Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Some mitzvah brachot are of the form ...vitzivanu "l'X" ("to X", infinitive verb), and others are of the form "al X" ("upon X", gerundive verb). I particularly noticed this during Sukkot with two similar ones in proximity; it's "likro et hahallel" but "al mikra megillah" (which led me in a roundabout way to ask this question). Why the difference?

I first thought that it might be the difference between something we do actively (we all say hallel) and something we experience more passively (most of us don't personally read the megillah; someone does on our behalf), but that doesn't work -- "al netilat (yadayim, lulav)" and "al achilat (matzah, maror)" are counter-examples. The difference also doesn't seem to be d'oraita versus d'rabbanan; both forms show up in both categories.

Is there significance, or in each case did the rabbis just choose between two equally-appropriate formulations and it doesn't mean anything more than that?

share|improve this question
The Avudraham discusses this at length and seems to bring at least 4 opinions (R"T, Rambam, Raavad, and his own). I haven't learned thoroughly yet, so I may have misunderstood some of it , but you can read it here: hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=26840&pgnum=16 –  Menachem Oct 16 '11 at 18:00
@Menachem, thanks for the pointer. Are you aware of an English source that covers those points? (My Hebrew comprehension is only so-so with pointed text, worse without...) –  Monica Cellio Oct 16 '11 at 18:44
I summarized it in my answer below –  Menachem Oct 17 '11 at 5:10
IMHO, this is a perfect question for the site. I just thought I'd throw that out there... –  Seth J Aug 28 '12 at 15:24
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 11 down vote accepted

The Avudraham discusses this at length. He brings a couple opinions before bringing his own.

  1. First he brings the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam (brought in yydl's answer):

    • If the mitzvah is (completely) done right away, we say "Al". Some examples:

      • על אכילת מ צ ה .
      • על אכילת מ ר ו ר
      • על מקרא מגלה.
    • If the mitzvah requires some waiting before it is done (i.e. the single action does not complete the mitzvah), you say "L'". Some examples:

      • ‫‫לישב בסוכה‬
      • ‫ לשמוע קול שופר‬(There are pauses before it's done)
      • Hallel (You need to wait for people to respond)
  2. Commenting on Rabbeinu Tam's stance, the Avudraham brings an opinion (I'm not 100% sure if it is his own or he's quoting someone) with regards to saying Hallel (why we way "L'kro Et HaHallel" and not "Al Kriayat Hallel") that any Mitzvah that is not a constant obligation you do not say "L'". Since we are commanded to say Hallel after surviving any calamity (as opposed to specific times) it is not considered a constant obligation.

  3. Then he brings the Rambam (Berachot 11:15), who makes the following distinctions:

    • If you (a) do the mitzvah for yourself and (b) it is an obligation, you say "L'", otherwise you say "Al". For example:

      • Circumcision
      • Making a fence around a roof
    • If it is an optional mitzvah, you say "Al", whether you are doing it yourself or not. For example:

      • Shechita
    • Even in cases where you would say "L'" If you start the action before you make the berachah you say "Al". For Example:

      • If you forgot to make the blessing before you put on Tefillin and remembered while you're still wearing Tefillin.
    • (The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's classification. Among the distinctions he offers and ultimately rejects is the distinction between Rabinical and Biblical commandments)

  4. The Avudraham quotes the Ra'avad's question on the Rambam and then proceeds to analyze the exceptions and ask some questions on this categorization method. He then proposes another solution.

    • If the Mitzvah can not be done by proxy (shliach), and will be done in the future (L'Habah) you say "L'", otherwise you say "Al"

    • The Avudraham spills much ink listing and explaining how different Mitzvot that seem to be exceptions fit into his classification. (and probably addresses most questions you'll ask on this classification method)

So, with regards to the Sukkot we say "Al Netilat Lulav", but say "Leisheiv BaSukkah":

  • According to Rabbienu Tam, the mitzvah of Lulav is over as soon as you pick up the lulav, but the mitzvah of sitting in a Sukkah extends.
  • According to the Rambam, both Sukkah and Lulav are Mitzvot you are personally obligated to do, but as soon as you pick up the Lulav you've fulfilled your obligation, so you say "Al Netilat Lulav", but if you say the blessing before you pick it up you say "LiTol Lulav"
  • According to the Avudraham, you say "Leishev BaSukah" since the mitzvah can't be done by proxy and the main mitzvah is eating and drinking in the Sukkah, which is done after the blessing. The blessing on the Lulav on the other hand, is only done after you've already picked it up (thus fulfilling your obligation), and thus you say "Al Netilat Lulav"

share|improve this answer
If anyone knows the source for the Rabbeinu Tam referred to by the Avudraham, please let me know. –  Menachem Oct 17 '11 at 5:09
It's especially noteworthy that ashkenazim say לעסוק בדברי תורה while sefardim say על דברי תורה on the same blessing. I wonder if Torah can be seen both ways from all four opinions –  b a Aug 28 '12 at 16:23
add comment

Not all that much here not already in other answers, but for (more) completeness I'll quote Rabenu Asher ("Rosh"), in his halachos to P'sachim 7 (in my own loose translation):

Rabenu Tam explained that all mitzvos done immediately, we say "al" on, like "al mikra m'gila", "hat'vila", "n'tilas yadayim", "hafrashas t'ruma", "achilas matza" and "maror". But "l'haniach t'filin", "l'his'atef batzitzis", "leshev basuka" — these involve delay. The wording ["l'-"] implies as much: "to be adorned with t'filin", "to be wrapped in tzitzis", "to dwell in a suka, eating and spending all day". As to "l'hadlik ner Chanuka", it, too, has delay: the mitzva is "from sunset until traffic leaves the street". Likewise "lishmoa kol shofar: there's delay among the blasts, as the main mitzva is blowing with each b'racha [of the amida]. The difference between halel ("l'-") and m'gila ("al") is that the latter is read straight through whereas halel has pauses for responsive reading. Moreover, halel was originally meant to be read for the community's being saved from any trouble, so we use "l'-": any mitzva that's not a steady obligation doesn't get "al". "L'hachniso" [at a b'ris] is because it's not a b'racha on the mitzva at all (it's not even said beforehand), but one of praise for having the mitzva. And hand t'filin get "l'-" while the head get "al" because the rabbis didn't want to have two the same in a row; the head gets "al" as it's the final part of the mitzva.

Riva differed: On any mitzva than can be done via an agent, say "al"; on others, "l'-". That's why the g'mara implied that "lamul" means he himself circumcises. Shofar gets "l'-" because he must hear it himself; halel, unlike m'gila, because even one hearing halel from another must say certain parts. Even though personal t'vila can't be done through agency, that of dishes can, so both got "al"; moreover, because of t'vila of converts, which gets "al" because it's said only after the mitzva is done. Similarly lulav: sometimes the b'racha is made after the mitzva is done, so it gets "al"; and the same for n'tilas yadayim. ("L'-" implies future.) Chanuka lights get "al" even though agency works because people don't use agents for it: everyone likes to light his own (they love the miracle); same for Shabas lights. Omer counting gets "al" because the congregational leader counts aloud for those who can't. As for t'filin, the b'racha is really "...v'mitzvas t'filin" [neither "al" nor "l'-"] (and Rif agrees with that). Likewise, "laasok b'divre sora" is the correct wording of that b'racha, per the Ashk'naz wording.

According to Riva, one would therefore say "leechol matza" and "leechol maror".

Thus, Rabenu Tam holds that it depends on immediacy of the mitzva only, except that an exception is made when two birchos hamitzva are done in a row or when the mitzva is required under unplanned, occasional circumstances (or something like that). Riva holds that it depends on whether the mitzva is (at least under some circumstances) often done by an agent and on whether the b'racha is (at least under some circumstances) said after the mitzva is done: if either is true, say "al".

share|improve this answer
In the translation of the Rosh, [brackets] indicate stuff added by me. (Parentheses) indicate stuff in the original but which I as translator chose to represent as parenthetical. –  msh210 Oct 17 '11 at 16:26
do you have a link to the Rosh? –  Menachem Aug 28 '12 at 16:34
@Menachem, it starts near the end of hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14315&pgnum=247 and continues to the next page, but that's not a clear copy at all. If anyone has a link to a clear one, please edit the link into the answer. –  msh210 Aug 28 '12 at 17:09
add comment

There is more than one way to distinguish between the two categories. The way that seems to "fit" for most, if not all, Brachot of Mitzva, is the following:

And I'll summarize the distinction that was said over here:

Al... is said where the entire mitzvah is completed by us in some time thereafter.

Examples of Al: Eating matzo on Pesach, reading the Megillah

Le... is said where our act simply sets the mitzvah in motion.

Examples of Le: Lighting candles on Chanukah, putting up a Mezuzah

share|improve this answer
lehisatef batzitzis...? –  yoel Oct 16 '11 at 17:54
@yoel, IIRC, the Rosh, or someone he quotes, explains that the mitzva is to be wrapped, i.e. to have wrapped oneself, not to actively wrap oneself. –  msh210 Oct 16 '11 at 17:56
@msh210 now that I think of it that way, it's not unlike lehaniach tefilin, where we've only done the mitzva if the tefilin are on for a length of time. –  yoel Oct 16 '11 at 18:34
@yoel Yeah. If anything the question is why we would say al mitzvas tzitzis by a talis katan (which sounds like a whole new question - i.e. why the difference...) –  yydl Oct 16 '11 at 18:41
@yoel (and now I've quoted the Rosh in my answer, below.) –  msh210 Oct 17 '11 at 6:32
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.