Siman 174

Even though all liquids that one drinks during a meal do not require a blessing, as will be explained, nevertheless, over wine one must recite a blessing. And even wine that one drinks during a meal which is to soak the food in the intestines, and is like things that come because of the meal which the blessing of 'Hamotzi' exempts, nevertheless one must recite 'Borei Peri HaGafen'. And the reason the Sages, of blessed memory, stated in Berakhot (42a): Wine is different, for it causes a blessing for itself, as in several places it comes and one recites a blessing over it even though they did not need its drinking (Rashi), such as in Kiddush and Havdalah and the blessing of betrothal and marriage. And one should not ask that if so, Birkat HaMazon should also not exempt the final blessing for this reason, for it is not comparable, as Birkat HaMazon exempts even things that do not come because of the meal, which is not the case for the initial blessing (Rashba). And the reason seems to me to be because Birkat HaMazon is from the Torah, and furthermore, the importance belongs to the initial blessing, and the final one comes automatically because of the obligation of the drinking (so it seems to me is the intention of the Ramban in the chapter 'Arvei Pesachim', and the Gra"z labored over this in the Kuntres Acharon, see there; and what he wrote from Tosafot there 103b s.v. 'R. Eliezer' is a wonder to me, for we do not rule there like R. Eliezer but like Mar Zutra, and the previous answer is simpler, and delve into it).

Wine has further importance, for just as bread exempts all types of food in the meal, so too wine exempts all types of drinks (Gemara ibid.), even from the initial blessing and even when not during the meal, for during the meal there is no need for the wine as the bread exempts them. For just as bread has the quality of sustaining, so too wine has the quality of gladdening, as it is written: "And wine gladdens the heart of man, and bread sustains the heart of man." And it appears to me that this is specifically when they sat to drink in a fixed manner like with bread, and with wine there is also a fixed manner as I wrote in siman 213. And some say that it is specifically when the other drinks are before him, but otherwise it does not exempt (Taz subsection 2 in the name of the Mordechai). And some say that even if they were not before him, if his intention was upon them—it exempts (the HaGra"z) when he sat in a fixed manner to drink the wine (Dagam"r). And I saw one who wrote that even if he does not fix himself to drink wine but drinks a little wine for the purpose of a mitzvah, such as kiddush and havdalah, and drinks many drinks afterward, they are exempted by the blessing of the wine if his intention was upon them (the HaGra"z). And in my humble opinion it appears that without a fixed manner it does not exempt, for behold the Gemara likens it to bread, and with bread there is a fixed manner. However, kiddush and havdalah are called a fixed manner, for kiddush certainly is a fixed manner, as there is no kiddush except in the place of a meal, and even havdalah is also called a fixed manner, as the Tosafot wrote in Berakhot (43a starting with "Ho'il" see there), and so it appears to me as the primary law (and I found this in the Mordechai in the chapter "Keitzad Mevarkhin" see there, and so it is explicit in the Or Zarua HaGadol siman 155).

And know that I have not found in the Rambam or in the Tur this law that wine exempts all types of drinks, and I do not know why, for it is an explicit Gemara in Berakhot (41b) and in Chullin (111b). Only our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote this law in section 2, and also the Rosh ruled accordingly in chapter 6 (siman 26), and likewise the Ri of blessed memory ruled there accordingly. And it seems to me that according to the sugya of the Shas the halacha is not so, for thus it is stated there: "It was stated, they brought before them figs and grapes during the meal: Rav Huna said: one recites a blessing before them... and he disagrees with Rabbi Chiyya, for Rabbi Chiyya said bread exempts... and wine exempts" see there. And we hold like Rav Huna, and consequently the halacha is not like Rabbi Chiyya. However, the Rosh and the Ri of blessed memory wrote there that although regarding bread the halacha is not like Rabbi Chiyya, regarding wine the halacha is like him, see there, but the Rambam and the Tur do not hold so. And in truth I do not understand the opinion of the Rosh and the Ri of blessed memory, for just as bread does not exempt figs and grapes because they are not part of the meal, so too it is obvious that other drinks are not part of the wine, and why should it exempt them according to us who do not hold like Rabbi Chiyya regarding bread. And one must say that the Rosh and the Ri of blessed memory hold that there is a closer proximity of other drinks to wine than there is a proximity of figs and grapes to bread. And also from the words of the Rif it appears that he does not hold so, for he wrote: "And he disagrees with Rabbi Chiyya etc.", and if it entered your mind that regarding wine he ruled like him, he should have explained, but certainly he rejected it from the halacha. And perforce one must say so, for if not so, why did he write at all this: "And he disagrees with Rabbi Chiyya," for if regarding figs and grapes, he already brought the words of Rav Huna, but certainly because of wine he wrote this, meaning that also in this we do not hold like Rabbi Chiyya. And according to this it would be a legal doubt, but automatically we follow the lenient path in a doubt regarding a rabbinic law. And the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot established it as halacha, see there in chapter 6, and so ruled the Or Zarua HaGadol (siman 155), but our teachers the Tosafot wrote there that even regarding wine the halacha is not like Rabbi Chiyya, see there (and there is room to doubt if those who hear the blessing 'borei peri hagafen' and fulfill their obligation through his blessing, if for them too it exempts all types of drinks from a blessing when they did not drink from the cup of the blessing, and see Tosafot Pesachim 100b s.v. 'v'Ri').

If one was sitting at a meal and has wine for only one cup, he should not drink it during the meal, but rather leaves it until after the food and recites the blessing over the cup and drinks it afterward, even if the cup came to him beforehand (Turei Zahav subsection 3). Nevertheless, there is one who says that if he is thirsty to drink it, and we do not practice the custom of a cup for birkat hamazon, and he holds like the one who says birkat hamazon does not require a cup, and our teacher, the Rema, ruled later at the end of siman 197 that according to the Torah when one is thirsty to drink he is not obligated in birkat hamazon, see there, if so, it is better that he drink it before birkat hamazon (Magen Avraham subsection 2).

Our sages, of blessed memory, said that wine before the meal exempts wine during the meal and after the meal, meaning after they have withdrawn their hands from the bread to drink wine and eat fruits before birkat hamazon. For us, there is no law of "after the meal," because we are not accustomed to this and we do not withdraw our hands from the bread until birkat hamazon, and it will be explained in siman 177; therefore, for us, everything is considered "during the meal." Wine during the meal does not exempt wine after the meal, and the reason is: wine before the meal and after the meal comes for drinking, and that of during the meal is only to soak the food in the intestines, and drinking is more significant than soaking; therefore, that which comes for drinking exempts that which comes for soaking, and not the reverse, for that which is not significant does not exempt that which is significant. And for us, there is no "after the meal" as I have written, and that which has been explained—that one must recite a blessing over wine during the meal—this is when he did not drink beforehand.

That which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 4: "If one established himself to drink before the meal—he does not need to recite a blessing over wine that is within the meal etc.", it is not specifically "established," for the same law applies without establishing, and this "establishing" means that his intention was to drink within the meal, to exclude a case where he had no intention to drink at all within the meal but afterwards changed his mind to drink; the wine before the meal does not exempt it since his intention was not to drink at all (Taz, sub-section 4), but establishing is not required. And only if he drank before the meal does it exempt the wine that he will drink within the meal and after the meal when his intention was to drink.

And similarly, the wine of kiddush and havdalah exempts the wine within the meal. And it is not only necessary to state this regarding kiddush, which is related to the meal, but even havdalah, which has no relation to the meal; nevertheless, if at the time he performed havdalah his intention was to eat immediately and to drink wine within the meal—the wine of havdalah exempts it, for it is no worse than wine before a meal on a weekday which exempts, and what is the deficiency of havdalah. Nevertheless, there are those who say that havdalah is worse, for granted on a weekday when he drinks of his own will before the meal it is called "wine before the meal," but havdalah, which he is obligated to drink for the sake of a mitzvah, has no relation to the meal at all, and it is not similar to kiddush which is only in the place of a meal. And this opinion holds that the wine of havdalah does not exempt unless he washed his hands for eating before havdalah, and this is not an interruption between the washing of hands and "Hamotzi" since his intention is to eat. And it is not specifically that he washed his hands, for even if he did not wash his hands but rather established himself for a meal (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). Therefore, one who performs havdalah before washing and before establishing himself for the meal, namely during the setting of the table for eating, should intend not to exempt the wine within the meal. However, if he did not intend so, he should not recite a blessing, for a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently in rabbinic blessings.

And if he did not drink wine before the meal—he recites the blessing during the meal over the first cup that he drinks, and based on this blessing he may drink throughout the entire meal without a blessing, just as the blessing over the bread exempts the entire meal. And it is not similar to the first night of Pesach where one recites the blessing "borei peri hagafen" over every cup, for there the drinking is not during the meal. However, this is when his intention was to drink more aside from the first cup, but if his intention was not to drink more and afterwards he reconsidered to drink more—he requires another blessing, and so always. And in all matters the law is so, whether with fruits or with bread, for example if one bought a loaf of bread to eat it and ate it and afterwards reconsidered to buy another loaf—he must recite the blessing "hamotzi." And only regarding bread for a homeowner in his house does this not apply, for there is no set limit for bread and his intention is upon everything he will eat (Taz, subsection 6). But regarding wine which is for pleasure, there is even for a homeowner in his house a case where he does not want to drink more than one cup and afterwards he changes his mind and drinks another cup—it requires a blessing for itself. However, in an ordinary case where he did not think at all whether to drink more or not to drink, it depends on the matter: if this man is constantly accustomed to drinking several cups during the meal, he does not need to recite a blessing in an ordinary case, and if he is not accustomed, he must recite a blessing.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5: "And so too, one who comes to a meal and they extend many cups to him — he blesses over each and every one, for it is considered a change of mind." Thus far his words. This means that initially Reuven extended to him and he blessed and drank, and afterwards Shimon extended to him — he must bless. But if they give to him all at once before he blessed over the first, it is obvious that one blessing is for all of them; and so too, if he knows that they will give him more cups, he blesses over the first and exempts all of them, and everything follows the reasoning that we explained, as is understood.

He further wrote: "And so too, one who recited the blessing over the cup of the marriage blessings and does not know to whom the cup will reach, each one must recite the blessing, for it is called 'changing one's mind.'" Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote similarly at the end of siman 190; see there. And these matters require explanation, for surely regarding the cup of kiddush and havdalah and the cup of the blessing of the invitation, everyone tastes from the cup without a blessing, as they fulfill their obligation through the blessing of the one who recites it, and even when each one has his cup before him they fulfill their obligation through the blessing of the one who recites it, as is proven in Pesachim (106a); see there. However, the matter is as follows: certainly regarding a blessing in which each of those reclining must fulfill his obligation, such as the cup of kiddush and havdalah and the cup of the blessing of the invitation, all those reclining intend to fulfill their obligation and the one reciting the blessing intends to fulfill it for them. But regarding the marriage blessings, that is, the seven blessings or 'Asher Bara' where there is no obligation upon those reclining, it is only if those reclining are few, such that each one knows the cup will reach him, that they intend to fulfill their obligation and the one reciting the blessing intends to fulfill it for them. But when those reclining are many and they know that the cup will not reach all of them, consequently there is no intention here, neither from the one reciting the blessing nor from the listeners, and therefore each one must recite the blessing. And among us the custom is that the one reciting the blessing gives to those close to him and they do not recite the blessing, for such was their intention from the beginning; and see what I wrote at the end of siman 190.

And even though regarding the first blessing the bread does not exempt the wine as we have written, nevertheless, regarding the final blessing, Birkat HaMazon exempts it, and the reason we explained in section 1. And even the wine before the meal does not require a final blessing, for Birkat HaMazon exempts it, as it is also considered part of the meal because it comes to open the intestines to draw out the appetite for food (Magen Avraham sub-section 9, and see there section 8; and it requires further study, for during the meal this reason is not necessary), and even if he did not drink during the meal. And also wine that comes after the meal, Birkat HaMazon also exempts it, for wine also sustains and is like bread (ibid.). And according to this, the previous reason is not necessary at all; however, in truth we do not rely on this reason alone, as is understood, but since he drinks it before Birkat HaMazon, this reason serves as a combination, and it has already been explained that for us there is no law of "after the meal." And even though Birkat HaMazon exempts wine before the meal, nevertheless, regarding Havdalah, if it exempts it from a final blessing when he ate immediately, there is a dispute, and it will be explained in siman 299, for Havdalah is different as it is not related to the meal at all. But on a weekday when he takes wine or another drink before the meal, his intention is to open the intestines as we have written (see Magen Avraham sub-section 10).

Everything that has been explained applies to wine, but water or other liquids when one drinks during the meal—one does not need to recite a blessing before them, for this is all on account of the meal, as there is no eating without drinking and everyone knows that it is the way to drink water or other liquids during the meal. And the blessing of 'Hamotzi' exempts them even if one did not recite a blessing over them before the meal, for behold, wine would also not have required a blessing during the meal, except that because of its importance they required a blessing as I wrote in section 1, but this is not so regarding other liquids and they all belong to the meal. And I saw one who wrote that brandy does not come to stimulate the appetite for food and one must recite a blessing over it (ibid. subsection 11), and I do not know the explanation for this and it is a denial of the senses, and in our time everyone knows that brandy is only to stimulate the appetite for food and to restore the heart's strength for eating, and one does not need to recite a blessing over it and such is the custom of the whole world, and it is simple and one should not change it.

And even though most of our teachers agreed thus, and the Rashba wrote in Berakhot (41b) that thus Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam and all the great figures of France were accustomed to drink during the meal without a blessing, nevertheless, some say to bless over water during the meal, for only regarding wine, since it sustains, did the Sages of blessed memory say that were it not for its importance it would not require a blessing; but water has no connection to the meal and one must bless over it, and likewise over all types of drinks. And there are those who are even more stringent to bless over them every time one drinks water, for presumably he changes his mind every time. And regarding other drinks it is not relevant to say this, for only water, because it has no taste, does he change his mind, but beer and honey-water he does not change his mind (Magen Avraham, subsection 13). And one who wishes to fulfill these opinions and remove himself from doubt should sit before netilat yadayim in the place of his meal and bless 'shehakol' over water or whiskey, and intend with the mindset to drink during the meal, and therefore many are scrupulous to take a little whiskey before taking his hands. And this is merely for extra preference, but the primary law is that one does not need to bless 'shehakol' over water and other drinks, and not only that, but even if he was thirsty before his eating and drinks during the meal, which seemingly is not related to the meal since he was thirsty beforehand, nevertheless he does not need to bless. And the reason why he did not drink before the meal is because he was afraid that he would be harmed by this, and during the meal he will not be harmed; if so, it is a need of the meal, and so is the simple custom (see Taz, subsection 10, who wrote also that one must bless over whiskey, and the Ateret Zekenim wrote in the name of the Gaon our teacher, the Rav Feivish, that the whiskey should be on the table and then one does not need to bless, as the Ba'er Heitev wrote in subsection 8, and they held that whiskey is not related to eating at all. But the times have changed and in our days we do not know another way, and for us the whiskey is only for the time of eating to draw out the desire for food, and one does not need to bless, and so is the simple custom).

There are those who are uncertain when one drinks a revit in before the meal whether he must recite a concluding berakhah, and if we say he must, then that which has been explained—that in order to satisfy all opinions one should drink before the meal—necessarily refers to drinking less than a revit, for if he drinks a revit he would recite a concluding berakhah, and how then would it exempt what is within the meal? However, from what has been explained that Birkat HaMazon exempts wine [drunk] before the meal, it follows that there is no need to recite a concluding berakhah because it comes to open the intestines, as I wrote in section 11, and so it is with all beverages (Taz, subsection 9). And there is one who wrote that only wine comes to open the intestines and not other beverages, and one must recite a concluding berakhah (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). But it is known to us that other beverages also come to open the intestines, and particularly whiskey, which increases the desire for eating as is known; however, since whiskey is strong, it is anyway difficult to drink a revit before the meal. But the primary ruling is that even with a revit there is no need for a concluding berakhah (see Taz at the end of siman 177). And this is not comparable to Havdalah in siman 299, for Havdalah has no connection at all to the meal, as I wrote in section 7, see there. And so too the beverage coffee settles the food and is related to the meal and is exempt from a berakhah, but tea is not part of the meal and one must recite a berakhah (and also the Gr"z in siman 176 wrote that whiskey is like wine, see there).

Even though when many are reclining together they can all fulfill their obligation through the blessing of the one who blesses, nevertheless, regarding the blessing over wine during the meal when they are required to bless over it—for example, if they did not drink before the meal—each and every one blesses for himself and they do not rely on the blessing of the one who blesses and their answering "amen." This is because everyone is occupied with eating, and there is danger in speaking lest the windpipe precede the esophagus, as is written in siman 170; and furthermore, because of the eating, they do not hear the blessing. Regarding this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 8: That there are those who say that if the one who blesses says before the blessing: "Savri Rabbotai," meaning, "give your attention to hear the blessing," that you intend to fulfill your obligation with my blessing so that they will not eat and will hear the blessing and intend to fulfill the obligation and answer "amen," in such a case, one blesses for everyone. And so we practice, that in every place where they bless over wine, they say "Savri" and not "Birshut," for "Birshut" is only the requesting of permission for the sake of derech eretz and so that they hear the blessing, and so they say over all liquids when they fulfill their obligation through the blessing of the one who blesses, except for wine where they say "Savri," because of the reason of wine during the meal as has been explained (and what the Magen Avraham wrote in sub-section 16 we have already explained there, see there and examine carefully).

In the times of the Shas, they would bring a mugmar after the meal so that a pleasant scent would rise, and we learned in the Mishnah: "And he says [the blessing] over the mugmar," meaning he recites a blessing. Rashi explained: That the one who blessed over the wine blesses over the mugmar, because since he began with the final blessings, he completes them. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur, that he who blesses over the wine after the food blesses over the mugmar, and the Geonim explained that it refers to the one who blessed 'Hamotzi'. And this is all when they bring the mugmar before birkat hamazon, but when they brought it after birkat hamazon, the one who recited birkat hamazon blesses (Magen Avraham subsection 17 in the name of the Maor). And some say that the greatest among them blesses, for even though he gave permission to another to recite birkat hamazon, nevertheless, it afterwards returns to him (ibid. in the name of the Ra'avad). And even though among us there is no mugmar at all and we know nothing of this, nevertheless, there is a practical application for other matters to learn from this law (and behold, in this siman the laws of beverages within the meal were explained, whether they require a blessing or not, and in siman 177 the laws of foods will be explained, regarding which one must bless, see there).