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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 11, 2020 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖状驻

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

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

Berakhot 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?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讘爪专 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讻讝讬转 讙讚讜诇 讘注讬谞谉 讻讝讬转 讘讬谞讜谞讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讛讛讜讗 讚讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讬转 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖拽诇讜讛 诇讙专注讬谞讜转讬讛 驻砖 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗

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 Yo岣nan was a large olive. Even though they removed its pit, the requisite measure remained.

讚转谞谉 讝讬转 砖讗诪专讜 诇讗 拽讟谉 讜诇讗 讙讚讜诇 讗诇讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬 讜讝讛讜 讗讙讜专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讗 讗讙讜专讬 砖诪讜 讗诇讗 讗讘专讜讟讬 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 住诪专讜住讬 砖诪讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 讗讙讜专讬 砖砖诪谞讜 讗讙讜专 讘转讜讻讜

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.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讚讛谞讛讜 转专讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚讘专 拽驻专讗 讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讻专讜讘 讜讚讜专诪住拽讬谉 讜驻专讙讬讜转 谞转谉 讘专 拽驻专讗 专砖讜转 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讘专讱 拽驻抓 讜讘专讱 注诇 讛驻专讙讬讜转 诇讙诇讙 注诇讬讜 讞讘讬专讜 讻注住 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗诪专 诇讗 注诇 讛诪讘专讱 讗谞讬 讻讜注住 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪诇讙诇讙 讗谞讬 讻讜注住 讗诐 讞讘讬专讱 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬 砖诇讗 讟注诐 讟注诐 讘砖专 诪注讜诇诐 讗转讛 注诇 诪讛 诇讙诇讙转 注诇讬讜 讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讗 注诇 讛诪诇讙诇讙 讗谞讬 讻讜注住 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪讘专讱 讗谞讬 讻讜注住 讜讗诪专 讗诐 讞讻诪讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讝拽谞讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉

With regard to the appropriate blessing over boiled vegetables: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, 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鈥檛 you have asked me, as I am an elder?

转谞讗 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜 砖谞转谉

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

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讘专讱 住讘专 砖诇拽讜转 讜驻专讙讬讜转 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讛诇讻讱 讞讘讬讘 注讚讬祝 讜诪诇讙诇讙 住讘专 砖诇拽讜转 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 驻专讙讬讜转 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讛诇讻讱 驻讬专讗 注讚讬祝

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖诇拽讜转 讜驻专讙讬讜转 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗讬 住讘专讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讞讘讬讘 注讚讬祝 讜诪专 住讘专 讻专讜讘 注讚讬祝 讚讝讬讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇谉 讛谞讬 讙专讙诇讬讚讬 讚诇驻转讗 驻专诪讬谞讛讜 驻专讬诪讗 专讘讗 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 驻专讬诪讗 讝讜讟讗 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讜讻讬 讗转讗谉 诇讘讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讛讗 讚驻专诪讬谞讛讜 讟驻讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞诪转讬拽 讟注诪讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇谉 转讘砖讬诇讗 讚住诇拽讗 讚诇讗 诪驻砖讜 讘讛 拽诪讞讗 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讚诇驻转讗 讚诪驻砖讜 讘讛 拽诪讞讗 讟驻讬 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讛讗讬 讚砖讚讬 讘讛 拽诪讞讗 讟驻讬 诇讚讘讜拽讬 讘注诇诪讗 注讘讚讬 诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讘砖讬诇 砖诇 转专讚讬谉 讬驻讛 诇诇讘 讜讟讜讘 诇注讬谞讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 讚讬转讬讘 讗讘讬 转驻讬 讜注讘讬讚 转讜讱 转讜讱

Tangential to this mention of a turnip dish, Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪讬讗 讚住诇拽讗 讻住诇拽讗 讜诪讬讗 讚诇驻转讗 讻诇驻转讗 讜诪讬讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇拽讬 讻讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇拽讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬讗 讚砖讬讘转讗 诪讗讬 诇诪转讜拽讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讬 讗讜 诇注讘讜专讬 讝讜讛诪讗 注讘讚讬 诇讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛砖讘转 诪砖谞转谞讛 讟注诐 讘拽讚讬专讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪转讜拽讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讬 诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 驻转 爪谞讜诪讛 讘拽注专讛 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 爪专讬讱 砖转讻诇讛 讘专讻讛 注诐 讛驻转

Rav 岣yya 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 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 爪谞讜诪讛 讚诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬 讻诇讬讗 讘专讻讛 讗驻专讜住讛 拽讗 讻诇讬讗 注诇 讛驻转 谞诪讬 讻讬 拽讗 讙诪专讛 讗驻专讜住讛 讙诪专讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讘专讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讜爪注

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

谞讛专讚注讬 注讘讚讬 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘谞谉 注讘讚讬 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讘讜讱 注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 爪专讬讱 砖转讻诇讛 讘专讻讛 注诐 讛驻转 讜专讘谞谉 注讘讚讬 讻专讘讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讘专讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讜爪注:

The Gemara relates: The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗讬转诪专 讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬讛诐 驻转讬转讬谉 讜砖诇诪讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛驻转讬转讬谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛砖诇诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖诇诪讛 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讗讘诇 驻专讜住讛 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讜砖诇诪讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛驻专讜住讛 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛砖诇诪讛 砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讻转谞讗讬 转讜专诪讬谉 讘爪诇 拽讟谉 砖诇诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞爪讬 讘爪诇 讙讚讜诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 讘爪诇 讙讚讜诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞砖讜讘 注讚讬祝 讜诪专 住讘专 砖诇诐 注讚讬祝

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞砖讜讘 注讚讬祝 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讻讛谉 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛讬驻讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛诪转拽讬讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 转讜专诐 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讬驻讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讬专讗 砖诪讬诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛谉 讜诪谞讜 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪谞讬讞 驻专讜住讛 讘转讜讱 讛砖诇诪讛 讜讘讜爪注

With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rav Huna, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬讞 讛驻专讜住讛 讘转讜讱 讛砖诇诪讛 讜讘讜爪注 讜诪讘专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 砖诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讜诐 讗转讛 讜砖诇诪讛 诪砖谞转讱 砖砖诪转 砖诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐

Similarly, the Gemara relates that the tanna recited a baraita before Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: One places the piece inside the whole loaf, then breaks the bread and recites a blessing. Rav Na岣an said to him: What is your name? He answered: Shalman. Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘驻住讞 砖诪谞讬讞 驻专讜住讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇诪讛 讜讘讜爪注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞诐 注谞讬 讻转讬讘

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 鈥淏read of affliction鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讘爪讜注 注诇 砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞诐 诪砖谞讛 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淭wice as much bread鈥 (Exodus 16:22) is written. To commemorate this, Shabbat meals are based on two loaves of bread.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚谞拽讬讟 转专转讬 讜讘爪注 讞讚讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讛 讘爪注 讗讻讜诇讗 砖讬专讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪转讞讝讬 讻专注讘转谞讜转讗 讗诪专 [诇讬讛] 讻讬讜谉 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇讗 诪转讞讝讬 讻专注讘转谞讜转讗

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鈥檛 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.

专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪转专诪讬 诇讛讜 专讬驻转讗 讚注专讜讘讗 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诇讞诐 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗诪专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讞讚讗 谞注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讞专讬转讬

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.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

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

讘爪专 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讻讝讬转 讙讚讜诇 讘注讬谞谉 讻讝讬转 讘讬谞讜谞讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讛讛讜讗 讚讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讬转 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖拽诇讜讛 诇讙专注讬谞讜转讬讛 驻砖 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗

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 Yo岣nan was a large olive. Even though they removed its pit, the requisite measure remained.

讚转谞谉 讝讬转 砖讗诪专讜 诇讗 拽讟谉 讜诇讗 讙讚讜诇 讗诇讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬 讜讝讛讜 讗讙讜专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讗 讗讙讜专讬 砖诪讜 讗诇讗 讗讘专讜讟讬 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 住诪专讜住讬 砖诪讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 讗讙讜专讬 砖砖诪谞讜 讗讙讜专 讘转讜讻讜

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.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讚讛谞讛讜 转专讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚讘专 拽驻专讗 讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讻专讜讘 讜讚讜专诪住拽讬谉 讜驻专讙讬讜转 谞转谉 讘专 拽驻专讗 专砖讜转 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讘专讱 拽驻抓 讜讘专讱 注诇 讛驻专讙讬讜转 诇讙诇讙 注诇讬讜 讞讘讬专讜 讻注住 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗诪专 诇讗 注诇 讛诪讘专讱 讗谞讬 讻讜注住 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪诇讙诇讙 讗谞讬 讻讜注住 讗诐 讞讘讬专讱 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬 砖诇讗 讟注诐 讟注诐 讘砖专 诪注讜诇诐 讗转讛 注诇 诪讛 诇讙诇讙转 注诇讬讜 讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讗 注诇 讛诪诇讙诇讙 讗谞讬 讻讜注住 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪讘专讱 讗谞讬 讻讜注住 讜讗诪专 讗诐 讞讻诪讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讝拽谞讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉

With regard to the appropriate blessing over boiled vegetables: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, 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鈥檛 you have asked me, as I am an elder?

转谞讗 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜 砖谞转谉

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

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讘专讱 住讘专 砖诇拽讜转 讜驻专讙讬讜转 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讛诇讻讱 讞讘讬讘 注讚讬祝 讜诪诇讙诇讙 住讘专 砖诇拽讜转 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 驻专讙讬讜转 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讛诇讻讱 驻讬专讗 注讚讬祝

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖诇拽讜转 讜驻专讙讬讜转 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗讬 住讘专讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讞讘讬讘 注讚讬祝 讜诪专 住讘专 讻专讜讘 注讚讬祝 讚讝讬讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇谉 讛谞讬 讙专讙诇讬讚讬 讚诇驻转讗 驻专诪讬谞讛讜 驻专讬诪讗 专讘讗 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 驻专讬诪讗 讝讜讟讗 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讜讻讬 讗转讗谉 诇讘讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讛讗 讚驻专诪讬谞讛讜 讟驻讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞诪转讬拽 讟注诪讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇谉 转讘砖讬诇讗 讚住诇拽讗 讚诇讗 诪驻砖讜 讘讛 拽诪讞讗 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讚诇驻转讗 讚诪驻砖讜 讘讛 拽诪讞讗 讟驻讬 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讛讗讬 讚砖讚讬 讘讛 拽诪讞讗 讟驻讬 诇讚讘讜拽讬 讘注诇诪讗 注讘讚讬 诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讘砖讬诇 砖诇 转专讚讬谉 讬驻讛 诇诇讘 讜讟讜讘 诇注讬谞讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 讚讬转讬讘 讗讘讬 转驻讬 讜注讘讬讚 转讜讱 转讜讱

Tangential to this mention of a turnip dish, Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪讬讗 讚住诇拽讗 讻住诇拽讗 讜诪讬讗 讚诇驻转讗 讻诇驻转讗 讜诪讬讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇拽讬 讻讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇拽讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬讗 讚砖讬讘转讗 诪讗讬 诇诪转讜拽讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讬 讗讜 诇注讘讜专讬 讝讜讛诪讗 注讘讚讬 诇讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛砖讘转 诪砖谞转谞讛 讟注诐 讘拽讚讬专讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪转讜拽讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讬 诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 驻转 爪谞讜诪讛 讘拽注专讛 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 爪专讬讱 砖转讻诇讛 讘专讻讛 注诐 讛驻转

Rav 岣yya 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 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 爪谞讜诪讛 讚诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬 讻诇讬讗 讘专讻讛 讗驻专讜住讛 拽讗 讻诇讬讗 注诇 讛驻转 谞诪讬 讻讬 拽讗 讙诪专讛 讗驻专讜住讛 讙诪专讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讘专讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讜爪注

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

谞讛专讚注讬 注讘讚讬 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘谞谉 注讘讚讬 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讘讜讱 注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 爪专讬讱 砖转讻诇讛 讘专讻讛 注诐 讛驻转 讜专讘谞谉 注讘讚讬 讻专讘讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讘专讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讜爪注:

The Gemara relates: The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗讬转诪专 讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬讛诐 驻转讬转讬谉 讜砖诇诪讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛驻转讬转讬谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛砖诇诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖诇诪讛 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讗讘诇 驻专讜住讛 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讜砖诇诪讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛驻专讜住讛 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛砖诇诪讛 砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讻转谞讗讬 转讜专诪讬谉 讘爪诇 拽讟谉 砖诇诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞爪讬 讘爪诇 讙讚讜诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 讘爪诇 讙讚讜诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞砖讜讘 注讚讬祝 讜诪专 住讘专 砖诇诐 注讚讬祝

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞砖讜讘 注讚讬祝 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讻讛谉 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛讬驻讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛诪转拽讬讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 转讜专诐 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讬驻讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讬专讗 砖诪讬诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛谉 讜诪谞讜 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪谞讬讞 驻专讜住讛 讘转讜讱 讛砖诇诪讛 讜讘讜爪注

With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rav Huna, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬讞 讛驻专讜住讛 讘转讜讱 讛砖诇诪讛 讜讘讜爪注 讜诪讘专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 砖诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讜诐 讗转讛 讜砖诇诪讛 诪砖谞转讱 砖砖诪转 砖诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐

Similarly, the Gemara relates that the tanna recited a baraita before Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: One places the piece inside the whole loaf, then breaks the bread and recites a blessing. Rav Na岣an said to him: What is your name? He answered: Shalman. Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘驻住讞 砖诪谞讬讞 驻专讜住讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇诪讛 讜讘讜爪注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞诐 注谞讬 讻转讬讘

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 鈥淏read of affliction鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讘爪讜注 注诇 砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞诐 诪砖谞讛 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淭wice as much bread鈥 (Exodus 16:22) is written. To commemorate this, Shabbat meals are based on two loaves of bread.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚谞拽讬讟 转专转讬 讜讘爪注 讞讚讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讛 讘爪注 讗讻讜诇讗 砖讬专讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪转讞讝讬 讻专注讘转谞讜转讗 讗诪专 [诇讬讛] 讻讬讜谉 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇讗 诪转讞讝讬 讻专注讘转谞讜转讗

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鈥檛 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.

专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪转专诪讬 诇讛讜 专讬驻转讗 讚注专讜讘讗 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诇讞诐 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗诪专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讞讚讗 谞注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讞专讬转讬

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.

Scroll To Top