Siman 209

According to the approach of Rashi in the first chapter of Berakhot (12a): If one took in his hand a cup of water or of beer, whose blessing is "she-hakol," but he thinks it is wine and its blessing is "borei peri ha-gafen," and he began the blessing: "Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe" with the intent to say "borei peri ha-gafen," but at "King of the universe" he remembered and said correctly "she-hakol nihyeh bi-dvaro" - it is a legal doubt whether he has fulfilled his obligation because he spoke correctly, or he has not fulfilled his obligation because during the mention of the Name and Sovereignty his intent was to say what is incorrect. But in the reverse case: where he took in his hand a cup of wine and thought it was water or beer and began to say: "Blessed..." with the intent to say "she-hakol" and upon reaching "King of the universe" he remembered and said "borei peri ha-gafen" - he has certainly fulfilled his obligation, for even if he had concluded with "she-hakol" he would have fulfilled his obligation, as for all of them if one said "she-hakol" he has fulfilled his obligation. However, in the first case it is a legal doubt, and it will be explained before us how the law is in actual practice.

And many wondered what doubt there is in this; did he not speak properly: "Blessed... by Whose word all things exist, etc.," and what do we care what was in his mind to say "Who creates the fruit of the vine"? It is not only necessary if mitzvot do not require intention, but even if they do require intention, that refers to the intention of the mitzvah to fulfill one's obligation with it, but what he had thought to say, what do we care, since with his mouth he said the berakhah properly (the Rosh in the name of the Ra'avad and the Ramban in the Milchamot; and according to what I have written, the difficulty of the Ma'adanei Yom Tov, letter 3, is settled, see there and examine carefully).

However, in truth it is not difficult at all, for certainly regarding a mitzvah that involves an action, the intention is not the primary factor according to the one who holds that "mitzvot do not require intention." But a mitzvah that involves no action, only speech alone, certainly requires intention according to all opinions, for the essence of the speech is in the heart, and if he did not intend in his heart properly, then he has done nothing (Tari). And in this case, where he uprooted the intention at the time of the primary blessing for another intention, it is worse than having no intention at all (the Rosh). And in all mitzvot it is so: even if we say that mitzvot do not require intention, yet if he intends the opposite—he has not fulfilled his obligation (Tari in the name of the Rashbam).

The approach of the Rambam in chapter 8, law 11, is even more perplexing, for in his opinion even if one recited a blessing improperly, such as reciting "borei peri ha-gafen" over beer, if at the moment he said "Blessed are You, Hashem, etc." he intended to say "she-ha-kol" but stumbled with his tongue and said "borei peri ha-gafen" – he has fulfilled his obligation. This is the wording of the Rambam: "If one took a cup of beer in his hand and began the blessing with the intent to say 'she-ha-kol' and erred and said 'borei peri ha-gafen' - we do not make him repeat it; and similarly, if there were fruits of the ground before him and he began the blessing with the intent to say 'borei peri ha-adamah' and erred and said 'borei peri ha-etz' - we do not make him repeat it. And similarly, if there was a cooked dish of grain before him and he opened with the intent to say 'borei minei mezonot' and erred and said 'ha-motzi' – he has fulfilled his obligation, because at the moment he mentioned the Name and the Sovereignty, which are the essence of the blessing, he intended only for the blessing appropriate for that species; and since there was no error in the essence of the blessing, even though he erred at its conclusion, he has fulfilled his obligation and we do not make him repeat it." Thus far his words.

And his words are very puzzling; how can he say that there was no error in the essence of the blessing? Behold, it is entirely an error since he concluded with a different blessing, and the essence of the blessing is the end. For if a person were to say only: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe" and no more, is it called a blessing? Behold, this is nothing but taking the Name of Heaven in vain, and the early authorities have already challenged him. And according to my humble opinion, it appears that the Rambam said as follows, and he follows his own reasoning in chapter 1, that regarding all blessings, one fulfills the obligation through contemplation in the heart alone, see there. And according to this, he spoke well: "That at the time he mentioned the Name and the Kingship, which are the essence of the blessing, he intended only for the appropriate blessing etc.," meaning that since at the time of saying the Name and the Kingship it was in his heart to say it properly, behold it is as if he completed the blessing in his heart and fulfilled the obligation. And if so, what do we care what he concluded with his mouth improperly, since he already fulfilled the obligation through the contemplation of the heart. (And as for why regarding the blessings of the recitation of the Shema we follow only after the signature, as he himself wrote in chapter 1 of the Laws of the Recitation of the Shema, this is because they are very long and it is not relevant that he intended the entire appropriate text in his heart, as is understood; which is not the case with the blessings of enjoyment which are short. And the Kesef Mishneh there and the Lechem Mishneh here and several of the commentators have already elaborated, as well as in his responsa to the scholars of Lunel who were puzzled, and in my humble opinion according to what I have written, this is the most correct way to settle his words, and delve into it).

The approach of the Rif is more clarified, and this is what the Gemara was asking: When one took in his hand a cup of water or beer and said: "Blessed... Who creates the fruit of the vine" and remembered immediately and also said "shehakol," and thus he was saying: "Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who creates the fruit of the vine, by Whose word all things exist," do we say that he fulfilled his obligation since he said "shehakol" at its end, or since he said this after "Who creates the fruit of the vine," it is like it was after the blessing. But in the opposite case, when he took wine and said: "Blessed... shehakol, Who creates the fruit of the vine" — he certainly fulfilled his obligation, for with "shehakol" alone one fulfills the obligation for all things. And for the law, the Rif ruled that in a case of doubt regarding blessings we follow the lenient path and we do not require him to repeat it, and the Ramban and the Rosh agreed with his interpretation and his version of the text. But the Rashba wondered about this, for what benefit is there in what he says after the conclusion of the entire blessing, see there. And it appears that since the conclusion was in error, we do not consider this as a conclusion but rather as a mere interruption, and even though it is forbidden to interrupt in the middle of the blessing with other speech, nevertheless, post facto we do not say that the interruption nullifies the blessing since he corrected himself within the time it takes to speak a short phrase and spoke properly, and also this is not an interruption like other interruptions, for he is saying that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created this and that (Ramban in Milchamot).

And behold, the Rambam according to his reasoning and the Rif according to his reasoning ruled leniently in accordance with the law that a doubt regarding blessings is resolved leniently, and presumably Rashi also according to his reasoning follows this. However, the Tosafot wrote there that the Ri would say stringently that one must bless another time, see there, and it is not understood at all, for is this not a settled halacha that a doubt regarding blessings is resolved leniently? However, from their subsequent words their intention becomes clear, as they wrote: "Nevertheless, Rabbeinu Tam would say if he knew clearly that he erred in his speech… for within the time of a speech-utterance he can retract. And so too on Yom Tov, if he erred between 'Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons' and said 'Who sanctifies the Shabbat' and corrected himself within the time of a speech-utterance—he has fulfilled his obligation, since he knows that it is Yom Tov." Thus far his words, and this is according to the explanation of the Rif, of course. And it emerges that they distinguish between if he knew that it was water but erred with his tongue to say 'borei pri hagafen', in such a case a doubt regarding blessings is resolved leniently. But if he did not know at all that it was water and believed it was wine, as appears from the explanation of Rashi, in such a case we do not say a doubt regarding blessings is resolved leniently, since regarding the essence of the blessing he did not know at all that it was water but believed it was wine, and there is no blessing here at all (and the Perisha also wrote this distinction of his own reasoning, and we have inferred this from the words of the Tosafot themselves).

This is the wording of the Tur: "If he had a cup of water in his hand and thought it was wine, and he began and said: 'Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe' with the intent to say 'Who creates the fruit of the vine' and remembered it was water and finished 'that all was created' – he has fulfilled his obligation. And all the more so if he had a cup of wine in his hand and thought it was water, and he began with the intent to say 'that all was created' and remembered it was wine and finished 'Who creates the fruit of the vine' – that he has fulfilled his obligation, for even if he had finished 'that all was created' he would have fulfilled his obligation. And so too if he erred and said over wine: 'that all was created by His word, Who creates the fruit of the vine,' or if he said over water: 'Who creates the fruit of the vine, that all was created by His word' – he has fulfilled his obligation. And such is the law regarding fruit of the tree and fruit of the ground, where he should have recited a blessing over one of them and opened with the intent for the other, and remembered and finished properly or said both – he has fulfilled his obligation." Thus far the words of the Tur. And this is the interpretation of Rashi and the interpretation of the Rif, and he ruled leniently, and the interpretation of the Rambam he did not bring at all. And according to our words it settles well, for since the primary reasoning of the Rambam is because one fulfills the obligation of blessings through thought, and all the poskim disagree on this, as I wrote in siman 185 that only where he did not make it audible to his ear has he fulfilled his obligation but through thought he has not fulfilled his obligation, and according to this, according to the interpretation of the Rambam, he certainly must return and recite the blessing of 'shehakol'.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1 brought first according to the explanation of the Rambam and afterwards according to the explanation of Rashi, and ruled in both that he has fulfilled his obligation. In section 2 he brought the explanation of the Rif according to the wording of the Tur. And some say that according to the explanation of the Rif, which deals with when he said both things: 'borei pri hagafen shehakol etc.' and they ruled that he has fulfilled his obligation, it is only when he knew that it was water but his tongue stumbled to say 'borei pri hagafen', and therefore it is effective when he said 'shehakol' afterwards within the time of a speech-act. And some say that even after the time of a speech-act it is effective. (Magen Avraham subsection 4 in the name of R. Y. HaLevi) But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was precise to say specifically within the time of a speech-act, and so wrote the Ramban and so it is implied from the wording of the Tur and so appears the primary law, for after the time of a speech-act there is no connection to the berakhah. And certainly according to the explanation of Rashi and the Rambam, which do not deal with when he said both, there is no difference between within the time of a speech-act and after the time of a speech-act, but only according to the explanation of the Rif (and so wrote the Gra subsection 6).

However, in any event, it is the opinion of the great authorities that according to the explanation of the Rif, if he did not know at all that it was water—he has not fulfilled his obligation even post facto and must return and recite the blessing of 'shehakol' (Magen Avraham subsection 3 and Perisha), and this is the opinion of the Tosafot as I wrote in section 7. But the Levush wrote even in this case where he did not know it was water, see there; however, later in siman 487 it implies like the first opinion. And there is one who wishes to distinguish between prayer there and the blessing of enjoyment here (Eliyah Rabbah), and it is a forced argument. And even though the rule is that a doubt regarding blessings is resolved leniently, nevertheless in such a case it is not a doubt, since neither his thought nor his speech was proper—this is not a blessing at all.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And if others were also drinking and wine was before them, and his intent was also for wine as he thought there was wine in his cup, and he recited the blessing 'borei peri ha-gafen' and it was subsequently found that there was water or beer in his cup, when he returns and drinks wine afterward—he does not need to repeat the blessing, and he fulfills his obligation with the blessing he recited over his cup even though it was in error, for his intent was also to drink other wine and he also discharged the obligation of the others who were drinking there, and therefore his blessing is a blessing." Thus far his words. The explanation of his words seems to me: For behold, if others were not also drinking but he alone was drinking this cup, and his intent at the time of the blessing was to also drink the other cups which contained wine, and he thought that in this cup there was also wine and recited 'borei peri ha-gafen' and it was found that it contained water—this is exactly the law that was explained in siman 206 regarding one who recited a blessing over a fruit and it was lost, that if his intent was to eat more of this species—he does not need to recite a blessing. However, in this case it would be specifically when he did not taste the water in the cup, but if he tasted it, it constitutes an interruption between the blessing and the wine and he must repeat the blessing. But if others were also drinking and he was the one reciting the blessing and he discharged the obligation of them all, and they all drank based on his blessing and there was no interruption between the blessing and the drinking of the others, therefore even though he interrupted by drinking the water—it is of no concern to us (and with this, that which the Taz in subsection 2 and the Magen Avraham in subsection 5 questioned is settled well, see there and examine carefully) (and what the Magen Avraham wrote regarding the law of the blessing 'pokeiach ivrim' or in havdalah does not need explanation and we learn them from the previous law).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: "Regarding all blessings, if one is in doubt whether he recited the blessing or not—he does not recite the blessing, neither at the beginning nor at the end, except for Birkat HaMazon because it is from the Torah." Thus far his words. And the Tur wrote that also the blessing of Me'ein Shalosh is from the Torah regarding the seven species, and therefore it is proper for every God-fearing person to eat another kezayit of that same species so that he can recite a certain blessing (Taz, subsection 3). And this law is a legal doubt, as there is a dispute of the great authorities regarding this, as is written in siman 208, section 3; see there.