In relation to the dispute between Rashi and R Tam on how many berachot we should say for tefilin:
1) I noted that Rashi, R Tam, and the mefarshim try to see how the lashon of this Gemara and the Gemara in Berachot 60b better fits with either of the two opinions, in order to try to find out what Abaie veRaba really meant. But beyond that, what will be the original reason for choosing one or two berachot?
2) Will it be possible to simply say that how many berachot depends on how many mitzvot tefillin are? 1 mitzva, 1 beracha (Rashi); 2 mitzvot, 2 berachot (R Tam).
3) In relation to 2, I m surprised that, except for the Rashba, I didn t find mefarshim talking about this potential connection to understand the gemara. Any thoughts?
4) In relation to 2, I m assuming that there are opinions that say that tefillin are just one miztva; is this assumption correct? If so, who say they are one mitzva?
5) In relation to 2 and 4, Tosafot DH SACH says USHEMA SHANI TEFILIN DEMITZVA ACHAT HEN . Does this mean that this tosafot considers tefillin to be just one mitzva? If yes, can we say that even though this Tosafot say that they are one mitzva, we can still say that R Tam (next Tosafot LO SACH) could have considered that tefillin are two mitzvot?
6) In your insights, you state that The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 25:5) rules like Rashi (whose opinion is shared by the RIF, RAMBAM, and RASHBA . Regarding Rashbah, I understand that he rules like R Tam (in his persuh on Menachot 36a).
7) Thanks to the Rosh (Menachot, point 14; daf 120 of the Rosh) I understand what Abaie veRaba responded to the makshan according R Tam. But according to Rashi, what Abaie veRaba responded?
Thanks!!!
Dino Feigelstock, Washington DC, USA
Shalom,
It's great to hear from you!
1-3) Yes, and in addition to the Rashba, see the Or Zaru'a, Hilchos Kisuy ha'Dam #387.
4) Some say they are one Mitzvah. See the opinion of Rav Yehudai Gaon (8th century) in Halachos Gedolos, Mitzvas Aseh #2, as well as the Ramban, Ra'avad, and apparently Tosfos here (DH Sach, as you cited). The opinion of the Rambam (and others such as the Rashba and Rif) is that they are two. See Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Mitzvas Aseh #13.
5) You are making a very nice point. But also remember that the number of Mitzvos may not necessarily dictate the number of Berachos. For example, the Rambam we mentioned counts Tefilin as two Mitzvos, yet he rules that ordinarily only one Berachah is made.
6) The Beis Yosef (OC 25:5) cites the Teshuvos ha'Rashba as ruling that one Berachah is recited. See Rashba, Teshuvos 1:156, 1:809, and especially 5:11.
7) According to Rashi, the assumption of the Makshan was that Rebbi Yochanan was discussing a case where the person did not talk (so, he's asking, why is a second Berachah recited?), whereas ultimately Abaye and Rava teach us that Rebbi Yochanan was discussing a case where the person did talk (therefore the second Berachah is recited).
May you continue to attain greatness in Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!
Warmly,
Yishai Rasowsky
Shalom Rav Rasowsky and Rabanim of the Kollel Yiun haDaf.
As always, thanks so much for your response!
Just one follow up please. Did you respond the first question: "what will be the original reason for establishing one or two berachot"?
I suggested that it depends on how many mitzvot tefillin are, but you clearly showed to me that there is no correlation between the number of berachot on tefillin and the number of mitzvot tefillin are considered. In particular, if tefillin are just 1 mitzva, why two berachot?
I understand that this can be responded based on what the A Hashulchan says: that one beracha (lehaniach) is birkat hamitzvot and the other (al mitzvat) is birkat shebach vehodaa. Correct? But are there other explanations for why two berachot if it just one mitzva?
Thanks again and kol tuv!!!
dino
Shalom Dino,
1) As you articulately wrote, the Aruch ha'Shulchan (OC 25:10) defines the second Berachah "Al Mitzvas" as an expression of thanks to Hash-m for giving us the sign of Tefilin.
2) Some say that if one spoke between the Shel Yad and Shel Rosh, the repeated Berachah of l'Hani'ach is on the Shel Yad, not the Shel Rosh. See the Rashba and Nimukei Yosef (Hilchos Tefilin 8a, DH Lo Sach). If so, along the lines you originally suggested, Rav Baruch Dov Povarski (Bad Kodesh, vol. IV, no. 66) explains that both Berachos are based on the premise that there are two Mitzvos of Tefilin: (a) Tying the Tefilin on one's arm, and (b) Tefilin being on one's head. (See the Rambam in his introduction to Hilchos Tefilin. But see (4) below regarding the Rambam's own view on the Berachos.)
3) Alternatively, according to the view of Tosfos (Berachos 60b, DH Asher) that Rabeinu Tam requires two Berachos for the Shel Rosh, Rav Soloveitchik (cited in Eretz ha'Tzvi 3:16) explains that only the Berachah of l'Hani'ach is for the performance of the Mitzvah, whereas the additional Berachah "Al Mitzvas" is referring not to the Mitzvah but rather to the additional Kedushah which you take on when wearing the Shel Rosh. It is like the Berachah of l'Hachniso at a Bris Milah, in which the child takes on additional Kedushah.
4) As we mentioned, the Rambam himself counts Shel Yad and Shel Rosh as two separate Mitzvos, yet he rules that in an ordinary situation one recites only one Berachah (of l'Hani'ach). Rav Soloveitchik (Shi'urei ha'Grid, b'Inyanei Tefilin, page 62) explains based on the idea that theoretically there should be two Berachos: l'Hani'ach for the Shel Yad and Al Mitzvas for the Shel Rosh. But in the interest of economizing the number of Berachos recited, Chazal decided that l'Hani'ach alone is enough to cover both the Shel Yad and Shel Rosh. Accordingly, when one needs to recite the Berachah on the Shel Rosh alone, the correct Berachah would be Al Mitzvas.
May you continue to attain greatness in Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!
Warmly,
Yishai Rasowsky