The Magen Avrohom suggests (and seems to conclude) that the proper pronunciation is "nihiyah" - "came into being"

Perhaps, but that is at odds with everyone else, every siddur in which I have consulted, and the fact that there isn't a consistent nifal form for H"Y"H. "Existing" is intrinsically passive, so nifal would be redundant. Can you point to the M"A so I may look at it inside? He may be dealing with my point - why would the bracha be future tense? A: It must be past tense and we're mispronouncing it...

167:8. He cites "nihiyeh" with segol as being tense-neutral (or appropriate for both future and past, according to Levushei S'rad there), not future. He cites Shiltei Giborim and Knesses Hagedolah as נהיה being past tense.

In the middle of Betzias HaPas? Are you sure? I can't seem to find it. Regardless, saying that the segol is tense neutral means that all instances in Tanach are tense neutral: Ehyeh, Yihyeh, Tihyeh, Yihyu, and Tihyu are all considered future tense. Future plural is the only one missing from the list. It's a stretch to say that it's somehow an exception to the grammatical rules. Why wouldn't it be simply Shehakol Hayah, which is definitely past tense? Or you could omit the word entirely and retain the meaning without linguistic ambiguity?

Because it isn't "was" - it's "came into being"

That would necessitate a lashon of creation - briyah, yetzirah, or asiyah. It should then say "nivra bidvaro." HYH is unfit for the translation provided. Please provide another instance of a nifal HYH for a linguistic source.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. "Nihiyeh" is not future tense of hyh. Unless you think it means "we will be" and your blessing of shehakol is that everything we will be as his word, and is a nonsensical statement. If you want to argue with the Magen Avrohom and the heavy list that he quotes, be my guest. But no one in that sugya says it is future tense - the closest it gets is neutral.

Everyone is discussing whether or not past tense is better or neutral. Everyone agrees we are not aiming for future.

No, the sources you mention discuss it, but everyone else may well accept that it is in fact using the future tense. Again, please provide another example of the nifal past tense conjugation of HYH. Or any tense, really. I'm not picky.

Shemos 11:5. Devarim 27:9. Shoftim 20:3. But you aren't going anywhere - are you calling the Magen Avrohom and Knesses Hagedola wrong?

And "no one says what I say, but maybe everyone who didn't say the opposite of what I say really secretly agrees with me" is quite a weak argument.

If you look through the sugya, it's poshut why no one agrees with you - the sugya of berachos is explicit that either lashon beinoni or lashon avar is the desirable choice for berachos, and everyone is only arguing about if it's beinoni or avar, and if נהיה with a patach or segol is avar or beinoni.

@YeZ I have not been able to locate the sugya of which you speak, which is the reason why I cannot address those opinions directly. I will continue to look for them inside, but please do not assume willful ignorance or malice on my part - I am earnestly trying to learn as best as I am able.

Thank you for providing me with possukim to look at, I couldn't think of any myself

Shemos 11:6 is vav hahipuch from past tense kal

@IsaacKotlicky I wish you hatzlacha. You looked for the Magen Avraham? It's the last one on this page.

Devarim 27:9 doesn't use a segol, but it was the closest one I could think of

@IsaacKotlicky You asked for any nifal and didn't mind what tense.

I agree, but the point is that the MA said that the segolete could fit into this past tense nifal binyan, but the possuk doesn't seem to support that

thank you fir the link, btw. I don't have a straight SA and I couldn't find one online.

The sugya is in Berachos about Hamotzi and about me'orei ha'esh. Hamotzi is around the bottom of 38a and me'orei ha'esh is around 53a.

Those dapim might be off by a few.

I recall those, but I didn't recall a discussion on shehakol

there is no discussion of shehakol - the poskim who discuss it all assume that those 2 examples are giving the basic principle for all berachos.

the way it seemed explained to me is that shehakol doesn't involve a verb that requires that tensing - we aren't praising Hashem for an action that He engaged in

@IsaacKotlicky bookmark this link - beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx - it's useful to have.

Otherwise we would have used a different verb

I like the site, but sometimes the text is hard to discern. I know a guy who works with them

@IsaacKotlicky that copy of shulchan aruch is consistently good.

it's more my monitor than anything else.

@IsaacKotlicky Ah. Well I can't help you with that.

@IsaacKotlicky According you you it is also being "tensed" into future tense. I'm not quite sure how, but that's what it seems you are saying.

:) I know, right? eventually I'll get myself set up onto my normal monitor... Additionally, the purpose of the Shehakol drash was more florid than sourcing

it was one I used at a very unfortunate burial last friday

For other berachot we are directly praising hashem's action, but we don't do that for shehakol.

Also, shoftim 20:3 would have been the proper past tense nifal to use

so nihyah would fit, but nihyeh with a segol certainly wouldn't

@IsaacKotlicky I'm not sure what the word means in past tense according to the Chelkas Mechokek he quotes. So it's hard to know what the conjugation should or shouldn't be.

it's confusing because ChM (or MA givign him a reason) says the segol version is beinoni, but borei and the like is with a tseire and NOT a segol

btw, thank you for taking the time to talk to me in chat about this. I feel a lot better about our conversation this way

@IsaacKotlicky the point isn't the specific nikud used for each word. In different binyonim different vowels do different things.

I know

@IsaacKotlicky Sure thing. I am going to have to go soon, however.

me too

last line in the MA is odd

B"S only argue by fire, but agree by plants that it is borei, since they annually grow

(most) shehakol items fall more under the former than the latter category

novlos would be the exception

also, the first line of that admits that there are gersot chalukot before he asserts the gemara's line about it being avar

MA is saying what he does SPECIFICALLY TO BE CHOLEK on existing opinions.

Regardless, still a tzaruch iyyun for me

חלוקות. ולגירסא אחת קאי הברכה על להבא: From the Levushei Srid on that page

@IsaacKotlicky You should look up the Beis Yosef he is quoting.

beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x792

As well as the perisha there.

certainly will do! I always appreciate more mekorot to learn (my wife, however...)

@IsaacKotlicky Don't worry, I won't give any mekoros to your wife! :)

:) I'm wondering why no one talks about this in the actual halachos of shehakol! Also, everyone just abbreviates it to shehakol...

@IsaacKotlicky I noted this point when I learned hilchos berachos. There is I think one place where the mechaber writes out the whole beracha (although he has no nekudos so it doesn't really help anything)

facepalm

I think it was more than one. But it was noticeably rare.

@IsaacKotlicky I'm old and outdated. You'll have to explain what facepalm means.

when you cover your face with your palm out of frustration or embarrassment for someone else

Aha.

Clarification: according to the understanding that Nihyeh as a future tense plural construct, the Dibbur is what took place in the past that we are giving praise for - briyas ha'olam

The motzi/hamotzi debate has to do with whether this is shevach (hoveh - motzi) or hoda (avar - hamotzi)

both of which mean that the operating verb is HASHEM's action or capacity

If we read it as Nihyah, then it doesn't fit into those categories - we're praising Hashem that creation lined up with what he said? but no one is "acting"

and, on the contrary, we find that in the briyas ha'olom it DIDN'T perfectly line up - etz oseh pri vs. etz pri oseh pri and the rashi there

Do we have a chelkas mechokek to see inside what his explanation is?

i can only find one on even ha'ezer. no help there.

So nihyah would certainly not be a hodah (which is the form we use for hamotzi) and could only be a shver shevach

Shebidvaro nihyah hakol would be an actual shevach of hashem's koach hadibbur to create

or rather Shebidvaro hakol nihyah