" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">

BERACHOS 12 - Dedicated by Mrs. G. Kornfeld for the Yahrzeit of her mother, Mrs. Gisela Turkel (Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer), on 25 Av. Mrs. Turkel was an exceptional woman with an iron will who loved and respected the study of Torah.

1)

DO ALL BERACHOS REQUIRE SHEM AND MALCHUS? [Berachos: text]

(a)

Gemara

1.

(Rav): Any Berachah without Hash-m's name is invalid.

2.

(R. Yochanan): Any Berachah that does not mention Hash-m's kingship is invalid.

3.

40 (Beraisa - R. Meir): If one saw bread or a fig, and said "how nice is this bread (or fig). Blessed is the One who created it," he was Yotzei;

4.

R. Yosi says, anyone who deviates from Chachamim's text of blessings was not Yotzei.

5.

Binyamin (a shepherd) said (in Arame'ic) "blessed is the Maker of this bread."

i.

Rav: He was Yotzei.

6.

Question: Rav taught that any Berachah without Hash-m's name is invalid!

7.

Correction: Binyamin had said "blessed is Rachmana (the Merciful One), the Maker of this bread."

8.

Question: One must say three blessings for Birkas ha'Mazon!

9.

Answer: Rav said that he fulfilled the Berachah Rishonah.

10.

Support (for Rav - Abaye - Beraisa): (In Viduy Ma'aser one says) "Lo Avarti" -- I did not forget to bless You (when tithing). "V'Lo Shachachti" -- I did not forget to mention Your name (at the time).

i.

The Beraisa does not mention kingship!

11.

Rejection: The Beraisa should say '"v'Lo Shachachti" -- I did not forget to mention Your name and kingship'.

(b)

Rishonim

1.

Rif (28b): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan, who requires Shem and Malchus.

2.

Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 1:5): Any Berachah without Shem and Malchus is not a Berachah, unless it is Samuch l'Chavertah (right after another Berachah).

3.

Rosh (6:23): R. Meir taught that one who said "blessed is the One who created this bread" was Yotzei. This refers to a Berachah Rishonah, or the first Berachah of Birkas ha'Mazon, like we say about such a Berachah in Arame'ic. Rav Hai Gaon rules like R. Yochanan. The Berachah in Arame'ic mentioned Malchus. Some texts explicitly say so. The Ri was unsure if the Halachah follows Rav, because Abaye supported him, and R. Yochanan needed to alter the text of a Mishnah. If so, one omitted Malchus, he does not bless again, for it is a Safek Berachah l'Vatalah.

4.

Question: There is no Malchus in Birkas me'Ein Sheva that the Shali'ach Tzibur says on Shabbos night!

5.

Answer (Rosh): "Ha'Kel ha'Kadosh she'Ein Kamohu" is like Malchus, like we say (Rosh Hashanah 32a) that "Shema Yisrael Hash-m Elokeinu Hash-m Echad" counts like a verse of Malchus (in Musaf of Rosh Hashanah). The first Berachah of Shemoneh Esreh has ha'Kel ha'Gadol; this is considered like Malchus. Some say that Elokei Avraham is like Malchus, for the world did not accept Hash-m's kingship until Avraham made people aware of Him, like it says "Hash-m Elokei ha'Shamayim Asher Lekachani mi'Beis Avi."

i.

Levush (OC 214:1): At the time, Hash-m was [known to be] G-d only in Shamayim.

ii.

Ran (Pesachim 26a DH Mai): The Yerushalmi said that a Berachah begins with Baruch unless it is Samuch l'Chavertah. It asked about the Berachah of Ge'ulah (at the Seder), and answered that if one heard it in the Beis ha'Keneses, he was Yotzei. The Ramban explained that it asked why the Berachah of Ge'ulah begins with Baruch, since it is Samuch to the first Berachah of Hallel. It answered that if one heard it in the Beis ha'Keneses, he was Yotzei and does not bless before Hallel at home.

iii.

Rebuttal (Ran): Why did it need this answer? Ge'ulah is a Berachah of Hoda'ah. It need not begin with Baruch! Rather, the Yerushalmi said that Ge'ulah is not Samuch to the Berachah before Hallel, rather, it was enacted for the second cup. We asked why Yehalelucha is different. It was similarly enacted on the fourth cup! We answered that primarily, Yehalelucha is for Hallel, for we always say it after Hallel.

iv.

Ran (DH Aval): Ge'onim say that we do not bless on Hallel on Pesach night. If so, Yehalelucha is not a Berachah on Hallel, rather, on the fourth cup. It does not begin with Baruch, for it is praise, like the Berachah for rain.

v.

Question (Ran): If so, also the Berachah of Ge'ulah should not begin with Baruch! It seems that Yehalelucha is Samuch to Asher Ga'alnu. Both of them are for the Chidush of Pesach night, i.e. the second and fourth cups. Therefore, the fourth is considered Samuch. Alternatively, since Yehalelucha is Samuch when we say Hallel, Chachamim did not enact another text for Pesach night, lest people begin it with Baruch when it is Samuch.

vi.

Beis Yosef (110 DH veha'Ram): R. Yonah (1a DH Ela) says that if a Berachah is Samuch l'Chavertah in its place, even when we say it elsewhere where it is not Samuch, we say the same text (even though it does not begin with Baruch). The same applies to Tefilas ha'Derech.

vii.

Tosfos (Berachos 14a DH Yamim): The Yerushalmi asked why Birkas Ge'ulah has a closing Berachah, for it is a Berachah of praise, just like Berachos on Peros. It answered that the Berachah alludes also to the future Ge'ulah, and also it is long. It asked why Yehalelucha has only a closing Berachah, for it is not Samuch l'Chavertah. We can say that it is mere praise, and even though it is long, Chachamim enacted only a closing Berachah, just like Elokai Neshamah.

(c)

Poskim

1.

Shulchan Aruch (OC 214:1): Any Berachah that does not mention Shem and Malchus is not a Berachah. If one omitted Shem or Malchus, he blesses again.

i.

Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chasav Rabeinu): The Ri was unsure whom the Halachah follows, for normally we follow R. Yochanan against Rav, but here Abaye supported Rav. However, Abaye only said 'presumably'. He did not explicitly rule like Rav, for he was not sure. Therefore, we revert to the rule that we follow R. Yochanan.

ii.

Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chasav v'Nafka): One opinion holds that Elokai Neshamah is not Samuch to Asher Yatzar. He can say that since it mentions that Hash-m creates Neshamos and blows them into bodies, and later removes them, and later returns them, this is the ultimate mention of Malchus.

iii.

Beis Yosef (DH veha'Roke'ach): The Roke'ach says that all Berachos of thanks to Hash-m have Shem and Malchus. Shemoneh Esreh is not thanks for Hana'ah (a benefit) or Mitzvah. It is request of man's needs, and first one praises Hash-m before praying (for his needs), therefore no Malchus was enacted. The Rif and Rambam say so, so we follow them.

iv.

Magen Avraham: The Beis Yosef discussed several Berachos without Shem and Malchus, and gave reasons for them. One should not alter the text from old Sidurim, for everything can be resolved.

v.

Birkei Yosef (188:5): If one omitted Retzei in Birkas ha'Mazon on Shabbos, there is a compensatory Berachah. The Tur says that the Ra'avad says to say it without Shem and Malchus. I.e. in his comments on Ba'al ha'Ma'or (44a) he said that any Berachah that is not fixed and sometimes it is omitted does not require Shem and Malchus. Even Birkas ha'Zimun, which is mid'Oraisa, since it is sometimes omitted, it is like a Berachah of Reshus. Why didn't the Ra'avad comment on the Rambam, who requires Shem and Malchus for every Berachah? I say that it is because the Rif and others hold like the Rambam.

vi.

Kaf ha'Chayim (2): If one said 'Hashem' in place of Ado..., he was not Yotzei. He must bless again.

vii.

Mishnah Berurah (1): This applies to Berachos of Hana'ah and Mitzvos, whether it is a long or short Berachah. The only exception is a Berachah Samuch l'Chavertah. It is a continuation of the previous Berachah, which began with Shem and Malchus.

viii.

Mishnah Berurah (3): If one omitted one word (in the middle) of the Berachah, b'Di'eved it is not Me'akev.

ix.

Kaf ha'Chayim (3): The Ari Zal says that there are great secrets in all the words, so if one omitted any word of a short Berachah, he was not Yotzei and he blesses again.

x.

Mishnah Berurah (4): Any Azkarah (name of Hash-m), e.g. the name Aleph Dalet (Nun Yud) or Elokim suffices (for Shem).

xi.

Mishnah Berurah (5): The Mechaber discusses the beginning of the Berachah. Similarly, if one omitted Hash-m's name at the end of the Berachah with a Chasimah, he was not Yotzei.

xii.

Bi'ur Halachah (DH v'Im): Whether one omitted Shem or Malchus, he was not Yotzei. However, Lo Sisa (the Isur to take Hash-m's name in vain) applies to a Berachah with Hash-m's name without Malchus, but not to a Berachah with Malchus but without Hash-m's name.

2.

Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): Even if he omitted only the world "ha'Olam", he must bless again, for Melech" itself is not Malchus.

i.

Levush (1): "Melech" without Olam is not enough, for one must declare him king over the entire world.

ii.

Bi'ur Halachah (DH v'Afilu): Even ha'Ozer said that this is a Safek, so one does not bless again. He says that the Rosh (6:23) says so, since he mentioned only Rachmana Malka. However, below (9:3) he mentions "Malka d'Alma"! Perhaps in 6:23 he was merely concise. Also his other proofs are not compelling, like Magen Giborim wrote. However, the Yerushalmi supports him. It requires Malchus due to "Aromimcha Elokai ha'Melech." This shows that Melech itself suffices. However, perhaps ha'Melech is better than Melech. Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav says so. Even ha'Ozer's words are not strong enough to overturn the Shulchan Aruch's ruling, even though several Acharonim agreed with him, but in any case if one said ha'Melech, it seems that he does not bless again.

3.

Shulchan Aruch (6:3): The Berachah Elokai Neshamah does not begin with Baruch, because it is a Berachah of thanks, which does not begin with Baruch, like we find regarding the Berachah for rain (221:2).

i.

Birkei Yosef (113:1): The Kesef Mishneh said that Elokai is like Malchus. Yad Aharon asked that the Mechaber said that even Elokeinu Melech is not enough without "ha'Olam"! Also, why didn't Tosfos and the Rosh answer that Shemoneh Esreh and me'Ein Sheva have Malchus, for we say Elokeinu? I say that the Kesef Mishneh did not mean that the word Elokai is like Malchus. Rather, he means that the text of the Berachah Elokai (Neshamah...) is Malchus, for we say that Hash-m formed all Neshamos. Perhaps the text of the Kesef Mishneh should say 'Elokai etc. is like Malchus.' Yad Aharon also asked, why does Shemoneh Esreh begin with Baruch? We must be Somech Ge'ulah l'Tefilah (so it is Samuch to Ga'al Yisrael)! He answered that at Minchah it is not Samuch, therefore it begins with Baruch. We do not mention Malchus, for in Shacharis and Ma'ariv it is Samuch. I ask that several Berachos are sometimes Samuch, and Chazal enacted Malchus and they begin with Baruch! One can distinguish.

ii.

Mishnah Berurah (12): It is not Samuch l'Chavertah, therefore one may say at home until Elokai Neshamah, and begin with Elokai Neshamah in the Beis ha'Keneses. However, one should do the best way, and say it Samuch to Asher Yatzar. The Gra holds that it is Samuch l'Chavertah.

iii.

Kaf ha'Chayim (227:15): If one awoke and heard thunder or saw lightning, if he cannot wash and bless (Toch Kedei Dibur), he thinks the Berachah in his heart. However, based on the custom to bless without Shem and Malchus, he may say the Berachah before washing.

iv.

Teshuvos v'Hanhagos (3:81): One who flew in a plane may say 'Baruch Rachmana Malka d'Alma ha'Gomel...', for there is no concern for Brachah Levatalah when saying a Brachah of thanks with Shem and Malchus in Arame'ic.

v.

Yesod v'Shoresh ha'Avodah (Sha'ar ha'Ashmores 2): If one says Shem and Malchus without any Kavanah, it is as if he omitted Shem and Malchus.

vi.

Note: For this reason, Igros Moshe (2:50) says that an atheist's Brachah is not a Berachah at all. The Mishnah Berurah (61:7) says that except for Birkas Avos, if one blessed without Kavanah for the meaning of the words, he was Yotzei. However, the Rosh (Teshuvah 4:19, cited in Beis Yosef 183) says that if one said part of a Berachah without Kavanah, he was Yotzei.

Other Halachos relevant to this Daf:

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF