I thought there was authority in matters of Jewish law 🙂
Even if they were mistaken in their basis, after all a blessing for success in the crop would simply have been a lack of scientific knowledge.

First, in my opinion this is not Jewish law. But even if it is Jewish law, when it is based on an error it has no authority.

See here https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=34134&start=80#p375311

How can this not be Jewish law if it is ruled in the Shulchan Arukh?!?!?!
In my humble opinion, this is a law that depends on faith. According to your faith, that is how you will receive your reward. In any case, one should not go crazy about it, since from the ordinance of Usha, one who spends on commandments should not spend more than one-fifth of his assets.

First, I am not familiar with any Shulchan Arukh that rules this. Second, there are things in the Shulchan Arukh that are not Jewish law (see, for example, section 156). And third, even if the Shulchan Arukh did rule this, I would not accept it.

And of course it has nothing to do with the ordinance of Usha.

Forgive me, but it is Torah, and I need to learn. So:

A. In section 242, subsection 1 (at the beginning of the laws of the Sabbath), the Shulchan Arukh wrote: … "Therefore one must economize on the other days in order to honor the Sabbath"—what does this mean? The Mishnah Berurah explains in note 4: for food expenses of the Sabbath and Jewish holidays, if he adds, they add to him, as the Sages said… except for Sabbath and holiday expenses.
If so, perhaps the matter is not explicit in the Shulchan Arukh, but this is the intention of its words, "to economize on the other days."

B. What there in section 156 is not for practical Jewish law?

C. I do not understand the third part at all…

D. The ordinance of Usha appears, as is well known, in Ketubot 50a. Rashi explained that it refers to spending on the commandment of charity. But the Rosh in tractate Bava Kamma understood that it refers to spending on all commandments. And this is also implied by the ruling of the Rema in Orach Chayim 656 regarding buying an etrog. (And this is a lengthy topic.) So why is the ordinance of Usha not relevant to the expense of buying food for the commandment of "Sabbath delight"?

With God's help, eve of Sabbath, Re'eh, 5780

To Tzachi—greetings,

In Mesillat Yesharim, chapter 1, the proper definition of trust is explained: one should not rely on a miracle, but on the other hand one should not worry about remote concerns. And so the halakhic decisors wrote (see, for example, in "Daily Halakha according to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef," in the name of Haggahot Ashiri and Shnot Chaim [Hazzan]) that one who does not know from where he will repay the loan is forbidden to borrow and endanger another person's money and, God forbid, be "the wicked borrower who does not repay." Only one who has expected future income or collateral, and only at the moment lacks cash, may borrow in order to delight the Sabbath, and will merit heavenly assistance to repay his debt.

And see what the Sefat Emet wrote (quoted in the article by Rabbi Hillel Ben-Shlomo on the site "Torah and the Temple"), that opposite the commandment of Sabbath delight stands the prohibition against endangering the money of the lender, and therefore one may borrow only if he has a reasonable possibility of repaying the debt. Then he may trust in his Creator that mishaps and obstacles will not come to him, but it is forbidden to rely on a miracle.

Best regards, Shimshon Tzvibleringer

Sorry, Shimshon Tzvibleringer.
But your response is a case of claiming wheat and being answered with barley.
We were not discussing the contradiction between "Borrow on My account and I will repay" and "Make your Sabbath like a weekday and do not become dependent on others."
The honorable questioner, "Udi," asked about the practical aspect of the faith component in the Talmudic statement that "Sabbath and holiday expenses are reimbursed."

To Tzachi—greetings,

And that is exactly what I answered: it says in the Talmud that regarding Sabbath and holiday expenses, "if he adds, they add to him." It does not say that if someone writes a bad check, they add to him. As explained in Sefat Emet and in Shnot Chaim (Hazzan), to which I referred.

The Holy One, blessed be He, is not supposed to help someone who behaves irresponsibly. When a person fulfills his duty of reasonable effort, then the Holy One, blessed be He, bestows upon him and adds more and more.

Best regards, Sasson Tzviblminger

1. The Jewish law is that one must incur expenses for the Sabbath. There is no halakhic ruling that the Holy One, blessed be He, repays these expenses. And the fact that the Mishnah Berurah brings homiletic explanations to explain the Shulchan Arukh does not mean that the Shulchan Arukh ruled this conceptual idea as practical Jewish law.
2. Almost nothing there is practical Jewish law. You are of course assuming that everything appearing in the Shulchan Arukh is Jewish law, and that is not so.
3. The ordinance of Usha is a limitation on expenditure for a commandment. But regarding the Sabbath, the whole idea is that it is not really an expense because the Holy One, blessed be He, repays it. That was said only about Sabbath expenses and not about commandments in general. So remove the ordinance of Usha from here. As I recall, Tosafot and the commentators there in Beitzah also do not raise a difficulty from the ordinance of Usha. They raise a difficulty from "Make your Sabbath like a weekday and do not become dependent," because that was said about the Sabbath and therefore contradicts "Borrow on My account and I will repay."

On making blessing conditional on responsible behavior—see also Rabbi Eliezer Melamed's article, "Tithing Money and the Promised Blessing," on the Arutz 7 website.

With the blessing, "and I will pour out for you blessing without limit," Shimshon Tzvibel-Ringer

More power to Rabbi Michael,

A. I understood point 3 regarding the ordinance of Usha. (Though I still want to clarify it more deeply.)
B. It seems that there definitely is a difference in the way I look at halakhic books.
In my humble opinion (and apparently this is what I received from my rabbis), I absolutely assume / hold / believe that everything written in the Shulchan Arukh or the Rema is practical Jewish law.
C. And more than that, in my humble opinion I do not think that the Chafetz Chaim sat for so long together with his son Rabbi Leib in order to write little homiletic remarks on the Shulchan Arukh.
According to what is told, the dybbuk that was in Radin said about the Chafetz Chaim that in Heaven they value him like a "small tanna" (and for any readers who do not understand, that means "a minor tanna").
A small tanna, whose holiness we cannot fathom, certainly knew how to explain the idea embedded in the words of the Shulchan Arukh—as practical Jewish law.
D. And maybe I am mistaken…

With God's help,

At the time I wrote the response, I did not have the Tur and Beit Yosef in front of me. So I relied on a great authority—the author of the Mishnah Berurah.
Now, after examining the words of the Tur and Beit Yosef in section 242, the Mishnah Berurah's "homily" is actually (apparently) explicit in the Tur and Beit Yosef. These are exactly the plain and clear meaning of the intent of our master the Shulchan Arukh!
(So apparently I am not mistaken.)