web analytics
January 20, 2017 / 22 Tevet, 5777
Judaism
Sponsored Post
Classifieds Section Check out the Jewish Press Classifieds

You can buy, sell and find what you need in the Jewish Press Classifieds section.



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.

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.

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.




Imported and Older Comments:


Current Top Story
Rabbi-Shmuly Yanklowitz
‘Open Orthodox’ Rabbi Alters Shabbat Prayer for the President to Omit Trump
Latest Judaism Stories
hieroglyphics

Rashi notes Moshe’s use of the future tense when addressing the two fighting Israelites.

Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis

Ever optimistic and full of faith, the Rebbetzin offers strong guidance and inspiration to a Baalas Teshuva who is waiting to meet her Basherte

Lessons-in-Emunah-new

Our poor daughter well remembers her highly-anticipated bat mitzvah trip with us to Israel, that unfortunately fell far short of her expectations.

Daf-Yomi-logo

No Trespass
‘Two Gardens: One Above The Other…’
(Bava Metzia 118b)

Question: If a person was ill on Shabbos and unable to go to shul to hear Keri’at haTorah, must he have someone read it to him in shul upon his recovery?

Sincerely,
Isaac Greenberg

He explains that our nation is one unit – irrevocably tied together in a common fate. What happens to one affects another. The state of each individual impacts the whole.

When Moses asks, “Who am I?” He feels himself unworthy and uninvolved. He may have been Jewish by birth, but he had not suffered the fate of his people. How, then, could he become their leader?

Mr. Lewis quickly called the owner above, Mr. Wasser, but the phone was busy. He ran upstairs and knocked on the door.

When it comes to the payment of debts, halacha, like other systems of law, struggles with two competing concerns.

Rabbi Fohrman discusses the medrash and suggests we put ourselves into the eyes of Pharaoh’s daughter to help us see that when we want to achieve something, God will help us find a way to do it.

What we pronounce is very different from what we spell. It is like a kri u’kesiv, a word that is spelled one way in the Torah but which we have a mesorah to pronounce a different way.

People who endlessly pray for miracles tend to ignore the message of Moses’ staff. They do not realize that each time Moses uses that staff he is pointing to an opportunity of self-transformation.

While Moshe may have eventually become even greater than the avos, we must always strive for the faith of his predecessors and for the inner flexibility that such true faith brings with it.

Nobody doubts that unity of the Jewish people is of crucial importance. Still, we have to ask ourselves if in all cases unity is really THE highest value to strive for.

How can we say Tehillim with more meaning?

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

What we pronounce is very different from what we spell. It is like a kri u’kesiv, a word that is spelled one way in the Torah but which we have a mesorah to pronounce a different way.

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

Many believe that Bnei Yisrael, prior to mattan Torah, only had a status of Yisrael l’chumrah.

Since Yaakov was in the middle of the first pasuk of Krias Shema he was unable to interrupt himself, even to inquire about the wellbeing of his son the king.

The mitzvah to recite Hallel that Chazal instituted regarding Chanukah was in fact a direct result of the miracle of Chanukah; however, its essence is not to publicize the miracle but rather to give thanks for the miracle.

Tosafos points out that this answer is not fully satisfactory since there are other mitzvos, such as affixing a mezuzah, that require having a house.

The Ramban adds that although Yaakov knew that when his sons told Shechem and Chamor to circumcise the entire city that they were not intending on actually marrying in with this city.

I want to suggest that although ma’ariv is a voluntary tefillah in its essence, it differs from a nedavah.

If someone remembers during Minchah that he did not recite ya’aleh veyavo during Shacharis, he must similarly daven Shemoneh Esrei twice during Minchah.

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

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: