סנהדרין ו:
"ובוצע ברך נאץ ה'"
The Gemara brings 3 different ways how to learn this פסוק. 1)Translating בוצע to mean compromise, if litigants come to ב"ד because they want a פסק, it is אסור for the judge to push for a compromise [בוצע]. If he does, הרי זה חוטא. If one praises a judge for doing so, he is a מנאץ. 2)ר' אליעזר translates בוצע to mean thief. i.e. if one stole wheat, ground it, baked it and was מפריש חלה from it, how can he make a ברכה on it (either the הפרשה or אכילה)? This is not a ברכה but rather a מנאץ. A thief who makes a beracha has cursed ה'. 3)ר' מאיר says this is referring to יהודה who said "מה בצע כי נהרג את אחינו". The [או"ח ס' קצו,א] שו"ע paskens if one eats מאכלות אסורות he may not be included in a זימון, nor does he make a ברכה on this foodלכתחילה או בסוף . The משנ"ב explains since it’s a דבר אסור and an עבירה to eat it, we apply the פסוק, "ובוצע ברך נאץ ה'". The [הל' ברכות פ"א הי"ט] רמב"ם paskens this way as well. The ראב"ד argues strongly and says although this אכילה lacks a דין קביעות because it’s a דבר אסור, why should he not be מחוייב to make a ברכה before and after? After all, he has had הנאה!
The [או"ח ר"ד ט] שו"ע says if one eats מאכלות אסורות due to סכנה - he’s a חולה, he does make a ברכה, before or after. The משנ"ב explains since he’s in a מצב של סכנה, he is eating היתירא and אדרבה, he’s fulfilling the מצוה of וחי בהם. The [רד' סי' ח'] רמ"א says if one is physically forced to eat [אנסוהו], although he ultimately does have הנאה from the food, he does not make a ברכה. The ט"ז asks an apparent inconsistency. We just quoted the מחבר that if one is in a סכנה he does make a ברכה even though he doesn’t want to eat it and the רמ"א doesn’t add anything to this, so it seems he’s in agreement. Yet the רמ"א also paskens that if one is forced to eat [אנסוהו], he does not make a ברכה. Why are they different? In both cases he is forced to eat. In one case he is forced because he is a חולה and in the other case, he is being forced by people? The משנ"ב answers, that when one is a חולה שיש בו סכנה he is not physically forced to eat. If he eats (because of his sickness), he has הנאה and makes a ברכה. But if one is physically forced to eat, it’s not by choice, so it’s not שייך to require him to recite a ברכה. Asks the [אות לח'] שער הציון: Why regarding אכילת מצה do we say if one was physically coerced [אנסוהו] to eat מצה, it is called an אכילה and he is יוצא the mitzvah, but not here? He explains that concerning being יוצא the mitzvah it is considered an אכילה, but regarding making ברכות since he was forced to eat, it’s not שייך to require him to give הודאה on the food. ע"ש. [קב ונקי ס' סב] ר' זילברשטיין quotes ר' אלישיב, that if a diabetic couldn’t help himself and ate some cake, since this is a danger to him, he does not make a ברכה אחרונה. Rav Elyashiv quotes our halacha above that since this is a דבר האסור to his health אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ. However, he should make a ברכה ראשונה because the first crumb he eats is probably not a סכנה for him, and since we make a ברכה ראשונה even on a crumb, the ברכה can go on that.