There's a tricky halacha with brachos that I couldn't figure out.

It goes something like this: If you make a bracha on one food item without having others in mind, if more of the food item remains in front of you and more similar items are brought to the table the same bracha applies and needs not be repeated (e.g., chicken was on the table and fish was brought to the table, or apples was on the table and pears were brought to the table).

The exception to this rule is that if the food item changes form (solid -> liquid).

What exactly are the particulars of this exception and what should one do in the case where the original food item is gone as well?

  • When you say "the original food item is gone," do you mean that the second item (e.g. the drink) was only brought to the table after the food was removed? (Though this is likely a moot point, as kavana would allow the blessing on the food to cover the drink, and lack of kavana may prevent the blessing from covering the drink even if the drink was on the table from the onset. See the first section in this answer).
    – Fred
    Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 18:24
  • @Fred, I am curious about both scenarios (while the original food item is still on the table and if the original food item was removed).
    – Ani Yodea
    Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 18:26
  • Also, see MB 211:32 on the topic of bringing a second item of the same type to the table after the first item is gone; due to a machlokes haposkim, it's best to avoid this situation by having specific intent in advance to cover the second item.
    – Fred
    Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 18:27
  • What I meant to clarify by my question in the first comment is that the time you start to eat the second item is irrelevant with respect to when you remove the first item. What matters is the time you bring the second item to the table: If the second item was brought to the table while some of the first item is still there, and the two items are from the same category, and the second item is less "important" than the first item, there are some poskim who say that the original blessing covers the second item even though you did not originally have specific intention to eat the second item.
    – Fred
    Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 18:33
  • Also see Shulchan Aruch OC 206:5 (and MB ad loc.).
    – Fred
    Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 18:45


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .