[Avodah] The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos

[Chana]

RAM writes: 

>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.

Actually I thought there was a whole lot more to be said, it is just that I
(at least) haven't had the time to put together a post to say it.  For
example, we really ought to at least make mention (since everybody else
seems to, see eg Tosphos on Rosh Hashan 33 that I mentioned) of the gemora
in Temura (4a) which discusses the concept of "hamotzi shem shamayim
l'vatala" (and learns this out of the pasuk "es Hashem elokecha tira") - and
which then concludes that this is an azhara for a mitzvas aseh.  Tosphos
seems to understand this aseh (leading to a prohibition) as being in the
*absence* of a bracha (ie saying it in the context of a bracha makes it
better), but that is certainly not the way everybody seems to understand it.
There is, inter alia,  a teshuva of Rabbi Akiva Eiger on the interaction of
this and lo tisa.  And there are other materials.  The Sde Chemed has a long
section on this.  Wrapped up into all this, btw, are discussions as to
whether you are over (the aseh of es Hashem or the lo taseh of lo tisa) if
you say the name in laz, or think the name (note in contrast the Ben Ish
Chai says that when you are required to say the name without shem and malkus
you should think/visualise it instead).

But I just did want to disagree on one point here:

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

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.

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.  As
mentioned, ROY understands this Rosh as being about bracha l'vatala/aino
tzricha (and d'orisas).  As I also mentioned, the Taz (and other Ashkenazi
commentators) clearly do not.  But the one thing they do appear to agree
upon is that there is in place a "prescriptive prohibition".  It is a
classic case of the exception proves the rule (or rather, every time there
appears to be an exception it generates extensive discussion about the rule
and arguably leads to various carve outs from the rule). 


> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana