[Avodah] The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 04:31:57PM +0000, rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com wrote:
: Micha:
:> According to the Rambam, shas is basically a BD; there is no room for
:> exceptions.

: First where did the Rambam say it? He clearly says in haqdamah that the
: hilluq between talmud and post-Talmud is that Talmud was accepted by all
: of Israel. Now he may have stated otherwise elsewhere, but where is it?

Actually, he says that the common acceptance gives them the authority of
BD. I wrote "basically a BD", I should have said "effectively a BD"; but
in either case, I did not mean "literally". (Although Faur does believe
that the Rambam meant "sof hora'ah" was caused by the end of the actual
BD, that's not the position I'm espousing.)

See the haqdamah, #30, which opens: Ule'achar beis dino shel R' Ashi,
shechibeir hatalmud biymi beno vegamro... After R' Ashi's beis din,
BY spread out to the four corners of the earth and it was impossible to
follow one BD anymore.

: Second we can show dozens if. Not hundreds of exceptions to Rambam
: slavishly following Bavli.

There appears to be a rule to them. Rambam follows named opinions in
the Bavli, but follows the Y-mi or another source when they present a
named source which conflicts with the stam gemara.

Of course, if this is because he held that in those cases the stam
post-dates BDo shel R' Ashi, you have an easy explanation. Or perhaps
he held that you don't pasqen from lomdus (shaqla vetarya) when there
was halakhah pesuqah available. It would depend on how he defines
"hora'ah".

...
: as including:
:     Mishnah 
:     Tosefta 
:     Y-lmi
:     Sifra
:     Sifrei
: [Don't ask me where m'chilta went - also see Maran's haqdamah to SA]

"The" Mekhilta was devei R' Yishmael. There is a Mekhilta deRashby, but
I don't know anyone would just call it "mekhilta" without an adjective.
Sifra and Sifrei, at least those that still existed in the Rambam's day,
were devei R' Aqiva.

I think the exclusion of R' Yishmael's beis medrash's sefarim from the
Rambam's "canon" isn't coincidental, since it's R' Aqiva's beis medrash
that "won" when we accepted the mishnah.

...
:> I don't know if the parallel could be made between berakhos and all three
:> of the Rambam's categories.

: No anology is perfect.

Which is why I am afraid of relying on analogies. Heqesh and g"sh
require a mesorah for a reason. You can't tell when you created a bad
law by extending an analogy beyond its limits.


On a related note, but I just don't know the difference between this
thread and the one titled "New Brachos" to know if I'm really replying
to something said here...

There are multiple ways to define new berakhos:
a- A new matbei'ah said at an already accepted occasion for saying one.

b- Saying an existing berakhaha at a time what until now didn't call for
   one.

Of course, a berakhah could be an entirely new thing:
c- All of the above.

For example: If there was "always" a machloqes about saying berakhos on
minhagim (or about women making berakhos on mitzvos from which they are
peturos, which I think are aspects of one underlying machloqes) then
"al mitzvas tzitzis" would be in category a.

However, if the machloqes is due to some Ashk innocation, then saying
"lehadliq neir shel Chanukah" would be in category b.

Notice that my examples for these two cases are mutually exclusive --
depending upon the antiquity of the machloqes I have an example of (a)
or of (b). I can't think of an example of a totally new matbei'ah said
on a totally new occasion.

Is it possible that the kelal about berakhos that post-date Chazal
refers to either (a) or (b) in particular? In which case, these new
berakhos (of category (b) or (a) whichever remains) would be well within
the freedom we have to alter/personalize liturgy.


...
: Some say Tosafos went too far. In my experience I have only found about
: 3-6 cases where I would concede tosafos went too far. The MAHARAL
: [notice the moreinu!] felt otherwise

I think it's the Rambam who "went" anywhere. And that he underwent this
transition in how he understood the nature of mesorah in the time
between Peirush haMishnayos and the Yad.

In Iggeros haRambam (Shilat ed pg 647, 305), the Rambam laments
that he relied on the geonim's understanding rather than
looking at the sources from a clean slate. (Hat tip to RET in
v26n176.) There is some indication (cf R' Asher Buchman's article
in Hakira vol 8) that perhaps the Rambam intended to not-name the
Rif as the source of this "error".

This relates to my theory in
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/08/postmodernism-and-mesorah.shtml
(developed here in response to an aside made by RMM):
    Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral
    Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in
    the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical
    intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than
    what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that
    intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes
    of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be,
    which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas
    Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of
    Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement.

    Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a
    statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being
    within current that runs through history from creation to redemption.
...
    Both the classical academic and the Deconstructionist share
    one thing in common -- they see themselves as encountering the
    text. The idea is that the material is "other", outside, to remain
    objectively studied. One looks for the context for which the text
    was written. The other looks for how the text can be understood [by
    the reader today] with minimal assumptions about [original] context.
...
    The academic's job is the objective study of the material. Trying
    to get to the truth by eliminating personal bias and hidden
    assumptions. Talmud Torah is about internalizing the lessons of
    the Torah. Rather than trying to be objective, the entire goal
    is subjectivity. If mesorah is a discussion down the generations,
    studying Torah is adding one's voice to the conversation.

I'm suggesting that what I wrote was the understanding of most rishonim,
but not the Rambam.

I even think this unique position of the older Rambam relates to his
emphasis on knowledge as the path to redemption. This makes Torah about
determining Hashem's truth, and thus emphasizes original intent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha at aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507