Haetz and Shehecheyanu

Avodah
1

Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says:

<<<<Mishna Berura (225:11) writes that when one needs to say both *Ha’eitz*
and *Shehechiyanu*, the proper procedure is to first say the *bracha* of
*Shehechiyanu*, followed by the *bracha* on the fruit, and then to take a
bite. This is not considered a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of
the *Shehechiyanu* and eating the fruit because the *bracha* of
*Shehechiyanu* was instituted primarily to be said upon seeing the fruit.
Although the common practice is to delay saying the *bracha* until we eat
from it, still it is not a *hefsek*, since the *bracha* can really be said
on seeing the fruit.
Mishna Berura writes that alternatively, one can recite *Ha’eitz*, take a
bite and then after swallowing the first bite recite *Shehechiyanu*.
However it is best not to say *Shehechiyanu* immediately after *Ha’eitz*,
as this would cause a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of the
*bracha* on the fruit and eating the fruit. >>>>

My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov? Using
the logic presented here, I would argue that Shehechaynu is a hefsek
between Hagafen and drinking the wine, and that it would be better to say
the Shehecheyanu BEFORE Kiddush, because, after all, it is being said on
the day, and not on the kiddush.

If kiddush can be used as a precedent for fruit, then it would be best to
say the Shehecheyanu after Haetz, because eating is when the major hanaah
occurs.

What difference is there between the two?

Akiva Miller

2

: Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says:
...
:> Mishna Berura (225:11) writes that ...
:> alternatively, one can recite *Ha'eitz*, take a
:> bite and then after swallowing the first bite recite *Shehechiyanu*.
:> However it is best not to say *Shehechiyanu* immediately after *Ha'eitz*,
:> as this would cause a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of the
:> *bracha* on the fruit and eating the fruit.

I don't know why not use a much simpler workaround, but since the MB
didn't suggest it, I assume there is a problem.

Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they
have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So,
why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu
fruit, and only make a sheha

: My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov?...

AhS OC 225:1: shehechiyanu on YT (including Chanukah or Purim) is chiyuv,
on a fruit or anything else that that is not tied to a calendar date
is reshus.
Se'if 6 says that the iqar shehechiyanu for a fruit is for re'iyah,
seeing that the new season has fruit, and we are only nohagim to wait
for akhilah.
And *I assume* it's the fact that the whole shehechiyanu is reshus that
allows us to delay it until eating.

But both would argue that of the two, it would would be *easier* to deem
the shehechiyanu on the fruit less necessarily part of eating a fruit,
and thus more naturally considered a hefseiq.

He doesn't mention the question.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

3

actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season.

But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first?

4

: actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple
: answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at
: that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season.

The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole
point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call
for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's
grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making
the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait
for ha'eitz.

: But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first
: place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv
: comes first?

Yes, that fits with what I cited from the AhS. Thanks for spelling it
out, I didn't catch it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

5

Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes?

6

The "problem" with saying Shehecheyanu first (and I put it in quotes,
because one could argue that it is more of a perception than a reality)
is that we are accustomed to bundle brachos together, davka to demonstrate
that it is NOT a hefsek.

Examples: She'asa Nisim after Ner Chanuka. Achilas Matza after Hamotzi.
Lots of things after Hagafen.

In most or all such cases, little or nothing would be lost if the brachos
were rearranged to be less of a hefsek. But we don't. Except here. And
that surprises me.

Akiva Miller

7

: Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes?

Grapes come into season in late summer or early fall -- unsurprisingly
in time for Chag haAsif. So by now, most of us on Avodah have had this
year's grapes. My statement wasn't hypothetical. I was offering pragmatic
advice on how avoid the problem. Not an assumption, but a recommendation.

By using one of the 7 minim that is ha'eitz that you did happen to eat
already, you do avoid needing to make both berakhos on the same new fruit.
And there is no problem with choosing one of the 7 minim first.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

8

.
R' Zev Sero wrote:

But we're *not* putting Shehecheyanu first to avoid a hefsek,
we're putting it first because that's where it belongs.

You're not answering my question; you're merely restating it. You say
that in this particular case, the Shehecheyanu "belongs" in the first
position. I want to know why this situation is different. Why does the
Shehecheyanu belong first by fruit, but it belongs in the middle in
every other case?

Someone wrote me offlist:

The shehechiyanu on fruit is for seeing them. We have some
weird minhag not to make it until eating. Which is okay,
because it's a reshus, not a chovah, anyway.
But, it also means there is no hefseiq after the shehechianu,
as you saw the fruit already.

Not really such a "weird minhag". Mechaber 225:3 seems to consider it
the *standard* minhag. And Mishna Brurah 225:11 explains how that came
about:

"Because if someone's heart doesn't rejoice at seeing it (the new
fruit), but only when he eats it, then l'kulei alma he should say the
bracha only upon eating it. So that became the minhag always, because
of Lo Plug."

Akiva Miller

9

Aruch Hashulchan 225:7 gives two very different reasons for delaying
Shehecheyanu from the seeing until the eating.

The first is that despite the joy felt at seeing the new year's fruit, we
must wait until that fruit is fully grown, and it is difficult to determine
exactly when that occurs. Therefore, he says, we evade the question by
waiting until it is actually ready to eat. According to this, I clearly
understand that the Shehecheyanu is actually on the seeing and must come
*before* the Haetz.

But there is another reason given for delaying the Shehecheyanu. It is the
second one given by AhS 225:7, and it is the only one given by Mishne Brura
225:11. Namely, nowadays, the amount of simcha that we get from seeing the
new fruit isn't enough to say Shehecheyanu on.

Please pay close attention to what the AsH writes there:

"The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new
fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives
to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But
us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body
enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the
bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on
seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for
us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be."

It seems to me that if the AhS is going out of his way to stress that
saying Shehecheyanu on the seeing is NOT a bracha l'vatala, then he is
implicitly saying that it IS a b'dieved. If so, then the nature of this
bracha has changed. It used to be true that "Seeing comes first and
therefore Shehecheyanu comes first," but it is not true anymore, because
seeing has become mostly irrelevant.

"Mostly irrelevant," but not totally irrelevant, because if one did say
Shehecheyanu on seeing, it's not a bracha l'vatala. But let's be honest.
"It's not a bracha l'vatala" is a polite way of saying "wrong but not an
aveira." The proper way to do it nowadays is to say the Shehecheyanu at
eating time.

The conclusions I draw from all this: According to the first reason of the
AhS, the logic of "the seeing came first so Shehecheyanu should be first"
is sound. But according to the second reason of the AhS, and the only
reason given by MB, the Shehecheyanu on fruit nowadays is NOT on the
seeing, but on the eating, in which case I remain befuddled on why the
Shehecheyanu comes first - as indeed both the AhS and MB tell us to do
l'maaseh - and I have resigned myself to chalk it up to inertia from when
the Shehecheyanu WAS on the seeing.

At this point, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, accepting the argument
that the chiyuv for the Shehecheyanu began long before the eating did, and
that this is why the Shehecheyanu should be said first. There is a similar
situation in Hilchos Sukkah, but it leads to a different result.

Mishne Brurah 639:46 - "... Whenever one enters (the sukkah), even though
he is not eating there he says the bracha (Layshev Basukkah) because the
sitting and standing there is a mitzvah too ... Nevertheless the minhag of
the whole world islike those poskim who don't say the bracha except when
eating. Even if sitting in the sukkah before eating for an hour, they don't
say the bracha, for they hold that the bracha said later on over the food
will cover everything, because that's the ikar, and it covers sleeping and
relaxing and learning, all of which is tafel to it ..."

The parallel is quite clear to me. In the case of sukkah, one should say
Layshev immediately upon entering the sukkah, but there are good reasons to
save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. In the case of fruit, one
should say the Shehecheyanu immediately upon seeing the new fruit, but
there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag.

We have said that Shehecheyanu precedes Haetz because seeing precedes
eating. If so, then if we enter the sukkah now, with plans to eat later on,
then when that time finally arrives, the Layshev Basukkah ought to precede
the Hamotzi/Mezonos. But it doesn't! Whenever we say Layshev together with
a food bracha, the Layshev is said *second*.

Why is that? How is sukkah different from fruit? Why is the Shehecheyanu
said first, but the Layshev is said second?

Akiva Miller

10

RAM cited the Arukh haShulchan:

"The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new
fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives
to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But
us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body
enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the
bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on
seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for
us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be."

Me: Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy
of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when
everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember,
before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable
garden or didn't eat them fresh). In the egalitarian vision of ish ta'hat
gafno veta'hat te'eno, everyone would indeed be a farmer, so this applied
and would apply to all.

Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy
upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating the
fruit. It has now been many hundreds of years that Jews became very urban.
So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily
rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered.
Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery
store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite
shehe'hiyanu.

The above approach also solves RAM's question why we have less compunctions
delaying the onset of the berakha of leisheiv basukka for the sake of
waiting until we actually eat. These are very different berakhot that are
subject to different kinds of considerations.

Kol tuv,

11

.

And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that
a new crop came in to what we do today is a much bigger change.
One that I wonder whether shehechiyanu really is appropriate
altogether.
...
... There is no experience of a new season. Whether or not you
wait to actually eat it.

Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe
we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may
simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant
situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again
after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several
times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I
simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty.

BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than
we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going
to be said, is it before or after the Haetz?

Akiva Miller

12

Sorry, I shouldn't have approved RAM's email, as it's a reply to something
I wrote him privately. No context!

Well, here's the exchange, my email and his, starting with my quote
of RAF:

: Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy
: of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when
: everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember,
: before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable
: garden or didn't eat them fresh)...

Me:

The refigerator comment is a distraction, since (as you make clear below)
you're talking about a change that was at least 500 years ago.

RAF, continuing:
: Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy
: upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating ...
: So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily
: rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered.
: Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery
: store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite
: shehe'hiyanu.

Me, continuing:

I did mention that the whole taqanah of making shehechiyanu on new fruit
was not about looking for a dragonfruit or a gooseberry, or some other
exotic fruit you never otherwise would have spent that kind of money
on. And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that a new
crop came in to what we do togay is a much bigger change. One that I
wonder whether shehechiyanu really is apporpriate altogether.

Ironically, you can get an imported apple today at a time when it's
out-of-season in your part of the world for less money than that
dragonfruit. And for those of us in many parts of the world, the more
local one isn't so local that it's noticably fresher in taste. There is
no experience of a new season. Whether or not you wait to actually eat
it.

I thought I was just repeating myself, so I didn't send to the list:

13

: BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than
: we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going
: to be said, is it before or after the Haetz?

I am still satisfied with my earilier answer.

The berakhah isn't really on eating, it's on the excitement (assuming the
emotion's existence for the moment) of having a new fruit. And it's not
a chiyuv, it's a reshus, so we are nohagim to wait until we eat the fruit.

But even with this minhag, the shehechiyanu is still not on the
eating. The din was made about seeing, even with the minhag, it's still
a berakhah about seeing. We just utilize it being a reshus rather than
a chiyuv not to make the berakhah on the first re'iyah. So why do we
have to wait until the exact moment before eating -- without even the
berakhah as a hefseiq?

To my own mind, therefore, the question of the parenthetic comment above
is really more determinant. We're trying to understand which joy the
berakhah is on without necessarily feeling real joy at all!

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha