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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 12, 2020 | 讬状讝 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 40

What is considered an interruption between making the blessing on bread and eating bread? One should feed one’s animal before one eats. The gemara brings other advice about foods that are healthy and with what frequency should they be eaten. Why does Rabbi Yehuda think one should be specific in the blessing over legumes? If one says the wrong blessing, does it count? On what does it depend? Why type of tree was the Tree of Knowledge – 3 opinions. On what do we say “Shehakol”? What if something is spoiled? Can one word the blessing in one’s own words? Can one say it in any language? One needs to use God’s name in a blessing but does one also need to mention the kingship of God? What blessing does one make on mushrooms?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗诪专 专讘 讟讜诇 讘专讜讱 讟讜诇 讘专讜讱 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讛讘讗 诪诇讞 讛讘讗 诇驻转谉 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讘讬讗讜 诪诇讞 讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻转谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讬 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讬 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讗讻诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讬转谉 诪讗讻诇 诇讘讛诪转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转转讬 注砖讘 讘砖讚讱 诇讘讛诪转讱 讜讛讚专 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转:

Continuing to discuss the halakhot of breaking bread, Rav said: One who broke bread, and before eating it, offered a piece to another, and said: Take it and recite a blessing, take it and recite a blessing, need not recite the blessing a second time, because that is considered to have been for the purpose of the blessing. If, however, he said: Bring salt or bring relish, he must recite the blessing a second time, as that is considered an interruption between the blessing and eating the bread. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even if he said: Bring salt or bring relish, it is not considered an interruption and he need not recite the blessing a second time. Only if he said: Mix the food for the oxen, mix the food for the oxen, it is considered an interruption and he is required to recite the blessing a second time. And Rav Sheshet said: Even if he said: Mix for the oxen, he need not recite a blessing a second time, as that is also considered to be for the purpose of the blessing, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One is prohibited from eating before feeding his animals, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd I will give grass in your fields for your animals鈥 first and only then: 鈥淎nd you shall eat and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:15). In the verse, preparation of food for one鈥檚 cattle precedes preparation of his own food. Consequently, it is considered part of the preparation for one鈥檚 own meal.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 讛讘讜爪注 专砖讗讬 诇讘爪讜注 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗讜 诪诇讞 讗讜 诇驻转谉 诇驻谞讬 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 专讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗驻讬拽讜 诇讬讛 专讬驻转讗 讜讘爪注 诇讛讚讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讚专 诪专 诪砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬转 讚讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘砖砖:

Rava bar Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: One who breaks bread is not permitted to break it until they bring salt or relish before each and every one seated at the table. However, the Gemara relates that Rava bar Shmuel himself happened to come to the House of the Exilarch. They brought him bread, which he immediately broke, without waiting for them to bring salt or relish. They said to him: Did the Master reconsider his halakhic ruling? He said to them: Although poor quality bread requires salt in order to give the bread flavor, and therefore one must wait before breaking bread, this refined bread served in the House of the Exilarch needs no salt, and does not require waiting.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讻诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讬砖讬讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讘注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诪讬讚讛 讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 讬注诪讜讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讙讘讜讛 讜讬砖转讬谉 诇诪拽讜诐 诪讚专讜谉:

And Rava bar Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: Urine only completely leaves the body if one urinates seated, as, otherwise, due to concern that drops of urine will drip onto his clothes, he attempts to conclude prematurely. Rav Kahana said: Over loose soil which absorbs the urine, one is not concerned that it will splash on him; therefore, even when standing the urine leaves his body. And if there is no loose soil there is another way to prevent the urine from splashing on his clothes while standing. Stand on an elevated place and urinate down an inclined plane.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讞专 讻诇 讗讻讬诇转讱 讗讻讜诇 诪诇讞 讜讗讞专 讻诇 砖转讬讬转讱 砖转讛 诪讬诐 讜讗讬 讗转讛 谞讝讜拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讞专 讻诇 讗讻讬诇转讱 讗讻讜诇 诪诇讞 讜讗讞专 讻诇 砖转讬讬转讱 砖转讛 诪讬诐 讜讗讬 讗转讛 谞讝讜拽 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 诪诇讞 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讜诇讗 砖转讛 诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讬讚讗讙 诪谉 专讬讞 讛驻讛 讜讘诇讬诇讛 讬讚讗讙 诪驻谞讬 讗住讻专讛:

And Rava bar Shmuel said the following advice in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: After all eating, eat salt and after all drinking, drink water and you will not be harmed. That was also taught in a baraita: After all eating, eat salt and after all drinking, drink water and you will not be harmed. It was taught in another baraita: If one ate any food and did not eat salt afterward, or if he drank any liquid and did not drink water afterward, during the day, he should be concerned about bad breath, and at night he should be concerned about diphtheria.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪拽驻讛 讗讻讬诇转讜 讘诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讬转讜谉 诇驻转

On the topic of health, the Gemara cites that the Sages taught in a baraita: One who inundates his food with water, i.e., one who drinks a great deal of water, will not come to suffer from intestinal illness. The Gemara asks: And how much water? Rav 岣sda said: One jug [kiton] per loaf.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讙讬诇 讘注讚砖讬诐 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讜谞注 讗住讻专讛 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讘诇 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讛 诇专讬讞 讛驻讛

Rav Mari said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who is accustomed to eat lentils once in thirty days prevents diphtheria from afflicting his house. The Gemara comments: However, one should not eat lentils every day. What is the reason? Because it is deleterious in that it causes bad breath.

讜讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讙讬诇 讘讞专讚诇 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讜谞注 讞诇讗讬诐 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讘诇 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讛 诇讞讜诇砖讗 讚诇讘讗

And Rav Mari said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who is accustomed to eat mustard once in thirty days prevents illnesses from afflicting his house. The Gemara comments: However, one should not eat mustard every day. What is the reason? Because it is deleterious in that it causes weakness of the heart.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛专讙讬诇 讘讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 诪驻专讬谉 讜诪专讘讬谉 讜诪讘专讬谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐

Another health recommendation: Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One who is accustomed to eat small fish will not come to suffer from intestinal illness. Moreover, eating small fish causes one鈥檚 entire body to flourish, to grow, and to be healthy.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛专讙讬诇 讘拽爪讞 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讗讘 诇讘 诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 拽爪讞 讗讞讚 诪砖砖讬诐 住诪谞讬 讛诪讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讬砖谉 诇诪讝专讞 讙专谞讜 讚诪讜 讘专讗砖讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讬讞讜 讛讗 讘讟注诪讜 讗讬诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗驻讬讗 诇讬讛 专讬驻转讗 讜诪讚讘拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诪拽诇驻讗 诇讬讛:

Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: One who is accustomed to eat black cumin, a medicine for the heart, will not come to suffer from heart pain. The Gemara raises an objection: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Black cumin is one of sixty deadly drugs, and therefore one who sleeps to the east of its storage area, where its odor wafts with the westerly wind, responsibility for his blood is on his own head. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as this, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that black cumin is harmful, refers to its odor, whereas this, where Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said that it is beneficial for the heart, refers only to its taste. And the Gemara relates: The mother of Rabbi Yirmeya would bake him bread and would stick black cumin to it so its taste would be absorbed, and she would peel it off, so that its odor would not harm him.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 讚砖讗讬诐: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘专讜讱 讛壮 讬讜诐 讬讜诐 讜讻讬 讘讬讜诐 诪讘专讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 转谉 诇讜 诪注讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 转谉 诇讜 诪注讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讜

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says that one recites over herbs and leafy greens: Who creates various kinds of herbs. Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi 岣nnana bar Pappa, said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi 岣nnana bar Pappa, said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? The verse says: 鈥淏lessed is the Lord, day by day鈥 (Psalms 68:20). The question arises: Is it so that one blesses Him by day and does not bless Him at night? Rather, the verse comes to tell you: Each and every day, give the Lord the appropriate blessings for that day. Here too, with regard to the blessings recited over food, for each and every type of food, give the Lord the appropriate blessings for that food.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讘讜讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讻诇讬 专讬拽谉 诪讞讝讬拽 诪诇讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 诪诇讗 诪讞讝讬拽 专讬拽谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 讗诐 砖诪讜注 转砖诪注 讗诐 砖诪讜注 转砖诪注 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 转砖诪注 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诐 砖诪讜注 讘讬砖谉 转砖诪注 讘讞讚砖 讜讗诐 讬驻谞讛 诇讘讘讱 砖讜讘 诇讗 转砖诪注:

And Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi 岣nnana bar Pappa, said: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that an empty vessel holds that which is placed within it, while a full vessel does not hold it. The attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, however, is not so, as if God adds to a person who is a full vessel in terms of knowledge or good attributes, he will hold it; a person who is an empty vessel will not hold it. This is alluded to by the verse where it is said: 鈥淎nd He said, if you will surely listen [shamo鈥檃 tishma] to the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His eyes鈥 (Exodus 15:26). This verse is interpreted homiletically: If you listen [shamo鈥檃] in the present, you will listen [tishma] in the future as well; and if not, you will not listen. Alternatively: If you listened [shamo鈥檃] to the old, you review what you already learned, then you will listen [tishma] to the new as well. But if you turn your heart away, you will no longer be able to hear.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬专讱 注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗讬诇谉 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讬爪讗 讜注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜注诇 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讬爪讗:

MISHNA: This mishna discusses how, after the fact, a more general blessing exempts one from the obligation to recite a more specific one. One who recited: Who creates fruit of the ground, over fruit of the tree, fulfilled his obligation. One who recited: Who creates fruit of the tree, over fruits of the earth, did not fulfill his obligation. And over all food items, one who recited: By whose word all things came to be, fulfilled his obligation.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 讗专注讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讬讘砖 讛诪注讬谉 讜谞拽爪抓 讛讗讬诇谉 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗:

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by ascertaining: Who is the tanna that holds that the primary factor in the growth of a tree is the earth, and therefore one may recite: Who creates fruit of the ground, over fruits of the tree fulfills his obligation? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna dealing with the halakhot of first fruits: If, after one picked the first fruits from his field, the spring dried up and the tree upon which the fruit grew was chopped down, he brings the first fruits to the Temple but does not read the accompanying praise. The tree or spring, which were the primary components of the growth of the fruit, no longer exist and he cannot recite the passage thanking God for 鈥渢he good land.鈥 Rabbi Yehuda says: He brings the first fruits and reads the accompanying praise, as the land is the primary factor in the growth of the tree, and the tree itself is merely an extension of the land. Even after the tree is felled, the land remains intact. Similarly, with regard to blessings, the halakha maintains that fruit of the tree is considered to be fruit of the ground, as well.

注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讞讟讛 诪讬谉 讗讬诇谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讻诇 诪诪谞讜 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讙驻谉 讛讬讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖诪讘讬讗 讬诇诇讛 注诇 讛讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖转 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜讬砖讻专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 转讗谞讛 讛讬转讛 砖讘讚讘专 砖谞转拽诇拽诇讜 讘讜 谞转拽谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬转驻专讜 注诇讛 转讗谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讟讛 讛讬转讛 砖讗讬谉 讛转讬谞讜拽 讬讜讚注 诇拽专讜转 讗讘讗 讜讗诪讗 注讚 砖讬讟注讜诐 讟注诐 讚讙谉

We learned in the mishna: One who recited: Who creates fruit of the tree, over fruits of the earth, did not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, as fruits of the earth do not fall under the rubric of trees. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This ruling in the mishna is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said in another context that wheat is a type of tree, as we learned in a baraita: The tree from which Adam, the first man, ate, Rabbi Meir says: It was a vine, as nothing brings wailing and trouble upon man even today other than wine, as it is stated with regard to Noah: 鈥淎nd he drank from the wine and became drunk鈥 (Genesis 9:21). Rabbi Ne岣mya says: It was a fig tree, as with the object with which they were corrupted and sinned they were rehabilitated, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they sewed together fig leaves and made for themselves loincloths鈥 (Genesis 3:7). They must have taken the leaves from the tree closest at hand, the Tree of Knowledge. Rabbi Yehuda says: It was wheat, as, even today, the child does not know how to call his father and mother until he tastes the taste of grain.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讟讛 诪讬谉 讗讬诇谉 讛讬讗 诇讬讘专讱 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讬讻讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 砖拽诇转 诇讬讛 诇驻讬专讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇讙讜讜讝讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻讬拽

Based on this, it might have entered your mind to say, since Rabbi Yehuda said that wheat is a type of tree, one should recite over it: Who creates fruit of the tree. Therefore, the mishna taught us that with regard to blessings, the principle is different. Where does one recite: Who creates fruit of the tree? Only in a case where, when you take the fruit, the branch remains and again produces fruit.

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 砖拽诇转 诇讬讛 诇驻讬专讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇讙讜讜讝讗 讚讛讚专 诪驻讬拽 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讗诇讗 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛:

However, in a situation where, when you take the fruit, the branch does not remain and again produce fruit, we do not recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, but rather: Who creates fruit of the ground.

讜注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 讜讻讜壮: 讗转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛驻转 讜诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻转 讜讬讬谉

We learned in the mishna: And on all food items, if he recited: By whose word all things came to be, he fulfilled his obligation. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed the precise explanation of the mishna. Rav Huna said: This halakha applies to all foods except for bread and wine. Since they have special blessings, one does not fulfill his obligation by reciting the general blessing: By whose word all things came to be. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One fulfills his obligation with the blessing: By whose word all things came to be, even over bread and wine.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 专讗讛 驻转 讜讗诪专 讻诪讛 谞讗讛 驻转 讝讜 讘专讜讱 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讘专讗讛 讬爪讗 专讗讛 转讗谞讛 讜讗诪专 讻诪讛 谞讗讛 转讗谞讛 讝讜 讘专讜讱 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讘专讗讛 讬爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪诪讟讘注 砖讟讘注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讘专讻讜转 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 谞讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara remarks: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a tannaitic dispute found elsewhere, as it was taught in a Tosefta: One who saw bread and said: How pleasant is this bread, blessed is the Omnipresent Who created it, fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing. One who saw a fig and said: How pleasant is this fig, blessed is the Omnipresent Who created it, fulfilled his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages in blessings, did not fulfill his obligation. If so, let us say that Rav Huna, who said that one who recites: By whose word all things came to be, over bread or wine, did not fulfill his obligation, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; and Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that one who recites: By whose word all things came to be, over bread or wine fulfills his obligation, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讚驻转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讚驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讜讚讛

The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna could have said to you: I said my statement, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir only stated his opinion, that one who alters the formula of the blessing fulfills his obligation, there, where the individual explicitly mentions the term bread in his blessing, but where he does not mention the term bread, even Rabbi Meir agrees that he did not fulfill his obligation.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗诪专 讘专讻讛 讚诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: I said my statement, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei only stated his opinion, that one who alters the formula of the blessing does not fulfill his obligation, there, because he recited a blessing that was not instituted by the Sages; however, if he recited: By whose word all things came to be, which was instituted by the Sages, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that, after the fact, he fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing.

讘谞讬诪讬谉 专注讬讗 讻专讱 专讬驻转讗 讜讗诪专 讘专讬讱 诪专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 驻讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 讚讗诪专 讘专讬讱 专讞诪谞讗 诪专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 驻讬转讗

Regarding blessings that do not conform to the formula instituted by the Sages, the Gemara relates that Binyamin the shepherd ate bread and afterward recited in Aramaic: Blessed is the Master of this bread. Rav said, he thereby fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing. The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Rav himself say: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God鈥檚 name is not considered a blessing? The Gemara emends the formula of his blessing. He said: Blessed is the All-Merciful, Master of this bread.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖 讘专讻讜转 诪讗讬 讬爪讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 谞诪讬 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讘专讻讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require three blessings in Grace after Meals? How did he fulfill his obligation with one sentence? The Gemara explains: What is: Fulfills his obligation, that Rav also said? He fulfills the obligation of the first of the three blessings, and must recite two more to fulfill his obligation completely.

诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇

The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The Gemara answers: Although he recited the blessing in a secular language, other than Hebrew, he fulfilled his obligation.

转谞讬谞讗 讜讗诇讜 谞讗诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 讜讬讚讜讬 诪注砖专 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜转驻诇讛 讜讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诇砖讜谉 拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诇砖讜谉 拽讚砖 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

This remains difficult, as we already learned this in a mishna in Sota: And these are recited in any language that one understands: The portion of the swearing of the sota, the confession of the tithes when a homeowner declares that he has given all teruma and tithes appropriately, the recitation of Shema, and the Amida prayer and Grace after Meals. If Grace after Meals is clearly on the list of matters that may be recited in any language, what did Rav teach us? The Gemara answers: Rav鈥檚 ruling with regard to Binyamin the Shepherd is necessary, as it might have entered your mind to say: This, the permission to recite Grace after Meals in any language, applies only to a case where one recited it in a secular language, just as it was instituted by the Sages in the holy tongue. However, in a case where one did not recite the blessing in a secular language, just as it was instituted by the Sages in the holy tongue, say that no, he did not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rav teaches us that, after the fact, not only is the language not an impediment to fulfillment of his obligation to recite a blessing, the formula is not an impediment either.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 注讘专转讬 诪诪爪讜转讬讱 讜诇讗 砖讻讞转讬 诇讗 注讘专转讬 诪诇讘专讻讱 讜诇讗 砖讻讞转讬 诪诇讛讝讻讬专 砖诪讱 注诇讬讜 讜讗讬诇讜 诪诇讻讜转 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara considers the matter of Rav鈥檚 opinion itself and cites the fundamental dispute in that regard. Rav said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God鈥檚 name is not considered a blessing. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God鈥檚 sovereignty is not considered a blessing. Abaye said: It stands to reason in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as it was taught in a Tosefta: In the confession of the tithes, one recites, 鈥淚 did not transgress your mitzvot and I did not forget鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:13). The meaning of phrase, I did not transgress, is that I did not refrain from blessing You when separating tithes; and the meaning of the phrase, and I did not forget, is that I did not forget to mention Your name in the blessing recited over it. However, this baraita did not teach that one must mention God鈥檚 sovereignty in the blessing.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬 讜诇讗 砖讻讞转讬 诪诇讛讝讻讬专 砖诪讱 讜诪诇讻讜转讱 注诇讬讜:

And Rabbi Yo岣nan would say: Emend the baraita: And I did not forget to mention Your name and Your sovereignty in the blessing recited over it; indicating that one must mention both God鈥檚 name and God鈥檚 sovereignty.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 注诇 讛讞讜诪抓 讜注诇 讛谞讜讘诇讜转 讜注诇 讛讙讜讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 拽诇诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜

MISHNA: And over a food item whose growth is not from the ground, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. And over vinegar, wine that fermented and spoiled, and over novelot, dates that spoiled, and over locusts, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Rabbi Yehuda says: Over any food item that is a type resulting from a curse, one does not recite a blessing over it at all. None of the items listed exist under normal conditions, and they come about as the result of a curse.

讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讬谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讬谉 砖讘注讛 注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 诪讘专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讘专讱 注诇 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛:

On a different note: If there were many types of food before him, over which food should he recite a blessing first? Rabbi Yehuda says: If there is one of the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael was praised among them, he recites the first blessing over it. And the Rabbis say: He recites a blessing over whichever of them he wants.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讻讙讜谉 讘砖专 讘讛诪讜转 讞讬讜转 讜注讜驻讜转 讜讚讙讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 注诇 讛讞诇讘 讜注诇 讛讘讬爪讬诐 讜注诇 讛讙讘讬谞讛 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 注诇 讛驻转 砖注驻砖讛 讜注诇 讛讬讬谉 砖讛拽专讬诐 讜注诇 讛转讘砖讬诇 砖注讘专 爪讜专转讜 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 注诇 讛诪诇讞 讜注诇 讛讝诪讬转 讜注诇 讻诪讛讬谉 讜驻讟专讬讜转 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诪讛讬谉 讜驻讟专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讙讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讗住讜专 讘驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讜诪讜转专 讘讻诪讛讬谉 讜驻讟专讬讜转 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 注诇讬 讗住讜专 讗祝 讘讻诪讛讬谉 讜驻讟专讬讜转

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Over a food item whose growth is not from the earth, for example, meat from domesticated animals, non-domesticated animals, and fowl and fish, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. So too, over milk, and over eggs, and over cheese, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. This is not only true with regard to items that come from animals, but over moldy bread, and over wine that fermented slightly, and over a cooked dish that spoiled, one recites: By whose word all things came to be, because the designated blessing is inappropriate for food that is partially spoiled. Similarly, over salt and over brine, and over truffles and mushrooms, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that truffles and mushrooms are not items that grow from the ground? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who vows not to eat from the fruit of the earth is forbidden to eat all fruit of the earth; however, he is permitted to eat truffles and mushrooms. And if he said: All items that grow from the ground are forbidden to me, he is forbidden to eat even truffles and mushrooms. Apparently, truffles and mushrooms are items that grow from the ground.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬专讘讗 专讘讜 诪讗专注讗 诪讬谞拽讬 诇讗 讬谞拽讬 诪讗专注讗

Abaye said: With regard to growth, they grow from the earth, but with regard to sustenance, they do not draw sustenance from the earth.

讜讛讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讬讜谞拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓:

The Gemara asks: Why is that distinction significant? Wasn鈥檛 it taught: Over a food item whose growth is not from the ground one recites the blessing: By whose word all things came to be? Even according to Abaye, mushrooms grow from the ground. The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita to read: Over a food item that does not draw sustenance from the ground, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Consequently, even over mushrooms one recites: By whose word all things came to be.

讜注诇 讛谞讜讘诇讜转: 诪讗讬 谞讜讘诇讜转 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗

We learned in the mishna that over novelot one recites: By whose word all things came to be. The Gemara asks: What are novelot? The Gemara responds that the amora鈥檌m Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Il鈥檃 disputed this. One said that the term refers to dates that, due to extreme conditions, were burned by the heat of the sun and ripened prematurely. And one said that they are dates that fell from the tree because of the wind.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 拽诇诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽专讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 拽诇诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 诪讗讬 诪讬谉 拽诇诇讛

We learned later in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Over any food item that is a type resulting from a curse, one does not recite a blessing over it at all. Granted, according to the one who said that novelot are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that he considers them a type of curse; however, according to the one who said that novelot are dates that fell because of the wind, what is the reason that it is considered a type of curse? Dates that fell from the tree are no worse than other dates.

讗砖讗专讗

The Gemara reconciles: Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement was about the rest, the vinegar and locusts, not about the novelot.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讛讻诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 砖讛讻诇 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讘专讜讻讬

Some say that the Gemara raised the question differently: Granted, according to the one who said that novelot are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that we recite over them: By whose word all things came to be, as they are of inferior quality. However, to the one who said that novelot are dates that fell because of the wind, should we recite over them: By whose word all things came to be? We should recite: Who creates fruit of the tree.

讗诇讗 讘谞讜讘诇讜转 住转诪讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞讜讘诇讜转 转诪专讛 讚转谞谉 讛拽诇讬谉 砖讘讚诪讗讬 讛砖讬转讬谉 讜讛专讬诪讬谉 讜讛注讜讝专讚讬谉 讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讜讘谞讜转 砖拽诪讛 讜讙讜驻谞讬谉 讜谞爪驻讛 讜谞讜讘诇讜转 转诪专讛

Rather, the conclusion is, with regard to novelot unmodified, everyone agrees that they are dates that were burned by the heat of the sun. When they argue, it is with regard to those dates known as novelot temara, as we learned in a mishna concerning the laws of doubtfully tithed produce [demai]: Although, under normal circumstances, fruits that come into one鈥檚 possession by means of an am ha鈥檃retz must be tithed due to concern lest the am ha鈥檃retz failed to do so, the following fruits of inferior quality are lenient with regard to demai and one need not tithe them: Shittin, rimin, uzradin, benot shua岣, benot shikma, gufnin, nitzpa, and novelot temara.

砖讬转讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬谉 转讗谞讬诐 专讬诪讬谉 讻谞讚讬 讛注讜讝专讚讬谉 讟讜诇砖讬 讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讗讬谞讬 讞讬讜专转讗 讘谞讜转 砖拽诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讜讘诇讬 讙讜驻谞讬谉 砖讬诇讛讬 讙讜驻谞讬 谞爪驻讛 驻专讞讛 谞讜讘诇讜转 转诪专讛 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗

The Gemara identifies these plants. Shittin, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They are a type of figs. Rimin are lote. Uzradin are crabapples. Benot shua岣, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They are white figs. Benot shikma, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They are the fruit of the sycamore tree. Gufnin are the last grapes which remain on the tree at the end of the season. Nitzpa are the fruit of the caper-bush. Novelot temara, Rabbi Il鈥檃 and Rabbi Zeira disagreed. One said that they are dates burned by the heat of the sun, and one said that they are dates that fell because of the wind.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽诇讬谉 砖讘讚诪讗讬 住驻讬拽谉 讛讜讗 讚驻讟讜专 讛讗 讜讚讗谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 讜讚讗谉 讞讬讬讘 讛驻拽专讗 谞讬谞讛讜

Here too, the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that it was taught concerning them: Their halakhot are lenient with regard to demai, meaning that it is those with regard to which there is uncertainty whether or not they were tithed that are exempt from being tithed. Those with regard to which there is certainty that they were not tithed, one is obligated to tithe those dates. However, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates felled because of the wind, this is difficult: Those regarding which there is certainty that they were not tithed, one is obligated? They are ownerless, and ownerless produce is exempt from the requirement to tithe.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖注砖讗谉 讙讜专谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛诇拽讟 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 砖注砖讗谉 讙讜专谉 讛讜拽讘注讜 诇诪注砖专

The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? With a case where he gathered the dates that fell because of the wind and made them into a pile, like a pile of threshed grain, signifying that the produce is a finished product. As Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov: Even gifts to the poor such as gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corners, which are normally exempt from tithes, if a poor person gathered them and made them into a pile of threshed grain, by rabbinic law they were rendered obligated in tithes. In that case, only demai would be exempt from tithes.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬

Some say that the discussion was as follows:

  • 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

Adam and Eve Ate What?!

In which all this talk of fruit brought the daf back to the Garden of Eden, to consider the nature...

Berakhot 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 40

讗诪专 专讘 讟讜诇 讘专讜讱 讟讜诇 讘专讜讱 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讛讘讗 诪诇讞 讛讘讗 诇驻转谉 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讘讬讗讜 诪诇讞 讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻转谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讬 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讬 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讗讻诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讬转谉 诪讗讻诇 诇讘讛诪转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转转讬 注砖讘 讘砖讚讱 诇讘讛诪转讱 讜讛讚专 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转:

Continuing to discuss the halakhot of breaking bread, Rav said: One who broke bread, and before eating it, offered a piece to another, and said: Take it and recite a blessing, take it and recite a blessing, need not recite the blessing a second time, because that is considered to have been for the purpose of the blessing. If, however, he said: Bring salt or bring relish, he must recite the blessing a second time, as that is considered an interruption between the blessing and eating the bread. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even if he said: Bring salt or bring relish, it is not considered an interruption and he need not recite the blessing a second time. Only if he said: Mix the food for the oxen, mix the food for the oxen, it is considered an interruption and he is required to recite the blessing a second time. And Rav Sheshet said: Even if he said: Mix for the oxen, he need not recite a blessing a second time, as that is also considered to be for the purpose of the blessing, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One is prohibited from eating before feeding his animals, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd I will give grass in your fields for your animals鈥 first and only then: 鈥淎nd you shall eat and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:15). In the verse, preparation of food for one鈥檚 cattle precedes preparation of his own food. Consequently, it is considered part of the preparation for one鈥檚 own meal.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 讛讘讜爪注 专砖讗讬 诇讘爪讜注 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗讜 诪诇讞 讗讜 诇驻转谉 诇驻谞讬 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 专讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗驻讬拽讜 诇讬讛 专讬驻转讗 讜讘爪注 诇讛讚讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讚专 诪专 诪砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬转 讚讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘砖砖:

Rava bar Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: One who breaks bread is not permitted to break it until they bring salt or relish before each and every one seated at the table. However, the Gemara relates that Rava bar Shmuel himself happened to come to the House of the Exilarch. They brought him bread, which he immediately broke, without waiting for them to bring salt or relish. They said to him: Did the Master reconsider his halakhic ruling? He said to them: Although poor quality bread requires salt in order to give the bread flavor, and therefore one must wait before breaking bread, this refined bread served in the House of the Exilarch needs no salt, and does not require waiting.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讻诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讬砖讬讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讘注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诪讬讚讛 讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 讬注诪讜讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讙讘讜讛 讜讬砖转讬谉 诇诪拽讜诐 诪讚专讜谉:

And Rava bar Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: Urine only completely leaves the body if one urinates seated, as, otherwise, due to concern that drops of urine will drip onto his clothes, he attempts to conclude prematurely. Rav Kahana said: Over loose soil which absorbs the urine, one is not concerned that it will splash on him; therefore, even when standing the urine leaves his body. And if there is no loose soil there is another way to prevent the urine from splashing on his clothes while standing. Stand on an elevated place and urinate down an inclined plane.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讞专 讻诇 讗讻讬诇转讱 讗讻讜诇 诪诇讞 讜讗讞专 讻诇 砖转讬讬转讱 砖转讛 诪讬诐 讜讗讬 讗转讛 谞讝讜拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讞专 讻诇 讗讻讬诇转讱 讗讻讜诇 诪诇讞 讜讗讞专 讻诇 砖转讬讬转讱 砖转讛 诪讬诐 讜讗讬 讗转讛 谞讝讜拽 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 诪诇讞 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讜诇讗 砖转讛 诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讬讚讗讙 诪谉 专讬讞 讛驻讛 讜讘诇讬诇讛 讬讚讗讙 诪驻谞讬 讗住讻专讛:

And Rava bar Shmuel said the following advice in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: After all eating, eat salt and after all drinking, drink water and you will not be harmed. That was also taught in a baraita: After all eating, eat salt and after all drinking, drink water and you will not be harmed. It was taught in another baraita: If one ate any food and did not eat salt afterward, or if he drank any liquid and did not drink water afterward, during the day, he should be concerned about bad breath, and at night he should be concerned about diphtheria.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪拽驻讛 讗讻讬诇转讜 讘诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讬转讜谉 诇驻转

On the topic of health, the Gemara cites that the Sages taught in a baraita: One who inundates his food with water, i.e., one who drinks a great deal of water, will not come to suffer from intestinal illness. The Gemara asks: And how much water? Rav 岣sda said: One jug [kiton] per loaf.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讙讬诇 讘注讚砖讬诐 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讜谞注 讗住讻专讛 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讘诇 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讛 诇专讬讞 讛驻讛

Rav Mari said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who is accustomed to eat lentils once in thirty days prevents diphtheria from afflicting his house. The Gemara comments: However, one should not eat lentils every day. What is the reason? Because it is deleterious in that it causes bad breath.

讜讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讙讬诇 讘讞专讚诇 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讜谞注 讞诇讗讬诐 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讘诇 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讛 诇讞讜诇砖讗 讚诇讘讗

And Rav Mari said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who is accustomed to eat mustard once in thirty days prevents illnesses from afflicting his house. The Gemara comments: However, one should not eat mustard every day. What is the reason? Because it is deleterious in that it causes weakness of the heart.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛专讙讬诇 讘讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 诪驻专讬谉 讜诪专讘讬谉 讜诪讘专讬谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐

Another health recommendation: Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One who is accustomed to eat small fish will not come to suffer from intestinal illness. Moreover, eating small fish causes one鈥檚 entire body to flourish, to grow, and to be healthy.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛专讙讬诇 讘拽爪讞 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讗讘 诇讘 诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 拽爪讞 讗讞讚 诪砖砖讬诐 住诪谞讬 讛诪讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讬砖谉 诇诪讝专讞 讙专谞讜 讚诪讜 讘专讗砖讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讬讞讜 讛讗 讘讟注诪讜 讗讬诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗驻讬讗 诇讬讛 专讬驻转讗 讜诪讚讘拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诪拽诇驻讗 诇讬讛:

Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: One who is accustomed to eat black cumin, a medicine for the heart, will not come to suffer from heart pain. The Gemara raises an objection: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Black cumin is one of sixty deadly drugs, and therefore one who sleeps to the east of its storage area, where its odor wafts with the westerly wind, responsibility for his blood is on his own head. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as this, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that black cumin is harmful, refers to its odor, whereas this, where Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said that it is beneficial for the heart, refers only to its taste. And the Gemara relates: The mother of Rabbi Yirmeya would bake him bread and would stick black cumin to it so its taste would be absorbed, and she would peel it off, so that its odor would not harm him.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 讚砖讗讬诐: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘专讜讱 讛壮 讬讜诐 讬讜诐 讜讻讬 讘讬讜诐 诪讘专讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 转谉 诇讜 诪注讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 转谉 诇讜 诪注讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讜

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says that one recites over herbs and leafy greens: Who creates various kinds of herbs. Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi 岣nnana bar Pappa, said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi 岣nnana bar Pappa, said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? The verse says: 鈥淏lessed is the Lord, day by day鈥 (Psalms 68:20). The question arises: Is it so that one blesses Him by day and does not bless Him at night? Rather, the verse comes to tell you: Each and every day, give the Lord the appropriate blessings for that day. Here too, with regard to the blessings recited over food, for each and every type of food, give the Lord the appropriate blessings for that food.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讘讜讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讻诇讬 专讬拽谉 诪讞讝讬拽 诪诇讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 诪诇讗 诪讞讝讬拽 专讬拽谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 讗诐 砖诪讜注 转砖诪注 讗诐 砖诪讜注 转砖诪注 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 转砖诪注 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诐 砖诪讜注 讘讬砖谉 转砖诪注 讘讞讚砖 讜讗诐 讬驻谞讛 诇讘讘讱 砖讜讘 诇讗 转砖诪注:

And Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi 岣nnana bar Pappa, said: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that an empty vessel holds that which is placed within it, while a full vessel does not hold it. The attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, however, is not so, as if God adds to a person who is a full vessel in terms of knowledge or good attributes, he will hold it; a person who is an empty vessel will not hold it. This is alluded to by the verse where it is said: 鈥淎nd He said, if you will surely listen [shamo鈥檃 tishma] to the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His eyes鈥 (Exodus 15:26). This verse is interpreted homiletically: If you listen [shamo鈥檃] in the present, you will listen [tishma] in the future as well; and if not, you will not listen. Alternatively: If you listened [shamo鈥檃] to the old, you review what you already learned, then you will listen [tishma] to the new as well. But if you turn your heart away, you will no longer be able to hear.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬专讱 注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗讬诇谉 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讬爪讗 讜注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜注诇 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讬爪讗:

MISHNA: This mishna discusses how, after the fact, a more general blessing exempts one from the obligation to recite a more specific one. One who recited: Who creates fruit of the ground, over fruit of the tree, fulfilled his obligation. One who recited: Who creates fruit of the tree, over fruits of the earth, did not fulfill his obligation. And over all food items, one who recited: By whose word all things came to be, fulfilled his obligation.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 讗专注讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讬讘砖 讛诪注讬谉 讜谞拽爪抓 讛讗讬诇谉 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗:

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by ascertaining: Who is the tanna that holds that the primary factor in the growth of a tree is the earth, and therefore one may recite: Who creates fruit of the ground, over fruits of the tree fulfills his obligation? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna dealing with the halakhot of first fruits: If, after one picked the first fruits from his field, the spring dried up and the tree upon which the fruit grew was chopped down, he brings the first fruits to the Temple but does not read the accompanying praise. The tree or spring, which were the primary components of the growth of the fruit, no longer exist and he cannot recite the passage thanking God for 鈥渢he good land.鈥 Rabbi Yehuda says: He brings the first fruits and reads the accompanying praise, as the land is the primary factor in the growth of the tree, and the tree itself is merely an extension of the land. Even after the tree is felled, the land remains intact. Similarly, with regard to blessings, the halakha maintains that fruit of the tree is considered to be fruit of the ground, as well.

注诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讞讟讛 诪讬谉 讗讬诇谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讻诇 诪诪谞讜 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讙驻谉 讛讬讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖诪讘讬讗 讬诇诇讛 注诇 讛讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖转 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜讬砖讻专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 转讗谞讛 讛讬转讛 砖讘讚讘专 砖谞转拽诇拽诇讜 讘讜 谞转拽谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬转驻专讜 注诇讛 转讗谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讟讛 讛讬转讛 砖讗讬谉 讛转讬谞讜拽 讬讜讚注 诇拽专讜转 讗讘讗 讜讗诪讗 注讚 砖讬讟注讜诐 讟注诐 讚讙谉

We learned in the mishna: One who recited: Who creates fruit of the tree, over fruits of the earth, did not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, as fruits of the earth do not fall under the rubric of trees. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This ruling in the mishna is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said in another context that wheat is a type of tree, as we learned in a baraita: The tree from which Adam, the first man, ate, Rabbi Meir says: It was a vine, as nothing brings wailing and trouble upon man even today other than wine, as it is stated with regard to Noah: 鈥淎nd he drank from the wine and became drunk鈥 (Genesis 9:21). Rabbi Ne岣mya says: It was a fig tree, as with the object with which they were corrupted and sinned they were rehabilitated, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they sewed together fig leaves and made for themselves loincloths鈥 (Genesis 3:7). They must have taken the leaves from the tree closest at hand, the Tree of Knowledge. Rabbi Yehuda says: It was wheat, as, even today, the child does not know how to call his father and mother until he tastes the taste of grain.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讟讛 诪讬谉 讗讬诇谉 讛讬讗 诇讬讘专讱 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讬讻讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 砖拽诇转 诇讬讛 诇驻讬专讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇讙讜讜讝讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻讬拽

Based on this, it might have entered your mind to say, since Rabbi Yehuda said that wheat is a type of tree, one should recite over it: Who creates fruit of the tree. Therefore, the mishna taught us that with regard to blessings, the principle is different. Where does one recite: Who creates fruit of the tree? Only in a case where, when you take the fruit, the branch remains and again produces fruit.

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 砖拽诇转 诇讬讛 诇驻讬专讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇讙讜讜讝讗 讚讛讚专 诪驻讬拽 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 讗诇讗 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛:

However, in a situation where, when you take the fruit, the branch does not remain and again produce fruit, we do not recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, but rather: Who creates fruit of the ground.

讜注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 讜讻讜壮: 讗转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛驻转 讜诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻转 讜讬讬谉

We learned in the mishna: And on all food items, if he recited: By whose word all things came to be, he fulfilled his obligation. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed the precise explanation of the mishna. Rav Huna said: This halakha applies to all foods except for bread and wine. Since they have special blessings, one does not fulfill his obligation by reciting the general blessing: By whose word all things came to be. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One fulfills his obligation with the blessing: By whose word all things came to be, even over bread and wine.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 专讗讛 驻转 讜讗诪专 讻诪讛 谞讗讛 驻转 讝讜 讘专讜讱 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讘专讗讛 讬爪讗 专讗讛 转讗谞讛 讜讗诪专 讻诪讛 谞讗讛 转讗谞讛 讝讜 讘专讜讱 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讘专讗讛 讬爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪诪讟讘注 砖讟讘注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讘专讻讜转 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 谞讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara remarks: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a tannaitic dispute found elsewhere, as it was taught in a Tosefta: One who saw bread and said: How pleasant is this bread, blessed is the Omnipresent Who created it, fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing. One who saw a fig and said: How pleasant is this fig, blessed is the Omnipresent Who created it, fulfilled his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages in blessings, did not fulfill his obligation. If so, let us say that Rav Huna, who said that one who recites: By whose word all things came to be, over bread or wine, did not fulfill his obligation, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; and Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that one who recites: By whose word all things came to be, over bread or wine fulfills his obligation, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讚驻转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讚驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讜讚讛

The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna could have said to you: I said my statement, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir only stated his opinion, that one who alters the formula of the blessing fulfills his obligation, there, where the individual explicitly mentions the term bread in his blessing, but where he does not mention the term bread, even Rabbi Meir agrees that he did not fulfill his obligation.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗诪专 讘专讻讛 讚诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: I said my statement, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei only stated his opinion, that one who alters the formula of the blessing does not fulfill his obligation, there, because he recited a blessing that was not instituted by the Sages; however, if he recited: By whose word all things came to be, which was instituted by the Sages, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that, after the fact, he fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing.

讘谞讬诪讬谉 专注讬讗 讻专讱 专讬驻转讗 讜讗诪专 讘专讬讱 诪专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 驻讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 讚讗诪专 讘专讬讱 专讞诪谞讗 诪专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 驻讬转讗

Regarding blessings that do not conform to the formula instituted by the Sages, the Gemara relates that Binyamin the shepherd ate bread and afterward recited in Aramaic: Blessed is the Master of this bread. Rav said, he thereby fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing. The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Rav himself say: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God鈥檚 name is not considered a blessing? The Gemara emends the formula of his blessing. He said: Blessed is the All-Merciful, Master of this bread.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖 讘专讻讜转 诪讗讬 讬爪讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 谞诪讬 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讘专讻讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require three blessings in Grace after Meals? How did he fulfill his obligation with one sentence? The Gemara explains: What is: Fulfills his obligation, that Rav also said? He fulfills the obligation of the first of the three blessings, and must recite two more to fulfill his obligation completely.

诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇

The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The Gemara answers: Although he recited the blessing in a secular language, other than Hebrew, he fulfilled his obligation.

转谞讬谞讗 讜讗诇讜 谞讗诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 讜讬讚讜讬 诪注砖专 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜转驻诇讛 讜讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诇砖讜谉 拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诇砖讜谉 拽讚砖 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

This remains difficult, as we already learned this in a mishna in Sota: And these are recited in any language that one understands: The portion of the swearing of the sota, the confession of the tithes when a homeowner declares that he has given all teruma and tithes appropriately, the recitation of Shema, and the Amida prayer and Grace after Meals. If Grace after Meals is clearly on the list of matters that may be recited in any language, what did Rav teach us? The Gemara answers: Rav鈥檚 ruling with regard to Binyamin the Shepherd is necessary, as it might have entered your mind to say: This, the permission to recite Grace after Meals in any language, applies only to a case where one recited it in a secular language, just as it was instituted by the Sages in the holy tongue. However, in a case where one did not recite the blessing in a secular language, just as it was instituted by the Sages in the holy tongue, say that no, he did not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rav teaches us that, after the fact, not only is the language not an impediment to fulfillment of his obligation to recite a blessing, the formula is not an impediment either.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 注讘专转讬 诪诪爪讜转讬讱 讜诇讗 砖讻讞转讬 诇讗 注讘专转讬 诪诇讘专讻讱 讜诇讗 砖讻讞转讬 诪诇讛讝讻讬专 砖诪讱 注诇讬讜 讜讗讬诇讜 诪诇讻讜转 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara considers the matter of Rav鈥檚 opinion itself and cites the fundamental dispute in that regard. Rav said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God鈥檚 name is not considered a blessing. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God鈥檚 sovereignty is not considered a blessing. Abaye said: It stands to reason in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as it was taught in a Tosefta: In the confession of the tithes, one recites, 鈥淚 did not transgress your mitzvot and I did not forget鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:13). The meaning of phrase, I did not transgress, is that I did not refrain from blessing You when separating tithes; and the meaning of the phrase, and I did not forget, is that I did not forget to mention Your name in the blessing recited over it. However, this baraita did not teach that one must mention God鈥檚 sovereignty in the blessing.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬 讜诇讗 砖讻讞转讬 诪诇讛讝讻讬专 砖诪讱 讜诪诇讻讜转讱 注诇讬讜:

And Rabbi Yo岣nan would say: Emend the baraita: And I did not forget to mention Your name and Your sovereignty in the blessing recited over it; indicating that one must mention both God鈥檚 name and God鈥檚 sovereignty.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 注诇 讛讞讜诪抓 讜注诇 讛谞讜讘诇讜转 讜注诇 讛讙讜讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 拽诇诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜

MISHNA: And over a food item whose growth is not from the ground, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. And over vinegar, wine that fermented and spoiled, and over novelot, dates that spoiled, and over locusts, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Rabbi Yehuda says: Over any food item that is a type resulting from a curse, one does not recite a blessing over it at all. None of the items listed exist under normal conditions, and they come about as the result of a curse.

讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讬谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讬谉 砖讘注讛 注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 诪讘专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讘专讱 注诇 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛:

On a different note: If there were many types of food before him, over which food should he recite a blessing first? Rabbi Yehuda says: If there is one of the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael was praised among them, he recites the first blessing over it. And the Rabbis say: He recites a blessing over whichever of them he wants.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讻讙讜谉 讘砖专 讘讛诪讜转 讞讬讜转 讜注讜驻讜转 讜讚讙讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 注诇 讛讞诇讘 讜注诇 讛讘讬爪讬诐 讜注诇 讛讙讘讬谞讛 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 注诇 讛驻转 砖注驻砖讛 讜注诇 讛讬讬谉 砖讛拽专讬诐 讜注诇 讛转讘砖讬诇 砖注讘专 爪讜专转讜 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 注诇 讛诪诇讞 讜注诇 讛讝诪讬转 讜注诇 讻诪讛讬谉 讜驻讟专讬讜转 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诪讛讬谉 讜驻讟专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讙讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讗住讜专 讘驻讬专讜转 讛讗专抓 讜诪讜转专 讘讻诪讛讬谉 讜驻讟专讬讜转 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 注诇讬 讗住讜专 讗祝 讘讻诪讛讬谉 讜驻讟专讬讜转

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Over a food item whose growth is not from the earth, for example, meat from domesticated animals, non-domesticated animals, and fowl and fish, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. So too, over milk, and over eggs, and over cheese, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. This is not only true with regard to items that come from animals, but over moldy bread, and over wine that fermented slightly, and over a cooked dish that spoiled, one recites: By whose word all things came to be, because the designated blessing is inappropriate for food that is partially spoiled. Similarly, over salt and over brine, and over truffles and mushrooms, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that truffles and mushrooms are not items that grow from the ground? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who vows not to eat from the fruit of the earth is forbidden to eat all fruit of the earth; however, he is permitted to eat truffles and mushrooms. And if he said: All items that grow from the ground are forbidden to me, he is forbidden to eat even truffles and mushrooms. Apparently, truffles and mushrooms are items that grow from the ground.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬专讘讗 专讘讜 诪讗专注讗 诪讬谞拽讬 诇讗 讬谞拽讬 诪讗专注讗

Abaye said: With regard to growth, they grow from the earth, but with regard to sustenance, they do not draw sustenance from the earth.

讜讛讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讬讜谞拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓:

The Gemara asks: Why is that distinction significant? Wasn鈥檛 it taught: Over a food item whose growth is not from the ground one recites the blessing: By whose word all things came to be? Even according to Abaye, mushrooms grow from the ground. The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita to read: Over a food item that does not draw sustenance from the ground, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Consequently, even over mushrooms one recites: By whose word all things came to be.

讜注诇 讛谞讜讘诇讜转: 诪讗讬 谞讜讘诇讜转 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗

We learned in the mishna that over novelot one recites: By whose word all things came to be. The Gemara asks: What are novelot? The Gemara responds that the amora鈥檌m Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Il鈥檃 disputed this. One said that the term refers to dates that, due to extreme conditions, were burned by the heat of the sun and ripened prematurely. And one said that they are dates that fell from the tree because of the wind.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 拽诇诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽专讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 拽诇诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 诪讗讬 诪讬谉 拽诇诇讛

We learned later in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Over any food item that is a type resulting from a curse, one does not recite a blessing over it at all. Granted, according to the one who said that novelot are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that he considers them a type of curse; however, according to the one who said that novelot are dates that fell because of the wind, what is the reason that it is considered a type of curse? Dates that fell from the tree are no worse than other dates.

讗砖讗专讗

The Gemara reconciles: Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement was about the rest, the vinegar and locusts, not about the novelot.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讛讻诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 砖讛讻诇 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛注抓 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讘专讜讻讬

Some say that the Gemara raised the question differently: Granted, according to the one who said that novelot are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that we recite over them: By whose word all things came to be, as they are of inferior quality. However, to the one who said that novelot are dates that fell because of the wind, should we recite over them: By whose word all things came to be? We should recite: Who creates fruit of the tree.

讗诇讗 讘谞讜讘诇讜转 住转诪讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞讜讘诇讜转 转诪专讛 讚转谞谉 讛拽诇讬谉 砖讘讚诪讗讬 讛砖讬转讬谉 讜讛专讬诪讬谉 讜讛注讜讝专讚讬谉 讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讜讘谞讜转 砖拽诪讛 讜讙讜驻谞讬谉 讜谞爪驻讛 讜谞讜讘诇讜转 转诪专讛

Rather, the conclusion is, with regard to novelot unmodified, everyone agrees that they are dates that were burned by the heat of the sun. When they argue, it is with regard to those dates known as novelot temara, as we learned in a mishna concerning the laws of doubtfully tithed produce [demai]: Although, under normal circumstances, fruits that come into one鈥檚 possession by means of an am ha鈥檃retz must be tithed due to concern lest the am ha鈥檃retz failed to do so, the following fruits of inferior quality are lenient with regard to demai and one need not tithe them: Shittin, rimin, uzradin, benot shua岣, benot shikma, gufnin, nitzpa, and novelot temara.

砖讬转讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬谉 转讗谞讬诐 专讬诪讬谉 讻谞讚讬 讛注讜讝专讚讬谉 讟讜诇砖讬 讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讗讬谞讬 讞讬讜专转讗 讘谞讜转 砖拽诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讜讘诇讬 讙讜驻谞讬谉 砖讬诇讛讬 讙讜驻谞讬 谞爪驻讛 驻专讞讛 谞讜讘诇讜转 转诪专讛 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗

The Gemara identifies these plants. Shittin, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They are a type of figs. Rimin are lote. Uzradin are crabapples. Benot shua岣, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They are white figs. Benot shikma, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They are the fruit of the sycamore tree. Gufnin are the last grapes which remain on the tree at the end of the season. Nitzpa are the fruit of the caper-bush. Novelot temara, Rabbi Il鈥檃 and Rabbi Zeira disagreed. One said that they are dates burned by the heat of the sun, and one said that they are dates that fell because of the wind.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽诇讬谉 砖讘讚诪讗讬 住驻讬拽谉 讛讜讗 讚驻讟讜专 讛讗 讜讚讗谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 讜讚讗谉 讞讬讬讘 讛驻拽专讗 谞讬谞讛讜

Here too, the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that it was taught concerning them: Their halakhot are lenient with regard to demai, meaning that it is those with regard to which there is uncertainty whether or not they were tithed that are exempt from being tithed. Those with regard to which there is certainty that they were not tithed, one is obligated to tithe those dates. However, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates felled because of the wind, this is difficult: Those regarding which there is certainty that they were not tithed, one is obligated? They are ownerless, and ownerless produce is exempt from the requirement to tithe.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖注砖讗谉 讙讜专谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛诇拽讟 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 砖注砖讗谉 讙讜专谉 讛讜拽讘注讜 诇诪注砖专

The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? With a case where he gathered the dates that fell because of the wind and made them into a pile, like a pile of threshed grain, signifying that the produce is a finished product. As Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov: Even gifts to the poor such as gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corners, which are normally exempt from tithes, if a poor person gathered them and made them into a pile of threshed grain, by rabbinic law they were rendered obligated in tithes. In that case, only demai would be exempt from tithes.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬

Some say that the discussion was as follows:

Scroll To Top