To all our Bikim B’Halacha members: first and foremost, our immediate task is to wish you a Shana Tova Borechet, a Shana Tova Metuka, and, as we say in school, many pleasant and good years. On behalf of myself, Rabbi Bitan, Rabbi Shaul Katzin, all our board members, and everyone supporting the Bikim B’Halacha project—which is no longer merely a project but a movement—I have no doubt that those who participate consistently will be advocates for all of us during the High Holy Days.
I met somebody the other night at a restaurant—a regular Syrian man—and he asked me not to mention his name. He told me, “I think I have logged at least 250 hours of Bikim B’Halacha.” He said, “I changed my tefillin. I changed my blessings. I started to make blessings to God.” I told him, “I wasn’t doing anything.” He replied, “Every single day, I’m learning something.” He was a regular person, not someone you would necessarily expect to be involved in this. His wife confirmed it as well.
There are many sleeper cells out there who are part of the Bikim B’Halacha community, and they will certainly be advocates for all of us during the High Holy Days. God loves the study of halakhah. It says that whoever studies halakhot every day is assured of a place in the World to Come. But you cannot be in the World to Come unless you first come to this world, so automatically you receive this world as well. It is two for one. That is the blessing we give to all our Bikim B’Halacha members.
Amen. This is Bikim B’Halacha in memory of Hayim ben Mazal, for the entire Jewish people, dedicated by his sons in pursuit of the daily study of halakhah. Number seven is Bikim B’Halacha Seven, in memory of Dania Koel. We still need four more sponsors for Bikim B’Halacha Eight. It will be exceptional: two books, one of them the book we discussed, and the other an ethical work, just as we did previously. It will be a double dedication—a two-for-one opportunity. Anyone who wishes to make one of these dedications can speak with Jaime, who is here with us today, or with anyone on the board of directors. We are almost finished with this book, so we need to go to print, and we would like to place the dedications at the beginning.
Today is Day 65. I also have an old matter to take care of. Yesterday, at the end of the class, I raised a question regarding sitting at the table, removing the tablecloth, dusting it off, and then putting it back on. It is the same tablecloth.
We learned that according to the Nahar Mitzrayim, if you remove the tablecloth and put on a new one, that is considered a cessation. Therefore, it is a new meal, and one must recite a new initial blessing on fruit, as well as a concluding blessing. We will also discuss meat, fish, and similar foods. In that case, one would not necessarily recite a new blessing, but certainly with fruit one must recite a new initial blessing. The novelty regarding fruit is the concluding blessing. The blessing over the food from the first tablecloth does not cover you, because you changed the table and discarded the previous one.
My question yesterday was not really my own question. Suppose we do what we normally do: we remove the tablecloth, go into the backyard, feed the crumbs to the birds, and then return and put the same tablecloth back on. Rabbi Riton responded to me, and I agree with him: we should follow the logic. The matter does not depend on whether it is the same tablecloth or a different tablecloth. It depends on the underlying logic. Once you remove the tablecloth, what are you declaring? “I am finished with this part of the meal.” When you put it back on, you are essentially saying, “This is phase two.”
Therefore, it is not a law concerning a different tablecloth; it is a law concerning intention. Removing the tablecloth indicates that dinner is officially over and that you are now transitioning to dessert. Rabbi Riton therefore wants to say that it should not make a difference even if you put the same tablecloth back on. However, if you are merely cleaning it, as they do in restaurants, without removing the tablecloth, then you have not taken the tablecloth away. In such a case, the best practice would be to keep the bread on the table. The bread keeps you connected, especially if you are going to the bathroom; you can have a little bread before the end of the meal. That would be the appropriate approach in such a case.
Now we move on to Day 65, on page 141. This is very important material, and most people do not get it right because it is very technical. There are many rules, and it is extremely important. The subject is changing locations during a meal, something we do all the time.
You begin in one room and go into another room. You go upstairs or downstairs. You begin inside and go outside onto the porch, or to the back porch. You begin inside and end up in the car. You begin in the car and end up in the synagogue. You have coffee in the synagogue and take it outside to the train. These are all cases in which you change locations. There are many rules here, and nobody has really clarified them in one place. Bikim B’Halacha is going to do the heavy lifting for us and explain, step by step, how to navigate these very important halakhot.
The halakhot discussed in this section are complex and subject to major disputes among the decisors. We are entering a complicated area and an area of debate. The first thing of which people must be aware is that it is important to avoid situations in which the decisors are divided. In particular, with regard to these halakhot, it is highly advisable to avoid changing one’s location unnecessarily while eating or drinking.
That is difficult, because we are always on the go. This is the way we are in America. I was once in Italy, in Florence, and I went for an espresso. Italy is known for its espresso. I went into a store and told the barista behind the counter, “Give me a double espresso to go.” The man looked at me as though I had offended him. He said, “What do you mean? Where are you going?”
I told him, “You are right. I do not know where I am going. It is just in my head. I am on vacation, looking to kill time. I do not know what to do with the time.” He said, “Either you sit down like a human being, or you do not get it. We do not give it to you.” He was so offended—and he was right. In America, you put it in a cup and walk away. But where am I walking? Nowhere. I am walking off a cliff; I have nowhere to go. So he told me to sit there, and they would serve it to me properly. You have to eat and drink properly.
But what would I do in that case? I would recite the blessing over the espresso in the store, and then I would walk into the street. What would I do then? Once you leave the store, you would have to recite a new blessing. These are situations that happen all the time. A person goes to Starbucks, gets a coffee, and it is impossible to resist taking the first sip while still in the store. You cannot wait until you reach the car. You take a sip in the store and recite the blessing. Two seconds later, you are in the street, then in the car, and then at home. You may end up having to recite four blessings, each time you move to a different location.
The same thing happens in the synagogue. A person begins in the synagogue with a coffee. This morning, for example, I started at 4:30, and we had coffee here. Then, during the penitential prayers, I was in the synagogue and moved from one room to another. You could not see one room from the other. These are all significant questions.
If a person changes location, according to the majority of the decisors he would likely have to recite another blessing in order to continue eating or drinking. However, he would not be able to recite that blessing, because other decisors maintain that it is unnecessary. Many of the cases we are going to discuss are subject to dispute. If you put yourself in such a situation, you are placing yourself in the middle of a dispute.
Following the principle that we do not recite a blessing in a case of doubt, he must not recite a new blessing, even though he continues eating. The result is that, according to the majority of the decisors, he is considered to have eaten without a blessing. According to most rabbis, he should have recited another blessing, but we cannot recite it because some rabbis say that we should not. Why would you want to be considered liable for eating without a blessing according to ten rabbis merely because two rabbis say not to recite one? Therefore, the best idea is not to put yourself in that situation.
For this reason, it is important to study the intricacies of these halakhot: to know when there is a problem and how to avoid it. The basic subject of this section is a person who began eating or drinking in one location and then moved to another location, whether he wants to continue eating or drinking in the new location, or whether he returns to the original location and continues eating there.
This happens all the time. You are sitting at the table having dinner, and suddenly a friend calls and says, “I am coming now to pick up the envelope.” You answer, “Wonderful. I will bring it outside to you.” He arrives, you get up from the table, and you go outside to give him the envelope. You have left the table, and then you return. Leaving during a meal can create a major controversy. Do you have to recite a new blessing when you return? Does it matter what you are eating? Does it matter whether other people remained behind? Perhaps if you left other people behind, you are still connected to the meal. Perhaps it is different if you were eating alone. Perhaps it is different when it is a meal involving bread. There is a major discussion about all of this.
Another matter discussed in this section concerns someone who finished eating or drinking and moved to another location before reciting the concluding blessing for the food he ate or drank. Must he return to the place where he ate? This also happens. A person eats, forgets to recite Birkat Hamazon, and goes to the synagogue. Then, while in the synagogue, he remembers that he did not recite Birkat Hamazon. Can he recite it where he is, or must he return home to recite it? These are additional questions.
If someone moves from one home to another, that is definitely considered a change of location. In fact, even if someone steps outside the entrance of the home where he had been eating, he is considered to have changed locations. This happens when you get up and walk outside the house. You have placed yourself in a situation of uncertainty, even if you fully intended to return and said, “I will be back in one minute.” This is subject to a major discussion, and we will address it.
The decisors debated the halakhah concerning someone who moves from one room to another, even within the same house. Even moving from room to room is a major discussion. However, if someone moves from one corner of a room to another—for example, he recited the blessing over a beverage in one corner and then sits in another corner—that is not considered a change of location. This can happen at a reception or a wedding. You begin eating in one place, move around, and then have dessert somewhere else within the same room. That is not considered a change of location.
This is true even in an enormous convention hall, such as the Javits Center. It also applies even if the person began eating without intending to move across the room. As long as he remains in the same room, he is fine. The decisors debated the status of someone who steps out of an apartment into the stairwell. Suppose you live in a building: you did not leave the building, but you left your apartment and entered the hallway or stairwell. You are still in the building, but that matter is subject to discussion.
These halakhot do not apply to someone who began eating while walking down the road and continues eating while walking. He never established a place. When you begin eating outside while walking, you never established a location, so you can continue walking. The issue arises only when you established a place and then changed that place. If you began in the street, there is no problem of this kind.
There is a debate about this subject in the Talmud, the famous dispute between Rav Sheshet and Rav Chisda. It is important to understand this dispute clearly. Rav Sheshet ruled that the law of changing one’s location is the same regardless of what one is eating: bread, fruit, or anything else. In every case, one must recite a blessing again.
Rav Chisda ruled differently. He maintained that changing locations applies only when someone eats ordinary fruit or drinks. In those cases, once he moves to another location, it is permissible to recite the appropriate concluding blessing in a place other than where he ate or drank. He is no longer connected to the place where he originally ate, and if he wishes to continue eating or drinking, he must first recite another blessing.
With bread, however, he is obligated to recite Birkat Hamazon in the same location. If he goes somewhere else, he remains connected to the original location. Rav Chisda has a very interesting logic. Let us begin with the easy case. Suppose I recite the blessing over bread in the house and wash for bread. In the middle of the meal, I walk outside to give somebody a package, or the bell rings and Amazon has arrived. Your wife says, “Get it before they steal it.” You run off the porch, bring in the box, and return. You have changed locations.
Rav Chisda says that since you recited the blessing over bread, and the halakhah requires you to recite Birkat Hamazon in the place where you recited the blessing over bread, you remain connected to that place. You must return there, so even if you left, Birkat Hamazon pulls you back. You may therefore return and continue.
However, suppose you are eating fruit. Your obligation is the concluding blessing for fruit, and you do not have to recite it in the place where you ate. You can recite it wherever you are. Therefore, once you leave, you are no longer connected to the original place. You have broken the continuity, and you would have to recite a new blessing when you return or if you continued eating. Rav Chisda therefore distinguishes between Birkat Hamazon, which connects you to the original place, and the concluding blessing for other foods. We will still have to discuss the blessing for foods made from the five grains and how that fits in. Does that blessing hold you back or not? Stay tuned.
Many of the early authorities ruled according to Rav Sheshet. Rav Sheshet says that he does not care what you are eating—even bread. According to Rav Sheshet, if you ate bread and walked out, you are finished. No matter what the person eats, that is also the ruling of Maran in the Shulchan Aruch. According to the Shulchan Aruch, the law of changing location is very simple: no matter what you ate, once you leave the location, it is a reset.
Rabbenu Asher ruled according to Rav Chisda, and that is the ruling of the Ramah. We therefore have a dispute. This creates a case of doubt regarding blessings. According to some opinions, when you leave, you must recite a new blessing; according to others, you do not. If a person leaves his house, we cannot tell him to recite a new blessing, because although he may be doing what is correct according to one opinion, another opinion holds that it is unnecessary. Why put yourself in that situation?
The decisors also debated the status of the seven species. Suppose you ate dates, grapes, or pomegranates. These are important foods. Or suppose you ate wheat or barley. These are important as well. Some authorities would consider them like bread, meaning that you remain connected to the original place. Thus, even if you ate pomegranates and walked out, you would still be connected to the place where you ate.
Others ruled that only wheat and barley have the same rule as bread, not the fruits. This is discussed in the Shulchan Aruch. In practice, if someone was eating any food made from the seven species and changed locations, he may choose to rely on the decisors who rule that he must recite a new blessing in order to continue eating. However, if he asks what to do, he should be told not to recite a blessing, because of the dispute.
Suppose a person is eating the seven species—he ate a pomegranate and some grapes—and then walks out and returns. If he wants to recite a new blessing, he cannot necessarily be prevented from doing so, because according to the Shulchan Aruch and many rabbis, he broke the continuity. They do not accept the view that he remains connected to the original place. He may rely on those opinions. This is especially true with ordinary fruit, outside the seven species. According to everyone, one must recite a new blessing, because one is not connected to the original place. Fruit can be eaten and its blessing recited anywhere.
The question concerns the fruits of the seven species. Here, there is a double doubt: perhaps one must recite a new blessing because they are like ordinary fruit, and perhaps even these fruits are considered like bread and remain connected to the original place. Those who want to recite a blessing on the fruits of the seven species after leaving and returning may rely on the opinions that require it. But if you ask a rabbi, he will tell you not to recite a blessing, because some opinions consider these fruits to be like bread. We will return to these matters.
Let us summarize. If a person is eating bread, he does not recite a new blessing in order to continue eating. That is the opinion of Rav Chisda, even though Rav Sheshet disputes it and even though Maran ruled according to Rav Sheshet. We cannot ignore the opinion of Rav Chisda, and the Rosh ruled according to Rav Chisda. Therefore, if you are eating bread and walk out, you should not have done so, but when you return, you may continue eating.
If someone is eating cake or another food made from the seven species and wishes to recite a new blessing upon continuing, he may rely on the decisors who prescribe that approach. If he is eating ordinary fruit or drinking a beverage, everyone agrees that he must recite a new blessing. This happens all the time. You are drinking coffee, recite the blessing, walk out, return, and you must recite a new blessing. You come into the synagogue, recite the blessing over your coffee, and someone tells you that a car is blocking the driveway. You run outside to move it to the other side of the street, return, and must recite a new blessing. The same applies if you walk out to smoke a cigarette, speak with someone, find out the score of the Yankee game, or retrieve something from your car.
What if you go to the study hall? Perhaps the study hall is considered a place where you cannot recite a blessing, but we will see. If you remain in the same building, even if you move between floors, that is acceptable. The question arises when you leave the building.
It is important to emphasize once again that once a person begins eating any type of food, he is not permitted to change locations unless there is a pressing need. You begin a meal, finish the meal, recite the concluding blessing, and end the matter. Once you get up, you are placing yourself in a dispute, and then you have to determine what to do.
After changing locations, what blessing must be recited? That is another good question. The Rambam and some of the early authorities ruled that once someone changes locations, upon returning to the first location he must recite Birkat Hamazon for the food he ate before changing locations. If he had eaten ordinary fruit or drunk a beverage, he must recite the concluding blessing for those foods, and then he must recite a new blessing for the food he was eating. This is Maran’s ruling.
Consider a person who ate bread. He ate an olive-sized portion, perhaps even three slices of pizza, and everything was fine. Then he says, “I have to leave for a second. I have to give someone an envelope. I will be back in thirty seconds.” He goes outside, gives the man the envelope, and returns. According to Maran, it does not matter that he was eating bread. Maran follows Rav Sheshet and says that once he left, the continuity was broken. When he returns, he must close out what he ate and start again by washing and reciting the blessing over bread.
That is one way to get me out of the room: just tell me to go outside for a second, and I will return with an additional blessing without having done anything. We are not going to do that, because we have already said that one should not place himself in this situation. The Ramah and the other authorities maintain that it is only necessary to recite a blessing in order to continue eating; it is not necessary to recite the concluding blessing until he has finished eating altogether.
Thus, even according to the Ramah, in the case of bread one may not have to recite Birkat Hamazon after walking out, but he does have to recite a new blessing over bread in order to continue eating. That is how we will rule. We will see this in detail in the next section. Why? Although we said that the blessing over bread keeps you connected, it may hold you only for purposes of the concluding blessing. We will have to examine that carefully.
The rules of changing locations do not apply fully when eating bread. They apply to a certain degree, but they do not mean that one must necessarily recite a new concluding blessing upon returning and continuing to eat. The main application is when someone is eating ordinary food or drinking a beverage. If he changes locations, he must recite another blessing in order to continue eating or drinking, but he does not have to recite the concluding blessing until he finishes eating or drinking.
The basis of today’s halakhah is the Talmudic dispute between Rav Sheshet and Rav Chisda. Rav Sheshet says in Pesachim 101 that when you change locations, it does not matter what you ate—bread, fruit, or liquids. When you leave, you have to return and close out what you did, then start again. Maran rules according to Rav Sheshet. Rav Chisda says that he agrees regarding fruit and similar foods, but not bread. Although the Ramah did not adopt that position in full, his ruling sounds like this: when you leave, you have to recite the blessing over bread again, although you do not have to recite Birkat Hamazon.
All these halakhot will be studied in detail. What you have heard now is only a general summary. Do not treat anything we have said here as the final practical ruling. We are going to have a major discussion. It is fascinating that two authorities lived during the same period, at the same time, and in the same study hall. They spoke to one another, yet they understood the matter differently. There are at least thirty halakhot here, and we will have to codify twenty-eight of them over the next several days, beginning after Rosh Hashanah.
The laws of changing location are a fitting subject, because we are beginning them during the Ten Days of Repentance. The Rambam writes that one way of achieving atonement is to change one’s place. If a person lives in one place and goes to live in another, he brings himself into exile. Changing one’s place humbles a person. In a new place, people do not know who he is, and they do not give him honor.
When I was in Paris in May, I walked into a synagogue to pray. The driver had brought me to a synagogue there. I entered, and nobody said hello or goodbye. I sat down, thinking that someone would say, “The rabbi—we heard you, we love you. Come sit in the front.” Nothing. I asked whether they had prayer books. The man merely pointed. He would not even bring one to me; he just pointed in that direction. “Who is this person coming in here?” I told Sandra, “There is exile here. This is truly atonement.” There was no recognition, no good week, no offer of coffee or water—nothing. I spent three nights in Paris and did not receive a single cup of coffee.
I went into a restaurant and assumed the waiter would recognize me. I thought, “He is Moroccan; they know you.” I asked for a table for two. He seated me at a table with a chair only a few inches from another man. I said, “How can I eat? I do not know these people.” He said, “This is Paris. This is how we eat here. We sit close together and share the food.” I told him, “I am American. We do not eat like this. I cannot eat with this man so close to me.” He said, “You are a feisty American.” I answered, “That is who I am. Do me a favor: I will eat outside.” The point is that the Rambam writes that this experience is humbling. When you go to a place where people do not know who you are, they bring you down to size. They do not have to put you on a pedestal. That is exile as atonement.
I think it is a good omen for us that there are two ways to fulfill the idea of changing one’s place. Either one actually changes one’s location, or one studies the laws of changing locations and fulfills the concept through learning. It is as though we ourselves changed locations. It could not have come at a better time, during our period of repentance, that we are learning these laws. God will consider it as though we changed our place. We are not going to Paris; we are changing our location virtually through our learning, and that itself can already be an atonement. Bikim B’Halacha is therefore particularly timely in addressing these halakhot.
In the interim, this concludes our 5786 semester. The next time we meet will be in 5787, with God’s help. May it be a successful year, and once again, may you merit many good and pleasant years.