100 brachos

Menachos 43b:

 תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בכל יום, שנאמר ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלקיך שואל מעמך

 

The Midrash writes (and this is quoted in the Tur OC 46 in the name of Geonim) that the source for reciting 100 brachos is a takana by David haMelech in response to the plague that afflicted Bn"Y after he counted them.  Somehow you have to square that with the gemara's derasha from our parsha.

 

In any event, someone recently asked me whether you start counting the 100 brachos from nighttime, or whether you start counting from the morning. 

 

B'pashtus, the rule in halacha in that day follows night, so off the cuff my guess was that you start from the night. 

 

However, Rambam in hil tefilah 7:14 writes:

 

חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בין היום והלילה ומה הן מאה ברכות אלו ך"ג ברכות שמנינו בפרק זה. ושבע ברכות של קריאת שמע של שחרית וערבית לפניה ולאחריה. וכשמתעטף בציצית מברך ברוך אתה ה׳ אלקינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להתעטף בציצית. וכשלובש תפילין מברך ברוך אתה ה׳ אלקינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להניח תפילין. ושלש תפלות שבכל תפלה מהן שמנה עשרה ברכות הרי שמונים ושש ברכות. וכשהוא אוכל שתי סעודות של יום והלילה מברך ארבע עשרה ברכות. שבע בכל סעודה. אחת כשיטול ידיו תחלה. ועל המזון אחת בתחלה ושלש בסוף ועל היין לפניו ולאחריו הרי שבע ברכות הרי מאה ברכות בין הכל:

 

The Rambam's expression of היום והלילה implies that night follows day.  Similarly, he talks about שבע ברכות של קריאת שמע של שחרית וערבית , putting shacharis first. אוכל שתי סעודות של יום והלילה, he puts the day meal first. 

 

So much for my off the cuff guess.  The MG"A made me feel a little better.  MG"A 46:8 discusses what to do on a taanis where you miss a meal and are thereby missing brachos, and claims that you still have 100:

 

כתב הרב״י אנן מברכין בכל יום ק״ה ברכות אך בתענית חסרו ח׳ ברכות נמצא יש צ״ח ברכות עכ״ל וטעות סופר הוא דאינן אלא צ״ז ולדידן שמברכין גם הנותן ליעף כח ועל תפילין ב׳ ברכות הרי צ״ט וגם ברכת יראו עינינו לא מנה הרב״י וא״כ הוי ק׳

 

However, when you start fasting from the night before, like Y"K or 9 Av, you have a problem:

 

אף ביום התענית ומי שמפסיק מבעוד יום התעני׳ חסר עוד ח׳ ברכות מסעוד׳ א׳

 

The problem only exists because the MG"A assumes that day follows night, and so you end up missing 2 meals in one period.  If night followed day, there would be no issue.

 

There is literature on this in shu"t.  I just wanted to setup the problem.

 

Achronim are bothered by what the connection is between the pasuk ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלקיך שואל מעמךand the din of 100 brachos.  There is another famous question on this pasuk that the Midrash already touches on.  עתה ישראל מה ה׳ אלקיך שאל מעמך כי אם ליראה את ה׳ אלקיך ללכת בכל דרכיו ולאהבה אתו ולעבד את ה׳ אלקיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך.  The pasuk sounds like Hashem just wants one thing from us -- yiras Shamayim -- but then it gives a whole laundry list of other items.  Both questions can be knocked off in one shot.

 

What happens when we say a bracha?  A farmer, for example, plants an apple tree and works so hard to tend to it until it finally produces fruit.  Instead of celebrating his success, just before he takes a bite, he does an anti-Al Gore and says, "I didn't build that.  Hashem, you are the one who is borei pri ha'eitz."  All the hard work is just to allow Hashem the opportunity to do things through derech ha'teva and produce that apple.

 

Sefas Emes (5632) explains that all of the midos that the pasuk asks us to achieve are really given to us by Hashem on a silver platter.  For example, we don't have to create love for G-d yesh mei'ayin in our hearts and turn on an emotion that we lack.  We are born with a proclivity to ahavas Hashem; we just have to remove all the impediments in our heart and mind that block it from expressing itself.  We have to just allow ourselves to be who we truly are.  The catch is that the ball starts rolling with yiras Shamayim.  We are just like the farmer.  It seems like we are doing everything, but we are just taking that first step of yiras Shamayim, the step of acknowledging that Hashem is really the one in charge.  If we do that, then He will take care of the rest.  The din of 100 brachos is the explanation for מה ה׳ אלקיך שאל מעמך כי אם ליראה followed by that long list of demands.

 

Once 9 Av and T"u b'Av passed we already start looking toward Rosh haShana.  It's not by coincidence that we blow 100 shofar blasts, same number as 100 brachos (see Yismach Moshe).  Our year has to start by with the acknowledgment that everything that will happen over the next 12 months is all yad Hashem.  It may look like we are doing all the work, but He is really running the show.

there is something worse than getting punished

 (8:19) וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁכֹ֤חַ תִּשְׁכַּח֙ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ וְהָֽלַכְתָּ֗ אַֽחֲרֵי֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וַֽעֲבַדְתָּ֖ם וְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִ֣יתָ לָהֶ֑ם הַֽעִדֹ֤תִי בָכֶם֙ הַיּ֔וֹם כִּ֥י אָבֹ֖ד תֹּֽאבֵדֽוּן:

Chazal tell us אין וְהָיָ֗ה אלא לשׁון שׁל שׂמחה.  B'shlama the first pasuk in our sidra, וְהָיָ֣ה עֵ֣קֶב תִּשְׁמְע֗וּן אֵ֤ת הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה,the word ְהָיָ֣ה is used to tell us, as the Ohr haChaim explains at length, that true simcha is when we manage to fulfill all the mitzvos top to bottom.  The Ishbitzer connects the simcha to the fact that the pasuk singles out mishpatim, not chukim or eidot:

אֵין וְהָיָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן שִׂמְחָה כִּדְאִיתָא בַּגְּמָ' (בראשית רבה פרשה מ"ב,ד'), עֵקֶב הַיְינוּ לַסּוֹף, וְהוּא כִּי לֶעָתִיד יְגַלֶּה הַש"י לְעֵין כֹּל, וְכָל נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יָבִין כִּי לֹא הָיָה שׁוּם חֻקָּה בְּלִי טַעַם... כִּי הַכֹּל הָיָה בְּמִשְׁפָּט

Meshech Chochma similarly notes that after 40 years in the desert learning Torah and experiencing overt miracles, even chukim seem like mishpatim.  Under those circumstances there is good reason for simcha.   How, however, does simcha make sense in the context of our pasuk?  What kind of simcha is there in אִם־שָׁכֹ֤חַ תִּשְׁכַּח֙ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ...הַֽעִדֹ֤תִי בָכֶם֙ הַיּ֔וֹם כִּ֥י אָבֹ֖ד תֹּֽאבֵדֽוּן?  We should be weeping, not celebrating! 

 

Just over a week ago before Tisha b'Av I posted the following Midrash ():

 

חֵ֤טְא חָֽטְאָה֙ יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם עַל־כֵּ֖ן לְנִידָ֣ה הָיָ֑תָה (Eicha 1:8)

 

The Midrash asks: ?אומות העולם אינן חוטאים  Do we have a monopoly on sin?

 

Chazal answer: אלא אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו

Is it fair that only we get punished and the umos get off scott free?

 

When a child gets punishment by his parent or his teacher, the child thinks that there is nothing worse than that.  However, the truth is there is something much worse than punishment, and that is indifference. 

 

The child in the moment may be happy to get away with his infraction, but in the bigger picture, he loses out.  He loses out on someone who can celebrate his successes, cry with him on his failures, guide him through difficulties, and someone who will always at least pretend : ) to share his interests.  That's the price of indifference.  In the long wrong, a little punishment now and then for wrongdoing is but a small price to pay for the benefits gained by having someone's attention and guidence.

 

By the rest of the world, אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, Hashem's attitude is one of indifference.  Whether they do wrong or whether they do right, it's all the same. When it comes to us, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו, because Hashem cares.

 

תנו רבנן הנעלבין ואינן עולבים שומעין חרפתן ואין משיבין עושין מאהבה ושמחין ביסורין עליהן הכתוב אומר ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו (Gittin 36b)  Chazal heap praise on the person who can rejoice amidst yisurim.  Why should someone rejoice when they are suffering when Chazal elsewhere (Shabbos 55a) tell us אין יסורין בלא עון?  The fact that Hashem brings suffering on a person is an indication that they are on the wrong track, which is not something to be happy about!

 

The Tiferes Banim answers that yisurim may be painful, but there is cause for rejoicing in that Hashem shows that He cares enough to put a person back on the right track.

 

Our pasuk is describing a painful situation of a person who leaves the fold and gets a smack, but we have to accept the smack in the spirit of וְהָיָ֗ה, a lashon of simcha, because indifference would be worse than punishment.

you can't play innocent if your behavior proves otherwise; limud haTorah trumps ahavas haTorah

In 9:7-21 in our parsha Moshe recounts the cheit ha'eigel and the smashing of the luchus. From pasuk 25 until the end of the perek Moshe recounts his prayer to Hashem for forgiveness for the eigel. Sandwiched in the middle, Moshe switches gears and starts talking about other sins that happened in the midbar:

בְעֵרָה וּבְמַסָּה וּבְקִבְרֹת הַתַּאֲוָה מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳

וּבִשְׁלֹחַ ה׳ אֶתְכֶם מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ וּרְשׁוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם וַתַּמְרוּ אֶת פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם וְלֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם לוֹ וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּקֹלוֹ.

Why didn't Moshe finish speaking about cheit ha'eigel before getting sidetracked, seemingly, by these other topics?

The Abarbanel and Akeidas Yitzchak answer that Bn"Y might have argued that they deserve a pass for cheit ha'eigel. They might argue that had Aharon not made the golden calf, they would have had no part in it. Moshe therefore immediately sticks in a rebuttal. Look at all the other wrongdoings that took place in the midbar. The list goes on and on! You can't play innocent when time after time you prove that מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳.

The Beis haLevi has a chiddush din that if there a choleh requires someone to be mechalel shabbos for his sake, e.g. someone needs a doctor to treat them, it is better to have a shomer Shabbos do it than to have a doctor who would otherwise be mechalel Shabbos do so. It sounds counterintuitive. The person who would otherwise be mechalel Shabbos anyway doesn't lose anything, and the shomer Shabbos doctor gets to keep Shabbos, so what's the problem? Says the Beis haLevi, the doctor who is mechalel Shabbos anyway cannot invoke pikuach nefesh as a ptur for his actions. Hashem knows that it's not the pikuach nefesh which is his excuse to break Shabbos. On any given Shabbos he might drive to the mall, turn on his TV or phone, cook a nice meal, etc. vTherefore, even if there is pikuach nefesh, he is chayav for doing melacha because he's proven that he would have done the melacha anyway. It's only the frum doctor who would otherwise keep Shabbos but is forced to not do so in order to save a life who can claim pikuach nefesh as a valid ptur.

This is the same sevara in our parsha. Had Bn"Y demonstrated that they were otherwise on the straight and narrow, they might conceivably have put the blame on Aharon for the cheit ha'eigel. But when all their other behaviors show that they were not interested in doing the right thing anyway, then the excuse doesn't hold water. They would have gotten involved in the eigel with or without Aharon's contribution to the problem.

Perhaps one can add בּדרך צחות that we know that Chazal (Kiddushin 57 and other places) darshen the extra word אֶת as a ribuy that comes to include talmidei chachamim, i.e. ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. We can read that same ribuy into our pesukim. Moshe told Bn"Y: You want to claim that you only sinned because of the great awe, respect, and attachment you had for Aharon and therefore followed him down the wrong path? Sorry, that doesn't fly. מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳ and here too we can darshen "אֶת" - לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים". You were ַתַּמְרוּ אֶת פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם, and here too, "אֶת" - לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. On other occassions in the midbar you ignored Aharon, you ignored Moshe, you rebelled against the authority of talmidei chachamim. You can't claim to be a loyal, obedient follower of Aharon when it comes to cheit ha'eigel and use that as an excuse when all your other actions prove otherwise. (see also Agra d'Kallah)

The source for the mitzvah of cleaving to talmidei chachamim actually comes from pesukim later in our parsha (11:22-23)

כִּי אִם שָׁמֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּן אֶת כׇּל הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשֹׂתָהּ לְאַהֲבָה אֶתה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם לָלֶכֶת בְּכׇל דְּרָכָיו וּלְדׇבְקָה בוֹ.

וְהוֹרִישׁ ה׳ אֶת כׇּל הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה מִלִּפְנֵיכֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וַעֲצֻמִים מִכֶּם

Rashi quotes from Chazal: ולדבקה בו – אי איפשר, והלא אש אוכלה הוא? אלא: הדבק בחכמים ובתלמידים, ומעלה עליך כאילו נדבקת בו.

Interestingly, on the pasuk earlier in our parsha (10:20) אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ תִּירָא אֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ, the very pasuk where Chazal darshen ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, Rashi is silent and offers no comment on the phrase וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק. Why there does Rashi not jump in and say אי איפשר, והלא אש אוכלה הוא? and explain the phrase as speaking about talmidei chachamim, especially since there it would fit perfectly with the ribuy in the first half of the pasuk!?

HaKsav v'haKabbalah (please see the parenthetical note** at the end of this piece!) explains that it's not the explanation of the word דׇבְקָה which is bothering Rashi. We find that word many other places, e.g. אתם הדבקים בה׳ אלוקיכם, and we understand that it means having a close emotional or spiritual connection. The difficulty here arises from the context:

אמנם קשיא להו קרא דקאמר כי אם שמור תשמרון את כל המצוה הזאת וגו׳ לאהבה את ה״א ללכת בכל דרכיו ולדבקה בו, דמשמע שכולם חייבים להדבק במקום ב״ה דבקות הנפש, ולפי שזאת היא מעלת הנביאים וכדומה מאנשי מעלה שזוכים לה בחמלת ה׳ עליהם בתתו רוחו בקרבם, והאיך תלה ירושת הארץ בתנאי שיהיו דבקים בו כל ישראל

How can our taking possession of Eretz Yisrael be contingent upon our having dveikus, this high level of spiritual attachment, when such an achievement is clearly attainable only by the spiritual elite? Therefore, Chazal reinterpreted the mitzvah here to refer to divuk to talmidei chachamim (see Taz in Divrei David who offers a different answer).

In R' Dov Landau's chiddushim on the parsha he quotes, in the context of this mitzvah, the story in Avos about R' Yosi ben Kisma:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן קִסְמָא, פַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּפָגַע בִּי אָדָם אֶחָד, וְנָתַן לִי שָׁלוֹם, וְהֶחֱזַרְתִּי לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. אָמַר לִי, רַבִּי, מֵאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם אַתָּה. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מֵעִיר גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁל חֲכָמִים וְשֶׁל סוֹפְרִים אָנִי. אָמַר לִי, רַבִּי, רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתָּדוּר עִמָּנוּ בִמְקוֹמֵנוּ, וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים דִּינְרֵי זָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת

אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, בְּנִי, אִם אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי כָל כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, אֵינִי דָר אֶלָּא בִמְקוֹם תּוֹרָה

In Kallah Rabasi ch 8 there is the following comment on that Mishna:

א״ר יוסי בן קסמא פעם אחת. אמאי לא אהדר ליה סימני עם הארץ חזא ביה. והא אפילו לעובד כוכבים בשוק מותר אלא דהוה פליג הלכתא ועיין בה ולא אמרין לבתר דפרקינהו וידע בה דישראל הוה. וסבר עכשיו מהדרנא

Our girsa in Avos is וְנָתַן לִי שָׁלוֹם וְהֶחֱזַרְתִּי לוֹ שָׁלוֹם, but it seems from Kallah Rabasi that R' Yosei ben Kisma in fact did not greet or respond to the person who he met. That makes the ahavas haTorah of that individual even more remarkable. Most people would feel offended if their Rabbi passed them in the street and did not offer a greeting. This man offered R' Yosi ben Kisma a fortune to move to his city even though R' Yosi ben Kisma didn't so much as offer him a hello! That's "U'bo tidbak." However, it begs the question: If this man was representative of his hometown, why would R' Yosi ben Kisma not want to move to such a place where there is so much love for talmidei chachamim? I am sure many Rabbis would love to have congregants like that! R' Landau answers that ahavas haTorah cannot serve as a substitute for limud haTorah. Living among people who are mechabeid talmidei chachamim, who may love talmidei chachamim, is not the same as living among people who themselves are talmidei chachamim.

(**Parenthetical note on the haKsav vhaKabbalah: He writes that it is impossible to understand dveikus literally ואפי׳ תעלה על דעתך להמשך אחר פשוטי המקראות בשאר המקומות (וכדברי הראב״ד בה׳ תשובה), א״א לך לחשוב כן בענין הדבקות. The Raavad he refers to is the famous one in ch 3 of hil teshuvah:

האומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות:

Clearly Kv"K seems to take Raavad at face value, that a literal reading is at least theoretically possible. This is in contast to the pshat quoted in the name of R' Chaim that Raavad only meant that such a person cannot be labelled an apikores because they are shogeg, not to validate literal reading.)

כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י - can one take credit for doing a good job?

We read in our parsha (8:11-18):

הִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֔ פֶּן־תִּשְׁכַּ֖ח אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ לְבִלְתִּ֨י שְׁמֹ֤ר מִצְו‍ֹתָיו֙ וּמִשְׁפָּטָ֣יו וְחֻקֹּתָ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָֽנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּֽוֹם:

פֶּן־תֹּאכַ֖ל וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ וּבָתִּ֥ים טֹבִ֛ים תִּבְנֶ֖ה וְיָשָֽׁבְתָּ:

וּבְקָֽרְךָ֤ וְצֹֽאנְךָ֙ יִרְבְּיֻ֔ן וְכֶ֥סֶף וְזָהָ֖ב יִרְבֶּה־לָּ֑ךְ וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־לְךָ֖ יִרְבֶּֽה:

וְרָ֖ם לְבָבֶ֑ךָ וְשָֽׁכַחְתָּ֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ הַמּוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֛ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֥ית עֲבָדִֽים:

הַמּוֹלִ֨יכְךָ֜ בַּמִּדְבָּ֣ר | הַגָּדֹ֣ל וְהַנּוֹרָ֗א נָחָ֤שׁ | שָׂרָף֙ וְעַקְרָ֔ב וְצִמָּא֖וֹן אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֵֽין־מָ֑יִם הַמּוֹצִ֤יא לְךָ֙ מַ֔יִם מִצּ֖וּר הַֽחַלָּמִֽישׁ:

הַמַּֽאֲכִ֨לְךָ֥ מָן֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יָֽדְע֖וּן אֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ לְמַ֣עַן עַנֹּֽתְךָ֗ וּלְמַ֨עַן֙ נַסֹּתֶ֔ךָ לְהֵיטִֽבְךָ֖ בְּאַֽחֲרִיתֶֽךָ:

וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י עָ֥שָׂה לִ֖י אֶת־הַחַ֥יִל הַזֶּֽה

וְזָֽכַרְתָּ֙ אֶת־ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּ֣י ה֗וּא הַנֹּתֵ֥ן לְךָ֛ כֹּ֖חַ לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת חָ֑יִל לְמַ֨עַן הָקִ֧ים אֶת־בְּרִית֛וֹ אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּ֥ע לַֽאֲבֹתֶ֖יךָ כַּיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה:

I hear people all the time quote this warning against saying  כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י.  You hear people say things like, "What do you mean Tzahal does a great job?  Do you think it's  כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י?"  Or, "Are you worried about your parnasa?  Do you think it's  כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י?"  This past week at my job I had to fill out a mid-year performance review.  I should have just written that I deserve no credit for anything because it's not כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י that accomplished anything.  Does any frum person ever write that?  Does any person in his heart of hearts really think that the effort he puts in has no bearing on the outcome or success of what he is working on?  

Here's the catch: Despite what everyone things about not saying כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י, it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the parsha.  You can just read the words, but if you still don't believe it, R' Chaim Kanievsky in his Taama d'Kra asks the question for you: לכאורה חסר כאן חסיום, דהוה לי׳ לסים ״לא תאמר כן וזכרת..."  The punchline -- לא תאמר כן -- is absent from the text!

We've been brainwashed so effectively to think that it must be there that we find ways of putting it there.  Some change the pasuk from a statement to a question.  In other words, instead of:

"...and you will say to yourself, 'My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me.'" 

with a period at the end, read it like this:

"...and you will say to yourself, "My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me?!"

Can you possibly say such a thing?!

RCK suggests that the word פֶּן in the second pasuk is the start of a long quote that only ends *after* the pasuk of כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י, so we are in effect it should be translated "Lest you say..." instead of "And you will say..."  (The 'and' is wrong anyway, because it's a ואו ההיפּוך and not a ואו החיבּור, but translations always mess that up.)

The simplest answer, however, is that קושׁיא מעיקרא ליתא.  As Derashos haRan (derush #10, and Abarbanel follows in his footsteps) explains, despite what the world thinks, there really is no problem with saying כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י.  The only caveat is that when you say כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י, remember: וְזָֽכַרְתָּ֙ אֶת־ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּ֣י ה֗וּא הַנֹּתֵ֥ן לְךָ֛ כֹּ֖חַ לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת חָ֑יִל  

When you write your performance review, you can take credit for doing a good job.   If you think our military really does pull off amazing feats, you are right to do so.  It is our strength and ability and talent which produces results.  We don't need to twist our emotions and brain into a pretzel fighting what our natural instinct tells us is true.

The only catch is that we have to acknowledge that that strength, ability, and talent which bring us success all come from G-d.  It is in our hands to make of it what we will, but it all comes from Him alone.

safeik brachos l'hakeil (2)

Last post discussed R' Ovadya's psak that if yaaleh v'yavo is omitted in bentching on y"t, one need not repeat.  You only repeat bentching when there is a chiyuv to eat bread, and since there is a machlokes rishonim whether there is a chiyuv to eat bread on y"t, we invoke the rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil.

R' Shalom Messas disagreed and argued that the root of the safeik here is a not a hil brachos safeik, but rather is a safeik in hilchos y"t -- must one eat bread or not.  In hil brachos, we say safeik brachos l'hakeil even against a rov because we are afraid of violating the d'oraysa of bracha she'eina tzericha.  In hil y"t (and all other areas), however, we pasken based on what rov poskim hold, and rov poskim hold that eating bread is required.

Rav Messas did not invent this sevara.  It is based on a Radbaz (vol 1 #229), who convincingly proves it from what we do every day:

כל מחלוקת שהוא בברכות עצמן יש לנו להקל כי שמא יוציא שם שמים לבטלה אבל מחלוקת בעשיית המצוה צריך לברך שהרי לדעת אותו פוסק שפיר מקיים המצוה. תדע שהרי מצות תפילין יש בה מחלוקת ולא ראינו מימינו מי שנמנע לברך עליהם ואפי' שלדעת ר"ת התפילין של רש"י ז"ל פסולין וכן לרש"י של ר"ת ז"ל פסולין לא ראינו לשום פוסק שיפקפק בברכה. וכן נהגו לברך על מקרא מגילה ביום אעפ"י שהר"ש חולק ואין זה דומה לספק ברכות ולא למחלוקת בברכות דהתם עיקר הספק או המחלוקת בברכה הילכך אזלינן לקולא אבל בעיקר עשיית המצוה לא נחלקו אלא מר אמר הכי הוא עשייתה ומר אמר הכי הוא ואנן כיון דנקיטינן כחד מינייהו זו היא עיקר המצוה ומברכין עליה ואפי' החולק מודה שאין זו ברכה לבטלה כיון דלדעת החולק זו היא עיקר המצוה ושמור עיקר זה שאם לא תאמר כן ברוב המצות לא נברך כיון דשכיח בהו פלוגתא דרבוותא:

Given that there is a machlokes Rashi and Rabeinu Tam as to the order of parshiyos in tefillin, how do say a bracha on tefillin every morning?  Safeik brachos l'hakeil?  In fact, it is almost impossible to think of a sugya where there is no machlokes on any detail, and yet that never prevents us from saying brachos. 

Not only in this Radbaz compelling mi'sevara, but R' Messas hoists R' Ovadya by his own petard and quotes places where R' Ovadya himself cites the Radbaz.  For example: there is a machlokes rishnonim (Rabeinu Tam vs BahaG) whether a sefer torah written without tagim is kosher.  The SA writes that such a sefer can be used.  R' Ovadya concludes (in Yabi'a Omer vol 10) that the olim can therefore say birchas hatorah on leining.  We don't treat the question of bracha as an independent question, and invoke the rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil.   The question of bracha as treated as an offshoot of the root question -- is the sefer kosher or not?  Once SA paskens a resolution of the root question, the bracha issue is resolved m'meila.  Why should bentching on y"t be any different?  Since SA resolves the question of whether one must eat bread l'chumra, m'meila one has to repeat bentching if one forgot yaaleh v'yavo.  One flows from the other; the question of bracha is not a separate question from the root issue.

R' Ovadya tried to deal with this in a few places, but acknowledges that it is a קושׁיא נכונה, which is not as faint praise as it sounds : )  After digging up this issue, I found R' Dvir Azulai, in his sefer Dvar Ani, talks about it and took advantage of a meeting with R' Yitzchak Yosef to ask him how to answer R' Messas' kashe.  R' YY offered two chilukim:

1) In the case of tefillin mentioned by Radbaz, or R' Ovadya's case of the questionable sefer torah, the person has not yet done the mitzvah.  The question that stands to be resolved therefore is whether or not putting on tefillin shel Rashi, or leining in the sefer without tagim, is acceptable or not.  In the case of bentching, the person already ate his meal.  The mitzvah is over.  The question at hand is whether the birchas ha'mazon after the fact is acceptable or not.  Therefore, we treat this case as a brachos issue.

2) In the case of tefillin mentioned by Radbaz, or R' Ovadya's case of the questionable sefer torah, we start with the fact that the person has a chezkas chiyuv to do the mitzvah.  The same rules of the SA that tell us how that chiyuv can be fulfilled -- by wearing tefillin shel Rashi or leining from a sefer torah without tagim -- also resolve the bracha question.  In the case of bentching, it is the chiyuv itself which is the subject of the question -- is there a chiyuv to eat bread or not?  Where the chiyuv itself is unclear, the rule of safeik bracha l'hakeil comes back into play.

omitting yaaleh v'yavo in bentching -- R' Ovadya vs R' Shalom Messas

Since the mitzvah of birchas ha'mazon is in this week's parsha I want to focus on a question that can come up on shabbos and y"t.  The basic rule is that when eating bread is obligatory, like on shabbos, you must repeat bentching if you forget to mention the day, e.g. you omit ritzei.  When eating bread is not obligatory, e.g. on rosh chodesh, if you leave out yaaleh v'yavo, you don't repeat bentching.  

What happens if a person is unsure if he said yaaleh v'yavo on yom tov in bentching, or is unsure if he added ritzei on shabbos?  Does he have to repeat or not?

Shu"T Yechaveh Daat is built around topics that R' Ovadya discussed in a weekly radio address he used to give. R' Shalom Messas, whose derash I quoted last week, writes in Shemesh u'Magen #13 that he was listening to the radio on erev yom tov and heard R' Ovadya pasken in his Pinat Halacha program that if someone forgot yaaleh v'yavo or not in bentching, he should not repeat birchas ha'mazon.  R' Messas strongly disagreed.

Before getting into the thick of the issue, a background point that is an interesting tidbit in its own right: R' Yosef Messas (R' Shalom's father) was asked why we need a rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil.  Given that the chiyuv to say brachos is derabbanan, shouldn't any safeik fall under the rule of sfeika derabbanan l'kula? (Pnei Yehoshua in Brachos does entertain the possibility of it being d'oraysa, but this is a minority view).  R' Yosef Messas answered that ain hachi nami, we have only one rule of sfeika derabbanan l'kula.  There is not a single place in shas, he writes, where the gemara refers to a rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil.  That phrase is found only in poskim, and is just used as a shorthand way of invoking sfeika derabannan l'kula in the context of hilchos brachos.  R' Yitchak Yosef, however, in his Ein Yitzchak, suggests that there is in fact a nafka minah between the two rules (R' Messas agrees l'dina with this conclusion) in a case where there is a rov on one side of the safeik.  Were we to treat this as a regular sfeika derabbanan, the rov would win.  However, when dealing with hilchos brachos, we still avoid saying a new bracha.  Even with a rov to justify it, the d'oraysa risk of bracha she'aina tzericha is too serious to gamble with.

Getting back to the main story, with respect to a person who is unsure whether he said yaaleh v'yavo on Y"T (or even if he knows he left it out, according to R' Ovadya Yabi'a Omer 7:28), even though the mitzvah of birchas ha'mazon is d'oraysa, the specific text that we say is a takana derabbanan.  We are therefor dealing with a sfeika derabbanan.  Since there is a minority of Rishonim (e.g. Tos Sukkah 27a - see also Kaf haChaim 188:24) who hold that there is no obligation to eat bread on y"t, and we invoke safeik brachos l'hakeil even against a rov, bentching need not be repeated.

Rav Messas (Shemesh u'Magen #13) countered with a nice lomdus.  Safeik brachos l'hakeil only applies when the issue at hand is a hilchos brachos question.  The question of whether you have to repeat bentching, however, is really a hilchos yom tov question -- are you obligated to eat bread to be yotzei simchas y"t or not?  Since the majority of Rishonim hold that one must eat bread, one must repeat bentching if yaaleh v'yavo was omitted.

What about if a person realized their error before starting the next bracha?  The SA writes that in such a case there is a special bracha that can be inserted in which shabbos or y"t is mentioned, but the SA is predicated on the assumption that there is a chiyuv to eat bread on Y"T, so mentioning the day is necessary.  One would think that according to R' Ovadya this still falls under the umbrella of sfeika derabbanan l'kula and no bracha should be added.  R' Yitzchak Yosef writes that his father held that way at first, but then apparently changed his mind, as in Yabi'a Omer he paskens to follow the SA.  Why?  The logic here is that we have to also weigh the other side of the safeik, i.e. the potential that one was not yotzei if yaaleh v'yavo was omitted.  In this case it is impossible to be compeletely shev v'al taaseh and not do anything, as safeik brachos l'hakeil would dictate, because by continuing the final bracha of bentching without the necessary inclusion of yaaleh v'yavo one is willy-nilly doing something and risking bracha l'vatalah.  Therefore, one should try to cover his bases as much as possible and add the bracha quoted in SA.

Maybe more to come bl"n on the question of what to do if one is unsure if he said ritzei or not.

a kashe that personifies R' Shteinman

  כִּ֣י הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אַתָּ֤ה בָא־שָׁ֙מָּה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ לֹ֣א כְאֶ֤רֶץ מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ הִ֔וא אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְצָאתֶ֖ם מִשָּׁ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר תִּזְרַע֙ אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֔ וְהִשְׁקִ֥יתָ בְרַגְלְךָ֖ כְּגַ֥ן הַיָּרָֽק (11:10) 

Rashi comments: והשקית ברגלך – ארץ מצרים היתה צריכהו להביא מים מנילוס ברגלך ולהשקותה, וצריך אתה לנדד שנתיךז ולעמול, והנמוך שותה ולא הגבוה, ואתה מעלה מים מן הנמוך לגבוה. אבל זו למטר השמים וגומ׳ (דברים י״א:י״א) – אתה ישן על מטתך, והקב״ה משקה נמוך וגבוה, גלוי ושאינו גלוי, כאחת

When you were in Egypt, you had to get up early and make an irrigation canal so that the water could flow from the Nile to your field.  In Eretz Yisrael, you can stay in bed and Hashem will deliver the water to you, bringing rain everywhere and anywhere that it is needed.

R' Shteinman in his Ayeles haShachar asks: what do you mean stay in bed?  Why would you not get up and take advantage of the extra time to devote to ruchniyus?

No question that this kashe is ראוי הוא למי שׁאמרו and personifies who R' Shteinman was.  The rest of us read this Rashi and did not even bat an eye when we got to those words about staying in bed.  Amazing.

2) That parsha continues

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אַתֶּ֜ם עֹבְרִ֥ים שָׁ֙מָּה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ אֶ֥רֶץ הָרִ֖ים וּבְקָעֹ֑ת לִמְטַ֥ר הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם תִּשְׁתֶּה־מָּֽיִם 

The difference between Eretz Yisrael and Egypt is whether you need irrigation, or whether there is rain.  So why does the earlier pasuk refer to אֲשֶׁ֤ר תִּזְרַע֙ אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֔, the planting that was done in Egypt?  You have to plant in Eretz Yisrael too?

Sefas Emes answers that when you plant in Egypt, its זַרְעֲךָ֔, *your* produce, *your* seeds that are going in the ground.  It's all about the prat.  Eretz Yisrael is about the klal.  Whatever happens there is reflective of Hashem's relationship with Klal Yisrael.  As we discussed before, the GR"A writes that the nusach ha'bracha in bareich aleinu should be sabeinu mi'tuvah, not sabeinu mi'tuvecha, because the tov that we get, the shefa that comes into the world, all comes through Eretz Yisrael.  It is the source of goodness that then spreads out to the rest of the world.  When you plant there, it's not זַרְעֲךָ֔, limited to you, but it creates a ripple effect throughout the world.   

spiritual complacency

R' Bachyei comments on (8:8)  אֶ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹ֤א בְמִסְכֵּנֻת֙ תֹּֽאכַל־בָּ֣הּ לֶ֔חֶם לֹֽא־תֶחְסַ֥ר כֹּ֖ל בָּ֑הּ that the "lechem" of Eretz Yisrael refers to the spiritual sustenance of Torah:

ואפשר שיכלול עוד ארץ אשר לא במסכנות תאכל בה לחם שלענין התורה והחכמה דבר הכתוב, שכן היא נמשלת ללחם, שנאמר (משלי ט׳:ה׳) לכו לחמו בלחמי, ולפי שהתורה והחכמה אי אפשר לאדם להשיגם על השלמות אלא עם ההכנות הראויות הצריכות לו ומלבד ההכנות יצטרך שיהיה אויר הארץ זך וטוב כי יועיל הרבה בלמוד, וטוב ההכנות האויר הטוב אשר בארץ על כן יאמר, החכמים שבה לא יאכלו במסכנות לחמה של תורה כי יהיה לבם כפתחו של אולם לטוב ההכנות ורחבה מיני ים לטוב האויר, וכמו שדרשו רז״ל (בראשית ב׳:י״א-י״ב) וזהב הארץ ההיא טוב, אין תורה כתורת ארץ ישראל ואין חכמה כחכמת ארץ ישראל, ואמרו אוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים, מה שאין כן בחכמים שבחוצה לארץ

There is no comparison between the Torah that can be learned in Eretz Yisrael, the chochma of Eretz Yisrael, and that which is learned elsewhere.  You can try to create a mei'ein of that experience elsewhere, but it will always only be a mei'ein -- not as good as the real thing.  Just ask any bachur or young lady that came back from yeshiva or seminary in Eretz Yisrael recently.

Later in the parsha we have the words that we say every day,  וְנָתַתִּ֛י עֵ֥שֶׂב בְּשָׂדְךָ֖ לִבְהֶמְתֶּ֑ךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ, followed by the warning הִשָּֽׁמְר֣וּ לָכֶ֔ם פֶּ֥ן יִפְתֶּ֖ה לְבַבְכֶ֑ם.  Rashi comments: ואכלת ושבעת. השמרו לכם – כיון שתהו אוכלים ושבעים, השמרו שלא תבעטו, שאין אדם מורד בהקב״ה אלא מתוך שביעה.  There is a causal connection between the pesukim.  The bounty of riches that we will be blessed with is liable to cause a person to drift in his/her observance.

Sefas Emes (5642) adds an amazing insight:

ואמרו ושבעת השמרו לכם אין אדם מורד רק מתוך שביעה. אין זה דווקא באכילה ושתי' גשמיות. רק גם במילא כריסו בתורה ועבודה צריך להיות תמיד אצל הפתח ולחפש לשמוע דבר ה' ואז יורד השפעה חדשה תמיד. וח"ו להיפך ועצר את השמים כו'. כי כפי מה שחסר לאדם ומשתוקק אל השלימות כך משפיעין לו משמים

We are not talking about a glutton, someone who runs after too much olam ha'zeh.  We are talking about someone engaged in doing mitzvos, in learning Torah. But just like we saw in the R' Bachyei that "lechem" refers to spiritual nourishment, so too, the terms וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ refer to spiritual nourishment as well.  One can grow too satiated and too satisfied in matters of ruchniyus!  A person has to always strive for more and not grow complacent.  

 וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמֹ֤עַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם  Rashi comments that מצוה אתכם היום – שיהו עליכם חדשים כאילו שמעתם בו ביום.  The parsha is not promising reward for doing mitzvos and learning Torah.  The parsha is promising reward specifically for doing mitzvos and learning Torah with freshness, without complacency, looking at things anew. 

should we try to eat bread every day to fulfill birchas hamazon just like we wear a 4 cornered garmet to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis?

1) The mitzvah of tzitzis applies only if a person chooses to wear a 4 cornered garment.  If someone does not want to wear that type of garment, there is no mitzvah to do so.  However, the gemara says that at times of anger in shamayim a person can get punished even for failing to fulfill this type of aseh, so we therefore deliberately wear a 4 cornered garment so that we can fulfill the mitzvah.

Based on that reasoning, why not say the same about birchas ha'mazon?  The mitzvah applies only if I eat bread, which I have a right not to do.  But maybe here too we should be concerned about those periods of anger in shamayim where punishment is meted out more harshly, and therefore we should deliberately make a point of eating bread every meal in order to fulfill the mitzvah of birchas ha'mazon.

What's the difference between these cases?

2)  וְהָיָ֣ה׀ עֵ֣קֶב תִּשְׁמְע֗וּן.  We know that אין והיה אלא שמחה.  What is the simcha here?  The Ohr haChaim explains that's it's the mitzvah of limud haTorah:  

עוד רמז על דרך אומרו (תהלים י״ט) פקודי ה׳ ישרים משמחי לב, והוא אומרו והיה השמחה תהיה עקב תשמעון, ופירוש עקב שכר עסק התורה תשמחהו, והוא מה שרמז התנא באומרו (אבות פ״ד) מצוה גוררת מצוה וכו׳ ששכר מצוה מצוה שהיא השמחה.

עוד רמז למה שאמרו בספר הזוהר (ח״ג רי״ג) וז״ל דלית חדוותא קמי קב״ה כשעתא דישראל משתדלי באורייתא,

Sefas Emes explains that the simcha is the fact that all the good things Hashem promises to give come עֵ֣קֶב תִּשְׁמְע֗וּן, because we listened.  We earned it.  Once upon a time we discussed the Midrash that tells us that for 26 generations, from creation until mattan Torah, Hashem sustained the world solely because of his chessed. After mattan Torah, we get only what we earn.  Sounds like as a result of mattan Torah the midah of chessed is diminished.  How can that be?  

Rav Hutner explains that accepting a hand out without having earned it carries the taint of 'nahama d'kisufa,' a sense of embarrassment. Giving the poor man a job so he can earn his wages with dignity is the highest form of charity, much greater than just handing him a check.  Giving us the opportunity to feel that we are earning our keep by doing mitzvos and Torah learning is a far greater chessed from Hashem than just giving us a handout.

Last year on the Yamim Noraim, the Rav where I was davening made an appeal, and if I recall correctly, the way he put it is that the shul will get what it needs no matter what -- Hashem will take care of it.  The appeal is just an opportunity for us to have a part in that.  וְהָיָ֣ה׀ עֵ֣קֶב תִּשְׁמְע֗וּן  Same idea.  Hashem will make sure you don't go hungry or homeless, but he wants us to have the simcha of having earned it.

See this post  where we discussed this idea in greater detail.