[Avodah] shelo asani isha

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:23:57AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB wrote:
:> Perhaps we shouldn't aske whether or not we hold that avadim would be
:> chayavim in more mitzvos than women, and simply take the berakhah's
:> continued existence in the siddur as a raayah that we do.

: But that is a huge leap about a very complicated issue...

Perhaps. When you first pointed out that I was making this assumption, I
realized I did so because it feels like standard lomdus, to derive a baal
mesorah's sevara based on whether or not he has you say a berakhah.

Still, inertia would make me believe that the burden of proof is on the
one claiming we now say the same words but are really making new berakhos.
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.)

...
:> Why? These are birkhos shevach. The notion that you can't praise HQBH
:> in zu ve'ein tzarikh lomar zu format isn't necessarily a given.

: Not with a repetition of shem and malchut!  Look, you can't even say the
: bracha over thunder twice in the same thunderstorm, and that is
: unquestionably a bracha  of shevach....

I have made this misspeech in the past on another thread. (In Feb
2010, when we were discussing violations of the Rosh's rule about
new berakhos.)

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?

These could be explained in terms of berakhos in the siddur being
liturgical enough not to require their proper cause in order to be
said. Such as thanking G-d for a set of mitzvos after you already defused
that cause by having already thanked him for a superset of those mitzvos.

Maybe not. Just thinking out loud.

:                                          ...Note of course that the GRA is
: the one who most famously recommended saying sheasani yisroel...

Maaseh Rav and the appendant sefarim usually bound with it don't mention
a shinui nusach here at all. The Perushim say "shelo asani nakhri/ah",
which is an old Ashkenaz variant, thereby avoiding members of the "goy
qadosh" saying "shelo asani goy".

...
: 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.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
micha at aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507