Siman 206

If one recited the blessing over fruits of the tree "borei peri ha'adamah" – he has fulfilled his obligation, for the essence of the tree is the ground. The Rambam in chapter 8 ruled that he has not fulfilled his obligation, and his reasoning appears to be according to the sugya of the Shas which links this to bikkurim (40a), and regarding bikkurim we hold: that if the tree was cut down – he does not recite the declaration, because he cannot say "from the ground which You have given me," see there; it follows that the essence of the tree is not the ground. Nevertheless, the Tosafot and the Rosh and all the poskim ruled that he has fulfilled his obligation, like the anonymous Mishnah in Berakhot (ibid.), and even though the Shas linked them to one another, it is not precise, and in the Yerushalmi there they rejected this, saying it is not dependent on bikkurim, see there; therefore his opinion was not brought at all in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. And before us even in the Rambam it is explained that he has fulfilled his obligation, but all the Rishonim cited in his name that he has not fulfilled his obligation (see Beit Yosef and Kesef Mishneh), and perhaps he recanted and emended it to "he has fulfilled his obligation," however, in any event, such is the halacha. And over a fruit of the ground when one recited the blessing "ha'etz" – he has not fulfilled his obligation, for a tree is included in ground but ground is not included in a tree. Therefore, any place where there is a doubt or a dispute whether to recite "ha'etz" or "ha'adamah" – he should recite "ha'adamah" and he fulfills his obligation in any case.

However, ab initio it is forbidden to recite the blessing "borei peri ha'adamah" over a thing whose certain blessing is "ha'etz." And even if there are two things placed before him that he wishes to eat, one whose blessing is "ha'etz" and one "ha'adamah," such as a radish and an olive, he should not recite "ha'adamah" over the radish and intend to exempt the olive; rather, he first recites "ha'etz" over the olive and afterward recites "ha'adamah" over the radish, for the blessing of "ha'etz" precedes the blessing of "ha'adamah." And even if he preceded and recited the blessing over the radish "ha'adamah," if he did not explicitly intend to exempt the olive—he recites "ha'etz" over the olive afterward. And this is not considered increasing blessings, since this is not its primary blessing. However, ex post facto, if he recited the blessing over the radish "ha'adamah" and intended to exempt the olive—he has fulfilled his obligation, and it is forbidden for him to recite "ha'etz" over the olive afterward, as it would be a blessing in vain. And it has already been explained that regarding all of them, if he said "shehakol"—he has fulfilled his obligation, even over bread and wine, and certainly other things. And so too, when there is a fruit of the tree over which one recites "ha'adamah," such as unripe grapes or caper-buds on a caper bush and the like, according to the laws explained in siman 202, if he recited "ha'etz" over them—he has fulfilled his obligation, for ultimately they are fruit of the tree (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), and so too regarding fruit of the ground with respect to "shehakol" in this manner.

It appears to me that even though we hold that if one recited the blessing "ha'adamah" over fruit of the tree he has fulfilled his obligation, this is only regarding the fruits placed before him and not regarding fruits that are not before him. That is to say, behold, one who eats apples and recited "ha'etz" and they brought more apples before him—he has fulfilled his obligation with his first blessing, as will be explained, and this is when he recited "ha'etz." But when he recited "ha'adamah" and did not explicitly intend to exempt the apples that they would bring afterward—he recites "ha'etz" over the subsequent apples, for ab initio one should not recite "ha'adamah" over fruit of the tree, but rather ex post facto he has fulfilled his obligation, and we only have [this rule] for what is before him and not for what they will bring afterward. And all the more so when he recited a blessing over a radish and his intention was to exempt the olive and they brought other olives afterward—that he recites "ha'etz" over them (and the Taz, subsection 2, wishes to say that even in such a case it exempts and he wondered at the Shulchan Aruch, see there, and his words are astonishing and already the Sha'agat Aryeh, siman 27, wondered at him, and from the Mahari and the Rashba there is no proof at all, see there. And so it appears in my humble opinion regarding all the blessings that one fulfills ex post facto such as "shehakol," that this is only for what is before him, and examine this well).

It is forbidden to interrupt between the blessing and the eating more than the time it takes for speech, which is the greeting of a student to a teacher: "Peace be upon you, my teacher and my master." And if he interrupted with silence for more than this measure, some say he must return and bless (Beit Yosef), and some say he does not return and bless (ibid. siman 140), and such is the primary ruling (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). But if he spoke in the interim—it is obvious that he must return and bless (ibid.). And one may not interrupt between the blessing and the eating neither out of honor nor out of fear, and it is not similar to the blessings of Kriyat Shema, for there we do not bless "to read the Shema" and therefore the interruption is not a nullification of the Kriyat Shema, which is not the case regarding birkhot hanehenin (ibid.). Furthermore, for in a single moment he can taste any amount of the food or the drink and his blessing will not be in vain, and therefore a person should be very careful in this.

One must recite every berakhah in a manner that he makes it audible to his ears, and not like those who recite the berakhah in a whisper to the point that they themselves do not hear it and snatch the berakhah; rather, he should recite it in a low voice word by word and make it audible to his ears. However, post facto, if he did not make it audible to his ears—he has fulfilled his obligation, as it is no more stringent than Keriat Shema, provided that he articulates it with his lips. But with contemplation in the heart—he has not fulfilled his obligation according to the opinion of most poskim, except for the Rambam in chapter 1 of Berakhot, and it is a minority opinion. Therefore, it seems to me that if he ate a portion based on the contemplation of the berakhah—he should recite the berakhah and eat the remainder, and similarly regarding drinking, for it is a settled halakhah among the poskim that contemplation is not like speech. And berakhot may be said in any language, and we have already explained regarding this in siman 185 that it is impossible for us to do so, see there.

It is forbidden to recite a blessing naked until one covers his nakedness. In what case are these words said: regarding a man whose nakedness is revealed, but regarding a woman sitting and her lower parts are pressed against the ground, she may recite a blessing, for in such a case her nakedness is covered, and in siman 74 this was explained, see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: That even if he is not naked, if his heart sees the nakedness or if his head is uncovered—it is forbidden to recite a blessing. Thus far his words. The law of the heart seeing the nakedness was explained in siman 74, and there it was explained in what way an interruption and covering are effective, see there. And in section 5 there we explained that after the fact, if he recited a blessing while his heart saw the nakedness—that he does not need to return and recite the blessing, see there, and all the more so when he recited a blessing with an uncovered head that he does not need to return and recite the blessing. And there it was explained that the eye seeing the nakedness is forbidden by the Torah, see there.

Anything upon which one recites a blessing to eat it, or to drink it, or to smell it, one must hold it in his right hand when he recites the blessing. This is not a hindrance post facto, for even if he held it in his left hand or did not hold it at all, such as if it were resting before him on the table—his blessing is a blessing. And ab initio, one should not stick a knife into the thing he is eating at the time of the blessing, for there is no blessing in a sword; but post facto, this is not a hindrance. However, that the thing he eats or drinks or smells be before him—this is a hindrance even post facto, and one does not recite a blessing over food nor over drink until they bring it before him. And if he recited the blessing and afterward they brought it before him—he must recite the blessing another time; so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 5, see there. And it appears to me that this is specifically when the food or drink was not present at all yet and there was a great interruption until they brought it before him, but if he saw the food through a window and they immediately brought it before him, or if he recited the blessing in this room and the food was in the second room and immediately after the blessing he went to the second or third room and ate it—he has fulfilled his obligation with his blessing and does not need to recite the blessing another time, and proof for this is from Yoreh Deah siman 19, see there. And all this is post facto, but ab initio it must be literally prepared before him, and he should hold it in his right hand as I have written.

The Tur wrote: "One who recited a blessing over fruits that were before him and afterward they brought him more of that same species—he does not need to recite a blessing, even though they were not before him when he recited the blessing." Thus far his words. And it is implied from this specifically of the same species, but for another species he must recite a blessing (Bach). However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work wrote that there is no difference between this species and another species, since the blessing is the same, and based on this he wrote in section 5: "One who recited a blessing over fruits that were before him and afterward they brought him more of that same species or of another species whose blessing is like the blessing of the first—he does not need to recite a blessing." Thus far his words. And behold, this is certainly so if he explicitly intended at the time of the blessing for everything they would bring him; it is simple that he does not need to recite a blessing even for another species since his intention was for this. And so too the opposite, if he explicitly intended only for those placed before him, it is simple that he requires a blessing even if they bring him from the same species, and in these two details no man would argue. And whether there is still placed before him some of the fruits that were present at the time of the blessing or whether he already ate them, there is no practical difference in this, as is understood.

However, the dispute is regarding an unspecified case, meaning that he did not intend to eat more and also did not intend not to eat more. According to this, it is possible to say that they do not disagree at all, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, intended for a case where it was his explicit intention to eat more, or that he was in the house of others and relied on the table of the host, as he wrote in siman 179 in his great book, see there. And in Yoreh Deah siman 19, section 13, we wrote that his intention was either that some of the first fruits were still before him, and therefore he does not need to bless over the others even though it was not his intention, since also to the contrary it was not his intention, or that he explicitly intended at the time of the blessing that they should bring to him, see there. And behold, regarding the second explanation, certainly no one disagrees, but regarding the first explanation, there are those who disagree regarding a different species. And from the words of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote regarding the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in this wording: "And it is good to be careful initially to have one's intention on everything they will bring to him," thus far his words, from this it is clear that he explains the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, as referring to an unspecified case.

Regarding the law, one of the great Acharonim decided that if these fruits over which he recited the blessing have already been eaten, even if they brought him more of the same species—he must recite a blessing when his intention was not explicitly at the time of the blessing to bring more fruits and eat (Magen Avraham end of subsection 7), for all eating of fruits is in a temporary manner and a person's intention is only upon what is before him. However, if his intention was explicitly that they should bring others, or other fruits whose blessing is like the blessing of the first ones—it is simple that they are exempt from a blessing. And even if his intention was for others, if they brought a completely different matter, such as if he ate fish and his intention was that they should bring more fish and they brought liquor, even though their blessing is "shehakol" equally, nevertheless if his intention was not explicit for liquor, he is obligated to recite a blessing (as is implied in the Magen Avraham ibid.), unless he is dining at his fellow's house, for he relies upon the table of the host, and in this he is exempt from everything they bring as is written in siman 179, and in similar cases one should instruct regarding all matters (and also the opinion of the Taz subsection 7 appears so, and so the mind inclines).

And as long as these fruits have not yet been consumed, but rather some of them still remain and they brought other fruits, and it was in an unspecified manner—where his intention was neither to eat more nor to not eat more—behold, for that same species one certainly does not need to recite a blessing. And when they brought a different species, there is a dispute as has been written, and it is understood of itself that in a case of doubt regarding blessings, one should be lenient. And this is specifically when they brought a different species and nevertheless both are species of the tree, but regarding the blessing of 'shehakol' on two entirely separate species, such as fish and beer and the like—it is obvious that one must recite a blessing in an unspecified case, unless his intention was explicitly for this.

One who has many types of fruits before him, all of which their blessing is "ha'etz" or all of which are "ha'adamah," and his desire is to eat them all—he recites one blessing over all of them. It is forbidden for him to recite a blessing over one type and intend not to exempt the other types with this blessing, and afterwards recite a blessing over the second and likewise over the third in order to increase the blessings; this is like blessings in vain, and regarding such as this the prophet said: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices? says Hashem." And even if it were on Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim and his intention is to complete one hundred blessings, it is forbidden to do so. However, he may act in this manner: that they bring before him one type and he recites a blessing over it and intends not to exempt the other types, and afterwards they bring before him the second type and he recites a blessing over it and intends not to exempt another type, and so on forever. And even in this there are those who hesitate, for since his desire is to eat them all, why should he not bring them all and recite one blessing. However, in this matter, in order to complete one hundred blessings, one may rely on those who permit it, but not when they are all before him (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 8 in the name of the Maharam Galanti).

The Rambam wrote in chapter 4, law 10: "If one took food and recited a blessing over it, and it fell from his hand and was burned or a river swept it away—he takes another and repeats the blessing over it, even if it is of the same species… A person may stand over a stream of water and recite a blessing and drink, even though the water that was before him at the time of the blessing is not the water he drank, because that was his initial intent." Thus far his words. And this is from the Yerushalmi (chapter 6, halacha 1). And it appears explicitly that regarding the other which he takes, his intent was not also to eat it; for if it were not so, why did he need to say: 'even if it is of the same species,' he should have informed us of a greater novelty: even if his intent was to eat it. Rather, it is certain that in such a case one does not need to recite a blessing. And it is an a fortiori argument from the stream of water, for even though the water he drinks was not before him at the time of the blessing, only because his intent was upon them he fulfilled his obligation; how much more so regarding the other fruit that was before him and his intent was to eat it after he ate this one that he held in his hand, that he does not need to recite a blessing.

However, the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 6 is in a different manner, as they wrote: "If one took a fruit in his hand to eat it and recited a blessing over it, and it fell from his hand and was lost or became repulsive—he must recite the blessing again, even though there was more of that same species before him when he blessed over the first one." Thus far their words. From this wording, the commentators understood that their intention was even if his intention was to eat them (Taz subsection 8 and Derisha), and because of this they questioned our teacher, the Rema, who wrote: "only if his intention was not to eat it." Thus far his words. And they wrote that this is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and our teacher Yonah, but the opinion of the Rambam, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Beit Yosef is that even if it was his intention to eat them, he must recite a blessing. In my humble opinion, their words are astonishing and the words of our teacher, the Rema, are correct; for aside from the fact that there is no logical reason to require another blessing in this manner, why did they need to say: 'even though there was more of that same species before him', they should have said: 'even though his intention was to eat them'. Rather, it is certain that in such a case they agree that he does not need a blessing. And they wrote a greater novelty than the Rambam, that even if there was more of that same species before him, nevertheless since he did not intend to eat them, he must recite a blessing another time, and such is the primary ruling (and so wrote the Levush).

And some say further: that even in an unspecified case where his intention was not explicit, neither to eat nor not to eat, if the fruits are placed before him—he does not need to bless (Magen Avraham, subsection 8, in the name of the Mabit). And some disagree on this, for in an unspecified case he must bless (Magen Avraham, ibid.), and to this the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch inclines, as is understood. However, if it is the way of this man not to be satisfied with one fruit and he eats two or more—it is as if his intention was to eat more and he does not need to bless.

It is stated in the Yerushalmi there: that when one needs to recite a different blessing and it turns out that the first one was in vain, he should say: "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever," for this is the remedy for a blessing in vain, and so wrote the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch. And they further wrote that if he had only said: "Blessed are You, Hashem," he should conclude: "teach me Your statutes," for this is a verse, and it is like one reading in the Torah. And if he recited a blessing over water and it became known that he must pour it out because of a corpse or because of the tekufah, nevertheless he should drink a little so that his blessing will not be in vain, and "he who keeps a commandment shall know no evil thing" (Magen Avraham there). And if he erred in the blessing and recited a different blessing, it will be explained in siman 209 with the help of Heaven. (Regarding the remedy of "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever" for a blessing in vain, the reason was not explained, and perhaps because he uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, he therefore needs to accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven).