Said wrong Bracha Rishona on Mezonos product– Law of Bedieved:[1]

Said Hamotzi on Pas Haba Bekisnin Mezonos product:[2] If one accidentally recited the blessing of Hamotzi on a baked Mezonos food which is defined as Pas Haba Bekisnin, then one fulfills his obligation and the blessing of Mezonos is not to be recited.[3] This applies even if one did not set a meal over the Pas Haba Bekisnin food. Upon finishing eating, one recites the regular after blessing of Al Hamichyeh and not Birchas Hamazon, unless he ate enough to require Birchas Hamazon.

Said Hamotzi on Mezonos product Tavshil of Hei Minei Dagan:[4] If one accidentally recited the blessing of Hamotzi on a Mezonos food which can never become Hamotzi [i.e. cooked pasta, deep fried Sufganiyot donuts, cholent with grains, oatmeal porridge, etc], then one does not fulfill his obligation and must repeat the correct blessing of Mezonos on the food.[5] [Hence one is to immediately say Baruch Sheim Kevod Malchuso Leolam Vaed and then recite the correct blessing on the food. If one corrected himself within Kdei Dibbur then he is Yotzei as explained in Halacha 17??.]

Said Hagafen on Mezonos product: If one accidentally recited the blessing of Borei Peri Hagafen on a Mezonos product, then one does not fulfill his obligation and must repeat the correct blessing on that food.

Said Haeitz on Mezonos product: [6] Some Poskim[7] rule that if one recited Haeitz over a Mezonos food, made of wheat[8] then he fulfills his obligation.[9] Many Poskim[10], however, argue and rule that one does not fulfill his obligation. [Practically, the main opinion follows that one is not Yotzei and hence one is to immediately say Baruch Sheim Kevod Malchuso Leolam Vaed and then recite the correct blessing on the food.]

Said Ha’adama on Mezonos product:[11] Some Poskim[12] rule that one who recited the blessing of Ha’adama on a Mezonos or Hamotzi food does not fulfill his obligation, and he is therefore required to repeat the blessing of Mezonos/Hamotzi on the food. Other Poskim[13], however, rule that he does fulfill his obligation. [This applies whether to a baked or to a cooked Mezonos product.[14]] Practically, we rule that Safek Brachos L’hakel and hence he is not to repeat the blessing [whether by Hamotzi, or by a baked or to a cooked Mezonos product[15]].[16] [Nonetheless, one who desires to escape the dispute is to say Shehakol on another food, such as sugar, and have in mind to include the Mezonos/Hamotzi food, just in case that it was not exempted with the Ha’adama blessing.[17] Alternatively, he can be Yotzei the blessing with another person who is now beginning to eat bread or Mezonos. Likewise, if one remembers his mistake within Kdei Dibbur, then one is to initially correct himself and conclude with the words Hamotzi Lecehm Min Ha’aretz.[18]]

Said Shehakol on Mezonos product:[19] If one recited the blessing of Shehakol on a food of a different blessing of any kind, he fulfills his obligation and is not to repeat the blessing. This applies whether the food is bread which is Hamotzi, or to a Mezonos food, or to a Hagafen beverage, or to a Haeitz fruit, or to a Ha’adma vegetable. In all the above cases the blessing of Shehakol fulfills the obligation of the food and a new blessing is not to be recited.

• Yotzei Bedieved
• SBL = Yotzei because of Machlokes and Safek Brachos Lihakel, although best to circumvent Machlokes.

X    Not Yotzei. Must Repeat Bracha

X*  Machlokes, but we conclude that one is Not Yotzei. Must Repeat Bracha

______________________________________________________

[1] See Seder Birchas Hanehnin 1:2-5, 10, 16; 2:9;  6:4, 6; 7:22-24  Luach Birchas Hanehnin 1:2-5, 14; 10:11; SHU”A Admur 167:13; 168:12; 202:2, 10; 24; 206:1; Michaber 167:10; 204:13; 206:1; 208:15; M”A 209:1; Ketzos Hashulchan 39:37 footnote 24 and 34; 48 footnote 1; 49:2-3, 9, 18 footnote 1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 167:20-21; 206:1-7; 208:23; Koveitz Kieis Shasul [Belz] p. 217

[2] Mamar Murdechaiy 168:18; Chayeh Adam 58:1-2; Derech Hachaim Dinei Taus Alef; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 56:1; Kaf Hachaim 158:43; Birchas Habayis 19:22; Even Haozer 168:5; Ketzos Hashulchan 48 footnote 1; Ritva Brachos 2:18; Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:120 -2 unlike Igros Moshe O.C. 2:54

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that the blessing of Hamotzi never covers Mezonos, even by Pas Haba Bekisnin, and hence the blessing of Mezonos is still required to be recited. The proof is from the fact that regarding those breads which are disputed whether they are Hamotzi or Mezonos it is ruled that Mezonos is to be recited. This implies that if one were to recite Hamotzi then he would not fulfill his obligation according to the opinion which requires Mezonos to be said. [Elya Raba 168:20; Igros Moshe O.C. 2:54 unlike Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:120 -2]

[3] The reason: As these foods contain the same form as does bread and thus it does not appear that one is lying when saying the blessing. [Chayeh Adam ibid]

[4] Mamar Murdechaiy 168:18; Chayeh Adam 58:1-2 and Nishmas Adam 1; Derech Hachaim Dinei Taus Alef; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 56:1; Kerem Shlomo 168:5; Ketzos Hashulchan 48 footnote 1; Kaf Hachaim 158:43

[5] The reason: As it appears like a clear lie to say “Hamotzi” over this food when in truth it has no resemblance of bread. [Chayeh Adam ibid]

[6] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 167:21; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Chita vol. 14 p. 543

[7] Kesef Mishneh Brachos 4:6 “Possibly even if one said Haeitz on bread he is Yotzei”; Tosafus Yerushalayim, and Amudei Hashulchan, brought in Kaf Hachaim 167:76

[8] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid

[9] The reason: This follows the opinion who rules that the tree from which Adam Harishon ate from was Haeitz. [Kesef Mishneh ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[10] All Poskim ibid who rule one is not Yotzei with Hadama, and certainly this would apply with Haeitz. Furthermore, possibly even those Poskim who ruled that one is Yotzei with Hadama, would agree that one is not Yotzei with Haeitz; See Chayeh Adam in Nishmas Adam 58:3 and Daas Torah who question the statement of the Kesef Mishneh ibid; Meiri Brachos 40a;

[11] See Luach Birchas Hanehnin 1:2-3; Shaareiy Teshuvah 167:13; Sdei Chemed Mareches Brachos 1; Kaf Hachaim 167:76; Birchas Habayis 19:20; Ketzos Hashulchan 37:10 and 49 footnote 1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 167:21

Ruling of Admur: Admur in his Seder Birachas Hanehnin 1:3 records a dispute regarding one who recited Mezonos on Hamotzi bread and concludes Safek Brachos Lihakel, however, no mention is made in his Seder ibid regarding one who said Hadama on bread. However, in his earlier work called Luach Birchas Hanehnin 1:2-3 Admur ruled that he is not Yotzei if he said Hadama on either bread or Mezonos. Likewise, so can also be implied from his wording in Seder 1:4 that only Shehakol covers bread. Likewise, so is strongly evident from Seder 1:10 regarding rice that one is only Yotzei with a Hadama if the rice is whole, while if it is ground such as Mezonos rice bread, then one is not Yotzei with Hadama, and if Hadama is not valid for Mezonos, then certainly it is not valid for Hamotzi; On the other hand, in Admur 202:10 regarding if one said Haeitz on wine that he is not Yotzei there is a gloss which states that “I am almost certain that I heard from Admur’s holy mouth that he retracted his ruling and ruled like the Even Haozer 208:14 that he is Yotzei.” This would imply that he is likewise Yotzei if he said Hadama on Mezonos or bread. [See Ketzos Hashulchan 49 footnote 1] Likewise, possibly from his omission in Seder 1:3 of the case of Hadama, one can deduce that he retracted from his ruling in the Luach. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos 167 footnote 136] Vetzaruch Iyun.

[12] Admur in Luach Birchas Hanehnin 1:2 regarding bread and 1:3 regarding Mezonos [omitted from Seder 1:3]; Ketzos Hashulchan 49 footnote 1 that so is implied from Admur in Seder 1:4 and 1:10 [see previous footnote]; Reah, Ritva and Rabbeinu Asher Ben Chaim in Sefer Hapardes, brought in Birkeiy Yosef 167:5 in Shiyurei Bracha, Zechor Leavrahm Mareches Tes, Shaareiy Teshuvah ibid; Birchas Habayis 19:20; P”M 208 M”Z 8 in implication of M”A; Aruch Hashulchan 168:19; 202:1; See Kaf Hachaim ibid; So rule regarding one who recited Mezonos on bread that he is not Yotzei, and seemingly the same would apply to one who said Hadama on bread or Mezonos that he is not Yotzei: Admur 168:12; Luach 1:3; 2^nd opinion in Seder 1:3; Bach 208; M”A 208:18; Teshuvas Beis Yehuda Ayash O.C. 41; Gloss of Rav Akiva Eiger on Brachos 36b; Aruch Hashulchan 167:19; Birchas Habayis 7:15

[13] Kesef Mishneh Brachos 4:6 “One can possibly say that if one said Hadama on bread that he is Yotzei, as it is indeed a fruit of the ground”; Rameh in Alfasi Zuta, brought in Birkeiy Yosef ibid and Shaareiy Teshuvah ibid; Orchos Chaim in name of Rishonim; Possible understanding of retracted ruling of Admur brought in gloss on Admur 202:10, and from his omission in Seder 1:3 [see previous footnotes]; Chidushei Tzemach Tzedek Brachos 9-14 “If one said Hadama on bread of the five grains [i.e. Hamotzi] there is no doubt, and certainly one fulfills his obligation Bedieved just like Shehakol”; Nishmas Adam 58:1; Panim Meiros 1:58; Erech Hashulchan 167:6 and 208:6; Shulchan Hatahor p. 35, brought in Divrei Menachem on Tur  167:13; Beis Menucha 157:6 concludes like Kesef Mishneh and Rameh; Nishmas Adam 58:2; Sdei Chemed Mareches Brachos 1; P”M 208 M”Z 8 in implication of Taz; Shulchan Hatahor 167:11; See Kaf Hachaim ibid; So rule regarding one who recited Mezonos on bread that he is Yotzei, and possibly the same would apply to one who said Hadama on bread or Mezonos that he is Yotzei: 1^st opinion in Seder 1:3 [omitted in Admur 168:1 and Luach ibid]; Ritva Brachos 42a; Meiri Brachos 35a; Derisha 168; Elya Raba 208:16; Even Haozer 208:5 and 14; Biur Halacha 167 “Bemakom” that so rule many Poskim

[14] Implication of all Poskim ibid who rule that one fulfills his obligation by Hamotzi [being that it is a fruit of the ground, and hence if by bread one fulfills his obligation certainly the same should apply to Mezonos products even if they are cooked. The difference between cooked versus baked Mezonos is only relevant regarding the case that one accidentally said Hamotzi on a Mezonos product, however seemingly has no relevance to the case here and so is likewise implied from the Tzemach Tzedek ibid and Ketzos Hashulchan ibid who write that even on rice and other cooked legumes one fulfills his obligation if he says Hadama]; So rule regarding rice: Taz 208:8; P”M 208 M”Z 8; M”B 208:70; So rule regarding all Mezonos: Yalkut Yosef 3 p. 121; Yabia Omer 9:98 – 13; Yisa Bracha p. 24; Vezos Habracha p. 207; Birchas Hashem 2:243

Other opinions: In some Luchos they write one only fulfills his obligation by bread and by Pas Haba Bekisnin and not by cooked Mezonos. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol, as stated above! [Luach of Rav Gadasi p. 60 and 66; Luach of Rav Elyashvili in end of Seder Birchas Hanehnin p. 156]

[15] Yalkut Yosef 3 p. 121; Yabia Omer 9:98 – 13; Yisa Bracha p. 24; Vezos Habracha p. 207; Birchas Hashem 2:243

Other opinions: In some Luchos they write one only fulfills his obligation by bread and by Pas Haba Bekisnin and not by cooked Mezonos. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol, as stated above! [Luach of Rav Gadasi p. 60 and 66; Luach of Rav Elyashvili in end of Seder Birchas Hanehnin p. 156]

[16] Ketzos Hashulchan 37:10 as explained in footnote 24, and 49 footnote 1; Kaf Hachaim ibid that the main ruling is like the Kesef Mishneh; Beir Moshe 4:21-4; Shevet Halevi 4:19; Piskeiy Teshuvos 167:21

[17] Ketzos Hashulchan 37 footnote 24 and 34 [although he concludes with a Tzaruch Iyun as to why this workaround was not written in the Poskim; see M”B 176:12, Vetzaruch Iyun]; See Igros Moshe O.C. 4:40 who rules that to escape the dispute, one is to stop his meal, recite Birchas Hamazon and then wash and repeat Hamotzi; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 167:21 that one should here the blessing of Hamotzi or Mezonos from another person eating

[18] Sdei Chemed Mareches Brachos 1; Birchas Habayis 7:15; Ketzos Hashulchan 37 footnote 34; See Halacha 16!

[19] Admur Seder 1:4; Luach 1:5; Admur 167:13 [regarding bread]; 202:24; 206:1; Michaber 167:10; 206:1; Mishneh Brachos 40a; Piskeiy Teshuvos 167:21