Siman 59

The Men of the Great Assembly ordained to recite two blessings before the recitation of Shema, and they are "Yotzer Or" and "Ahavah Rabbah." And one after the recitation of Shema: "Ga'al Yisrael." And in the evening service, two before it and two after it, for in the evening service the blessing of "Hashkivenu" was added, which is not relevant in the morning service. And this is what we learned in the Mishnah (11a): In the morning one recites two blessings before it and one after it. And in the evening, two before it and two after it. And they said in the Yerushalmi: Corresponding to "Seven times a day I praise You" (Rashi).

The Rashba wrote in a response (siman 47) that the blessings of Kriat Shema are not actually blessings over the Kriat Shema, like the blessing over the Torah or the blessing over the mitzvot. For if it were so, we should have blessed "to read the Shema," just as we bless over the reading of the Torah and over the reading of the Megillah. Rather, their blessings were instituted independently, but they instituted to say them before Kriat Shema and after it. And so the Geonim agreed. Therefore, one who recited Kriat Shema without its blessings—returns and says its blessings independently… Thus far his words. However, one who recites Kriat Shema without its blessings—afterwards he recites Kriat Shema again with the blessings, as is explained in the Yerushalmi that we brought in the previous siman, section 20. And such is the common custom, and so it is proven from what I wrote at the end of siman 46, see there.

The first blessing: "Who forms light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates all," and in Isaiah (45:7) it is written thus. And in the conclusion of the verse it is written "and creates evil," but they did not wish to mention a matter of evil, but rather a superior expression of "all" (Gemara 11b). And the intent is one, and this is its explanation: to exclude the opinion of the heretics who say there are two authorities—a doer of good and a doer of evil. Regarding this the prophet said that it is not so, for the Holy One, blessed be He, created the light and the darkness. And therefore He makes peace between them, that is to say: that the light keeps its time and the darkness keeps its time, and they do not encroach upon each other's boundary. And if it were according to the opinion of the heretics, Heaven forbid, how would the master of light not encroach upon the boundary of the master of darkness? And likewise, how would the master of darkness not encroach upon the boundary of the master of light? Rather, He, may He be blessed, created the evil as well, and for what purpose did He create it? In order that there should be choice in the hand of man, as we explained in siman 1, see there. And that which we say "and creates all" is also for this intent, that He, may He be blessed, created everything.

And why did they not change the term "darkness," which is also not superior? For this is quite the opposite: in order to mention the attribute of day at night, and the attribute of night during the day (Gemara ibid.). That is to say: for this is the primary point, to teach that one G-d created them, the day and the night, the light and the darkness. Therefore, in the morning service they mention the "darkness" of night, and in the evening service they say "He rolls away light before darkness, and darkness before light." And all is for the intent that we have explained.

The second blessing is "Ahava Rabba" or "Ahavat Olam." And the blessing after it is "Emet Veyatziv" until "Ga'al Yisrael." And in the evening, the first is "Asher Bidvaro Maariv Aravim," and the second is "Ahavat Olam." And the one after it is "Emet Ve'emuna" until "Ga'al Yisrael," and the second is "Hashkivenu," and it will be explained in siman 236. And the first blessing before the recitation of Shema, whether in the morning or in the evening, opens with "Baruch" and concludes with "Baruch." And the second ones do not open with "Baruch" because they are adjacent to the first. And even though the order of the blessings is not indispensable, nevertheless, the primary enactment was established according to the order. And similarly, the blessings after the recitation of Shema do not open with "Baruch" because they are adjacent to the first ones, for every blessing adjacent to its fellow concludes with "Baruch" and does not open with "Baruch." And this is regarding long blessings. But regarding short blessings, they open with "Baruch" and do not conclude with "Baruch." And therefore, in the morning blessings, and in Kiddush and Havdalah, and the seven blessings of marriage—all of them open with "Baruch." And only among them are there those that conclude with "Baruch" and do not open with "Baruch," such as "Sos Tasis," and "Sameach Tesamach." And it was explained in Even HaEzer siman 62.

The Rambam wrote in the first chapter, law 7: All these blessings, along with all the other blessings arranged in the mouths of all Israel – Ezra and his beit din instituted them. And a person is not permitted to diminish from them nor to add to them. A place where they instituted to conclude them with "Baruch" – he is not permitted not to conclude. And a place where they instituted not to conclude – he is not permitted to conclude. A place where they instituted not to open with "Baruch" – he is not permitted to open. A place where they instituted to open – he is not permitted not to open. The general rule of the matter: One who changes from the coin that the sages minted in a blessing – behold, he is in error, and he returns and blesses with the coin. And anyone who did not say "Emet Veyatziv" in the morning and "Emet Ve'emunah" in the evening – has not fulfilled his obligation. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote "One who changes from the coin... and returns..." – this is when he changed the opening and the conclusion, and not when he changed some words in the middle, as it does not invalidate (see Kesef Mishneh, first chapter of Berakhot, halacha 6). Nevertheless, it is forbidden to do so. And whatever changes of words there are between one version and another – it is not considered a change. And for both versions there is a basis, and these and those are the words of the living God. For behold, in the openings and conclusions, no change is found between the versions.

And that which he wrote, that anyone who did not say "emeth ve-yatziv" in the morning... – so it is in the Gemara (12a). And they derived it from the verse: "To declare Your kindness in the morning, and Your faithfulness in the nights." And the blessing of "emeth ve-yatziv" is entirely about the kindness that He performed with our ancestors, that He took them out of Egypt, and split the sea for them and brought them across. And the blessing of "emeth ve-emunah" speaks of the future, that we hope He will fulfill for us His promise and His faithfulness... and to set our souls in life, and to lead us upon the high places..., all these miracles that occur constantly (Rashi). And because the exile is compared to night, therefore we mention this in the evening. And nevertheless, we also mention the exodus from Egypt in "emeth ve-emunah" in order to juxtapose this to the conclusion of "ga'al Yisrael" (Kessef Mishneh). And furthermore: that we therefore say "emeth ve-emunah" in the evening because we deposit our souls every night into His hand, and He returns it to us rested and clean (Tosafot R"I). And this is what they said in Midrash Eikhah: "They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness," for a person believes and deposits his spirit into His hand and He returns it without weariness (Tosafot ibid.). And this is what our sages, of blessed memory, said, that if he did not say so he has not fulfilled his obligation, meaning: even if he said the entire blessing but did not begin with "emeth ve-yatziv" or in the evening with "emeth ve-emunah," or if he switched to say in the morning "ve-emunah" and in the evening "ve-yatziv" – he has not fulfilled the obligation of the blessings (Kessef Mishneh).

The Rambam wrote there: In the morning, if one opened with "Who forms light" and concluded with "Who brings on evenings" – he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he opened with "Who brings on evenings" and concluded with "Who forms light" – he has fulfilled his obligation. And in the evening, if he opened with "Who brings on evenings" and concluded with "Who forms light" – he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he opened with "Who forms light" and concluded with "Who brings on evenings" – he has fulfilled his obligation. For all blessings follow their conclusion. (And he explains that which is written in the Gemara 12a: In the morning if he opened with "Who forms..." according to its plain meaning.)

But the Tur wrote: If he erred and said "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, who by His word brings on evenings," and remembered immediately and said "who forms light," and also concluded properly "Blessed are You, Hashem, who forms the luminaries" – he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he did not conclude properly, or if he said "Blessed... who forms light and creates darkness who by His word brings on evenings" and also concludes with "who brings on evenings" – he has not fulfilled his obligation. But if he concluded "Blessed are You, Hashem, who forms the luminaries" – he has fulfilled his obligation. Thus far his words. The opinion of the Tur is that although they said everything follows the conclusion, nevertheless, if he did not mention at all in the opening the matter of the conclusion – this is not a blessing at all, and he has not fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, in the morning service when he began with "who brings on evenings" and concluded with "who forms the luminaries" – he has not fulfilled his obligation. And that which they said that in such a case he has fulfilled his obligation – that is where he mentioned "who forms light" as well, such as if he opened and said: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, who by His word brings on evenings, who forms light and creates darkness," and concluded with "who forms the luminaries." Or if he opened: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, who forms light and creates darkness, who by His word brings on evenings," and concluded with "who forms the luminaries" – he has also fulfilled his obligation, even though he interrupted in the middle. And if he did not conclude "who forms the luminaries," even though he opened only with "who forms light" – he has not fulfilled his obligation. And the same law applies to the evening service in reverse. And behold, the wording of the Tur requires correction and explanation, and the commentators have already labored over it. However, regarding the law, such is his intention. And this is the approach of the Rosh and many of the Rishonim, that we require a proper conclusion and also an opening of the same matter as the conclusion. Except that we are not concerned if he interrupted with matters that are not of the subject of the opening and the conclusion, whether this interruption was at the very beginning, or whether he began properly and interrupted in the middle, for the main thing is when he mentioned the matter in the opening and the conclusion – he has fulfilled his obligation. And if he did not mention it in one of them, either in the opening or in the conclusion – he has not fulfilled his obligation. And so wrote our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 2. And this law applies only to long blessings and not to short ones, and it will be explained in siman 209, see there. And if he did not say "who forms light" properly in a manner that requires him to return and bless, and he remembered during the saying of "Ahavah Rabbah" – he should not interrupt, but rather he should say "who forms light" after the Shemoneh Esreh. For the order of the blessings is not a hindrance (Magen Avraham, subsection 1).

Regarding that which we say "Who forms attendants, and whose attendants" – they instituted saying this because we say in Chagigah (13b) that every day angels are created from the River Dinur. And this is "Who forms attendants" – those created every day. "And whose attendants" are like Michael and Gabriel, who serve always before Him, may He be blessed (Tur and Tosafot ibid.). "With clear speech and with holy melody [u-vine'imah kedoshah]...", some maintain the version of the dalet with a cholam and it refers to what precedes it, meaning: "and with a holy [kedoshah] melody." And some maintain the version with a melupum and it refers to what follows, meaning: they respond in awe of the holiness [hakedushah] (see Beit Yosef). And likewise "they respond and say in awe, Holy." And some maintain the version "they respond in dread and say in awe." And it is written in Peri Etz Chaim that this is the primary version, see there.

Regarding the kedushah in "Yotzer," there is a dispute among the great authorities. For the Rambam there wrote that an individual skips it, because kedushah is only recited in a tzibbur. But the opinion of the Rosh and several of the Rishonim is that he recites it, because this is nothing more than a narration of what the angels say. And the son of the Rambam, in a responsum, testified regarding the Rambam that he also retracted his view at the end of his days, and ruled that an individual recites it. And such is the simple custom in all the dispersions of Israel. And a proof for this: for behold, we recite this while seated, and according to the Zohar specifically seated and not standing, and it is called "the seated prayer," as is known. And if it were a kedushah like the kedushah of the Shemoneh Esreh, how could we recite it while seated? Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that it is proper for an individual to recite it with the cantillation marks and melody like one reading from the Torah, see there. But the custom is not so. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And when responding to this kedushah, they recite it in a loud voice. Thus far his words, meaning: that even though it is a narration, nevertheless they recite it in a loud voice. And when saying "for He alone performs mighty deeds," some add and say "for He alone is exalted and holy, performing mighty deeds." (And it is correct, for there are ten sefirot in them. Examine it and you will easily find it.) In "L'el baruch," the lamed is with a kamatz, and likewise "L'melech" (Pri Etz Chaim).

The custom in Ashkenaz is to conclude with "A new light upon Zion may You cause to shine...", but they do not follow this custom in Sefarad. And so wrote Rashi, that one should not conclude with the light of the future, as it is not of the same nature as the conclusion, because the blessing is over the light that is renewed every day and not over the light of the future. However, the Rosh wrote that it is indeed of the same nature as the opening and the conclusion, for "Who forms light" refers to the light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created during the six days of creation, and the world was not worthy to use it, so He hid it for the righteous for the future to come. And this is what is written: "And nations shall walk by your light," as is explained in Midrash Bereshit. And this is also the new light that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to return to us (Tur). And we rightly say regarding it "Who forms light" and "Creator of the lights," since it has already been created. And the Tur wrote that Rav Sherira Gaon likewise wrote that it should be said, see there.

The blessing of "Yotzer" he should say with the shliach tzibbur quietly. And he should not rely on his hearing it from the shliach tzibbur and only answer "amen," for two reasons: One: for at the end of Rosh Hashanah we say that the shliach tzibbur only fulfills the obligation for one who is not proficient, but not for one who is proficient. And furthermore: even if we say that he fulfills the obligation even for one who is proficient, as will be explained, nevertheless perhaps he will not hear well, and words will be missing from his hearing and he will not fulfill the obligation. Therefore, it is good that he say it himself with the shliach tzibbur. And the shliach tzibbur says it in a loud voice, and he should say it quietly and not in a loud voice; for if he also says it in a loud voice they will not hear the voice of the shliach tzibbur, for two voices are not heard. And this is impossible, for behold the shliach tzibbur must fulfill the obligation for those who are not proficient. And he should say to finish the blessing before the shliach tzibbur, so that he can answer "amen" to the blessing of the shliach tzibbur, for in the middle it is forbidden to interrupt. And it seems to me that this is when the shliach tzibbur says it moderately. But if he rushes—it is better to say it moderately and not answer "amen," for for him the "amen" is not a necessity since he says them alone, and he does not fulfill the obligation through the blessing of the shliach tzibbur. And so too in the rest of the blessings of Shacharit and Arvit. And so it is implied in the Tur, see there. (And this is the explanation of the words of the Shulchan Aruch in section 4, see there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4: However, if she did not say it but only heard it from the shaliach tzibbur – she has fulfilled her obligation. For in these blessings, the shaliach tzibbur fulfills the obligation of the individual, even if he is proficient. However, the shaliach tzibbur does not fulfill the obligation of the individual with fewer than ten. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: Even though we say at the end of Rosh Hashanah that the shaliach tzibbur does not fulfill the obligation of the proficient person to pray for himself, this is regarding the prayer which is a request for mercy. Therefore, everyone is obligated to seek mercy for himself when he is able, and the shaliach tzibbur only fulfills the obligation of the unlearned who do not know how to pray for themselves. But in these blessings, the shaliach tzibbur fulfills the obligation even of the proficient person, as in all blessings of enjoyment or blessings of the mitzvot, where when two people need to recite a blessing – one recites the blessing and the second hears and answers "amen," and fulfills his obligation through this. However, in this it is more stringent than other blessings, as it specifically requires ten, because these blessings are after Kaddish, and they also contain Kedushah, and they are part of the order of the prayer. Therefore, with fewer than ten – he does not fulfill their obligation. (See Magen Avraham subsection 5, who wrote from the Tosafot of R"i regarding the people in the fields, and wrote that this is regarding one who is not proficient, thus far his words. And it requires further study, for regarding the people in the fields – even the proficient are exempted, as is explicitly proven from Rashi at the end of Rosh Hashanah. And so implies the entire sugya there. Furthermore: the entire law of the people in the fields was omitted by the Rambam, the Tur, and the Ran in Megillah, for they do not hold this reasoning to distinguish between prayer and these blessings, see there. But several Rishonim hold so, as the Beit Yosef wrote in his great work. Therefore, the primary ruling is like the Rema. And that which the Beit Yosef wrote not to answer "amen" after "Who chooses His people Israel with love," for the reason of an interruption between the blessing and Kriyat Shema – we do not hold so because the blessings do not refer to Kriyat Shema, as I wrote in the name of the Rashba. And this is why the Rema noted to see siman 61, for there it is explained that we answer "amen." And such is the custom. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

It is a known matter that when the sheliach tzibbur becomes silent in the middle of a blessing, when another rises in his place, he begins from the start of the blessing. And so it is in the blessing of "Yotzer." However, in the Yerushalmi they said that this is before the Kedushah, but if he became silent after he said "Kadosh..." – the other does not begin from the start of "Yotzer" but rather from "Ve-ha-ofanim ve-chayot ha-kodesh." And so too if he erred in the ofanim. And if he erred after he finished "Baruch kevod..." – he begins from "La-el baruch," for the Kedushah is like the end of a blessing. And it is forbidden to begin from the start of "Yotzer," since there is no need and it would be a blessing in vain (Magen Avraham, subsection 6).