[Avodah] bracha on megilla

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:13pm GMT, RAM kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: Some posters have responded to this by distinguishing between (A)
: making a Birkas Hamitzvah on something which the gemara does not label
: as being a mitzvah, such as Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, and (B) a minhag
: of saying a bracha which is not mentioned in the gemara, such as Yiru
: Eineinu in maariv.

: I don't see much of a difference. Either way, it is a bracha which we
: are not authorized by the gemara to say, and so I want to know why it
: is not a bracha levatala.

Along similar lines, on Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:42am EDT, R Moshe
Y. Gluck responded to my making that distinction:
:> That too is a minhag to make a berakhah, not a berakhah on a minhag.
:> Those berakhos are *on* yayin and qedushas Shabbos.

: It's a Minhag to have that Yayin.

So, we have 3 possibilities:
1- A minhag that necessitates a berakhah. E.g. RMYG's case: Once you have
that yayin, even if it weren't for the purpose of a minhag, you would
still have to make the berakhah. The minhag necessitates a pe'ulah,
but it's not the minhag that makes the berakhah necessary, it's the
metzi'us it creates that does.

I would also put in this category Mes Soferim on making a berakhah
before and after Rus, Shir haShirim and Eikhah. (Why not Koheles? I
don't know. Esther is medivrei soferim, so not in the discussion.)

I don't think this is category is a problem at all. To move on to the
two that I feel require more work:

2- A berakhah on a minhag, oveir la'asiyasah, just as one would for
a derabanan.

3- A minhag that the etzem includes making a berakhah.

Back to RAM:
: I've heard it said that since we've accepted the minhag of saying
: Hallel on RC, and that minhag is binding, and therefore the bracha
: "Vitzivanu" is not untrue; Hashem *does* require us to say Hallel on RC
: (although this requirement is in Hilchos Nedarim rather than Hilchos RC).

: However, that argument only shows the bracha to be true. But just
: because the words of a bracha are true is not enough to remove it
: from being levatala...

He feels the same rationale should apply. Below I hope to explain how I
feel they differ in sevara.

For category 2:

I see the exact same reasoning as for a deRabbanan, where "lo sasur"
is not taken as merely sufficient to make the berakhah a true statement,
but also grounds to establish a berakhah.

The machloqes Ashk/Seph then boils down to whether you need Chazal
to be qov'im a berakhah, or whether the same reasoning as lo sasur is
sufficient without their declaration.

Ashk does not require a takanah before making a berakhah, and are
therefore leshitasam WRT also allowing women to make a berakhah before
being einan metzuvos ve'osos.

The precedent we base ourselves on (see Tosafos Berakhos 14a "yamim
shehayachid) is YT sheini shel galiyos. Rashi, WRT hoshanos (Sukka 44b)
one of our oldest and most hallowed minhagim (we arrange the calendar
so as not to have Hoshanah Rabba on Shabbos!), says that we do not make
berakhos on minhagim.

The Ran answers what Rashi does with YT sheini by saying that it's
not really a minhag; YT sheini is a din derabbanan to keep minhag avos
alive. (This would explain why we don't take it for granted to assume
the same rules for minhag when flying to or from chu"l.)

This doesn't work for the Rambam, who explicitly says that YT sheini
is a minhag (that obviously we do make berakhos on the mitzvos for)
and yet in Berakhos 11:16 he is clear that hoshanos and chatzi hallal
do not require a berakhah. The Rambam is altogether a different shitah,
because in our oft-discussed section in Mamrim on the authority of
beis din he includes minhag in "lo sasur". So why no berakhah in any
situation, shouldn't it be the same as a din derabbanan? I don't know.

Maybe a good brisker could make two types of minhagim.

The SA is altogether confusing, because he sets out the kelal that we
don't make berakhos on minhagim, but in neir Chanukah says a berakhah is
made in shul. Acharonim address this but the question is IMHO better
than any of the suggestions.

Just thinking out loud:
Also, one might argue that the minhag on YT sheini is to treat it like
YT rishon, and thus the minhag isn't only to eat matzah but also the "al
akhilas matzah" itself is part of the minhag. Not that we're making a
berakhah on matzas YT sheini, but we're making a berakhah as part of
imitating yesterday than eating matzah as part of imitating yesterday.

Which would bring us to category 3, the possibility of making a berakhah
as part of the minhag itself.

Here, none of the above sevarah works. Which, as I said, is why I
believe the categories are altogether different. The whole machloqes
Rashi/Tosafos/Rambam/SA is based on defining whether a minhag is a
tzivui.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
micha at aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous