Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

As long as a person is in the room in which he ate—or even in an adjoining room, but can see the place where he ate—he is considered to be in “the place where he ate” (Magen Avraham 184:1, See also Chapter 5, Halachah 12).

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 178:4) derives a related principle from this law. When a person eats bread in two places, he may recite grace in the second place. The Turei Zahav 178:9 states that this applies only when he originally intended to eat in both places. If he does not have such an intention, he should recite grace before leaving his place, and recite hamotzi in the second place, as can be inferred from Halachah 3.

The Tur (Orach Chayim 183) states that in both these instances the person reciting grace is required to sit, so that he will recite the blessings with greater concentration.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 14.

The Rambam’s ruling differs from that of Rabbenu Asher who considers it an obligation for a person to return to the place where he ate to recite grace. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 184:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 184:6 maintain that the difference of opinion between the authorities is not extreme. Although he does not require it as mandatory, even the Rambam considers it desirable for a person to return. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) and the Mishnah Berurah 184:7, nevertheless, accept Rabbenu Asher’s opinion, unless returning to his place would cause a person extensive difficulty.
The source for this ruling is Berachot 53b, which relates that although the School of Shammai requires one to return to one’s place to recite grace, the School of Hillel does not. The Talmud quotes the rationale of the School of Shammai: “If you left a wallet on the highest floor of a building, would you not return for it? If so, you should also return to the top of a building to recite grace.” The Talmud continues, relating that a student followed the ruling of the School of Shammai. When he returned to his place, he found a wallet full of gold

The Magen Avraham 184:2 states that if one’s food will become digested in the time that it takes to return to the place where one ate, it is preferable to recite grace in the place where one remembered.

Here also, Rabbenu Asher rules more stringently, declaring that the person does not fulfill his obligation. In this instance, however, the later authorities accept the Rambam’s decision, lest the repetition of grace be considered as reciting blessings in vain.
It must be noted that Rabbenu Asher also mentions a leniency. Should a person have bread available in the place where he remembers, he may eat some there and recite grace, having both meals in mind. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 184:2) quotes this suggestion.

There are three opinions regarding this matter. The Hagahot Maimoniot state that it is necessary to recite grace in the place where one ate. Rabbenu Asher states that this obligation applies to all foods made from the five species of grain, while the Rambam’s statements here are interpreted to mean that one should recite a blessing in the place where one ate after partaking of any of the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael is praised. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 178:3 suggests that, at the outset, one should try to follow the Rambam’s ruling.

Whenever there is a doubt regarding one’s fulfillment of an obligation required by Scriptural Law, one must accept the stringent perspective. If there is a doubt concerning one’s fulfillment of an obligation required by Rabbinic law, one should follow the more lenient view. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, the recitation of hamotzi and the other blessings before eating were instituted by the Rabbis.
Even if one desires to recite the blessing, one should refrain from doing so, lest it be recited in vain (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 167:12; Mishnah Berurah 167:49).

Berachot 51a asks rhetorically: Just because one has committed one misdeed, should he continue and commit another?

Once one has completed eating, the opportunity to recite a blessing has passed. If possible, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 167:11 and the Mishnah Berurah 167:48 suggest eating slightly more and reciting the blessing before partaking of that food.

According to the Rama (Orach Chayim 178:1), the same rules apply if one changes one’s place from room to room in a single house, unless one intended to do so at the start of the meal.

The Ra’avad objects and maintains that even a person who leaves his home is not considered to have made an interruption as long as he can see the place where he ate. To counter those objections, the Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam’s statements as applying when the person went out the doorway to speak to his friend. Even if he stands on the outer doorstep, he is considered to have left his home. The later authorities (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 178:1; Mishnah Berurah 178:12) suggest that the Ra’avad’s opinion should be followed when changing position from room to room in the same building, but question whether it should be followed when moving from building to building.

Tosafot, Pesachim 101b, and other Ashkenazic authorities differ with the Rambam and maintain that these principles do not apply regarding those foods which require that grace (or al hamichyah or al hapeirot; see Halachah 1) be recited in the place where one ate. Since one is required to return there to recite grace, leaving that place is not considered an interruption to one’s meal. (Even according to Tosafot, these laws are relevant with regard to other foods that do not require that one recite the blessing after eating in the place where one ate.)
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 178:1-2) quotes the Rambam’s ruling, while the Rama (178:2) follows Tosafot’s decision.

The same laws apply if the group (or portions of it) left the place where they ate for other reasons. The Rambam (quoting Pesachim 101b) mentions greeting a bride or groom to teach that one may leave the place where one ate without reciting grace to fulfill a mitzvah that can be fulfilled at the present time alone, as long as one will ultimately return and recite grace (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 178:6).
Alternatively, the Rambam’s intent is that although greeting a bride or groom is a mitzvah, if none of the original party remain, the laws mentioned in the latter half of the halachah apply (Mishnah Berurah 178:13).

The examples of an old or sick person were given because such individuals are the ones most likely to remain.

I.e., they need not recite hamotzi when they return, nor are they required to recite grace for what they originally ate, before resuming their meal.

Grace should be recited before they depart. If they did not recite it at that time, they should recite it when they return, and then recite hamotzi and begin eating again.

Tosafot and the Rama (see the previous halachah) differ, and maintain that these laws do not apply with regard to foods that require that the blessing afterwards be recited in the place where one ate. Nevertheless, these laws do apply when a group sits down together to eat other foods.

Although eating and drinking foods other than bread and wine as a group is not always considered significant (see Halachah 12 and commentary), in this respect the fact they eat together as a group is granted importance. Should one of the group remain, the others may return and continue eating without reciting a blessing (Magen Avraham 178:3). The Magen Avraham maintains that even Tosafot would accept this ruling.
The Turei Zahav 178:6 differs and maintains that, according to the interpretation of Tosafot, eating or drinking foods other than bread and wine as a group is not considered significant (See Chapter 1, Halachah 12).

Ideally, the blessing should be recited before he departs. See note 8 with regard to the practice to be followed if one does not do so at that time.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 178:9 and the Mishnah Berurah 178:9 state that this applies even where one cannot see the place where one originally ate.

The Kessef Mishneh mentions two differences between the two sides of a fig tree and the two corners of the same room:
a) In a room, one can generally see the place where one originally ate.
b) The fact that a room is surrounded by walls causes it to be considered a single entity.

This halachah has raised questions among the commentaries. The Kessef Mishneh, the Lechem Mishneh, and others interpret this halachah as referring to the blessings before eating. Thus, with regard to bread, it is to a large part analogous to Halachah 11.
In this context, the Kessef Mishneh asks why the Rambam did not mention these laws in the context of Chapter 3, Halachot 5-7, which state the rule that the blessing on primary foods includes secondary foods. The Kessef Mishneh answers that those halachot describe a situation where the person has no desire to eat the secondary food in its own right and eats it only because of the primary food. In this halachah, the Rambam is speaking about an instance in which one desires to eat the other foods; nevertheless, they are included in the blessing recited over bread because bread includes all other foods.
The Rishon LeTzion offers a different interpretation, which appears more appropriate to the context in which the laws are discussed, i.e., that here, the Rambam is speaking only about the blessing recited after eating.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Berachot 6:5 (the source for this halachah), the Rambam defines the term פרפרת as לפתן, which is generally translated as “relish.” Note the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 176:1), which offer a different interpretation of the term פרפרת.

This does not refer only to instances when these foods are eaten while placed on bread, but also to times when they are eaten at a meal at which bread is served.

Because the main element of a meal is considered to be bread, reciting a blessing upon it—either before or after partaking of it—includes the other foods that are eaten together with it.

The commentaries question why this clause is necessary according to the Rambam’s definition of פרפרת. It is obvious that bread would not be considered secondary to any other foods.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) and on Chapter 3, Halachah 4.

Since the cooked grains are considered “sustaining food” and have been granted a special blessing which includes (in synopsis) all the blessings of grace, reciting a blessing over them includes other cooked dishes eaten with them.
The Rishon LeTzion emphasizes that this applies to cooked foods that are eaten together with the grains. Otherwise, it would be difficult to understand how the blessing for the grains could cover foods that require other blessings. Note also the Kessef Mishneh, who offers an alternate explanation.

Since these cooked foods are not as satisfying as grains, the blessing recited over them cannot include grains.
Several commentaries have raised the question that from Berachot 42b, it appears that the Rambam’s decision follows the School of Shammai and not the School of Hillel. The clearest resolution of the difficulty is offered by the Rishon LeTzion, who explains that the Rambam’s decision is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 6:5). When the passage from the Babylonian Talmud is studied in the light of the passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, the Rambam’s ruling is no longer difficult.

The Kessef Mishneh cites Pesachim 103b, which states that once a person diverts his attention from drinking wine, he must recite another blessing when he begins drinking again.
The Ra’avad notes that the passage from Pesachim (loc. cit.) mentions only drinking and does not discuss eating, and on that basis protests against the Rambam’s equation of the two. From Berachot 42a, however, it appears that similar principles apply with regard to eating.

Before partaking of the food or drink. He is not, however, required to recite a blessing after the first food or drink. Rather, he is required to recite only a single blessing after he completes eating.

As mentioned in Halachot 3-5, a person who changes his place while eating must recite both a blessing after the food he has eaten previously and a blessing over the food he plans to eat in his new place.
Many authorities do not accept the Rambam’s decision with regard to a meal that includes bread. When a person sits down to such a meal, he is considered to have fixed his attention on eating. People frequently become drawn into eating more than they originally intended at such meals. Thus, a person’s decision not to continue eating is not considered final, since it is quite possible that he will change his mind and decide to eat again. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 179:1).
Based on these principles, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 179:1) rules that, although once a person has decided to cease eating or drinking a new blessing is generally required, when partaking of a meal it is not sufficient to make a mental decision, and a person must wash before grace to be considered to have ceased eating.

Eating at a later time.

The Rambam’s terminology appears to be a stylistic exaggeration. If a person waits long enough for the food he has eaten to digest, it would appear that he is required to recite another blessing before beginning to eat again (Kin’at Eliyahu).

Before partaking of more food or drink.

After having completed a meal.

This refers to a consensus agreed to by all the participants, and not a mere suggestion raised by a single individual.

I.e., they were eating on Friday afternoon or the afternoon before a festival. From sunset onward, it is forbidden to continue eating until one recites Kiddush. It is, however, possible to recite Kiddush early (see Hilchot Shabbat 29:11). Once the people agree to recite Kiddush, they may no longer continue their meal (Kessef Mishneh).

Because they are considered as having diverted their attention from drinking, as mentioned in the previous halachah. The Turei Zahav 179:2 states that, according to the authorities who differ with the Rambam on the previous halachah, if one’s desire to drink stems from having eaten, one may continue to drink at this point.

I.e., they are obligated to recite grace or Kiddush before drinking.

Because, as mentioned in the previous halachah, the blessing they recited originally does not cover any drink consumed after they concluded drinking.

The difference between Kiddush and Havdalah is that Kiddush initiates the Sabbath. Accordingly, the respect due to the Sabbath adds importance to the diversion of our attention from drinking implied by the statement, “Let us recite Kiddush.” In contrast, Havdalah marks the beginning of the week, which we are not required to treat with such distinction. Thus, as Hilchot Shabbat 29:12 states, a person is not required to interrupt his meal at nightfall on Saturday, but may continue and recite Havdalah when he concludes eating (Radbaz).

Berachot 59b emphasizes that this blessing is recited only when one drinks in a company. When one drinks alone, this blessing should not be recited, because it praises God for “being good”—i.e., to me—and “doing good”—for others (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 175:4).

Tosafot, Berachot (loc. cit.) notes that the Sages instituted this blessing only for different types of wine and not for different types of bread or meat, since wine has two positive qualities: It satisfies a person’s appetite and lifts his spirits.

Rashi, Berachot (loc. cit.), states that this blessing should be recited only when the second type of wine is better than the first. If the first type of wine is better, no blessing should be recited. The commentaries maintain that the Rambam differs and maintains that the blessing should be recited whenever one changes types of wine. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 175:2-3) rules that if one knows that the second type of wine is of an inferior quality than the first, the blessing should not be recited

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 206:4) states that a person should hold the food in his right hand before reciting the blessing for it.

Because the first blessing is considered to be in vain. There are some authorities who maintain that even though the food was not in front of the person at the time he recited the blessing, if he was absolutely sure that it would be brought to him immediately, he can rely on that blessing (Mishneh Berurah 206:19).

Or in any other way became inedible.

I.e., the first blessing is no longer in effect and a second blessing must be recited before eating.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 206:6) adds, “and even if the other fruit was in front of him when he recited the blessing originally.” The Rama (based on the Hagahot Maimoniot) differs, and maintains that if he originally intended to partake of the other fruit as well, it is included in the first blessing and he should eat it without hesitation so that the blessing will not have to be repeated.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 15, which discusses the seriousness of reciting a blessing in vain. See also Hilchot Sh’vuot 12:9-11, where the Rambam discusses related concepts, concluding:
The Torah has adjured us “to fear [His] glorious and awesome name.” Included in this fear is that it should not be mentioned in vain. If, because of a slip of the tongue, one mentioned God’s name in vain, one should immediately praise and laud… it.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 6:1) mentions this instance as a contrast to the previous law.

He knew that the water would continue to flow. When he recited the blessing on the water, his intent was on water from the stream and not on the particular water in front of him at the time he recited the blessing.

The commentaries question whether the Rambam’s position follows that of Rashi or Tosafot. The following sentence (which is the Rambam’s addition to Berachot, loc. cit.) sheds light on the question.

This sentence explains the rationale for this ruling. These foods are not eaten casually during the day, but rather are eaten only as part of a meal, with the intent of satiating one’s appetite. Accordingly, they are considered as secondary to bread, which is the primary element of the meal (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 177:1). Accordingly, we follow the ruling mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 5, that the blessing on primary foods includes secondary foods.
This explanation appears to indicate that the Rambam follows Tosafot’s interpretation. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 177:1) also rules accordingly. The Magen Avraham 177:1, however, postulates that it is logical to assume that this ruling applies only when bread is eaten throughout the meal. If only a small amount of bread is eaten at the beginning of a meal, and no bread is eaten while the main course is being eaten, it is questionable whether the blessing over the bread covers these foods.

This refers to fruits and the like, which are not satisfying foods and are eaten throughout the day, frequently outside the context of a meal, but at times within the context of a meal. This indicates that they are not necessarily connected with the meal and, therefore, are not included in the blessing hamotzi.

Since they are eaten during the meal, they also satisfy a person’s appetite. Accordingly, they are included in the blessing that is required by the commandment, “When you have eaten and are satiated, you shall bless....”
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:1, 3, based on Rabbenu Asher’s commentary on Berachot, loc. cit.) mentions two instances when fruit is included in the blessing hamotzi:
a) When the fruits are eaten on bread itself,
b) When one eats a meal of fruit—i.e., the fruit is served to satiate one’s appetite.

I.e., foods served to satiate one’s appetite.

Fruits, desserts, or drinks.

Tosafot (Berachot, loc. cit.) states that this law does not apply at present. Our eating habits have changed, and bread is constantly in front of us during a meal, and it is customary to partake of it at all times.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:2) accepts Tosafot’s position. The Magen Avraham 177:7 adds that even at large feasts, when it is customary to eat desert without eating bread, a new blessing is not required because, in Talmudic times, bread and the main course were served on a small table, which was then removed, and dessert was served on a new table. Thus, the dessert appeared as a separate meal and required separate blessings. In contrast, at present, desert is served on the same table on which the bread was served. Hence, it is still considered a continuation of the same meal and does not require a separate blessing.

When, after the meal, it is customary to sit and drink wine to enhance the festive nature of the day. (See Hilchot Shabbat 30:9; Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:18.)

At which time, Shabbat 129a suggests drinking wine.

Nedarim 38b suggests drinking wine after bathing. (See Hilchot De’ot 4:17.) Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Berachot 6:5, the Rambam omits the latter two examples and mentions only Sabbaths and festivals.

Continuing the meal by drinking wine after eating the main course.

It was common practice to drink wine before eating, as an appetizer (Berachot 43a).

Since we assume that he originally intended to drink this wine and had this in mind when reciting the blessing (Rashi, Berachot 42b).

Once grace has been recited, however, it is considered as a new sitting, and a new blessing is required.

Because he did not necessarily have the intention to drink after eating when he originally recited the blessing.

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, when a company joins together to drink wine, it is proper that one person recite the blessing for everyone. That ruling applies, however, only when the wine is served before or after the main course.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 6:6) and in Chapter 7, Halachah 6, the Rambam explains that were a person to answer Amen while eating, it is possible he would choke on his food.
The Hagahot Maimoniot question the Rambam’s explanation, noting that, as the Rambam writes in Chapter 1, Halachah 10, it is possible to fulfill one’s intention by listening to another person’s blessing, although one does not answer Amen.
Other authorities support the Rambam’s position, explaining that the principle, “A person who listens is considered as if he recited the blessing himself,” applies when the person could have recited the blessing himself at that time. In this instance, since his mouth was full with food, it would have been impossible for him to recite the blessing. Hence, he is unable to fulfill his responsibility by listening to another person’s blessing.

Since the wine drunk during the meal is intended to wash down one’s food, the blessing over it is not significant enough to include the wine drunk after the meal, which is drunk for the sake of pleasure (Berachot, loc. cit.).

Whose halachic obligations are equivalent (Chagigah 4a).

There are opinions that state that a woman does not have to recite the part of grace that blesses God for “Your covenant that You have sealed in our flesh, and for Your Torah that You have taught us,” since women are not obligated to fulfill these mitzvot. Nevertheless, in practice, it is agreed that women should mention both these mitzvot, because the ultimate fulfillment of the creation of both men and women is when they marry. Therefore, a man and his wife are considered a single unit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 187:7).

Women are not obligated to fulfill such mitzvot. See Kiddushin (1:7). Since the obligation to recite grace is constant, whether one eats during the day or at night, it would appear that women are obligated. Some commentaries point to Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 19) and the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 3:3 and Kiddushin, loc. cit.) as indications that the Rambam supports the view that a woman’s obligation for grace stems from Scriptural Law.

Berachot 20b explains this hypothesis: Since Deuteronomy 8:10, the proof-text requiring us to recite grace, states: “You shall bless God, your Lord, for the good land that He gave you,” one might think that only those who were given an inheritance in Eretz Yisrael are required to recite grace, thus excluding women who were not given an inheritance.

I.e., because of this doubt.

Since, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, a person can only recite a blessing on behalf of another person if he shares an equal obligation himself.

Boys below the age of thirteen and girls below the age of twelve, or individuals above that age who have not demonstrated signs of physical maturity.

This expression appears to indicate that the Sages placed the obligation on the child himself. See also Hilchot Sukkah 6:1 and Hilchot Lulav 7:19, where the Rambam uses similar expressions. (In Hilchot Tefillin 4:13 and Hilchot Chagigah 2:3, however, the Rambam states that the obligation to train a child to fulfill these mitzvot lies on the father.)
The hypothesis that the obligation lies on the child is supported by Halachah 16, which states that a child may fulfill the obligation of grace for a person who did not eat to the point of satisfaction (and, therefore, is obligated to recite grace only by Rabbinic decree). Were the Sages to have placed the obligation to educate the child on his father and not on the child himself, the child would not be able to fulfill the mitzvah on behalf of another person.
Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that the Sages placed the obligation on the father. This obligation, however, encompasses the child and, hence, causes him to be considered as obligated in the mitzvah (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 17).

Until a child reaches intellectual maturity, Scriptural Law itself places no obligations upon him (Pesachim 116a).

. I.e., if there are two adult males and one of these three types of individuals, it is impossible to make a zimmun. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 199:7) states that when women eat together with men who make a zimmun, they are obligated to answer.
. If any two of these three categories of people eat together, there is a possibility of undesirable results. In order not to encourage such meals, the Sages did not permit zimmun.

If any two of these three categories of people eat together, there is a possibility of undesirable results. In order not to encourage such meals, the Sages did not permit zimmun. The Rambam mentions modesty only as a reason why women and servants should not join in a zimmun. Significantly, other authorities explain that it is for reasons of modesty that women should not be counted in a zimmun together with men.

Nor should a company consist of two of these three categories.

There is, however, no obligation for them to do so (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 199:7). Rabbenu Asher considers them as obligated to make a zimmun. Nevertheless, even among the Ashkenazic community, most authorities do not accept his ruling.

The mention of God’s name causes the recitation of grace to be considered “a holy matter.” As stated in Hilchot Tefillah 8:6, prayers of this nature can be recited only when a quorum of ten adult males is present (Kessef Mishneh).

A person who possesses both male and female sexual organs.

Since he is not a member of either sex.

A person who has flesh covering his genitalia, making it impossible to determine whether he is a male or a female.

He should not be counted among men or women, because we are unsure of his gender. Furthermore, unlike androgynoses, a group of tumtumim cannot make a zimmun of their own.
In the case of an androgynous, the doubt is how to define his halachic status properly. Hence, they are considered a separate category. In contrast, a tumtum is either a male or a female, and it is his physical condition that prevents us from determining his gender. Thus, a group of tumtumim may include both males and females, and hence they are not allowed to be counted in a zimmun at all (Kessef Mishneh).

The Magen Avraham 199:6 states that this applies to only one child, but not two or more.

Rav Yitzchak Alfasi mentions an age of nine or ten. The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 199) states that all authorities agree that a child below the age of six may not be counted in a zimmun.

To recite the zimmun together with two adult males.

To include the mention of God’s name together with nine adults.

Rabbenu Asher and the Rama (Orach Chayim 199:10) do not accept this distinction, and rule that a child may not be counted in a zimmun until he is thirteen years of age and has exhibited signs of physical maturity.

Even when we are certain that he will bless God.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 7:1, based on Berachot 47b), the Rambam states that this refers to a gentile who has already made a decision to convert and has been circumcised for that reason. Nevertheless, if he has not immersed himself in the mikveh, he is not considered a Jew, and may not be included in a zimmun.

Most authorities differ with the Rambam concerning this point and allow a person to be included in a zimmun even if he only partook of vegetables or drank a beverage (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 197:3).

It is possible to explain that this is referring to three individuals who each began eating with a separate group in the same large room. Afterwards, they joined together and ate at the same table.
Alternatively, the halachah is speaking about three groups that ate at the same table, and one remained from each group (Merkevet HaMishneh), or the three individuals came from different groups, but left their original group inadvertently or because of forces beyond their control (Mishnah Berurah 193:31).

And thus were each personally obligated to participate in a zimmun (Rashi, Berachot 50a).

Even when they themselves do not eat together (loc. cit.). According to the Kessef Mishneh, this applies when they eat together. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 193:5) states that, in either instance, the following law applies.

Ideally, they should not have separated from their first company. See the Rishon LeTzion; Rama, Orach Chayim 193:6). After the fact, since they all have still not recited grace and are all obligated to participate in a zimmun, they should do so.

I.e., although they desired to continue eating, they responded to the zimmun and listened to the first blessing of grace (Tosafot, Berachot, loc. cit.; Rama, Orach Chayim 200:2)

The Shulchan Aruch (193:5) states, “They cannot...”; i.e., it is forbidden for them to participate in a zimmun again.

Even though one of the three desires to recite grace before the others, they must recite the zimmun as a group (Mishnah Berurah 193:28).

It is the intent to sit down together at a single table that establishes them as a company, and not the fact that they share food.

This halachah describes a large feast, at which many people eat at different tables. Nevertheless, they all came together for the same purpose, and thus are considered a single group. (See the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 7:5; and Shulchan Aruch HaRav 195:2).
In contrast, in a restaurant, although many people eat in the same room, since they did not come with the intention of eating together, they are not considered as a single group.

The Rambam is quoting the Mishnah (Berachot 7:5). Rabbenu Asher and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 195:1) state that the same principles apply if the feast is held in two separate rooms (or houses), as long as they are not separated by a street.

Similarly, if a single group is large enough to prevent the words of the blessings from being heard, people should recite the zimmun in smaller groups (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 193:1).

He must also respond (Berachot 45b; Mishnah Berurah 194:6).

He fulfills his obligation for zimmun, but not for grace.

It is only proper that God’s name be mentioned when the ten people are in the same room (Berachot, loc. cit.).

If, however, two people from a group of three recite grace alone, a zimmun may not be recited (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 194:1).

The Rama (Orach Chayim 194:1) states that this law only applies when the individual has not answered to a zimmun previously. If, however, he answered to the zimmun of a previous group, he may not be included in this zimmun.

He should respond as usual.

Zimmun should precede grace. Once a person has recited grace, he can no longer fulfill his obligation for zimmun.

And thus a zimmun may not be recited.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 193:1) uses the expression, “It is a mitzvah for them to separate.” At the beginning of a meal (see Chapter 1, Halachah 12), one person may recite the blessing on behalf of another. At the conclusion of the meal, however, it is preferable for each person to recite grace himself, since the two people have concluded eating and are already considered to have parted from each other (Tosafot, Berachot 45b).

So that the other person can hear each word of the grace. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 213:3) rules that the person reciting the blessing also must intend that the listener fulfill his obligation by hearing the blessing. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 11, and notes.)

See Chapter 1 (op. cit.), which explains that although one may fulfill his obligation without answering Amen, it is preferable to do so.

See the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 193:1), which states that the person who fulfills his obligation by listening must also understand the words the person reciting grace is saying. Later authorities (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 185:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 193:5) state that although it is preferable that they recite grace themselves (even in translation), they may fulfill their obligation by listening to grace recited in Hebrew, even if they do not understand.

Although the responsibilities of these three individuals vis-à-vis Torah Law are less than those of adult freemen, in this instance, they may recite the blessings.

Note, however, the restrictions mentioned in the following halachah.

A person’s failure to learn such a basic prayer as grace is considered an affront to God, since it shows a fundamental indifference to the obligation of serving Him (Rashi, Sukkah 38a).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

A child cannot fulfill the obligations of adults with regard to other blessings, the reading of the Megillah, or Hallel and the like. There is a difference with regard to grace. With grace, the child’s recitation of the blessings of grace comes as a result of a single Rabbinic obligation. Hence, he can fulfill the mitzvah on behalf of an individual whose obligation is also Rabbinic in origin.
In contrast, with regard to other blessings, the blessings themselves are Rabbinic in origin, and the child’s obligation to recite them constitutes a second Rabbinic obligation. Accordingly, he may not fulfill the mitzvah for someone whose obligation stems from a single Rabbinic degree (Tosafot, Megillah 19b).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1

A person who has eaten to the point of satisfaction, who does not know how to recite grace himself, and is not in the company of another adult, should recite grace together with the child, repeating after him word by word.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 11.
Note the comments of the Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh on the following halachah concerning the following question: May an adult who has eaten to the point of satisfaction fulfill his obligation by listening to grace recited by another adult who has not eaten to the point of satisfaction?
The Ra’avad notices that no distinction is made in the Talmud, and it appears (see Berachot 48a, b) that a person who ate only a k’zayit may recite grace for anyone, regardless of how great a meal he ate. Accordingly, rather than contradict the principle stated here, he states—in contrast to the Rambam’s view—that even if one eats only a k’zayit, he is obligated by Scriptural Law to recite grace.
Faced with the same problem, the Ba’al Halachot Gedolot rules that a person who ate only a k’zayit may not recite grace for anyone who ate to the point of satisfaction. Rav Yosef Caro (in all his texts, the Kessef Mishneh, the Beit Yosef, and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 197:4) follows the following rationale:
As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 10 and commentary, because of the principle of areivut (mutual responsibility), it is possible to fulfill one’s obligation by hearing a blessing recited by a fellow Jew, with one exception: blessings that praise God for benefit one enjoys. It is improper for someone who himself does not experience that benefit to utter such praise. The latter point, however, is a Rabbinic ruling and is waived in the instance under discussion, when the person reciting grace has, in fact, partaken of food.

The Rambam’s words are quoted from Berachot 45b. The person responds in this fashion instead of with the usual response, because it praises God, “from Whose bounty we have eaten,” and he has not eaten.
Note Tosafot, Berachot (loc. cit.), which state that one should respond, “Blessed be He, and blessed be His name, continuously and forever.” Their statements are quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 198:1). If a quorum of ten people who partook of food is present, a person who did not eat with them should include God’s name in his response (op. cit.).

This response is in place whenever one hears a blessing being recited.

The commentaries explain that the modifying clause is added to include two types of grain products mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 9, that resemble bread, but do not require the blessing hamotzi unless they are eaten as the basis for an entire meal. When the blessing hamotzi is recited over them, the ritual washing of the hands is also required. Otherwise, it is not (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 158:1).

This washing is not intended for the purpose of cleanliness. Rather, it is a ritual matter and, therefore, requires adherence to all the particular laws mentioned in this chapter.

Shabbat 14b, 15a states that the washing of the hands before partaking of sacrificial offerings was instituted by King Solomon. Hillel and Shammai extended the practice to include terumah, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach widened its scope to include even unconsecrated foods (Chulin 106a). The latter decree was also intended to remind the priests to keep their hands ritually pure while partaking of terumah. It was, however, instituted not only for the priests, but for the nation as a whole (even though non-priests may not partake of terumah), so that it would be a universally accepted practice. Even after the destruction of the Temple, when it was no longer possible to practice ritual purity, this mitzvah was continued in the hope that the Temple will soon be rebuilt, and the priests will resume their previous obligations (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 158:1; Mishnah Berurah 158:1).

This washing, referred to as mayim acharonim, is discussed in Halachot 2 and 3.

Terumah or sacrificial offerings.

See the notes to Halachah 4.

Note the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 7:8), where the Rambam explains that “’hands are busy’—i.e., frequently touching [objects]—and it is possible that one touched an impure substance without realizing it.” See also Chapter 7, Note 17.

Or washed (Mishnah Berurah 158:12).

Liquid in this instance refers to wine, honey, olive oil, milk, dew, and water (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 158:4).

This practice was instituted in respect for the terumah separated from olive oil and wine. It was extended to all liquids because the laws governing the contraction of ritual impurity by liquids are more severe than those involving other foods (Rabbenu Yonah; Levush, Orach Chayim 158:3). Tosafot, Pesachim 115b, explain that after the destruction of the Temple, the practice of washing before partaking of fruits dipped in liquid was discontinued because we are all ritually impure. Although most authorities do not accept this position, they respect it to the extent that they state that a blessing should not be made before such a washing. In practice, however, there are many who are not precise in washing in these circumstances. There is, nevertheless, one instance when this practice is observed universally: At the Pesach seder, we wash before dipping the karpas in salt water.

The Rambam requires that a blessing be recited in both the instances mentioned in the previous halachah. As mentioned in the commentary, our practice is to recite a blessing only before partaking of bread, and not before partaking of foods dipped in liquids.

See Hilchot Kri’at Shema 3:1.

See Hilchot Tefillah 4:2-3. The Radbaz (Responsum 1365) states that although the Rambam requires washing before the Afternoon and Evening Services, a blessing should be recited only when washing before the Morning service.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 158:11, based on Tosafot, Berachot 51a) states that it is not customary to recite the blessing before washing, lest one’s hands be dirty. At present, Ashkenazic custom (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 158:16; Mishnah Berurah 158:40) is to recite the blessing after washing, but before drying one’s hands.

The word “washing” is not a precise translation of the Hebrew נטילת. Rabbenu Asher (Berachot, Chapter 9) explains that this term was used because in Talmudic times, the utensil with which it was customary to wash one’s hands was called נטלא. The Sages phrased the blessing in this manner to emphasize that the mere rinsing of one’s hands is insufficient and one must use such a utensil.

With the following sentence, the Rambam is explaining why a blessing is recited, despite the fact that this commandment was instituted by the Sages and not by God, Himself.

. In Chapter 11, Halachah 3, the Rambam interprets the blessing recited over Rabbinic commandments as follows: “Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to follow the instructions of the Sages who commanded us concerning....”

Note the explanation of this proof-text in Hilchot Mamrim 1:1-2.

Although the Ra’avad protests strongly the Rambam’s ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 181:7). (The difference between the Ra’avad and the Rambam revolves around the rationale for this washing. See Note 24 below.)

As mentioned in the following halachah. (See also Chapter 11, Halachah 4.)

For as Chulin 10a states, “Danger is more serious than a prohibition.”

This washing, referred to as mayim emtzayim, is mentioned in Chulin 105a, b and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, sec. 173). At present, this practice is generally not followed.

There are no fruits that are eaten as terumah according to Scriptural Law. (It is wine and oil, not grapes and olives, which carry such an obligation.) Therefore, the Sages did not impose an obligation to wash before eating from such food if it was not consecrated (Rabbenu Yonah, Berachot, ch. 8).

The Tur (Orach Chayim 181:1), the Ra’avad, and others offer a different rationale for this washing, quoting Berachot 53a’s interpretation of Leviticus 11:44: “’Make yourselves holy,’ this refers to the first washing; ‘And you shall be holy,’ this refers to the second washing.” They explain that this washing is necessary as a token of respect to clean one’s hands before reciting grace.

Note Hilchot Melachim 6:13, which mentions other Rabbinic prohibitions that are relaxed in wartime.
See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 158:8) which draws parallels to these laws and frees a person in a desert or in another dangerous situation from the obligation to wash his hands.

Although Rabbenu Asher maintains that it is only necessary to wash to the point of connection between the fingers and the hand, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 161:4) accepts the Rambam’s decision. Nevertheless, when a person has only a limited supply of water, he may rely on Rabbenu Asher’s opinion (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 161:8; Mishnah Berurah 161:22).

It is preferable to pour a generous quantity of water over one’s hands (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 158:10). Rav Chisda would say: “I wash with a full handful of water and [God] grants me a full handful of goodness” (Shabbat 62b).

One fourth of a larger measure known as a log. In contemporary measure, a revi’it is equivalent to 86.6 cc according to Shiurei Torah.

The Rambam’s decision differs from that of the Ra’avad, Rashi, the Rashba, and many other authorities. The other authorities maintain that as long as the vessel from which the water is poured contains a revi’it, two people may have their hands washed from it. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 160:13) accepts the latter view.
Significantly, the Rambam mentions washing the hands only once before partaking of food. In Hilchot Mikveot 11:3, where he mentions the washing of the hands within the context of ritual purity, he mentions the need to wash hands twice: once to purify the hands, and once to wash off the water used to purify them. (See Halachah 10 and notes.) In these halachot, he makes no mention of a second washing, seeming to imply that it is unnecessary to do so. (Rav Kapach adds that it is customary in certain Yemenite groups to wash only once before meals, and bases this practice on the Rambam’s decision.)
The Shulchan Aruch and the Rama (Orach Chayim 162:2) mention washing the hands two or three times before partaking of a meal. This is the accepted practice in almost all communities at present.

In Hilchot Mikveot 1:12, the Rambam provides this general rule:
Any substance that intervenes [between one’s flesh and the water] and disturbs one nullifies the immersion, even if it covers only a minor portion of one’s flesh.... Any substance that covers the major portion of one’s flesh nullifies the immersion, even though it does not disturb one.
In Chapter 2 of those halachot, the Rambam mentions a long list of particular substances that nullify immersions, including filth, mud, and dough.

This implies that one should clean one’s hands before washing them for this ritual purpose. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, 161) discusses the particular laws regarding intervening substances.

This includes ice and snow, which can be used to make up the measure of a mikveh (Hilchot Mikvaot 7:3).

Note the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama (Orach Chayim 160:12), which discuss the use of wine, beer, and fruit juices for washing hands.

I.e., whether before a meal or in preparation for prayer.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this expression indicates that it is not necessary to wash one’s hands a second time (see the notes to the previous halachah) or to dry them before partaking of the food. When washing one’s hands for food, this is required because the water used for the first washing that remains on the hands becomes ritually impure. In contrast, the water that remains on one’s hands after immersion in a mikveh is pure. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 159:19.)

A mikveh must have at least 40 se’ah of water that has flowed into it by natural means. In contemporary measurements, 331 liters according to Shiurei Torah, and 648 liters according to the Chazon Ish.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this applies only to water that does not emanate from a natural spring. When a person immerses his hands in such a spring, all that is necessary is that there be sufficient water to cover his hands. (See also Hilchot Mikveot 9:8.)
Significantly, Rabbenu Yonah maintains that it is acceptable to immerse one’s hands in a mikveh containing even less than 40 se’ah. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 159:14) accepts this view, although the Rama favors the Rambam’s position.

Which is unacceptable for ritual immersion.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, and maintains that one may immerse one’s hands in water poured into a pool in the ground. He supports his position by referring to the immersion of a ba’al keri (see Hilchot Tefillah 4:4-5), which is acceptable even in such a pool. (See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 8:1.) Nevertheless, most authorities accept the Rambam’s decision. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 159:23; Be’ur Halachah 159.)

See Halachot 7-9.

See Halachot 4 and 10.

See Halachot 11-12. The Rashba quotes the Halachot Gedolot as explaining that it is necessary to wash with a vessel, because the washing of hands is derived from the sanctification of the priest’s hands in the Temple.

See Halachot 13-14.

The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 160) states that this concept is derived from the laws of the ki’or (the basin in the Temple from which the priests washed their hands). If its water changed color, it could no longer be used.

E. g., ink or another coloring fell into it.

It became rusty from a metal container. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 160:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 160:3, which state that water that has become murky from mud or dirt is acceptable, because even this is often the color of natural stream water.
If after water was disqualified because of an abnormal color, its color reverts to the norm, it can be used to wash one’s hands (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 160:1; Mishnah Berurah 160:5).

See Hilchot Rotzeach USh’mirat HaNefesh 11:6-16, which discusses the prohibition of water left uncovered. This prohibition was enacted out of fear of the possibility that a poisonous snake or the like released venom into the water.

The Tur (Orach Chayim 160) notes that since the presence of poisonous snakes and the like is no longer widespread, the prohibition against drinking—and hence, washing with—such water need not be observed at present. This ruling is accepted by the later authorities.

The Rambam is implying that the water in a mikveh or in a natural stream remains acceptable for washing although it was used for other tasks (Kessef Mishneh).

If, however, the bread fell into the water accidentally, the water is not disqualified (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 160:2; Mishnah Berurah 160:8).

The Rama (Orach Chayim 160:2) states that even if the baker washed his hands in the water, the water does not become unacceptable. The Turei Zahav (160:3) refutes this ruling. His opinion is accepted by the later authorities.

Slightly murky water is acceptable, as mentioned above. The determining factor is whether or not a dog will drink from the water.

Since a mikveh containing such water is acceptable for the immersion of one’s entire body, it is surely acceptable for the immersion of hands, which is only a Rabbinic commandment.

These hot springs have a high mineral content and are very bitter.

The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as referring to a stream that was diverted into a trench that does not contain forty se’ah. Although logically, this would be acceptable for the immersion of hands, the Sages forbade using such water, lest one also immerse one’s hands in a container of water. Significantly, in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 160:7), Rav Yosef Caro adds a further point, that the water was cut off from its source.

I.e., the washing before partaking of bread.

I.e., the washing after the meal (see Halachah 17); alternatively, the second pouring of water over one’s hands, as mentioned in the notes to Halachah 4. Note the explanation of the Kessef Mishneh.

In both instances, one must pour at least a revi’it of water over one’s hands in a single pouring. In the first instance, while the water is being poured one gradually moves one’s hands under the water, while in the second instance, one pours hurriedly, but forcefully, over the entire hand at once.

I.e., several people stand with their hands outstretched, and a person pours water over their hands.

Although the water first passes over the hands of one person, it is still acceptable for the person whose hands are held below, because as long as it contains the required quantity and comes in one continuous stream, it does not become impure.
Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 160:16 and the Mishnah Berurah 160:68, 72 state that the two people must originally have the intention to wash their hands as one, and must hold their hands close together. Otherwise, it is considered as if the second person washed with the water that was rendered impure by the first person’s washing.

Note the difference of opinion on this issue between the Rambam and the other Halachic authorities mentioned in the notes to Halachah 4.

This halachah revolves around the third rule mentioned in Halachah 6, that one must wash one’s hands from a vessel.

Because they are not vessels and were not made with the intent of containing water (Kessef Mishneh).

Broken shards of an earthenware container that are still capable of holding water.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s interpretation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Yadayim 1:2 which is the source for this halachah).

Although some commentaries state that this also refers to shards, others, to avoid redundancy, state that it is referring to unshaped pieces of earthenware.

These usually contain a handle on their top, and thus cannot stand erect when turned upside down.

By breaking the handle so that it could stand erect.

Although the covering was not originally made to contain liquid, since it was modified with that intention and, in its present state, it can contain a revi’it without being supported, it is acceptable.

By having a stand erected for it (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol).

The Bayit Chadash (Orach Chayim 159) questions why any modification is necessary for a wine-pouch, since it is also originally made with the intention of containing liquids. It explains that generally, if left uncovered, without a stand, a pouch will not be able to contain water. Hence, unless a stand is made for it, it is unacceptable.

And the holes in them filled with tar to prevent water from flowing out.

The Bayit Chadash explains the difference between these and the former two instances: The covering of a jug and a wine pouch are made for the purpose of containing of liquids. Accordingly, although without modification they cannot serve that purpose in a manner acceptable for use in washing hands, once they are modified, they are acceptable. In contrast, a sack or a basket is never used to contain liquids. Therefore, even after modification, it is unacceptable.

See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 159:6).

Hilchot Keilim, Chapters 6, 11, and 19, relates the following general principle: Once a vessel is broken to the point that it can no longer serve its original purpose, it is no longer considered a vessel and can no longer contract ritual impurity.
Chulin 107a mentions that a vessel that is used for containing liquids becomes disqualified when it contains a hole large enough to allow liquids to enter when the vessel is placed within them.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that the Rambam would consider a vessel acceptable if the hole is on the side and the portion of the vessel below the hole contains more than a revi’it of liquid.
In contrast, in his Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 159), he explains that the Rambam would disqualify such a utensil because even though it can still contain a sufficient amount of liquid, it is a broken vessel and, as such, unsuitable for use for this mitzvah. In his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 159:1-2), he rules that a hole on the side disqualifies a vessel unless one is able to pour water through the hole.

e.g., utensils made from mud without being fired in a kiln.

Although utensils made from these substances are not categorized as “vessels” with regard to the laws of ritual impurity, they are acceptable for this purpose.

As mentioned in the previous halachah.

I.e., is too small to contain this amount of water.

I.e., in actual fact it does not contain that amount of water.

This refers to pouring the first amount of water over one’s hands. According to our custom of pouring water twice (or three times) over our hands, the second pouring need not contain a revi’it. (See Hilchot Mikveot 11:8.)

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam on this matter. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 159:12) quotes both views.

Although the water was originally poured by “human power,” unless one’s hands are close to the place where the bucket is poured, it is considered that the “human power” has ceased and the water is flowing because of the force of gravity.

The governing principle for the Rambam’s ruling is that washing hands is a Rabbinic commandment, and we fulfill the rule, “When there is a doubt concerning a Rabbinic injunction, the lenient perspective should be taken.” The Ra’avad does not object to the Rambam’s ruling. However, he adds that when a person has other water available, he should wash again to remove the doubt. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 160:11) accepts the Rambam’s ruling, but also mentions the Ra’avad’s view.

The water with which one washes one’s hands becomes impure. Hence, if it flows past the wrist and then returns to one’s hands, it can cause them to become impure. By holding one’s hands upward, one insures that any water that has flowed past the wrist will not return.
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 4, it is customary to wash our hands at least twice: once to purify them and once to wash off the impure water. Nevertheless, this second washing is considered effective only on one’s hands. If any water from the first washing rose above one’s wrist and returned—even if water from the second washing also rose above one’s wrist—one’s hands become impure (Hilchot Mikvaot 11:4; Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 162). This law applies, however, only when one pours less than a revi’it of water over one’s entire hand(s) the first time. If one pours an entire revi’it over one’s entire hand(s) at one time, that water remains pure (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 162:1).

If one would hold them upward, it would be possible for the water containing the dangerous salt to collect between one’s fingers (Kessef Mishneh).

Chulin 105b relates that a spirit of impurity rests over the water used to wash one’s hands after eating. Accordingly, this water should be collected in a container and poured out, rather than left on the ground where a person could step in it and become adversely affected.

There are, however, some Ashkenazic authorities who rule that such water should not be used to wash hands. If there is other water available, their opinion should be respected. If not, one may rely on the Rambam and the other authorities who accept his ruling (Mishnah Berurah 160:27).

On the contrary, rather than remove the filth, the hot water causes it to be absorbed by the skin. (See Chulin 105b; Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 181.)

A stipulation is necessary because we are required to have the intent to purify our hands when washing them. The stipulation reflects our intent that our hands be pure for all the situations for which washing is required (Magen Avraham 164:2).

The same principle applies if a person washes his hands in the middle of the day. For example, a person who washes his hands after using the lavatory and desires to eat shortly afterwards, may have in mind that the washing will be effective for the meal.
Although this is halachically acceptable even when there is no shortage of water (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 164:1), it is customary to wash one’s hands before eating because of the impression it may create (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 164:1) or because one may have diverted his attention from his hands (Mishnah Berurah 164:3).

Although he does not know for sure that his hands have touched something that causes them to become impure, he must wash. Taharot 7:8 states that “hands are busy” and there is reason to suspect that they touched something impure.

I.e., before prayer or before eating.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 163:1) accepts the Rambam’s ruling only when water is not easily available.

We do not wash because of ritual purity, but because of a Rabbinic decree instituted to keep us conscious of the obligation to do so for sacred foods. The Rabbis applied this decree to the person eating alone.

The obligation to wash lies with the person who is eating, as explained in the previous halachah. Nevertheless, by giving him food when he does not wash, one violates the prohibition, “Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.” (See Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 299.)

Eduyot 5:6 states that Elazar ben Chanoch was placed under a ban of ostracism for casting aspersions on the practice of washing before eating.

Among them: Sotah 4b: “Whoever eats bread without washing hands is considered as if he consorted with a prostitute.... Whoever treats the washing of hands with disdain will be uprooted from this world.” Shabbat 62b: “Whoever treats the washing of hands with disdain will become poor.”

The commentaries cite the following passage from Eruvin 21b as the source for the Rambam’s statements:
Rabbi Akiva was imprisoned and Rabbi Yehoshua Hagarsi would attend him.... [Rabbi Akiva] asked him: “Give me water so that I can wash my hands.”
He answered: “There is not enough to drink, let alone to use for the washing of hands.” He replied: “What can I do? [Ignoring this command] makes one liable for death.

In his Beit Yosef and his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 158:12-13), Rav Yosef Caro explains that the reason for drying the hands is that the water that remains on one’s hands after washing the first time becomes impure. For this reason, if one immersed one’s hands in a mikveh or poured an entire revi’it over them, there is no obligation to dry them. The Maharshal and the Radbaz (Vol. I, Responsum 15) explain that the Rambam (and his source, Sotah 4b) are not referring to ritual purity and impurity. Rather, it is distasteful and undignified to eat bread without first drying one’s hands.

Rabbenu Manoach and the Radbaz (loc. cit.) explain that drying one’s hands is a gesture of respect for the blessing. The Kolbo quotes the Ra’avad as maintaining that drying one’s hands is not required. The Tur (Orach Chayim 181) does not mention the matter at all, and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 181:8) quotes both opinions.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 179:1) quotes this ruling within the context of the law that washing after the meal constitutes a definite diversion of one’s attention from eating. Should one desire to eat anything afterward, a new blessing is required. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 181:6 and the Mishnah Berurah 179:1 also mention that one should not speak. Nevertheless, if an interruption was made, one may rectify the situation by washing a second time.