Hello kollel!
The Gemara discusses knowing what must be in order and discusses the shemoneh esrei. My question is, usually when asking "minalan" the Gemara provides a pasuk. Here it provides a beraisa. Is there anything to learn out from that? Or maybe it's just because shemoneh esrei is a derabban so of course there can't be a passuk as proof since it's from later?
Thank you!
Josh
Shalom R' Danziger,
You are quite right! Normally, after asking "Mina Lahn?", the Gemara will provide a Posuk to support the statement in question. At the same time, however, let's bear in mind that literally the question is asking for the grounds on which the statemnt is based. Therefore, it would be legitimate to provide a Beraisa as an answer to that. Moreover, we do notice that in continuation of the Gemara (e.g. in the Tanu Rabanan after the Beraisa of Shimon ha'Pakoli), Pesukim are indeed cited as scriptural support for various Berachos. So, while I will try Bli Neder to keep my eye out for further discussion of this particular usage of "Mina Lahn?", for the time being it does seem in my eyes to be typical.
May you continue to attain greatness in Torah and Yiras Shamayim.
Warmest regards,
Yishai Rasowsky
Shalom R' Danziger,
Thanks to Rabbi Rafi Wolfe for having shared with me a very relevant passage from the Sefer Yad Malachi (Klalei ha'Talmud, Klal 430). There the author indicates, as you yourself did, that generally Minalan is expected to precede a scripural source. But he notes a number of exceptions that he views as anomalie, since they do not cite Pesukim but rather a Mishnah or the like.
Warmest regards,
Yishai Rasowsky