[Avodah] : shelo asani isha

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

> Who is the earliest source for positing another reason for these three
> berakhos *to the exclusion of* the number of mitzvos? (Rashi gives two
> sevaros, including this one.)

But isn't the classic reason why Rashi gives two sevoros because the first
one is problematic, even if it seems the most straightforward one.

> I mean birkhos shevach that are part of the siddur in particular, not
> in response to an event. Liturgy is by nature repetitious. So perhaps
> once we moved birkhos hashachar into Shacharis, we have more reason to
> preserve saying berakhos that are redundant.
> 
> Within birkhos hashachar itself, the Ari (as quoted by the Ben Ish
> Chai)
> has us omit "she'asa li kol tzorki" on 9 beAv and Yom Kippur, since we
> don't wear shoes. ROY (Otzeros Yoseif III #11) says one does. And what
> about saying "oteir Yisrael besif'arah" without a hat, or "ozer Yisrael
> begevrah" when you're not putting on a belt?

I believe that  those who hold that one should not say sheasa li ko tzorki
allow the other two because there are others in the world who could well be
doing such things (kol yisroel areivim ze l'zeh).  But I agree, ROY's
position that these are minhag haOlam and even she'asa li kol tzorki should
be said even on 9th Av and Yom Kippur would seem to allow other parts of the
liturgy to be said even if they are not true, due to minhag (note however
that he believes, as is even stated in the body of the Yalkut Yosef, that
this position of allowing brochos al minhag ha'olam is explicitly against
the psak of the Shulchan Aruch).  

But that leaves you with an understanding that the reason today men say
shelo asani isha is due to minhag and possibly nothing more.  So those who
say it due to minhag would clearly have on whom to rely.  But there are
enough achronim around who take the opposite view and hold that if a
statement is not true anymore, or you don't believe it is true (or even it
is not true generally on that particular day, like 9 B'Av and Yom Kippur)
then you cannot say it for that to be a highly legitimate view.  It also
rather points to what might be considered a well accepted custom of dropping
various birchat hashachar at various times.

>The Perushim say "shelo asani nakhri/ah",
> which is an old Ashkenaz variant, thereby avoiding members of the "goy
> qadosh" saying "shelo asani goy".

Yes, the Sde Chemed does not like shelo asani hakhri either (he also doesn't
think it gets you there).

As I said, I think the reality of the world is that they understand "goy" as
in colloquial speech and refuse to get hung up on grammatical niceties.
Point being, that if it doesn't bother you as untrue, then there doesn't
seem to be anything stopping you saying it, for you it is true.  If it does
though, then there is enough support to allow dropping it.

 
> ...
> : The alternative to the GRA's position on the question of emes that
> you seem
> : to be taking is that if the rabbis introduced a matbeiah, then it
> does not
> : actually matter if it is true or false...
> 
> True or false? Redundant/superfluous or not!
> 
> Im saying that being part of our siddur is enough reason to say it, and
> therefore even if you had said other berakhos to already cover whatever
> you're thanking/praising HQBH for, is is not levatalah.

That seems to be ROY's position - although only up to a point, because of
course he won't allow sheasani k'rotzono with shem and malchus given that it
is not a bracha in the gemora, regardless of the siddur.  So to fully fall
within ROY's position, you need to say that it is a minhag stretching back
to the gemora (maybe a bit like a rabbinic takana, whose reason we perhaps
know doesn't apply anymore, but which we are still obligated to keep - bit
like mayim achronim and covering water and dancing and clapping on shabbas
and the like).  

> :-)BBii!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana