16,374
edits
Interruptions between the Bracha and Eating: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Interruptions between the Bracha and Eating (view source)
Revision as of 20:43, 13 February 2019
, 13 February 2019→Answering Dvarim Sh'B'Kedusha in the Middle of the Bracha
m (Text replacement - "Teshuva" to "Teshuva") |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
# The Rama (O"C 167:6) and the Beit Yosef (Tur O"C 167) bring from the Kol Bo that ideally one should avoid even such speech. If one did say any of those things, however, he may eat without a new beracha. <ref> Examples of such speech that the Shulchan Aruch gives are: "bring the salt" (MB: even though we don't require one to wait to eat for salt to be brought, since one wants to eat the bread this way, it is considered related to the meal), "give to someone to eat" (MB: even if he is telling them to give someone a separate loaf of bread), "feed the animals" (MB: since this is considered 'related to the meal', because it is forbidden to eat before giving to one's animal). </ref> | # The Rama (O"C 167:6) and the Beit Yosef (Tur O"C 167) bring from the Kol Bo that ideally one should avoid even such speech. If one did say any of those things, however, he may eat without a new beracha. <ref> Examples of such speech that the Shulchan Aruch gives are: "bring the salt" (MB: even though we don't require one to wait to eat for salt to be brought, since one wants to eat the bread this way, it is considered related to the meal), "give to someone to eat" (MB: even if he is telling them to give someone a separate loaf of bread), "feed the animals" (MB: since this is considered 'related to the meal', because it is forbidden to eat before giving to one's animal). </ref> | ||
# The Sefer HaZikaron L'Gri Weinberg quotes the opinion of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that one who took a vow to never eat before reciting a pasuk may say the pasuk after the beracha, if he forgot to do so beforehand and only remembered then. It would therefore not be a [[hefsek]]. | # The Sefer HaZikaron L'Gri Weinberg quotes the opinion of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that one who took a vow to never eat before reciting a pasuk may say the pasuk after the beracha, if he forgot to do so beforehand and only remembered then. It would therefore not be a [[hefsek]]. | ||
==Activities as an Interruption== | |||
# One shouldn't hum a tune or say 'nu' or 'sh' between the bracha and eating even they aren't words. After the fact one wouldn't have to make a new bracha.<ref>Vezot Habracha p. 14 quotes Rav Elyashiv as holding that 'nu' and 'sh' initially shouldn't be said between the bracha and eating but after the fact aren't an interruption. Minchat Yitzchak 7:9 writes that humming a tune between the hamotzei and eating is a hefsek based on Magen Avraham 124:14 who says that a person should make sure to anaswer the kaddish before v'imru amen if the chazan is extending it with a niggun since the niggun is a hefsek. However, the Shevet Halevi 5:16 argues that a niggun is only a hefsek regarding the kaddish case since imru amen isn't part of kaddish. Also, from Magen Avraham 128:73 and Kiddushin 71a it sounds like a niggun as part of a tefillah isn't a hefsek. He concludes that a niggun isn't a hefsek after the fact.</ref> | |||
# One shouldn't walk between the bracha and eating since walking is an interruption.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Harav 167:9, Shaar Hatziyun 167:28, Vezot Habracha p. 14</ref> | |||
# One shouldn't wink or signal to someone between the bracha and eating but if one did after the fact one shouldn't recite another bracha.<ref>Maamar Mordechai 25:8 cites the Halachot Ketanot 1:57 who held that winking is an interruption but he argues.</ref> | |||
# Some say that an action isn't a hefsek while others hold it is.<Ref>Yabia Omer 5:4:4 cites the Minchat Elazar 1:25 who explained that the Smag and Sefer Hatrumah cited by Bet Yosef 34 who allow using one bracha of tefillin for a pair of Rashi Tefillin and Rabbenu Tam tefillin hold that an action isn't a hefsek. Rashi Eruvin 50a s.v. vhari implies that an action is a hefsek.</ref> | |||
== If the | ==If the One Making the Beracha or the Listeners Talk== | ||
General rule: Talking about matters '''unrelated to the meal''' constitutes a [[Hefsek]], according to all authorities. One who talks between a beracha and the eating has to recite a new beracha (see case #1 below). The following cases were constructed to demonstrate this rule as it applies by a communal meal. While the discussion is about bread, the same rules apply for all situations of eating. These laws are only by talking that is unrelated to the meal. | General rule: Talking about matters '''unrelated to the meal''' constitutes a [[Hefsek]], according to all authorities. One who talks between a beracha and the eating has to recite a new beracha (see case #1 below). The following cases were constructed to demonstrate this rule as it applies by a communal meal. While the discussion is about bread, the same rules apply for all situations of eating. These laws are only by talking that is unrelated to the meal. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 18: | ||
The following cases are different scenarios that occur after that sequence of events. | The following cases are different scenarios that occur after that sequence of events. | ||
===Listener Talks Immediately=== | |||
'''Case #1:''' Reuven (the listener) begins to talk before anyone has a chance to eat. | '''Case #1:''' Reuven (the listener) begins to talk before anyone has a chance to eat. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 25: | ||
'''Ruling:''' Reuven needs to make a beracha before eating. | '''Ruling:''' Reuven needs to make a beracha before eating. | ||
===Listener Talks after the One Who Made the Bracha Eats=== | |||
'''Case #2:''' The father eats a bite of the slice he cut for himself. Reuven and Shimon then break into conversation before eating themselves. | '''Case #2:''' The father eats a bite of the slice he cut for himself. Reuven and Shimon then break into conversation before eating themselves. | ||
| Line 36: | Line 40: | ||
'''Ruling:''' The consensus for Ashkenazim is that Reuven and Shimon must make a beracha before they eat of the bread. The consensus for Sephardim is that Reuven and Shimon may eat the bread without a new beracha. (Preferably, they should think the beracha before tasting.) Obviously, any at the table who don’t talk are fine according to all opinions. | '''Ruling:''' The consensus for Ashkenazim is that Reuven and Shimon must make a beracha before they eat of the bread. The consensus for Sephardim is that Reuven and Shimon may eat the bread without a new beracha. (Preferably, they should think the beracha before tasting.) Obviously, any at the table who don’t talk are fine according to all opinions. | ||
===Listener Talks after Another One of Those Listening Eats=== | |||
'''Case #3:''' Shimon goes ahead and eats a bite of his slice. The father hasn’t had a chance to eat yet. (Lechatchilah, Shimon should have waited to eat until his father does (S”A O”C 167:15)). Reuven then begins to talk. | '''Case #3:''' Shimon goes ahead and eats a bite of his slice. The father hasn’t had a chance to eat yet. (Lechatchilah, Shimon should have waited to eat until his father does (S”A O”C 167:15)). Reuven then begins to talk. | ||
'''Ruling:''' Halachically, the case has the same result as in case #2. (see above discussion) For Ashkenazim, Reuven needs a new beracha, whereas for Sephardim, he doesn’t. | '''Ruling:''' Halachically, the case has the same result as in case #2. (see above discussion) For Ashkenazim, Reuven needs a new beracha, whereas for Sephardim, he doesn’t. | ||
===One Who Made Bracha Talks Before Anyone Eats=== | |||
'''Case #4:''' As the father is cutting a slice for himself, he begins to talk (in matters not related to the meal). No one has had a chance to eat yet. Can the listeners rely on his Beracha? | '''Case #4:''' As the father is cutting a slice for himself, he begins to talk (in matters not related to the meal). No one has had a chance to eat yet. Can the listeners rely on his Beracha? | ||
'''Ashkenazim:''' | '''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. | # 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. Vezot Habracha p. 15 and Or Letzion 2:12:1 agree. | ||
# | # Mishna Brurah (167:43) and Be’ur Halacha there disagrees with the Pri Megadim. Mishna Brurah (213:15) only agrees with the Pri Megadim if the one making the bracha spoke accidentally or because of an extenuating circumstance. | ||
# 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> | # 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> | ||
| Line 55: | Line 59: | ||
'''Ruling:''' The father needs a new beracha, but Reuven and Shimon are fine to eat of the bread without any further beracha. | '''Ruling:''' The father needs a new beracha, but Reuven and Shimon are fine to eat of the bread without any further beracha. | ||
===One Who Made Bracha Talks after Someone Listening Ate=== | |||
'''Case #5:''' Reuven quickly takes a bite of his slice before his father has a chance to eat. The father then begins to talk. Shimon hasn’t yet eaten. | '''Case #5:''' Reuven quickly takes a bite of his slice before his father has a chance to eat. The father then begins to talk. Shimon hasn’t yet eaten. | ||
'''Ashkenazim:''' | '''Ashkenazim:''' | ||
# As noted above, whenever one talks before eating, he is obligated to make a new beracha. However, the beracha does count for the listeners who haven’t spoken (see case #4). | # As noted above, whenever one talks before eating, he is obligated to make a new beracha. However, the beracha does count for the listeners who haven’t spoken (see case #4). Piskei Teshuvot 167:12 fnt. 88 says that once the listener ate the bracha isn’t levatala even according to the Mishna Brurah. | ||
'''Sephardim:''' | '''Sephardim:''' | ||
| Line 66: | Line 70: | ||
'''Ruling:''' Shimon can eat of the bread without any issue. The father would require another beracha, only according to Ashkenazim. | '''Ruling:''' Shimon can eat of the bread without any issue. The father would require another beracha, only according to Ashkenazim. | ||
== Answering Dvarim Sh’B’Kedusha between the Beracha and | == Answering Dvarim Sh’B’Kedusha between the Beracha and Eating== | ||
# Yalkut Yosef (167) rules that one should certainly not answer [[Kedusha]], [[Kaddish]], or barechu before tasting the food. Doing so would count as a [[hefsek]]. One should also not answer [[Amen]], but if he did so, he would not make a new beracha. <ref> The Kaf HaChaim (206:19) rules that by the word [[Amen]] alone, he creates a [[hefsek]], according to some. However, Yalkut Yosef (167 end of footnote 7) concludes that as long as the response is shorter than “Shalom Alecha Rebbe,” we hold safeik [[berachot]] l’hakeil, and one should continue without a beracha. </ref> Also, if one answered [[Amen]] to his own beracha, he may continue without a new beracha. | # Yalkut Yosef (167) rules that one should certainly not answer [[Kedusha]], [[Kaddish]], or barechu before tasting the food. Doing so would count as a [[hefsek]]. One should also not answer [[Amen]], but if he did so, he would not make a new beracha. <ref> The Kaf HaChaim (206:19) rules that by the word [[Amen]] alone, he creates a [[hefsek]], according to some. However, Yalkut Yosef (167 end of footnote 7) concludes that as long as the response is shorter than “Shalom Alecha Rebbe,” we hold safeik [[berachot]] l’hakeil, and one should continue without a beracha. </ref> Also, if one answered [[Amen]] to his own beracha, he may continue without a new beracha. | ||
| Line 72: | Line 76: | ||
# Piskei Teshuvot (167:9) brings the opinion of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (see footnote 70 there) that in cases of saying [[Amen]] to another’s beracha or even to one’s own beracha, the person would not need a new beracha. The reason is that we say safeik [[berachot]] l’hakeil in such cases where these matters are disputed by the poskim. [[Answering Amen]] Yeheh Shmei Rabbah and the like is a [[hefsek]] as it is longer than Kedei Dibbur (Shalom Alecha Rebbe). These rules also apply by one who responds to Dvarim Sh’B’[[Kedusha]] during the beracha itself. | # Piskei Teshuvot (167:9) brings the opinion of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (see footnote 70 there) that in cases of saying [[Amen]] to another’s beracha or even to one’s own beracha, the person would not need a new beracha. The reason is that we say safeik [[berachot]] l’hakeil in such cases where these matters are disputed by the poskim. [[Answering Amen]] Yeheh Shmei Rabbah and the like is a [[hefsek]] as it is longer than Kedei Dibbur (Shalom Alecha Rebbe). These rules also apply by one who responds to Dvarim Sh’B’[[Kedusha]] during the beracha itself. | ||
# Shemirat [[Shabbat]] K’hilchata (48 footnote 43) writes that if listeners who were yotze with someone then hear the same beracha from another with whom they had no intention to be yotze, they may answer [[Amen]] to the beracha. Obviously, other responses longer than Kedei Dibbur are a [[hefsek]]. | # Shemirat [[Shabbat]] K’hilchata (48 footnote 43) writes that if listeners who were yotze with someone then hear the same beracha from another with whom they had no intention to be yotze, they may answer [[Amen]] to the beracha. Obviously, other responses longer than Kedei Dibbur are a [[hefsek]]. | ||
==Answering Dvarim Sh'B'Kedusha in the Middle of the Bracha== | |||
# One may not answer Dvarim She'B'kedusha in the middle of a short Bracha, but one should in the middle of a long bracha. However, even for a long bracha after one said the words Baruch Atta Hashem at the end of the bracha one shouldn't interrupt.<ref>Kesef Mishna Tefillah 10:16, Chaye Adam 5:13, Biur Halacha 66:3 s.v. lkadish, Ben Ish Chai Shemot n. 6, Yabia Omer 5:7, Chazon Ovadia Brachot p. 84, [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1081&pgnum=45 Rivevot Efraim 1:50:5 quoting Rav Moshe Feinstein]</ref> | |||
# For example, in the middle of Asher Yatzar one should answer like one would answer in the middle of Birchot Kriyat Shema such as Kedusha or Kaddish.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1081&pgnum=45 Rivevot Efraim 1:50:5 quoting Rav Moshe Feinstein], Yalkut Yosef 7:15</ref> | |||
== Talking before fully swallowing a piece of the bread== | == 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. | # A person shouldn't talk between eating and swallowing even if he began to chew. If he swallowed some of the taste he can talk.<ref>The Chayei Adam (Klal 49:4) quoted in the Mishna Brurah 167:35 holds that swallowing of the flavor of the food would also be enough for the beracha to fully take effect.</ref> If a person did talk between eating and swallowing one would not recite a new bracha.<ref> 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. 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. | ||
* Mishna Brurah (167:35) also leaves this matter unresolved. Therefore, in the Sha’ar Hatziun (167:30), he warns that one should be very careful in this regard to never talk until fully swallowing. Additionally, the M.B. above implies that one should even avoid [[answering Amen]] and the like before swallowing. He concludes that one should preferably eat a full [[Kezayit]] before talking unless there is a need to talk before getting to that point. The Sha’ar Hatziun (167:28) also warns that one should not walk from place to place before finishing to swallow as walking too constitutes a [[hefsek]]. Walking to another place wouldn’t be a [[hefsek]] in a case where one can’t make a beracha where he is because of a lack of cleanliness. [https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/895272/rabbi-hershel-schachter/berachos-75-39a-over-leassiyasan-shechitah-maaseh-mitzvah-charoses-dropped-the-food/ Rav Schachter (Brachot Shiur 75 min 0-2)] explained that one should be careful for the Mishna Brurah to swallow before talking. Interestingly, Rashash Nedarim 59a explains why talking after chewing might not be a hefsek.</ref> | |||
# | # Sephardim hold that one shouldn't speak between the bracha and swallowing but if one hears kaddish or kedusha one may respond since there are opinions who hold that it isn't an interruption once one started to chew the food. If he can't actually answer he should have intent to fulfill his obligation with [[Shomea Koneh]].<ref>Yabia Omer OC 5:16 quotes a number of rishonim that the chewing itself is enough for the beracha to count. 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.''' 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. Yalkut Yosef (Brachot p. 167) rules in accordance with the Yabia Omer above that one should preferably not talk while first chewing. If one did so, as long as the palate benefited from the food, he would not require a new beracha. However, he should answer to [[Kaddish]], [[Kedusha]] and the like. If he can’t respond because he is close to swallowing, he should think the [[Amen]] and listen to be yotze the answering of [[Kaddish]] and [[Kedusha]] by shome’a k’oneh.</ref> | ||
==Interrupting Between Washing and Eating Bread== | ==Interrupting Between Washing and Eating Bread== | ||
# There is a dispute whether one may not make an interruption between washing and saying [[Hamotzei]]. The halacha is that we are strict not to make an interruption. <ref>Gemara [[Brachot]] 42a, Shulchan Aruch 166:1</ref> | # There is a dispute whether one may not make an interruption between washing and saying [[Hamotzei]]. The halacha is that we are strict not to make an interruption. <ref>Gemara [[Brachot]] 42a, Shulchan Aruch 166:1</ref> | ||
