Interruptions between the Bracha and Eating: Difference between revisions

# Tosfot (there) comment that nowadays people eat their bread without salt. The implication is that asking someone to bring salt after making the beracha would then constitute an interruption, or [[hefsek]], and one may then need a new beracha to eat. Only speech that relates to the piece of bread itself would not be a [[hefsek]]. <ref> By that logic, the salt isn't required for the bread itself. Such appears to be the opinion of the Rashba (Shut HaRashba 1:208) where one was fine having the bread plain. In that way, asking for salt is like ordinary speech, which constitutes a [[hefsek]]. </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 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 (it is as if the listener made the Beracha himself). 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. So too, by Hamotzi, when the mevarech obligates himself to eat, the listeners are also yotze with his eating alone. For more discussion, see Yalkut Yosef (167 footnote 5 in detail). </ref>  

# Piskei Teshuvot (167:11) explains that we don’t say Safeik [[Brachot]] L’Hakeil (in doubtful situations of [[Berachot]], we are lenient) 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>  

# This is also the opinion of the Yalkut Yosef (167:11 in Kitzur S”A) Additionally, he rules that even if another listener ate before the talking, then all may eat the bread without any issue of a [[hefsek]]. One who talked in such a case can also think the beracha in his head before eating as this counts as a beracha for the Rambam and Smag, yet wouldn’t be a beracha l’vatala. <ref> For a lengthy discussion of these rulings in light of the complexity of the issues, see Halichot Olam (vol. 1 pgs. 346-350). </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>

# Ben Ish Chai (Emor 16) also brings down that the listeners would be fine to eat the bread now, even though the father had talked.  

# This is also the ruling of Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 167:11)  

# 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.  

# 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]].

# 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>

# Initially one should be strict to make [[Hamotzei]] within the time it takes to walk 22 steps. <ref>Rama 166:1</ref>

# After the fact, even if one really made an interruption one does not need to rewash one's hands unless one didn't watch to keep one's hands clean. <ref>Mishna Brurah 166:6</ref>

# There is a large discussion in the poskim if one should answer baruch hu ubaruch shmo to a beracha when you wish to fulfill your obligation. <ref>