Siman 223

If his wife gave birth to a male—he recites the blessing "Who is good and does good," for this is a benefit to him and also a benefit to his wife, as she also desires a male more (Gemara 59b). And there is no distinction between whether he was present at the time of birth or whether he was in another city and the news reached him—he blesses, and she too is obligated to bless "Who is good and does good." However, upon the birth of a female one does not bless, because there is not as much joy in this as with a male. And there is no distinction between whether he has fulfilled the obligation of procreation or has not fulfilled it, and also there is no distinction between whether they are happy about the birth of the male or are not happy in their hearts. And there is one who wrote that he should prostrate himself toward the east and bless (Magen Avraham subsection 2), and I do not know the reason for this.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And if his wife died in childbirth, he recites 'shehecheyanu,' for there is no benefit to others; and similarly, if the father died before she gave birth to it, she recites 'shehecheyanu.' And some have written that it is the custom to be lenient regarding this blessing, as it is not an obligation but rather optional, and from this it spread that many are lenient regarding these blessings." Thus far his words. And this is not sufficient, for we do not find "optional" in the Gemara except regarding the blessing of shehecheyanu over a new fruit (Eruvin 40b), but regarding his wife giving birth to a male where he blesses "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv," it is an explicit Baraita (59b), and they have already raised a difficulty against him similar to this (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And in my humble opinion, there appears to be a correct reason why they are lenient regarding this blessing, for I did not find in the Rif or in the Rambam, chapter 10, this law at all, see there; and I am wonderstruck that the poskim did not sense this. And since the Rif and the Rambam rejected this from the halacha, it is obvious that we should not enter into a doubtful blessing. And the reason of our masters appears to me to be that the language of the Baraita is as follows: "If they told him his wife gave birth to a male, he blesses... if his father died, etc." And it is difficult: why regarding the birth of a male does it teach "if they told him" and not regarding the death of his father? Rather, certainly in the ordinary case one should not bless, and the Baraita is dealing with a person who is anxious and longing for the birth of a male, like that which we learned in Nazir (12b): "Behold I am a nazir when I have a son," see there, and the people who heard from him came and told him she gave birth to a male, meaning they brought him good tidings, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, fulfilled your desire. (And with this it settles well regarding what was questioned there: "And everywhere that there is no benefit to others with him, does he not bless 'ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv'? But was it not taught: if she gave birth, etc." And it answers: "There, etc. his wife, etc." see there. And it is not understood: why did the questioner ask it? Did he not know this? But according to what I wrote it settles well, for in the ordinary case he does not bless, and only here was he longing for this, but from her we did not hear, and therefore he thought that the benefit was only for him alone. And it answers that it is not so, for ordinarily when he is longing, she also longs for a male, and delve into this.)

If one's father died—he recites the blessing 'Dayan HaEmet', for regarding all the deceased for whom one mourns, he is obligated in this blessing, and certainly for his father. And even for a Torah scholar or a righteous person, one should initially recite 'Dayan HaEmet' when they die, as it is no less than bad tidings, except that the custom is not to recite it with the Name and Sovereignty; see Yoreh Deah siman 340 (and see Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 4). However, for his father, it is obvious that he recites the blessing with the Name and Sovereignty and there is no novelty in this at all; rather, the novelty is that if his father left him money as an inheritance of a proper sum, after he recites 'Dayan HaEmet', he recites 'Shehecheyanu' over the inheritance of the money. And we do not say: how can he recite 'Shehecheyanu' at the time of his father's death? For these matters are unrelated to one another. But when does he recite 'Shehecheyanu'? When he is a sole heir. But when there is another heir—he recites 'HaTov VeHaMeitiv', 'Good' for himself and 'Doing Good' for others, for the rule is that one does not recite 'HaTov VeHaMeitiv' unless this benefit also reaches another. And one should not say: surely even when he is the sole heir, benefit reaches his wife and children? For it is not so, as they are dependent upon him. And it is not similar to when his wife gave birth to a male, where she also has an actual share in the child, but money is entirely his. And it is not specifically regarding the inheritance of his father that he blesses, and the same law applies to any inheritance whatsoever.

We learned in a Mishnah: "One who builds a new house or buys new vessels blesses: 'Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, who has kept us alive, sustained us, and brought us to this season,'" and the reason is because it is a joy for him. And it appears to me that even though regarding the matter of returning from the war ranks, as it is written: "Who is the man who has built a house etc.", and we learned in the eighth chapter of Sotah: "Whether one builds a straw-house, a cattle-shed, or a storehouse" see there, for all these are included in the category of a house, nevertheless, one only blesses 'shehecheyanu' over an actual house, for in this there is great joy, but not in a straw-house etc. However, regarding that which we learned there: "Whether one builds, or buys, or inherits, or it was given to him as a gift," here too it is so, for regarding joy, this and that are equal. And there is room for doubt, for in the war ranks three things are considered: one who built a house, planted a vineyard, or married a woman; what is the law regarding 'shehecheyanu'. And behold, since [the Mishnah] in [the chapter] HaRoeh does not count a vineyard or a woman, one may infer from this that one does not bless over these. And regarding a vineyard, one can say that this is not a joy [comparable to] a house, but regarding a woman, there is a wonder why they should not bless 'shehecheyanu', as it is a great joy such that they bless: 'that joy is in His abode'. And one can say that because at the time of erusin it is not yet a complete joy, and it is impossible to bless 'shehecheyanu' then, and at the time of the wedding when the joy is completed, it is impossible to bless because the essence of the matter was already completed at the erusin; therefore, even with us where the erusin and the nishuin are as one, they did not practice to bless, since they did not bless, we also do not bless. And similarly regarding a vineyard, they did not institute 'shehecheyanu', for at the time of planting there is not yet joy, as the fruits are forbidden for three years because of orlah, and afterwards it is not relevant to bless because the matter was already completed; therefore, they only mentioned a house, which one uses immediately upon completion.

Regarding a house and new vessels, even if he already possessed their like—he must recite the blessing of "shehecheyanu," since this is new to him. And not only that, but even if he once purchased their like and returned and purchased their like again, such that even regarding the purchase it is not the first time—nevertheless, he recites "shehecheyanu." This is according to the flow of the halacha (page 60), and thus ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Rambam in chapter 10 mentioned only if he already possessed their like, and did not mention if he purchased and returned and purchased again, see there (see Kesef Mishneh). And it is stated in the Yerushalmi there: that even if they are not new, since they are new to him—he recites "shehecheyanu," since these were never in his possession. And they only said "new" to exclude if they were his and he sold them and returned and purchased them again, for then he does not recite the blessing; since they were in his possession previously, this is not such a great joy. (The Magen Avraham in subsection 5 wrote that people are not careful in this, see there; and it seems to me that now people are careful in this, and only because it requires a significant item as will be explained, therefore if it is not clear that such an object is significant to him, therefore there are those who refrain from the blessing).

One should recite the blessing at the time of the acquisition even though he has not yet made use of them, for the blessing is only on account of the joy of the heart that he rejoices in their acquisition. And specifically when the matter is finished in its proper form, but if the house is not yet completely finished, or the vessel requires repair, or the garment requires repair—he should not recite the blessing until he completes all the repairs. And regarding a garment, when he dresses to go out in it, he should recite the blessing: "Who clothes the naked," and the blessing of 'Shehecheyanu' precedes it (see Magen Avraham subsection 6, and there is no understanding of his words, see there).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: "If one bought vessels that he and the members of his household use—he blesses 'ha-tov ve-ha-metiv,' and if they were given to him as a gift—he blesses 'ha-tov ve-ha-metiv,' for it is a benefit to him and to the giver." Thus far his words. And if he bought vessels for himself alone and for the members of his household alone, he blesses 'shehecheyanu' over his own and 'ha-tov ve-ha-metiv' over those of the members of his household (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 7), for he also uses those of the members of his household. (See Turei Zahav subsection 4, and according to what I have written the Magen Avraham is not so but rather as I have written, and the Magen Avraham raised a difficulty regarding the benefit of the giver from Even HaEzer at the end of siman 37, see there. And were it not for the words of the Rosh, I would say that behold this law is from the Yerushalmi, and the intention is that when he buys with his own money, even though the members of his household also use them, nevertheless the primary ownership is his, but one who gives a gift gives so that all the members of his household may use it, and therefore the blessing is 'ha-tov ve-ha-metiv,' and examine this well) (And see Be'er Heitev subsection 15 and Sha'arei Teshuva subsection 13, and according to what I have written it works out well, and examine this well).

This is the wording of the Tur: "The Tosafot wrote that one should only recite the blessing over significant items, similar to 'one who built a new house,' but for something that is not so significant, such as a shirt or shoes and socks, one does not recite the blessing over it. And my lord, my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote: It appears to me that everything is according to the person: there is a poor person who rejoices in his shirt more than a wealthy person in significant vessels" thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6 ruled according to the opinion of the Rosh. And there is one who says that the Tosafot also hold this way, and they were not speaking of a poor person (Magen Avraham subsection 10 in the name of the Radbaz). However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And some say that even a poor person does not recite the blessing over a shirt and shoes and the like, and such is the custom" thus far his words. The explanation of his words: that the opinion of the Tosafot is so, for certainly even regarding significant items like expensive garments and vessels, it depends on his wealth or poverty, for to the poor person even a simple garment has significance and he recites 'shehecheyanu' over it, whereas the wealthy person only recites the blessing over an expensive garment like silk and fine wool and the like. And in this everyone agrees, and the Rosh and the Tur also hold so, but in this the Tosafot add that over a shirt and shoes and socks even the poor person should not recite the blessing even though they are significant to him, and this is for another reason, because for the blessing of 'shehecheyanu' we require something that comes at infrequent intervals, and this is similar to 'from time to time,' for in this 'shehecheyanu' is applicable, namely garments that one does not frequently wear new. But a shirt and shoes and socks and the like are frequent in being renewed and it is not applicable to recite 'shehecheyanu' over them, and such is the custom among us. And over books: there is one who says that one should not recite the blessing, for mitzvot were not given for enjoyment (Magen Avraham subsection 5), and some disagree on this (ibid. and Sha'arei Teshuva). And one who finished some composition, there is one who says to recite 'shehecheyanu,' but we do not practice so (see Sha'arei Teshuva subsection 2). And over the building of a beit knesset one should not recite the blessing since it belongs to the public, unlike the one who instructed that the shaliach tzibbur should recite 'ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv' (ibid. subsection 1). And one whom Hashem, may He be blessed, granted the merit to write a sefer Torah, there are those who upon its completion recite 'shehecheyanu' over the fulfillment of the mitzvah and it is correct, but I do not know if everyone practices so.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "The custom is to say to one who wears a new garment: 'May you wear it out and renew it.' And there is one who wrote that one should not say this regarding shoes or garments made from the skins of animals, for if so, they would need to kill another animal first so that he may renew another garment from it, and it is written: 'And His mercy is over all His works.' And behold, the reason is very weak and does not seem correct; nevertheless, many are particular about this not to say it." Thus far his words.