If I made a bracha on some of the items of food that were in front of me, then realized that this bracha also applies to another of the foods in front of me, do I need to make a new bracha? If not required, would it be permissible?

Potential issue: The question of whether having something in sight means having it in mind for the bracha, even if one definitely didn't have it in mind in any other sense. (For example, let's say I made Ha'Eitz on the blueberries and peaches in my fruit salad, thinking the mango was HaAdama. But then, before I said HaAdama, I looked up the bracha for mango and found it was HaEitz. Should I say another HaEitz on the mango?)

  • related judaism.stackexchange.com/q/59644/759 I don't know what you mean by retroactively. Do you mean retroactive intent?
    – Double AA
    Jul 18, 2016 at 20:20
  • I think that the kavana for the bracha on fruit salad only requires knowledge that there is fruit there, not knowledge of each individual fruit. Typical problem - caterers make layered fruit platters. I don't thin you need to make a new bracha just because a bottom layer of fruit becomes visible.
    – DanF
    Jul 18, 2016 at 20:32
  • 1
    Refrring to the fruit salad, in my prev. comment, the bracha goes after the majority. So, assuming that you said the correct bracha at the beginning, you needn't worry. I'm unsure if your question refers to fruit salad or individual uncut fruit or the layered platter.
    – DanF
    Jul 18, 2016 at 22:53
  • 1
    Also somewhat related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/57762 and judaism.stackexchange.com/a/23556.
    – Fred
    Jul 19, 2016 at 3:08
  • @DanF Re: "The bracha goes after the majority" -- So is a fruit salad not like soup, for which one would make a separate bracha for each part, i.e. a shehakol on the broth, a ha-adama on the vegetables, and a mezonot on the rice? (or so I was taught...) Is it different insofar as in fruit salad, the majority of the dish is truly from one bracha?
    – SAH
    Jul 19, 2016 at 3:40

3 Answers 3


R' Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tz'vi OC §106) would seem to hold that you should make another ha'eitz. The reason is that you intended that a different b'racha would be needed to cover the mango and that your original ha'eitz wouldn't cover it.1

R' Ben Tzion Abba Shaul (Or L'Tziyon 14:15) is less certain (he brings arguments each way), and he concludes that one should simply avoid eating the mango. If possible, he adds, one could find some ha'adama or shehakol food on which to make a more generic blessing, having in mind to also exempt the mango just in case.1,2

1 The cases discussed there involve (1) a person who recited a ha'adama on a fruit, thinking that particular type of fruit required a ha'adama blessing, and (2) a person who recited a ha'adama on a fruit by accident when he meant to recite ha'eitz. These responsa address how to proceed in both cases with respect to eating other ha'eitz and ha'adama foods. Those cases are slightly different from this case, but the reasoning discussed there seems to apply here.

2 Alternatively, one might make a second ha'eitz on some other type of fruit he did not previously plan on eating at all (e.g., a kiwi), and this would exempt the mango. However, while this might be a preferable method in one sense (because it uses the more appropriate specific blessing of ha'eitz), it may also pose a halachic question: The halacha likely follows the opinions that the original ha'eitz covers all types of fruits that would be brought to the table while the fruit salad is still not fully consumed (or possibly even afterwards), except for those types of fruits the person expressly or implicitly did not intend to be covered by the original ha'eitz blessing (such as the mango). If so, then reciting another ha'eitz on some other type of fruit (such as the kiwi) would involve an unnecessary, forbidden blessing (see Mishna B'rura 206:22, Sha'ar HaTziyun ad loc. 23-25). Therefore, it appears best to use a ha'adama or shehakol food for this "just-in-case" blessing to exempt the mango.


I read this in a paper on Tisha B"Av on Shabbos by the Badatz of Crown Heights. It would seem to imply that a second bracha should not be made in the aforementioned situation:

"The blessing you recite over the havdalah wine (borei peri hagafen) also covers all other drinks of which you partake immediately afterwards. This is true only if the other drinks were either on the table at which you recited havdalah or if you had intended to drink them, even if you didn't intend consciously to include them in the blessing of borei peri hagafen. In either case, you can then drink them without reciting a prior or subsequent blessing. However, if the drinks were not present on the table or in your mind, they require their own prior blessing (shehakol), but they do not require a subsequent blessing (borei nefashos), because they will be included in the subsequent blessing of al hagefen."

NOTE: Hagafen's covering other drinks is arguably a special case, so I'm not sure if these rules (i.e., in view OR intention is enough -- at least b'dieved) apply only in this case or to other foods too.

  • The example you gave in your question was a bit different in the sense that you were actively thinking (at first) that the mango would not be included in your ha'eitz blessing. This would likely make the case more similar to a case where the drinks were not present on the table or in your mind.
    – Fred
    Aug 15, 2016 at 18:14
  • @Fred Interesting. Reminds me of havdalah, kiddush, etc., where if you have in mind not to fulfill your obligation at the time you hear, you don't fulfill it.
    – SAH
    Aug 16, 2016 at 15:54

First. This topic is a bit complex. Here are some relevant parameters:

  1. Host or guest for meal? A person who is invited does not have to bless twice even if the second fruits were not at his disposal (summarized from Bet Yosef OC 179, paragraph 5).
  2. Was the food already inside the house or not? If this food is a gift that comes unexpectedly from another house, even guests need to bless (summarized from Bet Yossef 177 paragraph 5 in name of Sefer Hapardes left bottom)
  3. Was the food previously expected or not (Was it a part of the menu)? If it was planned, despite it comes from an other place, no additional bracha is required because it is included in the scope of the first beracha as the suggia of 'Amat Hamayim' (water from a river, when you are blessing, the water you would drink is still not next you (Gemara)).

  1. If I blessed on some of the items of food that were in front of me, and suddenly realized that this bracha also applies to another foods in front of me, do I need to make a new bracha?

No. Not only if you are a guest, but also if you are the owner, because it is in front of you at the time of the blessing.

  1. If not required, would it be permissible?

No. The one who says a blessing , that is not necessary transgresses "Lo Tisa" (pronouncing the name of G-d without need) from SA OC 215, 4 (Gemara Brachot 33a)

ואמר רב ואיתימא ר''ל ואמרי לה ר' יוחנן ור''ל דאמרי תרוייהו כל המברך ברכה שאינה צריכה עובר משום {שמות כ-ז} לא תשא

  1. But then, before I said HaAdama, I looked up the bracha for mango and found it was HaEitz. Should I say another HaEitz on the mango?

To simplify, let us assume that you know that Mango is Ets, but you intentionally don't want to include the mango in the Bracha, I think that you can make a second Bracha for the mango.

See Berachot 41.1

however, when their blessings are not identical, everyone agrees that one recites the appropriate blessing over this one and then he again recites the appropriate blessing over that one.... They disagree [for ower question the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and Chachamim is not relevant] with regard to which blessing precedes the other).

Your question includes an other parameter. You though Mango is Adama. But if you knew mango is Ets, you would have to include it in the first blessing... more parameters need to be be discussed.

An additional side of the example of fruit salad is mentioned by @DanF, concerning majority, Ykar and Tafel (main meal and condiment). it is a separated topic that should to be treated, but I will not talk about it. Let us assume that you have in front of you a mulberry tree fruit and a mango, not mixed.

  1. For the retroactive effect of a bracha, stricto-sensu, the only case I remember in Rosh Brachot 6, 27 in name of Baal Halachot Gedolot is that Birkat Hamazon is a valid blessing Acharona for the wine of the Zimun, that will be drunk after the Birkat Hamazon. But Rosh and poskim in Bet Yosef OC 190, 2 do not agree for Halacha. See also SA OC 172.1 in the Rama. If someone has a drink in his mouth and remembers that he didn't bless Beracha Rishona, he needs to swallow it and afterwards to say Beracha Rishona.

5.If you want to eat a single fruit only and blessed for it, but this fruit falls and became inedible, so, you take immediately a new fruit, even entirely similar. You need to bless again because it was not in your intention to include it when you blessed. See SA OC 206, 15

  • In item #3, what do you mean by "programmed"? Do you mean that it was already in sight / on the table? Also, please refer to my comment, above. I don't know if this is OP's intent, but, if fruits are cut up and mixed as in a fruit salad, I think there's an ikar / tafel issue. Bigger question is a layered fruit platter where the bottom layer is not visible. What happens, then?
    – DanF
    Jul 18, 2016 at 22:48
  • @DanF The topic of Ykar Vetafel, majority is a big matter, but I think that the example is not really given for this, i.e. the core of the question is about the fact that one blessing may be effective even for things which you was thinking out of it
    – kouty
    Jul 19, 2016 at 3:52
  • @DanF fixed, I made reference to your comment but I prefer consider only the topic of "programmed" I added explanation for "programmed"
    – kouty
    Jul 19, 2016 at 4:03
  • @Double AA I changed in the answer strawberry by mulberry tree fruit, is it good?
    – kouty
    Jul 19, 2016 at 4:05
  • @Kouty Thank you so much for this answer, and +1 for the valuable information; some of the language is not too clear, however. (I don't know if it's worth your time to correct it since I already accepted an answer, but you might get more votes that way....anyway, I just wanted to say thank you.)
    – SAH
    Jul 19, 2016 at 4:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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