Garlic #2 and the Limits of Analogy — BT Berakhot 51a — #66

They asked Rav Chisda, “Should one who ate and drank but did not say a blessing [beforehand] go back and recite the blessing?” [Rav Chisda] said to them, “If one has eaten a clove of garlic so that his breath smells bad, should he go back and eat another clove of garlic so that his breath will smell even worse?”

Ravina said, “Therefore, even if one finished eating his meal, he should go back and say the blessing, because it was taught in a baraita: One who immersed [in a mikveh] and emerged [from the water] says as he emerges, Blessed [are You, Adonai our God, Ruler of the universe] Who has made us holy with mitzvot and commanded us concerning immersion.” 

But this is not [a legitimate analogy]. There, prior [to immersion] the person was unfit [to say the appropriate blessing]. Here, prior [to eating] the person was fit [to say the appropriate blessing] and since he was excluded [from saying the blessing after he finished eating] he was excluded [from saying it at all].”

INTRODUCTION

There are two sets of blessings recited for food: Those said prior to eating, like ha-motzi, render food permissible to us to eat (strictly speaking, food—like everything—belongs to God), and Birkat ha-Mazon, a lengthy set of blessings of thanksgiving recited after eating. Our passage  concerns the blessing recited prior to eating food. Rav Chisda answers this question: If someone ate and drank without having first recited a blessing over the food, should they, at the time they realize the omission, stop and recite the blessing before continuing to eat?

Rav Chisda answers by way of an analogy to garlic eating. Garlic is marvelous stuff, as every cook and food connoisseur knows. The newly free Israelites in the wilderness expressed deep longing for the foods of Egypt, among them garlic (Numbers 11:5-6). Even better, there is a suggestion in the Jerusalem Talmud that garlic is an aphrodisiac (JT Megillah 75a) and in the Babylonian Talmud that garlic boosts sperm production (BT Baba Kama 82a enumerates other marvelous qualities of garlic, as well). Eating raw garlic, however, brings out its malodorous quality (which makes one wonder just how much of an aphrodisiac it could be unless both partners partake).

COMMENTARY

Rav Chisda responds to the query by saying that one who ate without reciting a blessing may stop and recite the blessing and then continue eating. He employs an analogy to say that if eating without having recited the proper blessing prior to consuming food is wrong, then continuing to eat without the proper blessing would also be wrong: If you eat garlic and then realize your breath is offensive to others, would you then eat more garlic so that your breath becomes more offensive? In essence, Rav Chisda counsels: When you realize your mistake, stop and say the blessing. 

It is unclear, however, whether Rav Chisda intends a blessing said half-way through a meal to (a) apply retroactively to what has already been eaten, or (b) apply to the food that remains to be consumed. Ravina understands Rav Chisda’s teaching as the former; therefore, even if one has completed the meal and there is no more food to be eaten, one may “go back” and recite the blessing that should have been said prior to commencing the meal. As his proof, Ravina cites a baraita concerning immersion in a mikveh (ritual bath): One recites the blessing after immersion because at the time of immersion he is ritually impure and therefore “unfit” to recite the blessing.  Ravina’s point, in quoting this baraita, seems to be that there are other occasions when one recites the blessing after performing the act, rather than before.

Gemara rejects Ravina's analogy. The person at the mikveh is unfit to recite the blessing prior to immersion; indeed, being in the state of ritual impurity is precisely why one needs to immerse. Hence the blessing can only be said after immersion. The person eating a meal, however, could have said the blessing before eating but did not due to a lapse of memory. Having rejected Ravina’s proof, Gemara concludes that one who completed his meal cannot “go back” and recite the blessing: he missed the opportunity.

Given Gemara’s rejection of Ravina’s argument and conclusion that one who completes the meal cannot afterward say the blessing that should have preceded it, we can now understand Rav Chisda’s view as the second of the two possibilities mentioned above: the blessing Rav Chisda permits is to cover the food that remains to be consumed.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Do you agree with Gemara that Ravina’s baraita is irrelevant and therefore negates his claim that one may recite a blessing such as ha-motzi after completing a meal? Why or why not? 
2. One might argue: that the consequence to saying that it’s okay to recite a blessing whenever one remembers is twofold: First, the meaning of the blessing is lost or diluted when it is not in its functional position; and second, this leniency discourages people from making the effort to remember and say blessings at the proper time. Do these arguments resonate with you?
3. This passage suggests that, when it comes to ritual observance, sometimes there is a trade-off between flexibility and meaning: Observing rituals in a prescribed, orderly fashion preserves the function and meaning of the act. What does it mean to say the blessing that permits food to us after eating it? What are your thoughts on this?