YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*************************************************************

HALAKHA: A WEEKLY SHIUR IN HALAKHIC TOPICS

Shiur #5: On the Text of "Ata Chonantanu"

By Rav Ezra Bick
Translated by David Silverberg

	The Mishna (Berakhot 33a) establishes that on Motza'ei Shabbat we add the paragraph of "havdala" ("Ata chonantanu") in the fourth berakha of shemoneh esrei - "Ata chonein."  The Gemara adds, "Originally, they [Chazal] instituted that it be recited in the prayer service; when people became more affluent, they instituted that it be recited over a cup of wine; when people became poorer, they once again instituted that it be recited in the prayer service.  They also said that although one recited havdala in his prayer he must recite it again over a cup of wine."  It appears from the Gemara that one recites havdala twice, the second time merely repeating that which he recited in Shemoneh Esrei.  This is the reason, it would seem, that the Gemara emphasized that one must recite havdala again over a cup of wine, despite the apparent redundancy involved.

	The Gemara in Masekhet Pesachim (103b) dictates the text of havdala: "… who distinguishes between sacred and mundane, between light and darkness, between Yisrael and the nations, between the seventh day and the six workdays."[1]  Assuming a precise equation between the two havdalot, we would expect the havdala in "Ata chonein" to consist of the same text as that recited over the cup of wine.  Indeed, after the introduction connecting havdala to the context of "Ata chonein" ("You have graced us with intelligence to study Your Torah…"), we find a text almost identical to the havdala recited over wine: "You have distinguished (va-tavdeil) between sacred and mundane, between light and darkness, between Yisrael and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six workdays."  Nusach Askhkenaz uses this text; we will later address the text used by the Sefaradim.

	However, this formulation entered the siddurim relatively recently, around three hundred years ago.  In all the sources from the period of the Rishonim and in the early siddurim[2], a slight but surprising difference appears.  The early Ashkenazic siddurim feature the following text: "You have graced us with intelligence to study Your Torah, and You have taught us to perform the decrees You have willed.  You have DISTINGUISHED US (va-tavdileinu) between sacred and mundane, between light and dark…"  Whereas today we recite, "va-tavdeil," "You have distinguished," the older version reads, "va-tavdileinu," "You have distinguished US."  In the year 5485 (1705), Rabbi Zalman Henya published a siddur with hundreds of grammatical corrections to the prevalent liturgical texts, including the change from "va-tavdileinu" to "va-tavdeil."  The reason behind this switch is clear: what could "You have distinguished US between sacred and mundane" possibly mean?  If "distinguished" refers to "us," what could it mean that the Almighty distinguished us "between sacred and mundane, between light and darkness, and between Yisrael and the nations?"  The correction of "va-tavdeil" resolved the grammatical issue and resulted in a perfect parallel between the text of "Ata chonantanu" and that of havdala over wine.[3]  Though many of Rabbi Zalman's emendations did not make their way into subsequently published siddurim, this one managed to completely eradicate the earlier version from all siddurim. Use of the original text today would be looked upon as an innovation, and a strange one at that.  However, I believe that we must critically examine any change to the accepted liturgical text, which was established by our early sages, and preserved and transmitted with remarkable precision by the communities.  It is hard to imagine that the switch from "va-tavdeil" to "va-tavdileinu" occurred mistakenly and by happenstance.  If so, then the question arises, how may we understand the clause, "You have distinguished us between sacred and mundane?"

	We cite here the comments of Rav Yaakov Emden (the author of the siddur, "Amudei Ha-shamayim"), in his work, "Lu'ach Eresh"[4] (sec. 149):

It is inconceivable that the hands of strangers, ignoramuses, foolish people who perpetrate evil and exchange words in the texts of berakhot, prevailed.  Heaven forbid that we would sin and suspect the innocent.  God forbid!  The scribes of Yisrael could never be suspected of such, for they are holy… 

Therefore I say, Heaven forbid that we should abandon the ancient texts in our possession, and I find it very easy to explain it properly.  The word refers to a third [unmentioned object], as in "You have proffered him blessings of goodness" ("Ki tikademenu birkhot tov" - Tehillim 21:4), which means, "You have made him one proffered with blessings."  Similarly, [in the verse,] "[In Your statutes] You have given me trust," "yichaltani" means "You have made me one who trusts."  (The Ibn Ezra writes in both instances, "The verb modifies two direct objects.")  Here, "tavdileinu" [means], "You have made us able to distinguish," for all these distinctions occur through Yisrael, who distinguish and separate between the holy and the profane: between Yisrael and the nations - they may not assimilate with them or intermarry with them.  And between light and darkness - there are mitzvot that apply specifically by day, like many mitzvot asei, and there are those done only by night, such as cutting the omer and the like, as is stated at the end of the third chapter of Megila.  This we know through the laws of the Torah.  (Meaning, we know through the laws of the Torah to make these distinctions.)

In this manner, the text of this praise and its idea is developed.  Through Your having graced us knowledge and taught us Your statutes, in this way You have made us people who make these distinctions.  According to the text that the grammarian (referring to Rav Zalman Henya, though, as noted, he was preceded by Rav Shabtai Sofer) fabricated, this topic has no connection to that which precedes it.  The berakha does not speak of the Almighty's having distinguished or commanded to distinguish, but rather speaks the praises of Yisrael, whom Hashem has granted knowledge and intelligence through His Torah, through which they can make all these distinctions.  This knowledge is indeed wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations.  "Distinction" actually occurs only with respect to Yisrael, as mentioned; for without Yisrael, there is no actual distinction.  This is very clear and correct.

	An entirely new perspective on the berakha of "Ata chonantanu" thus emerges.  As opposed to the berakha recited over wine, which praises God who makes these distinctions, "Ata chonantanu" praises His having granted us the knowledge to distinguish, as Chazal say, "If there is no knowledge - how is there distinction?"  "Va-tavdileinu" means that God has implanted within us the ability to distinguish, a capacity manifest in the distinctions we make between light and darkness, Yisrael and the nations, and Shabbat and the six workdays.  This process of distinction does not involve merely scientific classification, but rather a hierarchical distinction based on halakhic procedure.  We are the ones who create the halakhic distinctions and imprint them upon the natural world, in which this distinction does not exist as a natural phenomenon.  The mitzvot applicable by day and those relevant only at night distinguish light from darkness; the laws concerning the unique status of Yisrael distinguish between Yisrael and the nations; the sanctification and observance of Shabbat distinguish it from the workweek.

	It turns out that not only does "Ata chonantanu" differ fundamentally from the havdala recited over wine, but it introduces an entirely new point of focus into the berakha of "Ata chonein."  This fourth berakha of the weekday shemoneh esrei, the first berakha in the section of "bakasha" (direct requests of the Almighty), does not explicitly relate to Torah.  The berakha speaks of general knowledge and human comprehension without mentioning that the conferral of knowledge from God involves specifically the knowledge of Torah, the divine wisdom.  Clearly, however, the bestowal of knowledge expresses itself primarily through Torah, even if the berakha itself never specifies this point.  "You grant man knowledge" in the general sense, "and teach mankind" - all mankind, everyone created in His image - "wisdom."  By contrast, the inserted paragraph of havdala deals specifically with Torah and the particular wisdom of Benei Yisrael.  "You have graced us" - meaning, Yisrael - "with intelligence to study Your Torah, and You have taught us to perform the decrees You have willed."  If throughout the week we pray generally for the conferral of divine knowledge, on Motza'ei Shabbat we specify and reveal our true desire that this wisdom instilled within us should be "intelligence to study Your Torah."  Why is this so?  The knowledge of Motza'ei Shabbat is not content with distinction or analysis, with a catalog or even full comprehension.  It strives to determine norms and values within the scientific world, to arrange in a hierarchical scale, to leave its imprint of values upon the otherwise neutral world.  It longs for more than the ability to understand the world, but for the ability of the Torah, the ultimate wisdom that one acquires not by virtue of his having been created in God's image, but through his attachment to the divine wisdom and transcendence of the natural world - in other words, through the experience of Shabbat.  This is how we arrive at, "You have made us distinguish between sacred and mundane, between light and darkness, between Yisrael and the nations, between the seventh day and the six workdays."  We reach this point specifically upon Shabbat's departure, when the wisdom within man girds itself with added strength to go out, perfect the world and perform "the decrees You have willed."  Blessed is the One who graces man with wisdom.

	This understanding of the havdala recited in prayer, as Rav Yaakov Emden suggests, receives added support from the text recited by the Sefaradim: "You have graced us, Hashem our God, with intelligence and intellect.  You said we should distinguish between sacred and mundane, between light and darkness, between Yisrael and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six workdays."  It is clear that here the Almighty does not distinguish, but rather enjoins us to distinguish.  In truth, the original text of the Ashkenazim expresses this point even more sharply; not only did You enjoin us to distinguish, You have granted us the power to distinguish.  Clearly, the Sefaradic text refers to this notion, as well: "You have graced us… with intelligence and intellect," and, as result, "You have instructed us to distinguish," with the power of that intelligence and intellect.

	Herein lies the secret of the double havdala.  In both Berakhot and Pesachim, the Gemara emphasizes that one who recites havdala in arvit must do so again over a cup of wine, but without explaining why.  In light of our discussion, it becomes clear that the two recitations reflect the two concepts of havdala: that of the Almighty and that of Benei Yisrael.  On the one hand, God established the notion of "distinction" already at the dawn of creation, separating between light and darkness, establishing the firmament to divide between the upper and lower worlds, and, primarily, designating Shabbat as a day of blessing and sanctity.  However, these distinctions are only theoretical, the foundation upon which people are granted the capacity to build.  The distinction between light and darkness can deteriorate into a purely technical difference without any substantive significance, and may be easily negated through artificial light.  Many people in the modern world refuse to relate differently to day and night, they have freed themselves from the tyranny of the sun and have equated all hours of the day, subjecting them only to considerations of convenience and desirability.  Only the application of wisdom through the power of Torah and observance of mitzvot infuses the day with an essential character different from that of night.  One is characterized by the daytime mitzvot - mila, tefillin, lulav, etc. - and the other by the nighttime mitzvot - the evening shema, the offering of sacrificial limbs upon the altar in the Mikdash, counting of the omer, the nighttime mention of yetzi'at Mitzraim, etc.  The question of whether the obligation to verbally recall the Exodus applies at night (Berakhot 14b) becomes a fundamental and essential one, which penetrates to the very foundation of the essence of night in the life of the free man.  The same can be said of the issue as to whether one must recite the evening Shemoneh Esrei immediately following the berakha of "ge'ula" ("semikhat ge'ula li-tefila" - Berakhot 4b).  The Almighty distinguishes, and He distinguishes us for the purpose of bringing this distinction into practical expression.  We must recite two berakhot: one over the very concept of distinction in the natural order, and another over the conferral of wisdom and knowledge to apply this distinction and express it through a Torah lifestyle and world of kedusha.

	Yet another important lesson emerges, as well.  At times, even a slight emendation, a grammatical, stylistic improvement, can erase an entire principle and conceal a major foundation of "avodat Hashem."

FOOTNOTES:
[1] The Gemara there presents several other views as to the number of "distinctions" one must mention as well the text of the concluding berakha.

[2] See Mordekhai, Pesachim chap. 10, 36a; and Peirush Ha-tefilot by Rabbi Yehuda Ben Yakar.

[3] The first to suggest this correction was Rav Shabtai Sofer Premisl, who published his siddur one hundred years earlier, in 5377.  However, it was the siddur, "Sha'arei Tefila" of Rav Zalman Henya that brought about the widespread acceptance of this change in siddurim published henceforth.  Both admit that all the older siddurim they saw had the text of "va-tavdileinu."

[4] "Lu'ach Eresh" was published several months ago, for the first time in two hundred and fifty years.  Notes in the parentheses were added by the author of the article.