Halachic Musings
By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
“My rabbi says it’s ha’motzi!”
“Well, mine says you can make a mezonos!”
“What are you guys talking about? It’s a mefurash YouTube video, where Rav Elyashiv, zt’l, paskened it’s mezonos!”
“Oh, yeah? Well, it’s mefurash a YouTube video where Rav Dovid Feinstein, shlita, paskens it’s ha’motzi!”
This column is not dealing with the recent proliferation of people adjudicating halachah based upon YouTube videos. Rather, it deals with the question of the day: What berachah is to be recited on wraps—mezonos or ha’motzi?
Wraps have, of late, become the go-to food when catering a b’ris milah, a Bais Yaakov’s rosh chodesh breakfast, or even a general company meeting. Health-food aficionados love them, too.
The Three Positions
The OU website writes that wraps are clearly ha’motzi. This is also the view of Rav Binyomin Forst, shlita, one of the foremost experts on hilchos berachos, head of the Halacha Hotline in the Far Rockaway/Five Towns community, and author of the ArtScroll sefer Laws of B’rachos.
Rav Shmuel Fuerst, shlita, from Chicago, a leading posek in the United States, has ruled that the orange-colored ones do not have the appearance of bread and would therefore be considered mezonos. The other ones, however, would be ha’motzi.
And now, one of the leading poskim in Eretz Yisrael, Rav Yitzchok Rubin, shlita, author of the three-volume Orchos Shabbos and av beis din of Rav Nissim Karelitz’s beis din, has authored a remarkable new analysis of the topic. (Rav Rubin is also the rav of the shul in Har Nof where a deadly terror attack occurred in 2014.) Rav Rubin believes that the berachah is clearly and unequivocally mezonos. What follows is a synopsis of his rationale.
The Gemara
The Gemara in Berachos 42a writes that the blessing for something called “pas ha’baah b’kisnin” (henceforth PHB) and something called “lachmaniyos” (not the modern term) is mezonos. However, if one establishes his meal on this item, then a ha’motzi is recited. Clearly, this bread is generally only eaten as a snack food, and not as a satisfying meal. Shockingly enough, the idea of cake is not discussed in the Gemara in terms of its blessing. Two forms of sweeteners were available at the time—date honey and bee honey. Sugar became available in Sassanian-era Persia (and thus Bavel) only 100 years after the Gemara was compiled. It is discussed perhaps in terms of Pesach—where the term “gluskah yafeh” is employed, but that refers to some form of fried delicacy, according to the Rishonim.
What Exactly Is PHB?
There is a well-known three-way halachic debate as to the actual definition of pas ha’baah b’kisnin.
Rabbeinu Chananel explains that pas ha’baah b’kisnin is to be identified as bread made in the shape of a filled pocket. It contains some other item aside from the dough product itself—a filling that is both separate and distinct. An example would be a blueberry-banana calzone. It should be noted that spices such as cinnamon and sugar that are added after the baking process do not cause any change in berachah, according to all three views.
The Rambam and Rashi identify pas ha’baah b’kisnin as a type of bread in which the dough was mixed with either spices or sweets. An example would be a cupcake. A cupcake’s dough is made with sweetener such as sugar or honey added to the basic water and flour.
The Aruch, citing Rav Hai Gaon, is of the opinion that the term “kisnin” comes from the word “koses,” chewing. According to him, pas ha’baah b’kisnin is a cracker-like item that breaks apart and is generally chewed upon—perhaps similar to a hard pretzel or a cracker. An example, for our purposes, would be crackers.
Rav Yosef Karo, in his Beis Yosef commentary on the Tur, writes that since there is a debate on the matter, we apply the concept of safek berachos l’hakel—whenever there is a question regarding blessings, we are lenient. Thus, all three types are to be considered mezonos, unless one has established his meal on it. We would thus make a mezonos on a blueberry-banana calzone, a cupcake, and crackers.
Mutually Exclusive Or Mutually
Agreed-Upon?
There is a debate among the Acharonim whether the three views are mutually exclusive or whether all of the three views mutually agree with each other as to the actual halachah regarding the blessing on the two other PHB, and it is just that they argue which particular type of PHB was discussed in the Talmud.
The Mutually Exclusive View. The Graz, the Dagul Mirvavah, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, and the Chayei Adam rule that the three opinions are mutually exclusive. (We will refer to this view as the “view of the Four Acharonim.”) According to this view, Rashi and Rambam would wash and bentch on blueberry-banana calzones and crackers, but would recite a mezonos on cupcakes; Rabbeinu Chananel would wash and bentch on cupcakes and crackers, but would recite a mezonos on a blueberry-banana calzone; and Rav Hai Gaon would wash and bentch on cupcakes and blueberry-banana calzones but would recite a mezonos on crackers.
The Mutually Agreed View. The view of the Maamar Mordechai is that all three views agree to each other’s opinion that only a mezonos is made on all three types of food. [This is also the view of the Aruch HaShulchan. The Biur Halachah (168:8), however, does give some but not complete credence to this view. He seems to give more weight to the view of the Four Acharonim.]
Rav Rubin’s View Of The Maamar Mordechai
Rav Rubin cites a number of proofs to the view of the Maamar Mordechai, and uses these proofs to show that it is not the actual technical composition of the ingredients and/or texture of these bread items that make them into mezonos (like the Four Acharonim seem to hold). Rather, according to Rav Rubin’s explanation, it is how the bread item is utilized in society—whether it is used to satiate and whether it is central to the meal. It is not a sibah (reason) as to why they are mezonos, but rather it is a siman (indication or sign) that they are mezonos because that is how they are utilized in society. It should be noted that the Biur Halachah’s tepid view of the Maamar Mordechai perhaps indicates that he is not really in agreement with the view espoused by Rav Rubin that it is a siman, an indication. The Mishnah Berurah seems to be more comfortable with a sibah perspective, that it is the nature of its composition.
Rav Rubin’s Proofs To The Maamar Mordechai
Rav Rubin brings six indications of the fact that the Maamar Mordechai is correct. He cites the fact that the Tur (OC 168) quotes all three views and places alongside and immediately after the three views the fourth category of lachmaniyos. He and the Shvulei HaLeket 159 utilize lachmaniyos as a fourth type—indicating the siman nature of the definition of pas ha’baah b’kisnin.
Rav Rubin also quotes the Rashba on Berachos 41b where he intermingles the words of both Rashi and Rabbeinu Chananel as to how to define pas ha’baah b’kisnin. This indicates that he holds that they do not argue with each other regarding the berachah on the other types.
Rav Rubin also cites the Derech HaChaim (Hilchos Berachos letter 3), who says that any bread item where it is not the manner to eat a shiur sevi’a—an amount of it that will satiate—is not a ha’motzi.
Rav Rubin’s next three proofs are from the universal halachic customs of people. (1) When people eat all three forms of pas ha’baah b’kisnin, they should wash beforehand because they are certainly eating a form of bread—and yet they do not do so. This indicates that the world holds of the view of the Maamar Mordechai. (2) When people drink coffee with cake, they recite the berachah on cake first and then coffee—in accordance with the laws of the order of berachos (see Shulchan Aruch OC 211:3). Yet, if cake may be “bread” in accordance with the mutually exclusive view of the Four Acharonim, then we should technically make the blessing on the coffee first—because the bread would cover the other items because of tafel. The fact that we don’t indicates that we are all believers in the Maamar Mordechai rather than the Four Acharonim. [Rav Rubin seems to be of the opinion here that it is the food item which causes the laws of tafel and not the berachah itself.]
His third proof from universal halachic custom is that Ashkenazim make a ha’motzi on matzah and not a mezonos. Why are they not concerned for the view of Rav Hai Gaon and thus make a mezonos? Rav Rubin concludes that it is because matzah is eaten almost universally for satiation—l’achilas sova. Thus, the working definition of pas ha’baah b’kisnin is that it is not eaten for satiation but for snacking.
In conversation with Rav Rubin, he told this author that he had researched the use of wraps throughout the world, and nowhere is this food item eaten of itself like other bread items. It is solely used when consuming other foods. He concludes that it is not a bread item that people use to satiate themselves like they do with bread or other bread items. Rather, it is used to quiet down one’s hunger. He concludes that the entire nature of its consumption is of a temporary snack-like nature—achilas arai.
Aspects To Explore
It is interesting to explore whether Rav Dovid Feinstein, shlita, cited in the very beginning of this article, is of the opinion that the halachah is like the Four Acharonim or like the Maamar Mordechai. It would also be interesting to find out what the rationale was of Rav Elyashiv, zt’l, to state that a wrap is mezonos. This is interesting because Rav Rubin, who holds of the Maamar Mordechai, holds that pizza is unequivocally ha’motzi, even when eating one slice, whereas Rav Dovid Feinstein is of the opinion that one slice is a mezonos.
Conclusions
What should be done with the wraps? There is another fascinating debate out there as to how one conducts oneself in matters of halachah. There are some families and yeshivos that have accepted upon themselves the notion that the Mishnah Berurah is the final rule in all matters of halachah that it addresses. Others are of the opinion that contemporary poskim can argue with the Mishnah Berurah and one may follow their rulings even when it is not a pressing situation.
It seems to this author that if one accepts the view of the Mishnah Berurah as the final word in halachah, then one cannot avail himself of Rav Rubin’s ruling of making mezonos on wraps. If, however, one belongs to the other school of thought, then one could possibly avail himself of this leniency—after consultation with his own rav. And that’s a wrap! v
The author can be reached at Yairhoffman2@gmail.com.
The post Wrapped In Controversy appeared first on The 5 Towns Jewish Times.