[Avodah] New Brachos

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

> To understand the strict constructionist position, ... you need
> to look at their sources, of whom the primary source is the Rambam.  ...

> The Rambam says (Hilchos Brachos perek 1 siman 3) "kshem shemvarchin
> al haniah kach mevarchin al kol mitzvah v'mitzvah v'achar kach ya'aseh
> otah".

> The Rambam makes it very clear that a [every]  mitzvah needs a blessing. »

EG Talmud has a brachah on ner hanukkah Ner ish uveiso

How does the m'chabeir legislate a brachah on ner Hanukkah in shul?

Hacham Zvi asks a similar question. See SA O"C: 671:7,
Be'er hagolah 80
[Apparenly in the name of Rivash]
baer hetev 10
Shaarei t'shuva quoting HZ 88

My point about q'rias hatorah is similar. If laining no longer conforms
to Hazal's parameters it becomes problematic AISI to attach a brachah
to it I at leas for "strict constructionists."

EG:
Wouldn't all agree that if laining devolved somehow to a "humash" we
would still lain - but w/o a brachah? IOW since Hazal required laining -
and when this is the best we can do - then would we still say a brachah
is still triggered somehow?

Back to niddan didan, we have stripped a fundamental of laining - a
fundamental that EG Teimanim still apparently adhere to as did Rambam
AFAIK. AISI it no longer STRICTLY adhering to Hazal's parameters -
which brings to mind a potential safeiq. Certainly lain! The question
is s'feiq brachos l'haqeil - or restore the Targum.

KT
RRW

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile