Siman 167:1-5 Breaking Bread
Mishna Berura
Yeshivat Har Etzion
SHIUR
#100:
Simanim 167:1-5
By
Rabbi Asher Meir
SIMAN
167 - BREAKING BREAD
SE'IF
1 - WHERE TO BREAK THE LOAF
The
source for the halakha concerning where to break a loaf of bread is an aggada in
Perek Chelek (the eleventh chapter of the gemara
Sandhedrin):
Rav
Ashi reached the [story of the] three [wicked] kings [Yerovam, Achav and
Menashe, of whom the mishna says they have no place in the World to Come]. He
said, tomorrow we will begin with our colleagues. Menashe came and appeared to
him in a dream. He said, you [dare to] call us your and your father's
colleagues? Say where you need to begin [eating from] ha-motzi! He replied, I
don't know. He [Menashe] said, you haven't even learned where to take the motzi
from, and you call us your colleagues? He replied, teach me, and I will repeat
it in your name in the yeshiva. He said, from the place where the cooking
creates a crust. He said, since you were so wise, why did you worship avoda
zara? He said, if you had been there you would have lifted up your hem and run
after me.
The
next day he [Rav Ashi] said to the students, Let us begin with our masters.
(Sanhedrin 102b)
This
passage teaches us to have proper respect for our ancestors and for the leaders
of the Jewish people, even if they are wicked. It also teaches us not to judge people
until we reach their place. (But Maharsha says that this respect applies only to
Menashe, since there is an opinion in the mishna that he repented and therefore
does have a place in the World to Come.)
Indirectly,
the passage quoted above teaches us where to take the first piece of bread after
the berakha (blessing). The
commentators ask why Menashe chose specifically this halakha to challenge Rav
Ashi. One answer would be that this law is dependent on custom. One who is close
to the source of the mesora (tradition) knows how to break bread without any
learning at all, because it is universal practice. But once this custom was
lost, no amount of learning could restore it. The message is that any scholar
from earlier generations is our master and not our colleague, because he
preserves part of the mesora, which is slowly being eroded.
The
answer that Menashe gives, that the blessing principally applies to the part of
the bread where it first begins to bake, also hints at the primacy of
seniority.
MINIMIZING
DELAY BETWEEN THE BLESSING AND THE EATING
Rav
Chiya bar Ashi said, we say "ha-motzi" [even] on a crumbled bread in a bowl
[which could not possibly be considered whole bread - unlike a slice which has
at least some integrity]. And he disputes Rebbe Chiya, for Rebbe Chiya said that
the berakha has to conclude together with the bread. [The slicing of the bread
should be completed only as the blessing is completed.] Rava attacked this: Why
should crumbs be different [from regular bread]? Crumbs [don't qualify for
"ha-motzi"] because when the blessing is completed the bread is already cut up.
On regular bread also when the [blessing] is finished, it is finished over cut
bread! Rather, said Rava, first make the blessing and only then break bread.
(Berakhot 39a-b)
In
short, Rav Chiya bar Ashi permits the slicing to be completed BEFORE BEGINNING
the blessing, Rebbe Chiya wants it to be completed WHILE CONCLUDING the
blessing, and Rava requires the slicing to begin AFTER CONCLUDING the
blessing.
It
is not entirely clear from the gemara (and the major Rishonim) if Rebbe Chiya
PERMITS slicing during the berakha, because when we bless on a whole loaf the
beginning of the berakha is decisive; or whether he REQUIRES slicing during the
berakha - perhaps to minimize the delay between blessing and eating. (This delay
has two aspects: one is the TIME it takes to slice the bread - which is actually
very minimal. The other is the DISTRACTION - the need to turn one's attention
from eating to cutting.)
The
gemara concludes that halakha is according to Rava, so the bread should remain
whole until the end of the berakha. But according to most Rishonim, "whole" does
not mean "intact" - except for lechem mishneh (the two loaves of bread) on
Shabbat. This means that it is permissible to cut the bread partially, stopping
short of separating a slice; and since this is permissible, it is required, in
order to minimize the delay.
DEFINITION
OF "WHOLE"
So
what after all is the definition of whole? The SA gives one, based on the Rosh.
In the Beit Yosef he suggests that the source of this definition is a mishna in
Tevul Yom (3:1). The mishna explains that if part of the food is touched in a
way that renders it tamei (defiled), the entire food is defiled. It then goes on
to explain:
Food
which fell apart but which is still partially connected: Rebbe Meir says, if he
grasps the larger part and the rest comes with it, then it [the smaller part] is
like it [the larger part]. Rebbe Yehuda says: if he grasps the smaller part and
the rest comes with it, then it [the larger part] is like it [the smaller part -
but the opposite is not true]. Rebbe Nechemia says, by the tahor part [if one
grasps the tahor part and the rest comes with it]. The Sages say, by the tamei
part [if one grasps the tamei part and the rest comes with it]. [(Tevul Yom
3:1)
We
have seen other examples of "one-way" attachments. For instance, in siman 59:16
we learned that if a small room is completely open into a large room, then a man
in the small room can join nine in the large room to create a minyan. On the
other hand, if there are nine in the small room then one man in the large room
doesn't join them. Here, the larger part of the food that "drags" the other part
with it is like the large room, and the smaller part of food which is dragged
along but which can't drag the large part (since it would break off) is like the
small room.
What
is the basis for the dispute between Rebbe Nechemia and the Chakhamim (Sages)?
Here is one approach. When there is attachment (chibur) for the purposes of
tuma, then if something tamei touches one part, the other part which is attached
to it will be defiled. This can be for one of two reasons:
1.
The untouched part is distinct, but the tuma "flows" into it via the chibur.
(This would be parallel to the single person praying in the small room "flowing"
into the big room.)
2.
The chibur makes the two parts into one - when I touched one part, I touched the
other too. (This would be parallel to the small room being considered part of
the big one.)
According
to the first approach, I need the untouched part to appropriate the tuma of the
touched part, to draw it out. This makes the untouched part primary, giving us
Rebbe Nechemia's rule that if the tahor - the untouched - part can lift up the
tamei part, then there is chibur and the entire piece is tamei. According to the
second approach, I need the touched part to subsume the untouched one. This fits
in better with the Chakhamim, who say that if the tamei - the touched - part can
lift up the tahor part, then the entire piece is tamei. (In the case of the
minyan, both approaches give the rule of the Shulchan
Arukh.)
The
Rosh concluded that the loaf is whole if the sliced part is capable of
supporting the other part. We may ask, why not vice versa?
The
simplest answer is that since we are concerned with whether the loaf is whole or
not, it is necessary for us to be stringent. We can be sure that the loaf is
whole only if the little part supports the big part. If this is the case, then
if by chance I wanted to take a gigantic slice which is most of the loaf, then I
would require the part I DON'T eat to support the "slice." (Rebbe Nechemia and the Sages argue
about which part of the food is the dominant part. This criterion is not
applicable in our case, because we are concerned simply with whether the loaf is
two parts or one, and not with which part is dominant.)
Alternatively,
the Rosh may have thought that the relevant part of the loaf is that slice that
I intend to eat. The loaf is considered to be whole if this slice subsumes and
draws with it the part of the loaf that I am NOT eating right away. According to
this approach, the rule of the SA is always appropriate. (There is another place
in which the Rosh adopts a relatively lenient approach regarding the wholeness
of a loaf - see Sha'arei Teshuva OC 274:1.)
SIZE
OF SLICE
The
portion should be generous but not gluttonous. There are two main
sources:
Rebbe
Yochanan said in the name of Rebbe Shimon Bar Yochai: The host breaks bread and
the guest says grace. The host breaks bread so that he should break bread
generously, the guest says grace to give him an opportunity to bless the host.
(Berakhot 46a)
[On
Shabbat] Rebbe Zeira used to break off a slice big enough for the whole meal.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi, doesn't that look like gluttony? He replied, since all
week long he doesn't do this, but only now [on Shabbat], it doesn't look
gluttonous. (Berakhot 39b)
WORDING
OF THE BERAKHA
A
beraita records that Rabanan (the Rabbis) adopted the wording "HA-motzi lechem
min ha-aretz" for the blessing on bread and Rebbe Nechemia adopted the wording
"motzi lechem min ha-aretz."
"Motzi"
alone refers to the past, as in the verse "El motziam mi-mitzrayim" ("God who
brought them out of Egypt") (Bamidbar 23:22). "HA-motzi" can also be past as in
"HA-motzi lekha mayim mitzur ha-chalamish" ("Who brought forth water for you
from the flinty rock") (Devarim 8:15). Rebbe Nechemia thinks that ha-motzi can
also mean present/continuous as in "HA-motzi etkhem mitachat sivlot mitzrayim"
("Who is bringing you out from under the Egyptian subjugation") (Shemot 6:7 -
uttered before the Exodus took place), but Rabanan view this as a "future
perfect." (What we call "past" and "future" tenses in Biblical Hebrew are
actually "perfect" and "imperfect" tenses. The "past" tense can actually be
"future perfect" - "will have been," as we just explained. And the "future" can
be "past imperfect" - "was then yet to be," as in Bereishit
2:5.)
The
gemara concludes that even though "motzi" alone is acceptable according to both
opinions, we rule decisively like Rabanan and we should say "ha-motzi" (Berakhot
38a-b). (The gemara implies that when halakha is decisively concluded in favor
of one approach, it is actually better NOT to conform to the rejected approach
as well, even when this is possible. By conforming ONLY to the accepted ruling,
our actions demonstrate how the halakha was decided.)
The
Yerushalmi (Berakhot 6:1) gives a complementary reason: if we say "motzi," then
the final "m" of "ha-olam" can run into the "m" at the beginning of
"motzi."
SALT
ON THE TABLE
There
are two reasons for having salt on the table.
1.
If there is no salt on the table, then the bread is not completely fit to eat.
Clearly it is best to make the blessing when the bread is completely ready for
consumption. According to this criterion, if the bread is already flavored, then
no salt is necessary. This is learned from the following
passage:
Rava
bar Shmuel said in the name of Rebbe Chiya: it is forbidden to break bread until
everyone has salt or relish in front of him. Once Rava bar Shmuel visited the
house of the Exilarch, they brought him bread and he immediately broke bread
[blessed and ate]. They asked him, have you retracted your ruling? He said Such
[bread] doesn't need flavoring. (Berakhot 40a)
2.
The table is likened to an altar. The source is mentioned in the MB (s.k. 30).
This criterion requires salt even if the bread is tasty, but it doesn't demand
that each diner should have his own.
There
is a bit of a paradox in this second reason, because one of the main reasons
mentioned in the Rishonim for having salt on the altar is - because the altar is
like a table! (See Tosafot Menachot 20a, s.v. "sheken.") But ultimately, the message is the same.
Human eating can be an elevating experience that can serve as a model for God's
service. This is true if it is done in an elevated and dignified way. The salt
makes the table more dignified and also reminds us of the resemblance to the
Temple altar.