Borei Nefashot

[Mark Symons]

Re the phrase "al kol mah shebarata" - what does it mean, and how does it fit in with the rest of the b'racha? Eg is it joined to the preceding phrase or to the following.one, or does it stand alone? Obviously the meaning would vary accordingly. To me the b'racha would make more sense if this phrase were left out completely. I wonder if there was an original nusach that didn't incude it.

Any thoughts?

Mark Symons

[Zev Sero]

No, it's in the original text, though the version we have reads "shebara",
continuing the third person rather than switching back to the second.
There is a full stop before it, and it begins the second sentence.
(Tosfos Brachos 37a, top of the page)

--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

I have never seen a nusach without this phrase. And though lo roisis eino raiyao, as Uncle Leib used to say, for some things roisi is also eino raiyo. My reading is that it refers back to the previous phrase. v'chesronon al ko ma sheboroso; Who created numerous souls, with their needs for everything (else) that You created with which to give life to the soul of every living thing...

GEK

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 10:23:03 PM UTC-5, Zev Sero wrote:

> No, it's in the original text, though the version we have reads "shebara",

> continuing the third person rather than switching back to the second.

> There is a full stop before it, and it begins the second sentence.

> (Tosfos Brachos 37a, top of the page)

What do you mean "the version we have"? Who is this "we"? Nobody prays from the Tosafos in a Gemoro; we pray from the siddhur. And in my siddhur (as well as yours, Tehillas HaShem, page 95) the nusach is sheboroso, not sheboro, and the only stop is after nefesh kol choy.

GEK

[Zev Sero]

On 02/18/2016 08:50 AM, Giorgies E. Kepipesiom wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 10:23:03 PM UTC-5, Zev Sero wrote:
>
>> No, it's in the original text, though the version we have reads "shebara",
>> continuing the third person rather than switching back to the second.
>> There is a full stop before it, and it begins the second sentence.
>> (Tosfos Brachos 37a, top of the page)

> What do you mean "the version we have"? Who is this "we"?

All the standard editions of the original text have "shebara".

[Meir]

     According to your interpretation, it should gave read "v'chesronan l'chol ma shebarata," not "al kol."

---

From: davening-d...@googlegroups.com <davening-d...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Giorgies E. Kepipesiom <kepip...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:47 AM
To: Davening Discussions
Subject: [davening] Re: Borei Nefashot

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davening Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davening-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:52:36 AM UTC-5, meir b. wrote:

> According to your interpretation, it should gave read "v'chesronan l'chol ma shebarata," not "al kol."

Point taken. Amend translation to "their needs (depend) upon everything You created..."

GEK

[Sammy Noe]

It is my contention that the brocho begins with "al kol ma" - "boirei n'foshois" until "al kol ma' is an adjectival phrase.
As is " hamelech hamroimom l"vadoi mai'oz"; which is why I never separate it from "moh rabu ma'asecho", even on Shabbos when the convention is to sing each sentence individually.

[Mark Symons]

Sammy 

Not sure exactly what you mean. Could you give your translation of the whole Beracha with punctuation?

Mark S

[Meir]

     Blessed are You, Hashem, our G-d, King of the universe, Creator of many entities and their needs,  for all that You created to sustain the lives of all living creatures.

     (This is what I indicated earlier in the discussion, and what I assume Sammy means.)

Meir

---

From: davening-d...@googlegroups.com <davening-d...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mark Symons <msy...@alphalink.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:17 AM
To: Davening Discussions
Subject: Re: [davening] Borei Nefashot

 

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I have a friend who has specifically done research on the text of the bracha, and forwarded the query. Below is his response. Apologies if it is redundant with some of what has already been posted.

Jeremy

Short answer: I have looked at MANY versions of borei nefashot, and I have not
seen any versions without the phrase "al kol mah shebara(ta)".

bara vs. barata (which also comes up on the thread) is probably about 50/50

My inclination is to think that the text that appears in the Bavli in Berakhos
37a, 38b, and 44a is probably close to an "original" text (with all the
problems assuming that any manuscript text of liturgy can reflect an
"original" text).  there are various small variations, but they are all close
to: "bore nefashot rabbot ve-hesronan `al kol mah she-bara"

What IS  missing in MANY (if not most) versions (including the RaMBa"M in his
own handwriting in the perush ha-mishnayos) is the next phrase: "le-hahayot
bahem nefesh kol hai"

From my perspective, "al kol mah shebara" makes perfect sense, it's "bore
nefashot rabbot ve-hesronan" that is problmatic.  "bore nefashot" is the
"catchall" berakha that covers any and all foods that don't have specific
berakhot, and therefore "al kol mah shebara" makes perfect sense.

If the entire berakhah were: "BA'H EM'H `al kot mah shebarata" - I would be
very happy.  Eliezer Levy in Yesodot ha-Tefillah (p. 299-300) makes precisely
this claim.

The berakhah seems to have been adapted from the berakha aharonah for meat and
eggs mentioned in the yerushalmi, and the big question (to which i don't
currently have an answer) is why this berakha was chosen to edit/expand to
make into the "catchall".

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davening Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davening-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Associate Professor of Medicine at CUMC (Emergency Medicine)
Columbia University

[Mark Symons]

Here is a reply from a friend, Raf Dascalu (Raphael Dascalu <raf...@hotmail.com> ) :

"This is from memory, so I may be muddling things up a bit...

My friend and former havruta, R. Haggai Resnikoff, did some research on this, and this is what he came up with. 

It looks like there were originally two girsaot, and I believe one is reflected in Babylonian sources and the other in Palestinian sources. 

- One is בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שברא[ת]  (there are still different girsaot re bara vs barata); 

- The other is בורא [נ"א: אשר ברא] נפשות רבות להחיות בהן נפש כל חי. 

It should be clear from this that there is an original core  בורא [אשר ברא] נפשות רבות  that is being understood differently  according to each nosah: 

The former understands the “many living beings” to refer to those doing the consuming. 

The latter understands that expression to refer to beings that are consumed (Cf. the brokhe in the Yerushalmi, Berakhot 6:1בורא מיני נפשות before eating animal products.) 

If I have not butchered this entirely, the point is that על כל מה שברא[ת] refers to all the good stuff that sustains us and all other living beings. 

The combination of these two versions resulted in a very confusing nosah, but one of which I am very fond: The boundary between the consumers and the consumed is very blurry, just as it is in the world…  

(Btw the conflation of נוסחאות is very, very common. In the Gemara there is even a saying which is repeated again and again when different authorities say different things: הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו/לכולהו. I.e. "so let's just say them both/all.") "

Mark Symons

[Meir]

 As an aside to the topic:  the comment was made  that

>Btw the conflation of נוסחאות is very, very common. In the Gemara there is even a saying which is repeated again and again when >different authorities say different things: הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו/לכולהו. I.e. "so let's just say them both/all." 

 

     It is not repeated that often, appearing four or five times all told, and IIANM, it was said by the same person, רב פפא, in each case.

Meir