Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 20

Tue, 19 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: New Brachos (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (Zev Sero)
• 5. Handshaking (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 6. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (Chana)
• 7. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Seeing Policies Everywhere (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (martin brody)
• 10. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Bal Tashchit (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: New Brachos (Chana)
• 14. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 15. New Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Tangentially  IIRC Rosh opposes ban on Qitniyyos.

Nope.  You may be thinking of the infamous maskilic forgery _Shu"t
Besamim Rosh_.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

> rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tangentially  IIRC Rosh opposes ban on Qitniyyos.

> Nope.  You may be thinking of the infamous maskilic forgery _Shu"t
> Besamim Rosh_.
> Zev Sero

Maybe so but also see Tur O"Ch 453 who calls issur qitniyyos betavshil
as a "humra y'seira" Maybe he got that idea from his father the Rosh

Note the Humra of qitniyyos as a flour is different because of "assi
l'achalufei" EG see Ba"Ch

Also see BY b'sheim R Y'rucham.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RAM wrote:
> A bracha of nehenin can be a bracha l'vatala when it is
> comparable to a oath. This will happen when the rules
> of the bracha are violated. For example, when one says
> a bracha on food, and fails to eat that food, it is like
> swearing to eat, and then breaking that oath. Or if one
> says a bracha on food during a meal, it is like a
> pointless oath.

Eh, bim'hilath kewod Toratho, neither R'n CL nor I said such a thing.
There exists an analogy between oaths and blessings insofar as it
allows for understanding what is unneded, what is superfluous and what
is plain false. But neither of us said that blessings are kinds of
oaths. And by the way, I did not claim that there is such an analogy,
R'nCL made that claim and backed it up with a citation from the
Talmud. I merely accepted that claim because it is reasonable and
based on the primary sources.

On a separate note, I find that your concluding post of the post
Talmudic berachot thread resonates with me. Yasher koach!
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Das innige Gebet einer Frau
* Eine falsche Ethik
* Internet Halakha: Should we Expect Privacy?
* Newsflash: King David had Literate Servants
* Was die j?dische Frommigkeit animieren soll
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Tangentially  IIRC Rosh opposes ban on Qitniyyos.

>> Nope.  You may be thinking of the infamous maskilic forgery _Shu"t
>> Besamim Rosh_.

> Maybe so but also see Tur O"Ch 453 who calls issur qitniyyos betavshil
> as a "humra y'seira" Maybe he got that idea  from his father the Rosh

Maybe so, but it would be pure speculation.


> Note the Humra of qitniyyos as a flour is different because of "assi
> l'achalufei" EG see Ba"Ch

In tavshil it's also assi le'achalufei, because all daysa is the same
dish, just with different ingredients, and if some daysa is allowed
people will allow all daysa.

In a 1914 responsum, R. Salomon Carlebach (Rabbi of L?beck, Germany)
maintained that refraining from handshaking with women is merely a laudable
stringency, which can be set aside by kevod ha-beriyot; see: R. Solomon
Carlebach ?Mareh Mekomot leIssur Peri?at Rosh beIsha veDinei Pe?ah
Nochrit,? leDavid Tsvi (Berlin, 5674), pp. 218-219. This seems to have been
the general position and practice of the German Orthodox Rabbinate at that
time; see discussion in: Isaac Jacob Fuchs, Halikhot Bat Yisrael, Chap. 7,
no. 14, note 29; R. Samuel Jacob haLevi Haber, Et Tsenu'im Hokhma, II
(Karnei Shomron, 5767), sec. 14, p. 298-305. Similar positions are
attributed to: R. Chaim Belin, Resp. Nishmat Hayyim, sec. 135, no. 6; R.
Elimelekh Bar Shaul, in a letter cited by R. Samuel Katz, Kedoshim Tihiyu
(Jerusalem: 5740) p. 227; R. Moshe Feinstein, cited by R. Zvi Lampel in
consultation with R. Reuven Feinstein ? available online at http://tinyurl.com/mpwf66; R. Joseph
B. Soloveitchik cited by R.
  Gil Student, available online at: http://tinyurl.com/n9eun3; R. Yaakov
  Kaminetzky, Titen Emet leYaakov al haTur veShulkhan Arukh, p. 405, n. 4;
  R. Nathan Bulman, cited by his daughter Toby Katz  ? available online at
  http://tinyurl.com/mpwf66. See
  also the related comments of; R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin, haMa'ayan, 18:4
  (Tammuz 5738), pp. 78-95, at p. 90 ? reprinted in Resp. Bnai Vanim, I,
  sec. 37; R. Yehuda Henkin, "Is Handshaking a Torah Violation," Hakirah ?
  The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought, vol. 4 (Winter 2007), pp.
  115-120, at p. 119 ? reprinted in R. Yehuda Henkin, Understanding Tzniut
  (Jerusalem: Urim, 2008), Chap. 4, pp. 95-100; R. Yehuda Henkin, "Letters
  to Editor: Handshaking," Hakirah ? The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and
  Thought, vol. 5 (Fall 2007), pp. 20-23; R. Asher Benzion Buchman,
  "Letters to Editor: Handshaking," Hakirah ? The Flatbush Journal of
  Jewish Law and Thought, vol. 5 (Fall 2007), pp. 23-27; R. Elyakim Getsel
  Ellinson, Hatsne'a Lekhet
  ? haIsha veHamitsvot, Sefer Sheni (Jerusalem: Histadrut haTsiyonit haOlamit: 5741), Chap. 2, no. 12, notes 96-97. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100117/4ef9281b/attachment-0001.htm>

RAM writes: 

>Now that we've fleshed out a lot of basic concepts in the thread "New
Brachos", I'd like to return to the original thread, "The Dynamic of
Post-Talmudic 
>Brachos", and apply them here.

Actually I thought there was a whole lot more to be said, it is just that I
(at least) haven't had the time to put together a post to say it.  For
example, we really ought to at least make mention (since everybody else
seems to, see eg Tosphos on Rosh Hashan 33 that I mentioned) of the gemora
in Temura (4a) which discusses the concept of "hamotzi shem shamayim
l'vatala" (and learns this out of the pasuk "es Hashem elokecha tira") - and
which then concludes that this is an azhara for a mitzvas aseh.  Tosphos
seems to understand this aseh (leading to a prohibition) as being in the
*absence* of a bracha (ie saying it in the context of a bracha makes it
better), but that is certainly not the way everybody seems to understand it.
There is, inter alia,  a teshuva of Rabbi Akiva Eiger on the interaction of
this and lo tisa.  And there are other materials.  The Sde Chemed has a long
section on this.  Wrapped up into all this, btw, are discussions as to
whether you are over (the aseh of es Hashem or the lo taseh of lo tisa) if
you say the name in laz, or think the name (note in contrast the Ben Ish
Chai says that when you are required to say the name without shem and malkus
you should think/visualise it instead).

But I just did want to disagree on one point here:

> I want to suggest that there is no prescriptive prohibition against
> Post-Talmudic Brachos.

I just don't think we can say that.

The Rosh says explicitly (perek kama d'kiddushin siman 41 and prek 8 of
brachot siman 8) "shein lvarech shum bracha shelo nizkara b'talmud".  That
sounds awfully like a prescriptive prohibition to me, and I certainly
believe that is how it has been taken by everybody else.

Now how to understand that Rosh is another question, especially when we
consider all of the brachos that we say that do not appear in Shas.  As
mentioned, ROY understands this Rosh as being about bracha l'vatala/aino
tzricha (and d'orisas).  As I also mentioned, the Taz (and other Ashkenazi
commentators) clearly do not.  But the one thing they do appear to agree
upon is that there is in place a "prescriptive prohibition".  It is a
classic case of the exception proves the rule (or rather, every time there
appears to be an exception it generates extensive discussion about the rule
and arguably leads to various carve outs from the rule). 


> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana

I wrote:
> What we do have is a descriptive observation that we chose
> to avoid designing such brachos.

R' Rich Wolpoe responded:
> Exactly my point. POLICY
? Just like a [post-talmidic] BD might ban EG smoking or polygamy, etc.

I don't mind if you refer to this as "policy", but when you mention "BD"
and "ban", it becomes clear that you have misunderstood me. It's quite
possible that I'm wrong, but let me clarify again the point that I'm trying
to make.

I'm trying to suggest that at no time did a Beis Din or any other
organization, or even any individual, ever ban the establishing of new
brachos. No one ever said, "Until now it has been okay to compose new
brachos. But it stops here and it stops now."

Rather, what happened was that the idea of a bracha being similar to an
oath took root among the people. These are things which people do not take
lightly, and rightly so. The awe and respect properly due to a bracha grew
to the point where there was a natural reluctance towards composing new
brachos.

No one ever *banned* it. There was no *need* to ban it. And there is still no such ban today, only an *observation* that no new brachos are being composed.

(If you want to call this a self-imposed ban, I can't stop you. But to me,
a self-imposed ban is when I tell myself that if should avoid XYZ because
there's a good reason to avoid it. But if the reason I'm avoiding XYZ is
that I find it to be a scary thing to do, then I haven't really *forbidden*
it to myself at all.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Small Business Tools
Click here for to find products that will help grow your small business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=LXG-NXw0sMOZSMZCgzwO5AAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=

> Here is an example of a post-Talmudic policy Humra - essentially
> protecting what is originally itself a Talmudic g'zeira
> Or perhaps merely ignoring the Talmudic g'zeira's original parameters,
> and redefining them to match current realities?

NishmaBlog: Seeing Policies Everywhere 2
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/01/seeing-policies-everywhere-2.html

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

"To my recollection, the European model never says "That's okay because the
poskim allow it b'dieved". What they say is "We're not supervising it, so we
can't guarantee that it's not happening, and if there was good evidence that
it *was* happening then we would stop relying on it, but since it seems to
be not happening, and even if it WAS happening it would be okay b'dieved,
THAT's why we rely on it."

Can someone corroborate or correct my previous paragraph?

Akiva Miller"

It's not the European model. It's the laws of kashrut from the
Gemara,Shulkan Aruch, Rishonim, Achronim and contemporary poskim. They
followed those laws in Babylon, North Africa, India Northern Europe, Eastern
Europe, Southern europe, Western Europe, everywhere in fact including, North
America.......until about 30 years ago or less.

Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100117/5b421f75/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 05:44:30PM -0800, martin brody wrote:
: It's not the European model. It's the laws of kashrut from the
: Gemara,Shulkan Aruch, Rishonim, Achronim and contemporary poskim. They
: followed those laws in Babylon, North Africa, India Northern Europe, Eastern
: Europe, Southern europe, Western Europe, everywhere in fact including, North
: America.......until about 30 years ago or less.

... EY also plays by the same rules as North America.

We should also note that when it comes to beer, whiskey, tea, and a
number of other established items, the rules did not get changed. It's
hard to picture the poseqim of today deciding that since beer is a term
of trade, we can rely on them not modifying the recipe to include tarfus
or stam yeinam (except WRT dark ales, where stam yeinam is an accepted
option in trade practice).

But in general, we made many more things efshar levareir by growing a
large kashrus industry. The question no longer is whether we had to;
but rather now that they are, can we really rely on the same rules of
birur as before?

Although I agree with RAM that the heter being used revolves around
whether one has to be chosheish for something that if present would be
bitul a"y nakhri, not a case where we know the bitul is occuring bevadai.
(Something I was hazy on when all this discussion began.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

When I was a kashrut supervisor for some of the stores here, occaisionally I 
had to seperate terumah.  Then I would dafka take the worst produce, since 
it was a safeq and no cohen was going to get the food. I have seen this 
practice in halacha books also.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
>
> So I'll revise my earlier conclusion:
> There are many similar cases, and to me it bespeaks that if there is a
> halachic issue, *such as histaleiq min hasafeiq* destruction does NOT
> constitute a concern of bal tashchis [AISI from sources that demonstrate
> a lack of concern]

> It's not the European model. It's the laws of kashrut from the
> Gemara,Shulkan Aruch, Rishonim, Achronim and contemporary poskim. They
> followed those laws in Babylon, North Africa, India Northern Europe,
> Eastern Europe, Southern europe, Western Europe, everywhere in fact
> including, North America.......until about 30 years ago or less.
> Martin Brody

See Rema YD 1
"Kol d'efshar levarurei m'varinan"

If the Rema does not convince you that evidence trumps hazaqqah, and
when possible-feasible we do more than to blithely rely on status quo -
Then See this:
http://www.vosizneias.com/28990/
> Brooklyn, NY - NON-Kosher Meat At Borough Park Kosher Restaurant:
> Terrible Mistake


KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> RAM wrote:
>> A bracha of nehenin can be a bracha l'vatala when it is
>> comparable to a oath. This will happen when the rules
>> of the bracha are violated. For example, when one says
>> a bracha on food, and fails to eat that food, it is like
>> swearing to eat, and then breaking that oath. Or if one
>> says a bracha on food during a meal, it is like a
>> pointless oath.

And RAF respoinded:
> Eh, bim'hilath kewod Toratho, neither R'n CL nor I said such a thing.
> There exists an analogy between oaths and blessings insofar as it
> allows for understanding what is unneded, what is superfluous and what
> is plain false. But neither of us said that blessings are kinds of
> oaths. And by the way, I did not claim that there is such an analogy,
> R'nCL made that claim and backed it up with a citation from the
> Talmud. I merely accepted that claim because it is reasonable and
> based on the primary sources.

Well, you might be relieved to hear that it is not just me who makes the
link between oaths and brochos. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (teshuva 25) responds
to a questioner who suggests that if somebody is doubtful as to whether
they made a bracha or not, why don't they say it in the common language,
which will be yotzei them the brocha, but avoid any lo tisa problems.
And Rabbi Akiva Eiger says this does not work, because just as for an oath
you can be over on lo tisa even if the Shem in that oath is b'laz, so too,
one cannot get out of the bracha l'vatala problem by saying the bracha
in laz, as one is still over on lo tisa. He does however understand
the aseh in Temura as being one that cannot be violated with laz.

I would also note that Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks on the Rambam that if a
bracha sheino tzricha is a violation of lo tisa d'orisa, how come in
relation to a safek of birchat hamazon we go back and say it again (and
similarly emet v'yatziv) - because while this may be a safek d'orisa, it
has against it a safek d'orisa of lo tisa - and at this point he quotes
Tosphos saying that the reference to lo tisa by a bracha sheino tzricha
is an asmachta, which then solves the problem. He then concludes the
paragraph "ulhaRambam yikashe" - which is (IMHO) it precisely.

The thing is, that for Rabbi Akiva Eiger, like for RAF, this is really
just an interesting academic discussion, because the Ashkenazim follow
Tosphos, and that makes everything so much simpler. But in theory the
Sephardim seem to be trying to follow the Rambam via the Mechaber (sort
of, as I have tried to show) and all these kashas seem to me to be real
kashas on the position.

Regards
Chana

PS the Sde Chemed also goes on about oaths and brachos and the link via
lo tisa - although it is a long rambling series of pieces so it is hard
to derive any conclusions from it.

[Email #2. -mi]

RAF writes:
> I don't think that both blessings are of a kind. Birkot hanehenin are
> seen as necessary before enjoying teh world. Hanoten laya'ef koa'h is
> of a different breed, a pure sheva'h. What did you mean to say that
> according to Ashkenazi siddurim, we are not allowed to feel rested
> without a blessing? That sounds implausible. Rather, as we pasqen like
> the Rosh, that birkot hasha'har are birkot hasheva'h and not hanehenin
> (hence they are recited even without following a direct benefit, i.e.,
> even if I stay all day in pijamas, and do not get dressed anew, I
> still make a malbish 'arumim),so, too, is hanotein laya'ef koa'h a
> birkat hasheva'h.

> Sheva'h does not necessarily depend on a situation the way birkot
> hanehenin and birkot hamitzvot do, and hence, the situation upon which
> we react by praising G"d, is more fluid. Thus, I would argue that you
> will sooner encounter a berakha levatalah in birkot hanehenin and
> birkot hamitzvot, than in birkot hasheva'h. This is confirmed by the
> fact that we do not hesitate to praise G"d by singing poems that
> include His Name (a.k.a. zemirot*)

Just to note that I agree, the Ashkenazim posken like the Rosh and others
that we recite birchot hashachar without getting a direct benefit -
as the Rema states explicitly in Orech Chaim siman 46 si'if 8 "d'ain
bracha davka al aztmo ele mevrachin she HKBU bara tzarchei olam", and
so all of what you say follows from an Ashkenazi position.

But it should of course be noted that the Mechaber of the Shulchan Aruch
disagrees - and states in that siman (Orech Chaim siman 46 si'if 8)
that if one is not "chayav" in them one should not bless, so that, if
one did not hear the kol of a tarnegol or shelo halach or shelo lavash
etc one should say the bracha *without shem and malchus*.

Obviously if you are looking at the question from a Sephardi point of
view, the Shulchan Aruch's view is extremely important. However, it
should be noted that despite what the Shulchan Aruch says, the Sephardi
custom pretty universally is follow the Ashkenazi position and make
all of the blessings, with one exception. In fact the Ben Ish Chai
effectively cites the Rema's reason that even if the individual does
not benefit by getting dressed etc, given that there are Jews around the
world who do, one should say it with shem and malchus. And even ROY says
to say these (the way the Yalkut Yosef puts it (Chelek Aleph Birchat
Hashachar paragraph 3) is to say "she habrachot hen al minhago haolam.
V'af al pi she ain zu da'ato shel Maran Hashulchan Aruch, mikol makom
hoiel v'pashat haminhag l'varech, safek bracha l'hakel b'mkom minhag lo
amirinan u'ma gam sheken svarat rabotainu hamekublim".)

I said there was one exception. The exception is that most Sephardim
do not say "she'asa li kol tzorchi" on Tisha B'Av and Yom Kippur,
on the grounds that since the Jews of the world are not wearing shoes
these days, - ie it is not just the individual but the klal who are
not getting a direct benefit, then it should not be said. Of course
the Ashkenazi position is to say it. (Interesting while the Ben Ish
Chai comes out against saying this brocha on Tisha B'Av and Yom Kippur,
the Yalkut Yosef says that while it is better not to say it, those who
do say it do have on whom to rely).

But getting back to the Mechaber and his position that if you do not
get a direct benefit, you should not say the relevant birchas hashachar,
of course the source for the Mechaber - is, not surprisingly, the Rambam.

So if you are trying to understand where the Rambam is coming from on lo
tisa (which is what I am trying to grapple with), one probably needs to
assume that he does need a situation for Sheva'h. On the other hand,
if you are trying to understand what Sephardim today do, then it would
seem that at least direct benefit is not needed. But again, noting the
words of the Yalkut Yosef - it does seem that Catholic Israel is what
allows for it, sans minhag, the Rambam would be followed (does lead one
to wonder why shasani k'roteno should be different).

Regards
Chana

RAM:
> I'm trying to suggest that at no time did a Beis Din or any other
> organization, or even any individual, ever ban the establishing of new
> brachos. No one ever said, "Until now it has been okay to compose new
> brachos. But it stops here and it stops now."

Someone in the thread meantioned that the Rosh stated "No New Brachos"

Sorry if I confused your thread with this "ban" - nevertheless I don't
understand how you can state that NO ONE claims this ban when that Rosh
has been cited. True he did not say "UP TO NOW" so if that's your point
that's something else.


My issue with the Rosh's ban is that AFAIK it did NOT make it's way into
the Tur - and if so - just how normative is it? [Caveat: If it does turn
up in the Tur, then ignore this point]

And As I construe the Rosh, he makes post-Talmud Policy Ban on new
Brachos, [though with a lot of exceptions.]. IOW it's a POLICY not quite
a P'saq.

Also AISI the cut-off should have been GAONIM not Rav Ashi. It just maps
the facts better and would leave fewer exceptions.

I hope that helps
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Someone on another list commented that Teimanim STILL do the Targum on
the Torah and Haftara readings which led me to query:

1 How come Sephardim no longer do Targum? [OK I understand why - but
here's the kicker:]
2 And since they don't - how can they make a brachah on the Torah
Reading - since the reading without Targum fails to conform to Hazal's
requirements - it should be a doubtful brachah?

[OTOH For ashkenazim it's no problem. It's no worse than a Minhag]

IOW given that S'phardim have dropped the Targum, it's AT LEAST a safeiq
if the q'riah still triggers a brachah as per Hazal's model! So why not
lain w/o a brachah - after all s'feiq brachos l'haqeil!

Or restore the Targum and then it's a no-brainer.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 20
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."