[Avodah] Blessed be a true judge

[Jay F. Shachter]

>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 20:54:36 -0500
> Subject: [Avodah] Baruch Dayan Emes?
> 
> Sometimes, I hear people say "Baruch Dayan Emes", and sometimes I hear
> "Baruch Dayan HAemes" (with the Heh prefix). A quick look in any siddur
> shows that the Heh is supposed to be included, and I have wondered whether
> those who omit the Heh are simply slurring it. But the recent rise of
> abbreviations in text messages, where this appears as "BDE", suggest that
> the Heh is missing deliberately, and I have wondered if dropping the Heh
> might be justified.
> 
> Today's Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi includes halacha 59:6, where the KSA
> paskens that in certain cases, where the loss is felt strongly, one should
> say, "Baruch Atah Hashem E-okeinu Melech Haolam Dayan Ha'emes", but in
> other cases, where one is not so upset, he skips Shem U'Malchus, and says
> merely "Baruch Dayan Emes," with*out* the Heh.
> 
> I understand that one should invoke Hashem's Name only in serious cases,
> but is that the significance of the Heh prefix? Why drop the Heh if the
> loss is not so acute?
> 
> I thought this might be a typo of some sort. But three different publishers
> (ArtScroll, Feldheim [Sh'arim Metzyanim B'halacha], Shabsi Frankel) all
> printed it as I translated - include the Heh in the long one, omit it in
> the short. OTOH, two others (Metzudah and Sefaria) include the Heh in both.
> 
> Can anyone suggest other poskim who have weighed in on this? (Mishna Brura
> 223:8 does mention the idea of saying this bracha without Shem U'Malchus,
> but he does not give the full text like the KSA does.)
> 
> I just now saw the Ateres Zekeinim on O"C 223, who says that for close
> relatives one says the bracha with Shem U'Malchus but *without* the Heh,
> and to say the bracha for others without Shem U'Malchus and also without
> the Heh. That would make sense *IF* the bracha means the same thing with or
> without the Heh. But I have 3 publishers who say that the KSA felt that
> there *is* a difference between saying the Heh and omitting it.
> 

Hebrew sometimes likes to use nouns in places where English uses
adjectives.  For example, "shabbath haqqodesh", literally means "the
Sabbath of holiness".  A person who thinks in English would likely
want to say "hashabbath haqqdoshah", the holy Sabbath, because in
English the adjective is more idiomatic.  Similarly, in Hebrew you say
"lshon hara`", whereas someone who thinks in English would likely want
to say "hallashon hara`ah".

(One consequence of this Hebrew idiom, probably not intended by the
speakers of the language, but unquestionably intended by the Creator,
is that it tells you who the ignoramuses are.  If you hear a rabbi say
"lashon hara`" or "loshon hara`" with a qamatz instead of a schwa, you
know that he is an ignoramus, and it is forbidden to learn Torah from
that rabbi, because he will get it wrong.)

"Dayan ha-emeth", translated into idiomatic English, replacing the
noun with an adjective because that's how we say it in English, means
"the true Judge".  "Dayan emeth", in contrast, means "a true judge".
I really don't think that "blessed be a true judge" is what you want
to go around saying when you hear sad news.  You probably want to say
"blessed be the true Judge" when you hear sad news (and you're
supposed to say it when you hear any sufficiently sad news, I don't
get it that some people say it only when they hear about a death).

It is true that the definite article in Hebrew is sometimes used in
places where English would not use it.  The familiar phrase "vraxatz
bammayim", for example, should arguably be translated "he will wash in
water" and not "he will wash in the water" (and certainly not "he will
wash in the waters").

But first of all, I'm not sure that this example is a good one.  Maybe
the definite article in "bammayim" is meant to denote a specific kind
of water, i.e., a miqveh or a ma`ayyan.  I notice that Scripture felt
no need to use the definite article in Leviticus 15:14 ("bmayim
xayyim") because there the kind of water is explicitly stated.

Second of all, and more to the point, even if the definite article in
Hebrew is sometimes used in places where English would not use it, the
reverse is never true.  If the definite article is absent in Hebrew,
it is never present in a correct English translation of the Hebrew.
"Dayan emeth" means "a true judge".  That's probably not what you want
to say.

As for why the Qitzur Shulxan `Arukh said what it said, if it even did
say what it said, because we have no idea what it said, I wouldn't
worry about it, if I were you.  The Qitzur Shulxan `Arukh often
reports what people do, even when it is obvious that the only reason
why people are doing it is that they are mindlessly repeating what
they have seen or heard other people do, without giving it any thought
(the Qitzur Shulxan `Arukh does do this less often than the `Arokh
HaSulxan, thank goodness).  Why do people say "Parashath Bammidbar"
(but they say "Parashath B'har")?  Obviously the only reason why
people say it is that they are mindlessly repeating what other people
say, without giving it any thought.  How it got started, I don't know,
and you don't know, but who cares?  It's dumb, and it's wrong.  It's
equally wrong to say "barukh dayyan emeth", unless you want to go
around saying "blessed be a true judge" when you hear sad news.

               Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
               6424 North Whipple Street
               Chicago IL  60645-4111
                       +1 773 7613784   landline (voice only)
                       +1 410 9964737   GoogleVoice (voice or text)
                       jay at m5.chicago.il.us
                       http://m5.chicago.il.us

               When Martin Buber was a schoolboy, it must have been
               no fun at all playing tag with him during recess.