Berakhot 151

Richard Friedman recalls that in Berakhot 148 the question was raised as to why the Torah includes the response "Amen" only in connection with curses. Richard suggests a possible explanation.

As you've noted, "amen" means "I endorse that," or "so be it." It's precisely when a curse (or a conditional curse) is uttered that the person who is the object of the curse must say "amen," to indicate that he/she accepts the burden of the curse. With respect to brachot, we can presume that the object accepts the bracha.

Ron Kaminsky asks the following question: In the Hebrew edition of the Mishnah which I have (Chorev) when the text of the two blessings: … with Whose power and might the universe is replete" and … the Author of Creation" is quoted, in each case a word is printed in parentheses (for the first, "ug'vurato", for the second, "ma'asei"). Could you explain why? Or is this some peculiarity of this edition?

I respond:

These are textual variants. The text that I use is considered scholarly, whereas many other editions added or subtracted words to passages used in the regular liturgy in order to make the Mishnah conform with accepted liturgical practice. In the case of the edition you are using, the use of brackets informs you that the editor knows of these interpolations and is removing them from the text.

In our last Shiur before my surgery I wrote: In the Gemara [Berakhot 58b] the great Babylonian Amora Shemuel boasts that "the paths of the heavens are as clear to me as the paths of Neharde'a" (his home town): in other words, he claims that he is well-versed in astronomy. However he admits that he does not know what a comet is. Obviously, Shemuel and and all his contemporaries knew what a comet was, so we must understand his admission to mean that he could not explain the nature and composition of a comet. Maimonides, in his mishnah commentary, leaves no doubt: he defines a comet as something that looks like a star but has a hairy tail.

Yiftach Shapir is dissatisfied:

The word the Mishnah uses is "zikin". which one could also interpret as a meteor or a shooting star – something that one has a better chance to see (consider the fact that most comets were not visible then, without modern instruments, and big comets like Halley come once a century! (actually 78 years for Halley).

I respond:

The mishnah designates many objects using a terminology different from that we use for them today. However, the Gemara itself defines the phenomenon using the same word as is used in modern Hebrew (see below)! Despite Yiftach's claim that most comets were not visible to the ancient eye, they were sufficiently visible to inspire terror, and were interpreted as harbingers of disaster. This throughout the ancient world. At least our sages, in fixing the liturgy, recognized them as natural phenomena.

Yiftach continues:

Shmuel's comment could be interpreted a bit differently: not that he didn't know what the composition of a comet (or a meteor) is – (a subject still debated today) but that he didn't know the meaning of an ancient Hebrew word.

I respond:

To my mind, this explanation is too far-fetched, and does not square with the actual words of the Gemara:

I also wrote that Thunderclaps are explained by Shemu'el and the rest of the sages [Berakhot 59a] as being caused by clouds colliding in the sky (so they did know a thing or two about physics).

Yiftach objects:

Did they? – the physical explanation is quite different, and one that they could not have known before electricity was discovered, and before good old Ben Franklin proved lightnings were electricity (and was lucky to stay alive…)

I respond:

My innocent comment really meant nothing more than that the ancient sages knew that thunderclaps were a meteorological phenomenon rather than a divine apparition. (But see the next item for a full disclosure of my ignorance…)

This brings us to a very long and interesting message from Henry Jacobs, which I bring almost verbatim:

I have found [in the shiur] several items I feel need some commentary by someone with a more specialized, scientific background.

In Explanation 1., you state "… (Amora Shemuel) defines a comet as something that looks like a star but has a hairy tail." This definition is probably incomplete. From an observational astronomy viewpoint, they should have commented on the random appearance of comet-type objects. Planets and stars have a periodicity that distinguishes them from each other and were predictable, within the limits of calendrical considerations. Of course, the true identification of planets versus stars required the invention of the telescope, but that they were different was well known.

In Explanation 2., the comments on "loud sounds" is interesting but restrictive. They certainly knew what damage an earthquake could cause, having suffered a number of damaging tremors. The difference between "loud sounds" and sensible movement is basically dependent on the energy release of the earth movement, which is somewhat described in the concept of the Richter Scale for defining earthquakes. However, the sounds were more common and were probably quite impressive. After all, there is a major rift and other faults through the Middle East.

In Explanation 3., you state "Thunderclaps are explained by Shemuel and the rest of the sages [Berakhot 59a] as being caused by clouds colliding in the sky … " I haven't heard this old chestnut for many years! A good source of correct information on natural events is here: The goal of this source is to debunk old or incorrect views of commonly misunderstood scientific phenomena. Here you will find the definition:

I wholeheartedly agree that "Modern scientific knowledge can detract nothing from the impressive message of this berakhah: all the myriad mechanisms of the universe reflect the enormous power and wisdom of God "whose merest thought created the heavens" [Psalm 33:6]." No matter how well we think we "understand" the principles of science, that such a system was created and that it is all part of a much greater and unfathomably larger system is still a matter of wonderment and amazement to many scientists.