמוד ב) brings Tefillas Haderech in the personal tense, and then Abayei says one should Daven about himself with the Tzibbur, therefore he should say it in the Plural Tense. And the Tur and Shulchan Oruch bring this Psak (סימן ק"י סעיף ד).
A Sephardic sage, 400 years ago, learned Pshat in that Gemoro that it applies also to Birkas Gomel Chasodim Tovim.
See more above.

Michael

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum