Berakhot 37

קא משמע לן כל שיש בו ואי אשמעינן כל שיש בו הוה אמינא כל שיש בו חמשת המינים אין אבל אורז ודוחן לא משום דעל ידי תערובת אבל איתיה בעיניה נימא אפילו אורז ודוחן נמי מברכין עליו בורא מיני מזונות קא משמע לן כל שהוא מחמשת המינים הוא דמברכין עליו בורא מיני מזונות לאפוקי אורז ודוחן דאפילו איתיה בעיניה לא מברכינן בורא מיני מזונות

Therefore, he teaches us: Anything that has of the five species of grain in it, even if it is in the context of a mixture with other ingredients. And had he taught us only: Anything that has of the five species of grain in it, I would have said that specifically over anything that has of the five species of grain in it, yes, one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, even if it is in the context of a mixture with other ingredients. However, over anything that has rice and millet in it, no, one does not recite: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, because one is eating it in the context of a mixture. However, if the rice or millet is in its pure, unadulterated form, say that even over rice and millet one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, because they, too, are types of grain. Therefore, he teaches us specifically: Anything that is from the five species of grain, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, to the exclusion of rice and millet, over which, even in its pure, unadulterated form, one does not recite: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.

ואורז ודוחן לא מברכינן בורא מיני מזונות והתניא הביאו לפניו פת אורז ופת דוחן מברך עליו תחלה וסוף כמעשה קדרה וגבי מעשה קדרה תניא בתחלה מברך עליו בורא מיני מזונות ולבסוף מברך עליו ברכה אחת מעין שלש

With regard to the previous conclusion, the Gemara asks: And over rice and millet we do not recite: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: If they brought before him rice bread or millet bread, he recites the blessing over it both before and after, as he would recite the blessing over a cooked dish containing dough from the five species of the grain. And with regard to a cooked dish, it was taught in a baraita: At the start, one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, and at the end, one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals [al hamiḥya]. Apparently, one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, over rice and millet.

כמעשה קדרה ולא כמעשה קדרה כמעשה קדרה דמברכין עליו תחלה וסוף ולא כמעשה קדרה דאילו במעשה קדרה בתחלה בורא מיני מזונות ולבסוף ברכה מעין שלש ואילו הכא בתחלה מברך עליו שהכל נהיה בדברו ולבסוף בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שבראת

The Gemara rejects this proof: Indeed, rice or millet is like a cooked dish, and is not like a cooked dish in every sense. The Gemara elaborates: It is considered like a cooked dish in that one recites a blessing over it both at the beginning and the end. And it is unlike a cooked dish in that over a cooked dish, at the start, one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, and at the end, one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals; whereas here, over rice, at the start, one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, and at the end, one recites: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs for all that You have created.

ואורז לאו מעשה קדרה הוא והתניא אלו הן מעשה קדרה חילקא טרגיס סולת זריז וערסן ואורז

The Gemara challenges: And rice is not a cooked dish? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that these are cooked dishes: Wheat kernels split into two parts, wheat kernels crushed into three parts [teraggis], flour, wheat kernels crushed into four parts [zariz], wheat kernels crushed into five parts [arsan] and rice? Apparently, rice is considered a cooked dish like crushed wheat.

הא מני רבי יוחנן בן נורי היא דתניא רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר אורז מין דגן הוא וחייבין על חמוצו כרת ואדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו בפסח אבל רבנן לא

The Gemara responds: Whose opinion is reflected in this baraita? It is Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s opinion, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Rice is a type of grain in every respect and, therefore, one is liable to death by karet if it leavens on Passover and he eats it intentionally. And a person who ate matza baked from rice flour fulfills his obligation on Passover; however, according to the Rabbis, no, rice is not in the category of a cooked dish.

ורבנן לא והתניא הכוסס את החטה מברך עליה בורא פרי האדמה טחנה אפאה ובשלה בזמן שהפרוסות קיימות בתחלה מברך עליה המוציא לחם מן הארץ ולבסוף מברך עליה שלש ברכות אם אין הפרוסות קיימות בתחלה מברך עליה בורא מיני מזונות ולבסוף מברך עליה ברכה אחת מעין שלש

The Gemara challenges this: And the Rabbis hold that rice is not considered a cooked dish? Wasn’t it taught in a Tosefta: One who chews wheat recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. However, if he ground the wheat, baked it, and cooked the bread, there is a distinction between two situations: When the slices are intact and did not dissolve in the boiling process, at the start one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth, and at the end one recites the three blessings of Grace after Meals, as he does after eating bread. When the slices dissolved in the course of the boiling process and are not intact, then at the start one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, and at the end one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals.

הכוסס את האורז מברך עליו בורא פרי האדמה טחנו אפאו ובשלו אף על פי שהפרוסות קיימות בתחלה מברך עליו בורא מיני מזונות ולבסוף מברך עליו ברכה אחת מעין שלש

One who chews rice recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. If one ground it, baked it, and then cooked it, even though the pieces are intact, at the start one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, and at the end one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals.

מני אילימא רבי יוחנן בן נורי היא דאמר אורז מין דגן הוא המוציא לחם מן הארץ ושלש ברכות בעי ברוכי

The Gemara discusses this Tosefta: Whose opinion is reflected in this Tosefta? If you say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri who said that rice is a type of grain, it should have said that one must recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth, beforehand and the three blessings of Grace after Meals thereafter, as he does after eating bread.

אלא לאו רבנן היא ותיובתא דרב ושמואל

Rather, isn’t it the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that rice is not a type of grain, but nevertheless hold that over rice one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment? If so, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav and Shmuel.

תיובתא:

The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of their opinion.

אמר מר הכוסס את החטה מברך עליה בורא פרי האדמה והתניא בורא מיני זרעים לא קשיא הא רבי יהודה והא רבנן דתנן ועל ירקות אומר בורא פרי האדמה רבי יהודה אומר בורא מיני דשאים:

Above, it was taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: One who chews wheat recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. The Gemara challenges: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who chews wheat recites: Who creates various kinds of seeds? The Gemara resolves the problem: This is not difficult, as it is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. This opinion, that one must recite: Who creates various kinds of seeds, is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this opinion, that one must recite: Who creates fruit of the ground, is the opinion of the Rabbis. As we learned in our mishna: Over herbs and leafy vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Rabbi Yehuda says: Who creates various kinds of herbs. Rabbi Yehuda designates specific blessings for every type of plant, and he certainly distinguishes between vegetables in general and seeds.

אמר מר הכוסס את האורז מברך עליו בורא פרי האדמה טחנו אפאו ובשלו אף על פי שהפרוסות קיימות בתחלה מברך עליו בורא מיני מזונות ולבסוף ברכה אחת מעין שלש

It was taught in the same Tosefta that the Master said: One who chews rice recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. If one ground it, baked it and then cooked it, even though the pieces are intact, at the start one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, and at the end one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals.

והתניא לבסוף ולא כלום אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא רבן גמליאל והא רבנן דתניא זה הכלל כל שהוא משבעת המינים רבן גמליאל אומר שלש ברכות וחכמים אומרים ברכה אחת מעין שלש

The Gemara raises the challenge: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that in that case, at the end one need not recite any of the blessings recited over the fruits of Eretz Yisrael, but rather: Who creates the many forms of life. Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. This, that one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals, is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. This, that one need only recite: Who creates the many forms of life, is the opinion of the Rabbis. As it was taught in a Tosefta that this is the principle: Anything that is from the seven species of grain and fruits for which Eretz Yisrael is praised, Rabban Gamliel says: Afterwards, one recites the three blessings of the Grace after Meals. And the Rabbis say: One blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals is sufficient.

ומעשה ברבן גמליאל והזקנים שהיו מסובין בעלייה ביריחו והביאו לפניהם כותבות ואכלו ונתן רבן גמליאל רשות לרבי עקיבא לברך קפץ וברך רבי עקיבא ברכה אחת מעין שלש אמר ליה רבן גמליאל עקיבא עד מתי אתה מכניס ראשך בין המחלוקת אמר לו רבינו אף על פי שאתה אומר כן וחבריך אומרים כן למדתנו רבינו יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים

The Gemara relates: And there was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and the Sages who were sitting in an upper floor in Jericho and they brought dates before them and they ate. And afterwards, Rabban Gamliel gave Rabbi Akiva permission to recite the blessing. Rabbi Akiva hurried and recited one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals. Rabban Gamliel said: Akiva, until when will you continue to stick your head into the dispute among the Sages with regard to what you did? Rabbi Akiva said to him: Our teacher, even though you say this while your colleagues disagree and say that, you taught us, our teacher, the general principle that guides resolution of halakhic disputes: In a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many. Although you are the Nasi, it is appropriate to act in accordance with the opinion of the many.

רבי יהודה אומר משמו כל שהוא משבעת המינים

The Gemara records a variation on the dispute between Rabban Gamliel and the Rabbis: Rabbi Yehuda says in his name, the name of Rabbi Akiva. With regard to anything that is from the seven species

ולא מין דגן הוא או מין דגן ולא עשאו פת רבן גמליאל אומר שלש ברכות וחכמים אומרים ברכה אחת כל שאינו לא משבעת המינין ולא מין דגן כגון פת אורז ודוחן רבן גמליאל אומר ברכה אחת מעין שלש וחכמים אומרים ולא כלום

and is not a species of grain, but one of the fruits, or which is a species of grain and has not been made into bread, there is a dispute. Rabban Gamliel says that one recites the three blessings of the Grace after Meals and the Rabbis say that one recites a single blessing. And over anything that is neither one of the seven species nor a species of grain, such as rice bread or millet bread, Rabban Gamliel says that after eating, one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals, and the Rabbis say that one need not recite any blessing, i.e., Grace after Meals or one blessing abridged from three, but instead he recites: Who creates the many forms of life. If so, the Tosefta, which says that after rice one recites one blessing abridged from three, is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s version of Rabban Gamliel’s opinion.

במאי אוקימתא כרבן גמליאל אימא סיפא דרישא אם אין הפרוסות קיימות בתחלה מברך עליה בורא מיני מזונות ולבסוף מברך עליה ברכה אחת מעין שלש מני אי רבן גמליאל השתא אכותבות ואדייסא אמר רבן גמליאל שלש ברכות אם אין הפרוסות קיימות מיבעיא

The Gemara challenges: How did you establish the Tosefta? In accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Say the latter clause of the first section of this Tosefta, which states that even over wheat bread, when the slices are not intact, then at the start one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, and at the end one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals. Whose opinion is reflected in that section of the Tosefta? If it is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, now if over dates and pounded wheat, Rabban Gamliel said that one recites the three blessings of Grace after Meals, in a case where the slices of bread are not intact, is it necessary to say that one recites Grace after Meals?

אלא פשיטא רבנן אי הכי קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן אלא לעולם רבנן ותני גבי אורז ולבסוף אינו מברך עליו ולא כלום:

Rather, it is clear that the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. If so, there is a contradiction between one opinion of the Rabbis and a second opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara resolves the contradiction: Rather, actually, the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and emend the text and teach with regard to rice: At the end, one does not recite any blessing, consistent with their opinion in the baraita.

אמר רבא האי ריהטא דחקלאי דמפשי ביה קמחא מברך בורא מיני מזונות מאי טעמא דסמידא עיקר דמחוזא דלא מפשי ביה קמחא מברך עליו שהכל נהיה בדברו מאי טעמא דובשא עיקר והדר אמר רבא אידי ואידי בורא מיני מזונות דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו כל שיש בו מחמשת המינים מברכין עליו בורא מיני מזונות

With regard to the blessings recited over various types of porridge, Rava said: Over the farmer’s mixture of flour and honey to which they add extra flour, one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. What is the reason? Because the flour is the primary ingredient in the mixture. Over this same dish, however, when it is prepared in the manner that it is prepared in Meḥoza where they do not add extra flour, one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. What is the reason? Because in that dish, the honey is the primary ingredient. And Rava reconsidered and said: Over both this, the mixture of the farmers, and that, the mixture of Meḥoza, one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. As 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.

אמר רב יוסף האי חביצא דאית ביה פרורין כזית בתחלה מברך עליו המוציא לחם מן הארץ ולבסוף מברך עליו שלש ברכות דלית ביה פרורין כזית בתחלה מברך עליו בורא מיני מזונות ולבסוף ברכה אחת מעין שלש

Rav Yosef said: Over this cooked dish, which contains pieces of bread that are the size of an olive-bulk, at the start one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth, and afterward one recites the three blessings of Grace after Meals as he would over bread. Over that same cooked dish, which does not contain pieces of bread that are the size of an olive-bulk, at the start one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, and at the end one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals, as he would over a cooked dish.

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא היה עומד ומקריב מנחות בירושלים אומר ברוך שהחיינו וקימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה נטלן לאכלן מברך המוציא לחם מן הארץ ותני עלה וכולן פותתן כזית

And Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: The first time the priest would stand and offer meal-offerings in Jerusalem, he would recite: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time, as it is the first time that he fulfilled the mitzva of offering that sacrifice (Rashi). When he would take the meal-offerings in order to eat them, he would recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth. And it was taught on the topic of meal-offerings: And all of the meal-offerings, he crumbles them into pieces, approximately the size of an olive-bulk. This proves that over bread crumbs the size of an olive-bulk, one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth.

אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה לתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דאמר פורכן עד שמחזירן לסלתן הכי נמי דלא בעי ברוכי המוציא לחם מן הארץ וכי תימא הכי נמי והתניא לקט מכולן כזית ואכלן אם חמץ הוא ענוש כרת ואם מצה הוא אדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו בפסח

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But if what you say is so, then now, according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael who said with regard to meal-offerings: He crushes them until he restores them to the form that they were when they were flour, would you say that so too, in that case, he need not recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth? And if you say that that is so, that one does not recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth, over these meal-offerings, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who gathered an olive-bulk sized portion from all of the crumbs of the meal-offerings and ate them, if it was an offering of leavened bread like that of a thanks-offering, if he ate them on Passover he is punishable by karet. If it was an offering of unleavened bread, one fulfills his obligation to eat matza on Passover. This illustrates that bread crumbs, regardless of their size, are always considered bread.

הכא במאי עסקינן בשערסן אי הכי אימא סיפא והוא שאכלן בכדי אכילת פרס ואי בשערסן האי שאכלן שאכלו מיבעי ליה

Rav Yosef answered that this is not the case, and one does not recite a blessing over bread crumbs as he would over actual bread. Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a case where one mixed the bread crumbs with water and compacted them into a single mass. The Gemara challenges this: If so, say the latter clause, in which we learn that this case of one who eats the crumbs speaks specifically about when he ate them, all of the crumbs that constitute the size of an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. And if it is referring to a case where one compacted them into a single mass, that expression: When he ate them, is inappropriate. When he ate it, is what it needed to say, as it is a single loaf.

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בבא מלחם גדול

Rather, it can be explained in another way: With what are we dealing here? With a case where each of the crumbs came from a large loaf of bread over which one is obligated to recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Over crumbs that were never part of a loaf of bread large enough to require this blessing, however, one need only recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth, if they are at least the size of an olive-bulk.

מאי הוה עלה אמר רב ששת האי חביצא אף על גב דלית ביה פרורין כזית מברך עליו המוציא לחם מן הארץ אמר רבא והוא דאיכא עליה תוריתא דנהמא

Since all of the proofs for and against this opinion were rejected, the Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this halakha? Rav Sheshet said: Over this cooked dish, which contains bread crumbs, even though it does not contain crumbs the size of an olive-bulk, one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Rava said: This is specifically in a case where the crumbs still have the appearance of bread and did not dissolve completely.

טרוקנין חייבין בחלה וכי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן טרוקנין פטורין מן החלה מאי טרוקנין אמר אביי כובא דארעא

Another issue concerned terokanin, with regard to which it was said that they are obligated in the mitzva to separate ḥalla, meaning that terokanin have the halakhic status of bread. And, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Terokanin are exempt from the mitzva to separate ḥalla. The Gemara asks: What are terokanin? Abaye said: Terokanin are made of a watery mixture of flour and water roasted in a cavity in a stove in the ground and is not actually bread.

ואמר אביי טריתא פטורה מן החלה מאי טריתא איכא דאמרי גביל מרתח ואיכא דאמרי נהמא דהנדקא ואיכא דאמרי לחם העשוי לכותח

And Abaye said: Terita is exempt from the mitzva to separate ḥalla. The Gemara asks: What is terita? There are several opinions: Some say, it is flour and water kneaded that is poured onto a boiling hot stove. And some say, it is bread from India, made from dough wrapped around a skewer and covered with oil or eggs before baking. And some say, it is bread made for kutaḥ, bread baked in an unusual manner so that it would become extremely leavened and could be used as an ingredient in the Babylonian spice, kutaḥ.

תני רבי חייא לחם העשוי לכותח פטור מן החלה והא תניא חייב בחלה התם כדקתני טעמא רבי יהודה אומר מעשיה מוכיחין עליה עשאן

And similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Bread made for kutaḥ; one is exempt from the mitzva to separate ḥalla. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one is obligated in the mitzva to separate ḥalla from bread made for kutaḥ? The Gemara answers: There, as the reason was taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: There is a distinction between different types of bread made for kutaḥ, as the actions taken in its preparation prove the purpose for which it was made. If he made them