<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><body style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS",Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>Um, I said the norm for <em>berakhos</em>, is for a <em>chasimah</em> to describe G-d rather than discuss things He does. <strong>I said nothing about the Hebrew language. </strong>And that this preference for phrasing <em>chasimos</em> as descriptions would mean that "<em>Bonei Y-m</em>" would be a more likely <em>chasimah</em> than "<em>boneh Y-m</em>" even without AKhG's preference for quoting Tanakh.</p>
<p>We could discuss whether this would play out in "<em>haMeikhin mitz'adei gaver</em>" rather than "<em>asher heikhin</em>." (<em>Gever</em> vs <em>gaver</em> aside.) My sense of the norm for berakhos would advocate for the former. But in any case, even in the other version there is an "<em>asher</em>", making it a description of Him -- "<em>asher boneh Yerushalayim</em>", if you want to put more hypothetical options AKhG had to choose between on the table.</p>
<p>BTW, question just hit me: Why Tanakh? The canonization process was FAR from complete in their day. Do we ever find things in the older parts of the <em>siddur</em> like quotes / paraphrases of Ben Sira or Seifer haYovelim, or another of the apocrypha -- at least among those "kosher" enough for Chazal to later quote?</p>
<p><em style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap;">Tir'u baTov</em><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap;">!</span></p>
<div>
<pre>-Micha
<span style="font-family: 'courier new', courier;">--
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach</span></pre>
</div>
</body></html>