Question: What blessing should be made before eating rice? Is the prevalent practice of making "borei minei mezonot" correct?

Source: The Talmud in Berakhot 37a addresses this issue:

"One who chews 'orez' makes the blessing 'borei peri ha-adama' ('Who creates the fruit of the ground'). If he were to grind it, then bake it or cook it, even if the pieces are still intact, the blessing is 'borei minei mezonot' ('Who creates different types of foods')."

Applying this source to determine what blessing to make over cooked rice presents several problems:

1. "Orez" = Rice? Our rice is not necessarily identical with the "orez" of the Talmud. According to Rashi, what the Talmud called "orez" is our millet ("mil"), whereas Tosafot (Berakhot 37a, s.v. Rashi) identified "orez" as "rizo," our rice.

There are several reasons to identify "orez" as rice:

A. Most Rishonim, as well as most of the major poskim, agreed with Tosafot's approach. See, for instance, the Mishna Berura (208:25) and Arukh Ha-shulchan (208:22).B. The etymology of the word "orez" is the Greek "orysw sativa," "the source of the English word "rice."C. The Rosh (Berakhot 6:8) and many other Rishonim explained that the blessing before eating "orez" is "borei minei mezonot" despite it not being one of the five grains (wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt), because it is called "mazon" - a food that satiates. Rice is considered the most nutritious of all known grains. Professor Felix, the expert on Talmudic flora and fauna, comes to a similar conclusion in his "Mar'ot Ha-mishna."

Based on the above, it would seem accurate to identify "orez" as our rice.

2. Cooked Rice = Baked Rice?

The second problem in determining what blessing to make over rice is distinguishing between "chewing" rice whose blessing is "borei peri ha-adama," and rice which is ground and then baked or cooked whose blessing is "borei minei mezonot."

Rambam

The Rambam (Berakhot 3:10) writes that if rice is cooked or made into bread, "borei minei mezonot" should be made before eating it and the blessing "borei nefashot" afterward. The Rambam implies that cooked rice, even though it has not been ground, also merits a "borei minei mezonot."

This seems to contradict his ruling in Hilkhot Berakhot 3:2: "Before eating unprocessed cooked grains one should make the blessing "borei peri ha-adama." Is it possible that over cooked rice one would make "borei minei mezonot" but over cooked wheat only "borei peri ha-adama", i.e., a blessing of lesser stature over a more important grain?

The Beit Yosef (OC 208 s.v. "U-mikol Makom") suggests (in his discussion of Rabbeinu Yona's approach which does not require the rice to be ground) that the distinction between rice and wheat lies in how they are each normally prepared and eaten. "Borei minei mezonot" is said before eating rice because rice is commonly eaten whole and cooked, whereas wheat is usually consumed in the form of bread, so that cooking it is considered unusual. "Borei minei mezonot" is only said before food prepared in a normal fashion.

In contrast, the Rosh (Berakhot 6:40, quoted in the previous Beit Yosef) does not distinguish between rice and wheat. He writes:

"...Therefore if rice is baked into bread or cooked like 'daisa' (porridge)one makes the blessing 'borei minei mezonot' before eating it."

This implies that "Mezonot" is only said before eating rice which is baked into bread or cooked into "daisa," but if rice were cooked with individual grains left intact, the blessing would remain only "borei peri ha-adama."

Shulchan Arukh

It is unclear whether the Beit Yosef prefers the Rosh's resolution or Rabbeinu Yona's. He is also in doubt about whether Rabbeinu Yona requires the rice to be partially disintegrated in order to require the blessing "borei minei mezonot."

It is interesting to note that, as he records the different sides of the dispute, the Beit Yosef does not factor in the simple reading of the Rambam. This point becomes relevant to the determining his halakhic position because his wording of the Shulchan Arukh about rice is an exact quote of the Rambam. However he understood it, the Rambam's approach was the Shulchan Arukh's final decision on this matter.

The Kaf Ha-chayim understood that according to the Shulchan Arukh one should make the blessing "borei minei mezonot" even over cooked rice whose whole grains are still intact. This also seems to be the straightforward reading of the Rambam. The Beit Yosef might not have quoted the Rambam as a voice counted on one side of the dispute because he did not view the Rambam as leaning conclusively in either direction.

For those who follow the Beit Yosef's opinion, it is unclear how they should read the Shulchan Arukh in this case. Should they read this passage in light of what he says in the Beit Yosef, or prefer the simple reading of the Rambam's language that he quoted verbatim, always requiring "borei minei mezonot" before eating cooked rice.

Rema

The Rema (quoting the Rosh and the Ri) adds (or explains) that one only makes "borei minei mezonot" over cooked rice if it is crushed. He apparently understood that according to the Beit Yosef's conclusion, even Rabbeinu Yona requires cooked rice to be at least partially broken down to require making the blessing "borei minei mezonot" over it.

The Rema's position, then, is that before eating cooked rice one should make "borei peri ha-adama" unless the grains have broken down somewhat.

Mishna Berura

The Chafetz Chayim, both in the Mishna Berura (208:26) and in the Bi'ur Halakha (s.v. "Ad she-nitma'ekh"), prefers the Rosh's and the Rema's approach, only requiring "mezonot" over cooked rice if it has broken down. Interestingly, he does not quote the Rambam or the Beit Yosef as one of the sides of this dispute (against the Kaf Ha-chayim). This seems to imply that even those who follow the Beit Yosef would make "borei peri ha-adama" over rice that is cooked but whose grains are still intact.

The Peri Megadim's approach on this issue must be taken into consideration. He maintains that rice whose outside shell has been removed is no longer complete and therefore merits the blessing "borei minei mezonot" even though it is not broken down. The Mishna Berura himself is inclined to reject the Peri Megadim's approach, but still views it as a legitimate opinion.

The Mishna Berura's tolerance of the Peri Megadim's approach seems to me to be difficult for several reasons: If we accept the Peri Megadim's premise (that shelled rice is incomplete and therefore merits a "borei minei mezonot") the comparison to wheat is once again problematic. Why is "mezonot" made over shelled rice, whereas over wheat in the same state one would make "ha-adama?"

The Rambam explicitly writes that the blessing over cooked grain is "borei peri ha-adama." He also defines "normal" grain as grain that has already been shelled. The Rosh, too, speaks of grinding rice and cooking it as a "daisa" to make "mezonot" over it, implying that merely shelled rice would require only "ha-adama." Furthermore, all other Rishonim and Acharonim prescribe "mezonot" for grains that are "crushed," not merely "incomplete."

The Arukh Ha-shulchan (208:22), however, also differs with the Mishna Berura and writes that even cooked rice is considered crushed. He adds that the prevalent custom is to make "mezonot" over cooked rice. Despite this, it is still difficult to view cooked rice as crushed.

The following conclusions seem appropriate:

1. It is preferable for those who follow Maran Beit Yosef's rulings to make "mezonot" over cooked rice (as the Kaf Ha-chayim rules). One can rely on the Mishna Berura's reading of the Beit Yosef - that he agrees with the Rema - though the prevalent custom is to follow the Kaf Ha-chayim.

2. According to the Rema, the accurate berakha over cooked rice, unless it is somewhat crushed, is "borei peri ha-adama." One who makes "borei minei mezonot", as the majority of people apparently do, can rely on the Peri Megadim and Arukh Ha-shulchan's opinions. However, it seems more sensible to follow the Mishna Berura and make "borei peri ha-adama." Although his opinion goes against popular practice, on this issue his logic is more compelling and in general he is a more widely accepted halakhic authority.