[Avodah] New Brachos

[Chana]

> RAM wrote:
>> 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.

And RAF respoinded:
> Eh, bim'hilath kewod Toratho, neither R'n CL nor I said such a thing.
> There exists an analogy between oaths and blessings insofar as it
> allows for understanding what is unneded, what is superfluous and what
> is plain false. But neither of us said that blessings are kinds of
> oaths. And by the way, I did not claim that there is such an analogy,
> R'nCL made that claim and backed it up with a citation from the
> Talmud. I merely accepted that claim because it is reasonable and
> based on the primary sources.

Well, you might be relieved to hear that it is not just me who makes the
link between oaths and brochos. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (teshuva 25) responds
to a questioner who suggests that if somebody is doubtful as to whether
they made a bracha or not, why don't they say it in the common language,
which will be yotzei them the brocha, but avoid any lo tisa problems.
And Rabbi Akiva Eiger says this does not work, because just as for an oath
you can be over on lo tisa even if the Shem in that oath is b'laz, so too,
one cannot get out of the bracha l'vatala problem by saying the bracha
in laz, as one is still over on lo tisa. He does however understand
the aseh in Temura as being one that cannot be violated with laz.

I would also note that Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks on the Rambam that if a
bracha sheino tzricha is a violation of lo tisa d'orisa, how come in
relation to a safek of birchat hamazon we go back and say it again (and
similarly emet v'yatziv) - because while this may be a safek d'orisa, it
has against it a safek d'orisa of lo tisa - and at this point he quotes
Tosphos saying that the reference to lo tisa by a bracha sheino tzricha
is an asmachta, which then solves the problem. He then concludes the
paragraph "ulhaRambam yikashe" - which is (IMHO) it precisely.

The thing is, that for Rabbi Akiva Eiger, like for RAF, this is really
just an interesting academic discussion, because the Ashkenazim follow
Tosphos, and that makes everything so much simpler. But in theory the
Sephardim seem to be trying to follow the Rambam via the Mechaber (sort
of, as I have tried to show) and all these kashas seem to me to be real
kashas on the position.

Regards
Chana

PS the Sde Chemed also goes on about oaths and brachos and the link via
lo tisa - although it is a long rambling series of pieces so it is hard
to derive any conclusions from it.

[Email #2. -mi]

RAF writes:
> I don't think that both blessings are of a kind. Birkot hanehenin are
> seen as necessary before enjoying teh world. Hanoten laya'ef koa'h is
> of a different breed, a pure sheva'h. What did you mean to say that
> according to Ashkenazi siddurim, we are not allowed to feel rested
> without a blessing? That sounds implausible. Rather, as we pasqen like
> the Rosh, that birkot hasha'har are birkot hasheva'h and not hanehenin
> (hence they are recited even without following a direct benefit, i.e.,
> even if I stay all day in pijamas, and do not get dressed anew, I
> still make a malbish 'arumim),so, too, is hanotein laya'ef koa'h a
> birkat hasheva'h.

> 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*)

Just to note that I agree, the Ashkenazim posken like the Rosh and others
that we recite birchot hashachar without getting a direct benefit -
as the Rema states explicitly in Orech Chaim siman 46 si'if 8 "d'ain
bracha davka al aztmo ele mevrachin she HKBU bara tzarchei olam", and
so all of what you say follows from an Ashkenazi position.

But it should of course be noted that the Mechaber of the Shulchan Aruch
disagrees - and states in that siman (Orech Chaim siman 46 si'if 8)
that if one is not "chayav" in them one should not bless, so that, if
one did not hear the kol of a tarnegol or shelo halach or shelo lavash
etc one should say the bracha *without shem and malchus*.

Obviously if you are looking at the question from a Sephardi point of
view, the Shulchan Aruch's view is extremely important. However, it
should be noted that despite what the Shulchan Aruch says, the Sephardi
custom pretty universally is follow the Ashkenazi position and make
all of the blessings, with one exception. In fact the Ben Ish Chai
effectively cites the Rema's reason that even if the individual does
not benefit by getting dressed etc, given that there are Jews around the
world who do, one should say it with shem and malchus. And even ROY says
to say these (the way the Yalkut Yosef puts it (Chelek Aleph Birchat
Hashachar paragraph 3) is to say "she habrachot hen al minhago haolam.
V'af al pi she ain zu da'ato shel Maran Hashulchan Aruch, mikol makom
hoiel v'pashat haminhag l'varech, safek bracha l'hakel b'mkom minhag lo
amirinan u'ma gam sheken svarat rabotainu hamekublim".)

I said there was one exception. The exception is that most Sephardim
do not say "she'asa li kol tzorchi" on Tisha B'Av and Yom Kippur,
on the grounds that since the Jews of the world are not wearing shoes
these days, - ie it is not just the individual but the klal who are
not getting a direct benefit, then it should not be said. Of course
the Ashkenazi position is to say it. (Interesting while the Ben Ish
Chai comes out against saying this brocha on Tisha B'Av and Yom Kippur,
the Yalkut Yosef says that while it is better not to say it, those who
do say it do have on whom to rely).

But getting back to the Mechaber and his position that if you do not
get a direct benefit, you should not say the relevant birchas hashachar,
of course the source for the Mechaber - is, not surprisingly, the Rambam.

So if you are trying to understand where the Rambam is coming from on lo
tisa (which is what I am trying to grapple with), one probably needs to
assume that he does need a situation for Sheva'h. On the other hand,
if you are trying to understand what Sephardim today do, then it would
seem that at least direct benefit is not needed. But again, noting the
words of the Yalkut Yosef - it does seem that Catholic Israel is what
allows for it, sans minhag, the Rambam would be followed (does lead one
to wonder why shasani k'roteno should be different).

Regards
Chana