Bread on the dining table
[A] (Halacha 1012)
Question: Does one need to leave bread on the table after the seudah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin1: 'And Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who does not leave over bread on his table never sees a sign of blessing, as it says "there is no remnant of his food, therefore his prosperity shall not endure." But did not Rabbi Elazar say: Anyone who leaves over crumbs on his table is as though he worships idolatry, as it says "who set a table for Gad and who fill mingled wine for Meni"? It is not difficult: this is where there is a whole loaf together with them, and this is where there is no whole loaf together with them.'
As for the reason, we find in Rashi, in his explanation of the Gemara, two reasons: 'One who does not leave over crumbs - for one must leave over, as it is written "eat and have left over"2. Where there is a whole loaf together with them - that he brings a whole loaf after he has eaten, and places it on the table with the crumbs he left over, for it appears as though he does so for the sake of idolatry. And this - where there is no whole loaf together with them, for they are designated for the poor person.'
[And these are the words of the Levush3: 'And every person must leave over crumbs on his table so that they will be designated for a poor person who may come, and furthermore so that he will give thanks to the Blessed Name for His kindness, that He has bestowed upon us of His goodness until we were satiated and had left over, as it is written "eat and have left over."']
And in accordance with the second reason in Rashi, Rabbeinu Yonasan of Lunel4 wrote: 'Because it is the way of the world that after one has eaten he cuts pieces for the needs of the poor from the bread remaining on the table, and when he is stingy, in that he does not place abundant loaves on the table but only the measure that is needed for his household members with exactness, it turns out that he does not give thought to the poor who stand at the gate, and if they ask of him his eye will be evil to begin to slice for them another loaf from the start, and all the more so if he has no other bread in the house, that is, that he buys it sparingly from the market; but when crumbs remain on the table his eye is not stingy with them and he gives to the poor.'
In addition to leaving bread from his food, we find an additional reason in the words of the Zohar that connects the law of leaving the bread to Birkas Hamazon, and these are the words of the Zohar, Parshas Lech Lecha5: 'And blessings from above are found only where there is something of substance, and not where it is empty. From where do we know this? From the wife of Ovadiah, to whom Elisha said6 "Tell me, what do you have in the house," for the blessings from above do not rest upon an empty table nor in an empty place. What is written? "And she said, your handmaid has nothing at all in the house except a jug of oil." What is "a jug"? Rather, she said to him: the measure of this oil is only as much as the anointing of a small finger. He said to her: you have comforted me, for I did not know how the blessings from above could rest in an empty place, but now that you have oil, this is a place in which blessings can be found... Come and see, from the table of the showbread blessings issue forth from there, and sustenance to the world; it must not be found empty even for a single moment, so that the blessings will not depart from there. So too, one does not bless over an empty table, for the blessings from above do not rest upon an empty table.'
And so too wrote the Shulchan shel Arba7: 'One should be careful, when he comes to bless, that the table not remain without bread... And the reason for the matter is so that the blessing should take effect upon what remains, and if nothing remained, upon what would the blessing take effect, for the blessing does not take effect upon "the nothing" but upon "the something"; and the proof of this is the table in the Mikdash, which was never without bread, and that bread was eaten by the kohanim who served in the Mikdash, and a little of it sufficed for many of them, and so our Rabbis of blessed memory said: every kohen whose portion was the size of a bean would rejoice; and from that bread on the table a blessing would chain down and spread out among the sustenance of the world, from the showbread, in the manner of "something from something," not "something from nothing," for even the prophets who had the power to stand in the palace of the King had not the power to produce "something from nothing" but only "something from something." And I will bring myself faithful witnesses, Eliyahu and Elisha, this one with the jar of flour and that one with the matter of the jug of oil, that it was all "something from something," for there is no power to make "something from nothing" except the Holy One blessed be He, the Former of creation, who created His world "something from nothing"; and even He Himself, in His glory, we find Him doing so only at the creation of the world during the six days of Creation, and from then until now all is "something from something," and so it is written "which God created to make," its meaning being: which God created "something from nothing" "to make" - from then onward "something from something" and not "something from nothing." And therefore a person needs, when he comes to recite Birkas Hamazon, that bread should remain on the table, even a little of it, so that the blessing may take effect upon it and the power of abundance may spread within the small amount, in the manner of the hidden miracles that are performed for us all day long and which we do not know and recognize...'.
And so we find among the Rishonim the minhag of leaving the bread during Birkas Hamazon, as the Tosafos wrote8 and similarly in the Rosh9: 'It implies that their practice was to clear away the table before Birkas Hamazon, and seemingly this is difficult according to our minhag, in which we are particular not to clear away the bread beforehand; and perhaps in their days too they would not clear away the table from before the one reciting the bracha, but only from before the rest of those reclining, because they had small tables and each one ate before himself on his own table, but we who are accustomed to eat all of us at one table, it is not seemly to clear away the table until after Birkas Hamazon.'
And the Radbaz10 wrote that this is in accordance with the reason brought in the Zohar: 'At the time of Birkas Hamazon, the bread that is left over must be present, and the reason is so that the blessing should take effect upon it, for the blessing does not rest upon an empty table; and so wrote the Rosh of blessed memory, and these are his words: but we who eat all of us at one table, it is not proper to remove the tablecloth and the bread until after Birkas Hamazon; and there are those who have the practice of taking all the bread and the tablecloth and placing it before the one who recites the bracha, end of quote. And if so, those who have the practice of bringing bread at the time of Birkas Hamazon, well do they do.'
However, the Derisha11 brought, with regard to this practice of the Rishonim, the first reason in Rashi: 'And they would not remove the table with the bread from before the one reciting the bracha, and it is possible that their reason was to fulfill "eat and have left over," and [it is placed] before the one reciting the bracha because he says in Birkas Hamazon "and you shall eat and be satisfied and bless," and satisfaction is not recognizable except when it is seen before those at the table that bread still remains; and this is possibly the reason that Tosafos and the Rosh wrote that we are particular about removing the bread... And one should not raise a difficulty either against those who have the practice of removing the table and the bread before Birkas Hamazon, how do they reconcile what is stated in Perek Chelek, Rabbi Elazar said: anyone who does not leave over bread on his table never sees a sign of blessing, for they will explain that the intent is that he should leave over from his food to give to the poor, and not that he should eat everything and leave over nothing for the poor person, as Rashi wrote at the end on that which it concludes "and this is where there is no whole loaf together with them," and these are his words: "for they are designated for a poor person." And we can always say that they removed the table and gave the remaining bread and food to the poor.'
An additional reason was written by the Levush12: 'And it is not seemly to remove the tablecloth and the bread from upon the table until after Birkas Hamazon, so that it should be recognizable to all that we bless the Blessed Name for His kindness and His great goodness that He has prepared sustenance for all His creatures, etc.'
> If so, we have seen several explanations as to why one must leave bread on the table13: a) Because it is written "eat and have left over." b) So that it should be designated for a poor person. c) So that there should be something upon which the blessing can take effect, since a blessing does not take effect upon an empty table. d) So that it should be recognizable in his bracha that he blesses over the food that Hashem has given him.
Notes:
1 צב, א ↩
2 מ"ב ד, מג ↩
3 או"ח סי' קפ ס"ב ↩
4 יט, ב מדפי הרי"ף ↩
5 פח, א - ב. וראה ג"כ פרשת יתרו פז, ב ↩
6 מלכים ב ד, ב ↩
7 שער א. וראה תורת חיים סנהדרין צב, א ↩
8 ברכות מב, א ↩
9 ברכות פ"ו סי' לא אך כתב *'אין* לסלק'. ובמרדכי ברכות רמז קלח כתב *אין נכון* לסלק ↩
10 שו"ת ח"ד סי' רא ↩
11 או"ח סי' קפ אות א ↩
12 או"ח שם ס"א ↩
13 לכאורה טעמים א וב הם לגבי עצם חיוב המובא בגמרא להשארת פת, והטעמים ג וד הם לגבי הסילוק שיהי' דווקא לאחר ברהמ"ז, אך חלק מהמפרשים הביאו באת יאורים ג וד ג"כ על דברי הגמ' (ראה תורת חיים שבהערה 7), וכן כנ"ל חלק מהמפרשים הביאו את ביאור א וב על דברי הראשונים, ראה דרישה הנ"ל ↩
[B] (Halacha 1013)
In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Gemara, the Zohar and the Rishonim regarding leaving bread on the table at the conclusion of the seudah until after Birkas Hamazon.
The Mechaber wrote1: 'One should not remove the tablecloth and the bread until after Birkas Hamazon. Anyone who does not leave over bread on his table never sees a sign of blessing.'
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe2: 'Anyone who does not leave over bread on his table never sees a sign of blessing, as it says "there is no remnant of his food, therefore his prosperity shall not endure"; but at the bracha what does he say? "Eat and have left over." And it is proper not to remove the tablecloth and the bread until after Birkas Hamazon, so that it should be recognizable that he blesses Hashem for His kindness and His great goodness, that He has prepared sustenance for all His creatures.'
> If so, in practice one must leave bread on the table at the conclusion of the seudah, until after Birkas Hamazon.
★ ★ ★
In the previous halacha we also saw the continuation of the words of the Gemara, as Rashi explained, that one may not bring a whole loaf after the seudah and place it on the table, because it appears that it is for the sake of idolatry.
However, this law was not cited by the Rishonim, as the Beis Yosef wondered3: 'And I do not know why the poskim omitted this matter.'
And the Be'er Sheva4 wrote: 'I subsequently found that the Rav, Mahary Karo of blessed memory, in the work Beis Yosef on the Tur Yoreh De'ah at the end of siman 178, also wondered, and did not set his heart to resolve it. And perhaps one may say that it is because it was established for them that the idolatry of Gad is not found at all in our times.'
And as the words of the Be'er Sheva, the Radbaz5 already wrote: 'You asked of me, my friend, concerning that which some scholars have the practice, after they finish the seudah and clear away the bread and the crumbs and shake out the table to bring fruits and types of relish, and at the time of Birkas Hamazon they are accustomed to bring bread, and if they bring it whole they break it so that it should not be whole. Do they have something upon which to rely, and what is the matter of this breaking? Answer:... And if so, those who have the practice of bringing bread at the time of Birkas Hamazon, well do they do. And as for those who have the practice of breaking the leftover bread to make it into crumbs because of "who set a table for Gad," I do not concede to them in this at all, for several reasons. Firstly, that nowadays we are not concerned about this at all. Know this, for the masters of the rulings did not write it, and the Rosh of blessed memory in his rulings wrote the first statement of Rabbi Elazar and omitted the other, and likewise the Rif of blessed memory omitted it; and how should we be concerned about Gad and Meni, whose memory has been lost? And on the contrary, I say that one who is meticulous about this is not doing well, for it implies that there is a concern with them, since he is particular not to do as they used to do. The principle of the matter is that nowadays the name of that idolatry has already been forgotten even by its worshippers, and all the more so by us. And furthermore, we were only concerned about this when they would leave the table set all day so that it would be designated for the poor; then there is room for concern, if they bring a whole loaf, because of "who set a table for Gad," for so they used to do, leaving a table set with food and drink for the sake of that idolatry called Gad, and so Rashi of blessed memory wrote upon it. And from the fact that it says "they leave," it implies that they would leave it all day or at least for some time, and so it stands to reason, for if not, how would they know when Gad or its priests would be hungry; rather, certainly they would leave the table set thus. But we, who immediately after Birkas Hamazon clear away the table, what should we be concerned about - not Gad and not Meni? And furthermore, we only bring it so that the blessing should take effect upon the bread, because of "eat and be satisfied and have left over"; and since it is for this reason that we bring the bread, there is no room for concern, for granted that if they were bringing the bread after Birkas Hamazon one could be concerned, but now we are not concerned.' [The continuation of the Radbaz's words will be brought below.] And he concludes: 'Therefore, from all these reasons, it appears to me that there is no need at all to break the loaf that is brought to the table at the time of Birkas Hamazon, and if my strength were established I would abolish this minhag.'
As for the halacha, the Mechaber wrote in Orach Chaim6: 'One should not bring a whole loaf and place it on the table, and if he did so it appears that he does it for the sake of idolatry, as it says: "who set a table for Gad."' And he repeated his words in Yoreh De'ah7: 'One who ate and left over crumbs on his table should not bring a whole loaf and place it on the table.'
★ ★ ★
Question: Is the prohibition of bringing a whole loaf only when crumbs have remained, or also in a case where the table has been left empty?
Answer: The Radbaz wrote there: 'And furthermore, we only say "because of who set a table for Gad" where there is a whole loaf together with crumbs, but a whole loaf by itself - there is no room for any concern; and so the flow of our sugya runs, for we say "it is not difficult: this is where there is a whole loaf together with it," and Rashi of blessed memory explained: this, which is forbidden, is where there is a whole loaf together with it, that he brings a whole loaf after he has eaten and places it on the table with the crumbs he left over, for it appears as though he does so for the sake of idolatry; and this, where there is no whole loaf together with them, is "for they are designated for a poor person," end of quote. And the reason for the matter is that since there are crumbs designated for a poor person and this one brings a whole loaf to the table, it appears like one who sets a table for Gad. But where there are no crumbs and he brings a whole loaf, he does not bring it to set a table for Gad but so that it should be designated for a poor person, since there are no crumbs.'
And similarly it is written in the Biur HaGra8: 'But he should not bring etc. That is to say, if there are crumbs on the table; but if there are no crumbs on the table, it is permitted to bring even a whole loaf.'
And the Mishnah Berurah9 wrote: 'And in the name of the Zohar they wrote that it is good to do so l'chatchilah.'
But the Ben Ish Chai10 wrote: 'And if they ate all the bread before Birkas Hamazon and did not notice until the time of Birkas Hamazon, they should not bring a whole loaf and place it on the table, but should bring a slice.'
And the Kaf HaChaim11 wrote: 'And if he brought a whole loaf, one should eat a little of it so that it should be broken, and also so that it should appear that he brought it for the purpose of eating; and although the Gra wrote that if no crumbs remained on the table it is permitted to bring even a whole loaf, nevertheless, since from the plain meaning of the holy Zohar and the Shulchan Aruch it is implied that one should not bring it, and so too appears the view of the Acharonim, one should be stringent.'
And so the Alter Rebbe ruled as halacha12: 'If no bread remained for him on the table, he should not bring a whole loaf and place it on the table, because it appears like one who sets a table for idolatry, as the verse said "who set a table for Gad," etc.'
> If so, in practice one should not bring a whole loaf after the conclusion of the seudah, even in a case where no crumbs remained before him
Notes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' קפ סעיפים א-ב ↩
2 שו"ע או"ח שם סעיפים א-ב ↩
3 יו"ד סי' קעח ↩
4 סנהדרין צב, א ↩
5 שו"ת ח"ד סי' רא ↩
6 סי' קפ ס"ב ↩
7 סי' קעח ס"ג ↩
8 או"ח סי' קפ ↩
9 סי' קפ ס"ק ד ↩
10 ש"א שלח לך ס"ג ↩
11 סי' קפ ס"ק ז ↩
12 שו"ע או"ח שם ס"ג ↩
[C] (Halacha 1014)
In the previous halachos we saw that one must leave crumbs of bread on the table until after Birkas Hamazon, and that one should not bring a whole loaf.
Question: In a case where a whole loaf remained at the end of the seudah, is one permitted to leave it on the table?
Answer: We saw that Rashi explained that the words of Rabbi Eliezer regarding the merit of leaving the bread on the table were said with regard to leaving portions of bread, and not with regard to leaving a whole loaf, and these are the words of Rashi: 'Where there is a whole loaf together with it - that he brings a whole loaf, after he has eaten, and places it on the table with the crumbs he left over, for it appears as though he does so for the sake of idolatry.' The Beis Yosef1 brought the words of Rashi.
From the plain meaning of Rashi's words it appears that the prohibition is to bring a whole loaf and place it on the table, but where there is a whole loaf that already remained from the seudah there is no concern about leaving it2, and on the contrary, from the words of the Zohar it appears that there is a merit in this, as below:
It is written in the Zohar3: '"You shall not take the name etc." Rabbi Shimon opened: "And Elisha said to her, what shall I do for you, tell me what do you have in the house," Elisha said to her: have you anything upon which the blessing of the Holy One blessed be He may rest? For we have learned: it is forbidden for a person to bless over an empty table. What is the reason? Because the blessing from above does not rest in an empty place. And on account of this a person must arrange upon his table a loaf or more to bless over it, and if he cannot, he must leave over from that food which he ate something upon which he may bless, and it should not be found that he blesses over emptiness.'
> If so, according to the view of Rashi it is permitted to leave a whole loaf, and from the words of the Zohar it appears that there is a merit when there is a whole loaf on the table during the bracha.
However, there are those who wrote that one should in no way leave a whole loaf on the table, as the Mahary Weil wrote4: 'In Perek Chelek, Rabbi Elazar said: anyone who does not leave over crumbs on his table never sees a sign of blessing, as it says "there is no remnant of his food, therefore his prosperity shall not endure"; but did not Rabbi Elazar say: anyone who leaves over crumbs on his table is as though he worships idolatry, as it says "who set a table for Gad"? It is not difficult: this is where there is a whole loaf together with it, and this is where there is no whole loaf together with it. From here it appears that one should remove a whole loaf from the table when one recites Birkas Hamazon, and furthermore, that the blessing is not found in something whole, for it is like something measured, in which the blessing is not found.'
And so the Rema wrote in his name in Darkei Moshe5: 'And the Mahary Weil wrote... that one should remove a whole loaf from the table at the time of Birkas Hamazon, because the blessing is not found in something counted, and a whole thing is like something counted; and so it is implied in the Gemara in Perek Chelek that one should not place a whole loaf on the table after the seudah, and see there.'
And so the Mateh Moshe wrote6: 'And it is implied from the words of Rashi that it is only forbidden to bring a whole loaf onto the table, but if it is already lying there one need not remove it, and so the Beis Yosef ruled in accordance with the words of Rashi. But the language of the Talmud implies unqualifiedly that it is forbidden where there is a whole loaf together with it. And so wrote the Mahary Weil... and it is proper to take his words into consideration.'
And so it appears, seemingly, from the plain meaning of the words of the Levush7, who wrote: 'And anyone who does not leave over crumbs on his table never sees a sign of blessing... and specifically slices, but a whole loaf together with the slices, and all the more so a whole loaf by itself, is forbidden, for it appears like the beginning of a seudah, whereas he has already eaten, and it appears like one who prepares a table for idolatry, and concerning this it is said "who set a table for Gad," etc., which is a type of idolatry, and the prophet rebuked them for it.'
The Shelah8 also wrote: 'It is implied from his words that it is only forbidden to bring a whole loaf, but if it is already lying there one need not remove it, and so it is in the Shulchan Aruch. But the unqualified language implies that it is forbidden where there is a whole loaf together with it, and so wrote the Mahary Weil.'
On the other hand, the Knesses HaGedolah9 wrote: 'It appears clearly that it is only forbidden to bring it, but if it was there from the start one should not remove it. And so too I found that the proofreader, engraved with a pen of iron and lead, made a gloss. But the Mahary Weil of blessed memory... wrote: from here it appears that one should remove a whole loaf from the table when one recites Birkas Hamazon...'.
The Be'er Sheva10 brought the words of the Mahary Weil and raised a difficulty against him: 'And it is difficult for me with that which he wrote "from here it appears etc.," for behold, if the whole loaf was already lying on the table at the time of eating, then it is not at all applicable to say of it "who set a table for Gad," since he sets nothing after he has eaten. And there is no doubt that on account of this Rashi was compelled to explain "where there is a whole loaf together with it" - that he brings a whole loaf after he has eaten and places it on the table with the crumbs he left over, for it appears as though he does so for the sake of idolatry, etc.; from the fact that he explained "that he brings a whole loaf after he has eaten," it implies explicitly that it is only forbidden specifically to bring, but if it was already lying on the table one need not remove it. And also the second reason that he wrote, "and furthermore, the blessing is not found in something whole," does not appear correct to me at all, for according to his words it would also not have been proper to recite the bracha of Hamotzi over a whole loaf, since the blessing is not found in something whole. And therefore I say, on the contrary, the opposite stands to reason, for just as we recite the bracha of Hamotzi over a whole loaf, since we hold like Rabbi Yochanan11 who said that a whole loaf is the choicest manner of the mitzvah, so too it is the choicest manner of the mitzvah to leave over a whole loaf from the start with this intent on the table, when one recites Birkas Hamazon, in order to bless Birkas Hamazon over it; for go after the reasoning: why did Scripture require "eat and have left over"? Is it not because, in order that one should give praise and thanksgiving in Birkas Hamazon to Hashem, that not only did we eat to our satiety but we also had much left over; and if so, the more whole it is, the more it is praise and thanksgiving to Hashem. So I wrote in the days of my youth, and now that I have merited to study in the Zohar Parshas Terumah12 I found in accordance with my words. And therefore it appears to me that one should protest against those who have the practice in accordance with the words of the Mahary Weil in this.'
> If so, we have seen that the commentators disagreed as to whether a whole loaf that remained on the table must also be removed before Birkas Hamazon; in the next halacha we will see how it was decided in practice.
Notes:
1 או"ח סי' קפ ↩
2 להעיר שישנם ראשונים שביארו הפוך את דברי הגמרא שאדרבה - לחם שלם יש מעלה בהשארתו על השלחן, משא"כ פירורים שיש להסירם וכמ"ש היד רמ"ה שם: 'אמר ר' אלעזר כל המשייר פתיתין על שלחנו כעובד ע"ג שנאמר העורכים לגד שלחן והוא דאמר הני לגדא דביתא מזל הבית והוא דליכא שלימה ביניהן [דאי איכא שלימה ביניהן] לאו עובד ע"ג הוי לגמרי לפי שאין עבודתו בכך שאין משיירין לו אלא פרוסות'. וראה גם בשבלי הלקט (סדר ברכות סי' קנה) וז"ל: 'שאלו לפני רב פלטוי ב"ר יעקב גאון זצ"ל .. והשיב דרך ארץ הוא לסלק שולחן ולרחוץ ידים ולברך והא דר' אלעזר הכי גרסינן אמר ר' אלעזר כל שאינו משייר פת על שולחנו אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם אם משייר פת שלימה לא מסלק ואם אינו משייר פת שלימה ומשייר פיתותים יסלק ואי איכפת ליה' ↩
3 יתרו פז, ב. הובא ג"כ במג"א שיובא בהלכה הבאה ↩
4 סי' מ ↩
5 או"ח סי' קפ אות א ↩
6 סי' שה ↩
7 או"ח שם ס"ב ↩
8 שער האותיות אות ק קדושת האכילה ↩
9 הגב"י או"ח סי' קפ אות ב ↩
10 סנהדרין צב, א. וכ"כ בבאר מים חיים סי' י ↩
11 ברכות לט, ב ↩
12 קנב, ב ↩
[D] (Halacha 1015)
In the previous halacha we saw the various opinions in the words of the poskim as to whether the prohibition of bringing a whole loaf for Birkas Hamazon also applies in a case where a whole loaf remained from the seudah.
Question: How did the poskim rule in practice?
Answer: In the previous halacha we brought the words of the Mechaber who wrote1: 'One should not bring a whole loaf and place it on the table, and if he did so it appears that he does it for the sake of idolatry, as it says: "who set a table for Gad."' And below we will see what the poskim wrote regarding the words of the Mechaber:
The Taz wrote2: 'And it appears obvious that they only cautioned that one should not bring a whole loaf before Birkas Hamazon, but if it was already on the table, that they intended to eat from it, one need not remove it at all; and so it is explained from what the Beis Yosef wrote, "that he brings a whole loaf after he has eaten etc.," and many err in this.'
The Shach also derived3 from the language of the Mechaber "one should not bring": 'It implies that it is only forbidden to bring it there and place it next to the crumbs, because of "who set a table for Gad," but if it was already there one need not remove it, and so it is implied from Rashi; and so the Beis Yosef wrote in Orach Chaim at the end of siman 180 (in the Turim printed in the year 348 and in other printings as well) in a gloss, and these are his words: only "bring," but if it was there from the start with this intent, to bless over the whole loaf, as is stated in the Zohar Parshas Terumah, Sha'ar 4, one should not remove them from the table at the time of the bracha, end of quote. And so the work Be'er Sheva wrote... that this is implied to him from Rashi and that he found so in the Zohar Parshas Terumah; and that which he raised an objection there against the Mahary Weil... who wrote that one should remove a whole loaf from the table when one recites Birkas Hamazon etc. - it is not so much of an objection, for he means: when one brings a whole loaf by chance after one has eaten, one should remove it, and although the plain meaning of his words does not somewhat imply so, nevertheless, to settle his view is the better course, and this is clear.'
The Magen Avraham wrote4: 'From this language it is implied that if it is already lying on the table one need not remove it, and so the Be'er Sheva wrote, and so it is written in the gloss in the Beis Yosef in the name of the Zohar Terumah, and so he derived from the language of Rashi; and in the work Asis Rimonim by the Rema [of Fano], Sha'ar 8, it is written, and these are its words: and this is the secret of leaving over crumbs after Hamotzi, for one who cannot prepare a whole loaf at the start of the seudah for Birkas Hamazon, as is explained in the Zohar that in such a case it is better, end of quote; and it is in the Zohar Yisro, page 157. However, from the language of the Gemara, which says "this is where there is a whole loaf together with it," it is implied that even if it is lying there beforehand he should remove it, and so the Mahary Weil wrote, and the Mateh Moshe wrote that one should take his words into consideration; but he did not see the words of the Zohar. And it is possible that the Zohar explains the Gemara "this is where there is a whole loaf together with it" to mean: if he has a whole loaf and brings crumbs, it is as though he worships idolatry; and according to this the language of the Gemara is more precise, for Rashi's explanation does not settle well after the language. And nevertheless the Zohar concedes that it is forbidden to bring a whole loaf at the time of Birkas Hamazon, and on Shabbos one should not remove the whole loaf until after Birkas Hamazon.'
[On what the Magen Avraham wrote, "and on Shabbos one should not remove," the Machatzis HaShekel wrote: 'That is to say, one should certainly conduct oneself then in accordance with the Zohar.' And he likewise pointed to the dispute between the Levush and the Taz in Yoreh De'ah, where the Levush wrote5: 'Therefore one should protest against those who have the practice of setting the table and placing upon it all kinds of food on the night before the day when they will circumcise the infant, for there is in this an element of "who set a table for Gad." And it appears to me that the same applies that one should protest against those who have the practice of setting the table on Friday night with a whole loaf and leaving it there all night, and I have heard from some of them that they say they do so in commemoration of the manna, which would lie in a container all night, and that for this reason they also cover that bread with a cloth all night; but this too appears to me to be an error, for the manna did not lie thus all night, but rather in the morning the manna fell, as it is written6 "and in the morning there was a layer of dew etc."; therefore it appears to me that one should protest, for certainly this minhag did not spread except from the dross of idolatry, concerning which it is said "who set a table for Gad etc.," so it appears to me.'
But the Taz7 rejected his words: 'And it is not correct in my humble opinion, for it is specifically on the night before the circumcision, when they do so for the fortune of the infant, that there is in it the applicability of "who set a table for Gad," for Gad is a term denoting fortune; which is not so on Shabbos nights, when they place the bread of lechem mishneh, which is for the honor of Shabbos, whose honor is in lechem mishneh, and there is in this no element of fortune and there is in this no prohibition at all, for even before Shabbos, as soon as they take them out of the oven they place them on the table for the honor of Shabbos.' And he repeated his words in Orach Chaim8: 'See what I wrote in Yoreh De'ah siman 178, that there is no prohibition in that which some have the practice of setting the table on Friday night with a whole loaf all night, because it is for the honor of Shabbos, and not like the Levush who forbids there.']
> If so, from the view of the Taz and the Shach it is explained that there is no problem in leaving a whole loaf, and the Magen Avraham too appears to incline to say that one may leave a whole loaf [and especially on Shabbos], since so it is explained in the Zohar [and the Gemara can be explained in a manner that does not contradict this].
On the other hand, the Eliyah Rabbah9 wrote to explain the concern of the Mahary Weil, and wrote that there is no proof from the words of the Zohar: 'And in my humble opinion, to settle the reasoning of the Mahary Weil: one must remove it because of those who enter, who may think that he placed it after eating. One may also say that the language "pas" implies a slice, as it is written10 "and let me fetch a morsel of bread," and likewise in Berachos page 3911 "the bracha of Hamotzi must conclude with the bread," meaning when he slices the slice, see there; and furthermore, the language of Rashi in the Talmud there is "anyone who does not leave over crumb[s] etc."; and furthermore, behold he wrote [in the Mateh Moshe] and the Shelah that the language of the Talmud implies in accordance with the words of the Mahary Weil and it is proper to take his words into consideration [end of quote]. And as for what he brought from the Zohar Parshas Terumah, it appears that he intended what the Zohar wrote12, and these are its words: the table should not be empty, for the blessing is not found upon an empty table, as it is written "tell me what you have in the house," for the supernal blessings rest only in a complete place, end of quote. And it appears that he understood "a complete place" to mean a whole loaf, but in my humble opinion there is no proof from this, for this is what it says: that the table should not be empty, but that the bread should be whole is not required, and that is why the Shelah did not mention this from the words of the Zohar.'
However, the Chida13 rejected the words of the Eliyah Rabbah: 'And as for what he objected against the proof of the Rav Be'er Sheva from the Zohar Terumah, that there is no proof from there that it should be a whole loaf, but only that the table should not be empty, see the Be'er Sheva. The language of the Zohar Parshas Yisro escaped him, page 87b, where it says "a person must arrange upon his table a loaf or more to bless over it." And the Rav Yad Aharon brought it, see there. And in the work Mikdash Melech there he elaborated on this.'
In practice the Alter Rebbe14 decided in accordance with the words of the poskim who wrote that there is no problem in leaving a whole loaf: 'If no bread remained for him on the table, he should not bring a whole loaf and place it on the table, because it appears like one who sets a table for idolatry, as the verse said "who set a table for Gad" etc.; but if a whole loaf was already lying on the table, as on Shabbos when one breaks bread over lechem mishneh, it is good not to remove it until after Birkas Hamazon.'
> If so, in practice, a whole loaf that remained from the beginning of the seudah [and as on Shabbos if the lechem mishneh remained] is good to leave for Birkas Hamazon
Notes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' קפ ס"ב ועד"ז כתב ביו"ד סי' קעח ↩
2 או"ח שם סק"א ↩
3 יו"ד שם ס"ק ה ↩
4 או"ח שם ס"ק ב ↩
5 יו"ד שם ס"ג ↩
6 שמות טו, יג ↩
7 שם ס"ק ז ↩
8 שם ס"ק א ↩
9 סי' קפ ס"ק ב ↩
10 בראשית יח, ה ↩
11 ע"א ↩
12 קנז, ב ↩
13 ברכ"י שם ס"ק א ↩
14 שו"ע או"ח שם ס"ג ↩
[E] (Halacha 1020)
Question: What must one be careful about when clearing the bread from the table?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Berachos1 says: 'Beis Shammai say: one sweeps the house and afterwards washes the hands, and Beis Hillel say: one washes the hands and afterwards sweeps the house.'
And as for the reason for the dispute, it is explained in the Gemara2: 'The Rabbis taught: Beis Shammai say: one sweeps the house and afterwards washes the hands, for if you were to say one washes the hands first, it turns out that you ruin the food. But washing the hands first, according to Beis Shammai, they do not hold; what is the reason? Because of crumbs. And Beis Hillel say: if the attendant is a Torah scholar, he takes the crumbs that have a kezayis in them and leaves the crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them. This supports Rabbi Yochanan, for Rabbi Yochanan said: crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them, it is permitted to destroy them by hand. In what do they disagree? Beis Hillel hold: it is forbidden to make use of an ignorant attendant; and Beis Shammai hold: it is permitted to make use of an ignorant attendant. Rabbi Yose bar Chanina said in the name of Rav Huna: throughout this entire chapter the halacha is like Beis Hillel, except for this, where the halacha is like Beis Shammai. And Rabbi Oshaya taught the reverse, and in this too the halacha is like Beis Hillel.'
The Rambam3, the Rosh4, and the Tur5 brought the words of the Gemara as halacha.
> If so, we have seen that: a) it is forbidden to destroy by hand crumbs that have a kezayis in them, [but crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them it is permitted to destroy]. b) it is permitted to make use of an ignorant attendant, even though he does not know the law of destroying the crumbs, c) and therefore one must be concerned that he will leave on the table crumbs of bread the size of a kezayis, and when they wash their hands for mayim acharonim it could spill on the crumbs and cause them to be destroyed, d) therefore one must sweep before washing the mayim acharonim.
However, the students of Rabbeinu Yonah6 wrote: 'And as for why we do not have the practice nowadays to do so, Ri the Elder of blessed memory says that this was only in their days, when their minhag was to clear away the table before the bracha and they would wash their hands in the place where the table had stood, and if he washed his hands before they swept the place where the table stands, the water would fall on the crumbs and there would be an element of degradation of food; but nowadays, since it is not our minhag to clear away the table and we wash our hands away from the table, in a place where there are no crumbs, they were not concerned about the matter.'
And so the Mechaber wrote as halacha7: 'Before one washes his hands, he should sweep the house so that no crumbs remain there and become spoiled in the water of washing; even though it is permitted to destroy crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them, [there is concern] lest the attendant be an ignorant person, for it is permitted to make use of an ignorant attendant, and he will leave also crumbs that have a kezayis in them, which it is forbidden to destroy by hand; therefore one should sweep first; but nowadays we do not have this practice, because we do not clear away the table, and we wash the hands away from the table, in a place where there are no crumbs, and there is no room for any concern.'
However, the Bach8 wrote: 'But in my humble opinion it appears that since the Rosh and Rabbeinu [the Tur] saw the words of Rabbeinu Yonah and nevertheless wrote this ruling as it is in the Gemara, that one must sweep the house before he washes his hands, evidently they rejected this of Rabbeinu Yonah; and he, of blessed memory, made his words depend on the fact that we wash our hands away from the table etc., and this is not so, for although such is our minhag with the first washing, to wash away from the table, unlike the minhag of the sages of the Talmud who would wash in the place where they reclined to eat, as is stated in the baraisa "what is the order of reclining" in Perek Keitzad Mevarchin (43a), nevertheless, with the last washing, even nowadays one who has the practice of washing mayim acharonim has the attendant bring him the water and he washes there in his place where he sits at the table; therefore one who has the practice of washing mayim acharonim must have the practice of sweeping the house before he washes his hands, or going away from the table and washing his hands. So it appears to me obvious, that one must be careful in this.'
And in the Divrei Chamudos9 he wrote on the words of the students of Rabbeinu Yonah: 'And it appears to me that what Rashi wrote, "one sweeps the house etc.," if they reclined on the ground, or if they reclined at the table one sweeps the table from the remnants of food scattered upon it, perforce speaks of where they wash at the table; and if so, one should be careful at large feasts where it is customary to wash at the table, and even with the washing of mayim rishonim one should be careful; and not only that, but at that washing there are still whole pieces, and if so one should be all the more careful to remove them.'
But the Taz10 wrote on the words of the Bach: 'My father-in-law of blessed memory wrote: if so, those who wash their hands for mayim acharonim and sit at the table must sweep the ground even in our times; but it appears to me that there is yet another distinction in this, for in the time of the Talmud they would clear away the table and there is concern lest, through the shaking of the table, crumbs fell, and also in the place where they wash crumbs are not found'11.
The Alter Rebbe12 wrote in practice in accordance with the words of the Mechaber: 'In the days of the sages of the Talmud, when they would clear away the small tables that were before each and every person before mayim acharonim, and would wash mayim acharonim in the place of the tables, they needed to sweep the ground of the house in the place of the tables before the washing, so that no crumbs of bread would remain there and become spoiled in the water of washing; and even though it is permitted to destroy crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them, there is concern lest the attendant be an ignorant person, for it is permitted to make use of an ignorant attendant, and he will leave on the table also crumbs that have a kezayis in them when he removes the bread from upon the table, and afterwards they will fall from it when they clear it away from there and become spoiled in the water of washing; therefore one should sweep first. But we, who do not clear away the table and wash the hands in a place where there are no crumbs, need not sweep first.'
And in places where it is customary to wash mayim acharonim at the table in a vessel, the Ma'amar Mordechai13 wrote: 'And the simple minhag is to wash at the table in the vessel, and according to this it would appear that one should be concerned about crumbs, lest droplets go out beyond the vessel and fall on the crumbs that are on the table; and so the Rav Bach of blessed memory wrote, that one should be careful even now to sweep the house first, see there. But according to our minhag, the sweeping of the house makes no difference, and this is clear. And one can resolve and say that they were only concerned in the time of the Talmud about crumbs on the ground, because they are not visible and there is concern that there may be crumbs there that have a kezayis in them, which is not so with crumbs on the table, which are visible and stand before him, and there is no room for any concern; and nevertheless it is good and proper to remove the crumbs around the vessel so that water should not fall on them, as above, and so it is implied in the Levush, for another reason, see there14...'.
And similarly the Mishnah Berurah wrote15: 'But when one washes the hands in a vessel at the table, as is our minhag, according to all opinions one must clean the crumbs around it, as below.'
If so, in practice one should be careful that water from the washing of the hands and from mayim acharonim should not spill on pieces of bread (those that have a kezayis in them), [and there are those who wrote that when one washes mayim acharonim at the table in a vessel it is worthwhile to distance the pieces of bread, out of concern that they will get wet].
Notes:
1 נא, ב ↩
2 נב, ב ↩
3 הל' ברכות פ"ז הי"א ↩
4 ברכות פ"ח סי' א ↩
5 או"ח סי' קפ ↩
6 לח, ב מדפי הרי"ף ↩
7 שו"ע או"ח סי' קפ ס"ג ↩
8 או"ח שם ↩
9 ברכות פ"ח סי' א אות ב ↩
10 שם ס"ק ב ↩
11 וראה מה שהשיג עליו הא"ר סי' קפ ס"ק ד ↩
12 שו"ע או"ח שם ס"ד ↩
13 או"ח שם ס"ק ג ↩
14 ושם כתב בס"ג: 'טוב ונאה הוא לנקות את המפה ולהסיר הפירורין קודם שיברך כדי שיהיה השולחן טהור ונקי בשעת הברכה' ↩
15 או"ח שם ס"ק ז ↩
[F] (Halacha 1021)
In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Gemara in Berachos that there is no prohibition by law to destroy crumbs smaller than a kezayis.
Question: Is it in fact permitted to destroy small crumbs?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1 says: 'Nashura [= crumbs of bread] in the house - it is harmful for poverty... the ministering angel of sustenance, his name is Nakid, the ministering angel of poverty, his name is Naval.'
And Rashi explained: 'Nakid is his name — a term of nikud, like one who sweeps his courtyard clean; therefore he does not want crumbs to be thrown about to be trampled underfoot.'
And the Rashbam wrote: 'Nakid is his name. A term of cleanliness; therefore he does not want crumbs to be thrown about to be trampled underfoot.' 'The ministering angel of poverty, his name is Naval. A term of filth, and perhaps he enters a house where he sees that they do not conduct themselves in the manner of cleanliness with bread.'
And in the Gemara in Chullin2 it is stated: 'And Abaye said: at first I would say, the reason they sweep up crumbs is because of cleanliness. The Master said to me: it is because it is harmful for poverty. There was a certain man whom the ministering angel of poverty was pursuing but could not prevail against him - for he was very careful about crumbs; one day he ate a meal among the grass, he said: now he will surely fall into my hand; after he ate - he brought a hoe, uprooted the grass and cast it into the river, and he heard him saying: woe, that this man has driven me out of his house.'
And Rashi wrote: 'He will fall into my hand - that he will not be able to gather the crumbs from among the grass and they will be for the trampling of feet and I will ensnare him thereby.'
And in the Piskei Riaz3 it is written: 'It is fitting for a person to gather the crumbs from the place where he ate his seudah, so that they should not be trampled by the feet of people, because an evil spirit rests upon them and brings him to poverty.'
And so it is written in the Orchos Chaim4: 'And it is forbidden to throw out the crumbs to be destroyed, for we say in Perek Arvei Pesachim "the ministering angel of poverty, his name is Naval," meaning: one who is filthy and belittles bread and casts the crumbs on the ground and they are trodden by the feet of people, the ministering angel of poverty prevails over the person. And one who stores them away, the ministering angel of sustenance prevails over him.'
And from the language of the Rishonim it appears that the poverty is caused when one is not careful to clean the crumbs of bread, and treads upon them with the feet.
However, from the words of the Tosafos5 it appears that the very act of destroying crumbs is itself what causes poverty, for the Tosafos wrote on the words of the Gemara in Berachos that there is no prohibition to destroy the small crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them: 'Crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them it is permitted to destroy by hand - however, it is harmful for poverty, as we say in Perek Kol HaBasar.'
And as halacha the Mechaber wrote6: 'Even though it is permitted to destroy crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them, nevertheless it is harmful for poverty.'
And from the words of the Mechaber it is implied in accordance with the words of the Tosafos, that in any manner that one destroys the crumbs it is harmful for poverty.
But the Magen Avraham7 wrote: 'It is harmful for poverty. So the Rav Beis Yosef wrote in the name of the Tosafos, and it requires examination, for does not Beis Hillel too have concern for poverty, and why does he say that one should wash his hands first? Rather, perforce it is not harmful for poverty except when one treads upon them, but if one casts them into water it is permitted, as is stated explicitly in Chullin chapter 25 and the Tosafos brought it there, see there; and this is the intent of the Tosafos, for it was difficult for them why Beis Hillel needs to mention the sweeping of the house at all - he should have said that one need not sweep the house; rather, perforce one must say that even Beis Hillel concedes that one must sweep the house afterwards so that they should not tread upon the crumbs, for it is harmful for poverty, and even though he ruins them in the water of washing, since they do not have a kezayis there is no concern in it...'.
> It is explained in the words of the Magen Avraham that the concern for poverty in destroying crumbs smaller than a kezayis is only when one treads upon them, and as is the plain meaning of the language of the Rishonim (and the Tosafos do not disagree on this, and the intent of the Tosafos is to explain that because of the concern for poverty from treading upon them, therefore according to all opinions [even according to Beis Hillel] one must sweep, and they only disagreed as to whether it is permitted to pour the water before the cleaning).
However, the Pri Megadim disagreed with the Magen Avraham: 'The master of blessed memory passed judgment upon our master the Mechaber of blessed memory, in that he wrote 'here' this law, implying that he holds that washing one's hands over crumbs that do not have a kezayis is harmful for poverty; if so, Beis Hillel in Berachos 52b who washes his hands first, how does he not have concern for poverty? Therefore he explained that this is the meaning of the Tosafos there, that it was difficult for them, regarding Beis Hillel, that crumbs that do not have a kezayis it is permitted to destroy by hand, why do they sweep afterwards at all; to this he said that to tread upon them is forbidden even with those that do not have a kezayis. And in Shabbos 143 Rashi has the reading "crumbs that do not have a kezayis it is forbidden to destroy," that is, when one treads upon them etc. And it is difficult for me, for in siman 171:4 "roasted grains and nuts" it is forbidden to throw them in a place where they become spoiled; all the more so bread that does not have a kezayis, to spoil it in the water of washing from soiled hands. And if you say that by hand it is forbidden to spoil but to wash over them is permitted - behold he says that according to Beis Hillel one washes his hands first, [and] crumbs that do not have a kezayis it is permitted to destroy by hand, yet behold to spoil by hand is forbidden. Rather, learn from this that to spoil too is harmful for poverty, as in siman 171, but there is no prohibition. And in the Rambam, chapter 7 of Hilchos Berachos, halacha 11, crumbs that have a kezayis it is forbidden to walk and wash with them, hence those that do not have a kezayis it is permitted to walk upon them; and in the Kesef Mishneh in the name of Rabbeinu Manoach, elsewhere they said that it is harmful for poverty, and that is Perek Kol HaBasar, and this is a support for the Mechaber.'
The Alter Rebbe8 ruled in accordance with the words of the Magen Avraham: 'Even though it is permitted to destroy crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them by hand, one should not throw them in a place where the feet of people tread, because it is harmful for poverty when one treads upon crumbs of bread, and they only permitted destroying them, such as by casting them into water and the like.'
And so he wrote in Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh9: 'Crumbs of bread in the house are harmful for poverty (if they are in a place where the feet tread).'
> If so, we have seen that although by law it is permitted to destroy crumbs that do not have a kezayis in them10, nevertheless one should not place them in a place where they will be trodden upon, since this is harmful for poverty.
Notes:
1 קיא, ב ↩
2 קה, ב ↩
3 ברכות פ"ח ה"א אות ז ↩
4 הל' סעודה אות לג ↩
5 ברכות נב, ב ↩
6 שו"ע או"ח סי' קפ ס"ד ↩
7 שם ס"ק ג ↩
8 או"ח שם ס"ה ↩
9 ה"ט ↩
10 יש שהחמירו כאשר יש בכל הפירורים יחד כזית, וכמ"ש בהגהות מהר"א אזולאי על הלבוש סי' זה אות ג, [הביאו החיד"א (ברכ"י או"ח סי' קפ ס"ק ג)]: 'יש אומרים שאין בהם כזית פירוש שאין בכל אחד מהם כזית אלא פחות מכזית אבל בין כולם יש יותר מכזית, וקשה שאין זה נקרא פרור, שהפת שיש בו כזית נקרא פרוסה, שכן נקראת פרוסת המוציא ולא פירור המוציא אחר שיש בה חצי כביצה, לכן נ"ל שפירוש שאין שם כזית כלומר בין כולם אז ליכא איסורא. ואח"כ מצאתי שהאלהי כמוהר"ר אברהם גלאנטי זלה"ה בפירוש הקדמת הזוהר אשר לו הכריח כן מלשון ספר הזוהר עיי"ש. מאידך הבית מנוחה בדיני פירורי פת אות ד (הובא בכה"ח או"ח שם ס"ק יב) הסכים עם הי"א, עיי"ש. וראה מגן גיבורים שלטי גיבורים סי' קפ ס"ד. [ולענין מ"ש מהר"א אזולאי שהפת שאין בה כזית אינה נקראת פרור יש להעיר מדברי אדמו"ר הזקן בסי' תמב קו"א ס"ק א שיש פירורין של כזית עיי"ש] ↩
[G] (Halacha 1022)
Question: In halacha number 1012 we saw that there is value in leaving bread during Birkas Hamazon; does the bread need to be uncovered or covered?
Answer: Rabbeinu Bachya wrote in the Shulchan shel Arba1: 'One should be careful to spread a cloth over the bread that is on the table at the time of the bracha, and so it is the minhag of the meticulous to cover the bread at the time they recite Birkas Hamazon, so that the bread should not be shamed, and likewise when one recites the Kiddush of Shabbos over wine and not over bread. And so they said: "for the Kiddush of the day, one spreads a cloth and recites Kiddush," meaning one spreads a cloth over the bread and afterwards recites Kiddush over the wine.'
And in the Responsa Be'er Eisek2 he elaborates in explaining why one must cover the bread, and wrote: 'And if before the seudah, when they had not yet derived benefit from the bread and could have established the seudah on the wine, they were concerned for the shame of the bread - then after the seudah, when they have already derived benefit from it and made it the main thing and established their seudah upon it, certainly it would be shamed and disgraced, for it is mentioned earlier in the verse.' [And he wrote there additional reasons: 1) the reason of the Levush, that the place must be clean for the honor of the bracha. 2) according to the Zohar there is value in matters of holiness being in modesty and hidden. 3) the blessing rests only in something hidden from the eye.]
The Magen Avraham3 brought the words of Rabbeinu Bachya, and wrote: 'It is written in the Shulchan shel Arba that one should cover the bread at the time of Birkas Hamazon so that its shame should not be seen, see siman 473.'
The Machatzis HaShekel explained the Magen Avraham's reference to siman 473: 'So that its shame should not be seen, see siman 473. Specifically when the cup is in his hand4, see there. If so, it is possible that when one blesses alone, then according to the view of the Rema in siman 182:2 in the gloss, one does not hold it in his hand but places it on the table, one need not cover it'5.
> If so, it is explained that according to the view of Rabbeinu Bachya one should cover the bread that is on the table at the time of Birkas Hamazon, and the Magen Avraham wrote that this is in a case where one blesses over the cup, and the Machatzis HaShekel added that this is when one holds the cup in the hand.
However, on what the Levush6 wrote: 'And before one washes his hands he should sweep the house so that no crumbs remain there and become spoiled in the water of washing and there be an element of degradation of food,' the Mahara Azulai wrote in his glosses, os 2: 'That they would wash their hands where the table stood. And it appears to me that from this stemmed the minhag of covering the table at the time of washing mayim acharonim, so that the water should not fall on the bread that is on the table and it become spoiled, for the reason of not shaming the bread, over which they have already recited the bracha of Hamotzi, is not applicable.'
> If so, the Mahara Azulai rejected the reason of shaming the bread, and wrote that the reason is in order to prevent degradation of food, as was explained in the previous halachos.
However, his grandson the Chida7 brought his words, and wrote: 'And now in our places there is no one who has the practice of covering the table at the end, only I have seen in a certain city some who have such a practice.'
The Alter Rebbe did not bring these words of the Magen Avraham, [and on the contrary we saw in halacha 1013 that he wrote that the reason for leaving bread on the table is so that it should be recognizable that one blesses for Hashem's kindness, that He prepared sustenance, and as the words of the Kaf HaChaim that will be brought below] and likewise many Acharonim disagreed with the reason of shaming the bread8, and wrote in accordance with the words of the Chida that it is not customary to cover, as below:
In the Responsa Zera Emes9 he brought the words of the Magen Avraham and the Be'er Eisek and wrote: 'But I have not seen anyone with such a practice, and also the reason that the bread should not see its shame is not applicable in my humble opinion with regard to Birkas Hamazon, for behold this is the sign of the conclusion of the seudah, that is, the removal of the bread, and how would he bless over it, and this is clear.'
And the Bigdei Yesha10 wrote: 'Also, that with which the Magen Avraham concluded, "it is written in the Shulchan shel Arba that one should cover the bread at the time of Birkas Hamazon so that its shame should not be seen, see siman 473" - these words are very puzzling, for what shame is there of the bread? Granted, with regard to Kiddush, he should have given precedence to the bread, whose bracha is Hamotzi, and he blesses first because of Kiddush "borei pri hagafen," and he should have recited Hamotzi first, for his intent is to eat bread and the bracha of Hamotzi is more important, and it is on account of Kiddush, [so] it is called the shame of the bread and one must cover it... which is not so with regard to Birkas Hamazon, where his intent is no longer to eat bread, and what shame is there, as is explained in siman 168 and 211, that if he does not wish to eat from it there is no applicable precedence; and his words require examination, and this is clear.'
And the Ma'amar Mordechai11 wrote: 'And I, who have seen it, the simple minhag is the opposite of the words of the Rav [= Magen Avraham] of blessed memory, and as it appears in my humble opinion the strength of the minhag is well-founded... And I, the insignificant one, [it appears] in my humble opinion that it is not comparable, for there it is at the beginning of the seudah, when he is to bless over the bread, and therefore when he blesses over the wine first there is degradation and shame to the bread, which should rightly be given precedence, for it is first to it in the verse, and even so it is set aside in favor of the wine; but here he is not to bless over the bread, and on the contrary he withdraws his hand from it and blesses over it the final bracha, and what shame is there here, for behold it is impossible to bless Birkas Hamazon over it, for if he would need to bless Hamotzi over it, as he blesses "borei pri hagafen" over the cup, he would be obligated to bless Birkas Hamazon a second time; and therefore it is obvious that there is no shame here, and as it appears, the law dictates that the bread should be uncovered at the time of the bracha, since the bracha applies to it, as he wrote in se'if 1... And although I am not worthy to disagree with the Gaon, the author of the Shulchan Arba of blessed memory, for he is an early authority, nevertheless I am as one who gives a reason for the minhag, and as it appears it is a minhag of the meticulous, and so it appears from the plain meaning of all the poskim, for if not, they would not have been silent about it. And the wonder is on the Rav Magen Avraham of blessed memory, who copied the words of the Rav Shulchan Arba unqualifiedly; and it appears that for this reason our master of blessed memory did not copy the words of the Rav Shulchan Arba on this, as he copied on other matters.'
And the Kaf HaChaim wrote12: 'However, according to the reasons that we wrote in os 1, it appears that the bread should be uncovered at the time of Birkas Hamazon, see there. And so the people conduct themselves.'
> If so, we have seen that many poskim wrote that it was not customary to cover the bread during Birkas Hamazon, and the Alter Rebbe too did not bring the words of the Magen Avraham that one should cover the bread at the time of the bracha.
Notes:
1 שער א ↩
2 סי' כז ↩
3 סי' קפ ס"ק ד ↩
4 וראה גם בלקוטי בן חבר ↩
5 וראה מ"ש אדמו"ר הזקן או"ח סי' קפב ס"א ↩
6 או"ח שם ס"ג ↩
7 ברכ"י או"ח שם ס"ק ב ↩
8 אמנם ראה מ"ש ליישב בפתח הדביר ח"א או"ח סי' קפ ↩
9 ח"ג בלקוטי או"ח צ, ב ↩
10 או"ח שם ↩
11 ס"ק ד. וראה עוד מ"ש בהשמטה על דברי החיד"א ↩
12 או"ח שם ס"ק טז ↩
From the project 'Shoneh Halacha' - a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp Group