Sounds and lights

The Mishnah (Berakhot 9:2) records that a person is to recite the blessing shekocho u-gevurato malei olam, "Blessed be He whose strength and might fill the world" when one sees comets, earthquakes, lighting, thunder and strong winds. A person is to recite the blessing oseh maaseh bereshit, "Blessed be He who does the works of creation" on seeing hills (mountains- Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 228:3), valleys, oceans, rivers and deserts. The distinction between the two groups is between dynamic and static. The first group refers to various acts of nature, which we associate with G-d's active role in the world, while the objects in the second group are landscapes that G-d created in the past.

The Talmud (Berakhot 59a) is bothered why the first category of acts of nature are not also considered as relating to G-d's creation of the world, and the Talmud quotes a verses from Tehillim 135:7, which refers to lighting and can be understood to also refer to creation of the world. To answer this question, Abaye states that really by both categories of nature one says both blessings, while Rava says that by the first category (lighting, thunder) one says both blessings while by the second category (hills, rivers) one can only say the blessing referring to creation and not the blessing referring to G-d's power filling the world.

We follow Rava, but within the Rishonim (the Middle Ages), the argument developed how to understand his statement that we say two blessings. Raavad (on Rambam, laws of Blessings 10:14) and maybe Rashi (see Bet Yosef, on Orah Chayyim 227) maintain that Rava means literally that we say both blessing. However, Tosfot (Berkhot, 59a, Rava), Rambam (laws of Blessings 10:14) and Tur (Orah Chayyim, 227) write that one has a choice, to recite either the blessing referring to G-d's power to creation. It seems difficult to argue that one should recite two blessings on the same event even though this accords better with Rava's statement.

How could the Raavad maintain that one should recite two blessings? I believe the answer is that the Raavad's opinion is based on his other opinion (pages of Rif Berakhot 44a, comments on the Baal ha-Maor, also quoted by Meiri, on Berakhot 54a, pp.202-205) that these blessings did not involve saying G-d's name. Thus, one would not be saying G-d's name in vain by reciting a separate blessing. On the other hand, Tosfot who says that one says either one of the blessings, maintains that the blessings are said with G-d's name, see Ha-roeh on Berakhot 54a. The Rambam, who says that a person chooses one of the blessings, also seems to maintain that the blessing does not involve G-d's name, but maybe he thinks it is sufficient to say one blessing.

The Tur differs from the Rambam on two points. One, he specifically writes that the blessing involves G-d's name, and two, he changes the order of the option. According to the Rambam, the first choice is the blessing of G-d's power but a person can say the blessing referring to creation. However, the Tur writes that the first choice is the blessing referring to creation, but a person can say the blessing on G-d's power.

The Shulchan Arukh (15th century, Orah Chayyim 227:1) follows the Tur word for word, and hence he rules that when a person sees lighting or hears thunder, he is to say the blessing of oseh maaseh bereshit on creation, but if one wants one can say the blessing, shekocho u-gevurato malei olam on G-d's power.

This would seem to be the end of the story, but there developed a new custom concerning these blessings. The Taz (17th century, 227:1) records that the custom in his times was to recite the blessing on creation, oseh maaseh bereshit, on lighting, while by thunder one say the blessing on G-d's power, shekocho u-gevurato malei olam. (Did this custom just develop in the 17th century?) He writes that he cannot understand this difference, but maybe people think that thunder shows G-d's power more than lighting. My guess is that once people had the option of choosing the blessing, then they wanted to choose one blessing for one act of nature and the second blessing for the second act of nature. This would allow them to recite both blessings, as we do not normally recite the blessing on the other natural events listed in the Mishnah. Of the two events, thunder and lighting, lighting was more associated with creation since when the Talmud quoted the argument to say both blessings, it referred specifically to lighting as referring to creation. Thus, maybe the custom developed to say the blessing oseh maaseh bereshit on lighting and then shekocho u-gevurato malei olam was left for thunder.

While the custom of having one blessing for thunder and one for lighting was not an outright contradiction to the Shulchan Arukh's ruling since he allowed everybody to choose, still according to the Shulchan Arukh a person can say either blessing on thunder or lighting. The Be'er Hetev (Yehuda Ashkenazi, 18th century, born in Germany, dayyan in Tiktin, Poland, 227:1) attempted to defend the new custom. He writes that one cannot say the blessing on G-d's power, shekocho u-gevurato malei olam, on lighting, and when the Shulchan Arukh's allows one to choose which blessing this is only by thunder. This is quite amazing, as noted by the Mishnah Brurah (Shaar Tzyion 227:7) since he contradicts the Mishnah and the Rambam. The Mishnah states that one only says the blessing on G-d's power on lighting, and the Rambam says that this is the blessing of first choice, while the Be'er Hetev says that one cannot say the blessing of G-d's power on lighting! We see the misunderstanding that developed over the years from the fact that the Talmud added one blessing. This led to the position that once can choose which blessing to say, and then there developed the idea that one can only say the blessing oseh maaseh bereshit by lighting, contradictory to the Mishnah.

This new custom of specifying which blessing for each event is not only confusing because people cannot remember which blessing to say on which event, but also it leads to unnecessary blessings. The Mishneh Brurah (late 19th century, 227:5) based on the Magen Avraham (17th century) rules that if one sees lighting and hears thunder at the same time, then one should recite one blessing, oseh maaseh bereshit, or if one wants, shekocho u-gevurato malei olam. If the lighting and thunder come separately, then one would say two blessings, though one can have in mind that the blessing on the lighting should be applicable to the thunder even if one did not hear the thunder right after the lighting. The Arukh Hashulchan (late 19th century, 227:2) writes that if one says two blessings when one sees the lighting and hears the thunder together, which is the usual case, then the second blessing is unnecessary, levatelah, and is the sin of saying G-d's name in vain.

To conclude, the law in the Mishnah is straight forward that one says the blessing on G-d's power, shekocho u-gevurato malei olam for both lighting and thunder. In the time of the Talmud and the Rishinom there developed the idea to say either shekocho u-gevurato malei olam or oseh maaseh bereshit on either thunder and lighting. Somehow there developed the custom of saying oseh maaseh bereshit on lighting and shekocho u-gevurato malei olam on thunder but this custom leads to confusion and unnecessary blessings.

It seems to me that if one sees lighting and thunder at the same time, he should say the blessing shekocho u-gevurato malei olam (following the Mishnah and the Rambam) with G-d's name (following the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh), and if he wants to say the second blessing of oseh maaseh bereshit, he should say it without G-d's name (following the Raavad).