Question about the G.M. in blessings

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › Question about the G.M. in blessings

asked 6 years ago

Hello Rabbi,
The Gemara in Berakhot 12 attempts to clarify the matter regarding one who drank wine and believed that he was intoxicated, etc.:
The general rule of the word is that everything follows the final rule. The general rule of the word is that it is not for me, or
We did not understand the ending – if they were to say that “the general rule of everything follows the sign” came to include and teach a special law: that when he began reciting the blessing when he thought it was a blessing for food (on bread) and ended with “on the tree and on the fruit of the tree” it came out (because dates are nourishing) I would understand. (Then it would be similar to what is mentioned at the beginning of that baraita regarding the creator of light versus the destroyer of the Arabs, as the Gm’s conclusion) But they add and say more than that – ” Even if he ended with a denham, who would come out” – but if so, then how do we learn this from “everything follows the sign”?
Thank you very much!

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 6 years ago

Good question. I think the intention is this: he begins with a blessing with Danema and ends with Tamari. You would think that they do not follow the signature, meaning that he is not obligated because the blessing at the beginning was said over bread. And Kamal says that because the signature is in order, and the beginning is also relevant to dates, therefore even though he began with Adeta’a Danema, a Yadach is issued. In other words, if we did not follow the signature, then he would not be obligated even though he initially blessed something that would also be beneficial for dates, because Sus ended with Tamari and we would think that the beginning said over Nehma does not add up (although if he had ended it, it would have been beneficial. But when he ended it differently, it might not have been beneficial). Kamal says that since the ending was correct, then the Risha does not interfere (because it is also beneficial for dates), and he is issued a Yadach. It really follows from this that even if one follows the underwriting, several conditions are required: that the wrong Risha be beneficial to what he eats. That the Sipha be appropriate. And if they don’t follow the underwriting, even if both conditions are met, it won’t come out because of the change itself. Although this is all a delay. But since we are going after the underwriting in the case discussed there, then of course we don’t need all of this because the underwriting doesn’t even have to be beneficial to what we eat until the underwriting is correct. The discussion here, as I described it, is conducted on the assumption that in such a case, no Yadach is issued.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מיכי Staff replied 6 years ago

Again, I saw that the Rabbis there made this issue difficult. And the full text of the shepherds and the Rabbis Hurwitz (at the end of the Gemara) see what you want in a different way than what I suggested here. And it seems to me that what I said is correct.
In the full text of the shepherds, he explained that only if he knew that he had eaten dates, and intended to exempt them in the blessing of food, he would be exempt, but the baraita speaks of a situation in which he did not know that he had eaten dates, and the reason that he is exempt is only because the opening of the blessing of food is included in the opening of the Brahm”z. And the Rabbis Hurwitz explains that only because he follows the Hitom, he is exempt in the Brahm”z, because there is a mention there of “bread” and it does not refer to dates.

רועי replied 6 years ago

Hello again Rabbi and thank you very much for the thoughtful answer
Sorry for the late response – I originally read relatively quickly, and only now have we looked at the Rabbi's answers in depth.

There is something difficult for us about the Rabbi's answer (and also the answer of the whole shepherds that the Rabbi mentioned) – According to what the Rabbi wrote, what we would think if it were not for the baraita is this:
“That is, if we did not follow the hitom then he would not have fulfilled his obligation even though he initially blessed something that would have been beneficial also for Tamarim, because in Sus he ended with Tamarim and we would have thought that the beginning that was said about Nehma does not add up (even though if he had ended it would have been beneficial. But when he ended it differently it might not have been beneficial).”

But why is this different from what is written at the beginning of the entire discussion in the Gemara:
“Peshita hika daka nakita kesa dahamra bidia ve kasbar daskhra he and he opened and blessed adaata daskhra and ended with daskhra it came out dai nami if he said everything was made by his word it came out dah tanan on everyone if he said everything was made by his word it came out”

So why wouldn't we also have “Peshita”, even if it were not for the baraita?

Thanks again

מיכי replied 6 years ago

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested anymore. It's hard for me to keep my head up or re-enter at intervals like this, when there are so many other questions and discussions going on at the same time.