All right, rabotai (gentlemen). We’re learning Ben Ish Chai on Parashat Beha'alotcha. We’ll go around the table. First we’ll read the halachot (laws). There are only twelve halachot, and then we’ll read the divrei Torah (words of Torah).
Netilat yadayim (hand-washing). “Tzarich sheyitkaven hanotel linetilah hamachsheret la'achilah” (The one washing must intend a washing that prepares for eating). When you perform netilat yadayim, the Ben Ish Chai writes that you should be mechaven (intend) that you’re washing your hands for a netilah that will prepare them for eating. “Velachen ein notlin mikof.” You have to put the monkey away; you can’t wash your hands from a monkey. “Velo mikatan pachot mishesh she'ein lo machashavah” (thought). A child under six doesn’t have machashavah. “Zot ve'od acheret” (and another thing): even if he washed properly, since the washing prepares him for eating, he still has to guard the purity of his hands in his thought and intention.
After you perform netilat yadayim, you have to be mindful and make sure your hands remain pure. If he has a hesech hada'at (a lapse) from guarding his hands for a long time after washing, even though he doesn’t know that he touched something inappropriate, he still has to wash again. He has to keep his mind and intention focused on the purity of his hands throughout the meal. That’s an amazing thing: kol meshech se'udato—the whole time he’s at the meal, he has to make sure his hands aren’t wandering, because, bottom line, he’s still eating.
“Vehainu mipnei de'ikar geirush hasitra achara haytah al yedei chavanato.” The main geirush of the sitra achara (the other side) from the tum'ah (impurity) on the yadayim (hands) is with the kavanah (intention). Therefore, it’s proper not to let his mind stray from this purity as long as he is eating. Wow, kavanot (intentions).
“Lech echol besimchah lachmecha” (Go, eat your bread with joy)—go eat besimchah (with joy)—“ushteh velev tov yeinecha ki chevar ratzah ha'Elohim et ma'asecha” (Drink your wine with a good heart, for God has already approved your deeds). This means, “besimchah”: that’s machashavah. “Lech echol besimchah, lech echol machashavah.” And he says that through machashavah and lev tov, which is the kavanah, “ushteh velev tov”—that’s kavanah.
Therefore, it says, “ki chevar ratzah ha'Elohim et ma'asecha.” An action on its own, without the combination of kavanah and machashavah, isn’t accepted. Why does the verse say, “Ki chevar ratzah Elohim et ma'asecha”? It could have said Kel. The place of machashavah and kavanah is the moach, which is 48, and the lev, which is 32. Forty-eight and thirty-two make 86, the gematria (numerical value) of Elohim. That’s why it says, “ki chevar ratzah Elohim et ma'asecha,” because you have moach and lev.
From this we learn that the Torah, too, is compared to eating and drinking. What does it say in Mishlei? “Lechu lachamu velachmi” (Come, eat of my bread)—“go, you know, eat my bread,” referring to the Torah Shebichtav (Written Torah)—“ushtu beyayin masachti” (Drink of the wine I have mixed)—“drink my wine,” which is Torah Shebe'al Peh (Oral Torah). “Gam ken hesech hada'at mazik bah.” So that applies when you’re learning Torah, too. Beautiful mussar (ethical instruction): learning is also like eating. Just as you can’t have a hesech hada'at during the meal, for the kashrut (kosher status) of the yadayim, you cannot have a lapse in attention when you’re learning. It has to be ratzuf (continuous), with no interruptions.
“Vegam ken hesech hada'at mazik bah.” “Rak hishamer lecha ushmor nafshecha me'od pen tishkach et hadevarim asher ra'u einecha ufen yasuru milevavcha kol yemei chayecha,” and they said, “pen tishkach” refers to the moach, where forgetfulness is, bar minan (God forbid).
So what is hesech hada'at from? Are we talking about doing other things, or talking about other things? “No, in the meal you eat.” “I need a break.” “No, during the learning.” Oh, right—that means being batel (idle). You need a break? Okay: close the book, go out for a second, and come back. But during the learning itself, it should be net. Of course, before you start, no problem. But once you start, it should be net. If somebody goes to the bathroom, he closes the book and walks out. Continue. Chalfon, you’re up.
“Keshem shehesech hada'at me'akev be'achilah ushtiyah le'inyan berachah, ken shinui makom me'akev le'inyan berachah.” So now we get into the big subject of shinui makom (change of place), which the Ben Ish Chai will explain. Let’s read how he learns it.
“Ume'achar derabu hade'ot bazeh, anu kayma lan safek berachot lehakeil (when in doubt, be lenient on blessings), afillu neged Maran (our master) zichrono livracha, shekibalnu hora'otav, lachen nazkir pesak hahalachah (halachic ruling) mah shehe'elu ha'acharonim (later authorities) latzet yedei chovat hakelal shel safek berachot lehakeil.” He is going to apply safek berachot lehakeil to these rules. He says, “I’m not telling you the Shulchan Aruch law; I’m giving you the bottom line, already applying safek berachot lehakeil to these rules.”
Number one: “Vehu she'im sa'ad bemakom echad, shebeirach hamotzi (Who brings forth bread) ve'achal pat (bread), uvetoch se'udato shinah mekomo, afillu shehalach lebayit acher, afillu lo hiniach shum adam beshulchano.” The man ate in one place, recited hamotzi, and ate bread. During the meal he changed places and went to another house, without leaving anyone at the table. This is the dispute between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman; we saw this big machloket (dispute).
“Im hesiach da'ato mile'echol, az yevarech al hadevarim she'einam machamat hase'udah.” If his mind is already off the meal, that’s it; he’s done, and he went to the next house. If he wants to eat, whether they’re eating at the second house or he eats at the first place after he comes back, he makes a blessing on the things that aren’t part of the meal—the candy or whatever he’s having. He needs a berachah (blessing), whether he’s in a new place or the old place.
“Aval devarim shehem ba'im mechamat hase'udah.” That’s the point: the things that come as part of the meal, the meat and things like that, he doesn’t make a blessing on, whether he’s in the first house or the second house, or whether he has returned to the first house. Even though he was mesiach da'at (distracted), why? Because as long as he’s in the middle of the meal, it’s not considered the gemar se'udah (end of the meal). Bottom line, he hasn’t done mayim acharonim (after-meal handwashing) yet; he hasn’t ended it, so he’s still considered to be in the meal.
“Ya'an dehepat tzarich sheyevarech alav birkat hamazon bimkom harishon.” Ah, that’s the pshat (plain meaning): the bread brings you back! Exactly. Since the bread brings you back to the original place, you’re not considered finished. You’re constantly being dragged back to the center. “Lefichach keshehu omed mimkomo lelech lemakom acher, ein amidato gemar se'udato.” When he gets up, that isn’t considered the end, because birkat hamazon (Grace after Meals) is holding him back. Even if in his mind he’s saying, “I’m not eating anymore,” it doesn’t matter. He has to return to his place to recite birkat hamazon, so he is still connected.
When he returns and eats things that come as part of the meal, he eats them as part of his original meal, to complete it, so he doesn’t make a blessing on them at the outset. All the more so when he returns to his original place, where he ate the meal: he certainly doesn’t make a blessing. And all this is only bedi'avad (after the fact), if he changed places. Ideally, he shouldn’t leave his meal to eat somewhere else before he recites birkat hamazon. Why are you going next door? To recite birkat hamazon? Even if he left some companions (miktzat chaverim) at the table, when it’s a little easier, he shouldn’t do it.
Here’s a general rule: “Ya'an dechol davar hate'un le'acharav berachah bimkomo mechashivuto, tzarich levarech acharav kodem sheya'akor mimkomo.” Anything that requires an after-blessing in its place is significant in this respect: he should recite the after-blessing before he leaves his place. That’s the rule. Just as the significance of the food means that he has to recite the blessing in that place, it also means that he should not leave until he has recited the blessing.
Even if he eats in the second place and recites a blessing there, perhaps you’ll argue that he is reciting birkat hamazon in the place where he ate, because he ate something else there. But how does that help with the first eating, which ideally required a blessing in its place before he left? He was already bound to the first place before he left, because of its significance. But if he already left, he doesn’t have to go back and recite a new blessing at the outset on what he eats in the second place. It’s too late; he left. We’re not going to tell him to make a new blessing. He can’t fix what he spoiled by leaving. Since he needs to recite the blessing in the place where he ate, he eats a little in the second place so he can recite birkat hamazon there afterward. Therefore, ideally, he shouldn’t leave without a blessing. It’s a mess. Don’t go next door for dessert before you recite birkat hamazon.
Even if he left some companions behind, it isn’t a departure if he intended to return. Still, when he goes to finish his meal in another house, he has left his companions. “Velo zeh eino ela behecha shelo hayah beda'ato mitechilah kesheberach hamotzi.” This is all talking about a case where, when he recited hamotzi, he didn’t intend to finish in another place. He established his meal in the first place, and therefore he has to recite birkat hamazon there, not somewhere else.
But if, from the beginning, when he recited hamotzi, he intended to finish in another house, that’s different. Let’s say a man has a neighbor next door who invites him over for dessert, or his mother-in-law is expecting him. He knows he isn’t having dinner there; he’s just going over for dessert. From the beginning, when he recites hamotzi, he has in mind that he’ll go have dessert at Grandma’s. Then it’s permitted to eat in another place, because he didn’t establish his place there for the whole meal.
Travelers are a better example. You start eating here and finish at Exit 105. They eat along the way, walking, sitting, and reciting the blessings where they finish eating. What’s the pshat? Of course they had that intention. They know they’re going to be traveling. They intended from the outset not to establish a place for their eating where they recited hamotzi and began eating.
When do these rules apply? “Bameh devarim amurim keshe'oker mimekom harishon vegomer se'udato bemakom hasheni.” They apply when he leaves the first place and finishes his meal in the second place. But if he goes to the second place intending to return to the first place to finish his meal, that isn’t considered leaving his place. Even if he didn’t leave some companions behind, the Sages still prohibited doing this, because we’re concerned that he might forget to return and recite the blessing. They permitted it only when he goes to another house and eats there. Since he eats there, he certainly won’t forget the blessing. He won’t forget to get up and go on his way without reciting a blessing at all. When he gets up after eating in the second house, he’ll return to the first place to recite the blessing. But if he just goes to visit without eating and relies on returning, that’s a problem, because he might forget.
Still, even in that case, ideally he should leave someone at the first table when he goes to the second place. If no one happens to be eating with him there, he should leave another person there, even if that person isn’t eating with him.
All this applies when he is going for an optional matter, or even for a mitzvah (commandment) that isn’t time-sensitive. But for a mitzvah overet (time-sensitive mitzvah), such as escorting someone or going to the synagogue to pray with the congregation, even though we say that if he goes to a place where he won’t eat, there’s a concern he might forget to return, if such a case—im kazeh—arises, since he is going for a time-sensitive mitzvah, he is permitted ideally to go to another place to perform the mitzvah and recite birkat hamazon when he returns, even if he didn’t leave some companions at the table. You don’t leave a time-sensitive mitzvah because of a concern that he might forget. So just walking next door to pray Arvit (evening prayer) would be okay. That’s a very interesting halachah.
Now, can you locate Halikhot Olam for us, from Chacham Ovadia—not Halacha Berura? This will be shanah alef (year one)? Yes, shanah alef.
“Minei mezonot (grain foods) shebirkatan ha'acharonah hi me'ein shalosh (Blessing of the Three). Vekhen peirot shel shiv'at haminim (seven species), vekhen yayin (wine) shebirkatan gam me'ein shalosh, dinam kepat le'inyan akirat makom, she'asur lakum mehamakom ad sheyevarekh berakhah acharonah.” Foods whose after-blessing is me'ein shalosh, fruit of the seven species, and wine have the same rule as bread regarding leaving the place: it’s prohibited to leave until he recites the after-blessing. Some say that just as bread requires a blessing in its place, these foods also require an after-blessing in their place.
Therefore, regarding shinui makom, their rules are like the rules we discussed for bread, if he leaves his first place and goes to another courtyard. His departure isn’t considered the end of the meal, because, again, the me'ein shalosh brings him back. So even though he left the place where he has to return to recite the after-blessing, when he leaves and eats or drinks in another place, he does so as part of the original meal, to finish it. All the more so if he leaves the first place and eats something that requires a first blessing, even if he left some companions behind.
So you have the halachah? A man is eating mezonot, and then he goes next door to someone’s backyard—maybe that happens when people jump from sukkah to sukkah—and wants to continue eating there. He’s still considered to be in the meal, because al hamichyah brings him back, so he isn’t done, even though he was masi'ach da'ato (distracted). He can eat in the second place. And, of course, he can go back and continue eating in the first place. Same rule. Exactly, the same rules.
Now, “Ochlim umashkim shebirchatan acharonah hi borei nefashot rabot” (Who creates many souls). That’s a different rule: you aren’t bound to the place. “Eilu lechulei alma ein tsarich levarech berachah acharonah bimkom achilah o hashtiyah, ve'im akar mimkomo kodem berachah acharonah, yevarech berachah acharonah bimkom acher.” For these foods, everyone agrees that the after-blessing doesn’t have to be recited where he ate or drank. If he leaves before reciting it, he recites it in another place.
That’s right. You can eat or drink here and recite Borei Nefashot across the street. “Lefichach, im akar raglav mimkomo veyelech, zehu gemar se'udato.” That’s right; that’s the big subject. When you’re drinking a cup of coffee or having something like that, when you leave, you can’t say, “I’m still in the game.” How are you still in the game? You aren’t bound to the original place, and that’s the end of your meal. When he returns and eats in the second place, he has to recite a new first blessing.
Even though he still hasn’t recited the after-blessing on what he ate in the first place, here’s the coffee case: he recited shehakol (by whose word all things exist) in the synagogue, and now he’s going outside. Since what he’s drinking isn’t tied to the original place—let’s say he didn’t intend to be a wayfarer—if he had in mind that he would be traveling when he drank it, and knew he was going to his car, that’s another story, as we said about bread. But here, since he isn’t bound to the original place, leaving is leaving.
That’s the chidush (novel insight): even if he intended to go from the original place to the second place, he still has to recite a blessing on what he eats in the second place, because of the change of place from one house to another. “Vechen im achar shehalach labayit hasheni, chazar limkomo harishon ve'achal, tsarich levarech.” Even if he came back to the original place, he has to recite a blessing. Once you walk out, you’re out.
All this is if he changed places from one house to another. But if he went from room to room in the same house, there’s no problem. If he intended from the beginning to eat in the second room, he doesn’t have to go back and recite a blessing. But if he didn’t intend from the outset to eat in the second room, and only later decided to go there and eat, he has to recite a blessing again.
What? I would say, mistama (presumably), why do you need a positive intention now? You’re in the kitchen, drinking in the kitchen. What was your intention? “I’m drinking in the kitchen.” Now you walk out and go to the living room. You didn’t intend to eat in the living room. Is that shinui makom? You think you need a positive intention? That’s a big chidush.
Even if he didn’t intend from the outset to eat in the second room, if he can see the first place, that’s okay too. If he can see the original place, he doesn’t have to return and recite a blessing. All the more so from one corner of the same room to another: pashut (straightforward), he doesn’t have to recite another blessing, even if he didn’t intend for that from the outset.
Say you’re in the midrash, drinking coffee, and you want to get a sefer at the other end of the room. Do you have to make a new blessing when you get to the corner? No. Even if you can’t see the corner, it doesn’t matter. In the same room, from corner to corner, you’re okay. Now the door is open, and I can see my office. I didn’t intend to go there, but it doesn’t matter; I can see my office, so I’m okay too. But if I go downstairs, and I didn’t have that intention, that’s different. In the synagogue, if I can see over there, I’m okay. But if I can’t, I have to make a new blessing.
“Deha kayma lan detzavta, shehu cheder echad, gam ro'eh et hamakom harishon.” Oh, actually, he says you have to see the place. You have two good things: you’re in the same room, and you can see the place. If you can see all the corners, then maybe you have a problem with an L-shaped room, according to the Ben Ish Chai.
“Mihu yesh cholkim” (there are those who disagree). Here we get to safek berachot. They hold that even going from corner to corner is considered a significant change of place if he didn’t intend to do so, and all the more so if he can’t see the original place. Therefore, ideally, he should be careful not to change places at all. That shows the praise of Aharon, who didn’t change. This is a parashah, rabotai. Ideally, be careful not to change places. Even from corner to corner? Oof! You have to warn the public about this.
What are you telling me now? If I’m sitting in the kitchen and you tell me to go from one corner of the kitchen to the other, I might have to make a new blessing according to some poskim (halachic authorities)? So don’t do that. Basically, don’t be American. In America, we eat on the run. Sit down, finish your coffee, and then go to work. If you have to go from place to place, we run into problems of shinui. Like I mentioned, when I was in Italy with my son Joe, we went to Florence on Friday afternoon to get an espresso. They sure did drink espressos all day over there. I don’t mind it. I asked the man, “Give me a double espresso.” We were doing nothing. I was walking around doing nothing. I don’t know; I was waiting, and the clock was going backward. So I told him, “In a to-go cup.” The man said, “Hey, hey, hey, you’re not in New York here. We don’t drink this. This is kavod (honor) for the coffee. I’ll give it to you in a plastic cup, but you sit down and drink it. Where are you going?” I told him, “You’re right. Where am I going? Sorry. Why am I running? I’m running to nowhere.” Sit down and drink the coffee like a human being. Have derech eretz (proper conduct). You know what I’m saying? Why walk down the street with a coffee? Where are you going? I’m not going anywhere. I have nothing to do. I’m just wasting time.
“Vehu, ki davar zeh matzui veshachiach etzel bnei adam, shekamim mitoch hase'udah, me'al hashulchan hagadol, mecheder lecheder, venichnasim lecheder acher.” This happens often: people get up during a meal from the big table, go from room to room, and enter another room. They find fruit there and eat it without reciting a blessing in the new room. They think they’re exempt because they received and recited a blessing over the fruit at the table. But this is going from room to room. Even if they intended from the outset to do this, if they can’t see the original place, they have to recite a blessing. All the more so if they didn’t intend it from the outset. The Ben Ish Chai holds that even if they intended it from the outset, since they can’t see the other place, they have a problem. All the more so if they didn’t have kavanah at the beginning.
Now let’s look under Chacham Ovadia. What does Chacham Ovadia say? “Lo yelech lemakom acher betoch se'udato, kodem sheyevarech Birkat HaMazon.” Don’t leave during the meal before reciting Birkat HaMazon. Even if you intend to return to the original place, there’s the concern that you might forget. That halachah is clear: you’re having a meal, and the rule is not to leave until you recite Birkat HaMazon, because of the concern that you might forget.
Still, he permits leaving for a mitzvah, even ideally, even a mitzvah that isn’t time-sensitive. Ah, so he argues with the Ben Ish Chai. What did the Ben Ish Chai say? Only a time-sensitive mitzvah, such as going to pray. But Chacham Ovadia says any mitzvah is fine.
You’re in the middle of a meal and somebody comes to the door for tzedakah (charity). You go outside and talk to him on the porch, giving him tzedakah. According to Chacham Ovadia, you can do that ideally. You can go back and say, “Hey, shinui—you went outside; you have to come back.” Slow down: I went outside to do a mitzvah. Or sometimes someone comes to pick something up, perhaps as an act of chesed (kindness), and you have to go to the street to give him the car. You’re doing some sort of mitzvah. If it’s a mitzvah, you’re okay.
“Ha'ochel ma'achal o shoteh mashkeh shebirchato acharonah Borei Nefashot Rabbot, uve'emtza achilato shinah makom mecheder lecheder be'oto habayit.” Chacham Ovadia is discussing someone eating an apple who, in the middle of eating it, goes from one room to another in the same house. The Ben Ish Chai was very strict: you couldn’t see the place, you didn’t have kavanah, so you have to recite a new blessing. Chacham Ovadia says that even if he didn’t intend from the beginning to change places, and even if he can’t see the first place, he doesn’t have to go back and recite another blessing. Even though there are those who disagree, we follow safek berachot lehakeil.
It’s interesting: the Ben Ish Chai began by saying he was taking safek berachot into account, but in this case he didn’t factor it in. That’s what Chacham Ovadia says. He actually quotes Chacham Ben Tzion.
Let’s continue. Chacham Ovadia says: if someone was sitting and eating pat or pat haba'ah bekisnin, cake, or fruit of the seven species, and in the middle of eating he went outside his house, what’s the rule? Since we learned that al hamichyah brings you back, that isn’t considered leaving. If he then returns to his place and wants to continue, he doesn’t have to recite a new first blessing. As we said, safek berachot lehakeil. Still, if he returns and does recite a new first blessing, he has something to rely on. We learned that the seven species are like bread. So don’t leave ideally, but if you did leave, you’re still connected. A man was eating cake, went outside for a minute, and came back in to continue eating: no blessing, even though some say he has to make one. We follow safek berachot lehakeil.
He also writes that if you didn’t intend, while in the house, to establish a place for eating, but were walking and eating—as people do when they go all over the house—there’s no law of shinui makom, and you recite the after-blessing where you finish eating. Even when eating bread, travelers eat while walking along the way. This is also the custom of people eating gar'inei avatichim. A man eats the bizzer while walking along the boardwalk. He starts in Long Branch and ends up in Monmouth. People eat them, cracking the seeds as they walk, and don’t have to go back to recite the after-blessing.
The same applies to pistoka demikru be'amandi, and to people who recite a blessing over candies and suck them while walking. You’re sucking candy outside; it’s a candy for which you can recite Nefashot afterward. A chocolate bar, whatever you’re eating. If I ate one, do I have to go back to Brooklyn to recite the after-blessing? No. That’s what he says there. “Ulefi ha'amur gam bezeh ein mishum shinui makom.” Like the Rav HaMechaber, he agrees in that case.
But if he was eating other fruits that aren’t among the seven species, for which the after-blessing is Nefashot, and he went outside his house and then returned to the first place and wants to continue, he has to recite a new blessing, because Nefashot doesn’t hold him back. The same law applies to someone drinking other beverages, except wine.
Here’s a big chidush. These rules apply when he was sitting and eating in one place—cake or something for which he recites shehakol—and then went out. But if he didn’t establish a place for eating at the outset, and was walking from place to place, eating along the way, he can continue. He has a to-go cup, walking in the street, with soda, cakes, or fruit. The same applies to someone cracking seeds or sucking candy as he walks, and to someone drinking as he walks. We understand that: if a man is eating on the road, he doesn’t have to return to the original place.
If someone ate less than a kezayit (olive-sized portion), went out, came back, and completed his eating to a kezayit, it all combines, as long as he didn’t wait longer than the time of achilat pras (time to eat bread) from the beginning of eating until the end.
Now, halachah heh. You’re up, Timmy. In the case of the mother-in-law next door, where you’re going for dessert, what’s best? “Make Birkat HaMazon.” Make Birkat HaMazon and then go there? Yes, that’s right. But if I didn’t, the best thing would be to have in mind at the beginning of the meal, as the Ben Ish Chai said, that I’m going across the street. Then for sure I’m still connected, especially if I eat something over there. You still have to come back here to recite Birkat HaMazon, but for eating, it’s still part of the meal, and you don’t have to recite a blessing, only on things that don’t come as part of the meal.
In practice, even if I didn’t have that intention, if I come back, I can still eat, because Birkat HaMazon holds me back, even if I didn’t leave anyone there. But ideally, don’t do it, because you might forget.
Now we’ll read halachah heh. “Af al pi shekatavnu le'el shekol davar sheberachah acharonah shelo hi me'ein shalosh, dino kefat, hen le'inyan levarech bimkom shekava le'echol, hen le'inyan shinui makom, kanizkar le'el. Hainu davka keshe'achal kezayit.” That’s only when you ate a kezayit, where it brings you back. There’s a big chidush here. When did we say the after-blessing brings you back to the original place? When you ate a kezayit and became obligated to recite the after-blessing.
But if he didn’t eat a kezayit, his rule is like the after-blessing of Borei Nefashot Rabbot, which doesn’t have to be recited in the place where he ate. Even if he ate a kezayit of these foods, if at the beginning he didn’t intend to establish a place for eating, but was holding them in his hand and eating as he walked, like people sometimes take pat haba'ah bekisnin, then there’s no law of shinui makom. They sometimes take cake or other fruit in their hands and eat while walking around the house. He recites the after-blessing where he finishes eating. So it applies only when you established a place. But if you took something to go and were walking out, that’s different.
We have porches in the back. You go to a porch and come back; it’s part of the house, let’s say. It’s all part of the same thing. Even with bread, travelers customarily eat while walking and recite the blessing where they finish eating. It’s no worse than a man eating bread in a car: he eats there and recites Birkat HaMazon there, because he’s on the road.
Fine. Continue, Chalfon. “Mi she'achal pat o shear devarim shebirchatam me'ein shalosh, de'amrinan de'eino rashai lechatchilah lelech ligmor se'udato bemakom acher, kodem sheyevarech berachah acharonah, hineh im avar al da'at chachamim,”—he didn’t listen to the Sages, and went out before reciting the blessing—“bein im yatza bemezid, bein beshogeg, yachzor limkomo veyevarech.” Whether he went out intentionally or by mistake, he should return to his place and recite the blessing.
Here’s another case. A man ate mezonot and has to recite al hamichyah. He didn’t recite al hamichyah and left. He ate in the synagogue and is now home. Then he says, “I didn’t recite al hamichyah.” Does he have to go back to the place? He says that if the place isn’t so far away that there’s concern that by the time he returns the food will be digested, then he should go back. Some authorities say there’s a solution: eat a kezayit of bread in the second place and recite al hamichyah. He doesn’t like that. “Ein la'asot ken,” because, in my opinion, this would create a doubt about the blessing of hamotzi. Who says you have to recite hamotzi? Maybe it’s still covered.
Instead, there’s another solution agreed upon by everyone: have another person eat a kezayit of bread, recite the blessing, and have him listen, intending to exempt him as well. If it’s impossible for him to return, then you have it: the Ben Ish Chai says that if you forgot to recite al hamichyah, you have to go back. These rules apply when it’s possible for him to return.
But if he’s traveling and they won’t wait for him—are you going to hold up the whole flight? You’re on the plane and tell the stewardess, “I have to go back to Brooklyn to recite al hamichyah. Could you hold the flight for me?” They’ll throw you off the plane! In that case, even if he left intentionally, he doesn’t have to return to his place. Rather, he recites the blessing where he remembers. We consider that bedi'avad; a pressing situation is also considered bedi'avad.
The same applies if the first place where he ate isn’t clean and he can’t clean it now: he doesn’t have to return to recite the blessing. Even though he isn’t eating in the second place, since he left that place because it wasn’t clean, he should still try to find someone there to recite the blessing for him. If someone happens to be there eating, and can recite the blessing with the intention of exempting him, that would be excellent. See Responsa Chesed La'alafim, kuf-peh-dal, ot yud.
Chacham Ovadia argues with this. He writes that someone who ate pat haba'ah bekisnin, or a dish made from one of the five kinds of grain, and all the more so fruit of the seven species, and left his place for another place, doesn’t have to return to the first place to recite the after-blessing where he ate. He argues with the Ben Ish Chai. But not for no reason—he writes in parentheses, “kesheyesh tzorech” (when there is a need). He had a reason. It sounds like he has a reason. He says, “ulefi aniyut da'ati, ha'ikar de'afilu bepat beshogeg, yevarech bimkom shenizkar.” Even with bread, if he left by mistake, he recites the blessing where he remembers. All the more so for this item. So it sounds like he agrees, even for a small reason.
It’s permitted to move from place to place within arba amot (four cubits) and recite the after-blessing. Four amot are considered one place. But outside of four amot, he shouldn’t recite the blessing because of a small reason; only for a major reason. If he went outside four amot, he has transgressed the rule about the blessing. So, really, the bottom line is that they don’t want you to move. They really don’t want you to move.
If someone needs to use the bathroom in the middle of a meal, that isn’t considered an interruption, and he doesn’t have to recite a blessing when he returns. He also doesn’t have to recite the blessing of al netilat yadayim, because there’s a dispute about it. Since it’s a doubt about blessings, he should just wash his hands and think the blessing of al netilat yadayim in his heart.
But who was the tzaddik (righteous person) who said to start over? Why not? They say that even for tefillin you have to recite a blessing. Here, Chacham Ovadia says that although we said above that someone who eats or drinks something whose after-blessing is Borei Nefashot doesn’t have to return and recite a blessing, even if he had no intention and can’t see the original place, if he goes to the bathroom in the middle of eating or drinking, because the place he entered isn’t fit for eating, he has to return and recite the blessing over the food, even if he returns to the first place.
Oh, wow, that’s a big one. He holds that you have to recite a new blessing when you return from the bathroom. Chacham Ovadia says that even though I told you that going from room to room in the same house doesn’t require a new blessing, here you went into a place where you cannot eat. That broke it. You aren’t obligated to return to the original place for Nefashot, so you’ve lost it.
Still, if this happened in the middle of a meal of bread, since the blessing is recited in its place, you’re okay. He argues with the Ben Ish Chai on that, by the way. That’s a big issue. If a person is in the middle of a meal of foods for which the blessing is Nefashot—he’s sitting and eating, maybe having coffee or chocolate, and still has the coffee on the table, or he’s having a banana—and someone says, “Excuse me, I have to go to the men’s room”—today you can’t say “men’s room,” so, “to the room”—then he comes back. According to Chacham Ovadia, he has to recite a new blessing. According to the Ben Ish Chai, no. We have a big machloket here, boys. So what do we do? We follow the rav. What, make a new blessing? Follow the rav. Aseh lecha rav (make for yourself a rabbi).
That’s that. Now let’s say one chidush on the parashah, rabotai. We have nice halachot and some clarity in the laws of shinui. There’s a famous piece here from the Me'iri in Chachmat Shlomo, the Rav Baruch Sorotzkin. We said a piece from him last week, if you remember—a beautiful piece.
Remember at the end of the parashah, when Miryam was speaking what was supposedly lashon hara (evil speech) about Moshe Rabbeinu? The Ohr HaChayim HaKadosh actually said it was a rebuke, not really lashon hara, because she said it to his face. She said, “Why are you separating from your wife? Aren’t we all nevi'im (prophets)? You’re better than Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov, and they were all married?” It’s interesting that this was Miryam’s line. Whenever somebody separated from his wife, Miryam was there to give mussar. When her father did it, Amram, she did the same thing. Remember, Amram separated from Yocheved, and Miryam came and said, “Hey!” So Miryam was the marriage patrol, the periyah ureviyah (procreation) patrol. She did it to her father and to her brother. That’s what she does. She’s the big sister, making sure everybody stays happily married.
What does the pasuk (verse) say? God says, “Ve'aviha yarok yarak befaneha” (If her father had spit in her face), “tikalem shivat yamim” (would she not be humiliated for seven days). So at least here she should be for seven days. We have to understand what Hashem Yitbarach is saying: “Ve'aviha yarok yarak befaneha.” What does Amram have to do with this? Why are we bringing Amram into it? What does “her father spit in her face” have to do with what she said about Moshe?
One can say that Miryam’s complaint against Moshe, who separated from his wife, was that he was no longer fulfilling periyah ureviyah. We learned in Yevamot, “lo yevatel adam miperiyah ureviyah ela im ken yesh lo banim.” Beit Shammai say two males, and Beit Hillel say “zachar unekeivah” (a male and a female), and the halachah follows Beit Hillel. Moshe Rabbeinu had only Gershom and Eliezer. So Miryam was saying, “You have to fulfill periyah ureviyah. What’s the big idea?” He has to go back to his wife. They didn’t yet have a son and a daughter, so according to her, Moshe hadn’t fulfilled periyah ureviyah. Therefore, she had a halachic claim against him.
It says in Masechet Sotah, “vayeilech ish mibeit Levi” (A man from the house of Levi went)—remember, we learned that this means he divorced her—“vayikach et bat Levi” (He took the daughter of Levi)—and he took her back. Why does it say “vayeilech” and “vayikach”? Rabbi Yehudah bar Zevina says that he went according to his daughter’s advice. Amram was the great man of his generation. When Paroh (Pharaoh) decreed, “Kol haben hayilod haye'orah tashlichuhu” (Every son who is born, cast into the river), Amram said, “Why are we wasting our time having children? So they can throw them into the water?” He stood up and divorced his wife. Everyone else stood up and divorced their wives.
His daughter said to him, “Abba (Father), your decree is harsher than Paroh’s. Paroh decreed only against the males, and your decree is against the females too. Paroh is wicked; perhaps his decree will come to fruition and perhaps it won’t. But you’re a tzaddik, so your decree will surely come to fruition.” He took his wife back, and all of Israel went and took their wives back. That’s the Gemara.
It’s difficult to understand what Miryam meant when she said that because of her father, all of Israel would neglect periyah ureviyah. What do you mean, all of Israel? It’s as if she’s blaming Amram for everyone else’s bittul (neglect) of periyah ureviyah. Amram had already fulfilled periyah ureviyah. He had a boy and a girl. He had Miryam. So Amram could say, “Listen, I fulfilled periyah ureviyah. Whoever didn’t, go get married.” Why does Amram have to remarry in order for everyone else to remarry?
According to Beit Hillel, he had already fulfilled it. But all of Israel still needed to fulfill periyah ureviyah, and they couldn’t bring proof from him. That means you can’t bring a re'ayah (proof) from Amram, because they’ll say, “No, Amram had fulfilled it.” So what was Miryam’s claim to her father—that if he remained divorced, he would ruin periyah ureviyah for the people? Amram should have said to his daughter, “What are you talking about? I fulfilled periyah ureviyah; they didn’t.”
We have to say that she held not like Beit Hillel, because she thought that two males were required. She must have held, at that point, like Beit Shammai. Therefore, she must have thought that Amram hadn’t yet fulfilled periyah ureviyah. People would see that he hadn’t fulfilled it and was still separated, and they would follow his example. He had to return to his wife so they would fulfill periyah ureviyah. Then he would be respected in their eyes, and the mitzvah of periyah ureviyah wouldn’t be uprooted. If you neglect periyah ureviyah, you teach people to neglect it.
Now we see that Miryam contradicts herself. When it came to her father, she was strict with him because she followed Beit Shammai. When it came to Moshe, she came along and said Beit Hillel—because according to that view, he had two boys and still hadn’t fulfilled the mitzvah. So now she says, and this is what Hakadosh Baruch Hu (The Holy One, blessed be He) meant by “Ve'aviha yarok yarak befaneha”: if her father Amram were still alive and saw her speaking about Moshe, saying he hadn’t fulfilled the mitzvah of periyah ureviyah even though he had two males, he would have said, “So you think like Beit Hillel, that one male and one female are enough?”
Then Amram would have said, “What did you tell me? That I was a problem? I follow Beit Hillel. You told me I had only a boy and a girl, and you pulled out the Beit Shammai card. Now, when it comes to your brother, you say, ‘What is he doing? He has two boys; he isn’t following Beit Hillel.’ How can you criticize me when you don’t really hold like Beit Shammai?”
That’s what he says: “umishum hachi im hayah kan, hayah yorek befaneha bishvil shelo na'eh lah likarei kesila.” Because of the contradiction, her father would have spit in her face. “Decide over there! Make up your mind! When it came to me, you said, ‘You only have a boy and a girl,’ and you pulled out Beit Shammai. Now, when it comes to your brother, you say, ‘What’s he doing? He has two boys.’ How can you criticize me when you don’t really hold like Beit Shammai?” That’s why the Torah says her father would have spit in her face. It’s interesting; I never saw that she was contradicting herself in these claims.
There’s another point? It was before the Torah, where she might have had clarity on what the—? Oh, because this one was after the Torah. Now he said another thing on the parashah. “Beha'alotcha et hanerot.” That’s the menorah (lampstand), which is the theme of tomorrow’s derashah (sermon). We’ll just say one quick thing.
“Beha'alotcha et hanerot.” Rashi has two explanations of Beha'alotcha. The first is “shetehei halahav oleh, oleh me'eleha”: the flame has to rise on its own. You have to hold your hand over there with the flame until it catches. Sometimes you light the menorah and pull your hand away, and it goes out. Beha'alotcha means that you have to give it enough time until it rises on its own. The second explanation is that “Beha'alotcha et hanerot” means Aharon has to put a ma'alah (step) in front of the menorah, like a stepstool, so he can step on it in order to light it.
We have two different opinions here. What does Beha'alotcha refer to? Does it refer to the nerot (lamps), meaning the ner, or to the one who is lighting the ner? Does Beha'alotcha mean that the flame has to rise, or does it refer to the ner? From the pasuk, it sounds like it refers to the ner: “Beha'alotcha et hanerot.” Do you understand what I’m saying? Yes. The first explanation is the flame rising; that’s what the matter is about. It sounds like “Beha'alotcha et hanerot.” So where did Rashi get another pshat, that Beha'alotcha refers to Aharon, who has to rise up to light the menorah using a stepstool?
I saw one of the meforshim (commentators) bring down that when I read the words to you, “Beha'alotcha et hanerot,” there’s one word you don’t hear: et. That word doesn’t mean much to any of us, but et is a serious word in Yahadut (Judaism). Even though I can’t explain it, et isn’t stam (merely) an auxiliary word. Et is a lerabot (to include). It should say “Beha'alotcha hanerot.” The et indicates that there’s something else that has to be elevated. Not only do the nerot have to be elevated, but Aharon himself does too. The et is the indication for Rashi that something besides the nerot has to be lifted up. Nice diyuk (close textual inference) from the word et.
There’s mussar here. The menorah represents talmud Torah (Torah study). Talmud Torah needs diligence and hatmadah (diligence), consistency. “Beha'alotcha et hanerot”: you have to grow in learning, learn a lot, and make sure the flame is burning. Learning isn’t collecting stamps. It isn’t a pastime or a hobby that you do from time to time. It’s “ki hem chayenu” (For they are our life). “Beha'alotcha et hanerot.”
But remember that when you “Beha'alotcha et hanerot,” the Torah is supposed to lift you up too. Torah has a purpose: it’s supposed to make you a better person. If someone is learning Torah and it hasn’t lifted him up, and he’s still the same creep he was before he studied Torah, that’s a problem. You have people like that: they study Torah all day, but they have no middot (character traits), no derech eretz, nothing. You’re learning and learning, but “Beha'alotcha et hanerot” has to mean “Beha'alotcha et Aharon” too. It has to lift up the person himself. “Im ein Torah ein derech eretz, im ein derech eretz ein Torah” (Without Torah there is no proper conduct; without proper conduct there is no Torah). That’s the purpose of Torah: to change a person, not just to be an intellectual exercise while he continues to act badly.
One of the Rabbi Soloveitchiks, maybe the Beit HaLevi, tells of a rabbi, a great talmid chacham (Torah scholar), who studied all of Torah, “Beha'alotcha et hanerot,” but was known to have bad middot. He was arrogant, and Torah had done nothing for him. Rav Soloveitchik went to him and said, “You remind me of the Mishnah when I see you.” The rabbi said, “Rav, which Mishnah?” He answered, “The Mishnah in Pirkei Avot: ‘Ben Bag Bag omer, hafoch bah vehafoch bah dekula bah’ (Ben Bag Bag says: Turn it over and over, for everything is in it).” He said, “You’re unbelievable. That’s what the Mishnah says: ‘hafoch bah vehafoch bah’—turn this way, turn that way; ‘dekula bah’; ‘uvah techezeh’ (And in it you will see)—go look at the Torah; ‘vesiv uvela bah’ (Grow old and wear yourself out over it); ‘uminah lo tazua’ (Do not depart from it); ‘she'ein lecha middah tovah himena’ (For you have no better measure than it).”
The man felt complimented. “Wow, Reb Chaim is telling me, ‘You don’t leave the Torah; you turn the Torah this way and that way.’” He said, “No, you don’t understand what I mean. You’re a man who is ‘hafoch bah vehafoch bah dekula bah uminah lo tazua’—you turn it over and over, everything is in it, and you don’t leave it. But how do we understand the end of the Mishnah, ‘she'ein lecha middah tovah himena’? You didn’t get one good middah from it. You’re still the same uncouth, undeveloped creature you were.”
What’s beautiful about that perush (interpretation)? “She'ein lecha middah tovah” means that there is no better measure than the Torah. He says, “She'ein lecha middah tovah himena”: you learned and learned and learned, and you still have no middot. You’re still a—
That’s what Rashi might be coming to tell us about Torah. Of course, you have to “Beha'alotcha et hanerot,” but the person has to be elevated too. There has to be a direct connection between learning Torah and personal development of character. That’s why Reb Baruch would always say, “Don’t tell me a guy is a genius. We also look at the character, the middot of the person.” Reb Baruch would say, “What about the middot? What about the character?” Don’t tell me he can quote and all that. That’s just one chelek (part). If Torah isn’t changing the person, then we can question that Torah.
Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen.