Laws Relating to Birkat HaMazon (2)

Translated by David Silverberg.

I) MAYIM ACHARONIM: WASHING ONE'S HANDS BEFORE BIRKAT HA-MAZON

          It is proper for one to wash his hands before Birkat Ha-mazon, though those who are lenient in this regard have authorities on whom to rely.  Nevertheless, one should wash his hands before Birkat Ha-mazon if they are soiled. (lit. "final waters").

THE SOURCE OF THE HALAKHA

          We find in the Talmud two reasons for the institution of mayim acharonim:

          The Gemara in Chullin (105a) requires hand washing prior to Birkat Ha-mazon because of the concern of a dangerous type of salt - "melach sedomit" - that may remain on the hands from the meal, potentially causing blindness through contact with the eye.

          In Berakhot (53b), the Gemara derives this halakha from a verse (Vayikra 20:7): "You shall sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy."  The Gemara associates the first clause ("You shall sanctify yourselves") to the obligation to wash one hands before eating, while the second half ("you shall be holy") introduces the requirement to wash after the meal.

          Tosafot there observe that this dangerous salt is no longer in use, and as such no longer does the requirement of mayim acharonim apply.  Talmidei Rabbenu Yona object to Tosafot's leniency in light of the second reason for this obligation, namely, the derivation from the verse in the Gemara in Berakhot.  Indeed, the Rif, Rambam (Hilkhot Berakhot 6:4) and Rosh require mayim acharonim even nowadays, when people do not use "melach sedomit."

          The Shulchan Arukh (181:1) codifies the obligation of "mayim acharonim."  At the end of this chapter, he cites the lenient position of Tosafot, that the disuse of "melach sedomit" renders the obligation of mayim acharonim obsolete.  The Vilna Gaon strongly rejected Tosafot's opinion and insisted on the application of this halakha nowadays.  The Mishna Berura (22) writes that this is the proper practice to follow.

          On what do those who act leniently in this regard base their practice?  First and foremost, they rely on the position of Tosafot, as mentioned.  Additionally, Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U-ketzia 181) writes that people during Talmudic times would eat without cutlery, thus necessitating hand washing before Birkat Ha-mazon.  Now that people do not eat directly with their hands, no obligation of mayim acharonim exists, even according to the Kabbala.

          Must women wash mayim acharonim?  At first glance, we have no reason for any discrepancy between men and women in this regard, and indeed this is the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Halikhot Bat Yisrael, p. 58).  Other authorities, however, have distinguished between men and women for the purposes of mayim acharonim.  Rav Yaakov Emden (ibid.) writes that whereas women take greater care not to touch their food directly with their hands while eating, they do not require washing before Birkat Ha-mazon.  A different basis for a distinction appears in Responsa Shevet Ha-levi (vol. 4, O.C. 23): the requirement of mayim acharonim today applies only on the level of a "chumra" - an added stringency not strictly required by halakha, and only men accepted upon themselves this stringency.

          Soiled hands: Many Rishonim emphasized the requirement of mayim acharonim when one's hands became soiled over the course of eating.  The Ra'avad (Hilkhot Berakhot 6:4) goes so far as to say that one with dirtied hands must recite a berakha over washing mayim acharonim.  Although we do not follow the Ra'avad's ruling in this regard, even those who are generally lenient when it comes to washing before Birkat Ha-mazon must wash when their hands had become soiled during the meal (Sha'ar Hatziyon 32).  Even Tosafot write that one generally accustomed to rinsing his hands after a meal must do so before the recitation of Birkat Ha-mazon (Tosafot Berakhot 53a, cited in Shulchan Arukh 182:10).

SEVERAL BRIEF COMMENTS RELATED TO MAYIM ACHARONIM:

A. Reciting a Berakha:

According to Rabbi Eliezer of Metz (the "Yerei'im"), one must recite a berakha when washing mayim acharonim.  Most Rishonim, however, do not require a berakha (Tosafot Chullin 105a; Rashba, Torat Ha-bayit 5; Rambam, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:4).  The halakha follows this latter view.

          The question, of course, arises, why don't we recite a berakha when washing before Birkat Ha-mazon?  The Rambam answers that no berakha is recited over the observance of a halakha instituted merely to avoid danger.

B. Hot Water:

The Gemara (Chullin 105a) comments that whereas one may wash before eating with either warm or cold water, mayim acharonim requires specifically cold water.  The Tur allows washing with lukewarm water, while the Maharshal (cited in the Magen Avraham) disagrees.

C. Until Which Point on the Hand Must One Wash?

          According to the Rashba (Torat Ha-bayit 1) one must wash until the second joint of the fingers, while Rabbenu Bachye (in Shulchan Shel Arba, cited by the Bet Yossef) requires washing until the point where the fingers end.  The Shulchan Arukh (181) rules in accordance with the Rashba's view, but the Vilna Gaon insisted that the standards of mayim acharonim correspond to those of washing before the meal.  The Bei'ur Halakha thus rules that one should preferably wash until the point where the fingers end, particularly when the hands are dirty.  The Mishna Berura adds: "I find objectionable the practice of some people who put [on their hands] only several drops of water." 

          As for the final halakha, when one's hands are clean he may be lenient and wash only until the second joint of the fingers, especially nowadays when many are altogether lenient with regard to mayim acharonim.

          As for the minimum amount of water for mayim acharonim, the Vilna Gaon (Ma'aseh Rav 85) required a "revi'it," whereas the Rashba and Bet Yossef (citing Rabbenu Bachye) deny the existence of any minimum required amount.  This ruling is also cited in the name of the Chazon Ish (Imrei Yosher, Nezikin 83).

D. Does One Require a Utensil? 

          The Shiltei Gibborim requires a utensil for mayim acharonim, while the Elya Rabba disagrees; the Mishna Berura adopts the lenient position of the Elya Rabba.  As stated earlier, however, the Vilna Gaon equates the halakhot of mayim acharonim with those relevant to washing before the meal, when a utensil is required.  (This is the practice of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein shlit"a.)

E. Removing Mayim Acharonim From the Table

          Although strictly speaking one need not remove the water from the table after washing mayim acharonim, it is preferable to either remove or cover them (Kaf Ha-chayim).

 

II) A CUP OF WINE FOR BIRKAT HA-MAZON

          Birkat ha-mazon does not require a cup of wine.  Some authorities, however, require a cup of wine for Birkat Ha-mazon when three or ten men conduct a "zimun."  Common practice, however, is to be lenient in this regard.  Nevertheless, it is customary to recite Birkat Ha-mazon over a cup of wine when wine is at the table, such as on Shabbat.

THE SOURCE OF THE HALAKHA

          The Gemara in Pesachim (105b) states that Birkat Ha-mazon requires a cup of wine.  Three opinions exist among the Rishonim as to the halakhic application of this passage:

1. Tosafot maintain that Birkat Ha-mazon always requires a cup of wine, even when recited by a single individual.  The Rosh and Tur concur.  They add that one should therefore not eat bread without previously ensuring the availability of a cup of wine over which to recite Birkat Ha-mazon.
2. Midrash Rut Ha-ne'elam requires a cup of wine only when three people conduct a "zimun" for Birkat Ha-mazon.
3. The Rambam (Hilkhot Berakhot, 7) and Rif (as understood by the Rashba and Ran) hold that Birkat Ha-mazon never requires a cup of wine.  (They apparently either understood the passage in the Gemara differently or felt that it should not be adopted as normative halakha.)

          The Shulchan Arukh (182:1) cites all three views, which the Mishna Berura (4) understood as indicating that the Shulchan Arukh did not decide upon any one of the three opinions.  According to the conventional rules of reading the Shulchan Arukh, whenever he cites two views in the name of "yeish omrim" ("there are those who say"), he intends to adopt the final position cited.  In this instance, then, the Shulchan Arukh rules leniently, in accordance with the final view cited (that of the Rambam), which does not require a cup of wine at all for Birkat Ha-mazon.

          The Ran comments that all views agree that reciting Birkat Ha-mazon over a cup of wine constitutes a "mitzva min ha-muvchar" - a laudable practice though not required by the strict letter of the law.  The Rema cites this position towards the end of 182:1.  The Mishna Berura (4) observes the common practice to rely on the position of the Rambam and recite Birkat Ha-mazon without a cup of wine, unless wine is readily available.  Whereas, as the Ran writes, reciting Birkat Ha-mazon over wine is an admirable practice, the custom evolved to do so when wine is readily available.

          Today people are generally lenient, though many are accustomed to reciting Birkat Ha-mazon over wine on Shabbat.  An explanation for this practice appears in Responsa Rivevot Efrayim (vol. 1, 150).  He suggests that whereas the cup of wine is required only on the level of a praiseworthy custom, and not from the letter of the law, people adhere to the practice only on Shabbat, when they are free from the pressures of the workday.  I would humbly suggest a more straightforward explanation: whereas, as the Mishna Berura mentions, the practice evolved to insist on a cup of wine only when wine was readily available, people became accustomed to doing so on Shabbat, when wine is already on the table.

          Many people have the practice of insisting upon a cup of wine only when ten men recite Birkat Ha-mazon together, though I have not come across a source for this.  Perhaps this custom evolves simply from the special stature attained by a ten-man recitation of Birkat Ha-mazon.

III) THE BIBLICAL REQUIREMENT OF BIRKAT HA-MAZON

The Gemara in Berakhot (48b) posits that the recitation of Birkat Ha-mazon constitutes a Biblical requirement, as indicated by the verse, "… and you shall eat, and you shall be satiated, and you shall bless…"  The question, however, arises, is the precise text of Birkat Ha-mazon required on the level of Torah law?

          On the one hand, the Gemara there presents post-Sinaitic sources for the first three blessings of Birkat Ha-mazon: Moshe instituted the first berakha upon the descent of the manna, Yehoshua initiated the recitation of the second upon the nation's entry into the land, and David and Shlomo established the third blessing.  On the other hand, the Gemara also derives the requirement of the three blessings from the aforementioned verse itself: "… and you shall bless" refers to the first berakha, "for the land" alludes to the second, and "good" points to the third.  This passage suggests that all three berakhot are required on the level of Torah obligation.

          It appears from the presentation of the Sefer Ha-chinukh (428) that mentioning the essential components of each berakha constitutes a Biblical obligation, but not the precise text.  (This approach appears as well in Chiddushei Ha-Rashba in Berakhot.)

          The fourth berakha ("Ha-tov Veha-meitiv"): One view in the Gemara Berakhot 46a maintains that the recitation of this blessing is required by Torah law.  The Gemara explains that this view derives the obligation of this fourth blessing from the phrase, "that He has given you."  However, the halakha follows the other views cited in the Gemara, that this blessing was instituted when the remains of the fallen martyrs of Betar were finally given over for burial.  As the Gemara explains, the term "ha-tov" ("Who is good") thanks the Almighty for miraculously preserving the remains until such time as burial became possible, and the expression "ha-meitiv" ("Who bestows good") expresses gratitude for the very possibility of the martyrs' burial.  Hence, the requirement is rabbinic in nature.  This position is codified by the Rambam (Hilkhot Berakhot 1:17) and the Shulchan Arukh (188:1).

          The juxtaposition of this fourth berakha with the berakha of "bonei Yerushalayim" (the rebuilding of Jerusalem) is not accidental.  The Yerushalmi (cited by the Rosh, Berakhot 7:22) explains that with the destruction of Betar "the pride of Yisrael fall, not to return until the son of David [the Moshiach] arrives."  Therefore, this final berakha, which commemorates the fall of Betar, immediately follows the berakha for the rebuilding of Jerusalem.