The Gemara (Berachot 39b) explains that when eating bread, it is preferable to recite HaMotzi on a complete loaf of bread, rather than a piece. Furthermore, if one has the choice to recite HaMotzi on a slice of bread which is made out of wheat flour or on a whole loaf made of barley flour (which is considered inferior), it is preferable to do so on the whole loaf (source). Nevertheless, the Gemara records a disagreement in which wheat flour is considered preferable. As such, the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 167:1) rules that in such a case, one should bring both types of bread together while making the blessing. Practically speaking, however, if one has different options available but prefers one type for health reasons, for example, one may make HaMotzi on whatever one prefers, even if it is not whole. Similarly, the Magen Avraham, (O.H. 211:1) rules that it is more honorable to make a blessing on a whole fruit than on sliced fruit. Nonetheless, Rabbi Shmuel Kellin (Mahatzit HaShekel, § 211) says that if one prefers sliced fruit, one should ideally make a blessing over both the whole and sliced fruit, so as to fulfill all opinions. Despite this opinion, the Mishna Berura (Sha’ar HaTziun O.H. 211:5) points out that one would not be expected to combine those fruit and that perhaps this combination only applies to bread. As such, if one wishes to eat both types of fruit, one should make the blessing on the whole fruit and can consume the sliced fruit afterwards. If, however, one specifically prefers to eat that fruit which is sliced, then one could make the blessing on that.
Another area of practical application for this Halacha is in restaurants, in which often, small pieces of bread are provided near the sink where Netilat Yadaim is performed. This is done in accordance with the Shulhan Aruch’s (Orah Haim 166:1) ruling that one should not wait longer than the time it takes to walk twenty-two cubits between Netilat Yadaim and HaMotzi. Therefore, if one has a whole piece of bread at one’s table, it is preferable to recite HaMotzi over that rather than on the pieces. Although there is a slightly longer delay to reach one’s table, one has in mind that one has yet to make a blessing over the breadand therefore it is not considered an interruption.
Summary: All things being equal, it is preferable to recite HaMotzi and HaEtz/HaAdama on whole bread and whole fruit, respectively.
As mentioned previously, one of the Bet Yosef’s (Orah Haim 168) criteria for determining if a food is Mezonot is if it is crunchy. Given this criterion, it would appear that the blessing over Matza would be Mezonot. On the other hand, there are many opinions that state that certain Mezonot-type foods, warrant the blessing of HaMotzi when eaten as a meal. Since Matza is often eaten as the staple of the meal, its blessing would therefore ostensibly be HaMotzi. Rabbi Haim Benveniste (Shiare Knesset HaGedola, § 168) writes that modern-day Matza is softer and easier to eat than in the past and therefore could be the staple of a meal, and by extension, be HaMotzi. Additionally, Rabbi David Yosef (Shu’t Bet David, §70 & §83) explains that the Bet Yosef’s intention was that the Mezonot blessing is only applied to a baked food which was cooked further and as a result became crunchy, such as toasted foods. However Matza, which is crunchy to begin with, would be considered HaMotzi according to this view.
Nevertheless, many in the Sephardic community rely on the HIDA (Mahzik Beracha 168), who writes that the blessing over Matza should be Mezonot. His opinion is based on the notion that Matza is considered HaMotzi on Pesah because it is the staple of every meal, whereas during the rest of the year this is not the case. If one were to eat Matza as the basis of a meal, however, it is possible that even the HIDA would also agree that the blessing would be HaMotzi. Rabbi Yitzhak Ratzabi (Shu”t Olat Yitzhak), quoting Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, writes that it is erroneous to recite Mezonot over Matzasince most people eat Matza year round a substitute for bread in their meals. Rabbi Moshe Levi (Menuhat Ahava) also explains that Matza nowadays would be considered HaMotzi. Nonetheless, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Hazon Ovadia, Berachot, pg. 64) maintains that the blessing over Matza is indeed Mezonot. Rabbi Shalom Messas (Shemesh Umagen, vol. I, §34) disagrees with Rabbi Levi’s approach and rules that Matza is Mezonot. However, Rabbi Messas based his opinion on the assumption that the Matza was not forming the basis of a meal, in which case it is possible he too would agree that it would be HaMotzi.
As such, although several Sephardic rabbis rule that Matza is Mezonot, there are considerable opinions that it is in fact HaMotzi. However, it is preferable to eat the Matza as part of a meal so that its status as HaMotzi is buttressed and so as to eliminate the doubt regarding which blessing to recite.
Summary: Matza, when eaten as the staple of a meal, is consideredHaMotzi for blessing purposes. As such, since many rabbis are of the opinion that Matza is normally Mezonot, it is advisable to eat it in a meal.
The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 169:2) rules that one may not givefood to one who does not know how to bless over food. This is based on a teaching in the Gemara (Berachot 35a) that eating food without first reciting a blessing is akin to stealing fromHashem. Therefore, since eating without a blessing is comparable to stealing, by giving food to someone who would not know how to make a blessing, one would be complicit in stealing.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurerbach (Minhat Shlomo, vol. I, §35) discusses a situation in which one invites such a person to one’s house; on one hand, one may violate the Shulhan Aruch’s ruling by giving the invitee food. On the other, if one withholds foodfrom one’s guest, the guest may come to harbor feelings of hatred for the host. By not offering food, the host is trying to prevent the guest from committing a sin, but is simultaneously causing the guest to transgress the prohibition of hating another Jew. Preferably, the host should offer to recite the blessingtogether with the invitee or to at least have the invitee answer “Amen” to a blessing. If this is not possible, then Rabbi Auerbach writes that one may be lenient and offer food to one’s guest.
Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Kovetz Tshuvot, vol.I, §8) discusses a slightly different scenario involving an employee who brings food or makes coffee for his or her boss. By not doing so one may jeopardize one’s own job and livelihood. Furthermore, enjoining one’s boss to recite a blessing or to answer “Amen” may not always be possible or appropriate in a workplace environment. Since when all is said and done, it is the boss who is violating the Halacha not the employee, and since one’s livelihood is at stake, Rabbi Elyashiv writes that one may be lenient and continue to bring food to one’s boss.
Summary: One may not give food to someone who will not makea blessing over food. In certain extenuating circumstances, however, one may be lenient.
The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 170:5) rules that a guest is obligated to do whatever the host tells him to. This is based on the Gemara (Pesahim 86b), which records the same teaching and adds the words “except for leave” in parenthesis. According to the Meiri, this emendation was added by a by what he terms a “clown” and may not be meant to be taken seriously. The Zohar, however, also records those additional words and therefore they require deeper analysis. If a host wishes for a guest to leave, how could the notion of ignoring the host’s wish be entertained ?
One explanation, offered by the Sfat Emet and the Vilna Gaon, is that the sentence should be understood as follows: “A guest must heed his host’s commands only in if said explicitly, except for ‘leave’”. In other words, even ifthe host does not tell his guest to leave outright, but merely hints at it, the guest should have enough common sense to understand and follow suit. The Hafetz Haim (Biur Halacha, O.H. 170:5), quoting the Bait Hadash and the Magen Avraham, explains that one should follow any directive one’s host, even if it is something that is beneath one’s dignity. One does not, however, have to heed a command to go to a certain place if that would lead one to do things that are beneath one’s honor, such as asking for directions or navigating an unfamiliar area.
The Mishna Berura (O.H. 170:16) explains that if one practices a certainstringency which is based on avoiding a possible prohibition, such as avoidingall vegetables so as not to accidentally ingest an insect, then one is notobligated to forego that custom if asked to do so by the host. If the stringency is simply an act of asceticism, such as fasting on a regular day, or a stringencybeyond the letter of the law, then it should be relaxed if requested by the host. A practical application of this idea is that if one avoids foods with a certainKosher certification because one considers it of a lesser standard, then onedoes not have to eat such foods even if asked by a host. If, on the other hand, the Kosher certification is considered Halachically acceptable and one avoids it for one’s own stringency, then if offered such food by a host, one shouldacquiesce.
Summary: One should heed any request or offer made by one’s host. Ifone has a stringency that is based on avoiding a certain prohibition, and not simply a stringency done in the name of self–discipline, one does nothave to forego the stringency, even if asked by one’s host.
The Gemara (Nida 17b) states that one should not consume onions, garlic or eggs which were exposed and left out all night. The Gemara explains that evilspirits (“Ruah Ra’a”) are attracted to such foods when left out and this poses a danger to one who consumes it. Interestingly, this ruling is not codified in the Shulhan Aruch as Halacha, and Rabbi Moshe Malka (Mikve HaMayim, vol. 3, Yore De’ah, §16) writes that the general practice is to be strict only regardingthose laws of evil spirits which are codified in the Shulhan Aruch. Nevertheless, there are those who are careful not to eat such exposed foods and indeed Rabbi Haim Halberstam of Sanz (Divre Haim, Yore De’ah § 31) writes that many grave illness are the result of consuming foods that draw evil spirits.
Practically speaking, this may come into play when bakeries crack eggs and leave them exposed in a bowl overnight in the refrigerator for use the next day. Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch explains that in this case, spices are usually added to the eggs, which negates the effect of evil spirits. Mixing them with another dish also has the same effect. Cooking such foods, however, does not remove the evil spices. Regarding garlic or onion powder and the like, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, vol. 3, Yore De’ah, § 2) rules leniently because the Gemara’s ruling was very specific about onions, garlic and eggs themselves, and is not applied to processed derivatives of these foods.
Summary: One should be careful regarding certain foods which are leftout overnight. Adding spices or mixing them with other foods negates the evil spirits.
The Magen Avraham (Orah Haim 170:19) uses this part of the Shulhan Aruch to discuss different foods or practices which are known to promote forgetfulness and are therefore to be avoided. Although not formally codified in the Shulhan Aruch, this concept has its basis in different places in the Gemara. For example, the Gemara (Menahot 99b) says that one who willingly forgets the Torah that one has learned is in violation of the Torah violation of “Pen Yasuru” (Devarim 4:9).
The Gemara (Horayot 13b) mentions that eating olives promotes forgetfulness, while olive oil is conducive to good memory. As such, some rabbis say that ifone were to eat olives, adding olive oil would be advisable. Rabbi Haim Kanievsky (Sefer Zikaron) is skeptical of this opinion since the Gemara only says that olive oil helps one’s memory, not that it nullifies the effects of olives. Rabbi Yitzhak ibn Danan (LeYitzhak Re’ah, vol. 2, Orah Haim §50, [pg.5]) says that since most olives are black, the Gemara’s recommendation to avoid olives only referred to black olives, not green ones. Interestingly, there was a custom in Morocco not to eat black olives during the month of Nissan since it is the month in which one should remember the Exodus from Egypt.
Other things which promote forgetfulness include not washing one’s hands when necessary (such as after touching one’s shoe or cutting one’s nails) (Shulhan Aruch 4:18); sleeping with one’s shoes (Yoma 78b); putting two articles of clothing simultaneously (Magen Avraham, O.H. 2:3); leaving open the book from which one is learning and drying one’s hands on one’s clothing. (Gemara).
Summary: One should avoid if possible those things which promoteforgetfulness.
The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 172:1) rules that if one had a liquid in one’smouth and realized that a blessing was not recited before drinking it, one can swallow the liquid. Since the rabbis were concerned that spitting out the liquidwhen one remembered that a blessing was not recited would lead to a waste of that beverage, they permitted one in this situation to go ahead and swallow that liquid. The Biur Halacha (ibid.) mentions that this Halacha applies only if thereis no other drink available. If another drink, or more of the original, is available,one should recite a blessing and drink some so as to exempt what was consumed beforehand. This is also the opinion of Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul (Or LeZion, vol. 2, § 46:12).
With regards to solid food, one should remove the food from one’s mouth and then recite the appropriate blessing. If this proves too repulsive, one can movethe food to the side of one’s mouth and recite the blessing. If both of these solutions are not practical, then one may swallow the food. Ideally, however, one should not have food in one’s mouth while reciting a blessing. This is based on the the verse (Tehilim 71:8) says “My mouth will be filled with Your praise”, which implies that when reciting a blessing, one’s mouth should only be filled with praise for Hashem and nothing else.
There is an apparent contradiction involved in the aforementioned situations; on one hand, spitting out the contents of one’s mouth may result in the loss of otherwise good food or drink. On the other hand, the Gemara (Berachot 35a) compares eating and drinking without a blessing as a form of stealing from Hashem, as it were. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach reconciles this by explaining that the prohibition of consuming food without a blessing applies only to one who is obligated in that blessing. Once someone has the food or drink in one’s mouth and cannot practically recite a blessing, the obligation to recite a blessing no longer applies to that person. As such, one may forego the blessingand swallow what was already in one’s mouth.
Summary: One may swallow the liquid contents of one’s mouth if oneforgot a blessing provided that there is no additional drink available. Onemay swallow solid food provided that one cannot remove it from one’s mouth or move it to the side of one’s mouth and then recite the blessing.
The Bet Yosef (Orah Haim § 173) writes that one may not eat fish with dairyfood as it is considered dangerous. The Shach and the Taz (Yore De’ah § 87, Orah Haim § 173) are perplexed by this position since there is no precedent for it in the Gemara. The Gemara mentions eating fish with meat as potentially dangerous, but not fish and milk, and indeed the Shulhan Aruch (Yore De’ah 87:3) rules that it is permissible. As such, the Shach and the Taz, as well as the HIDA (Mahzik Beracha) conclude that there was a publishing error and the Bet Yosef meant to write meat and fish.
Nevertheless, the Pithe Teshuva, quotes Rabbenu Behaye Ben Asher, who writes that there is danger involved with eating fish with dairy products. The Ben Ish Hai concurs with this opinion, and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yehave Da’at, vol. 6, § 48) says that while, strictly speaking, eating fish with dairy foods is permitted, one should ideally avoid it. Rabbi Shalom Messas says that according to the letter of the law, such a combination of food is permitted, and if asked a rabbi should not declare that it is forbidden. However, he says that for those people who are concerned of potential danger, it is preferable to avoid it. Indeed, it appears as though the common Sephardic custom is to avoid eatingfish with dairy foods.
Summary: According to the strict letter of Halachic law, eating fishtogether with dairy foods is permitted. Nevertheless, one should avoid eating these foods together.
|
The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 175:1-5) discusses the laws of reciting the blessing of “Hatov Vehametiv”. Our Sages instituted this blessing when one drinks wine during a meal and is then brought a finer wine. Because of the types of conditions that need to be met before reciting this blessing, the Poskim suggest that if one is not sufficiently learned in Torah, one should not recite it.
The first condition that needs to be met is that one needs to have first made a blessing on wine, to the exclusion of grape juice. Furthermore, one cannot recite the blessing if one finished the glass of the original wine, as it appears that the second wine is being brought out simply to refill his glass with more wine, and not because it is better quality wine. Another condition is that the finer wine must be brought from a different location, such as the kitchen, and could not have been already on the table when one drank the first wine.
There is disagreement among the rabbis as to whether “Hatov Vehametiv” is recited only when wine is drunk as part of a bread-based meal, or not. Rabbi Yitzhak Ben Oualid (Vayomer Yitzhak, vol. 1, § 1) quotes Rashi (Berachot 59b), who seems to imply that the blessing is only recited when one has wine as part of a meal which includes breads. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shalom Messas (Shemesh Umagen vol. 3, § 88) writes that the custom in Meknes was to recite “Hatov Vehametiv” during meals that did not include bread, such as an all-fruit meal on Tu B’Shvat. Indeed the custom is to be lenient and to permit the blessing in a meal that does not include bread.
Summary: The blessing of “Hatov Vehametiv” is recited when finer wine is consumed after a less fine wine. There are several conditions which need to be met before reciting this blessing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It was common in the times of the Talmud for people to eat food with Sodomite salt (“Melah Sedomit”), which was known to be very caustic to the eyes. As such our Sages instituted the practice of washing one’s hands before reciting Birkat Hamazon so as to prevent salt from entering one’s eyes if one inadvertently touched them. This practice is known as Mayim Aharonim, or “last waters”.
The Tosafot (Hulin 105a) discuss the fact that Sodomite salt no longer exists and that perhaps Mayim Aharonim is therefore not necessary. The Rambam, however, says that even though the cause of the initial Rabbinic decree, that is the existence of Sodomite salt, is no longer present, the institution of Mayim Aharonim should remain intact. Additionally, the Meshech Hochma explains that each Rabbinic enactment is based on multiple reasons and that only some of them were revealed by our Sages. Furthermore, the Gemara teaches that there is a textual hint for Mayim Aharonim in the Torah. The Torah (Vayikra 11:44) says “And you shall sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy”. “And you shall sanctify yourselves” refers to Mayim Rishonim, which is washing one’s hands before eating bread, and “and you shall be holy” refers to Mayim Aharonim. Based on this verse, the Vilna Gaon says that both washings are part of the same enactment, so just as Mayim Rishonim is still obligatory, so is Mayim Aharonim. As such, the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 181:1) rules that Mayim Aharonim is obligatory, and uses the same expression as is commonly said “Mayim Aharonim Hova”. Although some communities are lenient in this regard, most rule like the Shulhan Aruch.
Another reason for Mayim Aharonim is to wash away any negative spiritual barriers (“Klipot“) from one’s hands. Consequently, the HIDA says that one should not use overly-copious amounts of waters such that the Klipot attach themselves to the water and drain back on one’s hands, but rather enough to wash from the knuckles down.
Regarding women and Mayim Aharonim, Rabbi Shalom Messas (Shemesh Umagen) writes that the custom in Morocco was to be lenient. This opinion is echoed by Rabbi Shmuel Wosner.
Finally it should be noted that if one is handling salt outside the context of a meal, such as measuring salt and the like, one is not obligated to wash one’s hands.
Summary: Mayim Aharonim is mandatory before Birkat Hamazon. Women do not have to wash Mayim Aharonim. |
|
|
ON APPLE 
ON SPOTIFY 