Siman 175

It is stated in Berakhot (59b): For a change of wine one does not need to recite a blessing [...]. But one says "Blessed is He Who is good and does good." And Rashi explained: If one drank wine during a meal, and they brought him another wine better than the first – he does not need to recite the blessing "Who creates the fruit of the vine." Thus far his words. And it is clear from his words that the blessing of "the Good and He Who does good" is only over wine better than this one. And similarly wrote the Rambam in the fourth chapter, law 9, and this is his wording: If they were reclining to drink wine, and another type of wine came to them, such as if they were drinking red and they brought black, or old and they brought new – they do not need to recite the blessing of the wine a second time. But they recite: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who is good and does good." Thus far his words. And certainly the Rambam would agree with Rashi that another wine that is better is no less than another type. And also Rashi would agree with the Rambam, obviously. And so it is explained in the Yerushalmi at the end of the sixth chapter of Berakhot: Old wine, new wine – one must recite a blessing. A change of wine – one does not need to recite a blessing... Rabbi, over every single barrel that he would open, he would recite a blessing over it. And what would he say? "Blessed is He Who is good and does good...". Thus far his words. And the barrels were different from one another, either better than the previous one according to the explanation of Rashi, or another type according to the explanation of the Rambam. And the matter of this blessing: for even though regarding all types of foods, and all types of drinks, there is one blessing for all the particulars within that type – even for those more excellent than the previous ones, such as one who recites a blessing over a type of food and they brought before him two types, and he recited the blessing over the inferior one, he exempts even the one better than it, or if this one is white and this one is black – in any case he exempts. Yet only regarding wine did they institute this because of its importance, for because of this they established for it a specific blessing. And even though bread is also so, nevertheless wine gladdens the heart of man, and one only recites song over wine. Furthermore: in Yavne they instituted "the Good and He Who does good" in the Grace After Meals because of the slain of Beitar (Berakhot 48b), and it is stated in Gittin (57a) that they harvested their vineyards for seven years from the blood of the slain. Therefore they instituted this blessing also over a change of wine (beginning of the ninth chapter, siman 15). And the meaning of "the Good and He Who does good" regarding a change of wine is not like "the Good and He Who does good" that is in the Grace After Meals: "the Good" – that they did not decompose, "and He Who does good" – that they were given over for burial. For what is its relevance here? Rather its meaning is like "the Good and He Who does good" when one's wife gave birth to a male, and similar cases that will be explained in siman 223, whose meaning is that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is good and does good to His creatures. And in the Grace After Meals they instituted such a thing regarding the slain of Beitar, meaning: that even at the time of the dominance of the strong judgment as with the slain of Beitar, nevertheless He, may He be blessed, is good and does good in the matter of the retribution as well, and that is that they did not decompose and were given over for burial. But here its meaning is simple, as I have written.

And behold, according to Rashi and the Rambam, this blessing is only for wine better than the previous one or of a different type. And so wrote the Ba'ag in the laws of kiddush, and this is his wording: From bad wine to good wine, one says "Blessed is He who is good and does good." See there. And so wrote the Rashbam in Pesachim (100a), and this is his wording: A change of wine, where they brought him from another barrel, and it has a different taste, whether inferior or superior—one does not need to bless again over the wine. But "He who is good and does good" one blesses if it is superior to the first... Thus far his words (see the Or Zarua HaGadol siman 157). But the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote in the name of our teacher Tam that even over inferior wine one must bless "He who is good and does good," because the blessing is over the abundance of wines. And he explains in the Yerushalmi that we cited that Rabbi disagrees with the previous one who said specifically old and new, but rather over every barrel that he opened he would bless, whether better than the previous or inferior to the previous, provided it is not much inferior. And the Tosafot themselves wrote that only when there is a doubt whether it is better than the first or not—one must bless. And such is the incident involving Rabbi in the Yerushalmi. But when it is certainly inferior—one does not bless. And such is the implied opinion of the Rosh, see there. And I do not understand how doubt applies to a matter that can be clarified and tasted. And it requires further study. And the Rashba in Berakhot there agreed with the interpretation of our teacher Tam, because one only blesses over the abundance of the wine, see there. And the Tur brought both opinions. And see in section 4.

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote only the opinion of the Tosafot. This is their wording in section 2: One recites the blessing "ha-tov ve-ha-metiv" over any change of wine as a matter of course, even if he does not know that the second is superior to the first, as long as he does not know that it is inferior to it. And there is no difference whether both are new, or one is new and one is old. And even if he drank from it within thirty days. Thus far their words. That is to say: because there are those who say that within thirty days of its drinking the wine is not beloved, and one should not recite a blessing over it at all; they come to teach us that it is not so, for there is wine that even if one drinks it regularly, it is beloved to a person. And it is simple that this refers to when it is better than the first, for they do not follow the approach of our teacher Tam that one recites the blessing even over that which is certainly inferior, but rather like the approach of the Tosafot and the Rosh, that it is specifically when it is unknown. And here, since he drank from it within thirty days—behold, he knows which wine it is. Therefore, one must say as I have written. And regarding new and old, one must also say that first he drank the new and afterwards the old (and so wrote the Atteret Zekenim); or, for example, that this new one is better than the previous old one, such as when it is of a better species than the previous one. (And the Levush wrote the reason: because the essence of the blessing is only over their abundance, see there. And his words are puzzling: for this is only according to the approach of our teacher Tam, and they ruled like the Tosafot. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

And I am astonished at our teachers, how they completely omitted the opinion of four pillars of the world: Rashi, and the Rambam, and the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot, and the Rashbam. For it is understandable why they omitted the opinion of Rabbenu Tam and the Rashba, because regarding a doubt in blessings, one is lenient. But for this very reason, they should have ruled that one only recites a blessing over that which is better, according to the opinion of the four fathers of the world. And at the very least, they should have brought their opinion in any case. Especially since the reasoning of our teachers, the Tosafists and the Rosh, is not understood, as I wrote in section 2, for it is possible to taste it. And it must be said that the reasoning of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, is as follows: just as regarding a Torah law we say a double doubt leads to leniency, so too regarding a rabbinic law we say a double doubt leads to stringency. And here, when it is not known if it is better than the first, there is a double doubt: perhaps it is better than the first, and if you should say it is not better, perhaps the halacha is like Rabbenu Tam and the Rashba, that one recites a blessing even over that which is inferior. And perhaps also the reasoning of the Tosafists and the Rosh is also similar to this: that therefore they did not require tasting beforehand, for since the opinion of Rabbenu Tam is that one recites a blessing even over that which is inferior—we are not obligated to taste; for even if it will be inferior, we may rely on the great opinion of Rabbenu Tam, because the plain meaning of the language of the Yerushalmi regarding that of Rabbi implies this, since the Yerushalmi did not say that Rabbi required tasting.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: If they brought them another wine—one does not recite the blessing "borei peri ha-gafen," but one recites over it "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv." And it is not specifically that they brought it to them anew; rather, the law is the same if they had two wines from the beginning—one recites over the second "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv." Thus far his words. And in section 3 he wrote: If they brought him a poor wine and a good wine together—he should immediately recite "borei peri ha-gafen" over the good one and exempt the poor one. And he should not recite "borei peri ha-gafen" over the poor one first in order to recite "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv" after it, for one must always recite the blessing over the primary and the preferred item first. Thus far his words. That is to say: even when they are fulfilled with one blessing—one must prioritize the primary and the preferred item, to perform the blessing over it as will be explained in siman 211. And certainly here, for if he recites the blessing over the good one—he will no longer require a blessing. But if he recites the blessing over the poor one—he will require another blessing, and one should not cause an unnecessary blessing. And that which he wrote in section 1, that if they brought two wines from the beginning one recites over the second "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv," it can be said that his intention is not that the two wines were before him at the time of the blessing, but rather that they brought the second after the blessing.

And this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote regarding this: And specifically when they were not before him together when he recited the blessing "borei pri hagafen." But if they were together—he need only recite "borei pri hagafen," as will be explained in section 3. Thus far his words, and his intention is as I have written. However, even this we do not need, for it can be explained that they were together at the time of the blessing, but they were of two types, such as black and red and the like, and both are good; and perforce he must recite "borei pri hagafen" over one, and over the second "hatov vehametiv" (and the implication of the language written by the Taz in subsection 4 is settled). And there is one who wishes to say that ab initio he should recite the blessing over the inferior one so that he may afterwards recite "hatov vehametiv" over the good one (ibid.). And he compares this to what will be explained in siman 211, that if they brought two things, one whose blessing is "shehakol" and one "borei pri ha'etz," that he should not first recite "shehakol" and exclude the blessing of the tree. And this is no comparison at all: for there the fixed blessing is "ha'etz," whereas here the blessing over both of them is "borei pri hagafen." Therefore, the main point is as I have written. However, when it is not known which is the good one and which is the inferior one—he certainly recites "borei pri hagafen" over one and over the second "hatov vehametiv" according to what they ruled like the Tosafot and the Rosh, as I have written. (And so wrote the Taz ibid., and this is certainly so.)

And regarding what has been explained, that when one brings another wine he recites the blessing "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv," our teacher, the Rema, wrote: Even though he no longer has any of the first. Thus far his words. That is to say: it is not only necessary to state this when the first is still present, but even if they already drank all of the first wine. For there are those who say that in truth one does not recite "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv" since they did not bring the second due to a change of wine, but rather because the first was finished (Magen Avraham subsection 1 in the name of the Ra'avad and Radbaz). He comes to teach us that it is not so. And behold, this is certainly when their intention was previously on the second, for if not so, behold, one must recite "borei pri ha-gafen" over the second as with all fruits, as will be explained in siman 211. Rather, it is certainly as I have written. (And according to this, it would be possible to say that they do not disagree, but it does not imply so from the Magen Avraham there. And the Magen Avraham was concerned for the opinion of those who disagree, see there. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

The Maharil wrote: Some say that one does not recite the blessing "ha-tov ve-ha-metiv" on the night of Pesah, so as not to increase the cups. Thus far his words. And behold, certainly his intention is not regarding the four cups, for one must recite "borei peri ha-gafen" over each one, and there is no blessing of "ha-tov ve-ha-metiv" here. Furthermore: what is this that he said, "so as not to increase the cups"? Rather, his intention is regarding wine during the meal, which one is permitted to drink as much as he desires and does not require a blessing. And regarding this he says that one should not recite "ha-tov ve-ha-metiv," for when there is a blessing it appears as if he is adding to the cups (Mahatzit HaShekel). And there is one who says that he should be careful to bring from the same kind that he drank previously. But if he brought another kind, he must perforce recite "ha-tov ve-ha-metiv," since it is the law of the Gemara. (Magen Avraham. And it requires further study what he wrote, that in Birkat HaMazon one does not need to recite "ha-tov ve-ha-metiv," for they said this regarding Birkat HaMazon, see there. And behold, in any case it works out well, for one must recite "borei peri ha-gafen," and how could he recite two blessings? Examine it and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 that one should not recite the blessing "ha-tov ve-ha-metiv" unless there is another with him. For this is the implication: He is good to him and does good to his fellow. And the law is the same if his wife and children are with him. But if he is alone – no. Thus far his words. For such is the law regarding every blessing of "ha-tov ve-ha-metiv," as I wrote in siman 223. And even though in birkat ha-mazon one recites it even alone, this is not of the same matter as the "ha-tov ve-ha-metiv" in birkat ha-mazon, as I wrote in section 1. And if a homeowner drinks with a guest – the homeowner shall recite the blessing and not the guest, because the wine is his. But two guests, and the homeowner is not with them – they shall recite the blessing (see Taz). And there is one who says that a guest with a homeowner – even the homeowner shall not recite the blessing, for we require that the other have a portion in this (Magen Avraham subsection 4). And his wife and children, since they are at his table – it is considered as if they also have a portion in this and they recite the blessing (ibid.). And so too if the homeowner places a jug of wine on the table for the guests to drink – it is as if he gave them the wine, and it is considered like theirs and they recite the blessing (ibid.).

If they were reclining to drink—one recites the blessing for all of them, for "in a multitude of people is the King's glory." But if they were sitting at a meal—each one recites "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" for himself and one should not recite the blessing for all of them, for we fear that since they are occupied with eating, perhaps the windpipe will precede the esophagus, and they will come to danger by their answering "Amen." And furthermore: when they are eating, no one pays attention to the blessing of his fellow, which is not the case regarding drinking without eating. And even according to the one who holds in siman 213 that there is no formal establishing for drinking, and regarding the blessing of "Borei Peri HaGafen" one does not exempt his fellow, nevertheless, regarding "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" one exempts his fellow (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 8), since this is not the primary blessing of the wine.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: Wine from two barrels, and all of it is of one type, if within forty days of its harvest they placed it into two vessels—they are considered as two types, and one recites over it "HaTov VeHaMeitiv." But if after forty days they divided it—one does not recite the blessing over it, since it is all of one type. Thus far his words. And it appears that this is because within forty days it is possible for the taste to be different from one another, but not after forty days. And we are not experts in this, for in our countries wine is not common. And know that the opinion of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, is that even over two types of bread one recites "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" (see Beit Yosef). However, all of our teachers disagreed with him on this. And only over wine alone does one recite the blessing for the reason we wrote in section 1.