[Avodah] Tense Berachos

[Micha Berger]

(Sorry for the misleading title. It was just too fun for me to pass up.)

In his column this week (see below), R Daniel Mann addresses the question
as to whether the berakhah should be "shehakol nihyeh" or "nihyah".

The reason this is a machloqes acharonim has to do with Chazal's
non-simple position about the correct tense for a berakhah. It is

To quote RDM:
    What do we do with the Gemara's contention that Hamotzi uses past
    tense? Don't we know from "Dikduk 101" that "hotzi" is past, "motzi"
    is present and "yotzi" is future?! The answer is that "Hamotzi," and
    "Borei," ... in various brachot are not verbs but nouns. We are giving
    Hashem the title of "the extractor" of bread, "the creator" of foods...
    In Hebrew, the noun/title is formed by using a present verb form. Now,
    one can earn a title by what he did in the past, is doing in the present
    or will do in the future (or any combination of them). The Gemara posits
    that the title must be compatible with the past tense. In contrast,
    in Shehakol, "nehiya" is not a title but a real verb. Therefore, if
    one uses the present tense, he is stressing the present (much more than
    borei does), which the Gemara seems to object to.

I think that distinguishing between title and present tense verb is itself
imposing a foreign worldview onto Hebrew. Rather, the whole reason they
are the same structure is because the language is based on the worlview
that you are what you do. Pre-modern Hebrew never said "is building", only
"is being a builder" -- or better, never split those into two distinct
ideas.

(Just as "HaKel haGadol haGibbor vehaNorah could be read as four titles
for Hashem, or one title and 3 adjectives.)

And so, the gemara is saying that the proper aspect for a berakhah is
imperfect, meaning, past tense is only okay if you are saying "and is
still doing so today." Whereas "nihyah" doesn't make it explicit that
things are still only existing bidvaro.

Which is how the AhS (OC 167:7
<https://www.sefaria.org/Arukh_HaShulchan%2C_Orach_Chaim.167.7>) describes
it. The language must be "lashon hakolel es hakol". Birkhos hanehenin
must be in lashon avar (opening words of the se'if) , and yet we should
follow the lashon of Tanakh, and the pasuq language that implies that
HQBH didn't stop.

The Be'er Heiteiv (204 "shehakol") quotes and dismisses the MA because
most berakhos are in present tense. Which really only fits the gemara
if you take him to mean "present and past".

Which is kind of why I prefer my perspective to RDM's -- he has it as a
title that looks like a present tense verb, but the real verb is past.
I am saying it's an imperfect aspect verb, and therefore although
present tense (by the time you get to Chazal and Hebrew with tenses),
doesn't rule out the past too.

But here's a new question:

There is also one other difference with shehakol -- the verb is
passive. We aren't saying "... Who causes the existence of eveything,
with His Word", but "everything exists, through His Word."

Second, "HaMotzi" refers to how the loaf in front of me came to
be. Or "Borei" -- the cake, fruit, vegetable. "Shehakol" refers to
how it exists right now. Rashi argues "hamotzi lekhem" has to refer to
something that happened in the past because the bread in front of me
is no longer potential in the ground. But the drink in front of me *is*
currently existing!

The verb in this berakhah is used in an entirely different way,
why are we assuming the same rules apply for tense?


An enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah!
-Micha

Right Pronunciation of Shehakol
By Rabbi Daniel Mann
January 1, 2025

Question: I pronounce the second-to-last word of Shehakol as "nehiya"
(with a kamatz at the end). Someone told me it must be "nehiyeh" (with
a segol), which is in the present tense, because we want to say that
Hashem provides everything for us today, not only in the past. My dikduk
is not good enough to have an opinion. Is he right? If he is right,
have I not been yotzei ((fulfilling the mitzvah)) all these years?

Answer: We will try to keep the dikduk as simple as we can. Indeed,
in third person singular (he/him), "nehiya" is past (all came to be by
His word) (see Devarim 4:32), and "nehiyeh" is present (all comes to be
...). (In first person plural (we), "nehiyeh" is future (we will be).
The question is whether we want to use the language of past or present.

We can seek precedent from other brachot. The Gemarot regarding Hamotzi
(Berachot 38a) and Borei Meorei Haesh (ibid. 52b) assume that we want
these brachot to focus on the past. Rashi explains -- the bread we are
about to eat was already extracted from the soil. One can say the same
thing about Shehakol -- the chicken or candy I am eating was produced in
the past. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'ktzia, Orach Chayim 167) goes a step
further, claiming that the "all" that Shehakol refers to is broad, and
that, generally, things came into existence at creation -- even if the
specific food we will eat is relatively recent. Indeed, a majority of
poskim (see Shaarei Teshuva 204:20) and of practice (survey of sources,
siddurim and people) is as you have done -- "nehiya."

However, significant logic and a sizable minority of sources support
"nehiyeh." The Chochmat Manoach (Brachot 38a; cited by the Magen Avraham
167:8) points out that most brachot employ a present tense verb (see
below) at the end of almost all brachot (even those that focus mainly
on the past). Take birkat haTorah as one of many examples. We speak of
bachar banu ... v'natan lanu (past tense references to matan Torah) but
end off "... noten hatorah ("noten" is present tense -- gives/is giving).

Therefore, he and the Meil Tzedaka (42) advocate saying "nehiyeh." The
Meil Tzedaka's and Magen Avraham's final positions are not clear. One can
also take issue with Rav Yaakov Emden's chiddush that Shehakol focuses
on creation. Why should all other birchot hanehenin focus on the specific
food and this one focus on creation?

It is more likely that we use general terminology for specific foods that
do not fit into a specific category. Regarding Talmudic precedent, the
Magen Avraham also cites a Yerushalmi (Brachot 8:5) that one should not
learn from Borei Meorei Haesh because the language should be appropriate
for commemorating the original creation of fire. Regarding Hamotzi, the
Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 167) knew a version of the Gemara that Hamotzi
is in the present, and the Meil Tzedaka explains our text as just wanting
to avoid future tense, but these positions are of a small minority.

What do we do with the Gemara's contention that Hamotzi uses past
tense? Don't we know from "Dikduk 101" that "hotzi" is past, "motzi"
is present and "yotzi" is future?! The answer is that "Hamotzi," and
"Borei," ... in various brachot are not verbs but nouns. We are giving
Hashem the title of "the extractor" of bread, "the creator" of foods...
In Hebrew, the noun/title is formed by using a present verb form. Now,
one can earn a title by what he did in the past, is doing in the present
or will do in the future (or any combination of them). The Gemara posits
that the title must be compatible with the past tense. In contrast,
in Shehakol, "nehiya" is not a title but a real verb. Therefore, if
one uses the present tense, he is stressing the present (much more than
borei does), which the Gemara seems to object to.

One is yotzei the bracha with either form he uses. In kriat haTorah,
subtle meaning changes are problematic, but regarding brachot, the
deciding factor is the basic idea. While the Gemara (Brachot 40b) cites
an opinion that changing a bracha's formulation disqualifies it, that
is for major changes. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 167:10 shows how far
one can be off and be yotzei.