The text of the blessing of HaGomel (according to halacha) is "Blessed is He... Who bestows good upon the guilty, Who has bestowed goodness upon me," while the text of the blessing for a miracle (performed for an individual) is "Blessed is He... Who performed a miracle for me in this place." The Previous Rebbe, of blessed memory, analyzes this in his discourse delivered on Shabbat (16th of Tammuz, 5687) following his release from imprisonment in that country. He writes:
We need to understand why the wording of this blessing differs from the blessing for miracles. In the blessing for a miracle, one says "Blessed is He Who performed a miracle for me," without mentioning any obligation upon oneself. This implies that one does not find any fault in oneself that would have placed them in danger, G‑d forbid, and acknowledges that it was only due to G‑d's kindness that a miracle was performed for them. In contrast, in this blessing, one says "Who bestows good upon the guilty," acknowledging a fault in oneself and admitting that they were deserving of the danger, G‑d forbid, but it is due to G‑d's kindness and ways that He bestows good even upon the guilty. This is the end of the quote.
In the continuation of the discourse, the answer to this question ("why the wording of this blessing differs from the blessing for miracles") is not explicitly stated. Only after explaining the concept of "four who need to give thanks" in the service of man, which are four types of obstacles and hindrances in the service of G‑d (through which a state of spiritual danger is created for a Jew), and that G‑d stands at the right of every person and gives them the strength to overcome these obstacles and hindrances, does the discourse conclude with a brief explanation of the content of saying "Who bestows good upon the guilty," as follows:
This is the wording of this blessing, "Who bestows good upon the guilty," for all Jews are obligated in the study of Torah and the fulfillment of mitzvos. If for some reason one does not fulfill this, they are at fault. All the obstacles and hindrances during the time of exile are merely tests. Therefore, in this blessing, one acknowledges a fault in oneself.
It seems appropriate to explain the answer to the above question, with a preface:
The Beis Yosef explains the wording of the blessing "Who bestows good upon the guilty" — "meaning even to those who are guilty, that is, they are wicked... nevertheless, He bestows good upon them, and I am like one of them, for even though I am not worthy, He has bestowed all good upon me."
The implication of his explanation is that the term "guilty" here is akin to "unworthy" of receiving G‑d's kindness. This means that the one who blesses acknowledges and praises G‑d for doing this kindness with them even though they are not worthy of it ("even though I am not worthy").
However, in the discourse of the Previous Rebbe mentioned above, it is explicitly stated that the mention of "obligation upon oneself" means "finding a fault in oneself for which they were placed in danger, G‑d forbid, and they themselves admit that they were deserving of the danger, G‑d forbid."
We can say that this difference regarding what the Beis Yosef writes affects the understanding of the answer to the question "why the wording of this blessing (the blessing of HaGomel) differs from the blessing for miracles":
If we say that the phrase "Who bestows good upon the guilty" is only to thank G‑d for the good done to them even though they are not worthy of it — it is puzzling why this wording was not also instituted in the blessing for miracles?
Seemingly, the opposite is true: the obligation of the blessing of HaGomel is not specifically for salvation that comes through a miracle. On the contrary, the four who need to give thanks are in situations where, according to nature, they could have emerged safely (therefore, they are not obligated in the blessing for a miracle unless they were saved by a special miracle, etc.), whereas the obligation of the blessing for a miracle is for a miracle that deviates from the natural order.
Therefore, if for natural salvation one must thank G‑d for bestowing this goodness upon them "even though I am not worthy" — how much more so and all the more so when thanking G‑d for altering the natural order, it would be necessary to emphasize in the thanksgiving that the miracle was performed for them "even though I am not worthy."
It seems there is room to differentiate between the blessing of HaGomel and the blessing for a miracle:
The blessing of HaGomel is among the blessings of thanksgiving, where one thanks and praises G‑d for the goodness that has come to them. Therefore, there is room to add "Who bestows good upon the guilty," since this highlights even more the kindness done to them (that despite being unworthy, this kindness was nevertheless done to them);
In contrast, the blessing for a miracle is one of the blessings of sight — where one blesses upon seeing the place where the miracle occurred, meaning the blessing is on the very act of the miracle being performed in that location (which demonstrates G‑d's greatness in His ability to override the natural order). Therefore, there is no place to add the detail of "Who bestows good upon the guilty," which pertains to the person who experienced the miracle, not to the act of the miracle itself.
However, aside from the fact that when a miracle occurs to someone unworthy, it can be considered a greater miracle, this distinction is not necessary. From the language of the blessing for a miracle (for an individual) "Blessed is He who performed a miracle for me in this place," it is evident that the gratitude and praise are (not only for the miracle itself, but) for the fact that he is the "owner of the miracle" [therefore, only "all the descendants of that person... they and their children for all generations are obligated to bless... as they are all partners in that miracle"].
It can be said that to resolve this question, the Previous Rebbe adds that the interpretation of "Who bestows good upon the guilty" is that "he acknowledges that he was liable for the danger, G‑d forbid" — this is relevant only in the blessing of HaGomel, which is thanksgiving for salvation, meaning, when there was previously a state of danger and then one was saved from it. Therefore, it is appropriate to say "Who bestows good upon the guilty," as "he acknowledges that he was liable for the danger, G‑d forbid" (meaning that through his fault, the situation arose that required salvation from Above).
In contrast, the blessing for a miracle is not specifically for a miracle that is salvation from a state of danger. Similar to "one who sees... the crossings of the Jordan" (the place where the Israelites crossed in the days of Joshua), this miracle (the splitting of the Jordan) was not a matter of salvation from danger but merely to ease their crossing of the Jordan. From this, it is understood that even when blessing for a miracle of salvation, the gratitude is not for the removal of a state of danger, but for the very kindness that G‑d performed a miracle for him.
Therefore, the concept of "Who bestows good upon the guilty" does not fit in the blessing for a miracle, since there is no necessity that the owner of the miracle was in an undesirable state (danger, etc.) "that he was liable for the danger, G‑d forbid" (and even if he was in such a state — the intention of this blessing is not to thank for the removal of that state, as mentioned above).
Similarly, this is the distinction between the blessing of HaGomel and the blessing for a miracle in their inner content:
The blessing of HaGomel — whose essence is thanksgiving for salvation from an undesirable state (danger, etc.) — pertains to the service of the soul in the body, which is a great descent (as explained at length in the discourse by the Previous Rebbe in connection with his redemption from imprisonment, where the natural cause for his imprisonment ("the matter of danger") was "the great work" he did in spreading Torah and strengthening religion, to the extent of actual mesiras nefesh, which is a state of ultimate merit and elevation — and how could it be said that he "was liable for the danger, G‑d forbid"?!
This can be understood based on what is explained in the letter of the Alter Rebbe (written "after his return from Petersburg") in the interpretation of the verse "I am unworthy of all the kindnesses," as follows:
With every kindness that G‑d does for a person, one must be exceedingly humble, for kindness... is a level of closeness to G‑d Himself... and the closer one is to G‑d with greater intensity... one must be more humble... the more one is before Him, the more one is as nothing and null... and this was also the attribute of Jacob... being exceedingly small in his own eyes due to the abundance of kindnesses... and he was not worthy or deserving at all to be saved, etc., as our Sages said, perhaps sin will cause, as it seemed to him that he sinned.
From the continuation of the language, it is understood that even the fact that Jacob "it seemed to him that he sinned" is a result of "the abundance of kindnesses." That is, the "closeness to G‑d" (through the abundance of kindnesses) caused Jacob not only to feel small and humble (to be exceedingly small in his own eyes) but also that "it seemed to him that he sinned."
It can be explained as follows:
Jacob's concern "perhaps sin will cause, as it seemed to him that he sinned" was not a false humility, G‑d forbid, where Jacob mistakenly thought he transgressed G‑d's will, but this concern was renewed by becoming "closer to G‑d with greater intensity."
In other words, before Jacob merited this "closeness to G‑d," his service was in complete perfection without any deficiency. It was only after he was elevated to be "closer to G‑d with greater intensity" that he considered his previous service as a sin (even though prior to this there was no deficiency in his service).
An example of this is what our Sages said, that one who "gestures with a fan before the king" is considered rebellious against the king, because when standing before the king, one must be in complete nullification, without any movement whatsoever. This is only when one is before the king. However, when not in the presence of the king, not only is it sufficient for one's nullification to the king to be on a lesser level (accepting upon oneself to fulfill the king's laws, etc.), but it is also the king's desire that the person not be in such complete nullification. For in such a state of nullification, one would not be capable of fulfilling the king's commands in the settlement of the country, etc.
Thus, when one is before the king, their regular service in the settlement of the country (even if it is in complete perfection) is considered "as a sin," because before the king, one has nothing but their nullification to the king.
[As explained in the books, this is also the reason for the difference between the weekdays, during which we are commanded "six days you shall labor and do all your work" (and our Sages said, "this is a positive commandment"), and the Sabbath, when work is forbidden:
On the Sabbath, His holiness shines in the world in a revealed manner, similar to standing before the king, and therefore work is forbidden. However, during the weekdays, when His holiness is concealed in the world, it is like the citizens of the country who are outside the king's palace — then the king's desire is that they engage in work, in the settlement of the world, etc.]
This is the explanation of why Jacob "it seemed to him that he sinned," because "due to the abundance of kindnesses" that elevated Jacob to be "closer to G‑d with greater intensity," his previous level, his smallness in his own eyes in the service of G‑d, was considered as a sin.
Similarly, we can explain the wording of the blessing "Who bestows good upon the guilty" regarding completely righteous individuals — that through the very act of bestowing kindness and goodness upon them, it causes them to feel themselves as "guilty," for in relation to their great closeness to G‑d (through this kindness), their previous state is considered as "guilty" (even though before this "closeness to G‑d," their service was in complete perfection), as mentioned above.
However, the matter is still not resolved, because the above explanation suffices only to explain how it is possible for a completely righteous person to truly consider themselves as "guilty." But in the discourse, it is explained (as mentioned above) "guilty" — that "he admits that he was guilty of being in a dangerous situation, G‑d forbid," and the question remains: It is true that in relation to his current state, his previous service is not in perfection, but how can it be said "that he was guilty (prior to this) of being in a dangerous situation, G‑d forbid"?
[And it is very forced to say that this explanation of "Who bestows good upon the guilty" applies only to those who are not righteous, for whom it is possible to say that they are guilty "of being in a dangerous situation."]
It can be explained as follows:
The fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, places the righteous in a state of danger, etc., is only to elevate them to a higher level. For it is specifically through the service in a state of "constriction" that one reaches the true "expansion" (from the constriction, etc., He answered me in expansion).
[As explained in the discourse regarding the descent of the soul below (that the acknowledgment of the blessing of "Who bestows good" in a person's service is for the exit from the spiritual danger of this descent) — that the purpose of this descent is for the sake of ascent, that through the soul's service in refining and purifying the physical body (and drawing holiness into physical matters), the soul is elevated to a higher level, even more so than it was before its descent into the body.]
This concept applies even to completely righteous individuals. The notion that serving G‑d in this world is a descent, because "even a completely righteous person who serves G‑d with awe and great love with delight cannot reach the level of attachment to G‑d... before his descent into this material world, not in any way, shape, or form, and there is no comparison between them at all." However, this descent is for the purpose of ascent, for through their service as souls within bodies specifically, they are elevated from one level to another.
Therefore, even a completely righteous person recites the blessing "Who bestows good upon the guilty," even though it is not applicable to say that he is "guilty" "of being in a dangerous situation, G‑d forbid." This is because his previous state, which is considered "guilty" in relation to the closeness to G‑d that he achieved through the bestowal of good, is what caused him to be placed in this constriction, so that he could reach this ascent (which comes through this constriction).
All these matters are clearly seen in the redemption of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe — that specifically after he endured the suffering of imprisonment, a new era began in his work of spreading Torah and strengthening religion in general. This work expanded — it went out into the open — and spread to all corners of the world.
It became apparent to all that the purpose of the imprisonment was for this ascent, to provide the opportunity for the expansion of work, to spread Torah and Judaism — including the dissemination of the wellsprings of the inner dimension of Torah — throughout all the expanses (in all corners) of the world.
"(From the talks of 12 Tammuz 5721, Parshas Balak 5737)"