Siman 167

It is stated in Sanhedrin (102b) that one must make the blessing of 'Hamotzi' on the bread from the place where the cooking is crusty, and Rashi explained: from the place where the surface of the bread forms a crust in the oven, which is from above or around it, etc., and not from its center. Another version: from where its cooking is earliest, from the place that finishes baking first, and it is the same thing. Another version: from where the cooking is finished, from the place where the bread is baked a great deal, etc., and the first appears correct. Thus far his words. And the Rambam in chapter 7 of Berakhot wrote: "And he does not break bread except from the place that is cooked very well." Thus far his words. And this is like the latter version. And the Tur also wrote thus, and added: "from the choicest part of the bread, in the place where it is baked well." Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote like the Rambam. And according to all the interpretations, in our bread it is from above, for there it is choice and baked well and baked quickly, and similarly if he breaks bread on a piece, he should break it thus, and not from the soft part in the center. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And one should break bread at the side of the bread in our bread, and he should cut a little from the upper side and the lower side." Thus far his words. This is because there are those who hold that from beneath it, it begins to cook first. And there are those who add that this is opposite the side that cracks open, but this is not the case with all breads. And with our bread we fulfill all opinions, and only he should not break bread on the soft part unless he has no teeth. And with our round bread that they call 'bagel' or thin bread that they call 'kuchen', all places are equal (see Taz and Magen Avraham subsection 2 and as I have written).

In the Mishnah in Berakhot (20b) regarding a ba'al keri, we learned: that he recites the blessing after the meal, because Birkat HaMazon is from the Torah, as it is written: "And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless," but he does not recite the blessing of 'Hamotzi' because it is rabbinic, like all the blessings that the rabbis instituted. And even though regarding bread there is a kal vachomer—that if when he is satisfied he blesses, when he is hungry is it not all the more so (ibid. 35a), and a kal vachomer is available to be expounded—nevertheless, it is not a complete kal vachomer (Tosafot ibid.), because one could say on the contrary that when he is satisfied it is like a blessing of thanks, which is not the case before [eating]. And our sages, of blessed memory, said there that it is forbidden to benefit from this world without a blessing, and anyone who benefits without a blessing is as if he benefited from the sanctified items of Heaven, as it is written: "The earth and its fullness belong to Hashem," but once he has blessed he is permitted to benefit, as it is written: "The heavens are the heavens of Hashem, but the earth He gave to the children of man" (ibid.). And our sages, of blessed memory, instituted each blessing according to its matter: for the fruit of the ground: 'Borei Peri HaAdamah'; for the fruit of the tree: 'Borei Peri HaEtz'; except for wine, because of its importance in that it gladdens the heart, as it is said: "And wine gladdens the heart of man," they instituted a blessing for itself: "Borei Peri HaGafen." And so too for bread they also instituted a blessing for itself because of its importance in that it sustains the heart, as it is written: "And bread sustains the heart of man," they instituted to bless 'Hamotzi'.

The choice way to perform the mitzvah is to recite the blessing over the bread while it is whole, and not to slice it first and afterwards recite the blessing over it if they brought it before him whole. And even if he slices over a piece—he must recite the blessing while the piece is whole, and he should not break it until after the blessing, and the entire blessing must conclude while it is whole or the piece is in its wholeness. And if there are other diners at the table who answer "Amen" after him, he should not break [the bread] until the answering of Amen is concluded from the mouths of the majority of those answering. And this is specifically when they fulfill their obligation through his blessing, for then the answering of Amen is also part of the blessing, but if they do not fulfill their obligation through his blessing—he does not need to wait for their answering of Amen. And behold, whether he should not begin to cut at all or whether he should begin to cut at the time of the blessing, there is a dispute regarding this, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

The wording of the Gemara in Berakhot (39b): "And the halacha is that one recites the blessing and afterward breaks the bread," and the wording of the Rambam in chapter 7: "He completes the blessing and afterward breaks the bread." However, the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote that the intention is that he should not separate the slice from the bread until after the blessing, see there. This is the wording of the Tur: "And he should cut the slice for breaking and leave it attached to the bread and begin to recite the blessing, and after he finishes the blessing he should separate it, so that the blessing concludes while the bread is whole." Thus far his words. And their reasoning: for if he begins to cut after the blessing, there will be a large interruption between the blessing of 'Hamotzi' and the eating (Tur).

And what measure should he leave attached? Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explained, and this is his wording: "And he must cut a little, such that if he holds the slice, the rest of the loaf will rise with it, for if not so, it is considered like a slice. And he shall leave it attached to the bread and begin to bless, and after he finished the blessing, he shall separate it so that the blessing concludes while the bread is whole." Thus far his words. However, on Shabbat, he should not begin to cut at all until after the blessing, so that he blesses over lechem mishneh. And even though when it is attached in this manner it is still called a whole bread, nevertheless we concern ourselves lest he cut more than this measure before the conclusion of the blessing, or perhaps he will cut it entirely before the conclusion of the blessing and it will turn out that he did not bless over lechem mishneh; and such is the simple custom and one should not change it. And it appears to me that regarding thin bread which is cut in a moment, even on a weekday he should finish the blessing first, and at the time of the conclusion of the blessing he should immediately cut it or break it, for regarding thin bread a partial cut is not applicable, as is known (and nevertheless on Shabbat, if he acted as on a weekday, it does no harm).

One should not break off a very small piece for 'Hamotzi' because it appears stingy, nor a piece larger than a kebeitza because it appears gluttonous, and this is not the way of proper conduct. This is on a weekday, but on Shabbat it is a mitzvah to break off a large piece that will suffice for him for the entire meal, and it does not appear gluttonous since every day he does not do so (Gemara ibid. according to the commentary of Rashi). And similarly on a weekday, when he eats with the members of his household or with guests and they fulfill their obligation through his blessing and the host gives to them from his piece, it is a mitzvah to cut a large piece so that it will suffice to give from the piece to each of those reclining, and not from the bread remaining from it. And the measure of this piece for one man: some say it must be a kezayit and he should eat it all at once (Magen Avraham subsection 7), and some say it does not need to be a kezayit (ibid.), for even any amount is fit for a blessing and half a kezayit is sufficient, and so we practice (the Gra"z). And with our bread the common custom is that we cut a large portion from the whole bread and from it we cut the measure for Hamotzi, for according to the large size of our loaves of bread it is almost impossible in any other way, but with small breads one should do as has been explained.

All blessings of enjoyment must be in the past tense, for this thing has already been created. And that which we bless with the language of "Borei," such as "Borei minei mezonot," "Borei pri ha'etz," "Borei pri ha'adamah," is because "Borei" is also a past tense, as it is written: "Borei hashamayim," "Le'oseh orim gedolim" (Psalms 136:7), for we are obligated to seize the language of the verse in whatever is possible. And it seems to me that the verse seized this because it also includes the present tense, because the Holy One, Blessed be He, renews every day constantly the work of creation, and likewise creates at every time and every hour, for His providence does not cease even for a single moment. Therefore, we say a language that includes everything, for regarding this thing that one eats it is a past tense and furthermore it is a present tense, meaning that even now at this moment He creates. Therefore, also in the blessing of "Shehakol" one must say "nihyah" with a segol, which is a present participle like "Borei" (Magen Avraham siman 204, subsection 14, and so wrote the Ma'aseh Tzedakah and the Machatzit HaShekel). And there are those who wish to say "nihyah" with a kamatz under the yod (see Magen Avraham subsection 8) which is a complete past tense, but it is not the primary view, and the primary view is to say the yod with a segol.

Regarding the blessing of 'Hamotzi' there is an inquiry, for in the Gemara (38a) they said that 'motzi' certainly implies the past tense, as Bilam said: "God who brought them out [motzi'am] from Egypt," and they had already left. Regarding 'Hamotzi' there is a dispute, for there is one who holds that 'Hamotzi' also implies the past tense, as it is written: "Who brought forth [Hamotzi] for you water from the flinty rock," and there is one who holds that it implies the future, as it is written in Va'era: "Who will bring you out [Hamotzi] from under the burdens of Egypt," which is a promise that He will bring us out. Nevertheless, they ruled in the Gemara: "And the halacha is 'Hamotzi'," and it implies there that the reason is to show that the language of 'Hamotzi' is also past tense; see there. And in truth it is not understood, for in every place one should choose the clearest language, but we find something similar to this in the first chapter of Pesachim regarding the blessing 'on the removal [bi'ur] of chametz'; see there. And in the Yerushalmi they said it is in order not to mix the letters, meaning that 'ha-olam' ends with a mem, and if one says 'motzi' the two mems will be mixed with one another. And even though in 'lechem min' the two mems are also adjacent, this is because in the verse it is written: "to bring forth bread from [lechem min] the earth," and it is impossible to change the language of the verse, which is not the case with 'Hamotzi' (Tosafot ibid.), and the words are not sufficient, as is understood. And I saw one who wrote that when we examine the wording 'Who brings forth bread from the earth,' does bread come out from the earth? Rather the intention is to hint to the future to come when it will bring forth fine cakes, and therefore the language of 'Hamotzi' is much better as it includes the future as well (see Taz, subsection 4). And it seems to me as I wrote before, that they intentionally aimed for the present tense which includes the past and the future, for the language "Who brought forth [Hamotzi] for you water from the rock etc." is past and present, for at the time that Moshe said this, water was coming out from the rock, and therefore to show that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not remove His providence even for a moment from the world and He brings forth bread to the world, and also at the time of baking it is the providence of the Holy One, blessed be He, that the bread should bake, but because it is constant they called it nature, and nature itself is Divine, the providence of Divinity, but because it is constant we have no excitement from it, but for one who contemplates they are constant miracles, and this is the matter of "I have set Hashem before me always," meaning that in everything I see it is only Hashem alone and there is nothing else; and he should provide a space between 'lechem' and 'min' so as not to mix the letters. And if many are reclining and wish to fulfill their obligation with the blessing of the one who breaks the bread, they should direct their hearts to hear the blessing and answer 'Amen', and the one reciting the blessing should intend for the 'Amen' that they say. However, among us each one recites 'Hamotzi' for himself, and nevertheless there is an obligation to answer 'Amen' to the blessing of his fellow. And also before his own blessing he may answer 'Amen' and this is not an interruption, but after the blessing he should not answer 'Amen' even when he hears that another is also reciting 'Hamotzi', so that it does not appear as if he is answering 'Amen' after his own blessing, as is written in siman 51; see there in section 4, for so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef.

In the Yerushalmi at the end of the first chapter of Challah it is stated: "Ten mitzvot a person performs before he eats a slice: You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together, you shall not sow kilayim, you shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing, leket, shikhecha, and peah, terumah, maaser rishon, maaser sheni, and challah (it requires further study, for there is also bikkurim). When Rabbi Yitzchak came to eat, he would spread his ten fingers" see there. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: "He should place both his hands on the bread at the time of the blessing, for they have ten fingers corresponding to the ten mitzvot dependent on bread; and for this reason there are ten words in the blessing of Hamotzi, and ten words in the verse 'Who causes grass to grow for the cattle,' and ten words in the verse 'The eyes of all look to You with hope,' and ten words in the verse 'A land of wheat and barley,' and ten words in the verse 'And may He give to you'" thus far his words. And if he has a glove, he must remove it, and when he says the Name he should lift the bread, and on Shabbat he should lift both of them (Magen Avraham, subsection 10). And he should be careful not to recite the blessing of 'Hamotzi' before he grasps the bread in his hand, for every blessing must be immediately adjacent to its actual performance, as is written regarding the lulav in siman 651, see there. And this fact that we bless 'Hamotzi lechem min ha'aretz' and not 'min ha'adamah' as in the blessing of 'Borei peri ha'adamah,' is because in the verse in Barechi Nafshi it is written: "To bring forth bread from the earth [min ha'aretz]," and there are further reasons for this (the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 5, wrote in the name of the Shelah that one should focus during the blessing over the table more than other blessings, because food and drink bring a person to coarseness of nature, and one must contemplate drawing his heart toward the desires of the Name, may He be blessed, and not toward the side of the desires for food and drink, thus far his words. And the Magen Avraham, subsection 2, wrote that the Maharil would cut around the bread like a ring and in the middle he left it attached and would break it from bottom to top, and with a thin cake he placed his eight fingers on top and the two thumbs below and blessed and broke it, thus far his words; and I do not understand why he only did so with a thin cake, and perhaps it was not specifically so).

It is stated in the Gemara (40.): The one who breaks the bread is not permitted to break it until they bring salt or a relish before each and every person. Rava happened to be at the house of the Exilarch; they brought him bread and he ate immediately, and did not wait until they brought him salt or a relish. They asked him why he did so, and he replied: This does not require delay. Rashi explained: A term of delay, like "his chariot delayed" (Judges 5:28), meaning this is clean bread and does not require a relish. Thus far his words. Based on this, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 5: "He shall not break the bread until they bring before him salt or a relish to accompany the slice of the breaking; but if it is clean bread, or it is seasoned with spices or with salt like ours, or if he intended to eat dry bread — he does not need to wait." Thus far his words. The Tur did not mention: "if he intended to eat dry bread," see there, and the Rambam in chapter 7 mentioned only this, as we will explain, and there is a great distinction between them.

This is the wording of the Rambam: "The one who breaks bread is not permitted to break it until they bring salt or a relish before each and every person, unless they intended to eat dry bread." Thus far his words, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote it all. And according to my humble opinion, it is impossible to say so, for one who is precise with the language of the Tur who wrote: "salt or a relish to relish with it the slice of the breaking," it appears explicitly that he is not dealing with the relish of the entire meal, but rather with the matter of the slice of 'Hamotzi' due to its honor; for if it is coarse bread, one must dip it in salt or relish, and if it is clean bread or seasoned with spices or salt, it has a good taste even without salt and relish, and this is according to the explanation of Rashi and Tosafot, see there. But the Rambam did not mention: 'to relish with it the slice of the breaking,' but rather 'until they bring salt or a relish,' meaning that which he desires to eat in the meal; if he eats only bread with salt—it is sufficient for him to bring salt, and if he desires to eat some relish—they must bring the relish before him. And the reason is that since the blessing of 'Hamotzi' exempts also the relish of the entire meal, they must be before him at the time of 'Hamotzi,' and not because he must dip the slice of 'Hamotzi' in them. Therefore, the Rambam did not mention to distinguish between coarse bread and fine bread, for it does not depend on this, but rather he mentioned that if their desire is to eat only dry bread, he does not need to wait. And he would explain in the Gemara that which Rava said: 'This case does not require delay,' meaning he was referring to himself, that he does not need to wait because his desire is only to eat dry bread. And if so, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who followed the approach of the Tur, should not have mentioned this point of intending to eat dry bread, since this is due to the honor of the slice of Hamotzi, and I have not seen anyone who remarked on this, and it requires further study. And according to what we explained regarding the intention of the Rambam, the first cooked dish must stand on the table at the time of the blessing of 'Hamotzi.'

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: In any event, it is a mitzvah to bring salt to every table before one breaks bread, because the table is similar to the altar, and eating is like a sacrifice, and it is said: "With all your sacrifices you shall offer salt," and it protects from calamities. Thus far his words. For it is stated in the Midrash that when Israel sits and waits for one another etc., the Satan prosecutes against them, and the covenant of salt protects them (Magen Avraham). And the kabbalists warned regarding this to dip the slice of Hamotzi in salt, and so all who fear G-d conduct themselves. And it is forbidden to kill a louse on the table upon which one eats, and likewise to do a repulsive thing upon it, because it is likened to the altar, and it is written: "This is the table that is before Hashem" (see Magen Avraham at the end of siman 167, who wrote that it is better to speak words of Torah than to sit idle, and better than both of them is not to interrupt at all. Thus far his words, and such is the primary halakhic ruling).

After one has recited the blessing of HaMotzi, he should eat immediately and not speak of anything between the blessing and the eating; likewise, as long as he is chewing, he should not speak until he swallows the morsel of the HaMotzi. If he spoke between the blessing and the eating—he must repeat the blessing; however, if he spoke while he was chewing—he does not need to repeat the blessing (ibid.). And even between the blessing and the eating, if he spoke regarding a matter that pertains to the HaMotzi, such as: "Bring salt," "Bring relish," or even if it does not pertain to the HaMotzi but pertains to the needs of the meal, or such as if he said: "Give to so-and-so to eat" or even "Give food to the animal," for this is also like the needs of the meal, as it is forbidden to eat until one gives food to his animal, as it is said: "And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle," and afterwards (ibid.) "and you shall eat and be satisfied" (Gemara 40a), therefore, after the fact, these things and their like do not constitute an interruption, though initially even these things are forbidden. And they wrote that for a person to drink precedes an animal, as we find with Rebecca who said: "Drink, and I will also water your camels" (Magen Avraham subsection 18 in the name of Sefer Chasidim).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding the law that has been explained, and this is his wording: "And that which was said, that if one spoke idle matters he must return and recite the blessing, this is specifically if he spoke before the one who breaks the bread ate; but afterward, speech is not considered an interruption, even though the others sitting there have not yet eaten, they have already all fulfilled their obligation through the eating of the one who breaks the bread, for they do not all need to eat from the slice of the one who breaks the bread, only that they do so for the love of the mitzvah." Thus far his words. And the source of this law is from the Rokeach (Beit Yosef). And he compared this to the cup of kiddush, where ab initio it is proper that all those sitting should taste from it, but post facto they all fulfill their obligation through the drinking of the one who recites the blessing. And here too it is so, for ab initio it is proper that they all eat from the slice of the one who breaks the bread, but post facto they all fulfill their obligation through the tasting of the one who breaks the bread, and since he tasted, it is as if they all tasted; and if so, their speech is not considered an interruption between the blessing and 'Hamotzi', but rather as after 'Hamotzi'.

And many and great ones disagree on this, and they hold that this is no comparison at all; for there it is a blessing of a mitzvah, and post facto when the one who blessed drank, everyone fulfills their obligation, and they in truth will not drink from it. But here everyone must eat, and behold it is a blessing of pleasure, and should the one who hears be better than if he had blessed himself and spoke, where he must return and bless? And because he is a listener he does not need to return and bless? (Magen Avraham subsection 19). And since he interrupted with speech before his pleasure, the blessing of this person has departed, and he enjoys without a blessing (Taz subsection 8). Furthermore, for behold the essence is their answering "Amen" and it is as if they blessed themselves, and if so, one must not interrupt between his "Amen" and his eating (ibid.). Furthermore, for in truth only in Kiddush and the like do the listeners fulfill their obligation through the drinking of the one who blesses alone, but in the blessing of the meal they do not fulfill their obligation through his tasting, and every one of those reclining is obligated to taste for himself (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 13). And also our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book disagrees with this law, see there.

In my humble opinion, I do not see any objection in all of this, for the Rokeach and our teacher, the Rema, are saying as follows: that the tasting performed by the one who breaks the bread is as if they all tasted it. For it is certainly true that regarding kiddush and havdalah as well, every individual is obligated to recite kiddush and havdalah and to drink from the cup, yet we say that everyone fulfills their obligation through the blessing of the one reciting kiddush and through his tasting. So too here, we say that everyone fulfills their obligation through his blessing and through his tasting, as if they all recited the blessing and tasted. There is further proof from what will be explained in siman 271, that if the one reciting kiddush did not taste but another person tasted—he has fulfilled the obligation. Now, this is an a fortiori argument: if the tasting of another is like his own tasting, all the more so his tasting is like the tasting of another. And even according to the Geonim who disagree regarding kiddush, they admit regarding other matters; see there. And if it is because they will eat themselves afterward and their entire netilah is for the purpose of eating, nevertheless, what of it? Is the obligation of drinking mandated by the Torah inferior to his desire to eat? Ultimately, one must say that his tasting is as if all those reclining tasted. (And regarding the proof brought by the Magen Avraham from Tosafot, Pesachim 101a, according to the Ri, see there—I wonder how he compares a change of location to speech. Granted that the Ri holds that in a change of location, if one drank, he does not need to recite a blessing, nevertheless, where he did not drink, this is certainly not a comparison. And from the Rosh and the Mordechai, it is obvious there is no proof to one who looks there. And what the Taz wrote regarding tefillin is completely baffling, as is understood by one who looks into his words; see there and examine it closely).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: "Reuven who was washing his hands for a meal and Yaakov was reciting the blessing of 'Hamotzi' and intended to fulfill the obligation of the listeners, and afterward Reuven dried his hands and recited the blessing 'Al Netilat Yadayim' — it is not considered an interruption and he fulfills his obligation with the blessing of Yaakov, and he does not need to return and recite 'Hamotzi'." Thus far his words. And the reason: because this is no worse than the needs of the meal which are not considered an interruption, as has been explained. And it appears to me that even if he himself forgot and recited the blessing of 'Hamotzi' before the blessing of 'Al Netilat Yadayim' — that it is also not considered an interruption for this same reason. And it is simple that the one reciting the blessing must intend to fulfill their obligation, and the listeners must intend to fulfill their obligation and they must answer 'Amen'.

If one forgot and ate without the hamotzi blessing: if he has not yet finished his meal—it is obvious that he blesses over what he will eat afterward, and if he finished his meal—he should not bless. However, it is proper that he bless and eat a kezayit while it is still before birkat hamazon, for according to the opinion of the Ra'avad one must bless even afterward, but we do not rule accordingly, and therefore it is proper to do so (Magen Avraham, subsection 21). And if he has a doubt whether he recited the hamotzi blessing or not—it is like any doubt regarding rabbinic blessings and he should not bless, and that which the Tur wrote in the name of the Rambam that he should bless, it is not so in the version of the Rambam before us (Beit Yosef).

If one recited the blessing "she-hakol" over bread—he has fulfilled his obligation, as it is a general blessing. However, if he recited "borei minei mezonot" or "ha-adamah"—he has not fulfilled his obligation. And there is one who says that he has fulfilled his obligation with the blessing "borei minei mezonot" (Sha'arei Teshuvah subsection 13 in the name of the Birkei Yosef and Even HaEzer), and the reason appears to be because bread is certainly nourishment. In my humble opinion, it appears that he has not fulfilled his obligation, since it is not a clarified blessing and is not the blessing established by the sages for bread—he has not fulfilled his obligation, and it is not similar to "she-hakol" which includes everything. And if it is because bread is nourishment, for behold we recite in Birkat HaMazon: "for the land and for the nourishment," behold all things are called nourishment (Eruvin 30a), and nevertheless if one recited "borei minei mezonot" over fruit of the tree or fruit of the ground—he has not fulfilled his obligation, and so too regarding bread it is thus, and it requires further study.

If one recited a blessing over bread: "Blessed is the Merciful One, King of the universe, Master of this bread," or even if he did not conclude with "bread" – he has fulfilled his obligation, for blessings may be recited in any language, as even Birkat HaMazon is recited in any language as we learned in the Mishnah in the chapter "And these are recited," and all the more so blessings before eating which are only rabbinic, and so it is explicitly stated in Berakhot (40b). And it is not specifically that he blessed in the Aramaic language, but rather the same law applies if he blessed in any language whatsoever, if it translates to: "Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the universe, etc." – he has fulfilled his obligation. And even though "Master of this bread" is not according to the phrasing of "Who brings forth bread from the earth," we are not concerned by it, since the essence of the matter is contained in this blessing. And this is what they said in the Gemara there, that even though he did not say it in a secular language in the manner that the sages ordained in the Holy Tongue – he has fulfilled his obligation, see there. And the intention is regarding the conclusion of "Who brings forth bread from the earth," for regarding "Hashem our G-d, King of the universe," it is certainly required and indispensable as we say there. But if he said: "How beautiful is this bread, blessed is the Omnipresent Who created it" – he has not fulfilled his obligation (ibid.), and even though it is explained in the Yerushalmi there that even in such a case he has fulfilled his obligation, see there, nevertheless in our Gemara it is not so, and this is included in "Anyone who deviates from the form that the sages established for blessings – has not fulfilled his obligation" (so it appears in my humble opinion, and it requires further study regarding the Tur and Shulchan Aruch who did not mention this law).

The sages taught in the Mishnah (42a): "If they were sitting—each one blesses for himself; if they reclined—one blesses for all of them." This means that if they ate without any invitation, but rather they were sitting and each one began to eat and they did not agree to eat together—they do not join together and each one blesses for himself; but if they reclined—one blesses for all of them (Tari). And specifically for them, who used to eat by reclining, they required reclining, but our sitting is considered a fixed arrangement for us like their reclining, for they were accustomed for each one to recline on his bed at his table, but now we all eat at one table, and when we eat together, that is our fixed arrangement (Tosafot). And Rav Hai Gaon explained "recline" from the language of "surrounding," when they all sit around, for this indicates a fixed sitting, as we translate: "And they sat down to eat bread"—"And they surrounded to eat bread" (Tari).

And they said in the Gemara there, and so it is in the Rif, that if they say: "Let us go and eat bread in such-and-such a place," even though they did not recline, and even if each and every one eats from his own loaf—they are considered as having established a fixed place and one recites the blessing for all of them. As it was taught: "Ten who were walking on a way, even though they all eat from one loaf—each one recites the blessing for himself. If they went up and sat, even though each one eats from his own loaf—one recites the blessing for all of them." And we established it: for instance, where they say: "Let us go and eat bread in such-and-such a place." Thus far the words of the Rif.

And so wrote the Tur, and he wrote that if they are two or many—one recites the blessing for all of them. Thus far his words. That is to say, even though regarding Birkat HaMazon they do not join together unless there are three for zimmun, nevertheless regarding "Hamotzi," even two—one recites the blessing (Beit Yosef). And the reason: that regarding Birkat HaMazon, where they are standing to separate from one another, we specifically require three, but regarding Hamotzi, where they are joining with one another, it is so even with two (Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 23). The Tur further wrote: "A master of the house with the members of his household constitutes a proper keviut even without reclining, and nowadays, when we are not accustomed to reclining, our sitting constitutes keviut even for members of a group, for it is considered like their reclining." Thus far his words. And so wrote our teacher, the Rema, in section 11, that a master of the house with the members of his household is like they reclined, even if they sat without reclining (Magen Avraham, subsection 24), and this is from the Yerushalmi there. And I wonder about our teacher, the Rema, as to why he wrote this law, since nowadays sitting is sufficient even for guests, and a master of the house with the members of his household also requires sitting; if so, there is now no difference between guests and a master of the house with the members of his household. And also on the Tur it is difficult, and to say that they wrote this according to the law of the Gemara is not their way, and it requires further study.

And know that there is one who wrote that regarding their reclining, we do not require that all of them recline, for if only some of them are reclining—one recites the blessing for all of them even though they are not reclining (ibid. subsection 25 in the name of the Shiltei HaGibborim). And according to this, it would seemingly follow for us that sitting is like reclining, even if some of them are sitting and some of them are standing. But it is impossible to say so, for standing is certainly a temporary manner and we require that everyone sit, and even a householder with the members of his household must all sit, and one who stands does not fulfill his obligation with the blessing of the householder. Furthermore, the essence of this law—that we do not require everyone to recline—is not mentioned in the poskim; rather, even if we were to say so regarding their reclining, we would not say so regarding sitting (and even though regarding havdalah the Tosafot wrote on page 43a, starting with the word "Ho'il," that even while standing they fulfill their obligation since they establish themselves to fulfill their obligation, see there, nevertheless regarding eating in a meal it is not relevant to say so, for throughout the entire meal they will certainly sit, as it is not the way to eat the entire meal while standing, and such is the primary ruling).

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 11: "If there were two or many—one recites the blessing for all of them, and specifically if they reclined… but if they were sitting without reclining… and if they said: 'Let us eat here or in such-and-such a place'… it constitutes a fixed arrangement even without reclining. And nowadays… our sitting at one table or without a table on one cloth constitutes a fixed arrangement… and for us, even if they fixed a place for their eating or a master of the house with the members of his household—it is not effective unless they sat at one table or on one cloth" Thus far his words. And it appears to me that what he wrote: "or on one cloth," meaning even without a table, this is according to the custom of their land where they sat on the ground and did not eat at a table every time, but in our lands, anything without a table is not a fixed arrangement at all.

He further wrote in section 12: "If they were riding and said: 'Let us eat,' even though each one eats from his own loaf, provided they did not dismount from the animals—they join together, since they stood in one place; but if they were eating while traveling—no. And if they were eating in a field, scattered and separated, even though they all eat at one time and from one loaf, since they did not establish a place and they eat scattered—they do not join together." Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: Even though it was explained above that saying only helps for the absence of the cause, but nevertheless they must sit at the table, this is in a house; but in a field, saying helps even during the riding when they have stood still. But when they eat during the traveling—saying does not help, and similarly when they eat scattered even if they sit on the ground—saying does not help. And when they sit in a wagon, there is one who is uncertain if saying helps (Magen Avraham, subsection 27), and it appears that it does not help if they eat while the horse is traveling, unless they stop the horse, for then saying helps. And in a ship, saying helps (ibid.), and similarly in railroad wagons, certainly saying helps, as this is like an actual house, and only if they sit close to one another and not separated or scattered. And it has already been explained that there is no difference in all this between whether each one eats from his own loaf, or they eat from one loaf.

He further wrote in section 13: "In a case where they did not establish a place, where we say that each person blesses for himself, if the one blessing intended to fulfill their obligation and they intended to be fulfilled—they have fulfilled it." Thus far his words. That is to say, that after the fact, they have fulfilled the obligation through the blessing of one of them even without establishing a place, if they prepared themselves to be fulfilled through his blessing and the one blessing prepared himself to fulfill them. And even though it is obvious that even with the establishing of a place they must intend to be fulfilled and he must intend to fulfill them, nevertheless, with the establishing of a place, it is ordinarily so, whereas without the establishing of a place they require preparation for this; and that is by verbal expression, that they should say: "We intend to be fulfilled through his blessing," and he should say: "I intend to fulfill them," for this itself acts as an establishing. And there is one who rejected this from the halacha, because the Rosh wrote explicitly that if they did not recline, even though "one who hears is like one who responds" and even if he said "Amen"—he has not fulfilled it, and he wrote similarly in the name of Rashi (Magen Avraham, subsection 28). And I say that there is no contradiction from this, for it is certainly so and this is explicit in the sugya of the Shas, and even though "one who hears is like one who responds" regarding everything, it is stated in the Yerushalmi that this excludes Birkat HaMazon, and the same law applies to "HaMotzi" (ibid.). And the reason: since he derives benefit for himself, he must bless for himself if it was not with the establishing of a place; however, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is dealing with explicit preparation, for this itself is like the establishing of a place (so it appears in my humble opinion). And know that all these laws pertain to bread, but regarding wine and the blessing of mezonot and other things, whether one can fulfill the obligation through the blessing of his fellow and what the law is regarding the establishing of a place, it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 174 and in siman 213.

And know that among us there is no custom at all to fulfill the obligation through the blessing of the master of the house regarding "hamotzi," and certainly not guests who are dining together regularly, but each of the household members or the guests blesses for himself. And in the Gemara (53a) it is explicitly explained that whenever one blesses for everyone it is more of a mitzvah, because "in a multitude of people is the King's glory," see there, and so wrote one of the great Rishonim that it is much preferred when one blesses on behalf of everyone (Keseph Mishneh chapter 1 of Berakhot in the name of the Ramah). And it must be said that this is because among us the custom is not to wait for the blessing of "hamotzi" until everyone has washed their hands and sat around the table, but rather each one washes his hands and blesses "hamotzi" while some of the others may not have washed yet, and even those who have washed have not yet sat at the table, and therefore it is not possible at all for one to fulfill the obligation through the blessing of the other regarding "hamotzi." According to this, if there is a place where the master of the house waits with "hamotzi" until everyone has washed and they are sitting at the table, it is certainly better that the master of the house blesses "hamotzi" and they answer "amen," and he intends to fulfill their obligation and they intend to fulfill their obligation through his blessing (and it is possible that they hold like the words of the Rambam in a responsum brought there by the Keseph Mishneh even though it has no explanation, see there and examine carefully).

We hold that the host breaks the bread for the blessing of 'Hamotzi' so that he may break it generously (46a), and even if there is one greater than him at the gathering, nevertheless, he breaks the bread. And there is one who says that if there is a great guest, he may honor the guest (Magen Avraham subsection 32 in the name of L.H.), but it does not imply such from the Gemara there which brought an incident, where Rabbi Abbahu honored Rabbi Zera to break the bread, and he did not want to because the host breaks the bread, see there. And if it should enter your mind that he is able to honor him, Rabbi Zera should not have transgressed the words of the host, for 'everything that the host tells you, do,' but because it is against the law, therefore he did not want to (and the words of the Magen Avraham are astonishing, and the Machatzit HaShekel was pressed in this, see there). And if he is not in the house of a host but in an inn and all are guests, the greatest among them breaks the bread. And if there is a kohen there and he is equal in stature to all the participants or even slightly less, it is a mitzvah to prioritize him, but if he is an ignoramus, the talmid chakham precedes him and it is forbidden for the chakham to prioritize him, but for one slightly less it is a mitzvah to prioritize him and he lengthens his days thereby, but there is no obligation to prioritize him. And the one who blesses shall say first: 'With the permission of my teachers and masters,' and among us this entire custom does not exist because each one blesses for himself as has been written (see Magen Avraham subsection 33 and the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 22 disagrees with him, see there and examine carefully).

The one who breaks the bread is not permitted to break it until the word "Amen" is finished from the mouths of the majority of those responding, and there is no need to wait for those who extend it excessively. Those reclining are not permitted to taste until the one who breaks the bread tastes, but it is permitted to give each one his portion from the slice of "Hamotzi" before he himself eats. This is not an interruption between the blessing and the eating, for this is also included in the requirements of the eating since he blesses on behalf of everyone. However, in the Yerushalmi it is stated that Rav would eat the tasting of the "Hamotzi" with his left hand and distribute with his right (Magen Avraham, subsection 34); nevertheless, in any event, those reclining are forbidden to taste before the one who breaks the bread tastes. All this applies if they are dependent on the one who breaks the bread to give to them from his loaf, but if each one has his loaf before him and they are not dependent on the one who breaks the bread to give to them from his loaf—they are permitted to break it before the one who breaks the bread tastes. Yet on Shabbat they are not permitted to taste beforehand even if each one has his loaf before him, unless each one has lechem mishneh before him, for if not so, they are fulfilling the obligation with the lechem mishneh of the one who breaks the bread, and perforce they must wait for him until he tastes.

The one who breaks the bread gives a slice before each person, and he shall be careful not to give it by way of throwing, for it is forbidden to throw bread. And he shall be careful not to give the slice of the hamotzi from his hand into the hands of those reclining, but rather he gives it before them and they take it from the table. And there is no prohibition in this, but rather it is an unfavorable sign in giving from hand to hand, and your mnemonic is: "Zion spread out her hands." And to a mourner one gives from hand to hand, and so it is stated in Midrash Eichah and so wrote the Rambam in chapter 7, law 5, see there. And on Shabbat, even to a mourner one does not give into his hand, for there is no mourning on Shabbat. And the one who breaks the bread extends his hand first to the bowl to eat, and if he wishes to show honor to one greater than him, he is permitted. And one should not ask that if there is a greater person why did he break the bread, for it can be said, for example, that he is the homeowner, and as has been written that only the homeowner breaks the bread. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 20 that one should eat the slice of the hamotzi in its entirety before he eats other bread so that it will be eaten with an appetite because of the love of the mitzvah. Thus far his words. And one should not feed from the slice of the hamotzi to a gentile or to an animal, and some wish to say to leave a bit of the slice of the hamotzi until the end, and we conduct ourselves according to the words of our teacher, the Rema (in Tosafot 47a it is explicitly proven that the groom must break the bread, see there).

And one who is not eating cannot recite the blessing of 'Hamotzi' on behalf of another, and so it is with all blessings of enjoyment, for specifically regarding the blessing of the mitzvot can one recite the blessing on behalf of his fellow because all of Israel are guarantors for one another, and when this one has not fulfilled it, it is as if he himself has not fulfilled it, but not regarding the blessing of enjoyment, for one does not recite the blessing unless he enjoys it. However, for minors he may recite the blessing when they are unable to recite the blessing themselves, even though he is not eating himself, in order to train them in the mitzvot. And even on Shabbat, where there is an obligation to eat bread, nevertheless he should not recite the blessing on behalf of his fellow when he is not eating himself, and only the blessing of 'Borei Peri HaGafen' of Kiddush, whether of the night or of the day, and 'Al Achilat Matzah' with the blessing of 'Hamotzi' of the first night of Pesach, which are absolute obligations like all the mitzvot, he may certainly recite the blessing on behalf of his fellow.