[Avodah] Shmoneh esrei 18/19?

[Jonathan Baker]

From: rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com
> David ? 

> > If one looks at the evidence there is no need for teirutzim. 
> > What is wrong with there having been tov b'rakhot instead of 
> > chai b'rakhot? If there is something very wrong with having 
> > had 17, should we, perhaps, combine two brakhot to return 
> > the present 19 back to the holy 18?
 
> Perhaps nothing wrong but IIRC the gmara in brachos links 18 with Psalm
> 29 having 18 hazkoros. And FWIW so does Baruch Hashem l'olam

So that's an older or Palestinian memra.

But the braita in Megillah which lists the brachot and the reasons that
each one is the natural successor to the previous one lists all 19.
 
> The way it was taught to me is that the original 18 went 2 ways:
> Up to 19 or maintaining 18 by contraction

> Saying. In EY they contracted 2 brachos to preserve 18 supports the idea
> that tefillah "yud cheis" is a long-standing term.

While what I understood from Netiv Binah and any number of other sources
was that in Bavel, where the Davidic dynasty continued in the office of
the Reish Galuta, they split out a separate bracha for Es Tzemach Dovid.
 
> While David may be correct historically I prefer the logic of the way I
> was taught because it all fits together. 17 doesn't seem to fit as well.

Nobody I know says "17".  When Samuel Klein "tikein" the Birchat haMinim,
it was a "correction" so that it would refer to the minim that existed in
his own day (Christians etc.) rather than, maybe, syncretists of the post
Bavel period.

IOW the bracha existed, but was out of date.  Meanwhile, in Bavel, they
created a 19th bracha.  But it was always 18 in EY, as evidence by the
Yerushalmi and Kallir, and now by the Geniza.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker at panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com