7

Suppose someone is eating a fruit which requires a bracha rishona of ha'etz, but the person accidentally makes a ha'adama. Since ha'adama is the more general bracha, it covers his fruit and he does not make another bracha. Now suppose he wants to eat a different fruit which is a ha'adama fruit. This fruit would not have been covered by his ha'eitz bracha had he made it properly; however, since he made a ha'adama, would his second food be covered by his original bracha?

Assume both fruits were sitting out when he made the first bracha and whatever other assumptions are necessary such that if the first fruit had been as adama fruit, the second would have been covered.

Improve this question
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

Copied from my answer here:

According to R' Ben Tzion Abba Shaul (Or L'tziyon 2:14:15), if someone recited a more general b'racha on a food that should have a more specific b'racha, the general b'racha that was recited exempts other foods that require that general b'racha (subject to the person having intent to cover those other foods when he recited the b'racha). For example, if someone recited ha'adama on a pear and intended to also eat a potato, his b'racha covers both foods:

אם טעה ובירך בורא פרי האדמה משום שחשב שפרי זה ברכתו בורא פרי האדמה, יכול לאכול שאר פירות האדמה שבדעתו היה לאוכלם כעת, אבל שאר פירות העץ לא יאכל בלא ברכה

This applies if the b'racha was made intentionally. However, if ha'adama was recited due to a slip of the tongue, and the person meant to recite ha'eitz, he may still eat other ha'eitz fruits that he had been planning on eating, but "it is better that he not eat ha'adama vegetables unless he first exempts them with a blessing on a ha'adama food he did not originally intend to eat":

אבל אם טעה בלשונו , שרצה לומר בורא פרי העץ ואמר בורא פרי האדמה , רשאי לאכול שאר פירות העץ שהיה בדעתו לאוכלם כעת , אכל טוב שלא יאכל פירות האדמה , אלא יפטרם בפרי שלא היה בדעתו לאוכלו

Improve this answer
3
  • That's a very interesting formulation, especially since we hold safek brachos lehakel. I would like to see his reasoning for the distinction between intent and pronunciation.
    – Isaac Kotlicky
    Mar 18, 2015 at 22:51
  • @IsaacKotlicky If he only said ha'adama due to a slip of the tongue, that means that he did not specifically intend for that blessing to cover the other ha'adama foods even if he planned to eat those ha'adama foods shortly thereafter. Since the ha'eitz foods and the ha'adama foods are different types, there may be a question regarding whether a blessing made on one type can exempt another type without specific intent. See the P'ri M'gadim cited in my other answer (paragraph titled "Food with a known blessing exempting a doubtful food").
    – Fred
    Mar 18, 2015 at 23:04
  • @IsaacKotlicky And even though we hold safeik b'rachos l'hakeil, the question can be circumvented altogether if the person finds a ha'adama food he was not previously planning on eating. Then he can make a new blessing, and it will not be in vain.
    – Fred
    Mar 18, 2015 at 23:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .