Lesson #7 - Questions and Comments
Sources
1. [ציטוטמן המשנה שלנו בברכות]
מקום שאמרו להאריך.
2. [שאלה]
פשיטא, היכא דקא נקיט כסא דחמרא בידיה וקסבר דשכרא הוא ופתח ומברך אדעתא דשכרא וסיים בדחמרא – יצא, דאי נמי אם אמר שהכל נהיה בדבר ויצא, דהא תנן: על כולם אם אמר שהכל נהיה בדברו – יצא. אלא, היכא דקא נקיט כסא דשכר אבידיה וקסבר דחמרא הוא, פתח ובריך אדעתא דחמרא, וסיים בדשכרא, מאי?
בתר עיקר ברכה אזלינן, או בתר חתימה אזלינן?
3. [תשובה]
תא שמע: שחרית, פתח ביוצר אור וסיים במעריב ערבים – לא יצא, פתח במעריב ערבים וסיים ביוצר אור – יצא; ערבית, פתח במעריב ערבים וסיים ביוצר אור – לא יצא, פתח ביוצר אור וסיים במעריב ערבים – יצא; כללו של דבר: הכל הולך אחר החתום.
4. [דחיית ההוכחה – חילוק]
שאני התם דקאמר: ברוך יוצר המאורות.
5. [הסבר זה לברייתא קשה לדעות מסוימות ואחרי כן שאלה]
הניחא לרב דאמר כל ברכה שאין בה הזכרת השם אינה ברכה – שפיר, אלא לרבי יוחנן דאמר: כל ברכה שאין בה מלכות אינה ברכה, מאי איכא למימר?
6. [דחיית הברייתא כהוכחה]
אלא, כיון דאמר רבה בר עולא: כדי להזכירמדת יום בלילה ומדת לילה ביום, כי קאמר ברכה ומלכות מעיקרא אתרוייהו קאמר.
7. [תשובה אחרת]
תא שמע מסיפא, כללו של דבר: הכל הולך אחר החתום. כל לושל דבר לאתויי מאי – לאו לאתויי הא דאמרן?
8. [דחיית ההוכחה]
לא, לאתויי נהמא ותמרי.
9. [בירור - המתאים את תשובת הדחייה לבעיה שלנו]
היכי דמי? אילימא דאכל נהמא וקסבר דתמריאכל, ופתח אדעתא דתמרי וסיים בדנהמא – היינו בעיין!
10. [תשובה - דחיית הברור]
לא צריכא: כגון דאכל תמרי וקסבר נהמא אכל,ופתח בדנהמא וסיים בדתמרי – [יצא], דאפילו סיים בדנהמא נמי יצא; מאי טעמא – דתמרי נמימיזן זייני.
חלק ב’
1. [מימרא]
אמר רבה בר חיננא סבא משמיה דרב: כל שלא אמר אמת ויציב שחרית ואמת ואמונה ערבית – לא יצא ידי חובתו, שנאמר: (תהלים צב:ג) להגיד בבקר חסדך ואמונתך בלילות.
2. [עוד מימרא בשמם]
ואמר רבה בר חיננא [סבא] משמיה דרב: המתפלל,כשהוא כורע – כורע בברוך וכשהוא זוקף – זוקף בשם.
3. [מימרא המביא מקור לדעת רב]
אמר שמואל: מאי טעמא דרב – דכתיב: (תהליםקמו:ח) ה’ זוקף כפופים.
4. [קושיא]
מתיבי: (מלאכי ב:ה) מפני שמי נחת הוא!
5. [דחיית הקושיא]
מי כתיב בשמי?
מפני שמי כתיב.
6. [מימרא]
אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב: בר אוריאן,תא ואימא לך מלתא מעלייתא דאמר אבוך! הכי אמר אבוך: כשהוא כורע – כורע בברוך, כשהוא זוקף – זוקף בשם.
7. [מעשה של אמורא]
רב ששת כי כרע – כרע כחיזרא, כי קא זקיף- זקיף כחיויא.
חלק ג’
1. [עוד מימרא בשם רב]
ואמר רבה בר חיננא סבא משמיה דרב: כל השנה כולה אדם מתפלל האל הקדוש, מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט, חוץ מעשרה ימים שבין ראש השנה ויום הכפורים שמתפלל המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט.
2. [מימרא - דעת חולקת]
ורבי אלעזר אמר: אפילו אמר האל הקדוש -יצא,
שנאמר: (ישעיהו ה:טז) ויגבה ה’ צבאות במשפט והאל הקדוש נקדש בצדקה.
אימתי ויגבה ה’ צבאות במשפט – אלו עשרהימים שמראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים, וקאמר האל הקדוש.
3. [שאלה]
מאי הוה עלה?
4. [תשובה]
אמר רב יוסף: האל הקדוש ומלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט;
5. [דעת אחרת]
רבה אמר: המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט.
6. [פסק]
והלכתא כרבה.
Part 1
1. [Quotation from the Mishnah]
WHERE THEY ORDAINED THAT A LONG BENEDICTION SHOULD BE SAID.
2. [Shealah]
There is no question that where a man took up a cup of wine thinking that it was beer and commenced [with the intention to say the benediction] for beer but finished with that of wine, he has fulfilled his obligation. For even had he said the benediction, ‘By whose word all things exist (shehakol nehyeh bidvaro) ‘, he would have fulfilled his duty, as we have learnt: ‘In the case of all of them, if he says, “By whose word all things exist”, he has performed his obligation’. But where he took up a cup of beer thinking it was wine and began [with the intention to say the benediction] for wine and finished with the benediction for beer, the question arises, do we judge his benediction according to its beginning or according to its ending?
3. [Teshuva]
Come and hear: ‘In the morning, if one commenced with [the intention to say] “Who forms light” and finished with”Who brings on the evening twilight”, he has not performed his obligation; if he commences [with the intention to say] “Who brings on the evening twilight” and finished with “Who forms the light”, he has performed his obligation. In the evening, if one commenced [with the intention to say] “Who brings on the evening twilight” and finished with “Who forms the light”, he has not performed his obligation; if he begins with [the intention to say] “Who forms the light” and closes with “Who brings on the evening twilight”, he has performed his obligation. The principle is that the final form is decisive’.
4. [Refutation of the teshuva - hiluk (distinction)]
It is different there because [at the end] he says,’Blessed are You who forms the luminaries’.
5. [ The Talmud notes a difficulty in this explanation according to R. Johanan and then asks a shealah ]
This would be a good argument for Rab who said that any blessing that does not contain the mention of God’s name is no blessing. But if we accept the view of R. Johanan who said that any blessing that does not contain a mention of the divine kingship is no blessing, what can be said?
6. [Rejection of the baraita as proof]
Rather [we must reply]: Since Rabbah b. ‘Ulla has said: So as to mention the distinctive quality of the day in the night-time and the distinctive feature of the night in the day-time, [we may assume that] when he said a blessing [with the divine name] and with the kingship in the beginning, he refers to both of them.
7. [Different Teshuva]
Come and hear from the concluding clause: ‘The principle is that the final form is decisive’. What further case is included by the words ‘the principle is’? Is it not the one we have mentioned?
8. [Rejection of Teshuva]
No; it is to include bread and dates.
9. [Clarification - and harmonization with our original shealah]
How are we to understand this? Shall I say that he ate bread thinking that he was eating dates, and commenced [with the intention of saying the benediction] for dates and finished [with the blessing for] bread?This is just the same thing!
10. [Teshuva - rejection of the clarification]
No, this is required [for the case where] he ate dates thinking that he was eating bread, and he began with [the intention to say the blessing] for bread and finished with that of dates. In this case he has fulfilled his obligation; for even if he had concluded with the blessing for bread, he would also have fulfilled it. What is the reason? Because dates also give sustenance.
Part 2
1. [Meimra]
Raba b. Hinena the elder said in the name of Rab:If one omits saying "True and firm (emet v'yatziv)’ in the morning and ‘True and trustworthy (emet v'emuna)’ in the evening, he has not performed his obligation; for it is said, "To declare Your loving kindness in the morning and Your faithfulness in the night seasons" (Psalm 92:3).
2. [Another Meimra from the same sage]
Raba b. Hinena the elder also said in the name of Rab: In saying the Tefillah, when one bows, one should bow at [the word] ‘Blessed’ and when returning to the upright position one should return at [the mention of] the Divine Name.
3. [A Meimra which brings rationalefor Rav's ruling]
Samuel said: What is Rab’s reason for this? Because it is written: The Lord raises up them that are bowed down. (Psalm 146:8)
4. [Kushiya]
An objection was raised [in a baraita] from theverse, "And was bowed before My name" (Malachi 2:5)?
5. [Rejection of the kushiya]
Is it written, ‘At My name’? It is written, ‘Before My Name’.
6. [Meimra]
Samuel said to Hiyya the son of Rab: O, Son of theTorah, come and I will tell you a fine saying enunciated by your father (Rav). Thus said your father: When one bows, one should bow at ‘Blessed’, and when returning to the upright position, one should return at [the mention of] the Divine Name.
7. [Rabbinic Anecdote]
R. Shesheth, when he bowed, used to bend like a reed, and when he raised himself, used to raise himself like a serpent.
Part 3
1. [Meimra in the name of Rav]
Raba b. Hinena the elder also said in the name of Rab: Throughout the year one says in the Tefillah, ‘The holy God (Ha’E-l Hakadosh), and ‘King who loves righteousness and judgment (Hamelech Ohaev Tzedakah uMishpat)’, except during the ten days between New Year and the Day of Atonement, when he says, ‘The holy King (HaMelech Hakadosh)’ and ‘The King of judgment HaMelech Hamishpat)’.
2. [Meimra - differing opinion]
R. Eleazar says: Even during these days, if he said, ‘The holy God’, he has performed his obligation, since it says: "But the Lord of Hosts is exalted through justice, and the holy God is sanctified through righteousness" (Isaiah 5:16): When is "the Lord of Hosts exalted through justice"? In these ten days from New Year to the Day of Atonement; and none-the-less it says, ‘the holy God’.
3. [Shealah]
What do we decide?
4. [Tehuva]
R. Joseph said: ‘The holy God’ and ‘The King wholoves righteousness and judgment’;
5. [Another opinion]
Rabbah said: ‘The holy King’ and ‘The King of judgment’.
6. [Pesak]
The law is as laid down by Rabbah.
Guide Questions and Issues
Part 1
This first one is a tough one but hang in there and dont be afraid to ask if you have questions. Since it is difficult, I have refrained from normal style of leading by questions in favor of guidance for each step.
1. In this section, we return to the discussion of the Mishnah from which we took a bit of a vacation last week. We saved the discussion of this part of the Mishnah until now. While the Talmud quotes the portion of the Mishnah which deals with the length of the particular blessings, the subject of our discussion here is the later part of the Mishnah: [The place where the sages ordained to end the blessing] with a closing [blessing], one is not permitted to not to close [with said blessing] and a place where they ordained not to close [with a closing blessing] one is not permitted to close.
In order to understand this section of Talmud, a siddur that contains the traditional morning (shaharit) prayers and the traditional evening (maariv) prayers will be required.
In the morning prayers, immediately after Barchu, the blessing opens with a blessing: Blessed Lord our God, King of the Universe, who forms light and created darkness, makes peace and creates all. This blessing is known as the "peticha" or opening of the first blessing. Its "hatima" or closing is "Blessed are You, who forms the radiant lights."
In the evening prayers, the first blessing also opens with a peticha: Bless are You who by His word brings on the evening and closes with a hatima: Blessed are You who brings on evening.
I urge you to take a closer look at both of the morning and the evening blessing to gain some familiarity with them but for now we have enough information to get started.
2. The opening shealah requires a whole set of information on a different set of blessings so that, in the end, we can make a comparison between them and our blessings when faced by an unusual situation.
So now we are going to learn a little about the blessings recited over different beverages.
The blessing over wine is: bore peri hagafen - who created the fruit of the vine.
Then blessing over all other beverages including beer is "shahalov niheye bidvaro", by whose word all things came to be.
The situation we are faced with is one starts out reciting the wrong bracha but then corrects oneself at the end. Does one in such a situation fulfill one's obligation to say a bracha or not?
As the shealah notes, staring over beer and ending over wine does not present a problem but the other way around might create a difficulty. And in this situation, we ask which part of the blessing counts: the initial form and intent or how one ends the blessing.
(In the next step, we will relate back to the blessings in the prayer services in order to answer this question.)
3. Here, in order to answer the question raised in step 2, we refer back to the blessings that are in our domain, namely, the prayers surrounding the Shma and, in particular, the first blessing(s) after Barchu which deal with creation. The baraita in step 3 deals with an analogous situation to the situation in the previous step.
What happens if you start out in the morning with the peticha for the morning prayer and end with the hatima of the evening prayer - the answer - one has not fulfilled one's obligation; but if you started (in the morning) with the peticha for evening and ended with the hatima for morning then you have fulfilled your obligation. The same goes for the evening.
The bottom line in this baraita - it is the hatima that counts! And if we use this baraita to answer our question, then welearn from it that it is the ending or hatima in the brachot over drink whichcounts.
4. The Talmud rejects this analogy by asserting that there is a distinction (a hiluk) in the case of the prayers we recite after Barchu which make them different from the blessings over drink.
What is that distinction? The blessings in the prayer service have a hatima - a blessing (baruch ata) at the end of the paragraph as well as at the beginning while the blessings over drink only have a single blessing at the beginning.
5. The explanation that we have given for the baraita in step 4 makes sense according to the opinion of the one of the Amoraim given here in step 5, but not according to the other. Rav validates blessings which mention God's name. According to his opinion the hatimot in the blessings after Barchu are valid blessings. Rabbi Yochanan, on the other hand, only validates blessings that mention both God and His kingship. According to this opinion, the hatimot are invalid! BIG PROBLEM!!!!
6. The logic of the baraita can be explained another way and when we do so, it will no longer be a relevant model to answer the question we have about the mix up over saying blessings over wine and beer.
The content of the blessings after the Barchu, both during the morning prayers and the evening prayers, both mention day and night. In addition, the peticha in both of them mention both God and His kingship. The bottom line is that this source is no longer relevant in our quest to solve the problem of the mixed up blessing over wine/beer.
7. Time to turn to another possible teshuva. In this very same baraita which we just rejected, there is a statement at the end which might be instructive in our case: Everything goes according to the hatima - the end. This would seem to answer our query regarding the mixed up wine/beer blessing.
8. The Talmud rejects this by asserting that this statement comes to resolve a similar situation where a person thought he ate bread but had really eaten dates instead. He starts is blessing after eating as if he had eaten dates, realizes in the middle that had really eaten bread and finishes the blessing after as birkat hamazon, grace after meals.
9. The Talmud does a double take and says that the situation in step 8 is analogous to our situation.
10. The Talmud rejects this analogy because technically if one at one's fill of dates one could say birkat hamazon over that eating and it would not be wrong unlike our case with beer and wine.
Part 2
1. This section opens with two meimrot in the name of the same sage. In the first meimra, it teaches the obligatory nature of the prayers that follow the Shma both evening and morning, bringing a textual proof for this obligation. These sections opening on the theme of the truth and significance of the Torah and mitzvoth and then move onto the theme of redemption, culmination in the blessing "Gaal Yisrael", blessed is the One who redeemed Yisrael.
Open up a siddur and check out these two paragraphs and then look up the Biblical verse and explain why this verse justifies the recitation of these passages.
2. In this second meimra, we learn the manner of bowing in prayer.
3. This meimra attempts to give textual credence to the practice mandated by Rav. Explain how this verse justifies the practice.
4. This kushya simply quotes averse from the prophet Malachi. How is this verse a challenge to the practice and proof in steps 2 and 3?
5. How does this step fend off this challenge?
6. Samuel relates the teaching of Rav to his son.
7. In this step, we get are port on the bowing practices of Rav Sheshet.
Part 3
1. This meimra deals with anumber of the changes made in the daily Amida (standing prayer) for the period between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.
One of these changes is in the blessing of the kiddusha where the ending changes from "holy God", "הא-ל הקדוש", to "holy King", "המלך הקדוש" since God's kingship is a central theme of those days.
This theme is continued in the 11th blessing which deals with the theme of justice. Normally the hatima there is: Blessed are You, King who loves righteousness and justice "מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט". Between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, it changes to the King of justice "המלך המשפט".
2. In this step, we see a conflicting point of view with a perfectly good textual justification.
3.-5. As you can see from this step, this question was not answered definitively until late in the Talmudic period. In the middle of that period, there were sages who sided with Rav while others sided with Rabbi Elazar.
6. Ultimately the halacha was decided like Rabbah (like Rav) and that is what we do today.