Berakhot 121

1:
In the period since the last shiur I have received a couple of messages whose import is the request for more detailed information concerning the criteria for determining the various berakhot. I hope that the content of the next few mishnayot and their explanation will shed light on these matters.

2:
The reisha [first section] of our mishnah is based on a very logical presumption: all trees grow in the ground, therefore their fruit is not only "fruit of the tree" but also "fruit of the ground"; the opposite cannot be said of the fruit of the ground. This is so obvious that the Gemara [Berakhot 40a] asks whether there was not some sage who thought that all that grows from the ground may also be classified as "fruit of the tree"; for if that were indeed so then our mishnah could be deemed to be directed against this opinion. Indeed, it is discovered that Rabbi Yehudah [ben-Ilai] can be deemed to hold such an opinion. The reason is rather flimsy, being based on an aggadic statement of his: the fruit (of the tree) that caused the downfall of Adam and Eve was wheat! (Two other opinions given in the same midrash favour the vine and the fig-tree. Please note that the apple, as far as I am aware, was a figment of the imagination of the English poet John Milton.) In order to bolster the opinion of the Tanna of our mishnah against the presumed opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, the Gemara gives a definition: if plucking the fruit still leaves a stem or branch from which new fruit might grow in the future, the correct berakhah is "…Creator of the fruit of the tree"; if plucking the fruit will make it impossible for new fruit to grow there in the future, the correct berakhah is "… Creator of the fruit of the ground".

3:
The seifa [last section] of our mishnah introduces a new berakhah – one that we have already mentioned incidentally: …She-ha-kol… [At whose word everything comes (or came) into being]. As far as edibles are concerned we can summarize "the story so far" as follows:-

If the comestible grows in the ground and not on a tree (as defined above) the correct berakhah is "…Creator of the fruit of the ground"; two major exceptions to this rule are bread and other foods cooked from grains. The berakhah over bread is "…Who produced bread from the earth" and the berakhah over foods cooked from grains is "…Creator of various species of foods" [Boré minei mezonot]. If the comestible grows on a tree (as defined above) the correct berakhah is "…Creator of the fruit of the tree"; the major exception to this rule is wine, over which the berakhah is "…Creator of the fruit of the vine". We can now add one more to the list of berakhot: if the comestible does not fit any of the above indications, the correct berakhah is …She-ha-kol… [At whose word everything comes (or came) into being]. (This would include, of course, such foodstuffs as meat, cheese, eggs and so forth.)

4:
We can also add one other use for the berakhah …She-ha-kol…: if one is not certain what is the correct berakhah for a given comestible, the berakhah …She-ha-kol… will serve the purpose. (The later poskim [decisors] say that this is a device not to be resorted to regularly, since we should always strive to know what the correct berakhah for the food we eat. My heart tells me that it is far better for a contemporary Conservative Jew – or any other Jew! – to use the "stop-gap" berakhah …She-ha-kol… when in doubt as to the appropriate berakhah – if the alternative is not to recite any berakhah at all.) The Gemara reaches the more liberal conclusion after ascertaining that all berakhot before food are of rabbinic origin. The only question is whether the formulae established by the rabbis are 'required' or 'recommended'. During the discussion we are told that if one sees a foodstuff and exclaims "How lovely this loaf (or this date) is – praised the the One who created it!" the rabbinic requirement of reciting a berakhah before eating something has been fulfilled. However, the protestations are not ignored of one sage who maintains that if one deviates from the formulae coined by the rabbis for the various berakhot one has not fulfilled the requirement.

5:
Let us try then to summarize this point. If you know the correct berakhah – use it. If you do not know the correct berakhah (for a comestible) you may substitute …She-ha-kol…. While it is not recommended, it is permissible to use a privately coined berakhah – provided that the phrase used contains a reference to the Deity and specifically mentions the foodstuff concerned.