(By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times)
Upon hearing of the release of Reb Shalom Rubashkin on Zos Chanukah – three feelings come to mind:
• Tremendous joy for Reb Shalom and for his family who have suffered these eight long years.
• Tremendous appreciation to President Trump for reversing this injustice.
• A curiosity concerning the halachos of Reb Shalom’s Bentching Gomel..
THE SOURCE
The Gemorah in Brachos 54b tells us that four people must give thanks: Those that travel over the seas (Group 1), that that travel over the wilderness (Group 2), those that took ill and recovered (Group 3), and those that were released from prison (Group 4). The Gemorah is codified in Shulchan Aruch (OC 219:1.)
Seemingly, from this Gemorah and Shulchan Aruch – Reb Shalom should bentch Gomel.
THE MOGAIN AVROHOM
The Mogain Avrohom (219:1) qualifies the Shulchan Aruch that the halacha is only in regard to one who was jailed on matters of nefashos. The Pri Magadim explains that this may be the Mogain Avrohom’s own rationale – that incarceration that is on account of monetary issues does not count as a sakana – a danger. From the Pri Magadim we can infer that he is of the opinion that bentching Gomel for one freed from prison is only when there is danger – but not necessarily for reasons of gratitude for being a freed man.
According to this Mogain Avrohom, Reb Shalom would not bentch Gomel – at least with shaim uMalchus. The Mishna Brurah in his Biur Halacha 219:1 states that the Mogain Avrohom’s position fits with the Ramah’s view that Group 3 people who are bedridden but not in danger – do not bentch Gomel.
But wait – not everyone follows every Biur Halacha and Mogain Avrohom. There are Halachic opinions that the obligation for the bentching of Gomel for Group 4 – is not on account of danger, but on account of gratitude for being a freed man. The Kovetz Teshuvas Ri M’gash Siman 90 (see also Rabbeinu Yonah on the Rif who cites Rav Hai Gaon) writes regarding one who was incarcerated for not paying a debt or for not paying a tax:
Ho’il.. velo haya moshel b’nafsho..uk’shehu yotzeh lechofshi hu naaseh l’moshel benafsho.. Since he was not in charge of himself and now he is in charge of himself – that he is obligated in bentching Gomel..
It is not just the Rishonim – the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (61:1) writes that the blessing is still recited – even if the incarceration was on monetary issues.
FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENT
So, we have here a fundamental argument between the Mogain Avrohom and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch as to whether Reb Shalom should be bentching Gomel. Is it on danger (in which case no blessing), or is it on appreciation of freedom (in which case yes a blessing)? The first instinct would be that he should bentch without reciting Hashem’s Name on account of the Machlokes.
LUBAVITCH MINHAGIM
But then again – Reb Shalom would be following Lubavitch minhagim. And the GRaZ (the first Lubavitcher Rebbe and the author of the Rav Shulchan Aruch) rules like the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch – sort of. He writes (Seder Birchas HaNehenin, Chapter 13 – this is found in the back of the Lubavitch Siddur) that the blessing is recited even if the incarceration was only on financial matters, but he adds one caveat.
He adds the words, “im haya me’una b’chavlei barzel – if he was afflicted with iron chains.”
This author would like to suggest that there are three positions as to how to understand the Gemorah in Brachos regarding Group 4.
• The Poskim who rule that Group 4 refers to any prisoner – and that the obligation stems from expressing thanks for one’s freedom (Rav Hai Gaon, Ri MiGash).
• The Poskim who rule that group 4 refers only to prisoners who were in actual danger (Mogain Avrohom, Pri Magadim, Biur Halacha).
• The Poskim who rule that group 4 refers to prisoners who were either in danger of life or under torturous circumstances (GRaZ, Aruch haShulchan).
It is interesting to note that Rav Bakshi Doron in Beit Av Vol. I Siman 6 rules that Sefardim should recite it with Hashem’s name and that Ashkenazim should recite it without Hashem’s Name.
SHEHECHEYANU
As far as a recitation of SHehecheyanu goes, if someone feels a sense of complete elation and wishes to recite this blessing on getting out of prison, it should only be said in conjunction with the purchase and feeling of elation of new clothing. We cannot simply recite brachos during places and times where Chazal did not teach to do so. The recommendation of Gedolei HaPoskim is, therefore, to recite it with the purchase of a new article of clothing.
CONCLUSION
So what should Reb Shalom Rubashkin do?
Of course, he should follow what the Lubavitch Poskim tell him to do in this matter, but our conclusion would be that if his incarceration was a physically tortuous one – even if he did not have iron chains – then he should Bentch Gomel with Hashem’s Name. If anyone has any further information as to what psak he received – please forward.
But in the meantime, we should all express our appreciation to Hashem for this Zos Chanukah miracle, and to the president for valuing righting injustices.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
9 Responses
What about making a bracha of shecheeyanu with shem umalchus? Would that be ok?
why is this problem only being brought up now? surely there have been frum yidden released from prison in the past!
“Bitul December 21, 2017 11:05 am at 11:05 am
why is this problem only being brought up now? surely there have been frum yidden released from prison in the past!”
It’s been brought up since the time of the gemara, as the article states.
But the question is, why assume that he bentched goimel for being released from prison? Maybe it was for the trip home?
Don’t get me wrong. I think it is wonderful that a yid has been released from jail.. And i acknowledge the miracle of his early release. However, surely there should be a degree of contrition? After all, the incarceration was not for the same reasons as of that the Magen Avrohom nor the Baal Hatanya, was it? I’m not sure scenes reminiscent of Nelson Mandelas (lehavdeel) release are serving our attempts at creating a kiddush hashem to the outside world. Where am I going wrong here?
Rabbi Yair,
Thanks for the excellent write-up!
“the Mishna Brurah in his Biur Halacha 219:1 states that the Mogain Avrohom’s position fits with the Ramah’s view that Group 3 people who are bedridden but not in danger – do not bentch Gomel.”
The lashon MB is as following:
דעת מ”א דמיירי בחבוש על עסקי נפשות דוקא והרבה חולקים עליו
From his lashon it seems that he himself seems to be leaning toward the other poskim and is only “quoting’ the MA.
And if you read the entire Biur Halacha he is not agreeing with the savara of מעונה בכבלי ברזל and is not arguing against the savara of: “elo haya moshel b’nafsho..uk’shehu yotzeh lechofshi hu naaseh l’moshel benafsho”.
The only time he paskens that no bracha should be recited is when you are locked up for a couple of days only.
See MB B”H:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14164&st=&pgnum=255
Also, the wording of the poskim there, seems that monetary issues were more kind of being locked up until you paid. I don’t think they locked you up for life for monetary crimes. Whereas, in this case (and ONLY in our good ol’ USA!) white-collar / monetary crime can be sort of a “life sentence”, with no way of being released until you die.
However, as pointed out, the very one suggesting the condition of מעונה בכבלי ברזל (which the MB quotes as “leAchud” sh’Kasav” and disagrees) is the Ba’al haTanya in piskei Hasiddur he states the following:
ארבעה צריכים להודות ולברך ברכת הגומל (כנוסח שכתוב בסידור) יורדי הים כשיעלו ממנו. והולכי מדבריות כשיגיעו לישוב. ומי שהיה חולה ונתרפא. ומי שהיה חבוש בבית האסורים על ידי עסקי נפשות ויצא או על עסקי ממון אם היה מעונה בכבלי ברזל
FYI – As a general rule in Chabad: The Siddur overrides the Shulchan haRav and certainly the MB (hence, Zman Krias Shma and Shkiah etc in Chabad not like the Shulchan Aruch Harav)
Yid
“Maybe it was for the trip home?”
Did he travel through a dessert, ship , over water?
The
travel over the seas (Group 1), Verse in Psalm 107 states “Yoedei haYom’ Going DOWN to the sea, not up in the air over sea, hence very dubious that aviation over the sea qualifies for Birkas haGomel, whilst a cruise over the seas [except for English Channel] surely obligates Birkas haGomel.
Rabbi Yair,
I just noticed, the Aruch HaShulchan seems to rule as the Kitzur that there is no difference אם היה חבוש מחמת ממון ובין מחמת נפשות, not like the M”A he understands the Bracha is based on כעין תנחומין וברכה לנפש שסבלה יסורין.
I will quote in full:
וסימנך: “וכל החיים יודוך סלה” וחיים ראשי תיבות חולה יסורים ים מדבר. ומברך: “ברוך אתה ה’ אלהינו מלך העולם הגומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני כל טוב”. והשומעים עונין ‘אמן’ ואומרים: “מי שגמלך כל טוב הוא יגמלך כל טוב סלה”, וזהו כעין תנחומין וברכה לנפש שסבלה יסורין.
ואינו מברך עד שיצא מהצרה לגמרי: יורדי הים עד שיעלה ליבשה, הולכי מדבריות עד שיגיע לתוך הישוב, ומי שהיה חולה ונתרפא עד שיצא לשוק, ומי שיצא מבית האסורים עד שיצא נקי לגמרי ממשפטו ולא שיצא על ערבות.
ואין חילוק בין אם היה חבוש מחמת ממון ובין מחמת נפשות.
– ערוך השולחן – ריט: ה –
I don’t see where he adds any conditions in the circumstances of the prison. He simply goes with the Alyah Rabah and others, that the M”A is a chidush and we just follow the simple meaning of Chazal regarding imprisonment.
I don’t see why this is any worse than Ashkenazim reciting the bracha after a flight to Israel . (Note, there is less danger flying than driving on the roads)
Personally, I would allow to recite the Bracha, as after all the MB does allow (even though he does uphold that there is no Chiyuv for Ashkenazim, but he does agree that according to many Poskim you should) and the Aruch haShulchan and the Kitzur rule you should.
Note – there were many poskim like Rav Moshe and Rav Henkin ZT”L that would in any case rule like the Aruch haShulchan over the MB, and especially in this case that the MB is not totally disagreeing and is not so clear, I don’t see why many would have an issue with the bracha.