Berakhot 119

Also on the subject of the formula of berakhot, Ya'akov Adler comments:

With regard to the awkward change from second to third person [Berakhot 115], it should be noted that this change seems less awkward in (Biblical) Hebrew than in modern English. We often find the Bible changing back and forth between second and third person, particularly in poetic passages.

In Berakhot 114 I explained the theological implications of the differing traditions as to the pronunciation of one word in the berakhah …She-ha-kol… In Berakhot 115 David Sieradzki stated a distinct preference for the pronunciation that favours the concept of "continuous creation" as opposed to "one non-repeated act of creation from which everything has evolved since". As part of the explanations in Berakhot 116 I wrote: Thus, it seems to me, that the sages of the Talmud do not espouse the view of David.

David Sieradzki now responds:

I suppose I should be crushed – but it's not the first time, and it probably won't be the last! If it's the settled theology from the sages of the Talmud that God's creation was one-time-only rather than continuous, then why do we Ashkenazim persist with the apparently misguided approach of saying "She-ha-kol nih-YEH
bi-d'varo" (present tense), instead of "nih-YAH" (past tense)? And how do we make sense of the section I quoted from the Shacharit ("God renews each day the work of creation")?

I respond:

Why should you feel crushed? You expressed a perfectly legitimate view accompanied by cogent reasoning – a view that I am certain finds an approving echo in the minds of very many people. While we might defer to the opinions of the great sages of the past in halakhic matters, we are under no such compulsion to do so in matters of interpretation and theological understanding. They had their view and you have yours: and just as (according to me) they did not agree with your view, so you may not agree with theirs. If we may not let today's opinions have their legitimate say, in what meaningful way are we Conservative Jews? As long as our views do not create insurmountable halakhic problems we should express them cogently and proudly. And, David, as long as your points have not been satisfactorily "demolished" – hang in there!

But that is not all. Rambam, in his Guide for the Perplexed [Part Two, Chapter 25], says that when the plain words of the Torah (!) contradict our proven scientific knowledge we should not reject the promptings of our intellect and "the gates of interpretation are not closed to us". If this was his opinion concerning Torah, it would all the more be his attitude to the words and opinions of the sages. You will note that I wrote above that the view of the sages differed from yours according to me. There are other ways of understanding the requirement of the sages that the text of a berakhah has a meaning that can be construed as referring to the past, and possibly one of those ways was what they had in mind, and not the interpretation that I gave to their words. For example: the Gemara [Berakhot 40b] discusses whether the exact formula of the berakhah has to be used at all. The berakhah of a shepherd is quoted: "Blessed be God, the Owner of this slice of bread". Maybe what the sages were reading into the berakhah "…Who brought forth bread from the earth" was the idea that this very slice of bread that we are about to eat was produced at divine behest. I do not think that such an interpretation would vitiate your way of seeing things, David.

However, do you quote the Shaĥarit service (that God daily renews creation) to mean that "the sun rises every morning because God tells it 'Get up and do it again'"? I'd have a problem with that.

Do not feel that you are a little David all alone on the battlefield against the Goliath-like sages. David Kogut, at least, supports you:

One thought is that if we are to be 'partners in creation' the process must, by definition, be on-going. The Ashkenaz berakhah, therefore, seems more fitting.

To be continued.