Laws Relating to Birkat HaMazon (7)

 

Translated by David Silverberg 

 

Women's Obligation in Birkat Ha-mazon 

     Women are obligated to recite birkat ha-mazon, though some controversy exists as to whether they must do so "mi-de'orayta" - on the level of Torah law, or "mi-derabanan" - by force of rabbinic enactment.

 

     Therefore, a woman who cannot remember whether or not she recited birkat ha-mazon is not, strictly speaking, required to do so now in order to resolve the doubt.  She may, however, recite it if she so desires.

 

     A woman who forgot to include "retzei" in birkat ha-mazon on Shabbat must repeat birkat ha-mazon.

 

     Women must recite birkat ha-mazon in its entirety, without omitting any portion thereof.

 

     The mishna cited in Masekhet Berakhot 20b states that women must recite birkat ha-mazon.  The gemara records Ravina's inquiry as to whether their obligation constitutes a Biblical requirement or evolves from rabbinic enactment. 

 

     Rashi explains the possible distinction between men and women in this regard as related to the Biblical source for birkat ha-mazon: "You shall eat, be satiated, and bless Hashem your God for the land..."  The verse's reference to land in the context of birkat ha-mazon may suggest an exemption for women from this obligation (on the level of Biblical requirement), whereas they did not receive a portion in the land.  Tosafot object to Rashi's explanation based on the simple fact that the entire tribe of Levi likewise did not receive a portion in the land.  Nevertheless, nowhere do we find an exemption for kohanim or levi'im from this requirement of birkat ha-mazon!  Tosafot therefore provide a different possible basis for exempting women from the Biblical obligation of birkat ha-mazon: the required inclusion of "berit" and "Torah" in the recitation of birkat ha-mazon ("ve-al beritekha she-chatamta bi-bsareinu, ve-al Toratekha she-limadetanu").  The gemara later (29a) establishes that one does not fulfill the obligation of birkat ha-mazon should he fail to make mention of these two mitzvot, circumcision and Torah study.  Thus, whereas women do not perform "berit mila" and are exempted from the formal mitzva of Torah study, they should perhaps be excused from the Biblical requirement of birkat ha-mazon, as well.

 

     The gemara notes that a practical difference between these two views - whether or not a woman must recite birkat ha-mazon on level of Torah law - will arise should a man wish to fulfill his obligation by hearing birkat ha-mazon from a woman. One may fulfill an obligation on behalf of another only if the first is bound by at least the same - if not higher - level of obligation as the listener.  Therefore, only if a woman has a Biblical requirement to recite birkat ha-mazon may she fulfill the obligation on behalf of men.

 

     The gemara cites Rava's attempt to resolve the issue on the basis of a Berayta stating that a man fulfills his obligation by listening to birkat ha-mazon from his wife.  This ruling implies, as explained, that women's obligation to recite birkat ha-mazon is on the Biblical level.  However, the gemara later refutes the proof, suggesting that the Berayta may possibly refer to a situation where the husband had eaten an amount of bread that requires birkat ha-mazon only "mi-derabanan" (i.e. a "ke-zayit").  Since the husband did not eat enough to generate a Biblical obligation, then regardless of whether his wife is required to recite birkat ha-mazon on a Biblical or rabbinic level, she has at least the same level of obligation as he.  As such, he fulfills his requirement through his wife's recitation irrespective of how we view her level of obligation.  Hence, one cannot bring proof to this query from the aforementioned Berayta.

 

     Most Rishonim (Rambam, Ra'a, Ba'al Ha-ma'or, Rosh and others) maintain that whereas the gemara refuted Rava's attempted proof, the question remains unresolved.  By contrast, the Ra'avad (in his glosses to the Rif) and the Ramban ("Milchamot," where he contends that this is the view of the Rif, as well) hold that Rava's proof actually stands, as the gemara's refutation is not strong enough to discard it.  Thus, the gemara concludes that women must recite birkat ha-mazon on the level of Biblical obligation.

 

     The Shulchan Arukh (186) rules that a woman should not recite birkat ha-mazon on behalf of a man.

 

     In light of this discussion, the Acharonim have raised several issues related to the level of obligation requiring a woman's recitation of birkat ha-mazon:

 

A. What should a woman do if she cannot remember whether or not she recited birkat ha-mazon?  Generally, when situations of doubt as to the performance of a mitzva arise, the governing principle is that one acts stringently regarding Biblical obligations and leniently when it comes to rabbinic requirements.  In our case, the Rishonim argue as to whether the obligation in question is of Biblical or rabbinic origin.  What, then, should the woman do?  The Sha'agat Aryeh and Chayei Adam rule that the woman must recite birkat ha-mazon, while the Birkei Yossef and Rav Akiva Eiger maintain that she does not.  The Bei'ur Halakha concludes that a woman who wishes to recite birkat ha-mazon in this situation may do so.  He explains that even should we disregard the view of the Birkei Yossef and Rav Akiva Eiger, many Rishonim maintain that a woman's obligation in birkat ha-mazon is of Biblical origin.  The woman thus has many authorities on whom to rely should she wish to recite birkat ha-mazon when a situation of doubt arises.

 

B. Must a woman repeat birkat ha-mazon if she forgets to include "retzei" on Shabbat?  The Kaf Hachayim (188:24) holds that given the unresolved issue as to the nature of a woman's obligation in birkat ha-mazon, a woman in such a situation need not repeat birkat ha-mazon.

 

     This argument, however, seems difficult to sustain.  After all, even one obligated in birkat ha-mazon on the level of rabbinic enactment does not fulfill his obligation if he omits "retzei."  Therefore, the halakha in such a case appears unrelated to the controversy concerning the nature of a woman's obligation in birkat ha-mazon.

 

     The only room for discussion in this regard concerns whether or not women must eat three meals on Shabbat.  Halakha requires one who omitted a given insert to repeat birkat ha-mazon only if the meal he has just consumed was obligatory.  Therefore, one who forgets "retzei" on Shabbat must repeat birkat ha-mazon, whereas one must eat three Shabbat meals.  It follows, therefore, that a woman who omits "retzei" would have to repeat birkat ha-mazon only if halakha requires women to eat three meals on Shabbat.  Rabbenu Tam (cited in the Mordekhai, Megila 1:780) explicitly addresses this issue, the application of the three-meal obligation to women.  He concludes that since the obligation to conduct three meals on Shabbat commemorates the miracle of the descent of the manna in the wilderness, women, who also directly benefited from this miracle, are included in the obligation of eating three meals. 

 

     Accordingly, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in his very first "teshuva" in his work of responsa, discusses the case of a woman who omitted "retzei" and maintains that she must repeat birkat ha-mazon.  This is also the conclusion in Shut Yehave Da'at (2:20).

 

C. The Recitation of "Berit and Torah" by Women

 

     As mentioned earlier, Tosafot based women's possible exemption from birkat ha-mazon on their exclusion from the formal requirements of "berit mila" and Torah study, the reference to which constitutes a critical component of birkat ha-mazon.

 

     In light of Tosafot's comments, the Kolbo (25) writes in the name of the Ra'avad that women should omit the sentence in birkat ha-mazon that mentions "berit and Torah."  This position is adopted by the Rema (186:2).

 

     Although Ashkenazim generally follow the rulings of the Rema, in this instance the accepted practice is for women to recite birkat ha-mazon in its entirety. Regarding their recitation of the reference to berit mila, the Mishna Berura explains that the sentence refers to the circumcision of Jewish males generally.  Therefore, women may include this reference in their recitation of birkat ha-mazon.  The Magen Avraham suggests that women are theoretically included in the mitzva of berit mila, only halakha considers them already circumcised.  As such, they may make mention of this mitzva just as men do.  As for the reference to the mitzva of Torah study, it likely refers either to the males' obligation to study or to women's requirement to study the laws relevant to them.  According to both understandings, women may include the mention of "Torah" in birkat ha-mazon (Magen Avraham).