Siman 208

One blessing that is an abridgment of the three, this is its version in the Gemara (44a) and in the Tur: "Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, for the sustenance and for the nourishment, and for the produce of the field, and for a desirable, good, and spacious land that You were pleased to give as an inheritance to our forefathers, to eat of its fruit and to be satisfied from its goodness. Have mercy, Hashem our God, upon Israel Your people, and upon Jerusalem Your city, and upon Zion the dwelling place of Your glory, and upon Your altar, and upon Your Sanctuary, and rebuild Jerusalem the holy city speedily in our days, and bring us up into its midst and gladden us in its rebuilding (this is not in the Tur), for You, Hashem, are good and do good to all (this is not in the Tur), Blessed are You, Hashem, for the land and for the sustenance." And in the Tur there is added further "and for the nourishment," but the poskim did not agree to this, and so wrote the Rambam and the Smag (Beit Yosef), and such is our custom and one should not change it. And in the prayer books there was added further before the conclusion of the blessing: "And we shall thank You for the land and for the sustenance," and such is our custom to say it so that it shall be an abridgment of the conclusion adjacent to the conclusion. And this blessing is over the five species of grain included in wheat and barley, and over the five species of fruits: grapevine and fig and pomegranate, olives and honey which are dates, also this blessing, except that it begins: "for the tree and for the fruit of the tree," and over wine: "for the vine and for the fruit of the vine," and the conclusion: "for the land and for the fruits," and this will be further explained with the help of Heaven in section 6.

And it is called "a blessing that is an abridgment of the three" because it includes all three blessings of the birkat hamazon. How so: "for the sustenance" is an abridgment of the blessing of "Who feeds," and similarly regarding fruits and wine, "for the tree" and "for the vine." "And for the desirable land" is an abridgment of the blessing of the land, "have mercy" is an abridgment of "Who builds Jerusalem," "for You, Hashem, are good and do good" is an abridgment of the blessing of "the good and Who does good" which the rabbis instituted. And in truth, the Rambam wrote in chapter 8 that there are those who were accustomed not to say it, because one only needs to say an abridgment of the three and not an abridgment of the four; however, the Tur wrote that so it is in all the versions, and it is called "an abridgment of the three" regarding the three blessings of the Torah that are in birkat hamazon, and such is the simple custom in all the dispersions of Israel.

Whether the me'ein shalosh blessing is from the Torah like birkat hamazon or rabbinic like other blessings is undecided. From the words of the Rambam in chapter 8, who explained beforehand all the blessings and also the me'ein shalosh blessing, and wrote afterwards in law 12: "All these blessings, if one is in doubt regarding them... he does not go back and bless, neither at the beginning nor at the end, because they are from the words of the scribes," thus far his words; it is explicitly clear that it is not from the Torah, for regarding birkat hamazon he ruled in chapter 2 that one goes back and blesses because it is from the Torah (and so wrote the Kesef Mishneh there). And some say that it is from the Torah (Magen Avraham siman 172, subsection 3), and this is the opinion of the Tur at the end of siman 209 who wrote regarding the words of the Rambam that we brought, and this is his wording: "And it seems specifically the first [blessing] which is rabbinic... but the final blessing of me'ein shalosh for the seven species is from the Torah, for he relies on the verse and goes back," thus far his words. And the phrasing "relies on the verse" is not understood, as it implies a mere asmachta (Beit Yosef). And the Semag also wrote that this is rabbinic, for if it were from the Torah we would bless three blessings. And indeed, Rabban Gamliel holds so in the Mishnah (44a), for he reasons that "and you shall bless" refers to all seven species, but the sages disagree with him and reason that "and you shall bless" refers only to bread, as it is written there: "A land wherein you shall eat bread without scarceness," and this verse was written after the verse of the seven species, and it interrupted with this to tell you that "and you shall bless" refers only to bread, and in the entire Shas we find only that birkat hamazon is from the Torah. And the Rashba in his novellae (beginning of chapter 6) wrote explicitly that it is from the Torah, see there, and so wrote the Rosh (there siman 16) that it is from the Torah, see there. And since it is a dispute of the great authorities, it is a legal doubt, and it will be explained at the end of siman 209. (And according to these teachers of ours, one must say that that which we say there, "'A land' interrupted the matter," this refers to three blessings but not to one blessing; and the Derishah wrote regarding the Tur that we do not learn it from this verse but from another verse or from a law given to Moses at Sinai, see there, and the difficulty is evident and there is no need to elaborate on this).

And one should not ask that if this blessing is of rabbinic origin, why did they change it from other fruits whose final blessing is "borei nefashot," for the reason is simple: for the fruits of the five species with which the Land of Israel was praised, they instituted an important blessing, a reflection of the three [blessings of Grace after Meals], and for other fruits "borei nefashot" is sufficient. And even though regarding the initial blessing there is no distinction between them, this is because it is impossible to distinguish between them as they are all the fruit of the tree. And the proof: for regarding the five species of grain, when one cooks them, even their initial blessing is different from other foods, for their blessing is "borei minei mezonot" due to their importance, and this is impossible to institute for the five species of fruits, as they are not called sustenance. But regarding the final blessing, it was possible to institute an important blessing for all seven species, due to the importance of the Land of Israel.

The Tur wrote in the name of the Ri that one should not say "and for the produce of the field" regarding fruits and wine, for this phrasing is only appropriate for types of grain, as it is stated: "And he ate the produce of the field." Thus far his words. However, in the version of the Gemara, the Rif, and the Rambam, it is written even regarding them, see there, and such is the common custom. And in truth, Rashi explained regarding "And he ate the produce of the field" — these are the fruits of the Land of Israel which are light and quick to ripen etc., behold, it refers to all fruits. Furthermore, its root is 'nuv', which is a term for sprouting and growth, as it is written: "They shall still bring forth fruit in old age," "if wealth increases," "and fill the face of the world with fruit," and so the grammarians explained that it is a term for the sprouting of the fruit and its growth, as is explained in Meir Nativ.

And when he concludes: "for the fruits, for the land, etc.": In the diaspora he should say: "for the land and for the fruits," and in the Land of Israel he should say: "for the land and for its fruits." And so too if he eats fruits of the Land of Israel in the diaspora, he should also conclude: "and for its fruits," and so too the reverse, when he eats fruits of the diaspora in the Land of Israel, he should say: "and for the fruits." And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11 regarding the blessing abridged from three concerning wine: He does not conclude "for the vine and for the fruit of the vine" but rather "for the land and for the fruit of the vine" or "for the land and for the fruits." Thus far his words, for he holds that regarding the conclusion, wine is equal to all fruits. But there are those who disagree on this and hold that one must mention the vine also in the conclusion, and therefore one should say: "for the land and for the fruit of the vine," for in such a case everyone agrees (Taz, subsection 14), and such is the simple custom. And post facto, if he concluded "for the vine and for the fruit of the vine," he has also fulfilled his obligation (Magen Avraham, subsection 17). And this is regarding the final conclusion, but before the final conclusion everyone agrees that one must say: "and we thank You for the land and for the fruit of the vine." And regarding fruits he should say: "for the land and for the fruits" even in the Land of Israel, for it is sufficient in the final conclusion to say "its fruits" (it seems to me).

One mentions in this blessing that of Shabbat, and of Yom Tov, and of Rosh Chodesh, for since it is a long blessing, one must mention in it the nature of the occasion just as in Birkat HaMazon. And this is it: before "And we shall thank You," one says on Shabbat: "Be pleased and strengthen us on this Shabbat day," and on Yom Tov one says: "And remember us for good on this day of such-and-such festival," and some say: "And gladden us for good on the day of etc.," and on Rosh Chodesh one says: "And remember us for good on this day of Rosh Chodesh," and on Rosh Hashanah: "On this Day of Remembrance." And in all of them, if he did not mention it—he has fulfilled his obligation and they do not make him return. But for Chanukah and for Purim one does not mention them at all, since even in Birkat HaMazon and prayer it does not invalidate post facto.

If one ate mezonot and drank wine and ate fruits of the five species, he should not make an individual blessing for each one by itself, but rather include them all in one blessing, and say: 'for the sustenance and for the nourishment and for the vine and for the fruit of the vine and for the tree and for the fruit of the tree,' for he should prioritize sustenance over the vine and the vine over the fruits. And at its conclusion he should also say: 'and we shall thank You for the land and for the sustenance and for the vine and for the fruit of the vine and for the fruits, blessed are You, Hashem, for the land and for the sustenance and for the fruit of the vine and for the fruits.' And this is not considered a conclusion with two matters which one should not do, for the land produces everything. And some say that in such a case it is certainly sufficient when he says: 'and for the sustenance and for the fruits,' and there is no need to mention that of the vine (Magen Avraham subsection 20 in the name of the Mordechai and the Agudah).

Regarding the five species of grain, which are: wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt, when one makes bread from them—he recites the blessing of 'Hamotzi', and when he kneads them with fruit juice or eggs—he recites 'Mezonot' and at their conclusion 'Al Hamichyah', if he does not eat from them an amount sufficient for the fixing of a meal, as is explained in siman 168 regarding the law of pat haba'ah b'kisnin, see there. However, if he ate raw grain, one of the five species, or if he made them into parched grain roasted over fire, or even if he cooked them in a pot with water but the kernels remained whole, as they come from the threshing floor without their husks being removed (Magen Avraham, subsection 5)—he only recites 'Borei Peri Ha'adamah' and after it 'Borei Nefashot', as it was taught in a Baraita (36a): "One who chews wheat—recites over it 'Borei Peri Ha'adamah'; if he ground it, baked it, and cooked it—he recites 'Borei Minei Mezonot'." And the reason is that when eating them in these manners, they do not possess the status of bread nor the status of sustenance, and the verse 'And you shall eat and be satisfied and you shall bless' does not deal with this manner, and they are nothing but like any fruit of the ground that has not changed for the better like bread and types of sustenance. However, our teachers the Tosafists were uncertain there regarding their final blessing as it is not explained in the Gemara, and perhaps they require a blessing abridged from the three. Therefore, they wrote that it is proper not to eat them except within a meal and Birkat Hamazon will exempt them, or that he should eat with them types of sustenance and also something that requires 'Borei Nefashot'. And if it happened that he ate them alone—he should recite 'Borei Nefashot' (ibid. subsection 7), for such is the opinion of most of the poskim, and in our regions we do not know of this eating at all.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4: That which one recites the blessing 'borei pri ha'adamah' over them refers to one who eats wheat and the like which are fit to be eaten in such a manner; however, one who eats whole barley, even if roasted in fire, they are not fit to be eaten except through pressing circumstances, and one only recites 'shehakol' before them. Thus far his words. And as it appears in our countries, even wheat is only fit through pressing circumstances, and in our days we have not heard that one would eat them even through pressing circumstances, and also 'kali and karmel' which are written in the Torah we have not heard of regarding our wheat, and the law requires further study. And when one eats dry flour or flour roasted in fire, even of wheat, according to the law of the Gemara one only recites 'shehakol' over them and after it 'borei nefashot', it makes no difference if it was ground very fine or if it was ground a little and still possesses the taste of wheat. And the reason: they have lost the blessing of 'ha'adamah' since the form of the fruit is no longer upon them, and they have not reached the category of bread or sustenance, and therefore their blessing is 'shehakol', and even this is not known to us.

But one who makes a dough and boils them or fried them—he blesses "borei minei mezonot" and after it "al hamichyah" even if he ate much, enough for a fixed meal; and there are details in this regarding frying and they were explained in siman 168, for there are types of frying that when one eats them as a fixed meal he blesses "hamotzi," see there. And flour of one of the five species that one boiled and mixed with water or with other liquids: if it was thick enough to be fit for eating and for chewing it, meaning that it is thick such that it has the substance of eating, even if it does not need to be chewed with his teeth because it is soft (ibid. subsection 8)—he blesses "borei minei mezonot" and after it "al hamichyah." And if it was soft enough to be fit for drinking—the status of eating does not apply to it, just as with beer, and he blesses "shehakol" and after it "borei nefashot" as with all types of drinks. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: When they put flour into almonds that they make for a sick person, if they do so in order to sustain the heart—he blesses "borei minei mezonot," and it is good to be stringent and to swallow it during the meal after the blessing of "hamotzi" and he is exempt in any case. Thus far his words. And it is simple that this refers to it being thick such that it has the substance of eating, for if not so, in every case he blesses "shehakol" as I have written. And that which he wrote: "and to swallow it" is not literal, and his intention is to eat it (ibid. subsection 3). And candies that are made from sugar and they put flour in them—it is only for binding alone and their blessing is "shehakol," but cake, even though it has much honey and many spices, nevertheless its essence is for its eating and its blessing is "borei minei mezonot" (and see Taz subsection 4 and his words require further study and the custom is not so, see there).

The Rambam wrote in chapter 3, law 4: "Flour from one of the five species that one cooked in a pot, whether alone or whether one mixed it with other things such as pancakes and the like, and similarly grain that one split or crushed and cooked in a pot such as groats and parched grain and the like, and all of this is called 'pot-cooked food,' and similarly any cooked dish in which one mixed some of the five species, whether flour or bread at the outset — one recites over it 'borei minei mezonot.'" Thus far his words, and similarly wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 2.

And the explanation of the matters: that it deals with thick flour that has the substance of food, and therefore even if one mixed it with other things that are a majority against the flour, nevertheless the flour is the primary element. And so it is stated in the Gemara (36b): "Anything that contains from the five species—one recites over it 'borei minei mezonot'", meaning even if they are a minority against the rest of the things in the pot. This is the wording of the Tur: "A cooked dish that is from the five species, even if one mixed other things with it until they became the majority—one recites over them 'borei minei mezonot' and at the end one blessing of the nature of three. But if one only put from them into the dish to thicken it or to bind it—they are nullified in the dish." Thus far his words.

The Rambam did not mention a blessing afterward of the type of the three, because this is not a general rule; for even though over foods one always blesses when there is even a small amount of flour from the five species, nevertheless, the final blessing of "al hamichyah" is only when there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras of the flour, and it is in such a case that the Tur is dealing. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explained this matter in section 9, where he wrote: "If one mixed millet flour and other types of legumes with flour of the five species of grain and cooked it in a pot—one blesses 'borei minei mezonot' and 'al hamichyah,' and if one made bread from it—one blesses 'hamotzi' and birkat hamazon. And specifically when there is in that flour from the five species enough that one would eat from it a kezayit of grain within the time of eating a pras; but if it does not have this measure of the five species, one does not bless birkat hamazon afterward, but rather at the beginning one blesses 'hamotzi' since it has the taste of grain even though it does not have a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, and afterward 'al hamichyah.' And if one cooked it in a pot, one blesses at the beginning 'borei minei mezonot' and after it 'borei nefashot.'" Thus far his words. And regarding that which he wrote concerning bread where there is no kezayit within the time of eating a pras, that one blesses 'al hamichyah' afterward—and seemingly one should have blessed 'borei nefashot' just as when one cooked it in a pot, and there are those who raised this difficulty against him (Magen Avraham, subsection 15). However, his reason is that when there is no kezayit within the time of eating a pras, we descend one level and no more; therefore, regarding bread where if there were a kezayit within the time of eating a pras it would require birkat hamazon, therefore when there is no kezayit within the time of eating a pras we descend to 'al hamichyah.' And regarding a cooked dish where if there were a kezayit within the time of eating a pras it would require 'al hamichyah,' therefore when there is no kezayit within the time of eating a pras, 'borei nefashot' (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 13; and in the Derishah he answered in a different manner and it is forced, see there; and that which the Magen Avraham wrote that rice drags, see there, it will be explained later in section 23, and look closely).

And that which the Rambam wrote: "And so too grain that one divided or pounded and cooked in a pot, such as grits, etc." Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter: For it has already been explained in section 9 that when one cooked whole grains of grain whose husk was not removed—one recites over them "ha'adamah." And regarding this he says: "grain that one divided or pounded," meaning that he did not cook whole grains but rather divided the grains, like all our "groats," barley or oats, where from one grain of barley or oats several crumbs are made, and automatically their husk was removed from them and they became small crumbs. And afterward he said: "or pounded them," meaning even though he did not divide them but rather pounded them so much until their husk was removed, and also from the substance of the food itself much was removed, as they would pound the "gagalach" or like our "pearl groats" where they grind the barley in a mill, and they are not ground into thin crumbs like "groats," but rather each barley grain is pounded by the stone until its husk is removed from it and also from the substance of the barley itself much is removed as is known, and therefore their berakhah is "mezonot" and at the end "al hamichyah." And their law is like flour that was explained, that even if they are the minority in the cooked dish—their berakhah is "mezonot," and if there is a kezayit of them within the time of "achilat pras"—one recites at the end "al hamichyah." And if there is not a kezayit of them within the time of "achilat pras"—one recites at the beginning "borei minei mezonot" and at the end "borei nefashot," as with the flour of the five species that was explained.

The wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in this matter requires clarification, for he wrote in section 2: "The five species of grain that one boiled or crushed and made from them a cooked dish, such as pot-cooked foods, groats, crushed grain, and porridge, even if one mixed with them much honey—more than them—or other species—much more than them—one recites over it 'borei minei mezonot' and afterward 'al hamichya.' But if one did not put the grain in the cooked dish except to bind it or to thicken it—it is nullified in the cooked dish." Thus far his words. And behold, all of this has already been explained, but that which he wrote at the beginning of his words: "The five species of grain that one boiled" is difficult, for it implies that even if one boiled them while they were whole, and has it not already been explained that over whole grains their blessing is 'borei pri ha'adama' (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And they wrote that his intention is that he boiled them so much until they were mashed and stuck to one another (ibid.), meaning that in such a case, even if he cooked them whole—he recites 'borei minei mezonot.'

And based on this, I have heard that there are those who err in saying that when one cooks our groats, if they do not stick to one another—meaning that they should shrink significantly until they stick to one another—one recites "ha-adamah." And it is a complete error. First, because this is only when one cooks whole grains and not when they are divided like our groats, as is explained in the words of the Rambam, and likewise not when one has crushed them like our pearl groats. However, besides this, it is clear that a small printing error fell into the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and regarding that which is written: "that he boiled them [she-shalkun]," it should say: "that he divided them [she-halkun]," for it is a transcription of the language of the Rambam as is his holy way, and why would he change his words for naught, and how could he not transcribe what the Rambam wrote? Rather, it is certain that from the letter het of "she-halkun" they erred to the second shin of "she-shalkun." Nevertheless, the law that they innovated—that even when one cooked them whole and they were mashed and stuck to one another, it is also true—for in such a case their husk was certainly removed and it is like dividing them or crushing them (and I found that the Gaon Rabbi Zalman Margolios wrote likewise in Yad Ephraim, that it is an error, and he wrote likewise in the name of Eshel Avraham, see there).

And according to this, when we cook noodles or farfel or kreplach or barley groats or oats or pearl barley, even if one mixes into them types of legumes such as peas, beans, and potatoes which are called "kartoffel," and they are much more than the groats or the noodles, etc., nevertheless, one recites over the cooked dish "borei minei mezonot." However, regarding the final blessing "al hamichyah," one must estimate if he will eat of the groats or of the noodles, etc., a kezayit within the time of "achilat pras" of the entire cooked dish, and this is approximately three or four eggs—he recites "al hamichyah," and if not—he recites "borei nefashot." And there is no difference whether the groats stuck to one another or did not stick, or whether they were crushed or were not crushed; and if they stuck and were crushed, even if he cooked them whole—their blessing is "borei minei mezonot." And know that buckwheat or "grechka" are not included in the five species and their blessing is always "ha'adamah," and this is known to most people. And all this is when they put the groats or the noodles, etc., for the purpose of eating, but if they put them merely to bind, they are nullified relative to the other foods.

It is a simple matter that if one cooked soup for a sick person, or even for a healthy person where the primary intent is for the soup and they put in a few groats merely to bind it or to give sweetness to the soup or for medicine - its berakhah is 'shehakol'. And even if when one takes a spoonful of soup some groats are mixed into it, they are subordinate. And if one picks out the groats alone and eats them - he recites 'borei peri ha'adamah' (Magen Avraham subsection 7), and all the more so with buckwheat groats. And one does not recite 'ha'adamah' over a dish of buckwheat unless there are many groats in the dish, such that the intent of the dish is for the sake of the groats and not for the sake of the broth. And all the more so with buckwheat kasha that one recites 'ha'adamah', and not like those who err to recite 'shehakol'. And in this manner with all types of legumes or with potatoes, it depends on what his intent is in this dish, whether for the sake of the broth or for the sake of the food (see Turei Zahav end of subsection 11 what he wrote regarding 'tatartki' that it is 'shehakol', and if this is buckwheat, these are astonishing words).

And know that we have types of very small groats called manna groats, and some of them are of wheat and their berakhah is 'mezonot', and some of them are of buckwheat and their berakhah is 'borei peri ha'adamah'. And there needs to be a distinction between them because to the eye they are similar to one another; therefore, one must inquire about them as to what they are. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 8: "One who makes a cooked dish from other types of legumes, if they remained whole and are good cooked as they are raw - he recites 'borei peri ha'adamah', and if they were completely mashed or they are not good cooked as they are raw - he recites 'shehakol'." Thus far his words. And that which is written: 'completely mashed', his intention is when they were mashed through a perforated vessel (Magen Avraham subsection 13) for that is not the way of eating them (Beit Yosef), as we have those who strain the legumes and only a thick soup remains and they call this gesiebte erbsen, or that he ground the legumes and made a food from the flour and it is also only like a thick soup. But when he mashed them with a spoon, the primary way of eating them is such and their substance remains, and he recites over them 'borei peri ha'adamah' (Magen Avraham ibid.). And so it is with potatoes when they mash them with a spoon and they call this kasha bulba, or they fry the mashed ones in butter or in fat - their berakhah is 'borei peri ha'adamah', as the Rambam wrote in chapter 8 regarding fruits that he mashed and made into a kind of dough that their berakhah is 'ha'etz', and as is written in siman 202 section 24, see there, and similarly in all types of cooked dishes. And know that there is in some places a type of cooked dish and they call this 'manna', and they are gathered in the summer days in the morning from the dew and they dry them and their appearance is like groats, and their berakhah is 'shehakol' for it is not a type of seed. And there is another type of cooked dish made in factories and they call this sago and they are round, and it is not known to me what their nature is and from what they are made.

Rice is "reiz" and millet is "hirz," and although there are those who were uncertain about this, it has now been clarified that this is so and there is no doubt in the matter. Both are types of seeds, and it would be appropriate that the blessing for both of them should be "ha'adamah" as it is for all seeds. However, our sages, of blessed memory, ruled that over rice one recites the initial blessing "borei minei mezonot" and the final blessing "borei nefashot" (37a), for because it is satiating and sustains the heart, they said so regarding the initial blessing (Rosh ibid.). And so too, if one baked bread from rice, he recites "borei minei mezonot" and after it "borei nefashot," and it is the opinion of the Rosh that also regarding millet the law is so, for it too is satiating and sustaining. But this is not the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, and millet is like all other seeds, and so the world conducts itself.

Therefore, one who chews rice—he blesses over it 'borei peri ha'adamah', for it is no better than one who chews wheat, and after it 'borei nefashot'. But if he cooked it or ground it and made bread from it—he blesses over it 'borei minei mezonot' and after it 'borei nefashot'. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote on this in section 7: "He cooked it until it was mashed" thus far his words, and his intention is that if it were not mashed, since he eats them whole, they are no better than whole wheat, for which cooking does not avail to require the blessing of 'mezonot', but rather their blessing is 'ha'adamah' as written in section 9, and so too it is here. However, it is not comparable, for this is the way rice is eaten and it is not like wheat, and so wrote the Kol Bo in the name of the Ri, and so appears the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, that for rice the blessing is always 'borei minei mezonot'. And it seems to me that even the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is not that it be mashed completely until each one does not stand on its own, but rather that it was cooked completely so that each and every rice grain expanded in the manner of good cooking. And it seems to me that such is the custom of the world, that for anything cooked well they bless 'borei minei mezonot', and so is the primary law (the Eliyah Rabbah sub-section 9 took issue with the Rema, and also the Magen Avraham sub-section 10 is of this opinion, and so too the Gra in sub-section 21, and the Taz in sub-section 8 was pressed in this, and according to my humble opinion even the intention of the Rema is not that it be mashed completely, and delve into this).

And regarding cooked rice, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: "And this is provided that it is not mixed with another thing, but rather rice alone; but if he mixed some of it into another cooked dish, and the other dish is the majority—he recites over it the berakhah of that dish." Thus far his words. That is to say, even though its berakhah is 'mezonot' like all five species of grain, nevertheless its law is not equal to them; for regarding them, even when they are the minority in the cooked dish, one recites 'borei minei mezonot' as written in section 13, but rice, when it is a minority, is nullified in relation to the rest of the cooked items in the pot. And there is a further deficiency in rice even compared to other cooked items, for behold, in section 14 it was explained that even though for the five species of grain, even when they are a minority, one recites 'borei minei mezonot', nevertheless regarding 'al hamichyah' we require that one eat a kezayit of them within the time of eating a pras, see there. And in the Yerushalmi, first chapter of Challah, it says that rice is 'migrar garir', that is to say, the nature of rice when it is mixed with wheat is that its taste becomes like the wheat itself, and for this reason we learned in the first chapter of Challah: "One who makes dough from wheat and from rice, if it has the taste of grain—it is liable for challah and a person fulfills his obligation with it on Pesach." And the Ramban and the Maggid Mishneh ruled that even if there is not a kezayit of wheat within the time of eating a pras, it is because the wheat 'drags' the rice, and if so, the same law applies regarding 'al hamichyah'. However, the Ra'avad and the Rashba disagree on this, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 453, and therefore one should not act upon this (see Magen Avraham subsection 15 that the Rambam and the Rosh also hold like the Ramban and the Maggid Mishneh, and as for the difficulty the Magen Avraham raised as to why one recites 'al hamichyah', there we have already answered in section 14 in the name of the Eliyah Rabbah, and look closely).

Even though bread stands at a higher level than all cooked dishes, such that due to its importance one recites the blessing of 'Hamotzi' over it, and also regarding rice, in any event, it does not lose its importance; nevertheless, regarding millet and other types of legumes, it loses its importance, for if one made bread from them—one only recites the blessing of 'Shehakol' over it, because it is not the way of people to make bread from them at all, and it has left the category of fruit and it is impossible to recite the blessing of 'Ha'adamah' over them, therefore its blessing is 'Shehakol' and after it 'Borei Nefashot'.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said (41a): "Items that come after the meal that are not on account of the meal require a blessing both before them and after them," see there. And ostensibly, why is a blessing required after them? Is it as if birkat hamazon is inferior to a blessing of the type of three or to "borei nefashot"? From this our teachers inferred that the truth is indeed so, that birkat hamazon does not exempt even blessings smaller than it, and birkat hamazon does not exempt "al hamichyah" (the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah). And the reason appears from the commentary of Rashi who wrote: "For birkat hamazon does not exempt them, as they are not sustenance," thus far his words; meaning that birkat hamazon exempts only matters of sustenance, which is the bread by which man lives. And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 17: "The blessing of three does not exempt 'the type of three,' for if one ate porridge, birkat hamazon does not exempt him (if he erred and recited birkat hamazon). But regarding wine, the blessing of three exempts it, for if one recited birkat hamazon over wine instead of 'al hagafen'—he has fulfilled his obligation. And the same law applies if he recited birkat hamazon over dates instead of 'al ha'etz'—he has fulfilled his obligation, and even if he only said the blessing of 'hazan' whether over wine or over dates—he has fulfilled his obligation. And if he remembered before he concluded the blessing of 'hazan,' he should begin 'and for having given our fathers as a heritage a desirable, good, and spacious land,' and conclude with the blessing of the type of three," thus far his words.

And the reason that for wine and dates it exempts is because they also nourish. Nevertheless, the matter is perplexing, for we are witnesses that deisa nourishes more than wine and dates, and there is one who indeed wavers on this for this reason (Be'er HaGolah). And there is one who says the reason is because deisa has another superiority in bread (Magen Avraham subsection 25), and nevertheless, it is not understood what one matter has to do with the other. And in truth, from the words of the Rosh in the sugya of things that come on account of the meal in the name of the Behag, it is implied that Birkat HaMazon exempts deisa, see there; and so wrote the Rashba there regarding pat haba'ah b'kisnin, and this is his wording: "However, after it, it does not require a blessing, for Birkat HaMazon exempts it, as this too is nourishment, and it is law that Birkat HaMazon should exempt it, etc." Thus far his words. Therefore, even though our teacher Yonah ruled that Birkat HaMazon does not exempt them and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, rules accordingly, nevertheless, since from the words of the Rosh and the Rashba it is implied that they disagree, it is therefore a legal doubt in any case, and if one recited Birkat HaMazon over deisa or over pat haba'ah b'kisnin—it is impossible to instruct that he should recite 'Al HaMichyah,' and it requires further study (also the opinion of the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 25 appears so, see there).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, further wrote in section 13: "If one ate fruits from the seven species and ate apples—he does not need to recite the blessing 'borei nefashot' over the apples, for they are also included in the blessing 'al ha'etz,' as they too are the fruit of a tree. But if one ate apples and drank wine—he must recite 'borei nefashot' over the apples, and certainly if he ate meat or the fruit of the ground and drank wine or ate from the seven species—he must recite a blessing over each and every one. And the same law applies if one ate meat and fish and ate from the five species—the blessing 'al hamichyah' does not exempt the meat and the fish." Thus far his words, for the general principle of the matter is: that the blessing 'al hamichyah' does not exempt the blessing 'borei nefashot.' And behold, the Tur wrote that his opinion was that the blessing 'al hamichyah' should exempt a relish, for they too nourish, but the Rosh did not agree with his words, see there. And they wrote the reason is because it does not sustain, and they have no connection to one another (Beit Yosef). And furthermore, that in 'al hamichyah' sustenance is not mentioned, and a relish is not a 'michyah' (Taz, subsection 16). And I wonder greatly, for behold we say in Eruvin (30a) that all things are called 'sustenance' except for water and salt, see there; if so, let the Grace After Meals exempt every type of food, and if it is because it was not instituted for this, why does it exempt wine and dates? And furthermore, it is not understood what the difference is between 'michyah' and 'sustenance.' Therefore, it appears to me that the primary reason of the Rosh is that since this blessing was not instituted for this species, one does not fulfill his obligation with it. And wine and dates are different because we find in the Gemara that they are similar to bread; for regarding wine, we find the Shas says (35b): "Bread sustains and wine sustains and gladdens." And it asks: if so, let us recite three blessings over it, and it answers: people do not establish a meal upon it. And regarding dates, it says there (12a) that if one ate dates and opened the blessing for bread and concluded with dates—he fulfilled his obligation, and even if he concluded with bread—he fulfilled his obligation, because dates nourish, see there. Therefore, what we find in the Gemara, we find, but other things must each be according to what the Rabbis instituted and not another blessing.

He further wrote: "If one drank wine and recited the blessing 'borei peri ha-gafen' and then ate grapes—he must recite over them 'borei peri ha-etz,' and similarly in the final blessing he must mention 'al ha-etz ve-al peri ha-etz.' But if, after the fact, he recited 'borei peri ha-gafen' over the grapes or 'al ha-gafen' after them—he has fulfilled his obligation. If one drank wine and water, he should not recite 'borei nefashot' over the water, for the blessing over the wine exempts them, just as in the first blessing wine exempts all types of drinks." Thus far his words. And this is specifically when the drinks were before him at the time he recited the blessing over the wine (Magen Avraham, subsection 24). And this is when drinking wine in a casual manner, but when drinking in the manner of a fixed drinking session, even if the drinks were not before him—he does not require a blessing (ibid.). And the reason that one fulfills the obligation for grapes with the blessing of 'ha-gafen' is because the primary purpose of grapes is for wine, and it is similar to the case of a tree where if one recited 'ha-adamah' he has fulfilled his obligation, and so too it is here (Beit Yosef). Therefore, even if he drank wine and intended to exempt the grapes—he has also fulfilled his obligation (ibid. and Magen Avraham, subsection 23). And if he erred and recited 'borei peri ha-etz' over the wine—he has not fulfilled his obligation, and he must return and recite 'borei peri ha-gafen' (ibid. subsection 22). And even though there are those who disagree on this, nevertheless, this is the primary ruling for the law for the reason we wrote in the previous section (and so wrote the Yad Ephraim).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 18: "One should not include any addition in the blessing of me'ein shalosh due to doubt, even though he does not add the Name and Sovereignty. For example, if one drank a beverage where it is a doubt whether its blessing is 'al hagefen' or 'borei nefashot,' he should not eat something whose blessing is 'borei nefashot' and something whose blessing is 'al ha'etz ve'al pri ha'etz' and include with it also 'al hagefen ve'al pri hagefen' out of doubt." Thus far their words, because it constitutes an interruption in the blessing if it is not necessary for it. And there is one who says that only ab initio one should not do so, but post facto he may do so since there is no remedy in any other manner (Taz, siff katan 19 and Eliyah Rabbah, siff katan 17). And it is simple that one who ate a fruit of the tree and is in doubt whether its blessing is 'al ha'etz' or 'borei nefashot' that it is correct to eat something whose blessing is certainly 'al ha'etz' and it will exempt both of them. And there is one who wrote that in a case of doubt one may bless 'borei nefashot' (Levush), but it is not clear, for one should be more concerned with a blessing in vain than with no blessing (Magen Avraham, siff katan 26 and Eliyah Rabbah), and if he has no way to emerge from the doubt, he should not bless at all.