The Power of Amen

This write up is an exploration of some potential halachic ramifications of Rambams distinction between silently listening to a bracha versus responding amen to one

Rambam (hilchos berachos 1:10-12, כ״י תימניים) writes as follows: 

(י) כָּל הַבְּרָכוֹת כֻּלָּן - אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבֵּרֵךְ וְיָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ, מֻתָּר לוֹ לְבָרֵךְ לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאוּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן כְּדֵי לְהוֹצִיאָן, חוּץ מִבִּרְכַּת הַהֲנָיָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מִצְוָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ לַאֲחֵרִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נֶהֱנָה עִמָּהֶן. אֲבָל בִּרְכַּת הֲנָיָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מִצְוָה, כְּגוֹן אֲכִילַת מַצָּה בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח וְקִדּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם - הֲרֵי זֶה מְבָרֵךְ לַאֲחֵרִים וְאוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה עִמָּהֶן.

(יא) כָּל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ בְּרָכָה מִן הַבְּרָכוֹת מִתְּחִלָּתָהּ וְעַד סוֹפָהּ, וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לָצֵאת בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ - יָצָא, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָנָה אָמֵן. וְכָל הָעוֹנֶה אָמֵן אַחַר הַמְּבָרֵךְ - הֲרֵי הוּא כַּמְּבָרֵךְ; וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמְּבָרֵךְ חַיָּב בְּאוֹתָהּ הַבְּרָכָה. הָיָה הַמְּבָרֵךְ חַיָּב מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וְהָעוֹנֶה חַיָּב מִן הַתּוֹרָה - לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲנֶה אָמֵן* אוֹ יִשְׁמַע מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בָּהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹתוֹ.

(יב) רַבִּים שֶׁנִּתְוַעֲדוּ לֶאֱכֹל פַּת אוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן, וּבֵרֵךְ אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְעָנוּ כֻּלָּן אָמֵן - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת.

*the oxford manuscript does not have amen here

It seems reasonable to understand the flow of these halachos in the following manner: in h. 10 Rambam tells us that one needs to be obligated in the beracha to be able to help someone else fulfill their requirement (even though he personally said the beracha already as part of his own mitzvah performance). 

In h. 11 we are told of two modes in going about this: 1) listening (to the entire beracha with intentionality) 2) via answering amen (it isnt clear if this allows one to dispense of the afore-parenthesized criteria), with only the latter deemed to have recited it oneself. 

Rambam then adds a qualification, namely, that the one saying the beracha needs to be obligated to say it. 

He then states that if the one saying it has a rabbinic level obligation vs the one listening who is obligated biblically it doesnt work unless the other person responds (with amen, particularly if one goes with the above cited manuscript, see the end of h. 15 that lends support to this as well; I am not reading it in its other connotation of repeating word for word)

In other words, the baseline is that the one saying it need be required on some level, if only rabbinically, in the blessing. Once that is in place, with the other person only obligated biblically, then it depends: if one only listens, then one does not fulfill the obligation, however, if one responds with amen, which is akin to saying it oneself, then one does fulfill the obligation.

Finally, in h. 12, Rambam writes, h. 10 notwithstanding, that when one joins others for bread/wine, and all intend to partake together, then one person can make the blessing for all, with the caveat that the others respond with amen. 

That's to say, that although one isnt ever considered obligated in a beracha on pleasure (as one always has the option not to partake, matzah & kiddush aside), and therefore typically cannot say it for someone else, however, even in the unique case that one can, namely, when folks partake together, it still doesnt work unless the others sync in to the blessing with their own amen response, simply listening doesnt do the trick in this case.

Perhaps, per the above, Rambam understands שומע כעונה not in the typical sense that one is deemed to have repeated everything verbatim, as that is exclusive to answering amen, rather, the connotation being, that a שומע is (כ-almost) comparable with the עונה ie one that answers amen, who in turn is considered almost on par with the fellow that actually verbalizes the beracha (כמברך).

To sum up, answering amen provides halachic advantages that are able to surmount specific obstacles that are unavailable to the silent participant.

(Theres a problem with the foregoing girsa and explication of h. 11. Rambam seems to explicitly preclude such a girsa/interpretation when he writes [later on in hilchos berachos, 5:16]: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָכְלוּ וְלֹא שָׂבְעוּ, שֶׁהֵן חַיָּבִין לְבָרֵךְ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, וּלְפִיכָךְ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן קָטָן אוֹ עֶבֶד אוֹ אִשָּׁה מִידֵי חוֹבָתָן. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל וְשָׂבַע, שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בְּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן מִן הַתּוֹרָה - אֵין אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן אוֹ עֶבֶד מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ; שֶׁכָּל הַחַיָּב בְּדָבָר מִן הַתּוֹרָה - אֵין מוֹצִיא אוֹתוֹ מִידֵי חוֹבָתוֹ אֶלָּא הַחַיָּב בְּאוֹתוֹ הַדָּבָר מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, seemingly not providing for even amen to do the trick. Perhaps, in ch. 1, where the context is berachos that come prior to whatnot, which are all rabbinic in nature, he is referring to differing levels of the underlying mitzvah obligation, which in turn triggers the beracha requirement. וצ"ע)