Commentary for Berakhot 85:9
בא להם יין בתוך המזון: שאלו את בן זומא מפני מה אמרו בא להם יין בתוך המזון כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו לאחר המזון אחד מברך לכולם אמר להם הואיל ואין בית הבליעה פנוי:
If wine is set for them in the course of the meal. Ben Zoma was asked : Why is it stated : If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself; after the meal, one may say it for all ? He replied : Because the gullet is not empty.
Tosafot on Berakhot
BECAUSE [WHILE EATING], THE THROAT IS NOT AVAILABLE. When Ben Zomo was asked why when wine is brought during the meal each guest must recite their own b’rochoh, he responded because they are in the process of swallowing their food. Rashi says that they cannot pay proper attention to the one reciting the b’rochoh since they are preoccupied with eating their food. According to Rashi’s explanation, one can make an argument that if the one who intends to recite the b’rochoh informs the other guests that he is about to recite the b’rochoh this would be acceptable, because they would then know to immediately swallow their food and pay attention to the b’rochoh. And there are those who say that when the one who is reciting the b’rochoh says “please pay attention, my masters”, and they refrain from eating in order to listen to the b’rochoh and answer אמן, that they are exempt from reciting a b’rochoh. They have fulfilled their obligation by listening to the b’rochoh that was recited.
And so it would appear from the Yerushalmee1The Yerushalmee is not nearly as clear as it would seem from Tosfos. In fact most Rishonim do not quote this Yerushalmee at all. See Rosh who quotes the Yerushalmee as saying that the reason one cannot fulfill his obligation by listening is because he is in the process of swallowing and it is dangerous to answer אמן when there is food in one’s mouth. The Yerushalmee that Tosfos is quoting was not said about Ben Zomo’s Braiso at all. It is stated immediately after the Mishna and at first glance it does not seem to be discussing our issue at all. See the Pairush of the בעל החרדיםwho shows how Tosfos understood this Yerushalmee. that comments about the Braiso, this has been said that each and every guest must recite a b’rochoh, when it is one of the guests who wants to recite a b’rochoh for all of them, but if it is the master of the house who recites the b’rochoh for all, they are exempt from reciting a b’rochoh for themselves, because they all pay attention to the master of the house when he is the one who recites the b’rochoh for all. R’ Cheeyoh says that even when the master of the house is at home and he recites the b’rochoh the others have not fulfilled their obligation. R” Cheeyoh disagrees with those who would say that when the master of the house recites the b’rochoh, the guests have fulfilled their obligation. So too, he would disagree with the ruling that if one called the attention of the listeners they would fulfill their obligation, but the majority opinion seems to hold that when the master of the house recites the b’rochoh all the listeners need not recite their own b’rochoh.
Tosfos tells us that not all agree with those who rule that if one calls the attention of the listeners, they are exempt from reciting their own b’rochoh. And this ruling that if the one who recites the b’rochoh, calls the attention of the listeners’ one can recite the b’rochoh for all does not appear correct to Rabainu Elchonon,2Notice that Rabainu Elchonon does not mention how he deals with the Yerushalmee quoted to support the previous opinion. See note 1 and we can understand why Rabainu Elchonon did not consider this a problem at all. for once the Rabanan instituted that each one should recite the b’rochoh himself, he cannot fulfill his obligation at all with his associate’s b’rochoh. And also, it does not make sense to differentiate between when one is free and when one is not free to listen to the b’rochoh, for if one begins to differentiate between each and every case it is likely that he will come to err in judgment. It therefore makes more sense to say that the Rabanan established the rule that during the meal one cannot fulfill his obligation to recite a b’rochoh by listening to his associate and they did not allow for any differentiation.
Tosfos now turns his attention to another b’rochoh that is sometimes recited when drinking wine. When one brings a second variety of wine to the table, one need not recite a בורא פרי הגפן a second time, but he does need to say the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב, expressing his thanks to Hashem who is good to him and good to others. And as far as the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב is concerned, there are those who say that when one recites the b’rochoh all agree that others who are listening are exempt from reciting the b’rochoh themselves. For the very b’rochoh means that Hashem was good to him, the one who is reciting the b’rochoh, and is good to others who are also drinking of this wine. The b’rochoh specifically speaks of at least two recipients of Hashem’s beneficence and should therefore be recited for at least two people. Since this b’rochoh requires two people, even when said during the meal the listeners’ fulfill their obligation by listening.
Rabainu Yechiel disagrees with this ruling for two reasons. The first: And Rabainu Yechiel said that it is not correct to say that the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב can be said by one in order to exempt others during the meal for the issue that the throat is not empty is also relevant for הטוב והמטיב. The reason for the b’rochoh does not change the physical reality that one is in the midst of swallowing during the meal and cannot properly concentrate on listening to the b’rochoh.3Rabainu Yechiel’s argument seems to be very strong. Perhaps the first opinion holds that the reason of the Gemara that the throat is not clear and one cannot concentrate properly is not an absolute statement that one can never concentrate with food in his mouth. Rather, it means that when there is food in one’s mouth, it could create a conflict with his ability to concentrate and therefore since there is always the option of having each guest recite their own b’rochoh, the Rabanan chose that option. However, when there is no option such as with the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב where according to this opinion it is absolutely necessary that one recites the b’rochoh for another person who is also benefiting from this kindness of Hashem, we can assume that all will concentrate properly despite the food they have in their mouths.
The second reason Rabainu Yechiel disagree with the ruling differentiating between בורא פרי הגפן and הטוב והמטיב. And he does not differentiate between הטוב and the b’rochoh on wine. For because of that reason that the b’rochoh needs to be said for two people because of its text that Hashem is good to him and is good to others, which implies that the b’rochoh must be said for at least two recipients of Hashem’s beneficence, that does not necessarily means that he must exempt others with the recital of the b’rochoh. For we see that, the b’rochoh, Hashem is good to others is relevant and can be said even when those others are not present as we say later in perek HoRo’eh (59b), where the Gemara says: if they said to him, your wife gave birth to a male, he says הטוב והמטיב ברוך, thanking Hashem who has been good to him, the father, and good to his wife even though his wife is not present4Tosfos is proving that it is not absolutely necessary for the second recipient of Hashem’s kindness to be present when the b’rochoh הטוב והמטיב is recited. Perhaps the first opinion holds that although it is not absolutely necessary for the second recipient to be present and to fulfill his or her obligation at the same time as the one who is reciting the b’rochoh, it is still preferred that the b’rochoh be recited in the presence of the second recipient and that he be fulfilling his obligation together with the first recipient. That is why the Rabanan allowed the b’rochoh to be recited by one for the other even during the meal. See note 3. when the b’rochoh is recited. We see that the b’rochoh needs to be said when there are two recipients of Hashem’s kindness, but it need not be said in the presence of both recipients. So too, when one recites the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב on wine, there need not be a second recipient who is fulfilling his obligation of reciting the b’rochoh while it is being recited. As long as there is a second recipient of Hashem’s goodness the b’rochoh can be recited even in his absence, when he certainly would not be fulfilling his obligation to recite the b’rochoh.
Tosfos now addresses another issue; the custom of standing during Havdoloh when the one who recites the b’rochos is exempting the others who are listening. However, the issue of Havdoloh requires some contemplation, for we do not sit or recline to establish ourselves as a group, as the Mishna and Gemara have required for meals. And perhaps it can be said that since they establish themselves to be a group for fulfilling the Havdoloh obligation, they are established as a group for the entire matter, the b’rochos on wine and havdoloh.5This is a bit puzzling. Tosfos explained the reason why the custom of standing for Havdoloh is acceptable and then concludes that it is therefore better not to stand. Perhaps Tosfos means that although we can defend the custom, it is not an answer that one would initially want to rely on and it is therefore better to sit. And for this reason, it is fine and good for the one reciting havdoloh and the listeners that they should sit during havdoloh, for the it appears as an established group and the one who recites exempts them from their obligation to recite havdoloh, because they are fulfilling their obligation by listening to the one who recites havdoloh.
And so it would appear from the Yerushalmee1The Yerushalmee is not nearly as clear as it would seem from Tosfos. In fact most Rishonim do not quote this Yerushalmee at all. See Rosh who quotes the Yerushalmee as saying that the reason one cannot fulfill his obligation by listening is because he is in the process of swallowing and it is dangerous to answer אמן when there is food in one’s mouth. The Yerushalmee that Tosfos is quoting was not said about Ben Zomo’s Braiso at all. It is stated immediately after the Mishna and at first glance it does not seem to be discussing our issue at all. See the Pairush of the בעל החרדיםwho shows how Tosfos understood this Yerushalmee. that comments about the Braiso, this has been said that each and every guest must recite a b’rochoh, when it is one of the guests who wants to recite a b’rochoh for all of them, but if it is the master of the house who recites the b’rochoh for all, they are exempt from reciting a b’rochoh for themselves, because they all pay attention to the master of the house when he is the one who recites the b’rochoh for all. R’ Cheeyoh says that even when the master of the house is at home and he recites the b’rochoh the others have not fulfilled their obligation. R” Cheeyoh disagrees with those who would say that when the master of the house recites the b’rochoh, the guests have fulfilled their obligation. So too, he would disagree with the ruling that if one called the attention of the listeners they would fulfill their obligation, but the majority opinion seems to hold that when the master of the house recites the b’rochoh all the listeners need not recite their own b’rochoh.
Tosfos tells us that not all agree with those who rule that if one calls the attention of the listeners, they are exempt from reciting their own b’rochoh. And this ruling that if the one who recites the b’rochoh, calls the attention of the listeners’ one can recite the b’rochoh for all does not appear correct to Rabainu Elchonon,2Notice that Rabainu Elchonon does not mention how he deals with the Yerushalmee quoted to support the previous opinion. See note 1 and we can understand why Rabainu Elchonon did not consider this a problem at all. for once the Rabanan instituted that each one should recite the b’rochoh himself, he cannot fulfill his obligation at all with his associate’s b’rochoh. And also, it does not make sense to differentiate between when one is free and when one is not free to listen to the b’rochoh, for if one begins to differentiate between each and every case it is likely that he will come to err in judgment. It therefore makes more sense to say that the Rabanan established the rule that during the meal one cannot fulfill his obligation to recite a b’rochoh by listening to his associate and they did not allow for any differentiation.
Tosfos now turns his attention to another b’rochoh that is sometimes recited when drinking wine. When one brings a second variety of wine to the table, one need not recite a בורא פרי הגפן a second time, but he does need to say the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב, expressing his thanks to Hashem who is good to him and good to others. And as far as the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב is concerned, there are those who say that when one recites the b’rochoh all agree that others who are listening are exempt from reciting the b’rochoh themselves. For the very b’rochoh means that Hashem was good to him, the one who is reciting the b’rochoh, and is good to others who are also drinking of this wine. The b’rochoh specifically speaks of at least two recipients of Hashem’s beneficence and should therefore be recited for at least two people. Since this b’rochoh requires two people, even when said during the meal the listeners’ fulfill their obligation by listening.
Rabainu Yechiel disagrees with this ruling for two reasons. The first: And Rabainu Yechiel said that it is not correct to say that the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב can be said by one in order to exempt others during the meal for the issue that the throat is not empty is also relevant for הטוב והמטיב. The reason for the b’rochoh does not change the physical reality that one is in the midst of swallowing during the meal and cannot properly concentrate on listening to the b’rochoh.3Rabainu Yechiel’s argument seems to be very strong. Perhaps the first opinion holds that the reason of the Gemara that the throat is not clear and one cannot concentrate properly is not an absolute statement that one can never concentrate with food in his mouth. Rather, it means that when there is food in one’s mouth, it could create a conflict with his ability to concentrate and therefore since there is always the option of having each guest recite their own b’rochoh, the Rabanan chose that option. However, when there is no option such as with the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב where according to this opinion it is absolutely necessary that one recites the b’rochoh for another person who is also benefiting from this kindness of Hashem, we can assume that all will concentrate properly despite the food they have in their mouths.
The second reason Rabainu Yechiel disagree with the ruling differentiating between בורא פרי הגפן and הטוב והמטיב. And he does not differentiate between הטוב and the b’rochoh on wine. For because of that reason that the b’rochoh needs to be said for two people because of its text that Hashem is good to him and is good to others, which implies that the b’rochoh must be said for at least two recipients of Hashem’s beneficence, that does not necessarily means that he must exempt others with the recital of the b’rochoh. For we see that, the b’rochoh, Hashem is good to others is relevant and can be said even when those others are not present as we say later in perek HoRo’eh (59b), where the Gemara says: if they said to him, your wife gave birth to a male, he says הטוב והמטיב ברוך, thanking Hashem who has been good to him, the father, and good to his wife even though his wife is not present4Tosfos is proving that it is not absolutely necessary for the second recipient of Hashem’s kindness to be present when the b’rochoh הטוב והמטיב is recited. Perhaps the first opinion holds that although it is not absolutely necessary for the second recipient to be present and to fulfill his or her obligation at the same time as the one who is reciting the b’rochoh, it is still preferred that the b’rochoh be recited in the presence of the second recipient and that he be fulfilling his obligation together with the first recipient. That is why the Rabanan allowed the b’rochoh to be recited by one for the other even during the meal. See note 3. when the b’rochoh is recited. We see that the b’rochoh needs to be said when there are two recipients of Hashem’s kindness, but it need not be said in the presence of both recipients. So too, when one recites the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב on wine, there need not be a second recipient who is fulfilling his obligation of reciting the b’rochoh while it is being recited. As long as there is a second recipient of Hashem’s goodness the b’rochoh can be recited even in his absence, when he certainly would not be fulfilling his obligation to recite the b’rochoh.
Tosfos now addresses another issue; the custom of standing during Havdoloh when the one who recites the b’rochos is exempting the others who are listening. However, the issue of Havdoloh requires some contemplation, for we do not sit or recline to establish ourselves as a group, as the Mishna and Gemara have required for meals. And perhaps it can be said that since they establish themselves to be a group for fulfilling the Havdoloh obligation, they are established as a group for the entire matter, the b’rochos on wine and havdoloh.5This is a bit puzzling. Tosfos explained the reason why the custom of standing for Havdoloh is acceptable and then concludes that it is therefore better not to stand. Perhaps Tosfos means that although we can defend the custom, it is not an answer that one would initially want to rely on and it is therefore better to sit. And for this reason, it is fine and good for the one reciting havdoloh and the listeners that they should sit during havdoloh, for the it appears as an established group and the one who recites exempts them from their obligation to recite havdoloh, because they are fulfilling their obligation by listening to the one who recites havdoloh.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Abraham Cohen Footnotes to the English Translation of Masechet Berakhot
If one said the benediction for all during the meal, some of the diners may not be able to respond "Amen," since there is food in their month; cf. fol. 51 a, p. 325.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy