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

January 18, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Moed Katan 6

Today's Daf Yomi

February 8, 2020 | 讬状讙 讘砖讘讟 转砖状驻

Berakhot 36

Why does one make a blessing on oil? In what circumstances? The gemara brings various items that are part of trees but aren’t the fruit of the tree and questions what blessing one should make on them? Is something that protects the fruit considered like the fruit itself? if so, is it true even if it’s at the early stage of growth?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讚讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇拽讬

in which all boiled vegetables were boiled. A certain amount of oil is added to anigeron.

讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 注讬拽专 讜砖诪谉 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

However, if so, here too, anigeron is primary and oil is secondary, and we learned in a mishna: This is the principle: Any food that is primary, and it 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. One need recite a blessing only over the anigeron.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讞讜砖砖 讘讙专讜谞讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讞讜砖砖 讘讙专讜谞讜 诇讗 讬注专注谞讜 讘砖诪谉 转讞诇讛 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 砖诪谉 讛专讘讛 诇转讜讱 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 讜讘讜诇注

The Gemara reconciles: With what are we dealing here? With one who has a sore throat, which he is treating with oil. As it was taught in a baraita: One who has a sore throat should not, ab initio, gargle oil on Shabbat for medicinal purposes, as doing so would violate the decree prohibiting the use of medicine on Shabbat. However, he may, even ab initio, add a large amount of oil to the anigeron and swallow it. Since it is common practice to swallow oil either alone or with a secondary ingredient like anigeron for medicinal purposes, in this case one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇专驻讜讗讛 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇讗 诇讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讻诇诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讘注讬 讘专讜讻讬:

The Gemara challenges: This is obvious that one must recite a blessing. The Gemara responds: Lest you say: Since he intends to use it for medicinal purposes, let him not recite a blessing over it at all, as one does not recite a blessing before taking medicine. Therefore, it teaches us that, since he derived pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing over it.

拽诪讞讗 讚讞讬讟讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜

The Gemara clarifies: If one was eating plain wheat flour, what blessing would he recite? Rav Yehuda said that one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and Rav Na岣an said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 转驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽讬讬诪讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 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 讗诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗砖转谞讬 讘诪诇转讬讛 拽讗讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗砖转谞讬 讘诪诇转讬讛 拽讗讬

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Do not disagree with Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Yo岣nan and Shmuel hold in accordance with his opinion, even though they addressed another topic. As 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. Consequently, even though the olive has changed into olive oil, the formula of the blessing remains as it was. This too, even though the wheat has changed into flour, its blessing remains as it was: Who creates fruit of the ground.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘驻转

The Gemara responds: Is it comparable? There, the olive oil has no potential for additional enhancement, while here, the flour has the potential for additional enhancement as bread. Since oil is the olive鈥檚 finished product, one should recite the same blessing over it as over the tree itself. Wheat flour, on the other hand, is used to bake bread, so the flour is a raw material for which neither the blessing over wheat nor the blessing over bread is appropriate. Only the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be is appropriate.

讜讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讗诇讗 砖讛讻诇 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗拽专讗 讞讬讬讗 讜拽诪讞讗 讚砖注专讬 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讞讬讟讬 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛

The Gemara asks: When it has a potential for additional enhancement, one does not recite: Who creates fruit of the ground; rather one recites: By Whose word all things came to be? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Over a raw gourd and over barley flour, one recites the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. What, is that not to say that over wheat flour one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground? Over barley flour, which people do not typically eat, it is appropriate to recite: By Whose word all things came to be. Over wheat flour, it is appropriate to recite: Who creates fruit of the ground.

诇讗 讚讞讬讟讬 谞诪讬 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜

This argument is rejected: No, one also recites: By Whose word all things came to be, over wheat flour.

讜诇砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讞讬讟讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚砖注专讬

The Gemara asks: Then let the Sages teach us that this halakha applies with regard to wheat flour, and all the more so regarding barley flour as well.

讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讞讬讟讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讞讬讟讬 讗讘诇 讚砖注专讬 诇讗 诇讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讻诇诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: It was necessary to teach us that one must recite a blessing even before eating barley flour. Had the Sages taught us this halakha with regard to wheat, I would have said: This applies only with regard to wheat flour, but over barley flour, let one not recite a blessing at all. Therefore, it teaches us that one recites a blessing over barley flour.

讜诪讬 讙专注 诪诪诇讞 讜讝诪讬转 讚转谞谉 注诇 讛诪诇讞 讜注诇 讛讝诪讬转 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇讞 讜讝诪讬转 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞砖 讚砖讚讬 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讗讘诇 拽诪讞讗 讚砖注专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜拽砖讛 诇拽讜拽讬讗谞讬 诇讗 诇讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讻诇诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讘注讬 讘专讜讻讬:

The Gemara challenges this explanation. How could one have considered that possibility? Is it inferior to salt and salt water [zamit]? As we learned in a mishna that over salt and salt water one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, and all the more so it should be recited over barley flour. This question is rejected: Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach the halakha regarding barley flour, as it might enter your mind to say: Although one occasionally places salt or salt water into his mouth, barley flour, which is damaging to one who eats it and causes intestinal worms, let one recite no blessing over it at all. Therefore, it teaches us, since one derives pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing.

拽讜专讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜

Another dispute over the appropriate blessing is with regard to the heart of palm [kura], which is a thin membrane covering young palm branches that was often eaten. Rav Yehuda said that one should recite: Who creates fruit of the ground. And Shmuel, Rav Yehuda鈥檚 teacher, said that one should recite: By Whose word all things came to be.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 驻讬专讗 讛讜讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻讜 诇讛拽砖讜转

Rav Yehuda said: Who creates fruit of the ground; it is a fruit. And Shmuel said: By Whose word all things came to be, since it will ultimately harden and it is considered part of the tree, not a fruit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 讻讜讜转讱 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讗 爪谞讜谉 住讜驻讜 诇讛拽砖讜转 讜诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 爪谞讜谉 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚驻讜讙诇讗 讚拽诇讗 诇讗 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚拽讜专讗

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana. It is reasonable to rule in accordance with your opinion, as a radish ultimately hardens if left in the ground; nevertheless, one who eats it while it is soft recites over it: Who creates fruit of the ground. In any case, despite this praise, the Gemara states: That is not so; people plant a radish with the soft radish in mind. However, people do not plant palm trees with the heart of palm in mind and therefore it cannot be considered a fruit.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讜讛专讬 爪诇祝 讚谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚驻专讞讗 讜转谞谉 注诇 诪讬谞讬 谞爪驻讛 注诇 讛注诇讬谉 讜注诇 讛转诪专讜转 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜注诇 讛讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜注诇 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓

In response to this, the Gemara asks: And whenever people do not plant with that result in mind, one does not recite a blessing over it? What of the caper-bush that people plant with their fruit in mind, and we learned in a mishna that with regard to the parts of the caper-bush [nitzpa], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree. This indicates that even over leaves and various other parts of the tree that are secondary to the fruit, the blessing is: Who creates fruit of the ground, and not: By Whose word all things came to be.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 爪诇祝 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚砖讜转讗 讚拽诇讗 诇讗 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚拽讜专讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽诇住讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there is still a difference: Caper-bushes, people plant them with their leaves in mind; palm trees, people do not plant them with the heart of palm in mind. Therefore, no proof may be brought from the halakha in the case of the caper-bush to the halakha in the case of the of the palm. The Gemara concludes: Although Shmuel praised Rav Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 爪诇祝 砖诇 注专诇讛 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讘讬讜谞讜转 驻讬专讬 讜拽驻专讬住讬谉 诇讗讜 驻讬专讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 注诇 诪讬谞讬 谞爪驻讛 注诇 讛注诇讬诐 讜注诇 讛转诪专讜转 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜注诇 讛讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜注诇 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓

Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara cites an additional halakha concerning the caper-bush. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A caper-bush during the first three years of its growth [orla] outside of Eretz Yisrael, when its fruits are prohibited by rabbinic and not Torah law, one throws out the berries, the primary fruit, but eats the buds. The Gemara raises the question: Is that to say that the berries are fruit of the caper, and the bud is not fruit? The Gemara raises a contradiction from what we learned in the mishna cited above: With regard to the parts of the caper-bush [nitzpa], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries, and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree. Obviously, the buds are also considered the fruit of the caper-bush.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 爪诇祝 诪转注砖专 转诪专讜转 讜讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜拽驻专讬住讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪转注砖专 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讘诇讘讚 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻专讬

The Gemara responds: Rav鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: A caper-bush is tithed from its component parts, its young fronds, berries and buds, as all these are considered its fruit. And Rabbi Akiva says: Only the berries alone are tithed, because it alone is considered fruit. It was in accordance with this opinion, that Rav prohibited only the eating of the berries during the caper-bush鈥檚 years of orla.

讜谞讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专抓 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讛诪讬拽诇 讘讗专抓 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讘诇 讘讗专抓 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If this is the case, why did Rav issue what seemed to be an independent ruling regarding orla? He should have simply said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, from which we could have drawn a practical halakhic conclusion regarding orla as well. The Gemara responds: Had Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, he teaches us by stating the entire halakha, that there is a principle: Anyone who is lenient in a dispute with regard to the halakhot of orla in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion outside of Eretz Yisrael, but not in Eretz Yisrael.

讜谞讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讻诇 讛诪讬拽诇 讘讗专抓 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讗讬诇谉 讚讘讗专抓 讙讜驻讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 注专诇讛 讚讘讗专抓 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara questions this: If so, then let Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva outside of Eretz Yisrael as anyone who is lenient in a dispute with regard to the halakhot of orla in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers: Had he said that, I would have said: That only applies with regard to the tithing of trees, which even in Eretz Yisrael itself is an obligation by rabbinic law; but with regard to orla, which is prohibited in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, say that we should issue a decree prohibiting orla even outside of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, he teaches us that even with regard to orla, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

专讘讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚拽讗 讝专讬拽 讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜拽讗讻讬诇 拽驻专讬住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讱 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪讬拽诇 讜诇注讘讬讚 诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚诪拽讬诇讬 讟驻讬 讚转谞谉 爪诇祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讻专诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讻专诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘注专诇讛

On this topic, the Gemara relates: Ravina found Mar bar Rav Ashi throwing away the berries and eating the buds of an orla caper-bush. Ravina said to Mar bar Rav Ashi: What is your opinion, that you are eating the buds? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who is lenient, then you should act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who are even more lenient. As we learned in a mishna with regard to the laws of forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds that Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is considered a diverse kind in the vineyard, as it is included in the prohibition against planting vegetables in a vineyard. Beit Hillel say: A caper-bush is not considered a diverse kind in a vineyard. Nevertheless, these and those, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree that the caper-bush is obligated in the prohibition of orla.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 爪诇祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讻专诐 讗诇诪讗 诪讬谉 讬专拽 讛讜讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘注专诇讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讬谉 讗讬诇谉 讛讜讗

Before dealing with the problem posed by Ravina to Mar bar Rav Ashi, the Gemara notes an internal contradiction in this mishna. This mishna itself is problematic: You said that Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is considered a diverse kind in a vineyard; apparently, they hold that it is a type of vegetable bush, and then you taught: These and those, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree that the caper-bush is obligated in the prohibition of orla; apparently, it is a type of tree.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讜注讘讚讬 讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 注专诇讛 讜转谞谉 住驻拽 注专诇讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讜讘住讜专讬讗 诪讜转专 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬讜专讚

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult; Beit Shammai are uncertain whether the caper-bush is a vegetable bush or a tree, and here, regarding diverse kinds, they act stringently and here, regarding orla, they act stringently. In any case, according to Beit Shammai the caper-bush has the status of uncertain orla, and we learned the consensus halakha in a mishna: Uncertain orla in Eretz Yisrael is forbidden to eat, and in Syria it is permitted, and we are not concerned about its uncertain status. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, the gentile owner of a field may go down into his field

讜诇讜拽讞 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬专讗谞讜 诇讜拽讟

and take from the orla fruit, and as long as the Jew does not see him gather it, he may purchase the fruit from the gentile. If so, then outside of Eretz Yisrael, one may act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai who hold that the caper-bush has the status of uncertain orla, and eat even the berries without apprehension.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜转讬讛 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara answers: The general rule that outside of Eretz Yisrael one acts in accordance with the lenient opinion in a dispute within Eretz Yisrael applies when Rabbi Akiva expresses a more lenient opinion in place of Rabbi Eliezer, and we act in accordance with his opinion. And however, when Beit Shammai express an opinion where Beit Hillel disagree, their opinion is considered as if it were not in the mishna, and is completely disregarded.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚谞注砖讛 砖讜诪专 诇驻专讬 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜注专诇转诐 注专诇转讜 讗转 驻专讬讜 讗转 讛讟驻诇 诇驻专讬讜 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讜诪专 诇驻专讬

The Gemara approaches this matter from a different perspective: Let us derive the halakha that buds are included in the prohibition of orla from the fact that the bud serves as protection for the fruit, and the Torah says: 鈥淲hen you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit [et piryo] as orla (Leviticus 19:23), and et piryo is interpreted to mean that which is secondary to the fruit. What is that? That section of the plant which is protection for the fruit. The buds should be prohibited as orla, since they protect the fruit.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚谞注砖讛 砖讜诪专 诇驻专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讬谉 讘转诇讜砖 讘讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 讛讻讗 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗讬转讬讛 讘转诇讜砖 诇讬转讬讛

Rava said: Where do we say that a section of the plant becomes protection for the fruit? That is specifically when it exists both when the fruit is detached from the tree and when it is still connected to the tree. However, here, it exists when the fruit is connected to the tree, but when it is detached it does not, and since the protection falls off of the fruit when it is picked, it is no longer considered protection.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻讬讟诪讗 砖诇 专诪讜谉 诪爪讟专驻转 讜讛谞抓 砖诇讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 诪讚拽讗诪专 讛谞抓 砖诇讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 讗诇诪讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讜转谞谉 讙讘讬 注专诇讛 拽诇讬驻讬 专诪讜谉 讜讛谞抓 砖诇讜 拽诇讬驻讬 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讜讛讙专注讬谞讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘注专诇讛

Abaye raised a challenge based on what we learned with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity: The crown of a pomegranate joins together with the pomegranate as a unified entity with regard to calculating the requisite size in order to become ritually impure. And its flower, however, does not join together with the pomegranate in that calculation. From the fact that it says that the pomegranate鈥檚 flower does not join, consequently the flower is secondary to the fruit and is not considered food. And we learned in a mishna regarding the laws of orla: The rinds of a pomegranate and its flower, nutshells, and pits of all kinds, are all obligated in the prohibition of orla. This indicates that the criteria dictating what is considered protection of a fruit and what is considered the fruit itself with regard to ritual impurity, are not the same criteria used with regard to orla, as is illustrated by the case of the pomegranate flower. Therefore, even if the buds are not regarded as protecting the fruit with regard to ritual impurity, they may still be considered fruit with regard to orla.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚谞注砖讛 诇讛讜 砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘砖注转 讙诪专 驻讬专讗 讛讗讬 拽驻专住 诇讬转讬讛 讘砖注转 讙诪专 驻讬专讗

Rather, Rava said another explanation: Where do we say that a section of the plant becomes protection for the fruit? Where it exists when the fruit is ripe. This bud does not exist when the fruit is ripe, because it falls off beforehand.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛谞讬 诪转讞诇讬 讚注专诇讛 讗住讬专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讜 砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬 讜砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬 讗讬诪转 讛讜讬 讘讻讜驻专讗 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬

The Gemara challenges this explanation as well: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh said: Those orla date coverings are prohibited, because they became protection for the fruit. And when do these coverings serve as protection for the fruit? When the fruit is still young; and he, nevertheless, calls them protection for the fruit. This indicates that in order to be considered protection for the fruit it need not remain until the fruit is fully ripened. The question remains: Why are the buds not accorded the same status as the berries of the caper-bush?

专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 住诪讚专 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻专讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛

The Gemara explains that Rav Na岣an held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: The grape-bud, i.e., a cluster of grapes in its earliest stage, immediately after the flowers dropped from the vine, is prohibited due to orla, because it is already considered a fruit. According to this opinion, even the date coverings that exist in the earliest stage of the ripening process are nevertheless considered protection for the fruit and prohibited due to orla. The Rabbis disagree with him, explaining that fruit at that stage is not considered fruit; and, therefore, the date coverings and caper-bush buds are not considered protection for the fruit and are not prohibited due to orla.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜讘砖讗专 讗讬诇谞讬 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 诪讗讬诪转讬 讗讬谉 拽讜爪爪讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诪砖讬砖专砖专讜 讜讛讙驻谞讬诐 诪砖讬讙专注讜 讜讛讝讬转讬诐 诪砖讬谞讬爪讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜

Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 strongly objects to this halakha: Do the Rabbis disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the fruits of all other trees besides grapes, that even in the very first stage of ripening, they are considered fruit? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to fruit, which grows during the Sabbatical year, the Torah says: 鈥淎nd the Shabbat of the land shall be to you for eating鈥 (Leviticus 25:6). The Sages inferred, for eating, and not for loss. Because one is prohibited from discarding fruit grown during the Sabbatical year, the question is raised: From when may one no longer cut trees during the Sabbatical year as he thereby damages the fruit? Beit Shammai say: All trees, from when the blossoms fall off and fruit begins to emerge in its earliest stage. And Beit Hillel say: There is a distinction between different types of trees. Carob trees may not be cut from when they form chains of carobs, vines may not be cut misheyegaru, explained below, olives from when they blossom, and all other trees from when fruit emerges.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讜讗 讘讜住专 讛讜讗 讙专讜注 讛讜讗 驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讬注讜专讜 讻驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讜住专 讗讬谉 住诪讚专 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜

And Rav Asi said: Sheyegaru in our mishna is to be understood: It is an unripe grape, it is a grape kernel, it is a white bean. Before this is even explained, the Gemara expresses its astonishment: Does it enter your mind that the grape is, at any stage, a white bean? Rather, say: Its size, that of an unripe grape, is equivalent to the size of a white bean. In any case, whom did you hear that said: An unripe grape, yes, is considered fruit, while a grape-bud, no, is not considered fruit? Wasn鈥檛 it the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, and it is taught that, according to these Sages, one is forbidden to cut all other trees from when fruit emerges. This indicates that even they agree that from the very beginning of the ripening process, the fruit is forbidden due to orla. The question remains: Why are the buds permitted?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讛讜讬 砖讜诪专 诇驻专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 砖拽诇转 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诪专 诪讬讬转 驻讬专讗 讛讻讗 讻讬 砖拽诇转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讬转 驻讬专讗

Rather, Rava said a different explanation: Where do we say that a section of the plant becomes protection for the fruit? Where if you remove the protection, the fruit dies. Here, in the case of the caper-bush, when you remove the bud, the fruit does not die.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜砖拽诇讜讛 诇谞抓 讚专诪讜谞讗 讜讬讘砖 专诪讜谞讗 讜砖拽诇讜讛 诇驻专讞讗 讚讘讬讟讬转讗 讜讗讬拽讬讬诐 讘讬讟讬转讗

In fact, there was an incident and they removed the flower of a pomegranate, and the pomegranate withered. And they removed the flower of the fruit of a caper-bush and the fruit of the caper-bush survived. Therefore, buds are not considered protection for the fruit.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讝专讬拽 讗转 讛讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜讗讻讬诇 讗转 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 讜诪讚诇讙讘讬 注专诇讛 诇讗讜 驻讬专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讬 讘专讻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 驻讬专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讗诇讗 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛

The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi, who discarded the berries and ate the buds. And since they are not considered fruit with regard to orla, they are also not considered fruit with regard to blessings, and one does not recite over them: Who creates fruit of the tree, but rather: Who creates fruit of the ground.

驻诇驻诇讬 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻住 驻诇驻诇讬 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专 讻住 讝谞讙讘讬诇讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专

The question arose with regard to the blessing over peppers. Rav Sheshet said: One who eats peppers must recite: By Whose word all things came to be. Rava said: One need not recite a blessing at all. This is consistent with Rava鈥檚 opinion that eating peppers is not considered eating, as Rava said: One who chews on peppers on Yom Kippur is exempt, one who chews on ginger on Yom Kippur is exempt. Eating sharp spices is an uncommon practice, and is therefore not considered to be eating, which is prohibited by Torah law on Yom Kippur.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜注专诇转诐 注专诇转讜 讗转 驻专讬讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖注抓 诪讗讻诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注抓 诪讗讻诇 诇讛讘讬讗 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讝讛 讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘注专诇讛 讜诇诇诪讚讱 砖讗讬谉 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讞住专讛 讻诇讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗专抓 讗砖专 诇讗 讘诪住讻谞转 转讗讻诇 讘讛 诇讞诐 诇讗 转讞住专 讻诇 讘讛

The Gemara raised an objection to this based on what was taught in a baraita, that regarding the verse: 鈥淲hen you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as orla鈥 (Leviticus 19:23), Rabbi Meir would say: By inference from that which is stated: 鈥淵ou shall regard its fruit as orla,鈥 don鈥檛 I know that it is referring to a tree that produces food? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state: 鈥淎ny tree for food鈥? To include a tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste. And which tree is this? This is the pepper tree. And this comes to teach you that the peppers, and even the wood portions, are edible and are therefore obligated in the prohibition of orla, and to teach that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: 鈥淎 land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:9). Obviously, peppers are fit for consumption.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 讛讗 讘讬讘砖转讗

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction between two different cases. This, where Rabbi Meir spoke of peppers fit for consumption, is referring to a case when it is damp and fresh; and this, where chewing on pepper is not considered eating on Yom Kippur and does not require a blessing, is referring to a case when it is dry.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇诪专讬诪专 讻住 讝谞讙讘讬诇讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讛诪诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 诪讘讬 讛谞讚讜讗讬 砖专讬讗 讜诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 讛讗 讘讬讘砖转讗

With regard to this discussion of chewing pepper on Yom Kippur, the Gemara cites what the Sages said to Mareimar: Why is one who chews ginger on Yom Kippur exempt? Didn鈥檛 Rava say: One is permitted to eat the ginger that comes from India, and over it, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. With regard to blessing, it is considered edible; therefore, with regard to chewing on Yom Kippur, it should be considered edible as well. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This, where a blessing is recited, is referring to a case when it is damp and fresh; this, where no blessing is recited, is referring to a case when it is dry.

讞讘讬抓 拽讚专讛 讜讻谉 讚讬讬住讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘讚讬讬住讗 讙专讬讚讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚讬讬住讗 讻注讬谉 讞讘讬抓 拽讚专讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 住讘专 讚讜讘砖讗 注讬拽专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 住讘专 住诪讬讚讗 注讬拽专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转:

The Gemara cites a similar dispute with regard to the blessing be recited over 岣vitz, a dish consisting of flour, oil, and honey cooked in a pot as well as pounded grain. Rav Yehuda said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. Rav Kahana said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. The Gemara explains: With regard to pounded grain alone, everyone agrees that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. When they argue, it is with regard to pounded grain mixed with honey, in the manner of a 岣vitz cooked in a pot. Rav Yehuda said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, as he held that the honey is primary, and on honey one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. Rav Kahana said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, as he held that the flour, as is the case with all products produced from grain, is primary, and therefore one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. Rav Yosef said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, as Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that has of the five species of grain in it, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, even if it is mixed with other ingredients.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转

With regard to the halakha of the blessing recited over the five species of grain, the Gemara clarifies the matter itself. Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that has of the five species of grain in it, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. Elsewhere, it was stated that Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that is from the five species of grain, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. This is problematic, as these statements appear redundant.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘讜转 诇讗

The Gemara explains: Both statements are necessary, as had he taught us only: Anything that is from the five species of grain, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, I would have said that is because the grain is in its pure, unadulterated form, but if one eats it in the context of a mixture, no, one does not recite: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Medicine Is Not Food!

I'll note that I think the most important part of our discussion for today's daf (recorded in advance, of course)...

Berakhot 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 36

讚讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇拽讬

in which all boiled vegetables were boiled. A certain amount of oil is added to anigeron.

讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 注讬拽专 讜砖诪谉 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

However, if so, here too, anigeron is primary and oil is secondary, and we learned in a mishna: This is the principle: Any food that is primary, and it 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. One need recite a blessing only over the anigeron.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讞讜砖砖 讘讙专讜谞讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讞讜砖砖 讘讙专讜谞讜 诇讗 讬注专注谞讜 讘砖诪谉 转讞诇讛 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 砖诪谉 讛专讘讛 诇转讜讱 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 讜讘讜诇注

The Gemara reconciles: With what are we dealing here? With one who has a sore throat, which he is treating with oil. As it was taught in a baraita: One who has a sore throat should not, ab initio, gargle oil on Shabbat for medicinal purposes, as doing so would violate the decree prohibiting the use of medicine on Shabbat. However, he may, even ab initio, add a large amount of oil to the anigeron and swallow it. Since it is common practice to swallow oil either alone or with a secondary ingredient like anigeron for medicinal purposes, in this case one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇专驻讜讗讛 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇讗 诇讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讻诇诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讘注讬 讘专讜讻讬:

The Gemara challenges: This is obvious that one must recite a blessing. The Gemara responds: Lest you say: Since he intends to use it for medicinal purposes, let him not recite a blessing over it at all, as one does not recite a blessing before taking medicine. Therefore, it teaches us that, since he derived pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing over it.

拽诪讞讗 讚讞讬讟讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜

The Gemara clarifies: If one was eating plain wheat flour, what blessing would he recite? Rav Yehuda said that one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and Rav Na岣an said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 转驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽讬讬诪讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 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 讗诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗砖转谞讬 讘诪诇转讬讛 拽讗讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗砖转谞讬 讘诪诇转讬讛 拽讗讬

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Do not disagree with Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Yo岣nan and Shmuel hold in accordance with his opinion, even though they addressed another topic. As 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. Consequently, even though the olive has changed into olive oil, the formula of the blessing remains as it was. This too, even though the wheat has changed into flour, its blessing remains as it was: Who creates fruit of the ground.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘驻转

The Gemara responds: Is it comparable? There, the olive oil has no potential for additional enhancement, while here, the flour has the potential for additional enhancement as bread. Since oil is the olive鈥檚 finished product, one should recite the same blessing over it as over the tree itself. Wheat flour, on the other hand, is used to bake bread, so the flour is a raw material for which neither the blessing over wheat nor the blessing over bread is appropriate. Only the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be is appropriate.

讜讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讗诇讗 砖讛讻诇 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗拽专讗 讞讬讬讗 讜拽诪讞讗 讚砖注专讬 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讞讬讟讬 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛

The Gemara asks: When it has a potential for additional enhancement, one does not recite: Who creates fruit of the ground; rather one recites: By Whose word all things came to be? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Over a raw gourd and over barley flour, one recites the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. What, is that not to say that over wheat flour one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground? Over barley flour, which people do not typically eat, it is appropriate to recite: By Whose word all things came to be. Over wheat flour, it is appropriate to recite: Who creates fruit of the ground.

诇讗 讚讞讬讟讬 谞诪讬 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜

This argument is rejected: No, one also recites: By Whose word all things came to be, over wheat flour.

讜诇砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讞讬讟讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚砖注专讬

The Gemara asks: Then let the Sages teach us that this halakha applies with regard to wheat flour, and all the more so regarding barley flour as well.

讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讞讬讟讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讞讬讟讬 讗讘诇 讚砖注专讬 诇讗 诇讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讻诇诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: It was necessary to teach us that one must recite a blessing even before eating barley flour. Had the Sages taught us this halakha with regard to wheat, I would have said: This applies only with regard to wheat flour, but over barley flour, let one not recite a blessing at all. Therefore, it teaches us that one recites a blessing over barley flour.

讜诪讬 讙专注 诪诪诇讞 讜讝诪讬转 讚转谞谉 注诇 讛诪诇讞 讜注诇 讛讝诪讬转 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇讞 讜讝诪讬转 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞砖 讚砖讚讬 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讗讘诇 拽诪讞讗 讚砖注专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜拽砖讛 诇拽讜拽讬讗谞讬 诇讗 诇讘专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讻诇诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讘注讬 讘专讜讻讬:

The Gemara challenges this explanation. How could one have considered that possibility? Is it inferior to salt and salt water [zamit]? As we learned in a mishna that over salt and salt water one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, and all the more so it should be recited over barley flour. This question is rejected: Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach the halakha regarding barley flour, as it might enter your mind to say: Although one occasionally places salt or salt water into his mouth, barley flour, which is damaging to one who eats it and causes intestinal worms, let one recite no blessing over it at all. Therefore, it teaches us, since one derives pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing.

拽讜专讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜

Another dispute over the appropriate blessing is with regard to the heart of palm [kura], which is a thin membrane covering young palm branches that was often eaten. Rav Yehuda said that one should recite: Who creates fruit of the ground. And Shmuel, Rav Yehuda鈥檚 teacher, said that one should recite: By Whose word all things came to be.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 驻讬专讗 讛讜讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻讜 诇讛拽砖讜转

Rav Yehuda said: Who creates fruit of the ground; it is a fruit. And Shmuel said: By Whose word all things came to be, since it will ultimately harden and it is considered part of the tree, not a fruit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 讻讜讜转讱 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讗 爪谞讜谉 住讜驻讜 诇讛拽砖讜转 讜诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 爪谞讜谉 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚驻讜讙诇讗 讚拽诇讗 诇讗 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚拽讜专讗

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana. It is reasonable to rule in accordance with your opinion, as a radish ultimately hardens if left in the ground; nevertheless, one who eats it while it is soft recites over it: Who creates fruit of the ground. In any case, despite this praise, the Gemara states: That is not so; people plant a radish with the soft radish in mind. However, people do not plant palm trees with the heart of palm in mind and therefore it cannot be considered a fruit.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讜讛专讬 爪诇祝 讚谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚驻专讞讗 讜转谞谉 注诇 诪讬谞讬 谞爪驻讛 注诇 讛注诇讬谉 讜注诇 讛转诪专讜转 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜注诇 讛讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜注诇 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓

In response to this, the Gemara asks: And whenever people do not plant with that result in mind, one does not recite a blessing over it? What of the caper-bush that people plant with their fruit in mind, and we learned in a mishna that with regard to the parts of the caper-bush [nitzpa], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree. This indicates that even over leaves and various other parts of the tree that are secondary to the fruit, the blessing is: Who creates fruit of the ground, and not: By Whose word all things came to be.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 爪诇祝 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚砖讜转讗 讚拽诇讗 诇讗 谞讟注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讚注转讗 讚拽讜专讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽诇住讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there is still a difference: Caper-bushes, people plant them with their leaves in mind; palm trees, people do not plant them with the heart of palm in mind. Therefore, no proof may be brought from the halakha in the case of the caper-bush to the halakha in the case of the of the palm. The Gemara concludes: Although Shmuel praised Rav Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 爪诇祝 砖诇 注专诇讛 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讘讬讜谞讜转 驻讬专讬 讜拽驻专讬住讬谉 诇讗讜 驻讬专讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 注诇 诪讬谞讬 谞爪驻讛 注诇 讛注诇讬诐 讜注诇 讛转诪专讜转 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜注诇 讛讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜注诇 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓

Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara cites an additional halakha concerning the caper-bush. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A caper-bush during the first three years of its growth [orla] outside of Eretz Yisrael, when its fruits are prohibited by rabbinic and not Torah law, one throws out the berries, the primary fruit, but eats the buds. The Gemara raises the question: Is that to say that the berries are fruit of the caper, and the bud is not fruit? The Gemara raises a contradiction from what we learned in the mishna cited above: With regard to the parts of the caper-bush [nitzpa], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries, and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree. Obviously, the buds are also considered the fruit of the caper-bush.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 爪诇祝 诪转注砖专 转诪专讜转 讜讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜拽驻专讬住讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪转注砖专 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讘诇讘讚 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻专讬

The Gemara responds: Rav鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: A caper-bush is tithed from its component parts, its young fronds, berries and buds, as all these are considered its fruit. And Rabbi Akiva says: Only the berries alone are tithed, because it alone is considered fruit. It was in accordance with this opinion, that Rav prohibited only the eating of the berries during the caper-bush鈥檚 years of orla.

讜谞讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专抓 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讛诪讬拽诇 讘讗专抓 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讘诇 讘讗专抓 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If this is the case, why did Rav issue what seemed to be an independent ruling regarding orla? He should have simply said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, from which we could have drawn a practical halakhic conclusion regarding orla as well. The Gemara responds: Had Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, he teaches us by stating the entire halakha, that there is a principle: Anyone who is lenient in a dispute with regard to the halakhot of orla in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion outside of Eretz Yisrael, but not in Eretz Yisrael.

讜谞讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讻诇 讛诪讬拽诇 讘讗专抓 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讗讬诇谉 讚讘讗专抓 讙讜驻讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 注专诇讛 讚讘讗专抓 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara questions this: If so, then let Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva outside of Eretz Yisrael as anyone who is lenient in a dispute with regard to the halakhot of orla in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers: Had he said that, I would have said: That only applies with regard to the tithing of trees, which even in Eretz Yisrael itself is an obligation by rabbinic law; but with regard to orla, which is prohibited in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, say that we should issue a decree prohibiting orla even outside of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, he teaches us that even with regard to orla, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

专讘讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚拽讗 讝专讬拽 讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜拽讗讻讬诇 拽驻专讬住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讱 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪讬拽诇 讜诇注讘讬讚 诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚诪拽讬诇讬 讟驻讬 讚转谞谉 爪诇祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讻专诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讻专诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘注专诇讛

On this topic, the Gemara relates: Ravina found Mar bar Rav Ashi throwing away the berries and eating the buds of an orla caper-bush. Ravina said to Mar bar Rav Ashi: What is your opinion, that you are eating the buds? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who is lenient, then you should act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who are even more lenient. As we learned in a mishna with regard to the laws of forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds that Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is considered a diverse kind in the vineyard, as it is included in the prohibition against planting vegetables in a vineyard. Beit Hillel say: A caper-bush is not considered a diverse kind in a vineyard. Nevertheless, these and those, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree that the caper-bush is obligated in the prohibition of orla.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 爪诇祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讻专诐 讗诇诪讗 诪讬谉 讬专拽 讛讜讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘注专诇讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讬谉 讗讬诇谉 讛讜讗

Before dealing with the problem posed by Ravina to Mar bar Rav Ashi, the Gemara notes an internal contradiction in this mishna. This mishna itself is problematic: You said that Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is considered a diverse kind in a vineyard; apparently, they hold that it is a type of vegetable bush, and then you taught: These and those, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree that the caper-bush is obligated in the prohibition of orla; apparently, it is a type of tree.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讜注讘讚讬 讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 注专诇讛 讜转谞谉 住驻拽 注专诇讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讜讘住讜专讬讗 诪讜转专 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬讜专讚

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult; Beit Shammai are uncertain whether the caper-bush is a vegetable bush or a tree, and here, regarding diverse kinds, they act stringently and here, regarding orla, they act stringently. In any case, according to Beit Shammai the caper-bush has the status of uncertain orla, and we learned the consensus halakha in a mishna: Uncertain orla in Eretz Yisrael is forbidden to eat, and in Syria it is permitted, and we are not concerned about its uncertain status. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, the gentile owner of a field may go down into his field

讜诇讜拽讞 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬专讗谞讜 诇讜拽讟

and take from the orla fruit, and as long as the Jew does not see him gather it, he may purchase the fruit from the gentile. If so, then outside of Eretz Yisrael, one may act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai who hold that the caper-bush has the status of uncertain orla, and eat even the berries without apprehension.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜转讬讛 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara answers: The general rule that outside of Eretz Yisrael one acts in accordance with the lenient opinion in a dispute within Eretz Yisrael applies when Rabbi Akiva expresses a more lenient opinion in place of Rabbi Eliezer, and we act in accordance with his opinion. And however, when Beit Shammai express an opinion where Beit Hillel disagree, their opinion is considered as if it were not in the mishna, and is completely disregarded.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚谞注砖讛 砖讜诪专 诇驻专讬 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜注专诇转诐 注专诇转讜 讗转 驻专讬讜 讗转 讛讟驻诇 诇驻专讬讜 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讜诪专 诇驻专讬

The Gemara approaches this matter from a different perspective: Let us derive the halakha that buds are included in the prohibition of orla from the fact that the bud serves as protection for the fruit, and the Torah says: 鈥淲hen you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit [et piryo] as orla (Leviticus 19:23), and et piryo is interpreted to mean that which is secondary to the fruit. What is that? That section of the plant which is protection for the fruit. The buds should be prohibited as orla, since they protect the fruit.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚谞注砖讛 砖讜诪专 诇驻专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讬谉 讘转诇讜砖 讘讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 讛讻讗 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗讬转讬讛 讘转诇讜砖 诇讬转讬讛

Rava said: Where do we say that a section of the plant becomes protection for the fruit? That is specifically when it exists both when the fruit is detached from the tree and when it is still connected to the tree. However, here, it exists when the fruit is connected to the tree, but when it is detached it does not, and since the protection falls off of the fruit when it is picked, it is no longer considered protection.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻讬讟诪讗 砖诇 专诪讜谉 诪爪讟专驻转 讜讛谞抓 砖诇讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 诪讚拽讗诪专 讛谞抓 砖诇讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 讗诇诪讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讜转谞谉 讙讘讬 注专诇讛 拽诇讬驻讬 专诪讜谉 讜讛谞抓 砖诇讜 拽诇讬驻讬 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讜讛讙专注讬谞讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘注专诇讛

Abaye raised a challenge based on what we learned with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity: The crown of a pomegranate joins together with the pomegranate as a unified entity with regard to calculating the requisite size in order to become ritually impure. And its flower, however, does not join together with the pomegranate in that calculation. From the fact that it says that the pomegranate鈥檚 flower does not join, consequently the flower is secondary to the fruit and is not considered food. And we learned in a mishna regarding the laws of orla: The rinds of a pomegranate and its flower, nutshells, and pits of all kinds, are all obligated in the prohibition of orla. This indicates that the criteria dictating what is considered protection of a fruit and what is considered the fruit itself with regard to ritual impurity, are not the same criteria used with regard to orla, as is illustrated by the case of the pomegranate flower. Therefore, even if the buds are not regarded as protecting the fruit with regard to ritual impurity, they may still be considered fruit with regard to orla.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚谞注砖讛 诇讛讜 砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘砖注转 讙诪专 驻讬专讗 讛讗讬 拽驻专住 诇讬转讬讛 讘砖注转 讙诪专 驻讬专讗

Rather, Rava said another explanation: Where do we say that a section of the plant becomes protection for the fruit? Where it exists when the fruit is ripe. This bud does not exist when the fruit is ripe, because it falls off beforehand.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛谞讬 诪转讞诇讬 讚注专诇讛 讗住讬专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讜 砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬 讜砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬 讗讬诪转 讛讜讬 讘讻讜驻专讗 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 砖讜诪专 诇驻讬专讬

The Gemara challenges this explanation as well: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh said: Those orla date coverings are prohibited, because they became protection for the fruit. And when do these coverings serve as protection for the fruit? When the fruit is still young; and he, nevertheless, calls them protection for the fruit. This indicates that in order to be considered protection for the fruit it need not remain until the fruit is fully ripened. The question remains: Why are the buds not accorded the same status as the berries of the caper-bush?

专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 住诪讚专 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻专讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛

The Gemara explains that Rav Na岣an held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: The grape-bud, i.e., a cluster of grapes in its earliest stage, immediately after the flowers dropped from the vine, is prohibited due to orla, because it is already considered a fruit. According to this opinion, even the date coverings that exist in the earliest stage of the ripening process are nevertheless considered protection for the fruit and prohibited due to orla. The Rabbis disagree with him, explaining that fruit at that stage is not considered fruit; and, therefore, the date coverings and caper-bush buds are not considered protection for the fruit and are not prohibited due to orla.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜讘砖讗专 讗讬诇谞讬 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 诪讗讬诪转讬 讗讬谉 拽讜爪爪讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诪砖讬砖专砖专讜 讜讛讙驻谞讬诐 诪砖讬讙专注讜 讜讛讝讬转讬诐 诪砖讬谞讬爪讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜

Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 strongly objects to this halakha: Do the Rabbis disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the fruits of all other trees besides grapes, that even in the very first stage of ripening, they are considered fruit? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to fruit, which grows during the Sabbatical year, the Torah says: 鈥淎nd the Shabbat of the land shall be to you for eating鈥 (Leviticus 25:6). The Sages inferred, for eating, and not for loss. Because one is prohibited from discarding fruit grown during the Sabbatical year, the question is raised: From when may one no longer cut trees during the Sabbatical year as he thereby damages the fruit? Beit Shammai say: All trees, from when the blossoms fall off and fruit begins to emerge in its earliest stage. And Beit Hillel say: There is a distinction between different types of trees. Carob trees may not be cut from when they form chains of carobs, vines may not be cut misheyegaru, explained below, olives from when they blossom, and all other trees from when fruit emerges.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讜讗 讘讜住专 讛讜讗 讙专讜注 讛讜讗 驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讬注讜专讜 讻驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讜住专 讗讬谉 住诪讚专 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜

And Rav Asi said: Sheyegaru in our mishna is to be understood: It is an unripe grape, it is a grape kernel, it is a white bean. Before this is even explained, the Gemara expresses its astonishment: Does it enter your mind that the grape is, at any stage, a white bean? Rather, say: Its size, that of an unripe grape, is equivalent to the size of a white bean. In any case, whom did you hear that said: An unripe grape, yes, is considered fruit, while a grape-bud, no, is not considered fruit? Wasn鈥檛 it the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, and it is taught that, according to these Sages, one is forbidden to cut all other trees from when fruit emerges. This indicates that even they agree that from the very beginning of the ripening process, the fruit is forbidden due to orla. The question remains: Why are the buds permitted?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讛讜讬 砖讜诪专 诇驻专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 砖拽诇转 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诪专 诪讬讬转 驻讬专讗 讛讻讗 讻讬 砖拽诇转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讬转 驻讬专讗

Rather, Rava said a different explanation: Where do we say that a section of the plant becomes protection for the fruit? Where if you remove the protection, the fruit dies. Here, in the case of the caper-bush, when you remove the bud, the fruit does not die.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜砖拽诇讜讛 诇谞抓 讚专诪讜谞讗 讜讬讘砖 专诪讜谞讗 讜砖拽诇讜讛 诇驻专讞讗 讚讘讬讟讬转讗 讜讗讬拽讬讬诐 讘讬讟讬转讗

In fact, there was an incident and they removed the flower of a pomegranate, and the pomegranate withered. And they removed the flower of the fruit of a caper-bush and the fruit of the caper-bush survived. Therefore, buds are not considered protection for the fruit.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讝专讬拽 讗转 讛讗讘讬讜谞讜转 讜讗讻讬诇 讗转 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 讜诪讚诇讙讘讬 注专诇讛 诇讗讜 驻讬专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讬 讘专讻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 驻讬专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讗诇讗 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛

The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi, who discarded the berries and ate the buds. And since they are not considered fruit with regard to orla, they are also not considered fruit with regard to blessings, and one does not recite over them: Who creates fruit of the tree, but rather: Who creates fruit of the ground.

驻诇驻诇讬 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻住 驻诇驻诇讬 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专 讻住 讝谞讙讘讬诇讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专

The question arose with regard to the blessing over peppers. Rav Sheshet said: One who eats peppers must recite: By Whose word all things came to be. Rava said: One need not recite a blessing at all. This is consistent with Rava鈥檚 opinion that eating peppers is not considered eating, as Rava said: One who chews on peppers on Yom Kippur is exempt, one who chews on ginger on Yom Kippur is exempt. Eating sharp spices is an uncommon practice, and is therefore not considered to be eating, which is prohibited by Torah law on Yom Kippur.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜注专诇转诐 注专诇转讜 讗转 驻专讬讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖注抓 诪讗讻诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注抓 诪讗讻诇 诇讛讘讬讗 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讝讛 讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘注专诇讛 讜诇诇诪讚讱 砖讗讬谉 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讞住专讛 讻诇讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗专抓 讗砖专 诇讗 讘诪住讻谞转 转讗讻诇 讘讛 诇讞诐 诇讗 转讞住专 讻诇 讘讛

The Gemara raised an objection to this based on what was taught in a baraita, that regarding the verse: 鈥淲hen you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as orla鈥 (Leviticus 19:23), Rabbi Meir would say: By inference from that which is stated: 鈥淵ou shall regard its fruit as orla,鈥 don鈥檛 I know that it is referring to a tree that produces food? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state: 鈥淎ny tree for food鈥? To include a tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste. And which tree is this? This is the pepper tree. And this comes to teach you that the peppers, and even the wood portions, are edible and are therefore obligated in the prohibition of orla, and to teach that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: 鈥淎 land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:9). Obviously, peppers are fit for consumption.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 讛讗 讘讬讘砖转讗

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction between two different cases. This, where Rabbi Meir spoke of peppers fit for consumption, is referring to a case when it is damp and fresh; and this, where chewing on pepper is not considered eating on Yom Kippur and does not require a blessing, is referring to a case when it is dry.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇诪专讬诪专 讻住 讝谞讙讘讬诇讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讛诪诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 诪讘讬 讛谞讚讜讗讬 砖专讬讗 讜诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 讛讗 讘讬讘砖转讗

With regard to this discussion of chewing pepper on Yom Kippur, the Gemara cites what the Sages said to Mareimar: Why is one who chews ginger on Yom Kippur exempt? Didn鈥檛 Rava say: One is permitted to eat the ginger that comes from India, and over it, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. With regard to blessing, it is considered edible; therefore, with regard to chewing on Yom Kippur, it should be considered edible as well. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This, where a blessing is recited, is referring to a case when it is damp and fresh; this, where no blessing is recited, is referring to a case when it is dry.

讞讘讬抓 拽讚专讛 讜讻谉 讚讬讬住讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘讚讬讬住讗 讙专讬讚讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚讬讬住讗 讻注讬谉 讞讘讬抓 拽讚专讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 住讘专 讚讜讘砖讗 注讬拽专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 住讘专 住诪讬讚讗 注讬拽专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转:

The Gemara cites a similar dispute with regard to the blessing be recited over 岣vitz, a dish consisting of flour, oil, and honey cooked in a pot as well as pounded grain. Rav Yehuda said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. Rav Kahana said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. The Gemara explains: With regard to pounded grain alone, everyone agrees that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. When they argue, it is with regard to pounded grain mixed with honey, in the manner of a 岣vitz cooked in a pot. Rav Yehuda said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, as he held that the honey is primary, and on honey one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. Rav Kahana said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, as he held that the flour, as is the case with all products produced from grain, is primary, and therefore one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. Rav Yosef said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, as Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that has of the five species of grain in it, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, even if it is mixed with other ingredients.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转

With regard to the halakha of the blessing recited over the five species of grain, the Gemara clarifies the matter itself. Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that has of the five species of grain in it, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. Elsewhere, it was stated that Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that is from the five species of grain, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. This is problematic, as these statements appear redundant.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘讜转 诇讗

The Gemara explains: Both statements are necessary, as had he taught us only: Anything that is from the five species of grain, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, I would have said that is because the grain is in its pure, unadulterated form, but if one eats it in the context of a mixture, no, one does not recite: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.

Scroll To Top