R' Yehudah bar Ila'i, Tzelafchad, and the connection between tzitzis and shabbos

 The gemara (Shabbos 25b) records the kabbalat shabbat practice of R' Yehuda bar Ila'i:

 דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כך היה מנהגו של ר' יהודה בר אלעאי ע"ש מביאים לו עריבה מלאה חמין ורוחץ פניו ידיו ורגליו ומתעטף ויושב בסדינין המצוייצין ודומה למלאך ה' צבאות והיו תלמידיו מחבין ממנו כנפי כסותן אמר להן בני לא כך שניתי לכם סדין בציצית בית שמאי פוטרין וב"ה מחייבין והלכה כדברי בית הלל ואינהו סברי גזירה משום כסות לילה

 

After he would bathe, RYb"I would wrap himself in a cloak that had tzitzis.  He resembled a holy angel as he sat, waiting for Shabos to arrive. 

 

It sounds like how we start Yom Kippur -- everyone comes to shul just before nightfall and puts on their talis -- but this was not Yom Kippur; this was a regular Shabbos.  Why was donning tzitzis such an integral part of RYb"I's preparations for Shabbos?

 

The appearance of the parsha of tzitzis at the end of our sedra can be read as a response to the meraglim.  The prohibition of "lo tasuru" comes to warn us against making the missteps made in the meraglim's mission "'la'tur ha'aretz." However, Chazal draw another connection as well.  Immediately before the parsha of tzitzis we have the story of the mekoshesh who violated Shabbos.  The Yalkut Shimoni (see Ohr haChaim as well) writes:

 

 תָּנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ, (לעיל פסוק לב) וַיִּמְצְאוּ אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה, חִלֵּל זֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ בְּכָל יוֹם תְּפִלִּין בְּרֹאֹשׁוֹ, תְּפִלִּין בִּזְרוֹעוֹ, וְרוֹאֶה אוֹתָן וְחוֹזֵר בּוֹ, עַכְשָׁו שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו תְּפִילִין חִלֵּל זֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה, צֵא וּבְרֹר לָהֶם דָּבָר שֶׁיִּנְהֲגוּ בּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וּבְיָמִים טוֹבִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת לְדֹרֹתָם״ אֵין לְדֹרֹתָם אֶלָּא לְדוֹר תָּם וְאֵין תָּם אֶלָּא יַעֲקֹב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ״ה:כ״ז) ״וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם״, תָּם מִגֶּזֶל, תָּם מִגִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, תָּם מִשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים.

  

Since we lack the protection afforded by tefillin, tzitzis is our protection against chilul Shabbos. 

 

Based on this, the gemara in Sotah 17a takes on a new meaning:

 

דרש רבא בשכר שאמר אברהם אבינו אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל זכו בניו לב' מצות חוט של תכלת ורצועה של תפלין בשלמא רצועה של תפלין דכתיב וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ותניא ר"א הגדול אומר אלו תפלין שבראש אלא חוט של תכלת מאי היא דתניא היה ר"מ אומר מה נשתנה תכלת מכל מיני צבעונין מפני שהתכלת דומה לים וים דומה לרקיע ורקיע דומה לכסא הכבוד שנאמר ויראו את אלהי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטהר וכתיב כמראה אבן ספיר דמות כסא

 

Techeiles is davka paired with tefillin because these two go hand in hand.  When one is missing, the other takes its place.

The failure of the mekoshesh to keep Shabbos is not the end of that story.  The gemara Shabbos 150b relates:

 

תנו רבנן מעשה בחסיד אחד שנפרצה לו פרץ בתוך שדהו ונמלך עליה לגודרה ונזכר ששבת הוא ונמנע אותו חסיד ולא גדרה ונעשה לו נס ועלתה בו צלף וממנה היתה פרנסתו ופרנסת אנשי ביתו

 

The Shaar haGilgulim quotes a tradition that the person this story is speaking about was a gilgul of the mekoshesh brought back to the world to fix that sin of chilul Shabbos.  

According to one opinion in Chazal, the identity of the mekoshesh was צלפחד.  In the gemara's story, it was עלתה בו צלף that protected the field.   צלפחד  = צלף חד  , a sharp, thorny צלף plant.  This is a known characteristic of the caper bush, which is native to Israel.

Who was this "chassid" who was the gilgul of Tzelafchad who came back to the world to fix the mitzvah of Shabbos?  Ben Yehoyada writes that it is none other than ר' יהודה בר אלעאי.

 

Now we can understand why ר' יהודה בר אלעאי was so careful to greet Shabbos by putting on his tzitzis.  ר' יהודה בר אלעאי was a gilgul of the mekoshesh, a gilgul of צלפחד.  The first time around through history he lacked the protection afforded by the parsha of tzitzis, which was given only after his death, and so he was mechalel Shabbos.  The second time around he took full advantage of the mitzvah of tzitzis's special protection and avoided the same transgression.

I can't see what you are saying

Hashem appeared to Miriam and Aharon to respond to their criticism of Moshe. Hashem addressed them:

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י

Rashi comments:

אֵין נָא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן בַּקָּשָׁה

Why should Hashem have to make a special appeal to them to listen? Isn't it the aspiration of every navi to receive the dvar Hashem?

Ohr haChaim: צריך לדעת למה הוצרך לומר כן ודאי כי ישמעו את אשר ידבר, עוד צריך לדעת אומרו תיבת נא כי לא יוצדק לומר האדון לעבדו לשון בקשה.

He gives multiple answers, among them that by saying "Listen to what I am saying" the implication hinted at is that they had not previously been listening, or had not listened and correctly interpreted the dvar Hashem.

A couple of years ago I quoted a piece from the Tiferes Shlomo (I know it's wrong to play favorites, but this is one of my favorite pieces) that he repeats a few places in chumash. When Hashem asked Adam haRishon אַיֶּֽכָּה, Adam responded אֶת־קֹֽלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן וָֽאִירָ֛א כִּֽי־עֵירֹ֥ם אָנֹ֖כִי. The Tif Shlomo explains that when Klal Yisrael accepted the Torah, Chazal tell us that we had the ability to be רואים את הקולות. It was a visual as well as an auditory experience. This was the level that Adam was on before the cheit. After the cheit, when Adam experienced אֶת־קֹֽלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן -- he heard but did not see the kol Hashem -- he realized that he had fallen from the level he had been on beforehand.

Later in Braishis, how did the brothers know that the person speaking to them was indeed their long lost brother Yosef? Yosef told them (45:12) וְהִנֵּ֤ה עֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ רֹא֔וֹת וְעֵינֵ֖י אָחִ֣י בִנְיָמִ֑ין כִּי־פִ֖י הַֽמְדַבֵּ֥ר אֲלֵיכֶֽם: When he speaks, they don't just hear his voice, but וְהִנֵּ֤ה עֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ רֹא֔וֹת, they see it as well. His words are dvar Hashem, not milei d'alma, as their own experience proves.

Here too in our parsha, Hashem was indicating to Miriam and Aharon just how far they had fallen. שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י -- you can hear the words, but you won't experience seeing them the way you should have, the way Moshe does.

I did not see it in the Tiferes Shlomo, but maybe one can suggest that later in parshas Chukas, when Moshe addressed Bn"Y with the words שִׁמְעוּ־נָא֙ הַמֹּרִ֔ים when they were clamoring for water, this was the knock on them.  Since שׁכינה מדבּרת מתוך גורנו, when Moshe spoke they should have not just heard, but they should have seen the dvar Hashem. Because of their rebelliousness, the people were denied this experience.

Platner's appeal

How can a misogynistic communist like Graham Platner be the Dem frontrunner for Senate in Maine? I agree with the sentiments of Powerlineblog.com:

To be sure, Platner checks the left-wing box with his professed Communist leanings. You can’t get more left-wing than that. But I think the key to Platner’s success is his overt anti-Semitism. At the time he was pulling away from Mills, by far the best-known fact about Platner was his Nazi tattoo. Far from disqualifying him in the eyes of Democratic voters, the tattoo seems to have endeared him to them.

...I think it is fair to say that, during the months when his Senate campaign took off, Graham Platner’s best-known characteristic was his hostility to the Jews.

I think that anti-Semitism is no longer the obsession of an oddball fringe. Rather, it is close to the beating heart of the Democratic Party. At this point it may, in fact, be the defining ideology of the Democratic Party. Far from being a millstone around the neck of a nonentity like Graham Platner, it was the secret to his meteoric rise.

This is the sad state of affairs in America today.  To support the Dem party is to support antisemitism.  It's as simple as that.  The worst members of the party are guilty of overt antisemitism, like Platner.  The others are guilty of standing by idly and adopting a stance of implied shtika k'hodaah in an attempt to not be cancelled by the mob.  They have no moral backbone or courage.  The one exception is Fetterman, and he is the exception that proves the rule. 

the reward of the innocent sota

 Brachos 31b (see also Sota 26)

 נקתה ונזרעה זרע מלמד שאם היתה עקרה נפקדת דברי ר' ישמעאל א"ל רבי עקיבא אם כן ילכו כל העקרות כולן ויסתתרו וזו שלא קלקלה נפקדת אלא מלמד שאם היתה יולדת בצער יולדת בריוח קצרים יולדת ארוכים שחורים יולדת לבנים אחד יולדת שנים

 

The Tur takes R' Yishmael's view a step further.  The pasuk that follows וְאִם־לֹ֤א נִטְמְאָה֙ הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּטְהֹרָ֖ה הִ֑וא וְנִקְּתָ֖ה וְנִזְרְעָ֥ה זָֽרַע׃ is זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַקְּנָאֹ֑ת...  Commenting on the smichus, he writes: לומר שאם טהורה היא יהיו לה בנים צדיקים בעלי תורה.  Not only will the sota have children, but they will be big talmidei chachamim.

 

What does R' Yishmael do with the argument that אם כן ילכו כל העקרות כולן ויסתתרו?  R' Nosson Gestetner in his sefer on chumash suggests that the machlokes here in l'shitasam.  

 

Rashi comments on לֹֽא־תַעֲשׂ֣וּן כֵּ֔ן לַה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם (Devarim 12:4):

 

דבר אחר: ונתצתם את מזבחותם ואבדתם את שמם, לא תעשון כן – אזהרה למוחק את השם, ולנותץ אבן מן המזבח או מן העזרה.

אמר ר׳ ישמעאל: וכי תעלה על דעתך שישראל נותצין למזבחות? אלא: שלא תעשו כמעשיהם ויגרמו עוונותיכם למקדש אבותיכם שיחרב

 

Achronim (e.g. Chasam Sofer) point out that the difference between Tana Kamma and R' Yishmael is whether there is an issur of geram mechikas HaShem.  According to the Tana Kamma, it is only actively erasing the shem Hashem which is prohibited, but according to R"Y, even causing the shem Hashem or the makom mikdash to be obliterated is assur. 

 

R' Yishmael was perhaps not persuaded by R' Akiva's argument because l'shitaso, an innocent woman  would not pretend to be a sotah because in doing so she would be causing shem Hashem to be erased, violating the issur mechikas Hashem through gerama. 

 

Why is it that the sota who is innocent deserves any reward?  Isn't this a case of chotei nischar, one who gains from wrongdoing?  After all, it's not like the sota is completely innocent.  There was kinuy, there was stirah; it is as close to a red line as you can get.  Ibn Ezra, interestingly, addresses this question. Most of the meforshei pshat learn that ונזרעה זרע just means she now has a heter to resume living with her husband.  Ibn Ezra, who so often rejects derash in favor of pshat, here chooses to defend the derash that it is a reward:  ונזרעה זרע – שיתן לה הבורא זרע בשכר הקלון שאירע לה.  The public embarrassment of the sota process is so devastating that despite the fact that she is not completely innocent, Hashem promises s reward to make up for what she underwent. 

 

R' Shimon Sofer has a different hesber that helps answer the question of אם כן ילכו כל העקרות כולן ויסתתרו.  The sota was warned, but could not resist trouble and violated the issur yichud.  However, despite the temptation to do more than that, the sota caught herself and pulled back from that red line.  When push came to shove, she resisted!  Chazal tell us that someone who overcomes the temptation for aveira is worthy of having a miracle performed.  That's why the sota deserves a reward.  

The same logic does not hold true for a woman who is wholly innocent and just wants to have children.  She really has no temptation to do wrong, and therefore, will earn no credit for overcoming a desire that does not exist.

 

The juxtaposition of sota and nazir takes on even more interesting color given this interpretation.  The nazir climbs to the greatest heights and is called kadosh.  The sota has sunken to dangerous depths of misbehavior.  Nonetheless, Hashem does not reserve reward only for the nazir.  L'fum tzaara agra.  For someone in the shoes of the sota, pulling back in the face of the temptation after one has already gone so far is a mighty achievement and garners tremendous reward as well.   

deaf to the maggid shiur and blind to what's on the page

The Mechilta comments on the pasuk וְכָל הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת הַקּוֹלֹת:

 רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לְהוֹדִיעַ שְׁבָחָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָמְדוּ כֻלָּן לִפְנֵי הַר סִינַי לְקַבֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, מַגִּיד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן סוֹמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כ,יד) "וְכָל הָעָם רֹאִים"; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן אִלְּמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות יט,י) "וַיַּעֲנוּ כָל הָעָם יַחְדָּו"; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן חֵרְשִׁין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כד,ז) "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יי, נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע." מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן חִגְּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות יט,יח) "וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ בְּתַחְתִּית הָהָר." וּמְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן טִפְּשִׁין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים ד,לה) "אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת".

 

I don't think the point Chazal want to make here is to amplify the miracles that took place at mattan Torah or to amplify the greatness of G-d, as only He can perform miracles like those recorded here.  As far as the first point, mai d'hava hava, and as far as the second, peshita, mai kah mashma lan.  Chazal here (and as a general rule) have a didactic aim in mind.  There is something we are supposed to learn from this midrash that we can implement.

 

You might be thinking, "How can this Chazal have anything to do with me?  Do I work in a home for invalids?  And even if I do, can I cure them?" 

 

I submit to you that if you go to any shiur or listen to any derasha and look around the room, you will see plenty of examples of the "invalids" Chazal are speaking about.  Or better, yet, most of us need only look in the mirror.  How many times have we been חֵרְשִׁין, deaf to anything a rebbe or Rabbi is trying to tell us?  Or סוֹמִין, blind to the words on the page in front of us because our attention is on our phone or elsewhere?  Haven't we been אִלְּמִין, silent and afraid to speak out for Torah values, or חִגְּרִין,  slow-walking doing what we are supposed to be doing instead of acting with zerizus.  And last but not least, טִפְּשִׁין -- this one needs no explanation.

 

Ramban learns that there is a mitzvah to remember maamad Har Sinai derived from the pasuk  “rak hishamer lecha.. pen tishkach es ha’devarim asher ra’u einecha.”  That same pasuk is quoted in Avos (3:8) as the source for the issur of forgetting words of Torah.  How can the same pasuk be used for both halachos? 

 

As we once explained Ramban learns that the two ideas go hand in hand.  If you truly remember and appreciate maamad Har Sinai in all its awesomeness, your learning is as different learning -- it becomes something that sticks in your mind and is unforgettable.

 

Tiferes Shlomo writes that this is what the gemara means when it tells us

 

רב יוסף ביומא דעצרתא אמר עבדי לי עגלא תלתא אמר אי לא האי יומא דקא גרים כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא

 

If there was no day of Shavuos, there wouldn't be other Yosef's in the shuk?!  There wouldn't be other Yosefs, period!  How would there be a Klal Yisrael?

 

What Rav Yosef meant is that if not for his awareness of that day of maamad Har Sinai every day, every single time he opened his gemara, he would never have become who he is.  His learning would have been a different learning. 

 

Chazal in the Mechilta are giving us a similar message.  When you truly experience kabbalas haTorah and feel yourself as if you were standing at Sinai this Shavuos or any Shavous, then you're no longer deaf to the maggid shiur, you no longer slow walk your way to shul, you no longer are mute and can't answer when someone asks you what sugya you are holding in.  And last but not least, you no longer go through your day and your life as a טִפְּשִׁ. 

what happened on erev rosh chodesh Sivan

The talmidim of Chasam Sofer bring down that the CS fasted on erev rosh chodesh Sivan and dedicated the day to teshuvah.  Chazal tell us that when Klal Yisrael left Refidim they did teshuvah and when they arrived at Sinai the next day on rosh chodesh SIvan they did teshuvah  (see post here).  Rashi comments (Shmos 19:2)

ויסעו מרפידים – מה ת״ל? לחזור ולפרש מהיכן נסעו, והלא כבר כתוב שברפידים היו חונים (שמות י״ז:א׳), בידוע שמשם נסעו. אלא להקיש נסיעתן מרפידים לביאתן למדבר סיני, מה ביאתן למדבר סיני בתשובה, אף נסיעתן מרפידים בתשובה.

Apparently the day is a special day and an eis ratzon.  There is a special tefilah composed by the SHL'H to recite on this day for the sake of one's children.  Since erev rosh chodesh this year falls out on shabbos, the question is raised as to whether one can recite this bakasha on shabbos, as normally we refrain from personal bakashos on shabbos.  I saw R' Chaim Kamievsky is quoted both ways, so either he gave different answers at different times, changed his mind, or someone got it wrong.  On the one hand, this is a once a year opportunity, and one is asking for tzorchei Shamayim, for one's children to grow in Torah and yiras Shamayim, not for mundane needs.  On the other hand, a bakasha is still a bakashah, and you can always say a tefilah for your kids before Shabbos or after Shabbos, or every day of the year for that matter. 

In general, poskim debate how far to take this rule of no bakashos, as we have many tefilos that do not seem consistent with it.  For example (since it's Shabbos mevorchim), the Aruch haShulchan (OC 417:9) has a problem with saying the last paragraph of birchas ha'chodesh:

 

אך מה שאומרים ה"יהי רצון" מקודם – תמיהני היאך מותר להתפלל בשבת תפילה חדשה, מה שאינה בטופס ברכות, אלא תפילה בפני עצמה? ומבקשים על פרנסה ושארי צרכים, ואיך מותר בשבת?

 

The GR"A would not say the haRachaman section of bentching on Shabbos because it is bakashos.  Others are more lenient when it comes to these things.

 

When we read וַיִּסְע֣וּ מֵרְפִידִ֗ים וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ מִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל נֶ֥גֶד הָהָֽר we have to keep in mind what happened in Refidim: (Shmos 17:8):

 

וַיָּבֹ֖א עֲמָלֵ֑ק וַיִּלָּ֥חֶם עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בִּרְפִידִֽם

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֤ה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֙עַ֙ בְּחַר־לָ֣נוּ אֲנָשִׁ֔ים וְצֵ֖א הִלָּחֵ֣ם בַּעֲמָלֵ֑ק מָחָ֗ר אָנֹכִ֤י נִצָּב֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַגִּבְעָ֔ה וּמַטֵּ֥ה הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּיָדִֽי

 

Bn"Y arrived in Sinai on the heels of the battle against Amalek.  If they arrived on rosh chodesh, it means that battle took place on erev rosh chodesh, when the moon is invisible.  Klal Yisrael is compared to the moon.  When the moon is renewed, it represents the renewal and rejuvenation of Klal Yisrael.  When the moon wanes, it is a time of din.  Rosh haShana, the yearly Yom haDin, is "b'keseh l'yom chageinu," when the moon is hidden.  On erev rosh chodesh, the old moon is completely invisible as we wait for the new moon to appear.  This is why Amalek chose this time to attack. 

 

Moshe chose Yehoshua to lead the fight because, "Pnei Moshe k’pnei chamah u’pnei Yehoshua k’pnei levana," (B"B 75) Yehoshua is compared to the moon.  When Moshe passed away, Klal Yisrael didn't fade away and collapse.  The waning of the period of Moshe's life was followed by the waxing of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael.  A period of darkness when the old moon fades away is just a preparation for a period of increased light.  (Panim Yafos end of Beshalach)

bentching and the bracha of shalom

Two weeks ago I mentioned R' Akiva Eiger's safeik (on SA OC 188) as to whether a katan who ate to the point of שׂביעה and bentched just before nightfall and then became bar mitzvah after nightfall has to repeat bentching or not.  Is the chiyuv of bentching dependent on achila, which took place while the person was a katan and so he was yotzei with his bentching as a katan, or does the chiyuv depend on שׂביעה, and since he is in a state of שׂביעה as a gadol he has to repeat bentching since he did not fulfill his mitzvah as a gadol.

 I bring it up again because of a Panim Yafos on our parsha. 

 

וְהִשִּׂ֨יג לָכֶ֥ם דַּ֙יִשׁ֙ אֶת־בָּצִ֔יר וּבָצִ֖יר יַשִּׂ֣יג אֶת־זָ֑רַע וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֤ם לַחְמְכֶם֙ לָשֹׂ֔בַע וִֽישַׁבְתֶּ֥ם לָבֶ֖טַח בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם

 

Rashi comments:

 

ואכלתם לשובע – אוכל קימעא והוא מתברך במעיו.

 

To connect this phrase with the end of the pasuk, Panim Yafos quotes the gemara in Brachos 20b:

 

דרש רב עוירא זמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אמי וזמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אסי אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע כתוב בתורתך אשר לא ישא פנים ולא יקח שחד והלא אתה נושא פנים לישראל דכתיב ישא ה' פניו אליך אמר להם וכי לא אשא פנים לישראל שכתבתי להם בתורה ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את ה' אלהיך והם מדקדקים [על] עצמם עד כזית ועד כביצה

 

We earn Hashem's special favor of the bracha יִשָּׂא ה' פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם because we go the extra mile for Hashem.  Even though the chiyuv bentching applies only when you hit the state of שׂביעה, we do more and bentch even after eating only a k'zayis or a k'beitzah.

 

If that's the case, when we are in a situation where אוכל קימעא והוא מתברך במעיו and there is שׂביעה even from eating just a little bit, a person is therefore mechuyav to bentch even on that little bit.  Doing so is not going the extra mile -- it's simply fulfilling the basic chiyuv required.  A person might think therefore that יצאת שׂכרה בּהפסדה because if we can't prove that we go the extra mile we lost the special reward of יִשָּׂא ה' פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם, kah mashma lan the end of the pasuk וִֽישַׁבְתֶּ֥ם לָבֶ֖טַח בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם that Hashem gurantees that we will not lose out.

 

The Panim Yafos in this shtickel Torah is taking sides in RAKE's safeik, as he assumes mi'doraysa you have to bentch so long as you are satiated, no matter how little you eat.