Editing Berachos

Masechet Berachos is the first masechet of the Babylonian Talmud, and includes 9 chapters and 62.5 pages. The content of the masechet deals with the laws of Kriat Shema, laws of prayer, and laws of blessings of enjoyment and praise. The Chiddushim (novellae) of the Admor the Tzemach Tzedek on this masechet focus on the laws mentioned in the first, third and sixth chapters.

== Explanations of the Rebbe ==

==== "We only call the Matriarchs to four" ====
Chazal said that "We only call the Patriarchs to three, and we only call the Matriarchs to four."

The Rebbe asks: Regarding the "Patriarchs" - it's understood that "we only call Patriarchs to three," Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, since every single Jew is a son of the three Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But regarding the "Matriarchs" - how can we say that every single Jew is a child of the four Matriarchs, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah? Seemingly, if one is from the tribe of Joseph, he is not a son of Leah (but a son of Rachel), and if he is from the tribe of Judah, he is not a son of Rachel (but a son of Leah)?

The Rebbe explains that all 12 tribes are divided into two general categories - the children of Rachel and the children of Leah, which also include the children of Zilpah and Bilhah. As the verse states: "Like Rachel and Leah who both built the house of Israel." Based on this, every Jew has three Matriarchs just as he has three Patriarchs, and they are Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel, or Sarah, Rebecca and Leah.

This question is also asked in the Gemara in Berachot: "Regarding the Matriarchs as well, we don't know if we come from Rachel or if we come from Leah." And it concludes: "Rather, up to this point they are important, beyond that they are not important." But it is explained explicitly in Chassidic teachings that in every Jew there are aspects of all three Patriarchs and all the Matriarchs, meaning that even in the children of Leah there is an aspect of Rachel, and even in the children of Rachel there is an aspect of Leah.

=== "A person should not depart from his friend except with a matter of halacha" ===
In the fifth chapter, it states that a person should not depart from his friend except with a matter of halacha that does not involve Torah debate. The reason for this is because through debate in Torah study, there is a heating of the blood, as the Gemara states, "It is the Torah that heats him up." Although the warmth comes as a result of Torah study, since it comes as a result of the person's debate and his own reasoning, the dialogue can lead to personal statements unrelated to the topic being discussed and to personal rivalry, since the Torah is clothed in intellect and the animal soul. Therefore, the greater the reasoning coming from the animal soul, the greater the sense of self. Despite dealing with Divine intellect, it can lead to a situation of the greatest separation and division from the path of the King, King of the world. Obviously, if one departs from his friend in such a state, it can lead to division, for pride is the source of all bad traits in the world.

The same applies when discussing "a person departing from his friend" regarding the Supernal Man. When a person studies, as is known, he needs to begin his studies with an attitude of self-nullification and learning for its own sake, and afterwards he needs to depart and go to study with understanding and comprehension. Then he should not depart completely to study his own reasoning, but should strive to know the truth and the decided halacha. In such a situation, when he is concerned that the decided halacha might not align with the Supernal Will, he has a special submission and desire to reach the decided halacha, and therefore his manner of study is different, and he will not refrain from acknowledging the truth and saying "I was mistaken."

This matter is not brought in the Shulchan Aruch, like many things that, since they were not rooted in the general Jewish community, are not brought as halacha in the Shulchan Aruch.

=== Explanations on the Tenth Chapter ===
The Rebbe investigates, regarding Lot's wife who was turned into a pillar of salt, whether this was a continuous miracle, in a way that Lot's body essentially remained in its previous essence but a miracle continuously transforms it into a pillar of salt, or perhaps it was a one-time miracle that transformed her body into a pillar of salt, and from then on, no further miracle is needed for it to be a pillar of salt, because it was transformed from its essence to a new essence of salt.

It is clear that this depends on which of them is a greater miracle; is a continuous miracle, which is smaller in quality but larger in quantity, a greater miracle? That is, the continuous transformation of her body into a pillar of salt is a greater miracle in quantity, since it is continuous, although in quality the miracle is smaller, since the miracle did not transform her body into a different essence of salt, rather the body remained in its essence, and there is something temporary turning it into salt. On the other hand, if the miracle was a one-time miracle that transformed the essence of her body into absolute salt, then in quality the miracle is greater, since the flesh was transformed into absolute salt, although in quantity the miracle is smaller, since it is a one-time miracle.

The Rebbe ties this to a dispute discussed in Masechet Shabbat, regarding a person who needs to carry jugs of wine to make room for guests, whether it is better to carry a large quantity at once, which makes the effort greater in quality, or perhaps it is better to carry smaller quantities multiple times, which makes the effort smaller in quality, although greater in quantity. Thus, the same dispute, whether to consider quality or quantity, will decide the matter in our case.

The Rebbe explains that this is a significant distinction with practical halachic implications; for if her body remained in its essence and a miracle transforms it into a reality of salt, then it would impart the impurity of a corpse, but if her body was completely transformed into a new reality of salt, it certainly would not impart the impurity of a corpse.

==== Additional Explanations ====

* '''Introduction.''' The name of the tractate. Hitva'aduyot 5745 Part 2, p. 835, (151)
* The connection between the beginning of the tractate, which deals with accepting the yoke of Heaven and even self-sacrifice, to its end, which discusses matters relating to the soul's departure from the body. Hitva'aduyot 5751 Part 3, p. 452 (436)
* '''2a.''' From when do we recite the Shema in the evening. Sichot Kodesh 5738 Part 1, p. 41 (p. 295)
* '''2a.''' It is derived from the creation of the world, as it is written "And there was evening and there was morning, one day."
* '''4a.''' But sin caused it. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 34, p. 118 (p. 130)
* '''6b.''' He merits the Torah that was given with five voices. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 6, Shemot p. 107 (p. 118)
* '''13b.''' He does not go back to complete it. Dispute among the Rishonim whether only the first verse is biblical or more than that. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 33, p. 153 (p. 156)
* '''19b.''' All rabbinic matters are supported by the prohibition of "do not deviate." Likkutei Sichot Vol. 29, p. 105 (p. 120)
* '''22a.''' Just as there [at Sinai] it was with awe, fear, trembling, and quaking. Sha'arei HaMoadim Shavuot, p. 169 (p. 158)
* '''24b.''' One who goes up from Babylon to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive commandment. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 18, p. 399 (p. 408)
* '''26a.''' The morning prayer until midday. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 35, p. 125 (p. 139)
* '''26b.''' Prayers were established corresponding to the daily offerings.
* '''26b.''' Prayers were established corresponding to the daily offerings. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 23, p. 23 (p. 38)
* '''27a.''' Since we learned in a preferred mishnah according to his opinion. Sichot Kodesh 5740 Part 1, p. 17 (p. 60)
* '''28a.''' Any student whose inside is not like his outside should not enter the beit midrash. Likkutei Sichot p. 96 (p. 112)
* '''30b.''' With a sense of gravity. From where do we derive this? Explanation of the dispute. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 34, p. 67 (p. 79)
* '''35a.''' It is forbidden for a person to benefit, etc. Likkutei Sichot p. 107 (p. 119)
* '''51a.''' Dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding the text of the blessing "Who creates the lights of fire." Sichot Kodesh 5731 Part 2.
* '''53b.''' Grab and bless. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 18, p. 69 (p. 73)
* '''58a.''' Babylon was cursed, its neighbors were cursed. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 33, p. 11 (p. 23)
* '''60a.''' [Praying] that one's wife will give birth to a male is a vain prayer. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 24, p. 33 (p. 49)

==== Jerusalem Talmud ====
Jerusalem Talmud beginning of Chapter 5. One who learns from a book does not quickly forget. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 24, p. 33 (p. 49) Jerusalem Talmud Chapter 9, Halacha 3. Likkutei Sichot Vol. 24, p. 33 (p. 49)

==== Conclusion of the Tractate ====

* '''64a.''' Conclusion on tractates Berachot, Nazir, Yevamot, Keritot. Sefer HaSichot 5751 - 2, p. 835
* '''64a.''' One who leaves the synagogue... Torah scholars have no rest... Torat Menachem Vol. 23, p. 248 (p. 218)
* '''Conclusion of Tractate Berachot''' The connection between the conclusion of this tractate, which is the beginning of the Oral Torah, to the conclusion of the Oral Torah, both in the Mishnah and in the Gemara. Hitva'aduyot 5746 Part 4, page 243

==== Biurei Nesi'ei Chabad ====

* Admu"r Tzemach Tzedek, "Masechet Berachot," '''Tzemach Tzedek on the Shas''', Brooklyn, 5755 (1995), pages 1-38, on the HebrewBooks website
* Rabbi Avraham Chaim Zilber, '''Aliba DeRebbe - Masechet Berachot''', gift from the Berger-Zilber wedding celebration, Cheshvan 5783 (2022)