Siman 213

It has already been explained that the blessing of enjoyment is not like the blessing of commandments, where one can fulfill the obligation for his fellow even if he has already fulfilled his own obligation based on the principle that all Israel are guarantors for one another; however, regarding the blessing of enjoyment, it is not so. And if he does not enjoy now—he cannot fulfill the obligation for others with his blessing, for in this matter guaranty does not apply, as it is not an obligation upon the person. Therefore, the one reciting the blessing does not fulfill the obligation for others unless he eats and drinks with them, and then they fulfill their obligation by their hearing if he intends to fulfill it for them and they intend to fulfill their obligation through his blessing, and even if they did not answer 'amen', for one who hears is like one who responds, provided that they do not interrupt with speech at the time the one reciting the blessing blesses. And so too, if they did not hear the blessing from its beginning until its end, even if they answered 'amen'—they do not fulfill their obligation and must bless for themselves. And so too, if he is not eating and drinking with them and he blessed on their behalf—his blessing is in vain and they are obligated to bless for themselves (Magen Avraham, subsection 7), unless they blessed together with him and repeated after him what he said.

In siman 167, section 21, it was explained that in a meal, regarding the blessing of 'Hamotzi', those reclining do not fulfill their obligation through the blessing of the one who blesses unless they sat in a reclining position, and for us, sitting around the table is like reclining for them, as we are not accustomed to reclining. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1: "Regarding all fruits and other things except for bread and wine, if those eating were two or more—one exempts his fellow even without reclining; however, sitting at least is required. Specifically bread and wine, which are significant, require reclining, and for us, sitting is like reclining for them. According to this, for us, who do not have reclining, there is no difference between bread and wine and other things, for with sitting, even for bread and wine one blesses for everyone, and without sitting, even for other things each one blesses for himself." Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matters: For in the Gemara (43a) the law of other items was not mentioned at all, and only regarding bread did we learn there that it requires hasaba, and regarding wine there is a dispute in the Gemara there whether it requires hasaba or if sitting is sufficient, or perhaps even hasaba is not effective for the reason that it has no fixedness. And the poskim ruled according to that version that wine is equal to bread, because wine is significant and most feasts are with wine, and regarding other items they decided from the perspective of logic that hasaba certainly does not apply to them, as there is not such fixedness in them. And without sitting, it is certainly impossible for one to fulfill the obligation for others, for even regarding bread we learned: "If they were sitting—each one blesses for himself," and for us, without fixed sitting each one blesses for himself, and all the more so regarding other eatables that it requires sitting at any rate. And the sitting must be a fixed sitting, and if their intention is to uproot from their place immediately—it is not called sitting at all, and each one blesses for himself (see Magen Avraham subsection 1).

And also all this is only regarding the initial blessing when they are about to join together in their sitting to eat or to drink, and it is like a fixed gathering, for then one can fulfill the obligation for the others. But regarding the final blessing when they are about to part—they must divide, and one does not fulfill the obligation for his fellow, and each one blesses for himself. And it is not similar to the zimmun of birkat hamazon, for by means of the zimmun they all join together, but regarding fruits zimmun is not applicable, as there is no zimmun for fruits, and they are considered as separated. And it appears to me that even when they eat pat haba'ah b'kisnin whose blessing is 'mezonot', since they eat without a fixed meal and without the measure of a fixed meal—their law is like fruits, and it is not similar to wine where they drink much. And when they eat the measure of a fixed meal, behold, it requires netilat yadayim and 'hamotzi' and birkat hamazon, and it is exactly like bread.

Since the law of other items was not mentioned in the Gemara, there are some of our teachers who hold that, on the contrary, since they lack importance, neither sitting nor reclining applies to them at all, and they are always considered separated; thus, it is impossible for one to fulfill the obligation for others in any manner. This is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote: "And there are those who say that regarding all things except for bread and wine, reclining is of no avail, and the same law applies to sitting for us; therefore, the custom now regarding fruit is that each person blesses for himself." Thus far his words. The great authorities wrote that nowadays even with wine there is no fixed association and each person blesses for himself, except if the wine and fruit came at the end of the meal or during the meal, where one blesses for everyone, for since reclining—or sitting for us—is effective for the bread, it is also effective for these items.

And behold, for the halacha, the common custom is that no one discharges the obligation of his fellow in any matter, and each person blesses for himself; for even regarding "Hamotzi" and Birkat HaMazon, there are few in our times where one discharges the obligation of his fellow, and certainly so regarding other matters. Nevertheless, if it so happened regarding fruit or other matters that one blessed and the others heard and intended to fulfill their obligation with his blessing, and he intended to discharge them: if it was while sitting—they have fulfilled the obligation ex post facto, whether regarding the first blessing or the final blessing; but if it was not while sitting, but rather while standing or while walking—even ex post facto they have not fulfilled the obligation, even regarding the first blessing (Magen Avraham subsection 4 and in siman 167, and see Machatzit HaShekel).

And know that we have already explained several times that even in a case where one can fulfill the obligation for his fellow, and in the Gemara (53a) it implies explicitly that it is more preferable in such a case because of "in the multitude of people is the King's glory," nevertheless, we do not do so because it is unlikely that each person will hear the blessing from his fellow with intent. And only in kiddush and havdalah does one fulfill the obligation for everyone even while standing, because they prepare themselves for this and it is like a fixed gathering (Tosafot 43a, end of the heading beginning with "ho'il"), and it will be explained in siman 298. And so too regarding the incense, they said in the Gemara that one blesses for everyone, and it implies that even sitting is not required, and the reason is because the fragrance rises to everyone together equally, and also it is not something that enters the body such that it would require a fixed gathering. The end of the matter: except for kiddush and havdalah, we are not accustomed at all for one to fulfill the obligation for another with his blessing, but rather each person blesses for himself (see Sha'arei Teshuva subsections 1 and 2, and there is no practical difference for us, and delve into it).