| Dear Yeshiva Family:
In this week's parshah, we encounter the mitzvah of reciting Birchas HaMazon (Grace after Meals), as the Torah says: "Ve'achalta ve'savata u'veirachta" (8:10)—"You shall eat, be satisfied, and bless [Hashem]." This mitzvah teaches us to thank Hashem for the food we eat and for the sustenance that sustains our lives.
Halachically, one is required to recite Birchas HaMazon while still experiencing a measure of satisfaction from the meal, which is generally indicated by still feeling full. In a case where one did not feel full at all, the obligation is only mi'd'rabbanan (rabbinic origin). In such situations, the typical halachic guideline is that one should recite the blessing within approximately 72 minutes of eating.
R' Akiva Eiger raises a chakira (analytical question) regarding Birchas HaMazon. The Torah says "ve'savata"—"and you shall be satisfied." He asks: Is the main mitzvah focused on thanking Hashem for the achila—the act of eating itself—with the feeling of fullness (sevi'ah) serving merely as a time indicator (one can thank Hashem for the food only while he is still full)? Or is the central obligation truly on the sevi'ah—the experience of being full—with the act of eating simply being the means to achieve that fullness?
A practical nafka minah (halachic distinction) from this question arises in the case of a child who becomes bar mitzvah immediately after finishing a full meal and still feels full. If the mitzvah is primarily about the act of eating, the child's obligation would only be of chinuch d'rabbanan—educationally required to perform the mitzvah—since he was a minor when the mitzvah technically applied. However, if the mitzvah is centered on the feeling of satisfaction, then now that he is an adult and still feels full, he would be obligated to recite Birchas HaMazon fully.
Many Acharonim (later authorities) discuss and debate this chakira, citing various proofs and exploring the differences in halacha that result from it. For example, the Imrei Binah (15) references a ruling of the Rema (Orach Chaim 271:6) regarding someone who ate a meal on Erev Shabbos and then accepted Shabbos in the middle of the meal—as some families did this past Purim. In such a case, where the main eating was on Erev Shabbos, one does not recite Retzei (the Shabbat insert) in Birchas HaMazon. This seems to suggest that the primary obligation to recite Birchas HaMazon is connected to the act of eating itself, which occurred on Erev Shabbos, rather than to the feeling of fullness, which would occur on Shabbos. Of course, there is room for a healthy debate regarding this proof, and many other halachic sources offer additional perspectives and examples.
The Chazon Ish provides another proof regarding this question. He notes that the Gemara (Berachos 48b) says Klal Yisrael were instructed to recite Birchas HaMazon over the Mon—the miraculous food from heaven. Yet, the Gemara in Yoma 75b indicates that the Mon was absorbed into the body immediately, without any digestion.
The Chazon Ish compares this to reciting a blessing over a fragrance, where the enjoyment occurs instantly, there is no seviah, no state of being full and there is no beracha Acharona.
From this, the Chazon Ish explains: If the mitzvah of Birchas HaMazon were fundamentally about the state of being full (sevi'ah), how could one fulfill it with the Mon, which produces no such state? Rather, the blessing is primarily on the act of eating itself (achila). The requirement to be somewhat full serves only as a guideline to indicate when one may recite the blessing.
If the mitzvah is focused on the act of eating, then the requirement to be satiated serves merely as a guideline indicating until when one may appropriately recite Birchas HaMazon. With the caveat that if one were to recite the blessing immediately after finishing a meal, before being fully satiated, no guideline is needed, because the blessing is fundamentally on the eating itself. The guideline of being full is only necessary when there is a separation between the act of eating and the potential time of reciting the blessing, to ensure one does not delay unnecessarily. In this way, the halacha makes sense: the state of being full is not the essence of the mitzvah, but merely a practical marker for the timing of the blessing. With this, the Chazon Ish proves that the mitzvah is fundamentally on the act of eating, and not on being satiated.
Of course, one of the first questions that comes to mind regarding the Chazon Ish's reasoning is whether it really took no time for the Mon to be absorbed. Who says it did not undergo any digestion? The Gemara only indicates that there was nothing left to excrete, for all of the Mon was used by the body. But perhaps it still went through the usual digestive process—just without leaving any waste.
A fascinating proof supporting the Chazon Ish's assumption that the Gemara means the Mon was absorbed immediately is brought in Sefer Sheleimim MiTziyon, citing Rashi in Yonah (2:1). The Passuk states that Hashem prepared a fish to swallow Yonah, which Rashi explains to mean that Hashem sustained the fish miraculously during the time that Yonah was inside. Apparently, there was a forty-year supply of Mon originally created, of which Klal Yisrael used forty years' worth minus sixteen days. Hashem took that sixteen-day supply—the days during which Klal Yisrael did not eat Mon—and sustained the fish with it, so that the fish would not need to digest anything. This ensured that Yonah, inside the fish, was not harmed by digestive juices. Rashi further explains that Yonah survived on the Mon for those sixteen days.
From this Rashi, it is clear that the Mon was not digested in the usual way. Not only were there no leftovers to be excreted, but the digestive system itself did not need to function at all. And from here, we see, like the Chazon Ish, that it was absorbed immediately without the need for digestion, giving the Chazon Ish a proof for his position that the blessing is on the act of eating itself. The Magen Avraham (216:1) explains that we do not recite a beracha acharona (after-blessing) on pleasant smells, even though we do recite a beracha rishona (before-blessing), such as borei minei besamim on them. The Magen Avraham explains the reason is that there is no "digestion period" for smells; as soon as one finishes smelling, the enjoyment ends, and there is no opportunity to make an after-blessing. This is different from food, where the proper time for the blessing extends while the food is being digested.
The Chazon Ish asks, using the example of the Mon, where similarly there was no digestion period: it must be, as he proves, that the blessing is on the act of eating itself. Even if there is no digestion, as long as the blessing is recited immediately, clearly referring to the eating, it is sufficient. The same logic should apply to smelling, and therefore the Chazon Ish rejects the reasoning of the Magen Avraham. The reason, according to the Chazon Ish, is not that the blessing cannot be on the act, but rather that the enjoyment is not significant enough to warrant an after-blessing—similar to a very small amount of food, where one recites a beracha rishona but not a beracha acharona due to its minimal impact.
The simple explanation for this machlokes would be that the Magen Avraham understands the after-blessing of food as being dependent on seviah, on the state of being full. In contrast, the Chazon Ish explicitly understands that the blessing is on the eating itself, and technically one could recite an after-blessing even on the smell. The question would remains of course: how can we reconcile the proof of the Chazon Ish with the position of the Magen Avraham?
Although there are ways to explain how one could argue that the beracha on the Mon is based on seviah—the state of being full—there is nonetheless a proof that the Magen Avraham himself aligns with the Chazon Ish, that the blessing is truly on the act of eating. In Orach Chaim 210:1, the Magen Avraham discusses someone who eats in very small amounts, such that he does not perform a full act of eating (ma'aseh achila), similar to the practice for someone who is ill on Yom Kippur, where they are instructed to eat in measured portions. The Magen Avraham rules that in such a case, one does not recite a beracha acharona, even if the person feels full. Although he cites the Kenesses HaGedola, which would require making the blessing, the Magen Avraham himself holds that no blessing is recited.
The clear takeaway seems to be that the beracha is dependent on the act of eating itself, the ma'aseh achila, and not merely on the state of being full. This aligns with the Chazon Ish's position. (See also the Chasam Sofer, Shu"t O.C. 1:49.) If this is so, we would be required to answer the Chazon Ish's question on the Magen Avraham in another way! Perhaps we can suggest that the beracha on the Mon was, in fact, derabanan. In other words, R' Akiva Eiger's question—the chakira—is whether the beracha acharona is recited on the act of eating (achila) or on being full (seviah). However, by rabbinic decree (midrabanan), we recite a beracha acharona even on a kezayis or a kebeitzah of food, and that is clearly based on the act of eating, not the state of being full, since the whole point of the rabbinic stringency is to obligate a blessing even when one does not feel full. Therefore, we can explain that when one recited Birchas HaMazon on the Mon, it was on the act of eating.
This rabbinic institution of a Rabbinic Birchas Hamazon dated back to Moshe Rabbeinu (see Berachos 48b) and existed even before the giving of the Torah (see Tzlach on Berachos 20b). It is therefore possible that the beracha on the Mon was required only due to this rabbinic decree: one must bless on the act of eating, even if the Torah-level obligation is technically based on the state of being full. The Chazon Ish would then lose his proof, and we can explain that the De'oraysah requirement is actually on the state of being full and we can revert to the Magen Avraham's explanation for why we do not make an after beracha on smells!
A practical implication (nafka minah) of this understanding is that we can now explain why the beracha must be recited where the food was eaten. If the obligation is on the eating, this makes sense. But if it were solely on being full, why would the location matter? The answer could be that, because of the rabbinic decree, the beracha is tied to the act of eating even in a minimal quantity, like a kezayis.
Have an Amazing Shabbos!
Rabbi Moshe Revah Rosh HaYeshiva mrevah2@touro.edu | 
No comments:
Post a Comment