"[A PRAYER] WHICH THEY ORDERED TO BE CONCLUDED [WITH A BENEDICTION] MUST NOT BE LEFT WITHOUT SUCH A CONCLUSION;"
{Brachot 12a}
It is obvious that one who takes a cup of wine in his hand, thinking it is beer, begins with the blessing of beer {Shehakol} and finishes with the blessing of wine {HaGafen} fulfills his obligation, for even if he finished with the blessing of beer has fulfilled, for we have learnt: and on all of them if he says Shehakol Nihyah Bidvarohe has fulfilled.
But one who takes a cup of beer in his hand, thinking it is wine, begins with the blessing of wine and finishes with the blessing of beer, then what?
Do we go after the opening or after the ending?
This is the girsa of Rashi, and he explains 'begins with the blessing of beer' as with the intent of Shehakol, and once he reaches the words Melech HaOlam, he remembers that it is wine and he ends with Borei Pri HaGafen. 'It is obvious to us', for even if he had finished the entire bracha in accordance with its opening and said Shehakol, he would have fulfilled for wine, as we learnt, etc.
But that which we want to know is if he began thinking it was wine, with intent to close with Borei Pri HaGafen, and when he reached Melech HaOlam, he remembered that it was beer, and he concluded with Shehakol, then what? Do we go after the primary portion of the blessing, that primary blessing was with intent for wine, and so he is like one who concluded with for wine, and the bracha on wine does not fulfill for him for the bracha on beer? Come and hear: For we learnt in a brayta: in the morning, one who opened with yotzer `or {the appropriate blessing during the day} - and ended with ma'ariv 'aravim {the appropriate blessing during the night} - he did not fulfill {the obligation}, etc.
And the Raavad za'l asks on this girsa, and on this explanatin, that we do not find in any place that the bracha is lost because of some level of deficiency of intent. And even without any intent in the bracha [at all], it counts for him, all the more so where he intended some blessing which is in existence.
And it seems that this is not a [good] question, for it is better with no intent from that which one uproots the intent to that of another bracha. However, it is a question to his explanation, for behold we learn in a brayta that if he began with Yotzer Or {which is of morning} and ended in Maariv Aravim {of night}.
Therefore it seems that it should be as in the girsa of the Rif:
It is obvious that one who takes a cup of beer in his hand, thinking it is beer, begins with the blessing of beer {Shehakol} and finishes with the blessing of wine fulfills his obligation, for even if he finished with the blessing of beer has fulfilled, for we have learnt: and on all of them if he says Shehakol Nihyah Bidvaro he has fulfilled. But one who takes a cup of beer in his hand, thinking it is wine, begins with the blessing of wine and finishes with the blessing of beer, then what?
Do we go after the opening or after the ending?
And we do not resolve {this question}, and we act leniently, and we do not go back, for in a case of doubt in Rabbinic law we rule leniently.
And this is its explanation. If he began and blessed that of beer, that he said shehakol nihyeh bidvaro, and it was recognized (other sefarim: and he recalled) that it was wine and said as well {the ending} Borei Pri Hagafen, such that his speech was as follows:
Baruch ata Hashem Elokeinu melech haolam shehakol nihyeh bidvaro borei pri hagafen.he has fulfilled, for even if he had [left it alone and simply] ended with that of beer, that he said shehakol nihyeh bidvaro and did not say borei pri hagafen, he would have fulfilled, for we have learned 'and all of them he may say shehakol nihyeh bidvaro'.
But, where he took a cup of beer in his hand and thought it was beer, began with that of win and said borei pri hagafen, and ended with that of beer, that he said as well [immediately following it the words] shehakol nihyeh bidvaro, then what? Do we go after the opening, and so it is not a blessing {up to borei pri hagafen], or after the closing, such that it is a blessing.
And since it is not resolved, we act leniently, and we do not go back, for in a case of doubt in Rabbinic law we rule leniently.
To explain: Baruch ata Hashem Elokeinu melech haolam yotzer or uvorei choshech, asher bidvaro maariv aravim... and he concludes as well, Baruch ata Hashem Maariv Aravim.
[Continued the brayta: During the day} if he opened with ma'ariv 'aravim and ended with yotzer `or he fulfills. In the evening, if he began with ma'ariv 'aravim and ended with yotzer `or he did not fulfill; if he opened with yotzer `or and ended with ma'ariv 'aravim he did fulfill. The rule of the matter: all goes after the ending.
And one who was eating dates and thought he was eating bread, began the blessing for bread and finished with that of dates has fulfilled -- for even if he had finished with that of bread, he would fulfill. What is the reason? Because dates also give sustenance.
'for even if he had finished with that of bread, he would fulfill' -- that is to say that in place of the bracha of al haetz and al pri haEtz {as the bracha acharona}, he said Birkat HaMazon, he has fulfilled, for dates are also provide sustenance {meizan}. Therefore he fulfills with Birkat HaMazon on dates, which is not true regarding the rest of the seven (other sefarim: five} species.
And I found written in the Nimukei Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah za'l that they said in the name of the Rabbis of Tzarfat za'l that they would say that even if he drank wine and though that he had eaten break and blessed Birkat HaMazon in place of Al Hagefen ve'al pri hagefen, he has fulfilled. And they brought a proof from this that we say later on in perek Keitzad Mevarchin (daf 35b) that wine fills one up and makes one happy. And they say upon it, 'if so, let us bless upon it three blessings [at the end]'. And we answer that people do not make it the basis of their meal.
Thus it is clear that according to the law, he should have blessed upon it lechatchila three blessings [of Birkat HaMazon], just as upon bread, but since people do not establish [a meal] upon it, [no]. And from that which we see that they ask regarding wine that one should bless upon it three blessings, and they do not ask such regarding dates, it implies that it is even more straightforward. For wine sustains [meizan zayin] more than dates. And just as it [Birkat HaMazon] exempts him by dates bedieved, so too would it exempt by wine bedieved. For behold, even lechatchila it is fitting to bless this upon it, but it is just that people do not establish [a meal] upon it.
They further said in the name of the Rabbis of Tzarfat that even if he only said the bracha of Hazan, whether on wine or on dates, he has fulfilled (even though there is only corresponding to Hazan) while on the bracha of Al HaEtz there is something patterned against all three, even so, he has fulfilled, since for the reason that it is mazon we say that he has fulfilled.
And so does it seem that specifically if he finished the bracha with Baruch ata Hashem Hazan et hakol. For it is not possible to bless after it except for this one bracha. But if he said the entire nusach of the bracha until Baruch ata Hashem and he did not conclude {it is parallel to the situation in Al hagefen, where this idea was mentioned as the first of three, and so}, he should begin ve'al shehinchalta laavoteinu eretz chemda tova urchava, and he should end with the rest of the al hagefen bracha. For what he said [so far] in the nusach of the bracha of Hazan stands in place of 'al haetz ve'al pri ha'etz'.
What is the reason? It states in Tehillim 92:3:
| ג לְהַגִּיד בַּבֹּקֶר חַסְדֶּךָ; וֶאֱמוּנָתְךָ, בַּלֵּילוֹת. | 3 To declare Thy lovingkindness in the morning, and Thy faithfulness in the night seasons, |
| ח ה, פֹּקֵחַ עִוְרִים--ה, זֹקֵף כְּפוּפִים; ה, אֹהֵב צַדִּיקִים. | 8 The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind; the LORD raiseth up them that are bowed down; the LORD loveth the righteous; |
{Brachot 12b}
Rav Sheshet, when he bowed, bowed like a reed, and when he straightened up, he straightened like a serpent.
It is explained in the Aruch in the name of Rav Hai Gaon za'l: a chizra [reed] is one of the species of thorns [kotzim] that is found in Bavel, and they call them al-kasar. And when he bows down, he should not bow down from the middle of his waist with his head straight up, but rather he should incline his head like an agmon [reed] and bow.
Yerushalmi: They taught in the academy of Chalafta ben Shaul: All bow with the shliach tzibbur by Hodaah {thanks; Modim}.
And Rabbi Zera said: Only by 'Modim'.
Rabbi Shimon bar Natan cited Rabbi Abba bar Chinena: there was an incidence in which someone bowed overmuch, and Rabbi Yochanan removed him. Rabbi Chiya said: He did not remove him but he chastised him.
Rabbi Yirmiyah said: So long as he does not act like those chazarna [our Yerushalmi: chardona -- tortoise], but rather {Tehillim 35:10}:
| י כָּל עַצְמוֹתַי, תֹּאמַרְנָה-- ה, מִי כָמוֹךָ: מַצִּיל עָנִי, מֵחָזָק מִמֶּנּוּ; וְעָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן, מִגֹּזְלוֹ. | 10 All my bones shall say: 'LORD, who is like unto Thee, {N} who deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him?' |
{perhaps with a focus on kol}.
And it is explained in the Aruch, in entry חזר the tzav [tortoise] to its kind, Targum Yerushalmi is חזרנא. And when he bows, he bows from his waist, while his head stands as it is created.
Rabbi Eleazar said: Even the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, if he says haEl haKadosh and Melech Ohev Tzedaka Umishpat has fulfilled, as it states in Yeshaya 5:16:
| טז וַיִּגְבַּהּ ה צְבָאוֹת, בַּמִּשְׁפָּט; וְהָאֵל, הַקָּדוֹשׁ, נִקְדָּשׁ, בִּצְדָקָה. | 16 But the LORD of hosts is exalted through justice, and God the Holy One is sanctified through righteousness. |
When is 'the LORD of hosts is exalted through justice'? In the ten days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, and yet it says [in this verse] 'God the Holy One'.
What do we say on this?
Rav Yosef said: HaEl haKadosh, melech ohev tzedaka umishpat.
To explain: If he said so, bedieved, he fulfilled.
Rabba said: Hamelech hakadosh and Hamelech hamishpat. And the halacha is like Rabba.
And even without this statement saying how we pasken, we establish like Rabba, for in case of a dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef, the halacha is like Rabba. And had it not said 'we make him go back', from that which Rabbi Eleazar said 'even if he said heEl hakadosh he fulfills', we could deduce that according to Rav, even bedieved he does not fulfill. And Rabba holds like Rav.
And so do we mention, umi kamocha, uchtov lechaim, uvesefer hachaim, which we add during the Ten Days of Repentance, if he did not say them, he make him go back, whether in a private tefillah or as a public tefillah [as shliach tzibbur], for he has changed from the coinage of the brachot.
And if he is in doubt if he mentioned it or not, he should return and pray again, for we say in Yerushalmi Taanit, in the first perek: They taught {in a brayta}: One who prays and does not know if he mentioned the rain or not, all 30 days, there is a presumption that that which he used to say he mentioned; from then on, that which he needs to say he mentioned.
So is written in Tosafot in the name of Ri, za'l. And I am astonished why we make him repeat it, since this is not mentioned in the gemara. For by hamelech hakadosh and hamelech hamishpat, there is a dispute and the gemara paskened that he did not fulfill. But by zachreinu and mi kamocha, if it is the institution of the Geonim to say it, from where do we know that we make him repeat it? This is not called changing from the coinage of brachot, since it is not mentioned in the gemara.
We will return to you, Me'eimatay.
END PEREK
No comments:
Post a Comment