Baruch sheAmar: Is it בפי עמו or בפה עמו?

In the tefillah of Baruch sheAmar, there are two variant nuschaot to convey the idea that Hashem is "lauded by the mouth of His people". One is הַמְהֻלָל בְּפִי עַמּוֹ and the other is הַמְהֻלָל בְּפֶה עַמּוֹ. On the level of pure dikduk, the obvious choice is בְּפִי עַמּוֹ. After all, Hebrew nouns come in two flavors, absolute and construct. Peh is the absolute form and means simply "mouth", which Pi is the construct form, and means "mouth of". Since the blessing refers to the mouth of Amo, "His people", it is the construct form, and so Pi is the grammatically correct selection.

Siddur Shiloh, the siddur I grew up with, has it as בְּפִי.

Artscroll, following several halachic and kabbalistic sources, has it as בְּפֶה.

As they explain in the footnote:

בְּפֶה עַמּוֹ -- By the mouth of His people. The Kabbalists comment that בְּפֶה has the numerical value of 87, and alludes to the number of words in this prayer. Magen Avraham and Mishnah Berurah (51:1) favor the usage of this word. Nevertheless, some commentators feel that the word בְּפִי, which has the same meaning, is the preferred grammatical form.

They could have done a better job in explaining the awkwardness of בְּפֶה, rather than just saying it has the same meaning but is the preferred grammatical form. It might have also been nice to point out which commentators say that בְּפִי is preferred.

Conversely, one could nicely emphasize the idea that this makes the prayer self-referential. That is, הַמְהֻלָל בְּפֶה עַמּוֹ means that He is praised by the 87 of his people, meaning by this Baruch sheAmar blessing we are saying right now, rather than being a reference to pesukei deZimra, the selections of praises upon which this blessing was indeed instituted.

To make the emphasis on the gematria of 87 more understandable, one could point to sefer Heichalot, cited by the Tur ad loc.

(As background, I would point out that there is a problem in that one cannot establish a post-Talmudic blessing, yet this is precisely what Baruch SheAmar is. The following origin story neatly resolves the issue.) Sefer Heichalot states that prayer was actually composed by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, and at the right time, a petek (slip of paper) descended from On High with the 87 words written on it. This corresponds to (Shir HaShirim 5:11) רֹאשׁוֹ כֶּתֶם פָּז, "his head is as the most fine gold". (And recall that this is the head of pesukei deZimra.) And indeed, the Tur states, in the Ashkenazic version, notes the Tur, there are precisely 87 words.

From the wording of the Tur, we can infer that in the non-Ashkenazic version, there were not 87 words, such that the reference to  רֹאשׁוֹ כֶּתֶם פָּז would not work. And, if the text somehow said הַמְהֻלָל בְּפֶה עַמּוֹ, it would not make any meaningful allusion to the prayer itself. Also, the strange, not-so-grammatical wording of הַמְהֻלָל בְּפֶה עַמּוֹ would have been something we would fully expect the Tur, Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (Cologne, 1270 - Toledo c.1340) to have noted, because its grammatical awkwardness stands out and it is relevant connection with these 87 words. This suggests to me that even in his days, the Ashkenazic text had בְּפִי.

The Abudraham (1350) also has בְּפִי.

In the Rambam's (1138-1204) version of Baruch SheAmar, in Seder Hatefillah, as well, it is בפי:

בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם, בָּרוּךְ הוּא.  בָּרוּךְ אוֹמֵר וְעוֹשֶׂה, בָּרוּךְ גּוֹזֵר וּמְקַיֵּם; בָּרוּךְ מְרַחֵם עַל הָאָרֶץ, בָּרוּךְ מְרַחֵם עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת; בָּרוּךְ מַעֲבִיר אֲפֵלָה וּמֵבִיא אוֹרָה, בָּרוּךְ מְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר טוֹב לִירֵאָיו.  בָּרוּךְ שְׁאֵין לְפָנָיו, לֹא עַוְלָה וְלֹא שִׁכְחָה, לֹא כָזָב וְלֹא מִרְמָה, לֹא מַשּׂוֹא פָנִים וְלֹא מִקַּח שֹׁחַד.  בָּרוּךְ אֵל חַי לָעַד, וְקַיָּם לָנֶצַח.  בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם, הָאֵל הַמְהֻלָּל בְּפִי עַמּוֹ, מְשֻׁבָּח וּמְפֹאָר בִּלְשׁוֹן כָּל חֲסִידָיו וַעֲבָדָיו; וּבְשִׁירֵי דָוִיד בֶּן יִשַׁי עַבְדְּךָ מְשִׁיחֶךָ, נְהַלֶּלְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ בִּשְׁבָחוֹ וּבְזִמְרוֹ, נוֹדָךְ נְשַׁבְּחָךְ נְפָאֲרָךְ נַמְלִיכָךְ, נַזְכִּיר שְׁמָךְ מַלְכֵּנוּ אֱלֹהֵינוּ יַחַד.  יָחִיד, חֵי הָעוֹלָמִים, מְשֻׁבָּח וּמְפֹאָר, עֲדֵי עַד שְׁמוֹ.  בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהוָה, מֶלֶךְ מְהֻלָּל בַּתֻּשְׁבָּחוֹת.

There are also 103 words, rather than 87.

See Magen Avraham, who says it is בפה, here. Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, in Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 51:2, writes similarly.

ואומרים בפה עמו ולא בפי 

The standard assumption is that there are kabbalistic reasons behind this version with בפה. As yaak wrote in a comment on an earlier post of mine on this subject:

The Nusah of "בפה עמו" is Kabbalistic. The Ben Ish Hai mentions it (in אות ז), quoting the ספר הכונות, which is synonymous with the פרי עץ חיים, which I found here (see ד"ה אך יש).

So, the Arizal (1534-1572) and Rav Chaim Vital (1543-1620) may be behind establishing this changed nusach, at this late date. Alternatively, it preexisted them and existed for kabbalistic reasons or non-kabbalistic reasons.

With this background in mind, let me introduce an eye-opening Minchas Shai (R' Yedidya Norzi, 1560-1626) on parshat Ekev. The pasuk in question is Devarim 8:3:

ג  וַיְעַנְּךָ, וַיַּרְעִבֶךָ, וַיַּאֲכִלְךָ אֶת-הַמָּן אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַעְתָּ, וְלֹא יָדְעוּן אֲבֹתֶיךָ:  לְמַעַן הוֹדִיעֲךָ, כִּי לֹא עַל-הַלֶּחֶם לְבַדּוֹ יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם--כִּי עַל-כָּל-מוֹצָא פִי-ה, יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם.

3 And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every thing that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Note the words motza fi Hashem. There is no dagesh in the letter פ of פי. Even though in general, the letters beged kefet at the start of a word gets a dagesh, if the previous word ends in an open syllable, meaning that it ends in a vowel rather than a consonant, and the trup on that previous word is the joining kind of trup (as in this case, a mercha) rather than the dividing kind, then the beged kefet does not get a dagesh.

Minchas Shai writes about this:

"מוֹצָא פִי-ה -- 'every beged kefet which follows the letters yud heh vav or aleph [that is, an open syllable] is fricative [without a dagesh], except for the exceptions. And many of them have a dagesh for the improvement of reading, such as this one, for it is not possible to say fi immediately prior to the [Divine] Name, for it is a disparaging language in French, and [Heaven] forfend to apply this to Hashem Yitbarach.' End quote, that which I have found.
And I have heard that in French, fi, the meaning is null and nothing. And in all the sefarim [Minchas Shai has seen] the פ is fricative, according to the rule. And we should not worry about the Grench language, because we do not cancel the operation of the Holy Tongue [Hebrew] because of other languages. And I have found as well, in Michah 4:4:

ד  וְיָשְׁבוּ, אִישׁ תַּחַת גַּפְנוֹ וְתַחַת תְּאֵנָתוֹ--וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד:  כִּי-פִי ה צְבָאוֹת, דִּבֵּר.

4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken.

where it is a fricative."

End quote of Minchas Shai.

What we see from here is that there was an opinion that one should modify this and other instances of fi to avoid disparaging Hashem when reading the Torah. And Minchas Shai disagreed with that approach.

Looking at the etymological dictionary for the English word fie, we see this entry:

fie (interj.) 

late 13c., possibly from Old French fi, exclamation of disapproval, and reinforced by a Scandinavian form (compare Old Norse fy); it's a general sound of disgust that seems to have developed independently in many languages.

This would then explain the development of the variant text of הַמְהֻלָל בְּפֶה עַמּוֹ in an utterly non-kabbalistic manner. That is, how could one possibly say that Hashem was praised by the fi of his nation? Fi is a term of disparagement! And so, just as certain Jews did this even for certain instances in reading the Torah, they did so as well for the places it occurred in prayer. Except rather that putting the dagesh in the letter פ, they simply changed it from construct form פי to absolute form פה.

What of the fact that there is a kabbalistic basis, and the tie-in to the gematria corresponding the number of words? I would answer that there are two different types of kabbalistic explanations for nusach and practice. One is an origin. Some practice was established by kabbalists, for kabbalistic reasons. The other is an explanation for existing practice. In such a case, the practice already exists, for practical or halachic reasons, and a kabbalist looks at it through the lens of kabbalah and shows how it is significant and meaningful. I would suggest that we are dealing here with the second kind of explanation.

After writing this theory in that other post, Menachem Mendel commented and called my attention to an article in a book by Dr. Naftali Weider:

Naftali Weider discussed fi/fe in his article on influences of non-Hebrew words on the liturgy. The bibliographic details are here. I don't have a scan of it so I can't send it to you, although a summary of his conclusions can be found here.

That summary is:

The article is titled תיקונים בנוסח התפילה בהשפעת לשונות לועזיות, and it is possible to see a summary and possibly even view that article here.

So indeed, the changed nusach preceded the Arizal, and extended across more of the liturgy, all instances of befi, including in the piyut of Keil Adon we say on Shabbat, which begins אל אדון על כל המעשים, ברוך ומבורך בפי כל הנשמה.

In terms of practice, how should one conduct oneself? I would say as follows. I am not a kabbalist, such that I would change from the grammatically correct, or preferred, for kabbalistic reasons. Maybe one can justify the kvetch in grammar by saying that on occasion, Hebrew will use mere apposition to express the construct form, but why go there? Further, as yaak pointed out, the changed nusach is actually counterproductive. In Yiddish, and in English as a derivative, it is "Feh!" that is a note of disgust or contempt, while the grammatical Fi (with a chirik) has no such connotation. It makes sense to prefer בפי. And since I grew up on Siddur Shiloh, and have always been somewhat ambivalent of which one to use, I would say בפי.

On the other hand, בפה is your existing custom, there might be issues with changing it. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't really matter. רחמנא ליבא בעי. It is our hearts, and intent, which Hashem wants. If you said something which was ultimately ungrammatical but justified by halachic works and by minhag, and you meant "the mouth of His people", then it is not the end of the world. You davened in a legitimate manner, and Hashem is not a pedantic grammarian who will reject your tefillot because of this.

Who Causest 'Jesus' to Flourish?? Unlikely

{Update: While my guesswork below was a good first attempt, the article in question is much more comprehensive. I still don't buy it, even after reading it, but read the update at the end for my brief take on it.}

Avakesh linked to an interesting article about Prof. Yehuda Liebes, which mentions his controversial theory about the bracha of matzmiach keren yeshua. The article does not give all the details, but I think I see enough to be able to reconstruct his argument, and enough to then explain why I think it is very unlikely. Creative, but unlikely. From the article in Haaretz:

The article scrutinizes the closing words of one of the blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh (18 Benedictions) prayer ("Et tzemah David avdekha mehera tazmiah, vekarno tarum biyeshuatekha, ki liyshuatekha kivinu kol hayom. Baruch atah Hashem, matzmiah keren Yeshu'a" - "Speedily cause the offspring of thy servant David to flourish, and let his glory be exalted by thy help, for we hope for thy deliverance all day. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who causest salvation to flourish").

Liebes argued that, logically, the blessing should have concluded with the words "matzmiah keren le'David" ("who causest David to flourish") but instead of "David" it says "Yeshu'a" - an allusion to Jesus, according to his interpretation.

Liebes: "There is evidence that this wording [matzmiah keren le'David] is the original and that it changed during the time when there was not yet a total disconnection between the Jewish-Christian sect and the Israelite religion. It appears that it was a Christian-Jew who chose to replace 'David' with 'Yeshu'a,' so that it would be possible, without forcing it, to also allude to the figure of Jesus."

Let us begin with the closing of the bracha, namely matzmiach keren yeshuah. Why does he say that "logically" it should have ended with matzmiach keren David? Because if we look up the pasuk, we find it in Tehillim 132:17:
שָׁם אַצְמִיחַ קֶרֶן לְדָוִד; עָרַכְתִּי נֵר, לִמְשִׁיחִי.

Thus, it is keren for David, not a keren for salvation. True, salvation is implicit in the pasuk and in the context (see the previous pasuk with states albish yesha), but a strict fealty to the pasuk would demand matzmiach keren David.

He mentioned other evidence. What other evidence is there? Well, there is the gemara which has a compelling tidbit. In Pesachim 117b {citing from my translation in the Rif}:

Rabba bar Shela said: In Shemoneh Esrei, {the 15th blessing ends} Matzmiach Yeshua {Who causes salvation to spring forth}. In the {third of the four blessings after the} haftara {which has similar content it ends}, Magen David {the Shield of David}.

In our own girsa in our gemaras, we have the word keren in there, matching our nusach, and better matching the pasuk in Tehillim, if that is its source.

So we see that an Amora relates these two endings, such that perhaps there is some connection there, some trace that it was originally magen david, or made some mention of David, similar to the haftarah.

Also, the closing should echo the beginning, which is the general rule in brachot, and the closer echoing would mention David.

However, I would respond as follows. First, if salvation is meant, yeshuah (with an ending heh) is not unexpected. It is unfortunate, or perhaps by design, that the Christian messiah and deity had that name, but that should not necessarily color our every experience or its every mention. Salvation finds itself in various contexts involving mashiach, and as mentioned, even was mentioned in Tehillim in the previous pasuk, which was Scripture which well predated Yushkah.

Yes, Chazal were well aware of the Biblical bases for the berachot. The blessings all borrow Biblical language by design. But they are not entirely constrained by it. Yotzer Or Uvorei Choshech, Oseh Shalom Uvoreh et haKol. The pasuk ends differently. That was a change, and it was not due to the tricky hand of some early Christian Jew. Brachot are influenced by Biblical language, but are not always entirely bound by it.

But since Chazal were aware of the ending, one might conflate or confuse the two, and so Rabba bar Shela had his statement distinguishing the two.

To me, the question is what it is the theme of the respective brachot. One nusach of the blessing from the Amidah:

אֶת צֶמַח דָּוִד עַבְדְּךָ מְהֵרָה תַצְמִיחַ, וְקַרְנוּ תָרוּם בִּישׁוּעָתֶךָ. כִּי לִישׁוּעָתְךָ קִוִּינוּ (וְצִפִּינוּ) כָל-הַיּוֹם.

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה', מַצְמִיחַ קֶרֶן יְשׁוּעָה.

I am personally used to saying ki kushyatecha kivina kol hayom, umetzapim liyshuah. This influential Christian not only modified the ending, but worked the there of salvation, yeshuah, throughout the entire bracha. Not so. Rather, the theme is salvation, from mashiach ben David, and since mashiach is from David, he gets a mention. But a very brief mention, in the beginning of the blessing. The theme is salvation, not David. The first phrase interprets that pasuk in Tehillim as mashiach, the offshoot of David; the next talks about lifting up his keren in salvation, which is the point; the next talks about our hopes of salvation; the next (in my own version) restates that. The closing should indeed echo the beginning, as is the rule by brachot. But this is a close enough echoing, and it also reinforces the theme throughout which is salvation. It is an excellent summing up, and much better, IMHO, than one which would end matzmiach keren David. I am not Judeo-Christian, and I would have changed it, had it been up to me. I don't believe it was changed.

For the sake of contrast, let us examine that which Rabba bar Shela contrasted it with, one of the blessings from the haftarah.

Look at the paragraph beginning samecheinu. It is also about mashiach, and so begins with Eliyahu HaNavi. But then it mentions, strongly, the kingdom of David Your annointed. It resumes with redemption. But then, how no stranger, not from the Davidic line, will sit on his throne, in a nice long phrase. And then how Hashem swore this to him, that David's light would not be snuffed, ever. Thus, while there is some focus on mashiach, a very strong theme is specifically the promise made to the person, and family, of David. As such, Magen David is an appropriate ending here. And while this strong argument can easily be made for the haftarah, one cannot assemble such an argument for the bracha in Shemoneh Esrei.

Now, maybe there is some other evidence I have missed, or have never seen. It certainly could be. Maybe I should actually bother to go read the article. ;)

Update: The following is my first reaction after skimming through the article. Many of my reactions don't make full sense without reading the article, so perhaps read it. I hope I have not introduced errors here:

Wolf2191 of Ishim veShittos helped me out by pointing me to the article about Matzmiach Keren Yeshuah.

See here - http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/masmiah.html

Liebes's article is available on his site - http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~liebes/zohar/matsmiah.doc

The second link is the article, while the first contains an attempted debunking, asking in part the question how it practically could have developed.

The article admittedly contains more elaborate proofs than I intuited, though some of what I wrote was present. To quickly summarize the points, as they occur:

1) The closing does not match the opening.
I think this is an overstatement. It fits well with the general theme, which is Hashem saving his nation, acting through his mashiach.

2) Based on Biblical idioms, it does not flow.
Here, there is an intensive analysis of each word and phrase. I think that such analysis can sometimes be peshat but, especially when taken to extremes, can easily be derash. Much of what he says here is extremely problematic appears to me as not problematic at all, or at the most, only a smidgen. And of course it is a reworking of Biblical phrases, with yeshuah put in to direct the message in accordance with the theme, so it can differ from Biblical idioms in this regard.

3) הצמחת הקרן should be for a man, not for a concept like salvation.
Unless the point is that it is not the salvation of the man, but the salvation coming for Hashem (and it is Hashem's salvation we are hoping for), through the intermediary of whichever mashiach he appoints.

4) Karno Tarum Biyshuatecha is not in the pasuk. It should perhaps be emended to an "original" bekhavod.
I don't buy that. Brachot are reworkings of Biblical text, and can easily assume new words not in the original pasuk, to reinforce a particular theme.

5) Magen David for the haftarah is also not original.
We'll have to evaluate it when we get to its place in the article. I am not so convinced.

6) Chachmei Yavneh did not like it and therefore they eliminated it.
See page 33 for an elaboration. Perhaps that was the way it happened, together will the addition of birchat hamminim, or perhaps it was redundant, or perhaps because they wanted to maintain 18 blessings, as many suggest. If they really didn't like it for that reason, surely they could have reasserted the ending of Magen David, if it was still extant, as seems from the haftara? Why eliminate it entirely?

7) Havinenu has David in that place:
ובצמיחת קרן לדוד עבדך ובעריכת נר לבן ישי משיחך
True, but that is a rewording of the pasuk in short, without the opportunity to expand on the theme. We get it anyway from meshichecha. This need not match the "original" closing of the full bracha.

8) The meaning of the terms.
I see now he mentions that perhaps those establishing the bracha did not follow the exact pattern of the Mikra. It is good to entertain this idea. His response is that it doesn't fit the pattern of the time the brachot were instituted, and it is upon others to prove otherwise.
I don't really agree with his close diyukim which brought us to the above analysis.

9) Ah, here is a point I missed. Apparently, some nuschaot in the haftara have the exact text of Et Tzemach, but just have a different closing. And then the statement from Rabba bar Shela which makes the distinction in the closing makes more sense. Also, masechet Soferim shows more fluidity there. Nice.

10) The nusach in Eretz Yisrael.
But that same nusach, at least in the haftarah, contains
אלהי דוד מצמיח ישועה לעמו ישראל!
How can one turn around and say elsewhere it is an addition from an early Jewish Christian? There is a theme even here of causing salvation to sprout, and Hashem being the actor.

11) Elokei David, in the full text, or in the excerpt, shows David is the focus of the bracha.
Unless it is a shorthand. And anyway, it does not show that David is the focus, but rather that Hashem is the focus. And if later on we say that Elokei David was deliberately all that was left in/inserted as a reaction to this blessing, how can we then say that this was the original text and focus?

12) Actions of 12th century kabbalists.
are no proof of anything. And may be attempts to incorporate brachot from the Yerushalmi.

13) Proof from Ben Sirah. I don't see this text in my Ben Sirah, but perhaps there are different versions. That is a nice proof.
But then, this is drawn from the pasuk, without the thematic development in the entire bracha.

And so on and so forth. I'm getting tired of summarizing.

My general feeling after reading the whole article is still that there is a theme which was being developed in Et Tzemach David, which is that we should merit Hashem's salvation via the melech hamashiach. And the repeated theme of salvation, and Hashem's salvation, is not out of place. While some texts may hew closer to the Biblical text, this is not surprising since they are drawing from that source. But it is not the act of some mischevious early Christian, but the shaping done by the one who crafted the bracha. The extremely close reading claiming things don't work out in the wording seem to me like drash, where the peshat answer may easily be "Nu, Nu, it is slightly awkward," or else that the problem is not really a problem at all. This all seems extremely speculative to me, even after reading the article. Perhaps this is just my own bias at play, though.

Asking For Health In The Yehi Ratzon On Shabbat Mevorchim

I thought I had a good response to a question on GlobalYeshiva, about why we do not ask Hashem for health in the Yehi Ratzon on Shabbos Mevorchim. And so I'll repeat it here.

My reply:

Great question!

I think the answer may be that we do!

In two places.

1) We say "Chayim shel chilutz atzamos." In Yevamos daf 102, Rabbi Eleazar says this was the best of the blessings (in the perek) and Rava says this refers to the strengthening of the bones. The basis is Yeshaya perek 58:11:
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1058.htm

וְנָחֲךָ ה, תָּמִיד, וְהִשְׂבִּיעַ בְּצַחְצָחוֹת נַפְשֶׁךָ, וְעַצְמֹתֶיךָ יַחֲלִיץ; וְהָיִיתָ, כְּגַן רָוֶה, וּכְמוֹצָא מַיִם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יְכַזְּבוּ מֵימָיו
"And the LORD will guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make strong thy bones; and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not."

And strong bones is a symptom, or may be associated with, at least, good health.

2) We also say "Chayim Aruchim." Or perhaps "Chayim Arukkim." These mean different things.

Apparently, Arukkim, with a dagesh chazak in the kaf, it means long life. In and of itself this would indicate good health. Or if there is illness, at least not fatal illness, for the result is long life.

But this is not on par with the rest of the items in the list, which are about *quality* of life rather than quantity of life.

Furthermore, we may draw a parallel to the same perek in Yeshaya, where this "chilutz atzamos" was brought from. That was pasuk 11, but we should look to pasuk 8:

אָז יִבָּקַע כַּשַּׁחַר אוֹרֶךָ, וַאֲרֻכָתְךָ מְהֵרָה תִצְמָח; וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ, כְּבוֹד ה יַאַסְפֶךָ
"Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the LORD shall be thy rearward."

וַאֲרֻכָתְךָ means "your healing." And Rashi says the same.

This would be what it would mean if it was Chayim Aruchim, rather than Chayim Arukkim. And I have heard in shul people saying Chayim Aruchim.