Siman 211

The Rambam wrote in chapter 8, law 13: "If many kinds were before him, if their blessings are equal—he blesses over one of them and exempts the rest, and if their blessings are not equal—he blesses over each one of them the blessing appropriate to it, and whichever of them he desires to prioritize, he prioritizes. And if he does not desire one more than the other, if there is one of the seven species among them—over it he blesses first. And whichever is earlier in the verse is earlier in blessing, and the seven are those mentioned in this verse: 'A land of wheat and barley, vines and figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey,' and this honey is date honey, and dates precede grapes, for dates are second to 'land' and grapes are third to 'land'." Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words: For previously he wrote that when their blessings are equal, one recites the blessing over one of them and exempts the rest; meaning, it is forbidden for him to recite the blessing over this one and intend not to exempt the second and make a blessing over the second by itself, and so too for all of them, for this is close to a blessing in vain. Since the blessing is one and his desire is to eat them all, it is forbidden to increase blessings for no reason, as was written in siman 206, section 12; see there. But if their blessings are not equal, he recites over each one the blessing appropriate to it; meaning, this is the opposite. For behold, it is known that when one recites "ha'adamah" over a fruit of the tree he has fulfilled his obligation, and with "shehakol" he has fulfilled his obligation over all things. And if so, if there are before him items whose blessing is "ha'etz" and items whose blessing is "ha'adamah" and items whose blessing is "shehakol," and he wishes to minimize blessings—namely, that he would recite "ha'adamah" and intend to exempt also the fruit of the tree, or recite "shehakol" to exempt them all—this too is forbidden ab initio. And certainly if he did so, he does not recite another blessing again, but ab initio it is forbidden to do so; rather, he should recite over each one the blessing appropriate to it: over the fruit of the tree he should recite "ha'etz," and over the fruit of the ground "ha'adamah," and over other things "shehakol." And he is not yet dealing with the law of precedence at all (see Kesef Mishneh).

And now it deals with the law of precedence, and it says that whichever of them he desires to prioritize, he prioritizes. That is to say, he must prioritize whichever he desires to eat more now, meaning the thing that is more chaviv to him to eat now than the second thing. And this applies both to identical brachot, where he should recite the bracha over the one that is chaviv to him now to exempt the rest, and to brachot that are not identical, to prioritize it with the bracha belonging to it (Kesef Mishneh). And there is no difference even if there is among them one of the seven species and the one that is chaviv to him now is not of the seven species; nevertheless, he should recite the bracha over the chaviv to exempt them all or to prioritize it in its bracha over the rest. And he also did not mention that there is a hierarchy of the bracha of "HaEtz" over the bracha of "HaAdamah" and the bracha of "HaAdamah" over the bracha of "Shehakol," for we follow only what is chaviv to him now. However, if they are all equal in chavivut, then naturally the seven species are superior to other things, and whichever is earlier in the verse is earlier for the bracha (and he follows the view of the Rif who ruled like the Sages of the Mishnah 40: that he recites the bracha over whichever of them he desires, meaning over the one that is chaviv to him now, and not like Rabbi Yehuda that the seven species take precedence over the chaviv. And according to their words, one must also say regarding the incident of the students of Bar Kappara (39a) where it is proven from there that "HaAdamah" is superior to "Shehakol," this is all according to Rabbi Yehuda and not according to the Sages, and therefore neither the Rif nor the Rambam mentioned this. But in a case where there is no chaviv—certainly it is so, and there is no need to explain as it is simple).

But all of our teachers disagree with him, and they hold that the seven species are superior to the preferred item, and likewise "ha-adamah" precedes "she-hakol" even if that which its blessing is "she-hakol" is more preferred, and likewise "ha-etz" to "ha-adamah." However, the opinion of the Rosh is that "ha-etz" versus "ha-adamah" has no importance, and this will be further explained (and they rule like Rabbi Yehuda and not like the sages, for the Sugya of the Shas is like him). However, this is when the blessings are equal, but when their blessings are not equal, some say that there is no law of precedence here at all, and even if one is of the seven species and also preferred by him—nevertheless he may bless first on the second, for since he must bless on each one individually, there is no connection from this to that at all (Rosh). And one should not wonder at what we said, that there is no law of precedence here at all when their blessings are not equal, for did we not say that "ha-etz" precedes "ha-adamah" and "ha-adamah" to "she-hakol," even though their blessings are not equal? For the matter is thus: when their blessings are not equal, there is no virtue of the seven species and there is no virtue of the preferred item, and also the importance of the blessing of "ha-etz" versus the blessing of "ha-adamah" does not exist. But the virtue of "ha-etz" and "ha-adamah" over "she-hakol" remains even when their blessings are not equal (I learned this from the Rosh, see there, and also in Tosafot there it was necessary to explain thus, see there and examine carefully).

And there are some of our teachers who hold that even when their blessings are not identical, only the superiority of the seven species was removed, but one follows the superiority of what is "chaviv" (Semak, cited in the Tur, and so he wrote in the name of our teacher Shemaya in the name of the Gaon; see Beit Yosef and Bach). And in the definition of "chaviv," they also disagree with the Rambam; for according to the Rambam, its definition is that which is "chaviv" to him now, and they interpret it as that which is habitually "chaviv" to him, even if now his desire is more for a different food. And behold, these are the primary opinions regarding this matter.

And know that that which we said according to the previous opinion, that when their berakhot are not equal there is no superiority of the seven species and there is no superiority of the preferred item, and according to the opinion of the previous section that there is no superiority of the seven species—this is when one is of the seven species and one is not of the seven species, such as a radish whose berakhah is "ha-adamah" and an olive whose berakhah is "ha-etz," for he may prioritize the radish over the olive because they have no connection to one another in any matter. But when both are of the seven species and their berakhot are not equal, such as one who chews wheat whose berakhah is "ha-adamah" and an olive whose berakhah is "ha-etz"—the wheat takes precedence because it is earlier in the verse (and this is the intention of the Magen Avraham in subsection 2). And some say that that which we said, that when their berakhot are not equal there is no superiority of the preferred item and he may prioritize whichever he desires, this is its explanation: that we do not follow what is always preferred by him, but rather what is preferred by him now (Bach and Taz subsection 1 and Perishah). Therefore, if one of them is of the seven species—it takes precedence, even if he desires the second one now (ibid.), since we hold that the seven species are superior to the preferred item; however, from the Rosh it does not appear so (Magen Avraham ibid.).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, after bringing the opinions of the poskim and the opinion of the Rambam, wrote in section 3: "If they brought before him something whose berakhah is 'borei peri ha'etz' and something whose berakhah is 'shehakol'—'borei peri ha'etz' precedes because it is more significant, as it exempts only one type; and similarly, 'borei peri ha'adamah' and 'shehakol'—'borei peri ha'adamah' precedes. And if they brought before him 'borei peri ha'etz' and 'borei peri ha'adamah', whichever of them he desires he may precede, and some say that 'borei peri ha'etz' precedes." Thus far his words. And the first opinion is the opinion of the Rosh, who holds that 'ha'etz' is not considered more specific than 'ha'adamah'. And it appears to me that the Rosh did not say there is no significance between them except when his desire is currently more for the fruit of the ground, but if he does not desire this one more than that one at all—'borei peri ha'etz' precedes. And so implies the wording of the Rosh who wrote: that the berakhah of 'borei peri ha'etz' is not so significant compared to the berakhah of 'ha'adamah' etc., see there, and it implies explicitly that there is some significance.

And behold, that which "HaEtz" and "HaAdamah" precede "Shehakol" is even if the "Shehakol" is dear to him (ibid. subsection 3), and even if it could have been of the seven species, for "Shehakol" against "HaEtz" and "HaAdamah" is nothing. And that which "HaEtz" precedes "HaAdamah" according to the opinion of "there are those who say," it has already been explained in section 4 that there are those who say there is no law of precedence at all when their blessings are not equal, and according to the opinion in section 5 one follows the dearer one, and this is also according to the opinion of the Rambam. If so, how do you find that "HaEtz" precedes "HaAdamah"? And if both are of the seven species, such as one who chews wheat and eats a grape, behold, wheat precedes, as I wrote in section 6. However, this is the opinion of the Behag, that "Borei Peri HaEtz" always precedes "Borei Peri HaAdamah," even against the excellence of the seven species and against the excellence of the dearer one. Nevertheless, for the halacha one should follow the dearer one, for according to the Rambam the dearer one is always preferable, and according to the Semak in this law the dearer one is also preferable, and according to Rashi and the Rosh one recites the blessing on whichever he desires, and this is also the opinion of the Gaon. If so, the Behag is a solitary opinion against them (ibid. subsection 4).

And there is one who wrote in this language: "And regarding the halacha there is no concern here, for in all ways there is someone to rely upon: for if the brachot are equal and there is a species of the seven, he may take the species of the seven and recite the bracha over it and exempt that which is not of the seven species, and this is the opinion of most of the poskim. And he may take that which is not of the seven species if it is dearer to him and exempt the species of the seven, and this is the opinion of the Rambam. And if there is not among them one of the seven species—certainly the dearer is preferred when the brachot are equal, and when their brachot are not equal it has also already been explained that however he acts he has someone to rely upon. And in the definition of 'dearer': if he takes what is dear to him now he has fulfilled his obligation according to the opinion of the Rambam, and if he takes what is always dear to him he has fulfilled his obligation according to the opinion of the other poskim" (Taz, subsection 1).

And it is stated in the Gemara (41a): that whatever is earlier in the [verse] "a land of wheat and barley" is earlier for a blessing, and in the middle it is written: "a land of olive oil and honey," and this "land" separates between them to inform us that what is adjacent to the second "land" precedes what is later than the first "land," and therefore honey, which is dates, precedes grapes, for grapes are third to the first "land" and honey is second to the second "land." And this law can apply according to all the poskim, even according to the opinion of the Rambam who follows the preferred item, and that is, for example, when in preference they are all equal to him, and then according to all opinions he must prioritize what is earlier in the verse. And that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5, that this matter of wheat and barley preceding is specifically when he made from them a cooked dish or bread, but one who chews wheat, whose blessing is "borei peri ha'adamah," it does not precede the blessing of "borei peri ha'etz," thus far his words, he was precise and wrote: "it does not precede," but he did not write that "borei peri ha'etz" precedes, for he already wrote in section 1 that when the blessings are not identical there is no priority at all, and according to the Rambam and the Semak one follows the preferred item, and only according to the opinion of the Bahag must one prioritize "ha'etz" as we have explained (and the words of the Taz in subsection 5 require further study, see there and examine carefully).

And regarding that which has been explained, that dates precede grapes, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4: This is specifically when one eats grapes as they are, but if one made wine from them, which establishes for itself the blessing "borei pri hagafen" — it is significant and it precedes to bless upon it first. However, a cooked dish from the five species of grain — it is more significant than the blessing of wine, thus far his words, because their blessing is "mezonot" and they also precede wine in the verse (Tur). And so it will be explained later in the order of precedence, that after "hamotzi," the blessing of mezonot precedes all blessings, and from the Rambam it is implied that in every matter one follows that which is preferred, but most of the poskim do not hold accordingly, especially regarding the matter of the blessings of "hagafen" and "mezonot." Our teacher, the Rema, further wrote: That everything mentioned close to the first "eretz" precedes that which is mentioned close to the second "eretz," after it is equal to it in proximity to "eretz," thus far his words. That is to say, that wheat precedes olive and barley precedes dates, and this is only according to the Rambam who does not hold of precedence in blessings, and for instance when they are all equal to him in preference. But for the rest of the poskim this is not found, for if one made a cooked dish from them, behold from the perspective of the blessing of "mezonot" they precede, and if one chews them and their blessing is "ha'adamah," behold when the blessings are not equal there is no precedence here as has been explained, and according to the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot on the contrary "ha'etz" precedes as I wrote, but according to the Rambam it works well (and the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 8, is answered, see there and examine carefully).

He further wrote in section 5: "The blessing of 'Hamotzi' precedes the blessing of 'Borei Minei Mezonot,' and certainly other blessings, even if the second item is significant or dear to him." Thus far his words. It appears that this law is only found in a case where one eats bread less than a kezayit, where there is no requirement for netilat yadayim, as written in siman 159; in that case, 'Hamotzi' precedes. However, for one who washes his hands and eats a fixed meal, this is not applicable, for after netilat yadayim one is certainly obligated to bless 'Hamotzi' immediately. And if it is before netilat yadayim, behold, it is a daily occurrence during the kiddush of Shabbats and Yamim Tovim that many types of sweets are eaten before netilat yadayim, and what relevance does the law of precedence have here since they are two separate matters? And it is an explicit Mishnah: "If one blessed over the parperet, he has not exempted the bread" (42a), which shows that he ate the parperet before the bread, meaning before netilat yadayim. (And all the words of the Magen Avraham in subsection 9 were not clarified to me at all, and it is a common thing even on weekdays that before netilat yadayim one tastes from the cooked dishes and blesses over them, and what relevance is there here to a blessing that is not needed, for behold, his desire is to eat before netilat yadayim, and such is the simple custom of the world).

It has already been explained that the blessing of "borei minei mezonot" precedes other blessings, except for "hamotzi." And it is not only necessary to state this regarding types of cooked dishes made from wheat and barley which are written explicitly, but even if there was before him a cooked dish from flour of spelt, oats, or rye which is called "korn," which are not written explicitly but are included in the general category of wheat and barley—nevertheless, their blessing precedes "gefen," fig, and pomegranate which are written explicitly, and even precedes wine which is very significant. And this is for several reasons: one, since they were included in the general category of wheat and barley, they are like them themselves; and furthermore, since they are significant, such that one makes bread from them and recites over them "hamotzi" and birkat hamazon, they precede even when one did not make bread from them. And even barley and its subspecies, which is second to the word "eretz," precedes the olive, which is first to the second "eretz," because their blessing is "mezonot" and they precede the blessing of "borei pri ha'etz" (and that which the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 13 that the olive precedes requires further study, for all the five species precede it; see Machatzit HaShekel and delve into this).

Everywhere that we have said that one precedes the other, this is when one desires to eat from both of them; therefore, one must prioritize from the seven species, or the preferred, or the prominent. But if it is not his desire to eat from both of them, he only recites the blessing over that which he desires to eat, even though the second is also placed before him, as in siman 168 regarding the matter of 'Hamotzi', see there. And in a case where one must prioritize due to the excellence of the seven species, even if it is a half fruit and the other is a whole fruit (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), and similarly regarding the precedence of the seven species to one another, such as with bread of wheat which precedes that of barley, even if the wheat is a slice, as written in siman 168. However, in a case of the excellence of the preferred, it appears that a whole one is better (ibid.), when both are equal in the excellence of the seven species or both are not of the seven species; and the proof is from there, where both are wheat or both are barley and one is clean and one is whole, that the whole is better, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all this regarding the requirement to prioritize is specifically ab initio, but if one transgressed and recited the blessing over the second one, if the blessings are identical—he fulfills his obligation and does not need to return and recite a blessing over that which he should have prioritized, provided that his intent was also upon it during his blessing. Thus far his words. And even if both were before him, we require that he explicitly intend to exempt it, for it is not proper that the less significant should exempt the more significant by default, but only when he explicitly intends for it; however, the more significant exempts the less significant even by default (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). And when the second is not before him, even the more significant does not exempt the less significant by default (ibid.) unless he explicitly intended for it, and these matters were explained in siman 206; see there.

It appears according to my humble opinion that what our teacher, the Rema, wrote—that the one that is not prominent does not exempt the prominent one in an unspecified case even when both are before him—this applies to a talmid chacham who knows the law and despite this blessed on the one that is not prominent; it can be said that an unspecified case is like an explicit intent not to exempt. However, for one who does not know the law at all and unintentionally blessed on one of them, certainly even in an unspecified case it is as if his intent was to exempt the second thing, for this is known to all. And even regarding a talmid chacham, perhaps he holds like the Rambam that the preferred item takes precedence, and to him this was the preferred one. Therefore, this law of our teacher, the Rema, requires further study, and it is impossible to instruct thus in practice.

The order of precedence: 'Hamotzi', 'Borei Minei Mezonot' on wheat, 'Borei Minei Mezonot' on barley, olives, dates, grapes, figs, and pomegranates. And there is one who says that olives precede 'Borei Minei Mezonot' of barley (Magen Avraham subsection 13, and it requires further study why he omitted dates), but in my humble opinion it is not so (and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah). And 'Ha'etz' and 'Ha'adamah' precede 'Shehakol', and 'Ha'etz' precedes 'Ha'adamah', but if the 'Ha'adamah' is the preferred item, he should recite the blessing first on the 'Ha'adamah' and intend not to exempt the 'Ha'etz'. And a species of the seven species precedes one that is not of the seven species, and whatever appears earlier in the verse is earlier for the blessing, and that which is adjacent to the second 'Eretz' has precedence over the third item after the first 'Eretz'. And 'Ha'adamah' of the seven species, such as one who chews wheat, along with 'Ha'etz' that is not of the seven species: according to the opinion of the Ba'ag, 'Ha'etz' precedes, and the rest of the poskim disagree, and according to the opinion of the Rambam, the preferred item precedes everything. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, it is called "preferred" based on what is preferred to him now, and according to the opinion of the Rosh, what is preferred to him always. And eating and drinking precede scent (ibid.), and it appears to me that eating precedes drinking, and those who drink whiskey with lekach, according to all opinions one recites the blessing on the lekach, 'Mezonot', first, even though the whiskey is preferred to him and even according to the opinion of the Rambam, for it is not logical that drinking and 'Shehakol' should precede eating and 'Mezonot', and so one should instruct as the practical halacha (and 'Borei Peri Hagafen' precedes the rest of the blessings except for 'Hamotzi' and 'Borei Minei Mezonot').