We begin today’s page of Gemara, Berachot 48b, in memory of Rachamim ben Mazal. The Gemara teaches: “It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says that whoever did not mention the desirable, good, and spacious land in the second blessing of the Grace after Meals, and whoever did not mention the Davidic monarchy in the blessing concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem, has not fulfilled his obligation.” These are therefore integral parts of the blessings.
Rav Nachum says that one must mention the covenant in the second blessing, while Rabbi Yosef says that one must mention the Torah. Rabbi Abba says that one must mention both the covenant and the Torah, and that the covenant must precede the Torah, as we say: “For Your covenant that You sealed in our flesh, and for Your Torah that You taught us,” followed by “For the life-giving food.”
Tosafot explains that the covenant and the Torah are not necessarily required to be mentioned using those exact words. Since we already say, “For Your covenant that You sealed in our flesh, and for Your Torah that You taught us,” we have fulfilled the requirement. When the Gemara says that one must mention the covenant and the Torah, it means that one must mention these concepts. We therefore have to mention both, and the covenant must precede the Torah.
Why must the covenant precede the Torah? The Torah was given through three covenants, whereas circumcision was given through thirteen covenants. Since the covenant of circumcision is stronger, it must be mentioned first.
Rashi, at the bottom of 48b, explains that the Torah was given through three covenants. The Torah was given at Sinai, at the Tent of Meeting, and at the plains of Moab. Each of those occasions involved a covenant, as explained in Massechet Sotah: a general curse and a specific curse, at Sinai, at the Tent of Meeting, and at the plains of Moab.
There is a note in the emendations and annotations directing us to compare Rashi’s wording. Sinai and the Tent of Meeting are really being combined as one reference. That is how the text should be understood and corrected.
What are the thirteen covenants associated with circumcision? In the passage concerning circumcision, the word “covenant” appears thirteen times. It follows that in the Grace after Meals we mention sixteen covenants in total: three connected with the Torah and thirteen connected with circumcision.
The Kabbalists say that these sixteen covenants create a sword. The handle of the sword is formed by the letter yod, and the sword itself is connected to the letter vav. This sword is capable of destroying all the prosecuting forces that a person creates. We see a similar idea at the Passover Seder, when we pour the ten plagues from the wine into a vessel. There are ten plagues and sixteen associated words into which the wine is poured, again creating the yod and vav against the forces of impurity. The same concept of sixteen is therefore activated in a special way at the Seder, but it also applies whenever one recites the Grace after Meals, which destroys the prosecuting forces.
Rabbi Abba says that one must begin the second blessing with an expression of thanks. In addition, there is an expression of thanks at the conclusion. The point is that one must mention at least one word that represents thanks at the beginning of the blessing.
When one reaches the conclusion of the second blessing, one might say, “Blessed are You, Hashem, Who bestows lands.” Why is that not correct? The phrase “Who bestows lands” refers to the lands of the nations. The second blessing, however, is specifically discussing the Land of Israel—the desirable, good, and spacious land. If one says “Who bestows lands,” one has missed the point of the blessing.
Similarly, in the third blessing, instead of saying, “Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeems Israel,” one should say, “Who builds Jerusalem.” The third blessing concerns the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple; it is not referring to the redemption of Israel. Although “Who redeems Israel” is certainly a wonderful expression, it captures the wrong subject. The conclusion of a blessing has to express the central theme of that blessing.
The Gemara then cites Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Yaakov bar Acha, who says in the name of our teacher: Whoever did not mention the covenant, the Torah, the land, the Davidic monarchy, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem has not fulfilled his obligation.
The Gemara asks about the disagreement between the sages: Does the blessing of “Who is good and does good” require mention of God’s kingship? Does it have to begin, “Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe”? In the version we recite, it clearly does. However, one might argue that this blessing is adjacent to the preceding blessing. A blessing that follows another blessing does not normally begin with “Blessed,” just as the blessings of the Amidah do not each begin with “Blessed.”
One position maintains that the blessing of “Who is good and does good” is not adjacent to the previous blessing, because there was an interruption between the earlier blessings and the blessing instituted later. Therefore, it must begin with “Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe.” The other position maintains that it is adjacent to the previous blessing and is considered a biblical blessing. Since it follows an earlier blessing, it does not need to begin again with the full expression of kingship. One could say, “Blessed are You, Hashem, our God and King,” relying on the mention of kingship earlier in the Grace after Meals.
The terminology of kingship includes the phrase “Blessed are You.” If one omitted the actual word “King,” one would still say “Blessed are You, Hashem,” but one would not have to add the complete formulation of kingship because one is relying on the earlier mention.
This discussion should not surprise us. We already learned on the previous page that some authorities hold that the blessing of “Who is good and does good” is not of biblical origin. Here, the Gemara is presenting that same position as part of the discussion.
The Gemara now addresses another issue. Since the opening of the blessing of “Who is good and does good” is an expression of thanks, perhaps the blessing should not require a separate opening with “Blessed.” One could compare it to the blessings of “We thank You” and “Have mercy,” which do not begin with “Blessed.”
The answer is that the opening and conclusion of this blessing are both expressions of thanks. It is therefore comparable to a short blessing that has an opening with “Blessed,” even though it does not contain a full mention of kingship. It resembles the short blessings over produce and commandments: the blessing begins with “Blessed,” but it does not necessarily include the word “King.”
This is a middle category. It has an opening with “Blessed,” but it does not have a full mention of kingship. In practice, however, we do not follow this formulation. We hold that the blessing is a complete, independent blessing, and therefore we recite, “Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who is good and does good.”
The sages taught: How should one conclude the blessing concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem? Rabbi Yosef ben Yehudah says, “Who redeems Israel.” The Gemara objects: If one concludes with “Who redeems Israel,” one has missed the central theme of the blessing. The proper conclusion should be “Who builds Jerusalem.”
The Gemara therefore revises the statement: One may conclude with “Who redeems Israel” as well. The meaning would be that God redeems Israel through the rebuilding of Jerusalem. That is not so problematic, because the redemption of Israel is connected to the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
The Gemara challenges this as well: The conclusion should still be “Who builds Jerusalem.” The primary subject of the blessing is Jerusalem. The answer is that “Who builds Jerusalem” is certainly valid, but “Who redeems Israel” can also be valid because Israel’s redemption is dependent on the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
Rashi understands the conclusion differently. According to Rashi, one may use either formulation. If one concludes with “Who redeems Israel” and does not mention the rebuilding of Jerusalem, one has still fulfilled the obligation, because the redemption of Israel is dependent on the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Thus, even when “Who redeems Israel” is said by itself, it can be understood as referring to the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
Rava bar Rav Huna once visited the Exilarch. He began the third blessing with one subject and concluded with two. Rashi explains that when he began the blessing, he mentioned either the redemption of Israel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and at the conclusion he mentioned both: “Who redeems Israel” and “Who builds Jerusalem.”
Rav Chisda said to him, “You are very strong,” meaning, in effect, “Do you think you have improved the blessing by concluding with two subjects?” The problem is that one may not conclude with two subjects. When one combines two conclusions, it appears as though one is trying to bundle several commandments together. It also prevents proper concentration, because once a person begins adding several ideas into the conclusion, the person may not have focused intention on any of them.
The Gemara compares this to the rule that one does not recite two acts of kiddush over a single cup. One does not recite kiddush and the blessings of a wedding over the same cup, because that would be an improper bundling of commandments.
What do we learn from this discussion? We learn that if Rava bar Rav Huna had concluded with only one of the two expressions, there would have been no problem. His error was not that he mentioned “Who redeems Israel” or “Who builds Jerusalem”; the problem was that he concluded with both. The Gemara is teaching that “Who redeems Israel” is a valid conclusion, provided that it is used alone.
Why did he begin with one formulation and conclude with two? He was demonstrating that if one opens with either “Have mercy on Israel” or “Have mercy on Jerusalem,” one may conclude with either “Who redeems Israel” or “Who builds Jerusalem,” because the two ideas are connected. Even though the words at the opening and conclusion are not identical, they express the same underlying concept. Nevertheless, one may not conclude with both, because that would be two distinct subjects in the conclusion.
The general rule is therefore that one may not conclude with two subjects. The Gemara brings several apparent exceptions. “For the land and for the food”: this appears to contain two subjects, land and food. The answer is that the land is the source of the food; it is one subject—the land that produces food.
Similarly, in the abbreviated blessing after eating, we say, “For the land and for the fruit.” This is also one subject: the land that produces the fruit.
On a festival, we say, “Who sanctifies Israel and the times.” That appears to be two subjects, but it is really one. Israel sanctifies the times, meaning that Israel is the agent through whom the times are sanctified.
We also say, “Who sanctifies Israel and the beginnings of the months.” Again, this is considered one subject, because the court sanctifies the months. Israel is the subject that sanctifies the times and the beginnings of the months.
There is, however, a difficulty with the blessing, “Who sanctifies the Sabbath, Israel, and the times.” Israel does not sanctify the Sabbath. The Sabbath is inherently holy. The Gemara answers that this is an exception. The blessing is referring to two distinct forms of sanctification: God sanctifies the Sabbath, while Israel sanctifies the times. Although both involve sanctification, they are different components of the blessing.
One might ask: If the Gemara allows this exception, why not also allow the combination of “Who redeems Israel” and “Who builds Jerusalem”? The answer is that in the blessing concerning the Sabbath and the festivals, both expressions refer to sanctification. It is one general subject with two applications: the sanctification of the Sabbath and the sanctification of the times. In the case of “Who redeems Israel” and “Who builds Jerusalem,” however, the two expressions refer to distinct subjects. The redemption of Israel may depend on the rebuilding of Jerusalem, but redemption and rebuilding remain two different matters.
The Gemara gives the reason for the rule that one may not conclude with two subjects: one should not bundle commandments together.
What is the practical law concerning the blessing of the rebuilding of Jerusalem? Rav Sheshet says that if one begins, “Have mercy on Your people Israel,” one should conclude, “Who redeems Israel.” If one begins, “Have mercy on Jerusalem,” one should conclude, “Who builds Jerusalem.” According to Rav Sheshet, the conclusion should correspond to the opening.
Rav Nachman says that even if one begins, “Have mercy on Israel,” one may conclude, “Who builds Jerusalem.” The conclusion does not have to be identical to the opening. The Gemara supports Rav Nachman by noting that the rebuilding of Jerusalem is connected to the ingathering of the exiles: When will God build Jerusalem? When He gathers the exiles of Israel. Therefore, even if one begins by mentioning Israel, one may conclude by mentioning Jerusalem.
Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Chisda, “Let us go and study.” Rav Chisda replied, “I do not even know how to recite the blessing for food properly. You want me to begin studying?”
He explained what had happened. Nechemiah bar Rav Yosef had been invited to the Exilarch, and he recited the blessing for food. In doing so, he angered Rav Chisda. Rav Chisda raised his neck toward him like a snake and stared at him in the middle of the blessing. Rabbi Zeira asked him why he had been so surprised.
Nechemiah explained that he had recited the blessing of “Who is good and does good” without mentioning the covenant, the Torah, or kingship. Rav Chisda asked him why he had done that. He replied that he was relying on the position of Rabbi Yohanan, who said that if one did not mention the covenant, the Torah, or kingship, one had nevertheless fulfilled the obligation.
Rav Chisda responded that he had chosen the wrong opinion to rely on. If he was going to rely on an opinion, he should have followed the majority view rather than the minority view. He was therefore being criticized not merely for making a mistake, but for selecting an opinion that did not represent the accepted ruling.
Rav Abba bar Rav Huna says in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that the blessing of “Who is good and does good” requires a mention of kingship. The Gemara asks what this teaching adds. We already know that any blessing that does not contain kingship is not considered a complete blessing. Furthermore, Rabbi Yohanan himself had already taught that this blessing requires kingship.
The answer is that there are two different questions. If “Who is good and does good” is considered an independent blessing, it certainly requires a full mention of kingship. The discussion here concerns the number of mentions of kingship in the Grace after Meals. In our wording, we say, “Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, the God who is our Father, our King.” Why do we mention kingship a second time?
One answer is that one mention of kingship belongs to the blessing of “Who is good and does good,” while the additional mention belongs to the blessing concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Since the latter blessing follows the preceding blessing, it does not independently contain the word “King.” The additional mention of “our King” serves as a kingship reference for that blessing.
One might then ask why we do not have three mentions of kingship: one for “Who is good and does good,” one for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and one for the blessing concerning the land. The answer is that there is no need to compensate for a missing mention of kingship when the blessing is adjacent to another blessing. The blessing concerning the land is adjacent to the first blessing and therefore does not require its own mention.
But if the blessing concerning the land does not require its own kingship because it follows another blessing, why should the blessing concerning Jerusalem require one? The answer is that the third blessing mentions the Davidic monarchy. Since it mentions the monarchy of the House of David, it is appropriate to emphasize God’s kingship as well. We therefore add “our King.” This is not merely a technical compensation for a missing word; it highlights the relationship between the human monarchy of David and the kingship of God.
The ordinary expression “King of the universe” does not serve as that special addition, because it appears in a standard blessing. The added expression, “our God, our Father, our King,” specifically supplies the additional mention of kingship connected with the third blessing.
Rav Pappa explains that when the Gemara speaks of two mentions of kingship, it means two additional mentions beyond the ordinary “King of the universe.” Rashi explains that one mention is associated with the blessing of “Who is good and does good,” one with the blessing concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and one with the blessing concerning the land. Tosafot discusses this matter further.
Tosafot notes that there is room to say that the blessing concerning the land is not truly adjacent to the preceding blessing, because the blessings were instituted at different times. Moses instituted the first blessing, and Joshua instituted the blessing concerning the land. Since they were established separately, there is a basis for viewing the blessing concerning the land as requiring its own kingship.
According to this approach, once we are adding an extra mention of kingship for the blessing concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem, we should also add one for the blessing concerning the land. That would give us three additional mentions: one for the blessing itself, one because of the Davidic monarchy mentioned in the third blessing, and one because the blessing concerning the land was established independently.
In practice, our wording reflects this idea. We say “our God, our Father, our King,” and there are multiple expressions of kingship in the Grace after Meals. Tosafot’s point is that because of the way these blessings were established, the blessing concerning the land may also warrant its own mention.
Rabbi Zeira was sitting behind Rav Gidal, who was sitting before Rav Huna. Rav Gidal taught several laws concerning additions to the Grace after Meals.
He said that if a person forgot the mention of the Sabbath in the Grace after Meals, the person should add: “Blessed is He who gave Sabbaths of rest to His people Israel as a sign and a remembrance. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who sanctifies the Sabbath.” Rav Huna asked him, “Who taught you this?” Rav Gidal answered, “Rav.”
Later, Rav Gidal taught that if one forgot the mention of a festival in the Grace after Meals, one should add: “Blessed is He who gave festivals to His people Israel for joy and remembrance. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who sanctifies Israel and the times.” Again, Rav Huna asked him where he had learned this, and he answered that it was from Rav.
Rav Gidal then taught a third law. If one forgot the mention of the new month, one should add: “Blessed is He who gave new months to His people Israel as a remembrance.” He was uncertain whether the phrase “for joy” should be included in this addition, and he was also uncertain whether the addition should have its own concluding blessing. He did not know whether to conclude, “Who sanctifies Israel and the new months.”
Tosafot discusses the addition for the Sabbath and festivals. Since this addition is adjacent to the preceding blessing, it should not ordinarily begin with “Blessed.” Tosafot answers that it was not instituted as a standard blessing. It is recited only when a person forgot the relevant mention. Since it is a special addition inserted because of an omission, it does not have the ordinary status of a blessing adjacent to another blessing and may begin with “Blessed.”
Tosafot raises a similar question concerning the first blessing of the Amidah. We say, “Blessed are You, Hashem, God of Abraham.” Where is the mention of kingship in that blessing? The words “great King” or “King who helps” do not necessarily constitute a full mention of kingship.
Tosafot answers that the reference to Abraham supplies the idea of kingship. Abraham was the person who publicized the kingship of God in the world. The verse says that Abraham called God “Master,” and he was the first person to make that recognition known. Therefore, mentioning the God of Abraham is itself connected to the recognition of God’s kingship.
In any event, Tosafot maintains that on the Sabbath and festivals one should incorporate both references when reciting the addition. One should say that God gave Sabbaths and festivals of rest to Israel, and then conclude with the appropriate blessing.
Gidal bar Binyomi was before Rav Nachman when Rav Nachman made a mistake in the Grace after Meals. Rav Nachman returned to the beginning of the Grace after Meals. Gidal bar Binyomi apparently understood that Rav Nachman had forgotten the Sabbath addition. He asked him why he had gone back to the beginning.
Rav Nachman replied that Rav Shelah had said in the name of Rav that if one forgot the Sabbath mention, one returns to the beginning. Gidal bar Binyomi objected that Rav Huna had said in the name of Rav that if one forgot the mention, one could simply recite the special addition beginning, “Blessed is He who gave Sabbaths of rest.” Why, then, was it necessary to repeat the entire Grace after Meals?
Rav Nachman answered that the ruling allowing the special addition applies only if one has not yet begun the blessing of “Who is good and does good.” Once one has begun that blessing, it is too late to insert the special addition, and one must return to the beginning.
The question is what constitutes beginning the blessing of “Who is good and does good.” Is the person considered to have begun once he has recited the first word, or only after he has proceeded further into the blessing? The practical issue is whether a person can still correct the omission immediately after beginning the blessing.
This is similar to the question of someone who is uncertain whether he made a mistake in the Amidah. Forgetting something is one matter; being uncertain about what one did is another. A person who knows that he forgot can identify the mistake and correct it. A person who does not even know what he said may have been entirely inattentive.
I once heard in the name of Rabbi Yehudah Ades that uncertainty can be worse than a known mistake. If a person knows that he forgot something, at least he was aware during the prayer and can identify what went wrong. But if a person is uncertain about what he said, it may indicate that he was completely inattentive, as though he was sleeping during the Amidah.
Regarding the Grace after Meals on the new month, if one forgot the addition for the new month, one does not repeat the Grace after Meals. The Gemara asks why this should differ from the Amidah. What is the difference between the Grace after Meals and prayer?
The answer is that the Amidah is obligatory on the new month, whereas eating a meal is not obligatory on the new month. Since one is required to pray, forgetting the new-month addition requires repetition. Since one is not required to eat a meal on the new month, the Grace after Meals is not considered obligatory in the same way, and forgetting the addition does not require repetition.
There may be a mitzvah to eat a meal on the new month, but there is no requirement to eat a meal. In contrast, there is a requirement to pray on the new month. Therefore, when the underlying act is obligatory, forgetting the relevant addition requires repetition; when the underlying act is not obligatory, it does not.
The same distinction applies to the Sabbath. Since one is required to eat Sabbath meals, if one forgot the Sabbath mention in the Grace after Meals, one must repeat the blessing. If one forgot the new-month mention in a meal on the new month, one does not repeat it.
The only time a festival meal becomes obligatory in a way that affects this law is when there is a specific obligation to eat, such as the required eating on the first nights of Passover and Sukkot. When the Grace after Meals is obligatory because of the obligation to eat the festival meal, forgetting the festival addition requires repetition.
The Gemara then asks about Sabbaths and festivals. Since one cannot avoid eating on those occasions, perhaps one should always repeat the Grace after Meals if one forgot the appropriate mention. The answer is that the statement about festivals refers to those festivals on which there is an obligation to eat. It does not necessarily refer to every festival in every circumstance.
In practice, the law is that the relevant obligation to eat applies on the nights of Passover and Sukkot. One does not necessarily have the same obligation to eat a meal on every festival as one does on the Sabbath. Therefore, the rule follows the underlying obligation to eat.
Let us now return to the Mishnah. How much must a person eat in order to join a group for the communal Grace after Meals? We learned that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah disagree. According to one version, Rabbi Meir says that the amount is an olive-bulk, while Rabbi Yehudah says that it is an egg-bulk. Elsewhere, however, the names appear to be reversed: Rabbi Meir says an egg-bulk, and Rabbi Yehudah says an olive-bulk. How can we reconcile the sources?
The Gemara cites a Mishnah dealing with a person who is on the way to slaughter the Paschal offering and remembers that he has leaven in his house. One may not slaughter the Paschal offering while still owning leaven, as the verse states that the offering may not be slaughtered while one possesses leaven.
If the person has reached a point from which it is difficult to return, he should nullify the leaven. If he can still return, he should return and burn it. The same Mishnah discusses a person who left Jerusalem while carrying sacrificial meat. Sacrificial meat may not be taken outside Jerusalem. If the person has already passed the point from which the Temple can be seen, he should burn the meat where he is. If he has not yet passed that point, he should return and burn it before the Temple. The wood used for burning in that area could be taken from the Temple treasury.
The Mishnah then asks how much leaven or sacrificial meat requires the person to return. Rabbi Meir says that both cases involve an egg-bulk. We do not allow a person to rely on nullification when he is still close enough to return; he must go back and burn the leaven. Similarly, he must return to burn the sacrificial meat if the amount is significant.
Rabbi Yehudah says that in both cases the measure is an olive-bulk. This appears to be the reverse of the source concerning the amount required to join a communal Grace after Meals. Rabbi Yohanan therefore says that the names in one of the sources must be switched.
Rabbi Yehudah, however, says that nothing needs to be switched. The Mishnah concerning the Grace after Meals and the Mishnah concerning leaven and sacrificial meat are discussing different principles.
In the case of the Grace after Meals, the dispute is based on the interpretation of verses. Rabbi Meir understands the phrase “you shall eat” as referring to an olive-bulk, because that is the measure of eating. He understands the following phrase, “and you shall bless,” as referring to drinking. Rabbi Yehudah understands the phrase “you shall eat and be satisfied” as teaching that the eating must be an amount that provides satisfaction. What amount provides satisfaction? An egg-bulk.
Thus, the disagreement concerning the Grace after Meals depends on how the verses are interpreted. Rabbi Meir derives the obligation from “you shall eat,” which refers to an olive-bulk. Rabbi Yehudah derives it from “you shall eat and be satisfied,” which refers to an egg-bulk.
The disagreement in the case of leaven and sacrificial meat is based on logical reasoning. One view compares the obligation to return to the measure of ritual impurity. The amount of food that is significant with regard to ritual impurity is an egg-bulk. Therefore, the obligation to return and deal with the leaven or sacrificial meat applies at an egg-bulk.
The other view compares the matter to the measure of a prohibition. The amount of leaven that constitutes a significant prohibition on Passover is an olive-bulk. Therefore, the obligation to return applies at an olive-bulk.
Everyone agrees that at a certain measure the person must return. The question is what comparison should determine that measure. One opinion compares it to ritual impurity: just as the significant measure for impurity is an egg-bulk, the significant measure here is an egg-bulk. The other opinion compares it to the prohibition of leaven: just as the significant measure for that prohibition is an olive-bulk, the significant measure here is an olive-bulk.
The Gemara’s discussion therefore does not necessarily require switching the names in the two sources. The ruling about the Grace after Meals is based on the interpretation of the verses, while the ruling about leaven and sacrificial meat is based on the underlying reasoning and the comparison to other measures.
The Mishnah teaches that a person who was going to slaughter his Paschal offering and remembered that he had leaven in his house should return if he is able to do so. If he cannot return, he should nullify the leaven in his heart, and that is sufficient. Similarly, a person who left Jerusalem carrying sacrificial meat should return if he has not yet passed the point from which the Temple can be seen. If he has passed that point, he should burn the meat where he is.
The place where the meat could be burned before the Temple was the designated area for burning offerings that had become invalid. Sacrificial meat that became invalid was burned there, and the wood could be supplied by the Temple. If a person burned the meat elsewhere in Jerusalem, he could do so, but he would have to provide the wood himself.
The principle is that leaving Jerusalem with sacrificial meat renders it invalid, and the question is what amount is considered significant enough to require the person to return. According to the view that compares this to ritual impurity, the relevant measure is an egg-bulk. According to the view that compares it to a prohibited substance, the relevant measure is an olive-bulk.
That concludes this portion of the discussion.