Q&A: Blessings of Enjoyment
Blessings of Enjoyment
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Are blessings of enjoyment only positive commandments? Or can they also be considered prohibitions, since it is forbidden to eat without the blessing? Is there any practical difference?
Answer
These are rabbinic positive commandments. But like any obligatory positive commandment, neglecting it is the transgression of failing to fulfill a positive commandment. There are positive commandments that are in the category of a prohibition through a positive commandment (that is, a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment, where fulfilling it is not a positive act but failing to fulfill it involves a prohibition—such as eating produce of the Sabbatical year, and more). Perhaps the practical difference would be regarding whether a rabbinic positive commandment overrides a rabbinic prohibition. Some have linked all rabbinic laws to the prohibition of “do not deviate,” and saw them all as having the status of a prohibition (and this is how they explained Rashi’s view that women are obligated in rabbinic positive commandments that are time-bound), but that is quite forced. It does not seem correct to me, certainly not according to Nachmanides, but also not according to Maimonides (Shoresh 1).
Discussion on Answer
Not the medieval authorities, but rather the Maharsha on Pesachim 102.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Berakhot 12a explains this way the view of Rabbi Isaac in Tosafot there, who rules that one should bless again where the Talmud is uncertain whether one has fulfilled his obligation.
There is no doubt whether it is permitted to eat without a blessing. It is obviously forbidden. What you mean is that there is doubt whether in practice he is eating without a blessing (since there is a doubt that perhaps he did recite it). But even that is not clear, since even if there is a prohibition, it is a rabbinic prohibition, so why be stringent about it?
See here in note 2: 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%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%90/#_ftnref2
User D, this is also what the Ritva (Sabbath 23b) and the Meiri (Berakhot 35a) wrote.
According to their approach, “whoever derives benefit is as if he committed misuse of sacred property” is a severe rule because he is like one who misuses consecrated property, and therefore he should recite the blessing again (that is, even though it is a rabbinic prohibition, they are stringent with this prohibition because it is like misuse of sacred property, and in any case this is not an unnecessary blessing, since the law requires that he bless again, and so there is indeed a need for the blessing).
One could have said (not according to their approach) that there is only a positive commandment to bless, and the prohibition against eating without a blessing stems only from the fact that one neglects the positive commandment of blessing. In that case it is perfectly obvious that in a case of doubt they did not decree that he should bless, because in a rabbinic doubt we are lenient (and if he does bless anyway, he risks an unnecessary blessing). And “whoever derives benefit, etc.” could be interpreted as words of moral exhortation rather than law.
Two comments.
1. In the Berakhot passage it says both “as if he committed misuse of sacred property” and “he committed misuse of sacred property.” And indeed, the students of Rabbenu Yonah wrote that one who eats without a blessing brings a guilt-offering. I discussed this in my article on the guilt-offering, that for this matter there is no need for a prohibition accompanied by a formal warning.
2. In my article on leniency and stringency that was linked here, I explained that leniency means opening up more options (and not necessarily choosing the easier option). Therefore, “in cases of doubt about blessings we are lenient” means that one may bless and one may refrain from blessing. But there is a rule against an unnecessary blessing (“Do not take [the name of the Lord your God in vain]”), because of which they are stringent not to bless. That is a leniency in the laws of blessings and a stringency in the laws of “Do not take.”
From this it follows that perhaps the opinions that instruct one to bless (that one may or should) in a case of doubt can be understood this way: because you are uncertain, there is no issue here of “Do not take” (as you cited from them), and so we are left with the rule that in cases of doubt about blessings we are lenient, but without the stringency that says not to bless. And in a situation where one may bless and one may refrain from blessing—it is preferable to bless (and here the consideration enters that otherwise he would be like one misusing sacred property of Heaven. Even without the students of Rabbenu Yonah whom I cited). Therefore, with other blessings, which are not blessings of enjoyment, they are not stringent to bless, because there that consideration does not exist. Though according to this, in practical law it comes out that one could bless for other blessings as well, and this requires further examination).
It seems to me that some of the medieval authorities distinguished, in cases of doubt about blessings, between an ordinary blessing and blessings of enjoyment, and ruled that for a blessing of enjoyment, if one is unsure whether he recited it or not, and he wants to continue eating, he should recite it again (though the Shulchan Arukh did not rule this way), because here the doubt is not only whether to recite a blessing, but whether it is permitted to eat without a blessing.