[Avodah] soup

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

R' David Riceman wrote:

> See SA 174:7 "d'hashivei kba'im mahmas haseudah l'fi she'ain
> derech le'echol b'lo shtiyah", which I construe to mean that the
> drinking is an aid for washing down the solids.  I don't think
> this applies to the way most people eat soup.

That's true. People don't eat soup as an aid for washing down the solids. We also don't eat potatoes as an aid to wash down the solids. Both are eaten simply because it is a normal part of the meal.

It seems to me that RDR is confusing two totally different issues. One is that wine will cover any mashkeh. As I understand it, this halacha has nothing to do with the usual rules of ikar and tafel, but is a special halacha for wine, "because it is Rosh and Rishon of all drinks, and they are all tafel to it." (Mishneh Berurah 174:2)

> RAZ has informed me offlist, however, that Rabbi Kanievsky is of
> the opinion that someone who eats wine and soup without bread
> should not make a bracha on his soup (see footnote 8 in his
> (RAZ's) essay "What's the Truth About ... Making Berachot After
> Kiddush?".

Given what I cited above, if a posek considers soup to be a mashkeh, then it would make perfect sense for the wine to cover it. (Personally, I think this would make a lot more sense for a glass of borscht than for a bowl of minestrone, and perhaps Rav Kanievsky was indeed thinking only about chicken soup and similar drinkable soups.)

But in any case, the question of wine covering mashkeh is totally different than the question of what hamotzi covers.

Hamotzi will cover anything which is a legitimate part of the meal, regardless of whether it is a solid or liquid. This is easily proven by the example of wine, in the very Mechaber that RDR quoted, in the very words that follow the words he quoted: During a meal of Hamotzi, "even wine wouldn't need a bracha rishona, except that because it is chashuv, they made a bracha for it."

If you want to know whether hamotzi covers soup, then you don't care whether it is a maachal or a mashkeh -- you want to know if it is a regular part of the meal or not.

Most of us are familiar with the question of whether or not hamotzi covers dessert. That is NOT the question here; dessert is something served *after* the meal, but soup is served *during* the meal.

Still, the question has been raised because of soup's liquidity, and it deserves an answer. I did not notice anything in the MB which explicitly talks about soup, but he does mention a very similar food: "daisa", which is a hot cereal, similar to farina or oatmeal.

MB 177:1 -- "Daisa - Even though it is thick, and one does not eat it together with the bread (aino m'lafes bahem hapas), and it is eaten on its own, nevertheless, since it comes for satiety, it *is* the main part of the meal, and it is tafel to the bread. And the same halacha applies to all types of tavshilin which are usual to come during a bread-meal."

On the one hand, it is true that the MB does not mention soup by using the word "marak". But in my experience, "tavshilin" refers specifically to wet foods which are cooked in a pot. This might be a stew more frequently than a soup, but I don't see why the halacha would be any different.

> I asked if he (RCK) rules that such a person must make a bracha
> when he eats bread and soup without wine, and he (RAZ) didn't
> know.  So I don't know whether this ruling is because of safek
> brachos l'hakel or whether its because he (RCK) holds that,
> me'ikkar hadin, soup is a mashkeh.

Thank you for being so clear and identifying your pronouns as being RCK or RAZ. But I see no room for any safek here. Above, you referred to "footnote 8", which says:

> Hagafen can also cover soups, even those that require the blessing
> of ha’adamah such as vegetable soups (Rav Chaim Kanievsky, quoted
> in Tzohar, [Rav Elyakim Dvorkes, editor] vol. 5 (5759), pp. 117-118).

That phrasing seems to indicate that he definitely holds soups to be a mashkeh, because Hagafen can and does cover them.

But being a mashkeh is not sufficient reason to say that Hamotzi would not cover something. To make that case, you'd have to show that the mashkeh is NOT "devarim haba'im machmas haseudah". One example of that is dessert, but I'd be amazed if anyone claimed that soup is comparable to dessert in any way. Another example is whiskey, which MB 174:39 says needs a bracha, because it is not being drunk for thirst. I suspect that this may be RDR's whole point, because the soup is not being drunk for thirst either. But my point is that the soup *is* being consumed for hunger and satiety, which is exactly why hamotzi *should* cover it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
No Credit Card Offer
0% APR. Build Your Credit History. Find the Lowest Rates & Apply Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e149e1e38b05244369st02vuc