From the Rav’s Desk: The Absence of Explicit Kingship (“Malchut”) in the Blessings of Shemoneh Esrei: Explanations and Halachic Perspectives (Tuesday 3rd Teves)

Question:
I learned that a blessing (berachah) is not considered a valid blessing unless it contains both the Name of Hashem and malchut (kingship), such as the phrase “Hashem, King of the universe.” However, I noticed that in Shemoneh Esrei, none of the blessings explicitly include malchut. Each blessing begins with “Baruch Atah Hashem” and then proceeds to the conclusion without mentioning kingship. How, then, are these blessings considered valid?

Answer:
This question has been addressed by the early Rishonim as well as the later Poskim, including the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch. Several explanations have been offered:

1. The First Blessing as an Exception:
   • Since we say “Elokei Avraham,” this is considered equivalent to mentioning kingship, as Avraham Avinu proclaimed Hashem’s sovereignty over the world and made His kingship known. (Rosh)
   • Additionally, the blessing concludes with “Melech Ozer u’Moshia u’Magen,” which includes reference to kingship near its ending. (Hamanhig)
2. Context of Avraham Avinu (Kol Bo):

When Avraham first came into the world, Hashem’s kingship was not yet widely recognized; He was known only as “Elokei Avraham.” Therefore, the blessing reflects that historical reality and does not include explicit malchut.

1. Nature of Prayer vs. Blessings on Enjoyment or Mitzvot (Rokeiach):

Some authorities explain that malchut is required only in blessings of praise for enjoyment or mitzvot, where we acknowledge Hashem’s authority as the One who commands and creates. Shemoneh Esrei, however, is primarily a series of requests for personal needs. The first three blessings serve to establish praise before petitioning, but they were not instituted with explicit malchut for this reason.

1. Implied Kingship in Praise (Ravayah):

In blessings over creation or mitzvot, kingship is emphasized because they affirm Hashem’s control and decree over the world. In prayer, the structure itself—praise followed by supplication—implies His sovereignty, even without the explicit phrase “Melech HaOlam.”

Opinion of Admur:

The Alter Rebbe, in his Shulchan Aruch HaRav, records only the third explanation, of the Rokeaich—that the requirement to mention kingship (malchut) applies specifically to blessings of praise over enjoyment or mitzvot, where we acknowledge Hashem’s authority as the One who commands and creates. In contrast, Shemoneh Esrei is primarily a prayer of supplication, and therefore does not require explicit mention of kingship in its blessings.

Further Analysis:

It requires additional consideration why many of the Rishonim and Poskim addressed only the first blessing of Shemoneh Esrei regarding the absence of malchut, and not the subsequent blessings—since, in fact, none of the blessings contain explicit kingship. Some authorities explain that once a valid reason is established for omitting malchut in the first blessing, this rationale extends to all the blessings of Shemoneh Esrei, as they follow the same structural premise and purpose as the opening blessing.

Sources:

See regarding the requirement for Sheim Umalchus: Admur 214:1-2; Michaber 214:1; Rebbe Yochanon Brachos 40b; Tosafus ibid; Shibulei Haleket 165; Piskei Rid Brachos 6:3-4; Shiltei Giborim 28b; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 4 Erech Brachos pp. 292-294

See regarding the exception of Shemoneh Esrei and the reason why it is excluded from this rule: Admur 214:1; Taz 214:1; Beis Yosef 214; Levush 214; Rokeiach 363; Haeshkol; Meiri (3^rd reason) Rashi ibid on Brachos 21a; For the other reasons, see: Taz ibid; Beis Yosef ibid; Rosh Brachos 6:23; Tosafus Brachos 40b; Tur 113; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 4 Erech Brachos pp. 293

See regarding that the exception for the first Bracha of Shemoneh Esrei follows for all its blessings: Taz  ibid;