Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 19) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 430) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

As opposed to the other blessings, which were ordained by the Rabbis.

The Kiryat Sefer and others interpret “satisfying food” as referring to bread made from the five species of grain mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 1. Significantly, the Rishon LeTzion and the Noda BiYhudah maintain that with this expression, the Rambam is implying that the blessing al hamichyah, which is recited over other foods made from these species, also has its source in this Scriptural commandment (see also Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 209).

The Rabbis do not specify a standard quantity or measure of food that a person must eat to have reached this state. Rather, they leave the matter up to the person’s own feelings.

The proof-text clearly indicates that the obligation to “bless” applies only when one is “satisfied.”

Berachot 20b relates:
The angels complained to the Holy One, blessed be He: “...In Your Torah, it is written [that You] ‘will not show favor, nor take bribes,’ and yet You show favor to the Jews....”
God replied: “Are the Jews not worthy that I show them favor? In My Torah, I have written, ‘When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless,’ and they have nevertheless adopted the stringency of reciting grace after eating an amount equivalent to an olive.”

A k’zayit. This is the measurement generally intended by Scriptural Law for the mitzvot and prohibitions concerned with eating. In contemporary measure, it is equivalent to 28.8 cc

The definition of this obligation as Rabbinical in nature has aroused questions. Berachot 35a states that this concept can be derived through one of the thirteen principles of Biblical interpretation. Thus, it has all the authority of a Scriptural Law. Though the Rambam (see the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) refers to laws derived in this manner as מדברי סופרים—literally, “from the words of our Sages,” the same term used here—his intent is not to imply that the law did not originate in the Torah itself.
Tosafot (Berachot, loc. cit.), however, explain that the Talmud ultimately does not accept the interpretation that the obligation is derived from the Torah, and maintain that the obligation to recite blessings is Rabbinic in origin.
Even according to these opinions, it appears that the Sages ordained the recitation of blessings rather early in our national history. Midrashim referring to the age of King David explicitly mention the recitation of blessings, and there are intimations of this obligation in references to earlier periods. See also the notes to Halachah 5.

Berachot, loc. cit., states: “It is forbidden to benefit from this world without reciting a blessing.”

I.e., less than a k’zayit or a revi’it.

In this instance, however, a blessing need not be recited after eating or drinking.

See Chapter 9 with regard to the particular blessings required.

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

Berachot 35a explains that the entire world belongs to God, as Psalms 24:1 declares: “The earth and its fullness are God’s.” Although God allows man to benefit from this world, that license is granted only when man acknowledges God’s control by reciting a blessing.

The word revi’it means “a fourth.” It is 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.

Anything less is not considered significant enough to require a blessing afterwards. A blessing beforehand must nevertheless be recited, because “it is forbidden to benefit from this world without a blessing.”

Rav David Arameah explains that this law applies only when one spits out the food one tastes. If one swallows it, a blessing is required. The Kessef Mishneh differs, and maintains that even when a person swallows the food, since his intent is not to benefit from it—but merely to taste it—and he partakes of only a very small amount, a blessing is not required. Both of these opinions are mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 210:2).

The laws governing the blessings recited over the performance of mitzvot are discussed in Chapter 11.

See Chapter 10.

By reciting blessings over the special events which occur to us, we become conscious of God’s control of all aspects of our daily existence. We learn to appreciate Him, not only as the Creator who brought the world into being, but as the One who directs the functioning of our lives and the world around us.

Berachot 33a explains that when the Men of the Great Assembly established the text of the prayer service (see Hilchot Tefillah 1:4), they also established the text for the various blessings and for Kiddush and Havdalah. This, however, does not mean that the blessings were not recited beforehand. Rather, just as explained with regard to prayer, before Ezra’s time each person would recite the blessings according to his own inspiration and ability to express himself. In Ezra’s time, many people had difficulty expressing themselves eloquently and, therefore, Ezra and his court established a standard text.

To substitute different words.

The Radbaz (Vol. 5, Responsum 1424) states that as long as the person mentions God’s name, His sovereignty over the world, and the subject of the blessing, he fulfills his obligation even if he does not use the text ordained by the Sages. (This interpretation is borne out by the next halachah.)
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s phraseology alludes to two types of changes:
a) Changes which do not substantially alter the blessing from the text ordained by the Sages. With regard to such changes, the Rambam uses the expression “it is not fit,” which implies that, although the person’s deed is not desirable, he fulfills his obligation.
b) A change of an innovative nature which alters the text of the blessing entirely. These changes the Rambam considers as “errors” which prevent a person from fulfilling his obligation. See also Halachah 13, Berachot 40b, and Hilchot Kri’at Shema 1:7.

I.e., the phrase י-ה-ו-ה א-להינו (God, our Lord),

I.e., the phrase מלך העולם (King of the universe).

And the person reciting it does not fulfill his obligation. See Berachot 40b

For example, the second and third blessings in grace do not mention God’s sovereignty, because they follow directly after the first blessing, which does. Since the blessings are recited in one continuum, one’s original statement is applied to the subsequent blessings as well.

Although the text ordained by Ezra and his court was in Hebrew, there is no absolute requirement to use that language.

Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 185:1-2, which quotes an opinion that maintains that a person who recites a blessing does not fulfill his obligation unless he understands what he is saying, even when he recites the blessing in Hebrew. Although there are other opinions that maintain that as long as the blessing is recited in Hebrew, one fulfills his obligation, Shulchan Aruch HaRav concludes that it is preferable for a person who does not understand Hebrew to recite the blessings—in particular, the grace—in a language he understands.

Reciting a different blessing from that ordained by the Sages.

I.e., a language other than “the Holy Tongue,” Hebrew. See Berachot 40b, which states that a person who recites the phrase “Blessed be God, Master of this bread” in Aramaic fulfills his obligation for the first blessing of grace. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 167:10) which requires that God’s sovereignty over the world also be mentioned.

Pronouncing the words with his lips.

Rashi, Rabbenu Asher, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 185:2 maintain that though one need not recite the blessings out loud, it is necessary to subvocalize them, pronouncing them with one’s lips, for thought is not comparable to speech.

This applies with regard to both blessings recited before food and blessings recited before performing a mitzvah.

This is a literal translation of the Rambam’s words. Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 206:3 which states that even remaining silent for the time it takes to say, Shalom alecha, Rebbe constitutes an interruption. Nevertheless, unlike an interruption made through speech, it does not require a new blessing.

The Rambam’s phraseology appears to indicate that, at the outset, one should not make any interruption. If, however, the situation demands that an interruption be made or if one inadvertently does so, the blessing need not be repeated when it is of the following nature.

See Berachot 40a and commentaries, which explain why each of these statements is connected with the meal.

In Hilchot Kri’at Shema 4:8, the Rambam states:
The words of Torah never contract impurity. Rather, they remain pure forever, as [Jeremiah 23:29] states: “Are not My words as fire....” Just as fire can never contract impurity, the words of Torah never contract impurity.
In Hilchot Tefillah 4:4, the Rambam applies these same principles to the words of prayer.

E.g., the impurity which comes as a result of contact with the carcass of an animal. In this case, to regain ritual purity, one must immerse oneself in a mikveh (and, in certain contexts, wait until nightfall).

There are some impurities—e.g., the impurity of a זב or the impurity resulting from contact with a human corpse—which require an extended period of time and other rituals besides immersion to regain ritual purity. (See also Berachot 3:4-6 and the Rambam’s commentary to those mishnayot.)

As explained in Hilchot Kri’at Shema 3:16-17, a person is not allowed to recite the Shema in a place where he can see naked people or when he, himself, is naked. The same principles apply with regard to the recitation of blessings.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 206:3) adds that a person may not recite any blessings unless there is a separation between his heart and his genitals and his head is covered.

Whose genitals protrude.

. Note the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Challah 2:3, and the Magen Avraham’s interpretation of his words (206:5).

In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that the same principle applies when the person reciting the blessing has not fulfilled his obligation, but does not desire to do so at the present time.

Rashi, Rosh HaShanah 29a, explains this principle on the basis of the concept of ערבות (mutual responsibility) that exists among the Jewish people. Each Jew shares a responsibility for his colleague’s observance. Therefore, although he personally has already recited the blessing, he has not discharged his obligation entirely until each of his fellow Jews fulfills the requirements incumbent upon him.

The Rambam describes the manner in which the listener fulfills his obligation in the next halachah.
For the above principle to apply, however, the listener must be obligated to fulfill the mitzvah. When the listener is not obligated—e.g., a woman for shofar blowing—a person should not recite a blessing unless he is obligated himself (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 589:6).

E.g., the blessings recited over food in an ordinary meal.

In this instance, there is no obligation for a person to partake of this food. Hence, the principle of ערבות does not apply (Rashi, loc. cit.) unless the person reciting the blessing also desires to partake of the food. Should he desire to do so, the blessing he recites may include others as well. (Note an alternate explanation in the notes to Chapter 5, Halachah 16.)

. I.e., not only the blessing al achilat matzah, which mentions the mitzvah of eating matzah, but also the blessing hamotzi, which is recited for eating bread; not only the blessing of Kiddush, but also the blessing borey pri hagafen, on the wine.

Since, in this instance, the only way the mitzvah can be fulfilled is by eating the food.
Note the Tur, Orach Chayim 273, which states that, at the outset, a person who has already recited Kiddush should not recite Kiddush for others, unless they are incapable of doing so themselves.

Note Sefer HaKovetz, which states that a person is not allowed to recite hamotzi to enable a colleague to partake of the Sabbath meal when he does not join them. There is reason to assume that, since partaking of such a meal is a mitzvah, one would be allowed to recite a blessing, and thus enable a colleague to do so. Nevertheless, following the reasoning mentioned in Sefer HaKovetz, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 167:20) and commentaries mention only the examples cited by the Rambam.

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.

According to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 167:13), this applies to all blessings.
Sukkah 38b states:
What is the source which teaches that a person who listens is considered as if he responded?
[II Kings 22:16] mentions: “all the words of the scroll read by the king.” Did Josaiah [the king] read them? Shafan read them.... Thus, this teaches that a person who listens is considered as if he responded.

Berachot 53b mentions two opinions, one which equates the person answering Amen with the person actually reciting the blessing (the opinion cited by the Rambam), and one which considers the person answering to be on an even higher level.
Thus, with this statement, the Rambam is explaining that, although a person can fulfill his obligation by listening without answering Amen, when he answers he is considered as if he actually recited the blessing himself (Kessef Mishneh).

This excludes a blessing recited by a mentally or emotionally compromised individual, a deaf-mute, or a child, who are not obligated to fulfill mitzvot (Berachot 20a, Rosh HaShanah 29a).
In Chapter 5, Halachot 15-16, the Rambam mentions that an adult who did not eat a full meal and is obligated to recite grace only by Rabbinic decree can fulfill his obligation by listening to the blessings recited by a child. This, however, is a unique instance and does not apply to blessings recited in the prayer service or over the fulfillment of other mitzvot. With regard to grace, the child’s recitation of the blessings 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 cannot fulfill the mitzvah for someone whose obligation stems from a single Rabbinic decree (Tosafot, Megillah 19b).

E.g., an adult male who has not eaten to the point of satisfaction.

An adult who ate to the point of satisfaction.

Word for word.

Our translation (based on Sefer HaKovetz and the Bnei Binyamin) does conform to Biblical and Mishnaic interpretations of the word יענה. It does, however, appear slightly forced. Nevertheless, it is the most appropriate way to interpret the Rambam’s words according to the halachah which states that, only with regard to grace, may an adult fulfill his obligation to recite a blessing by answering Amen to a child’s blessing.
Rav Kapach presents a unique thesis, maintaining that in this halachah the Rambam is teaching us that an adult can fulfill his obligation to recite any blessing by responding Amen to a blessing recited by a child. His interpretation, though contrary to the accepted halachah, allows for a more direct translation of the Rambam’s words.

In the latter case, the listener is not obligated to recite Amen.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 167:18 relates that today, even when eating a meal as a group, it is customary for each person to recite the blessing over bread himself, so that an interruption is not made between the recitation of the blessing and partaking of the food.

Without reciting blessings themselves. They fulfill their obligation by listening to the blessing recited previously.

Although this is the desired practice, if one answers Amen to another person’s blessing, he fulfills his obligation, as stated in the previous halachah.
This reflects the position of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 167:13). The Magen Avraham, however, differs, and maintains that one cannot fulfill his obligation to recite blessings that involve benefit unless one had the intention of eating together with the other person and responding to his blessings. This view takes a more lenient position regarding blessings over mitzvot, which we are obligated to fulfill, than regarding the blessings over food, which we are not obligated to eat.

Our interpretation of הסבה is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Berachot 6:6.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that when eating foods other than bread or wine, each person should recite the blessings for himself. (Significantly, on this issue there is a responsum which is attributed to the Rambam. However, it has raised difficulties among the commentaries and its authenticity has been challenged.)
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 213:1) accepts the Rambam’s opinion, but states that this applies only when people sit around a single table as a group. Eating in a single room is not sufficient. The Rama, however, quotes the Ra’avad’s view.

This represents a difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Tur (Orach Chayim 215), who considers responding Amen a matter left to our own volition. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 215:2) quotes the Rambam’s opinion. Furthermore, the Magen Avraham 6:9 mentions an obligation to recite Amen ninety times each day.

Although the latter word is surrounded by parentheses in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah (indicating a question with regard to its inclusion), it is found in all the authoritative manuscripts and reflects the Rambam’s statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 8:8, the source for this law).
The reason we do not respond to a gentile’s blessing is that we assume that although he mentions God’s name, his blessing is directed toward the alien deity in which he believes.
Rabbenu Asher maintains that a person should respond Amen to a gentile’s blessing when he hears the blessing recited in its entirety and he supports his statements with a quote from the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 8:8. The Rama (Orach Chayim 215:2) quotes this opinion. There is not necessarily a contradiction between the latter ruling and the Rambam’s. The Rambam’s statements can be interpreted as applying to gentiles in general, while those of the Jerusalem Talmud, as applying to those gentiles—e.g., Moslems—who are known not to worship any idols or alien gods.

Since, “It can be assumed that an apostate has false gods in mind” (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:5), we are forbidden to respond to his blessings.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam elaborates in the description of the Samaritans. After Sannecherib exiled the ten tribes, he settled several gentile tribes in their land. These tribes adopted certain aspects of Jewish practice. Hence, with regard to certain laws, the Sages considered them as converts. Afterward, however, the Sages discovered that they were idolaters. From that time onward, they were considered as other gentiles.

And recites blessings for practice. When a child recites a blessing with the intent of fulfilling his obligation, however, it is appropriate to respond Amen (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 215:3).

Since (as stated in the notes to Halachah 5) a person who alters the text of the blessing does not fulfill his obligation, Amen should not be recited. [This applies only when the change in the text of the blessings is significant enough to prevent one from fulfilling his obligation with such a blessing (Mishnah Berurah 215:11).]

Aruch explains that this means that a person should not answer Amen before the one reciting the blessing has concluded its recitation. Rashi (Berachot 47a) interprets this to mean that one substitutes a chataf patach (:-) for a kamatz in the vocalization of the Alef. The Shulchan Aruch (O”C 124:8) accepts both interpretations as halachah.

The Aruch explains that this refers to pronouncing Amen as if the word were cut in two. Rashi (loc. cit.) explains that this refers to swallowing the pronunciation (“cutting off”) of the final nun. Again, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) and the Rama quote both interpretations as halachah.

Berachot (loc. cit.) states, “Whoever prolongs the recitation of Amen errs,” since by doing so one distorts the pronunciation of the word (Tosafot).

Berachot 45a states that this law is derived from Psalms 34:4: “Exalt God with me and let us extol His name together.”

Berachot 47a describes this as “an orphaned Amen”—i.e., an Amen that is separated from the blessing that gave rise to it.
The Rambam specifies that this applies only regarding “a blessing that he is required to recite,” because of a passage from Sukkah 51b. There, the Talmud relates that the synagogue in Alexandria was so large that flags would be waved as a signal that the chazan had finished a blessing, and then everyone would recite Amen, even though they had not heard the blessing themselves.
[Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets “an orphaned Amen” as reciting Amen although one does not know which blessing was recited. Shulchan Aruch HaRav (124:11) accepts the stringencies that result from both opinions.]

See Hilchot Sh’vuot 12:9-10, where the Rambam states that a person who intentionally recites a blessing in vain should be placed under a ban of ostracism.
Note Chapter 4, Halachah 10, which states that after reciting an unnecessary blessing, one should praise God, saying, “Blessed be the Name of Him whose glorious kingdom is forever and ever” so that his mention of God’s name will not be in vain.

The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 30) states that, with this statement, the Rambam intended to imply that the person should be lashed in punishment. Other Rabbis rule less severely, stating that although this punishment is not administered, the person is considered to have violated the commandment, “Do not take God’s name in vain.” Shulchan Aruch HaRav 215:3, however, maintains that since he intended to recite a blessing, his mention of God’s name is not entirely frivolous, and he is hence considered to have violated a Rabbinic prohibition and not the commandment of the Torah itself.

For this reason, it is forbidden to recite a blessing unnecessarily—e.g., to recite two blessings when a single blessing is sufficient. Similarly, for this reason, a person who is unsure of whether or not he is obligated to recite a blessing should not recite it, lest he recite a blessing in vain.

So that the child will learn how to recite blessings properly.

The source of this halachah, Berachot 53b, indicates that this law applies only when the children are reciting the blessings for practice. When they are reciting the blessings to fulfill their obligation, we should respond Amen.

Note our notes to Halachah 11, which explains that only with regard to grace (see Chapter 3, Halachot 15- 16) may an adult fulfill his obligation by reciting Amen to a blessing recited by a child.

This does not refer to the recitation of a single blessing, but the recitation of Amen after each blessing recited in a series of blessings. Reciting Amen is considered demeaning because it implies a conclusion of one’s prayers. It is not proper to conclude and begin, conclude and begin, several times in one series (Kessef Mishneh).

This serves as a statement that one has concluded one’s prayers with praise of God.

The third blessing in grace. Note also the following halachah. This example is explicitly mentioned by Berachot 45b, the source for this halachah.

This example was chosen by the Rambam himself. The Rambam specifies the evening service because he considers the recitation of Amen at this point in the morning service as an interruption between the blessing גאל ישראל and the beginning of Shemoneh Esreh.

Rama (Orach Chayim 215:1) state that Amen is recited only after Boneh Yerushalayim and not after other series of blessings. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 54:1 explains, stating that there is another advantage to reciting Amen after Boneh Yerushalayim: It differentiates between blessings required by Scriptural Law and those ordained by Rabbinic decree.

On the surface, the latter blessing, and not the blessing Boneh Yerushalayim, marks the conclusion of the blessings of grace.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, and commentary.

Hence Amen is recited at this point. As mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah, its recitation differentiates between the blessings required by Scriptural Law and those instituted by the Rabbis.

Its recitation would be appropriate because Ahavat olam concludes the two blessings recited before the Shema.

And an interruption should not be made between these blessings and the recitation of the Shema.

When two or three blessings are recited in succession.

See Halachah 8.

The Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Rambam is not referring to the blessing recited before partaking of fruit. All agree that one should not recite Amen after such a blessing, because Amen would constitute an interruption between the blessing and partaking of the fruit. Rather, the Rambam is speaking about the blessing al hapairot or other similar blessings.

The series of seven blessings recited by the king after reading from the Torah at the Hakhel gathering held in the Temple once every seven years (Hilchot Chaggigah 3:4).

The series of eight blessings recited by the High Priest after reading from the Torah during the Temple service on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:11).

The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 5:4) also cites the blessings recited after the Haftarah as an example of a sequence at whose conclusion it is appropriate to recite Amen.

It is improper to bless God after transgressing His commandments. On the contrary, concerning a similar incident, the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 1:5) cites Psalms 10:3, “A thief who recites a blessing disgusts God.” Even an inadvertent violation of the law is an act against His will for which it is not appropriate to bless Him.
The Ra’avad and Rabbenu Asher differ with the Rambam’s decision and maintain that the fact that a person violates a commandment against eating forbidden food should not cause him to violate another commandment and benefit from the world without praising God.
The Turei Zahav 196:1 attempts to resolve the two views and offers a compromise: A person who intentionally violates a prohibition should not recite a blessing. If, however, a person eats a forbidden food inadvertently, he should recite a blessing afterwards.
Significantly, the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 196) explains that even the Rambam would agree that a sick person who is required to eat a forbidden food for medicinal purposes should recite a blessing. There are, however, authorities who differ with this ruling as well.

Grain, oil, or wine from which terumah was not separated.

E.g., produce that grows in containers. According to Scriptural Law, the agricultural gifts are required to be given only from produce that grows in the earth itself (Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Berachot 7:1).

Even when the first tithe was separated before terumah, terumah should be separated from the tithe as well (loc. cit.).

Which must be eaten in Jerusalem. If this is not possible, the food can be redeemed and the money brought to Jerusalem to purchase food there. It is forbidden to eat this food outside Jerusalem until it is redeemed (Deuteronomy 14:22-27). In this instance, we are speaking about a situation where the redemption was improperly performed—e.g., one used uncoined metal (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Berachot 7:1).

Foods consecrated to the Temple.

They were redeemed using landed property, which is unacceptable (loc. cit.).

But rather, died naturally or was slaughtered without using the proper procedure.

An animal attacked by a wild beast or diseased and therefore suffering from an affliction that will cause it to die within twelve months (Hilchot Shechitah, Chapter 5).

It is forbidden to drink such wine. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot, Chapter 11.

The previous halachah dealt with situations where a blessing should not be recited because the food is forbidden to be eaten. This halachah deals with situations where a blessing is required although there are halachic difficulties regarding partaking of the food.

Any person, even one who should refrain from eating d’mai.

Produce from which we are unsure whether tithes were separated or not (see Hilchot Ma’aser 9:1).

Hilchot Ma’aser 10:11 states that we are allowed to feed d’mai to guests and poor people. We should inform them that the food is d’mai so that they can tithe it if they desire.

Generally, terumah should be separated from crops and given to the priests. Afterwards, they should be tithed and the tithes given to the Levites, who should separate terumat ma’aser from the tithes. Even if the tithes were separated first, terumah should be separated from the tithes, as mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah.
There is, however, one exception. When the tithes are separated before the crops were winnowed, there is no need to separate terumah from it.

As mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah, the second tithe outside of Jerusalem and sanctified food must be redeemed. In addition to paying its value, it is also necessary to pay an additional fifth. Despite this obligation, once the food has been redeemed—although the fifth has not yet been added—it is permitted to partake of the food.

Since partaking of these foods is not absolutely forbidden, it is proper that a blessing be recited.

Deuteronomy 8:10 states: “When you have eaten and are satiated, you shall bless God, your Lord....” Berachot 48b states that this command obligates us to recite the blessing thanking God for our sustenance.

The above verse continues, “for the good land which He has granted you.” Berachot (loc. cit.) interprets this as an obligation to add a special blessing thanking God for Eretz Yisrael.

Berachot (loc. cit.) interprets the modifier “good” in the above verse as a reference to Jerusalem and the Temple. This allusion implies an obligation to add a blessing thanking God for these gifts.

As the Rambam explains, this blessing was a later addition. The Rambam includes the full text for these blessings in “The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year,” which is found at the end of this text.

Berachot (loc. cit.) explains that Moses instituted this blessing when the manna descended. The manna serves as a clear sign of God’s beneficence in granting sustenance to His creations.

Berachot (loc. cit.) continues, relating that when the Jews entered Eretz Yisrael and began to benefit from its produce, Joshua instituted the second blessing of grace.

Who solidified the kingdom of Israel and conquered Jerusalem. He instituted the blessing thanking God, “for Israel, Your people, and Jerusalem, Your city” (Berachot, loc. cit.).

Who built the Temple and added to the blessing instituted by his father, acknowledgement of “the great and holy house on which Your name is called” (Berachot, loc. cit.).

Berachot (loc. cit.) relates that the Sages instituted this blessing on the day the Romans granted permission for the dead of Beitar to be buried. This city had served as the capital of Bar Kochba’s revolt against Rome and had exacted a heavy toll of legionnaires while making a valiant defense. When the city finally fell, the Romans slew hundreds of thousands mercilessly, the extent of the carnage staggering all chroniclers. As a further measure of punishment to its inhabitants, they refused to allow them to be buried. Years passed before such permission was granted. When the Romans finally granted the Sages permission to bury these people, they were amazed at the wondrous miracle their eyes beheld. The corpses had remained whole. They had neither rotted, nor been eaten by predators. In appreciation of this Divine kindness, the Sages instituted this blessing, praising God for being “good” (for preventing them from rotting) and “doing good” (for allowing the corpses to be buried).

The obligation to recite the blessing before eating is Rabbinic in origin. In certain situations, the Sages did not institute such a requirement.

Combining the second and third blessings and omitting the fourth.
Tosafot, Berachot 16a, states that although the third blessing is required by Scriptural Law, it is not recited because the Sages have the power to withhold the fulfillment of a Scriptural precept. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different rationale, explaining that the Rambam did not state that Scriptural Law requires that a specific number of blessings be recited for grace.
The Rishon LeTzion clarifies the matter further, explaining that the Rambam maintains that Scriptural Law requires us to mention three concepts in grace: appreciation for the sustenance God grants us, appreciation for Eretz Yisrael, and appreciation for Jerusalem. According to Scriptural Law, it does not matter how these three concepts are mentioned, whether in one blessing (as in al hamichyah), two blessings (as in this law), or three blessings (as is the usual case).

From this we learn two concepts:
a) that it is forbidden to work while reciting grace (Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 2:5; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 183:12);
b) how important it is for a worker to devote himself faithfully to his work. See the conclusion of Hilchot Sechirut.

Rashi, Berachot (loc. cit.), explains that this distinction is made because the latter two blessings resemble each other, and hence can be combined with little difficulty. In contrast, the first blessing focuses on a different theme.

One should recite: “We offer thanks to You, God, our Lord, for having granted our ancestors a precious, good, and spacious land, and Jerusalem, Your city. May You rebuild it speedily in our days” (Rabbenu Manoach).
It may be presumed that one should also include the aspects of the second and third blessings that Halachot 3 and 4 consider as absolute requirements (Kin’at Eliyahu).

Their responsibility to their employer is less, and they are required to recite all the blessings.

The fact that their employer joins them can be interpreted as license to take the leisure of reciting the full text of grace. At present, it is assumed that employers allow their workers greater leniency and, in all instances, workers are required to recite the entire grace (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 191:2).

In “The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year,” the Rambam relates that this blessing begins, “We offer thanks to You, God, our Lord...” and states, shortly before its conclusion, “For all these, God, our Lord, we give thanks to You.” An omission of the second mention of thanks, however, does not require the repetition of grace (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 187:4).

This is a single expression of thanks, acknowledging God’s gift of “a land which produces sustenance” (Berachot 49a).

This expression is a combination of the praises of Eretz Yisrael mentioned in Jeremiah 3:19 and Exodus 3:8.

Unless one mentions these qualities, one has not adequately expressed one’s appreciation for Eretz Yisrael. The omission of this phrase requires the repetition of the grace. See Halachah 12.

Rashi (Berachot 48b) explains that the mitzvah of circumcision is connected with God’s promise of Eretz Yisrael to Abraham, as Genesis 17:8-10 states: “I will give you and your descendants... the entire land of Canaan.... You shall keep My covenant.... Circumcise every male.”

Rashi (loc. cit.) notes that a similar connection applies with regard to Scriptural Law, as Deuteronomy 8:1 states: “Observe all the mitzvot which I am commanding you... so that you will... inherit the land that God promised to your ancestors.”

Which gives priority to the covenant.

Note the conclusion of Hilchot Milah, where the Rambam enumerates these thirteen expressions.

The Lechem Mishneh notes that there are several other verses that refer to a covenant with regard to Scriptural Law. These three, however, are unique in that they refer to the establishment of a covenant regarding the bond between the Jews and Scriptural Law.

Berachot 49a mentions both these possibilities. In “The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year,” the Rambam quotes the former expression.

The beginning of a blessing must share the same theme as its conclusion. Nevertheless, the rebuilding of Jerusalem shares a connection with God’s showing mercy to the people of Israel, since the rebuilding of Jerusalem is an expression of God’s mercy to the Jewish people (Berachot, loc. cit.).

Although Berachot (loc. cit.) mentions that two different concepts should not be mentioned in the conclusion of a blessing, this version of the blessing does not contradict that rule. The intent is a single request that Israel be granted the ultimate comfort, the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

Rashi, Berachot 48b, mentions another reason for the mention of the House of David. It was David who conquered Jerusalem and established the holiness of the city.

Since an integral element of our celebration of the Sabbath and festivals is eating festive meals, the sacred element of the day should be mentioned in the grace recited after partaking of those meals. Nevertheless, the uniqueness of the day does not require a blessing in its own right, nor is it made the essential element of the third blessing. Therefore, one begins and concludes that blessing in the same manner as is done during the week (Rashi, Tosafot, Berachot 48b).

The order in which these alternatives are mentioned in this halachah is the reverse of those mentioned in the previous halachah. It can be explained that in the previous halachah, the Rambam mentioned the text he considered most appropriate first. The order he mentions in this halachah, however, is closer to the expression used by our Sages in Berachot (loc. cit.), the source for this halachah.

Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot. With regard to Rosh HaShanah, see the notes to Halachah 13.

Shabbat 24a explains that since an additional sacrifice (korban musaf) is offered on these days, they possess an element of sanctity that is worthy of mention. As obvious from the contrast of Halachah 12 to Halachah 13, however, there is a difference between the obligation to mention these days and the obligation to mention Sabbaths and festivals.

Since Chanukah and Purim are Rabbinic holidays which are not associated with an additional sacrificial offering, they are not mentioned in the third blessing. The second blessing is more appropriate for the mention of the miracles of these holidays, since it is an expression of thanks to God (Shabbat 24a).
The Kessef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh note that from Shabbat (loc. cit.), it would appear that while permission is granted to mention Chanukah and Purim in the second blessing, it is not an obligation to do so. In contrast, the Rambam requires that they be mentioned. They explain that since the Sages of the Talmud were wont to mention these holidays in grace, and the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 7:6) considers their mention a binding obligation, the Rambam established their mention as a requirement. See also Halachah 13 and commentary.

Precedence is given to the Sabbath because it occurs more frequently than the festivals and is on a higher spiritual level (Kessef Mishneh).

The reason for this stress on God’s sovereignty in this blessing is that the blessing recited previously mentions the sovereignty of the House of David, and the Sages wanted to emphasize how all earthly kings are subordinate to a higher authority (Berachot 49a).

The blessing mentioned is quoted from Berachot 46a. That source also contains additions to the blessing that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi would recite.

Berachot (loc. cit.) relates several additions Mar Zutra made on the above occasion.

In “The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year,” the Rambam includes several requests beginning with the word Harachaman (May the Merciful One...) in his text of grace. These requests were additions to the grace made by the Geonim, who lived in the era subsequent to the Talmud.

This refers to the final blessing quoted in Halachah 11.

Nisu’in (marriage) is marked by the entry of a bride and groom into a private chamber together. This ceremony is referred to as chuppah and is accompanied by a celebration. See Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 10, and commentaries.
As mentioned at the conclusion of the following halachah, according to the Rambam this blessing is recited only when ten adult males are present. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 62:4) differs and maintains that it should be recited even when fewer than ten people are present. Note the Rama (Even HaEzer 62:7) who states that today this blessing is never recited alone. If “new faces”—people who had not attended the wedding celebrations previously—are present, all seven blessings are recited. If no “new faces” are present (although ten males are), the meal is considered like a meal eaten by the bridegroom alone, and the blessing is not recited.

The same laws applying to a widow or widower apply to a person who has been divorced. Significantly, in Hilchot Ishut 10:12, the Rambam states that even if a woman has been married before, her husband should celebrate with her for three days.

Surely, this also applies when neither the bride nor groom have been married before. Hilchot Ishut (loc. cit.) states: “The Sages ordained that everyone who marries a maiden should celebrate with her for seven days.”
The differences between the time limits mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 5, are worthy of comparison. See the notes to that halachah.

Ketubot 8a states that after the first day of the wedding celebrations, Rav Ashi would recite the wedding blessings only when “new faces” were present. In his responsa, the Rambam’s son states that his father required only two “new faces.” Note the Beit Shmuel 64:7 who requires only one “new face.” The Hagahot Maimoniot write that on the Sabbath the presence of new guests is not necessary, since the Sabbath itself is considered as “guests.”

Ketubot 7b derives this rule from the account of the wedding between Ruth and Boaz. Ruth 4:2 relates that Boaz invited ten men to witness the marriage.

Only six blessings are mentioned below; the seventh blessing is the blessing over the wine. (See Hilchot Ishut 10:4.)

Rashi (Ketubot 7b) explains that this blessing is in praise of the creation of Adam, the first man.
In Hilchot Ishut, where the text of the wedding blessings is repeated, this blessing follows the blessing “Who has created all things for His glory.” This order is the sequence in which these blessings are recited today. It appears more appropriate, particularly according to Rashi’s commentary (loc. cit.), which explains that the blessing “Who has created all things...” is not directly connected to the wedding itself, but rather is recited in appreciation of the guests who have come to celebrate together with the new couple.
[The repetition of the text of the blessings in two separate halachot, something very out of character for the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah, has aroused the attention of the commentaries. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the text of the blessings here was added by the printers, and not by the Rambam himself.]

Despite the fact that this blessing follows two (or three) blessings which begin with “Blessed...,” it also begins with “Blessed....” Among the explanations offered is that the first blessings are short, and if the line “Blessed...” were not mentioned, they would appear as a single blessing (Tosafot, Ketubot, loc. cit.).

Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as a reference to the creation of woman, who was created from man (“his own self”), and gives him the potential for reproduction (“a structure that will last for all time”).

“The barren one” refers to Jerusalem. Psalms 137:6 states: “Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not place Jerusalem above my highest joy.” Thus, at the height of the wedding celebration, we recall the holy city and pray that it be rebuilt.

This is a prayer that the bride and groom enjoy the happiness experienced by Adam and Eve before the first sin.
Several manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah mention a different conclusion for this blessing, “Blessed are You, God, Who brings joy to His people, Israel, and rebuilds Jerusalem.” (In this context, note the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh.)

The blessing joins our wishes for the happiness of the particular couple with our hope for the Messianic redemption and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The ultimate marriage relationship is the bond between God and the Jewish people, which will be realized in the Messianic age. Thus, the two themes, marriage and redemption, share an intrinsic link.

Rashi, Ketubot 8a, explains the difference between the last two blessings. The fifth of the blessings concludes with a request that the bride and groom enjoy a lifetime of happiness and success together. The sixth and final blessing concludes with a request that they find happiness in each other, that their wedding joy be extended throughout their lives. Alternatively, the final blessing is a blessing for the Jewish people as a whole who find fulfillment in married life.

Having mentioned the additions to grace connected with special occasions, the Rambam returns to the subject of grace on Sabbath and festivals.

More precisely, mentions God’s name in the conclusion of the third blessing. If he remembers his omission before he mentions God’s name, he should add the special passage, and then repeat Uvneh Yerushalayim. Once he mentions God’s name, however, he should complete the blessing, “boneh Yerushalayim. Amen,” and then add the blessing mentioned below.

See Halachah 5.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 188:9 interprets this to mean: before he mentions even a single word of the blessing. The Mishnah Berurah 188:23, however, differs and maintains that even after mentioning God’s name, one may still continue, “Who has granted rest....”

Significantly, throughout this halachah, the Rambam does not differentiate between the first two meals of the Sabbaths and festivals and any subsequent ones. As will be explained, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 188:8) does make such a distinction with regard to the repetition of grace. Nevertheless, if a person remembers his omission in time to add the special blessing, even the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) requires it to be recited after any and all meals on Sabbaths and festivals.

Our text follows the position of the Lechem Mishneh, who emphasizes that this blessing contains God’s name and the phrase “King of the universe,” as do other blessings. This view is not shared by the Rishon LeTzion and several other commentaries, who point to the fact that neither Berachot 49a nor the Rambam explicitly mentions God’s sovereignty. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:6) shares the Lechem Mishneh’s position.

The Sabbath was sanctified by God on the seventh day of creation.

The sanctification of the festivals is dependent on the Jews, who fix the monthly calendar. (See Beitzah 17a.)

Without any further changes.

See note 57.

Based on Berachot 49b, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:8) mentions a difference between the first two meals on the Sabbath and festivals and any subsequent ones. We are obligated to eat only two meals that require grace on these holy days. One may fulfill his obligation for the third meal with other foods, without eating bread on the Sabbath, whereas on festivals one is not obligated to eat a third meal at all.
Accordingly, although there is a dimension of holiness connected with all the Sabbath and festival meals, the need to mention this dimension in grace is considered significant enough to require repetition of all the blessings only when an omission is made in the first two meals of the day.
It must be noted that neither the Rambam nor Berachot (loc. cit.) make such a differentiation explicitly. This has led the Rishon LeTzion and others to postulate that the Rambam maintains that an omission of the Sabbath or festivals in grace is sufficient to require repetition of the blessings in any meal eaten on these holy days.

If three people ate together and made the same omission, however, they do not repeat the zimmun (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:9).
The Ra’avad challenges the Rambam’s decision, calling attention to a law quoted by the Rambam in Hilchot Tefillah 10:10. When a person omits Ya’aleh v’yavo in the Shemoneh Esreh, he is required to repeat the entire Shemoneh Esreh. Nevertheless, if he is accustomed to recite prayers of supplication after Shemoneh Esreh before withdrawing from his place of prayer, and remembers while in the midst of those supplications, he is not required to repeat Shemoneh Esreh. All that is necessary is to return to the blessing R’tzey.
Similarly, the Ra’avad argues, the blessing Hatov v’hametiv resembles the supplicatory prayers recited after Shemoneh Esreh. Accordingly, one should return to the third blessing of grace and not recite the other two.
This opinion, although respected for its sound reasoning, is not accepted by most authorities. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:6) and others quote the Rambam’s view.

As required in Halachah 5.

The blessing does not include a chatimah. Many blessings begin: “Blessed are You, God, King of the universe...,” and conclude, “Blessed are You, God....” The latter concluding phrase is referred to as a chatimah. (See Hilchot Kri’at Shema 1:7.)
Berachot 49a mentions that the Sages were unsure of whether this blessing should include a chatimah or not. Therefore, to avoid the possibility of mentioning God’s name in vain, the chatimah is omitted.

The fourth blessing.

Berachot 49b explains that although in prayer (see Hilchot Tefillah 10:10), the omission of Ya’aleh v’yavo warrants a repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh, on Rosh Chodesh its omission does not warrant a repetition of grace. The difference between the two is that prayer is an obligation, while eating a meal of bread is not. Since there is no obligation to recite grace on Rosh Chodesh, failing to mention it in grace is not sufficient cause to warrant its repetition.

Since we are not obligated to eat a meal of bread on these days.
Within this context, it is worthy to mention the laws regarding the recitation of Ya’aleh v’yavo on Rosh HaShanah. Neither the Rambam nor the Talmudic sources which deal with this subject (Berachot 49a-b and Shabbat 24a) mention adding Ya’aleh v’yavo to grace on Rosh HaShanah. Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham (188:7) takes it for granted that such an addition should be made.
Furthermore, if one becomes conscious of the omission of that addition before beginning the fourth blessing, one should add a special blessing to mention Rosh HaShanah. If, however, one has already begun the fourth blessing, one should continue grace without mentioning Rosh HaShanah, since there is no obligation to eat festive meals on that day. On the contrary, fasting is allowed.

Al hanisim, as mentioned in Halachah 6.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 7:6) requires grace to be repeated for such an omission. Nevertheless, since there is no indication in the Babylonian Talmud of such an obligation (indeed, Shabbat 24a does not require even the recitation of Al hanisim), the Rambam does not accept that ruling.
It has, however, become customary to add Al hanisim among the paragraphs beginning Harachaman at the conclusion of grace if one forgets to recite it in its proper place (Rama, Orach Chayim 187:4).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 8:7), the Rambam defines the latter term as “as long as he does not feel hungry after that meal.”

We have translated this word literally, although according to the Rambam (see Chapter 4, Halachah 1), if a person forgot to recite grace and then proceeded to a different place, he is not obligated to return and recite grace in the place in which he ate. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 184:1) differs and maintains that even a person who inadvertently left his place of eating without reciting grace is obligated to return to that place to recite grace.

And instead is considered to have nullified the fulfillment of a Scriptural commandment. Were he to recite grace after his food has become digested, his blessings would be considered as having been recited in vain.

As will be explained, this law applies only to grace and not to other blessings.

The rationale for this law can be explained as follows: One of the principles of Jewish law is that whenever there is a question regarding a Scriptural obligation, one must follow the more stringent perspective. In contrast, whenever there is a question regarding a Rabbinic obligation, one may follow the more lenient view.
Since the recitation of grace is required by Scriptural Law, when a person is in doubt whether or not he fulfilled his obligation, he must recite grace (Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 1:1).

Once his food is digested, he may not recite grace, as explained above.

As will be explained, there are special laws regarding the blessings recited before and after food made from these species of grain. These five species are also mentioned in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:1.

These two grains, fundamental to day-to-day life in Western society, are among the seven species for which Deuteronomy 8:8 praises Eretz Yisrael for producing.

This is the accepted translation. There is some difficulty, however, in accepting it, since rye was not commonly grown in the Mediterranean region. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Kilayim 1:1, the Rambam defines כוסמין as “wild wheat.”

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam describes oats as “wild barley.”
The term שבולת שועל, which literally means “the kernels of the fox,” is used because, unlike wheat and barley, oat kernels grow separate from the stalk of the grain, like a fox tail, which has hairs that stand out rather than lie flat.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions that this grain resembles כוסמין. [For this reason, there are commentaries which interchange the translations of כוסמין and שיפון.]

Although this statement has other implications (see Rashi, Pesachim 35a), the Rambam mentions it here to teach us that although Deuteronomy (loc. cit.) mentions only wheat and barley, since these other three grains are sub-species of them, they are governed by the same laws.

Here, also, although these statements have other halachic implications (e.g., Challah 1:2 mentions these points within the context of vows: if a person vows not to benefit from tevuah or grain, he is forbidden to benefit from these species), the Rambam is defining these terms here because he will refer to them throughout this chapter.

And require the ritual washing of hands and the blessing hamotzi beforehand and grace afterwards.

If, however, bread is made from other grains—e.g., rice or corn—it is referred to as ricebread or cornbread.

Made from the five species of grain mentioned in the previous halachah.

Tosafot, Berachot 38b, notes that the conclusion of the blessing is taken from Psalms 104:14. Because of its importance as “the staff of life,” the Sages established a special blessing for bread in place of the blessing borey pri ha’adamah.

I.e., without removing the kernel’s shell or crushing it. See Halachah 4. Literally, the Rambam’s words mean “grain cooked as it is.” The Kessef Mishneh interprets this to mean “as it comes from the silo.”

The blessing recited for eating vegetables and other products of the earth (Chapter 8, Halachah 1).
Berachot 37a states, “A person who chews [kernels of] wheat should recite the blessing borey pri ha’adamah.” Even though the grain has been cooked, since the kernels were not processed at all, it does not warrant a blessing of greater importance (Kessef Mishnah).
The Mishnah Berurah 208:3-6 discusses the question of grains that are cooked whole, but are cooked for a long period until their shell dissolves. There are authorities who recommend that unless the kernels have been cooked to the extent that they stick together as a single mass (at which point, all agree that they require the blessing: borey minei mezonot, as stated in halachot 3-4), whole grains should be eaten only in the midst of a meal containing bread. See also Halachah 4.

The blessing usually recited after partaking of foods other than those from the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael was praised. The same rationale mentioned above applies. Since the kernels were served without being processed, they do not warrant a blessing of greater importance.

Which has not been cooked.

In this instance as well, the special blessings for grain products are not recited because the food was not prepared in the usual fashion. Furthermore, even the blessing borey pri ha’adamah is not recited, because generally people do not eat flour (Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, See also Berachot 36a).

I.e., it resembles a porridge.

Because of the importance of the five species of grain, the Sages ordained the recitation of a special blessing before and after partaking of them. Since this mixture is considered a food and not a beverage, it warrants the recitation of these blessings.

Since this mixture is considered a beverage and not a food, it does not warrant the recitation of these blessings.

Berachot 37b relates that any food that is made from the five species of grain but is not considered bread requires the blessing al hamichyah. Since these foods are cooked in a pot, they are not considered bread.

Since the grain kernels have been processed slightly, they are considered worthy of the special blessings ordained for foods from the five species. As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 2, the later authorities suggest that the grains be cooked to the point that they stick together as a single mass before these blessings should be recited. If, however, both the shell of the kernel has been removed and they have been crushed, the blessing al hamichyah may be recited even when the kernels do not stick together (Mishnah Berurah 208:15).

As mentioned in Halachah 6, as long as the grain is included to add flavor, it is considered the primary element in the mixture, and the blessing al hamichyah should be recited, even though quantitatively, the dish contains a majority of other substances. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 208:2.)

The definition of foods as primary and secondary depends on the person’s intention and not the quantity of the foods included in the mixture (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 208:8, Mishnah Berurah 212:1).

This principle is quoted from the Mishnah, Berachot 6:7.

Thus producing a single food, as exemplified in Halachah 6.

In this instance, the two foods remain separate, yet the secondary food is included in the blessing recited over the primary one, as exemplified in Halachah 7.

The Rambam is quoting Berachot 39a, which states that this law applies even to turnips that require a large amount of flour.

Beitzah 38a states, “Anything added for flavor is never considered negligible.”
The Magen Avraham 204:25 and the Chacham Tzvi (Responsum 129) explain that the Rambam’s (and the Talmud’s) statements apply only to products from the five species of grain. Whenever they are added to flavor foods, they are considered of primary importance even when, quantitatively, they are less than the other ingredients of a particular dish. In contrast, when two or more types of foods other than grain products are mixed together in a single dish and both are intended to add flavor and/or satiate the person eating, the food which is greater in quantity is considered as the primary ingredient.
The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the starch was added for flavor, the mixture would require the blessing borey minei mezonot. He continues, explaining that when other foods—e.g., fruits which are not usually eaten raw, are cooked in sugar to produce jam, the fruits are considered of primary importance. Hence, the blessing borey pri ha’etz should be recited. See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 204:11.

By adding the clause, “so that the heavy brine...,” the Rambam explains the source for this ruling, Berachot 6:7, and clarifies a problem posed by the commentaries.
Although the Mishnah mentions the example of bread serving as a secondary food when it accompanies salted foods, the Talmud (Berachot 44a) protests, and explains that in almost all situations bread would be considered the primary food. The Mishnah is describing a specific instance: people who eat fruit that originates in the area around Lake Kineret.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that this refers to people who work as watchmen in orchards. They eat large quantities of fruit. Hence, in order to help their digestion, they also must partake of brine. Since the brine itself could be harmful, they eat bread with it.
Here, also, the Rambam is referring to a case where the person has no desire to eat bread and does so only to protect his throat. If, however, a person wanted to eat salted fish on bread and desired both the bread and the fish, he must recite the blessing hamotzi and recite grace. (See Turei Zahav 212:1-2.)

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 212:2 gives another example: A person who eats bread to weaken the taste of an alcoholic beverage.

A k’zayit. In contemporary measure, it is equivalent to 28.8 cc according to Shiurei Torah.

Out of faithfulness to the Rambam’s text, we have translated his words literally, although they have caused the commentaries great difficulty. On the surface, there is an open contradiction between the first clause and the second clause. From the first clause, it appears that a piece of bread less than the size of an olive which resembles bread warrants the blessing hamotzi. In contrast, the latter clause appears to indicate that the bread must both be the size of an olive and have the appearance of bread to warrant the blessing hamotzi.
Because of this difficulty, the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1393) and Sefer HaBatim have suggested amending the text and rendering the latter clause, “If they are not the size of an olive and no longer resemble bread because of the cooking process.” Furthermore, even without amending the text, this interpretation can be accepted, since, as the Rambam’s own descendant, Rabbi Yehoshua, explains, there are times when the Hebrew או can be rendered as “if.” Thus, the passage would read, “If they are not the size of an olive, if....”
Rav Yosef Caro was aware of the text’s difficulty and the suggestions to amend it. Nevertheless, both in his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 168:10), he seeks to justify the Rambam’s choice of phraseology, explaining his statements as follows:
When one cooked pieces of bread or mixed them into soup, if they are the size of an olive, one should recite the blessing hamotzi although they no longer resemble bread. If they are less than the size of an olive but resemble bread, one should recite this blessing when they have been mixed into soup. If, however, they have been cooked, and although it is obvious that these pieces came from a loaf of bread, they no longer have the appearance of bread, only the blessing borey minei mezonot should be recited.
To summarize: when one breaks bread into pieces and puts them into soup, since the pieces still resemble bread they may not be eaten unless one recites the blessing hamotzi. If the pieces of bread were cooked completely to prepare a different food and less than a k’zayit remains whole, the blessing borey minei mezonot should be recited. According to most authorities, if one cooks with bread crumbs or matzah meal, the blessing borey minei mezonot, should be recited on the foods produced.

Significantly, the Rambam’s definition of the term כובא דארעא, discussed by our Sages, Berachot 38a, differs from that of Rashi, whose interpretation is quoted in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 168:15).

Rav Kapach explains that the Arabs would dig a hole in the ground, fill it with wood, and start a fire. When the wood had burned until all that remained were glowing coals, they would remove them and fill the hole with dough. Afterwards, the coals would be placed above the dough and allowed to remain there until the dough was baked. (See also Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 6:6.)

The fact that it does not look like bread—although its manner of preparation, taste, and texture are similar—is significant enough to prevent it from receiving the blessing hamotzi.
[The Rambam’s conception is significant since other halachic authorities—e.g., the Magen Avraham 168:40—maintain that hamotzi should not be recited because this dough is soft, like pancakes.]

Based on Berachot 42a, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 168:6) interprets this to mean “a measure that others would usually use as the basis for a meal even though, personally, one is not satisfied from it.”
Quantitatively, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 168:8 states that the intention is a full meal, an isaron. [He arrives at this calculation as follows: In the desert, the Jews received an omer of manna for two meals each day. An omer is twice the quantity of an isaron.] This is approximately 22 egg-sized portions, or 1266 cc according to Shiurei Torah, and 1452 cc according to the Chazon Ish. This figure includes not only the grain product, but also other foods—e.g., meat, fish, or vegetables—that are eaten together with it.
Nevertheless, there are more stringent opinions, and accordingly, Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) and the Mishnah Berurah 168:24 suggest not eating a meal consisting of more than four egg-sized portions of food with such “bread” as its base.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 168:8 states that the blessing hamotzi was designated for bread to indicate its importance as a satisfying food and the foundation of our diet. Hence, it was instituted only for breads that are usually served for such a purpose. If, however, a person decided to serve another food made from flour and resembling bread with a similar intent, it is also appropriate that he recite hamotzi, provided it is baked in an oven. If, however, it is cooked in water , the blessing borey minai mezonot is recited.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 168:7) states that all that is necessary is to mix enough of these ingredients into the dough so that their taste is felt.
The Rama and the Magen Avraham 168:16 differ and maintain that the amount of these ingredients must exceed the quantity of water used. Support for their ruling can be drawn from the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:20.
The above is significant with regard to what is popularly called today mezonot bread, which is produced by using apple juice instead of (or together with) water. According to the Rama, the blessing borey minei mezonot should not be recited: a) if the dough is made with more water than juice, b) if one uses this bread as the basis for a large meal.

Sugar, honey, nuts, fruits, or spices.

Producing a product which, like cake, is generally eaten for pleasure and not as the basis of a meal.

Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 168:7), which offers two other interpretations of the term, pat haba’ah b’kisnin: a) Rabbenu Chananel’s interpretation—dough filled with other sweet substances—e.g., pies that are served for dessert, like apple pie; b) Rav Hai Gaon’s interpretation—crackers.

Eating the quantity mentioned above of this grain product either alone or together with other foods (Magen Avraham 168:13).

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that all three opinions may be accepted as halachah, and none of these three types of foods requires the blessing hamotzi or grace, unless it is eaten as the basis of a meal.
There are, however, several difficulties with the application of this decision in contemporary situations, particularly with regard to “mezonot bread.” Surely, when one eats a complete meal, serving such bread does not free one of the obligation of washing and reciting grace. Furthermore, there are difficulties even when one eats only a snack with such bread.
First, some authorities—e.g., Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi in his Piskei Siddur—state that a meticulous person should not each such bread without having recited hamotzi on other bread first. Second, when one eats sandwiches using such bread or eats it with other foods, one may easily eat more than four egg-sized portions of food, and that, as explained above, is problematic according to certain authorities.

In this halachah, we have translated אורז as “rice” and דוחן as “millet,” based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Shvi’it 2:7. There is, however, debate concerning this manner among the halachic authorities. Rashi (Berachot 37a) and the Maharil interpret אורז as “millet.”
With respect to these opinions, the Magen Avraham 208:9 and the Turei Zahav 208:11 suggest partaking of rice or millet only in the midst of a meal including bread. If either are eaten separately, the blessing shehakol should be recited beforehand because of the doubt involved.
In contrast, the Sha’ar Tziyun 208:31 rules that the blessing borey minei mezonot should be recited before partaking of rice. He explains that there are opinions that the blessing borey minei mezonot should be recited on all satisfying food. Since rice serves this purpose, it can be given this blessing.

After its shell has been removed and it has been crushed.

In contrast, before eating kernels of rice, one should recite the blessing borey pri ha’adamah as is done before partaking of kernels of grain. (See Halachah 2 and Berachot 37a.)

The latter phrase praises God as “the Creator of satisfying food.” Since rice falls into this category, Berachot, loc. cit., decided that this blessing should be recited for it.

Although rice is a satisfying food, it is not one of the five species of grain. Hence, neither grace nor al hamichyah is recited after partaking of it. See also the following halachah.

Thus, the law regarding rice differs from that regarding cooked foods made from the five grains. As explained in Halachot 4-6, although quantitatively a food may contain a mixture of other ingredients, as long as the grain was intended to add flavor to the food, it is considered the primary ingredient. In contrast, the blessing borey minei mezonot is recited on a mixture of rice and other foods only when rice is quantitatively the primary element of the mixture. See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 208:7).
The Turei Zahav 208:9, however, maintains that the Rambam’s words should be interpreted literally. Thus, the blessing borey minei mezonot should be recited only when rice is prepared by itself and not when eaten in combination with even a minority of other foods.

Rabbenu Asher and many other Ashkenazic authorities differ with the Rambam and maintain that since millet, like rice, is a sustaining food, it warrants the blessing borey minei mezonot. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:8) and the later authorities follow the Rambam’s opinion. Note, however, the difference of opinion on the definition of the terms אורז and דוחן mentioned above.

Kitniyot is generally translated as “legumes.” In halachic literature, however, it is used to refer to a far wider scope of agricultural products, particularly with regard to the laws of Pesach. (See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:1.) For example, corn is referred to as kitniyot.

Although all kitniyot grow from the ground, the blessing borey pri ha’adamah is recited only when one eats them cooked as vegetables, and not when they have been ground into flour and baked into other foods, since this is not the normal manner in which they are eaten (Magen Avraham 208:12).

As is proper after partaking of all foods of this type.

I.e., when one eats bread or enough of other grain substances to warrant the recitation of hamotzi, as mentioned in Halachah 9.

I.e, the foods made from the five species of grain that are mentioned in Halachot 3, 4, 8, and 9.

This blessing contains the three primary elements of the first three blessings of grace, an expression of thanks to God for granting us sustenance, for granting us Eretz Yisrael, and for granting us Jerusalem. The full text of this blessing is quoted in Halachah 13.

As explained in the previous halachah.

I.e., the obligation to recite a blessing after eating mentioned in the previous halachah.

A k’zayit. In contemporary measure, it is equivalent to 28.8 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 33 cc according to Chazon Ish.

Bread is mentioned specifically because one might think that since there are so many rulings involved in partaking of it, one should always recite grace afterwards.

Just as a k’zayit is the standard measurement used by the Torah with regard to the mitzvot concerned with eating, a revi’it is the standard measurement with regard to drinking. In contemporary measure, a revi’it is equivalent to 86.6 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc.
There are certain opinions that require one to recite a blessing after drinking a k’zayit of liquid. They are not, however, accepted by most authorities.

Wine is mentioned specifically because it is the only beverage singled out to require a special blessing of its own.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why a blessing is required before partaking of such small amounts of food, but not afterward. If these amounts are not considered significant enough to require a blessing after eating, why should they require a blessing beforehand?
He explains that the Sages required a blessing before partaking of the food lest the person change his mind and decide to partake of a significant amount. After one has concluded eating, there is no further doubt about the matter.
The Tur (Orach Chayim 210) appears to suggest a different rationale. A blessing before eating is required because “it is forbidden to benefit from this world without a blessing” (see Chapter 1, Halachah 2). The blessing after eating, however, was instituted only for when one has eaten a significant amount.

This summarizes the first blessing of grace.

This summarizes the second blessing of grace.

This summarizes the third blessing of grace.

This summarizes the prayer for the rebuilding of Jerusalem added to the third blessing after the destruction of Jerusalem, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, and commentary.
In Chapter 8, Halachah 14, the Rambam also discusses these blessings and mentions that there are opinions that include a summary of the fourth blessing of grace, “for You, God, are good and do good to all,” in this blessing. This is the accepted practice in both Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities.

This is interpreted to mean “for the land that produces sustenance.” Thus, one is concluding the blessing with a single theme and not with two (Lechem Mishneh).

Similarly, an addition is also made on Rosh HaShanah, Rosh Chodesh, and Chol HaMo’ed. On Chanukah and Purim, however, no addition is made.

A person who forgets to acknowledge the sanctity of these days in this blessing nevertheless fulfills his obligation, since there is no obligation to partake of these foods on these sacred days.