Shabbat Parashat Yitro 5785

Ask the Rabbi: Amen on a Non-Beracha

Question: I was at an event on Chanuka at which someone lit candles and sang the “berachot” without pronouncing the Name of Hashem because it was no one’s halachic lighting. Most of the people answered Amen, and I did not know what to do. Was Amen called for?  

Answer: We commence the discussion according to the assumption of the person who lit that a beracha was not called for in that situation and deal with Hilchot Berachot elements.  

It is a great mitzva and an obligation to respond Amen to a correctly made beracha (Berachot 53b), even for one who is not “using” the beracha for himself (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 215:2). The basic meaning of Amen is that one agrees with the beracha’s content (i.e., the specific praise of Hashem).

When the beracha is improper, it is forbidden to answer Amen (ibid. 4). This can be because it is wrong to agree with something that was forbidden to say in that context. The Mishna Berura (215:21, based on Gra to OC 215:2) regarding a beracha that a child recites, not when it is called for but just as practice, says Amen is forbidden, because it relates to an invalid beracha, even though the child is allowed to practice (Shulchan Aruch ibid. 3). Some say that while there is no reason to respond Amen to a child’s practice beracha, it is not forbidden (Even Haezel, Berachot 1:15, based on the Rambam ad loc.).

What about Amen for non-berachot? The Magen Avraham (215:3; this opinion is widely accepted) cites a midrash that one should answer Amen to someone who prays for something or blesses his friend, even if he does not use Hashem’s Name. In this case, the meaning is slightly different – one joins the wish/prayer.

A less clear permutation is when one praises Hashem (like a classic beracha) but without invoking one of Hashem’s official Names. The Sha’arei Ephrayim (4:25, 33) provides a rule on this matter. When one makes a beracha with Hashem’s Name, people should answer Amen; if in the same situation the practice is to do it without Names (e.g., Baruch Shepetarani), people should not answer Amen. Some ask from the gemara (Berachot 45b) that prescribes, in one case, answering Amen to zimun, apparently even one without Hashem’s Name. B’tzel Hachochma (V:90) says that if a beracha was instituted in the classic way, with Hashem’s Name, if, for whatever reason, it was done without a Name, one should not answer Amen. (He reasons that it is not actually forbidden to say Amen in such a case (ibid. 89).) However, if it was instituted without His Name, then one does answer Amen. Some examples are a Mi Sheberach and Oseh Shalom … (at the end of Kaddish).

In our case, based on what we have seen, there are a couple of reasons not to respond Amen. The berachot are to praise Hashem (as opposed to the Magen Avraham’s prayer for a person), so that when they are not effective berachot but voluntary, “innocuously fake” berachot, one would not answer Amen. Additionally, they were instituted to have Hashem’s Name, and are being done without it.

If there was no kiruv/educational purpose in doing the lighting with Name-less berachot, but it just added a “nice touch,” it was probably halachically silly (although harmless) to do the berachot. If the setting gave importance to doing a ceremonious lighting, (e.g., a kiruv opportunity), for some, this justifies a real beracha (see Living the Halachic Process, VII, D-8). If one did not want to rely on that, one could see positive purpose in the fake berachot. It, then, has similarities to the halachically meaningless but still positive case of a child making a beracha as practice, in which case, the Amen is not called for and is likely forbidden (see above). Since saying the word Amen is not problematic in a totally pareve context (Notrei Amen 2:19; when many of us practiced for our bar mitzva, we started every aliya with Amen) and especially if the ceremonious Amen adds to the spirit that bolsters the educational purposes, it can be justified. If it is deemed worthwhile, one should have in mind that it is not a real beracha-type Amen (see B’tzel Hachochma ibid.).   

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend