The Maharit in Vayeira Drush Shlishi says that Avraham Avinu made a bracha as he prepared to do the shechita, על שחיטת הזבח. Rav Steinman says the bracha was אשר קדשני וצווני. The Maharit explains that it was not a bracha le'vatala because he immediately took the ram and was makriv.
What the Maharit means is as follows:
Kavana matters in a korban. When Avraham put Yitzchak on the mizbeiach, his kavana was specifically to do the avoda with Yitzchak. So when the ram took his place, he didn't have new kavana, he just took it and was makriv without any new bracha or kavana. So the Maharit is bothered, but then the ram had no bracha and no kavana, and such a korban is passul. (In OC 206 it says that if you make a bracha on an apple, and lose it before taking a bite, you can not get an apple from elsewhere and eat it on the smach of that bracha. It needs a new bracha. Here, the ram simply was not there. Even if it was there, Avraham did not know about it. So the ram had zero kavana and zero bracha, and it should be like chulin. He answers that this is what Avraham Avinu meant when he said
וַיִּקְרָ֧א אַבְרָהָ֛ם שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא יְהוָ֣ה ׀ יִרְאֶ֑ה אֲשֶׁר֙ יֵאָמֵ֣ר הַיּ֔וֹם בְּהַ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה יֵרָאֶֽה׃
He meant that since Hashem knew all along that the tzivui was for the ram, it is as if his kavana and his bracha was on the ram all along. Even though it lacked daas, since it was orchestrated to happen that way, it is as if he had daas. Hashem's foreknowledge makes it as if the kavana for Yitzchak transferred over to the ram, even to the extent that all the dinei avoda that make sense only by Yitzchak and not by a ram did in fact apply to the ram. (Thank you R Avrohom Wagner for making me look more carefully at the Maharit.)
Harav Shimon Kalman Goldstein said that this explains why we find in the Medrash that when the Malach told him to stop, he asked to make a small cut. The pshat is that at that point, Avraham Avinu did not know that the bracha would be used for the ram, and he thought that Hashem just was mevatel the gzeira. He did not want it to be a bracha le'vatala, so he wanted to make a cut for the bracha to be chal on. But when he saw the ram, he realized that the bracha would have a chalos on the ram.
I asked him, that is good for Avraham Avinu's bracha. But didn't Yitzchak make a bracha on dying על קידוש השם? And wouldn't that remain a bracha le'vatala?
The answer is that a bracha al kiddush hashem, and the person does not die, is not levatala. We make that bracha every day in the morning - ברוך אתה ה' מקדש את שמך ברבים. In any case, the bracha was certainly not levatala in the case of Yitzchak. Yitzchak remained an עולה תמימה, and he was unique in that his whole life was dedicated, more than anyone else's, to living על קידוש השם.
לפי שאמרו סוף פרק בית שמאי (זבחים מ"ו ב) לשם ששה דברים הזבח נזבח לשם הזובח לשם אישים לשם ריח לשם ניחוח, וילפינן לה מדכתיב (ויקרא א' טי) אשה ריח ניחוח לה' ואף לר' יוסי דאמר זבחים שם אין המחשבה הולכת אלא אחר העובד הנה אברהם בעל היה ועובד היה ושחט לשם אלוקים כהלכתן, ועוד ברך על שחיטת הזבח, וכשקראו המלאך ואמר לו אל תשלח ידך אל הנער ואל תעש לו מאומה (בראשית כ"ב י"ב) ונשא עיניו וראה את האיל נאחז אשר לא היה שם קודם לכן ונזדמן לו תיכף לקחו והעלהו ושחטו על סמך אותה הכונה שיכוין על יצחק, ועל סמך אותה ברכה שבירך בשחיטת בנו לשמים, ונמצא כמי שהקריב חולין על גבי המזבח, עוד אחרת שעשה שלא כתורת העולה שטעונה הפשט ואף על פי שנחלקו בסוף זבחים (ק"כ אי) רב ורבי יוחנן בעולת במת יחיד מר סבר טעונה הפשט ומר סבר אינה טעונה מכל מקום הר המוריה במקום בית המקדש עדיף מבמת צבור ועל כן אמר ויעלהו לעולה תחת בנו (בראשית כ"ב י"ג) כלומר במקום בנו שלא היה טעון הפשט ונתוח דעורו כבשרו לכך התפלל ואמר ה' יראה כלומר מאחר דקמי שמיא גליא שמה שיאמר היום לא יהיה על יצחק אלא על תמורתו שהוא האיל המזומן לו מששת ימי בראשית מעלה עליו שכל מה שנאמר ביצחק לשם ריח לשם ניחוח והקדשתו לשמים וברכת הזבח כאילו נאמר על האיל ובזו ה' יראה וירצה לפניו כל לבבות דורש ה' ובלבו רצוי הרי הוא כאילו נזבח
What the Maharit means is as follows:
Kavana matters in a korban. When Avraham put Yitzchak on the mizbeiach, his kavana was specifically to do the avoda with Yitzchak. So when the ram took his place, he didn't have new kavana, he just took it and was makriv without any new bracha or kavana. So the Maharit is bothered, but then the ram had no bracha and no kavana, and such a korban is passul. (In OC 206 it says that if you make a bracha on an apple, and lose it before taking a bite, you can not get an apple from elsewhere and eat it on the smach of that bracha. It needs a new bracha. Here, the ram simply was not there. Even if it was there, Avraham did not know about it. So the ram had zero kavana and zero bracha, and it should be like chulin. He answers that this is what Avraham Avinu meant when he said
וַיִּקְרָ֧א אַבְרָהָ֛ם שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא יְהוָ֣ה ׀ יִרְאֶ֑ה אֲשֶׁר֙ יֵאָמֵ֣ר הַיּ֔וֹם בְּהַ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה יֵרָאֶֽה׃
He meant that since Hashem knew all along that the tzivui was for the ram, it is as if his kavana and his bracha was on the ram all along. Even though it lacked daas, since it was orchestrated to happen that way, it is as if he had daas. Hashem's foreknowledge makes it as if the kavana for Yitzchak transferred over to the ram, even to the extent that all the dinei avoda that make sense only by Yitzchak and not by a ram did in fact apply to the ram. (Thank you R Avrohom Wagner for making me look more carefully at the Maharit.)
Harav Shimon Kalman Goldstein said that this explains why we find in the Medrash that when the Malach told him to stop, he asked to make a small cut. The pshat is that at that point, Avraham Avinu did not know that the bracha would be used for the ram, and he thought that Hashem just was mevatel the gzeira. He did not want it to be a bracha le'vatala, so he wanted to make a cut for the bracha to be chal on. But when he saw the ram, he realized that the bracha would have a chalos on the ram.
I asked him, that is good for Avraham Avinu's bracha. But didn't Yitzchak make a bracha on dying על קידוש השם? And wouldn't that remain a bracha le'vatala?
The answer is that a bracha al kiddush hashem, and the person does not die, is not levatala. We make that bracha every day in the morning - ברוך אתה ה' מקדש את שמך ברבים. In any case, the bracha was certainly not levatala in the case of Yitzchak. Yitzchak remained an עולה תמימה, and he was unique in that his whole life was dedicated, more than anyone else's, to living על קידוש השם.
Regarding Yitzchok’s beracha, I fail to see how it could have been levatalah: the blessing is not on the peulah of being killed (which would not have been his maaseh in any case - where does one make a birchas hamitzvos on a passive acceptance?), but on the kiddush haShem engendered by his being prepared to offer himself up for that Name. This preparedness was complete, and the kiddush haShem was done, so the berachah was fully valid.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Avraham’s blessing, I wonder if that was part of the kavanah in his entreating, yehi na b’einecha keilu beni nishchat etc. if one were to make a berachah on an apple, and then decide to eat an orange, he would be required to make a new blessing. Even if the apple turned out to be inedible, he could not apply that blessing to another fruit, unless he had had it in mind originally. With a birchas hamitzvos, however, the express intent of the beracha is the fulfillment of Hashem‘s command. Since Hashem revealed that He had never intended for Yitzchak to be shechted - lo amarti shachteihu ela haaleihu, asikteih achteih - the beracha was not levatalah, but a beracha betaus. If, however, Avraham could effect the Divine Will accepting the sacrifice of the ram as a stand-in for Yitzchak, then he was actually fulfilling the “vetzivanu” with it, and his original beracha was fully valid! Maybe.
All good, and we won't bring up the famous joke. But see חיי אדם נח ח.
ReplyDeleteOk, in consideration of thosethat never heard the joke.
DeleteA Brisker walking late at night, confronted by an arab. Arab: Jew, I'm going to kill you.
Jew: First let me make the proper blessing.
OK.
Baruch...Borooch'...Bo'-rooch...etc.
The Arab decides this guy is insane, and - since arabs respect insane people - puts away his knife and starts to
walk away.
The Brisker says Nu!nu!hefsek!! hefsek!
I’m sorry, I don’t know what you want to bring from that Chayei Adam. It is only if a:the wine was in front of him at the time, b:he intended to drink wine. The ram lechorah wasn’t before him until afterwards, and it’s arguable whether the Bracha intended for sacrificing his son would work for the ram, even if the wording would be the same (for example, if a kohen was ready to bring an ox as an olah, and then found it to be a Baal mum, would that Bracha be able to be applied to a seh? I could hear either way.)
DeleteAs far as the joke, indeed, it was in response to that that I formulated this thought :)
Ok, the Chayei Odom was not nogeia. I'm going to fix the post and explain how I'm reading the Maharit.
Delete