Q&A: Question regarding the Talmud in Berakhot
Question regarding the Talmud in Berakhot
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The Talmud in Berakhot 12a tries to resolve the case of someone who drank wine thinking it was beer, etc.:
Come and hear from the latter clause: “The general rule is: everything follows the conclusion.” What does “the general rule” come to include? Is it not to include the case we mentioned? No, it comes to include bread and dates. What are the circumstances? If we say that he ate bread and thought he had eaten dates, and he began with dates in mind and concluded with bread — that is exactly our question. No, it is necessary for a case such as where he ate dates and thought he had eaten bread, and he began with bread and concluded with dates — he has fulfilled his obligation. For even if he had concluded with bread, he would also have fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason? Because dates, too, provide sustenance.
We didn’t understand the end: if they had said that “the general rule is: everything follows the conclusion” comes to include and teach a special law — that when he began the blessing thinking it was Grace after Meals (for bread) and ended with “for the tree and the fruit of the tree,” he fulfilled his obligation (because dates provide sustenance) — I would understand. (And then it would be similar to what is mentioned at the beginning of that same baraita regarding “Who forms light” versus “Who brings on the evenings,” in accordance with the Talmud’s conclusion.) But they go on and say even more than that — “for even if he had concluded with bread, he would also have fulfilled his obligation” — but if so, how is this learned from “everything follows the conclusion”?
Thank you very much!
Answer
Good question.
I think the intention is as follows: he begins the blessing with bread and concludes with dates. You might have thought that we do not follow the conclusion, meaning that he would not fulfill his obligation because the opening of the blessing was said with bread in mind. And it teaches us that since the conclusion is in order, and the opening is also relevant to dates, therefore even though he began with bread in mind, he has fulfilled his obligation. In other words, if we did not follow the conclusion, then he would not have fulfilled his obligation despite the fact that at the beginning he said something that would also have worked for dates, because in the end he concluded with dates, and we would have thought that the opening, which was said regarding bread, does not combine with it (even though if he had concluded that way it would have worked; but when he concluded differently, perhaps it would not help). It teaches us that since the ending was correct, the first part does not interfere (because it too is effective for dates), and he fulfills his obligation.
What really emerges from here is that even if we follow the conclusion, several conditions are still required: that the mistaken opening would be effective for what he is eating, and that the ending fit appropriately.
And if we do not follow the conclusion, then even if both conditions are met, he would not fulfill his obligation because of the very change itself.
However, all this is just a rejection. But according to the side that we do follow the conclusion even in the case discussed there, then of course none of this is needed, because the opening does not even need to be effective for what one is eating as long as the conclusion is correct. The discussion here, as I described it, proceeds on the assumption that in such a case one does not fulfill his obligation.
Discussion on Answer
Hello again Rabbi, and thank you very much for the thoughtful answer.
Sorry for the late response — originally I read it fairly quickly, and only now have we studied the Rabbi’s answers in depth.
There’s something difficult for us about the Rabbi’s answer (and also about the answer of Maleh HaRo’im that the Rabbi mentioned) — according to what the Rabbi wrote, what we would have thought if not for the baraita is this:
“Meaning, if we did not follow the conclusion, then he would not have fulfilled his obligation despite the fact that at the beginning he said something that would also have worked for dates, because in the end he concluded with dates, and we would have thought that the opening, which was said regarding bread, does not combine with it (even though if he had concluded that way it would have worked; but when he concluded differently, perhaps it would not help).”
But why is this different from what is written at the beginning of the whole discussion in the Talmud:
“It is obvious that where he is holding a cup of wine in his hand and thinks it is beer, and he begins blessing with beer in mind and concludes with wine, he has fulfilled his obligation, for even if he had said: ‘By whose word all things came to be,’ he would have fulfilled his obligation, as we learned: for all things, if one said, ‘By whose word all things came to be,’ he has fulfilled his obligation.”
So why in our case would it not also be ‘obvious,’ even without the baraita?
Thanks again
Sorry, but I’m no longer immersed in this. It’s hard for me to keep it all in my head or get back into it after such gaps, especially when there are lots of other questions and discussions going on in parallel.
Afterward I saw again that the Rashba there raised this very difficulty. See also Maleh HaRo’im and R. M. Horowitz (at the end of the Talmudic passage), who answered it differently from what I suggested here. But it seems to me that my explanation is correct.
In Maleh HaRo’im he explained that only if he knew he had eaten dates, and intended to exempt them with Grace after Meals, would he fulfill his obligation; but the baraita is speaking about a case where he did not know he had eaten dates, and the reason he fulfills his obligation is only because the opening of their blessing is included within the opening of Grace after Meals. And R. M. Horowitz explains that only because everything follows the conclusion does he fulfill his obligation with Grace after Meals, since they explicitly mention “bread” there, and that does not refer to dates.