[Avodah] soup

[David Riceman]

RAM:
> (For those trying to follow along inside, "the Bach ad. loc." is in siman 174, "v'al".)
>
> It is difficult for me to follow that Bach, and even more difficult for me to follow your questions on it. Would it be possible to start with a simpler topic, and go from there to the more complicated question of soup?
Let's start with Berachos 41b (near the end).  The gemara is discussing 
the definition of "dvarim haba'im mahmas haseudah".  Ben Azzai has just 
explained that the reason they are pturim mibracha is because "pas 
potartan" -- bread exempts them.  They then ask about wine, which does 
require a bracha.  His response (which spills over into 42a): "sha'ani 
yayin, dgoreim bracha l'atzmo" -- wine is different, because it induces 
its own bracha.

There are numerous explanations about what the hava amina is -- why 
might wine be considered "mahmas haseudah" and what, other than wine, is 
included in the category of that hava amina that was not included in the 
previous discussion of the gemara.  There are also numerous explanations 
of "goreim bracha l'atzmo", and what other than wine is excluded based 
on that clause.

I will isolate as few opinions as I can manage.  "dvarim haba'im mahmas 
haseudah" can mean (i) things which you would consume only at a meal 
with bread (ii) things which you eat more of because of the meal/bread 
(we could subdivide this further if I had the time) (iii) things which 
provide substantial nourishment and therefore are construed to be part 
of the meal/bread.  "sha'ani yayin, dgoreim bracha l'atzmo" can mean (i) 
wine is unique (ii) wine is an example of a larger special class of 
drinks (iii) wine is an example of the general class of drinks.

Context matters for the definition of "dvarim haba'im mahmas haseudah".  
Hence the SA feels free to pick one definition in the context of drinks 
at a meal, and a different definition in the context of porridge (which, 
having spent my formative years studying YD, I think of as a solid).

The SA presents three opinions.  There is a machlokes aharonim whether 
the first opinion is (ii):(i) or (ii):(ii), and that is the opinion that 
the Rama (also unclearly) certifies as normative for Ashkenazim.  In 
particular, it is of the opinion that drinks are "dvarim haba'im mahmas 
haseudah" because people drink more at meals to aid their digestion (see 
H. Deos 4:2 for a condemnation of this practice).

Your suggestion that soup is included in the bracha of bread because it 
is like porridge can be construed two ways.  One is that we define 
"dvarim haba'im mahmas haseudah" in this context like (iii), which is 
not the opinion of the SA.  Another is that soup is not a mashkeh, and 
hence the definition we use in this context is irrelevant.  That, 
indeed, was my initial question: how do we know that?

Coke is a difficult case because it depends on two distinct issues (and 
since neither I nor my wife comes from a family of Coke drinkers I don't 
know the facts).  Does a Coke addict's consumption of Coke increase 
during meals, or is it a regular (say) one bottle every three hours, 
whether or not a meal intervenes?  If the latter, then it certainly 
requires its own bracha.

If the former, then we need to deal with the machlokes aharonim about 
the meaning of "sha'ani yayin, dgoreim bracha l'atzmo", v'od hazon lamo'ed".

David Riceman