The bracha of HaGomel
[א] (halacha 847)
The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 states: 'Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Four must give thanks - those who go down to the sea, those who travel the deserts, one who was ill and recovered, and one who was imprisoned in prison and was released'.
Question: What is the law when a person was in other cases of danger and was saved?
Answer: The Meiri2 wrote: 'Anyone to whom danger occurred, whether a life-threatening danger, and he was saved from it by any means, must give thanks, and there are those who dispute this as an obligation, but as a matter of choice he certainly blesses'.
Thus according to the words of the Meiri one may certainly bless3, but he wrote that some say he is not obligated to bless, and indeed this is a dispute among the Rishonim, and there are those who wrote that he does not bless at all, as follows:
The Orchos Chaim4 wrote: 'There is one who says that only these are obligated to bless, but others who blessed have made a bracha in vain'.
And the Abudraham5 wrote: 'And Ha-Rav Gershom son of Rabbi Shlomo wrote: Once one of the common townsfolk arose, to whose son a miracle had occurred, and he blessed HaGomel in the synagogue, and I rebuked him because he erred in two errors and made a bracha in vain. The first error is that even for the miracle itself he is not obligated to bless HaGomel but rather "Who performed a miracle for me"; thus he blessed improperly, for he changed the form of the bracha instituted for a miracle and blessed another bracha which was instituted only for the four who must give thanks'.
On the other hand the Ria"z6 [cited in the Shiltei Giborim7] wrote: 'And it appears to me that anyone saved from any dangerous matter must give thanks like these four, as is explained in the Kuntres HaRe'ayos'.
And so wrote the Rivash8: 'You further asked regarding that which we say in Perek HaRoeh that four must give thanks, resting on the verses of the mizmor: shall we say these specifically, since they rest on scripture, and if so, even if a wall fell upon him, or he was saved from being trampled by an ox and its gorings and the like of such miracles, he is not obligated to bless — or shall we say it is all the more so. Answer: It appears that he must bless, for those who travel the deserts who must give thanks — this is because of the danger of lions and thieves common on the roads, and if so, when a lion stood over him to devour him, even in the city, if thieves came upon him, if night bandits, and he was saved from them, and the like of these miracles, all the more so must he give thanks. And the four were mentioned in scripture only because they are always common on the road in the way of the world for most people, and for this reason too Rav Yehuda mentioned them in the name of Rav, the author of that statement. And all the more so one for whom a miracle was done and was saved from death itself, for they established another bracha for him to bless when he passes again through that place, "Baruch she'asah li nes b'makom hazeh." As we say at the beginning of Perek HaRoeh regarding a certain man who was traveling in Ever Yemina, a lion fell upon him, a miracle occurred for him, etc. And likewise Mar son of Ravina was traveling in Pakta d'Aravos and became thirsty for water, and a miracle occurred for him, etc. And according to the version of the Geonim z"l, he is obligated to bless, and his son, and his grandson; and there are also those who explain according to their version that it is not specifically up to the grandson, but rather all his descendants forever. And all the more so, that immediately upon being saved he must give thanks in the manner of the four who must give thanks, and not be exempted from the bracha of thanksgiving by the bracha "she'asah li nes," for they obligated him to bless when he returns to pass through that place, and perhaps he will never pass there and will never bless that bracha; rather it certainly appears that he blesses the bracha of thanksgiving in any case'.
And so wrote the Responsa of the Tashbetz9: '.. What is the reason Chazal said that one blesses over those four? Because he was in a state of presumed danger, and even though it is a matter of doubt .. and nonetheless they must bless since this matter was liable to have danger in it, and it is a kal vachomer for one who came to danger, such as one over whom a lion stood to devour him, or a snake to bite him, or the like — for is it because this matter happened to him in a settled area or in his home, and likewise one upon whom a collapse fell and was saved from death because this happened to him in a settled area, that he should not bless HaGomel and not give praise and thanksgiving to Hashem yisborach for his rescue? This will not enter the mind, and the matter is simple that Chazal spoke of the common cases. The same law and the same reason apply to any dangerous matter from which a person is saved. And when the sages heard, they stammered and found no answer to these words. And after the prayer I searched for the Rivash z"l who was asked about the like of this and answered as I did, and I showed that responsum to the aforementioned sages, and they all agreed to my words, for the truth stands forever'.
And as halacha the Mechaber10 wrote: 'These four are not specific, for the same law applies to one for whom a miracle was done, such as if a wall fell upon him, or he was saved from being trampled by an ox and its gorings, or a lion stood over him in the city to devour him, or if thieves came upon him or night bandits and he was saved from them, and all the like of this — all of them must bless HaGomel; and there are those who say that only these four specifically bless HaGomel, and it is good to bless without mentioning Shem and Malchus'.
However the Levush11 wrote that one blesses: 'And these four of whom we said that they must give thanks — this is the reason: that they are like one for whom a miracle was done and was saved from danger, and if so these four are not specific, but because these four are always common among most people in the way of the world, David said them in that mizmor; but the same law applies to one for whom a miracle was done that is like a revealed miracle, such as if a wall fell upon him and he was saved, or he was saved from being trampled by an ox and its gorings, or a lion stood over him in the forest to devour him, or if thieves came upon him and night bandits and he was saved from them, and likewise all the like of this — all of them must bless HaGomel now, immediately when the miracle was done for him, even though when he returns to this place another time he is obligated to bless another bracha, "Baruch she'asah li nes b'makom hazeh"; he is not exempted because of this from the bracha of thanksgiving which is immediately after the miracle was done for him, and the bracha of the miracle it is possible he will never bless, for perhaps he will not return to pass here again'.
And so wrote the Taz12: 'And it is good to bless without mentioning Shem and Malchus. But I have seen many practicing according to the first opinion, which is the view of the Rivash, and so it is reasonable, that all dangers are included in "those who travel the desert" which the Gemara mentioned'.
And so wrote the Magen Avraham13: 'And it appears to me that one who traveled on the road, even not in a place of danger, and robbers came upon him to kill him and he was saved, blesses on this, and nowadays they have the minhag to bless anyone for whom a miracle was done, and so wrote the Levush'.
But the Chida14 wrote: 'The Acharonim agreed that he blesses. And so agreed Mahari Ayash in Responsa Beis Yehuda siman 6. But we have nothing but the words of Maran, who agreed to bless without Shem and Malchus. And that which Mahari Ayash wrote there, that Maran ruled like the Rivash whose opinion he cited anonymously — I do not know how that will help us, that he cited his opinion anonymously, after he explained his words and concluded "and it is good to bless without mentioning Shem and Malchus"'.
Thus the Acharonim disagreed: there are those who ruled like the Mechaber to bless without Shem and Malchus, and on the other hand there are those who wrote that the minhag is to bless with Shem and Malchus.
The Rebbe15 wrote: 'There are those who say that one blesses HaGomel only over the four that the sages enumerated alone, and there are those who say that the same law applies to anyone who was in danger and was saved, such as if a wall fell upon him, or he was saved from being trampled by an ox and a horse and their gorings, or a lion stood over him to devour him in a settled area, or if thieves came upon him or night bandits and he was saved — all are obligated to bless HaGomel wherever there was a concern of life-threatening danger, and so is the minhag'.
Thus as halacha, according to the view of the Mechaber, for other dangers one blesses without Shem and Malchus, but the Rebbe ruled like the poskim who bless with Shem and Malchus even for other dangers.
Notes:
1 נד, ב ↩
2 ברכות שם ↩
3 וראה בב"י או"ח סי' ריט (אות ט). ואכ"מ ↩
4 דין מה שמוסיפין בשני ובחמישי אחר י"ח אות כה ↩
5 ברכת הראייה השבח וההודאה ↩
6 פסקים ברכות פ"ט ה"א ↩
7 ברכות מג, א ↩
8 סי' שלז ↩
9 ח"ד חוט המשולש טור ג סי' ל ↩
10 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ט ↩
11 או"ח שם ס"ט ↩
12 ס"ק ז ↩
13 ס"ק י ↩
14 ברכ"י ס"ק ח ↩
15 סדר ברכת הנהנין פי"ג ס"ז ↩
[ב] (halacha 848)
Question: Regarding the four who must give thanks, is this specifically when they were actually in a situation of danger?
Answer: The Meiri1 wrote: 'There is one who says that these matters are stated only regarding those who travel the deserts and got lost, and those who go down to the sea over whom a sea-storm arose, and one ill with a dangerous illness — for in these there is a miracle and they are like one who is released from prison; but if such did not happen to them there is no need to bless, and likewise those who travel roads that are not deserts need not bless, and even though the plain meaning of the verses proves so, I do not concede to this, rather anyone who went up onto a sickbed and came down blesses; they already said about it: he went up onto the bed — he is like one who went up to the gallows; and likewise all travelers are included; in the Talmud HaMa'arav they said in Perek Tefillas HaShachar2 every road is in a state of presumed danger and every illness is in a state of presumed danger, and the same law applies to all sea travel, and moreover it appears to me that these were not stated as specific but rather that even though danger did not occur to them they must give thanks, since the matter is common to become endangered ..'.
And in a similar vein Rabbeinu Manoach wrote on the Rambam3: 'The Raavad wrote that all these are not obligated to bless unless there is a miracle in them, such as that they reached a place of danger and were saved from it, as it is written "they wandered in the desert" and "they reached the gates of death" and "He raised a storm wind"; but if they traveled in the desert and did not get lost, or on the sea and no storm wind arose over them, or one became ill and was not endangered, they need not give thanks. And according to this reasoning, one who traveled to Ma'arafa, or traveled roads where there is no concern of getting lost, need not give thanks when he comes. And the Rav changed the language of the Gemara, which writes there "those who travel the deserts," and wrote "travelers," etc., implying that on all roads one must bless — and this is astonishing. And it is possible for him that he relied on that which we say, all roads are in a state of presumed danger, and likewise all of them, for since a person became ill even with the lightest of light fevers he is like one struck in the innards, for there is no danger greater than this, and he is like one handed over to a soldier4; and likewise one imprisoned in prison, who knows whether they will frame him over another matter or whether wicked men will testify against him; and likewise one traveling on the sea, for all sea travel is danger, and for this reason it stands to reason that they bless even though they did not reach great danger'.
Thus we saw that there are Rishonim who held that the four who must give thanks — this is on condition that they actually entered danger and were saved; but the Meiri and Rabbeinu Manoach disagreed and held that the very presence in these four situations requires a bracha.
And in accordance with their words the Tashbetz5 wrote: 'And so it is in this matter — what is the reason Chazal said that one blesses over those four? Because he was in a state of presumed danger, and even though it is a matter of doubt, for not all who travel the deserts will encounter robbers and lions, snake, serpent, and scorpion, and not all who go down to the sea will be endangered, for many times they do not come to any danger, and nonetheless they must bless since this matter was liable to have danger in it'.
These words of the Rishonim were not before the eyes of the Acharonim, and the Yad HaMelech (Landau)6 wrote: 'And were it not that I fear to introduce a novel matter which is not mentioned by our Rishonim and Acharonim z"l, I would say that even those who travel the desert and those who go down to the sea need not bless unless some danger occurred to them and they were saved from it .. and so the language of the verses indicates, for the danger was explicitly mentioned in each of them .. And even though it may be that these two — one ill and one who is in prison — since they departed from the category of ordinary people, by this very fact their situation is worsened, and they are in a state of presumed danger and obligated to bless upon their rescue in any case; but those who go down to the sea and those who travel the desert, which are matters common every day among people, and these two roads are so essential to people that they are truly considered part of the world's continuance — how can we say that their very essence is considered so much a danger that a bracha should be instituted upon them? And we see that we are warned against bringing ourselves to any dangerous matter .. and especially according to what I explained, that there is no obligation of thanksgiving in these two, on the sea and in the desert, unless they were in danger and were saved'.
But the Acharonim rejected his words, as the Sdei Chemed7 wrote: 'And one who traveled by ship in the depths of the sea or by land and no evil misfortune occurred to him — my friend the Gaon in the sefer Amudei Eish yatzo wrote in siman 2 os 23 that it was plain in his eyes that they must bless, for so is the implication of the Shas and the poskim, and so the world practices, except that he saw the Yad HaMelech in Hilchos Brochos perek 10 halacha 8 who mustered all his strength to prove that only where an evil incident befell them, then they must bless when they were delivered from their trouble, but if they went up in peace without a shofar they need not bless; and my honored teacher yatzo elaborated somewhat to reject his words, and brought what was written in Responsa Eisan HaEzrachi siman 3, that even one who came out in peace, the sages obligated to bless — these are the words of the master, and these seforim Yad HaMelech and Eisan HaEzrachi were not forgotten from me. However, as to the practical law, my humble opinion agrees with the words of the Rav the author yatzo, that one must bless as is implied by the plain words of the poskim'.
And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah8: 'And know further that it is plain that according to all, whether at sea or in the desert, one blesses even if no danger befell him, such as that he crossed the sea and there was no storm wind and the like, or he traveled in the desert and did not get lost on the road and lacked no water and the like — even so the Rabbis instituted to bless; and although in the verse it is written "they wandered in the desert, in the wasteland" etc., and likewise regarding those who go down to the sea "and He spoke and raised a storm wind" etc., it is not specifically that it befell him, but rather since such incidents are liable to befall him, he must give thanks that he was saved from this'.
Thus in practice the poskim9 held that the four who must give thanks — this is also in a case where there was no actual danger. In the next halacha we will see the words of the poskim regarding which road is said to be a place of danger.
--------------
Notes:
1 ברכות נד, ב ↩
2 פ"ד ה"ד ↩
3 הל' ברכות פ"י ה"ח ↩
4 שבת לב, א ↩
5 שו"ת ח"ד (חוט המשולש) טור ג סי' ל ↩
6 הל' ברכות פ"י ה"ח ↩
7 מערכת ה"א אות לח (כרך ה ע' 2016) ↩
8 ביאור הלכה סי' ריט ס"א ↩
9 וראה ג"כ שו"ת ציץ אליעזר חי"ב סי' יח. שו"ת אג"מ ח"ד או"ח ב סי' נט ↩
[ג] (halacha 849)
Question: What is the definition of roads considered a place of danger regarding the obligation of the bracha?
Answer: Among the four who must give thanks, the Gemara1 mentions 'those who travel the deserts'.
And from the plain wording of the Gemara one could understand that only for traveling in the desert must one bless, but the Rambam2 wrote: 'Four must give thanks: one ill who recovered, and one imprisoned who was released from prison, and those who go down to the sea when they came up, and travelers when they reach a settled area'.
And Rabbeinu Manoach remarked on the Rambam: 'And the Rav changed the language of the Gemara, which writes there "those who travel the deserts," and wrote "travelers," etc., implying that on all roads one must bless — and this is astonishing. And it is possible for him that he relied on that which we say3 all roads are in a state of presumed danger, and likewise all of them, for since a person became ill even with the lightest of light fevers he is like one struck in the innards, for there is no danger greater than this, and he is like one handed over to a soldier4; and likewise one imprisoned in prison, who knows whether they will frame him over another matter or whether wicked men will testify against him; and likewise one traveling on the sea, for all sea travel is danger ..'.
And the Ramban5 wrote: 'And likewise regarding the road, that all travelers must give thanks. And even though Rav Yehuda said "those who travel the deserts," he adopted the language of the verse, and every road is included. And we learn in the Yerushalmi regarding tefillas haderech: R' Shimon bar Abba in the name of R' Chanina says every road is in a state of presumed danger; R' Yannai, when he would go to a lodging, would leave instructions in his household; R' Mana, when he would go to bathe in a bathhouse that was heated, would leave instructions in his household; R' Chanina son of Rabbi Abbahu, R' Shimon son of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Riba"l: all the ill are in a state of presumed danger. And therefore in all of them one must give thanks'. And so wrote the Ra'ah6.
However the Rosh7 wrote: 'And in Ashkenaz and France they had the minhag not to bless bircas HaGomel when they travel from city to city, for they held that they only required giving thanks for those who travel the deserts where wild beasts and robbers are common, and that which we say in the Yerushalmi, all roads are in a state of presumed danger, was said only regarding tefillas haderech alone, that on all roads a person must pray for his soul; but bircas HaGomel was instituted in place of a todah'.
And so wrote the Tur8: 'And in Ashkenaz and France they practice not to bless when they travel from city to city, for they only obligated those who travel the deserts where evil wild beasts and robbers are common, and that which is in the Yerushalmi, all roads are in a state of presumed danger, was said only regarding tefillas haderech, that on all roads a person must pray for himself; but bircas HaGomel was instituted in place of a todah'.
On the other hand the Abudraham9 wrote: 'There are those who say that one does not bless bircas HaGomel when traveling from city to city, for they held that they only required giving thanks for those who travel the deserts where wild beasts and robbers are common, and that which we say in the Yerushalmi, all roads are in a state of presumed danger, was said only regarding tefillas haderech alone, that on all roads a person must ask for mercy for his soul; but bircas HaGomel was instituted in place of danger, but now the world has the minhag to bless bircas HaGomel even when traveling from city to city. And so wrote the Ramban. And we say in the Yerushalmi: R' Yannai, when he would go out to a lodging, would leave instructions in his household, for all travelers are in a state of presumed danger. And if you ask about one who walks beneath a leaning wall, of whom we say in the Gemara that his sins are recalled, that he should bless HaGomel since he passed — and one may answer that this is not considered so much a danger, since it is a short matter and easy to pass through quickly, but travelers, which is a long matter, must bless HaGomel'.
Thus we saw that the Rishonim disagreed whether one blesses only for traveling in the desert or on every road, and in Ashkenaz and France they had the minhag not to bless except for traveling in the desert, and in Spain they had the minhag to bless on every road.
And as halacha the Mechaber10 wrote: 'In Ashkenaz and France they do not bless when they travel from city to city, for they only obligated those who travel the deserts where evil wild beasts and robbers are common, and in Spain they practice to bless, because all roads are in a state of presumed danger, however for less than a parsah one does not bless, and if it is a place established as especially dangerous, even for less than a parsah'.
The Knesses HaGedolah11 brings that one who fears the word of Hashem should bless according to their minhag even from city to city, but writes that there are many Sephardim who had the minhag not to bless from city to city when there is no danger and explains their reasoning, and these are his words: 'And one who fears the word of Hashem blesses bircas HaGomel. And one must give a reason for the minhag of the world, for not for nothing did this minhag spread and the sages did not protest against them. And it appears to me that since in Ashkenaz or France they practice not to bless when traveling from city to city, for they only obligated those who travel the deserts where evil wild beasts and robbers are common, but in Spain they practice to bless even those traveling from city to city — when they accepted this minhag upon themselves, this was from city to city similar to those who travel the deserts, which is a distant place and has danger in it, but from place to place that is nearby, like these places that they go and come in one day or less, since there is danger in them only on rare occasions, they did not accept upon themselves the minhag to bless in such a case. And for this reason they also had the minhag not to bless when traveling from the city to the villages by way of the sea, even though it is more than a parsah, for they did not accept this minhag upon themselves'.
The Rebbe12 wrote: 'And those who travel the deserts when they reach a settled area'. And he omitted travelers and from city to city, and simply put it is according to the minhag of Ashkenaz that they do not bless from city to city, as the Gr"ch Naeh13 wrote: 'And we follow the Ashkenazim and do not bless from city to city'.
And regarding travel by train through the desert, the Bircas HaBayis14 wrote: 'And even if he went with a caravan or traveled by train through the desert, he must bless — so it appears to me'.
And he explained15: 'For ordinarily those who travel the deserts travel with a caravan, and nonetheless they said one must bless, for an ordinary desert is a place of danger, and the same law applies to one traveling by train, for there is no distinction, and on a train too there is danger in the desert, as is known'.
However the Gr"ch Naeh there wrote: 'And in our times when one travels from place to place by railroad, even though they pass through deserts, nonetheless since the danger of an evil beast and robbers is not applicable, it stands to reason that it is like from city to city and one need not bless'.
Thus in practice, according to our minhag we do not bless over travel or a journey from city to city, but only for travel or a journey in the desert; however, if one travels in the desert in a protected means of transport he does not bless16.
--------------
Notes:
1 ברכות נד, ב ↩
2 הל' ברכות פ"י ה"ח ↩
3 ירושלמי ברכות פ"ד ה"ד ↩
4 שבת לב, א ↩
5 תורת האדם שער הסוף - ענין הרפואה ↩
6 ברכות שם ↩
7 ברכות פ"ט סי' ג. וראה ג"כ תוס' הרא"ש ברכות נד, ב ↩
8 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
9 ברכת הראייה השבח וההודאה ↩
10 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ז ↩
11 הגהב"י סי' ריט אות ה. וראה גם לדוד אמת סי' כג אות ט ↩
12 סדר ברכות הנהנין פי"ג ה"ב ↩
13 קצוה"ש סי' סה בדה"ש ס"ק ב ↩
14 שערי ברכה פכ"ז אות ד ↩
15 שערי בינה אות י ↩
16 וראה מש"כ בהלכה מס' 270 אודות תפילת הדרך שי"א שנאמרת גם בדרכי הנסיעה החדשים, ששם הטעם כי כל מיני פורענויות רח"ל קיימים וצריך להתפלל עליהם, אך כאשר נוסע בתחבורה ולא היה סכנה י"ל שאינו נחשב כמקום סכנה לברך הגומל. וראה גם דברי הטור הנ"ל ומש"כ הט"ז סי' ריט סק"ג ↩
[ד] (halacha 850)
Question: What about illness — which illness, when one has recovered, requires a bracha?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that the poskim disagreed whether bircas HaGomel is recited only in a case of great concern of danger like those who travel the desert, or also in lesser danger such as one who travels from city to city, and in a similar vein1 the Rishonim disagreed regarding one ill who recovered, as follows:
The Baal HaAruch2 wrote: 'They asked before Rav Hai z"l regarding what Rav Yehuda said that four must give thanks, what is the reason we do not say them, the Rabbis, according to the order of the verses? And he answered thus: it should be explained that the verses are ordered according to what is more common .. but in the sugya they are ordered according to those closest to danger: those who go down to the sea are closer to danger, for in one instant they are lost; and after them those who travel the deserts, who get lost and find no food or drink and are closer to death than to life; and after them one who was ill and recovered, even one who feels pain in his head and even one who feels pain in his throat; and after them one who was imprisoned in prison, who is more distant from danger than all of them; and each of these, his miracle is greater than the one after it — end of quote'.
Thus according to the view of Rav Hai Gaon even a small illness, such as one who felt pain in his head or in his throat and recovered, suffices to bless bircas HaGomel.
But the Tosafos3 wrote: 'And this is specifically regarding one ill who fell into bed, but one who feels pain in his head or in his innards and is not laid up in bed — no. Ha-Rav Yosef'.
The Ramban4 wrote that the Raavad wrote like the words of Tosafos, but he ruled like the words of Rav Hai: 'And Ha-Rav R' Avraham bar David z"l wrote .. and likewise the bracha of the ill is only for a wound of the innards that has danger in it. And the Rav further elaborated much, except that they are not matters of substance .. and regarding the bracha of the ill, it is not specifically an illness that has danger in it, and not specifically a wound of the innards, but rather anyone who went up onto a sickbed and came down must give thanks, because it is like one whom they brought up to the gallows to be judged and he needs great advocates to be saved, and the mercies of the Holy One became advocates for him .. And we learn in the Yerushalmi regarding tefillas haderech5: R' Shimon bar Abba in the name of R' Chanina says every road is in a state of presumed danger; R' Yannai, when he would go to a lodging, would leave instructions in his household; R' Mana, when he would go to bathe in a bathhouse that was heated, would leave instructions in his household; R' Chanina son of Rabbi Abbahu, R' Shimon son of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Riba"l: all the ill are in a state of presumed danger. And therefore in all of them one must give thanks'.
And so wrote the Rashba6: 'So the matter appears, that any ill person who goes up onto a sickbed because of that illness, when he arises must bless. For anyone who goes up onto a sickbed is like one who goes up to the gallows to be judged, to whom they say "bring proof and be exempt." And there is no difference between one who has a fixed ailment that comes from time to time and one that is not fixed. On the contrary, whatever is fixed is stronger. And even though a miracle was done for him many times and he was saved from it, from Heaven they had mercy on him, and not at every single moment is a miracle performed'.
The Rosh7 brought this dispute, and the Tur8 wrote that in Spain they practice like the view of Rav Hai in the Aruch.
And as halacha the Mechaber9 wrote like the view of Rav Hai Gaon and the Ramban: 'For any illness one must bless, even if it is not an illness of danger and not a wound of the innards, but rather anyone who went up onto a sickbed and came down, because it is like one whom they brought up to the gallows to be judged, and there is no difference between one who has a fixed ailment that comes from time to time and one that is not fixed'.
But the Rema in the hagah wrote like the view of Tosafos: 'There are those who say that one blesses only for an illness that has danger in it, such as a wound of the innards, and so they practice in Ashkenaz'.
However the Bach10 wrote that the main view is like the words of the Mechaber: 'And so we hold, not like the hagah of the Shulchan Aruch that it is specifically for an illness that has danger in it'. And the Magen Avraham11 wrote: 'And the Bach ruled like the first opinion, and so some practice'.
The Taz12 wrote: 'A wound of the innards. And the same law applies to one ill who is laid up in bed more than three days, in my opinion, for he needs others to ask for mercy, as Rava said, until three days close the doors, etc.''.
That is, the Taz added to the words of the Rema that even one who is laid up three days in bed, his law is like a wound of the innards.
[The Ben Ish Chai13 wrote: 'For ailments such as a headache and the like, which are not an illness encompassing the whole body, one does not bless, and one is not called ill in order to bless unless he fell into bed for three days, and this does not require three full days from time to time'.
But the later Sephardic poskim14 remarked on his words that this is according to the Taz in the view of the Rema, but according to the view of the Mechaber for any illness one blesses, as the Kaf HaChaim15 wrote: 'And the same law applies to one ill who is laid up in bed more than three days. Taz s"k 5. And this is according to the reasoning of Mor"m z"l who requires an illness that has danger in it, but according to the reasoning of Maran z"l, three days are not required, but rather anyone who went up onto a sickbed because of illness and came down from it must bless'].
The Rebbe16 ruled like the words of the Taz, and these are his words: 'There are those who say that the ill person blesses only for an illness that has danger in it, such as a wound of the innards and the like of illnesses for which Shabbos is desecrated, and in practice one should conduct oneself that anyone laid up on his bed more than three days should bless when he arises'.
And the Gr"ch Naeh17 explained: 'But if he was in danger, it is plain that even if he was not laid up three days in bed he blesses, and so wrote the Mishnah Berurah'.
Thus according to the view of the Mechaber one blesses for any illness, and according to the view of the Rema only for an illness that has danger in it, and according to the view of the Rebbe one blesses either for an illness that has danger in it, or for one who fell ill to bed for three days
--------------
Notes:
1 ראה מאמר מרדכי סי' ריט ס"ק ח: 'יש לדקדק על דברי מרן ז"ל כאן בשו"ע דלענין חולי סתם וכתב דבכל חולי מברך ולענין הולכי דרכים בסעיף שלפני זה הביא חילוק שבין מנהג ספרד למנהג אשכנז וצרפת והמעיין בטור ופוסקים יראה שכמו שמחולקים בני ספרד עם בני צרפת בענין הולכי דרכים כך מחולקים בענין חולי ועוד אני תמיה שלא כתב כאן בשו"ע דמברך אפילו חש בעינו או בראשו ומעיו כמו שהוא מנהג ספרד שהביא הטור ז"ל וקשה איך לא הזכיר מנהג ספרד דמסתמא כך היה מנהג מרן ז"ל ולא מצאתי הערה בכל זה בדברי האחרונים ז"ל'. וראה מ"ש בס"ק ט ↩
2 ערך ארבע ↩
3 ברכות נד, ב ↩
4 תורת האדם שער הסוף - ענין הרפואה ↩
5 ברכות פ"ד ה"ד ↩
6 שו"ת ח"א סי' פב ↩
7 ברכות פ"ט סי' ג ↩
8 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
9 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ח ↩
10 סי' ריט ↩
11 סי' ריט ס"ק ח ↩
12 סי' ריט ס"ק ה ↩
13 ש"א עקב ס"ז ↩
14 ראה אור לציון ח"ב פי"ד דיני ברכות אות מד ובהערה שם. והגרע"י בהליכות עולם על הבא"ח אות ג ↩
15 סי' ריט ס"ק מו ↩
16 סדר ברכות הנהנין פי"ג ה"ו ↩
17 קצוה"ש סי' סה בדה"ש ס"ק י ↩
[ה] (halacha 853)
Question: We saw in the previous halachos that those who travel the desert/roads must recite bircas HaGomel — what is the measure of the journey to become obligated in the bracha?
Answer: Regarding tefillas haderech the Bahag1 wrote: 'And even if one goes out to travel one parsah, he must pray tefillas haderech'. And Rashi2 wrote: 'And the Bahag explains: how far must one seek to travel that he must pray — up to a parsah, even if he only has to travel up to a parsah, but a road of less than a parsah — one need not pray this tefillah.
And the Abudraham3 wrote that from the words of the Bahag we also learn regarding bircas HaGomel: 'And the Bahag wrote that when one has to travel a parsah or more he says tefillas haderech, but less than a parsah he does not say it, which implies that he holds the measure of a journey's road is a parsah'.
And so wrote the Orchos Chaim4: 'And there are those who give the measure for their travel up to a parsah'.
And to note from Rabbeinu Asher b"r Chaim Nabio in the sefer HaPardes5 who wrote: 'And likewise I saw that Rabbeinu Yaakov Chasid z"l asked in a dream whether the minhag they had to bless HaGomel is good, even if they traveled on the road only a parsah. And they answered him: let your heart not envy sinners; happy are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with all their heart; it is good for you to bless at all times, since you stand under the burden of king and princes, and the Holy One saves you from their hand and guards you, and you are obligated to give thanks to Him and to bless Him. All this they answered him'.
However we find that some wrote in the name of the Ramban6 that one blesses even for less than a parsah, as was written in the Ohel Moed7: 'And the Ramban says that every road is included in danger and even for less than a parsah he agrees, but they did not practice so'.
And so wrote the Beis Yosef8 from the Orchos Chaim: 'There are those who say that one blesses HaGomel only if he traveled a parsah or more, and the Ramban wrote that every road is in a state of presumed danger and even for less than a parsah he agrees — end of quote — but such is not the minhag, end of quote'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote: 'And as to halacha, it appears that for less than a parsah one does not bless HaGomel, like the words of the Bahag regarding tefillas haderech'.
And as halacha the Mechaber9 wrote: 'However for less than a parsah one does not bless, and if it is a place established as especially dangerous, even for less than a parsah'.
Thus as halacha the measure of a journey regarding the obligation of bircas HaGomel is a parsah, unless it is a place established as especially dangerous, in which case one blesses even for less.
★ ★ ★
Question: Is the measure of a parsah a measure of the distance of a parsah [3.84 km]10. (even if one travels by a means of transport), or is it a measure of the time of walking a parsah [72 minutes]?
Answer: In halacha 277 regarding tefillas haderech we saw that the poskim disagreed on this, and there are those who say the measure is the distance of a parsah11, and there are those who say the time of walking a parsah12.
And in practice many poskim13 held that the main view is that one calculates the distance of a parsah and not the time of walking a parsah, and since we saw above that the poskim equated tefillas haderech with bircas HaGomel regarding this measure, if so, the same law applies that regarding bircas HaGomel one should take into account the measure of the distance of a parsah.
Therefore in practice, after a journey of a parsah (as above, 3.84 km) in a place of danger such as the desert, one should recite bircas HaGomel. [And regarding the minhag of the Sephardim see note 14], and if it is a place established as especially dangerous he blesses even for less than a parsah.
--------------
Notes:
1 הל' ברכות פ"ד עמוד נא ↩
2 ברכות ל, א ↩
3 ברכת הראייה השבח וההודאה ↩
4 דין מה שמוסיפין בשני ובחמישי אחר י"ח אות כד ↩
5 שער הראיה ↩
6 אמנם לא מצאנו כן ברמב"ן ↩
7 שער הברכות דרך ג נתיב א ↩
8 או"ח סוסי' ריט. לא מצאנו באורחות חיים שלפנינו, אמנם להעיר ממ"ש לגבי הליכה על גשר שמכיון שזה דבר קצר אינו מברך: 'ההולך תחת קיר נטוי ועל הגשר שמזכירין לו עונותיו יברך הגומל אחר שעבר וי"ל כיון דדבר קצר הוא לעבור מהרה אינו נחשב לסכנה כ"כ' ↩
9 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ז ↩
10 ראה מש"כ הגר"ח נאה בשיעור מקוה בהתחלה ↩
11 ראה שו"ת שבט הלוי ח"י סי' כא ב: 'עוד בענין תפלת הדרך ראיתי למר דו"ז הגאון הק' מהר"י גרינואלד זצ"ל בתשובת זכרון יהודה או"ח סי' מ"ב שנו"נ אם היום שאפשר ללכת במסילת הברזל ובמכונית אם ג"כ השיעור כפרסה או אנו חושבים שיעור פרסה בזמן כאשר נסתפקו גדולי אחרונים לענין שמועה רחוקה עד עשרה פרסאות ביו"ד סי' שע"ה ס"ח, וכה"ג בפסחים צ"ד ע"א לענין דרך רחוקה ויכול לבא ע"י סוסים ופרדים יע"ש, ובעל זכרון יהודה נו"נ קצת בזה ולבסוף מסיק דכל הלוך בזמן פרסה שהוא בערך שעה ורובע, לא יאמר תפילת הדרך בשם ומלכות אפילו הולך למרחקים. ובעניותי הדברים תמוהים, כי בנושא זה פשוט דלא מחשבינן לפי הזמן רק קרבת העיר פרסה כפשוטה, דהלא בזה"ז שהולכים גם עם אוירונים דאפשר ללכת למדה"י רחוק תוך שעה וקצת יותר וכי זה סבה לפטור מתפילת הדרך הלא פשוט כי ע"י אורך המקום עד שמגיע למטרה נתארך גם זמן הסכנה וצריך תפלה, וראיתי שבעל זכרון יהודה הרגיש בהבדל זה אבל מדחה לה בלי טעם מתקבל על הלב, וע"כ פשוט דגם תוך זמן הלוך פרסה והולך באוטא או אוירון וכיו"ב שצריך לברך כהלכה' ↩
12 ראה באריכות שו"ת יביע אומר ח"א או"ח סי' יג. ובהנסמן שם ↩
13 ראה הנסמן בשו"ע הקצר ח"ב פפ"ח הערה 4, ובפסק"ת סי' קי אות ח הערה 64. (אלא שכאן (סי' ריט אות יט והערה 101) לגבי ברכת הגומל כתב שנקטינן להקל בצירוף שיטת בני אשכנז שאינם מברכים מעיר לעיר, אלא שכאמור המדובר בפנים הוא המהלך במדבר וכיוצ"ב שאז אין צירוף שיטת בני אשכנז להקל ודו"ק) ואמנם מנהג הספרדים כיום לומר רק בנסיעה של 72 דקות מהעיר. כמבואר ביבי"א, ואור לציון הנ"ל ובילקוט יוסף תפילה ב סק"י ס"ב ↩
14 כאמור בהלכה 849 יש מבני ספרד שנוהגים לברך בכל דרך גם מעיר לעיר ולא רק במדבר למרות שאינו מוחזק לסכנה, וא"כ לדעתם בכל נסיעה קצרה מעיר לעיר יש מקום לומר ברכת הגומל, אלא שכאמור יש מגדולי הפוסקים הספרדים שנקטו ששיעור פרסה הוא זמן מהלך פרסה. ולכן אומרים רק אחר נסיעה של 72 דקות (ולהעיר שיש שנקטו שניתן לצרף את שיעור הדרך הלוך וחוזר, ראה אור לציון ח"ב פי"ד הל' מב, ילקוט יוסף נט"י וברכות סי' ריט ברכת הודאת היחיד (הגומל) סט"ו) וא"כ גם לשיטת הספרדים למעשה מברכים אחרי נסיעה קצרה מעיר לעיר. וא"כ הנפק"מ למעשה בין מנהג הספרדים והאשכנזים היא: *א)* בנסיעה ארוכה של 72 דקות מעיר לעיר שלמנהג הספרדים מכיון שכל הדרכים בחזקת סכנה יש לברך, ולמנהג האשכנזים אין לברך. *ב)* במקום שמוחזק לסכנה שדינו כמדבר, לאשכנזים מברך מנסיעה של 3.84 ק"מ, ולספרדים יברך רק במידה וזה נסיעה של 72 דקות ↩
[ו] (halacha 854)
In honor of the days of redemption, 12-13 Tammuz
Question: May a person recite bircas HaGomel over a miracle done for his teacher?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 relates: 'Rav Yehuda became ill and recovered; Rav Chana of Baghdad and the Rabbis came in to him and said to him: Blessed is the Merciful One who gave you to us and did not give you to the dust. He said to them: You have exempted me from giving thanks. But Abaye said: One must give thanks before ten! — For there were ten among them. But he himself did not give thanks! — He need not, for he answered amen after them'.
And in the Yerushalmi Brochos2 regarding the bracha "Who performed a miracle for me in this place," a doubt is raised on this matter: 'May a person bless over the miracles of his father and over the miracles of his teacher, and if it were a distinguished person such as Yoav ben Tzeruyah and his companions, and a person through whom the name of Heaven was sanctified such as Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya, and the miracles of the tribes — may one bless?'.
And the Rashba3 wrote: 'And over the miracle of his teacher he blesses, like Rav Chana who blessed over Rav Yehuda his teacher, and even though it is a query in the Yerushalmi whether to bless over the miracle of his teacher and they did not resolve it, it can be resolved from that of Rav Chana which is in the Gemara below, and likewise they queried regarding the miracle of his father and it was not resolved there but was resolved in our Gemara; and likewise they said in the Yerushalmi that over the miracle of an individual, if he is a distinguished man such as Yoav ben Tzeruyah, or the name of Heaven was sanctified through him such as Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya, one blesses over it; and it stands to reason that it is specifically that place where a miracle was done for him regarding the sanctification of Hashem, like the fiery furnace and the lions' den, and these too are stated in the Gemara below'.
And the Meiri4 wrote: 'And in the Talmud HaMa'arav they were in doubt about it, for they asked there whether a person may bless over the miracle of his father and over the miracle of his teacher, and it was not clarified; and according to this version in our Talmud it was clarified even for his grandson; and likewise that which was in doubt there regarding a miracle of his teacher was clarified here, that he blesses, for Rav Chana blessed over Rav Yehuda, "Blessed is the Merciful One who gave you to us" etc. .. And likewise they were in doubt there in the Talmud HaMa'arav regarding a miracle of an individual who was a distinguished man such as Yoav ben Tzeruyah and his companions, or through whom the name of Heaven was sanctified such as Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya, whether all are obligated to bless, and it was not clarified, except that in some copies of the Talmud HaMa'arav I found regarding it, "he is worthy to bless over a place where the name of Heaven was sanctified"; and in our Gemara too they said, one who saw the fiery furnace and the lions' den blesses'.
Thus from the words of the Rishonim5 it appears that the halacha is like the conduct of Rav Chana, that a person blesses HaGomel over a miracle done for his teacher.
And the Tur6 explained why this is not considered a bracha in vain: 'It is not considered a bracha in vain since they were not obligated in it, for they gave praise and thanksgiving to the Omnipresent in the way of people who praise the Omnipresent for the good He provides them'.
And the Rema7 brought it: 'And this is not a bracha in vain on the part of the one blessing, even though he was not obligated in this bracha, since he blesses only in the manner of praise and thanksgiving for the good of his fellow in which he rejoices'.
The Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch8 in the laws of bircas HaGomel did not mention that one blesses over a miracle done for his teacher; however, regarding the bracha "Who performed a miracle in this place" he wrote9: 'Over the miracle of his teacher he must bless just as he blesses over the miracle of his father'.
[And the Rema wrote in a hagah: There are those who say that the same law applies that if a person sees one for whom a miracle was done, he blesses over him, just as he blesses over the place where the miracle was done'].
And the Eliyah Rabbah10 explained: 'And that which he did not write the law of his father or teacher, it appears that he relied on what he wrote in siman 218:6 regarding other miracles'11.
And the Kaf HaChaim12 wrote: 'However, even over his father and teacher we have not heard and have not seen anyone who blessed, and it appears to me the reason is because there is no obligation to bless, and also because there is a dispute in the wording of the bracha as I wrote below, and therefore they did not have the minhag to bless'.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the wording of one who blesses bircas HaGomel over his teacher?
Answer: The Taz13 wrote: 'And it appears to me at first glance that then he should not say "HaGomel chasadim la'chayavim" [Who bestows kindnesses upon the guilty], for by this he impairs the honor of his father or teacher, for although the one who himself gives thanks says so, nonetheless another should not say so about him, except that one may say that "la'chayavim" here refers to this one who gives thanks, that he himself is guilty and merited that his father or teacher was healed or saved, in my opinion'.
Thus the Taz was in doubt whether it is fitting that he say "to the guilty" of good things, but wrote that one may say that "chayavim" refers to the one blessing and not to his teacher, and therefore he may say it.
And the Eliyah Rabbah14 wrote that he blesses with a different wording, and these are his words: 'And it is obvious [to me] that even over his father or teacher one does not bless "Baruch HaGomel" but rather "Baruch asher gemalcha kol tov" [Blessed is He who bestowed upon you every good] etc., and the Taz [there], with his pardon, erred in this. Also that which he wrote that he should skip "la'chayavim" — the responsum of Maharam Mintz above s"k 3 escaped him. Also it appears to me as to the law that even regarding his father and teacher one may rely on the Ramban that it is not an obligation, for even regarding the one of the miracle there are those who have the version in the Shas that he is not obligated, as the Beis Yosef wrote in siman 218'.
But the Maamar Mordechai15 wrote: 'One need not change the wording of the bracha at all, but rather he says "HaGomel la'chayavim tovos she'gemalani kol tov" [Who bestows good upon the guilty, who bestowed upon me every good], for he gives thanks and praises the Holy One who bestowed good upon him in saving his father or his teacher or his wife, and it is well fitting to say "she'gemalani"; and also the word "la'chayavim" is fine, for it does not refer to his father or teacher at all but rather to the wicked of the world, as the meaning of the bracha is explained in the Beis Yosef regarding bircas HaGomel in general, and if so it does not impair the honor of his teacher or father at all'.
And the Mishnah Berurah16 wrote: 'And if he blesses over his father [or teacher] he says "Baruch atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam she'gamal l'avi [or l'rabbi] kol tov," and if in his presence he says "she'gemalcha kol tov"'.
Thus we saw that from the essential law a person may recite bircas HaGomel over a miracle done for his teacher, but in practice it appears that they did not have the minhag to bless this bracha, and there are those who wrote that they did not have the minhag to bless because of the differing opinions in the wording of the bracha over his teacher.
In the coming halachos we will discuss whether one says this bracha also regarding relatives, and the words of the Rebbe on this.
--------------
Notes:
1 נד, ב ↩
2 פ"ט ה"א ↩
3 בחידושיו על הגמ' בברכות שם ↩
4 ברכות נד, א ↩
5 וראה ג"כ רא"ש ברכות פ"ט סי' א ומעדני יו"ט אות ג ↩
6 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
7 או"ח סי' ריט בס"ד בהגהה ↩
8 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
9 סי' ריח ס"ו ↩
10 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק יא ↩
11 המחצית השקל חלק ע"ז, וביאר שהמחבר בסי' ריט ס"ל שמברך על רבו וגם על שאר קרובים, ואין כוונתו בסי' ריט ס"ד רק במקרה של דיעבד, ונראה אודות זה בהלכה הבאה ↩
12 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק כז וראה גם ס"ק כח ↩
13 סי' ריט סק"ג ↩
14 סי' ריט ↩
15 סי' ריט ס"ק ו ↩
16 סי' ריט ס"ק יז ↩
[ז] (halacha 855)
In halacha 854 we saw the words of the poskim about reciting bircas HaGomel over a miracle done for one's teacher.
Question: What is the law when a person rejoices greatly in the rescue of his relative?
Answer: The Ria"z1 wrote: 'And it appears in my eyes that if a person wished to give thanks and bless HaGomel over his friend and over his relative for whom he feels pain, he has permission to do so, as is explained in the Kuntres HaRe'ayos'. And the Rema brought it in the Darkei Moshe2.
But the Beis Yosef3 wrote: 'And from what Rabbeinu wrote that it is not considered a bracha in vain, that which they blessed even though they were not obligated in it, for they gave praise and thanksgiving to the Omnipresent for the good He provides them — one may learn regarding what some people practice, that when their wives give birth they stand and bless bircas HaGomel, that it is not a bracha in vain, for just as Rav Chana of Baghdad and the Rabbis, even though they were not obligated in this bracha, blessed it in order to give praise and thanksgiving to the Omnipresent for the good He provided them in that Rav Yehuda was saved, so too one whose wife gave birth, even though he is not obligated in bircas HaGomel, may bless it in order to give praise and thanksgiving to the Omnipresent for the good He provided him in that his wife was saved. But I found the Rashba4 who wrote: "And even though it is a query in the Yerushalmi5 whether to bless over the miracle of his teacher and they did not resolve it, it can be resolved from that of Rav Chana which is below in the Gemara" — it appears that his opinion is to say that Rav Chana of Baghdad and the Rabbis blessed over the recovery of Rav Yehuda only because he was their teacher; and so wrote Ha-Rav Manoach6. And according to their words one cannot learn from there for one who is not his teacher, even though he is as dear to him as himself, that he should bless over his recovery. And in any case I found that Ha-Rav Manoach wrote: "But others need not, and it stands to reason that if they have benefit in their rescue they bless"; and as to halacha, since according to all he is not obligated to bless, he should not bless, and if he blessed they rebuke him, for perhaps it is a bracha in vain'.
And the Bach7 wrote: 'And even though the Beis Yosef wrote in the name of the Rashba that the fact that Rav Chana of Baghdad and the Rabbis blessed over the recovery of Rav Yehuda was because he was their teacher — implying that if he is not his teacher he does not bless — this is where he has no benefit in his rescue, but his friend and his relative, and all the more so his father or his wife and his children, he should bless as over his teacher; so it appears to me as halacha in practice, and not like the Beis Yosef who wrote that he should not bless and if he blessed they rebuke him, for perhaps it is a bracha in vain; and this is not correct, but rather as I explained, that even according to the Rashba he should bless'.
And as halacha the Mechaber8 wrote: 'If another blessed and said "Baruch atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam asher gemalcha kol tov," and he answered amen, he has fulfilled his obligation. And likewise if he said "Brich Rachamana Malka d'alma di-yehavach lan," and he answered amen, he has fulfilled his obligation'.
And the Rema wrote in a hagah: 'And this is not a bracha in vain on the part of the one blessing, even though he was not obligated in this bracha, since he blesses only in the manner of praise and thanksgiving for the good of his fellow in which he rejoices'.
And regarding the words of the Mechaber who wrote "and if another blessed .. and he answered amen he has fulfilled his obligation," the Acharonim disagreed, for the Magen Avraham9 understood that the Mechaber retracted what he wrote in the Beis Yosef, and these are his words: 'It implies that he holds that anyone who rejoices in him may bless, and all the more so over his wife who gave birth; and so it appears in the Darkei Moshe and in the Shiltei Giborim, and so wrote the Bach, not like what he wrote in the Beis Yosef; and the other may bless even for less than ten'.
The Machatzis HaShekel10 explained: 'It implies that he holds etc., not like what is written in the Beis Yosef. And it appears to me that in the Shulchan Aruch he retracted from what he wrote in his composition, the Beis Yosef, that specifically a student may bless over his teacher, as we find so in the Gemara, but not another; and even a husband over his wife who has given birth, if he blesses they rebuke him — but in the Shulchan Aruch he wrote it unqualified and stated that if another blessed, implying even one who is not his student'.
On the other hand, the Eliyah Rabbah11 wrote that the Mechaber did not retract, and this is his language: 'But the Shulchan Aruch omitted it, and he follows his own reasoning, for he ruled in the Beis Yosef that if he blessed they rebuke him, lest it be a bracha in vain, unless over his father or his teacher, as the Rashba wrote .. And the Bach wrote that there is permission ab initio to bless over one's beloved ones or relatives just as over one's father and teacher, and all the more so one's wife and children, and the Rashba concedes to this, see there; and it is explained that one should bless with Shem u'Malchus according to his words. But in my humble opinion this is not implied from the Chiddushei HaRashba, Perek HaRoeh, and so is implied in the Taz, and so is explicitly explained in the Abudraham daf [shin-mem] that it is specifically over one's father or teacher and not over one's son, and all the more so other relatives; and so it is proven to me in [the responsum of] R. M. Mintz siman 14, see there. And further, that in the Sefer Toras HaAdam daf 15 he wrote that the bracha of refuah rests upon him himself and not upon his father and teacher, see there, and all the more so over others; therefore I say that one should not bless with Shem u'Malchus over others'.
However, regarding a husband's bracha over his wife, the Eliyah Rabbah12 wrote: 'It appears to me that it is better that the husband say to her ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם אשר גמלך וכו' and she answer Amen; and although I concluded above that his beloved ones and relatives should not bless, nevertheless in this case one may rely on the poskim who hold that one blesses, since one's wife is as his own body'.
And the Kaf HaChaim13 wrote: 'And therefore, since this bracha is not an obligation upon the other according to all opinions, as is written in the Beis Yosef, and we also hold that in a doubt of brochos we are lenient, another should not bless except specifically over his father or his teacher'.
The Alter Rebbe14 wrote: 'One who rejoices in his heart over the rescue of his fellow may recite this bracha in this form15 or in another form, such as בריך רחמנא אלהנא מלכא דעלמא דיהבך לן ולא יהבך לעפרא, and he need not bless in the presence of ten. But if he does not rejoice in his heart to give praise and thanks on account of his joy (but rather because the bracha is written and they have already established it and he knows it), this is a bracha in vain. And if he needs to bless in his presence for the sake of peace, he should bless without Shem u'Malchus. And even with the Name alone, such as בריך רחמנא, he should not say, for the prohibition of a bracha in vain is on account of mentioning Heaven's Name in vain, whether he mentions it in the Holy Tongue or in other languages; and therefore one must caution those who are accustomed on their tongue to say ברוך ה' in the German language even over something in which there is no joy of the heart'.
If so, from the strict letter of the law it is permitted to bless over the rescue of his fellow or a relative in whose rescue he rejoices, but this is not the practice in actuality16.
Notes:
1 Pesakim Maseches Berachos ch. 9 halacha 1 os 4, brought in the Shiltei Giborim 43a os 6 ↩
2 OC siman 219 os 1 ↩
3 OC siman 219, brought by the Taz s.k. 3 ↩
4 54a s.v. HaRoeh ↩
5 Berachos ch. 9 halacha 1 ↩
6 Hilchos Brochos ch. 10 halacha 9 ↩
7 OC siman 219 ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 219 se'if 4 ↩
9 siman 219 s.k. 4 ↩
10 And see what is written there s.k. 5 ↩
11 siman 219 s.k. 11 ↩
12 there s.k. 12 ↩
13 OC siman 219 s.k. 27. And so ruled in Chazon Ovadiah, Tu BiShvat p. 343 se'if 4 ↩
14 Seder Birchos HaNehenin ch. 13 se'if 4 ↩
15 And in the Luach ch. 12 halacha 10 he wrote: 'And he may say שגמלני כל טוב, since it is a benefit to him that his fellow was saved, on account of his love for him and his joy in him' ↩
16 And note also from the Aruch HaShulchan OC siman 219 se'if 9, who also brought the Bach and the Magen Avraham, but wrote that in practice the minhag is not that the husband blesses in place of the wife. (And see Shu"t Tzemach Yehudah vol. 5 siman 67) ↩
[8] (halacha 856)
In the following halachos we will deal with the obligation of women, minor boys and minor girls in Birkas HaGomel, and as an introduction to this we will discuss the wording of the bracha, which also has implications for this discussion.
Question: What is the wording of the bracha of Birkas HaGomel?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Berachos1 states: 'What does he bless? — Rav Yehudah said: ברוך גומל חסדים טובים'.
However, in the words of the Rishonim there are various versions in the wording of the bracha, for the Rokeach2 wrote like the version of the Gemara before us, but the Rif3 wrote: 'What does he bless? Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: ברוך גומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני כל טוב'.
The Rambam4 wrote like the version of the Rif with a small change, and likewise added the response of the listeners: 'He stands among them and blesses, ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם הגומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני כל טוב, and all the listeners say שגמלך טוב הוא יגמלך סלה'.
However, there are manuscripts of the Rambam in which the bracha is written with an additional change, with the omission of the word כל5: ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם הגומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני טוב. Without the word כל. And so it is in the Sefer HaMeoros of Rabbeinu Meir HaMe'ili6.
And there are those who combined the two versions, as is written in the Yalkut Shimoni7, and the Agudah8: 'What does he bless? Rav Yehudah said: גומל חסדים טובים לחייבים'.
And so wrote the Ravyah9, who added to this: 'What does he bless? Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: ברוך גומל חסדים טובים לחייבים שגמלני כל טוב'.
The Tur10 wrote like the version of the Rambam in the printed edition, with a change in the response of the listeners: 'What does he bless? הגומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני כל טוב, and the listeners say אשר גמלך כל טוב הוא יגמלך כל טוב סלה'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote: 'What does he bless? הגומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני כל טוב. Such is the version of the Rif and the Rambam and the Rosh11, even though the version in the Gemara in our books is ברוך גומל חסדים טובים, the version of these greats is the primary one'.
And so the Mechaber ruled as halacha12 like the version of the Rif and the Rambam: 'What does he bless: ברוך אתה ה' הגומל13 לחייבים טובות שגמלני כל טוב, and the listeners say: שגמלך כל טוב הוא יגמלך כל טוב סלה'.
And the Levush14 wrote like the version of the Ravyah: 'What does he bless? ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם הגומל חסדים טובים לחייבים שגמלני כל טוב15 .. the listeners say אשר גמלך טוב הוא יגמלך כל טוב סלה'.
The Alter Rebbe in the Luach Birchos HaNehenin16 mentioned the wording as it is in the Shulchan Aruch of the Mechaber, but in the Siddur he omitted the word כל17 and wrote like the version of the manuscripts of the Rambam, and the Ba'al HaMeoros: 'ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם הגומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני טוב' and they respond after him: 'מי שגמלך טוב הוא יגמלך כל טוב סלה'.
And Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach18 wrote: 'The wording of Birkas HaGomel before us — "שגמלני כל טוב" — is difficult, for he blesses over this miracle even though he does not yet have all good19, and it appears more correct like the version in the Siddur of "the Rav" (and so it is also in the Siddurim of Teiman), that the one blessing says "שגמלני טוב" and the responders say מי שגמלך טוב הוא יגמלך כל טוב סלה'20.
In the next halacha we will discuss the meaning of HaGomel לחייבים טובות.
Notes:
1 54b ↩
2 Hilchos Brochos siman 343 ↩
3 Berachos 43a ↩
4 Hilchos Brochos ch. 10 halacha 8 ↩
5 And as the Rebbe wrote (Likkutei Sichos vol. 33 p. 138 note 2): 'And so it is in the manuscript of the Rambam signed in his own holy handwriting (Rambam Sefer Ahavah - Yerushalayim 5744) and other manuscripts - see Rambam, Kapach edition'. And see also in the Rambam, Frankel edition, in the textual variants ↩
6 Berachos 54a ↩
7 Tehillim remez 866 ↩
8 Berachos ch. 9 siman 196. And see what is written in Shu"t Eisan HaEzrachi siman 3 ↩
9 Berachos siman 146 ↩
10 OC siman 219 ↩
11 Berachos ch. 9 siman 3 ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 219 se'if 2 ↩
13 And see the Biur HaGra there, that the Mechaber chose the version of the Rambam 'הגומל', and not the version of the Rif 'גומל' ↩
14 OC siman 219 se'if 2 ↩
15 And so wrote in Yosef Ometz, appendices, wordings and laws of brochos. And see what is written at length in Shu"t Eisan HaEzrachi there ↩
16 ch. 12 halacha 10 ↩
17 And see what Rav M.Sh. Ashkenazi wrote in Shaarei Tefillah U'Minhag vol. 1 siman 87 ↩
18 Halichos Shlomo, Tefillah, ch. 23 halacha 7 ↩
19 And in Devar Halacha os 7 he explained: 'For one who falls from the roof and is struck and injured is obligated in Birkas HaGomel, and how can he say over this שגמלני כל טוב; and all the more so one who travels abroad for the healing of a serious illness, how can he bless immediately upon his arrival שגמלני כל טוב; and even if he was completely saved, ultimately it would have been better had he not been at all in a state of danger, and how can he say over this "כל טוב" .. therefore the aforementioned wording is more correct, that he blesses "שגמלני טוב" over being saved for life, *and the congregation responds הוא יגמלך "כל טוב", that he should receive from Hashem all the good he needs, in the manner of responders who add upon the one who blesses'* ↩
20 And see in Orchos HaHalacha there note 23 that he himself began to practice thus after it became known to him that so it is in the wording of the Siddur of the Alter Rebbe ↩
[9] (halacha 857)
Question: What is the meaning of the words HaGomel¹ לחייבים?
Answer: a) The Perush HaTefillos of R. Yehudah bar Yakar1 wrote: 'Four are obligated to give thanks, ברוך הגומל לחייבים טובות, based on "I will sing to Hashem for He has dealt bountifully with me." For example, a sick person who recovered, for since Heaven remembered his sins he became ill, and if so how did he recover? Rather, certainly the Holy One, blessed be He, deals kindness with him .. and likewise the others who need to give thanks, their sins caused them at first; and travelers too — his sins caused him to travel in a place of danger .. And this is what we say in the bracha of HaTov VeHaMeitiv .. this is the bracha of HaGomel לחייבים טובות. That I know that I sinned through my iniquities and I was compelled to seek my livelihood even in a place of danger, and the Holy One, blessed be He, provided my livelihood for me even though I was not worthy of it. And I give thanks to Him that He deals good to the guilty'.
That is, the thanksgiving is that a person knows that he is the guilty one because of his iniquities, and even so the Holy One, blessed be He, performed a miracle for him; and so the Maharam Mintz2 explained [it will be brought below in the next halacha regarding the obligation of the bracha for minors].
And so wrote the Aruch HaShulchan3: 'And he only gives private thanks to Hashem for this matter and justifies the judgment upon himself in the bracha, that the sufferings that came upon him were on account of his sins and his rescue is a bestowing of good from Hashem, though to the guilty'.
And so wrote the Rebbe Rayatz4: 'This is not so in this bracha, in which he says HaGomel לחייבים טובות, which mentions a debt for himself, and he himself concedes that he is the guilty one in this, except that this is from the kindnesses of Havayah and the ways of Havayah, that He, may He be blessed, deals good even to the guilty'5.
b) However, the Beis Yosef6 explained in a different manner: 'And the explanation of the bracha ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם הגומל לחייבים etc., that is, even to those who are guilty, meaning that they are wicked — for the Targum7 renders רשע as חייבא — despite all this He deals them good, and I too am as one of them, that even though I am not fitting, He dealt me all good'8. And the Levush9 brought it.
The Rebbe10 writes: 'And the meaning of his explanation is that the term "חייבים" here is akin to "unworthy" to receive the kindnesses of Hashem, namely, that the one blessing acknowledges and praises the Holy One, blessed be He, for performing this kindness with him even though he is not worthy of it ("even though I am not fitting")'11.
Rabbi Avraham HaKohen Rapaport wrote12 in a letter he sent to his teacher, the author of the Prishah: 'One good doubled pearl that I heard .. from the mouth of a Yerushalmi Ashkenazi darshan called Mo' Uri Feivush z"l, who preached in public these forty-four years here in the holy community of Cracow when I was a bachur, and it seems he said the matter in the name of the one who said it, Moharar Moshe Alshkar or Moharar Moshe Cordovero z"l, who raised several questions in the perception of this matter of "four need to give thanks etc.", and most of them have been forgotten by me, and it seems to me that the greatest of them was in that he took the expression "לחייבים," whose meaning is "wicked" as per the Targum — he should have said "transgressors" or "sinners" and the like, for what has the Targum to do with a bracha in the Holy Tongue, or who mentioned "חייבים" or "wicked" here. Besides that in the very division the author of the statement appears to contradict the pesukim: regarding the first, in the first he takes travelers in general terms, and in the pasuk it is written specifically תעו במדבר בישימון דרך etc.; and also the third, one who fell ill and recovered, in general terms, and in the pasuk it is written ויגיעו עד שערי מות; also the fourth, one who was imprisoned in a dungeon, in general terms, and in the pasuk it is written specifically יושבי חשך וצלמות. And perhaps only over such extremes as those specified should they give thanks for the kindnesses of Hashem, not others. Also the expression "what does he bless" is somewhat to be sensed, for he should have said immediately the whole form of the bracha as it is. And the great darshan mentioned resolved all of them with one answer, besides also the perceptions which are not here. And this is: that he takes the expression "four need to give thanks" and not "are obligated to give thanks," in the manner of "and you shall do the good and the upright," or "so that you walk in the way of the good," for from the pasuk there is no obligation except for one who is in danger at the utmost extreme as stated, but so as not to be, Heaven forbid, ungrateful for the kindnesses of Hashem may His Name be blessed, and for His truth, they need to give thanks even etc.. And he concludes "what does he bless," for what appears like a "chamor gamal" — that if he is not obligated, what does he bless, a bracha in vain, and it needs [clarifying] what this accomplishes; and he answers that he blesses HaGomel chasadim tovim la'chayavim, meaning: I bless Hashem who deals good and kindnesses to the guilty from the aspect of the pasuk to bless and give thanks, that He dealt me all good — me too — even if I am not literally among the obligated in the pasuk; as if to say that the thread of mentioning Hashem's kindness in a bracha to the guilty in law should draw also upon me, that He dealt me all good .. And indeed the interpretation of the expression in the word "חייבים" with the addition of the expression "שגמלני כל טוב" appears to me a kaftor va'ferach'13].
If so, we have seen two interpretations in HaGomel לחייבים טובות: a) that the person acknowledges to Hashem that although he himself is guilty and therefore endangered, nevertheless the Holy One, blessed be He, saved him. b) that just as the Holy One, blessed be He, deals good to the guilty — the wicked — so He dealt me good although I am not worthy.
In the next halacha we will discuss the implication of this regarding the obligation of minors in Birkas HaGomel.
--------------
Notes:
1 Note from what the Rebbe wrote in Likkutei Sichos vol. 33 p. 140 note 15: 'And it may be said that this is also the precision of *"HaGomel* .. שגמלני" - based on the saying of our Sages of blessed memory (Berachos 56b) "One who sees a *camel* in a dream, death was decreed upon him from Heaven and *they saved him* from it" (and see Rashi and the Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha there, that the sign is on account of the *notarikon* of "gamal," which pertains also to the word "gomel")' ↩
2 Birchos Hodiah, HaGomel p. 53 ↩
3 Shu"t siman 4. And see Shu"t Avnei Nezer OC siman 39. And Shu"t Maharam Shick, Shu"t OC siman 88 ↩
4 OC siman 219 se'if 4 ↩
5 Maamar d"h Baruch HaGomel LaChayavim Tovos, Sefer HaMaamarim 5687 p. 211 ↩
6 And see in Likkutei Sichos there, that according to this interpretation the difference in the wording of the bracha between this bracha and the wording of the bracha over a miracle is resolved. And it is likewise explained there how this wording fits for tzaddikim who are not guilty - wicked, Heaven forbid (and see Nezirus Shimshon 219 se'if 1) ↩
7 OC siman 219 ↩
8 Bereishis 18:23 ↩
9 And see what the Prishah wrote, OC siman 219 os 3 ↩
10 OC siman 219 se'if 2 ↩
11 Likkutei Sichos there p. 139 ↩
12 And in note 7: 'And through this he magnifies His praise, may He be blessed, for in addition to the very matter that the Holy One, blessed be He, dealt good with him, He did this despite his not being worthy of the good' ↩
13 Shu"t Eisan HaEzrachi siman 3 ↩
14 And his teacher the Prishah wrote to him regarding the difference between the version of the Rambam and the Beis Yosef *who place the word "לחייבים" earlier* and the version of the Agudah *who place the word "חייבים" later*: 'And also the interpretation of the Beis Yosef is more precise for the versions "HaGomel la'chayavim tovim" than it is for the versions "HaGomel chasadim tovim la'chayavim," for according to this version he should have said "HaGomel chasadim even to the guilty," since we bless HaGomel chasadim tovim every day as above even if they are not guilty; this is not so for the versions "HaGomel la'chayavim," which is a different, refined version for a bracha of thanksgiving. And it is also fitting to place earlier and adjoin the essence to the bracha of ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם and to show that the intent of the one blessing is that He deals good to the guilty, and not to delay the essential matter in the thanksgiving and say "לחייבים" at the end of the bracha' ↩
[10] (halacha 858)
Question: Are a boy or a girl before the obligation of mitzvos obligated in the bracha? (1)
Answer: The Maharam Mintz1 wrote: 'The boy whom I am raising in my house, my wife's sister's son, was ill, may God spare us, such that he was near to dying from it, and Hashem dealt kindness with him and he rose from his illness; and the boy is twelve years old and very wise for his years, and has reached the age of chinuch and to complete a fast, and I am in doubt whether he needs to recite the bracha of "gomel chasadim" at the time he recited the bracha over the Sefer Torah when he wished to be maftir, or not .. and there are sides to here and to there, as I will explain somewhat. And apparently this bracha which the Sages instituted he cannot say, for he cannot say "gomel chasadim tovim la'chayavim," since he is not yet subject to obligation; or we could say that he is subject to obligation from the aspect of gilgul .. Either way: if these evil illnesses come upon the boy from the aspect of gilgul, then he blesses properly "gomel chasadim [la'chayavim]"; and if it is the beginning of his creation, then the boy is not subject to obligation, and then one must say that these illnesses come upon him for his father's sin, as we say "for the sin of vows children die," or for the sin of mezuzah and many similar cases stated there — nevertheless the son needs to bless that he did not die for his father's sin. And "gomel chasadim la'chayavim" means: even though his father is guilty, he did not die; and "chayavim" refers to the fathers .. But perhaps it may be said that from this "either way" the son cannot recite this bracha, for perhaps these illnesses come from the aspect of his father, and then the son cannot say "la'chayavim," for since with respect to himself he is not subject to obligation, it does not apply to say "la'chayavim" about his father, for no bracha was instituted that the son bless over the obligation of the father .. and further it appears that it is forbidden for the son to bless "chayavim," for if it refers to his father, then the son says of his father that he is subject to transgression; if so he disparages his father explicitly, and this is a prohibition with respect to him .. and so it stands to reason in my humble opinion, that the boy should not recite this bracha for the reason I have explained'.
The Magen Avraham2 brought the content of his words as halacha: 'A minor need not give thanks, for it does not apply to say "la'chayavim tovos" since he is not subject to punishment, and if he says of his father "la'chayavim" etc. this is forbidden for him to do; and if we say that he should skip the word "chayavim," one may not deviate from the form that the Sages coined3; and one cannot say that "chayavim" refers to him because from the aspect of gilgul sufferings come upon him, for how does he know — perhaps it is on his father's sin (Rabbeinu Moshe Mintz siman 14)'.
And the Pri Megadim4 wrote: 'Since the wording does not apply to him, presumably Chazal did not obligate him, for "chayavim" implies one who is subject to punishment, and a minor is not subject to punishment'5.
On the other hand, the Mahari Basan6 disagreed with the Mahari Mintz: 'And I am ignorant and do not know, for if so, even one between 13 and 20 years old would be exempt from blessing — for although he is liable in the laws of man, he is not liable in the laws of Heaven, as we say in Perek Rabbi Akiva "subtract twenty, for You do not punish over them"; and Rashi z"l explained that so we find in the generation of the wilderness that the Holy One, blessed be He, punished only from twenty years old and above, as it is written במדבר הזה פגריכם וגו' מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה אשר הלינותם עלי — it certainly implies that they are not punished at all, neither by way of Heaven's punishments nor by way of man's punishments .. And if so, if this ruling of the Maharam Mintz were correct, no person would bless HaGomel until after 20 years, for until that year he is not subject to obligation at all and cannot say "la'chayavim," for he is not liable to Heaven until after 20 .. And it appears to me that if the intent of the bracha of HaGomel la'chayavim is to the sense of the obligation of punishment, even so a minor may properly recite it, whether under 13 or under 20, for in any case they need to give thanks and may bless in the form that the Sages coined without any change, just as we conclude at the end of the first chapter of Chullin: Rabbi Zeira said, a Yom Tov that falls in the middle of the week, one says "between holy and profane, and between light and darkness, and between Yisrael and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of labor" — why? He is enumerating the order of havdalos .. But it appears to me more that the meaning of the word "la'chayavim" in this bracha is not the sense of obligation or punishment, for it is not proper to say so, as we learn explicitly in Perek Mi SheMeso daf 19 — "when the deceased is not lying before them, they sit and read and he sits silent; they stand and pray and he stands and justifies the judgment upon himself and says, Master of the worlds, I have sinned much before You and You have not exacted from me one of a thousand; may it be Your will, Hashem our God, that You repair our breaches" — Abaye said one should not say thus, for Reish Lakish said, and so it was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosi, a person should never open his mouth to the Satan; rather the primary interpretation is that "chayavim" is the sense of a debt, and the intent is that a person has many benefits from his Creator for the several debts he incurs with Him, and even so the Holy One, blessed be He, always deals him other benefits, as we say in the Midrash Koheles on the pasuk "what profit has a man in all his labor that he labors under the sun" — Reish Lakish said, what benefit have the creatures who are proficient in mitzvos and good deeds — it is enough for Me that I shine light upon them; this appears to me true and clear, and so we have seen the practice, that the minor blesses'.
The Yaavetz too7 disagreed with them: 'And a difference emerges between the versions [the Rif and Rambam versus the version of the Gemara before us], for according to the version in our Gemara even the young children recite it, whereas according to the version of the greats they do not bless, since minors are not "chayavim." And I found that the Magen Avraham wrote simply in the name of R. Mordechai Mintz that a minor need not give thanks, since it does not apply to say "la'chayavim tovos" for he is not subject to punishment. But to me it is not so entirely clear, for how is it different from all the brochos in which we educate them, even though they are not subject to obligation? Even so they are obligated by rabbinic law; so too in this. And they may properly say "chayavim" — either on account of their obligation from the perspective of chinuch, or because "chayavim" refers to the rest of the people of the world. And it is not necessary to interpret "chayavim" specifically about the one blessing for whom a miracle occurred, that even though he is among the guilty — for consider yourself: he could be a perfectly righteous man and even so blesses thus; and though "there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin," still, we say "a person should not open his mouth to the Satan" etc., and how would Chazal institute such an expression in the form of a bracha?
Rather, certainly the form of the bracha is thus, that they included within this thanksgiving, incidentally, to give thanks to Him, may He be blessed, for all the benefits He always does, whether for the worthy or the unworthy — that even to the guilty He does benefits .. And further, that the world is judged after its majority etc., and this is the reason that even the righteous confess "we have sinned," as is written in its place with God's help. And likewise the entire wording of the brochos was instituted in the plural for this reason, like Shehecheyanu — they did not institute to say "she'hecheyani ve'kiyemani," and one blesses over what applies to the majority (as they said regarding Birchos HaShachar); and if so, certainly a minor should recite it. And further, reason dictates that the minor is more obligated to bless and give thanks over his miracle, for the adult, even though he sinned, may have had merits corresponding to it that stood for him to be saved; this is not so for a minor, who has no merit in hand, for he has no reward of "one who is commanded and performs," even though certainly the Holy One, blessed be He, never withholds his reward, for He is entirely good — but to protect him from death and suffering .. certainly the power of his merits is not as effective as the power of the merit of an adult. And we also sometimes find punishment for minors, like Er and Onan, and in Perek Ein Dorshin and in the Zohar8. And further, even if minors have no obligation or sin from their own aspect, they are indeed punished for their fathers' sin, and are also seized for the sin of the generation, as we expound9 on the pasuk "go forth in the footsteps of the flock and pasture your kids," and all the more so according to what is written in the mystical Torah, from the secret of gilgul, which pertains also to minors .. From all of these it appears to me that one who directs a minor to recite HaGomel over his miracle is not to be reproached, and upon reaching chinuch it is fitting, in my opinion, to practice thus, after we have proven well that there is no compelling proof from the meaning of the bracha, and all the more so since the version in the Gemara agrees with this as stated. And there is no proof to the contrary; on the contrary, it appears to be a correct matter, as is apparent from our words, and this is clear'.
If so, we have seen that according to the opinion of the Maharam Mintz and the Magen Avraham a minor is exempt from Birkas HaGomel, and according to the opinion of the Mahari Basan and the Yaavetz a minor needs to bless; in the next halacha we will see how the poskim ruled in practice.
Notes:
1 Shu"t siman 14 ↩
2 OC siman 219 in the introduction ↩
3 And see Taz siman 219 s.k. 3. Eliyah Rabbah s.k. 11. Mishnah Berurah in Shaar HaTziyun s.k. 5 ↩
4 OC, Eshel Avraham, siman 219 in the introduction ↩
5 And see Shu"t Avnei Nezer, Chelek OC, siman 39 ↩
6 Shu"t Lachmei Todah siman 5 ↩
7 Mor U'Ketziah siman 219 ↩
8 vol. 2, 248b ↩
9 Shabbos 33b ↩
[11] (halacha 859)
Question: Do a boy or a girl before the obligation of mitzvos recite HaGomel? (2)
In the previous halacha we saw that according to the opinion of the Maharam Mintz and the Magen Avraham a minor is exempt from Birkas HaGomel, and according to the opinion of the Mahari Basan and the Yaavetz a minor needs to bless.
And in practice we have found among the poskim various minhogim in the conduct of a minor, as follows:
The Chida1 wrote that the minhag is that a minor blesses: 'A minor under 13 should not bless, Maharam Mintz siman 14. But the Rav Moharar Yeshaya Basan, in the responsum Lachmei Todah siman 5, disagreed with him and concluded that even a minor should bless, and set forth the form of the bracha. And so is the minhag in our regions, that a minor blesses'. And he repeated his words2: 'A father should not bless over his minor son (see the Birkei Yosef and Machzik Bracha). (b) A minor blesses Birkas HaGomel, and especially if he has reached chinuch, see the Birkei Yosef, and so the Mor U'Ketziah concurred'.
On the other hand, it appears that in the Ashkenazic communities it was not the practice for the youths to bless, as the Shaarei Teshuvah3 wrote: 'And in our country we practice like the Maharam Mintz and the Magen Avraham, and likewise the Eliyah Rabbah brought it unqualified, and so wrote the Shaarei Efraim, gate 4'.
In Eretz Yisrael too they practiced not to bless, as the Kaf HaChaim4 wrote: 'And so in our regions throughout the Land of the Deer we have neither heard nor seen that a minor blesses; and therefore in every place where there is no minhag one should not bless, since we hold safek brochos le'hakel'.
And there are those who wrote that the children should bless in a different form or without Shem u'Malchus, as the Eshel Avraham (Buczacz)5 wrote: 'My wife the Rebbetzin, may she live, asked why one does not bless HaGomel over the healing of children, and just now I have not studied it, and there was a side to have the father bless, since we hold that punishment is from the aspect of the father until 13 years. And it appears that it is because the impress of the yetzer tov has not yet been established, and it does not apply to say "la'chayavim tovos," for it is only through the yetzer tov, since "good" that was not created does not apply, as the Tosafos z"l wrote6. Also perhaps because sometimes it applies even to minors that "even in His holy ones He does not trust," as at the beginning of the first chapter of Chagigah7; through this it is a doubtful bracha, for perhaps the weight that was at the time of the illness was not at all from the aspect of the father but from the aspect of the category of "even in His holy ones" etc. — but according to this reason it would have been fitting to educate the minors to bless thus in public. And according to the first reason it is well why one is not accustomed to educate the minors in this, and nevertheless it is proper to educate them that they should at least say it by way of thought, or that they say in the form of "Rachmana," which is spelled out regarding Birkas HaGomel, and even if they say it with the holy Name there is no objection, just as minors bless "HaMaavir chevlei sheinah" etc., "HaGomel chasadim tovim" etc. — but there is no proof from there, for the Birchos HaShachar, we hold, were instituted for the world at large, which is not so for this bracha, which is a private one over himself'.
And the Ben Ish Chai8 wrote: 'A minor under 13 years, since he has reached chinuch, needs to bless; and although there are those who disagree, nevertheless in a place where there is a minhag to bless with Shem u'Malchus he blesses, and in a place where there is no known minhag he blesses without Shem u'Malchus on account of the view of those who disagree'.
And in practice it appears that Bnei Sefarad practice to bless9 but the minhag of the Ashkenazim10 is not to bless11.
And so is the minhag of Chabad, as the Alter Rebbe wrote12: 'A minor need not give thanks, even if he has reached the chinuch of the mitzvah'.
If so, in practice the minhag of Chabad is that minors below the age of the obligation of mitzvos do not recite Birkas HaGomel
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the law regarding a minor who came of age in the midst of the danger?
Answer: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Minchas Shlomo13 was in doubt regarding this: 'This is certainly as his honor wrote14, that the expression "chayavim" is not at all indispensable15; and nevertheless a minor does not bless HaGomel since he is not subject to punishment — if so, it cannot be said that on account of his sins this trouble came upon him, and for him it is a receiving of kindness over which one is obligated in Hallel but not the matter of thanksgiving, end of his words. But according to his words it appears, regarding a minor who went down to a ship together with his father to go up from abroad to Eretz Yisrael and came of age in the middle of the way, that even in such a case he may not be able to recite Birkas HaGomel, since the going down to the ship was when he was a minor; and also concerning his having been at sea, which is a place of danger, even after he came of age, it cannot be said that this is a punishment for his sins, for it is a merit for him that he went down to the ship when he was a minor. And in any event, regarding a minor who fell ill and recovered while he was a minor — for though he did not return to walking in full health until after he came of age, and it turns out that he became obligated to give thanks when he was an adult — even so he is exempt from blessing, although he is now an adult. And this requires further study in practice'.
And in Shu"t Be'er Sarim16, he distinguishes between travelers of the wilderness and those who go down to the sea — that if for one moment they were within this situation after having become bnei mitzvah they need to bless — and one who fell ill and recovered, who blesses only if at the beginning of the illness he was already subject to obligation.
--------------
Notes:
1 Birkei Yosef OC siman 219 s.k. 1 ↩
2 LeDavid Emes siman 23 os 10 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 219 s.k. 1 ↩
4 OC 219 s.k. 2 ↩
5 OC siman 219 ↩
6 Eruvin 13b s.v. Noach ↩
7 5a ↩
8 Shanah Alef, Eikev, se'if 4 ↩
9 See what Rav O. Yosef wrote in Chazon Ovadiah (Berachos p. 349), and Or LeTziyon (vol. 2 ch. 46 se'if 59) ↩
10 See Aruch HaShulchan OC siman 219 se'if 6. Mishnah Berurah OC siman 219 s.k. 3. However note that Rav Akiva Eiger in his glosses s.k. 1 brought the words of the Mahari Basan. And in the Gilyonei Pnei Menachem on OC siman 219 it is brought: 'And I remember when I was a minor, I was injured and thank God I was healed, and my honored father and teacher (the Imrei Emes) zt"l told me to recite Birkas HaGomel after my father's z"l aliyah, or after the aliyah of my brother-in-law Rabbi Shlomo Yoskovitz z"l, who blessed HaGomel then upon crossing the sea; and so I did, that I blessed after my brother-in-law's bracha, and they answered Amen after me' ↩
11 The Tzitz Eliezer wrote (Shu"t vol. 18 siman 22 os 2): 'In an incident that occurred with an orphan who is a minor bereaved of his father, whether he may recite HaGomel — for that which the poskim wrote that a minor should not bless is on account that he is not obligated from his own aspect, and if he says "la'chayavim" he impinges upon his father; and here his father is no longer among the living; and if we say that he impinges at least upon his mother, one may still ask, regarding an orphan of father and mother, whether a minor is punished for the sins of his parents who are not among the living, and again there would be an impinging upon his father and mother, or not — end. And I will answer it: that in my opinion one may say in this "no distinction," and one should rule as the Mishnah Berurah stated and concluded in s.k. 3 unqualifiedly, that a minor is not obligated to give thanks, even from the aspect of chinuch. And every minor is included. And all the more so, since it is also possible that sometimes the minor is punished for the sins of his parents who are not among the living, as it is written that He visits the iniquity of fathers upon sons etc. when they hold the deeds of their fathers in their hands ..' ↩
12 Seder Birchos HaNehenin ch. 13 halacha 3 ↩
13 Tinyana vol. 2 siman 60 os 31 ↩
14 Pri Tziyon siman 1 ↩
15 And so also wrote the Mishnah Berurah 219 s.k. 4 ↩
16 vol. 5 siman 2 ↩
[12] (halacha 860)
Question: Before whom must one give thanks?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Berachos1 states: 'Abaye said: and he must give thanks before ten, as it is written: וירוממוהו בקהל עם וגו'. Mar Zutra said: and two of them Rabbanan, as it is stated: ובמושב זקנים יהללוהו. Rav Ashi objected to this: but say all of them Rabbanan! Is it written "in an assembly of elders"? "In an assembly of the people" is written. And say: ten of the rest of the people, and two Rabbanan! It is a difficulty. Rav Yehudah fell ill and recovered; Rav Chana of Baghdad and the Rabbanan came in to him; they said to him: בריך רחמנא דיהבך ניהלן ולא יהבך לעפרא. He said to them: You have exempted me from giving thanks. But Abaye said: one must give thanks before ten! For there were ten of them there'2.
If so, according to Abaye this bracha is said before ten, and Mar Zutra added that within the ten there should be two Torah scholars, and the Gemara asked that perhaps there is a need also for ten and, in addition to them, two more Torah scholars.
And the Rishonim disagreed as to what the conclusion of the Gemara is in practice, as follows:
a) The Rif3 mentioned only the words of Abaye and Mar Zutra and did not bring the Gemara's question, and it appears from his words that he ruled as halacha that ten suffice, two of whom are Torah scholars. And so wrote the Rambam4: 'And they must give thanks before ten, and two of them scholars'. And so wrote the Semag5, and the Meiri6.
b) However, there are Rishonim in whose version the Rif did not bring the words of Mar Zutra, as the Ra'ah7 wrote: 'And our Rabbi z"l did not write this of Mar Zutra, apparently because in the Gemara we objected to it, "and say, in ten and two Rabbanan," and we concluded [in a difficulty]'.
And so it is in the Shitah Mekubetzes8: 'Mar Zutra said, and two of them Rabbanan. And it was established in a difficulty, and therefore Rabbeinu Alfasi z"l did not write it; hence one blesses even without this, and so it is in the Tosefta'.
That is, according to this understanding the words of Mar Zutra were rejected, and ten suffice, and there is no need at all for some of them to be Torah scholars.
And note that the Shitah Mekubetzes wrote that so is the view of the Tosafos9, and this accords with the language of the Tosafos before us: 'And they do it stringently, even if there are no two Rabbanan'10. However, on the other hand there are those who wrote that the Tosafos held like the third view below, [either because they had a different version in the Tosafos, or because they explained thus within the language of the Tosafos].
c) The Rosh11 wrote: 'And since it was not resolved for us, we do it stringently and require both, but Rav Alfas z"l did not write so'. And so wrote the Tur12 in the view of the Tosafos: 'And they wrote, since it was not resolved we do it stringently and require both'.
And the Beis Yosef explained there: 'And the Tosafos hold that we require ten, and additionally two Rabbanan, which makes twelve, since we objected to Rav Huna and concluded in a difficulty; and so it appears to be the view of [the Rosh]'13.
And the Eliyah Rabbah14 wrote that so is the view of the Rokeach15, who wrote: 'And one must give thanks before ten and two Torah scholars'.
If so, according to this view one must give thanks before ten and, in addition to them, two more Torah scholars, a total of twelve people.
And as halacha the Mechaber16 wrote: 'One must recite this bracha before ten, and two of them Rabbanan, as it is written: וירוממוהו בקהל עם ובמושב זקנים יהללוהו'.
The Sema, in a gloss on the words of the Mechaber, brought the aforementioned views, that 'there are those who say that two Rabbanan are needed besides the ten, which makes twelve'.
And the Eliyah Rabbah wrote: 'And ab initio one should be concerned for the words of the Tosafos and Tur, who wrote that stringently we require both, and to seek after two Rabbanan besides the ten, which is twelve, and so ruled the Rokeach'.
However, the Alter Rebbe17 wrote like the words of the Mechaber: 'And one must recite this bracha before ten, and two of them Torah scholars'.
If so, as halacha one should recite Birkas HaGomel before ten, when two of them are Torah scholars.
In the next halacha we will see whether the one blessing himself joins the ten, and what the law is when there are no Torah scholars or ten people.
--------------
Notes:
1 54b ↩
2 Regarding the reason why ten and two Torah scholars are needed, the Maharsha, Chiddushei Aggados, Berachos there explained: 'It is explained that the measure of 10 men is for every matter of holiness — for tefillah and for Birkas HaMazon, to bless "nevareich Elokeinu," and for Birkas Chasanim, for we find regarding them that they are called kahal and eidah. And also the matter of 3 men we find in Birkas HaMazon for zimmun, and therefore one needs to give thanks here too before 10 of the multitude of the people and a congregation, and of them 2 Rabbanan, choice individuals, as the measure of the zimmun with him that requires Rabbanan, as we say in Perek Sheloshah She'achlu (48a) that one does not make a zimmun over an am ha'aretz .. And according to what we wished to say, that one needs 10 of the rest of the people and 2 Rabbanan, the reason is as the measure of the eidah and kahal stated regarding the spies, who were originally one per tribe, and two of them were Rabbanan, Yehoshua and Kalev, and understand this well' ↩
3 Berachos 42b ↩
4 Hilchos Brochos ch. 10 halacha 8 ↩
5 Asin siman 27 ↩
6 The Beis Yosef OC siman 219 wrote to explain their reasoning: 'Since it is a matter of rabbinic law we adopt the lenient position, and so it is implied from what we say regarding the incident of Rav Yehudah who fell ill etc., "but Abaye said one must give thanks before ten," and we answer "for there were ten of them" — clearly, ten alone suffice'. And the Divrei Chamudos (Berachos ch. 9 siman 3 s.v. 13; and see there what he wondered about the Beis Yosef, and see in the Eliyah Rabbah siman 219 s.k. 5 what he wrote to resolve) wrote to explain: 'And therefore it appears to me that their reasoning who ruled not to require 12 is because, although we concluded in a difficulty, the body of the statement was not rejected — for the difficulty stated is not for rejection but rather to say there is a difficulty, yet nonetheless the ruling is a true ruling'. And see the words of Rav Akiva Eiger in note 10 ↩
7 Berachos there s.v. HaRoeh ↩
8 Berachos there ↩
9 Berachos 54b s.v. VeEima ↩
10 Rav Akiva Eiger, Berachos there, commented on the words of the Tosafos: 'And I do not know a place to explain the intent of the Tosafos, for what stringency is this, to bless without two Rabbanan — for in every doubt of brochos we go leniently and do not bless out of doubt, "lo sisa." And if the view of the Tosafos is that the expression of the Talmud "one must give thanks before ten" etc. means ab initio, but if he cannot find, he blesses even with fewer than ten — see the Tur and the Beis Yosef (siman 219) — if so, all the more so it is harder, since the entire discussion is whether one must ab initio take the trouble to find ten and two Rabbanan; if so, one should have ruled stringently that one must take the trouble for ten and two Rabbanan' ↩
11 Berachos ch. 9 siman 3 ↩
12 OC siman 219 ↩
13 And see the Biur HaGra, and the Mishnah Berurah, Biur Halacha s.v. VeSrei. (And see also what is written in the Shemen HaMaor) ↩
14 OC siman 219 s.k. 5 ↩
15 Hilchos Brochos siman 343 ↩
16 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 219 se'if 3 ↩
17 Seder Birchos HaNehenin ch. 13 se'if 2 ↩
[13] (halacha 861)
In the previous halacha we saw that Birkas HaGomel must be before ten people, of whom two must be Torah scholars.
Question: Does the one blessing himself count toward the quorum of ten, or does one need ten in addition to him?
Answer: The Shu"t Halachos Ketanos1 wrote: 'Question: This that one must give thanks before ten and two Rabbanan — does he count in the reckoning? Answer: What is the difference from grooms?'.
And his intent is that it is explained in the Gemara Kesubos1 regarding Birkas Chasanim, whose law is that it is said specifically among ten: 'Rav Nachman said in the name of Rav: grooms are from the count'. And so ruled the Mechaber2: 'One does not recite Birkas Chasanim except among ten adults and free men, and the groom is from the count'.
That is, the groom himself joins the ten, and likewise the one who recites Birkas HaGomel joins the ten.
Except that the Maharanach in his sefer HaNosein Imrei Shefer3 wrote: 'Because the thanksgiving must be before ten and two of them Rabbanan, as they explained in the Gemara afterward, and certainly those men must be other than those who give thanks and the beneficiaries of the miracle'. And Rav Akiva Eiger brought it in his glosses4.
And Rav Ch. Abulafia in Mikra'ei Kodesh5 wrote: 'And behold, the Maharanach wrote that from the language of Abaye "one must give thanks before ten" it is proven that there should be ten besides the beneficiaries of the miracle, end; and Mahar"b Barzilai would bless with the beneficiaries of the miracle and would say that "let the redeemed of Hashem say" was stated about those who went out of Egypt, and they were all beneficiaries of the miracle — and before whom did they give thanks? ..'.
If so, the Acharonim disagreed as to whether the one blessing himself joins the quorum of ten or whether one needs ten in addition to him, and this dispute was brought in the Yad Aharon6, and in the Ba'er Heitev7.
And as halacha the Alter Rebbe8 wrote: 'And the one blessing counts toward the quorum of ten'9.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the law when there are no two Torah scholars among the ten?
Answer: Tosafos Rabbeinu Yehudah10 wrote: 'And say, in ten and two Rabbanan — a difficulty; and since it was not resolved for us we do it stringently, and if there are none he blesses even if there are no two Rabbanan'.
And so wrote the Mordechai11: 'And yet [even] if there are no Rabbanan [nevertheless12] he blesses'.
And as halacha the Mechaber13 wrote: 'And if Rabbanan are not present, he should not refrain from blessing'.
And so ruled the Alter Rebbe14: 'And if Torah scholars are not present there, he should not refrain from blessing'.
Notes:
1 vol. 1 siman 271 ↩
2 8a ↩
3 Even HaEzer siman 62 se'if 4 ↩
4 Parashas Emor 115a ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 219 ↩
6 53b ↩
7 Hagahos HaTur OC siman 219 ↩
8 OC siman 219 s.k. 4 ↩
9 Seder Birchos HaNehenin ch. 13 se'if 2 ↩
10 The Mishnah Berurah (siman 219 s.k. 6) also ruled that the one blessing joins, and explained in the Shaar HaTziyun (s.k. 7): 'So wrote the Ba'er Heitev in the name of poskim; and although he wrote that the Maharanach disagrees [and some Acharonim followed him], nevertheless it appears that one may be lenient, and a support for the matter: for the entire law of ten we derive from "וירוממוהו בקהל עם," so, just as regarding Birkas Chasanim we also derive, according to one opinion, from "במקהלות ברכו ה'" [see Kesubos daf 7], and even so grooms are from the count — all the more so this bracha, which is lighter, for according to several poskim the number ten is not indispensable at all be'dieved, as below; and so it is somewhat implied from the unqualified words of the Mechaber, who wrote in this se'if "and they practiced to bless after the reading of the Torah because there are ten there," and did not distinguish between whether there are exactly ten there or not, and perforce we do not mind, so long as there are ten there' ↩
11 Brought in the Biur Halacha siman 219 s.v. VeSrei Minaihu. And see the Biur HaGra siman 219 os 5 ↩
12 Berachos remez 212 ↩
13 This version is brought in the Mordechai HaShalem, Yerushalayim edition, according to a manuscript, and they noted that according to this there is no need to add the word 'even' which was added in the printed editions ↩
14 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 219 se'if 3 ↩
15 Seder Birchos HaNehenin there ↩
[14] (halacha 862)
In halacha number 860 we learned that Birkas HaGomel must be before ten people.
Question: What is the law when there are no ten — does he bless nonetheless, and be'dieved does he fulfill his obligation?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Berachos1 relates: 'Rav Yehudah fell ill and recovered; Rav Chana of Baghdad and the Rabbanan came in to him; they said to him: בריך רחמנא דיהבך ניהלן ולא יהבך לעפרא. He said to them: You have exempted me from giving thanks. But Abaye said: one must give thanks before ten! For there were ten of them there. But he does not give thanks! It is not necessary, for he answers Amen after them'.
And Rabbeinu Yonah2 wrote: 'Rav Yehudah said to them, "you have exempted me from giving thanks." That is, with this bracha which you blessed and I heard it, I was exempted from reciting Birkas HaGomel. And the Talmud objects: how did he say that he was exempted by this, when Abaye said "and one must give thanks before ten"? And we answer that there were ten there, and he answered Amen, and therefore he was exempted by this. We learn from there that if there are ten there and they blessed this bracha and the sick person answered Amen, he need not recite another bracha; and if there are not ten there he must bless. And it appears that they may say it even without ten, even though the sick person is not exempted by it. From my teacher the Rav, may God protect and preserve him'.
It is implied from his words that even be'dieved one has not fulfilled his obligation if there were not ten.
The Meiri too3 wrote that one cannot bless without ten, and this is his language: 'Four need to give thanks in the presence of ten, and that two of them be Torah scholars or close to it .. except that if there are no Torah scholars there he blesses in a place where there are ten and that suffices, but whenever it is not before ten he does not bless'.
But the Ra'ah4 wrote5: 'However, the ten that we say is also not indispensable but rather a mitzvah ab initio; hence if he does not find ten he blesses without ten and without two Rabbanan; however, even though they are not indispensable, it is proper to wait until thirty days lest a mitzvah as its halacha be occasioned for him — from then on he need not wait'.
And the Tur6 wrote: 'And if he blessed even with fewer than ten, he need not repeat the bracha, for the expression "and one must give thanks before ten" implies only ab initio'.
However, the Beis Yosef disagreed with the Tur: 'This is our Rabbi's reasoning, which he deduces from the language of the Gemara, and the deduction does not appear correct in my eyes, for on the contrary, the expression "one must" implies that there is an indispensability in the matter; and so is the view of R. Yonah, as I will write shortly'.
But the Bach agreed with the Tur and wrote: 'But in my humble opinion the primary view is like our Rabbi, that one need not repeat the bracha at all'.
As halacha the Mechaber7 wrote: 'And if he blessed with fewer than ten, some say that he has fulfilled his obligation and some say that he has not fulfilled his obligation, and it is good to repeat it before ten without mentioning Shem u'Malchus'.
However, the Knesses HaGedolah8 wrote: 'It was not said that one must give thanks before ten except ab initio, but be'dieved even not before ten he has fulfilled his obligation, as is the view of our Rabbi the author of the Tur, even though the view of the Rav Yonah and our Rabbi the Beis Yosef z"l is not so'. And the Magen Avraham9 brought his words.
Except that the Machatzis HaShekel explained that the Magen Avraham's intent is not to rule like him, and this is his language: 'The Rav Beis Yosef in se'if 3 did not decide whether he has fulfilled his obligation if he blessed not before ten, and therefore he ruled that he should repeat [and bless] before ten without Shem u'Malchus .. rather, perforce one must say that the Knesses HaGedolah ruled like the opinion that one has fulfilled his obligation be'dieved if he blessed without ten, and the Magen Avraham, who brought it, brought it only to write upon it "and it is possible" etc., that these brochos are optional. Since in the lands of the Knesses HaGedolah one must say that they rule that one fulfills his obligation if he blessed without ten, and even so the practice of the women is not to bless, we infer from this that he holds that these brochos are optional ..'10.
The Alter Rebbe11 wrote like the words of the Mechaber: 'And if he blessed with fewer than ten, some say that he has fulfilled his obligation, and it is good to repeat it before ten without Shem u'Malchus'.
If so, ab initio one must be careful about ten, and be'dieved if he blessed with fewer than ten, he should repeat it before ten without Shem u'Malchus.
--------------
Notes:
1 54b ↩
2 Berachos 43a ↩
3 Berachos 54b ↩
4 Berachos there ↩
5 And so it is written in his name in Ohel Moed, Shaar HaBerachos, derech 3 nesiv 1: 'And the Ra'ah wrote that if he did not find ten he blesses without ten, but he must wait thirty days to perform the mitzvah as its halacha'. And so it is written in the Shitah Mekubetzes, Berachos there: 'However, wherever he does not have ten, it is possible that he should wait until thirty days lest a mitzvah be occasioned for him to perform as its halacha, *and from then on he blesses even individually. And this is clear'* ↩
6 OC siman 219 ↩
7 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 219 se'if 3 ↩
8 Hagahos Beis Yosef OC siman 219 ↩
9 OC siman 219 in the introduction ↩
10 The Mishnah Berurah, Biur Halacha siman 219 s.v. "VeYesh Omrim SheLo Yatza" wrote: 'See the Tur, who brought a proof from the fact that Abaye said it in the expression "one must," implying that it is only for a mitzvah in general; and in the Bahag it is implied that there is an obligation in this, see there. However, the Ra'ah's view in his Halachos is like the Tur, see there. And know that from the words of the Machatzis HaShekel at the beginning of the siman it is implied that, according to the latter opinion, if one blesses without ten it is a bracha in vain, for it was not instituted at all without ten; and if so, according to his words, since the Mechaber did not decide this dispute, consequently he is not permitted to bless without ten. But the view of Rav Akiva Eiger in his Chiddushim is that even according to the latter opinion it is not forbidden to bless without ten by way of praise and thanksgiving, for it is no worse than an ordinary person who blesses this bracha over his fellow even though he was not obligated at all, as is written in the gloss with God’s help, and all the more so he himself; except that if ten are later occasioned for him he must bless again by way of obligation according to the latter opinion. And indeed ab initio one should be careful not to bless without ten even by way of praise and thanksgiving, for if ten are later occasioned for him he will not be able to bless a second time by way of obligation, for perhaps we hold like the first opinion and he has already fulfilled his obligation, see there. [However, if he explicitly intended not to fulfill his obligation with the bracha, it is possible that according to all he may repeat the bracha, for even according to the one who holds that mitzvos do not require intent, this is only in an unspecified case, but not where he explicitly intended not to fulfill his obligation, and see]' ↩
11 Seder Birchos HaNehenin ch. 13 se'if 2 ↩
[15] (halacha 863)
Question: When is the practice to bless in actuality?
Answer: The Tosafos1 wrote: 'And the world was accustomed2 to bless after reading in the Torah'. And so wrote the Mordechai3: 'And the people were accustomed to bless after they read in the Torah'.
And the reason for the matter4 the Orchos Chaim5 wrote: 'And they must give thanks before ten or more, as it is stated וירוממוהו בקהל עם, and for this they were accustomed to give thanks after the reading of the Torah, since that too is among ten or more'.
And so wrote the Mechaber6: 'And they were accustomed to bless after the reading of the Torah, since there are ten there'. And so wrote the Alter Rebbe7: 'And they were accustomed to bless in the shul after the reading of the Torah, since there are ten there'.
However, we find additional reasons for this minhag, for the Ra'ah8 wrote: 'And they are accustomed to bless upon the reading of the Torah, and there is one who gives a reason because the reading of the Torah, we hold, stands in place of Rabbanan; or alternatively, because it is convenient for people to perform a mitzvah when they come to give thanks for their miracles'.
And so wrote the Nimukei Yosef9 in the name of the Tosafos: 'And the people were accustomed to bless after the reading of the Torah, and the Sefer Torah stands in place of Rabbanan'10.
An additional reason the Eliyah Rabbah11 wrote: 'I found in the Toras Chaim, Perek Chelek12, an additional reason: that when he says ברכו את ה' it is also like a thanksgiving, as it is written [in Mizmor LeTodah]13 הודו [לו] ברכו שמו; and regarding a woman who has given birth, the husband should have intent when he says ברכו that he is giving thanks on behalf of his wife, and she will answer Amen to his bracha, end'.
And the Chasam Sofer14 wrote: 'And it appears to me that he could have said yet another reason to wait until the reading of the Torah, because the aliyah to the Torah is in place of the offering of a korban, as the Magen Avraham wrote siman 28215 regarding the obligation of a woman who has given birth, that it is in place of the korban of a yoledes, even though they do not read before her the parashah of the yoledes; and so too here the aliyah to the Torah is in place of the korban todah, and there is fulfilled ויזבחו זבחי תודה, and adjacent to it ויספרו מעשיו ברנה, namely Birkas HaGomel. And the reason he did not write this reason is for two aspects: one, since this is not from the essence of the law but only for hiddur mitzvah, and "the zealous advance early" overrides this — which is not so regarding the gathering of ten, which is from the essence of the law, as above; and further, according to what is written above, it is well for these three who require a korban todah, but this is not so for those who go down to the sea, who do not require a korban todah, for whom there was no reason to wait until the reading of the Torah; therefore they give the reason on account of the gathering of ten, which applies to all four who need to give thanks; this appears to me correct with God's help'.
The Eshel Avraham (Buczacz)16 wrote: 'They are accustomed to bless HaGomel after the brochos of the holy Torah recited after it in public. And it appears that this is on account of what Chazal said, that one must bless the brochos of the holy Torah first. And although saving a life takes precedence over the study of the holy Torah, nevertheless even at the time of his illness it was incumbent upon him to study the holy Torah, as Chazal said that even at the time of a person's passing it is incumbent upon him to study; and also an illness in which it is impossible to study then on account of the lack of cleanliness of his place or his garments and the like, or when his dwelling is in a place that is not clean, or an illness from which there was, Heaven forbid, a confusion of the mind and study does not apply at all — nevertheless the rescue is not adjacent to the bracha, and from the rescue until the bracha it was incumbent upon him to study; and all the more so, since for the most part the rescue or the recovery is gradual, and it applies to study even in the midst of it; and most sick people can at any rate study "turn from evil," to be careful not to speak or contemplate holy matters in a place that is not clean — though for contemplation there is no obligation of the brochos of the holy Torah, nevertheless "turn from evil" in thought is also included in the category of study of the holy Torah, and the bracha is over Hashem having sanctified us and given us the mitzvos of the holy Torah. And through this it is proper to precede the brochos of the holy Torah in public — after he has blessed individually over the holy Torah — before the bracha of thanksgiving, to show the priority of the bracha of the holy Torah and its superiority to all the brochos'.
★ ★ ★
Question: Is there significance to the one blessing having an aliyah to the Torah?
Answer: The Knesses HaGedolah17 wrote, and the Chida18 brought it: 'Our minhag is to go up to the Sefer Torah and give thanks after the reading of the Sefer Torah, if he wishes to go up to read in the Torah. And if he does not wish to, he blesses during the carrying of the Sefer Torah to the bimah or upon its return to the ark. And the Rashbatz was asked in a responsum whether one may bless HaGomel over an invalid Sefer Torah, and he answered that even on a day when there is no Sefer Torah he may bless among ten, and all the more so that he may bless HaGomel over an invalid Sefer Torah'.
Now, seemingly this matter depends on the reasons for the minhag to recite the bracha during the reading of the Torah that were explained above, for if the reason is only so that there be ten, then there is no need to be called up to the Torah; however, according to the reasons of the Eliyah Rabbah, the Chasam Sofer, and the Eshel Avraham there is a point in being called up to the Torah, and according to the reason of the Ra'ah it is at least fitting to perform hagbahah or gelilah19 in order to fulfill a mitzvah when coming to give thanks.
The Rebbe, in the sichah of Yud Shevat 572320 mentioned: 'that in general the order is that the one reciting Birkas HaGomel is first called up to the Torah, and after the bracha of the Torah at the conclusion of the reading he recites Birkas HaGomel'.
Therefore, in practice, the minhag of the Jewish people is to endeavor to recite Birkas HaGomel at the time of the reading of the Torah, and there is a point as well in being called up to the Torah, [or at least to perform hagbahah or gelilah], and to recite the bracha.
--------------
הערות:
1 ברכות נד, ב ד"ה ואימא ↩
2 וראה שו"ת חת"ס או"ח סי' נא. שו"ת תשובה מאהבה ח"ג סי' תמט ↩
3 ברכות רמז ריב ↩
4 ביאור נוסף מבואר בערוך השלחן וציץ אליעזר יובא בהלכה העוסקת בעמידה בשעת הברכה ↩
5 דין מה שמוסיפין בשני ובחמישי אחר י"ח אות כה. ובכלבו סי' כ ↩
6 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ג ↩
7 סדר ברכת הנהנין פי"ג ה"ב ↩
8 ברכות פרק הרואה ד"ה מאי מברך ↩
9 ברכות נד ב ↩
10 בהערות המו"ל כתב שכוונתו שהס"ת מהווה כתחליף כשאין תרי רבנן ↩
11 או"ח סי' ריט סק"ה ↩
12 סנהדרין צד, א ↩
13 תהלים ק, ד ↩
14 שם ↩
15 סקי"ח ↩
16 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
17 הגב"י יוסף או"ח סי' ריט א ↩
18 לדוד אמת סי' כג אות ב ↩
19 ראה ילקוט יוסף (ביקור חולים ואבלות הערות סי' לח אות י): 'ועוד שגם לטעם השני שהביא הרא"ה, י"ל לכאורה דסגי במצות הגבהה, כדי שיברך אחר זה מיד ברכת הגומל, ויקיים בזה 'שהעם חפצים בקיום מצוה לפני שבאים להודות' ↩
20 תו"מ חל"ו ע' 134. וראה גם יומן ד' אלול תשט"ז, וביומן (וואלף) י"ט אלול תשכ"ד ↩
[טז] (הלכה 864)
In the previous halacha we saw that there is a point in being called up to the Torah and afterward reciting Birkas HaGomel.
Question: When is the time for the bracha of the last person called up, such as the third aliyah in the reading of Monday and Thursday, or the seventh on Shabbos?
Answer: The Eshel Avraham (Butchatch)1 wrote: 'And as for the one who recites the bracha last at the holy Torah, near the Kaddish, it seems that people are accustomed to precede HaGomel to the brochos of the holy Torah. And it appears that this is because it is more fitting to say the Kaddish adjacent to the reading of the holy Torah. And although the brochos that come after the reading of the holy Torah interrupt between the Kaddish and the verses, and the Kaddish relates only to the verses, nevertheless Birkas HaGomel, a bracha of an individual, interrupts more, and it is more fitting to say "yisgadal … shmei …" adjacent to the wording of "the Giver of the Torah," for this influence we need to be magnified all the more for the entire people of the Children of Israel. Nevertheless, when there is no known minhag, it is perhaps more correct to precede the brochos of the holy Torah and to say HaGomel adjacent to the Kaddish, for all the influences of Hashem are well distinguished.'
Therefore, it seems they were accustomed to precede Birkas HaGomel before the brochos of the aliyah to the Torah, but in a place where there is no minhag, it is correct to say Birkas HaGomel after the brochos at the conclusion of the aliyah, before the recitation of the Kaddish2.
However, in Shu"t Yerech Yaakov (Arguayti)3 he discussed this at length and wrote: 'In my humble opinion there is a concern of an interruption in the matter if he says it before the Kaddish, for behold the Kaddish was instituted upon the reading of the Torah, and if he interrupts with another matter, such as this that he recited Birkas HaGomel first, it will appear that the Kaddish relates to the bracha that he recited and not to the reading of the Torah .. and from this that other matters, such as our case where he recited Birkas HaGomel and the like, even though it was instituted to say it after the reading of the Torah, that is specifically if his aliyah is in the middle of those called up, that he should say it immediately after the bracha of the Torah, but if he was called up last — he recites the bracha specifically after the Kaddish, for if not so it is an interruption .. and therefore an eye that sees well all this, who has heard such a thing, who has seen the like, to enter into doubt and to recite it before the Kaddish, a bracha that is not of the matter of the reading, in a matter where there is no strictness if he recites it after the Kaddish.'
That is to say, according to his words Birkas HaGomel must be after the recitation of the Kaddish so that there not be an interruption between the recitation of the Kaddish and the reading of the Torah, and we already saw in the previous halacha that the main reason for the minhag to recite the bracha at the time of the reading of the Torah is so that there be ten, and consequently even when reciting it after the Kaddish, this accords with the minhag, and as is also explained in the Knesses HaGedolah cited there.
And so too the Rebbe4 ruled in practice: 'One who recites Birkas HaGomel after the reading that is adjacent to the recitation of the Kaddish should wait with his bracha until after the recitation of the Chatzi Kaddish, and then recite the bracha'. And in the note it is explained: 'In order to make the recitation of the Kaddish adjacent to the reading as much as possible (see Shaarei Efraim Shaar Yud Se'if Tes5)'6.
★ ★ ★
Question: When is the time for Birkas HaGomel for one who is called up for Maftir?
Answer: The Rebbe7 at the farbrengen of Yud Shevat 5723 recounted: 'When my revered father-in-law the Rebbe returned after his imprisonment from his place of exile, Kostroma, to Leningrad (Petersburg), he recited Birkas HaGomel .. since the order was that the Rebbe was called up to the Torah for Maftir, they seated several rabbanim to examine the halacha as to when the Rebbe should recite Birkas HaGomel: in general the order is that the one reciting Birkas HaGomel is first called up to the Torah, and after the bracha of the Torah at the conclusion of the reading he recites Birkas HaGomel; but since the Rebbe was called up for Maftir, and immediately after the aliyah to the Torah one must say the Haftarah and its brochos, and the brochos of the Haftarah relate to the brochos of the Torah, that they are counted together to a certain number etc. .. there were three views: (a) to recite Birkas HaGomel before the first bracha of the Torah, (b) to recite Birkas HaGomel after Maftir, (c) to recite Birkas HaGomel between the bracha of the Torah that follows and the bracha of Maftir'. However, the Rebbe concluded that he does not remember how the Rebbe Rayatz acted in practice.
And indeed several of the poskim discussed this question. The Gaon Rabbi Chaim Palag'i in Ruach Chaim8 wrote: 'If the Maftir needs to recite Birkas HaGomel, it appears more correct after the bracha of the Torah that follows it than to say it after the brochos of the Haftarah, for behold the Sefer Torah is still open before him, and not after they have rolled the Sefer Torah and removed it from the bimah. Furthermore, that immediately when he says "mekadesh haShabbos," for "the people fled," and when he is beforehand, "and let them exalt Him in the congregation of the people" with a multitude of people, and what interruption is there in this bracha. And in any case there are places where they call up a chasan, which is a great interruption'.
And the Yerech Yaakov cited his words (regarding the previous question concerning a bracha before the Kaddish) and wrote: 'It appears that there is no comparison at all, for the Rav already came with the reason that the Sefer Torah etc., and also that if he recites the bracha afterward "for the people fled" etc., see there — which is not so in our case where the Sefer Torah lies before him and also they are not fleeing, for the Mussaf prayer is before him, and we have not seen and not heard as a matter of law that the people should flee, and it is simple that when you examine it well from there there is a proof and support for what we are engaged in, and it is from our own that he wrote "and what interruption etc." You see that he entered into this out of a concern of an interruption and wrote that it is not an interruption and one recites the bracha before the Haftarah .. but in any event his ruling is a true ruling to recite the bracha before the Haftarah'.
On the other hand, in Noveh Shalom (Chazan)9 he wrote: 'If the Maftir needs to recite Birkas HaGomel, the great Rav our kinsman our master the Chavif z"l wrote in the sefer Ruach Chaim OC siman 144 that he should recite it after his reading in the Torah before the Haftarah, see there, but such is not our minhag, rather he recites it after the brochos of the Haftarah'. And so too wrote the Yalkut Yosef10.
Therefore we saw that they disagreed regarding the time of reciting HaGomel for one called up for Maftir; however, in practice it appears that in places where in any case they interrupt for the recitation of the Mi Sheberach and the like, he should recite Birkas HaGomel as well — as the Gaon Rabbi Chaim Palag'i wrote — immediately after he recites the brochos of the Torah, before the brochos of the Haftarah.
הערות:
1 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
2 וראה ג"כ בשו"ת שבט הקהתי ח"ג סי' עא ↩
3 סי' מ ↩
4 ספר המנהגים ע' 14 ↩
5 שכתב שאת המי שברך לעולה האחרון אומרים רק אחרי אמירת הקדיש ↩
6 ולהעיר שבאהלך באמיתך פכ"ג סכ"א כתב ג"כ שהעולה אחרון, נכון שלא יברך הגומל עד אחרי שאמרו את הקדיש אחר קריה"ת, כדי לא להפסיק בין קריה"ת לקדיש שאחרי', אלא שלמעשה לא ראה שנוהגין כך. ובהערה צג כתב: 'כן ראיתי בהנהגות חב"ד. ואם כי דברי טעם הם, לא ראיתי עדיין למישהו נוהג כן' ↩
7 תו"מ חל"ו ע' 134 ↩
8 סי' קמד ↩
9 אות לו ↩
10 נט"י וברכות סי' ריט דין יא וביאר בהערה: 'דכיון שאין זה לעיכובא לברך הגומל אחר הקריאה בתורה, למה להפסיק בין קריה"ת להפטרה לצורך ברכה זו, שכל קריה"ת משום שמצויים שם עשרה. ומה שטען בספר רוח חיים הנ"ל, שמיד אחר שחותם ברכות ההפטרה 'מקדש השבת' ברח העם, הוא תמוה, שהרי צריכים להתפלל מוסף, ובאמת שכ"כ בנוה שלום חזן, ושכן המנהג לברך אחר ברכות ההפטרה, שלא להפסיק בין קריה"ת להפטרה בברכה זו. ע"ש. וכן עיקר' ↩
[יז] (הלכה 865)
Question: Must one recite HaGomel while standing?
Answer: The Rambam1 wrote: 'And they must give thanks before ten, and two of them scholars, as it is said2 "וירוממוהו בקהל עם ובמושב זקנים יהללוהו" ("and let them exalt Him in the congregation of the people, and praise Him in the seat of the elders"), and how does one give thanks and how does one recite the bracha — he stands among them and recites the bracha'.
And Rabbi Avraham his son added3 in the name of his father that the congregation who answer must sit: 'Concerning Birkas HaGomel, and I say in the name of my master my father z"l that it is fitting that the listeners sit and the one reciting the bracha stands, since the verse said "ובמושב זקנים" etc., and in practical halacha we seat the students when we recite this bracha, as he z"l held and did'.
Maran the Mechaber in the Kesef Mishneh noted on the words of the Rambam that the one reciting the bracha must stand: 'And that which he wrote "he stands among them." It requires study whence he derived it'4. And in the Shulchan Aruch he did not bring this halacha.
However, the Bach5 wrote: 'And the Kesef Mishneh wrote "it requires study whence he derived it," and for that reason they omitted it in the Shulchan Aruch, and he did not write that "he stands among them," following our master who did not write it. However, the minhag of all Israel is to recite the bracha standing, and one should not change, and so implies the wording of the verse "וירוממוהו בקהל עם ובמושב זקנים יהללוהו," for since it said "ובמושב זקנים יהללוהו" it is evident that the elders are seated, from which it follows that those praising are not seated but standing'.
The Magen Avraham6 cited the words of the Rambam and wrote: 'It is good to say it standing (Rambam)'.
The Eliyah Rabbah wrote7: 'And the Bach wrote that he learned it from the wording of the verse "ובמושב זקנים יהללוהו," it is evident that the elders are seated, from which it follows that those praising are standing — thus far — and it is forced. And in my humble opinion it emerged for the Rambam from the fact that the verse calls it a term of hallel, which is similar to Hallel, for we hold below in siman 4228 that Hallel is standing, as it is written9 "הללו כל עבדי ה' העומדים" ("praise, all you servants of Hashem, who stand"), and so is the minhag and one should not change'.
The Chida10 noted on the Eliyah Rabbah: 'And I do not know how he wrote of the words of the Rav Bach that they are forced, and turned to his own way, that he strains and comes from afar. Furthermore, that if the Rambam derived it from here as he held, he made the secondary primary, and the Rambam should have written in the laws of Hallel that its mitzvah is standing, and we do not find this except in the words of the Rav Shibolei HaLeket as explained in the Beis Yosef below. And also that which he wrote "as it is written הללו כל עבדי ה' העומדים," this is by the way of his flow. And see what I wrote earlier in siman 42211. And the words of the Rav Bach are the words of the Rambam himself, for from that which is written "ובמושב" it emerges for him that the one reciting the bracha stands and they are seated, as Rabbi Avraham his son wrote in the name of his father the Rambam z"l, and I brought it earlier b"d'.
And in his sefer Birkei Yosef12, he cited the words of Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam, and so too wrote the Ben Ish Chai13: 'The ten sit, as it is written "ובמושב זקנים יהללוהו," and the one reciting the bracha stands, because this bracha is in place of the korban todah, and the one who offers stands14 and offers'15. However, the Acharonim did not mention that the ones answering must sit.
And there are those who wrote in the intent of the Rambam that this halacha is only a mitzvah min hamuvchar, and as the Mesharet Moshe (Attia)16 wrote: 'And in my humble opinion it appears to say that that which our master wrote "he stands" is not specific, to exclude a seated one that it would not suffice and that an obligation rests upon him thereby, but rather it comes to say that the mitzvah min hamuvchar is thereby, and it taught us proper conduct, that such is the measure, a good measure and abundant, to be standing and praising Hashem for having bestowed upon him all good, but it was not stated as indispensable, for indeed if he gave thanks while seated we have nothing against it, and therefore he did not write "he is obligated to stand" in a wording of obligation .. And now I have seen the Rav Eliyah Rabbah z"l .. and in my humble opinion this too does not compel, for regarding Hallel itself, were it not that "העומדים" were written in it, it would not be implied from the word "הללו" alone that it requires standing. And if you say that we derive it by a gezeirah shavah, then we would derive for all the many verses in which a term of hallel is mentioned that one is obligated to say them standing. So that in my humble opinion we have only the words of Maran z"l who did not write in the Shulchan Aruch that it requires standing at all, and he follows his own reasoning, for he raised a difficulty on our master here, that it requires study whence he derived it, and all the more so in my humble opinion that our master z"l too did not state it specifically and as indispensable. And it is possible that Maran too held this afterward, along the lines of what he ruled in his pure table, plainly, and did not mention standing at all, neither in whole nor in part, and this is preferable, so that we not say that Maran ruled unlike our master'.
And there are those who wrote that the words of the Rambam are the reason for the minhag to recite the bracha at the time of the reading of the Torah, and as the Aruch HaShulchan17 wrote: 'And the Rambam in chapter 10 wrote that one recites the bracha standing, and it appears to me his reason is that since he recites the bracha before ten, and wherever there are ten the Shechinah dwells, it is not proper conduct to sit18 and for this reason it appears that they were accustomed to recite this bracha after being called up to the Torah, for then certainly there are among the ten some who study, and it is standing'19.
Therefore, in practice, even though the Shulchan Aruch did not mention that one must say HaGomel standing, in practice the minhag is that they recite Birkas HaGomel beside a Sefer Torah while standing20.
--------------
הערות:
1 הל' ברכות פ"י ה"ח ↩
2 תהלים קז, לב ↩
3 חי' מהרמב"ם כת"י שנדפסו בתחילת המעשה רוקח ↩
4 במעשה רקח כתב: 'אפשר דנ"ל מלישנא דקרא וירוממוהו בקהל עם וכו' דמשמע בתוכם כדי שיתעלה יותר שמו ב"ה ומרן הצריכו עיון ונראה כמ"ש'. ובבן ידיד העיר על דבריו: 'והרב מעשה רוקח נראה שהבין בכונת מרן דהכי קא בעי מנ"ל שיהיה ביניהם ולא בצד אחר וכתב דאפשר דנפקא ליה מדכתיב וירוממוהו בקהל עם וכו' דמשמע בתוכם אלו דבריו יעו"ש. ולענ"ד מלת עומד דמשמע מעומד הוא דהצריך עיון מנ"ל ומלת ביניהם אין בה שום דקדוק דה"ק דכולם יושבים כדרכם והוא עומד על רגליו ביניהם שהם יושבים והוא עומד על רגליו וק"ל' ↩
5 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
6 סי' ריט סק"ב ↩
7 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ג ↩
8 ס"ז ↩
9 תהלים קלה, ב ↩
10 שיו"ב ס"ק ג ↩
11 אות ו ↩
12 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ו ↩
13 ש"א עקב ס"ג ↩
14 להעיר שאדמו"ר הזקן בשו"ע סי' א סי"ד (וראה ג"כ סי' מח ס"א) כתב: 'צריך לומר פרשת הקרבנות מעמד, וכן מזמור לתודה, דוגמת הקרבתן שהיתה מעומד'. אך במהדו"ב סי' ס"ט חזר בו וכתב: 'אבל אי"צ לומר מעמד כמו הכהן שהי' עובד מעומד, מאחר שהוא איננו הכהן העובד, אלא שבקריאתו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו הקריב לו הכהן'. וראה לקו"ש חי"ב עמ' 28 הע' 52 ↩
15 ולהעיר שהב"ח, והחיד"א (עפ"י רבי אברהם בן הרמב"ם) למדו את ב' הפרטים (עמידת המברך וישיבת העונים) מאותו פסוק, משא"כ הבא"ח כתב שהדין שהמברך צריך לעמוד, זהו כדין הכהן המקריב ↩
16 הל' ברכות פ"י ה"ח ↩
17 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ו ↩
18 וראה שו"ת חת"ס חאו"ח סי' נא: 'אבל תמי' נשגבה בעיני איך נעלם מהגאונים דברי רמב"ם עצמו בהל' מגלה [פ"ב ה"ז] דתנן פ' הקורא המגלה עומד ויושב [כ"א ע"א] והוסיף רמב"ם אבל לא יקרא יושב בציבור לכתחלה מפני כבוד הציבור ופסקו טור וש"ע רס"י תר"צ וע"ש ט"ז .. מ"מ ס"ל לרמב"ם כל שצריך ציבור בעי עמידה לכתחלה מפני כבוד הציבור, ולא דמי למזמן בעשרה נברך אלקינו בהסיבה וישיבה התם עיקור מצוה כך הוא אבל זולת זה כל שהוא בי עשרה צריך עמידה ואין כאן זכר לקרבן תודה' ↩
19 וראה ציץ אליעזר שו"ת חי"ג סי' יט ↩
20 כתב הפמ"ג בא"א סי' ריט ס"ק ב: 'ומ"מ דיעבד יצא אף ביושב' ↩
[יח] (הלכה 866)
Question: Are women obligated in Birkas HaGomel? (1)
Answer: The Mahari"i Chagiz wrote in Shu"t Halachos Ketanos1: 'Question. If a woman recites HaGomel? Answer. According to the one who holds that ten and two of them scholars is indispensable, it is possible that a woman is not obligated, for "כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה" ("all the honor of a king's daughter is within"). And it is possible that she recites Shehecheyanu like in that case2 of "בריך רחמנא דיהבך לן" ("blessed be the Merciful One who gave you to us"), for if for the acquisition of a new vessel one says it3, then for a novelty and the acquisition of the body itself all the more so, and furthermore a kal vachomer from one who sees his fellow4; but rather, to give thanks for the praise of the Omnipresent one recites the bracha publicly, and to acknowledge the deficiency of one's deed and that the Holy One bestowed upon him not by his righteousness — they instituted this bracha, but if there are not ten there, who exempted her from praising her Creator with Birkas Shehecheyanu'.
Therefore, according to the opinion of the Mahar"i Chagiz women are exempt from Birkas HaGomel, since the bracha must be before ten and it is not fitting that a woman recite the bracha before ten because of modesty, and "כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה" ("all the honor of a king's daughter is within").
However, his contemporary Maran the Chavif in the Knesses HaGedolah5 was puzzled by this reasoning: 'I am puzzled by the custom of the world that they were accustomed that women do not recite Birkas HaGomel. And it appears to me that it is a mistaken minhag, for since this is a bracha of thanksgiving, who exempted women from this bracha. And if because one must give thanks before ten and two of them scholars, and it is not the honor of a woman to stand before the men, for "כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה" — this claim is not sufficient to exempt her from a bracha in which she was obligated. And furthermore, for behold it is possible for a woman to stand in the women's synagogue and recite Birkas HaGomel and the men will hear in their synagogue. And furthermore, that it was not said that one must give thanks before ten except lechatchilah, but bedieved even not before ten one has fulfilled, as is the opinion of our master the Baal HaTurim, even though this is not the opinion of the Rav Yonah and our master the Beis Yosef z"l, and regarding a woman who cannot recite the bracha before the men, lechatchilah she should recite the bracha not before ten. And therefore it appears that it is fitting that a woman recite Birkas HaGomel before ten, or at least before one man or women, and if she recited the bracha by herself alone she has fulfilled. And it seems to me that I heard from some of the Ashkenazi scholars that in Ashkenaz a woman recites HaGomel like a man, and so it is correct to do'.
Therefore, according to the opinion of the Knesses HaGedolah the reasoning of lack of modesty is not a reason to say that a woman is exempt from the bracha, and especially since there are additional ways in which a woman can recite the bracha in a modest manner.
And indeed we find in the poskim several additional ways to reconcile the minhag that women do not recite the bracha, as follows:
a) The Mag"a6 wrote: 'And it is possible that their custom is because they hold that these brochos are optional'.
However, the Pri Megadim7 noted on his words: 'And that which he wrote that women hold it is optional, I do not know who says it is optional, for even the Raavad said only that it does not require Shem and Malchus, but certainly one must give thanks'.
b) The Eliyah Rabbah8 wrote: 'And in my humble opinion the reason for the minhag is like with a minor, and as is found in the Zohar Parshas Emor and in the Shas in several places9 that the primary punishment of a woman is through the sin of her husband, like a minor'.
And the Pri Megadim10 wrote to note on his words: 'Further there, "for those obligated" does not apply to a woman like a minor, for the primary punishment of a woman is on account of her husband, see there. This too requires study, for she has her own punishments as well'.
c) There are those who reasoned the reason that a woman who has given birth does not recite the bracha on account that the woman after birth is not tehorah, and as was written in Vayaan Avraham11: 'And I wished to say that in order that she be desirable to recite the bracha and pure from the source of her blood, several days pass, and this itself is designated for a woman who fell ill, who does not recite Birkas HaGomel, for in most cases she has stirred her source, since it has been pushed off it is pushed off, and a minority in old age were not particular to say it, since the majority are accustomed not to recite the bracha, and this is understandable for the one who holds up to three or five'.
And so too was written in Shu"t Vayitzbor Yosef12 (Schwartz): 'And it occurred to me to say a reason in the matter that women do not recite the bracha .. for behold the obligation of the bracha is to give thanks immediately when they emerge from the danger, and in any case within three days as is explained in the Shulchan Aruch there se'if 6 (and see the Baer Heitev there sk. 9, and the At"z), and it is known that women are not permitted to recite the bracha at all times because of their tumah at the time of their niddah, and it is said "והיה מחניך קדוש" ("and your camp shall be holy") .. and since they cannot recite the bracha properly immediately, therefore they are no longer obligated, understand. And by my life, that after it arose in my thought to answer thus, I saw in the sefer Toras Chaim (Sofer)13 that he wrote so too, and I rejoiced that I did not err in my reasoning'14.
d) And in Hisorerus Teshuvah15 he wrote an additional reasoning regarding a woman who has given birth: 'It requires study whether she should recite the bracha, since it is a danger in the manner of most of the world and all are saved from it, and a proof — even though it is permitted to desecrate on her behalf, nevertheless a change is required16 for this reason, that it is in the nature of the world'.
In halacha the Alter Rebbe17 wrote: 'But women and slaves are obligated in this bracha, and therefore every woman who has given birth, when she rises from her illness, should recite the bracha in the women's synagogue and ten men from inside should hear'.
Therefore we saw that the poskim disagreed as to whether women are obligated in Birkas HaGomel, and we saw several ways in the Acharonim to reconcile the minhag not to recite the bracha. In the next halacha we will see how the minhag is in halacha and in practice.
--------------
הערות:
1 ח"ב סי' קסא ↩
2 ברכות נד, ב ↩
3 כמבואר באו"ח סי' רכג ↩
4 או"ח סי' רכה ↩
5 הגב"י או"ח סי' ריט אות ג ↩
6 או"ח סי' ריט בהקדמה ↩
7 א"א או"ח סי' ריט בהקדמה ↩
8 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק יב ↩
9 שבת לב, ב ↩
10 או"ח משב"ז סי' ריט ס"ק ג ↩
11 שו"ת סי' יז ↩
12 סי' מא ↩
13 או"ח סי' ריט בהקדמה לסימן ↩
14 אמנם דין זה נחלקו בו הפוסקים כמבואר בשו"ע (ואדמו"ר הזקן) או"ח סי' פח, אך ראה שם *שהעיקר למעשה שנשים מחוייבות גם בזמן טומאתן בכל התפלות והברכות* (וראה שו"ת יחו"ד ח"ג סי' ח) ↩
15 ח"א סי' נט ↩
16 שבת קכח, א. טושו"ע (ואדמו"ר הזקן) או"ח סי' של ס"א ↩
17 סדר ברכת הנהנין פי"ג ה"ג ↩
[יט] (הלכה 869)
In halacha number 866 we saw that the poskim disagreed as to whether women are obligated in Birkas HaGomel, or whether they are exempt. (2)
Question: How is the practice in actuality?
Answer: The Toras Chaim1 wrote: 'And for this reason too it appears the reason that they are accustomed that one whose wife has given birth for him, when she stands after her birth and goes to the synagogue, then her husband reads in the Torah, and in some places the gabbai is obligated to call him up, because the woman must give thanks for her miracle in that she gave birth safely, and the minhag is to give thanks at the time that he reads in the Torah, to publicize the matter, and also when he says "ברכו את ה' המבורך" etc. it is likewise like a thanksgiving, for a bracha and a thanksgiving are as one, and this minhag has support in Mizmor LeTodah, where it is written "הודו לו ברכו שמו" and since a woman does not read in the Torah, therefore her husband gives thanks in her stead, and accordingly the husband must have intent for this when he says "ברכו את ה' המבורך," that he gives a bracha and thanksgiving to Hashem on behalf of his wife, for a bracha of thanksgiving, if another recited the bracha on behalf of his fellow, he has fulfilled, and all the more so with a husband and wife who are as one body, and all the more so when the wife says amen upon his bracha, for the woman is exempt from giving thanks'2.
The Eliyah Rabbah3 cited the Toras Chaim, but afterward in the continuation of the siman4 wrote: 'It appears to me that it is better that the husband say to her "ברוך אתה ה' אמ"ה אשר גמלך" etc. and she answer amen, and although I established above that his loved ones and relatives should not recite the bracha, nevertheless in this one may rely on the poskim who recite the bracha, for his wife is like his own body'.
And the Pri Megadim5 wrote: 'And regarding a woman who has given birth, the A"r os 5 [= from the Toras Chaim] wrote that the husband should have intent in the bracha of the Torah when he says "ברכו את ה' המבורך" to fulfill on behalf of his wife, and she answers amen, as it is written "הודו לה' ברכו שמו," and in os 12 he wrote [= from the Knesses HaGedolah] that she recites the bracha herself by herself alone, and this, one may say, would be a possible bracha in vain6, but the third way, that the husband say "שגמלך" and she answer amen, there is no concern'.
Therefore, according to the approach of the Eliyah Rabbah and the Pri Megadim the correct way is that the husband recite the bracha and the wife answer amen.
But in the previous halacha we saw that the Alter Rebbe7 wrote that the woman should recite the bracha herself from the women's section: 'in the women's synagogue and ten men from inside should hear'.
And so too wrote the Chida8: 'Women are obligated in Birkas HaGomel, and she should recite the bracha in the women's synagogue and the men should hear from the synagogue, or at least before women and one man. Knesses HaGedolah. And so agreed the Rav the Chasid Maharar Yaakov Molcho in a responsum, manuscript, siman 141'.
And the Ben Ish Chai9 wrote: 'Women are obligated in Birkas HaGomel and they should recite the bracha before ten in order to recite the bracha with Shem and Malchus, and if it is difficult for her to recite the bracha before ten because of embarrassment she should recite it without Shem and Malchus, and if she does not know, her husband or another should teach her, for it is a short bracha'.
And so they were accustomed in practice in the Sephardic communities10 who are particular that there be a minyan11, and the woman recites the bracha from the women's section and the like.
And the minhag of Yerushalayim is that a minyan gathers in the woman's home, and she recites the bracha, as the Gaon Rabbi Chaim Naeh12 wrote: 'And the custom of the world is that women who have given birth recite the bracha, and they make a minyan in the home of the one who gave birth for the Maariv prayer and Birkas HaGomel (and see the Sedei Chemed Ma'areches Brochos siman 2 that even at night they may recite the bracha)'.
And so too wrote the Grash"z Auerbach13 [regarding one who has given birth, and not in other obligations]: 'The minhag in Yerushalayim the holy city is that the one who gave birth recites Birkas HaGomel when the relatives gather in her home. But for other obligations women do not recite the bracha, and likewise her husband should not recite the bracha on her behalf'. And in the note he explained that birth is different from the other reasons since she is obligated in a korban.
On the other hand, we find poskim (mainly Ashkenazim) who wrote that the minhag in practice in many communities is that women do not recite the bracha, and as the Aruch HaShulchan14 wrote: 'And women were accustomed not to recite the bracha, and there is no reason in this, and only because the minhag is to recite the bracha at the time of the reading of the Torah, therefore they imagine that women are not obligated in this bracha, and therefore it is correct that they recite the bracha, and perhaps because it is written "בקהל עם" and women are not called a congregation, and to recite the bracha before men is not proper conduct, and therefore they refrained from this [and see the Mag"a]'.
And so too wrote the Mishnah Berurah15: 'And also women, it is the custom of the world that they do not recite this bracha, and the Acharonim wrote the reason because the order of this bracha is before ten as below, and it is not proper conduct for a woman. And there are those who wrote that nevertheless it is correct that she recite the bracha before ten, at least before women and one man'.
Therefore we saw that there are different minhogim in different communities as to whether the woman recites the bracha or not, and there are those who were accustomed that the woman hear the bracha of the Torah of the husband who is called up to the Torah, and he has intent to fulfill on her behalf, and she fulfills her obligation by answering amen.
And regarding the minhag of Chabad there are various reports16, and in practice the conduct spread in Chabad that women do not recite the bracha17.
--------------
הערות:
1 סנהדרין צד, א ↩
2 על האפשרות שבעל יפטור את אשתו ראה הלכה מספר 855 שנחלקו בדין זה. וראה גם שו"ת נשמת חיים (אבולעפיא) חאו"ח סי' ב ↩
3 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ה ↩
4 ס"ק יב ↩
5 או"ח משב"ז סי' ריט ס"ק ג ↩
6 וראה לקמן בבן איש חי, ומ"ש הרבי לקמן הערה 11 ↩
7 סדר ברכות הנהנין פי"ג ה"ג ↩
8 ברכ"י או"ח ריט ס"ק ב ↩
9 ש"א עקב ס"ה ↩
10 וראה שו"ת יחו"ד ח"ד סי' טו ↩
11 ראה גם מכתבו של הרבי (אג"ק ח"כ ע' קב): 'ברכת הגומל בנשים .. *ולהעיר ממנהג הכי תמוה דספרדים בלונדון שמברכת בפ"ע* (הובא בס' כתר ש"ט להרב גאגין (ע' תקפב))' ↩
12 קצות השלחן סי' סה בדה"ש אות ו. והרבי במכתב שם מציין אליו ↩
13 הליכות שלמה פכ"ד ס"ד ודבר הלכה ג ↩
14 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ו ↩
15 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ג ↩
16 ראה התקשרות גליון תרפג. סידור אדמו"ר הזקן (רסקין) ח"א ע' שפג עיוני הסידור 1027 ↩
17 וראה גם בספר הרב אשכנזי ח"א ע' 288: *'הרב גרליק שאל את הרבי האם יולדת מברכת הגומל, ונענה כי לא ראה שנוהגים כך'* ↩
[כ] (הלכה 870)
Question: Must one answer amen after Birkas HaGomel?
Answer: The Orchos Chaim1 wrote: 'And if he needed to give thanks he recites the bracha "בא"י אמ"ה הגומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני כרחמיו וכרוב חסדיו" and the chazzan and all the listeners answer amen. And afterward he says "צור שגמלך כל טוב הוא יגמלך חן וחסד סלה אמן"'.
And in the sefer Al HaKol2 it is written: 'And the world was accustomed to recite a bracha of thanksgiving after they read in the Torah, "בא"י אמ"ה הגואל לחייבים טובות," and the Ra"m once stood in his yeshiva and recited "בא"י אמ"ה הגומל לחייבים" and commanded the students to answer amen, for it is true that one must answer amen'.
However, the Mechaber3 wrote: 'And the listeners say "מי שגמלך כל טוב הוא יגמלך כל טוב סלה"'. And he did not mention answering amen, and the Sma"e in his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch wrote: 'And the listeners answer amen before they say "מי שגמלך"'. And so too wrote the Eliyah Rabbah4: 'He further wrote, one who needs to give thanks, the chazzan and the whole congregation answer after him amen, "מי שגמלך כל טוב" etc.''.
And in the intent of the Mechaber one may say5 that he relied on what he wrote in siman 215 se'if 2: 'One who hears one of Israel recite one of all the brochos, even though he did not hear all of it from beginning to end, even though he is not obligated in that bracha he is obligated to answer amen after him'.
The Shaarei Efraim6 too wrote that one must answer amen, and in the Pischei Shearim7 he wrote: 'In the Shulchan Aruch and in all the poskim it is not mentioned that the listeners say amen, and it appears that they hold that what they say "מי שגמלך" etc. takes the place of answering amen8, but in the Eliyah Rabbah he cited in the name of the Mahar"m Mintz, one who needs to give thanks, the chazzan answers amen and the whole congregation after him amen, "מי שגמלך כל טוב" etc. .. and it appears that he holds that this amen, which is a praise and laud to the Holy One for the recompense that He recompensed with this one, is not related to what they say "מי שגמלך," for this is only a bracha to the man reciting the bracha, and therefore he must say amen first upon the bracha of the one reciting the bracha to the Holy One'.
And in a similar vein wrote the Hisorerus Teshuvah9: 'And that which the world is not accustomed to say amen after Birkas HaGomel but only answer "מי שגמלך," it can be reconciled, for the intent of amen is "it is true, the matter that the Holy One recompensed those obligated with good is true, His words," and He will bestow further kindnesses and good, and since they answer "מי שגמלך כל טוב הוא יגמלך כל טוב סלה," with this they affirm the matter that the Holy One bestowed upon him all good and request that He so bestow further all good in the future, and they said with their mouths the intent of amen and fulfill their obligation with this, but lechatchilah certainly it appears to me that they should answer amen'.
In the sefer Alei Tamar10 he wrote: 'I saw in the name of the Gaon Rabbi Zalman Tiktin z"l Av Beis Din of Breslau who wrote, it seems to me that they were not accustomed to answer amen after the one reciting Birkas HaGomel but only answer immediately "מי שיגמלך טוב" etc., and it is possible that the reason is so that it not be implied that the congregation answers amen also upon what he said "הגומל לחייבים," for behold he is obligated in their eyes, thus far'.
In the siddur of the Alter Rebbe in the first printings, answering amen after Birkas HaGomel did not appear, and it was added afterward in later printings.
And the Rebbe wrote in a letter11 to the Grach Naeh: 'By the way, behold I have long protested and protest now too against a most strange minhag, that in Birkas HaGomel those present do not answer amen upon the bracha itself but reply "מי שגמלך" etc. And it is astonishing that the minhag spread thus, and I have likewise seen several times in the synagogues in which I prayed there that they do not answer amen'.
And accordingly the Grach Naeh raised the matter of answering amen12: 'One of the great ones of the generation aroused me to publicize what he saw, that the public does not answer amen after Birkas HaGomel but only "מי שגמלך טוב" etc., and it is a mitzvah to publicize that they are obligated to answer amen first upon the bracha and afterward to say "מי שגמלך." And similar to what they already noted in the seforim to answer amen after "מחיה המתים" and after "המחזיר שכינתו לציון," that there are those who begin Kedushah and Modim and forget to answer amen. And it should be publicized that there are such people who do not answer amen after Birkas HaGomel, and only reply to him "מי שגמלך טוב," and this is an error'13.
And in the Sefer HaMinhagim14 it is written: 'After Birkas HaGomel, before answering "מי שגמלך" etc., one must answer amen'.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the law in the event that the listeners answered amen and did not say "מי שגמלך טוב" etc.?
Answer: The Magen Avraham15 wrote: 'And if they did not say it, it is not indispensable'. And the Machatzis HaShekel explained: 'For in the version of our Gemara16 it is not that the listeners reply, but rather the Rambam17 wrote it and the Tur copied it, and therefore even though lechatchilah we are concerned for the opinion of the Rambam and the Tur, nevertheless bedieved we rely on our version'.
--------------
הערות:
1 ח"א דין מה שמוסיפין בשני ובחמישי אחר י"ח אות כד ↩
2 לאחד מרבותינו הראשונים סי' כא. (אמנם הוא לא הזכיר את עניית מי שגמלך) ↩
3 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ב ↩
4 סי' קמא ס"ק ו ↩
5 וראה אהלך באמיתך (שטרן) פכ"ג הערה מה, והביא שעד"ז כתב בפירוש שער החדש על בעל העיטור הל' מילה ש"ג ח"ד אות כ לבאר מדוע לא הוזכר לגבי ברית שהשומעים עונים אמן ↩
6 שער ד ס"ל ↩
7 אות כד ↩
8 אך צ"ע שהרי בגמרא לא נזכרה אמירת השומעים וא"כ פשיטא שמדינא דגמרא חובה לענות, אמן, וכיצד בכוחו של מנהג עניית הציבור 'מי שגמלך' יחליף דין ברור. וראה גם אהלך באמיתך שם - שהרי גם בברית לא הוזכרה עניית אמן, ושם לא שייך סברא זו. וא"כ ברור שסמכו על חובת עניית האמן, ורק שהוסיפו שיש לומר גם את התוספת של כשם שנכנס/מי שגמלך ↩
9 שו"ת ח"א סי' נט ↩
10 ירושלמי שבת פ"ב ה"ו ↩
11 אג"ק ח"ד ד ע' רס ↩
12 הובא בקצוה"ש הערות למעשה ע' ע ↩
13 וראה ג"כ ילקוט יוסף נט"י וברכות סי' ריט ס"ד שכתב: 'יש להזהיר את הקהל שיענו אמן אחר ברכת הגומל קודם שיענו 'צור אשר גמלך כל טוב סלה'. והמברך עונה אחר הקהל 'אמן כן יהי רצון'. ובהערה ד כתב: 'ושמעתי ממרן אאמו"ר שליט"א, שיש לענות אמן אחר ברכת הגומל, ואין לסמוך על מה שאמרו בפיהם כוונת אמן, אלא בעינן אמירת אמן בדוקא' ↩
14 ע' 14 ↩
15 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ב. והביאו המשנ"ב ס"ק ה ↩
16 ברכות נד, ה - וכמבואר בהלכה מספר 856 ↩
17 הל' ברכות פ"י ה"ח ↩
[כא] (הלכה 871)
Question: Until when may one recite the bracha?
Answer: Rabbeinu Asher Nabib1 wrote: 'I received from my master the Rav, may he live, that up to three days he has time to recite Birkas HaGomel; from then on it becomes for him "מעוות לא יוכל לתקון" ("that which is crooked cannot be made straight"). And he brought a proof from that which we say in Eruvin, Perek HaDar Im HaNochrim, one who comes from a journey should not pray because he is confused. This is evident that up to three days he is called one who has come from a journey. And he said [to me] that his master the Rashba said to him that he received from the Mahar"r Yonah z"l that up to five days he may recite the bracha'. And in the abridgment of the sefer in Terumas HaPardes he wrote: 'And he may give thanks within three days that he came from a journey'.
But the Ra'ah2 wrote: 'However, the ten that we say is also not indispensable but a mitzvah lechatchilah, so that if he did not find ten he recites the bracha without ten and without two scholars, however, even though they are not indispensable, it is fitting to wait up to thirty, lest a mitzvah in its proper manner come his way; from then on he need not wait'. And from his words it appears that one may recite the bracha even after 30 days3.
And so ruled the Tur4: 'And if he delayed reciting the bracha he has recompense to recite the bracha whenever he wishes'. And it was explained in the Chidushei Hagahos Mahar"lch5: 'Since the Gemara did not give a time for this bracha it implies that he recites the bracha whenever he wishes'.
And so too wrote the Tzeidah LaDerech6: 'And it is fitting for a person to say it within three days, and if he did not say it he should say it even after several days, because this bracha was instituted corresponding to a todah, and a todah one may bring whenever he wishes'.
The Beis Yosef7 cited the words of the aforementioned Rishonim: 'If he delayed reciting the bracha he has recompense to recite the bracha whenever he wishes. This is the reasoning of our master, but in the Orchos Chaim it is written in the name of the Ramban that up to three days they recite the bracha, and I found8 written that the reason is from that which we say in Eruvin9 one who comes from a journey should not pray until three days, it appears that up to three days he is called one who has come from a journey, and further I found written10 that the Rashba received from the Mahar"r Yonah that up to five days he may recite the bracha'.
Therefore we find three approaches in the words of the Rishonim as to when is the end of the time for Birkas HaGomel: 1) up to 3 days. 2) up to five days. 3) there is no time limit.
And in halacha the Mechaber11 wrote: 'If he delayed, he has recompense to recite the bracha whenever he wishes12, 13 and it is correct not to delay beyond three days'. And so ruled the Chida14.
And the Knesses HaGedolah15 wrote: 'And I am accustomed, when I come from a journey on Monday and there is no Sefer Torah until Thursday, and three days have already passed, to give thanks before ten within the three days, and not to wait until Thursday when three days have already passed'.
However, in the Ateres Zekenim16 [in the first printing17] it is written like the words of the Rashba in the name of Rabbeinu Yonah: 'And it is correct not to etc. for up to 5 days he recites the bracha'. And so too wrote the Baer Heitev18 in his name: 'And bedieved up to 5 days he recites the bracha, see Ateres Zekenim'.
But in the later printings19 they changed his wording and wrote three days, and accordingly the Eshel Avraham (Butchatch)20 was puzzled by the Baer Heitev: 'Behold in the Ateres Zekenim no hint of this is mentioned, and his words have no root whatsoever, and one may recite the bracha even after several weeks'.
And likewise the Sedei Chemed21 was puzzled, and wrote: 'And so I instruct and it comes about in this city to people who return from the fair, and sometimes they come on Sunday and there is no aliyah to the Sefer Torah until Shabbos, for this is their honor, and there are those who do not come to the synagogue on weekdays, and on Shabbos when they are called up to the Sefer Torah I tell them to recite HaGomel (even though it was possible for them not to delay and they could have recited the bracha even without an aliyah to the Torah; in any case, since they do not recite the bracha beforehand they may recite it upon their being called up to the Sefer Torah even though it is after 5 days)'.
And in practice the Alter Rebbe22 wrote like the words of the Mechaber and the Knesses HaGedolah: 'And if he delayed reciting the bracha he has recompense whenever he wishes, and it is correct not to delay beyond 3 days23; therefore if he emerged from the danger on Monday after the reading of the Torah he should recite the bracha before ten without a Sefer Torah and not wait until Thursday'.
Therefore, lechatchilah one should recite the bracha within three days [even if because of this he will need to recite the bracha not beside a Sefer Torah]; however, in the event that he was delayed and did not recite the bracha he may recite it afterward as well, whenever he wishes.
--------------
הערות:
1 פרדס שער הראיה ↩
2 ברכות דף נד, ב וראה הלכה מספר 862 והערה5 ↩
3 ראה שד"ח אסיפת דינים מערכת ברכות סי' ב אות יג בסופו ↩
4 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
5 אות ה ↩
6 מאמר א כלל א פ"ב ↩
7 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
8 לכאורה כוונתו לספר הפרדס הנ"ל ↩
9 סה, א ↩
10 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ו ↩
11 ולהעיר ממ"ש ערוה"ש או"ח סי' ריט ס"ז: *'ונ"ל דאם הפליג זמן רב עד שנשכח העניין אין לו לברך עוד ואבד הברכה'*. וראה מ"ש בפסקי תשובות הערות סימן ריט הערה 95 לבאר דבריו. אך מפשטות לשון השו"ע, ומשתיקת כל הפוסקים משמע שיכול לברך תמיד אפילו אחרי זמן מרובה, ובפרט עפ"י מ"ש הצידה לדרך שזה כקרבן תודה, וא"כ ליתא הגבלת זמן. [ויל"ע במקרה שבירך הגומל על דבר אחר (אלא שלא זכר בשעת הברכה את הנס הנוסף שקרה לו) שיתכן שכבר לא יכול לברך, כיון שנוסח הברכה הוא כללי] ↩
12 וראה מ"ש האחרונים (שו"ת שו"ת שואל ונשאל ח"ה או"ח סי' כו. שו"ת יחו"ד ח"ג סי' יד, שו"ת יבי"א ח"ג או"ח סי' טז) לדון בדעת המחבר ומדוע לא אומרים סב"ל כנגדו ↩
13 לדוד אמת סי' כג אות ג. וראה ג"כ כף החיים או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק לח ↩
14 הגב"י או"ח סי' ריט אות א ↩
15 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק א ↩
16 שנדפס בעיר 'דיהרנפורט' שנת תס"ב ↩
17 שם ס"ק ט ↩
18 מהדפוס שנדפס בעיר 'אמ"ד' שנת ת"פ ↩
19 סי' ריט ↩
20 אסיפת דינים מערכת ברכות סי' ב אות יג ↩
21 סדר ברכת הנהנין פי"ג ס"ה ↩
22 וראה לקו"ש חכ"ח ע' 149 הערה 9 ↩
[כב] (הלכה 872)
Question: What is the law when one sails on a ship in our times, when ships are safer than the ships that existed in the past?
Answer: In halacha no. 849 we saw that the poskim disagreed regarding travelers of the wilderness in our times who travel in safe transportation such as a train and the like, and in practice one should not recite HaGomel according to the minhag of the Ashkenazim [who do not recite the bracha for travel from city to city] since it is not considered that he entered a place of danger.
However, even according to this approach there are those who wrote to distinguish regarding seafarers, that although one sails on a ship that is safer than in the past, nevertheless he recites the bracha, and as the Igros Moshe1 wrote: 'A reason that even on the ship voyages of our times we too recite the bracha, even though compared to the ships of the time of the Gemara and even the time of the Shulchan Aruch they have been improved regarding danger very greatly, that only on rare occasions does a sinking of a ship occur, and perhaps it is less than ordinary journeys in their times which had a presumption of danger, is because since the ship in which he sits is considered that he was saved through it from the danger that he is in the water, so that it turns out that even in our ships he is considered saved from the danger, and behold it is in essence appropriate to recite the bracha, only if it were certain without any doubt that in a ship they are saved from the water he would be exempt, because it would not be appropriate to consider that a kindness was done for him by Hashem in this voyage, but since even in these ships of our times it is not a clear rescue, even though only on rare occasions does a sinking occur that does not save, it is considered in any case that a kindness was done for him by Hashem, for which one should recite the bracha, and even though it is a small kindness compared to what it was in those days he must nevertheless recite the bracha, for shall we not give thanks to Hashem for a small kindness that He did with us the kindness, and behold we see regarding the obligation of a bracha on matters of eating and drinking and enjoyment that there is no difference between eating and drinking and great enjoyment and eating and drinking and slight enjoyment. And it is not comparable to those who travel ordinary journeys, in which there is essentially no danger and there is no need for rescue, and only when some matter occurs like bandits and the like do they need rescue, but since it did not occur that there was not there anything harmful, behold it has become clear that there was not there any concern of danger and no more kindness was done with him than what there was in his home. And therefore even though now in our country they travel in cars in which a concern of danger is more common, one likewise need not recite the bracha except when some matter occurred, G-d forbid, that cars struck and touched and they were not harmed, but when it was properly, that he was not struck by another car, behold it has become clear that there was no concern of danger and no more kindness was done with him than if he had been in his home'.
And the Minchas Yitzchak2 wrote: 'And behold, seemingly, the aforementioned esteemed Rav well wrote there to innovate that in the present time, since through the increase of technology such machines were innovated in the operation of ships, until it is not considered a danger at all, one should not recite Birkas HaGomel for all seafarers, only if a danger truly befell them and they were saved, however, since everyone was accustomed to recite the bracha, we are obligated to turn to their merit, for what was written in Shu"t Halak"t (Ch. 1 siman 9) in the middle of the responsum applies here, in these words: a great principle that was transmitted into our hands, if a halacha is unsteady in your hand, go out and see what the people do, for it is simple, that in the love of Hashem for His people Israel, a stumbling block will be removed from their ways etc., see there, and it appears that in truth even in our times it happens several times that some ships sink, only that it is not a common minority as in ancient years, therefore the obligation of thanksgiving stands in its place'.
And in Orach Mishpat3 he wrote: 'My esteemed brother our teacher Rav Chaim HaKohen shi' asked me whether he should recite Birkas HaGomel when passing by way of a ship on the high sea in his voyage, having heard that some say that in the present time danger at sea is not common as in earlier times. And behold this is clear, that they have nothing upon which to rely at all, for it is reasonable that the enactment of Birkas HaGomel was decreed by a count, and any matter that is by a count, even though the reason has ceased, is not nullified except by another count, and all the more so that the reason applies entirely, and even were it weakened, all the more so it is of no consequence. And a kal vachomer, that in truth it is explicit in the words of tradition, and it is like words of Torah for which it is not fitting at all to be concerned for the innovations of the times'.
Therefore we saw that many poskim wrote4 that even today, when they sail on safer ships, nevertheless the obligation of Birkas HaGomel remains5, 6.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the law when one travels on a river — is it also considered like a seafarer for Birkas HaGomel?
Answer: The Mishnah Berurah7 wrote: 'Whether specifically the sea or the same applies to a river on which one travels in ships or on wooden rafts, as is the way on the large rivers, it appears seemingly that it depends on the minhag of Sepharad and Ashkenaz explained below in the Mechaber se'if 7, that for the one who holds there that even on ordinary journeys too one recites the bracha, likewise here a large river is no worse than ordinary journeys, but according to the minhag of Ashkenaz that on a journey one does not recite the bracha, it is possible that likewise regarding a river one does not recite the bracha, for danger is not common as with a complete sea, as above'.
Therefore one who travels on a river is not considered a seafarer, and therefore those who travel on a ship on a river do not recite HaGomel when they emerged from the river.
In the next halacha we will discuss Birkas HaGomel for flight in an airplane.
--------------
הערות:
1 שו"ת או"ח ח"ב סי' נט ↩
2 שו"ת ח"ד סי' יא אות ה ↩
3 שו"ת או"ח סי' מה ↩
4 וראה גם תשובות והנהגות ח"ב סי' קמח. וגם מדברי הפוסקים (ראה שבט הלוי שו"ת ח"ט סי' עב, להורות נתן שו"ת ח"ז סי' י) לגבי הנוסעים במנהרות מתחת הים (כגון מאנגליה לצרפת) שכתבו לפטור מחיוב ברכה כי כאשר הם במנהרה נחשבים עוברי יבשה ולא יורדי ים, מוכח שלמדו שיורדי ים גם כיום חייבים לברך ↩
5 אך ראה במנחת יצחק שם שדן לגבי: 'עיירות העומדות בין הימים, ומנהגו של עולם בשם, ליסע בכל יום ממקום למקום דרך הים, ובלעדי זה, לא הי' אפשר לחיות שם אפילו חיי שעה'. ואכמ"ל ↩
6 וכנ"ל לכאורה הדברים נכונים גם לשיטות שרכבת הנוסעת במדבר אין חיוב לברך הגומל (בנוסף לסברת האגרות משה הנ"ל, שצ"ע אם היא מתאימה לביאור הלכה דלקמן) כי החשש ברכבת כיום בנסיעה במדבר איננה מחמת המדבר, והיא שווה לחשש בנסיעה במקום ישוב. משא"כ יורדי הים גם כיום החשש הוא כבעבר מצד סכנת הים ↩
[כג] (הלכה 873)
Question: After a flight must one recite Birkas HaGomel? (1)
Answer: In halacha number 849 we saw that the Ashkenazim and Sephardim disagreed regarding Birkas HaGomel for travel from city to city in a place that is not strongly presumed to be a place of danger, that according to the minhag of Sepharad they recite HaGomel on every journey, and for the Ashkenazim only when he travels in a place presumed to be a danger.
And accordingly it is reasonable to say1 that according to the minhag of the Sephardim certainly one should recite the bracha for a flight, as with the law of travelers on a journey2, which is not so for the Ashkenazim, for whom one must consider whether the flight is a place presumed to be in danger, or not.
And in practice the poskim disagreed in this, and there are in general three approaches: a) there are those who wrote that he should recite the bracha without Shem and Malchus. b) there are those who wrote that he should recite the bracha on every flight on account of danger, or that being suspended in the air has the law of the sea or the wilderness. c) and there are those who were accustomed to recite the bracha only in the event that he passes over the sea, but in the event that he flies only over land he should not recite the bracha, as follows:
a) The Chelkas Yaakov3 wrote: 'One may say that we should not innovate on our own and add to the four who must give thanks one who travels in an airplane not over the sea, since it is not included in "a journey" and not included in "seafarers"4. And even though we rule as halacha that these four are not specific and the same applies to one for whom a miracle occurred .. this is specifically with a miracle that occurred to him, but with one who travels in an airplane, if it is considered for him as a danger and a miracle occurred for him, it consequently follows that it is forbidden for him to travel in an airplane, as in Shabbos 32, "a person should never stand in a place of danger saying that they will perform a miracle for him etc., they deduct from his merits etc."'. And accordingly he wrote in practice: 'Therefore it is most pleasing to recite the bracha in this without Shem and Malchus, as with any doubtful bracha, and so is the opinion of Maran the holy of holies of Belz shlita to rule for anyone who comes there by airplane, even though it became known to me that his holy opinion is not comfortable with traveling in an airplane, and understandably because of a concern of danger, even so his opinion is to recite the bracha only as with any doubtful bracha without Shem and Malchus .. therefore in my humble opinion it is most correct to say as explained in the Rivash siman 408 regarding a bracha in a doubt, to say in this wording "ברוך אתה השם מלך העולם" etc., for in this there is no concern of "לא תשא." And therefore in my humble opinion in our question, one who travels in an airplane, even not over the sea, should recite the bracha in this wording, "ברוך אתה השם מלך העולם הגומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני כל טוב." And so it is fitting to instruct'4.
Therefore, according to this approach there is here a doubtful bracha, and therefore they recite HaGomel without Shem and Malchus.
b) The Grach Naeh5 wrote: 'And those who travel in an airplane certainly must recite the bracha even from city to city, for the way of the air is presumed to be a danger according to all, as our eyes see'6. And in the Ketzos HaShulchan He'aros LeMaaseh7 he wrote: when it was told to me that there are people who travel in an airplane and are in doubt whether to recite Birkas HaGomel, since travel in an airplane is neither of the seafarers nor of the travelers of the wilderness, and therefore there are those who do not recite the bracha, it is a mitzvah to inform them that they are obligated to recite HaGomel. a) That the intent is not only to the sea and the wilderness; the main point is since he left the settlement and is in a place of danger outside the settlement, and this is the wilderness and the sea, and today also the air, which is likewise outside the settlement. And it is a place of danger greater than the seafarers on ships; that same stormy wind which endangers the travel at sea, it itself endangers the travel in the air, so that the airplane goes up to the heavens and descends to the depths. b) And they were already accustomed to recite the bracha for every danger from which he was saved, even if thieves or night bandits came upon him and he is in a concern of mortal danger, all the more so with an airplane which is liable to malfunction at any hour on its own even without a stormy wind, and its passengers are in a greater danger than the passengers on a ship — certainly they must recite the bracha'.
And the Igros Moshe8 wrote: 'On a ship that is upon the water, the very act of traveling is a matter of danger from which one must be saved, for in the water one cannot live except for a brief moment without being saved from the water by being aboard the ship. Therefore, since it sometimes happens that the ship becomes damaged and it turns out that the deliverance is not assured, one must give thanks and recite Birkas HaGomel. And if so, all the more so on an airplane, which is worse than water, for not even for a single moment can one remain in the air — so that certainly his sitting in the airplane is a deliverance; and since it sometimes happens that the airplane becomes damaged, here too it turns out that the deliverance is not assured, and therefore he must give thanks with Birkas HaGomel. And this is the reason that even for the ship travels of our times one likewise recites the bracha, even though compared to the ships of the era of the Gemara — and even of the era of the Shulchan Aruch — [conditions] have improved regarding danger very greatly, so that only very rarely does a sinking of a ship occur, and perhaps it is less [dangerous] than ordinary roads of their times, which had the presumption of danger. This is because, since the ship in which one sits is considered to be that by which one is saved from the danger of being in the water — so that even in our ships one is considered saved from the danger — the recital of the bracha is fundamentally applicable; only if it were certain, without any doubt, that on the ship one is saved from the water, would he be exempt, because it would not be applicable to consider that a kindness was done for him by Hashem in this journey. But since even on these ships of our times the deliverance is not assured — even though only very rarely does a sinking occur that does not save — it is at any rate considered that a kindness was done for him by Hashem, for which he should recite the bracha; and even though it is a smaller kindness than it was in those days, one must nonetheless recite the bracha, for shall we not give thanks to Hashem for a small kindness that He did with us? .. And it is obvious that there is no difference between those traveling by airplane across the sea and those traveling on land from place to place, for in all of them, according to the reason I have explained, one must recite the bracha even when nothing happened on his way. And I have heard that there are some who are careful not to recite the bracha, and this is nothing; rather, one must recite the bracha'.
If so, according to their words, on every flight one must recite Birkas HaGomel, [and according to the view of the Igros Moshe it is like the law of a ship].
In the following halacha we will see what additional poskim have written on this matter.
--------------
הערות:
1 וראה גם חלקת יעקב סי' נה דלקמן בתחילת דבריו. וראה שו"ת מנחת יצחק ח"ב סי' מז ↩
2 ולהעיר שגם למנהג בני ספרד יש שכתבו (ראה יביע אומר ח"ב סי' יד) לברך רק בטיסה של יותר מ72 דקות, וכפי שהובא בהלכה מס' 853 שיש מהפוסקים שמחשבים את שיעור פרסה בזמן ההליכה של פרסה ולא במרחק, ע"ש ↩
3 או"ח סי' נה ↩
4 וראה במכתבו של הרבי (לקו"ש חי"ב ע' 152): 'ואף שישנה שמועה שגדול א' דייק הלשון יורדי הים, משא"כ בנסיעה מעל לים, אין אנו אחראים לשמועות, ובפרט לדעת אלו (הובאו בשד"ח כללי הפוסקים כלל טז ס"נ) שאין לנו ללמוד מהכתובים דרשות שלא הוזכרו ברז"ל. אף שכמובן יש לחלק קצת בין סכנת הים בנוגע לאוני' הנמצאת בין גלים משא"כ באוירון הנמצא באויר, וכנ"ל כ"ז לפלפולא שהרי נהגו לברך גם מעין ד' החייבים שבכתוב' ↩
5 וראה גם שו"ת בצל החכמה ח"א סי' כ ↩
6 קצוה"ש סי' סה בדה"ש ס"ק ב ↩
7 אמנם יתכן שדבריו הם עפ"י המציאות בזמנו שעצם הטיסה במטוס נחשבה יותר לדבר מסוכן, (אמנם להעיר מקובץ תל תלפיות שנת תרצ"ד אות נח - הובא בטהרת יו"ט ח"ח ע' קי), וראה גם מש"כ הרבי במכתב שם שי"ל ש[גם אם נאמר שאין הטיסה נחשבת ליורדי הים] הדבר תלוי במחלוקת שהתבארה בהלכה 847 האם ברכת הגומל היא דווקא בד' אלו שנזכרו או גם בסכנה אחרת ושלשיטות הסוברות שגם בסכנות אחרות אומרים הגומל וכן דעת אדמו"ר הזקן, א"כ גם בטיסה י"ל הגומל. ובאגרת זו הרבי הוסיף ציון לאחר זמן: 'זה עתה ראיתי בספר טהרת יו"ט ח"ח (עמ' צז ואילך) ובשו"ת ציץ אלעזר חי"א סי' יד כמה דעות בזה'. וראה גם לקמן בהלכה הבאה מענה הרבי לרב רייצ'יק לגבי השינוי של הטיסות מבעבר ↩
8 ע' סט ↩
9 ח"ב סי' נט ↩
[כד] (הלכה 874)
Birkas HaGomel after a flight (2)
In the previous halacha we saw some of the words of the Acharonim regarding Birkas HaGomel after a flight, and in this halacha we will see further views, and how it is practiced in actuality.
Continuation, b) The Tzitz Eliezer1 wrote that one recites the bracha for a flight like the law of a ship, and like those who travel through the desert: 'In my humble opinion it appears clear that one who comes from a distant journey by airplane should recite Birkas HaGomel with Sheim u'Malchus. For he is included among those who travel by way of the sea, and also included among those who travel through deserts, and both of them are present in it, since the airplane in the course of its flight flies both over the sea and over deserts .. And go in this also according to the reason: the very danger that exists in traveling by ship and in deserts exists also in flying by airplane, and perhaps even more than that, and if we find in the Sefer HaAruch, entry "arba," that he cites in the name of Rav Hai Gaon who responded that the danger of those who go down to the sea is greater than the others because in a single instant they are lost — see there — then all the more so in flying by airplane, where, as is known, the danger is greater for the travelers, that they would be lost in a single instant, than such a danger in our times regarding those who go down to the sea in ships; and daily occurrences prove this, for with the malfunction of a single one of the thousands of safety bolts that are found in it and of which it is assembled, then all the wisdom of the pilots will be swallowed up, and they will reel and stagger like a drunkard. And if concerning those who go down to the sea in ships David HaMelech, peace be upon him, described them as those who "mount up to the heavens, they go down to the depths," all the more so are those who fly in an airplane to the heavens considered such — for indeed at every moment they ascend to the lofty heavens and descend downward and feel in their bodies the change of air pressures, and they are exposed to every storm-wind and fog and the like, and they are also liable to come to losing their way no less than those who travel through deserts, and in our times, also to instances of hijackings and attacks, as is known, and therefore, whenever one emerges from all these dangers that are liable to occur, they must recite the bracha .. However, on a flight from city to city within the same country, and especially when it takes only an hour or two, more or less, it appears that one should not recite HaGomel in such a case, for in such a short time and within the same country he is not liable in such a case to danger except on very rare occasions'.
And in the Yabia Omer2 he wrote that one recites the bracha like the law of those who travel through the desert: 'In my humble opinion, one who travels by airplane (for the duration of an hour and a fifth) is obligated to recite Birkas HaGomel, even in a case where the airport is not so far from the city. And this is included among those who travel through deserts and roads. For in the pasuk it is stated "תָּעוּ בַמִּדְבָּר בִּישִׁימוֹן דֶּרֶךְ עִיר מוֹשָׁב לֹא מָצָאוּ" ("They wandered in the wilderness in a desolate way; they found no city of habitation") etc. .. And we are compelled to say that what he mentioned in the pasuk, "they wandered in the wilderness" etc., is not specifically so. Rather, all those who travel through deserts are liable to come to wandering, and to be handed over to bandits and robbers or wild beasts. And since they arrived at their destination in peace, they are fitting for a bracha of thanksgiving. So too shall we say regarding flying by airplane, that since the matter is liable to happen to a pilot that he lose his route and his usual course, by means of hazy air, darkness, cloud and fog and the like .. And so it is explained from what the Maharam Chagiz wrote in the introduction to Shtei HaLechem, that one need not be particular that those who travel through deserts be hungry and also thirsty etc., as it appears from the plain meaning of the pesukim etc. For indeed the essential obligation of thanksgiving the pasuk made dependent upon their being led to their destination, as it is stated regarding those who go down to the sea. And all of them have one law. And just as with those who go down to the sea the thanksgiving depends upon their arriving at their destination, so too also with those who travel through deserts. And the pasuk is not being precise, for those who go down to the sea and those who travel through deserts are under one category. Such are his words. And so wrote the Sefer Einayim LaMishpat, that there is no proof from the pasuk that we require that he be one who wanders in the desert etc., but rather that anyone who travels on the road may lose his way. See there. And therefore even those who travel by airplane, who were included in this danger, and arrived in peace at their destination, must recount the mighty deeds of Hashem, and it is good for them to give thanks to Hashem'.
However, according to the words of the Tzitz Eliezer and the Yabia Omer, one recites the bracha only for a flight that is somewhat long3, and not like the words of the Igros Moshe that one recites the bracha for every flight4.
If so, according to the second view one must recite HaGomel for every flight, and it does not matter whether the flight passed over the sea or only over land.
c) However, many had the minhag to recite the bracha only when the flight passes over the sea, and there are poskim5 who wrote that there is no source at all for this distinction, but there are poskim who wrote to explain this practice, and noted that indeed such is the minhag. And as follows:
In halacha 872 we saw that the poskim wrote that when a person sails on the sea even in a safe means of transport, nevertheless he afterward recites HaGomel, even though when traveling in the desert in a safe means of transport he does not recite the bracha.
And based on this it may be said that also regarding a flight, when one flies over the desert this is not considered like one who travels the desert and he is exempt from the bracha, whereas when he flies over the sea [it is]. And as the Teshuvos VeHanhagos6 wrote: In Cheilek Alef (siman 193) we brought the minhag to recite the bracha when one travels by airplane .. but when one travels by airplane by way of land, such as from Johannesburg to Cape Town, when there is no sea, one should not recite the bracha. However, now they have shown me in the responsa 'Igros Moshe' that even over land by airplane one must recite the bracha, and he concludes that it is obvious that there is no difference between those traveling by airplane across the sea and those traveling on land from place to place, for in all of them, according to the reason he explained, one must recite the bracha even though nothing happened, 'and I have heard that there are some who are careful not to recite the bracha, and this is nothing; rather, one must recite the bracha,' end of his words. But in my opinion his words were written in a time when they were still apprehensive about traveling by airplane on account of the concern of danger, and then, even though flights by airplane were common, since at that time danger was still common, they were obligated to recite the bracha; but in our times here there is no danger in an airplane more than in an automobile on the road (in the street), and an airplane is not called a danger, and even though at times it explodes, so too an automobile does; and in my opinion one should not recite Birkas HaGomel on this, for it was instituted for those who go down to the sea and not on land. And the very fact that they had the minhag to recite the bracha for one who travels by airplane by way of the sea is a novelty, for it may be said that they instituted it specifically for those who go down to the sea in ships, but nevertheless it may be said that in their times there were only ships on the sea, and therefore it is written "those who go down to the sea in ships," but today, when one travels over the sea by airplanes as well, their law is the same, and it is fitting to recite the bracha in both; but when it is not by way of the sea at all and there is in our times no danger, it is like one who travels by taxi, and it is astonishing to recite the bracha, and in my opinion it is fitting today to be concerned in this about a bracha in vain, and not like what I have seen of those who are lenient to recite the bracha7 ..'.
If so, we have seen the various views in the words of the poskim, and many have the minhag to recite HaGomel only after a flight that passes over the sea.
Chabad minhag: In the Sefer HaMinhagim8 it is written: 'One who travels across the sea by airplane — likewise recites Birkas HaGomel'.
[From the plain meaning of the wording it appears that one recites the bracha only when passing across the sea; however, from the letter of the Rebbe there it appears that one should recite the bracha on every flight9, but after some time the Rebbe added to the letter: 'Just now I have seen in the Sefer Taharas Yom Tov Cheilek Ches (p. 97 onward) and in the responsa Tzitz Eliezer Cheilek Yud-Alef siman 14 several views on this'. And the shadar Rav Shmuel Dovid, of blessed memory, Raitchik10 related that he asked the Rebbe in yechidus whether one must recite Birkas HaGomel on a flight not over the sea, and the Rebbe answered him that the airplanes of today are different from the airplanes of old, and one need not recite the bracha].
If so, it appears that also according to the Chabad minhag one should recite HaGomel only when flying over the sea.
הערות:
1 שו"ת חי"א סי' יד ↩
2 ח"ב או"ח סי' יד (וראה גם יחו"ד ח"ב סי' כו. הליכות עולם ח"ב ע' קעז) ↩
3 אך לא מאותו טעם, שלדעת היבי"א זה מצד שצריך שיעור פרסא, ולדעת הצי"א שבקצת זמן אין כ"כ סכנה ↩
4 וראה גם הליכות שלמה (תפלה פכ"ג דין ה): 'על נסיעה במטוס מברכים הגומל, כי הטיסה יש בה סכנה. *והמנהג לברך אף אם לא עברו מעל הים'*. (וראה שם בדבר הלכה אות ה שנשארו בצ"ע לגבי טיסה בתוך המדינה) ↩
5 שו"ת באר משה (שטרן) ח"ז קונטרס עלעקטריק ב סי' סח ↩
6 ח"ב סי' קמח ↩
7 וראה שם בהמשך דבריו שיש שכתבו שמברך רק כשעובר בפועל מעל ים או מדבר ↩
8 ע' 14 ↩
9 וראה גם מש"כ הרי"ל שפירא בקובץ העו"ב אהלי תורה נ.י. (גיליון 945 ר"ה תשס"ח עמ' 69) ↩
10 ראה העו"ב שם ↩
[כה] (הלכה 875)
Question: Is it possible to recite Birkas HaGomel on Tisha B'Av?
Answer: The Pachad Yitzchak1 wrote: 'And the Rav Adam MeHaTov2 wrote .. that in the year 433 on the day of Tisha B'Av the Chaver Levi3 did not want his grandson to recite Birkas HaGomel at the Sefer Torah; but the sage from Eretz Yisrael noted that they recite HaGomel in Eretz Yisrael on Tisha B'Av, for who knows whether he will live another day, and furthermore one does not let mitzvos become "leavened" [delayed], and the zealous act early for mitzvos — all the more so, since according to the law one should not let three days pass without Birkas HaGomel; if so, the Levi erred'.
And in the Pesach HaDvir4 he explained the sides of the dispute between them: 'And in my humble opinion the reasoning of the Chaver HaLevi, of blessed memory, is as I saw in the Halachos Ketanos, of blessed memory, Cheilek Alef siman 122, who was asked concerning those who come to Eretz Yisrael, after they recited "Dayan HaEmes" over the tearing [of the garment], whether one should recite Shehecheyanu, and he answered that perhaps it is included within HaGomel, end of his words; also in Cheilek Beis siman 161 he was asked whether a woman should recite HaGomel, and he answered that she should recite Shehecheyanu, like that of "Berich Rachmana d'yahavach lan" [Blessed is the Merciful One who gave you to us], for if over the acquisition of a new vessel one says it, over the renewal and acquisition of her very self all the more so; and therefore he ruled that if there are not ten [men] present, who has exempted her from praising her Creator with the bracha of Shehecheyanu — see there — and these two responsa the Rav Pachad Yitzchak, of blessed memory, cited there above. From this we learn from his words that Birkas HaGomel and Shehecheyanu go as one and apply as one; and since Maran, of blessed memory, explained below in siman 551 that one should be careful about saying Shehecheyanu during Bein HaMetzarim, the Chaver HaLevi, of blessed memory, held that likewise one should be careful not to recite HaGomel during Bein HaMetzarim, and Tisha B'Av — he took [it as] a case that happened, such it was. Or alternatively, since it is not so similar to Birkas Shehecheyanu, one may be lenient to recite HaGomel on the other days of Bein HaMetzarim, and all the more so since if we are stringent not to say it, much [time] will pass, and it is not proper to do so; but nonetheless on Tisha B'Av itself one should not recite the bracha. And the Rav from Eretz Yisrael and the Rav Adam MeHaTov, of blessed memory, rejected his words and brought a case in their hands that in Eretz Yisrael they recite the bracha even on Tisha B'Av itself, and it appears [that this is] for the reason that the essential particularity regarding Birkas Shehecheyanu during Bein HaMetzarim is not on account of the joy but on account of the wording of the bracha, as the Rav Magen Avraham, of blessed memory, wrote there in seif katan 42, that the reason for the prohibition is: since that time is a time of calamity, one should not recite Shehecheyanu "vehigianu lazman hazeh" [and has brought us to this time], but the reason is not on account of mourning, for we do not find that a mourner is forbidden to recite Shehecheyanu, end of his words; and the Rav Yad Efraim, of blessed memory, wrote there that he heard a proof in the name of a certain great one from what Maran, of blessed memory, wrote in siman 223 seif 2 regarding one whose father died etc., see there. And if so, in Birkas HaGomel, in which there is not such wording of "to this time," it is quite proper to recite the bracha even on the day of Tisha B'Av itself, and the reason he wrote, "who knows whether he will live another day," it appears that he alludes to what the Rema, of blessed memory, wrote there in seif 15, on account of the responsum of the Rav Binyamin Zev, of blessed memory, siman 163, and his relative-by-marriage the Maharil, of blessed memory, that regarding a fruit that will not be found after Tisha B'Av it is permitted to recite the bracha and to eat it during Bein HaMetzarim, see there — all the more so where there is concern that he will not merit to recite HaGomel; and therefore they concluded that the Chaver HaLevi erred, for the law dictates that it is permitted to recite HaGomel even on Tisha B'Av, all the more so during Bein HaMetzarim'.
And behold, although in the Ohr LeTzion5 he wrote regarding Birkas HaGomel: 'But on Tisha B'Av one should not recite the bracha; rather, one should recite the bracha after Tisha B'Av.
But most of the Acharonim held that the essential [ruling] is that it is permitted to recite HaGomel on Tisha B'Av as the Yafeh LaLev6 wrote: 'And from this a ruling emerges that it is permitted to recite HaGomel on Tisha B'Av even though it is a bracha of thanksgiving'.
And so wrote the Tzitz Eliezer7: 'And I am astonished how he did not take note of the words of the later poskim in the Sefer Kerem Shlomo on the spot, and in the Sefer Chaim of the Gaon Rav Chaim Palagi, of blessed memory, siman 26 os 9, and to the son of the Gaon Rav Chaim Palagi in the Yafeh LaLev siman 219 os 5, and the Sefer Orchos Chaim os 3, and the responsa Vaya'an Avraham OC siman 19, and the Sdei Chemed, ma'areches aveilus os 52, and the Kaf HaChaim siman 219 seif katan 9, all of whom cite in the name of the responsa Maharaf Cheilek Gimmel siman 449, that he ruled that a sick person who was healed during his days of mourning should recite HaGomel before ten, and does not go up to the Torah, and all of them agreed to his ruling without any objection to it, and in the Yafeh LaLev there he adds further to it and writes that from this a ruling emerges that it is permitted to recite HaGomel on Tisha B'Av even though it is a bracha of thanksgiving .. and in the responsa Vaya'an Avraham there he expands the discussion on this even further, and analyzes back and forth the law of Birkas Shehecheyanu and HaTov VeHaMeitiv regarding one whose father died etc. (what the Rav his uncle, of blessed memory, discussed in his words), and finally he sums up and writes in these words: And from the words of our Rabbis, from the sifrei Beis Rabanan that I studied among them, I have learned to rule halacha l'ma'aseh that "those who ask, halacha follows what is said to them," and it is that for Birkas HaGomel, whether on Tisha B'Av or in mourning, one should recite the bracha with ease, see there, and all this is the opposite of what the Rav his uncle, of blessed memory, ruled'.
And the Be'er Moshe (Stern)8 wrote: 'It is written in the Sefer Eretz HaChaim (here), in the name of the Pachad Yitzchak, that it is permitted to recite HaGomel on Tisha B'Av, and such is the minhag of Eretz Yisrael, see there. And see in the Pesach HaDvir. But in chutz la'aretz we have never heard that anyone recites Birkas HaGomel on Tisha B'Av, and apparently on account of mourning they did not want to say it, but certainly there is no prohibition in the matter. And a resident of Eretz Yisrael who comes from Eretz Yisrael to chutz la'aretz in the month of Av close to Tisha B'Av and has not yet had the opportunity to recite Birkas HaGomel until Tisha B'Av — certainly he should not delay it, and should recite Birkas HaGomel on Tisha B'Av, even though it is not our minhag to recite Birkas HaGomel on Tisha B'Av — since there is no prohibition in the matter, and there is also no concern on account of dispute, for there is no established minhag in this, and "we have not heard" is not a proof, and especially in a matter that is not common and not frequent, see in the poskim in Choshen Mishpat (end of siman 37) and in the Shach, Yoreh Deah (siman 1 seif katan 1). And it would appear to me more that even in chutz la'aretz any resident of chutz la'aretz may recite Birkas HaGomel on Tisha B'Av, since we find that such is the practice in Eretz Yisrael, and in chutz la'aretz there is no established minhag in this; only, since this is not the place for it, I did not bring the matter to the crucible of examination, even though such appears to me according to reason'.
★ ★ ★
Question: One who recites the bracha on Tisha B'Av, when should he recite it?
Answer: The Kaf HaChaim9 brought the dispute as to whether one recites the bracha on Tisha B'Av and wrote: 'And nevertheless it appears, since bedieved he may recite the bracha afterward, as written above in siman 219 seif 6, and in our words there this too is considered like bedieved, since it is not fitting to recite the bracha on this day before the congregation and assembly Birkas HaGomel, and it is possible that at Mincha there is [reason] to be lenient, since then they read the pesukim of consolation'10.
On the other hand the Mishneh Halachos11 wrote: 'And regarding when he should recite the bracha, at Shacharis or at Mincha, it appears obvious that if it is possible for him at Shacharis, he should recite it at Shacharis, since, since it is permitted for him to recite the bracha, there is here "the zealous act early for mitzvos," and even on a single day there is the law of the zealous [acting early]; and if it is possible for him, he should go up to the Torah, since on Tisha B'Av they go up to the Torah, and this is not like a mourner who recites the bracha and does not go up to the Torah, for a mourner is forbidden to go up; but on Tisha B'Av, on which they instituted to go up, certainly it is better that he go up to the Torah and recite the bracha if possible. However, if it is impossible for him at Shacharis to go up to the Torah on account of other obligations, and at Mincha it is possible for him to go up, there is [room] to be uncertain whether it is preferable for him to wait until Mincha and recite the bracha at the time of his going up to the Torah, or that he recite the bracha at Shacharis in the congregation even though he does not go up; and at first glance, since the world has the practice to recite the bracha after the reading of the Torah, he should wait until Mincha and recite it, and if he will not be able to go up also at Mincha, then he should recite the bracha at Shacharis and fulfill his obligation, as appears to me in my humble opinion'.
If so, in actuality, although there are those who ruled that one does not say HaGomel on Tisha B'Av, and there are also places that did not have the minhag to recite HaGomel on Tisha B'Av, but since from the essential law it is permitted, therefore one whose third day this is should not wait, and should recite the bracha on Tisha B'Av; and indeed there are those who wrote that it is preferable that he recite the bracha at Mincha and not at Shacharis, since at Mincha they already say the pesukim of consolation.
הערות:
1 אות ברכת הודאה יחיד ↩
2 ראה אודותם מוריה גליון שבט תש"פ (תלט - תמא) ע' כז - כח ↩
3 ח"ב או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק יז ↩
4 ח"ג פכ"ה אות ד ↩
5 ח"א סי' ריט סק"ה ↩
6 חי"ד סי' עז ↩
7 שו"ת ח"ז דיני בני א"י וחו"ל או"ח סי' תקנ"ט ס"ד ↩
8 או"ח תקנ"ט ס"ק לח ↩
9 אודות אמירת פסוקי נחמות ראה בהלכה מס' 605 ↩
10 שו"ת חי"א בסי' תמח (וראה שם סי' תמז) ↩
[כו] (הלכה 876)
Question: Is it possible to recite Birkas HaGomel at night?
Answer: The Chasam Sofer1 wrote: 'That the glory of his exalted eminence went up from the sea in peace, and toward the time of evening the dear ones of his community, those who honor the Torah, gathered to the valley of blessing and led him to a holy place, the beis haknesses, with songs and drums, and "with lights honor Hashem," and they praised Him for the coming of their teacher in peace; and he, the Rav, may his light shine, intended, opposite those who recited the bracha, to recite Birkas HaGomel like the law of one who goes up from the sea; and on this his opponent, the one who disputed with him, was aroused — he is the wondrous sage Yitzchak Guitan, may his light shine — and he said that one should not recite Birkas HaGomel at night, for it was instituted in place of the Zevach Todah, as the Rosh wrote at the beginning of Perek HaRoeh, and a Todah is only by day; and furthermore, that Tosafos wrote there on 54b that the minhag is to recite the bracha when one goes up to the Torah, and the glory of his exalted eminence breached the fence of the minhag .. And the glory of his exalted eminence maintained his position, with the support of the Rav, the great luminary, Moreinu HaRav Meir Leibush of Lebon, may his light shine, that he acted well, that it is permitted to recite Birkas HaGomel at night .. I say that what he recited — a bracha of thanksgiving on that night as a hora'as sha'ah — he acted well, as I will explain im yirtzeh Hashem .. We learn at the beginning of Perek HaRoeh2 Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: four must give thanks etc. .. he arranged those who go down to the sea last .. after these three he concluded "vayizbechu zivchei todah," that it is fitting to vow over them a Zevach Todah .. And with this the wording of the Rosh will be settled for us, that he wrote that they instituted thanksgiving in place of the Korban Todah; and it is difficult: who instituted the spirit of Hashem? Was it not stated with ruach hakodesh "vayeromemuhu bikhal am" [and let them exalt Him in the assembly of the people], and it is divrei kabbalah and not a takkanah of Chazal? And according to the above it is settled: regarding those who go down to the sea it is from divrei kabbalah, but concerning the other three it is not written regarding them "vayeromemuhu bikhal am"; rather, once the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, in our many sins, and the Todah ceased, Chazal instituted that at any rate they should grasp the good in its diminished form, and "let them exalt Him in the assembly of the people" .. And what emerges from this is that HaGomel is not [necessarily] in place of a zevach so as to be specifically standing and by day; and even if it be in place of a zevach, nevertheless that is [regarding] the other three, but regarding those who go down to the sea "zevach" is not written; and even if I grant them all their claims, nevertheless, since certainly bedieved one fulfills his obligation at night, if so, here even lechatchilah it was a complete obligation upon the Rav, the sage, to recite the bracha at night, for the congregation gathered for the honor of Hashem and His Torah and said songs and praises over the deliverance of their teacher, and it is impossible that in all these songs there would not be a mention of Sheim and Malchus, and it is impossible that the Rav would not answer amen to all these brochos and praises, and if so, he would have been exempted from saying Birkas HaGomel himself, for it is no worse than "Berich Rachmana d'yahavach lan" etc.; therefore he should precede [them] to recite the bracha himself, so as not to forfeit his bracha; and furthermore, it is not derech eretz to hear all these praises and rejoicings over his coming while he is silent and waits until the time of the reading of the Torah, and furthermore, "in the multitude of people is the King's glory," and there was here an assembly and Rabbanan without doubt. Therefore I testify upon myself: had the case been mine, I too would have recited the bracha on that night; but, being one who trembles and quakes greatly not to permit in public a matter that is astonishing to the many — and see in the Shach, Yoreh Deah siman 2423 — and especially in a matter of minhag, not to make light, chas veshalom, of the minhogim of Yisrael even in the slightest, therefore I would recite the bracha in public and say: Know, my masters, that what I am doing today is a hora'as sha'ah and for such and such a reason, and the honored sage, may his light shine, was not careful in this; but apart from this, one should not seize upon him in this at all, and he came out clean in his ruling, well did he judge, well did he rule'4.
The Maharam Shik5 discussed the words of the Chasam Sofer, and wrote: 'And in any case, according to what has been said, it appears that there is no difference in this, and certainly even at night one may recite Birkas HaGomel .. for if we were to say like the opinion of the aforementioned Sephardi sage that one should not recite the bracha at night, if so, also on Shabbos and Yom Tov one should not recite the bracha, for indeed also on Shabbos and Yom Tov they do not bring a Todah .. And likewise, if we were to say like the opinion of the aforementioned sage that Birkas HaGomel is in place of a korban and one does not recite the bracha at night, if so, also on Shabbos and Yom Tov one should not recite the bracha. But the practice of the world is to recite the bracha on Shabbos and Yom Tov'.
Also the author of the Pesach HaDvir6 discussed this question at length as to whether one may recite the bracha at night, and brought the Eliyah Rabbah, who explained that what the Rambam wrote, that one recites HaGomel while standing7, is because it is like Hallel, whose law is [to be recited] standing, and if so, its law is like Hallel also regarding [the point] that one should not say it at night8, and he concluded: 'But there are other reasons for why one must recite HaGomel standing, and if they are the essential [reason] there is no proof not to recite the bracha at night'.
And the Sdei Chemed9 wrote: 'And the Gaon of our strength, the Pesach HaDvir, may Hashem preserve and keep him, in siman 219 os 12 addressed this matter, whether it is quite proper to recite Birkas HaGomel at night .. it is explained from his words that this matter is loose in his hand [uncertain] and it is not obvious to him whether to recite the bracha at night or not to recite it'.
If so, we have seen that the Chasam Sofer and the Pesach HaDvir raised several reasons why lechatchilah one should not recite the bracha at night: a) because it is like the korban. b) like Hallel. c) since the minhag is to recite the bracha at the reading of the Torah.
The poskim brought the aforementioned words of the Chasam Sofer as halacha, as the Ben Ish Chai10 Shanah Rishonah, Eikev seif 3, wrote: 'The ten sit .. and the one reciting the bracha stands, because this bracha is in place of the Korban Todah, and the one offering [it] stands and offers, and therefore one does not recite Birkas HaGomel at night but by day, and bedieved if he recited the bracha at night he has fulfilled his obligation, and see Chasam Sofer OC siman 51'11.
And similarly the Kaf HaChaim12 wrote: 'And lechatchilah one should recite the bracha by day, for it was instituted in place of the Zevach Todah, and a Todah is only by day, and only if on account of some need he recited the bracha at night has he fulfilled [his obligation]. See Chasam Sofer OC siman 51'.
The Tzitz Eliezer13 commented on their words that indeed the Chasam Sofer mentioned within his words several reasons: 'However, one who examines the actual words of the Chasam Sofer in his responsum there sees clearly that he does not adopt in this the reasoning that it is in place of a zevach, as the Ben Ish Chai and the Kaf HaChaim write .. and the essential reason for which there is [cause] to be concerned in this not to recite the bracha lechatchilah at night is implied from the end of the words of the responsum of the Chasam Sofer, that he holds it is on account of a change of minhag, since Tosafos write, and it is likewise ruled in the Shulchan Aruch, that they had the minhag to recite the bracha after the reading of the Torah, and one should not permit in public a matter that is astonishing to the many, and especially in a matter of minhag, not to make light, chas veshalom, of the minhogim of Yisrael even in the slightest, see there'14.
If so, in actuality, although from the essential law it is permitted to recite the bracha at night, but lechatchilah it is fitting to recite Birkas HaGomel by day15.
הערות:
1 שו"ת או"ח סי' נא ↩
2 נד, ב ↩
3 ס"ק יז ↩
4 וכתב המנחת פתים בהגהות על השו"ע: 'וכה"ג אשכחן בב"ק דף [קי, א] בגזל הגר דאם החזירו בלילה לא יצא דאשם קריא רחמנא יעו"ש' ↩
5 שו"ת או"ח סי' פח ↩
6 סי' ריט אות יב ↩
7 ראה הלכה מספר 865 ↩
8 גם החת"ס בתשובתו הנ"ל העיר מדברי הא"ר אך ציין שהרמב"ם עצמו כתב טעם אחר ↩
9 מערכת ברכות סי' ב אות י (ח"ד ע' תשעו) ↩
10 ש"א עקב ס"ג ↩
11 וראה שו"ת עשה לך רב ח"ו סי' יג ↩
12 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ה ↩
13 חי"ג סי' יז אות ב ↩
14 וכתב: 'נראה לי עפי"ז ליישב המנהג שנהגו כאן, ובעוד מקומות, שנשים כן מברכות ברכת הגומל בלילה, ולא שמענו מעולם למי מהגדולים שמיחה על כך, והיינו דבנשים הא ליכא להך מנהגא לברך אחר קריה"ת, דזה נאמר בגברי .. ומכיון שאין בזה בנשי משום שינוי מנהגא לכן שפיר הנהיגו בהן משום כל כבודה וכו' ומשום נוחיותן, שמברכות בביתם בלילה בנוכחות עשרה אחרי תפלת ערבית, וכיוצא. וי"ל דזה נקרא משום כך אצלם גם כבדיעבד ומשום לא פלוג הניחו להתיר זאת בכל גוונא אצלם' ↩
15 וראה ילקוט יוסף (נט"י וברכות סי' ריט ס"ח): 'אפשר לברך ברכת הגומל בלילה [בעשרה], ומ"מ יש המקפידים שלא לברך ברכה זו אלא ביום'. ובציץ אליעזר שם אות ט כתב: 'ולמעשה נראה, דבגברי בודאי אין להתיר לברך לכתחילה ברכת הגומל בלילה, ואין לשנות מהמנהג לברך אחרי קריה"ת, ובדיעבד אם בירך בלילה בודאי שיצא, ויש להתיר אפילו לכתחילה בכעין נידונו של החת"ס שם, וכמו"כ נראה דיש להתיר באם יחכה ליום יעברו כבר ג' ימים, ועל אחת כמה ה' ימים, שאזי יכניס א"ע בפלוגתא אם יש לברך עוד ..'. [וראה גם בחי"ז סי' ח: 'ולמעשה זאת היא גם מסקנתי להלכה בספרי שם דיש להתיר שיברכו ברכת הגומל בלילה אפילו לכתחילה'] ↩
[כז] (הלכה 877)
Question: When is the time for the bracha?
Answer: The Gemara1 states regarding a sick person and one who leaves prison, that they must give thanks: 'One who was sick and was healed, and one who was imprisoned in prison and came out'.
And regarding 'those who go down to the sea, and those who travel through deserts' the Rambam2 wrote: 'And those who go down to the sea, when they went up. And those who travel roads, when they reach a settlement'.
And so wrote the Mechaber:3 'Four must give thanks. Those who go down to the sea when they went up from it, and those who travel through deserts when they reach a settlement, and one who was sick and was healed, and one who was imprisoned in prison and came out, and your mnemonic is: "וְכֹל הַחַיִּים יוֹדוּךָ סֶּלָה" ("And all the living shall thank You, selah"). "Sick" "prison" "sea" "desert." And so wrote the Alter Rebbe4.
Question: Does one recite the bracha only when he has left the danger entirely?
Answer: The responsa Maharash of Lublin5 wrote, and the Ateres Zekeinim6 brought it: 'However, they did not write from when one recites the bracha, and it appears that one should not recite the bracha until he has left the trouble entirely, and likewise regarding a sick person, until he returns to his full health, as it is written in the Mechilta on the pasuk "וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ" ("and walks about outside"), and so Rashi explained: indeed, as long as he does not walk in his full health, he is still in doubtful danger, and if so, regarding Birkas HaGomel, the good is not complete as long as it has not been completed; and perhaps in that they instituted to say "gemalani kol tov" [Who has bestowed upon me every good], the meaning of "the good" is all of it and not most of it; and so Chazal said, why was "ki tov" not stated on the second day — because it was not completed etc. — this shows that the term "tov" indicates a complete good that has been finished well and in its fullness (in the name of the Maharash of Maharal, of blessed memory)'.
And the Eliyah Rabbah7 wrote: 'When he goes up from it. That is to say, even if a miracle occurred for him in one place, he need not recite the bracha immediately, but rather waits until he goes up from the sea; and the same law applies if he traveled on a ship and at times they come to a harbor and delay there a day or two — he need not recite the bracha; however, if he delays a great deal, it requires study — so wrote the Olas Tamid. And I found written that one should not recite the bracha until he has left the trouble entirely, for this reason "ki tov" was not stated on the second, since the work of the waters was not completed — this shows that the term "tov" indicates a good that has been finished well and in its fullness; and regarding a sick person, until he walks in his health, until here'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe8: 'One should not recite the bracha until he has left the danger entirely; therefore a sick person should not recite the bracha until he returns to his full health'.
The Rebbe9 mentioned regarding the time at which the Rebbe Rayatz recited Birkas HaGomel after the deliverance from his imprisonment on the 12th–13th [of Tammuz] in the year 5687, that even though on the 13th of Tammuz, which fell then on a Wednesday, the Rebbe Rayatz said a ma'amar beginning "Baruch HaGomel l'chayavim tovos she'gemalani tov," nevertheless also the next day, on Thursday morning before his departure from Kostroma, he did not recite Birkas HaGomel, and the Rebbe explains: 'And it appears that this is because he had not yet returned to his home, and it is not called "he has left the danger entirely," for otherwise he should not have delayed Birkas HaGomel until Shabbos, as the Alter Rebbe rules: "and it is proper not to delay beyond three days; therefore if he left the danger on Monday .. he should recite the bracha .. without a Sefer Torah, and not wait until Thursday" — and the saying of Torah in the ma'amar beginning "Baruch HaGomel" prior to the holy Shabbos — this is analogous to the studying of the halacha in proximity to the time of its fulfillment'.
[And the Eshel Avraham (Butchatch)10 wrote: that 'even though one should precede Birkas HaGomel as much as possible .. if he returned to his full strength and on the next day some cause of an ailment occurred to him — even though he did not fall to his bed on account of it and there was no danger in it, and he was delayed several days by that ailment — there is in this no [issue] of delaying the bracha .. also when it is known that the ailment has no relation to the illness that preceded it, nevertheless it may be said that according to everyone the delay does not nullify the bracha11, since what he delayed was only on account of the fact that he waited to recite the bracha while being well and healthy in good [health], so that it would be applicable to say "HaGomel tov" etc.'].
If so, we have seen that in general the time of Birkas HaGomel is when he has left the danger entirely and returned to his [prior] state12, and in the following halachos we will see further details in this law.
הערות:
1 ברכות נד, ב ↩
2 הל' ברכות פ"י ה"ח ↩
3 סי' ריט ס"א ↩
4 סדר ברכות הנהנין פי"ג, ה"ב ↩
5 סי' א ↩
6 או"ח סי' ריט, ס"ק ב, הובא בבאר היטב ס"ק י ↩
7 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק א ↩
8 סדר ברכות הנהנין פי"ג, ה"ה ↩
9 לקו"ש כח 149 הע' 9. וראה גם רשימות חוברת לא מט"ז תמוז תש"ב. ובקובץ כ"ח סיון יובל שנים, עמ' 20 - 21. וראה גם תו"מ חל"ו ע' 134: 'כאשר כ"ק מו"ח אדמו"ר חזר לאחרי מאסרו, מעיר מקלטו קאַסטראַמאַ ללענינגראַד (פּטרבורג), ברך ברכת הגומל, כיון שע"פ דין צריך להמתין עד 'שיחזור לבוריו', ולכן לא ברך ברכת הגומל כשהגיעה אליו ידיעת השחרור בהיותו בקאַסטראַמאַ' ↩
10 סי' ריט ס"ו ↩
11 לגבי ברכה לאחר משך זמן ראה מש"כ בהלכה מס' 871, אך מ"מ גם לדידן למדים מדברי הא"א שניתן גם לכתחילה להתעכב מלברך מצד חולשה צדדית (למרות שלא מחמת החולי הראשון) ולא נחשב שאינו מקדים הברכה בכל מה שאפשר ↩
12 וראה גם משנ"ב סי' ריט ס"ק ב. שו"ת דברי יציב חאו"ח סי' פו ובהנסמן שם. שו"ת משנה הלכות חי"א סי' קעז, ובשבט הלוי ח"ד סי' קנב כתב לגבי מקרה שנשאר תוצאות מהמחלה: 'ולדידי פשוט דכל שיצא מכלל סכנה של עכשיו וירד מהמטה ויצא לחוץ דהיינו שיצא מעצם הסכנה רק צריך עוד איזה טיפול על הרושם שנשאר בזה ונמשך כידוע לפעמים זמן רב, יברך ברכת הגומל בשם ומלכות דמ"מ עכשיו נעשה לו טובה ונס מן השמים' ↩
[כח] (הלכה 878)
In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote that 'those who go down to the sea, when they go up from it, and those who travel through deserts, when they reach a settlement'.
Question: What is the law regarding a person who travels a journey that obligates Birkas HaGomel, and he stops and continues again to the next journey which also obligates HaGomel — when does he recite the bracha?
Answer: The Olas Tamid1 wrote: 'If one travels on a ship and at times they come to a harbor and delay there a day [or] two, he need not recite the bracha, since he is traveling on a journey and his intention is to return immediately to the sea, he does not recite the bracha; however, if he delays a great deal, it requires study whether he should recite the bracha'.
The Eliyah Rabbah2 brought his words, and afterward the words of the Ateres Zekeinim: 'And I found written that one should not recite the bracha until he has left the trouble entirely', and seemingly his intention is to decide that even in a case where he delays a great deal of time, as long as he has not reached his destination he is still on the journey, and does not recite the bracha3.
And the Chida in the Birkei Yosef4 wrote: 'One who travels from place to place, and the course of his travel passed through large cities, should not recite HaGomel there until he goes to his destination. The Rav Mahari Shaul in the Sefer Kol Yaakov in the responsa siman 3. However, from the words of the wondrous decisor, the Rav in the Mikra'ei Kodesh daf 53b, who explained in the intention of Rashi, who wrote5 "when they leave the danger," that if he went out to travel a journey of ten days, each night when he leaves the danger he recites the bracha, since each night he reaches a village and leaves danger, end of his words — it is proven that he holds the opposite. But the truth is that there is no proof from the words of Rashi, and on the contrary it may be explained the reverse, that his intention is "when they leave the danger" entirely, and not when he is saved in part. And see in the Derashos of the Maharanach, Parshas Emor6'.
And in the Machzik Bracha7 he wrote: 'And likewise one who travels from metropolis to metropolis and rests a day or two in a city that is between them should not recite the bracha until he reaches the metropolis to which he is going, for his intention is [directed toward] that, as it is written in the Sefer Kol Yaakov in the responsa; so it is written in the Ohel Yosef, and see what I wrote in my humility in my small work, the Birkei Yosef'.
However, the Ma'amar Mordechai8 brought the aforementioned dispute and wrote that the minhag is indeed to recite the bracha: 'And if so, the emissaries of Eretz Yisrael should not have recited the bracha until the completion of their mission upon their return to Eretz Yisrael, to their home in peace; but I have not seen them practicing so, for in every place they go they recite Birkas HaGomel, and perhaps, since they delay a great deal, they practice so. However, from the plain wording of "I found written" that the Rav Eliyah Rabbah brought, it does not appear so, and furthermore, that I have seen [people] practicing that when they travel from place to place they recite HaGomel upon reaching their destination, and again recite HaGomel upon their return to their home in peace. Therefore it appears, according to my limited understanding, that the world compares this to what is written below in seif 8, that one who has a fixed ailment that comes to him from time to time must recite HaGomel — this shows that even though he knows that he will return to that illness at its fixed time, even so he must recite the bracha, and likewise each time; so too here, each time that he is saved from the trouble he must give praise and thanksgiving to Hashem, whenever a congregation and assembly present themselves to him, to sanctify His name in public, and even though one may distinguish somewhat, nevertheless the matter appears as I have written. And so it is reasonable, for indeed it is explained below in seif 7 that the minhag of Sefarad is to recite the bracha when they travel from city to city, and so is our minhag; and if it were as the words of the "I found written," there would be no place to recite the bracha, since his intention is to set out on the road again after Shabbos or after Yom Tov; and who has divided for us to say that this speaks specifically of one whose way is not to set out on the road continually — this is not reasonable. Therefore I see [the correctness of] the minhag'9.
However, the matter is explained according to what the Sdei Chemed10 wrote: In the year 5630, when I went on a journey of mitzvah to prostrate myself upon the graves of the tzaddikim in the four lands of Israel, I was in the holy city of Teveria, and they invited me to go up to the Sefer Torah, and I recalled that there is a dispute among the poskim regarding one who travels from place to place, whether he recites the bracha in each and every place; and on this I asked the sages and their Rabbanan, may Hashem preserve them .. and among them the Rav, our teacher Rav Yaakov Abulafia, may Hashem preserve him: what am I [to do], to recite Birkas HaGomel .. and Yaakov said: the plain minhag from of old is to recite the bracha, and so did several Rabbanan who came to prostrate themselves do; and also it is not a matter [subject] to the dispute of the poskim that the master mentioned, for they only disagreed regarding one who travels from city to city and his entire desire is only for a certain city, except that he is compelled to pass by way of other cities, and if it could be pictured that he could go to that certain city without passing by way of the other cities, it would be pleasing to him — thus, since he does not go out with those cities in mind, it may well be said that he has not yet reached his destination and does not recite the bracha until he reaches the place with which in mind he goes out; whereas those who go out to travel to the graves of tzaddikim, their desire and will is toward each and every place, and it is with this in mind that they go out — these are the words of the Rav, may Hashem preserve him, and they are words of reason, and so I did and recited HaGomel, and when I returned to my home I said [I would] look into the matter, and I looked in the words of Maran the Chida .. and I saw that it is correct to distinguish as the Rav, may Hashem preserve him, wrote. And with this the minhag of the emissaries of Eretz Yisrael, that in every place they go they recite the bracha, may be settled, and the Gaon Ma'amar Mordechai at the beginning of siman 219 addressed it, from what the Rav Eliyah Rabbah wrote, "I found written" that if one travels on a ship and at times they come to a harbor and delay there a day or two, and at times delay a great deal, he need not recite the bracha until he leaves the trouble entirely, and likewise the emissaries of Eretz Yisrael should not recite the bracha until they return to their home, see there; and according to what the Rav, our teacher Rav Yaakov Abulafia, may Hashem preserve him, distinguished, they act well in reciting the bracha, and it is not similar to what the Eliyah Rabbah wrote, for the emissaries go out with this in mind, to go to all the settlements of the Children of Israel to collect money, and especially the emissaries of a kollel, that each emissary is assigned to the cities to which he will go, and to others he will not go, since they were not written in the authorization that the Rabbanan of the great city, may it be built, gave him, as is known; and if so, when they go out with each of those cities in mind, they go out, and behold they have reached their destination and must recite the bracha. And what he wrote to settle [the matter] according to what Maran wrote, that in Sefarad they practice to recite the bracha when they travel from city to city — in my humble opinion there is [room] to cast doubt, for there Maran, of blessed memory, came only to exclude the minhag of Ashkenaz and France, that they recite the bracha only for those who travel through deserts, and he says that the minhag of Sefarad is to recite the bracha even from city to city, and indeed so, that as long as he has not reached his destination, even though in the meantime he entered a place that he entered in the course of his travel, he does not recite the bracha; and it would be no more than a doubt whether that minhag holds to recite the bracha even in such a case or holds not to recite it .. As for our coming upon it, we have already written that the correct [course] is to recite the bracha, and according to what the Rav, our teacher Rav Yaakov Abulafia, may Hashem preserve him, distinguished, that this is not a matter [subject] to the dispute of the later Rabbanan, and all the more so since such is the plain minhag there in Eretz Yisrael, and also since such was the practice of the emissaries of Eretz Yisrael, as the Rav Ma'amar Mordechai wrote; and even though at first he cast doubt on the minhag, nevertheless at the conclusion of his words he found support and basis, and it appears that his view inclines to reciting the bracha, see there'.
The Kaf HaChaim11 brought the words of the Sdei Chemed and wrote that this is only in a manner where they delay there: 'And it appears that this is [the case] if his intention is to delay and rest there some days; but if his intention is only to prostrate himself and to return immediately on that day or on the next day, he should not recite the bracha until he reaches a place where he wishes to rest some days, or until he returns to his home in peace. And so we acted in practice in the year 5668, when we went from Yerushalayim, may it be rebuilt, to Chevron to prostrate ourselves upon the graves of the fathers, and it was not our will to delay there but to return on the second day, and we did not recite HaGomel there until our return to Yerushalayim, may it be rebuilt'.
If so, in actuality, a person who travels to a certain destination and on his way stops at additional places recites the bracha only upon reaching the final destination, unless he set out from the outset for several places [and delays in them]12, in which case in each place he recites HaGomel [provided that this journey in itself meets the criteria of the obligation of the bracha].
הערות:
1 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק א ↩
2 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק א ↩
3 וראה ג"כ משנ"ב או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק א, ובשעה"צ ס"ק א שכתב: 'ואם שוהה כמה ימים, מסתפק בעולת תמיד אך ממסקנת הא"ר משמע דגם בזה אינו מברך' ↩
4 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ג ↩
5 ברכות נד, ב ד"ה צריכין ↩
6 ראה בשד"ח שנסמן לקמן ↩
7 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ה. וכן פסק בלדוד אמת סי' כג אות ה ↩
8 סי' ריט ס"ק א ↩
9 בהמשך דבריו הביא את החיד"א והקשה עליו ↩
10 אסיפת דינים מע' ברכות סי' ב אות יא (ח"ד ע' תשעו) ↩
11 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ה ↩
12 לדברי כף החיים גם כשמגיע למחוז חפצו אינו מברך אם לא מתעכב שם עד שיחזור למקומו, אך ראה בהליכות שלמה פכ"ג דבר הלכה ד שסובר שאף הנוסע ליום אחד מברך הגומל בהגיעו למחוז חפצו ↩
[כט] (הלכה 879)
Question: What is the law: a) one who passed through several situations for which one recites HaGomel and has not yet had the opportunity to recite the bracha — does he recite the bracha for each and every instance, or does he recite a single bracha; b) what is the law when a miracle happened to him in the course of his being on a journey that obligates a bracha — does he recite the bracha for the miracle, or does he wait for the completion of the journey?
Answer: The Rav Shlomo Germiza'an1 wrote: 'Question: one who was imprisoned two or three times and came out, does he recite HaGomel for each and every one? And if you say his law is that he recites only one, if he was imprisoned and sick, what is [the law] — that he recite the bracha for each one? Answer: The Beis Yosef wrote in OC siman 7 .. and these are his words: "The great rabbeinu Mahari Abuhav, of blessed memory, wrote that it is written in the Orchos Chaim2 in the name of a Gaon that a person who urinated and diverted his mind from urinating, and afterward reconsidered and urinated another time, must recite "Asher Yatzar" twice, and he brought a proof from what they said3 that one who erred and did not pray Shacharis prays Mincha twice," end of his words, and it is ruled in the Shulchan Aruch there .. And furthermore it is difficult from that which the Tur wrote in OC siman 169: the attendant recites "Borei Peri HaGefen" over each and every cup that they give him, but the final bracha he need not recite except at the end, end of his words, and the Beis Yosef ruled it in the Shulchan Aruch there .. And nevertheless it is difficult: why should he not recite the final bracha over each and every cup for which he has already become obligated? And it may be said, with one introduction, that the brochos are three: Birkas HaNehenin, Birkas HaMitzvos, Birkas HaHoda'ah, and they differ in their law, as is known; and therefore that of one who urinated, which is a Birkas HaHoda'ah, he must recite the bracha for each instance in thanksgiving, but that of the attendant is a Birkas HaNehenin — that he not derive benefit from this world without a bracha — and with one bracha it suffices, for indeed he does not derive benefit without a bracha. And now it appears that one who was imprisoned twice recites the bracha for each instance, since it is a Birkas HaHoda'ah, for there too it is a "reconsideration" [nimlach], for when he came out the first time he did not think that they would imprison him another time, but rather by another matter he was imprisoned; and all the more so with one who was imprisoned and sick, that he is obligated to recite two [brochos], since he already became obligated in thanksgiving. But if he was imprisoned and sick simultaneously, it appears that he recites only one, for he did not yet become obligated in thanksgiving, and they come as one, and one bracha suffices; and if he was healed before he left prison, or he left prison before he was healed and is still in danger, he should not recite the bracha — for how can he recite "HaGomel l'chayavim tovos" etc. while he is in the danger of the Angel of Death? What difference is there between here and there? And when he leaves the danger, one bracha suffices, since both come as one. And one may infer thus from the language of Rashi, of blessed memory, who explained "four must give thanks — when they leave the danger," end of his words; and many approaches have been stated in it, and a subtle inference according to the matter appears, that his intention is to say that if he is in danger — even another danger, such as that he left prison and fell ill — he should not recite the bracha, since he is in danger until he is healed and leaves the danger'.
If so, according to his words practical conclusions emerge: a) Birkas HaGomel is a Birkas HaHoda'ah, and one is obligated to give thanks for each event in itself; therefore one who was twice in prison or twice sick and healed, and has not yet recited the bracha, will need to recite the bracha twice. b) In combined events [such as that he was both sick and simultaneously also imprisoned in prison] — since he did not become obligated separately, therefore he recites one bracha over the whole, and even if one event ended before its counterpart he should wait with the bracha, since another danger still rests upon him, and then he recites over the whole a single bracha.
And behold, regarding conclusion a) there is [room] to discuss his words, for from the words of the poskim it appears that a single Birkas HaHoda'ah exempts all that occurred in the past, for indeed the Bach4 wrote on the words of the Beis Yosef regarding Birkas Asher Yatzar: 'And this ruling is far from reason, for it is not similar to prayer, which is in place of the korban, [for which] the Chachamim instituted for it compensations, since we find compensations regarding a korban; but Birkas Asher Yatzar, which is a thanksgiving over the past, one fulfills his obligation with one Birkas HaHoda'ah over all that has passed, just as it is with one who ate and drank and diverted his mind and [then] ate and drank, that he recites the final bracha over the two eatings according to all opinions .. And I asked my teacher the pious one, Moreinu HaRav Shlomo son of Rav Leibush, of blessed memory, of Lublin, and he answered me in this language: this ruling I have not heard — meaning I do not hold [it] — end [of his words]; and thus we hold, that he recites Asher Yatzar only one time, and not like the Shulchan Aruch'. And so ruled the Magen Avraham5, and the Alter Rebbe6, and if so, according to this we will need to say that one always recites the bracha only one time.
And the Eshel Avraham (Oppenheim)7 wrote: 'And one who was imprisoned two or three times, is it necessary to recite the bracha for each and every instance, since he already became obligated for each and every deliverance, or perhaps, even though they were an obligation, nevertheless, since one was pushed away by itself — one inadvertently and one intentionally — until he was seized a second and third time, henceforth one bracha suffices? See the responsum Kol Ben Levi, question 1, that he ruled that one bracha suffices, and he brought support for his words from the words of the Terumas HaDeshen siman 34, see there; second to it from the words of the Rif in Pesachim, from the agreement of the Ran8, that one recites only the final bracha, one for the entire cup. And so it is implied from the author of the Ginas Veradim, responsa Klal Alef siman 48, see there, that he brought many proofs for his words, all of them beloved and clear'.
And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah9: 'The Acharonim wrote that one who became obligated in [all] four recites only one bracha for all of them'.
Regarding conclusion b), such is the agreement of the poskim10 as the Olas Tamid11 wrote: 'What is written, "when they go up from it." That is to say, even if a miracle occurred for him in one place where he was in a place of danger and was saved from it, he need not recite the bracha immediately, but rather waits until he goes up from the sea'.
And the Eshel Avraham (Oppenheim)12: 'And in the responsum Ohel Yosef (Molcho) [siman 1] he ruled that even if a miracle occurred for him in the course of his travel he is not obligated to recite the bracha until he went up from the sea, and all the more so in the aforementioned law. And he brought a proof from the pasuk13 of those who go down to the sea etc. "וְיִשְׂמְחוּ כִי יִשְׁתֹּקוּ" ("and they rejoice because they are quiet"), the implication being that even if a storm rises to stillness, even so they have not yet given thanks to Hashem for His kindness until they reached their destination'.
And the Netziv in the Ha'ameik Davar14 wrote: 'And from here one can learn that one to whom a trouble occurred and he escaped from it, and he needed to bring a Todah or to recite HaGomel, and before he came to this another trouble occurred to him — he should not bring a Todah or recite HaGomel until he is saved also from that trouble which he entered a second time'.
If so, in actuality: a) one who became obligated in Birkas HaGomel, and before he recited the bracha passed through another event that obligates Birkas HaGomel, recites one bracha and exempts all. b) one who is in the middle of an event of danger does not recite HaGomel for events that occurred in the course [of it] until he leaves the last danger.
הערות:
1 שו"ת משפטי צדק סי' י ↩
2 הל' נט"י סי' יב ↩
3 ברכות כו, א ↩
4 או"ח סי' ז ↩
5 או"ח סי' ז ס"ק א ↩
6 שם ס"ג ↩
7 או"ח סי' ריט ס"א ↩
8 כד, א ד"ה ולענין ↩
9 סי' ריט ס"ק ג ↩
10 וראה מה שהאריך בזה בציץ אליעזר שו"ת חי"ח סי' כב ↩
11 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק א ↩
12 שם ↩
13 תהלים קז, כג - לא ↩
14 וישלח לה, א ↩
[ל] (הלכה 880)
Question: Are those who must give thanks required in additional matters besides Birkas HaGomel?
Answer: The Rosh1 wrote: 'But Birkas HaGomel was instituted in place of a Todah'. That is to say, Birkas HaGomel serves as a substitute for the Korban Todah, which we cannot offer today, and as it is stated in Tehillim2 regarding the four who must give thanks: 'יוֹדוּ לַה' חַסְדּוֹ וְנִפְלְאוֹתָיו לִבְנֵי אָדָם וְיִזְבְּחוּ זִבְחֵי תוֹדָה' ("Let them give thanks to Hashem for His kindness, and for His wonders to the children of men, and let them sacrifice offerings of thanksgiving"). And this is the korban that is set forth in Parshas Tzav3 'אִם עַל תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ' ("If he offers it for a thanksgiving").
In the words of Chazal it is not explicitly explained whether this korban is an obligation or a voluntary [offering], and from the words of Rashi on the pasuk there one can understand that it is voluntary4: 'If it is for a matter of thanksgiving over a miracle that was done for him, such as those who go down to the sea and those who travel through deserts and those imprisoned in prison and a sick person who was healed, who must give thanks, since it is written concerning them "יוֹדוּ לַה' חַסְדּוֹ וְנִפְלְאוֹתָיו לִבְנֵי אָדָם וְיִזְבְּחוּ זִבְחֵי תוֹדָה" ("Let them give thanks to Hashem for His kindness, and for His wonders to the children of men, and let them sacrifice offerings of thanksgiving") — if over one of these he vowed these shelamim, they are shelamei todah ..'.
And there are those who wrote that such is the view of the Rabbeinu Gershom5: 'If you say [it refers to] "todah chovah" [an obligatory thanksgiving]. This is a "todah chovah," such as one who was sailing on the sea and was endangered and vowed that if he is saved he would bring a Todah, as we say "four must give thanks," and a "todah chovah" is that which he says "harei alai" [it is incumbent upon me], for he became liable for its responsibility'. And see below what the Peri Megadim wrote on the words of the Rambam6.
However, from the words of Rashi (manuscript) on the words of the Gemara in Menachos7 'todas chovah' in the second explanation it is explained that it is an obligation: 'Another version: "todas chovah," such as one sailing on the sea and one who goes out in a caravan and a sick person who was saved from his illness and one imprisoned who left prison, for we say in Berachos "four must give thanks," since it is written concerning them "vayizbechu zevach todah" in the Sefer Tehillim'.
And the Shitah Mekubetzes8 commented on his words: 'Rashi explained in another version "such as one sailing on the sea" etc., and this is not correct, for we do not find that he is obligated unless he said "harei alai todah" [it is incumbent upon me to bring a Todah]'9.
Indeed, the Tosafos Rid10 likewise wrote as Rashi did: 'Alternatively, such as where it was of the four who must give thanks, for regarding them it is written "and let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving," and since he is responsible for it, if it died he is obligated to bring another in its place.' And note also from the Ibn Ezra11: '"and let them offer sacrifices" - and they are obligated to offer sacrifices, for the one who strayed and the captive are sound in body, while the sick person is close to death'12.
Also among the words of the Acharonim there are those who wrote that this is not an obligation, as the Pri Megadim wrote13: 'And in Menachos daf 82a and in the Rambam, chapter 16 of Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos, halacha 16, "a todah - this one brings from chullin," and it does not omit [that] if it is for a miracle, [it] is forbidden, evidently it is not a Torah law, and what Rashi wrote in the Chumash, parashas Tzav, that if it is for thanksgiving one must give thanks, he is speaking of a Rabbinic [obligation], while the verse is speaking of a vow or freewill-offering. It is true that it implies, at any rate, that it has the status of divrei kabbalah, for Tehillim was said with ruach hakodesh like Esther, and in OC14 in the Beis Yosef in the name of the Raah, divrei kabbalah are considered [like divrei Torah], see there. And we wrote in the Pesicha Kolleles15 that a doubt in divrei kabbalah is [treated] stringently as in a Torah matter; if so, why should a todah for a miracle not be reckoned an obligatory matter in such a case, for even that which is Rabbinic itself, were it not that they [the Sages] so stipulated, would be actually of the Torah ..'.
And the Panim Yafos16 wrote: 'And it appears that the verse mentioned only obligatory offerings, unlike the todah, which comes as a freewill-offering, for the obligation of the four who must give thanks is only an asmachta17, 18'.
And the view of the Alter Rebbe19 is elucidated from what he wrote in Hilchos Pesach: 'It is the custom in these lands that the three matzos of the mitzvah are made from one issaron of flour, like the lachmei todah, which were three loaves made from one issaron .. therefore we too make three matzos to an issaron as a remembrance of the lachmei todah, for one who leaves prison is obligated20 to bring a todah, and we on Pesach left prison, from the enslavement of Egypt, therefore we make a remembrance of the lachmei todah'.
And since the korban todah is an obligation, the Alter Rebbe wrote21: 'And if one knows that he became obligated in some korban, such as an olah for the nullification of a positive commandment or for a sinful thought of the heart, a negative commandment, and a todah for the four who must give thanks, he should recite the passage of the korban immediately once he became obligated in it'22.
If so, it is elucidated that according to the view of the Alter Rebbe the four who must give thanks are obligated in a korban todah, and therefore, besides the bracha, they must also recite the passage of the korban todah.
However, the Rebbe23 noted: 'See Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, second edition, end of siman 1, "he should recite the passage of the korban immediately etc. on the day etc." And it is greatly perplexing, for I have not seen [people] practicing thus24, and perhaps because the Alter Rebbe did not bring it in his siddur, in the Seder Birchos HaNehenin - but on account of this difficulty, would one nullify what is explicit in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe as above? Seemingly the passage should be [given] to tzedakah for communal needs (see Magen Avraham siman 218 sk 225), which is within the ability of each and every one - except that this too I have not seen [people] practicing, and seemingly it is worthwhile to institute this. And this (the tzedakah) may be connected and explained according to what is said in the Iggeres HaKodesh "Katonti," that with every act of chesed etc. there must be an increase in his humility of spirit, and consequently there is an increase in the chesed that he performs (see Or HaTorah, Vayeira 97, second column and onward)'.
If so, the Rebbe wondered why he did not see [people] practicing to recite the korban todah. And likewise why tzedakah is not set aside for communal needs - and that it is worthwhile to institute this.
--------------
Notes:
1 ברכות פ"ט סי' ג ↩
2 קז, ב ↩
3 ז, ב ↩
4 וראה פתח הדביר סי' ריט אות יב. שד"ח מערכת ברכות אות י בסופו (ח"ד ע' תשעה, ב). פאת השדה סי' יב (ח"ח ע' תשמו, ב ואילך), ועוד. אך הרבי בלקו"ש חי"ב ע' 22 הערה 10 מבאר שגם לדברי רש"י אלו זה חיוב: 'ומ"ש רש"י *'נדר* שלמים הללו' אף שחובה היא - י"ל: החיוב הוא לאחרי שנעשה הנס, אבל מצינו שיעקב אבינו נדר להביא קרבן (בתור הודאה) עוד בהיותו בהעת צרה, כמ"ש (ויצא כח, כ) 'וידר יעקב נדר לאמר אם וגו' והאבן הזאת אשר שמתי יהי' בית אלקים' (וכ"ה ביונה (ב, י): 'ואני בקול תודה אזבחה לך אשר *נדרתי* אשלמה וגו' - ובכ"מ - לכן (מכיון שע"ד הרגיל כן הוא) כותב רש"י 'נדר' כי בודאי נדר הקרבן עוד לפני זה. [ועפ"ז יש להוסיף רמז בהתיבה 'יקריבנו' (ולא 'יקריב' סתם) - אותו שכבר נדר]' ↩
5 מנחות עט, ב ↩
6 וראה לקמן מ"ש הפמ"ג. וראה ג"כ הל' מעשה הקרבנות פ"ט ה"ה ↩
7 מנחות עט, ב [ויל"ע ברש"י זבחים ז, א.] ↩
8 שם בד"ה אילימא ↩
9 וראה ג"כ בערכין יא, ב אות ה ↩
10 ר"ה ה, ב ↩
11 תהלים קז, כב ↩
12 ולהעיר מפרקי דרבי אליעזר פכ"ג: 'ישב נח ודרש בלבו ואמר הקב"ה הצילני ממי המבול והוציאני מן המסגר ההוא, *ואיני חיב להקריב לפניו קרבן ועולות'*. אמנם ראה מ"ש בהוספות הרד"ל אות כד ↩
13 או"ח א"א סי' ריט בהקדמה ↩
14 סי' תרפו ↩
15 ח"א סי' יח ↩
16 צו ז, יג ↩
17 וראה מ"ש המהר"ם שיק או"ח סי' פח ↩
18 וראה מ"ש תלמידו החתם סופר שו"ת או"ח סי' נא. ומה שדנו בדבריו בשו"ת מהר"ם שיק שם. אבנ"ז שו"ת או"ח סי' לט על דברי החת"ס. שדי חמד שם. שו"ת להורות נתן ח"ד סי' יא. צמח יהודה ח"ג סי' עח ↩
19 או"ח סי' תנח ס"ה ↩
20 מקור דבריו הם הרא"ש פסחים פ"י סי' ל שכתב: 'ונהגו באשכנז ובצרפת לעשות מעשרון אחד זכר ללחמי תודה שהיוצא מבית האסורין מביא לחמי תודה'. אלא שאדמו"ר הזקן הוסיף שזה *חובה* ↩
21 במהדו"ת סי' א ס"ט ↩
22 הרבי בלקו"ש חל"ב (ע' 107 הערה 20) כותב: 'ובפרט כמו שמשמע מפשטות לשון אדה"ז (שו"ע או"ח מהד"ת ס"א ס"ט. וראה שם במהד"ק סט"ו) 'ואם יודע שנתחייב באיזה קרבן כגון .. תודה לארבעה הצריכים להודות' (והוא עפ"י של"ה במס' תענית שלו (רב, ב) 'אם אני חייב קרבן תודה') - שהבאת תודה הוי *חובה* (ולא רשות)' ↩
23 אג"ק חכ"ד ע' רסח ↩
24 וראה ג"כ תו"מ רשימות היומן ע' תכז: 'ברכת הודאה - לא שמעתי ש(המברכים) יאמרו גם פ' קרבן תודה ונסכים (כ"כ בשו"ע מהד"ב א ט' ומהד"ק)' ↩
25 שכתב: 'משמע בשבת דף לג, כשנעשה לאדם נס יתקן איזה צרכי רבים בעיר' ↩
[31] (halacha 881)
One who leaves prison (1)
Question: Does everyone who was in prison and was released need to recite HaGomel?
Answer: The Ri Migash1 wrote: 'You asked: one who was imprisoned for a debt or for a tax levied upon each and every person - does he recite HaGomel, or is only one who was imprisoned for a matter involving danger obligated in this bracha? Answer. Since he was confined in the jailhouse, locked up in the prison, and was not master of himself, and now he has emerged from that situation to be master of himself, he became obligated in the bracha, especially if his imprisonment was over the payment of what was upon him from a tax levied upon each person, or a debt, because he could not afford it, and afterwards Hashem provided for him and arranged for him a way to pay this; for since they said that four must give thanks, among which is the confined one, they stated it as an inclusive [rule] and did not distinguish between one confined over monetary matters and one who was confined over capital matters, and it would have been possible to exclude from this rule one who has the ability to pay the tax or debt and refrained from paying because he was rebellious, or where there was a place [i.e., authority] that would have remitted for him something of what was upon him and this did not avail him, for his confinement in this was from what he brought upon himself, since had he wished he would not have been confined and no benefit would have come to him from this confinement of his such that he should recite a bracha over it - unless they say to us in the like of this, "you have made your words subject to individual measures."'
It is elucidated in his words that even a person who is in prison because of a monetary debt recites HaGomel when he is released, [except that he is in doubt where a person had the possibility to pay money and preferred to go to prison, and it appears he inclines to say that he recites [it]].
And note that many of the poskim did not see the words of the Ri Migash, and learned the law from the words of Rav Hai Gaon that will be brought below:
The students of Rabbeinu Yonah wrote2: 'Rabbeinu Hai Gaon z"l was asked why he did not state them in the order in which they are written in the mizmor, and he answered that he wished to enumerate first those who are in greater danger, for those who go down to the sea and those who travel through deserts are in greater danger than the sick person, for most of the sick are toward recovery, and the confined one is most times confined over money, and his danger is not so great'.
And the Malbushei Yom Tov3 wrote: 'From the language of the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah z"l it is implied even for money'. And the Eliyah Rabbah4 agreed with him.
On the other hand, the Magen Avraham5 wrote: 'Confined. Over capital matters'.
The Pri Megadim6 brought the dispute and wrote: 'And it is good to recite [the bracha] without Shem u'Malchus'7.
But the Korban Nesanel in Nesiv Chaim rejected the words of the Magen Avraham, and wrote: 'that he is obligated to recite [the bracha], if you wish, from Scripture - regarding those who travel deserts it is said "their soul faints within them," and regarding a sick person who was healed "they draw near to the gates of death," and regarding those who go down to the sea "their soul melts away in trouble," whereas regarding one confined in prison it does not mention a concern of capital [danger], but rather "those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, prisoners of affliction and iron," stated generally - implying then that when there befell them [the state of] sitting in darkness and the shadow of death or prisoners of affliction and iron, when he emerged from those two evils they thank Hashem for His kindness, whether they were confined on account of money or on account of capital matters. And if you wish, from reasoning, for the Rosh wrote in the first chapter of Bava Basra siman 22 that whatever decrees and calamities the nations of the world innovate against Israel, even when they afflict them with those torments and the withholding of food and drink, they collect everything according to wealth, for their main intent is upon the money, end quote. It emerges now that one should never recite a bracha at all, even when he was seized over capital matters, since their main intent is upon the money; and what the Rav, author of the Magen Avraham, wrote has not escaped me .. for I saw a mighty man standing against him, namely Rabbeinu Yonah .. who explicitly holds that he is obligated to recite the bracha of thanksgiving even when he was confined over money. Also in the Talmud and the poskim, both early and later, they did not divide thus, except for the Rav, author of the Magen Avraham, who remained alone; and had he seen the words of Rabbeinu Yonah he would not have filled his heart to disagree with him8. Therefore it appears to me to rule the halacha that he is obligated to recite the bracha of thanksgiving even when he was seized over false accusations of money, and so the people practice'9.
Also the Chida10 rejected the words of the Magen Avraham and pointed to further Rishonim: 'And so it appears from the words of the Aruch11, entry "arba'ah," who brought the words of the Gaon z"l. For behold Rabbeinu Yonah explicitly wrote that the confined one is most times [confined] for money, and his danger is not so great. And in the Aruch he wrote that a confined one, even for a poll-tax and land-tax, is farther from danger than all of them, see there. And so I saw in the responsa of Rabbeinu Mahar"i ibn Migash, manuscript, siman 90 .. the eye that sees and the ear that hears the words of the holy one calls aloud that in every kind of confinement one must recite the bracha .. and so is the plain custom, that for every kind of confinement, upon his emergence, he recites the bracha'12.
If so, we have seen that from the words of the Rishonim it appears that even one confined over monetary matters recites HaGomel, and in halacha the poskim are divided, for according to the view of the Magen Avraham he recites [it] only over capital matters13, and according to the view of the Malbushei Yom Tov he recites [it] also over monetary matters. And the Pri Megadim wrote to recite [it] without Shem u'Malchus.
And indeed there are poskim who made this law dependent on the dispute of the Mechaber and the Rema, as will be clarified in the following halacha, and so too the approach of the Alter Rebbe appears.
----
Notes:
1 סי' צ ↩
2 ברכות מג, א ↩
3 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק א ↩
4 שם ס"ק ב ↩
5 סי' ריט ס"ק א ↩
6 או"ח א"א סי' ריט ס"ק א ↩
7 ולהעיר מאשל אברהם (בוטשאטש) סי' ריט ↩
8 המחצית השקל כתב ליישב את המג"א: 'ולענ"ד המ"א ראה דברי תלמידי ר"י ואין חולק עליהם, עפ"י מש"כ הרא"ש בפ"ק דב"ב .. ולכן כתב ג"כ רבינו האי גאון חבוש רוב פעמים הוא חבוש בעבור ממון, ר"ל אף שהוא חבוש על עסקי נפשות מ"מ תכלית כונת החבישה עפ"י הרוב היתה לקבל ממון, וא"כ כיון דאפשר להשתדל ע"י ממון שוב אין סכנה כ"כ. ובנידון כזה גם מ"א מודה כיון דעיקר החבישה על עסקי נפשות צריך לברך, ומש"כ מ"א על עסקי נפשות, בא למעט אם תחילה היתה החבישה על עסק ממון, ואמרו מיד שמשום ממון נתפס, כה"ג אין לברך, ובזה גם רבינו האי גאון מודה' ↩
9 וכ"פ ערוה"ש או"ח סי' ריט ס"ה ↩
10 ברכ"י או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ד ↩
11 וראה גם בהגהות הגר"ב פרענקיל על השו"ע ↩
12 וכ"פ הבא"ח עקב ש"א ס"ט. וכתב הכה"ח סי' ריט ס"ק יא: 'ומיהו עיין בס' חקקי לב ח"ב דכ"א ע"ג שכתב לחלק דאם מכניסין אותו בבית הסוהר של כבוד בעבור חוב אין לברך אבל כשמכניסין אותו בבית הסוהר הבזויה אפי' על עסקי ממון מברכין יעו"ש אמנם לפי הטעם שכתב מהר"י בן מיגאש לפי כשהיה בבית הסוהר לא היה מושל בנפשו ועתה יצא מאותו מצב נראה דאין לחלק ואפילו אם היה בבית הסוהר של כבוד צריך לברך וכן מנהג העולם שאין לחלק' ↩
13 המשנ"ב ביאור הלכה סי' ריט ד"ה חבוש כתב בדברי המג"א: 'ונראה מדבריו בזה דגם חבוש אינו מחויב להודות אלא מחמת שהוא בסכנה מחמת חיבושו ולהכי בחבוש מחמת ממון שתובעים ממנו שבודאי עכ"פ לא יבא הדבר לידי סכנת נפשות שאפי' אם לא ישיג ידו לשלם ג"כ לא יהרגו אותו לפיכך אין מברכין משא"כ בחבוש מחמת שיש עליו עלילת נפשות א"כ הרי הוא עומד בסכנה שמא יגמר דינו ליהרג וכיוצא ולהכי מברך ולפי טעם זה גם בחבוש מחמת נפשות דמברכין לכאורה הוא דוקא בחבוש שנחבש עד שיגמר דינו דאז עומד בסכנה דהא אינו יודע אם יצא דינו לשבט או לחסד ואז אם יצא חייב לברך משא"כ בנגמר דינו שישב בבית האסורים כמו במדינות אלה שישיבת בית האסורים בעצמה הוא עונש אפי' היה עלילה של נפשות אפ"ה כשיצא מבית האסורים אינו מברך דהא לא הוי שום סכנה מאחר שידוע שזה הוא כל עונשו [אם לא שהישיבה גופא הוא סכנה כמו שידוע שיש בתי אסורים על פשעים גדולים שהישיבה בהם זמן מרובה הוא סכנת נפשות ובודאי צריך לברך כשיצא משם], ואולם יש לדחות דחייב להודות ולברך להש"י על שלא נגמר דינו מתחלה רק לישיבת בית האסורים בלבד ולא לעונש נפשות' ↩
[32] (halacha 882)
One who leaves prison (2)
In the previous halacha we saw that from the words of the Rishonim it appears that even one confined over monetary matters recites HaGomel, and that in halacha the poskim are divided, for according to the view of the Magen Avraham he recites [it] only over capital matters, and according to the view of the Malbushei Yom Tov he recites [it] also over monetary matters. And the Pri Megadim wrote to recite [it] without Shem u'Malchus.
And indeed there are poskim who made this law dependent on the dispute of the Mechaber and the Rema, for the Mechaber wrote1: 'In Ashkenaz and France they do not recite [the bracha] when they travel from city to city, for they obligated only those who travel deserts, where wild beasts and bandits are common; and in Sefarad they practice to recite [it], because all the roads are presumed [to hold] danger'. And he further wrote2: 'For every illness one must recite [the bracha], even if it is not an illness of danger and not a wound of a body cavity, but any [case] where he went up to bed and came down, because he resembles one who has been taken up to the scaffold to be judged, and there is no difference between one who has a fixed ailment that comes from time to time and one that is not fixed'. That is to say, according to him one recites [it] even in situations that are not actual mortal danger.
However, the Rema wrote there in a gloss: 'There are those who say that he recites [the bracha] only over an illness that has danger in it, such as a wound of a body cavity, and so they practice in Ashkenaz'.
And on this basis they wrote that Rav Hai Gaon and the Ri Migash, who wrote to recite [the bracha] even for one confined on account of money, are the Rishonim in accordance with whose approach the Mechaber ruled that one recites HaGomel not only in actual mortal danger, whereas the Magen Avraham - his approach corresponds to the ruling of the Rema, according to the Rishonim who hold that one recites [it] only over actual mortal danger, as the Nahar Shalom wrote3: 'The Magen Avraham wrote "over capital matters"; the Rav wrote this according to the custom of Ashkenaz, for the Shulchan Aruch wrote in se'if 7 that one recites [the bracha] only [for] one who travels a dangerous road, and regarding a sick person too the Rema wrote in se'if 8 that one recites [it] only for a wound of a body cavity; the same is here too, that it requires specifically that he be confined over capital matters, but according to the poskim there, that for every road and every illness, whenever he went up to bed he recites [it], the same is here too, even over monetary matters, and so we practice among us'.
However, the Mishnah Berurah4 disagreed and wrote that according to the view of the Magen Avraham even the Mechaber would concede that one recites [it] only over capital matters, and wrote: 'And it appears that the view of the Magen Avraham is that these early ones whom the Birkei Yosef brings follow the approach of the Aruch, that even for a slight ailment one recites [the bracha], and according to this the same applies to one confined on account of money, since he is at any rate imprisoned and cannot go out as he wishes, [which] suffices to become obligated in the bracha; whereas according to the Mechaber in se'if 8, who did not grasp entirely the approach of the Aruch but rather required at least that he went up to bed, and for the reason that since he went up to bed, even though he is not [in] danger at present, nonetheless it will happen many times that since he fell to his sickbed the illness overpowers him and he comes to [a state of] danger, and in this he is obligated to give thanks, as the Mechaber indeed wrote this reasoning in what he concludes, "and it resembles one taken up to the scaffold to be judged," for he does not know how his judgment will emerge; and so according to this approach, one confined on account of capital matters, who at any rate will be taken up to the scaffold, is obligated to recite [the bracha], whereas one confined on account of money, whom they will never take up to the scaffold to judge because he has nothing to pay with, is not obligated to recite [it]. And nonetheless, even if I grant their words to reject the words of the Magen Avraham, it is only according to the custom of Sefarad and according to the plain [ruling] of the Mechaber in se'if 8, whereas according to the view of the Rema and the custom of Ashkenaz, and for one who practices thus, the words of the Magen Avraham are certainly correct, that in a place where there is no danger one does not recite [it], and what does it matter to us that he is not in control of himself [unless in a place where even one confined over monetary matters is not entirely safe from danger, as is implied from the language of the Ri]; and it is astonishing regarding the Eliyah Rabbah that he did not descend to this'5.
If so, we have seen that the Acharonim debated whether it is possible to make the aforementioned dispute regarding one confined on account of money dependent on the dispute of the Mechaber and the Rema as to whether the bracha is only in a situation of danger.
And in the words of the Alter Rebbe6 we found a kind of compromise, and this is his language: 'And one who was confined in prison on account of capital matters and went out, or on account of monetary matters if he was tormented in iron fetters'.
And indeed the Mishnah Berurah there in the Biur Halacha wrote: 'And greater than this I found regarding one who wrote that a confined one recites [the bracha] specifically when he was bound in iron fetters7, and although in [terms of] the law it does not appear so, for as it seems he was drawn after the language of the verse, as it is written "prisoners of affliction and iron," and we already wrote above in the Biur Halacha that we do not require [it to be] similar to the verse, and even without "they wandered in the wilderness" or without "the storm wind arose" one likewise recites [it], and the same applies in this; and so it is implied from the other poskim, who did not mention this condition'.
But the Shaar HaKollel8 already wrote to explain the words of the Alter Rebbe: 'And people ask (a) why did the Alter Rebbe disagree with the Magen Avraham. (b) Why did he rule to recite [the bracha] where there is a concern of a bracha in vain. (c) Why did he innovate a new condition not found in any posek, "if he was tormented in iron fetters." And it appears to say that the Alter Rebbe does not disagree with the Magen Avraham at all .. And in the Birkei Yosef he expounded at length whether to recite [the bracha] over monetary matters and was pressed to advocate on behalf of the Magen Avraham .. And in the Machatzis HaShekel he was pressed to reconcile the words of the Magen Avraham .. but one who examines the language of Rav Hai Gaon in the Aruch will see that the inference of the Machatzis HaShekel does not come out well .. Indeed, Hashem enlightened my eyes and I saw that in vain were the aforementioned poskim pressed, for the words of Rav Hai Gaon and the language of the Magen Avraham and the words of the Alter Rebbe come out in one manner and are explicit in the verse, and because regarding the desert and the sea and the sick one "soul" is mentioned, while regarding the confined one "soul" is not mentioned, therefore the Magen Avraham explained that regarding the confined one too one does not recite [the bracha] unless it is capital matters - that is, either that they demand his soul [life], or that he was tormented in iron fetters even over monetary matters, as [Scripture] explained, that David, peace be upon him, [said] "prisoners of affliction and iron," [meaning] one who was tormented in iron fetters, and as it says there "he bowed his heart with toil, iron; his soul came [near]," [showing] that if he is tormented in iron fetters it touches upon the soul. It emerges that regarding the confined one too "soul" is mentioned. And because the Acharonim understood in the words of the Magen Avraham that specifically on account of capital matters must one recite [the bracha], but if he is tormented in iron on account of money one need not recite [it], therefore the Alter Rebbe was compelled to explain as he explained regarding David, peace be upon him, himself9. And this too is the intent of Rabbeinu Yonah in the name of Rav Hai Gaon, that even if he is confined for money, in which there is not so much danger like the desert and the sea and the sick one, but since he was bound in affliction and iron this is capital matters and he must recite [the bracha] with Shem u'Malchus'10.
If so, one who sat in prison on account of capital matters, or who sat on account of monetary matters and was tormented in iron fetters, recites HaGomel.
Notes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ז ↩
2 שם ס"ח ↩
3 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ק ג ↩
4 ביאור הלכה סי' ריט ד"ה חבוש ↩
5 אמנם להעיר ממ"ש מהדיר הברכי יוסף על דברי המשנ"ב: 'אינו נראה לענ"ד. ואדרבא י"ל להפך, דגם למנהג אשכנז הכא במאסר הוא ענין של עגמת נפש וגם אם נאסר על עסקי ממון עכ"פ הוא בסכנה. ויותר מזה מפורש חו"מ סי' שפ"ח, שהמוסר ישראל ביד גויים אפי' מסר רק ממונו הו"ל רודף וגברא קטילא בכל זמן, לפי שהגוים 'כתוא מכמר' שכיון שנמסר בידם יורדים עמו בעלילות מעסקי ממון לעסקי נפשות. וכיון דמוסר ממון מותר לשומטו בגלל סיבה זאת, ק"ו דמי שכבר חבוש שבידם אפי' על עסקי ממון חייו בסכנה. וסייעתא אלימתא לר"י ן' מגאש. ודייקא נמי שגם למנהג אשכנז לא חלקו אלא לגבי הולכי דרכים וחולה אבל חבוש ביד גויים לעולם הוי סכנה ודלא כהמג"א' ↩
6 סדר ברכת הנהנין פי"ג ה"ב ↩
7 דבריו צ"ע שהרי אדמו"ר הזקן כתב את זה רק לגבי מאסר על ממון ↩
8 פכ"ג אות ב ↩
9 וראה בלקו"ש חי"ז ע' 269 הערה 24: 'ולהעיר מסדבה"נ לאדה"ז (פי"ג ס"ב) 'אם הי' מעונה בכבלי ברזל', שלכאורה מקורו הכתוב (תהלים קז, י) 'אסירי עני וברזל' (שער הכולל פכ"ג)' ↩
10 וראה בהמשך דבריו מה שכתב עוד אופן לבאר ↩
[33] (halacha 883)
One who leaves prison (3)
In the previous halacha we saw that the poskim are divided regarding one who leaves prison, in what situation one recites [the bracha], for there are those who say only one who sat on account of capital matters, and there are those who say also over monetary matters, and the Alter Rebbe wrote that one recites [it] over capital matters, and also one who sits on account of monetary matters provided that he was also tormented in iron fetters.
Question: What is the law in a case where a person is under house arrest on account of capital matters?
Answer: The Rebbe wrote1: 'And it will be understood by first sweetening the language of Rashi "(and confined ones of) the prison" - for seemingly it would have sufficed had he written "confined ones" plainly, and it would have been understood of itself that the intent is confined ones of the prison? Rather, Rashi's intent in this is to be precise that specifically one confined in prison is obligated to bring a korban todah, unlike one confined in a house and the like. And his source is from the plain meaning of the verse in Tehillim there - which mentions here: "those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, prisoners of affliction and iron" - for it is explicit that only those confined in a place of "darkness and the shadow of death" are obligated in a korban todah'. And there in the note2: 'And it requires examination (in practical halacha) regarding the law of one confined on account of capital matters in house arrest - for perhaps it may be said that, since it touches upon the soul, he is [as one] sitting in "the shadow of death". And see also Shaar HaKollel chapter 23'.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the law regarding one who is in detention for several days?
Answer: The Mishnah Berurah wrote in the Biur Halacha3: 'And know further that even according to the words of those who disagree with the Magen Avraham and according to their approach, if they sentenced him to sit in prison he is certainly obligated to recite [the bracha] when he goes out afterward, even though he had no danger at all, nonetheless it appears that all this is when he sits at least in an actual prison, and for some period of time, but not when they sentenced him to sit a day or two in the police-house as is customary in our times for minor offenses against the laws of the government, may it be exalted, for in this, according to all, one does not recite [the bracha], since there is no danger here at all, and the reasoning of the Ri Migash brought by the Birkei Yosef - that he is not in control of himself - does not so apply, and this is not at all of the subject matter of the verse in which it is written "those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death etc." and "he humbled their heart with toil etc." and "they stumbled and there was no helper etc." .. but at any rate, regarding one who sits a day or two, it is certainly not at all of the subject matter of the verse and one should not recite [the bracha]'4.
[Regarding what the Mishnah Berurah wrote, that we require that he sat in an actual prison and for some period of time, one may note from what was written in the Birkas HaBayis5: 'And likewise, if they confined him for a short time, that his sentence came out to sit a day or two, even seven days, he does not recite [the bracha] except without Shem u'Malchus; but if they placed him in prison without a known time, even though he sat there only one day, he recites [it]'].
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the law of one who is released on bail?
Answer: The Aruch HaShulchan wrote6: 'And one who leaves prison [recites the bracha only] once he emerges completely clear from his judgment, and not that he went out on bail'7.
And so wrote the Birkas HaBayis8: 'And he does not recite [the bracha] until he goes out completely free. So it appears to me'.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the law regarding one who escaped from prison?
Answer: The Chida wrote9: 'There is one who wrote that even if he escaped, and it is possible that they will pursue him and punish him, even so he recites [the bracha]. But to me it appears that he does not recite [it], and it is not comparable to one who found a lost object'10.
And the Kaf HaChaim wrote11: 'And therefore one should recite [the bracha] without Shem u'Malchus'.
And regarding the cases in doubt, one may note from the words of the Gaon Rav Chaim Naeh12: 'And it appears that one who was confined on account of monetary matters, since there are many poskim [holding] that he must recite [the bracha], therefore he should have in mind, during the morning brochos, the bracha "matir asurim" also for this, that he came out free, for the bracha is of its subject matter and is a thanksgiving to Hashem for His kindness; and even if he was seized for a few hours over minor matters, as is common nowadays, he should have this in mind, (and how good it would be were he to recite [the bracha] among ten)'13.
Notes:
1 לקו"ש חי"ב ע' 26 - 27 ↩
2 39 ↩
3 או"ח סי' ריט ↩
4 וראה מ"ש בשו"ת בנין אב ח"א סי' ו אות ג בדברי המשנ"ב, וכתב שם שלפעמים במעצר יש בו אסירי עני וברזל יותר ממאסר עצמו ↩
5 ח"א שער כז ה"ב ↩
6 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ה ↩
7 וראה שו"ת בני אב שם ↩
8 שם ↩
9 ברכי יוסף או"ח סי' ריט שיו"ב א ↩
10 שכתב המחבר שו"ע או"ח סי' רכב ס"ד: 'מברך על הטובה: הטוב והמטיב אעפ"י שירא שמא יבא לו רעה ממנו, כגון שמצא מציאה וירא שמא ישמע למלך ויקח כל אשר לו'. (והבנין אב שם שגג בזה, עי"ש) ↩
11 או"ח סי' ריט אות יג ↩
12 קצות השלחן סי' סה ס"ק ד ↩
13 וראה שו"ת בנין אב שם ס"ה מש"כ בנידון זה ↩
[34] (halacha 885)
In halacha number 847 we saw that the poskim are divided regarding a person who was in a place of danger [that is not among the four things enumerated in the Gemara], and was saved, for according to the view of the Mechaber he recites [the bracha] without Shem u'Malchus, but according to the view of the poskim of Ashkenaz he recites [it] with Shem u'Malchus.
Question: What is the law in a case where he was saved from the danger not by way of a miracle, but by way of nature1?
Answer: In the halacha there the words of the Rivash2 were brought, who wrote: '.. when a lion stood over him to tear him, even in a city, if thieves came upon him, if nocturnal robbers, and he was saved from them, and the like of these miracles, all the more so must he give thanks .. for behold they established for him another bracha to recite when he passes again through that place: "Blessed [is He] who did for me a miracle in this place," as we say at the beginning of the chapter Ha-Ro'eh regarding that man who was walking on the right bank [of a river], a lion fell upon him, a miracle was performed for him, etc. And likewise Mar the son of Rabbeinu Avina was walking in the valley of Aravos and thirsted for water and a miracle was performed for him, etc. .. and all the more so that immediately when he was saved he must give thanks in the manner of the four who must give thanks, and he should not be exempted from the bracha of thanksgiving by [means of] the bracha "who did for me a miracle," which they obligated him to recite when he returns to pass through that place - and perhaps he will never pass there and will not recite that bracha; rather it certainly appears that he recites the bracha of thanksgiving in any case'.
If so, according to the view of the Rivash: even 'if thieves came upon him, if nocturnal robbers, and he was saved from them, and the like of these miracles, all the more so must he give thanks'.
But the Abudarham3 wrote: a) in the name of the Rosh of Lunel regarding the bracha "who did for me a miracle" that one recites it - 'specifically for a miracle that departs from the custom of the world or from the way of nature .. but a miracle that is the custom of the world and its nature, such as thieves who came upon him at night and he came to [a state of] danger and was saved and the like, he is not obligated to recite "who did for me a miracle in this place"'. b) and in the name of Rabbeinu Gershom son of Rabbi Shlomo regarding the bracha HaGomel: 'that it was instituted only for the four who must give thanks'4.
The Beis Yosef5 brought the words of the Abudarham in the siman dealing with the bracha "who did for me a miracle," and concluded: 'And in siman 219 [=which deals with the bracha HaGomel] it will be clarified that there are those who disagree in this'. And there he brought the aforementioned words of the Rivash.
And in plain [understanding] the intent of the Beis Yosef is that from the words of the Rivash it appears that he disagrees with both of the aforementioned points6 and holds that even over a natural rescue one recites HaGomel.
And the Bach7 wrote: 'The Beis Yosef wrote in the name of the Abudarham [that] a miracle that is the custom of the world and its nature, such as thieves who came upon him at night and he came to [a state of] danger and was saved and the like, he is not obligated to recite [="who did for me a miracle"], end quote, and so he ruled in the Shulchan Aruch; however, the bracha HaGomel, for those obligated in [thanksgiving for] favors, he is obligated to recite, as will be clarified at the end of siman 219'.
In halacha the Mechaber wrote8 regarding the bracha "who did for me a miracle": 'There are those who say that one does not recite [the bracha] over a miracle except for a miracle that departs from the custom of the world, but a miracle that is the custom of the world and its nature, such as thieves who came at night and he came to [a state of] danger and was saved and the like of this, he is not obligated to recite [it]. And there is one who disagrees9, and it is good to recite [the bracha] without mention of Shem u'Malchus'.
And the Taz10 wrote in accordance with the words of the Bach, that even according to the view that one does not recite "who did for me a miracle": 'but HaGomel he is obligated to recite, as is written at the end of siman 219'.
And although the Magen Avraham11 raised a difficulty on the Mechaber: 'I did not find anyone who disagrees, for how could it enter the mind to call a miracle something that is by way of nature, and what the Beis Yosef wrote at the end of siman 219 in the name of the Rivash means to say that when a miracle was performed for him he must recite HaGomel too12, but for a thing that is the custom of the world it is obvious that one does not recite "who did for me a miracle," and so it is implied in the Bach'.
But the Machatzis HaShekel wrote that even according to the words of the Magen Avraham, who holds that according to all one does not recite the bracha "who did a miracle": 'It may be said that even if it did not depart from the custom of the world, although one does not recite [the bracha] over the miracle and there is no [inference] a fortiori to recite HaGomel, nonetheless one recites HaGomel from reasoning, since it is proven that these four are not exclusive, and if so, just as [regarding] these four, even though they do not depart from the custom of the world one recites HaGomel, the same applies for other matters that do not depart from the custom of the world, [that] one recites HaGomel'.
In the following siman regarding the bracha HaGomel the Mechaber wrote13: 'These four are not exclusive, for the same applies to one for whom a miracle was performed, such as one upon whom a wall fell, or who was saved from the trampling of an ox and its gorings, or over whom a lion stood in a city to tear him, or if thieves came upon him, if nocturnal robbers, and he was saved from them, and all the like of this, all of them must recite HaGomel; and there are those who say that one recites HaGomel only [for] these four exclusively, and it is good to recite [the bracha] without mention of Shem u'Malchus'.
And we already saw14 that we practice according to the first view, that everyone for whom a miracle was performed recites [the bracha], and not only over the four things.
The Taz15 wrote to explain why one should distinguish between the bracha "who did for me a miracle" and the bracha HaGomel: 'Regarding the bracha that is over the miracle he ruled in siman 218 se'if 8 that he does not recite [it]; it appears the reason is that the bracha of the miracle was instituted as an addition to what pertains to the bracha HaGomel in a matter that is entirely outside of nature, and all concede that it is the finger of G-d, but HaGomel is [recited] even though the deliverance that was done for him is possible by way of nature; nonetheless he attributes the favor to Him, may He be blessed, and ascribes it to [divine] providence'.
It emerges, then, that the poskim are divided when there was a natural rescue that is not by way of a miracle, whether one recites HaGomel or not, and from the words of the Mechaber it appears that he learned that, according to those who hold that one recites [the bracha] not only over the four things mentioned in the verse, one should recite HaGomel also in a case where the rescue was not by way of an actual miracle, and so the Taz wrote.
If so, in practice, a person who was saved from danger, even when the rescue was by way of nature, recites HaGomel
--------------
Notes:
1 ישנו נידון נוסף כאשר [האדם לא היה במקום שמוגדר כמקום סכנה, אלא] סכנה כמעט הגיעה לאדם, ובחסדי ה' הסכנה נמנעה האם צריך לברך הגומל, ונראה הפרטים בזה בהלכה הבאה, בעז"ה ↩
2 שו"ת סי' שלז ↩
3 ברכת הראייה השבח וההודאה, וראה בהמשך דבריו שם למה מברכים על נס פורים לשיטות שאין מברכים על הצלה שהייתה בדרך הטבע. וראה שני הדעות שבשו"ת הראב"י אב"ד (מהדורת ירושלים תשכ"ב, סי' עב) הובא גם ברדב"ז ח"ג סי' תקעב (אלף א) ויובא בהלכה הבאה ↩
4 ראה לגבי זה בהלכה מס' 847 ↩
5 או"ח סי' ריח ↩
6 ראה לקמן דברי השו"ע והמ"א ↩
7 או"ח סי' ריח ↩
8 או"ח סי' ריח ס"ט ↩
9 וראה במאמר מרדכי שכתב שיתכן שהב"ח והט"ז לא גרסו בדברי המחבר את כל סיום דבריו מהמילים 'ויש שחולק' ואילך, אך ציין שבכל הדפוסים חדשים גם ישנים זה מופיע ↩
10 שם ס"ק ג ↩
11 שם ס"ק יב ↩
12 ראה במחצית השקל שביאר את דברי המג"א: 'ומש"כ עוד [-הריב"ש] ואם גנבים באו לו שודדי לילה וקראן נס, על כרחך ר"ל בענין שהיה יוצא ממנהג העולם' ↩
13 שו"ע או"ח סי' ריט ס"ט ↩
14 הלכה מספר 847 ↩
15 סי' ריט ס"ק ו ↩
[35] (halacha 886)
A danger that was averted
Question: What is the law in the case of a person who was not in a place of danger, but a danger nearly reached him, [such as a vehicle nearly colliding with him and the like] and through the kindness of Hashem the danger was averted - must he recite HaGomel?
Answer: We saw in halacha number 847 and in the previous halacha that the Rivash1 wrote: 'when a lion stood over him to tear him, even in a city, if thieves came upon him, if nocturnal robbers, and he was saved from them, and the like of these miracles, all the more so must he give thanks'.
That is to say, according to the words of the Rivash, even in a case where a person was in an event of mortal danger that nearly occurred, he must recite [the bracha].
However, the Maharal of Prague2 wrote: 'And now there are people who, when someone threw a stone at him and the stone did not reach him, recite "who bestows good kindnesses," and all this is a custom of ignoramuses, for even if they pursued him with a sword and he escaped, this is not among the four who must give thanks, and therefore he stated a number, to say that one recites [the bracha] only over four things; and this is because these four things - he was already at sea, and likewise he was already in the desert, and likewise he was already sick, and likewise he was already in prison and went out of it, but another matter, where he was not in trouble but only that trouble did not come upon him, is not included among the four who must give thanks'.
That is to say, according to the view of the Maharal, in a case of a danger that nearly occurred one does not recite [the bracha]3.
And in halacha the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch4 brought the words of the Rivash, and it appears then that he holds that, according to the poskim [and so we practice] as the approaches that one recites [the bracha] not only over the four things mentioned in the Gemara5, but also over other dangers, one recites [it] likewise for a danger that nearly occurred.
And so wrote the Chayei Adam explicitly6: 'But if thieves came upon him or a stone or iron fell near him, even though he would have been in mortal danger had it fallen on him, he does not recite "who did for me a miracle," but the Acharonim agreed to recite HaGomel'.
If so, one who was actually within a situation/event that could have ended in mortal danger, Heaven forbid, such as thieves who entered his house where there is concern that they will harm him, or [where] stones were thrown at him and the like, and he was saved, must recite HaGomel.
However, it appears that even according to the words of the Rivash, in a case where the rescue was such that from the outset he did not enter into the situation of the danger, he does not recite [the bracha], such as a person who was supposed to travel in a vehicle or airplane that had an accident, and the Holy One, blessed be He, arranged that he would not be in the vehicle or on the flight.
And as the Divrei Nechemia wrote7: '.. that he holds that it is not applicable to recite HaGomel unless he was standing in danger at first and afterward emerged from it, like all those four in Scripture and the Gemara, for the essence of the bracha is over emerging from the trouble in which he was, and as the language of the verse "and they cried out etc. in [their] distress etc. He brought them out etc." And perhaps for this reason the text of the bracha is "who bestows favors upon the guilty etc.," for this is like justifying the [divine] decree over the trouble that he had, for presumably he became liable to it thus, since there is no suffering without sin etc. .. whereas [regarding] those in the Raavad, behold they did not stand in trouble, but rather the miracle was that they did not come to trouble etc.'.
And the matter is precise in the language of the Alter Rebbe8, who added in his golden language upon the language of the Mechaber, and wrote: 'There are those who say that one recites HaGomel only over the four that the Sages enumerated alone, and there are those who say that the same applies to anyone who was in danger and was saved, such as one upon whom a wall fell, or who was saved from the tramplings of an ox and a horse and its gorings, or over whom a lion stood to tear him in a settled place, or if thieves came upon him or nocturnal robbers and he was saved, all of them are obligated to recite HaGomel, whenever there was a concern of mortal danger9, and so they practiced'.
And the meaning of the addition of the same applies to anyone who was in danger and was saved, is that he was actually within the danger, and not in a case where he did not enter at all into the situation of the danger.
If so, a) in a case where he was not actually in a place of danger, but was in a situation close to danger, such as [when] they pursued him with a sword and he was saved, the Rivash and the Maharal are divided, and in practice he recites [the bracha]. But b) in a case where he did not enter into the situation of the danger10, one should not recite [it]11.
Notes:
1 שו"ת סי' שלז ↩
2 נתיבות עולם נתיב העבודה פי"ג ↩
3 ולהעיר ג"כ מדברי הרדב"ז בתשובה (ח"ג סי' תקעב (אלף א)): 'שאלת ממני .. במי שנפל מן הסולם והיה חושש מצד כאב האיברים ולא נפל למשכב ולא חלה אם חייב לברך הגומל או לא. ואם יש לחוש משום הוצאת שם שמים לבטלה .. ראיתי להרב רבינו אברהם אב"ד בתשובה שהעלה הדבר בצ"ע וז"ל ומי שנפל אבן סמוך לראשו או נתקע עץ או ברזל סמוך לעינו ונעשה לו נס ולא נפל על הראש וגם הברזל לא נכנס בעינו או שהיה עולה בסולם ונשמט עקבו או נשמטה שליבה מתחתיו ונפל ולא אירע בו שום מיחוש י"א שצריך להודות ברוך שעשה לי נס במקום הזה כי כל אדם שהוא קרוב לדבר שיש בו סכנה וניצול ממנו צריך לברך ברוך שעשה לי נס. וי"א שאין צריך לברך אלא על נס חדש שהוא מעשה שמים כמקום שנעשו בו ניסים לאבותינו ואית דמייתי ראיה על זה ההגדה דסלע המחלוקת שהיו יורדין ומברכין ברוך שעשה לנו נס במקום הזה ודברים אלו צריכין עיון ע"כ. הרי אתה למד מתשובה זו כי הנפילה מן הסולם אם לא נפל למשכב אינו נכנס בגדר חולה שצריך להודות ולברך הגומל אלא תחת גדר נס וצריך לברך ברוך שעשה לי נס, ולמר א"צ. ורואה אני בכיוצא בזה שיברך בלא הזכרת שם ומלכות דהא איכא מאן דמפרש דכל הברכות כיוצא בה הם בלא שם ומלכות והיכא דאיכא פלוגתא בעיקר הברכה יעשה כדבריו שלא הפסדנו כלום כיון שאינו מזכיר שם ומלכות'. ולכאורה נראה שכתב כדברי המהר"ל מפראג, אמנם יש לחלק ביניהם שלמהר"ל הטעם שאין מברכים, מכיון שלא הי' בפועל בתוך מצב של סכנה, משא"כ לרדב"ז הטעם שאין מברכים מכיון שסובר כשיטות שברכת הגומל היא רק בארבעה שהוזכרו בגמ' ולא בשאר סכנות. בשו"ת קנה בשם ח"א סי' יא כתב שמדברי הר"א אב"ד אלו, ניתן ללמוד לגבי הגומל שודאי מברך, מאידך יש שהוכיחו מדבריו שאין מברך, ראה מ"ש הרב שילה רפאל בכתב עת תורה שבע"פ גליון לא עמ' נט. וראה גם בדברי נחמיה דלקמן. [ואמנם יש להעיר שיתכן שאין ללמוד מדברי הר"א אב"ד עצמם שדיבר לגבי ברכת הנס, ויש לחלק בין ברכת הנס לברכת הגומל, מכיון שהתנאים שלהם שונים, ואמנם מצד אחד יש סברא יותר לברך בברכת הגומל (ראה הלכה קודמת מ"ש הט"ז), אך מאידך יש סברא לומר שדווקא כשהיה בסכנה, כיון שמברך הגומל לחייבים, כדלקמן] ↩
4 או"ח סי' ריט ס"ט ↩
5 ברכות נד, ב ↩
6 כלל סה ס"ד ↩
7 שו"ת או"ח סי' יד ↩
8 סדר ברכת הנהנין פי"ג ס"ז ↩
9 ראה בדברי הריב"ש הנ"ל: 'וכ"ש הנעשה לו נס וניצול ממיתה עצמה'. וראה בשו"ת דברי נחמיה סי' יד: 'ונראה דגם מוח"ז רבינו ז"ל בסידור פי"ג סוף ה"ז במש"ש כל שהי' חשש ס"נ כו', כוונתו להטיל תנאי ולומר שלא בכל גנבי איירי אלא רק כל שהי' סכנת נפשות (לפי מנהג ש"ע כו' כנ"ל)' ↩
10 ראה שו"ת קנה בשם ח"א סי' יב ↩
11 היינו שכאשר כתוצאה מכך אשר לא עשה פעולה מסוימת לא נכנס לסכנת חיים אין לברך. (בשונה מאבן שנפל ליד ראשו שבלא מודע לא עשה פעולה להתקרב לעמוד במקום בו נפל האבן). אך לאידך אם הסכנת חיים נמנעה ע"י פעולה מודעת (שלא נעשית ע"פ רגילות) שאז לכאו' יש לברך. (כגון שאדם הצליח לעצור ברגע האחרון לפני התנגשות) ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project - a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group