[Avodah] New Brachos

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

When I came up with my example of a bracha thanking Hashem for pretty rocks, I did not stop to consider whether that bracha is shevach or nehenin. But now that R' Arie Folger and R"n Chana Luntz have introduced that idea, I need to ask how that fits into the equivalence of brachos and oaths. In fact, I need to reevaluate how ALL birchos shevach fit into this idea.

A bracha of nehenin can be a bracha l'vatala when it is comparable to a oath. This will happen when the rules of the bracha are violated. For example, when one says a bracha on food, and fails to eat that food, it is like swearing to eat, and then breaking that oath. Or if one says a bracha on food during a meal, it is like a pointless oath.

A bracha of shevach works the same way, because it also has rules. If I would say, "Baruch... Oseh es hayam hagadol" right now, I would expect that to be assur, because the rules of that bracha require me to be seeing that yam, and right now I cannot see it. But, as RCL points out, I can say "malbish arumim" in the morning, even if I stay in pajamas all day. What is the difference?

>From the perspective of how much need there is to make this oath, I see no difference at all. The only difference concerns the rules which Chazal set up. In the case of "malbish arumim", the rule is to say it once every day. In the case of "yam hagadol", the rule is to say it upon seeing the sight. The only question that remains for me is whether my saying "yam hagadol" right now would be a bracha l'vatala or she'eina tzricha.

This is similar to what RAF wrote:

> Sheva'h does not necessarily depend on a situation the way
> birkot hanehenin and birkot hamitzvot do, and hence, the
> situation upon which we react by praising G"d, is more fluid.
> Thus, I would argue that you will sooner encounter a berakha
> levatalah in birkot hanehenin and birkot hamitzvot, than in
> birkot hasheva'h. This is confirmed by the fact that we do
> not hesitate to praise G"d by singing poems that include His
> Name (a.k.a. zemirot*)

My only quibble with the above is that zemirot should not be brought into this conversation. Saying Hashem's name in zemiros -- or in any tefillah, for that matter -- is an example of the more general halachah of "Lo tisa", with the only important question is, "Was HaShem's name said purposefully or in vain?" Bracha levatalah, despite its connection to "Lo Tisa", is a very legalistic detail of that halachah, and it depends upon the equivalence between brachos and oaths, and is violated any time Chazal's rules were broken, even if the individual's intention was to say Hashem's name purposefully.

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote the following to me offline, and I believe he intended it to be published:

> Just as repetition of lo osef constituites a shvaua
> Other legalisms take hold hold even absent the magic term
> EG if halachah says
> X is mutar but don't do it lest you do Y
> You have a classic s'yag/g'zeira even absent the term,
> because it matches the legal formula
> You can also give someone a "bracha"
> Without sayng the verb B-R-Ch or bless

Excellent points, but I'm not so sure about the last line.

We have a whole siman (O"C 214) about the importance of Shem and Malchus in establishing whether a bracha has been said or not. Noticeably absent from that siman is any discussion of the word "Baruch". I've always thought it to be so essential that no one ever bothered to mention it.

RRW seems to disagree. I would agree that one can give another person a "bracha" in the colloquial sense, with words as plain as "Good morning!" But that's not the same as a bracha in the *technical* sense, for which one needs Shem and Malchus - and (it seems to me) some form of the word "Baruch".

My proof for this distinction between general brachos and technical brachos is this: The ban on post-Talmudic brachos was never thought of as extending to general brachos. Both gedolim and even the smallest of other people, are *encouraged* to give these sort of brachos when appropriate. It seems to me that the requirement of Shem and Malchus may have been designed specifically to create a clear line between technical brachos (with which one runs the risk of Bracha L'vatala and Bracha She'eina Tzricha is one is careless) and general brachos (which have no such problem, although if said meaninglessly might run afoul of Lo Tisa).

An interesting question which crosses all these questions is Tzur Mishelo.

I've heard of people who specifically say "HaShem" (and not the Real Shem) in that one zemer, specifically to avoid any question of possibly being yotzay Birkas Hamazon D'Oraisa by singing it. (There's no quesiton about Birkas Hamazon D'Rabanan because the zemer omits HaTov V'Hametiv.)

I find this question interesting on several points: The zemer does include the word Baruch in the refrain: "Tzur mishelo achalnu, barchu emunai - Faithful ones, let's bless the Rock from Whose we've eaten." If one pronounce it right, it also includes the Shem. I don't think Malchus appears anywhere, though, unless the indirect reference in "Hazan es olamo - He feeds His universe" counts.

Does anyone know if this question appears in print anywhere?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Senior Assisted Living
Put your loved ones in good hands with quality senior assisted living. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=4_iZhVNDtRJGgsG9HtXcJwAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASUQAAAAA=