Q&A: Blessing on Something That “Permits”
Blessing on Something That "Permits"
Question
As far as I understand, there are things like slaughtering and separating terumah (I think) whose entire function is only to permit a prohibition; that is, they have no independent commandment-value or meaningful content. Even so, a blessing is recited over them, and that seems a bit strange to me, since this is an act without any real significance. Does the Rabbi have an explanation for why there is nevertheless a blessing? Thank you.
By the way, I also wanted to ask whether all completely existential commandments—meaning ones for which there is no conceivable case in which one is obligated to fulfill them, and fulfillment is only contingent—are devoid of value-content in the same sense as slaughtering and the like, or not. Thank you.
Answer
Even things that merely remove a prohibition can still be a commandment. The commandment is to separate terumot and ma’asrot, and that separation removes the prohibition of untithed produce. There are things that, in halakhic jargon, are called a “permitter”—meaning they only remove a prohibition and are not themselves a commandment—and over those one indeed does not recite a blessing. Therefore, for example, the fact that a blessing is recited over slaughtering led the medieval authorities (Rishonim) to conclude that there is a commandment in slaughtering, and it is not merely what permits the prohibition of eating meat from an unslaughtered animal. There is a commandment to slaughter if one wants to eat. In a more extreme formulation: the commandment of slaughtering is the main thing, and the prohibition against eating something not slaughtered is only an incentive meant to ensure that you slaughter. And so too regarding separating terumot and ma’asrot: the prohibition of untithed produce before you separate them is meant to ensure that you do separate them (and perhaps this can be tied to the dispute between Rashi and Tosafot on the question whether the prohibition of untithed produce is because the terumah is mixed into it or whether it is a separate prohibition).
Now I see that you assumed otherwise regarding slaughtering, but you are mistaken.
As for completely existential commandments, it seems that there are no such things. True, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein wanted to argue that the commandment to settle the Land of Israel is such a case, but Rabbi Avraham Shapira disagreed with him, arguing that there are no completely existential commandments. There are only commandments that are existential from a certain threshold and upward (like charity beyond one-third of a shekel, or Torah study beyond two chapters a day).
Discussion on Answer
That was said only regarding blessings, but the discussion here was about practical acts that permit. As for blessings, it sounds quite compelling, since the rule that the blessing should come before performing the commandment does not depend on the fact that it serves as a permitter, but on the general laws of blessings. And therefore there are commandments over which the blessing is not recited before the act (immersion, hand-washing).
That is indeed the Or Zarua’s proof. He holds that if there are exceptions such as immersion, that indicates regarding the whole rule that blessings can also relate to the commandment even after it has been performed.
But Maimonides (Blessings 11:7-8) holds that one cannot infer from the exception to the rule, and in his view it is forbidden to recite a blessing after performing the commandment, “except for the immersion of a convert alone.” I do not really understand the logic of his position.
By the way, the topics really do look very parallel (blessings and acts that permit). Regarding blessings over benefit too, the later authorities learn that the blessing is an expression of thanksgiving, but one may not derive benefit until one gives thanks; and even if one already benefited, it still makes sense to give thanks. As the Rabbi said, the main thing is the obligation of thanksgiving, and the prohibition against eating without giving thanks is only a derivative of that obligation—as opposed to those who hold that a blessing over benefit merely permits (“Whoever benefits from this world without a blessing…”).
Maimonides disagrees with him in the laws of blessings (that the blessing should be before performing them), but there is no necessity at all to say that he sees the blessing as a permitter.
The interesting view of the Or Zarua (Laws of Shema 25) is that no blessing serves as a “permitter”; rather, blessings over commandments and blessings over benefit are always for thanking God, and therefore in his view one can even recite them after the act or after the enjoyment, because it is never too late to say thank you.
What he says there makes a lot of sense.