The Third Blessing of “Birkat HaMazon”

and “Yom Yerushalayim”

 

R. Yaakov Bieler

Parshat BaMidbar, 5765

 

In the primary sources of Jewish tradition, we learn more about the “Nesi’im” (princes) of the Tribe of Yehuda than those of any other tribe. On the one hand, there are the oral traditions surrounding the courage and faith of Nachshon ben Aminadav at “Yam Suf” (the Sea of Reeds).[1] However, his “Nasi” counterpart, Kalev ben Yefune, who is first mentioned when he serves as Yehuda’s representative among the spies (BaMidbar 13:6) receives much more extensive treatment in the biblical text itself.

 

I have always been struck by the resemblance between a comment by RaShI based upon BaMidbar Rabba, concerning the manner in which Kalev got the attention of the masses of the Jewish people so that he could report about what he had spied out in the land of Israel, and a famous scene in one of Shakespeare’s classic plays. In contrast to Yehoshua, Moshe’s devoted student (Shemot 33:11) whom everyone fully expected to take Moshe’s positive position regarding the conquerability of the land, Kalev’s views are unknown until he actually opens his mouth and reports. In BaMidbar 13:30, the Tora writes, “VaYahas Kalev Et HaAm El Moshe…” (and Kalev hushed the crowd [by making reference] to Moshe). RaShI fills in the details of Kalev’s appeal to the unruly people.

 

“To Moshe”—to hear what he (Kalev) would say concerning Moshe.

He screamed and said, “Is this all that Ben Amram[2] did to us?” The listeners were led to think that Kalev had come to cast aspersions upon Moshe. And because they harbored resentment towards Moshe as a result of the report of the spies,[3] they became quiet in order to hear more criticism of their leader.

Kalev then said, “He (Moshe) split for us the sea; he brought the Manna down to us; and he provided the partridges for us.”

 

Shakespeare imagines a similar crowd manipulation to have taken place following the assassination of the emperor in his play, Julius Caesar. The assassins, headed by Brutus and Cassius, originally enjoy the crowd’s support. Marc Anthony, determined to change the minds of the people, first has to win their attention by giving them the impression that he too approves of the murder, and only after achieving this and gaining the mob’s sympathy, is he be able to convey his true message.

 

Julius Caesar, Act III, Sc. II, l. 80 ff.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones.

So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus

Hath told you Caesar was ambitious.

If it were so, it was a grievous fault,

And grievously hat Caesar answered it.

Here under leave of Brutus and the rest

(For Brutus is an honorable man;

So are they all, all honorable men),

Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.

He was my friend, faithful and just to me;

But Brutus says he was ambitious,

And Brutus is an honorable man.

He hath brought many coffers home to Rome,

Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.

Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?

When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept;

Ambition should be made of sterner stuff…[4]

 

I find it quite unremarkable that such a parallel should exist between Biblical accounts of personal interactions, and great works of art, be they literature, painting or sculpture, as well as histories, psychological theories, sociological perspectives, and conceptions of religion. Whatever epoch and lifestyle we may consider, human nature has been and will continue to be a constant. There is only a finite number of ways in which people respond to one another’s emotions,  arguments, and actions, as well as the general existential dilemma of human existence. We therefore should and can find countless similarities throughout the humanistic disciplines. Furthermore, crossing disciplines allow us to give expression and reach understanding of certain events and behaviors that we otherwise may not  fully appreciate. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein has written in this regard:

 

The humanities, in sum, enable us to expand our horizons with reference to man and society beyond the bounds of narrow personal experience that ordinarily circumscribe us, wherein we are confronted by what Bacon calls the idols of the cave and of the market-place. In doing so, they significantly enhance our ability to cope with the two primary challenges of the moral and spiritual life: “Tikkun” (repair, completion) of self within the antechamber of the world-to-come; and “Tikun” of the antechamber proper.[5] 

 

A second Shakespearian example that reflects not only basic human nature, but even a principle of Jewish ritual law, appears in the play, Richard the Second. Richard is a weak king, and has been convinced to give up the throne to a man who had previously acted as an ally. The king is very ambivalent about renouncing his royal status, and indicates his quandary in the following soliloquy:

 

Alack, why am I sent for to a king

Before I have shook off the regal thoughts

Wherewith I reigned? I hardly yet have learned

To insinuate, flatter, bow, and bend my knee.

Give sorrow leave awhile to tutor me

To this submission. Yet I well remember

The favors of these men. Were they not mine?

Did they not sometime cry “All hail” to me?

...GOD SAVE THE KING! WILL NO MAN SAY AMEN?

AM I BOTH PRIEST AND CLERK? WELL THEN, AMEN!

GOD SAVE THE KING! ALTHOUGH I BE NOT HE;

AND YET AMEN, IF HEAVEN DO THINK HIM ME.[6]

 

The phrase “God save the King” is a blessing, and Richard remarks upon the irony that if in fact he is still truly the king, he feels exceedingly odd saying Amen to his own blessing concerning himself, a practice that even the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch look upon as improper. Berachot 45b cites a Baraita that states, “One who answers ‘Amen’ to his own blessing, it is reprehensible.” Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 215:1 codifies the opinion of the Baraita cited by the Talmud: “One is not to recite ‘Amen’ after one’s own blessings…”

 

Aside from the acute ambiguity of Richard’s personal position that creates a specific dilemma for him to both say “God save the king” and “Amen”, why should the Halacha have an issue with saying “Amen” to one’s own “Beracha”? The term “Amen” is normally understood as a confirmation and verification of what has just been said, particularly in the context of an oath. In the case of the “Sota”, a woman accused by her husband of having been unfaithful, she is required to answer Amen to the oath pronounced by the Kohen in BaMidbar 5:22. Similarly, the people recite “Amen” to the blessings and curses that are stated by the Levi’im on the mountains Grizim and Eival in Devarim 27:15-26. By extension, “Amen” at the conclusion of any blessing would simply signify an affirmation of what has just been said. It is readily understandable why upon hearing another’s blessing, one should respond forthrightly and with conviction, “Amen”.[7] In this way the listener too becomes party to the blessing and adds public confirmation to what has been voiced by the bless-er. Great approbation is given to those who are punctilious regarding saying “Amen” in its proper context.

 

Tur, Orach Chayim 124

The Rabbis have taught, (Midrash Yalkut Yeshayahu 429) “What is meant by the phrase (Yeshayahu 26:2) ‘Shomer Emunim’ (the guardians of their faith)? These are the ones who recite their ‘Amen’’s[8] with deep faith.

(Shabbat 119b) Said R. Shimon: Whomever answers “Amen” with all of his strength, i.e., full “Kavana” (intention/concentration), the gates of the Garden of Eden will be opened for him/her, as it is written, (Yeshayahu 26:2) “Open the gates and let the righteous nation come in ‘Shomer Emunim’” Don’t read “Shomer Emunim” but rather “SheOmrim Amen” (that say “Amen”).[9]

It is clear from the words of “ChaZaL”[10] that the essence of the answering of “Amen” has to do with the “Kavana” that accompanies such an action, rather than simply uttering the word alone, it being very important that one focuses his/her heart when saying this word. And the intent that should accompany “Amen” is: The blessing that has been stated is true and I (the listener) believe in its truth.

 

If “Amen” is an affirmation and verification of what has just been said within the context of a blessing to God, it is ostensibly difficult to comprehend what could be so objectionable if the individual who him/herself has pronounced the blessing, adds his/her own personal “Amen” for good measure.

 

Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chayim 115:4 offers the following hypothesis for the problem that the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch have with saying “Amen” to one’s own “Beracha”:

 

…In my humble opinion, the reason is that by means of the blessing, Divine Influence from above is summoned. The statement of “Amen” is to strengthen/reinforce what has just been said to the effect that (what has just been said, i.e. the blessing) is certainly true. It is just not appropriate for an individual to reinforce that which s/he him/herself has just said, implying that what s/he has just said is indeed worthy to precipitate a Divine Response,[11] and it is for this reason that to do so is inappropriate. Someone other than the individual who recited the blessing can certainly say “Amen” and in that way strengthen the utterance of the recit-er of the blessing…

 

Aruch HaShulchan’s conception of the metaphysical effects of blessings would appear to be based on much older mystical traditions, such as that presented by RaMBaN in his “Egeret HaKodesh” (the Holy Letter).[12]

 

It is known to the masters of mysticism that the thoughts of man emanate from the intellectual soul that itself derives from Those on High. And there is a power in thought to spread out and rise and reach the point of its original origin. At that time it is reunited with the Higher Foundational Principle that stems from there. As a result the human thought and the Higher Foundational Principle become one. And when the thought returns from on high to the world below, it appears that the two spiritual forces have been melded together to form a single beam, and that Higher Light returns to the world below by virtue of the force of the thought that brings it to the world, resulting in the Divine Presence Being found in this world. And then the clear light is drawn and spreads out in the very place in which the master of the thoughts is sitting there.

 

Therefore, if one’s blessing completely on its own can accomplish such a powerful and spiritually potent result, it becomes clear why adding an “Amen” to the “Beracha” would be superfluous, and even insulting. Perhaps it’s comparable to when someone making a presentation explaining a certain concept, engages in special pleading and adds, “Really!” “You have to believe me!” Shouldn’t the “Bochein Levavot” (the One Who knows what resides in peoples’ hearts) be Assumed to discern when and if the one making the blessing is doing so in a sincere and heartfelt manner? Does He Require any further reassurances?

 

However, there is one exception to the recitation of “Amen” in connection to one’s own blessings:

 

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 215:1

One does not say “Amen” after one’s own “Berachot” except after the uttering of two or more blessings when one reaches the end of that section of blessings. And the custom is to say “Amen” after “Yehallelucha”[13] and after “Yishtabach”.[14]

 

There is even a biblical precedent for the practice of saying “Amen” at the end of a series of blessings. The 150 chapters of the book of Tehillim is traditionally divided into five books, and at the conclusion of each of the first three books[15] of Tehillim, variations are found of the recitation of “Amen” at the conclusion of any number of “Berachot”:

 

Tehillim 41:14

“Baruch HaShem Elokai Yisrael MeiHaOlam VeAd HaOlam, AMEN VE’AMEN” (Blessed is HaShem, the God of Israel forever, Amen and Amen).

 

Ibid. 72:20

“U’Baruch Shem Kevodo LeOlam, VeYimaleh Chevodo Et Kol HaAretz AMEN VE’AMEN” (And Blessed is the Name of His Glory, and may His Glory Fill the entire earth, Amen and Amen).

 

Ibid. 89:53

“Baruch HaShem LeOlam, AMEN VE’AMEN” (Blessed is HaShem forever, Amen and Amen).

 

Da’at Mikra on Tehillim 41:14 offers and interesting insight that not only may account for the verse to which he attaches his comment, but to the general issue of reciting Amen to a series of blessings that one has just said. The commentator suggests that it is possible that the repetition “Amen and Amen” might apply to all of the blessings contained in this Psalm and connotes a desire that not only should they be fulfilled, but that this should take place expediently. Da’at Mikra then goes one step further, and hypothesizes that “Amen VeAmen” may apply to all of the blessings contained in all of the Psalms that comprise the book that has now been completed. Consequently we might conclude that while saying “Amen” at the end of one’s own single blessing, is at the very least superfluous, if not downright improper, when one has recited a series of blessings, lest the implication arise that we care more about those that have been stated last as opposed to those at the beginning of our prayer, it is important to affirm that they are all of equal important to us. Instead of giving the impression that we are constantly amending our thoughts, rejecting what we have formulated previously for what we are currently asking for, we want to demonstrate that everything that we have prayed for is in play and therefore ought to be seriously considered by HaShem.

 

While reciting “Amen” to one’s own blessings may be an acceptable custom for Sephardim and those with a mystical bent (see fn. 12), the Ashkenazic authority for acceptable customs within the community, printed in Shulchan Aruch, further narrows the exception to the rule to a single case.

 

RaMA[16]

There are those who say that the only case where “Amen” is said after a series of blessings is with regard to “Boneh Yerushalayim” (lit. Who builds Jerusalem, a reference to the end of the third blessing in the Grace after Meals). And that is the common custom in these countries and there should be no deviation…

 

Reciting “Amen” after this particular blessing in the “Birkat HaMazon” is already referenced in the Talmud.

 

Berachot 45b

One Baraita teaches, “The individual who says ‘Amen’ after his/her own blessings is to be praised.”

And another teaches, “The individual who says ‘Amen’ after his/her own blessings is to be disparaged.”

There is no discrepancy. This one (the first source) is referring to “Boneh Yerushalayim”; that one (the second source) is referring to other blessings.[17]

 

The standard explanation for why “Boneh Yerushalayim” is an exception with regard to one answering “Amen” after his/her own blessings is articulated by R. Yosef Karo, among others.

 

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 188:1

After one completes “Boneh Yerushalayim” s/he should say “Amen” after his/her own blessing because this marks the completion of the blessings (of “Birkat HaMazon”) that are Tora mandated, for “HaTov VeHaMeitiv” (the appellation for the fourth blessing of “Birkat HaMazon”) is not Tora mandated (but rather Rabbinic in origin).

 

The assumption that the fourth blessing of “Birkat HaMazon” is only Rabbinic is discussed in several places in the Talmud. Berachot 45b records that Abaye would say the “Amen” at the end of the third blessing loudly in order to indicate that workmen had to return at this point to their tasks, since the individual hiring them was required to give them a break “to bench” for only as long as it would take the “D’Orayta” (obligatory from the Tora) portion to be recited. R. Ashi, on the other hand, would say this particular “Amen” quietly so that the fourth blessing would not come to be taken too lightly.[18] While on Berachot 46a, a view is quoted that maintains even the fourth blessing is “MiD’Orayta”, it is at best only a minority view, with several additional Tannaim and Amoraim agreeing with the earlier assessment of its “Mi’D’Rabbanan” status, as for example indicated by the facts that a) despite the fourth blessing being a lengthy blessing containing several themes, there is no “Chatima” (lit. ending, in this case a final phrase “Baruch Ata HaShem …” which is typical for MiD’Orayta blessings, and b) R. Akiva’s opinion that in the house of a mourner this blessing is omitted, something never considered regarding the first three blessings.

 

But it seems to me that even if a rationalization can be provided for saying “Amen” to one’s own blessing in this one instance, there must be some additional reason for why the difference between the first three blessings of “Birkat HaMazon” and the fourth could not be indicated in a manner other than by ignoring a central principle of not answering “Amen” to one’s own blessing that applies to all other “Berachot”.

 

Perhaps it could be argued that not only is the “Amen” in this case designed to set off the fourth blessing from the first three, but also to provide additional emphasis regarding the third blessing in particular.

 

With respect to the first two blessings of “Birkat HaMazon”, we are giving thanks for things that we in most cases already have. The first blessing focuses upon the food that HaShem Provides for His entire Creation. While it could be contended that there are people and animals starving in different areas of the world, is this because there simply isn’t the potential for enough food which would reflect upon HaShem’s having Created an imperfect world, “KaVeYachol” (if that is even possible), or because the methods of growing and distributing food have not been what they could be were they designed to maximize the production of food and seeing to it that it reaches those who truly are in need. Chatam Sofer, in his commentary[19] on Parshat Eikev (in which Devarim 8:10, the source of “Birkat HaMazon” appears), comments in the following manner on the statement at the end of “Benching”: (Tehillim 37:25) “I was young and now I am old, and I never saw a righteous person forsaken and his children starving for bread”.

 

   …I never saw a righteous person forsaken, because as soon as I would become aware of him, he was no longer forsaken, since I opened my hand to him and I supported him from my own goodness and possessions…

 

If such an attitude would inform not only individuals, but entire communities and countries, it is possible that starvation could be considerably lessened, if not entirely eradicated!

 

As for the second blessing in Birkat HaMazon, which deals with the land of Israel, this too, certainly for the last 58 years, has become much more than a theoretical possibility. While it is clear that the State of Israel is far from perfect, it is so much more of a reality than it has been for the Jewish people for so many previous centuries. When we recite in the prayer for the welfare of the State of Israel that it is “Raishit Tzmichat Geulatainu” (the beginning of the flowering of our Redemption) the State ought to be an object of great thanksgiving on Yom HaAtzmaut as well as everyday, even as we gird ourselves to again do all in our respective individual and collective powers to see that it realizes its incredible potential as much as possible.

 

But as for the third blessing, most of its contents are things that we regrettably do not have, some of which we have not had for a very long time, and others that we have as yet never had. Instead of the giving thanks for what we already have which marks the first two blessings, the third blessing contains an inventory of things that we need, and therefore is a “Bakasha” (plea, supplication) as opposed to a “Hoda’a” (thanksgiving). What are the things for which we need HaShem’s “Rachamim” (Compassion) if we are to realize them ever, let alone in our own lifetimes?

 

a.  The welfare of the entire Jewish people, its security and its guaranteed continuity.

          b.  The permanence and condition of the city of Jerusalem, “HaShem’s City”,

          c.   The Temple Mount,

          d.   The Kingship of the House of David, your anointed one,

          e.   The Temple which is associated with Your Name,

and     f.    Independence from needing the support of other nations. 

 

The fact that all of these elements are included in a blessing that concludes, “And Build Yerushalayim, the Holy City quickly, in our days” suggests not only that this may be the most important of the various needs listed within the blessing, but that the possibility for the actualization of the others may be built upon first accomplishing the spiritual rebuilding of Jerusalem. Giving thanks is one thing; making a desperate request is another matter, and perhaps caution is thrown to the winds, and in addition to pleading for HaShem’s Mercy (“Rachem…”; “Boneh BeRachamav Yerushalayim, Amen”), we add for emphasis at the conclusion of the blessing, “Amen”—I really mean it! We need it to happen sooner rather than later!

 

Clearly the reunification of Jerusalem as a result of the 1967 war was an important step in the process of the rebuilding of this Holy City. It is important that we annually remember what has happened on Yom Yerushalayim, by offering prayers of thanksgiving for the past and supplications for the future, and eagerly look forward by means of our prayers and our dreams, to what must and hopefully will occur in the years to come, as well as that will bring the Jewish people together and fulfill so many of its spiritual hopes and dreams.