If you say a Bracha and make a mistake on the words Baruch or Ata or Elokeinu or Melech or HaOlam do you have to say the bracha over and if you do is it considered Levatalah because you say the name Ad-ni twice?

1 Answer 1


SA OH 214:

כל ברכה שאין בה הזכרת שם ומלכות אינה ברכה ואם דילג שם או מלכות יחזור ויברך ואפי' לא דילג אלא תיבת העולם לבד צריך לחזור ולברך דמלך לבד אינה מלכות:

Every beracha that does not contain mention of [Hashem's] Name and Kingship is not a beracha, and if one skipped either the Name or the Kingship, one should repeat the beracha again. Even if one only skipped the word "HaOlam", they must still start over because "Melech" alone is not "Kingship"*.

See also Ben Ish Chai Balak 2:1

The Rambam (MN Berachot 1:6) explains that if one altered the general text, but remembered to say Hashem's Name, and Kingship, and kept the subject of the blessing, he should not repeat. This would imply that the words "Ata" and "Elokeinu" would not require a repeat ("Baruch" seems to be included in the general category, or fall under the 'subject' of blessing, and is therefore also required). Sefer HaChinuch agrees.

Peninei Halacha 12:6:3 states explicitly that the word "Baruch" is necessary, and seems to imply that "Ata" is not, and "Elokeinu" is not included in the requirement to say the Name.

However some hold this only applies when one is saying a translation of the beracha because they can't speak Lashon HaKodesh, and if they are saying it in LH'K then if any word is changed then the beracha must be repeated (see Tzafnat Paneach there), so as always CLYOR.

Mishna Berura 10 on SA OC 215:2 states that someone who says a beracha that has too much changed has made a beracha levatala.

* as it would then not refer necessarily to Hashem's Kingship of the Universe, but any kingship (Biur Halacha in the name of the Ba'al HaTanya)

  • 1
    Also see Bei'ur Halacha on 214, where he brings from the Ba'al HaTanya that if someone skipped "ha'olam" but said "HaMelech" (as opposed to just "Melech"), that could suffice for the necessary element of malchus in the blessing, as this also implies the One King (rather than one of many ordinary kings).
    – Fred
    May 21 at 21:16
  • 1
    Can you really infer from the Rambam that the blessing component of a blessing is not necessary? It seems that the foundational premise behind a blessing is that you are blessing, and once we are talking about blessings it is already self-evident that you are blessing. It doesn't seem necessary to explicitly list that as a required component.
    – Fred
    May 22 at 0:51
  • @Fred I think you've convinced me. I hesitated because I was worried that the points you raised were backing up the notion of beracha hasemucha lachaverta, but now that I am more awake, it's clear you are correct. Thank you for your sharpness
    – Rabbi Kaii
    May 22 at 10:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .