THE ONE WHO SAID THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE[ MENTION OF] GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY HOLDS THAT [IT IS REQUIRED BY] TORAH LAW. The Gemara says that the one, who holds that הטוב והמטיבis required by the Torah, holds that there is no need to mention the Kingdom of Hashem since it is adjacent to the previous b’rochos. However, the one who holds that its origin is Rabbinic holds that we must mention the Kingdom of Hashem because it is a separate entity, not a continuation of the previous b’rochos. Rashi wonders why according to the one who holds it is required by Torah law we begin the b’rochoh with ברוך, after all, it is adjacent to the previous b’rochoh and a b’rochoh that is adjacent to a previous b’rochoh does not begin with ברוך? Rashi asked: since this b’rochoh is required by Torah law, why does it begin with ברוך, it is adjacent to a previous b’rochoh? And he answered that it is a short b’rochoh, and it is merely gratitude to Hashem like the b’rochoh for fruits and the b’rochoh for Mitzvos.Just as they are relatively short b’rochos, so too, this b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיבis a short b’rochoh. As Rashi explains its opening is its conclusion; therefore it must begin with ברוך. Tosfos finds Rashi’s explanation a bit problematic. And this is bewildering, why did they alter this b’rochoh more so than other b’rochos that are adjacentto a previous b’rochoh that they conclude with ברוך and they do not begin with ברוך? Since this b’rochoh is required by Torah law, we should say a lengthier request of Hashemas we do in other long b’rochos, and conclude with ברוך, and not make it unlike than other b’rochos. And we answer: that this argument is correct, and the one who holds that this b’rochoh is required by the Torah, concludesthe b’rochoh with ברוך and does not begin itwithברוך. And so it is in the Tosefto explicitly, that R’ Yosee HaG’leelee usedto say a lengthy versionof the B’rochoh and concludedthe b’rochoh with ברוך. This explanation follows the one who holds that הטוב והמטיב is required by Torah law. However, we rule that it is required by Rabbinic law, and therefore it is required that the Kingdom of Hashem be mentioned as the Gemara says, it requires twice mentioning the Kingdom of Hashem to compensate for Kingdom not being mentioned in the second and third b’rochos, besides the mentioning of Kingdom for itself.

[IT] REQUIRES TWO MENTIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY BESIDES ITS OWN. Rav Popo explained that R’ Yochonon is teaching us that we must mention the Kingship of Hashem three times in **הטוב והמטיב,**once because the b’rochoh itself requires it, since it is Rabbinic, as explained earlier, and another two times to compensate for the fact that in the second and third b’rochoh Kingship is not mentioned. Tosfos struggles to explain why it is necessary to compensate for Kingship that is not mentioned in the second b’rochoh.The b’rochoh הטוב והמטיבrequires that we mention Kingship twice to compensate for the second and third b’rochos, besides once for itself. Of the two that are mentioned as compensation, one is forKingship **that should have been mentioned in בונה ירושלים,**even though בונה ירושליםis adjacent to a previous b’rochoh and ordinarily does not need to have Kingship mentioned in it, this case is different because we mention the kingship of David and it is not proper tomention the kingdom of David and not the Kingship of Hashem. And in the b’rochoh of בונה ירושלים itself we cannot mention Kingshipof Hashem because it is adjacentto a previous b’rochoh;¹ therefore it must be said in הטוב והמטיב. Tosfos will now explain why Kingship for the second b’rochoh, referred to as the b’rochoh of the land is also recited in **הטוב והמטיב.**² Tosfos understands that there must be a reason why the Kingship of the b’rochoh of the land needs to be compensated. If there was no need to mention Kingship in that b’rochoh at all, why would one have to compensate for it? And since one says the Kingship of בונה ירושליםin הטוב והמטיבin order to compensate for not mentioning it in בונה ירושליםand it should have been mentioned because it is not properto mention the Kingdom of David without mentioning the Kingship of Hashem, one also says the Kingship of the b’rochoh of the land. Tosfos wonders why one needs to compensate for not mentioning Kingship of the B’rochoh of the land. **Even though,**the b’rochoh for the land **is adjacent to its associate,**the first b’rochoh, and should therefore not require that Kingship be mentioned at all, there is a reason that the b’rochoh for the land should require that Kingship be mentioned and that is:since they were notinitially instituted to be said, one following the other. For Yehoshua instituted the b’rochoh for the land and Moshe instituted ברכת המזן.³For this reason the Gemara mentions thatwe must compensate for Kingshipthat was not mentioned in the second b’rochoh because they are not actually adjacentsince they were not instituted at the same time. **However,**nowadays that for us they have been institutedto be said in order we do not beginthe second and third b’rochoh **with ברוך.**⁴ **And there are those who have a custom to say Kingship in בונה ירושלים.**⁵

footnotes: ¹ Tosfos seems to hold that when a b’rochoh is adjacent to a previous b’rochoh one is not permitted to mention Kingship in that b’rochoh and that is why the Kingship of בונה ירושלים must be said in הטוב והמטיב. There are Reeshonim who hold that although Kingship is not required in a b’rochoh that is adjacent to a precious b’rochoh, it is not forbidden to say it. The reason that the Kingship is not mentioned in בונה ירושלים is because saying the Kingship of Hashem in the same b’rochoh as the kingship of David would seem to be equating the two and that must be avoided. ² Most other Reeshonim disagree with Tosfos on this point. They hold that even though Kingship need not be mentioned in the b’rochoh for the land, as long as we are compensating for the missing Kingship in בונה ירושלים we also mention a Kingship a third time for what would have been the Kingship of the b’rochoh for the land even though it is not really necessary. See Tosfos HoRosh and Tosfos Rabainu Yehudoh HaChosid. ³ Tosfos seems to be saying that because of the chronology of the b’rochos, each of the b’rochos really should mention Kingship and that is why we do have to compensate for the missing Kingship of the b’rochoh for the land. This presents a problem. The Gemara said that we must recite Kingship for בונה ירושלים because it is not proper to mention the kingdom of David without mentioning the Kingship of Hashem. Why did the Gemara need to give this reason? According to Tosfos בונה ירושלים requires Kingship because it was not initially said together with the first two b’rochos and was added during the times of Kings David and Solomon. This is very puzzling. ⁴ Tosfos is teaching us that although these b’rochos were initially separate b’rochos, even so, nowadays they are said as a group of b’rochos and they are therefore said with the rules governing a group of b’rochos. Therefore we do not begin each b’rochoh with ברוך. However as far as Kingship is concerned we do compensate for the Kingship that is removed from the second and third b’rochos by adding them to the fourth Rabbinic b’rochoh. ⁵ Maharsho says that this is not at the beginning of the b’rochoh, but in the middle. When we say אלקינו אבינו רוענו some add מלכנו. See Rashbo, who holds that when the title King is used in the middle of a b’rochoh, this may not be a violation of what Tosfos holds in note 1. The Rashbo himself is uncertain about this matter.

BLESSED…WHO GAVE SHABBATOT FOR REST ETC. When one forgets to say רצהon Shabos and reminds himself before he starts the next b’rochoh **הטוב והמטיב,**he inserts this b’rochoh between the two b’rochos. **And if you ask:**why does it begin with ברוך; it is adjacent to the previous b’rochoh? And we can answer: since it was notinitially instituted to be said there, only occasionally, when one forgot to say רצה והחליצנו, it is not considered adjacentto a previous b’rochoh and requires an opening with ברוך. Once Tosfos is on the topic of examining which b’rochos do not require Kingship because they are adjacent to a previous b’rochoh, Tosfos takes a look at the b’rochos of sh’moneh esray. And in the b’rochos of the eighteen b’rochosof prayer, we do not mention Kingship in any of the b’rochos because they are all adjacent to the b’rochosthat have the text קל חי וקים1. All the b’rochos following that b’rochoh need not mention Kingship. **Alternatively,**the words אלקי אברהם arethe equivalent of **Kingship, as we say earlier (7b), from the time of creation, there was no person who called the Holy One blessed is He, Master, till Avrohom our father came and called Him, Master, as is written: My Master, Hashem what are you giving me? (B’raishis 15).**Since Avrohom our father was the first to proclaim Hashem’s Kingship on the world, the reference of the G-d of Abraham is the equivalent of mentioning Kingship, because that was Avrohom’s function in the world, to recognize and proclaim His Kingship. Tosfos returns to the original topic, the b’rochoh inserted when one forgets to say רצה והחליצנו. And if it is a holidayas well as Shabos, he incorporatesthe holiday with Shabos and says: blessed is he who gave Shabos for tranquility and holidays for Yisroel to rejoice. And the same is for when Shabos and Rosh Chodesh occur together.