Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT KI TAVO

By Rav Yaakov Beasley

Motzaei

THE NATURE OF THE BLESSING OF “SHE-HAKOL” – part 3

We have been discussing the nature of the blessing of “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo”, and how the two varying interpretation as to the reason for its establishment underlie several of the disagreements about its versatility.  One approach holds that the blessing “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo” was originally established as an all-inclusive blessing, which allows for its expansion beyond foodstuffs, while the other approach holds that originally, the blessing was only established to cover foodstuffs that did not grow from the ground, and only later, was the role of the blessing expanded to become all-encompassing. 

This disagreement may underlie an argument that revolves around another blessing, that of “Borei Minei Mezonot” (translation – Who creates all types of foods).  Both the Chayei Adam (58:3) and the Eliyahu Rabbah (found in the Beur Halacha 167:6) argue from the wording of the blessing that like Shehakol, the blessing of “Borei Minei Mezonot” can cover all foods bediavad.   However, this ruling is challenged by the Kaf haChayyim, who argues that despite the wording of the blessing of “Borei Minei Mezonot”, only Shehakol has the ability to be all-inclusive.

We find that the understanding of this argument can be understood as based upon the two approaches mentioned above.  The Kaf haChayyim holds that since the intended purpose of “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo” was intentionally to cover all cases, only that blessing can be used as an all-inclusive blessing, and the blessing of “Borei Minei Mezonot” does not have this ability, despite its similar wording.  However, the Chayei Adam and the Eliyahu Rabbah appear to follow the approach that since the blessing of “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo” was only originally intended to cover foods that were not grown from the ground, once the standard was set that a blessing originally established for one food could be used for another (if the wording is appropriate), then any blessing in a similar circumstance can be used.  Since the wording of Borei Minei Mezonot is appropriate, it can also be used for that purpose.

Sunday

THE NATURE OF THE BLESSING OF “SHE-HAKOL” – part 4

We have dealt with two questions – the range of the blessing of Shehakol (can it be used to cover benefits that are not food- i.e. over pleasant smells), and whether or not other blessings have the ability to serve as all-inclusive (‘Borei Pri haEitz’ over wine, or the blessing of ‘Borei Minei Mezonot’ over other foods).  We have suggested that these questions can be understood as deriving from a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of the establishment of Shehakol: was the original intent to create an all-purpose blessing, or was it originally intended to cover food types that did not grow from the ground, and only later, since its wording could imply all foods, was its scope expanded. 

A final question may be as to the role of intention in deciding these questions.  We have seen in previous classes the emphasis that Chazal placed on maintaining the proper awareness of what food was being eaten while reciting the blessing. The question arises as to how the wording of the blessing being recited affects the intention of the person making the blessing.  Do we say that it is the meaning of the words that provides the intention, so that any blessing that is appropriate (i.e. the examples above - ‘Borei Pri haEitz’ over wine, or the blessing of ‘Borei Minei Mezonot’ over other foods) if the wording can be made to fit the food; or are we to understand differently, that at the time of recital, as a person recites a blessing, the intention is guided by the nature of what the blessing was established for.  Since a person knows that the original purpose of ‘Borei Pri haEitz’ was over fruits only, and that the blessing of ‘Borei Minei Mezonot’ was only over foods, that affects the intention of the person so that it limits his ability to use the blessing in other circumstances.

Monday

THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haREI-ACH (blessings over fragrances) – Part 1

We will be dealing with the special rules regarding the blessings that were established over smelling pleasant scents and aromas.  The Talmud (Berachot 43b) brings the following Biblical source of these blessings:

Rav Zutra bar Toviyah stated in the name of Rav:  From where do we derive that we recite a blessing over a fragrance?  As it is written, “Let every ‘soul’ (neshama) praise God.”  (Tehillim 150:6)  What is something from which the soul derives pleasure, but not the body?  This refers to peasant fragrances.

An interesting question on this Gemara is raised by Rav Kook (Ein Ayah – commentary to Berachot ibid.):  Why does the Talmud feel that it is necessary to find a special verse to justify reciting a blessing over spices?  At the beginning of the chapter on blessings (Berachot ch. 6, Keitzad Mevarchin), the Talmud already stated, “It is forbidden to enjoy any pleasure from this world without a blessing, and someone who does so has committed an act of me’ilah (sacrilege)”.  What does this verse come to add?

Rav Kook’s answer is fascinating, as it reveals another dimension into the purpose of blessings.  Eating is a physical pleasure and necessity.  Clearly, the act of reciting the blessing is a way to elevate the necessary mundane act of eating to a spiritual level.  However, one might have thought that as there is no physical benefit to the act of smelling a pleasing aroma, than a blessing is unnecessary.  As only the soul benefits from the fragrance, the human is not lowered to a biological level.  Therefore, the Talmud teaches “Let every ‘soul’ (neshama) praise God”; that even for solely spiritual benefits are we required to bless.  The purpose of blessings is not simply to raise the person from a solely physical level, but even to elevate our spiritual selves to higher levels as well.

Tuesday

THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haREI-ACH (blessings over fragrances) – Part 2

We begin our discussion of the halachic ramifications of the blessings over fragrances with a fascinating disagreement around the following scenario.  The Tur (Siman 217) rules:

A person, who enters a perfume store even without intent to smell the odours, recites the blessing “Borei Minei beSamim”.  If he remains there the entire day, he does not recite on each separate fragrance (but suffices with the one recitation). 

Upon this ruling, the Bach posed the following question:

In the previous section, the Tur ruled, regarding a pleasant smelling food, that if he ate it without any intent to smell the fragrance, he does not recite the blessing “Borei Minei beSamim”.  If so, why should a person who enters a perfume store without intent to smell anything (i.e. – to use the facilities) be any different? 

To this question, the Bach proposes that there is a distinction between two groups upon which I am required to bless.  The first group of items (perfumes) are specifically used or produced for their pleasant aroma, and therefore, one who benefits from their fragrance, even indirectly or without intention, must bless (so rules the Ritva, Laws of Blessings, 4:3).  However, items whose purpose is not to emit pleasant odours (i.e. – an etrog, foods) do not require a blessing unless the person specifically intends to benefit from their smell.

This approach, however, is not universally shared by the commentators.  Both the Taz and the Aruch haShulchan rule that no matter what item is in question, a person is not required to bless unless they have specific intention to benefit from the smells.  We will attempt to arrive at a deeper understanding of the laws of fragrances through this discussion tomorrow.

Wednesday

THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haREI-ACH (blessings over fragrances) – Part 3

We have been discussing whether or not a person is required to bless over fragrances when they do not they have specific intention to benefit from the smells. Both the Taz and the Aruch haShulchan rule that no blessing is necessary, while the Bach argues that if the item is specifically produced and used for its smells, than a blessing must be recited.  To understand this argument, we are going to turn to a different disagreement among the Rishonim regarding the laws of tasting.

The Shulchan Aruch (Siman 210) rules that “one who simply tastes food does not require a blessing until a revi’it, even if he swallowed it (Rambam).  And there are those that state if the food is swallowed, a blessing is required, and the dispensation for tasting only applies if the food is spit out, where it does not matter how much food is tasted (Meiri and others).” 

The second approach in the Shulchan Aruch can be easily understood if we consider shat causes the blessing to be required.  As the benefit provided to the body through eating is primarily a physical one, the moment this benefit occurs (through the act of swallowing), a blessing is required, irrespective of the intentions of the person who imbibed the food.  We find a similar ruling in the Talmud that a person who inadvertently eats chalavim (forbidden fats) or inadvertently engages in forbidden relations is considered responsible, as he has derived benefit from his actions. 

On the other hand, the Kesef Mishnah (beginning of the Laws of Blessings) justifies the Rambam’s approach, which rules out a blessing for foods tasted, even if swallowed, until they approach the volume of revi’it.  He suggests, from the verse “And you shall eat and you shall be satisfied” (Devarim 8) that the only definition of eating is that which is intentionally done to lead to satisfaction.  Therefore, while all eating for the purpose of eating falls into this category, food that is swallowed is the act of tasting does not until a certain volume of food is tasted, even if swallowed. 

Thursday

THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haREI-ACH (blessings over fragrances) – Part 4

We have been dealing with the question of whether or not a person has been required to recite a blessing on inadvertently partaking of a peasant fragrance.  When analyzing whether or not a person is required to recite a blessing on food that is tasted, without the intent to swallow and benefit from it, we saw that the Shulchan Aruch brings two opinions.  Rambam holds that unless a significant amount (a revi’it) is swallowed, no blessing is recited, while the Meiri and others argue that as soon as food is swallowed, a person is required to bless. In explaining the Rambam’s opinion, the Kesef Mishnah suggests that the Torah tied the definition of eating to partaking of significant amounts – “veACHALTA veSAVATA” – and you shall eat and be satisfied.  Therefore, if eating is done inadvertently, the requirement to bless is tied to whether or not a significant amount is consumed. 

It was the exploration into the underlying logic of the Meiri’s opinion that may provide clues to understanding the nature of the blessings over smell.  We suggested that the reason the Meiri and others rule that any partaking of food, even inadvertently, requires a blessing is due to what causes the blessing to be required.  When food is eaten, there is a physical benefit to the person, which immediately requires a blessing, irregardless of intention.

We must ask, then – what requires a blessing to be recited over a pleasant fragrance?  One would be hard pressed to argue that the body received any physical benefit.  In fact, we may suggest that it is precisely this issue that led to our first question: as the Talmud (Berachot 35) has already proven that all benefits require a person to bless beforehand, why does the Talmud then search for a separate verse to justify the recital of blessings over a fragrance?  As revealing is the Talmud’s answer (Berachot 43b): “Let every ‘soul’ (neshama) praise God.”  Pleasant fragrances provide a spiritual benefit, and therefore a verse is required.

Friday

A THOUGHT FOR PARSHAT KI TAVO

After the commandments of the recitations over Bikkurim (the first fruits) and Ma’aser, the Torah then summarizes Moshe Rabeinu’s second speech with the words “This day, Hashem you G-d commands you to perform these statutes and laws, and you shall guard them and do them with all your heart and with all your soul” (Devarim 26:16).  On this verse, the Midrash Tanchuma states:

Moshe foresaw that with the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, the mitzvah of Bikkurim would come to an end. To deal with that situation, Moshe established the practice of tefillah (prayer) three times daily."

The question should be asked – what is the comparison between the commandment to bring the first fruits and the commandment to pray three times daily?  The Chiddushei haRim suggests the following comparison.  After a year of effort of toil, the farmer has waited impatiently for the fruits of his labour.  Finally, as they appear, the farmer is now required to turn these fruits over to Hashem, to acknowledge his dependency on Hashem throughout the process.  Similarly, people awake in the morning refreshed, with a whole day in front of them to do what they desire.  By dedicating the first part of the day to Hashem, and not to his own plans and goals, the person is acknowledging that everything that he is going to accomplish that day will come from Hashem.

A person may suggest that the above comparison is inaccurate, as the mitzvah of Bikkurim occurs once a year, while tefillah occurs three times daily.   The excitement of seeing one’s first fruits after a year of effort is much greater than the feelings people experience upon arising to their daily routine.  However it may be answered that it is for this reason that the Midrash chose to comment on this verse, and not previously when the actually commandment to give Bikkurim was discussed.    On the verse’s opening, Rashi comments:

This day – on each day, they should be new in your eyes, as if you were commanded them each day.

In other words, our goal is to arise each morning with the same excitement and enthusiasm as a farmer who is going out to harvest the fruits that he toiled over for an entire year.