He will first bless the cracker, and then the drink, and then he can eat the herring, and if he has no drink, it is enough to bless only the cracker and exempt the herring.
Sources:
Does the herring relieve the cracker from a salty deen that relieves the mouthful
Ya'oi' in the 20th century [C. Rib Sk3], that the exemption of a salty person who exempts the fet from a blessing if he eats a fet with the fet, is only as if he ate something sweet before and eats a salty fish to relieve the sweetness and so that the salty in his throat does not harm him, he eats a fet with it but does not If you have a desire to eat fet, therefore, if you have a desire to eat fet, even though it is eaten with the salted fish, as is the custom, eating salted fish that is eaten with salted fish is not treated with it, even if you desire to salt it more, and the one who takes out and dismisses the salted fish should bless it. ECL.
And according to this also in the cracker who eats the cracker because it tastes wrong to eat the cracker with the herring, therefore the herring does not get rid of the cracker.
Does the fet exempt the herring from a mixture that contains a type of grain
Yaoi' in the interpretation of the halacha [ibid. 45 if] that the idea of human life [rule Na 33 and rule 19] that if each species in the mixture is evident on its own, the species of grain is not exempt from the rest of the foods in the mixture, and in fact the Mishnab took as the rulings as lenient on this Because there are blessings to ease.
But since it is customary to drink and the drinking certainly does not end, therefore it is certainly better to first bless the drinking and only then to eat the herring so that it does not enter into a lack of blessings (according to the Bahl, which also gave reason to fear for the life).
And above all, even when he has no drink and blesses only food according to the ruling of the BHL on the cracker and exempts the herring, in any case it is better to aim at the condition that if the law is according to the Ha'i'a then he means that the food excludes the herring from the last ruling that food is also exempted from everything, if we mean it, and "Even though he did not consider this condition explicitly, he apparently still considered it as if he had made the condition since after his blessing we intend to eat the herring without an additional blessing because he is afraid of those who disagree with the HIA.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5358 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/5358
