Birkhot Hanehanin

Birkhot Hanehanin (blessings of enjoyment) are the brakhot recited upon eating, drinking, and smelling pleasing scents.

D'Oraita or D'Rabbanan

It is unclear if the obligation to recite Birkhot Hanehanin derives from Daoraita or Drabbanan law. Tosfot and Ri seem to hold that the obligation is Daoraita. Ritva and Magen Avraham explicitly state that the obligation is Drabbanan. Tosfot can also be read as advocating a third, in-between position.

Original Mekoros

1. tb. Brakhot 35a - At first, Rabbi Akiva learns from a pasuk (Vayikra 19:24) the requirement to recite Birkhot Hanehanin. However, the Gemara concludes that this pasuk does not serve as a source, and instead the blessings are learned out from a svara - "it makes sense: a person is forbidden to benefit from this world without a brakha."

The transition from pasuk-based limmud to svara-based limmud is foundational for understanding if Birkhot Hanehanin are Daoraita or Drabbanan.

2. Brakhot 12a - If someone said the first half of a brakha with intention to drink beer, then realized in the middle that he intended to drink wine and ultimately made an hagefen, he is yotzei, because even he continued with the beer's brakha (a shehakol), that would cover the wine. However, if he begins a brakha with kavana to make an hagafen on wine, but ultimately makes a shehakol on beer, there is a safek whether he must say a new brakha. (Rashi's understanding of the case, but any could be used.)

One of the major nafka minas between daoraita and drabbanan status is how to act in a case of safek: safek daoraita lhumra and sadek drabbanan lkula. As such, how Rishonim react to this safek may reveal how they view the status of Birkhot Hanehanin.

Interpretations of Brakhot 35a

Ritva 35a reads the rejection of the Rabbi Akiva as a rejection of Birkhot Hanehanin being Daoraita. Learning from a svara, in this case, signals a Drabbanan ruling.

Pnei Yehoshua 35a inteprets Tosfot 35a to argue with Ritva: the rejection of Rabbi Akiva is a statement that the pasuk is merely an asmakhta, which is no longer "needed" in the face of the firm, Daoraita strength limmud from svara.'However, Tosfot 35a could mean something entirely different. Rabbi Sobolofsky suggests the following: the rejection of Rabbi Akiva is a statement that the pasuk is merely as asmakhta. However, an asmakhta may not necessarily be so weak. Some hold that an asmakhta represents ratzon hashem the will of God in contrast to a pasuk, which expresses tzivui hashem (commands of God). Both, however, have daoraita (or quasi-daoraita status). By concluding that the pasuk is an asmakhta, the Gemara states that Birkhot Hanehanin have this quasi-daoraita status.

Rulings in the case of Brakhot 12a

Ri in Tosfot 12a rules lhumra, that the brakha must be repeated. It appears that Ri holds that Birkhot Hanehanin are daoraita.

Magen Avraham, however, believes that Ri actually considers Birkhot Hanehanin to be drabbanan. He requires the brakha to be repeated for an external reason, namely, that the wine-beer mix up constitutes a case of negative kavana, which renders the brakha invalid.

R. Akiva Eiger takes a similar route. He also believes that Ri considers Birkhot Hanehanin to be drabbanan. The brakha has to be repeated, however, because the rule of safek drabbanan lkula does not apply to Birkhot Hanehanin. These brakhot also involve an issur, (see Brakhot 35a: "a person is forbidden to benefit from this world without a brakha") so although drabbaban, we must be makhmir in order to avoid the issue. This is in contrast to most mitzvot aseh, which do not have an underlying issur against not performing them. This notion is discussed later in this article and at length . It should be noted, however, that RAKA does not address the fact that this "underlying issur" is likewise drabbanan and should also fit into the rule of safek drabbanan lkula.

Regular Aseh or Lav-triggered Aseh

It is unclear whether Birkhot Hanehanin are a regular, pure Mitzvat Aseh (positive command) or merely represent a means of avoiding an issur. As noted above, Rabbi Akiva Eiger holds that their fulfilment is primarily a means to avoid a prohibition.

Additional Mekorot

1. ? - an onein does not have to keep mitzvot.

2. ? - an onein does not have to say Birkhot Hanehanin.

Conclusion from the Mekorot

Many akharonim clarify that an onein is only patur from aseh's, still must keep mitzvot lo taseh. Rabbi Sobolofsky pointed out that if Birkhot Hanehanin were triggered by lo tasehs, and were in fact treated as a lo taseh, then even an onein would have to recite them. These mekorot prove, therefore, that Birkhot Hanehanin are in fact normal asehs.

However, one could argue that an onein only must keep pure lo tasehs, in other words, commands that solely involve NOT doing something. Mitzvot that dictate any sort of positive action, even with the intent to avoid a prohibition, do not fall into this category.