Ask the Rabbi: Does One Fix a Mistake in a Complex Al Hamichya?

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
Bemare Habazak - Rabbis Questions

קטגוריה משנית

Female Lesson Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Question: I ate cake and dates and therefore needed to say a Me’ein Shalosh that includes both "al hamichya" and "al pri ha’etz." While saying the beracha, I forgot about the dates until near the end. At that point, could I have salvaged the beracha by adding "al hapeiort" at the end, or should I have finished the beracha just for the cake and then said a separate beracha acharona for the dates?

Answer: We start with the possibility you ended off with "Baruch ata … al hamichya v’al hapeirot (peiroteha in Israel)." As a rule, the determinant of a beracha’s efficacy is how it is completed (Berachot 12a). Therefore, presumably with such an ending, you would have been yotzei. However, some poskim say that in this case, it is unclear if fixing this long beracha only at its end will remedy the lacking opening (see Ot Hi L’olam vol. I, p. 35a; Petach Had’vir 208:20). Almost all poskim rule (see ibid.; V’zot Haberacha, p. 47) that after the fact, one should assume he was yotzei due to the proper ending, and not make another beracha on what he left out from the first beracha’s opening, as it would be l’vatala if he was previously yotzei.
Because of the doubt involved, some poskim recommend your second option – obviate the question by sticking to a simple Al Hamichya, and do Al Ha’etz afterward (ibid.). It is true that one is required to incorporate both elements that require a beracha in one beracha acharona (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 208:12). Presumably, splitting them into two berachot acharonot without justification makes the second one a beracha she’eina tzricha. However, a major rule in beracha she’eina tzricha is that if the ostensibly extra beracha is needed to avoid a halachic doubt, it is no longer unnecessary (see Kaf Hachayim, OC 208:82). Still, though, if there is an easy alternative to obviate the need for an extra beracha, we should use it.
The Maharshag (I:53, cited and accepted by Piskei Teshuvot 208:19) indeed has the following simple solution, if caught in time. Go back to the place of the omission, fix it, and continue from there. Admittedly, after "… rachem na Hashem Elokeinu," backing up means repeating Hashem’s Name. However, even unnecessarily saying Hashem’s Name in the midst of a long beracha is not nearly as problematic as saying Hashem’s Name in what turns out to be a beracha l’vatala. For example, even though it is not critical to say Al Hanisim, if one remembered before he finishes the beracha, he goes back to say it (Shulchan Aruch, OC 682:1), even though this means that he repeats part of the beracha, including Hashem’s Name. (See also Ginot Veradim (I:28) regarding R’tzei in bentching at seuda shlishit after nightfall.) According to the Maharshag, it is too late to go back only if he has said Hashem’s Name at the beracha’s conclusion.
The Petach Had’vir (208:15, inspired by his understanding of the Magen Avraham 59:1) has a complicated explanation why it is too late to attach one’s addition of that which he left out to the opening of the beracha with Hashem’s Name. Therefore, he reasons that the best remaining option is to keep the me’ein shalosh focused on the cake and make later on the dates. While the Sdei Chemed (vol. VI, p. 319) and V’zot Haberacha (ibid.) endorse his basic approach, they discuss cases where he did not fix the beracha until close to the end of the beracha (confirmed by a phone call I had with the author of V’zot Haberacha), which might be what makes it improper to go back to the beginning. However, the Petach Had’vir’s opposition is even from the "middle" of the beracha.
While it is difficult for me to decide between the opinions in this machloket Acharonim, the Maharshag’s approach seems in line with more mainstream halachic rules. Therefore, I would recommend going back to the place of the omission unless he has said Hashem’s Name at the end of the beracha. Apparently, the Petach Had’vir does not consider this a hefsek, and he agrees that one can assume he was yotzei even if we only count the inclusion of al hapeirot at the end.