Siman 188

The third blessing is the building of Jerusalem, and David and Solomon instituted it: David instituted "upon Israel Your people, and upon Jerusalem...", and Solomon instituted "and upon the great and holy House upon which Your name is called." And the Tur wrote that this is not to say that they did not bless them until David and Solomon came, for behold, he derives them all from the verse. Rather, they instituted the formulation according to the increase of goodness for Israel, for certainly before the conquest and the building of the Land they did not say it as they did after the conquest and the building; just as we do not say the formulation that David and Solomon established, for we ask to restore... and to build the House, and they were asking to continue the tranquility of the Land and the kingdom and the House. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: that before the conquest they would say "have mercy on Israel Your people." But Jerusalem and Zion and the kingdom of the house of David did not yet exist in the world, and perforce even "and build Jerusalem... Who builds Jerusalem" they also did not say, but rather they concluded with "Who saves Israel." And likewise in the blessing of the Land they did not conclude "for the Land and for the food" but rather "Who grants lands as an inheritance and for the food"; and after they conquered Eretz Yisrael they concluded "for the Land and for the food." And after David acquired Jerusalem, he added "and upon Jerusalem...". And after Solomon built the Beit HaMikdash, he added "and upon the great House...". And in the conclusion they would not say "and build Jerusalem... Who builds Jerusalem" but rather they said "and may Your kingdom continue," and they concluded with "Who saves Israel." And after the destruction, our version was instituted. (So it appears in my humble opinion. And with this it is understood what they said in Berakhot 49a: Anyone who concludes "Who grants lands as an inheritance... and Who saves Israel" – behold, he is an ignoramus, see there. That is to say: so that you should not say that since they previously concluded thus, it is effective even now. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

"Rachem Hashem Elokeinu," the chet is with a tzeirei. And some say "Rachem na," and "na" is an expression of supplication and also an expression of "now," as Rashi explained on the verse "Behold, na, I know that [you are] a woman...", see there. And one concludes "Boneh Yerushalayim." And the Mordechai wrote in the name of the Maharam to say "Boneh verachamav Yerushalayim," and such is the custom. For we find the building of Yerushalayim with mercy, as it is written in Yirmeyahu: "I will have mercy on its dwellings," and in Zechariah: "How long will You not have mercy on Yerushalayim," "I have returned to Yerushalayim with mercy, My house shall be built in it." Furthermore: since in the opening we say "Rachem," we conclude also with mercy. And according to this, it is understood why in the prayer we do not say so. And even though there also we say "And to Yerushalayim Your city return in mercy," yet it is possible that here the opening of the first word is "Rachem." And in truth, there are those who challenge this, and say only "Boneh Yerushalayim." But most of the world says "Boneh verachamav Yerushalayim."

And one answers "amen" after "Who builds Jerusalem." And even though one does not answer "amen" after his own blessing, here, since it is the end of the Torah-mandated blessings, one answers, for "The Good and Who does good" is not from the Torah; for according to the law of the Gemara, at the conclusion of all types of blessings one must answer "amen" upon his own blessings, to indicate that they have already concluded (Tosafot Ri, beginning of the seventh chapter). However, the people did not follow this practice (Tosafot 45b, starting with the words "This is regarding 'Who builds'"), except in Birkat HaMazon at "Who builds Jerusalem" at the conclusion of the blessings of the Torah. And therefore, this "amen" should be said in a whisper, so that they do not sense that the blessing of "The Good and Who does good" is not from the Torah and treat it with contempt. Such is according to the law of the Gemara (45b). And the world is not careful in this, and they answer in a loud voice. And they wrote that now there is no concern of contempt (Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 1). Nevertheless, it is certainly more correct to be precise to act according to the law of the Gemara, and to say it in a whisper.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2, and this is his wording: It appears that this is specifically when one blesses alone. And one does not answer "amen" after the rest of the blessings, but when they perform zimun, one answers it like any other "amen" that is answered for the first blessings. And even though the one who blesses also answers, nevertheless it is not so noticeable, since others answer with him as well. And such is the custom in these lands, to say it in a loud voice even the one who blesses himself when they perform zimun. And perhaps it is for this reason. Thus far his words. And besides that this is a forced reason, for in any case according to his words, one who blesses without zimun should say it in a whisper, yet the custom is not so. And it appears more likely to say: that since in the Gemara there we find that one master answered it in a loud voice, and one master answered it in a whisper, the world holds that there is no meticulousness in this and each person may do as he wishes. And even though according to the reasons stated there one should distinguish between one time and another, as the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote, see there—the world holds that it is not so, and as a matter of law there is no meticulousness in this (see Taz, subsection 1). And so it is implied from the Rambam, who did not mention this law at all. And so too the Rif did not bring this at all, because there is no meticulousness (Taz, ibid.).

It is stated in the Gemara (48a): Anyone who does not say "the kingdom of the house of David" in "Who builds Jerusalem" has not fulfilled his obligation. And this is what we say: "Have mercy... and upon the kingdom of the house of David Your anointed." And if he did not say it, we return him. And we do not say: since before the kingdom of the house of David they did not say it, as I wrote in section 1, therefore even now it is not a requirement; for it is not so, as I wrote there. And one should not mention the kingdom of Heaven in it at all, so as not to equate it with a kingdom of flesh and blood. Therefore, one must be careful not to say "and upon Your kingdom and the kingdom of the house of David Your anointed," and one who says so should be rebuked. Therefore, we say there "our God, our Father, our Shepherd, our Sustainer..." and he should not say "our King" for the reason that has been explained. The general rule of the matter: in this blessing, since one is obligated to mention "the kingdom of the house of David," we are obligated to be careful not to mention the kingdom of Heaven here at all. (And the Rambam wrote (chapter two) the reason: to indicate that we have no complete consolation except with the return of the kingdom of the house of David, see there. And see at the end of section 7).

We say "re'einu zuneinu"; "re'einu" with the resh in sheva, "zuneinu" with the zayin in shuruk. For it is a language of prayer, as if saying: "May it be Your will that You shepherd us and sustain us." And even on Shabbat one may say this. And although there are no supplications on Shabbat, nevertheless, the form of blessings is thus. And so it is explicitly in the Yerushalmi. And we say: "but only to Your hand which is full, open, holy, and generous, so that we shall not be ashamed nor humiliated forever and ever." And some say also "nor stumble." And there are siddurim where instead of "holy" it is written "heaped," meaning: a language of overflowing, that He gives, as it were, a full hand with an overflow. And he concludes "Who builds Jerusalem" or "Who in His mercy builds Jerusalem," according to what has been explained. And some say "Who builds Jerusalem in His mercy" (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And one of the great ones used to conclude: "Blessed is Hashem, God of David, and Who builds Jerusalem" (ibid.). And some conclude: "Who consoles Zion with the building of Jerusalem." And there are those who do not open this blessing with "Have mercy" but rather with "Console us" on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And their reason is because "Have mercy" is a language of supplications, and one should not say supplications on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And it is not so, for "Console us" is also a language of supplications, and it is all one; and the form of blessings is thus, and it is permitted to say them on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And such is the custom (Tosafot 48b, starting with the words "Begins," see there). And the Rambam in the second chapter wrote also, that whether on Shabbat or on a weekday one may begin either with "Have mercy" or with "Console us," see there.

On Shabbat, one says before "And build": "Be pleased and strengthen us... and by Your will grant us rest...". And "Haniach," the Heh is with a kamatz and the Nun is with a chirik, and not "Hanach lanu" with patachs, for this is not a prayer but a narration of matters, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, granted us rest on the day of Shabbat, so that there should be no distress, grief, or sighing on the day of Shabbat. And this is why mourning is not practiced on Shabbat, and one should not mention any worry on Shabbat, as it is written: "And you shall call the Shabbat a delight." And that which we say "And show us, Hashem our God, the consolations of Zion..." — this is not a matter of prayer and petition but rather like words of consolation; just as we say in the prayer on Shabbat: "And may our eyes behold...". And on Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh one says: "Ya'aleh V'yavo." And when it falls on Shabbat, one says "Retzei" first and afterwards "Ya'aleh V'yavo," for Shabbat relative to Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh is frequent and sanctified. And it seems to me that if one said "Ya'aleh V'yavo" first and afterwards "Retzei" — he does not need to repeat, for frequent and sanctified is not a hindrance after the fact, as is proven in Zevachim (91a). And one does not mention the matter of Shabbat in "Ya'aleh V'yavo." And even according to the one who holds later in siman 487 that in the prayer on Yom Tov in Shacharit one mentions Shabbat in "Ya'aleh V'yavo," see there — this is because he has not yet finished the matter of Shabbat, for afterwards he will say "V'hasi'enu" and conclude with the mention of Shabbat, which is not the case in Birkat HaMazon where he has already finished the matter of Shabbat in "Retzei V'hachallitzenu." For such is the law on Rosh Chodesh that falls on Shabbat, that one does not mention Shabbat in Shacharit in "Ya'aleh V'yavo" because he has already finished the matter of Shabbat, as will be explained in siman 425, see there. And similarly, one does not mention Yom Tov or Rosh Chodesh in "Retzei V'hachallitzenu." (And one should not conclude in "Ya'aleh V'yavo": "For You are God, the King, Gracious and Merciful" but rather "For God, Gracious...", for the reason explained in section 5, that one should not mention the Kingdom of Heaven next to a kingdom of flesh and blood. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 that this is correct, but the custom is not so. Thus far his words. And they wrote that since this is far from the mention of the House of David — we have no concern with it. And the Levush did not bring this, see there. And in our days, many follow the custom of our teacher, the Rema. And see Taz and Magen Avraham, subsection 2.)

In the Gemara (48b) there is a dispute regarding one who mentioned "Retzei VeHachalitzenu" on Shabbat in another blessing and not in the blessing of "Boneh Yerushalayim," whether he has fulfilled his obligation or not. The Tanna Kamma and the Sages disagree: for the Tanna Kamma holds that he has fulfilled his obligation, and the Sages hold that he has not fulfilled his obligation, see there. The Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh did not bring this at all, and similarly the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and I do not know why. Regarding the halachic ruling, it appears that the halacha follows the Sages, that he has not fulfilled his obligation (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). There is a proof for this from what will be explained: that if one forgot the mention of Shabbat and began "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" – he returns to the beginning. Now, if it should enter your mind that post facto its mention in "Boneh Yerushalayim" is not indispensable, let him mention it there, for a mention on its own is no worse than a mention in another blessing. Rather, it is certainly indispensable even post facto, like the Sages. And perhaps it is because of this that our teachers omitted it, for since they explained the law of "one who forgot..." – they did not need to mention this as well.

Regarding the essence of birkat hamazon, if one preceded a later blessing, such as preceding the blessing of the land to the blessing of "hazan," or "boneh Yerushalayim" before the blessing of the land, it is a matter of doubt whether he has fulfilled his obligation or not. It appears to me that he has fulfilled his obligation. And the proof: for at the beginning of the second chapter of Megillah we learned in a Mishnah: One who reads retroactively has not fulfilled his obligation. And it was taught in a Baraita: And so too regarding Hallel, and regarding the recitation of Shema, and regarding prayer, see there. And since it did not also count birkat hamazon—learn from this that their order is not indispensable in birkat hamazon. Furthermore: for in Berakhot (48b) we derive the order of birkat hamazon from the verse "And you shall bless"—this is the blessing of hazan, "the Lord your God"—this is the blessing of zimmun, and yet zimmun precedes hazan? Rather, certainly the order is not indispensable, and therefore "hazan" preceded zimmun even though zimmun certainly comes first, to teach that the order is not indispensable (so it appears in my humble opinion).

If one erred and did not mention that of Shabbat until he finished "Who builds Jerusalem," and had not yet begun the blessing of "Who is good and does good" – he says: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our G-d, King of the universe, Who gave Shabbats for rest to His people Israel in love, for a sign and for a covenant. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who sanctifies the Shabbat." Thus the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled in section 6. And so it is implied from the words of the Rambam at the end of the second chapter, who wrote: If one forgot and did not mention the sanctity of the day on Shabbat or a Yom Tov, if he remembers before he begins the fourth blessing on Shabbat, he says: "Blessed is Hashem Who gave rest… Blessed…" Thus far his words. And even though he did not mention "our G-d, King of the universe," nevertheless his intention was such, since he mentioned Hashem (and so wrote the Lechem Mishneh).

And behold, in the Gemara (49a) it is stated: If one erred and did not mention that of Shabbat, he says: "Blessed is He who gave Shabbats...". See there. And it is possible to say that the intention is without name and sovereignty, and so wrote the Tur in the name of the Ra'avad because it is not a fixed blessing, similar to zimun which, even though it is from the Torah, has neither name nor sovereignty; because it is not fixed, for when there are not three who ate – there is no need for zimun. But the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch hold that without name and sovereignty it is nothing. And one should not ask: Behold, in the essential "Retzei VeHachalitzenu" there is no name and sovereignty here, and how in the case of forgetting would there be name and sovereignty in its place? For it is not so, as in "Retzei VeHachalitzenu" there is name and sovereignty since it is included in "Boneh Yerushalayim," and it is adjacent to the blessing of the Land, and the blessing of the Land is adjacent to "HaZan" and in "HaZan" there is name and sovereignty, and it is as if also in "Boneh Yerushalayim" there is name and sovereignty; and it also concludes with "Baruch." Therefore, in a case of forgetting, and one requires a blessing in its place – it also requires name and sovereignty, and also concludes with "Baruch" even though it is short, since it comes in place of a long blessing (it seems to me). And one who does not know this version – shall return to the beginning (Taz, subsection 4).

And so too on Yom Tov: if one erred and did not mention "Ya'aleh V'Yavo," he says "Blessed are You..., Who gave festivals to His people Israel for gladness and for joy, this day of the festival of [name of festival]. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons." And if Yom Tov falls on Shabbat, he says: "Blessed... Who gave Sabbaths for rest to His people Israel in love for a sign and for a covenant, and festivals for gladness and for joy, this day of the festival of [name of festival]. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who sanctifies the Shabbat and Israel and the seasons."

And all of this is when he remembered before he began the blessing of "HaTov VeHaMeitiv." But after he has begun "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" – this blessing is of no avail, and he must return to the beginning of Birkat HaMazon, which is the blessing of "HaZan." And it is not sufficient that he return to the blessing of "Boneh Yerushalayim," because all three blessings are considered as one, just as in the prayer where the first three are considered as one. And so the Rambam ruled there. And therefore, even though regarding "Ya'aleh VeYavo" in the prayer of Rosh Chodesh, when one is accustomed to saying supplications after his prayer he returns to "Retzei" and not to the beginning of the prayer, as I wrote in siman 422, and if so, here too the blessing of "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" is no worse even if he opened it than supplications, and also we are accustomed to saying "HaRachaman" which is like supplications, and he should have had to return only to the beginning of the blessing of "Boneh Yerushalayim." And indeed, the opinion of the Ra'avad there is so, see there. Nevertheless, we do not hold accordingly, for all three blessings are considered as one, like the first three and the last three of the prayer which are considered as one regarding a disruption, as I wrote in siman 104, see there. And here too it is so.

Nevertheless, we have a great question regarding this: since the Shas there compares it to prayer, if so, just as with "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" in prayer, when one remembers before "Modim" he says "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" before Modim, as I wrote in siman 422; if so, here too on Yom Tov: when one remembers before "HaTov VeHaMeitiv," why did they establish a different blessing? Let him say "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" there just as in prayer. And similarly on Shabbat, let him say "Retzei VeHachalitzenu" there. And it appears to me regarding the reason for the matter: that certainly this is not a proper enactment to say "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" or "Retzei VeHachalitzenu" there, for they were enacted within the blessing and are with Name and Sovereignty as I wrote, and after the blessing it is without Name and Sovereignty; therefore, they enacted a blessing with Name and Sovereignty according to the essence of the law. But in prayer they could not do so, for if so, there would be four blessings in the final three, and they only enacted three blessings. Therefore, they were satisfied with him saying "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" immediately after the blessing, and it is as if he said it within the blessing since he has not yet begun another. But in Birkat HaMazon it does not appear as an addition, for he has already finished the blessings of the Torah and it is a different matter. And furthermore, it can be said that Birkat HaMazon is from the Torah, and it is written regarding it: "And you shall bless the Lord your God" — they were concerned to establish the matter according to its proper form, and they were not concerned for the apprehension of a blessing in vain; for everything is included in the general rule of "And you shall bless the Lord your God," as this too is a blessing. This is not the case with prayer, which is rabbinic; they did not want to add another blessing, and they were concerned for a blessing in vain, and enacted that he should say it after the blessing.

And this is on Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim when there is an obligation to eat bread, and their mention is an obligation. However, on Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed, even though it is forbidden to fast on them, nevertheless there is no obligation to eat bread specifically, and their mention is not an obligation. Therefore, if one forgot to say "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" in Birkat HaMazon on them, and did not remember until after he began "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" – he does not return at all. And it is not similar to prayer where he returns, for prayer is an obligation, which is not the case for the mention in Birkat HaMazon which is not a complete obligation; for he could have exempted himself from this, as if he desired he would not eat bread. Therefore, even though the essence of Birkat HaMazon is an obligation, nevertheless the mention is not an obligation. And see what I wrote in siman 529, section 3.

And this is when he has already begun "HaTov VeHaMeitiv." But if he has not yet begun, they said in the Gemara there: If he erred and did not mention that of Rosh Chodesh, he says "Blessed is He Who gave Roshei Chodashim to His people Israel for a remembrance…". And I do not know if he concludes with a signature in it or does not conclude with a signature in it, see there. And the Rif and the Rambam ruled that he does not conclude with the Name, since in the Gemara it remained in doubt, and so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7. And seemingly it appears clear that since they were in doubt in the Gemara regarding its signature, it proves from this that the opening is certainly with the Name and Sovereignty. For if not so, what relevance is there to a doubt regarding the signature, for if there is no opening, there is no signature? And so wrote the Levush, that he opens "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who gave Roshei Chodashim…". And that which was not mentioned in the Gemara regarding the Name and Sovereignty in the opening is because also regarding Shabbat and Yom Tov the Name was not mentioned. But from the Rambam, who regarding Shabbat and Yom Tov mentioned the Name, and regarding Rosh Chodesh did not mention it, and similarly the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, who regarding Shabbat and Yom Tov mentioned the Name and Sovereignty, and regarding Rosh Chodesh did not mention them—it appears that there is no need for the Name and Sovereignty even in the opening. However, before us in the Rambam, even regarding Yom Tov the Name is not found, see there. And perforce he relies on Shabbat; if so, one could say the same regarding Rosh Chodesh. But from the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch there is a proof; and perhaps they too did not feel the need to mention it regarding that of Rosh Chodesh, and relied on the preceding. But regarding the essence of the matter, it is a wonder: for how can we establish a berakhah with the Name and Sovereignty for a matter that is not mandatory? And I wonder at the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch that they did not speak of this (and the Eliyah Rabbah raised this, see there). And there are some of the great ones who followed after the words of the Levush (the HaGarz and the Chayei Adam). And in my humble opinion, the Ra'avad is sufficient, who holds that even on Shabbat and Yom Tov one should not recite the berakhah with the Name as I wrote in section 11, to rely on him at least regarding Rosh Chodesh, especially since from the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch it implies explicitly so. (And there are some of the poskim who hold that Rosh Chodesh is like Shabbat and Yom Tov, as is explained in the Beit Yosef. But we do not hold so, and a doubt regarding berakhot is ruled leniently.)

On Chanukah and Purim, if one forgot "Al HaNissim," we do not make him return, for behold, even in the prayer it is so. Nevertheless, it is proper that he say in "HaRachaman": "May He perform for us miracles and wonders, as You performed for our ancestors in those days..." And also on Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is possible, for in any case one should say it within the rest of the "HaRachaman" prayers, just as regarding "Al HaNissim." And perhaps there is a distinction to be made: for in "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" there is the mention of Names, and one should not say them in vain. So it appears to me, and so we practice. Thus far his words. And it requires further study: for behold, we say supplications all day and they contain the mention of Names, and why should this be lesser than other supplications (Magen Avraham, subsection 11)? And it is possible that when one says it for the sake of an obligation it is different, for behold, he is not saying it for the sake of supplication. And know that on Rosh Chodesh there is no difference between night and day, even though regarding prayer there is a difference because we do not sanctify the month at night; for in prayer one does not mention it at night so that there will not be an interruption in the prayer, but in Birkat HaMazon, behold, its Torah blessings have already been completed, and therefore if he did not begin "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" he says "Baruch" as has been explained (the HaGra"z).

If Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat, and one forgot to mention Rosh Chodesh but did mention Shabbat, it is the opinion of the Mordechai that one does not return if he has already begun "HaTov VeHaMeitiv." And even though today one is obligated to eat bread, nevertheless, on account of Rosh Chodesh they did not obligate him to return, for the obligation is on account of Shabbat and he has already mentioned Shabbat. However, the Rashba ruled that he returns, for since on this day he is obligated to eat bread—consequently the obligation is cast also upon Rosh Chodesh on this day; as we say regarding the Neilah prayer on Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbat, that one is obligated to mention Shabbat even though on Shabbat there is no Neilah, nevertheless since this day became obligated in the Neilah prayer—the obligation of Shabbat is cast upon it as well. And here too it is so. The Tur also brought two opinions, see there that he inclines toward the obligation. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7 ruled like the Mordechai that he does not return, and he follows his own reasoning in siman 623 regarding Neilah when one forgot Shabbat. There is also a dispute there whether one returns or not, and he ruled there that he does not return, see there. And for the halacha, a doubt regarding blessings is resolved leniently.

And this is when he forgot only that of Rosh Chodesh. But if he also forgot that of Shabbat, if he remembers before he began "HaTov VeHaMeitiv," he includes both of them and says: "Who gave Shabbats for rest, and Roshei Chodashim for remembrance," and concludes "Who sanctifies the Shabbat and Israel and Roshei Chodashim." Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7 wrote that there is one who says that in such a case he concludes with that of Shabbat and does not conclude with that of Rosh Chodesh, see there. And his reason is since on Rosh Chodesh it is without a conclusion, as I have written. And it is very puzzling: for regarding Rosh Chodesh it was a doubt in the Gemara, as I have written. But here, where he mentions the Name for Shabbat, if so, why should he not also conclude with that of Rosh Chodesh? Therefore, there is no basis for this opinion (Magen Avraham, subsection 14), and he concludes also with that of Rosh Chodesh. And it is obvious that if he began "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" and must return to the beginning, that he mentions that of Shabbat and that of Rosh Chodesh.

And know that since the reason has been explained that on Shabbat and Yom Tov one must repeat because there is an obligation to eat bread on Shabbat and Yom Tov, it is automatically explained that when one eats an extra meal, such as if one eats a fourth meal on Shabbat, and on Yom Tov the obligation is one by day and one by night in the manner of people, and if one eats a third meal—he does not need to repeat since there is no obligation for this meal. And more than this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8 that the third meal on Shabbat has the same law as Rosh Chodesh. Thus far his words. And his reason: since there are those who say that one fulfills the obligation with types of dessert, as I wrote in siman 291, if so, there is no obligation to eat bread, even though everyone holds that initially there is an obligation to eat bread as I wrote there. And in truth, there are those who disagree regarding the third meal of Shabbat and ruled that one must repeat just as in the other meals; and this is the opinion of the Rambam who ruled in the thirtieth chapter of Shabbat that one is obligated to eat bread at the third meal; and automatically, what he ruled that on Shabbat one returns to the beginning—this includes also the third meal. For so wrote the Tur at the end of this siman, that according to the one who requires eating bread—one must repeat. And many of our teachers hold so. And if so, granted that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled plainly that one does not need to repeat because of the doubt as is understood, but one who took upon himself as an obligation to eat three meals—he certainly must repeat, since he holds as the law that he is obligated to eat. (And proof for this is from the Bahag brought by the Rosh at the beginning of the chapter "Tefillat HaShachar." And even according to the Rosh who rejected this, it is not similar to here as I have written. And also from the Gra, subsection 20, it implies so to me, and so one should instruct in my humble opinion. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

And behold, regarding Yom Tov as well, there is a dispute whether one is obligated to eat bread. The Tosafot in Sukkah (26a) maintain that there is no obligation to eat bread on Yom Tov except on the first night of Pesach and of Succot. And indeed, they wrote that if one erred and did not mention the Yom Tov in Birkat HaMazon – he does not need to repeat it. And that which we say that on Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim it is impossible not to eat – this is at night... Thus far their words. And the Rosh in the seventh chapter of Berakhot (siman 26) brought a dispute regarding this, and it appears that his opinion tends toward it being an obligation on every Yom Tov to eat bread. And so appears the opinion of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in this siman, as they wrote without qualification that Yom Tov is like Shabbat. And it is explicitly explained that they are dealing with every Yom Tov. And so it appears from the words of the Rif and the Rambam, and so we maintain. And even on Rosh Hashanah it appears that one must repeat it; even though there are those who maintain that it is permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah – we do not maintain so (see Magen Avraham subsection 7). And know that in all these cases where we said that he does not need to return to the beginning – this is when he has begun "HaTov VeHaMeitiv." But if he has not yet begun, he should say "Baruch...", for it is no worse than Rosh Chodesh (ibid. subsection 16).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 9: Three who ate on Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim, and forgot to mention the nature of the occasion, and they must return to the beginning of Birkat HaMazon – each one should bless for himself; for they have already fulfilled the obligation of zimun. Thus far his words. That is to say: even though regarding all the blessings it is as if they did not bless, since they return and bless again, nevertheless they are exempt from the blessing of the zimun. And the proof: for they only return to the blessing of "HaZan" and not to the blessing of the zimun. And the reason: for the blessing of the zimun is like a blessing unto itself, as it only exists when they eat with a zimun.

He further wrote in section 10: If one was eating and Shabbat departed—he mentions Shabbat in Birkat HaMazon, for we follow the beginning of the meal. And the same applies to Rosh Chodesh, Purim, and Chanukah. Thus far his words. And the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch elaborated on this. For the halacha, the primary view is like the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that we only follow the beginning of the meal. Therefore, if Rosh Chodesh falls on Saturday night—he should not mention Rosh Chodesh. However, if he prayed Maariv before Birkat HaMazon, it is impossible to mention Shabbat: since he already made it a weekday through prayer, how can he mention Shabbat? It would be a contradiction. And so too regarding Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, and Purim. Similarly, if he performed Havdalah, or said "Who separates between the holy and the profane"—he should not mention Shabbat. And so too the reverse: if he ate during the day and it extended into the night, and at night it was Rosh Chodesh, and before Birkat HaMazon he prayed Maariv—perforce he must mention "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" in Birkat HaMazon, since he already made it Rosh Chodesh through prayer. And this is not because we follow the end of the meal, but because perforce he made this mention an obligation upon himself. And so too in all similar cases. And there is no difference whether he ate bread at night or did not eat, for the primary factor is the beginning of the meal. (The Taz and the Eliyah Rabbah are of the opinion to also follow the end of the meal, but such is not the opinion of the Bach and the Magen Avraham. And the Magen Avraham's opinion is that if he ate bread at night—he should mention the night, see there. And it is explicitly proven that it is not so. Now, all that they were pressed with in this matter is because of the Baraita in Pesachim 102a where they were reclining and the day became sanctified upon them, where Rabbi Yosei holds the first says Birkat HaMazon over it, and the second Kiddush of the day. And it is taught in the Tosefta that he mentions Shabbat in Birkat HaMazon, as the Rosh wrote in Responsa, siman 22. In my humble opinion, it is not difficult at all, for there, since according to the fundamental law he would have needed to also say Kiddush of the day over this cup, as the Gemara asks in Pesachim ibid. regarding Rabbi Yosei: "And let us say both of them on one cup," and answers that we do not perform commandments in bundles, see there. However, the obligation is incumbent upon him in any event to sanctify immediately, and it is as if the Kiddush is prepared and standing, so how could he not mention Shabbat? But in all other meals, we have only the beginning alone. And so is the primary halacha.)