Friday, August 04, 2006

Talking Between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or: The Development of an Erroneous Prohibition

The following, like all posts on this blog, is not intended halacha lemaaseh. As always, consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

It is brought down in Shulchan Aruch that one is forbidden to talk between Baruch sheAmar and the end of Shemoneh Esrei. In Orach Chaim 51:4.

צריך ליזהר מלהפסיק בדבור משיתחיל ברוך שאמר עד סוף י"ח

This timespan, from Baruch sheAmar until the end of Shemoneh Esrei, presumably includes the time between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or as well. In Orach Chaim 54:3, this is made more explicit:

המספר בין ישתבח ליוצר אור עבירה היא בידו וחוזר עליה מעורכי המלחמה ויש מי שאומר שלצרכי ציבור או לפסוק צדקה למי שבא חהתפרנס מן הצדקה מותר להפסיק

What is the source of this prohibition? A prohibition on talking within Pesukei deZimra (except for greeting and responding to greetings in certain instances) is understandable -- since Baruch sheAmar and Yishtabach were instituted as bracketing blessings, this is an instance of beracha hasemucha lachaverta, and so one should not interrupt. However, Yishtabach is the end of one section of prayer -- pesukei deZimra, and Yotzer Or is the beginning of another section. Why should a prohibition on speech exist at this point in the prayers?

There are two primary sources for prohibiting speech at this point. One source -- that for Orach Chaim 51:4 -- is the Rif who prohibits speech from Baruch sheAmar until the end of Shemoneh Esrei. The second source -- that for Orach Chaim 54:3 -- is the Yerushalmi that states that if one talks between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or, he has a sin in hand and would be turned back from the Jewish army for certain wars for that sin. The difficulty with this Yerushalmi is that it does not exist and cannot exist, as I will eventually explain. Now, it is quite possible that Rif's basis is this Yerushalmi, but we shall consider each source in turn.

Rif
The Rif (on daf 23 in Brachot in pages of Rif) writes:

וגרסינן בפרק כל כתבי הקדש אמר רבי יוסי יהא חלקי עם גומרי הלל בכל יום. איני והאמר מר הקורא הלל בכל יום הרי זה מחרף ומגדף. כי קא אמרינן בפסוקי דזמרה אמרינן.
מאי ניהו מתהלה לדוד עד כל הנשמה תהלל יה. ותקנו רבנן למימר ברכה מקמייהו וברכה מבתרייהו ומאי ניהו ברוך שאמר וישתבח. הלכך מיבעיה ליה לאיניש דלא לאשתעויי מכי מתחיל בברוך שאמר עד דמסיים [ליה] לשמונה עשרה

This is somewhat surprising. After all, Rif mentions the bracketing blessings before and after - baruch sheAmar and Yishtabach. The conclusion we would expect would be that therefore one should not speak from the time that he begins Baruch sheAmar until he finishes Yishtabach, not until he finishes Shemoneh Esrei!

One can make sense of most of this prohibition. After all, the reading of Shema also has blessings before and after it, which would make it prohibited for one to speak from the blessing of Yotzer Or until Ga'al Yisrael. And the statement that teikef lig`ula tefillah is taken by many to mean a prohibition of interrupting between the final blessing of Shema and the beginning of Shemoneh Esrei not only by waiting between but also of speaking between. (See Midrash Rabba on parshat vaEtchanan where it is taken to mean waiting rather than speaking.) And within the silent Shemoneh Esrei, of course one cannot talk. The only gap in this span is between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or, and perhaps the Rif was relying on the aforementioned Yerushalmi to prohibit this gap as well.

There are three approaches we can take to this difficult Rif. We can say that the Rif said it and meant it. We can say that the Rif said it and didn't mean it. Or, we can say that the Rif didn't say it.

The traditional approach is that the Rif said it and meant it. Some who take this approach are Rabbenu Yonah, Shiltei haGiborim, and Hagahot Maimoni.

Rabbenu Yonah (ד"ה ותקינו) writes:

וכיון שתקנו ברכה עליהם אין לו לשוח בהם ובמדרש אומר שאפילו בין ברכת ישתבח ליוצר אור אין לו להפסיק כלל וכן כתב הרב אלפסי ז"ל

thus explaining Rif on the basis of a midrash. This "midrash" is presumably the Yerushalmi.

Shiltei haGiborim writes (note ד):

וכן יש בירושלמי הסח בין ישתבח ליוצר אור עבירה היא בידו וחוזרין אותו ממערכי המלחמה

thus explaining the Rif on the basis of the Yerushalmi.

Rambam mentions no such prohibition in the 7th perek of hilchot tefillah, but there, Hagahot Maimoni writes:

וברוך שאמר וישתבח הוי כמו ברכה הסמוכה לחבירתה. ובדברי גאון כתוב אסור לאישתעויי בין ברוך שאמר עד שיחתם בישתבח מספר אבי"ה.
וגרסינן בירושלמי המספר בין ישתבח ליוצר אור עבירה היא בידו וחוזר עליה ממערכי המלחמה. ולכך נהגו לומר ישתבח מעומד כמו יוצר שהרי אסור להפסיק וכן רשי אסר להפסיק וכן באלפס כתב דלא מיבעי' ליה לאשתעויי מכי מתחיל בברוך שאמר עד מסיים ליה י"ח ע"כ

Thus he cites a Gaon that only prohibits until the end of Yishtabach, but then cites the same Yerushalmi that prohibits talking between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or, finally noting Rif also prohibits.

It is strange, however, that Rif does not cite this Yerushalmi explicitly, if he is indeed relying upon it for determining halacha. Indeed, Rif does not shy away from citing Yerushalmis as appropriate. That he does not mention this critical Yerushalmi before making the leap to prohibit the entire timespan is a bit suspicious.

The second approach one could take is thus that Rif said it but didn't mean it. He wrote that one is prohibited from talking from Baruch sheAmar until he finishes Shemoneh Esrei but meant only most of that timespan - because of the blessing of Shema and the importance of following the final blessing of Shema immediately by Shemoneh Esrei. That there is one gap in the middle, between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or, in which one can talk is immaterial to Rif's main point - that for the vast majority of tefillah, one is now prohibited from talking. But Rif would agree that, at this particular point, one can talk.

The third approach one could take is that the Rif never said it. That is, what we have in the Rif is a scribal error and he only meant to prohibit until one finishes Yishtabach, not until one finished Shemoneh Esrei. This would also account for the fact that Rif does not cite the Yerushalmi -- he never meant to prohibit between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or.

The Hagaot Maimoni is invaluable to arguing for this approach. Firstly, he cites the words of a Goan:

וברוך שאמר וישתבח הוי כמו ברכה הסמוכה לחבירתה. ובדברי גאון כתוב אסור לאישתעויי בין ברוך שאמר עד שיחתם בישתבח מספר אבי"ה.

This is quite similar to the words of the Rif:

ותקנו רבנן למימר ברכה מקמייהו וברכה מבתרייהו ומאי ניהו ברוך שאמר וישתבח. הלכך מיבעיה ליה לאיניש דלא לאשתעויי מכי מתחיל בברוך שאמר עד דמסיים [ליה] לשמונה עשרה

If we compare the words of the goan with those of the Rif, we see that they are quite similar, and are based on the same assumption -- that the bracketing of the blessings makes talk during pesukei deZimra forbidden.

Gaon: אסור
Rif: הלכך מיבעיה ליה לאיניש דלא
Gaon: לאישתעויי
Rif: לאישתעויי
Gaon: בין ברוך שאמר
Rif: מכי מתחיל בברוך שאמר
Gaon: עד
Rif: עד
Gaon: שיחתם
Rif: דמסיים [ליה] מ
Gaon: בישתבח
Rif: לשמונה עשרה

They are saying essentially the same thing and using the same speech patterns, even using the strange word לאישתעויי.

Yet there is one major difference between the gaon and the Rif. The former states ישתבח while the latter states שמונה עשרה. This is the difference between whether one may or may not talk between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or.

Once again, Hagahot Maimoni proves invaluable with his citation of the Rif. His girsa of Rif is slightly different:

דלא מיבעי' ליה לאשתעויי מכי מתחיל בברוך שאמר עד מסיים ליה י"ח

That is, instead of calling it שמונה עשרה, Rif calls it י"ח. Assume for a moment that this is not just abbreviation by Hagahot Maimoni, but was actually in his girsa. If so, we once again contrast the words of the goan with the words of the Rif:

Gaon: עד
Rif: עד
Gaon: שיחתם
Rif: דמסיים [ליה] מ
Gaon: בישתבח
Rif: לי"ח

Note that ישתבח begins with a י and ends with a ח. It is quite possible that deliberately, or due to scribal error, ישתבח was abbreviated to י"ח. Then, Hagahot Maimoni interpreted that as Shemoneh Esrei, and others expanded it to Shemoneh Esrei as well.

If so, the Rif never said that one may not talk from Baruch sheAmar until he finishes Shemoneh Esrei, but rather echoed the more relevant words of the geonim. A scribal error led some to think that he prohibited speech until the end of Shemoneh Esrei, and this was explained and justified by some commentators on the basis of the nonexistent Yerushalmi.

The Nonexistent Yerushalmi
We now turn to the second source, the Yerushalmi that explicitly forbids talking between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or. We find two versions of this Yerushalmi cited. First, the Shiltei haGiborim:

וכן יש בירושלמי הסח בין ישתבח ליוצר אור עבירה היא בידו וחוזרין אותו ממערכי המלחמה

and second, the Hagahot Maimoni:

וגרסינן בירושלמי המספר בין ישתבח ליוצר אור עבירה היא בידו וחוזר עליה ממערכי המלחמה.

There are slight inconsequential differences between these two citations. Namely, do "we return him" or does "he return because of it?" That one has הסח and the other has המספר suggests that there there was a slight trend to restate in clearer terms (with המספר being the clearer term).

There are two problems with the aforementioned Yerushalmi. The first problem is that we do not have such a Yerushalmi before us. This is not such a problem. The Yerushalmi could just exist in an alternate girsa. After all, we have the attestation of both the Shiltei haGiborim and the Hagahot Maimoni.

The second problem is that such a Yerushalmi should not exist. After all, the Talmudic pesukei deZimra was just Ashrei. The additional chapters of sefer Tehillim as well as the blessings before and after were Geonic additions. If Baruch sheAmar and Yishtabach were post-Talmudic, how could a Yerushalmi refer to Yishtabach, let alone prohibit speaking between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or?

One could say that this Yerushalmi proves that Yishtabach, at least was not post-Talmudic. Or one could note that Rabbenu Yonah refers to this source as a "midrash" rather than a Yerushalmi, and note as well that there are many post-Talmudic midrashim. Yet that Shiltei Giborim and Hagahot Maimoni refer to this as a Yerushalmi suggests that by "midrash," Rabbenu Yonah was referring to the Yerushalmi.

We cannot say that the Yerushalmi does not exist. These commentators surely saw a Yerushalmi that stated this. But how could this be so?

To answer this, we will examine two Bavlis and one Yerushalmi which are related to the issue of someone returning from war for a sin he committed, none of which mention this particular sin of talking between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or.

The first source is Bavli Menachot 36a:

אמר רב חסדא סח בין תפילה לתפילה חוזר ומברך סח אין לא סח לא והא שלח רב חייא בריה דרב הונא משמיה דר' יוחנן על תפילה של יד אומר ברוך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להניח תפילין על תפילין של ראש אומר ברוך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מצות תפילין אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו לא סח מברך אחת סח מברך שתים תנא סח בין תפילה לתפילה עבירה היא בידו וחוזר עליה מערכי המלחמה

There appears to be a difference between the tradition of Eretz Yisrael and that of Bavel here. Rav Chisda relates the Babylonian tradition that if one speaks between the tefillin shel yad and tefillin shel rosh he must repeat the blessing. Rav Chiyya son of Rav Huna sent to Bavel from Eretz Yisrael a statement of Rabbi Yochanan - perhaps because it was at odds with the Babylonian tradition - that one makes a different blessing of the tefillin shel yad and the tefillin shel rosh. The implication is that ab initio these have two separate blessings which one should make, and perhaps there is even no prohibition of talking in between. As a harmonization of these two positions, or perhaps merely as a reiteration of the Babylonian tradition, Abaye and Rava both state that if he did not talk in between, he only makes one blessing, while if he did talk, he makes two (separate) blessings. Finally, a brayta is cited stating that there is a prohibition, albeit a minor one, of talking between the tefillin shel yad and tefillin shel rosh, and for this minor sin one returns from the battlefield.

(footnote: Interestingly, though irrelevant to the discussion at hand, the brayta is quite similar to Rav Chisda's formulation of the Babylonian tradition. The brayta states סח בין תפילה לתפילה עבירה היא בידו וחוזר עליה מערכי המלחמה while Rav Chisda states סח בין תפילה לתפילה חוזר ומברך. This may cause one to wonder whether the brayta was originally in abridged form, ending at the words וחוזר עליה, which might have provided partial basis of the the Babylonian tradition of חוזר ומברך.)

Rabbi Yochanan's actual position remains unclear. Perhaps he maintains that tefillin shel yad and tefillin shel rosh are two separate commandments, and thus they have separate blessings and one may speak in between donning the pair. Perhaps he maintains they have separate blessings lechatchila, but even so one should not talk between them -- the present Ashkenazic position. Or perhaps he maintains like Abaye and Rava that they have separate blessings only when one does not talk in between, but otherwise one makes only one blessing. If the last, then it is unclear whether he maintains that there is a prohibition of speaking between the donning of tefillin shel yad and tefillin shel rosh.

The second source is in Bavli Sotah 44a-b:

דף מד, א משנה (דברים כ) ויספו השוטרים לדבר אל העם וגו' ר' עקיבא אומר הירא ורך הלבב כמשמעו שאינו יכול לעמוד בקשרי המלחמה ולראות חרב שלופה רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר הירא ורך הלבב זהו המתיירא מן העבירות שבידו לפיכך תלתה לו התורה את כל אלו שיחזור בגללן
רבי יוסי אומר אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ממזרת ונתינה לישראל בת ישראל לממזר ולנתין הרי הוא הירא ורך הלבב

דף מד, ב גמרא מאי איכא בין רבי יוסי לר"י הגלילי איכא בינייהו עבירה דרבנן כמאן אזלא הא דתניא שח בין תפילה לתפילה עבירה היא בידו וחוזר עליה מעורכי המלחמה כמאן כר"י הגלילי

Thus, in explanation of the distinction between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yossi haGelili about what sin causes one to return from the battlefield, the brayta is cited that one who speaks between tefillin shel yad and tefillin shel rosh returns because of this from the battlefield, and this brayta is established as being in accordance with Rabbi Yossi haGlili.

The final source is Yerushalmi Sotah 38b-39a, on the same Mishna:

דף לח, ב פרק ח הלכה ט משנה (דברים כו) ויספו השוטרים לדבר אל העם ואמרו מי האיש הירא ורך הלבב ילך וישוב לביתו רבי עקיבה אומר הירא ורך הלבב כשמועו שאינו יכול לעמוד בקישוי המלחמה ולראות חרב שלופה ר"י הגלילי אומר הירא ורך הלבב זה שהוא מתיירא מן העבירות שבידו לפיכך תלת לו התורה את כל אילו שיחזור בגללן רבי יוסי אומר אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ממזרת ונתינה לישראל בת ישראל לממזר ולנתין זהו הירא ורך הלבב:

דף לח, ב פרק ח הלכה ט גמרא כתיב ויספו השוטרים. אין ל' זה ויספו אלא לשון תוספת כאינש דאמר מוסיף אני על דברי רבי. תני דאחרונין מן התוספת. אמר רבי יוסי תרין תניין אינון מאן דאמר מוסיף אני על דברי רבי אחד הראשונים ואחד האחרוני' אמרן הוא אמרין רבו.

דף לט, א פרק ח הלכה ט גמרא מאן דאמר האחרונים מן התוספת הראשונים אמרו הוא אמרו רבו והאחרונים אמרו הוא ולא אמרו רבו. א"ר מנא חד תניי הוא ראשונים אמרין הוא אמרן רבו האחרונים אמרן הוא לא אמרן רבו. מתניתא פליגא על רבי יוסי שומע פרשה מפי כהן ואומרה לעם בכל לשון וסיפא פליגא על ר' מנא עוד דבר אחד היה מוסיף. משלו. אין תימר כן אפילו על דרבי יוסי לית הוא פליגא דתני הראשונים אמרן הוא אמרן רבו האחרונים אמרן הוא לא אמרן רבו. תני כולהן צריכין להביא ראייה לדבריהן חוץ מזה שעדיו עמו. ואתייא כמאן דאמר שאינו יכול לעמוד בקישרי המלחמות וחרב שלופה. ברם כמאן דמר שהוא מתיירא מעבירות שבידו עוד הוא צריך להביא ראייה. לפיכך תלת לו התורה את כל אילו שיחזור בגללן שלא לפרסם את החטאים. ואתייא כיי דמר רבי לוי בשם ר' שמעון בן לקיש (ויקרא ו) במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט החטאת לפני י"י שלא לפרסם את החטאים:

Missing from this Yerushalmi is an elaboration of the distinction between the positions of Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yossi haGelili. Perhaps this is absent with cause -- if Rabbi Yochanan, who represents the Palestinian tradition, maintains that lechatchila one makes separate blessings on tefillin shel yad and tefillin shel rosh, then perhaps it was not considered sinful in the slightest to talk between donning the tefillin shel yad and tefillin shel rosh. Perhaps, then, they were unaware with, or disagreed with, this brayta.

Still, the brayta leaves a gap. One is left wondering at the distinction between the positions of Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yossi haGelili. This gap could have impelled someone aware of the parallel Bavli Sotah to record the distinction as a marginal note:


תניא שח בין תפילה לתפילה עבירה היא בידו וחוזר עליה מעורכי המלחמה

However, as a marginal note in a foreign gemara, it lacks the context and tradition it possessed in its original position. Someone who was unaware of the initial meaning of this brayta reworded the marginal note to be clearer. (We see this trend in the distinction between הסח and המספר in the girsaot of the Shiltei haGiborim and Hagahot Maimoni.) Lacking context, he interpreted the singular תפילה to mean not the less common "phylactery" but rather the more common "prayer."

What, then, are the two prayers in between which one is prohibited to talk? Shacharit has three primary sections: pesukei deZimra, Shema, and Shemoneh Esrei. Between the latter two there are already sources which appear to prohibit speech -- teikef lig`ulah tefillah. He thus took it as the first two prayers, and helpfully expanded it into the last blessing of the first and the first blessing of the second to make it clearer. שח בין תפילה לתפילה עבירה היא בידו וחוזר עליה מעורכי המלחמה thus became הסח בין ישתבח ליוצר אור עבירה היא בידו וחוזרין אותו ממערכי המלחמה as in the girsa appearing before the Shiltei haGiborim.

Then, the next copyist took the marginal note and included it in the main body of the gemara, something which is a common occurrence. Thus, we can account for the girsa of Yerushalmi that appeared before these Rishonim, even as such a girsa in Yerushalmi cannot be authentic.

Summary
In sum, this practice not to speak between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or is not well grounded. It is possible that the Rif did not say it or mean it, and even if he did, he based himself on a nonexistent Yerushalmi that likely arose from a scribal error and misinterpretation of the original brayta which was about talking between tefillin shel yad and tefillin shel rosh. Therefore, talking between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or should be entirely permitted, and it is thus far better to interrupt there than within Pesukei deZimra or within Shema and its blessings.

9 comments:

Liorah-Lleucu said...

Wow! I want to learn how to do this so well.

Eli said...

Where did you get it from that the Talmudic Pesukei DeZimra was only Ashrei and nothing else? The Gemora in Shabbos 118b says that they said "Hallel" in Pesukei DeZimra and Rashi explains that that meant the Halelu-yah Tehillim. So that was more than Ashrei.

joshwaxman said...

Liorah:
Thanks!

Eli:
Good question. In answer, I will point out that this is Rashi, not the gemara itself, that identifies the extent of pesukei deZimra. And you do not even have to go so far as that Rashi. After all, the Rif (who is earlier than Rashi) I actually cited in this article was citing the gemara in Shabbat that you mentioned and he, too, defined it as Ashrei until Kol Hanshama:
מאי ניהו מתהלה לדוד עד כל הנשמה תהלל יה.

See above.

But again, this is Rif defining pesukei deZimra rather than the gemara itself, and we don't even know whether Rif consider all of it or just Ashrei to be the original pesukei deZimra.

In answer to where I got the idea in the first place that it was just Ashrei and the rest is an addition by the geonim, see Rabbenu Yona on the side of the Rif where he appears to say this. He talks about someone who comes late, who can in certain circumstances restrict himself to Baruch seAmar, Ashrei, and Yishtabach.

Here is a scan.

He writes:

שאף על פי שהגאונים תקנו לומר מתהלה לדוד עד כל הנשמה כיון שעיקר התקנה נראה שלא היתה אלא מפני המזמור של תהלה לדוד בלבד שהרי אנו רואין שעל קריאת אותו המזמור בלבד אמרו שמובטח לו שהוא בן עולם הבא די לו בזה המזמור...

He thus writes that this is a takkana of the *Geonim* to say all the way until Kol HaNeshama, and the main point of the takkana was because of Ashrei. Perhaps other ways of reading this Rabbenu Yona exist.

I am reworking this essay for the purpose of handing it in for a class I took a while ago, and in the later draft, I didn't empphasise this point so much. After all, the main point is the beracha of Yishtabach.

In terms of Baruch sheAmar, the scholarly consensus seems to be that it is Savoraic, even though the earliest attestation of it is Geonic. I have not found a specific source since I started looking a week or so ago, but I assume that Yishtabach dates from the same time (as Rif talks about the Rabanan instituting a bracha before and after it).

Eli said...

I don't think this Rabeinu Yona proves anything. All he is doing is quoting the Gemora in Berachos on 4b that says that if you say Ashrei 3 times a day you're a ben olam haba. But he assumes that one of those times must bein pesukei dezimra. Who said? May be you can say it 3 times a day at any time and it has nothing to do with pesukei dezimra. And the takana that he mentions is just his assumption, since there is no takana of Anshei kneses hagedola (who were mesaken brachos and davening) with regard to pesukei dezimra.
And the Rif himself seems to base his pesukei dezimra (Ashrei and 5 halelu-yahs)on that same gemora in Berachos, because the gemora there has another man deomar who mentions the 5 halelu-yahs as somethign to say daily.
My point is that the whole question with the Yerushalmi is very weak since there is no proof one way or the other about which parts of pesukei dezimra were invented when. There are may be other better sources, but the ones mentioned are not them.
I would guess from the lashon in Berachos that they didn't say pesukei dezimra at all (not even Ashrei) during the time of the Amorayim simply because they mention it as a good thing to do and don't specify when or how to say it. So may be some people just started doing it after those statements by the Amorayim were made and it took a few hundred years to formulate into pesukei dezimra.

In any case, great article. I just want to point out some weak points.

joshwaxman said...

Thanks. I'll have to think about it some more.

My reading of Rabbenu Yona is also that they didn't universally say pesukei deZimra at all (except for Rabbi Yossi, and others who were like him).

Then, because of Rabbi Yossi's statement, the geonim established this as a practice, together with brachot before and after. I don't think that Rabbenu Yona thought, or assumed, that one of those three times saying Ashrei were pesukei deZimra; rather, that this was the meaning of the term pesukei deZimra in the gemara in Shabbat, and the geonim established this practice (of Ashrei) together with brachot, and then supplemented it with other mizmorim as well.

Perhaps Rif is basing himself on that gemara in Berachot; I'll check it out. It is also quite possible that he is basing himself on contemporary practice, in which pesukei deZimra encompassed all those mizmorim.

In terms of earliest attestations of the brachot, the earliest for Baruch sheAmar is Rav Moshe Gaon, but he seems to address it as if it was a preexisting text. As a result, some scholars consider it Savoraic.

Indeed, if we want to get really academic about it, we could note that even the gemara which mentions pesukei deZimra is a stama degemara (the tip-off is איני), which in general dates to Savoraic or Geonic times. (I doubt Rabbenu Yonah would make this distinction, and would consider the Amoraic pesukei deZimra as opposed to the Geonic.) If so, perhaps we can even claim that the "pesukei deZimra" mentioned in the gemara was the full pesukei deZimra we have today; but then it would *still* be post-Talmudic, and much later than the Yerushalmi, which was redacted much earlier.

Indeed, the "Yerushalmi" does stand as evidence of a much earlier, Tannaitic date (I assume it would be a brayta just as the other "Hasach" brayta) for the brachot, and mention that possibility in passing. It is really the patently obvious reinterpretation of bein tefillah letfillah that influences me the most.

Thanks again. I'll check out that gemara in Berachot again.

joshwaxman said...

Another interesting point: I've always read the Rif who states:
וגרסינן בפרק כל כתבי הקדש אמר רבי יוסי יהא חלקי עם גומרי הלל בכל יום. איני והאמר מר הקורא הלל בכל יום הרי זה מחרף ומגדף. כי קא אמרינן בפסוקי דזמרה אמרינן.
מאי ניהו מתהלה לדוד עד כל הנשמה תהלל יה. ותקנו רבנן למימר ברכה מקמייהו וברכה מבתרייהו ומאי ניהו ברוך שאמר וישתבח.

as implying that this takkana of a beracha was a separate, later stage. (but this is not necessarily the only way to read this rif.)

On the other hand, Rebbenu Yona writes "וכיון שתקנו ברכה עליהם אין לו לשוח בהם ובמדרש אומר שאפילו בין ברכת ישתבח ליוצר אור אין לו להפסיק כלל וכן כתב הרב אלפסי ז"ל"

thus referring in the same breath as the takkana to a midrash. perhaps he doesn't realize this is a yerushalmi and is referring to a post-Talmudic midrash. Or perhaps he considers two "takkanot" at play here -- the first, by Amoraim, which includes Ashrei and Berachot, and the second, by Geonim, that explands the number of mizmorim. And that is what he means by ikkar haTakkana.

Perhaps. Just a thought.
Kol Tuv.

Eli said...

It would be inresting to analyze how many and which parts of Shas are not from the Amorayim. :-) Something to keep someone busy for a very long time.

By the way, here is a question for you may be for a later post.

"What is the source to put on Tefillin every day (as opposed to once a year or once in a life time) and is it really a Torah obligation or not?"

I have been working on this one for a while and so far have some ideas but none are really conclusive. I'll drop you a note if I post this on my blog.

joshwaxman said...

Indeed.

I assume your basis for "once a lifetime" os Rosh haShana 17a which states that pshei yisrael begufan is karkafta dela manach tefillin meOlam.

The closest source that comes to mind immediately of a daily practice of putting on tefillin is the gemara in Berachot 60b which, in the middle of listing the elements of the daily routine, has:
כי מנח תפילין אדרעיה לימא ברוך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להניח תפילין ארישיה לימא ברוך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מצות תפילין

I would have to do much more searching to answer all those points you raise. Should be an interesting post.

Kol Tuv,
Josh

Eli said...

Yes, the gemora in RH 17 is the basis for once in a life time.

Let me know when you post about it as I would like to compare it to what I found.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin