Rambam, Maase Hakorbanos 9:5, indicates that a toda is just another kind of sh'lamim. In perek 14 he mentions that a sh'lamim needs no special circumstances, as opposed to a chatas which can only be brought if one needs to bring one. That is, one can bring a toda whenever he wants.

(This is reflected in the little "y'hi ratzon" prayers we say during Ezehu m'koman: the chatas prayer says (paraphrasing) "if I must bring a chatas, this prayer should count as if I've brought one" whereas the toda prayer says (paraphrasing again) merely "this prayer should count as if I've brought one".)

Birkas hagomel is in lieu of the toda.

Yet birkas hagomel can, apparently, not be said whenever one wants. Shulchan Aruch and Mishna B'rura 219 carefully delineate under what circumstances one says it, and imply that under other circumstances one does not. (To be sure, there are circumstances about which the halacha is not clear, and, therefore, might indicate that someone "can" say the b'racha. But that's not comparable to the toda, which anyone can bring even without halachically accepted cause.)

So my first question is why. That is: If hagomel is based on the toda, why can the latter be brought whenever one wants and the former not?

My second question is whether anyone actually holds that hagomel can be said without halachically accepted cause.

  • 1
    Or: "Is the prohibition of Lo Tisa more strict that the prohibition of chulin on the Mizbeyach?"?
    – Isaac Moses
    Jun 22, 2011 at 17:36
  • 1
    @IsaacMoses - It's not necessarily clear that "lo sisa" is a real concern in the case of unnecessary b'rachos. See, for example the Ra"sh on Kidushin 30b, commenting on the opinion of Rabenu Tam in Tosafos s.v. "d'lo". (Anyone know a good linkable text of the Ra"sh)?
    – WAF
    Jun 23, 2011 at 13:22
  • 2
    For future questions and thoughts... I would suggest that when something is 'based on' it does not mean 'the same as'. When its different its good to ask why its different, but the word "if" in your question seems odd, it should be 'since'. I.e. no analogy is perfect. ... to put it differently, this difference between todah and gomel is no reason to suspect that Gomel is not based on the Todah.
    – avi
    Jul 24, 2011 at 6:20
  • Similar: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/93751/170
    – msh210
    Jul 8, 2018 at 17:52
  • @WAF I think you mean this (§49).
    – Oliver
    Jul 26, 2018 at 2:15

2 Answers 2



It could be that the Sages weren't comfortable with innovating a beracha with unlimited scope, given the problems with unnecessarily invoking God's name. The Torah had [infinitely] more authority to create such an open-ended option, even for something as serious as a korban.

  • Maybe. But consider OC 222:1–2.
    – msh210
    Jun 22, 2011 at 17:59
  • @msh210 Good point. It seems, though, that Shehecheyanu and Hatov Vehametiv are said without God's name, though Dayan Ha-emet is said with it. This seems to be partial support for my idea that Chazal were uncomfortable with open-ended berachot that invoke God's name, particularly if there's a special reason why Dayan Ha-emet would be an exception.
    – Isaac Moses
    Jun 22, 2011 at 21:39
  • @msh210 , IsaacMoses : See the Magen Avraham OC 223 sk 4
    – Double AA
    Jan 17, 2012 at 6:03

One could say that even though the blessing is based on a korban, not all the rules were transferred, for example, shacharis and mincha were made instead of the korban tamid, yet one couldn't bring a "stam" tamid yet one can pray a nedavah.

  • It's interesting that your example is in a way the inverse of the one in the question. But yours has a bunch more complicating factors, primary among which is the dual basis of regular t'fila. It is natural that the parameters of the resulting practice would not be limited to the parameters of only one of the causes (t'midin and not avos).
    – WAF
    Aug 6, 2018 at 8:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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