[Avodah] New Brachos

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

One cannot investigate the concept of "bracha Lvatalah" very far without running into the claim that it is connected to Lo Tisa. But I never understood that. If one says a well-intentioned prayer, how can one claim that he has taken Hashem's name in vain? Beyond Lo Tisa, it also conencted to the issurim of shevuos of various kinds, and I never understood that either. I am blessing, not swearing.

But R"n Chana Luntz's post has opened my eyes, and I thank her. There are many many kinds of oaths, and often, the determination of whether something is an oath or not will sometime depend merely on the context. For example, Hashem's repetition of the phrase "lo osif - I will not continue" a second time (Bereshis 8:21) is what made it into a *shevua* that He would no longer continue, according to Rashi. (Thanks to Wikipedia for that example.)

If so, then it is only my mistaken opinion that a blessing is not an oath. Chazal feel differently and say that it *is*. RCL wrote:

> If you understand this in the context of the discussion vis a
> vis shevuos, you can understand that if a bracha is the formula
> to be said to permit eating the steak, then if you say the
> bracha and you do not eat the steak, then you are effectively
> making a statement, using the Shem Hashem, which says sheochal,
> and then you do not eat, which is shav indeed (or sheker, but
> I don't think it really matters which pasuk we are talking
> about here - note that the gemora there prefers to use shav to
> describe sheachalti, or shelo achalti, ie about the past,
> which would seem to make the terms sheker more applicable.
> Note also that on 21a it understands shav to apply only when
> the statement is to contradict that which is well known with
> the other psukim applying to the four references to eating).

I have not learned that Gemara, so I'm not familiar with the ideas you're bringing. But I am coming around to the idea that when Chazal designed a bracha (whether they specified the precise text is irrelevant), they made it equivalent to an oath. In doing so, they invoke a whole set of rules about what that bracha means and when it can be said. Perhaps this is also why it is important to have a precise definition of what is and is not a bracha: it must contain Shem and Malchus.

For example, Hamotzi is equivalent to swearing that one will now eat some bread; if he does not do so then it is equivalent to a false oath. Similarly, if he says Shehakol during a Hamotzi meal and does eat the shehakol food, it is not a false oath, but it is an unnecessary oath.

But, if it is a bracha which Chazal did NOT design, then it does not have any rules which define its meaning. That is why it cannot be considered equivalent to an oath, and is exempted from these entire categories of Bracha L'vatalah and Bracha She'eina Tzricha. (Only the brachos which Chazal designed can fall into these categories. For example, suppose someone says Al Hamichya BEFORE eating some cake. From the text, it is not necessarily a Bracha Acharona; one could argue that it is a valid Bracha Rishona but that he is guilty of changing the "matbea shetiv'u chachamim" - he changed the form from that specified by the Chachamim. But my guess is that it *would* be a Bracha L'vatala, because Chazal defined Al Hamichya as a shevua thanking Hashem AFTER one eats, and he did not eat anything beforehand.)

I can now retract my previous post, in which I said that a brand-new, original bracha would be the worst kind of bracha Lvatalah, because it is totally wasted, not filling any need seen by Chazal. Instead, it seems that new brachos escape this category on a technicality, because they cannot be defined as oaths.

I hope the above makes sense and is correct. If anyone disagrees, please suggest another explanation of why New Brachos don't count as L'vatala. But if the above is correct, then perhaps this thread can be considered answered and closed.

Akiva Miller

PS --- I was looking for an example of such a new bracha, and I wrote:

> But suppose I am walking down the street and I see a very pretty rock.
> It is so pretty that I want to praise HaShem for it, so I say, with
> Shem and Malchus and in Hebrew, "Baruch Hashem Who makes pretty rocks."
> That's NOT assur.

RCL and R' Arie Folger accept this example, and start analyzing its status as Birchas Hanehenin or Shevach, or perhaps something else. That is interesting, and I do not want to interrupt their discussion.

But, if anyone's curious I will lay out the criteria which led to my choice of using pretty rocks for my example. First of all, I needed a bracha which has never appeared in any siddur anywhere, because of that would lead to too many side conversations on ground which was already covered elsewhere. I considered something like "Who makes many kinds of cheese", but then we would get sidetracked on whether or not this was in fact an already-existing bracha, and that the only problem is that of deviating from the standard text. I needed something totally original, and pretty rocks was the best I could come up with. Nehenin or shevach never entered my mind.

____________________________________________________________
Nutrition
Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=baHD0G6RBoEmloh9dAsGrQAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=