Lesson 5: Ha’azinu

From the book Mida Tova: Articles on the Principles of Halakhic Thinking by Rabbi Michael Avraham. Translated from Hebrew using gpt-5.4 (reasoning_effort=high, batch API).

---

With God’s help

On the Blessing over Torah Study

A Look at the Commandment of Torah Study and the Blessing over Commandments

A. Sources and the Status of the Commandment

At the beginning of the portion, the following verse appears (Deuteronomy 32:3):

“For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God.”

In the Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 21a, the discussion concerns the source for the blessings over Torah and over food, before and after each of them. In the course of that discussion, this verse is brought as the source for the obligation to recite the blessing over Torah before study. The Talmud says:

“From where do we know that the blessing over Torah before it is from the Torah itself? As it is said: ‘For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God.'”

On the face of it, this is the blessing recited over the commandment of Torah study, and several medieval authorities indeed understood it that way, as we shall see below.

The enumerators of the commandments who follow Maimonides did not count this commandment. Nahmanides, however, in Addendum 15 to the positive commandments, writes as follows:

“We were commanded to give thanks to His blessed name whenever we read from the Torah, for the great good He did for us in giving us His Torah and informing us of the deeds pleasing before Him, through which we inherit life in the world to come. And just as we were commanded to bless after all eating, so too we were commanded in this matter. In the third chapter of Berakhot (21a) they said: ‘From where do we know that the blessing over Torah before it is from the Torah itself? As it is said: For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God.’ The Gemara then wished to derive that the blessing over food before eating should also be from the Torah, by an a fortiori argument from this: if Torah, which does not require a blessing afterward, nevertheless requires one beforehand, then food, which does require a blessing afterward, should all the more so require one beforehand. They answered this by way of refutation: what is true of Torah, which is eternal life, cannot necessarily be applied to food. Furthermore, we learned regarding food that one blesses afterward and does not bless beforehand. Their intention there was that, since one who is ritually impure due to seminal emission does not bless beforehand over food but does bless afterward, we learn that only the blessing afterward is from the Torah, and therefore it was not nullified by their enactment concerning immersion for such persons. From this it follows that the a fortiori argument is open to refutation. What emerges from all this is that the blessing over Torah before it is a positive commandment of Torah origin. And in the Jerusalem Talmud, at the beginning of chapter 7 of Berakhot, they said: ‘With respect to Torah, a blessing before it is written, but a blessing after it is not written. What is written before it? “For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God.” With respect to food, a blessing after it is written, but a blessing before it is not written. What is written after it? “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God.” And from where do we extend what is said in one case to the other?’ From all this it is made clear that this blessing is from the Torah. And it is not proper to count it as one commandment together with the reading, just as the recitation over the first fruits is not counted as one with bringing them, and the recounting of the Exodus from Egypt is not counted as one with eating the Paschal sacrifice.”

Sefer HaChinukh, in commandment 430, dealing with Grace after Meals, writes at the end of that discussion:

“All the other blessings are rabbinic, except for one, which is from the Torah itself. This is explicit in Berakhot 21a, and it is the blessing over Torah before it. Nahmanides also counts it as an independent positive commandment. The matter seems to be as follows: the blessed God required us to bless before the reading of Torah and after food because He does not ask material man to serve Him and acknowledge His goodness except after he first receives some recompense from Him, for the animal aspect recognizes good only after sensation. But the reading of Torah belongs to the intellect, and the intellect knows and recognizes; even before receiving the benefit, it understands it. Therefore God required us to thank Him before reading the Torah. Whoever admits the truth will find reason in my words.”

He then adds a practical legal conclusion:

“Therefore, anyone who read Torah in the morning before reciting the blessings instituted over Torah, or before reciting the blessing before the Shema concerning God’s everlasting love, has neglected a commandment of Torah origin. Accordingly, one who forgot whether he recited the blessing over Torah in the morning must recite it again. But one who failed to recite any of the other blessings in the world, aside from those we have mentioned, has transgressed only a rabbinic enactment; nevertheless, ‘whoever breaches a fence, a snake will bite him’ (Ecclesiastes 10:8), and the Blessed One warns concerning them measure for measure.”

It follows from his words that the obligation of the blessing over Torah is of Torah origin, even though he does not count it in his enumeration. If so, it is certainly possible that Maimonides too held that its obligation is of Torah origin. The fact that he does not count it is not, in itself, contrary evidence. As we shall see below, however, the commentators disagreed over how to explain Maimonides’ view.

Indeed, in the Talmudic passage itself that we cited above, it certainly appears that the blessing over Torah is a commandment of Torah origin. And later in that same discussion, when the Gemara attempts to derive the law of a blessing after Torah study and the law of a blessing before food by an a fortiori argument, it likewise implies that the blessing over Torah is from the Torah, just like Grace after Meals.

Yet Minchat Chinukh, in subsection 5, writes that Maimonides’ view is that the obligation to recite the blessing over Torah is rabbinic. Shaagat Aryeh says the same in sections 24-25. He also explains Sefer HaChinukh to mean that the Torah-level obligation is merely to say some form of praise for the giving of the Torah, while the wording and formal text are rabbinic. He explains Grace after Meals in the same way, in subsection 3: the references to covenant and Torah are of Torah origin, but the wording and formal structure are rabbinic.¹

B. Is the Blessing over Torah a Blessing over Commandments or a Blessing over Benefit?

Let us examine the remarks of Tosafot on Berakhot 11b, s.v. “shekvar,” where they ask why the blessing over Torah differs from other blessings recited over commandments:

“If you ask: how is this different from a sukkah, where one must bless at every meal, ‘to sit in the sukkah’? It may be answered that Torah is different, because one does not take his mind off it, since at every moment a person is obligated to study, as it is written: ‘You shall meditate on it day and night,’ etc.”

Tosafot explain that with respect to the sukkah, a person diverts his attention from it when he is not obligated in it, for if he does not wish to eat or sleep, he is not obligated. Torah, by contrast, carries a constant obligation. Therefore one recites its blessing only once in the morning. Tosafot thus seem to understand the blessing over Torah as a blessing over commandments, and the difference between it and the blessing over the sukkah as merely secondary.

We find the same in Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 46, who cites a responsum of Rashba. Rashba was asked: when we bless over Torah every morning, why do we not bless after it as well? That question assumes that the blessing is a blessing over benefit, like the blessing over food. Rashba answers that this is because one does not recite blessings over commandments after performing them. In other words, his answer itself is that this is a blessing over commandments. Beit Yosef himself there writes that the reason is that there is never a time when one is not obligated in Torah, and therefore it is impossible to speak of a blessing after it. That line of reasoning moves in the direction of a blessing over benefit.

Rabbi Reuven Margolies, in his edition of Responsa Min HaShamayim, note to section 10, objects to this. After all, Or Zarua, in the laws of the blessing over bread, section 140, writes that no blessing is recited over commandments that have no interruption and no time of exemption, such as visiting the sick and giving charity. Similarly, Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 106:4, writes that no blessing is recited over prayer because it has no fixed limit. If so, in such a case there should be no room for a blessing beforehand either, for just as there is no blessing after the commandment, there should also be none before it.

Rabbi Reuven Margolies resolves this by saying that Torah study too has a fixed minimum and a point of exemption, for we rule in Menachot 99b that if one recited the Shema in the morning and in the evening, he fulfilled “it shall not depart.” This is forced, however, for according to most opinions there is an obligation to study all day. Certainly there is a non-obligatory but meaningful fulfillment in studying at every hour, and there is even a concept of neglect of Torah study.

According to our approach, there is no difficulty for Beit Yosef, for we explained that he holds this is not a blessing over commandments but a blessing over benefit, and therefore the usual rules governing blessings over commandments do not apply here.

It seems that the fundamental difference between these two kinds of blessing is this: a blessing over commandments is not an act of thanksgiving but a way of orienting oneself toward the performance of the commandment. Therefore it makes sense before the act and not after it, and that is why one does not bless after commandments, as Rashba wrote in the Beit Yosef cited above. A blessing over benefit, by contrast, is thanksgiving to the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore it can make sense both before and after. Where neither a natural “before” nor a natural “after” exists, one can simply establish a fixed time each day, in the morning.

Pri Megadim, in his introduction to the laws of blessings, section 15, cites the Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 6:1, which holds that the blessing over Torah is of Torah origin, and that the same is true of blessings over commandments, since they are juxtaposed by the verse, “the Torah and the commandment” (Exodus 24:12). Pri Megadim concludes that this juxtaposition is only an asmachta, a textual support, since we do not find halakhic authorities saying that blessings over commandments are of Torah origin. Minchat Chinukh, however, in commandment 430, subsection 6, writes that the essential obligation is of Torah origin and only the formal wording is rabbinic, and he proves this from the case of Ma’aser Sheni. He says the same there, at the end of subsection 5, regarding the blessing over Torah according to Sefer HaChinukh.

In any event, from their discussion it emerges that both assume this is a blessing over commandments.

The roots of the dispute apparently lie in the discussion with which we began, and we will now turn to that.

C. Why Is the Blessing over Torah Not Counted in the Enumeration of the Commandments?

From Berakhot 21a it would appear to be proven that this obligation is of Torah origin. If so, we must understand why most medieval authorities do not count it in the enumeration of the commandments. There seem to be two possible reasons for this, apart from the possibility that it is in fact rabbinic, as Shaagat Aryeh suggested. Both depend on the principle articulated by Maimonides in his methodological rules: one does not count a detail of a commandment as an independent commandment. Let us now consider the two possibilities.

1. It may be that the reason Maimonides and Sefer HaChinukh did not count this blessing in their enumerations is that this obligation is included in the commandment of Grace after Meals. Sefer HaChinukh discusses it there, and not under the commandment of Torah study, and he even explains it in a very similar way, going so far as to explain why one blesses before Torah but after food. According to this, Maimonides too agrees that the blessing over Torah is of Torah origin.

A possible source for this is the Talmudic passage in Berakhot 21a cited above, where it is explained that the obligation of a blessing before deriving benefit is learned by an a fortiori argument from Torah and food. That suggests that the two arise from the same conceptual source.

This, however, depends on how we understand the logic of an a fortiori argument: does it reveal what is latent in the source, or does it expand the source? The maxim that “one hundred is included in two hundred” suggests a revelatory logic, but it is not clear that every a fortiori argument, and certainly not every formal hermeneutical one, has that character.

If so, we may say that the blessing over Torah is not counted because it is included in the commandment of Grace after Meals. Just as one blesses over food, so too one blesses over Torah.

This principle would derive from Maimonides’ Eleventh Principle: when one command includes several components, all of which are required for the performance of the commandment, one does not count each of them separately. The classic example is the four species.

2. Another possibility for explaining the omission is mentioned in Nahmanides’ own formulation, cited above. He himself raises the possibility that the commandment is not counted because it is included within the obligation of Torah study, though he of course rejects that possibility, since he counts the blessing over Torah as an independent commandment. In fact, Klei Chemda at the beginning of Ha’azinu explains Maimonides in precisely this way.

This principle derives from a different rule. Here we are speaking not of an alternative mode of performing the commandment, as in the previous possibility, but of a component that appears in every fulfillment of the commandment. Clearly, the blessing over Torah is not another way of fulfilling the commandment of Torah study; it is a component present in every performance of that commandment. The non-counting of such components is discussed in the second part of Maimonides’ Ninth Principle.

D. The Halakhic Significance of These Two Possibilities: The Character of the Blessing over Torah

We should note that the two possibilities presented here yield two very different conceptions of the blessing over Torah:

1. The first possibility seems to indicate that this is a blessing over benefit. That is apparently how Sefer HaChinukh understood it, and that is also the impression one gets from Berakhot 21a. But this is puzzling, for commandments were not given for enjoyment. Blessings over benefit are not recited over commandments, but over bodily pleasures such as taste, smell, and the like.

2. According to the second possibility, it is obvious that this is not a blessing over benefit. It seems more like a blessing over commandments. Yet even here matters are not at all clear, for a blessing over commandments is not ordinarily included within the commandment itself. If we absorb the blessing over Torah into the commandment of Torah study, it would seem to become part of the very form of the commandment of Torah study itself. We find an analogy to this in the blessings of the Shema in relation to the Shema recited within the prayer service: together they form the structure of prayer, and therefore, according to Rashi at the beginning of Berakhot, one may recite them before the proper time, even though the Shema itself must later be repeated, or one fulfills the obligation through the Shema recited at bedtime.

Nahmanides himself brings examples in order to reject the approach that absorbs the blessing over Torah into the commandment of Torah study. His examples are the recounting of the Exodus from Egypt and the declaration over the first fruits. In both cases, these are verbal acts said over something, not blessings over commandments.

Maimonides, however, apparently does not accept the analogy between the blessing over Torah and those two examples, for in those cases he too counts two commandments in each context. Still, Nahmanides seems to have understood Maimonides as seeing the blessing over Torah as something like those two cases, and that is why he thought it relevant to bring proof from them. Klei Chemda, at the beginning of Ha’azinu, explains that there is no blessing over Torah without Torah study, and therefore for Maimonides the two are counted as one. The declaration over the first fruits and the recounting of the Exodus, by contrast, certainly have relevance even without the bringing of the first fruits and without the Paschal sacrifice, and therefore they are not inseparable. The point need not be elaborated here. In other words, the similarity to the recounting of the Exodus and to the declaration over the first fruits remains in place even according to Maimonides.

The conclusion is that the character of this blessing does not fit the ordinary categories of blessings. It differs not only in legal status but also in essential nature. It is neither a blessing over commandments nor a blessing over benefit, yet it can be subsumed either under Grace after Meals or under the commandment of Torah study.

We may further note that even according to Shaagat Aryeh and those who follow him, who treat the blessing over Torah as a rabbinic commandment, it is still quite clear that it is not a blessing over benefit. If it were, they would have had to address the possibility that it is not counted because it is included within Grace after Meals. It seems they understood it as a blessing over commandments, and for that reason it cannot be included within the commandment of Torah study. That also makes it clear why they regard it as rabbinic, like all other blessings over commandments.

E. Additional Sources for the Unique Character of the Blessing over Torah

In Responsa Min HaShamayim, section 10, Rabbi Yaakov of Marvege records the following:

“I further asked concerning the blessing over Torah: must one bless every single time he sits down to study, just as with tefillin one blesses each time they are put on, or is it enough that the blessings recited in the morning cover the whole day?”

“They answered: ‘It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the one who blesses shall be blessed by the God of Amen’ (see Isaiah 65:16). I remained uncertain because of this answer, and I asked again as before. They answered: The blessing over Torah is not like the blessing over other commandments. Because meditation on Torah is a person’s life throughout the day, they instituted three blessings over it²: the blessing for engaging in Torah, the prayer that the words of Torah be made pleasant, and the blessing ‘who chose us.’ The blessing for engaging in Torah stands in place of the blessing over commandments. The prayer that the words be made pleasant is a supplication before God that one merit to study and to teach. And ‘who chose us’ is a blessing of thanksgiving, in which Israel must thank the Lord who chose them from every nation and tongue and gave them the Torah. They also instituted the two blessings before the Shema, morning and evening, whose main focus is the study of Torah, as noted there in Berakhot 11b, where one has already discharged the obligation through the blessing of abundant love. By contrast, the blessings over other commandments are short in form, and one recites them whenever there is an interruption between one act and the next. You can see this from the fact that out of honor for the Torah scroll, when it is read in the synagogue they instituted the Torah blessing, namely ‘who chose us,’ but they did not require me to recite the blessing for engaging in Torah, which stands in place of the blessing over commandments, nor the prayer that the words be made pleasant, because it is a prayer. And since it is a prayer, they instituted all three in the morning, at the time of prayer.”

Thus, from Heaven he is told explicitly that the blessing over Torah is not like other blessings over commandments. The explanation given is that the commandment of Torah study extends across the whole of a person’s life and has no fixed time limit, and therefore three blessings were instituted for it. The first, the blessing for engaging in Torah, stands in place of a blessing over commandments. The second is a prayer that we merit to study and to teach. The third is praise and thanksgiving to the Holy One, blessed be He, who chose us from among all the nations and gave us the Torah.

Usually the third blessing is identified with blessings of praise, but here it is not praise so much as thanksgiving. Praise is for a great divine act, such as God’s making the great sea, or that His power and might fill the world, and the like. Here, by contrast, it is thanksgiving for the fact that He chose us in order to give us the Torah. The second blessing does not fit any standard pattern at all, for it is a prayer, not a blessing, somewhat like the blessings of the Shema. The first resembles a blessing over commandments, but from his language it sounds as though the resemblance is only partial; it is not quite an ordinary blessing over commandments.

If we compare this to what we saw above, then the blessing of thanksgiving can indeed be subsumed under Grace after Meals. Whoever thought that the whole institution could be absorbed there apparently understands the entire essence of the blessings over Torah as thanksgiving, or at least thinks that only the thanksgiving component is of Torah origin. By contrast, the prayer that the words of Torah be made pleasant is part of the verbal form accompanying Torah study. This is similar to what Nahmanides wrote in explaining Maimonides, when he compared it to the declaration over the first fruits and the recounting of the Exodus. It is a kind of statement that accompanies the study, and this could perhaps be subsumed under the commandment of Torah study. As for the blessing for engaging in Torah, which is like a blessing over commandments, perhaps that is rabbinic, as Shaagat Aryeh maintained. If, however, we understand Rabbi Yaakov to mean that it really is a blessing over commandments, except that its obligation is of Torah origin, then we arrive at the view of Nahmanides, who counts this commandment independently. A blessing over commandments cannot be subsumed either under Grace after Meals or under Torah study, and therefore it is either rabbinic or independently counted.³

We thus find here a bridge between the three approaches we saw above, and a suggestion that the disputes revolve around the question of which of these blessings is the primary one of Torah origin.

Later authorities in several places note the unique character of the blessing over Torah and prove from this that it is a distinct kind of blessing.

Minchat Chinukh, there in subsection 5, cites the ruling of Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 47, that women are obligated in the blessing over Torah. He asks: women are not obligated in the commandment of Torah study, except with respect to laws relevant to them, and that, as Rabbi Israel Salanter wrote in his essay on the rebellious son, is not considered Torah study in the full sense. He explains that this is like Grace after Meals, which is recited over eating even though eating is not itself a commandment. If one wishes to eat, one must bless; similarly, if one wishes to study Torah, one blesses not over the commandment but over the study itself.

Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik discusses this at length in his commentary on the laws of blessings, s.v. “Ve-hineh,” and adds that the matter is especially difficult according to the view of the Mechaber and Maimonides, who ruled that women do not recite blessings over commandments from which they are exempt.

He cites his father, Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik, as saying that the blessing over Torah is not a blessing over the commandment of Torah study but over the study itself: Torah requires a blessing. He derives this from the verse, “For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God.” Women may be exempt from the commandment of Torah study, but they are not excluded from the very phenomenon of Torah study itself.

He further adds that according to this, we can understand what is found in Massekhet Soferim 14:3, and see also Emek Berakhah 1:3, that a blessing was instituted over the reading of the Megillot and the Holy Writings. That is not a blessing over a commandment but a blessing over Torah. He cites there the view of Rabbenu Tam, who held that these are blessings over commandments. In Emek Berakhah, he proves his position from the fact that the blessing is recited even over the Writings, even though we do not find an enactment to read from the Writings.

His student, in Emek Berakhah section 1, brings another practical implication in order to explain Rashi’s view, cited in the Tosafot of Rabbi Yehudah HaHasid, and also in Rashba’s commentary to Berakhot 11b in the name of Rabbi Shemaya, Rashi’s disciple. He writes that when Rashi rose early to study Torah, he would recite the blessings over Torah, and when he later went to the synagogue he would bless again. The reason given is that just as one who is called up to the Torah blesses again even if he already recited the blessings over Torah in the morning, so too this is not considered a blessing in vain.

Rabbi Yehudah, the author of Tosafot, objects there that it appears Rashi did not regard this as an interruption, for had it been an interruption he would have explained it on that basis. If so, why is it not in fact a blessing in vain? This is especially difficult in light of what we saw above, that the obligation of Torah study applies at every moment and has no fixed limit or time of exemption.

Emek Berakhah explains that Rashi’s view is that the blessing over Torah is not on the commandment of Torah study, and he proves this from the ruling of Shulchan Arukh that women too are obligated to recite it. If the blessing were on the commandment, then so long as there had been no interruption in the obligation, one would not bless again. But if the blessing is on the object of Torah study itself, then the fact that the obligation does not cease is irrelevant; each new act of study is a new Torah-study entity that requires a blessing. That is what he proves from the fact that one called to the Torah blesses again even if he already blessed in the morning.

He further explains on this basis the question of Turei Even in Megillah 23a: why may a woman be included among the seven readers, conclude with the Torah reading, and through her concluding blessing discharge all the readers, even though she is exempt from the commandment of Torah study? According to our explanation, this is simple, because the blessing is not over the commandment but over the reading itself.

He also adds there that in Berakhot 11b there is a dispute whether one must bless specifically over Scripture or also over rabbinic exposition, Mishnah, and Talmud. Rabbi Yonah wrote that even according to the opinion that one blesses over the Oral Torah, that is only because biblical verses appear in it. But if the obligation were a blessing over commandments on the commandment of Torah study, then one ought to bless over the Oral Torah even more than over the Written Torah, since the Oral Torah is the primary source of instruction and law. This proves that the blessing was instituted over Torah itself, and according to some opinions that applies only to the Written Torah, for only it has the status of Torah as such.

He raises yet another difficulty there, in subsection 2: how could the Raavad be uncertain whether one fulfills the obligation of “you shall meditate” in any language or only in the holy tongue, when we rule that one recites the blessing over Torah even for mental contemplation, and contemplation is necessarily in any language, as Rashba wrote in the second chapter of Berakhot? He leaves the question unresolved.

I find his words difficult, however, for on the basis of the very principle he established in the preceding subsection, the matter can be resolved quite easily. The Raavad may indeed hold that one does not fulfill the commandment of Torah study through contemplation alone, but contemplation still has the status of Torah study as an object in itself, and therefore one blesses even over contemplation. Consequently, one would also bless over study in other languages on the basis of contemplation, even if perhaps one does not thereby fulfill the formal commandment of Torah study, according to that side of the Raavad.

Dvar Avraham, part 1, section 16, subsection 1, cites the Rosh in his novellae to Berakhot, printed in Berakhah Meshulleshet, page 15a, to the effect that blessings of Torah origin are essential to the commandment, unlike ordinary blessings over commandments. The questioner there asks: if so, why does the blessing over Torah, which is of Torah origin, not prevent the fulfillment of the commandment of Torah study? He adds that according to this, it ought to be permitted to study in the morning before reciting the blessing over Torah, for so long as one has not blessed, one has not fulfilled the commandment and therefore needs no blessing for it. The question is quite strange, for that itself is the reason there is no fulfillment of the commandment yet, namely, because he has not recited the blessing. Had there been no obligation to bless, studying without a blessing would also count as Torah study.

The respondent there explains that according to the Rosh, the blessing over Torah is not a blessing over commandments. It is recited over the act of study, the Torah-study entity itself, and not over the commandment contained in that act. Therefore, even though it is of Torah origin, it does not prevent the study itself. He then draws two conclusions:

1. Women too are forbidden to study without first reciting the blessing. In other words, not only are they obligated to bless, as is explicit in Shulchan Arukh; they are also forbidden to study before doing so.
2. Even if one studies in a manner that is not commanded, for example, he intends not to fulfill his obligation, he would still be obligated in the blessing over Torah.

This is exactly what we saw above in the views of Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik, Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik, and Emek Berakhah.

F. The Character of Blessings over Commandments

It is possible that the entire picture should be turned upside down, and that our conception of blessings over commandments in general should be reconsidered.

Let us begin with the well-known remarks of the Taz regarding the blessing over separating terumah. In Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 1:7, it is written that a mute person may slaughter, and another person may recite the blessing on his behalf. Thus, anyone may recite the blessing over commandments for another person who is performing a commandment. The source is the ruling in the Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 29a, that with respect to blessings, even one who has already fulfilled his own obligation may discharge another on the basis of mutual responsibility.

The Taz there objects from the opening chapter of tractate Terumot, where it is taught that a mute person who cannot recite the blessing may not separate terumah, and there is no possibility that someone else can bless for him. The Taz answers that only in commandments that cannot be performed by another may someone else bless on behalf of the doer by virtue of mutual responsibility. But in a commandment that can be fulfilled through another, one does not split the blessing away from the performance; the one who performs the commandment must be the one who blesses.

What, then, about slaughtering? The Taz says that in slaughtering the blessing is not on the commandment of slaughtering, for there is no obligation to slaughter at all. Rather, the main purpose of the blessing is to give praise for the prohibition against eating meat that has not been properly slaughtered, and in that all Israel are included. This differs from separating terumah, where the blessing is on the act of separation and not on the prohibition of untithed produce, since one must separate terumah even if one does not wish to eat. See there, where Rabbi Akiva Eger and the Magen Avraham disagree with him. Magen Avraham says similarly regarding separating challah: the blessing is on rendering the food fit, not on the commandment itself.

In any event, we see from here that there are blessings instituted not over acts of commandment as such, but over the prohibition that the act comes to rectify. These are blessings over commandments that are, in essence, blessings of thanksgiving.

Perhaps one could say this regarding all blessings over commandments: they are blessings of thanksgiving for the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us this commandment, rather than acts of orientation toward performance, as we explained above. If so, the blessing over Torah can indeed be a genuine blessing over commandments, and there is room for the juxtaposition in the Jerusalem Talmud cited above. On this basis it is also understandable why the Gemara in Berakhot 21a learns by a shared a fortiori argument from the blessing over Torah and Grace after Meals, from which we had proved that the blessing over Torah belongs to the same type as Grace after Meals, as Sefer HaChinukh seems to imply. We now see that there really is a common foundation to these two kinds of blessing. The dispute about the blessing over Torah is therefore not as sharply polar as it first seemed.

G. A Look at Torah Study

In the straightforward sense, however, and according to most opinions, a blessing over commandments is different and is not a blessing of thanksgiving. If so, the conclusion that emerges from the whole discussion is that the blessing over Torah is an intermediate phenomenon, or perhaps each of its components belongs to a different type, as Responsa Min HaShamayim suggested: it is an utterance of thanks, “ascribe greatness,” that one is obligated to say alongside the act of study, “for I will proclaim the name of the Lord,” much like the declaration over the first fruits and the recounting of the Exodus. Such an utterance can be subsumed either under Grace after Meals or under the commandment of Torah study, along the lines of the principles discussed above. It stands somewhere between the two.

Why, then, is there in fact a special blessing over Torah study, one that does not fit the category of a blessing over commandments? And why was it instituted over the act of study rather than over the commandment contained in it?

It would seem that this is because Torah study itself is not, at root, a commandment in the ordinary sense. The commandment of Torah study, at least according to some opinions, consists of reciting the Shema morning and evening, and no more. See the dispute between Ran and Rosh on Nedarim 8a; and on the Torah level, all agree that this is so. If so, the whole point of Torah study is to do it out of our own motivation, not merely as one who acts because he was commanded. The Torah therefore leaves it without formal command, just as it does with character traits, repentance, and the like.

This also explains the passage in Menachot 99b:

“It was taught: Rabbi Yose says, even if he removed the old loaves in the morning and arranged the new ones in the evening, there is no problem. How then do I fulfill ‘continually before Me’? That the table should not remain overnight without bread. Rabbi Ami said: From the words of Rabbi Yose we learn that even if a person studied only one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, he has fulfilled the commandment, ‘This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth’ (Joshua 1). Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Even if a person recited only the Shema in the morning and in the evening, he has fulfilled ‘it shall not depart,’ and it is forbidden to say this in the presence of the unlearned. Rava said: It is a commandment to say it in the presence of the unlearned. Ben Dama, the nephew of Rabbi Ishmael, asked Rabbi Ishmael: Someone like me, who has studied the entire Torah, what is the law regarding the study of Greek wisdom? He recited to him this verse: ‘This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall meditate on it day and night.’ Go and seek an hour that is neither day nor night, and study Greek wisdom then. This disagrees with Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani, who said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: This verse is neither an obligation nor a commandment, but a blessing. The Holy One, blessed be He, saw Joshua, that the words of Torah were exceedingly beloved to him, as it is said: ‘His attendant Joshua son of Nun, a youth, would not depart from the tent’ (Exodus 33). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Joshua, are the words of Torah so beloved to you? Then let ‘this book of the Torah not depart from your mouth.’ It was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: The words of Torah should not be upon you as an obligation, yet you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.”

At first glance, it is difficult to understand the dispute over whether it is a commandment or forbidden to say this in the presence of the unlearned. Presumably, Rava understands this saying not as diminishing the importance of study but as exaggerating it. The reason is that the commandment is so important that the Torah deliberately left it outside the framework of formal command.

Immediately afterward comes the story of Ben Dama, which is also very difficult. If he already knew the whole Torah, how could he not know the answer to this very question? According to our approach, this is understandable: Torah study is not itself a formal commandment and is not fully obligatory by Torah law. It is something our own reason obligates us toward. That does not belong to the knowledge contained in Torah itself, but to our relation to it from the outside. Ben Dama knew all the commands, all the commandments, and all the laws, but not the extrahalakhic perspective that obligates one toward Torah.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani then says that this verse is neither obligation nor commandment but a blessing. His meaning is that there is in fact no commandment here, and not even a formal obligation; rather, it is a blessing bestowed on Joshua. This implies that those who disagree with him hold that there is both an obligation and a commandment here. What is the difference between them? The commandment is the Shema morning and evening. The obligation is constant engagement throughout the day. Torah study is thus something that goes beyond the formal commandment. In Brisker terminology: there is a Torah-study reality that stands above the formal commandment of Torah study. The whole notion of neglect of Torah belongs to that higher plane, since the formal halakhic commandment is only the Shema morning and evening.

Immediately afterward Rabbi Ishmael says that the words of Torah should not be upon you as an obligation, yet you are not allowed to exempt yourself from them. Is this not self-contradictory? All the more so according to his own view, which disputes Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai and seems to imply a constant obligation throughout every day.

We are therefore forced to conclude that his intent is that the commandment of Torah study is indeed only morning and evening, as Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai held, and yet it is still forbidden to neglect Torah on the level of reason, because of the reality of Torah study itself. As noted, this is not a formal halakhic rule.

This also resolves the contradiction with Rabbi Ishmael’s statement in Berakhot 35b:

“Our Rabbis taught: ‘And you shall gather your grain’—what does this teach? Since it is said, ‘This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth,’ one might have thought that these words are to be taken literally. Therefore Scripture says: ‘And you shall gather your grain’—conduct yourself with the way of the world. These are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: Is it possible that a person plows in the plowing season, sows in the sowing season, reaps in the reaping season, threshes in the threshing season, winnows when there is wind—what will become of Torah? Rather, when Israel do the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by others, as it is said: ‘Strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks’ (Isaiah 61). And when Israel do not do the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by themselves, as it is said: ‘And you shall gather your grain’ (Deuteronomy 11). Moreover, the work of others is done by them, as it is said: ‘And you shall serve your enemies’ (Deuteronomy 28). Abaye said: Many acted in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael, and it succeeded for them; in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, and it did not succeed for them.”

Rabbi Ishmael there seems to hold that the minimum of Shema morning and evening is enough, exactly the opposite of what appears here, while Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai there specifically seems to think the obligation never ceases. How can we reconcile these two opposite tensions? According to our approach, the answer is straightforward: they are not arguing on the same plane. When we speak about the formal obligation, the minimum is only Shema morning and evening. When we speak about the larger truth, it extends all the time.

Still, even within the framework we have outlined, there remains a dispute here, and the later authorities have discussed it at length.

In any event, we see that with Torah study there is an important principle beyond the formal commandment. The commandment itself is minimal, Shema morning and evening; yet beyond that there is an obligation to study day and night. A normal blessing over commandments would refer only to the formal commandment of Torah study, which is actually the less important aspect. Therefore the Torah established here a blessing of thanksgiving on the obligation, that is, on the advantage and greatness of Torah study itself, because of which we ought to understand on our own that we are bound to study, not merely because we were commanded. The thanksgiving is for the Torah and for our very access to Torah, that is, for the Torah-study reality itself, for its very existence. That is why even one who is not obligated in the commandment blesses, including women. The blessing over Torah is on this aspect of Torah study, not on the commandment.

Perhaps this is the proper place to revisit the remarks of Aglei Tal in his introduction, concerning the value of enjoying one’s learning, which might seem to be learning not for its own sake. He writes there that in the blessing over Torah we say and request that the words be made pleasant, and from this it is clear that there is value in deriving enjoyment from study, and that this does not contradict the commandment. Perhaps Torah study really is different from other commandments, and this indeed seems to be implied by his wording, though one could argue that the same is true of all commandments.

We have therefore seen that some understand the blessing over Torah as a blessing over benefit, like Grace after Meals, despite the difficulty that commandments were not given for enjoyment. The answer is that here we are not blessing over the commandment but over the Torah as a gift we have received, and in that respect it is akin to a blessing over benefit.

Footnotes