The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A
Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT KI TETZE
By Rav Yaakov Beasley
Motzaei
THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haNEHENIN –part 12
In the past week, we have seen how the differing approaches of the Rambam and the Ra’avad to understanding the mechanics of how reciting the birchot ha-nehenin, the blessings before partaking of food, led to different practical rulings in several interesting cases, including reciting a mistaken blessing, before partaking of forbidden foods, and when eating foods of different types that share a similar blessing. Rambam understands that the food before the blessing is in a forbidden status to the person, and only through appropriate recognition of the Divine hand in providing sustenance through the recital of the appropriate blessing does the food become permitted to the person. According to the Ra’avad, however, the food is always considered permitted to the person; however, the Rabbis decreed that before partaking of the food, a person must recite the appropriate blessing beforehand.
It must be noted, however, that
in Hilchot Berachot
Should a person take a cup of beer in his hand, and begin reciting a blessing with the intention of saying “Shehakol Nihyeh biDvaro”, and instead err and say “Borei Pri haGafen”, AIN MACHZIRIN OTO - he is not compelled to repeat the blessing.
The phrasing AIN MACHZIRIN OTO implies that although the person has fulfilling his obligation, for he had the proper intention at the time of reciting Hashem’s name, this is still far from an ideal situation. In the first halacha of Hilchot Berachot, the Rambam rules like Rabbi Yosei that anyone who changes the phrasing of the blessings has not fulfilled his obligations, as “the phrasing of all the blessings were established by Ezra and his Beit Din, and it is not proper to change, or to add or to subtract to any one of them. Anyone who makes such a change is considered mistaken.”
The Kesef Mishnah there asks the following: Why does the Rambam rule that a person who changes the phrasing of a blessing ‘is considered mistaken’? Shouldn’t the Rambam have written ‘has not fulfilled his obligation’? Based on what we have discussed above, the logic behind the Rambam’s wording is clear. According to the Rambam, the essential part of the blessing is the feeling that the person received sustenance from Hashem and is expressing his feelings of dependence and thanks. A person would therefore come to think that any form of praise is acceptable, as long as the proper intentions are there. Against this error, the Rambam rules that except for the accidental cases that we have discussed earlier, changing the form of the blessing will cause him to not fulfill his obligation, and the person’s logic ‘is considered mistaken’.
Sunday
THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haNEHENIN –part 13
We have classified the arguments between the Rambam and the Ra’avad regarding the laws of blessings as revolving around the fundamental question of the nature of the food to the person before the blessing is recited. According to the Rambam, the food is in a forbidden state before the person eats of it, and the blessing expresses his recognition that it was provided for him by Hashem. Therefore, even bediavad, the person who had the right intention while mentioning Hashem’s name, even if he concludes incorrectly, has fulfilled his obligation. According to the Ra’avad, the food was always permissible, and the blessing is the fulfillment of the rabbinical decree to express appreciation for the food before him. Therefore, no matter what the intention of the person reciting the blessing, should he recite the blessing incorrectly, than the blessing is automatically invalid. To conclude our discussion of the underlying mechanics and fundamentals of the laws of the blessings before food, and how what role the proper intention plays in the process, we have to turn to a question that until now we have left unanswered. We began our discussion last week with the passage from Berachot 12a –
When a person 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)?
Rashi interpreted the 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)?
This interpretation was attacked by the Rosh among others, on the following grounds. 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. If we examine closely the function of kavanna (intention) in Rashi’s understanding in mitzvoth in general, we can explain why he places such emphasis on the role of intention in the recital of blessings in particular.
Monday
THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haNEHENIN –part 14
We are dealing with the Rosh’s attack on Rashi’s interpretation of the Gemara in Berachot 12a. Whereas Rashi understood the Talmud’s question as wondering whether or not the failure to recite a blessing before eating food with the proper intention was enough to invalidate the blessing, the Rosh argued that we never find that a deficiency in the intention of a recited blessing as being enough to invalidate it.
To strengthen the Rosh’s question on Rashi, we mentioned at the beginning of this series, Rashi, unlike Tosafot and Rambam, holds that the food is always in a permitted status to the person – the recital of the blessing is fulfill the rabbinic decree that a blessing be recited, and indeed, he recited it correctly.
The Ma’adanei haRosh on the Rosh notes that the Rosh’s position in attacking Rashi seems contradictory, as the Rosh himself has ruled many times that “mitzvot tz’richot kavanna” – that for the performance of a mitzvah to be valid, it must performed with the proper intention (see the Rosh in Rosh haShanah). However, from this question, as is pointed out by the Sha’ashuai Shmuel, we clearly see that the question of the relationship between intention and the blessings before eating can be directly linked to the overall general question regarding all mitzvoth as to whether or not intention is required for their performance to be validated. This may, in fact, be the interpretation of Rashi’s understanding of the Gemara’s question. However, we will have to delve into Rashi’s understanding of the relationship between kavanna (intention) and mitzvoth in general to fully explain his emphasis on the role of intention in the recital of blessings in particular.
Tuesday
THE NATURE OF BIRCHOT haNEHENIN –part 15
We are trying to understand Rashi’s interpretation of the relationship between kavanna (intention) and mitzvoth in general, in order to understand his emphasis on the role of intention in the recital of blessings in particular. The Mishnah at the beginning of the second chapter of Berachot states that when a person is reading the section of Shema in the Torah at the time when a person is obligated to read the Shema, if that person has intention, then the person has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara states that this implies clearly that the ruling is that “mitzvot tz’richot kavanna”. However, the Gemara rejects this conclusion, stating that the Mishnah’s meaning could be that that the intention in question refers to the intention to pronounce each word clearly. Rashi here explains that while a person does not have to have the intention to perform the action for the purpose of fulfilling his obligation, however, the person must have the intention to perform the action in question (even according to the opinions that hold that “mitzvot einan tz’richot kavanna” – the performance of the commandments do not require the proper intentions).
Applying this understanding of Rashi to our scenario, we can understand the Gemara’s scenario as follows: In the case where a person begins a blessing holding a cup of beer in his hand, but assumed that it was wine, and began to recite the blessing of “borei pri ha-gafen” over wine, but concluded with the blessing of “shehakol nihyeh bidvaro” for beer, do we say that since at least the person intended to recite a blessing, and in the end, did recite the correct blessing, that that is enough to validate what he said; or do we suggest that since the person he intended to recite the wrong blessing, it is not comparable to the case of the person who is reading to enunciate the section Shema in the Torah – for at least there, the person intends to recite the right section of the Torah, but just does not intend to recite it to fulfill his obligation to recite Shema twice a day, whereas here, the person didn’t even intend to recite the right blessing?!
Wednesday
THE NATURE OF THE BLESSING OF
“SHE-HAKOL” – part 1
The Mishnah (Berachot 6:2) states:
If a person blesses upon the fruits of the tree “Borei Pri haAdamah”, he has fulfilled his obligation (as the source of the fruits is indeed from the ground). If a person blesses “Borei Pri haEitz” upon vegetables, he has not fulfilled his obligation. On all foods, if a person blesses “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo”, he has fulfilled his obligation.
The commentators on the last line
of the Mishnah explain that the blessing “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo”
is all-inclusive, and as its wording clearly states ‘that EVERYTHING comes
about through Hashem’s word’, it is an appropriate
blessing for any sort of food, or indeed, any sort of benefit that a person
derives from this world. (However,
ideally, a person should attempt to recite as specific a blessing as possible
over the foods in front of him.) For
this reason, the Pri Megadim
rules (Eshel Avraham 216:19) that if a person recites
the blessing of “She-Hakol Nihyeh
biD’varo” upon a pleasant smell, he has fulfilled his
obligation. However, the Beit Yehudah (
The Talmud continues (Berachot 40b): It was stated – Rav Huna said that the blessing of “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo” covers all foods with the exception of bread and wine, while Rav Yochanan argued and holds that the blessing of “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo” covers even bread and wine. (The Yerushalmi brings the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that ‘anyone who changes the wording of the blessings as set forth by Chachamim” has not fulfilled his obligation, while Rabbi Meir holds that he has. According to Rav Yochanan, this does not mean that Shehakol can not be recited for other blessings, as Chachamim were the ones who established it, but that a person can not state “How beautiful is this loaf of bread that Hashem made. On this Gemara, the Ritva writes that from here we learn that if a person blesses “Borei Pri haEitz” on wine, he has also fulfilled his obligation, while Tosafot (12a s.v. Lo Pligu) holds that the dispensation to recite a different blessing over wine (or bread) is restricted to Shehakol only. The Gilyon haShas asks the obvious question on the Tosafot: If Shehakol is an appropriate blessing, why isn’t “Borei Pri haEitz” – isn’t it a more specific blessing than Shehakol?
To answer these questions, we shall have to investigate into the nature of the blessing of Shehakol. We will see that two different explanations are brought to explain its formulation, and from them, explain the two arguments that are before us.
Thursday
THOUGHTS ON PARSHAT KI TETZE
Our Parsha ends with the commandments to remember what Amalek perpetrated upon us on our way out of
Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way, as you were leaving
How are we to understand ‘VE-LO
YARE ELOKIM’? Logically, this should be
translated as and [you] did not fear G-d, as grammatically, whenever a verb
does not have a subject immediately preceding it, we are to go to the preceding
noun. Therefore, just as it was you
(B’nei Yisrael) who were
faint and exhausted, it was you (B’nei Yisrael) who did not fear God. However, both Rashi
and Ibn Ezra understand the verb ‘YARE’ as referring
to the third person past tense – i.e. Amalek – that Amalek did not fear G-d in attacking B’nei
Yisrael.
Proofs for this approach can be found in the cantillation
notes, which make a clear separation (an etnachta)
between the phrases ‘faint and exhausted’ and ‘did not fear G-d’. The Be’er
However, this approach is not unanimous among the commentators. The Chikuni brings the Mechilta that the phrase ‘VE-LO YARE ELOKIM’ refers to B’nei Yisrael as we originally understood. Since B’nei Yisrael either slackened from the commandments in their hand, or they did not yet have commandments to protect them (depending on differing versions in the Midrash), they were susceptible to being attacked. Despite the fear that Amalek’s responsibility might be somehow lessened, the message that B’nei Yisrael’s fate is ultimately in their control is an empowering, strengthening message that underlies much of Sefer Devarim.
Friday
THE NATURE OF THE BLESSING OF
“SHE-HAKOL” – part 2
We began with several questions about the blessing of “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo” – can it be recited before partaking of pleasant aromas (as ruled the Pri Megadim and the Sedei Chemed), or it is limited to foods only (the Beit Yehudah). Similarly, is the ability to cover all foods limited to the blessing of “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo”, or do other blessings also have that capability? Ritva argues that a person can bless “Borei Pri haEitz” on wine and fulfill his obligation, while Tosafot holds that the dispensation to recite a different blessing over wine (or bread) is restricted to Shehakol only.
To appreciate these questions, we have to go to the establishment of the blessing “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo”. Most commentators assume that the blessing was established as the appropriate manner to cover all species; otherwise the process of specialization for each blessing would have seen no end (a specific blessing for chicken, a specific blessing for turkey, etc.) Therefore, as this blessing was originally intended to cover all types, it is appropriate to use for all types of benefits. However, the Ollelot Efrayim suggests a different approach. He suggests that the blessing was originally only established for food types that did not come from the ground. Only afterwards, was the scope of the blessing expanded so that if a person did not know the appropriate blessing, could “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo” be recited be’diavad.
Using these two approaches, we can explain the differing opinions mentioned above. According to the Pri Megadim, there is no problem in reciting “She-Hakol Nihyeh biD’varo” over pleasant aromas, as the blessing was originally established with that purpose in mind – that the blessing would serve as an all-purpose blessing. However, according to the Beit Yehudah, as the blessing was originally established as a blessing over specific foods only, its recital can only be permitted to the extant that Chazal extended it, but not further.
The question as to whether or not other blessings can also cover foods over which they were not only decreed, like the case of blessing “Borei Pri haEitz” on wine above, also revolves around this question. Tosafot 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-purpose covering blessing, and other blessings to not have that ability. According to the Ritva, however, 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.