Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT SHOFTIM

By Rav Yaakov Beasley

MOTZAEI SHABBAT

Birchot haTorah – part 1

Like other mitzvot, we are required to recite a blessing before the study of Torah.  However, unlike the other birchot hamitzvot, where the commentators unanimously agree that they are a rabbinic decree, there is a controversy regarding the origin of the blessings before Torah study, Birchot haTorah. The source is the statement of Rebbi Yehudah in Berachot 21a, which asks, “From where do we derive the obligation to bless before the Torah from the Torah?”, and extracts the obligation from the verse in Parshat HaAzinu, “When I call upon the name of Hashem, come give greatness to our G-d.(Devarim 32:3)”.  ‘When I call upon the name of Hashem’ – through the reading of Torah (call and reading having the same Hebrew root K.R.A.); ‘come give greatness to our G-d’ – through a blessing.

The Ramban holds that this blessing is de’oraita (a Torah requirement) (his commentary on Maimonides Book of Commandments [Mitzvah 15]), along with the Rashba and the Sefer Haredim.  In addition to the discussion mentioned above, they point to another discussion in Berachot 35a, where the obligation to bless after the meal is derived to the obligation to bless before Torah study.  Since there is no dissent that the obligation to bless after a meal is a Torah obligation, clearly the comparison only holds water if the blessings before the study of Torah are also de’oraita. 

The Netziv (Meromei Sadeh Berachot 21a) points out that the reason that the Ramban does not point out that the Talmud’s wording in Berachot 21, “From where do we derive the obligation to bless before the Torah from the Torah?” is sufficient proof that he obligation is de’oraita is due to the fact that this style of language is also used in other cases where the obligation is clearly rabbinic in nature (where is the obligation to establish a tombstone in the Torah, where is the obligation to read Megillat Esther, etc.)

However, the Rambam does not list the Birchot haTorah in his listing of the 613 commandments.  According the Megillat Esther’s commentary on the Rambam, that is because the Rambam viewed the Birchot haTorah as rabbinic in nature, and felt that the verse quoted in Berachot was only an asmachta (the use of a Torah verse to bolster a rabbinic requirement). The Megillat Esther, in this case, agrees with the Ramban.  Other commentators, including the Pri Chadash and the Shaagat Aryeh, note that the Talmud in Nedarim 81a attributes the destruction of the First Temple to the people’s failure to recite the Birchot haTorah.  It would not make sense to suggest that the Temple’s destruction and exile of the people would have occurred sorely for the failure to perform a rabbinic requirement.  Therefore, most commentators follow the explanation of the Mabit in his Kiryat Sefer in explaining the Rambam.  The reason for the exclusion of the Birchot haTorah from the listing of the commandments, according to the Mabit, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the obligation is Torah or rabbinic, but whether or not the Birchot haTorah or to be considered a separate commandment, or an integral part of the mitzvah of Torah study.  It should be noted that the Ramban was aware of this explanation of the Rambam’s opinion and rejected it.  Instead, the relationship between the blessings over Torah study and Torah study are comparable to the recital of the Viduy Bikkurim before bringing the first fruits to the Temple, or the recital of the story of leaving Egypt with the offering of the Korban Pesach – just as in both latter cases, despite the connection between the two mitzvot in question, they are counted as separate, so too the Ramban would argue that Birchot haTorah and Torah study are separate commandments.

SUNDAY

Birchot HaTorah – part 2

In the last installment, we discussed the argument regarding the nature of the blessings before Torah study – are they a Torah requirement, or rabbinic?   Many Rishonim understood them to be de’oraita (Ramban, Rashba, Sefer haChinuch et al), while the Rambam prominently omitted them from his listing of Torah commandments in the Sefer haMitzvot.  According to the Mabit in his book Kiryat Sefer, the reason the Rambam omitted the Birchot haTorah from his listing was not because he considered them to be derabannan, but because he felt that the requirement to bless before Torah study was not a separate commandment, but an adjunct of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah.  We noted that the Ramban rejected this logic in his commentary, arguing that the relationship between the blessings over Torah study and Torah study are comparable to the recital of the Viduy Bikkurim before bringing the first fruits to the Temple, or the recital of the story of leaving Egypt with the offering of the Korban Pesach.

However, the Ramban’s approach has its attackers.  Many reject his comparison between the relationship between Birchot haTorah and Talmud Torah on one hand, versus the commandments of bringing the Bikkurim/reciting the Viduy Bikkurim and Korban Pessach/reciting the story of the Exodus.  In his notes to the Sefer Mitzvot of Rav Saddya Gaon, Rav Yerucham Fishel Perle notes that according to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:4,5), several people are required to bring the first fruits to the Beit haMikdash, but are not eligible to recite the Viduy Bikkurim, proving that the bringing and recital of the first fruits are two separate commandments.  The Torah simply used the mitzvah of bringing the Bikkurim to establish the time for the recital of the Viduy.  Similarly, today, we perform the mitzvah of recalling the story of the Exodus, even though we aren’t able to bring the Korban Pessach.  On the other hand, the commandment of Torah study and its blessings are intrinsically linked.  A person cannot study Torah without reciting the blessings beforehand.  Therefore, it is quite logical to conclude that the blessings over Torah study are not separate but an adjunct to the larger mitzvah.

The Aruch haShulchan (47:2) brings another proof against the Ramban’s approach.  He notes that in the case of the bringing of the Bikkurim/reciting the Viduy Bikkurim and Korban Pessach/reciting the story of the Exodus, there is allowed to be a hefsek (pause). This is not so in the case of Birchot haTorah, where upon concluding the reciting of the blessings, Chazal established the recital of the verses from the priestly blessing, so that nothing would interrupt between the blessing and the performance of the mitzvah.

MONDAY

Birchot haTorah – part 3

We have seen three viewpoints regarding the nature of the requirement to recite the blessings before Torah study.  Many Rishonim, including the Ramban, Rashba, and Sefer haChinuch, view the obligation as de’oraita.  We have seen two separate approaches towards the viewpoint of the Rambam.  One approach states that the omission of the Birchot haTorah from the Rambam’s Sefer haMitzvot proves that he ruled that it was only rabbinic in nature. They also note that while the Rambam noted in Hilchot Berachot that the commandment to bless after meals (Birkat haMazon) was a Torah mitavah, he doesn’t do the same regarding Birchot haTorah.  The second viewpoint, advanced by the Mabit and the Mishkenot Yaakov, suggests that the reason for the Rambam’s omission of Birchot haTorah was that the Rambam viewed the blessings before Torah study as an adjunct to the commandment of Torah study, and not as a separate commandment. 

What is the practical ramification for this discussion?  The Sha’agat Aryeh (Siman 24) suggests that this arguemtn has a practical difference in halacha in the case where a person is not sure whether or not he said the Birchot haTorah.  The Talmud states (Berachot 21a) that if Kriyat Shema is only a rabbinic obligation, and the blessing Emet veYatziv is a Torah obligation, that in the case where a person is unsure whether or not he said either, he would not have to repeat Shema, but would have to repeat Emet veYatziv.  Accordingly, if Birchot haTorah are a Torah obligation, then the blessings would have to be repeated in the case of doubt.   The Sha’agat Aryeh concludes with the observation that even if the ruling is that Birchot haTorah are de’oraita, since according to Torah requirements, only one blessing needs to be said, we only recite the final blessing, “Asher Bachar Banu”, “Who has chosen us from among the nations of the world and given us His Torah.”   The reason for this blessing is that the Talmud (Berachot 11b) describes it as the choicest of all the blessings.

The Sha’agat Aryeh’s ruling is accepted by the majority of the commentators (see the responsa of the Ktav Sofer, #20), although the Pri Chadash maintains that all three blessings should be recited.  The Sha’arei Teshuvah (47:1) brings an opinion that suggests that even if the Sha’agat Aryeh’s ruling is accepted, for a woman in doubt whether or not she recited the Birchot haTorah, since her obligation to recite the blessings is already questionable (as she has no obligation of Torah study), she should not repeat them.

The Mishnah Berurah rules like the Sha’agat Aryeh, and leans towards the opinion that the Birchot haTorah are a Torah obligation.  In order to fulfill all the opinions, however, he adds the suggestion that if one is in the state of doubt while reciting the morning prayers, then while reciting the blessing of ‘Ahavah Rabbah’ right before Kiryat Shema, one should have in mind to also fulfill the obligation of Birchot haTorah, and learn immediately after davening.

TUESDAY

Birchot haTorah – part 4

The Talmud (Berachot 11b) brings the following discussion regarding what texts require the recital of Birchot haTorah beforehand. 

Rav Huna says that for Mikra (Tanach), one needs to recite Birchot haTorah, but not for Medrash.  Rebbe Elazar says that for Mikra and Medrash one needs to recite Birchot haTorah, but not for Mishna.  Rebbe Yochanan says that also for Mishna, one needs to recite Birchot haTorah, but not for Gemara.  Rava says even for Gemara, one needs to recite Birchot haTorah.

The ruling in the Shulchan Aruch is as follows (Orach Chayim 47:2):

One must recite the blessings before Torah study, whether studying Mikra, Mishna, and Gemara.  Rema – or Medrash.

According to this, we follow the opinion of Rava, who ruled that we require Birchot haTorah over everything (the Rif has a different variation on who stated what).  The Mishnah Berurah rules that the Rema is just clarifying the Mechaber’s opinion, and not arguing with it.  His source is a comment of the Ma’amar Mordechai (s.k. 2).  In Orach Chayim 50:1, the Mechaber rules that the recital of the Beraita of Rebbi Yishmael is similar to Gemara study.  This proves that the Mechaber did not differentiate between the study of Medrash and the study of Gemara.

The Aruch haShulchan (47:8) brings an interesting question regarding the study of Medrash (and other modern styles of leaning, including mussar, chassidut, etc.).  Certain midrashim deal with the exposition of verses and the explanation of texts, while others concentrate more on ethical directives and homoletical derivatives,which are farther removed from the text’s meaning. Does the requirement to recite Birchot haTorah over Medrash differentiate between those various types?  The Aruch haShulchan suggests that this is the practical halachic difference between two explanations as to why werecite Birchot haTorah.  Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi in the Shulchan Aruch haRav states that Birchot haTorah is for all types of learning, since “they were all handed down to Torah miSinai”.  However, the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah suggests that the ruling regarding Birchot haTorah covered all forms of Torah study was due to the fact that ultimately, these types were the explanation of the Torah verses themselves.  According to the second opinion, other forms of learning would not be covered by the Birchot haTorah, unless they specifically explain the verses’ meaning. 

Rav Moshe Shternbuch suggests an interesting interpretation based upon the above discussion.  The source for Birchot haTorah is the verse “Ki Shem Hashem Ekra, Havu Godel l’Elokeinu”- ‘when I call upon the name of Hashem, give greatness to our G-d’.  He extrapolates that only when the Torah itself is called upon, through the study of Mikra, Mishna, and Gemara, is the obligation to recite the blessings de’oraita.  However, the study of other types of Torah would only rabbinically require blessings beforehand.

WEDNESDAY

Birchot haTorah – part 5 – “I think … therefore, do I bless?”

In his codification of the laws of reciting the Birchot haTorah, the blessings before Torah study, Rav Yosef Karo, the Mechaber, writes the following:

- When writing words of Torah, one must recite the blessings first, even when one does not enunciate the words.

- When thinking in one’s mind words of Torah, one does not recite the blessing.

The basis of the ruling of the Mechaber regarding writing Torah is the Avudraham, who states that as long as one is not writing words of Torah in a non-mitzvah context, the writer is obligated to recite the Birchot haTorah.  The Taz (47:2) notes that this ruling is difficult to understand, as it seems to contradict the next ruling which states that the act of thinking Torah alone does not obligate one to recite the Birchot haTorah (his question is also raised by the Magen Avraham and the Gra).   Even if speaking while writing is common, this is not sufficient to require the blessings.  In addition, we find that in the laws of giving testimony in court, testimony must be given verbally to be valid, and not in writing.  Therefore, according to the Taz, we must verbally pronounce some of the words of Torah after reciting the blessings (he mentions that since Chazal legislated that we recite the verses from the priestly blessing immediately after the blessings, this discussion appears academic).

The Taz continues that this requirement to recite the Birchot haTorah before writing only applies to notes taken to aid someone in the study of Torah; however, if someone is writing to earn a livelihood, then those writings to not require a blessing beforehand.  He notes that it appears that the Avudraham was referring to verses written in a non-Torah context (quoting a verse for literary effect while writing, for example). 

The Pri Megadim provides a different answer to our question as to the apparent contradiction between the Mechaber’s rulings.  He cites the Levush, who explains that a blessing is said for the act of writing Torah, since through the act of writing, it is no longer a mere thought.  However, thinking is not equivalent to speaking.  On one hand, we rule that if a person is unable to verbally recite the Kriyat Shema, it is acceptable for him to think it.  However, this ruling does not definitively prove that thinking is equivalent to speaking.  Therefore, since the recitation of a blessing is involved, we rule that one may not recite the blessings for simply thinking Torah.  The underlying difference is that while the act of writing is enough to be considered a form of speech, the act of thinking isn’t.  While he leaves the issue for further investigation, he is even willing to contemplate the possibility that one person in a bathhouse is permitted to think Torah thoughts, but not write them down. 

THURSDAY

Birchot haTorah – I think … therefore, do I bless?” – part 6

Rebbe Akiva Eiger (Siman 29) brings an interesting discussion that has relevance to our discussion on whether or not a person is allowed to think or write words of Torah without thinking.  In his time, a recently published book suggested that it is possible to count Sefirat haOmer by writing the date down.  Rav Eiger brought the Shev Yaakov (Siman 48) who brings several proofs to the contrary.   Among the proofs brought that writing is not considered speaking are the cases of a person who makes an oath on paper, without speaking, where the oath remains invalid, and the Halacha that a person must actually say Megillat Esther out loud, and not write one.  [The Chochmat Shlomo argues with this – he states that the problem in the case of writing Megillat Esther is that a person must perform the mitzvah from a whole megillah, a prerequisite obviously lacking when a person is writing a new one.]

A proof in support of the Shev Yaakov is the Beit Yosef’s contention that a person does not make a blessing upon nullifying the chametz, since this is an act that is done in the mind.   If Sefirat haOmer could be done in one’s mind, then it too would not require a blessing.  Since it does require a blessing, it logically follows that this commandment must be done verbally.  Since there is no fundamental difference between saying Sefirat haOmer and making an oath, neither can be performed through the act of writing. 

It should be noted that the Chavat Yair, accepting the link between saying Sefirat haOmer and making an oath, argues that since according to the Mechaber, the act of writing Torah requires the recital of Birchot haTorah, proving that writing is considered similar to speaking, argues that a person can fulfill his obligation to count Sefirat haOmer or make an oath by writing.  Should a person count Sefirah by writing (dating a letter, for example), a person should not repeat it with a blessing.  [The Shev Yaakov knew of this logic, and responded with the loic of the Aruch haShulchan mentioned in a previous section.  Since writing was the primary form of the transmission of Torah to others, we recite the Birchot haTorah beforehand.  However, this does not create halachic equivalence between writing and speaking.]

In practice, the Mishnah Berurah  rules against the Mechaber, and states that if a person is solely writing Divrei Torah, he should not say a blessing beforehand, since the Taz, Magen Avraham and the Gra all consider writing to be the equivalent of thinking, not speech.  [The Pri Megadim’s ruling in support of the Mechaber, that a blessing is recited before writing Torah, is because the Pri Megadim considers thinking (hirhur) as equivalent to speech, a viewpoint which is not the consensus].

FRIDAY

Birchot haTorah – I think … therefore, do I bless?” – part 7

We have been discussing whether the acts of thinking and writing Torah are sufficient to require the recital of the Birchot haTorah, the blessings before Torah study, beforehand.  In this discussion, there is an interesting comment of the Rema (Orach Chayim 47:4):

- A person who is solely thinking Torah thoughts is not required to recite the blessings.  REMA – Similarly, a person is allowed to give a ruling in halacha, as long he does not give a reason for his opinion.

According to the Rema, even providing a halachic ruling, as long as it is left without backing proof, is not enough of an act to require the recital of Birchot haTorah beforehand.  The Mishnah Berurah (s.k.6) limits this ruling to the case of a person rendering a decision between two litigants, or giving a ruling in an issue of Issur veHeter (kashrut, etc.); however, the act of reviewing decisions in a book is no less an act than writing a decision down, which according to both the Mechaber and the Rema require Birchot haTorah beforehand (the Mishnah Berurah follows the consensus ruling of the Acharonim that writing is not comparable to speech and does not require a blessing).  However, the Mishnah Berurah points out that according to the ruling of the Gra that even the act of thinking Torah is sufficient to require Birchot haTorah.

We will conclude our discussion of the nature of thinking Torah thoughts, and their halachic effects, with a discussion found in the Be’ur Halacha.  The Binyan Olam defends the Gra’s approach that we recite Birchot haTorah for thinking Torah.  The Binyan Olam explains that the rationale for this is that according to the Gra, hirhur ke’dibbur dami (thinking is equivalent to speaking).  Therefore, he proposes that the Gra would argue on another ruling of the Rema.  In Orach Chayim 68:1, the Rema states that a person who chooses to study Torah during the time that the rest of the congregation is reciting Piyutim (special holiday liturgy) does not have a problem with continuing to pray with the congregation, since his study (thinking only) is not considered an interruption, as hirhur lav ke’dibbur dami (thinking is NOT equivalent to speaking).  However, concludes the Binyan Olam, since the Gra holds hirhur ke’dibbur dami (thinking is equivalent to speaking), a person would not be allowed to study Torah during the time that the rest of the congregation is reciting Piyutim, since his study constitutes an interruption (hefsek) in the blessings.

The Be’ur Halacha disagrees with the Binyan Olam’s understanding of the Gra’s rationale.  According to the Be’ur Halacha, the Gra doesn’t hold that hirhur ke’dibbur dami; rather, the reason the Gra requires the recital of Birchot haTorah before even thinking Torah is because of the Gra’s understanding of the verse “veHegata Bo Yomam vaLaila” – and you shall meditate upon them day and night, which includes thinking.  Therefore, the Be’ur Halacha holds that even the Gra would agree with the Rema’s ruling that a person is allowed to study while the congregation recites the Piyutim inside the blessings.

Rav Yaakov Beasley