The daily study of halakha is dedicated to Chaim Ben Mazal Ruach Hashem by his sons. Day 7 is dedicated in memory of Dania Qoel, and today is Day 69, dedicated in memory of Karen Mizrahi, a very fine woman, by her children. We are studying section 152.
I do not think we have yet managed to confuse our members to the extent that I would like, so I need a few more days to really do that. We are in a dark place, but it is going to become much darker very quickly.
Yesterday, one of our members approached me. He is a great person, and I would describe him as a scholarly type. He said, “I have never heard this. Where did this come from? When did this surface?” I think this has been around since the time of the Talmud, since the time of Chesed HaNav Sheshat—approximately 2,500 years. He said, “I have heard of blessings, and I have heard of intention, but leaving a room, returning, and reciting new blessings? I have never heard of such a thing.”
For many people, this is an eye-opener, and it is certainly worthy of a chart. With a subject like this, you probably need to map everything out so that you know all the possible scenarios.
If I am not mistaken, we have a book here by Rabbi Moshe Levi. How many of you have read it? After he presented the laws of changing location, he included a graph and a chart. I do not know whether we agree with all of his conclusions, but he certainly felt that the subject was worthy of a chart in order to make it clearer. Look at the section in the back where he discusses this; if I am not mistaken, he included all sorts of graphs.
We are now on Day 69: the rule regarding changing locations. We discussed this in Hebrew. The rule we mentioned is that when a person is eating fruit other than the seven species of the Land of Israel, or drinking beverages other than wine, leaving and then returning requires a new blessing if no one was left behind.
There is a very important condition here. This applies only when you were eating alone. However, if you left people behind, you remain connected to the group, and therefore you do not recite a new blessing.
According to Maran and the Beit Hadash, when a group is eating ordinary fruit and some members change locations, they must recite a blessing in order to resume eating, even if the other members of the group remain behind. Maran does not consider the people who remained behind sufficient in this case. The fact that members of the group remain behind helps only when the group is eating bread. The view of the Avraham is that it helps even when the group is eating fruit without bread. The Aharonim sided with the Kaf HaChaim, and this is the position we must follow.
As you can see, there are many variables. Once we finish this subject, every member will have to work through this chart. We will give you a test in which the middle will be blank, and you will have to fill in the halakhot.
For example, on the vertical axis, you may have moved from one corner of the same room to another corner; moved from the kitchen to the dining room; moved from one room on one floor to a different floor; gone to the bathroom in the middle of the meal; entered a stairwell or the public domain; gone to a friend’s house or to the synagogue; been eating while seated; been eating while standing; left someone behind; been drinking water; or not left anyone behind. There are many factors involved, and we will go through all of them.
When we say that if you left people behind you may continue eating when you return, this means that you returned to the original location. But if you are not returning, then you have broken away from that location, and when you go somewhere else you will need a new blessing.
For example, suppose we were all sitting together and drinking coffee. I leave for a moment to move my car, while my coffee remains on the table and everyone else continues drinking. I am still connected to the group, so there is no problem. But if I leave and am not coming back, I have to recite a new blessing over the coffee because I left.
That is the important point. The rule that leaving friends behind maintains the connection applies even if only one person remains. You do not need a quorum or a formal group of three. Two people were eating fruit salad, one person excused himself and went outside, and then returned. He left one person behind, and that is sufficient.
Even if the person who remained behind is your relative—even your wife—that person is sufficient. Even a woman can be considered a person for purposes of this halakhah. What is the problem? I believe it has already been established that women are people. There may even be a Supreme Court ruling on the subject.
This is the ruling of the Mishnah Berurah. In Shadat Sunni, it was added that this is the meaning of the Talmud’s description of a group that left its meal in order to go out and greet a newlywed couple. That can happen: a Torah-scroll dedication takes place in the middle of the street, and everyone goes out to greet the Torah scroll. When they return, that is a relevant case. The same would apply when going to greet a bride and groom.
However, this applies only to people who were sitting with you. For example, you are in a restaurant. There are many other people in the restaurant, but they are sitting at separate tables. You go outside to smoke in the middle of the meal, and when you return you are alone. Although you left people behind, you were not sitting and eating with them. The rule applies only to people who were actually sitting and dining with you.
Maran discussed this issue and suggested that a woman who remains behind would not help in this case, because men are definitely obligated by Torah law to recite the Grace after Meals, whereas the Talmud is uncertain whether women are obligated to recite it. Therefore, in the case of bread, Maran holds that if you leave someone behind, you remain connected, but the person left behind must be someone who is obligated in the Grace after Meals. Since a woman may not be obligated in the Grace after Meals, perhaps she would not reconnect you to the group.
His conclusion, however, is that a woman who remains behind does exempt men who change locations. In that case, one would not need to recite a new initial blessing. So this is equal opportunity.
This discussion applies only according to the view of the Rav of the Shulchan Aruch, who rules that the laws of changing locations apply when eating bread. In practice, we do not apply this rule to bread, whether or not someone was left behind. We follow this discussion only when someone is eating ordinary food, and in that context we hold that women are included.
For example, suppose I am eating fruit salad with my wife. After dinner, we bring out dessert, and I am sitting with her and eating a fruit cup. I say, “Excuse me, I have to go outside for a minute,” and then I return. I left her there, so she counts. She is sufficient to maintain the connection.
According to Rabbi Castro, the Chief Rabbi of Egypt, even if the person who remained behind did not participate in eating or drinking with the group, that person would nevertheless exempt the person who left from reciting a new blessing. In other words, the person would merely have to be sitting with you.
Rav Hida demonstrated that the proofs offered by Rabbi Castro were weak, and the Aruch HaShulchan likewise disagreed with him. We therefore follow that position as well: the person who remains behind must have been eating or drinking. It is not enough to be a spectator. The person must be part of the activity.
What if the people who remained behind recited the after-blessing? Suppose you return and your wife says, “I already recited the after-blessing.” Perhaps, once they have concluded the matter in that way, they can no longer reconnect you to the group.
The ruling is that if the people who remained behind have already recited the after-blessing, they no longer count as part of the group. The connection to the other people lasts only as long as they have not recited the after-blessing. However, they remain connected even if they have decided that they are not going to eat any more, as long as they have not recited the after-blessing.
That is what you have to tell your wife before you go out: “Do not recite the after-blessing.” When would you tell someone not to recite the after-blessing? In a case where you do not want to get involved.
This is not a problem if she recited the after-blessing, because then you simply have to start again. It is a fascinating question: when does an after-blessing affect my initial blessing? If my wife did not recite the after-blessing, I remain connected to the fruit I ate, and I do not have to recite a new initial blessing. But if she recited the after-blessing, that obligates me to recite a new initial blessing. That is an anomaly—an oxymoron, and one of the many ironic halakhot.
Next, the responsum of Beit Tzedek LeChokhmah ruled that if the members who remained behind eventually left before the first members returned, the first members would have to recite another blessing. That makes sense: when they returned, no one was there anymore.
The Sefer Shulchan HaTorah stipulated that the members of the group who leave must be aware that other people are remaining behind. Otherwise, the fact that someone remained behind will not maintain the connection to that location. You have to know that you left someone behind.
Furthermore, this applies only when the people who left fully intended to return. If their intention was to leave and not come back, then the people who remained behind do not maintain the connection.
The responsum of Torat—if the people who left the original location had already finished their meal, they would need to recite a new initial blessing upon returning, even if some members of the group remained behind. Suppose you say, “I am finished,” and then walk outside. You return, and someone says, “Have some more.” Even though you did not yet recite the after-blessing, you had already concluded in your mind that you were not going to eat any more. Therefore, even if someone remained behind, you would have to recite a new blessing.
You would recite a new initial blessing, followed by one after-blessing for everything. That would be a good question to consider.
If we hold that women, who are not obligated in the Grace after Meals, nevertheless maintain the connection, the same question could apply to a child. A child may also not be obligated in the Grace after Meals. Suppose the person sitting with you did not eat an olive-sized amount. I do not think that would make a difference. The essential point may be that the person ate with you, even if he or she ate less than an olive-sized amount. The question is whether the connection depends on having eaten the required measure or simply on having eaten together. The person ate with you, and therefore may draw you back into the original situation. I do not know whether this will be discussed later.
Consider an outdoor barbecue. The person grilling makes a blessing and goes into the house to get a soda. There is a table outside with everyone else. Is there a connection? If the barbecue is outside and you go inside, we will have to see how we treat porches, but if you leave someone behind, that is a very significant factor.
Therefore, you should always have a companion with whom you eat. They say, “Whoever eats alone dies alone.” Whatever that means, I am not sure. Everyone dies alone. There was a person in college who used to say, “If you eat alone, you die alone.” All right—everyone is right.
There is also the case in which people are given pieces of bread in one location, and then they go up to their table in another location. We concluded that within the same roof, when you recite a blessing in one room, you are covered even in another room, according to Or HaMoshe, and vice versa. But if you walk outside, then there is a problem.
So this is a very important point: if you leave someone behind, even a woman, and even when it comes to fruit—where normally we would recite a new blessing after leaving—it is sufficient as long as that person has not recited the after-blessing. Once the person has recited the after-blessing, it seems that the connection has been closed, and you have to recite a new blessing.
You also have to be sitting and eating with the person. It is not enough for the person simply to be in the house eating. A restaurant is an example: you may have left relatives in the restaurant, but if you were not sitting and eating with them, you would recite a new blessing. It could be family members or relatives; that is not the issue.
This may also be relevant in the study hall. Suppose I am sitting in the study hall with my study partner, drinking coffee while we learn together. Is that considered eating or drinking together? We are both drinking coffee, sitting together, talking, and learning. If I go outside to move my car and then return, perhaps I do not need a new blessing because I left my study partner behind.
It is not a formal meal, but we are drinking together. Perhaps that is sufficient. The coffee, by the way, is not even a matter of an after-blessing; there is no after-blessing in that case. Nevertheless, the fact that we were sitting together may mean that I remain connected, because my intention was to return.
We will stop here. Very nice. Today is Thursday.