The last few essays addressed the question of סמיכת גאולה לתפילה: the juxtaposition of the beracha of geula to the Amida. We looked at the relationship between one of the berachot of Shema and what follows. The remaining installments will analyze the relationship of these berachot to each other and to the Shema itself. 

We will address these two final questions together. 

• First, how do the various berachot interact with each other? For example, what if you said them out of order, or what if you skipped one? 
• Second, are the berachot recited before the Shema meant as a normal blessing on a Mitzvah or as something else? If they are like other berachot on Mitzvot, why is their formulation so different? If they are not like other berachot on Mitzvot, then what are they? 

I hope to show the ways in which these two questions are, in fact, interrelated.

Berachot 11b

Our learning begins with a short and deceptively complex sugya that directly addresses the question of the connection among the berachot. The Bavli in Berachot 11a, in commenting on the mishna that introduced the idea of berachot before and after the Shema (See here for my analysis), brings a Mishna from the beginning of the fifth chapter of Masechet Tamid (Tamid 5:1, page 32b):

אָמַר לָהֶם הַמְמֻנֶּה, בָּרְכוּ בְרָכָה אֶחַת, וְהֵן בֵּרְכוּ.

The appointed Kohen said to them, “Recite one blessing.” And they blessed. 

The Mishna goes on to clarify that they subsequently recited the Shema. It is curious why they were told to only recite one blessing. The Gemara asks a different question, which seeks to know which of the two pre-Shema berachot they recited; they could have said either Yotzer Or or Ahava Rabba. The Gemara then presents a debate between the Amora Shmuel, who says that they recited only Ahava Rabba, and Reish Lakish (quoted by R. Zerika), who claims that they said only Yotzer Or.

The Gemara then teaches us that the tradition that R. Zerika shared in the name of Reish Lakish — that the single beracha recited in the Mikdash was Yotzer Or, and not Ahava Rabba —  was not taught explicitly by Reish Lakish but rather R. Zerika learned it from an inference (לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִתְּמַר אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִתְּמַר). R. Zerika learned directly from Reish Lakish that since the Mishna in Tamid teaches us that they only recited one beracha, we can learn the rule that, “בְּרָכוֹת אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ – the berachot [of Shema] do not stand in the way of one another.” This means that there is value in reciting even only one of the berachot and they need not exist as a unit. The presumption is that the kohanim working in the Temple were in a rush and needed to recite as little of the requisite davening as could be permitted.

R. Zerika then made the following inference. Since Reish Lakish learned the idea that, “בְּרָכוֹת אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ – the berachot [of Shema] do not stand in the way of one another,” it must be the case that the one beracha they recited was Yotzer Or. Why must that be so? I typically offer my own translations of source material. However, I am bringing the Sefaria / Koren / Steinsaltz translation in this instance to highlight the number of words inserted interlinearly (below in bold) to craft a logical argument.

 אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא יוֹצֵר אוֹר הֲווֹ אָמְרִי הַיְינוּ דִּבְרָכוֹת אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ דְּלָא קָא אָמְרִי אַהֲבָה רַבָּה (ברכות דף י״ב.) 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.

The conclusion was drawn from Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement that he held that the single blessing recited was: Who creates light (Yotzer Or). The considerations that led the Sages to that conclusion were: Granted, if you say that they would recite: Who creates light, then the conclusion of Reish Lakish, that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other, is understandable, as they recited: Who creates light, and did not recite: An abounding love (Ahava Rabba) and they nonetheless fulfilled their obligation. 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.

The gemara then seems puzzled about why it matters that R. Zerika ‘only’ learned this from an inference and not explicitly from Reish Lakish. The logical analysis seems convincing, so what could possibly be the alternative?

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

The Gemara answers: If this conclusion were based on an inference, one could say that actually they recited: An abounding love (Ahava Rabba) and when the time to recite: Who creates light (Yotzer Or) 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.

The gemara here offers two different understandings of the concept, “בְּרָכוֹת אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ – the berachot [of Shema] do not stand in the way of one another.”

• The initial approach assumes that, even if one could only recite a single beracha, perhaps because of time constraints, the absence of the second beracha stands in the way of the proper fulfillment of the one beracha recited.
• However, the second explanation claims that Reish Lakish could have meant the proper order of recitation, and, by implication, both berachot must be recited every day. What does not “stand in the way” is the “סֵדֶר בְּרָכוֹת – the order of the blessings.” 

Both of these approaches understand that this sugya is determining the nature of the relationship among the berachot themselves. The two inferences that the gemara makes on the words of Reish Lakish question whether one can only recite a single beracha or if the order of berachot is significant. On its face, the gemara is not considering the question of the relationship between the berachot and the Shema itself.

Next week, we learn a short passage from the Yerushalmi that uses the same phrase but appears to mean something very different.