Berakhot 49a (מט.) — the Talmud in English

And

if

, this

word,

was given in thirteen covenants,

since the word “covenant” appears thirteen times in the passage concerning circumcision [Genesis 17].

Rabbi Abba says: He must say in it

in the blessing of the Land language of

thanksgiving,

at the

beginning

— “We will thank You” —

and

at the

end

— “We thank You.”

And one who diminishes may not diminish from

one expression of thanksgiving,

and anyone who diminishes from

one expression of thanksgiving

is disgraceful.

And anyone who concludes, “Who bestows inheritances of lands,” in the blessing of the Land

instead of concluding, “For the Land and for the food,”

and

likewise one who concludes only

“Who saves Israel” in

the blessing of

“Who builds Jerusalem”

is boorish,

for the blessing of the Land concerns only the Land of Israel, whereas the praise “Who bestows inheritances of lands” refers to all the lands of the gentile nations, and likewise one who concludes only “Who saves Israel” omits the principal request for salvation, which is in “Who builds Jerusalem,” as will be explained below.

And anyone who does not say “covenant” and “Torah” in the blessing of the Land, and “the kingdom of the house of David” in “Who builds Jerusalem” —

has not fulfilled his obligation.

This supports Rabbi Ila, as Rabbi Ila said that Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa said in the name of our Master:

Anyone who did not say “covenant” and “Torah” in the blessing of the Land, and “the kingdom of the house of David” in “Who builds Jerusalem” —

has not fulfilled his obligation.

Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the Rabbis disagree about it. One says: “The One who is good and does good” requires

mentioning at its opening

the sovereignty

of Heaven [saying, “King of the universe”],

and the other says: It does not require

mentioning at its opening

sovereignty.

The Gemara explains that their dispute depends on the dispute between the baraitot above [48b], for

the one who says, “It requires sovereignty,”

necessarily

holds

that the obligation of the blessing of the One who is good and does good is only

rabbinic,

and it is not considered appended to the preceding blessings, whose obligation is by Torah law. Therefore, one must mention the Divine Name and sovereignty in it, since “a blessing that does not contain sovereignty is not a blessing,”

whereas

if

the one who says, “It does not require sovereignty,”

necessarily

holds

that the obligation of the blessing of the One who is good and does good is

by Torah law,

and therefore it does not require mention of the Divine Name and sovereignty, since it is appended to the preceding blessing.

The Sages taught: What is the conclusion of

the blessing of

the building of Jerusalem ? —

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Judah, says: “Who saves Israel.”

The Gemara is astonished: Does this mean that only one who concludes with

“Who saves Israel”—yes,

has fulfilled his obligation, whereas one who concluded with

“The building of Jerusalem”—not

has fulfilled his obligation? But the principal subject of the blessing concerns the building of Jerusalem!

Rather, say:

one fulfills his obligation with his blessing

even

if he said in the conclusion only

“Who saves Israel,”

because the salvation of Israel is the building of Jerusalem.

Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of the Exilarch and opened

the blessing of “Who builds Jerusalem”

with one

of the two requests, saying only one of “Have mercy upon Israel Your people” or “And upon Jerusalem, Your holy city,”

and concluded with two,

concluding with “Who saves Israel and Who builds Jerusalem.”

Rav Ḥisda said:

Is it

heroic

to conclude with two? But was it not taught

that it is improper to conclude in this manner:

Rabbi says: One does not conclude

any blessing

with two,

because of the principle that “one does not perform mitzvot in bundles,” as will be explained below.

The essential matter: Rabbi says: One does not conclude

a

blessing with two. Levi challenged Rabbi:

But in the blessing of the Land one concludes

“For the Land and for the food”? —

Rabbi explained to him that the intention is to give thanks for the

Land that produces food,

and this is a conclusion concerning a single matter.

Levi continued to challenge him: But in the abridged version of the threefold blessing one concludes

“For the Land and for the produce”?

Rabbi again explained that in this blessing as well, the intention is to give thanks for the

Land that produces produce,

and this too is a conclusion concerning a single matter.

Levi again challenged him: But on a Festival one concludes

“Who sanctifies Israel and the appointed times” ?

Rabbi explained to him that the intention is

Israel, who sanctified the appointed times,

by establishing the times of the beginnings of the months, since the Festivals depend on the date of the month. He likewise challenged him concerning the conclusion

“Who sanctifies Israel and the beginnings of the months”

and Rabbi answered him that the intention is

Israel, who sanctified the beginnings of the months.

Levi nevertheless challenged him concerning the conclusion

“Who sanctifies the Shabbat, Israel, and the appointed times,”

for Shabbat is fixed and is not sanctified by Israel, and yet one concludes with thanksgiving for it together with thanksgiving for the appointed times?

Rabbi said to him: The principle I stated applies to all blessings

except

blessing

this one,

since it is impossible not to mention all three matters together.

And

the Gemara explains:

What is different? —

Here,

in the conclusion concerning Shabbat and the appointed times, although they are two matters, the thanksgiving

is one,

because the blessing is to the Holy One, blessed be He, for sanctifying everything, whereas

there,

in the conclusion “Who saves Israel and Who builds Jerusalem,” although they are one matter, since salvation is through the building of Jerusalem, nevertheless, with regard to the Holy One, blessed be He, one gives thanks for

two things,

because one says that He “builds” and “saves,” and one must conclude concerning

each one separately.

And what is the reason that one does not conclude with two? —

Because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles,

since by doing so one makes it appear as though they weigh upon him like a burden.

What was established concerning it?

How should one conclude the blessing of the building of Jerusalem?

Rav Sheshet said:

One should always conclude in a manner resembling the opening. Therefore, if one

opened with “Have mercy upon Your people Israel,” one concludes with “Who saves Israel,”

whereas if one

opened with “Have mercy upon Jerusalem,” one concludes with “Who builds Jerusalem.”

And Rav Naḥman said: Even if one opened with “Have mercy upon Israel,” one concludes with “Who builds Jerusalem,” as it is stated

[Psalms 147:2]

“The Lord builds Jerusalem; He gathers the dispersed of Israel,”

and its explanation is:

When does the Lord build Jerusalem? —

When He gathers the dispersed of Israel,

and it follows that it is preferable to say “Who builds Jerusalem,” since this includes the fact that He is “the One who saves Israel.”

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Ḥisda: Let the Master come and teach.

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda: Even

the blessing over food I have not mastered

[learned properly],

and

how

could I teach?!

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

Rabbi Zeira:

What is this

[what do you mean]?

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

Rav Ḥisda:

I happened to come to the house of the Exilarch and recited Grace after Meals, and Rav Sheshet raised his neck

over me like a snake

[like a snake].

Rabbi Zeira asked him:

And why

was Rav Sheshet angry with you?

Rav Ḥisda answered: Because

I said neither “covenant,” nor “Torah,” nor “sovereignty.”

Rabbi Zeira again wondered:

And why did you not say them?

Rav Ḥisda replied: I hold

in accordance with Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav. For Rav Ḥananel said in the name of Rav: If one did not say “covenant,” “Torah,” and “sovereignty,” —

he has fulfilled his obligation .

The reason is as follows:

“Covenant”

is not an obligatory mention,

because it does not apply

to

women,

who do not mention it in Grace after Meals because it is not relevant to them. Similarly, there is no obligation for men to mention

“Torah” and “sovereignty,”

because they do not apply

to

women

or to slaves,

who do not mention them in Grace after Meals because they are not relevant to them.