I keep seeing all these questions which discuss "Purim Torah, Ingest" but they don't seem to address the rules of actually ingesting the Torah.
I don't know how to treat the Torah when I eat it. If it is parchment, am I fleishig? Is it shehakol, or because a scribe wrote it, "borei pri ha-adam"?
h/t William Shakespeare, on whose behalf I am asking.
"since Torah is mayim the laws concerncing making a bracha on water apply to ingesting Torah. If one is ingesting Torah for any other reason other than being thirsty one does not make a bracha on it. If thirsty though and one ingests Torah the appropriate bracha would naturally be shahakol" -The Loopholer Rebbe
As we know, the torah is a tree of life (Mishlei 3:18). About another tree of life God said "Ye shall not eat it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (B'reishit 3:3), which order Adam and Chava disobeyed. So if we know what b'racha they made when eating the tree of life, we apply the rule of gzeira shava to know what b'racha you should make when you eat the torah.
So, what b'racha did they say? The talmud addresses this on B'rachot 40a. R. Meir says that the Tree of Life was a vine (so borei p'ri hagafen), but R' Nechemiah says it was the fig tree (so borei p'ri ha-eitz). But R' Yehudah says it was wheat, and there is a discussion of whether we say adamah or eitz over wheat, with adamah winning.
So we have a makhloket, except that the same daf also tells us that if you were supposed to make eitz and instead made adamah you've still fulfilled the obligation. So according to two of the three, borei p'ri ha-adamah is appropriate. Since it's two to one we can disregard R' Meir's position.
So Adam and Chava, seeking to fulfill the law except for that one little detail about not eating in the first place, said ha-adamah, and by inference, so should you.
When in doubt, we look to precedents. In this case, we find one in Ezekiel 3:1-3:
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלַ֔י בֶּן־אָדָ֕ם אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־תִּמְצָ֖א אֱכ֑וֹל אֱכוֹל֙ אֶת־הַמְּגִלָּ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את וְלֵ֥ךְ דַּבֵּ֖ר אֶל־בֵּ֥ית יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ וָאֶפְתַּ֖ח אֶת־פִּ֑י וַיַּ֣אֲכִלֵ֔נִי אֵ֖ת הַמְּגִלָּ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת׃ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלַ֗י בֶּן־אָדָם֙ בִּטְנְךָ֤ תַֽאֲכֵל֙ וּמֵעֶ֣יךָ תְמַלֵּ֔א אֵ֚ת הַמְּגִלָּ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י נֹתֵ֣ן אֵלֶ֑יךָ וָאֹ֣כְלָ֔ה וַתְּהִ֥י בְּפִ֖י כִּדְבַ֥שׁ לְמָתֽוֹק׃
And He said unto me: 'Son of man, eat that which thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak unto the house of Israel.' So I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that scroll. And He said unto me: 'Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this scroll that I give thee.' Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
What Ezekiel ate was not a Torah scroll, but nevertheless, it was a God-given scroll, so we can make an analogy from here. We see that this scroll was "as honey" (כדבש).
There is a makhloket as to what extent the scroll is "as honey". There are some who say that it was like honey mamash, and thus the bracha would be שהכל. There are some who say no, but rather: where else do we find that some food item has a flavour "like honey"? By the manna that the Jews ate in the desert, as it's written (Exodus 16:31):
וַיִּקְרְא֧וּ בֵֽית־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ מָ֑ן וְה֗וּא כְּזֶ֤רַע גַּד֙ לָבָ֔ן וְטַעְמ֖וֹ כְּצַפִּיחִ֥ת בִּדְבָֽשׁ׃
And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna; and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.
So by these analogies, it follows that the bracha we should say on eating a Torah scroll is the same as that which we said on manna, viz. הממטיר/המוציא לחם מן השמים.
