Siman 62

The birkat chatanim of marriage are six blessings, and they are these: Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who created everything for His glory... Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Creator of man... Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who created man in His image, in the image of the likeness of His form, and prepared for him from himself an everlasting edifice; Blessed are You, Hashem, Creator of man... May the barren one surely exult and be glad at the gathering of her children within her in joy; Blessed are You, Hashem, Who gladdens Zion with her children... Grant great joy to the beloved companions, as You granted joy to Your creation in the Garden of Eden of old; Blessed are You, Hashem, Who gladdens the chatan and kallah... Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who created joy and gladness, chatan and kallah, etc.; Blessed are You, Hashem, Who gladdens the chatan with the kallah.

The custom when reciting the blessings under the chuppah is to first recite the blessing over the cup, "borei peri hagafen" or "shehakol," and afterward to recite the blessings. However, during the seven days of feasting at birkat hamazon, the blessings are recited first and afterward the blessing over the cup. The reason is that the blessing over the cup is frequent, and that which is frequent takes precedence; but during the meal, when reciting them after birkat hamazon, so that it should not appear that the cup is for birkat hamazon, we delay the blessing over the cup to indicate that it comes for the birkat chatanim [Beit Shmuel, subsection 2]. Even according to our custom where there are two cups, as will be explained, nevertheless there is a greater distinction when reciting the blessing afterward. Furthermore, during the meal, since the marriage has already preceded and the marriage itself causes the cup to come—for birkat hamazon does not require a cup—and also the essence of the meal is on account of the marriage, therefore the blessings take precedence and the reason of frequency is set aside [HaMakneh].

These blessings that were arranged regarding the matters of the union begin only from "Asher Yatzar" and onward, for that blessing begins to speak of both of them: "Who created man" refers to the male; "and prepared for him from himself an everlasting edifice" is the female. "May the barren one surely exult" is because we must bring up the memory of Jerusalem at the head of our joy, as it is written: "If I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy" (Psalms 137:6). "Grant great joy" is a blessing for the chatan and kallah that they should succeed with joy and gladness of heart. And "Who created" is for the sake of all Israel. And "beloved companions" are the chatan and kallah; we bless them that they should rejoice "as You gladdened Your creature in the Garden of Eden of old"—just as You gladdened Adam at the time he was in the Garden of Eden. And why in the first one do we conclude "Who gladdens the chatan and kallah" and in the last one "with the kallah"? Because the joy of the first blessing is not said regarding the joy of the wedding, for it is a prayer that we pray and bless that they should be joyful with success all their days; therefore, one should not conclude it "Who gladdens the chatan with the kallah," which implies the man with the woman, but rather: Blessed is Hashem Who gladdens both of them forever with the provision of sustenance and all good. But in the last one, which is praise that praises the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who created the wedding union of man and woman through joy and gladness, therefore one must conclude "Who gladdens the chatan with the kallah," which is an expression of the joy of a man with a woman. And the blessing "that all was created for His glory" is not part of the order, but rather for the gathering of the people assembled there to perform acts of kindness, in memory of the kindnesses of the Omnipresent that He practiced with Adam, for He became his groomsman and occupied Himself with him. And this assembly is the glory of the Omnipresent, and this blessing was instituted for this; and from the time of the assembly it is fitting to bless, but since there is a blessing over the cup, they required it to be arranged upon it. And the blessing "Creator of man" was instituted for the first creation of Adam [Rashi, Ketubot 8a].

The first blessing opens with "Blessed" even though it is adjacent to the blessing over the cup, but because it is not part of the order as has been explained and it is like a blessing on its own; and furthermore, because in a meal it comes first as has been explained; and furthermore, since it is a short blessing, if it did not open with "Blessed" its blessing would not be recognizable. This is also the reason for the blessing "Who formed man" (yotzer ha'adam), that it is not like a blessing adjacent to its fellow and it was not necessary to open it with "Blessed" [Tosafot]. And "Who created" (asher yatzar) begins with "Blessed" because this is the first blessing of the current union [Rashi] as has been explained, and therefore he also concludes it with "Blessed" in the manner of all beginnings of orders of blessings [ibid.]; and furthermore, if he did not open it with "Blessed" it would appear that it is one blessing with "Who formed man" [Tosafot]. And "May the barren one surely rejoice" (sos tasis), because it follows the long blessing of "Who created," does not open with "Blessed" but rather concludes with "Blessed" according to the law of a blessing adjacent to its fellow. And similarly the blessing "May You surely gladden" (sameach teshammach); and the blessing "Who created" (asher bara) opens with "Blessed" because it is recited alone when there are no panim chadashot there as will be explained, and then it is not adjacent to its fellow; and it concludes with "Blessed" because it is long and it is also the last of the order of blessings.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 10: If there is wine there, one brings a cup of wine and recites the blessing over the wine first, and arranges all of them over the cup, and it turns out he recites seven blessings; and there are places where they were accustomed to bring myrtle with the wine and one recites the blessing over the myrtle after the wine and afterwards recites the six, thus far his words. And the Tur wrote in the name of our teacher Nissim Gaon: If he is in a place where wine is not found, he should take raisins and soak them in water and squeeze them and recite the blessing over it; and if he cannot find raisins, he recites over the beer "shehakol," for it is not sufficient without a cup; but regarding the blessing of erusin, if he cannot find wine, and even if there is beer there, he recites the blessing of erusin without a cup, for it is not the choice way to perform the mitzvah; but regarding the blessing of bridegrooms, which is seven blessings, he is obligated to recite over the cup "borei peri hagafen" or "shehakol" over the beer if he cannot find wine at all, thus far his words.

And regarding the words of the Rambam, there is a doubt whether he also holds that a cup is indispensable, and that which he wrote, "if there will be wine there," which implies that if there is none it is not indispensable, this refers to wine, but beer is required; or, perhaps he holds that a cup is not indispensable at all. And so it appears from his intent, for he did not mention beer at all. However, for the law, we hold that a cup is indispensable as the Tur wrote [and it also appears that the Maggid Mishneh understood as I have written, and this is the intent of the Chelkat Mechokek, and the Beit Shmuel in subsection 2 challenged him needlessly].

And why is the cup not indispensable for the blessing of erusin, yet for the blessing of nisuin it is indispensable? It appears from the words of our teachers that it is because we have learned that we require seven blessings for grooms, and behold, there are only six blessings; rather, with the cup there are seven blessings. And just as it has come to us by tradition from Moshe our teacher that one must rejoice for the seven days of the feast [Yerushalmi chapter 1 of Ketubot], and there is an allusion to this in the Torah as it is written, "Fulfill the week of this one" (Genesis 29:27), likewise the tradition has come to us regarding seven blessings. However, regarding that which the Tur wrote, that for the blessing of erusin when there is no wine one should not recite the blessing over beer but should recite the blessing without a cup, the Rambam in chapter 3 did not write so; rather, as he wrote in siman 34, if there is no wine one should recite the blessing over beer. The Tur himself also ruled accordingly there, see there, for ab initio even for the blessing of erusin a cup is required.

Among us, where one betrothes her at the time of the chuppah, two cups are required: one for the birkat erusin and one for the birkat nisuin. We recite the blessing of borei peri ha-gafen over each cup individually, for they have no connection to one another; furthermore, they are interrupted by the kiddushin, as the groom betrothes her after the birkat erusin. Rashi, of blessed memory, established the practice of reading the ketubah after the kiddushin so that there should be a significant interruption between the birkat erusin and the birkat nisuin, and such is the simple custom among us. Regarding the berakhah acharonah, if one person is the one reciting both blessings and he drank the cups, one berakhah acharonah is sufficient for both of them, and he recites the blessing after the final cup [Chelkat Mechokek subsection 15]. Some say that he recites a berakhah acharonah over each one individually since there is a significant interruption, as has been written [Hagahot Maimoniot chapter 10, letter 3]. However, for us, there is no practical difference in this, for the custom among us is not that the one reciting the blessing drinks, but rather the groom and the bride taste a little. The custom written by the Rambam to bring myrtle is not practiced among us, and it is possible that they do this intentionally so that the birkat nisuin should be seven blessings, no fewer and no more.

Even though regarding the berakhot of erusin the Rambam wrote in chapter 3 that the groom himself should recite the berakhah, nevertheless, regarding the berakhot of nisuin it is implied from his words in chapter 10 that another recites the berakhah. The reason is simple: for the berakhot of erusin are like other berakhot of mitzvot where the one performing it must recite the berakhah, which is not the case for the berakhot of nisuin, which are blessings for the groom and the bride that they should succeed as has been written—it is necessary that others should bless them. However, it has already been explained in siman 34 that regarding the berakhot of erusin as well, the common custom among us is that another recites the berakhah. And the common custom among us is that the groom and the bride stand under the huppah with their faces to the east and the one reciting the berakhah stands with his face to the west so that he may bless them face to face, for every blessing is face to face like the Priestly Blessing. And we place the bride to the right of the groom, as it is written (Psalms 45:10), "The queen stands at your right hand, etc." [see Be'er Heitev siman 61, subsection 7].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote: One must recite the birkat chatanim in the house of the chatan before the nisuin. Thus far his words. And the Tur wrote similarly: We recite birkat chatanim before the entry into the chuppah. Thus far his words. They were precise to say that they should bless before the chuppah and the nisuin, for regarding all mitzvot, one recites the blessing over them prior to their performance. According to this, one must wonder about our custom where we recite the blessing after they stand under the chuppah. However, our custom is established based on the line of the law, for "prior to their performance" is only relevant to birkat erusin, which is like other blessings of the mitzvot. But regarding the blessings of nisuin, which are a prayer on behalf of the chatan and the kallah that they should succeed, how is "prior to their performance" relevant to this? For behold, all seven days of the feast we recite the seven blessings when there are panim chadashot. And that which the Rambam wrote to bless them before nisuin is because he follows his reasoning which we wrote in siman 55, that chuppah is yichud suitable for cohabitation, and therefore it is necessary to bless beforehand, for if one blesses them at the time of yichud, behold, this is not yichud. But in our chuppot, on the contrary, it is better that they enter the chuppah and then we bless them that they should succeed. And the Tur also wrote to bless before entry into the chuppah because he also holds that chuppah is yichud, as he wrote in siman 61 [and the words of the Chelkat Mechokek in subsection 1 were not clarified to me, for what is the connection between birkat erusin and nisuin? And what he wrote that the Tur holds like the Rosh—it is true that in this siman he transcribed the words of the Rosh for a certain matter, but in siman 61 he wrote that it is yichud, see there].

One does not recite the birkat chatanim except with ten adult males, who are free men and not slaves, and the chatan is part of the count. Since these are blessings of joy and he is dwelling in joy, why should he not be part of the count? This applies whether they are recited at the time of the nesuin or whether they are recited at the feast after birkat hamazon. And even though it is not a davar shebikdusha like Kaddish and Kedushah which may not be recited with fewer than ten, nevertheless, since they say "Who created all things for His glory" in honor of those assembled and they mention the rebuilding of Jerusalem, it is not the way of honor to mention them with fewer than ten, and we derive this from the verse regarding Boaz where it is written: "And he took ten men, etc." Nevertheless, one should not learn from this verse that ten are required aside from the chatan, for this is not a logical reasoning at all. Therefore, at the other meals when there are no panim chadashot and they only recite "Asher Bara," ten are not required; however, three are required, for it is no less than birkat zimmun, as any additional blessing over the fixed blessings in birkat hamazon is not with fewer than three. But regarding birkat erusin, ten does not invalidate it, as I wrote in siman 34, for it is a birkat hamitzvah like all blessings of the mitzvot; however, ab initio, ten are required there as well, as I wrote there, and it is possible that three are also essential there, for three must be present—the chatan and the two witnesses of the kiddushin.

Some say that in a place where it is impossible to assemble ten, he should not marry a woman there, but should go with her to a place where there are ten because of the blessings, [Beit Yosef in the name of Rashba]. However, many disagree with this, as there is no logic at all to say so, for the blessings do not hinder the validity post facto. He should bring her into the huppah without the blessings, and they shall bless after several days when ten happen to be available to them, if they happen to be available within the seven days of feasting. It is possible that even after a long time they say the seven blessings since they have not yet said them. The wording of the Rambam in chapter 10 indicates likewise, as he wrote that if they did not bless the blessing of the grooms, they bless even after several days, see there [and in the Yam Shel Shlomo I found that after the seven days of feasting they should not bless]. At the meal they should only bless "Asher Bara," but at the time of the huppah they should not bless it alone, for at the time of the huppah only seven blessings were instituted [that which the Beit Yosef wrote in the name of the Rashba requires further study, for the Rashba did not say that he should not perform the marriage, but only that they should not bless with fewer than ten, see there in the Responsa].

It appears to me that if they began the birkat chatanim with ten and some of them left, they may complete them even with fewer than ten, for even regarding Kaddish and Kedushah the law is such, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 55, and all the more so regarding birkat chatanim. Furthermore, they are taught in a single Mishnah in the third chapter of Megillah, and certainly their laws are equal. And there is one who wishes to say that if they recited birkat chatanim with fewer than ten, they fulfill the obligation ex post facto and do not need to recite them again, but this is not implied by all the poskim [see Noda BiYehudah siman 56 who brought proof from Tosafot, but one who examines the Yerushalmi of Megillah will see there is no proof from there, and so wrote his grandson in the book Yad HaMelech].

If there are two grooms together, one recites one birkat chatanim for both of them, and likewise the birkat erusin, and even if the grooms were not together, provided that his intention was for both of them, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 265 regarding the matter of milah, and like two groups that eat, this one for itself and that one for itself, where one recites birkat hamazon for both of them—provided they see one another. And some say that one should not recite the blessing for two grooms together because of the evil eye, and each and every group of the grooms enters by themselves so that it will be recognizable that there are two weddings, and one does not recite the blessing for this one in the presence of that one in order to distinguish their weddings [Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba], and so we are accustomed to make for each one a chuppah by itself and to recite the blessing for each one, but in the sheva brachot after the meal, one recites the blessings for many grooms together if they ate together, for the concern is only at the time of the marriage.

The Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: A man may marry many women at once on one day and recites the birkat chatanim for all of them together, but to gladden them, he must rejoice with each one the rejoicing appropriate for her: if she is a virgin—seven days, and if she is a widow—three days, and one does not mix one rejoicing with another rejoicing. Thus far their words. Just as one does not marry on Chol HaMoed because one does not mix one rejoicing with another rejoicing, as was written in siman 64. And even though there they are two types of rejoicing and here they are one type of rejoicing, nevertheless, since in the Yerushalmi [first chapter of Moed Katan] we learn that one does not mix from the verse regarding Rachel and Leah, "Complete the week of this one," it proves that even with one type of rejoicing, one does not mix one rejoicing with another rejoicing, so that his heart may be free for one mitzvah. And nowadays this law is not relevant because we do not marry two women [and therefore the Rambam brought in halacha 14 the verse from the Yerushalmi regarding the previous law].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that one should not perform the huppot of two sisters together, and some say that even with two unrelated women one should be careful not to perform them as one because of enmity, lest they honor one more than her fellow; however, people are not careful regarding this, and on the contrary, some specifically intend to perform the huppot of poor women with the huppot of wealthy women for the sake of a mitzvah. Thus far his words. And this is not related to what was explained regarding one blessing for two grooms, for here it is a different matter because of mixing one joy with another joy. Therefore, one should not perform the huppot of two sisters in one week [Beit Yosef], and so it is stated in the Mordechai [first chapter of Moed Katan]: We do not mix one joy with another joy—in the Yerushalmi it is derived from that which is written, "Complete the week of this one," etc., and for this reason the early authorities were accustomed not to perform the marriage of two daughters or two brothers or a brother and sister together. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote that even two unrelated women should not be done as one, he means at one time on one day, because it was taught in Masekhet Semachot: We do not praise two brides as one unless there is enough for this one and enough for that one, and even if there is for this one and that one it is forbidden because of enmity; if one is beautiful and her fellow is not beautiful there is enmity between them, and similarly if they honor one more than her fellow [ibid.]. And regarding this, our teacher, the Rema, said that we are not careful, but with two sisters or two brothers or a brother and sister—one must certainly be careful.

We establish that for a virgin, her rejoicing is seven days of feasting, and for a widow, her rejoicing is three days, and it will be explained in siman 64. And the blessings—for a virgin all seven, and for a widow only one day, and thus our Sages, of blessed memory, said [Ketubot 7a]: one day for blessing and three for rejoicing. And for a virgin, all seven we bless after the meal after Birkat HaMazon; when there are panim chadashot we bless all the blessings, and where there are no panim chadashot we bless only "Asher Bara." And it has already been explained that sheva brachot requires ten, and "Asher Bara" suffices with three. However, some say that even "Asher Bara" we do not bless all seven except when they invite others besides the members of his household, for then it has the status of a wedding feast; but if he eats with the members of his household alone, it does not have the status of a wedding feast and we do not bless "Asher Bara" either, and similarly we do not say "She-ha-simcha bi-me'ono" [Chelkat Mechokek, subsection 8], and such is the custom. And even though there are those who disagree on this, nevertheless the custom has spread according to this opinion. And for a widow, we never say any blessing all these days, even "Asher Bara," and only "She-ha-simcha bi-me'ono" we say all three, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

There are some of our teachers who wrote that just as it is forbidden to recite Kiddush and Birkat HaMazon over one cup because we do not perform mitzvot in bundles [Pesachim 102b], so that it should not be like a burden upon him, likewise regarding the Birkat HaMazon of a wedding, one should not recite the Sheva Berachot over the cup of Birkat HaMazon [Tosafot ibid.]. Rather, they bring a cup and recite Birkat HaMazon over it, and after he finishes Birkat HaMazon, he places it before him and they bring him another cup and he recites the Sheva Berachot over it, and he places it down and takes the cup over which he recited Birkat HaMazon and recites over it Borei Peri HaGafen or Shehakol. And so it is explicitly stated in Masechet Soferim chapter 19, halacha 11, that two cups are required, and he fulfills the obligation with the blessing also for the second cup since his intent was also for it. And it is the custom that the one who recites the blessing drinks the majority of the cup and mixes the two cups together and gives from this to the chatan and the kallah to drink. But there are some of our teachers who say that we recite everything over one cup, and it is not similar to Birkat HaMazon and Kiddush, which are two distinct matters and the concept of bundles applies to them, but here it is one matter, for Birkat HaMazon causes the wedding blessings [ibid.]. And the Tur wrote that in Ashkenaz and France they practiced according to the first opinion, and in Spain they practiced according to the second opinion. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9 wrote that such is the widespread custom to recite them over one cup, as he was in Spain. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in these lands we practice according to the first opinion, and some say that even for "Asher Bara" alone we require two cups. Thus far his words. And so it is proper to practice [Bach]. And in a place where they say a bit of liturgical poetry before Birkat HaMazon, such as "Devai Hasir" or "Nodeh Lishmecha" — they say this over the cup of Birkat HaMazon. And they do not say "Devai Hasir" except when they recite the Sheva Berachot, and when they only say "Asher Bara," they say "Nodeh Lishmecha" [Beit Shmuel, subsection 11]. And it has already been explained that for erusin and nisuin two cups are required, for they are two separate matters, as there can be erusin without nisuin, and they also interrupt by reading the ketubah.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, in the second chapter of the Laws of Blessings, after writing the four blessings of Birkat HaMazon, wrote: In the house of grooms, they recite the blessing of grooms after these four blessings at each and every meal that they eat there, and neither slaves nor minors recite this blessing. Until when do they recite this blessing? If it was a widower who married a widow—they recite it on the first day alone, and if a young man who married a widow or a widower who married a virgin—they recite it all seven days of the feast. This blessing that they add in the house of grooms is the final blessing of the seven blessings of marriage, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit from his words that even the blessing of "Asher Bara" is not recited for a widower who married a widow for all three days, and so it is explained by all our teachers, the Rishonim, who wrote that for a widower who married a widow, the blessing is only on the first day when they recite seven blessings for her, and further they do not recite even "Asher Bara," and so it is proven explicitly from the Sugya of the Shas [there, where it asks on Rav Huna regarding what, etc., if regarding a widower, behold it is one day; if you wish, say for a widower one day for blessing and three for joy, see there, and it did not answer regarding the blessing of Asher Bara].

And so it is explicitly explained from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 13, that even for a widower who married a widow, they say "she-hasimcha b'ma'ono" all three days, see there; and he did not mention "asher bara," from which we may conclude that its blessing is only one day even regarding "asher bara." And that which they say "she-hasimcha b'ma'ono" is because according to the law of the Gemara they say "she-hasimcha b'ma'ono" for a virgin all twelve months, as will be explained, and therefore it is proper for a widow during her three days of joy that they say "she-hasimcha b'ma'ono," but they do not recite the blessing of "asher bara." And so I found explicitly in the words of the Maharshal, of blessed memory, in his book Yam Shel Shlomo on Ketubot which was newly printed, and he wrote in the first chapter, siman 12, and this is his wording: From the fact that it says "one day for the blessing and three for joy," it implies that they do not recite the blessing more than one day, even "asher bara," etc. Thus far his words. And so it is written in the Shita in the name of the Ra'avad, and this is his wording: And a widow who married a widower, one day; and these words apply regarding the blessing of the grooms, but regarding "she-hasimcha b'ma'ono," it appears that a young man and a widower are the same, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, it is only regarding "she-hasimcha b'ma'ono" that they say it within the three days of his joy, and not for any blessing.

And the Tur wrote: And it appears that even a widow to a widower, for whom they do not recite the seven blessings except for one day even if there are new faces, they recite "She-ha-simcha bi-me'ono" and "Asher bara" all three days during the time of their celebration, and they say it even if there are not ten present, and some say that "Asher bara" also requires ten, but it did not seem correct to my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory. Thus far his words. And this is a lone opinion against the Rambam and all the poskim, and furthermore it appears clear to me that an error fell into the words of the Tur, for behold he transcribed this from the words of the Rosh and this is not mentioned there, and also in the Kitzur Piskei HaRosh which the Tur himself authored he did not mention this, and furthermore how would our teacher, the Beit Yosef, not mention his opinion in his great work, and also all the commentators on the Tur did not mention this, and the primary version is as follows: that they recite "She-ha-simcha bi-me'ono" all three days during the time of their celebration, and therefore he added "during the time of their celebration," meaning that since their celebration is three days, therefore they recite "She-ha-simcha bi-me'ono" all three days, like the words of the Ra'avad that we brought, but regarding the blessing of "Asher bara," what is the relevance of the time of their celebration and what does joy have to do with the blessing, and because the Tur afterwards brought a dispute whether "Asher bara" requires ten or not, therefore the proofreaders erred and wrote "Asher bara" earlier as well, and in any case regarding the law it is clear that one should not say "Asher bara" all three days for a widower who married a widow, for even if it were so that this is the opinion of the Tur, it is a lone opinion, and all the more so since it appears more likely that in the Tur as well it is a scribal error, for it is known that many errors fell into the books of the Tur [as the Beit Yosef wrote in a responsum at the beginning of the Tur, Orach Chaim], and also in the sugya of the Shas it is impossible to say otherwise as I have written [see Shiltei HaGibborim which is a transcription from the Tur, and it is evident that there is an emendation in this].

And I saw one of the great Achronim who, based on the words of the Tur that we brought, ruled regarding a widower who married a widow to recite "Asher Bara" all three days, and after him all the abridgers of laws followed, and so it was printed in the prayer books. In my humble opinion, it is clear that one should not recite the blessing, and it is close to being a blessing in vain; therefore, the matter is simple that one should only recite "She-hasimcha b'me'ono."

It has already been explained that for a virgin, when there are panim chadashot, one recites the seven blessings all seven days, and when there are no panim chadashot, one recites only "Asher Bara." And what is panim chadashot? According to the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, those who did not hear the blessings at the time of the chuppah are called panim chadashot; but if they heard them then, even if they have not yet eaten at the meal—they are not panim chadashot. For so he wrote in the second chapter of Berakhot regarding the blessing of "Asher Bara" that we brought, and this is his wording: In what case does this apply? When the eaters were those who stood at the marriage blessings and heard the blessings. But if the eaters were others, those who did not hear the marriage blessings at the time of the marriage, one recites the seven blessings for them after birkat hamazon in the manner that one recites at the time of the marriage, provided that there are ten, and the groom is of the count. Thus far his words.

From the plain meaning of his words, it is implied that the reason we must recite seven blessings for panim chadashot is so that the new people who did not hear the wedding blessings will hear the blessings to fulfill their obligation. But it is impossible to say so, for are these people obligated in the blessings? Rather, this is the essence of the matter according to the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory: behold, these blessings are to bless the couple that they should succeed, and incidentally we give a blessing for the honor of the assembled people and for the remembrance of the destruction of Jerusalem as has been written, and this obligation is incumbent upon every man of Israel when he comes to enjoy the wedding house of the couple, to bless them during the time of their joy in the seven days of feasting. And the one who blesses and the others who hear and answer amen, it is as if all those standing there blessed the chatan and kallah. And since they blessed them once, they have fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, when there are panim chadashot who have not yet heard the blessings, they have not yet blessed the couple and are obligated to bless them. Therefore, the one who blesses stands and blesses them, and they hear and answer amen and fulfill their obligation. And this is what the Rambam wrote, "we bless for their sake," meaning we bless for their sake so that they fulfill the obligation to bless the chatan and the kallah. And even if there is one who did not hear, we bless for his sake. And what he wrote, "and that is provided there are ten," his intention is not that the panim chadashot must be ten, but rather that ten men must be present at the time of the blessings, for there are no birkhot chatanim with fewer than ten, as he wrote in chapter 10 of Ishut. And so the great Acharonim agreed [Bach and Chelkat Mechokek subsection 9] that we bless even for the sake of one.

But most of our teachers explained "panim chadashot" in another manner: that even the people who were present at the time of the chuppah and heard the blessings, if they have not eaten a wedding feast there until now, they are called "panim chadashot," and one recites the sheva brachot for them after birkat hamazon. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that such is the simple custom. For according to this opinion, there is a different intent regarding "panim chadashot": since the days of their rejoicing are all seven days of the feast, it is proper to bless them every single day of the seven days of the feast. Indeed, in Masechet Soferim chapter 19, halacha 11, it is stated that they used to practice every morning of the seven days of the feast to say the sheva brachot over a cup with "panim chadashot" even without a feast [see Beit Yosef]. However, we do not bless without a feast, for so it implies explicitly in the Gemara. When there are "panim chadashot," it is like a new joy and it is fitting to say the blessings; but when there are no "panim chadashot," the joy is not so great, and the essence of the joy is at the time of the feast. Therefore, when there are "panim chadashot" at the feast who have not yet eaten, it is an additional joy and we recite all the blessings. And according to the opinion of Masechet Soferim, there is a new joy every day when there are "panim chadashot," but if there is no new joy—such as when there are no "panim chadashot," or according to the Talmud when they are not at a feast—there is no place for the sheva brachot, for they were only instituted for a new joy. Therefore, one must always say them at the first feast even though they said them at the time of the marriage and there are no "panim chadashot" who did not hear the blessings, because the feast is a new joy compared to the joy of the chuppah, unlike the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory.

Therefore, some say that they are not called panim chadashot unless they are important people for whom one increases food and drink, and even if now one does not increase for them, but they are worthy of this, it is panim chadashot [Bach and Beit Shmuel]. And the reason is that since we require a new joy, it is not considered new if they are not important; but when they are important people, an additional joy is added for the wedding party and it is appropriate to recite the seven berakhot. And if so, even if they did not increase food and drink for them, what of it? For it does not depend on the increase of food, but on the honor of the new people for whom it is appropriate to increase. However, according to the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, even if the panim chadashot is not important, one recites the blessings for them, as I have written.

Our teacher, the Rema, in section 7 wrote that there are those who say that if panim chadashot were there, even though they do not eat there, one blesses on their account night and day. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this opinion is founded upon the words of Masechet Soferim that we brought, that whenever there are panim chadashot on this day who were not there yesterday, it is considered like a new joy and one must bless the sheva brachot. And since this day constitutes a new joy that did not exist yesterday, it follows that the entire day and the preceding night are fit for blessing the sheva brachot, for behold, this day is a new joy. Therefore, in all the meals included in this day, one blesses the sheva brachot since there is an additional joy on this day because of the panim chadashot even though they do not eat there, for according to this opinion the joy is not dependent on the meal but rather on the people, and it is only our custom not to say the sheva brachot without a meal, but the joy is not dependent on this, according to the opinion of Masechet Soferim. And even according to this opinion, one does not bless all day and all night unless the panim chadashot stood there during the entire time of the blessings, since the primary joy is because of them [Ran ibid., and see there what he wrote in the name of the Ramban, and afterwards from Tosafot, and afterwards from Rabbeinu Tam, and according to what I wrote the matters are clarified, and examine it closely].

Our teachers, the Rishonim, wrote that Shabbat is considered like "panim chadashot," for even if there are no new people who have not yet eaten, nevertheless, during the meals of Shabbat and Yom Tov one recites the sheva brachot, and the days themselves are considered like "panim chadashot." This is founded upon the Midrash: "A Psalm, a song for the Shabbat day" — the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: "panim chadashot have arrived here," and Yom Tov and Shabbat are the same in this regard. This matter is founded upon the opinion of the majority of our teachers, that the reason for "panim chadashot" is because it is like a new joy, and it is obvious that on Shabbat and Yom Tov a new joy is added because of the "neshamah yetirah," and it is the practice to increase joy and portions on Shabbat; and it follows that one recites the seven brachot, for certainly Shabbat is more significant than even the most significant "panim chadashot," as is proven in Tractate Shabbat, that Shabbat is greater than all guests [see there 119a: "Are you more important to us than she (the Shabbat)?"]

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that this applies specifically to the evening and morning meals, but not to the third meal, and such is the widespread custom. Thus far his words. And the reason is simple: just as regarding panim chadashot the importance of the joy on account of the guests is when they prepare more foods for them or when it is appropriate to prepare for them, so too on Shabbat in the evening and morning meals where they prepare important foods, they are considered like panim chadashot. However, in the third meal, it is not the way to increase important foods, and for the most part, they eat the third meal only to fulfill their obligation, and consequently, it does not have the importance of panim chadashot. However, according to the opinion in section 27, it is obvious that even in it one recites the seven blessings, but most of the poskim do not hold like this opinion, and our teacher, the Rema, did not bring it. Only if there is a place where they custom so is it according to this opinion, but he did not bring it as practical halacha for every place [see Chelkat Mechokek subsection 9, and according to what I wrote it is well-settled].

Regarding the matter of the third meal, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that now the custom in these lands is to recite the seven blessings at the third meal, and perhaps it is because it is common for "new faces" to arrive, and some say it is because it is common to deliver a sermon, and the sermon is considered like "new faces." Thus far his words. And behold, now it is not common to deliver a sermon, and even if "new faces" did not arrive, they recite the seven blessings; and perhaps in this they relied on the opinion in section 27. However, it appears that according to the law, it must be said according to our custom that when they perform the seven blessings at the third meal, they increase in good foods and in drink; consequently, it is no worse than the morning meal according to the reason we wrote in the previous section. Therefore, if they truly do not increase in foods and there are no "new faces" and they wish to recite the seven blessings – they should not recite them unless they say novel Torah insights at the table, and this will be in place of the sermon, and there is in this an extra joy, for "the mandates of Hashem are upright, gladdening the heart," and then it is possible to recite the seven blessings.

The seven days of feasting begin immediately after the seven blessings that were recited first, meaning from the blessings at the time of the huppah and not from the first meal. Therefore, when the huppah was during the day and afterwards the meal was at night, the day before the night is also counted within the seven days of feasting. And even if several days passed from the huppah until the first feast, such as if he performed the huppah and immediately traveled with his bride to another city and they remained on the way for several days, nevertheless, the seven are counted from the day of the huppah [Responsa of the Rosh, Klal 26]. And some say that these seven days require twenty-four hour periods from hour to hour, but it is an error, and thus the great later authorities agreed [Knesset HaGedolah and HaPla'ah].

It has already been explained that for a virgin there are seven days for the blessing, and for a widow one day—and specifically a widow to a widower, but a widow to a young man, seven days. And even though regarding joy some say that when she is a widow, even though he is a young man, the joy is not more than three days, as is written in siman 64, nevertheless, regarding the blessing it is seven if one of them is [new]—either when he is a young man even though she is a widow, or when she is a virgin even though he is a widower; for the joy depends only on her, as is written there, but the blessing depends on both of them.

And this, that for a widow to a widower there is one day for the blessing – the intention is for the first meal, and there is in this a leniency and a stringency. The leniency is that even if the meal was extended to the second or third day, since there was no meal until now, we bless the seven blessings. And the stringency – that if there were several meals on the day of the chuppah, we only bless at the first meal. And similarly, for a virgin, we do not bless the seven blessings at the second meal even if it is on the first day if there are no panim chadashot, but rather "Asher Bara" as has been written, and this is the opinion of most of the poskim. And there are those who are in doubt regarding a widow to a widower when the chuppah was during the day and the meal was at night, that they should not bless the seven blessings because the day of the blessing has already passed, but our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his book Bedek HaBayit, decided that we do bless, for you have no marriage without seven blessings at one meal. And even though "a doubt regarding blessings is judged leniently," nevertheless it seems that the custom is to bless, and especially if there was no yichud during the day fit for cohabitation, which is the essence of marriage for a widow as has been written in siman 64, for it is obvious that one should bless at night. And similarly, if the beginning of the meal was during the day, even though the end of the meal was at night, one should bless according to all opinions. And nevertheless, ab initio it is proper to strive that for a widower and a widow, the chuppah and the meal should be on the same day.

And from the wording of the Rambam that we brought in section 19, it appears that he rules regarding a widower and a widow, when there were no new people who did not hear the blessings at the chuppah for the first meal, that one does not say the seven blessings but only the blessing of "Asher Bara." For according to his approach, for a widower and a widow without panim chadashot there are no seven blessings, only Asher Bara. And just as with a virgin, when there are no panim chadashot who did not hear the blessings at the chuppah, one does not bless all seven days of the feast but only Asher Bara, so too with a widower and a widow on the first day; for the first day of a widow and the seven of a virgin are equal to one another. And in truth, according to the Rambam, it is possible that even with a virgin they would not bless the seven blessings at all except at the time of the chuppah when there are no panim chadashot who did not hear the blessings [see Beit Shmuel, subsection 5, who wrote that the Rambam holds that one blesses the entire day like the opinion in section 27, but it is impossible to say so, for he explicitly wrote specifically for people who did not hear the blessings, and "the first day" that he wrote is the language of the Shas and its meaning is the first meal; however, most poskim do not hold like the Rambam, as I have written].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: Some say that if the groom leaves his chuppah, even if his bride is with him, and they go to eat in another house, they do not recite the birkat chatanim there. This applies when his intention is to return afterwards to his chuppah, but if he goes entirely to another house and the entire company is with him and that house becomes the primary location—there too it is called a chuppah and they recite birkat chatanim. And so too, sometimes when the groom and bride go to another city, one must recite birkat chatanim there if it is within the seven days and his intention is not to return. Thus far his words. And the reason is because our sages, of blessed memory, said [Sukkah 25b] there is no joy except in the chuppah, implying that outside the place of the chuppah, joy is not applicable. Therefore, if they moved to another place temporarily, they do not recite the blessings, and even "Asher Bara" and "She-hasimcha Bime'ono" they do not recite [Tosafot ibid.]. And some say that they do recite "She-hasimcha Bime'ono," for according to the law of the Gemara, even before the chuppah they recite this, as will be explained [Ran].

However, this entire law was established only when there is a fixed place of chuppah for the chatan and the kallah with the groomsmen for all seven days of the feast, like the canopy they make in Ashkenaz as the Tur wrote, and this is one of the chuppot that we explained in siman 55; therefore, when they depart from there temporarily, there is no "simcha" there. But for us, where the chuppah is in the street and afterwards there is no fixed place for the seven days of the feast, the matter is simple: in every place where the chatan, the kallah, and the company assemble and eat and rejoice, that is like the place of the chuppah. Just as when one goes entirely to another house or another city without the intention to return, that place becomes the place of the chuppah as has been written, so too for us, since we are not accustomed to establishing a fixed place for the seven days of the feast, therefore to whichever place they assemble, that is the place of the simcha. And there are some of the great authorities who said further that even where there is a fixed canopy and they went temporarily to another place, even if their intention is to return to the place of the canopy, the exemption applies only when they eat in another place out of necessity, such as in a sukkah and the like, and they do not rejoice there at all. But if they rejoice there, such as when they invite the chatan, the kallah, and the company to a feast at the home of one of the friends or relatives—one recites the blessings there even if their intention is to return to the canopy [see Beit Shmuel subsection 13 and Taz]. And although the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch does not indicate this, nevertheless for us, as a matter of law, the ruling is certainly so, since we do not have a fixed canopy for all seven days of the feast. And regarding that which he wrote that when they go to another city that place becomes the fixed location, the matter is simple: specifically within seven days of the chuppah, but after seven days it is nothing. And there is one who wishes to say that if immediately after the chuppah they went to another place, that place becomes like the chuppah and they begin the seven days of the feast from the time they arrived there [see Beit Shmuel subsection 14], but there is no reason at all to say so, as I wrote in section 31, and so indicates the opinion of all the poskim, and this is the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, and so is the primary law. And know that the seven days of the feast are not subject to the rule of twenty-four hour periods; for example, if the chuppah was on Wednesday near evening, they continue until the end of the following Tuesday, and at the beginning of Wednesday night the seven days of the feast are nullified as they have already passed, and one does not recite the blessings or "She-ha-simcha bi-me'ono," and on Wednesday morning we recite Tachanun [and see Magen Avraham siman 131 subsection 12, but it is not so, and examine it closely].

The wedding party who did not all manage to eat together with the groom in one room and were divided into many houses, if some of them see one another—it is obvious that they are all obligated in the blessing of the grooms, and if they can all hear from the one reciting the blessing near the groom, they have all fulfilled their obligation, and if not, they shall bless by themselves when they are ten together; and even if they ate in houses that do not open to the place where the groom eats—they all recite the blessing of the grooms. This is not only if the attendants at the table of the groom also attend at their table, for since we hold in Orach Chaim siman 195 that the attendant joins for a zimun, all the more so regarding the matter that they are considered as one wedding feast, but even when there are other attendants at their table, since those in the other houses began to eat when those eating with the groom began—and not specifically at the same moment, but rather that they all came for the sake of the joy but because of the crowding of the place they separated by themselves into other rooms—they are all considered as one to recite the blessing of the grooms since they are all eating from the feast prepared for the wedding canopy. And since they are all unable to hear the blessings from the mouth of the one reciting the blessing at the table of the groom, they shall therefore recite the seven blessings by themselves. And even though the groom and the bride will not hear the blessings from the mouths of these, nevertheless this is nothing; for that which they are accustomed to also bring the bride to hear the blessings is not an absolute requirement but a beautiful custom, because since the blessing is for the success of both of them, it is proper that they stand to hear the blessings, but it is not an absolute requirement [Yam Shel Shlomo] [see Taz Orach Chaim siman 195 subsection 3].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: Regarding the attendants who eat after the wedding feast – some say they do not recite the seven blessings, and some say they do recite them, and toward this opinion the mind inclines. Thus far his words. And it appears that they do not disagree in the law, for certainly if the attendants eat afterward only to satisfy their hunger and without the splendor of a table to gladden the groom and bride, such as singing before them or dancing and all similar things, this is not like a wedding feast and they do not need to recite the blessings. However, if they eat with splendor for the honor of the groom and bride, they are no worse than other guests and must recite the wedding blessings; even though they begin to eat after the conclusion of the table of the members of the canopy, nevertheless, in the end, it is the groom's feast. And this matter must be understood according to the context [and in the Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 20, he decided that they should not recite the blessings, only "she-hasimcha bime'ono," see there; and according to our words, there is no dispute here].

The blessing of "she-ha-simcha bi-me'ono" is not a blessing unto itself and is included at the beginning of the zimun blessing, and one says "Let us bless [Him] in whose abode is joy, of whose [bounty] we have eaten," and with ten "Let us bless our G-d in whose abode is joy, etc." And there are those who err and say "in whose abode is joy AND of whose [bounty] we have eaten" – and it is an error, for one does not bless over the joy but rather over the eating, but rather one mentions of the matter "Let us bless our G-d in whose abode is joy," meaning that the joy is not ours but from His abode; with what shall we bless? We shall bless Him with that which we have eaten of His [bounty], but one does not bless with that which they rejoice, for this is not relevant to the matter of the eating of Birkat HaMazon, and furthermore, it should have said "that they rejoice from His abode," but rather it is a narration of things to mention of its matter.

The reason they say the expression "in whose dwelling" is because from there the Holy One, Blessed be He, blesses Israel, as it is written: "Look down from Your holy dwelling, from heaven, and bless Your people" etc. (Deuteronomy 26:15), and in the prayer of Moses (Psalms 90:1) it says: "O Lord, You have been a dwelling for us in every generation." And there is the primary song of the ministering angels at night, while by day they are silent for the sake of the honor of Israel (Chagigah 12b); therefore, we mention this at the time of the joy of marriage. And it was not instituted for any seudat mitzvah except for marriage. One of the great authorities wanted them to say it at the time of a completion of a tractate, for there is no joy like the joy of the Torah, and he ruled so, but the joy was disrupted in great places, and he attributed the matter to the fact that he wished to innovate something that our predecessors, of blessed memory, did not institute (Yam Shel Shelomo, Bava Kamma, Chapter 7, Section 37). And it appears to me the reason is that, on the contrary, they specifically instituted it for marriage because when we reflect, there is no complete joy in marriage; for if man were to endure as an individual, he would not need marriage and to establish offspring. Since man only endures as a species, he is forced to marry and procreate because his end is to die and his offspring will remain in his place. Therefore, one of the sages broke an expensive glass at his son's wedding canopy, and there was one who said, "Woe to us that we die, woe to us that we die" (Berakhot 31a). The intention is as I have written. Therefore, we say "that joy is in His dwelling," meaning that in this world there is no complete joy, and only above is there complete joy, as it is written: "Strength and gladness are in His place" (I Chronicles 16:27). But the study of Torah is a complete joy in this world, as we learned in Avot: "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the life of the world to come," and certainly the study of Torah, which is equivalent to all the mitzvot; therefore, one should not say then "that joy is in His dwelling," for even we have complete joy then. At a seudat brit milah, we also do not say it because of the pain of the infant (Ketubot 8a). Regarding a seudat pidyon haben, some say they should bless "that joy is in His dwelling" (Yam Shel Shelomo, ibid.), but our teacher, the Rema, in Yoreh Deah siman 305, wrote not to bless, see there, and such is the custom.

And since it is not a blessing unto itself, therefore we recite it even not during the seven days of the feast, but rather whenever they make meals on account of the wedding. Therefore, one who dines in the house of grooms from the time they begin to engage in the needs of the marriage during the meals and to prepare them, we recite "she-hasimcha bime'ono," and those assembled also answer "blessed is He in whose abode is joy" or "blessed is our G-d" when there are ten assembled. And we recite it until thirty days after the marriage, whether he invites them ordinarily or whether he invites them for the sake of the wedding. And from thirty days onwards until twelve months from the time of the marriage, if he invites them to eat for the sake of the chuppah, which is to say for the sake of the joy of the marriage, they say "she-hasimcha bime'ono," but if he invites them ordinarily, they do not say it. And at a meal of erusin they do not say it [Beit Yosef], though some say that we do recite the blessing. And that which has been explained, that even before the chuppah we recite the blessing, this is in a place where they perform kiddushin a long time before, for since the erusin have already occurred, they recite "she-hasimcha bime'ono" immediately when they begin to prepare as I have written. However, in our countries where they perform kiddushin at the time of the chuppah, they do not recite the blessing before the chuppah, and even at the meal they make on the night before the chuppah they do not say "she-hasimcha bime'ono," since there is not even kiddushin here yet [Darkhei Moshe in the name of the Kol Bo]. And these laws apply to a virgin.

All of this is according to the law of the Shas, but nowadays, due to our many sins, all joy has darkened and we do not say "she-hasimcha bime'ono" except during the seven days of feasting, and not before the chuppah nor after the seven days, even if he makes a meal explicitly for the sake of the marriage and even within thirty days. And even during the seven days of feasting—specifically when he invites others, but if he eats only with the members of his household, they do not recite "she-hasimcha bime'ono," as I wrote regarding the blessing of "asher bara." And regarding a widower who married a widow, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, decided based on his own reasoning that since with a virgin, according to the law of the Gemara, they say it even after the seven days of feasting, therefore during the three days of joy for a widow they say "she-hasimcha bime'ono," but they shall not say "asher bara," as I wrote in section 22.