Siman 185

Birkat hamazon is said in any language, as it is said: "And you shall bless Hashem your God" – in any language that you bless (Sotah 33a). And it appears to me that this is specifically when one does not understand the holy tongue. And so it is implied in the Yerushalmi there, which says that therefore birkat hamazon is said in any language: so that he knows to whom he is blessing, and similarly regarding prayer so that he will know how to request his needs, see there. And it is explained that therefore they permitted it to him in any language, but if he understands the holy tongue, does he not know to whom he is blessing? Rather, it is certainly specifically when he does not know the holy tongue. Furthermore, it says there in the Yerushalmi regarding the matter of Megillah, that if he knew how to read it in Ashurit and in a foreign tongue – he only fulfills his obligation with Ashurit, see there. And if so, also regarding birkat hamazon, and regarding prayer it is also so. And that which they said in the Gemara "in any language that you bless" – the intention is not in any language that you want; rather the intention is: if you do not understand the holy tongue – bless in any language that you understand how to bless. (And from the wording of Rashi there who wrote: "Scripture did not fix a language for it," thus far his words – it is not implied so, and it can be reconciled. Examine closely and you will find it easy.)

And behold, in the generation before us, a congregation of evildoers arose outside our country to pray and to recite the grace after meals in a foreign tongue, and their foundation is based on the mishna in Sotah that "these are said in any language." And the giants of the generation who were then nullified their words. And I say that this evil congregation did not descend to the understanding of the sages of the Shas at all. For behold, in the mishna many things are counted that are said in any language, and the Gemara expounds reasons for each one why it is in any language; and many things that are specifically in the holy tongue, and the Gemara expounds for each one why it is specifically in the holy tongue, see there. And it is not understood: for if from the perspective of logic we would not have said that it must be specifically in the holy tongue, why is a verse necessary for those that are in any language? And if from the perspective of logic we would have said that it is specifically in the holy tongue, why is a verse necessary for those that are specifically in the holy tongue?

However, the essence of the matter is this: Certainly, since the Torah was given in the Holy Tongue, and it is the sanctified language with which the world was created—certainly it is a mitzvah and an obligation that in everything pertaining to Torah and mitzvah, one specifically requires the Holy Tongue, for one who knows the Holy Tongue. And even one who does not know the Holy Tongue, we would not have permitted him to speak in another language; therefore, a verse is required to permit one who does not know the Holy Tongue, according to the words of the Yerushalmi that we cited. Consequently, the Holy Tongue is not an absolute requirement in these matters, and even one who knows the Holy Tongue and transgressed and prayed or recited a blessing in a foreign tongue—he has fulfilled his obligation according to the Torah; however, he has committed a transgression. For there is no logic to say that one who does not know the Holy Tongue may speak in a foreign tongue ab initio, while one who knows it would not fulfill his obligation even ex post facto (and this is the intent of Rashi there that we cited in section 1). According to this, verses are required to permit ab initio one who does not know the Holy Tongue. And for those things that specifically require the Holy Tongue as an absolute requirement—verses are required to establish that even ex post facto they have not fulfilled their obligation. According to this, it is obvious that it is a complete prohibition for us to pray or recite a blessing in a foreign tongue. And it has already been explained in siman 101 that a foreign tongue must be translated exactly from the Holy Tongue into the foreign tongue, word for word with precision. See there.

Whether it is necessary to understand the language? Later in siman 690 it will be explained regarding the Megillah that in a foreign tongue one must understand, and if not, he has not fulfilled the obligation. However, in the holy tongue, even if he does not understand – he has fulfilled the obligation, both the reader and the listener; see there. Rashi, of blessed memory, derived from this that the law is the same for all mitzvot, as the Mordechai wrote in his name in the eighth chapter of Berakhot; see there. According to this, one who prays and one who recites a berakhah in the holy tongue has fulfilled the obligation even though he does not understand, and likewise the listener. And so it implies explicitly in Berakhot (45b), as it was taught: Two who ate together – it is a mitzvah to divide (that each one should recite the berakhah for himself). In what case are these words said? When both are scholars. But if one is a scholar and one is an ignoramus – the scholar recites the berakhah and the ignoramus fulfills the obligation, even though the ignoramus does not understand the holy tongue at all.

However, our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote there, and this is their wording: And regarding women, it requires investigation whether they fulfill their obligation with the zimun blessing of men, since they do not understand. And some bring proof that they fulfill their obligation from that which is said later: A scribe blesses and an ignoramus fulfills his obligation… However, one can reject this, for an ignoramus is different, as he understands the holy tongue and knows a bit of what is being said, but he does not know how to bless. But women, who do not understand at all, one could say they do not fulfill their obligation. And that which is said in Megillah (17a): A foreign speaker who heard Hebrew has fulfilled his obligation—the publicizing of the miracle is different, as we say there… Thus far their words, and so wrote the Rosh and the Mordechai there. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in siman 193, see there. And I do not understand the opinion of our teachers: for from where do we know that the ignoramus understands the holy tongue? Behold, there are many ignoramuses who do not understand at all, and did the Baraita distinguish between one ignoramus and another? And in truth, in the Smag (Mitzvah 27) this rejection is not present, only regarding that of Megillah, that the publicizing of the miracle is different, see there. And also this rejection I do not understand, for behold in Megillah there it says: Do we ourselves know what "ha'achashteranim bnei haramachim" means? Rather, it is the commandment of reading and the publicizing of the miracle. Behold, that besides the publicizing of the miracle it also says the reason "the commandment of reading"—behold, they fulfill their obligation with this reading even though they do not understand. (And from the wording of the Rosh and the Mordechai it implies that before them the version of the text was only because of the reason of publicizing the miracle, see there. And also in the Rambam, chapter five, halacha 15, it implies explicitly not so, and similarly in the Bahag and in the Rif. And so the Smag there wrote in the name of the Ri like the opinion of Rashi, see there.)

However, even according to these our teachers – this is only regarding the one who hears. But one who recites a blessing for himself or one who prays, even though he understands nothing, nevertheless he has fulfilled his obligation. And so wrote the Levush in siman 193, section 1, and this is his wording: And this is the difference between the one who recites the blessing and the one who hears: that the one who recites the blessing fulfills his obligation with his own blessing even though he does not understand, since such is the formula of the blessing. But the one who hears does not fulfill his obligation unless he understands what the one reciting the blessing says. Thus far his words, and so wrote several great authorities (Magen Avraham at the beginning of siman 62, and Olat Tamid and Pri Megadim at the beginning of siman 193). And they further wrote that the custom of the world is like Rashi, that women fulfill their obligation through hearing even though they understand nothing (Bach in siman 193, and Magen Avraham there, subsection 2, and see there in the Taz). And so wrote our teacher, the Rema, in his book Darkhei Moshe there, and so it is clarified from his words in siman 199, section 7, as I wrote there. And in truth, this is also the opinion of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot and the Rif and the Rambam, as I wrote.

And know that one of the great authorities emerged to distinguish: that even the one who recites the blessing himself, if he does not understand the words of the blessings that emerge from his mouth – he has not fulfilled his obligation, even in the holy tongue (the Ha-Geraz in this siman). And he wrote the reason: that since he does not understand the words, I do not apply to him "And you shall bless the Lord your God," even though he knows to whom he is reciting the blessing, see there. And it is very astonishing: for since he knows to whom he is reciting the blessing, we certainly apply to him "And you shall bless the Lord your God," meaning: that he gives praise and thanks to God, may He be blessed. And behold, a lack of intention does not invalidate even in the recitation of Shema except in the verse "Shema Yisrael," as I wrote in siman 60, and in prayer only in the blessing of Avot, as I wrote in siman 101. Furthermore: if we say so, it turns out that several thousands of Israel do not fulfill their obligation in Birkat HaMazon, and Heaven forbid to say so. Furthermore: since according to the opinion of Rashi and the Bahag and the Rif and the Rambam, even the listener fulfills his obligation even when he does not understand, how can we create a distant dispute according to the opinion of those who disagree, that even the one reciting the blessing himself has not fulfilled his obligation? Therefore, the primary ruling is as I have written. And besides that the world accepts as primary the opinion of Rashi as I have written, for so appears the plain meaning of the language of the Shas. And also our teachers who disagree did not state a definitive matter, as is clear from their words to one who examines them. And all this is post facto. But certainly, ab initio and the essence of the mitzvah is to understand what he says and what he hears with focused attention. And so too, when he fulfills his obligation by hearing from another, the listener must intend to fulfill his obligation and the one reciting the blessing must intend to fulfill it for him, and this is a requirement even post facto.

The Rambam wrote in the first chapter of Berakhot, law 5: The formulation of all the blessings—Ezra and his beit din instituted them. And it is not proper to change them, nor to add to any of them, nor to subtract from it. And anyone who changes from the coin that the sages minted regarding blessings is nothing but an errorist. And any blessing that does not contain the mention of the Name and Kingship is not a blessing, unless it was adjacent to its fellow. And all blessings in their entirety are said in any language, provided that he says them in the manner that the sages instituted. And if he changed the coin, since he mentioned the Name and Kingship and the matter of the blessing—even in a secular language, he has fulfilled his obligation. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that "anyone who changes from the coin that the sages minted is nothing but an errorist," meaning: and nevertheless he has fulfilled his obligation, as he concluded that since he mentioned the Name and Kingship and the matter of the blessing, he has fulfilled his obligation. And the first law is when he blesses in the Holy Tongue, and the second law is when he blesses in a secular language. (And he ruled according to Rabbi Meir, 40b, and not according to Rabbi Yose there, and according to the opinion of all the poskim. And so wrote the annotator in the Hagahot Maimoniyot, letter 2. And the Kesef Mishneh and Hagahot Maimoniyot understood that he ruled according to Rabbi Yose, and what he wrote, "is nothing but an errorist"—his intention was that he did not fulfill his obligation. And they questioned him that in the Yerushalmi it rules explicitly like Rabbi Meir, and the Kesef Mishneh was pressed in his words, see there. And there is no need for this, and his intention is as I have written and according to the opinion of all the poskim. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

He further wrote: Regarding all the blessings—one must make audible to his ear what he says. And if he did not make it audible to his ear—he has fulfilled his obligation, whether he expressed it with his lips or whether he blessed in his heart. Thus far his words. And he ruled so based on that which is taught (15a): A person should not recite Birkat HaMazon in his heart. And if he blessed—he has fulfilled his obligation. See there. And it must be said: Even though we hold that contemplation is not like speech regarding Kriat Shema, as I wrote above in siman 62, section 6, and we proved there that the opinion of the Rambam is also such, see there. However, regarding the matter of blessings, he holds that it is like speech, for regarding Kriat Shema it is written "and you shall speak of them," as I wrote there.

However, Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote that that which was taught "and if he blessed, he has fulfilled his obligation" – this is where he did not make it audible to his ear. For so he explained regarding "in his heart," that he did not make it audible to his ear, see there. And his intention is: that it is impossible to explain "in his heart" literally, for we hold that contemplation is not like speech. And such is the opinion of all our teachers, the Rishonim, and so they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 2, and this is his wording: And if he did not make it audible to his ears – he has fulfilled his obligation, provided that he articulates it with his lips. Thus far his words. But with contemplation alone – he has not fulfilled his obligation (Magen Avraham subsection 1). And if due to illness or another constraint he recited it in his heart – he has fulfilled his obligation (ibid.); for behold, also regarding the recitation of Shema it is so, as I have written in siman 62. And so he shall do in a place that is not completely clean, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote there, see there. And so it appears to me that regarding a final blessing when one is in doubt whether he blessed or not, that he does not need to bless, except for Birkat HaMazon, he should contemplate it in his heart, for he has fulfilled his obligation in any event according to the opinion of the Rambam.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: There is one who says that a master of the house with his sons and his wife—he must recite the blessing aloud so that they may fulfill their obligation through his blessing. Thus far his words. And this is when they are unable to recite the blessing, as they said in the Gemara: A scribe recites the blessing and an ignoramus fulfills his obligation. And he wrote "there is one who says" because the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote that perhaps it is specifically an ignoramus who understands what they are saying, and not women who do not understand at all, as I wrote in section 5. Therefore he wrote "there is one who says." And this is proof that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also does not hold like the Tosafot and the Rosh, as I wrote there. (And the Magen Avraham, subsection 2, wrote: It requires investigation why he wrote "there is one who says," see there. And his words are puzzling as I wrote, for in siman 193 he himself wrote like the Tosafot and the Rosh, see there. Therefore he wrote "there is one who says." Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

The Tur brought a Yerushalmi (Terumot chapter one): A drunk person—what is the law regarding whether he should recite a blessing? A certain pious man asked Eliyahu. He said to him: "And you shall eat and be satisfied and you shall bless"—even one who is "medumdam." The explanation: Drowsy and not of settled mind. Thus far his words. The Tur and the Smag (positive commandment 27) explained "medumdam" like "a silent stone" (even domem), meaning: drunk and unable to speak properly, see there. And in another place he explained that sometimes from the power of the great satiety of eating and drinking, sleep falls upon him and he is not of settled mind, and nevertheless the Torah said "and you shall bless" (so the Perishah brought in his name). And it is explicit there in the Yerushalmi that this is even if he cannot speak before the king, see there. But regarding prayer it is not so, as I wrote in siman 99. And it is explicit so in Eruvin (64a): and even regarding one who is tipsy, when he can speak before the king, initially he should not pray, but after the fact his prayer is a prayer. But regarding a drunk person who cannot speak before the king—even after the fact it is not a prayer, as I wrote there. But regarding Birkat HaMazon and all the blessings, even in such a case, he recites the blessing initially. This is the wording of the Yerushalmi there (halacha 4): One who is tipsy shall not pray. And if he prayed—his prayer is supplications. A drunk person shall not pray, and if he prayed—his prayer is blasphemies. Who is tipsy? Anyone who drank a revi'it. A drunk person—one who drank more. There they say: Anyone who cannot speak before the king... A drunk person—what is the law regarding whether he should recite a blessing? "And you shall eat and be satisfied and you shall bless"—even one who is "medumdam." See there. Behold it is explicit that even when he cannot speak before the king—he recites Birkat HaMazon. And the same law applies to all the blessings.

But our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot in Eruvin ibid., did not write so, and this is their wording: A drunkard… – and it requires investigation if one should equate blessings to prayer regarding the matter of excrement and a drunkard. And perforce they are not similar in all matters, for behold, one who has drunk should not pray until his wine has dissipated… and it is simple that one who has drunk recites Birkat HaMazon and all the blessings, as it says in the Yerushalmi in Berakhot: "And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless" – even if dazed. Thus far their words. Behold, they understood the words of the Yerushalmi only regarding one who has drunk and not a drunkard, and necessarily they had a different version of the text in the Yerushalmi. And they wrote that the Yerushalmi is in Berakhot, but before us it is found only in Terumot. And the Rosh also wrote so, see there. However, in Berakhot (31b) they themselves cited the Yerushalmi in Terumot, that a drunkard may recite Birkat HaMazon, see there. And the Rosh wrote so there as well, see there. And their words contradict one another. And the main point is as I wrote in Berakhot, for so ruled the Semag and the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah (from the Ma'adanei Yom Tov) and the Mordechai.

And according to this, that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: Even if he became so intoxicated that he cannot speak properly – he may recite birkat hamazon. Thus far his words. It is clear that his intention is even when he cannot speak before a king. However, from what he wrote afterwards in section 5, this is his wording: If he recited a blessing, and there was tzua opposite him or he was intoxicated – the Tosafot and the Rosh were in doubt if he must repeat the blessing. And regarding urine, it is simple that he does not repeat the blessing. Thus far his words. And this is based on their words in Eruvin, and it contradicts what he wrote previously. And in truth, the Levush omitted "intoxicated," see there. However, the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, seems to be to reconcile their words, and to distinguish regarding the intoxicated person himself between one who cannot speak properly and one who cannot speak at all. But the primary rule for the halacha is that in any case he may recite birkat hamazon, unless he has reached the intoxication of Lot. And also the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch (Taz and Magen Avraham) agreed accordingly for the halacha, and so it is explained from the words of our teacher, the Rema, at the beginning of siman 99, see there. And so it is explicit in the Zohar Terumah (page 153b); and there he explains the reason for the difference between prayer and birkat hamazon, see there.