Interruptions between the Bracha and Eating: Difference between revisions

'''Ashkenazim:'''

# The Rema (167:6) writes that if the mevarech (one making the beracha) eats and then the listeners speak before they get the chance to eat of the bread themselves, the listeners would still be allowed to eat the bread without a new beracha. <ref> The source for this opinion is from the Rokeach (brought down in the Beit Yosef (Tur Siman 167)). Such also seems to be the opinion of the Or Zarua from the Rema above. The logic is that once the mevarech eats of the bread, the beracha counts for all those who wish to be yotze with that beracha, whether they eat of the bread or not. The Rokeach draws the parallel to [[Kiddush]] where the rule is that only the one making [[Kiddush]] is actually required to drink for the [[Kiddush]] to count for all those present at the table. The Beit Yosef, however, responds that the beracha in our case is different. When the mevarech says the Hamotzi, it is as if everyone says Hamotzi by the law of shomea k’oneh. Each person individually must ensure to eat before talking or else they’ll require a new beracha. Kiddush, on the other hand, is considered a Birkat Hamitzva where one Jew can discharge the obligation of another Jew. In that case, the listener tags along with the one making [[Kiddush]] in terms of the entire mitzvah (i.e. the [[Kiddush]] itself and the subsequent drinking). The Aruch HaShulchan (167:6) defends the side of the Rema by saying that by [[Kiddush]] too, all are required to drink as part of fulfilling [[Kiddush]] on an individual level. Even so, the listeners are yotze with the drinking of the mekadesh. By Hamotzi, when the mevarech obligates himself to eat, the listeners are yotze with his eating alone. For more discussion, see Yalkut Yosef (167 footnote 5 in detail). </ref>  

# The Sha’ar Hatzion (there) lists the Achronim who disagree with the Rema and they include: Taz, Magen Avraham, Eliyah Rabbah, Likutei HaPri Chadash, S”A Harav, Chayei Adam, Shiurei Bracha, Halacha Berura, and possibly the Gra.  

# Piskei Teshuvot (167:11) explains that we don’t say Safeik Brachot L’Hakeil in this case as the Achronim conclude. Therefore, if the listeners talk before eating themselves, they will require a new beracha to eat. <ref> There is a dispute among the authorities surrounding the issue, and one would expect to encounter the rule of safeik berachot l’hakeil (by a case of doubt by a beracha, one should omit the beracha). The Kaf HaChaim (167 note 58) explains that there is no safeik beracha case here because the listeners didn’t make the beracha themselves. It is true that one who listens to a beracha with intent to be yotze may not subsequently make his own beracha. Even so, as the person in our case is just a listener, he can make the beracha again after accidentally talking without the fear of a beracha l’vatala by the second beracha as the case is slightly different than the case of one who made the beracha himself. See Yalkut Yosef (167 footnote 5) where he argues on this reasoning. </ref>  

'''Ashkenazim:'''

# Pri Megadim (M.Z. 167:8) rules that where the mevarech talks, the beracha still counts for the others at the table. Therefore, the listeners may go on to eat the bread without any beracha as they didn’t talk.  

# This is also the consensus in Piskei Teshuvot (167:12). He adds that this is only true when the beracha was a good beracha and the talking that followed was accidental. <ref> He also adds that according to the Be’ur Halacha mentioned above, if a listener had eaten before the father had talked, then the other listeners would certainly be fine to eat now. The reasoning is that the beracha is then Chal already by the eating and counts as a legitimate beracha before the hefsek occurs. As noted above, the father would need a new beracha, even in such a case. </ref>

== Talking before fully swallowing a piece of the bread==

# Magen Avraham (167:16) raises the possibility that one who talks before fully swallowing may run into an issue of hefsek by the beracha. However, he leaves the matter unresolved. <ref> The issue is that the mechaber poskins (S”A O”C 210:2) that by the case of one simply tasting food without swallowing it, he would not make a beracha on the food. Therefore, there is reason to argue that a beracha is really only relevant by swallowing food. If one then talks to create a hefsek before swallowing, it may be that he’ll then need a new beracha as by anyone who talks before eating. </ref>  

# The Chayei Adam (Klal 49:4) quoted in the M.B. holds that swallowing of the flavor of the food would also be enough for the beracha to fully take effect.  

# Yabia Omer (5:16) brings from a number of rishonim that the chewing itself is enough for the beracha to count. <ref> Additionally, to alleviate the problem of the Magen Avraham, many Achronim have suggested that as long as one has intention to actually eat, then the chewing is a vital part of the eating. One must by definition chew the food first. Therefore, by the chewing process, the beracha that one made on eating takes effect. However, where one’s intention is just to taste, then a beracha can only be required where he actually swallows more than a [[Kezayit]]. The entire matter is determined by '''intent.''' </ref> Therefore, he rules that one should answer Kaddish, Kedusha and the like. Even so, one should avoid other talking until fully swallowing as many Achronim ruled that it may be problematic. Additionally, by sucking candies, one would only have to swallow some of the flavor to satisfy all opinions as that accomplishes the main eating by a sucking candy.