2

Kitzur Siman 49:14 (Mishnah Berurah on SA OC 175 sk 15) discusses the Halachot of Hatov VeHaMeitiv in regards to wine.

If the host places the bottle of wine on the table so that whoever wishes May drink as is done at large feast, if so, it is as if the wine is jointly owned and they recite the blessing. However, if the host serves each guest a cup for himself they do not recite the blessing.

My question: You have a scenario where you do have plenty of wine or other alcoholic beverages, but the guests might have a record of getting too rowdy for comfort. The host sets a limit for how much wine can be served. Are the guests (and consequently the host) still permitted to say Hatov VeHaMeitiv? Or does the limit set by the host nullify that bracha?

  • 2
    Even with the boundary they still have joint access to the communal wine bottles, no? Why do you think an upper limit is relevant? The case in the Kitzur is where there is no communal wine. – Double AA Mar 2 '17 at 23:46
  • @DoubleAA What do you mean by "The case in the Kitzur is where there is no communal wine"? Isn't he talking about a host who puts out wine for everyone to drink? Is that not communal wine? – HaLailah HaZeh Mar 3 '17 at 1:45
  • I understand he is saying each person is given one filled cup. So everyone only has rights to the wine in their own glass and no more. Nothing communal. – Double AA Mar 3 '17 at 1:46
  • @DoubleAA I understood Kitzur to suggest the host was stingy which is the opposite of abundance (a highlight of this and proceeding seif'im to begin with). An upper limit is due only because lewdness ensues with this particular social assortment. Otherwise the host trusts the moral integrity of others and more emphasis is made on communal wine. An actual example would be a case of Shalom Bayit or health (the final concern of Kitzur regarding which bracha to say). – Re'eh Mar 3 '17 at 12:34
1

The question is about the rule described in the Kitsur SA, which is based on the Magen Avraham sk 4.

A little introduction is necessary to understand this rule: The Mordechai on the 9th chapter of Berachot (quoted in Bet Yosef OC 175) reports in name of the Rif, that Achsanai and oreach cannot bless because this is not his own goodness. The Bet Yosef didn't find those words in Rif and thinks that somewhat is wrong in this quote of the Rif. So he skipped this opinion in Shulchan Aruch. The Bach says that this Rif is probably quoted from the Respona of the Rif. He understands that achsanay and oreach are equivalent, two kinds of guests.

The Magen Avraham in sk 4 gives a new interpretation of this rule. He understood that the Rif's opinion comes from the psak of the Rif regarding the blessing of Hatov VeHaMeitiv about rain.

He explains that the words achsanai and oreach are certainly not equivalent, achsanai is the owner, the host, and oreach is the guest.

Even the host cannot bless hatov vehametiv because of a necessary condition (according to the Rif) which is not fulfilled. According to the Rif, the owner of a field cannot bless hatov vehametiv for the rain, if he has no associate in this field, despite the fact that the field provides food not for him only but for a lot of persons.

Magen Avraham learns from this rule that for wine if there is a owner, the host and one or several guests, the cannot bless , because this is not a common boon (but the words of the Mordechai are הטבה שלו, not exactly congruent to this interpretation), and the guest too is not associated when he received one cup.

The Magen Avraham explains that if a jug is put on the table as it is the general case, and everybody can drink from his cup which was fulfilled from the jug (until he drink the wine is not his wine because we rule אין ברירה), and they drink together, every people around the table is associated for the jug and can bless hatov vehametiv.

In the case of the OP, the guests can drink freely up to a certain state of drunkenness, the control of the quantity can be interpreted as follows: the guest is an associate with a low percentage, as long as his part is not finished, he is an associate.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .