For us Jews food
has always been important. We all know the famous (if not completely accurate)
generic description of all of our festivals ending in "let's eat."
Thus the halachic definition of a meal is relevant in a number of areas –
Kiddush, eruvin, sukkah, weddings and even mourning to name but a few.
My starting
point here will be probably the most basic ramification of this definition –
the obligation to say the full Birkas HaMazon after eating. This obligation is
a unique one – no other brachos have a Biblical status according to all
opinions.[1]
The source for this is the following pasuk:
כִּי ה' אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ מְבִיאֲךָ אֶל אֶרֶץ טוֹבָה אֶרֶץ
נַחֲלֵי מָיִם עֲיָנֹת וּתְהֹמֹת יֹצְאִים בַּבִּקְעָה וּבָהָר: אֶרֶץ חִטָּה
וּשְׂעֹרָה וְגֶפֶן וּתְאֵנָה וְרִמּוֹן אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ: אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר
לֹא בְמִסְכֵּנֻת תֹּאכַל בָּהּ לֶחֶם לֹא תֶחְסַר כֹּל בָּהּ אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר
אֲבָנֶיהָ בַרְזֶל וּמֵהֲרָרֶיהָ תַּחְצֹב נְחֹשֶׁת: וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ
וּבֵרַכְתָּ אֶת ה' אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ עַל הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָךְ: (דברים ח,
ז-י)
For Hashem your
G-d is bringing you to a good land, a land of streams of rivers, springs and
deep waters emerging in the valley and in the mountain. A land of wheat,
barley, grapes, figs and pomegranates; a land of oil-producing olives and
honey. A land where you will not eat bread in misery – you will not be missing
anything in it. A land whose stones are iron and from whose mountains you will
mine copper. You will eat and be satiated; you shall bless Hashem your G-d for
the good land that He has given you. (Devarim 8:7-10)
I suspect the first
impression most people will have is that this verse describes any eating up to
the point of satiation. It is hard to detect any hint of limitation regarding
the type of food that is consumed. As we know, the accepted halacha does
include such a limitation – I would like to investigate the source of this, its
rationale and some consequences.
What is
'nutrition'?
The truth is
that our first impression is not entirely wrong. Which food requires Birkas
HaMazon is subject to a dispute in the Mishna. Rabban Gamliel states that one
who eats grapes, figs or pomegranates must say the full Birkas HaMazon, whereas
the Chachamim disagree. R' Akiva maintains that even one who eats a boiled vegetable
as 'his nutrition' (מזונו) must say Birkas HaMazon.[2]
The view of R'
Akiva is close to what we might have thought, but with one proviso. Eating
alone is not sufficient to obligate a person in Birkas HaMazon – this
obligation only applies when one eats 'his nutrition.' Foods eaten as snacks,
for pure enjoyment or for social purposes are not considered 'nutrition.' The
source for this is presumably the word ושבעת – 'You will be satiated.' However, even
according to this view, one who satiates himself in a way unusual even for him
would not say the full Birkas HaMazon.
Why do Rabban
Gamliel and the Chachamim disagree? The gemara explains that the views of both Rabban
Gamliel and Chachamim are based on the previous pesukim. Rabban Gamliel understands
that the mitzvah in our pasuk is to be understood in the context of the seven
species that Eretz Yisrael is praised for listed previously and is directed only
at those who eat these foods. The Chachamim argue that the mitzvah in the last
pasuk is only a continuation of the pasuk immediately preceding it, where only
the consumption of bread is mentioned.
It is well known
that the halacha is in accordance with the Chachamim and that therefore we only
say Birkas HaMazon after eating bread. However, it seems unreasonable to say
that this limitation is without logic.[3]
Bread is the standard staple food on which meals tend to be based.[4]
According to the Chachamim, the 'nutrition' that obligates Birkas HaMazon is
not subjective to the person – it is limited to the standard 'nutrition.'
What is 'bread'?
The Rambam
writes that the fives species of wheat, barley, spelt, oats[5]
and rye which are ground into flour, kneaded and baked are called bread.[6]
This seems simple enough at first sight, however in reality it is often unclear
whether or not this definition has been met.
One question that
comes up is when bread is processed or transformed in some way. An example of
this is when breadcrumbs are made into croutons or coatings for schnitzels. I
would like to discuss a different question regarding the original process of
making bread. Much of our bread nowadays is not a pure mixture of flour and
water. At what point do different additions to dough change its halachic
status?
The gemara
discusses the status of bread 'that comes with kisanin.' The conclusion
is that the correct bracha on this bread is borei minei mezonos, unless
one eats an amount that others would 'make a meal over' (i.e. enough for an
average person's meal, even if it is not enough for the person eating it). In
addition, if one eats this 'bread' in the middle of a meal after having already
made hamotzi on regular bread, he must make a new bracha of borei
minei mezonos.[7]
There are
several different explanations offered for the meaning of kisanin and
the type of bread being referred to. Most of these explanations involve
additions of other ingredients to the dough. The apparent common denominator of
all the explanations is that the significant difference between this 'bread'
and regular bread is that it is not the common practice to base a meal around
bread 'that comes with kisanin.'[8]
All this can be
easily understood in light of the way we explained what distinguishes bread
from other foods. 'Bread' that is not used as a person's basic nutrition is not
the bread that the Torah was referring to when talking about 'eating and being
satiated.' However, as technically it is made by the same process as regular
bread and mostly from the same ingredients, if one eats an amount that most
would consider a meal, it can substitute for standard bread.[9]
Is there a
doubt?
Due to the
numerous possibilities offered for the meaning of bread 'that comes with kisanin,'
the Beis Yosef writes that this is a doubt over a Rabbinic question[10]
and thus we can be lenient. When eating any of the kinds of 'bread' described
by the various rishonim, we should not say hamotzi or Birkas HaMazon unless
eating enough for a meal.[11]
While not
disagreeing with the conclusion of the Beis Yosef, I find his rationale
surprising. Although the rishonim differ over the meaning of the term 'comes
with kisanin,' I see no reason to assume that they also dispute the halachic
status of the various types of baked products. As the principle behind the law is
clear, we should be able to extrapolate that any type of 'bread' not normally
used as a basis for a meal has the same halacha, even if it is not the example
that the gemara talked about. There is no doubt involved – all these products
are equivalent to bread 'that comes with kisanin' according to all
views.[12]
There is one
major practical difference between my understanding and that of the Beis Yosef.
Based on the words of the Beis Yosef, the Mishna Berura writes that as we are
not sure of how to define 'comes with kisanin,' in the middle of a meal
we should never say a bracha on these foods unless all the
characteristics described by the rishonim are present.[13]
This is why the common practice is not to say borei minei mezonos on
cake and biscuits served as a dessert.
In my humble
opinion, this practice is not correct. As no normal people use cake as the
staple for a meal, there is no doubt in my mind that it is not equivalent to
regular bread. As such, eating it as a dessert requires a bracha according to
all the rishonim.
Another
questionable practice (even according to the Beis Yosef) is the use of heavily
sweetened challos (or those with extraneous ingredients) for Shabbos meals. The
challa is supposed to be the food that defines our meals, and if no-one would
eat other things with it the purpose is defeated.
This problem is
potentially more than just a 'spirit of the law' issue. While it is possible to
use bread that 'comes with kisanin' for Shabbos meals, this is only if
one eats enough for a meal. And although according to many poskim the required
amount can include other food eaten with the 'bread,'[14]
this is certainly not the case if the 'bread' is only eaten in isolation and
forgotten about when the 'real food' is served.
In our
generation we have a lot to thank Hashem for. May He enlighten us all to be
able to do so in the correct way.
[1] The Ramban lists Birkas HaTorah as the 15th positive
mitzvah that the Rambam 'forgot' to count, arguing that this too is Biblical as
the gemara (Berachos 21a) derives it from a pasuk (Devarim 32:3). This position is also
accepted by the Chinuch (Mitzvah 430). However, it is clear that the Rambam
does not agree with this (see Berachos 1:1-3). These positions follow directly
from the fundamental dispute between the Rambam and the Ramban about the nature
of typical drashos of Chazal, discussed in Halachic
Exegesis.
[2] Brachos 44a. The gemara on 44b explains that cabbage stalks can
feasibly be considered a person's 'nutrition.'
[3] See Torah
and Morals.
[4] This was certainly true in the past and remains true at least to
some degree today. It is however somewhat difficult to measure to what degree,
as our major meals are influenced by religious factors and thus we probably
tend to eat more bread than we would have done otherwise. Either way, whether
or not the rules for when we say Birkas HaMazon ought to be changed is a
question that only the Sanhedrin will have the authority to decide.
[5] Questions have been raised over whether the שיבולת שועל
mentioned by Chazal translates accurately to what we call oats. See for example
this article on
the topic by Rabbi Michael Broyde.
[6] Hilchos Brachos 3:1.
[7] Brachos 41b-42a.
[8] See Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim 168.
[9] The truth is that even with regular bread, according to many
Rishonim there is only a Biblical obligation to say Birkas HaMazon when eating
enough for satiation (see Brachos 20b and Rashi there, Rambam Hilchos Brachos
1:1. See also Ra'avad Brachos 5:15; Milchamos Hashem, Rif Brachos 12a). According
to these Rishonim, it is likely that the only halachic difference between
regular bread and פת הבאה בכיסנין is on a Rabbinic level –
see Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chaim 168:8. However, the obligation to make a
new bracha on פת הבאה בכיסנין in the middle of a meal would seem to indicate
that there is a fundamental difference, even if the only practical differences come
up with Rabbinic halachos.
[10] See previous footnote.
[11] Orach Chaim 168 (and Shulchan Aruch s'if 7 there). The Rema there only disputes the Beis Yosef's
understanding of the view of the Rambam and not the principle of how to deal
with the doubt.
[13] Bi'ur Halacha 168:8, as we are lenient regarding doubts whether to
say a bracha or not.
