Siman 178

The Rambam wrote in the fourth chapter: If one was eating in this house, and interrupted his meal and went to another house (another room), or if he was eating and his friend called him to speak with him, and he went out to the entrance of his house and returned, since he changed his place – he must recite the blessing retroactively on what he ate. And he returns and recites "Hamotzi" at the beginning and afterwards finishes his meal. Thus far his words. And it is obvious that he must wash his eyes, and this has already been explained in siman 170, see there. And it appears to me that he should wash without a blessing, since his hands are clean. And behold, according to the words of the Rambam, one who goes out in the middle of a meal to stroll in the courtyard, it is considered a conclusion of the meal, and he must recite Birkat Hamazon on the previous [part], and afterwards "Hamotzi." And the Ra'avad already critiqued this, and this is his wording: He went to an extreme in this, for any "to the entrance of his house" is not a displacement. And all the more so if he sees his place, it is not a displacement at all. Thus far his words. (And it is obvious that according to the system of the Tosafot and the Rosh and the Rashbam that will be explained – this law does not exist at all, for its source is from the Tosefta in section 2. And that Tosefta was taught together with the Baraita of the members of a group in Pesachim 101b. And according to the system of these teachers of ours, this Baraita is rejected from the halacha; and only for the Rif and the Rambam is it the halacha, for they ruled like Rav Sheshet there. But these teachers of ours ruled like Rabbenu Chananel there. Examine and you will find it simple.)

And also in the Tosefta (chapter four) it is explicitly stated not like the Rambam, as it was taught: A homeowner who was reclining and eating, and his friend called him to speak with him – he does not need to recite the blessing retroactively… If he went far (hiflig) – he must recite the blessing retroactively. And when he returns – he must recite the blessing from the beginning. Thus far its wording. And "hiflig" implies that he went with him to a distance. And it appears that the Rambam interprets "hiflig" – this is when he went out to the entrance of his house (see Kesef Mishneh). And this is a wondrous thing. And it appears to me that the Rambam interprets "hiflig" in time, meaning: that he tarried for some specific time like a half hour or the like. And also the intention of the Rambam is so and is included in his wording, as he wrote: his friend called him… and he went out… – for this indicates a delay of time. And I wonder at our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who copied his words as halacha in section 1, aside from what they have already wondered about him (Bach) that he ruled like the Rif and the Rambam against the Rashbam and the Tosafot and the Rosh and most of our teachers, who ruled not so as will be explained. And in matters of rabbinic law, we follow the lenient view. Furthermore, there is cause for wonder even according to this system: for also from the Rif it is explained that this which constitutes an interruption of the meal, this is specifically by walking to some place, such as if they went out to greet a groom or the like as the Ra'avad wrote. And so it is proven in the Gemara ibid. And from the Tosefta itself it is proven so, as I have written. And how did he rule such a stringency in rabbinic blessings? And it requires further study.

The Rambam further wrote: Companions who were sitting to eat, and went out to greet a groom or to greet a bride, if they left there an elder or a sick person (he mentioned the common case, because they are unable to go out) – they return to their place and finish their meal, and they do not need to bless a second time. And if they did not leave a person there when they go out – they require a blessing retroactively. And when they return – they require a blessing at the outset. Thus far his words. And it is obvious that also in the previous law his intention was when he did not leave a person there, and he relied on what he would explain afterward. And regarding that which he wrote previously that upon his return he must bless retroactively, and here he wrote that when they go out they must bless retroactively, certainly previously one must also do so. Rather, because there he went out according to the call of his fellow and did not know that he would be delayed, and consequently he did not bless beforehand. But in the latter case his departure is of his own accord and he knows that he will be delayed, therefore he must bless before his going. And certainly also in the first case, if he knows that he will be delayed, he must bless beforehand (and so wrote the Ran in Pesachim ibid., see there).

The Rambam further wrote: And so too if they were reclining to drink or to eat fruits, for anyone who changes his location has ceased his eating. Therefore, he recites the blessing retroactively on what he ate, and returns and recites the blessing a second time ab initio on what he needs to eat. But one who changes his location from corner to corner in one house—he does not need to return and recite the blessing. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote "and so too" is puzzling, for it is an a fortiori argument. For even the one who disagrees in the Gemara regarding the previous law when they sat for a meal admits regarding drinking and fruits, which are matters that do not require a blessing after them in their place, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. And it is possible to say that his intention is: that in this case it is not effective even when people remained in their place. Therefore he said "and so too," meaning: and so too regarding drinking and fruits, in any case one must recite the blessing. And it will be further explained regarding this detail as a matter of law with the help of Heaven. (And the Magen Avraham, subsection 3, wrote the opposite. And so too here it is effective, see there.)

But our teachers the Tosafot, and the Rashbam, and the Rosh disagree with all these matters. They ruled like the one who said in Pesachim ibid. that there is a distinction between sitting for a meal, which is a fixed establishment and requires a blessing after them in their place, and other eating and drinking which do not require a blessing after them in their place. And before us it will be explained which are the things that require a blessing in their place, and which are those that do not require a blessing in their place: for things that require a blessing in their place do not need to bless at all on what one eats in another place, for everything is drawn after the name of the meal since it has a fixed establishment. And it is not necessary to say if his intention was so from the beginning, that in the middle of the meal he would go to another place to finish his meal there, or would eat there as well and return to his first place, that he does not need a blessing at all. And it is all one matter, and there is no distinction in this between one who finishes his meal in another place and recites birkat hamazon there, or who returns to finish it in the first place; for as long as he did not divert his mind from eating—there is no other blessing here. Rather, even if it was not in his mind to eat in another place, and only in the middle of the meal it happened that they called him to another place, and he had not yet diverted his mind from eating—he may go to the other place and finish the meal there and bless there, or return to the first place and bless. And it appears to me that when he returns to his first place—he must eat a little there before birkat hamazon. And it further appears to me that he also does not need netilat yadayim, since he did not divert his mind from eating. However, this is certainly so if he diverted his mind from guarding his hands that he requires netilat yadayim and with a blessing, as I wrote in siman 170 section 3.

And also regarding things that do not require a blessing after them, they disagree with the first opinion, for they hold that one requires a blessing after the previous food and a blessing before what he will eat. But these teachers of ours hold that only a blessing before is required and not a blessing after, for the blessing that he will recite afterward will automatically include what he ate previously. To what is this comparable? To one who diverted his mind from eating further, and afterward decided to eat more, where we require him to recite a blessing before as will be explained in siman 179, but not a blessing after on the previous food. But the first opinion holds that this is worse than a diversion of the mind. For a diversion of the mind occurs in one place, whereas in two places—one must not move from the first place without a blessing after, for his going to another place is entirely like another meal.

And that which was explained according to the first opinion, that if one left behind some of the members of the meal he does not need to bless, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is also thus according to this opinion regarding things that do not require a blessing after them in their place. That is to say: that if many people sat to eat fruit or to drink, and one of them went out to another place and returned, when he returns he does not need a blessing, for the first matter has not yet been removed, since he left behind some of the group. However, there are those who disagree on this and maintain that only according to the first opinion regarding things that require a blessing in their place, which is a matter of fixedness, is it relevant to make this distinction. But regarding things that do not require a blessing in their place, there is no fixedness here, and there is no distinction here between whether he left some of them or did not leave some of them, and in every case he is obligated to bless (Bach and Taz subsection 6). However, there are some of the great authorities who agreed with the words of our teacher, the Rema (Magen Avraham subsection 3, and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 4). And so it appears from the discussion of the Shas there, and a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently. And especially since the words of our teacher, the Rema, appear correct, for since he left some behind—there is no heisech hadaat here, and he does not need a blessing. However, this is certainly when he returned to his first place, but when he remained there—it is obvious that he must bless before it and after it.

And behold, the world has adopted the approach of our teachers from the second opinion. And they are accustomed at a wedding feast to begin eating in one's home, and afterward to go to the wedding feast, and to finish the meal there and recite the blessing there (Taz, subsection 9). And so we see on Purim and festivals that they do so. And even though this is only ex post facto; however, ab initio it is certainly not correct to do so, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And so they are accustomed in these provinces. Nevertheless, ab initio one should not uproot himself from his place without a blessing, for we fear perhaps he will forget to return and eat. However, for the sake of a passing mitzvah, such as if the time for prayer arrives – it is permitted. Thus far his words. And so it is explained from the language of the Baraita in Pesachim ibid.: Members of a group who were reclining, and they uprooted their feet to go out toward a groom..., see there, for it implies because it is a passing mitzvah. And nevertheless, it appears that the world considers this also a passing mitzvah according to the time, from the joy of a mitzvah such as a wedding or a Purim feast and the like, where he is compelled to eat both in his home and at his friend's. But without a matter of a mitzvah, it is not correct ab initio to do so, unless a necessity arose where he was compelled to this, such as if a great man or some official called him and he was compelled to go, and the like. (And see Magen Avraham, subsection 8, who wrote that if they invite him to eat in another place, and his intention was originally for this at the time of the blessing of "Hamotzi" – it is completely permitted, for in this the concern of "perhaps he will forget" is not relevant, see there. And see Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 5, who hesitated slightly regarding this.)

And what is called "matters that require a blessing in their place"? Some say specifically bread (Rashba and Hagahot Maimoniyot). And some say all types of grain, meaning even that which one blesses "mezonot" (Tur in the name of the Ri). And some say that all of the seven species require a blessing after them in their place (Rashbam and the Rosh). And it is simple that regarding the matter of blessing in one's place, one should be stringent like the latter opinion. And regarding the law that has been explained, one should be stringent like the first opinion. And so it is implied from the wording of the Rambam that we brought, for he wrote the language of "meal," and a meal pertains only to bread. (And even though the end of his wording does not imply this, since he wrote drinking or fruits, nevertheless it appears such is his intention. Examine closely and you will find it easy.)

What is called "change of place"? Behold, in one room, even if it is very large, it is all considered one place. And when one eats in this corner, he may eat in another corner, or go out to another corner and speak there, for it is one place. And so too even from room to room, if he sees from this room some of the first place in the room where he ate there—it is not called a change of place. And even from a house to a courtyard—it is not called a change of place in such a case, as I wrote in siman 273 regarding the matter of kiddush in the place of the meal. And there it was explained that also from a house to a sukkah is not called a change of place. And some details regarding this will be explained there. And it appears to me that in our houses, all the rooms that open to the dining room are considered one place, for it is unavoidable that they should not see some of the place of the dining room in the room. Therefore, it appears to me that one who eats fruits in this room, or drinks a hot beverage—he may finish the eating or the drinking in the other room that is open to it, and it is not called a change of place.

It will be further explained there that if his intention was to eat in another place—it is not called a change of place. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that this is specifically in one house, meaning from room to room in one house; even if he does not see from one to the other—his intention is effective. But to another house entirely—his intention is not effective. And from a house to an upper story or vice versa—it is also effective, since both are in one house. And in the Levush it is explained here and in siman 273 that his intention is effective even for another house. And it requires further study (also the Eliyah Rabbah wondered at him), for this law is from the Tosafot and the Rosh according to the Gemara there, and so the Tur wrote below in siman 273. However, it is certainly so that anything under one roof is called one house, regarding this matter that his intention will be effective even if they are houses unto themselves, such as where a gatehouse separates them, which they call a "flur-haus." Therefore, one who wishes to drink hot drinks in several rooms, his intention at the time of the blessing should be that he will not drink in one place, but rather he will drink a little here and a little there, and then he can drink based on this blessing in all parts of the house that are under this roof. And the same law applies to the eating of fruits. And this matter is very necessary, according to our times when we linger in the drinking of hot drinks, and we move ourselves from room to room. Therefore, it is proper that his intention should be for this from the beginning.

It is stated in the Yerushalmi at the end of the sixth chapter of Berakhot: If one ate on the east side of a fig tree and came to eat on its west side – he must bless. And the Rambam ruled accordingly there. And even though from corner to corner is not called a change of place, that is in a house where the partitions surround it, and it makes the entire room as one place, which is not the case with a fig tree standing in the open air. And the Ra'avad wrote: Specifically when his intention was not initially for this, see there. And it is simple that if his intention was initially for this, it is no worse than from room to room. And behold, the Tur did not bring this. And it appears that his opinion is that the halacha is not like this Yerushalmi, for it is no worse than from corner to corner. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought this at the end of section 2. And I wonder why he did not bring the words of the Ra'avad, for one cannot say that he does not hold so, as he himself wrote in section 3 that intention is effective even from tree to tree, as will be explained. However, it appears that he did not concern himself with bringing it because it is a simple matter. And know that specifically when the fig tree is so large and thick that when standing on its east side one cannot see its west side. But regarding an ordinary tree, this law is not relevant at all. And even though in one room, even if something intervenes so that one cannot see from place to place, such as an oven standing in the middle of the room, it is called one place regarding this matter, so that if he eats on this side he can finish on the other side even though it is impossible to see from there to here, this is all in a house that has partitions as I have written (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And it further appears to me that only regarding a fig tree is this law relevant, because they do not all ripen as one, as we say at the beginning of the chapter "Klal Gadol," see there. And therefore, when he gathered on its east side, it did not enter his mind that on its west side they also ripened, but not with other fruits. (And were it not for the words of the Beit Yosef, I would have explained that it does not refer to one fig tree but to many, that when he ate from the figs standing on the east side and came to eat from the figs standing on the west side – he must bless. And the Beit Yosef added "this fig tree," but it is not so in the Yerushalmi and in the Rambam, and it refers to the species. Examine and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: There is one who says that if one was in a garden and wishes to eat from the fruits of each and every tree, since he recited the blessing over one tree – he does not need to recite the blessing over the others. And this is provided that at the time he recited the blessing, his intention was to eat from those others. But from garden to garden, he must recite the blessing even if they are adjacent, and even if when he first recited the blessing his intention was for everything. Thus far his words. For from tree to tree is like from room to room, and from garden to garden is like from house to house; for every garden is surrounded by partitions, and the entire garden is like a collective house. And even if the garden is very large such that one cannot see from this side to that side, nevertheless his intention is effective, just as from room to room. (See Eliyah Rabbah that from tree to tree, when one sees one from the other, intention is not required. But the Taz at the end of subsection 9 did not write so, and so it is implied from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch. And so it is implied from Magen Avraham subsection 9, see there carefully. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

He further wrote in section 4: If one ate bread in one place, and went back and ate in another place—he only recites birkat hamazon in the second place; just as is the custom of wayfarers who eat while traveling, and sit and bless at the place where they finish their eating. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: For he follows his reasoning, as he ruled like the Rambam, that even regarding matters that require a blessing after them in their place—nevertheless, it is forbidden for him to go to another place without birkat hamazon. And if he left—he returns to his place and blesses. And regarding this he says that if he transgressed this, such that he went back and ate in another place, and he no longer wishes to eat—he must perforce recite birkat hamazon there, and it shall count for him for the first as well. And the matter is simple that he has no other way to do so, even if his desire was to eat more in the first place, for since he ultimately ate in two places, and according to the opinion of the Rambam one must bless specifically in the place where he ate, if so, he must perforce bless in one place and fulfill the obligation of the second place. And he explains the matter so that you should not wonder: How does he fulfill the obligation of birkat hamazon with what he blesses here for the second place? For this he explains and compares it to wayfarers, for such is the manner of their eating, and ab initio they may do so. And therefore here, post facto, he has fulfilled it in any event. And all of this is a novel point according to this system. But according to the system of our teacher, the Rema, this entire law is superfluous, for it has already been explained that according to this system they may ab initio eat in two places for the sake of a mitzvah. And if so, there is no novelty in this law at all.

Prayer in the middle of the meal is not considered an interruption to require him to recite another blessing. Therefore, if he forgot to pray and remembered in the middle of a meal—he may pray without reciting birkat hamazon and without reciting the blessing of "Hamotzi" afterward. And it is not only necessary to state this if he still has time after the meal to pray, in which case he was not compelled to interrupt. Rather, even if he did not have time to finish his meal and pray, such that he was compelled to interrupt, even so it is not an interruption since he did not leave his place (Tosafot Pesachim 102a). However, he requires netilat yadayim, as it is a distraction of the mind (Magen Avraham, subsection 13). And some say that he does not require netilat yadayim (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 11); and so wrote the Yam Shel Shlomo in the sixth chapter of Chullin (siman 10), that prayer is not considered a distraction of the mind. And all this applies to praying in his place. But to go to the beit knesset to pray, according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is forbidden, and according to our teacher, the Rema, it is permitted according to the positions that have been explained. And know that this is specifically regarding things that require a blessing after them in their place. But regarding things that do not require a blessing after them in their place, certainly prayer is an interruption. (And the Taz, subsection 9 and subsection 10, wrote at length to disagree with the Shulchan Aruch. And the Eliyah Rabbah (subsection 10) already wrote that there is nothing in all his words to warrant rejection, see there. And the Even Ozer also wrote at length to disagree on certain details. And we have nothing but the ruling of our teacher, the Rema, which the Magen Avraham and the Eliyah Rabbah agreed to.)

A person who sleeps during his meal a brief sleep—it is not considered an interruption. This is not similar to a distraction of the mind which requires a blessing beforehand, for this does not distract his mind. And he does not even require netilat yadayim if it is clear to him that he did not touch covered places. And likewise if he interrupted with other optional matters, such as if he needed to relieve himself and the like; however, in this case he requires netilat yadayim with a blessing, since his hands are soiled. And see in siman 170, section 3.