Bar-Ilan University
Passover 5772/April 7, 2012
Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A
project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the
Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's
International Center for Jewish Identity. Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center
Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
855
Engineer Yaakov Levinger1
The Ancient and Proper Blessing for Seeing Trees in Bloom*
The "blessing for trees" is said throughout the month of Nisan, upon see a fruit tree in
bloom (preferably several blossoms). This benediction is cited as far back as the Mishnaic
collections of blessings for things seen and also appears in the Babylonian Talmud in two
places (Berakhot 43b; Rosh ha-Shanah 11a).
Most of the ancient sources read:
"Blessed…who left nothing lacking in His world (or: from His world), and created in it
goodly creatures and goodly trees (in order) that human beings may derive themselves
pleasure [Heb. le-hitnaot] by (or: from) them" [Barukh…she-lo hissar be-`olamo (or: me`olamo) klum u-var bo briyyot tovot ve-ilanot tovot (kedei) le-hitna'ot ba-hen (or: me-hen)
bnei adam]. This formulation is also close to that of the geonim,2 and is cited by Rif and Rashi
there (Vilna ed.).
1
Mr. Levinger is a resident of Tel Aviv.
*
This article is a précis of a more detailed presentation to appear under the title of "Gilguleha shel
Birkat ha-Ilanot", in preparation.
2
Sefer Halakhot Gedolot, 1 – Hilkhot Berakhot, ch. 6 (s.v. amar Rav), Makhon Jerusalem edition,
Jerusalem 1992, except that there the words "goodly trees" are lacking.
1
In his commentary on the Talmud, Rashi explains the meaning of the word le-hitnaot:
leihanot (in R.H. [Vilna]: lehanot), or to enjoy. In Rashi's opinion, the verb le-hitnaot
(reflexive form of the root nun-alef-yod), which commonly means to adorn or beautify
oneself, is used here in its secondary, borrowed sense: to derive pleasure for oneself, as if
what were written here were le-hithannot (the reflexive, active form) or leihanot (the
reflexive and passive form) of the root heh-nun-yod, from which also the noun hana'ah—
pleasure—is derived.
In a few Talmudic sources attesting to this blessing, especially manuscripts of Tractate Rosh
ha-Shanah that were written after Rashi's time, we find leihanot instead of le-hitnaot, but
we have found no texts predating Rashi that use the variant leihanot. What we have here
appears to be the familiar process of Rashi's commentary becoming incorporated into the
body of the Talmudic text by copyists, and thus the version leihanot came into being from
Rashi's time on. Rashi's commentary on the Talmud attests to the version in his hands
reading le-hitnaot, for otherwise he would have had no reason to add his commentary.
Also Maimonides, in Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Berakhot 10.13) gives the blessing3 as lehitnaot, similarly to the geonim, Rif, and Rashi; but like the geonim, he omits the words "and
goodly trees." His formulation, "Blessed are You, O Lord our G-d, King of the Universe, who
left nothing lacking in His world, and created in it goodly, pleasing creatures in order that
human beings may take themselves pleasure of them [masc.] (or: of them [fem.])," gained
acceptance, sometimes with slight variations, in most Yemenite prayer books, in accordance
with their tendency to follow Maimonides' halakhic rulings.
The text below follows the formulation of Tur and Shulhan Arukh (Orakh Hayyim 226, save
for the change of "them" masc./fem.—see below), based on most of the early halakhic
authorities after Rashi. Most of the later halakhic authorities followed in their wake, with
only the most minor of changes, so that this would appear to be the proper formulation of
the blessing to be recited in those Jewish communities that follow the Halakhah as set forth
in the Shulhan Arukh.
3
The vocalization which we present below follows Rabbi Jacob
Thus it appears in carefully redacted edition, but not in the widespread Warsaw 1881/2 or Vilna
1902 editions and their photocopies, which present the blessing as in the Shulhan Arukh. See below.
2
Emden, as it appears in his prayer book Amudei Shamayim (Altona, 1745-1748)4 as well as in
his book, Lu'ah Eres.5
In the phrase, bara bo, it is permissible to insert a light dagesh in the bet of bo, since in the
Hebrew of the Sages the letters bet, gimmel, daled, kaf, peh and taf do not have to follow
the grammatical rule that applies in biblical Hebrew, namely that they have no dagesh when
they occur at the beginning of a word following another word that ends with any of the
letters alef, heh, vav, yod.6
The following formulation appears in the prayer books and works of Ashkenazi and
Sephardic authors, before these were redacted by the grammarians in Germany, prior to
and during the Enlightenment in Germany in the 18th century, in accordance with their
system of "biblical grammar":

Rabbi Solomon Zalman Hanau, in his prayer book Beit Tefillah, p. 78b, Yesnitz 1725,
changed klum to davar, a change which is not reflected in translation.

Rabbi Isaac Satanow, in Va-ye`etar Yitzhak, Berlin 1785, in the section `Emek
Berakhah 29, changed the adjective describing trees from the feminine to the
masculine, and the reflexive verb leihanot to the intensive verb lehannot [slightly
changing the meaning by putting the emphasis on the trees bringing pleasure as
opposed to mankind finding pleasure]. I do not know who introduced the change
from bo to vo (removing the dagesh after the letters alef, heh, vav, yod in
accordance with the rules of biblical Hebrew). The switch from bahen (by or from
them, fem.) to bahem (masc.) is very ancient (appearing thus even in some
important manuscripts of Maimonides, Tur and the Shulhan Arukh). In the light of
most other sources, it appears that this was either a scribal error or printing error.
Below we note in bold several of the places in which the above-mentioned redactors
introduced changes, and in their wake most of the Ashkenazi prayer books which we have
today, having adopted all or part (namely, of Rabbi Zalman Hanau) of the 18th-century
4
See the revised edition, Eshkol Press, Jerusalem 1993, Part II, p. 140. The text there is not
necessarily that of Rabbi Emden.
5
R. D. Yitzhaki edition, Toronto 2001, Part I, par. 445/6 on page 136/7. Also see the editor's notes
there, p. 453, pars. 913-914, and p. 485/6, par. 173.
6
Dr. Rafael Zar, editorial board of Mif`al ha-Mikra (private correspondence).
3
changes. These redactors might have permitted themselves to make the above-mentioned
changes, having noticed that the formulation of the Shulhan Arukh itself deviated from the
original formulation in the Talmud.
Sephardic prayer books generally retain the formulation found in the Shulhan Arukh, but use
the variant vocalization hisser, a grammatically proper alternative to the Ashkenazi
vocalization, hissar = lack.7
***
The proper formulation of the prayer, in my humble opinion, is: Barukh ata H' Elokeinu
Melekh ha-Olam she-lo hissar (in Sephardic prayer books – hisser) be-`olamo klum uvara bo
briyyot tovot ve-ilanot tovot lehanot bahen be'nei adam. This could be rendered in English:
"Blessed are You, O Lord our G-d, King of the Universe, who left nothing lacking in His world
and created in it goodly creatures and goodly trees to bring pleasure through them to
mankind."
Translated by Rachel Rowen
An illustration of the "Pesach Plate" which was prepared as a substitute for the "Seder"
in one of the Nazi concentration camps in Theresienstadt
7
I wish to thank all those who have assisted me (listed alphabetically): Dr. Gavriel Bierenbaum, Dr.
Hayyim ‫א‬. Cohen, Rabbi Dr. David Mishelov, Rabbi David Yitzhaki, Dr. Rafael Zar, and many other
specialists. Professor Aaron Dothan of Tel Aviv University expressed his reservations concerning the
formulation presented above. He apparently prefers the emendations of the above-mentioned 18thcentury grammarians, but he did not detail the reasons for his preference.
4