|
 Shabbat Parashat Bo 5786Ask the Rabbi: The Power of Rabbis in BerachotRav Daniel MannAnswer: There is indeed a respected, far from unanimous, opinion (see Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 191) that the fact that Birkat Hamazon requires three berachot (unlike similar content in Al Hamichya’s one beracha) is Rabbinic. This response follows your assumption that it is correct. Almost all of our berachot are of Rabbinic origin, with Birkat Hamazon and likely Birkat Hatorah (see Mishna Berura 47:1) being exceptions. Thus, Chazal certainly thought that it was justifiable for the appropriate Rabbinic leadership to initiate berachot, and if you can create a need and a text, you can turn one beracha into three! One might think that a gemara (Shabbat 23a) questioned Chazal’s ability to create berachot. It wondered about the beracha on Chanuka lights, a Rabbinic mitzva, and supplied p’sukim indicating Rabbinic authority. However, the gemara was only surprised about the wording of the beracha, which praises Hashem for commanding us to fulfill this Rabbinic mitzva, which ostensibly He did not do. The gemara answers that since Hashem required us to adhere to the Rabbis’ dictates, He, in effect, commanded us to fulfill Rabbinic mitzvot. The ability to create mitzvot and berachot was not questioned. The Rambam, as generally understood, has consistent opinions on these abilities. The Rambam (Berachot 1:15) posits that one who makes an unwarranted beracha (called a beracha she’eina tzricha (=bsetz) or a berecha l’vatala) violates a Torah-level prohibition. One can fully appreciate your question: how can Chazal make a beracha, as a Rabbinic preference in such a matter should ostensibly not uproot the Torah-level prohibition? One answer is based on another opinion of the Rambam (Mamrim 1:2) – the Rabbis “legislate” with the Torah’s authorization, which gives a Torah-level standing to their laws. So, Rabbinic originated berachot, recited according to Chazal’s rules, have Torah-level recognition, which obviates any potential of being a bsetz. Another answer is based on Tosafot (Rosh Hashana 33a), who posits that making a beracha l’vatala (and certainly a bsetz) is only a Rabbinic prohibition. The logic is that the prohibition of uttering Hashem’s Name in vain (Shemot 2:7) cannot apply to a sincere praise of Hashem, even if not in line with the rules of Halacha. If the whole problem is Rabbinic, then if the Rabbis preferred an expansive Birkat Hamazon, who can stop them?! Another possibility is a concept found in various areas of Halacha – masra Torah lachachamim (=mtlch). This refers to a halachic precept that is binding by Torah law, but whose details were left for the Rabbis to set. For example, some (see Beit Yosef, OC 530) use this regarding the laws of Chol Hamoed, which the Torah may allude to as having Torah-level prohibitions that are more relaxed than Yom Tov. Chazal were authorized to determine the parameters of permitted and forbidden actions. We can explain here too, that the Rabbis decided the parameters of the rules of berachot, which if violated, might be using Hashem’s Name in vain. If the Rabbis endorsed a certain text of Birkat Hamazon, as they created so many berachot, then, if mtlch is in play, it could not be forbidden as in vain. Actually, even if one does not employ mtlch broadly, it seems unlikely that following the Rabbis lead in berachot could be considered “in vain.” This idea is similar to the concept that if one has a good reason to knock down a fruit tree, he does not violate “do not destroy its trees” (see Bava Kama 91b). Notice that although it is forbidden to instruct a child to do a prohibition (Yevamot 114a), one may have children make berachot even at a time that it is nothing but for practice (Rambam, Berachot ibid.). So, whatever the spiritual gains Chazal envisioned in forming Birkat Hamazon’s text, any number of mechanisms can justify their ability to do so.
 Top of page Print this page Send to friend |
|
Bo 5786
Bo 5786
