[Avodah] The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

Now that we've fleshed out a lot of basic concepts in the thread "New Brachos", I'd like to return to the original thread, "The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos", and apply them here.

I want to suggest that there is no prescriptive prohibition against Post-Talmudic Brachos. What we do have is a descriptive observation that we chose to avoid designing such brachos. There are indeed a few well-known exceptions, but (as RRW noted in the original post in this thread) they tend to be very old, from the Geonim. Some may be even more recent, but they become rarer and rarer as time goes on.

>From recent (and not-so-recent) posts, it seems that there was never any specific legislative body that composed an authoritative list of brachos, such that the ones on the list are legitimate, and ones which are not on the list are ispo facto illegitimate. (This is true for the general theme of each bracha, and even more so for the precise texts.)

For example, although "l'his'atef b'tzitzis" and "l'haniach tefillin" are legitimate brachos, this, in and of itself, does not mean that "al mitzvas tzitzis" and "al mitzvas tefillin" are illegitimate. They may or may not be, depending on all relevant factors.

R' Micha Berger had
> proposed looking at two distinct questions:
> 1- Does the situation call for a berakhah?
> 2- Is this berakhah an established nusach?

At first, I had thought that question #1 was unreasonable. I had thought that if the situation calls for a bracha, then Chazal would have established one. But now I accept that I was mistaken. The question of which situations require a bracha is somewhat fluid. It is entirely possible that a new situation could arise, where it is clear that a bracha is needed, but no pre-existing bracha seems to fit.

One example would be a garment which is clearly chayav in tzitzis, but to which atifa does not apply; one must say a Birkas Hamitzvah on it, but that bracha can't be L'his'atef B'tzitzis. Another example would be a food (toasted grains) which is clearly important enough to need a Bracha Me'en Shalosh afterwards, but no existing text seems to fit.

Those who take a hard line in this area (Sefardim) will tend to shy away from these new Brachos. Others (Ashkenazim) will be more accepting of them. But there is no real point of disagreement; the only real difference is how far to go, and where to draw the line. For example, if I'm not mistaken, although Sephardi individuals do not say a bracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, the Chazan does say it. And even Tosfos did not tell us to actually say an "Al Ha'adamah"; they were just perplexed about how to handle the situation.

There was a gradual phasing out over the centuries. Early on, it was easier to accept that a new bracha was needed and justified. Later, we became much more wary and reticent. It seems to me that this parallels another development, also intimately related to Lo Tisa. Except that this other development is that of Tefilos, not Brachos.

For many centuries it was quite common for authors to include the Shem in their prayers -- whether zemiros, piyutim, kinos, selichos, or whatever. But recently, this seems to have ground to a halt. Take a look at the post-Holocaust kinos, or any of the varied tefilos which have been written for the Israeli government, or the local government, or the Army, or the captives. They are almost totally devoid of any mention of HaShem's Name, except as part of a pasuk, and I can't help but wonder if the pasuk was included specifically as a way to invoke His Name without running a risk of it being in vain.

All the above is mere conjecture, submitted for your comments.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=DHy3H8QZ3L6mB8VukTdkAwAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=