[Avodah] New Brachos

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

It seems that I am missing some extremely basic information on the definitions of Bracha L'vatala and Bracha She'eino Tzricha.

R"n Chana Luntz wrote:

> The classic case of a brocha sheaino tzricha is saying an
> extra brocha over a food during the course of the meal
> which is not necessary because of the earlier brochos said
> at the beginning of the meal.
>
> As I understand Tosphos and the Rosh, they are saying that
> such brochos are not actually forbidden d'orisa, not real
> brochos l'vatala, but are only forbidden d'rabbanan.  And
> that the further kinds of brochos you are discussing are
> not even brochos sheino tzricha (it is not as though they
> are covered by other brochos) and hence they are allowed.

I understand the first part of this. But the last part is a big chidush to me.

You seem to be saying this: If I am in the middle of a hamotzi meal, and I see and smell a really delicious steak in front of me, and so I thank HaShem for it by saying a Shehakol on eating it - that's assur. 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.

Can that be right? What am I getting backwards? I've always figured that if the brachos which Chazal composed can be said only in specific situations, then the brachos they did NOT compose can't be said at all.

Let's consider the literal meanings and classic examples of these two prohibitions. The lesser prohibition, "bracha she'eina tzricha", is an "unnecessary bracha", such as if I would say "shehakol" on a steak during a Hamotzi meal. This is considered an unnecessary bracha, because the steak (having been covered by the Hamotzi) does not need a bracha. The greater prohibition, "bracha l'vatala", is a "wasted bracha", such as if I would say, *not* during a meal, "shehakol" on a steak, with no intention of eating that steak. This is considered a wasted bracha, because even though my intention was to praise HaShem for this beautiful and delicious steak, that is not the function of this bracha. The function of this bracha, as intended by Chazal, was to permit eating the steak, and because I did not use the bracha for its intended function, it is considered as wasted.

I perceive a Kal Vachomer relationship here. The lesser prohibition is when I use a bracha for its intended purpose, but it was unnecessary for me to do so. The greater prohibition is when I use a bracha for other purposes, purposes for which it was *not* designed. Would it not be even much more prohibited to bless Hashem with a bracha which Chazal never even designed to begin with?

> Note the Tosphos quoted above is specifically discussing
> women saying brochos on mitzvos aseh shehazman grama as is
> the Rosh.  The point of this would seem to be that if you
> had a mitzvah, any mitzvah, there would be no problem you
> making up a brocha from a d'orisa or even d'rabbanan point
> of view, were it not for the additional rule that we cannot
> institute new kinds of brochos post Talmud.  

[begin rhetorical questions] "Additional rule"? WHAT additional rule??? [end rhetorical questions]

Yes, I have heard of this before, that we don't write new brachos. But until the past few days, I never perceived it as a separate independent halacha, but only that new post-Talmud brachos would simply be *examples* of a bracha l'vatala. Where is this additional rule mentioned? What are the reasons behind it?

(To tell the truth, I learned long ago that "al mitzvas tzitzis" is a very recent bracha. I always wanted to know where we get the authority to say it. But it is only now that I'm finally asking.)

R Zev Sero and R' Rich Wolpoe made some comments, on which RCL commented:

> I just wanted to note, and I am not sure if this is an
> answer (and certainly whether it is the whole answer) but
> in the two last cases mentioned here, "lodur bvayis sheyesh
> bo mezuzah" and "al n'qiyyus yadayim" - we are dealing with
> a situation where under the rules there ought to be a brocha
> except that the metzius of the situation means that if one
> said the normal expected brocha, one would actually be
> saying a sheker ... And (and perhaps this is a further
> stretch) maybe you could say the same thing about the
> Granola bar.

You are making presumptions which are foreign to me. You suggest that "there ought to be a brocha" for these situations. Says who? If none of the brachos we know about fit the situation, isn't that good evidence that Chazal had a reason for not making a bracha? There are lots of mitzvos which we *don't* say a bracha on, and in each case, our response is not to write a new one, but to investigate the reasons why there's no bracha. What makes these cases different?

R' Arie Folger offered a different approach:

> Based on my recent investigation into these matters, I believe
> that we do not generally hold that Chazal legislated the exact
> wording of blessings. Rather, they decreed particular forms we
> must observe. Thus, there is a discussion in the gemara about
> whether one says motzi le'hem min ha-aretz or *ha*motzi...
> ... This same reasoning may be what prompts the 'al neqiyut
> yadayim and 'al peirot haadamah.

I see what you're saying, but I'm far from convinced. I've always thought that the Gemara's discussion of Motzi and Hamotzi was "What text did they establish?", not "Now that we know the basic idea, what's the best way to express it?" But even if they did originally establish only the basic idea, allowing future generations to write the exact text, how is that extended to new basic ideas?

Granted that we have a bracha which is said in the morning for an act which both cleans our hands and removes the ruach ra. How do we allow writing a new bracha for a way of cleaning hands which *doesn't* remove ruach ra? How do we know that Chazal considered this worthy of a bracha? Likewise, for Al Ha'adamah, which would be a fourth type of Bracha Me'ein Shalosh - who says that this food is important enough for such a bracha?

I suppose it is Tosfos and the Rosh and R' Akiva Eiger who considered these things worthy of a bracha. Okay, but what basis did they have? I suppose the answer to that must be (to invoke previous threads) that once a posek has learned enough, he has an intuitive feel for what the halacha *ought* to be, whether he can marshal his sources or not.

I suppose that all of these questions would probably vanish if I understood Bracha L'vatala and Bracha She'eino Tzricha better. (File that away under "Reasons why Akiva Miller is such a stickler for defining terms".)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Small Business Tools
Compete with the big boys.  Click here to find products to benefit your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=69wGF5_5i9QeqcXmz2dakAAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=