Bentching, Shiurim and Finding Favor with G-d
An explanation of the connection between Birkat Kohanim and bentching, in memory of the first yahrtzeit of my father-in-law, Julian Smith, Yehuda ben Israel
1. What is the minimum shiur for bentching?
שיעור אכיל' לברך עליה ברכ' המזון בכזית:

(כב) בכזית - היינו מדרבנן אבל מדאורייתא אינו חייב לברך בהמ"ז כ"א כשאכל דוקא שיעור שביעה שנאמר ואכלת ושבעת וברכת. ושיעור שביעה משמע מספר החינוך [בפרשת עקב] דאינו שוה בכל אדם אלא כ"א יודע שביעתו ואם דרכו תמיד לאכול כדי מחייתו לבד גם זה נחשב שביעה:

(א) מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לְבָרֵךְ אַחַר אֲכִילַת מָזוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ח י) ״וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ אֶת יְיָ׳‎ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שָׂבַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ. וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים אָכַל אֲפִלּוּ כְּזַיִת מְבָרֵךְ אַחֲרָיו:

(1) It is an affirmative precept of the Torah to say Grace after a meal, as it is said, "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied and shalt bless the Lord, thy God" (Deuteronomy 8:10). The Torah only imposes the obligation on a person when he is satisfied; for it is said, "When thou hast eaten and art satisfied, thou shalt bless etc." According to the ordinances of the sages, however, even if one has eaten only as much food as the size of an olive, he recites Grace after the meal.

2. What is the source for this shiur?
(י) וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ וּבֵֽרַכְתָּ֙ אֶת־ה' אֱלֹקֶ֔יךָ עַל־הָאָ֥רֶץ הַטֹּבָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָֽתַן־לָֽךְ׃

(10) When you have eaten your fill, give thanks to the LORD your God for the good land which He has given you.

דָּרֵשׁ רַב עַוִּירָא, זִמְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי וְזִמְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי: אָמְרוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, כָּתוּב בְּתוֹרָתֶךָ ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשָּׂא פָנִים וְלֹא יִקַּח שֹׁחַד״, וַהֲלֹא אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא פָּנִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, דִּכְתִיב: ״יִשָּׂא ה׳ פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ״?! אָמַר לָהֶם: וְכִי לֹא אֶשָּׂא פָּנִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי לָהֶם בַּתּוֹרָה ״וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וְהֵם מְדַקְדְּקִים [עַל] עַצְמָם עַד כְּזַיִת וְעַד כְּבֵיצָה.

After citing the halakha that one who eats a quantity of food that does not satisfy his hunger is obligated by rabbinic law to recite Grace after Meals, the Gemara cites a related homiletic interpretation. Rav Avira taught, sometimes he said it in the name of Rabbi Ami, and sometimes he said it in the name of Rabbi Asi: The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, in Your Torah it is written: “The great, mighty and awesome God who favors no one and takes no bribe” (Deuteronomy 10:17), yet You, nevertheless, show favor to Israel, as it is written: “The Lord shall show favor to you and give you peace” (Numbers 6:26). He replied to them: And how can I not show favor to Israel, as I wrote for them in the Torah: “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10), meaning that there is no obligation to bless the Lord until one is satiated; yet they are exacting with themselves to recite Grace after Meals even if they have eaten as much as an olive-bulk or an egg-bulk. Since they go beyond the requirements of the law, they are worthy of favor.

Rashi connects this sugya to the previous one, which (seemingly) introduces the concept of a "derabannan" shiur
תָּא שְׁמַע: בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ בֵּן מְבָרֵךְ לְאָבִיו וְעֶבֶד מְבָרֵךְ לְרַבּוֹ וְאִשָּׁה מְבָרֶכֶת לְבַעֲלָהּ, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: תָּבֹא מְאֵרָה לְאָדָם שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו מְבָרְכִין לוֹ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אָתֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וּמַפֵּיק דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּרַבָּנַן, אָתֵי דְּרַבָּנַן וּמַפֵּיק דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?! וּלְטַעְמָיךְ קָטָן בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא? אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל שִׁיעוּרָא דְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָתֵי דְּרַבָּנַן וּמַפֵּיק דְּרַבָּנַן.
Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: Actually they said that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father, and a slave may recite a blessing on behalf of his master, and a woman may recite a blessing on behalf of her husband, but the Sages said: May a curse come to a man who, due to his ignorance, requires his wife and children to recite a blessing on his behalf. From here we may infer: Granted, if you say that their obligation is by Torah law, one whose obligation is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation of others who are obligated by Torah law. However, if you say that their obligation is by rabbinic law, can one who is obligated by rabbinic law, come and fulfill the obligation of one whose obligation is by Torah law? The Gemara challenges this proof: And according to your reasoning, is a minor obligated by Torah law to perform mitzvot? Everyone agrees that a minor is exempt by Torah law, yet here the baraita said that he may recite a blessing on behalf of his father. There must be another way to explain the baraita. With what we are dealing here? With a case where his father ate a quantity of food that did not satisfy his hunger, a measure for which one is only obligated by rabbinic law to recite Grace after Meals. In that case, one whose obligation is by rabbinic law can come and fulfill the obligation of another whose obligation is by rabbinic law.
The first sugya is referencing a mishnah later on in Brachot, which curiously discusses zimmun, not bentching directly.

נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים, אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶם. עַד כַּמָּה מְזַמְּנִין, עַד כַּזָּיִת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד כַּבֵּיצָה:

Women, slaves, and minors do not obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.How much must one eat to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun? An olive-bulk of food suffices to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun. Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.

While we have seen the mainstream opinion is d'oraita = s'viah and d'rabannan = k'zayit, others see the k'beitzah measure as d'oraita.

שיעור אכילה לברך ברכת המזון הוא בכזית בינוני, וזהו מדרבנן. ומדאורייתא דווקא כדי שביעה (מגן אברהם סעיף קטן י"ח). והלבוש כתב דכביצה הוא מן התורה, עיין שם. ויש מן הראשונים שסוברים כן (הר"י, והרא"ה, ורי"ו כמו שכתב האליה רבה סעיף קטן ט'). אבל רוב רבותינו אין סוברים כן, ועוד יתבאר בזה בסימן קצ"ז בסייעתא דשמיא. (ודע דבדין ספק אם בירך, דחייב לברך ברכת המזון כמו שכתבתי, גם בנשים הדין כן. ועיין שערי תשובה סעיף קטן ז'. ודייק ותמצא קל.)

[ד] ויברך וכו'. הטור ושולחן ערוך סיימו רק שלא יהא רעב מאכילה ראשונה, עד כאן. וכתב הב"ח דבמקצת נוסחאות הטור כתב רק שלא יהא שבע מאכילה ראשונה כלומר דאם היה שובע לא היה לו תועלת במה שאוכל במקום השני ונוסחא זו טעות הוא דכל שאינה קץ במאכלו חשובה אכילה דלא גרע מאכילת פסח ואפיקומן, עד כאן. ובספר ברכת אברהם דף קס"ח העתיק לנוסחא זו ופירש שבע מאוד, לכך לעניות דעתי רחוק למחוק נוסחא זו לגמרי, ולכן נראה לי לקיים הנוסחא וכך צריך לומר רק שיהא שבע מאכילה ראשונה ויותר נראה לקיים שניהם כאחד, וכך צריך לומר רק שלא יהא רעב ושבע מאכילה ראשונה כלומר כל זמן שאינו רעב הוא שבע כמו שכתב הלבוש סעיף ה', וכן מצאתי הנוסחא בראב"ן סימן קפ"ח:

(טו) שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאֶחָד כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מְבָרֵךְ לְעַצְמוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן יוֹדֵעַ וְאֶחָד אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ זֶה שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ מְבָרֵךְ בְּקוֹל רָם וְהַשֵּׁנִי עוֹנֶה אָמֵן אַחַר כָּל בְּרָכָה וּבְרָכָה וְיוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. וּבֵן מְבָרֵךְ לְאָבִיו. וְעֶבֶד מְבָרֵךְ לְרַבּוֹ. וְאִשָּׁה מְבָרֶכֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וְיוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים תָּבוֹא מְאֵרָה לְמִי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו מְבָרְכִין לוֹ:

(טז) בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָכְלוּ וְלֹא שָׂבְעוּ שֶׁהֵן חַיָּבִים לְבָרֵךְ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וּלְפִיכָךְ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן קָטָן אוֹ עֶבֶד אוֹ אִשָּׁה מִידֵי חוֹבָתָן. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל וְשָׂבַע שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בְּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן מִן הַתּוֹרָה. בֵּין אִשָּׁה בֵּין קָטָן אוֹ עֶבֶד אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן. שֶׁכָּל הַחַיָּב בְּדָבָר מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִידֵי חוֹבָתָן אֶלָּא הַחַיָּב בְּאוֹתוֹ דָּבָר מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹתוֹ:

(15) If two persons had their meals together, each of them says Grace for himself. If one knew the Grace while the other did not know it, the former recites it aloud and the latter responds "Amen" after each blessing and thus fulfills his duty. A son may in this way recite Grace on his father's behalf; a slave for his master; a wife for her husband. But the sages say "A curse will befall one whose wife or child recites the Grace for him."

(16) It is however to be noted that these persons are only discharged of their obligation if they partook of a meal and their hunger is not satisfied. In this case the obligation to say Grace is one imposed by the dicta of the Scribes, and can therefore be fulfilled on their behalf by a minor, slave or woman. But if one has eaten and is satisfied, the duty to say Grace is Scriptural and cannot be discharged on his behalf by a woman, minor or slave, on the principle that anyone who is under an obligation imposed by the Torah can only be discharged of it by one upon whom the Torah imposes the same obligation.

ובן מברך לאביו כו' עד אלא החייב באותו דבר מן התורה כמותו. כתב הראב''ד ז''ל אין הדברים כתקנן ואין מסכימין להלכה דקי''ל אכילה כזית וכביצה דאורייתא היא שהרי מוציאין אחרים שאכלו כדי שבען ולא נאמרו דברים הללו אלא לרב עוירא דאמר כזית דגן מדקדוק שדקדקו ישראל על עצמן עד כזית וכביצה הוא וברייתא דקתני בן מברך לאביו וכן אשה ועבד במקרין אותו ועונה אחריהם מה שהן אומרים ואיתא בירושלמי עכ''ל:
The Aruch Hashulchan notes the Levush, who says the d'oraita shiur is k'beitzah. As explained by the Eliyah Rabbah, it cannot be that everyone can individually determine when they are satiated enough to be m'chayyav bentching. Instead, he defines satiation as "no longer hungry" which would be after a k'beitzah.

The Ra'avad agrees, noting that the previous sugya (which seems to establish the smaller shiur as only a d'rabbanan requirement) is really giving the d'oraita requirement, and that the adult can repeat the words of the minor to fulfill his obligation.
In the Be'ur Halacha, the Hafetz Hayyim lays out all of the positions (majority support s'viah, minority support k'beitzah). Then, in the Shaar Tziyon he points us Rashi on Brachot 42b to show that there is an objective nature even to s'viah, which alludes to the Levush = fixed shiur perhaps being more appropriate.
רַב הוּנָא אֲכַל תְּלֵיסַר רִיפְתֵי בְּנֵי תְּלָתָא תְּלָתָא בְּקַבָּא וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: עָדֵי כַּפְנָא! אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁאֲחֵרִים קוֹבְעִים עָלָיו סְעוּדָה, צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ.
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.

רב הונא אכל תליסר ריפתי – מפת הבאה בכסנין ולא בירך אחריו: אמר רב נחמן עדי כפנא גרסי': עדי – אלו. כלומר אלו לרעבון נאכלו ואכילה מרובה כזו לא נפטרת מברכה אלא כל שאחרים קובעין אכילתן בכך טעון בהמ"ז כך פירש רב האי ורבותינו פירשו תליסר ריפתי מפת שלנו ולא בירך אחריו משום דלא שבע וקרא כתיב (דברים ח׳:י׳) ואכלת ושבעת וברכת וכך פירש רב יהודאי בה"ג ואינו נ"ל דלית ליה לרב הונא והם החמירו על עצמן עד כזית ועד כביצה (לעיל ברכות דף כ:) ודלא כר"מ ודלא כר' יהודה (לקמן ברכות דף מט:):

Three questions:
1) Why is the Gemara - and the halacha in general, so elusive about the minimum shiur for bentching, which is a one of the few b'rachot d'oraita? Chazal are so fixed on giving shiurim - the mishnah is full of shiurim, and the pasuk with the shivat minim, which directly precedes the source for benching, is interpreted to shiuirim.
2) Why would have the shiur, according to most opinions, be subjective? And not just subjective, but something that approachs achilat gasa - eating while full - which Hazal despise?
3) The mishnaic dispute is in reference to zimmun, not bentching. Why do Hazal automatically connect this to the dispute over bentching?
4. What's the difference between an olive and an egg?
The only Gemara on this mishnah, also found in Pesachim, make a connection to kodesh meat that has left Yerushalyiam
וְכֵן מִי שֶׁיָּצָא וְכוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר כְּבֵיצָה הוּא דַּחֲשִׁיב, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר כְּזַיִת נָמֵי חֲשִׁיב. וּרְמִינְהִי: עַד כַּמָּה הֵן מְזַמְּנִין? עַד כְּזַיִת, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד כְּבֵיצָה! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ. הָתָם — בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי, הָכָא — בִּסְבָרָא פְּלִיגִי. הָתָם בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״ — זוֹ אֲכִילָה, ״וְשָׂבָעְתָּ״ — זוֹ שְׁתִיָּה, וַאֲכִילָה בִּכְזַיִת. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ״ — אֲכִילָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שְׂבִיעָה, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? בִּכְבֵיצָה. הָכָא בִּסְבָרָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר חֲזָרָתוֹ כְּטוּמְאָתוֹ: מָה טוּמְאָתוֹ בִּכְבֵיצָה, אַף חֲזָרָתוֹ בִּכְבֵיצָה. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר חֲזָרָתוֹ כְּאִיסּוּרוֹ: מָה אִיסּוּרוֹ בִּכְזַיִת, אַף חֲזָרָתוֹ בִּכְזַיִת.
The Gemara returns to explaining the mishna. It was taught: And so too, one who left Jerusalem with sacrificial meat in his possession must return to Jerusalem to burn it, just as one is required to return in order to remove leaven from his possession. According to Rabbi Meir, this halakha applies with regard to an egg-bulk of sacrificial meat or leaven, whereas Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says the minimum amount for both is an olive-bulk. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds that an egg-bulk is the minimal amount that is considered significant, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that an olive-bulk is also considered significant? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in Berakhot: How much food must one eat in order to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun? An olive-bulk of food is sufficient according to the unattributed opinion in the mishna, which is generally that of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom one ate in a zimmun. This seems to contradict the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna here. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The opinions are reversed in one of these sources, and must be emended. Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse the opinions. There, they disagree with regard to the interpretation of verses, while here, they disagree with regard to logical reasoning. How so? There, with regard to zimmun, they disagree with regard to the interpretation of verses. Rabbi Meir holds that the verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10) should be understood as follows: “And you shall eat,” that is eating; “and be satisfied,” that is drinking. The standard halakhic principle is that eating is defined as the consumption of an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: “And you shall eat and you shall be satisfied” refers to eating that includes satisfaction. And what is considered eating with satisfaction? It is consumption of an egg-bulk. However, here, in the cases of leaven and consecrated food, they disagree not with regard to the interpretation of verses but with regard to logical reasoning, as Rabbi Meir holds: The requirement to return consecrated food is analogous to its ritual impurity. Just as its susceptibility to ritual impurity is only when it is the size of an egg-bulk, so too, the requirement to return it is only when it is the size of an egg-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The requirement to return consecrated food is analogous to its prohibition. Just as its prohibition is only when it is the size of an olive-bulk, so too, the requirement to return it is only when it is the size of an olive-bulk.
ואכלת זו אכילה - נראה דהני שיעורי כזית וכביצה דלא הוי אלא אסמכתא וכן פ"ה בפרק מי שמתו (ברכות כ:) גבי הא דאמר בן מברך לאביו ומוקי לה כגון דאכל האב שיעור דרבנן ופ"ה שם דהיינו כזית וכביצה דמדאורייתא בעינן שביעה גמורה וכן מוכח התם דקאמר לא אשא פנים לישראל שכתבתי להם ואכלת ושבעת וברכת והן מדקדקים על עצמם בכזית וכביצה וקשה דבפרק ג' שאכלו (שם מח.) אמר ינאי מלכא ומלכתא כרכי ריפתא בהדי הדדי אמר מאן יהיב לן גברא דמברך לן אייתוהו לרבי שמעון בן שטח וכו' שתה ובריך להו וקאמר רבי שמעון בן שטח לגרמיה הוא דעבד דלעולם אינו מוציא אחרים ידי חובה עד שיאכל כזית דגן משמע דאם אכל כזית דגן היה מוציא אחרים ואי כזית דרבנן היכי מפיק להו הא אמר דלא אתי דרבנן ומפיק דאורייתא ואור"י דהיינו דוקא קטן אינו מוציא אותו שאכל שיעור דאורייתא אבל גדול אפילו לא אכלי כלל יכול להוציא אחרים מדאורייתא:
מָר מַתְנֵי כְּזַיִת, וּמַר מַתְנֵי כְּבֵיצָה. מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי כְּזַיִת — כְּאִיסּוּרוֹ. וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי כְּבֵיצָה — כְּטוּמְאָתוֹ.

One Sage teaches that this ritual impurity applies to meat in the amount of an olive-bulk, and the other Sage teaches that the minimum amount of meat necessary for the decree to apply is an egg-bulk. The Gemara explains: The reason for the one who teaches that the minimum amount of meat necessary for the decree to apply is an olive-bulk is that the decree is like its prohibition; one violates the prohibition to eat piggul or leftover sacrificial meat only when one eats an olive-bulk. And the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an egg-bulk of meat reasons that it is like its ritual impurity; by Torah law, only an egg-bulk of food can impart ritual impurity.

Looking at another debate betweeen kzayit and k'beitzah, the essence of a k'beitzah is that it can impart ritual impurity, as opposed to a k'zayit, which is the amount that one must eat to be violate an issur.
From a mathematical perspective, a k'beitzah is 2 k'zaitim - that is, enough for two minimum shiurs of eating.
Putting this altogether, according to the opinion that a k'beitzah is sufficient to generate a d'oraita obligation to bentch, the essence of a "complete" meal is not just eating, but eating together - having enough for another. Even when eating alone, we must theoretically have enough food for others.
This explains why Hazel have the dispute about bentching categorized as a dispute about zimmun - to always place the eater in the framework of eating with others.
5. What is the connection to Birkat Kohanim?
The Torah Temimah emphasizes the phrase in the original gemara that the Jews are "medakdek al atzman". That is, this minimum shiur is only when symbolically thinking about how to feed others. When others are in real need, we must give fully, as noted in the mishnah in Peah:
אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין לָעֲנִיִּים בַּגֹּרֶן מֵחֲצִי קַב חִטִּים וְקַב שְׂעוֹרִים. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, חֲצִי קַב. קַב וָחֵצִי כֻסְּמִין, וְקַב גְּרוֹגָרוֹת, אוֹ מָנֶה דְּבֵלָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, פְּרָס. חֲצִי לֹג יָיִן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, רְבִיעִית. רְבִיעִית שֶׁמֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, שְׁמִינִית. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת, אָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמְכְּרֵם וְיִקַּח בָּהֶם מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת:
They may not give to the poor from the threshing-floor less than a half-kav of wheat or a kav of barley. R. Meir says: [only] half a kav [of barley]. [They must give] a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: half a maneh. [They must give] half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: a quarter. [They must give] a quarter [log] of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: an eighth. As for other kinds of produce: Abba Shaul says, [they must give enough] so that he can sell it and buy food enough for two meals.
That is, we need to have both symbolic actions that show that we care about the needs of others as well as practical giving to meet those needs in real life. In my opinion, that is why the shiur for bentching is not explicit in the Gemara or poskim - if we were to give a shiur explicitly, we may think that is also the shiur that is appropriate when giving to others. In fact, implying that s'viah, close to achilat gasah, is the true shiur, encourages us to give fully to others.

(כד) יְבָרֶכְךָ֥ ה' וְיִשְׁמְרֶֽךָ׃ (ס) (כה) יָאֵ֨ר ה' ׀ פָּנָ֛יו אֵלֶ֖יךָ וִֽיחֻנֶּֽךָּ׃ (ס) (כו) יִשָּׂ֨א ה' ׀ פָּנָיו֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְיָשֵׂ֥ם לְךָ֖ שָׁלֽוֹם׃ (ס)

(24) The LORD bless you and protect you! (25) The LORD deal kindly and graciously with you! (26) The LORD bestow His favor upon you and grant you peace!
Standard midrashic interpretation (Sifre) is
1) First bracha = material success (Bracha = increase / Shimur = protection from loss)
2) Second bracha = spiritual success (Or = Torah)
3) Third bracha = finding the balance (Shalom) - requires special favor from G-d
That is - we do not only eat to live, but we live to eat - and not just eat for one own's sustenance, but to eat with others.
That is how Dad saw meals = to be enjoyed for sure, but more importantly a time to spend with his family.