The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree in the mishna regarding what does one do if one has a number of foods to make a blessing on – does one choose to bless on one of the seven species that Israel is known for or what one likes best? In whcih case are they arguing – when all the foods are of one type of blessing or also if there are different types? If one blesses on a vegetable and there were also fruits there, does the blessing on vegetables exempt the fruit? The laws regarding which blessing to do first comes from the verse about the seven species. Others learn requisite amounts for various laws from that verse. How exactly is the order learned from that verse – is it the order in the verse or the proximity of the species to the word “land” in the verse, which appears twice. If one eats fruits or dessert, does one need to make a separate blessing before and after? Does bread exmapt all foods and wine exempt all drinks from a separate blessing? Why doesn’t the blessing on bread exempt wine?
This week’s learning is sponsored in honor of Lana Kerzner’s birthday. “We are so proud that you are nearly done with this round of Shas. With love from Aunt Elayne and all your cousins (Pilichowski, Greenstone, Somer, Fredj and Hagege families).”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm for the refuah shleima for מעין ליאורה בת שלומית פייגא. “Our precious Maya”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored in honor of Lana Kerzner’s birthday. “We are so proud that you are nearly done with this round of Shas. With love from Aunt Elayne and all your cousins (Pilichowski, Greenstone, Somer, Fredj and Hagege families).”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm for the refuah shleima for מעין ליאורה בת שלומית פייגא. “Our precious Maya”
Berakhot 41
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּמְרֵי דְזִיקָא, הַיְינוּ דְּהָכָא קָרֵי לַהּ ״נוֹבְלוֹת״ סְתָמָא, וְהָתָם קָרֵי לַהּ ״תְּמָרָה״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בּוּשְׁלֵי כַמְרָא, נִיתְנֵי אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי ״נוֹבְלוֹת תְּמָרָה״, אוֹ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי ״נוֹבְלוֹת״ סְתָמָא. קַשְׁיָא.
Granted, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates felled by the wind, that is why here, when our mishna speaks of ruined dates, it calls them novelot, unmodified and there, when it speaks of those that fell because of the wind, it calls them novelot temara. However, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates burned by the heat of the sun, it should have taught in this mishna here and that, the mishna in tractate Demai, novelot temara; or taught in this and that novelot, unmodified. The use of different terms indicates that the mishnayot are discussing different items. No answer was found to this question, and the Gemara notes that indeed, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates burned by the heat of the sun, it is difficult.
הָיוּ לְפָנָיו מִינִין הַרְבֵּה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר עוּלָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁבִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִין שִׁבְעָה עָדִיף, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מִין חָבִיב עָדִיף. אֲבָל בְּשֶׁאֵין בִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה, וְחוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה.
The mishna cited a dispute with regard to the order in which one is supposed to recite the blessings when there were many types of food before him. 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. Ulla said: This dispute is specifically in a case where the blessings to be recited over each type of food are the same, as in that case Rabbi Yehuda holds: The type of the seven species takes precedence, and the Rabbis hold: The preferred type takes precedence, and a blessing is recited over it first. However, when their blessings are not the same, everyone agrees that one must recite a blessing over this type of food and then recite another blessing over that, ensuring that the appropriate blessing is recited over each type of food.
מֵיתִיבִי: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו צְנוֹן וְזַיִת — מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַצְּנוֹן וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַזַּיִת! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּשֶׁהַצְּנוֹן עִקָּר.
The Gemara raises an objection to this based on what was taught in a baraita: If a radish and an olive were before him, he recites a blessing over the radish and exempts the olive from the requirement of a blessing, although their blessings are different. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the radish is the primary component for the one partaking of them, and the olive serves only to temper the taste of the radish. Therefore, he need recite a blessing only over the radish.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַזַּיִת, שֶׁהַזַּיִת מִמִּין שִׁבְעָה. לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא דִּתְנַן: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא עִיקָּר וְעִמּוֹ טְפֵלָה — מְבָרֵךְ עַל הָעִיקָּר וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵלָה? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם מֵחֲמַת צְנוֹן בָּא הַזַּיִת — מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַצְּנוֹן וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַזַּיִת.
The Gemara continues and asks: If so, say the latter clause of the baraita where Rabbi Yehuda says: One recites a blessing over the olive, as the olive is a type of the seven species. Does Rabbi Yehuda not accept that principle which we learned in a mishna: Any food that is primary, and is eaten with food that is secondary, one recites a blessing over the primary food, and that blessing exempts the secondary from the requirement to recite a blessing before eating it? And if you say: Indeed, he does not hold that the primary food exempts the secondary, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is due to the radish that the olive comes, one recites a blessing over the radish and exempts the olive. If so, the dispute whether to recite a blessing over the radish or the olive must be in a case where the radish is not primary. This is an apparent contradiction of Ulla’s statement.
לְעוֹלָם בִּצְנוֹן עִיקָּר עָסְקִינַן, וְכִי פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן — בְּמִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי פְּלִיגִי, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו צְנוֹן וְזַיִת — מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַצְּנוֹן וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַזַּיִת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — כְּשֶׁהַצְּנוֹן עִיקָּר, אֲבָל אֵין הַצְּנוֹן עִיקָּר — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה וְחוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי מִינִין בְּעָלְמָא שֶׁבִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת — מְבָרֵךְ עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַזַּיִת, שֶׁהַזַּיִת מִמִּין שִׁבְעָה.
The Gemara responds: Actually, we are dealing with a case where the radish is the primary component of the meal, and when Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree, it is with regard to a different case that they disagree, and this baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: If a radish and an olive were before him, he recites a blessing over the radish and exempts the olive. In what circumstances does this apply? Specifically when the radish is primary, but when the radish is not primary, everyone agrees that one recites the appropriate blessing over this one and then he again recites the appropriate blessing over that one. However, in general, if two types of food whose blessings are identical were before him, he recites a blessing over whichever of them that he wants. Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites a blessing over the olive, as the olive is a type of the seven species.
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא. חַד אָמַר: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁבִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִין שִׁבְעָה עָדִיף, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מִין חָבִיב עָדִיף. אֲבָל בְּשֶׁאֵין בִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה וְחוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה. וְחַד אָמַר: אַף בְּשֶׁאֵין בִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת נָמֵי מַחֲלוֹקֶת.
Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagreed with regard to this subject. One said: The dispute is in a case where their blessings are identical, as Rabbi Yehuda held: A type of the seven species takes precedence and the blessing is recited over it first. And the Rabbis held: The preferred type takes precedence, and a blessing is recited over it first; however, when their blessings are not identical, everyone agrees that one recites the appropriate blessing over this one and then he again recites the appropriate blessing over that one. And one said: Even when their blessings are not identical, there is also a dispute.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁבִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת מַחֲלוֹקֶת — שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת פְּלִיגִי, בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְהַקְדִּים.
The Gemara discusses this: Granted, according to the one who said that the dispute is in a case where their blessings are identical, it works out well. However, according to the one who says that they disagree in a case where their blessings are not identical, then about what do they disagree? One must recite two blessings in any case. Rabbi Yirmeya said: They disagree with regard to which blessing precedes the other.
דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל הַמּוּקְדָּם בְּפָסוּק זֶה, מוּקְדָּם לִבְרָכָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶרֶץ חִטָּה וּשְׂעֹרָה וְגֶפֶן וּתְאֵנָה וְרִמּוֹן אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ״.
As Rav Yosef, and some say Rabbi Yitzḥak, said: Each food whose significance is manifest in that it precedes the others in this verse, which sings the praises of Eretz Yisrael, takes precedence over the others in terms of blessing as well, as it is stated: “A land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8).
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי חָנָן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חָנָן: כׇּל הַפָּסוּק כּוּלּוֹ לְשִׁיעוּרִין נֶאֱמַר.
The Gemara notes: And this opinion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanan. As Rabbi Ḥanan said: The entire verse was stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.
״חִטָּה״, דִּתְנַן: הַנִּכְנָס לַבַּיִת הַמְנוּגָּע, וְכֵלָיו עַל כְּתֵפָיו, וְסַנְדָּלָיו וְטַבְּעוֹתָיו בְּיָדָיו — הוּא וָהֵן טְמֵאִין מִיָּד. הָיָה לָבוּשׁ כֵּלָיו, וְסַנְדָּלָיו בְּרַגְלָיו, וְטַבְּעוֹתָיו בְּאֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו — הוּא טָמֵא מִיָּד, וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס. פַּת חִטִּין וְלֹא פַּת שְׂעוֹרִין, מֵיסֵב וְאוֹכְלָן בְּלִפְתָּן.
Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure by entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as we learned in a mishna: One who enters a house afflicted with leprosy of the house (see Leviticus 14:33–53) with his clothes resting on his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure. However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet and his rings on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure upon entering the house, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is made with wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not with barley bread, and with one who is reclining and eating the bread with a relish, which hastens the eating. There is, then, a Torah measurement that is connected specifically to wheat.
״שְׂעֹרָה״, דִּתְנַן: עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל.
Barley is also used as the basis for a measure, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse that is the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not defile all of the articles in the house.
״גֶּפֶן״, כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית יַיִן לְנָזִיר. ״תְּאֵנָה״, כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת. ״רִמּוֹן״, כְּדִתְנַן: כׇּל כְּלֵי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים
The halakhic measure determined by vines is the quantity of a quarter log of wine for a Nazirite and not the wine equivalent of a quarter log of water, which is a slightly different measure. Figs serve as the basis for the measure of a dried fig-bulk, typically the smallest unit of food for which someone will be held liable for carrying out on Shabbat from one domain to another. Pomegranates teach us a particular measurement as well, as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden utensils belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through breaking the utensil,
שִׁיעוּרָן כְּרִמּוֹנִים.
as an impure vessel loses its status as a vessel and consequently its impurity when it can no longer be used, if they have holes the size of pomegranates.
״אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֶרֶץ שֶׁכָּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים. כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! וְהָא אִיכָּא הָנָךְ דַּאֲמַרַן! אֶלָּא אֶרֶץ שֶׁרוֹב שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים.
A land of olive oil: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that the verse should be expounded as follows: A land, all of whose measures are the size of olives. The Gemara poses a question: Can it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are the size of olives? Aren’t there those measures that we mentioned above, which are not the size of olives? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are the size of olives, as most of the measures relating to forbidden foods and other matters are the size of olives.
״דְּבָשׁ״, כְּכוֹתֶבֶת הַגַּסָּה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְאִידָךְ — הָנֵי שִׁיעוּרִין בְּהֶדְיָא מִי כְּתִיבִי? אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.
Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also alludes to a measurement. With regard to Yom Kippur, one is only liable if he eats the equivalent of a large date on Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: And what will the other amora, who interpreted the verse as referring to the halakhot of precedence in blessings, say with regard to this midrash? The Gemara responds: Are these measures written explicitly in the Torah? Rather, they are by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support, an allusion to these measures.
רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בִּסְעוֹדְתָּא. אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמַּיְיהוּ תַּמְרֵי וְרִמּוֹנֵי. שְׁקַל רַב הַמְנוּנָא, בָּרֵיךְ אַתַּמְרֵי בְּרֵישָׁא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר לְהָא דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל הַמּוּקְדָּם בְּפָסוּק זֶה קוֹדֵם לִבְרָכָה?
With regard to the halakhot of precedence in blessings, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna were sitting at a meal. They brought dates and pomegranates before them. Rav Hamnuna took and recited a blessing over the dates first. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Does the Master not hold that halakha which Rav Yosef, and some say Rabbi Yitzḥak, said: Each food that precedes the others in this verse, precedes the others in terms of blessing as well? The pomegranate precedes the date in that verse.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה שֵׁנִי לְ״אֶרֶץ״, וְזֶה חֲמִישִׁי לְ״אֶרֶץ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן יָהֵיב לַן נִגְרֵי דְפַרְזְלָא וּנְשַׁמְּעִינָּךְ.
Rav Hamnuna said to him: This, the date, is mentioned second to the word land, in the verse: “A land of olive oil and honey,” just after the olive, and this, the pomegranate, is fifth to the word land. Rav Ḥisda said to him admiringly: Who will give us iron legs that we may serve you and constantly hear from you novel ideas.
אִיתְּמַר: הֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵיהֶם תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לִפְנֵיהֶם וְאֵין טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לִפְנֵיהֶם וְאֵין טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: טְעוּנִין בְּרָכָה בֵּין לִפְנֵיהֶם בֵּין לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁטָּעוּן בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו וְאֵין טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרָיו אֶלָּא פַּת הַבָּאָה בְּכִסָנִין בִּלְבַד. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: פַּת פּוֹטֶרֶת כׇּל מִינֵי מַאֲכָל, וְיַיִן פּוֹטֵר כׇּל מִינֵי מַשְׁקִים.
It was stated: If they brought figs and grapes before them during a meal, what blessings need to be recited? Rav Huna said: They require a blessing before eating them, and do not require a blessing after eating them, as Grace after Meals exempts them. And so too, Rav Naḥman said: They require a blessing before eating them, and do not require a blessing after eating them. And Rav Sheshet said: They require a blessing both before eating them and after eating them, even if he ate them during the meal, as you have nothing which requires a blessing before eating it and does not require a blessing after eating it, because it is exempted by Grace after Meals, except bread, a sweetened and spiced pastry, that comes as dessert, as it, too, is a type of bread. The statements of both Rav Huna and Rav Sheshet disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Bread exempts all the types of food that one eats after it, and wine exempts all types of drinks that one drinks after it, and one need not recite a blessing either before or after eating them.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכְתָא דְּבָרִים הַבָּאִים מֵחֲמַת הַסְּעוּדָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה — אֵין טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. וְשֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַסְּעוּדָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה — טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לִפְנֵיהֶם וְאֵין טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. לְאַחַר הַסְּעוּדָה — טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה בֵּין לִפְנֵיהֶם בֵּין לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם.
Summarizing, Rav Pappa said that the halakha is: Food items that come due to the meal, which are eaten together with the bread as part of the meal, during the meal, neither require a blessing before eating them nor after eating them, as they are considered secondary to the bread. And food items like fruit, that do not come due to the meal, as part of the meal, but may be brought during the meal, require a blessing before eating them and do not require a blessing after eating them. If they come after the meal, they require a blessing both before eating them and after eating them.
שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת בֶּן זוֹמָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ דְּבָרִים הַבָּאִים מֵחֲמַת הַסְּעוּדָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה אֵינָם טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם? אָמַר לָהֶם: הוֹאִיל וּפַת פּוֹטַרְתָּן. אִי הָכִי, יַיִן נָמֵי נִפְטְרֵיהּ פַּת! שָׁאנֵי יַיִן
The Gemara relates that the students asked Ben Zoma: Why did the Sages say that food items that come due to the meal during the meal, neither require a blessing before eating them nor after eating them? He said to them: Because bread exempts them. They asked: If so, bread should also exempt wine. Yet, one recites a blessing over wine during the meal. The Gemara responds: Wine is different,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Raanana, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Raanana, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Berakhot 41
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּמְרֵי דְזִיקָא, הַיְינוּ דְּהָכָא קָרֵי לַהּ ״נוֹבְלוֹת״ סְתָמָא, וְהָתָם קָרֵי לַהּ ״תְּמָרָה״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בּוּשְׁלֵי כַמְרָא, נִיתְנֵי אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי ״נוֹבְלוֹת תְּמָרָה״, אוֹ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי ״נוֹבְלוֹת״ סְתָמָא. קַשְׁיָא.
Granted, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates felled by the wind, that is why here, when our mishna speaks of ruined dates, it calls them novelot, unmodified and there, when it speaks of those that fell because of the wind, it calls them novelot temara. However, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates burned by the heat of the sun, it should have taught in this mishna here and that, the mishna in tractate Demai, novelot temara; or taught in this and that novelot, unmodified. The use of different terms indicates that the mishnayot are discussing different items. No answer was found to this question, and the Gemara notes that indeed, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates burned by the heat of the sun, it is difficult.
הָיוּ לְפָנָיו מִינִין הַרְבֵּה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר עוּלָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁבִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִין שִׁבְעָה עָדִיף, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מִין חָבִיב עָדִיף. אֲבָל בְּשֶׁאֵין בִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה, וְחוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה.
The mishna cited a dispute with regard to the order in which one is supposed to recite the blessings when there were many types of food before him. 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. Ulla said: This dispute is specifically in a case where the blessings to be recited over each type of food are the same, as in that case Rabbi Yehuda holds: The type of the seven species takes precedence, and the Rabbis hold: The preferred type takes precedence, and a blessing is recited over it first. However, when their blessings are not the same, everyone agrees that one must recite a blessing over this type of food and then recite another blessing over that, ensuring that the appropriate blessing is recited over each type of food.
מֵיתִיבִי: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו צְנוֹן וְזַיִת — מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַצְּנוֹן וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַזַּיִת! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּשֶׁהַצְּנוֹן עִקָּר.
The Gemara raises an objection to this based on what was taught in a baraita: If a radish and an olive were before him, he recites a blessing over the radish and exempts the olive from the requirement of a blessing, although their blessings are different. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the radish is the primary component for the one partaking of them, and the olive serves only to temper the taste of the radish. Therefore, he need recite a blessing only over the radish.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַזַּיִת, שֶׁהַזַּיִת מִמִּין שִׁבְעָה. לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא דִּתְנַן: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא עִיקָּר וְעִמּוֹ טְפֵלָה — מְבָרֵךְ עַל הָעִיקָּר וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵלָה? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם מֵחֲמַת צְנוֹן בָּא הַזַּיִת — מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַצְּנוֹן וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַזַּיִת.
The Gemara continues and asks: If so, say the latter clause of the baraita where Rabbi Yehuda says: One recites a blessing over the olive, as the olive is a type of the seven species. Does Rabbi Yehuda not accept that principle which we learned in a mishna: Any food that is primary, and is eaten with food that is secondary, one recites a blessing over the primary food, and that blessing exempts the secondary from the requirement to recite a blessing before eating it? And if you say: Indeed, he does not hold that the primary food exempts the secondary, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is due to the radish that the olive comes, one recites a blessing over the radish and exempts the olive. If so, the dispute whether to recite a blessing over the radish or the olive must be in a case where the radish is not primary. This is an apparent contradiction of Ulla’s statement.
לְעוֹלָם בִּצְנוֹן עִיקָּר עָסְקִינַן, וְכִי פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן — בְּמִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי פְּלִיגִי, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו צְנוֹן וְזַיִת — מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַצְּנוֹן וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַזַּיִת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — כְּשֶׁהַצְּנוֹן עִיקָּר, אֲבָל אֵין הַצְּנוֹן עִיקָּר — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה וְחוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי מִינִין בְּעָלְמָא שֶׁבִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת — מְבָרֵךְ עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַזַּיִת, שֶׁהַזַּיִת מִמִּין שִׁבְעָה.
The Gemara responds: Actually, we are dealing with a case where the radish is the primary component of the meal, and when Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree, it is with regard to a different case that they disagree, and this baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: If a radish and an olive were before him, he recites a blessing over the radish and exempts the olive. In what circumstances does this apply? Specifically when the radish is primary, but when the radish is not primary, everyone agrees that one recites the appropriate blessing over this one and then he again recites the appropriate blessing over that one. However, in general, if two types of food whose blessings are identical were before him, he recites a blessing over whichever of them that he wants. Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites a blessing over the olive, as the olive is a type of the seven species.
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא. חַד אָמַר: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁבִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִין שִׁבְעָה עָדִיף, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מִין חָבִיב עָדִיף. אֲבָל בְּשֶׁאֵין בִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה וְחוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ עַל זֶה. וְחַד אָמַר: אַף בְּשֶׁאֵין בִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת נָמֵי מַחֲלוֹקֶת.
Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagreed with regard to this subject. One said: The dispute is in a case where their blessings are identical, as Rabbi Yehuda held: A type of the seven species takes precedence and the blessing is recited over it first. And the Rabbis held: The preferred type takes precedence, and a blessing is recited over it first; however, when their blessings are not identical, everyone agrees that one recites the appropriate blessing over this one and then he again recites the appropriate blessing over that one. And one said: Even when their blessings are not identical, there is also a dispute.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁבִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת מַחֲלוֹקֶת — שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בִּרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת פְּלִיגִי, בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְהַקְדִּים.
The Gemara discusses this: Granted, according to the one who said that the dispute is in a case where their blessings are identical, it works out well. However, according to the one who says that they disagree in a case where their blessings are not identical, then about what do they disagree? One must recite two blessings in any case. Rabbi Yirmeya said: They disagree with regard to which blessing precedes the other.
דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל הַמּוּקְדָּם בְּפָסוּק זֶה, מוּקְדָּם לִבְרָכָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶרֶץ חִטָּה וּשְׂעֹרָה וְגֶפֶן וּתְאֵנָה וְרִמּוֹן אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ״.
As Rav Yosef, and some say Rabbi Yitzḥak, said: Each food whose significance is manifest in that it precedes the others in this verse, which sings the praises of Eretz Yisrael, takes precedence over the others in terms of blessing as well, as it is stated: “A land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8).
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי חָנָן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חָנָן: כׇּל הַפָּסוּק כּוּלּוֹ לְשִׁיעוּרִין נֶאֱמַר.
The Gemara notes: And this opinion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanan. As Rabbi Ḥanan said: The entire verse was stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.
״חִטָּה״, דִּתְנַן: הַנִּכְנָס לַבַּיִת הַמְנוּגָּע, וְכֵלָיו עַל כְּתֵפָיו, וְסַנְדָּלָיו וְטַבְּעוֹתָיו בְּיָדָיו — הוּא וָהֵן טְמֵאִין מִיָּד. הָיָה לָבוּשׁ כֵּלָיו, וְסַנְדָּלָיו בְּרַגְלָיו, וְטַבְּעוֹתָיו בְּאֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו — הוּא טָמֵא מִיָּד, וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס. פַּת חִטִּין וְלֹא פַּת שְׂעוֹרִין, מֵיסֵב וְאוֹכְלָן בְּלִפְתָּן.
Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure by entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as we learned in a mishna: One who enters a house afflicted with leprosy of the house (see Leviticus 14:33–53) with his clothes resting on his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure. However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet and his rings on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure upon entering the house, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is made with wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not with barley bread, and with one who is reclining and eating the bread with a relish, which hastens the eating. There is, then, a Torah measurement that is connected specifically to wheat.
״שְׂעֹרָה״, דִּתְנַן: עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל.
Barley is also used as the basis for a measure, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse that is the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not defile all of the articles in the house.
״גֶּפֶן״, כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית יַיִן לְנָזִיר. ״תְּאֵנָה״, כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת. ״רִמּוֹן״, כְּדִתְנַן: כׇּל כְּלֵי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים
The halakhic measure determined by vines is the quantity of a quarter log of wine for a Nazirite and not the wine equivalent of a quarter log of water, which is a slightly different measure. Figs serve as the basis for the measure of a dried fig-bulk, typically the smallest unit of food for which someone will be held liable for carrying out on Shabbat from one domain to another. Pomegranates teach us a particular measurement as well, as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden utensils belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through breaking the utensil,
שִׁיעוּרָן כְּרִמּוֹנִים.
as an impure vessel loses its status as a vessel and consequently its impurity when it can no longer be used, if they have holes the size of pomegranates.
״אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֶרֶץ שֶׁכָּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים. כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! וְהָא אִיכָּא הָנָךְ דַּאֲמַרַן! אֶלָּא אֶרֶץ שֶׁרוֹב שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים.
A land of olive oil: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that the verse should be expounded as follows: A land, all of whose measures are the size of olives. The Gemara poses a question: Can it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are the size of olives? Aren’t there those measures that we mentioned above, which are not the size of olives? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are the size of olives, as most of the measures relating to forbidden foods and other matters are the size of olives.
״דְּבָשׁ״, כְּכוֹתֶבֶת הַגַּסָּה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְאִידָךְ — הָנֵי שִׁיעוּרִין בְּהֶדְיָא מִי כְּתִיבִי? אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.
Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also alludes to a measurement. With regard to Yom Kippur, one is only liable if he eats the equivalent of a large date on Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: And what will the other amora, who interpreted the verse as referring to the halakhot of precedence in blessings, say with regard to this midrash? The Gemara responds: Are these measures written explicitly in the Torah? Rather, they are by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support, an allusion to these measures.
רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בִּסְעוֹדְתָּא. אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמַּיְיהוּ תַּמְרֵי וְרִמּוֹנֵי. שְׁקַל רַב הַמְנוּנָא, בָּרֵיךְ אַתַּמְרֵי בְּרֵישָׁא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר לְהָא דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל הַמּוּקְדָּם בְּפָסוּק זֶה קוֹדֵם לִבְרָכָה?
With regard to the halakhot of precedence in blessings, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna were sitting at a meal. They brought dates and pomegranates before them. Rav Hamnuna took and recited a blessing over the dates first. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Does the Master not hold that halakha which Rav Yosef, and some say Rabbi Yitzḥak, said: Each food that precedes the others in this verse, precedes the others in terms of blessing as well? The pomegranate precedes the date in that verse.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה שֵׁנִי לְ״אֶרֶץ״, וְזֶה חֲמִישִׁי לְ״אֶרֶץ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן יָהֵיב לַן נִגְרֵי דְפַרְזְלָא וּנְשַׁמְּעִינָּךְ.
Rav Hamnuna said to him: This, the date, is mentioned second to the word land, in the verse: “A land of olive oil and honey,” just after the olive, and this, the pomegranate, is fifth to the word land. Rav Ḥisda said to him admiringly: Who will give us iron legs that we may serve you and constantly hear from you novel ideas.
אִיתְּמַר: הֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵיהֶם תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לִפְנֵיהֶם וְאֵין טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לִפְנֵיהֶם וְאֵין טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: טְעוּנִין בְּרָכָה בֵּין לִפְנֵיהֶם בֵּין לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁטָּעוּן בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו וְאֵין טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרָיו אֶלָּא פַּת הַבָּאָה בְּכִסָנִין בִּלְבַד. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: פַּת פּוֹטֶרֶת כׇּל מִינֵי מַאֲכָל, וְיַיִן פּוֹטֵר כׇּל מִינֵי מַשְׁקִים.
It was stated: If they brought figs and grapes before them during a meal, what blessings need to be recited? Rav Huna said: They require a blessing before eating them, and do not require a blessing after eating them, as Grace after Meals exempts them. And so too, Rav Naḥman said: They require a blessing before eating them, and do not require a blessing after eating them. And Rav Sheshet said: They require a blessing both before eating them and after eating them, even if he ate them during the meal, as you have nothing which requires a blessing before eating it and does not require a blessing after eating it, because it is exempted by Grace after Meals, except bread, a sweetened and spiced pastry, that comes as dessert, as it, too, is a type of bread. The statements of both Rav Huna and Rav Sheshet disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Bread exempts all the types of food that one eats after it, and wine exempts all types of drinks that one drinks after it, and one need not recite a blessing either before or after eating them.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכְתָא דְּבָרִים הַבָּאִים מֵחֲמַת הַסְּעוּדָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה — אֵין טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. וְשֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַסְּעוּדָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה — טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לִפְנֵיהֶם וְאֵין טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. לְאַחַר הַסְּעוּדָה — טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה בֵּין לִפְנֵיהֶם בֵּין לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם.
Summarizing, Rav Pappa said that the halakha is: Food items that come due to the meal, which are eaten together with the bread as part of the meal, during the meal, neither require a blessing before eating them nor after eating them, as they are considered secondary to the bread. And food items like fruit, that do not come due to the meal, as part of the meal, but may be brought during the meal, require a blessing before eating them and do not require a blessing after eating them. If they come after the meal, they require a blessing both before eating them and after eating them.
שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת בֶּן זוֹמָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ דְּבָרִים הַבָּאִים מֵחֲמַת הַסְּעוּדָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה אֵינָם טְעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם? אָמַר לָהֶם: הוֹאִיל וּפַת פּוֹטַרְתָּן. אִי הָכִי, יַיִן נָמֵי נִפְטְרֵיהּ פַּת! שָׁאנֵי יַיִן
The Gemara relates that the students asked Ben Zoma: Why did the Sages say that food items that come due to the meal during the meal, neither require a blessing before eating them nor after eating them? He said to them: Because bread exempts them. They asked: If so, bread should also exempt wine. Yet, one recites a blessing over wine during the meal. The Gemara responds: Wine is different,
