Mixing
Can the blessing She-ha-kol be used for ALL foods before eating them?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
There are several blessings we say before eating, depending on the food (ha-motzi, ha-etz, ha-adamah, ha-gefen, mezonot), but we say she-ha-kol for foods not in these categories. Would there be anything wrong with saying she-ha-kol for everything to simplify life? Is this specific point discussed anywhere by the Sages? (I know "we don't do it that way", but I want to know if the matter is discussed anywhere.)
halacha blessing food
edited Sep 3 at 5:48
Al Berko
2,231317
asked Sep 2 at 20:22
Maurice Mizrahi
755111
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
There are several blessings we say before eating, depending on the food (ha-motzi, ha-etz, ha-adamah, ha-gefen, mezonot), but we say she-ha-kol for foods not in these categories. Would there be anything wrong with saying she-ha-kol for everything to simplify life? Is this specific point discussed anywhere by the Sages? (I know "we don't do it that way", but I want to know if the matter is discussed anywhere.)
halacha blessing food
edited Sep 3 at 5:48
Al Berko
2,231317
asked Sep 2 at 20:22
Maurice Mizrahi
755111
A good question about the principles of the Halachah. The point is the H. is not all-or-nothing, either you fulfill or not, there are 50 levels of performance and corresponding reward. So to your Q. - a reward for saying a more specified blessing is greater than saying a general one. Saying a blessing on a whole food is greater than on a piece of it, saying with a Kavvanah is still better etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 20:29
In Hebrew search for "ברכה מבוררת יותר".
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 21:16
Saying "shehakol" over bread would only be fine b'dieved, as far as I understand
– ezra
Sep 2 at 23:34
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
There are several blessings we say before eating, depending on the food (ha-motzi, ha-etz, ha-adamah, ha-gefen, mezonot), but we say she-ha-kol for foods not in these categories. Would there be anything wrong with saying she-ha-kol for everything to simplify life? Is this specific point discussed anywhere by the Sages? (I know "we don't do it that way", but I want to know if the matter is discussed anywhere.)
halacha blessing food
edited Sep 3 at 5:48
Al Berko
2,231317
asked Sep 2 at 20:22
Maurice Mizrahi
755111
There are several blessings we say before eating, depending on the food (ha-motzi, ha-etz, ha-adamah, ha-gefen, mezonot), but we say she-ha-kol for foods not in these categories. Would there be anything wrong with saying she-ha-kol for everything to simplify life? Is this specific point discussed anywhere by the Sages? (I know "we don't do it that way", but I want to know if the matter is discussed anywhere.)
halacha blessing food
edited Sep 3 at 5:48
Al Berko
2,231317
asked Sep 2 at 20:22
Maurice Mizrahi
755111
edited Sep 3 at 5:48
Al Berko
2,231317
edited Sep 3 at 5:48
Al Berko
2,231317
edited Sep 3 at 5:48
Al Berko
2,231317
2,231317
asked Sep 2 at 20:22
Maurice Mizrahi
755111
asked Sep 2 at 20:22
Maurice Mizrahi
755111
asked Sep 2 at 20:22
Maurice Mizrahi
755111
755111
A good question about the principles of the Halachah. The point is the H. is not all-or-nothing, either you fulfill or not, there are 50 levels of performance and corresponding reward. So to your Q. - a reward for saying a more specified blessing is greater than saying a general one. Saying a blessing on a whole food is greater than on a piece of it, saying with a Kavvanah is still better etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 20:29
In Hebrew search for "ברכה מבוררת יותר".
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 21:16
Saying "shehakol" over bread would only be fine b'dieved, as far as I understand
– ezra
Sep 2 at 23:34
add a comment |Â
A good question about the principles of the Halachah. The point is the H. is not all-or-nothing, either you fulfill or not, there are 50 levels of performance and corresponding reward. So to your Q. - a reward for saying a more specified blessing is greater than saying a general one. Saying a blessing on a whole food is greater than on a piece of it, saying with a Kavvanah is still better etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 20:29
In Hebrew search for "ברכה מבוררת יותר".
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 21:16
Saying "shehakol" over bread would only be fine b'dieved, as far as I understand
– ezra
Sep 2 at 23:34
A good question about the principles of the Halachah. The point is the H. is not all-or-nothing, either you fulfill or not, there are 50 levels of performance and corresponding reward. So to your Q. - a reward for saying a more specified blessing is greater than saying a general one. Saying a blessing on a whole food is greater than on a piece of it, saying with a Kavvanah is still better etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 20:29
A good question about the principles of the Halachah. The point is the H. is not all-or-nothing, either you fulfill or not, there are 50 levels of performance and corresponding reward. So to your Q. - a reward for saying a more specified blessing is greater than saying a general one. Saying a blessing on a whole food is greater than on a piece of it, saying with a Kavvanah is still better etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 20:29
In Hebrew search for "ברכה מבוררת יותר".
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 21:16
In Hebrew search for "ברכה מבוררת יותר".
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 21:16
Saying "shehakol" over bread would only be fine b'dieved, as far as I understand
– ezra
Sep 2 at 23:34
Saying "shehakol" over bread would only be fine b'dieved, as far as I understand
– ezra
Sep 2 at 23:34
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
The rule about using "shehakol" for all foods comes from a Mishnah in Masechet Berachot. In the Talmud it appears on 40a as follows:
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âרץ בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל נהיה בדברו יצ×Â
IF ONE SAYS OVER FRUIT OF THE TREE THE BENEDICTION, ‘WHO CREATEST THE
FRUIT OF THE GROUND, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. BUT IF HE SAID
OVER PRODUCE OF THE GROUND, ‘WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE TREE’, HE
HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE SAYS ‘BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS
EXIST OVER ANY OF THEM, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. (Soncino translation; capitals in original, my emphasis)
This law is codified by all the major Codes:
Rambam Hilchot Berachot 8:10
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Âנבירך שהכל יצנו×Âפי' על הפת ועל היין
A person who recited the blessing borey pri ha'adamah over fruits
that grow on trees fulfills his obligation. Conversely, one who
recited the blessing borey pri ha'etz over fruits that grow from the
ground does not fulfill his obligation. One who recites the blessing
shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation. [This applies even
in regard] to bread and wine. (Touger translation; my emphasis)
Tur O.C. 206
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בפה"ניצנו×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בפה"×¢ לניצנהלכך
×Â× ×Âדנמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי העץ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל
הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצ×Â
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if a man is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation.
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בור×Â
פרי העץ לניצנהלכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך
בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנו×Âפילו על פת ויין
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if one is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation, even on bread or wine.
Levush O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנדה×Âדמה כוללת גנה×Âילן שגנהו×Â
יונק מן ה×Âדמה ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ לניצנש×Âין פרי
ה×Âדמה יונק מן ה×Âילן הילכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ×Âדמה
מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה דיוצנממה נפשך ועל הכל ש×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת
ויין דהנהכל בכלל
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation because the ground includes the
tree, as the tree too is nourished from the ground. But if he made the
blessing of "borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not
discharged his obligation because fruit of the ground is not nourished
from the tree. Therefore, if he is unsure about a fruit whether it is
a fruit of the tree or a fruit of the ground, he should make the
blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" because he will have discharged his
obligation either way. And if one says "shehakol" on anything he has
discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine because everything
is included [in "shehakol"].
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
וכבר נתב×Âר דעל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת ויין וכ"ש ש×Âרי דברי×Â
And it has already been explained that on everything if he said
"shehakol" he has discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine
and certainly other things.
However, the implication of this rule is that "shehakol" works once you have said it, but it should not deliberately be used instead of the correct blessing. R. Meir HaKohen in his gloss to Rambam's ruling cites rishonim who say that if one does not know the correct blessing for something then he should say "shehakol" even deliberately, and this is because even though the Mishnah implies that it's only good after the fact, here the uncertainty itself is equivalent to "after the fact":
כפי זה יברך שהכל בכל דבר שהונמסופק עליו וכן פסק התוספות ומורי בשנר"ח
וה"ר יוסף ו×Âפילו לכתחילה ו×Â×¢"ג דתנן דוקנדיעבד הננמי כיון שמסתפק בה כדיעבד דמי
However, this does not mention a situation where you are aware of the correct blessing. Both R. Yechiel Michel Epstein and R. Yisrael Meir Kagan write that even though "ha'adama" suffices for something which requires "ha'etz", and should be used in a case of uncertainty, one cannot deliberately use "ha'adama" for something that he knows is "ha'etz":
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
שהרי לכתחלה ×Âין לברך על העץ ה×Âדמה ×Âלנשבדיעבד יצ×Â
For behold, from the outset one cannot make the blessing of "ha'adama"
on [something which is] "ha-etz"; it's just that after the fact [if he
did so] he has fulfilled his obligation.
Mishnah Berurah 206:7
דוקנדיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה לכו"×¢ ×Âין לכוין להוצינ×Âת פה"×¢ דטוב יותר לברך
ברכה המיוחדת לו
This is only after the fact, but from the outset one should not intend
to discharge his obligation for a fruit of the tree [with "borei peri
ha'adama"] because it is better to make the blessing that is uniquely
designated for it.
It stands to reason, then, that the same would apply to "shehakol" – while one can use it in a case of uncertainty, one should not use it if he does know the correct blessing.
In fact, R. Kagan explicitly says the same the same thing regarding "shehakol":
Mishnah Berurah 206:5
וכ"ז דיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה צריך לברך על כל דבר ברכתו המיוחדת לו
And all this is after the fact. But from the outset one needs to make
the blessing on each thing the blessing that is uniquely designated
for it.
answered Sep 2 at 21:34
Alex
12.9k2969
Alex, thanks for a full and very comprehensive answer. However, one thing puzzles me: On what halachic grounds do the acharonim you cite say that you cannot deliberately use shehakol when you know the correct blessing? The Rambam concludes "One who recites the blessing shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation." That should be enough. Can't we simplify life?
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 2 at 23:09
1
I think it's based on the implication from the Mishnah that it's only if you did it that it works (i.e. but you shouldn't deliberately do it) as well as the general principle of conforming to the specific blessings that the Sages formulated. If they formulated different blessings for different foods then we are expected to use the specified blessing for each food (unless it's a situation where we don't know which blessing to make).
– Alex
Sep 2 at 23:12
@MauriceMizrahi "Can't we simplify life?" Sounds like the root of your question is related to this one: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/31831/…
– Salmononius2
Sep 3 at 0:36
1
@MauriceMizrahi if your wife prepares a nice dish, you can say "that was very good" or you can say "I loved the flavor, the presentation, it fit really well with the rest of the meal. You must have spent a lot of time thinking this through and I loved it". What do you think she will prefer? The more specific the better no? The same with brachot. It is better if we can make the right, specific, bracha to acknowledge the good that comes our way
– mbloch
Sep 3 at 3:35
@mbloch, I take the position that halacha must be strictly defined, and the option to go beyond it, if at all, should be entirely up to the individual. That's what the concept of "hiddur mitzvah" (beautification of the mitzvah) is for. It's best to be told EXACTLY what your responsibilities are.
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 3 at 5:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
The rule about using "shehakol" for all foods comes from a Mishnah in Masechet Berachot. In the Talmud it appears on 40a as follows:
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âרץ בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל נהיה בדברו יצ×Â
IF ONE SAYS OVER FRUIT OF THE TREE THE BENEDICTION, ‘WHO CREATEST THE
FRUIT OF THE GROUND, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. BUT IF HE SAID
OVER PRODUCE OF THE GROUND, ‘WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE TREE’, HE
HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE SAYS ‘BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS
EXIST OVER ANY OF THEM, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. (Soncino translation; capitals in original, my emphasis)
This law is codified by all the major Codes:
Rambam Hilchot Berachot 8:10
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Âנבירך שהכל יצנו×Âפי' על הפת ועל היין
A person who recited the blessing borey pri ha'adamah over fruits
that grow on trees fulfills his obligation. Conversely, one who
recited the blessing borey pri ha'etz over fruits that grow from the
ground does not fulfill his obligation. One who recites the blessing
shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation. [This applies even
in regard] to bread and wine. (Touger translation; my emphasis)
Tur O.C. 206
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בפה"ניצנו×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בפה"×¢ לניצנהלכך
×Â× ×Âדנמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי העץ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל
הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצ×Â
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if a man is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation.
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בור×Â
פרי העץ לניצנהלכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך
בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנו×Âפילו על פת ויין
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if one is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation, even on bread or wine.
Levush O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנדה×Âדמה כוללת גנה×Âילן שגנהו×Â
יונק מן ה×Âדמה ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ לניצנש×Âין פרי
ה×Âדמה יונק מן ה×Âילן הילכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ×Âדמה
מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה דיוצנממה נפשך ועל הכל ש×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת
ויין דהנהכל בכלל
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation because the ground includes the
tree, as the tree too is nourished from the ground. But if he made the
blessing of "borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not
discharged his obligation because fruit of the ground is not nourished
from the tree. Therefore, if he is unsure about a fruit whether it is
a fruit of the tree or a fruit of the ground, he should make the
blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" because he will have discharged his
obligation either way. And if one says "shehakol" on anything he has
discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine because everything
is included [in "shehakol"].
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
וכבר נתב×Âר דעל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת ויין וכ"ש ש×Âרי דברי×Â
And it has already been explained that on everything if he said
"shehakol" he has discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine
and certainly other things.
However, the implication of this rule is that "shehakol" works once you have said it, but it should not deliberately be used instead of the correct blessing. R. Meir HaKohen in his gloss to Rambam's ruling cites rishonim who say that if one does not know the correct blessing for something then he should say "shehakol" even deliberately, and this is because even though the Mishnah implies that it's only good after the fact, here the uncertainty itself is equivalent to "after the fact":
כפי זה יברך שהכל בכל דבר שהונמסופק עליו וכן פסק התוספות ומורי בשנר"ח
וה"ר יוסף ו×Âפילו לכתחילה ו×Â×¢"ג דתנן דוקנדיעבד הננמי כיון שמסתפק בה כדיעבד דמי
However, this does not mention a situation where you are aware of the correct blessing. Both R. Yechiel Michel Epstein and R. Yisrael Meir Kagan write that even though "ha'adama" suffices for something which requires "ha'etz", and should be used in a case of uncertainty, one cannot deliberately use "ha'adama" for something that he knows is "ha'etz":
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
שהרי לכתחלה ×Âין לברך על העץ ה×Âדמה ×Âלנשבדיעבד יצ×Â
For behold, from the outset one cannot make the blessing of "ha'adama"
on [something which is] "ha-etz"; it's just that after the fact [if he
did so] he has fulfilled his obligation.
Mishnah Berurah 206:7
דוקנדיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה לכו"×¢ ×Âין לכוין להוצינ×Âת פה"×¢ דטוב יותר לברך
ברכה המיוחדת לו
This is only after the fact, but from the outset one should not intend
to discharge his obligation for a fruit of the tree [with "borei peri
ha'adama"] because it is better to make the blessing that is uniquely
designated for it.
It stands to reason, then, that the same would apply to "shehakol" – while one can use it in a case of uncertainty, one should not use it if he does know the correct blessing.
In fact, R. Kagan explicitly says the same the same thing regarding "shehakol":
Mishnah Berurah 206:5
וכ"ז דיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה צריך לברך על כל דבר ברכתו המיוחדת לו
And all this is after the fact. But from the outset one needs to make
the blessing on each thing the blessing that is uniquely designated
for it.
answered Sep 2 at 21:34
Alex
12.9k2969
Alex, thanks for a full and very comprehensive answer. However, one thing puzzles me: On what halachic grounds do the acharonim you cite say that you cannot deliberately use shehakol when you know the correct blessing? The Rambam concludes "One who recites the blessing shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation." That should be enough. Can't we simplify life?
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 2 at 23:09
1
I think it's based on the implication from the Mishnah that it's only if you did it that it works (i.e. but you shouldn't deliberately do it) as well as the general principle of conforming to the specific blessings that the Sages formulated. If they formulated different blessings for different foods then we are expected to use the specified blessing for each food (unless it's a situation where we don't know which blessing to make).
– Alex
Sep 2 at 23:12
@MauriceMizrahi "Can't we simplify life?" Sounds like the root of your question is related to this one: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/31831/…
– Salmononius2
Sep 3 at 0:36
1
@MauriceMizrahi if your wife prepares a nice dish, you can say "that was very good" or you can say "I loved the flavor, the presentation, it fit really well with the rest of the meal. You must have spent a lot of time thinking this through and I loved it". What do you think she will prefer? The more specific the better no? The same with brachot. It is better if we can make the right, specific, bracha to acknowledge the good that comes our way
– mbloch
Sep 3 at 3:35
@mbloch, I take the position that halacha must be strictly defined, and the option to go beyond it, if at all, should be entirely up to the individual. That's what the concept of "hiddur mitzvah" (beautification of the mitzvah) is for. It's best to be told EXACTLY what your responsibilities are.
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 3 at 5:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
The rule about using "shehakol" for all foods comes from a Mishnah in Masechet Berachot. In the Talmud it appears on 40a as follows:
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âרץ בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל נהיה בדברו יצ×Â
IF ONE SAYS OVER FRUIT OF THE TREE THE BENEDICTION, ‘WHO CREATEST THE
FRUIT OF THE GROUND, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. BUT IF HE SAID
OVER PRODUCE OF THE GROUND, ‘WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE TREE’, HE
HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE SAYS ‘BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS
EXIST OVER ANY OF THEM, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. (Soncino translation; capitals in original, my emphasis)
This law is codified by all the major Codes:
Rambam Hilchot Berachot 8:10
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Âנבירך שהכל יצנו×Âפי' על הפת ועל היין
A person who recited the blessing borey pri ha'adamah over fruits
that grow on trees fulfills his obligation. Conversely, one who
recited the blessing borey pri ha'etz over fruits that grow from the
ground does not fulfill his obligation. One who recites the blessing
shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation. [This applies even
in regard] to bread and wine. (Touger translation; my emphasis)
Tur O.C. 206
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בפה"ניצנו×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בפה"×¢ לניצנהלכך
×Â× ×Âדנמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי העץ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל
הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצ×Â
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if a man is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation.
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בור×Â
פרי העץ לניצנהלכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך
בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנו×Âפילו על פת ויין
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if one is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation, even on bread or wine.
Levush O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנדה×Âדמה כוללת גנה×Âילן שגנהו×Â
יונק מן ה×Âדמה ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ לניצנש×Âין פרי
ה×Âדמה יונק מן ה×Âילן הילכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ×Âדמה
מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה דיוצנממה נפשך ועל הכל ש×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת
ויין דהנהכל בכלל
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation because the ground includes the
tree, as the tree too is nourished from the ground. But if he made the
blessing of "borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not
discharged his obligation because fruit of the ground is not nourished
from the tree. Therefore, if he is unsure about a fruit whether it is
a fruit of the tree or a fruit of the ground, he should make the
blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" because he will have discharged his
obligation either way. And if one says "shehakol" on anything he has
discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine because everything
is included [in "shehakol"].
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
וכבר נתב×Âר דעל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת ויין וכ"ש ש×Âרי דברי×Â
And it has already been explained that on everything if he said
"shehakol" he has discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine
and certainly other things.
However, the implication of this rule is that "shehakol" works once you have said it, but it should not deliberately be used instead of the correct blessing. R. Meir HaKohen in his gloss to Rambam's ruling cites rishonim who say that if one does not know the correct blessing for something then he should say "shehakol" even deliberately, and this is because even though the Mishnah implies that it's only good after the fact, here the uncertainty itself is equivalent to "after the fact":
כפי זה יברך שהכל בכל דבר שהונמסופק עליו וכן פסק התוספות ומורי בשנר"ח
וה"ר יוסף ו×Âפילו לכתחילה ו×Â×¢"ג דתנן דוקנדיעבד הננמי כיון שמסתפק בה כדיעבד דמי
However, this does not mention a situation where you are aware of the correct blessing. Both R. Yechiel Michel Epstein and R. Yisrael Meir Kagan write that even though "ha'adama" suffices for something which requires "ha'etz", and should be used in a case of uncertainty, one cannot deliberately use "ha'adama" for something that he knows is "ha'etz":
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
שהרי לכתחלה ×Âין לברך על העץ ה×Âדמה ×Âלנשבדיעבד יצ×Â
For behold, from the outset one cannot make the blessing of "ha'adama"
on [something which is] "ha-etz"; it's just that after the fact [if he
did so] he has fulfilled his obligation.
Mishnah Berurah 206:7
דוקנדיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה לכו"×¢ ×Âין לכוין להוצינ×Âת פה"×¢ דטוב יותר לברך
ברכה המיוחדת לו
This is only after the fact, but from the outset one should not intend
to discharge his obligation for a fruit of the tree [with "borei peri
ha'adama"] because it is better to make the blessing that is uniquely
designated for it.
It stands to reason, then, that the same would apply to "shehakol" – while one can use it in a case of uncertainty, one should not use it if he does know the correct blessing.
In fact, R. Kagan explicitly says the same the same thing regarding "shehakol":
Mishnah Berurah 206:5
וכ"ז דיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה צריך לברך על כל דבר ברכתו המיוחדת לו
And all this is after the fact. But from the outset one needs to make
the blessing on each thing the blessing that is uniquely designated
for it.
answered Sep 2 at 21:34
Alex
12.9k2969
Alex, thanks for a full and very comprehensive answer. However, one thing puzzles me: On what halachic grounds do the acharonim you cite say that you cannot deliberately use shehakol when you know the correct blessing? The Rambam concludes "One who recites the blessing shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation." That should be enough. Can't we simplify life?
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 2 at 23:09
1
I think it's based on the implication from the Mishnah that it's only if you did it that it works (i.e. but you shouldn't deliberately do it) as well as the general principle of conforming to the specific blessings that the Sages formulated. If they formulated different blessings for different foods then we are expected to use the specified blessing for each food (unless it's a situation where we don't know which blessing to make).
– Alex
Sep 2 at 23:12
@MauriceMizrahi "Can't we simplify life?" Sounds like the root of your question is related to this one: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/31831/…
– Salmononius2
Sep 3 at 0:36
1
@MauriceMizrahi if your wife prepares a nice dish, you can say "that was very good" or you can say "I loved the flavor, the presentation, it fit really well with the rest of the meal. You must have spent a lot of time thinking this through and I loved it". What do you think she will prefer? The more specific the better no? The same with brachot. It is better if we can make the right, specific, bracha to acknowledge the good that comes our way
– mbloch
Sep 3 at 3:35
@mbloch, I take the position that halacha must be strictly defined, and the option to go beyond it, if at all, should be entirely up to the individual. That's what the concept of "hiddur mitzvah" (beautification of the mitzvah) is for. It's best to be told EXACTLY what your responsibilities are.
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 3 at 5:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
The rule about using "shehakol" for all foods comes from a Mishnah in Masechet Berachot. In the Talmud it appears on 40a as follows:
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âרץ בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל נהיה בדברו יצ×Â
IF ONE SAYS OVER FRUIT OF THE TREE THE BENEDICTION, ‘WHO CREATEST THE
FRUIT OF THE GROUND, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. BUT IF HE SAID
OVER PRODUCE OF THE GROUND, ‘WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE TREE’, HE
HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE SAYS ‘BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS
EXIST OVER ANY OF THEM, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. (Soncino translation; capitals in original, my emphasis)
This law is codified by all the major Codes:
Rambam Hilchot Berachot 8:10
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Âנבירך שהכל יצנו×Âפי' על הפת ועל היין
A person who recited the blessing borey pri ha'adamah over fruits
that grow on trees fulfills his obligation. Conversely, one who
recited the blessing borey pri ha'etz over fruits that grow from the
ground does not fulfill his obligation. One who recites the blessing
shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation. [This applies even
in regard] to bread and wine. (Touger translation; my emphasis)
Tur O.C. 206
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בפה"ניצנו×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בפה"×¢ לניצנהלכך
×Â× ×Âדנמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי העץ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל
הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצ×Â
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if a man is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation.
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בור×Â
פרי העץ לניצנהלכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך
בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנו×Âפילו על פת ויין
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if one is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation, even on bread or wine.
Levush O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנדה×Âדמה כוללת גנה×Âילן שגנהו×Â
יונק מן ה×Âדמה ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ לניצנש×Âין פרי
ה×Âדמה יונק מן ה×Âילן הילכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ×Âדמה
מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה דיוצנממה נפשך ועל הכל ש×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת
ויין דהנהכל בכלל
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation because the ground includes the
tree, as the tree too is nourished from the ground. But if he made the
blessing of "borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not
discharged his obligation because fruit of the ground is not nourished
from the tree. Therefore, if he is unsure about a fruit whether it is
a fruit of the tree or a fruit of the ground, he should make the
blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" because he will have discharged his
obligation either way. And if one says "shehakol" on anything he has
discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine because everything
is included [in "shehakol"].
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
וכבר נתב×Âר דעל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת ויין וכ"ש ש×Âרי דברי×Â
And it has already been explained that on everything if he said
"shehakol" he has discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine
and certainly other things.
However, the implication of this rule is that "shehakol" works once you have said it, but it should not deliberately be used instead of the correct blessing. R. Meir HaKohen in his gloss to Rambam's ruling cites rishonim who say that if one does not know the correct blessing for something then he should say "shehakol" even deliberately, and this is because even though the Mishnah implies that it's only good after the fact, here the uncertainty itself is equivalent to "after the fact":
כפי זה יברך שהכל בכל דבר שהונמסופק עליו וכן פסק התוספות ומורי בשנר"ח
וה"ר יוסף ו×Âפילו לכתחילה ו×Â×¢"ג דתנן דוקנדיעבד הננמי כיון שמסתפק בה כדיעבד דמי
However, this does not mention a situation where you are aware of the correct blessing. Both R. Yechiel Michel Epstein and R. Yisrael Meir Kagan write that even though "ha'adama" suffices for something which requires "ha'etz", and should be used in a case of uncertainty, one cannot deliberately use "ha'adama" for something that he knows is "ha'etz":
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
שהרי לכתחלה ×Âין לברך על העץ ה×Âדמה ×Âלנשבדיעבד יצ×Â
For behold, from the outset one cannot make the blessing of "ha'adama"
on [something which is] "ha-etz"; it's just that after the fact [if he
did so] he has fulfilled his obligation.
Mishnah Berurah 206:7
דוקנדיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה לכו"×¢ ×Âין לכוין להוצינ×Âת פה"×¢ דטוב יותר לברך
ברכה המיוחדת לו
This is only after the fact, but from the outset one should not intend
to discharge his obligation for a fruit of the tree [with "borei peri
ha'adama"] because it is better to make the blessing that is uniquely
designated for it.
It stands to reason, then, that the same would apply to "shehakol" – while one can use it in a case of uncertainty, one should not use it if he does know the correct blessing.
In fact, R. Kagan explicitly says the same the same thing regarding "shehakol":
Mishnah Berurah 206:5
וכ"ז דיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה צריך לברך על כל דבר ברכתו המיוחדת לו
And all this is after the fact. But from the outset one needs to make
the blessing on each thing the blessing that is uniquely designated
for it.
answered Sep 2 at 21:34
Alex
12.9k2969
The rule about using "shehakol" for all foods comes from a Mishnah in Masechet Berachot. In the Talmud it appears on 40a as follows:
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âרץ בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל נהיה בדברו יצ×Â
IF ONE SAYS OVER FRUIT OF THE TREE THE BENEDICTION, ‘WHO CREATEST THE
FRUIT OF THE GROUND, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. BUT IF HE SAID
OVER PRODUCE OF THE GROUND, ‘WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE TREE’, HE
HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE SAYS ‘BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS
EXIST OVER ANY OF THEM, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. (Soncino translation; capitals in original, my emphasis)
This law is codified by all the major Codes:
Rambam Hilchot Berachot 8:10
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנועל פירות ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ ל×Â
יצנועל כולנ×Âנבירך שהכל יצנו×Âפי' על הפת ועל היין
A person who recited the blessing borey pri ha'adamah over fruits
that grow on trees fulfills his obligation. Conversely, one who
recited the blessing borey pri ha'etz over fruits that grow from the
ground does not fulfill his obligation. One who recites the blessing
shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation. [This applies even
in regard] to bread and wine. (Touger translation; my emphasis)
Tur O.C. 206
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בפה"ניצנו×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בפה"×¢ לניצנהלכך
×Â× ×Âדנמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי העץ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל
הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצ×Â
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if a man is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation.
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בור×Â
פרי העץ לניצנהלכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ה×Âדמה מברך
בורנפרי ה×Âדמה ועל הכל ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנו×Âפילו על פת ויין
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation. But if he made the blessing of
"borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not discharged his
obligation. Therefore, if one is unsure if a fruit is a fruit of the
tree or a fruit of the ground he should make the blessing of "borei
peri ha'adama". On everything if he said "shehakol" he has discharged
his obligation, even on bread or wine.
Levush O.C. 206:1
בירך על פירות ה×Âילן בורנפרי ה×Âדמה יצנדה×Âדמה כוללת גנה×Âילן שגנהו×Â
יונק מן ה×Âדמה ×Âבל ×Âנבירך על פרי ה×Âדמה בורנפרי העץ לניצנש×Âין פרי
ה×Âדמה יונק מן ה×Âילן הילכך ×Âנהונמסופק בפרי ×Âנהונפרי ×¢×¥ ×Âו פרי ×Âדמה
מברך בורנפרי ה×Âדמה דיוצנממה נפשך ועל הכל ש×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת
ויין דהנהכל בכלל
If one made the blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" on fruit of the
tree, he has discharged his obligation because the ground includes the
tree, as the tree too is nourished from the ground. But if he made the
blessing of "borei peri ha'etz" on fruit of the ground, he has not
discharged his obligation because fruit of the ground is not nourished
from the tree. Therefore, if he is unsure about a fruit whether it is
a fruit of the tree or a fruit of the ground, he should make the
blessing of "borei peri ha'adama" because he will have discharged his
obligation either way. And if one says "shehakol" on anything he has
discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine because everything
is included [in "shehakol"].
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
וכבר נתב×Âר דעל כולנ×Â× ×Âמר שהכל יצנ×Âפילו על פת ויין וכ"ש ש×Âרי דברי×Â
And it has already been explained that on everything if he said
"shehakol" he has discharged his obligation, even on bread and wine
and certainly other things.
However, the implication of this rule is that "shehakol" works once you have said it, but it should not deliberately be used instead of the correct blessing. R. Meir HaKohen in his gloss to Rambam's ruling cites rishonim who say that if one does not know the correct blessing for something then he should say "shehakol" even deliberately, and this is because even though the Mishnah implies that it's only good after the fact, here the uncertainty itself is equivalent to "after the fact":
כפי זה יברך שהכל בכל דבר שהונמסופק עליו וכן פסק התוספות ומורי בשנר"ח
וה"ר יוסף ו×Âפילו לכתחילה ו×Â×¢"ג דתנן דוקנדיעבד הננמי כיון שמסתפק בה כדיעבד דמי
However, this does not mention a situation where you are aware of the correct blessing. Both R. Yechiel Michel Epstein and R. Yisrael Meir Kagan write that even though "ha'adama" suffices for something which requires "ha'etz", and should be used in a case of uncertainty, one cannot deliberately use "ha'adama" for something that he knows is "ha'etz":
Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 206:2
שהרי לכתחלה ×Âין לברך על העץ ה×Âדמה ×Âלנשבדיעבד יצ×Â
For behold, from the outset one cannot make the blessing of "ha'adama"
on [something which is] "ha-etz"; it's just that after the fact [if he
did so] he has fulfilled his obligation.
Mishnah Berurah 206:7
דוקנדיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה לכו"×¢ ×Âין לכוין להוצינ×Âת פה"×¢ דטוב יותר לברך
ברכה המיוחדת לו
This is only after the fact, but from the outset one should not intend
to discharge his obligation for a fruit of the tree [with "borei peri
ha'adama"] because it is better to make the blessing that is uniquely
designated for it.
It stands to reason, then, that the same would apply to "shehakol" – while one can use it in a case of uncertainty, one should not use it if he does know the correct blessing.
In fact, R. Kagan explicitly says the same the same thing regarding "shehakol":
Mishnah Berurah 206:5
וכ"ז דיעבד ×Âבל לכתחלה צריך לברך על כל דבר ברכתו המיוחדת לו
And all this is after the fact. But from the outset one needs to make
the blessing on each thing the blessing that is uniquely designated
for it.
answered Sep 2 at 21:34
Alex
12.9k2969
edited Sep 2 at 21:56
answered Sep 2 at 21:34
Alex
12.9k2969
answered Sep 2 at 21:34
Alex
12.9k2969
answered Sep 2 at 21:34
Alex
12.9k2969
12.9k2969
Alex, thanks for a full and very comprehensive answer. However, one thing puzzles me: On what halachic grounds do the acharonim you cite say that you cannot deliberately use shehakol when you know the correct blessing? The Rambam concludes "One who recites the blessing shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation." That should be enough. Can't we simplify life?
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 2 at 23:09
1
I think it's based on the implication from the Mishnah that it's only if you did it that it works (i.e. but you shouldn't deliberately do it) as well as the general principle of conforming to the specific blessings that the Sages formulated. If they formulated different blessings for different foods then we are expected to use the specified blessing for each food (unless it's a situation where we don't know which blessing to make).
– Alex
Sep 2 at 23:12
@MauriceMizrahi "Can't we simplify life?" Sounds like the root of your question is related to this one: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/31831/…
– Salmononius2
Sep 3 at 0:36
1
@MauriceMizrahi if your wife prepares a nice dish, you can say "that was very good" or you can say "I loved the flavor, the presentation, it fit really well with the rest of the meal. You must have spent a lot of time thinking this through and I loved it". What do you think she will prefer? The more specific the better no? The same with brachot. It is better if we can make the right, specific, bracha to acknowledge the good that comes our way
– mbloch
Sep 3 at 3:35
@mbloch, I take the position that halacha must be strictly defined, and the option to go beyond it, if at all, should be entirely up to the individual. That's what the concept of "hiddur mitzvah" (beautification of the mitzvah) is for. It's best to be told EXACTLY what your responsibilities are.
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 3 at 5:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
Alex, thanks for a full and very comprehensive answer. However, one thing puzzles me: On what halachic grounds do the acharonim you cite say that you cannot deliberately use shehakol when you know the correct blessing? The Rambam concludes "One who recites the blessing shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation." That should be enough. Can't we simplify life?
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 2 at 23:09
1
I think it's based on the implication from the Mishnah that it's only if you did it that it works (i.e. but you shouldn't deliberately do it) as well as the general principle of conforming to the specific blessings that the Sages formulated. If they formulated different blessings for different foods then we are expected to use the specified blessing for each food (unless it's a situation where we don't know which blessing to make).
– Alex
Sep 2 at 23:12
@MauriceMizrahi "Can't we simplify life?" Sounds like the root of your question is related to this one: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/31831/…
– Salmononius2
Sep 3 at 0:36
1
@MauriceMizrahi if your wife prepares a nice dish, you can say "that was very good" or you can say "I loved the flavor, the presentation, it fit really well with the rest of the meal. You must have spent a lot of time thinking this through and I loved it". What do you think she will prefer? The more specific the better no? The same with brachot. It is better if we can make the right, specific, bracha to acknowledge the good that comes our way
– mbloch
Sep 3 at 3:35
@mbloch, I take the position that halacha must be strictly defined, and the option to go beyond it, if at all, should be entirely up to the individual. That's what the concept of "hiddur mitzvah" (beautification of the mitzvah) is for. It's best to be told EXACTLY what your responsibilities are.
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 3 at 5:34
Alex, thanks for a full and very comprehensive answer. However, one thing puzzles me: On what halachic grounds do the acharonim you cite say that you cannot deliberately use shehakol when you know the correct blessing? The Rambam concludes "One who recites the blessing shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation." That should be enough. Can't we simplify life?
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 2 at 23:09
Alex, thanks for a full and very comprehensive answer. However, one thing puzzles me: On what halachic grounds do the acharonim you cite say that you cannot deliberately use shehakol when you know the correct blessing? The Rambam concludes "One who recites the blessing shehakol over any food fulfills his obligation." That should be enough. Can't we simplify life?
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 2 at 23:09
1
1
I think it's based on the implication from the Mishnah that it's only if you did it that it works (i.e. but you shouldn't deliberately do it) as well as the general principle of conforming to the specific blessings that the Sages formulated. If they formulated different blessings for different foods then we are expected to use the specified blessing for each food (unless it's a situation where we don't know which blessing to make).
– Alex
Sep 2 at 23:12
I think it's based on the implication from the Mishnah that it's only if you did it that it works (i.e. but you shouldn't deliberately do it) as well as the general principle of conforming to the specific blessings that the Sages formulated. If they formulated different blessings for different foods then we are expected to use the specified blessing for each food (unless it's a situation where we don't know which blessing to make).
– Alex
Sep 2 at 23:12
@MauriceMizrahi "Can't we simplify life?" Sounds like the root of your question is related to this one: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/31831/…
– Salmononius2
Sep 3 at 0:36
@MauriceMizrahi "Can't we simplify life?" Sounds like the root of your question is related to this one: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/31831/…
– Salmononius2
Sep 3 at 0:36
1
1
@MauriceMizrahi if your wife prepares a nice dish, you can say "that was very good" or you can say "I loved the flavor, the presentation, it fit really well with the rest of the meal. You must have spent a lot of time thinking this through and I loved it". What do you think she will prefer? The more specific the better no? The same with brachot. It is better if we can make the right, specific, bracha to acknowledge the good that comes our way
– mbloch
Sep 3 at 3:35
@MauriceMizrahi if your wife prepares a nice dish, you can say "that was very good" or you can say "I loved the flavor, the presentation, it fit really well with the rest of the meal. You must have spent a lot of time thinking this through and I loved it". What do you think she will prefer? The more specific the better no? The same with brachot. It is better if we can make the right, specific, bracha to acknowledge the good that comes our way
– mbloch
Sep 3 at 3:35
@mbloch, I take the position that halacha must be strictly defined, and the option to go beyond it, if at all, should be entirely up to the individual. That's what the concept of "hiddur mitzvah" (beautification of the mitzvah) is for. It's best to be told EXACTLY what your responsibilities are.
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 3 at 5:34
@mbloch, I take the position that halacha must be strictly defined, and the option to go beyond it, if at all, should be entirely up to the individual. That's what the concept of "hiddur mitzvah" (beautification of the mitzvah) is for. It's best to be told EXACTLY what your responsibilities are.
– Maurice Mizrahi
Sep 3 at 5:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
A good question about the principles of the Halachah. The point is the H. is not all-or-nothing, either you fulfill or not, there are 50 levels of performance and corresponding reward. So to your Q. - a reward for saying a more specified blessing is greater than saying a general one. Saying a blessing on a whole food is greater than on a piece of it, saying with a Kavvanah is still better etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 20:29
In Hebrew search for "ברכה מבוררת יותר".
– Al Berko
Sep 2 at 21:16
Saying "shehakol" over bread would only be fine b'dieved, as far as I understand
– ezra
Sep 2 at 23:34