It would seemingly be simpler to explain that the intent there is to the after-blessing.

Obviously, “unintentionally” refers only to the after-blessing.

With God’s help, 28 Tevet 5781

Maimonides’ wording there is: “One who eats a forbidden thing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, does not recite a blessing, neither before nor after.” It really can be interpreted “by parts,” such that in the case of eating unintentionally the discussion is about the after-blessing. But seemingly there is also practical significance regarding the first blessing, which is considered a blessing in vain. For example, if he recited “by whose word all things came to be” over a piece that was later found to be neveilah, and he had in mind to eat additional pieces that were not found to be neveilah—he does not fulfill his obligation with that blessing, since it was said over the piece of neveilah.

Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner

Why, really, does someone who eats, for example, untithed produce not recite “Who creates the fruit of the tree” over it? What is the connection between his decision or failure in transgressing the prohibition of untithed produce and his full obligation to fulfill the commandment of blessings over enjoyment? Seemingly, he ought to bless God for the fact that He in practice gave him the apple and in practice gave him the enjoyment, even if a prohibition rests upon it—what does one have to do with the other? Is it that someone who ate garlic and now reeks should go and eat mango pickle too, and reek even more?

“One who blesses over theft blasphemes God.” Such a person is not blessing but blaspheming.

With God’s help, eve of the new month of Shevat 5781

Reason suggests that someone who ate something forbidden ought to be ashamed of his deed and regret what he did, with the feeling that he wishes the forbidden eating had never happened. A blessing and thanksgiving for forbidden enjoyment expresses a sense of pleasure: true, it was forbidden, but it was tasty and enjoyable—thank you very much, God 🙂

When the sinner will no longer be “equalizing and equating” with indifference—then his God will be “easy to appease.”

Best regards, Sh.Tz.

But why is it blasphemy? How is this different from someone wearing a garment of wool and linen mixed together while he comes to recite a blessing over a peach? True, here it is the very same object, but the transgression (the prohibition of untithed produce) and the commandment (the blessing) are seemingly completely separate things. What if someone, out of his submission to another system that obligates him in this case to eat the untithed produce, decided specifically to obey that system in the conflict and eat the untithed produce—would he also not recite a blessing? I’m asking seriously.

I’ll leave that pilpul to you. It’s self-evident.

So without explanations, what is the practical Jewish law in the case I described (eating untithed produce out of submission to another normative system)—does he recite a blessing?

The question is undefined. Give a concrete case. Is he eating because of danger to life? Is the other system also God’s will? Are we talking about idolatry?

His father commands him to eat the peach, and in his view there is a moral obligation to obey his father. Jewish law of course forbids obeying the father in this case. The man is in conflict and with a heavy heart decides to violate Jewish law and eat. But as for the blessing, he definitely wants to recite it like all upright Jews. [I understand from your hint that if, in his view, the moral obligation is also God’s will, then he would recite a blessing. And if he thinks the moral obligation is not God’s will (say, if in his opinion only Jewish law reflects God’s will, but on his own he still feels morally obligated), then he would not recite a blessing.]

It seems that if his father told him to commit a prohibition, then morality too obligates him to obey God’s voice, for “you and your father are both obligated in honoring your Creator.”

Best regards, the Center for Engineering Complex Normative Systems

Unfortunately, in the case stated above, that son thinks morality obligates him דווקא to listen to his father, and what am I supposed to do with him?

Then of course it is not a blessing but blasphemy. One does not recite blessings to the Holy One, blessed be He, over an act that is against His will.

Thank you. And let the record show: if I were the Holy One, blessed be He, I would not forgo the blessing (even in the case of someone eating untithed produce just for appetite’s sake), and I’m amazed that He does forgo it.

With God’s help, eve of the new month of Shevat 5781

The Holy One, blessed be He, does take into account the fact that a person is imperfect, and even if he failed in a certain matter, that does not nullify the value of his other merits.

But the Holy One, blessed be He, is not willing to accept a syncretistic outlook, in which a person decides that he does God’s will when he feels like it and violates His will when he feels like it. A person must aspire to be a servant of God wholeheartedly, and feel heartbreak over what he has failed in. He should not come to a state of “stealing apples and distributing clothes,” a prostitute who distributes the payment she received to the needy and thereby turns the commandment into a validation for continuing along the path of sin.

And therefore there are certain things that make it clear to a person that sin and its fruits are not desired by God. Therefore, a commandment that comes through a transgression is forbidden, so that a person should not feel that there is nevertheless something good in his sin. Do not make a commandment out of the sin itself. And therefore it is also forbidden to derive the spiritual benefit of a blessing from eating forbidden food. On the contrary, a person should be doubly ashamed of the forbidden thing he ate—both for the prohibition itself and for the loss of the blessing.

In other matters, a person should not be weakened by what he has stumbled in, because of the correct reasoning you mentioned of “someone who ate garlic…”. Every strengthening in the path of good, in a way that does not grant legitimacy to the sin itself, strengthens the person in the path of good; and on the contrary, the very dissonance a person feels between the good within him and the bad within him strengthens him over time to abandon the bad entirely, in order to “align” his personality in the direction of the good.

This is the educational path of “the left hand pushes away and the right hand draws near”: absolute revulsion toward evil together with trust in the person’s ability to extricate himself from it. “Slow to anger” toward the sinner—yes; coming to terms with the sin—no!

Best regards, Akiva Yosef Halevi Radetzky

There is no necessity to infer from here a sweeping conclusion that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not accept syncretism. Here the claim is narrower: such a blessing is not a blessing.

Akiva Yosef Halevi Radetzky—you’re dealing with calculations that “prevent” him from reciting a blessing so that he’ll be ashamed and won’t feel good about himself. That is a consideration I of course generally accept, but then I don’t see any reason they would weigh it specifically in one unified act. On the basis of that consideration, I would expect for example that someone who committed a transgression on a certain day would not be able to perform commandments that whole day, or until he repents. Or that he could not perform a commandment at the same time as the transgression is happening (for example, wearing a garment of wool and linen mixed together while reciting a blessing over food). The same applies if the consideration is that “he testifies about himself that he is a heretic in one matter, which is like heresy in all matters, because he himself is the supreme judge over when he obeys the Holy One, blessed be He, and when he does not, and therefore He has no desire for his blessing.” Therefore it seems clear that the consideration here relates specifically to blessings, or to some metaphysical issue of connectedness and consequence. And in my opinion this is based on misunderstanding, and this is a completely ordinary blessing just like any other blessing. And happy is the person who understands the reasoning of the Sages (and as for the words like “of course” that were said above here, the writer’s intention requires examination).

Against syncretism, the prophet Elijah said: “How long will you keep hopping between two branches? If the Lord is God, follow Him…”

Best regards, Ir”H

And since we are dealing with syncretism, I’ll tell a joke I heard from my late father:

A priest offered a Jew 10,000 rubles if he would convert to Christianity. The Jew asked the priest: “What do I have to believe?” The priest answered: “You must believe that Jesus was born from Mary and that she was a virgin; you must believe that Jesus divided one loaf of bread among ten thousand people and they were all satisfied with what they got; you must believe that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead after three days.”

The Jew answered: “Give me three days to think.” Three days later the Jew comes back with a proposal: “Let’s become partners. Give me five thousand rubles, and we’ll be partners: I’ll believe that J. was born from Mary and you’ll believe that she was a virgin; I’ll believe that he divided a loaf of bread among 10,000 people and you’ll believe that they were satisfied with what they received; I’ll believe that he was crucified and you’ll believe that he rose from the dead. I’ll be half Christian and get half the money.” What they call “thin theology” 🙂

It reminds me of another joke. The landowner rode by on his horse and saw Shmerel and Berel working in the field—Shmerel digging a hole and Berel filling the dirt back into the hole. And so, hole after hole. The landowner was astonished, stopped his horse, and asked, “What kind of work is this?” Shmerel answered him: “Usually I dig, Yankel plants, and Berel fills the dirt back in. But today Yankel is sick.”

With God’s help, eve of the new month of Shevat 5781

To The One Who Equates—greetings,

The disqualification of a blessing over something forbidden parallels the disqualification of “a commandment that comes through a transgression.” The act itself is disqualified because it is the direct fruit of the transgression. And there must not be a feeling that there is something good in sin.

By contrast, the sinner himself is not disqualified, and his commandments are not disqualified, for they are the “lifeline” that will pull him out of sinking into a state of sin.

And as I said: “the left hand pushes away” the sin and its fruit, while “the right hand draws near” the person by giving hope that he will improve.

Best regards, Akiva Yosef Halevi Radetzky the digger

A. “Good question. Perhaps he means to say that there is no claim against him if he did not recite a blessing.”
“It would seemingly be simpler to explain that the intent there is to the after-blessing.”
“It really can be interpreted ‘by parts,’ such that in the case of eating unintentionally the discussion is about the after-blessing.”

Why not open the book and look at the Kesef Mishneh—the plain meaning is explicit in Maimonides’ words?

B. “One who blesses over theft blasphemes God. Such a person is not blessing but blaspheming.”

It should be noted that it is worth knowing that this is exactly the issue discussed there in the Kesef Mishneh—the Raavad objected there to Maimonides that one does recite blessings. And the Rosh justified his words by saying that the Talmud says, “This is not one who blesses but one who blasphemes”—that is, in practice, one should recite the blessing. (Maimonides’ view, of course, disagrees.)