Siman 202

A great principle appears to me regarding berakhot: that any berakha that the sages established for a specific species—one does not fulfill the obligation with a different berakha, even though this species has a connection to that berakha. Only in a case where the sages explicitly stated that one has fulfilled the obligation, such as when one recited "borei peri ha'adamah" over a fruit of the tree, or "shehakol" when one recited it over any item whatsoever, as we learned in the Mishnah (40a): "If one recited 'borei peri ha'adamah' over fruits of the tree—he has fulfilled the obligation, and over all of them if he said 'shehakol'—he has fulfilled the obligation." However, regarding that which we learned at the beginning of the chapter "Keitzad Mevarkhin": "Over fruits of the tree he says 'borei peri ha'etz' except for wine, for over wine he says 'borei peri hagafen'; and over fruits of the earth he says 'borei peri ha'adamah' except for bread, for over bread he says 'hamotzi' etc.," if he recited "ha'etz" over wine or "ha'adamah" over bread—he has not fulfilled the obligation. There is clear proof for this, for if it were not so, why did the Mishnah not teach that if he recited "ha'etz" over wine or "ha'adamah" over bread he has fulfilled the obligation, just as it taught regarding "ha'etz" that if he recited "ha'adamah" he has fulfilled the obligation, or that over all of them if he said "shehakol" he has fulfilled the obligation. Rather, it is certain that in these cases he has not fulfilled the obligation because the sages uprooted it entirely from the previous category. I have seen written accordingly in the name of our teachers the Ra'ah and the Ritva and other great authorities (Birkei Yosef, siman 207, in Shiyurei Berakha). There is one who wrote that he has fulfilled the obligation regarding bread if he recited "ha'adamah" (Chayei Adam, klal 58, in Nishmat Adam), and there is one who is in doubt (Kessef Mishneh in chapter 4, halakha 6). Similarly, one of the commentators on the Shulchan Arukh wrote in siman 208: that if one recited "borei peri ha'etz" over wine—he has not fulfilled the obligation (Magen Avraham, subsection 22). It also appears to me that if one recited "borei minei desha'im" over vegetables—he has not fulfilled the obligation (since we rule like the Rabbanan in the Mishnah there, and see what I wrote in siman 205). Anyone who deviates from the formula that the sages established—has not fulfilled the obligation, and he must return and recite the berakha properly.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said (Bava Kamma 30a): "One who desires to be a chasid—let him fulfill the matters of Berakhot." And it appears that this is the explanation: for the chasid acts beyond the letter of the law, and behold, regarding Berakhot we hold: "a doubt regarding Berakhot is ruled leniently," yet the chasid removes himself from this leniency. For example, when he is in doubt whether he recited Borei Nefashot or not—and he is not required to recite the blessing due to the doubt—the chasid eats or drinks something else and recites Borei Nefashot. And so too, when there is a matter where it is a doubt whether one recites HaEtz or HaAdama—one recites HaAdama—the chasid eats two more things whose blessings are certain, one HaEtz and one HaAdama. And so too, when there is a doubt whether he must recite a final blessing, such as when he does not know if he ate a kezayit within the time of k'dei achilat pras—and he is not required to recite the blessing due to the doubt—the chasid eats so that it will certainly be within the time of k'dei achilat pras and recites the blessing, and so too regarding the drinking of hot liquids in a similar case. And so too in all types of doubts, the chasid sees to remove himself from the doubts. And all the more so that the chasid will not rely upon that which we learned in the Mishnah: "And for all of them, if one said Shehakol—he has fulfilled his obligation," for one who exempts himself in every matter with the blessing of Shehakol—behold, he is a boor (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 1 in the name of the Arizal).

It appears according to my humble opinion that there is a remedy according to the law to remove oneself from any doubt regarding a berakha akharona, such as when one has a doubt whether he recited a berakha akharona or not, or whether he is required to recite a berakha akharona or not; there is a way to remove oneself from the category of doubt. And that is, since we maintain that if one said: "Blessed is the Merciful One, Master King of the universe, of this bread" - he has fulfilled the obligation of the berakha of HaMotzi, as I wrote in siman 167, and if so, he can say: "Blessed is the Merciful One, Master King of the universe, Creator of souls etc.," and if he is obligated in this berakha, he has fulfilled it with this, and if he does not require a berakha, he has not uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, for there is no mention of the Name here at all, and he may say "the Merciful One" a hundred times. And similarly regarding other berakhot, and he should think in his heart that if he requires a berakha, behold this is for the sake of a berakha, and if not, behold it is a mere statement, and so I conduct myself many times when drinking hot water (and I saw one who wrote that even this is like a berakha in vain, and it does not appear so to me at all).

Another great principle in berakhot: regarding the initial berakhah, one is obligated to recite it even for any amount, whether eating or drinking, when his intention is to eat it or drink it. However, when his intention is only to taste the dish to see if it is good or not—he does not need a berakhah, and in this too there are opinions, and it will be explained in siman 210. And when one takes this for medicinal purposes: if their taste is not good—he does not need a berakhah, and if their taste is good—he needs a berakhah, since in any event the palate derives pleasure from it, and it will be explained in siman 204. And if others coerced him to eat and drink and he does not desire this—our teacher, the Rema, ruled there that even if he derives pleasure from it he does not need to recite a berakhah, and there are those who disagree on this, and it will be explained there with the help of Heaven.

And this is regarding the first blessing, but regarding the final blessing: with foods—one requires a kezayit, and for less than this one does not require a final blessing. And this is the measure of half an egg, and some say a third of an egg, and we hold as the primary view half an egg. Consequently, the pious person should eat either less than a third or like half an egg. And regarding drinking, the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 3 is that one requires a revit, and the Tosafot and the Rosh were in doubt about this, for perhaps a kezayit is sufficient. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch already wrote this in siman 190, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 210 held as the primary view like the opinion of the Rambam, see there, and so it stands to reason, for a doubt does not remove a certainty, and so we are accustomed to rule regarding a revit, and the pious person should see to it to remove himself from doubt. And we have already written in siman 190, section 4, that a kezayit is much less than a revit, see there.

The measure of eating a kezayit is only when one eats the kezayit within the time of kedei achilat pras, but when one eats it in more than this measure—one does not need an after-blessing. And how much is achilat pras: according to the opinion of the Rambam, three eggs, and according to the opinion of Rashi, four eggs, as written in siman 612, see there. And regarding a biryah, there is a doubt that perhaps a kezayit is not required, as written in siman 210, and there it will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven, and the pious person should be careful in all this. And regarding the measure of drinking a revit, the Rambam ruled regarding prohibitions in chapter 14 of Ma’achalot Assurot, law 9, and this is his wording: "And so too one who drinks a revit… little by little… or who drank from blood little by little: if he paused from the beginning until the end the time of kedei shtiyat revit—they combine, and if not—they do not combine." Thus far his words. And so he ruled regarding Yom Kippur in chapter 2 of Shevitat Assor, and so he ruled regarding terumah in chapter 10 of Terumot, see there. And in the Tosefta of Yoma, chapter 4, it is explicitly stated so, and this is the wording of the Tosefta: "If he drank and drank again: if there is from the beginning of the first drinking until the end of the last drinking the time of kedei shtiyat revit—they combine, and if not—they do not combine." Thus far his words. And one should not wonder what relevance there is in drinking a revit to pausing the time of kedei shtiyat revit, for this is the explanation: that it is not the way to drink the revit all at once, for this is a glutton, as we say: "One who drinks his cup all at once—behold, he is a glutton; in two—is the way of the world," and it is the way to pause a little and drink calmly, and this requires some time. And if so, automatically according to the opinion of the Rambam, it is also so for an after-blessing, that if he paused more than kedei shtiyat revit—he does not need to recite an after-blessing, and see what I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 85.

And according to this, regarding the drinking of hot tea or coffee, where one lingers for some time in the drinking of a revit — one does not need to recite a beracha acharona. A pious person should see to it to drink a revit of them without lingering in order to recite a beracha acharona, due to the opinion of the Ra'avad that will be explained. And one should not say that since it is the way to drink hot liquids little by little they are not similar to other drinks, for we have already explained in siman 190, section 4, that one should not distinguish between one type of drinking and another, to exclude the one who holds that over strong whiskey one recites a beracha acharona even on less than a revit, for the sages did not distinguish between one type of drinking and another, see there, as this was the consensus of the great Acharonim.

However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch later in siman 612 regarding Yom Kippur brought that the Ra'avad holds that the combination of drinking is also within the time of "kedei achilat pras," like eating. Many agreed with his words, as it is explicitly stated in Keritot (12b) regarding tumah, that the disqualification of the body through the combination of drinking is like the combination of eating, see there; and the Rambam himself ruled accordingly in chapter 8 of Avot HaTumot, see there. And it must be said that he holds that we do not learn from tumah, and we do not learn a prohibition from tumah; or he would say that since the tumah of the body is rabbinic, they did not wish to distinguish between eating and drinking. Behold, in any case, there is a dispute regarding the measure of combining the drinking of a revi'it. And there is a great difference between them, for "kedei achilat pras" is certainly like three or four minutes, and "kedei shtiyat revi'it" certainly does not reach a half or a third of this measure. Therefore, the pious person should be careful in this as I wrote in the previous section, or to accustom himself to recite "Brich Rachmana," as I wrote in section 3.

And behold, regarding prohibitions, the Rambam wrote in the fourteenth chapter of Forbidden Foods that a kaza'it is excluding what is between the teeth, but what is between the gums joins together. A kaza'it of chelev or neveilah… that one left in the sun and it diminished—one who eats it is exempt; if he went back and left it in the rain and it swelled—one is liable for karet or lashes. If it was less than a kaza'it initially and it swelled and stood at a kaza'it—it is forbidden, but one does not receive lashes for it. Thus far his words. And it seems simple that also regarding the after-blessing the law is so, for we follow according to what the food is now, and if it has a kaza'it now—we recite the after-blessing, and if it does not have a kaza'it now, even though initially it had a kaza'it—we do not recite the after-blessing over it, and if it did not have a kaza'it initially and it swelled and stood at a kaza'it—we do not recite a blessing over it. And it is simple that in a spongy food that has many holes—the holes do not join together to form a kaza'it (and so wrote the Sha'arei Teshuvah in siman 210 in the name of the Birkei Yosef, see there). It further seems to me, just as we learned in the Mishnah at the beginning of the third chapter of Taharot: "The broth, and the pounded beans, and the milk: when they are a moist liquid—they are a first degree of impurity; if they congealed—they are a second degree." Meaning, since they congealed they are considered like foods—so too regarding the after-blessing, for if the water congealed and he ate them in their congealed state—he must recite the after-blessing over a kaza'it, and similarly with other liquids, for in this it is not relevant to distinguish between impurity and other matters. And so it seems to me that one who eats snow or hail or frost and ice and benefits from this, such as if he is thirsty and the like—he must recite the after-blessing over a kaza'it. And even though for a mikveh they complete the forty se'ah like water, as is written in the seventh chapter of Mikvaot, nevertheless now in his eating, the name "eating" is upon this and not the name "drinking," and it is an a fortiori argument from the broth of the Mishnah in Taharot that we brought (and see Niddah 17a, and it requires further study).

All foods combine to a kezayit and all liquids combine to a revit (Magen Avraham siman 210, subsection 1). Even if one ate a half-kezayit of something whose concluding blessing is "me-ein shalosh" and a half-kezayit of something whose blessing is "borei nefashot" — they combine for "borei nefashot." And so too with liquids, when one drank a half-revit of wine and a half-revit of other liquids — they combine for "borei nefashot." But eating and drinking do not combine (ibid.), for their measures are not equal and their enjoyment is not equal. And all food enhancers that come to prepare the food are considered food, such as the brine on a vegetable or liquid absorbed into food, and they combine to a kezayit (ibid.); but when the liquid stands on its own, it does not combine. Therefore, foods fried in honey such as teiglach, piroshki, or eingemacht, or those fried in butter such as kreplach, blintzes, pampushky, teigacht, or those fried in fat — the butter and the fat that are on the food combine to a kezayit, for liquid that comes to the food is considered food (Shabbat 144b). And it seems to me that those filled with meat or eggs or cheese — the meat and the eggs and the cheese do not combine to a kezayit regarding the blessing of "al ha-michyah," since they stand on their own, and whenever there is not a kezayit of flour, one blesses "borei nefashot" if these fill the measure of a kezayit. And so too one who spreads butter on bread or on wafers — the butter does not combine, since it is a mass and stands on its own, but one who spreads oil or fat — it combines, for it is absorbed into them and is like the brine on a vegetable (so it seems according to my humble opinion in these laws).

One does not recite a blessing over food or drink until the food or drink is before him, as was written in siman 206, and also that it be ready to be eaten or drunk. For example, if one eats walnuts or almonds: he should not recite the blessing until he breaks the first walnut or the first almond, for if he recites the blessing before the breaking, the breaking constitutes an interruption. It is not similar to the slicing of bread where one finishes the slicing after the blessing of HaMotzi, as was written in siman 167, for there the bread that he eats is revealed before us and the completion of the slicing is instantaneous, which is not the case with the walnut; the food is covered and also the breaking is not instantaneous, therefore he should break it before the blessing. So too if he eats an apple and does not wish to eat it until after he peels it, he should recite the blessing after he peels it so that the peeling will not be an interruption, and so too in any similar case. So too regarding drinking where the drink is in a pitcher and they pour into the cup and drink from the cup, he should not recite the blessing until he pours into the cup. So too if the food or drink is very cold or very hot, such that it is impossible to eat it or drink it until some small amount of time passes, he should not recite the blessing until it is fit to eat and drink, and so too in any similar case (see Eliyah Rabbah subsection 1 who brought one who says that he should recite the blessing before breaking the walnut and before peeling in order that he recite the blessing over the whole, see there, but it is not logical at all, and see there that his conclusion is also not so, and delve into this).

On all fruits of the tree, whether from the seven species or from other species: their first bracha is "borei pri ha'etz." And even though their growth is from the ground like the fruit of the earth, and therefore in truth if one recited the bracha "ha'adamah" over them he has fulfilled his obligation, nevertheless, ab initio they established for them a more specific bracha because of their importance, for everything that is more important, its bracha is more specific, and to give praise to the Holy One, Blessed be He, who created such an important thing. And the wording of the bracha is "borei pri ha'etz" and not "haborei," for every bracha must be in the past tense. And even though "haborei" is also a past tense, like "hamotzi lechem min ha'aretz," nevertheless, "borei" is a more specific wording, and regarding "hamotzi" the reason is so as not to slur the letters, as I wrote in siman 167. And even according to the other reason we wrote there, to show grammatical precision, "hamotzi" is sufficient, and therefore all the brachot are without the letter "heh," such as "borei pri ha'etz," "borei pri ha'adamah," "borei minei mezonot" (Machatzit HaShekel, subsection 1). And we have already explained there in section 7 that this is a present tense that indicates His supervision, may He be blessed, at every time and every moment; see there.

And over wine, due to its importance, they established for it a blessing of its own: "Who creates the fruit of the vine," whether raw or cooked. And even though cooked wine is inferior to raw wine and the law of wine of libation does not apply to it, and according to the opinion of Rashi one does not sanctify over it and one does not recite over it "Who creates the fruit of the vine," as the Tur wrote later in siman 272, nevertheless most of our teachers disagree regarding this as the Tur wrote there, and so wrote our teachers the authors of the Tosafot in Bava Batra (97a) and the Rosh there, and so the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 1 ruled without qualification here. And so over diluted wine one recites "Who creates the fruit of the vine." And specifically their wines which were strong, but our wines when a little water is mixed into them, the taste of the wine is nullified and one recites "that all [was created by His word]," but not all wines are equal in this. And if one recited over wine "Who creates the fruit of the tree" - he has not fulfilled his obligation, as was written in section 1. And also if one made from wine conditum, which is that they put into it honey and peppers - its blessing is also "Who creates the fruit of the vine," and this is not known to us.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: That if wine was mixed with beer—we follow the majority: if the majority is wine, one recites "borei pri hagafen," and if the majority is beer, one recites "shehakol." Thus far his words. And we do not follow the taste, for since both of them are subject to the obligation of a blessing, it follows that we follow the majority, which is the primary element (Taz, subsection 1). Furthermore, it appears in my humble opinion that certainly if there is no taste of wine here—one does not recite "borei pri hagafen" over it even when the majority is wine, and here we are dealing with fig beer (Magen Avraham, subsection 3) which has a sweetness like wine. But our beer or other drinks that nullify the taste of the wine—a majority of wine does not avail at all. And when the wine is less than the fig beer, even if it has the taste of wine—we follow the majority and recite "shehakol" over it.

And know that over wine from tzimmukim one recites the blessing "borei peri ha-gafen," and one performs kiddush and havdalah over them as is written in siman 272, and behold, even regarding nesakhim in the Beit HaMikdash it is valid ex post facto, as is found in Bava Batra (96a), and in all our lands wine is not common at all except for that which they make from tzimmukim, as is known. However, I have always been distressed over this, for behold, the Rif there and the Rambam in chapter 29 of Shabbat and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch later in siman 272 wrote explicitly that we require that even from the tzimmukim themselves without water a little wine should emerge, but without this it is not considered wine; see there. And behold, our tzimmukim from which they make wine have no moisture of wine at all, and only by means of soaking them in water for a long time is there a taste of wine in the water, and how do we recite over it "borei peri ha-gafen" and perform over it kiddush and havdalah and recite "borei peri ha-gafen," and if we came to change and say to recite "shehakol" they would not obey us, for such is our custom from our fathers' fathers and no one opens his mouth or chirps, and we ourselves do so, and how have we found our hands and feet in this matter.

And it is necessary to settle the custom of Israel, for behold, the dispute of the Rishonim regarding "taste is like the substance" is well known, as Rashi and the Rambam hold that it is rabbinic, as the Rambam wrote in the fifteenth chapter of Forbidden Foods, that even if the substance of the forbidden item was dissolved within the permitted item, if one does not eat a kezayit of the forbidden item itself within the time of eating a pras—he is not lashed for it, and certainly so regarding taste alone. However, Rabbeinu Tam and the Ra'avad ruled that "taste is like the substance" is forbidden by the Torah, as the Tur wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 98, see there. And according to this, we shall say that the Rif and the Rambam, who required that some wine emerge from the raisins themselves, follow their reasoning that "taste is like the substance" is rabbinic, while we rely on Rabbeinu Tam and the Ra'avad that "taste is like the substance" is from the Torah. If so, consequently, when the water absorbed the taste of the wine hidden within the grapes—and you have no "taste is like the substance" greater than this—therefore we recite over it "borei pri hagafen." However, it is certain that with our raisin wine, if even a little water or another drink is mixed in, it ruins the taste completely and we recite over it "shehakol." And the laws that were explained, such as conditum and the mixture of wine in beer, do not apply to our raisin wine, and in siman 204 section 16 a fine reason for this will be explained, see there.

Regarding all fruit of the tree, as soon as the fruit has grown somewhat and one desires to eat it—one recites over it 'borei peri ha'etz' even though its ripening is not complete, provided it is fit for eating even with difficulty, for it is standing for eating and he is eating it. However, if it is not fit for eating at all even with difficulty, such as if it is extremely bitter or extremely astringent, which they call "sauer"—one does not recite a blessing over it at all, and it is like a mere piece of wood. And if one prepares it by means of fire, he recites 'shehakol', for it is not yet within the category of fruit of the tree. Therefore, all types of apples and all types of pears and all types of cherries, even though their ripening is not yet complete, since they are eaten with difficulty—one recites over them 'borei peri ha'etz'.

And regarding grapes it is not so, for as long as they are still unripe and have not reached the size of a white bean - one recites over them "borei peri ha'adamah." And the reason for the matter: because the primary purpose of grapes is to make wine from them, if so, as long as they have not reached this size they are not fit to make wine from them, and their blessing is not "ha'etz" but "ha'adamah" like other fruit of the ground, for the name "grapes" is nullified from them. And the size of a white bean is not known to us, and therefore one always recites over them "borei peri ha'adamah" until it is visible to the eyes that their ripening is complete. And this is not against the law, for behold, after the fact, if one recited "ha'adamah" over "ha'etz" he has fulfilled his obligation, and therefore as long as there is a doubt - one recites "ha'adamah." And some say that over carobs one does not recite "ha'etz" until there appears in them a kind of chain of carobs, and similarly regarding olives until the blossom grows around them, for before this the name of fruit is not upon them at all and one recites over them "ha'adamah." Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that such is the primary ruling, and there are those who disagree on this (see Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And we have no knowledge in this, for they do not grow in our countries.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: "Fruit seeds: if they are sweet—one recites over them 'borei peri ha'etz,' and if they are bitter—one does not recite a blessing over them at all, and if he sweetens them by means of fire—one recites over them 'shehakol'." Thus far his words. For he holds that seeds are like the fruit itself, as they are subject to the laws of orlah, as we learned in a Mishnah in the first chapter of Orlah: "Nut shells and the seeds—are subject to orlah." The Tosafot and the Rosh in Berakhot (37b) inferred from this that their blessing is also "ha'etz." However, the Rashba disagrees on this, and he holds that certainly seeds are not included in the category of fruit, and one does not recite "ha'etz" over them but rather "ha'adamah," and regarding orlah there is an exposition where we include from the phrase 'et piryo'—that which is secondary to the fruit, but not regarding the matter of a blessing. Many great authorities were concerned for his opinion, and ruled that one should recite "ha'adamah" over the seeds, and some are concerned to recite only "shehakol" (see Ba'er Heitev and Sha'arei Teshuvah subsection 6 and Magen Avraham subsection 7). It is good to recite "ha'adamah," for with this we also fulfill the opinion of the Tosafot and the Rosh, since one fulfills the obligation post facto with "ha'adamah" even over fruit of the tree. (The Magen Avraham subsection 7 raised a difficulty as to why he ruled that for one who sweetens by means of fire the blessing is "shehakol," how is it different from almonds, see there; and I wonder, for he himself ruled so in subsection 5, see there and examine it closely). And in section 23 the difference between various types of seeds will be explained, see there.

All liquids that emerge from all fruits, such as when one squeezed them and extracted liquids from them—it is merely perspiration and their blessing is "shehakol," for people do not plant fruit with the intent for liquids, except for olives and grapes whose primary planting is for oil and for wine; for these, their blessing is "ha'etz," and for wine they established a blessing for itself, "hagafen," because of its importance. However, over oil one blesses "ha'etz" just as over the olives themselves. Nevertheless, this is a remote reality to bless over olive oil, for if one drinks oil as it is, behold it causes him harm and one does not bless over it at all, and if he ate it with bread, behold the bread is the primary and the oil is secondary, and he blesses over the primary and exempts the secondary. And you do not find it except when one drinks the oil for medicinal purposes and eats a little bread with it so that the oil will not harm him, for then he blesses over the oil since his primary intent is for the oil (ibid. subsection 8). And so too when he puts other liquids into the oil so that the oil will not harm him, and his intent is only for the oil—that he blesses "ha'etz" (ibid.). And even though he intends it for medicinal purposes, nevertheless, since he derives pleasure from this, he is obligated in a blessing, and only because the nature of the oil is to harm the palate when one drinks it by itself, therefore he takes some other thing, but his primary intent is for the oil. And the Rambam in chapter 8 ruled that one who drinks oil blesses "shehakol," and it requires further study, and the Tur has already critiqued him.

And similar to this they said in the Gemara (36a): For example, one who has a sore throat and drinks the oil for medicinal purposes mixed with beet water called anigron, for then, not only does it not harm him, on the contrary, it benefits the throat, and the oil is the primary component and he recites over it "borei pri ha'etz," even if the oil is less than the beet water (ibid. subsection 9), since his primary intention is for the oil—he recites "ha'etz." Therefore, if he does not have a sore throat and does not intend it for medicine but rather for eating—the anigron is the primary component even if it is less than the oil, and its blessing is "shehakol," for the anigron is the primary component and the oil is secondary, and one recites the blessing over the primary component and exempts the secondary component (from all this it is clarified that there is pleasure in drinking oil, and among us this is not known, and perhaps their oil was better than ours and it requires further study).

Regarding almonds, there are two types: sweet and bitter; and the sweet ones are like all other fruits. The bitter ones, in their maturity, are not fit for eating due to their bitterness and are not included in a blessing, and they are used for spice, but on their own they are not fit for eating at all. However, in their smallness, the shell upon them is sweet, and they are eaten for the sake of the shell, and many plant them for this purpose to eat them in their smallness, and therefore one recites over them "borei peri ha'etz." And the large ones, when one sweetens them by means of fire or by means of something else—one also recites over them "borei peri ha'etz." And it is not similar to the pits in section 19 where in such a case one recites "shehakol," for there the pit is not the primary fruit, and therefore when they are only fit by means of fire, they are not included as the fruit. But here, it is the primary fruit, and their eating is by means of fire and they plant them for this, to sweeten them by means of fire, and this is their primary eating and we rightly recite "borei peri ha'etz" (Levush, and this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 13). To what is this comparable? To vegetables whose eating is only by means of cooking, and we recite over them "borei peri ha'adamah" as was written in siman 205, and so too it is here.

In the time of our Sages, there was a type of tree called tzalaf, and it has four things that are fit for eating: the first is the essence of the fruit and is called aviyonot; the second is that around the fruit grows a large husk like the husk of thin nuts and is called kapris; the third are the leaves, which are also fit for eating; and the fourth is that within the leaves grow a type of sprouts. And the planting is only for the sake of the essence of the fruit, and therefore over the aviyonot one recites "borei peri ha'etz," and over the kaprisin, the leaves, and the sprouts one recites "borei peri ha'adamah." And the general rule regarding the fruits of trees is: for everything that is the intent of the planting—one recites "ha'etz," and for everything for which there is no intent of planting—one recites "ha'adamah." And seeds for which one recites "ha'etz" is because their intent is for the seeds, as there are fruits where the primary taste is in the seeds. And when there is a doubt if they plant with this in mind—one recites "ha'adamah." And according to this, it seems clear to me that what was explained, that one recites "ha'etz" over the seeds, is only regarding fruits that are full of seeds, such as raisins, figs, pomegranates, and the like, for when one eats them, one eats them with their seeds. But the seeds of apples, pears, and the like, whose eating is without the seeds—one does not recite "ha'etz" over the seed but rather "ha'adamah" or "shehakol," and so it seems to me the primary ruling (and according to the Rambam in chapter 11 of Terumot there is a distinction between types of seeds, see there).

The Rambam wrote in chapter 8, law 4: "Dates that one mashed by hand and removed their pits and made like a dough—one recites over them initially 'borei pri ha'etz' and at the end 'me'ein shalosh'." Thus far his words. That is to say, so that you should not say that the blessing of 'borei pri ha'etz' and 'me'ein shalosh' is only when eating the fruit as it is, where the form of the fruit is recognizable, but when one mashes it like a dough it has descended from its status, for it is not so. This is the wording of the Gemara (38a): "And the halakha is: dates that one made into a mash—we recite over them 'borei pri ha'etz'. What is the reason: they remain in their state as they were originally." See there. And it is simple that the law is the same for all fruits, and therefore our pavidla, where they mash the fruits and fry them until they dry and cut them into pieces—one recites over them 'borei pri ha'etz'. And so wrote our teacher, the Rema, on the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7, who transcribed the wording of the Rambam, and this is his wording: "And according to this, over lekvary, which is called pavidla—one recites over them 'borei pri ha'etz'." Thus far his words.

But afterward he wrote that there are those who say to recite the blessing of 'shehakol' over them. And it is good to be concerned initially to recite 'shehakol', but if one recited 'borei pri ha'etz' - he has fulfilled his obligation, for so it appears to be the primary view. Thus far his words. And it has been explained that the opinions of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, are to recite 'ha'etz', except that our teacher, the Rema, was concerned initially for the opinion of 'there are those who say', and he is the author of the Terumat HaDeshen in siman 29 who ruled to recite 'shehakol'. And since in my humble opinion that of the Terumat HaDeshen is a completely different matter, I am therefore compelled to explain them. But first we will explain the words of the Tur which are seemingly very puzzling, and afterward we will explain the words of the Terumat HaDeshen with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of the Tur: "Dates that one crushed slightly and are not completely mashed—'borei pri ha'etz', and over the honey that flows from them—'shehakol'. And the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot wrote specifically where one mixed water into it, but if it is as it is—'borei pri ha'etz', and the Ri would not differentiate. And the Rambam wrote: Date honey—'shehakol', but dates that one squeezed by hand... and made from them a dough—one recites 'borei pri ha'etz' and afterward... and it is possible that even the Ri admits in this matter, since they are present—they are considered like the essence of the fruit according to everyone" thus far his words. And he contradicts himself, for previously he wrote specifically that those not completely mashed are 'borei pri ha'etz', and it implies explicitly that regarding those completely mashed one does not recite 'borei pri ha'etz', for so it implies from the commentary of Rashi regarding that of trima, who wrote that trima is something crushed slightly and is not mashed thus far his words. And it is apparently explained that regarding that which is mashed, their blessing is not 'borei pri ha'etz', and if so, how did the Tur write afterward that according to everyone they admit to the Rambam, for that of the Rambam is completely mashed since they are like a dough. And the commentators of the Tur (the Beit Yosef and the Bach) wrote that in truth he retracts his previous reasoning and rejects the commentary of Rashi because of the Rambam, see there, and the difficulty is evident.

But in truth, it appears to me as the author of the Derishah wrote, that there is no contradiction here at all. And that which he wrote, "they are not completely crushed," this is its explanation: that it is not crushed until it becomes like a liquid or honey, for in this the Rambam certainly admits since the name of food has been nullified from it. And the Rambam is dealing with a case where the appearance of food is upon it, but it has become like a dough and its appearance has become confused, but nevertheless it is food, like our pavidla, and in this even Rashi admits that one recites over it "ha-etz." (And for the law, the Taz in subsection 4 also rules accordingly, but he was pressed regarding the wording of Rashi, see there. And according to the words of the Derishah there is no pressure here, and it is a completely different matter as I wrote). And the language of "risuk" is that it becomes like a liquid, as in "one may not crush (meraskin) the snow."

And according to this, I say that even the words of the author of the Terumat HaDeshen are a different matter, and this is his wording: "Question: Regarding the latwerge made from cherries called weichseln, which are cooked until they are completely dissolved and mixed with spices and honey, should one recite the berakhah of 'shehakol' or 'ha'etz' over them? Answer: ... However, when we are precise in the commentary of Rashi regarding that of trima ... it implies that if they were mashed a great deal, we recite 'shehakol' over them ... for they are completely dissolved, etc." Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, siman 204, wondered about him, how he did not bring the words of the Rambam at all; see there that he rejected his words. But in truth, this is not the same matter at all as the words of the Rambam, for he is dealing with a case where they are completely dissolved until they become like a liquid, as is clear from his wording, and we also have this, where they dissolve the fruits and squeeze them and fry them in honey or in sugar syrup, and the berakhah of this is certainly 'shehakol', and they call this syrup.

And behold, also in the Maharik (Root 43) I found, and this is his wording: "Regarding the grapes that they cook until they become thick and they call it 'konfat,' and you were in doubt whether to recite 'shehakol' over it or 'ha'etz' since it changed for the better... it seems to me that one recites 'shehakol'... but this 'konfat' which has neither the appearance of grapes nor the taste of grapes at all... and it did not change for the better but for the worse, etc." Thus far his words. And previously he wrote that 'konfat' does not come in the manner of its eating at all, and they do not plant with this intention, etc. Thus far his words. And he did not bring the words of the Rambam at all, nor that of 'terima,' but certainly it deals with a case where it became like a thick liquid. And even in this, he wrote because it changed for the worse and has no grape taste at all and they do not plant with this intention. But our 'pavidla' which is food as before, except that its appearance is confounded, and also it changed for the better as is known, and also one tastes in it the taste of the fruit — there is no doubt in this that one recites over it 'borei pri ha'etz,' and so I conduct myself and so one should instruct in practice. (And also the words of the Magen Avraham, subsection 18, indicate so, as he distinguishes between those completely dissolved through cooking and those not completely dissolved, except that his wording is brief, but his intention is not to distinguish between cooked and not cooked, see there carefully. And see in the Levush who distinguishes between one crushing and another crushing, and they have already challenged him, see Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 11, who pressed to settle his words, but according to our words there is no need for all this, and examine it well.)

Regarding orange peels, the poskim disagreed as to which berakhah is recited over them: some say "ha'etz" (Magen Avraham subsection 17), for since regarding orlah we hold that the peel and the pit are subject to orlah (36b), and if so, just as we have ruled that over pits one recites "ha'etz," so too over peels. And some say to recite "ha'adamah" (Turei Zahav in siman 204 subsection 15). And his reason is that even though it is subject to orlah, this is because it is a protector for the fruit, and we include it from "its fruit"—that which is secondary to its fruit—but not for the matter of a berakhah, for they do not plant with the intent of the peels, and it is like the caper-buds, leaves, and shoots of the caper bush in section 23. And some say to recite "shehakol" (Olat Tamid and Eliyah Rabbah in siman 203 subsection 2). And I have not come to decide the matter, except that I have heard clearly that most of our oranges that come from Italy are not the peels of lemons or apples as people are accustomed to say, but rather they are the essence of the plantings and they are like the fruits themselves, for their growth is such like peels and they pluck the fruits and cut them into oranges, and if so, we certainly recite over them "borei peri ha'etz." And from the day I heard this, I recite over them "borei peri ha'etz," especially since the first opinion holds so even if they are the peels of a fruit (and also the Panim Me'irot siman 65 decided like the Magen Avraham as the Ba'er Heitev wrote in subsection 13, and perhaps for the reason we wrote, and I do not have his book at hand to see there, and so ruled the Chayei Adam klal 52 to recite "ha'etz," see there).

We have already written that for liquids that emerge from all types of fruit by means of squeezing—one recites 'shehakol', for it is merely sweat, except for olives and grapes; therefore, even the honey that flows from dates, its blessing is 'shehakol'. And the opinion of the Ba'ag is to recite 'ha'etz', as I wrote in section 26, and perhaps his reasoning is because in the Torah it is written 'honey' and it is written 'flowing with milk and honey', which implies that this is the primary part of the fruit. But all the poskim disagree with him, for the honey in the Torah is dates, and they are like all fruits and their blessing is 'shehakol'. And so too the ends of grapes that never ripen and it is impossible to make wine from them at all and they make vinegar from them, and therefore they are not included in the category of grapes—and one recites over them 'shehakol'. And it is not similar to boser over which one recites 'ha'adamah', for boser is destined to grow and even now it is possible to make wine from it, and therefore it only descends from the status of 'ha'etz' to 'ha'adamah', but these have the law of the vinegar that emerges from them. And so too regarding a type of dates called 'novlot', which means they ripened and the heat scorched them and they dried out and it is impossible to make honey from them at all, and they are not included in the category of dates—and one recites over them 'shehakol', for they have changed significantly for the worse.

It is stated in the Gemara (39a): "The water of beets is like beets, and the water of turnips is like turnips, and the water of all boiled vegetables is like all boiled vegetables," and likewise the water of dill, and this is a vegetable placed in the pot to sweeten the pot and not to be eaten (Rashi). It is explained from this that when one boils vegetables or fruits in water—one recites the blessing over the broth just as over the vegetables and fruits themselves. And it is not similar to fruit juice, regarding which we say it is merely moisture and its blessing is 'she-hakol', as was written in the previous section, for there their taste is not like the taste of the fruits. But the water of boiled vegetables, its taste is like the taste of the boiled vegetables themselves, and therefore one recites over the broth the same blessing as the fruit itself (Rosh chapter 6, siman 18). And likewise, if one boiled a fruit of the tree and the taste entered the cooking water—one recites 'ha-etz', and according to this, if one boiled plums or raisins—one recites over the water also 'ha-etz', and if one boiled cabbage or beets—one recites over the water 'ha-adamah'.

This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in siman 205, section 2: "Over the water in which vegetables were cooked—one recites the same berakhah that is recited over the vegetables themselves, even though they contain only the flavor of the vegetable. And these words apply when one cooked them without meat, but if one cooked them with meat—one recites 'shehakol' over it." Thus far their words. For since there is another flavor in them besides the flavor of the vegetables, we do not follow the flavor of the vegetable. And consequently, the same law applies if one cooked vegetables in vinegar or in kvas or in borscht—one does not recite 'ha'adamah' over the broth but rather 'shehakol', because it contains another flavor besides the vegetables (Taz ibid. subsection 5). And according to this, the same law applies when one cooks cabbage or beets with milk and adds milk or sour cream to them as is customary—one also does not recite 'ha'adamah' over the broth but rather 'shehakol'. And the general rule of the matter is: that one does not recite 'ha'adamah' over the broth of vegetables unless the vegetables were cooked with water and nothing else was added to them, such that they contain only the flavor of the vegetables; and whenever the broth contains a flavor besides the vegetables—one recites 'shehakol' over the broth.

And all this is regarding vegetables, but regarding fruits, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in this siman, section 10: "Fruits that one soaked or cooked in water, even though the flavor of the fruit entered the water—one only recites 'shehakol' over that water. And the Rosh wrote that it is possible that where the flavor of the fruit entered the water, one recites 'borei pri ha'etz'." Thus far his words. And the first opinion is the view of the Rashba, who distinguishes between vegetables and fruits, for he wrote that specifically vegetables whose way is to be boiled and are not eaten without boiling, such as kraut and boryekes, therefore their primary consumption is through cooking, and therefore their water is like them. But fruits, their primary consumption is when they are raw, and therefore in their cooking, the broth does not have the law of the fruits. And when there are fruits whose way is only through cooking, such as dried plums—one recites 'ha'etz' over the broth even according to the Rashba (Taz, subsection 8), and similarly dried apples and pears that are not eaten except by means of cooking—one recites 'ha'etz'. (Bach) And the same law applies to saftalin, and similarly dried raisins, whose primary consumption is by means of cooking.

But there are those who disagree on this, and they maintain that according to the opinion of the Rashba, one does not recite the blessing of "ha'etz" over any fruit broth, for the reasoning of the Rashba is that we require things whose primary planting is for cooking, such as cabbage and beet vegetables. However, all types of fruits, their primary planting is to eat them raw, and it is of no avail that they dry them until they are not fit without cooking (Levush and Magen Avraham, subsection 22). And according to this, even over broth of plums and any broth of types of dried fruits—one recites "shehakol." And behold, for the law, a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently and one recites "shehakol," for after the fact, even according to the Rosh, one fulfills the obligation with this.

The Rambam has another approach to all this in chapter 8, law 4, and I am surprised at our teachers that they did not bring his words at all. This is the wording of the Rambam: "Vegetables whose way is to be boiled: if one boiled them—he blesses over their boiling water 'borei pri ha'adamah,' and this is specifically when he boiled them to drink their water, for the water of boiled vegetables is like the boiled vegetables in a place where it is the way to drink them." Thus far his words. Behold, according to his approach, this is not applicable to all types of our boiled vegetables, such as cabbage and beets that are cooked to be eaten with the broth, for according to the Rambam it is only specifically when they are cooked only for their water, and all the more so this is not applicable to fruits. And in this, his opinion clearly appears like the opinion of the Rashba, that this law is only regarding vegetables alone, and even regarding vegetables it is only when the cooking is only for their water. And we also have instances such as when they cook whole beets for the broth and call this "rassel," which is when the beets are cast out or given to the animal. According to this, in practice, we should not bless over any broth the blessing of the fruit, but only "shehakol," unless one cooks a vegetable for the water and there is no meat or milk in it, for then according to all opinions one blesses "ha'adamah." And it appears to me that even if one flavors the "rassel" with one or two eggs in the way of the world, nevertheless its blessing is "ha'adamah," for the eggs are not recognizable at all in the broth as is known, unless one poured many eggs into it. But meat or milk or congealed milk that is called "smantena" give a significant taste to the "rassel" and one blesses "shehakol," and so it appears to me as the practical halacha.

And it seems to me there is proof for the words of the Rambam that the essence of this matter is that it is made for drinking, for behold, at the beginning of "Keitzad Mevarchin," the Shas says regarding oil that one drinks by means of anigron, for Rava said: "Anigron is beet water, ansigron is the water of all boiled vegetables," see there; behold, the Shas calls this drinking, and here it also says: "beet water, the water of all boiled vegetables." And so it is implied from the words of Rabbeinu Yonah, who asked: since the water of boiled vegetables is like the boiled vegetables, why do we not recite over barley beer "ha-adamah" just as over the barley itself? And he answered: that the way of the water of boiled vegetables is to eat bread with them, see there. And if it should enter your mind that when their cooking is to eat with the boiled vegetables, this is no comparison to beer; rather, certainly they are similar to beer, which they cook initially only for the sake of the beverage, and so it is explained to me from the words of the Mordechai, see there. (See Magen Avraham siman 205, subsection 6, and there it will be further explained regarding this with the help of Heaven, see there; and see Nishmat Adam klal 52 what he wrote regarding the intent of the Rambam, and there is no reason in them, see there and examine carefully).

And regarding the juice of a pickled vegetable, such as the rasil of kraut or of cucumbers, it appears that their law is like that of cooking, for the taste is like the vegetables themselves and the majority of their planting is for the purpose of pickling them, and one eats the vegetable with the juice when they are pickled. Therefore, according to the Rosh and the Rashba, when one drinks them—he recites 'ha-adamah'. However, according to what we explained regarding the opinion of the Rambam—their blessing is 'she-hakol', because their pickling is not for the sake of their liquid alone. Nevertheless, it appears to me that regarding kraut, since one does not put water in them but rather the kraut releases juice from its own essence, even according to the Rambam one recites 'ha-adamah' since it contains the taste of the kraut itself, and it is not similar to fruit juice as I wrote in section 32. But rasil of beets: when one drinks it raw—he recites 'she-hakol' according to all opinions, because it is not the way to drink it raw but rather cooked. And there is one who wrote that rasil of cucumbers is intended for pouring out (Chayei Adam ibid.), but it is not so, and many poor people eat this with bread, and it also comes to the table for the wealthy as is known. And kvass from berries or from apples—certainly its blessing is 'she-hakol', for they do not contain the taste of the fruit and are merely water, and such is the common custom (and so wrote the Chayei Adam) (and see Taz at the end of subsection 10 and his words are puzzling, and examine it well).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: "One who drinks the soaking water of raisins and figs or the water they were cooked in—he blesses 'shehakol' over them and fulfills his obligation even according to the Rosh, but regarding the blessing after them, there is a doubt whether he blesses 'borei nefashot' or if he blesses 'one blessing abridged from the three'" Thus far his words. That is to say, since according to the Rosh fruit water is like vegetable water, and according to the Rashba it is not so, as has been explained, behold regarding the first blessing, when he blesses 'shehakol' like the Rashba, he fulfills his obligation even according to the Rosh, because for all of them if he said 'shehakol' he fulfilled his obligation; but regarding the final blessing, what shall he do? For behold they are of the seven species and require according to the Rosh an abridged blessing from the three like the fruit itself, and if he blesses 'borei nefashot' like the Rashba, behold he does not fulfill his obligation according to the Rosh. However, automatically, 'a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently,' and he should not bless 'abridged from the three' which is a blessing in vain according to the opinion of the Rashba, nor 'borei nefashot' which is a blessing in vain according to the Rosh, and therefore our teacher, the Beit Yosef, exerted himself to find a remedy as will be explained. And it seems to me that if there is no remedy—he should bless 'borei nefashot,' for we have already explained that the Rambam also holds in this like the Rashba, and so it appears from Rabbeinu Yonah and from the Mordechai and they are many, and as I wrote in section 37 (so it appears in my humble opinion).

And he wrote further: "Therefore, a God-fearing person should not drink except within the meal, or he should eat a fruit from the seven species and also drink water, so that he will need to recite one blessing of me'ein shalosh and 'borei nefashot'. And if he drew the water and separated it from the raisins—it becomes wine, and he recites 'borei pri hagafen' and one blessing of me'ein shalosh. And this is provided that they are raisins that have moisture, such that if one treads on them, their honey would emerge. But if when they are squeezed no moisture of honey emerges from them—no" thus far his words. And that which he wrote previously, that for the water of soaked raisins one recites 'shehakol', is because as long as the raisins are mixed with the water they do not have the status of wine, and when he drew them and separated them from the water they have the status of wine, as is written in Yoreh Deah in siman 123. And there is one who wrote that after three days, even when the raisins are within the wine, they have the law of wine (Taz, subsection 10), and there is one who says that this is also the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for that which he wrote: "if he drew and separated them from the raisins," the intention is not that he separated the raisins from the wine, but rather the raisins are still mixed in the water, but that he drew into a vessel only the water, whereas previously it was dealing with one who took into a vessel the water with the raisins (Magen Avraham, subsection 27). And that which he wrote that specifically there must be moisture in them, we explained in section 16, see there. And that which he wrote that he should recite a blessing of me'ein shalosh and 'borei nefashot', there is one who says that he should recite 'borei nefashot' first, for if he recites 'me'ein shalosh' first, perhaps it will exempt 'borei nefashot'. But it is not so, for water is certainly not exempted by a blessing of me'ein shalosh, and he may prioritize whichever he desires (see Magen Avraham, subsection 26).

And know that regarding the dispute of the Rosh with the Rashba concerning fruit juice, there is another doubt where it is impossible to satisfy all opinions, such as if one drinks the water in which figs were soaked and also eats figs, what shall he do regarding the concluding blessing. For according to the Rosh, he recites over both of them a blessing abridged from the three, but according to the Rashba, he recites over the figs a blessing abridged from the three and over their water "borei nefashot," and therefore he must also drink water or eat something whose concluding blessing is "borei nefashot" and recite both blessings (Magen Avraham, subsection 24).

Any fruit that is good raw and cooked, such as apples and pears—one recites over them "borei peri ha'etz," whether when eating them raw, or cooked, or when they are preserved in honey or in vinegar or in another liquid. And any that one eats only raw, and when it is cooked its taste is spoiled—one recites over the raw "ha'etz" and over the cooked "ha'adamah," and over preserved: if it is good in its preservation—one recites "ha'etz," and if not—"ha'adamah." And so too the opposite, if it is not the way to eat them raw but only cooked: when they are raw—one recites "shehakol," and when they are cooked "ha'etz," and so too when they are preserved. And why does one not recite "ha'adamah" when they are raw as with unripe fruit? For it can be said that since their planting is to eat them only by means of cooking, therefore as long as they have not been cooked they are not in the category of fruit (so it is necessary to distinguish according to the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in section 12 that one recites "shehakol," and so wrote the Tosafot 38b s.v. "mashkachat" see there, and so it is implied in the Levush see there and examine carefully).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 13: "A finished nut fried in honey, called niand"o or noyat"e—one recites over it 'borei peri ha'etz'; a soft nut that is cooked in honey and called nu"s muskad"ah—one recites over it 'shehakol'; and similarly those nuts that are cooked in honey while they are still green—one recites 'shehakol'." Thus far their words. And behold, we do not know of this at all, but according to the matter it appears that the finished nut is fit for eating even before cooking, and after cooking it is not so good when it is without honey, but in honey it is much better than when it is raw; therefore its blessing is 'ha'etz' as it was before cooking. And even though the primary improvement in its cooking is by means of the honey—and indeed for this reason the Tur cited "there are those who say" that one recites over it after cooking 'shehakol'—nevertheless the Tur rejected this, and his reason is clear: since even while it is raw it is good for eating, it does not descend from its status because of the honey; even though the honey prepares it, nevertheless the nut is the primary element and the intent of the eater is toward it, not toward the honey. But the soft nut is not fit for eating at all while it is raw, and it is impossible to eat it except by means of cooking in honey; therefore the honey is the primary element and one recites 'shehakol'. Nevertheless, if it were a finished fruit that people plant with this intention, like orange peels, one would recite over it 'ha'etz'; but it is not a finished fruit and people do not plant it with this intention, therefore its blessing is 'shehakol'. And this is the reason also regarding the nuts that are cooked in honey while they are still green, that one recites 'shehakol', and there is one who wrote that this itself is the soft nut. (And the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 31 that that which was printed 'and similarly those nuts' is an error, and thus it should say 'and they are those etc.' See there).

The Tosafot and the Rosh wrote (36b, s.v. 'bertiva') that over sugar one recites 'borei pri ha'etz,' for "my honeycomb (ya'ari) with my honey" refers to sugar. Our teacher Yonah wrote there that over sugar one recites 'borei pri ha'adamah,' and he cited this in the name of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot. The Rambam in chapter 8, law 5, wrote: "The sweet canes that one squeezes and cooks their water until it congeals and resembles salt: all the Geonim say that one recites over them 'borei pri ha'adamah,' and some of them said 'borei pri ha'etz,' and similarly they said that one who sucks those canes recites 'borei pri ha'adamah.' And I say that this is not a fruit and one recites over it only 'shehakol,' so that the honey of these canes, which was changed by fire, should not be greater than the honey of dates, which was not changed by fire, and yet one recites over it 'shehakol.'" Thus far his words. The Tur disagreed with him, for this is not comparable to date honey, where the primary fruit is the dates and the honey is like all liquids that emerge from fruits; however, with sugar, the primary planting is with the intent of the honey, and this is their primary fruit, and one recites 'borei pri ha'etz,' see there. But the intent of the Rambam appears to be that he holds these canes are not in the category of fruit at all, just as the Geonim who hold to recite over them 'ha'adamah' do so because they hold this is not a tree but merely like a planting, and the Rambam holds it is not a fruit at all but merely canes that contain sweetness. The Tosafot brought proof from that which is written, "my honeycomb (ya'ari) with my honey," that it called this 'ya'ar,' which is a tree, but the Rambam holds that 'ya'ari' does not refer to 'devashi,' and this is its explanation: my honeycomb with my honey that is within the forest. And that which he wrote: "so that the honey of these canes... should not be greater than the honey of dates, etc.," this is its explanation: for certainly something that produces honey is not called a fruit, for behold, date honey is not called a fruit even though the Torah called the dates 'honey'; nevertheless, it was simple to the Rabbis that the intent is for the dates and not for the honey, and they uprooted the verse from its literal meaning, because it is not logical to say that honey is a fruit, all the more so for these canes which cannot be called a fruit because of their honey which becomes honey through cooking. Consequently, for the law we are concerned for the opinion of the Rambam and recite 'shehakol,' for with this one fulfills the obligation according to all opinions, and so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 15. (So it appears to me regarding the intent of the Rambam, and the Turei Zahav in subsection 13 and the Gra questioned the words of the Kesef Mishneh. And that which the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 32, that it is similar to fruit juice, see there, it is more difficult: why are they similar to fruit juice, behold this is their primary fruit? But according to our words it settles well, and examine it closely).

Items that are not normally eaten but are added as spices to food through mixtures, such as: dry pepper and ginger which is called "ingber," and cloves which are called "negelach," and galangal and zedoary and the like—one does not recite any blessing over them, for this is not human food at all, and one who eats them, his intention is nullified by that of all people, and it is like one who recites a blessing over mere wood. However, over nutmeg—one recites "borei pri ha'etz," and even though it is also added as a spice in foods, nevertheless, people eat it in its dry state by itself as well (Magen Avraham, subsection 34). And one who has diarrhea and puts the nutmeg into beer so that it will restrain it, if he is not thirsty and the nutmeg is the primary thing for him—he recites "ha'etz" over it, as with oil in section 20, see there. And if he is thirsty, he recites "shehakol" over the beer, for it is the primary thing (ibid.). And over cinnamon which is "zimring," when one eats it in its dry state—one recites "ha'adamah," and even though its primary use is for spice, nevertheless it has a pleasant taste even when eating it alone, and it is not similar to "ingber." And over pepper and ginger when they are moist—"borei pri ha'adamah," for then they are good for eating. And even though they are trees, nevertheless most people plant them with the intention that they will dry out and the intent is not to eat them in their moist state, and therefore their blessing is "ha'adamah" and their law is like unripe fruit (see Magen Avraham, subsection 35). And the general rule of the matter: all fruits that one knows of them that they are the primary fruit—one recites over them "borei pri ha'etz," and those that are not the primary fruit—one recites "borei pri ha'adamah," and if he is in doubt whether it is the primary fruit or not—he also recites "ha'adamah." And if he does not know at all what it is—he recites "shehakol," and one who has not studied should go to a sage and he will teach him the laws of blessings (Gemara 35a).