Beit Midrash vs. Shul, Theory vs. Practice

The other day I was reminded of the difference between the beit midrash and the shul. It was an amusing reminder, and it made me think about my current transition from shul back to beit midrash.

After Shacharit I presented a technical halachah related to HaMotzi (the blessing recited before eating bread). If you are allergic to technical halachah, you might want to skip the next three paragraphs.

I pointed out two competing imperatives: We want to minimize the interruption between reciting HaMotzi and eating the bread, but we also want to recite the berachah upon a whole loaf, if possible, to show respect for the berachah. So when do we actually cut the bread?

Early sources, such as the Rosh, felt that cutting the bread does not constitute a significant interruption. Others agree, particularly with thin-crusted bread like ours. Nonetheless, some suggest one should satisfy the “interruption” concern by starting to cut the bread - without cutting too deeply - before reciting HaMotzi.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 167:1) records this as the recommended practice, but the Rama notes that one should not do this on Shabbat. On Shabbat we are especially concerned about using two whole loaves (memorial for the manna, and more) and about avoiding any damage to those loaves, so we don’t cut the loaf at all before the berachah. The Mishneh Berurah supports this as well.

Fine, a straightforward after-davening halachah to start the day.

But that day we had a group from Baltimore visiting the area, and a young man, perhaps late high school at Ner, mentioned politely that he had seen a sefer suggesting cutting the bread before HaMotzi on Shabbat as well. He couldn’t remember the source, but someone had showed it to him.

I took a few minutes to do some superficial looking, and found nothing in the standard halachah sefarim – Rosh, Tur and Beit Yosef, Aruch haShulchan, even Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, all seem to agree with what the Rama presents. Some (Aruch haShulchan, Darkei Moshe from the Mordechai in Eruvin*) note that cutting on Shabbat like the weekday isn’t a disaster, but no one specifically recommends cutting before HaMotzi on Shabbat.

I am certain that the young man did have a source (and yes, I asked him to contact me if he were to find it). For every halachah, there is always a rishon (early source) somewhere, or certainly an acharon (later authority) somewhere, with a reason to disagree with the mass of halachic authorities. Sometimes the disagreement is because of lomdut (deep analysis), sometimes it’s because of an exotic source, sometimes it’s because of an overall shitah (thematic approach) or shikul hadaat (weighing opposing considerations and coming up with a conclusion). But there’s always someone, on every issue, who will go against the status quo.

When I was in beit midrash, I – like many others – was always concerned about these dissident views. I would learn them, enjoy them, and look for ways to accommodate them. For example: At the seder I preferred the haggadah that had unique ways for covering and uncovering, picking up and putting down, ordering the hallel and its berachah, etc.

But a shul rabbi’s presentation of halachah is a different story; a shul rabbi must offer rulings that are clear, that are grounded in mainstream sources rather than unique points of view, and that are practical for the hamon am (general population). Lomdut is saved for shiurim, and kept out of psak. I feel that to do otherwise is irresponsible and irrational, and erodes people’s trust in the rabbinate.

So in a two-minute halachic lesson after davening, or in addressing a shailah, I generally go with straight mishneh berurah. I may note dissident views occasionally, but not to provide a recommended practice.

To return to my opening paragraph: Now that I am transitioning out of the pulpit and into more of a beit midrash role, but still actively teaching in the community, I suppose I will find myself straddling these two worlds. Should be fun.


*Note that the Mordechai doesn't quite say this. The Mordechai says that bread which has been partially cut still qualifies for lechem mishnah. He does not discuss preferences for HaMotzi. But the implication is what the Darkei Moshe is using.

Daf Notes on Nedarim - 1

Hello,

I've begun emailing people little notes on the daf, based on things that come to mind as I deliver the daf shiur here in Allentown, PA.

Here are digests of those emails. Unlike the standard daf sites, I'm not really touching these up to make them into full divrei torah; these are more like jumping-off points for people who want to look into issues a little further, but the reader will have to do most of the work.

19a - "safek mashkin."
Several "Rashi" notes in Nedarim give away the fact that the author is not really Rashi. One of those is on "safek mashkin" - contrast the Rashi on Nedarim 19a with his comment at the top of Pesachim 16a on "safek mashkin" and you'll see what I mean.

25a
The gemara at the bottom of 25a discusses the exaggeration of a snake that is "like the board in an olive press," and it compares this to a story about a snake so big that it swallowed 13 crates of straw.
The funny part in this is that the straw story may, itself, be an exaggeration! See Rashi Shabbos 119a "Treisar" and Tosafos Bava Basra 133b "Ilisa", both of which show cases in which 12 and 13 are used in exaggerations...

28a
Make sure you see the Ran on dina d'malchuta (the law of the land) on 28a. There are many fews of how 'dina d'malchuta' works. Here are some:

1. One view is that the king owns the land. Rashba, like the Ran, takes this view. Radvaz also took this view, although he said it was specifically a result of the king having conquered the land.

2. A second view is that it's a function of the nation itself. The Nimukei Yosef on our Nedarim daf points out that we say "dina d'malchuta," the law of the kingdom, not "dina d'malka," the law of the king. The Beit Yosef, in his teshuvot (Avkat Rochel), presented this view. Some, like the Rama (in a teshuvah) and Rashba (also in a teshuvah), say this is meant to empower the king to help the nation. Rav Moshe Feinstein appears to have held otherwise, as he limits government authority to areas that directly affect the government itself.

3. A third view is that HaShem gives this right to all kings, based on Sanhedrin 20b on the rights of Jewish kings. Of particular note is the Meiri to Bava Kama 113b.

4. A fourth view is that since HaShem required bnei Noach to create courts, those courts (and related governments) must have legal standing.

5. A fifth view is that the power of government is actually a function of communal custom. The Rosh to Gittin 1:10 seems to follow this, and Rav Moshe used this in discussing labor laws. Rashba also seems to support it.

31a
1. 31a - Regarding the issue of a seller being sad, or feeling he has come out the "loser," in a sale, see Berachos 5a regarding HaShem's disposition upon giving the Jews the Torah. The general trend in the Gemara is to view a seller as unhappily liquidating an asset, even if the seller is a merchant who does this for a living.

31b-32a
Regarding the delay of the Bris Milah for Moshe's son Gershom, the Chasam Sofer to Shabbos, 131a or so as I recall, where he presents two fascinating rationales for why Moshe delayed the bris. One has to do with the preference for a metal blade, the other with the geographic placement of Yisro's home, the inn and Egypt.

32b
Just a quick note on 32b (although there is much to say about the bottom of 32a, on drafting talmidei chachamim for war!) - Malki Tzedek is criticized for blessing Avraham before blessing HaShem. Therefore, it is appropriate to be careful when making a "L'Chaim" that we first make the berachah on the beverage, then take a drink, and only afterward say "L'Chaim."