Berakhot 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, if you say that they recited “Ahava Rabba,” –

what

did Reish Lakish infer: “This indicates that

the blessings do not prevent one another?” How did Reish Lakish arrive at this conclusion? Since the time for the blessing of Ahava Rabba is even at night, it is possible that the priests recited it before daybreak.

And if so,

perhaps the reason they did not recite

then, immediately before the recitation of the Shema, also the blessing of

Yotzer Or,

was

because

it was still

not yet the time

for

the time

of the blessing of

Yotzer Or [

which may not be recited before the time when one is able to distinguish between sky-blue and white . They did recite the Shema itself before its proper time, as a matter of initial practice, but one does not thereby fulfill the obligation of reciting the Shema incumbent upon everyone].

And

afterward,

when the time

for the blessing of

Yotzer Or arrived,

they would recite

it as well! Since they recited both of them, there is no longer proof from here that the blessings do not prevent one another.

The Gemara asks:

And if he inferred it incidentally—

Rabbi Zerika understood from Reish Lakish’s words that one of the blessings recited by the priests in the Temple was Yotzer Or—

what

was lacking in this proof, such that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef found it necessary to point this out?

The Gemara explains:

For if he inferred it incidentally,

Rabbi Yitzḥak wished to note that Rabbi Zerika’s proof is not conclusive. For one could say:

Actually,

the blessing of

Ahava Rabba they would recite

in the Temple,

and

even if the blessings prevent one another, the blessing of Ahava Rabba is not considered a blessing recited in vain, for

when the time

for the blessing of

Yotzer Or arrived, they would recite it

as well.

And if you ask: if so,

what

did Reish Lakish mean when he said, “This indicates that

the blessings do not prevent one another,”

since they recited both of them? The answer is: It is proved from here that

the order of

the

blessings

does not prevent fulfillment; if one recited the second blessing before the first, one fulfills the obligation of both.

The Gemara continues explaining what we learned in tractate Tamid:

“And they recite the Ten Commandments, Shema, Vehaya im Shamoa, Vayomer, Emet Veyatziv, [the blessing concerning] the Temple service, and the Priestly Blessing.”

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even in the provinces,

that is, everywhere, even outside the Temple,

they sought to recite it this way,

to establish the recitation of the Ten Commandments together with the Shema every day.

Rather,

they had already abolished the recitation of the Ten Commandments

because of the grievance of

the

sectarians—

the heretics—so that they would not say to the common people: The rest of the Torah, apart from the Ten Commandments, is not true. They would bring proof from the fact that they recite only what the Almighty said and what they heard from His mouth at Sinai.

It was taught likewise: Rabbi Natan says:

Also

in the provinces they sought to recite it this way,

the Ten Commandments,

but they had already abolished them

because of the grievance of the sectarians.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana thought to establish their recitation

of the Ten Commandments within the recitation of the Shema

in Sura.

Rav Ḥisda said to him: They had already abolished them because of the grievance of the sectarians.

Ameimar thought to establish their recitation

of the Ten Commandments within the recitation of the Shema

in Nehardea.

Rav Ashi said to him: They had already abolished them because of the grievance of the sectarians.

We also learned in Tamid:

“And on Shabbat they add one blessing for the outgoing watch”:

The Gemara clarifies:

What

is the wording of that

one blessing?

The Gemara cites:

Rabbi Ḥelbo said: The outgoing watch says to the incoming watch: May He who caused His Name to dwell in this House –

may He cause love, brotherhood, peace, and friendship to dwell among you!

We learned in the Mishna:

“The place where they said to lengthen”

It is obvious

to us as a halakhic matter:

Where one is holding

a

cup of wine in his hand

and errs,

thinking

that it is a cup

of beer

made from barley,

and

therefore

begins

the blessing for beer,

and

was

reciting

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,”

intending

to conclude the blessing

for beer,

which is “by Whose word all things come to be,” and he remembered that the cup in his hand was filled with wine,

and concluded

the end of the blessing correctly

with the

blessing

for wine,

which is “Who creates the fruit of the vine”—in such a case, it is obvious that he

has fulfilled

his obligation with this blessing.

The reason for this is:

For even if,

even

if

he had concluded as he had initially intended when beginning the blessing, and

said, “By Whose word all things come to be,”

he would also

have fulfilled his obligation!

For we learned: “Over all of them,”

whether produce of the ground or produce of a tree, although a special blessing was designated for each one, nevertheless,

if one said, “By Whose word all things come to be,”

he has fulfilled his obligation!

For the blessing “by Whose word all things come to be” is a comprehensive blessing covering all foods and beverages, and it exempts even the blessing over wine.

Rather,

the case that must be considered is the following:

Where one is holding

a

cup of beer in his hand,

and he errs,

thinking that it is wine, and begins and recites

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,”

intending to conclude with

“Who creates the fruit of the vine.” After he said “King of the universe,” he remembered that it was beer,

and concluded

as appropriate

with the

blessing

for beer,

which is “by Whose word all things come to be.” In this case, the question arises:

what

is the halakha?

The sides of the question are: Do

we follow the beginning of the blessing—

that is, “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,” which he recited while intending to drink wine, and it is considered as though he had recited “Who creates the fruit of the vine”? In that case, the blessing over wine does not exempt beer, since beer is not considered a species of the vine.

Or

perhaps

we follow the conclusion

of the blessing;

we follow it,

and he concluded correctly, “by Whose word all things come to be,” which is an appropriate blessing.

The Gemara resolves the question:

Come and hear:

One who prays

the morning prayer,

and when he reaches the blessing of Yotzer Or

began

the blessing

with the

intention of reciting it according to its proper formulation

“Yotzer Or,”

but after saying “King of the universe,” he erred

and concluded with “Who brings on evenings”—

he has not fulfilled his obligation, because ultimately he did not recite the wording of the morning blessing. [Even though the blessing “Who brings on evenings” also mentions the subject of light—“He rolls away light before darkness and darkness before light”].

since ultimately he did not recite the wording of the morning blessing. [Even though the blessing “Who brings on evenings” also mentions light—“He rolls light away before darkness and darkness away before light.”]

But if

he began with the intention

of saying

“Who brings on evenings,”

and after he said, “King of the universe,” he remembered,

and concluded

properly

with “Who creates light,” he has fulfilled his obligation,

because he concluded the blessing properly.

And likewise in the evening prayer,

the evening prayer

: if

he began with the intention

of saying

“Who brings on evenings,”

and when he reached “King of the universe” he remembered,

and concluded with “Who creates light”

—he has not fulfilled his obligation.

For he recited the wording of the appropriate blessing for the morning and not for the evening.

And if

he began with the intention

of saying

“Who creates light,”

and he remembered,

and concluded

properly

with “Who brings on evenings”

—he has fulfilled his obligation,

because he concluded the blessing properly.

The general principle—

everything follows the conclusion!

The uncertainty regarding one who is holding a cup of beer and began the blessing of wine but concluded with the blessing of beer is thereby resolved: he has fulfilled his obligation, because everything follows the conclusion of the blessing, and his initial intention neither validates nor invalidates the blessing.

The Gemara rejects this: The Gemara responds:

It is different there,

in the blessing of “Who creates light.” Even if he began with the intention of reciting it properly, he did not fulfill his obligation, since he did not recite the principal content of the blessing. Likewise, if he began in the morning with the intention of saying “Who brings on evenings,” even when he remembered and said “Who creates light,” he did not thereby correct the blessing. And what we find that “he has fulfilled his obligation” is because

he said

in the conclusion of the blessing,

“Blessed”

are You, the Lord,

Who creates the luminaries.

Since he concludes it with a blessing, the blessing of the conclusion serves him in place of the opening. Nevertheless, the question remains concerning the blessing of “by Whose word all things came to be,” in which he does not conclude with “Blessed,”: If he began with the intention of saying “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” does he fulfill his obligation with it?

The Gemara explains that the rejection depends on the opinions of the amoraim:

This works according to Rav

—according to his position, the Gemara’s rejection is possible—since

he said

Rav:

Any blessing that does not contain mention of the Name is not a blessing,

because mention of the Name determines whether the recitation of the blessing has the status and significance of a blessing—

well

it is possible to reject the comparison between the blessing “by Whose word all things came to be,” which does not conclude with “Blessed are You, the Lord,” and the blessing “Who creates light,” which does conclude with “Blessed are You, the Lord.” Therefore, specifically in the blessing “Who creates light” he can correct his blessing through its conclusion, since the Name is mentioned in the conclusion. By virtue of the mention of the Name there, the conclusion itself is also considered a blessing. It is possible to explain that it also stands in place of the opening.

But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: Any blessing that does not contain [in addition to mention of the Name,]

also

sovereignty—

is not a blessing,

since the conclusion of a blessing does not contain mention of sovereignty, it is not considered a blessing; if so—

what can one say?!

That is, it is impossible to reject the proof concerning the blessing “by Whose word all things came to be” from the blessing “Who creates light” by claiming that specifically the conclusion “Who creates the luminaries” can serve in place of an opening that was not recited properly, since the conclusion of the blessing does not contain language of sovereignty.

The Gemara returns and rejects the proof from the beraita for another reason:

Rather,

even according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, our question cannot be resolved from the beraita:

since Rabba bar Ulla said,

the reason that during the day we mention “Who creates darkness,” and at night “Who rolls away light,” is

in order to mention the quality of day at night and the quality of night during the day.

If so,

when he says the blessing and sovereignty [“Blessed are You, the Lord our God, King of the universe,”]

then

from the outset,

at the opening of the blessing,

he said it with regard to both of them,

both the light of day and the darkness of night, which are mentioned both in the blessing “Who creates light” and in the blessing “Who brings on evenings.” Therefore, if he began with the intention of saying “Who brings on evenings,” remembered, and concluded in the morning with “Who creates the luminaries,” it is an appropriate blessing, because even when he intended to say “Who brings on evenings,” he intended to mention the day as well. This cannot be compared to one who at the beginning of the blessing intended the blessing of wine, which does not include the blessing for the cup of beer that he is holding, and therefore he does not fulfill his obligation with it.

The Gemara further resolves the question:

Come and hear, from the latter clause of

the beraita:

“The general principle—

everything follows the conclusion.”

“The general principle”—what does it come to include?—

No, it comes to include what we said,

for example, one who is holding a cup of beer and mistakenly thinks it is wine: if he concluded, “by Whose word all things came to be,” it is considered an appropriate blessing for him.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

“The general principle” was stated

to include bread and dates,

in the manner explained below:

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances? If we say that he ate

bread, but thought that he ate dates, and he began

to recite the after-blessing

with the intention of reciting the blessing for dates,

whose blessing is “for the tree and for the fruit of the tree,” and after he said “King of the universe” he remembered that he had eaten bread and was obligated to recite Grace after Meals,

and concluded with that of bread,

“Who nourishes the world,” if so,

that is our question!

For the blessing for dates, “for the tree and for the fruit of the tree,” does not discharge his obligation to recite Grace after Meals. If in this case you resolve that everything follows the conclusion of the blessing, the same would apply to the issue of beer and wine.

The Gemara rejects this:

No, it is necessary

to teach the principle “everything follows the conclusion” with regard to a different case:

for example, he ate dates, but thought that he ate bread, and he began

“Blessed are You, the Lord our God, King of the universe,” with the intention of reciting the blessing of nourishment

for bread,

and remembered that he had eaten dates,

and concluded with that of dates,

—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

Because

even

if

he had concluded with that of bread

and recited the entire blessing of nourishment,

he would likewise have fulfilled his obligation.

What is the reason?—

Because

dates also provide nourishment,

and after the fact one fulfills his obligation for them even with the blessing of nourishment. If so, the latter clause of the beraita cannot resolve the issue of wine and beer, since the opening of the blessing of nourishment is also appropriate for dates, unlike “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” which is not an appropriate blessing for beer.

Rabba bar Ḥanina the Elder said in the name of Rav: Anyone who did not recite

the blessing

“True and Firm”

in the recitation of the Shema of

the morning,

as it was instituted,

and

likewise one who did not recite

“True and Faithful” in the evening—

has not fulfilled his obligation.

As it is stated

[Psalms 92:3]:

“To declare Your kindness in the morning.”

The entire blessing “True and Firm” concerns the kindness that He performed for our ancestors: He brought them out of Egypt, split the sea for them, and brought them through it.

“And Your faithfulness at night”—

the blessing “True and Faithful” also concerns the future: we await the fulfillment by the Holy One, blessed be He, of His promise and faithfulness to redeem us from the hands of kings and from the hands of tyrants, to preserve our souls in life, and to guide us upon the heights of our enemies. All these are miracles that occur continually.

And Rabba bar Ḥanina the Elder said in the name of Rav: One who prays, when he bows

in the blessing of the Patriarchs and in the blessing of thanksgiving,

he bows at “Blessed.” And when he straightens

himself,

he straightens at the Name,

when he mentions the Name.

Shmuel said: What is Rav’s reason? As it is written

[Psalms 146:8]:

“The Lord

straightens those who are bowed down.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

It was objected

from the words of the verse, for it is stated [Malachi 2:5]:

“Because of My Name he humbled

[submitted]

himself.”

This implies that when the Name is mentioned he bows, contrary to Rav, who said that he straightens. The Gemara answers:

Is it written, “at My Name”?

That is, at the time the Name is mentioned? After all,

“because of My Name” is written!

Its meaning is that he bows because of My Name, namely, before the Name is mentioned. But when he mentions the Name, he straightens, as they derived from the verse, “The Lord—straightens those who are bowed down.”

[Shmuel said to Hiyya bar Rav: bar uryan,

a son of Torah,

come and I will tell you an excellent teaching that your father said. Your father said as follows: When he bows—

he bows at “Blessed.” When he straightens—

he straightens at the Name.