If I understand correctly, the nusach that Sefardim use for the bracha
rishona on wine is "Borei p'ri ha-gefen", rather than that used by
Ashkenazim of "Borei p'ri ha-gafen". At first glance, this seems to be
identical to the difference in "Mashiv ha-ru'ach u-morid ha-geshem/gashem",
which I had assumed was due to a difference in opinion over whether the
latter line is the end of a primary clause, and hence should have its
accented vowel lengthened from a segol into a kamatz, as is done in Tanach
with words that have an esnachta or a siluk. However, this reason would not
apply for the former case (when the question re-occurred to me over Shabbos
dinner, I wondered if the vowelization gefen was used only at night, but my
Sefardic host assured me that it was not).
Hence, what is the reason behind these differences? And why would this
reason not be similarly applicable to "haMotzi lechem min ha-aretz"? (A
desire to use the exact vowelization of the passuk that serves as the source
for the bracha seems to be an overly simplistic answer)
I'm not sure what bearing this would have on your question, but IIANM, the
hei in ha'aretz has a kamatz, whereas the hei in hagafen/hagefen has a
patach.
The changes in the Hebrew of the Ashkenazic prayerbook to use phonological
rules of Biblical Hebrew took place in the 17th century when a movement
among grammarians to return to the 'purity' of Biblical Hebrew coincided
with an increase in printed prayerbooks over which they had influence. The
change of geshem to gashem and gefen to gafen were both part of that. In
hammosi lehem min ha'ares, the word lehem does not occur at the end of a
clause and so it was not changed to lahem.
Sephardim simply did not make those changes, retaining the prayerbook
dialect, which is closer to Mishnaic than Biblical Hebrew.
(The article is normally (as in haggefen) a pathah plus dagesh in the
following letter. The alef does not take a dagesh, so the pathah in
compensation is lengthened to a qames. Although ha'ares is unusual in the
seghol always changing to qames after the article, the vocalization of the
article is standard, and this has no bearing on the issue.)
My second question was regarding the word ha-aretz vs. ha-eretz, not
regarding the word lechem, but modifying my original suspicion based on your
answer, I guess that the bracha on bread was set up using the accented form
ha-aretz rather than the basic form ha-eretz because it was based on a
passuk in Tehillim, while the bracha on wine was set up using the Mishnaic
form, which did not utilize the accented form. Correct?
: If I understand correctly, the nusach that Sefardim use for the bracha
: rishona on wine is "Borei p'ri ha-gefen", rather than that used by
: Ashkenazim of "Borei p'ri ha-gafen". At first glance, this seems to be
: identical to the difference in "Mashiv ha-ru'ach u-morid ha-geshem/gashem",
...
Even if one says "hagafen" in the berakhah, there is a strong argument
to say "hageshem" in Shemoneh Esrei. It's the middle of a list, why
should the comma after it be presumed to merit asnachta or sof-pasuq
treatment?
No. The word 'eres ALWAYS becomes ha'ares with qames when the article is
added.
The same is true of har (mountain), hag (festival), `am (people), par
(bull), and often 'aron (ark). GKC sect. 35o.
Hayyim
Goffen and Goshem are both pausal forms.
But the 2 cases are different
Gorren is ALWAYS at the end of the statement.
Goshem is NOT NECESSARILY at the end.
To put it this way if you DO say Goshem you MUST say Goffen, but if you say
Goffen you may or may not say Goshem because you might not construe this
phrase as meriting a pasue or pausal format.
I suggest looking at birchot hashachar for Oved vs. Eved Gover vs. Gever and
several other cases of pauslas coming at the end of a blessing [e.g.
af'a'poy instead of af'af pie].
Although the well written comments of R' Hayyim Obadyah on
gefen-gafen need no backing from me. I cannot resist adding
a bit of detail.
The first occurrence of borei pri ha-gafen w/ gimmel
k'mutza) is, IIRC, in the siddur of R' Shabbetai Sofer in
the early 1600's, methinks 1615. Most of the other
modifications in the Ashkenaz siddur, so called corrections,
were made by R' Zalman Henneh (Siddur Bet Tefila, early
1700's) and R' Yitzhak Satanov (Siddur Vaye'tar Yitzhak,
late 1700's). As has been noted on the Mesorah list in the
past, R' Ya'akov Emden wrote a book, Luach Eresh, to
attack, one by one, RZ"H's siddur changes. Of course, most
of the changes caught on and remain in the Ashkenaz siddur
to this day. One that was returned to the original by R'
Seligmann Baer is "nipnei hayad shenishtalkha b'mikdashekha"
in Shabbat rosh hodesh and yomtov mussaf. I believe that
only the Yekkes (Roedelheim) still say ha-sh'lucha as per
RY"Satanov. Of late, i.e. last 40-50 years, there has been
some return to morid ha-geshem because here is no pause but
most carefully preserve the kamatz in morid ha-tal (ha-tol)
because there is a pause. ( Some, perhaps, not for the pause
but for some mystic reason that, at the moment, I cannot
recall. It was mentioned once on list.)
Of course, there can be some doubt as to the first
appearance of any nikkud changes in the siddur because
ancient siddurim were often written without nikkud.
I agree with R' Hayyim Obadyah that there is no point in
considering Ha-eretz because there ain't no such woid. I've
never seen nor heard of it. TTBOMK, it does not appear in
the Tanakh or anywhere else. (I'm Keterless today because
the CD doesn't open and I'm advised to consult with Bar-Ilan
to solve the problem.)
When the prefix has a kamatz, the alef of haa-aretz always
has a kametz. When a sh'va in the prefix, the alef can be
s'gula. When the prefix is a mem, the alef can be s'gula
even when the nikkud is not a sh'va (me-eretz). And I
haven't thought about hei hash'eila as the chataf is a sh'va
na'.
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, R' Hayyim Obadyah wrote, in part:
The word 'eres ALWAYS becomes ha'ares with qames when the article is added. The same is true of har (mountain), hag (festival), `am (people), par (bull), and often 'aron (ark). GKC sect. 35o.