Safek Brakha Daoraita

In most cases of Safek D'Oraita, we pasken lhumra. However, in a safek regarding whether a Daoraita Brakha should be said, there is an additional factor, the fear of making a brakha lvatala. This makes it more difficult to be makhmir and say the brakha. Nonetheless, we pasken to say such a brakha.

Original Mekorot

1. Brakhot 21a - If someone is not sure whether he has said Emet Vayetziv during Maariv (which is a mitzvah daoraita), he should say it again.

Presumably, he should say the entire paragraph, including the concluding brakha.

Interpretation of Brakhot 21a

Ritva notes that even the concluding brakha must be said.

Tosfot Rosh Hashana 33 agrees. He uses this mekor as proof that the issur of taking God's name in vain is not violated when saying a brakha lvatala. It is only violated if said in a context that is not full of praise.

Rambam agrees and rules that in case of safek, a brakha daoraita should be repeated. As discussed below, this is a difficult position for Rambam.

Ritva offers a Yeish Omrim which holds that the text of Emet Veyatziv need not be repeated. Rather, general words of zekhirat yetziat mitzrayim must be mentioned. This opinion may feel that it is not appropriate to say the actual text of the brakha in a safek situation. Alternatively, he may merely hold that the particular text of Emet Veyatziv is not the focus of the Mitzvah Daoraita and that any general words can be subsituted.

Rambam's Position

As mentioned above, Rambam agrees that a safek brakha daoraita should indeed be recited. However, in contrast Tosfot, Rambam holds that it is an issur daoraita to make a brakha lvatala. (Saying God's name in vain outside context of a brakha is, according to Rambam, only an issur drabbanan.) As such, it is difficult to understand Rambam's ruling: doesn't repeating the brakha create a safek issur daoraita?

Hayyei Adam explains as follows: according to Rambam, God's name is taken in vein only if said in context of a brakha and said bderekh zilzul (derisively). When repeating a brakha out of safek, it is not said bderekh zilzul, but bderekh shevakh (with praise). Hayyei Adam brings a proof to his thesis from the existence of Drabbanan brakhot, which according to Rambam, should be an example of taking God's name in vain! Rather, since they are said bderekh shevakh, no such concern remains.

Rabbi Sobolofksy offered a different, inventive solution. According to the Rambam, the very notion of safek daoraita lhumra is only a din drabbanan, meaning that in a case of safek taking God's name in vain, going ahead and saying God's name is at most an issur drabbanan. On the other hand, Rambam could maintain that safek daoraita lhumra is a daoraita rule when applied to mitzvot aseh. The concept is discussed in Netivot YD 110. If so, the Rambam would be left with a daoraita obligation to say a new brakha competing with a drabbanan ruling to not say it, allowing him to pasken that a brakha should in fact be repeated.