Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.
Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.
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.