Home

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 202:7) rules that if dates are mashed and thus change form, the blessing would still be “Bore Peri Ha’Etz”. On the other hand the Rama (ibid.) says that the blessing for such a dish would be “Shehakol”. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer, vol. VII, § 29) sides with the Shulhan Aruch and says that even when a fruit or vegetable changes from its original form, it retains the blessing of that food. Normally, the principle of “Safek Berachot Lehakel”-that one should be lenient when there is a doubt regarding blessings-would dictate that one should recite the generic blessing of “Shehakol” on a questionable food such as mashed dates. Nevertheless, Rav Ovadia’s rationale is that even those that follow the opinion of the Rama would agree that one would fulfill one’s obligation Bediavad (ex post facto) by reciting the original blessing of the fruit or vegetable.

Notwithstanding, there are Moroccan rabbis who explain that the blessing over crushed fruits or vegetables is “Shehakol”. Rabbi Eliezer de Avila (Ma’ayan Ganim, Orah Haim, § 202) discusses marzipan, which is a paste made of crushed almonds, and says that its blessing would be “Shehakol“. This is also the position of Rabbi Yosef Messas (Mayim Haim, vol. I, § 284) and Rabbi Baruch Toledano (Kitzur Shulhan Aruch, § 199:25).
It should be noted that the blessing of “Shehakol” only applies if the fruit or vegetable lost any semblance of its original form, but if the general form remains, then it would retain its original blessing. As such, there is a discussion regarding the appropriate blessing that should be recited over the well known potato chips Pringles. On one hand, Pringles chips are made by mashing potatoes and therefore should necessitate a “Shehakol” blessing. On the other hand, the individual chips appear to be like slices of potato, and thus some opinions say that the blessing would revert back to the original “Bore Peri Ha’adama”. Practically speaking, since there is a doubt, one should recite “Shehakol” on Pringles.

Summary: The Moroccan custom is that “Shehakol” is recited over fruits and vegetables which change form, such as being mashed, crushed, etc.    ​

The previous Daily Halacha resolved one issue with the aperitif, namely that of Beracha Aharona. Two other possible issues will be dealt with presently.
A second potential Halachic matter is that of “Beracha She’ena Tzricha”, an unnecessary blessing. The reason that one must be concerned about unnecessary blessings because one should not pronounce Hashem’s Name without a justified reason. In the case of the aperitif one recites blessings over the different foods that one is eating and then proceeds to do Netilat Yadaim, Hamotzi and have the meal. Since food eaten within the meal is exempted by Hamotzi, theoretically the foods eaten in the aperitif could have been eaten during the meal and would not require a blessing. By making blessings over these foods knowing one is about to have a meal, one may be making unnecessary blessings.

Several Poskim rule that on since there is an obligation to recite at least one hundred blessings on Shabbat, this overrides the concern of an unnecessary blessing, and indeed, the blessings over the aperitif are considered necessary. Rabbi Itzhak Hazan (Yehave Da’at, vol. II, § 22) quotes the HIDA (Birke Yosef, § 176:46) who says that whenever there is a need for a blessing, then Beracha She’ena Tzricha does not come into play.

The third issue is the concept of “Kiddush Bimkom Se’uda”. In order for Kiddush to be fulfilled,  it needs to be accompanied by a meal. In other words,one does not fulfill Kiddush by simply reciting it and drinking some wine; it must be followed a meal and must be in the same place as the meal. In the case of the aperitif, especially one that lasts a while, there is a concern of violating Kiddush Bimkom Seuda when there is a such a long interruption between the Kiddush and the actual meal.

Rabbi David Ovadia (Nahagu Ha’am, Hilchot Shabbat, § 14) writes that it is not proper to engage in a lengthy aperitif as it may be a possible interruption between the Kiddush and the meal. Nevertheless, Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul (Or LeZion, vol. II, ch. 20, § 25), discussing the custom of aperitif in Yemen, explains that, since the aperitif is eaten to enhance one’s appetite and is therefore necessary for the actual meal, it is not considered an interruption. Similarly, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minhat Shlomo, § 18) discuss the concept of Kiddush Bimkom Seuda during the Seder, in which a considerable amount of time passes between the Kiddush and the eating of the Matza. However, since one is involved in relating the Haggada, which is an integral part of the Seder, he explains that there is no concern of interrupting between Kiddush and the meal.

It should be noted that the Baba Sali was particular about observing the custom of aperitif. Although it was explained that one may eat more than a Kezait of aperitif and even foods which do not necessarily enhance one’s appetite, the Baba Sali was strict about eating less than a Kezait and about avoiding foods like fish.

Summary:   There is a Halachic basis for the aperitif in light of the issues of Beracha Aharona, Beracha She’ena Tzricha and Kiddush Bimkom Seuda.

There is a practice among many families to partake in some foods, such as nuts, olives, fish etc. between Kiddush and Netilat Yadaim on Shabbat, sometimes referred to as an ‘aperitif’. One reason for this is to compensate for the fewer blessings which are recited on Shabbat. Normally, one is required to recite at least one hundred blessings a day, but since the Amida prayers of Shabbat have fewer blessings than the weekday Amida, one may not reach this goal. By sampling foods and reciting the appropriate blessings, one can ensure one reaches the required tally. Another reason is that, as the name suggests, the aperitif whets one’s appetite and one can more fully enjoy and honor the Shabbat meal. In some instances, this involves sampling some foods for a few minutes and then going to wash one’s hands, while in other families, this ritual can last for a significant amount of time. There are three potential Hallachic issues with the aperitif which will be discussed presently and in the following Daily Halachot.

The first issue is that of the Beracha Aharona after the aperitif. The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 176:1) rules that Birkat Hamazon applies to foods eaten in the meal itself, that is, after Netilat Yadaim. Any foods consumed before Netilat Yadaim are not covered by Birkat Hamazon and thus require their own Beracha Aharona. In order for a Beracha Aharona to be recited, one must eat a requisite amount of food and be mindful of this amount, which may cause confusion. Furthermore, it is not common among people who have an aperitif to be particular about reciting a Beracha Aharona, even if one may technically be required to do so.
One way to reconcile t

his is by distinguishing between foods which are eaten to arouse one’s appetite, such as pickled or salty foods, and those eaten for their own sake. Many Poskim explain that foods eaten to arouse one’s appetite are considered to be part of the meal, and are thus exempted by Birkat Hamazon, even if eaten in an amount which would normally require a Beracha Aharona. On the other hand it is entirely plausible that foods that are not eaten to whet one’s appetite would require a Beracha Aharona. Indeed, Rabbi Machlouf Abuhatzira (Yefe Sha’ah) is adamant about requiring a Beracha Aharona when one eats a Kezait or more of foods which are not considered to help one’s appetite, such as fish. This opinion is shared by Rabbi Itzhak Aben Denan (LeItzhak Re’ah, Likute Dinim, Berachot), Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul (Or LeTzion, vol. 2, ch.12, § 7) and the Mishna Berura (O.H. 176, Sha’ar HaTziun § 8)

Nevertheless, it appears that despite this differentiation, the common practice is to not make a Beracha Aharona, regardless of the type and amount of food. Rabbi Yehiel Michel Epstein (Aruch HaShulhan, end of § 176) offers support to this custom by saying that any food eaten before Hamotzi serves and enhances the upcoming meal, and therefore would be considered an intrinsic part of the meal. This is supported by Rabbi David Ovadia’s aforementioned opinion that all foods can help arouse one’s appetite, not only those that are salty, etc. Rabbi Shalom Messas (Tevuot Shamesh, Orah Haim § 69), Rabbi Yehoshua Maman (Emek Yehoshua, vol. III, § 20) also write that there is a Halachic basis to rely upon for this practice.

Summary:  There is a Halachic basis for partaking in an aperitif between Kiddush and Netilat Yadaim, even if if the amount of food is substantial.

When three or more people share a bread-based meal, there is an obligation to preface Birkat Hamazon with Zimun, that is, a summons to join the blessing. This obligation is deduced from the verse (Devarim 32:3) “Ki Shem Hashem Ekra Havu Godel Lelokenu” (lit. “When I call Hashem’s Name, attribute greatness to our G-d”). The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 199:7) writes that although women are not obligated in Zimun if they eat among themselves, they are nevertheless permitted to recite. The Vilna Gaon writes that women are actually obligated to say Zimun if they eat among themselves and indeed there are communities, especially in Jerusalem, where this is practiced. The Shulhan Aruch adds that when women eat with men, they are obligated to listen and respond to the Zimun. It should be noted that men and women do not recite Zimun together as it is considered a sign of immodesty, and thus women are not counted towards the minimum of three needed for Zimun.
There is a misconception that women are exempt from Zimun when men and women eat together and that they may recite Birkat Hamazon individually. Nevertheless, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, vol. V, Orah Haim, § 9:10) writes that in a situation where, for example, a woman is constantly between the kitchen and the table while serving the meal and does not have the chance of being part of the meal, she would be exempt from listening and responding to Zimun, and could recite it on her own. If, however, a woman is part of the meal, this leniency does not apply and she would be obligated in Zimun.
Summary:    Women who eat among themselves are exempt from Zimun, but may recite it. Women who eat among men are obligated to listen and respond to Zimun. A woman who does not have a chance to be part of the meal due to serving, etc, may be exempt from Zimun.

It is customary among Moroccan Jews to eat a dish known as Dafina for Shabbat lunch. It is alternatively known as Hamin or Skhena and is very similar to Cholent. Unlike Cholent, however, Dafina is made of different ingredients which are cooked and served separately. One component consists of cooked wheat kernels (le blé in French, Hita in Hebrew). When eaten as part of the Shabbat meal, there is no concern over reciting a blessing over the wheat as it is exempted by the blessing of “HaMotzi“. In some situations, such as at a Kiddush at synagogue, for example, the it is plausible that the wheat kernels are eaten on their own, necessitating a blessing.

​The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 208:4)  rules that when grain is eaten raw, roasted or cooked whole, the appropriate blessing and after-blessing are “HaAdama” and “Bore Nefashot”, respectively. Rabbi Yosef Karo (Kesef Mishne, Hilchot Berachot 3:2) writes that this only refers to a situation in which the kernels still had their chaff; if the chaff was removed and the grains are cooked, he posits that the blessing would be “Mezonot”. The Mishna Berura (O.H. 208:15) quotes the students of Rabbenu Yona, who were of the opinion that even if the chaff is removed, the blessing for the wheat kernels would still be “HaAdama”. Even though there is a disagreement in the matter, one can rely on the opinion of Maran (ie. Rabbi Yosef Karo), especially in light of the opinion of Rabbi Avraham Danzig (Haye Adam) who says that “Mezonot” is a generic blessing which exempts even non-grain foods. If one wishes to be strict, one can recite “Mezonot” on cake or the like, and “HaAdama” on a vegetable, and then eat the  wheat kernels from the Dafina without concern.

Furthermore, regarding the after-blessing over the wheat kernels in Dafina, the Shulhan Aruch (ibid.) writes that it should be “Bore Nefashot”, but that there is doubt in the matter. Therefore ideally, Dafina wheat should be eaten with other foods which can exempt it of its initial and after-blessings.

The above discussion applies to grains that are cooked, but if the grains are heat-puffed, Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul (Or LeZion, vol. 2, 14:12) says that the blessing would be “HaAdama”. Regarding granola, there is disagreement as to the proper blessing since the grains are heat-baked, which may or may not be Halachically akin to cooking.  Practically speaking, granola that is cooked in hot water has the blessing of “Mezonot”. Actual granola bars are “HaAdama”.

Summary:   There is a Halachic basis upon which to rely to recite “Mezonot” over the wheat kernels in Dafina, when eaten outside of a meal.

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 208:7) writes that blessing over rice is “HaAdama”. However, if rice is ground into flour and is baked, the blessing would be “Mezonot” since such flour has a satiating quality similar to other grains but the after-blessing would remain “Bore Nefashot”, nonetheless. The Rama (ibid.) comments that as longs as the rice becomes mushy and soft, the blessing would be “Mezonot”. Other Poskim, following the Shulhan Aruch’s lack of such a stipulation, say that the blessing of rice is always “Mezonot”, as long as it is cooked. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Hazon Ovadia, pg. 183) and many other Sephardic Poskim write that as long as rice is cooked, it would have the blessing of “Mezonot”. Furthermore, Rabbi Itzhak Krispin (Shemo Itzhak, pg. 4) confirms that this is also the custom of the Moroccan community.

An exception to this rule is if the chaff is still on the rice, in which case the blessing would be “HaAdama”. Brown rice is mistakenly thought to contain the chaff and therefore the blessing of “HaAdama”.   Nevertheless, Rabbi Alexander Mandelbaum (Vezot HaBeracha, Birure Halacha  § 17) proves that conventional brown rice does not contain the chaff and simply contains a brown layer which covers the white part of the rice grain. Therefore, even cooked brown rice has the blessing of “Mezonot”.

Regarding rice cakes, the rice grains are not cooked but rather are puffed through heat. Some Poskim say that since the rice was converted into an edible form, regardless of the process, the blessing would be “Mezonot”. Nevertheless, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Hazon Ovadia, pg. 184), Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach all rule that, since the rice is not actually cooked but merely puffed, the blessing would be “HaAdama”.

​Summary:   The blessing for both white and brown rice, whether cooked or ground into flour, is “Mezonot”. The blessing over rice cakes is “HaAdama”.