Q&A: The Obligation of the Initial Blessing Is Rabbinic
The Obligation of the Initial Blessing Is Rabbinic
Question
In Berakhot 35, the Talmud looks for a source for the initial blessing.
Rabbi Akiva derives it from a verse dealing with fourth-year produce:
"‘[And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be] holy, for giving praise to the Lord’ — this teaches that they require a blessing before and after them. From here Rabbi Akiva said: It is forbidden for a person to taste anything before reciting a blessing."
The passage continues and brings two more sources for the obligation to recite a blessing before eating:
It comes by a fortiori reasoning: when he is satiated, he blesses; when he is hungry, all the more so?!
… It is logical: it is forbidden for a person to benefit from this world without a blessing."
So we seem to have found three sources that function as Torah-level law: exegesis, a fortiori reasoning, and logic. And yet, according to all the medieval authorities (Rishonim), the initial blessing is rabbinic…
- Regarding exegesis, one can say that it is merely a scriptural support and not an obligating source. But why say that, and how do we know how to distinguish between true exegesis and a mere scriptural support?
- What are the “defects” in a fortiori reasoning and in logic that prevent them from making this a Torah-level law?
- Since the law really is rabbinic, why does the Talmud look for a “source” for a rabbinic law? The Sages enacted many ordinances without a source, simply according to a need they saw. What is the purpose of finding a source for such a law (even a fictitious one)?
Answer
Hello Aviel.
The Pnei Yehoshua there raises your question against the Talmud’s conclusion that this comes from logic. See also the Tzelach there, who disagrees with him. I explained this at length in my article on halakhic reasoning:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A1%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%99/
3. The Talmud does not assume from the outset that this is rabbinic. They thought it was Torah-level law and concluded that it is rabbinic.
As for a fortiori reasoning, at least according to Maimonides in the second root, all the hermeneutical rules generate laws of rabbinic status. Especially since the a fortiori argument here is very problematic (because it is based on two data points and not three, and therefore it can be reversed). See my article in Midah Tovah on Parashat Shemini about this (lesson 26 here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwJAdMjYRm7IRmM4RGd0dG9zWU0.)