Siman 168

There is a precedence in excellence regarding which bread to recite 'Hamotzi' over when both are before him and he wishes to eat from both of them, namely: wheat bread precedes barley bread, a whole loaf precedes a piece of bread, clean bread precedes bread that is not clean, a large loaf precedes a small one, whether regarding a piece the larger precedes or regarding a whole loaf. However, a small whole loaf precedes a large piece, and even if the whole loaf is not as clean as the piece, namely that the piece is from fine flour and the whole loaf is from simple flour, and even though there are two excellences in the piece against the whole loaf, nevertheless the whole loaf precedes when they are of one species (see Magen Avraham subsection 1). And two pieces, one large and one clean—the clean one precedes, for clean is superior to large; and similarly with two whole loaves, one large and the second clean—it precedes (ibid. subsection 7). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: "And if both are clean and this one is whiter than that one—he recites the blessing over the whiter one." Thus far his words. And if the second is larger than this one, there is a doubt (ibid. subsection 8), and he may do as he wishes. And it appears to me that regarding our bread this law is not relevant at all, for with ours, whichever is whiter is cleaner.

And this is all regarding one species, but if one is of wheat and one is of barley—the wheat takes precedence even if it is a piece and small and not clean, and the barley is whole and large and clean, for since it is written: "A land of wheat and barley," and the verse preceded wheat to barley, it takes precedence in every case. And it is stated in the Gemara (39b) that a God-fearing person fulfills his obligation with both, for if there is before him a whole loaf of barley and a piece of wheat—he places the piece inside the whole loaf and breaks from both of them together and recites the blessing, and so ruled the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And even though in the Gemara itself they said that the primary law is that the piece of wheat takes precedence, but rather that for excellence alone a God-fearing person does so, nevertheless since it is possible to act like a God-fearing person, it follows that one must do so as there is no loss in this. And this is specifically with actual barley bread since it was mentioned in the Torah, but with our rye bread which is called "korn," even though this is a species of barley, nevertheless since it is not explicit in the Torah—even a God-fearing person does not need to do so (ibid. subsection 2), and therefore we do not do so, and besides this, with our bread it is impossible to place the piece inside the whole loaf.

And some have written that if there are two people, one should recite the blessing over the whole loaf of barley and one over the piece of wheat (Rashal, and Bach, and Shelah, and Matteh Moshe). And it appears to me that this is the explanation: certainly if one fulfills his obligation through the blessing of the second, it is impossible to say this; rather, it is in a case like ours where each person recites the blessing for himself and both are sitting together equally at the table, and consequently one takes the piece of wheat according to the law, and for this reason the second may take the whole loaf of barley and recite the blessing. And he does not need to wait until the first finishes the blessing and the cutting, and it is at this moment as if there is no other bread before him and he breaks bread over the whole loaf. And the reason for this matter: since we see that the Gemara strove to fulfill the requirements of both, we also do so for the sake of the honor of the whole loaf. And this is regarding a piece and a whole loaf of two species, but when both are whole or both are pieces or both are of one species, he should not do so; rather, both should recite the blessing over that which the law dictates, such as when both are whole or pieces and one is wheat—both should recite the blessing over the one of wheat, and if both are wheat or barley—each should recite the blessing over one. And if one is wheat and one is barley—both should recite the blessing over the wheat, and one should wait until the other recites the blessing and afterward he should recite the blessing (see Magen Avraham subsection 2 who wondered at them, and according to what I have written it works out well, and examine it closely).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: "Barley bread and spelt bread—one recites the blessing over the barley bread since it is of the seven species, even though the spelt is superior." Thus far his words. The Tur wrote similarly, and it is from the Yerushalmi, chapter 6 of Berakhot. And the intent is that even though spelt is a species of wheat, nevertheless, since barley was mentioned explicitly in the Torah, it has a status of superiority over spelt even though it is a species of wheat, just as wheat has a status of superiority over barley because the Torah preceded it. Therefore, this is specifically regarding barley bread itself; however, regarding a species of barley such as our rye bread, certainly spelt takes precedence since it is a species of wheat, and for us the species of spelt is not known at all (and this is also the intent of the Magen Avraham, subsection 6, and the Taz, subsection 4, was pressed on this, and the matter is simple as I have written).

It has already been explained that all this is when one desires to eat from both of them, but if one only desires to eat from one of them—one should break bread upon it and need not be concerned for the second, even though it is more significant or dear to him. Conversely, when one desires to eat from both of them—one should break bread as has been explained, even if the second bread is dearer to him; so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, see there. And there is one who says that according to the opinion of the Rambam that will be explained in siman 211 regarding fruits, that one follows the dearer item, here too it is so (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And in my humble opinion it appears that it is not so, for specifically regarding fruits, where there is no establishing of a meal, does one follow the dearer item according to the Rambam, but not in the establishing of a meal when his intention is to eat from both of them. And the proof is from the Rambam himself, for he wrote this law in chapter 7 and did not mention this matter of the dearer item, while in chapter 8 regarding the law of fruits he mentioned this; rather, it is certainly as I have written (and I saw in the Ba'er Heitev, subsection 3, that the Yad Aharon also challenged him, see there).

The bread of Cutheans and the bread of an Israelite, and that of the Cuthean is better, meaning it is clean and that of the Israelite is not clean—if he is not careful regarding the bread of Cutheans, he recites the blessing over whichever of them he desires, for each bread has a virtue: this one because it is clean, and this one because it is of an Israelite. And if he is careful regarding the bread of Cutheans, he recites the blessing over that of the Israelite. In any event, he removes the clean bread of the Cutheans from the table until after the blessing of "Hamotzi," for even though he is careful, nevertheless, since there is no prohibition by the letter of the law and many eat it, it is therefore good that he remove it from the table. And some say that since he is careful, he does not need to remove it, and when he is not careful, he must remove it and recite the blessing over that of the Israelite (Bach and Taz, subsection 5, and see Magen Avraham, subsection 9). And in truth it appears so, for when he is careful and has no intention to eat it, why must he remove it? Even without this, since he has no intention to eat it, we are not concerned with it, as has been explained in the previous section.

And there is one who gave a rule regarding this matter, that we follow the superior qualities of each bread; and that which belongs to an Israelite is considered one superior quality. Therefore, if the bread of the Cutheans has two superior qualities—for example, it is clean and whole, and the bread of the Israelite is a slice and is not clean—one recites the blessing over the bread of the Cuthean when he is not careful. And conversely, if the bread of the Cuthean is whole but not clean, and the bread of the Israelite is clean but a slice, one recites the blessing over the bread of the Israelite since it has two superior qualities (see Turei Zahav in the name of the Rashal). And it is certain that if each one has one superior quality and he recites the blessing over whichever he desires, if there are two diners, this one may recite the blessing over this one and this one over that one; and if he is alone, he should place this inside of that (ibid.). And all this is when he is not careful, but when he is careful, nothing is necessary.

If the master of the house and his household are reclining at the table and he is the one who breaks the bread, and he is careful regarding the bread of Cutheans and has no intention of eating from it at all, but his household members are not careful and they will eat from the clean bread of Cutheans, nevertheless, the master of the house who breaks the bread, since he is careful, should recite the blessing over the bread of an Israelite that is not clean. And regarding that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5, that if the master of the house is careful regarding the bread of Cutheans and an Israelite who is not careful regarding this reclines with him at the table, since the mitzvah is incumbent upon the master of the house—he should break from the beautiful bread of Cutheans, and since it was permitted for the breaking of the bread, it is permitted for the entire meal. Thus far his words. And in truth, there are those who disagree with this (Bach), for there is no correct reason to be lenient in this (see Magen Avraham subsection 12, how much he struggled with this). Therefore, it appears to me that this leniency is only regarding a guest, where there is the mitzvah of hospitality and it is proper for the master of the house to honor him and recite "HaMotzi" over the bread that the guest eats, and automatically it is permitted for the entire meal; but with his household members, this is not applicable, obviously. And even though it does not appear so from the commentators, nevertheless, so it appears in my humble opinion to be the primary view, for since in any case this law is a novelty, let us not add to it.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this law, and this is his wording: "And specifically when that bread is dear to him, but if it is not dear to him without the prohibition of the bread of heathens—there is no need to prioritize it." Thus far his words. And his words require explanation, for is the matter dependent on being dear? Behold, it depends only on whether his desire is to eat from this bread or not, as I have written; and furthermore, what is he teaching us? And it appears that for our teacher, the Rema, this law was also difficult, and therefore he explained that the matter is as follows: that even though he is careful regarding their bread, nevertheless, since there is no absolute prohibition in this, and for the honor of the guest this clean bread is dear to him, meaning that his desire is to eat from it, therefore it is permitted. But if it is not dear to him, meaning that even now he has no desire at all to eat from it—there is no need to prioritize it even without this, and so it appears to me from the source of the law in the Terumat HaDeshen (siman 32, and this is also the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 12). And all this is if the master of the house is careful, but if the master of the house is not careful and his intention is to eat the entire meal only from their bread because it is clean, while the members of his household or the guest are careful and eat only the bread of an Israelite that is not clean, and both these types of bread are placed on the table—it is obvious that he must break bread over their clean bread, since he is the one who breaks bread and his intention is to eat only from this bread. And in this, according to everyone, there is no need to remove it from the table, since his desire is not to eat from other bread (ibid., subsection 10).

Two rolls that became attached together during baking, and a bit was cut from one while the second remained whole, it is good to separate the piece from the whole one so that it will appear whole, rather than leaving it attached to it, even though it appears larger. And one should not break from it at the place where it was attached to its fellow, for there it appears like a slice, but rather he should break from the whole part of it. However, regarding an actual slice, one does not need to be careful in this to break from the whole side, since in any case it is a slice, but rather he breaks from the side (the Ha-Gra"z and see Magen Avraham subsection 5).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: "If a person has two halves of bread and does not have a whole loaf—he should join them together with a piece of wood or with anything else so that it is not visible, and its law is like the law of a whole loaf; and even on Shabbat he may join them." Thus far his words. But if the connection is visible—it is not effective. And on Shabbat one must be careful not to take wood that is muktzeh, but rather to prepare it from the eve of Shabbat (Magen Avraham, subsection 4), and it is not the custom to join them on a weekday at all (ibid.). And this law is from the Rokeach, but in the Tosafot to Zevachim (105b, starting with the words "Chibur") it implies that it is not effective (Be'er Heitev in the name of the Panim Me'irot), yet it is possible that they wrote this regarding an etrog, see there, and there is no proof for other matters; and we have not seen this custom even on Shabbat.

Even though for Birkat HaMazon one requires a kezayit, nevertheless, regarding the blessing of 'HaMotzi'—it is even for less than a kezayit, and after it one does not bless anything for less than a kezayit. And this law is not only regarding bread but for every food item and whatever its blessing may be, for the first blessing is even for any amount and the final blessing is only for a kezayit. And it appears to me that if one ate half a kezayit and did not have in mind to eat more, and afterward changed his mind to eat another half a kezayit and must bless the first blessing once more—he must bless the final blessing as well if he ate both of them within the time of kedei achilat pras. And there is one who is uncertain about this (Ba'er Heitev subsection 21 in the name of the Leket HaKemach), but it appears to me as I have written (and there is proof from what will be explained regarding bread that comes in pockets when one began to eat without intending to establish a meal and afterward changed his mind to establish a meal, that he must recite Birkat HaMazon, and here too it is so, for the final blessing is not dependent on the intent of the first).

The measure of a kezayit is half an egg, and we have already written in Yoreh Deah siman 324 that three giants of the world said to double all the measures now, because they found in the two measures of challah that our teachers wrote—namely, one measure in eggs and one measure in fingers—and they contradict one another. Therefore, they said that the eggs in our times have shrunk to half of the eggs that were in the time of the sages of the Shas, and therefore now the measure of a kezayit is like an egg and a quarter, according to how three eggs displace water (the Noda BiYehudah and the Gra and the Grz), and so all those who fear Heaven conduct themselves to be exacting with the cup of kiddush and havdalah, and according to this, a kezayit is also like an egg. And one of the giants of the generation disagreed with them (Chatam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat siman 127), and we explained there as well that the eggs are also the same, rather that eggs in general are not equal to one another nor from country to country, and this matter was explained by the Tashbetz (Part 3, siman 33) and this is his wording: "For the fingers are equal in all places etc. and it is more precise than the measure of eggs which are not equal in every place etc." Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tashbetz in his book Yavin Shemuah, and this is his wording: And I wonder at those who measure with our eggs, because not all places are equal in eggs, as there are large ones like in the lands of Edom and there are thin ones like in the lands of Ishmael. Thus far his words. And so we learned in Kelim (chapter 17, mishnah 6): "The egg they spoke of is not large and not small but medium," see there. And also with our own eyes we saw this with the Prussian or Galician chickens; when they came to our country, the egg was much larger than the eggs of our chickens, and now they have mixed with one another and the difference is not so recognizable. And furthermore, we brought proof from the senses that it is impossible to say at all that a kezayit is like our egg, for the sages, of blessed memory, said that the esophagus holds like a chicken's egg, and according to their words, it would be like two of our eggs, and the senses contradict this. Rather, it is certainly so that even now, like half a medium egg is the measure of a kezayit, and such is the primary ruling.

It is stated in the Gemara (42a) that over pat haba'ah b'kisnin one recites the blessing "borei minei mezonot" and not "hamotzi," and what pat haba'ah b'kisnin is will be explained before us. However, this is when one eats them as a casual snack, but when one establishes a meal upon them—one recites "hamotzi" and birkat hamazon and it requires netilat yadayim. And if at first his intention was to eat a little and he recited "borei minei mezonot" and afterward he ate a lot—he must recite birkat hamazon. And this is if he did not change his mind at the beginning of his eating to eat a lot, but rather it just so happened that he ate a lot, for automatically the blessing of "hamotzi" and netilat yadayim are not relevant here. And even if in the middle of his eating he changed his mind to eat a lot, nevertheless, when there does not remain from the time of the change of mind until the end of his eating the amount of establishing a meal—he does not need to wash his hands and recite "hamotzi," but if at the beginning of his eating he changed his mind to eat a lot—he must wash his hands and recite "hamotzi" (and this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 14).

Establishing a meal does not depend on his own opinion in what he calls for himself an establishment; rather, anything that others establish a meal upon such an amount is called an establishment, and he is obligated to wash his hands and recite 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon. And so they said in the Gemara there: "Anything that others establish a meal upon, one must recite the blessing," see there. And if he ate an amount that others do not establish a meal upon, even though he is sated from it and for him it is called an establishment, nevertheless he only recites 'Borei Minei Mezonot' and 'Al HaMichya' which is a blessing of the three, for his opinion is nullified relative to all people. And the reason is that such an amount is not called bread that one recites 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon over, and if it is because he is sated, it is like one who is sated from things whose blessing is 'Shehakol' or 'HaAdama' or 'HaEtz'. And the reason for all this is because from the Torah there is no obligation except for the amount of satiety, as it is written: "And you shall eat and be sated and you shall bless," and according to several of the poskim, even Birkat Hamazon is sufficient from the Torah with one blessing, but the sages enacted four blessings and with the eating of a kezayit. And they only enacted this for complete bread, and for bread such as this they only enacted it for an amount that everyone establishes a meal upon (the HaGr"z in Shulchan Aruch and in his Siddur, and both reasons are necessary, and examine this carefully).

There are those who say that four beitzim is the measure for establishing a meal; that is to say, when one eats this measure of pat haba'ah b'kisnin, it is called establishing a meal (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 17, in the name of Or Chadash). And there is one who disagrees and says that this is the smallest of a poor person's meal, which they measured for an eruv, but a proper meal is like half an omer, for an omer per head of manna descended every day for each person for two meals a day, and regarding this the Sages, of blessed memory, said in Eruvin (83b): "One who eats according to this measure—he is healthy and blessed" (the Gr"z). According to this, the measure for establishing a meal is half the measure for challah, which is a litra and a half, and indeed we see empirically that a measure of four beitzim does not provide satiation at all, and it is a snack (and so wrote the Chayei Adam in Klal 54 in Nishmat Adam, that he heard from the Gr"a that his mind was not at ease with the measure of four beitzim, see there, and it is clear that his reason is as I have written).

Some say that if one eats this with meat or other cooked dishes, and in this manner they constitute a fixed meal, even though when eating them alone they do not constitute a fixing of a meal—it is called a fixing, and one must wash his hands and recite 'Hamotzi' and Birkat HaMazon (Magen Avraham subsection 13 and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 17). And if he is satiated from it even without a relish, while others are not satiated by such a measure except with a relish—the law is also thus (ibid.). And there is one who adds to say that even if he eats it with a relish and he is satiated, and others are also satiated in such a case, nevertheless a measure of four beitzim is required (the HaGarz section 8). And I wonder at all these matters, for even regarding eruv where we follow many leniencies regarding the two meals for eruvei techumin, and Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold thus in the Mishnah in Eruvin (82b) that we measure with a small amount of bread eaten with a relish, and despite all this we do not rule accordingly but rather like the Tannaim who disagree with them, and hold that we measure with bread alone; certainly to be stringent regarding this matter we do not say so, for if so, these are matters that have no measure, and how many wealthy people are there whose food consists of many fine cooked dishes and they eat a minimal amount of bread, and what is the measure of four beitzim for this. And if it is because he is satiated, behold this is like one who is satiated by fruit, and what relevance does this have to 'Hamotzi' and Birkat HaMazon. Therefore, it seems in my humble opinion that we must measure with the bread alone, and in the Rishonim this matter is not found. (And the Magen Avraham brought proof from Tosafot and the Semak who wrote regarding rolls that they fixed a meal on them as on Purim, and he inferred from this that on Purim one does not eat bread alone; I wonder if they spoke regarding this matter, for they only said that on Purim it is the way to fix a meal on rolls because during the rest of the year it is not the way to fix a meal on them, and what relevance does this have to that. And also what the HaGarz wrote, that up to six beitzim if he is not satiated he should recite 'Borei Minei Mezonot', and if he is satiated he should wash his hands and recite 'Hamotzi' and Birkat HaMazon, and from six and above until half an isharon if he is not satiated he should recite a blessing over other bread, see there; all these measures I do not know, for do we not follow the majority of the world, and since he himself wrote that half an isharon is the measure of a meal for every person, what more do we need. And it seems to me that there is a confusion of matters there in the new editions that copied from his Siddur, and the matters are not aligned from what he wrote in his Siddur to what he wrote in the Shulchan Aruch, and examine this closely).

And know that several great authorities cried out like a crane against that which has spread in our generation throughout the entire country, that during some celebration they set a table with several types of fish and several types of meat, and they eat with pat haba'ah b'kisnin and eat without netilat yadayim and without "Hamotzi" and birkat hamazon, but rather with the blessing of "Mezonot" and at the end "Al Hamichyah," and they eat very much of the rolls and from the challah baked with oil that they call "boimel challah." And there is no doubt in this that they must wash their hands and recite "Hamotzi" and birkat hamazon, and even if they are careful not to eat much of the bread, nevertheless, according to the opinion of the great authorities in the previous section, if they are satiated from the accompaniment, they are obligated to wash their hands etc. even when they eat a small amount of bread, and certainly they eat the volume of four eggs. And only a few of the God-fearing are careful when they sit at such a table not to eat much, or they wash their hands and recite "Hamotzi" over ordinary bread, but the majority of the masses of Israel do not guard themselves from this. Therefore, it is certainly forbidden to do so, but it is not in our power to protest, as is known. (And in order to teach some merit, it appears in my humble opinion a leniency from the wording of the Rif on this matter, who wrote in this wording: "Conclusion: Where one eats it in the manner of kisnin, he recites 'Borei Minei Mezonot' etc., and where one eats it in the manner of a fixed meal—he recites over it 'Hamotzi' and three blessings." Thus far his words. And it is implied from his wording that it does not depend on the measure of fixing a meal but rather on the manner of eating, whether the preparation is for casual eating or the preparation is for fixed eating. And it is known that in the eating of a complete meal, one removes the outer garments and sits around the table, but in these eatings they grab and eat as they are without preparation, and some eat standing and walking as is known, and they think that this is not called fixing a meal. And that which they said in the Gemara: "Anything that others fix etc." must be pressed according to this interpretation as well in the manner that we wrote, and every God-fearing person should distance himself from this, and He, the Merciful One, will atone for iniquity).

And what is called pat haba'ah b'kisnin? There are many opinions regarding this: Rashi, of blessed memory, explained that after the meal they were accustomed to bring toasted grains, and these are called kisnin, and they bring with them bread that was kneaded with spices similar to our oublies, etc., into which they put many spices and nuts and almonds, etc. Thus far his words. And it is implied that the bread is kneaded from water with flour, but they mix into it many spices and nuts and almonds, and this type is not known among us at all. And the Tur wrote similarly to this: that it is bread made like a type of pockets filled with sugar and almonds and nuts and types of spices, etc. Thus far his words. And this is the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel that our teacher Yonah wrote there, and the Aruch wrote likewise, and the Rashba also wrote similarly to this: that they fill it with honey and almonds and types of spices, see there. And in the name of Rav Hai Gaon they wrote that pat haba'ah b'kisnin are crackers, and it is bread, whether it is spiced or whether it is not spiced, that they make into dry crackers and crunch them in the wedding house and eat a little of it. Thus far his words. And this too is not known to us. However, according to these teachers of ours, the essence of the bread is made with water like ordinary bread, for if it were kneaded with liquids, they should have clarified it.

And this is the first opinion that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7, and this is his wording: "Pat haba'ah b'kisnin: there are those who explain it as bread made like pockets that they fill with honey or sugar and nuts and almonds and spices, etc." Thus far his words. And the intention in eating them is for the filling and not for the bread itself, but because a species of grain is significant, it is not nullified to the filling, and therefore one recites the blessing 'borei minei mezonot' (Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And if he eats only the filling, he recites the blessing according to the blessing of the filling (ibid.), and there is no difference between a filling of fruit and a filling of meat and fish (Taz, subsection 6). And there is one who wrote that from this species are those that they make on Purim, where they fill the bread with sesame seeds (ibid.). And in my humble opinion, it is not similar, for on Purim, despite all this, the primary element is the bread like all types of bread, except that they also place sesame seeds in them, and it is complete bread and one recites 'hamotzi' over it, and such is the simple custom. And our teachers who explained the filling meant that the primary element is the filling and the bread is almost nullified to the filling, except that grain is not nullified as I have written. But on Purim the primary element is the bread, and according to Rashi there is no filling in this but rather it is kneaded together, and nevertheless because of the abundance of spices the bread is not considered at all and it is like a filling according to their explanation.

However, the explanation of Rav Hai Gaon is not included in this, for he wrote: "whether spiced or not spiced," and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote it as the third opinion, and this is his wording: "And there are those who explain that it is bread, whether spiced etc., that they make as dry crackers and crunch them, and they are called biscochos" thus far his words. And it is not understood at all, for since it contains no spices it is complete bread, for is it because it is dry that it is not bread? And they wrote that they are prepared nicely like beautiful rolls, and that is the kichelach that they make at meals for appetite (Taz subsection 8). And I do not know how to align this, and our kichelach are kneaded with eggs and not with water, and what similarity is there to this? And even if the intention of the Gaon was such, he should have explained that this is the primary point, and they explicitly wrote that it is kneaded with water (the Gra"z). And it must be said that since it is very hard it is not like bread, and it requires further study.

But the Rambam in chapter 3 wrote: "And so too, dough that one kneaded with honey or with oil or with milk, or that one mixed with types of spices and baked it, and this is what is called pat haba'ah b'kisnin—even though it is bread, one recites over it 'borei minei mezonot,' and if he established his meal upon it, he recites 'hamotzi'." Thus far his words. And behold, the Rambam mentioned also 'that one mixed with types of spices' like the explanation of Rashi, and it appears to me that only regarding this was his intention that it is called pat haba'ah b'kisnin and not regarding kneading it with honey etc., rather that this is obvious since it is not kneaded with water, and this is the second explanation that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought there. And he added to say that specifically the taste of the mixture of fruit juice or the spices must be recognizable in the dough, thus far his words; meaning, certainly if the primary part is the water and the fruit juice or the spices are few, even though they are recognized in its taste, nevertheless since it is not recognizable in the dough, one recites 'hamotzi.' Rather, they must be the primary part so that they are recognizable in the dough, meaning that by the sight of the eye it will be recognizable that they contain fruit juice or spices, and therefore he did not say recognizable in taste.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: "And some say that this is called complete bread, unless they have many spices or honey like the types of sweets called lekach, such that the honey and spices are almost the primary [ingredients], and such is the custom." Thus far his words. And I do not understand, for it seems that the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is also thus as we explained; for it cannot be said that the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is that there should be no water in them at all, for if so, he should not have said that the honey and the spices are the primary [ingredients], since there is no water at all. Rather, certainly there is also water, but the water is not the primary [ingredient] (and so wrote the Taz, subsection 7, see there). And it seems that he understood that the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is that it is sufficient when they are recognizable in the taste (Taz ibid.), but in truth it seems as I wrote. However, regarding the law, all the opinions that were explained regarding pat habah b'kisnin are true in halacha, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that the halacha follows the words of all of them, that for all these things we apply to them the laws we stated regarding pat habah b'kisnin. Thus far his words. And they wrote the reason is that it is a doubt regarding a rabbinic enactment, and we rule leniently. And there is one who questioned: if one does not recite the proper blessing, does he not violate "you shall not take [the name of the L-rd in vain]" (Bach). But it is not so, for certainly the blessing of mezonot exempts even bread according to the Torah, for it nourishes (Taz subsection 6), and also the blessing of Al HaMichyah exempts according to the Torah according to several poskim, for according to the Torah one only requires one blessing. However, in my humble opinion, it seems that one does not need to say it is because of "a doubt regarding a rabbinic enactment," but rather that according to the core law it is so, but the poskim differ in the definition of pat habah b'kisnin, yet regarding the law they do not disagree with one another, and behold the Rambam included almost all of them as I wrote (and what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 18 is a stringency without any reason at all, and the primary [ruling] is like the Taz).

And according to this, all of our kichlach, whether they are kneaded with eggs and called eier kichlach, or whether they are kneaded with milk or with butter which are called butter kuchen, and likewise the rounds called eier beigel, when they contain many eggs or much milk or much butter, even if they also contain water—they are not subject to "Hamotzi." And one does not follow the majority or minority regarding them, for it is known that even if in their quantity they are less than the water, nevertheless in their quality they are many, according to the nature of every fatty substance which has great expansion. And the main principle: if it is discernible to the eye that this is not ordinary bread, and everyone sees that it is egg bread or butter bread or milk bread or oil bread, such as those who bake with flour kneaded with simple oil called postnaya maslo (and the majority and minority mentioned in this matter was in this manner, and examine this closely).

And behold, according to the interpretation of Rav Hai Gaon, pat haba'ah b'kisnin is kneaded with water alone and without spices, but its preparation is not like ordinary bread, for it is very dry, and for this reason alone it does not receive the blessing of 'Hamotzi'. And the reason is as the Levush wrote in section 6, and this is his wording: For the sages did not establish 'Hamotzi' and the three blessings even for a kezayit except for bread that is the way of most people to establish their meal upon, which is dough kneaded with water alone, where the flour and water are the primary components and it is baked in its usual manner without change or addition, for it is significant in the eyes of all and establishes a blessing for itself due to its significance. But anything in which a change was made such that it is not the way of most people to make the likes of it and to establish a meal upon it—they did not obligate him to bless 'Hamotzi' and the three blessings, unless he ate from them an amount that is the way of people to establish a meal upon. Thus far his words. (And with this, several fine points in this matter will be settled, and examine it well).

And know that in the days of my youth, when I was in the province of Reissen, it spread there among the bakers that they would boil barley groats in water and strain the water, and they would knead dough with this water and bake rolls from them, and they would recite over them 'mezonot' and 'al hamichya'. And they said that one of the giants of the generation in the previous generation had so instructed them. And his reasoning seems simple based on what we say in Berakhot (39a): that the water of boiled vegetables is like the boiled vegetables regarding the matter of the blessing, and consequently this has the law of fruit juice. And even though the Rosh wrote that this is because their primary boiling is for the sake of the vegetables, and here the primary boiling of the barley is for the sake of the water, nevertheless, the Rosh wrote that even if one boiled the vegetables for the sake of their water, since the whole world boils them for eating, the blessing of the water is not changed because of this. Thus far his words. (Brought in the Magen Avraham, siman 205, subsection 6). And here, the whole world boils barley for eating. And it is not similar to fruits that one boiled in water, where it was explained in siman 202 that one recites 'shehakol', for there the reason is because it is not the way to boil them as is explained there, but groats are only for boiling and not for any other matter. And nevertheless, there is no clear proof from this that this has the law of fruit juice for all matters, and therefore I am accustomed to tell them that it is difficult to rely on this alone, and one should add to this a little oil or milk or butter, so that at the very least the one who tastes it will taste the flavor of oil or the flavor of milk and butter.

Furthermore, I have seen in some places that they knead with whey, which they call "syrovatka," and they recite over it "mezonot" and "al hamichyah," and they consider this like fruit juice. It appears that there is proof for this from that which we learned in a Mishnah in Machshirin (chapter 6, Mishnah 5): "Whey is like milk," and they explained that this is what is separated from the cheese when they set the milk; see there. And even though in Chullin (114a) Reish Lakish said: They only taught this regarding the susceptibility of seeds to ritual impurity, but regarding the matter of cooking meat in milk it is not like milk, see there—nevertheless, perforce even there the meaning is not "it is not like milk but like water," for if so, what relevance is there to the susceptibility of seeds whether it is like milk or is not like milk? For if it is not like milk but like water, it is obvious that it makes them susceptible, for the primary susceptibility is written regarding water: "And if water be put upon the seed." Rather, it is certainly not like milk but like fruit juice or like mere waste. However, in any event, regarding the matter of "hamotzi," it is not like water. (And even without this, from where do we know to compare it to the cooking of meat in milk? Let us compare it to the susceptibility of seeds, for this is of rabbinic status. And even though regarding the matter of vows it is also not like milk, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 217, this is because in vows one follows the common language of people; and the proof is that if they call it by the name of milk—it is forbidden, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote, see there and examine it closely.)

We say in the Gemara (42a): "Lachmaniyot: if one establishes a meal upon them—he recites 'Hamotzi', and if not—'Borei Minei Mezonot'." Rashi explained: "Lachmaniyot—oblias in the vernacular," and it is not known to us what this is. The Tosafot raised a difficulty, for oblias is complete bread, and they explained that this is niles, and so wrote the Rosh, see there, and this too is not known to us. However, from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8, it is clarified that it is kneaded with water, and that of Rashi its consistency is thick and that of Tosafot its consistency is thin, and this is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: "Lachmaniyot: those whose consistency is thick which are called oblias—it is complete bread and one recites over it 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon. And those whose consistency is thin and are very thin which are called niblas—one recites over them 'Borei Minei Mezonot' and the abbreviated grace, and if one established a meal upon them—he recites 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon." Thus far his words.

And behold, also regarding pat haba'ah b'kisnin, Rashi explained: bread that was kneaded with spices, and it is like our oblios as I wrote in section 19, and why did the Tosafot not raise a difficulty there? However, the truth is that oblios is not named for the spices, but rather for the manner of its preparation and rolling, meaning that they roll it until it is very thin, and spiced bread is also made in this manner. And this is what Rashi wrote: "like oblios," meaning that its preparation is like our oblios, and Rashi holds that since its preparation is unusual, it is not included in the category of ordinary bread, and this is like the explanation of Rav Hai Gaon regarding pat haba'ah b'kisnin that we explained there. And perhaps the oblios is also hard, and it is exactly the explanation of the Gaon, and the Tosafot and the Rosh do not hold so. And I saw one who wrote that the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8 contradict his words in section 7, for he wrote there regarding pat haba'ah b'kisnin "spiced bread" according to the explanation of Rashi, and behold this is oblios, and how did he write in section 8 that it is complete bread (Even HaEzer). And it is not so, for oblios does not have spices in it but rather as I wrote, and there is no contradiction here. And even though in section 7 he also brought the words of the Gaon, and according to our words this is lachmaniyot according to the explanation of Rashi as I wrote, yet our teacher, the Beit Yosef, would not hold so and would hold that lachmaniyot is not very hard and is not similar to the kisnin of the Gaon, for those of the Gaon are not for eating but for dessert of the meal (Magen Avraham, subsection 19). And there is one who wrote that oblios is baked without rolling, only that one mixes dough with water in a thick kneading (Taz, subsection 9). And it is a great wonder, for it implies explicitly that lachmaniyot is an important food, and its name proves it: "lachmaniyot," meaning thin bread, for so the Aruch explained that it is like pat haba'ah b'kisnin, and so it is explained from the Rif, see there, and if so, how can we say that it is without rolling? Rather, on the contrary, they roll it a great deal until it becomes thin.

And "nilish" they explained is what is called "nalsinki," where they mix flour with water in a pot like porridge, and pour them onto wide vegetable leaves and bake them in an oven with the leaves (ibid. and Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 20). And in truth it is not understood, for if so, it is not in the category of bread at all, and the Rashba indeed rejected the explanation of the Tosafot for this reason, and it implies that he agrees with Rashi, see there. And in my humble opinion it seems that in the manner we explained, where its preparation is very thin, it is possible even the Tosafot and the Rosh would agree with Rashi; however, in any case, the nature of such breads is not known to us, and one should not elaborate further on this.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, further wrote that these rolls, when one eats them during the meal not for the sake of the meal (as he does not eat for the sake of satiety but for pleasure), require a blessing before them but not after them (as Birkat HaMazon exempts them). However, those thin wafers upon which they place preserves are subordinate to the preserves, and the blessing on the preserves exempts them. Thus far his words. For one does not intend to eat the wafers at all, but rather they make the wafers so that their hands will not be soiled by the preserves (Magen Avraham, subsection 23). Therefore, even if he eats them together, he blesses over the preserves and exempts the wafers according to the law of the primary component exempting the subordinate component. But when he eats the wafers alone, he blesses 'borei minei mezonot' (Taz, subsection 11).

And according to this, the law is also such regarding all pat haba'ah b'kisnin, that when one eats them during the meal, they require a blessing before them. But in truth, this is not a general rule, for behold we learned in a Mishnah: "If one recited a blessing over the bread, he has exempted the parparet," and the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah explained this as referring to, for example, nilush and fruits, and Rashi also explained regarding 'parparaot': for example, kisni and lachmaniyot, see there. However, the explanation of the matter is this: that when one eats them for sustenance and as a cooked dish from which he desires to be satiated—the blessing over the bread exempts them; however, if his intention is for dessert and mere pleasure—the bread does not exempt them, and to this most of the great Acharonim agreed (Shelah, and Magen Avraham subsection 22, and Eliyah Rabbah). And there is one who disagrees in this (Taz subsection 10), but the halacha is like the many, and logic also dictates so.

According to this, for us, when one eats butter kuchen or thick kichelach or all types of fladens filled with fruit or spices in the middle of a meal, they certainly come for satiation and to continue the appetite for food, and do not require a berakhah at all. But when one eats lekach or tart and sugar lekach and mandel broitlach and teiglach and pirishkes, and very thin wafers like hoisin blasin—they require a berakhah before them, for all of these are not normally eaten for the purpose of satiation but for mere pleasure and for dessert. And even one whose intention is for satiation, his view is nullified by that of all people, and so one should instruct (and kreplach and blintzes and teigachts are part of the meal).

It is stated in the Gemara (37b): "This chabitsa, even though it does not contain crumbs the size of a kezayit—one recites over it 'Hamotzi,' provided that they possess the appearance of bread." And prior to this it was taught: that when one cooked the bread, as long as the slices remain intact, at the beginning one recites over it 'Hamotzi' and at the end three blessings. And if the slices do not remain intact, at the beginning one recites 'Borei Minei Mezonot' and at the end the blessing summarized from the three. And in the Yerushalmi it is explained that "slices remain intact" means that they contain a kezayit, and "do not remain intact" means that they do not contain a kezayit. Furthermore, we say there that bread, even if one crumbled it until it returned to the state of fine flour—one recites 'Hamotzi,' see there. Our teacher Yonah divided these matters into three details, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 10 agreed with him, as will be explained.

And this is if the slices were cooked in boiling water in a kelli rishon, whether they stuck together or whether they did not stick together, if there is a kezayit in each slice, this is called "existing slices" and one must recite "Hamotzi" and Birkat HaMazon, and there is no difference whether they have the appearance of bread or not, and this is the Baraita and the Yerushalmi. And if the slices were not cooked but rather he stuck them together by means of broth or by means of honey or milk or other liquids, and this is called "chavitza," it is of a lesser status, meaning that even though there is not a kezayit in the slices—one must recite "Hamotzi" and Birkat HaMazon if they have the appearance of bread. But if they do not contain a kezayit and also do not have the appearance of bread—he recites "Mezonot" and the blessing of Mein Shalosh. And regarding cooking when there is no kezayit, even if there is the appearance of bread—he recites "Borei Minei Mezonot" and Mein Shalosh, and this is the statement of the Gemara regarding chavitza, and certainly when they contain a kezayit, for even in cooking there is no difference. And if it is neither cooked nor has any sticking but is rather crumbled very finely, like when they crush the matzah and sift them in a sieve which they call "matzah meal," even though it does not contain a kezayit nor the appearance of bread—he recites over it "Hamotzi" and Birkat HaMazon when eating them dry.

There is one who wrote in this language: We say in the Gemara that if one crumbled the bread until he returned it to being like fine flour, and afterward returned and kneaded them together and returned and baked them—one must recite 'Hamotzi' even if there is no appearance of bread, for this is called crumbs that have a kezayit, and for a kezayit one does not require the form of bread. And it implies there even if they were fried in oil initially, similar to the meal-offerings, and if so, those who make chremslach from crumbled bread or from bread soaked in water must recite 'Hamotzi', since its beginning was bread, it does not depart from the law of bread until there is not a kezayit in each one (Magen Avraham, subsection 28).

And all of his words are perplexing, for that which he wrote: "if afterwards they stuck together they are called crumbs that contain a kezayit," it is not so, as the Levush wrote, for as long as before the cooking there was not a kezayit in the crumbs, even if they stuck together by means of the cooking, they are not called containing a kezayit, see there. And the Gemara that said that when one crumbled them and then kneaded them together one blesses "HaMotzi," its explanation is that he then baked them again, as Rashi explained, see there. But when he then cooked them or fried them, like our kneidlach that we make on Pesach that we cook, or the chremslach that we fry in honey and fat—their sticking together is nothing, and since previously there was not a kezayit in the crumbs, and when they stuck together during cooking like kneidlach or by means of frying like chremslach the form of bread had already passed from them, and their sticking together now is not called sticking together and one blesses "Borei Minei Mezonot." And all the more so if one mixes into them before the cooking and before the frying eggs and fat, there is no reasoning at all to bless "HaMotzi" over them, and so wrote the great Acharonim (Eliyah Rabbah and Even HaEzer as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote). And so too teigachz that we make on Pesach from matzah broken into small pieces where there is not a kezayit in any of the pieces, and one mixes into them eggs and fat and afterwards fries them, and it is obvious that the form of bread has passed from them—the matter is simple that one blesses "Mezonot" over it, and such is the custom of the world and there is no concern in this at all (and also the Magen Avraham himself at the end of his words wrote so in the name of the Knesset HaGedolah, and wrote "and it requires further study," see there, and there is no need for study here at all and it is simple in the law without any doubt at all).

And know that regarding those items which have left the category of the blessing of 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon through cooking or binding or frying, such that they do not have the form of bread at all, even if one ate the amount of a fixed meal—one does not require 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon, but rather 'Borei Minei Mezonot' and the blessing abridged from the three. And that which was explained, that for a fixed meal one must recite 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon, this is regarding the form of baked bread like kichlach and butter-kuchen and their like, where the exemption is because for such bread they did not establish 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon except through the fixing of a meal. But regarding those that were bread and were nullified from the status of bread through crumbs and cooking or binding or frying, they do not have the name of bread at all, and the blessing of 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon is not applicable to them. And all the more so regarding our fried flour items like kreplach, blintzes, pampushkes, which do not have the blessing of 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon even if one ate much of them, since the name of bread is not upon them at all (Magen Avraham ibid.).

There is one who says that crumbs that do not contain a kezayit which one places in water, and the water becomes white because of the crumbs—for example, if he soaked them for many hours—the appearance of bread has departed from them, and one only recites over them "borei minei mezonot" and the blessing abridged from the three. And even if he soaked them in cold water and they were not in the water for a twenty-four hour period such that we would say "soaking is like cooking," since they lost the form of bread and the crumbs were less than a kezayit; and all the more so when he soaked them in hot water, for in a short time they will lose the form of bread. And know that there is one who wrote that the same law applies to those who place pieces of bread that they dry over coals into beer, and they call them "panitz," that such is the law as well (ibid. subsection 29 in the name of the Shelah), and I do not know the explanation for this, for behold our "panitz" that we dry in a hot oven and call "sukhares" are indeed complete bread. And one should not ask regarding that which we hold in siman 461, that one fulfills the obligation with soaked matzah, and yet one does not recite "hamotzi" over it—for it can be said that this is a case where there is a kezayit in the pieces (ibid. subsection 30), and furthermore, that in truth one does not soak the matzah until it loses its form.

And so there is one who says that bread soaked in red wine, which was soaked until the bread became red, has departed from the category of bread, for it has lost its form and is like pat haba'ah b'kisnin, whose blessing is 'mezonot' and the abridged three-fold blessing, unless he ate a fixed meal of it. However, this is specifically when it was crumbled or in pieces that do not contain a kezayit, for if they contain a kezayit, behold even through cooking it does not depart from the category of bread, and all the more so through soaking. And regarding the blessing on the wine—it is not necessary, for he recites 'borei minei mezonot' over the soaked bread and exempts the wine absorbed within it, and thus it is taught in the Tosefta (Chapter 4): Rice and wine, meaning that the wine is absorbed in the rice—he recites the blessing over the rice and exempts the wine, according to the law of the primary which exempts the secondary (ibid.). Therefore, if his intention is only to suck the wine within it—he recites over the wine 'borei pri hagafen' (ibid.), and if his intention is for both of them, that both of them are primary to him—he recites the blessing over both of them (ibid.), and the details of the laws will be explained in siman 177 regarding this matter, and such is the law for all types of liquids absorbed in foods. And if he crumbles a bit of fine bread into a liquid in order to give flavor to the liquid and not for the sake of the bread—he does not need to recite a blessing at all over the bread (ibid.).

And know that regarding the matter of cooked bread, there is a great wonder in the words of the Rambam in chapter 3, law 8, where he wrote: "Bread that one broke into pieces and cooked in a pot or kneaded in broth, if there is a kezayit in the pieces or if it is recognizable that they are bread and its form has not changed—one recites over it at the beginning 'Hamotzi.' And if there is not a kezayit in them or if the form of the bread passed through cooking—one recites over it at the beginning 'Borei minei mezonot'." Thus far his words. And he contradicts himself from the first clause to the final clause, for in the first clause he is stringent that with a kezayit the removal of its form does not help, and with less than a kezayit there must be a removal of its form like the opinion of all the poskim, and in the final clause he says the opposite, that with less than a kezayit even if its form did not pass, and with a kezayit the removal of form helps. And all the sages of the generations have already exhausted themselves to reconcile his words (see Kesef Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh and Bach and Taz subsection 12). And the clearest explanation is like the one who said in the name of the great scholars of Spain that an error fell in the word "or" of the final clause, and so it must say: "And if there is not a kezayit in them and the form of the bread passed etc." And according to this, his words are like the words of all the poskim (Kesef Mishneh in the name of Rabbi Y. Passi), except that in this he disagrees, that he does not distinguish between cooking and clinging in broth. And some say that the first clause refers to clinging in broth and the final clause to cooking (Kesef Mishneh), and according to this he is lenient regarding cooking, that even with a kezayit if its form passed one recites "Borei minei mezonot," unlike all the poskim as has been explained. And some distinguished between the language "its form has not changed," which indicates that it is well recognized and did not change at all, for in such a case even with less than a kezayit one recites "Hamotzi," and with a kezayit even though it changed a bit and is not well recognized one recites "Hamotzi," and between the language "that the form of the bread passed," which means that the form passed completely, for then even with a kezayit one recites "Borei minei mezonot," and this matter applies to cooking and not to clinging in broth, as is understood (ibid. in the name of the Ri Shushan and the Ri Passi and Abarbanel). And according to this, it is possible that even all the poskim would agree with him on this detail when it is literally like a cooked dish, and it requires further study (and also the Lechem Mishneh agreed so, see there). And there is one who wrote that that which he wrote in the first clause "if there is a kezayit" means after the cooking, and previously it was less than a kezayit but it became attached through cooking (Taz ibid.), and nevertheless for the halacha, however the intention of the Rambam may be, the law follows Rabbeinu Yonah and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 13: "Even something whose batter is thick, if one boiled it or fried it—one does not recite the blessing of 'Hamotzi' over it, even if it has the appearance of bread and even if it became obligated in challah, for the blessing of 'Hamotzi' follows only the time of baking. And there are those who disagree and say that whenever the beginning of the dough was thick, even if one softened it afterwards with water and made it into sponges and boiled it in water or fried it in oil—one recites 'Hamotzi' over them, and the custom is to be lenient. And one who fears Heaven fulfills both opinions, and shall not eat it except by reciting a blessing over other bread first." Thus far his words, and later this will be explained.

And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: That all this only deals with where it possesses the form of bread after baking, but if it does not possess the form of bread, such as noodles which are called vermiselach - according to everyone one does not recite over them 'Hamotzi' nor the three blessings, as it is not called bread. However, pashtida and kreplach are called the form of bread, and one should not eat them unless he recited the blessing over other bread first. And all this only deals with dough that does not contain oil and honey and the like, but rather is fried in them, but if it was kneaded with them, its law has already been explained regarding bread that comes as kisnin. Thus far his words, and their words require clarification.

And the explanation of the matters is as follows: for behold, until now the law of pat haba'ah b'kisnin has been explained—namely, that its kneading is not like ordinary bread; and the law of chavitzah has been explained—namely, that it is complete bread even after baking, but that one cooked the bread or attached it by means of broth. And now he explains the law of bread that in its kneading is complete bread—namely, that it is only with water alone like ordinary bread, and its consistency is thick like ordinary dough—but it was not baked like ordinary bread, namely, that he cooked it or fried it and it possesses the appearance of bread. And behold, this is a contradiction, for behold, cooking removes the appearance of bread as has been explained; rather, the intention is not actual cooking, but that he baked it in a pan with a little water (Magen Avraham, subsection 31), and this is similar to cooking and its form remains upon it. And so too frying is in this manner, with a little fat or a little butter, for in such a case it is obligated in challah as is written in Yoreh Deah, siman 329. However, regarding "Hamotzi" it is exempt, for the obligation of challah is at the time of kneading, and the obligation of "Hamotzi" is after baking, and its baking is not like ordinary bread. And there are those who disagree and say that "Hamotzi" is like challah in this law, and the custom is according to the first opinion.

And all this our teacher, the Rema, comes to clarify, so that you do not err in the phrasing "cooked in water or fried in oil," that it refers to actual cooking and actual frying; for if so, there is no appearance of bread here, and according to everyone it is exempt. For even Rabbeinu Tam, who is stringent and holds that "Hamotzi" is dependent upon challah, as is cited in the Tosafot and the Rosh and all the poskim, this is all only when there is an appearance of bread. And according to Rabbeinu Tam, in truth, even regarding pat habah b'kisnin that is kneaded with liquids, one is also obligated in "Hamotzi" if there is an appearance of bread; however, in this matter our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, did not concern themselves with bringing his opinion, which is a solitary opinion, since its kneading is not like ordinary bread (and the difficulty of the Even HaEzer is answered, see there). It is only here, where its kneading is like ordinary bread, that they concerned themselves with bringing his opinion, and even in this they wrote that the custom is to be lenient, and only a God-fearing person who is concerned should recite the blessing over other bread first.

Our teacher, the Rema, added that where it does not have the form of bread—according to everyone, one does not recite 'Hamotzi' and the three blessings. And that which he wrote, that pashtida and kreplach are called the form of bread, this is not like our pashtidot and kreplach; for his intention is that they place meat or cheese between dough and dough and bake it in an oven, and it is actual bread. This is similar to our hamantaschen on Purim, which they fill with sesame in the bread and it is complete bread; and so are the pashtida and kreplach that he wrote of, which are actual bread and they place something inside them. This is not comparable to pat haba'ah b'kisnin mentioned in section 7 according to the first opinion, which they fill with many spices, almonds, and nuts; for there they fill the dough with a great abundance until the primary intent is the filling, as I wrote in section 20, but here it deals with a case where the primary thing is the bread, and they fill it in the manner of pashtida and kreplach which they fill with meat and cheese and the like, but the primary thing is the bread. Afterward, he wrote that all this only deals with dough that does not have oil and honey, etc., meaning that the kneading is like other bread, but otherwise it would be pat haba'ah b'kisnin according to the opinion of the Rambam, which is the second opinion in section 7. (This is the explanation of their words. The Even Ozer wrote that section 13 contradicts section 7, but there is no contradiction here. Also, that which the Bach wrote, that if his intention was to bake it and he changed his mind to boil it, he recites 'Hamotzi', the Magen Avraham already rejected this in subsection 32. Also, there is no need for what the Taz wrote in subsection 16 and subsection 19. The Rema used the language of baking to indicate that the language of boiling and frying that the Beit Yosef wrote is not literal, as we explained. And as the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 31 and subsection 36, see there. However, regarding that which the Magen Avraham is uncertain of in subsection 38, whether here with the establishment of a meal one must recite 'Hamotzi' when it was kneaded with oil and honey and he fried it afterward in liquid, see there; in my humble opinion, it seems that since this is not actual frying but only a little frying as I wrote, one must recite 'Hamotzi' with the establishment of a meal).

In their days there was scalded bread, meaning they scalded the dough with boiling water and baked it in an oven, and it is complete bread and one recites 'Hamotzi' and Birkat HaMazon. And in our time, the rolls [beigels] are dipped in boiling water and it is complete bread, and similarly when they scald the flour with boiling water and afterwards bake it in an oven when kneading it, it is also complete bread, and similarly even something whose batter is thin, when one baked it in an oven it is complete bread and one recites 'Hamotzi' and Birkat HaMazon. And even if one baked it in a pan, if one only baked it without any liquid at all, and even if one smeared the pan with a little liquid, it is not called liquid, for this is done so that the bread does not burn, and one recites 'Hamotzi' and Birkat HaMazon. But if one put a little liquid in the pan for the purpose of frying, this is the previous law, that even with a thick batter one does not require 'Hamotzi', and there we brought a disagreeing opinion that equates it to challah, but with a thin batter in such a case when one fried it in a little liquid, according to all opinions it is not bread (this is the explanation of the Shulchan Aruch section 14, and see Magen Avraham subsection 39 who wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham that even if one fried it in oil and baked it afterwards one recites 'Hamotzi' see there, and his intention is not complete frying for in such a case it would be kisnin, but rather his intention is a little frying, and since the kneading and the baking are like ordinary bread, therefore the little frying in the middle does not prevent it).

The Tur wrote: "Troknin, which is when they make a depression in the stove and place flour and water in it and mix them in it and they are baked in it—it is liable for challah, and one recites 'Hamotzi' over it, and a person fulfills his obligation with it on Pesach; since it is in a depression and they gather together, it becomes like complete bread. But trita, whose batter is thin, which is when they take flour and water and mix them and pour it onto the stove and it spreads out and is baked—it does not have the law of bread, and one recites 'Borei Minei Mezonot' over it." Thus far his words. And if one established a meal upon it, the Tur ruled that one must recite 'Hamotzi,' and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled that even if he established his meal he recites 'Borei Minei Mezonot,' for he holds that this is not in the category of bread at all; and regarding troknin he ruled that specifically when one established a meal he recites 'Hamotzi,' but without establishing a meal he recites 'Mezonot,' see there. And in the sugya of the Shas (37b) it is explained according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and in the Yerushalmi it implies like the Tur, and in Rabbeinu Yerucham it is explicit like our teacher, the Beit Yosef. However, some say that regarding trita when one established [a meal] the law is with the Tur, and the difference between trita and troknin is only regarding the matter of challah, and in Rabbeinu Yerucham there is a printing error (Magen Avraham, subsection 48). And one should not elaborate on this because among us these types do not exist at all.

They further wrote: "Nahama de-handaka, which is bread (dough) that they bake on a spit and smear with oil or with egg water, and likewise bread made for kutach that they do not bake in an oven but rather in the sun—one recites over it 'borei minei mezonot'." Thus far their words. And the Tur wrote: "And if he made it as ka'akin, meaning prepared and beautiful like a gluska—it is obligated in challah and one recites over it 'hamotzi'." Thus far his words. And it is not known why our teacher, the Beit Yosef, omitted it, for in the Gemara there it is explicitly stated so, and this is regarding bread made for kutach, see there, and regarding nahama de-handaka this is not applicable, obviously. And behold, these types also do not exist among us, and there is no need to elaborate on this.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 17: "Pashtida that is baked in an oven with meat or with fish or with cheese—one recites over it 'Hamotzi' and Birkat Hamazon." Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And specifically when he baked it in an oven without liquid, but if he baked it in a pan with liquid—one should not recite a blessing over it and should not eat it except during a meal, as has been explained." Thus far his words. And the pashtida is complete bread, except that they place meat or cheese in it, like by us on Purim when they fill the bread with sesame, and this law has already been explained in section 46. And that which he wrote, that if he baked it in a pan with liquid one should not eat it except during a meal, this is because of the liquid, for perhaps it nullified its status as bread; and this is certainly regarding a small amount of liquid. But with a lot—it is certain that its status as bread is nullified, as I wrote in section 44, see there. And know that there is one who wrote in the name of Tanya, that for this pashtida one recites 'Hamotzi' only when he established a meal, but without this he recites 'Mezonot', and it remained in need of further study (Magen Avraham, subsection 44). And there is no room for study here at all according to what we explained in section 46 regarding the difference between this and kisnin filled with fruit and spices, for there the spices are the primary element and here the bread is the primary element, see there; if so, it is simple that the Tanya is dealing with a case where they fill it with much meat until the meat is the primary element or where he fried it slightly, but the pashtida that was explained, there is no doubt that it is complete bread like the ruling of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch. And I saw one who distinguishes between this and kisnin, because a filling of fruit and spices is not similar to a filling of meat, for a fruit filling more greatly nullifies its status as bread (Magen Avraham, subsection 37). And in my humble opinion, it seems clear that both are equal, and it depends only on the abundance, for if the filling is not in such great abundance, the bread is the primary element, and if the abundance is great, the filling is the primary element, and so it appears to me for the halacha (and it is a wonder that the Magen Avraham himself in subsection 44 wrote in this wording that the five species are the primary element etc., and it is possible that anything filled with fruit also has this law, see there and examine carefully).

And know that there is one who wrote that dough kneaded with egg liquid without fat and baked is complete bread, for eggs are also sustenance and do not nullify its status as bread, and so it is implied in Beitzah (16b) in Tosafot, starting with the words "Kimcha," thus far his words (ibid. subsection 44). And his words are puzzling, for what relevance does sustenance have? For anything not kneaded with water is pat habah b'kisnin, and it is a daily occurrence in all the dispersions of Israel that they eat kichlach kneaded with eggs with the blessing "borei minei mezonot," unless one established a meal upon them. And regarding what he cited from Tosafot, they wrote explicitly that if he established his meal, etc., see there; and also in Chullin (64a) in Tosafot, starting with the words "Simanim," where they wrote regarding dough kneaded with eggs that one blesses "Hamotzi," see there, their intention is also regarding the establishment of a meal. And in Shibbolei HaLeket he wrote explicitly that when it is kneaded with eggs it is like that which is kneaded with honey (Magen Avraham ibid.). (And so wrote the Even Ozer at the end of this siman, and this is his wording: "Bread that was kneaded with wine... or with eggs or with other fruit juices—its blessing is 'borei minei mezonot,'" see there; and so ruled the Gaon Noda BiYehudah in Dagul Mervavah at the end of this siman, and this is his wording: "Even if it was kneaded with eggs one blesses 'borei minei mezonot,'" see there, and so is the primary law.)