| 12a. אלא אי אמרת אהבה רבה הוו אמרי מאי ברכות אין מעכבות זו את זו דלמא האי דלא אמרי יוצר אור משום דלא מטא זמן יוצר אור וכי מטא זמן יוצר אור הוו אמרי,ואי מכללא מאי,דאי מכללא לעולם אהבה רבה הוו אמרי וכי מטא זמן יוצר אור הוו אמרי ליה ומאי ברכות אין מעכבות זו את זו סדר ברכות:,וקורין עשרת הדברות שמע והיה אם שמוע ויאמר אמת ויציב ועבודה וברכת כהנים.,א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל אף בגבולין בקשו לקרות כן אלא שכבר בטלום מפני תרעומת המינין,תניא נמי הכי ר' נתן אומר בגבולין בקשו לקרות כן אלא שכבר בטלום מפני תרעומת המינין,רבה בב"ח סבר למקבעינהו בסורא א"ל רב חסדא כבר בטלום מפני תרעומת המינין,אמימר סבר למקבעינהו בנהרדעא א"ל רב אשי כבר בטלום מפני תרעומת המינין:,ובשבת מוסיפין ברכה אחת למשמר היוצא. מאי ברכה אחת א"ר חלבו משמר היוצא אומר למשמר הנכנס מי ששכן את שמו בבית הזה הוא ישכין ביניכם אהבה ואחוה ושלום וריעות:,מקום שאמרו להאריך: פשיטא היכא דקא נקיט כסא דחמרא בידיה וקסבר דשכרא הוא ופתח ומברך אדעתא דשכרא וסיים בדחמרא יצא דאי נמי אם אמר שהכל נהיה בדברו יצא דהא תנן על כולם אם אמר שהכל נהיה בדברו יצא,אלא היכא דקא נקיט כסא דשכרא בידיה וקסבר דחמרא הוא פתח ובריך אדעתא דחמרא וסיים בדשכרא מאי,בתר עיקר ברכה אזלינן או בתר חתימה אזלינן,ת"ש 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,שאני התם דקאמר ברוך יוצר המאורות,הניחא לרב דאמר כל ברכה שאין בה הזכרת השם אינה ברכה שפיר אלא לר' יוחנן דאמר כל ברכה שאין בה מלכות אינה ברכה מאי איכא למימר,אלא כיון דאמר רבה בר עולא כדי להזכיר מדת יום בלילה ומדת לילה ביום כי קאמר ברכה ומלכות מעיקרא אתרוייהו קאמר,ת"ש מסיפא כללו של דבר הכל הולך אחר החתום כללו של דבר לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי הא דאמרן,לא לאתויי נהמא ותמרי ה"ד אילימא דאכל נהמא וקסבר דתמרי אכל ופתח אדעתא דתמרי וסיים בדנהמא היינו בעיין,לא צריכא כגון דאכל תמרי וקסבר נהמא אכל ופתח בדנהמא וסיים בדתמרי [יצא] דאפילו סיים בדנהמא נמי יצא,מאי טעמא דתמרי נמי מיזן זייני:,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:,ואמר רבה בר חיננא [סבא] משמיה דרב המתפלל כשהוא כורע כורע בברוך וכשהוא זוקף זוקף בשם,אמר שמואל מאי טעמא דרב דכתיב (תהלים קמו, ח) ה' זוקף כפופים,מיתיבי (מלאכי ב, ה) מפני שמי נחת הוא,מי כתיב בשמי מפני שמי כתיב,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. | 12a. bHowever, if you say that theywould omit: Who creates light, and bwould recite: An abounding love,on bwhatbasis would you conclude that failure to recite one of the bblessingsrecited before iShema bdoes not preventone from reciting the bother?In that case, one could offer another reason why only a single blessing is recited. bPerhapsthe fact bthat they did not recite: Who creates light was because the time for the recitation of: Who creates light, had not yet arrived,as the sun had yet to rise. The blessings of the priestly watch are recited in the early morning hours, long before sunrise. bHowever,afterward, bwhen the timeto recite: bWho creates light arrived, they would recite it.From the conclusion drawn by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before iShema /idoes not prevent one from reciting the other, it is clear that the blessing recited by the members of the priestly watch was: Who creates light.,As this deductive reasoning seems coherent and convincing, the Gemara asks: bAnd ifthis ihalakhais bbased on inference,and not on an explicit statement, bwhatof it? There seems to be no other way to interpret Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement.,The Gemara answers: bIfthis conclusion bwere based on an inference,one could say that bactually they recited: An abounding love, and when the timeto recite: bWho creates light arrived, they would recite it.In that case, bwhatis the meaning of: Failure to recite one of the bblessingsrecited before iShema bdoes not preventone from reciting the bother?Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish meant that failure to recite bthecorrect border of the blessingsdoes not prevent one from fulfilling his obligation. Even if one recites: An abounding love before: Who creates light, he fulfills his obligation. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish did not refer to a case where only one of the blessings was recited. Consequently, one cannot infer from his statement his opinion regarding the identity of the single blessing.,The Gemara related above that the priests in the Temple bread the Ten Commandments,along with the sections of iShema /i, iVeHaya im Shamoa /i, iVaYomer /i, True and Firm, iAvoda,and the priestly benediction. /b, bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said: Even in the outlying areas,outside the Temple, bthey sought to recitethe Ten Commandments bin this mannerevery day, as they are the basis of the Torah (Rambam), bbut they had already abolishedrecitation of the Ten Commandments bdue to the grievance of the heretics,who argued that the entire Torah, with the exception of the Ten Commandments, did not emanate from God (Jerusalem Talmud). If the Ten Commandments were recited daily, that would lend credence to their claim, so their recitation was expunged from the daily prayers., bThat was also taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Natan says: In the outlying areas, they sought to recitethe Ten Commandments bin this manner, but they had already abolishedtheir recitation bdue to the grievance of the heretics. /b,The Gemara relates that several Sages sought to reinstitute recitation of the Ten Commandments, as bRabba bar bar Ḥana thought to institute this inthe city of bSura,but bRav Ḥisda said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics. /b,So too, bAmeimar thought to institute this inthe city of bNeharde’a. Rav Ashi,the most prominent of the Sages in that generation, bsaid to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics. /b,We learned in a mishna in tractate iTamidthat bon Shabbat a single blessing is added tobless bthe outgoing priestly watch.The Gemara asks: bWhat isthat bsingle blessing? Rabbi Ḥelbo said:As they finished their service, bthe outgoing priestly watch would say to the incoming priestly watch: May He who caused His Name to dwell in this house cause love and brotherhood, peace and camaraderie to dwell among you. /b,We learned in the mishna: bWherethe Sages bsaidto recite ba longblessing, one may not shorten it, and vice-versa. The Gemara proceeds to address a particular problem arising from conclusions drawn from this mishna. Before addressing the primary problem, however, a simpler, secondary issue is raised: bObviously, in a case where one took a cup of wine in his hand and thought it was beer, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was beer,i.e., he intended to recite the appropriate blessing on beer: By Whose word all things came to be, bandupon realizing that it was wine, bhe concludedthe blessing bwith thatwhich is recited over bwine:Who creates the fruit of the vine, bhe fulfilledhis obligation. In that case, beven had he recited: By Whose word all things came to be,as he originally intended, bhewould have bfulfilledhis obligation, bas we learnedin a mishna: bIf onerecited the general blessing: bBy Whose word all things came to be, over allfood items, bhe fulfilledhis obligation after the fact, even if iab initioanother blessing was instituted to recite before eating that food. Therefore, if he reconsidered and concluded the blessing with the ending of the blessing over wine, he fulfilled his obligation., bHowever in a case where one took a cup of beer in his hand and thought it was wine, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was wine,meaning he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, bandupon realizing that it was beer bhe concludedthe blessing bwith thatwhich is recited over bbeer:By Whose word all things came to be, bwhatis the ihalakha /i?,Ostensibly, this blessing is comprised of two sections. The first section, during which he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, cannot fulfill his obligation as it is an inappropriate blessing to recite over beer. However, in the second section he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, the appropriate blessing. The dilemma, then, is: bDo we follow the essenceof the blessing, the first section, bor do we follow the conclusionof the blessing?, bCome and heara proof from what was taught in a ibaraitawith regard to a similar case: If, in bthe morning prayer /b, one bbeganthe blessings prior to the recitation of iShemaappropriately bwith: Who creates light, and concluded withthe formula of the evening prayer: bWho brings on evenings, he did not fulfillhis obligation. However, if one did the opposite, and bcommenced with: Who brings on evenings, and concluded with: Who creates light, he fulfilledhis obligation.,Similarly, if, in bthe evening prayer /b, bone commencedthe recitation of iShema bwith: Who brings on evenings and concluded with: Who creates light, he did not fulfillhis obligation. If bone commenced with: Who creates light and concluded with: Who brings on evenings, he fulfilledhis obligation.,The ibaraitasummarizes that bthe general principle is: Everything follows the conclusionof the blessing. Based on this principle, the question with regard to a blessing recited over food and drink posed above can be resolved.,This proof is rejected: bThere,in the case of the blessing recited over the radiant lights, bit is different, as one recites: Blessed /b…Who bforms the radiant lights,and similarly, in the evening one recites: Blessed…Who brings on evenings. Since these are long blessings that conclude with a second blessing summarizing their content, one could assert that everything follows the conclusion. However, in the case of short blessings, such as: By Whose word all things came to be, or: Who creates the fruit of the vine, ostensibly, if there is a problem with the first part of the blessing, the entire blessing is nullified.,The distinction between the blessing recited over the radiant lights and the blessings recited over food and drink stems from the assumption that the conclusion: Blessed…Who fashions the radiant lights, is a complete, independent blessing. However, this is not necessarily so. bThis works out well according to Rav, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention of God’s name is notconsidered ba blessing,and since: Who creates light, includes God’s name, it constitutes a complete, independent blessing. bHowever, according to Rabbi Yoḥa, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention ofGod’s bsovereignty,i.e., our God, King of the universe, bis notconsidered ba blessing, what can be saidto distinguish between the conclusion of the blessings over food and drink and the blessing over the radiant lights? Since the conclusion: Who creates light, does not mention God’s sovereignty, it does not constitute a complete, independent blessing.,The Gemara responds: bRather,Rabbi Yoḥa also holds that the blessing over the radiant lights is a complete blessing. bSince Rabba bar Ulla said:Who creates darkness, is mentioned during the day and: Rolling away the light before the darkness, is mentioned at night bin order to mention the attribute of day at night and the attribute of night in the day,the beginning of the blessing in which God’s sovereignty is mentioned day and night is appropriate to both day and night, and bwhen one recites the blessingwith God’s name bandmentions God’s bsovereignty at the beginning of the blessing,it refers bto bothday and night. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the blessing over the radiant lights to the blessings recited over food and drink.,The Gemara attempts to cite an additional proof: bCome and hearanother solution based on what we learned bin the latter clauseof the ibaraitacited above: bThe general principle is: Everything follows the conclusionof the blessing. bWhat doesthe phrase: The general principle is, come bto includebeyond the detailed example cited in the ibaraita /i? bDoes it not come to includethe case bthat we stated,that both in the case of a long blessing and the case of a short blessing, the conclusion of the blessing is the determining factor?,The Gemara rejects this: bNo,the principle is cited bto includea case of bbread and dates.The Gemara clarifies: bWhat are the circumstancesof the dilemma with regard to the blessings on these food items? bIf you say thatit is a case bwhere one ate bread and thought that he ate dates, and commencedreciting the blessing bthinking it was dates;then, upon realizing that it was bread, bhe concludedthe blessing bwith thatwhich is recited bover bread, isn’t that our dilemma,as this case is identical to the one involving wine and beer?,The Gemara answers: bNo; thisgeneral principle bisonly bnecessaryto teach a special bcase /b, bwhere one ate dates and thought that he ate bread, and commencedreciting the blessing bthinking they were bread.Upon realizing that they were dates, bhe concludedthe blessing bwith thatwhich is recited bover dates.In that case bhe fulfilledhis obligation, as beven had he concludedthe blessing bwith thatwhich is recited bover bread, hewould have bfulfilled his obligation. /b, bWhat is the reasonthat had he concluded with the blessing recited over bread he would have fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing over dates? This is bbecause dates also providea person bsustece.While iab initioone should not recite the blessing for bread over dates, after the fact, if one did so, he fulfilled his obligation. It is with regard to this particular situation that the ibaraitaestablished the principle: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. Ultimately, the dilemma regarding a blessing with an inappropriate opening and an appropriate conclusion remains unresolved. brThe Gemara proceeds to discuss the formula for the blessings recited along with iShema /i., bRabba bar Ḥina Sava said in the name of Rav: One who did not recite: True and Firm [ iemet veyatziv /i]at the beginning of the blessing of redemption that follows iShema bin the morning prayer, and: True and Trustworthy [ iemet ve’emuna /i] in the evening prayer, he did not fulfill his obligation.An allusion to the difference in formulation between morning and evening is, bas it is stated: “To declare Your kindness in the morning and Your faith in the nights”(Psalms 92:3). In the morning, one must mention God’s loving-kindness, while in the evening one is required to emphasize the aspect of faith., bAnd Rabba bar Ḥina Sava said in the name of Rav: One who is praying, when he bowsin the appropriate places, bhe bows whenhe says: bBlessed, and when hesubsequently bstands upright, he stands upright when he saysGod’s bname. /b, bShmuel,who was Rav’s colleague and significantly outlived him, bsaid: What is Rav’s reasonfor saying that one should stand upright at the mention of God’s name? bAs it is written: “The Lord, who raises the bowed”(Psalms 146:8); one stands upright at the mention of God’s name to recall that it is God who raises the bowed.,The Gemara braises an objectionbased on what we learned in praise of a priest: b“And he was afraid before My name”(Malachi 2:5), indicating that one must be humbled and not upright before God’s name.,The Gemara responds: bIs it written: At My name? Before My name, is written,meaning that one is humbled and bows prior to the mention of God’s name, when he says: Blessed.,The Gemara relates: bShmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of Torah, come and I will tell you a great saying that your father said. Your father said the following: When one bows, he bows whenhe says: bBlessed, and when he stands upright, he stands upright when he saysGod’s bname. /b |
