cellio | minor halachic puzzle

After this week's talmud-study session my rabbi told me about a situation he witnessed recently, and it caught my "reason it out talmudically" fancy.

He was at the kollel (Jewish learning center), and one person (let's call him Shlomo) offered another (let's call him Ploni) a glass of water. Ploni said the appropriate bracha (blessing) before drinking, and then Shlomo noticed that Ploni was taking a pill with the water. Shlomo asserted that in that case Ploni should not say a bracha, becuase he wasn't drinking the water for pleasure. Ploni responded that he used only a sip of water for the pill and that he was then going to drink the large glass of refreshing water anyway. Shlomo held that this didn't matter. (So far as I know, the dispute is unresolved. Shlomo and Ploni are both rabbis, by the way.)

This dispute raises several questions. First, assuming that Ploni is not physically incapable of taking a pill without liquid, then the water does provide some level of pleasure. He could have taken the pill without, after all, but it's easier with. Second, it might matter what kind of medicine he was taking -- where it is on the scale from "anti-rejection drug for ny heart transplant" to "aspirin for a minor headache I feel coming on". Toward the latter end of that spectrum, one can argue that the drug isn't strictly necessary, so in a sense you're taking it for your own comfort and not because you need to. (This kind of distinction comes to bear on fast days like Yom Kippur, in figuring out which medicines you may, must, or must not take during the fast.)

But the real problem with Shlomo's argument, I think, is what happens when you apply it to drugs that must be taken with food. He prohibits the bracha for the glass of water because of the medicine; would he similarly prohibit a bracha for an entire meal because of medicine? Even if it was a big elaborate meal, much more than what the medicine strictly requires? If he wouldn't, what's the difference? (I wish I could ask Shlomo that question.)

At best, I think you can argue that Ploni should take a sip of water with the pill and then say the bracha and drink the rest of the glass. But that feels odd to me too, in that if he's going to say it anyway, he may as well say it at the beginning. Alternatively, if he wants to dodge the issue, he could drink most of the water (for pleasure) and then use the last bit to take his pill, sort of in an "oh by the way so long as it's here anyway" manner.

A related story: I was once taking just a sip of water so I could take a pill -- not a large-enough amount of water to require a bracha. But I wasn't sure what I should do; it seemed like I should still make some acknowledgement before consuming these items. Because the pill was for an acute condition, I reasoned that there was in fact an appropriate bracha. (This sentence is here to give readers who care a chance to think of it on their own before proceeding.) So I said "rofei ha-cholim" ("praised... who heals the sick"). :-)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

It's an issue of tafel and ikkar. The sip of water is subordinate to the pill, but a meal wouldn't be. You are correct that the best course of action is to make the bracha, drink some water, then take the pill.

Hm. I was taught that a prayer cannot be prohibited unless it is in mean spirit, such as a prayer wishing evil on another person. It isnt like the person stating the prayer is wasting their diety's time.

I was also taught that no medicine can be prohibited, as any condition, even minor, can distract the sufferer from paying full attention to the business at hand, in the case of the High Holy Days; prayer. OK, bad bad grammar.

It isn't like the person stating the prayer is wasting their deity's time.

But one saying a b'racha l'vatelah ("empty blessing") or a tefillat shav ("worthless prayer") is devaluing the prayer experience for oneself.

Would it not only be empty if nothing were consumed at all, and willfully at that?

For some reason this reminds me of a story....

Once upon a time three samurai were debating which of them were the samuraiest. I think there were dares and trials or some such, but eventually it comes about that one of the samurai, to prove just how studly a samurai he was, was to spend a night in the mountains with no blanket or fire to warm him.

The next day, the other two asked him upon his honor if he had truly spent all night with no blanket and no fire to warm him, and he replied that he had seen, off in the distance, a candle in a window in a house down in the valley, and it had warmed his spirit. Well, then, the other two pointed out, he had lost the bet, so it was up to him to cook dinner for them that night.

It was quite late after dark that night that the two other samurai got exasperated with how long dinner was taking and went to investigate. They found the loser of bet there with a great caldron filled with the ingredients for a stew.... hanging over a candle. "Well, if a candle is enough to warm me through a winter night in these mountains from miles away, it should surely be enough to cook dinner!"

The other two grudgingly allowed as how he had won the bet.

Now, I have no idea how or even whether this story pertains to your talmudic issue, but there you go!

Another aspect:

What if Ploni had been discreet about taking the pill, and all some third student, Sarah, had seen was Ploni drinking the water without saying a bracha?

This isn't an answer, but it may be of interest ... my husband has told me he learned that it isn't, strictly speaking, necessary to make a food-type brachah on water because water is such a blank slate -- no taste, no nutritional value (except hydration, which is important but I think the point is clear). However, we say one anyway in order to thank Hashem for making it available to drink.

>> But the real problem with Shlomo's argument, I think, is what happens when you apply it to drugs that must be taken with food.

I'm not so sure. Even if there is a safek as to whether shehakol on water is absolutely necessary, there is no safek on whether shehakol or another brachah is necessary on food. I believe the mitzvah is derived from the pasuk "v'achalta v'savata u'verachta es Hashem elokeicha", which would seem to indicate that the brachah should be said when eating to satisfaction. Yet we say the brachah even when we don't eat to satisfaction -- or for the purpose of satisfaction, as when taking meds.

Also, drugs that are supposed to be taken with food are generally meant to be taken with food and water -- the water to dissolve the pill or capsule and the food to prevent stomach upset. I imagine that there are some liquid medicines that are dispensed with this precaution, but I also imagine most of the relevant stuff would come in pill form.

I like that story. :-) (I thought it was going to go in a different direction -- that they'd arrive and he'd take them to a window where they could see the neighbors' dinner.)

Good point! And especially because Ploni is a rabbi (= presumed to be learned).

It's an issue of tafel and ikkar. The sip of water is subordinate to the pill, but a meal wouldn't be.

But I also wouldn't expect a full glass to be. Someone below suggests that water is different, which would explain it.

Willfulness isn't required for a blessing to be in vain. If you just get distracted and forget to eat the food after saying the bracha, you've made a blessing in vain even though you didn't mean to. There is some discussion in tractate b'rachot about what happens if you accidentally say the wrong bracha -- same issue.

I don't know if there's a difference between consuming nothing and consuming something below the threshold.

my husband has told me he learned that it isn't, strictly speaking, necessary to make a food-type brachah on water because water is such a blank slate

On the other hand, you'd expect water to rate special consideration, given how much trouble its absence caused in the desert. :-)

I believe the mitzvah is derived from the pasuk "v'achalta v'savata u'verachta es Hashem elokeicha", which would seem to indicate that the brachah should be said when eating to satisfaction.

Good point -- it doesn't say "v'eshteh".

>> Good point -- it doesn't say "v'eshteh".

Well, you'd want to say "v'shatisa" for consistency's sake ... ;)

That should have been "u'shatisa". D'oh.

Err, yup -- thanks.

When faced with this dilemma, I take the pill with a sip of water, then say the bracha for water and drink the rest of the glass. But then, I was also taught that it's only too late to say the bracha if you've finished eating or drinking whatever you were going to pray over. So if I were to forget to say the bracha over my yogurt this morning, when I took my first spoonfull, I could always say it over a subsequent spoonful.

There is no below the threshold for the bracha rishona. If I ate a crumb of cake it would require a mezonot just the same (bread is different in some respects). If one ate less than the appropriate measure of matza the bracha al achilat matza (on eating matza) would be in vain. But that is a different category of blessing.

Thanks; I think I was letting the bread/matzah issue distract me.

minor halachic puzzle

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject