Siman 204

Over things whose growth is not from the ground, such as the meat of domestic animals, wild animals, and fowl, fish, eggs, milk, and cheese—one recites the blessing "she-ha-kol nihyeh bi-dvaro," which is a general blessing over all things in the world. And even though all living creatures are nourished from the ground, nevertheless, their growth is not from the ground (see Eruvin 27b). And it must be understood why they changed the phrasing in the blessing of "she-ha-kol," for it should have said: "borei kol bi-dvaro," and just as we say: "borei minei mezonot," "borei peri ha-etz," "peri ha-adamah," so too we should have said here as well the phrasing "borei kol bi-dvaro." And it appears that the term "creation" [beri'ah] is only applicable to something that is renewed every year, such as grain and fruits, for the term "creation" refers to renewal, as in "In the beginning G-d created [bara]." But anything that is permanent, such as living creatures and water and the like, the term "creation" is not applicable to them, but rather the term "existence" [havayah], meaning to say "He spoke and it was," and this is why we say "she-ha-kol nihyeh bi-dvaro." And "nihyeh" is with a segol under the yod, which is the present tense, and not with a kamatz, which is the past tense, for in all blessings we employ the intermediate form which includes the past and the future, because His supervision, may He be blessed, is constant without a moment's interruption, as I wrote in siman 167, section 7; see there.

And so too bread that has become moldy and somewhat spoiled, such that it is not as good for eating as before, and so too a cooked dish whose form has changed and is not as good as before, and so too wine that has formed a film and spoiled somewhat until its smell is wine and its taste is vinegar—one recites over them 'shehakol', for it is impossible to recite over them their previous blessing using the language of 'borei', because they have spoiled from their state of creation. And it is simple that this refers to a case where even now it is possible to eat them with difficulty, for if they are not fit for eating at all—they are not included in the category of blessing, and it is as if one eats wood and stones.

And similarly, fruits that were spoiled from the beginning of their creation, and the Shas calls this the term "novlot," and they are those that fell from the tree before their ripening (Bach and Magen Avraham and Taz), or dates that ripened and afterwards the heat scorched them and they dried out—their blessing is "shehakol." And it appears to me that falling from the tree is only because such is the way of these fruits that never ripen and their way is to fall before their ripening, but those whose way is to ripen on the tree but fell before their ripening—their blessing is "borei pri ha'etz," for on all fruits except grapes one recites the blessing "ha'etz" even while they are unripe, as has been explained in siman 202 section 17 (and so it is explicit from the Taz, subsection 3).

And likewise over the locusts, and these are pure grasshoppers, and over salt and over salt water—one recites 'she-ha-kol'. And likewise over meat broth—one recites 'she-ha-kol', and this is in a case where there is only broth alone, for if there were some food item in it, its blessing is like the blessing of the food when one eats them together, for the food is the primary element and the broth is secondary, unless the food is very minimal and is only there to give flavor to the broth like soup, for then the primary element is the broth and one recites 'she-ha-kol'. And the details of this law will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 208.

And over truffles and mushrooms, which are called "shvemlach," when one eats them by themselves after they have been cooked—their berakhah is "she-hakol." And even though they also draw nourishment from the ground, nevertheless, their growth is from the air, and it is impossible to recite over them "borei peri ha-adamah." And those that are created beneath the ground and are created from the fat of the earth are called truffles, and mushrooms are another species that sometimes grow on trees (Perishah). And it appears in my humble opinion that post facto, if one recited "ha-adamah" over them—he has fulfilled his obligation, since their nourishment is from the ground. And it is obvious that if one puts them into a food, they are secondary to the food, and one does not recite a berakhah over them.

And our sages, of blessed memory, said (36a): On kora, which is the top of the date palm when it is soft (Aruch, entry 'kor'), and Rashi explained: "The soft part of the (date) palm; as its branches grow each and every year, that which is added in this year is soft, and in the second year it hardens and becomes like wood" thus far his words, and it is fit for eating when it is soft—and its berakhah is 'shehakol', because people do not plant with the intent of kora (Gemara). and one should not ask that in any event we should recite over it 'ha'adamah' as with the caper-bush regarding the kaprisin, as I wrote in siman 202, for it is not comparable; for with the caper-bush they know that they will eat the kaprisin, rather it is just not the primary fruit, and therefore it only descends one level from 'ha'etz' to 'ha'adamah'. But with the kora, the planter does not want them to be eaten at all, for he plants so that it will harden and become wood, and therefore it is not included in the category of fruit at all and its berakhah is shehakol (it appears to me).

Therefore, even those vine shoots that are eaten while they are soft—their blessing is also "shehakol," as they are not planted with the intent of eating at all (Tosafot). Similarly, almonds when they are soft and one eats their outer shell, and they were not planted with the intent to eat at all except to eat the kernels when they ripen—their blessing is also "shehakol" (ibid.). And it is not similar to unripe grapes (boser), for with boser one eats the fruit, whereas here one eats the shell, and people do not plant with the intent of the shell (Rashba). Therefore, one who eats the pods of legumes while they are moist and green—he also blesses "shehakol," for the primary purpose of their planting is so that the pods and the legumes will dry, and then the pods are not fit for human consumption. However, some say that this applies to legumes in the fields, but those in the garden where one sows a few legumes to eat them while they are soft—one blesses on the pods also "ha'adamah" just as on the legumes, because they were planted with this intent (Taz, subsection 4). And some say that when one eats the pods by themselves—one blesses only "shehakol" (see Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 5), and so it appears, for even if we say they were planted to be eaten, nevertheless they are only like the caper-shells (kafrisin) of the caper-bush, for the primary intention is for the sake of the legumes and not for the sake of the pods; therefore, one should bless "shehakol," for one fulfills the obligation with this according to everyone. However, if one eats them together with the legumes—he blesses "ha'adamah" and fulfills the obligation for them as well, for they are like an adjunct to the legumes.

And over chaziz, which is grain fodder that has not reached a third of its growth—one recites "she-hakol," because the growth is not complete (Eruvin 28b). And even though regarding the fruit of the tree one recites "ha-etz" even over unripe fruit in all fruits, as I wrote in siman 202, section 17, it is possible to say that as long as it has not grown a third, it is not even like unripe fruit in the fruit of the tree. And so it is implied from the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 1, who wrote regarding this the term "shachat," see there, and it is not in the category of grain at all, and in Bava Batra (36a) it is explained that shachat is animal food, see there. And according to this, if it has left the category of shachat, even when its ripening is not complete—one recites "ha-adamah." Therefore, I wonder at the one who wrote that over all fruit of the earth whose ripening is not complete one recites "she-hakol" (Magen Avraham, subsection 7), and according to my humble opinion it is clear that it is not so, for this is like unripe fruit in the fruit of the tree over which one recites "ha-etz," and likewise in the fruit of the earth regarding the matter that one recites "ha-adamah," and there is no logic to distinguish between the fruit of the tree and the fruit of the earth (see Pri Megadim), for from where do we have it to say so (and the words of the Machatzit HaShekel are puzzling, see there and examine it). And I wonder at the Tur and Shulchan Aruch why they did not write that over chaziz of the garden one recites "borei peri ha-adamah," for so it is explicitly stated there in the Gemara, and so wrote the Tosafot there (and also from this is a proof for our words, and examine it).

They further said in Berakhot (36a) that over raw gourd one recites 'shehakol', and this is a species of cucumber that is not usually eaten raw but rather cooked, like our kirbe"s, and therefore if one ate it raw—he recites 'shehakol'. And one who eats flour of barley or of wheat—also recites 'shehakol' if he derives pleasure from it. And even though one who eats whole wheat and barley recites 'ha'adamah', as I wrote in siman 208, nevertheless, one who eats them as flour, since they have completely changed—their blessing is 'shehakol'. And it is not similar to olive oil, for there that is its elevation, but here their elevation is in bread, and therefore they have left the category of grain and have not entered the category of bread (Gemara). And behold, we are not experts in what kind of eating exists with flour, but in their time they had a manner of eating this (and it is also not similar to pavidl"a, whose blessing is 'ha'etz' as I wrote in siman 202, for there the entire fruit is present in its entirety but it is crushed, and also this is the manner of their eating, which is not the case with flour).

And so too over date beer and barley beer—one recites "she-hakol," even though the primary substance is the dates and the barley, nevertheless since it has become a liquid, its primary status is based on the water. And it is not similar to the water of boiled vegetables over which one recites "borei peri ha-adamah," for there the taste of the vegetables enters the water, but beer is a different taste from the dates and the barley (see Taz subsection 7 and Magen Avraham subsection 9). And so too barley water that they cook for a sick person, since the primary intent is for the water—one recites "she-hakol." And it is not specifically for a sick person, for the same law applies to a healthy person if he cooks a dish of barley and his intent is not at all for the barley but for the water, and he only puts a little barley in it to give it taste—he also recites "she-hakol." However, this is not common, for in a dish his intent is presumably for the barley and he recites "borei minei mezonot," and it will be explained in siman 208, but for a sick person his intent is only for the water. And the same law applies if for a sick person his intent is for the barley, that he recites "borei minei mezonot."

The Tur wrote in the name of the Ra'avad: Wild herbs that are not sown—one recites over them 'shehakol', for since they are not sown, they are not considered fruit. Thus far his words. And this is the explanation: Certainly significant fruits, even if they are not sown, such as all our types of berries or nuts, one recites 'ha'adamah' or 'ha'etz', and only regarding herbs, since they have no significance at all and also are not sown, they are not included in the category of fruits, and one does not recite over them 'ha'adamah' but rather 'shehakol'. Therefore, over sorrel one recites 'shehakol', and such is the custom (and so wrote the Taz in subsection 8). And there is one who wrote that the Arizal, of blessed memory, would recite over those of the tree 'ha'etz' and over those of the ground 'ha'adamah' (Magen Avraham subsection 10), and perhaps over significant ones he would do so. And horseradish, which is called chrein, also grows on its own, and see what I wrote at the end of siman 203. And know that over beet leaves, which are the leaves of the burikes—one also recites 'shehakol', for their sowing is not for their sake.

They wrote further: That shabta, shiblalta, kammona, and kusbarta—"shehakol," and so said the Ba'al HaHalachot. And his reason is: that all of these are made for flavoring and not for eating. And shabta is what is called anise, and shiblalta is patina, kammona is as it sounds, kusbarta is aliandra. Thus far the words of the Tur. And kammon is kimmel, and shiblalta and kusbarta are not known to us. And that which was explained at the end of siman 202, that over spices one does not recite a blessing at all, that is because they are not fit for eating at all; but these are fit for eating and the taste is good, but they were not made for that purpose. Therefore they require a blessing, but their blessing is "shehakol."

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: That vinegar which one mixed with water such that it is fit for drinking—one recites over it 'shehakol', but over the vinegar alone one does not recite anything because it is harmful to him. Thus far his words. And this refers to their vinegar, which was very strong and was not fit for drinking without an admixture of water, and even now there is a type of vinegar like this that they bring from afar and it is impossible to drink it at all. However, our vinegar is fit for drinking even without an admixture of water and we recite over it 'shehakol', and such is the common custom. And any wine whose aroma is vinegar but its taste is wine—it is wine and we recite over it 'borei pri hagafen', and conversely, where the taste is vinegar and the aroma is wine—it is vinegar and its blessing is 'shehakol'. And the general rule of the matter: anything that people refrain from drinking because of its sourness—we do not recite over it 'borei pri hagafen' but rather 'shehakol'. And it appears to me that our raisin wine does not require these parameters, and as soon as it has spoiled slightly we do not recite 'hagafen' but rather 'shehakol'.

Wine dregs that are fit for drinking—one recites over them "borei peri hagafen." And these words apply when one did not put much water into them (see Magen Avraham subsection 15 and see Rashbam Bava Batra 96b, s.v. "shemarei," and examine it closely). But if one put much water into them: if he put three measures of water into them and found four measures, such that there is one measure from the essence of the wine—it is like diluted wine, for the dilution is one part to three parts water according to their wines, and one recites over it "borei peri hagafen." And if he found less than this—it is merely tartness even though it has the taste of wine, and he recites only "shehakol." And this is regarding their wines which were strong, but our wines which are not so strong, even if he cast in three and four resulted—one does not recite over it "borei peri hagafen." Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5 that we estimate according to the measure that they dilute water in 그 place, thus far his words; and our teacher, the Rema, wrote: provided that there is not one part wine to six parts water, for then it is certainly nullified, thus far his words. And know that our wines are not fit for dilution at all, and with a little water they are spoiled and their blessing is "shehakol."

However, the primary words of our teacher, the Rema, are very puzzling; for even with their wines, which were very strong, one does not recite the blessing "borei pri ha-gafen" when there are more than three parts water, and all the more so with our wines. How then did he write up to six parts? Indeed, the Levush omitted this, see there. And I saw written in the name of the Maharil, and this is his wording: "And if the wine is more than one in six, one follows the taste—if it is wine that is fit for drinking through such a large dilution, and people drink it in place of wine through this dilution, so that we do not say his mind is nullified against all people." Thus far his words (Magen Avraham, subsection 16). And seemingly it is not understood what "fit for drinking" pertains to; is it as if water is not fit for drinking? Rather, certainly his intention is fit for drinking as wine, as he concludes. But this is even more puzzling; for does "for its sake" pertain to this? And what benefit is there that he drinks it as wine, since it is not wine?

Therefore, it seems to me that in truth the Maharil and our teacher, the Rema, introduced a new law in this matter. For if we examine closely, throughout the entire Shas a judge requires at least a fourth part of water even in the strongest wines, and with less than this, the name of water is upon them; if so, why do we maintain in Yoreh Deah siman 134 that up to six parts it makes it wine of libation, when it is merely water? And should you say that "taste is like the substance" is a Torah law, if so, let us forbid it up to sixty. However, the clarification of the matter is as follows: regarding the essence of wine, what is called wine, there is no Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai on this, but rather everything is according to the custom of the land; for when the people of the land treat this as wine—it is wine, since it has the taste of wine in any case. And in the time of the Shas, they held that anything less than a fourth part does not have the name of wine upon it, but there are places where they hold it to be wine up to six parts, and therefore they were stringent regarding wine of libation until the final limit. And this is what the Maharil wrote: "that people drink it in place of wine," meaning that many hold that even up to this measure it is wine, and he is not an individual such that we would say his opinion is nullified relative to all people. But in more than this measure, there is no place that would hold this to be wine, and therefore even if an individual holds this to be wine, his opinion is nullified relative to all people, and these are the very words of our teacher, the Rema, as is understood. (And according to this, we have a great justification for our raisin wine which is not proper wine, and we have already wondered about this in siman 202 section 15, see there. However, according to what we have written, it works out well with good reason, for since the entire land treats this as wine, it is properly wine and one performs kiddush over it and recites over it 'borei pri hagafen').

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 6: "Temed that they make from grape seeds upon which they place water—their law is like dregs. And these words apply when they were pressed with a beam, but if they were only trodden by foot, even if one gave three measures of water and found only three or less—one recites over it 'borei pri hagafen,' for it is wine and the water is absorbed in the skins, and in that which emerges there is a majority of wine. And skins upon which they placed figs to strengthen the power of the wine, even though the skins are the majority—nevertheless, all the power of the figs is in the liquid, and one should not recite 'borei pri hagafen.'" Thus far their words. And even if this is not clear, nevertheless it is impossible to recite 'borei pri hagafen' due to the doubt, and with 'shehakol' one certainly fulfills the obligation. However, regarding the final blessing, if there is a doubt, behold one does not fulfill the obligation with 'borei nefashot,' and therefore it is good that he should also drink certain wine and recite 'al hagafen,' and also eat figs and recite over them the blessing abridged from three, for perhaps the fig water is the primary element and perhaps their water is like them (Magen Avraham, subsection 17). But from 'borei nefashot' he is certainly exempt, for even if these have the law of water, nevertheless since he also drank wine—it exempts all types of liquids.

One who drinks water for his thirst—blesses "shehakol" and after it "borei nefashot." But if he does not desire to drink, rather he drinks for another reason, such as if a piece of meat choked him and he drank water to pass the meat, or to taste some bitter or salty medicine and the like—he does not need a blessing neither before it nor after it, because in water there is no taste if he is not thirsty and the palate does not derive pleasure from it. But with other drinks in such cases—he needs a blessing before it and after it, for all foods and drinks that a person eats or drinks for medicinal purposes, as long as the palate derives pleasure from it—he needs a blessing at the beginning and the end, since there is a good taste in it. Therefore, if they do not have a good taste—he does not need a blessing, as with water. And the text of the blessing "borei nefashot" will be explained in siman 207 with the help of Heaven.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 8: "If they coerced him to eat or drink, even though the palate derives pleasure from it—he does not recite a blessing over it since he was coerced regarding this." Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 9: "If one ate a forbidden food or drink because of danger—he recites a blessing over it before and after." Thus far his words. The commentators of the Shulchan Aruch wondered about our teacher, the Rema, for when one eats a forbidden thing because of danger, he is also coerced, and nevertheless he recites a blessing over it; if so, in a case where they coerced him, he should also be obligated to recite a blessing, for what difference does it make to me if his fellow coerced him or if they coerced him from Heaven? And they rejected his words (Taz subsection 12 and Magen Avraham subsection 20). We have already written in siman 196 that the words of our teacher, the Rema, are correct, for there the Torah commanded him to eat and it is exactly like a permitted thing; therefore, even according to the opinion of the Rambam there that one who eats a forbidden thing should not recite a blessing, yet in a place of danger there is no prohibition. This is not the case where they coerced him to eat, for there is neither an obligation nor a permission here and he does not want to eat; if so, automatically he does not derive pleasure from this, for if he were deriving pleasure, he would eat willingly; therefore, it is not considered pleasure and he does not need to recite a blessing, and such is the primary ruling in halacha. It is not similar to one whom they coerced and he ate matzah where he has fulfilled his obligation, for there he performs a mitzvah (and so appears the opinion of the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 13, and this is not a comparison to one who acts unintentionally regarding forbidden fats or forbidden relations where he derives pleasure of his own will, whereas the pleasure of coercion is not pleasure).

Bee honey is like other honey and one only recites over it 'shehakol'. That is to say, we do not say that since this is constantly renewed one should recite: 'borei hakol bidvaro' (for if not so, what novelty is there in this) and as I wrote in section 1, but rather he should recite 'shehakol'. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: "Quinces or ginger or roses and other types of fruits and herbs that are preserved in honey, the fruits and herbs are the primary component and the honey is secondary even if they are crushed exceedingly, therefore one recites over quinces and ginger 'ha'etz' and over herbs and those of roses 'ha'adama'." Thus far his words, and so we practice with all our types of confitures. And specifically when the fruit is recognizable, but if they are mashed exceedingly until it becomes like a thick liquid—one recites 'shehakol'. Therefore, our confitures, when they dissolve them completely and squeeze them and strain them through a strainer and call this syrup—one recites 'shehakol', and so too when one sets fruits in water and sugar or honey, such as vishnik, malinnik, and the like—one recites 'shehakol' over the liquid.

And know that roses are "rosen" and their blessing is "ha'adamah," and even though they grow on a tree, nevertheless they are not the primary fruit, and there are seeds in them which are the primary fruit (Magen Avraham subsection 23), and the roses, which are the petals, are like the caper-buds of the caper-bush, and therefore their blessing is "ha'adamah." And these roses cannot be eaten raw or cooked, but rather fried by means of honey, and despite all this, the honey is not the primary element, for the primary element is the rose and the honey prepares it for eating, and they are like vegetables that are not eaten raw but cooked, whose blessing is "borei peri ha'adamah" (ibid. and Beit Yosef), for even if the vegetables require some preparation in their cooking—nevertheless their blessing is "borei peri ha'adamah" for such is the manner of their eating, and so too regarding roses it is so, and so too for anything similar to this.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: Any mixture that healthy people are not accustomed to except for medicine—one recites the blessing of shehakol over it. Thus far his words. That is to say, even though we hold that one who eats or drinks something for medicine, if only the palate derives pleasure from it, he requires a blessing, this is certainly so. However, there are no specific blessings here, for even if it is something whose blessing is "ha'etz"—nevertheless, he only recites "shehakol." And the reason: since this is only a food for the sick, the sick person does not descend into the specific details of the items, for his intention is not for eating but only for medicine, and only because the palate derives pleasure from it, therefore its blessing is "shehakol," which is a general blessing. But something that healthy people also eat, even though he eats it for medicine, it is impossible for him to change the version of his blessing from the version of the blessing of the healthy. And although there are those who disagree on this, nevertheless he ruled accordingly, for a doubt regarding blessings is resolved leniently, and with "shehakol" he certainly fulfilled his obligation. And there is one who explained his intention that it refers to things that are not good for eating and therefore its blessing is "shehakol," but when they are good for eating its blessing is "ha'etz" or "ha'adamah" (ibid. subsection 24). And I wonder, for if so, he should have explained and not remained vague; and furthermore, if so, there is no blessing here at all (and the Machatzit HaShekel was forced in this to explain that they are neither good nor bad, see there, and this is nothing but words of prophecy and also the difficulty is great, and the main point is as I wrote, and examine it closely).

And know that regarding that which was taught in the Mishnah (44a) that the primary ingredient exempts the secondary ingredient, the Rambam in chapter 3 divided it into two parts: a mixed secondary ingredient and a non-mixed secondary ingredient. That is to say, if one eats two things where one is primary and the second is secondary, such as salted fish and onion, the salted fish is the primary and the onion is the secondary, and he blesses over the salted fish and exempts the secondary, and this is called a non-mixed secondary ingredient, and this will be explained in siman 212. And it is called a mixed secondary ingredient when one cooked food and mixed another thing into the food; we see which is the primary and which is the secondary. This is the wording of the Rambam there: "How is it a mixed secondary ingredient: for example, turnip or cabbage that was cooked and one mixed into it flour of one of the five species in order to bind it—he does not bless over it 'borei minei mezonot', for the turnip is the primary and its flour is secondary, for anything that they mix in to bind or to give an aroma or to color the cooked dish—behold, this is secondary; but if he mixed it to give flavor in the mixture—behold, it is primary. Therefore, types of honey that they cook and put wheat milk into them in order to bind and they make from them types of sweets—he does not bless over it 'borei minei mezonot', because the honey is the primary." Thus far his words.

And ostensibly his words are not understood at all, for is it so that there are not in a mixed secondary substance things that are neither for fragrance, nor for color, nor for taste, but rather that they cook several things together and one must see who is the primary and who is the secondary? However, his intention is this: for certainly there are such cases, and this is the essence of the law of primary and secondary, and it will be explained in siman 212. However, the Rambam there is saying another matter: for prior to this he is dealing with the laws of the five species, for in any food that contains one of the five species, even if they are a minority against the rest of the food—nevertheless one recites "mezonot" over it, because the five species are the primary ones regarding other foods, and it will be explained in siman 208, and as it is stated in the Gemara (36b): "Anything that contains from the five species—one recites over it 'borei minei mezonot,'" meaning that regarding other types of species one follows the majority, but when there is one of the five species, even a small amount—the other foods are secondary to them, and one recites "borei minei mezonot." And this is what the Rambam wrote previously, and this is his wording: "Flour of one of the five species that one cooked in a pot, whether by itself or whether one mixed it with other things... and so too any cooked dish in which one mixed from the five species, whether flour or bread—one recites over it borei minei mezonot." Thus far his words.

And behold, according to this, the five species are always the primary and the other foods are the secondary; and for this reason he comes afterward to clarify that nevertheless it is not a general rule, for this is only if they come for eating. But when they come only for binding—they become secondary. This is his wording: "In what case are these things said: when this species was significant to him and was not secondary, but if one of the five species was mixed as a secondary thing—he only recites the blessing over the primary... and this is a general rule in blessings... How is it a secondary thing that is mixed: for example, turnip or cabbage that one cooked and mixed into it flour of one of the five species in order to bind it—he does not recite over it 'borei minei mezonot' etc." Thus far his words. And this is the explanation: How is it a secondary thing mixed into the five species, but it does not deal at all with other things. And for this reason he says afterward: "But if he mixed it in order to give flavor to the mixture—behold, it is the primary." Meaning, that if his intention with the five species is for the sake of the flavor of eating—behold, it is the primary even when it is a small amount. And that which he says afterward: "Therefore, types of honey... and one puts in wheat milk in order to bind... he does not recite 'borei minei mezonot', for the honey is the primary" Thus far his words, and it does not refer to the previous case of "in order to give flavor," for behold it is the opposite of that, but rather it refers to the case before the previous one; meaning: since we said that when they come in order to bind they are not primary, therefore, it is not only necessary to say this regarding other types of foods, but even regarding honey they become secondary. and this is the clarification of the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory (and this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 25).

And according to this, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, who cited these words of the Rambam in this siman, section 12, it is not relevant here at all (and this is the objection of the Magen Avraham there). Nevertheless, their words are correct and they also knew the intention of the Rambam, but because there is a practical legal difference also regarding the laws in this siman as will be explained, they therefore cited his words in brief according to the matter relevant here. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: "Whatever is the primary... and anything that one mixes in to bind or for fragrance or to color—behold, this is secondary. But if he mixed it in to provide flavor... therefore, types of honey etc." Thus far his words. And he did not cite all the words of the Rambam except regarding the matter explained previously, that types of fruit and types of herbs preserved in honey, the honey is secondary; and for this he cited the words of the Rambam, that if regarding the five species the Rambam wrote that when they come to bind and for fragrance and for appearance they are not primary and the honey becomes primary, then certainly regarding herbs when they come in such a manner—as there are herbs that fix the appearance and give a good fragrance as is known—if his intention is for this, the honey is primary and one recites the blessing "shehakol."

Our teacher, the Rema, added matters regarding this, and this is his wording: "And it appears that this rule—that if one mixed it to provide flavor in the mixture, it is the primary element—applies specifically when there is substance from the thing providing the flavor and it is a significant thing. However, spices that are put into preserves, even though they are for providing flavor, one does not recite a blessing over them, for they are nullified in their minority even though they provide flavor. Therefore, it is the custom to recite a blessing only over the preserves, and not over the spices within them." Thus far his words. And the explanation of his words is as follows: Since our teacher, the Beit Yosef, derived from the law of the Rambam regarding the five species for here, as has been written, according to this one might err and compare it entirely to the five species—that if there is even a small amount of them, if his intention is to provide flavor, he recites 'borei minei mezonot'. But in truth, regarding other things it is not so, for specifically regarding the five species, which are very significant, the law is such; but regarding other types of food, even if his intention is to provide flavor, nevertheless we require a significant thing at any rate. And we do not require a majority, for since they are made for flavor, they have significance even when there is no majority. However, we require a significant thing, and therefore regarding spices given for flavor, since they are entirely few, they do not have the significance to determine the blessing. (The Magen Avraham there wrote that we require a majority and brought proof from rice, see there; but this is not a comparison, for certainly every food provides flavor and we require a majority, whereas here we are dealing with a significant flavor like spices and the like, and examine this carefully.)

Now there are many candied items where they cook the fruits with much sugar, and the sugar covers all the fruits—and nevertheless their blessing is "borei peri ha'etz" because they are the primary component (and so wrote the Ba'er Heitev in subsection 19). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 13: "Anything whose blessing is in doubt—one should bless 'shehakol'." Thus far his words. And there is no novelty in this, for it is impossible to act in any other way, and in several places this has been explained. And it appears in my humble opinion that his intention is: that in this matter we do not follow the majority of opinions as in all other laws, unless it is someone for whom the halacha is clear to bless "ha'etz" or "ha'adama." But one for whom the halacha is not clear, but rather there are differing opinions, even if the opinion of "shehakol" is a minority compared to the opinions of "ha'etz" or "ha'adama"—one blesses "shehakol" (so it appears in my humble opinion).