My father zatzal used to tell stories about Reb Aizekel (Eizel) Charif. One of the stories was that one night, he woke his rebbetzin up, and asked her, in profound agitation, בין איך קלאר אדער בין איך משוגע? Am I sane, or am I crazy?
She was shocked and afraid, and she said, Reb Aizek, what do you mean? He insisted, and repeated, בין איך קלאר אדער בין איך משוגע? I am gozeir on you as your husband that you have to tell me what you really believe! She answered, with worry and dismay, Reb Aizek, I promise that you are the most sane man in the world, you are 100% sane.
Reb Aizek said, Baruch Hashem! Baruch Hashem! Someone gave me this sefer that he just published, and I was reading it, and I came to realize that there are only two possibilities. Either I am crazy, or he is crazy. Baruch Hashem! If I am not crazy, Iz ehr meshuga, then he is crazy.
I was talking to a friend recently, and we began to talk about the sugya of לקבעא קמא הדר- that sometimes, walking out and returning is called a hefsek and if you return it is a new beginning, but sometimes it is not considered an interruption, and so when you return you are continuing the same meal He asked me the following question.
We know that if a person ate a kezayis of mezonos and left the room, he does not have to make another bracha when he returns. Because mezonos obligates a person to return to the place where he ate, his leaving is not called a hefsek. לקבעא קמא הדר
What if a person was eating mezonos and shehakol, and he left the room, and he returned. Would he have to repeat the shehakol?
The natural answer is that no, he would not have to repeat the shehakol. If he doesn't have to repeat the mezonos because his obligation to return renders his having left insignificant, then he shouldn't have to repeat any bracha. It seems obvious to me that the din that you don't repeat mezonos is not because mezonos requires that you go back to where you ate. It is because mezonos creates a reality of kvius. Because of that kevius, you have to make the bracha achrona where you ate. If there were no brachos in the world, the concept of kevius would still apply. The din of going back is a siman, not a siba. If so, if there's a reality of kvius, the kvius is applicable to all your brachos.
So my friend told me that he saw a certain great posek, a man that was well known to have shas and poskim and rishonim in his pocket, said that he does have to repeat the shehakol.
I asked him, but why is this different that one who was eating a shehakol food and left the room, but he left his friends there, and he intends to return because of his friends. He told me it's a good question, but if that posek said farkert, it's my problem to be meyasheiv the sugya.
I haven't looked at any of the mareh mekomos. I'm afraid it will say what he says. If it does, then the only choice I will have is to accept the unfortunate reality of the title of this post. As the Mahari Viel said, פסקי בעלי בתים ופסקי לומדים שני הפכים הם.
(שו"ת מהר"י ווייל סוף סימן קמ"ו, הובא בסמ"ע סימן ג' ס"ק י"ג)
Marei mekomos, thank you Eli.
Badei Hashulchan here and also here
Teshuvos Maharim Padua (Not the famous Maharam Padua, who lived three hundred years earlier, but he was the Rov of Brisk a generation before the Maharil Diskin, so read it carefully.)
Also on the issue of לקבעא קמא הדר:
What if a person heard kiddush in his Sukkah, but he didn't drink a reviis of wine. Let's say he wasn't the one that made kiddush, or even if he made kiddush, he drank rov kos but not a revi'is. Then he walked out to wash netilas yadayim for Hamotzi. Is he yotzei Kiddush bimkom seuda? Or does his walking out mean there's a hefsek and his kiddush was not bimkom seuda, since it is not related to the seuda he will eat after washing?
I would think that his obligation and intent to return to eat bread means that he never "left" the sukkah. It's not worse than leaving friends and intending to come back- which is another example of לקבעא קמא הדר. Indeed, that is what Reb Yosef Peimer from Slutzk, a talmid of Reb Chaim Volozhiner says in his teshuvos (here's more about him.) Rav Chaim Volozhiner is saying a big chiddush: he is the only one who connects the halacha of leaving a friend behind, which is usually related to the din of making new brachos, to the din of Kiddush Bimkom Seuda. But they tell me that the Chazon Ish argues. Can you believe it? All of Klal Yisrael does this. You make kiddush in the Sukkah, you go out to wash, and then you make hamotzi. This is a hefsek, and it's not the same seuda, so it's a problem of not making kiddush bimkom seudah?
And once again, I have a very big problem understanding this. We all know that talking between bracha and achila is a hefsek, but not where the talking is for the purpose of the Achila, like "Bring salt." So we ought to learn a general svara that a hefsek for the needs of the seuda is not a hefsek. If so, going out to wash in order to eat is not in the parsha of hefsek at all. Not only is it not a hefsek, it's exactly the opposite of a hefsek- it's a "Not Hefsek," it's a chibbur. In fact, I believe that if you sat down to eat, and you realized you hadn’t fed your animals, and you go outside to feed them so you can eat, it is not a hefsek either. To me, this is a poshuteh svara. So why don’t any of these gedolim say this simple, baalebatische svara? Is there something wrong with me? Has my brain gotten dim with age? Has my almost exclusive focus on the Daf Yomi for twenty five years made me simplistic? Very possible.
After thinking about this for a while, I've come to realize that the problem with being a baal habayis is the tendency to form an immediate opinion and to close one's mind, instead of delving into the sugya to see what other ways there are to learn it. It's a matter of being outside the milieu of shakla vetarya, and also simple laziness and inertia. So, yes. Unfortunately, it's true.
By the way, Reb Yosef (Yosalleh) Peimer was like a father to Reb Elya Pruzhiner, Reb Moshe Feinstein's uncle, who was born in Slutsk.