A Discussion of the Halacha of Shinui Makom

 I say a Halacha shiur now. After forty years of saying "This is a Gemara shiur, not a halacha shiur," the refrain is "This is a halacha shiur, not a Gemara shiur." 

We just finished OC 178, and I am pleased with this succinct summary of the Halachos of Shinui Makom for Birkas HaNehenin.  This is a good place to put it.

Change of place

Birkas HaNehenin, the bracha before eating, is to remind us that we are grateful for God’s beneficence in providing us with nourishment and the opportunity to enjoy the world. This state of mind should permeate the entire experience. It is not the bracha alone that is the mattir, it is the bracha and the sense of gratitude that comes from the bracha. Our Chachamim said that a change in location will diminish that ongoing sense of gratitude that the bracha created; it changes a person’s “frame of mind,” and therefore a new bracha is necessary.

 

The Rule

When one leaves his place in the middle of eating and drinking, the Amoraim disagreed: Rav and Shmuel say that this constitutes an interruption of the previous blessing, which is thereby nullified.  The Hebrew term would be hesech hada’as, or hefsek, or silook.

Rabbi Yochanan says that this is not viewed as an interruption, because the only factor is intent; if he intended to continue eating, change of location is not important.

The halacha is in accordance with Rav and Shmuel that the original blessing is nullified.

The Rambam says that interruption mandates that one bentch before eating anything else. The Rosh says the interruption only mandates another prior-bracha, but there is no obligation to bentch first on what one had eaten. The Mechaber follows the Rambam and the Rema follows the Rosh.  Ashkenazim follow the Rema, and therefore, in cases of interruption, one must make a bracha before eating again, but there is no need for bentching twice.

What is called a change of place

The Gemara says that mibayis l’bayis is a change, but mimakom l’makom is not. Bayis l’bayis is understood in Shulchan Aruch to mean not only leaving the house but even leaving the room. Within a room, even a vast amphitheater that has areas hidden from each other, is not called a change of place. This happens all the time when at a wedding, especially if one is not eating bread.

Circumventing the rule of interruption

1.  It can be argued that if something requires that you return to the original place, that walking out is not an interruption. With that in mind, Rav Chisda said that only when he ate things that do not require a blessing after them in their place is walking out an interruption. But if he ate things that require a blessing after them in their place, since he is required to return, he is still tied to the original place and it is viewed as if he had not left at all.

Rav Sheshes rejects this, and says that it does not matter what he was eating. In all cases, walking away is a halachic interruption.

The Rambam follows Rav Sheshes. The Rosh follows Rav Chisda. The Mechaber follows the Rambam, the Rema follows the Rosh. Ashkenazim follow the Rema, and therefore, walking outside during a meal that included bread is not viewed as an interruption.

2.  Another way to circumvent the rule of interruption is leaving family or friends at the original location when you walk away.

If one had been eating with friends or family, and the circumstances are such that he is expected to rejoin them, this becomes like the case of eating bread, where walking outside is not an interruption because you are tied to your original location.

 Many poskim limit this to a bread meal according to the Rambam. However, the accepted practice is to apply this exemption even to non-bread meals.

Note; this exemption applies only if you return to where you left your friends. If you do not return, your original bracha is interrupted.

3. Tosfos says that if, when he made the bracha, he had in mind that he would be going from room to room under the same roof, it is not an interruption. However, intention to leave the entire house after beginning the meal is disregarded and legally remains an interruption. We follow the opinion of Tosfos.

In our time, Tosfos’ idea is automatically assumed. We are more mobile during meals, and it is assumed that one expects to go from room to room and therefore it is not an interruption.

Candy

If one is eating a piece of candy that is kept in the mouth for a long time, Rav Moshe says that he does not have to make another bracha. Similarly, if he is drinking or eating something and goes outside, if, between sips, he does not wait kedei dibbur, he does not have to make another bracha.

(The Chazon says there is no such exception; therefore, he would be obligated to take the candy out of his mouth and make another bracha.)

Davening in the same place, Davening in a different place

Davening in a different place has all the halachos of hefsek/interruption.

Davening in the same room (or, following current practice, the same house,) is not an interruption.  Again, this comes up often at weddings.

(The Aruch HaShulchan says that davening is an interruption for for anything but bread for one who follows the Mechaber, but davening, even in the same room, is an interruption for brachos other than bread.  According to the Aruch Hashulchan, if one begins a meal and then davens– even in the same room- he has to make another bracha.  Others, for example the Kaf Hachaim, disagree and say that davening is not inherently a hefesk for any bracha. One who wishes to follow the Aruch HaShulchan is welcome to do so. I personally do not.)

Sleeping

If someone fell asleep during the meal, no matter how long he slept, it is not an interruption. If he lied down in bed and planned to not be woken up to continue the meal, it is a hesech hadaas and upon rising he would have to make another bracha, even for bread.