YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*************************************************************
HALAKHA: A WEEKLY SHIUR IN HALAKHIC TOPICS

Berakhot During a Meal (Part 3)
by Rav Mordechai Friedman

BERAKHOT ON DESSERT 

NOTE:  Although it would be helpful to have first read parts One and Two of this series, this section may be read independently.

	We will now deal with the possible exemption of dessert from the requirement of a berakha.  In dealing with the previous issue of meal-foods, we focused on the berakha rishona (berakha recited before eating); here, however, we must consider as well the possible requirement of a berakha acharona.

I BERAKHA RISHONA 

"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) [Foods which come] not because of the meal ('she-lo machamat ha-seuda') but 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)

	As mentioned in our first shiur, there are three basic directions as to how to understand R. Papa.  All three would conclude that dessert is not exempt from a berakha rishona:

	As dessert is not eaten with the main, bread-based meal, "ha-motzi" cannot relate to it (according to the model of Tosafot).  It is not used as a spread for bread, and so according to Rashi's interpretation, dessert is not a tafel - meaning, it is not subordinate to, or nullified by, bread.

Dessert is eaten (usually) for the purpose of enjoying sweet-flavored foods, rather than for satiation or nourishment.  As such, it accommodates the Ritva and Ra'a's definition of "she-lo machamat ha-seuda," namely, that "ha-motzi" relates to - and hence exempts - only foods eaten for satiation and sustenance.  Dessert would therefore not earn this exemption.

	These three halakhic classifications of dessert vis-?-vis the exemption of meal-foods ("devarim ha-baim machamat ha-seuda") all presume normal use of the dessert-food in question.  What would be the halakha if a person decided to deviate from the norm, and partake of the dessert-food in an unconventional manner?

	A priori, there are two logical possibilities.  First, we could argue that "batla da'to etzel kol adam" - an individual's personal conduct is rendered inconsequential by the norm.  The halakha recognizes only the common, normal use of dessert.  Alternatively, perhaps once the present use of the dessert-food fits the definition of a meal-food, it should earn the same exemption.

	We will now look at how each of the three basic understandings of R. Papa would assess a situation where one deviates from conventional eating habits.

1.  Tosefot – What would be the halakha if a person included a dessert food as part of his main meal?  Tosefot clearly state that there would be no exemption.  They understand R. Papa to mean that the exemption covers only those foods viewed objectively as part of the main meal, as determined by their NORMAL, STANDARD use. Even if a person recited ha-motzi with dessert in mind, Tosefot maintain, the berakha would not exempt the dessert.  According to Tosafot, ha-motzi simply does not relate to anything outside the OBJECTIVELY defined meal.

The Ra'avan (Berakhot chap. 194), on the other hand, believes that an individuals SUBJECTIVE decision can include desert in the meal.  He suggests a unique interpretation of R. Papa's halakha.  In his view, R. Papa refers solely to a situation where one already recited ha-motzi and established his meal with some meal-food.  In this respect, his view parallels that of the Ba'al Ha-maor and Rabbenu Yona -  but only in this respect.  Like Tosefot, the Ra'avan views the exemption as evolving from the definition of "ha-motzi" as a berakha on the seuda.[1]  But unlike Tosafot, he argues that R. Papa speaks of foods NOT specifically intended at the time of ha-motzi. Foods that are normally eaten with bread are exempt even without explicit, prior intention to include these foods, since a person has "general" intention to include such foods.[2] Foods that are not considered meal-foods are not exempt in this situation.  However, the Ra'avan adds, if BEFORE ha-motzi a person has in mind to include fruit[3] (i.e. dessert), "then the bread exempts them since he recited the berakha [ha-motzi] with this in mind."

Thus, if one intends on including foods not normally eaten as pat of the meal, this subjective inclusion - of any type of food - is covered by "ham-otzi"; we do NOT say "batla da'to etzel kol adam."  

Halakhically, we follow Tosefot's view, and recite an additional berakha before partaking of dessert-foods.[4]

2.  Ritva/Ra'a[5] - What would the halakha be if one deviates from conventional eating habits by eating ice cream during his main course for satiation, rather than as a dessert? Would "ha-motzi lechem" exempt the ice cream from the requirement of a berakha?  The Ritva and Ra'a (al. loc.) differ from Rashi and Tosefot with regard to this issue, as well, and claim that the berakha would exempt the ice cream in this case. The SUBJECTIVE purpose of the food enables it to qualify as "lechem," sustenance. 

3.  Rashi[6] holds that even according to Rav Papa, if the unexpected course is not normally eaten with bread (porridge or pasta, for example), the bread will not exempt it.  Can one spread it on his bread such that it becomes "nullified" to the bread and hence does not require a berakha?  The Sefer Ha-pardes le-Rashi (chap. 31) clearly states that one cannot.  He invokes in this context the Gemara's comment of "hani bavli tipshai…" - "these foolish Babylonians who eat bread with bread," referring to their practice of eating porridge with bread.  Regarding the use of dessert-food as a spread, he comments, (chap. 72) "batla da'to etzel kol adam."  Food that is not normally eaten with bread cannot be subjectively or artificially turned into a spread or made "tafel" to bread in order to exempt it from a berakha.[7]  By contrast, the Mahari Abuhav advises, in order to cover Rashi's opinion (as he understood it) regarding porridge during a meal, that one should eat it spread on bread at the beginning and end, and fruits should likewise be eaten with bread.[8]  

	Once again we see a disagreement as to SUBJECTIVE deviation from conventional eating norms.

	This calls into question the practice of some people who, trying to hedge themselves halakhically, will eat bread with their grapefruit or ice cream.  While, as we will soon see, this might be effective (according to some Rishonim) in including the food in the meal vis-a-vis birkat ha-mazon, it is doubtful, at best, that this practice will have any effect on the requirement of berakha rishona.  If the food is eaten as an appetizer, or even to clear the taste buds for the next course[9], as we mentioned earlier, we may probably consider it halakhically part of the meal.  If it is eaten as a dessert, even those opinions cited above that allow for some level of deviation from normal eating practice, would see little benefit in spreading the ice cream on bread.  Even the Mahari Abuhav advises employing this technique specifically for consumption DURING the meal.  One would still need to continue eating bread after dessert in order to avoid the requirement of a berakha for the dessert.  

	To summarize this issue, then, one must recite the appropriate berakha before eating dessert. One who wishes to cover the Ra'avan's opinion should serve dessert after birkat ha-mazon.  

Serving dessert after birkat ha-mazon would alleviate a different issue, as well, a problem that arises when eating certain mezonot foods as desserts.  Some types of cake present an halakhic dilema as to their proper berakha (the possibilities being mezonot or ha-motzi).  When consumed alone, they require a mezonot - mesafek.  Some acharonim maintain that such cake, when consumed as a dessert would be already covered by the ha-motzi made on the bread, because of the existing safek.  Others disagr. Eating dessert after birkat ha-mazon would thus free us of this issue, as well.  It is generally accepted by Rishonim and later poskim that such a practice would NOT constitute a "berakha she-eina tzerikha" – a superfluous berakha.[10]

IIBERAKHA ACHARONA FOR DESSERTS

	As we began our discussion: "Rav Papa said… [Foods which come] after the meal, require a berakha before and after."

	This being the case, the proper practice SHOULD be to make a berakha acharona after dessert, IN ADDITION TO the birkat ha-mazon of the meal.  Why is this not common practice?  

I have not dealt with this issue, I hope to do so in the future.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Rabbenu Yona understands R. Papa as introducing the chiddush that one can artificially include fruit into the meal by using them as a "spread" with the bread.  The Ba'al Ha-maor sees as R. Papa's chiddush the ability to use a second type of exemption, namely "tafel," by which a spread becomes "nullified" to the bread.
[2] This is why R. Papa said, "Foods which normally come because of the meal" do not require a berakha, while foods that come "she-lo machamat ha-seuda" do require a berakha.
[3] It is possible, though unlikely, that the Ra'avan means fruit as a spread.
[4] As we will recommend later, one can alleviate all doubts by serving dessert AFTER birkat ha-mazon.
[5] Reminder: The Ritva and Ra'ah maintain that the term, "ha-motzi lechem" - "who brings sustaining food" - covers all foods eaten for sustenance.
[6] Reminder: Rashi understood Rav Papa's point to be that an unexpected food brough during the meal could be spread on the bread, thus nullifying it to the bread and exempting an additional berakha.
[7] This does NOT relate to foods, such as some fruit, that at times ARE used as a spread.
[8] Cited by the Beit Yosef O.C. 177 s.v. "ve-da." One who reviews our reading of the Baal Ha-maor and Sefer Ha-pardes le-Rashi in the previous shiur would note the irony in this passage.  It also shows how the Beit Yosef followed the Mahari Abvav's understanding of Rashi on this entire sugya!
[9] An old practice of drinking some alcoholic beverage after fish, and a newer practice of serving a light sorbet after a first course, would be examples.
[10] Consider, for example, the practice of specifically eating foods without bread at first, in order to obligate oneself in an unquestionably required berakha - Mordechai, Berakhot (chap 135); Hagahot Maimaniyot 9 on Rambam Berakhot 4:11; Mishna Berura O.C. 177 s.k.10.