Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Bracha Upon Seeing Site of Miraculous Event

The Dirshu halacha project, besides delivering a synopsis of the halacha of the day, also occasionally presents interesting thought questions.  The most recent of which was:
The Mishnah Berurah (218:§7) rules that no “She’asah li nes” is recited over the place near Yerushalayim where the angel smote Sancheriv’s encampment because the place does not remind us of the miracle. Even though it may be possible to pinpoint where the miracle happened, since the miracle did not take place with the actual land, the miracle is not recognizable from the location. However, the Shulchan Aruch (218:1) rules that one must recite the blessing when he sees the stone on which Moshe Rabbeinu sat during the war with Amalek. It would seem that this miracle is no more recognizable from its location than the destruction of Sancheiriv’s army.What is the difference between these two cases?  
I can think of four differences:

First, in the case of Sancheiriv’s army, the land itself was not relevant to the miracle.  True, the miracle occurred on land, but it could just as easily have occurred at sea or in the air.  The rock onthat supported Moshe, on the contrary, is specifically mentioned as helping Moshe in his performance of the miracle.  This is similar to the pillar of salt into which Lot's wife was transformed and upon seeing we say the bracha of "dayan ha'emes".  She herself was evil and deserved that punishment, but seeing an actual object that was mentioned as part of the the miraculous way in which Lot was saved -- which was a direct result of his relationship to Avraham Avinu -- is a powerful reminder of how far HaShem's mercy extends.

Second, even though the location of the land can be identified, that is not necessarily the same dirt and rocks that were there when Sancheiriv’s army was miraculously defeated.  The rock that we see today (assuming it could be identified), however, is the same rock on which Moshe sat, even if it may have moved in the interim. Similarly, the bracha of “She’asah li nes” would be recited upon seeing the Well of Miriam, even though it was and is quite mobile.  (R' Chaim Vital relates, in fact, that his rebbie the Ari z"l once took him on a small rowboat to give him a drink from the Well of Miriam in order to help him learn with more clarity.)

Third, Klal Yisrael was not at the time of the miracle fighting a pitched battle with Sancheiriv’s army.  The destruction of Sancheiriv’s army merely removed the threat (rather decisively, to be sure) of planned aggression.  That makes the miracle only a גרמה/cause, but not direct effect.  On the other hand, Klal Yisrael certainly was fighting a pitched with Ameleik and their victory was miraculous.  In fact, as Chazal tell us, it was their looking to their Father in Heaven that won the battle, not their hand to hand combat.  (Something to seriously ponder when considering how to deal with the like of suicide bombing terrorists who cannot be defeated by physical battle at all.)

Finally, the miracle of destroying Sancheiriv’s army was for a practical consideration; Klal Yisrael was in danger of being attacked by a formidable enemy.  Moreover, it was quite natural for Sancheiriv, a then world power bent on world domination, to attack Yerushalayim.  The battle with Amaleik, though, had not practical cause whatsoever.  Amaleik was (and is...) bent on fighting against HaShem and therefore attack His nation without mercy.  The battle with Amaleik was a spiritual/philosophical battle that needed a clear and decisive victory to achieve our ultimate purpose in this world.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aru...