[Avodah] The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

I wrote:
> I want to suggest that there is no prescriptive prohibition
> against Post-Talmudic Brachos.

R"n Chana Luntz corrected me:

> I just don't think we can say that.
>
> The Rosh says explicitly (perek kama d'kiddushin siman 41
> and prek 8 of brachot siman 8) "shein lvarech shum bracha
> shelo nizkara b'talmud".  That sounds awfully like a prescriptive
> prohibition to me, and I certainly believe that is how it has
> been taken by everybody else.

Similarly R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:

> I don't understand how you can state that NO ONE claims this ban
> when that Rosh has been cited. True he did not say "UP TO NOW"
> so if that's your point that's something else.

Okay, I concede I was wrong. I didn't realize the Rosh wrote it so clearly, and I am now backing away from that point.

On the other hand, how do we fit this in with everything else?

RCL wrote:

> Now how to understand that Rosh is another question, especially
> when we consider all of the brachos that we say that do not
> appear in Shas.

and RRW wrote similarly:

> My issue with the Rosh's ban is that AFAIK it did NOT make it's
> way into the Tur - and if so - just how normative is it? [Caveat:
> If it does turn up in the Tur, then ignore this point]
>
> And As I construe the Rosh, he makes post-Talmud Policy Ban on
> new Brachos, [though with a lot of exceptions.]. IOW it's a
> POLICY not quite a P'saq.
>
> Also AISI the cut-off should have been GAONIM not Rav Ashi. It
> just maps the facts better and would leave fewer exceptions.

Okay, let's rephrase it. The Rosh *tried* to unilaterally ban post-Talmudic brachos, but it seems clear that this ban was not accepted, at least not fully. Alternatively, it was accepted, but with only to a point, with certain exceptions.

Either way, I think my main point still stands. Despite the Rosh's ban, there never was a specific cut-off, and instead there was a gradual drop-off. Far fewer brachos were proposed during the Geonim than during the Amoraim, and fewer still during the Rishonim. This is a function of Niskatnu Hadoros, where we get more and more reluctant and hesitant to accept the awesome responsibilities involved in composing new brachos.

As I see it, this is really not much different than what RRW wrote in the OP of this thread two weeks ago in Avodah Digest 27:8 --

> Those brachos such as "magbi'ah sh'falim" fail minhag. Thus
> they get rejected completely.
>
> Summary: with this approach it lays out the issue simply
> A Talmudic Brachos are a "national" given
> B Post-Talmudic Brachos are taluy on the minhag.

I imagine that RRW and I are not very far apart. The main point I'm making is that no era was monolithic, but that through *all* the eras, the older brachos stood a better chance of being accepted, and a better chance of being proposed to begin with. 

I think it also bears noting that almost all of the post-Talmudic brachos which got accepted can be viewed as a version of a Talmudic bracha. This includes al mitzvas Tefilin, al mitzvas Tzitzis, all of the Lehadlik Ner brachos, even She'asani Kirtzono. Even "al nekiyus yadaim", and Tosfos' "Al Ha'adamah" and R' Akiva Eiger's ""lodur bevayis sheyesh bo mezuzah" are merely a new form of an existing bracha. There were very very few truly new post-Talmudic brachos, possibly as few as two: Hanosen L'yaef koach, and Yiru Eineinu (in Maariv).

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Nutrition
Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=AP2NGgTeiAt5pEwx1qu1EQAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=