Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 178 - What Matters are Considered an Interruption During a Meal

SECTION 178 What Matters are Considered an Interruption During a Meal. (1–9)

1 When a person was eating in one room, but took his food in his hand and went to another room to eat, he must recite another blessing.1 Since he rose and went to another place after he paused [from eating], his rising [from his place] is considered as if he ceased eating. [When he commences eating again,] it is as if he began eating anew. Hence, [the food] requires a blessing before [he eats] even though he did not divert his attention [from the food] in the interim. Even if he [leaves this second location and] returns to his initial place, he must recite another blessing [before eating again]. By changing his place in the interim, he is considered to have interrupted his eating. Moving from one corner of a room to another, however, is not considered as changing one’s location,¹ even in a large hall.

If initially, when he recited the blessing in the first room, he had the intent to change his location and move from room to room while eating,2 he is not required to recite a second blessing. [This ruling applies] even if he eats a different type of food in the other room, [provided] the blessing for it is the same as for the first.

[The above applies] when the two rooms are in the same building. If, however, [one moves] from one building to another, or even from a building to the courtyard, his intent is of no consequence at all. [A second blessing is required,] even if he held the food in his hand while he was walking and partook of it again without diverting his attention in the interim.

Nevertheless, if he is able to see the place3 where he first ate from the location where he is now eating — even [if only] through a window, and even if he can only see part of that place — he is not required to recite a second blessing. [This applies] even when he leaves a building [and goes to] a courtyard4 and even when he did not have the intent [of departing] when he recited the blessing. [Moreover, a second blessing is not required] even if [he partakes] of another type of food [in the second place,] as long as it sharesthe same blessing as the [food eaten in the] first [location], provided that he had the intent of eating [there] when he initially recited the blessing, as stated in sec. 206[:9].

2 All [the above applies when one eats] alone or when a group [eats together] and they all moved from place to place together. If, however, they left some, or even one, of the members of the group [in the initial location] and all the others left — even if they wentto another building, and even if [that building] is notnearthe first — when they return [to their original location], they need not recite a [new] blessing over the food that they will [now] eat in their initial place.5 It is as if they did not leave their place at all. Since they left some of the members of the group there, their original sitting6 remained intact. It is not considered as if they departed.

If, however, they desire to eat in the place where they went, they must recite a blessing there. [The fact that they] left some of their company in the original location is of no consequence regarding what they will be eating in the second location.

3 All [the above applies] with regard to foods for which one is not required to recite a blessing after eating (a berachah acharonah) in the place where he ate,7 e.g., all foods and beverages over which the blessing Borei nefashos rabbos is recited after partaking of them. [In these instances,] it is not necessary to recite that blessing in the place where one ate or drank. Instead, he is permitted to leave his place before reciting the blessing, go to another place, and recite the blessing there.8 Therefore, leaving one’s place is considered as concluding his meal. Thus when he eats or drinks again in another place or after he returns to his first place, it is considered another meal and requires a second blessing, even if he has yet to recite the blessing required after his first meal.

[Different laws apply with regard to] foods for which one is required to recite a blessing in the place where he ate, i.e., bread, and even cooked foods from the five species [of grain],9 or even fruit from the seven species [for which Eretz Yisrael is praised],10 and wine. Since the blessing recited after [the latter foods or wine] encapsulates the three blessings of the Grace after Meals, it is sufficiently important to require that this blessing be recited in the place where one ate or drank, just as [this is required with regard to] Grace. Therefore, when one leaves his place to go to another location, leaving his [first] place is not considered as concluding his meal, for he must return to his [original] place to recite the blessing after eating [the above foods]. Accordingly, when he eats or drinks again, even in another place, he is considered to be eating [as a continuation of] his first meal, [i.e.,] to complete that meal. Needless to say, this applies when he returns to his [original] place [and resumes eating. Hence,] he is not required to recite a blessing before [eating again], even though he did not leave part of his original company [in his original place].11

[The above rules apply] provided the person ate an olive-sized portion [of these foods before he departed. If, however, he ate] less than an olive-sized portion [of these foods],12 he is bound by the laws that apply with regard to foods for which one is not required to recite a blessing in the place where he ate.⁵

There are authorities who maintain that [aside from bread,] only foods made from [the five] species of grain require that the blessing recited after them be recited in the place where one ate, due to their importance, because they [alone] are considered as sustenance. Others maintain [that this distinction is conveyed to] bread alone. As an initial preference, one should be stringent and recite the blessing after all the seven species [for which Eretz Yisrael is praised] in the place where one ate. After the fact, if one changed his place [and then wishes to resume eating], he need not recite a blessing [before partaking of food], for when there is a doubt whether a blessing is required, we rule leniently.

4 Even when one goes to another house during the course of a meal and partakes of foods that are not considered secondary to the meal with regard to the blessing recited before partaking of them — and thus he would be required to recite a blessing [before partaking] of them in the first house — e.g., wine or fruit, they are [nevertheless] considered as secondary to the meal with regard to the blessing recited afterwards. [Hence,] they are covered by the Grace after Meals. [Thus, it can be said that the person] is eating and drinking [as an extension of] his first meal. Therefore, he is not required to recite a blessing [before eating] in his second place.13 [This ruling applies] even if he did not eat bread in [the second place] and even if, when he recited the blessing HaMotzi, he had no intention of changing his place in the midst of his meal.

If he partook of bread in the second place, he should recite Grace in the place where he finishes eating bread, as will be explained in sec. 184[:1].

Nevertheless, initially, it is forbidden to leave the place [where one ate bread] before reciting Grace, unless the person had the intent [of going to the second place] when he recited the blessing HaMotzi. [The rationale:] Any food that, as an expression of its importance, requires that the blessing recited after it be recited in the place where one ate, also requires that this blessing be recited before one leaves that place. (Just as its importance dictates that the blessing for it should not be recited in another place, so too, it dictates that the blessing should be recited before departing to go to another place. [This applies] even if he will also eat in the second place and recite Grace there. For of what consequence will that be with regard to the food that he partook of originally which, because of its importance, required that, as an initial preference, the blessing after it be recited in the place where one ate before departing?

[The leniency mentioned above] is only that if the person already left [his original place], he is not required to return and recite Grace [if he eats bread in the second place. This leniency is granted, because even if he were to return immediately to the first location] he would not correct the error of leaving that place [before reciting Grace]. It is only that since one is required to recite Grace in the place where he ate, [after the fact, since he has changed location, it suffices that] he eats a small amount in the second place and then recites Grace [there].

Thus, as an initial preference, one should not leave his original place without reciting Grace. This applies even if he left some of the members of the group with whom he ate there, althoughgenerally, one is not considered to have left his place if he intends to return [and rejoin] them.14 Nevertheless, [in this instance,] by going to finish his meal in another house, the person is considered to have departed from his initial group.

[Different rules apply] if one departs with the intent to return to his original place, in which instance, he is not considered to have left his place [if he originally partook of] foods that require the blessing after eating to be recited in the place where one ate.15 [This leniency applies] even if he did not leave some of his initial group in his place. Nevertheless, he is obligated to go [to the new location] with the intent to eat there, as will be explained.16

Even if the person leaves without the intent to return,) if, initially, when he recited the blessing HaMotzi, he intended to finish [his meal] in another place, he is permitted to leave. [The rationale:] At the outset, he did not establish the [first] place as the place where he would eat his entire meal. [To cite a parallel:] wayfarers eat as they proceed on their journey. They sit and recite Grace in the place where they finish eating.17 [This is permitted,] because this was their initial intent, not to sit down18 to eat [their entire meal] in the place they recited the blessing HaMotzi and began eating.

5 [The license granted above] applies when one goes to the other house to eat there. If, however, he does not go there in order to eat, even though he initially had the intent to go there, it is forbidden for him to leave his place until he recites Grace. This applies even if he left some of his initial group in his [original] place. This is a decree lest he forget to return to his initial place to recite Grace.

[This stringency is not imposed] when one goes to eat in [the second place], for, should he forget to return to his [initial] place, he will recite Grace in the place where he completed his meal. [The Sages felt] it necessary to take precautions only when one departs from the place where he ate without reciting Grace if he did not have the intent to return to his place and recite Grace and did not initially have the intent [to finish his meal in another place].

6 All the above applies when one goes to tend to his personal concerns19 or even to matters associated with a mitzvah that are not an urgent imperative.20 If, however, one leaves to tend to a mitzvah that is an urgent imperative — to greet a groom or a bride, or to go to the synagogue and pray with the congregation — he is permitted to depart and recite Grace when he returns. [This leniency applies] even if he did not leave some of his initial group in his place, for one should not forego a mitzvah that is an urgent imperative due to concern that he will forget [to recite Grace]. Despite the fact that one did not have this intent originally, he is even permitted to leave his meal and go from one house to another and recite Grace in the second house for the sake of a mitzvah that is an urgent imperative, e.g., to recite Grace with a zimun, as stated in sec. 479[:8].21

The prohibition against leaving one’s place before reciting Grace without having the intent to return to one’s place and recite Grace is not merely [a precaution], lest he forget. Instead, it is an absolute Rabbinic prohibition.22 Now, one may not violate even a minor Rabbinic prohibition in order to fulfill a mitzvah that is an urgent imperative. Nevertheless, [leniency is granted in this instance. The rationale:] Since he intends to eat in that house and recite Grace there, the prohibition is not clearly defined. For it is possible to say that he has not departed [from his original meal], as evident from the fact that when he eats in the second house, he is not required to recite a blessing before [partaking of food], because his eating [there] is an extension of his original meal, to finish that meal. Thus everything is considered as one meal, as explained.23

Nevertheless, there are authorities who differ with this perspective, as will be explained.24 According to their understanding, there is a clearly defined prohibition [in leaving one’s place without reciting Grace. Moreover,] even according to the first perspective, it is possible to say that although it is all one meal, it is [nevertheless] being eaten in two places. Therefore, as an initial preference, one should immediately recite Grace over everything that he ate in [his first] place, before departing to another. Therefore, one should not adopt a lenient stance [and leave before reciting Grace], even for the sake of a mitzvah that is an urgent imperative unless one intended to do so initially, [at the time he recited the blessing HaMotzi].25

7 If a person arose, [interrupted his meal,] and went to tend to a personal concern, even if he lingered there extensively, as long as he did not linger for the time it takes the digestive process [to begin],26 he is not required to recite the blessing HaMotzi again when he begins eating again, [whether] in his initial place or in another place, provided he did not divert his attention from eating in the interim. If, however, he diverted his attention from eating further, since he both diverted his attention and changed his place, he is required to recite the blessing HaMotzi again for the reason to be explained in sec. 179[:1].27 He must also wash his hands [in the ritual manner before partaking of bread again], even if he did not linger [outside] at all. Since he diverted his attention from eating, it can be assumed that he was not meticulous in minding his hands and that he diverted his attention from them [as well].

Even if he did not divert his attention from eating, if he spent a long time in conversation, he must wash his hands again,28 even though he is not required to recite the blessing HaMotzi. [The rationale:] It can be assumed that he diverted his attention from minding them, as explained in sec. 164[:2].

There is an authority who maintains that this law also applies when one stood up to pray29 in the midst of his meal. He is required to wash his hands after prayer when he returns to his meal lest he have diverted his attention during prayer, unless he was mindful of his hands. ([To cite a parallel:] On Pesach night, even though one washed his hands when he first dipped [the karpas (the vegetable) into salt-water], he is required to wash again for the meal lest he have diverted his attention during the recitation of the Haggadah, as stated insec. 475:1.)

As stated in sec. 92[:5], fundamentally, the halachah follows the view of the authorities who maintain that diverting one’s attention from his hands disqualifies the person from praying, as it does with regard to eating. Accordingly, it is not necessary for a person to wash his hands after prayer, because not to divert his attention [from his hands] is a requirement of prayer itself.30 In contrast, the diversion of attention from one’s hands does not disqualify the recitation of the Haggadah on Pesach night. Hence, [at that time,] there is concern that one might have diverted his attention.

All authorities agree,31 however, that one is not required to recite the blessing HaMotzi again [if he interrupts his meal to pray. This ruling applies] even if one went to the synagogue to pray32 and tarried there extensively, as long as he did not divert his attention from eating further. The prayer is not considered as an interruption of the meal, even if the person was forced to stop and pray because there was no longer any time left in the day to pray afterwards.33 Although he is unable to eat anything while praying, that is not a reason to deem it as an interruption [of the meal].34

Prayer does not resemble the Grace after Meals, which is considered an interruption [with regard to drinking wine].35 [Indeed,] for that reason, it is necessary to recite a blessing on the cup of wine over which Grace is recited [even when one recited the blessing Borei pri hagafen and drank wine in the course of the meal], since at the time one is reciting Grace, he cannot drink. [A distinction between prayer and Grace can, however, be made:] While Grace represents the cessation and diversion of one’s attention from everything that he ate and drank previously, this is not true of prayer, as will be explained in sec. 179[:5].

8 There are others who maintain that, with regard to a change of location, foods that require that the blessing recited after them be recited in the place where they were eaten are governed by the same laws as foods that do not require that the blessing recited after them be recited in the place where they were eaten.36 [According to this opinion,] after the fact, unless one left some members [of his original group] in that [first] place, he is required to recite another blessing [when he returns to eat].37 Thus, as an initial preference, one may not leave his place without reciting a blessing after partaking of foods that require that the blessing recited afterwards be recited in the place where they were eaten,38 (even for the sake of a mitzvah whose observance is an urgent imperative). The only exception is when one left some members [of his original group in that first location] and had the intent of returning. For, in such an instance, he is not considered to have [ever] left his place.

Even after the fact, if he did not leave some members [of his original group in that first place] and he left that place, he is required to recite the blessing after [the food he ate originally] and then a blessing before the food that he will eat later. Since he changed his place, he is considered to have completed his [first] meal and [eating again] is considered as a new meal. Therefore he must first recite the blessing over his first meal and [only] then begin the second one.39

The custom in these countries is to follow the first opinion40 and rule leniently with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law.41 [Moreover,] even according to the latter opinion, when one returns to his original place, changing one’s location is not considered an interruption of the meal unless he lingers outside his original place for an extended time, e.g., he went to speak to a friend and became involved in a lengthy conversation, he went to the synagogue to pray, or he went to tend to a business matter and became involved in it for an extensive time. If, however, one did not linger outside his original place, even if he performed an optional activity42 in a transitory manner, e.g., he had to relieve himself and entered the lavatory or the like, (it is not considered as an interruption of his meal. Needless to say, this ruling applies if he spoke to a friend, but did not become involved in a lengthy conversation — and [it also applies] even when their conversation concerned optional matters.) (And certainly, it applies if he went to bring something necessary for the meal.) (For this reason, an attendant who is serving during the meal is not considered to have changed his place, even though he is continually coming and going from place to place. Even according to this [second] opinion, he is not required to recite a blessing every time he comes [and resumes eating].)43

(Similarly, according to the first opinion, changing one’s place in all of the above circumstances is not considered an interruption when one sits down for a meal¹⁸ even if he has not yet eaten an olive-sized portion of food and thus is not yet obligated in a blessing following the meal.44 Similarly, this law45 applies to foods that do not require that the blessing recited after them be recited in the place where one ate, if one sat down to partake of them and such a sitting is significant, as will be explained in sec. 213[:1].46 [The rationale is that,] when one sat down to partake of a meal, a brief interruption is not considered as significant.)

Needless to say, one who falls asleep and naps at the place where he is eating is not considered to have interrupted his meal. According to all opinions, he may resumeeating without [reciting] a [new] blessing.

Sleeping for an extended period,47 by contrast, is considered as a more significant break and a diversion of attention and thus is considered as an interruption according to all opinions, even if he slept in the place of his meal.48 Conversely, even though a person occupied himself extensively with other matters, as long as he remained awake and remained in the place where he partook of his meal, all authorities agree that he may eat again without reciting a blessing beforehand, provided he did not divert his attention from eating. [Indeed,] there are authorities who maintain that this ruling applies even if he diverted his attention, as will be explained in sec. 179[:1].

9 When a person eats in an unenclosed field, he is considered to have changed his place when he distances himself from his original place to the extent that he no longer sees it; (this resembles moving from room to room in an enclosed [building]).49 Even if one partakes of fruit of the east side of a tree and then partakes of fruit of its west side, since he can no longer see his original place because the tree intervenes, he is considered to have changed his place.50 He must recite another blessing, unless when reciting the blessing on the fruit on the eastern side, he [also] intended to partake of the fruit on the western side.

[These principles do not apply when] a person eats [in different places] in one room. Even if there is a tall object in the middle [of the room that obstructs his view] and he wishes to eat behind it, e.g., behind an oven, and thus cannot see his original place, he is not considered to have changed his place. Since he is within a single enclosure, the entire enclosure is considered as one place.

Similarly, if one is in an orchard51 and desires to partake of the fruit of all the different trees, once he recited a blessing on one, he is not required to recite a blessing on the others if he had this intent [of eating from the various fruits] when he originally recited the blessing. If that is not the case [and he lacked this intent], he is considered to have changed his mind [when he decided to eat again] and he is required to recite another blessing.52

If the orchard is not surrounded by a fence, even if he intended to partake of fruit from other trees, his intent is of no consequence with regard to partaking of the fruit of the trees from where he can no longer see his original place.53 He is considered to have changed his location and is required to recite a second blessing. His situation is not comparable to moving from the east side to the west side of a tree. The latter situation resembles moving from room to room within one building, in which instance, the person’s intent is of consequence.54 Since, [in the situation at hand,] the orchard is not enclosed by a fence, moving from tree to tree is considered comparable to moving from building to building.55

Nevertheless, as long as the person can see his original place, he is not considered to have changed his location at all, even though he moves from tree to tree, since the orchard is not enclosed by a fence.56 There is an authority who maintains that even in such an instance one should be stringent [and recite a second blessing]. Nevertheless, when a question arises concerning blessings, one should rule leniently.

If one moves from one enclosed orchard to another, he is required to recite a second blessing even if they are adjacent to each other and even if, [when he recited the blessing] originally, he had the intent to include everything he would eat [in the second orchard. Such a situation] is comparable to moving from one building to another, in which instance, the person’s intent is of no consequence.57