[Avodah] New Brachos

[Chana]

>RRW writes:

> Ein hachi nami - this mamash proves my point beyond any 
> doubt. Aside from the Yomtov strawman which is a red herring 
> the key is following Hazal NOT in having or lacking a 
> m'turg'man contrary to Hazal!
> SO When hazal legilsate no meturgeman, then we DO say the 
> brachah - davka because this follows Hazal

> But when on Shabbos WE - contrary to Hazal - omit the Targum, 
> we no longer conform to Hazal's taqqnanah and brachah is 
> problematic Just like hallell bedilug!

See I think this is one of the problems you get into when you confuse of
legislation (ie takanos, gezeros etc) with other things such as minhag.  As
the  strict constructionists, base themselves fundamentally on the Rambam,
it is perhaps most instructive to quote his language.

He states, in Hilchos Tephila perek 12 halacha 1:

Moshe rabbanu *taken* le'chem l'yisrael she hu korin b'torah berabbbim
b'shabbat, b'sheni u'bchamishi ... v'Ezra *taken* shehau korin ken b'mincha
b'chol Shabbat ... v'gam hu *taken* shehau korin b'sheni ub'chamishi shlosha
b'nei adam ...

Language of *takana*.

He then goes on to discuss, in halacha 5 the brachot which are said on these
takanot - something you would expect according to his rules, because a
takana of Moshe Rabbanu or Ezra would be expected to take a bracha.

Then in halacha 10 he writes:

Meyamot Ezra *nahgu* sheyihe sham targeman mturgem l'am ma she hakoreh koreh
b'torah kedei shehevinu inyan hadevarim ...

Language of *minhag*.

Ie targum is something quite different from kriat hatorah, it is a minhag.
It is a very old minhag, going all the way back to Ezra, according to the
Rambam, but a minhag does not, again according to the Rambam, take a bracha
(hilchot brachot perek 11 halacha 16).  However if you do hold that a minhag
can take a bracha, and you were going to put a bracha on this minhag, then
it would never be a question of affecting the bracha on the kriat hatorah,
but rather a question of  whether to put an *additional* bracha on the
targum - ie as well the person doing the krias hatorah making the bracha on
the kriah, maybe the metargamen would need to make a bracha on the targum as
well when he did it.  If we had continued targum in Ashkenaz, maybe that is
what would have happened.

 Of course when Hazal 
> omit a targum on a controversial passuq, that IS strict 
> construction. Aderabbah adding Targum AGAINST Hazal [such as 
> on a restricted passuq or on YT] would jeopardize the 
> brachah! That's the point of strict construction, not playing 
> any games with Hazal's dictates!

But only if you confuse Hazal's dictates (takanot, gezerot), with Hazal's
minhagim.  Note that the discussion regarding Yom Tov is particularly
interesting, because while the Mesechet Sofrim indicates that there was no
targum on Yom Tov because they were concerned about schirut, The Beit Yosef
understands the Tur as indicating that while they generally did not do
targum in his place ("ain anu regilin l'targem"), their custom was davka to
do targum on the haftarot of Atzeret and Pesach! (see Orech Chaim siman 145
d"h "b'yamei chachmai hatalmud").  Note also that the Tur (Orech Chaim siman
145) derives that Tosphot holds that even at the time of Chazal there were
places where they did targum and places that they didn't.

That is why this is not a real question, because the sources all understand
targum as being a totally separate minhag that happened along with kriat
hatorah (sometimes at least).
 
> So The key for a strict constructionist is NOT to morph Hazal 
> to make a brachah on Ner Hanukkah in shul either. It simply 
> lacks Talmudic approval. 

Well that is precisely why Ner Channukah in shul is, unlike the discussion
about targum, a real question, and why the likes of the Chacham Zvi deal
with it.  It is also possible to note that the strictest constructionist is
the Rambam, and he does not seem to hold of Ner Channukah in shul either.
In that sense he is arguably the most consistent.  The Mechaber appears
almost as strict as the Rambam, but not quite, with Ner Channuka in shul
being one of the most obvious cases where he seems to go against his own
rules, and against the Rambam whom he generally poskens like.  That is the
reason that all the commentaries do ask on the Mechaber.

But you can't say that the key for a strict constructionist is necessarily -
not to morph Hazal to make a bracha on Ner Channukah. The Rambam doesn't but
the Mechaber clearly does something of the kind. So you can take two
approaches, you can say that the author of the Shulchan Aruch is an idiot
who does not understand his own rules and we are so much cleverer than he
is, or you can say that *maybe* he had a different understanding of what
strict constructionism means than you do, and his understanding involves
allowing a bracha on Ner Channukah in shul, and you can try and work out
what his understanding is.  The Chacham Zvi, Rav Ovadiah etc of course take
the second approach.  You may not like their resolutions, you may say that
it is tzarich iyun, but there is enough written by the Rambam and by the
Mechaber for it to be very difficult to say that they did not take what you
call a strict constructionist view.

> Morphed circumstances is not a 
> legitimate triggerYou might as well go along with Ran on 
> nashim somchot r'shut and allow women to bench lulav etc. 
> Which is the flexible position favored by ashk'naz.

Well you could do that in any event.  You could take a strict
constructionist view, as you call it, and still hold that women should make
a bracha on lulav etc, by understanding r'shut as making it into a form of
mitzvah kayemet - the Rambam agrees that one makes a bracha on a mitzvah
whether it is a mitzva shechova alav or not  (Hilchot Brachot perek 11
halacha 11).  And the Ran argues that the fact that it says that one gets
schar for performing a mitzvah that one is not obligated in, but not as much
as if one were obligated, demonstrates by the fact that they do get schar
that it is actually a form of mitzvah.  

Now the Beit Yosef rejects the Ran (and we assume the Rambam would have to,
given the way he poskens).  But you could based on the Ran, and even more so
on the Ra'avid, have a strict constructionist view that still allowed for
women to make such brochot.  

> Similarly it is against strict construction to make a brachah 
> on Hallel in shul at night. But since this IS minhag 
> has'phardim, [be'er hagolah] there is room to be lenient for 
> S'phardim as per BIC and Kaf HaHayyim.

Agreed, which is why ROY brings this in to support the Chacham Zvi's
understanding of the Mechaber, ie that the Mechaber holds that there is an
exception for pirsumei nisa, into which category this also falls.  Ie the
two exceptions that there seem to be fall within a specifically defined
category of pirsumei nisa.  

> While there is no such leniency for an ashkknazi Jew - and 
> s'feiq brachos l'haqeil.

The Chacham Zvi, I might remind you, was Ashkenazi.  While he was answering
a kasha on the Mechaber, not the Rema (who no doubt he followed both
generally and with regard to this question in particular) I would be
surprised if, if somebody had asked him, he would not have been prepared to
use his understanding of the Mechaber to look at the question (if, for
example, somebody had asked him about saying Hallel with a bracha in a shul
eg of Sephardim on pesach night).  The fact that he held that pirsumei nisa
was a legitimate exception to the strict constructionism of the Mechaber
makes the question different to most safeq brachos l'haqueil questions.

> > then it would seem you do not see the halacha on any level as being 
> > about truth.
> 
> Tannur achnai

Now to my mind, that is a question of whether heaven should mix in and tell
us what to do, or whether it is up to us to try and determine what is the
truth.  Not dissimilar to the difference between a parent letting a child
try and work things out for themselves, or stepping in every time to correct
them and tell them what is right.  But you seem to be suggesting that one
should learn from tannur shel achnai that we should not be striving for what
we consider to be truth.  That Rabban Gamliel and those on their side didn't
hold that their position was the correct one, meaning the correct one for
earthly beings and for understanding the Torah.  Ie that they were quite
happy to be wrong so long as they "won" with their majority.  I don't
understand it that way at all.  I understand them as saying that indeed
their understanding of the Torah was correct, even against HKBH - it is part
and parcel of Avraham arguing with HaShem about doing righteousness, that
they were arguing, it turned out with Hashem and their understanding of what
the Torah meant prevailed and was indeed the deeper emes, because it was the
one that was right for human beings and not just for melachim.

Otherwise you get into the whole question that we have discussed not
infrequently on here about how you could ever have a Sanhedrin who brings a
korban for poskening incorrectly under the rules in Horiyos.  If whatever
the majority said was by definition right, which seems to be the way you are
learning tannu shel achnai, then there is no situation where a Sanhedrin
could ever be wrong or lead the people astray.

> > Sheasani k'rotzono is surely a bracha of shevach, but ROY says you 
> > should say it without shem or malchus.
> 
> Abudarham p.69
>     V'hanashim nohagos l'vareich bimqom "shelo asani isha" "she'asani
>     kirtzono" k'mee shmatzdiq es haddin hara'ah habbah alav"
> 
> IOW it's like "dayyan ho'emes" I'm not sure if that is 
> "shevach" or not, you can be the judge If "dayan ho'emes" is shevach.

Well Rambam categories all brochos into three categories, brachot haniya,
brachot mitzvah and brachot hoda'ah "shen derech shvach v'hoda'ah ubakasha
kdei l'zkor et haboreh tamid ul'ira mimenu" (Hilchot Brachot perek 1 halacha
4).  And then his perek on brochot of shevach v'hoda'ah (perek 10) includes
in halacha 3 baruch dayan emet and goes on to say "chayav adam l'varech al
hara'ah b'tov nefesh ..." and derives it from the pasuk vahavta Hashem
Elokecha.

So while I am not convinced that "I can be the judge" as to whether dayan
ha'emes is shevach, I think that the greats have already spoken on this one,
and characterised it as such (perhaps hoda'ah rather than shevach, but as
you can see from the Rambam, the idea is to instil love and fear and this is
part and parcel of the same category).
 
> KT
> RRW

Shavuah Tov

Chana