Rabbotai,
The Anshei Knesset Hagedola created the nussach for our Shemonah Esrai. What does R. Yehoshua mean by saying that we should daven a shortened version? Is it possible that he means to substitute their version with another one? There were neviim such as Zechariya and Malachi in the Anshei Knesset Hagedola.
Also - how did their original nussach change into different versions such as Ashkenaz, Sefard, Edot Hamizrach Sefarad, Italian and Arizal? Would anyone voluntarily edit the words of the Anshei Knesset Hagedola or did manuscript copiers and publishers make mistakes?
Thank you.
Samuel Kosofsky
1. As the questioner states, the Anshei Knesset ha'Gedolah instituted the form of Shemonah Esreh that we say today - see Berachos 33a, Megilah 17b.
2. The Meiri on our Mishnah (Berachos 28b) explains the view of Rav Yehoshua. He says that if a person is unable to concentrate(טרוד) , then he can reduce his Tefilah to the first three and the last three Berachos in full, and a middle Berachah of comprehensive nature to include all the rest. He continues:
"אע"פ שאנשי כנסת הגדולה י"ח תקנו ושהוא יכול לכון דעתו לכלם, מ"מ הואיל ובדרך כלל כלהו איתנהו בה והוא יש לו איזה טירדא אע"פ שהוא יכול לכוין לכלם יכול לפטור עצמו בה."
Rebbi Akiva disagrees, holding that טרדא alone is insufficient to exempt a person from the full Shemonah Esreh. It is only permissible to abbreviate where it is impossible for him to concentrate. The Halachah is set out in Orach Chaim 110:1, but there is a most instructive Biur Halachah there, that nowadays we do not abbreviate on the ground of lack of concentration for two reasons: (a) Because we would not concentrate any better on the shortened service and (b) Because if we say an abbreviated version of Shemonah Esreh we would never be able to say the full Shemonah Esreh, since we do not concentrate properly at any time.
It is thus so far clear that the Anshei Kneset ha'Gedolah promulgated the basic structure and order of the Shemonah Esreh, but permitted abbreviation in appropriate circumstances (which is the subject of the dispute in that Mishnah).
3. The question, however, is how much of the text of each of the Berachos comes from the Anshei Kneset ha'Gedolah, and to what extent can it be added to or interfered with? This impinges on the issue of the variant Nuscha'os.
(a) The Rashba and Ritva (Berachos 11a) state that the exact wording was not mandatory with the exception of specific phrases, such as those used for Tefilas Geshem and Tal:
וז"ל הרשב"א, "ונ"ל דמאי דקתני מקום שאמרו לקצר אינו רשאי להאריך מקום שאמרו להאריך אינו רשאי לקצר, לאו למימרא שאינו רשאי לקצר ולהאריך בנוסח הברכה כלומר לרבות ולמעט במלותיה, דא"כ היה להם לתקן נוסח כל ברכה וברכה במלות מנויות ובענינים ידועים ולהשמיענו כל ברכה וברכה בנוסחתה וזה לא מצינו בשום מקום, ולא אמרו אלא המלות שיש הקפדה בהן לבד כמחלוקתן בהזכרת גשמים וטל ורוחות וכן בברכת המזון שאמרו לקמן [מ"ט א'] כל שלא אמר ברית בארץ או שלא הזכיר מלכות בית דוד בבונה ירושלים מחזירין אותו ואם לא הזכיר תורה בארץ וכן בכיוצא בזה בקצת מלות באמת ויציב כגון יציאת מצרים ומלכות וקריעת ים סוף ומכת בכורים, אבל בשאר נוסח הברכות לא נתנו בהן חכמים שיעור שיאמר כך וכך מלות לא פחות ולא יותר ולא אמרו כמה מלות יאמר בזו ותקרא ארוכה או קצרה, ולא עוד אלא שבפירוש אמרו בי"ח של תפלה [ע"ז ח' א'] שאלו רצה להוסיף בכל ברכה וברכה מעין הברכה מוסיף ואפי' יהיו מלות התוספות יתרין על העיקר כו' " עכ"ל, ע"ש.
וכ"כ בתשובותו ח"א ס' תע"ג, ז"ל, "ולענין מה ששאלת בענין סדור שאתם נוהגים לומר: תשובה, בענין התפילות והסדורים אין המקומות שוין וכל אחד ואחד אומר כפי מקומו, ומכל מקום אם לא אמר כן אינו מעכב, שלא כדברי מי שאמר לכם שזה קרוי משנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים ולא יצא."
The Ritva there says that Piyutim are permitted to be added since the prohibition against adding to Tefilah only applies if it is added Derech Keva, in a permanent manner. In his Hilchos Berachos (6:14) the Ritva writes
וז"ל, "נוסח שום ברכה מדבריהם הוא וכל שלא אמרו אין קפידא בשינוי תיבה אם שינה או הוסיף אין להקפיד ובלבד שלא יעשה כן לכתחילה דרך קבע, שאם לא היה יוצא היה להם לחכמים לכתוב נוסח הברכות ולתת חשבון לתיבות וכו'."
On similar lines to the Rashba is also Avudraham (p. 105), who writes:
וז"ל, "יש אנשים שמנו התיבות שיש בכל ברכה וברכה משמ"ע והביאו פסוקים על כל ברכה מענינה שעולין תיבותיהם כמנין תיבות הברכה, וכן עשיתי אני בראשונה מנין כזה . ואח"כ נ"ל שאין לו יסוד ולא שורש כי לא תמצא מקום בעולם שאומר שמ"ע בענין אחד תיבה בתיבה אלא יש מוסיפין תיבות ויש גורעין ואם כן המנין הזה אינו מועיל אלא למי שעשאוהו לא לזולתו ולמה נטריח על הסופרים לכתבו עכ"ל."
(b) On the other hand, the Tur (quoting his brother, Rav Yechiel) at the end of Or ha'Chayim #113 gives a very careful, calculated word count for the first three Berachos and, in subsequent chapters, continues to provide counts for most of the remaining Berachos. In this he follows the view of his father, the Rosh (Teshuvos ha'Rosh 4:20). However, the Beis Yosef on this Tur pointedly quotes the above Avudraham, presumably to indicate that he disagrees with the Tur on this point.
Even the Tur does not preclude additions in all circumstances. In Tur OC 119 the Tur permits adding requests in a Berachah if they relate to the topic of that Berachah. In Tur OC 112 he approves of adding public needs and/or requests, and adding the "Krobetz" even in the first three Berachos.
4. Thus, it is not at all surprising that different texts have evolved in the differing communities. There is moreover another factor, namely the religious persecutions throughout the ages and in particular the censorship imposed by the Notzrim. This immediately explains the changes from the word "Minim" to "vela'Malshinim", and from "Malchus Zadon" to "Zeidim."
One thing has not changed and that is the Chasimah of the Berachos. It is remarkable that despite the differences in the body of the Berachos ("אמצע הברכות") virtually all Nuscha'os coincide in their Chasimos. This fits beautifully into the foregoing pieces, that it is only the middle of the Berachah which is elastic, whereas the Chasimas ha'Berachah is rigidly sacrosanct.
See the remarkable Ba'al ha'Turim at the end of Pekudei (Shmos 40:21) who counts 113 words total in the Chasimos of the 19 Berachos and what they represent. I also remember seeing somewhere that the number of letters in the Chasimos of all the 19 Berachos total 248, (excluding the words "Baruch Atah Hash-m"), which corresponds to the number of Mitzvos Aseh, limbs in the body, words in Kri'as Shema etc.
If one also adds in the 19 times "Baruch Atah Hash-m," 19 x 11=209, and 209+248=457, which is the exact Gematria of the first letters of every Pasuk in Keri'as Shema (including the sentence 'Baruch Shem etc.' and the 'Emes' at the end), as follows: The "Shin" of Shema = 300, Beis of Baruch = 2, followed by 5 "Vavim" = 30. Then, in Vehayah 7 Vavim + Heh + Lamed = 42 + 5 + 30 = 77. Then in va'Yomer 2 Vavs plus Dalet + Lamed + two Alephs = 48. Thus, 300 + 2 + 30 + 77 + 48 = 457 - Q.E.D.
5. This is why when it came to Yom Tov, it was not so easy to authorize the change of the Chasimos, and that explains the dichotomy between Israelis and Sefardim (who do not change the last Berachah on Yom Tov) and the Chutz la'Aretz Ashkenazim (who do change it); see on this my " Pearls of Light", Vol. 1, p. 70 et seq on the Yomim Nora'im prayers on this and for further insights.
Be well,
Rabbi Joseph Pearlman
Rebbe,
I discussed the issue with someone who is familiar with the history of the development of tefilla. He states: "Anyone who has studied the sources on Shemona Esrei should be aware that two versions of Shemona Esrei developed after the Churban; nusach bavel and nusach eretz yisroel. Although the main differences concern the bodies of each Bracha, there were some differences in the ending of some Brachot. "
This doesn't fit with Rabbi Pearlman's view that the chasimos are all virtually the same. Please discuss. Thanks.
B'kavod,
Sam Kosofsky
It is true that two Nuscha'os developed after the Churban. Nusach Bavel is the basis for our Nusach, while Nusach Eretz Yisrael (which was partially preserved in Nusach Italya) is no longer used. I assume that your friend is referring to the main difference in the Nuscha'os of Shemoneh Esreh, which was no less than the number of Berachos. In Eretz Yisrael, until the times of the Ge'onim Es Tzemach and veli'Yerushalayim Ircha were united into a single Berachah, as the Yerushalmi records them. We discussed this in detail in our Insights to Ta'anis (copied below).
Otherwise, the Chasimos are virtually identical. In general, the differences seem to involve the addition of a word in our present Nusach
1. The Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashanah 4:6) has "Marbeh Lislo'ach," while we add "Chanun ha'"
2. The Yerushalmi (Berachos 2:4) records the Berachah at the end of Teka b'Shofar as "Mekabetz Nidchei Yisrael," which is the wording used in the verse (Yeshayah 56:8), while we add "Amo Yisrael."
3. In v'Lamalshinim, we add "Shover Oyvim u'" while the Yerushalmi (Berachos 5:3) only has "Machni'a Zeidim."
4. In Al ha'Tzadikim, we add the word "Mish'an u'" while the Yerushalmi (Berachos 4:3) only has "Mivtach la'Tzadikim."
5. In Modim, the Yerushalmi records "ha'Tov Lecha Lehodos" (Yerushalmi Yoma 7:1, Sotah 7:6) based on Tehilim 92:2, while we add "Shimcha u' Lecha Na'eh Lehodos."
6. In Sim Shalom, the earlier Nusach (Sofrim 10:7, Vayikra Raba end of 9, Yalkut Shimoni 1:711 and 2:80) was "Oseh ha'Shalom" (which is preserved in the Nusach Ashkenaz version of the Berachah for the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah), while we say "ha'Mevarech Es Amo Yisrael ba'Shalom."
Regarding the first few changes (numbers 1-5) it is possible that the Yerushalmi is not presenting the exact text of the Berachah but rather an abbreviated version. If so, their Nusach is the same as our Nusach. (In fact, in Yalkut Shimoni 2:80 most of the above-mentioned Chasimos conform exactly to the Nusach that we use.)
As for the last one (Oseh ha'Shalom) in which we seem to not just add to the text but to actually change it, it is possible that the change was related to the Churban ha'Mikdash - a phenomenon that Rav Pearlman notes in his second discussion of the topic of variant Nuscha'os (see our discussion list on Berachos 58, section (b)). While the Beis ha'Mikdash was standing it was considered, in general, a time of Shalom. Therefore we blessed Hashem as the "Oseh ha'Shalom." Today, it is considered, in general, a time in which we lack Shalom (see Rosh Hashanah 18b, regarding the Ta'aniyos). We want Hashem to grant us Shalom, and we praise him as the "Mevarech Amo Yisrael ba'Shalom."
Be well,
Mordecai Kornfeld
(b) The TOSFOS RID here argues and says that the Beraisa says that the normal Shemoneh Esreh is comprised of 18 Berachos because the Beraisa holds that there indeed are only 18 Berachos! He cites a Tosefta in Berachos (end of ch. 3) to prove this. The Tosefta says that the 18 Berachos include the Berachah of "v'la'Malshinim," which includes mention of the Minim and the Posh'im, and another Berachah includes mention of David ha'Melech and the rebuilding of Yerushalayim. That is, the Berachos of "Es Tzemach David" and "Boneh Yerushalayim" are merged into one Berachah according to the Tosefta. The Tosefta concludes that if one recites two Berachos, mentioning David ha'Melech in one and the rebuilding of Yerushalayim in the other, he is Yotzei. This implies that, according to the Tosefta, l'Chatchilah the Berachos "Es Tzemach David" and "Boneh Yerushalayim" are one, and thus the Shemoneh Esreh has only 18 Berachos, even after the addition of the Berachah of "v'la'Malshinim."
This is reflected in the Piyutim, the additional prayers that were composed for the Shali'ach Tzibur to recite during each Berachah of Shemoneh Esreh on holidays and fasts, which reflect the theme of each Berachah; there are consistently only 18 of these additional prayers, and the one that discusses Yerushalayim is the same one that discusses David ha'Melech.
This was clearly the practice of the Yerushalmi (Berachos 4:5, Rosh Hashanah 4:6), he continues. The Yerushalmi says that the Chasimah of the end of one of the Berachos of Shemoneh Esreh is "Baruch Atah... Elokei David u'Voneh Yerushalayim," including both David ha'Melech and Binyan Yerushalayim in one Berachah. That is what the Beraisa means when it says that the Shemoneh Esreh has only 18 Berachos.
The Bavli, though, clearly counts "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach David" as two separate Berachos (Megilah 17b). In addition, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (107a) relates that David ha'Melech asked Hashem that mention of "Elokei David" be included in the Shemoneh Esreh, just like "Elokei Avraham." The Gemara says that Hashem did not acquiesce to David's request. Thus, the Bavli is consistent with its view that we do not say "Elokei David" in the Berachah of Boneh Yerushalayim, and instead we recite a separate Berachah of "Es Tzemach David." The Tosefta itself said that if one recites separate Berachos for David and Yerushalayim need not repeat the Shemoneh Esreh, and apprarently this was the practice adopted in Bavel.
Our practice today follows that of the Bavli. Rebbi Elazar ha'Kalir and the others who wrote the Piyutim, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, followed the practice of the Yerushalmi, and thus they wrote Piyutim for only 18 Berachos, keeping the Berachah of David ha'Melech and Binyan Yerushalayim as a single Berachah. That is why the Beraisa calls says that there are 18 Berachos in the Shemoneh Esreh.
Although it is no longer the practice to combine Es Tzemach and v'l'Yerushalayim in any communities today, as late as Seder Rav Amram Gaon we find the two Berachos recorded as a single Berachah. Even in our present Sidurim we find remnants of the original practice. In the Berachah of Boneh Yerushalayim that we recite today, we say "v'Chisei David...." This phrase is probably a remnant of the original practice of concluding the Berachah with the words, "Elokei David u'Voneh Yerushalayim," when the end of the Berachah (before the Chasimah) had to reflect the words said in the Chasimah. Rav Yehudah Landy adds that this is why the Berachah of Boneh Yerushalayim begins with a Vav - "v'le'Yerushalayim Ircha..." -- to denote that it had originally been a part of the previous Berachah, Es Tzemach. ("V'Lamalshinim" may begin with a "Vav" for a similar reason; it was an added Berachah, which was not originally part of the Shemoneh Esreh.)
It seems from the Tosfos Rid that the original practice, before the addition of the Berachah of "v'la'Malshinim," was that only 17 Berachos were recited in Shemoneh Esreh. This opinion maintains that when the additional Berachah of "v'la'Malshinim" was instituted in Yavneh, it brought the total up to 18, and not 19 Berachos. Indeed, the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabah 18:21, and Tanchuma, end of Parshas Korach, see also Midrash Tehilim 17:4) says this explicitly. The Midrash says that the number of Berachos in the Shemoneh Esreh is equal to the Gematriya of the word "Tov" (17). Even though we say 19 Berachos, originally the Shemoneh Esreh had only 17 Berachos, because "v'la'Malshinim" and "Es Tzemach David" were later additions. Es Tzemach, it states, was added even later than v'Lamalshinim.
(This does not seem ot agree with the way the story of Yavneh is brought by the Gemara in Berachos (28b), where it is clear that in Yavneh the 19th Berachah was added, and not the eighteenth. Apparently, although there were originally only 17 Berachos, the original enactment of Shemoneh Esreh included that it was optional for a person to split Es Tzemach and Boneh Yerushalayim, and to recite them as two Berachos -- as the Tosefta clearly permits. This was not permitted by any other Berachah. Therefore, both statements are true: In Yavneh the 18th Berachah was added, but that Berachah could also be viewed as the 19th, since if a person decides to split Es Tzemach and Boneh Yerushalayim the new Berachah would be the 19th. It is interesting to note that in the Yerushalmi's version of how v'la'Malshinim was added in Yavneh (Berachos 4:3 and Ta'anis 2:2), the Gemara indeed cites the story to explain why there are 18 and not just 17 Berachos, according to many Girsa'os.)
From the Bavli, which says that we do not say "Elokei David" in Tefilah, it appears that it had never been the practice to mention Elokei David. Apparently, before the Berachos of Es Tzemach and Boneh Yerushalayim were split the Chasimah was "Magen David v'Yerushalayim," and not Elokei David u'Voneh Yerushalayim. When the people from Bavel split the Berachah into two, the people from Eretz Yisrael instead gave the single Berachah a double ending, granting David special status by mentioning him separately in the Chasimah. The people of Bavel did not accept this practice for two reasons: 1. Because we should not mention Elokei David; 2. Because we do not include two subjects in the Chasimah of a single Berachah, as Rebbi says in Berachos 49a.
RAV DAVID COHEN (in a special section at the end of Ohel David vol. 2) uses this to explain the words of TOSFOS in Megilah (17b, DH v'David). Tosfos implies that Rashi had a tradition to count chapters 9 and 10 of Tehilim as one chapter. [Indeed, by looking at the chapters, we see a strong connection between the two, which implies that they should be connected. In chapter 9, every other verse starts with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet, but reaches only until the letter Kaf. The first verse in chapter 10 starts with the letter Lamed, and the last alternating verses of the chapter start with the letters Kuf, Reish, Shin, and Taf!] How did it happen, then, that in our books of Tehilim these chapters appear as two separate chapters
Rav David Cohen explains that originally they were one chapter and later the Chachamim split them into two chapters. The Gemara in Berachos (9b) says that originally, chapters 1 and 2 were one chapter. The MAHARSHA there explains that, according to the Gemara there, the first 18 Berachos of Shemoneh Esreh were made to correspond to the first 18 chapters of Tehilim, after which appears the verse, "Yiheyu l'Ratzon Imrei Fi...." When the Chachamim added a new Berachah in the Shemoneh Esreh, making a total of 19 Berachos, they wanted to add a new chapter in Tehilim so that the verse of "Yehiyu l'Ratzon" appears after 19 chapters, and therefore the split the first chapter into two.
Similarly, chapters 9 and 10 were originally one chapter. However, after the Chachamim added the Berachah of "Es Tzemach David" to Shemoneh Esreh they wanted to add a new chapter so that "Yiheyu l'Ratzon" would still appear after 19 chapters, and therefore they split another chapter of Tehilim into two chapters. (He points out that content of Mizorim 2 and 10 of Tehilim also corresponds to these two Berachos. The content of Mizmor 2 corresponds to Ez Tzemach, while that of Mizmor 10 corresponds to v'Lamalshinim.)