Siman 187

The three blessings of birkat hamazon are from the Torah, as it was taught (48b): From where do we derive birkat hamazon from the Torah? As it is stated: "And you shall eat and be satisfied." "And you shall bless" – this is the blessing of "hazan." "The Lord your God" – this is the blessing of zimmun. "For the land" – this is the blessing of the land. "The good" – this is "boneh Yerushalayim." And so it says: "the good mountain..." "Hatov vehametiv" was instituted in Yavne. And that which we said there previously, that Moshe instituted the blessing of "hazan," and Yehoshua the blessing of the land, and David and Shlomo "boneh Yerushalayim" – the intention is not that they instituted the essence of the matter, for this is from the Torah, but rather that they arranged the versions of the blessings (Rashba).

The first blessing opens with "Baruch" and closes with "Baruch," as it is a long blessing that contains several matters; for it contains praise that Hashem, may He be blessed, feeds the entire world, and a prayer that "sustenance should not be lacking for us forever and ever." And besides that He, may He be blessed, feeds the necessary sustenance that it is impossible to live without, He further "provides for all and does good to all" even with luxuries; and He also prepares food for each and every creature so that it finds its sustenance in the place where it is, as David said: "Who gives bread to all flesh, for His kindness is everlasting," and they established it in the first blessing. And some add to say "for His kindness is everlasting with us," but one should not say so because His kindnesses are with every living thing (Tur). And so too some add at the beginning of the blessing to say "Blessed is He who satisfies the hungry, Blessed is He who gives drink to the thirsty, Blessed are You... who feeds the world..." – and one should not say it, for it is not of the formulation of the blessing. And anyone who adds detracts, and changes from the coin that the sages minted (Tur). And so too that which is printed in some prayer books before the blessing "Blessed is He and Blessed is His Name" – it is an error. And anyone who changes from the coin that the sages minted is nothing but mistaken, even though he has fulfilled his obligation, and as I wrote in siman 185, section 8, see there.

In the Nusach Sefard, there is prior to the conclusion: "As it is said: You open Your hand…". And the Kol Bo wrote that this is not correct, for how can we bring a verse that David said for the words of Moses our teacher? But this is not a necessity (Beit Yosef), for many times we have found it so. And the primary intent of the Kol Bo is that this is like "Yehuda and another verse" (Derisha), meaning: that this is only regarding the matter of faith that Hashem, may He be blessed, sustains the entire world, and since Moses our teacher established to say "Who sustains the entire world in His goodness…", why do we need proof from David who said "You open Your hand…"? And in my humble opinion, another intent appears in this addition, for Hashem, may He be blessed, implanted in the nature of every living creature that it should be glad and happy with its sustenance, and that it should loathe other food. And this is the intent of "and prepares food for all His creatures that He created," meaning: that He prepared the nature of this living creature for its specific sustenance. And he brings proof for this from what David said: "You open… and satisfy the desire of every living thing," meaning: that every living creature is filled with desire from its sustenance. And he brings from this verse proof that such was the intent of Moses our teacher. (And one should not raise a difficulty against this version from the Yerushalmi, first chapter of Berakhot, end of halacha 5, that one does not say a verse [as a] blessing, see there. For there the intent is after the blessing; and even according to the commentary of the Charedim there in the name of the Ra'ah that it refers to before—it also does not apply here, as it speaks in praise of the Omnipresent. And the proof: for behold, also before the blessing of the Land, one concludes with the verse of "And you shall eat and be satisfied." Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

"With grace, with kindness, and with mercy," and some have the version "with grace, kindness, and with mercy." And it is all one, for even in the Torah we find that the conjunctive vav is only at the end, such as "with cattle, with silver, and with gold." And our version is: "and with mercy He gives bread to all flesh." And there is one who does not have the version "He" but rather "and with mercy gives bread" (Eliyah Rabbah). And it seems to me that our version is more precise; for the intention of "grace, kindness, mercy" seems to me that behold, there are three levels among human beings: there are the very wealthy, and this is "with grace" in the manner of "And Noah found grace." That is to say: an extra abundance. And there are average householders, who easily obtain all that they need, and they have no luxuries. And this is "with kindness," that the Name, may He be blessed, bestows His kindness upon him, so that he easily obtains all that he needs. And there are the poor whose bread comes to them with difficulty, and this is "with mercy": for the term mercy is only applicable in a place where the attribute of justice dwells. And afterward we say: "He gives bread to all flesh," that is to say: He gives bread to everyone. Rather, to this one He gives with this measure, and to that one with that measure. "For His kindness is forever," that is to say: that even for the poor person it is for his own good, to increase his reward in the World to Come or to deduct from his iniquities or some other matter, and as they said in Pesachim (118a), see there. And also included in "gives bread to all flesh" are all creatures aside from man, and therefore it is appropriate to say "He," that is to say: that He who sustains man—sustains all the creatures of the world.

"And in His great goodness He has never lacked for us," the chet is with a kamatz and the samekh is with a patach. "And may He not lack for us," the yod is with a segol and the chet is with a shva nach. And some say "He has not lacked for us" the chet is with a chirik, "and may He not lack for us" the yod is with a shva and the chet is with a patach. And the primary version is like the first version (Shelah). "For the sake of His great Name, for He is a God Who nourishes and sustains..."; and some have the version "for He nourishes and sustains" (see Eliyah Rabbah), "nourishes" with food "and sustains" with other needs. "Nourishes and sustains for all (lakol), and does good for all (lakol)" with a cholam, "and prepares food for all (lekhol)..." with a kamatz, for it is in the construct state with "His creatures," whereas the previous ones are absolute as is understood. And some have the version "And in His great goodness with us always...", and it is not well-settled: for is His "great goodness" not over the entire world and not only with us? And it is more comfortable without "with us," meaning: and in His great goodness which is over the entire world, He has never lacked for us, for we too are included in the entire world. "His creatures (biryotav)" the bet is with a small chirik and the resh is nach. And some say the bet is with a shva and the resh is with a chirik.

The Tur wrote: If one did not say the blessing of "hazan" but rather said "Blessed is the Merciful One, King, Master of this bread" – he has fulfilled his obligation. Thus far his words. And it must be said that his intention is when he said "King of the universe," for later in siman 214 we hold that any blessing in which one did not say "King of the universe" is not a blessing, see there. However, the Tur did not mention this there, and it is possible that he maintains that this is not a requirement that invalidates. And indeed, in the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1, one must certainly say so. But the Rashba, of blessed memory, disagrees with this, for granted that Birkat HaMazon may be said in any language, nevertheless we require in any event the enactment of the sages, which is with an opening and a closing of "Baruch." Therefore, if he said "Blessed is the Merciful One, Master, King of the universe, who gave this bread, and in His great goodness has never failed us and may He never fail us, blessed is the Merciful One who feeds all" – he has fulfilled his obligation, and not in any other manner. And even this is called "changing from the form that the sages established." And the opinion of the Tur is puzzling, for it is difficult to say that he maintains that after the fact the closing does not invalidate. (And it seems to me that the Tur maintains that in truth the blessing of "hazan" is a short form. And in the Yerushalmi, first chapter, halacha 5, it indeed asks, but what of "hazan," and it remains with a difficulty, see there. And it seems that because Moses originally enacted only the blessing of "hazan," he therefore enacted it with a closing, and in this manner it answers there regarding Havdalah, see there. And therefore, even afterward it was not nullified, and therefore after the fact he has fulfilled his obligation without a closing. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

The second blessing is the blessing of the land, and it does not open with "Blessed" because it is adjacent to the blessing of "Who feeds." The Tur wrote that the Maharam of Rothenburg used to say: "Nodeh Hashem Elokeinu" and not "Nodeh Lecha," for it implies "we will give you so-and-so." But the custom is not so. Furthermore: for the verse is written, "We will give thanks to You (nodeh lecha) forever; to all generations we will tell Your praise" (Psalms 79:13). Thus far his words. However, we also find "Your works shall give thanks to You (yoducha) Hashem," "I will give thanks to You (odecha) for You have answered me," "You are my G-d and I will give thanks to You (odeka)," and many such instances in Psalms. And the verse of "We will give thanks to You (nodeh lecha) forever" we find only one time, and this is the reasoning of the Maharam. Nevertheless, the custom is like the Tur, and there is no strictness in this.

In the version of the Birkat HaMazon of the Rambam: "We thank You... for You have given our fathers as a heritage a desirable, good, and spacious land, covenant and Torah, and for taking us out...". And the Rosh disagrees with this, for one says "for Your covenant which You sealed in our flesh, and for Your Torah which You taught us," and once is sufficient. And such is the custom like the Rosh. And if one did not mention "covenant" or "Torah" in this blessing—one is made to return. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that women and slaves should not say "covenant and Torah," for women are not in the covenant, and slaves are not in the Torah. Thus far his words. And women are also not in the Torah, but the custom is that women do not omit "covenant and Torah," and the commentators exerted themselves to find a reason for this (see Magen Avraham, subsection 3). However, in truth they do not need to say it, but there is no concern if they say it, for the explanation of "covenant and Torah" they wrote is that when Abraham was circumcised He made a covenant with him, and when He gave the Torah He gave them the land, as it is written: "And He gave them the lands of nations, so that they might keep His statutes and observe His teachings" (Beit Yosef). And consequently, from that time women were also brought close to Hashem. And according to this, when they say "for You have given our fathers as a heritage a desirable land...", they explain the reason that this was from the time of covenant and Torah. And when they say "for Your covenant... and for Your Torah," the intention is for the collective of Israel. (And I found support for this in the Perisha, see there.)

And there is in this blessing an expression of thanks at the beginning and the end, for at the end we also say, "And for everything… we thank You…". And if one did not say the expression of thanks at the beginning or at the end – he is sent back (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And some say "anu modim lach," but it is better to say the phrasing "anachnu," for "anu" also contains a connotation of mourning (aninut), as it is written: "And her gates shall lament (ve-anu) and mourn," "And the fishermen shall lament (ve-anu)" (Eliyah Rabbah). And we say "that You nourish and sustain us always, every day, and at every time (et) and at every hour." And "et" is a quarter of a day, six hours (ibid.). And four times (ittim) change every day: from morning until midday, and from midday until night, and likewise at night (ibid.). And it seems to me that "et" is like an onah in the language of the Gemara, which is twelve hours (end of Avodah Zarah [75a]). Furthermore: "et" refers to cold and heat, summer and winter (Magen Avraham ibid.). And one must say "shA-atah," the shin with a kamatz gadol, in order to expand the aleph (Eliyah Rabbah). And on Chanukah and Purim we say "Al HaNissim" before "And for everything." And if one did not say it – he is not sent back. Nevertheless, he can say it within "HaRachaman," and he should say: "May the Merciful One perform for us miracles and wonders, as You performed for our forefathers…", and see below, siman 682. And he should say "be-fi kol chai" and not "be-feh kol chai."