Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 7, 2020 | 讬状讘 讘砖讘讟 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Berakhot 35

What blessing does one make on fruits from trees, fruits from the ground (legumes)? What are the exceptions to the rule? There is a debate regarding the blessing on vegetables. How specific does the blessing need to be? What is the reason/source for making blessings on foods before we eat them? The gemara tries to derive it from a verse about fruit trees in the fourth year after they are planted, but is unsuccessful. In the end they say it is based on reason – one cannot benefit from anything in this world without making a blessing. There is a debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai regarding whether one should work or spend all of one’s time learning. Rabbi Yochanan compares the early generations with the later generations and mentions a few ways the earlier generations were better. Why is there a unique blessing for wine? The gemara suggests various suggestions until it finds the answer.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗讬诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 砖注诇 讛讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讙驻谉 讜注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛驻转 砖注诇 讛驻转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诇讞诐 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜注诇 讛讬专拽讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 讚砖讗讬诐:

MISHNA: This mishna discusses the blessings recited over various foods. How does one recite a blessing over fruits? Over different fruits that grow on a tree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine. Although wine is produced from fruit of the tree, due to its significance, its blessing differs from other fruits of the tree. Over wine one recites: Who creates fruit of the vine. Over fruits that grow from the earth, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, with the exception of bread. Bread, too, is significant and its blessing differs from other fruits of the ground, as over bread one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Over herbs and leafy vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Rabbi Yehuda says that there is room to distinguish between fruits that grow from the earth, herbs, and leafy vegetables. Although they are all fruit of the ground, since they have different qualities, the blessing on the latter is: Who creates various kinds of herbs.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讚砖 讛诇讜诇讬诐 诇讛壮 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗讞专讬讛诐 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讟注讜诐 讻诇讜诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘专讱

GEMARA: Concerning the fundamental basis for blessings, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters, the obligation to recite a blessing before eating, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in the Sifra: With regard to saplings, it is stated that in their fourth year their fruit will be: 鈥溾anctified for praises before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:24). This verse teaches that they require praise of God in the form of a blessing both beforehand and thereafter, as the verse says praises in the plural. From here, Rabbi Akiva said: A person is forbidden to taste anything before he recites a blessing, as without reciting praise over food, it has the status of a consecrated item, from which one is forbidden to derive pleasure.

讜讛讗讬 拽讚砖 讛诇讜诇讬诐 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讻诇讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讘专 讛讟注讜谉 砖讬专讛 讟注讜谉 讞诇讜诇 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 砖讬专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讞诇讜诇 讜讻讚专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛讙驻谉 讛讞讚诇转讬 讗转 转讬专讜砖讬 讛诪砖诪讞 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讗谞砖讬诐 讗诐 讗谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪讞 讗诇讛讬诐 讘诪讛 诪砖诪讞 诪讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: And did this verse: 鈥淪anctified for praises,鈥 come for that purpose? This verse is necessary to derive other matters. One being that the Merciful One said: Redeem it and then eat it. This midrash interprets hillul, praise, as 岣llul, redemption. And the other matter derived from this verse is: An object which is offered upon the altar and requires a song of praise when it is offered, as is the case with the libation of wine, requires redemption. And that which does not require a song of praise, all other fruits, does not require redemption. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that one only recites a song of praise in the Temple over the libation of wine on the altar? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd the vine replied: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and man, and go and wave above the trees?鈥 (Judges 9:13). If wine gladdens people, in what way does it gladden God? Rather, derive from here that one only recites a song of praise over wine, as wine gladdens God when offered as part of the service in the Temple.In any case, other halakhot have been derived from this verse. From where, then, is the requirement to recite blessings derived?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 谞讟注 专讘注讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讻专诐 专讘注讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗转诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 转谞讬 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讜讞讚 转谞讬 谞讟注 专讘注讬

Indeed, this works out well according to the one who taught, as a rule: A fourth-year sapling in the mishnayot dealing with the prohibition to eat fruits produced during the first three years of a tree鈥檚 existence and the sanctity of the fruit produced in its fourth year; as, in his opinion, fourth-year fruits that grow on all trees must be redeemed. However, according to the one who taught, as a rule: A fourth-year grapevine, what can be said? Indeed, he derives the halakha that only wine that is accompanied by a song of praise requires redemption, from the interpretation of hillul as 岣llul. As it was stated: Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one taught these mishnayot using the term: A fourth-year grapevine, and one taught using the term: A fourth-year sapling.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 讬诇讬祝 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讻诐 转讘讜讗转讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜转讘讜讗转 讛讻专诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讻专诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讻专诐 讗讬讬转专 诇讬讛 讞讚 讛诇讜诇 诇讘专讻讛

And according to the one who taught: A fourth year grapevine, this works out well if he derives this matter from a verbal analogy [gezera shava], and therefore need not derive this halakha from the term hillulim. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is stated here with regard to the laws of the prohibition of fruit for the tree鈥檚 first three years: 鈥淏ut in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, so that it may increase your produce [tevuato]; I am the Lord your God鈥 (Leviticus 19:25). And it is stated below, with regard to the laws of diverse kinds: 鈥淵ou shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the growth of the seed that you have sown be forfeited with the produce [utevuat] of the vineyard鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:9). Based on a verbal analogy, it can be derived: Just as below, with regard to the laws of diverse kinds, the produce is that which grows in vineyards; so too, here, with regard to the halakhot of the fruits of a sapling, the produce is that which grows in vineyards. Consequently, according to the one who holds this verbal analogy, one extra hillul remains from which to derive the blessing. Since he derives that the laws of fourth-year saplings apply only to grapes from the verbal analogy, he can derive the requirement to recite blessings before partaking of food from the word hillulim.

讜讗讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讘专讻讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讬诇讬祝 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讗砖讻讞谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪谞讬谉

And if he does not derive this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, he must derive this halakha from the term hillulim, in which case, from where does he derive the mitzva to recite a blessing before partaking of food? And even if he derives this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, we found a source for the obligation to recite a blessing after eating, similar to the obligation stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.鈥 However, from where is it derived that there is an obligation to recite a blessing beforehand? From one hillul, the fundamental halakha of redemption of fourth-year saplings is derived.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讘注 诪讘专讱 讻砖讛讜讗 专注讘 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara answers this: This is not difficult, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If when he is satiated, after eating, he is obligated to recite a blessing over food, when he is hungry, before eating, all the more so that he is obligated to recite a blessing over food.

讗砖讻讞谉 讻专诐 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 诪谞讬谉

The Gemara comments: In that way, we found a source for the obligation to recite a blessing over the produce of vineyards, but from where is it derived with regard to other types of produce?

讚讬诇讬祝 诪讻专诐 诪讛 讻专诐 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讜讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛

The Gemara responds: It is derived by means of the hermeneutic principle: What do we find, from the produce of a vineyard: Just as the fruit of the vineyard is an item from which one derives benefit and it requires a blessing, so too, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇讻专诐 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘 讘注讜诇诇讜转

The Gemara rejects this proof: This derivation can be refuted, as a vineyard is unique: What is unique about a vineyard, that it is obligated in the mitzva requiring to give small, incomplete clusters of grapes [olelot] to the poor? That is a stringency that does not apply to other fruits. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grapes.

拽诪讛 转讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇拽诪讛 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛

The Gemara answers: In that case, standing grain can prove that the halakha of olelot is not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. One is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing after eating bread, even though the halakha of olelot does not apply to grain. The Gemara rejects this proof: What is unique about ripe grain, that it is obligated in the mitzva of separating 岣lla from the dough? That is a stringency that does not apply to other foods. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grain.

讻专诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讜讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛

The Gemara responds: In that regard, vineyards can prove that the halakha of 岣lla is not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. In summary: And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. However, at this point the halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this is not like the aspect of that, and the aspect of that is not like the aspect of this; the common denominator is: Both are items from which one derives benefit and each requires a blessing. A general principle may be derived: So too, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讜 爪讚 诪讝讘讞 讜讗转讬 谞诪讬 讝讬转 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 爪讚 诪讝讘讞

Again, the Gemara objects: What is unique about the common denominator between grapes and grain that prevents utilizing it as a paradigm for other food items? Grapes and grain have an aspect of being offered upon the altar, and perhaps that is the reason that they require blessings. Based on that reasoning, although all other food items cannot be derived from the common denominator, an olive may also be derived as it too has an aspect of being offered upon the altar, as olive oil is one of the components of a meal offering.

讜讝讬转 诪爪讚 诪讝讘讞 讗转讬 讜讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻专诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘注专 诪讙讚讬砖 讜注讚 拽诪讛 讜注讚 讻专诐 讝讬转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻专诐 讝讬转 讗拽专讬 讻专诐 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗拽专讬

The Gemara questions this point: Is an olive derived from the fact that it has an aspect of being offered upon the altar? Isn鈥檛 it written explicitly with regard to the olive listed that the orchard in which it grows is called kerem; as it is written: 鈥淎nd burnt up from the shocks and the standing grain and the olive yards [kerem zayit]鈥 (Judges 15:5)? Just as the orchard in which grapes grow is called kerem, and grapes require a blessing, the olive also grows in a kerem and should require a blessing. Rav Pappa said: Nevertheless, an analogy may not be drawn between the two; where the olive grows is called kerem zayit, it is not called kerem unmodified, which is a term reserved for grapevines.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 讚讬诇讬祝 诇讛 诪砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 诪讛 砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讜讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛

The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, noting that in any case, it is difficult: What is unique about the common denominator between grapes and grain? That they possess an aspect of being offered upon the altar. Rather, it is derived from the obligation to recite a blessing upon the seven species. After the verse speaks of the seven species, it states: 鈥淎nd you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.鈥 This is a paradigm for all other foods, that they too require a blessing: Just as the seven species are items from which one derives benefit and require a blessing, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing.

诪讛 诇砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讘讻讜专讬诐 讜注讜讚 讛转讬谞讞 诇讗讞专讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪谞讬谉

Again, the Gemara rejects this: What is unique about the seven species? That one is obligated in the mitzva of first fruits. However, other produce with regard to which one is not obligated in the mitzva of first fruits, from where is it derived that they require a blessing? Furthermore, even if the seven species can serve as a paradigm, this works out well with regard to the blessing thereafter; but from where is the obligation to recite a blessing beforehand derived?

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讚讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讘注 诪讘专讱 讻砖讛讜讗 专注讘 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara responds to the question: This is not difficult, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If when he is satiated, after eating, he is obligated to recite a blessing over food, when he is hungry, before eating, all the more so he is obligated to recite a blessing over food.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 谞讟注 专讘注讬 讛讗 转讬谞讞 讻诇 讚讘专 谞讟讬注讛 讚诇讗讜 讘专 谞讟讬注讛 讻讙讜谉 讘砖专 讘讬爪讬诐 讜讚讙讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛:

In any case, this is not an absolute proof. Furthermore, even according to the one who taught: A fourth-year sapling in all the relevant mishnayot, it works out well with regard to everything that can be planted, that one is obligated to recite a blessing. However, with regard to items that cannot be planted, such as meat, eggs, and fish, from where does he derive the halakha that one is obligated to recite a blessing? Rather, all previous attempts at deriving this halakha are rejected. The fundamental obligation to recite a blessing over food is founded on reason: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world without a blessing.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛 讜讻诇 讛谞讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛 诪注诇 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞讻诐

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world, which is the property of God, without reciting a blessing beforehand. And anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he is guilty of misuse of a consecrated object. The Gemara adds: What is his remedy? He should go to a Sage.

讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞讻诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞讻诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讬诇诪讚谞讜 讘专讻讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

The Gemara is puzzled: He should go to a Sage; what will he do to him? How can the Sage help after he has already violated a prohibition? Rather, Rava said, this is how it should be understood: He should go to a Sage initially, in his youth, and the Sage will teach him blessings, so that he will not come to be guilty of this type of misuse of a consecrated object in the future.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛谞讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讛谞讛 诪拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 专讘讬 诇讜讬 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛砖诪讬诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讛壮 讜讛讗专抓 谞转谉 诇讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讘专讻讛

Similarly, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he enjoyed objects consecrated to the heavens, as it is stated: 鈥淭he earth and all it contains is the Lord鈥檚, the world and all those who live in it鈥 (Psalms 24:1). Rabbi Levi expressed this concept differently. Rabbi Levi raised a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淭he earth and all it contains is the Lord鈥檚,鈥 and it is written elsewhere: 鈥淭he heavens are the Lord鈥檚 and the earth He has given over to mankind鈥 (Psalms 115:16). There is clearly a contradiction with regard to whom the earth belongs. He himself resolves the contradiction: This is not difficult. Here, the verse that says that the earth is the Lord鈥檚 refers to the situation before a blessing is recited,

讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讘专讻讛

and here, where it says that He gave the earth to mankind refers to after a blessing is recited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讻诇 讛谞讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讙讜讝诇 诇讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讜讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讙讜讝诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 驻砖注 讞讘专 讛讜讗 诇讗讬砖 诪砖讞讬转 讜讗讬谉 讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 讛诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讘讬讱 拽谞讱 讜讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讗诇讗 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪注 讘谞讬 诪讜住专 讗讘讬讱 讜讗诇 转讟讜砖 转讜专转 讗诪讱

Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa said: Anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he stole from God and the community of Israel, as it is stated: 鈥淲hoever robs his father and his mother and says: It is no transgression, he is the companion of a destroyer鈥 (Proverbs 28:24). The phrase, his father, refers to none other than God, as it is stated: 鈥淚s He not your Father Who created you, Who made you and established you鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:6). The phrase his mother refers to none other than the community of Israel, as it is stated: 鈥淗ear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the Torah of your mother鈥 (Proverbs 1:8). The mention of the Torah as emanating from the mouth of the mother, apparently means that your mother is the community of Israel.

诪讗讬 讞讘专 讛讜讗 诇讗讬砖 诪砖讞讬转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讞讘专 讛讜讗 诇讬专讘注诐 讘谉 谞讘讟 砖讛砖讞讬转 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讘讬讛诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐:

What is the meaning of the continuation of the verse: He is the companion of a destroyer? Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa said: He is a companion of Jeroboam ben Nevat, who corrupted Israel before their Father in heaven by sinning and causing others to sin.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞转讬 讚讙谞讬 讘注转讜 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗住驻转 讚讙谞讱 讜讙讜壮

On a similar note, the Gemara cites that Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa raised a contradiction: It is written, 鈥淚 will take back My grain at its time and wine in its season鈥 (Hosea 2:11), and it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:14). To whom does the grain belong: To God, or to the people?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, where God promises Israel that they will gather their grain, the verse refers to a time when they perform God鈥檚 will. Here, where the verse indicates that the grain belongs to God, it refers to a time when they do not perform God鈥檚 will, as then He will take back the grain, demonstrating that it belongs to Him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗住驻转 讚讙谞讱 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪讜砖 住驻专 讛转讜专讛 讛讝讛 诪驻讬讱 讬讻讜诇 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗住驻转 讚讙谞讱 讛谞讛讙 讘讛谉 诪谞讛讙 讚专讱 讗专抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Sages taught: What is the meaning of that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gather your grain鈥? Because it is stated: 鈥淭his Torah shall not depart from your mouths, and you shall contemplate in it day and night鈥 (Joshua 1:8), I might have thought that these matters are to be understood as they are written; one is to literally spend his days immersed exclusively in Torah study. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil,鈥 assume in their regard, the way of the world; set aside time not only for Torah, but also for work. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻砖专 讗讚诐 讞讜专砖 讘砖注转 讞专讬砖讛 讜讝讜专注 讘砖注转 讝专讬注讛 讜拽讜爪专 讘砖注转 拽爪讬专讛 讜讚砖 讘砖注转 讚讬砖讛 讜讝讜专讛 讘砖注转 讛专讜讞 转讜专讛 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 诪诇讗讻转谉 谞注砖讬转 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注诪讚讜 讝专讬诐 讜专注讜 爪讗谞讻诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 诪诇讗讻转谉 谞注砖讬转 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗住驻转 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪诇讗讻转 讗讞专讬诐 谞注砖讬转 注诇 讬讚谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜注讘讚转 讗转 讗讜讬讘讱 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: Is it possible that a person plows in the plowing season and sows in the sowing season and harvests in the harvest season and threshes in the threshing season and winnows in the windy season, as grain is separated from the chaff by means of the wind, and is constantly busy; what will become of Torah? Rather, one must dedicate himself exclusively to Torah at the expense of other endeavors; as when Israel performs God鈥檚 will, their work is performed by others, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd strangers will stand and feed your flocks, and foreigners will be your plowmen and your vinedressers鈥 (Isaiah 61:5). When Israel does not perform God鈥檚 will, their work is performed by them themselves, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall gather your grain.鈥 Moreover, if Israel fails to perform God鈥檚 will, others鈥 work will be performed by them, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall serve your enemy whom God shall send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness and in want of all things鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:48).

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讘讛 注砖讜 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜注诇转讛 讘讬讚谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 讘讬讚谉

Summing up this dispute, Abaye said: Although there is room for both opinions, many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and combined working for a living and learning Torah, and although they engaged in activities other than the study of Torah, were successful in their Torah study. Many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i and were not successful in their Torah study. They were ultimately forced to abandon their Torah study altogether.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇专讘谞谉 讘诪讟讜转讗 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 诇讗 转转讞讝讜 拽诪讗讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讟专讚讜 讘诪讝讜谞讬讬讻讜 讻讜诇讗 砖转讗:

Similarly, Rava said to the Sages who would attend his study hall: I implore you; during the months of Nisan and Tishrei, the crucial agricultural periods, do not appear before me. Engage in your agricultural work then so that you will not be preoccupied with your sustenance all year.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注砖讜 转讜专转谉 拽讘注 讜诪诇讗讻转谉 注专讗讬 讝讜 讜讝讜 谞转拽讬讬诪讛 讘讬讚谉 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 砖注砖讜 诪诇讗讻转谉 拽讘注 讜转讜专转谉 注专讗讬 讝讜 讜讝讜 诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讛 讘讬讚谉

Summarizing these statements, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of the tanna Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El鈥檃i: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations; rather they are their inferiors. The earlier generations made their Torah permanent and their work occasional, and this, Torah study, and that, their work, were successful for them. However, the latter generations who made their work permanent and their Torah occasional, neither this nor that was successful for them.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讚专讱 讟专拽住诪讜谉 讻讚讬 诇讞讬讬讘谉 讘诪注砖专 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讚专讱 讞爪专讜转 讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讻讚讬 诇驻讟专谉 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讬谉 讛讟讘诇 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讘注专转讬 讛拽讚砖 诪谉 讛讘讬转

Along these lines, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El鈥檃i: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations. In the earlier generations, people would bring their fruits into their courtyards through the main gate in order to obligate them in tithes. However, the latter generations bring their fruits through roofs, through courtyards and through enclosed courtyards, avoiding the main gate in order to exempt them from the mitzva of tithing. As Rabbi Yannai said: Untithed produce is not obligated in the mitzva of tithing until it sees the front of the house through which people enter and exit, and it is brought into the house that way as it is stated in the formula of the confession of the tithes: 鈥淚 have removed the consecrated from the house鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:13), as the obligation to tithe produce whose purpose has not yet been designated takes effect only when it is brought into the house.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪专 拽讜讘注转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇讜 讘砖注专讬讱 讜砖讘注讜:

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even bringing it into the courtyard determines its status as having completed the production process and obligates the produce to be tithed, as it is written in the confession of the tithes: 鈥淎nd I have given to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow, and they shall eat in your gates and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12).

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗砖转谞讬 诇注诇讜讬讗 讗砖转谞讬 诇讘专讻讛 讜讛专讬 砖诪谉 讚讗砖转谞讬 诇注诇讜讬讗 讜诇讗 讗砖转谞讬 诇讘专讻讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓

We learned in our mishna: Over fruits that grow on a tree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine that even though it originates from fruit of the tree, a separate blessing was established for it: Who creates the fruit of the vine. The Gemara asks: What is different about wine, that a separate blessing was established for it? If you say that because the fruit changed for the better into wine, therefore, the blessing changed. Olive oil changed for the better and nevertheless, its blessing did not change. As Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Over olive oil, one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, just as he does over the fruit itself.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 谞讘专讬讱 谞讘专讬讱 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讝讬转 驻讬专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讝讬转 讗拽专讬

The Sages said: There, in the case of oil, it is because it is impossible to find an appropriate blessing, as how shall we recite the blessing? If we recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive, the fruit itself is called olive and that is what was created. The oil is a man-made product of that fruit, rendering that formula inappropriate. Similarly, reciting a formula parallel to the blessing on wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine, is inappropriate as the grapes themselves are the fruit that was created, as opposed to oil which was not.

讜谞讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 注抓 讝讬转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讞诪专讗 讝讬讬谉 诪砖讞讗 诇讗 讝讬讬谉

The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, it is still possible to formulate a blessing, as we may recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive tree, which would be parallel to the blessing recited over wine. Rather, Mar Zutra offered a different rationale: The reason that no separate blessing was established over oil is because, as opposed to wine that nourishes, oil does not nourish.

讜诪砖讞讗 诇讗 讝讬讬谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛诪讝讜谉 诪讜转专 讘诪讬诐 讜讘诪诇讞 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗拽专讬 诪讝讜谉 讛讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗拽专讬 诪讝讜谉

The Gemara asks: And oil does not nourish? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One who vows that nourishment is forbidden to him is permitted to eat water and salt, as they are not considered nourishment. And we discussed this halakha: By inference, water and salt are not considered nourishment, but all other edible items are considered nourishment.

谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 讘讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讘诇讘讚 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讝谉 注诇讬

Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rav and Shmuel, who said: One only recites: Who creates various kinds of nourishment, over the five species of grain alone, as they alone are considered nourishing. And Rav Huna said as a solution that this mishna referred to a case where he vows and says: Anything that nourishes is prohibited to me. That formula includes anything that is at all nourishing and therefore only water and salt are excluded. Olive oil is not excluded.

讗诇诪讗 诪砖讞讗 讝讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讞诪专讗 住注讬讚 讜诪砖讞讗 诇讗 住注讬讚 讜讞诪专讗 诪讬 住注讬讚 讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讛 砖转讬 讞诪专讗 讻诇 诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讚驻住讞讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讙专专讬讛 诇诇讘讬讛 讜谞讬讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讟驻讬 讟讜讘讗 讙专讬专 驻讜专转讗 住注讬讚

Apparently, oil nourishes. Rather, there is another distinction between wine and oil: Wine satisfies, oil does not satisfy. Wine not only nourishes, but it is also filling. The Gemara asks: And does wine satisfy? Wouldn鈥檛 Rava drink wine all day on the eve of Passover in order to stimulate his heart, i.e., whet his appetite so that he might eat more matza at the seder? Wine does not satisfy, it whets the appetite. The Gemara answers: A lot of wine stimulates, a little satisfies.

讜诪讬 住注讬讚 讻诇诇 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬讬谉 讬砖诪讞 诇讘讘 讗谞讜砖 讜诇讞诐 诇讘讘 讗谞讜砖 讬住注讚 讜讙讜壮 谞讛诪讗 讛讜讗 讚住注讬讚 讞诪专讗 诇讗 住注讬讚 讗诇讗 讞诪专讗 讗讬转 讘讬讛 转专转讬 住注讬讚 讜诪砖诪讞 谞讛诪讗 诪住注讚 住注讬讚 砖诪讜讞讬 诇讗 诪砖诪讞

Again, the Gemara asks: Does wine satisfy at all? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淲ine gladdens the heart of man, making the face brighter than oil, and bread fills man鈥檚 heart鈥 (Psalms 104:15); bread is that which satisfies, wine does not satisfy. Rather, this verse is not a proof; wine has two advantages, it satisfies and gladdens. Bread, however, satisfies but does not gladden.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 讘专讻讜转 诇讗 拽讘注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 住注讜讚转讬讬讛讜 注诇讜讬讛

Since wine possesses all of these virtues, the Gemara asks: If so, let us recite the three blessings of Grace after Meals over it after drinking, just as we do after eating bread. The Gemara answers: People do not base their meals on wine.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 讗讬 拽讘注 注诇讜讬讛 住注讜讚转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬 讛讜讬 拽讘讬注讜转讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讘讟诇讛 讚注转讜 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: If one based his meal on it, what is the ruling? Must he recite the Grace after Meals as he does after bread? He replied: When Elijah comes and says whether or not it can serve as the basis for a meal, this will be resolved. Nevertheless, now, until then, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other men and he is not required to recite the complete Grace after Meals.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗 砖转讬 诇讬讛 诪砖转讛 讗讜讝讜拽讬 诪讝讬拽 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜转讛 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讛住讱 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖

Previously, the Gemara cited the halakha that one recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil. The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil just as he does over the fruit itself. What are the circumstances? If you say that he drank it plain, it causes damage to the drinker. As it was taught in a baraita: One who drinks oil of teruma, while unaware that it was teruma, pays the principal and does not pay the additional fifth which is the typical penalty for unintentional misuse of consecrated property, as in that case the individual is considered to have only damaged consecrated property without deriving benefit from it. One who anoints his body with the oil of teruma pays the principal and pays the fifth, as he derived benefit from it. Apparently, one who drinks oil derives no benefit and it even causes him damage.

讗诇讗 讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 驻转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 驻转 注讬拽专 讜讛讜讗 讟驻诇 讜转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 注讬拽专 讜注诪讜 讟驻诇讛 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛注讬拽专 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讟驻诇讛 讗诇讗 讚拽讗 砖转讬 诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚住诇拽讗 讗谞住讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗

Rather, it is referring to a case where he eats the oil by dipping bread into it. If so, the bread is primary and the oil secondary, and we learned in a mishna: This is the principle: Any food that is primary, and is eaten with food that is secondary, one recites a blessing over the primary food, and that blessing exempts the secondary from the requirement to recite a blessing before eating it. A blessing need only be recited over the bread, not over the oil. Rather, it is referring to a case where he is drinking it by means of an anigeron, as Rabba bar Shmuel said: Anigeron is water in which a beet was boiled, ansigeron is the water

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Don’t Steal from God!

A few divergent topics in today's daf. 1. Finally arriving at actual BERAKHOT (blessings) -- birkat hanehenin, those blessings of...

Berakhot 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 35

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗讬诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 砖注诇 讛讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讙驻谉 讜注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛驻转 砖注诇 讛驻转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诇讞诐 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜注诇 讛讬专拽讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 讚砖讗讬诐:

MISHNA: This mishna discusses the blessings recited over various foods. How does one recite a blessing over fruits? Over different fruits that grow on a tree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine. Although wine is produced from fruit of the tree, due to its significance, its blessing differs from other fruits of the tree. Over wine one recites: Who creates fruit of the vine. Over fruits that grow from the earth, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, with the exception of bread. Bread, too, is significant and its blessing differs from other fruits of the ground, as over bread one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Over herbs and leafy vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Rabbi Yehuda says that there is room to distinguish between fruits that grow from the earth, herbs, and leafy vegetables. Although they are all fruit of the ground, since they have different qualities, the blessing on the latter is: Who creates various kinds of herbs.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讚砖 讛诇讜诇讬诐 诇讛壮 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗讞专讬讛诐 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讟注讜诐 讻诇讜诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘专讱

GEMARA: Concerning the fundamental basis for blessings, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters, the obligation to recite a blessing before eating, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in the Sifra: With regard to saplings, it is stated that in their fourth year their fruit will be: 鈥溾anctified for praises before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:24). This verse teaches that they require praise of God in the form of a blessing both beforehand and thereafter, as the verse says praises in the plural. From here, Rabbi Akiva said: A person is forbidden to taste anything before he recites a blessing, as without reciting praise over food, it has the status of a consecrated item, from which one is forbidden to derive pleasure.

讜讛讗讬 拽讚砖 讛诇讜诇讬诐 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讻诇讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讘专 讛讟注讜谉 砖讬专讛 讟注讜谉 讞诇讜诇 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 砖讬专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讞诇讜诇 讜讻讚专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛讙驻谉 讛讞讚诇转讬 讗转 转讬专讜砖讬 讛诪砖诪讞 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讗谞砖讬诐 讗诐 讗谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪讞 讗诇讛讬诐 讘诪讛 诪砖诪讞 诪讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: And did this verse: 鈥淪anctified for praises,鈥 come for that purpose? This verse is necessary to derive other matters. One being that the Merciful One said: Redeem it and then eat it. This midrash interprets hillul, praise, as 岣llul, redemption. And the other matter derived from this verse is: An object which is offered upon the altar and requires a song of praise when it is offered, as is the case with the libation of wine, requires redemption. And that which does not require a song of praise, all other fruits, does not require redemption. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that one only recites a song of praise in the Temple over the libation of wine on the altar? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd the vine replied: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and man, and go and wave above the trees?鈥 (Judges 9:13). If wine gladdens people, in what way does it gladden God? Rather, derive from here that one only recites a song of praise over wine, as wine gladdens God when offered as part of the service in the Temple.In any case, other halakhot have been derived from this verse. From where, then, is the requirement to recite blessings derived?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 谞讟注 专讘注讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讻专诐 专讘注讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗转诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 转谞讬 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讜讞讚 转谞讬 谞讟注 专讘注讬

Indeed, this works out well according to the one who taught, as a rule: A fourth-year sapling in the mishnayot dealing with the prohibition to eat fruits produced during the first three years of a tree鈥檚 existence and the sanctity of the fruit produced in its fourth year; as, in his opinion, fourth-year fruits that grow on all trees must be redeemed. However, according to the one who taught, as a rule: A fourth-year grapevine, what can be said? Indeed, he derives the halakha that only wine that is accompanied by a song of praise requires redemption, from the interpretation of hillul as 岣llul. As it was stated: Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one taught these mishnayot using the term: A fourth-year grapevine, and one taught using the term: A fourth-year sapling.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 讬诇讬祝 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讻诐 转讘讜讗转讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜转讘讜讗转 讛讻专诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讻专诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讻专诐 讗讬讬转专 诇讬讛 讞讚 讛诇讜诇 诇讘专讻讛

And according to the one who taught: A fourth year grapevine, this works out well if he derives this matter from a verbal analogy [gezera shava], and therefore need not derive this halakha from the term hillulim. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is stated here with regard to the laws of the prohibition of fruit for the tree鈥檚 first three years: 鈥淏ut in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, so that it may increase your produce [tevuato]; I am the Lord your God鈥 (Leviticus 19:25). And it is stated below, with regard to the laws of diverse kinds: 鈥淵ou shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the growth of the seed that you have sown be forfeited with the produce [utevuat] of the vineyard鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:9). Based on a verbal analogy, it can be derived: Just as below, with regard to the laws of diverse kinds, the produce is that which grows in vineyards; so too, here, with regard to the halakhot of the fruits of a sapling, the produce is that which grows in vineyards. Consequently, according to the one who holds this verbal analogy, one extra hillul remains from which to derive the blessing. Since he derives that the laws of fourth-year saplings apply only to grapes from the verbal analogy, he can derive the requirement to recite blessings before partaking of food from the word hillulim.

讜讗讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讘专讻讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讬诇讬祝 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讗砖讻讞谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪谞讬谉

And if he does not derive this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, he must derive this halakha from the term hillulim, in which case, from where does he derive the mitzva to recite a blessing before partaking of food? And even if he derives this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, we found a source for the obligation to recite a blessing after eating, similar to the obligation stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.鈥 However, from where is it derived that there is an obligation to recite a blessing beforehand? From one hillul, the fundamental halakha of redemption of fourth-year saplings is derived.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讘注 诪讘专讱 讻砖讛讜讗 专注讘 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara answers this: This is not difficult, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If when he is satiated, after eating, he is obligated to recite a blessing over food, when he is hungry, before eating, all the more so that he is obligated to recite a blessing over food.

讗砖讻讞谉 讻专诐 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 诪谞讬谉

The Gemara comments: In that way, we found a source for the obligation to recite a blessing over the produce of vineyards, but from where is it derived with regard to other types of produce?

讚讬诇讬祝 诪讻专诐 诪讛 讻专诐 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讜讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛

The Gemara responds: It is derived by means of the hermeneutic principle: What do we find, from the produce of a vineyard: Just as the fruit of the vineyard is an item from which one derives benefit and it requires a blessing, so too, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇讻专诐 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘 讘注讜诇诇讜转

The Gemara rejects this proof: This derivation can be refuted, as a vineyard is unique: What is unique about a vineyard, that it is obligated in the mitzva requiring to give small, incomplete clusters of grapes [olelot] to the poor? That is a stringency that does not apply to other fruits. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grapes.

拽诪讛 转讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇拽诪讛 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛

The Gemara answers: In that case, standing grain can prove that the halakha of olelot is not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. One is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing after eating bread, even though the halakha of olelot does not apply to grain. The Gemara rejects this proof: What is unique about ripe grain, that it is obligated in the mitzva of separating 岣lla from the dough? That is a stringency that does not apply to other foods. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grain.

讻专诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讜讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛

The Gemara responds: In that regard, vineyards can prove that the halakha of 岣lla is not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. In summary: And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. However, at this point the halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this is not like the aspect of that, and the aspect of that is not like the aspect of this; the common denominator is: Both are items from which one derives benefit and each requires a blessing. A general principle may be derived: So too, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讜 爪讚 诪讝讘讞 讜讗转讬 谞诪讬 讝讬转 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 爪讚 诪讝讘讞

Again, the Gemara objects: What is unique about the common denominator between grapes and grain that prevents utilizing it as a paradigm for other food items? Grapes and grain have an aspect of being offered upon the altar, and perhaps that is the reason that they require blessings. Based on that reasoning, although all other food items cannot be derived from the common denominator, an olive may also be derived as it too has an aspect of being offered upon the altar, as olive oil is one of the components of a meal offering.

讜讝讬转 诪爪讚 诪讝讘讞 讗转讬 讜讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻专诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘注专 诪讙讚讬砖 讜注讚 拽诪讛 讜注讚 讻专诐 讝讬转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻专诐 讝讬转 讗拽专讬 讻专诐 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗拽专讬

The Gemara questions this point: Is an olive derived from the fact that it has an aspect of being offered upon the altar? Isn鈥檛 it written explicitly with regard to the olive listed that the orchard in which it grows is called kerem; as it is written: 鈥淎nd burnt up from the shocks and the standing grain and the olive yards [kerem zayit]鈥 (Judges 15:5)? Just as the orchard in which grapes grow is called kerem, and grapes require a blessing, the olive also grows in a kerem and should require a blessing. Rav Pappa said: Nevertheless, an analogy may not be drawn between the two; where the olive grows is called kerem zayit, it is not called kerem unmodified, which is a term reserved for grapevines.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 讚讬诇讬祝 诇讛 诪砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 诪讛 砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讜讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讛谞讛 讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛

The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, noting that in any case, it is difficult: What is unique about the common denominator between grapes and grain? That they possess an aspect of being offered upon the altar. Rather, it is derived from the obligation to recite a blessing upon the seven species. After the verse speaks of the seven species, it states: 鈥淎nd you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.鈥 This is a paradigm for all other foods, that they too require a blessing: Just as the seven species are items from which one derives benefit and require a blessing, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing.

诪讛 诇砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讘讻讜专讬诐 讜注讜讚 讛转讬谞讞 诇讗讞专讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪谞讬谉

Again, the Gemara rejects this: What is unique about the seven species? That one is obligated in the mitzva of first fruits. However, other produce with regard to which one is not obligated in the mitzva of first fruits, from where is it derived that they require a blessing? Furthermore, even if the seven species can serve as a paradigm, this works out well with regard to the blessing thereafter; but from where is the obligation to recite a blessing beforehand derived?

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讚讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讘注 诪讘专讱 讻砖讛讜讗 专注讘 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara responds to the question: This is not difficult, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If when he is satiated, after eating, he is obligated to recite a blessing over food, when he is hungry, before eating, all the more so he is obligated to recite a blessing over food.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 谞讟注 专讘注讬 讛讗 转讬谞讞 讻诇 讚讘专 谞讟讬注讛 讚诇讗讜 讘专 谞讟讬注讛 讻讙讜谉 讘砖专 讘讬爪讬诐 讜讚讙讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛:

In any case, this is not an absolute proof. Furthermore, even according to the one who taught: A fourth-year sapling in all the relevant mishnayot, it works out well with regard to everything that can be planted, that one is obligated to recite a blessing. However, with regard to items that cannot be planted, such as meat, eggs, and fish, from where does he derive the halakha that one is obligated to recite a blessing? Rather, all previous attempts at deriving this halakha are rejected. The fundamental obligation to recite a blessing over food is founded on reason: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world without a blessing.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛 讜讻诇 讛谞讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛 诪注诇 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞讻诐

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world, which is the property of God, without reciting a blessing beforehand. And anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he is guilty of misuse of a consecrated object. The Gemara adds: What is his remedy? He should go to a Sage.

讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞讻诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞讻诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讬诇诪讚谞讜 讘专讻讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

The Gemara is puzzled: He should go to a Sage; what will he do to him? How can the Sage help after he has already violated a prohibition? Rather, Rava said, this is how it should be understood: He should go to a Sage initially, in his youth, and the Sage will teach him blessings, so that he will not come to be guilty of this type of misuse of a consecrated object in the future.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛谞讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讛谞讛 诪拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 专讘讬 诇讜讬 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛砖诪讬诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讛壮 讜讛讗专抓 谞转谉 诇讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讘专讻讛

Similarly, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he enjoyed objects consecrated to the heavens, as it is stated: 鈥淭he earth and all it contains is the Lord鈥檚, the world and all those who live in it鈥 (Psalms 24:1). Rabbi Levi expressed this concept differently. Rabbi Levi raised a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淭he earth and all it contains is the Lord鈥檚,鈥 and it is written elsewhere: 鈥淭he heavens are the Lord鈥檚 and the earth He has given over to mankind鈥 (Psalms 115:16). There is clearly a contradiction with regard to whom the earth belongs. He himself resolves the contradiction: This is not difficult. Here, the verse that says that the earth is the Lord鈥檚 refers to the situation before a blessing is recited,

讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讘专讻讛

and here, where it says that He gave the earth to mankind refers to after a blessing is recited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讻诇 讛谞讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讙讜讝诇 诇讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讜讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讙讜讝诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 驻砖注 讞讘专 讛讜讗 诇讗讬砖 诪砖讞讬转 讜讗讬谉 讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 讛诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讘讬讱 拽谞讱 讜讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讗诇讗 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪注 讘谞讬 诪讜住专 讗讘讬讱 讜讗诇 转讟讜砖 转讜专转 讗诪讱

Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa said: Anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he stole from God and the community of Israel, as it is stated: 鈥淲hoever robs his father and his mother and says: It is no transgression, he is the companion of a destroyer鈥 (Proverbs 28:24). The phrase, his father, refers to none other than God, as it is stated: 鈥淚s He not your Father Who created you, Who made you and established you鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:6). The phrase his mother refers to none other than the community of Israel, as it is stated: 鈥淗ear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the Torah of your mother鈥 (Proverbs 1:8). The mention of the Torah as emanating from the mouth of the mother, apparently means that your mother is the community of Israel.

诪讗讬 讞讘专 讛讜讗 诇讗讬砖 诪砖讞讬转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讞讘专 讛讜讗 诇讬专讘注诐 讘谉 谞讘讟 砖讛砖讞讬转 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讘讬讛诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐:

What is the meaning of the continuation of the verse: He is the companion of a destroyer? Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa said: He is a companion of Jeroboam ben Nevat, who corrupted Israel before their Father in heaven by sinning and causing others to sin.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞转讬 讚讙谞讬 讘注转讜 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗住驻转 讚讙谞讱 讜讙讜壮

On a similar note, the Gemara cites that Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa raised a contradiction: It is written, 鈥淚 will take back My grain at its time and wine in its season鈥 (Hosea 2:11), and it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:14). To whom does the grain belong: To God, or to the people?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, where God promises Israel that they will gather their grain, the verse refers to a time when they perform God鈥檚 will. Here, where the verse indicates that the grain belongs to God, it refers to a time when they do not perform God鈥檚 will, as then He will take back the grain, demonstrating that it belongs to Him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗住驻转 讚讙谞讱 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪讜砖 住驻专 讛转讜专讛 讛讝讛 诪驻讬讱 讬讻讜诇 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗住驻转 讚讙谞讱 讛谞讛讙 讘讛谉 诪谞讛讙 讚专讱 讗专抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Sages taught: What is the meaning of that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gather your grain鈥? Because it is stated: 鈥淭his Torah shall not depart from your mouths, and you shall contemplate in it day and night鈥 (Joshua 1:8), I might have thought that these matters are to be understood as they are written; one is to literally spend his days immersed exclusively in Torah study. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil,鈥 assume in their regard, the way of the world; set aside time not only for Torah, but also for work. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻砖专 讗讚诐 讞讜专砖 讘砖注转 讞专讬砖讛 讜讝讜专注 讘砖注转 讝专讬注讛 讜拽讜爪专 讘砖注转 拽爪讬专讛 讜讚砖 讘砖注转 讚讬砖讛 讜讝讜专讛 讘砖注转 讛专讜讞 转讜专讛 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 诪诇讗讻转谉 谞注砖讬转 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注诪讚讜 讝专讬诐 讜专注讜 爪讗谞讻诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 诪诇讗讻转谉 谞注砖讬转 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗住驻转 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪诇讗讻转 讗讞专讬诐 谞注砖讬转 注诇 讬讚谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜注讘讚转 讗转 讗讜讬讘讱 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: Is it possible that a person plows in the plowing season and sows in the sowing season and harvests in the harvest season and threshes in the threshing season and winnows in the windy season, as grain is separated from the chaff by means of the wind, and is constantly busy; what will become of Torah? Rather, one must dedicate himself exclusively to Torah at the expense of other endeavors; as when Israel performs God鈥檚 will, their work is performed by others, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd strangers will stand and feed your flocks, and foreigners will be your plowmen and your vinedressers鈥 (Isaiah 61:5). When Israel does not perform God鈥檚 will, their work is performed by them themselves, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall gather your grain.鈥 Moreover, if Israel fails to perform God鈥檚 will, others鈥 work will be performed by them, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall serve your enemy whom God shall send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness and in want of all things鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:48).

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讘讛 注砖讜 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜注诇转讛 讘讬讚谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 讘讬讚谉

Summing up this dispute, Abaye said: Although there is room for both opinions, many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and combined working for a living and learning Torah, and although they engaged in activities other than the study of Torah, were successful in their Torah study. Many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i and were not successful in their Torah study. They were ultimately forced to abandon their Torah study altogether.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇专讘谞谉 讘诪讟讜转讗 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 诇讗 转转讞讝讜 拽诪讗讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讟专讚讜 讘诪讝讜谞讬讬讻讜 讻讜诇讗 砖转讗:

Similarly, Rava said to the Sages who would attend his study hall: I implore you; during the months of Nisan and Tishrei, the crucial agricultural periods, do not appear before me. Engage in your agricultural work then so that you will not be preoccupied with your sustenance all year.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注砖讜 转讜专转谉 拽讘注 讜诪诇讗讻转谉 注专讗讬 讝讜 讜讝讜 谞转拽讬讬诪讛 讘讬讚谉 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 砖注砖讜 诪诇讗讻转谉 拽讘注 讜转讜专转谉 注专讗讬 讝讜 讜讝讜 诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讛 讘讬讚谉

Summarizing these statements, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of the tanna Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El鈥檃i: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations; rather they are their inferiors. The earlier generations made their Torah permanent and their work occasional, and this, Torah study, and that, their work, were successful for them. However, the latter generations who made their work permanent and their Torah occasional, neither this nor that was successful for them.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讚专讱 讟专拽住诪讜谉 讻讚讬 诇讞讬讬讘谉 讘诪注砖专 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讚专讱 讞爪专讜转 讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讻讚讬 诇驻讟专谉 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讬谉 讛讟讘诇 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讘注专转讬 讛拽讚砖 诪谉 讛讘讬转

Along these lines, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El鈥檃i: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations. In the earlier generations, people would bring their fruits into their courtyards through the main gate in order to obligate them in tithes. However, the latter generations bring their fruits through roofs, through courtyards and through enclosed courtyards, avoiding the main gate in order to exempt them from the mitzva of tithing. As Rabbi Yannai said: Untithed produce is not obligated in the mitzva of tithing until it sees the front of the house through which people enter and exit, and it is brought into the house that way as it is stated in the formula of the confession of the tithes: 鈥淚 have removed the consecrated from the house鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:13), as the obligation to tithe produce whose purpose has not yet been designated takes effect only when it is brought into the house.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪专 拽讜讘注转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇讜 讘砖注专讬讱 讜砖讘注讜:

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even bringing it into the courtyard determines its status as having completed the production process and obligates the produce to be tithed, as it is written in the confession of the tithes: 鈥淎nd I have given to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow, and they shall eat in your gates and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12).

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗砖转谞讬 诇注诇讜讬讗 讗砖转谞讬 诇讘专讻讛 讜讛专讬 砖诪谉 讚讗砖转谞讬 诇注诇讜讬讗 讜诇讗 讗砖转谞讬 诇讘专讻讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓

We learned in our mishna: Over fruits that grow on a tree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine that even though it originates from fruit of the tree, a separate blessing was established for it: Who creates the fruit of the vine. The Gemara asks: What is different about wine, that a separate blessing was established for it? If you say that because the fruit changed for the better into wine, therefore, the blessing changed. Olive oil changed for the better and nevertheless, its blessing did not change. As Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Over olive oil, one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, just as he does over the fruit itself.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 谞讘专讬讱 谞讘专讬讱 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讝讬转 驻讬专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讝讬转 讗拽专讬

The Sages said: There, in the case of oil, it is because it is impossible to find an appropriate blessing, as how shall we recite the blessing? If we recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive, the fruit itself is called olive and that is what was created. The oil is a man-made product of that fruit, rendering that formula inappropriate. Similarly, reciting a formula parallel to the blessing on wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine, is inappropriate as the grapes themselves are the fruit that was created, as opposed to oil which was not.

讜谞讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 注抓 讝讬转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讞诪专讗 讝讬讬谉 诪砖讞讗 诇讗 讝讬讬谉

The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, it is still possible to formulate a blessing, as we may recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive tree, which would be parallel to the blessing recited over wine. Rather, Mar Zutra offered a different rationale: The reason that no separate blessing was established over oil is because, as opposed to wine that nourishes, oil does not nourish.

讜诪砖讞讗 诇讗 讝讬讬谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛诪讝讜谉 诪讜转专 讘诪讬诐 讜讘诪诇讞 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗拽专讬 诪讝讜谉 讛讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗拽专讬 诪讝讜谉

The Gemara asks: And oil does not nourish? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One who vows that nourishment is forbidden to him is permitted to eat water and salt, as they are not considered nourishment. And we discussed this halakha: By inference, water and salt are not considered nourishment, but all other edible items are considered nourishment.

谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 讘讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讘诇讘讚 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讝谉 注诇讬

Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rav and Shmuel, who said: One only recites: Who creates various kinds of nourishment, over the five species of grain alone, as they alone are considered nourishing. And Rav Huna said as a solution that this mishna referred to a case where he vows and says: Anything that nourishes is prohibited to me. That formula includes anything that is at all nourishing and therefore only water and salt are excluded. Olive oil is not excluded.

讗诇诪讗 诪砖讞讗 讝讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讞诪专讗 住注讬讚 讜诪砖讞讗 诇讗 住注讬讚 讜讞诪专讗 诪讬 住注讬讚 讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讛 砖转讬 讞诪专讗 讻诇 诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讚驻住讞讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讙专专讬讛 诇诇讘讬讛 讜谞讬讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讟驻讬 讟讜讘讗 讙专讬专 驻讜专转讗 住注讬讚

Apparently, oil nourishes. Rather, there is another distinction between wine and oil: Wine satisfies, oil does not satisfy. Wine not only nourishes, but it is also filling. The Gemara asks: And does wine satisfy? Wouldn鈥檛 Rava drink wine all day on the eve of Passover in order to stimulate his heart, i.e., whet his appetite so that he might eat more matza at the seder? Wine does not satisfy, it whets the appetite. The Gemara answers: A lot of wine stimulates, a little satisfies.

讜诪讬 住注讬讚 讻诇诇 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬讬谉 讬砖诪讞 诇讘讘 讗谞讜砖 讜诇讞诐 诇讘讘 讗谞讜砖 讬住注讚 讜讙讜壮 谞讛诪讗 讛讜讗 讚住注讬讚 讞诪专讗 诇讗 住注讬讚 讗诇讗 讞诪专讗 讗讬转 讘讬讛 转专转讬 住注讬讚 讜诪砖诪讞 谞讛诪讗 诪住注讚 住注讬讚 砖诪讜讞讬 诇讗 诪砖诪讞

Again, the Gemara asks: Does wine satisfy at all? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淲ine gladdens the heart of man, making the face brighter than oil, and bread fills man鈥檚 heart鈥 (Psalms 104:15); bread is that which satisfies, wine does not satisfy. Rather, this verse is not a proof; wine has two advantages, it satisfies and gladdens. Bread, however, satisfies but does not gladden.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 讘专讻讜转 诇讗 拽讘注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 住注讜讚转讬讬讛讜 注诇讜讬讛

Since wine possesses all of these virtues, the Gemara asks: If so, let us recite the three blessings of Grace after Meals over it after drinking, just as we do after eating bread. The Gemara answers: People do not base their meals on wine.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 讗讬 拽讘注 注诇讜讬讛 住注讜讚转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬 讛讜讬 拽讘讬注讜转讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讘讟诇讛 讚注转讜 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: If one based his meal on it, what is the ruling? Must he recite the Grace after Meals as he does after bread? He replied: When Elijah comes and says whether or not it can serve as the basis for a meal, this will be resolved. Nevertheless, now, until then, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other men and he is not required to recite the complete Grace after Meals.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗 砖转讬 诇讬讛 诪砖转讛 讗讜讝讜拽讬 诪讝讬拽 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜转讛 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讛住讱 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖

Previously, the Gemara cited the halakha that one recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil. The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil just as he does over the fruit itself. What are the circumstances? If you say that he drank it plain, it causes damage to the drinker. As it was taught in a baraita: One who drinks oil of teruma, while unaware that it was teruma, pays the principal and does not pay the additional fifth which is the typical penalty for unintentional misuse of consecrated property, as in that case the individual is considered to have only damaged consecrated property without deriving benefit from it. One who anoints his body with the oil of teruma pays the principal and pays the fifth, as he derived benefit from it. Apparently, one who drinks oil derives no benefit and it even causes him damage.

讗诇讗 讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 驻转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 驻转 注讬拽专 讜讛讜讗 讟驻诇 讜转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 注讬拽专 讜注诪讜 讟驻诇讛 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛注讬拽专 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讟驻诇讛 讗诇讗 讚拽讗 砖转讬 诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚住诇拽讗 讗谞住讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗

Rather, it is referring to a case where he eats the oil by dipping bread into it. If so, the bread is primary and the oil secondary, and we learned in a mishna: This is the principle: Any food that is primary, and is eaten with food that is secondary, one recites a blessing over the primary food, and that blessing exempts the secondary from the requirement to recite a blessing before eating it. A blessing need only be recited over the bread, not over the oil. Rather, it is referring to a case where he is drinking it by means of an anigeron, as Rabba bar Shmuel said: Anigeron is water in which a beet was boiled, ansigeron is the water

Scroll To Top