ASK THE RABBI

The gemara (Berachot 54b, based on Tehillim 107) lists one who recuperates from illness as one of four types of people who must thank Hashem. The manner in which he does this is by reciting Birkat Hagomel before ten people.

Regarding the illness’ extent, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 219:8) says it applies to any reasonable illness, whereas the Rama (ad loc.) says it is only for illnesses where there appears to be real danger (parallel to the parameters for violating Shabbat to treat). Some Ashkenazi poskim accept the former approach, at least when the illness confines one to bed for three days (see Mishna Berura 219:28).

One might suggest that your question depends on these two opinions. Do you need a true life-threatening situation or only one which warrants thanking Hashem when He brings a recovery? However, the sources indicate that even the expansive opinion requires some threat to life, just that it reasons that any significant illness could become life-threatening. If it becomes evident that there was nothing remotely dangerous, no one would require Hagomel. (If one was confined to bed for three days, Sephardim would require a beracha, presumably even if doctors say there was no danger at all- see Yalkut Yosef, OC 219: 22, 27).

This being said, there is great logic to distinguish between the formal beracha of Hagomel, which must meet certain parameters, and the more general inyan (positive element) of making a seudat hoda’ah. The Shulchan Aruch does not mention anywhere a requirement to make such a seuda. Yet, we know that such a practice exists, although apparently on a voluntary basis (as opposed to Hagomel). Some cite the following gemara (Berachot 46a) as evidence. Rav Avahu, upon visiting Rav Zeira when he was sick, stated that if the latter would recover, he would make a feast for the rabbis. Some cite this source as not only a worthwhile thing to do afterward but as a segula (a spiritual facilitator) to help bring about the recovery (see Imrei Shamai, p. 85 in the name of the Ba’al Shem Tov’s disciples). If one, under these circumstances, felt the need to promise such a party, it does not seem right to claim afterward that the self-obligation was not binding because it was based on misinformation.

Even if one did not accept such an obligation prior to recovery, a seudat hoda’ah would still seem appropriate. Even if it turns out that there was no serious illness from which recovery was necessary, there still was good news that a perceived problem disappeared. We shall illustrate with Talmudic precedent. The gemara (Bava Kama 87a) tells of Rav Yosef (who was blind) who said that he would make a feast for the rabbis if he found out that the opinion that a blind man is exempt from mitzvot is incorrect because one who is obligated in mitzvot receives more reward. Here, nothing changed but a happy realization, and yet a celebration was appropriate. Another such source is the historical background behind an early-winter pagan holiday. The gemara (Avoda Zara 8a) says that one was instituted properly by Adam who feared that daylight was disappearing due to his sin until the solstice passed and he saw that the days were naturally getting longer. Despite Adam’s mistake, the celebration was appropriate (until it turned pagan).

The logic behind such thanks appears to be as follows. We are always in danger (see text of Asher Yatzar), just that it is natural not to feel it. However, when we understandably come face to face with the prospect of our mortality, it is a good time to thank Hashem for our continued existence. So, if one wants to make a seudat hoda’ah upon receiving, for example, a negative biopsy result on a suspected malignant growth, he should be encouraged.

One of the korbanot the Torah describes is a Korban Todah (sacrifice of thanksgiving) (Vayikra 7:12). However, the Torah does not say when one offers it. The gemara (Berachot 54b), in the context of Birkat Hagomel (blessing after surviving dangerous situations), says that the “survivors” of four situations have to give thanks: a voyage at sea, traversal of the desert, illness, and captivity. The gemara demonstrates how each of these situations is described in Tehillim 107, the mizmor that deals with thanks after being saved from difficult situations. Even at the time of the Beit Hamikdash, it appears that people such as these were not obligated to bring a Korban Todah. Rather those are among the appropriate situations to volunteer one (see Rashi, Vayikra 7:12 and a thorough presentation in Nishmat Avraham, Orach Chayim 219:1).

Eating is a major element of the Korban Todah. This korban included 40 loaves of meal-offering, 36 of which were to be eaten. The Abarbanel and the Netziv (both on Vayikra 7) famously explain that the Torah required a lot of eating in a short amount of time to encourage the thankful person to bring together many people where he would hopefully give proper public thanks to Hashem.

What do we do without a Beit Hamikdash to bring a Korban Todah? The Rosh (Berachot 9:3) and the Tur (OC 219) say that Birkat Hagomel was instituted in place of the Korban Todah. While the simple reading is that Hagomel is an obligatory beracha, the Magen Avraham (beginning of 219; Pri Megadim, ad loc. disagrees) suggests that it might be optional. In any case, it provides a defined opportunity to thank Hashem publicly (it must be recited before a minyan, preferably including two distinguished people- Shulchan Aruch, OC 219:3).

Whether or not the Korban Todah or Birkat Hagomel is obligatory, a seudat hodaya for being saved from dangerous illness is certainly not obligatory. This may explain its absence from explicit discussion in most classical works (including the Shulchan Aruch). However, significant sources provide precedent and support for the idea of doing something more than saying Hagomel, including a seuda. The Mishna Berura (218:32, in the name of “Acharonim”) says that one who was saved from possible death (apparently even if the salvation was natural) should do the following. He should set aside money for tzedaka and say that he wants it to be considered as if he spent the money on a Korban Todah, donate things that help the public, and on every anniversary find a special setting to thank Hashem, be happy, and tell His praises. Certainly, a seudat hodaya is an appropriate setting for it, but it is not part of a set formula.

The gemara (Berachot 46a) tells that when Rabbi Zeira was sick, Rabbi Avahu promised that if he recovered, Rabbi Avahu would make a festive meal for the rabbis, which, baruch Hashem, occurred. Some say that not just the meal but the promise to make it is significant, as the promise of such an event if the sick person recovers is a segula (good omen) for the recovery (see Gilyonei Ephrayim, ad loc.). This would evidently only work if the seuda of that nature is desirable. The Chavot Yair (70; see also Pri Megadim, Mishbetzot Zahav 444:9) in discussing different meals that are a seudat mitzva, mentions the seuda after being saved from danger. While some seudot mitzva are obligatory, many are not but are positive ways to give prominence to noteworthy events.

We will end off on a hashkafic note. Rav S.Z. Auerbach explained (see Mizmor L’todah (Travis) p. 185) that by eating in the context of thanksgiving to Hashem one expresses the following idea. A person should know and show that the goal of life and the physical world that he is enjoying after his recovery is to serve as a medium through which to further his spiritual life and give thanks to Hashem.

I imagine you are referring primarily to the colloquial usage of Kiddush – a celebration involving food and hopefully divrei Torah – a borrowed term from the eating after the tefilla of Shabbat morning , which starts with Kiddush. We will see there may also be some significance to that setting.

It is generally a mitzva to thank Hashem for joyous and/or miraculous events that occur to us. One of the applications of this concept is Birkat Hagomel, which we make after being saved from danger. (See specific rules in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 219). While a meal is not required, sources indicate that it is a nice idea (see Berachot 46a), which parallels the Korban Todah in the time of the Beit Hamikdash.

It is unclear if there is an expectation that there be a celebratory meal for the birth of a child. When a boy is born, there is a seuda at the time of the brit and the pidyon haben (where applicable), but those are related to specific mitzvot, not the birth per se. The gemara (Bava Kama 80a) mentions two celebrations after the birth of a boy, shevua haben and yeshua haben, and there are different opinions as to whether one of them is what we call a shalom zachar.

There are also different opinions as to the nature of a shalom zachar. In brief, there are three basic approaches: it is a celebration of the safe extrication of the child from his mother’s womb to birth; we console the baby for loss of the Torah learned during gestation; it is related to the upcoming brit. The Dagul Meirevava (Yoreh Deah 178) says that it must be related to the brit mila because if it were related to birth, we would have it for the birth of girls. He, therefore, says it should be done the night before the brit. This is indeed what Sephardim do (Brit Yitzchak) and many Ashkenazim do special things on that night (in Yiddish, vach nacht). If so, there may not be a clear source for a birth celebration. There is an ancient Sephardi minhag of a zeved habat, which some have on the sixth night from the birth of a girl (Rav Pe’alim, Even Haezer I:12).

For Ashkenazim, there is no set time or formula for the celebration of a girl’s birth, and the consensus is that one is not obligated to have one. In some circles, people try to have one on the day of her naming (an event to which some attribute tremendous meaning – see Ta’amei Haminhagim 929). In turn some do the naming specifically on Shabbat, when many people will be present. (The presence of many people is generally desirable for meals of thanksgiving). Combining these elements, there may be special significance of having a celebration after Shabbat morning tefilla. There is also a baraita (Avel Rabbati of Massechet Semachot 2:3), which refers to a shevua habat (of a girl) in the context of shevua haben (see above). Perhaps that too has to do with Shabbat (based on one meaning of shevua).

The simple approach, though, is that while there is no specific obligation, timing, or setting, it is just good old logic to thank Hashem for such a monumentally joyous occasion (see Teshvot V’hanhagot I:609). There is also a classical source. The gemara (Bava Batra 91) talks about Boaz making 120 celebrations in honor of his sixty boys and girls, and Rabbeinu Gershom (ad loc.) says that 30 of those were after the births of 30 girls. Some also stress the importance of the berachot people make for baby and parents at the celebration (see ibid. II:132), and there are differing “legends” as to how important this is.

In summary, there is abundant general basis for a “kiddush” in honor of the birth of a girl and some sources for an established practice on the matter. It is our opinion that it should not become a necessary burden on the head of new parents, to be done at a specific time. It certainly should not have to include a high level of expense or toil, which may cause them difficulty at an often stressful time. Hopefully, the parents will find a good time to share their joy.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 219:5) says regarding the timing of Birkat Hagomel: “If one delayed, he has as long as he wants, and it is correct not to delay three days.” Does the Shulchan Aruch really leave this totally open-ended? Considering that three days is not proper, maybe he did not extend it by months. The three day period comes from the opinions cited in the Beit Yosef (OC 219) that after three days, it is too late to make the beracha. Similarly, others give a five day deadline (the Aruch Hashulchan (OC 219:7) cites it as a minority opinion). It is clear from the Shita Mekubetzet and Ra’ah (Berachot 54b) that it can be recited more than a month after the obligation began, but how long?

For a long time, the prevalent minhag was that women did not recite Birkat Hagomel at all; nowadays it has become prevalent after birth, but it is rare for women to say Hagomel for other things, certainly not for a trip for which her husband recites it. The Magen Avraham (beginning of OC 219) explains the minhag based on the conjecture that it is generally an optional beracha. The Halachot Ketanot (II:161) says that according to the opinion that Hagomel cannot be done without ten men, it makes sense that women were excluded from the obligation due to tzniut issues. Har Tzvi (OC I:113) suggests an interesting reason for new mothers specifically not to say Hagomel, due to the language of “l’chayavim” – for the guilty. The danger a person was in could be a sign that he is guilty of something, whereas the danger of a woman giving birth stems simply from her participation in the most natural, wonderful mitzva.

Whatever the reason for exemption, why should a woman put herself in the position of a possibly improper beracha in which she is likely not obligated. Furthermore, there are “safer” alternatives. There was, for example, a minhag (see Torat Chayim, Sanhedrin 94a) that the husband would get an aliya the first time the woman returned to shul. When he blessed Hashem with “Borchu…” and she answered “Baruch Hashem …” they would have in mind to thereby thank Hashem. This avoids an extra, questionable beracha. She can also wait for a man who has to say Hagomel and have him make it for the two of them (see Living the Halachic Process II, B-7). However, while we are generally not opposed to finding ways to obviate questionable berachot, here we are confident that it is appropriate for your wife to recite Hagomel even months later, as we will explain.

The opinions about saying Hagomel within three or five days relate to Hagomel after a trip, as the Beit Yosef brings sources about how long is considered “after a trip.” There it makes sense that the next trip may be “around the corner.” In contrast, births (other than twins) are usually considerably more than a year apart. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 219:7), going on the Shulchan Aruch’s language of “as long as he wants,” excludes cases where so long has passed that the matter is forgotten. Halachically, the prominent cutoff time for remembering is twelve months (see Bava Metzia 24b; Berachot 54b; Shut Chatam Sofer, Even Haezer I, 119). Furthermore, while a trip is often forgotten relatively quickly, memories of a birth linger on for much longer. While the memories usually focus on the happy parts of the birth and the beracha relates to the danger, the two are related and thoughts of labor also linger for a long time. Additionally, the time to start saying Hagomel and thus its general time frame  is not clear. A sick person says Hagomel when he is fully recuperated (Mishna Berura 219:2). When does a woman recuperate from birth? There are halachic cutoffs after seven days (probably the most common, but not unanimous, position regarding Hagomel) and thirty days (see Shulchan Aruch, OC 330:4). A lot depends on the specific case.

In summation, a woman within twelve months of birth can and should be encouraged (barring a personal reason to the contrary) to recite Hagomel.

The advice you found on the Internet has complicated matters, not because it is illegitimate, but because it has a significant basis, as we will explain after viewing the background.

One is supposed to recite Hagomel in front of ten people including two scholars (Berachot 54b). What happens if there was not a minyan? The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 219:3) cites two opinions as to whether he fulfilled his obligation after the fact and concludes that in this situation of doubt, he should recite Hagomel without using Hashem’s names. As far as what one gains with such a declaration considering that berachot must include Hashem’s name, there are two main answers: 1. According to a minority opinion, one fulfills the beracha in this form (see Birkat Hashem, IV, p. 453 ); 2. There is a value to a non-beracha declaration in order to thank Hashem, even if it does not fulfill the formal obligation (Divrei Halacha (Weber) 214).

The idea you saw – having intention during the morning beracha to fulfill a doubtful Birkat Hagomel – seems to come from Halichot Shlomo 23:8 (put together from writings and teachings of Rav S.Z. Auerbach), as a “better alternative” to the Shulchan Aruch. The language of the beracha shares with the accepted beracha the word “hagomel” (who grants) and the root “tov” (goodness), but differences exist. However, Rav Auerbach noted that our text of the gemara (Berachot 54b) uses the words of the morning beracha, “gomel chasadim tovim,” for Birkat Hagomel. Although the Beit Yosef accepts the Rishonim who use our present text, Rav Auerbach reasons that the other text must be valid at least b’dieved. (There is flexibility in the language of Hagomel – see Berachot ibid.; Mishna Berura 219:4). If so, you were already yotzei and should certainly not say the standard text at this point.

On the other hand, there are a few problems. First, you said the text to yourself, and as mentioned, there is a doubt whether that works for Hagomel. Second, we did not find an earlier mention of Rav Auerbach’s idea. While it has logic and he does not need “permission” to present a good novel idea, there is something fundamentally missing in the language of the morning beracha. That is that there is no mention of a personal chesed that the blesser received but rather the general “good kindnesses to His nation Israel.” Perhaps even the text in the gemara assumes one would finish off with “for He has granted me all good.” Halichot Shlomo (ibid.) in fact suggests adding that phrase to the end of the morning beracha (was that mentioned on-line?).

Despite our doubts with your implementation of Rav Auerbach’s idea, we would not tell you to make another beracha considering that according to almost all poskim, the rule that one does not make berachot in cases of doubt applies to Hagomel (see S’dei Chemed, vol. VI, p. 315-7 for notable exceptions). Although you are not required to do anything further, the possibility of using the Shulchan Aruch’s approach of publicly reciting Hagomel without Hashem’s name certainly exists. A seemingly better and fully accepted option (see Shulchan Aruch ibid. 5), which may be more convenient for you considering you need not rush, is to have another new mother who makes Hagomel have you in mind.

Although mature children generally recite berachot, the consensus of opinions is that a child does not recite Birkat Hagomel (Mishna Berura 219:3; Yalkut Yosef, Orach Chayim 219:3). The reason is not related to Hagomel’s minyan requirement, as a woman can recite Hagomel (see Mishna Berura ibid.; Living the Halachic Process ((=LTHP); V, B-8).  

The source of this halacha is the Maharam Mintz (Shut, 14), who says that since the language of the beracha is that one thanks Hashem for doing kindness (saving his life from danger) for those who deserve punishment (chayavim), it does not apply to children who cannot deserve punishment. Although it is possible that a potential harsh decree could come from his parents demerits, to call them chayavim would be a disgrace of the parents. He is also not in favor of the father making the beracha on the child’s account (see more in LTHP III, B-10).

Mahari Basan (Lachmei Todah 5), cited by many as a minority opinion (the Birkei Yosef 219:1 says that his local minhag did follow him), disagreed. He argues that if the capability of deserving death as divine punishment were a requirement, then adolescents until 20 would also not be able to recite Hagomel. He also points out that we are not supposed to say harsh things about our religious state (Berachot 19a). He claims that chayavim does not mean deserving of death but being in debt, i.e., we have received more from Hashem than we deserve. This can apply to children as well. As mentioned, we do not pasken like the Mahari Basan.

If the reason for children not making the beracha is that we cannot attribute the danger to them, then if one’s danger was over when he was a child, the beracha should not apply, and therefore your son, who will iy”H land safely before his bar mitzva should not make the beracha. It is true that R. Akiva Eiger (to OC 186:2) considers it plausible that one who ate a meal right before he turned bar mitzva and remains satiated after he became bar mitzva might become obligated in Birkat Hamazon on the level of Torah law. We might argue then that since the time of your son’s aliya would be the correct time to recite Hagomel and he should still be thankful, Hagomel should become an obligation. However, this is incorrect for two reasons. For one, R. Akiva Eiger is predicated on the possibility that Birkat Hamazon is fundamentally on the state of satiation, which remains in adulthood. In contrast, here the extrication from danger was over during childhood (Be’er Sarim V:2). Also, since the word chayavim relates to childhood, it is still problematic.

It is likely that the inability to say chayavim is not a mere technical impediment to the beracha. Consider that one can fulfill the mitzva without saying the word chayavim (see Shulchan Aruch, OC 219:4) which is not even in our text of the gemara (Berachot 60a). Rather, the Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham, intro. to 219) implies that considering the language usually used, Chazal decided not to institute it regarding children, unlike other berachot, and therefore it cannot be created after the event that generates the beracha passes.

Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo II, 60) goes further, leaning toward saying that even if the child’s recovery was completed after bar mitzva, he would not recite Hagomel if the time of danger was earlier. (Be’er Sarim (ibid.) goes even further, regarding sickness, but not regarding travel.

In conclusion, since there is solid logic for those who think children should recite Hagomel, plus the fact that he will be bar mitzva at the time one would normally make the beracha, if your son wants, the two of you can have in mind during your recitation of Hagomel that, if appropriate, it relate to him also (see LTHP, II, B-7).

The gemara (Berachot 58b) says that upon seeing a friend after separation, after thirty days he recites Shehecheyanu and after twelve months, “… mechayei hameitim”. According to most opinions, if one recites the latter, he does not recite the former (Magen Avraham 225:2; Mishna Berura 225:4). The berachot are predicated on the assumption of significant joy over the reunion, making it logical that it is only for friends one is fond of (Tosafot 58b), and even very fond of (Shulchan Aruch, OC 225:1).

Shehecheyanu is a common, general beracha for a wide variety of happy experiences. Mechayei Hameitim is surprising for this context, as its daily usage relates to belief in Hashem literally resurrecting the dead, not reuniting with a live person. The Mishna Berura (ibid.) is among those who explain that since after twelve months, Rosh Hashana has passed, in which a person’s fate was decided, one can be happy that his friend survived. There is precedent for a celebratory beracha for another’s survival (Berachot 54b regarding Hagomel).

Mechayei Hameitim’s unique nature may help explain why people do not commonly recite it (as reported by the Ben Ish Chai (I, Eikev 13) and many others) in this context with the full formula, including Hashem’s Name, known as shem u’malchut. (People often say “baruch mechayei hameitim” as a half-joke upon seeing someone after a long absence). The Panim Meirot (I:65) says that since it is borrowed from Shemoneh Esrei, where it lacks the full formula, it is recited without Hashem’s Name. The Ben Ish Chai explains that it is because not everyone about whom it would be said appreciates the comparison.

Finally, in regard to your question, the Aruch Hashulchan (OC 225:2) says that since the beracha relates to resolving the doubt whether a friend is alive, if one communicated with him during the twelve months, he does not recite it. The Mishna Berura (ibid. 2) cites a machloket Acharonim about this and says not to make a beracha due to safek even regarding Shehecheyanu. However, Yechaveh Da’at (IV:17) takes issue with him because the logic (see Aruch Hashulchan ibid.) and sources (Halachot Ketanot I:120 gives a different explanation) on the matter apply only to Mechayei Hameitim.

Therefore, we cannot recommend reciting Mechayei Hameitim in your case. Shehecheyanu is a much more plausible option, for the happiness of seeing someone for the first time in [well over] thirty days, as Yechaveh Da’at ibid. and Yaskil Avdi (OC 25:3) recommend. Many poskim are against even Shehecheyanu and even if the two were not in touch, as not every friendship qualifies for the beracha. This approach is augmented by the opinion that such a Shehecheyanu is not mandatory (see Yechaveh Da’at ibid.). Although you seem close, Chesed La’alafim (OC 225:15) and Nimukei Orach Chayim (225:1) say that since if the beracha were commonplace in this context, people would be embarrassed not to recite Shehecheyanu for a friend even if they are not close, the minhag developed to stop saying it for friends. Perhaps for a close relative this is not a concern (ibid.). Regarding a child-in-law, the question is interesting. On the one hand, the relationship is often very close. On the other hand, it is not as emotionally intense, and since it varies greatly from family to family, it makes sense to be concerned about embarrassment and opt for a lo plug without a beracha. Also, while Zoom is not like seeing in person, it might reduce the excitement of subsequently seeing in person and precludes the beracha (see ibid.). The stronger claim is that it does not preclude excitement in person, so that the beracha is appropriate.

In summary, while Shehecheyanu is probably called far, those who opt for halachic caution can thank Hashem (important) informally (see Birkat Habayit 24:1).

There are four main possible steps to thank Hashem for being saved from danger. 1) Reciting Birkat Hagomel in front of a minyan (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 219:1-3). 2) Making a seudat hodaya (thanksgiving meal to thank Hashem) (see Living the Halachic Process VI, G-8.) 3) Giving tzedaka (Mishna Berura 218:32). 4) Reciting the beracha of “she’asa li nes bamakon hazeh” when one comes to the place of his miraculous salvation )Shulchan Aruch, OC 218:4).

We will deal first with the easier questions. The Shulchan Aruch does not mention seudot hodaya, and it apparently is never an obligation. On the other hand, a few gemarot relate to such a practice, and it can be very positive (see Living the Halahic Process ibid.) and is essentially without “risk.” So, if you perceive you were in real danger, a seudat hodaya is a wonderful albeit optional expression of gratitude. The same is true of giving tzedaka.

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 218:9) cites two opinions whether the beracha upon coming to the place of his miracle is only for miracles that seem to defy nature or even for more commonplace salvations. He recommends making the beracha without Hashem’s Name. From your description, it sounds unlikely that the prospects for survival were low enough to qualify the salvation as a miracle on any level. Therefore, if you ever make it back to that place, no beracha seems warranted, certainly not with Hashem’s Name.

Is Hagomel called for? The gemara (Berachot 54b) prescribes reciting Birkat Hagomel for people who emerged safely from the following predicaments, which are referred to in Tehillim 107’s description of thanking Hashem: traveling by sea and through a midbar, disease, and prison. The Shulchan Aruch (219:9) brings two opinions as to whether the beracha is prescribed for any danger (e.g., a dangerous animal attacked him, a wall collapsed on him). While he recommends making the beracha without Hashem’s Name in such cases, the accepted minhag, based on multiple Acharonim, is to make the regular beracha for extrication from any danger (Mishna Berura ad loc. 32; Igrot Moshe, OC II;59). However, as above, it is difficult to ascertain whether the level and perhaps type of danger you were in qualifies as warranting a beracha that is not found in the “official list.”

Might this case fit into the category of those who travel in a midbar? The Rambam (Berachot 10:8) lists, as one of the four situations for Hagomel, walking on roads outside the city (without mentioning desert). The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 7) cites the Sephardi minhag to recite Hagomel after traveling outside the city a parsa (app., 4 kilometers; Yabia Omer I, OC 13 says that it goes by the time it takes to walk a parsa = 72 minutes). (This is the criterion for tefillat haderech – ibid. 110:7). This is because of a general assumption of danger in inter-city roads. The Ashkenazi minhag is to make Hagomel only after a “midbar,” where there are bandits and wild animals, and not for uneventful land travel (regarding air, see Igrot Moshe ibid.).

The Mishna Berura (219:31) says that if a traveler on a normal road is attacked by robbers, all agree he recites Hagomel. The combination of factors (road plus danger) justifies the beracha (see Sha’ar Hatziyun ad loc. and Igrot Moshe ibid.), making it equivalent to a desert, and that applies to your case – lost with little water on path. Furthermore, walking lost in an isolated area is walking in a midbar (which includes wilderness) itself, one of the four definite Hagomel cases. While poskim mention animals and bandits, that is in addition to what the p’sukim (Tehillim 107:4-7) discuss – being lost in a wilderness with limited food and drink (see Ish Matzliach, II, OC 11; Imrei Shefer 29).