Q&A: Laws of Blessings
Laws of Blessings
Question
A. In the wording of the blessing over bread and the blessing over produce of the ground, one should consider the difference in language: over bread we bless, “Who brings forth bread from the earth,” while over vegetables we bless, “Who creates the fruit of the ground.” Why here is the wording “the earth” and there “the ground”?
And one could say that perhaps in the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the ground” they want to distinguish it from the fruit of a tree, whereas “earth” includes everything in the earth, including trees, while in the case of “Who brings forth” there is no need to distinguish.
A. It is stated in Avodah Zarah 55a: When sufferings are sent upon a person, they are made to swear that they shall come only on a certain day, depart only on a certain day and at a certain hour, through a certain person and through a certain remedy. When the time came for them to depart, this person went to a house of idol worship. The sufferings said: By rights we should not depart. But then they said again: Should we, because this fool acts improperly, violate our oath? And this is what Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the meaning of the verse, “evil and faithful diseases”? Evil in their mission, but faithful to their oath. It is explained from this that when sufferings are decreed upon a person, it is decreed until when he will be sick and when he will recover. And one should consider from here what Tosafot wrote (Rosh Hashanah 16a, s.v. k’man), where they asked: What is the point of the “Heal us” prayer said every day, if a person’s healing has already been decreed on Yom Kippur? And they answered in the name of Rabbenu Tam that when he will fall ill is decreed, but when he will recover is not decreed. See there. But seemingly his words are contradicted by the passage in Avodah Zarah cited above.
And one could say that there are illnesses for which it is determined in advance when they will be healed, and that explains how people recover after having worshipped idols; and there are illnesses for which no time of healing was set, and for those we pray “Heal us.”
B. Maimonides wrote (Laws of Prayer, ch. 1, halakhot 4–5) that Ezra and his court arose and established the order of prayer, and they also established the number of prayers and their times corresponding to the offerings, as in the matter stated: “Evening and morning and noon I speak and moan, and He hears my voice.” This is very puzzling: since he wrote that Ezra and his court established the times of prayer, how does he bring a verse spoken by King David?
And one could say that since King David did this [for himself, and did not institute it for the public], Ezra and his court established it for all Israel.
C. Regarding “Remember” and “Observe” being said in one utterance, Rashi (Exodus 20:8) explained the verse “Remember the Sabbath day,” etc.: “‘Remember’ and ‘Observe’ were said in one utterance,” etc., and likewise, “You shall not wear wool and linen together; you shall make fringes for yourself,” etc.
And this is a bit difficult for me, because “Remember” and “Observe” are an analogy by juxtaposition [as explained in Shevuot 20b], whereas “You shall not wear wool and linen together; you shall make fringes” is only adjacency [see Yevamot 4a], and adjacency is weaker than an analogy by juxtaposition, for there is one opinion that does not expound adjacency except in Deuteronomy, and there it says: From where do we know that we expound adjacency, etc. But if they were said in one utterance, then they are linked, so why was adjacency needed?
And one could say that the source of Rashi’s words is the Mekhilta, like many things in Rashi on the Torah, even though this does not follow the words of the Talmud.
We would be happy to hear our teacher’s comments on our words.
Answer
A. Why didn’t you also wonder about the difference that in one case we bless “Who brings forth” and in the other “Who creates fruit”? That too is a difference, and it seems to me much more significant.
It seems to me that the blessing over bread is about bringing forth the bread that I eat from the earth, whereas the blessing over fruits is about the very creation of the fruits (“Who creates the fruit of the ground”). The creation was from the ground, and the bringing forth is from the earth. And perhaps the difference is that regarding bread, man was cursed that he would bring it forth from the earth with difficulty. But the fruits are still given to him by the Holy One, blessed be He, directly (for most of them, no labor is needed to prepare them for eating).
And perhaps this is connected to the passage in Eruvin 27, “fruit from fruit” and “things that grow from the ground,” where they distinguish between what is created from the ground and what is nourished by it.
A. I don’t deal with aggadic passages. And perhaps Tosafot held that this is a dispute between Talmudic passages (although usually that is the way of the Eastern sages, as is known).
B. The verse can be just a scriptural support that they relied on when they instituted this. And the known rule in Maimonides is that the verses he brings are not necessarily the source of the law, but rather whatever seems better suited to give it flavor or support (and therefore sometimes he contradicts the Talmud regarding the sources he cites). And here this is precise in his wording, since he wrote “as in the matter stated” and not simply “as it is stated.”
C. “Remember” and “Observe” are not an analogy by juxtaposition. Such an analogy is a hermeneutic method based on proximity between subjects stated in one verse (as distinct from adjacency, which is in different verses; see Tosafot Sukkah 31a). But “Remember” and “Observe” are not adjacent to each other in the biblical text, and therefore there is no analogy by juxtaposition between them. The reason that in practice Jewish law links them (that is, compares them, even though this is not the formal hermeneutic method of juxtaposition) is only because they were said in one utterance.
It may be that Rashi means exactly this: that we link them even though they are not adjacent, like things that are adjacent to one another, such as wool and linen together (and although in the case of wool and linen there is no formal analogy by juxtaposition, it is only an example of two things that are adjacent to each other).