Responsum: On His Father’s Rulings

Question: We find in the commentaries of your father, the gaon, may he rest in peace, that one who performs the search for leavened bread [before the holiday of Passover] may not talk until he has completed the entire search, and if he does talk, he must repeat the blessing. [If he intended] to search the entire courtyard and so far had searched only one of its houses, and then he talked, why is it necessary for him to recite the blessing again, when he is still occupied with the search?

Answer: Now, we see that at first our master, the gaon, may his memory be for a blessing, said that one who performs the search must recite the blessing “[Who commanded us] regarding the removal of leavened bread,” and he added that one may not talk as long as he is dealing with the search, and when he has concluded his search, he should nullify the unleavened bread. He further stated in a different context that if one recited a blessing over reading the Torah or performing one of the commandments, such as the removal of leavened bread and the like, and then spoke about ordinary matters, he must repeat the blessing. This basic principle is well known. One who recites a blessing over the performance of a commandment or on eating bread must focus on the blessing, and must perform that commandment for which he recited the blessing immediately after the blessing, and likewise he must eat the bread over which he said the blessing immediately after his blessing, before speaking of ordinary matters. Thus, one may not make a break between the performance of the commandment and the blessing by means of ordinary speech, as is stated: Rav said: Take it and recite a blessing, take it and recite a blessing . . . he must recite the blessing again [b. Berakhot 40a].1 It is established that this is referring to ordinary speech, but if he spoke about something necessary for the meal, for the meat, salt, or relish, or even if he said, “Mix food for the oxen,” he [need not] repeat the blessing.

Consequently, one who performs the search must recite the blessing and immediately begin the search. If he spoke about ordinary matters after the blessing and before starting the search, he must repeat the blessing, just as one who recites the blessing [over bread], “. . . Who brings forth [bread from the ground]” and then speaks about ordinary matters before eating, must recite the blessing again. And since everyone who performs the search must have the intention to fulfill the commandment, our master, the gaon, of blessed memory, said that a person may not talk throughout the entire search, as one who is searching must be focused on the commandment, and the fear of the commandment must be upon [him], so that [his intention and] focus is upon it [from the moment] he starts until his conclusion. The best way to perform the commandment is not to talk [and deal with such speech at all, until his search is concluded, and this is our practice].

Source: CUL T-S 12.724.

Translated by Avi Steinhart.

Notes

[This passage refers to one who broke bread and then, before eating it, offered a piece to someone else by saying, “Take it and recite a blessing; take it and recite a blessing.” As evident from the continuation here, this is a partial quotation. The Talmud actually rules that in such a case, he need not repeat the blessing, but if he spoke about something entirely extraneous to the meal, he must recite the blessing again. The Talmud proceeds to cite different opinions as to what speech is considered extraneous to the meal.—Trans.]

Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 3: Encountering Christianity and Islam.

Engage with this Source

In this rare responsum by Dosa ben Se‘adya Ga’on, written in Hebrew and preserved in the Cairo Geniza, he responds to a query about a ruling found in his father’s “commentaries.” The original source for Se‘adya’s position is not entirely clear and might be either Se‘adya’s prayer book or a brief talmudic commentary. Dosa supports his father’s conclusions with references to relevant talmudic passages, although he recognizes that Se‘adya’s ruling was an extrapolation from a source that was not necessarily related.

Read more

You may also like