Siman 182

The Rambam at the end of the seventh chapter of Berakhot ruled that birkat hamazon does not require a cup; and such is the opinion of the Rif in the chapter "Arvei Pesachim," see there. And so ruled the Rashba in Berakhot (52a), and so ruled the Semag. But the Rosh and the Tur ruled that it requires a cup even for an individual, and so ruled the Tosafot in Pesachim (105a), see there. And so ruled the Rashbam, and so ruled our teacher Yonah at the end of the seventh chapter of Berakhot. And there are some of our teachers who ruled that only in a zimun is a cup required (Hagahot Maimoniyot there in the name of the Ri and our teacher Elchanan, see there). And so it is in the Zohar Pinhas (page 246), and this is his wording: And because of this, fewer than three do not need a cup, for three one needs a cup. See there (and so wrote the Beit Yosef in the name of Midrash HaNe'elam Ruth). And they wrote that those who are concerned for this: when they bless as an individual, they place the cup on the table, and do not take it in their hands (Beit Yosef). And there is one who hesitates at this: for is it to say that according to the Zohar it is forbidden to take a cup as an individual? The Zohar said that it is not required, and if so, why should he not take the cup in his hand (Bach)? However, in our countries, we are not accustomed to a cup at all, because wine as well as other beverages are expensive among us, and all our drinking is water as is known. And as it appears, we have taken as the primary rule the opinion that holds that a cup is not required. Nevertheless, there are those who are meticulous on Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim when there is a zimun to bless over the cup if it is possible to obtain.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1 brought all the opinions, and wrote that according to the one who says it requires a cup—one must seek it out. And if he does not have a cup to recite the blessing over—he should not eat if he anticipates and it is possible that he will have one, even if he must pass the time of one meal. And according to this, if two are eating together—each one must take a cup for birkat hamazon. Thus far his words. And the Tur wrote similarly and brought a proof from havdalah, see there. But is this not a comparison: for before havdalah it is forbidden to eat, but before the cup is it not permitted to eat? And when afterwards he has no cup, what shall he do (Magen Avraham subsection 1)? However, since we find in Pesachim (102b) on Saturday night when he has no cup for birkat hamazon—he eats without havdalah, and recites havdalah over the cup of birkat hamazon, see there. Behold, the cup is so stringent that they permitted him to eat before havdalah, and all the more so without this he should not eat when he will have a cup within a period of time and now he has none, for he must wait (Eliyah Rabbah). (And that which the Magen Avraham questioned from Pesachim 105a—I do not know what his difficulty was, for there it does not deal at all with the matter of birkat hamazon. And perhaps he holds that it does not require a cup, or that he has one for birkat hamazon. And from Eruvin 40b, on the contrary, it implies that he will not have a cup at all, and waiting is not applicable, see there. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

It is a clear matter that even according to the one who holds that it does not require a cup, nevertheless, it is an enhancement of the mitzvah to recite the blessing over a cup. And in the Shas it is implied that they all used to recite the blessing over a cup, because wine was inexpensive for them. Therefore, in those countries where wine is common and inexpensive—certainly it is proper for every fearer of Hashem to recite the blessing over a cup, and particularly when there is a zimun. But in our countries it is impossible because we do not have wine, and also the wine that we make from raisins is costly, and even beer is costly, and our hand cannot afford to take a cup of blessing for every meal. However, the wealthy who drink beer at every meal—certainly it is fitting for them to recite the blessing over a cup. And he who listens shall be blessed from Heaven.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 2: The cup for birkat hamazon may only be of wine, and not of other beverages even if he established his meal upon them. And if wine is not found in that place, and the beer or other beverages are chamar medina—one recites the blessing over them, except for water. And regarding that which they are accustomed in these lands to recite the blessing over beer—one should not protest, for behold, there are those who say that it does not require a cup at all. Furthermore: for behold, the primary chamar medina is beer, and they establish the meal upon it. And even though wine is found in the city, nevertheless it is not called "found" for this matter, as it is expensive and it is impossible to buy wine for every meal to recite the blessing over it. However, it is a mitzvah of the highest standard to recite the blessing over wine. And there are those who are meticulous when reciting the blessing alone over wine not to hold the cup in their hand, but rather they place it on the table before them. And this custom is correct according to the teachings of Kabbalah. Thus far his words.

It appears to me that what they wrote—that the cup for birkat hamazon is only over wine—is not similar to the reason for kiddush, which is only over wine, as I wrote in siman 271. For regarding kiddush, there is a verse: "Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it"—remember it over wine (Pesachim 106a). For "remembrance" is written regarding wine: "We will remember your love more than wine" (Tosafot ibid.). And even according to those who hold it is a mere asmachta, as will be explained there, nevertheless there is an asmachta. But regarding birkat hamazon, they did not say "wine" in the Shas, but rather "it requires a cup." And indeed, the reason is because among them, most of their drinking was wine (Shabbat 78a), and in Pesachim (107a) they cursed that the drink of one who recites kiddush over beer should be beer. And also now in Eretz Yisrael and in Babylonia, most of their drinking is wine, and it is chamar medina. But it is not so among us; and even beer we cannot afford, and only the wealthy drink beer regularly. And among us, it appears that brandy is chamar medina, but even this is impossible for two reasons: one, that it is expensive, and furthermore, it is not good for drinking after the meal, as is known. And there are those among us who are lenient to recite the blessing over a cup of borscht, which is called kvass in our language, but we have not seen anyone who does so. However, over honey-water, which is called mead—it is certainly proper to recite the blessing over it. And over licorice-water one should not recite the blessing (Magen Avraham subsection 2). And similarly, among us, one should not recite the blessing over lemonade or seltzer, for they are merely water. And that which they wrote, that an individual should not hold the cup in his hand, we have already written that there is one who hesitates about this. And even according to the one who holds so—it is only regarding wine, and not regarding other beverages (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 6).

Every cup of blessing, such as the cup for birkat hamazon and for kiddush and havdalah, when one has tasted a bit from the cup, even though there still remains in it a revit or more—it is disqualified. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said (52a): If he tasted it, he has blemished it, for it is like the remnants of a cup (Rambam in chapter twenty-nine of Shabbat). And it is like a blemish in an animal, and regarding this it is said: "Present it now to your governor" (Levush). And there is room for doubt whether this is specifically according to the one who holds that birkat hamazon requires a cup? Or perhaps even if it does not require a cup, nevertheless, when one blesses over the cup it must not be blemished, like all ten things that were said regarding a cup of blessing which the Rambam wrote at the end of the seventh chapter, and this is his wording: Although birkat hamazon does not require wine, if he blessed over wine it must be rinsed… see there. However, from this itself there is proof: since he did not write that it must not be blemished. And regarding kiddush in chapter twenty-nine of Shabbat he wrote that it must not be blemished—infer from this that because he holds that birkat hamazon does not require a cup, therefore we are not concerned with it being blemished. And it is a wonder that the Rif did not mention the law of a blemished cup at all, neither in the eighth chapter of Berakhot regarding the cup of blessing, nor in "Arvei Pesachim" regarding kiddush and havdalah. And it requires further study.

It is only considered pagum if one drank from the cup. But if one poured from the cup into his hand, and drank from what was in his hand – it is not called pagum; for just as there are fastidious people for whom it is difficult to drink from what their fellow drank with his mouth, so too it is a blemish regarding the cup of blessing. And without drinking from the cup itself – fastidiousness does not apply, obviously; and likewise, a blemish does not apply to this. And according to this, it would appear that this is specifically when he attached his mouth to the cup in the manner of those who drink. But when he opened his mouth and poured from the cup into his mouth without his mouth touching the cup – it is not pagum. However, I saw one of the great authorities who did not write so (the HaGra"z). And it is not specifically by drinking from a cup that it becomes pagum, for even when one drank from the jug it becomes pagum, and even from a small barrel. But if one drank from a large wooden barrel – one need not be concerned. And there are those who are concerned even about this, and therefore one should be careful ab initio (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And there is one who is so stringent regarding pagum that even when one needs to dilute the wine with water, if the water is pagum – it is forbidden to dilute the cup with them. And the reason: because anything pagum does not ascend for a matter of sanctity. And do not wonder why we need the reason of pagum when it is missing from the cup, and even if the cup holds more than a revit, nevertheless it is not full, and one of the conditions of the cup is that it be full as will be explained? For one can say that it is possible to pour it into a cup smaller than this (Magen Avraham, subsection 7), or for example where he drank a tiny bit such that it is still full (Ta"z, subsection 3). However, there is a remedy for this, as will be explained before us.

How is the repair of a pagum cup performed? That they add a little wine to it. For the defect is because he drank from it, and when he goes back and adds to it—it is repaired thereby, just as with a defect of the altar where they plug the defect and it is repaired thereby. And similarly, if he returned the wine that was in the pagum cup to the jug—it is nullified by the majority and is kosher. And it appears to me that even if the wine in the cup is more than the wine in the jug—it is also nullified, for the primary nullification is needed for the portion of the wine that the mouth touched; for the wine below was not made pagum, as for this reason adding a little wine is sufficient, as I have written. And in truth, he does not need to return the entire cup to the jug. However, there are those who hesitate, saying that this repair only avails post facto (Magen Avraham, subsection 9), but ab initio he should add a little wine, and afterwards pour it into the jug, and afterwards fill the cup of blessing from the jug. And the reason for the matter: because we need to repair the defect in the cup, just as the defect was from the cup. And so we are accustomed to do, and it is correct. And it is not specifically by adding a little wine that it is repaired, for the same law applies to water or other liquids that do not spoil the wine. However, water is much preferred, because the tempering of wine is with water (see Magen Avraham, subsection 11). Therefore, even if he has more wine—he can repair it with water if the wine will not be spoiled by the abundance of water. And only provided that the water is not pagum, as I have written.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: If the cups of those reclining were pagum—one must pour from the cup of blessing into them. And some say that it is not necessary. Thus far his words, meaning: for it was their way that there would be a cup for each of those reclining, and the one who recites the blessing fulfills their obligation, and each one drinks from his cup, and it follows that the cups of those reclining must also not be pagum. Therefore, he must pour a little from his cup into their cups. And it is obvious that he should pour before he drinks (Taz, subsection 4), for if not, his cup also becomes pagum for them. And the "some say that it is not necessary"—they hold that we are not particular regarding pagum except with the cup of the one who recites the blessing. And know that the opinion of the Rashbam in Pesachim there is that since the Shas uses the language of "particularity" regarding pagum—one may infer from this that there is no hindrance ex post facto; and if he has nothing with which to fix it—he may recite the blessing even when it is pagum. And one cannot say that he could fix it with a little water as has been explained, for one could say, for example, that it would be spoiled if they added water (Taz, subsection 7). And some disagree with the Rashbam. However, the Rashbam is worthy to rely upon in a time of pressing need (Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 7). And according to what we explained, it is simple that this is also the opinion of the Rif, and regarding Birkat HaMazon, this is also the opinion of the Rambam, as I wrote in section 6.