The Blessing over the Torah – Parashat Ha’azinu

Contents of the Article

With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, Parashat Ha’azinu, 5774

The Blessing over the Torah

Michael Abraham

The status of the obligation to recite the blessing over the Torah

The Talmud in tractate Berakhot cites a verse from our portion as the source for the obligation to recite the blessing over the Torah (Berakhot 21a):

From where do we know from the Torah that one must recite a blessing over the Torah before studying it? As it is said: +Deut. 32:3+ “When I proclaim the name of the Lord, ascribe greatness to our God.”

Those enumerators of the commandments who follow Maimonides did not include this commandment in their count. The same is true of Sefer HaChinukh. True, he does not devote a separate commandment to the blessing over the Torah, but in commandment 430 (grace after meals) he writes as follows:

All the other blessings are rabbinic, except for one, which is from the Torah; and this is explicit in the Talmud in Berakhot [21a], namely, the blessing over the Torah before its study. Ramban as well counts it as a positive commandment in its own right.

He then draws the following legal conclusion:

And so, anyone who read Torah in the morning before reciting the blessings instituted for the Torah, or the blessing “Everlasting Love,” has failed to fulfill a Torah commandment. Therefore, one who forgot whether he recited the blessing over the Torah in the morning or not must recite it again. But one who transgressed and failed to recite any of the other blessings in the world, apart from those we mentioned, has neglected only a rabbinic commandment, and “he who breaches a fence, a serpent shall bite him” [Eccles. 10:8]; and the Blessed One warned concerning them measure for measure.

His words indicate that the blessing over the Torah is a Torah obligation, even though he does not count it in his enumeration. Accordingly, it is entirely possible that Maimonides too holds that its obligation is from the Torah, despite not counting it. The commentators are divided over how to understand Maimonides’ view on this matter.

Ramban, in his supplements to Sefer HaMitzvot, includes this commandment in his count:

We were commanded to give thanks to His blessed name whenever we read from the Torah, for the great good He did for us by giving us His Torah and informing us of the deeds desirable before Him, through which we inherit life in the world to come. And just as we were commanded to recite a blessing after every meal, so too were we commanded regarding this… What emerges from this is that the blessing over the Torah before its study is a positive commandment from the Torah.

Is the blessing over the Torah a blessing over commandments or a blessing over enjoyment?

The Sages instituted the recitation of a blessing before the performance of various commandments, known as “blessings over commandments.” For example, before taking the four species on Sukkot one recites “concerning the taking of the lulav.” What, then, of the commandment of Torah study? Is there an obligation to recite a blessing before it? At first glance, the blessing over the Torah with which we dealt above is a blessing over a commandment, relating to the commandment of Torah study. Several of the early authorities indeed understood it this way. But this blessing is exceptional, for blessings over commandments are rabbinic enactments, whereas the blessing over the Torah is derived from a verse and, as we have seen, according to many early authorities it is a Torah law.

Jewish law also requires blessings over various forms of enjoyment, and these are the blessings known as “blessings over enjoyment.” Briefly, I would say that, on the face of it, the basic difference between a blessing over a commandment and a blessing over enjoyment is that a blessing over a commandment is not an expression of thanks but an orientation toward the performance of the commandment. That is why it is recited before the act (see the remarks of Rashba cited below). A blessing over enjoyment, by contrast, is a thanksgiving to the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore it is recited before the enjoyment and sometimes also afterward. From Ramban’s formulation cited above, it appears that he understands the blessing over the Torah as a blessing of thanksgiving. The Talmud in Berakhot 21a likewise implies that this is a blessing over enjoyment, since there the Talmud compares the blessing over the Torah to grace after meals. The same also seems to emerge from the words of the author of Sefer HaChinukh, who, as we saw, presents the obligation to recite the blessing over the Torah within the discussion of grace after meals.

Tosafot asked why the frequency of the blessing over the Torah differs from that of other blessings over commandments:

And if you ask: how is this different from Sukkah, where one must recite “to dwell in the sukkah” over each and every meal? One may answer that Torah is different, because a person never withdraws his mind from it, for at every moment a person is obligated to study, as it is written, “You shall meditate on it day and night” (Josh. 1:8), etc.

They explain that with respect to the sukkah, a person diverts his mind from it when he is not obligated in it (if he does not wish to eat or sleep), whereas with Torah there is an obligation at all times. Therefore one recites the blessing over Torah only once in the morning. Tosafot, of course, takes it for granted that this is a blessing over a commandment.

By contrast, in Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim sec. 46, there is a responsum of Rashba who was asked why one recites the blessing over the Torah only before it (in the morning) and not after it. The questioner there compares it to grace after meals, and so it appears that he assumes the blessing over the Torah is a blessing over enjoyment. Rashba answers that this is because one does not recite blessings after commandments. That is, he holds that it is a blessing over a commandment. The author of Beit Yosef himself writes there that this is because there is no time at which a person is not obligated in Torah, and therefore there is no time that counts as ‘after it.’ It appears that he too agrees with the questioner in Rashba, namely, that we are dealing with a blessing over enjoyment.

It seems that the roots of the dispute over the nature of the blessing over the Torah provide the basis for understanding its status with respect to the enumeration of the commandments.

Why is the blessing over the Torah not counted among the commandments?

As we have seen, the Talmudic discussion in Berakhot implies that the blessing over the Torah is a Torah obligation, and we have seen several early authorities who say this explicitly. What, then, is the reason that some of them, such as Maimonides and Sefer HaChinukh, do not count it in the enumeration of the commandments? Two explanations may be suggested, each of which assumes a different conception of the character of this blessing:

1. If one begins from the premise that the blessing over the Torah is a blessing over enjoyment (like grace after meals), then this commandment is simply included within the commandment of grace after meals. We have seen that the author of Sefer HaChinukh in fact included it there.

2. By contrast, if one assumes that the blessing over the Torah is a blessing over a commandment, this can be explained as Ramban suggests in addition no. 15 to the positive commandments mentioned above. He proposes that the commandment is not counted because it is included as a detail within the commandment of Torah study. That commandment obligates us both to study and to recite the blessing (in the end he rejects this proposal, and that fits his view that this is a blessing of thanksgiving). Rabbi Meir Dan Plotski, author of Kli Chemdah on the Torah, explains Maimonides’ view this way at the beginning of Parashat Ha’azinu.

A distinction between two similar yet different principles in Maimonides’ methodological rules

According to both explanations, it appears that the fact that the blessing over the Torah is not counted separately in the enumeration of the commandments is explained in a very similar way. According to both proposals, the blessing over the Torah is not counted because one does not count separately details that belong to the same commandment. But, as we shall now see, there is a subtle difference between the two explanations.

In the introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, Maimonides devotes fourteen principles in which he describes the rules that determine whether and how commandments are to be counted. Among them are several principles devoted to the relation between a whole and the particulars included within it. Among others, in the seventh principle Maimonides states:

The seventh principle is that the details of a commandment should not be counted…

Many have already erred in this, counting everything they found written without reflecting on the essence of the commandment as opposed to its details or conditions. An example: Scripture in Leviticus (5) obligates one who defiles the Sanctuary or its sacred things, together with those mentioned alongside him, to bring a sin-offering. This is undoubtedly a positive commandment. Scripture then specified what this offering is to be, stating that it shall be a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; if his means do not suffice for that, he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons; and if his means do not suffice for those, he shall bring a tenth of an ephah of fine flour. This is the graduated offering. In truth, all this is only an explanation of what offering he is obligated to bring. Therefore it would not be proper to count here three commandments and say that there is one commandment to bring a ewe-lamb or she-goat, another commandment to bring a bird, and another commandment to bring a tenth of an ephah. For these are not three commands but one command (positive commandment 72): that he bring an offering for his inadvertent sin, and that offering is this—or, if that is impossible, that.

This principle deals with different modes of fulfilling the same commandment. The graduated offering presents three different options for bringing the offering (one for the wealthy, the second for those of moderate means, and the third for the poor). The first explanation we offered appears similar to the logic of this principle. According to that explanation, there are several different ways of fulfilling the commandment of thanksgiving: to bless over food or to bless over the Torah (although here both are obligatory, unlike the graduated offering, which speaks of alternatives addressed to different people).

By contrast, in the eleventh principle Maimonides states:

The eleventh principle is that one should not count the parts of a commandment separately, part by part, when their combination constitutes a single commandment. At times a single command—which is one commandment—has many parts. Such is the commandment of the lulav (positive commandment 169), which consists of four species. We do not say that the fruit of a beautiful tree is a commandment in its own right, the palm fronds a commandment in its own right, the bough of a leafy tree a commandment in its own right, and the willows of the brook a commandment in its own right, for all of these are parts of the commandment. He commanded that they be gathered together, and once they are gathered, the commandment is the taking of all of them in hand on the appointed day.

This principle too states that one does not count separately the details included within the same commandment, but here the details are all fulfilled together and constitute the fulfillment of one larger commandment (like the four species). The second explanation we offered above resembles the logic of this principle. Torah study and the blessing over that study are two parts whose joint fulfillment constitutes fulfillment of the commandment of Torah study.

Source (Google Doc): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1czDlgd8HcAK6tN80eGe9_hR2MZehd1Oa/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103054435058019085063&rtpof=true&sd=true