Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Text replacement - "Baruch Sheamar" to "Baruch Sh'amar"
<p class="indent">While the Ashkenazic minhag is simple and follows Tosfot<ref>The Rama 215:1 writes that Ashkenazic minhag is in accordance with Tosfot.</ref>, the Sephardic minhag seems not to follow Rashi, Tosfot, or the Rambam. As the Sephardic tradition is to answer [[amen]] after Yishtabach (OC 51:4) and [[Hallel]], but not after Birchat HaTorah for [[Kriyat HaTorah]] or [[Bracha Achrona]].<ref>See Tur-Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 51:4, 66:7, 111:1, 188:1, and 215:1, 236:4</ref> According to Rashi, seemingly one should have answered [[amen]] to all of the above, while the Rambam would forbid answering Amen to Yishtabach and Hallel. To make things more puzzling, The Tur 215:1 comments that the minhag of his father, the Rosh, was to follow the Rambam.</p>
<p class="indent">In defense of the minhag, the Beit Yosef 51:3 suggests that really one should only answer [[amen]] to a concluding bracha if it concludes a sequence of [[brachot]] which were established to be said together, formally termed [[bracha]] ha'semucha lechaverta. However, when it comes to an opening and closing Bracha, since there's some act of eating or Mitzvah in between the Brachot, the two Brachot are each considered an individual Bracha. He adds that the [[brachot]] of [[Pesukei DeZimrah]] and [[Hallel]] are considered as if they were consecutive since they surround pesukim of praise and are themselves forms of praise. The Beit Yosef explains this understanding within the opinion of the Rambam.</p>
<p class="indent">He also cites the Maharalnach who offers alternative explanation via the opinion of the Rosh that any two Brachot which one may interrupt in between are not considered Semuchot Lechaverta/a series, so Baruch Sheamar Sh'amar and Yishtabach are really considered a series of Brachot, as one may not interrupt between them. The same is true for the opening and closing Brachot of Hallel, but not Brachot on food. And it is in this aspect alone that the Tur meant that his father agreed with the Rambam.</p>
===What is the logic for such a distinction?===
<p class="indent">Rabbeinu Yonah explains that answering Amen indicates the conclusion of a process. Hence, it is inappropriate to answer Amen to one's Bracha, make another Bracha, answer Amen to it, and so on, as one is stopping and starting over and over again. That’s why the Gemara (above) only called it “Meguneh” and not Assur</p>

Navigation menu