Masechet Berachot, daf yud bet, has always been studied l'illuy nishmat Avraham ben Ester veYosef ben Sabut. May the spirit of Hashem rest upon them in Gan Eden, amen. Today, we begin our study on daf yud alef amud bet, starting at the two dots from the word tnan, the last word on the line. Tnan hatam, we learned in a Mishna that is in Masechet Tamid. The memuneh, the s'gan kohen gadol, would announce to the kohanim in the morning that they should pray. He would instruct them to make one of the blessings of birchot kriyat shema. The Mishna does not specify which blessing he told them to recite, but he made it clear that they should make one of the blessings of kriyat shema.
They complied and recited that one blessing, followed by reading the Aseret Hadibrot, the Shema, and the parshiot vehaya im shamoa and vayomer. After this, they blessed the people with three blessings: emet veyatziv, which is the blessing after kriyat shema; ve'avodah, which is the special blessing retzeh for their korban to be accepted; and Be'ahava, which includes the phrase baruch ata Hashem she'otecha levadecha b'yira na'avod. Like Rashi explains, this is a special blessing for their korban to be accepted. Subsequently, they recited the three pesukim of birkat kohanim to bless the people.
On Shabbat, there was a special blessing due to the changing of the mishmarot, as one mishmar would leave and a new mishmar would enter. They would add an extra blessing for the mishmar that was departing. The Gemara then asks, what is this additional blessing? It is early in the morning when the s'gan kohen gadol announces to the people to make one blessing. The Gemara recounts that Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yose bar Abba once visited a place and were asked about this one blessing. They did not know the answer. They then went to ask Rav Mattana, who also did not know. They subsequently asked Rav Yehuda, who said that Shmuel taught that the blessing is ahavah rabbah, which is the second blessing of kriyat shema.
Rabbi Zerika, in the name of Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, said it is yotzer or. The Gemara will now provide proof that it must be yotzer or. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef arrives and states that what Rabbi Zerika said is not directly from Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish but rather an implication. Rabbi Zerika's statement indicates that blessings do not invalidate one another. This means that if one makes one blessing of kriyat shema, the absence of the other does not invalidate the one made. Thus, if one could only make one blessing, that blessing suffices.
The Gemara continues, questioning whether this implies that if yotzer or is the blessing made, it supports the notion that blessings do not invalidate one another. However, if one suggests that the blessing made was ahavah rabbah, there is no proof for this concept. The Gemara considers whether the reason they did not say yotzer or was that the time to say it had not yet arrived. In that case, when the time for yotzer or arrives, they would recite it. Thus, there is no proof for the concept of blessings not invalidating one another if ahavah rabbah was recited instead.
The discussion deepens as the Gemara analyzes the implications of each blessing. It is clear that if yotzer or was recited without ahavah rabbah, it demonstrates that one can still fulfill their obligation with just yotzer or. The Gemara then states that everything goes after the end of the blessing. If the conclusion of the blessing is valid, the initial intention is less significant.
In a case where one holds a cup of wine, believing it to be beer, and begins the blessing with the intention for beer but concludes with the blessing for wine, they are still considered to have fulfilled their obligation. This is because even if they had the wrong intention initially, the final blessing suffices. The Gemara emphasizes that the main focus is the conclusion of the blessing, which validates the entire recitation.
However, if one holds a cup of beer, thinking it is wine, and begins with the intention for wine but concludes with the blessing for beer, the situation is reversed. In this case, the initial intention is crucial, as the blessing for wine does not apply to beer. The Gemara questions whether the focus should be on the beginning or the end of the blessing, ultimately concluding that the end is paramount.
In another example, if a person begins the morning prayer with yotzer or but ends with a nighttime blessing, they do not fulfill their obligation because the conclusion is incorrect. Conversely, if they start incorrectly but conclude correctly, they have fulfilled their obligation. This principle leads to the conclusion that the end of the blessing determines its validity.
This principle is reiterated throughout the discussion, emphasizing that the conclusion of the blessing is the determining factor for its acceptance. The Gemara then considers various scenarios to illustrate this point, ultimately reinforcing that everything hinges upon the final words spoken.
As the Gemara progresses, it discusses the significance of reciting the Aseret Hadibrot, and the desire to establish this practice outside the Beit Hamikdash. However, this practice was abandoned due to concerns about misinterpretation by outsiders. The Gemara concludes with a reflection on the nature of blessings and their implications for fulfilling one’s obligations in prayer and ritual.