Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT RE'EH

By Rav Yaakov Beasley

MOTZAEI

THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haNEHENIN- part 1

At the beginning of chapter 6 in Masechet Berachot, the Gemara attempts to find the Scriptural source for the requirement to say birchot ha-nehenin, the blessings recited before eating foods.  After exploring several textual possibilities, the Gemara concludes that the requirement is based on logic, reason, which dictates that it is forbidden for a person to derive any benefit from the world without first reciting a blessing.   Tosafot suggests that the verses quoted previously can be relied upon as ‘asmachtot’ (Scriptural allusions), which mean that the requirement to bless is only Rabbinical in nature.  [However, the P’nei Yehoshua suggests that according to Tosafot, the requirement to bless is d’Oraita (a Torah mitzvah).]  The Gemara then continues:

The Rabbis taught in a Baraita:  It is forbidden for a person to derive benefit from this world without first reciting a blessing, and whoever derives benefit from this world without first reciting a blessing has committed an act of me’ilah (unauthorized use of consecrated property).  What is his remedy?  He should go to a wise man.  [The Gemara interjects – he should go to a wise man!?  What can the sage do for him now?  He has already committed the transgression!  Rather, the Baraita means that one should go to a wise man initially and that the wise man will teach him the laws relating to the blessings, so that he should not come to commit me’ilah.]

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel:  Whoever derives benefit from this world without first reciting a blessing is regarded as if he has derived benefit from the consecrated property of Heaven, for it states, “To Hashem belongs the earth and its fullness”.

Rabbi Levi contrasted two verses:  “To Hashem belongs the earth and its fullness”, and it is written, “The heavens – the heavens belong to Hashem, and the earth He gave to mankind.”  There is no contradiction between them – here (the verse that states that the earth belongs to Hashem) it refers to the state before one recites a blessing, and here (the verse that states that the earth belongs to mankind) refers to the state after one has recited a blessing.

Rav Chanina bar Pappa stated:  Anyone who derives benefit from this world without first reciting a blessing is as if he robs from the Holy One, Blessed be He and the Jewish people (Knesset Yisrael). 

The Tzelach comments:  what does the statement of Rav Yehudah in Shmuel’s name add to the discussion?  Is it not only a recapitulation of everything that the Baraita stated?  The resolution of this question, which we will deal with this week, will (with G-d’s help) give us a deeper understanding of the nature of the laws of Birchot ha-Nehenin.

SUNDAY

THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haNEHENIN-  part 2

We began our discussion of Hilchot Berachot with the Gemara’s discussion on Berachot 35a-b, where several different logical statements are presented in trying to find a source for the requirement to bless.   In dealing with these statements, we brought a question in the name of the Tzelach, wondering whether Shmuel’s statement that ‘Whoever derives benefit from this world without first reciting a blessing is regarded as if he has derived benefit from the consecrated property of Heaven’ is in any way different then the preceding Baraita, which stated ‘It is forbidden for a person to derive benefit from this world without first reciting a blessing, and whoever derives benefit from this world without first reciting a blessing has committed an act of me’ilah’.  Delving further into the discussion, we find that when the Rishonim attempt to find a source for the requirement to bless, we find an interesting disagreement.  Rashi learns the requirement from the words quoted by Shmuel, ‘To Hashem belongs the earth and its fullness’.  However, Tosafot states (as we mentioned above, that the verse “’kodesh hillulim laHashem’ – sanctified to Hashem” is an asmachta (Scriptural allusion), and demonstrates, like the Baraita, that eating without a blessing is comparable to me’ilah.  The Rabbeinu Yonah suggests that anytime a person actually eats without a blessing, they become liable to bring an offering that would atone for me’ilah.  The Rivavan disagrees and states that this isn’t exact, but since a person who eats without a blessing ‘is regarded as if he has derived benefit from the consecrated property of Heaven’, the language used is that of me’ilah, even though legally a person doesn’t become obligated to bring the offering. 

When trying to make order of different opinions, it often helps to find the underlying logical principle upon which the disagreement is based.  The sefer Sha’ashuai Shmuel, by Rav Shmuel Zucker, suggests the underlying disagreement is the nature of the relationship of the food to the person who wishes to eat it.  Is the food itself inherently prohibited, and only if a blessing is recited does the food become permitted to be eaten (in Halachic terms, the blessing serves as a ‘matir’ – something that permits); or, we could suggest that the food never has the status of being prohibited to the person, rather it is simply an obligation on the person to recite a blessing. 

If Rav Zucker’s distinction is correct, then we can begin to understand the nature of the above arguments.  Rashi and Tosafot’s differing choice of verses to prove the requirement of birchot ha-nenehin reflects their underlying argument.  Tosafot views the food as ‘holy to Hashem’- in other words, the act of me’ilah, taking consecrated property without permission.  Rabbeinu Yonah’s opinion above, that every act of eating without a blessing requires bringing an offering that atones for me’ilah, is only a logical offshoot of this approach.  Tomorrow, we will explain how Rashi views the act of making blessings over food, how this approach provides a solution to the Tzelach’s question, and other ramifications of this disagreement.

MONDAY

THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haNEHENIN - part 3

Yesterday, we brought the insight of the sefer Sha’ashuai Shmuel who suggested that the underlying disagreement between Rashi and the Rivavan on one hand, and the Tosafot and Rabbeinu Yonah on the other, is the nature of the relationship of the food to the person who wishes to eat it.  Is the food itself inherently prohibited, and only if a blessing is recited does the food become permitted to be eaten (in Halachic terms, the blessing serves as a ‘matir’ – something that permits), an approach that dovetails nicely with Tosafot’s choice of verses for the source of the requirement to bless; or, we could suggest that the food never has the status of being prohibited to the person, rather it is simply an obligation on the person to recite a blessing, which seems in line with Rashi’s verses.

With this understanding, we can easily answer the Tzelach’s question as to what additional information Shmuel’s statement on 35a adds to the Baraita.  The Baraita equates eating without a blessing as complete me’ilah, that the food is completely forbidden, the approach taken by Tosafot.  Shmuel’s wording is subtly different.  He states, ‘Whoever derives benefit from this world without first reciting a blessing is regarded as if he has derived benefit from the consecrated property of Heaven’.  As if – but not as.  That the issue isn’t the status of the food is the approach we’ve identified with Rashi. 

An interesting proof to help clarify Rashi’s approach is found in his commentary to the continuation of the Gemara.  Rav Chanina bar Pappa stated that anyone who derives benefit from this world without first reciting a blessing is as if he robs from the Holy One, Blessed be He and the Jewish people (Knesset Yisrael).  Rashi adds:  he stole the blessing from the Holy One, Blessed be He.  The question is asked by the Maharasha, among others; didn’t the person steal the food from God’s property, as it were?  Instead, Rashi places the emphasis on the missing blessing.  The failure to acknowledge God and demonstrate gratitude towards God, who provides him with food and substenence, is equivalent to stealing the blessing from him.  The emphasis is placed on the person’s actions, not the food.

That Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa is not coming to argue with Shmuel above, but comes to strengthen his approach, is easily shown – in the Hebrew, it states “For it was said by R. Chanina bar Pappa”, the standard formula of agreement, and not “R. Chanina bar Pappa said”, which generally implies a disagreement.

TUESDAY

THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haNEHENIN - part 4

This week, we have trying to understand the underlying principles of birchot ha-nehenin, the blessings recited before partaking of foods or any other physical pleasures.  One of the fundamental questions concerns the nature of food before a blessing is recited – is the food considered like ‘hekdesh’ – consecrated, and hence physically prohibited to the person before a blessing is recited; or is the requirement solely upon the individual to recite a blessing before partaking, but the nature of the food is that it is always permitted, both before and after the blessing.  We saw that this question may in fact account

for the subtle differences in the formulations that the Talmud brings on the requirement to recite a blessing before eating, and that Rashi and Tosafot’s choice of different Scriptural reference points for the requirement to bless may in fact be derived from this discussion.

This fundamental distinction may in fact be used to account for another halachic argument that revolves around the laws of blessings.  According to many Rishonim (the Rach, the Raviyah, the Sefer haMichtam), just as if a person forgets to recite the blessing before eating, he is required to stop eating and to recite the blessing before continuing, even a person in doubt as to whether or not he recited the blessing before the food is required to recite a blessing before continuing.  The Rif is most prominent among those who disagree, and writes that the general principle of ‘safek derabannan lekula’ (in the case of a doubt regarding Rabbinic law, we rule leniently) applies, and since the laws of birchot ha-nehenin are Rabinic, we are not required to go back and recite a blessing.  Interesting is the comment of the Gilyon haShas on Berachot 12:

It doesn’t make sense to apply here the principle safek berachot lekula (we rule leniently in a doubtful case involving blessings), as the Rashba has already written that this only applies with blessings recited before the performance of mitzvoth, where non-recital does not prevent the performance of the commandment, but before partaking of food a blessing must be recited. 

According to the distinction we suggested above, the argument in the case of the doubtful blessing may be based precisely on the focal point of whether the food actually becomes prohibited without a blessing, or whether the food is permitted and the requirement to recite a blessing is solely upon the individual. If the food is actually prohibited, it makes sense to say that even in a case of doubt, a blessing must be recited in order not to violate the prohibition of stealing, and that in this respect, we distinguish between blessings recited before food and other blessings.  However, we can suggest that according to the Rif and others who rule that in the case of doubt, a blessing does not need to be recited,  the reason is that the food is inherently permitted, and since there is a possibility that the person as already fulfilled his obligation to recite the blessing and he does not need to repeat it.

WEDNESDAY

THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haNEHENIN - part 5

We are going to continue forward with our discussion of birchot ha-nehenin, based on our previous discussions as to whether to or not food before a blessing is recited is considered physically forbidden to the individual, or whether the requirement to bless falls solely upon the individual, without affecting the technical status of the food whatsoever.  This distinction we will use in an attempt to understand the various interpretations around the following scenario envisioned by the Talmud (Berachot 12):

The ruling is obvious where (in the case of a person who) took a cup of wine in his hand, assuming that it was beer, began to recite the blessing with the intention of (reciting the blessing of “shehakol nihyeh bidvaro”) beer, but finished with (the concluding section of the blessing “borei pri ha-gafen”) wine, that he has fulfilled his obligation, for even if he had concluded with “shehakol nihyeh bidvaro”, he would have fulfilled his obligation.  However, when he takes a cup of beer in his hand, assumed that it was wine, began to recite the blessing (of  “borei pri ha-gafen”) over wine, but concluded with the blessing of (“shehakol nihyeh bidvaro”) beer, what is the ruling?  Do we follow the main part of the blessing (the mention of G-d’s name and sovereignty, which was recited under a mistaken assumption, thereby rendering the blessing invalid), or do we follow the conclusion of the blessing (which was correctly recited, and the blessing is considered acceptable)?

Explaining this section led to an interesting disagreement among the Rishonim.  Rashi (s.v. Eila) explains the Gemara’s question as follows:

He started with the intention to bless over wine, intending to finish “borei pri ha-gafen”, and when he got to the words ‘melech ha-olam’, he remembered that it was beer and he finished “shehakol nihyeh bidvaro” – what is the ruling?  Do we say that since we follow the main part of the blessing, that when he mentioned G-d’s name it was with the intention to recite over wine and therefore it is as if he finished “borei pri ha-gafen”, and the blessing for wine does  not cover drinking beer (since the beer is not a grape product)?

On Rashi’s words, that the major factor here is the intention of the person reciting the blessing, the Rosh brings an attack from the Ra’avad:  We never find in other cases that the blessing, whose words were said correctly, is somehow lost by a deficiency in the intention, for even if the blessing was recited with no intention whatsoever the blessing would be sufficient, how much more so if the blessing was recited with the intention to recite a blessing.  For this reason, the Rosh follows the opinion of the Rif in explaining the Gemara, that the Gemara is dealing with a case where the person said, “Baruch Atah Hashem, Elokeinu Melech ha-Olam, Borei Pri haGafen Shehakol Nihyeh biDvaro”, reciting the ending over wine but quickly changing it to the proper ending over beer. 

To understand this argument, and to appreciate Rashi’s approach to this Gemara, we will look at the words of the Rambam tomorrow and then develop an overall approach to the underlying mechanics of the blessings.

THURSDAY

THOUGHTS ON PARSHAT RE’EH – part 1

Our parsha, parshat Re’eh, marks the bridge in Moshe’s concluding speeches from a discussion of the essentials and fundamentals of Jewish belief to a discussion about the commandment and how they are to be performed.  First, Moshe reminds the people of the importance of completely uprooting all of the remnants of idolatry in Canaan, and establishing a new, central place of worship where all the people can gather instead.  The laws discuss the details of what tithes are to be brought to this place, and how even the act of eating meat is affected. Afterwards, the Torah reveals a latent fear that underlies the entire enterprise – despite our willingness to obliterate idolatry from the land, the Jewish people will then express a desire to "adopt" pagan worship-styles for the worship of God  - “How did these people serve their gods – I will do the same” (12:29-13:1). Ramban explains the fears as follows – Moshe wasn’t concerned that having invested so much energy in eradicating the Canaanite cults, the Jewish people would should express a desire to perform the same rites themselves.  Instead, the fear was much more insidious - the Jewish people will justify and associate the destruction of the Canaanites due to the object of their worship (the gods they worshipped were not worthy), however, they would not realize that what was as abhorrent to Hashem was the method of their worship. The Torah, therefore, begs us not to make this mistake; indeed, "every manner of abomination which YHVH loathes did they do in worship of their gods..." (12:31). In other words, besides having a misguided approach to worship (worshipping nothingness as deities), the methods they used (including, as the verse states explicitly, child sacrifice) were hateful to God.    

To prove this point, this warning is immediately followed by the injunction against adding to - or diminishing from - God's commands.  The S'forno explains that we should not bring our own methods of worship - whether the result of our own creative thinking or adopting the behavior of other nations - into the worship of God, as we don’t know what is and what isn’t an abomination in God’s eyes.  Chapter 13 continues with a list of three situations where the Torah commands us to withstand both the temptation to listen to and the temptation to show mercy to a person or group of our own people that wish to lead us astray – the false prophet, the “mei’sit” (seducer), and the city that commits idolatry.  In all these cases the Torah exhorts us to show no mercy and to completely eradicate them from the face of the land. 

FRIDAY

THOUGHTS ON PARSHAT RE’EH – part 2

After ensuring that the Jewish people have taken the steps to remain loyal to Hashem, through the eradication of idolatry, the establishment of a centralized place of worship to unite the people, and the refusal to be ensnared by external or internal temptations to leave Hashem’s path, Moshe begins ch. 14 with the following declaration: Banim Atem l'Hashem Eloheikhem - you are children unto your God (Devarim 14:1).  To appreciate the nature of the commandments that we have been given, we must understand special status we have been granted.  The next several commandments help us to internalize and demonstrate this new state – prohibitions against shaving oneself, against self-mutilation, or displaying excessive grief due to a state of mourning.(Rashi explains that as God is always present, we can never feel a sense of complete loss).  The Torah then repeats For you are a people holy to YHVH your God; it is you YHVH has chosen out of all the peoples on earth to be His people, His treasured possession.   Rashi points out that as such, we are to appear noble and dignified, not disfigured and covered with scars.  The Torah continues with the laws of kosher foods, a reminder of our separate status. 

However, the status of Hashem’s children created another bond between the Jewish people – that of brothers.  As such, Moshe has placed upon us another obligation – the responsibility to care for one another.   The remainder of the parsha deals with different manners in which this sense of family, of community, manifests itself through the daily ritual and everyday living.  These include (but are not limited to)   the following commandments:

Ma’aser Ani (the tithe of the poor): "Then the Levite can come ... and the proselyte, the orphan, and the widow ... so they may eat and be satisfied." (Devarim 14:29)

Tzedaka (charity): "You shall not harden your heart or close your hand against your destitute brother. Rather, you shall open you hand to him." (Devarim 15:7-8)

The obligation to forgive loans at the shemitta year, plus the obligation to loan funds to the needy before the onset of the shemitta year:   "Beware lest there be a lawless thought in your heart saying, 'The seventh year approaches, the remission year,' and you will look malevolently upon your destitute brother and refuse to give him ... and it will be a sin upon you." (Devarim 15:9)

Even the presentation of the holidays in the following chapter is done so with this aspect in mind – “Rejoice before YHVH your God - you and your sons and your daughters, your male and female slaves, the Levites resident in your towns, as well as the strangers, the orphans, and the widows who are among you - at the place that YHVH your God will choose as a dwelling for his name (Devarim 16:11, see also v. 14)”.