English translation — ויחי ב

Talk b<pg>216</pg>

A.

We learned at the end of tractate Nazir<sup>1</sup>

: "Rav said to his son Chiya: Snatch and bless

[Snatch the cup of blessing and bless the blessing of zimmun so that you will fulfill

(Precedes<sup>2</sup>)

to bless over the cup the blessing of zimmun

(the meal<sup>2</sup>).

Rashi<sup>3</sup>],

and likewise Rav Huna said to his son Rabbah: Snatch and bless,

to say that the one who blesses is preferable, but it was taught: Rabbi Yosi says greater is the one who answers Amen than the one who blesses,

and Rabbi Nehorai said to him: By heaven, so it is,

know that soldiers

[weak ones.

Rashi]

engage in war and strong ones conquer,

It is a dispute, for it was taught: Both the one who blesses and the one who answers Amen are implied, except that they hasten to reward the blesser first

[to give reward

(his reward<sup>2</sup>).

Rashi<sup>4</sup>].

And from the simple language of the Talmud it appears,

that Tannaim disagree whether the one who recites the blessing is superior or the one who answers amen is superior,

and the Amoraim

(Rav and Rav Huna)

who said "grab and bless" decided according to the opinion of the Tanna that "the one who recites the blessing is superior",

and so it is ruled as law in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch<sup>5</sup>

that one should return to recite the blessing.

And according to this, we do not hold as law that "greater is the one who answers amen than the one who recites the blessing"<sup>6</sup>.

And already commentators raised a difficulty<sup>7</sup>

from that which the Tur brought<sup>8</sup>

as law in the matter of one who snatches a mitzvah from his fellow is obligated to give him ten gold coins,

that if a son was given to him to circumcise and another preceded and circumcised him, we do not obligate him,

"because since he answered amen, we have said greater is the one who answers amen than the one who recites the blessing, and if he heard and did not answer, he himself caused himself loss",

and thus the rulings of the Tur contradict each other.

And in Magen Avraham<sup>9</sup>

he answered,

that what the Tur wrote regarding the law of snatching a mitzvah "is not from the words of the Tur as the Beit Yosef wrote there"<sup>10</sup>,

and even though this law in the Tur is sourced in several Rishonim<sup>11</sup>

(and so it was ruled in the Rema<sup>12</sup>)

— this is because the law is true also according to the Tanna of "One who blesses and one who answers Amen in hearing",

for from this language itself it is understood that "the one who answers has reward like the one who blesses, except that they disagree whether we hurry to the blesser first"<sup>13</sup>,

and since according to everyone the one who answers has reward like the one who blesses, therefore they did not lose anything,

and so also wrote in the Shach<sup>14</sup>

(as brought in the Magen Avraham there).

But at first glance it does not seem so from the words of the aforementioned Rishonim,

who were silent regarding the reason of the law that "greater is the one who answers Amen than the one who blesses",

and from the plainness of their language it seems that they hold that so is the halachah<sup>15</sup>.

<pg>217</pg>

And in Maadanei Yom Tov

wrote "that this that he says 'according to the Tannaim' is not to say about a dispute

but to say that we find a Tanna who supports

them, Rav and Rav Huna, that a Tanna who hurries to bless etc.

And therefore it is that he said to his sons 'grab and bless' to hurry the blessing upon them, but not that they disagree with Rabbi Yosi who said that greater is the one who answers etc.

for Rabbi Nehorai explained it with a fine reason.

Rather, both of their words are true, that the one who answers is greater because he concludes and finishes the matter, but just as the one who blesses precedes the one who answers, so they hurry

[to him]

the reward before the one who answers, and Rav and Rav Huna paid attention to the swiftness of the reward and did not pay attention to that he is greater etc."

But this too is forced, seemingly,

for from the plainness of the language "one who blesses and one who answers amen are included" it implies,

that both are equal also in the greatness of the reward,

and according to the words of Maadanei Yom Tov, behold, according to everyone "greater is the one who answers amen than the one who blesses",

and all the advantage of the one who blesses is only in the swiftness of the reward.

And therefore, ostensibly it seems to me somewhat,

that according to everyone there is a detail in which the virtue of the one who blesses is great, and there is a detail in which "greater is the one who answers Amen than the one who blesses",

and this is what the Tanna said: "Both the one who blesses and the one who answers Amen are included",

that they are equal in their reward,

for in each one there is a virtue and greatness that is not in the other

(and they are equivalent)

— "except that they hurry to reward the one who blesses first",

for the content of the virtue of the one who blesses causes his reward to be given first,

and from this very fact there is reason to return and bless

(except that since also the one who answers Amen has an equal reward,

behold, when he snatched the blessing, they did not lose anything for which he would be obligated to pay for this,

as above from the Magen Avraham).

2.

And this will be understood by prefacing the explanation of that which "greater is the one who answers Amen than the one who blesses",

for ostensibly it is perplexing,

how is it possible to say that one who only "agrees" to the words of the one who blesses and answers "Amen" will be greater than the one who blesses himself?

And especially since the entire matter of answering Amen is impossible without the prior blessing by the one who blesses.

And although R. N. brought a parable about this from "the heroes who conquer",

and as the Tosafot wrote<sup>20</sup>

that "the victory of the war is [achieved] by the cavalry who finish",

and so in our matter,

that "the completion of the blessing is the answering of Amen"<sup>21</sup>

— behold, this itself requires a reason,

that although Amen is "the completion of the blessing",

nevertheless, what is the similarity between "the completion of the blessing" and the matter of victory in war by the heroes,

for in the parable of war it is understandable,

that even if the main war is conducted by the "spearmen",

nevertheless,

since the purpose of the war is to defeat the enemy,

therefore,

the main thing is "the cavalry who finish" and bring the victory in actuality; but regarding the blessing — behold, the main thing is the one who blesses

(with [God's] Name and Kingship)

in actuality,

and why should the one who answers Amen

(even though he is the finisher)

be greater than the one who blesses?

<pg>218</pg>

And behold, there are commentators<sup>22</sup>

who explained: "Since we hold that one who hears is like one who answers..

so when he answers Amen his reward is greater than the one who blesses himself, for the one who blesses is forbidden to answer Amen after his own blessings, and similar to this..

all<sup>23</sup>

who prays silently and afterwards hears the prayer from the chazzan and intends and answers Amen after each blessing, it is as if he prayed three times."

And this is,

that the one who answers Amen has two virtues,

both that of the one who blesses

(since one who hears is like one who answers)

and that of the answering of Amen,

unlike the one who blesses, who does not have the virtue of the one who answers Amen,

since he is forbidden to answer Amen after his own blessings.

And it will be sweetened more according to what is explained in Tziyun P'nimiyut HaRan on the Rambam<sup>24</sup>,

in the explanation of the words of the Rambam<sup>24</sup>

that "whoever answers amen after the one who recites the blessing is considered like one who recites the blessing",

that is, according to that "amen is like uttering something from his mouth"<sup>25</sup>,

and in the manner that we find regarding an oath,

that the one who answers amen after the one who administers the oath is considered like one who swore himself<sup>26</sup>,

and therefore the Rambam ruled<sup>27</sup>

that even if one answered amen after an oath of a gentile or a minor, it is an oath.

And since the one who answers amen is considered "like one who utters a blessing from his mouth"<sup>28</sup>,

then consequently, he is exactly like the one who recites the blessing himself.

[And one may add to this even more,

according to what is said in Sefer HaPardes in another place²⁹

that regarding "the oath of a kohen"

(in Sotah)

"specifically requires Amen..

And even though regarding other oaths acceptance in another language also helps",

and he explains,

that regarding a sotah the oath of the kohen is specifically required

(for if she swore by herself it does not help at all),

and therefore "in Sotah Amen is specifically required,

for this is like he brings out the particular power of the one who administers the oath".

And it follows that through answering Amen,

in addition to this that it is as if he brought out the blessing from his mouth,

there is even this,

that there is in it "the particular power" of the one who blesses].

And based on this one may explain the dispute whether "the one who blesses is superior" or "greater is the one who answers Amen than the one who blesses" — for one may say that they disagree whether answering Amen to a blessing is like answering Amen after an oath, which is like he brings out the oath from his mouth.

For the one who says greater is the one who answers Amen etc. holds that also answering Amen after a blessing is "like bringing out a blessing from his mouth",

and he is exactly like the one who blesses himself,

and consequently greater is the one who answers Amen etc. because there is in him also the virtue of answering Amen; but not so for the one who says the one who blesses is superior,

answering Amen after a blessing is not "like bringing out a blessing from his mouth",

and therefore he holds that the one who blesses is superior,

for the virtue of the blessing is superior to the virtue of answering Amen

(alone)³⁰.

3.

But it is difficult to explain thus the opinion of the one who said "Great is the one who answers Amen etc.",

since in the Gemara it is explained the reason of this view, that it is like the parable "Gladiators engage in battle and heroes conquer",

from which it implies,

that the virtue of the one who answers Amen over the one who blesses<pg>219</pg>

is not because there is in him

(also)

the virtue of the one who blesses,

but rather because the virtue of answering Amen in itself is greater than the virtue of the one who blesses,

like the virtue of "heroes conquer" over "gladiators engage in battle".

And on the other side: in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe it is explained<sup>*30</sup>

"And also every person must repeat that they should give him the cup of blessing..

that even though the listener is like the one who recites and answers amen like one who takes a blessing out of his mouth, they hasten to give reward first to the one who blesses" — behold it is explained,

that this that answering amen is "like one who takes a blessing out of his mouth",

is also according to the opinion that the one who blesses is superior<sup>31</sup>.

And it seems to me regarding this,

that behold regarding answering amen it is stated in the Gemara<sup>32</sup>

: "Amen,

in it is an oath,

in it is acceptance of words,

in it is confirmation of words..

Amen<sup>33</sup>

so may the Lord do, may the Lord fulfill your word",

and in Rashi's commentary "in it is confirmation of words,

and it is fitting to answer amen upon a matter of prayer and supplication, for it is an expression of confirming the words,

that it should be the will that it should be true, so".

And behold, this content of "believing the words" belongs,

at first glance,

only in "a matter of prayer and supplication"³⁴

(as Rashi's language),

but in blessings of thanksgiving and praise or blessings of commandments,

which have no "prayer and supplication",

answering Amen for the sake of "believing the words"³⁵

is only

(in the language of the Tur³⁶)

that "the blessing that the blesser blessed is true and I believe in this"³⁷.

And the difference between them is not only in the intention of the one answering,

but in the essential definition of answering Amen and its connection to the blessing:

Since answering Amen after "prayer and supplication" means,

that also the listener prays "may it be His will that it be true indeed",

therefore,

that answering Amen belongs to the prayer of the one praying himself,

that the one who answers participates in his prayer;

But not so answering Amen after blessings of thanksgiving etc.,

whose meaning is only that the listener expresses his faith in the truth of the words of the one who blesses,

behold, the answering does not belong to the one who blesses

(for since he blesses,

it is understood that he believes in this),

but rather this is a law and obligation upon the listener,

that when a person hears a blessing from the mouth of others,

there falls upon him an obligation to acknowledge that the words are true,

but this does not add for the one who blesses

(and his blessings).

And this is the novelty of the one who said "Great is the one who answers Amen etc." — which the Gemara brings here regarding Birkat HaMazon — and brings on this a parable of "gladiators battle in war and heroes conquer",

because he holds that also the answering of Amen after blessings of thanksgiving etc. is a part of the actions of the blessing,

and on the contrary,

it completes the action of the blessing,

in the manner of "heroes conquer",

as the Rosh wrote<sup>38</sup>

that "the completion of the blessing is the answering of Amen".

And the explanation of the matter — as explained in the Maharsha<sup>39</sup>

: "And therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded the one who eats and is satisfied to bless upon it..

that through this the Holy One, blessed be He, bestows His blessings to have for him ample sustenance,

because there is<pg>220</pg>

To a person there are accusers in the matter of giving him his difficult foods with ease,

and these blessings are the advocates of righteousness and good defenders against the accusers,

and for this he compared the blessings and the answering of amen to warriors who provoke and to heroes who triumph in battle, for it is exactly as it is written that the blessings are the warriors and the answering of amen are the heroes to win the war against the accusers who are destroying angels etc.

And therefore "Great is the one who answers amen etc.",

for even the answering of amen after Grace After Meals is related to the action of the blessing,

for the intention of the blessing is to draw down his sustenance,

and the answering of amen nullifies the accusers and completes the "war" against them.

And thus,

that the answering of amen is considered the "completion of the blessing" and therefore is superior to the one who blesses himself

(and like the advantage of "heroes who triumph"),

that "there the victory of the war is by the horsemen who finish".

4.

However, based on this, one must examine the reasoning of the one who says that the one who recites the blessing is superior.

For superficially, according to the above, one must say that he holds,

that answering Amen after Birkat HaMazon is only an expression of faith that "the blessing that the one who recites the blessing blessed is true"

(like answering Amen after all blessings of thanksgiving and praise and blessings of commandments),

and it is not related to the action of the blessing itself, but rather it is an independent obligation incumbent upon the listener

(as above),

and therefore he holds that the one who recites the blessing is superior.

But if you say so,

it is difficult, halakhah against halakhah,

for the halakhah is that one must specifically seek out the blessing

(as above in section 1),

and together with this the halakhah was ruled⁴⁰

that the one who breaks bread is not permitted to break until the Amen from the responders has concluded,

for the reason for this is

(as Rashi wrote⁴¹)

"for even the answering of Amen is part of the blessing",

and so it was ruled in the Rema⁴²,

that just as the participants need to intend to hear the blessing and answer Amen,

so too "the one who recites the blessing should intend for the Amen that they say",

"because the answering of Amen is included in the blessing"⁴³

— behold, that also the answering of Amen after the blessing of HaMotzi is considered a part of it,

and is required also for the one who recites the blessing⁴⁴.

And therefore it seems to me that according to all opinions, answering Amen after all types of blessings is part of the blessing⁴⁵,

for answering Amen is related to the action of the blessing.

And as explained in the early authorities⁴⁶

"that the one who blesses is like<pg>221</pg>

to a signed document that has not been validated in court, and a person can deny it, and when it is validated, no person can deny it, and Amen is the validation of the signature of the blessing, as we find..

And she said⁴⁷

the woman Amen, Amen, to validate what the priest adjured her."

And this fits with the reason brought in the commentators⁴⁸,

that the virtue of answering Amen is,

because "Amen contains three things: oath, acceptance, faith"⁴⁹,

"thus in his answering Amen he accepts the blessing upon himself with faith and with an oath, unlike the one who blesses",

and this means,

that since "he accepts the blessing upon himself with faith and with an oath",

this is a thing that is impossible to nullify and it is a thing of permanence⁵⁰,

unlike the one who blesses who did not accept the blessing upon himself "with faith and with an oath",

it is possible that it will change for him etc.

(like a document against which a challenge was raised).

And it will be sweetened more according to what is known,

that the inner content of the matter of blessing is,

that through each blessing an influx is drawn from above⁵¹

(in the manner of the words of the Maharsha mentioned above regarding the blessing of the meal,

"that through this the Holy One, blessed be He, bestows His blessings"),

and answering Amen nullifies the things that prevent and hinder the influx,

in a manner that specifically through answering Amen the influx of the blessing is drawn into actuality,

without preventer and hinderer

(in the manner of the ratification of the document in court which nullifies any challenge).

And based on this, it can be said,

that the two opinions — whether the one who blesses is greater or the one who answers amen is greater etc. — depends on the well-known inquiry: do we follow "in potential" or "in actuality".

For behold, based on the above it is understood,

that the action of the blessing is specifically from the one who blesses, who is the speaker,

who specifies and reveals in his blessing,

the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the world

(and likewise in the inner aspect,

that the utterance of the blessing itself is what draws down the flow from above),

and the action of answering amen is only to remove the hindrance and obstruction etc.

And regarding a document that was validated in court,

that the collection of the money

(and the like)

is through the power of what is specified in the document,

and the validation of the document its purpose is only to confirm what is specified in the document.

And this is the difference between the one who blesses and the one who answers Amen: "the power"

(and quality)

of the blessing is in the one who blesses specifically,

except that from the perspective of the one who blesses himself there is still room that it will not come into actuality

(from the aspect of "challenge"),

and this is the action of answering Amen,

that through it the blessing comes

(and the drawing down)

into actuality⁵².

And based on this, it can be said,

that this is the intention of the Mishnah: "Both the one who blesses and the one who answers Amen are included,"

that both are equal

(as above, section 1),

for according to all opinions,

behold, regarding the aspect of "in potential"

(and quality)

of the blessing — "the one who blesses is superior"; and on the other hand,

regarding the aspect of "in actuality" — "great is the one who answers Amen, etc."⁵³

; but since the entire matter of the blessing comes specifically through the one who blesses<pg>222</pg>

(for without the one who blesses, the matter of answering Amen does not apply),

therefore "they hurry to the one who blesses first,"

as above, section 1'.

5.

Based on all the above, one must explain the connection of this topic to the matter of the virtue of the one who recites the blessing and the one who answers Amen to

(Conclusion)

Tractate Nazir

(And as already noted on this by the commentators⁵⁴),

And with the introduction of what is explained in Sefer HaMaamarim 5678 on the Torah⁵⁵

Regarding Joseph the Righteous — who is called "a nazir among his brothers"⁵⁶,

And there are opinions that "he was an actual nazir"⁵⁷

— that "naziriteship began with Joseph"⁵⁸,

Because "Joseph⁵⁹

was in the category of Adam before the separation, male and female together and both equal",

And this is also the perfection of the holiness of naziriteship,

That "naziriteship⁶⁰

has upon it the name male and female completely

(As explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, Nazir, chapter 2⁶¹),

And its meaning is the category of influencer and receiver in one essence",

"Influencer and receiver simultaneously"⁶²,

"Matter and form in one subject"⁶³.

And this matter,

the connection of "influencer and receiver at once"

(which is the perfection of the matter of naziriteship),

is also the content of the matter of blessing and answering Amen,

the connection of the two levels of influencer and receiver

(blesser and answerer of Amen)

as one,

and as above in the explanation of "one who blesses and one who answers Amen are included",

the connection of the level of "in potential"

(which is from the side of the influencer)

and "in actuality"

(which is from the side of the receiver).

And based on this, one can also explain the continuation of the Gemara there,

that after the discussion about the virtue of the blesser and the answerer of Amen,

it concludes in the Talmud "Said Rabbi Elazar, said Rabbi Chanina: Torah scholars increase peace in the world" — for the commentators on the Talmud already raised a difficulty about this⁶⁴

what is the relevance of this statement to here,

and if to conclude with a good thing,

behold, the discussion about the virtue of the blesser and the virtue of the answerer of Amen is also a good thing?

And according to the above it can be said,

that this is analogous to the virtue of answering Amen&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;,

which is the cause that the blessing is drawn down in actuality below in the world,

and likewise in this matter,

that specifically "Torah scholars"

(namely those who receive from sages&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;,

analogous to the answering of Amen by the one who hears the blessing,

recipient)

they are the ones who "increase peace in the world".

And this is that the Talmud concludes specifically with this statement,

that since before this it emphasizes there the virtue of the one who blesses,

that although there is virtue in this which is not in that, and until they are equal

(as above at length),

nevertheless "they rush to bless first" and therefore it must be "snatch and bless" — therefore it concludes,

that nevertheless the ultimate of everything is the virtue of the "in actuality"&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;

— "Torah scholars increase peace in the world".

(From sichos of 10,

(Motzaei Shabbos Kodesh)

13 and 15 Shevat 5738)