Halakhah su Salmi 116:78

Following the way of the old-timers and strict interpreters of the halakhah, one should be careful about doing the ten things³⁰⁸See B. Berakhot 51a. R. Bahya says ten, but then lists eleven. Chavel says that the last is not really part of the ten, and notes that R. Bahya in Kad Ha-Kemah lists the ten things mentioned here in a different order. R. Bahya more or less paraphrase this discussion of the ten things required for the cup of blessing from b. Berakhot 51a-b, though he adds some kabbalistic interpretations, such as the tradition from the Book of Bahir, that are not from the original Talmud passage. required for the cup of blessing. And they are: (1) “rinsing”; (2) “washing away”; (3) “undiluted” wine; (4) that the cup be full; (5) “crowning;” (6) wrapping; (7) holding the cup in two hands; (8) grasping it with the right hand; (9) raising it a hands’ breadth; (10) setting one’s eyes upon it; and (11) passing it on to members of one’s household. The interpretation: “rinsing” inside the cup, “washing away” the outside.³⁰⁹The Hebrew words hadahah –“rinsing” and shetifah “washing away” are in this context virtually synonymous, thus the need to make the distinction. “Undiluted” – hay: the wine should be pure and undiluted until the blessing “ha-aretz” in birkat ha-mazon; at that point water is put in it. There are some who interpreted “undiluted” – hay – to mean that it came out of a vessel right next to the meal, as in the expression mayim hayyim, that is water drawn from a nearby spring. And there are those who interpreted hay – as “live,” referring to cup that is whole, unbroken, because vessels that are broken are called “dead.” One does not say the blessing of the cup of birkat ha-mazon until water is put in it, because we need the mitzvah to use only the finest, which would be mixed wine, since pure “undiluted” wine is harmful, and the point of the blessing is to be thankful for something that is not harmful. And thus they said, “the cup of blessing is not blessed until he puts water in it, especially the blessing of birkat ha-mazon. However one can say the blessing Boray pri ha-gafen over it, for making Kiddush is analogous to the wine libation, as it written, “a libation offering to the Lord of an intoxicating drink to be poured,”³¹⁰Nu 28:7. – we need wine that intoxicates,³¹¹B. Sukkah 49b. and like this they said, “something like this required to say a blessing over it, or to say the Great Hallel.”³¹²B. Pesahim 107a.And you already knew that wine hints at midat din, whose number is seventy, for in the realm above seventy ruling angels are nourished by the sefirah of Gevurah, and all of them are drawn from Compassion in the form of Jacob, the third in the heavenly chariot, out of whom came seventy souls.³¹³A mystical interpretation of Ex 1:5. Din and Gevurah are more or less synonymous terms for the Divine aspect of Judgment. Rahamim – “Compassion” and “Jacob” are other names for the sefirah Tiferet – “Beauty” which is connected directly to the sefirah Gevurah. For this reason they put a ban on the nazirite, to separate himself from wine and anything that came from the “grapevine of wine,”³¹⁴Nu 6:2-4: “If anyone, man or woman, explicitly utters a nazirite’s vow to set himself apart for the Lord, he shall abstain from wine and any other intoxicant; he shall not drink vinegar of wine or of any other intoxicant, neither shall he drink anything in which grapes have been steeped, nor eat grapes fresh or dried. Throughout his term as a nazirite, he may not eat anything that is obtained from the grapevine of wine, even seeds or skin.” because he is attached to Compassion, as it said, “if anyone explicitly utters a nazirite’s vow.”³¹⁵Ibid. 6:2. Therefore our sages z”l required that the cup for birkat ha-mazon, which is from the Torah, should not have the blessing said over it until water is put into it, because the intention of the blessing is basically for Compassion. And “full”: R. Yohanan said, “Whoever blesses over a full cup of blessing is given a boundless inheritance, as it is said, ‘full of the Lord’s blessing, take possession west and south.’³¹⁶Dt. 33:23. R. Yosi bar Haninah says he earns and inherits two worlds: this world and the world to come, as it is said, “take possession west and south.”³¹⁷Dt. 33:23. R. Yohanan used to prove “boundless inheritance” from the expression: yam ve-darush yerashah, and R. Yosi concurred with him on this, adding, “from what is written, ‘let him take possession [yerashah] west and south;’ it did not say “rash” – “take possession” because the world to come was created by the letter Yod, and this world was created by the letter Hay.³¹⁸Hence, the letters Yod and Hay have been “added” to the word “rash,” to hint at this. This is what the Book of Bahir was talking about when it said, “It should have said RaSh but instead it is written YeRaShaH – everything is given to you. And provided that you keep His ways, this is an inward, hidden matter, for “west [lit., “sea”] and south” – yam ve-darom – are intended to hint at Peace and the Covenant, which are the sefirot Hokhmah – ‘Wisdom’ and Binah – ‘Understanding.’” So understand this! “Crowning:” the cup is “crowned” by the disciples of the person saying the blessing. R. Hisda crowns it with other cups. Wrapping: R. Pappa said he wraps himself in his robe, ³¹⁹The verb for wrapping ‘ataf may connote wrapping oneself in a tallit, since it is the root of the verb in the expression le-hitatef ba-tzizit “to wrap oneself in the fringed garment – i.e., a tallit.sits, and then says the blessing. R. Ashi put a scarf on his head and take up the cup with two hands, as is it is said, “Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.”³²⁰Ps 134:2. And then he would grasp it in his right hand without any support from his other hand at all. And he would raise it a handbreadth from the ground, as Scripture said, “I will lift up the cup of salvation, etc.”³²¹Ps. 116:13. And he would set his eyes upon it, so his attention won’t be distracted from it. And he hands it over to his wife, for thus his wife may be blessed. So you see these are the ten things which were said about the cup of blessing. But R. Yohanan said, “We have only four, and they are: undiluted, full, rinsing, and washing. And here’s a acronym for them: HaMiShaH –“five”: Het – Hai – “undiluted;” Mem – male’ – “full;” Shin – Shetifah – “rinsing;” and Hay – hadahah – “washing.” Or if you’d prefer it, say SiMHa”H – “joy”, because it is written, “wine gladdens [yiSMaH] the human heart.”³²²Ps 104:15. The letters of hamishah can be rearranged to spell simhah.

And it is necessary that you know that just as Israel merited at the crossing of the Red Sea two marvelous and profound statuses, and they merited them in the body and the soul – the first, that they crossed the sea feeling this in their bodies the great miracle that was made for them with the sea splitting into twelve different divisions, and the twelve tribes, crossed through these cuts tribe by tribe during its own cut; the second, that their soul was elevated and they prophesied there and a serving maiden of Israel saw there what Ezekiel ben Buzi never saw, so in the future Israel will merit two statuses in their body and soul. Bodily meals of fine and pure foods which I mentioned, and an intellectual meal for the soul alone of the holy spirit, for so all Israel will ascend to the level of prophecy, as it is said, ‘It shall come to pass afterwards that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh and your sons and your daughters will prophesy,”⁵⁸Joel 3:1. and the weakest among them like David and the house of David, like gods, like an angel of the Lord before them. This will be at the time of the redemption after the wars have ceased and Israel is back on its own land. Therefore, one should not think these meals are not bodily affairs in the literal sense. In addition you will find that our rabbis z”l explained it [literally]: “In the future the Holy One Blessed be He will make a great banquet for the righteous in the future to come from the flesh of Leviathan. Any whoever did not eat prohibited trayf foods will deserve to eat at it.”⁵⁹Lev. R. 13:3.

And know and understand that it was about this intellectual meal of the resurrection of the dead that rabbis z”l interpreted in a midrash in Tractate Pesahim:⁸¹B. Pesahim 119b. “‘And Abraham made a great feast on the day of the weaning [ha–higamel], etc.’⁸²Gen 21:8. The Holy One, blessed be He, will in time to come make a banquet for the righteous on the day when He will reward [yigamel hesed] the seed of Isaac, and the cup of blessing will be given to Abraham to bless and he says to them, “I won’t say the blessing because Ishmael came from me.” The cup of blessing is given to Isaac to bless, and he says, “I won’t say the blessing because Esau came out of me.” The cup of blessing is given to Jacob to bless and he says to them, “I won’t say the blessing because I married two sisters while they were both alive.” The cup of blessing is given to Moses to bless, and he says, “I won’t say the blessing, because I didn’t merit entering the land of Israel.” The cup of blessing is given to Joshua to bless and he said to them, “I won’t say the blessing, because I never merited having a son. The cup of blessing was giving to David to bless, and he says to them, “I will say the blessing, and it is right for me to bless the King (may He be blessed), as it is said, “I raise the cup of deliverance and invoke the name of the Lord.”⁸³Ps 116:13.

There is an obvious tension between the pertinent talmudic dicta bearing upon actions which pose a hazard to life or health. The Gemara, Shabbat 32b, declares, "A man should not place himself in a place of danger." Yet elsewhere, (Shabbat 129b and Niddah 31a as well as other places), the Gemara cites the verse "The Lord preserves the simple" (Psalms 116:6) as granting sanction to man to place his trust in divine providence and to ignore possible danger. The Gemara itself dispels what would otherwise be an obvious contradiction by stating that certain actions which contain an element of danger are permitted since "the multitude has trodden thereupon."

Rabbi Unterman's distinction between Jews and Noachides with regard to termination of pregnancy within the first forty days following conception was anticipated by an earlier authority. Rabbi Plocki, in his Hemdat Yisra'el (p. 176), marshals evidence that an embryo may be destroyed with impunity during the first forty days of its development based upon Rabbenu Tam's interpretation of the talmudic dispute (Yevamot 12a) concerning the "three [categories of] women" who may resort to contraceptive devices in order to prevent conception. Rabbenu Tam explains that the dispute concerns the insertion of a tampon after cohabitation. The Tanna, R. Meir, rules that use of contraceptive devices by these women is mandatory since pregnancy would place their lives in jeopardy; the Sages assert that such action is not incumbent upon these women stating that the verse "The Lord preserves the simple" (Ps. 116:6) permits reliance upon divine providence to avert tragic consequences. However, according to Rabbenu Tam, the Sages permit the use of contraceptives after cohabitation reasoning that women are not commanded to refrain from "destroying the seed." R. Plocki points out that fertilization most frequently takes place immediately following cohabitation. Contraception following cohabitation is then, in effect, not destruction of the seed but abortion of a fertilized ovum. If abortion is forbidden even in the earliest stages of gestation, how then can Rabbenu Tam permit the use of contraceptive devices following cohabitation? R. Plocki concludes that destruction of the embryo during the first forty days following conception does not constitute an act of feticide but rather falls under the category of "destroying the seed." Since we accept the opinion of those authorities who rule that women are also bound by the prohibition against "destroying the seed," R. Plocki's reasoning (as evidenced by his own remarks) finds practical application only with regard to Noachides. According to those authorities who maintain that the ban against destroying the seed does not apply to Noachides, the latter may be permitted to interrupt pregnancy during the first forty days of gestation.

The minimal danger to which the child is exposed by being placed under general anesthesia during removal of his bone marrow does not serve to militate against the permissibility of the procedure. The Gemara, Yevamot 72a, reports that blood-letting carries with it an element of increased danger when performed on a cloudy day or on a day when the south wind blows. Accordingly, R. Papa prohibited both blood-letting and circumcision on such days. Nevertheless, the Gemara, invoking the principle "The Lord preserves the simple" (Psalms 116:6), concludes that since people, in general, customarily disregard this particular danger those procedures are entirely permissible. The underlying principle, invoked by the Gemara in a number of different contexts, is that although a person may not ordinarily expose himself to danger, he may engage in activities generally regarded as innocuous even though, in actuality, they do pose a danger. In such circumstances, a person may act in the manner of "simple" persons who do not give thought to such matters and rely upon Providence to protect them.

There is little question that in each of these cases the risk involved is well within the category of "shomer petai'im Ha-Shem—the Lord pre-serves the simple" (Psalms 116:6)⁶⁹Ketubot 39a, Yevamot 12b and 72a and Niddah 45b. and hence is halakhically acceptable. But to say that a specific form of conduct is halakhically acceptable is not to say that it is sagacious or even prudent. Some people are more prudent than others; some are more open to risk-taking than others. Such variations of temperament serve to explain why two equally intelligent individuals may make different choices with regard to assumption of minimal, albeit real, risk of life or well-being. Where real risks exist, or when the absence of risk cannot reasonably be excluded, a person who seeks to avoid the risk in question is neither neurotic nor irrational and should not be regarded in that light by a person willing to assume the risk, just as a person who is willing to accept a degree of risk associated with an unsecured financial venture in return for the anticipation of a higher return on his investment should not be regarded as irrational by a person who willingly forgoes a higher return in favor of guaranteed preservation of capital.

Although the prohibition concerning wounding does not apply in these limited situations, is it permissible to place one's life in danger in order to alleviate psychological anguish? Citing the above-mentioned comments of Rema, Rabbi Breish argues that even the amputation of a limb is permissible in order to alleviate pain. The Gemara, in a number of instances (Shabbat 129b, Avodah Zarah 30b, Niddah 31a and Yevamot 72a), indicates that a person may engage in commonplace activities even though he places himself in a position of danger in so doing. In justifying such conduct the Gemara declares, "Since many have trodden thereon 'the Lord preserveth the simple' (Ps. 116:6)." The talmudic principle is that man is justified in placing his trust in God, provided that the risk involved is of a type which is commonly accepted as a reasonable one by society at large. Rabbi Breish apparently feels that any accepted therapeutic procedure falls into this category.^16cCf. Darkei Teshuvah, Yoreh De‘ah 155:2; Levushei Mordekhai, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 87; and R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, X, no. 25, chap. 17, sec. 1.