Berakhot 026

Then why isn't Barekhu said at Minĥah?

I respond:

At first this question had me stumped. After some discussion with my son we have come up with the following:

Those modern scholars (such as Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz) are wrong when they state that Barekhu is the cantor's introduction in which he asks the congregation's consent to his making them yozté [fulfilling their liturgical duty] of all the b^erakhot, both of the Shema and the Amidah. One of the most prominent Tosafists, Rabbi Eli'ezer bar-Natan of Mainz writes:

People seem to have a delayed reaction to my account of the deposition and re-appointment of Rabban Gamli'el. (Jim Feldman would no doubt put this down to an excess of Turkey.) At any rate here is the first of some messages that the issue has generated. It is from David Bockman:

You wrote: He was only eighteen, says the Gemara, thus he was now able to say "I am like a seventy-year-old" – replacing the aged Rabban Gamli'el. (The Gemara gives a 'miraculous' explanation of his sudden aging; I prefer the more prosaic one I have offered.)

I prefer this explanation as well, and you have done it justice. I think, though, that the miraculous hair-whitening effect needs to be mentioned, if only to give coherence to this chapter of the mishnah. After all, the "zaken-ization" took place overnight, and people could clearly distinguish that he was then "fit" to lead the Sanhedrin. Isn't this parallel with the mishnah about distinguishing tekhelet [blue] and white early in the morning, i.e. "the sun now rises on your presidency?" Might not this miraculous confirmation (like the pope's smoke puff or the crimson-thread-turned-white of Yom Kippur) establish his halakhic propriety in a way that was clearly identifiable, just as the blue/white distinction would? If so, the mishnayot in this perek [chapter] might have more coherence than they seem, at face, to have, especially given the fact that this is the first chapter in the first tractate of the Talmud. We might well ask: "why does the mishnah of Berakhot begin with keriat shema, which is not a berakhah at all?", and why does the entire Talmud start off in such a slipshod, haphazard manner? After all, other masekhtot [tractates] begin much more coherently. If the mishnah was also a political work establishing the authority base of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin this first chapter makes sense. Authority of rabbinic hegemony is derived from the priests (the previous, divinely ordained authorities) and by miraculous fiat (the hair whitening). Later, in Mishnah Avot, once rule by scholars is taken for granted, the authority of the shalshelet ha-kabalah [chain of reception] can be substituted showing the continuity of oral tradition. Does any of this possibly ring true with you?

Since David asks, I'll respond to some points:

I am rather wary of seeing the Mishnah or the Gemara start at any particular point. They are, each in its own way, the result of centuries of study and discussion in the various Batei Midrash. Although dozens upon dozens of sages and academics have tried to do so throughout the ages, no really satisfying answer has ever been given for the order of sequence in the Talmud, and I don't think that we have any reason to assume that Rabbi Yehudah originally intended either Seder Zeraïm or Tractate Berakhot to come first. (A very convincing argument could be made, for instance, that Tractate Avot was intended to come first – but as we have received the Talmud it doesn't.) And I have long since given up hope of always finding a logical sequence even between the mishnayot of a chapter, let alone between the chapters themselves. To try to find such a logical sequence seems to me to be like trying to find a logical or editorial sequence between the headlines of a responsible newspaper from day to day. I am also very wary of miracles – especially in the Talmudic age! Why is "the miraculous hair-whitening … zaken-ization [that] took place overnight" not even hinted at in the account in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel if it is so important and meaningful? Lastly, unlike the priesthood, the rabbinate does not require Divine sanction.