מַתְנִי׳ זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב בַּדָּבָר — אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן. גְּמָ׳ תָּנֵי אַהֲבָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הַבְּרָכוֹת כּוּלָּן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא — מוֹצִיא. חוּץ מִבִּרְכַּת הַלֶּחֶם וּבִרְכַּת הַיַּיִן, שֶׁאִם לֹא יָצָא — מוֹצִיא, וְאִם יָצָא — אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא. בָּעֵי רָבָא:
Have intent to sound the shofar on my behalf and sound it for me. The Gemara infers: Apparently, Rabbi Zeira maintains that he who sounds the shofar for others is required to have intent to discharge the hearer’s obligation. The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna: If one was passing behind a synagogue, or his house was adjacent to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar or the sound of the Scroll of Esther being read, if he focused his heart to fulfill his obligation, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. It may be asked: And, according to Rabbi Zeira, even if the hearer focused his heart, what of it? The other one, i.e., the one sounding the shofar, did not focus his intent to sound the shofar with him in mind? If indeed the intent of the one sounding the shofar is required, how does the passerby fulfill his obligation? The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with the representative of the community, i.e., one who sounds the shofar for the entire congregation and has everyone in mind. He does not sound it for a specific individual, but rather on behalf of the entire community, and therefore anyone who hears him sound the shofar fulfills his obligation. The Gemara raises another objection: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: If the hearer of the shofar had intent, but the sounder of the shofar did not have intent, or if the sounder of the shofar had intent, but the hearer did not have intent, he has not fulfilled his obligation, until both the hearer and the sounder have intent. The baraita teaches the halakha governing the sounder of the shofar in similar fashion to the halakha governing the hearer. From this it may be inferred that just as the hearer hears for himself, having intent to fulfill his own obligation, so too, the sounder sounds for himself, having intent to fulfill his own obligation, and not that of others. And the baraita teaches that if the sounder did not have this intent, the hearer has not fulfilled his obligation. But this indicates that if the sounder had intent to sound the shofar for himself, he need not have intent to sound it for others, therefore contradicting Rabbi Zeira’s opinion. The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The hearer hears for himself, and the sounder sounds the shofar in his usual way, i.e., he need not intend to sound it for the sake of the hearer. Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said? It was said in the case of a representative of the community. But in the case of an ordinary individual, the hearer does not fulfill his obligation until both the hearer and the sounder have intent to discharge the hearer’s obligation, as argued by Rabbi Zeira. MISHNA: Incidental to the discussion of the required intent when sounding the shofar, the mishna cites the verse: “And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed” (Exodus 17:11). It may be asked: Did the hands of Moses make war when he raised them or break war when he lowered them? Rather, the verse comes to tell you that as long as the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed, but if not, they fell. Similarly, you can say: The verse states: “Make for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed, but if not, they rotted from their snakebites. Returning to its halakhic discussion, the mishna continues: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor who sounds the shofar cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of the community. This is the principle with regard to similar matters: Whoever is not obligated to do a certain matter cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of the community. GEMARA: The Sages taught the following baraita: All are obligated to sound the shofar: Priests, Levites, and ordinary Israelites; converts; freed slaves; a tumtum, i.e., one whose sexual organs from birth are concealed or are so undeveloped that it is impossible to determine whether the individual is male or female; a hermaphrodite [androginos], i.e., one with both male and female reproductive organs; and a half-slave, half-freeman. A tumtum who sounds the shofar cannot discharge the obligation of one of his kind, i.e., a fellow tumtum, since men are bound by the obligation, whereas women are not, and it is possible that the sounder is female and the hearer is male, nor can he discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind, an ordinary man or woman. A hermaphrodite can discharge the obligation of one of his kind, a fellow hermaphrodite, since if the sounder is treated as a female, the hearer is also considered a female, but he cannot discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind. One who is half-slave and half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation of one of his kind, as the slave component of the sounder cannot discharge the obligation of the free component of the hearer, and he certainly cannot discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind, i.e., a completely free individual. The Master said above in the baraita: All are obligated to sound the shofar: Priests, Levites, and ordinary Israelites. The Gemara asks in astonishment: Isn’t that obvious? If these people are not obligated to perform the mitzva, who then is obligated to perform it? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva, for it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since it is written: “It is a day of sounding the shofar to you” (Numbers 29:1), you might have said that with regard to one who is obligated to sound only one day, he is obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. But with regard to these priests, since they are obligated to sound all year long, because they sound trumpets when they offer the sacrifices in the Temple, as it is written: “And you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings” (Numbers 10:10), you might say that they are not obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita comes to teach us that this is not true, and that even priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva. The Gemara asks: Are these things comparable? There, the priests sound trumpets, and here, we are dealing with the sounding of a shofar. Rather, it was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva for a different reason, for it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since we learned in a mishna: Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year is the same as Rosh HaShana, with regard to both the shofar blasts and the additional blessings that are recited in the Amida prayer, I might have said: One who is fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee is also included in the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. But these priests, since they are not fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee, as we learned in a mishna: Priests and Levites may sell their fields forever and they may also redeem their lands forever, and they are not bound by the halakhot of the Jubilee Year, I might say that they should also not be obligated to fulfill the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita comes to teach us that this is not so, and that even priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva. § It was taught in the same baraita: A half-slave, half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of one of his kind, and he certainly cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of one who is not of his kind. Rav Huna said: Even though he cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of others, he can discharge the obligation on behalf of himself. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: What is the difference whereby he may discharge the obligation on behalf of himself but not on behalf of others? Because his slave component cannot come and discharge the obligation on behalf of the free component of the other. If so, with regard to himself as well, his slave component should not be able to come and discharge the obligation on behalf of his free component. Rather, Rav Naḥman said: Even on behalf of himself he cannot discharge the obligation. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: A half-slave, half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation even for himself. Continuing the discussion of performing an obligation on behalf of others, Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, taught the following baraita: With regard to all the blessings, even if one already recited a blessing for himself and has consequently fulfilled his own obligation, he can still recite a blessing for others and thereby discharge their obligation, as all Jews are responsible for one another. This is true with regard to all blessings except for the blessing recited over bread and the blessing recited over wine, both before and after their consumption. With regard to these blessings, if he has not yet fulfilled his own obligation, he can discharge the obligation of others as well, but if he already fulfilled his own obligation, he cannot discharge the obligation of others, as these blessings are recited in appreciation of physical enjoyment, and can only be recited by one who is actually deriving pleasure at the time. Rava raised a dilemma:
תני אהבה בריה דר׳ זירא וכו'. פי׳ כל ברכות המצות אע״פ שיצא מוציא שאע״פ שהמצות מוטלות על כל א׳ הרי כל ישראל ערבין זה לזה וכולם כגוף א׳ וכערב הפורע חוב חבירו :
חוץ מברכת הלחם כו'. לפי שהם ברכות רשות וכן בכל ברכות הנהנין וכיון דלא הוי חובה אין כל ישראל ערבין זה לזה כדי להוציאו:
ברכה ראשונה
מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין — כׇּל אֶחָד מְבָרֵךְ לְעַצְמוֹ. הֵסַבּוּ — אֶחָד מְבָרֵךְ לְכוּלָּן.
as it causes a blessing itself. It is so significant, that one recites a blessing over it together with other blessings like kiddush and havdala, even though he does not particularly want to drink it. During a meal too, a blessing is recited over the wine and it is not exempted by the blessing over the bread. As the Gemara mentioned bread that comes as dessert, it now relates that Rav Huna ate thirteen substantially sized, sweetened loaves, three loaves per kav of flour, and he did not recite Grace after Meals because they were not genuine bread. Rav Naḥman said to him: That is hunger. One does not typically eat that much merely as dessert. Rather, over anything which is substantial enough to satiate and others base a meal upon it, one must recite Grace after Meals. The Gemara also relates: Rav Yehuda was engaged in preparations for his son’s wedding at the house of Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva when they brought bread that comes as dessert before them. When it arrived, he heard them reciting: Who brings forth bread from the earth. He said to them: What is this tzitzi sound that I hear? Perhaps you are reciting: Who brings forth bread from the earth? They said to him: Yes, indeed, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Over bread that comes as dessert, one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona. Rav Yehuda said to them: You are mistaken. Actually, it was stated that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona. They said to him: But aren’t you, Master, the one who said in the name of Shmuel with regard to wafers: One may establish an eiruv, the joining of courtyards, to permit carrying in a shared courtyard and the joining of cooked foods, to permit cooking on a festival for Shabbat, with them and recite over them: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Why is that the blessing over those wafers? They too are sweetened bread that comes as dessert. He answered them: It is different there as he based his meal upon them, but here, where one did not base his meal upon them, no, he does not recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth. The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa happened to come to the house of Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan. After they finished their meal, they brought before them something to eat. Rav Pappa took this food item and ate it without reciting a blessing. They said to him: Do you, Master, not hold that once one finished his meal he is forbidden to eat again without reciting a blessing? He said to them that in the correct version of that halakha, it is stated: Removed. One need recite a second blessing only when eating after the table was removed from before him. Similarly, the Gemara relates: Rava and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. After the meal, when they removed the table from before them, a portion [ristena] of food was sent to them from the house of the Exilarch. Rava ate it and Rabbi Zeira did not eat it. Rabbi Zeira said to Rava: Do you, Master, not hold that once the table was removed, he is forbidden to eat? Rava said to him: We are dependent upon the table of the Exilarch, and so long as he has not completed his meal, his guests have not completed their meals either. Rav said: One who is accustomed to applying fragrant oil to his hands after meals, failure to apply that oil delays the end of his meal and he is not considered to have finished his meal and is not required to recite a blessing before continuing to eat. Similarly, Rav Ashi said: When we were in the house of Rav Kahana, he said to us: We, for example, who are accustomed to oil, failure to apply that oil delays the end of the meal for us. Nevertheless, the Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with all of these statements and the end of the meal is not determined by those factors. Rather, it is determined by that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: There are three pairs that immediately follow each other: Immediately following placing hands on the head of a sacrifice, is its slaughter; immediately following the blessing of redemption recited after Shema, is the Amida prayer; and immediately following the ritual washing of the hands after a meal, is the blessing of Grace after Meals. Abaye said that on a similar note, we too will say: Immediately following the entrance of Torah scholars into a house, a blessing rests upon that house, as it is stated with regard to Laban and Jacob: “The Lord has blessed me because of you” (Genesis 30:27). If you wish, say instead, that the proof is from here, as it is stated: “And it was from when he placed him in charge of his house and over all that he owned, the Lord blessed the house of the Egyptian on account of Joseph” (Genesis 39:5). MISHNA: This mishna explains those cases and those circumstances in which blessings recited over particular foods exempt other foods at the meal from the requirement to recite a blessing over them. One who recited a blessing over the wine that one drank before the meal, with that blessing he exempted the wine that he drinks after the meal. Similarly, one who recited a blessing over the appetizers that one ate before the meal, with that blessing he exempted the appetizers that he eats after the meal. One who recited a blessing over the bread exempted the appetizers, as they are considered secondary to the bread. However, one who recited a blessing over the appetizers did not exempt the bread. Beit Shammai say: The blessing recited over the appetizers did not exempt even a cooked dish that he eats during the meal. An additional halakha is cited: If several people were sitting to eat not in the framework of a joint meal, each recites a blessing for himself. If they were reclined on divans to eat, which renders it a joint meal, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all.
אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא פַּת דְּבָעֵי הֲסִבָּה, אֲבָל יַיִן לָא בָּעֵי הֲסִבָּה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן נָמֵי בָּעֵי הֲסִבָּה.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא פַּת — דְּמַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ הֲסִבָּה. אֲבָל יַיִן — לָא מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ הֲסִבָּה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן נָמֵי מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ הֲסִבָּה.
and reversed his cloak, so that his tear which he had rent in mourning of Rav was behind him, and in mourning, he rent another tear in his garment. He said: Rav is dead, and we have not yet learned the halakhot of the Grace after Meals. Until, this elder came and raised a contradiction from the mishna to the baraita, as cited above, and he resolved it for them: Since they said: Let us go and eat in such-and-such a place, it is considered as if they reclined. We learned in the mishna: If they were reclined, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all. Rav said: This halakha was only taught with regard to bread that it requires reclining to enable one to recite a blessing on behalf of them all. However, wine does not require reclining. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even wine requires reclining as well. Some say that Rav said: The mishna only taught that reclining is effective and enables one to recite a blessing on behalf of them all, with regard to a group eating bread. However, with regard to a group drinking wine, reclining is ineffective and each individual must recite a blessing for himself. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even with regard to wine, reclining is effective. The Gemara raises an objection based on a Tosefta: What is the order of reclining at a meal? The guests enter and sit upon benches and chairs [katedraot] until all are assembled. Afterward, they brought them water and each and every one washes one hand in which to hold the cup of wine. When wine came before them prior to the meal, each and every one recites a blessing over the wine for himself. Then, when they entered and reclined on the divans for the meal itself, and water came before them, despite the fact that each and every one already washed one hand, they wash both hands again prior to the meal, so that they will be able to eat with both hands. If wine came before them during the meal, despite the fact that each and every one already recited a blessing for himself, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all. If so, according to that version that Rav said: This halakha was only taught with regard to bread that it requires reclining to enable one to recite a blessing on behalf of them all. However, wine does not require reclining; the first clause of the Tosefta, which taught that each guest recites a blessing over the wine for himself, is difficult. The Gemara answers: Guests are different, as when they are sitting in the hall prior to the meal, their intention is to leave and enter the dining room. Therefore, while there, their drinking together is not considered a joint meal. And according to the version that Rav said: The mishna only taught that reclining is effective and enables one to recite a blessing on behalf of them all, with regard to a group eating bread. However, with regard to a group drinking wine, reclining is ineffective and each individual must recite a blessing for himself; the latter clause of the Tosefta, which taught that when drinking wine when reclining, one recites a blessing on behalf of all, is difficult. The Gemara responds: There it is different, as since reclining is effective and enables one to recite a blessing on behalf of them all for bread, reclining is effective for wine as well. We learned in the mishna: If wine came before them during the meal, each and every diner recites a blessing over the wine for himself. If the wine came after the meal, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all. The Tosefta relates: They asked Ben Zoma: Why did the Sages say: If wine came before them during the meal, each and every diner recites a blessing over the wine for himself; but if the wine came after the meal, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all? He said to them: This is because while eating, the throat is not available. If one recites a blessing on behalf of them all, he would be forced to wait until they all had finished eating and readied themselves to drink the wine together (Tosafot). To prevent imposing upon them, the Sages ruled that there is no need to recite the blessing together. The mishna teaches: And he, who recited the blessing over the wine, also recites the blessing over the incense, although they bring the incense only after the meal. The Gemara asks: From the fact that the mishna teaches: And he recites the blessing over the incense, it can be inferred that there is someone who should take precedence over him, to recite the blessing. That is why the mishna must emphasize that it is he who recites the blessing. And why does the one who recited the blessing over the wine nevertheless recite the blessing over the incense? The Gemara responds: Since he washed his hands first after the meal, prior to Grace after Meals, he also recites the blessing over the incense, as the washing of hands after the meal and the burning of the incense serve similar functions. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: He who washes his hands first after the meal is designated to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals. Evidently, being given priority in performing one mitzva related to the meal results in that same person being given priority with regard to other mitzvot related to the meal. The Gemara relates: Rav and Rabbi Ḥiyya were seated before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi at a meal. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rav: Stand and wash your hands. Rabbi Ḥiyya saw that Rav was trembling, as Rav thought that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was criticizing him for eating too much or for having dirty hands. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Son of noblemen, he is telling you to review Grace after Meals. As you will be the one reciting Grace after Meals, he told you to wash your hands first. Having mentioned the blessing over incense, the Gemara proceeds to discuss various halakhot that deal with blessings recited over scents. Rabbi Zeira said that Rava bar Yirmeya said: From when does one recite the blessing over the scent of incense? From when its column of smoke rises after the incense has been placed upon the coals. Rabbi Zeira said to Rava bar Yirmeya: But at that point, he has not yet smelled it. Rava bar Yirmeya said to him: And according to your reasoning, the blessing: Who brings forth bread from the earth, that one recites before eating bread, at that point, he has not yet eaten from it. Rather, in that case, one recites the blessing when he intends to eat; here too, he intends to smell. Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Abba bar Naḥmani, said that Rav Ḥisda said that Rav said, and some say that Rav Ḥisda said that Ze’iri said: Over all the incense one recites: Who creates fragrant trees, except for musk, which is extracted from a living creature, and over which one recites: Who creates various spices. The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: One only recites: Who creates fragrant trees, over the balsam from the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and over balsam from the house of Caesar and over myrtle everywhere. According to the previous statement, one recites that blessing over all types of incense. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Yitzḥak: This balsam oil, what blessing does one recite over it? Rav Yitzḥak said to him, this is what Rav Yehuda said: One recites: Who creates the oil of our land, as balsam only grew in Eretz Yisrael, in the Jordan valley. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Except for Rav Yehuda, for whom Eretz Yisrael was extremely beloved and who therefore mentioned it in his blessing, what blessing does everyone else recite over balsam oil? He said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites: Who creates pleasant oil. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Over costus, a spice, one recites: Who creates fragrant trees, but over oil that was pressed with spices to absorb their scents, no, one does not recite that blessing. And Rav Kahana said: Even over oil pressed with spices, one recites: Who creates fragrant trees, but not over oil into which spices were ground. The Sages of Neharde’a say: Even over oil into which spices were ground, which is of even lower quality, one recites this blessing.
ולענין פסק הלכה משמע דהלכתא כאיכא דאמרי דלחומרא הוא, דכן דרכן של גאונים ז"ל בכל מקום לפסוק כאיכא דאמרי לגבי ממונא ולגבי איסורין היכא דהוי לחומרא. והלכך יין בעי הסבה ומהניא ליה הסבה, אבל שאר דברים חוץ מפת ויין לא מהניא להו הסבה.
ואלא מיהו ממעשה דבר קפרא ותרין תלמידיה דאייתיאו קמיהו דורמסקין ופרגיות ושלקות ונתן רשות לאחד מהן לברך כדאיתא לעיל (ברכות לט, א) משמע דאפילו לשאר דברים נמי מהניא הסבה. ונראה לי מתוך אותו מעשה דרב ודאי להדין לישנא בתרא ס"ל דלא מהניא הסבה כלל אלא לפת בלבד ואפילו יין דחשוב לא מהניא ליה לדידיה, ורבי יוחנן ס"ל דבכל מילי מהניא הסבה
וכ"כ רבינו ירוחם וז"ל ודוקא כשקבעו על הפירות אז אחד מברך לכולם לפניהם אבל כשלא קבעו כל אחד מברך לעצמו כדאמרינן בפרק כיצד מברכין ישבו כל אחד מברך לעצמו הסיבו אחד מברך לכולם דוקא ביין הוא דא"ר יוחנן דבעי הסיבה אבל פירות מודה דלא בעו הסיבה פירוש ואחד מברך לכולם אבל קביעות בעו ולפ"ז לדידן אין חילוק בין פת ויין לשאר דברים דבישיבה אפילו פת ויין אחד מברך לכולם ושלא בישיבה בשאר דברים נמי כל אחד מברך לעצמו:
תשובה הדבר ידוע שהפת חשובה מן הכל וכן היין חשוב מכל המשקין וכל הפירות ולפי חשיבות הדבר שמברכין עליו אנו מצריכין לכל אחד ואחד ברכה בפני עצמה ולפי זה הפירוש שעלה על דעתכם בהנהו תרי לישני [נמצא שאר] הפירות והמשקין חשובין יותר מן הפת ומן היין שהרי הפת והיין אחד מברך לכלם אם נתוועדו או הסבו ובשאר הפירות אעפ''י שנתועדו והסבו לא יברך אחד לכלם אלא כל אחד ואחד צריך לברך לעצמו הפך גדול יציבא בארעא וגיורא בשמי שמיא.
מי שיצא (אם) מוציא אחרים. ובו ג סעיפים:
על כל פירות ושאר דברים חוץ מפת ויין אם היו האוכלים שנים או יותר אחד פוטר את חבירו אפי' בלא הסיבה ומיהו ישיבה מיהא בעי דדוקא פת ויין בעי הסיבה ולדידן הוי ישיבה כמו הסיבה לדידהו ולפי זה לדידן דלית לן הסיבה אין חילוק בין פת ויין לשאר דברים דבישיבה אפילו פת ויין אחד מברך לכולם ושלא בישיבה בשאר דברים נמי כל אחד מברך לעצמו....
הגה וי"א דבכל הדברים חוץ מפת ויין לא מהני הסיבה וה"ה ישיבה לדידן (ב"י סי' קע"ד בשם הראב"ד) ולכן נהגו עכשיו בפירות שכ"א מברך לעצמו:
On all fruits and other foods - aside from bread and wine - if there are two or more foods, then the blessing of one covers the other even without reclining. Sitting, however, is required specifically with bread or wine that does require reclining. But, for us, that's sitting just as like the type of reclining they used to do in tannaitic times. And, according to this, for us, since we do not recline when we eat, there's no differentiation between eating bread and drinking wine versus other food or beverages for consumption since, with regards to sitting, even with bread and wine, one blesses for all of them and not with sitting with other consumables also everybody blesses for oneself. But we say that one blesses for all of them with all other things aside from bread, that's with regards to the pre-consumption blessing, but with the post-consumption blessing, we do need to differentiate and everybody blesses for oneself since there is no call to blessing for fruits. GLOSS: And there are some who say that with all food and drink aside from bread and wine that reclining does not help, and this is similarly the case with our sitting. And, therefore, we are accustomed nowadays with fruits, that everyone who is at the meal blesses upon the fruits for themselves.
(ג) אחד פוטר את חבירו - ר"ל אפילו יודע כ"א בעצמו לברך אפ"ה אחד מברך ומוציא חבירו לכתחלה והוא שחבירו ישמע הברכה מתחלה ועד סוף ויכוין לצאת כדלקמן ס"ב והכי עדיף טפי דברוב עם הדרת מלך:
(ה) ישיבה מיהא בעי - דאין אחד יכול להוציא חבירו בהברכה אלא א"כ ישבו לאכול ולשתות ביחד ולא במעומד דקביעות קצת עכ"פ מיהו בעי וכ"ז רק לענין לכתחלה אבל בדיעבד כל שכוון המברך להוציא והשומע לצאת יצא [מאמר מרדכי]:
וכמדומה שכעת המנהג פשוט ברוב המקומות שאין מוציאין אחד את חבירו כמעט בשום דבר מאכל אף שהוא נגד הדין ואפשר משום שאין הכל בקיאין להתכוין לצאת ולהוציא וכעין זה מבואר בח"א כלל ה':
ברכה אחרונה
אמר רבה בר בר חנה הוה קאימנא קמיה דרבי אמי ורבי אסי אייתו לקמייהו כלכלה דפירי ואכלו ולא משו ידייהו ולא יהבו לי מידי ובריך חד חד לחודיה שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה אין נטילת ידים לפירות וש"מ אין מזמנין על הפירות ושמע מינה שנים שאכלו מצוה ליחלק.
the demon saw the members of Rav Pappa’s household pouring water from the mouth of the pitcher before drinking from it. The demon said to them: If I had known that you regularly do this, I would not have delayed. I would have brought the water straight from the river, knowing you would pour out the foul waters. § When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Due to the failure to wash with the first waters, they ultimately fed a Jew pig meat. This case involved a storekeeper who would sell different meat to his Jewish and gentile customers. When a Jew who came to eat with him neglected to wash before eating, the storekeeper assumed he was a gentile and fed him pig meat. And due to the failure to wash with final waters a woman was ultimately divorced from her husband. In this incident, a host who had stolen his guests’ money had lentils on his mustache from a previous meal because he had not washed his hands and mouth after eating. Realizing he had eaten lentils that day, his victims approached the man’s wife and said that her husband had instructed them to tell her to return their money. They then claimed that the man told them to tell her that he had eaten lentils that day as proof that they were telling the truth. They thereby fooled his wife into thinking he wanted her to give their money back. Out of anger, the host divorced his wife. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said the statement slightly differently: Due to the failure to wash with first waters, they fed a Jew meat from an animal carcass, and the failure to wash with final waters killed a person, as in the second incident the host was so angry with his wife that he killed her. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic to remember which Sage said which version is: Rav Dimi came and divorced her from her husband, i.e., according to his version she was divorced, and Ravin came and killed her, since in his version the husband killed his wife. Rabbi Abba would teach one of these versions involving first waters and one of them with regard to final waters, and in both cases he taught the more severe version, i.e., he specified the meat of a pig and that the husband killed his wife. A disagreement was stated with regard to water heated by fire: Ḥizkiyya says that one may not wash his hands with such water, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one may wash his hands with it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I asked Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, about this halakha, and he was one who would eat only in a state of ritual purity and was therefore careful about washing his hands; and he said to me that all the great men of the Galilee would do so, i.e., wash their hands in heated water. Likewise, with regard to the hot springs of Tiberias, Ḥizkiyya says that one may not wash his hands with water from them before eating, but if there are forty se’a, the requisite size of a ritual bath, then one may immerse the hands directly in them, and this is effective for the ritual of washing the hands before a meal. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that an impure person may immerse his entire body in such water to become pure, but one may still not use it for the immersion of part of his body, such as his face, hands, and feet, as this immersion is not considered equivalent to washing the hands. The Gemara asks: Now that it has been said that one may immerse his entire body in the hot springs of Tiberias, is it not all the more so permitted for his face, hands, and feet? Rav Pappa said: When the water in the hot springs stands in place, everyone, both Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan, agrees that it is permitted to immerse one’s hands in it. Likewise, everyone agrees that to take from these waters in a vessel and wash one’s hands from it is prohibited. They disagree when one draws the waters through a ditch. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that we decree against the use of ditch water due to the concern that one might come to use water in a vessel, and one Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that we do not decree against it. The Gemara comments: This dispute is like a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught: When water that has ceased to be fit for drinking even by an animal is in vessels, it is unfit for washing the hands, but when it is in the ground it is fit for immersion, like a ritual bath. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when the water is in the ground, one may immerse his entire body in it, but he may not immerse his face, hands, and feet. As above, one might ask: Now that one may immerse his entire body in the water, is it not all the more so the case that one may immerse his hands and feet in it? Rather, must it not be referring to a case when one draws the waters through a ditch? And if so, they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that we decree against the use of ditch water due to concern that one may come to use a vessel, and one Sage, the first tanna of that baraita, holds that we do not decree against it. § Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashiyan says: The obligation of washing hands before eating non-sacred food is due to an ancillary decree on account of teruma, the portion of produce designated for the priest, which must be consumed in a state of ritual purity. By rabbinic decree, one’s hands are considered impure with second-degree ritual impurity, as they may have touched impure items. Therefore, they render teruma impure. Consequently, priests who partake of teruma are obligated to wash their hands first. The Sages therefore decreed that all must wash their hands even before eating non-sacred food, so that people not become accustomed to eating without washing their hands, which would in turn lead the priests to partake of teruma without washing their hands. And the obligation is further due to its being a mitzva. The Gemara asks: What mitzva does it involve? Abaye says: It is a mitzva to listen to and obey the statements of the Sages, who instituted this washing of the hands. Rava says: It is a mitzva to listen to the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh, as it is written with regard to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]: “And whomever he that has the issue touches, without having rinsed his hands in water,” he contracts ritual impurity (Leviticus 15:11), and Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh says: From here the Sages based washing of the hands upon a verse from the Torah. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: From where is this inferred? How can this verse, which concerns a zav, be interpreted as referring to washing the hands before a meal? Rava explains: As it is written: “Without having rinsed his hands in water.” Consequently, one could infer that if he rinsed his hands the zav becomes ritually pure. But this cannot be correct, as verses elsewhere prove that a zav requires the immersion of his entire body. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: And there is another type of person who, if he has not rinsed his hands in water, is considered like one who is impure. The verse thereby serves as the basis for washing the hands. Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: The Sages said that washing of the hands before eating fruit is mandatory only due to cleanliness. The Gemara comments: They understood from this statement that there is no true obligation to wash the hands before eating fruit, but there is a mitzva to do so. Rava said to them: This practice is not an obligation nor a mitzva, but merely optional. And the Gemara notes that Rava disagrees with Rav Naḥman in this regard, as Rav Naḥman said: One who washes his hands before eating fruit is nothing other than one of the arrogant, i.e., it is actually prohibited to do so. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi when attendants brought a basket of fruit before them, and they ate and did not wash their hands. And they did not give me anything to eat, to enable me to join the zimmun, the quorum required for communal Grace after Meals, and they each recited a blessing after eating, separately. One may learn three halakhot from this incident. Learn from it that there is no washing of the hands before fruit. And learn from it that one does not issue a zimmun on fruit, i.e., the halakha that when three people eat together, one leads the Grace after Meals does not apply when they ate fruit. And finally, learn from it that if only two people ate, it is a mitzva for them to separate, i.e., each should recite the blessing after eating for himself. The Gemara notes: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: If only two individuals ate, it is a mitzva for them to separate. In what case is this statement said? It is said when they were both scribes, i.e., Torah scholars, who know how to recite Grace after Meals properly. But if one of them was a scribe and one was an ignoramus, the scribe recites Grace after Meals and the ignoramus fulfills his obligation by listening to the scribe. The Sages taught in a baraita: In washing of the hands for consumption of non-sacred food, one must pour the water on the area that extends until the joint of the fingers. In washing hands for consumption of teruma,
והא דאמרינן דאחד מברך לכולם בשאר דברים חוץ מן הפת ה"מ בברכה ראשונה אבל בברכה אחרונה צריכין ליחלק וכל אחד מברך לעצמו דאין זימון לפירות:
On all fruits and other foods - aside from bread and wine - if there are two or more foods, then the blessing of one covers the other even without reclining. Sitting, however, is required specifically with bread or wine that does require reclining. But, for us, that's sitting just as like the type of reclining they used to do in tannaitic times. And, according to this, for us, since we do not recline when we eat, there's no differentiation between eating bread and drinking wine versus other food or beverages for consumption since, with regards to sitting, even with bread and wine, one blesses for all of them and not with sitting with other consumables also everybody blesses for oneself. But we say that one blesses for all of them with all other things aside from bread, that's with regards to the pre-consumption blessing, but with the post-consumption blessing, we do need to differentiate and everybody blesses for oneself since there is no call to blessing for fruits. GLOSS: And there are some who say that with all food and drink aside from bread and wine that reclining does not help, and this is similarly the case with our sitting. And, therefore, we are accustomed nowadays with fruits, that everyone who is at the meal blesses upon the fruits for themselves.
בית יוסף בשם הרשב"א
ורשב"א כתב בכל ברכות שהן של אכילה ושתיה כל שבירך האחד ושמעו האחרים בין ברכה שבתחלתה בין ברכה שבסוף יצא דשומע כעונה ולכתחילה אין עושין כן לפי שאין זימון לפירות
ורשב"א כתב בכל ברכות שהן של אכילה ושתיה כל שבירך האחד ושמעו האחרים בין ברכה שבתחלתה בין ברכה שבסוף יצא דשומע כעונה ולכתחילה אין עושין כן לפי שאין זימון לפירות
אבל בברכה אחרונה כו'. ב"י הביא בשם רשב"א דאף בזה יוצא בשמיעתו ונ"ל דהאידנא שמזלזלים מאוד בברכ' אחרונ' יש לסמוך על דיעה זו ויברך בקול רם הברכה אחרונה ויהיו האחרים יוצאים על ידו: