Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 11, 2020 | ט״ז בשבט תש״פ

Berakhot 39

Is the question what blessing one makes on cooked vegetables also a tannaitic debate? What does one bless on turnip? On what does it depend? If one adds flour to help the food stick together, what blessing does one make? What blessing is made on hard bread that is in pieces and is soaked? The issue connects to a debate regarding how one makes a blessing on a loaf of bread – at what point does one slice it? This connects with the issue of how we do the breaking of the bread on Shabbat. If one has smaller whole loaf and a larger slice of bread, what does one make the blessing on? Is the issue here connected to a similar issue regarding teruma (small whole onion or half of a larger one)? On seder night on Passover, how many matzot do we use and are they whole or not? Why do we use two loaves on Shabbat and how do we do it?

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

בצר ליה שיעורא

it lacks the requisite measure? The smallest quantity of food that is considered eating is the size of an olive-bulk, and an olive with its pit removed is smaller than that.

אמר ליה מי סברת כזית גדול בעינן כזית בינוני בעינן והא איכא וההוא דאייתו לקמיה דרבי יוחנן זית גדול הוה דאף על גב דשקלוה לגרעינותיה פש ליה שיעורא

He said to him: Do you hold that we require a large olive as the measure of food necessary in order to recite a blessing after eating? We require a medium-sized olive and that olive was that size, as the olive that they brought before Rabbi Yoḥanan was a large olive. Even though they removed its pit, the requisite measure remained.

דתנן זית שאמרו לא קטן ולא גדול אלא בינוני וזהו אגורי ואמר רבי אבהו לא אגורי שמו אלא אברוטי שמו ואמרי לה סמרוסי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו אגורי ששמנו אגור בתוכו

The Gemara cites a proof that the halakhic measure of an olive is not based on a large olive as we learned in a mishna: The olive of which the Sages spoke with regard to the halakhic measures is neither small nor large, but medium, and that olive is called aguri. And Rabbi Abbahu said: The name of that genus of olives is not aguri, but its name is avruti, and some say that its name is samrusi. And why, then, is it called aguri? Because its oil is accumulated [agur] inside it.

נימא כתנאי דהנהו תרי תלמידי דהוו יתבי קמיה דבר קפרא הביאו לפניו כרוב ודורמסקין ופרגיות נתן בר קפרא רשות לאחד מהן לברך קפץ וברך על הפרגיות לגלג עליו חבירו כעס בר קפרא אמר לא על המברך אני כועס אלא על המלגלג אני כועס אם חבירך דומה כמי שלא טעם טעם בשר מעולם אתה על מה לגלגת עליו חזר ואמר לא על המלגלג אני כועס אלא על המברך אני כועס ואמר אם חכמה אין כאן זקנה אין כאן

With regard to the appropriate blessing over boiled vegetables: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as the Gemara relates: Two students were sitting before bar Kappara when cooked cabbage, cooked Damascene plums and pullets were set before him. Bar Kappara gave one of the students permission to recite a blessing. He hurried and recited a blessing over the pullets and his counterpart ridiculed him for gluttonously reciting the blessing that should have been recited later, first. Bar Kappara became angry with both of them, he said: I am not angry with the one who recited the blessing, but at the one who ridiculed him. If your counterpart is like one who never tasted the flavor of meat and was therefore partial to the pullet, and hurriedly ate it, why did you ridicule him? Bar Kappara continued and said to the second student: I am not upset at the one who ridiculed him, rather it is with the one who recited the blessing that I am angry. And he said: If there is no wisdom here, is there no elder here? If you are uncertain which blessing to recite first, couldn’t you have asked me, as I am an elder?

תנא ושניהם לא הוציאו שנתן

The Gemara concludes that it was taught: And both of them did not live out his year. Due to bar Kappara’s anger they were punished, and both died within the year.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמברך סבר שלקות ופרגיות שהכל נהיה בדברו הלכך חביב עדיף ומלגלג סבר שלקות בורא פרי האדמה פרגיות שהכל נהיה בדברו הלכך פירא עדיף

The Gemara attempts to infer from this story to the topic at hand: What? Is it not that they disagreed with regard to the following? The one who recited the blessing over the pullet first held that the blessing to be recited over both boiled vegetables and pullet is: By whose word all things came to be, and, therefore, that which he prefers takes precedence and is eaten first. The one who ridiculed him held that over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over pullet one recites: By whose word all things came to be, and, therefore, the fruit takes precedence, as its blessing is more specific and therefore more significant.

לא דכולי עלמא שלקות ופרגיות שהכל נהיה בדברו והכא בהאי סברא קא מיפלגי מר סבר חביב עדיף ומר סבר כרוב עדיף דזיין

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that over boiled vegetables and pullet one recites: By whose word all things came to be, and here they argue over this: This Sage, who recited the blessing, held that the food which is preferred takes precedence and one recites a blessing over it first, and the Sage who ridiculed him held: Cabbage takes precedence, as it nourishes.

אמר רבי זירא כי הוינן בי רב הונא אמר לן הני גרגלידי דלפתא פרמינהו פרימא רבא בורא פרי האדמה פרימא זוטא שהכל נהיה בדברו וכי אתאן לבי רב יהודה אמר לן אידי ואידי בורא פרי האדמה והא דפרמינהו טפי כי היכי דנמתיק טעמיה

Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Huna he said to us: These turnip heads, if one cut them into large slices, he recites over them: Who creates fruit of the ground, because in doing so he has not significantly changed them. If he cut them into small pieces, he recites over them: By whose word all things came to be. And when we came to the study hall of Rav Yehuda he said to us: Over both these, large slices, and those, small pieces, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and the fact that he cut them extensively was in order to sweeten its flavor.

אמר רב אשי כי הוינן בי רב כהנא אמר לן תבשילא דסלקא דלא מפשו בה קמחא בורא פרי האדמה דלפתא דמפשו בה קמחא טפי בורא מיני מזונות והדר אמר אידי ואידי בורא פרי האדמה והאי דשדי בה קמחא טפי לדבוקי בעלמא עבדי לה

On a similar note, Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he said to us: Over a cooked dish of beets to which they, typically, do not add a significant amount of flour, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Over a cooked dish of turnips to which they, typically, add a more significant amount of flour, one recites: Who creates the various types of nourishment. And Rav Kahana reconsidered his previous statement and said: Over both these, beets, and those, turnips, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and the fact that they threw extra flour in with the turnips, they did so merely so the components of the cooked dish would stick together. The primary ingredient in the dish remains the turnips, not the flour.

אמר רב חסדא תבשיל של תרדין יפה ללב וטוב לעינים וכל שכן לבני מעים אמר אביי והוא דיתיב אבי תפי ועביד תוך תוך

Tangential to this mention of a turnip dish, Rav Ḥisda added, and said: A cooked dish of beets is beneficial for the heart, good for the eyes and all the more so, for the intestines. Abaye said: That is specifically when the dish sits on the stove and makes a tukh tukh sound, i.e., it boils.

אמר רב פפא פשיטא לי מיא דסלקא כסלקא ומיא דלפתא כלפתא ומיא דכולהו שלקי ככולהו שלקי בעי רב פפא מיא דשיבתא מאי למתוקי טעמא עבדי או לעבורי זוהמא עבדי לה

Rav Pappa said: It is clear to me that beet water, water in which beets were boiled, has the same status as beets, and turnip water has the same status turnips, and the water in which all boiled vegetables were boiled has the same status as all boiled vegetables. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the status of water in which dill was boiled? Do they use dill to sweeten the taste, or do they use it to remove residual filth? If the dill was added to flavor the food then the water in which it was boiled should be treated like water in which any other vegetable was boiled. However, if the dill was added merely to absorb the residue of the soup, then there was never any intention to flavor the dish and one should not recite a blessing over it.

תא שמע השבת משנתנה טעם בקדירה אין בה משום תרומה ואינה מטמאה טומאת אוכלים שמע מינה למתוקי טעמא עבדי לה שמע מינה

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna in the tractate Okatzin: Dill, once it has already given its flavor in the pot, no longer has any value and is no longer subject to the halakhot of teruma and since it is no longer considered food, it can no longer become impure with the ritual impurity of food. Learn from this that they used dill to sweeten the taste. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this.

אמר רב חייא בר אשי פת צנומה בקערה מברכין עליה המוציא ופליגא דרבי חייא דאמר רבי חייא צריך שתכלה ברכה עם הפת

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Over dry bread that was placed in a bowl to soak, one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth, even if there is another loaf of bread before him, as it is considered bread in every respect. This halakha disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The blessing must conclude with the beginning of the breaking of the loaf of bread. The dried bread had already been sliced and separated from the loaf.

מתקיף לה רבא מאי שנא צנומה דלא משום דכי כליא ברכה אפרוסה קא כליא על הפת נמי כי קא גמרה אפרוסה גמרה

Rava strongly objects to this assumption: What is different about dried bread, that one does not recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth, over it, because when the blessing concludes, it concludes on a slice? In a case where he recites a blessing on a loaf of bread as well, when he completes the blessing, he completes it on a slice, as one cuts the bread before the blessing.

אלא אמר רבא מברך ואחר כך בוצע

Rather, Rava said: When breaking bread, one recites the blessing over the complete loaf and only afterwards, he breaks it.

נהרדעי עבדי כרבי חייא ורבנן עבדי כרבא אמר רבינא אמרה לי אם אבוך עביד כרבי חייא דאמר רבי חייא צריך שתכלה ברכה עם הפת ורבנן עבדי כרבא והלכתא כרבא דאמר מברך ואחר כך בוצע:

The Gemara relates: The Sages of Neharde’a acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya and would recite the blessing as they were breaking the bread and conclude the blessing as he finished breaking off the piece of bread. And the Rabbis acted in accordance with the opinion of Rava and would recite the blessing before breaking the bread. Ravina said: My mother told me: Your father acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The blessing must conclude with the beginning of the breaking of the loaf of bread. And the Rabbis acted in accordance with the opinion of Rava. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said one recites the blessing over the complete loaf and only afterwards he breaks it.

איתמר הביאו לפניהם פתיתין ושלמין אמר רב הונא מברך על הפתיתין ופוטר את השלמין ורבי יוחנן אמר שלמה מצוה מן המובחר אבל פרוסה של חטין ושלמה מן השעורין דברי הכל מברך על הפרוסה של חטין ופוטר את השלמה של שעורין

It was stated that there was an amoraic dispute with regard to whether to recite the blessing over a whole loaf of bread or to recite it over a piece of bread: If they brought pieces and whole loaves of bread before those partaking of a meal, Rav Huna said: One may recite the blessing over the pieces and with that blessing exempts the whole loaves as well. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva is to recite the blessing over the whole loaf. However, if the piece was of wheat bread and the whole loaf was of barley bread, everyone agrees that one recites a blessing over the piece of wheat bread. Although it is a piece of bread, it is nevertheless of superior quality, and in so doing one exempts the whole loaf of barley bread.

אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא כתנאי תורמין בצל קטן שלם אבל לא חצי בצל גדול רבי יהודה אומר לא כי אלא חצי בצל גדול מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר חשוב עדיף ומר סבר שלם עדיף

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yoḥanan is parallel to a tannaitic dispute with regard to the halakhot of teruma. We learned: Even though the onions from which the teruma must be separated are divided equally between the two, one separates teruma from a whole small onion but not from half of a large onion. Rabbi Yehuda says: No, rather, he separates teruma from half of a large onion. What, is it not that they disagree over this point, that one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, held that the more significant takes precedence; therefore half of a large onion which is of superior quality is preferable, and the first tanna held that the whole item takes precedence?

היכא דאיכא כהן כולי עלמא לא פליגי דחשוב עדיף כי פליגי דליכא כהן דתנן כל מקום שיש כהן תורם מן היפה וכל מקום שאין כהן תורם מן המתקיים רבי יהודה אומר אין תורם אלא מן היפה

The Gemara rejects this comparison: Where there is a priest who can immediately take the teruma from him, everyone agrees that more significant takes precedence. When they disagree is in a case where there is no priest there, as we learned in a mishna: Everywhere that there is a priest, one separates teruma from the best, and whenever there is no priest, one separates teruma from that which will endure, so that when a priest ultimately receives it, he will be able to derive benefit from it. Rabbi Yehuda says: One always separates teruma only from the best, even though it is not the longest-lasting.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וירא שמים יוצא ידי שניהן ומנו מר בריה דרבינא דמר בריה דרבינא מניח פרוסה בתוך השלמה ובוצע

With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rav Huna, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: A God-fearing individual fulfills both. And who is this God-fearing person? Mar, son of Ravina, as the Gemara relates that Mar, son of Ravina, would place the piece inside the whole loaf and break them together.

תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק מניח הפרוסה בתוך השלמה ובוצע ומברך אמר ליה מה שמך אמר ליה שלמן אמר ליה שלום אתה ושלמה משנתך ששמת שלום בין התלמידים

Similarly, the Gemara relates that the tanna recited a baraita before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: One places the piece inside the whole loaf, then breaks the bread and recites a blessing. Rav Naḥman said to him: What is your name? He answered: Shalman. Rav Naḥman replied with a pun: You are peace [shalom] and the teaching that you recited is complete [shelema] as by means of this baraita the disputing opinions are reconciled and you established peace among students.

אמר רב פפא הכל מודים בפסח שמניח פרוסה בתוך שלמה ובוצע מאי טעמא לחם עני כתיב

This resolution is reinforced in a unique case, as Rav Pappa said: Everyone agrees that while fulfilling the mitzva of eating matza on Passover, one places the piece inside the whole and breaks. What is the reason? With regard to matza the phrase “Bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3) is written, and the poor typically eat their bread in pieces. Therefore, eating matza on Passover evening, the broken matza is also significant.

אמר רבי אבא ובשבת חייב אדם לבצוע על שתי ככרות מאי טעמא לחם משנה כתיב

In connection to the various halakhot with regard to breaking bread, especially on Festivals, the Gemara cites another halakha. Rabbi Abba said: And on Shabbat one is obligated to break bread for the meal over two loaves. What is the reason? Because in the Torah portion that discusses gathering manna on Friday for Shabbat, the phrase: “Twice as much bread” (Exodus 16:22) is written. To commemorate this, Shabbat meals are based on two loaves of bread.

אמר רב אשי חזינא ליה לרב כהנא דנקיט תרתי ובצע חדא רבי זירא הוה בצע אכולא שירותא אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי והא קא מתחזי כרעבתנותא אמר [ליה] כיון דכל יומא לא קעביד הכי והאידנא קא עביד לא מתחזי כרעבתנותא

With regard to the manner in which these two loaves are to be broken, Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Kahana who would take two loaves and break one. Rabbi Zeira would break off one large piece from the loaf, and eat from it for the entire Shabbat meal. Ravina said to Rav Ashi about this: Doesn’t it appear gluttonous for one to break off so large a piece? Rav Ashi said to him: Since every other day he does not do so, and today he does, it does not appear gluttonous, but rather in deference to the mitzva of the Shabbat meals.

רב אמי ורב אסי כי הוה מתרמי להו ריפתא דערובא מברכין עליה המוציא לחם מן הארץ אמרי הואיל ואתעביד ביה מצוה חדא נעביד ביה מצוה אחריתי

With regard to eating on Shabbat, the Gemara relates: Rav Ami and Rav Asi, when the opportunity to use the bread of the eiruv in the Shabbat meal would present itself, they would recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth over it. They said in explanation: Since one mitzva was performed with it, we will perform another mitzva with it.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

What’s Better Than Sliced Bread?

In which Yardaena tackles two stories of halakhic application that demonstrate the extreme attention paid to choosing the right blessing...

Berakhot 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 39

בצר ליה שיעורא

it lacks the requisite measure? The smallest quantity of food that is considered eating is the size of an olive-bulk, and an olive with its pit removed is smaller than that.

אמר ליה מי סברת כזית גדול בעינן כזית בינוני בעינן והא איכא וההוא דאייתו לקמיה דרבי יוחנן זית גדול הוה דאף על גב דשקלוה לגרעינותיה פש ליה שיעורא

He said to him: Do you hold that we require a large olive as the measure of food necessary in order to recite a blessing after eating? We require a medium-sized olive and that olive was that size, as the olive that they brought before Rabbi Yoḥanan was a large olive. Even though they removed its pit, the requisite measure remained.

דתנן זית שאמרו לא קטן ולא גדול אלא בינוני וזהו אגורי ואמר רבי אבהו לא אגורי שמו אלא אברוטי שמו ואמרי לה סמרוסי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו אגורי ששמנו אגור בתוכו

The Gemara cites a proof that the halakhic measure of an olive is not based on a large olive as we learned in a mishna: The olive of which the Sages spoke with regard to the halakhic measures is neither small nor large, but medium, and that olive is called aguri. And Rabbi Abbahu said: The name of that genus of olives is not aguri, but its name is avruti, and some say that its name is samrusi. And why, then, is it called aguri? Because its oil is accumulated [agur] inside it.

נימא כתנאי דהנהו תרי תלמידי דהוו יתבי קמיה דבר קפרא הביאו לפניו כרוב ודורמסקין ופרגיות נתן בר קפרא רשות לאחד מהן לברך קפץ וברך על הפרגיות לגלג עליו חבירו כעס בר קפרא אמר לא על המברך אני כועס אלא על המלגלג אני כועס אם חבירך דומה כמי שלא טעם טעם בשר מעולם אתה על מה לגלגת עליו חזר ואמר לא על המלגלג אני כועס אלא על המברך אני כועס ואמר אם חכמה אין כאן זקנה אין כאן

With regard to the appropriate blessing over boiled vegetables: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as the Gemara relates: Two students were sitting before bar Kappara when cooked cabbage, cooked Damascene plums and pullets were set before him. Bar Kappara gave one of the students permission to recite a blessing. He hurried and recited a blessing over the pullets and his counterpart ridiculed him for gluttonously reciting the blessing that should have been recited later, first. Bar Kappara became angry with both of them, he said: I am not angry with the one who recited the blessing, but at the one who ridiculed him. If your counterpart is like one who never tasted the flavor of meat and was therefore partial to the pullet, and hurriedly ate it, why did you ridicule him? Bar Kappara continued and said to the second student: I am not upset at the one who ridiculed him, rather it is with the one who recited the blessing that I am angry. And he said: If there is no wisdom here, is there no elder here? If you are uncertain which blessing to recite first, couldn’t you have asked me, as I am an elder?

תנא ושניהם לא הוציאו שנתן

The Gemara concludes that it was taught: And both of them did not live out his year. Due to bar Kappara’s anger they were punished, and both died within the year.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמברך סבר שלקות ופרגיות שהכל נהיה בדברו הלכך חביב עדיף ומלגלג סבר שלקות בורא פרי האדמה פרגיות שהכל נהיה בדברו הלכך פירא עדיף

The Gemara attempts to infer from this story to the topic at hand: What? Is it not that they disagreed with regard to the following? The one who recited the blessing over the pullet first held that the blessing to be recited over both boiled vegetables and pullet is: By whose word all things came to be, and, therefore, that which he prefers takes precedence and is eaten first. The one who ridiculed him held that over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over pullet one recites: By whose word all things came to be, and, therefore, the fruit takes precedence, as its blessing is more specific and therefore more significant.

לא דכולי עלמא שלקות ופרגיות שהכל נהיה בדברו והכא בהאי סברא קא מיפלגי מר סבר חביב עדיף ומר סבר כרוב עדיף דזיין

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that over boiled vegetables and pullet one recites: By whose word all things came to be, and here they argue over this: This Sage, who recited the blessing, held that the food which is preferred takes precedence and one recites a blessing over it first, and the Sage who ridiculed him held: Cabbage takes precedence, as it nourishes.

אמר רבי זירא כי הוינן בי רב הונא אמר לן הני גרגלידי דלפתא פרמינהו פרימא רבא בורא פרי האדמה פרימא זוטא שהכל נהיה בדברו וכי אתאן לבי רב יהודה אמר לן אידי ואידי בורא פרי האדמה והא דפרמינהו טפי כי היכי דנמתיק טעמיה

Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Huna he said to us: These turnip heads, if one cut them into large slices, he recites over them: Who creates fruit of the ground, because in doing so he has not significantly changed them. If he cut them into small pieces, he recites over them: By whose word all things came to be. And when we came to the study hall of Rav Yehuda he said to us: Over both these, large slices, and those, small pieces, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and the fact that he cut them extensively was in order to sweeten its flavor.

אמר רב אשי כי הוינן בי רב כהנא אמר לן תבשילא דסלקא דלא מפשו בה קמחא בורא פרי האדמה דלפתא דמפשו בה קמחא טפי בורא מיני מזונות והדר אמר אידי ואידי בורא פרי האדמה והאי דשדי בה קמחא טפי לדבוקי בעלמא עבדי לה

On a similar note, Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he said to us: Over a cooked dish of beets to which they, typically, do not add a significant amount of flour, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Over a cooked dish of turnips to which they, typically, add a more significant amount of flour, one recites: Who creates the various types of nourishment. And Rav Kahana reconsidered his previous statement and said: Over both these, beets, and those, turnips, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and the fact that they threw extra flour in with the turnips, they did so merely so the components of the cooked dish would stick together. The primary ingredient in the dish remains the turnips, not the flour.

אמר רב חסדא תבשיל של תרדין יפה ללב וטוב לעינים וכל שכן לבני מעים אמר אביי והוא דיתיב אבי תפי ועביד תוך תוך

Tangential to this mention of a turnip dish, Rav Ḥisda added, and said: A cooked dish of beets is beneficial for the heart, good for the eyes and all the more so, for the intestines. Abaye said: That is specifically when the dish sits on the stove and makes a tukh tukh sound, i.e., it boils.

אמר רב פפא פשיטא לי מיא דסלקא כסלקא ומיא דלפתא כלפתא ומיא דכולהו שלקי ככולהו שלקי בעי רב פפא מיא דשיבתא מאי למתוקי טעמא עבדי או לעבורי זוהמא עבדי לה

Rav Pappa said: It is clear to me that beet water, water in which beets were boiled, has the same status as beets, and turnip water has the same status turnips, and the water in which all boiled vegetables were boiled has the same status as all boiled vegetables. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the status of water in which dill was boiled? Do they use dill to sweeten the taste, or do they use it to remove residual filth? If the dill was added to flavor the food then the water in which it was boiled should be treated like water in which any other vegetable was boiled. However, if the dill was added merely to absorb the residue of the soup, then there was never any intention to flavor the dish and one should not recite a blessing over it.

תא שמע השבת משנתנה טעם בקדירה אין בה משום תרומה ואינה מטמאה טומאת אוכלים שמע מינה למתוקי טעמא עבדי לה שמע מינה

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna in the tractate Okatzin: Dill, once it has already given its flavor in the pot, no longer has any value and is no longer subject to the halakhot of teruma and since it is no longer considered food, it can no longer become impure with the ritual impurity of food. Learn from this that they used dill to sweeten the taste. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this.

אמר רב חייא בר אשי פת צנומה בקערה מברכין עליה המוציא ופליגא דרבי חייא דאמר רבי חייא צריך שתכלה ברכה עם הפת

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Over dry bread that was placed in a bowl to soak, one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth, even if there is another loaf of bread before him, as it is considered bread in every respect. This halakha disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The blessing must conclude with the beginning of the breaking of the loaf of bread. The dried bread had already been sliced and separated from the loaf.

מתקיף לה רבא מאי שנא צנומה דלא משום דכי כליא ברכה אפרוסה קא כליא על הפת נמי כי קא גמרה אפרוסה גמרה

Rava strongly objects to this assumption: What is different about dried bread, that one does not recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth, over it, because when the blessing concludes, it concludes on a slice? In a case where he recites a blessing on a loaf of bread as well, when he completes the blessing, he completes it on a slice, as one cuts the bread before the blessing.

אלא אמר רבא מברך ואחר כך בוצע

Rather, Rava said: When breaking bread, one recites the blessing over the complete loaf and only afterwards, he breaks it.

נהרדעי עבדי כרבי חייא ורבנן עבדי כרבא אמר רבינא אמרה לי אם אבוך עביד כרבי חייא דאמר רבי חייא צריך שתכלה ברכה עם הפת ורבנן עבדי כרבא והלכתא כרבא דאמר מברך ואחר כך בוצע:

The Gemara relates: The Sages of Neharde’a acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya and would recite the blessing as they were breaking the bread and conclude the blessing as he finished breaking off the piece of bread. And the Rabbis acted in accordance with the opinion of Rava and would recite the blessing before breaking the bread. Ravina said: My mother told me: Your father acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The blessing must conclude with the beginning of the breaking of the loaf of bread. And the Rabbis acted in accordance with the opinion of Rava. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said one recites the blessing over the complete loaf and only afterwards he breaks it.

איתמר הביאו לפניהם פתיתין ושלמין אמר רב הונא מברך על הפתיתין ופוטר את השלמין ורבי יוחנן אמר שלמה מצוה מן המובחר אבל פרוסה של חטין ושלמה מן השעורין דברי הכל מברך על הפרוסה של חטין ופוטר את השלמה של שעורין

It was stated that there was an amoraic dispute with regard to whether to recite the blessing over a whole loaf of bread or to recite it over a piece of bread: If they brought pieces and whole loaves of bread before those partaking of a meal, Rav Huna said: One may recite the blessing over the pieces and with that blessing exempts the whole loaves as well. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva is to recite the blessing over the whole loaf. However, if the piece was of wheat bread and the whole loaf was of barley bread, everyone agrees that one recites a blessing over the piece of wheat bread. Although it is a piece of bread, it is nevertheless of superior quality, and in so doing one exempts the whole loaf of barley bread.

אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא כתנאי תורמין בצל קטן שלם אבל לא חצי בצל גדול רבי יהודה אומר לא כי אלא חצי בצל גדול מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר חשוב עדיף ומר סבר שלם עדיף

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yoḥanan is parallel to a tannaitic dispute with regard to the halakhot of teruma. We learned: Even though the onions from which the teruma must be separated are divided equally between the two, one separates teruma from a whole small onion but not from half of a large onion. Rabbi Yehuda says: No, rather, he separates teruma from half of a large onion. What, is it not that they disagree over this point, that one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, held that the more significant takes precedence; therefore half of a large onion which is of superior quality is preferable, and the first tanna held that the whole item takes precedence?

היכא דאיכא כהן כולי עלמא לא פליגי דחשוב עדיף כי פליגי דליכא כהן דתנן כל מקום שיש כהן תורם מן היפה וכל מקום שאין כהן תורם מן המתקיים רבי יהודה אומר אין תורם אלא מן היפה

The Gemara rejects this comparison: Where there is a priest who can immediately take the teruma from him, everyone agrees that more significant takes precedence. When they disagree is in a case where there is no priest there, as we learned in a mishna: Everywhere that there is a priest, one separates teruma from the best, and whenever there is no priest, one separates teruma from that which will endure, so that when a priest ultimately receives it, he will be able to derive benefit from it. Rabbi Yehuda says: One always separates teruma only from the best, even though it is not the longest-lasting.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וירא שמים יוצא ידי שניהן ומנו מר בריה דרבינא דמר בריה דרבינא מניח פרוסה בתוך השלמה ובוצע

With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rav Huna, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: A God-fearing individual fulfills both. And who is this God-fearing person? Mar, son of Ravina, as the Gemara relates that Mar, son of Ravina, would place the piece inside the whole loaf and break them together.

תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק מניח הפרוסה בתוך השלמה ובוצע ומברך אמר ליה מה שמך אמר ליה שלמן אמר ליה שלום אתה ושלמה משנתך ששמת שלום בין התלמידים

Similarly, the Gemara relates that the tanna recited a baraita before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: One places the piece inside the whole loaf, then breaks the bread and recites a blessing. Rav Naḥman said to him: What is your name? He answered: Shalman. Rav Naḥman replied with a pun: You are peace [shalom] and the teaching that you recited is complete [shelema] as by means of this baraita the disputing opinions are reconciled and you established peace among students.

אמר רב פפא הכל מודים בפסח שמניח פרוסה בתוך שלמה ובוצע מאי טעמא לחם עני כתיב

This resolution is reinforced in a unique case, as Rav Pappa said: Everyone agrees that while fulfilling the mitzva of eating matza on Passover, one places the piece inside the whole and breaks. What is the reason? With regard to matza the phrase “Bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3) is written, and the poor typically eat their bread in pieces. Therefore, eating matza on Passover evening, the broken matza is also significant.

אמר רבי אבא ובשבת חייב אדם לבצוע על שתי ככרות מאי טעמא לחם משנה כתיב

In connection to the various halakhot with regard to breaking bread, especially on Festivals, the Gemara cites another halakha. Rabbi Abba said: And on Shabbat one is obligated to break bread for the meal over two loaves. What is the reason? Because in the Torah portion that discusses gathering manna on Friday for Shabbat, the phrase: “Twice as much bread” (Exodus 16:22) is written. To commemorate this, Shabbat meals are based on two loaves of bread.

אמר רב אשי חזינא ליה לרב כהנא דנקיט תרתי ובצע חדא רבי זירא הוה בצע אכולא שירותא אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי והא קא מתחזי כרעבתנותא אמר [ליה] כיון דכל יומא לא קעביד הכי והאידנא קא עביד לא מתחזי כרעבתנותא

With regard to the manner in which these two loaves are to be broken, Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Kahana who would take two loaves and break one. Rabbi Zeira would break off one large piece from the loaf, and eat from it for the entire Shabbat meal. Ravina said to Rav Ashi about this: Doesn’t it appear gluttonous for one to break off so large a piece? Rav Ashi said to him: Since every other day he does not do so, and today he does, it does not appear gluttonous, but rather in deference to the mitzva of the Shabbat meals.

רב אמי ורב אסי כי הוה מתרמי להו ריפתא דערובא מברכין עליה המוציא לחם מן הארץ אמרי הואיל ואתעביד ביה מצוה חדא נעביד ביה מצוה אחריתי

With regard to eating on Shabbat, the Gemara relates: Rav Ami and Rav Asi, when the opportunity to use the bread of the eiruv in the Shabbat meal would present itself, they would recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth over it. They said in explanation: Since one mitzva was performed with it, we will perform another mitzva with it.

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

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

Scroll To Top