Some bentchers include the pasuk 'poseach es yadecha..." at the end of the first paragraph of bentching (before the closing bracha), while others do not. What is the correct girsa? Are there different minhagim?
-
Well, Moshe certainly didn't have it when he wrote it. It's from a paragraph starting תהלה לדוד.– Double AA ♦Oct 16, 2012 at 20:43
-
2Seriously though, if you see it in different bentchers, why would you assume there are not different minhagim?– Double AA ♦Oct 16, 2012 at 20:44
-
@DoubleAA ummm... ok then– user1668Oct 16, 2012 at 20:45
-
1-1 as written. There is no such thing as an absolute correct nusach (except possibly in Tanach), and you testify to having seen multiple minhagim already in different bentchers.– Double AA ♦Oct 16, 2012 at 20:55
-
1So was I.– Double AA ♦Oct 16, 2012 at 20:59
|
Show 3 more comments
3 Answers
Kolbo (quoted by Beis Yosef 387) says not to say פותח את ידך for how could we bring a verse Dovid Hamelech said with the words of Moshe Rabeynu. However the Beis Yosef himself rebuts his reasoning (without explanation). The Ram"a in Darchei Moshe there says the custom is not to say it.
According to the Mabi"t (Sha'ar Hayesodos Perek 61) these words actually originated in Birkas Hamzon, and were later adapted into Tehillim by Dovid Hamelech. The Brisker Rov (quoted in Simchas Yavetz pg. 137) explains that therefore we say "כאמור" ("as it says") and not "ככתוב" ("as it is written"), as we do in the second blessing - since it was not yet written.
[However others (see Kesef Mishna to Hilchos Brachos 2:1) explain that this that it says in Brochos 48b that Moshe established the first blessing of Birkas Hamazon refers to just the general enactment and not the specific words].
-
Can you source that Moshe wrote the specific words of the prayer?– Double AA ♦Oct 17, 2012 at 2:48
-
-
@Michoel I know but that just says תיקן. Nothing about a proper nusach in the gemara.– Double AA ♦Oct 17, 2012 at 3:14
-
@DoubleAA The exact words is according to the linked Mabi"t (besides for the word כאמור which was added in the time of Dovid). Others argue, I'll try edit that in.– MichoelOct 17, 2012 at 3:16
-
Hmmm If the Mabit is willing to concede that the word Kaamur is added, why does he feel so forced to offer such a speculative suggestion?– Double AA ♦Oct 17, 2012 at 4:00
Artscroll Nusach Sefard has it, Artscroll Nusach Ashkenaz does not.
answered Oct 16, 2012 at 20:47
-
based on what sources?– user1668Oct 16, 2012 at 21:02
-
@PM Are you asking how GershonGold knows this? (I presume he checked himself in the siddur?/bentcher?.) Are you asking why they chose that?– Double AA ♦Oct 16, 2012 at 21:43
-
1
I once read in an Artscroll Birchat HaMazon (the one from the 70s with tons of commentary on the bottom) a discussion that went something like this:
Moshe Rabbeinu composed the first paragraph of Birchat HaMazon (Berachot 48B). As such, his version obviously did not have the line "As it is stated, You Open your hands...." (since David HaMelech hadn't written it yet).
However, the prayers we have today are the ones established by the Men of The Great Assmebly. When they finalized the nusach of the Birchat HaMazon, they added the one line to Moshe Rabbeinu's prayer.
Perhaps this is according to the opinion that adds the line to the Birchat HaMazon, while the version that does not add it is of the opinion that the Men of the Great Assembly did not add it to the prayer when finalizing it.
answered Oct 16, 2012 at 23:42
-
Can you source that Moshe composed the exact wording of the prayer?– Double AA ♦Oct 17, 2012 at 2:48
-
Since when does תיקן mean 'wrote all the words to'? (or composed for that matter)– Double AA ♦Oct 17, 2012 at 3:38
-
@DoubleAA: Since I don't have the artscroll birchat hamazon in front of me, I can't look it up. But that has always been my understanding of "Tikken" - See Michoel's answer for some sources that seem to hold that Moshe wrote the words (why else do they have to explain how "Ka'amur etc." ended up in the prayer)– MenachemOct 17, 2012 at 4:24
-
I'm not saying people don't hold that Shitta, just that the gemara alone is insufficient evidence IMO. If you have a rishon or someone specific who reads the Gemara that way, power to them. Otherwise I think the proper translation (certainly the most literal one) is established not composed.– Double AA ♦Oct 17, 2012 at 4:29
-
@DoubleAA Although the Mabi"t was not a Rishon, he certainly is one of the major early Achronim; contemporary and successor to the Beis Yosef etc.– MichoelOct 17, 2012 at 4:46