Maaseh Rokeach — Blessings 1:11

“And anyone who answers Amen, etc.” — so it is stated in Tractate Berakhot 53. I have wished to comment on a difficulty that has troubled me for some time regarding the words of the pious rabbi, Rabbi Shmuel Aboab, in his work Devar Shmuel (responsum 295). He writes, based on his own reasoning, that one who hears a blessing which he is obligated in and intends to fulfill his obligation through the one reciting it should not answer “Baruch Hu u’Varuch Shemo” when the Divine Name is mentioned, as is done in other blessings, because this constitutes an interruption.

Since listening is considered as though he himself is reciting the blessing, his mouth and heart are aligned with the blessing uttered by his fellow; therefore, responding would be like interrupting the blessing itself and altering the formula established by the Sages. Accordingly, the listener should remain silent — “to You, silence is praise.” Although this reasoning appears sound on its own, let us examine the matter from another angle to determine where truth and correctness truly lie.

At the outset, I say that if we wish to equate the listener fulfilling his obligation with one who actually recites the blessing in every detail, then he should not even answer Amen. For it is established that one who answers Amen after his own blessings is considered improper, and Amen is only answered where instituted by the Sages, as stated later (p. 16) and by Rabbi Yosef Karo (Orach Chaim 215). Clearly, then, the listener is not fully identical to the one who recites the blessing.

The institution of answering Amen after every blessing — especially for one seeking to fulfill his obligation — is not essential for fulfilling that obligation. It is obvious that even without answering Amen, one fulfills it, as stated at the beginning of this law: anyone who hears a blessing from beginning to end with intent fulfills his obligation, even if he did not answer Amen.

The advantage of answering Amen is only that it is considered as though he himself recited the blessing in practice — nothing more. This excludes the opinion that the responder is greater than the one who blesses, as mentioned in the Talmud. Still, he is not truly identical, for ultimately one is potential and the other actual.

Accordingly, one may likewise answer “Baruch Hu u’Varuch Shemo.” This is evident from the words of the Rosh cited by that very author, who wrote: “My father, of blessed memory, would respond ‘Baruch Hu u’Varuch Shemo’ to every blessing he heard in any place.”

This indicates that for every blessing and in every place — whether he had already fulfilled his obligation or intended to do so — he always responded “Baruch Hu u’Varuch Shemo.” If such a distinction existed, the Rosh should have clarified it rather than speaking generally and leaving room for misunderstanding.

Similarly, the Tur and Rabbi Yosef Karo (Orach Chaim 124) cite the Rosh and then rule that Amen is answered after every blessing, whether for those who have already fulfilled their obligation or those who intend to do so — implying this applies both to “Baruch Hu u’Varuch Shemo” and to Amen.

The commentators there mention no distinction. I also saw that the author of Levushim writes that the prayer leader repeats the Amidah to fulfill the obligation of the unlearned, and even the learned must concentrate — and regarding both, he writes that they respond “Baruch Hu u’Varuch Shemo” to every blessing. This shows he understood the matter simply.

These words of the Rosh are rooted in the passage in Yoma 37: “When I call out the Name of the Lord, give greatness to our God” — Moses said to Israel: when I mention God’s Name, you respond with greatness. Likewise, “the memory of the righteous is for a blessing” — when mentioning the righteous, one should respond with blessing.

From another perspective as well, the listener cannot be entirely like the one reciting. For one praying the Amidah may not interrupt even for “Amen yehei shemei rabba,” yet one who listens to the prayer leader in order to fulfill his obligation is ruled by the Tur and Beit Yosef to answer Amen.

If they were truly identical, how could they interrupt to answer Amen? Rather, it is clear they are not identical. Since they fulfill their obligation even without answering, they could remain silent — yet the principle is that “one who hears is as one who responds.”

From all this it follows that the listener is not identical to the reciter in every respect. Answering Amen, though forbidden for the one reciting his own blessing, is permitted for the listener because it serves as acknowledgment of the blessing and is therefore not considered an interruption.

The same applies to “Baruch Hu u’Varuch Shemo”: since it expresses praise and exaltation of God’s Name, it is not an interruption but part of the blessing’s theme. Even if inserted within a blessing after the fact, it does not invalidate the blessing.

Likewise, regarding Modim de-Rabbanan, it is ruled that the congregation bows, without distinguishing between those fulfilling their obligation or not, because it is not an interruption but part of the prayer. So too, the custom throughout Israel is to respond “Baruch Hu u’Varuch Shemo” in all blessings.

Shall we then say that all Israel has never fulfilled their obligation? Heaven forbid. Rather, the custom is certainly correct — and custom carries great weight. No halakhic authority is found to dispute this.

I further testify that even in the communities where that rabbi himself prayed, I never saw anyone refrain from this practice. Therefore, we should not withhold ourselves from praising and exalting God’s Name — especially according to the mystical tradition, which attributes great significance to this response.

Additionally, the great rabbi, Rabbi Yitzchak Pacifico, agreed with my position and composed a ruling on this matter supported by proper proofs.