It seems strange to suggest in Rav Ashi's position that Abayye was essentially making it possible for his workers to belittle the fourth bracha which was a takkana of Chazal! On the other hand, why would Rav Ashi be more machmir then Abayye who was an Amora of a previous generation? And why would Abayye consider a couple of minutes to listen to the fourth bracha less important than their employment ?! And why didn't both Amoraim just employ the abridged Birkas hamazon for their workers and thereby avoid any problems?! Thanks.
David Goldman, USA
1) The Tosfos ha'Rosh (Berachos 16a, DH v'Chosem) writes that the Chachamim possess the power to institute that the Berachos of Birkas ha'Mazon should be made shorter, in order that employers will be prepared to hire workers. We learn from the Tosfos ha'Rosh that since the fourth Berachah is only mid'Rabanan, Chazal said that it is in the interests of the workers that they do not say it, because otherwise they may not receive work since employers are unhappy about the amount of time they spend on their prayers, causing the employers a financial loss. Therefore, we can understand that when Abaye encouraged the workers not to say the fourth beracha, his intention was to help them find (and keep) a Parnasah.
2) The Bach (on Tur, OC 188:3) writes that Rav Ashi maintained that if one would answer Amen out loud, the workers might make light of the fourth Berachah (because they know it is only mid'Rabanan) and would not say this Berachah even when they are saying Birkas ha'Mazon in their own home, not during worktime.
3) I would like to conjecture that the difference between Abaye's position and Rav Ashi's position might depend on the different economic climate prevalent in the times of each Amora. Abaye seems to have been quite poor in comparison to Rav Ashi. We see this from Gitin 60b, where we read that Abaye himself used to irrigate the fields at night. In contrast, Rav Ashi was wealthy. The Gemara in Gitin 59a tells us that from the days of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi until the days of Rav Ashi, Torah and wealth was never found in the same person. Rav Ashi was the wealthiest of the scholars throughout the entire period of the Gemara. Therefore, since the economic situation was harder in the time of Abaye, he saw fit to encourage workers to skip the fourth Berachah when at work so that they should not lose their jobs. In contrast, Rav Ashi lived in more comfortable days and there was less chance of the workers losing their jobs. What Rav Ashi was concerned about was that workers might make light of the fourth Berachah even when not at work.
4) The Amora'im did not want to employ the abridged Birkas ha'Mazon because this way one does not fulfill the d'Oraisa requirement. It is better to say all of the first three and skip the fourth, since this way one is Yotzei mid'Oraisa.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you, alot of interesting points. But surely a person's occupation would never be affected by reciting an additional bracha which only takes a minute or two!?
And why isn't a person yotsi doraisa with the abridged bentching? Especially since we know that a person can recite his own brachas as long as they contain mention of the relevant subjects?
Plus a person can even be yotsi with Al Hamichya.
Finally, why are there so many different versions of Birkas hamazon?
1) Bentching is different from other Berachos because it was instituted much earlier in history, so a person cannot recite his own Berachos. The Gemara (Berachos 48b) tells us that when the manna came down for Bnei Yisrael in the wilderness, Moshe Rabeinu instituted reciting the first Berachah of Birkas ha'Mazon. When they entered Eretz Yisrael, Yehoshua bin Nun made the institution of saying the second blessing, which is termed Birkas ha'Aretz, where we praise Hashem for giving us a desirable, good, and broad land. Kings David and Shlomo made the institution of reciting the third Berachah, about building Jerusalem.
2) However, Chazal did in fact create an abridged version for the workers. This is stated by the Gemara (Berachos 16a) which tells us that they need to say only two blessings for Birkas ha'Mazon. Tosfos (DH v'Chosem) writes that even though, mid'Oraisa, one has to say three Berachos for Birkas ha'Mazon, nevertheless Chazal have the power to uproot a Mitzvah from the Torah since the workers are so busy working for the employer.
3) We can gain an idea about how particular employers were in those days, about workers losing even a small amount of working time, from the account in Gemara Ta'anis (end of 23a) about Aba Chilkiyah, the grandson of Choni ha'Me'agel. When rain was needed, sages were sent to ask him to pray for rain. The sages greeted him with "Shalom," but Aba Chilkiyah did not acknowledge their greeting. He explained later that the reason was because he was a worker being paid a daily rate by his employer, so he did not want to waste time from work by greeting visitors. We learn from this Gemara that employers were particular that their workers should not even say "Shalom" to others in the middle of the working day. (Before the advent of trade unions, workers had to work a lot harder!)
4) If one needs to recite Birkas ha'Mazon, he is not Yotzei b'Di'eved by saying Al ha'Michyah. A proof for this is from Berachos, end of 48b, which states that one should mention "Bris" (Milah) and "Torah" in the second Berachah of Birkas ha'Mazon. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 187:3) rules that if someone omitted mentioning either Bris or Torah, he must go back and repeat Birkas ha'Mazon. In other words, if one leaves out either Bris or Torah in Birkas ha'Mazon, he is not Yotzei. Since we do not mention Bris and Torah in Al ha'Michyah, it follows that one is not Yotzei Birkas ha'Mazon b'Di'eved by saying Al ha'Michyah.
5) Now to the issue of the different versions of Birkas ha'Mazon. I am certainly not going to attempt to make a thorough examination of the different versions, but I will try, bs'd, to look at one well-known variation between different Nuscha'os, and from that we can get an idea how to systematically examine other variations.
a. The first Berachah of Birkas ha'Mazon, according to Nusach Ashkenaz, does not include the verse, "Open Your hand and give sustenance willingly to all the living" (Tehilim 145:16), while according to Nusach Sefard one does say this verse.
b. The source for this variation is found in the Beis Yosef (OC 187, DH Kasav ha'Kolbo) in the name of the Kolbo, who quotes those who say that one should not mention, "As is said, 'Open Your hand...'," but rather one closes immediately with the concluding blessing, "Baruch Atah Hashem, ha'Zan Es HaKol." The Kolbo writes that this opinion is logical; since Moshe Rabeinu instituted the first blessing of Birkas ha'Mazon, how is it possible to mention there a verse which was said later by King David in Tehilim? However, the Beis Yosef concludes that one is not forced to agree with this argument.
c. I would like to attempt to defend the position of Beis Yosef and Nusach Sefard with the help of the Sefer ha'Chinuch (#430), who writes that Ezra ha'Sofer and his Beis Din instituted the Nusach of all the Berachos. Even though Chazal told us that Moshe Rabeinu instituted the first Berachah and Yehoshua the second, this means that they introduced the idea of the Berachah itself, but the actual words were formulated by Ezra and his Beis Din. (From this explanatioin of the Sefer ha'Chinuch we see a contradiction to what I implied in my first reply, that Moshe Rabeinu said the words of the first Berachah.)
d. However, the argument of the Kolbo in turn is explained by the Derishah (OC 187:1). Nusach Sefard states, "As is said, 'Open Your hand...', which implies that we are adducing a support from the words of David ha'Melech for what Moshe Rabeinu said. But if we do not believe Moshe Rabeinu (Chas v'Shalom), why should we rely more on David such that we need to bring proof from his words?!
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom