Psa 145:1 | KD | STEP | With the collection draws doxologically towards its close. This Psalm, which begins in the form of the beracha (ברוך ה), is followed by another in which benedicam ( ) and benedicat ( ) is the favourite word. It is the only Psalm that bears the title תּהלּה, whose plural תּהלּים is become the collective name of the Psalms. In B. Berachoth 4 b it is distinguished by the apophthegm: “Every one who repeats the תהלה לדוד three times a day may be sure that he is a child of the world to come (בן העולם הבא).” And why? Not merely because this Psalm, as the Gemara says, אתיא באלף בית, i.e., follows the course of the alphabet (for Ps 119 is in fact also alphabetical, and that in an eightfold degree), and not merely because it celebrates God’s care for all creatures (for this the Great Hallel also does, ), but because it unites both these prominent qualities in itself (משׁום דאית ביה תרתי). In fact, is a celebration of the goodness of God which embraces every living thing, with which only , and not , can be compared. Valde sententiosus hic Psalmus est , says Bakius; and do we not find in this Psalm our favourite Benedicite and Oculi omnium which our children repeat before a meal? It is the ancient church’s Psalm for the noon-day repast (vid., Armknecht, Die heilige Psalmodie , 1855, S. 54); was also used at the holy communion, hence Chrysostom says it contains τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα, ἅπερ οἱ μεμυημένοι συνεχῶς ὑποψάλλουσι λέγοντες· Οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ πάντων εἰς σὲ ἐλπίζουσιν καὶ σὺ δίδως τὴν τροφὴν αὐτῶν ἐν εὐκαιρίᾳ. Κατὰ στοιχεῖον, observes Theodoret, καὶ οὗτος ὁ ὕμνος σύγκειται. The Psalm is distichic, and every first line of the distich has the ordinal letter; but the distich Nun is wanting. The Talmud ( loc cit. ) is of opinion that it is because the fatal נפלה ( ), which David, going on at once with סומך ה לכל־הנפלים, skips over, begins with Nun . On the other hand, Ewald, Vaihinger, and Sommer, like Grotius, think that the Nun -strophe has been lost. The lxx (but not Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, nor Jerome in his translation after the original text) gives such a strophe, perhaps out of a MS (like the Dublin Cod. Kennicot , 142) in which it was supplied: Πιστὸς (נאמן as in ) κύριος ἐν (πᾶσι) τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (according with , with the change only of two words of this distich). Hitzig is of opinion that the original Nun -strophe has been welded into ; but only his clairvoyant-like historical discernment is able to amalgamate of this Psalm with our Psalms 145. We are contented to see in the omission of the Nun -strophe an example of that freedom with which the Old Testament poets are wont to handle this kind of forms. Likewise there is no reason apparent for there fact that Jeremiah has chosen in , , and of the Lamentations to make the Ajin -strophe follow the Pe -strophe three times, whilst in it precedes it.

‏ Psalms 145:1

Hymn in Praise of the All-Bountiful King

With Psa 144:1-15 the collection draws doxologically towards its close. This Psalm, which begins in the form of the beracha (ברוך ה), is followed by another in which benedicam (Psa 145:1-2) and benedicat (Psa 145:21) is the favourite word. It is the only Psalm that bears the title תּהלּה, whose plural תּהלּים is become the collective name of the Psalms. In B. Berachoth 4 b it is distinguished by the apophthegm: “Every one who repeats the תהלה לדוד three times a day may be sure that he is a child of the world to come (בן העולם הבא).” And why? Not merely because this Psalm, as the Gemara says, אתיא באלף בית, i.e., follows the course of the alphabet (for Ps 119 is in fact also alphabetical, and that in an eightfold degree), and not merely because it celebrates God’s care for all creatures (for this the Great Hallel also does, Psa 136:25), but because it unites both these prominent qualities in itself (משׁום דאית ביה תרתי). In fact, Psa 145:16 is a celebration of the goodness of God which embraces every living thing, with which only Psa 136:25, and not Psa 111:5, can be compared. Valde sententiosus hic Psalmus est, says Bakius; and do we not find in this Psalm our favourite Benedicite and Oculi omnium which our children repeat before a meal? It is the ancient church’s Psalm for the noon-day repast (vid., Armknecht, Die heilige Psalmodie, 1855, S. 54); Psa 145:15 was also used at the holy communion, hence Chrysostom says it contains τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα, ἅπερ οἱ μεμυημένοι συνεχῶς ὑποψάλλουσι λέγοντες· Οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ πάντων εἰς σὲ ἐλπίζουσιν καὶ σὺ δίδως τὴν τροφὴν αὐτῶν ἐν εὐκαιρίᾳ. Κατὰ στοιχεῖον, observes Theodoret, καὶ οὗτος ὁ ὕμνος σύγκειται. The Psalm is distichic, and every first line of the distich has the ordinal letter; but the distich Nun is wanting. The Talmud (loc cit.) is of opinion that it is because the fatal נפלה (Amo 5:2), which David, going on at once with סומך ה לכל־הנפלים, skips over, begins with Nun. On the other hand, Ewald, Vaihinger, and Sommer, like Grotius, think that the Nun-strophe has been lost. The lxx (but not Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, nor Jerome in his translation after the original text) gives such a strophe, perhaps out of a MS (like the Dublin Cod. Kennicot, 142) in which it was supplied: Πιστὸς (נאמן as in Psa 111:7) κύριος ἐν (πᾶσι) τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (according with Psa 145:17, with the change only of two words of this distich). Hitzig is of opinion that the original Nun-strophe has been welded into Psa 141:1-10; but only his clairvoyant-like historical discernment is able to amalgamate Psa 145:6 of this Psalm with our Psalms 145. We are contented to see in the omission of the Nun-strophe an example of that freedom with which the Old Testament poets are wont to handle this kind of forms. Likewise there is no reason apparent for there fact that Jeremiah has chosen in Lam 2:1, Lam 3:1, and Lam 4:1 of the Lamentations to make the Ajin-strophe follow the Pe-strophe three times, whilst in Lam 1:1 it precedes it.