Issue Number 25 --- Erev Shavuos, 5756
Compiled and Published by Kollel Menachem - Lubavitch (Melbourne, Australia) in the zechus of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, o.b.m.
In the following, some aspects of the halochos pertaining to lechem mishneh are treated:
Source
The Torah states: "...on the sixth day [erev shabbos] they collected a double portion of bread [lechem mishneh of the mon (manna)] two omers for each."
As the Taz explains, every day each Jew received one omer of mon which was sufficient for two loaves - for the two meals of that day, in the morning and evening. The two omers each person received on erev Shabbos were intended for four meals - Friday morning, and the three meals of Shabbos - Friday evening, Shabbos day, and Shabbos afternoon (se'udo sh'lishis).
As a remembrance to this double portion, we are obliged, at each of the three Shabbos
meals, to say the b'rocho hamotzi over 'lechem mishneh' - two loaves.
The Obligation
The Remo rules that [even] if one eats many meals during the course of one Shabbos, he should have lechem mishneh for each; and for the third meal (see opinion of Tur below), at least one complete loaf, although one should be stringent and use two.
The Alter Rebbe, too, rules that for every Shabbos meal, lechem mishneh should be provided.
Why should there be an obligation of lechem mishneh at the third meal, when in the desert there was only one loaf left for this meal? The Prisho explains that we take lechem mishneh as a remembrance that the Jews in the desert received a double portion in honour of Shabbos. We do not eat precisely the way they ate.
The Tur, on the other hand, states that since the Jews ate only the one remaining loaf for the third meal, therefore, we, too, need use only one loaf for this meal.
[It may be noted that there are opinions which permit se'udo sh'lishis without bread.]
The obligation to have lechem mishneh on Shabbos is incumbent on both men and women. Even though women are exempt from time-bound positive commandments, one of the reasons why they are obligated in lechem mishneh is that women were also part of the miracle (of the mon) which the lechem mishneh commemorates.
If one is fulfilling his obligation of lechem mishneh by hearing another say the brocho over the lechem mishneh, he must listen with the express intention of fulfilling, through this, the obligation of lechem mishneh, and the one saying the brocho must also intend that those listening thereby fulfill their obligation.
There is a difference of opinion amongst the Acharonim as to whether one should say a brocho over one's own piece of challah after hearing the brocho made over the lechem mishneh.
The Mishno Bruro, and others, rule that a brocho should not be said, since the only way through which to fulfill the obligation of 'lechem mishneh' (without actually doing it oneself) is by having the brocho said over the breads apply to oneself.
The Eshel Avrohom, however, rules that everyone should say his own brocho. He reasons that the mitzvo of lechem mishneh lies in the act of actually 'breaking the bread'. Upon hearing the brocho from the moitzee (the one cutting the challah), the mitzvo of lechem mishneh has been fulfilled. He then says his own brocho as a bircas hanehenin - on the pleasure of eating the bread.
In Sh'arei Halocho u'Minhog, the Lubavitcher Rebbe writes that it is proper for each person to say his own brocho. The reason for this is that in order for the brocho said by one person to fill another's obligation to say it, is that the person saying, as well as the person hearing must have this intention for this, and moreover, one may not do anything deemed by halocho as a interruption. Being that at the Shabbos table there very often are many guests, the person hearing the brocho may interrupt between the brocho and eating the challah.
The mitzvo of lechem mishneh applies to Shabbos and Yom Tov alike, but not on Chol
Hamo'ed.
The Bread Used for Lechem Mishneh
The Shulchon Oruch (Orach Chayim 274:2): states "It is a mitzvo, on Shabbos, to break off [from the lechem mishneh] a piece of bread big enough for the entire meal." Based on this there is a discussion as to what the size of the breads used for lechem mishneh should be.
The Beis Menucho is of the view that a loaf smaller than a kezayis may be used.
However, the Kaf Hachaim and most other poskim rule that a challah smaller than a kezayis is not acceptable.
The two loaves (or matzos) should be whole. The Machtzis Hashekel states, in the name of the Rosh that if one forty-eighth -or less- of the loaf is missing, it is still considered whole.
The Sh'eilei Tzion writes, that if one of the loaves has had more than this amount removed from it, and is returned to the oven and baked again (this may not be done on Shabbos, obviously), the Challah is again considered whole.
If one does not have a whole loaf, but has two halves of a loaf, he may attach them with a toothpick (or a piece of wood, provided this is not muktzo), as long as it cannot be seen (Shulchon Oruch O.C. 168:2).
The S'dei Chemed notes, that according to this ruling perhaps one may be allowed to attach, in the same fashion, two halves from two different challahs. However, he quotes the Pesach D'vir, that this is not acceptable.
If the challah had been broken into more than two pieces, the Chasam Sofer writes, this method of re-attaching should not be used, since the joining with a toothpick of two halves of the one bread is itself problematic. Therefore, a whole loaf then should be obtained.
In a case where no whole loaf can be found (and not even two halves of the one bread, as mentioned earlier), the Netziv rules, in his responsa Meishiv Dovor, that two pieces of bread may used for lechem mishneh, being that the use of whole challahs is only in order to perform the mitzvo in the best way. However, it is not essential. (He writes that at the home of his father-in-law, R. Yitzchok of Volozhin, if one of the guests came home from shul late and there were no whole challahs left, this would indeed be done.)
Similarly, the Mishno B'ruro writes that the lack of completeness of the loaves does not obstruct fulfillment of lechem mishneh.
The Meishiv Dovor qualifies this, and says that broken pieces of bread may only be used if they were brought to him in this state. If, however, a whole loaf was brought and broken in front of him, he may not use the two parts.
Similarly, the Minchas Yitzchok rules, that if one has only one whole loaf, he should
not break it, but rather, someone should break it before it is brought to him, and then
(since he has no two whole breads) he may use the two parts as the two breads of lechem
mishne.
Special Challahs
The Remo writes that a challah which has already been used for eiruvei chatzeiros (i.e. to make an eiruv joining houses), should preferably be used for the lechem mishne of the day-time meal also - as explained by the Taz - in fulfillment of the Talmudic dictum, "Since it was used for one mitzvo, we should use it for another."
The Mogen Avrohom adds that the same applies to the challah used for eiruv tavshilin: that it should be used as the second challah (which is not broken) for the lechem mishneh of the Friday night and Shabbos day meals, and to break it open at se'udo sh'lishis.
The K'tzos HaShulchon comments that according to this reasoning, the second challah of
the Friday night lechem mishneh should be put away to be used as the second challah in the
morning, and finally to break it at se'udo sh'lishis. We find a similar halocho regarding
the wine of kiddush, part of which should be left over from Friday evening for the
day-time meal, and then for havdolo.
Breaking the Bread
One should be careful not to begin cutting the challah until after the brocho, as the brocho should be said over whole challahs. If the cutting was started before the brocho, the challah is still considered whole, provided if, when holding up the cut part, the rest of the challah will not fall.
The Shulchon Oruch (274:1) rules : "one breaks bread over two loaves by holding both in his hand and breaking open the lower one."
The Remo notes, that "this ruling [to open the lower challah] applies only to the Friday evening meal. However, at the Shabbos afternoon meal and on Yom Tov, [even] in the evening, the top challah should be broken. The reason for this comes from the Kabbala."
The Bach questions this ruling, quoting the halacha that "one should not bypass mitzvos." That is, if one encounters the possibility of a mitzvo, he should not pass it by even in order to do another mitzvo. If, therefore, when holding two challahs in one's hands, to come to the lower one to open it, he will have to bypass the top one. He therefore rules that the top bread should be broken. The Bach continues that we do not rule according the Kabbala where it contradicts the ruling of the Gemorro.
The Taz suggests that this ruling of the Shulchon Oruch (to break the lower challah) can be reconciled with the aforementioned Talmudic principle, by positioning the lower challah closer to oneself, thereby not having to bypass the top one when reaching for the lower one.
The Mogen Avrohom advises that the challah which will be cut should initially be place
on top, where it is closer to the cutter, and when making the brocho over it, it should be
placed underneath and then cut, thereby satisfying both the Gemorro and the Kabbala.
Marking The Challah With The Knife
The Mogen Avrohom (ibid.) writes: "Those who are more scrupulous mark the challah with the knife before saying the brocho. This, the Machtzis HaShekel explains, is in order to be able to begin cutting and eating immediately and not to have to begin looking for a place to cut, how much to cut, etc., which may constitute an interruption between the brocho and eating.
The Machtzis HaShekel further notes, that given the above mentioned explanation, it is necessary to actually mark the challah with the knife, and not to merely run the knife over the challah.
The Tzlach disagrees, and says that the challah should not be marked before the brocho. This, he argues, would imply that he will be saying the brocho only over part of the challah (the part which he marked to cut), and if he in fact cuts elsewhere, he would need to say a second brocho over that part.
In defense of the Mogen Avrohom, the Tehilo L'Dovid argues that this marking would not necessitate a second brocho, as we find the halocho, that if one says a brocho over a basket of fruit, one may eat from all the fruits of the basket.
There are those who wish to infer from the Alter Rebbe's omission (in his Shulchon Oruch) of this custom that he agrees with the Tzlach's reservation, but the K'tzos HaShulchon notes that nevertheless the custom is to mark the challah with the knife. Notwithstanding this, the K'tzos HaShulchon rules that one need not search for the mark, but may cut the challah as it is, since he has already judged where he will cut it.
A Second Challah Which Can, Or May Not, Be Eaten
The Shulchon Oruch (ibid.) rules that of the two loaves of the lechem mishneh, only one need be broken. Since, according to this, the second may be left uneaten, the question arises as to whether it is imperative that it be edible (practically, or from the point of view of halocho).
Challah Which Cannot Be Eaten
The Tzitz Eliezer writes that if one has only one challah he may borrow (having to return) the second challah from a neighbour, since the reason the second loaf is needed is to commemorate the miracle of the mon, and this can be accomplished whether or not the challah may be eaten. Similarly, on Shabbos erev Pesach (when one may not eat matzo), a matzo may be used as the second loaf, since only one of the loaves need to be eaten (Responsa P'ri HaSodeh).
Regarding a challah which is partly burnt, the Sha'arei Teshuvo suggests that since the burnt part will be removed, perhaps we should consider it as if it were already removed, and the challah as incomplete. The Sha'arei Teshuvo quotes the Sha'ar Efraim as stating that we do not apply this reasoning: the challah is considered complete and may be used even for the first challah, which is eaten.
The Mekom Shmuel also rules that a burnt challah may be used, for a different reason - since there are people who do eat burnt bread.
The Minchas Yitzchok rules that a frozen challah may be used for lechem mishneh. Even
though it is presently inedible, since the challah can be eaten without any additional
preparation (the thawing occurring automatically), it should not in any way be compared to
burnt bread.
Challah Which May Not Be Eaten
The responsa Ein HaB'dolach rules that bread which is made from chodosh (wheat from the new season before the third day of Pesach), cannot be used for lechem mishneh by someone whose custom it is not to eat chodosh, since it is not 'edible' for him. Moreover, he may not fulfill his obligation by listening to someone else making the brocho over such lechem mishneh, even if the one saying the brocho does eat chodosh.
The Mishno B'ruro rules that someone who is not careful to use shmuro matzo, except for matzas mitzvo during the seder, but eats any matzo during Pesach in general, may use a matzo which is not shmuro for the second matzo of the lechem mishneh during the seder. For even though he cannot eat from this matzo now (since the matzo eaten from the lechem mishneh is the matzas mitzvo, for which he eats only shmuro matzo), nevertheless, the B'tzeil HaChochmo explains, since he will be able to eat it sometime during the meal, it may be used for lechem mishneh.
The B'tzeil HaChochmo writes that it is unclear whether pas akum (bread baked by a non-Jew) may be used for lechem mishneh (by someone who is stringent and does not eat it).
However, the Chelkas Ya'akov rules that this is permissible, as we see regarding the making of an eiruv that one, who is not a kohen, may use terumo for an eiruv (even though he may not eat it), since it is edible for others, and generally we compare the halochos of lechem mishneh to eiruvin. Therefore, he concludes, pas akum, non-shmuro matzo and the like (which are eaten by some people) may be used as the second loaf for lechem mishneh.
Similarly, the K'tzos HaShulchon rules that if one, who does not eat pas akum has
nothing else for the second loaf, he may use pas akum.
Lechem Mishne On Pas Habo'oh B'kisnin (cake etc.)
The halocho (Shulchon Oruch 168:6) is that if one eats a quantity of pas habo'oh b'kisnin (e.g. cake) as the basis (k'viyus se'udo) of his meal, that is, is satisfied from it (as defined by halocho), he must first wash his hands and say hamotzi and bircas hamozon on it, as for proper bread.
If one eats cake in this manner on Shabbos, since the cake is now halachically considered bread, he must take two of whole cakes, to perform the mitzvo of lechem mishne. If, however, he has one loaf of proper bread, and one cake, the Machtzis HaShekel rules that the cake may not be used as the second loaf. His reasoning is that since he is actually going to be eating bread during this meal, the basis of the meal ("k'viyus se'udo") is the bread, and not the cake.
The K'tzos HaShulchon, however, rules that the cake is valid as the second loaf: had the person wanted to, he would have been able to use the cake as the main item, thereby giving it the status of bread. Therefore, even now, though he is not actually using it as such, it can still be considered as bread.
Regarding the halochos of the Shabbos meal, the Alter Rebbe's brother, the Maharil, (cited as a note on the Alter Rebbe's Shulchon Oruch) writes that the he heard from the Alter Rebbe, that even if one eats less than the amount of k'viyas se'udo of pas habo'oh b'kisnin, he has nevertheless fulfilled the obligation of having a Shabbos meal.
The K'tzos HaShulchon writes, that the same applies to lechem mishneh. If one eats pas habo'oh b'kisnin, even without k'viyus se'udo, he can perform lechem mishneh with them and fulfill his obligation for the day.
Similarly, the Kitzur Shulchon Oruch writes that when partaking of a kiddush on Shabbos before eating the Shabbos meal, one should take two complete cakes for lechem mishneh.
Commenting on this, the Minchas Yitzchok writes that there is no need to do so. If, however, someone wishes to follow this ruling of the Kitzur Shulchon Oruch, to perform lechem mishneh over two cakes, he should do so inconspicuously, so as not to raise dissension. *
The above is not intended to decide halachic questions, but rather to clarify them in a clear and concise form. Please refer all your practical questions to your local Rabbi.
Index of Practical Halacha Pages
Please note: Many hours of research is put into compiling "Issues in Practical Halacha" and we request that you do not reproduce them in any magazine, journal, newspaper or the like. If you wish to reproduce any issue please contact us.
Information on joining the Practical Halacha mail list may be found here.
The original hard copy and softcopy of this publication was produced on computer equipment purchased with a grant made possible by the Belfer family.
İMelbourn Kollel Menachem, June 2000
Melbourne Kollel Menachem
92 Hotham Street, East St Kilda, Vic., 3183 Australia
Havienu L'Shalom is pleased to host these Practical Halacha Web pages.
If you would like to support our efforts with a tax deductible donation, please send e-mail to:
İPage Layout and Design Havienu L'Shalom, June 2000