Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 10, 2020 | ט״ו בשבט תש״פ

Berakhot 38

The gemara continues to bring various foods to discuss what blessings we make on them. Is dough baked in the ground under the burner considered bread or not? Does it depend on whether you eat it for a meal? What does one say of silan, date honey? What about “trima”? What is “trima”? Shetota that they made thick and thin – what blessing does one make? The thin was used for medicinal purposes. What does one say “the one who takes out” or “who takes out”? What does one bless on cooked vegetables – some say “boreh pri haadama” and some say “shehakol”.  Is the tradition about the debate accurate?

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

כעבין חייבין כלמודין פטורים אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף האי כובא דארעא מאי מברכין עלויה אמר ליה מי סברת נהמא הוא גובלא בעלמא הוא ומברכין עלויה בורא מיני מזונות

thick [ke’avin], so that they appear like loaves of bread, they are obligated in ḥalla, and if he shaped them like boards [kelimmudin], they are exempt, since they will certainly only be used for kutaḥ. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What blessing is recited over the dough of the ground? Rav Yosef said to him: Do you think that it is bread? It is merely kneaded dough, and just like over all other cooked grains, one recites over it the blessing: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.

מר זוטרא קבע סעודתיה עלויה וברך עלויה המוציא לחם מן הארץ ושלש ברכות

Mar Zutra based his meal on this dough, and he recited: Who brings forth bread from the earth, beforehand and the three blessings of Grace after Meals thereafter. Since he based his meal on it, he considered it to be bread.

אמר מר בר רב אשי ואדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח מאי טעמא לחם עוני קרינן ביה

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: With these types of bread, a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on Passover. What is the reason? Because we call it bread of affliction, and in that sense, it is in the category of matza.

ואמר מר בר רב אשי האי דובשא דתמרי מברכין עלויה שהכל נהיה בדברו מאי טעמא זיעה בעלמא הוא

And with regard to blessings, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Over this date honey one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. What is the reason that one does not recite: Who creates fruit of the tree, as he does over the date itself? Because date honey is not the essence of the fruit, but merely moisture that drips from the ripe fruit.

כמאן כי האי תנא דתנן דבש תמרים ויין תפוחים וחומץ ספוניות ושאר מי פירות של תרומה רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש ורבי יהושע פוטר

In accordance with whose opinion does he recite that blessing? In accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as we learned in a mishna: If a non-priest ate date honey, apple wine or vinegar made from grapes of autumn that grow stunted at the end of the season and are unfit for wine production, or any other type of juice made from fruits of teruma, Rabbi Eliezer obligates him to repay the principal and an additional fifth as a penalty for misuse of consecrated items. And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him from payment, because he holds that these are byproducts of the fruit and do not have the status of the fruit itself. Mar bar Rav Ashi’s ruling with regard to blessings was based on Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling with regard to teruma.

אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן לרבא טרימא מהו לא הוה אדעתיה דרבא מאי קאמר ליה יתיב רבינא קמיה דרבא אמר ליה דשומשמי קא אמרת או דקורטמי קא אמרת או דפורצני קא אמרת

One of the Sages said to Rava: What is the halakha with regard to terima? Rava was unfamiliar with the term terima and did not understand what he was saying to him. Ravina sat before Rava and said to the student who had posed the question to Rava: In posing the question, are you speaking of sesame terima or are you speaking of safflower terima or are you speaking of grape-pits terima?

אדהכי והכי אסקיה רבא לדעתיה אמר ליה חשילתא ודאי קא אמרת ואדכרתן מלתא הא דאמר רב אסי האי תמרי של תרומה מותר לעשות מהן טרימא ואסור לעשות מהן שכר והלכתא תמרי ועבדינהו טרימא מברכין עלוייהו בורא פרי העץ מאי טעמא במלתייהו קיימי כדמעיקרא

Meanwhile, Rava comprehended the meaning of the term and said to the Sage: Certainly, you are speaking of pressed items, and you reminded me of a matter that Rav Asi said: Those dates of teruma; one is permitted to press them in order to make terima, because the dates maintain their form, and one is forbidden to make date beer from them, as in so doing the dates are damaged and it is forbidden to damage teruma. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that over dates that were made into terima, one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree. What is the reason? Because they remain in their original state.

שתיתא רב אמר שהכל נהיה בדברו ושמואל אמר בורא מיני מזונות

The Gemara raises another question with regard to the blessing recited on roasted barley to which honey or vinegar was added [shetita]. Rav said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be; and Shmuel said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.

אמר רב חסדא ולא פליגי הא בעבה הא ברכה עבה לאכילה עבדי לה רכה לרפואה קא עבדי לה

Rav Ḥisda said: And they do not disagree, as each is referring to a different case. This, where Shmuel said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, is in a case where the mixture is thick, while this, where Rav said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, is in a case where the mixture is thin. When it is thick, he made it as food; therefore one recites a blessing just as he would over any food made from the five species of grain. When it is thin, he made it as medicine, therefore one only recites: By Whose word all things came to be.

מתיב רב יוסף ושוין שבוחשין את השתות בשבת ושותין זיתום המצרי ואי סלקא דעתך לרפואה קא מכוין רפואה בשבת מי שרי

With regard to the assumption that this mixture is essentially medicinal, Rav Yosef raised a challenge from the laws of Shabbat: And they agree that one may mix shetita on Shabbat and drink Egyptian beer [zitom haMitzri], which contains a mixture of a pungent spice in flour. And if it enters your mind to say that when one prepares shetita, his intention is for medicinal purposes, is medicine permitted on Shabbat?

אמר ליה אביי ואת לא תסברא והא תנן כל האוכלין אוכל אדם לרפואה בשבת וכל המשקין שותה אלא מה אית לך למימר גברא לאכילה קא מכוין הכי נמי גברא לאכילה קא מכוין

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you not hold that to be true? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: All foods that are commonly eaten; a person may eat them for medicinal purposes on Shabbat, and all drinks that are not designated for medicinal purposes, a person may drink them for medicinal purposes on Shabbat. But what can you say in explaining that ruling? The man’s intention is for the purpose of eating; here too, when he mixes the shetita, the man’s intention is for the purpose of eating.

לישנא אחרינא אלא מה אית לך למימר גברא לאכילה קא מכוין ורפואה ממילא קא הויא הכי נמי לאכילה קא מכוין ורפואה ממילא קא הויא

The Gemara cites another version of what was taught above: But what can you say in explaining that ruling? The man’s intention is for the purpose of eating and the cure comes about on its own; here too, the man’s intention is for the purpose of eating and the cure comes about on its own. Ostensibly, after proving that it is permissible to drink the shetita on Shabbat, it is clearly a type of food over which one is required to recite a blessing. If so, it is difficult to understand the need for Rav and Shmuel to point out that one is required to recite a blessing over it.

וצריכא דרב ושמואל דאי מהאי הוה אמינא לאכילה קא מכוין ורפואה ממילא קא הויא אבל הכא כיון דלכתחילה לרפואה קא מכוין לא לבריך עלויה כלל קא משמע לן כיון דאית ליה הנאה מיניה בעי ברוכי:

Therefore the Gemara says: And the statement of Rav and Shmuel is necessary, as if the halakha had been derived solely from this mishna that permits drinking shetita on Shabbat, I would have said: This applies specifically when one’s intention is for the purpose of eating and the cure comes about on its own. Here, however, since from the outset, his intention in eating the shetita is for the purpose of medicine; just as one recites no blessing when he ingests medicine, let him recite no blessing over the shetita at all. Therefore, Rav and Shmuel taught us that here, since he derives pleasure from eating it, he is required to recite a blessing.

שעל הפת הוא אומר המוציא וכו׳: תנו רבנן מה הוא אומר המוציא לחם מן הארץ רבי נחמיה אומר מוציא לחם מן הארץ אמר רבא במוציא כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאפיק משמע דכתיב אל מוציאם ממצרים כי פליגי בהמוציא רבנן סברי המוציא דאפיק משמע דכתיב המוציא לך מים מצור החלמיש ורבי נחמיה סבר המוציא דמפיק משמע שנאמר המוציא אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים

We learned in the mishna that over bread one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. The Sages taught in a baraita: What does one who eats bread recite before eating? Who brings forth [hamotzi] bread from the earth. Rabbi Neḥemya says that the blessing is phrased: Who brought forth [motzi] bread from the earth. Rava said: Everyone agrees that the term motzi means brought, in the past tense, as it is written: “God who brought them forth [motziam] from Egypt is for them like the horns of the wild ox” (Numbers 23:22). When do they disagree? With regard to the term hamotzi, as the Rabbis hold that hamotzi means that God brought forth, in the past tense, as it is written: “Who brought forth [hamotzi] for you water from a rock of flint” (Deuteronomy 8:15), which depicts a past event. Rabbi Neḥemya holds that the term hamotzi means that God brings forth in the present tense, as it is stated in Moses’ prophecy to the Jewish people in Egypt: “And you will know that I am the Lord your God who is bringing you forth [hamotzi] from under the burdens of Egypt” (Exodus 6:7). Since, in that context, hamotzi is used with regard to an event transpiring in the present or possibly even one that will transpire in the future, it is inappropriate to include this term in a blessing referencing the past.

ורבנן ההוא הכי קאמר להו קודשא בריך הוא לישראל כד מפיקנא לכו עבידנא לכו מלתא כי היכי דידעיתו דאנא הוא דאפיקית יתכון ממצרים דכתיב וידעתם כי אני ה׳ אלהיכם המוציא

And the Rabbis, how do they respond to that proof? The Sages interpret that verse to mean that the Holy one, Blessed be He, said to Israel as follows: When I bring you forth, I will perform something for you that you will know that I am the one who brought you forth from Egypt, as it is written: “And you will know that I am the Lord your God who brought you forth [hamotzi]”; in this verse, too, hamotzi refers to the past.

משתבחין ליה רבנן לרבי זירא [את] בר רב זביד אחוה דרבי שמואל בר רב זביד דאדם גדול הוא ובקי בברכות הוא אמר להם לכשיבא לידכם הביאוהו לידי זמנא חדא איקלע לגביה אפיקו ליה ריפתא פתח ואמר מוציא אמר זה הוא שאומרים עליו דאדם גדול הוא ובקי בברכות הוא בשלמא אי אמר המוציא

On that note, the Gemara relates: The Sages would praise son of Rav Zevid, brother of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Zevid to Rabbi Zeira, that he is a great man and he is expert in blessings. Rabbi Zeira said to the Sages: When he comes to you, bring him to me so that I can meet him. One day he happened to come before him. They brought out bread to the guest, he began and recited: Who brought forth [motzi] bread from the earth. Rabbi Zeira grew annoyed and said: This is he of whom they say that he is a great man and expert in blessings? Granted, had he recited: Hamotzi,

אשמעינן טעמא ואשמעינן דהלכתא כרבנן אלא דאמר מוציא מאי קא משמע לן ואיהו דעבד לאפוקי נפשיה מפלוגתא

I would have understood that he thereby taught us the meaning of the verse: “Who brought you forth from Egypt,” and he thereby taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, what did he teach us by reciting motzi? Everyone agrees that one fulfills his obligation when reciting motzi. The Gemara explains: The son of Rav Zevid did this in order to preclude himself from taking sides in the dispute. He preferred to phrase his blessing in a manner appropriate according to all opinions, rather than teach a novel concept, which is not universally accepted.

והלכתא המוציא לחם מן הארץ דקיימא לן כרבנן דאמרי דאפיק משמע:

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one recites: Who brings forth [hamotzi] bread from the earth, as we hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who say that it also means: Who brought forth.

ועל הירקות אומר וכו׳: קתני ירקות דומיא דפת מה פת שנשתנה על ידי האור אף ירקות נמי שנשתנו על ידי האור אמר רבנאי משמיה דאביי זאת אומרת שלקות מברכין עליהן בורא פרי האדמה ממאי מדקתני ירקות דומיא דפת

We learned in the mishna that over vegetables one recites: Who creates fruits of the ground. The Gemara comments: The mishna taught vegetables together with, and therefore similar to, bread, and from this analogy one may infer: Just as bread is food that was transformed by fire, so too vegetables retain the blessing: Who creates fruits of the ground, after they have been transformed by fire. Rabbenai said in the name of Abaye: This means that over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruits of the ground. From where is this matter inferred? From the fact that the mishna taught vegetables similar to bread.

דרש רב חסדא משום רבינו ומנו רב שלקות מברכין עליהם בורא פרי האדמה ורבותינו היורדין מארץ ישראל ומנו עולא משמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר שלקות מברכין עליהן שהכל נהיה בדברו ואני אומר כל שתחלתו בורא פרי האדמה שלקו שהכל נהיה בדברו וכל שתחלתו שהכל נהיה בדברו שלקו בורא פרי האדמה

Rav Ḥisda taught in the name of Rabbeinu; and the Gemara remarks incidentally: Who is Rabbeinu? Rav. Over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. And our Rabbis who descended from Eretz Yisrael, and again the Gemara explains: And who is the Sage with this title? Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Over boiled vegetables one recites: By whose word all things came to be, since after they are boiled, they are no longer the same as they were before. Expressing his own opinion, Rav Ḥisda said: And I say that there is an intermediate opinion: Any vegetable that, when eaten in its original uncooked state, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, when he boiled it, he recites: By whose word all things came to be, as boiling damages it qualitatively. And any vegetable that when eaten in its original uncooked state, one recites: By whose word all things came to be, because it is not typically eaten raw, when he boiled it, he recites: Who creates fruit of the ground.

בשלמא כל שתחלתו שהכל נהיה בדברו שלקו בורא פרי האדמה משכחת לה בכרבא וסלקא וקרא אלא כל שתחלתו בורא פרי האדמה שלקו שהכל היכי משכחת לה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק משכחת לה בתומי וכרתי

The Gemara asks: Granted, any vegetable that, when eaten in its original uncooked state, one recites: By whose word all things came to be, when he boiled it, he recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, as you can find several vegetables, e.g., cabbage, chard, and pumpkin which are virtually inedible raw, and boiling renders it edible. However, under what circumstances can you find a case where any vegetable that when eaten in its original uncooked state, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, when he boiled it, he recites: By whose word all things came to be, as boiling damages the vegetable qualitatively? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: You can find it in the case of garlic and leeks.

דרש רב נחמן משום רבינו ומנו שמואל שלקות מברכין עליהם בורא פרי האדמה וחברינו היורדים מארץ ישראל ומנו עולא משמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר שלקות מברכין עליהן שהכל נהיה בדברו

Rav Naḥman taught in the name of Rabbeinu; and who is Rabbeinu? Shmuel: Over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. And our colleagues who descended from Eretz Yisrael; and who is the Sage with this title? Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Over boiled vegetables, one recites: By whose word all things came to be.

ואני אומר במחלוקת שנויה דתניא יוצאין ברקיק השרוי ובמבושל שלא נמוח דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי אומר יוצאים ברקיק השרוי אבל לא במבושל אף על פי שלא נמוח

Rav Naḥman remarked: I say this is dependent upon and taught as a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the halakhot of matza on Passover: One fulfills the mitzva of matza with a wafer soaked in water or with one that is boiled as long that it did not dissolve; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yosei says: One fulfills the mitzva of matza with a soaked wafer but not with one that is boiled even if it did not dissolve. Rav Naḥman concludes that this dispute with regard to boiled matza reflects a larger dispute with regard to boiling in general, whether or not it diminishes the flavor of that which is boiled.

ולא היא דכולי עלמא שלקות מברכין עליהן בורא פרי האדמה ועד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי התם אלא משום דבעינן טעם מצה וליכא אבל הכא אפילו רבי יוסי מודה

This approach is rejected by the Gemara: That is not so; as everyone agrees that over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Rabbi Yosei only said the halakha, that one fulfills his obligation of matza if it is soaked but not if it is boiled, there, because in order to fulfill the mitzva, we require the taste of matza, and it is lacking. However, here, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that boiling vegetables does not damage it qualitatively.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן שלקות מברכין עליהם בורא פרי האדמה ורבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי יוחנן שלקות מברכין עליהם שהכל נהיה בדברו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק קבע עולא לשבשתיה כרבי בנימין בר יפת

Ulla’s statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to boiled vegetables was cited above. The Gemara cites two conflicting traditions with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Over boiled vegetables, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Over boiled vegetables, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Commenting on this, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Ulla established his error in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet, which conflicted with the prevailing opinion among the Sages in Babylonia.

תהי בה רבי זירא וכי מה ענין רבי בנימין בר יפת אצל רבי חייא בר אבא רבי חייא בר אבא דייק וגמיר שמעתא מרבי יוחנן רביה ורבי בנימין בר יפת לא דייק ועוד רבי חייא בר אבא כל תלתין יומין מהדר תלמודיה קמיה דרבי יוחנן רביה ורבי בנימין בר יפת לא מהדר ועוד בר מן דין ובר מן דין דההוא תורמסא דשלקי ליה שבע זמנין בקדרה ואכלי ליה בקנוח סעודה אתו ושאלו לרבי יוחנן ואמר להו מברכין עלויה בורא פרי האדמה

Rabbi Zeira wondered with regard to Ulla’s approach: What is the matter of Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet doing in the same discussion with Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was meticulous and learned the halakha from Rabbi Yoḥanan, his teacher; and Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet was not meticulous. Furthermore, every thirty days, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba reviews his studies before Rabbi Yoḥanan, his teacher, while Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet does not review his studies. Furthermore, aside from these reasons concerning the difference between a wise and meticulous student like Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and a student like Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet, one can also bring proof from the custom of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as the lupin is boiled seven times in a pot and eaten as dessert at the end of a meal. They came and asked Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to the blessing to be recited over this lupin, and he said to them: One recites over it: Who creates fruit of the ground, indicating that one recites that blessing over boiled vegetables.

ועוד אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אני ראיתי את רבי יוחנן שאכל זית מליח ובריך עליו תחלה וסוף אי אמרת בשלמא שלקות במילתייהו קיימי בתחלה מברך עליו בורא פרי העץ ולבסוף מברך עליו ברכה אחת מעין שלש אלא אי אמרת שלקות לאו במילתייהו קיימי בשלמא בתחלה מברך עליו שהכל נהיה בדברו אלא לבסוף מאי מברך

Furthermore, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: I saw Rabbi Yoḥanan eat a salted olive, which, halakhically, is considered cooked, and he recited a blessing over it both before and after. Granted, if you say that boiled vegetables remain in their original state and that cooking does not qualitatively damage them, then certainly at the start one recites over it: Who creates fruit of the tree, and at the end one recites over it one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals, just as he would over any of the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael was praised. However, if you say that boiled vegetables do not remain in their original state, granted, at the start, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. However, at the end, what blessing does he recite? There are several opinions that hold that no blessing is recited after eating something whose initial blessing was: By whose word all things came to be.

דילמא בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שברא

The Gemara rejects this: That is no proof, as perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan held that on items over which at the start one recites: By whose word all things came to be, at the end he recites: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs, for all that You have created.

מתיב רב יצחק בר שמואל ירקות שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח יוצא בהן ובקלח שלהן אבל לא כבושין ולא שלוקין ולא מבושלין ואי סלקא דעתך במילתייהו קאי שלוקין אמאי לא

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel raised an objection to the ruling that over both boiled vegetables and raw vegetables one recites the same blessing, from a baraita concerning the halakhot of eating bitter herbs on Passover: Vegetables with which one may fulfill his obligation in the mitzva of bitter herbs on Passover, one fulfills his obligation with both the vegetables themselves as well as with their stalks. However, one may neither fulfill his obligation with pickled vegetables, nor with boiled vegetables nor with cooked vegetables. And if it would enter your mind that they remain in their original state, why are boiled vegetables not fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva of bitter herbs?

שאני התם דבעינן טעם מרור וליכא

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as even if we assert that boiled vegetables remain in their original state, we require the taste of bitter herbs, and it is lacking. There is no proof that boiling damages the vegetable qualitatively.

אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא רבי יוחנן היכי מברך על זית מליח כיון דשקילא לגרעיניה

The Gemara related above that Rabbi Yoḥanan recited a blessing over a salted olive. With regard to this story, Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: How did Rabbi Yoḥanan recite a blessing over a salted olive after he ate it? Since the pit was removed, i.e., he did not eat it,

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Breaking Bread

In which the Gemara dives deep to address the formulation of the blessing over bread -- is it "Motzi" or...

Berakhot 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 38

כעבין חייבין כלמודין פטורים אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף האי כובא דארעא מאי מברכין עלויה אמר ליה מי סברת נהמא הוא גובלא בעלמא הוא ומברכין עלויה בורא מיני מזונות

thick [ke’avin], so that they appear like loaves of bread, they are obligated in ḥalla, and if he shaped them like boards [kelimmudin], they are exempt, since they will certainly only be used for kutaḥ. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What blessing is recited over the dough of the ground? Rav Yosef said to him: Do you think that it is bread? It is merely kneaded dough, and just like over all other cooked grains, one recites over it the blessing: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.

מר זוטרא קבע סעודתיה עלויה וברך עלויה המוציא לחם מן הארץ ושלש ברכות

Mar Zutra based his meal on this dough, and he recited: Who brings forth bread from the earth, beforehand and the three blessings of Grace after Meals thereafter. Since he based his meal on it, he considered it to be bread.

אמר מר בר רב אשי ואדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח מאי טעמא לחם עוני קרינן ביה

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: With these types of bread, a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on Passover. What is the reason? Because we call it bread of affliction, and in that sense, it is in the category of matza.

ואמר מר בר רב אשי האי דובשא דתמרי מברכין עלויה שהכל נהיה בדברו מאי טעמא זיעה בעלמא הוא

And with regard to blessings, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Over this date honey one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. What is the reason that one does not recite: Who creates fruit of the tree, as he does over the date itself? Because date honey is not the essence of the fruit, but merely moisture that drips from the ripe fruit.

כמאן כי האי תנא דתנן דבש תמרים ויין תפוחים וחומץ ספוניות ושאר מי פירות של תרומה רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש ורבי יהושע פוטר

In accordance with whose opinion does he recite that blessing? In accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as we learned in a mishna: If a non-priest ate date honey, apple wine or vinegar made from grapes of autumn that grow stunted at the end of the season and are unfit for wine production, or any other type of juice made from fruits of teruma, Rabbi Eliezer obligates him to repay the principal and an additional fifth as a penalty for misuse of consecrated items. And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him from payment, because he holds that these are byproducts of the fruit and do not have the status of the fruit itself. Mar bar Rav Ashi’s ruling with regard to blessings was based on Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling with regard to teruma.

אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן לרבא טרימא מהו לא הוה אדעתיה דרבא מאי קאמר ליה יתיב רבינא קמיה דרבא אמר ליה דשומשמי קא אמרת או דקורטמי קא אמרת או דפורצני קא אמרת

One of the Sages said to Rava: What is the halakha with regard to terima? Rava was unfamiliar with the term terima and did not understand what he was saying to him. Ravina sat before Rava and said to the student who had posed the question to Rava: In posing the question, are you speaking of sesame terima or are you speaking of safflower terima or are you speaking of grape-pits terima?

אדהכי והכי אסקיה רבא לדעתיה אמר ליה חשילתא ודאי קא אמרת ואדכרתן מלתא הא דאמר רב אסי האי תמרי של תרומה מותר לעשות מהן טרימא ואסור לעשות מהן שכר והלכתא תמרי ועבדינהו טרימא מברכין עלוייהו בורא פרי העץ מאי טעמא במלתייהו קיימי כדמעיקרא

Meanwhile, Rava comprehended the meaning of the term and said to the Sage: Certainly, you are speaking of pressed items, and you reminded me of a matter that Rav Asi said: Those dates of teruma; one is permitted to press them in order to make terima, because the dates maintain their form, and one is forbidden to make date beer from them, as in so doing the dates are damaged and it is forbidden to damage teruma. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that over dates that were made into terima, one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree. What is the reason? Because they remain in their original state.

שתיתא רב אמר שהכל נהיה בדברו ושמואל אמר בורא מיני מזונות

The Gemara raises another question with regard to the blessing recited on roasted barley to which honey or vinegar was added [shetita]. Rav said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be; and Shmuel said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.

אמר רב חסדא ולא פליגי הא בעבה הא ברכה עבה לאכילה עבדי לה רכה לרפואה קא עבדי לה

Rav Ḥisda said: And they do not disagree, as each is referring to a different case. This, where Shmuel said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, is in a case where the mixture is thick, while this, where Rav said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, is in a case where the mixture is thin. When it is thick, he made it as food; therefore one recites a blessing just as he would over any food made from the five species of grain. When it is thin, he made it as medicine, therefore one only recites: By Whose word all things came to be.

מתיב רב יוסף ושוין שבוחשין את השתות בשבת ושותין זיתום המצרי ואי סלקא דעתך לרפואה קא מכוין רפואה בשבת מי שרי

With regard to the assumption that this mixture is essentially medicinal, Rav Yosef raised a challenge from the laws of Shabbat: And they agree that one may mix shetita on Shabbat and drink Egyptian beer [zitom haMitzri], which contains a mixture of a pungent spice in flour. And if it enters your mind to say that when one prepares shetita, his intention is for medicinal purposes, is medicine permitted on Shabbat?

אמר ליה אביי ואת לא תסברא והא תנן כל האוכלין אוכל אדם לרפואה בשבת וכל המשקין שותה אלא מה אית לך למימר גברא לאכילה קא מכוין הכי נמי גברא לאכילה קא מכוין

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you not hold that to be true? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: All foods that are commonly eaten; a person may eat them for medicinal purposes on Shabbat, and all drinks that are not designated for medicinal purposes, a person may drink them for medicinal purposes on Shabbat. But what can you say in explaining that ruling? The man’s intention is for the purpose of eating; here too, when he mixes the shetita, the man’s intention is for the purpose of eating.

לישנא אחרינא אלא מה אית לך למימר גברא לאכילה קא מכוין ורפואה ממילא קא הויא הכי נמי לאכילה קא מכוין ורפואה ממילא קא הויא

The Gemara cites another version of what was taught above: But what can you say in explaining that ruling? The man’s intention is for the purpose of eating and the cure comes about on its own; here too, the man’s intention is for the purpose of eating and the cure comes about on its own. Ostensibly, after proving that it is permissible to drink the shetita on Shabbat, it is clearly a type of food over which one is required to recite a blessing. If so, it is difficult to understand the need for Rav and Shmuel to point out that one is required to recite a blessing over it.

וצריכא דרב ושמואל דאי מהאי הוה אמינא לאכילה קא מכוין ורפואה ממילא קא הויא אבל הכא כיון דלכתחילה לרפואה קא מכוין לא לבריך עלויה כלל קא משמע לן כיון דאית ליה הנאה מיניה בעי ברוכי:

Therefore the Gemara says: And the statement of Rav and Shmuel is necessary, as if the halakha had been derived solely from this mishna that permits drinking shetita on Shabbat, I would have said: This applies specifically when one’s intention is for the purpose of eating and the cure comes about on its own. Here, however, since from the outset, his intention in eating the shetita is for the purpose of medicine; just as one recites no blessing when he ingests medicine, let him recite no blessing over the shetita at all. Therefore, Rav and Shmuel taught us that here, since he derives pleasure from eating it, he is required to recite a blessing.

שעל הפת הוא אומר המוציא וכו׳: תנו רבנן מה הוא אומר המוציא לחם מן הארץ רבי נחמיה אומר מוציא לחם מן הארץ אמר רבא במוציא כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאפיק משמע דכתיב אל מוציאם ממצרים כי פליגי בהמוציא רבנן סברי המוציא דאפיק משמע דכתיב המוציא לך מים מצור החלמיש ורבי נחמיה סבר המוציא דמפיק משמע שנאמר המוציא אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים

We learned in the mishna that over bread one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. The Sages taught in a baraita: What does one who eats bread recite before eating? Who brings forth [hamotzi] bread from the earth. Rabbi Neḥemya says that the blessing is phrased: Who brought forth [motzi] bread from the earth. Rava said: Everyone agrees that the term motzi means brought, in the past tense, as it is written: “God who brought them forth [motziam] from Egypt is for them like the horns of the wild ox” (Numbers 23:22). When do they disagree? With regard to the term hamotzi, as the Rabbis hold that hamotzi means that God brought forth, in the past tense, as it is written: “Who brought forth [hamotzi] for you water from a rock of flint” (Deuteronomy 8:15), which depicts a past event. Rabbi Neḥemya holds that the term hamotzi means that God brings forth in the present tense, as it is stated in Moses’ prophecy to the Jewish people in Egypt: “And you will know that I am the Lord your God who is bringing you forth [hamotzi] from under the burdens of Egypt” (Exodus 6:7). Since, in that context, hamotzi is used with regard to an event transpiring in the present or possibly even one that will transpire in the future, it is inappropriate to include this term in a blessing referencing the past.

ורבנן ההוא הכי קאמר להו קודשא בריך הוא לישראל כד מפיקנא לכו עבידנא לכו מלתא כי היכי דידעיתו דאנא הוא דאפיקית יתכון ממצרים דכתיב וידעתם כי אני ה׳ אלהיכם המוציא

And the Rabbis, how do they respond to that proof? The Sages interpret that verse to mean that the Holy one, Blessed be He, said to Israel as follows: When I bring you forth, I will perform something for you that you will know that I am the one who brought you forth from Egypt, as it is written: “And you will know that I am the Lord your God who brought you forth [hamotzi]”; in this verse, too, hamotzi refers to the past.

משתבחין ליה רבנן לרבי זירא [את] בר רב זביד אחוה דרבי שמואל בר רב זביד דאדם גדול הוא ובקי בברכות הוא אמר להם לכשיבא לידכם הביאוהו לידי זמנא חדא איקלע לגביה אפיקו ליה ריפתא פתח ואמר מוציא אמר זה הוא שאומרים עליו דאדם גדול הוא ובקי בברכות הוא בשלמא אי אמר המוציא

On that note, the Gemara relates: The Sages would praise son of Rav Zevid, brother of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Zevid to Rabbi Zeira, that he is a great man and he is expert in blessings. Rabbi Zeira said to the Sages: When he comes to you, bring him to me so that I can meet him. One day he happened to come before him. They brought out bread to the guest, he began and recited: Who brought forth [motzi] bread from the earth. Rabbi Zeira grew annoyed and said: This is he of whom they say that he is a great man and expert in blessings? Granted, had he recited: Hamotzi,

אשמעינן טעמא ואשמעינן דהלכתא כרבנן אלא דאמר מוציא מאי קא משמע לן ואיהו דעבד לאפוקי נפשיה מפלוגתא

I would have understood that he thereby taught us the meaning of the verse: “Who brought you forth from Egypt,” and he thereby taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, what did he teach us by reciting motzi? Everyone agrees that one fulfills his obligation when reciting motzi. The Gemara explains: The son of Rav Zevid did this in order to preclude himself from taking sides in the dispute. He preferred to phrase his blessing in a manner appropriate according to all opinions, rather than teach a novel concept, which is not universally accepted.

והלכתא המוציא לחם מן הארץ דקיימא לן כרבנן דאמרי דאפיק משמע:

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one recites: Who brings forth [hamotzi] bread from the earth, as we hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who say that it also means: Who brought forth.

ועל הירקות אומר וכו׳: קתני ירקות דומיא דפת מה פת שנשתנה על ידי האור אף ירקות נמי שנשתנו על ידי האור אמר רבנאי משמיה דאביי זאת אומרת שלקות מברכין עליהן בורא פרי האדמה ממאי מדקתני ירקות דומיא דפת

We learned in the mishna that over vegetables one recites: Who creates fruits of the ground. The Gemara comments: The mishna taught vegetables together with, and therefore similar to, bread, and from this analogy one may infer: Just as bread is food that was transformed by fire, so too vegetables retain the blessing: Who creates fruits of the ground, after they have been transformed by fire. Rabbenai said in the name of Abaye: This means that over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruits of the ground. From where is this matter inferred? From the fact that the mishna taught vegetables similar to bread.

דרש רב חסדא משום רבינו ומנו רב שלקות מברכין עליהם בורא פרי האדמה ורבותינו היורדין מארץ ישראל ומנו עולא משמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר שלקות מברכין עליהן שהכל נהיה בדברו ואני אומר כל שתחלתו בורא פרי האדמה שלקו שהכל נהיה בדברו וכל שתחלתו שהכל נהיה בדברו שלקו בורא פרי האדמה

Rav Ḥisda taught in the name of Rabbeinu; and the Gemara remarks incidentally: Who is Rabbeinu? Rav. Over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. And our Rabbis who descended from Eretz Yisrael, and again the Gemara explains: And who is the Sage with this title? Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Over boiled vegetables one recites: By whose word all things came to be, since after they are boiled, they are no longer the same as they were before. Expressing his own opinion, Rav Ḥisda said: And I say that there is an intermediate opinion: Any vegetable that, when eaten in its original uncooked state, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, when he boiled it, he recites: By whose word all things came to be, as boiling damages it qualitatively. And any vegetable that when eaten in its original uncooked state, one recites: By whose word all things came to be, because it is not typically eaten raw, when he boiled it, he recites: Who creates fruit of the ground.

בשלמא כל שתחלתו שהכל נהיה בדברו שלקו בורא פרי האדמה משכחת לה בכרבא וסלקא וקרא אלא כל שתחלתו בורא פרי האדמה שלקו שהכל היכי משכחת לה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק משכחת לה בתומי וכרתי

The Gemara asks: Granted, any vegetable that, when eaten in its original uncooked state, one recites: By whose word all things came to be, when he boiled it, he recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, as you can find several vegetables, e.g., cabbage, chard, and pumpkin which are virtually inedible raw, and boiling renders it edible. However, under what circumstances can you find a case where any vegetable that when eaten in its original uncooked state, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, when he boiled it, he recites: By whose word all things came to be, as boiling damages the vegetable qualitatively? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: You can find it in the case of garlic and leeks.

דרש רב נחמן משום רבינו ומנו שמואל שלקות מברכין עליהם בורא פרי האדמה וחברינו היורדים מארץ ישראל ומנו עולא משמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר שלקות מברכין עליהן שהכל נהיה בדברו

Rav Naḥman taught in the name of Rabbeinu; and who is Rabbeinu? Shmuel: Over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. And our colleagues who descended from Eretz Yisrael; and who is the Sage with this title? Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Over boiled vegetables, one recites: By whose word all things came to be.

ואני אומר במחלוקת שנויה דתניא יוצאין ברקיק השרוי ובמבושל שלא נמוח דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי אומר יוצאים ברקיק השרוי אבל לא במבושל אף על פי שלא נמוח

Rav Naḥman remarked: I say this is dependent upon and taught as a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the halakhot of matza on Passover: One fulfills the mitzva of matza with a wafer soaked in water or with one that is boiled as long that it did not dissolve; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yosei says: One fulfills the mitzva of matza with a soaked wafer but not with one that is boiled even if it did not dissolve. Rav Naḥman concludes that this dispute with regard to boiled matza reflects a larger dispute with regard to boiling in general, whether or not it diminishes the flavor of that which is boiled.

ולא היא דכולי עלמא שלקות מברכין עליהן בורא פרי האדמה ועד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי התם אלא משום דבעינן טעם מצה וליכא אבל הכא אפילו רבי יוסי מודה

This approach is rejected by the Gemara: That is not so; as everyone agrees that over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Rabbi Yosei only said the halakha, that one fulfills his obligation of matza if it is soaked but not if it is boiled, there, because in order to fulfill the mitzva, we require the taste of matza, and it is lacking. However, here, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that boiling vegetables does not damage it qualitatively.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן שלקות מברכין עליהם בורא פרי האדמה ורבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי יוחנן שלקות מברכין עליהם שהכל נהיה בדברו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק קבע עולא לשבשתיה כרבי בנימין בר יפת

Ulla’s statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to boiled vegetables was cited above. The Gemara cites two conflicting traditions with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Over boiled vegetables, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Over boiled vegetables, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Commenting on this, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Ulla established his error in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet, which conflicted with the prevailing opinion among the Sages in Babylonia.

תהי בה רבי זירא וכי מה ענין רבי בנימין בר יפת אצל רבי חייא בר אבא רבי חייא בר אבא דייק וגמיר שמעתא מרבי יוחנן רביה ורבי בנימין בר יפת לא דייק ועוד רבי חייא בר אבא כל תלתין יומין מהדר תלמודיה קמיה דרבי יוחנן רביה ורבי בנימין בר יפת לא מהדר ועוד בר מן דין ובר מן דין דההוא תורמסא דשלקי ליה שבע זמנין בקדרה ואכלי ליה בקנוח סעודה אתו ושאלו לרבי יוחנן ואמר להו מברכין עלויה בורא פרי האדמה

Rabbi Zeira wondered with regard to Ulla’s approach: What is the matter of Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet doing in the same discussion with Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was meticulous and learned the halakha from Rabbi Yoḥanan, his teacher; and Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet was not meticulous. Furthermore, every thirty days, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba reviews his studies before Rabbi Yoḥanan, his teacher, while Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet does not review his studies. Furthermore, aside from these reasons concerning the difference between a wise and meticulous student like Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and a student like Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet, one can also bring proof from the custom of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as the lupin is boiled seven times in a pot and eaten as dessert at the end of a meal. They came and asked Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to the blessing to be recited over this lupin, and he said to them: One recites over it: Who creates fruit of the ground, indicating that one recites that blessing over boiled vegetables.

ועוד אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אני ראיתי את רבי יוחנן שאכל זית מליח ובריך עליו תחלה וסוף אי אמרת בשלמא שלקות במילתייהו קיימי בתחלה מברך עליו בורא פרי העץ ולבסוף מברך עליו ברכה אחת מעין שלש אלא אי אמרת שלקות לאו במילתייהו קיימי בשלמא בתחלה מברך עליו שהכל נהיה בדברו אלא לבסוף מאי מברך

Furthermore, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: I saw Rabbi Yoḥanan eat a salted olive, which, halakhically, is considered cooked, and he recited a blessing over it both before and after. Granted, if you say that boiled vegetables remain in their original state and that cooking does not qualitatively damage them, then certainly at the start one recites over it: Who creates fruit of the tree, and at the end one recites over it one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals, just as he would over any of the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael was praised. However, if you say that boiled vegetables do not remain in their original state, granted, at the start, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. However, at the end, what blessing does he recite? There are several opinions that hold that no blessing is recited after eating something whose initial blessing was: By whose word all things came to be.

דילמא בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שברא

The Gemara rejects this: That is no proof, as perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan held that on items over which at the start one recites: By whose word all things came to be, at the end he recites: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs, for all that You have created.

מתיב רב יצחק בר שמואל ירקות שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח יוצא בהן ובקלח שלהן אבל לא כבושין ולא שלוקין ולא מבושלין ואי סלקא דעתך במילתייהו קאי שלוקין אמאי לא

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel raised an objection to the ruling that over both boiled vegetables and raw vegetables one recites the same blessing, from a baraita concerning the halakhot of eating bitter herbs on Passover: Vegetables with which one may fulfill his obligation in the mitzva of bitter herbs on Passover, one fulfills his obligation with both the vegetables themselves as well as with their stalks. However, one may neither fulfill his obligation with pickled vegetables, nor with boiled vegetables nor with cooked vegetables. And if it would enter your mind that they remain in their original state, why are boiled vegetables not fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva of bitter herbs?

שאני התם דבעינן טעם מרור וליכא

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as even if we assert that boiled vegetables remain in their original state, we require the taste of bitter herbs, and it is lacking. There is no proof that boiling damages the vegetable qualitatively.

אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא רבי יוחנן היכי מברך על זית מליח כיון דשקילא לגרעיניה

The Gemara related above that Rabbi Yoḥanan recited a blessing over a salted olive. With regard to this story, Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: How did Rabbi Yoḥanan recite a blessing over a salted olive after he ate it? Since the pit was removed, i.e., he did not eat it,

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top