Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Berakhot

Berakhot 21 for kids: Blessings, Prayer, and Dipping

ברכות כ״א

🙏 This daf asks which blessings come from the Torah and which were made by the Rabbis. It also explores tricky prayer situations: what if you forgot if you already prayed, or you walk into a shul mid-prayer?

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Berakhot 21a in Daf QuestOpen Berakhot 21b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Berakhot 21

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Berakhot 21 in simple English

Rashi on Berakhot 21a, in English Tab translation (15)
  1. Rather he should abridge — [this means abridging] each and every blessing [of the Amidah].
  2. That it does not contain [acceptance of the] kingship of Heaven — there is no mention of 'the King of the world' in the blessings of the Eighteen (the Amidah).
  3. This is the text version: 'And Grace after Meals before it, which contains the kingship of Heaven,' etc. — Another version reads: Prayer is different in that it does not contain the kingship of Heaven. The acceptance of the kingship of Heaven is as found in Shema, where one accepts upon himself God as Master and unique King. According to this version we read: 'And Grace after Meals recited afterward does not contain the kingship of Heaven.' This version appears to be the primary one, since the Gemara then answers: Rather, Shema and Grace after Meals are by Torah law — and this deals with the blessing recited afterward. But according to the first version, this does not address the blessing of Grace after Meals recited afterward in the Gemara's challenge, which then answers: Rather, Shema and Grace after Meals are by Torah law, etc. And some have the text here phrased as a question: Is Shema then only by rabbinic law? Rather: Shema, which contains the kingship of Heaven, and Grace after Meals, which is by Torah law, [differ from] prayer, which is rabbinic and does not contain the kingship of Heaven. According to this version, we will explain below that 'when you lie down and when you rise' is written regarding matters of Torah [study].
  4. When I proclaim the Lord's name — When Moses was about to begin the words of the song (Haazinu), he said to Israel: I will bless first, and you respond after me with Amen. 'When I proclaim the Lord's name' through a blessing, 'you ascribe greatness to our God' by answering Amen. This is how it is explained in tractate Yoma (37a).
  5. That it does not require [a blessing] before it — meaning that we do not find for it an explicit verse requiring a blessing beforehand.
  6. Requires [a blessing] after it — as it is written, 'And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless.'
  7. Torah, which requires [a blessing] before it — as we have said.
  8. The logic can be refuted — in both directions: when you seek to derive [the blessing after] Torah from food, one can object: What is true of food is that one derives pleasure from it; and when you seek to derive [the blessing before] food from Torah, one can object: What is true of Torah is that it grants life in the World-to-Come.
  9. Shema is by rabbinic law — the Gemara below raises a challenge against this.
  10. True and Firm is by Torah law — since it mentions the exodus from Egypt, which is a Torah-law obligation, as it is written: 'So that you may remember the day of your exodus from the land of Egypt' (Deuteronomy 16).
  11. That it contains two things — the exodus from Egypt and the acceptance of the kingship of Heaven.
  12. He goes back and recites Shema — because he holds that Shema is a Torah-law obligation.
  13. Would that a person would pray the entire day — In Halakhot Gedolot the ruling follows Rabbi Yochanan in a case of uncertainty, and follows Shmuel in a case where he certainly prayed.
  14. What is the law as to whether they should finish — the blessing, if he remembered in the middle of the blessing, in one of the blessings in which he erred.
  15. An individual and an individual — when he first prayed he was praying alone, and when he forgot that he had prayed and began praying again, he was also praying alone.
Tosafot on Berakhot 21a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. And prayer, which is also a matter in which the community is engaged, etc. — One might ask: why did the Gemara not instead raise its challenge from the case of Shema, which is also 'a matter in which the community is engaged,' where the mishna teaches that one does not recite a blessing beforehand? The answer is that the Gemara specifically raises the difficulty from prayer, because it is a greater novelty: although prayer is said standing, and it would seem that he is not 'standing' in the same sense as the community is engaged (i.e., his individual prayer is different), nevertheless we say that if he did not yet begin, he should not begin. One might further ask: since we do not yet know the reason (given shortly), the same question should also apply according to Ravina — why single out prayer rather than Shema or Grace after Meals? The answer is that according to Ravina it works out well, since he holds that contemplation is equivalent to speech; therefore there is more reason to require Shema and Grace after Meals, which are Torah obligations, than prayer, which is rabbinic. But according to Rav Chisda, since contemplation counts for nothing except to ensure he is not simply idle, there is no difference between Shema and prayer.
  2. However, if he did not yet begin, he should not begin — One might ask: perhaps the statement refers only to beginning by actual speech, while beginning by contemplation alone would be fine? The answer is that the implication is that he should not begin even by contemplation, since the Gemara did not say 'let him abridge by speech or extend by contemplation.'
  3. The text should read: 'Rather, Shema and Grace after Meals are by Torah law, and prayer is by rabbinic law,' and nothing should be read in between until 'Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav.' Rashi explains that Shema is by Torah law since one does not recite emet veyatziv, as explained regarding the mishna; but some texts read 'Shema is by rabbinic law.' The Gemara then answers: Rather, Shema contains acceptance of the kingdom of Heaven, while Grace after Meals is by Torah law and prayer is rabbinic — and this is also the text found in chapter five. But this is difficult, since regarding the mishna it was explained that Shema is by Torah law according to everyone, since one does not say emet veyatziv there, which is the very subject under discussion in the mishna. Also, some texts read: 'Prayer is different, in that it does not contain acceptance of the kingdom of Heaven' — but doesn't Grace after Meals also lack acceptance of the kingdom of Heaven, and yet we learned that over food one recites a blessing afterward? Rather, the reason must be that Shema contains acceptance of the kingdom of Heaven, while Grace after Meals is by Torah law and prayer is rabbinic — and even on this reading, the difficulty remains as explained.
  4. One who is uncertain whether he recited emet veyatziv must recite it again — This is difficult, for presumably he must also be uncertain about Shema itself; for if he were certain that he recited Shema and uncertain only about emet veyatziv, then emet veyatziv would not be a Torah obligation in this case, since the exodus from Egypt was already mentioned in Shema (in the portion of the ritual fringes). So if he is uncertain about both, he should rather go back and recite Shema, which contains two elements — acceptance of the kingdom of Heaven and the exodus from Egypt — which is preferable to reciting emet veyatziv alone, which contains only one element, as stated shortly regarding the mishna. Rabbi Yitzchak says that the mishna indeed deals with a case of one who experienced a seminal emission, where we know for certain that he did not recite Shema or emet veyatziv at all, and we wish to permit him a leniency; therefore it is better for him to recite Shema, which contains both elements. But here, where he is merely uncertain whether he recited emet veyatziv, and is uncertain whether he recited both (as explained), it is better for him to recite emet veyatziv rather than Shema. For when he recites emet veyatziv, there may be room to assume that he has thereby completed everything: if he had already recited emet veyatziv, he certainly had already recited Shema as well, since presumably he prayed in the normal order — Shema followed by emet veyatziv — and so he fulfills both obligations. And even if you say he had not yet recited either, perhaps he recited Shema but not emet veyatziv, which is possible; and now, by reciting emet veyatziv, he completes everything. And if you say perhaps he recited neither, since this is merely uncertain, the Sages did not trouble him to repeat both. But if he recites Shema instead, this would not be a complete remedy, since perhaps he had already recited a different Shema earlier and did not fulfill his obligation now at all; and if it is certain that he had not yet recited Shema, then he also had not recited emet veyatziv, since it is not customary to recite emet veyatziv without Shema, and so by reciting Shema now he would not have remedied anything and would remain in his state of uncertainty. Rabbi Shimon further said that the case indeed deals with one who is uncertain only about emet veyatziv, but it is certain that he recited Shema; nevertheless emet veyatziv is by Torah law, meaning that 'uncertain whether he recited emet veyatziv' refers to being uncertain about the portion of the ritual fringes together with emet veyatziv — that is, he is uncertain whether he recited either the portion of the fringes or emet veyatziv, so that he did not mention the exodus from Egypt at all. The entire matter of the exodus from Egypt is called 'emet veyatziv,' since the reason for emet veyatziv is on account of the exodus from Egypt, and therefore the portion of the fringes is included within emet veyatziv.
  5. That verse was written with regard to matters of Torah — And the proof cited earlier in the first chapter (Berachot 2a), that in the evening it is derived from the phrase 'when you lie down,' is merely an asmakhta (a mere textual support, not a true derivation).
  6. And Rabbi Yochanan said: Would that a person pray the entire day — Rabbi Yitzchak says that the halacha follows Rabbi Yochanan, but only in a case of uncertainty as to whether he prayed; however, if it is certain that he already prayed, you should not know this halacha to apply, for presumably Rabbi Yochanan does not disagree with what Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel shortly afterward, that if one remembers that he already prayed, he stops — and likewise, this applies if he can introduce something new into his prayer.
Rashi on Berakhot 21b, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. Or a case of congregation and congregation — both the first time and the second time he was with the congregation, for example, ten [praying] after [another] ten, and this person was with them both times, having forgotten that he had [already] prayed with the first group.
  2. Rav Huna holds — that an individual praying together with the congregation [still] recites kedusha [on his own if needed]; therefore, if he has not finished [his own prayer] by the time the prayer leader reaches kedusha, we are not concerned about it. But regarding modim [thanksgiving], even though an individual [ordinarily] recites modim [on his own], if he does not say it together with the congregation — since everyone sees the others bowing and he does not bow — it appears as though he denies the One to whom his fellows are bowing.
  3. He may not interrupt — his prayer in order to respond to kedusha together with the congregation, and likewise for modim.
  4. He derives [homiletic teachings] in Mishneh Torah — and this verse [in question] is stated in Mishneh Torah [Deuteronomy].
  5. You shall not let a sorceress live — without specifying by what form of execution she is put to death; and next to it is written: whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.
  6. They juxtaposed the matter to it — the passage 'you shall not let a sorceress live' was juxtaposed to [the law of] one who lies with an animal.
  7. Just as one who lies with an animal is executed by stoning — as stated in tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 'Four Deaths' (Sanhedrin 54b), by means of a verbal analogy deriving 'you shall surely kill him' here from 'you shall surely kill him' stated regarding one who incites to idolatry — so too a sorcerer is executed by stoning.
  8. Rabbi Yehuda said to him — Is it because the matter was juxtaposed to one who lies with an animal that we would sentence this sorcerer to stoning, which is more severe than all other deaths in the Torah? Rather, he has an explicit verse elsewhere teaching that his execution is by stoning.
  9. A medium and a necromancer are included — in 'you shall not let [a sorceress] live,' for all of them were [included among] sorcerers. Why then were they singled out when the Torah specified stoning for them, as it is written 'they shall be stoned, their blood is upon them'? To apply to the entire general category [of sorcerers] the same [penalty], for this is a principle in the Torah: anything that was included in a general category and was then singled out to teach [something], was not singled out to teach about itself alone, but to teach about the entire category.
  10. One who experienced a seminal emission and saw a zav-emission, etc. — this concerns the immersion that Ezra instituted for those who experienced a seminal emission, [permitting them] to engage in Torah study; he did not require it for other types of impurity. Here it states that if one has another impurity along with the seminal emission from which he cannot emerge through this immersion — such as a zav or a menstruating woman, who have a seven-day impurity — nevertheless he must immerse for his seminal emission before engaging in Torah.
  11. One who emits semen [after relations] — she is like one who experienced a seminal emission.
  12. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts — this is understood to mean that this immersion does not purify her completely at all.
  13. According to whom is it taught: 'one who has relations'? — To teach us the strength of whose opinion did they need to disagree about this case?
  14. If you say [it is taught] according to the Rabbis — to inform you of the strength of their opinion, that they obligate [immersion] in this case.
  15. Now, if a zav who experienced a seminal emission — whose impurity of zivah preceded [the seminal emission]...
  16. From the start — meaning: at the time he experienced the seminal emission, he was not yet fit for [a purifying] immersion, and [yet] the Rabbis obligate him in immersion for the seminal emission for the sake of Torah study.
  17. One who had relations and then saw [signs of] menstruation — where the impurity of seminal emission preceded, and when she experienced the seminal emission she was [then] fit to immerse immediately.
  18. All the more so — that the later impurity of menstruation should not come and nullify an immersion to which she was already obligated?
  19. Rather, is it not [to be understood] according to Rabbi Yehuda — [this] is taught to inform us that even where the seminal emission preceded, the impurity of menstruation comes and nullifies the immersion, since only an immersion that [fully] purifies counts as an immersion [for this purpose]. And if it were according to Rabbi Yehuda, who does not accept Ezra's enactment [at all], why would we need to teach us this case? All those who experienced a seminal emission also would not require immersion for Torah study [according to him]! Therefore, by necessity, it is taught specifically [to teach this distinction].
Tosafot on Berakhot 21b, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. Ad shelo yagia sheliach tzibbur le-Modim — 'until the prayer leader reaches Modim': The reason is that he must bow together with the congregation so that he not appear to deny the One to whom the congregation bows. The same would also apply if he reaches Modim at the same time as the prayer leader reaches Modim — that would be fine too, since he is bowing together with his fellow worshippers — but the Gemara did not state the rule in such precise terms. However, it does not seem that this ruling is based on the obligation to answer 'Modim deRabbanan,' as we find no clear basis for that in the Gemara. Rabbeinu Tam was accustomed, when praying alone, to bow along with the congregation when the cantor reached Modim, without saying anything — but only in the middle of the blessing, not at its end, since it is stated later (Berakhot 34a) that one may not bow at the end of each blessing. Nevertheless, one should not do this as a preferred practice, as is implied here. Rashi writes in Sukkah (38b) that someone praying who hears kaddish or kedusha from the cantor cannot interrupt to answer with the congregation, but should rather be silent and wait briefly, since listening is considered like answering ('shome'a ke'oneh'). One might say that, as a preferred practice, one should not rely on this, since actually answering is considered a greater fulfillment of the mitzvah ('hiddur mitzvah'). But Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri held the opposite: that if 'listening is like answering' applies, then remaining silent itself constitutes answering, and speaking would actually be an interruption. In any case, people are accustomed to remain silent and listen, and the custom carries weight. In the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 'Tefillat HaShachar,' it is stated: one who has not yet prayed and finds the congregation praying the Musaf Amidah — if he knows he can finish his own prayer before the prayer leader begins, so that he can answer 'amen,' he should pray; if not, he should not. The Amoraim disagree as to which 'amen' is meant: one says it refers to the amen after 'HaKel HaKadosh,' the other to the amen after 'Shomea Tefilla' — but they do not truly disagree, since one is speaking of a weekday and the other of Shabbat (the reference to 'Shomea Tefilla' being for weekdays). Therefore one should be careful to answer amen both at 'HaKel HaKadosh' and at 'Shomea Tefilla.' It is implied from the Jerusalem Talmud that people used to recite the complete set of eighteen blessings even for the weekday Musaf (such as on Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed); however, we rely on the statement later (Berakhot 29a) that 'they instituted eighteen blessings, not nineteen.' Our custom of inserting 'Aneinu' between the blessings of Redemption and Healing poses no difficulty, since that insertion is only for the cantor, while an individual includes it within 'Shomea Tefilla.' Furthermore, Rabbi Chaim notes that the Tosefta (on this chapter) explicitly supports our practice, stating that on days with a Musaf offering, such as Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed, one recites the complete eighteen blessings at evening and morning services, inserting a mention of the occasion within the blessing of Avodah (and if omitted, he must repeat the prayer), while for Musaf he recites seven blessings and includes the sanctity of the day in the middle. Regarding the Jerusalem Talmud's wording, one might also say it is a scribal error, and that 'Musaf' should not appear there at all — simply 'finds them praying' — as is indeed implied in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 'Mi SheMeto,' where the same statement appears without any mention of Musaf.
  2. Ein yachid mitpallel kedusha — 'An individual may not recite kedusha alone': This is the halakha. However, one who is praying the Amidah along with the cantor may, when the cantor reaches kedusha, join in reciting 'Nekadesh' and the entire kedusha together with him — this is permitted, since he is not then considered an individual praying alone.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Berachot, Brachos, Berachos, Brachot 21.