Rules of Invitation – for reciting the Blessings after a meal

---

SMG

We learnt in the Gemara[i] once the master of the meal has stated, ‘let us recite the ברכה’, according to Rashi’s explanation,[1] it is forbidden to continue drinking. Rabeinu Ĉananel added, [the prohibition is only until] he recites a ברכה beforehand, and if he does, then it is permitted [to continue drinking], even before ברכת המזון.

From where do we know that no invitation is issued to recite ברכת המזון communally with fewer than three (3) people, as Rabbi Asi said[ii] based on the verse[iii] גדלו לה’ אתי ונרוממה שמו יחדו – which [plain meaning of the verse] implies that the greatest[2] of the three is calling to the other two to praise G-d together with him.

Who forms a group for the purposes of issuing an Invitation

The Gemara[iv] quoted a statement that ‘everyone is obligated in joining the communal ברכת המזון, including Kohanim, Levi’im, and Yisrael’im.’ The Gemara asks that this is obvious, and answers that the statement is still needed to teach us that this is the case since Kohanim consume Teruma and the sacrifices, while the regular Jews only eat mundane food. You might think that since the regular Jew can’t participate and join the meal of the Kohanim – and therefore they can’t be combined – this statement teaches that they can be combined since the Kohen can eat from the mundane food. From the Gemara we can extend the lesson [to people who do not keep the same levels of Kosher, for example] if one from the group was eating bread from a non-Jew, the three (3) can still combine since that person can eat from the regular kosher food.[3]

The Gemara[v] taught that women[4] and servants [meaning an עבד כנעני or שפחה כנעני] are obligated in the Mitzva of ברכת המזון, but[vi] they can’t join a group of regular Jewish men. Women though can make their own group, as we learned in the Gemara[vii] that the statement ‘everyone is obligated’ teaches us that this includes women and servants – who combine to make their own groups. But the Beraissa says they aren’t obligated but have the option to. RY answers, they have the option of making their own group, not that they have the option to recite ברכת המזון. When they eat together with men, they have the option of satisfying their obligation of ברכת המזון by reciting with the group of men, or they can make their own group. There were times[5] when RY would tell women they didn’t need to recite their own ברכת המזון but could satisfy their obligation by being part of the group of men.

What if there were insufficient people to form an invitation

We learnt in the Gemara[viii] regarding two who ate together – it is a Mitzva to divide the ברכת המזון between them [as to who will recite out loud]. This applies when they are both literate. However, if one is illiterate and one is literate, the literate one should be the one reciting ברכת המזון while the illiterate listens [and recites אמן] thereby satisfying his obligation. Meaning, this applies so long as they have the intelligence necessary to listen and understand, as was explained elsewhere in the Gemara[ix] regarding the opinion that states one need not have specific intention in order to adequately perform a Mitzva. Even according to that opinion, in order to satisfy the obligation by means of listening to someone else’s recital, one must have the proper intent[6]. However, there are those who want to use this Gemara to prove that women who are[7] illiterate are not obligated in joining the group for ברכת המזון just like a boor who can satisfy his obligation by listening, and they also draw proof from the Gemara elsewhere[x] regarding a person who only speaks a common language – if that person hears [the Megilla] in Hebrew, they have satisfied their obligation.[8] However, that second proof can be refuted since one can note that the Mitzva of Megilla reading is different, as it is designed to publicize the miracle [which is accomplished simply by listening even if the words are not known], as the Gemara[xi] notes with regard to the word האחשתרנים,[xii] which we no longer know the meaning of.[9]

When the group breaks up

The BHG wrote that one is who wants to recite ברכת המזון in a group, but then each one recited the blessings on their own, he can still call them to the group, and recite up to the end of the first blessing communally, as we learnt in the Gemara[xiii] until where is ברכת המזון in a group; Rav Ĉisda[10] said until נברך [meaning only the introduction need be recited in a group] and Rav Sheshes said until הזן [the end of the first ברכה] and the Halaĉa follows Rav Sheshes. After the group recital, each person finishes on his own. [As to if there is a requirement to start over] there is an argument “where to start over”; and the conclusion is that one goes back to wherever the break occurred. If a person needs to leave early, even though the two (2) remaining do not need to stop their meal for him, nevertheless, one should act above and beyond, and stop the meal so that they may all recite ברכת המזון together until the end of the first ברכה – as Rav Pappa did with one other when the third [had to leave early]. He [the one leaving] completes the remainder of ברכת המזון and leaves, while the other two continue their meal and recite ברכת המזון [as normal]. However, if two (2) completed the meal [and were waiting for the third] technically, the one still eating is required to stop for the majority. Rabeinu Ĉananel explained this [pause] to mean that those who stopped their meal must once again recite the ברכה of המוציא to restart the meal. Rav Alfas and Rabeinu Yitzĉok though explained the argument in the Gemara as to “where to start over” is not in relation to the case of people who interrupted their meal for the person leaving – but as a separate unrelated question. The question being; the one leading the group – what does he repeat after the respondents answer ברוך שאכלנו משלו. Abaya says he repeats everything from נברך שאכלנו משלו. The other sages though say he only repeats what the respondents said – and that in fact is the Halaĉa.

If there were three (3) who ate together, and one (1) left to the marketplace, they call out to him, and he can join them. That applies only if he can hear their voices and answer [meaning he doesn’t need to be present in his seat]. Mar Zutra said this only applies when there were exactly three (3), without [the third] there is no need to recite ברכת המזון in a group. But if there were ten (10) and the group needed to recite the invitation with G-d’s name included, they may not do so unless the tenth person returns and sits with them. And the Halaĉa follows Mar Zutra.

If there were three (3) who ate together, and one (1) recited ברכת המזון solo – the remaining two (2) can still include him in their group and doing so they have fulfilled their obligation to recite in a group, but the individual has not.

To combine people or groups

We learnt in the Gemara[xiv] if there were two groups of people who were eating together – so long as some of each group can see each other, they may combine to join in as a single group for ברכת המזון.[11] But if not, each group must remain on their own. If there was a single waiter for both groups, then they could combine. Rabeinu Moshe wrote that this applies so long as all the members of the group can hear each other recite the blessings. And the law is with him. Rabeinu Yitzĉok son of Rabbi Avrohom taught based on this that during the meal for a wedding, when the hall is open to other houses, those attending the meal of the bridegroom may be joined with others who are eating in their own houses, even though the Halaĉa is we only recite the blessings for the wedding in the house of the bridegroom, nevertheless, since both groups can hear one another, they may be combined for this purpose.

If there were two (2) eating together and one finished his meal but hasn’t recited ברכת המזון yet – and then a third came to eat at the same table – we evaluate their intentions, if they haven’t eaten so much that should they be given desert they would eat it then the Gemara[xv] concludes that he can join them.

Who leads

The Halaĉa is that the greatest among them leads the ברכת המזון, even if he was the last to join the meal. Unless he gives permission to another, as[xvi] Rav told someone else[12] ‘Arise and wash your hands [and lead the ברכת המזון]’. Even a Kohen[13] is allowed to give permission to another, so long as this isn’t a large public gathering, as proven in the Gemara.[xvii]

When is there no requirement to issue the Invitation

The BHG wrote with regard to three (3) people who didn’t set out to eat together, but they all happened to sit down at the same place and time to eat – they are not obligated to recite ברכת המזון communally, as we learnt in the Gemara[xviii] if they were all eating alone, then each one recites ברכת המזון alone. If they came together, then one can recite for all. My teacher [the SMG’s teacher] wrote[xix] that our sitting down at a table is like the coming together talked about in the Gemara, as they were used to coming together like that. But our custom no longer follows that practice. Rabeinu Ĉananel also explained that this applies when they are all together for a single purpose, and then mealtime came [that is what it means to come together]. If they were traveling and they said to each other, let’s meet up at such and such a diner, even though when they arrive there, each one eats his own meal, nevertheless that is ‘coming together’ and they are obligated to recite ברכת המזון communally.

What if someone forgot

One who ate and forgot to recite ברכת המזון, and then left or went to the marketplace, the Halaĉa follows[14] Base Sham’aye who say[xx] that he must return to the place where he ate his meal and recite ברכת המזון there. And certainly, this applies when he did this on purpose when even Base Hillel admits this is required. However, if he is traveling, he may stop where he remembered and recite ברכת המזון there [without being required to retrace the steps of his journey]. The Yerushalmi quotes Rabbi Aba as follows: ‘if he ate while traveling, he stops to recite ברכת המזון. If he eats while standing still, he sits and recites. While seated, he rests and recites. While resting, he wraps himself [in a tallis] to recite ברכת המזון – and if he does so, he is like the ministering angels. However, our Gemara[xxi] rules that regardless of how he ate, he sits down to recite ברכת המזון.[15]

The Invitation process

Once the leader of the meal states ‘הב לן ונברך’[16] others participating in the meal may no longer continue eating until after ברכת המזון is completed [after which they would have to recite the appropriate ברכה before eating again].

We learnt there[xxii] the list of things[17] which can be recited in any language includes: the recital of the שמע, prayer, and grace after meals.

We learnt in the Yerushalmi[xxiii] Rav[18] taught there are three (3)[19] things which immediately follow something else:

1. Immediately after reciting the ברכה for redemption, we pray – as it says in the verse[xxiv] ה’ צורי וגאלי and immediately thereafter [the prayer] יענך ה’ ביום צרה.
2. Immediately after leaning on the sacrifice, it must be slaughtered, as it says in the verse[xxv] וסמך and immediately thereafter ושחט.
3. Immediately after washing the hands, one recites the ברכה, as it says in the verse[xxvi] שאו ידכם קדש וברכו את ה’. There are some who explain this as related to the washing before eating – but my [the SMG’s] teacher, Rabeinu Yehuda had a tradition that this was referring to the water after eating. Which teaches us that the [common practice of] anointing of one’s hands in oil [which used to be done in the times of the Gemara] is not required – since it is not included in the items the Gemara lists as part of Rav’s statement.

Rav also said [as explained by Rashi], that whoever washes his hands last should be the one to lead the others in the recital of ברכת המזון.

Who can’t be included

The Gemara[xxvii] states that an ‘עם הארץ’ can’t be included in the group for ברכת המזון. Aĉeirim clarified an עם הארץ is even someone who learnt Ĉumash and Mishna but didn’t apprentice to a Talmud Ĉoĉom.[20] Rav Huna ruled that the Halaĉa follows Aĉeirim. Rabeinu Ĉananel notes that this is no longer the case, and the Rabbis include them. That is also the ruling of Rabeinu Yitzĉok who stated that the Rabbis should not divide themselves into their own group [even if an עם הארץ ate with them], as was stated in the Gemara[xxviii] so that ‘everyone shouldn’t go and build their own private altars and offer the red heifer sacrifice on their own’.[21] The Gemara also notes there, that this ruling is the source as to why we accept invitations to attend meals with an עם הארץ now – following the ruling of Rabbi Yosi – even though elsewhere in the Gemara[xxix] we state that we don’t allow an עם הארץ to testify.[22]

What if you didn’t eat with the group

One who enters a place where there are others who are reciting ברכת המזון – if it was when the leader stated נברך, then he should respond ברוך הוא ומבורך שמו תמיד לעולם ועד. If there were ten (10) people in the group, he should respond with the insertion of G-d’s name. If he arrived when they were already responding, he should limit his responses to אמן.[23] The BHG wrote that this applies to anytime a person hears a ברכה, he must recite אמן.

What if the group didn’t eat the same types of food

We concluded there[xxx] with regard to seven (7) people who ate grain products, and three (3) who ate vegetables – they can be combined [as a group of ten (10)] since the recognizable majority[24] had grain. The Yerushalmi[xxxi] taught that if two (2) ate bread, and one (1) had vegetables, they can be combined according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel. This was also the ruling of Rabbi Menachem Wardimus in the name of the Ritzva, and this is also what Rabbi Yehuda wrote. We also ruled there that the Halaĉa follows the one who quoted Rava with regard to a person who went and sat with others, even if he only ate a date’s worth of food, and didn’t drink more than a cup, he can join their group – and thereby satisfy his obligation to recite the after ברכה, so long as he didn’t have at least an olive’s worth of grain. This applies whether the size of the group was three (3) or ten (10) – notwithstanding that the Halaĉa follows Mar Zutra that one must be more stringent in compiling the group of ten (10) over a group of three (3). However, Rav Alfas said that the opinion of the sages is that with regard to a group of three (3) he can’t join them unless he ate an olive’s worth of grain. I [the SMG] say like the Yerushalmi that the fact that the Gemara states that a Mishna is a proof for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, means that the sages argued with him.

Speaking of doing a Mitzva on behalf of others

Our Rabbis taught in the Gemara[xxxii] a person should not break bread for guests unless eating with them[25]. But he may do so for his children and the members of the household, in order to teach them about the Mitzvos [and the appropriate way to start a meal]. With regard to the Mitzvos of Hallel and Megilla, even if one has already fulfilled their obligation in this Mitzva, he may still [read] for others since all Jews guarantee one another to ensure they perform the Mitzvos. However, with regard to the blessings before eating bread or drinking wine and the other blessings for eating fruit, which are only recited so as not to benefit from this world without a ברכה – and there is no obligation to guarantee, since a person need not eat that particular food and therefore there would be no ברכה required [if he didn’t eat it]. Therefore, if one has already satisfied their obligation with the ברכה on this food, he shouldn’t recite one for someone else – with the exception of the ברכה of המוציא,[26] which is made together with the eating of the Matza for a Mitzva[27], and the same applies to the ברכה for wine on Shabbos night, which is recited as part of the Kiddush. Since the ברכה for eating the Matza and wine on Shabbos are those recited prior to the fulfillment of the Mitzva, those are obligatory, and thus we are all guarantors that the Mitzva will be performed, and [in ensuring that others fulfill their Mitzva] it is impossible that a person will not derive benefit thereby, and it is therefore forbidden for a person to do so without a ברכה. This follows the ruling in the Gemara there – even though one has already fulfilled one’s own obligation, they may still recite the ברכה for others and help them thereby fulfill their obligations. Rabeinu Yitzĉok son of Shmuel said this applies also to ברכת המזון, even though one has already fulfilled their obligation, they can lead the recital so that others might as well, since we are all guarantors of one another. And [this is unlike the Beraĉos from before eating since in this case] the meal has already been eaten, and now the obligation has already kicked in. As for the requirement [that the person leading the recital of ברכת המזון] has had at least an olive’s worth of grain products, that is a Rabbinic ordinance in order that the statement of שאכלנו משלו which introduces the ברכת המזון can be recited as being literally applicable. This is why [the Rabbinic ordinance] allows a person [who only ate an olive’s worth and is thus not personally Biblically obligated to recite ברכת המזון] to fulfill the obligations of a person who actually ate to satiety. This is also implied from the story of king Yanai from the Gemara there, probably he ate something from the kings table, enough to be satisfied. Everyone agrees that if Shimon ben Shetaĉ had eaten an olive’s worth of grain products, he could satisfy their requirement to recite ברכת המזון, since, if it weren’t allowed from the Torah, then even if he hadn’t eaten at all he wouldn’t have been able to fulfill their obligation by [reciting ברכת המזון after] eating an olive’s worth of grain products – which minimum measurement is only of Rabbinic origin, as opposed to a person who ate to satiety who has a Biblical obligation. This [conclusion] follows that which we said elsewhere in the Gemara[xxxiii] that a child can recite ברכת המזון for his father[28], but that only applies when the father had eaten a sufficient quantity to be obligated Rabbinically, as then, the one obligated Rabbinically [the child] can satisfy the requirements of the one who is [also] obligated Rabbinically. However, in the Yerushalmi[xxxiv] we learnt that for all the Mitzvos, a person who has already satisfied his obligation to perform them may still satisfy the obligation of the public in performing them, with the exception of ברכת המזון. As for the counter from the rule that ‘anyone not personally obligated can’t satisfy the obligations of the public’ that is referring to whether the person is categorically obligated or not and is not referring to whether the person performed the obligation or not. Rav Ila said, we learnt that [rule regarding the uniqueness of ברכת המזון from the phrasing of the verse, as it says it in the second person] ואכלת ושבעת וברכת – and you will eat, and you will be satisfied, and you will bless. Which implies that a person who did not eat should not be the one blessing. Perhaps though we can still say that Biblically we can satisfy the obligations of another with regard to the recital of ברכת המזון, and [Rav Ila] is discussing the Rabbinical rules, and using the verse as a corollary verse [and not an actual source of Halaĉa].

Can someone in mourning or someone not fully obligated, like a minor, join the group or be counted toward the minimum number to form a group.

We learnt in the Gemara[xxxv]

Rabbi Yoĉanan said that those who have the status of mourners cannot be counted as part of the Minyan. The Gemara asks that this contradicts a Beraissa and answers that the Beraissa is talking about ברכת המזון, while Rabbi Yoĉanan was talking about ‘the line’[29]. The Gemara asks, what about the time Rabbi Yoĉanan said that the reciting of the ברכה for mourners is done when there are ten (10) people, but the mourners don’t count [towards the Minyan], is there a ברכה in ‘the line’?

It would seem that the underlying thought of the one asking the question in the Gemara is that Rabbi Yoĉanan’s statement should apply to ברכת המזון, and thus the Gemara notes the contradiction with the Beraissa. Rabeinu Shlomo explained this as a question as to whether the mourner can join two (2) others eating with him to make a זימון [the minimum required for an invitation to recite ברכת המזון communally], but Tosefos asks a question – if so, the Gemara should state clearly, that this proves a mourner is obligated in all Mitzvos. Tosefos thus concludes that the Gemara is asking with regard to being able to recite the section of comforting the mourner within ברכת המזון, where people would say נברך אלקינו מנחם אבלים שאכלנו משלו, to which people would respond א-ל אמת דיין אמת. This was done during the [fourth] ברכה of הטוב והמטיב. [Since the group invokes the name of G-d] it would imply that this is only done when there are ten (10) people, based on the assumption that the questioner had that Rabbi Yoĉanan’s statement referred to this insertion in the presence of ten (10) at a mourner’s meal. And this would in fact have been the understanding, if not for the Beraissa which notes that the mourners cannot be included. However, my [the SMG’s] teacher, Rabeinu Yehuda wrote in the name of Rabeinu Yitzĉok:

that there is no need for ten (10), as we concluded elsewhere in the Gemara[xxxvi] where we learnt there that we do not recite the ‘blessings of the mourner’ with fewer than ten (10) people present, where the ‘blessings of the mourner’ is explained by the Gemara to mean [the second ברכה,] the ברכה of spaciousness. This was also written in the responsa of the Geonim, which stated as follows:

RESPONSA QUOTE

With regard to the blessings of the mourner which are recited [as a toast] over a cup [of wine] ‘ברוך מנחם אבלים’ we are not accustomed to this to recite this while sitting [after the meal], nor is this found at all in [the communities of] Babylon. However, you [and your community] who has had [this practice] established for them by your forefathers – that it should be said; it does not require ten (10) people, for we only find a requirement that there must there be ten (10) people to recite [the second ברכה,] the ברכה of spaciousness.[30]

We learnt in the Yerushalmi[xxxvii] Rabbi Ze’ira asked Rabbi Yosi whether a drunk[31] may recite ברכת המזון. He [Rabbi Yosi] answered, the verse states ואכלת ושבעת, which includes even a person who is מדומדם-mumbling.[32] The meaning of [the word מדומדם] is from the word אבן דומם – an inanimate rock, meaning he is so drunk he can’t speak properly.

We learnt in the Midrash and the Yerushalmi[xxxviii] that Rabbi Yosi said there were many times he ate with his father Ĉalafta and with his friend Rabbi Ĉanina bar Sisi, and they did not invite him to recite ברכת המזון communally – until he reached puberty. Based on which, Rabeinu Yitzĉok son of Rabbi Shmuel practically ruled[xxxix] that a minor may not be counted toward the minimum of three (3) required for communal ברכת המזון, until he reaches puberty, since this is a story that was actually related concerning our sages. And certainly, he may not be counted toward the ten (10) for a Minyan, since as noted previously, the Halaĉa follows Mar Zutra, who was more stringent with the requirements for a Minyan as compared to those required for זימון, since doing so includes the explicit mention of G-d’s name. And he [Rabeinu Yitzĉok] did not follow the opinion of Rav Alfas who ruled in the name of the Gaon[33] concerning a minor of ten or nine years old, who understands to whom the blessings of ברכת המזון are addressed, may be included in the minimum number of respondents required – to which Rabeinu Yitzĉok responded that even though Rabeinu Tam says that it would make sense that the Halaĉa should follow Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi[xl] who says that even though we’ve said a child who is in a cradle cannot be included in the minimum number required for a זימון, but we can include him as an adjunct to complete the Minyan of ten (10), meaning to mention G-d’s name in the Minyan for זימון, and for prayer… nevertheless, he himself would not act that way, even if they would add a child ‘with a Ĉumash in hand’[34]. The same applies to “a child and [the reading of] a Sefer Torah” [in a congregation short by one], the child should not be included since he has no standing when it comes to prayer [in a Minyan]. In the Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer[xli] he mentions the Sefer Torah [with the child] regarding the extension of an additional month to the calendar. And in the Yerushalmi[xlii] where it says that ‘a Sefer and a child; the child can be an adjunct’, Rabbi Yudan said there that this is the way the Mishna was to be read – the Mishna is implying that the child may be an adjunct in reference to the reading of the Sefer Torah, to count toward the minimum number of seven (7) people required to be called to read the Torah on Shabbos.[35] And also the Rav, Rabbi Yosef, wrote

RABBI YOSEF’S QUOTE

it makes sense that the Halaĉa should follow Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi since he holds like Rav Ashi[xliii] who is more lenient when it comes to a זימון of ten (10) versus three (3), as he argues with Mar Zutra who is more stringent with a זימון of ten (10) as compared to three (3).

And since, as noted before, the Halaĉa was ruled to follow Mar Zutra therefore we do not rule like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

And also, my [the SMG’s] teacher, Rabeinu Yehuda, wrote

the conclusion of the matter is that we[36] do not allow a minor to be an adjunct for the purpose of זימון or prayer, even for three (3) unless he has gone through [early] puberty like the story of Rabbi Yosi ben Ĉalafta.

Here ends the quotations from my [the SMG’s] teacher.

Side note; regarding the drinking of the wine

We learnt in the Gemara[xliv] Rava said, ‘a member of the Rabbis who does not have enough wine should swallow it in gulps [instead of sipping it]’, and when Rava would be honored with the Cup of Blessing, he would drink it in large gulps.[37]

Speaking of wine, what about a meal of wine

If many people got together to eat bread or drink wine, accounting to Rabbi Yoĉanan[xlv] that wine is like bread in terms of forming the basis of a communal meal, one person may recite the ברכה for all, both before and after the meal. But if by happenstance they all were eating together, one here and one there, each one would recite the ברכה on his own. Concerning all other foods and drinks, if people got together for a meal, one person can recite the ברכה for all at the beginning of the meal [but not at the end], as we find in the case referenced in the Gemara[xlvi];

There were two students who were sitting in front of Bar Kapara when cabbage, some kind of other vegetable [or possibly a prune dish] and fowl were brought before them to eat. Bar Kapara gave permission to one of the students to recite the ברכה [presumably for all], who then passed over the other dishes to recite the ברכה on the fowl. The other student teased him for choosing the fowl before the vegetables, and Bar Kapara became angry, saying ‘I am not angry with the student who recited the ברכה, but rather at the student who ridiculed the other – if your friend is acting [excited] for not having tasted meat in his life, why would you ridicule him?’ and then he added to the other student, ‘I am not angry at the one who ridiculed [you], rather I am angry at the one who recited the ברכה [since he recited the ברכה of שהכל on the fowl, instead of choosing one of the other items to recite a more specific ברכה.] If there is no wisdom [meaning if you do not know the right thing to do], is there no elder [why not ask Bar Kapara]?’

The Gemara continued by noting, neither student lived out the year.

What about a meal of fruit

The Gemara concludes there that one does not call the participants in the meal to recite the ברכה together for a meal of fruit. Instead, each one does so on his own, and their joining together in a meal is insufficient to exclude them from the obligation to recite individual blessings. My [the SMG’s] teacher, Rabeinu Yehuda, explained that for us, [gathering for a meal of wine is also not sufficient to allow for a general blessing to be recited, and instead each individual must recite his own ברכה] since we do not normally [have meals of wine[38]].

Regarding those who are listening to the one leading

Rav[39] said[xlvii] those joining the meal may not taste anything until the one who recites the ברכה has tasted, nor is it appropriate for the one reciting the ברכה to taste the food before the majority of the people present have had a chance to finish saying Amen.[40] Concerning this rule, we learnt in the Yerushalmi:[xlviii]

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, they may drink, even if the one who recited the ברכה has not drunk yet. However, this is not a dissenting opinion since Rav is talking about when they all need to partake of the same loaf of bread, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is talking about when they each had their own cup in hand.

Elsewhere in the Gemara[xlix] we learn from that certain unnamed Elder who leaned in to drink from his cup[41] in front of Rav Ashi who had been the one to recite the ברכה. And we also learn from there that there is no requirement to pour from the cup upon which the ברכה was recited into the other cups.[42]

---

[1] Rav Bruna and Rav Ĉananel, the students of Rav, were sitting at a meal and Rav Yeiva the Elder was serving. They [the students] said to him [Rav Yeiva the Elder] let us have [a cup of wine] to recite the ברכת המזון over. They also asked for [a cup of wine] to drink, to which he [Rav Yeiva the Elder] responded that Rav had taught that once a person states a desire to recite ברכת המזון, it is then forbidden to drink wine after [until ברכת המזון is completed].

The SMG notes that this is Rashi’s opinion, since Tosefos clarifies that they could have recited a new ברכה of בורא פרי הגפן and drank, as the SMG adds is Rabeinu Ĉananel’s opinion. Which means that the SMG is of the opinion that Rashi disagrees and holds that one may not drink the wine, even if he wanted to recite a new ברכה of בורא פרי הגפן.

[2] As the verse says גדלו – which comes from the word גדול-great.

[3] The SMG is actually combining two statements in the Gemara into one reasoning: The Gemara notes first that everyone is obligated in זימון, Kohanim Levi’im and Yisrael’im. And then adds that everyone may be combined in זימון, Kohanim Levi’im and Yisrael’im. That Kohanim are obligated, even when eating the portions of the sacrifices they are required to so that the one bringing the sacrifice can be atoned for – as it says in the verse [Shemos 29:33] ואכלו אותם אשר כופר בהם – nevertheless, being satisfied, they must recite ברכת המזון and are therefore subject to זימון. The reasoning they can be combined is as stated by the SMG. The question is, why does the SMG present the reasoning for being able to combine the various classes as the explanation as to why they are obligated.

The answer is the obligation of זימון exists only when it is possible to combine the parties. When people do not eat together – as noted throughout Halaĉa – they are not obligated in זימון. Thus, when the Gemara states that a group can be combined, that automatically means they are obligated. We can thus state that the SMG is only quoting the second half of the Gemara, which deals with reasoning why they can be combined even though he uses the phrase from the previous section in the Gemara.

As to why the SMG would do that: The previous Gemara notes that “everyone is obligated in זימון, Kohanim Levi’im and Yisrael’im”, but then only questions a single instance of when the Kohanim consume something not for their own sake – the sacrifices. Why would the Beraissa quoted by the Gemara add the obvious that Levi’im and Yisrael’im are also obligated in זימון if the intent was only to ensure that the Kohanim are obligated regardless of whether eating for themselves or for others? By combining the statements, the SMG removes that question noting that the Beraissa teaches us that all are obligated, and all may be combined – as if that were a single statement.

[4] The reason this isn’t obvious is because there is a verse that defines the times for eating, namely [Shemos 16:8] בתת ה’ לכם בערב בשר לאכל ולחם בבקר לשבע – which could be taken to imply that this is a time-bound Mitzva, and therefore maybe women should be exempted.

[5] Presumably depending on the level of literacy of the women involved. Now, with women being educated as are the men, there is no excuse, and women should recite their own ברכת המזון, regardless of whether they wish to make their own group or not. Tosefos debates there whether illiterate women are able to make their own זימון or form their own Minyan for prayer. With regard to ברכת המזון he concludes that since illiterate men can listen to someone else and satisfy their obligation, the same applies to women. With regard to the Minyan, they learn the Gemara as stating that ten (10) women do not form a quorum but instead are equal to two (2) women. Although stating that opinion, Tosefos also thereafter quotes Rashi, without dispute, that the Gemara has a different way of being learnt – that the Gemara means even a hundred women are like two (2) in that they aren’t obligated to form a Minyan or a זימון but may do so if they choose. This follows the reasoning of Tosefos from Gem. Eraĉin mentioned momentarily in the SMG.

[6] Which intent is sufficient, even when the one reciting has already fulfilled his own personal obligation, as was the case by Rav Pappi about whom, Rav Ashi related, would recite kiddush for his tenants, even when he had already fulfilled his own personal obligation to recite Kiddush – and this includes the ברכה on the wine, which Rav Pappi would repeat for them.

[7] Or were during the dark ages.

[8] Which implies that one need not understand the exact content of what is being recited, so long as the general intent is known.

[9] Rashi says it is a type of fast camel.

Gesenius did not know what it means*. He associates the word with the Persian Khshatra, which possibly had some connection to the word in Farsi meaning royalty. A google translation of چشترن though renders that as ‘Chestnut’. I note though, that if you substitute the letter ח with a W, the word remarkably resembles Western. Rashi explains they were a type of fast camel – camels generally can maintain a speed of 40 km/h – and can sprint to 65 km/h. In short, this probably was a term used in the Persian courts of the time, which meaning is lost to us.

* Postscript: the ברוך הגבר found other versions of Gesenius (Tregelles and Robinson versions) in which (unlike my Brown-Driver-Briggs version) he notes the similarity to the Sanskrit word aḉwatara which Gesenius defines as an older and harsher form for the word mule.

The fact that no one actually knows the full meaning of the text of the Megilla does not detract from our ability to observe the Mitzva by reciting that word by rote. Therefore, the illiterate should be able to recite ברכת המזון even if they don’t know exactly what it means.

I do not believe this applies when the person listening has no idea what is being said, like would be the case with the classically defined שוטה who is exempt from all Mitzvos. Instead, the person listening must at least understand the content and context of what is being recited and is capable of following the basic information being imparted, even if not knowing the exact meaning of every single word.

[10] Our Gemara has it that Rav Naĉman is arguing with Rav Sheshes.

[11] Rav Ada bar Ahava said that it was said in the household of Rav, a large group can split into two groups so long as in each group there is enough to issue the Invitation, but once there are ten (10) or more, a smaller than ten (10) group cannot split off, nor can a group of ten (10) split off if the remainder is less than ten (10) since doing so would prevent one of the groups from being able to issue the invitation to Bentch with G-d’s name in use.

[12] Rav and Rav Ĉiya were eating a meal with Rebbe. Rebbe told Rav to go wash his hands, and Rav was trembling thinking that he had failed to wash his hands properly. Rav Ĉiya calmed Rav down saying, ‘son of noblemen, he [Rebbe] meant review the ברכת המזון’. [Meaning, Rav should wash his hands first at the end of the meal to give him time to review ברכת המזון as he would be the one leading the Bentching. This instruction to wash his hands was unnecessary, since everyone is required to do so at the end of the meal. This was the source of Rav’s worry that why else would he be singled out and instructed to wash his hands. In fact, Rebbe was telling Rav something superfluous which he should have interpreted as a reminder to review the Halaĉa in general, and those of Bentching in particular, so that he could be prepared to lead the Bentching. Which is what Rebbe wanted Rav to do. This is kind of a convoluted method of getting the message across, but speaking thus between people of such caliber as Rebbe and Rav was normal as one statement contains many messages. Anyway, we see Rebbe giving permission to Rav to lead the Bentching, even though they were eating at Rebbe’s table – which means the host is allowed to bestow the honor to a guest.]

The reason the SMG does not note who he told is to ensure that the reader doesn’t think that this only applies when one is honoring such as Rav. The honor can be given to anyone regardless as to their status, especially these days when the text is set as to what needs to be recited, and everyone is literate and can recite ברכת המזון on their own.

[13] That the Kohen takes precedence is derived by the Gemara by several sages; Rav Masna from the verse [Devarim 31:9] ויכתוב משה את התורה הזאת ויתנה אל הכהנים בני לוי. ‘don’t we know that the Kohanim were from the tribe of Levi? The verse must be teaching us instead the order in which it is given; Kohanim, those from the tribe of Levi’, and then the rest of the Jews – as the verse concludes. Rabbi Yitzĉok Nafĉa used a similar verse, with the same methodology: [Devarim 21:5] ונגשו הכהנים בני לוי. Rav Ashi from a verse [Divrei Hayamim I 23:13] בני עמרם אהרן משה, ויבדל אהרן להקדישו קדש קדשים, which states outright that Kohanim have precedence. And Rabbi Ĉiya bar Aba, as well as that which was taught in the Yeshiva of Rabbi Yishmael, derived this from the verse [Vayikra 21:8] וקדשתו.

[14] As related by Rav Zevid, or possibly Rav Dimi bar Aba.

[15] The Gemara also notes there that one sits in place when reciting the ברכה before eating the food, and not just afterward.

[16] Or an invitation in any language.

[17] The list there includes the following – as stated in the Mishna there:

• the section read to the Sota [for which she must respond אמן]
• the confession recited when bringing the first fruits to the Base Hamikdash
• the recital of שמע
• Prayer
• ברכת המזון
• the oath rendered to witnesses
• the oath rendered to a watchman

[18] In our version of the Yerushalmi, it is Rabbi Ze’ira in the name of Rav Aba bar Yirmiyah. In our Gemara the quote is from Rabbi Ĉiya bar Ashi in the name of Rav.

[19] Abaya added a fourth ‘after Talmiday Ĉoĉomim comes blessings’, based on the verses [Beraishis 30:27] ויברכני ה’ בגללך and [Beraishis 39:5] ויברך ה’ את בית המצרי בגלל יוסף. This seems to me to express, in addition to obvious scholarliness of Abaya, also his sense of humor in that once the sages have spoken, we must immediately proceed to the blessings so that we can engage in a time frame when it is forbidden to speak. This will prevent the introduction of additional items to the listing, like that which Abaya himself introduced.

[20] The Gemara offers other [non-Halaĉic] definitions as well:

• Rabbi Meir; those who don’t ensure they eat while in a state of Tahara.
• Sages; those who don’t tithe their fruits properly.
• Rabbi Eliezer; those who do not recite שמע night and morning.
• Rabbi Yehoshua; those who do not wear Tefillin.
• Ben Az’aye; those who do not wear Tzitzis.
• Rabbi Nasan; those who do not have a Mezuza on their doorpost.
• Rabbi Nasan bar Yosef; those who do not raise their children to study Torah.

[21] Since the classical definition of the עם הארץ was someone who was unable to keep the laws of Tum’ah and Taharah, and therefore did not spend his life in company of those who were observant of these laws. This meant these poor people did not have access to Torah learning beyond a basic understanding of the text and would not have known all the intricate details required in the process of the red heifer. Therefore, to resolve the issue of not being considered to be in a state of Taharah, an עם הארץ might very well decide to create his own altar, offer a cow with red hair on it, take the ashes and voila, he is now טהור – at least in his own mind. This will cause numerous violations of Torah law, not to mention further distancing these people from those who were strict in these observances as now an עם הארץ would reasonably assume he was being shunned not because he didn’t observe a specific Mitzva, but because the Talmud Ĉoĉom was somewhat evil. Even the reasoning as to why a Tzurba m’Rabbanan should Bentch with an עם הארץ is an indication of the kind of שנאת חינם that prevailed at the time, and that which we have worked against for the last two thousand years.

[22] The Gemara there describes the hatred between the two classes that existed during the time of the destruction of the Base Hamikdash;

• One shouldn’t marry the daughter of an עם הארץ because they are vermin, and their wives are creeping animals. As to their daughters, the Torah says [Devarim 27:21] ארור שוכב עם כל בהמה.
• Rabbi Elazar said, it is permitted to stab an עם הארץ to death on Yom Kippur, even when it falls out on Shabbos. His students asked him, ‘why stab, why not slaughter’ to which he answered, ‘slaughtering requires a ברכה.’
• Rabbi Elazar also said, it is forbidden to travel with an עם הארץ since he doesn’t care about his own life, he certainly won’t care about yours.
• Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĉmani said in the name of Rabbi Yoĉanan that it is permitted to disembowel an עם הארץ like a fish. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzĉok said one may also sever their spinal cord [presumably attacking them from behind was safer].
• Rabbi Akiva taught that when he was an עם הארץ he wanted to bite every Talmud Ĉoĉom like a donkey. His students asked, why like a donkey, ‘why not like a dog’ to which he answered ‘a donkey’s bite breaks the bones’.
• Rabbi Meir would say, ‘anyone who gives his daughter to marry an עם הארץ is like he is tying her up and placing her in front of a lion, just like a lion will maul and eat without shame, an עם הארץ will beat his wife and rape her without shame.
• Rabbi Eliezer said, if they [the עם הארץ population] didn’t need us economically, they would kill us all.
• Rabbi Ĉiya taught, anyone who teaches an עם הארץ is like having sex with someone’s fiancé in their presence.
• The Gemara concludes; the hatred felt by the עם הארץ population for the Talmiday Ĉoĉomim is greater than the antisemitism felt by the gentiles, and their wives [the wives of an עם הארץ] hate us even more. But the greatest hatred is felt by someone who once studied Torah and decided not to be Frum.

These statements clearly illustrate the severe internal strife and hatred present at the time immediately preceding the destruction of the second Base Hamikdash. Rabbi Akiva and his students thereafter began the long process of attempting to heal our people from these divisions – as he thereafter became known for his famous saying to love your fellow Jew. This law reversing the treatment of the עם הארץ was a small but important step in breaking the barriers between the two classes of Jews.

The SMG spent his life and time traveling around to various communities to attempt to heal this breach and bring people closer to Torah. That was hundreds of years ago. Sadly, the strife and segregation in Jewish society has not yet been fully healed, there is still more work to be done. Perhaps people can gather over food and drink, which is one of the great ways to cement relationships.

[23] So as to not confuse the group.

[24] The ruling is based on the statement of Rav Yehuda son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilas in the name of Rav, who issued the ruling regarding a grouping of nine (9) and one (1). Rabbi Ze’ira asked Rav Yehuda what about eight or seven, and Rabbi Yehuda answered, ‘eight or seven are no different, but six (6) there’s no question’. Rabbi Yirmiya said to him [Rabbi Yehuda], ‘it’s good that you didn’t have a question about six (6) but not for the reason you thought.’ The reason Rav phrased his ruling with an example of nine (9) is to teach us that there needs to be a recognizable majority. And six is not sufficiently recognizable.

[25] As they might otherwise feel uncomfortable eating, thinking he doesn’t have enough.

[26] I wonder if this is why the term מוציא has been adopted to refer to someone who has satisfied their obligation (or someone else’s).

[27] Theoretically, those not conducting their own Seder on Pesaĉ night need not recite this ברכה and can simply recite the ברכה of על אכילת מצה instead.

[28] The Gemara also notes that a servant can do so for his master, and a wife for her husband. However, our sages have said that anyone whose wife and children are reciting ברכת המזון on his behalf should be cursed.

[29] The Mourner’s Line, where people line up on either side and have the mourners walk past to wish them to be comforted.

[30] Apparently, there was once a custom that during mourning the second ברכה of ברכת המזון was only recited in the presence of a Minyan. Those in mourning in general have some of the Mitzvos placed in abeyance, so it is not surprising that the extra Beraĉos after the bare minimum were not recited according to that custom.

[31] The Yerushalmi defines ‘under the influence’ as someone who drank a רביעית, and a drunk is someone who drank ‘more’ – although the Babylonian sages defined this as someone who can’t speak [properly] in front of a king.

[32] Meaning, the assumption in the verse is that a person ate to satiation, which when involving alcohol, must mean he is inebriated at the end of the meal. And yet that is the scenario in which the Mitzva is issued.

[33] unclear which one.

[34] Meaning the child was well aware of the obligation to bless the creator, and where that obligation had come from.

[35] Presumably this is the Halaĉic basis as to why any Bar Mitzva boy can be called up, regardless of whether the boy has gone through puberty or not.

[36] Notwithstanding the Gemara that states that the Halaĉa is; a minor who knows to whom we are reciting the ברכת המזון for may be included in the זימון. Why then did the Tosefists and the Geonim etc. establish the Halaĉa differently than that which is stated explicitly in the Gemara? Immediately after issuing the Halaĉic ruling the Gemara, the Gemara notes the following anecdote:

Abaya and Rava [while still children] were sitting [at a meal] in front of Rabba. Rabba asked them [testing to see the extent of their maturity], ‘to whom are we blessing?’ Both children answered, ‘to the merciful one.’

Rabba followed up with ‘and where is the merciful one?’ Rava pointed to the ceiling. Abaya got up, went outside, and pointed to the sky. Rabba [satisfied that they were mature enough] stated, ‘you will both become Rabbi’s, as the saying goes “a cucumber can be recognized from the blossom.”’

Having established that minors can join the זימון, if ‘they know to whom we are reciting the blessings’ the Gemara then demonstrates what type of minors was referred to. As our children no longer have the same maturity and mental capacity as Abaya and Rava did when they were children – who were the examples provided by the Gemara, the Geonim and the Tosefists ruled that this Halaĉa cannot be relied upon concerning our reduced capacity minors, and therefore minors may [no longer] be included.

[37] According to Rashi, Rav Pappa explained that one becomes more satisfied by drinking a large quantity at once. This is because, unlike food which can make one feel full before entering the stomach, drinking doesn’t fill up the stomach quickly [either because it is absorbed and digested faster, being a liquid, or because when it comes to wine, the main effect a person feels is from the alcohol, and when sipped slowly it is absorbed and neutralized faster]. By becoming satisfied, one can then be obligated even Biblically to recite the after ברכה. As for Rava, he apparently was so excited about performing the Mitzva that he would gulp the wine in order to have the Mitzva of drinking wine be that which obligated him in a further Mitzva – that of reciting the blessings after satiety.

[38] Presumably, this is a reference to the Greek practice of conducting a Symposium, either on its own or after the meal – in which participants would drink wine while relaxing, dancing, and listening to music or poetry etc. Women were not allowed to attend in Greek culture, but the Romans expanded the practice to include women (for obvious reasons), as well as not limiting the time frame to something outside of food consumption.

It is interesting that the word ‘Symposium’ is now used for a gathering of secular academics.

[39] This is a quote from Rav Yehuda son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilas in the name of Rav. When the quote was issued, Rav Yehuda did not accurately state the quote, as he said ‘they may not eat’ until the one who recited the ברכה tasted his food. Rav Safra was there and corrected him stating that the terminology used by Rav is that ‘they may not taste’. The Gemara notes the reason for bringing down the story in full to teach us that one must use the same phrasing that his Rabbi used. [especially when stating the phrase as a quote]

The SMG does not wish to quote Rav Yehuda son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilas, even though he is the one who told us what Rav said, since if he would do so, he would have to use the [possibly inaccurate] language he [Rav Yehuda son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilas] used, and then correct it according to Rav Safra in order to comply with the statement that one must using the same phrasing as the one who issued the quote when quoting.

[40] I can only imagine this coming into play when the respondents say Amen as if they were part of a musical chorus.

[41] Probably because it was full to the brim and he didn’t want to spill, and not due to being bent with age.

[42] As a practical matter, it is often the custom or the Halaĉa to do exactly that, because people want to and should partake of the wine on which Kiddush or ברכת המזון was recited. I would suggest that when this Halaĉa is being followed, the pouring of the wine into the other cups after the ברכה is recited must be done before the one reciting the ברכה has drunk from the wine. It is prohibited to drink from a drink in which someone else’s backwash is present, as this violates the negative Mitzva of אל תשקצו את נפשתיכם. As for the source for considering wine in which backwash is present as something repulsive, our sages have called such wine יין פגום.

Furthermore, the Shulĉan Aruĉ Oreĉ Ĉayim 271:17 states that the only reason required to pour the wine for those present is when they otherwise only have יין פגום, and since the cup on which the ברכה was recited, by necessity is not יין פגום, therefore, the one reciting pours some of the wine from his cup into their cups so that they will have the opportunity of drinking wine that is not יין פגום. Should the one reciting the ברכה first drink from that wine, that would defeat the whole purpose of sharing the wine.

I do not know why the custom has developed that the bride and groom specifically do drink from the actual cups on which the seven (7) Beraĉos of the Wedding, and ברכת המזון were recited.

---

[i] Gem. Ĉulin 86b

[ii] Gem. Beraĉos 45a

[iii] Tehillim 34:4

[iv] Gem. Eraĉin 4a

[v] Gem. Beraĉos 20b

[vi] Gem. Beraĉos 45a

[vii] Gem. Eraĉin 3a

[viii] Gem. Beraĉos 45b

[ix] Gem. Rosh Hashana 29a

[x] Gem. Megilla 17a

[xi] Gem. Megilla 18a

[xii] Ester 8:10

[xiii] Gem. Beraĉos 46a

[xiv] Gem. Beraĉos 50a

[xv] Gem. Beraĉos 47a

[xvi] Gem. Beraĉos 46b

[xvii] Gem. Gittin 59b

[xviii] Gem. Beraĉos 42a

[xix] See Tosefos הסבו

[xx] Gem. Beraĉos 53b

[xxi] Gem. Beraĉos 51b

[xxii] Gem. Sota 32a

[xxiii] Yer. Beraĉos 1:1 [see alternate author in] Gem. Beraĉos 42a

[xxiv] Tehillim 19:15 – 20:2

[xxv] Vayikra 1:4-5

[xxvi] Tehillim 134:2

[xxvii] Gem. Beraĉos 47b

[xxviii] Gem. Ĉagiga 22a

[xxix] Gem. Pesaĉim 49b

[xxx] Gem. Beraĉos 48a

[xxxi] Yer. Beraĉos 7:2

[xxxii] Gem. Rosh Hashana 29b

[xxxiii] Gem. Beraĉos 20b

[xxxiv] Yer. Beraĉos 3:3

[xxxv] Gem. Kesuvos 8a-b

[xxxvi] Gem. Megilla 23b

[xxxvii] Yer. Terumos 1:4

[xxxviii] Yer. Beraĉos 7:2

[xxxix] See Tosefos ולית Gem. Beraĉos 48a

[xl] Gem. Beraĉos 47b

[xli] Chapter 8

[xlii] Yer. Beraĉos 7:2

[xliii] Gem. Beraĉos 45a

[xliv] Gem. Sukka 49b

[xlv] Gem. Beraĉos 43a

[xlvi] Gem. Beraĉos 39a

[xlvii] Gem. Beraĉos 47a

[xlviii] Yer. Beraĉos 6:1 see also Tos. אין

[xlix] Gem. Pesaĉim 106a