Making a Meal of it

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 15^th 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.

[12] See Ma'amar Mordechai (quoted by Bi'ur Halacha 168:7) who points out this possibility.

[13] Bi'ur Halacha 168:8, as we are lenient regarding doubts whether to say a bracha or not.

[14] See Magen Avraham 168:13.