Why is rice mezonos?
The gemara in Brachos on daf 37 concludes that the bracha rishona on rice is mezonos and the bracha acharona is borei nefashos. The borei nefashos part I understand. We hold like the chachamim that it's not one of the five grains and only the five grains and the five fruits of the 7 minim get al hamichya/eitz. If it's not a grain then why do we say mezonos?
Tosafos and the Rif both say that rice is the only thing that is not one of the five grains on which we say mezonos. So the question is really on them. Rabeinu Yonah though argues and says that anything that fills you up and is a mazon. So according to him are there other things besides rice and dochen that you'd make mezonos on? It would seem to me that there should be.
I saw this discussed in an edited excerpt from Meoros (from a few years ago) which quotes HaRav Y. Y. Kanievsky zt'l, the Steipler who discusses why we don't make a mezonos on things made out of potatoes which could be quite filling.
In his opinion, even in the time of Chazal many foods existed such as corn flour that satisfied man's hunger, and nevertheless Chazal did not set a brocho of borei minei mezonos for them. Only on food that is particularly filling did Chazal set a brocho of borei minei mezonos.They actually quote those who say that according to Rabeinu Yonah you would make mezonos on things made out of potatoes because it should be no different than rice. At least we can eat potatoes on Pesach!
posted by David @ 11:44 AM
3 Comments:
There are, of course, two bases for imposing the bracha of bori minei m'zonot: (1) because the food to be ingested is one of the five grains or five fruits of the seven minim and (2) in recognition that the food at issue provides sustenance. Imposing a borei minei m'zonot recognizes the latter and this notion is reflected, is it not, by the maan d'amar who recognizes rice as a grain and permits its use for matza.
The chachamim recognized this tension and, as a result, required m'zonot on rice for reason two and borei n'fashot to reflect reason one.
Perhaps the reason that m'zonot is not extended to other staples such as rice or potatoes is just a recognition of the maan d'amar who recognizes rice as a grain and permits matzah to be made of rice. On the other hand, I do not believe there is a view in the gemara that potatoes or corn would be treated as grain (I suppose there could not be since both came from the New World long after the compilation of the gemara).
Here's another thought. In reality, the chachamim believed that anything for which a m'zonot is made requires a bracha m'ein shalosh. But, as enacted, the "al ha'michya" cannot be said on anything but the 7 minim since the bracha refers to them. Thus, they enacted "borei n'fashot" to substitute for birkat hamazon and al ha'michya in those circumstances when what is eaten is not of the 7 minim. Some support for this perhaps is found in the term used for "borei n'fasahot" -- "lo k'loom." Unlike either birkat ha'mazon or al ha'michya, which identify foods specifically, borei n'fashot does not. Thus, it is appropriate as a catch-all bracha for those foods that are not lechem or of the seven minim.
You wrote, "Perhaps the reason that m'zonot is not extended to other staples such as rice or potatoes is just a recognition of the maan d'amar who recognizes rice as a grain and permits matzah to be made of rice." Rabeinu Yonah explains the Rif that way. He says that is why the Rif says that only rice gets mezonos but not anything else. It doesn't explain Rabeinu Yonah who says that rice and millet (whatever that is) are both mezonos.
The reason that potatoes and corn are not mezonos is simple. Chazal did not have them. They both originated from the "new world". They did not get to europe and for sure not to Bavel or Asia before the 16-17th century.
By that time, their was no body of anshei keneset hagedola to declare its bracha as mezonos. So we stayed with the safer "adama"
Post a Comment
<< Home