What is the law if one said the blessing of Ha’adama on a Mezonos or Hamotzi food?[1]

Some Poskim[2] 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[3], however, rule that he does fulfill his obligation. Practically, we rule that Safek Brachos L’hakel and hence he is not to repeat the blessing.[4] [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.[5] Alternatively, he can be Yotzei the blessing with another person who is now beginning to eat bread or Mezonos.]

_________________________________________________________________

[1] See 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 Yoztei 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.

[2] 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; 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 168:1; 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

[3] 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; 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 Bedived just like Shehakol”; 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; 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

[4] 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; Piskeiy Teshuvos 167:21

[5] Ketzos Hashulchan 37 footnote 24 and 31; 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

[6] P”M 214 M”Z 1; Minchas Shlomo 1:18; Piskeiy Teshuvos 167:20-21; 213:1; See Kaf Hachaim 167:77 that if they did not have in mind to be Yotzei the mistaken blessing, and began to ignore it as soon as they heard it, then they are not Yotzei

[7] Beis Meir 167:6, brought in Kaf Hachaim 167:77; Kaf Hachaim 167:77 concludes that if they intended to be Yotzei even after hearing the mistaken words, then they are Yotzei

[8] 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

[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 Haietz. Furthermore, possibly even those Poskim who ruled that one is Yotzei with Hadama, would agree that one is not Yotzei with Haeitz.