לעילוי נשמת

יואל אפרים בן אברהם עוזיאל זלצמן ז”ל

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.

Rabbi Mann is a dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University’s Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of “Living the Halachic Process Volumes 1 and 2” and “A Glimpse of Greatness.”