The Questions (and Answers) of BDJ

View a printable version of this Q & A here.

Thank you to everyone who submitted Benching & Brachot questions! Once again, there were more questions than Rav David and I could get to, but we will get them in the next “Benching and Blessings” go-round! For follow-up purposes, the answers below with the “RDS” designation were written by Rav David, and the ones with the “RYK” designation were written by Rav Yosef. Enjoy!

Q: For the section of benching in which we bless "ba'al habayit hazeh" and "ba'alat habayit hazeh": Are you the "head of household" in a hotel room that you book, or is it the hotel proprietor? What if it's an AirBNB, extended-stay hotel, or a sublet apartment? What if you are eating on property that is government-owned (should I have Karen Bass in mind as the "head of household" if I'm having a picnic in an LA city park)? What about property that is owned and operated by a corporation, such as an airplane?

What is the correct use if you are unsure of the gender of the "head of household" (such as in a restaurant)?

A (RYK): The practice to bless one’s host is first articulated in Gemara Brachot 46a (which actually records a very elaborate blessing (!) that can be found in some high quality bentchers). Over time this came to also include specific verbiage with which to bless one’s parents when we are eating at their table.  Additionally, we have made it our practice nowadays whenever we are eating at someone else’s table, to explicitly bless not only our male host (בעל הבית) but, as applicable, also our female host (בעלת הבית). And if we were eating somewhere where the only host is a female host, we of course omit altogether the reference to a male host. If eating out and someone else is paying, you can certainly bless that person. My main point here is that this blessing isn’t and was never meant to be a rote formula. There are no “required words”, other than the words that make sense in the context in which you happen to be eating. When a group of people are eating together and there is no “host” per se, it is customary to simply bless כל המסובין כאן, “all who are eating together here”.  If you are eating in a park in LA and you feel moved to bless the mayor, or you’re in an AirBNB and feel moved to bless the owner, then just do (and say!) exactly that, although this is clearly beyond the original intention, which was about blessing the provider of the meal.

Q: Can challah ever be mezonot? Are bananas and pineapples 'borei pri adamah' since they are botanically not trees? As for nuts, how can we provide the correct blessing since some are from trees and some are not? Do we have to have an encyclopedic knowledge of botany to be a halachik Jew? And then there's the sorting problem - what if we take the one peach immersed in a bowl of other fruit, or we pick out the olives we don't want that are in a salad we otherwise want? P.S. Can you explain the appropriate bracha achrona?

A (RYK): 1) Both in restaurants and on airplanes we come across bread that claims that it is not bread, i.e. that the bracha that should be recited before eating it is בורא מיני מזונות (“borey minei mezonot”) as opposed to המוציא (“hamotzi”), and that על המחיה should be recited afterwards as opposed to the full benching. The basis for this claim is that fundamentally speaking halacha defines “bread” as being made of flour and water. And that “bread” which is kneaded in part or in whole with fruit juice as opposed to water, and which may also contain other ingredients such as eggs, oil, and raisins, is not halachikly “bread”, and instead falls into the Halachik category of פת הבאה בכיתנין (“pat haba’ah b’kitnin”), henceforth PHB. 

PHB is a real category of course. Cake and cookies are unequivocally halachikly defined as PHB. But can this category also include things that look, feel, and taste like bread? Over the centuries much ink has been spilled over this question, i.e. where exactly the line between “bread” and PHB is to be drawn.

In short:  Ashkenazic practice (as articulated by Rama) allows for bread to be adulterated with other ingredients without leaving the category of “bread” and becoming PHB. Look no farther than the eggs, oil, sugar, olives, raisins, and even chocolate that are routinely found in the challah that we recite “hamotzi” over every Shabbat. Yes, at some point enough sugar and oil would render these baked goods “cake” (and therefore PHB), but Ashkenazic practice gives the definition of “bread” a very wide berth. Our rule of thumb is that a bread-type product that functions as bread – i.e. is being served and consumed as “bread” in the context of a meal – is Halachikly bread, regardless of the “mezonot” designation that someone may have slapped onto the package. In the words of a contemporary “p’sak” signed by numerous luminaries of the American Orthodox rabbinate (I’m now translating from the Hebrew, which had been translated from the original English 😊): “The fact is that most people eat these “mezonot” rolls in the context of a meal, and in truth the entire intention behind the production of these rolls is for them to serve as functional substitutes for regular rolls. Therefore, despite the “mezonot” type ingredients in the dough, one who eats these rolls needs to wash and recite “hamotzi” prior to eating, and to bench afterwards… To present these rolls as “mezonot rolls” is to place a stumbling block in the path of the community”. 

(Sephardic practice may vary, as the Shulchan Aruch defines bread more narrowly in terms of adulteration-tolerance, but when it is used literally as a bread stand-in, it is likely “hamotzi” within the context of Sephardic tradition as well.)

2) Indeed the bracha for pineapples, bananas (and strawberries as well) is not בורא פרי העץ (“borey pri ha’etz”), rather בורא פרי האדמה “borey pri ha’adama”. This is because Halacha defines a tree as a structure that remains intact above the ground even during the winter (i.e. the dormant season.) Tree nuts are always בורא פרי העץ (“borey pri ha’etz”). But the question being asked here is really a larger and very important one. Are we expected to be botanical experts to say brachot properly?? The answer, I think, is “no and yes”:

“No” in the sense that the Halacha recognizes that we are not botanical experts, and therefore grants us the leeway to recite האדמה בורא פרי (“borey pri ha’adama”) which is more generic than its counterpart, whenever we are in doubt as to what kind of tree or plant produces the item that we’re eating.

And “Yes” in the sense that brachot are serious business in the eyes of our Sages who boldly created them and introduced them into Jewish life a couple thousand years ago. They are a means through which we develop and cultivate our consciousness of God and of God’s role in our lives. And as my wife teaches new parents, it is much more impactful and meaningful – both to the child and to the parent - to say, “Great job doing ‘x’!”, than to simply say “Great job!” Becoming educated in botany and reciting the most accurate brachot reflect the depth of our gratitude to God. And, in the 21st century, it’s really easy 😊! See for example brachos.org.

3) The broad strokes of “bracha acharona” (blessing afterwards) are straightforward. We recite the על המחיה after foods that primarily composed of one of the “five grains” (wheat, barley, oats, spelt, rye), and על העץ ועל פרי העץ after fruits for which the land of Israel is praised (grapes, olives, pomegranates, dates, figs). Everything else is בורא נפשות. Your siddur or bencher has them all! Feel free to send more specific follow-up questions.

Q: The Artscroll siddur has a blessing for seeing "unusual" looking people or animals ("meshaneh ha-briyot"). Judaism is abundantly clear that we should never needlessly embarrass others and it would seem it would be extremely embarrassing to have someone recite meshaneh ha-briyot on you. Why is this a bracha? Is it ever appropriate to use it? (Similarly, are there scenarios where saying the bracha over exceptionally beautiful people, shekahcha lo baolamo, is inappropriate?)

A (RYK): This is a great question about the nexus of ritual and interpersonal halacha. Thank you! There is no doubt at all that one should not recite a bracha in such a way that it will cause direct humiliation or embarrassment to a person. It is Biblically forbidden (אונאת דברים) to cause this kind of harm with our words.  So, the question is limited then to whether this bracha should be recited in a way that the person will have no awareness that it is being recited about him or her. I’d suggest that the answer becomes easier when we (very linguistically reasonably!) interpret the words of the bracha to NOT be labeling the person or animal as “strange looking” in some sort of objective sense, rather as “strange to us”, in a subjective sense, reflecting OUR lack of prior exposure. It’s a bracha of wonder, acknowledging that God’s world is much more varied than we, in our parochial experience, had realized. Same for the “beautiful” bracha, except that we are simultaneously experiencing wonder AND esthetic pleasure.

Q: 1-2 Jewish men eat a meal with 3 (or more) women. May one of the women recite the invitation/Zimmun and lead the benching?

In what contexts, if any, might men and women form a zimun together i.e. if it's 3 people total (mixed men and women). May a woman recite the Zimmun and lead the benching?

A (RYK): Beginning several years ago, serious discussions began about men and women combining to constitute a “zimmun of three” i.e., two women plus one man or one man plus two women constituting a zimmun of three.  (A “zimmun of ten” with its additional insertion, is a different question). The discussions began because the most commonly stated reason for men and women not combining to constitute a zimmun had arguably become significantly less relevant in our contemporary circumstances. And if in fact this contraindication to a mixed-gender-constituted zimmun was no longer relevant, this seemed like a good opportunity to extend and expand this very wonderful and precious liturgical mitzvah.

Here is the basic background:

1. In terms of the basic halachic relationship that women have with the mitzvah of zimmun, there is a debate among the rishonim (medieval rabbinic authorities) about three women forming their own zimmun after having eaten together. One opinion is that three women may if they wish, and the other opinion is that they must form a zimmun. This debate, though never officially resolved, has mostly landed over the last 200 years on the latter position (that of obligation), prompting the theory found in the Mishna Brurah (199:16) and elsewhere, that the only reason that women haven’t historically been forming zimmuns is that they lack the needed Hebrew literacy/ritual proficiency*. The position that women are fundamentally obligated in zimmun is what underlies Rav Moshe’s psak (Igrot Moshe, OH 5:9:10) that women Halachikly must be present at the Shabbat table at benching time, so that they can participate in the [male-led] zimmun. It should be pointed out, to directly answer one of the questions posed here, that men should certainly respond to a zimmun constituted by three women.

[*The implications for the present day, when we invest tens of thousands of dollars over 12+ years in our daughters’ Jewish education, are obvious!]

2. To move now to men and women combining to constitute a zimmun: A classical objection expressed by numerous rishonim, is that there is something unseemly about a men and women gathering for a meal, and that to formally, Halachikly recognize this meal through the zimmun of three literally being constituted by the combination of men and women is similarly unseemly. (The Hebrew word that is often used here is פריצות, “pritzut”, best translated as “a breaching of propriety”, with a clear implication of “breaching of sexual propriety”)
3. But there were also rishonim who rejected this objection. We actually have several records of rishonim and acharonim (medieval and post-medieval authorities) who did constitute a zimmun together with their wives and daughters, writing that there is surely no “unseemliness” in such a gathering, and who further believed that in principle the same could be extended to general gatherings of men and women as well. Historically, their position did not win mainstream acceptance.  
4. It is very arguable that the “unseemliness” rationale was the historical product of the well-documented reality that for a very long-time men and women simply didn’t dine together at all. In such a social and cultural context, it is very reasonable that a mixed-gender meal could be categorized as “unseemly”, a characterization that would be extended to a mixed-gender-constituted zimmun. But changes in dining habits might very well produce a different characterization of both mixed-gender meals and a zimmun that is constituted by these diners.

Based upon all of this, serious discussions began some years ago about if and how to reassess all of this in a time and place when it is 100% routine for women and men to eat together at Shabbat meals and in many other contexts. The bulk of the discussion to date - and please read “On Women Joining in a Zimmun” for the most comprehensive and serious essay on the topic! - has limited its practical conclusions to the modest proposal that the nuclear family zimmun ought to be revived and practiced. I am one of the many who have found this proposal halachikly compelling, and I personally concluded some years ago that our family would be halachikly remiss if we failed to form a zimmun along these lines. (Sari, Yakir, and I were the only three people sitting at the table for many, many meals during Yakir’s high school career!)

It should be noted that the Halachik reasoning that has brought us to this point also indicates that any one of the three people – regardless of gender – can lead this zimmun. The same would be true even if there are three men present at the meal.

What about going beyond the nuclear family? My strong inclination is to move cautiously and slowly in this area, recognizing that we are part of a larger Orthodox community whose Halachik norms change slowly, and also acknowledging that we are part of a larger society in which “pritzut” unfortunately abounds. A meal with dear friends who are literally like family feels different to me from a meal eaten with even close acquaintances. (Meaning, that in the former case, I would myself feel Halachikly good about a mixed-gender-constituted zimmun led by either a man or a woman, but not as much in the latter case.)

Q: Is there a prohibition to eat before davening in the morning? If so, what counts as "eating"? And what counts as "davening" for this purpose - e.g. is saying kriat shma enough? Is this prohibition any different on weekdays? If I would like to eat before davening on shabbat anyway, should I say kiddush?

A (RDS): At its core, this halakhic issue is an expression of our fundamental priorities and values in life. The basic value here is that our day should begin with and be oriented around our religious and spiritual lives; the experience of prayer is so important that everything else can wait. Indeed, the chapter in Shulchan Aruch dealing with this question focuses not only on eating before davening, but even on having conversations and interactions with others before davening! The bottom line, again, is an expression of the prioritization that should be given to our religious life.

Now, as to the technical aspect of how to properly achieve this prioritization with a rumbling stomach: The Shulchan Aruch (89:3) rules that one may not eat or drink before davening shemoneh esrei, except for water (along with coffee or tea, as the Mishna Berura adds). The Rama points out, however, that while it’s good to be stringent, one can eat after just saying the brachot that mark the beginning of davening.

Most importantly, though, the Shulchan Aruch adds in the very next section (89:4) that one who is (very) thirsty or hungry is considered “infirm,” and, if unable to focus on davening because of hunger, that he or she can eat or drink before davening if needed.

The bottom line that emerges here is the need to prioritize davening - at least brachot - in the morning, but that that prioritization could even at times include eating first if needed for a person to be able to focus on his or her tefilla.

As to the final question here about kiddush: the Mishna Berura (Be’ur Halakha 289) maintains that it is obvious that one who must eat before davening should make kiddush first. However, others have maintained that this isn’t all that obvious, both because the obligation to make kiddush might only begin after one davens, and because one only fulfills the obligation of kiddush if he or she is eating a “meal” along with it. Therefore, both Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach maintain that if one is only eating fruit or even mezonot (but likely not pat haba’ah b’kitnin - see the question above about “mezonot rolls”), one would not have to make kiddush first. If having a proper meal before davening though, including bread or bread-like products, one should make kiddush first per the Mishna Berura.

Q: I’ve heard in the past that when one gets married, they should no longer say a bracha on tzitzit katan in the morning as they will say a bracha on the tallit when they daven shacharit. Is this the case or should one say a bracha on both tzitzit and tallit? If they do, is that not a bracha levatala?

A (RDS): First, a bit of background: the mitzvah of tzitzit is what is known as a “mitzvah kiyumit” - a contextual mitzvah. Unlike, say, Shabbos, which one must observe no matter what, the mitzvah of tzitzit only applies if you are wearing a four-cornered garment. If not - then you do not have an obligation to wear tzitzit (this is similar to many other mitzvot as well, such as mitzvot that only apply to the land of Israel).

As a result, the practice developed, and the Shulchan Aruch (24:1) recommends wearing what is known as a “tallit katan” at all times, so that one can fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit at all times.

With regards to the bracha, however, things get a bit more complicated. The bracha that is prescribed for a full Tallit contains the text of “l’hit’atef b’tzitzit” - “Blessed are you God…who commanded us to wrap ourselves in tzitzit.” Unless the tallit katan you are wearing is exceptionally large, however, one does not “wrap” oneself in a tallit katan! As a result, the Rama (8:6) rules that one should make the bracha of “al mitzvat tzitzit” - “Blessed are you God…who commanded us about the mitzvah of tzitzit”.

When it comes to someone who is wearing both a tallit katan and a tallit gadol, then, what is the preferred practice? Should you make a single bracha for both, or recite separate brachot - and thereby risk making an unnecessary bracha? Here the Shulchan Arukh (8:13) is quite clear: if there will be any interruption between the bracha on the tallit katan and the tallit gadol (including unrelated conversation, travel to shul, or other matters), then two separate brachot should be made.

Q: What should I do if I realize I forgot to bench? Does the time passed after the meal and/or moving of locations affect this? Should one still bench if he or she forgot to wash or make hamotze? What if water is not available to wash before a meal with bread?

After you eat, how much time do you have to bench? I heard 90 minutes, and I also heard that you have until you get hungry again - but that if you get hungry again, then you've missed your chance to bench. Which is it?

A (RDS):

Part 1 Benching: “Benching” - or, more specifically, the various brachot that we say after a meal, is a Biblically obligated act of gratitude for the food and satiation that we are blessed with. The obligation to express this gratitude is “triggered” by consumption of any volume of food greater than a kezayit, which is about 27cc or 1oz, and, in the case of eating bread, is therefore not dependent upon whether one had washed before eating or not.

The basic timeframe that the Shulchan Arukh (184:5) provides for benching after a meal is “until one’s food is digested.” Which - especially for those of us with either faster or slower metabolisms - may be pretty tricky to determine exactly. While the Shulchan Arukh goes on to clarify that you can determine whether this “digestion window” has passed by simply checking if you are hungry again, many later commentaries recommended a fixed timeframe of 72 minutes after eating within which to bench (see Mishna Berura 184:20).

A change in location is a reliable indicator that one’s meal has concluded, and therefore one who has left his or her meal should, upon remembering, bench in their new location (Shulhan Arukh 184:1 and Mishna Berura 184:5).

Part 2 Washing before bread: If water is not available to wash before eating bread, and you are very hungry, and you do not anticipate being able to access water to wash for the next 72 minutes, the Shulhan Arukh (163:1) advises cleaning your hands with a napkin before eating instead. While the Rama adds that you can also simply eat with a utensil and thereby avoid touching the bread, the Mishna Berura (163:8) recommends the Shulhan Arukh’s approach.

Q: Why are women not obligated to cover their heads while reciting brachot and benching in the way that men are? Is this too considered a mitzvah she'hazman gramah (a time-bound mitzvah)?

When a man isn't covering his head, and says a bracha, even putting a napkin on his head "counts," so why have I heard that putting your hand on your head doesn't similarly work?

A (RYK): Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this confusion.

“Head covering” means two distinctly separate things in classical Halacha. In the context of married women, it refers to a practice of physical modesty associated with being married. In the context of men, it refers to the custom of pious Talmudic masters to cover their heads in deference to God. See for example, Shabbat 118b where Rav Huna is praised for not having walked four amot without a head covering, reasoning that, “the Shekhina is above my head, so how can I go around with it uncovered?” The custom of Rav Huna and others became a widespread and lauded custom among Jewish men generally over time. Some authorities argued that when a man invokes God’s name it is not merely a matter of custom to cover his head, but a matter of obligation, and this is in fact the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (206:3)

Though some have ruled that women too are obligated to cover their heads while reciting brachot or davening, this practice never took root. The whole thing just isn’t a women’s custom.

Returning now to men covering their heads when praying or reciting brachot: There is a principle that “אין גוף מכסה גוף”, meaning that a body cannot “cover” itself. (See Shulchan Aruch 91:4 and Mishna Brurah there.) Or to state it differently, the definition of a “cover” for these purposes is an object that is external to the person. This is why a napkin does the trick, while your own hand does not.

Q: I heard a rumor that the directive to remain silent between washing and motzei is a fallacy! Is that true??

A (RDS): Shhhhhh - I really hope that you didn’t speak of this rumor while waiting to hear hamotzi! Jokes aside, here is a verbatim translation of the Shulchan Aruch’s (166:1) ruling about this issue:

“There are those who say that one does not need to be careful not to interrupt between washing and hamotzi. And there are those who say that one should be cautious with this, and it is better to be cautious.”

Notably, however, the Mishna Berura (166:6) adds that even if you did talk between washing and hamotzi, you wouldn’t need to wash again!

The main idea though, according to all opinions, is that between washing for bread and making hamotzi - which are actions that are intrinsically and ritually linked - one should remain generally focused on the meal. While conversation related to the meal or to hamotzi, (“where is that salt shaker?” or “Did I forget to put out the knife again?”) are certainly permitted, the universal practice of remaining quiet while waiting for hamotzi is clearly in line with the recommendation of the Shulchan Aruch here.