Siman 179

The Tur wrote: If one finished his meal and washed his hands with mayim acharonim… – it is forbidden to drink or eat until he recites a blessing over it first, for since he washed his hands in order to recite the blessing – he has diverted his mind from eating and drinking, and the blessing he recited at the beginning does not exempt what he wishes to eat and drink further… and if he said "bring [water] and we shall recite the blessing" – it is considered a diversion of the mind like washing the hands… Thus far his words. However, birkat hamazon for what he ate is not required. And so all our teachers agreed, that a diversion of the mind only necessitates a blessing before, but as for birkat hamazon, he will indeed recite it afterward. And is it forbidden to interrupt between eating and birkat hamazon with another matter, so long as he has not uprooted from his place? It is only between mayim acharonim and birkat hamazon that it is forbidden to interrupt. And it is certain that the mayim acharonim he washed with are voided, and before birkat hamazon he must wash his hands.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, wondered about the Tur who equated "he washed his hands" to "bring [water] for us and we shall bless." But it is not so: for regarding "he washed his hands," since the blessing follows immediately after the washing, it is as if he has begun the Birkat HaMazon, and it is forbidden for him to eat or drink until he recites Birkat HaMazon. But regarding "bring for us and we shall bless," he does not require Birkat HaMazon, only a first blessing over what he eats. And based on this he wrote in the Shulchan Aruch, and this is his wording: If he finished his meal and washed his hands with mayim acharonim—he cannot eat or drink until he recites Birkat HaMazon. And if he said "bring for us and we shall bless," it constitutes a diversion of the mind, and it is forbidden for him... unless he recites a blessing over it first. Thus far his words. However, all the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch disagreed with him, and clarified with clear proofs that there is no distinction in this. And the primary view is like the opinion of the Tur (Taz subsection 1, and Magen Avraham subsection 2, and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 1, and so wrote the Bach and the Derishah). And so it is explicit in the Bahag, and this is his wording: And if he desires to drink water or to taste something after he washed his hands—he blesses and drinks, and then recites Birkat HaMazon. Thus far his words. And from his wording it implies somewhat that he also does not require mayim acharonim afterwards. But all the poskim did not write so. And aside from this, regarding what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that "he washed his hands" is more stringent than "bring for us and we shall bless," the Rashba in his novellae (42a) wrote the opposite: that regarding "bring for us and we shall bless," he has spoken with his mouth that he is removing himself from his meal, which is not the case regarding "he washed his hands," see there. Therefore, the primary ruling is like the Tur. (And there are those who wrote that nevertheless, ab initio one should not do so, and the Eliyah Rabbah there contested this. And so it is clearly proven from the wording of the Bahag; and so wrote the Levush, see there.)

And there are some of our teachers who distinguish between eating and drinking. That is to say, regarding eating, even if he removed himself from eating, and even if they removed the table, and even if he said "bring [the cup] and we shall bless" – it is not considered a removal, and he may eat without a preceding blessing, though if he washed his hands he must bless. But regarding drinking, when he removed himself from drinking – it is considered a removal and he must bless. And when he is sitting at a meal, even drinking is permitted (Taz subsection 2). And this is the system of our teacher Yonah in the sixth chapter of Berakhot, and the Ran in "Arvei Pesachim." And it appears that this is also the system of the Ra'avad in the fourth chapter, law 7, who wrote: They did not say this regarding eating, but only regarding drinking. But regarding eating, it is not considered an interruption except with mayim acharonim… Thus far his words. (For with this, the two sugyot of Berakhot 42a and Pesachim 103b are reconciled well. And the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote another resolution, see there. And the Eliyah Rabbah decided according to the first opinion, see there. And in my humble opinion, it appears that it is at any rate a legal doubt, for they did not mention that the Ra'avad also stands by this system. And it appears that a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently. Examine and you will find it easy.)

The Rambam in the fourth chapter has another approach in this matter, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not bring his opinion at all. This is the wording of the Rambam: If one resolved in his heart to stop eating or drinking, and afterward reconsidered to eat or drink, even though he did not change his place – he returns and blesses. But if he did not resolve in his heart, but rather his intention is to eat and drink, even if he ceased the entire day – he does not need to bless a second time. Thus far his words. And they wondered about him: for the Shas in Berakhot there explicitly concludes that resolution is not considered removal except regarding mayim acharonim. However, the truth is that the Rambam interpreted this regarding Birkat HaMazon and not regarding the first berakhah (Lechem Mishneh). And the law of mayim acharonim he wrote at the end of the sixth chapter, that after this it is forbidden for him even to drink water until he blesses, see there. And "Give us [the cup] and we shall bless" was for him like mayim acharonim, for so he wrote after the previous law, and this is his wording: If they were drinking and said "Come and let us recite Birkat HaMazon..." – it is forbidden for them to drink until they bless... Thus far his words. And he wrote according to the wording of the Shas in Pesachim there because such was the incident, for such is his way not to change the wording of the Gemara, but there is no difference between eating and drinking. And his main intention is that "Give us [the cup] and we shall bless" is like one who washed his hands. And behold, for the halakhah we hold like the Tur as I have written, for this is the approach of most of our teachers. Nevertheless, it is proper to be concerned for the opinion of the Rambam. Furthermore, we learned from his words a leniency, that if he did not divert his mind from eating and drinking, even if he paused many hours in his place – we have no concern with it. However, this is simple, that if during the entire duration of time he diverted his mind from guarding his hands, that he requires netilat yadayim in any case. And it is possible that he does not need to bless, since he does not know that he touched covered places.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that "give us [the cup] and we shall bless" only applies to the master of the house, as it constitutes a distraction of the mind and requires a blessing beforehand as I have written. However, one who relies on the table of others, such as a guest, when he says "give us and we shall bless" – it is nothing, and it does not constitute a distraction of the mind until the master of the house says it. And it appears that also his sons and sons-in-law who rely on his table when they eat together – it does not constitute a distraction of the mind by their saying it. But when they eat without him, it appears that their law is like the master of the house. And so too a guest in an inn who pays for his meal – his law is like the master of the house, for behold, he eats of his own. And by the statement of the master of the house, all those reclining are forbidden if they agreed to his words (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). But if they did not agree to his words, they do not need a blessing. And it is simple. And all this is regarding "give us and we shall bless." But when he washed his hands – there is no difference between the master of the house and another. And there is one who says that even regarding "give us and we shall bless," if the guest resolved in his mind that he would not eat anymore even when the master of the house eats, and afterwards he reconsidered to eat – that he must bless (ibid., subsection 3). And it does not imply thus from the wording of the poskim. (However, also the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 7, agreed with the Magen Avraham. And it requires further study.) And know that also the taking of the cup of blessing is like one who washed his hands. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3: If he did not say "give us and we shall bless" and also did not wash his hands, once he took the cup to bless – it constitutes a distraction of the mind. Thus far his words. (And the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 5 that it is like the washing of hands.)

It appears to me that "bring [the cup] and we shall recite the blessing" is not a distraction of the mind when the master of the house imagined that there was nothing more to eat, and they told him that there is more to eat and the meal has not yet ended—for it is a distraction of the mind in error. Had he known this, he would not have said "bring [the cup] and we shall recite the blessing"; for it is for this reason that the statement of a guest is of no consequence, because he relies upon the table of the master of the house, and he does not know if the meal has ended. If so, it is also thus regarding the master of the house. And similarly, a guest in an inn who pays money, and said "bring [the cup] and we shall recite the blessing," and they informed him that there is more to eat—it is a distraction of the mind in error. And specifically when the master of the house resolved in his mind not to eat anymore, even though there is more to eat—it is a distraction of the mind, and not when he erred. And similarly the guest. (So it appears in my humble opinion, for go after the reasoning. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: One who enters his fellow's house and there are many groups eating there, and each one extends a cup to him, there is one who says that he recites the blessing "borei pri ha-gafen" over each one, because each time he reconsiders. Thus far his words. That is to say: when he entered for another matter. But if he entered to sit with them and to drink – certainly he only needs to recite the blessing over the first cup (Taz, subsection 3). And it is not specifically when they give him a cup, for the law is the same if they give him types of food as well. Rather, he took the common way of the matter, for such is the way of those reclining to give one who arrives a cup for drinking. And there is one who wrote that even if he has not yet finished drinking the first cup and they extended a second cup to him, he must recite the blessing (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And in truth there is a dispute regarding this, and it will be explained in siman 206 with the help of Heaven. (And in the Magen Avraham there is a printing error. And so it must be said: "And it is not similar..." as the Pri Megadim wrote. And the Griz"p in the margin wanted to emend "he does not need to recite the blessing," see there. And it is not compelling. And so the Pri Megadim and the Machatzit HaShekel understood. And as for the law, it will be explained there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

He further wrote in section 5: Those invited to the home of a householder to eat types of fruits, and they bring them to them one after another—they only need to bless over the first. Thus far his words. For they rely upon the table of the householder, and their intention is for everything that the householder will give them. And it is not similar to a server in siman 169 who must bless every time, because the server is not accustomed to eating at the time that those reclining are eating, and therefore his intention is only for what is before him. But guests know that the householder will give to them (Beit Yosef). And the proof for this: for behold, even regarding a server it was explained there that when there is an important person at the meal he does not need to bless over every piece, since he knows they will give to him, see there. And it is a kal vachomer regarding guests. And there is one who disagrees regarding this. And he holds that specifically in a place where it is certain to the guest that the householder will give him more—he does not need to bless. But in a case of doubt, he must bless (Taz subsection 4). And it is not so, for it does not need to be certain to the guest. And so it is explained from the wording of the Shas in Berakhot (42a), see there. And the primary ruling is like the ruling of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. (And also the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 8 disputed him, and so wrote the Ba'er Heitev in the name of Yad Aharon. And also the Pri Megadim is not comfortable with this, see there. And the main point that he relied upon the forced reading of the wording of the Tosafot there in the heading starting "Atka" (the second), it has already been emended in the Tosafot properly. And it is exactly like the Beit Yosef, see there and nothing more. And examine and you will find it easy.)

One who ate any food and did not eat salt, or drank any beverage and did not drink water—by day he should worry about bad breath; and by night he should worry about two things: about bad breath, and about askara, which is a disease that chokes the throat (Berakhot 40a). And one who eats salt after his meal should not eat it with the thumb, for it is harmful for the burial of children; nor with the pinky, for it is harmful for poverty; nor with the index finger, for it is harmful for bad boils (Eliyah Rabbah); but rather with the middle finger and the ring finger. And this is a segulah matter according to the tradition of the ancients. And one does not need a berakhah for this, since this is only for general medicinal purposes. And we are not careful in this because in our bread there is always salt, and in our cooked dishes there is always water. And this has already been explained at the end of siman 170, see there. And they further said in the Gemara there: One who follows his eating with water—does not come to intestinal illness. And one who is accustomed to lentils once every thirty days—prevents askara from his household. But every day—no, for it is harmful for bad breath. And one who is accustomed to mustard once every thirty days—prevents illnesses from his household. But every day—no, for it is harmful for the heart. And one who is accustomed to small fish—does not come to intestinal illness. Not only that, but small fish make a person fruitful and multiply and strengthen a person's entire body. And one who is accustomed to the smell of katzach—does not come to heart pain. But he should not eat them, for it is harmful to the body; rather he should stick them onto the bread at the time of baking, and afterward he should peel it off so that only the smell remains in it. And "katzach" Rashi explained as nielle, and it is not known to us. And in the Arukh I saw that this is what we call kimmel, and some put this in bread. And it is stated in Gittin (70a): Three things weaken a person's body: eating while standing, and drinking while standing... And five are closer to death than to life, and these are they: one who ate and stood (immediately), drank and stood, let blood and stood, slept and stood, or cohabited and stood. Rather, he should tarry a bit and afterward he should get up, see there. And so it is stated in Shabbat at the end of the eighteenth chapter, see there.