Berakhot 12a — the Talmud in English

Rather, if you say that they would recite “Ahava Rabbah,” —

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 Rabbah is even at night, it is possible that the priests recited it even before dawn.

And if so,

perhaps the reason that they did not recite

then, adjacent to the recitation of the Shema, also the blessing of

Yotzer Or,

was

because

it was still

not yet reached

the

time

of the blessing of

Yotzer Or

— for it may not be recited before the time when one can distinguish between tekhelet and white . And the Shema itself they would recite, from the outset, before its time, but they did not thereby fulfill the obligation of the Shema of everyone.

And

afterward,

when the time

for the blessing of

Yotzer Or

arrived, they would recite

it as well! And since they recited both of them, one can no longer prove from here that the blessings do not prevent one another.

The Gemara asks:

And if he understood it by inference

— Rabbi Zerika understood from the words of Reish Lakish that one blessing which the priests would recite in the Temple was Yotzer Or —

what

is the deficiency in this proof, such that Rabbi Yitzhak bar Yosef saw a need to point it out?

The Gemara explains:

For if by inference,

Rabbi Yitzhak wished to point out that Rabbi Zerika’s proof is not conclusive. For one can say:

In truth,

the blessing of

Ahava Rabbah they would recite

in the Temple,

and

even if the blessings prevent one another, the blessing of Ahava Rabbah 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 will ask: if so,

what

is Reish Lakish’s intention when he says, “This indicates that

the blessings do not prevent one another,”

for they would recite both of them? — Your answer is: that it is proven from here that

the order of

the

blessings

does not prevent fulfillment; for if he advanced the second blessing before the first, he fulfilled the obligation of both.

The Gemara continues to explain what we learned in tractate Tamid:

“And they recite the Ten Commandments, Shema, ‘And it shall be if you diligently obey,’ ‘And he said,’ ‘True and established,’ the [Temple] service, and the blessing of the priests.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Even in the provinces,

that is, everywhere, even outside the Temple,

they sought to recite them thus,

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 claims of falsehood of

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. And they would bring proof from the fact that they recite only what the Holy One, blessed is He, 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 them thus,

the Ten Commandments,

but they had already abolished them

because of the grievance of the heretics.

Rabbah bar bar Hana intended to establish them

the Ten Commandments in the recitation of the Shema

in Sura.

Rav Hisda said to him: They had already abolished them because of the grievance of the heretics.

Ameimar intended to establish them

the Ten Commandments in the recitation of the Shema

in Nehardea.

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

We also learned in Tamid:

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

The Gemara clarifies:

what

was the wording of that

one blessing?

The Gemara brings:

Rabbi Helbo 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 ruling:

where he is holding

a person who is holding

a cup of wine in his hand

a cup of wine in his hand, and he erred

and thought

that the cup was

of beer

made from barley.

And

therefore he

began

with the blessing over beer,

and

he was

reciting

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

with the intention

of concluding the blessing

over beer, which is “Who creates everything by His word,” and he remembered that the cup in his hand was full of wine,

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 properly,

with

the blessing

over wine,

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

fulfilled

his obligation through this blessing.

And the reason for the matter is:

For even if,

even

if

he concluded as he had initially intended to say when opening the blessing, and

said, “Who creates everything by His word,” —

also

he fulfilled his obligation!

For we learned: For all of them,

whether the fruit of the ground or the fruit of the tree, despite the fact that a particular blessing was designated for each one, nevertheless,

if he said, “Who creates everything by His word,” —

he fulfilled his obligation!

For the blessing “Who creates everything” is a comprehensive blessing covering all foods and drinks, and exempts even the blessing of the vine.

Rather,

the case below is subject to discussion:

where he is holding

he was holding

a cup of beer in his hand,

and he erred

and thought that it was wine, and began and recited

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

with the intention of wine, and intended to conclude, “Who creates the fruit of the vine.” After he said “King of the universe,” he remembered that it was beer,

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

and concluded

properly

with

the blessing

over beer,

which is “Who creates everything by His word.” And in this there is a doubt:

what

is the halakha?

The sides of the doubt are: whether

we follow the principal part of the blessing,

that is, “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,” and it was said when his intention was to drink wine, and it is considered as though he recited “Who creates the fruit of the vine”; and 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,

and after all he concluded properly, “Who creates everything by His word,” and it is a proper blessing.

The Gemara resolves the doubt:

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 saying it according to its law,

“Who forms light,”

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

and concluded with “Who brings on evenings” —

he did not fulfill his obligation,

since in the end he did not say the wording of the morning blessing. [Even though in the blessing “Who brings on evenings” the matter of light is also mentioned—“He rolls away light before darkness, and darkness 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 prayer of

the evening:

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 said the wording of the blessing appropriate 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 rule—

everything follows the conclusion!

And with this, the doubt concerning one who is holding a cup of beer in his hand, and began with the blessing of wine and concluded with the blessing of beer, is resolved: he has fulfilled his obligation, because everything follows the conclusion of the blessing, and his initial intention neither helps nor detracts from the blessing.

The Gemara rejects this:

there it is different,

in the blessing “Who creates light,” for even if he began with the intention of saying it according to its law, he has not fulfilled his obligation, since he did not say the essential part of the blessing. And 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 succeed in correcting the blessing. And what we find that “he has fulfilled his obligation” is because

he says

in the conclusion of the blessing

“Blessed”

are You, Hashem,

Who creates the luminaries.

For since he concludes it with a blessing, the blessing of the conclusion counts for him in place of the opening. But there is still room to discuss the blessing “That everything came to be through His word,” in which he does not conclude with “Blessed,” in a case where he began with the intention of saying “Who creates the fruit of the vine”: does he fulfill his obligation through it?

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

this works out well according to Rav—

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

Rav said:

Rav:

any blessing in which there is no mention of the Name is not a blessing,

because mentioning the Name is the determining factor in whether the recitation of the blessing has the status of a blessing—

properly

it can be rejected that one should not compare the blessing “That everything came to be through His word,” which does not conclude with “Blessed are You, Hashem,” to the blessing “Who creates light,” which concludes with “Blessed are You, Hashem”; therefore, specifically in the blessing “Who creates” can he correct his blessing in its conclusion. For the conclusion of the blessing contains a mention of the Name, and by virtue of the mention of the Name in the conclusion, 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 Yohanan, who said that any blessing in which there is [A0083]]in addition to mentioning the Name, also

in addition to a mention of God's name, also

sovereignty—

is not a blessing,

since the conclusion of a blessing contains no mention of sovereignty, it is not important as a blessing; and if so—

what can be said?!

That is, it is impossible to reject the proof regarding the blessing “That everything came to be through His word” from the blessing “Who creates light” by claiming that specifically the conclusion “Who creates the luminaries” is effective in place of the opening that was not proper, since the conclusion of the blessing contains no language of sovereignty.

The Gemara again rejects the proof from the beraita for another reason:

rather,

even according to Rabbi Yohanan it is impossible to resolve our problem from the beraita:

since Rabbah bar Ulla said

that the reason they mention during the day “Who makes 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 [A0097]]“Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe,”

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

initially,

at the opening of the blessing,

he says it regarding both of them,

both regarding the light of day and regarding 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,” and remembered, and concluded in the morning with “Who creates the luminaries,” it is a proper blessing, for 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 in his hand, and therefore he does not fulfill his obligation through it.

The Gemara further resolves the matter:

come and hear, from the latter clause of

the beraita:

“The general rule—

everything follows the conclusion.”

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

No; it comes to include that which we said,

for example, one who is holding a cup of beer and mistakenly thinks it is wine, so that if he concluded “That everything came to be through His word,” it is considered for him a proper blessing.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

“The general rule” 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 had eaten dates, and began

to recite the after-blessing

with the intention of 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 must recite the Grace after Meals,

and concluded with regard to bread,

“Who feeds the world,” if so,

this is our problem!

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

The Gemara rejects this:

No, it is necessary—

the rule “everything follows the conclusion” teaches about another case:

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

“Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe,” with the intention of reciting the blessing “Who feeds”

with regard to bread,

and remembered that he had eaten dates,

and concluded with regard to dates

—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

Because

even

if

he concluded with regard to bread

and recited the entire blessing “Who feeds,”

he would also have fulfilled his obligation.

What is the reason?—

Because

dates too provide nourishment,

and after the fact he fulfills his obligation regarding them even through the blessing “Who feeds.” And if so, the latter clause of the beraita cannot resolve the issue of wine and beer, for the opening of the blessing “Who feeds” is also appropriate for dates, and it is not like “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” which is not an appropriate blessing for beer.

Rabbah bar Hanina the Elder said in the name of Rav: Anyone who did not say

the blessing

“True and Firm”

in the recitation of the Shema of

the morning,

as they instituted it.

And

likewise, one who did not say

“True and Faithful” in the evening—

has not fulfilled his obligation.

As it is stated [A0246]][Psalms 92:3]:

[Psalms 92:3]:

“To declare Your kindness in the morning.”

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

“And Your faithfulness in the nights”—

the blessing “True and Faithful” also speaks of the future: that we await the Holy One, blessed is He, to fulfill His promise and faithfulness to redeem us from the hands of kings and from the hands of tyrants, to place our souls among the living, and to guide us upon the high places of our enemies—all these are continual miracles, always.

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

in the blessing of the forefathers and in the blessing of thanksgiving—

he bows at “Blessed.” And when he straightens himself

himself—

he straightens at the Name,

when he mentions the Name.

Samuel said: What is Rav’s reason? For it is written [A0273]] [Psalms 146:8]:

[Psalms 146:8]:

“Hashem—

straightens those who are bowed down.”

The Gemara objects:

it was objected

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

“Because of My Name he was humbled

[subjugated]

he.”

This implies that when mentioning the Name he bows, and not as Rav said, that he straightens himself. The Gemara answers:

Is it written, “At My Name”?

That is, at the time of mentioning the Name. But

“Because of My Name” is what is written!

Its meaning is that because of My Name he bows; that is, before mentioning Hashem. But when he mentions Hashem, he straightens himself, as they expounded from the verse, “Hashem—straightens those who are bowed down.”

Shmuel said to Chiyya bar Rav: Son of Torah,

son of Torah,

come and I will say to you an excellent matter that your father said. Thus said your father: When he bows—

he bows at “Blessed.” When he straightens—

he straightens at the Name.