Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

This implies that the laws stated below have their roots in our obligation to conduct ourselves in an refined and ethical manner. Accordingly, in societies where different practices and rules of conduct prevail, there is room for change. For this reason, some of these laws are not quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, and even many of those that are, have been modified or have fallen out of practice at present.

This follows the Rambam’s decision, Chapter 1, Halachah 12, which states that when people eat as a company, one person should recite the blessing on behalf of all assembled. See also the notes to that halachah.

In this way, he will recite the blessing over a whole loaf, as stated in Halachah 4.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 7

See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.

In the Talmudic era, it was not customary to partake of bread by itself. Instead, it was eaten with salt or other relishes. Therefore, as an act of respect, it was proper to withhold the recitation of the blessing until one was ready to eat. Furthermore, each participant in the meal should be served salt or the relish, so that no interruption would be made between the recitation of the blessing and the time when he commences eating (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 167:8).
The Rama (Orach Chayim 167:5) mentions a further factor regarding the serving of salt. Our Sages (see Berachot 55a) liken our tables to the altar in the Temple. Since Leviticus 2:13 commands, “Offer salt on all your sacrifices,” it is appropriate to emphasize the sacred nature of our meals by dipping the bread into salt at the beginning.

When fine white bread or bread that is baked with condiments is served, there is no need to wait until salt or a relish is brought, because such bread is eaten by itself (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 167:5).

Since one does not do so during the week, it is obvious that one is breaking off a large piece as a token of respect for the Sabbath (Berachot 39b).

On one hand, prominence is given to the loaf of wheat bread, since wheat is mentioned first in Deuteronomy 8:8 which praises Eretz Yisrael for the seven species of produce (See Chapter 8, Halachah 13). On the other hand, as mentioned in these halachot, prominence is also given to a whole loaf.

Shabbat 117b states that a person must break bread on two loaves on the Sabbath because, when describing the manna in connection with the Sabbath, Exodus 16:22 uses the expression לחם משנה (a double portion of bread).

From this and the previous halachah, it appears that one should conduct himself in the following manner: The blessing should be recited on a whole loaf. Afterwards, the bread should be sliced and a piece given to all the assembled. Then, the person who broke bread should begin eating.

See the interpretation of “Zion stretched out her hands, there was none to comfort her” (Eichah 1:17), in the Yalkut Shimoni, Mishlei.

Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 167:15), which states that a person who has a loaf of his own, need not wait until the person who breaks bread for the entire company begins to eat.

We fear that the food will go down the windpipe instead of the esophagus, and the person will choke (Ta’anit 5b). Between courses, however, one is allowed to talk and, indeed, is obligated to mention words of Torah (Mishnah Berurah 170:1).

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, if people are dining together, the Rambam considers it preferable that one person recite the blessing and the others fulfill their obligation by listening to him and reciting Amen. Nevertheless, in this instance, this is not done, because of the danger involved. (See also Chapter 4, Halachah 12 and notes.)

Ketubot 61a relates that Elijah the prophet revealed himself to a sage who would allow his attendant to partake of each dish he served.

Chulin 107b explains this law as follows: A person does not ordinarily recite a blessing on each cup of wine, because when reciting the blessing originally he has the intent of drinking as much as he desires. An attendant cannot possibly have such an intent, because he is not allowed to drink unless he is given a drink by the people he is serving. [Note the difference in the rulings derived from this passage regarding wine and bread, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 169:3).]

We assume that he touched urine or his private parts with only one hand. If he defecates, he should wash both hands. (See Shulchan Aruch and the Rama, Orach Chayim 170:1.)

Because of the principle that “the hands are busy,” we assume that the person did not pay attention to what he touched and he may have touched a portion of the body or an article that requires him to wash his hands.

When everyone is eating bread, it is taken for granted that a person will wash before resuming to eat. In contrast, when the company is drinking and not eating, the others may suspect that he did not wash afterward.

The wine is collected in containers at the end of the pipes, so that the beverage will not be wasted.

The grains and nuts have shells. In the summer, although they temporarily become dusty, there is no lasting detriment. In the winter, the ground is often muddy, and throwing them on the ground could cause them to become repugnant.

This is disrespectful to the wine. Hence, wine may not be used even for ritual washings.

The Rambam’s intention is that the guests will give the children in the expectation that they will be served more. When their host is unable to do so, he will become embarrassed. See Chulin 94a for a tragic tale of the consequences of such behavior.

Rav Kapach explains that the oil was used to seal the wine from contact with air.

I.e., they would use the oil as a dip for their bread.

The Rambam is referring to mayim acharonim, as mentioned in the following halachah.
This ruling applied in Talmudic times, when it was customary to remove the small tables placed in front of each individual before grace was recited (Pesachim 115b). The Sages feared that pieces of bread would fall off the table and become spoiled, as the Rambam explains (see Berachot 52b). At present, since the table is not removed, there is no suspicion of this nature, and hence no requirement to sweep the floor (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 180:3).
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:1-2) also mentions leaving pieces of bread on the table as a sign of blessing.

Chulin 105a teaches that destroying even small crumbs of bread will lead to poverty. Nevertheless, this applies only when one treats them without respect. There is no problem with respectfully disposing of small bread crumbs (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 180:5; Mishnah Berurah 180:10).

Based on Berachot 46b, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 181:6) accepts the Rambam’s ruling only when five or fewer people participated in the meal. If more than five participated, one should begin washing from the person of lowest stature, so the person reciting grace will not have to wait without being able to do anything until all others have washed.

The Ra’avad notes that a person of greater stature may allow a person of lower stature to recite grace. Therefore, he mentions another reason, so that the person reciting grace will have time to review the blessings. This reason is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 181:6 and the Mishnah Berurah 181:15.

As mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 181:8), there are opinions that do not require one to dry one’s hands after mayim acharonim. Some opinions maintain that, even according to the Rambam, only the person leading the grace is required to dry his hands.

This was the common practice in Talmudic times. See Berachot 42b.

Note, however, the following halachah, where the Rambam states that we are not obligated to recite grace over a cup of wine.

Note the Ra’avad, who questions the obligation of holding spices in one’s hand while reciting grace. Interestingly, although in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro does not accept the Ra’avad’s position, he does not quote the Rambam’s view in his Shulchan Aruch.
The difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Ra’avad is based on the fact that the Ra’avad (and the Kessef Mishneh) view the Rambam’s statements as based on Berachot 43b. The Ra’avad, like Rashi, interprets that passage to be referring to wine and spices served after the meal, and not those that accompany the recitation of grace.
Rav Kapach notes that the Rambam also interprets that passage in the above manner, as is obvious from Chapter 9, Halachah 4. Rav Kapach explains that this halachah is based on a difference source, the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 8:5, which makes these statements explicitly with regard to grace.

This indicates that the wine is given priority over the spices.

As the Rambam mentions (Hilchot De’ot 5:9), when a Torah sage goes out in public perfumed, aspersions may arise regarding the propriety of his conduct.

There are three different halachic perspectives on this issue:
a) that of Tosafot, Pesachim 105b, and Rabbenu Asher, who consider reciting grace over a cup of wine as an obligation that must be fulfilled under all circumstances, even when reciting grace alone;
b) that of the Midrash HaNe’elam, Ruth, which requires a cup of wine only when grace is recited with a zimmun;
c) that of the Rambam and Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, which considers reciting grace over a cup of wine a desirable custom, but not an obligation at all.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 182:1) follows the Rambam’s ruling.

This applies only when food had been dipped into the cup over which grace was recited. If the cup is clean, this is not necessary.

This was instituted as an expression of praise for Eretz Yisrael, to demonstrate that it produces wine that is so strong that it must be diluted.

There are two aspects to this silence: a) it is a token of respect to the blessings being recited; b) according to the Rambam, when grace is recited in a zimmun, those assembled should fulfill their obligation to recite grace by listening and reciting Amen to the blessings recited by the leader of the zimmun. This is impossible if they are talking. See Chapter 5, Halachah 3.

Everyone should partake of the wine to bring blessing to themselves and the home (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 182:1).

There is a difference of opinion among the halachic authorities if the blessing borey nefashot requires a chatimah or not; i.e., is this a blessing of one line like the blessings before partaking of fruit, or does it have a concluding line beginning, ברוך אתה ה'? The Babylonian Talmud does not mention a chatimah, but the Jerusalem Talmud does. Accordingly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 207:1) suggests reciting a concluding line without mentioning God’s name.
This decision is also reflected in the standard published texts of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 6:8). Rav Kapach, in his text of the Commentary to the Mishnah and similarly in his text of these halachot (Halachah 8), quotes the Rambam’s text of the blessing without a chatimah at all. This text is borne out by a responsum attributed to the Rambam.
According to the standard text of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, the blessing reads: ברוך אתה ה'... בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שברא, ברוך א-ל חי העולמים. “Blessed are you, God... Creator of numerous living beings and their needs of for all that He created. Blessed is God Who lives forever.” Our text of the blessing differs slightly.

The Rambam is referring to Deuteronomy 8:8, which praises Eretz Yisrael for producing seven species of produce. Two, wheat and barley, are grains and not fruit. Because Eretz Yisrael was praised for producing these species, the Sages instituted a special blessing for them.

See Halachah 14 and Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

E. g., to wash down food.

Unless a person is thirsty, the benefit he receives from drinking water is not significant enough to require a blessing (Tosafot, Berachot 45a).

Based on Berachot 38a, the rabbis explain that liquid squeezed from other fruits is “merely fluid.” It does not represents the essence of the fruit. In contrast, grapes and olives are planted primarily for their liquids; wine and oil are the essence of the fruit.

Since one’s intent is to drink the oil for its medicinal value, it is considered of primary importance, and the vegetable sauce of secondary importance. Hence, the blessing borey pri ha’etz, which is appropriate for the oil, is recited.

Without the addition of a sauce for flavor. In such an instance, the oil will not be fit to drink. It appears, however, that even so, the Rambam requires that the blessing shehakol be recited. The other authorities differ and maintain that not only is the blessing borey pri ha’etz not recited, but that one should not recite any blessing at all, even when one drinks the oil because of a sore throat (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 202:4; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 202:10; Mishnah Berurah 202:27).

In which case one would not have the intent of drinking the oil, but rather drinking the sauce with which it was mixed. Hence, the blessing which is appropriate for the sauce should be recited.
Significantly, the Rambam does not mention reciting a blessing after partaking of oil. This implies that the single blessing that includes the three blessings of grace should not be recited after partaking of oil. There are two reasons for this decision:
a) oil alone is not a satisfying food;
b) this blessing was not instituted for a food that cannot be enjoyed in its natural form.

The designation of the “usual” way of eating a fruit or produce depends on the local custom. The examples mentioned in the Talmud, here in the Mishneh Torah, and in the Shulchan Aruch, reflect the norms of the time and place in which those texts where written. Should the eating habits of a particular society differ regarding a specific fruit, the blessing changes accordingly.

The Rambam does not mention fruits, since with the exception of quince, there are no fruits that are primarily eaten cooked.

When stating this principle, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 202:12, based on Tosafot, Berachot 38b) uses a slightly different expression:
[When partaking of] all fruit that are pleasant tasting either raw or cooked... one should recite the blessing borey pri ha’etz regardless of whether one eats it raw or cooked.
Nevertheless, in actual practice, there is no difference between the two opinions. When a fruit tastes good when it is cooked, but is not usually eaten in that fashion, both opinions would require the blessing shehakol.

This explanation clarifies the Rambam’s perspective on a question that has been raised among the halachic authorities: Why should borey pri ha’adamah be recited over stew, when juice produced by squeezing the vegetable requires only the blessing shehakol?
Rabbenu Asher and other commentaries explain that cooking extracts more of the body of the fruit than squeezing. The Rambam and others (among them, the Rashba) maintain that the reason borey pri ha’adamah is recited is that this is the manner in which the produce is commonly eaten. When it was planted, this was the intent in mind.
This difference in explanation produces a difference in law as well. According to the Rambam, in most cases one should recite shehakol over the water in which fruit is cooked (indeed, this can be inferred from the fact that he mentions only vegetables in this halachah), because fruit is rarely planted with this purpose in mind. In contrast, according to Rabbenu Asher, borey pri ha’etz should be recited, because the main body of the fruit is extracted in the cooking process.

If the vegetables are stewed together with meat or fish, the latter are considered the primary element of the food, and the blessing shehakol is recited (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 205:2).

This ruling applies even when the soup is eaten without the vegetables themselves (ibid.).

According to the Rambam, when one cooked vegetables with the intention of eating the vegetables without considering drinking the water in which they were cooked, and afterwards, decided to drink the water, one should recite the blessing shehakol. Rabbenu Asher, however, would not accept this decision.

Although the Torah (Deuteronomy 8:8) refers to dates with the term “honey,” the honey is not considered the primary element of the fruit (See Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 202). Although there are opinions that differ, the Rambam’s ruling is accepted as halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 202:8).

Although they no longer appear as dates, since the flavor and the substance of the fruit remains, the blessing for them does not change.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 202:7) mentions a difference of opinion about applesauce that has been cooked and crushed to the point that it no longer resembles a fruit at all. Some opinions maintain that the same principle that applies regarding dates applies in this instance as well. Others explain that there is a difference between the two cases. Applesauce has no resemblance to apples whatsoever, while the crushed dates are obviously dates.

This expression indicates that this ruling is a decision arrived at independently by the Rambam and is not supported by previous sources. The Rambam supports his ruling with two explanations:
a) Sugar cane is not a fruit, and the blessing borey pri ha’etz was instituted only for fruit (see the following halachah);
b) Even if sugar cane were to be considered a fruit, its sap, like date honey, should not require this blessing (Kessef Mishneh).

Although the Tur objects to the Rambam’s ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 202:15).

Even though it is sweet and can be eaten, it is considered part of the tree and not a fruit.

Our translation is based on Rashi’s commentary (Berachot 36a). The Aruch renders the term kafras as leaves.
Since these petals are not considered “fruit,” the blessing borey pri ha’etz should not be recited upon them. Nevertheless, since, in contrast to the stalk of the date palm, the caper bushes are planted with the intention of eating the petals as well, one should recite the blessing borey pri ha’adamah.
This law is relevant in a contemporary context as well, e.g., when eating orange peels. See the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 202:9.

Note the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:10), which mentions the vine on which peppers grow to be a tree with regard to the laws of orlah. Nevertheless, since the peppers are usually grown with the intent of being dried and used as spices, the blessing borey pri ha’etz is not appropriate (Kessef Mishneh).

This refers to food that is not fit for human consumption at all (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 204). The laws governing foods that have spoiled moderately are discussed in the following halachah.

In contrast to the foods mentioned in the previous halachah, here the Rambam is speaking of foods that are fit to be eaten. However, because they are slightly spoiled, the unique blessing designated for them is not recited.

Fruit that has been overexposed to the sun and has fallen from the tree before becoming ripe. It will never become fully ripe and have the proper taste of fruit. Hence, it is also considered to be spoiled food.

Although beer is made from grain, dates, or other produce, it is made as a beverage, and one is not partaking of the substance of the fruit or grain.

This refers to vinegar that is mixed with water or that has not fermented entirely. In contrast, no blessing should be recited over vinegar that has fermented entirely, since its taste is not pleasant and it is damaging to the body (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 204:1-2).

Though mushrooms and truffles grow on the earth, they are not considered pri ha’adamah (fruits of the earth), because they derive their nurture from the air (Berachot 40b).

The Mishnah (Niddah 6:10) makes this statement to contrast the blessings recited over food with those recited over the fulfillment of mitzvot.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 204:5) emphasizes that this law depends on the strength of the wines available. Our wines are not as strong as those of the Talmudic period, and hence the ratio of three parts water to one part wine is not sufficient to require the blessing borey pri hagefen.
This law is very relevant regarding most commercially produced wines, which are heavily diluted at present.

Because the fruits that grow on trees also grow from the ground.

Because the fruit that grows from the ground does not grow on trees.

Because ultimately all entities in this world “came into being through His speech.”
It must be emphasized that this law applies only בדיעבד, after the fact. At the outset, it is proper to recite the appropriate blessings over all foods (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 206:1; Mishnah Berurah 206:5).

This decision is rendered despite the fact that, even after the fact, the blessing borey pri hagafen is not appropriate for beer. Similarly, in the two cases which follow, the blessing the person recited is not appropriate. He is, nevertheless, considered to have fulfilled his obligation for the reasons explained by the Rambam.

Although this principle is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 209:1), there is a significant amount of contention regarding the matter, and most of the later authorities do not accept this decision (Mishnah Berurah 209:1).
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, explaining that the words the person actually said are of essential importance, not the intention which he had. Similarly, others have noted a seeming inconsistency in the Rambam’s own decisions, noting that in Hilchot Kri’at Shema 1:8 (which is based on the same Talmudic passage, Berachot 12a), the Rambam writes, “Everything depends on the conclusion [of the blessings].”
The Rishon LeTzion attempts to resolve the difficulty, explaining that there is a difference between the blessings recited before Kri’at Shema and the blessings recited over foods. The blessings recited before Kri’at Shema contain a chatimah (a concluding phrase beginning Baruch Atah Adonai). Therefore, that phrase is of paramount importance.
In contrast, the blessings over food do not contain chatimot. Hence, what is significant is the mention, in the initial phrase of the blessing, of God’s name and His sovereignty. See also the Kessef Mishneh’s comments here and in Hilchot Kri’at Shema.

As mentioned previously, whenever there is a doubt concerning an obligation that stems from the Torah itself, one must follow the more stringent option. When there is a doubt regarding an obligation of Rabbinic origin, one may take the more lenient option. In this instance, one is required to take the more lenient option and not recite a blessing, since there is a possibility of a blessing being recited unnecessarily.
These principles do not apply to grace (see Chapter 2, Halachah 14) because the obligation to recite it originates in the Torah itself. As mentioned previously, there are some authorities who maintain that the blessing al hamichyah is a Scriptural obligation.

On one hand, “It is forbidden to benefit from this world without reciting a blessing.” (See the commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 2.) On the other hand, the Sages were careful that a person should not waste any food at all. [Although the Ra’avad does not accept the latter principle, it is followed by Rav Yosef Caro in his Kessef Mishneh and Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 172:1). Note, however, the Magen Avraham 172:1, who quotes the Ra’avad.]

According to the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.), the Rambam is stating that one should recite only a blessing after the food, and should not recite the blessing usually recited before drinking. The Rama, however, does not accept this decision and maintains that one should recite the two blessings in succession. The Mishnah Berurah 172:5, however, questions this decision. Significantly, there are commentaries that explain that there is no controversy between the Rama and the Rambam, and that the Rambam’s intention is that one should recite the blessing that is usually recited beforehand afterwards.

Thus, one fulfills the words of Psalms 71:8: “May my mouth be full with Your praise.”

Indeed, one is obligated to follow this course of action. Because of the prohibition against reciting an unnecessary blessing (see Chapter 1, Halachah 15), it is forbidden to recite a blessing for a food when a blessing has already been recited for another food of the same type.

One should not recite the blessing borey pri ha’adamah with the intention that it include fruit from trees or the blessing shehakol with the intention that it include produce.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this means the type of food that the person desires more at present. For example, if a person was served both cake and apples and he desired the apples more at that moment, he should recite the blessing over them, even though he generally, favors cake more.
It must be noted that the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 211:1) mentions an opinion that gives precedence to the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael was praised even when other types of food are more desirable. Similarly, it is worthy to note that many authorities quote a principle mentioned by Ba’al Halachot Gedolot which requires one to recite a blessing on fruit from a tree before produce from the earth, and a blessing on both types of produce before the blessing shehakol, so that the blessing that is more inclusive in nature will not apply to the other type of food. Also, many authorities mention the importance of granting precedence to a blessing over food that is whole over food that is not whole.

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.: 5) specifies that this applies only to baked goods or cooked food made from wheat or barley, but not to kernels of these grains eaten in a manner in which they merely require the blessing borey pri ha’adamah. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 2.)

The Rishon LeTzion notes that the Rambam mentions grapes and not wine. Because of its importance, the blessing for wine should be given prominence over fruits, even those that are closer in proximity to the word “land.” This principle is also quoted by the Rama (Orach Chayim 211:4).

See Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s ruling is based on Berachot 44a which mentions only the conclusion “for the land and for its fruit,” without mentioning a separate conclusion for wine. Rabbenu Yonah, Rabbenu Asher, and the Ra’avad differ, and state that when concluding the blessing over wine, one should conclude, “for the land and for the fruit of the vine.” This is the accepted practice today. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 208:11 and commentaries.)

Note the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:10), which states that, even in the Diaspora, a person should conclude the blessing in this manner if he eats fruit from Eretz Yisrael.

This is the accepted practice in both Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities today. (See Mishnah Berurah 208:50.)

This is the order in which the three clauses should be recited regardless of the order in which one ate these foods, their quantity, or one’s preference for them.

According to the opinions mentioned in Note 47, one also adds “for the fruit of the vine.”
Berachot 49a mentions the principle that one should not include two subjects in the conclusion of a blessing. The conclusion suggested by the Rambam does not violate this principle, because it can be interpreted, “for the land that produces sustenance and the fruit of the trees.”

Note the Lechem Mishneh, who questions what the Rambam’s ruling would be when one ate apples and drank wine. On one hand, wine and fruit are two different categories of foods. Nevertheless, since the Rambam maintains that one should conclude the blessing for wine with the phrase “for the fruit of the trees,” there is reason to think that both could be included in a single blessing. According to our custom, there is no question that two separate blessings should be recited (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 208:13).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

As a source for this practice, Berachot 43b quotes Psalms 150:6: “All souls shall praise God,” and asks: “From what does a soul benefit? Fragrance.”

See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:3.

Just as the blessing shehakol includes all types of foods, this blessing includes all types of fragrances.

The motivating principle is that one should recite the blessing before benefiting from the fragrance. Nevertheless, there should not be an extended period between the time the blessing is recited and the time one receives the benefit (Mishnah Berurah 216:47-48).

Although the substance must be burned before it produces its fragrance, it still retains its initial blessing (Mishnah Berurah 216:49).

Since this oil was produced primarily in Eretz Yisrael, our Sages ordained a special blessing for it (Rabbenu Yonah, based on Berachot 43a).

This ruling is based on the Rambam’s interpretation of Berachot 43a. Other commentaries interpret the passage differently.

The expression “as was done for the anointing oil” cannot mean copying the formula for the incense oil, since that is forbidden (Klei HaMikdash 1:4). Rather, the intent is preparing oil in a manner resembling the incense oil.

This ruling has raised many questions. Some authorities suggest that the Rambam’s version of Berachot 43b differs from the text we presently possess. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 216:11), however, quotes the Rambam’s decision with the proviso that the blessing required for the oil must be the same as that required for the myrtle.

Similarly, if one also had spices from an animal, one should recite a third blessing. Nevertheless, after the fact, if a person recited only one blessing, “... Who created various kinds of spices,” with the intent of including all these fragrances, he is considered to have fulfilled his obligation (Shulchan Aruch and Rama, Orach Chayim 216:10). There is no required order of priority for these blessings. Rather, whichever spice one desires to smell more should be given precedence.

Note the explanation of this halachah in the commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 14, Notes 34-36. The repetition of these concepts is necessary because one might think that the laws mentioned previously apply only regarding grace, when reciting the blessings over a cup of wine enhances their importance. Here, the Rambam is stating a general principle: that blessings over food should be recited before blessings over fragrance (Kinat Eliyahu).

Unlike the parallels in the blessings over food, the blessing “... Who created fragrant herbs” cannot take the place of the blessing “... Who created fragrant trees.”

Berachot 53a explains that although one is required to recite a blessing only on fragrances that were prepared for people to smell (see Halachot 7-8), one should recite a blessing in this situation. Although the perfumer prepares his fragrances with the intent that people purchase them, he also has in mind that they smell them so that they will desire to purchase them.

In this instance, the person is not smelling each fragrance individually, but all of them collectively. Hence, he recites one all-inclusive blessing instead of reciting an individual blessing for each fragrance, as stated in the previous halachah (Mishnah Berurah 217:3).

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 217:1) states that if one left with the intent of returning, a second blessing should not be recited.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s interpretation of the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Kilayim 5:8. Although there are difficulties with this interpretation, we have employed it because of the obvious problem in translating the word שושנה. As the Kessef Mishneh mentions, both שושנה and ורד are generally translated as “rose.” Since the Rambam mentions both these terms in the same halachah, an alternate translation for one of the terms is necessary.

This translation is based on the Targum Yonatan’s rendition of Song of Songs 2:1.

Even though the fragrance is produced by cooking the rose petals in water, since the source of the fragrance is the rose, the blessing remains the same (Magen Avraham 216:7).

Not only is one not required to recite a blessing in such a situation, it is forbidden to do so. Examples of all three categories are mentioned in the following halachah.

It is forbidden to derive any benefit from false gods or anything that was consecrated to their service (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2).

This prohibition was instituted lest one be aroused to engage in sexual activity (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 217:4); alternatively, to prevent sexual thoughts from arising (Mishnah Berurah 217:16).

It was customary in Talmudic times to rinse one’s hands with fragrant oil after eating (Berachot 53a, b). The Mishnah Berurah 217:11 applies the same concept to oil used as a body deodorant.

Berachot 53a states that a person who walks through the streets of Tiberias on the Sabbath eve should not recite a blessing despite the fragrant odor he smells, because the fragrance comes from clothes being perfumed in honor of the Sabbath.

Note the Mishnah Berurah 217:14 who states that if the person also intends to enjoy the aroma of the incense he must recite a blessing, even when his primary intent was to perfume the clothes.

On the basis of this law, the commentaries question the Rambam’s statements in Halachah 3 regarding oil perfumed with spices in a manner resembling the anointing oil. Nevertheless, the difficulty can be resolved on the basis of the Rambam’s description of the preparation of the anointment oil (Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:2, quoted in the notes to Halachah 3, Note 9). Since the spices were “soaked in... water until all their power was expressed,” it is considered as if the essence of the ingredients is contained in the fragrance. In contrast, clothes perfumed by incense never collected the essence of the incense’s fragrance (Bayit Chadash, Orach Chayim 216).

This does not necessarily apply at present, when many gentiles are no longer idolaters.

Because we assume that it is associated with idol worship.

The Ma’aseh Rokeach and the Yad HaMelech argue whether this applies to a mixture of a permitted fragrance with a fragrance associated with idol worship. Since the existence of an article connected with idol worship never becomes nullified even when mixed with 1000 times more than its substance (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:9), it is forbidden to smell this mixture of fragrances. On the other hand, one can argue that this principle does not apply in this instance. Here, it is only fragrance and not an article of substance that has been mixed together. Hence, the concept of nullification can be applied, and the fragrance from the mixture is permitted.