Siman 274

We learn in Shabbat (117b): "R. Abba said: On Shabbat a person is obligated to break bread over two loaves, as it is written: 'double bread' (lechem mishneh)." This means that regarding the manna it is written: "And it was on the sixth day they gathered double bread, two omers for each one," and this "double bread" is superfluous, for it should have written "they gathered two omers for each one," and this is nothing other than a duplication of words. For this reason we expound that this is a matter in its own right, and this is its explanation—that the bread of the Shabbat meals shall be double. And in the Mechilta it is also brought: "Double bread—R. Yehoshua says, doubled bread," see there. And it appears that this is a Torah law and not a mere asmakhta, for in truth this "double bread" is entirely superfluous, as I have written.

And we say there: "Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Kahana, that he would take two and break one; he said 'they gathered' is written, which implies holding, but regarding breaking, 'double' is not written." (Rashi) Rav Zera would break a large piece for his entire meal, and it would suffice for him for that meal, and he appears as one who cherishes the Shabbat meal to strengthen himself and eat much. (ibid.) And the Rashba reads 'for the entire meal,' meaning that he cut both loaves, and so wrote Rav Hai Gaon, and this is his wording: "If a person recites the blessing on Shabbat over two and breaks one like Rav Kahana—it is well, and if he breaks both of them like Rav Zera—it is well" Thus far his words. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not bring this at all, and brought only the words of Rav Kahana, that he takes two and breaks one, and it is a mitzvah to break a large piece that will suffice for the entire meal, according to the explanation of Rashi, see there. And such are the words of the Rambam in chapter 7 of Berakhot and in chapter 30 of Shabbat, see there, and he also explained according to the explanation of Rashi. And it appears because it was not pleasing to them to create a dispute between Rav Kahana and Rav Zera, and furthermore, for behold Rav Kahana infers from the verse that only "they gathered" two and not "cutting" two as has been written, and furthermore, for in the Kol Bo he brought the Mekhilta in this language: 'On Friday the manna descended for them in two omers, and from an omer they made two breads, one of them for Friday morning and the second for the night of Shabbat, and the third for the morning and the fourth for the third meal' Thus far his words. (Brought in the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 1) And it is true that in the Mekhilta before us I did not find this, nevertheless, before them it was written so, and if so, it is clear proof like Rav Kahana, and so most of the world practiced. (And so wrote the Gra"z)

The Maharshal was accustomed to break one loaf at night and two loaves during the day, because the honor of the day precedes the honor of the night (Bach and Magen Avraham). And now there are many who are meticulous in the lands of Lithuania, Reissen, and Zamut, who have practiced this for several generations according to the Gra, to break two at every meal. And I do not understand this, for even if the interpretation of Rava Zira is like the Gaon and the Rashba, nevertheless, Rava Ashi and Rava Kahana do not hold accordingly, and they are the later authorities against Rava Zira. And if we say that Rava Ashi and Rava Kahana also do not disagree with Rava Zira, but rather they hold that one also fulfills the obligation with one, while Rava Zira holds specifically with two—from where does he have the basis to say so? For it implies that they specifically said "he took two and broke one," from the inference of "they gathered" according to the interpretation of Rashi as I have written. Furthermore, if it is a mitzvah of the highest order according to Rava Zira—why did Rava Kahana not perform the mitzvah of the highest order? Furthermore, for the Mechilta says that our ancestors did so in the wilderness as I have written, and therefore, for me, this requires great study. (And the kabbalists were accustomed to use twelve challot like the showbread, and so it is in Peri Etz Chaim, Sha'ar HaShabbat, chapter 17, and it is written there to kiss the hands of one's mother, and the Magen Avraham cited this at the beginning of this siman.)

Women are also obligated to break bread over two loaves, (Mordechai) for in all matters of Shabbat—women are equal to men. Therefore, those who are meticulous are accustomed that when the head of the household has washed his hands—he does not break bread until all those reclining have washed their hands and are sitting at the table, and then he breaks bread over lechem mishneh, and everyone fulfills their obligation with this. And even in places where there is lechem mishneh before each of those reclining, nevertheless, it is not the practice to place lechem mishneh before the women, and therefore the head of the household must wait for them. And so one should practice as I have written, that the lechem mishneh should be only before the head of the household, and he shall wait until all those reclining sit at the table, men and women, and this is the preferred performance of the mitzvah.

And also on Yom Tov one requires lechem mishneh like on Shabbat, as it is stated in the Mechilta in the portion of the manna: "'On Shabbat it shall not be'—to include Yom Tov, on which the manna did not descend." (And see Rashi and Tosafot at the beginning of Beitzah). And the loaves must be whole and not lacking, for a lacking loaf is not the way of honor; therefore, if mice bit it, it is not fit for lechem mishneh. And above at the beginning of siman 168 it was explained that if one does not have a whole loaf and has two halves of a loaf, he may join them by means of a toothpick in a manner that it appears from the outside as truly whole, and he should be careful not to take a muktzeh item to join them. And even though for a matter that requires wholeness from the Torah, such as an etrog, such a joining certainly does not avail, for a human joining is not a joining, as we learned at the end of the second chapter of Ohalot, nevertheless regarding lechem mishneh, where wholeness is not explicitly stated in the Torah—for even a slice is called bread—this joining avails. But if it is truly lacking, even a little, it is not whole. And there is one who wishes to say that with a lack the size of the portion of challah, we have no concern, like regarding eruv in siman 366. And this is not a comparison, for there the reason is because of enmity, see there, but it is not called whole. However, if he has no whole loaves at all, he should take two slices, for in any event it is lechem mishneh, except that it is not the way of honor. (See Sha'arei Teshuva and Tosefet Shabbat)

One holds the two loaves in his hand, and does not cut them at all before the blessing, for we require wholeness at the time of the blessing; rather, he marks with his knife and blesses over both of them. And on the night of Shabbat, he breaks the bottom one, and on the night of Yom Tov and its day, and the day of Shabbat, he breaks the top one, and the reason is according to the Kabbalah. And there are those who complain about breaking the bottom one, for one may not bypass mitzvot, and wrote to always break the top one. (Bach) And there is one who wrote that therefore, he should first place the bottom one upon the top one, and at the time of the blessing, place it beneath the top one. (Magen Avraham) And there is one who wrote that the bottom one should be closer to him, (Turei Zahav) and such is the custom. However, there is one who says that "one may not bypass mitzvot" only applies when he wishes to perform both of them, and not when he performs only one of them, (Tosefet Shabbat) and as the Tosafot wrote in Yoma (33a).

It has already been explained that it is a mitzvah to break a large slice on Shabbat that will suffice for the entire meal, but those who are accustomed to break upon the two loaves together—it is not necessary to act thus, for according to them, the explanation in the Gemara is not so, as has been explained. And the diners are not permitted to taste from the slice of HaMotzi until the one who breaks the bread tastes it; however, if there is lechem mishneh before each one—they may taste even though the one who breaks the bread has not yet tasted it, since they are not dependent upon his bread. And there is an obligation upon every individual of Israel, whether man or woman, to eat three meals on Shabbat: one at night and two during the day. And our teacher Moshe hinted this to us in his holy Torah: "And Moshe said, eat it today, for today is a Shabbat to Hashem, today you will not find it in the field," and "today" is written three times. And for the night meal and that of the morning, one certainly requires bread, and regarding the third meal there are various opinions. However, there too the primary requirement is bread, and it will be explained in siman 291. And if due to some cause one did not eat at night—he should eat three meals during the day, but initially the obligation is to eat at night, not like the one who holds that at night there is no obligation at all. And all Shabbat meals should be more than a kabeitzah of bread, so that it should not be a casual eating. However, if he is only able to eat a kazayit—he has fulfilled his obligation, and regarding this they said in Shabbat (119b): "A person should always set his table on Friday evening, even though he only needs a kazayit." And this is in a case of difficulty, but initially—one requires more than a kabeitzah. (Magen Avraham siman 291, subsection 1, see there; and that which he wrote here in subsection 2 that he was not meticulous regarding the eating of Shabbat night etc., see there—this is because of extenuating circumstances, as is explained in Pesachim ibid., see there)