 |
|
|
Surf A Little Torah PARASHAT EIKEV by Rav David Silverberg
Parashat Eikev introduces the Torah obligation of birkat ha-mazon: "You shall eat, you shall be satiated, and you shall bless the Lord your God" (Devarim 8:10). The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (48b) elaborates on what precisely this obligation entails. It concludes that only the first three berakhot of birkat ha-mazon are required by Torah law. The fourth, to which they refer as, "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv," was instituted later by Chazal. The Gemara explains that after the destruction of the city of Beitar, which served as the base for Bar Kokhba's heroic but failed revolt against the Romans, the emperor denied the Jews the right to bury the thousands of victims. Ultimately, permission was granted and the bodies of the fallen residents of Beitar were buried. In commemoration of this event, Chazal instituted this fourth berakha, in which we thank God for the constant goodness He bestows upon us. The obvious question arises as to why the burial of the victims of Beitar warrants such a magnificent expression of praise and thanksgiving. Additionally, wherein lies the connection between this specific act of divine kindness and birkat ha-mazon? Rav Meir Simcha ha-Kohen of Dvinsk addresses these questions in his Meshekh Chokhma on Parashat Eikev. He begins by redefining the nature and purpose of birkat ha-mazon. As one can easily tell from the content of these berakhot, birkat ha-mazon deals with far more than just God's provision of food. Rather, Rav Meir Simcha suggests, the blessing involves "the building of the nation… through the finger of Providence." We thank the Almighty for building and sustaining Am Yisrael. That is why the obligation of birkat ha-mazon includes a blessing over the land (the second berakha - "al ha-aretz ve-al ha-mazon") and for Jerusalem and the Mikdash ("Bonei Yerushalayim"; this berakha was recited, though obviously in much different form, during the times of the Temple, as well). In the first three berakhot, we thank the Almighty for the basic physical and spiritual infrastructure that sustains Am Yisrael in its national homeland. The fourth berakha deals with God's miraculous sustaining of Am Yisrael in exile, during times of oppression, homelessness and near hopelessness. The religious oppression suffered under the Romans became so harsh that the Jews saw in Bar Kokhba's revolt the final and only hope for Jewish survival. Under Roman rule, the Jews saw no light at the end of the dark tunnel; only by renewing Jewish independence could they even hope to survive as a people. This is why the fall of Beitar, the final stronghold of the resistance, was such a devastating blow to the Jews. But when a kinder emperor arose and initiated conciliatory measures, allowing the bodies in Beitar to be brought to burial, the Jews realized that, as Rav Meir Simcha writes, "when the stormy ocean waters threaten to wash them away, a wind will come and silence them through the rulers and advisors of the land, whose heart is in the hand of God." The decision to allow the Jews to bury the victims of Beitar rejuvenated the hope of survival. They understood that, with the grace of God, benevolent governments will allow for the Jews' continued existence. Thus, while the first three berakhot address God's sustaining of His people in their land, with their independence and Temple, the fourth speaks of their supernatural survival in exile, and the spark of hope that has never been extinguished, even in the darkest of times. ***** Yesterday, we discussed the berakhot of birkat ha-mazon - a mitzva introduced in Parashat Eikev. Specifically, we saw the insightful approach of Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, who viewed birkat ha-mazon as thanking God for the "building of Am Yisrael" and its ongoing sustenance. For this reason, we saw, birkat ha-mazon devotes a good deal of its text to the land of Israel (the second berakha) and the city of Jerusalem and the Mikdash (third berakha). Today we will elaborate a bit further on the principle Rav Meir Simcha developed. First, we should note that his definition of birkat ha-mazon does not seem to apply to the first berakha, which is clearly universal in nature. There we acknowledge God's provision of food and sustenance to all living things, man and beast alike. In this berakha we disavow any personal credit for the food we have eaten. Anything we have and enjoy, including our most basic needs, come to us by the grace of God, who mercifully sustains and provides for all the creatures in His world. Thus, Rav Meir Simcha's view of birkat ha-mazon as addressing God's support of Am Yisrael applies only to the second, third and fourth berakhot. (The fourth berakha was the focus of yesterday's discussion.) In any event, the concept he advances reflects a very deep and profound approach to birkat ha-mazon, with ramifications far beyond this limited context. The recitation of birkat ha-mazon requires one to view his personal act of eating as part of a great, meta-historical process. When an individual eats and thereby sustains his existence, this activity constitutes the sustenance of Am Yisrael; his dinner table becomes the means by which the Almighty builds and nourishes His people. Birkat ha-mazon challenges the Jew to rise above his narrow, personal perspective and view his life as inextricably bound with the existence and eternity of Am Yisrael. Among the many areas in Jewish life that are enhanced by this concept is that of chesed (kindness). Once the sustenance of every individual Jew must be seen as but a part of the larger process of the sustenance of the entire nation, our obligation to assist one another becomes self-evident. Helping a fellow Jew essentially helps oneself, insofar as the well-being of each individual is viewed as the well-being of the nation as a whole. ***** As we have discussed this week, Parashat Eikev introduces the mitzva of birkat ha-mazon, to bless the Almighty after eating (Devarim 8:10). The Gemara in Masekhet Arakhin (4a) considers a startling qualification of this obligation, namely, that it would not apply to the kohanim's consumption of kodshim (sacrificial meat). Since, the Gemara writes, the kohanim bring atonement through their eating to the one who offered the sacrifice (as Chazal derive from Shemot 29:33; see Yoma 68b), this consumption should perhaps not require birkat ha-mazon. Ultimately, however, the Gemara rejects this notion, citing as a basis the text of the verse in Parashat Eikev: "You shall eat, you shall be satiated, and you shall bless… " Since the kohanim do, after all, achieve "satiation" through their eating of kodshim, this obligation applies to them, as well. Needless to say, this entire discussion is very puzzling. Why should the "atonement" element of this consumption by the kohanim have any impact on the requirement of birkat ha-mazon? How is the nature of one's eating relevant with regard to the applicability of this obligation? Rav Menachem Kasher zt"l, in his Torah Sheleima (Parashat Tetzaveh - Shemot 29, footnote 96), suggests three explanations. The first approach appears to emerge from the version of the Gemara's text in the Shita Mekubetzet. The Gemara perhaps felt that only eating for the purpose of satiation obligates one to recite birkat ha-mazon. If one eats for some other purposes - such as to fulfill an obligation - no requirement of birkat ha-mazon applies. The verse would thus read, "You shall eat to be satiated, and you shall bless… " The Gemara then rejects this theory and reads "you shall eat" and "you shall be satiated" as two independent clauses, without any interconnection. Secondly, Rav Kasher suggests that according to the Gemara's original thesis, halakha cannot consider the kohanim's consumption of sacrificial meat as actual "eating." The reason for this would be the association drawn in several places throughout the Talmud (, for example, Zevachim 13b) between the kohanim's consumption of sacrificial meat and that of the mizbei'ach (altar). The kohanim partake of the meat as human altars, if you will; the sacrifice is offered to God through its joint consumption by the altar and the kohanim. Thus, given that they function here as altars, rather than regular human beings, the Gemara thought that no birkat ha-mazon is required. In the end, however, the Gemara concludes that the kohanim must recite birkat ha-mazon because they did, after all, become satiated, and the Torah requires the recitation of birkat ha-mazon after eating and satiation. Rav Kasher's third and final approach involves a theory posed by the Sha'agat Aryeh (96) concerning the mitzva of akhilat kodshim (to eat sacrificial meat). Normally, halakha defines "akhila" (eating) as the consumption of a ke-zayit (volume of an olive). One would have expected, then, that a kohen fulfills his mitzva to eat kodshim simply by eating this quantity of meat. The Sha'agat Aryeh, however, claims that kodshim marks an exception. Here, the Torah commands that all the sacrificial meat be eaten by the kohanim. The responsibility lies with all kohanim present to see to it that the meat is consumed. Hence, if a kohen eats but one ke-zayit of the several "ke-zeitim" of sacrificial meat, the mitzva remains unfulfilled. Consequently, Rav Kasher suggests, one could claim that the term, "akhila" is redefined when dealing with kodshim. It denotes not the consumption of a ke-zayit, but rather eating the maximum amount possible to ensure that the meat is completed. Therefore, one who eats only one ke-zayit of the meat, leaving over several ke-zeitim, perhaps has not, in the formal sense, performed an act of "eating." The Gemara therefore considered the possibility that a kohen in such a case would not require birkat ha-mazon, since he did not actually "eat" according to the strict halakhic definition of the term. ***** Over the last few days we have looked at several aspects of the mitzva of birkat ha-mazon, which the Torah introduces in Parashat Eikev. Today we will look at some practical halakhot relevant to this mitzva. One is required to recite birkat ha-mazon after the consumption of a ke-zayit (volume of an olive). The precise definition of this quantity is subject to much debate and discussion among the poskim. Rav Chayim Naeh published a work on the subject of halakhic "shi'urim" (quantities) and concluded that for purposes of birkat ha-mazon, the required amount is around 28 cubic centimeters. The Chazon Ish, however, disputed the rulings of Rav Chayim Na'eh and holds that the quantity is considerably higher - close to 50 cc. According to the Chafetz Chayim in his Mishna Berura (184:22), the Torah obligation of birkat ha-mazon does not apply unless one eats "shi'ur sevi'a" - enough to feel satiated, which would seemingly depend on the individual and his current circumstance. Chazal, however, ordained that one recites birkat ha-mazon after the consumption of a ke-zayit, regardless of whether or not he has been satiated. In his Bei'ur Halakha, the Chafetz Chayim elaborates on this issue and shows that this view that he recorded in the Mishna Berura represents the majority view among the Rishonim. Some Rishonim, however, including the Yerei'im, Ra'avad, Rashba and Ramban, maintain that even by Torah law one must recite birkat ha-mazon after eating a ke-zayit. The practical relevance of this debate, of course, involves situations where one cannot remember whether or not he recited birkat ha-mazon after eating. When birkat ha-mazon is required by force of Torah law, then one must recite it even in situations of doubt, just as with regard to all Torah laws we act stringently when in doubt. When it is required by force of rabbinic enactment, then one need not - and thus should not - recite birkat ha-mazon if there is a chance that he has already done so. This discussion applies only to birkat ha-mazon. The berakhot recited before eating are required regardless of the quantity of food. The Rishonim debate the status of "berakha me-ein shalosh," or what we generally refer to as, "berakha acharona," or "al ha-michya." This berakha is recited after the consumption of grains other than bread, and fruits from the seven species mentioned in our parasha (8:8: grapes, wine, figs, pomegranates, olives and dates). (We do not speak here of "borei nefashot," which is recited after eating other foods and is clearly mi-de-rabbanan.) We generally assume that this berakha is not required by Torah law, and was instituted by Chazal. This is the view of the Rambam (as understood by the Beit Yoseif - O.C. 184, 209 - and the Chinukh) and Rabbenu Yona and the ruling of the Shulchan Arukh (209:3). The Rosh, Ritva, She'iltot and Tur hold that this berakha is required by Torah law. What is the halakha if one is required to recite a berakha me-ein shalosh but mistakenly recites birkat ha-mazon, instead? Has he fulfilled his requirement, or must he still recite the berakha acharona? The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 208:17) rules that generally speaking, one has not fulfilled his requirement in such a case, with two exceptions - dates and wine. This is why we need not recite a berakha acharona over kiddush wine; it is covered by the birkat ha-mazon after the meal. The Mishna Berura, however, writes that many Acharonim dispute this position of the Shulchan Arukh and claim that with regard to grain products, too, ex post facto one fulfills his obligation through birkat ha-mazon. This would explain the custom of some people to eat some "mezonot" after kiddush on Shabbat morning before "ha-motzi," without reciting an al ha-michya. This custom relies upon this view opposing the ruling of the Shulchan Arukh, that birkat ha-mazon covers the mezonot. Rav Ovadya Yossef, however, discourages this practice as one should preferably not get entangled in this debate among the poskim. Furthermore, he argues, one should begin the meal as quickly after kiddush as possible (in order to satisfy the requirement of "kiddush be-makom se'uda," a topic for a separate discussion). This practice is upheld, however, by Ashkenazic authorities including the Chafetz Chayim (Bei'ur Halakha 176) and Rav Yehoshua Neubert (Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata 54:22). ***** In Parashat Eikev, Moshe Rabbenu reviews several of Benei Yisrael's misdeeds in the wilderness, elaborating particularly on chet ha-egel (the sin of the golden calf). Before he begins, he issues the following, seemingly generic declaration: "Remember, never forget, how you angered the Lord your God in the wilderness" (9:7). At first glance, this verse would appear to introduce that which follows, Moshe's recounting of several unfortunate incidents in the wilderness when Benei Yisrael sinned. Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky (in his "Emet le-Yaakov"), however, notes that the following verse seems to imply otherwise: "u-ve-Chorev hiktzaftem et Hashem" - "and in Chorev you angered the Lord" - referring to the golden calf. The conjunction, "u-" (and) would indicate that Moshe here points to an additional example, rather than beginning his presentation after his word of introduction. The question thus arises, to what sin does Moshe here refer? Presumably, Rav Yaakov reasons, it would refer to an incident that occurred prior to the sin of the calf, since Moshe likely proceeded chronologically. But what sin did Benei Yisrael commit in the wilderness before the chet ha-egel? Rav Yaakov speculates that this verse subtly alludes to Benei Yisrael's complaint for water at Mara. Back in Parashat Beshalach (15:22-26), we read of lack of fresh drinking water in Mara, prompting the nation to complain. God provides the people with fresh water, and then lays down for them several laws. Though there the Torah makes no mention of Benei Yisrael's having sinned by complaining, nevertheless, Rav Yaakov suggests, Moshe here likely refers to that incident as an expression of Benei Yisrael's lack of faith. If so, Rav Yaakov adds, then we must understand Moshe's command that we "remember" and "never fo" this incident. Where do we find any Talmudic source for an obligation to remember the incident of Mara? Rav Yaakov boldly suggests that this verse serves as the source for a controversial stance of Tosefot (Berakhot 13), that the annual reading of Parashat Para, the section dealing with the red heifer (Bemidbar 19), constitutes a Torah obligation. It is generally assumed that this reading was ordained by Chazal; in fact, the Vilna Gaon (O.C. 685) denies that Tosefot said otherwise and emends the text of Tosefot. Other Acharonim upheld Tosefot's text and searched for a Biblical source (see Meshekh Chokhma, Bemidbar 19:8; the Steipler Gaon, Birkat Peretz - Parashat Chukat). Rav Yaakov suggests, however, that Moshe's command that we remember the incident Mara includes as well the mitzva of para aduma conveyed to Benei Yisrael at that time (see Rashi in Beshalach). (We should note, however, that the Torah Temima in Parashat Beshalach claims that para aduma was not, in fact, taught at Mara.) This verse, therefore, perhaps provides the source for the Biblical obligation according to Tosefot's view. One may easily question Rav Yaakov's approach from the continuation of the verse. Moshe admonishes the people, "Remember, never forget, how you angered the Lord your God in the wilderness; from the day that you left the land of Egypt until you reached this place, you have continued defiant toward the Lord." The final clause of the verse would seem to indicate that it introduces the sins of the wilderness, and does not refer to a single incident. As for Rav Yaakov's proof from the conjunction "and" at the beginning of the next verse, one can perhaps respond by adopting Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch's interpretation of that verse. Rather than reading it as, "And in Chorev you angered the Lord," Rav Hirsch explains it to mean, "ALREADY in Chorev… " In other words, the conjunction "u-" comes to emphasize how soon after the Exodus Benei Yisrael rebelled against God, and need not be read simply as, "and… " ***** Parashat Eikev includes the second paragraph of the shema, the section of "ve-haya im shamo'a" (11:13-21). Today we will look at the final verse of this section, where Moshe promises Benei Yisrael's survival in Eretz Yisrael in reward for their obedience: "… to the end that you and your children may endure in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to assign to them, like the days of heaven over earth." The use of "heaven" and "earth" as symbols of everlasting endurance is familiar to us from elsewhere in Tanakh. Perhaps most famously, Moshe opens "Shirat Ha'azinu" by invoking heaven and earth as witnesses to his warning to Benei Yisrael, and Rashi (Devarim 32:1) explains that he chose heaven and earth because of their eternity. Here, however, we find the peculiar expression, "ke-yemei ha-shamayim al ha-aretz" - "like the days of heaven over earth." What does the verse mean by invoking specifically the location of the heavens, "over the earth"? (See the Netziv, in his Ha'amek Davar.) The following explanation was offered by Rav Yechiel Michel Mushkin (Jerusalem, early 20th century), in his "Mikhlal Yofi." Although the sky is constantly situated over the earth, it is not always seen from earth. Cloud-cover, fog and haze make the heaven seem non-existent to the onlooker from earth. This occasional concealment of the sky renders its relationship to earth a perfect analogy for God's promise to Benei Yisrael in this verse. Benei Yisrael will "endure in the land" just like the skies hover over the earth. On the surface, they will, at times, appear absent from the land, just as the sky gives way to storm clouds. In truth, however, they will always be on the land, their intrinsic connection to Eretz Yisrael is as eternal as the existence of the heavens above the earth. Chazal, cited by Rashi (Vayikra 26:32), note that our land will not be heavily populated by other nations during our absence. Regardless of how long we wander, no matter how thick the cloud cover between us and our ancestral homeland, our exclusive connection to Eretz Yisrael remains unbroken. While at first glance this may appear as but fancy homiletics ("derush"), Rav Mushkin's approach may prove very helpful in the understanding of "peshat," as well. Several verses earlier, the Torah forewarned of Benei Yisrael's exile from the land on account of their sins: "you will quickly perish from the good land that the Lord is assigning to you" (11:17). The interim verses mention several mitzvot (such as tefillin and mezuza), and Rashi writes that the Torah here reminds Benei Yisrael to continue their Torah observance even in exile. But if so, then how are these verses followed by the promise, "to the end that you and your children may endure in the land"? If the verses have been addressing the situation in the Diaspora, to what does this promise refer? This question prompted the Ramban to read the interim verses, or at least this verse, as a sudden shift back to the period when Benei Yisrael lived in their land, before the exile. In light of Rav Mishkin's interpretation, however, the verses actually flow much more smoothly. According to his approach, this final verse, too, addresses the period of exile. Our continued observance of mitzvot even after our banishment from Eretz Yisrael helps maintain the eternal, "heaven-earth" relationship between us and our land. Only by stubbornly adhering to our laws can we ensure that the millennia spent away from Eretz Yisrael will not weaken our existential attachment to it, and guarantee our ultimate return to the land - as we have B'H' seen over the last century. ***** Moshe Rabbeinu declares in Parashat Eikev, "And now, O Israel, all that the Lord your God demands of you is to revere the Lord your God… " (10:12). The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (33b) questions Moshe's attitude towards yirat Shamayim (fear or reverence of God) expressed in this verse. "Is yirat Shamayim such a small matter," the Gemara asks, that Moshe would say, "all the Lord… demands of you is to revere the Lord your God"? Why does Moshe downplay the immense challenge of achieving genuine fear of Heaven? The Gemara responds with a puzzling answer: "Yes, for Moshe it is a small matter." This passage requires an explanation. Was Moshe incapable of understanding who his audience was? Did there exist such a gap between the leader and the constituency that Moshe simply could not relate to their level of yirat Shamayim? Would this not seem to reflect a severe leadership flaw, if Moshe could not distinguish between his own outlook and the people's? Several suggestions have been offered to explain this Gemara. Rav Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, in his Torah Temima, writes that Moshe, the humblest of all men (Bemidbar 12:3), indeed saw nothing unique in his yirat Shamayim. He presumed that what he had achieved was easily attainable by one and all. Others explain differently, unwilling to attribute to Moshe Rabbeinu this inability to recognize his own singularity. Rav Dovid Moskovitz, in his Gelilei Zahav, also builds on Moshe's unique humility, only in a different direction. In Masekhet Avoda Zara (20b), the Gemara cites the famous comment of Rav Pinchas Ben Yair, who presents the progression of midot (personality qualities), by which one midda an individual develops leads to the next. According to Rav Pinchas Ben Yair, humility leads one to yira, fear. Thus, for Moshe, who had reached the greatest level of humility, the next step - to yirat Shamayim - was a natural one. Moshe here does not downplay the difficulty involved in achieving genuine fear of God; he rather emphasizes that once one develops within himself the quality of humility, yirat Shamayim indeed becomes a relatively small matter. We should note, however, that Rav Pinchas Ben Yair does not actually claim that humility leads one to yirat Shamayim. He rather states that it leads one to "yirat chet" - fear of sin. One may distinguish between these two concepts. Yirat chet may denote a fear or revulsion of sin itself, independent of one's reverence for God, or his yirat S. A third and entirely different approach to this Gemara is cited by the Keli Yakar. When the Gemara responds, "Yes, for Moshe it is a small matter," it refers not to Moshe as an individual, but rather to Moshe's generation. For those who lived with constant exposure to Moshe and experienced the direct revelation of God that characterized the period of the wilderness, indeed, yirat Shamayim is "a small matter." (The Keli Yakar adds that this approach very well accommodates the verses later in this section - 11:2-7.)
This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds. Make Jewish learning partof your week on a regular basis - enroll in the (c) YeshivHar EtzioAll rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion Yeshivat Har Et
This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds. MakeJewish learning partof your week on a regular basis - enroll in the (c) YeshivHar EtzioAll rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion Yeshivat Har Et | ||||||||||||||||||||