BIRKOT HANEHENIN: INITIAL THOUGHTS
Berachos35a-b discusses the Rabbinic obligation to recite blessings prior to partakingof the earth’s bounty. More specifically, it considers the theologicalimplications if one fails to recite the blessing. The discussion in part readsas follows:
אמררב יהודה אמר שמואל: כל הנהנה מן העולם הזה בלא ברכה - כאילו נהנה מקדשי שמים, שנאמר:לה' הארץ ומלואה. רבי לוי רמי: כתיב לה' הארץ ומלואה, וכתיב: השמים שמים לה' והארץנתן לבני אדם! לא קשיא, כאן - קודם ברכה כאן - לאחר ברכה
Mytranslation [with elaboration:]
RavJudah said in the name of Samuel: Whoever enjoys anything of this world withouta reciting a benediction prior to his enjoyment is as if he has made personaluse of things consecrated to Heaven, as the verse states:
The earth is the Lord’s, andeverything in it, the world, and all who live in it. [Psalms 24:1]
R.Levi contrasted two texts. It is written:
Theearth is the Lord’s, and everythingin it, the world, and all who live in it. [Psalms 24:1]
Thereforeit is also written:
The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He has given tothe children of men! [ibid. 115:16]:
[Accordingto the first verse, God is the possessor of the earth; according to the secondverse, He appears to have transferred ownership of the earth to man, whotherefore has become its owner!]
Thesetwo verses are not contradictory, because they refer to two differentsituations:
Thefirst verse refers to the situation prior to the recitation of ablessing – Hashem is the exclusive possessor of the item to be enjoyed, and thereforeno one has the right - or the ability - to dispossess Hashem of His property.
The second verse refers to thereality which man creates after reciting a blessing; as a result of eachblessing over a specific item, God gives that item to the reciter, sothat he may derive benefit from it.
A number of points regarding the foregoing passage:
I. “Giving” in this contexthas two possible connotations:
1. TRANSFEROF TITLE: prior to my reciting a blessing over an apple, God is its possessor;if I eat the apple I would be committing an act of misappropriation, ofembezzlement. My recitation of the blessing effects a transfer of ownership fromthe Divine domain to my own, which consequently permits me to eat the applewith impunity.
2. PERMISSIONTO BENEFIT FROM THAT WHICH IS NOT YOURS: Hashem “gives” me the apple not as anact which transfers ownership, but rather as I would “give” food to my pet[mutatis mutandis = להבדיל!]. Both the pet and the food remain in mypossession; by giving the food to me pet I am simply [1] enabling and [2]permitting my pet to benefit from it.
I believe that the second connotationis the correct one. As Psalms 24:1 asserts, all the earth’s inhabitantsbelong to Hashem. If our very bodies are in God’s possession, a transfer ofownership from Him to us makes no sense: Whatever the servant acquires themaster acquires. [קנה עבד קנה רבו]
II. The recitation of the berachatransforms us from takers into recipients, beneficiaries of Divine love.. We don’t take the fruit, we receive it. The otherwise lonely, hedonicexperience transforms into a loving, relational one – as it becomes anopportunity to enhance our relationship with Hashem, our Benefactor Who continuallyprovides us with pleasure and sustenance.
III. The blessings themselves articulate universalpraise, not thanksgiving. I do not thank God for the apple that I amabout to eat; rather, I praise Him for creating all the world’s fruittrees. Before I ingest a potato, I praise Hashem for all the world’svegetables. The beracha thus places into a universal context the narrow experienceof one person ingesting a specific item. The provincial pleasure becomes aspringboard for universalistic praise.