Q&A: Casuistry and Rules in the Talmud
Casuistry and Rules in the Talmud
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the Talmud, Berakhot 12a, it says: “Come and hear: In the morning prayer, if he began with ‘Who forms light’ and concluded with ‘Who brings on evenings’—he has not fulfilled his obligation; if he began with ‘Who brings on evenings’ and concluded with ‘Who forms light’—he has fulfilled his obligation. In the evening prayer, if he began with ‘Who brings on evenings’ and concluded with ‘Who forms light’—he has not fulfilled his obligation; if he began with ‘Who forms light’ and concluded with ‘Who brings on evenings’—he has fulfilled his obligation. The general rule is: everything follows the conclusion [of the blessing] … What does ‘the general rule is’ come to include? Is it not to include the case we just mentioned? No, it comes to include bread and dates.”
It seems from here that if it had not said “the general rule is,” we could not have included bread and dates, and then the Mishnah would really have referred only to the specific case of an error in the blessings of the Shema and not to other blessings. Seemingly, that comes out against your view that the Mishnah is meant to convey a general principle by means of examples. Because if that were the case, then even without the phrase “the general rule is,” we could have learned that there is a hidden rule here that also applies to bread and dates. How, in your view, can this contradiction be resolved?
Answer
Hello Oren.
Excellent question. In the Talmud itself, immediately afterward, several possibilities are raised regarding bread and dates (the question is whether he knew what he had eaten and made a mistake in the blessing, or whether he erred and did not know what he had eaten). And indeed, the Talmud says that the first case does not need to be included by the extra phrase (that is the problem discussed regarding bread and beer); rather, they came to include the second case—where he was mistaken about what he had eaten—and only regarding that was the inclusion stated.
So according to the Talmud’s conclusion, even without the concluding formula we would have included the case of someone who erred at the beginning of the blessing but knew what he had eaten. The rule comes to include something additional that would not have been included without it. What they learned from the rule is that “everything” follows the conclusion, and not merely, in an unspecified way, that a blessing follows its conclusion. That we would not have known without the concluding rule.