C. No Kavana, and not originally on table – Must the blessing be repeated upon eating a subsequent food:^[1]

The previous law dealt with when a single blessing covers foods that one has in front of him or that he eventually plans on eating. This law will deal with the case in which another food of the same blessing was brought to the person, which he did not have in mind originally to eat, and as to whether a new blessing must be recited.

Case 1 – Same food:[2] If after reciting a blessing on a food and then eating that food, more of the same exact[3] food was brought to the table, then some Poskim[4] rule that a blessing is not to be repeated upon eating this subsequent portion of that food even if he did not have in mind at the time that the original blessing was recited to eat a second portion, and even if it was not in front of him at the time, so long as he has not performed explicit[5] Hesech Hadas against eating anymore[6] [as explained in Chapter ?? regarding the laws of Hesech Hadas]. This applies even if one has already finished eating the first portion of food over which the blessing was recited.[7] However, other Poskim[8] rule that one must always repeat the blessing on the second food if he did not have intent to eat it when he recited the blessing over the first food and e it was not in front of him at the time of the blessing, even if it is a second of that same exact food[9] and he is still in the midst of eating the first food, and even if he has yet to even begin eating the first food [i.e. the second food was brought to the table as he finished his blessing].[10] Practically, Safek Brachos Lehakel, and hence the blessing is not to be repeated even if he completely finished eating the first food.[11] However, initially one should circumvent this dispute by explicitly intending upon saying the blessing for the blessing to cover all future foods of a similar blessing that will be brought to the table.[12]

• For example: If one recited a Haeitz on one apple and a second apple [even if of different color or taste[13]] was now brought to the table, it is a dispute if the blessing is to be repeated over the second apple, and practically we rule that the blessing is not to be repeated even if he did not have in mind to eat the second apple at the time that he originally recited the blessing, and even if one already finished eating the entire 1^st apple, so long as one did not have explicit Hesech Hadaas to no longer eat any more apples after finishing the first apple. However, initially one should circumvent this Safek by explicitly intending upon saying Haeitz on the first apple to cover all future foods of a similar blessing that will be brought to the table.

Case 2 – Completely different foods but similar blessing:[14] If after reciting a blessing on a food a completely[15] different type of food that happens to share the same before blessing as the first food was now brought to the table, then if he did not have in mind at the time that the original blessing was recited to eat this food, then since the two foods are not similar in nature, one must repeat the blessing on the second food. This applies even if one still has some of the original food remaining which he has yet to finish eating. The same applies if the second food is a Tafel to the first food, if he did not have in mind at the time that the original blessing was recited on the Ikkur to also eat the Tafel, then a new blessing must be said on the Tafel.

• For example: If one recited a Shehakol on a cup of water and a piece of fish was brought to the table, then the blessing must be repeated over the fish if he did not have in mind at the time that he recited Shehakol that he would eat the fish.
• Likewise, if one recited a Shehakol on fish and a piece of cheese was brought to the table, then the blessing must be repeated over the cheese if he did not have in mind at the time that he recited Shehakol that he would eat the cheese.

Case 3 – Related foods and similar blessing:[16] If after reciting a blessing on a food, a similar, but not exact, type of food that shares the same before blessing as the first food was now brought to the table, then some Poskim[17] rule that even if he did not have in mind at the time that the original blessing was recited, to eat this food, then since the two foods are similar in nature, then if one did not yet finish eating the first food, then the blessing is not to be repeated on the second food. If, however, one did finish eating the first food and no longer has any of the first food available in front of him, then a blessing is to be repeated.[18] However, other Poskim[19] rule that one must always repeat the blessing on the second food if he did not have intent to eat it when he recited the blessing, even if he is still in the midst of eating the first food, and even if he has yet to even begin eating the first food [i.e. the second food was brought to the table as he finished his blessing].[20] Practically, Safek Brachos Lehakel, and hence if he is still in the midst of eating the first food the blessing is not to be repeated.[21] However, initially one should circumvent this dispute by explicitly intending upon saying the blessing for the blessing to cover all future foods of a similar blessing that will be brought to the table.[22]

• For example:[23] If one recited a Haeitz on an apple and an orange was brought to the table, then [according to all opinions] the blessing must be repeated on the orange if he already finished eating the apple and no longer has any more apples available in front of him, and [due to Safek Brachos Lihakel] is not to be repeated if he is still in the midst of eating the apple.
• Likewise, if one recited a Shehakol on chicken and a piece of meat was brought to the table, then [according to all opinions] the blessing must be repeated on the meat if he already finished eating the chicken and no longer has any more chicken available in front of him, and [due to Safek Brachos Lihakel] is not to be repeated if he is still in the midst of eating the chicken.
• For example:[24] If one recited a Shehakol on water, and coffee was brought to the table, then the blessing must be repeated on the coffee if he already finished drinking the water and no longer has any more water available in front of him, and [due to Safek Brachos Lihakel] is not to be repeated if he is still in the midst of drinking the water.

_____________________________________________

[1] Admur Seder 9:5; Luach 6:5; Admur 206:9; Ketzos Hashulchan 56:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 206:18 – 7

[2] Admur Seder ibid; Luach ibid; Admur 206:9 in parentheses; M”A 206:7; M”B 206:22; Ketzos Hashulchan 56:2 1^st Chiluk; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[3] Definition of same food: The definition of the same food is that they are of the same species. This applies even if they are of different tastes and colors, such as a green and red apples or green and red grapes, of which we rule regarding the blessing of Shehechiyanu that they each are to receive their own distinct blessing nonetheless, regarding the above matter they are considered to be the same. [Ketzos Hashulchan 63 footnote 10; Piskeiy Teshuvos 206 footnote 72]

[4] 1^st and Stam opinion in Admur Seder 9:5 and Luach 6:5 and Admur 206:9; M”A 206:7

[5] See Admur 206:9 that unless one explicitly had in mind to no longer eat any more of that food, then we do not assume that he has resolved to not eat anymore of that food, even after he has already finished it, as it is common for people to continue eating and to increase in the eating that one began if he is brought a second portion.

[6] Admur 206:9; M”A 206:7

[7] Admur Seder 9:5; Luach 6:5; Admur 206:9; M”A 206:7 [however see Piskeiy Teshuvos 206 footnote 74 who writes that according to the M”A ibid if one finished eating the first fruit, then the blessing must be repeated. Seemingly, he refers to the second opinion brought next which is recorded in the M”A ibid, although according to that opinion the blessing must be repeated even if he did not finish eating the first food. Either way, we conclude Safek Brachos Lihakel, and to initially avoid the dispute, so there is no real ramification.]

[8] 2^nd opinion in Admur Seder 9:5 and Luach 6:5 and Admur 206:9; M”A 206:7 in name of Tashbeitz 310; Kol Bo 24

[9] It is explicitly evident from the above sources, that the second opinion requires a new blessing to be said on the second food even if it is the exact same species as the first food, such as if one ate a red Apple and was now brought a second red apple. So is evident from Admur in Seder and Luach ibid who writes the term “Mimin Harishon” which is the term used earlier when describing the same exact species. This is further evidence from the wording in Admur 206:9 in which he explicitly writes that the blessing must be repeated even if he was brought “a second of the actual same species.”

[10] The reason: As the concept recorded in Talmud that we assume that it is common for people to continue eating and to increase in the eating that one began if he is brought a second portion refers specifically to a meal and does not apply when a person is eating fruits and the like. [Admur 206:9]

[11] Conclusion of Admur Seder ibid, Luach ibid, SHU”A ibid; M”B 206:22; Ketzos Hashulchan 56:2 1^st Chiluk [although he makes no mention that this is a dispute and Safek Brachos Lihakel!]

[12] Admur Seder ibid; Luach ibid; SHU”A ibid; Rama 206:5; Michaber Y.D. 19:7; Ketzos Hashulchan 56:2 footnote 3

[13] Ketzos Hashulchan 63 footnote 10; Piskeiy Teshuvos 206 footnote 72

[14] Admur Seder 9:5; Luach 6:5; Admur 206:9; M”A 206:7; Ketzos Hashulchan 56:2 3^rd Chiluk

[15] See Admur ibid who gives the example of a food and drink as two completely different foods. However, he earlier implies that they have to be same species, like two types of fruits, and hence fish and cheese would not be considered the same. See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 79, Vetzaruch Iyun.

[16] Admur Seder 9:5; Luach 6:5; Admur 206:9; Ketzos Hashulchan 56:2 2^nd Chiluk

[17] 1^st and Stam opinion in Admur Seder 9:5 and Luach 6:5 and Admur 206:9; M”A 206:7

[18] The reason: As so long as he is still partaking in the first food, we assume that he has not resolved to not eat anymore of that same type of food, unless he explicitly has this in mind as it is common for people to continue eating and to increase in the eating that one began if he is brought a second portion. [Admur 206:9]

[19] 2^nd opinion in Admur Seder 9:5 and Luach 6:5 and Admur 206:9; M”A 206:7 in name of Tashbeitz 310; Kol Bo 24

[20] The reason: As the concept recorded in Talmud that we assume that it is common for people to continue eating and to increase in the eating that one began if he is brought a second portion refers specifically to a meal and does not apply when a person is eating fruits and the like. [Admur 206:9]

[21] Conclusion of Admur Seder ibid, Luach ibid, SHU”A ibid; Ketzos Hashulchan 56:2 2^nd Chiluk [although he makes no mention that this is a dispute and Safek Brachos Lihakel!]

[22] Admur Seder ibid; Luach ibid; SHU”A ibid; Rama 206:5; Michaber Y.D. 19:7; Ketzos Hashulchan 56:2 footnote 3

[23] This is the 1^st example given in Admur ibid “if they are both a species of fruit”; Tehila Ledavid 206:4

[24] This is the 2^nd example given in Admur ibid “if they are both a species of fruit”