Q & A
Information about Brachas For Men & Women
Can a woman recite Birchas Hamazon on behalf of a man?
- Shulchan Aruch (OC 186:1) writes that women are obligated to bentch, but it is uncertain whether this is a Torah or Rabbinic obligation. In general, women are obligated in mitzvos
that are not time bound. This should include Birchas Hamaon, since it is not associated with
a specific time. However,Birchas Hamazon contains two statements of appreciation that apply
to men & not women: we thank Hashem for giving us the Land of Israel, which was not apportioned to the women (Rashi, Berachos 20b) & we thank Hashem for the mitzvos of
Torah & bris milah,, which women are not commanded to fulfill (Tosfos, ibid.). As such, it is questionable if a woman has a Biblical obligation to bentch. If women have a Torah obligation, they can recite Birchas Hamazon on behalf of a man, because their levels of obligation are equivalent. However, if a woman is only obligated on a Rabbinic level, she may only recite Birchas Hamazon on behalf of a man when his obligation to bentch is only Rabbinic as well.
For example, if a man ate a small & not fully satisfying meal, his obligation would be only Rabbinic. In this case, if the man was unable to bentch, a woman could recite the bentching
on his behalf & he may listen & answer Amen. Because the question of whether a woman
has a Biblical or Rabbinic obligation to bentch is unresolved, a woman should not recite
Birchas Hamazon for a man who ate a full meal.
One who eats cake & drinks wine recites one bracha acharona
& includes in it bothal ha'michya & al ha'agefen.
What if one realizes in the middle of the bracha
they forgot to recite al ha'gefen?
Isit enough to add al ha'gefen in the conclusion of the bracha
or must one start the bracha again from the beginning?b
- Shevet Halevi (3:18) writes that this situation is similar to what is discussed in Shulchan Aruch (OC 59:2), that if one began a bracha incorrectly, the bracha is invalid & must be repeated, unless there was an immediate correction.
- The Vilna Gaon (Beiur HaGra) disagrees. He rules that so long as the ending of the
bracha is correct, the bracha is valid. The Mishnah Berurah (59:2) & Beiur Halacha
(ibid., s.v. ve’nizkar) adopts a middle ground. If one corrects the mistake before the concluding bracha, even if it was not immediate, the bracha is saved. Therefore, the
Shevet Halevi writes that if one remembers to insert al ha'gefen before reaching the concluding bracha,the bracha is vaid. - However, if one did not remember until he began the concluding bracha, this would be
subject to the disagreement between Shulchan Aruch & the Vilna Gaon. Since the matter
is a safeck (uncertainty), one should not repeat the bracha. - The Shevet Halevi quotes the Sdei Chemed (Maareches Berachos, no.20) who writes
that one who forgot al ha'gefen in the beginning of the bracha & did not make an immediate correction, should ideally complete the bracha without mentioning al'ha'gefen & then recite
the bracha again, this time mentioning only al ha'gefen.
If one ate a satiating serving of pasta & does not recall if he recited
Al Hamichya, the Mishnah Berurah recommends eating another portion,
so that the bracha of Me'ein Shalosh can be recited with certainty.
So does one recite a bracha rishona on this additional portion of food?
- This is an interesting question. At first glance one would think that a bracha rishona should
not be recited on the additional pasta. The reasoning for this is as follows; If one already
recited Al Hamichya on the first portion of pasta, the originalbracha rishona (made on the
first pasta) is no longer active & a new bracha rishona would be required for the second
portion. On the other hand, if Al Hamichya was not recited after the first portion was eaten,
the bracha rishona is still active & would cover the new pasta as well. Since we are unsure
if the bracha achrona was said, it is a safek (uncertainty) if a new bracha rishona is required
& safek braca lkula, one does not recite a bracha rishona (which is a Rabbinic mitzvah)
when in doubt.
- However,the above analysis is incorrect. The first bracha rishona is definitely inactive
because in any event he intended to say a bracha achrona though the person does not
recall if he actually recited it. This intent closes the first meal & renders the brach rishona inactive (see Pri Megadim, Pesicha to Hilchos Berachos, siman 2, and Mishnah Berurah, 184:15). Thus, in our case, where one is unsure whether he recited Al Hamichya,
a new bracha rishona would have to be recited.
One who eats cake & drinks wine recites one bracha achroma & includes
in it both al ha'michya & al ha'gefen.
What if one recited al ha'micha but forgot to recite the insert for al ha'gefen.
One accidentally recited al ha-michya on wine, bedieved there is no need for the bracha
achrona to be repeated. Since the term "michya" (sustenance) can also be applied to
wine, the bracha is valid. - However, the Har Tzvi (OC 1:105) rules that this allowance is limited to a situation where
one only drank wine & inadvertently recited al ha'michya nstead of al ha'gefen. In that case,
he obviously intended that the bracha of al ha'michya cover the wine that he drank. - However, if one ate cake & drank wine & then only recited al ha'michy, we may assume that
he did not intend to cover wine with the bracha of ha'michya,but rather, forgot to include al ha'gefen in his bracha. The bracha of al ha'micha covers wine only if there was specific
intent for the bracha to apply in response to our original question a second bracha of al
ha'gefen must be said. - Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt”l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91:6) agreed with this ruling & offered a proof from a similar case in the Mishnah Berurah. The Mishnah Berurah (208:69) writes that if one ate grapes (requiring al ha'eitz) but accidentally recited al ha'gefen
bedieved he does not repeat the bracha.Yet if one ate grapes & drank wine but only recited
al ha'gefen, he is required to repeat al ha'eitz, unless he had specific intentthat the brach should cover the grapes as well. - Though we refer to seven species of fruit, in reality there are only five traditional fruits.
These are: grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives & dates. (The other two members of the
seven species are wheat & barley, which are not commonly called fruit.) These five fruits
can further be divided into two categories: those that satiate & those that don’t. Dates &
wine are considered satiating foods. Grapes, figs, pomegranates & olives are not. Although lechatchila, the bracha of 'al ha'michya' (after the fact) "al ha'micha was intituted only for
foods made from wheat, barley or related grains, bedieved (after the fact) the term "michya"
is appropriate for foods whih are satiating. Therefore, if one ate dates or drank wain & accidentally recited 'al ha'michya, there is no need to repeat the bracha. However, if one
ate grapes, figs, pomegranates or olives & accidentally recited al'ha'michya, the bracha
must be repeated.(see Levush OC 208:17).
Some one at fruit from seven spices & should have recited the Bracha
achrona of al ha'peiros.
They were confused & instead recited ''al ha'michya."
Is this adequate or must they repeat the bracha.
Must the bracha of al'ha',michya or al ha'peiros be recited while sitting?
- Shulchan Aruch (OC 183:9) writes that one is required to sit for benching, to ensure that
the Bracha is recited with the proper kavana (concentration). However, bedieved, if one
was standing or even walking during bentching, there is no need to repeat the bracha. - Shulchan Aruch also writes that “some say” the same rules apply to the bracha of Mei'ein Shalosh. This language (some say) implies that there is a dispute whether one is required
to sit. However, the Mishnah Berurah (183:35) writes that the disagreement relates only to one who ate fruit and must now recite al ha'peiro. However, one who ate cake or other forms
of mezonos & must recite al ha'michya is required to sit while reciting the bracha according
to all opinions. - Nonetheless, Rav Ovadia Yosef, zt”l (Yabia Omer, OC 1:11:14) maintains that most
poskim require sitting for al ha'peiros as well. He explains that since the bracha Me'ein
Shalosh is a truncated version of benching, the concept of 'kein d'oreisa tikun' (Chazal
modeled their requirements after the teachings of the Torah), all the rules that apply to benching apply here as well.
Copyright © 2012-2020 Kosher Woman.com
All rights reserved.
