The bracha upon seeing seas and rivers
[A] (Halacha 341)
Question: What is the bracha that one recites when seeing a sea or the Great Sea?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Brochos1 states: 'Over the mountains and over the hills and over the seas and over the rivers and over the deserts one says "Blessed is He who makes the works of creation"; Rabbi Yehuda says: One who sees the Great Sea says "Blessed is He who made the Great Sea," provided that he sees it at intervals'.
And the Gemara there explained2:'For intervals — how long? Rami bar Abba said in the name of Rav Yitzchak: up to thirty days.
And most of the poskim recorded the words of Rabbi Yehuda as halacha3 [that there is a different bracha over the Great Sea, and that if he saw it again within thirty days he does not recite the bracha again].
Question: What is the Great Sea over which there is a special bracha?
Answer: The Rosh4 wrote: 'And regarding what you asked about the Great Sea mentioned in the Mishnah, over which one recites "Blessed is He who made the Great Sea" — whether it is the Ocean or whether it is our Great Sea by which one crosses to the Land of Israel and to Egypt. It appears that it is specifically the Ocean, even though in the language of Scripture our sea is called "the Great" because it is the western border of the Land of Israel, and it is known that it is our sea, for the Land of Israel does not sit upon the Ocean. Nevertheless, here it implies that it is the Ocean, since the first clause teaches "over the mountains and over the hills and over the seas and over the rivers and over the deserts one says 'Blessed is He who made the works of creation'," and then it teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says "One who sees the Great Sea says 'Blessed is He who made the Great Sea.'" Since the first clause mentioned seas in general and Rabbi Yehuda specified the Great Sea, it implies that it is speaking of the Ocean. And he does not disagree with the first Tanna, for the first Tanna speaks of all the other seas, for there are several great seas in the world. And Rabbi Yehuda comes to say that the Great Sea has a bracha of its own, and the first Tanna concedes this; for if Rabbi Yehuda were to disagree with the first Tanna, and we were to say that the first Tanna included all the seas, with the Ocean among them, then the halacha would follow the anonymous majority, and I have not seen among the poskim any who ruled that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rambam also wrote that over the Great Sea one recites "who made the Great Sea"; therefore it appears that it is speaking specifically of the Ocean'.
And so wrote the Abudarham in the bracha of seeing, praise, and thanksgiving: 'One who sees the Great Sea recites "Blessed are You Hashem, King of the universe, who made the Great Sea." That is, the encompassing sea called the Ocean, and due to its importance they fixed for it a bracha of its own'.
The Magen Avraham5 cited the Sefer HaTerumah6 who wrote: 'And the Great Sea is the sea that surrounds the land of England, as is found at the beginning of Sefer Yosippon'.
And apparently his intent is to bring support for the view of the Rosh that the Great Sea is the Ocean, as it is written in Yosippon: 'Rifas — these are the Britons who dwell in the land of Britannia (which is England, as is known) on the river Lira, and the waters of Sina and Lira pour into the Ocean, which is the Great Sea'7.
If so, in the words of the Rosh8 and the Abudarham it is explained that the special bracha over the Great Sea is specifically over the Ocean, which is the greatest of the seas9.
But Rabbeinu Yonah10 wrote: 'One who sees the Great Sea etc. — since there are small seas that are like pools that separate from the Great Sea, therefore he stated explicitly "over the Great Sea," that only over that one does he recite this bracha, and when he sees it at intervals, that is, at the end of thirty days. From the mouth of my teacher the Rav'.
And apparently the implication of his words11 is that only small seas that separate from the Great Sea are not included in the Great Sea. And according to this, over the Mediterranean Sea and the like one should also recite the bracha of the Great Sea. And apparently the reason is that they are like part of the Great Sea.
And some wrote that the Mediterranean Sea in its own right is called the Great Sea, as the Mor U'Ketziah12 wrote: 'Since the Sages taught in the language of the Torah, for it is known that the Great Sea written in the Torah and mentioned in the borders of the Land of Israel to its west is the middle sea .. what compels us to remove it from this implication .. and however it may be, the Torah called it "great." And moreover, it is truly great in relation to all the seas, apart from the Ocean, as is well known to one who looks at a map of the world. And one may also say that under the name "seas" enter all the very small seas, such as the Sea of Tiberias, the Sea of Kinneres, and the Sea of Sodom and others. And Chazal said [Bava Basra 74b] there are seven seas in the Land of Israel, and there are thousands like them in the world, and these are the "seas" of the first clause, over which we recite a bracha just as over the great rivers, for they are not inferior to them. But regarding the Great Sea, the intent is any sea that is great, such as the one by which one crosses to the Land of Israel and to Egypt. And it is not only over it that one recites a bracha, but it includes all the great seas .. to the exclusion of the small seas .. And this is certainly true in the plain sense of Scripture, that the Torah called the middle one the Great Sea, even though it is of no importance relative to the Ocean, for in any case it is great in relation to the other seas in the Land of Israel and those found in abundance throughout the world; and thus others will be found besides it, as mentioned, which it is likewise possible to call the Great Sea in this respect'.
If so, we have learned the source of the views that require reciting a special bracha over the Great Sea, and the views as to what is called the Great Sea, and tomorrow, be"H, we will learn the practical halacha regarding these views.
Notes:
1 פ"ט מ"ב ↩
2 נט, ב ↩
3 ראה רמב"ם הל' ברכות פ"י הט"ו, ושו"ע סי' רכד סי"ג [וסדר ברה"נ פי"ג הי"ג], וסי' רכח ס"א. וראה גם לקמן בדברי הרא"ש בתשובה. (אך [יש גירסא] בפיהמ"ש להרמב"ם שכתב שאין הלכה כרבי יהודה, וראה בהגהות שם ביאור כיצד ליישב זה עם דבריו בספר היד. והב"ח כתב שביד חזר בו ופסק כר"י וכ"כ במו"ק. אך ראה כנה"ג הגהב"י או"ח סי' רכח. וראה דברי הטור שהקשה למה פסק הרמב"ם ביד כרבי יהודה, אמנם הב"י הביא את תשובת אביו - הרא"ש שר"י לא פליג על ת"ק אלא מפרש) ↩
4 שו"ת כלל ד סי' ד ↩
5 סי' רכח ס"ק א ↩
6 הל' שבת סי' רמב ↩
7 ראה שו"ת חיים שאל ח"א סי' לט. ודלא כהמו"ק הסובר ששיטת סה"ת מתאימה דוקא לדעת המחבר עיי"ש ↩
8 יש מהפוסקים שהיה בפניהם גירסאות שונות בדברי הרא"ש והבינו מדבריו שכוונתו שגם על ים תיכון מברכים ברכת הים הגדול, וכן הבין הלבוש כאן, אך ראה באריכות בדברי חמודות ברכות פ"ט סי' יג ↩
9 ראה רש"י בראשית פ"א פסוק ט על המילים יקוו המים: 'שטוחין על פני כל הארץ והקוום באוקינוס, הוא הים הגדול שבכל הימים' ↩
10 ברכות מב, ב ↩
11 כ"כ הכנה"ג הגהב"י או"ח סי' רכח סק"ב. וראה גם דברי המו"ק סוף סי' רכח. ומש"כ שכך גם נראה בדברי הרמב"ם, כבר העירו שלא נמצא ↩
12 שם ↩
[B] (Halacha 342)
In the previous halacha we learned the sources for the views regarding the bracha over the Great Sea.
Question: As a practical matter, over which sea does one recite the bracha of the Great Sea?
Answer: The Mechaber wrote1: 'Over seas and rivers, mountains and hills and deserts, one says: "Blessed are You Hashem, King of the universe, who makes the works of creation"; and over the Great Sea, which is the sea by which one crosses to the Land of Israel and to Egypt, one says: "Blessed are You Hashem, King of the universe, who makes the Great Sea"'.
That is, the Mechaber2 ruled that over the Mediterranean Sea too one recites the bracha of the Great Sea3. And the plain sense of his words is understood that all the more so over the Ocean does one recite the bracha of the Great Sea4.
And the Yaavetz followed this path as well, and this is his language5: 'Regarding the Great Sea, the intent is any sea that is great, such as the one by which one crosses to the Land of Israel and to Egypt. And it is not only over it that one recites a bracha, but it includes all the great seas, and there are also many of them, and they are like the Sea of Reeds, which is the Red Sea, and the Persian Sea called the Caspian or the Sinus Persicus, and the Black [Sea] called Pontus Euxinus or Nigros, and the Greek and Indian Archipelago and their like — all of them have the law of the Great Sea in this regard, for they all connect and unite with the Ocean (except for the Caspian, which has no connection with the Ocean, and therefore is called "the Dead" — nevertheless it is exceptional in its greatness, comparable to those mentioned) and their law is like it, and their greatness too has caused this for them. To the exclusion of the small seas mentioned above that are enclosed within lands (such as the eastern sea that runs before the land of Germany to Poland and to the other northern-eastern lands, or such as the southern one in Holland) and have no connection or joining with the Great Sea, except by way of many rivers. Also, in their smallness they appear as rivers relative to the other great seas mentioned above, therefore they are judged as rivers .. However, to recite a bracha over the other great seas as we said above, that they are all included under this name as a category, even though it thus appears clear to me that so it is in the language of the Mishnah, as mentioned there in the Lechem Chamudos — nevertheless it requires examination, for we do not perform an act merely because we draw an analogy .. Nevertheless it appears to me that one who recites a bracha also over the great seas that we mentioned has not lost'.
On the other hand, the Magen Avraham wrote6: 'The Great Sea. And in the Lechem Chamudos he proved that one does not recite this except over the Ocean that surrounds the world'.
It is explained in his words that he holds like the views that only over the Ocean does one recite the bracha of the Great Sea.
And so wrote Rav Yehosef Schwartz in the Divrei Yosef - Pri Tevuah7: 'To recite "who made the Great Sea," one should recite it only over the Ocean itself, not over the Great Sea — the sea of the Land of Israel — even though the Torah calls it the Great Sea .. And in my opinion it is not called the Great Sea with regard to a special bracha, except the Ocean, as I will explain shortly; and so I did, that I did not recite the bracha "who made the Great Sea" except over the Atlantic Ocean toward the country of America, only after I was distant from the border of the land of Britannia by a distance of 400 or 500 mil8 where certainly the very essence of the name Ocean applies'.
And as a matter of halacha, the poskim of our time are divided on how to rule; and regarding the Mediterranean Sea, even among the Sephardic poskim9* there are those who were concerned to rule in practice like the words of the Mechaber, on account of "when in doubt regarding brochos, be lenient," and wrote not to recite the bracha of the Great Sea over the Mediterranean Sea.
And certainly so it is for most of the Ashkenazic poskim who followed the view of the Magen Avraham and the words of the author of the Pri Tevuah, and so it is explained in the Mishnah Berurah10. And so wrote the Gaon Rav Chaim Naeh11: 'And over the Ocean, which is the greatest sea of all the seas that surrounds the entire world, one says "Blessed are You Hashem, King of the universe, who makes the Great Sea"'.
If so, in practice, over seeing the Ocean one should recite the bracha of the Great Sea, but over the Mediterranean Sea the inclination of most poskim is to say not to recite the bracha of the Great Sea.
[However, some were concerned for the words of the Mechaber and said that when one recites over the Mediterranean Sea the bracha "who makes the works of creation," at the conclusion of the bracha he should also add the words "over the Great Sea," as the responsa Minchas Yitzchak12 wrote: '..it appears in my humble opinion that although as a matter of law it is proper to recite "who makes the works of creation," which is an inclusive bracha like "that all came to be" in the bracha over fruits, and see in the Mishnah Berurah on OC there — nevertheless, in order to also fulfill the view of the Shulchan Aruch and the other poskim, one may say, within the span of speech of "who makes the works of creation," also the words "who makes (or "who made") the Great Sea," and this is based on what is explained in the Shulchan Aruch OC (siman 209), see there'].
Notes:
1 סי' רכח ס"א ↩
2 וכ"כ הלבוש בסי' רכח ס"א ↩
3 יש שהבינו שמקור דברי המחבר הוא מתשובת הרא"ש, ולכן הקשו על שאין זה מתאים עם הנוסח שלפנינו וכפי שהאריך הלחם חמודות על הרא"ש, והפרישה. אך ראה בכנה"ג הגב"י אות ב. ובגט פשוט הל' גיטין קכח ס"ק מו, וכ"כ במור וקציעה שמקור דברי המחבר הוא (מהרמב"ם) והרבינו יונה. מאידך יש שכתבו שקשה לומר שדברי הר"י הם מקור המחבר ושיחלוק על דברי הרא"ש, וגם מדברי המחבר בכסף משנה רואים שמקורו בגירסת הרא"ש שהיתה לפניו. וראה בשו"ת חיים שאל ח"א סי' לט אות ט, בחזון עובדיה ברכת ימים א. ברכת ה' ח"ד פ"ג הע' 10 ↩
4 שהרי כנ"ל הערה 3 ביארו שס"ל שהטעם שמברך על התיכון ברכת הים הגדול הוא מכיון שהוא חלק ולשון של האוקיאנוס, או שמברכים על כל ים גדול שמחובר לאוקיאנוס. וראה בשו"ת בצל החכמה ח"ב סי' י"ב אות ה, וכ"כ בהלכה ברורה כאן. ולהעיר מערוה"ש סוס"ק ד שכתב שכיון שיש פירושים שונים וע"כ מספק יברך עושה מעשה בראשית גם על האוקיאנוס (והחוששים לדבריו כתבו שניתן לברך הים הגדול רק במיצר גיברלטר במקום ששם רואה את התיכון והאוקיאנוס יחד), אך במנחת יצחק ח"א סי' קי דחה את דבריו, [וראה גם בשו"ת בצל החכמה שם שכתב שצ"ע איך יכריעו לברך גם עליו עושה מעש"ב מספיקא, והרי לגבי האוקינוס אין כאן ספק כלל] ↩
5 במו"ק סוף סי' רכח ↩
6 סי' רכח סק"א ↩
7 בתחילתו בד"ה ים המלח. הובאו דבריו בנימוקי או"ח סי' רכח סק"ב ↩
8 כ"כ בכף החיים ס"ק ה, ובאור לציון ח"ב פי"ד ה"מ בהערה, ובברכת ה' שם, שחששו לספק לדעות האחרות וכתבו שרק על האוקיאנוס יברך ברכת הים הגדול ושעל הים תכון יברך עושה מעשה בראשית. [ובילקוט יוסף חשש לספק ברכות וכתב בסי' רכח ס"ד: 'מנהגינו שלא לברך ברכת הים הגדול בשם ומלכות, כי יש ספק מה הוא הים הגדול שדיברו בו חכמינו, ולכן הרואה את ים התיכון, או את האוקיינוס, אחת לשלשים יום, אינו מברך בשם ומלכות']. אך מאידך בחזון עובדיה ברכת ימים א. ובהלכה ברורה סי' רכח כתבו שיברך ברכת הים הגדול, וכפי שפסק גם החיד"א בחיים שאל. ויש שכתבו שגם דיעבד לא יועיל על הים תיכון ברכת עושה מעשה בראשית. והביאו המדרש ב"ר פכ"ג אות ז שהים תיכון לא נעשה במעשה בראשית, ועוד הביאו דברי 'פירוש התפלות והברכות' לר"י בר יקר, רבו של הרמב"ן (עמוד נח) וז"ל: ".. ואינו יכול לברך עושה מעשה בראשית'. וראה באריכות בויען שמואל ח"י סי' יז ↩
9 ס"ק ב ושער הציון אות ג ↩
10 קצות השלחן סי' סו הי"ד. וכ"כ עוד רבים נסמנו בפסקי תשובות סי' רכח הע' 13 ↩
11 ח"א סי' קי ↩
[C] (Halacha 343)
Question: When a person sees the sea from a distance, such as from an airplane, may he recite a bracha?
Answer: Concerning a bracha over a miracle, the Maharit Tzahalon1 wrote, regarding one who had a miracle in an upper story of his house, where he recites the bracha over the miracle, and this is his language: 'And here it is specifically the place where the miracle occurred to him — not the courtyard and not the house beneath it, but specifically the upper story'.
Some learned that his words were not stated specifically regarding the bracha over a miracle but also regarding the bracha over seeing a cemetery, as the responsa Pri HaAretz2 wrote: 'If we come to judge according to the ruling of the Maharit Tzahalon, who ruled that one must recite the bracha specifically in that very place, from here there is a proof for what we were uncertain about here for some days now in Jerusalem, that we study Torah in the holy enclosure and the windows are open, and from there are seen the graves of Israel buried in the Valley of Yehoshafat — whether we must recite a bracha every thirty days when we go upon the graves themselves, or are we exempted by our seeing them from the aforementioned windows. And according to the ruling of the Maharit Tzahalon, who ruled that one must recite the bracha in the very place, then from it we derive that we must recite the bracha when we go upon the graves themselves, and we are not exempted by our seeing them from the windows'.
Except that the Acharonim challenged this proof, as the Tzeror HaKesef3 wrote: 'And to me, a poor commoner, it appears that there is no proof from there, for the Rav Maharit Tzahalon spoke only regarding the upper story, where if he does not enter it he does not see a specific place where the miracle occurred, and if he sits below he sees only the walls of the upper story and not the floor of the upper story, the place where the miracle occurred, such as to the north of the house or to the south .. And upon this the Rav Maharit Tzahalon inferred precisely, for it teaches "one who sees the place where [a miracle] was done for him," and "place" is called only a specific place .. And according to this, since from the windows of the beis knesses one sees the cemetery every day, certainly one need not recite a bracha when going there, for it teaches "one who sees a cemetery must recite a bracha," and here one sees it every day'. And the Birkei Yosef4 agreed with him.
And so wrote the Aruch HaShulchan5: 'And he should recite the bracha when he is close to the graves, within four amos, and over a single grave he does not recite a bracha; and a Kohen who cannot bring himself close to the graves — it appears that he may recite the bracha from a distance, since he sees them; and likewise one who is going on his way or traveling in a wagon — since he sees the graves, it appears that he recites the bracha'. That is, ideally he should stand in proximity and recite the bracha, but he may also recite the bracha from a distance.
Except that the Gaon Rav Chaim Naeh6 wrote that one may say that the requirement, ideally, to say the brochos in actual proximity beside the house or the cemetery does not apply to the other brochos of seeing, and this is his language: 'And nevertheless one may say that this is specifically regarding the bracha over a miracle, whose text is "in this place" as mentioned above, and likewise the bracha over graves, which addresses the dead directly, "who formed you" — therefore one must be close to the graves (and in the Yerushalmi, chapter HaRoeh, the reading is "one who walks among the graves, what does he say," which implies as I said, that in any case one must stand close to the graves); but the other brochos of seeing, such as "who made the Great Sea," or "who apportioned of His wisdom to those who fear Him" and the like — it stands to reason that whenever he sees them, even from a distance, he may recite the bracha'. Except that later in his words he notes that possibly, on the other hand, one may say that even with regard to the brochos of seeing this depends on a dispute, and there are those who required that one be close, and he concludes: 'Therefore, as a matter of law, in all brochos of seeing, ideally one should wait until he is within less than a half-hour's journey of proximity'.
But the responsa Betzel HaChochmah7 wrote regarding the words of the Gaon Rav Chaim Naeh: 'His words are astonishing, for in siman 688 the Mechaber ruled that even very far is considered "seeing," that is, even several parsaos distant, as is explained in the Beis Yosef there, and thus his rulings contradict one another. And in any case, there too, in Megillah, it is necessarily so that according to all opinions, even seeing from a distance is considered seeing, and they disagree only as to whether it should be considered like the walled city merely because it is seen with it, for one must have a connection with the city. And one is compelled to say that the case of siman 561 is different, for since the more one draws near to Jerusalem and the Temple the more one feels their destruction, therefore they did not obligate tearing [one's garment] until he reaches Tzofim. And moreover, it is explained in the Magen Avraham (there, sk 3) that according to Tosafos, who explain "Tzofim" to mean any place from which one sees Jerusalem, and in the Tosfos Yom Tov he wrote that this is also Rashi's view, that as soon as one sees it he must tear, see there. — In any case, in our matter, where it teaches without qualification, "over the mountains and over the hills and over the seas etc." — certainly whenever one sees a clear and distinct sight, it is upon him to give praise to the Creator, blessed be His Name, and to recite a bracha over it. — And so it is proven from what is written in the Pesach HaDvir and the Meishiv Nefesh which I will cite below, be"H'. [that they permitted reciting a bracha from a distance by means of a telescope].
And therefore he rules that: 'In my humble opinion it appears plain that whenever one sees them with a clear and distinct sight, even though he sees them only from within the airplane flying at a height of several mil above the surface of the mountains and the seas etc., it is incumbent upon him to recite the appropriate bracha over the seeing of that sea'.
And to note also from the words of the Maggid Taalumah8: 'Behold, from the fact that it says "one who sees," the matter depends on seeing, even if he is in another place and sees from there the place of the miracle — and how is it fitting to say "in this place"? And it appears to derive precisely from this what the masters of the hidden wisdom said, that the sense of sight performs a tangible act, and therefore we were commanded "that no unseemly thing be seen in you" .. therefore, in the place where a person sees and his mind inclines toward it, there he is present, therefore it is fitting to say, by seeing alone, "in this place"'.
If so, we have learned that even when one sees the sea from a distance, such as one who is in an airplane, he must recite the bracha over the sea.
Notes:
1 שו"ת מהריט"ץ (ישנות) סי' פז ↩
2 ח"א סי' ז ↩
3 ח"א סי' א ↩
4 או"ח סי' רכד ס"ק ד ↩
5 שם ס"ח ↩
6 קצוה"ש סי' סו בדה"ש אות א ↩
7 ח"ב סי' טז ↩
8 להרה"ק מדינוב עמ"ס ברכות ריש פרק הרואה ↩
[D] (Halacha 344)
Question: A person who saw the sea and did not recite a bracha immediately upon seeing it — may he still recite a bracha?
Answer: The Ramban1 wrote: 'The brochos of praise are such as those in chapter HaRoeh; certainly they are not recited before their performance, but afterward, for it is not fitting to say that when he draws near to see the Great Sea he should close his eyes and recite the bracha and then see — rather he sees and recites the bracha, and likewise in all of them. Therefore they were accustomed to arrange the order of the morning brochos in the beis knesses, that even though he heard the rooster at midnight he recites the bracha over it in the morning, for since he recites the bracha afterward the Sages did not fix for them a measure of immediacy. However, in the Yerushalmi in Maseches Brochos they said regarding lightning: if he was sitting in the privy or in a glass chamber, if he is able to go out and recite the bracha within the span of speech he has fulfilled his obligation, and if not he has not fulfilled it — it appears from this that the bracha of praise is only within the span of speech of the seeing and hearing'.
That is, according to the Ramban the brochos of praise are not recited before the seeing, but after it, but one must recite the bracha specifically within the span of speech of the seeing.
But some wrote that the ruling that he has lost the bracha in a case where he did not recite the bracha within the span of speech of the seeing applies specifically when the thing over which one recites the bracha no longer exists, such as the bracha over lightning and thunder, as the Alter Rebbe writes at the end of Seder Birkas HaNehenin2: 'And after the span of speech one should not recite the bracha over the past..'. This is not so regarding the other brochos of seeing, where the thing itself exists and he can still look at them and recite the bracha; he has not lost the bracha even in a case where he did not recite the bracha immediately after the first look, and on the contrary, since he recites the bracha afterward the Sages did not fix for them a measure of immediacy. Except that he must look again and then recite the bracha within the span of speech.
And so wrote the Birkas Avraham3: 'For it appears to me that one should distinguish between lightning and the other brochos of praise, because lightning — its miracle does not occur at every single hour, as we will need to state below, be"H'. And so he wrote in siman 191: 'And the view of the Yerushalmi appears to be that it requires the span of speech in these because at the time of the bracha their matter has passed entirely, and it is not comparable to one who sees the sea, and likewise one who sees the moon and all such cases, for even though he did not recite the bracha within the span of speech he still has time to recite the bracha over them during their matter, for they are still in existence and their time has not passed so that the offering of their bracha is nullified..'
And so wrote in practice the responsa Betzel HaChochmah4: 'Indeed the matter is plain in my humble opinion, be"H, that the Ohel Moed [which cited the Ramban] speaks only of a case akin to one who sees lightning, of which the Yerushalmi it mentioned speaks, for lightning has no existence in the world except for a moment and immediately it vanishes and is gone. It emerges that at the time he recites the bracha over seeing the lightning it is already no longer in existence. And likewise thunder, which lasts only a brief moment, and at the time he comes to recite the bracha over hearing them they have already died away and are gone. It emerges that lightning and thunder are like one who saw the place of the miracle and it has already passed and he has moved away from it until he no longer sees it. And so it is indeed explicit in the aforementioned Biur Halacha [siman 218, s.v. bimkom hazeh], and this is its language: "But if it has already passed and he no longer sees it, he has lost his bracha, 'as in the case of hearing thunder,' below in siman 227:3 etc.," and in that case indeed he is not permitted to recite the bracha after the span of speech, for he already no longer sees it as explained. This is not so where he saw the sea and did not recite the bracha immediately, but even at that hour when he did not recite the bracha he did not move away from it — on the contrary, he is present within it, in a ship, and he sees it afterward and comes to recite the bracha over his seeing of the present moment; certainly he properly recites the bracha, as in the aforementioned Sefer Pardes, even if a long time has passed since his first seeing, and as written'.
If so, one who is beside the sea and did not recite the bracha immediately when he saw the sea should look again at the sea and recite the bracha of seeing.
Question: When he forgot to recite the bracha, and has already diverted his attention or moved away from the sea, but within thirty days of his first seeing he saw that same sea again — may he recite the bracha, or has he lost the bracha?
Answer: The Mishnah Berurah wrote in the Biur Halacha5: 'And so will be the law regarding one who sees a person for whom a miracle was performed, as explained in se'if 6 in the Hagahah — if the man has already passed and he did not recite the bracha and he moved far from him until he no longer sees him, he no longer recites the bracha; and possibly further, even if he saw the person or the place within some days, as long as thirty days from the first seeing have not passed, he does not recite the bracha, even though he did not recite the bracha the first time. For behold, regarding a new fruit there are several poskim who hold that since he did not recite the bracha the first time, when he sees it again he does not recite the bracha, as the Magen Avraham wrote in siman 225 sk 9. And even though we do not practice thus — that is because we hold that the matter depends on eating, as is proven there from the Biur HaGra — but in this case, where certainly the bracha was instituted over the seeing alone, that he saw the place of the miracle, and since he has already seen the place and this thing is not new to him, he need not recite the bracha until 30 days pass and then it is like a new seeing'.
But on the other hand, the Gaon Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach wrote6: 'Regarding one who sees the Great Sea or a king or trees that blossom in Nisan — it stands to reason that if he passed and did not recite the bracha the first time, he properly recites the bracha the second time, even though it is still within thirty days of the first seeing'.
And so wrote in the sefer Birkas Hashem7: 'Since he did not praise Hashem for His greatness discernible in them, therefore he is still obligated to praise Him. And what does it matter that thirty days have not passed'.
If so, the Acharonim are divided as to whether he should recite the bracha when he sees it again within thirty days, when he had already seen it beforehand and did not recite the bracha. [And perhaps there is room to infer precisely that according to the Alter Rebbe he does recite the bracha8, and this still requires examination].
Notes:
1 בחידושיו על פסחים ז, ב ↩
2 פי"ג סי"ז ↩
3 (טריביש) סי סב ↩
4 ח"ה סי' כז ↩
5 סי' ריח ד"ה במקום הזה ↩
6 מנחת שלמה שו"ת ח"א סי' עג ↩
7 (לוי) ח"ד פ"ג בהערה 9 ↩
8 ראה דברי אדמו"ר הזקן בלוח ברה"נ פי"ב סעיפים ד-ו, ודבריו בסדבה"נ פי"ג סי"ג ↩
[E] (Halacha 345)
The study of this halacha is dedicated to the success of Yehuda Menachem HaKohen ben Chana Basya in all matters, spiritually and materially.
Question: May one recite a bracha when seeing through a window, such as a person who sees the sea or the Great Sea through an airplane window?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 states: 'Rava said: Excrement in a glass vessel — it is permitted to recite the Shema opposite it; nakedness in a glass vessel — it is forbidden to recite the Shema opposite it. Excrement in a glass vessel — it is permitted to recite the Shema opposite it, for the matter of excrement depends on covering, and it is covered; nakedness in a glass vessel — it is forbidden to recite the Shema opposite it, for "that no unseemly thing be seen in you" the Merciful One said, and here it is visible'.
And the Gemara in Brochos further states2 regarding the bracha over the flame in Havdalah: 'If he had a candle hidden in his bosom or in a lantern [=glass vessel. Rashi], or if he saw a flame but did not make use of its light, or made use of its light but did not see the flame — he does not recite the bracha until he sees the flame and makes use of its light'.
But the Rashba disagrees with Rashi and holds that a lantern is not a glass vessel, and when the candle is in a glass vessel he may recite the bracha, and this is his language: 'It appears that a lantern is not like a glass vessel through which one sees the flame from within the glass vessel, for that is considered like seeing the flame, and even though the body of the glass vessel intervenes, even so it is considered seeing, as in that which they said at the end of Mi SheMeso: Rava said, excrement in a glass vessel — it is permitted to recite the Shema opposite it, nakedness in a glass vessel — it is forbidden to recite the Shema opposite it; what is the reason? For excrement the matter depends on covering, and it is covered, [but regarding] nakedness "that no unseemly thing be seen in you" is written, and here it is visible .. but one who stands over a glass vessel and sees the flame from within the glass vessel — this is like one who sees the flame and makes use of its light, and one recites a bracha over it'.
Except that the Beis Yosef3 challenged the Rashba from the words of the Yerushalmi, and this is his language: 'We learn in the Yerushalmi of Brochos, chapter Elu Devarim4: a candle within his bosom or within a lantern or within a glass — he sees the flame but does not make use of its light, [or] makes use of its light but does not see the flame — one never recites a bracha over it until he both sees the flame and makes use of its light. And this is the language of the Orchos Chaim5: One who recites the bracha over the glass vessel and over the lantern must bring the light out from there until he sees the flame. And the Rashba wrote that a glass vessel is like seeing the flame, but a lantern — he does not see the flame; end of the language of the Orchos Chaim. And I am astonished, for if so the Rashba disagrees with the Yerushalmi, for "glass" implies that it is a glass vessel'.
And as a matter of halacha, the Mechaber ruled stringently and wrote6: 'A candle within his bosom or within a lantern or within a glass — he sees the flame but does not make use of its light, [or] makes use of its light but does not see the flame — one does not recite a bracha over it until he both sees the flame and makes use of its light'.
But the Magen Avraham7 cited the words of the Rashba to permit: 'Makes use of its light. Such as one who stands to the side. And in the novellae of the Rashba he wrote that a glass mirror is properly called seeing the flame and making use of its light, and a lantern is a case of neither seeing the flame nor making use of its light, for it speaks of one that has iron partitions; end of quote. And one must say that he holds that the Yerushalmi teaches item by item, not like the Rav Beis Yosef'.
And the Alter Rebbe wrote8: 'Nakedness in a glass vessel that is visible through its walls — it is forbidden to recite [the Shema] opposite it, and even if it is in another house and is visible through a glass vessel in the window, since the verse made [the matter] dependent on seeing, as it says "that no [unseemly thing] be seen in you etc.," and behold it is visible'.
And regarding Havdalah9 he wrote: 'And if the candle is in a glass vessel through which he can see the flame from within the walls of the glass vessel, he may recite the bracha over it (and some disagree)'.
If so, we have seen that it was ruled that the essential halacha is that seeing through glass is considered seeing, but regarding Havdalah the Alter Rebbe mentioned in parentheses that some disagree.
Except that we find in the poskim several reasons why the stringency is specifically regarding the Havdalah candle in a glass vessel and not regarding the other brochos of seeing:
a. The Mishnah Berurah10 wrote: 'For in our matter, regarding the bracha "who creates the lights of the fire," which Chazal instituted to recite over the creation of the light, they instituted it only when the light is revealed without covering and not hidden, and as at the essence of its creation, which is in the open; and this is alluded to in the language of the Baraisa which said "if he had a candle hidden in his bosom or in a lantern"'.
b. The Gaon Rav Chaim Naeh11 wrote: 'And moreover one may distinguish between whether the covering is over the candle, such that the candle is hidden within it, as in the language of the Gemara Brochos 53, "he had a candle hidden in his bosom etc.," and whether the candle is exposed in its usual manner but he wears eyeglasses covering his eyes, for the candle is fit for a bracha since it is not hidden within a covering. According to this, if the candle is in the house and he sees it from outside through a closed glass window, he may likewise recite the bracha, since the candle is not covered but rather he sees the candle through the glass of the window. However, in the Biur Halacha, s.v. "or within," he holds that we require the windows to be open. And see in the Sha'arei Teshuvah siman 426 regarding Kiddush Levanah, that the Shevus Yaakov permits the reciting of Kiddush Levanah when one sees it through an intervening barrier by means of eyeglasses called "brillen" [=spectacles], and it is explained there that its law is like one who sees the sky through a glass vessel; and according to this, if through a glass window one may not recite the bracha over the candle, likewise by means of eyeglasses one may not recite the bracha — and we have not heard anyone who cast doubt on this, and it requires examination'. And so wrote the Gaon Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach12.
We find that we have learned that even according to those who are stringent regarding the Havdalah candle, one should be lenient regarding the bracha of seeing through glass and need not be stringent. And so ruled in practice the Birkei Yosef13, not like the words of the Dvar Shmuel which he cited, who is stringent regarding Kiddush Levanah14.
If so, in practice one may recite the brochos of seeing the sea through a window and glass.
Notes:
1 כה, ב ↩
2 נג, ב ↩
3 או"ח סי' רצח ↩
4 ה"ו ↩
5 הל' הבדלה סי' י ↩
6 שו"ע או"ח הל' סי' רצח סט"ו ↩
7 ס"ק כ ↩
8 שו"ע או"ח סי' עה ס"ח ↩
9 סי' רצח סכ"א ↩
10 ביאור הלכה סי' רצח ד"ה או בתוך ↩
11 סי' צט בבדה"ש אות ו ↩
12 מאורי אש צד, ב בשיטת המחבר. וכ"כ בשו"ת באר משה ח"ו סי' סג ↩
13 סי' רכד ס"ק א. והובא בשע"ת ס"ק ג. וראה גם מ"ש בסי' תכו סק"א. וכ"כ בחזון עובדיה הל' ברכות הראיה ע' תטז ↩
14 אמנם מצינו שגם רש"ל החמיר לפתוח החלון בקידוש לבנה וכמ"ש תלמידו המטה משה סי' תקלז [הובא במג"א סי' תכו ס"ק יד]: 'ואני ראיתי מורי הרב ז"ל שהיה יושב בחבורה שמח וטוב לב, והגיע שעת קידוש הלבנה ולא היה רוצה לצאת לחוץ, וציוה לפתוח החלון נגד הלבנה ובירך ברכת הלבנה וקדשה'. אלא שי"ל שטעם המהרש"ל, הוא לא מחמת החשש לראיה דרך החלון, אלא הוא המשך לדין שיש לצאת לחוץ ולברך, ולכן ציווה עכ"פ לפתוח את החלון. אך ראה בפרמ"ג א"א ס"ק יד ומשב"ז ס"ק ד שמשמע שהחמיר מחמת הראיה דרך זכוכית. וכ"נ משע"ת סי' תכו סק"א. אך עוד יש לחלק בין ברכת לבנה שיש צד להחמיר לפתיחת החלון יותר מברכת הראיה, שהרי כאן מברך על ראייתו והרי רואה. משא"כ בברכת הלבנה מכיוון שצריך שיהיה 'ונהנין מאורה דהיינו בעת שזריחתה ניכרת ע"ג קרקע' (וכן בהבדלה 'ומשתמש לאורה') יש צד להחמיר, ובזה דומה שמחמירים בבדיקת חמץ דרך חלון כי צריך שיכנס אורה. [ולהעיר מדברי המהרש"ם דעת תורה יו"ד סי' יא סק"ג בשם בעל הדעת קדושים שזה שהחמירו בסי' תלג אודות בדיקה חמץ בחלון זכוכית הוא 'מיירי רק בזכוכית של זמנים הקודמים שלא הי' צלול וזך ודק אבל בזה"ז יש להקל גם לענין בדיקת חמץ'] ↩
[F] (Halacha 346)
Question: What is the law when, within thirty days of seeing one sea, he saw another sea — does he recite the bracha again?
Answer: The Radbaz1 wrote: 'You asked of me .. when does one recite the bracha? Answer: this matter was asked before the Rabbeinu Avraham Av Beis Din, and he answered thus2 .. And regarding when one recites the bracha, the aforementioned Rav concluded, and this is his language: If the one he now sees a second time is the same one he saw earlier today, there is a fixed measure — namely, that he sees it once in thirty days, so that it be a significant thing in his eyes, for it is like the Great Sea over which one recites a bracha only if he sees it once in 30 days, so that it be for him a new thing and he derive pleasure from seeing it. And likewise too the rulers and kings and the black man and the reddish man and the albino. And likewise the rivers and the seas and the deserts — that if that same king he already saw before, or the black man he already saw another time within 30 days, he need not recite a bracha; but a ruler or another king or a black man or another river that he himself has not seen within 30 days — even if he saw in one day a hundred kings or a hundred sages or a hundred black men, he recites a bracha over all of them, for it is like lightning and thunder that interrupt, for each and every lightning and each and every thunder is a matter unto itself; and likewise too a perfumer's shop, where the fragrance keeps increasing with each; end of quote'.
And so wrote the Magen Avraham3: 'And this applies specifically when he saw that king, but if he saw a different king he must recite a bracha'.
And so ruled the Alter Rebbe4: 'All brochos of seeing — if he sees again the same thing over which he recited the bracha within 30 days, he does not recite the bracha again, and one counts from the day of the seeing (for example, if he saw on Sunday, when he sees again at the end of 4 weeks on Tuesday he recites the bracha again). But if he saw another of the same kind, such as another king or another sage, even if he saw one after another immediately, he must recite the bracha again — except for the graves of Israel, where even if he saw another grave he does not recite the bracha within 30 [days].
[However, some equated5 all the brochos of seeing and did not distinguish between the bracha over other graves of Israel and the bracha over another king; but the Alter Rebbe explained6 that specifically regarding the graves of Israel one does not recite the bracha again: 'For there is one law for all the dead and one judgment for all of them, and multiplicity does not apply to it as it does to honor and wisdom, and one bracha per 30 days suffices'].
If so, as a matter of halacha, for all brochos of seeing [except for the graves of Israel, and the bracha "who varies the creatures," and the bracha "that He has such in His world," and the bracha over the trees] he recites the bracha again when he saw another.
Question: A person who flies from the Holy Land to the United States and first sees the Mediterranean Sea and afterward the Ocean, or when he flies from the United States to the Holy Land and first sees the Ocean and afterward the Mediterranean — what does he recite?
Answer: We learned7 that the opinions are divided as to what is the bracha one recites when seeing the Mediterranean Sea, but in practice, since the ruling is that one8 recites over the Mediterranean Sea "who makes the works of creation," and only over the Ocean the bracha of the Great Sea — if so, one may say that when he sees the Mediterranean Sea he should recite the bracha "who makes the works of creation," and over the Great Sea he should recite the bracha special to it9.
And so wrote the responsa Betzel HaChochmah10: 'However, for those who practice to recite over the Mediterranean Sea "who makes the works of creation," and over the Ocean "who made the Great Sea," as the view of the Lechem Chamudos and the Magen Avraham — it is plain that since it is clear to them to recite over the Ocean "who made the Great Sea," with Hashem's Name and kingship, if so, now too, when it is incumbent upon them to recite a bracha over the seeing of both seas, they should recite "who makes the works of creation" over the Mediterranean Sea, and upon reaching the Ocean they should recite "who made the Great Sea" as is their practice. And even if he recited over the Mediterranean Sea without qualification and did not intend to exempt the Ocean with his bracha, even so the Ocean is not exempted by this bracha, for since he recites over the Ocean "who made the Great Sea" on account of its importance, it is not exempted incidentally but only through intent. But if, at the time he recited "who makes the works of creation" over the seeing of the Mediterranean Sea, he explicitly intended to exempt the Ocean as well with his bracha, then upon reaching the Ocean he need not recite anything'.
On the other hand, some were concerned for the views that consider the two seas as one sea11 and then he cannot recite two brochos.
If so, one who flies from the Land of Israel, when he sees the Mediterranean Sea, should recite "who makes the works of creation," and afterward, when he sees the Ocean, he should not recite the bracha of the Great Sea; and likewise one who flies from the United States, when he sees the Ocean, should recite over the Great Sea, and afterward, when he sees the Mediterranean Sea, he should not recite "who makes the works of creation."
Notes:
1 שו"ת ח"א סי' רצו ↩
2 תשובות הראב"י אב"ד סי' לג ↩
3 או"ח סי' רכד ס"ק י ↩
4 סדר ברה"נ סי' יג סי"ג ↩
5 ראה יד אליהו (להר' אליהו בן שמואל, מלובלין) סי' לב. ברכ"י או"ח סי' רכד סק"ו. פתח הדביר סי' רכד סק"יב. משנ"ב סקי"ז ↩
6 לוח ברה"נ פי"ב סי"ט, וכפי שביאר המטה יהודה סי' רכד ס"ק ב ↩
7 בהלכה 342 ↩
8 לאומרים שמברך על הים התיכון את ברכת הים הגדול, הנה למבארים שהטעם הוא מכיוון שהים התיכון הוא כחלק מים האוקיאנוס א"כ ברור שאין לברך שוב פעם ברכת הים הגדול כאשר רואה את המשך הים הגדול - האוקיאנוס. [וראה עד"ז בשו"ת בצל החכמה ח"ב סי' טז: 'לדעת הכנה"ג א"צ לברך עליו כלום ואפי' אם בתחילה בירך סתמא ולא התכוון לפטור גם את ים התיכון, שהרי ים התיכון מחובר לאוקינוס והאוקינוס מחובר לים השקט לים ההודי ונמצא כולם כים אחד, וכיון שבירך כבר על קצהו שבין אוסטרליא לאסיא שוב א"צ לברך תוך ל' אפי' על ראית קצהו האחר']. אך למבארים שהטעם הוא מכיון שים התיכון הוא בעצמו ים גדול, (ראה מור וקציעה סו"ס רכח) צ"ע הדין ברואה ים גדול אחר המחובר אם יש לברך שוב, ועצ"ע ↩
9 וראה שו"ת דברי יציב או"ח סי' צה שהסתפק בזה והביא סברות לב' הצדדים ↩
10 ח"ב סי' יד אות י ↩
11 ראה לעיל הע' 8, ובצירוף השיטות שברכת עושה מעשה בראשית היא ברכה כללית, כברכת שהכל. ראה ביאור הלכה סי' רכח ד"ה ועל הים. (אך ראה דברי ר"י בר יקר (בפירוש תפילות עמ' נח) שמשמע שאינו יוצא בים הגדול בברכה עושה מעשה בראשית) וראה בספר שערי ברכה פרק כא הע' ג ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp groupThe Bracha for One Who Sees Rivers
[1] (Halacha 347)
The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 states: 'And upon the rivers,.. one says: Baruch oseh bereishis'.
Question: Upon which rivers does one recite oseh maaseh bereishis?
Answer: The Tosafos1 wrote: 'It does not refer to all rivers, but rather to the four rivers written in Scripture, such as the Chidekel and the Pras'2.
And so wrote the Mordechai3: 'Upon the rivers — it does not refer to all rivers, but rather specifically to the four rivers of Scripture, such as4 the Pishon [Gichon] Chidekel Pras'.
And likewise in the Hagahos of Rabbeinu Peretz5 he wrote: 'It does not refer to all rivers, but rather to the four of Scripture'.
And in Sefer HaPardes6 he wrote: And upon the rivers one likewise recites Baruch Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam oseh bereishis. There is one who wrote that this applies specifically to the four rivers of Gan Eden alone'.
And as is written in Piskei HaTosafos7: 'Upon the rivers one recites a bracha, and specifically those written in Scripture, such as the Chidekel and the Pras'.
On the other hand, there are Rishonim who wrote that one recites a bracha upon all large rivers that have not changed from the six days of Creation, as the Tashbetz Katan8 wrote regarding the practice of his teacher the Maharam: 'When he saw seas or rivers or hills different in height, depth, and breadth from [how they were during] the six days of Creation, he would recite Baruch Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam oseh maaseh bereishis. And specifically after 30 days, and any bracha that does not contain Malchus is not a bracha'.
And so wrote the Kolbo9: 'And the Rav Moshe wrote that upon the rivers which are extraordinary in depth, or in breadth, or in height since the six days of Creation, from thirty days to thirty days one recites oseh maaseh bereishis'.
And so it appears from the words of the Avudraham10 that the Pras and the Chidekel are merely an example of rivers upon which one recites a bracha, and these are his words: 'And upon the rivers and upon the deserts one recites Baruch Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam oseh maaseh bereishis, since He established them from then, and it is praise of the Omnipresent when one recognizes today a thing that we know the Omnipresent created during the six days of Creation and it still endures — all the more so for its Maker who endures. And the Rav Shimshon wrote that specifically upon the mountains and hills that are different and upon which the might of the Creator is recognized, and likewise rivers that are different, such as the Pras and the Chidekel, one recites this bracha'.
And l'halacha the Mechaber11 wrote: One does not recite a bracha upon all rivers, but rather upon the four rivers written in Scripture, such as the Chidekel and the Pras, and that is when one saw them in a place where their course has not been changed by man'.
And so wrote the Levush12: 'And one need not recite a bracha upon all rivers, but rather upon the four specified rivers that are written in Scripture, such as the Chidekel and the Pras and the like'.
But the Magen Avraham13 raised a difficulty: 'And furthermore, why should one not recite a bracha upon other large rivers that were created from the six days of Creation? And also all the poskim wrote simply "rivers," and from where do we derive a distinction? Therefore it appears plain to me that their intent is as the Beis Yosef wrote in the name of the Avudraham, and these are his words: that specifically upon rivers that are different, such as the Pras and the Chidekel, one recites this bracha — meaning, upon all rivers that are as large as these one recites a bracha, and this is the view of all the poskim who wrote simply "rivers," implying all of them'.
And so ruled the Aruch HaShulchan14: 'Therefore it appears to me, in my humble opinion, that the text should read: rather like the four rivers written in Scripture, and that which it says "such as the Chidekel and the Pras" is because they are known, whereas the Gichon and the Pishon are not known to us. And accordingly, certainly upon the large rivers such as the Volga, Danube, Rhine, and the like, one must recite a bracha'.
And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah15: 'Such as the Chidekel and the Pras — not specifically these, but rather the same applies to all rivers that are large like these four rivers, and that are known to be from the days of Creation like these and did not come into being afterward — one recites a bracha'.
If so, we have learned that the Rishonim disagreed regarding which rivers one recites a bracha upon, and in practice the later poskim wrote that one recites a bracha upon all large rivers; but tomorrow we will learn that there is a condition regarding the bracha on rivers that greatly limits the bracha with respect to the rivers of today.
Notes:
1 נד, א ↩
2 בד"ה על הנהרות ↩
3 וכתב המהרש"א: 'אפשר דאלו ד' הנהרות נקראו מעשה בראשית כמפורש בענינו ונהר יוצא מעדן וגו' ומשם יפרד והיה לארבעה ראשים אבל שאר נהרות אפשר שנשתנו ע"י אדם כדאמרי' לקמן נמי גבי חדקל ופרת גופיה ולכך נקטו התוס' בדבריהם אלו ב' אף שהם מאוחרים במקרא לפי שהיו מצוים בעינייהו ונשתנו בקצת מקומות כדאמרינן לקמן ודו"ק' ↩
4 ברכות רמז רי ↩
5 במג"א סי' רכח סק"ג הקשה למה כתב כגון כאשר מנה את כל הארבע: 'וצ"ע מאי כמו דקאמר דהא ליכא אלא הני'. אך ראה במרדכי השלם הערה ו שמציינים שמצינו בראשונים שכתבו כגון גם כאשר אין עוד דוגמאות ↩
6 מצוה קנא הגהה לב ↩
7 לרבי אשר ב"ר חיים נביו, בתרומת הפרדס שער הראיה ↩
8 פרק הרואה אות קפז ↩
9 סי' שכג ↩
10 סי' פז ↩
11 ברכת הראייה השבח וההודאה, חלק מדבריו הובאו בבית יוסף. וכ"נ משמעות דברי הרס"ג בסידורו (עמ' צא) שכתב 'וכל הנהרות כמו נילוס פרת וחידקל..' ↩
12 או"ח סי' רכח ס"ב ↩
13 שם ס"ב ↩
14 שם ס"ק ג, וכ"כ באליה רבה ס"ק ו על דברי הלבוש הנ"ל ↩
15 שם ס"ב ↩
16 שם ס"ק ד. וכ"כ הגר"ח נאה בקצות השלחן סי' סו דין יד ↩
[2] (Halacha 348)
We learned that one recites oseh maaseh bereishis when seeing a large river.
Question: What is the law of a river that has changed from how it was created in the days of Creation, or an artificial river?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 states: 'And Rami bar Abba said in the name of Rav Yitzchak: One who sees the Pras at the bridge of Bavel [=from the location of the bridge of Bavel, and upward] says Baruch oseh bereishis. And nowadays, since the Persians have altered it — from Bei Shavor and upward, [=now that the Persians have altered the river Pras even above the bridge of Bavel, one recites a bracha only when seeing it from Bei Shavor and upward] Rav Yosef said: From Ihi Dekira and upward. And Rami bar Abba said: One who sees the Diglas at the bridge of Shevistana says Baruch oseh bereishis.
If so, we have seen that the Amoraim discussed from which location one may recite a bracha upon the rivers Pras and Chidekel, since in a place where they altered the river from how it was during the six days of Creation one cannot recite a bracha.
The Beis Yosef2 cited this sugya and wondered why the other poskim omitted this sugya, and these are his words: 'Rabbi Yitzchak said: One who sees the Pras at the bridge of Bavel says Baruch oseh bereishis, and Rashi explained: at the bridge of Bavel says Baruch oseh bereishis — they have a tradition that the Pras was not changed in its course by man from there and upward, but from there and downward people diverted it another way. From here it implies that one recites oseh maaseh bereishis upon the rivers only when one sees them in a place where their course has not been changed by man, and I do not know why the poskim did not write it'.
And in practice the Mechaber wrote the conclusions of this sugya in the Shulchan Aruch3: 'One does not recite a bracha upon all rivers, but rather upon the four rivers written in Scripture, such as the Chidekel and the Pras, and that is when one saw them in a place where their course has not been changed by man'.
And from the language of the poskim4 it appears that one recites a bracha only upon rivers that came into being during the six days of Creation and not upon rivers that came into being afterward, even if this was not through actions performed by man, but rather by the Hand of Heaven.
And the reason for the matter is to be explained based on what the Avudraham5 wrote: 'Upon the mountains and upon the hills and upon the seas and upon the rivers and upon the deserts one recites Baruch Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam oseh maaseh bereishis, since He established them from then, and it is praise of the Omnipresent when one recognizes today a thing that we know the Omnipresent created during the six days of Creation and it still endures — all the more so for its Maker who endures'.
Question: What is the law when there is a doubt whether it has changed?
Answer: The Olas Tamid6 wrote: 'And that which it says "and that is when one saw them in a place that has not changed etc." This means that we require that one know with certainty that their course has not changed, and on account of a doubt one does not recite a bracha, and so it is proven from that which we say there: one who sees the Pras [at the bridge] of Bavel, and see there in the words of Rashi'. And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah7.
But the Pri Megadim8 wrote: 'And if it is a doubt, one does not recite a bracha, Eliyah Rabbah [there], but it requires examination, for in the ordinary case it has not changed and it is fitting to recite a bracha'9.
However, the Mishnah Berurah10 remained in doubt, and these are his words: 'And in the Pri Megadim he inclines to say that in the ordinary case it has not changed, and it requires examination in practice'.
If so, we have seen that the poskim disagreed whether to recite a bracha upon a river where there is doubt whether it has changed, and according to the words of those who forbid it, one may say that one should not recite a bracha upon any river unless it is known with certainty that it stands from the six days of Creation; and even regarding the rivers Pras and Chidekel, only in a place that has not changed, as above from the Gemara.
On the other hand, we learned about the practice of the Maharam of Rothenburg who recited a bracha upon rivers. And so wrote the Aruch HaShulchan11: 'Accordingly, certainly upon the large rivers such as the Volga, Danube, Rhine, and the like, one must recite a bracha'.
And in practice, when there is doubt regarding a river lest it has changed from how it was during the six days of Creation, a number of the poskim wrote that in order to take into account the differing opinions it is fitting that one recite a bracha without Shem u'Malchus.
And as is written in the Eshel Avraham12: 'Although the Magen Avraham of blessed memory wrote to recite a bracha upon all rivers that are no smaller than the smallest of the four rivers, nevertheless, since it must be that they were from the days of Creation, it appears that we cannot recite a bracha upon any river in these lands, for perhaps they came into being at the time of the Mabul when the springs burst forth and some remained. One also requires knowledge of the size of the four rivers, and this is not so well known in these distant lands; nevertheless, upon a large river it is good to contemplate the bracha at the least, if one sees it only after thirty days, and such as the Dniester River — whereas those smaller than it appear to have no doubt and they are small relative to the four rivers'.
And so wrote the responsa Betzel HaChochmah13: 'Therefore he properly holds that we should not recite a bracha in our times upon any river, even upon the four mentioned in Scripture. And nevertheless, since the Maharam of Rothenburg recited a bracha upon the rivers of his land with Shem u'Malchus, it is fitting for us to recite a bracha at least by contemplation upon seeing large rivers, as is written in the aforementioned Eshel Avraham that upon the large rivers such as the Dniester River it is good to contemplate the bracha, see there, and so too upon seeing the Pras and the Chidekel, as appears correct to me in my humble opinion, with the help of Heaven'.
Notes:
1 נט, ב ↩
2 או"ח סי' רכח ↩
3 או"ח סי' רכח ס"ב ↩
4 ראה גם לשון המג"א סק"ג: 'למה לא יברכו על שאר נהרות גדולות שנבראו מו' ימי בראשית' וכן בפרמ"ג בא"א שם: 'אבל נהרות שנתהוו אח"כ אין מברך'. וראה גם בא"א (בוטשטאט) הובא לקמן שאין לברך במקרה שהתהווה במבול ↩
5 בברכת הראייה השבח וההודאה ↩
6 שם ס"ק ב ↩
7 שם סק"ו ↩
8 בא"א סי' רכח ס"ק ד ↩
9 וכ"כ בנזירות שמשון (בלוך) הובא בילק"מ הוצאת מכון י-ם ↩
10 שעה"צ סי' רכח ס"ק ח ↩
11 או"ח סי' רכח ס"ב ↩
12 בוטשאטש סי' רכח וראה נמוקי או"ח סי' רכח סק"א ↩
13 ח"ב סי' יא אות ה. וראה תשובות והנהגות חלק א סימן קצד ↩