YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*************************************************************

HALAKHA: A WEEKLY SHIUR IN HALAKHIC TOPICS

Shiur #11: Berakhot During a Meal
Rav Mordechai Friedman

I.	The significance of Bread

Society's eating habits have changed immensely over the past three decades alone, let alone the hundreds of years from the times of the Rishonim and the 1700-plus years from the time of the Talmud.  In earlier times, bread was eaten as the main part of any meal; the other foods either accompanied, or were spread on, the bread.  Today, the proportion of bread to other foods has completely reversed and even reached the point where people see little purpose in eating bread at all.

	How does this change of eating habits affect the halakhot of the meal?  Is the power of "ha-motzi" to exempt foods in a meal still valid today?  In order to answer these questions we must examine the nature of this exemption.

	Generally speaking, foods eaten as part of a meal with bread do not require a berakha rishona beyond the birkat ha-motzi.  What is the nature of bread's ability to exempt the requirement for other foods?  

"Rav Papa said: The halakha is that 1) foods which come because of the meal ("machamat ha-seuda") and during the meal ("be-tokh ha-seuda") do not require a berakha before or after. 2) And [foods which come] not because of the meal ("she-lo machamat ha-seuda") and during the meal require a berakha before but not after. 3) [Foods which come] after the meal require a berakha before and after." (T.B., Berakhot 41b)

RASHI
	Rashi (ad.loc.) explains "machamat ha-seuda" to mean, "foods used to make the bread more palatable" ("le-lafet ba-hem et ha-pat").  They do not require a berakha before eating since they are "tafel" (subordinate).  It would seem that Rashi understood the exempting power as lying in the relative importance of bread.  The accompanying food loses its significance, or its identity, to the bread.  [This can be viewed in one of two ways: either its significance vis-a-vis berakhot is nullified by the bread; or we identify the given food item through its primary component - bread.]  Following this logic, Rashi translates, "she-lo machamat ha-seuda" to mean, foods that are not used to make the bread palatable, but rather for nourishment and satiation, such as porridge.[1]  Such foods do not become functionally assimilated into the bread, and thus require their own berakha.

RITVA
	The Ritva (and the Ra'a) understood the exemption differently.  In the phrase, "ha-motzi lechem min ha-aretz,"  the meaning of "lechem" need not be limited to bread.  It rather denotes food eaten for nourishment or satiation.[2]  Thus, the food is not exempt due to its relationship to bread, but rather by virtue of the berakha of "ha-motzi," which directly relates to all types of food eaten during the meal for the purpose of satiation.  Following this line of understanding, the Ritva translates "she-lo machmat ha-seuda" to mean foods not eaten for satiation, but rather for the enjoyment of their taste.

TOSEFOT
	The Ba'alei Tosefot, particularly the Ri, adopt a third approach.  According to Tosefot, "ha-seuda" should be read as, "bread" (since bread is the primary component of the meal).  Thus, the phrase "devarim ha-ba'im machamat ha-seuda be-tokh ha-seuda" reads: foods which are brought because of the bread and eaten in the meal.  Even if one eats them during the meal without bread, they are exempt.  Tosefot includes porridge in the list of examples of such foods.  Closer to Rashi's understanding, they clearly view the exemption as stemming from the interrelation between bread and the other foods of the meal.  Yet, this relationship is not due to an assimilation/nullification (bitul) of the other foods.  We see this from the fact that one could eat them independently without an extra berakha.  Furthermore, foods such as porridge are never eaten as a condiment to bread.  What, then, is the underlying logic of Tosefot's approach?

	The Rav zt"l [3] suggested that when recited over a bread-based meal, the berakha of "ha-motzi" takes on a dimension beyond a normal birkat ha-nehenin.  It becomes a "birkat ha-seuda," a blessing made on the meal in its entirety.[4]

II. The nature of "birkat ha-seuda"

	The Shulchan Arukh [5] rules, like Tosefot, that foods eaten during a meal but not with bread, such as porridge, are exempt.  As mentioned, this position may view "ha-motzi" as a new form of berakha, a 'birkat ha-seuda,' a blessing pertaining to the meal in its entirety.  Even so, this requires more clarification.  Is this position of Tosefot and the Shulchan Arukh closer to the bitul/tafel model of Rashi, or to the multi-focused birkat mazon/sustenance model of the Ritva?  More specifically, the importance and centrality of bread places all other foods in a subordinate position, such that the "ha-motzi" recited on the bread relates to all foods of the meal.  These foods are not completely nullified, but rather "ride on the back" of the berakha on the bread, as it constitutes the "ikar."  Ha-motzi thus doubles as a "virtual berakha" on each food.  Alternatively, Chazal could have viewed this meal a single entity, and thus granted it its own berakha: "ha-motzi lechem…"

	This query is relevant to the issue raised in the opening of the shiur – our modern, "western" eating habits.  When one consumes less than a slice of bread (a ke-zayit or two) over the course of a meal, does his "ha-motzi" exempt the other foods in the meal?  The Magen Avraham [6] raises a more acute problem, regarding one who does not really want to eat bread yet eats a small amount (presumably solely to exempt the other food).  He first rules: "The bread does not exempt, especially if he ate less than a ke-zayit.  This is my opinion."  He then immediately adds an afterthought: "And it is possible to say that since the norm is to establish a meal upon them [these foods], the bread exempts them."

	Our two-sided query seems to correspond to his deliberation.  Namely, if the exemption is based on a subordination of meal foods to the bread, then a relatively insignificant consumption of bread poses a problem. [7] However, if it is based on a berakha made on the entirety of the meal (as an integrated entity), then because the norm is to establish a meal ("kevi'at seuda") on these foods – the exemption stands.  

	The kevi'at seuda thus takes place despite the small amount of bread.  The consumption of some amount of bread is still required, either as a prerequisite for the berakha of "ha-motzi" or because that despite its relatively small quantity, through its consumption at the commencement of the meal it elevates the otherwise disjointed assemblage of food to the status of a unified meal. [8]

III. FRUIT

	An additional halakha that may hinge on our understanding of the nature of this exemption is the possible inclusion of foods such as fruit, which are not normally part of the main meal.

	For background, we will return to the main sugya.  As we mentioned, Rashi explains Rav Papa's first halakha to mean that foods eaten literally with the bread are exempt by virtue their being "tafel."  Most rishonim ask, hasn't the basic law of ikar and tafel already been presented by the mishna on 44a?  The mishna there states:

"They brought before him salty food and bread with it [to help make the salty food more palatable] – he must bless on the salty food and exempt the bread.  This is the rule: anything which is ikar that is accompanied by a tafel – one must bless on the ikar and exempt the tafel."

	According to Rashi's understanding, Rav Papa's law appears superfluous.  Rabbeinu Yona[9] explains that Rashi agrees with Tosefot, that normally the entire meal (including foods such as porridge) is exempt with the "ha-motzi." Rashi also realizes that the mishna on 44a covers the issue of ikar and tafel.  However, Rav Papa refers to a situation where after one has begun partaking of his regular meal foods, fruit is brought to the table, and the individual now wishes to include this fruit as part of the meal.  (Had it been some food that is a normal part of the meal, such as meat, it could be eaten with no problem.)  Rav Papa instructs us that in this situation one must first eat the fruit as a SPREAD with the bread and plan to do likewise at the end of the meal.  He can thus eat the fruit in the middle of the meal independently, despite the fact that fruit is normally eaten "she-lo machmat ha-seuda."  How does the fruit eaten independently become exempt from a berakha?  

Let us examine the various possibilities raised.  The exemption of regular "ikar and tafel" (as appears in the mishna) is, most logically, applicable only when they are literally eaten together.  The exemption of "ha-motzi" over the entire seuda – through the model of tafel ("ride on the back" of the bread's berakha) - is also difficult to apply, since at the time of the recitation of "ha-motzi," the person had no intention of including foods that are not normally part of the meal.  Rabbeinu Yona says: 

"One need not recite a berakha because it JOINS with the REST of the meal, since it was initially brought for the purposes of the meal and he ate it with bread in the beginning and end."

It would seem most likely that there exists an entity of "the meal" to which this fruit joins.  Since the individual has already recited a berakha on the meal, no additional berakha is required for the fruit once it is "joined" to the meal.

IV. SIDE COURSES

	Another issue that hinges on this question is side courses.  Many Rishonim and Acharonim are in doubt as to how to classify a course such as a fruit soup or compote.[10]  Despite the fact that the Shulchan Arukh rules in accordance with Tosefot's view, that even foods that are not swallowed together with bread, such as porridge or pasta, are nonetheless exempt, compote or a green salad are at times a separate course from the main dish.  As pasta, for example, is part of the main course, it has an association with bread that we cannot attribute to a salad.[11]  If the exemption stems from the importance of bread in relation to the foods eaten along with it, the less associated each course is with the bread, the more difficult it is to exempt that course.  If, however, the exemptor is the berakha recited on the entire meal as a single entity, foods that are clearly part of the meal are exempt despite being somewhat detached from the bread.

v. Appetizers

	A short word on appetizers.  A priori, one might include appetizers in our discussion of side courses such as toss salad, in that it is not part of the main course and not necessarily eaten with bread.  [The Magen Avraham (174:11) views this as the rational of the Sefer Ha-chinukh's ruling (mitzva 430) that "one who eats a salted olive in the meal to develop his appetite… recites a berakha before and not after."  However, a careful reading of the Sefer Ha-chinukh shows that he followed the opinion of the Ritva and Ra'a (according to some, the Ra'a wrote the Sefer Ha-chinukh) cited earlier, that the exemption of meal foods results from their understanding of "lechem min ha-aretz" as pertaining to all nourishing foods, and NOT because of their inclusion in the meal or status as tafel to bread.  It is for this reason, then, that appetizers would not be exempt via the "ha-motzi." (The gemara in Pesachim cited below poses a problem to this position)].  Thus, those who view the exemption as based on the food's status as tafel to bread might find it harder to exempt an appetizer.  By contrast, those who view ha-motzi as relating to the enitity of the meal would equate appetizers with salads.  

However, as the name "appetizer" denotes, it serves to develop an appetite for the food eaten with the meal.  Therefore, even if the exemption stems from the given food's association with the bread, it may very well apply to appetizers, as well, insofar as they bear an association with both bread and meal foods.  This is clearly stated by Tosefot in Pesachim (115a s.v. "ve-hadar"), who claim that one who eats lettuce (for his second dipping at the seder) need not recite another "ha-adama," despite the fact that the Haggada separates it from the original "ha-adama."  Since vegetables help develop one's appetite, they are included under the ha-motzi exemption.  The Rosh (and Tur) make a similar comment in connection to wine.  This view is accepted by the Magen Avraham[12] and Chayei Adam[13].

(To be continued.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Some foods, such as meat, would fall into a gray, middle area, as they are consumed at times to accompany the bread and at others for their independent value.
[2] Similarly, the word "lechem" in the verse, "lo al ha-lechem levado yichyeh ha-adam" (Devarim 8:3) refers to all food nourishment.
[3] HaRav Yosef Dov Soleveitchik, as quoted by his grandson, Meir Lichtenstein, in an article entitled, "Birkat Ha-motzi," in Alon Shevut vol. 105.
[4] See the above article for proof texts.
[5] O.C.177:1
[6] O.C.177:1
[7] The Magen Avraham, ibid. actually prefaces his comment with: "They (the foods) are tafel to the bread, as written in O.C. 212" – a reference to the basic rule of "ikar and tafel" – a general rule not limited to bread!
[8] A difficulty with the Magen Avraham: He concludes that on Shabbat and Yom Tov, one may rely on a small amount of bread to exempt the other foods.  If the exemption is based on the concept of a berakha over the unified meal, this distinction of Shabbat seems reasonable, as Shabbat is known to facilitate "keviat seuda."  If, however, the exemption is based on "ikar and tafel," the added significance of bread on Shabbat should not affect its relationship vis-א-vis the other foods.
[9] Berakhot (29a-b in the Rif)
[10] For a partial list of Rishonim who address this point, see Magen Avraham O.C. 177:3. This is discussed as well by the Mordechai and Or Zarua.
[11] The Mishna Berura 177:5, commenting on the halakha requiring a separate berakha for foods that are not part of the seuda, adds cucumbers, radishes and onions to the list.  I feel that this serves as yet another example of the drastic change in cuisine and eating habits that has occurred over a span of less than a century.  My father once commented to me that in Europe only the livestock and the indigent ate raw vegetables, while today we pay premium price for them in the finest restaurants.  Exposure to international cuisine, refrigeration, commerce and shipping abilities have all had a staggering effect on our eating habits.  Fresh salad today finds itself alongside, and part of, the main meal.
[12] 174:11
[13] 43:6