- This topic has 9 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
There is a certain consumable good upon consumption of which a brachah is required. It is questionable whether one would make the brachah associated with the plant from which this product comes, or rather a different one due to the amount of processing the product goes though.
Discuss…
It’s shehakol.
Maybe you mean chocolate. Chocolate is widely accepted as Shehakol, even though there are some good arguments that it should be a Haeitz.
Or maybe you mean beer. Tosofos asks why we don’t make a Mezonos on beer, but concludes that we make only shehakol on liquids (except for wine.)
Perhaps you meant instant mashed potatoes or Pringles. These are a machlokes, Rav Moshe holds that they are Ha’adamah, while many others hold that they are Shehakol.
Besides, you said “There is a certain consumable good upon consumption of which a brachah is required.” – what ‘consumable good’ DOESN’T require a brocha?
Yes, I do make a shehakol on chocolate.
any clue why the entire thread about grape juice was deleted??
is yeshiva world is in cahoots with kedem?? what do you think nevillechamberlin?
yitzyk, oral medications are consumable and do not require a bracha. I believe salt does not require a bracha either.
Weed?
The “unspecified plant” is not the only ingredient. As with any other food made of multiple ingredients, the bracha would depend on issues of ikar/tafel and/or rov/miut.
Swallowing something does not mean it’s a ‘consumable’. You can swallow tissues too. The purpose of swallowing unflavored tablets or capsules is to get it inside your stomach, without providing any enjoyment or benefit to your mouth or throat. That is why we don’t make a brocha on medicine. If oral medication has flavor and sweetener, it might indeed need a brocha (and a hechsher too.)
Salt is not eaten by itself, and if eaten by itself for health reasons (?) will indeed need a brocha – unless it is harmful. in which case it is not ‘supposed to be consumed.’
In any case, my point was just that the OP was so vague, that I failed to understand what he meant. I proposed a few possibilities.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.