Berakhot 129

Today's shiur is dedicated by Tara Cazaubon in thanks to Hashem Yitbarakh for all His countless blessings, on the occasion of the 32nd wedding anniversary of her parents, Lag B'Omer 5725.

1:
The term used in our mishnah "of prime importance" refers to an item of food which is the real reason why the person is eating at all. The term "of secondary importance" refers to an item of food that usually accompanies another item on the menu, but is not the real reason for eating. The Hebrew terms are ikkar ["of prime importance"] and tafel ["of secondary importance"]. Both terms are, of course, subjective in that what makes one item prime and another secondary is very personal. For example: when eating a sandwich, is it the bread what prompts us to eat or the filling? – what comes between the two slices of bread?

2:
This mishnah is unusual in several respects, but even the Gemara [Berakhot 44a] notes a most obvious problem. Can there really be anything that can be considered "of prime importance" and the accompanying bread of secondary importance to it? In the hierarchy of foods is not bread at the very top of the list, the staple diet par excellence? The Gemara quotes the Babylonian Amora Rav Ashi as stating that our mishnah is talking about one very specific and unique situation. Ginossar is a spot on the shores of Lake Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee) which in Mishnaic and Talmudic times was famed for its luscious figs, which so oozed with sweetness that even just handling them made one's skin shine. It appears that they were very "more-ish": Rabbi Yoĥanan [Eretz-Israel, mid 3rd century CE] alone could consume whole basketfuls. These figs were so sickly sweet that they had to be accompanied by something salty on bread in order to alleviate the overwhelming sugariness of the figs. They also appear to have had another property:

3:
The following is the now accepted general rule for foods eaten outside the parameters of a formal meal (where the bread always covers everything else in the meal): the correct berakhah for the element of the food that is most desired by the consumer should be recited, thus obviating the need for any other berakhah. For example, for any person with typical tastes, it is the ice cream that is the ikkar to which the wafers or the cone are tafel. Therefore the berakhah should be recited over the ice cream, ignoring the wafer – even though the berakhah for the wafer would be mezonot and the berakhah for the ice cream is, of course, she-ha-kol. Where you personally see two items as really being equally ikkar, you will have no choice but to recite two separate berakhot. For example: cake and coffee for most people with typical attitudes, would (first) require a berakhah for the cake [mezonot] and (then) another berakhah [she-ha-kol] for the coffee.