Bereshit 45:5-8, 50:20 (Va-yiggash, Va-yehi) – The pawn

After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, Bereshit 45:5-8 records that he told his brothers, "And now, do not be pained and do not be incensed with yourselves that you sold me down here, because for sustenance G-d has sent me before you…. And G-d has sent me before you to make you a remnant on earth and to preserve life, for you to be a great surviving group," (Alter, 2004, p. 261, translation). Seventeen years later, Yosef told his brothers almost the identical message, 50:20. These statements are ironic since Yosef meant that his brothers were pawns in G-d’s plan, but really he was the pawn in G-d’s plan for the Jewish people to end up in Egypt as foretold in the prophecy to Avram by the covenant of the pieces, Bereshit 15:13.

Yosef's rise to power was only one of the many inexplicable events that led to the fulfillment of the prophecy of 15:13. Others are that Lavan switched his daughters on Yaakov (see our discussion on 29:18-30, "The switch," Yaakov overtly favored Yosef (see our discussion on 37:2-14,"Parenting," the Midyanites happened to find Yosef in the pit, and the Yishmaelites happened to be going to Egypt at that time (see our discussion above on 37:25-34, 42:21, "Who sold Yosef?" All these events led Yaakov to agree to go to Egypt to see Yosef (Bereshit 45:28) even though he knew of the prophecy that Avram's descendants would suffer in a foreign land. 

The story of Yosef is the longest story in the Torah where there is no direct intervention by G-d either through miracles, communication from G-d or malakhim, and all the inexplicable events (even the dreams) could be understood in a human level. Yet, the string of so many inexplicable events and the fact that we know they are fulfilling the prophecy to Avram means that Yosef's story illustrates G-d's intervention in the story. Thus, N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 394, 395) notes that the story of Yosef shows the "two levels on which actions are conducted:" The human, and "the hidden workings of Providence."

Even more important is that the story of Yosef shows how G-d intervenes in the world. The switching of Rahel and Lea occurred approximately 45 years before Yaakov and the family went to Egypt, and the sale of Yosef was 22 years before the family came to Egypt. Yosef even had to wait two years for the cupbearer to inform Pharaoh about his dream interpreting abilities. We see that G-d intervenes in the world in a very indirect way that can only be understood at best after many years. Perhaps this indirect and hidden method is to ensure that people still have free will to follow G-d or not.

My impression is that while G-d can intervene in the world, G-d usually does not intervene in the world, as instead the world functions according to the laws of nature. Furthermore, from the story of Yosef we see that even when G-d intervenes in the world, it is in a very indirect manner that is not self-evident. Accordingly, one should not expect G-d to do miracles that are manifest to all.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bereshit 33:1-16 (Va-yishlach) - My brother, my enemy?

Bereshit 33:1-5 records that Yaakov and Esav hugged, kissed and cried when they met after not having seen each other for 20 years. Prior to the meeting, Yaakov was very scared of Esav, 32:8, but Esav was apparently extremely gracious.

Bereshit Rabbah 78:9 quotes two views as to whether Esav was really being friendly during this encounter. R. Shimon b. Eliezer states that Esav kissed Yaakov with all his heart, while R. Yannai claims that Esav really attempted to bite Yaakov. The idea that Esav attempted to bite Yaakov is far from the simple sense of the text, but was Esav, who initially wanted to kill Yaakov, 27:41, genuinely gracious to Yaakov? Why did Esav not attack Yaakov when they met?

One possibility is that Esav was truly a good person. Mark Twain followed this idea and wrote (1869, p. 22) "of Esav's sublime generosity to his brother who had wronged him."

Benno Jacob (1974, p. 226) suggests that Esav did not attack Yaakov due the wound that Yaakov received from fighting the night before. According to this idea, Esav took pity on Yaakov after he saw that Yaakov was wounded. Yet, if Esav had been waiting twenty years to take revenge, it is doubtful that seeing Yaakov wounded would have stopped him from attacking Yaakov.

Elhanan Samet (2002, p. 96-100) follows the idea that Yaakov fought with Esav's guardian angel the previous night, and claims that when the angel lost to Yaakov, the angel changed Esav's attitude towards Yaakov. I cannot accept this idea since I believe that Esav fought with Yaakov and not any guardian angel, see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"

Another possibility (see for example, Sarna, 1989, p. 229) is that Esav chose not to attack Yaakov since Yaakov was submissive to Esav. Yaakov bowed down to Esav seven times, 33:3, which showed that he accepted that Esav was the dominant brother. This idea is made more explicit when after Esav initially refused to accept Yaakov's gifts, Yaakov referred to the gifts as his blessing, 33:11. Also, when Yaakov's children bowed down to Esav, 33:6,7, this was a fulfillment of the blessing that was intended for Esav that Yaakov received from Yitzhak, that the sons of your mother will bow down to you, 27:29. As noted by many commentators (see for example, Sacks, 2009a, p. 226), Yaakov was giving back the blessings to Esav that he had falsely received from Yitzhak, 27:28,29.  With this idea, the reason why Esav wanted to kill Yaakov was because Yaakov had stolen the blessing, but now that Yaakov was making amends, there was no reason for Esav to try to kill him. (Note, Yaakov was not giving back the second blessing he received from Yitzhak, 28:3,4, which was the crucial blessing, see our discussion on 28:3,4 "Endogamy.") 

While I agree that Yaakov was trying to give the blessings back, I think that Esav did not attack Yaakov since he had just attacked him the night before and failed. Why did he not attack Yaakov in the morning with his four hundred men? The answer is that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov personally without it being public knowledge, so I think his generosity to Yaakov was contrived.

Whether Esav was truly a good soul or whether he still harbored hatred of Yaakov can be discerned from their conversation after Esav agreed to accept Yaakov's gifts. Esav then offered Yaakov that they should travel together, 33:12. Yaakov tried to decline the offer by claiming that his children and animals needed to walk slowly, while if Esav was with him, he would be end up being forced to walk quickly. However, Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, ostensibly to see Esav, 33:13,14.

It is not clear if Yaakov was being truthful in his response to Esav. It could be that he was lying since he was scared that Esav would attack him again if they traveled together, and he was just trying to politely get out of the offer to travel together. Furthermore, as Esav knew that Yaakov knew that he was the assailant the previous night (again see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"), he would have understood that Yaakov had no intention of ever going to Seir. (In modern times, The Economist, 2011a, pp. 108, 109, writes "Chinese circumlocution is often a form of polite opacity. Chinese people don't like being too direct in turning down invitations or (as many journalists find) requests for interviews. So they will frequently reply that something is bu fang (not convenient). This does not mean reapply in a few weeks' time. It means they don't want to do it, ever.)

Or, it could be that Yaakov wanted to travel alone, possibly due to his wound from the fight in the previous night or for some other personal reason, and he did not want to bring up his wounds from the fight or the personal reasons, so he mentioned the children and the animals. With this possibility, it could be that he did intend to go to Seir, and that he went to Seir but this visit is not recorded. With this possibility, Yaakov had not initially been intending to go to Seir, but Yaakov made this offer in response to Esav's offer to travel together.

Regardless of what Yaakov meant or how Esav understood Yaakov's answer, Esav responded to Yaakov's concern about the children and animals, that Esav would leave some of his 400 men to help Yaakov travel, 33:15. Yaakov refused this offer without giving a reason. Maybe again Yaakov was worried about Esav attacking him or again he just wanted to travel alone. 

Esav made no response after Yaakov declined his offer of aid, and instead 33:16 records that he went back home. The Netziv (on 33:16) notes the difference between the parting between Yaakov and Esav and the parting between Yaakov and Lavan. Yaakov and Lavan ate together, stayed together at night and in the morning Lavan kissed and blessed Yaakov and his family, 32:54, 33:1. None of this occurred by Yaakov and Esav. Their encounter started very dramatically, but then it ended quickly with no sign of love and brotherliness. The Netziv deduces that Esav left in anger, and he explains that this anger is why Yaakov never went to Seir. The idea being that when Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, he meant it, but he just wanted to travel alone at his own pace. However, when Yaakov saw that Esav left in a hurry, he realized that his brother still hated him and it would be dangerous to go to Seir, and only then he decided not to go to Seir.

This refusal by Yaakov to accept Esav's assistance is another example of the flipping of the blessings of Yitzhak, only now by the blessing that Esav received. After Yaakov tricked Yitzhak, Esav begged Yitzhak for a blessing, 27:34, and then Yitzhak blessed Esav that while Yaakov would be the dominant brother, still Esav would be able to break off from his yoke, 27:40. Now, this blessing was being fulfilled in the opposite manner. Yaakov had bowed down to Esav, but Yaakov was breaking from Esav's yoke by wanting to travel by himself without Esav and Esav's men.

In any event, we can return to the question was Esav truly a good person? One could claim yes, that Esav forgave Yaakov for stealing the blessings, he was offering Yaakov to travel together and to help Yaakov, and he only got angry when he perceived that Yaakov was lying to him. However, since I think that Esav attacked Yaakov in the middle of the night to kill him (see our discussion on Bereshit 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?") his graciousness upon meeting Yaakov was false, and his anger when Yaakov rebuffed his offer to travel together indicated his true feelings towards Yaakov. Esav should have known that Yaakov would be wary of traveling with him and/ or under escort of his men, and if Esav had really changed or was a good soul, then when Yaakov rebuffed him, he should have accepted Yaakov's reluctance and just said something like "ok, we will be expecting you" and then left in a pleasant manner (good wishes/ mutual blessings/ handshakes/ kisses/ hugs). However, his leaving in a huff indicates that Esav was not a sublime fellow, but at most was temporarily touched by Yaakov bowing down to him.

Bibliography:

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Sacks, Jonathan, 2009, Covenant and Conversation: Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, Jerusalem: Maggid Books.

Samet, Elhanan, 2002, Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Hebrew, Jerusalem: Hemed.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Twain, Mark, (1869, first edition), 1966, The Innocents Abroad, New York: The New American Library.

Bereshit 9:12-17 (Noah) – A rainbow after the flood?

Bereshit (Genesis) 9:12-17 record that the sign of the covenant between G-d and Noah is the keshet, and keshet is translated as a rainbow based on Yechezkel 1:28. The symbolism of the rainbow accords nicely with the timing of the covenant with Noah since just as the rainbow shows hope after the storm, so too Noah should have been hopeful to re-start the world.

Was the rainbow just created at the time of the flood? Ibn Ezra (on 9:13) argues yes, based on the word natati (9:13). Radak (on 9:13) explains that according to this approach after the flood G-d made the sun stronger that it would cause a rainbow. On the other hand, the Mishnah (Pirkei Avot 5:9) records that the rainbow was created during the twilight of the eve of the first Shabbat. Similarly, Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 9:13) and the Ramban (on 9:12) argue that the rainbow always existed and only after the flood was its appearance to be taken as an ot, sign, of the covenant. (Does Radak suggest an in-between approach that it existed before the flood but did not exist during the year of the flood?) The text here supports the Ibn Ezra, but it is hard to argue that the physical properties of the sun and water changed from before the flood to after the flood.

Another question is the purpose of the rainbow. It is commonly understood that the rainbow informs a person that really G-d should have destroyed the world but G-d did not do so since G-d had promised not to. With this idea, the rainbow is for people to realize that they are misbehaving. However, 9:15 states that rainbow was for G-d to remember.

The language of G-d remembering is also not clear since we believe that G-d does not forget. Instead, the word remembering in reference to G-d is traditionally understood as a way of expressing the idea, in human terms that G-d is acting after ignoring something but in this case what was G-d ignoring?

Cassuto (1964, pp. 138,139) notes two other difficulties with the sign of the rainbow. One, 9:13,14,16, all record that the keshet was to be in the clouds, but rainbows are in the sky not in the clouds. Two, how can the rainbow remind G-d to not wipe out the world, if the rainbow appears after the storm is over?

While Cassuto suggests answers to his questions, I doubt the word keshet here means rainbow. I believe that after the flood, G-d put in the clouds (atmosphere?) a mechanism to stop the rains at some point, a type of automatic shut-off system. The language of G-d remembering is in reference to the system that the system that G-d set up would act to stop the world from being flooded. This action would occur after the rains had begun, which from the system's point of view would be ignored until the rains reached a certain "danger" point, and then the new system would stop or slow down the rains.

With this idea, the word, ot, sign, does not mean a sign that people will see on a regular basis but it is a sign that the covenant is being fulfilled and is not mere words. Thus, G-d established the system to stop the rains from flooding the world, and this indicates that the promise of the covenant of 9:8-11 is being fulfilled. This would be similar to the ot by circumcision, 17:11, that it is not for a person to always look at this sign, but when parents circumcise their sons, then they have demonstrated their commitment to the covenant. This demonstration is the ot of the covenant.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1964, A commentary on the book of Genesis, part two: From Noah to Abraham, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

When is the Jewish New Year?

Rav Zevin (1888-1978, 1956, p. 33) discusses whether Rosh Hashanah is really the Jewish New Year. He notes that in the Torah the holiday is referred to as the 1st day of the 7th month, which clearly means that that it is not the New Year. Ezra and Nehemiah also used this dating, see Nehemiah 7:72. (Also Megillat Esther 3:7 refers to Nisan, as the first month.) Furthermore even in the time of the Talmud, Rabbi Yehoshua (Rosh Hashanah 11a) maintained that the world was created in Nisan, which would mean that the 1st of Nisan is really the Jewish New Year. Zevin also notes that in the prayers of Rosh Hashanah there is barely any reference (he notes one verse) to the day as marking the New Year, as the day is usually referred to as a day of remembrance. Zevin concludes that notwithstanding all these points, it is accepted that Rosh Hashanah is the New Year, as the name itself attests to.

Shemot 12:2 explicitly states that the month of Pesach (Nisan) is the first month of the year, and all of the dates in the Torah follow this system. This implies that the year begins in the spring. However, Shemot 23:16, 34:22, record that the holiday of the gathering (Sukkot) was at the end of the year, which implies that the year begins in the fall. Also, Devarim 31:10 records that the law of hakhel is to be done at the end of the every seven years, in the shemitta year in the holiday of Sukkot. This phrase “end of every seven years” also implies that Sukkot marks the end of the year. However, this dating of hakhel is problematic even if Rosh Hashanah is the beginning of the year. If Rosh Hashanah is the beginning of the year, then Sukkot, which is 15 days later, is in the beginning of the shemitta year and not the end of the seven years. Rashi (on Devarim 31:10) explains that Devarim 31:10 refers to Sukkot in the 8th year since that would be the end of the shemitta cycle. Furthermore, he explains that 31:10 refers to the 8th year as the shemitta year since some laws of shemitta still applied. Yet, 31:10 records that hakhel was to be in the shemitta year, and the 8th year is no longer the shemitta year.

Ibn Ezra (on Shemot 12:2 and Vayikra 25:9) tries to prove that the year begins in Tishrei in an argument he had with a Karaite, Yehuda HaParsi. One proof is that the blowing of the shofar for the yovel year occurs on Yom Kippur, Vayikra 25:9. Presumably the blowing of the shofar announces the start of the yovel year, and thus the year begins in Tishrei. A 2nd proof is that if the New Year is in Nisan, then hakhel should be by Pesach in the beginning of the year instead of waiting until the middle of the year. A third proof is from Shemot 23:16, 34:22 which we mentioned above. A fourth proof is from Vayikra 25:11, which records the prohibitions of working the land in the yovel year, and first records that one cannot plant before recording the prohibition of harvesting. In Israel planting is done in the fall and harvesting in the spring, so if the New Year was in the spring, then the text should have first recorded harvesting and then planting. Furthermore Ibn Ezra claims that if the New Year was in Nissan, then it should have been forbidden to plant in the 6th year as well since one could not harvest in the 7th year. Yet, the Torah only forbids planting in the 7th year. (I think this is the proof.)

In his comments on Vayikra 25:20, Ibn Ezra disputes a proof from the Sadducees that the year begins in Nisan. Vayikra 25:20 records that “the people will ask what can we eat in the 7th year, can we not harvest our crops?” The Sadducees argued that the words “our crops” implies that that the people planted the crops in the fall, as otherwise they would not be called “our” and this planting could only be done if the shemitta year started in Nisan since then the planting was done in the fall of the 6th year. Ibn Ezra responded that our crops could be what grew naturally, as in 25:12 (although 25:12 does not use the word ours). Furthermore, Ibn Ezra notes that Vayikra 25:21 records that the crops of the 6th year would last for three years, but according to the Sadducees during yovel it would have to last four years: the 7th year would be the shemitta year, the 8th year would be yovel, and only in the 9th year could one plant crops but as the planting season was in the fall the crops would not be available until the 10th year. Thus the harvest of the 6th year would have had to last four years but the Torah only stated that the produce would last 3 years. (However, Rashi on 25:22 notes that even when the year begins in Tishrei it is possible that the crops of the 6th year would need to last 4 years.)

Notwithstanding the arguments of Ibn Ezra, I think the text supports Rabbi Yehoshua that the year starts in Nisan, as implied by Shemot 12:2. Shemot 23:16 and 34:22 can be understood as simply referring to the end of the agricultural year, not the calendar year. Sukkot is the celebration of the complete harvest since after Sukkot there is no more harvest and this signaled whether the agricultural year was successful or not. It would be similar to a business that does all of its business in the summer, so for the business the end of the summer is considered the end of the year.

Devarim 31:10, which records “the end of every seven years in the shemitta year” would mean that hakhel was to be done at 6 years and seven months in the 7 year cycle, which is close to the end of the cycle. I do not understand why Ibn Ezra thought it is problematic to read hakhel in the middle of the year. If the New Year is in Nisan, this allows hakhel to be both in the shemitta year itself and at the end of the 7-year cycle, as stated in Devarim 31:10. (See our discussion in our commentary on Devarim 31:10, "Hakhel, shemitta, sukkot and the new year.")

Ibn Ezra’s proof from the fact that the prohibition of seeding is recorded before the prohibition of harvesting is not convincing since the verse (Vayikra 25:11) does not show the order of the year but follows the order of field work, first one plants and then one harvests. Also, I do not see why planting should have been forbidden in the 6th year just because it was forbidden to harvest in the 7th year, as according to the Torah one can eat the crops that grow in the 7th year, Vayikra 25:7 .

I think Vayikra 25:21 recorded that the crops of the 6th year would last 3 years because really the yovel year was also the shemitta year, so there was no double years of no planting and no harvesting, see our discussion on Vayikra 25:8-11, " From yovel to yovel: 49 or 50 years?" http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2015/05/vayikra-258-11-behar-from-yovel-to.html In addition, even if one maintains that the yovel year was separate from the shemitta year as Rashi pointed out (on 25:22), 25:21 can be understood as only referring to the shemitta year and not to the yovel year,.

Furthermore, Vayikra 25:22 supports the idea that the New Year is Nisan since it records that the people would plant in the 8th year and in the 9th year the new crop would be ready. If shemitta started in Tishrei, so then already in the summer of the 8th year one could eat of the planting from the fall of the 8th year. (Bulah, 1992, on 25:21, explains that if the year starts in Tishrei, then for 2/3 of the 8th year there would be no produce and that the full harvest would not be until the 9th year.) It is simpler to understand that the year starts in Nisan, which means there would be no harvest (other than from natural growth) in the 8th year because one could not plant in the 7th year. The fall planting in the 8th year would then be available in the 9th year.

With regard to the blowing of the shofar for the yovel year, I believe it was blown in the seventh month of the 49th year to announce the upcoming yovel year, which would begin five months later in Nissan, see our discussion on Vayikra 25:9,10, "Shofar blowing, Yom Kippur and the yovel year." This would allow people time to prepare for the yovel year and be similar to the idea that the shofar on Rosh Hashanah announces that Yom Kippur is coming, see our discussion on Vayikra 23:23-25, "Rosh Hashanah," http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/05/vayikra-2323-26-emor-rosh-hashanah.html

Devarim 20:2-8 (Shoftim) - Draft exemptions in the Torah

Devarim 20:3,4 record that before going to war, the priest is to announce that the people should not fear the enemy since G-d will help them win. Afterwards, 20:5-8 record that the shotrim (officials) were to list four reasons for people to be exempt from fighting in the war. It is clear from the exemptions in 20:5-8, that some soldiers will die in the war even thought 20:4 records that G-d will help the people. We see that even if G-d will intervene to help the people, still the laws of nature apply, and people will die in the war.

In addition, we see that a person's lifespan is not pre-determined since if the person returns home and does not fight then he has a greater chance of living. Hoffmann (1961, p. 379, on 20:7) writes that for sure the person was destined to die, but just like the law by putting up a guardrail (22:8), we do not want the person's death to be the responsibility of the officials who send the people to war. Yet, this analogy is not correct since the guardrail stops everybody from falling off the roof and dying, while here the exemptions only stop a few people from dying. The simple understanding of 20:2-8, and of the law of putting up a guardrail, is that if a person acts in a dangerous manner, then he/she has a greater chance of dying, and when possible people should take precautions to increase their chance of living.

The four draft exemptions can be divided into two groups, based on the break in 20:8, "and the shotrim continue to speak." The first group, 20:5-7, record exemptions for a person who has built a house but has not yet dedicated it, planted a vineyard but did not harvest it or was engaged but did not yet marry. The second group, 20:8, is for a person who is scared of dying and/ or of attacking the enemy (Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni on 20:8).

It is striking that these exemptions do not include the most popular draft exemption today in Israel, learning Torah. If this is a legitimate exemption, why was it not mentioned in the Torah with the other exemptions? In fact, the examples of planting a vineyard and building a house are probably completely removed from the life of the typical person today who does not serve in the Israeli army. As S. R. Hirsch writes, (1989, on 20:5-7) “Clearly here the Torah… strikingly lays value on these peace-time tasks being accomplished by every individual personally.” The list of draft exemptions is another case where the Torah indicates the importance of working.

The Torah explains that the reason for the exemption in 20:8 (the second group) is in order that these people who are exempt do not harm the morale of the people fighting, but what is the reason for the exemptions in 20:5-7 (the first group)? One curiosity within the first group of exemptions is that for each of the three cases, the Torah stresses that there is fear that somebody else may either dedicate the house, harvest the vineyard or marry the woman. Why is this possibility relevant to granting the exemption to a person from fighting? Why is it important who dedicates the house or harvests the vineyard?

The three possibilities mentioned in 20:5-7 are also referred to in the section of curses, 28:30, which is understandable since it is a misfortune if a person cannot enjoy his/ her efforts by the house and the fields and if a person who is engaged loses the prospective spouse to somebody else. However, here the fear is that a person will die in battle, why is it worse that the soldier dies without dedicating his house, eating the grapes of his vineyard or getting married?

One approach (see Rashi on 20:5 and Bekhor Shor on 20:7) is that the exemptions are because it is very sad for somebody who has worked so hard at a project to be unable to complete the project. This sadness compounds the sadness of a soldier dying in battle. Is this true even by a vineyard?  Is the death of a soldier sadder if somebody else lives in the house he built?  Also, if one accepts this idea, that the goal is to reduce the sadness of a death of a soldier, why are there no exemptions to soldiers who have pregnant wives or very young children?

Another approach (see Ibn Ezra on 20:5 and Ramban end of comments on 20:1) is that because a person is so pre-occupied with thinking about his house, vineyard and wife, he will flee the battle. Again, I do not understand why this concern should also not be for a soldier with a pregnant wife or young children? Also, with this idea, what difference does it make if another person is going to enjoy the vineyard or the house? Furthermore, if a person is really so worried about his house, vineyard and wife, maybe he would fight harder to get back to them. Paul Kloot (congregant of shul in Modiin) suggested to me that in battle everybody has to be together, so if a person is worried that another person will take his house, vineyard or wife, then the person will not be willing to sacrifice to help out his fellow soldiers.

My guess is that the draft exemptions are to slightly reduce the tragedy of war. In war, many people die and there is no recollection of them at all, as at times even the bodies cannot be identified. In all three cases of the draft exemption of 20:5-7, the person is on the verge of making a name for himself, either by his house, vineyard or wife, that people would say this is his house, vineyard or wife. This is the point of dedicating the house that it will be called his house, and this is the fear of another person appearing, that the house, vineyard or wife will be called after the other person.  The Torah gives this person an exemption in order that he can make a name for himself in some small way, and not suffer the fate of a solider to be a nameless causality. With this logic, we understand why no exemption was granted for a soldier whose wife was pregnant or who had young children since his name and memory would be remembered by the wife, children or potential child.

Bibliography:

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, translated by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1961, Commentary on Deuteronomy, translated by Tzvi Har-Shefer, Tel Aviv: Nezach.

Bemidbar 13:2 and Devarim 1:22,23 - Whose idea was it to send the spies?

Devarim 1:19-45 records Moshe’s recollection of the sending of the spies 38 years earlier. It has long been noted that there are several differences between the account of the spies in Bemidbar 13,14 and Moshe's retelling of the incident in Devarim 1. Perhaps the most obvious difference in Moshe's retelling of the sending of the spies is that Devarim 1:22 records that Moshe stated that it was the people who requested for the spies to be sent, while Bemidbar 13:2 records that G-d told Moshe to send the spies.

Rashi (on Bemidbar 13:2, and for a more recent versions see Samet 2002) explains that the people first requested from Moshe to send spies, and then Moshe asked and received G-d's permission to send the spies. Yet, if both G-d and the people desired for the spies to be sent, why did Bemidbar 13 only refer to G-d's authorization and not the people's request while in Devarim, Moshe only referred to the people's request and not G-d's authorization? N. Leibowitz (1980a, pp. 16-25) explains, based on the Ramban's comments on Bemidbar 13:2, that in Bemidbar the Torah did not record the people's request for the spies since it was "natural and understood" while in Devarim, Moshe only referred to the people's request for the spies since he wanted to emphasize the people's responsibility for their sin.

I doubt that the people had the gumption to take the initiative and propose to send spies. Prior to the incident of the spies, we read how the people were crying for meat, Bemidbar 11:4, and their re-action to the report of the spies show that they had not lost their slave mentality. If the people really initiated the sending of the spies, then this fact should have been recorded in Bemidbar. In addition, my understanding is that the sending of the spies was a test to see if the people were ready to enter the land of Israel, had they lost slave mentality or not, see our discussion on Bemidbar 13:1,2 "A test," http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/06/bemidbar-131-20-shelah-test.html. Accordingly, I believe that it was G-d who initiated the sending of the spies, as recorded in Bemidbar 13:2.

How then can we explain Moshe's statement in Devarim 1:22? My guess is that after Moshe heard the command from G-d to send the spies he told this to the Jewish people, and their response is recorded in Devarim 1:22. The people were "agreeing" to the idea to send the spies, though the spies would have been sent even if they had not "agreed." In addition, the people proposed their own reason why to send the spies. G-d had not given a reason why the spies were to be sent, and the people on their own said, 1:22, "that the spies should explore which is the best road to travel on…" Moshe was very happy with the people's response, Devarim 1:23, since this was an indication that maybe the people were ready to enter the land of Israel, but, alas, they were not.

In Bemidbar 13, the Torah did not record that the people had "agreed" to send the spies since the sending of the spies was not due to the initiative of the people as even had they not "agreed," Moshe would still have sent the spies. Thus, their "agreement" was not important to the historical record of the sending of the spies, and in Bemidbar 13 the stress is on the historical account of the events. Most likely there were other conversations between Moshe and the people about the spies that were not recorded in the Torah. In addition, coupled with the people's statement to send spies was their rationale for the spies, and had this rationale been recorded in Bemidbar 13, then readers of the Torah would have assumed that the reason for the spies was the people's rationale, to find the best way to travel, but really the sending of the spies was to test whether the people had lost their slave mentality or not.

In Devarim the people's "agreement" to the sending the spies and not G-d's command to send the spies was mentioned for two possible reasons. One, as explained by N. Leibowitz, the goal was to emphasize the people's responsibility for the sin of the spies. Two, it is possible that some of the people had become bitter about the incident of the spies. After spending forty years in the desert, the people might have wondered why did G-d tell them to send the spies? Did G-d not know that the people of Canaan would scare the spies? Thus, in Devarim Moshe did not want to mention that G-d had commanded Moshe to send the spies, and instead he recalled that the people had "agreed" to send the spies. Hence, the people cannot blame G-d for entrapment, but instead they were to understand that they had failed by accepting the report of the spies. Also, as the people were about to enter the land of Israel, Moshe wanted them to know that it was permitted to send spies to explore the land so he recorded here how they wanted to send the spies to explore the land and that he was happy with the offer.

Barkhu at the end of Shacharit and Maariv

When I was growing up in America, there was no regular custom by the chazzan or mourners to recite barkhu at the end of Shacharit or Maariv. However, occasionally people who came late to Maariv, would yell out barkhu at the end of the prayer services. In Israel, by Maariv the custom is for a mourner to recite barkhu after reciting Kaddish, and if no mourner is present then the chazzan recites barkhu. The one exception is that by Maariv on Shabbat and Yom Tov night, the chazzan automatically says barkhu and not the mourner. With regard to Shacharit, there are two variations. One, which I believe is the custom of Sefaridm and some Ashkenazim in Israel, is to recite barkhu at the end of Shacharit just like by Maariv. Two, which I believe is the custom of the majority of Ashkenazim in Israel is to recite barkhu at the end of Shacharit when there is no Torah reading, namely Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday on a regular weekday.

It is not clear why barkhu is recited altogether at the end of the prayers and why different people, the chazzan, the person who comes late and the mourner, recite it. We will attempt to explain this custom and we start with the case of the mourner.

The source for the mourner to recite barkhu is from a legend about R. Akiva. I believe that the earliest version of the story is recorded in Kallah Rabbathi, 2:9. (Marienberg, 2009, p. 84, notes that the standard understanding is that the Kallah Rabbathi is from the early Geonic period, while Brodsky, 2006, argues that most likely the first two chapters are from the first half of the fifth century.) 

According to Kallah Rabbathi, R. Akiva meets a person carrying a very heavy load, crying and groaning. R. Akiva wondered why he was suffering and asked him what was his profession when he was alive. (Apparently R. Akiva realized that the person was dead, a ghost.) He answered that when he was alive he had violated all the prohibitions and now he was being punished. For some reason that is not clear to me, R. Akiva wanted to help this terrible person. R. Akiva then learned that he had a pregnant wife. When the boy grew up, R. Akiva took him to the synagogue to pray with the congregation. The ghost then appeared to R. Akiva and told R. Akiva that he had saved him. This version of the story makes no mention of saying kaddish or barkhu, but the story changed over time.

The Or Zarua (R. Yitzhak the son of Moshe from Vienna, 1200-1270?, Laws of Shabbat, 50) records the same basic story with some variations. In this version, R. Akiva met a naked person who was working very hard, and R. Akiva asked him, why are you working so hard? The person answered that he is dead, and everyday he is sent to cut trees and then he is burnt in them. R. Akiva wondered why he was suffering such a fate, and asked him what was his job when he was alive. The dead person answered that he was a tax collector. He favored the rich and killed the poor. R. Akiva then wondered if there is anything that could be done to help this dead person, and the dead person told him that he heard from the people tormenting him that if had a son who either recited barkhu, and the people would respond, baruch Hashem ha-mevurch, or if the son recited yitgadel (Kaddish), and the people would respond, ye-he shem rabba mevurch le-olam u-lealmei almaya he could be saved. R. Akiva learned that the dead person's name was also Akiva, and he found out where he lived, Lodkiya (Lod? Laodicea?). When R. Akiva went to the place, the people said of the dead person, "May his bones be ground to dust." R. Akiva persevered, and found the dead person's child. He taught him to pray, and the child recited both barkhu and yitgadel. The dead person was then released from his suffering, he appeared to R. Akiva in a dream, and blessed R. Akiva.

Wieseltier (1998, pp. 41-43) records a close variation to this version of the story from the Machzor Vitry (R. Simhah the son of Shmuel of Vitry, 11th century). Wieseltier (p. 36) also notes that in the seventh or eighth century a work appeared called Otiyot de-Rabbi Akiva, The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva, and in the discussion of the seventh letter, zayin, the book records how the Kaddish can save souls of the dead from hell.

The Or Zarua concludes his re-telling of the story by noting that his teacher, R. Eleazar of Worms, the Rokeach, stated that a child who recites Kaddish saves his father from punishment. He does not refer to reciting barkhu, only Kaddish. My guess would be that this is because Kaddish does not have G-d's name in it while barkhu does, and saying G-d's name inappropriately could be a violation of the Shemot 20:7, see the Rama on Orah Chayyim 188:7. In addition, within Kaddish, there is a minor barkhu, when the mourner says brich hu and the congregation responds, brich hu. Furthermore, it is customary for the mourner to be the chazzan and then the mourner recites barkhu before the blessings of the Shema.

The Rambam makes no mention of a mourner or of a chazzan at the end of the prayers reciting barkhu. R. Yosef Caro in the Bet Yosef (Yorah Deah, 376) records a brief version of this story from the Kalbo with some variations (an anonymous Rabbi and not R. Akiva) and he writes that due to this story, the son of the deceased recites Kaddish for 12 months and recites the Haftorah (on the yahrzeit?). Neither in the Bet Yosef nor in the Shulchan Arukh, does R. Yosef Caro record that a mourner recites barkhu. When he does refer to reciting barkhu at the end of the prayers, it is in reference to a person coming late to the prayers and not to the mourner, see Orah Chayyim 133 and our discussion below.

I think this legendary story does not warrant saying G-d's name and hence mourners should not call out barkhu at the end of Shacharit or Maariv. In addition, according to the story, the son only has to recite the barkhu and the Kaddish once. With regard to the barkhu this "obligation" is fulfilled if the person is a chazzan once and recites barkhu in its regular place or receives an aliyah and recites barkhu. We now turn to the second reason for reciting barkhu at the end of Shacharit and Maariv.

The second and apparently completely independent reason for reciting barkhu is related to the question of barkhu's place or importance in the prayers. Probably the first reference to reciting barkhu is in the Mishnah (Tamid 5:1) which records that in the second Bet ha-Mikdash, the superintendent called out (to the priests), barkhu recite a blessing, and the priests recited a blessing and read the Decalogue and the Shema. The superintendent then called out again, barkhu the people three more blessings. We see that the point of reciting barkhu is to invite or call out to people to bless G-d. Thus, we recite barkhu by Shacharit and Maariv, which have the blessings of the Shema, but not by Minhah or Musaf which have no blessings of the Shema.

Another Mishnah (Berakhot 7:3) states that a person calls out barkhu prior to reciting the birkat ha-mazon in certain circumstances depending on the number of people reciting the birkat ha-mazon. Again we see that the barkhu is an invitation for others to bless G-d. It seems that by the time this Mishnah was compiled, people were already reciting barkhu in the synagogue since R. Akiva argues out that the law by birkat ha-mazon should be the same as by the synagogue that barkhu et Hashem is recited once there are ten people regardless of how many more people there are. R. Yishmael adds that the person should recite barkhu et Hashem ha-mevurach possibly in order that the person who calls out barkhu praises G-d. The Mishnah does not state when barkhu was recited in the synagogue and to the best of my knowledge, this law to recite barkhu before birkat ha-mazon has been lost.

One other possible case of reciting barkhu in the Mishnah is by reading the Torah. The Mishnah (Megillah 4:1) records that the first person and last people who have an aliyah recite a blessing. (Today, the custom is that each person having an aliyah makes a blessing before and after the aliyah.) The Mishnah does not mention what are the blessings and does not refer to reciting barkhu, but the custom (Rambam, Laws of prayer, 11:5) is to recite barkhu before the first blessing. Again the barkhu is an invitation to bless since the person immediately recites a blessing and after the reading of the aliyah the person recites another blessing. (I do not know when the barkhu was included in the aliyah. Goldschmidt, 2004, p. 59, records that one version of R. Amram Gaon's Siddur, mentions reciting barkhu before the aliyah.)

Around 600 years after the Mishnah, in the 9th century, R. Amram Gaon (Goldschmidt, 2004, p. 41) records that a question arose with regard to people who came late to shul after the chazzan already recited barkhu, whether the chazzan could recite barkhu for these people in between the last blessing of the Shema and Shemoneh Esrei? R. Amram Gaon answered that this was possible by Maariv but not by Shacharit. (This law by Maariv is recorded by the Shulchan Arukh 236:2.) In this case, the barkhu was only for those people who came late, as R. Amram Gaon specifies that only the people who come late would respond to the barkhu.  Again, barkhu was  an invitation for people to recite the blessings of the Shema.

Around 300 hundred years later in the 12th century, the Manhig (Avraham b. Natan ha-Yarhi, Provence, Laws of prayer, 27) quotes from the Geonim that by Shacharit, the chazzan can recite barkhu for the people who come late at the end of the prayers, while by Maariv, following R. Amram Gaon, the chazzan can recite barkhu for the latecomers before starting Shemoneh Esrei. The Manhig explicitly writes that if the latecomers already recited the blessings of the Shema, then the chazzan does not recite barkhu for them.

Two hundred years later, in the 14th century, the Rivash (Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet, 1326-1407, Spain/ Algiers, response 334) was asked about reciting barkhu at the end of the prayers. The custom had developed to recite barkhu at the end of the prayers, and a certain R. Moshe was trying to abolish the custom since no blessing was recited afterwards. The Rivash agreed that one should not recite barkhu if nobody is reciting any blessings afterwards. He then quotes the custom in Barcelona, that on Friday and Yom Tov night because people always came late, they would recite barkhu at the end of the prayers and the latecomers would then pray after hearing the barkhu. Also during the weekday mornings, barkhu was recited at the end of the prayers for the people who came late and who would then begin to pray. However, on Shabbat and Yom Tov when the prayers take longer and everybody already prayed, then barkhu was not recited at the end of the prayers. He writes that this is the correct custom. However, he did not want to abrogate the custom of places who recited barkhu all the time even if the custom was incorrect. Accordingly, he concludes with a compromise that in those places which had the custom to always recite barkhu at the end of the prayers, they should at least stop reciting barkhu at the end of Shacharit/ Musaf on Shabbat and Yom Tov morning.

At around the same time and also in Spain, the Abudraham (1995, p. 140, towards the end of his discussion on weekday Shacharit) records that in some places, the chazzan recites barkhu at the end of the prayers even though no blessing was recited after the barkhu, while in other places, it was viewed as wrong to recite barkhu without any blessing afterwards since barkhu is an invitation to make a blessing.

We see that by the 14th century there had developed a new view of barkhu. The traditional view, espoused by the Manhig, R. Moshe and the Rivash is that barkhu is an invitation to recite blessings and there needs to be some blessing after saying barkhu. With this understanding, to be able to recite barkhu there has to be somebody who had not yet prayed. The new view was that barkhu stands alone that there is no need for there to be any blessing afterwards.

In the 16th century, the Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 69:1) writes that if ten people prayed individually and then joined together, one of them can recite Kaddish, barkhu and the first blessing of yotser or. The need for reciting yotser or is that there needs to be a blessing after barkhu. Thus, in the Bet Yosef, R. Yosef Caro quotes the Mahariya (?) that people who recite barkhu afterwards must make sure that there is somebody who is going to recite the blessings of the Shema since otherwise it looks as if they are denying G-d by ignoring the chazzan who told them to bless G-d. (The Mishnah Berurah, 69:1, quotes that the Radbaz thinks the Shulchan Arukh is incorrect that the blessing yotzer or cannot be said a second time, but he agrees that one can only recite the barkhu if there is a person who will recite yotser or for the first time.)

The Rama (16th century, Krakow) disagrees with the Shulchan Arukh. He writes in the Darkei Moshe (69:1) that once a person responds to the barkhu by saying baruch Hashem ha-mevurach le-olam vaed, then that is sufficient, and there is no need to recite any blessing afterwards. The Mishnah Berurah (69:4) writes that Elyah Rabbah and the Magen Avraham agree with the Rama. The Rama writes that a proof of this understanding is that by the Torah reading, the congregation only says baruch Hashem ha-mevurach le-olam vaed, and no other blessing. Yet, I would think that the blessing recited by the person having the aliyah after saying barkhu is the blessing that accompanies the barkhu, and not only does the person who has the aliyah recite a blessing but when the people say amen to the blessing, then they are joining with his blessing. In any event, the Rama writes that the custom to recite Kaddish and barkhu by the latecomers was only by Shacharit.

However, even though the Rama is following the idea that barkhu stands by itself, his ruling is only for people who "missed" barkhu, but the Rama did not state that the chazzan should repeat barkhu if everybody in the minyan heard/ recited barkhu. This issue arises in Orah Chayyim 133.

The Shulchan Arukh (133:1) quotes the Rivash and writes that on Shabbat and Yom Tov morning, the chazzan should not automatically recite barkhu. It is not clear how this ruling relates to his ruling in Orah Chayyim 69:1 where he required a blessing to be recited after the barkhu since it is not clear what is his opinion on other days. Possibly, he thinks (like the Rivash?) that on all other occasions, except Shabbat and Yom Tov morning, one can rely on the fact that there will be somebody who will be late and recite a blessing after the barkhu. Or, maybe he does not think it is right for the chazzan to automatically recite barkhu at the end of the prayers on any day, which accords with his ruling in Orah Chayyim 69, but in 133:1 he only forbids reciting barkhu on Shabbat and Yom Tov morning since the Rivash reluctantly allowed it on the other times.

The Rama on Orah Chayyim 133:1 agrees with the Shulchan Arukh and in his comments he explains the Shulchan Arukh's ruling. Yet, why does he agree with the Shulchan Arukh not to recite the barkhu on Shabbat and Yom Tov mornings, if he thinks that barkhu stands alone? The answer is that he writes that on Shabbat and Yom Tov mornings barkhu is not be recited at the end of the prayers since everybody comes to shul before the regular barkhu. We see that he thinks that a person should not recite a second barkhu for no reason. 

(Note that the Rama's explanation differs from the Rivash who is the source of this law. The Rivash claimed that by Shacharit on Shabbat and Yom Tov one should not recite barkhu since everybody would have prayed by the end of the prayers and then nobody will recite a blessing after barkhu. However, for the Rama one does not have to recite a blessing after barkhu but still barkhu is not to be recited on Shabbat and Yom Tov morning at the end of the prayers since he thinks that everybody will come to shul on time to hear barkhu in its proper place.)

It is curious that the Sefardim in Israel do not follow the Shulchan Arukh's ruling in Orah Chayyim 133 since they recite barkhu even on Shabbat and Yom Tov morning. The Mekor Chayyim (R. Chayyim David ha-Levi, 1924-1998, Israel, 1975, pp. 310,311) writes that the custom in Israel and Egypt is to recite barkhu at the end of Shacharit due to secret wisdom (Kabbalah?).

Not all of the Ashkenazi authorities agreed with the Rama's rulings in Orah Chayyim 69 and 133. The Chayyei Adam (R. Avraham Danzig, 1748-1829, Vilna, Laws of prayer 30:3) writes that barkhu does not stand on its own, and if one recites barkhu, then there has to be some person who recites a blessing after the barkhu. Rav Schachtar (1994, p. 148) quotes from Rav Soloveitchik that in Brisk they did not allow people to recite barkhu at the end of the prayers for the reason mentioned above by the Bet Yosef, that there needs to be a blessing after the barkhu since otherwise one appears to be denying G-d by ignoring the chazzan's call to bless G-d.

The Chayyei Adam also added that even for those people who are going to recite a blessing after the barkhu, still one should not recite barkhu for them on Monday and Thursday morning when they can hear barkhu by the reading of the Torah. He also writes not to say it by Friday night and Yom Tov night since one can assume that everybody came in time to hear the regular barkhu.

This last case is interesting since the Minhat Elazar (R. Chayyim Elazar Spira, 1868-1937, Ukraine, Hungary, Response 4:71) writes that custom is for the chazzan to recite barkhu on Friday night, and I was told that in America the people who pray nusach Sefard add barkhu only on Friday night. Similarly in the Siddur Rinat Yisrael nusach Sefard (Tal, 1984, pp. 98,170, 208) it records that during the week there is a custom for the mourners to recite barkhu at the end of the prayers, while by Friday night (and only on Friday night), it states that the chazzan (and not the mourner) recites barkhu. Presumably this custom just for the chazzan to recite barkhu on Friday night and Yom Tov night is from the Rivash's comments about Barcelona that people always came late to Maariv on Friday and Yom Tov night, but today when we recite Kabbalat Shabbat, more likely the Chayyei Adam is correct that people do not generally miss the barkhu at the beginning of Maariv.

The Arukh Hashulchan (R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908, Russia) on Orah Chayyim 69:5 seems to follows the Rama that barkhu stands alone. Afterwards, he writes that in some places before the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei, a person recites Kaddish and barkhu for the people who "missed" the first barkhu. I have never seen this done. He also follows the Chayyei Adam that on Monday and Thursday morning there is no need for this extra barkhu. On Orah Chayyim 133:5, he writes that the custom of reciting barkhu at the end of the prayers was unknown to him.

I spoke to Rabbi David Lau (Chief Rabbi of Israel from 2013-2024) about this issue and he told me that R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995, Israel) said that barkhu should not be recited by the chazzan at the end of Maariv on mostsei Yom Kippur since for sure nobody comes late to that Maariv.

I believe that there is a major problem with reciting barkhu for no reason. This problem is mentioned by the Rama in the Darkei Moshe (69:2), but to the best of my knowledge it was not picked up by later authorities. The Rama believes that barkhu stands by itself, but then he writes that for those people who think it does not, the problem is not that one appears to be denying G-d by not responding to the chazzan's call to bless G-d, but of reciting a bracha le-vatalah. This seems obvious. A bracha le-vatalah is when a person recites a blessing unnecessarily and it is forbidden either biblically (Rambam, Laws of Oaths, 12:9, also see Laws of Blessings 1:15) or rabbinically (Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 33a, Ha Rebbi Yehuda) because one says G-d's name for no purpose. Even by a bracha le-vatalah, one is praising G-d by reciting the blessing, but if the blessing is unnecessary, then it is forbidden. Barkhu is the same situation. Even though one is praising G-d by reciting barkhu, still if it recited unnecessarily, it should be forbidden because one is saying G-d's name for no purpose.

There exists a strange dichotomy in reference to reciting G-d's name. On the one hand, everybody agrees that an unnecessary blessing is forbidden, just that there is an argument what is the level of prohibition. On the other hand, many people claim that outside of the context of a blessing, a person can recite G-d's name whenever one wants if one is praising or praying to G-d, see Magen Avraham, Orah Chayyim 188:11 and Biur Halacha, Orah Chayyim, 188, ve-ein. An example of this second case is to recite G-d's name by zemirot on Shabbat, as then there is no structure of a blessing, and I think many people recite G-d's name when singing zemirot. (I do not understand this difference since it seems to me that even by zemirot one should not recite G-d's name, see Rav Schachter, 1994, p. 160.)

With regard to barkhu it has the basic form of a blessing. The Rama (Orah Chayyim 188:7) writes that the prayer yaaleh ve-yavo is considered to have a status of a blessing to be considered as a bracha le-vatalah when it is recited unnecessarily, so certainly barkhu which refers to blessing G-d should be considered a bracha le-vatalah according to all opinions if it recited unnecessarily. 

I have been told that the response of baruch Hashem ha-mevurach le-olam vaed is a sufficient response to barkhu, that this phrase is the blessing that makes the barkhu not to be a lie, but baruch Hashem ha-mevurach le-olam vaed is not a blessing.

To conclude, according to the view that barkhu is an invitation to recite blessings, then one can only recite it after Shacharit and Maariv if there is someone who will recite the blessings of Shema afterwards. The person calling out the barkhu can be the chazzan or the person who will recite the blessings afterwards. I think this is the correct approach.

However, for those people who think that barkhu is not a call to recite other blessings and/ or it is sufficient to respond baruch Hashem ha-mevurach le-olam vaed to the barkhu, then it would be permitted to recite barkhu at the end of Shacharit or Maariv if there is somebody who did not hear barkhu beforehand. This view feels that there is some intrinsic value to reciting barkhu, and then people who come late have a feeling that that they "missed" barkhu. I do not get this feeling since they also missed saying a blessing on an apple if they do not eat an apple.

In any event, even with this view, I do not think that barkhu should be recited automatically by a chazzan at the end of the prayers based on the assumption that somebody missed barkhu because if nobody missed barkhu, then the chazzan has recited a bracha le-vatalah. In this case, the person who came late can recite the barkhu or the chazzan can check if somebody came late and then recite barkhu.  If a chazzan or a mourner automatically recites barkhu  it leads to the chazzan or the mouner reciting barkhu when there is nobody who came late. Even if 90% or 99% of the time, there is somebody who "missed" barkhu, this does not justify reciting barkhu unnecessarily (saying G-d's name in vain) on the 10% or even 1% of the time when there is nobody who "missed" barkhu. 

I am not sure whether the congregants should respond to an unnecessary barkhu. Can one claim that the response of baruch Hashem ha-mevurach le-olam vaed is appropriate even though the barkhu itself was not or just like one does not respond amen to a bracha le-vatalah (Rambam, Laws of blessing, 1:15), then one should not say baruch Hashem ha-mevurach le-olam vaed to an unnecessary barkhu?  I personally do not recite barkhu when I am the chazzan or a mourner.  Also, I do not always answer when people call out barchu, though sometimes I answer without saying G-d’s name, saying Hashem, if somebody recites it when nobody is going to recite a blessing afterwards. Note, in the period of counting the omer, in some places, a blessing by the counting of the omer is recited after the barkhu by Maariv if the omer is counted before Alenu, and this blessing by the counting of the omer removes the problem of reciting the second barkhu by Maariv for these 49 days.

In the synagogue which I attend, Yakir Efrayim in Modiin, Israel, we had a committee to discuss the prayers in the shul. I attempted to stop having barkhu be recited all the time at the end of Shacharit and Maariv (like the person R. Moshe in the response of the Rivash), but there were people who did not want to change the custom. We compromised that on Friday and Yom Tov night, the barkhu will be recited by the chazzan (as in the Siddur Rinat Yisrael), on Monday, Thursday, Rosh Chodesh, Hanukkah, Purim, Shabbat and Yom Tov mornings, barkhu will not be recited (like the Shulchan Arukh and Chayyei Adam), and on all other occasions, it is the decision of the chazzan or the mourners whether to call out barkhu or not.

Bibliography:

Brodsky, David, 2006, A Bride without a Blessing: A Study in the Redaction and Content of Massekhet Kal-lah and its Gemara, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Goldschmidt, Daniel (1895-1972), 2004, Seder Rav Amram Gaon, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Halevi, R. Chayyim David (1924-1998), 1975, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Mekor Chayyim, Tel Aviv.

Marienberg, Evyatar, 2009, Review of the book, A Bride without a Blessing: A Study in the Redaction and Content of Massekhet Kal-lah and its Gemara, Journal for the Study of Judaism, 40, p. 87.

Schachter, Hershel, 1994, Nefesh Harav, New York: Flatbush Beth Hamedrosh.

Tal, Shelomo, 1984, Siddur Rinat Yitzhak: Nusach sefard, Bnei Brak: Moreshet Publishing

Wieseltier, Leon, 1998, Kaddish, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.