Halakhah su Esodo 18:78

If the wine is changed, one must say a blessing, because even though he has already said “boray peri ha-gafen” when he was about to drink in the beginning, he is required to say a blessing for this change of wine, and this is the blessing “ha-tov ve-ha-metiv.”⁹⁴B.Berakhot 59b; Tur and Orah Hayim 175:1. So why did they say this for a change a wine, and not for a change of loaf or other things? For many reasons: (1) The crucial component for rejoicing at a meal is none other than wine. The way of kings is to change their wine, but not their loaf, and the people Israel are “the sons of kings.”⁹⁵B. Shabbat 67a. (2) Every table onto which they bring wine after wine is an expression of the multiplication of joy, but a person should not multiply his joy too much in this world, as it is said, “Our mouths shall be filled with laughter, our tongues with songs of joy. They shall say among the nations, ‘The Lord has done great things for them!’”⁹⁶Ps 126:2: Az yimalay s’hok pinu ulshonenu rinah az yomru ba-goyim. Higdil Adonai la’asot im eleh,” from Shir Ha-ma’a lot that we recite on holidays and Shabbat before birkat ha-mazon.Our rabbis taught in a midrash,⁹⁷B.Berakhot 31a. “When ‘will our mouths be filled with laughter’? When the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) say, ‘The Lord has done great things for them.’ Another verse completes this thought, “They will rejoice with trembling.”⁹⁸Ps. 2:11 They said, “In a place of rejoicing there will be trembling.” The explanation is that even in a place where there is rejoicing and joy from doing a mitzvah, there it is necessary that there be some trembling, too, to remember how the world is subject to the evil inclination and is shaken by it, so that it should not be shaken by our joy. Therefore it is a custom in a few Jewish communities at life cycle celebrations and meals celebrating a mitzvah to break there a vessel of glass or “flagons of grapes”⁹⁹Assisay ‘anavim, from Hos. 3:1– variously translated as “cups of the grapes” (JSB); “flagons of grapes (KJB); or even “cakes of raisins.” (RSV). to sadden those rejoicing, so that the simhah be mixed a little bit with trembling. And there is no greater simhah than Israel’s rejoicing at receiving the Torah [Simhat Ha-Torah] on Mt. Sinai, in the presence of the Holy One, about which it is written “like the Mahanayim dance,”¹⁰⁰Song of Songs 7:1. Mahana’im (lit., “two camps”) is the dual form of the word for “camp” – mahaneh. When Israel “married God” as it were at Mt. Sinai, the dancing at that “wedding,” that is the joy they expressed then, was like no other joy experienced on earth. Even the angels came down from heaven to celebrate and dance with them! This is an allusion to a midrash that applies this verse to Ex. 19:17 (M. Tanhuma Titzaveh 11), which R. Bahya brings in his Commentary on the Torah to Ex. 19:17: “Moses led the people out of the camp [mahaneh] toward God.” He says there
Our rabbis taught in a midrash, “600,000 ministering angels descended there corresponding to the 600,000 Israelites. And about them Jacob hinted, “He named that place Mahana’im.” (Gen 32:3), for there were two camps, one next to the other. And it is about this that King Solomon (peace be upon him) was talking when he said “like the Mahanai’m dance.” (S.S. 7:1). It was because the Israelites have been enslaved to four empires, and each one of them says that the Israelites should turn from their own faith and believe in them, which is why the verse in Song of Songs (7:1) repeats the imperative “turn” four times. And we today are subject to the fourth empire, who says, “Turn and let us seek out from among you” [nehezeh bakh], that is, “Let us make some of you political authorities, and give you all kinds of ruling power,” with the expression “nehezeh bakh” [literally, “let us gaze upon you”] having the same connotation a similar phrase has in Ex. 18:21: “You shall seek out from among all the people – tehezeh mikol ha-‘am – [all the capable men … to set them over the people as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, etc.”]. And our rabbis also taught this midrash (Song of Songs Rabbah 7:1): “’The Shulammite’ –is ha-ummah she-shalom ha-olamim dar be-tokhah– the people within whom the peace of the world resides [i.e., the Israelites], and she replies, ‘What would you ‘seek out’ [for leaders] from the Shulammite? [Mah tehezah ba-Shulamit?], that is, “What ruling power, status, and glory could you give to the Shulammite that you could ever find comparable to the state of joy the Israelites experienced at Mt. Sinai. This is “like the Mahanai’m dance:” two camps that would go out one before the other. And they compared the pleasure of the experience they achieved at the revelation there to a dance. To the same point our rabbis z”l taught, “In the future the Holy One Blessed be He will arrange a dance for the righteous in the Garden of Eden, so that I will never be able to turn to your [Gentile] faith, because I remember this dance – that is, like the one at Mt. Sinai. (Chavel, 2:173).
And yet, even at this peak of joy, there was the breaking of the tablets, like the breaking of the glass now to temper the pure joy at weddings. yet you know that even there, the tablets of the covenant were broken. And if you would think hard and lift up your eyes to “ever since God created human beings on the earth,”¹⁰¹Dt. 4:32. you will find in the Holy One Blessed Be He His boundless joy: “May the Glory of the Lord endure forever; may the Lord rejoice in his works!”¹⁰²Ps. 104:31.But His joy has a limit with respect to the human race, “because he too is flesh.”¹⁰³Gen 6:3. That is, humans are mortal. That is what is written about Him when it says: “And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and His heart was saddened.”¹⁰⁴Ibid. 6:6. Even in the Mishkan, which was a microcosm of the world, on the eight day of the priests’ assigned service, which was the day of the New Moon for the month of Nisan, on that very day there was nothing like it in its degree of joy, its intensity multiplied tenfold, to what our sages z”l referred when they said, “On that very day they got ten crowns”¹⁰⁵Sifra Shemini. – you already knew what happened, and to what end that joy came. On that very day Nadab and Abihu died, like whom, after Moses and Aaron, there were none among the Israelites to compare. And this is what Scripture meant when it said, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel ascended.”¹⁰⁶Ex 24:9. I.e., in that order was their “ascendence,” their status, relative to one another. And see also what Ecclesiastes says about the joy of this world: “Of revelry I said, ‘It is mad!’ Of joy (simhah), ‘What good is that?’”¹⁰⁷Eccl 2:2. And the explanation of this statement is that because joy and sorrow are brothers attached to one another like day is attached to night, just as a person is sure in the day that night will come after it, and as sure at night that the day will come after it, so is he sure that joy will come after sorrow, and likewise sorrow after joy. And so he said, “The heart may ache even in laughter, and joy may end in grief,”¹⁰⁸Prov 14:13. to explain about sorrow after joy, and he said, “From all grief there is some gain,”¹⁰⁹Prov 14:23. “Grief” (‘etzev) here and “sorrow” (‘itzavon) in 14:13 come from the same Hebrew root. to explain about joy after sorrow. From this you learn that the joy of this world can never be complete, but rather any good in it and contentment with it is “futile and pursuit of the wind,”¹¹⁰Eccl 1:14. all glory in it is to be mocked,¹¹¹An allusion to Ps 4:3. its “glorious beauty is but wilted flowers.¹¹²Is 28:1, referring specifically to the fleeting pleasures of the table: “Ah the proud crowns of the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is but wilted flowers on the heads of men bloated with rich food, who are overcome by wine!” For right at the moment when a person’s hopes are highest in the midst of joy, it stops, flickers out, and goes away. For this reason they ruled that the blessing over a change in wine should be “ha-tov ve-ha-metiv” (“Who is good and Who does good”), the same blessing they added to the grace after meals to remember the martyrs of Beitar when they were permitted to bury them.¹¹³B. Berakhot 48b. The battle at Beitar was the Bar Kochba revolt’s unsuccessful “last stand” against the Romans in 135 CE. The explanation: Ha-tov – “Who is good” – because He didn’t let the bodies putrefy; ha-metiv – “Who did good” – by letting the bodies be buried.¹¹⁴Ibid. And all this is to make human beings feel sadness, being fashioned from clay, composed of natural elements which are dead bodies, sunken in the desires of our senses – so that we’re brought back from a surfeit of joy to the middle way.

We have already explained in the introduction of our composition, in the Commentary on the Mishnah, that most laws of the Torah have come out from the thirteen hermeneutic principles through which the Torah is expounded; and that there is sometimes a disagreement about a law that comes out through one of these principles; but that there are also, among them, laws the explanation of which was received from Moshe about which there is no disagreement. Nevertheless, they bring proofs about them from one of these thirteen principles. For it is the brilliance of Scripture that it is possible to find a hint or a verbal analogy in it, that indicates the received explanation - and we have already explained this topic there. And since the matter is such, behold: We can not say about every matter that the Sages brought out by a principle from the thirteen principles, that it was stated to Moshe at Sinai; and likewise can we not say about everything found in the Talmud in which they [only] supported it with one of the thirteen principles that it is rabbinic. For sometimes it will [nevertheless] be the received explanation from Moshe at Sinai. What is appropriate here regarding anything that is not found written in the Torah, but it is found that it is something they learned in the Talmud through one of the thirteen principles - if they themselves explain and say that it is a part of the Torah and that it is [a law] from the Torah, it is surely appropriate to count it. For those through which it is received said it is from the Torah. But if they did not explain this and did not say this, it is rabbinic - for there is no verse here indicating it. And this is also a principle that someone besides us has already been confused about; and therefore he counted fear of the sages as a positive commandment. And that which appears to have brought him to this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva (Pesachim 22b), "'You shall fear et the Lord, your God' (Deuteronomy 6:13) - to include Torah scholars." So he thought that anything that is arrived at through the thirteen principles is in the category [of the 613 commandments]. But if the matter was as he thought it, why did he not count honoring a mother's husband or a father's wife; and likewise not count honoring an older brother? For we learned that we are obligated to honor these individuals by inclusions. They said (Ketubot 103a), "'You shall honor et your father' - to include your older brother and your mother's husband; 'and et your mother' - to include your father's wife." That is just like they said, "'You shall fear et the Lord, your God' - to include Torah scholars." If so, why did they count these and not those? But they have come to even greater foolishness than that in this matter. And that is when they found a teaching about a verse, in which the teaching obligates an action or the distancing from something - but they are rabbinic without a doubt - they counted them among the commandments, even though the simple meaning of the verse does not indicate any of these things at all. This is in spite of the principle that [the Sages], peace be upon them, taught us about it - a verse may not be taken out of its simple meaning. So the Talmud asks everywhere where a verse is found from which we learn many things by way of explanation and proof, "What was the simple understanding of the verse written about?" But those who relied on this [mistaken] thinking counted visiting the sick, comforting the mourners and burying the dead in the category of the commandments, because of the teaching that is found about His, may He be blessed, saying, "and make known to them the way in which they are to go and the practices that they must do" (Exodus 18:20). And [the Sages] said about this (Bava Kamma 100a), "'The way' - that is acts of kindness. 'They are to go' - that is visiting the sick. 'In which' - that is burial of the dead. 'The practices' - that is the laws. 'That they must do' - that is [conducting oneself] beyond the letter of the law." And [the ones mistaken about what can be counted] thought that each and every one of these actions was a separate commandment. And they did not know that all of these actions - and those that are similar to them - fall under one commandment written in the Torah, when it is explained. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "and you shall love your neighbor like yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). And in this exact same way, they counted the calculation of the seasons as a commandment because of the teaching from, "it is your wisdom and your understanding" (Deuteronomy 4:6). And that is their saying (Shabbat 75a), "Which is the wisdom and understanding that is in the eyes of the nations? You shall say, it is the calculation of the seasons and the constellations." And [even] if one would [only] count what is clearer than this and what is more appropriate to count - that being, to count everything that we learn in the Torah from the thirteen hermeneutic principles through which the Torah is expounded - the count of commandments would add up to many thousands. And if you might think that I am running from counting them because they are not true; whether the law that comes out of it is true or not - that is not the reason. Rather the reason is that any extension that a person, and even if it was Moshe himself, draws out from the root principles that were told to Moshe at Sinai with their explanation - and these are the 613 commandments - is not appropriate to count. And the proof of this all is their saying in the Gemara, Temurah (Temurah 16a), "One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori inferences, verbal analogies, and precise inferences of the Scribes were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moshe. Even so, Otniel, son of Kenaz, restored them through his sharpness, as it is stated (Joshua 15:16-17), '"To he who smites Kiryat Sefer, and takes it, etc." And Otniel, son of Kenaz took it.'" And if this was what was forgotten, what was the total from which this amount was forgotten?! For it would certainly be false to say that everything that was known was forgotten. So, without a doubt, those laws that were drawn out by a fortiori inferences and the other principles were many thousands - and they were all known at the time of Moshe. And yet they are called precise inferences of the Scribes, because anything that they did not hear explained at Sinai is certainly from the words of the Scribes. Behold it has now been shown that that which was learned out through the thirteen principles even during Moshe's time, peace be upon him, is not to be counted among the 613 commandments that were stated to him at Sinai. Hence all the more so should that which was derived in later times not be counted among them. However it is nevertheless true that what was an explanation received from him is counted. And that is what the transmitters explain, and say that this thing is something forbidden to do and its prohibition is from the Torah; or they say that it is a part of the Torah. Behold that we count this, since it is known from tradition and not through a verbal analogy. Indeed, their [possible] mention of a verbal analogy and their bringing a proof for it from one of the thirteen principles [in such a case] is only to show the brilliance of Scripture, as we explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah.

See how the Torah attests that Jacob our father (Peace be upon him) had the quality of contentment, and did not seek excessive gains, but rather only what was necessary, who, when it was said, “If God gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear,”⁶²Gen 28:20. asked for what was necessary, what the Holy One Blessed be He provides for all His creatures, as it is said, “You give it openhandedly, etc.”⁶³Ps. 148:16. And our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash: “‘Bread to eat and clothing to wear:’ in all his days, this righteous man [Jacob] never grieved over his eating, but rather over ‘the inward and the outward.'”⁶⁴Penimi ve-hitzon is an expression that refers to one’s personal integrity. The person who is inward is genuine; “their outside is like their inside.” What you see is what you get. One who is “outward” is a hypocrite; their outward behavior does not match their true inner feelings. The contrast between penimi and hitzon (“inward” vs. “outward”) has become a distinctive concept in modern Hasidic ethics. In any case, the point of the midrash is that Jacob worried much more about his personal integrity than what he was going to eat. And know that the righteous person ought to direct his mind when he is eating only to the fact that the bodily meal by which he will sustain his body for the moment is so that his soul with it may show its powers and realize them in action, and by this prepare the eternal meal by which it will sustained forever. And look at the holy status prevalent among the elite of the people of Israel, who used to eat and look with the heart itself. This is what the Scripture means when it says, “They envisioned God and they ate and drank,”⁶⁵Ex 24:11.that the organs of the body which are the vessel of the soul would receive power and strength in the banquet, and the soul would be roused with its powers in them and strengthen them in this thought, and make it possible for holy spirit to descend upon it [the body] at the time of eating, when he is lifted up in this thought, and his body is clothed in the thought of his soul, and the two of them as one good enough for the Divine Presence [Shekhinah] to descend among them. This was the intent of Moses and the elders of Israel during Jethro’s banquet, and this is what the Scripture means when it says, “Aaron came and all the elders of Israel [to partake of the meal before God with Moses’ father-in-law],”⁶⁶Ex 18:12. and likewise Isaac our father in the tasty foods for which he asked,⁶⁷Gen 27:4.and in all the rest of the places that we find banquets for righteous people – that was the end to which they were intended.

Prayer, fundamentally, is an expression of man's dependence upon God; communal prayer is an acknowledgment of the dependence of society as well as of the dependence of the individual. Both individually and collectively, men have expressed themselves in prayer to God since time immemorial. One may readily assume that even in antiquity people gathered together in specially designated places for purposes of communal prayer. Sacrificial offerings certainly did not obviate the necessity for prayer. In fact, the Mishnah, in several instances (Yoma VII: 1 and Sotah VII:7–8), makes specific references to a synagogue which existed within the confines of the Temple itself. Priests and Levites who participated in the Temple ritual, as well as Israelites who brought offerings, had need of a synagogue in which to offer prayer and, accordingly, a synagogue was erected on the Temple Mount in order to accommodate their needs. The author of the Jerusalem Targum certainly viewed the synagogue as being ancient in origin. This Aramaic translation of the Bible, dating from the tannaitic period, speaks of the existence of synagogues as early as the time of Moses (Exod. 18:20 and I Chron. 16:39).

There is some support for the position that Scripture itself provides for a system of appeals. The sixteenth century Italian exegete, R. Ovadiah Sforno, in his commentary on the Bible, presents an analysis of Exodus 18:21 indicating that the purpose of designating "rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties and rulers of tens" was to establish a multi-layered system of appeals. According to Sforno's analysis, the "rulers of tens" had original jurisdiction. Successive appeals could be taken to higher levels and, ultimately, if the litigant remained unsatisfied, to Moses himself. Although, in terms of biblical exegesis, Sforno's analysis is not at all far-fetched, even if accepted, it does not establish a right of appeal as a matter of Halakhah. The officials appointed by Moses with jurisdiction over ten, fifty, one hundred and one thousand persons did not occupy offices designed to be preserved in perpetuity. Apparently, the appointments, and the particular offices themselves, were designed only to ease Moses' burden and, accordingly, were limited to the period of wandering in the wilderness. Hence, granted that these officials served as appellate judges, the right to lodge appeals before them may have been temporary in nature and limited to the generation of the wilderness.

The Hebrew term "mishpatim" is a multivalent term and, depending upon the context, can connote either "ordinances" or "lawsuits." The Gemara, Gittin 88b, assigns the second meaning to this term in commenting "'And these are the lawsuits which you shall place before them'—but not before the courts of gentiles." The conventional translation of the biblical text renders the entire passage simply as an introduction to the lengthy list of jurisprudential ordinances that follow. Rabbinic tradition understands the passage as referring to litigation that may be brought on the basis of those statutes and as expressly commanding that such suits be brought before them, viz., the judges designated for that purpose by Moses. The verse thus refers to the judges whose appointment is recorded in a preceding scriptural section, Exodus 18:13–26.⁴Cf., R. Isaac Elchanan Spektor, Be’er Yiẓḥak, no. 10, sec. 3, s.v. gam.

Scouring all of the Talmud, Rishonim, and Acharonim yields no explicit mention of a beit din of appeals in a halachic context.¹²Although the Seforno understands Shemot 18:21 as presenting a system of appeals, the Seforno is generally seen as a commentary meant to explain verses in the Torah, not as a halachic source. Indeed, the Gemara (Bava Batra 138b) states, “Beit dina batar beit dina lo dayki,” “One beit din does not challenge the ruling of another,” which serves as the basis for both the Sema (C.M. 19:2) and the Shach (C.M. 19:3) to forbid a beit din to rehear a case that another beit din already has judged. Nonetheless, rabbinic courts of appeals functioned in a number of Jewish communities before the twentieth century (as noted by Rav Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems IV:21-24). Indeed, the Gemara itself (Sanhedrin 33a) provides criteria for when a judicial decision may be reversed, and it records cases (ibid. and Ketubot 50b) in which this actually was done. Thus, beit din decisions may be reversed, but there appears to be no traditional formal system for doing so.

The late Brisker Rav found support for this opinion in the utterance of Jethro, "Blessed be the Lord, who has delivered you out of the hands of the Egyptians and out of the hands of Pharaoh, and has delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians" (Exodus 18:10). This declaration, remarked the Brisker Rav was tantamount to the birkat ha-gomel and was pronounced by Jethro upon the deliverance of Israel, a deliverance in which he himself did not personally share. Scripture carefully records, "And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the Lord had done to Israel" (Exodus 18:9), indicating that the blessing can be pronounced by others not personally affected by the event only if the blessing is occasioned by genuine jubilation as demanded by Rema and as explained by Taz, Oraḥ Hayyim 219:3.

The late Brisker Rav found support for this opinion in the utterance of Jethro, "Blessed be the Lord, who has delivered you out of the hands of the Egyptians and out of the hands of Pharaoh, and has delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians" (Exodus 18:10). This declaration, remarked the Brisker Rav was tantamount to the birkat ha-gomel and was pronounced by Jethro upon the deliverance of Israel, a deliverance in which he himself did not personally share. Scripture carefully records, "And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the Lord had done to Israel" (Exodus 18:9), indicating that the blessing can be pronounced by others not personally affected by the event only if the blessing is occasioned by genuine jubilation as demanded by Rema and as explained by Taz, Oraḥ Hayyim 219:3.

And from the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shevuot 30a) that it not be that one stand and one sit, but rather both of them stand. As in that they are in front of the court, it is fitting for them to stand as if they were in front of the Divine Presence; since the spirit of God dwells among the congregation of the judges of Israel, as it is stated (Psalms 82a), "God stands in the congregation of God." And nonetheless, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shevuot 30b) that if they wanted to seat the litigants, the option is in their hand. And about what are these words speaking? At the time of give and take. But at the time of the final judgement, there is an obligation to stand, as it is stated (Exodus 18:13), "and the people stood over Moshe." Except that all of the courts of Israel after the Talmud have become accustomed to seat them [in order to avoid] controversy. And even [regarding] the witnesses about whom it is written (Deuteronomy 19:17), "and the two men stand," they have also become accustomed today to seat them (Mishneh Torah, Laws of The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 21:5). [This] and the rest of its details are elucidated in [various] places in Sanhedrin and Shevuot (see Tur, Choshen Mishpat 17).