Q&A: Several Questions
Several Questions
Question
Well, maybe this is a good time to ask Your Honor some questions beyond what we already asked.
A. The obligation of Grace after Meals according to the time of the meal: we rule (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 188:10) that if one ate before the Sabbath and did not recite Grace after Meals until the Sabbath arrived, he does not add “Retzeh” in Grace after Meals, because the mention of “Retzeh” follows the beginning of the meal, and since the beginning of the meal was not on the Sabbath, he no longer mentions it. And the same applies to Rosh Chodesh, Purim, and Hanukkah; see there, and in the Mishnah Berurah (subsection 33). Now Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Orach Chayim 186:2) was uncertain regarding a minor who ate on the last day of his minority and recited Grace after Meals, and when night came and he became an adult, the food had still not yet been digested in his intestines. He was uncertain whether now he is obligated to recite Grace after Meals on the Torah level, since the blessing he recited was when he was obligated only rabbinically, and perhaps that does not help for the time when he is Torah-obligated because the food has still not yet been digested in his intestines; see there. This requires clarification: what is different from the mention of “Retzeh,” where it is obvious to the Shulchan Arukh that we follow the beginning of the meal? Why should we not say here as well that since at the time of the meal he was obligated in the blessing rabbinically, because of education, his blessing should suffice?
And on second thought, after reflection, I am puzzled: what does the “trigger” of the blessing have to do with the time frame of the object of the blessing? The trigger for “Retzeh ve-hachalitzenu” is a Sabbath meal. And obviously, a meal that began on Friday is not attributed to the Sabbath. By contrast, “digestion of the food” is the time frame of the blessing itself, for until after digestion the blessing still relates to his food, and that certainly depends on the digestion itself, since that is part of the very time frame of the blessing.
I would be glad to know the honored opinion of our master.
B. Neglecting a positive commandment lest one come to carry: regarding the law of sounding the shofar and taking the lulav on Rosh Hashanah and Sukkot when they fall on the Sabbath, the Sages decreed that one should not fulfill the commandment at its proper time because of the concern lest he take it in his hand and go to an expert to learn, and carry it four cubits in the public domain (see: Sukkah 42b; Pesachim 69a; Beitzah 17b; Rosh Hashanah 29b; Megillah 4b). This needs explanation: how is this different from the commandment of eating matzah on the Seder night when it falls on the Sabbath? There the Sages did not enact that one should not eat matzah lest he take it in his hand and go to an expert to know whether this matzah has the required measure, or that he should teach him the measure he must eat, and the like. [And it is strained to say that with lulav and shofar their time of fulfillment is in the morning, and therefore we are concerned that perhaps he will go at night beforehand to learn, whereas with matzah, whose time begins at the start of the night, if he has a doubt in hand he will go to a sage while it is still day. This does not work, for with Megillah, whose commandment also begins immediately at night, we see that the Sages decreed even in such a case. We also see from Megillah that even concerning commandments whose obligation is at night, we still decree, and we do not say that nighttime is not a normal time to go out because of fear of the roads, and therefore we are not concerned lest he go out into the public domain. All this requires clarification.] Furthermore, one must consider that nowadays, according to most halakhic decisors, there is almost no public domain on the Torah level [since it is almost impossible to find a place through which six hundred thousand people pass in a day; see Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 345]. If so, why do we not sound the shofar on the Sabbath? We rule (Yevamot 21b and elsewhere) that we do not make a decree to safeguard another decree, so why do we decree that they should not sound it lest one come to carry, when carrying itself is forbidden only because of a rabbinic decree?
In my humble opinion, it seems that he did not mention an important distinction. For with “sounding the shofar” and reading the Megillah, one who needs to learn will look for an “expert,” meaning someone available who knows the craft of reading and sounding. By contrast, with eating matzah, it seems that many people are available and knowledgeable about eating matzah and hearing the laws of matzah. There is no need for “experts,” and there is no concern that they will need to violate the prohibition of carrying four cubits in the public domain or the prohibition of carrying out on the Sabbath, and this is obvious. And as for what he asked from “we do not make a decree to safeguard another decree,” I do not know what he is talking about. Are we speaking of coming now to make a decree in order to preserve another decree? This is not at all the time of “making a decree”; rather, the decree is ancient, and originally it was enacted so that people would not violate Torah prohibitions. And now, the decree simply remains in place, for that is how the Jewish law has remained since the enactment of the decree: not to take the Megillah and not to sound the shofar on the Sabbath, because we are concerned for a public domain of six hundred thousand people [as we learned this from Israel in the wilderness], since we do not abolish a decree. [On the contrary, we look forward to the existence of six hundred thousand in some place, as was apparently the case at the time of the decree.] And certainly this situation is not similar to “a decree upon a decree.”
As above, I would be glad to know the honored opinion of our master.
C. The Biur Halakhah (section 8, section 14) wrote regarding the blessing on tzitzit for one who enters a bathhouse and intends to put tzitzit back on after he leaves, that it is preferable for him to intend that the blessing should exempt the commandment of tzitzit only until the time he enters the bathhouse, and then he can properly bless again. We see that if one intends that his blessing should count only for a certain period, he must bless again after that time, because a person can intend for his blessing to apply only to a certain time [and so too we find regarding the blessing over the sukkah, where the Bach and the Taz (Orach Chayim 639) wrote that one who entered the sukkah and blessed there, and afterward sat down to eat, blesses again “to sit in the sukkah,” because in his mind his blessing was not meant to help except until the time that he eats]. Now regarding the blessings on Torah study for someone who stayed awake all night, the Mishnah Berurah (section 47, subsection 28) wrote: “If he was awake all night, some say he does not need to bless in the morning, and some say he does need to bless, for the Sages established this blessing every day similarly to the other morning blessings; and with a doubt regarding blessings we rule leniently. But if possible, he should try to hear the blessings on Torah study from someone else, and that person should intend to discharge him through the blessings, and he should intend to fulfill his obligation and answer Amen,” etc. This requires clarification: what is different between the blessing on tzitzit and the blessing on the sukkah, and the blessings on Torah study? Why did the Mishnah Berurah not write regarding the blessings on Torah study this advice as well—that when he blesses the blessings on Torah study in the morning before the night during which he will stay awake, he should intend that his blessing count only until the next morning when he will come to bless?
With faithful blessings, from his student through his writings and lectures,
Answer
A. In essence, the core of your question is about a minor who ate and did not bless at all: once he becomes an adult, is he obligated on the Torah level? At first glance it seems not, because the trigger of the obligation for him—the eating—was during his minority. However, this depends on whether there is “deferral” with regard to commandments, in a case of original deferral. Something like this appears in the Rosh at the end of Moed Katan, who brings from Maharam of Rothenburg regarding a minor whose father died: is he obligated to observe mourning once he becomes an adult? And Maharam made this depend on whether there is deferral with regard to commandments. Here, however, I assume that the trigger for the blessing is the eating and not the state of satiation itself (someone in whom a feeling of fullness was created in some other way is certainly not obligated to bless). I was also reminded of the Hagahot Ashri regarding someone who stole while a minor—whether he is obligated to return it upon adulthood. I seem to recall that he writes that he is obligated rabbinically, but if he returned it while still a minor then obviously he is not obligated in anything further.
However, Rabbi Akiva Eiger discusses a minor who did bless—whether he must bless again. It seems simple that he does not, since he already fulfilled his obligation. He is apparently entertaining the possibility that the trigger is the satiation and not the eating. But if so, one must discuss why we do not say the same regarding “Retzeh” and Rosh Chodesh. Perhaps according to his approach one should distinguish between insertions within the blessing, which follow the meal, since the blessing is on the meal, and the definition of the obligation to bless, which is determined by his present status (the person). Still, as a matter of reasoning it seems obvious to me that if he blessed while a minor, he is exempt, even on the side that the definition of the blessing is determined by his present status. According to that side, if he did not bless at all while a minor, then he is now obligated to bless on the Torah level, but if he did bless, he has certainly discharged the obligation and is no longer required to bless. That is a bit different from your reasoning.
B. Your words are as plain as day. I would say even more than that. Everyone knows the measure of matzah, so they would not go to an expert at all. Especially in their times, when the measure was not in centimeters but according to a person’s judgment—approximately an olive, or an egg, or a cubit, and the like. Only today do people translate this into exact measurements. In their times, he just had to compare it to an olive or an egg, and that was all. No expertise was needed for that.
And regarding nowadays, when there is no public domain, in my opinion that was also the situation in their times. Nowadays there are more people. And in any case, even if the reason has fallen away, the decree does not fall away unless there is a religious court greater in wisdom and number than the original one (see Maimonides, beginning of chapter 2 of Mamrim). And this has nothing to do with a decree upon a decree, because even in their times they forbade it for everyone in all situations, and did not distinguish between someone who has a public domain nearby and someone who does not. If so, the same applies nowadays. Here it is certainly one single decree, and not even a strained answer, as is often the case when people answer this way.
C. It may be that he did not write this advice because a person does not always know in advance that he will be awake all night. It just happened that way. Beyond that, he is discussing the case of a person who did not have any such intention—what his law is. The fact that there may be an available solution is perhaps true. And third, in my humble opinion the blessings on Torah study are not blessings over commandments but blessings of praise, and therefore the whole discussion does not apply there. He does not bless in order to discharge an obligation, where one can limit the time frame, but rather the Sages ordained that he praise the Holy One, blessed be He, for the Torah every day or whenever he rises from his sleep. I have written in several places that it is a blessing of praise, proving this from the fact that women are obligated to bless even though they are not obligated in the commandment of Torah study (and the answers of the Magen Avraham and the Beit Yosef there are very forced). Furthermore, according to Nachmanides and others it is a Torah-level obligation, and that is also the plain sense of the Talmud in Berakhot, whereas blessings over commandments are rabbinic. But even according to those who disagree and hold that it is a blessing over commandments, it is not reasonable that in their view all three blessings we recite in the morning over Torah are blessings over commandments. Perhaps they are discussing the law of a blessing that is not a blessing over commandments. For example, “Please make the words of Your Torah sweet” is certainly not a blessing over commandments but a request.
However, regarding the law itself, I am not sure that the Taz and the Magen Avraham are correct. In the bathhouse there is a period when he does not belong to the commandment at all, and not merely that he is not fulfilling it, and therefore there perhaps it helps to intend for a fixed time. But with the sukkah he is obligated and connected to the commandment the entire time, and I am doubtful whether he can bless only until a fixed time. Still, as a matter of logic it indeed seems that if he intends not to fulfill the obligation, the blessing is like opposite intention and he does not fulfill it through that blessing. And with a blessing it may be that opposite intention is more effective than with intention regarding commandments, but this is not the place to elaborate.
Discussion on Answer
Why does it matter to you what someone thinks about you? I don’t understand the question.
I didn’t understand anything. You don’t want to study analytical Talmud learning? Why not? Or is it that you’re not managing socially? Clarify the question.
Hello Rabbi,
I just started first-year study at a certain yeshiva where analytical Talmud study takes up a very major place, and I didn’t properly think through the consequences, and gave less weight than I should have to “social” considerations—“it’s really, really small”—what was in front of my eyes was “analysis,” but once I started I saw that it isn’t for me. Now I don’t know how to tell the Rosh Yeshiva that I’m leaving, because in terms of the truth, what difference does it make—what matters is that I have a place to learn and teachers I like, and that seems right and true. What will the Rosh Yeshiva think of me—someone who cares about social life when our main occupation is “to engage in eternal life”?
I’d be glad to know what the Rabbi thinks.
Many thanks