[Avodah] shelo asani isha continued

[Chana Luntz]

RAF writes:

>     I would like to make it clear that there is no doubt as to the
> authenticity of the text of the benediction she-lo asani isha?since it
> appears thrice in Rabbinic literature: in the Tosefta, the Talmud Bavli
> and the Yerushalmi.[1] Both the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi make it
> clear that the benediction is related strictly to men?s greater
> obligation in commandments. 

But in the interests of honesty, it should be clear that in gemora didan, ie
Menachos 43b, no such explanation is given, and it is not so easy to read
this into the words.

תניא היה ר"מ אומר חייב אדם לברך שלש ברכות בכל יום אלו הן שעשאני ישראל, שלא
עשאני אשה שלא עשאני בור רב אחא בר יעקב שמעיה לבריה דהוה קא מברך שלא עשאני
בור אמר ליה כולי האי נמי אמר ליה ואלא מאי מברך שלא עשאני עבד היינו אשה עבד
זיל טפי
Menachos 33b-34a
It was taught in a braisa, Rabbi Meir said a man is obligated to bless three
blessings each day, and these are those:  “sheasani Yisroel”, “shelo asani
isha”, “shelo asani bor”.  Rav Acha bar Ya’akov heard his son blessing
“shelo asani bor” and said to him, to such an extent also?  He said to him,
rather what should one bless – [he answered] “shelo asani eved”, [he
objected] this is [the same as] an isha? Eved zil t’fei [Rashi
notwithstanding this either an eved is a more mezalzel or add it anyway to
make up the three].

Now leaving aside whether or not the original text here says sheasani
Yisrael (which in itself is difficult to align with a mitzvah count
rationale. So let us assume that the version we have is an incorrect girsa
as some believe and that it really says shelo asani goy), the whole rest of
the dialogue is not easy to align with a greater obligation in commandments.
If Rabbi Meir's braisa is quoted correctly, then the original is shelo asani
bor, which cannot be understood as being a reference to a mitzvah count (as
a bor has the same mitzvah obligation as a talmud chacham).  Now it is
possible that this is indeed Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's objection (as per
Rashi's second explanation), but Rashi's first explanation works as well, ie
the objection is to praising HaShem for something that is really (mostly)
the doing of a person himself, not being an ignoramus, and not so much
HaShem (and that one really has reached that level).
And again, which the question that an eved is the same as an isha could be
based on an equivalent level of obligation in the commandments (but again
only if you posken, as I have previously posted, that an eved has no more
mitzvos than an isha - and that is by no means pashut), it can also be
equally well understood (as per Rashi's first explanation) that it is a
matter of shibud.  And indeed, the final response, however you explain it,
works much better if it is a question of shibud, because you can say, yes
there is shibud both ways, but the shibud of an eved can be understood to be
greater.  But if you understand it to be a question of level of obligation
of the commandments, then no answer makes sense with our current order  -
you have, at that point, either to bring in an additional explanation that
does not relate to mitzvos, or to reverse the order - ie say goy, isha, eved
(which also works with the text as we have it, as eved is a replacement for
the brocha ordered third - and indeed, as I have pointed out in a previous
posting, many rishonim understand an eved's mitzvah count to in fact be
greater than that of an isha).  But I can see no way that the level of
obligation in commandments of a woman can be said to be greater than that of
a (male) eved, and it is probably less - so the most logical reading of this
gemora is that it is rejecting the obligation in commandments rationale, or
at least that it has been understood to be doing so, given the order that we
find in our siddur and hence is in dispute with the Yerushalmi and the
Tosephta (which is why this rationale is not brought in our gemora) and in
the case of machlokus, we posken like the Bavli. 

>     beKhavod Rav
>             Aryeh

Regards

Chana