The Bar Mitzvah Series Part 3: Parshas Toldos - The Controversy Of the Bracha Baruch She'patrani

this torah class is brought to you by torahanytime.com everyone i want to share with you we've been speaking about the topic of bar mitzvah we had a show wednesday night about the correct time the source that a child becomes bar mitzvah and misses at 13 we spoke about when the parents have to wait until the child becomes bar mitzvah do you need 24 hours to the date of birth or is it sufficient once the night begins we spoke about the concept of the sudas mitsuha that we discussed wednesday night friday we spoke about some of the kabbalistics at kabbalistic aspects of bar mitzvah in terms of what type of spiritual transformation takes place when a young boy turns 13 we spoke how he gets his kedusa now i want to speak about an interesting halacha controversy regarding the an obligation on the father the marriage in this week's passion passages told us on the position and rashi says on these words that until this point in time people really did not pay attention to recognize the leanings the inclinations and the the personality of yaakov and eso respectively and then by igb and yaakov went to the basetown madrid and asap went to the house of zara but the matter says rebelli amar in parashat samajimo this is an analogy to a myrtle of its vinus and a thorn shall you get a limbs they were growing one on top of another the kivan sheikh dilu and now that they grew they have frichos the flower gave off its fragrance and the thorn and the the thistle gave off its prick for until 13. they both went to shul they both went to yeshiva they both came home from yeshiva you'd give us a person must be busy dealing with his child until they're 13 years old the kanba ela from there and on sarah mar he has to say blessed is god who exempts me from the punishment of this one so amazingly the mattress is saying and upon the bar mitzvah of one's child the father makes abraham blessed hashem who has exempted me from the punishment on this one in fact the rama in our achievement base says that god exempted me from this one's punishment so the rama brings us down and the source being this madrish of course but he also points out that the maharil himself made a bracha on his child and uh the maril comes from the mordecai however the rama concludes the following says that even if one makes this bracha he should not mention the name of hashem we should not say hashem's name and you should not say melech so you make the bracha without shame doesn't explain why one should not make the brahmashima however if you look in the document akimash has the ramos commentary on the tour the subcotton aleph in seminary the ramos says it's very difficult for me to suggest that one make a bracha that is not mentioned in the gemara meaning it is very difficult to legislate abraham if the brah is not sourced in shas and this patron is not found in the gemara and therefore the rama finds it difficult to in fact conclude that one could say it with hashem's name despite the fact that the marill himself did make this bracha and he didn't mention hashem's name now it's not found in shas and therefore we don't have sufficient basis to say the name of hashem however interestingly the vilnigan in the birhagra disagrees with rama and the gra is messiah that this that this bracha was made by the maharil himself the grass says maharishi segal primary halacha now one should make the shame um sometimes if you want to get a better understanding of the opinion of the villain you look in the adam and the odam explains his the opinion of his rabbi says as follows that even though that this this is not found in the gemara um and there is a rule that the goanim cannot be masaki in ibrahim that's not found in the gemara but says this bracha is found in the midrash and that is sufficient basis and especially in light of the fact that marilyn himself made it and therefore the grass says and the adam concludes one who does make the bracha does not lose out so uh we have a mahalikas over here the rama says there's not sufficient grounds to be able to say hashem's name and the gra and the autumn say no that is sufficient the fact that it's rooted in the matters just for the sake of completion the magala amuco is in the beginning of he uh he writes that even though the ramon or him writes not to say hashem's name and melech but says i uh do not agree with them because even though we don't find it in shas well the agata of our shas are is the agata tagamarus the agata of the ushami of the varats israel is the madras rabbah and the menastraba this bracha is brought down and therefore says that um in his opinion um he says the immizakini or aziki menu if he would have this close he would establish this bracha so the bottom line is that uh norman of halal is not to say hashem's name following the soccer of the rama but if somebody is a gronik or a particular follower of course there is basis to be able to say hashem's name in fact the mission borough says that even though the the ramosa is not the sashimi's name hammavar hip said that somebody who does say it does not lose that in other words there is what to rely on okay be it as a man now let's try to explain this is a very interesting what is the meaning of this bracha so there are two perusing found in the magnavrom in subcotton hey in the maganavram the mughan abram first brings down because a father is responsible for the upbringing of his son he's responsible to mechanic his son and if the son sins the father is punished and responsible for that so so long as a child is below the age of bar mitzvah his sins are he's not personally responsible for them but the father who is obligated to train his son to be son is punished for the sins of his father and therefore when a child becomes bar mitzvah the father is no longer punished for the sins of the child now the child has his own free choices on bahira so the father is in a sigh of relief is saying finally i'm off the hook i'm no longer liable responsible for the actions of my son now according to this reason of the margin of ram the premier goddamn in the age of 1 points out that's why the woman does not make the bracha of marsha petrani because khazal never replaced the onus of on the mother but only on the father and therefore she it was never liable to the for the average of her children and therefore she would not need to say barak shah patrani let's just point out that the mishna bhura khattan zayin says he says of even though the father is not obligated to be son the father still has the mitzvah that if that is if he sees his child doing the wrong thing he's obligated to be maishiach them no less than any other jew and it's not a lesser obligation just because that person happens to be one's son but now let's ask the following question on this explanation of the mughan abram and that is it would seem quite unusual for a father to be standing up at the safer torah and say well you know baruch hashem my job is done and i am no longer liable for my son zavero so let him go sin as much as he wants i'm putter i'm off the hook i'm no longer responsible certainly it's the wish and desire of every father that his child going the right path and that his child and his children his boy not doing avira and it would seem rather difficult to for that to express the relief of a parent who's no longer liable for the sins of their son i mean it's the father's responsibility to make sure the son goes on the right path and you know what if the son does sin over the age of 13 while technically it might not automatically accrue to the father well obviously the father did a lousy job and then it is the father's fault and the father is responsible so what exactly is this brah barosha patrani so we like to quote so often the pinchas friedman the shrile pinchas who wrote a beautiful safer on bar mitzvah called beniyata and in llama dalit where he brings down these mccoy mice he also addresses this question and he has a unique take on this explanation of the manga from he says no it's not that the father saying that now let my kid go and sin and it's no longer my responsibility it's on his shoulders it's not on my shoulders but what the father is declaring is that there's a certain confidence that a jewish father has that he's done a good job in raising his child that he no longer has to worry about the sins of his child that until now maybe it was a work in progress and therefore any shortcomings in the child would fall on the father's shoulders but now the father says with a degree of confidence i did a good job with this kid i'm not worried that he's going to go on the wrong path and even if he errors he'll do chuva because i've set him in the right path i was improperly so instead of it being a sigh of relief that i'm no longer responsible for him but rather it's like that has given the father shemaya to set the child in the right path that the child can be cut the father could be confident that there's nothing more he needs to worry about and this pay rush in the mugging of ram is very much supported by a sack of the hassan seifer in simon san di san soyper says that the reason why we don't make the bharasha patrani with sheamu mahrus is because how could a parent say with confidence that i've done such a good job that now i no longer have to worry about this kid if a parent was confident that he did such a a grand job with this child such a efficient job of with his father with his child that he doesn't have to worry about the child anymore and in hachinami you should say the bracha of bhaksha patrani with shame so it's very clear that the san safar is understanding the barakah basha petrani as a statement of confidence that the father doesn't have to worry about the kid anymore and in fact if it is with such confidence then you would be able to say the bracha with shame um this is the parish of the mughan abram in the in the bracha patrani however the lavush quote in the magnus ram has another take on it and that is based on the rama the rama writes in that there's cern that a person is punished in this world and sometimes a person's money could be um taken away and sometimes if a person doesn't have era their children who are young could be punished for because of them why is that the rambam says that a person's young children that don't have das yet and have not began to perform in the midfields they're kind of him they're like a person's possession and even though it says and it says but that's uh that's until a person becomes an ish but a young child is not an is not an independent identity yet is almost like the property of the parent in a sense that they could be punished for the parents shortcomings therefore says lavush when a child becomes a bar mitzvah and now they are their own identity they can no longer be punished for their father's shortcomings the father says meaning blessed is hashem that my child is now exempt from my sins from my punishment and in fact he says this exact exact comment that sadiq when their children become of age they are samaya and they say baraka malcolm that since that times hashem can punish a child for the parents of arroyos once the child becomes over 13 years old they are no longer responsible the obvious question on the lavosh which is asked by the master is but that's not what the parent says parent says baksha patrani may unchurch blesses hashem who pottered me from his punishment according to little bush the success blesses hashem who partners him from my punishment it's a nice comment it's a nice explanation but doesn't fit into the words the words are hashem exempted me from his punishment not hashem exempted him from my punishment well uh gimbal um explains um rather an interesting pay rush that there's something called the rebound effect uh this past week i was very congested so they gave me a certain over-the-counter product called afrin you spray it and uh but the instructions are you can't spray it for more than three days because if you stay for more than three days it has a rebound effect then you become even more congested than before well it's the same thing in rochnias yes if a parent doesn't have vera the child could be punished but there's a clown in the gemaran shabbos of kuffman testimonies if you cause someone to be punished then god distances himself from you why because you you caused something terrible you brought about the punishment of somebody else so therefore you're punished as well so therefore the bush is correct barak what the father is saying is barak hashem that my child is now no longer responsible for my shortcomings why because if the child would be punished for the father sin the father would then be punished for causing that the child should be punished and therefore the father is not is not in relief that the child is not punished that's not the father's geschaft that's the kid's geschaft but now that now that the kid is not punished for the father now the father won't be punished for having caused punishment to the kid based on the gemaran shabbos and therefore says because if the father is not mechanic the son the father could be punished by having the son become ill as we said as the ram says the child can be punished for the father's sin now if the son is punished and therefore the father could say and therefore says to be able to reach this milestone of bar mitzvah for our children make the bracha which according to the ramaz without chemo marcus according to the guru is with shemo and we should be able to have a confidence that we raise our children that we don't have to worry about any unchem and that our children should not be nanas and we should only see tremendous nachos from all of our children and see the nachas that we're all hoping and yearning for you've just experienced another torah class brought to you by torahanytime.com