Wine Exempts Other Beverages
[1] (Halacha 1146)
Question: What is the law when one made the bracha of HaGafen on wine and then comes to drink other beverages — must he make a bracha on them?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 states: 'They brought before them figs and grapes during the seudah. Rav Huna said: they require a bracha before them but do not require a bracha after them, and so said Rav Nachman... And Rav Sheshes said: they require a bracha both before them and after them, for there is nothing that requires a bracha before it and does not require a bracha after it except pas haba'ah b'kisnin alone. And this disagrees with Rabbi Chiya, for Rabbi Chiya said: bread exempts all kinds of food, and wine exempts all kinds of beverages. Rav Papa said: The halacha is: items that come because of the seudah, during the seudah, require a bracha neither before them nor after them; items that do not come because of the seudah, during the seudah, require a bracha before them but do not require a bracha after them; after the seudah, they require a bracha both before them and after them'.
Regarding the reason that wine exempts other beverages, Tosafos wrote2: 'And now, wine exempts all kinds of beverages because it is the principal beverage and it is the head of all kinds of beverages; therefore it is the principal and they are secondary to it with regard to the bracha'.
And similarly the Rosh wrote3: 'That wine exempts all other kinds of beverages, even though the bracha of Borei Pri HaGafen has no relevance at all to other beverages, because wine, being the head of all kinds of beverages, is the principal with regard to the bracha, and they are all secondary to it'.
Wine outside of a seudah — Tosafos wrote there: 'And wine exempts all kinds of beverages — seemingly this refers to wine without a seudah, for if it were together with bread, it would follow anyway that the bread exempts it, since even wine, the text wishes to say shortly, would be exempt were it not for the reason that it establishes a bracha for itself. Rather, it refers to a case without a seudah, and even so wine exempts. And the halacha does not follow him, for regarding "bread exempts" the halacha does not follow him, but rather follows the ruling of Rav Papa; if so, also regarding what he said, "wine exempts etc.", the halacha does not follow him4'.
And so wrote the Agudah5: 'Rabbi Chiya taught: bread exempts all kinds of food, and wine exempts all kinds of beverages. This refers even to a case not during a seudah, for instance where both are before him at the time of the bracha on the wine, so that it is not a case of nimlach; for if it were during a seudah, it would follow anyway that bread exempts the beverage, since even wine would be exempted were it not that it establishes a bracha for itself. And Tosafos ruled in Perek Kol HaBasar that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Chiya that bread exempts all kinds of food, as Rav Papa rules shortly, and also regarding "wine exempts all kinds of beverages" the halacha does not follow him'.
However, the Rosh6 disagreed and wrote: 'And this disagrees with Rabbi Chiya, for Rabbi Chiya said: bread exempts all kinds of food and wine exempts all kinds of beverages. And even though they disagree with him regarding bread, regarding wine there is no one who disagrees with him, and the halacha follows him regarding wine'.
Bracha rishonah and bracha acharonah — the Rokeach wrote7: 'And Rabbi Y.B.K. of Mainz instructed us to make the bracha only once, for a person's intention is to drink whenever he becomes thirsty. And he would make the bracha Borei Pri HaGafen on the wine, and when he drank beer or water afterwards he would make the bracha Shehakol, and he would explain that wine exempts all kinds of beverages from the bracha acharonah, but not from the first'.
However, Rabbeinu Yonah8 wrote: 'And Rabbeinu Chananel explained that wine causes a bracha for itself in that it exempts other beverages, so that if he made the bracha on the wine and afterwards drank other beverages, he need not make a bracha at all, neither before them nor after them, for the bracha on the wine that he made, and the one he will make at the end, exempt the beverages he drank in the interim. For even though the halacha does not follow Rabbi Chiya, who said bread exempts all kinds of food, regarding wine the halacha follows him, and wine exempts all kinds of beverages. And this is a fine explanation, except that the wording does not indicate it'.
And so wrote the Mordechai9: 'And the general rule of the matter: wherever wine exempts other beverages from the bracha before them, for instance where wine and other beverages were before him, in which case it exempts all kinds of beverages, so too it exempts them from the bracha after them, by a kal vachomer: just as items that come not because of the seudah, during the seudah, which bread does not exempt from the bracha before them, it does exempt from the bracha after them — other beverages, which wine exempts from the bracha before them, is it not logical that it should exempt them from the bracha after them? But where the beverages were not before him at the time that he made the bracha on the wine, and he needed to make a bracha on the beverages (for) [or]10 nowadays there is no keva for drinking wine, and the expression "they reclined to drink" does not apply to it, and it did not exempt the beverages that come after it from a bracha before them, then likewise he makes a bracha after them'.
And the Mordechai11 cited in the name of the Shearim of Rabbeinu Shmuel ben Chofni 'that there are those who differ and explain the words of Rabbi Chiya to mean that it exempts from the bracha after it but not from the one before it'.
And so wrote the Beis Yosef12: 'The Rokeach wrote that some say that what we hold, that wine exempts all kinds of beverages, refers specifically to the bracha acharonah, but not to the bracha rishonah. But this is not implied by the words of the poskim; rather, it exempts them also from the bracha rishonah. And so it is implied in the Gemara, since it compares it to bread: just as bread exempts all kinds of food, so wine exempts all kinds of beverages; and since bread exempts also from the bracha rishonah, the same applies to wine'13.
An additional opinion regarding wine exempting other beverages was written in the Tanya Rabbasi14: 'And some explain that wine exempts all kinds of beverages specifically when he mixed them together with the wine; but if he drank the other beverages during the meal without wine, the bracha on the wine does not exempt them and he must make a bracha on them'.
> Thus we have seen that the Rishonim disagreed whether the bracha on wine exempts other beverages from their bracha rishonah, and some of the Rishonim wrote that, according to the view that it does exempt them, this is when the beverages are before him at the time he makes the bracha. In the next halacha we will see what was ruled on this in practice
--------------
Notes:
1 41b ↩
2 Daf 42a ↩
3 Brochos, perek 6, siman 29 ↩
4 The Pnei Yehoshua wrote by way of explanation: 'For it appears in my humble opinion, regarding the reasoning of Tosafos, that it was very obvious to them that since the halacha does not follow Rabbi Chiya regarding bread — even though it is very significant, and we also find that the entire seudah is named after bread — and even so we hold that it does not exempt all kinds of food that are not related to the main part of the seudah, all the more so regarding wine with respect to beverages we must say that it does not exempt other beverages, since they have no connection at all with wine. So it appears to me regarding the view of Tosafos'. (And see the Maharsha, the Pnei Yehoshua and the Maharam Benet, who discussed whether these words of Tosafos contradict their words cited above from daf 42a) ↩
5 Brochos, perek 6, siman 150 ↩
6 Ibid., siman 26 ↩
7 Siman 329 ↩
8 Brochos 29b in the pages of the Rif ↩
9 Brochos, remez 150 ↩
10 Regarding these two readings, see Chayei Adam, klal 55, se'if 6, in the Nishmas Adam, se'if katan 1; and the Mishnah Berurah, siman 175, Sha'ar HaTziyun, se'if katan 5. And see in the next halacha what is written about this ↩
11 Brochos, end of remez 134 ↩
12 Orach Chaim, siman 174 ↩
13 See also the Tur, end of siman 208, and the Rema in Darchei Moshe, siman 174, os 6 ↩
14 Siman 24 ↩
[2] (Halacha 1148)
In the previous halacha we saw that the Rishonim disagreed whether the bracha on wine exempts other beverages, and that some wrote that it exempts specifically when the other beverages are before him at the time of the bracha.
Question: What was ruled in practice?
Answer: The Mordechai wrote1: 'Where the beverages were not before him at the time that he made the bracha on the wine, and he needed to make a bracha on the beverages, for nowadays there is no keva for drinking wine, and the expression "they reclined to drink" does not apply to it, and it did not exempt the beverages that come after it from a bracha before them, then likewise he makes a bracha after them'.
According to this reading of his words, the reason the beverages must be before him is that nowadays there is no keva for drinking wine.
[However, some read in his words, instead of the word 'for', 'or', and then his intent is that in order for the wine to exempt the other beverages, both conditions are required: that they be before him, and that there be keva for drinking].
The Darchei Moshe2 wrote in the name of R. A. of Prague that according to the words of the Tur3, even in our times there is keva for drinking wine; if so, seemingly according to this the beverages need not be before him. This is his wording: 'And HaRav R. Avraham of Prague wrote: However, according to the words of the Tur there is no distinction between our times and their times; end of quote. And see below, siman 2134, how we rule in practice on this'.
In practice, the Mechaber wrote5: 'Wine exempts all kinds of beverages'.
And the Rema wrote in a gloss: 'Even from the bracha rishonah'.
And the Taz wrote6: 'Even from the bracha rishonah. It is explained in the Mordechai, Perek Keitzad Mevarchin, that specifically if the other beverages were before him at the time he made the bracha on the wine, then the wine exempts them'.
The Magen Avraham7 also cited the Mordechai, and wrote that so too wrote the Agudah8; but he cited that the Shelah remarked, like the words of the Darchei Moshe mentioned above, that we hold in siman 213 that there is keva for wine.
And in addition, several Acharonim also challenged the Taz based on the words of the Darchei Moshe mentioned above, as the Dagul Mervavah wrote: 'With all due respect to the Taz, it appears in my humble opinion that he was not precise in transcribing these words, for in the Mordechai it is explained that this is specifically in our times, when we do not establish keva over wine; and so the Darchei Moshe cited it, os [5], and concluded on this: "And R. A. of Prague wrote that according to the words of the Tur there is no distinction between our times and their times." And then the Darchei Moshe concluded: "And see below, siman 213, how we rule in practice on this." [And his intent is] that below, in siman 213, se'if 1, it is explained that for us, reclining is effective for wine as well; if so, here too we do not hold like the words of the Mordechai'.
The Pri Megadim9 also wrote: 'In the Darchei Moshe, os [5], he leaned toward this, according to what the Tur wrote in siman 213, that nowadays too there is keva for drinking; if so, it is like a seudah, and even if the beverages were not before him when he made the bracha on the wine, he need not make a bracha on the beverages, neither a bracha rishonah nor a bracha acharonah, even not during a seudah'.
[Except that, as mentioned above, some read in the words of the Mordechai 'or' instead of 'for', and then there is no difficulty with the Taz, for according to this the Mordechai's intent is that it must be before him and that one establishes keva over the wine; and even if regarding the second detail he holds that nowadays one does establish keva over wine, nevertheless we learn from the words of the Mordechai that it must be before him.]
> Thus we have seen that it was ruled in practice like the words of Rabbi Chiya, that wine exempts other beverages, and the Acharonim disagreed in practice whether the other beverages must be before him at the time of his bracha on the wine.
Question: Does wine exempt only when one establishes himself with keva for drinking wine?
Answer: We saw above in the words of the Mordechai that wine exempts because of the keva of drinking over the wine. And the Mordechai also wrote10: 'Tosafos: when a person establishes himself over wine, for instance on Purim or at a bris milah, then the wine exempts; end of the wording of Tosafos, Perek Kol HaBasar'.
And the Levush wrote11: 'And if he made the bracha on the wine over which he established keva and afterwards wishes to drink other beverages, even though he has not yet made the bracha of HaMotzi, he need not make a bracha on the other beverages, for the bracha on the wine exempts them'.
> From his words it is implied12 that wine exempts only when one established keva for drinking over the wine,
However, in the Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah13 he wrote: '.. And from the general import of their words you learn that it is specifically when one establishes himself to drink, or even casually when the wine and the other beverages are before him, that wine exempts other beverages; but casually, when the other beverages are not before him, wine does not exempt other beverages'.
And the Maharam Benet14 wrote, in his explanation of the Mordechai's words cited above that when one establishes keva over the wine then the wine exempts: 'And nevertheless, if his intention at the time he made the bracha on the wine was to drink other beverages too, or the beverages were before him, it is effective even without keva ..'.
And the Mishnah Berurah wrote15: 'Provided that they were before him on the table at the time he made the bracha on the wine [for if they were not before him at the time of the bracha, even if they brought the beverages before him while the wine was still before him, it is not effective and he must make a bracha on them]. And some are lenient even if they were not before him, as long as his intention was on them. And all this is where he did not establish himself to drink wine, but only this cup alone; but if he established himself to drink wine, several Acharonim agreed that it exempts even the beverages that were not before him at the time of the bracha, since in any event they came before him while the wine was still before him'.
> Thus we have seen that some wrote that wine exempts only when he established keva over it, and some wrote that when he did not establish keva, wine exempts if the other beverages are before him, or if his intention was to drink them. In the next halacha we will see the words of the Alter Rebbe on this.
--------------
Notes:
1 Brochos, remez 150 ↩
2 Orach Chaim, siman 174, se'if katan 6; and see also the Drishah, se'if katan 6 ↩
3 Siman 213 ↩
4 Os 1 ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 174, se'if 2 ↩
6 Ibid., se'if 2 ↩
7 Siman 208, se'if katan 24 ↩
8 Brochos, siman 161 ↩
9 Mishbetzos Zahav on the Taz, ibid. ↩
10 See the Mordechai HaAruch (Machon Yerushalayim edition), remez 145, and in the notes there, a discussion regarding this passage — whether it concerns our case or concerns one person exempting his fellow ↩
11 Orach Chaim, ibid., se'if 4 ↩
12 See Olas Tamid, ibid., se'if katan 2; Eliyah Rabbah, se'if katan 8; and Eliyah Zuta, se'if katan 4. However, see the Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham, siman 177, se'if katan 1, who wrote: 'In the Levush, siman 174, se'if 4, "keva" is perhaps not meant precisely' ↩
13 Hagahos Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 174, os 10. (It appears that he read, as mentioned above, in the words of the Mordechai *'for'*, and therefore he held that one of the two suffices — either keva or that it be before him) ↩
14 Os 65 ↩
15 Siman 174, se'if katan 3 ↩
[3] (Halacha 1149)
In the previous halacha we saw that it was ruled that wine, with its bracha, exempts the other beverages as well, and we saw the opinions as to the conditions under which it exempts.
Question: What was ruled regarding the bracha acharonah?
Answer: The Mechaber wrote1: 'If he drank wine and water, he should not make the bracha Borei Nefashos on the water, for the bracha on the wine exempts them, just as with the bracha rishonah wine exempts all kinds of beverages'.
And the Magen Avraham wrote2: 'The Mordechai wrote in Perek Keitzad Mevarchin, and this is his wording: The general rule of the matter: wherever wine exempts beverages from the bracha before them, for instance where wine and other beverages were before him, so too it exempts them from the bracha after them, by a kal vachomer from fruit during the seudah, which bread does not exempt from the bracha before them yet does exempt from the bracha after them, etc. But where the beverages were not before him at the time he made the bracha on the wine, and he needed to make a bracha on the beverages, for one who drinks nowadays has no keva for drinking wine, and the expression "they reclined to drink" does not apply to it, and it did not exempt the beverages that come after it from a bracha before them, the same applies that he must make a bracha after them; end of his words. And so wrote the Agudah. And the Shelah wrote that we hold that there is keva for wine, as written in siman (213) [174]; if so, it is like a seudah, and just as at a seudah, even if he said "Give [us the cup] and let us bless" and then wishes to drink, so that he requires a bracha rishonah, he does not require a bracha acharonah — the same applies to keva of wine; end of his words. And to me it appears that even if he only withdrew his hands from the bread he requires a bracha acharonah, as written in siman 177, se'if 2, all the more so when he said "Give us [the cup] and let us bless". However, where he established keva over the wine, he does not require a bracha acharonah on the beverages. And see siman 206, se'if 5'.
Seemingly he means that according to the opinion of the Shelah (since there is keva for wine), one need not make a bracha acharonah even if he made a bracha rishonah; but the Magen Avraham himself holds that if he did not establish keva over the wine, he must make the bracha Borei Nefashos on the other beverages.
And the Mishnah Berurah wrote3: 'If he did not establish keva, and also the beverages were not before him at the time of the bracha, then he must make a bracha on the beverages after them, just as he must make a bracha on them before them, and as explained above in siman 174 in the Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 3; see there'.
Question: What is the opinion of the Alter Rebbe?
Answer: Thus, until now we have seen that some wrote: a) that when one establishes keva over the wine, the wine exempts even if the other beverages are not placed before him. b) If they are placed before him, it exempts even if he did not establish himself for drinking wine. c) If his intention is on other beverages, this is like their being placed before him. d) Regarding the bracha acharonah, when he had to make a bracha rishonah on the other beverages, the bracha acharonah exempts them only when he established himself for drinking the wine.
The Alter Rebbe wrote4: 'If he made the bracha on wine, he need not make a bracha on other beverages, according to all opinions, for wine exempts all kinds of beverages, whether during the seudah or at other times, because wine is the principal beverage and it is the head of all kinds of beverages; therefore it is the principal with regard to the bracha and they are all secondary to it. This is provided that the beverages were before him at the time he made the bracha on the wine (or that his intention was on them). And even if he does not establish himself to drink wine, but drinks a little wine for the purpose of a mitzvah, such as Kiddush and Havdalah, and drinks many beverages afterwards, they are exempted by the bracha on the wine (if his intention was on them, as will be explained)'.
[In a note in the first printing it is written: 'And so it is implied in the Magen Avraham, end of se'if katan 11, who compares it to beer and did not stipulate that the brandy be on the table, as written in the Ateres Zekeinim; and so it is implied explicitly in siman 206, se'if katan 7, and below. And so it is implied from what is written in siman 272'].
It is implied from his words, regarding the points above: a) From the fact5 that in the latter part of his words he mentions "and even if he does not establish himself", it is implied that the first part refers also to one who establishes keva; and if so, even when one establishes keva over the wine he requires that the beverages be before him. b) Where he did not establish keva and the other beverage was placed before him, he mentions: 'for the purpose of a mitzvah, such as Kiddush and Havdalah', and below we will see whether this is specifically for the purpose of a mitzvah. c) He wrote in parentheses (possibly because he was uncertain about this detail) that his intention being on them is also effective to exempt them with the bracha.
HaGaon R. Y. Piekarski6 was uncertain whether the Alter Rebbe's intent is that only for the purpose of a mitzvah, even if he did not establish keva over the wine, would the bracha on the wine exempt the other beverages (because the importance of the mitzvah lends significance to the bracha, and therefore it exempts)7.
However, in the Seder Birchos HaNehenin8 the Alter Rebbe wrote: 'Wine, since it is the head of all beverages, exempts with its bracha all kinds of beverages: whether from the bracha rishonah, which is Shehakol Nihyeh Bidvaro9 — if the beverages were before him when he made the bracha Borei Pri HaGafen, or if at that time his intention was on them to drink them, then even though his intention was not to exempt them explicitly, they are exempted automatically — and whether from the bracha acharonah, they are exempted by the bracha Al HaGefen, even if it is in a situation where he needed to make a bracha rishonah of Shehakol Nihyeh Bidvaro on them, for instance where they were not before him when he made the bracha Borei Pri HaGafen and also his intention was not on them at that time. And if he drank less than the shiur of a revi'is of wine, so that he need not make a bracha after it, and of the other beverages he drank a revi'is, he should make the bracha Borei Nefashos Rabbos after them, even if it is in a situation where he did not make the bracha Shehakol Nihyeh Bidvaro before them'.
And seemingly from his words here we also learn regarding the points above: a) He did not mention keva, and in every case he required that the beverages be before him or that his intention be on them. b) He did not mention the purpose of a mitzvah. c) He wrote simply that when his intention is on them to drink them, they are exempted by the bracha. d) He wrote that even if he had to make a bracha rishonah, the beverages are exempted with the bracha acharonah (even though, as mentioned above, he did not mention that he established himself over the wine)9.
> Thus in practice, according to the opinion of the Alter Rebbe, when one drinks wine and other beverages are placed before him, or his intention is to drink more beverages, the bracha on the wine exempts the other beverages from the bracha rishonah and the bracha acharonah. (Unless it is a case where he does not make a bracha acharonah on the wine because he did not drink the shiur, in which case he must make the bracha Borei Nefashos on the other beverages of which he drank a shiur).
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch, siman 208, se'if 16 ↩
2 Siman 208, se'if katan 24 ↩
3 Siman 208, se'if katan 72 ↩
4 Orach Chaim, siman 174, se'if 4 ↩
5 See Ketzos HaShulchan, siman 53, in the Badei HaShulchan, se'if katan 27; Kovetz He'aros U'Biurim on Hilchos Birchos HaNehenin, Kollel Tzemach Tzedek Yerushalayim, vol. 2, p. 237 ff., and p. 282. (And unlike what is written in Ohr HaHalacha (Davidovitch) on the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, p. 316) ↩
6 Chakrei Halacha, vol. 8, p. 12 ↩
7 See Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim, siman 174, se'if 2: 'I saw one who wrote that even if he does not establish himself to drink wine, but drinks a little wine for the purpose of a mitzvah, such as Kiddush and Havdalah, and drinks many beverages afterwards, they are exempted by the bracha on the wine if his intention was on them [the Gra"z]. And in my humble opinion it appears that without keva it does not exempt, for the Gemara compares it to bread, and with bread there is keva. However, Kiddush and Havdalah are considered keva: Kiddush is certainly keva, for there is no Kiddush except in the place of a seudah, and even Havdalah is also considered keva, as Tosafos wrote in Brochos [43a, s.v. Ho'il; see there]. And so it appears to me to be the main ruling in practice [and I found so in the Mordechai, Perek Keitzad Mevarchin; see there, and so it is stated explicitly in the Ohr Zarua HaGadol, siman 155]'. And it should be noted that Rabbi Akiva Eiger there cited the opposite reasoning: 'See the sefer Batei Kehunah, part 3, in Klal Beis Din, siman 1, at length, and he concluded that this is specifically when one drinks wine in the manner of drinking, wishing to drink wine; but when one drinks on account of a cup of the bracha of mitzvos, such as the cup of Birkas HaMazon and the like, the wine does not exempt. And see the Magen Avraham, end of se'if katan 11'. (And see what is written in Halacha Berurah, siman 174, Birur Halacha, os 2, p. 94) ↩
8 Perek 1, se'if 21 ↩
9 HaGaon R. Ch. Na'eh wrote in the Ketzos HaShulchan, ibid., in the Badei HaShulchan, os 28: 'Now, since he wrote "from the bracha rishonah, which is Shehakol Nihyeh Bidvaro", it is implied that specifically beverages whose bracha is Shehakol Nihyeh Bidvaro are exempted by the bracha on the wine, but beverages whose bracha is Borei Pri HaAdamah or Borei Pri HaEitz are not exempted by the bracha on the wine. And one must say that this is because, since their bracha was changed to be like the bracha of fruits, their law is like that of the fruits themselves, and they are not exempted by the bracha on the wine; and this requires further study regarding the halacha'. [And see Tehillah LeDavid, siman 174, in the additions] ↩
10 An additional point that can be learned from the words of the Alter Rebbe relates to the words of the Mishnah Berurah (in the Biur Halacha, siman 174, s.v. Yayin Poter), who inclines to say that only when one drinks at least a melo lugmav of wine does it exempt the bracha on other beverages. From the words of the Alter Rebbe it appears that he did not make such a distinction (especially since he mentioned that one drinks less than a revi'is, and did not mention any distinction regarding the amount drunk) ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group