I listened to the tape on Daf Yomi and it is too fast for me. I need to understand the followings from the end of the page 11B (from third line from bottom 11B to 7th line on 121A):
1. I do not understand why the Cohanim got by with only 1 bracha instead of two brachot before Kri'at Shma. Did the Koanim have different standards than the rest of Am Isreal?
2. I Cannot follow up on the Michlala Itmar i.e. cannot see how it is deducted from rabbi Zrika "Ein Brachot Me'akvot Zo et Zo" that the one blessing was the "Yotzer Or". Olso at the end of that portion it looks to me that the issue was not resolved. Correct?
Should we talk over the phone? or may be you got something in writing & you can e mail me? I am located in Northern California and need to teach this portion on coming Shabbat.
Shlomo Vilozny, Aptos CA USA
1. It is not that the Kohanim had different standards than the rest of Klal Yisrael, but that they had additional obligations, and these obligations affected their Tefilah. The Kohanim had to perform the daily Avodah, which was of course a Torah obligation. Berachos, on the other hand, are only a Rabbinic injunction. It was thus quite acceptable for the Chachamim to curtail the Kohanim's obligation for Berachos in order to enable them to keep up with the Avodah (which had to be performed on time).
2. Before dealing with your second question, let us first define the phrase "Berachos Ein Me'akvos Zu es Zu." Initially, the Gemara interprets this phrase to mean that if someone recites only one of the two Berachos that are due to be said he has fulfilled his obligation, even though he omits the second one.
That being the case, since we are told that we learn from the Kohanim that "Berachos Ein Me'akvos Zu Es Zu," we may deduce that the Berachah the Kohanim said was 'Yotzer Or.' Had they said 'Ahavah Rabah', we would not be able to learn from the Kohanim the principle of "Berachos Ein Me'akvos Zu Es Zu," for they may have omitted 'Yotzer Or' because the time of day from which that Berachah may be recited had not yet come. If its time had not yet come, the principle 'Berachos Me'akvos (or Ein Me'akvos) Zu es Zu' is not applicable, since what is not yet due cannot be termed 'omitted.'
If they said 'Yotzer Or,' obviously they said that Berachah after the time from which Yotzer Or may be recited, and certainly after the time at which Ahavah Rabah may be recited (which is earlier than the time from which Yotzer Or may be recited). We learn that "Berachos Ein Me'akvos Zu Es Zu" since they omitted Ahavah Rabah; had the Berachos been Me'akev one another the Kohanim would have been required to say either both Berachos or neither.
The Gemara concludes that 'Berachos Ein Me'akvos Zu es Zu' might also mean that the order of the Berachos is not Me'akev. This can be learned from the Kohanim even if the Berachah they recited was 'Ahavah Rabah', and even if it was recited before the time for 'Yotzer Or' had arrived (and the Berachah of Yotzer Or was recited later, when the time for Yotzer Or arrived). We learn "Berachos Ein Me'akvos Zu Es Zu" since the Kohanim switched the order of the Berachos, saying Ahavah Rabah earlier even though they would have to say Yotzer Or later, and out of order. Had Berachos been Me'akvos Zu Es Zu, they should not have said Ahavah Rabah until the time for Yotzer Or had arrived, so that they could say the Berachos in order.
Consequently, you are correct in assuming that the issue (as to which of the two Berachos the Kohanim actually recited) remains unresolved, since the rule of "Berachos Ein Me'akvos Zu Es Zu" can be learned from the Kohanim no matter which Berachah of the two they said first.
Feel free to write back, or to call, if you need further help. You can call between 3-7 PM Israel time, 972 2 651-5004.
be'Virchas Kol Tuv