Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

[Inspired by this site, this question is a solicitation for review of a product, copied below. Scale is not intended to be significant.]

  1. Is this set-theoretic representation of categories of b'rachos accurate?
  2. Are there any internal inconsistencies?
  3. Is it missing any important categories?
  4. Are there any counterexamples?
  5. Is it legible?

טבלא לסוגי ברכות

share|improve this question
    
Is the inclusion of a "mi'deoraitah" space enough to make it clear the rest is "mi'derabanan"? (assuming that is the case) –  Ariel Allon Jul 12 '11 at 14:39
    
@ArielAllon I am troubled by that as well. Similarly with aruka as !_k'tzara_. Is there a good way to represent those clearly? It was supposed to be so easy. . . –  WAF Jul 12 '11 at 18:54
1  
If you have a legend (as suggested in my answer), you can indicate mid'oraysa with a pattern and write "(the rest is mid'rabanan)", perhaps. –  msh210 Jul 12 '11 at 19:16
add comment

1 Answer

  • Re 5, legibility: It's not clear which area is denoted rishona. Similarly, the notation for b'racha k'tzara, to signify that it covers the large upper central rectangle, is not neat, at best, and not clear, at worst. I think perhaps put the words on the side in a legend and simply have overlapping colors and/or patterns for the different types of b'racha.
    Also, for clarity, avoid non-convex areas (which is what rishona and mid'rabanan now are). To that end, the acharona box can have its left end flush with the left end of the outer box and its right end flush with the right end of the hashevach box, and the mid'oraysa box can have the same width as the outer box. Every area of interest would then be convex except rishona, which would be a non-convex hexagon (it's currently a non-convex octagon): still not ideal, but better IMO.
  • You seem to be missing most of the b'rachos found in sh'mone esre.
share|improve this answer
    
thanks for the review. Re the b'racha k'tzara rectangle, if it were colored or hatched, it could appear that it was the extension of nehenin and rishona as well. Is there a way to avoid that? And speaking of those two, I believe they are fully overlapping sets. What would you recommend for Mid'rabanan? –  WAF Jul 12 '11 at 18:59
    
@WAF, re a way to avoid: Yes: have a legend. One color or pattern will clearly be for hanehenin and one clearly for k'tzara. –  msh210 Jul 12 '11 at 19:01
    
Re sh'mone esre, I was mentally including them in shevach. Is that too simplistic? Too wrong? –  WAF Jul 12 '11 at 19:05
    
@WAF, I thought shevach describes the first three b'rachos of sh'mone esre, bakasha the next thirteen, and hodaa the last three. Or is that categorization scheme somehow independent of the one you're using? –  msh210 Jul 12 '11 at 19:12
    
@WAF, re rishona (commenting on your comment of 2011-07-12 18:59:12Z): Ah, I thought by rishona you meant everything that's not acharona. Dumb of me, actually. So it's fine shape-wise. And so would mid'rabanan be, if you expand the boxes I mention expanding. –  msh210 Jul 12 '11 at 19:15
show 5 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.