Sweet Brachos

The Shulchan Aruch rules (O.C. 196:1):

A person who eats a forbidden food – though it may only be Asur mid’Rabbanan – cannot be included in a Zimun, nor does he recite a Bracha on the food before or after.

According to the Maharam Shik (O.C. 260), this ruling does not pertain only to foods that Halacha forbids but also to foods that endanger one’s health. After all, the Torah commands us to guard our health – “v’Nishmartem M’od l’Nafshoseichem” (Devarim 4:15).

The Maharam Shik clearly refers to foods that pose a significant risk to life. Foods that are merely unhealthy are not considered a “Ma’achal Issur”and Brachos must be recited on them.

However, we could consider a different perspective. The Gemara in Brachos (35b-36a) relates the following discussion about the Bracha on olive oil:

R’ Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, as did R’ Yitzchak in the name of R’ Yochanan: On olive oil we recite the Bracha Borei Pri haEitz. How so? If he drinks it [undiluted], it causes him harm! As it says in a B’raisa: One who drinks Teruma oil must pay the capital but he does not pay the [extra] fifth. One who rubs oil of Teruma [into his skin] must pay the capital and the [extra] fifth… What are we discussing? A person who has a sore throat. As it says in a B’raisa: One who has a sore throat – one may not pour oil for him on Shabbos. But one may place a lot of oil into Anigron and he swallows it. But surely that is obvious! You might have thought that since his intent is for Refua, he would not need to recite a Bracha on it. It therefore teaches us that since he derives benefit from it, he needs to recite a Bracha.

The Gemara states explicitly that if olive oil is drunk undiluted it poses a health risk and would not require a Bracha. Rashi explains this is based on the Pasuk, “v’Achalta v’Savata u’Veirachta”. Only an “Achila” requires a Bracha; something that is harmful cannot constitute an Achila.^[1] It follows that one would recite no Bracha at all.

The Rambam disagrees (Hilchos Brachos 8):

On oil, the Bracha Rishona is Borei Pri haEitz. When? If he has a sore throat and drinks the oil together with boiled vegetable water and the like, in which case he benefits from drinking it. But if he drinks the oil by itself, or if he does not have a sore throat, he recites Shehakol as he does not benefit from the taste of the oil.

The Rambam asserts that although a person who drinks undiluted oil does not benefit from it (and it is harmful, as evident from the Gemara), he recites Shehakol. The Kesef Mishna points out that this runs counter to Rashi and the Rif’s reading of the Gemara. This is also noted by the Tur (202).

The Kesef Mishna concludes that the Rambam must have understood the Gemara’s statement (“If he drinks it [undiluted], it causes him harm!”)only to preclude the Bracha of Borei Pri haEitz, not Shehakol. This is also the final position of the Tur.

In summary, there is a Machlokes Rishonim as to whether to recite a Shehakol on food that is harmful but from which one derives benefit. The Bach contends that the same Machlokes exists regarding vinegar (see Siman 204). According to Rabbenu Yona, one should recite a Bracha on vinegar even though it is harmful to drink it. This is also implied by the Rambam (Hilchos Brachos 8:8). The Tur, by contrast, rules that one should not recite a Bracha.

The Bach explains that the Rambam differentiates between a food that is harmful to the body but gives a person Hana’ah and a food that gives no Hana’ah at all. He proves this from the ruling of the Gemara (Brachos 36a) that one recites a Shehakol on barley flour. The Gemara contends that although barley flour damages the stomach, one must still recite a Bracha because of the Hana’ah.

The Rif and Rosh (2) rule like Rashi (as noted above by the Kesef Mishna). The Behag rules like the Rambam.

We can now examine whether this depends upon the type of food in question or the situation of the person in question. One could argue that even Rashi who holds that one recites no Bracha on a harmful food, only says this about a food that is objectively harmful to health. However, if a food is healthy and nutritious and a person experiences Hana’ah from it, but it is detrimental to the person because of a medical condition, he should recite a Bracha on it. On the other hand, it is equally plausible that this should [also] be judged based on the person who is eating the food: if it is harmful to this individual, perhaps he should not recite a Bracha.

Even if we assume the latter approach to explain Rashi, this may depend upon the Machlokes Rishonim above. According to Rashi, the reason not to recite a Bracha on undiluted olive oil is that it is not considered an act of eating. In other words, we judge each case against the generally accepted forms of eating. If so, it seems reasonable to judge each case and person individually. One does not recite a Bracha on an “Achila Gasa” (an act of gross overeating) even if the food is nutritious, because it does not constitute Achila for a person in this state. The same should be true of food that is harmful to an individual. In fact, the Acharonim note that the Gemara states (Pesachim 24b) that drinking fruit juice is considered an abnormal form of partaking of fruit – “sheLo k’Derech Achilasan”. Why then, according to Rashi, do we recite any Bracha on them?

Perhaps we can answer their question with our argument above. Rashi does not consider the food directly but whether the ingestion meets the definition of “Achila”. Though drinking fruit juice is not a regular act of Achila for this food, it is a regular act of Achila. It is only when the food is harmful that it cannot be considered an act of Achila performed by regular people.

However, according to the Rambam it seems likely that it depends on the status of the food. If a food is harmful it has less Chashivus, but eating it is still an act of Achila. Therefore, while one cannot recite its regular Bracha, Shehakol is still required due to the Hana’ah enjoyed. (According to Rashi, since it is not an act of Achila, no Bracha is required at all.)

There is a third possible approach. R’ Akiva Eiger zt”l makes the following comments on the Sugya (Brachos ibid.):

It is logical to say that they did not institute a Bracha praising Hashem for something harmful to the body and with which a person deliberately harms himself. The proof from Teruma only demonstrates that [drinking undiluted olive] oil is harmful. From Rashi’s comment that “Regarding a Bracha, it states ‘v’Achalta’” and “As it states in the B’raisa that is not an item of Achila”; it is implied that he understands that the Gemara means to make the [following] comparison: Just as something harmful to the body does not constitute “One who eats Kodesh”, it would similarly not constitute “v’Achalta u’Verachta”… If not for Rashi’s explanation, it would seem logical that it is not appropriate to recite a Bracha and give praise and thanks to Hashem for something damaging to the body. The proof from Teruma is only that [undiluted olive] oil is damaging. This requires further study.

In other words, according to R’ Akiva Eiger (unlike Rashi) there is a general principle that one cannot praise Hashem by making a Bracha on something harmful to the body. It is not because the food or the act of Achila is compromised at all. It seems clear that one would not recite any Bracha on harmful food, not even a Shehakol. Further, it makes no difference whether the food is objectively harmful or only harmful to a particular person. Regardless, a person cannot praise Hashem for providing harmful food.

The Halacha follows the Rambam in this matter (see the Mishna Berura ibid.)

This leads to an interesting question for a person who is being tested for celiac disease. To make the diagnosis, he must eat foods containing gluten before endoscopic biopsies even though they are harmful. It seems that he should recite a Shehakol since he has Hana’ah. In addition, these foods are not harmful to regular people, and they bring him satiation. However, since it is harmful to him he should only recite Shehakol, not Mezonos or Hamotzi. However, R’ Nissim Karelitz (Brachos 202:20) contends that the regular Brachos should be recited since he has Hana’ah and the harm is not immediate.

            There are conflicting reports of R’ Elyashiv zt”l’s Psak for a person with diabetes who eats foods with a high carbohydrate content that are harmful to his glycemic control. It is reported in the Sefer Kav v’Naki (62) that a Bracha Acharona should not recited since this requires a Kezayis which is certainly a volume that is harmful to the patient. However, a Bracha Rishona, which is recited even on the smallest amount, which would not harm him, should be recited.

However, the Sefer Shiurei Maran haGri”sh Elyashiv (Kook, p378-80) states that a Bracha Acharona should also be recited for two reasons: First, a one-time act of eating this volume will not harm him, even if he eats a lot.^[2] Second, he can maintain euglycemia with appropriate insulin administration. He also states that if a person eats something that definitely endangers his life he may not recite any Bracha as the food is akin to Ma’achalos Asuros for him.

The apparent contradiction can be resolved by considering that the Psak depends on the patient’s medical condition and the level of risk to his health posed by eating cake. If his blood sugar is generally well-controlled, eating high-carbohydrate foods, while generally not recommended, is not considered life-endangering. Therefore, he should recite both a Bracha Rishona and Acharona. However, if his blood sugar is poorly controlled and his physician forbids him from eating high-carbohydrate foods, even a Kezayis would likely cause harm. In that scenario, although he should recite a Bracha Rishona (as one even recites a Bracha on a crumb), he should not make a Bracha Acharona.

We should note that in the introduction to the Sefer Shiurei haGri”sh (Brachos), R’ Aharon Leib Steinman zt”l is quoted as asserting that if the person will (ultimately) eat more than a Kezayis, every crumb will be harmful to him. If so, perhaps he should not even recite a Bracha Rishona.

[1] Though this Pasuk refers to Birchas haMazon, Chazal instituted the other Brachos to emulate Birchas haMazon – “k’ein d’Oraisa Tiknu”.

[2] [Editor’s note: It is unclear what R’ Elyashiv zt”l meant by this as hyperglycemia can result from inadequate insulin coverage of any carbohydrate ingestion. Perhaps his intention was that life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis is only likely to develop with prolonged and persistent hyperglycemia and not from a single episode of hyperglycemia that will be corrected with insulin and/or exercise as suggested below.]