Berachot - Chapter 4

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

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

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

See Chapter 2, Halachah 14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eating at a later time.

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

Before partaking of more food or drink.

After having completed a meal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or in any other way became inedible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fruits, desserts, or drinks.

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

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

At which time, Shabbat 129a suggests drinking wine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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