[Avodah] New Brachos

[Chana]

RRW writes:
> I respect each Minhag-nusach within its own sphere, but [generallly]
> I oppose imposing from the outside. My only beef is with those Posqim
> who construe a brachah l'vatalah for Ashkenazi women on Lulav, shofar,
> sukkah, etc

But then it would seem you do not see the halacha on any level as being
about truth. We do have a concept of elu v'elu, but the way that is
(I believe generally) understood is by using the example of Beit Hillel
and Beit Shamai - and while again there would seem to be two ways
to understand what went on, the most common one is that they avoided
problems and allowed intermarriage by making sure they told the other
who were considered mamzerim by the others calculation and understood
that if somebody was considered a mamzer according to the other, they
were not an eligible marriage partner to be offered to the other, not
that they said that by our people these people are mamzerim but amongst
your people they are not or that they stopped teaching their position
vis a vis the others, hoping that they would ultimately convince them.

Similarly if you understand this as a genuine elu v'elu situation, you
would expect those poskim to say, we hold that this is a bracha l'vatala
(for everybody, not just for our women) but that does not mean we do
not recognise and accept that you hold differently and you are still
halachic Jews (we will count you in a minyan etc etc).

> Therefore -
> Here is my "quasi-learned" opinion:

> 1. EG for S'phardic women to say a brachah on Lulav, shofar, sukkah,
> etc. Would indded be an issue of "brachah l'vatalah"

Whoa here. This is a huge generalisation for a large group. I know
I quote ROY a lot, and he is almost certainly the pre-eminent Sephardi
posek today, but that is not to say he is the only one people follow.
I have previously mentioned that there are alternative opinions out there
(some of them perhaps based on dreams and others) but they exist.

> 2 Similarly for Ashkenazim to say a brachah on Hallel in shul on Seder
> night - is the same issue because it simply is not the Minhag to do so.

Not sure that this would necessarily be the case. I would have thought
that eg if an Ashkenazi was davening in a Sephardi shul, there might
well be good reasons to allow them to say the bracha (especially if
Shatz, or to allow them to be Shatz). It may not be their minhag,
but it might be the minhag of the Shul. There is also the factor of
pisumei nisa, which would seem from the Kol Bo, Rashash etc to give it a
stronger basis than Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. And there is Rabbanu Tam,
the Rosh etc saying that a brocha sheino tzricha is just a d'rabbanan,
and that something beyond that is mutar l'chatchila. Obviously if
it is a practical case one would need to ask one's Rav, but the theory
would suggest to me that if anything, an its OK is more likely than not.

[Email #2. -mi]

RRW writes:
> EG Talmud has a brachah on ner hanukkah Ner ish uveiso

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

Well I am not sure that I would have called what the Mechaber does as
legislate a bracha. Rather I would have framed the question as being
why does he brings as halacha the rulings of others that allow for this
bracha in shul, given his general position regarding brochos.

> 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

Yes the Chatam Zvi asks the question, which goes as follows: Why does
the Mechaber bring this ruling that one says a bracha on lighting Ner
Chanuka in shul which seems to be based on a Rivash who allows it based
on minhag and likens it to making a bracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh,
given that the Mechaber rejects making a bracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh,
following the Rambam.

But you see, just because the Ashkenazi poskim seem to base this on the
Rivash (the Rema does so explicitly in his follow up comment) it does not
necessarily mean that the Mechaber is sourcing this based on the Rivash.
In fact if you look at the Beis Yosef (Siman 671) he writes "mashekatuv
shemanichin ner channuka bebetei Haknesset, nireh shetiknu ken mipnei
haorchim shein lehem bayit lhadlik bo nerot channukah kemo shetiknu
Chazal Kiddush b'bet haknesset sheochlu v'shatu b'beit haknesset v'ken
katuv haKol Bo v'katav tam acher shehu mepharsem hanes mipnei kol ha'am
u'lesader brachot lifneihem lifi sheyesh b'zeh pesum gadol v'kidesh
shemo bkehilot" . That is, he begins by bringing two reasons:
a) and the one that seems to him right "nireh" - that it was for those
who stay over and eat and drink in the shul, and he uses the words takana
(and seems to suggest that this is at one with the takana of Chazal re
Kiddush); and brings support from the Kol Bo;
b) a second reason given by the Kol Bo, that this is a form of pisumei
nisa, ie the special factor of pisumei nisa allows for things that
might otherwise not be permitted to occur (ie pirsumei nisa allows for
an exception to the general rule).
And then he goes on to bring the Rivash and he quotes him as saying
"haminhag zeh l'hadlik b'beit haknesset minhag v'tikun hi mishum pirsumei
nisa kivan shein anu yecholim l'kayim hamitzvah k'tikuna l'hadlik kol
echad b'petach beito m'bechuz mipnei sheyad hakum t'kufa, v'marbrichin
al zeh k'mo shemevarichin al hallel  d'rosh chodesh."
Ie he then brings the Rivash - who firstly says that the reason for the
minhag is because we cannot do the mitzvah the way that Chazal instituted
it outside of one's doorway because of fear of non Jews, and then goes
on to justify the bracha based on Rosh Chodesh.

So the simple answer would seem to be, that while the Beit Yosef does his
usual round up of the Rishonim *he* does not hold like the Rivash (given
that he says one should not make a bracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh)
but holds like one of the other two reasons, and if anything (I would
be tempted to say like the first reason, given that he says "nireh").
And in fact the Chatam Zvi after asking the question appears to conclude
that in fact the Shulchan Aruch is indeed relying on the Kol Bo not the
Rivash - and that the point is, this is not just a case of minhag, it
is a form of pirsumei nisa, and so also concludes ROY in Chazon Ovadiah
(Mitzvat Hadlikat Nerot Chanukah oit 10).

> 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.

But again, you have to understand what is going on with layning.
You are setting up a straw man. Layning and Targum are not one and
the same thing. You are assuming that the takana of layning included
a requirement of targum (that it is a "fundamental of laining"), and
that without targum there is no mitzvah of layning, ie they are part
and parcel of one entity and not two separate things, as would seem to
be the most straightforward way of understanding it, especially given
that they were (and are for the Teimanim) done by different people,
with different halachic requirements as to who may be a metargeman etc.
But to make such a statement you need to have some sort of support for
your initial supposition.

But in fact, were you correct, in the times of Chazal themselves it
would have meant that there would have been no brocha on kriat hatorah
on Yom Tov, because there was no targum on yom tov (see Mesechet Sofrim
perek 18 halacha 6 which explains that as opposed to Shabbat, when women
came early and left late, women generally came late on Yom Tov and left
early, and the reason they left early was because there was no targum
for the kirat hatorah on Yom Tov, as it was established like Rav that
he did not appoint a translator during Yom Tov because of drunkedness -
see eg Betza 4a).

But of course nobody suggests such a thing, ie that there was or should
be no brocha on kriat hatorah on Yom Tov because a metargeman was not
established on such days. So why would you expect even the strict
constructionists to say there was a safek bracha here?

> KT
> RRW

Regards
Chana