Berachot #1: Not Literally Stealing

So YU has begun masechet Berachot. I’ve seen that some shiurim are actually starting at first perek. On YUTorah, they posted on behalf of Rav Schachter a fascinating document — a scan of which masechtot / perakim YU has historically covered for the past some-odd years.

The first perek is listed once, and the sixth perek — keitzad mevarchin — is listed twice.

Rav Schachter’s first shiur discusses in part the Biblical / Rabbinic level of various berachot violations, such as beracha levatala / she’eina tzericha. And also eating food without a beracha. Does the initial attempted Biblical derivation / eventual labeling of it as sevara hi make it Biblical? The general assumption is that it is not Biblical, but rather is a Rabbinic obligation. But does a Rabbinic obligation also translate to a Rabbinic violation for failure to make berachot?

The first eight minutes of the shiur,

and really the overarching idea of the shiur, is that there is NO such violation. That is, we might think that there is, because the gemara opens (Berachot 35a) with a brayta in which Rabbi Akiva says that it is assur, forbidden, to eat without a blessing:

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים לַה׳״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לִפְנֵיהֶם וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם כְּלוּם קוֹדֶם שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ.

GEMARA: Concerning the fundamental basis for blessings, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters, the obligation to recite a blessing before eating, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in the Sifra: With regard to saplings, it is stated that in their fourth year their fruit will be: “…sanctified for praises before the Lord” (Leviticus 19:24). This verse teaches that they require praise of God in the form of a blessing both beforehand and thereafter, as the verse says praises in the plural. From here, Rabbi Akiva said: A person is forbidden to taste anything before he recites a blessing, as without reciting praise over food, it has the status of a consecrated item, from which one is forbidden to derive pleasure.

and later, the gemara speaks of me’ila, improper use of consecrated items, or of theft. From the bottom of amud aleph going on to amud bet:

וּלְמַאן דְּתָנֵי ״נֶטַע רְבָעִי״, הָא תִּינַח כֹּל דְּבַר נְטִיעָה. דְּלָאו בַּר נְטִיעָה, כְּגוֹן בָּשָׂר בֵּיצִים וְדָגִים מְנָא לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא סְבָרָא הוּא: אָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיֵּהָנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה.

In any case, this is not an absolute proof. Furthermore, even according to the one who taught: A fourth-year sapling in all the relevant mishnayot, it works out well with regard to everything that can be planted, that one is obligated to recite a blessing. However, with regard to items that cannot be planted, such as meat, eggs, and fish, from where does he derive the halakha that one is obligated to recite a blessing? Rather, all previous attempts at deriving this halakha are rejected. The fundamental obligation to recite a blessing over food is founded on reason: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world without a blessing.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיֵּהָנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה. וְכׇל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה מָעַל. מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? — יֵלֵךְ אֵצֶל חָכָם.

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world, which is the property of God, without reciting a blessing beforehand. And anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he is guilty of misuse of a consecrated object. The Gemara adds: What is his remedy? He should go to a Sage.

יֵלֵךְ אֵצֶל חָכָם?! מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? הָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ אִיסּוּרָא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: יֵלֵךְ אֵצֶל חָכָם מֵעִיקָּרָא וִילַמְּדֶנּוּ בְּרָכוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לִידֵי מְעִילָה.

The Gemara is puzzled: He should go to a Sage; what will he do to him? How can the Sage help after he has already violated a prohibition? Rather, Rava said, this is how it should be understood: He should go to a Sage initially, in his youth, and the Sage will teach him blessings, so that he will not come to be guilty of this type of misuse of a consecrated object in the future.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה כְּאִילּוּ נֶהֱנָה מִקׇּדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״. רַבִּי לֵוִי רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״, וּכְתִיב ״הַשָּׁמַיִם שָׁמַיִם לַה׳ וְהָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִבְנֵי אָדָם״! לָא קַשְׁיָא כָּאן קוֹדֶם בְּרָכָה,

Similarly, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he enjoyed objects consecrated to the heavens, as it is stated: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s, the world and all those who live in it” (Psalms 24:1). Rabbi Levi expressed this concept differently. Rabbi Levi raised a contradiction: It is written: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s,” and it is written elsewhere: “The heavens are the Lord’s and the earth He has given over to mankind” (Psalms 115:16). There is clearly a contradiction with regard to whom the earth belongs. He himself resolves the contradiction: This is not difficult. Here, the verse that says that the earth is the Lord’s refers to the situation before a blessing is recited,

35b

כָּאן לְאַחַר בְּרָכָה.

and here, where it says that He gave the earth to mankind refers to after a blessing is recited.

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: כׇּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה כְּאִילּוּ גּוֹזֵל לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּכְנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גּוֹזֵל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְאוֹמֵר אֵין פָּשַׁע חָבֵר הוּא לְאִישׁ מַשְׁחִית״. וְאֵין ״אָבִיו״ אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲלֹא הוּא אָבִיךְ קָּנֶךָ״, וְאֵין ״אִמּוֹ״ אֶלָּא כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׁמַע בְּנִי מוּסַר אָבִיךָ וְאַל תִּטּוֹשׁ תּוֹרַת אִמֶּךָ״.

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: Anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he stole from God and the community of Israel, as it is stated: “Whoever robs his father and his mother and says: It is no transgression, he is the companion of a destroyer” (Proverbs 28:24). The phrase, his father, refers to none other than God, as it is stated: “Is He not your Father Who created you, Who made you and established you” (Deuteronomy 32:6). The phrase his mother refers to none other than the community of Israel, as it is stated: “Hear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the Torah of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). The mention of the Torah as emanating from the mouth of the mother, apparently means that your mother is the community of Israel.

However, as Rav Schachter points out, if you look to where it would have an actual pragmatic impact, the vast majority of the Rishonim (with just a single exception) do not treat it as a Rabbinic violation.

One place we see this is by onein. An onein is exempt from mitzvot and indeed shouldn’t be doing them. At the same time, he cannot perform aveirot, even Rabbinic-level sins. So he won’t shake a lulav. But if he is hungry and wants to eat, he cannot eat kosher beef cooked with milk. Or he cannot refrain from slaughtering and therefore eat treif food. And he cannot eat chicken cooked with meat, which is a Rabbinic violation. If you are telling me that he is not making a blessing, then eating the food is, according to Rabbi Akiva, a prohibition. According to the Tosefta, it is meilah. Buyt we don’t say that.

Rav Schacter presented two ways of not saying that it was really forbidden, though it seems like he sometimes conflated the two. The first way was reading Rashi really carefully. On the section of gemara in which Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa said that one who benefits from the world without blessing is כְּאִילּוּ גּוֹזֵל לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, Rashi writes גוזל להקב"ה – את ברכתו: Thus, he is stealing the blessing from God, not stealing the food.

I don’t think that that approach would necessarily work for other opinions in the gemara. When Rav Yehuda cites Shmuel that one who does this is כְּאִילּוּ נֶהֱנָה מִקׇּדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם, that implies me’ilah, and you cannot say that it somehow refers to the blessing.

Rather, this fits into the second approach Rav Schachter mentioned, which is that what the gemara is not speaking literally.

To expand on this idea. It isn’t literally stealing from God, or literally committing meilah. And one is not literally forbidden from benefiting from the world without a blessing. Rather, it is metaphorically stealing, and so on.

Some folks always read the Gemara with extreme seriousness, as if it is always a legal text formulating the strict letter of the law. (These folks often include baalei teshuvah, people going to yeshiva in Israel and turning to the right, or certain committed chareidim.) But, as I discuss in this post

Suff Noogies

, sometimes you need to be aware of the genre of the statement. Sometimes, Chazal want to convey a homiletic point, about what the proper attitude a human being should take towards the world, or towards his fellow man. And they use the language of halachic derivations. Here, yes, a person should have gratitude towards Hashem, and experience the world in such a way, that he thanks God, and therefore isn’t stealing from God. The world belongs to Hashem, but He gives it to us to experience, anticipating expressions of recognition of His beneficence in the form of blessings.

Of course, there are clues that this is not meant to be taken literally. These include:

• Over the top declarations beyond what is logical. To eat without blessing is meilah?

• Subject matter is about how to relate to the world and to Hashem, attitudinal

• A key word is כְּאִילּוּ, “as if”

• Derivation is sometimes from Neviim or Ketuvim (here, Tehillim or Mishlei), rather than Torah

• Target of a Biblical derasha is a blessing which seems to be Rabbinic (though admittedly before concluding this in the gemara we might think the blessing is Biblical)

• Eventually, as Tosafot explain, this was an asmachta rather than a real derasha

Regarding the last point, the Talmudic Narrator (Stamma) didn’t really help here, because it attacked Rabbi Akiva’s derasha based on requiring הִלּוּלִים for two other actual Biblical derashot, under the assumption that there’s a one-to-one correspondence between Biblical words and Biblical laws. That certainly implies that utmost serious and literal Biblical law, rather something homiletic.

However, in many other cases, it takes years of reading Talmudic literature to get a real feel for it, so you can intuit genre. And then, it can be frustrating communicating / arguing with those who have not developed that sense, because it is not something obvious you can always point to, or something that they will be willing to trust, when hearing this from an oisvorf who is suggesting that you shouldn’t understand the Talmud in the strictest, legalistic sense — thus proposing a kula.