It appears that many Tefillos and Brachos conform with Lashon Tananch.
I have always been bothered by this question:
Why do we say LEISEHEV bassukah instead of LASEHEVES basukkah?
Is there a pattern here or is this unique?
general rule: HaZal composed t'fillos in L'shon HaZaL except when they were quoting the T'NaKh or making a reference thereto.
Since the references abound, there is no rule for most places. But b'rakhot, being a non-T'NaKh innovation, all follow L'shon HaZal
Look at birchos hashachar e.g. zokeif kefufim etc. they follow flollow
Tanach.
Even the "later "bracha nosein layaie koach is staright out of yshay [my bar
mitzv haftora]
So does the first bracha of Avos in the amidah
ergo Brachos are frequnetly minted with Tanachy imagery
I just wanted to know if there is a pattern at work in which brachos fall
into which category
the longer brokhos are clearly using HaZal references.
HaNosen LaYo'ef Koach is not a brokho composed by HaZaL.
I was referring to the birkhos hamitzvos, which are a non-T'NaKh innovation. Longer brokhos are not; they are specifically quoted in Shmuel and Divre HaYomim.
A useful check is looking in the mss. and seeing where the loshon of -okh rather than -akho is used. Later grammarians changed it, but in most of the t'fillo, except for Biblical references, -okh is used.
--=====================_608843==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3D1F2488
general rule: HaZal composed t'fillos in L'shon HaZaL except when
they were quoting the T'NaKh or making a reference thereto.
Since the references abound, there is no rule for most places. But
b'rakhot, being a non-T'NaKh innovation, all follow L'shon HaZal
That indeed appears to be a difference between Ashkenazi blessings
(e.g., borei peri hagafen) and Sefardi blessings (borei peri hagefen).
Alternatively, see
http://margavriel.blogspot.com/2007/08/berakhoth.html
KvHT to all!
YD
I quoted gashem vs. geshem for a reason; that was a clear change in nusach hat'fillo.
However, gefen vs. gafen is not so clear. Although it is clear that the normal 2nd p. masc. sing. suffix is -akh, and that the normal 1st p. pl. pronoun is anu, and so they appear in all mss., l'shon HaZaL may have used pausal forms like gafen (and even geshem, though not in the middle of a b'rokho). Evidence from the mss. is by no means clear. So don't cite gafen gefen as any proof, although it is clear that the original nusach Ashk'naz was gefen.
Ironically, you cite modim anahnu lakh. That is one of the cases where there is a clear reference to the T'NaKh, which is why it is not modim anu.
I am interested in facts, not recommending whether people change to daven the way that HaZaL originally intended. The facts are pretty uniform in the mss., whether S'faradi, Ashk'nazi, Teimani, or other. It was na'aritzakh and naqdishakh, whichever order and whichever nusakh.
Shouldn't this topic be titled "L'shon Tanach vs. L'shon Hazal"?
B'virkas k'siva vachasima tova,
EMT