Siman 176

The sages taught in the Mishnah (42a): If one recited a blessing over the parperet before the meal, he exempts the parperet after the meal. If he recited a blessing over the bread, he exempts the parperet. Over the parperet, he did not exempt the bread. Beit Shammai say: Not even ma’aseh kederah. And according to the first Tanna, he exempts ma’aseh kederah, and the halakhah follows the first Tanna. And in the Gemara it remained in doubt whether this matter of ma’aseh kederah refers to the bread or to the parperet. And a doubt regarding a rabbinic law is ruled leniently. Therefore, for the law, when one recited a blessing over the parperet, he exempts ma’aseh kederah. This is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote: If one recited a blessing over the parperet, he exempts ma’aseh kederah, which is daysa and the like. And similarly, if he recited a blessing over ma’aseh kederah, he exempts the parperet. Thus far his words. And so ruled Rav Ovadia of Bartenura in the commentary on the Mishnayot. But the Tur did not mention anything of this. And it appears to me that his reason is because in the Yerushalmi it is explicitly stated to the contrary, as it says there: But if he recited a blessing over the parperet first, everyone agrees that he did not exempt the bread nor ma’aseh kederah, see there. And this is the opinion of the Rambam in the fourth chapter, law 6. And the commentators raised difficulties against him from the discussion of the Shas (see Kesef Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh). And there are those who wished to emend his words, see there. But it is clear that he ruled so based on the Yerushalmi, for since in the Gemara there is a doubt in this, and to the Yerushalmi it is simple, he ruled like the Yerushalmi. And such is his way in several places. Therefore, the Tur also omitted this. And so wrote the Tosafot of R. Y., and this is their wording: And if he recited a blessing over the parpera’ot, he did not exempt ma’aseh kederah… Thus far their words. And our teacher, the Rema, in his book Darkhei Moshe, wrote that they wrote this according to Beit Shammai, see there. And it is a great wonder: Did they not write it as halakhah? And there are those who wished to erase the word "not" (D.T.). But it is clear that their way is according to the Yerushalmi, and it appears that our teacher, the Rema, did not see this Yerushalmi. And so appears the primary view for the law.

And what is parperet and ma'aseh kederah? The Rambam wrote in the Commentary on the Mishnah that it is a name for a relish and for all types of delicacies… and "ma'aseh kederah" refers to, for example, crushed grains and groats… Thus far his words. And the Tosafot and the Rosh and the Tosafot of R"i explained in the name of our teacher Chananel: for example, bread toasted in a bowl that does not have the appearance of bread, over which one recites "borei minei mezonot." That is to say: that it is mixed with honey or other sweet things (Tosafot of R"i). And likewise very thin wafers (ibid.). And the name "parparaot" includes many things that are not the primary part of a person's meal, but rather they come for pleasure and to extend the desire for food; as Rashi wrote there that this is parperet: things before the meal and also after the meal that are beneficial to the heart, see there.

And behold, the Tur wrote all the laws, and this is his wording: If one recited a blessing over the parperet before the meal – he exempts the parperet that is after the meal. The explanation: after the conclusion of the meal before birkat hamazon… If one recited a blessing over the bread – he exempted the parperet that is within the meal… If one recited a blessing over the parperet – he did not exempt the bread. Thus far his words, and he omitted "cooked grain dishes" for the reason we explained. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote only: If one recited a blessing over the bread – he exempts the parperet, which is to say, very fine crumbs of bread that he joined together with broth or honey. If one recited a blessing over the parperet – he did not exempt the bread. Thus far his words, and he omitted that case of the parperet before the meal exempting the parperet after the meal. And perhaps his reason is that since among us there is no "after the meal," as we do not withdraw our hands from the bread as the Tosafot and all the Rishonim wrote, and so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 177. If so, it is only for the parperet within the meal. And for this we did not need the parperet before the meal, for behold, the bread exempts it. But regarding the Rambam there it is difficult, for he also omitted this law, and it is not his way to omit a law of the Gemara and certainly not a law of the Mishnah. And besides this, his words require clarification, as will be explained in the next section with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of the Rambam: If one recited a blessing over the bread – he has exempted the parperet with which the bread is eaten, from types of cooked food and fruits and the like. But if he recited a blessing over the parperet – he has not exempted the bread. If he recited a blessing over ma'aseh kederah – he has exempted the cooked food. If he recited a blessing over the cooked food – he has not exempted the ma'aseh kederah. Thus far his words. And it is difficult: why does the cooked food not exempt the ma'aseh kederah, while the reverse does exempt? And it must be said that it is because ma'aseh kederah is a complete eating, but the cooked food is merely a parperet. And so it appears from the words of the Tosafot of R. Isaac, who wrote that ma'aseh kederah exempts parperet and not the reverse, see there. And their reason is that since according to our Shas there is a doubt regarding both of them, and only in the Yerushalmi is it explicit that parperet does not exempt ma'aseh kederah as I have written, but the reverse remains according to the doubt in the Gemara, and a doubt regarding a rabbinic law is ruled leniently. But why did he change the wording from "parperet" to "cooked food"? And also, why did he omit that which a parperet before the meal exempts the parperet after the meal? And it requires further study.

And know that from that which we learned, that a parperet before the meal exempts that which is after the meal, and "before the meal" is before the washing of the hands and "Hamotzi" as the commentators wrote; and it must necessarily be so: for if it were after "Hamotzi," a blessing for the parperet would not be relevant, as the bread exempts it. And according to this, it is explicitly proven that when one eats a parperet before the meal – one does not need an after-blessing, because this also belongs to the meal, and Birkat Hamazon exempts them. For if it were not so, but rather he recited an after-blessing, how would it be relevant that it exempts that which is after the meal, since he already recited an after-blessing?

And so it is explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi, chapter six (end of halacha 4), and this is its wording: Rabbi Zeira said: From that which we see the rabbis, ascending on Rosh Chodesh and eating grapes, and they do not recite a blessing at the end, is it not because it is in his mind to eat bread? Thus far its words. And this "la" is like "ela" in the language of the Yerushalmi, meaning: that therefore they do not recite an after-blessing, because their intention is to eat bread, and Birkat HaMazon exempts them. And so I saw one of the great authorities who wrote thus, and this is his wording: And so one who eats appetizers before the meal, such as types of sweets or types of fruits, to open the digestive tract and to stimulate and draw the heart to eating... – he does not need to recite a blessing after them before the meal; for they are exempted by Birkat HaMazon like wine before the meal. But if he eats them for pleasure alone, and not to stimulate or draw the heart to the meal – he must recite a blessing after them; and they are not exempted by Birkat HaMazon like the wine of Havdalah. (The HaGra"z in this siman. And so he wrote that burnt wine [brandy] has the same law as wine and does not require an after-blessing, and as I wrote in siman 174, section 14, see there.)

But I found for the Rashba, of blessed memory, in his novellae to Berakhot (41b), and this is his wording: And there is still a fourth category that was not explicitly stated, which is items brought before the meal when his intention is to eat bread after them. For it can be said that they are like items brought after the meal, and require a blessing before them and after them; or we may say that they are like items brought during the meal not for the sake of the meal, for they too stimulate the appetite and cause an increase in food consumption, and therefore they too do not require a blessing after them. And according to reason the first is primary, for anything that is before the meal is not part of the meal at all. And it appears to me that it is subject to a dispute in the Yerushalmi, for we learn there: Rabbi Zeira said: From what we see... (which we brought in the previous section). It appears that according to the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, whenever his intention is to eat bread, even though he ate grapes before he began the meal—it is as if he ate them during... and he does not need to recite a blessing after them. But further down there they said in the Yerushalmi: Rabbi Ba inquired: One who eats fine flour, and his intention is to eat bread, what is the law regarding reciting a blessing over the fine flour at the end? The Rabbis of Caesarea resolved it for him: He must recite a blessing at the end. And so it appears primary. Thus far the wording of the Rashba. Behold, he decided to the contrary, that one must recite an after-blessing. And I am very much wondered: for how will he sustain the Mishnah regarding an appetizer before the meal?

And also regarding the contradictions in the Yerushalmi I am astonished: for if it is according to the words of the Rashba, the Yerushalmi should have said that they disagree with one another. And in my opinion there is no dispute here: for that which Rava [Rabi Ba] said is later on regarding the Mishnah of parperet, and this is the wording of the Yerushalmi: But if he recited a blessing on the parperet first, everyone agrees that he did not exempt the bread nor the cooked dish. Rabi Abba inquired about one who ate fine flour and his intention was to eat bread… And it is difficult: what was his inquiry, for is this not parperet? And it says that he did not exempt the bread, behold it is explicit that he does not need a concluding blessing as I have written. And it appears that this is the explanation: for certainly one who prepared himself to eat parperet before the meal does not need a concluding blessing, and this is our Mishnah where he recited a blessing on the parperet before the meal. But Rabi Abba inquired: one who ate fine flour without the intention to eat them before the meal as a parperet to draw out the food, but rather his intention was only to eat the fine flour, yet while he was eating he decided to eat bread. And on this he concludes that they did not exempt him from a concluding blessing, as this has no connection to the meal, since he did not eat it as a parperet before the meal. And there is no contradiction here at all. Furthermore, in the Yerushalmi there previously (in Halacha 4) on the Mishnah of "If there were many kinds before him," Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabi Abba disagree there if he intended to eat bread, whether he needs a concluding blessing on the fruits. For Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that he does not need one, and Rabi Abba holds that he needs one. And behold, it is not only if we rule like Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rather, even according to Rabi Abba it appears in my humble opinion that this is specifically regarding ordinary fruits that do not come to stimulate and draw the heart to the desire for food. But regarding those that come for the desire for food – they do not need a concluding blessing. And also regarding the intention of the Rashba it appears so to me. And even though from his wording it does not imply so, nevertheless it is better to press his intention than to say something that is against the Mishnah. And it is obvious on Shabbat when they give sweet types and other things after kiddush, and their intention is to wash their hands and eat bread in a short time, that certainly they do not need a concluding blessing, for behold the kiddush is in the place of the meal, and everything is part of the meal. (And even though in the Magen Avraham siman 249, subsection 6 it does not imply so, one can say that he did not eat the meal immediately. And the Chayei Adam, klal 41, siman 4 was pressed in this, see there. And there is no need. And also the Chayei Adam ruled not to recite a concluding blessing on Shabbat, but his reason does not appear correct to me. And it appears in my humble opinion that the primary halacha is as I have written according to the opinion of the Graz, and the Rashba can be explained as I have written. Examine it and you will find it simple.)