web analytics
August 28, 2016 / 24 Av, 5776
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

Lechem Mishneh

At the onset of the Bnei Yisrael’s journey through the midbar, we read in this week’s parshah that the Bnei Yisrael’s complaint was for food to eat. Hashem responded that He would send “lechem min hashamayim” (also known as mun), and that the Bnei Yisrael would collect each day’s portion according to the number of members of his household. One was not allowed to leave over any mun for the next day, and if he would it would spoil. On the sixth day a double portion would fall and the second portion was to be saved for Shabbos, as the mun would not fall on Shabbos. This double portion would not spoil, even though it was left over to the next day.

The Gemara in Shabbos 117b derives from the pasuk that mentions the double portion of mun that fell for Shabbos that one is obligated to “break” bread on two loaves of bread on Shabbos. Rashi explains that the obligation is only to recite the berachah of “hamotzi lechem” on two loaves; one need not break both loaves. The Gemara relates a story in which Rav Kehana held two loaves while reciting the berachah and only broke one of the loaves. The Gemara then relates another incident in which Rav Zera broke enough bread for the entire meal. The interpretation of the second incident is the subject of a dispute between Rashi and the Rashba. Rashi explains that it is an unrelated episode that teaches us that Rav Zera would break a bigger piece of bread than usual in honor of Shabbos. The Rashba explains that the Gemara is offering a disputing opinion to the previous one of Rav Kehana. Rav Kehana would only recite the berachah on the two loaves, and Rav Zera would even break both of them.

In other words, according to Rashi, one must only recite the berachah of hamotzi on two loaves and one need not break both of them; in his view this is not a matter of dispute. According to the Rashba, this is the opinion of Rav Kehana. Rav Zera disagrees and says that one must break both loaves as well. The Rashba adds that Rav Hai Gaon ruled that since the Gemara did not rule in this matter between Rav Kehana and Rav Zera, one is free to do as he wishes.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 274:2) rules in accordance with Rashi’s view that one must only recite the berachah on the two loaves, and that one need not break both of them. Also, that it is a mitzvah on Shabbos to break a big piece that would suffice for the entire meal. The Vilna Gaon, in the abovementioned siman, agrees with the Rashba that one should break both loaves of bread. Similarly, the Magen Avraham cites the fact that the Maharshal was accustomed to breaking both loaves of bread as well.

I would like to discuss the basis for this machlokes, and explain on a deeper level where they disagree. According to Rashi everyone agrees that one must only recite the berachah on the two loaves. On this opinion, the halacha that one must have lechem mishneh is similar to that of the daytime Kiddush. There is an obligation that the seudah begins with a berachah on lechem mishneh. Therefore, the following chiddush halacha should result: Just the same as Kiddush Rabbah (by day), only one person is required to recite the berachah, and everyone can fulfill their obligation without even drinking from the wine. So too only one person must recite the berachah on the lechem mishneh, and everyone will have fulfilled the obligation of lechem mishneh. This applies even if they do not eat from the lechem mishneh; rather they can eat from their own bread and make their own birchas hamotzi on it.

The Eishel Avraham (Reb Avraham from Butchatch found this in the back of the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 274) adds that one can even be yotzi his obligation of lechem mishneh if he hears the berachah before he washed his hands, and that the washing and reciting of its berachah will not be an interruption. Even though he will recite his own berachah of hamotzi, it is sufficient that he heard the berachah that was recited on the two loaves.

The Rashba explained that Rav Zera disagrees with Rav Kehana, saying that one must break both loaves. In fact he makes no mention of the berachah at all. In his view one must break both loaves and need not recite the berachah over both of them. According to this opinion the obligation to break both loaves of bread is a part of the seudah, and the seudah should be eaten with both loaves broken. One need not eat from both loaves, but we see that it is a part of the seudah. According to this opinion one would have to eat from one of the two broken loaves. It would not suffice to merely listen to the recitation of the berachah over them.

Rabbi Raphael Fuchs

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Lechem Mishneh”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Former Labor minister Binyamin "Fuad" Ben-Eliezer.
Former Defense Minister Binyamin ‘Fuad’ Ben-Eliezer in Hospital
Latest Judaism Stories
Weiss 082616

Deep contemplation, loyalty, ambition and intelligence define the traits of one born in Elul, the month symbolized by Virgo, a sign of purity.

Hertzberg 082616

A leader must be aware of and responsible for all details on the ship – big or small.

Daf-Yomi-logo

The Lost Or Relinquished Kesubah
‘A Couple May Not Live Even One Moment Without A Kesubah’
(Bava Kamma 89a)

Question: I am very appreciative and, if I might add, flattered that you answer and publish many of my questions. Due to your superior knowledge, I am always confident when I send in a question that I will receive a proper response. I wonder if you could address whether one should say Birkat HaGomel after flying even though flying is statistically safer than driving. Also, do women say HaGomel as well or only men?

Menachem

While the sincerity of the little fellow might be touching, he is missing the point.

Hillel felt the counselors and camp administration did not have sufficient authority to deal with Bernie. Reluctantly, he agreed to sell the bat to Bernie for $200.

They bentched nonetheless, though, because they were given a specific mitzvah to thank Hashem for the mon.

She knew it wasn’t easy or pleasant to stand around asking for money and so many people were far worse off than she was.

The time has come for all of us to change, to become the people our Creator meant us to be. Instead of working on others, let us work on ourselves.

One must be honest and straight in business dealings and in any interchange involving another person, no matter what his color or creed.

Is it possible God afflicted the nation of Israel through the past 40 years of the desert, withholding food and water from them…on purpose? How can we have a relationship with a God like that?

There is something profoundly spiritual about listening-shema. It is the most effective form of conflict resolution I know.

How could I possibly handle all these different emotions on top of the complexities of life? Easy,,,by dancing.

Throughout the perek, the navi describes the greatness of Hashem Yisbarach and His tender loving care and concern for His people, Klal Yisrael.

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

They bentched nonetheless, though, because they were given a specific mitzvah to thank Hashem for the mon.

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

The halacha is that even if a person has already fulfilled a mitzvah he can still be motzi another who has not yet fulfilled it.

If a person will not be fasting on Sunday for whatever reason, he should say havdalah on a cup prior to eating.

The sefer Harirai Kedem suggests a different understanding of the machlokes.

Pinchas fulfilled the halacha of kana’im pogim bo whereby a kana’i (zealot) is granted permission to kill people performing specific aveiros.

The Zohar says that only someone who dies of natural causes was killed by the malach hamaves. People who are killed by others were not killed by the malach hamaves.

The Vilna Gaon argues that that there is even more reason to permit doing pidyon haben via a shliach since pidyon haben is essentially repaying a debt.

If that is the case, though – if a mechallel Shabbos is toned because he is like one who is ovdei avodah zarah – why, Rav Akiva Eiger asks, is a person who desecrates Shabbos in private stoned?

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/lechem-mishneh/2012/02/02/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: