V'achalta v'savata u'beirachta... al ha'aretz ha'tova
Is birchas ha'mazon a bracha to thank Hashem for the food we ate, or to thank Hashem for Eretz Yisrael? Maybe this machlokes Rashi and Tosfos revolves around that issue:
The gemara (Bracha 20b) raises the question of whether women are obligated m'doraysa or only mi'derabbanan in birchas ha'mazon.
Why would you think the chiyuv is not d'oraysa? It's not a mitzas aseh which is zman gerama?
Rashi explains that since the pasuk says "al ha'aretz ha'tova" and women did not get a portion in Eretz Yisrael, therefore perhaps they are exempt.
Tosfos disagrees (Kohanin also did not receive a portion in the land and the gemara never suggests that they have no chiyuv d'oraysa to bentch) and writes that the reason women might be exempt is because in birchas ha'mazon we mention "brischa she'chasamta b'bisareinu" and "torascha she'limadtanu" and women are exempt from bris milah and talmud torah.
According to Rashi the focus is on the land; therefore, no portion in Eretz Yisrael = no chiyuv. According to Tosfos, the bracha is thanks for the food, and therefore Tosfos comes up with a different reason to exempt women.
-- "for the food we ate"
ReplyDeletethe first blessing (of the three min ha'Torah), from Moshe, >on the manna< ;
-- "for Eretz Yisrael"
the wording itself, "al ha'aretz"; one could say eating to satisfaction (v'achalta v'savata) is a hechsher mitzvah (for the command to bless) ;
-- m'ayin shalosh is no help, as it plays both sides: al ha'aretz V'al ha'michya (...V'al pri ha'gafen, ...V'al ha'peiros) ;
-- "Why would you think the chiyuv is not d'oraysa?"
the man in particular had issues with bread, Bereishis 3:19...
-- the notion Rav Chaim mentions on August 3, as to "absolutely no vested interest", does it apply here, to birchas ha'mazon? can we say that we >first< eat to satisfaction, Devarim 8:10a, in order to bless exclusively on the >land< at 8:10b?-- we aren't the least hungry [now, when we bless]; we bless on the land >not at all< because it feeds us, but because it offers us a platform from which to serve Hashem! [it's not "about our interests" (chowtime), but instead "about G-d", Aug. 3 "negiyos"]...
Delete-- why does the conclusion of m'ayin shalosh echo the conclusion of bracha #2 of birchas ha'mazon? (and why is bracha #2 #2, and not #1?)
and how can the >re-from Devarim 8:9b<, stones of 'iron' and mountains of copper! min ha'Torah [and bonded to pasuk 8:10]! (to re-build is a conditional reconstruction of the original construct, building up Yerushalayim/the land)...
[correction to the 'Reply' above, part 2]
ReplyDelete...and how can the >re-from Devarim 8:9b<, stones of 'iron' and mountains of copper! min ha'Torah! etc...
[second attempt at correction to the 'Reply' above, part 2]
ReplyDelete...and how can the >re-from Devarim 8:9b<, stones of 'iron' and mountains of copper! min ha'Torah...! etc...
[attempt #3. sorry...]
ReplyDeletehow can the >re-from Devarim 8:9b<, stones of 'iron' and mountains of copper! min ha'Torah! etc...
[#4. despair.]
ReplyDeletebracha #3, is it min ha'Torah?? re-building Jerusalem? the point is, the third bracha derives >from Devarim 8:9b<, stones of 'iron' and mountains of copper...
yea!
Delete