The Blessing of Hagomel - Rabbi Shaul Silam shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to the “Lema’an Yishme’u” podcast from Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 Hello. We’re going to study the blessing of Hagomel. The laws are fairly complex. What we’ll do is follow the order in the Alter Rebbe’s Seder Birchos Hanehenin. At the end of Seder Birchos Hanehenin, in chapter 13, there are about six sections—sections 2 through 7—that discuss this subject. We’ll look at what the Alter Rebbe writes, and around each section we’ll try to discuss it, shed light on it, expand on it, and bring other opinions. But the structure will follow Seder Birchos Hanehenin. There are various additional points in section 219 of Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Aruch that we’ll also bring in along the way to complete the picture. But the basic framework—if you’re listening to this class, it’s worth having Seder Birchos Hanehenin, chapter 13, in front of you. That will be our basis. The Alter Rebbe begins in section 2; that’s where we are now. Again, for each section I’ll say which section we’re on, and then give note one, two, three, four, and so on. On section 2, the first one we’ll study—section 1 deals with a different subject—I have about twelve notes. So each time, we’ll say where we are. In section 2, the Alter Rebbe says: “Four people must give thanks and recite the blessing of Hagomel.” The wording of the blessing appears in the Alter Rebbe’s siddur. And who are those four? They’re listed earlier in the Gemara in Berachos, in the same order: “Those who go down to the sea, when they come up from it; those who travel through deserts, when they reach an inhabited place; someone who was ill and recovered; and someone who was imprisoned on a matter involving his life and was released, or on a monetary matter if he was afflicted with iron chains.” That is what the Alter Rebbe writes. So, to sum up: those who go down to the sea and those who travel through deserts—that’s straightforward. The sea, the desert. And also someone who was ill and recovered,

02:20 Speaker 2 and someone who was imprisoned. We’ll get into the details. Now the Alter Rebbe adds something important: “This blessing must be recited in the presence of ten people, two of whom are Torah scholars.” A lot of people don’t know that. Why? Because it isn’t indispensable. But in principle, when we recite Hagomel, there should be ten people, with two Torah scholars among them. We’ll see where this is derived from. Again, I’m not going to read the entire discussion. The Alter Rebbe says that having Torah scholars is a requirement from the outset, but their absence does not invalidate the blessing after the fact. The Alter Rebbe also says: “The custom is to recite the blessing in the synagogue after the Torah reading, because ten people are present there.” So we should know: we’re used to someone being called up to the Torah and reciting Hagomel. But that is not at all indispensable. What is indispensable is having ten people present. A synagogue doesn’t always have ten people, but when a Torah scroll is taken out, that’s certainly a sign that there are ten. That’s why we, and all communities, have linked Hagomel to the Torah reading: if there’s a Torah reading, there are ten people. That’s the point. The ten include the person reciting the blessing. But the Torah reading itself is not indispensable. This matters to the extent that, for example, someone who already needs to recite the blessing on Monday—say he returns from a trip on Monday afternoon—shouldn’t wait until Thursday’s Torah reading. That’s more than three days later, and it isn’t the proper way to do it. We’ll get to that. Rather, when he’s at the synagogue on Monday for Minchah or on Tuesday for Shacharis, he should recite Hagomel in the presence of ten people and not wait for the Torah reading. Again, this isn’t what we’re used to; generally, people don’t do it this way. But that is the halacha, and that is how one should act. Now, regarding

04:07 Speaker 2 what I quoted from the Alter Rebbe in section 2, I said I wanted to examine it and make twelve brief observations. So we’ll number them. First, let’s look a little at the Alter Rebbe’s source; it’s fascinating. His source is a statement by Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav in the Gemara in Berachos. There, the cases are indeed listed in the same order as in the Alter Rebbe’s text, and the Gemara says they are derived from Psalm 107. In Psalm 107 it says: “Give thanks to Hashem, for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting. Let those redeemed by Hashem say so, those whom He redeemed from the hand of the adversary and gathered from the lands, from east and west, from north and sea.” It’s a fairly well-known psalm. After the verses I’ve just read, there are four series of verses that speak about these four types of people. Verses 4 through 9 say, “They wandered in the desert, in a wasteland; they found no inhabited city.” Wandering in the desert—that’s desert travelers. From verse 10 onward: “Those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, prisoners of affliction and iron.” That’s the prisoners. Then, from verse 17: “Fools, because of their transgressions”—and I’ll jump to verse 20—“He sent His word and healed them.” That’s people who were ill. And from verse 23: “Those who go down to the sea in ships.” So we see in Tehillim the desert traveler, the prisoners, the person who was ill and recovered, and those who go down to the sea. Tosafos point out there that the order in the Gemara differs from the order in Tehillim. The order the Alter Rebbe gives is the order we find in the Gemara. But why are they different? Tosafos explain that the Gemara lists them from most common to least common. The most common, at least in the Gemara’s time, were those who went down to the sea; then desert travelers; then someone who was ill and recovered; and then someone who was imprisoned. That’s the order—a practical one. It lists the

06:16 Speaker 2 more common cases first. Since we’re dealing with halacha, that makes sense. Tehillim, on the other hand, is more emotional and less concerned with practical halacha. So it goes from the most dangerous situation to the least dangerous, as Tosafos explain. In their time, apparently, walking through a desert was the most dangerous: there were bandits and wild animals. Next comes imprisonment. It’s unpleasant, but apparently less dangerous than the first situation and more dangerous than what follows it. Then comes someone who was ill and recovered, and then those who went down to the sea. That’s the order. That’s the first observation about the source. Rabbi Avraham David Lavut, the Rebbe’s great-great-grandfather, writes something very interesting in Shaar Hakollel. The Alter Rebbe has a very distinctive position regarding prisoners. Some halachic authorities say Hagomel applies only to prisoners held on capital charges, because they are genuinely in danger. A person who killed someone might be executed in prison. Someone imprisoned for theft has less to fear. The Sephardic authorities hold that even someone imprisoned over a monetary matter should recite the blessing. But the Alter Rebbe takes a very interesting middle position: it applies to people imprisoned on capital charges, or to those imprisoned over monetary matters if they were put in chains. Only those cases. In Shaar Hakollel, he demonstrates this very nicely. What does he say? If you look at each of the series of verses in Tehillim, there is a reference to the soul. Regarding those who “wandered in the desert, in a wasteland,” it says, “Hungry and thirsty, their souls fainted within them.” When the soul is mentioned, you understand that the person’s life is in danger. The same is true of someone who was ill.

08:41 Speaker 2 It says, “Their soul abhors all food.” The soul is mentioned. Regarding those who go down to the sea, it says, “They rise to the heavens, they descend to the depths; their soul melts away in distress.” But regarding those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death, bound in affliction and iron, the soul is not mentioned. He says this is a hint to the Alter Rebbe’s view that it is not necessarily limited to matters involving danger to life. Yes, a very, very nice point. A third note: the Tur says something that is brought in the Shulchan Aruch. As we said, we’re also filling in a few things from what the Shulchan Aruch says in siman 219. The Shulchan Aruch, following the Tur, gives a mnemonic for remembering the four: “And all the living shall thank You, Selah.” The Hebrew word for “living,” chayim, gives us the initials. I mentioned the four letters of Hashem’s name; here the Shulchan Aruch brings “And all the living shall thank You, Selah.” The ches of chayim stands for choleh, someone who was ill. The first yud stands for yissurim, afflictions—referring to someone in prison, as explained there. The second yud stands for yam, the sea, and the mem stands for midbar, the wilderness. Fine, you might ask, what is the halachic significance of this? The Bach, commenting on the Tur, notes that it isn’t just a way to remember them. It also hints that in all these cases, “all the living shall thank You” means that your life was in danger. In other words, there is a halachic criterion here: the Hagomel blessing is recited only when there was a genuine danger to life. We’ll discuss this at length, but it’s an important point, and it’s mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch. Again, the Alter Rebbe did not mention it, but in siman 219, Rabbi Yosef Karo, the Mechaber, did give it as a mnemonic. And again, the Bach notes that it also has halachic significance. A fourth note—something very nice.

10:40 Speaker 2 The Shulchan Aruch cites a source for what we said: that ten people must be present, two of them Torah scholars. There’s a hint to this in that same chapter of Tehillim. Verse 32 says, “Let them exalt Him in the assembly of the people, and praise Him in the gathering of elders.” “The assembly of the people” and “the gathering of elders” hint to this requirement—the gathering of elders, meaning two Torah scholars. That too is hinted at in the chapter of Tehillim cited by the Gemara in Berachos. A fifth note, and this one is very important. What I’m about to say may be the most important point. Without it, you can’t understand anything when you study the laws of the Hagomel blessing. It’s very basic. But perhaps I’ll first pose a question. We know there are many differences between Sephardim and Ashkenazim concerning the Hagomel blessing, and here Chabad practice is closer to Ashkenazi practice. There are also different patterns to these disagreements. If I ask who recites Hagomel more often, Ashkenazim or Sephardim, the answer depends on what comes to mind. Someone might say, “I daven in a Sephardi shul, and on Shabbos people come up one after another and everyone recites Hagomel.” We’re all familiar with that. Why? Because people really do travel a lot from city to city, and there are poskim who say that this calls for the Hagomel blessing. We’ll see who those poskim are. At first glance, that’s the Shulchan Aruch’s view, but other poskim say, “Well, you can’t recite Hagomel every day. Let’s do it at least once a week.” So on Shabbos, many people who traveled during the week go up and recite Hagomel—something you don’t find among Ashkenazim. In Chabad we don’t have this practice. Again, we’ll examine how it arose and what lies behind the disagreement. But here, it seems that Sephardim recite Hagomel more often.

12:54 Speaker 2 But there’s another case: someone who, G-d forbid, was in an accident. Among Sephardim, they don’t recite Hagomel, because there are four who must give thanks. As we said, they are those who travel by sea, those who travel through the wilderness, someone who was ill and recovered, and someone who was in prison. It doesn’t say that someone who survived an accident should recite Hagomel. Among Ashkenazim and in Chabad, they do recite Hagomel for that. So it turns out that Ashkenazim and Chabad recite it more often. There really are different patterns here, and we’ll examine them. That was an introduction so that we can now look at this more closely. Again, without what I’m about to say, you can read the poskim and not understand what’s going on or what lies behind their views. In the laws of the Hagomel blessing, we’ll now understand, with Hashem’s help, that there is a very fundamental disagreement between Sephardi and Ashkenazi poskim: how immediate must the danger be? We saw that the Hagomel blessing is connected to danger—danger to life. But to what degree? After all, there’s always danger to life. Even crossing the street poses a danger to life. When does it count as such? How likely must the danger be? Among Ashkenazim, it’s only when the danger is genuinely likely—a danger that, statistically... Again, we’ll see the precise criteria. These aren’t vague ideas. But among Ashkenazim, a likely danger is what calls for the Hagomel blessing. Among Sephardim, danger is still danger even when, statistically, it is remote. They recite Hagomel then too. That is really the disagreement between Ashkenazim and Sephardim. For Sephardim, even a remote danger is a danger, and they recite Hagomel. For Ashkenazim, only if the danger is likely. Now that we’ve laid this groundwork, we’ll see how it applies to the four cases we mentioned: those who travel by sea, those who travel through the wilderness, someone who was ill and recovered, and someone who was imprisoned.

15:05 Speaker 2 The criteria here are really very clear. Let’s begin with those who travel by sea. Among Ashkenazim, and in Chabad too, this means a voyage of several days. Someone who took a two- or three-hour boat trip in Eilat and came back does not recite Hagomel according to Ashkenazi practice. According to Sephardi practice, once you’ve traveled for the time it takes to walk a parsah—which Sephardi poskim generally take to be seventy-two minutes—you recite Hagomel. So if the boat in Eilat has sailed away—some say you start counting the time once you can no longer see the boat from shore, assuming someone with good eyesight—and the trip ends seventy-two minutes later, they would indeed recite the blessing. Ashkenazim would not. Again, it’s the same point: there is always danger, but when you sail for several days, the danger is much more tangible. On a seventy-two-minute voyage, it’s much less so. As for those who travel through the wilderness, this is one of the most important examples. When do we travel through a wilderness? It isn’t so common. But among Ashkenazim, and in Chabad too, “those who travel through the wilderness” means travelers who face a tangible danger. A wilderness—a real wilderness—not even like the desert today, when we’re inside a car on a road. We’ll come back to that point. In their day, if you traveled through a wilderness on a camel, there were robbers and predatory animals. The danger was truly tangible; you were genuinely afraid for your life. For that, according to Ashkenazi practice, you do recite Hagomel. But according to Sephardi practice, that isn’t the only case. Those who travel through the wilderness—after all, travel involves dangers. It’s well known that roads and journeys are considered dangerous. Again, everyone agrees, but this danger is less tangible. Usually, most of the time, boruch Hashem, a person traveling

17:18 Speaker 2 He returns from the journey unharmed, yes. Even so, the Sephardic halachic authorities understand that even such a remote possibility counts as “those who travel through deserts.” That does not necessarily mean a desert: it includes anyone who travels for seventy-two minutes, as we said regarding sea travel. That is where the disagreement lies, and it explains something we see in Sephardic shuls but not in Ashkenazi shuls. For Sephardim, the criteria for the blessing of Hagomel are similar to those for Tefillas Haderech, the Traveler’s Prayer. For Ashkenazim, they are quite different. So how does this disagreement show up? What are the criteria for Hagomel? We said: Must the danger be common, as the Ashkenazim say? If so, someone traveling from Jerusalem to Haifa would not say Hagomel. Tefillas Haderech, yes, but not Hagomel. According to Sephardim, he would say Hagomel, because they say it even for a danger that is not common. The same applies to someone who was ill and recovered. According to Ashkenazim, this means only someone whose illness was dangerous—someone with what is called an internal injury in the laws of Shabbos. That means an injury to an internal organ, inside the body, or some other danger. We will come back to this. But according to Ashkenazim, only someone who had a dangerous illness says Hagomel after recovering. According to Sephardim, once a person is bedridden, he is considered ill, and when he recovers, he is considered one of those who were ill and recovered. It is very interesting to note something here. Although this is not the place for it, it is important, so we will address it now, and when we reach the appropriate place I will remind you that we already discussed it. Regarding someone who was ill and recovered, the Alter Rebbe has

19:12 Speaker 2 an intermediate opinion. He does not require danger, as the Ashkenazi halachic authorities do, but being bedridden for one day is not enough. According to the Alter Rebbe, someone who was bedridden for three days is considered to have had a dangerous illness. That is an intermediate opinion. It is interesting, but those are the criteria. As for someone who was imprisoned, here too, as we said, according to Ashkenazim it applies only where there was a very real danger: someone imprisoned on a capital charge. We mentioned that earlier. According to Sephardim, no—even someone imprisoned over a financial matter. Prison is always unpleasant, and there is always some danger. That is their view: the danger is less immediate, but those are the criteria of the Sephardic halachic authorities. For the Alter Rebbe, it is somewhere in between. It applies to a capital charge, but in a financial case, if the person was held in iron chains, that too shows how seriously they regard his offense. Suppose someone stole an orange in a country where they put him in iron chains for it. Apparently they take it very seriously. Stealing is certainly serious, but to go so far as to put him in iron chains—that is harsh. So in places where they put someone in iron chains over a financial matter, he is considered to have been in danger and says Hagomel when released. This point was very, very important, because without it we cannot understand what the halachic authorities write. The sixth point is the second trend I spoke about. We said there are two trends among Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Everything we have seen so far shows that Sephardim are more inclined to say Hagomel. On another question, Ashkenazim are more inclined to say it, and this is the disagreement: Are the four cases we mentioned specifically those four, or does the blessing apply to anything similar? According to Sephardim, it is specifically those four. So, as we said, if a Sephardi, G-d forbid, is in an accident

21:18 Speaker 2 and comes out of it unharmed, thank G-d, he will say—sorry, he will not say Hagomel. According to Ashkenazim, he will. To sum up these trends: there is a wider variety of cases in which Ashkenazim say Hagomel. Something might fall on a person’s head and he comes out unharmed, for example—things not mentioned among the four who must give thanks. According to Ashkenazim, the four are not an exclusive list. So according to the Ashkenazi halachic authorities and the Alter Rebbe, there are more kinds of cases in which Ashkenazim say Hagomel. But when it comes to how serious the danger must be within those four cases, Sephardim say Hagomel much more readily. We have already gone through the criteria for each of the four. For Ashkenazim, it must be serious. With this introduction—these two points, points five and six—we have made a lot of progress, thank G-d. The Alter Rebbe writes—and this is the final section, on a subject we have already discussed—about whether the four cases are exclusive or whether there are other cases as well. We mentioned that according to our approach, that of the Ashkenazim, and also according to the Alter Rebbe, Hagomel is said not only for the four cases listed in the Gemara, which the Alter Rebbe cited at the beginning, but for various other cases too. I will read the Alter Rebbe’s opinion here: “Some say that the blessing of Hagomel is said only by the four whom the Sages mentioned. Others say that the same applies to anyone who was in danger and was saved: for example, if a wall fell on him; if he was saved from being trampled or bitten by an ox or horse; if a lion confronted him, ready to tear him apart, in an inhabited area; or if thieves came upon him, or he was attacked by night and was saved. All of them must say Hagomel, provided there was a concern of mortal danger.” “And so is the custom,” the Alter Rebbe concludes—that this is indeed the practice. Here I want to make a point. We have seen two opinions: one that it is specifically

23:33 Speaker 2 the four cases, and a second that it also includes other dangers, like the lion and everything else we listed. Incidentally, we should mention that Rabbi Yosef Caro also cites both opinions in the Shulchan Aruch, but his conclusion is the opposite of the Alter Rebbe’s: for him, it applies only to the four cases. As we said, that is how the Sephardic halachic authorities rule. But what interests me here is the source for the second opinion, which obligates a person to say Hagomel. After all, the Gemara says, “Four must give thanks.” Where did we get the idea that someone on whom a wall fell, and similar cases involving a lion, are included? Where is that mentioned in the Gemara? What is the source? It is very interesting. There is a responsum of the Rivash, Rabbi Yitzchak bar Sheshes, one of the early halachic authorities, who lived in Algiers. That is the source. He is quoted often in the Beis Yosef, and his opinion is cited here too in the Shulchan Aruch. What does he write in his responsum? He says: What is the danger for people traveling through deserts? One danger is wild animals. A person crosses the desert without any unusual incident, and afterward he says Hagomel because there could have been a lion; there really was a danger. There are lions. He did not encounter one, but others do, and so desert travelers say Hagomel because they were saved from the possibility of a lion tearing them apart. So the Rivash says: If you say Hagomel after crossing the desert because there might have been a lion, then if you are in a city, not a desert, and a lion leaps at you but nothing happens—it knocks you down, leaves you, and you are unharmed; it was only a fright, and it went away without tearing you apart—then certainly

25:29 Speaker 2 When you’re saved from something like that, it’s much more direct, much more—this is included in “those who travel through deserts.” When you travel through a desert, you’re concerned there might be a lion, and you make the blessing just because there was that concern. So if a lion actually leaped at you and nothing happened, you would certainly make the blessing. Yes, that’s the Rivash’s view, and it’s the source for this broader ruling found specifically among the Ashkenazi halachic authorities. It’s interesting, because he was a halachic authority from Algiers. We might have expected the Sephardim in particular to rule that way. But as we said, the conclusion drawn from the Shulchan Aruch is that he does not rule this way: only the four categories must give thanks. It was specifically the Ashkenazi authorities who broadened the ruling based on the Rivash, as we just mentioned. That’s the first point. The second point is: for what kinds of things do we actually take this into account? Can we find some defining criterion? Because once we rule this way according to Chabad practice, according to the Ashkenazi authorities, we apply it to all sorts of other cases too. So what exactly is the criterion? When does it count? Interestingly, we learn this specifically from the Shulchan Aruch. We said the Shulchan Aruch brings two opinions. Although he ultimately does not rule like the Rivash, when he spells out the first opinion, he gives some very interesting criteria. The Shulchan Aruch says: “‘Four’ is not meant exclusively; the same law applies to someone for whom a miracle occurred.” You can put “miracle” in quotation marks here. It doesn’t necessarily mean a sudden miracle, like the sea turning to blood or the Ten Plagues. Even a small miracle clothed in nature counts here. “For example, if a wall fell on him, or he was saved from being trampled or gored by an ox, or a lion confronted him in a city intending to devour him, or thieves came upon him in a nighttime robbery and he was saved from them.” We understand that this is being called a miracle even though robberies happen and people survive them.

27:26 Speaker 2 “And in all similar cases, they must all recite Hagomel.” Again, we said the Shulchan Aruch does not ultimately rule this way. But since the Alter Rebbe did extend the ruling beyond the four cases, we understand these examples as defining criteria: a wall fell on someone and he survived; he was saved from being trampled or gored by an ox; a lion confronted him in a city intending to devour him; thieves came upon him in a nighttime robbery. Obviously, these aren’t common occurrences, but they give us a criterion. From there—and we’ll finish with this—we can arrive at something a little more concrete for situations that, unfortunately, are more common today. What the halachic authorities understand from all these cases is that the person actually entered danger and came out of it safely in the end. For example, someone had a car accident, G-d forbid. Now, even if nothing happened to him—because if he was injured and needed surgery and so on, he would certainly have to make the blessing on other grounds. But say there really was danger and nothing happened to him. In this case the danger was tangible: you can see that the car was damaged, and in an accident like that there are many cases where a person is injured, G-d forbid. So this would be called a “miracle” for our purposes—again, “miracle” in quotation marks—and in such a case he would recite Hagomel. Say someone was traveling through territories we liberated and Arabs threw stones at him. And thank G-d—the stones aren’t just little stones. I know what I’m talking about; I lived in Beit El for many years. They aren’t stones, they’re concrete blocks. And thank G-d, one flies in front of the car or behind it. Even if it didn’t hit the car—if it hit the car and the person survived, the danger was very

29:46 Speaker 2 tangible, and he would make the blessing. But even if it didn’t hit the car, if they tried to throw stones at him and missed, that counts too. Again, this is actually brought in the Shulchan Aruch. I’m not inventing the criteria, though it isn’t simple to derive the criterion from the cases the Shulchan Aruch brings. But in a case like this, the halachic authorities say that he was saved from danger, from tangible danger, and he would recite Hagomel. Now let’s take a different case, where he would not recite Hagomel. The danger never reached him. He was crossing the street, and there was a car. Suddenly he raised his hand, saw a car, stepped back about two meters, and the car passed. Here the danger didn’t reach him; he hadn’t yet entered into danger. He could have entered into danger. It’s a fine distinction, but he would not make the blessing. Or someone is driving through the territories and sees, a hundred meters away, some Arabs throwing stones. There are even other cars that might get hit. He sees it and makes a U-turn. He did not enter into danger. Perhaps he should be even more grateful that Hakadosh Boruch Hu let him see the danger. But as far as reciting Hagomel is concerned—yes, let him say the verses from Mizmor Lesodah; that’s excellent. Not Mizmor Lesodah, but the verses we saw in Parshas Tzav[unclear]. He can say Mizmor Lesodah too if he wants. But right now we’re discussing halachic criteria, the halachic criterion for the blessing of Hagomel. This does not count as having entered into danger, so he would not recite Hagomel. The seventh point concerning what we’ve said: there is something not mentioned here by the Alter Rebbe, but which the Alter Rebbe does mention in his Shulchan Aruch, and it isn’t very well known. In the Mahadura Kama—you know that we have the Alter Rebbe’s Mahadura Kama for the first four sections—in that earlier edition of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, in section one, paragraph nine, the Alter Rebbe says that when a person would have been required to bring a korban, if korbanos were offered today, then today, when there are no korbanos, he should at least recite the passage about that korban. Among the examples he gives—and we’ll focus on what relates to our discussion—is the four who must give thanks, or anyone else who must give thanks. Yes, it’s not only the four, as we said. Now, someone who must give thanks would bring a korban todah, correct? In the time of the Beis Hamikdash, he would bring a korban todah. So here the Alter Rebbe says that he should at least recite the passage about the todah offering. I’ll tell you where it is, because this has practical halachic relevance: in Parshas Tzav, chapter 7, verses 11 through 15, there are five verses: “This is the law of the peace offering that one brings to Hashem: If he brings it as a thanksgiving offering,” and so on. Yes, those five verses discuss the korban todah. Someone who was ill and recovered, someone who was imprisoned, or those who traveled through deserts—yes, all the categories, including those who traveled by sea—when they need to recite Hagomel, they should also read this passage. The Rebbe says in Igros Kodesh—I very much recommend looking it up, volume 24, page 268—the Rebbe says that it’s true we don’t see people doing this. You don’t see it much; it isn’t common. People know they need to recite Hagomel, but you don’t see people saying the verses about the todah offering. But the Rebbe writes: Should that question override what is stated explicitly in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch? Yes, that is what the Rebbe writes. And so the Rebbe writes explicitly that it isn’t brought in Seder Birchos Hanehenin, and it isn’t brought in the Siddur, but it is brought in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. So when someone needs to give thanks and recite Hagomel, he should also

31:46 Speaker 2 And in the first edition of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, in section 1, paragraph 9, the Alter Rebbe says that if a person would have been required to bring a korban when korbanos were offered, then today, when we have no korbanos, he should at least recite the passage about that korban. Among other things, he mentions something relevant to our class: those who need to give thanks—the four categories, or anyone else who needs to give thanks, as we said. For someone who needs to give thanks, there is a thanksgiving offering, right? In the time of the Beis Hamikdash, he would bring a thanksgiving offering. So the Alter Rebbe says here that he should at least recite the passage about the thanksgiving offering. I’ll tell you where it is, because this is actually practical halachah: in Parshas Tzav, chapter 7, verses 11 through 15. There are five verses, beginning, “This is the law of the peace offering that one shall bring to Hashem. If he brings it as a thanksgiving offering,” and so on. Those five verses discuss the thanksgiving offering. Someone who was ill and recovered, someone who was imprisoned, or someone who traveled through the desert—or by sea—when they need to recite the Hagomel blessing, they should also read this passage. The Rebbe says this in Igros Kodesh. I highly recommend looking it up in volume 24, page 268. The Rebbe says it is true that we don’t see people doing this. It isn’t very common. People know they need to recite Hagomel, but we don’t see people reciting the verses about the thanksgiving offering. The Rebbe writes, though: Can this question override what is stated explicitly in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch? Yes, that is what the Rebbe writes. The Rebbe also writes explicitly that it is not included in Seder Birchos Hanehenin or in the Siddur, but it is included in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. So when someone needs to give thanks and recite the Hagomel blessing, he should also

33:56 Speaker 2 To say those verses. Yes, that is the halachah. Incidentally, it is also brought in the Mishnah Berurah, section 278, subsection 32. The Mishnah Berurah also mentions it—or rather, uses the wording “it is proper.” It is proper to say Parshas Todah. For us, after the Rebbe wrote what he wrote, it is not merely proper; we have to do it. An eighth point, also brought in that same letter of the Rebbe: the Rebbe writes—and not merely as advice, though advice from the Rebbe is everything to us; here it is even more than that—the Rebbe writes that, seemingly, one should set aside money for a communal charitable need. This is based on the Magen Avraham, who says that when a miracle happens to a person—and we can consider the things we discussed a small miracle—he should give to a communal need in his city. That is what the Magen Avraham writes. And on this too the Rebbe said, “We have not seen people do this, but seemingly it would be worthwhile to do so.” That is the Rebbe’s wording there in Igros Kodesh. So when we need to recite Hagomel, we have learned that we should also say Parshas Todah, and, according to what the Rebbe writes here based on the Magen Avraham, we should also set aside money for communal tzedakah. Yes, that is important. Incidentally, this too is brought in the Mishnah Berurah and by several later authorities: setting aside tzedakah when one needs to recite Birchas Hagomel. A ninth point: we spoke about those who travel by sea. Okay, and what if it is not the sea but a harbor, for example? I take a long voyage in a harbor. What is the ruling? Ah, not a harbor, sorry—a river. What is the ruling for a river? Here the halachic authorities relate this to the same disagreement we saw earlier about the desert. The Ashkenazim, who say that “desert” means specifically a desert, would likewise say that “sea” means specifically the sea, as the later authorities write. So it has to be

36:07 Speaker 2 the sea. The sea is dangerous, whereas a river is not. But the Sephardim, who say that “desert” does not mean only a desert but includes any journey one takes, hold that this applies even if I sail along a stream or river. Again, under the Sephardic criterion of seventy-two minutes, they would recite Birchas Hagomel for that too. It is not common, in any event, to meet the Ashkenazic requirement of a journey of several days on a river. But it can happen in Brazil and in other places with very large rivers. Still, as we said, for Ashkenazim it has to be the sea: even if they sail on a river for several days, they do not recite Hagomel. That is the ninth point. A tenth point—yes, I mentioned a harbor. Earlier I hesitated over the word “harbor” because there is also a question about harbors. We said that after a voyage of several days, according to Ashkenazic and Chabad practice, we recite Hagomel. Now, what happens if we stop at a harbor midway through the voyage and even get off the ship? In that case, we wait until the end of the trip. A stop of a few hours or half a day does not yet count as the end. We are still in the middle of the voyage, and we recite Birchas Hagomel only at the end of the entire trip. That is the tenth point. An eleventh point—all of this is still on subsection 2. We said that, yes, but after all these points, the rest will go more quickly. The eleventh point is air travel. So what actually happens when flying on a plane? There is something interesting here: the Rebbe’s statements about air travel seem, at first glance, to contradict one another. We will see that they do not. In Likkutei Sichos, volume 12, page 152, there is a letter from the Rebbe about air travel, in which the Rebbe writes that, yes, someone who flies

38:21 Speaker 2 on a plane should recite Hagomel afterward. Incidentally, that seems to treat a plane as a category of its own. At this stage, it appears to fit with the Ashkenazic view that the four cases are not exclusive: other situations count too. There is a certain danger in flying, so even though it is not one of the cases of sea travelers, desert travelers, someone who fell ill and recovered, or someone released from prison, it is another case. On that basis, it would seem that according to the Sephardim one would not have to recite Birchas Hagomel. That is what is brought in Likkutei Sichos: according to our practice, when we fly on a plane, we recite Birchas Hagomel. But Sefer Haminhagim, which we know the Rebbe reviewed, says that someone who flies on a plane recites Hagomel only when the plane flies over the sea. The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and several other books also mention flying over the sea or over a desert; these go together. So this seems to contradict slightly what we saw earlier, where the Rebbe says broadly that a flight is a category of its own, not one of the four. But the statements do not actually contradict each other. Between what the Rebbe wrote in the letter brought in Likkutei Sichos and what was published later in Sefer Haminhagim, the safety of planes had also changed. So now, according to the Rebbe’s view, a plane is no longer seen as dangerous in itself. The fact that I board a plane and fly does not yet justify reciting Birchas Hagomel. When, then, would I recite it? According to the Rebbe, I recite Birchas Hagomel after a flight only if I fly over the sea or a desert. Again, even though we are not limited to the four cases—and in Chabad, as among Ashkenazim generally, we also recite Birchas Hagomel for various other situations—flying on a plane in itself is not dangerous enough to justify the blessing, just as we do not recite it when we travel by car. That too does not justify it. But the Rebbe says that if the plane flies over the sea, then the danger associated with sea travel is present here as well. It counts as traveling by sea, or as traveling through the desert if the flight is over a desert. Only then do we recite Birchas Hagomel.

40:25 Speaker 2 This is particularly relevant because, according to Chabad practice, if we fly somewhere entirely over land—a domestic flight within the United States, for instance, that does not cross the sea—we do not recite Birchas Hagomel. When leaving Israel, on the other hand, in almost any direction—we generally do not fly to Jordan, and certainly not directly to Iran—we usually cross the sea, and then we recite Birchas Hagomel. But on domestic flights, we do not. There is also an interesting point concerning the rule that we recite Hagomel when flying over the sea. There is a book called Ve’alehu Lo Yibol, several volumes of questions someone asked Rabbi Auerbach. He gathered all kinds of questions he had asked into books afterward. I know Rabbi Auerbach’s sons were quite critical of those books because things were sometimes taken a little out of context. These were questions asked on the spot, without much discussion, so the books do not carry great authority. In one of the volumes, there is a very interesting statement that Rabbi Auerbach cites in the Rebbe’s name. In Chabad, people do not know the source of this, but Ve’alehu Lo Yibol presents it as Rabbi Auerbach saying in the name of the Rebbe—our Rebbe, the Chabad Rebbe—that flying over the Mediterranean does not count as crossing the sea for which one recites Birchas Hagomel. This is brought in Shulchan Menachem; in the notes, too, the source is said to be unknown. So what do we do in practice? What I am about to tell you

42:18 Speaker 2 happened a few years ago. I was on Strauss Street in Jerusalem and met Rabbi Zev Dov Slonim. I have a habit: when I see a Torah scholar, I ask myself, “Wow, what question can I ask him?” At least that way I can make use of the opportunity. So I saw Rabbi Slonim z”l walking along, and, boruch Hashem, I can now share what I learned with you. I thought to myself, well, I was in the middle of studying these halachos at the time—this was six or seven years ago—and I said, “I’ll ask him what he says about this. Is there a difference between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic? When I fly to France, do I really need to recite Birchas Hagomel or not? After all, according to what Rabbi Auerbach quotes in the Rebbe’s name, it would seem that I do not.” He told me no, there is no difference. He had never heard of such a distinction. It is considered the sea, and of course we recite Birchas Hagomel. So we will take that as the practical ruling. Accordingly, in Chabad practice, when we fly on a plane, if we cross a sea—including the Mediterranean and smaller seas—we recite Hagomel as well. If we do not fly over a sea or at least over a desert, we do not recite Birchas Hagomel. But regarding a desert, too, we will see that it really means a desert where there is some danger. Again, with a plane, one can say that even if we fly over a desert, we recite Birchas Hagomel. But we will see that if I drive to Eilat, even though I pass through a desert, I am on a proper road, and in that case we do not recite Hagomel. So, again, we have summed up the rules for flying. It really is a progression with several statements that seem to contradict one another, because there were several stages, as we said. Once,

44:16 Speaker 2 We would recite Birchas Hagomel every time we boarded a plane. Today, if you fly over the sea or over a desert, you recite Birchas Hagomel; otherwise, you do not. Note twelve, the final note connected to what we saw in subsection 2, concerns people traveling through deserts today. According to the Sephardic view, even a fairly remote danger is considered a danger. So if, as we said, someone traveling from Jerusalem to Haifa recites Hagomel, then someone traveling to Eilat and crossing the desert certainly does, all the more so. But according to the Ashkenazic view, it must be a more tangible danger. So not every desert counts as a desert for this purpose. If I go on a trip through the Sahara, somewhere in Morocco or elsewhere in Africa, I assume there are dangers there, and I would recite Hagomel. But if I get into a car and drive from Jerusalem to Eilat, yes, I pass through a desert, but it is an organized route with a road. So in that case we do not recite Birchas Hagomel. This is important, because you might say, “It says people traveling through deserts.” But that means a real desert, like in the stories, not a desert with a highway through it, as we have in Israel. That is the last note on subsection 2. The Alter Rebbe tells us: “A minor need not give thanks, even if he has reached the age of chinuch for mitzvos, but women and servants are obligated in this blessing. Therefore, every woman who has given birth, when she recovers from her illness, should recite the blessing in the women’s section of the synagogue”—that is, the ezras nashim—“and ten men should hear her from inside.” Again, I have not yet said that this is the practical halachah, because there are things here that need clarification. But there are two subjects in the Alter Rebbe’s words. Let us first address the first one, the question of a minor. A minor need not give thanks. All right, a minor need not give thanks. The source for this is brought in the Magen Avraham, right at the beginning of siman

46:27 Speaker 2 219. We said that these laws are found in siman 219. We do not have this section in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. In the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Karo, it appears in the introduction to siman 219. The Magen Avraham has a very long introduction at the beginning of that siman, and there he cites Maharam Mintz. This is very interesting. Maharam Mintz is Rabbi Moshe Mintz, the author of the responsa of Maharam Mintz. Yes, we have that collection of responsa today. He was a student of the Maharil and the Terumas Hadeshen. Interestingly, he is never quoted in either the Shulchan Aruch or the Rema. The Magen Avraham cites him because his responsa were printed very late. They reached the Magen Avraham, but not Rabbi Yosef Karo or the Rema. Maharam Mintz’s cousin, Mahari Mintz, is cited by the Rema. That is just a bit of historical background. So the Magen Avraham cites Maharam Mintz, who explains why a minor need not give thanks. It is a very interesting point in its own right. Take a look. What I am saying follows the Magen Avraham, the Ashkenazic view, and the Alter Rebbe. It seems that the Sephardic authorities have a different view. But this is what the Magen Avraham writes: Why, in fact, does a minor not recite the blessing? He says that when we look at the wording of Birchas Hagomel—“Who bestows kindness upon the culpable”—minors are not culpable. What does “culpable” mean? To be culpable, you first have to be obligated in mitzvos. A minor is not obligated in mitzvos, even if he has reached the age of chinuch. He is not considered culpable even if he does something wrong. So when a minor, G-d forbid, was in danger and was saved, he cannot say, “Who bestows

48:23 Speaker 2 kindness upon the culpable, Who has bestowed goodness upon me.” He was not culpable of anything. If he really did have an accident, G-d forbid, or something else happened, it was not because he was culpable, since a minor is not culpable. Therefore, a minor does not recite the blessing. Maharam Mintz and the Magen Avraham continue: True, but he did have an accident; something happened to him. So perhaps “Who bestows kindness upon the culpable” refers to the father. What happened to the child might have been because his father was culpable, while the child was saved and needs to give thanks. But, says the Magen Avraham, a minor cannot call his father culpable, can he? Suppose we understand “the culpable” to mean his father. Is he going to recite a blessing now in which “Who bestows kindness upon the culpable” refers to his father? That would amount to dishonoring his father and mother. So a minor certainly cannot recite this blessing. The Magen Avraham suggests: Perhaps we could change the wording. The minor could recite a blessing, but instead of “Who bestows kindness upon the culpable,” he could say, “Who bestows kindness, Who has bestowed goodness upon me.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu did him a kindness. But, says the Magen Avraham, you cannot change the wording established by the Sages. So that is not possible. Then he asks: Perhaps he had an accident and was saved because he was culpable in a previous incarnation. Perhaps in a previous incarnation he was an adult, and now… He says: Yes, that is possible. But it is also possible that it was because of his father. So you cannot say the blessing. The Magen Avraham examines it from every angle and demonstrates that a minor cannot recite the blessing. That is the source for what the Alter Rebbe says. In our practice, a minor does not recite it. The law of chinuch does not apply to matters like this. The Pri Megadim also makes

50:15 Speaker 2 a similar point. He says that the wording of the blessings was instituted by the Sages, the Men of the Great Assembly. The wording itself shows that they did not intend to institute this blessing for minors. If they had intended it for minors, they would not have included “the culpable.” So from the wording you can see that minors do not recite it. Everything I have said applies to Ashkenazim and Chabad. The Sephardic view, however, is that because of chinuch, despite everything we have said, minors do recite it. So a Sephardic child who has reached the age of chinuch—six, seven, eight, depending on the child’s maturity and how much he understands what he is doing—does recite it according to the Sephardic view. But according to our custom, minors do not. The Sephardic view was the second note here on subsection 3. The first note was the whole discussion brought by the Magen Avraham; that was the second note. The third note: What do women actually do today? This is very interesting. When we read the Alter Rebbe, he says, “Women and servants”—well, we do not really have servants, but women—“are obligated in this blessing. Therefore, every woman who has given birth, when she recovers from her illness, should come to the women’s section of the synagogue,” meaning the ezras nashim, “and ten men should hear her from inside.” That is what the Alter Rebbe writes. Is that what we do in practice? As I said about flying, there is a great deal of history here too. Rabbi Chaim Naeh rules in Ketzos Hashulchan that after a woman gives birth, she should find a minyan at the hospital—meaning she should go to the hospital’s ezras nashim, or there should be a minyan of men there—and recite the blessing. And in Igros Kodesh, volume 20, page 102, for anyone who wants to look it up, the Rebbe refers to that Ketzos Hashulchan. So apparently that is the Rebbe’s view. So apparently, also

52:17 Speaker 2 In Chabad, women should at least recite the blessing after giving birth. But there are two well-known, verified stories, which have been published several times in the Hiskashrus bulletin, according to which we heard explicit instructions from the Rebbe that women should not recite it. The first story is about Rabbi Yehuda Leib Groner. He related that when his twins were born, he asked the Rebbe whether his wife should recite Birchas Hagomel, and the Rebbe asked him, “Where did you hear that a woman recites Hagomel?” That is what the Rebbe asked Rabbi Groner. The Rebbe then added that he should ask elder chassidim. He asked them and came to the conclusion that women do not recite it. So that story already seems to differ from what the Ketzos Hashulchan says, but there is another, even stronger story. There is a chossid named Reb Barel Elnik [?]. After his first child was born, he went into yechidus and told the Rebbe that his wife had come to 770 some time after giving birth. She was in the women’s section, there were Temimim there in 770, and she recited Hagomel and the Temimim answered amen. He told this with great joy. The Rebbe smiled and said to him, “And will the young men also recite Shehecheyanu because this is the first time in their lives they’ve answered amen to a woman’s Birchas Hagomel?” So it would seem from that story that this is not the custom. Now, I know there are Chabad rabbis who do not rely on stories. There are authorities who will rule on this; I do not want to decide the matter here. My humble opinion—and it is not binding—is that women should not recite it. These stories are strong enough, but I know there are Chabad rabbis who do not want to rely on stories, however strong they may be. And again, not all rabbis—there are those who hold as I’ve said. But we must mention that there are

54:33 Speaker 2 other opinions as well. When someone says there are written sources—the Ketzos Hashulchan and the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh—that say a woman should recite it, then in this matter everyone should ask their own rabbis whether a woman should recite it after giving birth. There is also an opinion that this applies only to a woman after childbirth, not to a woman who has recovered from any other condition. Again, that is not what the stories I told seem to indicate, but as I said, there are differing opinions, so we will not decide the matter. What about other communities? Among Sephardim, women do recite it. Among Ashkenazim, they generally do not. In what is called the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem, a woman who has given birth does recite it, at the hospital, but in other cases women do not. Subsection 4 is a somewhat unusual section, dealing with something a bit out of the ordinary. We will not dwell on it, but we will draw from it a law that is actually unrelated to Birchas Hagomel, yet is important. I’ll read what the Alter Rebbe says, because, again, this situation is not very common. What does the Alter Rebbe say in subsection 4? “One who feels joy in his heart over his friend’s rescue”—his friend was saved from one of the four dangers—“may recite this blessing in its usual wording or in another wording, such as”—and here he gives another blessing—“Blessed is the Merciful One, King of the world, Who has given you to us and has not given you to the dust.” That is the blessing. The Alter Rebbe says that this wording does not need to be recited on its own. But what does the Alter Rebbe add? This is the important part: if he does not feel joy in his heart, he should not recite it, because it would be a blessing in vain. At first glance, why would it be a blessing in vain? After all, Hashem’s Name was not mentioned. So here, for the sake of learning, I will say

56:44 Speaker 2 the name, even though it is not a name one can say so readily. When we said “the Merciful One,” that does count as a Divine Name. And the Alter Rebbe says something interesting here. Again, it is not very common for a person to recite Hagomel in Aramaic on someone else’s behalf, so we will not dwell on that. But what we will dwell on is what we learned along the way: if a person uses that wording and that name, the Alter Rebbe says that if he is not genuinely happy, it is a blessing in vain. The Alter Rebbe continues: Therefore, those who are accustomed to saying “Baruch Hashem” in the Ashkenazi language must be careful not to say it about something that brings them no heartfelt joy, because that would be a blessing in vain. In other words, for the sake of learning, I’ll say it in French: “Dieu merci.” That means “Baruch Hashem.” But when you say “Baruch Hashem,” the word “Hashem” is one we can use; it is not considered a blessing in vain. If you say it as I did in French, though, or say it in English, you must be very careful. You can say it when you are genuinely happy, but saying it as a joke—“Baruch Hashem” about some politician—and somehow using a Divine Name in another language would count as a blessing in vain. As I said, I will not repeat the French phrase, but saying it about every little thing is simply considered a blessing in vain, even though the name I mentioned is in another language. So this is indeed a very important law that we learned along the way from the Alter Rebbe in subsection 4. When should we recite Birchas Hagomel? This is also very interesting, and when we read the Alter Rebbe’s words, we see a slight apparent contradiction. In subsection 2, the Alter Rebbe tells us at the end: “One should not

58:38 Speaker 2 recite the blessing until he has emerged from danger completely. Therefore, a sick person should not recite it until he has fully recovered.” It has been pointed out that, seemingly, the Alter Rebbe gives two different criteria here. “Until he has emerged from danger completely”—all right, that is one thing. “Until he has fully recovered” is a much later stage. Someone who was ill, for example, may no longer be in danger but still not have fully recovered. So, again, it appears that the Alter Rebbe said two contradictory things. No—the end teaches us how to understand the beginning. By “emerged from danger completely,” the Alter Rebbe meant reaching the point of full recovery. That is the point. So a person who was in the hospital and has now been discharged, but is still weak and has not recovered, should not yet recite Birchas Hagomel. He simply has to wait until he has recovered completely, and only then recite it. Sometimes that will take one month, two months, three months. And yes, he can still recite it after one, two or three months. Let’s read the continuation again. But even though, ideally, it should be recited within three days, here that is not possible. If a person needs to spend another month at home, or needs to rest, he cannot do it within three days. When someone has emerged from danger and recovered within three days, then ideally he should indeed recite the blessing within three days. Illness is different. Someone who took a flight is not left recovering from it for two weeks; he can recite the blessing at the first opportunity. But for someone who was ill, as we said, it takes more time. So now I’ll read all of the Mordechai’s words: “One should not recite the blessing upon emerging...”

1:00:42 Speaker 2 completely out of danger. Therefore, a sick person should not recite the blessing until he has fully recovered. He really does need to recover fully. If he delayed reciting the blessing, he may make it up whenever he wishes, though it is proper not to delay more than three days—again, when possible. Yes, if someone was sick and needs another week, two weeks, or three months to recover, he should take that time. Therefore, if he was out of danger on Monday after the Torah reading, he should recite the blessing before ten people without a Torah scroll, and not wait until Thursday. I’ll elaborate on this too. The first point, which I already worked in, is the requirement to regain one’s strength completely. That is the standard for someone who was sick, and we’ve already discussed it at length. As for the second point, earlier we saw two things in the Mordechai: the sick person must regain his strength, and only then does he recite the blessing. Ideally, it should be within three days, but if not, there is no time limit. But how do we count those three days? After all, the Alter Rebbe says that someone who was out of danger on Monday after the Torah reading should recite the blessing before ten people without a Torah scroll, rather than wait until Thursday. Say a person was out of danger on Monday afternoon. Thursday morning is less than seventy-two hours later—less than three days. So what’s the issue? We understand, then, that the three days are counted differently. Again, this is the ideal; as we said, after the fact one may recite the blessing even much later. But it makes a practical difference for someone who takes a flight. He arrives on Monday afternoon, and the usual inclination is to say, “All right, I’ll be called up to the Torah on Thursday morning.” But that isn’t right. It is true that if he has not recited the blessing by Thursday morning, he should recite Birchas Hagomel then, whether or not he is called up to the Torah.

1:02:38 Speaker 2 But ideally, that is not what the Alter Rebbe says. Ideally, we count Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. Three days have passed, and it is no longer within the ideal time. Of course, if it is now Thursday, he should recite the blessing then. But the ideal would have been to recite it earlier, within the three days. So in a case like this, if the person gets home on Monday afternoon, for example, he should go to a minyan on Tuesday. If ten people are still there at the end of the minyan, he should recite Birchas Hagomel there. That is the ideal. We count calendar days, not twenty-four-hour periods: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. By Wednesday evening, it is already past the ideal time. The Alter Rebbe says something we’ve already discussed, but I want to note one point. The Alter Rebbe says: “Some say that a sick person recites the blessing only for an illness involving danger, such as an internal injury or other illnesses for which Shabbos may be desecrated.” We learn about an internal injury in the laws of Shabbos; as we said, it is an injury inside the person’s body. “In practice, anyone confined to bed for more than three days should recite the blessing upon getting up.” Okay, before we get to the Shulchan Aruch, let’s recall that there is a disagreement between the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema. The Shulchan Aruch writes in section 219, paragraph 8: “For any illness one must recite the blessing, even if it is not a dangerous illness or an internal injury, as long as he took to his bed and then got up.” A person was sick and had to be in bed, and then got up—even if it was only a few hours. He recites Birchas Hagomel. That is the Shulchan Aruch’s view. Certainly, if he did not take to his bed but had an internal injury, or some danger involving an internal organ, he also recites the blessing. But it is not limited to an internal injury: taking to his bed and then getting up also qualifies. Yes, he took to

1:04:42 Speaker 2 his bed because of his illness, not just because he had a headache. In that case, he recites the blessing. That is the Shulchan Aruch’s view. The Rema writes the opposite—an equally far-reaching position: only for an illness involving danger, such as an internal injury, does one recite the blessing. The Rema does not mention taking to bed. So according to the Rema, the opposite extreme applies: only if there really was danger, such as an internal injury, and the person underwent surgery or the like, does he recite the blessing. The Alter Rebbe takes a middle position, based on the Taz. Both the Alter Rebbe and, later, the Ben Ish Chai follow this approach. It is a middle position: certainly, for a dangerous illness such as an internal injury, we recite the blessing. But for someone who took to his bed, we require that he have been bedridden for three days—not like the Shulchan Aruch, who says even a few hours suffice, and not like the Rema, who requires an internal injury or some other danger. Here, the standard is either danger or three days in bed. That is the Alter Rebbe’s standard, and, as we said, several other halachic authorities agree: the Taz, before the Alter Rebbe, as well as the Chayei Adam and the Ben Ish Chai. Now I want to comment a little on this whole matter. What actually counts as something internal? Let’s take a few examples from responsa. The Tzitz Eliezer, for instance, says that a person who underwent surgery on an internal organ must recite Birchas Hagomel. He also includes a fracture or something of that sort under the category of an internal injury—anything inside, even something involving a bone. The Avnei Nezer has a responsum saying that even hemorrhoid surgery is something internal, and the person should recite Birchas Hagomel. It is obvious that this applies to internal conditions such as a heart attack, kidney surgery, something involving the lungs, and things like that. Someone who underwent a catheterization should also recite Hagomel. What about viral illnesses,

1:06:53 Speaker 2 inflammation in internal organs, and things like that? In all these cases, as the halachic authorities write, one needs to ask doctors whether there really was a fairly tangible danger. Even if the person was not bedridden for three days, if a particular illness really did pose a tangible danger, he should recite the blessing according to Chabad practice as well. With Hashem’s help, may we soon be able to recite Hagomel when we leave exile. Exile certainly poses a very real danger; that is quite clear. People always mention the blessings we will recite when Moshiach comes, with Hashem’s help, soon. They are cited in the responsa of Rabbi Chaim Palagi and elsewhere. For some reason, I don’t think they mention Birchas Hagomel. It seems obvious to me that we will all recite Birchas Hagomel. We’ll see what kind of exile we were in. With Hashem’s help, we’re about to leave it, and we’ll even come to understand dangers we didn’t know we faced. That’s my assumption, but then there will be great rabbis for us to turn to—you won’t need me for this, at least—and presumably we will recite Hagomel, with Hashem’s help, for leaving exile. May it happen immediately, with Hashem’s help, right now.