Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 185 - To Recite Grace after Meals Aloud; Other Particulars Applying to Grace after Meals

SECTION 185 To Recite the Grace after Meals Aloud; Other Particulars Applying to Grace after Meals. (1–5)

1 The Grace after Meals may be recited in any language,1 as [implied by] the phrase:2 “You shall bless G‑d…,” i.e., in any language that you bless.3 For Scripture required one only to “bless G‑d your L‑rd,” [understood to mean]: You may bless Him in any language in which you understand that you are blessing “G‑d your L‑rd for the good land that He gave you.” If, however, one does not understand the language [in which he is reciting Grace], even if it is [recited in] the Holy Tongue, he does not fulfill his obligation. Since he does not understand the words that he is reciting,4 it cannot be said that he is “bless[ing] G‑d your L‑rd.”2 (See Magen Avraham 434:6,5 [which discusses the nullification of chametz]. In that instance, [even though one does not understand the exact words he is saying, his statements are effective,] because all that is necessary is that the person nullify [his ownership of chametz] in his heart,6 as stated in Chok Yaakov [434]:12.7 In contrast, one is obligated to actually verbalize the words of Grace, as will be stated.8 [Hence, unless he understands what he is saying, he does not fulfill his obligation.])

Although the person knows for Whom he is reciting the blessing and his intent is to bless G‑d with these words, [still, since he does not understand what he is saying, he does not fulfill his obligation]. How much more so does this apply when the person’s heart turns to other matters while he recites Grace, even though he understands the Holy Tongue! Therefore, women and unlearned people who do not understand the Holy Tongue are obligated to recite Grace in a language that they understand and not in the Holy Tongue. Similarly, they may not fulfill their obligation by listening to [the blessings recited] in the Holy Tongue by the leader of Grace in a zimun. Instead, they should recite Grace themselves in a language that they understand.

Other authorities maintain that a person fulfills his obligation [by reciting or listening to a blessing] in the Holy Tongue even if he does not understand that language. This does not apply with regard to other languages. Therefore, women and unlearned people may fulfill their obligation by listening to [the blessings recited] in the Holy Tongue by the leader of Grace in a zimun. This is the common practice, although it is appropriate to be stringent and follow the first opinion.

2 The above applies only to Grace. With regard to other blessings — whether blessings recited over benefit, blessings recited over mitzvos, even Kiddush for Shabbos, which is a Scriptural obligation9 — there are opinions that maintain that one fulfills his obligation [by reciting them] in any language, even if one does not understand [that language]. The same ruling applies with regard to [the recitation of] Hallel.10

In contrast, with regard to the reading of the Megillah,11the recitation of the Shema,12 and the Shemoneh Esreh, [one does not fulfill his obligation unless he understands what is being said]. For with regard to the Megillah, it is written:13 “To the Jews, in their script and in their language,” thereby excluding other languages with which they are not familiar. With regard to the recitation of the Shema, it is written:14 “Hear,” which [our Sages interpret15 as meaning,] in any language that you hear, i.e., understand. If, by contrast, one does not understand that language, even if it is the Holy Tongue, he does not fulfill his obligation, unless he understood and concentrated during [the recitation of] the first verse,16 as [our Sages stated:]15 “Until this point, there is a mitzvah to concentrate.17 Afterwards, the mitzvah is to read.” And the mitzvah of reading may be fulfilled even if one does not understand the language [he is reading], as is true with regard to Hallel10and the Megillah.18

Similarly, with regard to the Shemoneh Esreh, since with regard to the first blessing,19 concentrated intent is a prerequisite, even after the fact, it is governed by the same laws as the recitation of the Shema. By contrast, after the fact, concentration is not imperative for other blessings, with the exception of Grace.20

Other authorities maintain that all the blessings resemble Grace in this respect and one does not fulfill his obligation when he does not understand the wording. According to the second opinion [in subsection 1, this applies only] in other languages, and according to the first opinion, even in the Holy Tongue. For our Sages established all their ordinances in a manner resembling Scriptural practice.21 [As stated above,] with regard to Grace, it cannot be said that [one is fulfilling the commandment to] “bless G‑d your L‑rd” when he does not understand the words of the blessing or when his heart turns to other matters. The same applies with regard to other blessings: [when understanding or concentration is lacking,] one does not fulfill the obligation of the blessing.

With regard to [the recitation of] Hallel and [the reading of] the Megillah, by contrast, the binding obligation is only the mitzvah of reading,22 as is true with regard to the recitation of the Shema after the first verse. [Therefore,] one may recite a blessing over this reading even though he does not understand the Holy Tongue. To cite a parallel: An unlearned person who knows how to read the Torah23 receives an aliyah and recites the blessings of the Torah in the presence of the congregation even though he does not understand what he is reading.24 [This ruling applies] even in the present era when a person who receives an aliyah does not himself read from the Torah.25

All the blessings, by contrast, were ordained, not as [mere] recitation, but as [an act of] blessing G‑d, as it is written with regard to Grace, “You shall bless G‑d, your L‑rd.” Therefore if one does not understand the words that are the essential elements of the blessing or if one’s heart is turned to other matters when reciting them, he is not considered to be reciting a blessing at all. This [ruling] applies even if he recites the blessing in the Holy Tongue according to the first opinion [mentioned in subsection 1].

(The words that are the essential elements of the blessing are “Blessed,” “G‑d,” His sovereignty,26 and the subjectfor which one is reciting the blessing, e.g., “…Who created the fruit of the earth” or “…through Whose word everything came into existence.” Similar concepts apply with regard to the blessings concerning the mitzvos. [This does not apply with regard] to the remainder of the wording of the blessings in the long blessings. Even with regard to those words whose recitation is a binding imperative [even] after the fact, e.g., the covenant [of circumcision] and the Torah, in the blessing [of thanks] for Eretz Yisrael, and the royal House of David, in the blessing Boneh Yerushalayim27— what is an absolute imperative is the recitation of these words and not their comprehension. For [these words] are not deemed a blessing, concerning which we would say that since one does not understand them, he is [therefore] not considered to be blessing G‑d. In contrast, whenever a blessing begins and concludes with the word “Blessed,” the understanding of the beginningand the end of the blessing is a binding requirement. This applies even when there are many blessings that follow in succession to each other, like the blessings of the Shema.

These blessings do not resemble the blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh, [concerning which the ruling is that] from the second blessing onward, the comprehension of the blessing is not a binding requirement after the fact. [The rationale:] All of the blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh [in essence] constitute one mitzvah. In the first three blessings, one is like a servant who presents words of praise in his master’s presence.In the thirteen intermediate blessings, one is like a servant who asks for an allotment from his master, and, in the last three, like a servant who has received [an allotment] from his master, takes leave of him, and seeks his permission [to do so].28 Indeed, for this reason, it is unacceptable for one to recite one [of these blessings] without [reciting all] the others, as explained in sec. 69:1.29 Therefore, once a person understood [the meaning of] the first blessing and concentrated during its recitation, [since] it is the fundamental expression of praise for the Holy One, blessed be He, [our Sages] did not require him to repeat the Shemoneh Esreh [even if his understanding or concentration was lacking in the later blessings]. For he fulfilled the fundamental mitzvah of the Sages by presenting the praises of the Omnipresent in his mouth and heart through [the recitation of] the first blessing. Its [recitation] is the fundamental dimension of the mitzvah of prayer, [as evidenced by the ruling19 that] if one did not concentrate his attention during [the recitation of] the first blessing — even though he concentrated throughout the remainder of the Shemoneh Esreh — he did not fulfill his obligation.

[The above rationale does not apply, however,] with regard to the blessings of the Shema. Each [blessing] is an independent mitzvah, as explained in the above source.30 Accordingly, [one’s] understanding and concentration during one [of those blessings] is of no consequence with regard to another.)

With regard to the application of this law, [we follow the principle:] “After the fact, when there is uncertainty regarding the necessity [to repeat] a blessing, we rule leniently.”31 Nevertheless, as an initial preference, one should be very careful with regard to his concentration during the recitation of blessings. In particular, [this applies with regard] to Grace, since there are authorities who maintain that even after the fact, one does not fulfill his obligation [if he lacks concentration].32

3 A person should not recite the Grace after Meals [merely] in his heart. If, however, he recites Grace in that manner, he fulfills his obligation,33 provided he verbalizes the words with his lips, even though he recites them in so silent a whisper that they were not audible, merely speaking to his heart. If, however, he did not verbalize the words at all, but merely thought them over in his heart, he did not fulfill his obligation, for thinking over [the words] is not equivalent to speech.34

Nevertheless, if he cannot verbalize the words because of illness or because of another factor beyond his control,35 he should review them in his heart. To cite a parallel: Before the ordinance of Ezra was nullified,36 our Sages required37 a person who had a seminal emission and who did not have water in which he could immerse, to review [the words] of Grace in his heart, because it is a Scriptural requirement.38

By contrast, according to the letter of the law, when forces beyond his control prevent a person from verbalizing other blessings which he is obligated to recite by Rabbinic Law, he need not review them in his heart. [To cite a parallel:] One who had a seminal emission was not required to review words of Torah [merely in thought,38 although] he is permitted to contemplate words of Torah the entire day. [The rationale for the restriction:] Since the person does not fulfill his obligation to recite the blessings by reviewing the words of the blessings in his mind, in any case, [the Rabbis did not obligate him to do so]. Even so, he should review the words of the blessing in which he is obligated, because G‑d will see into his heart and reward him for his thoughts, as [intimated by] the verse:39 “Say in your hearts….”

(A sick person should conduct himself in this manner even with regard to blessings that he is not mandated to recite, but in which he causes himself to be obligated, e.g., blessings recited for benefit. A healthy person who is held back by forces beyond his control and cannot verbalize [a blessing] because his location is unclean, [but not entirely filthy] — and thus, speaking [words of blessing] is forbidden, but thought is permitted, as stated in sec. 62[:3]40 — or by other situations beyond his control,41 should not benefit from this world without a blessing,42 even though he reviews the blessing in his heart, for [in this instance, even] after the fact, one does not fulfill his obligation through thought alone.)

Other authorities maintain that, after the fact, one may fulfill all the blessings, even Grace, by reviewing them in his mind. They do not resemble the Shema, for concerning it, it is written:43 “You shall speak of them,” and reviewing the words is not equivalent to speech. With regard to Grace, by contrast, it is not stated “you shall speak,” but “you shall bless,” and one who reviews the words of a blessing in his heart can also be said to be blessing. Fundamentally, the halachah follows the first opinion.44 Nevertheless, in a pressing situation of great necessity, one may rely on [the second opinion] with regard to the other blessings that are of Rabbinic origin.

4 When a head of a household eats together with his young children who have reached the age when they should be trained to recite Grace,45 but they do not know how to recite Grace, or [when he] eats together with his wife who does not know how to recite Grace, he must recite [Grace] aloud so that they will listen and fulfill their obligation, even though he is not including them in a zimun.46It is preferable that they recite the Grace with him, word-for-word, because concentrating and listening [to every word of Grace] is [virtually] impossible, as stated in sec. 183[:10]. (Similar [laws apply] with regard to Kiddush47and Havdalah.)48

5 A person who is slightly tipsy from [drinking] wine49 is forbidden to pray50 until the influence of the wine abates, even though he would be able to speak before a king without becoming befuddled, as explained in sec. 99:1. Nevertheless, such a person may recite Grace,51 as long as he would be able to speak in the presence of a king. [This leniency applies] even when he cannot speak in a truly appropriate manner, i.e., when he speaks, it is apparent that he is tipsy, but still, he does not blunder or become befuddled. [This concept is derived from] the verse:2 “When you have eaten and are satiated, you shall bless G‑d, your L‑rd.” Now, after a person [eats to] satiation, there are times when he becomes tipsy. Nevertheless, [even in such a situation,] the Torah obligates him to recite Grace.

If, however, a person is intoxicated to the extent that he could not speak in the presence of a king without becoming befuddled, there are authorities who maintain that he should not recite Grace, because a blessing recited by an intoxicated person is an abomination, like the prayer of such a person, as stated in sec. 99[:loc. cit.]. Should he have recited Grace, it is uncertain whether he must recite Grace again when the influence of the wine abates, if his food has not yet begun to digest,52 like an [intoxicated person] is obligated to pray again when the influence of the wine abates.53 [There is room for leniency,] because the laws governing the recitation of Grace are not as severe as those governing prayer, as evidenced by the ruling that, as an initial preference, a person who is tipsy may recite Grace, but he may not pray.

Similarly, it is uncertain whether [Grace must be recited a second time in the following situation]: A person recited Grace and, afterwards, found feces in front of him54 or at his side, within four cubits, in a place where there was reason to think that excrement might have been found there, and thus it was necessary that he check before he recited Grace there. He, however, was negligent and failed to check [the place. Were such a situation to occur] with regard to prayer, the person would be required to pray again, for to such a prayer, [our Sages55 applied the words of censure],56 “The offering of the wicked is an abomination,” as explained in sec. 76[:11. It is uncertain whether the Sages] were as stringent with regard to Grace and required him to recite it again because of his negligence. [Or perhaps the laws governing the recitation of] Grace are not as severe as [those governing] prayer, as reflected by [the leniency granted to one who is] tipsy.

(From the above, it can be deduced that one who is tipsy is also forbidden to recite the Shema, just like [he is forbidden] to pray. For someone who recited the Shema in a place where there was reason to suspect that feces would be present is required to recite the Shema again [if feces were indeed discovered there], just as he is required [to do so] with regard to prayer, as stated in sec. 76[, loc. cit.. In this regard,] the recitation of the blessings of the Shema is equivalent to the recitation of the Shema itself.

Similarly, it is uncertain whether one who, due to a factor beyond his control, interrupted [his recitation of] Grace — even if he [merely paused] in silence, but waited for the duration of time it would take to complete its recitation — is required to go back to the beginning [of Grace] as he is required to go back to the beginning of his prayers according to all opinions.57 ([There is reason to rule stringently, because the ruling regarding Grace] is stringent like [that regarding] prayer with regard to making an interruption [to initiate or respond to greetings to and from] one who commands fear and one who ought to be honored, as stated in sec. 183[:11. On the other hand,] perhaps [there is room for leniency with regard to Grace]. For [the rulings governing it] are not as stringent as [those governing] prayer with regard to one who is tipsy or, after the fact, with regard to one who interrupted [Grace to initiate or respond to greetings],58 in which instance, he is not required to go back to the beginning of Grace as he would be with regard to prayer. [Hence,] it is possible to say that similar [leniency is granted] if one waited for the duration of time it would take to complete [the entire Grace].)

([With regard to actual practice,] when there is a doubt with regard to the recitation of blessings, we rule leniently. True, the recitation of Grace is a Scriptural requirement.59 Nevertheless, the requirements to return to the beginning of Grace because: a) the blessing of a drunkard is an abomination; b) “The offering of the wicked is an abomination” when one was negligent and did not check the place [where he recited Grace], and c) unwillingly, due to a factor beyond one’s control, he waited the duration of time in which he could complete the entire Grace, are [all] Rabbinic [stringencies].)

There are authorities who maintain that even an intoxicated person who could not speak before a king at all may recite Grace. [They also derive this leniency from] the verse:2 “When you have eaten and are satiated, you shall bless G‑d, your L‑rd.” For sometimes, after a person eats to satiation, he becomes [not only tipsy, but also] intoxicated.

As an initial preference, the first opinion should be given weight and one should recite Grace before he reaches [a state of intoxication]. If it happens that a person becomes intoxicated, he should nevertheless recite Grace, as mandated by the latter opinion, because the doubt concerns a Scriptural obligation. Therefore, stringency is required.

According to the latter opinion, a person who is tipsy is also not exempt from the recitation of the Shema and its blessings, only one who is intoxicated. True, stringency is applied with regard to [these prayers] and one is required to recite them again when he was negligent and did not check [the cleanliness of] the place and yet [this stringency] is not applied with regard to the recitation of Grace. This fact is not [evidence] that [the laws regarding recital of Shema] are also more stringent with regard to one who is tipsy, only with regard to one who is intoxicated. Therefore, as an initial preference, weight should be given to the first opinion.60 [After the fact,] if it happened that a person drank [immoderately], he should not refrain from reciting the Shema, because this is an issue of uncertainty regarding a Scriptural commandment.61 And whenever one recites the Shema, even because of uncertainty, he must recite it together with its blessings, as stated in sec. 67[:1].

One may recite all the other blessings even when intoxicated, as stated in sec. 99[:1]. Even according to the authorities who maintain that concentrated intent is required with regard to the recitation of all the blessings,62 [blessings recited by an intoxicated person are,] nevertheless, [not disqualified]. For an intoxicated person may have concentrated intent, for he is considered as a mentally competent individual with regard to all matters. He is considered as one who acts intentionally with regard to [being subject to] all the punishments mandated by the Torah, as stated in Choshen Mishpat 235[:22].63 It is only that with regard to the recitation of the Shema and the She­moneh Esreh — where a higher level of concentrated intent is required — the intent of an intoxicated person is not considered as intent. Instead, it is considered as an abomination, since it is [recited in a] befuddled [state], as evidenced by the fact that he cannot speak in the presence of a king without confusion. With regard to other blessings, by contrast, even a minimal intent is sufficient, even if he is befuddled.