Berachot - Chapter Eight

There is a difference of opinion among the halachic authorities if the blessing borey nefashot requires a chatimah or not; i.e., is this a blessing of one line like the blessings before partaking of fruit, or does it have a concluding line beginning, ברוך אתה ה'? The Babylonian Talmud does not mention a chatimah, but the Jerusalem Talmud does. Accordingly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 207:1) suggests reciting a concluding line without mentioning God’s name.
This decision is also reflected in the standard published texts of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 6:8). Rav Kapach, in his text of the Commentary to the Mishnah and similarly in his text of these halachot (Halachah 8), quotes the Rambam’s text of the blessing without a chatimah at all. This text is borne out by a responsum attributed to the Rambam.
According to the standard text of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, the blessing reads: ברוך אתה ה'... בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שברא, ברוך א-ל חי העולמים. “Blessed are you, God... Creator of numerous living beings and their needs of for all that He created. Blessed is God Who lives forever.” Our text of the blessing differs slightly.

The Rambam is referring to Deuteronomy 8:8, which praises Eretz Yisrael for producing seven species of produce. Two, wheat and barley, are grains and not fruit. Because Eretz Yisrael was praised for producing these species, the Sages instituted a special blessing for them.

See Halachah 14 and Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

E.g., to wash down food.

Unless a person is thirsty, the benefit he receives from drinking water is not significant enough to require a blessing (Tosafot, Berachot 45a).

Based on Berachot 38a, the rabbis explain that liquid squeezed from other fruits is “merely fluid.” It does not represents the essence of the fruit. In contrast, grapes and olives are planted primarily for their liquids; wine and oil are the essence of the fruit.

Since one’s intent is to drink the oil for its medicinal value, it is considered of primary importance, and the vegetable sauce of secondary importance. Hence, the blessing borey pri ha’etz, which is appropriate for the oil, is recited.

Without the addition of a sauce for flavor. In such an instance, the oil will not be fit to drink. It appears, however, that even so, the Rambam requires that the blessing shehakol be recited. The other authorities differ and maintain that not only is the blessing borey pri ha’etz not recited, but that one should not recite any blessing at all, even when one drinks the oil because of a sore throat (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 202:4; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 202:10; Mishnah Berurah 202:27).

In which case one would not have the intent of drinking the oil, but rather drinking the sauce with which it was mixed. Hence, the blessing which is appropriate for the sauce should be recited.
Significantly, the Rambam does not mention reciting a blessing after partaking of oil. This implies that the single blessing that includes the three blessings of grace should not be recited after partaking of oil. There are two reasons for this decision:
a) oil alone is not a satisfying food;
b) this blessing was not instituted for a food that cannot be enjoyed in its natural form.

The designation of the “usual” way of eating a fruit or produce depends on the local custom. The examples mentioned in the Talmud, here in the Mishneh Torah, and in the Shulchan Aruch, reflect the norms of the time and place in which those texts where written. Should the eating habits of a particular society differ regarding a specific fruit, the blessing changes accordingly.

The Rambam does not mention fruits, since with the exception of quince, there are no fruits that are primarily eaten cooked.

When stating this principle, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 202:12, based on Tosafot, Berachot 38b) uses a slightly different expression:
[When partaking of] all fruit that are pleasant tasting either raw or cooked... one should recite the blessing borey pri ha’etz regardless of whether one eats it raw or cooked.
Nevertheless, in actual practice, there is no difference between the two opinions. When a fruit tastes good when it is cooked, but is not usually eaten in that fashion, both opinions would require the blessing shehakol.

This explanation clarifies the Rambam’s perspective on a question that has been raised among the halachic authorities: Why should borey pri ha’adamah be recited over stew, when juice produced by squeezing the vegetable requires only the blessing shehakol?
Rabbenu Asher and other commentaries explain that cooking extracts more of the body of the fruit than squeezing. The Rambam and others (among them, the Rashba) maintain that the reason borey pri ha’adamah is recited is that this is the manner in which the produce is commonly eaten. When it was planted, this was the intent in mind.
This difference in explanation produces a difference in law as well. According to the Rambam, in most cases one should recite shehakol over the water in which fruit is cooked (indeed, this can be inferred from the fact that he mentions only vegetables in this halachah), because fruit is rarely planted with this purpose in mind. In contrast, according to Rabbenu Asher, borey pri ha’etz should be recited, because the main body of the fruit is extracted in the cooking process.

If the vegetables are stewed together with meat or fish, the latter are considered the primary element of the food, and the blessing shehakol is recited (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 205:2).

This ruling applies even when the soup is eaten without the vegetables themselves (ibid.).

According to the Rambam, when one cooked vegetables with the intention of eating the vegetables without considering drinking the water in which they were cooked, and afterwards, decided to drink the water, one should recite the blessing shehakol. Rabbenu Asher, however, would not accept this decision.

Although the Torah (Deuteronomy 8:8) refers to dates with the term “honey,” the honey is not considered the primary element of the fruit (See Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 202). Although there are opinions that differ, the Rambam’s ruling is accepted as halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 202:8).

Although they no longer appear as dates, since the flavor and the substance of the fruit remains, the blessing for them does not change.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 202:7) mentions a difference of opinion about applesauce that has been cooked and crushed to the point that it no longer resembles a fruit at all. Some opinions maintain that the same principle that applies regarding dates applies in this instance as well. Others explain that there is a difference between the two cases. Applesauce has no resemblance to apples whatsoever, while the crushed dates are obviously dates.

This expression indicates that this ruling is a decision arrived at independently by the Rambam and is not supported by previous sources. The Rambam supports his ruling with two explanations:
a) Sugar cane is not a fruit, and the blessing borey pri ha’etz was instituted only for fruit (see the following halachah);
b) Even if sugar cane were to be considered a fruit, its sap, like date honey, should not require this blessing (Kessef Mishneh).

Although the Tur objects to the Rambam’s ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 202:15).

Even though it is sweet and can be eaten, it is considered part of the tree and not a fruit.

Our translation is based on Rashi’s commentary (Berachot 36a). The Aruch renders the term kafras as leaves.
Since these petals are not considered “fruit,” the blessing borey pri ha’etz should not be recited upon them. Nevertheless, since, in contrast to the stalk of the date palm, the caper bushes are planted with the intention of eating the petals as well, one should recite the blessing borey pri ha’adamah.
This law is relevant in a contemporary context as well, e.g., when eating orange peels. See the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 202:9.

Note the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:10), which mentions the vine on which peppers grow to be a tree with regard to the laws of orlah. Nevertheless, since the peppers are usually grown with the intent of being dried and used as spices, the blessing borey pri ha’etz is not appropriate (Kessef Mishneh).

This refers to food that is not fit for human consumption at all (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 204). The laws governing foods that have spoiled moderately are discussed in the following halachah.

In contrast to the foods mentioned in the previous halachah, here the Rambam is speaking of foods that are fit to be eaten. However, because they are slightly spoiled, the unique blessing designated for them is not recited.

Fruit that has been overexposed to the sun and has fallen from the tree before becoming ripe. It will never become fully ripe and have the proper taste of fruit. Hence, it is also considered to be spoiled food.

Although beer is made from grain, dates, or other produce, it is made as a beverage, and one is not partaking of the substance of the fruit or grain.

This refers to vinegar that is mixed with water or that has not fermented entirely. In contrast, no blessing should be recited over vinegar that has fermented entirely, since its taste is not pleasant and it is damaging to the body (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 204:1-2).

Though mushrooms and truffles grow on the earth, they are not considered pri ha’adamah (fruits of the earth), because they derive their nurture from the air (Berachot 40b).

The Mishnah (Niddah 6:10) makes this statement to contrast the blessings recited over food with those recited over the fulfillment of mitzvot.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 204:5) emphasizes that this law depends on the strength of the wines available. Our wines are not as strong as those of the Talmudic period, and hence the ratio of three parts water to one part wine is not sufficient to require the blessing borey pri hagefen.
This law is very relevant regarding most commercially produced wines, which are heavily diluted at present.

Because the fruits that grow on trees also grow from the ground.

Because the fruit that grows from the ground does not grow on trees.

Because ultimately all entities in this world “came into being through His speech.”
It must be emphasized that this law applies only בדיעבד, after the fact. At the outset, it is proper to recite the appropriate blessings over all foods (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 206:1; Mishnah Berurah 206:5).

This decision is rendered despite the fact that, even after the fact, the blessing borey pri hagafen is not appropriate for beer. Similarly, in the two cases which follow, the blessing the person recited is not appropriate. He is, nevertheless, considered to have fulfilled his obligation for the reasons explained by the Rambam.

Although this principle is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 209:1), there is a significant amount of contention regarding the matter, and most of the later authorities do not accept this decision (Mishnah Berurah 209:1).
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, explaining that the words the person actually said are of essential importance, not the intention which he had. Similarly, others have noted a seeming inconsistency in the Rambam’s own decisions, noting that in Hilchot Kri’at Shema 1:8 (which is based on the same Talmudic passage, Berachot 12a), the Rambam writes, “Everything depends on the conclusion [of the blessings ].”
The Rishon LeTzion attempts to resolve the difficulty, explaining that there is a difference between the blessings recited before Kri’at Shema and the blessings recited over foods. The blessings recited before Kri’at Shema contain a chatimah (a concluding phrase beginning Baruch Atah Adonai). Therefore, that phrase is of paramount importance.
In contrast, the blessings over food do not contain chatimot. Hence, what is significant is the mention, in the initial phrase of the blessing, of God’s name and His sovereignty. See also the Kessef Mishneh’s comments here and in Hilchot Kri’at Shema.

As mentioned previously, whenever there is a doubt concerning an obligation that stems from the Torah itself, one must follow the more stringent option. When there is a doubt regarding an obligation of Rabbinic origin, one may take the more lenient option. In this instance, one is required to take the more lenient option and not recite a blessing, since there is a possibility of a blessing being recited unnecessarily.
These principles do not apply to grace (see Chapter 2, Halachah 14) because the obligation to recite it originates in the Torah itself. As mentioned previously, there are some authorities who maintain that the blessing al hamichyah is a Scriptural obligation.

On one hand, “It is forbidden to benefit from this world without reciting a blessing.” (See the commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 2.) On the other hand, the Sages were careful that a person should not waste any food at all. [Although the Ra’avad does not accept the latter principle, it is followed by Rav Yosef Caro in his Kessef Mishneh and Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 172:1). Note, however, the Magen Avraham 172:1, who quotes the Ra’avad.]

According to the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.), the Rambam is stating that one should recite only a blessing after the food, and should not recite the blessing usually recited before drinking. The Rama, however, does not accept this decision and maintains that one should recite the two blessings in succession. The Mishnah Berurah 172:5, however, questions this decision. Significantly, there are commentaries that explain that there is no controversy between the Rama and the Rambam, and that the Rambam’s intention is that one should recite the blessing that is usually recited beforehand afterwards.

Thus, one fulfills the words of Psalms 71:8: “May my mouth be full with Your praise.”

Indeed, one is obligated to follow this course of action. Because of the prohibition against reciting an unnecessary blessing (see Chapter 1, Halachah 15), it is forbidden to recite a blessing for a food when a blessing has already been recited for another food of the same type.

One should not recite the blessing borey pri ha’adamah with the intention that it include fruit from trees or the blessing shehakol with the intention that it include produce.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this means the type of food that the person desires more at present. For example, if a person was served both cake and apples and he desired the apples more at that moment, he should recite the blessing over them, even though he generally, favors cake more.
It must be noted that the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 211:1) mentions an opinion that gives precedence to the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael was praised even when other types of food are more desirable. Similarly, it is worthy to note that many authorities quote a principle mentioned by Ba’al Halachot Gedolot which requires one to recite a blessing on fruit from a tree before produce from the earth, and a blessing on both types of produce before the blessing shehakol, so that the blessing that is more inclusive in nature will not apply to the other type of food. Also, many authorities mention the importance of granting precedence to a blessing over food that is whole over food that is not whole.

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.: 5) specifies that this applies only to baked goods or cooked food made from wheat or barley, but not to kernels of these grains eaten in a manner in which they merely require the blessing borey pri ha’adamah. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 2.)

The Rishon LeTzion notes that the Rambam mentions grapes and not wine. Because of its importance, the blessing for wine should be given prominence over fruits, even those that are closer in proximity to the word “land.” This principle is also quoted by the Rama (Orach Chayim 211:4).

See Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s ruling is based on Berachot 44a which mentions only the conclusion “for the land and for its fruit,” without mentioning a separate conclusion for wine. Rabbenu Yonah, Rabbenu Asher, and the Ra’avad differ, and state that when concluding the blessing over wine, one should conclude, “for the land and for the fruit of the vine.” This is the accepted practice today. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 208:11 and commentaries.)

Note the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:10), which states that, even in the Diaspora, a person should conclude the blessing in this manner if he eats fruit from Eretz Yisrael.

This is the accepted practice in both Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities today. (See Mishnah Berurah 208:50.)

This is the order in which the three clauses should be recited regardless of the order in which one ate these foods, their quantity, or one’s preference for them.

According to the opinions mentioned in Note 47, one also adds “for the fruit of the vine.”
Berachot 49a mentions the principle that one should not include two subjects in the conclusion of a blessing. The conclusion suggested by the Rambam does not violate this principle, because it can be interpreted, “for the land that produces sustenance and the fruit of the trees.”

Note the Lechem Mishneh, who questions what the Rambam’s ruling would be when one ate apples and drank wine. On one hand, wine and fruit are two different categories of foods. Nevertheless, since the Rambam maintains that one should conclude the blessing for wine with the phrase “for the fruit of the trees,” there is reason to think that both could be included in a single blessing. According to our custom, there is no question that two separate blessings should be recited (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 208:13).