📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of Shiur – Chapter 4, Laws of Blessings (Birkat HaMazon), Book of Love
—
A. Birkat HaMazon in the Place Where One Ate
The Rambam says: “Anyone who recites Birkat HaMazon or any other final blessing among the three (Me’ein Shalosh), must recite it in the place where he ate.” “If he ate while standing, he should sit and recite the blessing.” “He should only recite the blessing while sitting and in the place where he ate.”
Simple meaning: One must bentch (or say “Al HaMichya”) in the place where one ate. If one has left, one should at least remain sitting in the place where one stopped eating, and bentch there. Even if one ate standing, one must sit down to bentch. L’chatchila one should sit; b’dieved, if one bentched standing or walking, one has fulfilled the obligation.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. The law of “in the place where one ate” is not a law of kavana (concentration). By prayer one must stand in one place because of kavana, but by Birkat HaMazon it is something else: the blessing must relate to the eating — it must be connected to the place where one ate. This is different from Kriat Shema, where one can walk while saying it.
2. Birkat HaMazon is not merely a “thank you” for hana’at hagaron (the physical pleasure of eating). It is a law of keviyut seuda — a meal is a keviyut, and upon the keviyut seuda comes a bentching. Therefore the blessing must be connected to the place of the meal. Even a cat thanks the Almighty when it eats — but by a person it is a different level, it must be a keviyut.
3. “If he ate while standing, he should sit and recite the blessing” — the reason: keviyut seuda must be while sitting. [Digression: At certain Chassidic tischen one bentches standing, but the Rambam’s rule is that l’chatchila one should sit.]
—
B. Forgot Birkat HaMazon — Shogeg vs. Meizid
The Rambam: “Forgot Birkat HaMazon” — if he forgot to bentch and remembered before shi’ur ikul, “he recites the blessing in the place where he remembered.” But “if he was meizid… they penalize him, and he must return to his place and recite the blessing.”
Simple meaning: A shogeg (forgot) bentches where he remembered. A meizid (deliberately did not bentch) must return to the place of eating — as a penalty.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. The novelty by shogeg: Earlier we learned that one can bentch where one stopped eating. Here the novelty is that when it is already a long time later and he is already in a completely different place, he can also bentch where he remembered — he does not have to go back.
2. Question on “meizid”: Who are we talking to? If he was a meizid — he did not want to follow the Torah — why will he follow now? Answer: “Meizid” does not mean he is a rasha. It means he had some calculation, it was not an error. Now he has done teshuva and wants to do the right thing — then he must return.
3. The main point of the penalty: The penalty is not made for afterward — it is made so that it should not happen. When a Jew stands at a meal and thinks to leave without bentching, he should know that he will have to go back. This is a preventive measure of the Chachamim.
4. A virtue to return even by shogeg? Even a shogeg, if he wants to return to the place of eating, this is a virtue — but one is not obligated.
—
C. Forgot to Recite HaMotzi
The Rambam: “One who is in doubt whether he recited HaMotzi or not, does not recite it again” — because HaMotzi is d’Rabbanan, and safek d’Rabbanan l’kula. “If he forgot to recite HaMotzi in the middle of his meal, before he finished his meal, he recites it again.” But “after he finished, he does not recite it.”
Simple meaning: By a doubt about HaMotzi one does not bentch again (safek d’Rabbanan l’kula). If one definitely forgot HaMotzi and is still in the middle of the meal, one makes HaMotzi now. After the meal — no longer.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. What does “in the middle of his meal” mean? If he is in the middle of eating and he has not yet made a blessing, isn’t it obvious that he must make a blessing — what is the novelty? Possible answer: Perhaps the Rambam means that he is already at dessert — he is no longer eating bread, but he makes HaMotzi on the entire meal, because the meal is a meal that has bread, and he should not make a Shehakol on the dessert, but rather a HaMotzi on the entire meal.
2. “After he finished he does not recite it” — after the meal one can no longer make HaMotzi, because there is nothing left on which to make the blessing.
—
D. Change of Place During a Meal — Eating in One House and Stopping His Meal and Going to Another House
The Rambam: “One who eats in one house and stops his meal and goes to another house” — or even “goes and crosses over to speak with his wife about his affairs” by the door (at the entrance of the house) — “since he changed his place… he must recite a blessing retroactively on what he ate” (bentch), “and recite HaMotzi again at the beginning and eat again to finish his meal.”
Simple meaning: When one leaves the place of the meal (even just to the door), the meal is interrupted. One must bentch on what one has already eaten, and if one wants to continue eating, one must make HaMotzi again.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. “Retroactively” means a final blessing — that is, Birkat HaMazon on what he has already eaten, not an initial blessing. Leaving does not exempt from Birkat HaMazon — he is still obligated to bentch on what he has already eaten.
2. Dispute between Rambam and Ra’avad regarding “changed his place”: The Ra’avad argues that “changed his place” means only when one goes to a different house. But if one remains at the door of the same house, it is not called “changed his place.” The Rambam however says that even going out to the door (at the entrance of the house) is already “changed his place.” It is discussed whether “entrance” means from inside or from outside the door.
3. A fundamental novelty in the nature of a meal: Why shouldn’t we say it is one meal with an interruption? The answer: A meal is when one sits at a meal — that this is “today’s meal.” When he leaves in the middle, it has become “the meal is over.” This is not just a hefsek, but an end to the meal itself.
4. A mussar lesson about “normal people”: Most laws are built on normal people who sit at one thing. We contemporary people are “mixed up” — we do two things at once, we speak with one person and answer a phone in the middle. But the halacha reckons with a person who when he leaves, has truly finished.
5. The practical case: When someone sits at a Shabbat meal, children are singing zemirot, and he is called to the door — according to the Rambam he has now finished his meal. The friend does not agree and thinks it is still the same meal.
—
E. Friends Who Left — Leaving a Guard
If friends were sitting together eating and they went out (for example to greet a bride and groom), if they left one of the friends, they do not need to make a new blessing when they return. But if no one remained — one must make a new blessing with a new HaMotzi.
Novel insights:
1. The principle: When one remains, he maintains that the meal is still going on. Even though the one who remained could not drag along — one cannot say that the meal has ended, because “after all, remaining means that the meal is still ongoing.”
—
F. Change of Place by Fruits and Wine (The Ra’avad)
The Ra’avad says: The same law applies not only by a meal of bread, but also when one sits drinking wine or eating fruits — anyone who changes his place has stopped his eating. He must make a final blessing (Al Ha’etz, Al HaGafen) and then a new initial blessing.
Novel insights:
1. The Ra’avad’s distinction between inside and outside: Changing place from corner to corner in the same house — one does not need to recite a blessing, it is the same meal. But going out of the house — that is a change of place.
2. The law outside — those who eat on the east side of a fig tree: One who eats on the east side of a fig tree and goes to eat on the west side — must recite a blessing. Because outside there are no rooms/chambers, each different side is a different place. This is illustrated: if one makes a barbecue and writes on the invitation “east side of the fig tree” — that is one place; “west side of the fig tree” is a different group, a different party.
3. The Ra’avad’s objection — “did not know from the beginning”: The Ra’avad agrees with the law, but asks: what if the person knew from the beginning that he would go to the other place? If he had da’at from the beginning, it is perhaps different.
4. A novelty about “da’at” by contemporary people: Contemporary people do not have any “da’at” in this sense — we do not think from the beginning where we will be. There are opinions that today one does have da’at but must leave, but one side is: “We never have any da’at, so one is exempt from the whole thing altogether.”
—
G. Decided in His Heart Not to Eat — Interruption in a Meal Through Thought
The Rama says: “If he decided in his heart not to eat or drink anymore, and afterward changed his mind — even if he did not change his place, he must recite a blessing. But if he did not decide in his heart, but his intention is to return and eat and drink — even if he stopped the entire day, he does not need to recite a second blessing.”
Simple meaning: When a person has decided in his heart that he has finished eating, and afterward he reconsidered — even if he did not change his place, he must make a new blessing. But if he did not decide to finish, but his da’at is still to continue eating — even if it goes through an entire day, he does not need to make a new blessing.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. Question on “even if he stopped the entire day”: How does a person sit at a table an entire day without eating? An example: A person ate breakfast at seven o’clock, he sits at the same table the entire day (because he is learning), and later he wants to continue eating — does he not need to make a new blessing? Answer: The simple meaning is that he “is in the middle” — he did not decide to finish, but it dragged on. He remained in the same place (no change of place), and his da’at is still to continue eating. But this is only by people who have sense — by them there is such a thing as “decided in his heart.” “Today’s people don’t know what that is.”
—
H. Come Let Us Make Havdala vs. Come Let Us Make Kiddush — Distinction Between Kiddush and Havdala
The Rambam’s law: A group of people sit together and drink. If they said “Come let us bentch” or “Come let us make Kiddush” — they must make a new blessing on Borei Pri HaGafen when they want to continue drinking. But if they said “Come let us make Havdala” — “they do not need to recite again,” they do not need to make a new blessing.
Simple meaning: By Kiddush “Come let us make Kiddush” is a hefsek, by Havdala not.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. Question: Why is “Come let us make Havdala” different from “Come let us make Kiddush”? Both mention a mitzva that makes a hefsek!
2. Answer (with the Ra’avad): The distinction is not in the essence of the hefsek, but in the prohibition to eat before Kiddush versus Havdala:
– By Kiddush: When Shabbat arrives, one may not continue eating until one makes Kiddush — “spread a cloth and make Kiddush.” “Come let us make Kiddush” is a real hefsek, because one must stop eating.
– By Havdala: One may continue eating until one finishes, and only then does one make Havdala. “Come let us make Havdala” does not prohibit them from continuing to eat. If one has only said “Come let us make Havdala” but has not yet made Havdala, one can reconcile: “Later we will make Havdala, now we can still eat.” Therefore it is not a hefsek.
3. A second approach: Perhaps we are speaking of a case where it is not yet night (before dark). One can make Kiddush Shabbat Friday afternoon but does not yet have to. “Come let us make Kiddush” makes one accept Shabbat, which obligates him in Kiddush — it is a kabbalat Shabbat for the entire group.
4. The Ra’avad’s position: The Ra’avad distinguishes: By Kiddush one must make Kiddush anyway when it becomes night, whether one says so or not. By Havdala — if one says “Come let us make Havdala” and one has stopped drinking, it is a hefsek; if not — it does not create an obligation.
5. Another novelty: “Borei Pri HaGafen” by Havdala does not yet mean one has stopped (because one may still eat), unlike “Borei Pri HaGafen” by Kiddush — that is indeed a hefsek, because one may not continue eating without Kiddush.
6. The Ra’avad’s question on the Rambam — if it is not about the essence of the hefsek — remains difficult.
[Digression: The law of “Come let us make Kiddush” is a source for the Lubavitch custom (by bachurim): Erev Shabbat one sits drinking (farbrengen), and when Shabbat arrives one says Kiddush — this is the concept of “Come let us make Kiddush” in the middle of drinking.]
—
I. Recited a Blessing on Bread Exempts All Side Dishes — Hierarchy of Blessings
The Rambam says: “If he recited a blessing on bread, he exempts all side dishes. And if he recited a blessing on ma’aseh kedeira, he exempts the cooked dish. And if he recited a blessing on the cooked dish — [according to versions: does not exempt / exempts ma’aseh kedeira].”
Simple meaning: There is a hierarchy of blessings: bread (HaMotzi) exempts side dishes (everything one eats with/after bread); ma’aseh kedeira (mezonot) exempts tavshil (Shehakol).
Novel insights and explanations:
1. What does “side dishes” mean? The Rambam interprets side dishes to mean everything one eats after bread — “anything one eats after bread.” The Shulchan Aruch interprets side dishes completely differently from the Rambam.
2. The direction of exemption — one way or both ways: There is a dispute in the versions of the Rambam. In the old version it says “does not exempt” — that tavshil does not exempt ma’aseh kedeira (it only goes one way, from important to less important). In the version we have it says it goes both ways. By bread and side dishes it is agreed that it only goes one way — bread exempts side dishes but not vice versa.
3. The hierarchy: Bread (HaMotzi) → side dishes (everything else); ma’aseh kedeira (mezonot) → tavshil (Shehakol). Soup and noodles are both ma’aseh kedeira and exempt each other.
4. The custom vs. the Rambam: The custom of the world is that one never exempts any blessing with mezonot — one always makes specific blessings. But the Rambam implies that if one sits to eat a meal and makes mezonot, one does not need to make additional blessings afterward on weaker things, because mezonot exempts a Shehakol.
[Digression: Criticism of the Oz VeHadar edition — the one who made the chapters in the Oz VeHadar Rambam has here a “weaker job” than in other chapters — he does not properly mark the Shulchan Aruch sources. The “Rambam Aruch” is usually more precise.]
—
J. Things That Come During the Meal Because of the Meal
The Rambam says: “Things that come because of the meal during the meal do not require a blessing before them or after them, for the blessing of HaMotzi at the beginning and Birkat HaMazon at the end exempt them all” — because “everything is secondary to the meal.”
Simple meaning: Things that are brought in the middle of the meal and they are part of the meal (because of the meal), do not need an initial blessing or a final blessing, because HaMotzi and bentching exempt everything.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. This is a new law compared to the previous law of “bread exempts side dishes.” The distinction: Earlier we spoke of ikar and tafel in the context of two foods (cracker with halva), here we speak of a broader principle — the entire meal is the ikar, and everything that comes in the middle is tafel to the meal itself. It is “another application” of the principle of ikar and tafel, but on a larger scale.
[Digression: When one eats bread with eggs and onions, must one wash? In practice, when one eats bread one does not make another separate blessing on the other things — this is obvious.]
[Digression: A “funny” situation by modern meals: When one eats a meal without bread (as many people do today), one makes “hundreds of blessings” — a separate blessing on each thing. For example, soup with kneidlach — one makes Borei Minei Mezonot on the kneidlach, and most people make another Shehakol on the soup. On a meat plate with a kugel on the side — one makes five blessings on one dish. Unlike when one washes and makes HaMotzi, everything is a “keviyut seuda” and the main blessing exempts everything.]
—
K. Things That Are Not Because of the Meal During the Meal
The Rambam: “But things that are not because of the meal, even though they come during the meal, require a blessing before them” — but not after them (according to one version).
Simple meaning: A food that one eats during the meal but it is not part of the meal — one must make a blessing before it.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. What is an example of “not because of the meal during the meal”? Two practical examples:
– At a wedding — an institution sets up a table with nuts next to the door, mainly for those who come to dance. Someone takes from there in the middle of his meal — he eats it during the meal, but it is not part of the meal.
– Simanim of Rosh Hashana — the foods that are brought on Rosh Hashana (apple with honey, rubia, karti, etc.) are not because of the meal, but in honor of Yom Tov as simanim. This is a practical difference.
—
L. Things That Come After the Meal
The Rambam: “Things that come after the meal require a blessing before them and after them.”
Simple meaning: Things that are brought after the meal need an initial blessing and a final blessing.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. What does “after the meal” mean? Dessert is not “after the meal” — it is the “end of the meal,” part of the meal. One has never seen anyone make a final blessing on dessert, because bentching exempts it.
2. The conclusion: “After the meal” means after bentching — one has already bentched, and then one eats something else. Then one needs a blessing before it and after it.
3. A question: Why does one need a final blessing when one has already bentched? Bentching is a final blessing — it should exempt! Answer: Bentching was on the meal; the new eating after bentching is a separate eating that needs its own final blessing. The bentching “does not go backwards” — it cannot exempt something that comes afterward.
4. The Rama’s position: He says that the reason one needs a new blessing is because the eater “does not want to connect himself to the previous” meal — it is a new beginning.
—
M. Why Bread Is the Main Thing — A Fundamental Reasoning
[Digression that stands in connection with the law of “bread exempts all side dishes” and “things that come because of the meal”:]
Question: In our culture the “main thing” (main course) is the meat or fish (protein), and the mezonot/starch is a “side dish.” But the halacha always says that bread is the main thing. If in our culture the main thing is indeed the meat plate, and one washes only “on the side” — what is the answer?
Answer/explanation: Bread is the cheapest thing that can keep society alive. All other things (meat, fish) are “luxuries.” When there is no abundance, one falls back on bread. Proof from Yosef HaTzaddik — he distributed bread to the world. Agriculture, cities, civilization — everything is built on bread. Bread is a “basic” fundamental thing.
Another proof: By Korban Pesach one also ate matza (bread) with meat, and one made HaMotzi — not a separate blessing on the meat. Also in a “fancy restaurant” one always gives bread first — this is a custom from always, not a new thing. This shows that bread has importance.
—
N. Wine During the Meal — Shabbat/Yom Tov Versus Weekdays
The Rambam (in the name of the Rama/Shulchan Aruch): “Shabbat and Yom Tov, or on weekdays when a person establishes his meal on wine… if he recited a blessing on the wine before the meal, it exempts the wine he drinks after the meal before Birkat HaMazon. But on other days, he must recite a blessing again at the beginning on the wine after the meal.”
Simple meaning: On Shabbat/Yom Tov (or other moments when one establishes a meal on wine — after bloodletting, a thanksgiving meal, leaving prison), the blessing on the wine at the beginning of the meal exempts all wine until bentching. But on regular days, one must make a new blessing on wine that one drinks later in the meal.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. The principle of this distinction: By bread there is a “meal order” that is controlled by bread — everything is included. But wine has a special nature — “each glass of wine is a need in itself.” Only when one establishes a meal on wine (Shabbat, Yom Tov) does the wine become part of the meal structure.
2. Three types of wine are distinguished: (1) Wine before the meal — like Kiddush, a drink of wine before the meal; (2) Wine during the meal — wine that one drinks during the act; (3) Wine after the meal — wine after the meal but before bentching. The Rambam says that even on Shabbat/Yom Tov, the wine before the meal does not exempt the wine after the meal — only the wine during the meal exempts.
3. Practical point about hearing blessings: One must wait until one swallows before answering Amen, because one may not speak in the middle of swallowing. The Rambam himself said this in the laws of health. If everyone has his own cup, each one makes his own blessing when he is ready.
4. Exception — HaTov VeHaMeitiv: If one brings a new wine (a new type), one makes “HaTov VeHaMeitiv” even in the middle of the meal, because this is a special blessing on the novelty of a new wine.
—
O. HaTov VeHaMeitiv on a New Wine
The Rambam: “If they were sitting to drink wine and they brought them another wine” — if one is sitting and drinking wine and they bring a new wine (red instead of white, or old instead of new) — one does not need to make a new Borei Pri HaGafen (because it is the same species), but one makes “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who is good and does good.”
Simple meaning: Because it is a better wine, one makes HaTov VeHaMeitiv — “HaTov” on the previous good wine, “VeHaMeitiv” on the new one that makes it even better.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. HaTov VeHaMeitiv is explained as a blessing on abundance — not like most blessings where one thanks for a basic need (hunger → bread), but here one already had wine, and something even better comes. “It is good, and may it be even better.”
2. Novelty regarding the meaning of “Meitiv”: “Meitiv” primarily means “does good for others.” The rule is: on good news for oneself one says Shehecheyanu; on something that is also for others one says HaTov VeHaMeitiv. By wine — how is it for others? Because when a Jew drinks wine he becomes a better friend with other Jews. Therefore one can only make HaTov VeHaMeitiv when sitting with other people — as the Rambam says.
—
P. One Does Not Make a Blessing Until the Food Is Before You
The Rambam: “One does not recite a blessing on food from any foods or on drink from any drinks until it comes before him.” And if one did make a blessing earlier — “he must recite it again” — one must make a blessing again.
Simple meaning: This is like over la’asiyatan — the blessing must be adjacent to the act.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. Fundamental novelty about the nature of blessings of enjoyment: A blessing is not just an opportunity to thank the Almighty. It is a taking permission — one asks permission to eat the thing. Additionally there is a concept of chalut — “the Name of Heaven becomes effective on the act” — the Name of Heaven becomes effective on the act. Therefore the food must be before you — so that the Name can be effective on something. (The Komarner is mentioned as a source for this principle.)
2. Blessing in vain means according to this: You bring the Almighty’s Name on nothing — the Name hangs in the air without an object to be effective on.
—
Q. When the Food Is Lost After the Blessing
The Rambam: If one made a blessing on a food, and then the food was lost (burned, swept away in a wave), one must take another food and make a new blessing — even if it is the same species. And on the first blessing that remained without an object, “one must say Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuto L’olam Va’ed” — so that the Name of Heaven should not be in vain.
Simple meaning: Because the food on which one made the blessing no longer exists, the blessing has become in vain, and one says Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuto.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. Why does one need a new blessing on the second food: Even if it is the same species, the new food is a new thing — because a blessing is taking permission on that specific object, not on the species in general. This fits very well with the position that a blessing is taking permission.
2. Two interpretations of “Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuto”:
– Interpretation A (appeasement/forgiveness): “Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuto” is a kind of request for forgiveness — one asks the Almighty for what appeared to be a disrespect of His Name. Like by the Kohen Gadol in the Beit HaMikdash where one said Baruch Shem after mentioning the Name.
– Interpretation B (praise on the mention of the Name itself): “Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuto” is a praise on the mention of the Name itself — even when the Name did not become effective on any object, one can at least make the Name effective on itself — a praise on the mere mention of the Holy Name. This “catches” the Name so it should not hang in the air. The emphasis is on the word “Shem” — “Blessed is His Name.”
– Discussion between the two interpretations: Against interpretation B it is asked: The main problem is not just the “Name” itself, but the entire “Borei Pri HaGafen” — one said a praise on a creation that did not happen. Against interpretation A it is asked: Where do we see that Baruch Shem praises the Name? It is answered: By the Kohen Gadol in the Beit HaMikdash, why did the Kohanim around say Baruch Shem? Because there is a praise that comes on the mention of the Name itself, even without a specific reason. Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuto is a special praise on the mere fact that one mentioned the Name.
—
R. Making a Blessing by Running Water (A Stream)
The Rambam: “One who stands by a stream and recites a blessing and drinks” — someone who stands by a stream (running water), makes a blessing and drinks — “even though the water that came before him at the time of the blessing is not the water he drank” — although the water that was before him at the time of the blessing is not the water he drinks — “he did not intend from the beginning” except to drink, it is good, because this is the nature of the water.
Simple meaning: By running water, although the physical water that was there at the time of the blessing is already gone, the blessing is valid because he had in mind to drink from the stream.
Novel insights and explanations:
1. [Digression: Philosophical point (Heraclitus) — “A person does not enter the same water twice” — by running water the water on which one made the blessing is already gone.]
2. Two approaches why it is valid:
– Approach A: “This is what he intended from the beginning” — when he made the blessing, he had in mind to drink the water that will arrive next to him at the moment when he drinks. It is the nature of a stream — one knows that new water comes.
– Approach B: One can say that the entire stream is like one large vessel of water — everything is one water. But the first approach is more straightforward, because physically it is indeed not the same water.
3. Practical difference: If approach A works (he intended), then one can also make a blessing when one sees a server already bringing the food — because “most is within it” (it is already coming). But the distinction is: By a stream one stands next to the source, whereas by a server the food has not yet belonged to you and is not next to you.
4. [Digression: Practical question about making a blessing by a water fountain — when does one press the button, before or after the blessing? It is like a stream — the water that flows out at the time of the blessing is not the water one drinks.]
5. [Digression: Blessing on netilat yadayim by a button/shower in a mikveh — people make a blessing before they turn on the water. The question is whether turning on the button (or fountain) is already an “act of water” — an act with water — because water sprays when one presses the button. This is compared to the old custom where one had to light a fire (match) and wait until the water flows, and only then make a blessing. The conclusion is that the fountain/button is already an act of water, similar to taking a ladle — it is the beginning of the act.]
📝 Full Transcript
Chapter 4, Laws of Blessings – Birkat HaMazon at the Place of Eating, Change of Location, and Forgetting Blessings
Introduction – Campaign for the Beit Midrash
Rabbosai, we are learning Chapter 4 of the Laws of Blessings. Yes, we’re still in the middle of the Laws of Blessings, Birkat HaMazon, in Sefer Ahavah.
These days, with God’s help, the big campaign is beginning for our institution, for the beit midrash where we’re learning now, the beit midrash of my friend and partner, the Rav HaGaon Rabbi Yitzchak Lavi, one of whose projects is our Rambam shiur, and he has other shiurim and other ways in which he spreads Torah. The main sponsor of our shiur is the Rav HaNagid Rabbi Yoel Wertzberger, and he’s looking for partners, we’re looking for partners who will help support this place of Torah.
The holy Rambam says, yes, that everyone should participate. Whoever learns is obligated, it’s not a heter. Just as one must recite Birkat HaMazon at the place where one ate, at the place where one eats one must eat, so too at the place where one learns one must pay for the beit midrash. I brought what the Rambam says that Rabbi Yitzchak, one can be lenient, he seeks to find a koach d’hetera. I say there is no heter. One must be very careful, everyone should be very careful, unless one has a clear heter from a local dayan.
Law 1 – Birkat HaMazon Must Be Recited at the Place Where One Ate
The Rambam says: “Anyone who recites Birkat HaMazon, or any other final blessing from the three, must recite it at the place where he ate.”
Everyone who makes Birkat HaMazon, or the short version of Birkat HaMazon, what we call “Al HaMichya,” the final blessing me’ein shalosh, he must eat it there in the place where he ate. He must bentch in the place where he ate. Yes, at the place where he ate.
“And if he left, he should sit at the place where he stopped” – if he goes, he should stop at the place where he finished eating, at the last place where he ate, and there he should make a blessing. One cannot, he should not go further and bentch.
Discussion: Why Must One Bentch at the Place Where One Ate?
For example, by prayer we saw that one must stand in one place, by Kriat Shema one could indeed walk, also not by Pesukei D’Zimra.
It’s not clear if it’s about kavana, it’s not about the time of Birkat HaMazon. It’s something else. The blessing must be on the place of eating. It’s something else. A blessing when one eats a meal? Ah, it’s not a law that during the time you’re eating you shouldn’t walk. If you have one room and you walk here and there, I don’t know. The law here is that one must make the blessing at the place where he ate. This is how the blessing relates to the eating that you did before you walked.
Speaker 2: Interesting. It’s a keviyut, we’re talking about a meal now.
Speaker 1: No, we’re talking about a meal, and I assume. Here he finished eating. Yes, he goes away further, he’s gone, it’s no longer part of the… It’s a law, one must understand. One learns it from a verse.
Speaker 2: Why must I understand? Why by Kriat Shema am I okay with this?
Speaker 1: You say Kriat Shema not on the way? I don’t understand the problem. Now if it’s a meal…
Speaker 2: No, no, no. The main thing is a meal.
Speaker 1: You hold in saying that one must thank the Almighty for what you ate.
Speaker 2: No, it’s not yet at that point. It’s very basic to thank the Almighty. Thanking the Almighty is basic. Everyone can thank the Almighty. Even a cat thanks the Almighty when it eats. A normal person, it must be like a keviyut. It’s a different level. It’s a meal, and at the end of the meal comes a bentching. You can even say it like this: the meal is the keviyut, and on the keviyut meal comes a bentching. Not just on the eating, the hana’at hagaron. It’s more than that.
Therefore, even if you ate while walking, you should at least stop and bentch. “If he ate while standing, he should eat while sitting and bless” – not that he should do it the same way he did the eating.
Speaker 1: What’s the meaning of this?
Speaker 2: Because keviyut seuda must be sitting. There are cultures where one eats standing, where one is not particular about not eating standing. I don’t know, I’ve traveled to places at airports…
Speaker 1: Ah, at such events.
Speaker 2: Okay, and even then one must sit down to bentch, as it says here in the Rambam. Except at the Rebbe’s tisch, there one conducts oneself to bentch standing, the great Chassidim. Yes, then I don’t know.
Okay, give me a minute, I’ll fill my seuda earlier. Okay, yes, one must sit down.
Law 2 – Forgot Birkat HaMazon: Shogeg vs. Meizid
Further, “forgot Birkat HaMazon” – a person finished eating and forgot to bentch, and he remembered after the shiur ikul hamazon. Just as we learned earlier that Birkat HaMazon must be done before the food is digested. One must remember in time. As long as it’s still within the shiur ikul hamazon, “he blesses at the place where he remembered” – he should bentch at the place where he remembered.
Yes, the chiddush is, bentching one must not only… We learned earlier the law that he can bentch where he stopped eating. Here it’s already a long time later, he’s already at a different place entirely.
Earlier we learned about nit’achel hamazon, that simply if he forgot to bentch until when he must soon bentch. Here one learns that he not only forgot, he also went away. The Rambam says that he can bentch from where he remembered, he doesn’t have to go back to where he was earlier when eating.
But at the place and time where he remembered. Until now we’ve already learned, but now we learn this: And if it was meizid, if he didn’t bentch not because he forgot, but simply he didn’t bentch, then he is still obligated, and they penalize him and he must return to his place and bless, he must go back. Go home and bentch. This is simply a knas, the Chachamim didn’t like that people should leave the table without bentching.
Discussion: The Question of Meizid – Why Will He Listen Now?
But the law is very interesting, because when it says here like this, that parents should educate their son who is a meizid, I can still understand. But if you’re speaking here to an adult, he was a meizid, yes? When he finished eating he was in a state where he didn’t want to follow the Torah. Why will he now follow the Torah? Why will he now follow? Did he do teshuva in the meantime?
Speaker 2: You mean to say that he didn’t forget, he knew, and it didn’t matter to him? And now he did teshuva and he wants to do the right mitzvah, he should go back to his place and bless.
Speaker 1: Meizid doesn’t mean he was a rasha. Meizid doesn’t mean a mistake, something else was going on, he had some calculation.
Speaker 2: It’s already a punishment. You’re saying now that what, as a knas you must go back? And if he just bentches here?
Speaker 1: No, the point of the knas is that meizid you should remember for the next time.
Speaker 2: No, the point of the knas is that you should know that if you leave the table… I mean that the point of such penalties is that it shouldn’t happen, not that it should happen. We’re not talking about afterwards. The Chachamim say to a Jew, a Jew stands at a meal, he’s about to get up, he thinks whether he should get up, he thinks, “I’ll come back, I’ll…” The Chachamim say, “Aha, remember, if you get up b’meizid, you’ll have to go back there to bentch, and you don’t want that.”
But if he transgresses, he transgresses. You understand? I’m saying, it could be that it’s made more so that people should be afraid, and people should indeed bentch immediately. It’s an interesting thing.
Speaker 1: Yes, but again, you can say like this: there’s today a mitzvah of bentching at the place where one ate. So the person who forgot and remembered, even if he wants to go back, he can go back to where he ate, it’s a ma’alah. Isn’t it a ma’alah?
Speaker 2: Why do you say it’s not a ma’alah? It is a ma’alah, but one is not obligated.
Speaker 1: Ah, on the contrary, isn’t it a ma’alah?
Speaker 2: It is a ma’alah, but one is not obligated. Can he say “I already ate, I’m no longer hungry”?
L’chatchila and B’dieved
Wait, “he sat and blessed.” This we learned earlier that one bentches standing or walking, it’s only l’chatchila. B’dieved yotzei yedei chovato. But l’chatchila not. L’chatchila is “he should only bless when sitting and at the place where he ate”. He already said the same thing twice. Okay. This is l’chatchila. B’dieved one is yotzei all ways, but one knows that there’s a knas that he must go home.
Law 3 – Forgot to Bless HaMotzi
Now we’re going to learn something else. That is, it’s not connected to this. It’s only connected with the fact that now we’re talking about someone who forgot to bentch. What if someone forgot to make HaMotzi? Yes?
“One who is in doubt whether he blessed HaMotzi or didn’t bless, he doesn’t go back and bless, if it’s not from the Torah.” A blessing of HaMotzi is not a blessing from the Torah. Safek d’rabbanan we don’t be stringent. Safek d’oraita one must be stringent.
“Forgot to bless HaMotzi”, here he’s not talking about a doubt, he forgot, he knows he forgot. He forgot to make HaMotzi before eating, and now he’s in the middle of the meal. “In the middle of his meal, before he finished his meal”, before he finished eating, “he goes back and blesses”, then he makes HaMotzi. He doesn’t say whether he must then eat in honor of this another piece of bread. It could be he makes then the blessing on the meal, and the meal is bread.
Discussion: What Does “In the Middle of His Meal” Mean?
Speaker 1: What does “in the middle of his meal” mean? “Before he finished his meal”? Yes, now he’s at the compote, I don’t know what. But it’s not false when he says “HaMotzi lechem min ha’aretz,” because the meal is a meal that has bread. I don’t know, I don’t know the answer.
“But after he finished, he doesn’t bless.”
Speaker 2: But l’khaora this is obvious. If this is obvious, he’s in the middle of eating, he hasn’t yet made the blessing.
Speaker 1: No, I’m telling you, perhaps “remembered after he finished” means not… means… he’s still eating anything, but he shouldn’t now make a shehakol on the compote, rather he should make a HaMotzi lechem, because he makes the blessing on the entire meal. Could be. It’s not clear, could be. There are about this chakirot. One talks about this, yes. There are rabbis who talk about this.
Speaker 2: Yes. Not clear, because l’khaora it’s simple, if we say that he’s going to eat now another piece of bread, he hasn’t yet made the blessing.
Speaker 1: Yes, it’s not a question from safek. It must be that the Gemara is talking about something else. One must understand what we’re talking about. Simply that one can’t eat without a blessing because he forgot, that’s not a way.
Law 4 – Eating in One House and Stopped His Meal and Went to Another House
Now one can learn what happened if one made a break in the middle of the meal. Yes, come come learn. Eating in this house, and stopped his meal and went to another house, oy, oy, oy, yes, he went away from the house where he’s eating the meal, he went to another house. We’re now going to learn about interrupting in the middle, yes.
See, so all these laws are laws of a meal. Now we learned that l’chatchila one must bentch from the place of the meal. Now there are laws that are l’khaora built only on this. Because if one must bentch from the place of the meal, one must know when the meal ends, when it becomes a new meal. This is l’khaora the…
So a person ate and he went to another house, stopped his meal and went to another house, another room, eating, or even didn’t go to another house, but in his house, “and went and passed to speak with his wife about his affairs”, he went to the corner to talk, he went out from his house. He went out to the entrance of the house. Petach doesn’t mean the corner, petach means outside the door. He went out from the house, even if he didn’t go to another house.
But since he changed his place, this is called changed his place, because he went away, on this the Rambam argues with the Ra’avad, that changed his place only means one went to another house, but if one remained by the door, it doesn’t mean that one really went away. Ah, perhaps the Rambam means yes, petach means it stands from inside, and I meant that petach means like… No, it could be even from outside, but it could be that the Rambam says that even outside the door, one didn’t go to another place, yes.
Since he changed his place, when he comes back he must bless l’mafre’a on what he ate, he must make a blessing again on what he ate. He must make a bentching. L’mafre’a means, what does l’mafre’a mean? He must bentch, and he goes back and blesses first HaMotzi and goes back and eats to finish his meal.
Yes, l’mafre’a means a final blessing. One must bentch, because it has now ended. A meal has ended. You want another meal? One must again make a HaMotzi.
Speaker 2: But is he exempt from making Birkat HaMazon?
Speaker 1: Yes. You ate now. Going away doesn’t exempt from Birkat HaMazon.
Law: Change of Place in a Meal — Continuation
Speaker 1: Okay, he went out right out from the home, even if he didn’t go to another house. But since he changed his place, this is a change of place, I’ll already take away. On this indeed the Rama argues, that change of place only means that one went to another house, but if one remained by the door it doesn’t mean that he really went away.
Speaker 2: Ah, that means the Rama means yes, petach stands from inside, I meant that petach means outside.
Speaker 1: It’s no… even from outside, but it’s no… the Rama says even outside the door, you must go further to another place. Yes.
The Law of L’mafre’a — Final Blessing and Initial Blessing
Speaker 1: Since he changed his place, when he comes back, he must bless l’mafre’a on what he ate, he must make a blessing again on what he ate. That means he must make a bentching. He must make… l’mafre’a means… what does l’mafre’a mean? He must when bentch, and he goes back and blesses HaMotzi and eats according to finishing his meal. Yes, l’mafre’a means a final blessing. He must bentch, he has now finished, the meal has finished.
Why does he need another meal? Why must he make HaMotzi again?
But he is l’mafre’a, he makes a Birkat HaMazon. Yes, what he ate now, going away doesn’t exempt from Birkat HaMazon.
Chiddush: The Nature of a Meal — When One Sits at a Meal
Speaker 1: Why isn’t it one long keviyut seuda that had an interruption? It’s interesting like this. A meal is when one sits at a meal. A person’s meal, that this is today’s meal. And he goes away in the middle, it’s finished.
What’s interesting, because we are mixed-up people, we hear a whole twenty things, we don’t begin to understand. Most laws are built on normal people who sit at one thing. Now he’s talking with his friend, now he’s not in the middle of a meal, he finished the meal. Obviously he must bentch, one bentches before one goes away. But you want to eat again, you make a new meal. It’s very simple, I don’t agree.
The Practical Case: A Moreh Hora’ah in the Middle of a Meal
Speaker 1: I’m a moreh hora’ah, a Jew comes in the middle of the meal, and they call me, “Tatty, someone is at the door, go out for a moment answer him.” Yes, the simple meaning is, I’ve now finished my meal. I’m in the middle of a Shabbat meal, my children are sitting there, we’re singing zemirot, in the middle of HaMotzi lechem, I put my hat on the zemirot and I went to the door. Yes.
We’re talking about such a manner that the meal continues, and if someone goes out it ends my meal. And the meal continues, because he leaves over people.
Digression: Today’s People Do Two Things at Once
Speaker 1: One minute, the next law says… and when the meal continues and the… that the meal with him too, because there… the point is this is. A person eats alone, and the minute he went away somewhere that the meal has ended, and he came back somewhere that a new meal begins, and he should act accordingly and bentch and again begin. I’m also very confused like this as before they say the eater that the Rambam has a very nice idea. One sits now, goes out, finished sitting.
We are bluffers, we talk we think we’re in the middle of things when we’ve long started, with no longer accustomed. We do two things at once a whole story. In the middle of talking with a person, he before comes a phone call, he talks with a second person. Hello, I’m talking with you now. That one wants to talk with you. No problem, shouldn’t mine that not. It should come later.
English Translation
We’re holding in the middle of speaking here to the audience, let’s not be disturbed. The things that they learn, many people on the phone, we need to be precise. Yes, there are many friends who are sitting. Ah, they mentioned. Yes, the Rav doesn’t agree with you.
Halacha: Chaverim She’yatzu — The Law of Leaving a Guardian
Speaker 1: Therefore the Rav actually says that if he left his house, he needs to make a new bracha. So it’s a big enough interruption that one should need to start over. From the beginning, the reason is only if he remained at the house.
The Rav says further, what happens in another similar case, but different. Friends were sitting together eating, and they went out.
Speaker 2: Wait, why does he say, here they’re eating together as friends?
Speaker 1: The Gemara is simply discussing such a case. Something happened a bit, but… I know why, one doesn’t go out in the middle of a meal, that’s the way of the world. Of course, earlier he had an event with all the friends, something happened, and now he has one. All the friends. I’m saying, he went out with all the friends. Here a group is sitting eating, it happens that there’s a wedding. What do people do? They go out, they go to participate in the simcha, I don’t know what.
The Law When One Remains — The Meal Continues
Speaker 1: He is not… the halacha says, if they left one of the friends… that he should guard the old group, an elderly or sick person. Even if everyone is obligated to go to the wedding. Okay. But if they left people who weren’t invited. That means it’s not their obligation. Because the two people maintained that the meal continues.
The heart rests in the house. They didn’t abandon the place. And further back to the halacha, and Yitzchak, there they say in the illness is a novelty, if some people remained in the house, certainly the meal is still going on. Even if he couldn’t drag himself, what can you say? The meal ended, with the meal one couldn’t take the person. But it’s not so, because after all, remaining means that the meal is still ongoing.
But if no one remained, one needs a fresh bracha with a fresh hamotzi.
So, that’s what it says in Shulchan Aruch, laws of Birkat Hamazon.
Halacha: Shinui Makom by Fruits and Wine — The Ra’avad
Speaker 1: And so, says the Ra’avad, the same thing is not only when one eats a meal of bread. One made a gathering and sat together to drink wine or eat fruits. Now the question is about the bracha afterwards, al ha’etz or al hagefen.
The halacha is, whoever changes his place has stopped his eating, and therefore he blesses retroactively on what he ate, he must make an after-bracha when he remembers, and afterwards he must make a fresh bracha on what he needs to eat, on what he’s going to eat further.
Or ideally before he leaves the house he should bentch, and he goes out and comes back, one doesn’t wash again, one washes and makes hamotzi.
The Ra’avad’s Distinction: Inside and Outside
Speaker 1: The Ra’avad says, changing place, that’s when he goes out of the house. But if he remains in the same house, only changes place from corner to corner, he doesn’t need to bless, he doesn’t need to make a fresh bracha, it’s not a problem, it’s the same meal. From one corner to the second corner.
Speaker 2: Yes, back then there weren’t any tables apparently, he’s talking about sitting on benches or reclining, that’s called a corner.
Speaker 1: But yes, outside…
The Law of Eating on the East Side of a Fig Tree
Speaker 1: But… also with an alef, not an ayin. Those eating on the east side of a fig tree, the guests on the east side of a fig tree, and they came to eat on the west side, he’s now going to eat on the west side of the fig tree, they need to bless, because outside there are no rooms, there are no chambers, so wherever he goes is outside, so on the other side is a different place.
So the Ra’avad’s sign is, let’s say one makes a party and there are trees, and one says you’re going to sit on the east side of the fig tree. Very good. We’re making a party, we’re making a barbecue, there are fig trees. Where will it be? One writes on the invitation, east side of the fig tree. That’s a place. You go to the west side of the fig tree, that’s a different group, that’s a different party.
Speaker 2: I know you already agree.
The Ra’avad’s Objection: He Didn’t Know Initially
Speaker 1: The Ra’avad says, everything is true. Everything that the Ra’avad said is true. The Ra’avad says, Avraham said, everything is true, but how is “he didn’t know initially”? He says, if a person did know that he’s going to go to the other side, we have, today’s people have a different version, we don’t have any da’at. The whole concept of da’at doesn’t begin. There are those who say that today people do have da’at, but one must leave. I say differently, we never have da’at, therefore one is exempt altogether from the whole thing.
Halacha: Blessed on the Bread Exempts All Side Dishes — Primary and Secondary
Speaker 1: Okay, so let’s go further. “Blessed on the bread”, where am I here? It’s very interesting, the halacha goes into laws of meals as well. So, sometimes one learns this way about primary and secondary.
Speaker 2: No, but it’s laws of meals.
Speaker 1: “Blessed on the bread exempts all side dishes”, so with that he exempts all side dishes.
What does the main word “parpara’ot” mean?
Speaker 2: You want to check?
Speaker 1: No, because the bread is more important. Very good.
Ma’aseh Kedeira and Tavshil
Speaker 1: The same thing, “and blessed on ma’aseh kedeira, if he made a bracha on a mezonot grain dish, exempts the tavshil”, because mezonot is more important than a shehakol. “And blessed on the tavshil, if there’s no ma’aseh kedeira with it”.
Ah, so mezonot with a shehakol can exempt each other. But bread and side dishes, one cannot exempt bread with an etz or with an adama.
And the Rambam says that both go both ways, yes?
Speaker 2: That’s how it appears in the text.
Speaker 1: No, kedeira and tavshil goes both ways, but bread and side dishes doesn’t go both ways.
Speaker 2: No, well, in the old Rambam it says it doesn’t exempt. Need to know.
Discussion: What’s Written in the Texts
Speaker 1: Ah, it doesn’t exempt ma’aseh kedeira? That it only goes one way also, that the ma’aseh kedeira is more important. And here in the text that we have it says that it goes both ways.
I see the Ktzot Hamishna. Or the commentators actually argue about how to learn in the Rambam, that bread and side dishes, that the important one, the side dishes it’s agreed, that the important one exempts the less important one, and the less important one doesn’t exempt the… both regarding bread, and regarding ma’aseh kedeira. That there’s a hierarchy, there’s bread, there are things that one eats with the bread, and here ma’aseh kedeira, and after that there’s tavshil. Look, the soup is less important than the noodles in it. Or no, the soup and noodles are equally important, ma’aseh kedeira, and they exempt each other.
Anyway, but it all depends on the sugya of the Gemara, and how the Ktzot Hamishna rules, and how one rules in halacha.
What’s Written in Shulchan Aruch
Speaker 1: What’s written in Shulchan Aruch?
Speaker 2: Yes, look in Shulchan Aruch there’s nothing. He doesn’t reference properly. Whoever made the chapters in the Oz Vehadar Rambam did a weaker job than other chapters.
Speaker 1: Shout out.
Speaker 2: No, I’m saying the shout out is that sometimes they do well and sometimes they don’t do well, and one can see, a chapter turns out one way and a chapter another way.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: And one can look here, let’s see quickly, he does bring it usually precisely. And here it says, what does it say, the Rambam Aruch is usually more precise, and he writes that what? The bracha of ma’aseh tavshil and ma’aseh kedeira exempts the tavshil. It doesn’t say in the Shulchan Aruch this halacha, he brings.
The Custom of the World
Speaker 2: The custom, certainly, people know what the custom is. The custom is that we never exempt any person from mezonot. The Rambam implies, at least opinions, at least the Rambam implies that if someone sits down to eat a meal and makes mezonot, he doesn’t need to make more brachot afterwards on weaker things, because a meal certainly tears away mezonot.
What Parpara’ot Means
Speaker 2: Look what he says about parpara’ot, the Shulchan Aruch translates parpara’ot completely differently than the Rambam. The Rambam says parpara’ot means anything that one eats after bread.
Discussion About Brachot on Different Foods in a Meal
Speaker 1: Okay, but it’s certain that the halacha means all of it. Okay, let’s go back. What do you mean, you have a doubt that when one eats bread with eggs and onions one washes? Obviously, one must wash and make a borei minei mezonot?
Again, it’s perhaps a question, but in practice, halacha l’ma’aseh, when one eats bread does one make another bracha? No, no, no. It’s certainly the halacha is. But the halacha, one must think about this.
I want to think, I don’t have time now, but I want to look into this more. That for example, we’ve moved back here to our reality, many times one eats a meal or such a thing, many times there’s mezonot in it, unlike here there’s a thing, and afterwards one makes many brachot for them.
It’s very funny, because it seems that here you have a thing of keviyut seuda, which back then one makes a bracha on the primary. It comes out funny that because you’re not eating bread, therefore one makes hundreds of brachot, simply hundreds.
Look, I would have thought to say that again, when one eats soup with noodles or with kneidlach one makes a borei minei mezonot, but most people make an extra shehakol on the soup. Apparently one must think, because the kneidel is an extra thing, it’s not like it’s… one adds, it’s not simple that it’s called like a big pot, when it cooks with it it becomes mezonot.
But it’s certainly something funny, on one food one makes five brachot. It’s like the meat plate, there’s a kneidel on the side, everything is keviyut seuda, and if the primary is usually the kugel, the mezonot thing, then baruch on what’s not here, you exempt the side dish. That should be the halacha.
Logic: The Primary Thing Should Exempt the Others
It makes sense, in my head it makes sense that one should want, even when one doesn’t wash and doesn’t make hamotzi, there should be such a halacha that the primary thing that one eats should exempt the… the primary is what the host calls the main dish, or someone doesn’t like the meat and eats the kugel primarily.
Speaker 2: Yes, I understand that. The primary answers according to the person.
Question: Contradiction Between Reality and Halacha About What’s Primary
Speaker 1: But according to what’s official, there’s a big dispute between reality and our halacha. In our reality, usually the starch, the mezonot, one makes on a side dish, and the protein, the meat or the fish, such a thing one makes the primary. And the halacha always says the opposite, that the bread is the primary.
And one must actually know, if in our culture the primary is actually the main course, which is the meat plate, and it happens to be that the order is that one washes beforehand on bread, I don’t know what the answer to this is. Because the primary that the person here wants to eat is the meat.
But I don’t know how different this is truly, because think once, one ate the korban Pesach, once people used to eat less meat, usually.
Speaker 2: That’s true, we eat much more meat and such things, once there wasn’t so much meat.
Speaker 1: One didn’t eat less times meat, but when one ate one ate a lot of meat, because it was a gift.
Speaker 2: Right, so when one ate meat, one was approximately so full in general, one washed and ate a bit of matza and ate a bird from korban Pesach, right? So back then also one made hamotzi, one didn’t make a bracha on the meat. So you see that the order makes some sense.
Also partially, you go to a fancy restaurant, they always give you bread first, afterwards they give the meat.
Speaker 1: Eh, what does the bread do? I know, the bread is nullified, as if you think, it’s a steak restaurant, they give you bread.
Speaker 2: Yes, but in practice, one sees that it’s always been the custom, it’s not a new custom. So something one must understand, why does one make a bracha on the bread? You see after all that the bread has importance.
Answer: Bread is the Fundamental Thing That Keeps Society Alive
I think perhaps because bread, people work on it very much. I mean that all other things except bread are a luxury. Bread is the cheapest thing that can keep society alive. When there isn’t the whole abundance, one turns to bread. Bread is the… what did Yosef distribute? He distributed bread to the world.
All other things are luxury things, things for… thank God, we have today such great abundance, we can afford meat and better things that have virtues. But when a person starts getting nervous about what he’s going to eat, one falls back on a lot of bread.
Speaker 1: Yes, I’m saying, bread is civilization is made, agriculture is made on bread, it’s a very basic thing. Our way how we live, cities were made because there was bread.
Speaker 2: Right, so bread is a basic thing, it’s correct.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it’s tastier perhaps, or he sees that he becomes more satisfied. It’s not that the world hasn’t changed, because you know from Lubavitch, one eats less bread than one used to. That means, one must be precise.
In short, one must calculate about this more.
Gamar Belibo Shelo Le’echol Velish’tot Od — Law of Interruption in a Meal
I’ll say something else, what’s a place to look into here. The Rema says further, “gamar belibo shelo le’echol velish’tot od”. One learned how the meal ends. Further, how the meal ends. Back to the topic, how the meal ends.
The one halacha of kinuach seuda, one asks already that apparently it doesn’t come in here, but we understand that this apparently has to do with the fact that it’s not a chasida. But one goes back to the topic of how one interrupts the meal, right?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Rema: Gamar Belibo Shelo Le’echol Velish’tot
Speaker 1: The Rema says, “gamar belibo”, he decided that he’s finished eating. “Gamar belibo me’le’echol velish’tot”, he finished in his heart from eating and drinking. “Ve’achar kach nimlach”, afterwards he reconsidered that he does want to eat and drink more. “Afilu lo shina mekomo”, even if he didn’t leave his place as we learned earlier, he’s still in the same place, but because he decided for himself, he’s finished his meal, he needs to make a bracha again.
“Ve’im lo gamar belibo”, but if he didn’t decide, “ela da’ato lachzor vele’echol velish’tot”, as long as a person is still in his state of mind, in his da’at, in his heart, that he’s still in the middle of the meal, “afilu pasak kol hayom kulo”, even if it goes through a long time, “ein tzarich levarech sheniya”.
There he says, even if it’s already digested, apparently yes, even if it’s already been digested, but as long as he’s still sitting at the meal… I don’t know.
Question: What Does “Afilu Pasak Kol Hayom Kulo” Mean?
It doesn’t seem to make such a real interruption of the whole day in the middle of a meal. But it’s an interruption of the whole day, the whole time apparently.
Speaker 2: Ah, interruption means he stopped, and twenty hours later he comes back?
Speaker 1: No, every day is like that. Every day, you don’t eat there.
Speaker 2: There he means he’s holding in the middle.
Speaker 1: But in the middle of the meal, and then he comes…
Speaker 2: No, he’s holding in the middle of the meal, and it just became very drawn out. There was a change, he had to leave. But he comes right back to the meal.
Speaker 1: He didn’t change any shinui makom.
Speaker 2: He didn’t change any shinui makom, he remained sitting in the same place. Shinui makom is anyway invalid. He remained sitting in the same place.
Discussion: Understanding “Pasak Kol Hayom Kulo”
Speaker 1: Then he says an important halacha, that this is only people who have an intellect that there is such a thing by them “gamar belibo”. Today people don’t know what that is. But he’s talking about criticizing humanity. But I want to understand the simple meaning here.
He ate at seven o’clock in the morning a piece of bread, and he sits at the table all day and doesn’t eat, and at seven, he didn’t know about it, he didn’t know such a verse, that I sit at my table in the morning and I know that tomorrow… I later… but he sits there… it’s already forgotten?
Speaker 2: That he entered into a devekut for a whole day, and he returned to a chupa. There’s no thought here.
Speaker 1: Yes, but it can’t be that a person… the first thing the chassid knew in his heart. It doesn’t make sense, I’m sitting now, I ate on Friday, I’m sitting ready at the same table, because I’m learning the whole day, and tomorrow a chassan sofer, don’t I need to make a birkas hamazon in between? It can’t be.
Bou Venivdil vs. Bou Venekadesh — The Distinction Between Kiddush and Havdalah
Speaker 2: So there the Rambam says, behold, a group of people sitting together and drinking. And he says, “bou venivdil birkas hamazon”, if “bou venekadesh kiddush”.
Source for Lubavitch Custom
So here we see that there’s a source for the custom of Lubavitch chassidim, and by bachurim in Lubavitch, that before a kiddush, before the day begins, they sit down to drink, because Shabbos is coming so they’ll say kiddush. Kiddush in the middle, yes? He didn’t drink, he started drinking before Shabbos, right?
Or “bou venivdil birkas hamazon”, we don’t drink further, until the week, and a little. So this thing is apparently by eating also, and one doesn’t need to drink. But sometimes, birkas hamazon, then with always.
When people eat, before we’re going to bentch, but they also need to bentch, and they need to make kiddush. When a person, it’s in such a thing written above. Whoever wants to eat and drink first on the weekday, although it’s not one of the wicked.
Halacha: Bou Venivdil vs. Bou Venekadesh
Although one may not, why do they need to bentch, or they need to make kiddush. Or they need to make kiddush, and they need to say.
Speaker 1: No, that’s what one needs. That’s two halachos regarding kiddush. There’s been an interruption from his meal. At least he must make again on the wine.
Now a new thing, since he said he needs to bentch, or he needs to make kiddush, because it became Shabbos. Because he needs to do both, but they’re two halachos, independent halachos.
But if he doesn’t know which is a greater variant, I say, that there shouldn’t be, God forbid, a great danger. He can still make a cup, he can’t make another cup of kiddush.
But in practice, “bou venivdil”, if they said “let’s go make havdalah”, “it’s not necessary to go back and bless”. To make kiddush and to bentch, the explanation is that they finished the meal by mentioning the mitzvah.
Question: Why is Bou Venivdil Different?
When one mentions the mitzvah that one needs to make havdalah, why doesn’t one need to go back and bless? What’s different about bou venivdil?
Speaker 2: Perhaps there’s no prohibition to eat before havdalah? There is indeed a prohibition to eat before kiddush?
Speaker 1: Ah, “bou venochel otzros shel basar vedagim”, bou venivdil is forbidden? Why?
Speaker 2: But it says in the Rambam that one shouldn’t eat before havdalah.
Speaker 1: True. So what’s the distinction?
I don’t know why. Even if they said bou venivdil, as long as they haven’t yet bentched, may they still eat? It’s not that they may, it’s that they were mesiyach daas from their meal. That’s the first thing. And if yes, why is there no need to go back and bless? Why not?
We’ll see. It appears that this is indeed the point, that bou venivdil doesn’t forbid them from continuing to eat.
Answer: Distinction Between the Prohibition of Eating Before Kiddush and Before Havdalah
So, if he indeed went to make havdalah, as mentioned, it’s indeed an interruption. But if he only said bou venivdil, he can resolve “you know what, it’s late for bou venivdil, now we can still eat”. Just like we said by bou venochel, that one may not.
So there’s a distinction, that’s clear. Not only that, the distinction here isn’t a law that you’re interrupting birkas hamazon, rather it’s a law in the prohibition of eating before havdalah versus the law of eating before kiddush.
The Raavad’s Position
The Raavad is indeed making a distinction. You see, the Raavad is always on our side. When you don’t understand the Rambam, the Raavad comes and he tells you “Rabbeinu bedvarim elu shagah, I don’t understand him”.
The Raavad says that by kiddush one needs anyway to make kiddush when it becomes night, so one doesn’t say. Havdalah, says the Raavad, he understands, if one says, the explanation is that they stopped drinking, if they didn’t, it doesn’t take on an obligation. So there’s a distinction.
Speaker 2: Yes, ah, that’s a true distinction. By kiddush, if people were sitting at a meal on erev Shabbos, and it became night, he must indeed stop, pores mapah umekadesh, he may not continue eating until he makes kiddush. Which is not so by havdalah where the halacha is that he may continue eating until he finishes eating and he makes havdalah. So perhaps that’s the reason for the Rambam.
Speaker 1: Yes, here I understood the Rambam.
Speaker 2: Ah, it means that he says borei pri hagafen, doesn’t yet mean… Which is not so borei pri hagafen by kiddush, is indeed now.
Speaker 1: What’s the distinction?
Speaker 2: But the Raavad’s question is still difficult. The Raavad says that it doesn’t go on the essence of interrupting.
Speaker 1: No, why is the Rambam going?
Halacha: Distinction Between Kiddush and Havdalah Regarding Interruption in a Meal
Speaker 1: Yes, ah, that’s a true distinction. By kiddush, if a person was sitting at a Friday night meal and it became night, he must indeed pores mapah umekadesh. He may not continue eating until he makes kiddush. Which is not so by havdalah where the halacha is that he may continue eating until he finishes eating and he makes havdalah.
So, perhaps that’s the reason of the Rambam? Yes, that’s how I understood the Rambam. Ah, it means he says “bou venivdil” doesn’t yet mean, which is not so “bou venekadesh” is immediately an interruption in the meal, and one says on kiddush, it’s because everyone knows that before kiddush one may not eat, so from the fact of the meal, it’s a kind of revelation of intent already that one was interrupting already. Something like that, therefore he must indeed already make kiddush, the time of kiddush has already come. But havdalah he doesn’t yet know, so therefore one may, something like that.
But just so, perhaps one is speaking that it hasn’t yet become night, still before dark. One doesn’t yet need to make kiddush, one can make kiddush, one may make Shabbos kiddush Friday afternoon, but one doesn’t yet need to make kiddush. So therefore, “bou venekadesh” makes that you should become entirely obligated in kiddush, because you’re accepting Shabbos, or you’re saying before the entire sanctification. Do you understand what I’m saying?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Discussion: “Bou Venivdil” Doesn’t Obligate
Speaker 1: Let’s take another halacha. “Whether he made havdalah, whether he didn’t make havdalah”, so it says there in that language, after saying “bou venivdil”, that it’s still not obligating.
Halacha: Hatov Vehametiv on a New Wine
Speaker 1: “If they were reclining to drink wine”, if people are sitting and drinking wine, “and they brought them another wine”, they decided on a new wine, and they brought them another wine, they brought a different wine, white instead of red, for example they were drinking red wine, they brought white wine, or old and they brought new.
The Rambam rules that he doesn’t need to make a blessing, “he doesn’t bless on it a final blessing”, because it’s the same type, he fulfills with the previous borei pri hagafen. But it’s a better wine, he needs to make a new blessing, and he needs to make a blessing, “Baruch atah Hashem Elokeinu melech ha’olam hatov vehametiv”, who does good. I mean, hatov vehametiv in this context means that it was until now good with the previous wine, now metiv, which makes it even better with the new wine.
Understood?
Speaker 2: I hear. There are various halachos about this, but yes.
Speaker 1: Very good. So until here we’ve learned about interruption. Yes? Now we’re going to learn a bit about when one makes the blessing.
Speaker 2: Apparently one needs to make an interruption.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Discussion: Meaning of Hatov Vehametiv
Speaker 2: Hatov vehametiv is quite good.
Speaker 1: No, hatov vehametiv appears to me like “od yoser tov”, the well-known tune. It’s good, and it should be more and more good. Hatov, it was already good, vehametiv. Very often blessings are like there’s that desperation, there’s that trouble, it was given to me. I was hungry, I was given bread. Here is indeed a concept, a unique thing, I already had wine. It’s a blessing on abundance. Hatov vehametiv, it’s good and it should be even better.
Speaker 2: Why don’t you say the simple meaning? I want to say two novelties if you want to hear.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: I have many novelties, we don’t say all our novelties every time on the Rambam.
Speaker 1: Don’t give away.
Speaker 2: We’re learning Rambam, sometimes a novelty comes in, but truly on every piece in the Rambam one can say an entire lecture. We’re learning a chapter a day.
Novelty: Metiv is for Others
Speaker 2: Hatov vehametiv, first of all the translation, first of all metiv means for another. Yes? The halacha is indeed like by a… The halacha is indeed, good news on something that’s for oneself alone one says shehecheyanu. If it’s for the other also one says hatov vehametiv, right? That’s the rule, and one will see later apparently in Brachos the praise.
So wine, how is wine for the other? The answer is, that when a Jew drinks wine he becomes a better friend with other Jews.
Speaker 1: We said, we established that one can only make hatov vehametiv when one sits with other people, which is indeed a gathering. The Rambam says this.
Speaker 2: I have a friend Rabbi Yitzchak, he always says, when I say such a Torah he says, “Very good for shalosh seudos.”
Halacha: One Doesn’t Make a Blessing Until the Food is Before You
Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “One doesn’t bless on the food”, and not because shalosh seudos is a bad thing, on the contrary, because this is a kind of Torah that comes before the public. So today Lag BaOmer one can say such a Torah.
The Rambam says, “One doesn’t bless on the food from all the foods nor on the drink from all the drinks until it comes before him”. One can’t make a blessing before the food is in front of you. This is like over la’asiyasan. So for example one is serving, and he makes hamotzi, and they’re going to bring him bread, most likely, they’re going to bring him.
And if one did make a blessing, even over the food, when the blessing is before them, one must go back and bless, one must make a blessing again. It must be very clear that the blessing is on the thing. A blessing isn’t just another opportunity to thank the Almighty. It’s a blessing on the thing, it’s very connected to the thing.
Novelty: A Blessing is Taking Permission and Bringing Down the Name
Speaker 1: One must see, we’ve already spoken, okay, we’ll speak about later also, but you keep asking questions, this is like the question. A blessing one must simply thank the Almighty. Can I now say “baruch pri hagafen”? It’s indeed true, the Almighty makes pri hagafen.
But it appears more, a blessing is a taking of permission to eat the thing. There’s another concept that it’s a bringing down, like “chal shemo shel shamayim al ha’asiyah”. It becomes brought down. Therefore a blessing in vain simply that you bring the Almighty’s name on nothing. Do you understand what I’m saying? It’s a definition, and the Komarna speaks about this, others.
Halacha: When the Food is Lost After the Blessing
Speaker 1: That he didn’t take food to bless on it. What happens in another case when he did have it when he made the blessing, but in practice something happened in the middle of the blessing, from his great holiness, as it says in the Komarna, the food burned in his hand, guests of fire. Or suddenly a wave came, he was eating by the water.
Okay. He must take another and bless on it, he must make a fresh blessing. Not only earlier when we said “one must go back and bless”, it wasn’t some concept of some penalty. Even when you made the blessing you had it, and it was a proper blessing at its time. But in practice what you’re bringing now is a new thing, even if it’s the same type. It’s a new thing, because you need… I mean, taking permission fits very simply if one goes with this approach.
The Rambam says further, but in practice it now comes out that the previous blessing was on nothing, because you didn’t have benefit from the thing. The Rambam says, “One must say baruch shem kevod malchuso le’olam va’ed on the first blessing”. “Baruch shem kevod malchuso” – blessed is the honor of the kingdom of the Almighty. One brings out very strongly the honor of the kingdom, two names of honor of the kingdom.
Discussion: Meaning of “Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuso”
Speaker 1: It appears to me like “baruch shem kevod malchuso le’olam va’ed” is a kind of appeasement for the Almighty. Like one is asking over from the Almighty. Or whenever it looked like there was a degradation in the name of the Almighty, that one degraded, like you’re asking over from the Almighty, or you’re asking over from the Almighty for the world, so that the people around should receive back the seriousness for the name of the Almighty.
So my view is much simpler, that the problem of a blessing in vain simply that you said, that one doesn’t say a Name, not a problem. One mentioned the Name on nothing. On what was the Name? On an apple. Where is the apple? The apple isn’t there. So, and one said “baruch shem”? Listen, listen. So the Name is as if hanging in the air. One said a blessing on nothing.
“Baruch shem” means indeed “I thank for the mention of the Name”. It makes that the mention of the Name is praiseworthy, “shem kevod malchuso”. Perhaps the emphasis is on the “shem”. “Baruch” – praised is His name. When you say as if one can indeed begin to say, as if, perhaps it’s too deep, but as if one can indeed begin to say “baruch atah Hashem”. “Baruch shem kevod malchuso” – praised is His holy name. So it makes that the blessing is like a catch, it makes that the blessing shouldn’t hang in the air, it should be brought down on something. I mean that my simple meaning is a more straightforward simple meaning.
Speaker 2: Yes, but my simple meaning is the true simple meaning. Because meanwhile he indeed said “borei pri hagafen”, because that’s the problem, not the “shem kevod malchuso”. Certainly the shem malchuso was desecrated, but the shem malchuso was desecrated through saying “borei pri hagafen” and doing nothing.
Speaker 1: Very good, the Rambam is like… It’s skipped. Let’s leave the “borei pri hagafen”, the “borei pri hagafen” was indeed like a mistake, but I don’t see that the Name becomes praised. Moreover, moreover.
Speaker 2: But the Rambam doesn’t say that this is the simple meaning at all. He says, “so that the Name of Heaven shouldn’t be in vain”. There isn’t any concept of “so that one shouldn’t take out the Name of Heaven in vain”. But the Rambam says, servants don’t do in every blessing. As you say very well, the Kohen Gadol, why not only then? But there the Kohen Gadol said afterwards, and he asks for forgiveness and atonement.
Why do the simple kohanim around, why do they need to say “baruch shem”? Because you’re indeed saying that “baruch shem” is a praise on the mention of the Name. There is, in the multitude of people generally they mention the Name on the fruits, on the thing. But there is a thing, here a praise that comes on the mention of the Name itself.
Speaker 1: But there one doesn’t need exactly after what one messed up on a blessing. Not messed up on, because the blessing he said, because the Name remained hanging. That he now mentioned the Name, the Name doesn’t do anything, there’s no fruit. Can I in any case say a praise on the mention of the Name itself. There is a praise of the mention of the Name itself.
As if, let’s say, I said, imagine someone wants to teach the Name of Havayah, he needs to say to him “baruch Hashem”, because it can God forbid remind you of the Name. He says “baruch Hashem” almost sealed, like you see before you. You can argue that you see it before you, and entirely in the Beis Hamikdash they would say so. It’s a very good simple meaning.
Halacha: Making a Blessing by Running Water (Amas Hamayim)
Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, “One who stands on running water and blesses and drinks, a person can stand…” Ah, a new halacha, new water. Ah, the Rambam says, “A person can stand…” You need to clarify the blessing on… Yes, and see what it places. Yes, when you stand by water and have learned… It’s a great wonder that the water that you’re going to drink is also not the water on which you made the blessing.
Very good, because like Heraclitus, what was his name, the philosopher said, a person doesn’t go into the same water twice. Yes, because running water, great water flows. “Amas hamayim” means a stream, water that flows.
And he makes a blessing, “even though the water that came before him at the time of the blessing is not the water that he drank”, the water that he’s drinking now is not the water on which he made the blessing. But we say so, “he didn’t intend from the beginning”, this is indeed the nature of the water. When he made the blessing, he said it for the water that he’s going to drink in the minute when it will come to him.
Discussion: Why is the Blessing Valid by Amas Hamayim
Speaker 2: Ah, interesting. Another approach one could say is that everything is one big water. Like one huge bowl, like one big water. But perhaps, perhaps you’re right, because I think that if this reasoning (sevara) works, then I can go further and say, I have a waiter, I see that he’s already bringing, can I already, because “lekach nitkaven matchila” (he intended this from the beginning) is indeed a way.
But there it didn’t yet belong to you, but it wasn’t near him. Here you were near it. As if, you have both. Near it, both the thing you’re saying, that it wasn’t one… By “amas hamayim” (measuring the water), I don’t know, actually, he doesn’t say clearly because it’s the same water. I could say because it’s one big water, but that’s already more of a philosophical question. Because you take it out from a cup, and it’s not the same water.
Okay. You can say that it’s already in a cup. But you need first from the ground. I remember, people, there’s a water fountain, yes? Perhaps Chassidic Jews don’t drink from a water fountain, but with a cup. But it doesn’t say that one must drink with a cup. You stand by the water fountain, you need to drink. So when do you begin to make the blessing? You have a button, yes? I’ve already seen people in a water park, they turn it on first, but there’s no idolatry missing here. It’s just a water fountain that you go press.
Imagine, I remember our cheder (religious school) abroad, one had to turn on the water and make the blessing on the water that flows, but it doesn’t fill up a vessel. A moment the water. You can say this is a fountain that is idolatry. You’ll also still take the spoon.
Speaker 1: It’s not a spoon, it’s a fountain. It sprays into the mouth. Can’t you put the fountain on the mouth? I say, but I say the fountain must be more like just.
Digression: Blessing on Button/Fountain in Mikvah
Speaker 1: So when does one begin to make the blessing? There’s a button, yes? I’ve seen people in the mikvah (ritual bath), they turn on the water first… But there’s no act of blood missing here. It’s just a button that you’re going to press. Imagine, I remember our grandfather abroad, one had to turn on the faucet and then make the blessing on the water that flows. But there’s no such thing missing here. A moment the water… One can say that this is a… a fountain, let’s say. You also still need to take the spoon…
Speaker 2: I don’t say the fountain. I say, but I say the fountain must be more like taking the spoon after… And taking. And taking.
Speaker 1: You’re right. Seemingly one doesn’t need to. But one can say that this is the act of blood. My fountain is an act of blood. It’s spraying water. One goes and presses the button, water sprays.
Law: Things That Come During the Meal and Because of the Meal
Speaker 1: Okay. Until now we’ve learned the laws of interruption (hefsek), like interruption. Now we’re going to learn what happens regarding… on which foods one doesn’t need to make an extra blessing.
Says the Rambam, “Devarim haba’im betoch haseudah” (things that come during the meal). We’ve already learned in a certain sense earlier. This is very interesting. Earlier, what’s the difference of the law from earlier? You’ve already learned earlier that bread exempts the side dishes (pas poter es haparperes). Now comes a new law of “devarim haba’im mechamas haseudah” (things that come because of the meal). It’s simply a greater law. Do you agree? We’ll see. Yes? It’s seemingly another principle of the principle of primary and secondary (ikar v’tafel), but it’s simply a different application of it.
“Devarim haba’im mechamas haseudah vehem mechamas haseudah betoch haseudah” – the time when they’re given is in the middle of the meal, and the reason why they’re given is they’re a part of the meal, for example a part of the meal – “einan tzrichin bracha lo lifneihem velo l’acharihem, shebirkas hamotzi shebatchila uvirkas hamazon shebsof potartan hakol” (they don’t require a blessing before them or after them, for the blessing of hamotzi at the beginning and birkas hamazon at the end exempts everything). Why? Because “hakol tefilah laseudah” (everything is secondary to the meal). Everything is secondary to the big meal. As you said, there’s a secondary like in the crackers where the wood, there’s a primary and secondary, an ikar and tafel, and here is the meal.
Law: Things That Are Not Because of the Meal During the Meal
Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, “Devarim haba’im l’achar haseudah” (things that come after the meal) – but what happens with food that’s brought after the meal? “Aval devarim she’einan mechamas haseudah, af al pi shehen ba’in betoch haseudah” – a thing that’s brought, but it’s not because of the meal, it’s not a part of the meal, but it’s simply a guest, someone brings some food, and the whole thing is yes during the meal, the time when one eats it is during the meal, but it’s something that doesn’t belong there – “te’unin bracha lifneihem” (requires a blessing before them). One requires a blessing after them.
Discussion: What Is an Example of “Not Because of the Meal During the Meal”?
Speaker 2: I don’t know what you’re talking about. What is there a thing that’s brought during the meal that’s not because of the meal?
Speaker 1: For example, a person makes a wedding, and an institution brings a whole table with nuts, and it’s placed on the side near the door. I don’t know, no one really needs nuts now in the middle of the meal. It’s made mainly for those who come to dance, or something like that, so they can snack on something. Someone takes from there in the middle of the meal. He’ll eat it during the meal, but it’s not because of the meal. Right?
Speaker 2: I can ask it, I see that you have…
Speaker 1: Or perhaps this is relevant to our things that are brought on Rosh Hashanah as a good sign. Simanim (symbolic foods). It’s not because of the meal, it’s in honor of the holiday of Rosh Hashanah. It’s not a part of the meal usually. Okay. Very good.
Law: Things That Come After the Meal
Speaker 1: But things that come after the meal are things that are brought after the meal, like a dessert, by because of the meal, by the Shulchan Aruch because of the meal. Then there’s no difference. It is indeed a compote, it’s a meal. But since it’s after the meal, it requires a blessing before them and after them, because this has the name of a thing that is after the meal.
Discussion: What Does “After the Meal” Mean?
Speaker 2: It must be, because I would have said compote is not after the meal, that’s the end of the meal.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it’s not for nothing. We need something more than that. We need something another level, after bentching (grace after meals).
Speaker 2: By this he says a blessing before them and after them. Not… bentching can certainly exempt the compote.
Speaker 1: Have you ever seen someone make an after-blessing on their compote?
Speaker 2: Ah, what are the Jews who do several things, one must see if it’s correct.
Speaker 1: But I would say that one is talking about after the meal literally. Seemingly this wouldn’t be relevant. If something one would say that one should make an after-blessing after bentching, that’s further not relevant, because he can’t now make a rabbinic after-blessing. He was already fulfilled. That would make it complicated.
Speaker 2: No, it would make, imagine he makes a borei nefashos (after-blessing) in the middle of the meal, seemingly it wouldn’t be good, because he has with this as if already bentched, something like that. He would perhaps make a…
Speaker 1: Seemingly, he means this literally as it sounds, he means this after bentching perhaps. So it could be that one is talking about something more than compote. He’s talking about after bentching, one has already bentched.
Discussion: Why Does One Need a Blessing After Them After Bentching?
Speaker 2: But why should one need after them when one has already bentched? Why should it do? Can the blessing go backwards?
Speaker 1: Why not? Not the bentching will go backwards. But when someone eats a primary food and later he settled down to eat a secondary, didn’t he have to make a blessing? He already bentched.
Speaker 2: Ah, you’re saying bentching is like a tearing of the meal, did we learn earlier?
Speaker 1: No, he already thanked the Almighty after the meal. That’s the nature of food.
Speaker 2: I hear, I hear. Perhaps indeed because of this, but indeed because of this he must make. Your reasoning doesn’t work.
Speaker 1: No, I say, is the after the meal simply not for the reasons, but the Rema says as you say. He says the law. The reason of the Rema is another reason, he says that he doesn’t want to connect himself with the previous one. That’s clear, the simple understanding was a bit confusing about this. Okay, okay, let’s see the Rema.
Law: Wine During the Meal – Shabbos/Yom Tov Versus Weekdays
Speaker 1: “Shabbos v’Yom Tov” (Sabbath and holidays), the Rema is going to talk here about days when one makes bigger meals. “Shabbos v’Yom Tov”,
Speaker 2: No, he’s talking specifically when one drinks wine.
Speaker 1: Ah, then when wine is important.
Speaker 2: Certainly, days when one drinks more wine.
Speaker 1: “Shabbos v’Yom Tov, o bimos hachol she’adam eino kovei’a seudaso al hayayin, Shabbos v’Yom Tov, o bimos hachol she’adam eino kovei’a seudaso al hayayin.” (Sabbath and holidays, or on weekdays when a person doesn’t establish his meal on wine.) Shabbos and Yom Tov there’s a mitzvah of making kiddush and drinking wine and becoming joyful. “O l’achar hakazas dam, osin seudah, v’az yesh inyan lishtot kedei lehachzir lo dam.” (Or after bloodletting, they make a meal, and then there’s a reason to drink in order to restore his blood.) Or when someone comes out from a battle that’s celebrated, a thanksgiving meal.
Speaker 2: Like nothing, a thanksgiving meal is not understandable why one establishes a meal.
Speaker 1: But in a battle, it’s not understandable, one comes out from prison. “Bish’as sheyotzei min hama’aracha” (At the time he leaves the battle),
Speaker 2: Ah, it’s the same thing as bloodletting, that he should regain his strength.
Speaker 1: “V’chen kol kayotzei bazeh, shedarech likvoa seudaso al hayayin, az im beirach al hayayin shelif’nei hamazon, uveirach borei pri hagafen bitchilas haseudah, poter es hayayin sheshoseh l’achar hamazon kodem birkas hamazon.” (And so all similar cases, where it’s customary to establish his meal on wine, then if he blessed on the wine before the meal, and blessed borei pri hagafen at the beginning of the meal, it exempts the wine that he drinks after the meal before birkas hamazon.) All wine that one drinks in the meal until birkas hamazon is exempted with the wine that one drank before the meal, beginning of the meal.
Speaker 2: Like every Shabbos, so is the…
Speaker 1: Even after the meal, even he… one drinks during the meal simply. No, but even end of meal a fresh glass of wine, except if one brings him a new cup, a new wine, which makes it like hatov v’hameitiv (the blessing for new wine).
“Aval she’ar yamim, tzarich lachzor ul’vareich bitchilah al hayayin shel’achar hamazon.” (But other days, one needs to return and bless at the beginning on the wine after the meal.) Other days, where there’s no establishing on wine, when one brings wine after the meal, such an order sometimes comes, one brings a glass of wine for something, one makes another blessing, because it’s not a part of the meal, it doesn’t come together with the meal. That’s seemingly the point. Yes.
Speaker 2: Meal not wine to the eggs.
Speaker 1: So it seems. Yes. Right?
Discussion: The Difference Between Bread and Wine
Speaker 1: But the Rambam says that this is specifically the wine during the meal. Other days, bread, there’s a meal order that’s controlled by bread, where you don’t take place one makes again a blessing. But wine is something such… every glass of wine is a thing by itself. So here you have establishing on wine. When one is accustomed one can be fulfilled one with the other with a blessing. But when one is accustomed. Each one separately, that there’s no house between them, that it’s not all one after one. Not everyone has exactly then the…
Discussion: Hearing Blessings in the Middle of Eating
Speaker 2: One may not speak in the middle of eating.
Speaker 1: The Rambam said the law in the laws of health. The Gemara holds I’m with swallowing, my mouth can’t answer amen, so the way one does it is one must wait until one is awake, the swallowing goes down, and make the blessing yourself. And if someone gave a gift, if everyone gets a cup for everyone, someone is handling swallowing, I can’t say amen, it’s not an order. And the blessing doesn’t exempt the wine after the meal.
Discussion: Three Types of Wine – Before, During, After the Meal
Speaker 2: But he already said it, because he’s talking about other days.
Speaker 1: Yes yes, but he already said,
Speaker 2: No, he means even wine during the meal.
Speaker 1: Friday, he about wine before the meal. Here three wines, here wine before the meal, he was no kiddush, before we get one drinks wine, then one doesn’t eat not the wine during the meal, but wine after the meal. Here he’s talking about the wine during the meal, that it doesn’t exempt the wine after the meal. One can be fulfilled. Wonderful.