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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 13, 2020 | 讬状讞 讘砖讘讟 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Berakhot 41

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?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讛讻讗 拽专讬 诇讛 谞讜讘诇讜转 住转诪讗 讜讛转诐 拽专讬 诇讛 转诪专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 谞讬转谞讬 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞讜讘诇讜转 转诪专讛 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞讜讘诇讜转 住转诪讗 拽砖讬讗:

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.

讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讬谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讬谉 砖讘注讛 注讚讬祝 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讬谉 讞讘讬讘 注讚讬祝 讗讘诇 讘砖讗讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 爪谞讜谉 讜讝讬转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛爪谞讜谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讝讬转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讛爪谞讜谉 注拽专

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讝讬转 砖讛讝讬转 诪诪讬谉 砖讘注讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 注讬拽专 讜注诪讜 讟驻诇讛 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛注讬拽专 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讟驻诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讞诪转 爪谞讜谉 讘讗 讛讝讬转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛爪谞讜谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讝讬转

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 statement.

诇注讜诇诐 讘爪谞讜谉 注讬拽专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讘诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 爪谞讜谉 讜讝讬转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛爪谞讜谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讝讬转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讛爪谞讜谉 注讬拽专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讛爪谞讜谉 注讬拽专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 砖讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讝讬转 砖讛讝讬转 诪诪讬谉 砖讘注讛

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.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讬谉 砖讘注讛 注讚讬祝 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讬谉 讞讘讬讘 注讚讬祝 讗讘诇 讘砖讗讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖讗讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖讗讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讛拽讚讬诐

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.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 讛诪讜拽讚诐 讘驻住讜拽 讝讛 诪讜拽讚诐 诇讘专讻讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗专抓 讞讟讛 讜砖注专讛 讜讙驻谉 讜转讗谞讛 讜专诪讜谉 讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖

As Rav Yosef, and some say Rabbi Yitz岣k, 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: 鈥淎 land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:8).

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜拽 讻讜诇讜 诇砖讬注讜专讬谉 谞讗诪专

The Gemara notes: And this opinion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nan. As Rabbi 岣nan said: The entire verse was stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.

讞讟讛 讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇 讻转驻讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讬讚 讛讬讛 诇讘讜砖 讻诇讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪讬讚 讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬砖讛讗 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜诇讗 驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 诪讬住讘 讜讗讜讻诇谉 讘诇驻转谉

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鈥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.

砖注专讛 讚转谞谉 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

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.

讙驻谉 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 转讗谞讛 讻讙专讜讙专转 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 专诪讜谉 讻讚转谞谉 讻诇 讻诇讬 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐

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,

砖讬注讜专谉 讻专诪讜谞讬诐

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.

讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗专抓 砖讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐 讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛谞讱 讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讗专抓 砖专讜讘 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐

A land of olive oil: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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鈥檛 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.

讚讘砖 讻讻讜转讘转 讛讙住讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讛谞讬 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 诪讬 讻转讬讘讬 讗诇讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

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.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讘住注讜讚转讗 讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 转诪专讬 讜专诪讜谞讬 砖拽诇 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘专讬讱 讗转诪专讬 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 讛诪讜拽讚诐 讘驻住讜拽 讝讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讘专讻讛

With regard to the halakhot of precedence in blessings, the Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda said to him: Does the Master not hold that halakha which Rav Yosef, and some say Rabbi Yitz岣k, 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讛 砖谞讬 诇讗专抓 讜讝讛 讞诪讬砖讬 诇讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 谞讙专讬 讚驻专讝诇讗 讜谞砖诪注讬谞讱:

Rav Hamnuna said to him: This, the date, is mentioned second to the word land, in the verse: 鈥淎 land of olive oil and honey,鈥 just after the olive, and this, the pomegranate, is fifth to the word land. Rav 岣sda said to him admiringly: Who will give us iron legs that we may serve you and constantly hear from you novel ideas.

讗讬转诪专 讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬讛诐 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讘转讜讱 讛住注讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗诇讗 驻转 讛讘讗讛 讘讻住谞讬谉 讘诇讘讚 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 驻转 驻讜讟专转 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪讗讻诇 讜讬讬谉 驻讜讟专 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪砖拽讬诐

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 Na岣an 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 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讚讘专讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛住注讜讚讛 讘转讜讱 讛住注讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讜砖诇讗 诪讞诪转 讛住注讜讚讛 讘转讜讱 讛住注讜讚讛 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 诇讗讞专 讛住注讜讚讛 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讛诐

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.

砖讗诇讜 讗转 讘谉 讝讜诪讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛住注讜讚讛 讘转讜讱 讛住注讜讚讛 讗讬谞诐 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转 驻讜讟专转谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讬讬谉 谞诪讬 谞驻讟专讬讛 驻转 砖讗谞讬 讬讬谉

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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

A Barley-Grain-Sized Piece of Bone from a Corpse

A challenging episode to title :) The idea that HaMotzi is an umbrella bracha that covers all the other required...

Berakhot 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 41

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讛讻讗 拽专讬 诇讛 谞讜讘诇讜转 住转诪讗 讜讛转诐 拽专讬 诇讛 转诪专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜砖诇讬 讻诪专讗 谞讬转谞讬 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞讜讘诇讜转 转诪专讛 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞讜讘诇讜转 住转诪讗 拽砖讬讗:

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.

讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讬谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讬谉 砖讘注讛 注讚讬祝 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讬谉 讞讘讬讘 注讚讬祝 讗讘诇 讘砖讗讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 爪谞讜谉 讜讝讬转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛爪谞讜谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讝讬转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讛爪谞讜谉 注拽专

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讝讬转 砖讛讝讬转 诪诪讬谉 砖讘注讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 注讬拽专 讜注诪讜 讟驻诇讛 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛注讬拽专 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讟驻诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讞诪转 爪谞讜谉 讘讗 讛讝讬转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛爪谞讜谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讝讬转

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 statement.

诇注讜诇诐 讘爪谞讜谉 注讬拽专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讘诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 爪谞讜谉 讜讝讬转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛爪谞讜谉 讜驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讝讬转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讛爪谞讜谉 注讬拽专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讛爪谞讜谉 注讬拽专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 砖讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讝讬转 砖讛讝讬转 诪诪讬谉 砖讘注讛

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.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讬谉 砖讘注讛 注讚讬祝 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讬谉 讞讘讬讘 注讚讬祝 讗讘诇 讘砖讗讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讘专讱 注诇 讝讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖讗讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖讗讬谉 讘专讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讛拽讚讬诐

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.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 讛诪讜拽讚诐 讘驻住讜拽 讝讛 诪讜拽讚诐 诇讘专讻讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗专抓 讞讟讛 讜砖注专讛 讜讙驻谉 讜转讗谞讛 讜专诪讜谉 讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖

As Rav Yosef, and some say Rabbi Yitz岣k, 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: 鈥淎 land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:8).

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜拽 讻讜诇讜 诇砖讬注讜专讬谉 谞讗诪专

The Gemara notes: And this opinion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nan. As Rabbi 岣nan said: The entire verse was stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.

讞讟讛 讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇 讻转驻讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讬讚 讛讬讛 诇讘讜砖 讻诇讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪讬讚 讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬砖讛讗 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜诇讗 驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 诪讬住讘 讜讗讜讻诇谉 讘诇驻转谉

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鈥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.

砖注专讛 讚转谞谉 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

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.

讙驻谉 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 转讗谞讛 讻讙专讜讙专转 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 专诪讜谉 讻讚转谞谉 讻诇 讻诇讬 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐

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,

砖讬注讜专谉 讻专诪讜谞讬诐

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.

讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗专抓 砖讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐 讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛谞讱 讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讗专抓 砖专讜讘 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐

A land of olive oil: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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鈥檛 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.

讚讘砖 讻讻讜转讘转 讛讙住讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讛谞讬 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 诪讬 讻转讬讘讬 讗诇讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

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.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讘住注讜讚转讗 讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 转诪专讬 讜专诪讜谞讬 砖拽诇 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘专讬讱 讗转诪专讬 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 讛诪讜拽讚诐 讘驻住讜拽 讝讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讘专讻讛

With regard to the halakhot of precedence in blessings, the Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda said to him: Does the Master not hold that halakha which Rav Yosef, and some say Rabbi Yitz岣k, 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讛 砖谞讬 诇讗专抓 讜讝讛 讞诪讬砖讬 诇讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 谞讙专讬 讚驻专讝诇讗 讜谞砖诪注讬谞讱:

Rav Hamnuna said to him: This, the date, is mentioned second to the word land, in the verse: 鈥淎 land of olive oil and honey,鈥 just after the olive, and this, the pomegranate, is fifth to the word land. Rav 岣sda said to him admiringly: Who will give us iron legs that we may serve you and constantly hear from you novel ideas.

讗讬转诪专 讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬讛诐 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讘转讜讱 讛住注讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗诇讗 驻转 讛讘讗讛 讘讻住谞讬谉 讘诇讘讚 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 驻转 驻讜讟专转 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪讗讻诇 讜讬讬谉 驻讜讟专 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪砖拽讬诐

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 Na岣an 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 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讚讘专讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛住注讜讚讛 讘转讜讱 讛住注讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讜砖诇讗 诪讞诪转 讛住注讜讚讛 讘转讜讱 讛住注讜讚讛 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 诇讗讞专 讛住注讜讚讛 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讛诐

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.

砖讗诇讜 讗转 讘谉 讝讜诪讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛住注讜讚讛 讘转讜讱 讛住注讜讚讛 讗讬谞诐 讟注讜谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转 驻讜讟专转谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讬讬谉 谞诪讬 谞驻讟专讬讛 驻转 砖讗谞讬 讬讬谉

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,

Scroll To Top