Q&A: Several Questions
Several Questions
Question
Questions for my teacher and master, the great gaon, may he live long and well.
A) Regarding the fourth blessing in a case of doubt about Grace after Meals:
In Sha’agat Aryeh (sec. 25) it is explained that a person who is unsure whether he already recited the blessing over Torah study, although the rule is that he repeats it because with a Torah-level doubt we rule stringently, nevertheless he recites only the blessing “Who has chosen us,” since on the Torah level one fulfills the obligation with that, and that is enough to remove the case from the category of a Torah-level doubt, because the other blessings are only rabbinic. And so it was ruled in practice in Sha’arei Teshuvah and the Mishnah Berurah (sec. 47, subsection 1).
But this requires clarification: how is this different from Grace after Meals, where we rule (Sha’arei Teshuvah sec. 209, subsection 6, in the name of Likutei Pri Chadash, and Mishnah Berurah sec. 184, subsection 13) that one who is unsure whether he recited Grace after Meals and is therefore obligated to repeat it, repeats even the fourth blessing, even though it is only rabbinic, so that people should not treat it lightly [see also Sefer Ha-Eshkol, Laws of the Meal]. Seemingly, how is this different from the blessings over Torah study, where out of doubt one repeats only the blessing required by Torah law, and not the additional blessing instituted by the Sages?
B) Regarding the definition of the Traveler’s Prayer:
The Tur (Orach Chayim sec. 110) cites a dispute among the medieval authorities (Rishonim) whether the Traveler’s Prayer must be adjacent to another blessing. Rabbeinu Yonah’s view is that since in the Amidah the blessing “Who hears prayer” is adjacent to another blessing, therefore now, in the Traveler’s Prayer, if it is not adjacent to another blessing, we are not concerned about that, since in its original place it is adjacent to another blessing. And similarly regarding the blessing “Everlasting love” when one says it by itself next to the Shema. And the basic principle he is saying seems to be that the rule that a blessing must either open with “Blessed” or be adjacent to another blessing is a rule in the essential form of the blessing in its proper place, but when one says that blessing outside its proper place, we are not concerned that he is saying it without its being adjacent to another blessing. However, we also see from Rabbeinu Yonah that the Traveler’s Prayer is the same blessing as “Who hears prayer” in the eighteen blessings, and if so it is not a new formula of blessing, because the blessing “Hear our voice” includes all requests, as the Tur wrote there (sec. 119), and therefore the Talmud says in Avodah Zarah 8a that a person asks for his needs in “Who hears prayer.” So the main form of this blessing was instituted as part of the order of the eighteen blessings. This matter needs analysis.
C) Regarding the wording of the blessing over bread and the blessing over produce of the ground:
It requires analysis why the language differs: for bread we bless, “Who brings forth bread from the earth,” while for vegetables we bless, “Who creates the fruit of the ground.” Why here is the term “the earth” and there “the ground”?
Questions regarding the Sabbatical year:
A) “One who hears is like one who answers” in the passage of first-fruits
“And you shall take from the first of every fruit of the ground that you bring in from your land that the Lord your God gives you” – from here they derive (Bava Batra 81a; see Rashbam there, s.v. “But isn’t it written”) that only if the land is his as well – in addition to the tree – is he obligated in first-fruits, as it says: “from your land.” For that reason we find a dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Meir (Bikkurim ch. 1, mishnah 6 and mishnah 11; see also Maimonides, Laws of First-Fruits ch. 2, halakhah 13) whether one who buys two trees from another brings first-fruits and recites the declaration. With three trees he certainly brings and recites, because ordinarily he also acquires the land beneath them. And with one tree, according to everyone, he does not recite, because he certainly did not acquire the land. But when he bought two trees, according to the first tanna he brings but does not recite, because it is doubtful whether he acquired the land. Rabbi Meir, however, holds that his law is like one who bought three trees, since ordinarily he acquired the land, and therefore he brings and recites.
Now in Bava Batra 82a we ask, according to the first tanna, why does he not recite? After all, these are verses, so even if it is uncertain whether he is obligated to bring first-fruits, why should he be forbidden to recite verses of Torah? Rav Ashi answers: because it appears false. That is, it is possible that he is not obligated, and yet he recites the passage as though he were obligated. And one may ask: why is it not enough for him to hear the first-fruits passage from another person who is bringing and reciting, and then, if his law is that he is obligated to recite, he would fulfill his obligation by the rule of “one who hears is like one who answers”; and in that case, seemingly, there is no deficiency of “it appears false,” since he himself is not reciting it with his mouth at all. [The law of “one who hears is like one who answers” needs to be defined; see Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chayim 60:4) regarding whether commandments require intent; and regarding agency in the recitation of the first-fruits passage, see Maimonides (Laws of First-Fruits ch. 2, halakhah 21, and there ch. 4, halakhah 2); also see Ketubot 74a and Tosafot (s.v. “Condition”); and also Maimonides (Laws of Marriage ch. 6, halakhah 2) in the comments of the Mishneh La-Melekh and Kesef Mishneh (there 1-2), and study it carefully.]
Answer
A) In Grace after Meals, after the addition made by the Sages, the whole package is one commandment. They inserted further details into the Torah commandment. By contrast, in the blessings over Torah study these are two additional separate rabbinic blessings. So for example, one could say that the reasoning of Tosafot in Sukkah 3a – that as long as one did not fulfill the rabbinic requirement he has not fulfilled the Torah-level obligation either (regarding someone sitting in the sukkah while his table is in the house) – was said only where the rabbinic law joined onto the Torah law, as in Grace after Meals, and not regarding the blessings over Torah study.
From this you can also understand that the disputes regarding the blessing over Torah study – whether it is a blessing over a commandment or a blessing of praise – were not said about all three blessings, but only about the one that is from the Torah. The blessing “Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to engage in words of Torah” is certainly a blessing over a commandment. But in Grace after Meals all the blessings have the same status.
Something like this appears in Maimonides’ distinction in Principle 11 between tzitzit, where the blue thread does not prevent the white from counting and yet it is one commandment, and tefillin, where the head-tefillin do not prevent the hand-tefillin but they are still two commandments. In tzitzit, the two details, even though they do not prevent one another, create one whole; in tefillin they do not. See my article on Principle 11 at length.
B) What’s the question? This really is quite a novel principle. According to this, every personal request would be a blessing outside its proper place. It may be that the definition of the rule is that the need for a blessing to open with “Blessed” and be adjacent to another blessing is not part of the intrinsic laws of the blessing itself – and therefore when it is outside its place we don’t care – but rather that this is how the Sages instituted the blessing, and it is part of the rule that one may not deviate from their formula. And when they instituted it outside its normal place, they originally established that it would be said on its own, so when it is outside its place there is no requirement to open with a blessing formula and to be adjacent to another blessing, because that itself is the formula the Sages instituted.
C) It seems to me that the difference between “earth” and “ground” is like the difference between “lights of the fire” and “light of the fire” (see Rabbi Zevin’s article on the views of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel). “Lights of the fire” is what we see with our eyes, while “light of the fire” is the essence of fire, the very fact that fire exists. “The earth” is the general entity under our feet. “The ground” is the specific thing in front of my eyes right now. For bread, the thanks is for the very existence of bread, which sustains and nourishes, and without it there is no existence. So it is not for this particular bread before me, but for the very existence of bread in the world. With vegetables, we give thanks for the vegetable we are about to eat now. Therefore bread also establishes a meal, because it includes all food, and the blessing over it is a blessing over all the food eaten, whereas vegetables do not. This also explains why bread was singled out from other vegetables, and we do not bless over it the way we bless over every other vegetable produce – “Who creates the fruit of the ground” rather than only “Who brings forth bread from the ground.”
Regarding first-fruits.
A. The Sages do not originally institute that one should hear from someone else and thereby fulfill his obligation. They set the primary law. But in fact, if he does have someone next to him reading and he can fulfill his obligation, why are you assuming he shouldn’t hear it from him and intend to fulfill his obligation?
B. It may be that here everyone would agree with Rabbi Ovadia’s principle that someone who is not obligated and answers Amen and intends to fulfill his obligation – that too is a needless blessing; that is a very novel principle indeed, and in my opinion not very plausible. But in the recitation of first-fruits, since it appears false, what difference does it make whether he says it himself or merely intends to fulfill his obligation through it? It still appears false. Note well: here “appears” does not mean that it isn’t false but only looks that way; rather, it actually is false. And the Sages do not institute that a person should intend something false, not only that he should say something false. If this were merely an appearance, there would be room to distinguish between speech and thought, but if it is actual falsehood, there is no difference.