- This topic has 35 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I had an interesting Shaila recently:
I made a Mezonos, with a pastry and rice in front of me. I had in mind that the Mezonos should go on both the pastry and the rice. After finishing my pastry, somebody asked me to be moitze him Al Hamichya. As you know, the brocho achroina for pastry is Al Hamichya; the brocho achroina for rice is Borei Nefashos. Although I hadn’t finished my rice, I made an Al Hamichya, having in mind to continue eating the rice.
Do I have to make a new brocho on the rice?
[Before you ask, I did discuss this with my LOR, who paskened that I do need to make a new brocho. I asked another LOR who agreed. A friend of mine asked his LOR who disagreed and paskened not to make a new brocho. I subsequently found the shailah in a contemporary sefer, who writes צ”ע לדינא.]
Some people I asked think it’s poshut you need a new brocho. Others don’t see the tzad to make a new brocho.
What do you think?
I have a question for you….in many places the Mishna Berurah and other poskim advises not to put oneself into a situation of a safeik brocha. So why didn’t you tell the person, I am sorry but I am not finished eating yet so either please wait until I am finished, find someone else or say it yourself?
Does the brocha acharona cut off the food or does it cut off the brocha rishona?
I think those would be the two tzdadim
Very interesting question. I’m impressed that you even realized that it was a sheilah. If I had been in that situation, I don’t think that I would even have realized there was a sheilah – I would have assumed that I could continue eating w/o a bracha.
Meno makes a good point, but I think the issue may also have to do with the way that we view rice, since rice is a safek to begin with and if you make an al himichya on rice, b’dieved you are yotzei. I want to look into this when I have a chance. Thanks for the “food for thought”.
Lowerourtuition: My impression was that he didn’t realize it was a sheilah/safeik until afterwards.
The problem with rice is that we do have a machlokes poskim as to what the brocha rishona is. LU wrote above that if you make an AHL HAMICHYA you are b’dieved yotzei, just like making an AHL HAEITZ for an apple one is yotzei b’dieved.
As to clarifying a safeik, you discussed with your LOR and he advised that in this situation one would make another brocha. Why did you to ask another LOR after you received an answer? However, at this point you have 2 LOR’s saying make a new brocha and one saying no. Do we follow the ROV (majority)?
” However, at this point you have 2 LOR’s saying make a new brocha and one saying no. Do we follow the ROV (majority)?”
In general, the rule with brachos is: ספק ברכות להקל but in this case, one would first have to determine who the Rabbanim are who are saying this and what they are basing this on.
Lichora, I would think that it would depend on if you started eating the rice. If you’d eaten both pastries and rice, then it’s like you made multiple Brachos of Mezonos. Yes, you only made one, but it was Chal in two different ways on two different items. The Al Hamichya ends the pastry Mezonos. If you haven’t started eating the rice yet, then you have cut off your entire Mezonos and it can no longer be Chal on the rice. However, if you’ve started eating the rice, then the Mezonos was Chal on the rice and the ending of the pastry part of the Mezonos does not end the rice part of the Mezonos.
According to the Sefer “V’zos Habracha”:
1. If you ate a regular Mezonos food and rice, the “al hamichya” that you make on the regular Mezonos exempts the rice (פרק כב הלכה ב בשם שע”ת רח/ט, כה”ח רח/מא)
2. The author adds in parenthesis that there is an opinion that one should say borei nefashos first, although this is not the opinion that he is going by and it seems to be a minority opinion. According to that opinion, it would seem that there is some safek involved regarding whether or not the al hamichya exempts the rice. But again, this may be a minority opinion and it may not be one that is accepted l’halacha.
3. Later on (Birur Halacha, 37/2), he writes that if someone ate regular mezonos and rice and he made an al hamichya on the regular mezonos and he wants to continue eating the rice(the OP’s case), it is a safek as to whether or not he can continue eating the rice w/o a bracha, since al hamichya exempts rice b’dieved, so it’s considered that he has a “siluk” (removal) from the rice, and t/f (since it’s a safek), he must do one of the things that one does whenever he has a safek brachos.
Yekke, was this the Sefer that you quoted in the OP?
Things to do when you have a safek brachos:
1. Shinui makom (change of place – go outside). Note: this does not work for Mezonos or Hamotzi, so it wouldn’t help here.
2. Have someone else be motzi you
3. Make a bracha on another food that you definitely did not have in mind the first time (although whenever you make a bracha on food, l’chatchila you are supposed to have in mind that it should cover any other food w that you may eat that has the same bracha. If you do that, then this suggestion would be impossible in most cases. However, in this case, if you made a mezonos on any “regular mezonos” it should be okay since your al hamichya certainly covered any “regular mezonos”I just realized this couldn’t have been the sefer you were quoting, since you wrote that you are sure that your al hamichya did not exempt the rice since you had in mind that you didn’t want it to, and this Sefer’s safek is based on the fact that the al hamichya may have exempted the rice anyhow.
So it sounds like your sefer had a different reason for צ”ע. What was his reasoning? And what was the reasoning of your LORs who said that you needed a new bracha?
Does anyone hear that svara?
Yes, but in your case you didn’t need to come on to g’reira.
“Although the eating is the mechayav, are you sure that the brocho hasn’t taken effect until you actually begin eating?”
It has to be that way (according to this svara that the bracha of mezonos is still “chal” on the rice even after the al hamichya) Otherwise, anytime someone makes a Mezonos on a regular mezonos product and he has in mind that his bracha should cover any foods he will eat that have the bracha on Mezonos (as the Rema says that one should have in mind), then after he makes an al hamichya, if he wants to eat rice at some point later on, he wouldn’t make a new bracha, since his original bracha is still “chal” since the al himichya didn’t end it. That is ridiculous! I don’t think that anyone would say that.I want to clarify what I think the relevant issues are here. I think that there are two ways of approaching the issue. Meno, Yekke, & Sam are approaching it from one angle, and I (and the Sefarim I looked at) are approaching it from another.
The two possible issues are:1. The reason that you can’t continue eating once you make a bracha achrona is that the bracha achrona provides a” “hefseik”. So the question here is: Does the “al hamichya” in this case exempt the rice and thereby create a “hefseik”?
2. Even if it doesn’t exempt the rice, can one say that a bracha rishona that no longer applies to the food on which it was made can still apply to another food (in this case a food that one specifically had in mind when he made the original bracha)?
I was approaching the issue from the first angle, and Meno & Yekke2 were approaching it from the second angle (as far as I can tell – they can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).
If the answer to 1. is that the al hamichya exempts the rice in this situation, then 2. becomes irrelevant since he clearly needs a new bracha.
If it’s a safek if the al hamichya exempts the rice, then “safek brachos l’hakel” and he is not allowed to make a new bracha, but it is also better if he doesn’t eat the rice. However, in that case, if we knew for sure that the answer to #2 is that the bracha of mezonos was terminated and can no longer be “chal” on anything, then he can certainly make a new mezonos.
L’maaseh, the sefarim I’ve been looking at seem to say that al hamichya either exempts the rice or it’s a safek if it exempts the rice. This would mean that you definitely should not be eating it without a new bracha, and perhaps you shouldn’t be eating it at all (unless you find someone to be motzi you).
In Rav Bodner’s Hilchos Brachos sefer, he quotes the Shaarei Teshuva that if you ate regular mezonos and rice and said al hamichya, the al hamichya exempts the rice and you are no longer allowed to say a borei nefashos. (which would also imply that you shouldn’t eat more w/o a bracha).
He quotes the Ben Ish Chai that you are supposed to say just an al hamichya l’chatchila, and the מגיה לחסד אלפים that you should first say a borei nefashos and then an al hamichya. It sounds like according to the “magiah l’chesed alafim”, it must be a safeik whether or not the al hamichya exempts the rice, whether or not you want it to.
Based on these sources, it would seem that it’s a safeik and the best thing to do would be to not eat the rice.
(cont. of last post)
Unless we go back to point #2 and one knows that the original mezonos can not possibly be “chal” once an “al hamichya” is said (in which case you would definitely be allowed to make a new bracha on the rice regardless of point #1).Personally that seems to me a bit shvach. It’s hard for me to imagine that there is any concept of a bracha achrona “cutting off a bracha rishona” (although I could be wrong). According to halacha, the reason you can’t eat anymore is because of “hefseik” not because the bracha was cut off.
I think that if this is an issue, it’s not that the bracha achrona cuts off the bracha rishona, but that a bracha that no longer applies to the original food it was made on can no longer apply to anything else.
But I know of no source for this and it doesn’t sound right to me. Certainly if it’s a food that you specifically had in mind (as Yekke said) and that you already started eating (as Sam said), I would think that wouldn’t be an issue. But I have no conclusive sources either way.
There is a third issue here as well:
What happens if someone mistakenly makes a bracha achrona even though he wsa planning to continue eating?
If the “al hamichya” is automatically “chal” on the rice even though Yekke didn’t intend it to, then perhaps this situation falls in that category. According to Rav Bodner’s sefer (p. 124), it’s a machlokes, so you are not allowed to continue eating.
“I disagree. According to your rationale, the reason you cannot continue eating forever (as long as you haven’t made a ברכה אחרונה) is because the brocho is only chal when you eat it – so if you make a brocho on a large challah, and begin eating it, can you continue eating the challah without a new brocho tomorrow? Obviously not.”
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. According to halacha, once you make a bracha you can continue eating all day unless something happens that is considered to be a “hefseik” according to halacha. A bracha achrona is one type of “hefseik”.
Going to sleep for the night is another type of “hefseik.” So even if you didn’t make a bracha achrona, you would not be allowed to continue eating the next day without a new bracha (assuming you went to sleep). “But you would be allowed to continue eating the entire day until you go to sleep (unless you do one of the other things that create a hefseik).
(Source: “Halachos of Brachos” by Rav Bodner, page 158-159): “Most Poskim rule, that, although a lapse of time affects a brocha achrona, it does not affect a brocha rishona….Since the brocha on nuts is valid for the entire day (provided that it is not terminated by a change of location, a decision to stop eating or the recital of a bracha achrona), he may continue eating nuts (or any other fruit that was included in his original brocha until the time he goes to sleep, without having to make a new brocha.”)
“It doesn’t sound like in his case he was mechaven that the al hamichya shouldn’t go on the rice. I think there is a big mokom to differentiate.”
I’m sure that he was mechaven that the al hamichya shouldn’t go on the rice. It says that he wants to continue eating the rice, so he clearly did not intend for the al hamichya to include the rice.
@Yekke re: post #1334394:
I reread your post (a few times). I really don’t understand what you are trying to say. I wonder if you misunderstood my point. I had been talking about the svara raised by Sam (and apparently your father) that it would only be possible to say that it might be muttar to continue eating the rice w/o a bracha if you had already started eating it.
That svara made sense to me, and I was bringing a “support” for it (although it’s not a proof). My “support” for the svara that if you hadn’t started eating the rice before you made the al hamichya then you can no longer eat it w/o a bracha (even if the halacha is that if you had started it, you could continue to eat it w/o a bracha) is as follows:
If you would say that, then you would also have to say that any time someone makes a bracha of mezonos and has in mind that it should apply to anything else they eat, then even if they make a bracha achrona and later decide to eat rice 12 hours later, they would not need to make a new bracha as long as they didn’t do anything in between to cause a hefseik.Normally, there are 2 possibilities: a person makes a bracha achrona or he doesn’t. If he didn’t make a bracha achrona, he can continue to eat all day without a new bracha (as long as he doesn’t do anything else that causes a hefseik). If he did make a bracha achrona, he can no longer eat without a new bracha rishona.
The problem here is that we have a strange situation, since we have a food that has the same bracha rishona and a different bracha achrona. This is an unusual situation, and I don’t know if we have it anywhere else.
At the moment, we are operating under the assumption that the al hamichya was not chal on the rice (which is probably incorrect anyhow, but that doesn’t matter right now). Therefore we are assuming that one can continue eating the rice w/o a new bracha.
I am saying that it must be that this can only be true if he started eating the rice. Otherwise, any time that someone makes an al hamichya, he would not be allowed to make a new mezonos if he eats rice at any point that day before he goes to sleep (as long as he doesn’t create a hefseik in another way).
This could only happen with al hamichya and rice since normally any food that has the same bracha rishona also has the same bracha achrona (unless there’s something else like this).
Had you understood me? If so, can you please reexplain your point because I didn’t get it.
I just realized what your point might have been – Was your point that you specifically had in mind not to include the rice? Are you saying that if you hadn’t had that in mind, then you would assume that the rice was automatically included whether or not you had started it, but if you had it in mind, then it shouldn’t matter if you had started eating it or not?
I hadn’t been looking at it that way, because I had understood (perhaps mistakenly) that you weren’t originally even considering the possibility that the al hamichya could be chal on the rice even if you hadn’t specifically had in mind disclude it.
I made a mistake when I quoted the source in “V’zos Habracha”. I mistakenly wrote 37/2, and it was really 37/3. However, it was hashgacha (as is everything) that I did so, since when I went to look it up again, I found something interesting in 37/2:
אכל אורז ומיני מזונות ובירך בורא נפשות על האורז – יכול להמשיך ולאכול את המזונות בלי ברכה, כיון שהן איון כלולות בברכתו (כל זה אם הוא אכל כבר מהמזונות לפני שבירך ב”נ, אך אם הוא רק אכל אורז, ובירך ב”נ יש להסתפק אם נחשב הדבר שסילק את עצמו מן הברכה הראשונה שבירך קודם ויש ספק אם צריך לברך מחדש על המזונות. ויעשה שינוי מקום והפסק וכדומה – כמבואר בתחילת בירור הלכה סימן ל”ז. או יפטור את המזונות בברכה על מאכל שלא היה בדעתו לאכול)
וכל הדין הזה מדובר אם אכל כזית מהמזונות אך אם אכל רק פחות מכזית, אזי יתכן שבורא נפשות פווטרת את המזונות שאם אין חיוב על המחיה יתכן שבורא נפשות פוטרת גם מזונות (ראה מגן אברהם רי א, והתבאר בליבון הלכהFrom this last source, we see the following:
1. There is a difference between a situation in which he had started eating the second food and a situation in which he had not.
2. If he hadn’t started eating the second food yet, then it is possible that he has “separated himself” from the bracha rishona once he made a bracha achrona. It is a safek.
3. If he had started the second food, the original bracha rishona is still chal as long as the bracha achrona is not chal on the second food.
4. Borei nefashos said on rice is not chal on a mezonos (even though bdieved borei nefashos might be chal on anything)
5. Al hamichya said on a mezonos product might be chal on rice even if that wasn’t his intention (as seen if 37/3 quoted earlier)
6. Borei nefashos said on rice might be chal on less than a k’zayis of mezonos.We can approach this question from a different angle:
Why does one make a beracha in the first place? According to the Gemara (Berachos 35a) it is סברא הוא אסור לו לאדם שיהנה מן העולם הזה בלא ברכה. This is further elaborated upon there, and it is explained that eating without a beracha is in some sense akin to stealing from God.
If this is the case, why should one ever have to make a new beracha? As soon as he made a beracha on an item one time, the item has moved from the geder of לה’ הארץ ומלואה to the geder of והארץ נתן לבני אדם!
על כרחך, a beracha acharona (as well as certain other forms of hefseik/heseich hada’as) somehow returns an item to the status of לה’ הארץ ומלואה. It is as if the beracha rishona allows you usage of the item and by making a beracha acharona you are “returning” it to God.
If that is the case, then if you made a beracha acharona (“returned” the food to God) but had in mind to continue eating rice (did not include it in the “returning”) then the rice is still “yours” – והארץ נתן לבני אדם.
There would thus be no reason to make a new beracha because the whole concept of a beracha is to appropriate something from God’s domain and make it yours, which would be completely superfluous if the thing is already yours (due to a prior beracha).
Yekke2:
“שינוי מקום or hesech hada’as” makes a difference for the same reason that a beracha acharona makes a difference – they are halachic mechanisms via which the person shows that he is “returning” the food to Hashem. I don’t think they particularly have to utilize the dinim of kinyanim because I think the whole concept is more metaphorical (or perhaps metaphysical) than actually a literal kinyan from God and then back.
(I’m sort of deliberately ignoring the “why?” and framing it as a “what?” in classic Brisker fashion. So you can’t really ask why a given act represents “returning”, but you can ask what the gedarim are.)
Yekke2: It’s B’feirush in the Achronim that the Bracha Acharona ends the Bracha Rishona. There is a Machlokes Achronim about if you accidentally made a Bracha Acharona and still have a few bites left to eat. The Magen Avraham says that you may finish eating, and everyone else attacks him for it. (Interestingly, though, many Achronim quote him as saying that you may lick the crumbs off your lips without a new Bracha Rishonah, which Lich’ora is him L’Shitaso that they rejected.) Everyone agrees though that an intentional Bracha Acharona ends the Rishona.
It is Greirah. Greirah happens whenever you have one Bracha Chal on two or more items. As long as you start eating the first, the Bracha continues onto whatever else you will eat. But you have to start eating the other ones also. If you didn’t start eating the rice, the Bracha never “split” into following the rice also.
LU: Al HaMichya only Patters rice Bedieved and because of a combination of Kulos based on Safek Brachos. Mei’Ikar HaDin, it really doesn’t, and therefore there is no reason to tack on Chumros (i.e. that the Al HaMichya ends your Bracha Rishona on the rice) onto this Safek Brachos Shittah.
PAA: That’s cute Drush, but not Halachically relevant at all (nice to see you again, but I expected more substance and less fluff from your return).
Yekke, sorry for not responding to your last post. I have what to say, but I haven’t had a chance to yet. When I log on, it’s usually when I need to chill for a few minutes, and not necessarily when I have the time and mental energy for these kinds of threads, much as I enjoy them.
I appreciate your starting these kinds of threads and I hope to respond at some point, IYH. Just wanted to let you know that I haven’t forgotten about it. It’s such a mechaya to see a thread that has tochen and no fighting (bli ayin hara).
Yekke : “4. You keep mentioning “unless you do something considered a hefsek”. Simply deciding to stop eating constitutes a hefsek. When you finish eating and bentch, and you don’t have in mind to continue eating, I think that would be a hefsek.”
Yekke, the halacha is that the bracha is chal forever (or until the end of the day) unless you do something to create a hefseik.
Simply deciding to discontinue eating is not necessarily a hefseik. According to Rav Elyashiv as quoted in “V’zos Habracha” and requoted in the Dirshu Mishna Berurah (Siman 179, #10 (depending on the edition)quoting “Vzos Habracha” Chapter 20, “Heseich hadaas m’achila u’shtiya א ) most of the time it would not be considered a hefseik nowadays.
Regarding a bracha achrona, the bracha achrona itself can create a hefseik regardless of whether or not you intended to continue eating ( I believe it’s a machlokes and we posken to be choshesh for both views).
The issue here was that “al hamichya” is not the bracha achrona for rice, so perhaps it doesn’t create a hefseik for rice, and if someone made an al hamichya on the regular mezonos, perhaps they should be able to eat rice now even if they hadn’t started eating rice beforehand.
I was saying that that doesn’t make sense since then they would be able to eat rice 5 hours later even if they hadn’t specifically had rice in mind (as long as they had in mind that the rice should be chal on anything). You are saying that they wouldn’t be allowed to eat rice 5 hours but that they would be in your case (even if he hadn’t started eating rice). What is the difference between the two cases?
Maybe there is a difference (and therefore a reason why the svara is not a good svara) but I don’t think you’ve given one yet.
Is your point that in one case he specifically had in mind to continue eating and in one case he didn’t? That could be, but it seems shvach to me,( esp. since in general if one makes a bracha achrona with intention to continue eating, the bracha achrona might still create a hefseik) If you started eating the rice, you can have in mind that the al hamichya should not go on the rice , but if you didn’t start eating the rice yet, then you can’t have in mind that the al hamichya doesn’t go on the rice since you didn’t eat any rice yet.
In any case, I think that I originally stated that this wasn’t necessarily a “proof” but just a “support”.
“It doesn’t sound like in his case he was mechaven that the al hamichya shouldn’t go on the rice. I think there is a big mokom to differentiate.”
Avadai he was – He writes that he was planning to continue eating the rice, so the al hamichya was clearly not meant to go on the rice. Also, he writes that the al hamichya was said on the Mezonos (meaning the regular Mezonos).
I have a lot more to say on the topic, but I have to go.
I forgot to add – it’s the exact same case – he ate regular mezonos and rice, and made an al hamichya on the regular mezonos while planning to continue eating the rice.
BUMP (since it doesn’t show up that I responded and I want to make sure that Yekke sees my last 3 posts before he goes back to Yeshiva.
Also, I wanted to add something since I realized after I wrote my third to last post that maybe it wasn’t so clear.
My main point was that I don’t understand why you didn’t understand my svara.
There are three situations: 1. He ate mezonos and rice and said al hamichya and started eating rice, and now wants to continue eating rice.
2. He ate only Mezonos and said al hamichya and didn’t start eating rice, and now wants to start eating rice w/o a bracha.
3. He only ate Mezonos and said al hamichya and didn’t start eating rice and wants to start eating rice w/o a bracha five hours later.The question was: If you are allowed to eat the rice in the first case, would you also be allowed to eat the rice in the second case?
My feeling was that you can’t. My “support” was based on the fact that presumably you are not allowed to in case three, and since case three is the same as case 2, then you must not be allowed to in case 2.
There are two possible answers to this svara: A. You are in fact allowed to eat the rice in Case 3.
or B. There is a difference between case 2 and case 3 which allows you to eat the rice in Case 2 and not in Case 3.I am not sure why you don’t understand my svara. It sounds like you may have a reason why the two cases are different, but since I didn’t know about the difference, that doesn’t mean it’s not a good svara.
Are you saying that there is a difference between the two cases? If so, what is it?
Is it that in the Second Case, you are assuming that when he said the Al Hamichya, he specifically had in mind to eat rice, and in the Third Case you are assuming he didn’t? If so, I didn’t actually say in the third case that he didn’t have this in mind. What if he did have it in mind? Would you then say that he is allowed to eat the rice 5 hours later?If the reason why you are saying that it’s okay to eat the rice in Case 2 (and possibly in Case 3) is that he had in mind when he made the Al Hamichya that he wants to eat rice, wouldn’t that be the same as someone who made an al hamichya but had in mind that he wants to continue eating cake?
In the case of someone who made an al hamichya and had in mind that he wants to continue eating cake, I’m think the halacha is that you are not allowed to continue eating cake. I think that I read in a halacha sefer that it’s a machlokes and therefore you are not allowed to continue eating the cake since we are choshesh for both opinions. That also seemed to be what the biur halacha you quoted (Siman 190) was saying as well.
Or do you see a difference between the 2 cases?
Yekke – I see that you (apparently) did respond, but your responses are still awaiting moderation (unless of course, you were responding to someone/something else).
I don’t know when you are going back but I assume it’s soon so I wanted to thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my posts (if in fact you did).
If I have a response to your response, it will probably have to wait for next bein hazmanim for you to read it.
Shteig Well! Hatzlacha in your learning! And thanks for your intelligent and politely-written posts which are always appreciated during bein hazmanim.
It’s clear to me I don’t know anywhere near as much about Hilchos Brachos as all the other posters here.
I got stuck scratching my head at the first post!
Yekke, you said, “After finishing my pastry, somebody asked me to be moitze him Al Hamichya.”
Why on earth would somebody ask you to be moitze him in making a bracha achrona?
I’m familiar with, let’s say, my husband making kiddush or havdala or Hamotzi on lechem mishna and being motzi me (and others).
In your case however, why doesn’t your friend just make his own al hamichya?
I’m sure the answer is not because he can’t be bothered.
Why would somebody do that?
And if you’re in middle of eating why wouldn’t you politely decline and say, “I’m not up to bracha achrona yet, I’m still eating”?
I’m sure I’m missing something here but seems to me that would solve all your problems.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.