Wedding Food or My Food?

by R. Gil Student

I. Guests and Leftovers

At weddings, we serve a tremendous amount of food. Between the smorgasbord, the different courses and dessert, guests are offered more food than most can eat. Can a guest put some food in a container and take it home? Sometimes a person might want to take a cookie home for a child or some chicken for the next day’s dinner. May you take home food that was served to you to eat at the wedding?

In a recent episode of the Halacha Headlines podcast, Rav Shmuel Fuerst of Chicago said that you are allowed to take home a little food: “If he’s an invited guest, he is allowed to take home some food but he cannot empty out the place because other people have to eat there also. But to take a small amount of food, I am sure the balebayis (host) is not makpid (does not mind).”

The halakhic background to this ruling is surprisingly complex because the sources seem to disagree about whether food served to a guest becomes his. There are really two separate questions. First, when does a guest acquire ownership of the food served to him? Second, even if he does not yet own it, what uses does the host implicitly permit?

The Gemara (Chullin 94a) says: “Guests are not permitted to give from the food that is placed before them to the son or to the daughter of the host unless they obtain permission from the host.” This rule is codified in Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 170:19). This would seem to imply that a guest does not have the right to do whatever he wants with food served to him.

However, Rambam writes that if someone enters another person’s home, takes something that the owner does not mind him taking, such as a date or nut, and betroths a woman with it, the woman is doubtfully betrothed, i.e., it is a safek kiddushin (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ishus 5:8). Shulchan Arukh (Even Ha-Ezer 28:17) rules likewise, and Rema adds that if a guest sitting in someone’s house takes his portion of food and betroths a woman with it, the woman is betrothed.

Rav David Segal (Taz; 17th cen., Poland) points out the apparent contradiction between Rema’s ruling here, that the woman is betrothed, and the earlier ruling that a guest does not have the right to give food to the host’s children. If the guest fully owns the food, he should have the right to give it to anyone he wants. The Taz therefore understands Rema to mean that it is not entirely clear whether the guest owns the food and that the woman is therefore only doubtfully betrothed (Taz, Even Ha-Ezer, ad loc.). According to the Taz, it is at least doubtful whether the guest owns the food outright, which explains why he cannot simply treat it as his to give away. Why might a guest not own the food?

II. When a Guest Acquires the Food

In sixteenth-century Salonica, a guest took an apple from the table and gave it to another man as betrothal for his daughter. The question was posed to Rav Yosef of Trani (Maharit) whether this betrothal worked (Responsa Maharit, vol. 1, no. 150). Maharit asks whether a guest acquires the food when it is placed before him or only when he puts it in his mouth. Based on a number of textual proofs, he concludes that a guest acquires the food only when he places it in his mouth.

However, this seems to be a debate among medieval commentators. The Gemara (Nedarim 34b) asks about someone who says, “My loaf of bread is forbidden to you,” and then gives the bread to that person. Is the person allowed to eat it? Why does the man say “my loaf” rather than simply “this loaf”? The Gemara answers that this wording excludes a case in which you invite someone to eat the bread and then say that it is forbidden to him. Rashi explains that when you invite someone to eat the loaf, it becomes his and you can no longer forbid it to him. The Ran, however, reads the Gemara differently and explains that if you give the loaf to him as a gift, you cannot subsequently forbid it, but if you merely invite him to eat it, it remains yours and you can still forbid it.

Rav Yom Tov Algazi (18th cen., Jerusalem) says that this disagreement turns on the question of when a guest acquires the food. Rashi and those who follow his approach believe that a guest acquires the food when it is placed before him. The Ran and those who follow his approach believe that a guest acquires the food only when he puts it into his mouth (Responsa Simchas Yom Tov, vol. 1, no. 48). Rav Raphael Yosef Chazzan (19th cen., Israel) disagrees with Rav Algazi’s understanding of the Ran. He argues that the Ran and others do not require the guest to put the food into his mouth in order to acquire it. Rather, a guest acquires the food when he picks it up (Chikrei Lev, Choshen Mishpat, no. 147).

We therefore have three possible points of acquisition: when the food is placed before the guest, when the guest picks it up or when he puts it into his mouth. That difference has obvious practical consequences for food served at a wedding. According to the opinion that a guest acquires food when it is placed before him, there is a strong basis to say that he may take home the individual portion served on his plate. That particular rationale would not yet apply to food still sitting at a smorgasbord or buffet. According to the opinion that a guest acquires food when he lifts it, however, the moment he takes food from the smorgasbord or buffet he acquires it.

But ownership is only one part of the issue. Even if the food has not yet become the guest’s property, the host may still permit him to use it in certain ways.

III. What the Host Permits

Maharit quotes Rav Yeshayah of Trani II (13th cen., Italy), who says that if a guest takes food and betroths a woman with it, the woman is betrothed because the host does not mind the guest using the food in this way. Maharit remains unsure whether this refers only to the portion served specifically to the guest or to any food on the table. It is possible that the host would mind if the guest took food intended for everyone and gave it to a third party.

Maharit does not quote the following case, but a similar question was asked of Rav Shimon Ben Tzemach Duran (Rashbatz; 15th cen., Algeria). A guest took a cup of wine and gave it to another man in order to betroth his daughter. Rashbatz rules that normally this would work because the host does not mind. In that particular case, however, the daughter was an adult and her father could not accept betrothal on her behalf (Responsa Tashbetz, vol. 1, no. 23).

The rule about giving food to the host’s children also seems to depend partly on circumstances. Rav Avraham Gombiner (Magen Avraham; 17th cen., Poland) suggests that the prohibition applies only to a limited meal where there is barely enough food for the guests. At a large meal, where there is no concern that others will be deprived, this restriction does not apply (Magen Avraham 170:23). Mishnah Berurah (170:40) rules likewise.

A different explanation of the same rule appears in the writings of Rav Pinchas Horowitz (18th cen., Germany). He explains that a guest actually acquires his food and may, as a matter of ownership, give it to anyone he wishes. Nevertheless, as a matter of derekh eretz, respectful behavior, he may not give it to his host’s children without permission (Sefer Ha-Miknah, Kuntres Acharon, Hilkhos Kiddushin 28:17).

Rav Betzalel Stern (20th cen., Israel) adds another important practical point. Whatever disagreement exists about when a guest first acquires his food, everyone agrees that leftovers remaining on the guest’s own plate belong to him (Be-Tzel Ha-Chokhmah, vol. 4, no. 148).

A related question arises in an entirely different setting: eating matzah at the Passover seder. Rav Shlomo Zalman Braun (20th cen., US) explores this issue in a Shabbos Ha-Gadol sermon delivered in 1992. Some recent authorities had recommended that every attendee formally acquire the matzah before eating it for the mitzvah of the night. Presumably, the concern was that the mitzvah requires a person to eat matzah that is legally his, and merely being invited to eat at someone else’s table might not necessarily transfer ownership.

Rav Braun argues that such a formal acquisition is unnecessary. Based on the sources we have seen, a guest acquires the food at one of several possible stages: when it is placed in front of him, when he lifts it or when he puts it into his mouth. Whichever view one follows, by the time he actually eats the matzah it unquestionably belongs to him. There is therefore no need for the host to perform a separate formal act transferring ownership of the matzah to each guest before the mitzvah (She’arim Metzuyanim Ba-Halakhah, Nedarim 34b s.v. amar leih lo).

IV. Taking Wedding Food Home

The most direct discussion of our question appears in a responsum of Rav Shmuel Wosner (21st cen., Israel). He writes that a guest may take home food that was served to him on his plate. He may not simply take other food, because the hosts retain an interest in it and may object to its removal. However, Rav Wosner adds that in places such as America, where leftovers are sometimes simply thrown out, there is no concern with taking home food that would otherwise be discarded (Shevet Ha-Levi, vol. 4, no. 225).

This distinction fits well with the two principles we have seen throughout the discussion. One question is whether the guest has acquired the food. A second is whether the host objects to the guest taking it. Food already served to the guest presents a much stronger case than food still sitting on a communal buffet or waiting to be packed up by the hosts.

In my experience in America, leftover food that was served on an individual plate is thrown out. Food from the smorgasbord, main meal and dessert that was not served is then packed up and taken home by the bride’s family. I have been blessed to have had to pack my car with those leftovers after my children’s weddings and find freezer space for it all.

Nevertheless, although we had paid for all the food, we certainly would not have minded if a guest took a small amount home. That ordinary assumption about what a host permits seems to be what Rav Fuerst had in mind when he said that an invited guest may take a little food home because “I am sure the balebayis is not makpid.”