[Avodah] soup

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

R' David Riceman asked me:

> What makes you think fruit eaten as an appetizer shouldn't get
> a bracha? See Hayei Adam 43:2.

I honestly don't know what situation Hayei Adam is discussing there. But I'm confident that whatever he's talking about, it isn't appetizers. Because appetizers are discussed in Hayei Adam 43:6:

"One who eats salted leemanash [lemons?] during the meal without meat, this comes to draw out his desire for food, and therefore does not need a bracha. And this principle applies to anything that one eats or drinks to draw out his desire for food. And the same for one who drinks whiskey at the beginning or middle of the meal. And it seems to me possible that the same would apply to pickles, not to say a bracha, because it is considered a need of the meal."

Please note his specific inclusion of drinks. Soup might not be an appetizer, but if it is, then the Hayei Adam would say to make NO bracha on it.


> What bothers me is that you are proposing that we scrap an
> entire halachic category.

I see why you say that. But from my perspective, all I'm saying is that according to the way we eat, there are no situations or foods which fit that category. (Incidentally, a few minutes ago, I noticed the Mechaber 177:2 doing this too. He described the halachos of a category, and then said that it doesn't apply to "us", because "we" don't eat that way.)

Okay, let's look into this category a bit deeper.

Mechaber 174:7 (and many other poskim) explains:

1) If one drinks a mashkeh during the meal, then
2) the mashkeh is considered part of the meal
3) because it's not normal to eat without drinking.

I am very bothered by the logic of those three clauses. In my view, the halacha would have been simple and clear with just the first two. So why was there a need to state the third? It must be that if it WAS normal to eat without drinking, then the mashkeh would NOT be considered part of the meal.

I don't get it. Why is a mashkeh not considered part of the meal? If this halacha was only about water, which has no nutritional value, then I would understand it clearly. But the halacha is about ALL drinks, not just water.

There is a big difference between bread and wine. Drinks are covered by hagafen, but NOT because they enhance the wine; they are covered "because wine is Rosh and Rishon of all drinks, and they are tafel to it." (MB 174:2) If Chazal had said that "Bread is the king of foods, and wine is the king of drinks," then I might understand that they intended to mean that bread is the king of *solid* foods.

But they did NOT say that bread is the king of foods, and hamotzi does *not* cover the other foods because of bread's special status. No, the idea is that when one eats a meal, the focus is on the bread, and other foods are covered because they are enhancing the bread.

Again, to review: Wine will cover orange juice and Coca Cola even though they never even pretend to enhance the wine. But bread will cover meat and gravy and potatoes ONLY because they DO enhance the bread. It is a whole different mechanism. And in the case of bread, it can be enhanced even by other foods which are not actually eaten together with the bread.

The question I'm trying to answer is: If the potatoes -- which I am eating *separately* from the bread -- ARE considered to be enhancing the bread, why doesn't that logic apply to orange juice? Why does orange juice need the special logic of "no one eats without drinking"?

(I think that an answer is starting to appear in my mind. I am writing it now, not to bore anyone, but in the hopes that there might be some silent lurkers who share my views, and want to understand R' Riceman better.)

A few days ago, I sought my wife's input on some of this. I said, "I don't understand what they mean when they say that an appetizer enhances one's appetite. Were you ever hungrier after the appetizer than before?"

She answered, "Not hungrier. But the appetizer gets me in the mood for eating." I had major trouble understanding that. To me, the appetizer is not *preparation* for eating. It *IS* eating!

But I am finally starting to come around. It seems that when people talk about "the meal", what they often mean is "the main course". And "the main course" refers to what is in the plate, not what is in the glass. And I suppose that's why drinks are not automatically considered part of the meal, but are covered only because of the need to drink. This also explains why first courses and last courses will require their own bracha unless a good reason can be found to exempt them.

In closing:

1) I'm starting to understand why drinks might need a bracha during the meal. But the poskim give lots of reasons to exempt them, and I can't think of any examples they left out.

2) Similarly, I can understand that soup is a separate course from the main course, and that reason alone is enough for it to need its own bracha. But I think the rules of appetizers should apply to soup.

3) If something genuinely enhances the appetite, it will be covered by hamotzi. This applies to pickles, olives, fruit cups, and I don't know why it would not apply to soup as well.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210