Siman 225

Know that in Eruvin (40b) it is explicitly explained that the blessing of "shehecheyanu" for the festivals that come from time to time is an obligation, and the blessing of "shehecheyanu" over a new fruit is optional, see there. For this reason, it appears in my humble opinion that all types of the "shehecheyanu" blessing that come at a fixed time, such as on Chanukah and Purim, are an obligation, and other "shehecheyanu" blessings are optional, and therefore many are lenient in this. However, regarding new fruits, they have accepted it as an obligation and everyone is careful in this, and it is found in the Yerushalmi (Kiddushin chapter 4) one who would set aside pennies from his expenses to buy every new fruit and taste it, and it says there that in the future one will give a justification and an accounting for that which he did not eat.

One who sees his friend who is dear to him and rejoices greatly in seeing him: if thirty days have passed since he saw him—he recites the blessing "shehecheyanu" with the Name and Sovereignty, and if he has not seen him for twelve months—he recites "mechayei hametim," and then he does not recite "shehecheyanu." This is when there were no letters from him to him, but when he received a letter from him he does not recite "mechayei hametim"; however, regarding "shehecheyanu" there is no difference, for even if he received a letter within the thirty days he recites "shehecheyanu." And the reason is that the blessing of "shehecheyanu" is from the joy of seeing face to face, but the blessing of "mechayei hametim" is from the fact that now it has become known that he is alive, and therefore since he already knew that he was alive based on letters or heard from people that he was alive, the blessing of "mechayei hametim" is no longer relevant. And the measure of twelve months appears to be because the deceased is not forgotten from the heart until twelve months (so it appears to me, and see Be'er Heitev and Sha'arei Teshuva subsection 1), and one who has never seen him, even though he knew of him, such as if he sent him letters and he derived pleasure from seeing him, nevertheless he does not recite a blessing upon seeing him.

And there is no distinction in this law between males and females, and only if he is very joyful at seeing them does he bless 'shehecheyanu', and only automatically that regarding females this law is only relevant regarding his wife, his mother, his daughter, his sister, and those similar to them. And now they are very lenient regarding this blessing; however, one who knows within himself that he has pleasure in seeing him and is very joyful, and all the more so a son for his father or a father for his son and a brother for his brother and those similar to them—must bless.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: "Some say one whose son becomes a bar mitzvah, which is when he is thirteen years and one day old, should recite the blessing: 'Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, who has exempted me from the punishment of this one,' and it is good to recite the blessing without the Name and Sovereignty." Thus far his words. The matter of the blessing is because until now the father was punished when the son sinned for not having educated him properly, and also the son dies for the sin of the father; but when he becomes a bar mitzvah, then the father is not punished for the son nor the son for the father (Magen Avraham, subsection 5), as it is written: "each man shall be put to death for his own sin," and that which is written: "visiting the sin of the fathers upon the children," this is when they grasp the deeds of their fathers in their hands (Sanhedrin 27b). And that which he wrote to recite the blessing without the Name and Sovereignty, his reason is because we do not find this blessing in the Gemara; however, in the Midrash at the beginning of Toldot this blessing is found, and many blessings are recited even though they are not found in the Gemara, like the blessing "Who gives strength to the weary" and "Who sanctifies Your Name in public." And many are accustomed to recite the blessing with the Name and Sovereignty at the time of the Torah reading when they call the bar mitzvah youth to ascend to the Torah, if the day he becomes a bar mitzvah is a day of Torah reading or the following day (ibid. subsection 4). And it is a mitzvah to make a feast on the day he becomes a bar mitzvah, and it is a seudat mitzvah (ibid.). And if the youth delivers a discourse, even if the feast is not on that day—it is a seudat mitzvah (ibid. in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo).

It is a mitzvah to taste of every new fruit, as it is found in the Yerushalmi that we brought in section 1. And the reason is simple: in order to give praise and thanks to Hashem, may He be blessed, who renews the fruits from year to year for the enjoyment of human beings, and we recite the blessing of 'shehecheyanu' over every new fruit that is renewed from year to year. And the world is accustomed to recite first the blessing that is over the fruit and afterward 'shehecheyanu', and so I have seen great authorities who wrote thus for the reason that "the frequent and the infrequent, the frequent takes precedence," and other reasons (the Ha-Gaon Rabbi Yaakov Emden and in the name of the Leket HaKemach). And in my humble opinion, it seems correct to precede with the blessing of 'shehecheyanu', and the reason of "frequent" is not relevant here, for the reason of "frequent" only applies when the obligation of both comes as one, but here the blessing of 'shehecheyanu' applies first, for the essence of the blessing of 'shehecheyanu' is upon the seeing and not upon the eating, except that we are accustomed to bless it at the time of eating, but the blessing of the fruit is only at the time of eating. Furthermore, regarding all blessings of enjoyment, there must be no interruption between the blessing and the eating, and therefore one should precede with the blessing of 'shehecheyanu', and so I am accustomed to do.

The essence of the blessing of 'shehecheyanu' is upon the seeing, as the Rambam wrote at the beginning of the tenth chapter: "One who sees a fruit that is renewed from year to year at the beginning of his seeing it—blesses 'shehecheyanu'." Thus far his words. And so wrote Rashi, of blessed memory, in Eruvin (40b, s.v. 'akra chadati'), and this is his wording: "When I see a new gourd from year to year I say the zeman." Thus far his words. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 3 wrote: "One who sees a new fruit renewed from year to year—blesses 'shehecheyanu', even if he sees it in the hand of his fellow or upon the tree. And it is the custom not to bless until the time of eating, and one who blessed at the time of seeing has not lost. And one should not bless until the completion of the fruit's growth, and if he did not bless at the first seeing he may bless at the second seeing." Thus far his words.

And as for the reason for the custom, it can be said that we are not experts in knowing when the growth of the fruit is complete. And there is one who wrote that when it reaches the stage of a white bean, one recites the blessing (Magen Avraham, subsection 8 in the name of the Radbaz), and there is one who wrote that if one recited the blessing before the completion of the fruit, he must recite the blessing again when the fruit is complete (ibid. in the name of the Rashba). According to this, at the time of seeing, the matter would not be clarified; therefore, we are accustomed to recite the blessing at the time of eating, for then it is well clarified. And it is further possible to say the reason is that behold, the essence of the shehecheyanu blessing is because of the joy from this matter. Therefore, in the early generations, who were upright in their way and rejoiced at the sight of a new fruit and took to their hearts gratitude to Hashem for His goodness and His kindness to the whole world, they were therefore able to recite the blessing upon seeing. This is not the case with us; joy and recognition of the good are not evident to us except at the time of physical pleasure during the time of eating, and therefore it is impossible for us to recite the blessing upon seeing. And this is what they wrote: "and one who recited the blessing upon seeing has not lost," meaning that we should not say that for us it is a blessing in vain, for it is not so. And this is what they wrote, that if one did not recite the blessing upon the first seeing, he recites the blessing upon the second seeing; according to this, for us, if one did not recite the blessing upon the first eating, he recites the blessing upon the second eating. But many disagree on this, and hold that if one did not recite 'shehecheyanu' the first time, he shall not recite the blessing again, and so one should act, especially regarding the 'shehecheyanu' blessing, which is optional (ibid. subsection 9 in the name of the Ri"m and the SeMa"K and the Radbaz).

And they wrote in section 4: "If one recited shehecheyanu over cherries, when he eats sour cherries he returns and recites shehecheyanu, and they are like two types of cherries such as weinkshul and kirsen and all similar to this." Thus far their words. And even if they are not divided in their name but are divided in their taste, such as white figs and black figs—they are two types (Levush and Magen Avraham). And there is one who wrote that even if they have one taste and are divided in their appearance, such as red and black—they are two types (ibid. subsection 10 in the name of Matteh Moshe). And in the name of the Maharil they wrote that even two types of pears or two types of apples or nuts, we recite shehecheyanu over each one (ibid.). And according to this, shehecheyanu blessings will increase upon us, for behold there are several types within each and every type, and there are among the small fruits like kirsen and weinperlach different appearances—red and black and white and green—and also they are not equal in taste, and we would need to recite shehecheyanu over each one, and the custom is not so.

And in truth, there is one who disagrees with this, and holds that the distinct varieties within each species are not considered like a different species regarding the blessing of "shehecheyanu." For behold, the reasoning of those who are stringent is because we learned in the fourth chapter of Terumot that black figs do not neutralize white ones, see there; and since regarding the nullification of prohibitions they are two species, the same law applies regarding "shehecheyanu" (see Beit Yosef). But in truth, even there, there is a dispute regarding this, and furthermore, according to Rabbi Akiva, whose ruling the halacha follows, it depends on whether he knew what fell in, whether a black one or a white one; for when he knew what fell in, they do not nullify one another, and when he did not know, they do nullify. And if so, it is a proof to the contrary, for from this it implies that they are one species, and that which they do not nullify when known is because these did not enter into the category of doubt regarding the prohibition, and how could they nullify the prohibition? For behold, even in one complete species, those that did not enter into the category of the prohibition do not assist in nullification (the Gra, subsection 3, and likewise the Knesset HaGedolah hesitated regarding this). Therefore, our custom is only to recite "shehecheyanu" over the general species and not over the specific varieties within each species (and a proof for this is from the law that will be explained in section 10, and examine this closely).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: "If one recited Shehecheyanu over grapes, when he drinks new wine he does not recite the blessing again." Thus far his words. This is because it is one reason even though they differ in name, as it is all one joy (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). The Maharil would refrain from eating grapes until the drinking of the tirosh (ibid.), and according to this, when one drinks new wine and has not yet eaten grapes—he must recite Shehecheyanu. And specifically when it is tirosh, but when it is wine one does not need to recite Shehecheyanu, for in wine there is no recognition between new and old (ibid.), as whenever there is no recognition between new and old, the blessing of Shehecheyanu is not applicable. And what is tirosh and what is wine we are not experts in this, for we do not have wine.

A fruit that does not renew from year to year, even if many days have passed since one ate it—one does not recite 'shehecheyanu,' and therefore we do not recite 'shehecheyanu' over new poultry or new fish (ibid. subsection 12). And over a scent that renews from year to year, some say to recite 'shehecheyanu' and some disagree (ibid.), and as I wrote in siman 216, and such is the primary ruling. And a fruit that renews twice a year—one must recite 'shehecheyanu' each time since it renews from time to time, for "year" is not meant specifically; however, anything that does not have a fixed time for its growth—we do not recite over it. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6 that therefore we do not recite 'shehecheyanu' over a new vegetable, for it remains all year in the ground, thus far his words, and in our countries we have no knowledge of such a vegetable at all. And there is one who wrote that the intention is a vegetable that is buried in the ground all year (ibid.). And this too we have no knowledge of, and also the wording does not imply this, and perhaps there are countries where the vegetable remains all year.

There is one who wrote that one should not recite the blessing of "shehecheyanu" over any type of vegetable (ibid. in the name of the Shelah). However, we do not practice this way, and over an important vegetable such as cucumbers, watermelons, and the like—we do recite "shehecheyanu," for they do not last from season to season. And even though they last through pickling, behold all fruits last through pickling and that is an entirely different taste. But over simple vegetables such as lettuce, sorrel, beets, and pumpkins and the like—one does not recite "shehecheyanu." And over types of turnips such as rutabagas, carrots, radishes, horseradish, and garlic and the like—one does not recite "shehecheyanu," for they last from year to year. And similarly over potatoes, which are called "kartoffel," one does not recite the blessing for this reason, and similarly over cabbage and beets one does not recite the blessing, as there is no recognition in them between the new and the old. But over radishes we have the custom to recite "shehecheyanu," because they do not last from year to year and they have sweetness. And over types of legumes one does not recite "shehecheyanu," such as peas, beans, lentils—one does not recite the blessing, for they last from year to year. And similarly over all types of bread one does not recite the blessing, because there is no recognition in them between the new and the old, and similarly over Turkish wheat one does not recite the blessing, and this is what we call corn which also lasts a long time. But over the fruit of the trees and similarly all types of berries—we recite "shehecheyanu," except over lingonberries and similarly cranberries one does not recite the blessing, because they are not important and also last from year to year. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7 that one does not recite "shehecheyanu" over unripe fruit, but only when the clusters of grapes have ripened, and similarly with every other fruit at its completion. Thus far his words. And it is simple, and it has already been explained at the end of section 6, see there (what the Magen Avraham wrote there, that one recites the blessing over groats, I do not know what this is).

Just as one recites a blessing over a new fruit, so too one recites a blessing over an unusual creature, as it is also a new matter. However, 'shehecheyanu' is obviously not relevant to this, and one recites a blessing with the Name and Sovereignty: "Blessed... Who changes the creatures." Therefore, one who sees a Kushite who is very black, and a gichor who is very red, and a lavkan who is very white, and a kipach—meaning one who is excessively tall and very thin, or whose belly is large and unusual to the point that from its thickness his height appears diminished—and a dwarf who is very small, and a darkona—meaning one who is full of warts—and a patui harosh—meaning one whose hair is all stuck together—and the elephant and the monkey—recites 'Who changes the creatures'; and likewise one who sees a lame person, or one whose hands are amputated, or a blind person. And one afflicted with boils and a bohaknin—meaning one who is spotted with fine white dots—if they are so from their mother's womb, one recites 'Who changes the creatures'; but if he changed afterward, such that he became lame or amputated or blind or afflicted with boils or bohak, one recites 'the True Judge' just as one recites over any trouble that should not come. And there is one who says that regarding this blessing of 'the True Judge,' one only recites it over someone for whom he feels great pain, but not over someone for whom he does not feel pain. And this blessing of 'Who changes the creatures,' one only recites it over this person the first time and not every thirty days, because the first time the change appears very great and is a wondrous thing, but not so the second time. And some say that one recites it every thirty days like all blessings of seeing if he did not see another like him within thirty days, and it is obvious that over a different person one recites a blessing even within thirty days.

One who sees good trees that are not common and beautiful creatures that are very distinguished in their beauty, whether a man or a woman (Eliyah Rabbah), whether an Israelite or a gentile, and even when he sees a beautiful creature from the species of beasts and birds - he blesses with the Name and Sovereignty: "Blessed is He who has such in His world," and it is a blessing of praise and thanksgiving to the Omnipresent. And he only blesses over them the first time and no more, neither over them nor over others, because aside from the first time there is no excitement in this, unless they were more beautiful than the first ones (and even though one may not gaze at a woman etc., that refers to the manner of much gazing, but a mere sight, he sees perforce and we have no concern with it, see Eliyah Rabbah).