הלכה על שמואל ב 23:44

Birkat ha-mazon is recited with at least three adults, as it is said, “Exalt the Lord with me.²³³Ps 34:4: Gadlu la-Shem iti. Gadlu is a plural imperative, so it includes at least two; iti – “with me” adds one more, making it at least three. With three, one says in the zimmun “nivarekh she-akhalnu mishelo” – “Let us bless Him from whose food we have eaten” without mentioning God’s name. And with ten one does mention God’s name: nivarekh eloheynu– “Let us bless our God.”²³⁴B. Berakhot 49b, and so the Tur and Orah Hayim 192. And one does not say “Barekhu eloheynu” – “Bless our God,” in other words, one should not exclude himself from the group. Thus I conclude that “nivarekh” is preferable, but if someone has said “barekhu,” one doesn’t hold it against him.²³⁵B. Berakhot 50a. In other words, it is acceptable to say “barekhu.” Regardless if the number of diners is eleven or 110,000, one says, “nivarekh eloheynu she-akhalnu mishelo,” because ten is the number that includes everything and there is nothing after it, unless it is doubled [?]. If one leading a zimmun of three says, “nivarekh she-akhalnu mishelo” – “Let us bless Him from whose food we have eaten,” the other two reply as if he were beginning with “Barukh she-akhalnu mishelo uv-tuvo hayinu” –“Blessed be the One from whose food we ate and by whose goodness we live.” If one leading a zimmun of ten says, “nivarekh eloheynu she-akhalnu mishelo” – “Let us bless our God from whose food we have eaten,” the rest reply with “Barukh eloheynu she-akhalnu mishelo uv-tuvo hayinu” –“Blessed be our God from whose food we ate and by whose goodness we live.” Those outside of the table answer “Amen,” which is like the matter discussed in tractate Yoma:²³⁶B. Yoma 37a. “For the name of the Lord I proclaim; Give glory to our God!”²³⁷Dt 32:3. When “I proclaim the name ‘Lord,’ You give glory to ‘Eloheynu,’ namely, you should answer “Amen.”

And you need to know that because the sages z”l said, “a bat kol went out and said that a cup of blessing is equal to forty pieces of gold, it is clear from this that each blessing of the hundred blessing equals ten pieces of gold.”²⁴⁰B. Hullin 87a. Since there are four blessings in birkat ha-mazon said over the cup of blessing – you do the math. This is also an allusion to the tradition that one said say at least a hundred blessings per day. And there’s support for this in the verse: “one ladle (kaf) of ten [shekels] of gold filled with incense,”²⁴¹Nu 7:14. that is to say, every “one from Ka”F,²⁴²Ka”F is numerically equivalent to 100. which are the one hundred blessings equal to “ten gold [pieces].” And you will also find in another place, “esreh zahav mishkalam” – “ten gold shekels in weight”²⁴³Gen 24:22, the value of the gold armbands Eliezer gave Rebekah as a present after she gave his camels water at the well. to which armbands Scripture follows with the phrase “Then I bowed low in homage to the Lord and blessed the Lord.”²⁴⁴Gen 24:48, immediately preceded in 24:27 with “And I put the ring on her nose, and the bands on her arms,” i.e., the ten shekel gold bands, which are equal to one blessing. The reason why every blessing is equal to ten shekels of gold is to hint that it is possible to include the 10 sefirot in each and every blessing. And the reason for 100 blessings every day is their correspondence to the 10 sefirot, ten blessings for each and every sefirah. And this what is written, “And now, O Israel, what (mah) does the Lord your God demand of you.”²⁴⁵Dt 10:12. And our sages z”l said, “Don’t read mah – “what,” but rather me’ah –“a hundred,”²⁴⁶B. Menahot 43b. that is to say, “A hundred the Lord your God demands of you.” And there are 99 letters in this verse; adding the letter aleph makes it 100.²⁴⁷That is, adding an aleph to the word mah, making it me’ah, give the verse 100 letters. In his commentary to the Torah R. Bahya brings this interpretation as the sod – “the mystical interpretation” of Dt. 10:12. And we found in King David (peace upon him), who said, “The utterance of the man set on high [‘al],”²⁴⁸2 Sam 23:1. The Hebrew word ‘al is numerically equivalent to 100. because one hundred men of Israel a day used to die in that generation, and deeply moved by this, David instituted [tiken]100 blessings.²⁴⁹Midrash Tanhuma Korah 12. Tiken – “instituted” of course also has the connotation of tikkun – “repair,” as in the sense of a cosmic repair through blessings of a world diminished by the loss of 100 lives. He didn’t institute them per se, but rather re-established them, since they had been forgotten, and David came along and re-established them.²⁵⁰Ibid. According to this midrash, Moses originally established the blessings, and afterwards, whne they had been forgotten, David came along and re-established them, and after David’s era they were forgotten again until the sages of the Talmud re-established them (Chavel). And thus is written, “So [ki khen] shall the man who fears the Lord be blessed [yivorakh].”²⁵¹Ps 128:4. The word yivorakh – “shall be blessed” is spelled without a vav, which means that by the numerical equivalent of K”I Khe”N – 100 – will the person who fears the Lord both bless and be blessed.²⁵²Lacking the vav, the Hebrew word can be read either actively as yivarekh – “he will bless,” or passively as yivorakh – “he will be blessed.” Therefore a person needs to recite 100 blessings and fulfill them each day. And on Shabbat, when it is not possible because the Amidah for Shabbat contains only seven blessings, as it is written, “I praise You seven times on theday,”²⁵³Ps 119:164. the day which is well-known and special, namely, Shabbat, our sages z”l already said, “one completes them with aromatic herbs and fancy fruits.”²⁵⁴B. Menahot 43b, i.e., one enjoys lots of extra snacks and aromas that require blessings to make up for the shortage of blessings.

And the world of souls, this is what is called ‘Garden of Eden’ (gan aden) among the sages, and they called it this by way of an allegory, using the example of how the body takes delight (mitaden) in a garden, and so it is written about the Garden of Eden in the land, ‘He set him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it,’ (Gen 2:5) – this heavenly Garden of Eden is the world of souls comparable but in contrast to it, and it is call ‘Garden of Eden’ too, and it is the reward for doing the mitzvot in which the soul takes delight, using the image of the body taking delight in a garden. And to the extent that the Torah does not specify explicitly anywhere the matter of the Garden of Eden being destined for the soul as a reward for the mitzvot, but does specify the bodily things destined for Israel when they return most certainly to their land, when they will have “all their rains in their season”⁹³Lev 26:4. and with the abundance of blessing and happiness – this matter is because the Torah was given to the masses of all of Israel, and the masses would not be able to understand the destined intellectual things. So even if the Torah would come to tell about this in brief, they would not find in it any way in to understand it, they wouldn’t be up to it, and it would be for them like a dream without an interpretation. And if the story of this went on at length in Scripture, wouldn’t more doubts be raised, the more was written about it? So for this reason, the Torah did not want to go down this road, neither in brief nor at length, because the masses wouldn’t believe in any of it, until they would see a sign or confirmation of it with their own eyes, and therefore the wisdom of the Torah comes in a story about physical rewards destined to come, to go on at length about them since they are preparation for the soul’s recompense, which is her “Garden of Eden,” and since they are a sign and confirmation for what they wouldn’t understand. And for this reason the Torah did not mention it explicitly in the story of the Garden of Eden, and by concealing it lest doubts multiply and confusion in understanding them ensue, but did mention openly what is the sign and confirmation of it. So this reason is correct and sufficient to all who understand and discern that the Torah was given to the masses. However, the “engaged intellectual” [maskil nilvav⁹⁴This expression from R. Bahya ibn Pakuda’s Duties of the Heart -(Hovot ha-Levavot), Sha’ar Yihud Chapter 1, plays on the connection to “heart”, and refers to someone philosophically trained but also “with a heart” – that is, emotionally engaged, not intellectually distant. He says the “maskil nilvav will strive to strip the shells of the words and their materiality from the subject.” In other words, it is out of emotionally longing to connect to God, that he will use philosophy to strip away the linguistic and material obstacles to that connection.] who delves deeply into it, will find everything in the Torah, “as milk under pressure produces butter”⁹⁵Prov 30:33. – whoever is found engaged in the Torah, the milk he suckles from the breast of his mother will produce the “butter” of Torah.⁹⁶Chavel thinks R. Bahya has in mind this midrash on Prov 30:33 in b. Berakhot 63b: “‘As milk under pressure produces butter’ – In whom do find the butter of Torah? In him who spits up the milk he suckled from his mother for it.” And so you who are an engaged intellectual – “Turn it and turn it because everything is in it!”⁹⁷M. Avot 5 (end). I think R. Bahya means by this analogy that the baby “churns” his mother’s milk in his mouth and turns it into butter, and similarly the engaged intellectual “churns” Torah by “turning it and turning it” and so turns it into “the butter of Torah.” Similarly, medieval Christian monastic educators described the active process of reading as “rumination.” You will find in the matter of Enoch that “And Enoch walked with God”⁹⁸Gen 5:24: va-yithalakh Hanokh et ha-elohim. And this “walking with God” is as the Targum translated it into Aramaic, “And Enoch walked in fear of the Lord.”⁹⁹Targum Onkelos Gen 5:24: Ve-halikh hanokh be-dahalta’ d’YHVH. Enoch was a “righteous man who rules in the fear of God,”¹⁰⁰2 Samuel 23:3.as it is said, “for God took him,”¹⁰¹Gen 5:24. – it is known that the “taking” was because of his virtue and goodness, because he was a righteous man. And if so, from here we get the explanation of the matter of “the Garden of Eden” for the soul of the righteous. And you will also find in the Torah in parashat “Im be-hukotai” that it is promise for the future, the world to come, for it is written there, “I will look with favor on you,¹⁰²Lev 26:9.” and this means that “My goodwill [ratzon]will be attached to you,” and the “goodwill” of Ha-Shem (may He be blessed) is the life of the world to come. This is what is referred to in what is written: “hayyim birtzono” – “When He is pleased, there is life,”¹⁰³Ps 30:6. and thus it is also written there, “I shall walk about – hithalakhti – in your midst.”¹⁰⁴Lev 26:12 And what is destined here is not to be understood in the category of things destined for the body, but rather from things destined for the soul in the world to come, which is what is referred to when it is written: “moving about – mithalekh – in the breezy part of the day.”¹⁰⁵Gen 3:8: “They [Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the Lord God moving about [mithalekh] in the garden at the breezy time of the day.” And our sages interpreted this in a midrash:¹⁰⁶Sifra Be-Hukkotai Chapter 3.”‘Va-hithalakhti be-tokhekham -I will walk about in their midst.’ In time to come the Holy One Blessed be He will stroll around with the righteous in the Garden of Eden.” And similarly they said, “In time to come the Holy One Blessed be He will arrange a “greenbelt”¹⁰⁷Mahol- untilled land surrounding a vineyard (Jastrow). However, mahol has the additional connotation of a chorus of singers and dancers, so R. Bahya may also be alluding to the “Mahanayyim dance” he mentioned in the First Gate. In any case, the main point of this image is that it is circular, with God in the center. The “choreography” of the souls of the “Garden of Eden”, is that they will be arranged in a circle with God in the center, as R. Bahya goes on to explain. for the righteous in the Garden of Eden, and His Presence will be among them.”¹⁰⁸B. Ta’anit 3a. The achievement of this joy for the souls is compared to an endless eternal “greenbelt,” because the circle goes around a point, and the point is in the center, which is why the Talmud says “His Presence will be among them –beynahem.” And similarly the Torah specified “in your midst – be-tokhekham,“¹⁰⁹Lev 26:12. because Israel is compared to circle, and He himself to the center point. And after it said, “I will walk about in your midst,” it said, “I will be your God,” ¹¹⁰Ibid. and our sages z”l interpreted this in a midrash,¹¹¹B. Taanit 31a. “And each and every one of them will point to Him with their finger, as it is said, ‘Behold! This is our God!”¹¹²Is 25:9. The word “this” is an allegory for nearing complete intellectual conception, like someone who has knowledge of something that exists and recognizes it clearly, and understands it as distinct from other things. And you should not understand “this” literally, like what you would mean if you were standing in front of a person and pointing them out, but rather, it is like what is meant when the Torah said, “For this man Moses…”¹¹³Ex 32:1: “When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and said to him, ‘Come make us a god who shall go before us, for this man Moses, who brought us from the land of Egypt – we do not know what happened to him”who was not standing among them, but about whom they had specific knowledge. From here¹¹⁴From the expression “I shall walk about in your midst” in Lev 26:12. it should be clear to the enlightened that the world of souls is the “Garden of Eden” for the soul, but Scripture mixes it in the general list of things destined for the body, and depended on the intellect of the enlightened to discern it from them, that it would not be hidden from him as it would be from the masses.

To not rob: To not rob - meaning to say, to not take with strength and force and publicity that to which we do not have a right, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:13), "and you shall not rob." And the explanation came about it (Bava Kamma 79b), that the expression, "robbery (gezelah)" relates to one that grabs something from the hand of his fellow or takes it out of his domain against his will by way of force and in the open, like the matter that is stated (II Samuel 23:21), "and he robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian."

He prohibited us - that we not steal that to we which we do not have entitlement, by force and duress. And that is His saying, "and you shall not rob" (Leviticus 19:13). And so have the masters of the tradition explained (Bava Kamma 79b) - "you shall not rob," is like the content of, "and he robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian" (II Samuel 23:21). And it is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment; and that is His saying, "he shall return the stolen property" (Leviticus 5:23). But even if he nullified the positive commandment, he is not lashed, since it is a negative commandment that is given to repayment - such that if he burned the stolen property or threw it to the sea, he can give [back] what it was worth. However, if he denied it and swore falsely, he adds a fifth and sacrifices a guilt-offering, as is explained in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 71); and likewise is it explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 16a). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of [Bava] Kamma. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Theft 10.)