Berakhot 49a — the Talmud in English

And

if

this,

the word

was given in thirteen covenants,

for the word “covenant” appears thirteen times in the section of circumcision [Genesis 17].

Rabbi Abba says: He must say in it

in the blessing of the Land language of

thanksgiving,

at

the beginning—

we thank You—and

at

the

end—

we thank You,

and one who reduces may not reduce from

one expression of thanksgiving,

and anyone who reduces from

one expression of thanksgiving

is disgraceful.

And anyone who concludes “Who causes lands to inherit” 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 an ignoramus,

for the blessing of the Land concerns only the Land of Israel, whereas the praise “Who causes lands to inherit” signifies all the lands of the gentiles, and likewise one who concludes only “Who saves Israel” omits the principal request concerning the salvation, which is in “Who builds Jerusalem,” as will be stated 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, for Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa 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 Yose ben Dostai and the Rabbis disagree about it. One says: “The One who is good and does good” requires

mention at its opening of

kingship

of Heaven [to say “King of the universe”],

and one says: It does not require

mention at its opening of

kingship.

And the Gemara explains that their disagreement depends on the disagreement between the beraitot above [48b], for

the one who says “it requires kingship”

necessarily

holds

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

rabbinic,

and it is not considered appended to the preceding blessing together with the blessings before it, whose obligation is by Torah law; therefore it is necessary to mention the Name and kingship in it, for “a blessing that does not contain kingship is not a blessing,”

and

if

the one who says “it does not require kingship”

necessarily

holds

that the obligation of the blessing “The One who is good and does good” is

by Torah law,

and therefore it does not require mention of the Name and kingship, for it is appended to the preceding blessing.

The Sages taught: What is the conclusion in

the blessing of

the building of Jerusalem ?—

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

The Gemara wonders: Is it only one who concludes with

“Who saves Israel”—yes,

he has fulfilled his obligation, whereas if he concluded with

“the building of Jerusalem,” he has not

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

Rather, say:

he fulfills his obligation with his blessing

even

if he said at 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 “Who builds Jerusalem”

with one

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

and concluded with two,

for he concluded with “Who saves Israel and Who builds Jerusalem.”

Rav Ḥisda said:

Is

there valor

in concluding with two? But it was taught

that it is not appropriate 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 stated below.

The body of the matter: Rabbi says, One does not conclude

a

blessing with two. Levi raised an objection to Rabbi:

In the blessing of the Land, they conclude

“For the Land and for the food”?—

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

a land that produces food,

and this is a conclusion concerning one matter.

Levi continued and challenged: In the abbreviated form of three blessings, they conclude

“For the Land and for the fruits”?

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

a land that produces fruits,

and it too is a conclusion concerning one matter.

Levi returned and challenged: On a Festival, they conclude

“Who sanctifies Israel and the appointed times” ?

Rabbi explained to him that the intention is concerning

Israel, who sanctified the appointed times,

through establishing the times of the beginnings of the months, upon whose date the Festivals depend. And likewise he challenged from 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 still challenged from the conclusion

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

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

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

except

a blessing

this one,

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

And

the Gemara explains:

What is different?—

Here,

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

is one,

for the blessing to the Holy One, blessed be He, is for that which He sanctifies everything, whereas

there,

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

two,

for he says that He “builds” and “saves,” and it is necessary to 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,

for by doing so he shows as though they burden him like a load.

What came of it?

How should he conclude in the blessing of the building of Jerusalem?

Rav Sheshet said:

He should always conclude in a manner resembling the opening. Therefore, if he

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

whereas if he

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

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

[Psalms 147:2]

“Who builds Jerusalem, the Lord; He will gather 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,” for included in this is that He is “Who saves Israel.”

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

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda: Behold, I have not even

finished the blessing of sustenance

[learned it properly],

and

how

shall I teach lessons?!

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

Rabbi Zeira:

What is this

[what do you mean]?

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda:

I happened to come to the house of the exilarch and recited the blessing of sustenance, and Rav Sheshet raised his neck

over me like a serpent

[like a serpent].

Rabbi Zeira asked him:

And why

was Rav Sheshet angry with you?

Rav Ḥisda answered: Because

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

Rabbi Zeira returned and wondered:

And why did you not say them?

Rav Ḥisda answered him: I hold

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

he has fulfilled his obligation.

And the reason for this is:

“Covenant”

is not obligatory to mention,

because it does not

apply

to women,

who do not mention it in Grace after Meals because it is not relevant to them. And likewise men are not obligated to mention

“Torah” and “kingship,”

because they do not

apply

neither to women

nor to slaves,

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

Rabbi Zeira was astonished, and said to him:

And you

why

did you abandon all those tannaim and amoraim,

who held that if he did not mention it, he has not fulfilled his obligation,

and acted in accordance with Rav

whose opinion is a lone opinion in this halakha?!

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

The blessing of

“the good and the beneficent” requires

mentioning at its opening

kingship

of Heaven.

The Gemara is astonished:

What does this come to teach us?

And if you say that he wished to teach us the rule that

“every

blessing that does not contain kingship is not called a blessing,”

but

already

Rabbi Yohanan said it once before [see above 12a]?

[see above, 12a]?

Rabbi Zeira said:

The intention of Rabbi Yohanan

was to say that

the blessing of the good and the beneficent

requires two mentions of “kingship”: one of its own

which he says at its opening, “King of the world,”

and one

which he says in it, “our King,” to complete the “kingship”

of “Who builds Jerusalem,”

in which kingship is not mentioned either at its opening or at its conclusion.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

since he says in it, “our King,” to complete the “kingship” of the blessing “Who builds Jerusalem,”

let it require

mentioning

three

times “kingship”:

one of its own, one of “Who builds Jerusalem,” and one

to complete the “kingship”

of the blessing of the Land,

for in it as well kingship is not mentioned either at its opening or at its conclusion? —

Rather,

necessarily,

why does the blessing of the Land not

need to have “kingship” completed for it? —

Because

there was no need to say it in it, since

it is a blessing that follows another blessing,

and if so,

“Who builds Jerusalem” also should not require

completion with “kingship,” for it too cannot say it, since

it is a blessing that follows another blessing,

and for what purpose does it need to mention two kingships in “the good and the beneficent”?

The Gemara answers: Indeed,

the same law applies: even “Who builds Jerusalem” also does not require

mentioning kingship, because it follows another blessing;

rather, since he says

in it

“the kingship of the house of David,”

which is the kingship of flesh and blood,

it is not proper conduct not to say the kingship of Heaven,

and therefore it is necessary to complete and say “kingship” in the blessing that follows it.

Rav Pappa said: This is what

Rabbi Yohanan

is saying: “It requires two kingships besides its own,”

meaning that in addition to mentioning “King of the world” at its opening, he must say in it two further mentions of “kingship”: one to complete the kingship of the blessing “Who builds Jerusalem,” and one to complete the kingship of the blessing of the Land.

Rabbi Zeira was sitting behind Rav Giddel, and Rav Giddel was sitting before Rav Huna,

who was the teacher of both of them,

and

Rav Giddel

was sitting and saying: If he erred and did not mention that of Shabbat [that he did not say “Be pleased”] in the Grace after Meals

—

he says: “Blessed

is He who gave Sabbaths

for rest to His people Israel, with love, for a sign and for a covenant; blessed are You Who sanctifies the Shabbat.”

He said to him

Rav Huna to Rav Giddel:

Who said it? —

Rav Giddel answered him:

Rav

said this ruling.

He then sat again and said: If he erred and did not mention that of a Festival —

he says: “Blessed is He who gave Festivals

to His people Israel for joy and remembrance,

for remembrance, blessed are You Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons.”

He said to him: Who said it? —

Rav.

Rabbi Zeira added and related that

Rav Giddel then sat

Rav Giddel

and said: If he erred and did not mention

“May it rise and come”

of the New Moon —

he says: “Blessed is He who gave new moons to His people Israel for remembrance,” and

I [Rabbi Zeira]

do not know whether he said in it [in the blessing] “for remembrance and

joy,” or whether he did not say in it

“joy,”

but only remembrance; and likewise, I do not know

“joy.”

And I likewise do not know

whether he concluded in it “Blessed are You, Lord, Who sanctifies Israel and the new moons,”

“Blessed are You, Lord, Who sanctifies Israel and the New Moons,”

or whether he did not conclude in it,

and likewise, concerning this particular matter—I do not know whether they also instituted a blessing for one who forgets the mention of the New Moon—

whether

it is a novel ruling

of his, or whether

he too stated this in the name

of his teacher.

Giddel bar Minyomi was standing before Rav Nahman; Rav Nahman erred

and did not say “Be pleased” or “May it rise and come”!

and he returned to the beginning,

to the beginning of the Grace after Meals.