A friend of mine once noticed a peculiar habit of his mother-in-law: whenever watermelon was served for dessert at a Shabbos meal, she would always eat it with a challah.
Curious, he finally asked her, “Ma, why do you eat your watermelon with challah?”
She smiled and shrugged. “I really don’t know. But my father always did it.” Her father, it should be noted, was a highly respected, meticulously observant rav in pre-war Europe.
What was behind this European Rav’s holy watermelon-and-bread custom? The answer takes us on a fascinating journey through this week’s Daf Yomi, leading into a deep debate about rabbinic authority and ending right at our own dining room tables.
A Tale of Two Rulings on Chullin 44b
In Chullin 44b, the Gemara shares a story about an animal whose windpipe had been partially cut. It was brought before the great sage Rav to determine if it was kosher or a treif. Rav sat and carefully examined the wound to see if the cut extended across the majority of the windpipe. It appears that Rav initially ruled it was treif.
Later, however, the very same animal was brought before Rabba bar bar Chana. He examined it, judged the cut to be within kosher limits, declared it permitted, and even bought thirteen coins worth of meat from it!
The Gemara immediately asks: How could Rabba bar bar Chana permit something that Rav had already declared forbidden? There is a strict halachic rule that once a Torah scholar forbids something, another scholar cannot come along and permit it. The Gemara resolves the issue by explaining that Rav had never actually issued a definitive ruling; he was simply undecided, leaving the case open for Rabba bar bar Chana to rule.
Why Can’t a Rabbi Overturn a Colleague?
This discussion sparked a debate among the Rishonim regarding why a second rabbi cannot overturn a previous strict ruling.
• Rashi’s Approach (Niddah 20b): It’s About Respect.
Rashi explains that this rule is rooted in kavod ha’chacham. Publicly overriding a colleague’s ruling degrades rabbinic authority and insults the dignity of the first rabbi.
• The Ra’avad and Ritva’s Approach: It’s about the Object
They argue a completely different point. When a rav pronounces an item forbidden, his words have power. His declaration transforms the object itself, infusing it with a concrete status of cheftza d’issura, a forbidden piece. Another scholar cannot simply undo that spiritual reality.
The Practical Differences
While this sounds like abstract philosophy, the commentators point out some incredibly practical differences between these two views:
Overturning a Lenient Ruling (A second rav wants to be strict) — According to Rashi (Respect): Prohibited. It is still disrespectful to look at a colleague’s kosher ruling and say, “You’re wrong, it’s unkosher.” According to Ra’avad/Ritva (Spiritual Status): Permitted. If the first rav said it was kosher, no “forbidden status” ever attached itself to the food. The second rav is free to be strict.
A Brand-New, Similar Case (An identical question on a different piece of meat) — According to Rashi (Respect): Prohibited. To protect the first rabbi’s honor, you shouldn’t set a conflicting precedent in the community. According to Ra’avad/Ritva (Spiritual Status): Permitted. The “forbidden status” only attached itself to that first specific piece of meat, not this new one.
Reversing One’s Own Ruling (The rabbi realizes he made a mistake) — According to Rashi (Respect): Permitted. A rav changing his own mind doesn’t insult his own honor. According to Ra’avad/Ritva (Spiritual Status): Prohibited! Once the rav pronounced it forbidden, he locked the lock and threw away the key. Even he cannot change the spiritual status he created.
Crucially, the Ra’avad and Ritva clarify that the ban on a rabbi reversing his own ruling is limited to the particular object in question. A rav retains full authority to adopt a more lenient view for any similar case presented in the future!
From European Rabbis to the Dessert Dilemma
So, how does a rabbi changing his mind connect to watermelon and bread?
Enter the famous halachic debate regarding whether we should say a bracha on dessert during a bread meal.
In the Mishnah Berurah (Sha’ar HaTziyun 117:7), the Chofetz Chaim originally ruled that one should make a new blessing on dessert (like cooked fruit/compote), because dessert is eaten for pleasure, not to satisfy hunger, and isn’t part of the core meal.
However, Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 1:177) records an amazing piece of history: The Chofetz Chaim changed his mind. Rav Avraham Gerwitz, zt”l, noted that the Chofetz Chaim explained to his grandfather that when the Mishnah Berurah was written, restaurants didn’t include dessert as part of a standard meal. Later in life, dessert became standard practice, meaning it was now covered by the original Hamotzi on the bread. Thus, the Chofetz Chaim stopped making a bracha on his compote!
Rav Elyashiv ruled that while technically a bracha shouldn’t be made, the best way to escape the doubt is to eat your dessert with a piece of bread. In fact, the Griz (the Brisker Rav) famously ate his dessert compote with bread for this exact reason.
This author can even share a personal story: I was once present at shalosh seudos at MTJ (Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem) when melon was served. Someone asked the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Dovid Feinstein, zt”l, if they should make a bracha. Rav Dovid said yes. However, I noticed that Rav Dovid himself was machmir and ate his own melon with bread, viewing it as the safest halachic route for himself, though not a requirement for everyone.
And there is the answer to our opening mystery! The mother-in-law’s father was simply following the stringency of the Brisker Rav and other great European scholars, ensuring his dessert was legally tied to his bread to avoid a halachic doubt.
A Final Scoop of Halacha: What About Ice Cream?
If you don’t have bread handy, what do you do for cold desserts?
Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, ruled that Italian ices are legally considered a frozen drink, and since we don’t make a bracha on drinks during a meal, ices don’t get a bracha.
But ice cream is a different story. Rav Shimon Eider, zt”l, recalled being present when someone asked Rav Moshe if ice cream required a bracha after a meal.
Rav Moshe asked, “What is it made of?”
The man replied, “Primarily milk.” Rav Moshe said no bracha was needed.
Later, Rav Eider was present when another person asked Rav Moshe the exact same question.
Again, Rav Moshe asked, “What is it made of?”
This time, the man replied, “Milkfat.”
Rav Moshe responded that it does require a bracha!
The Dirshu Mishnah Berurah (177:7) reports that both Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and the Shevet Halevi ruled that regular ice cream eaten as dessert always requires its own bracha.
Maggid shiur and Rebbe at Yeshiva Ateres Shimon in Far Rockaway. He leads the Daf Yomi chaburah at Eitz Chayim of Dogwood Park in West Hempstead, and writes “Delving into the Daf” each week for The Jewish Home.
