Q What is the proper beracha on
chocolate-covered raisins? (Guess who submitted this question to the Vebbe
Rebbe.) When one eats a food which is made up of distinct parts that are combined together, then one makes the beracha of that which is the IKAR (the main food) and not on the TAFEL (the ancillary food) (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 212). The problem is that at times there is no clear IKAR and TAFEL. So, for example, when one eats fruit salad (which contains fruit that have the beracha of ha'adama) one determines the more important by the beracha which applies to the majority of the fruit in terms of volume (Mishna Berura 212:1). This is because it is difficult to say that any one fruit is more important than the other, and so the majority prevails. However, in chocolate-covered raisins, where the function of the chocolate and the raisin are quite different, it is possible that one is the IKAR and the other is the TAFEL. If one had a clear feeling on the matter, he would follow it to determine his status (Laws of Berachos (Forst) pg. 215), but most people are some- what ambivalent on the matter. Let us mention a couple of precedents. The Shulchan Aruch (212:2) says that those who place some type of confection on top of thin crackers make a beracha only on the confection. However, the Magen Avraham (ad loc.) says that that is only when the cracker does not have its own good taste, but the way it was done in his time, one makes a beracha on the tasty cracker. The Machatzit HaShekel (ad loc.) adds that is one should make two berachot on the two separate parts of the food. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe OC III, 31) feels that our situation is similar and one makes two berachot. On the other hand, the Mishna Berura poskens that on nuts coated in sugar, even if the sugar is the majority, one makes ha'etz. However, chocolate is a more significant, inde- pendent food than sugar, and, therefore, there are those who say that one makes only a shehakol on the chocolate coating (see V'zot Haberacha, pg. 96). However, there seems to be more logic to make ha'etz and this for a combination of reasons. First of all, as we are dealing with a whole (albeit small) fruit which is coated, it seems that the fruit is more important (see Tur, Orach Chayim 204 and Mishna Berura 204:51). Even if one never eats raisins without the chocolate, it does not mean that the raisins are not the main thing, just as bread is the main thing even for one who never eats it without peanut butter and jelly. Secondly, many are of the opinion that the beracha on chocolate itself is ha'etz, as it is the normal use of the chocolate bean, which grows on a tree (see Minchat Shlomo 91.2). A major part of the reason that we make shehakol is because it is a safer beracha, as it works even for cases where ha'etz is the correct beracha, but not vice versa. But in this case, assuming that chocolate gets ha'etz saves one a beracha, while saying shehakol makes you go out on the limb and make a second, possibly unnecessary beracha. For some, this combination of factors leads them to say that only ha'etz should be said (see Laws of Berachot, ibid.). Another factor is that, in most cases, the raisin is greater in volume than the chocolate (see V'zot Haberacha, pg. 97). On the other hand, reciting just shehakol also has an advantage, in that b'dieved it fulfills the obligation of beracha on all foods. In summary, we recommend making ha'etz on chocolate-coated raisins, especially if the raisin appears to be the majority. Shehakol is a safe alternative, as well, especially if the chocolate is the majority or one thinks that the chocolate is his main focus. Only those who follow Rav Moshe on a regular basis should make two berachot (refer to his cited teshuva as to the order of carrying this out). Ed. note: First of all, our thanks to the Vebbe Rebbe for relating to this question so promptly. We at the Israel Center needed an answer because of our recently installed snack dispenser. We have requested of the vendor that he come up with a reasonable replacement for the chocolate-covered raisins because we are not comfortable with putting people into a situation of SAFEK, doubt as to what the correct bracha is, and/or into a B’di-eved situation. Furthermore, there is the issue of the after-bracha, which perhaps the VR will deal with another time. According to the sefer “Halachos of K’zayis”, 30 chocolate- covered raisins (37 grams) makes a kazayit and requires a bracha acharona. That gives us two more problems. If a kazayit is made up of raisins and chocolate, then there is no kazayit of just raisins, and AL HA’ETZ is not to be said. BOREI NEFASHOT would be the correct bracha acharona. How many chocolate-covered raisins contain a kazayit of raisins? And the second problem comes from a dispute as to what requires a bracha acharona on raisins in the first place - kazayit or one raisin, which is a whole fruit giving it a significance beyond its weight or volume. There are opinions that one says a bracha acharona on a whole fruit even when it is less than a kazayit. In order to avoid halachic doubt, one should try to avoid the doubtful situation. One or two shekel-fistfuls do not make a kazayit but DO have many whole raisins. SAFEK. By the way, when raisins or nuts are chopped up and put into a chocolate bar, they are considered TAFEL and most poskim would agree that only shehakol is said. It is when the fruit (raisin, cherry, almond, peanut, etc.) is whole that there are different opinions. Chocolate-covered raisins lend themselves to a wonderful lesson in bracha-making, but they make things tough for one who wants to say his brachot l’chatchila. We hope you understand why we requested a less problematic snack for our machine. —PC Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat
Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read
this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at
www.ou.org or
www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email
weekly, by sending an email to
eretzhem@netvision.net.il with the message: Join Hemdatya –Please
leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the
Jewish Agency for Israel Several students of the Slobodka Yeshiva went to hear R' Itzel Peterburger deliver a mussar lecture. Later, when the Alter of Slobodka heard that some of the young men had been so moved by R' Itzel's words that they had wept, he reprimanded them saying, "Listening to R' Itzel should move you to think, not to cry." The Chozeh of Lublin was told about a
certain Jew who fasted throughout the week, eating solid food only on
Shabbos. The Chozeh responded, "There are two ways: to serve Hashem by
constant fasting, and to serve Hashem by elevating one's very eating into
worship. The second one is undoubtedly superior." Reason: In this prayer there are a
number of textual variations, besides the differences between public fast
days and the Ten days of Repentance in five of the petitions. On a public
fast day we recite: “Avinu Malkenu Zachrenu” [“remember us”], whereas
during the Ten Days of Repentance we say “Kotvenu” [“inscribe us”] and in
Ne’ilah on Yom Kippur we say: “Chotmenu,” [“seal us”]. In addition there
are also differences in the wording between the Polish rite [which is
printed today in most siddurim] and the western Ashkenazic practice, In
the Polish custom, the prayer Avinu Malkenu has 44 petitions, while the
Western Ashkenazic version has either 38 or 39 petitions. The order of the
petitions also differ in the various rites. According to the West
Ashkenazic custom, the 12th petition is: “Shelach Refu’ah Sh’leimah”,
“Send complete recovery...”. From this point on, the order of the
petitions differs from the Polish version. In some places Avinu Malkenu
was recited according to both customs. This might be the reason for the
custom in Ashkenaz for the Chazan to recite aloud verse by verse these
following passages: “...send a complete healing, turn us back in complete
repentance...”, “hachazireinu b’t’shuva sh’leima”] until “inscribe us...”,
“kotvenu”, so that the congregation will know which version is followed in
the local shul. Also to remind them to say “Remember us”, “zochrenu”, or
“Inscribe us”, “kotvenu”, depending on the day. Chaza”l teach (Makot 10a) that if a student is sent into this exile, his teacher must go with him to the city of refuge and continue with his Torah lessons. What happens if, after the Kohein Gadol dies, the killer decides to remain in exile and not leave the city of refuge? Must the teacher stay with his student and continue to teach him Torah? Clearly, the teacher is obligated to remain in exile only as long as the student is unable to leave. If the student is permitted to leave, but chooses to remain in a self-imposed exile, the teacher is under no obligation to stay. There is another type of exile that is all too familiar to us. We have been living in exile for nearly 2000 years. We have been confined to impure and unfamiliar foreign lands. Chaza”l teach that when we were sent into exile, HaShem went into exile along with us, so that His Shekhina has been among us in all the strange lands of our exile. Through Hashem's great kindness, we have been allowed to leave the bitter exile and return to Eretz Yisrael. For the first time in many centuries, we have been able to return to our own Land. Just like the teacher who may return home, leaving his student in his self-imposed exile, so too HaShem has returned home, His Shekhina now rests in Eretz Yisrael. Isn't it time to leave the self-imposed exile and return to the land of the Shekhina? Certainly, the Shekhina is waiting for us all to return. Avraham Hermon, Har Bracha, (on the outskirts of the holy city of refuge, Sh’chem) TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah. To help further the work of Aloh Naaleh,
tax deductible contributions can be made to American Friends of AACI attn:
Aloh Naaleh, and can be sent to us at 11 Pinsker St., Jerusalem 92228. As Bnei Yisrael had been told endlessly, they were now to drive out the inhabitants of the Land and were to destroy all the indigenous artifacts of Avoda Zara. Once this was achieved the Torah decrees: "You shall possess the Land and you shall settle it - for to you have I given the land to possess it" (Devarim 33:53). Rashi concludes that this statement is a warning: If you drive out the present inhabitants you will be able to settle in the Land and remain secure. But if you fail, you will not prevail. For the Ramban, however, the term “Vishavtem” - 'You shall settle' - is a primary source for the positive command to inhabit the Land. Either way, our duty is to settle in Eretz Yisrael. In this day and age we are not
surprised that our external enemies still question our right to live in
Israel. But how, we must ask our- selves, do we convince those from among
our own ranks who reprehensibly continue to undermine this basic tenet of
our religious duty and spiritual renaissance? [The Parshat Matot-Masei Homepage]
|
