Bereshit 25:27 records that Esav and Yaakov grew up and developed differently, Esav became a hunter, a man of the fields, while Yaakov stayed at home in the tents. Commenting on this verse, the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 63:10) quotes R. Pinhas in the name of R. Levi, "that for 13 years, both Esav and Yaakov went to school and came home. After that age, one (Yaakov) went to the house of study and the other (Esav) to idolatrous shrines." The Midrash continues and quotes R. Eleazar (b. R. Shimon?) who said "A man is responsible for his son until the age of 13; thereafter he must say, barukh she-petarani me-onsho shel zeh – blessed is He who has now freed me from the responsibility of this boy."
While Bereshit Rabbah is one of the earliest Midrashim, (400-500 CE, see Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971, 11:1511) this blessing, barukh she-petarani, is not mentioned in the Talmud or by the Geonim. The blessing is mentioned in the 11th century by R. Yehuda b. Barukh (student of Rabbenu Gershom, source in Gilat, 2002, pp. 60-73). Two centuries later in the 13th century, R. Shimon ben Tzaddok (Germany, Tashbetz 90, student of Maharam Rutenberg) and Hizkuni (Provence, comments on 25:27) quote the Midrash. In the following century, the Maharil (1365-1421, Germany, quoted by Rama, Darkei Moshe, Orah Chayyim 225) quotes the Mordechai (Y. Gilat, above, notes that this comment this is not found in our editions of the Mordecahi) to say the blessings.
We see that at least by the end of the Middle Ages, the custom had developed amongst Ashkenazim to say barukh she-petarani when a boy became 13. This is another example of the connection between the Ashkenazi community in the Middle Ages with the community in Israel in the first millennium since Bereshit Rabbah is a product of the community in Israel. However, the Rambam, the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh do not mention the blessing, and apparently, the Sefardim did not say this blessing in the Middle Ages. (Gilat, source above, quotes one Sefardi Rav, R Yehoshua b. Shuiv, 14th century, that he saw a person say the blessing when his son became 20!)
The Rama (16th century, Poland) quotes this blessing both in the Darkei Moshe and in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh in Orah Chayyim, 225. In the Darkei Moshe he writes that this blessing is difficult since it is not mentioned in the Talmud and by the codifiers, and he rules that one should say the blessing without saying G-d's name, which emasculates the blessing. However, the Gra (1720-1797, comments on Shulchan Arukh, 225, quoted in Mishnah Brurah 225:8) argues with the Rama, and writes that one should say the blessing with G-d's name, as the Maharil did. (My impression is that today most Ashkenazim and Sefardim who now recite the blessing follow the Rama and do not say the blessing with G-d's name, though those people who follow the Gra recite the blessing with G-d's name.)
Why did the Rama change the Ashkenazi custom of saying the blessing with G-d's name? He writes that the reason not to recite the blessing with G-d's name is because it was not mentioned in the Talmud (see Rosh, 1250-1327, on Talmud Kiddushin, 1:41 in reference to a different blessing), but the Rama does not accept this rule. On Orah Chayyim 46:6, the Tur records that Ashkenazim recite the blessing "who give strength to the weary." Commenting on this Tur, R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575) writes in the Bet Yosef that one should not say the blessing since it is not mentioned in the Talmud, and in the Shulchan Arukh (46:6) he writes that though some people say this blessing, it should not be said. However, the Rama in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh writes that the custom of Ashkenazim is to recite the blessing "who give strength to the weary," and as noted by the Mishnah Brurah (46:22) this means to say the blessing with G-d's name, which is the Ashkenazi practice today. We see that that the Rama does not accept the principle that that one should not recite a blessing with G-d's name if the blessing was not mentioned in the Talmud, see comments of Taz 46:7. In addition, we see that the Gra also rejected this principle since he ruled to say the blessing barukh she-petarani with G-d's name. (Another example of a blessing we say with G-d's name that is not mentioned in the Talmud is the blessing by lighting the candles on Shabbat which was introduced by the Geonim. Also, see discussion by the blessing on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 422:2 )
A possible difference between the case of the blessing by barukh she-petarani and the blessing "to give strength to the weary," is that the Tur quotes the blessing "to give strength to the weary" but he does not quote the blessing barukh she-petarani. Furthermore, the Rama in the Darkei Moshe says the blessing of barukh she-petarani is not mentioned not just in the Talmud but also not by the codifiers. Is the Rama referring to the Tur when he writes codifiers? Even if yes, this distinction whether the Tur mentions the blessing or not seems quite difficult. Why is the Tur the last person to authorize a new blessing? Furthermore, the Maharil, who was the next great Ashkenazi codifier after the Tur ruled that one is to recite the blessing with G-d's name, and he quotes this from the Mordechai who lived before the Tur. One of the main reasons for the Rama's commentary on the Tur is to add Ashkenazi customs that are not quoted by the Tur and/ or developed after the Tur. Why did the Rama reject the Maharils' ruling to say the blessing with G-d's name?
Maybe the Rama's position by the blessing barukh she-petarani is due to the idea expressed by the blessing. The simple understanding of the blessing (see Magen Avraham, 1637-1683, Poland, Orah Chayyim 225:5) is that the blessing signifies that until a boy become 13 the father is responsible for the sins of his son, but after the son becomes 13 the father will not be punished for his son's actions. This is a very strange blessing since it assumes that the son will sin. In addition, the father is saying the blessing as thanks that he will not be punished for his son's sin, as instead his son will be punished. Which father wants his son to be punished? I think most fathers would rather suffer instead of their children suffering. Possibly because of this difficulty, a student of the Rama, R. Mordecahi Jaffe (Levush, 1535-1612) suggests that the blessing means that the son will not be punished for his father's sins. This also is difficult because the son is assuming the father will sin, and then the son should say the blessing. Furthermore, the source of the blessing is from Yitzhak and Esav, and the point of the Midrash is that Yitzhak was no longer responsible for Esav's sins, and not that Esav was no longer responsible for Yitzhak's sins. I have also heard another apologetic explanation for the blessing that the blessing signifies that the father is exempt from teaching his son Torah. This rationale does not accord with the words of the blessing, and is bizarre. Who makes a blessing when one becomes exempt from having to do a mitzvah?
Accordingly, my guess is that the Rama did not like the blessing barukh she-petarani since it expresses the idea that the son is destined to sin and be punished. However, he could not ignore it completely since it was already the established Ashkenazi custom to say the blessing, so he limited the blessing by ruling that one should not say it with G-d's name. Furthermore, he did not want to write that the blessing has a bad connotation since it was the accepted Ashkenazi custom so he based his ruling on the principle that one does not recite a blessing with G-d's name that is not recorded in the Talmud. (Maybe also by the blessing "to give strength to the weary," the Rama stated that it is to be recited with G-d's name since the blessing expresses a nice idea that at night people go to sleep tired from a day's work, but then G-d re-invigorates them when they wake up, see explanation of the blessing by the Tur.)
Another interesting point of the Rama's ruling is the context where he refers to the blessing. Once the blessing is not mentioned in the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh, the Rama was free to record this blessing anywhere he desired. One would have thought that he would have recorded the blessing within the laws of reading the Torah since the blessing is recited when the child has his first aliyah and the Maharil recorded the blessing in the context of the laws of reading the Torah. Instead, the Rama quotes the blessing within Orah Chayyim 225, which records the blessing shehechianu by the passage of time. Maybe with this placement the Rama was trying to transform the blessing barukh she-petarani from its negative connotation to a positive overtone. The blessing of shehechianu marks joyful events, and hence by recording the blessing barukh she-petarani in the context of the shehechianu blessing, the Rama was trying to make the blessing comparable to the shehechianu blessing, that it marks a joyous event. Whether this was the Rama's intention, today it has become a "happy" blessing, associated with the celebration of the bar (and bat?) mitzvah.
No comments:
Post a Comment