Blessings: Main and Secondary Foods

 

Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass

 

            The mishna (Berakhot 44a) teaches us that when two foods are eaten together, one central (ikkar) and the other secondary to it (tafel), a blessing is made only on the main food.

 

"If they brought him salty fish accompanied by bread, he should make a blessing only on the fish.  He is thereby not required to make a separate blessing on the bread, for the bread is secondary to the fish.  The general rule is: whenever a main food is accompanied by another that is secondary to it, a blessing is made only on the main food, alleviating the need to make a blessing on the secondary one."

 

            Why is no blessing made on the secondary food?  Why is this not a violation of the principle, "It is forbidden to benefit from this world without making a blessing" (Berakhot 35a)?

 

            Two major solutions to the problem present themselves in the comments of the Rishonim.  The argument between them is not only theoretical, but has practical ramifications as well.

 

            Conceptually, there are two ways of viewing the halakha that one need not make a berakha on the secondary food.  Is there NO obligation to make a berakha on the secondary food, or is there still an obligation, but it is FULFILLED through the berakha on the main food?  A group of practical issues that arise in the poskim seem to hinge on this more abstract question.

 

1.  AFTER BERAKHA

 

            The Kolbo in Hilkhot Berakhot asks whether a secondary food requires an after-berakha.  The problem arises when the main food requires a "borei nefashot" and the secondary an "al ha-michya" or "al ha-peirot."

 

            There is a strong reason to differentiate between the berakha before eating and the one afterwards.  Though there are different berakhot made before eating different foods, they are all basically part of the same obligation.  The same statement, "It is forbidden to benefit from this world without first making a berakha," is the source for making the blessings ha-motzi, mezonot, al ha-adama, al ha-eitz, and she-hakol.  Different berakhot were formulated in order to praise God properly; a specific praise is preferable to a general one (though there are limits on how specific we must be - see Rabbi Yehuda vs. the Chakhamim on Berakhot 35a and 40a).  The obligation is essentially the same, though.  Therefore the she-hakol over the salty fish fulfills the same obligation as the ha-motzi over the bread.  Only specificity is sacrificed.

 

            Why is the requirement for specificity waived?  The need for a specific berakha stems from the food's importance.  Once a food is of secondary importance in a person's eyes, it no longer requires a separate blessing.  Bread eaten only to counteract the saltiness of fish is not important enough to require ha-motzi.  Ha-motzi was only decreed because of the unique place bread has in man's diet.  Accordingly, one might suggest a distinction between bread with salty fish and sugar in coffee, even though the berakha might be the same in both cases.  Sugar's FUNCTION is to improve the taste of the coffee, but one is still interested in the taste of the sugar.  Perhaps it might still require an independent berakha.  On the other hand, one who eats bread to counteract the fish's saltiness is not even interested in the taste of the bread.

 

            The after-berakhot, however, are intrinsically different from each other.  Me'ein shalosh (al ha-michya, al ha-gefen, al ha-peirot) is not only more specific than borei nefashot, it is on a different level of obligation.  Perhaps, asks the Kolbo, borei nefashot cannot take on the role of al ha-michya, even though the mezonot food is secondary to the she-hakol.

 

            There are three possible reasons which suggest that me'ein shalosh is essentially different from borei nefashot:

1.  Some opinions hold that me'ein shalosh is obligated biblically whereas borei nefashot is only obligated rabbinically.

2.  Me'ein shalosh is made over foods that satiate; borei nefashot is not.

3.  Borei nefashot is referred to by the beraita (Berakhot 37b) as "velo klum," a "non-berakha."  (See also the Ri in Tosafot [Berakhot 39a s.v. Batzar Lei Shiurei] who refers to it as an unimportant berakha).

 

            The Shulchan Arukh rules that a food of secondary importance does not require a separate after-berakha, even if the me'ein shalosh applies to the secondary food and the main food requires a borei nefashot.

 

            What is his basis for ruling according to one side of the Kolbo's question?  The issue at hand seems to be whether the requirement for a berakha on the secondary food is totally WAIVED, or the obligation to make it has been FULFILLED through the berakha on the main food.  If it is totally waived, the Shulchan Arukh's ruling follows: there is no obligation to make an after-berakha either.  If, on the other hand, the berakha before eating is fulfilled through that of the main food, we are open to the Kolbo's possibility - that the obligation to make the me'ein shalosh still stands, as borei nefashot cannot fulfill this requirement.

 

2. THE SECONDARY FOOD NOT PRESENT WHEN THE BERAKHA IS MADE

 

            The Tosafot seem to hold that there IS an obligation to make a berakha on the secondary food, but that of the main food covers it.  If the secondary food was not present at the time of the berakha on the main food, the Tosafot (Berakhot 44a s.v. Be-okhlei Peirot) maintain that a separate berakha must be made on the secondary food.  Therefore, for instance, if at the time that one made the berakha on coffee, the milk was not on the table, a separate berakha would have to be made on the milk when it was later added.  [Perhaps one could distinguish between a case where the two berakhot are identical and where they are not.]

 

            The Tosafot refer only to the berakha before eating, and the Shulchan Arukh might not disagree with them.  Before eating any food one must make a berakha, for "It is forbidden to benefit from this world without a berakha."  Therefore, the secondary food is also obligated in a berakha before it can be eaten (but it is fulfilled through that of the main food).  On the other hand, there is only an obligation to make an after-berakha over certain foods.  Secondary foods were never included in this obligation.  This might be related to a fundamental difference in nature between the two types of berakhot.  It is forbidden to eat BEFORE making a berakha.  But the berakha made AFTER eating is a positive requirement, the mitzva to praise God after having benefitted from food.  The Kolbo's doubt might also have been whether the after-berakha is waived or obligated.

 

3. NEGATIVE INTENTION

 

            Another possible practical ramification of how to view the waived berakha on the secondary food [I merely raise the issue; it awaits decision by a posek]: If one specifically intends NOT to fulfill his obligation through the berakha on the main food - must he now make a separate berakha on the secondary one or not?  This probably depends on the same issue - whether there is an independent obligation to make a berakha on the secondary food.  If one MUST make a berakha on the secondary food in such a case, we would have a way of dealing with cases where it is doubtful which is the secondary food and which the main.  One could simply intend for the berakha on the main food not to cover the secondary one, and then make two separate berakhot.

 

            [The prohibition against making an unneeded berakha does not apply when there is a good halakhic reason for making the "extra" berakha.  See the Sha'arei Teshuva (OC 211:1) who writes that there is no problem of making an unneeded berakha when the secondary food is more desirable ("chaviv") than the main food to the person eating.]

 

4.  EATING THE SECONDARY FOOD FIRST

 

            This issue might be at the heart of a discussion in the poskim about eating the secondary food before the main one.  The Rema (OC 212:1) quotes the Terumat Ha-deshen, who rules that if one eats the secondary food before the main one he should make SHE-HAKOL, no matter what the berakha over it normally is.  For example, if one ate a piece of apple from an apple cake before eating the cake part, instead of making ha-eitz he should make, according to the Rema, a she-hakol.  Apparently, since the unique benefit that is behind meriting a specific berakha is not present, ha-eitz is not made; yet one must make a berakha before eating, and therefore at least makes a basic level berakha, she-hakol.

 

            The Gra argues with the Terumat Ha-deshen and the Rema and holds that the normal berakha over the secondary food should still be made.  Nevertheless, in this situation both the Gra and the Rema assume that there IS an obligation to make a berakha on the secondary food (which is normally fulfilled by the berakha on the main food).  The Taz takes a third approach - making the berakha of the main food before eating the secondary food (see below).

 

5.  COUNTING THE SECONDARY FOOD TOWARDS A KEZAYIT

 

            Another question is dependent on the same issue.  Should the quantity of the secondary food be taken into account when calculating whether enough has been eaten (a ke-zayit) to make an after-berakha?  According to both the Gra and the Rema there is an obligation to make a berakha on the secondary food, but it is not considered to be PART of the main food.  Accordingly, it does not contribute to the shiur (amount necessary) for an after-berakha over the main food.  The Taz, however, who raises the possibility of making the main berakha before eating the secondary food, apparently views the secondary food as having been transformed into part of the main food.  Perhaps the secondary food could help make up the kezayit required for an after-berakha.  The Taz himself rejects this for other reasons, and therefore this should not be relied on.

 

            Based on this, only when there is a kezayit of FLOUR is there an obligation to make an after-berakha on cake.  Other secondary ingredients of the cake cannot be counted.  It would then take a large quantity of cake to make up a kezayit obligated in al ha-michya.

 

            The Mishna Berura (OC 208:48) justifies the common practice of counting secondary ingredients towards a ke-zayit.  He distinguishes between different types of secondary foods.  Sugar and spices that contribute to the taste of the cake become an integral part of the cake and can be counted towards a kezayit.  It is not clear whether the same holds true for other ingredients that make up the batter of the cake, like oil or margarine.  He concludes that it is preferable to make sure to eat a ke-zayit of flour.

 

            Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach z"l also distinguishes between secondary foods that become an integral part of the cake (that can be counted towards a ke-zayit) and those that remain distinct (that cannot be counted).  For instance the cheese of a cheesecake does not count towards a ke-zayit but the bananas of a banana cake do.

 

            There are two types of secondary/main food combinations:  In the standard situation, the secondary food helps out and improves the main food (sugar in fruit compote).  However, where some grain is present in the secondary food (for its food value, like kishke in chulent, not just for texture, like flour that thickens soup), even though it is not the central ingredient, grain is objectively considered the more important ingredient because of its special status.  I suggest (and wait for a posek to decide) distinguishing between these two situations.  Maybe in the first, the secondary food can be incorporated into the ke-zayit, but in the second, even though he is more interested in the other ingredient, not the grain, grain is halakhically considered the main food as far as birkat mezonot on the whole, and yet it would not assimilate the secondary food in relation to its being considered part of the required shiur.

 

[This article originally appeared in Daf Kesher #376, Shevat 5753, vol. 4, pp. 308-310.]