The Halachic authorities discuss the case of a person who sat down to eat some fruit, recited the Beracha of "Ha’etz," finished the fruit, and then received a different fruit that was unexpectedly brought to the table. It is clear that if the individual had specific intent when he recited the Beracha that it should cover all fruits that he will eat, and not only the fruits in front of him at that moment, then he does not recite a new Beracha over the new fruits that are served. Since he explicitly intended for his original Beracha to cover all fruits, the new fruits are covered by that original Beracha. Conversely, if the individual had specific intent while reciting the Beracha that it should apply only to the fruits in front of him, then clearly he must recite a new Beracha if other fruit is brought to the table.
It is less clear, however, whether he should recite a new Beracha if he had no specific intention in mind when he recited the original Beracha. Can that Beracha cover the other fruits that are brought, or must he recite a new Beracha, since he did not specifically have in mind for his original Beracha to cover fruits that are not currently on the table in front of him?
The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) rules that in such a case one must recite a new Beracha, if there is no more of the first fruit in front of him, since he did not have the new fruit in mind when he recited the original Beracha. Thus, in his view, if a person ate apples, and then oranges were unexpectedly served after he finished the apples, he must recite a new Beracha over the oranges, since he did not have the oranges in mind when he recited the original Beracha over the apples.
Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagrees, and writes that one should not recite a new Beracha in this case. Given the uncertainty that exists concerning this question, Hacham Ovadia applies to this case the famous rule of "Safek Berachot Le’hakel," which means that we never recite a Beracha in situations of doubt.
Hacham Ovadia adds, however, that a person may recite a new Beracha in this case if he generally prefers oranges over apples. The Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, 1235-1310), as cited by the Bet Yosef (commentary to the Tur by Maran, author of the Shulhan Aruch), writes that in such a case, one should recite a new Beracha over the new fruit that is served. He explains that it is inappropriate for a Beracha recited over a less preferred food to cover the more preferred food, and therefore the person should recite a new Beracha over the preferred fruit that is served. Although this Halacha is not codified in the Shulhan Aruch (but is cited by the Rama, in Orah Haim, end of Siman 211), it appears from the Bet Yosef that Maran accepted the Rashba’s ruling. Therefore, in the case described above, where the individual prefers oranges over apples, he should recite a new Beracha over the oranges, since he did not have specific intent and he enjoys eating oranges more than apples. (Hacham Ovadia writes regarding this case that "Ha’mebarech Lo Hifsid" – "One who recites a Beracha does not lose anything," meaning that he has the option of reciting a new Beracha if he so desires.)
Summary: If a person ate fruit and recited the Beracha without specific intention that the Beracha should cover only the fruit in front of him, and other fruit is unexpectedly served, he should not recite a new Beracha, unless he generally prefers the new fruit that is served, in which case he should recite a new Beracha. If he specifically intended for the original Beracha to apply only to the fruit in front of him, then he must recite a new Beracha over the new fruit that is served.
