## Berakhot Daf 12a

###### Berakhot 12a:1
[Berakhot 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:1)

אֶלָּא, אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״אַהֲבָה רַבָּה״ הֲווֹ אָמְרִי, מַאי בְּרָכוֹת אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ? דִּלְמָא הַאי דְּלָא אָמְרִי ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר״ מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטָא זְמַן ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר״, וְכִי מְטָא זְמַן ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר״ הֲווֹ אָמְרִי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**However, if you say that they** would omit: Who creates light, and **would recite: An abounding love,** on **what** basis would you conclude that failure to recite one of the **blessings** recited before *Shema* **does not prevent** one from reciting the **other?** In that case, one could offer another reason why only a single blessing is recited. **Perhaps** the fact **that they did not recite: Who creates light was because the time for the recitation of: Who creates light, had not yet arrived,** as the sun had yet to rise. The blessings of the priestly watch are recited in the early morning hours, long before sunrise. **However,** afterward, **when the time** to recite: **Who creates light arrived, they would recite it.** From the conclusion drawn by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before ***Shema*** does not prevent one from reciting the other, it is clear that the blessing recited by the members of the priestly watch was: Who creates light.


###### Berakhot 12a:2
[Berakhot 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:2)

וְאִי מִכְּלָלָא מַאי?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
As this deductive reasoning seems coherent and convincing, the Gemara asks: **And if** this *halakha* is **based on inference,** and not on an explicit statement, **what** of it? There seems to be no other way to interpret Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement.


###### Berakhot 12a:3
[Berakhot 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:3)

דְּאִי מִכְּלָלָא, לְעוֹלָם ״אַהֲבָה רַבָּה״ הֲווֹ אָמְרִי. וְכִי מְטָא זְמַן ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר״ הֲווֹ אָמְרִי לֵיהּ. וּמַאי ״בְּרָכוֹת אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ״ — סֵדֶר בְּרָכוֹת.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara answers: **If** this conclusion **were based on an inference,** one could say that **actually they recited: An abounding love, and when the time** to recite: **Who creates light arrived, they would recite it.** In that case, **what** is the meaning of: Failure to recite one of the **blessings** recited before *Shema* **does not prevent** one from reciting the **other?** Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish meant that failure to recite **the** correct **order of the blessings** does not prevent one from fulfilling his obligation. Even if one recites: An abounding love before: Who creates light, he fulfills his obligation. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish did not refer to a case where only one of the blessings was recited. Consequently, one cannot infer from his statement his opinion regarding the identity of the single blessing.


###### Berakhot 12a:4
[Berakhot 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:4)

וְקוֹרִין עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדִּבְּרוֹת ״שְׁמַע״, ״וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ״, ״וַיֹּאמֶר״, ״אֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב״, וַעֲבוֹדָה, וּבִרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara related above that the priests in the Temple **read the Ten Commandments,** along with the sections of ***Shema*, *VeHaya im Shamoa*, *VaYomer*, True and Firm, *Avoda,* and the priestly benediction.**


###### Berakhot 12a:5
[Berakhot 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:5)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אַף בִּגְבוּלִין בִּקְּשׁוּ לִקְרוֹת כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁכְּבָר בִּטְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי תַּרְעוֹמֶת הַמִּינִין.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: Even in the outlying areas,** outside the Temple, **they sought to recite** the Ten Commandments **in this manner** every day, as they are the basis of the Torah (Rambam), **but they had already abolished** recitation of the Ten Commandments **due to the grievance of the heretics,** who argued that the entire Torah, with the exception of the Ten Commandments, did not emanate from God (Jerusalem Talmud). If the Ten Commandments were recited daily, that would lend credence to their claim, so their recitation was expunged from the daily prayers.


###### Berakhot 12a:6
[Berakhot 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:6)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: בִּגְבוּלִין בִּקְּשׁוּ לִקְרוֹת כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁכְּבָר בִּטְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי תַּרְעוֹמֶת הַמִּינִין.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**That was also taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Natan says: In the outlying areas, they sought to recite** the Ten Commandments **in this manner, but they had already abolished** their recitation **due to the grievance of the heretics.**


###### Berakhot 12a:7
[Berakhot 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:7)

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה סְבַר לְמִקְבְּעִינְהוּ בְּסוּרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: כְּבָר בִּטְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי תַּרְעוֹמֶת הַמִּינִין.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara relates that several Sages sought to reinstitute recitation of the Ten Commandments, as **Rabba bar bar Ḥana thought to institute this in** the city of **Sura,** but **Rav Ḥisda said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics.**


###### Berakhot 12a:8
[Berakhot 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:8)

אֲמֵימַר סְבַר לְמִקְבְּעִינְהוּ בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּבָר בִּטְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי תַּרְעוֹמֶת הַמִּינִין.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
So too, **Ameimar thought to institute this in** the city of **Neharde’a. Rav Ashi,** the most prominent of the Sages in that generation, **said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics.**


###### Berakhot 12a:9
[Berakhot 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:9)

וּבְשַׁבָּת מוֹסִיפִין בְּרָכָה אַחַת לַמִּשְׁמָר הַיּוֹצֵא. מַאי בְּרָכָה אַחַת? אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: מִשְׁמָר הַיּוֹצֵא אוֹמֵר לַמִּשְׁמָר הַנִּכְנָס: ״מִי שֶׁשִּׁכֵּן אֶת שְׁמוֹ בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה, הוּא יַשְׁכִּין בֵּינֵיכֶם אַהֲבָה וְאַחְוָה וְשָׁלוֹם וְרֵיעוּת״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We learned in a mishna in tractate *Tamid* that **on Shabbat a single blessing is added to** bless **the outgoing priestly watch.** The Gemara asks: **What is** that **single blessing? Rabbi Ḥelbo said:** As they finished their service, **the outgoing priestly watch would say to the incoming priestly watch: May He who caused His Name to dwell in this house cause love and brotherhood, peace and camaraderie to dwell among you.**


###### Berakhot 12a:10
[Berakhot 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:10)

מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְהַאֲרִיךְ. פְּשִׁיטָא הֵיכָא דְּקָא נָקֵיט כָּסָא דְחַמְרָא בִּידֵיהּ וְקָסָבַר דְּשִׁכְרָא הוּא, וּפָתַח וּמְבָרֵךְ אַדַּעְתָּא דְשִׁכְרָא, וְסַיֵּים בִּדְחַמְרָא — יָצָא. דְּאִי נָמֵי אִם אָמַר ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״ — יָצָא. דְּהָא תְּנַן: עַל כּוּלָּם אִם אָמַר ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״ — יָצָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We learned in the mishna: **Where** the Sages **said** to recite **a long** blessing, one may not shorten it, and vice-versa. The Gemara proceeds to address a particular problem arising from conclusions drawn from this mishna. Before addressing the primary problem, however, a simpler, secondary issue is raised: **Obviously, in a case where one took a cup of wine in his hand and thought it was beer, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was beer,** i.e., he intended to recite the appropriate blessing on beer: By Whose word all things came to be, **and** upon realizing that it was wine, **he concluded** the blessing **with that** which is recited over **wine:** Who creates the fruit of the vine, **he fulfilled** his obligation. In that case, **even had he recited: By Whose word all things came to be,** as he originally intended, **he** would have **fulfilled** his obligation, **as we learned** in a mishna: **If one** recited the general blessing: **By Whose word all things came to be, over all** food items, **he fulfilled** his obligation after the fact, even if *ab initio* another blessing was instituted to recite before eating that food. Therefore, if he reconsidered and concluded the blessing with the ending of the blessing over wine, he fulfilled his obligation.


###### Berakhot 12a:11
[Berakhot 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:11)

אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּקָא נָקֵיט כָּסָא דְשִׁכְרָא בִּידֵיהּ וְקָסָבַר דְּחַמְרָא הוּא, פְּתַח וּבָרֵיךְ אַדַּעְתָּא דְחַמְרָא, וְסַיֵּים בִּדְשִׁכְרָא, מַאי?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**However in a case where one took a cup of beer in his hand and thought it was wine, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was wine,** meaning he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, **and** upon realizing that it was beer **he concluded** the blessing **with that** which is recited over **beer:** By Whose word all things came to be, **what** is the *halakha*?


###### Berakhot 12a:12
[Berakhot 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:12)

בָּתַר עִיקַּר בְּרָכָה אָזְלִינַן, אוֹ בָּתַר חֲתִימָה אָזְלִינַן?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
Ostensibly, this blessing is comprised of two sections. The first section, during which he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, cannot fulfill his obligation as it is an inappropriate blessing to recite over beer. However, in the second section he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, the appropriate blessing. The dilemma, then, is: **Do we follow the essence** of the blessing, the first section, **or do we follow the conclusion** of the blessing?


###### Berakhot 12a:13
[Berakhot 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שַׁחֲרִית, פָּתַח בְּ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר״ וְסִיֵּים בְּ״מַעֲרִיב עֲרָבִים״ — לֹא יָצָא. פָּתַח בְּ״מַעֲרִיב עֲרָבִים״ וְסִיֵּים בְּ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר״ — יָצָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Come and hear** a proof from what was taught in a *baraita* with regard to a similar case: If, in **the morning prayer**, one **began** the blessings prior to the recitation of *Shema* appropriately **with: Who creates light, and concluded with** the formula of the evening prayer: **Who brings on evenings, he did not fulfill** his obligation. However, if one did the opposite, and **commenced with: Who brings on evenings, and concluded with: Who creates light, he fulfilled** his obligation.


###### Berakhot 12a:14
[Berakhot 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:14)

עַרְבִית, פָּתַח בְּ״מַעֲרִיב עֲרָבִים״ וְסִיֵּים בְּ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר״ — לֹא יָצָא. פָּתַח בְּ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר״ וְסִיֵּים בְּ״מַעֲרִיב עֲרָבִים״ — יָצָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
Similarly, if, in **the evening prayer**, **one commenced** the recitation of *Shema* **with: Who brings on evenings and concluded with: Who creates light, he did not fulfill** his obligation. If **one commenced with: Who creates light and concluded with: Who brings on evenings, he fulfilled** his obligation.


###### Berakhot 12a:15
[Berakhot 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:15)

כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַחִתּוּם.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The *baraita* summarizes that **the general principle is: Everything follows the conclusion** of the blessing. Based on this principle, the question with regard to a blessing recited over food and drink posed above can be resolved.


###### Berakhot 12a:16
[Berakhot 12a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:16)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּקָאָמַר ״בָּרוּךְ יוֹצֵר הַמְּאוֹרוֹת״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
This proof is rejected: **There,** in the case of the blessing recited over the radiant lights, **it is different, as one recites: Blessed**…Who **forms the radiant lights,** and similarly, in the evening one recites: Blessed…Who brings on evenings. Since these are long blessings that conclude with a second blessing summarizing their content, one could assert that everything follows the conclusion. However, in the case of short blessings, such as: By Whose word all things came to be, or: Who creates the fruit of the vine, ostensibly, if there is a problem with the first part of the blessing, the entire blessing is nullified.


###### Berakhot 12a:17
[Berakhot 12a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:17)

הָנִיחָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר כָּל בְּרָכָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם אֵינָהּ בְּרָכָה — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר כָּל בְּרָכָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַלְכוּת אֵינָהּ בְּרָכָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The distinction between the blessing recited over the radiant lights and the blessings recited over food and drink stems from the assumption that the conclusion: Blessed…Who fashions the radiant lights, is a complete, independent blessing. However, this is not necessarily so. **This works out well according to Rav, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention of God’s name is not** considered **a blessing,** and since: Who creates light, includes God’s name, it constitutes a complete, independent blessing. That works out **well. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention of** God’s **sovereignty,** i.e., our God, King of the universe, **is not** considered **a blessing, what can be said** to distinguish between the conclusion of the blessings over food and drink and the blessing over the radiant lights? Since the conclusion: Who creates light, does not mention God’s sovereignty, it does not constitute a complete, independent blessing.


###### Berakhot 12a:18
[Berakhot 12a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:18)

אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: כְּדֵי לְהַזְכִּיר מִדַּת יוֹם בַּלַּיְלָה וּמִדַּת לַיְלָה בַּיּוֹם, כִּי קָאָמַר בְּרָכָה וּמַלְכוּת מֵעִיקָּרָא — אַתַּרְוַיְיהוּ קָאָמַר.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara responds: **Rather,** Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds that the blessing over the radiant lights is a complete blessing. **Since Rabba bar Ulla said:** Who creates darkness, is mentioned during the day and: Rolling away the light before the darkness, is mentioned at night **in order to mention the attribute of day at night and the attribute of night in the day,** the beginning of the blessing in which God’s sovereignty is mentioned day and night is appropriate to both day and night, and **when one recites the blessing** with God’s name **and** mentions God’s **sovereignty at the beginning of the blessing,** it refers **to both** day and night. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the blessing over the radiant lights to the blessings recited over food and drink.


###### Berakhot 12a:19
[Berakhot 12a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:19)

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא: ״כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַחִתּוּם״. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר לְאֵתוּיֵי מַאי? לָאו לְאֵתוּיֵי הָא דַּאֲמַרַן?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara attempts to cite an additional proof: **Come and hear** another solution based on what we learned **in the latter clause** of the *baraita* cited above: **The general principle is: Everything follows the conclusion** of the blessing. **What does** the phrase: The general principle is, come **to include** beyond the detailed example cited in the *baraita*? **Does it not come to include** the case **that we stated,** that both in the case of a long blessing and the case of a short blessing, the conclusion of the blessing is the determining factor?


###### Berakhot 12a:20
[Berakhot 12a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:20)

לָא, לְאֵתוּיֵי נַהֲמָא וְתַמְרֵי. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דַּאֲכַל נַהֲמָא, וְקָסָבַר דְּתַמְרֵי אֲכַל, וּפְתַח אַדַּעְתָּא דְתַמְרֵי וְסַיֵּים בִּדְנַהֲמָא — הַיְינוּ בַּעְיָין!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** the principle is cited **to include** a case of **bread and dates.** The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** of the dilemma with regard to the blessings on these food items? **If you say that** it is a case **where one ate bread and thought that he ate dates, and commenced** reciting the blessing **thinking it was dates;** then, upon realizing that it was bread, **he concluded** the blessing **with that** which is recited **over bread, isn’t that our dilemma,** as this case is identical to the one involving wine and beer?


###### Berakhot 12a:21
[Berakhot 12a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:21)

לָא צְרִיכָא: כְּגוֹן דַּאֲכַל תַּמְרֵי, וְקָסָבַר נַהֲמָא אֲכַל, וּפְתַח בִּדְנַהֲמָא, וְסַיֵּים בִּדְתַמְרֵי [— יָצָא]. דַּאֲפִילּוּ סַיֵּים בִּדְנַהֲמָא — נָמֵי יָצָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara answers: **No; this** general principle **is** only **necessary** to teach a special **case**, **where one ate dates and thought that he ate bread, and commenced** reciting the blessing **thinking they were bread.** Upon realizing that they were dates, **he concluded** the blessing **with that** which is recited **over dates.** In that case **he fulfilled** his obligation, as **even had he concluded** the blessing **with that** which is recited **over bread, he** would have **fulfilled his obligation.**


###### Berakhot 12a:22
[Berakhot 12a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:22)

מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּתַמְרֵי נָמֵי מֵיזָן זָיְינִי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**What is the reason** that had he concluded with the blessing recited over bread he would have fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing over dates? This is **because dates also provide** a person **sustenance.** While *ab initio* one should not recite the blessing for bread over dates, after the fact, if one did so, he fulfilled his obligation. It is with regard to this particular situation that the *baraita* established the principle: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. Ultimately, the dilemma regarding a blessing with an inappropriate opening and an appropriate conclusion remains unresolved.
The Gemara proceeds to discuss the formula for the blessings recited along with *Shema*.


###### Berakhot 12a:23
[Berakhot 12a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:23)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר חִינָּנָא סָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: כָּל שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר ״אֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב״ שַׁחֲרִית, וֶ״אֱמֶת וֶאֱמוּנָה״ עַרְבִית — לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְהַגִּיד בַּבֹּקֶר חַסְדֶּךָ וֶאֱמוּנָתְךָ בַּלֵּילוֹת״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rabba bar Ḥinnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who did not recite: True and Firm [*emet veyatziv*]** at the beginning of the blessing of redemption that follows *Shema* **in the morning prayer, and: True and Trustworthy [*emet ve’emuna*] in the evening prayer, he did not fulfill his obligation.** An allusion to the difference in formulation between morning and evening is, **as it is stated: “To declare Your kindness in the morning and Your faith in the nights”** (Psalms 92:3). In the morning, one must mention God’s loving-kindness, while in the evening one is required to emphasize the aspect of faith.


###### Berakhot 12a:24
[Berakhot 12a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:24)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר חִינָּנָא [סָבָא] מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל, כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹרֵעַ כּוֹרֵעַ בְּבָרוּךְ, וּכְשֶׁהוּא זוֹקֵף — זוֹקֵף בַּשֵּׁם

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**And Rabba bar Ḥinnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who is praying, when he bows** in the appropriate places, **he bows when** he says: **Blessed, and when he** subsequently **stands upright, he stands upright when he says** God’s **name.**


###### Berakhot 12a:25
[Berakhot 12a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:25)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי טַעְמָא דְרַב — דִּכְתִיב: ״ה׳ זוֹקֵף כְּפוּפִים״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Shmuel,** who was Rav’s colleague and significantly outlived him, **said: What is Rav’s reason** for saying that one should stand upright at the mention of God’s name? **As it is written: “The Lord, who raises the bowed”** (Psalms 146:8); one stands upright at the mention of God’s name to recall that it is God who raises the bowed.


###### Berakhot 12a:26
[Berakhot 12a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:26)

מֵתִיבִי: ״מִפְּנֵי שְׁמִי נִחַת הוּא״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** based on what we learned in praise of a priest: **“And he was afraid before My name”** (Malachi 2:5), indicating that one must be humbled and not upright before God’s name.


###### Berakhot 12a:27
[Berakhot 12a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:27)

מִי כְּתִיב ״בִּשְׁמִי״? ״מִפְּנֵי שְׁמִי״ כְּתִיב.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara responds: **Is it written: At My name? Before My name, is written,** meaning that one is humbled and bows prior to the mention of God’s name, when he says: Blessed.


###### Berakhot 12a:28
[Berakhot 12a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/12a:28)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב: בַּר אוֹרְיָאן, תָּא וְאֵימָא לְךָ מִלְּתָא מְעַלַּיְיתָא דְּאָמַר אֲבוּךְ. הָכִי אָמַר אֲבוּךְ: כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹרֵעַ — כּוֹרֵעַ בְּ״בָרוּךְ״, כְּשֶׁהוּא זוֹקֵף — זוֹקֵף בַּשֵּׁם.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara relates: **Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of Torah, come and I will tell you a great saying that your father said. Your father said the following: When one bows, he bows when** he says: **Blessed, and when he stands upright, he stands upright when he says** God’s **name.**