ברכות לה

ברכות לה

מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מְבָרְכִין עַל הַפֵּירוֹת? עַל פֵּירוֹת הָאִילָן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״, חוּץ מִן הַיַּיִן, שֶׁעַל הַיַּיִן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן״. וְעַל פֵּירוֹת הָאָרֶץ הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, חוּץ מִן הַפַּת, שֶׁעַל הַפַּת הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הַמּוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ״. וְעַל הַיְּרָקוֹת הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי דְשָׁאִים״.

MISHNA: This mishna discusses the blessings recited over various foods. How does one recite a blessing over fruits? Over different fruits that grow on a tree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine. Although wine is produced from fruit of the tree, due to its significance, its blessing differs from other fruits of the tree. Over wine one recites: Who creates fruit of the vine. Over fruits that grow from the earth, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, with the exception of bread. Bread, too, is significant and its blessing differs from other fruits of the ground, as over bread one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Over herbs and leafy vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Rabbi Yehuda says that there is room to distinguish between fruits that grow from the earth, herbs, and leafy vegetables. Although they are all fruit of the ground, since they have different qualities, the blessing on the latter is: Who creates various kinds of herbs.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים לַה׳״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִים בְּרָכָה לִפְנֵיהֶם וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם כְּלוּם קוֹדֶם שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ.

GEMARA: Concerning the fundamental basis for blessings, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters, the obligation to recite a blessing before eating, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in the Sifra: With regard to saplings, it is stated that in their fourth year their fruit will be: “…sanctified for praises before the Lord” (Leviticus 19:24). This verse teaches that they require praise of God in the form of a blessing both beforehand and thereafter, as the verse says praises in the plural. From here, Rabbi Akiva said: A person is forbidden to taste anything before he recites a blessing, as without reciting praise over food, it has the status of a consecrated item, from which one is forbidden to derive pleasure.

וְהַאי ״קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ חַד דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא אַחֲלֵיהּ וַהֲדַר אִכְלֵיהּ. וְאִידָךְ דָּבָר הַטָּעוּן שִׁירָה, טָעוּן חִלּוּל, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ טָעוּן שִׁירָה, אֵין טָעוּן חִלּוּל. וְכִדְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה אֶלָּא עַל הַיַּיִן? — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַגֶּפֶן הֶחֳדַלְתִּי אֶת תִּירוֹשִׁי הַמְשַׂמֵּחַ אֱלֹהִים וַאֲנָשִׁים״, אִם אֲנָשִׁים מְשַׂמֵּחַ, אֱלֹהִים בַּמֶּה מְשַׂמֵּחַ? מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה אֶלָּא עַל הַיַּיִן!

The Gemara asks: And did this verse: “Sanctified for praises,” come for that purpose? This verse is necessary to derive other matters. One being that the Merciful One said: Redeem it and then eat it. This midrash interprets hillul, praise, as ḥillul, redemption. And the other matter derived from this verse is: An object which is offered upon the altar and requires a song of praise when it is offered, as is the case with the libation of wine, requires redemption. And that which does not require a song of praise, all other fruits, does not require redemption. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that one only recites a song of praise in the Temple over the libation of wine on the altar? As it is stated: “And the vine replied: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and man, and go and wave above the trees?” (Judges 9:13). If wine gladdens people, in what way does it gladden God? Rather, derive from here that one only recites a song of praise over wine, as wine gladdens God when offered as part of the service in the Temple.In any case, other halakhot have been derived from this verse. From where, then, is the requirement to recite blessings derived?

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּתָנֵי ״נֶטַע רְבָעִי״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּתָנֵי ״כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי״ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּאִתְּמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי, חַד תָּנֵי ״כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי״, וְחַד תָּנֵי ״נֶטַע רְבָעִי״.

Indeed, this works out well according to the one who taught, as a rule: A fourth-year sapling in the mishnayot dealing with the prohibition to eat fruits produced during the first three years of a tree’s existence and the sanctity of the fruit produced in its fourth year; as, in his opinion, fourth-year fruits that grow on all trees must be redeemed. However, according to the one who taught, as a rule: A fourth-year grapevine, what can be said? Indeed, he derives the halakha that only wine that is accompanied by a song of praise requires redemption, from the interpretation of hillul as ḥillul. As it was stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one taught these mishnayot using the term: A fourth-year grapevine, and one taught using the term: A fourth-year sapling.

וּלְמַאן דְּתָנֵי ״כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי״ הָנִיחָא אִי יָלֵיף גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְהוֹסִיף לָכֶם תְּבוּאָתוֹ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וּתְבוּאַת הַכָּרֶם״. מָה לְהַלָּן כֶּרֶם, אַף כָּאן כֶּרֶם. אִייַּתַּר לֵיהּ חַד ״הִלּוּל״ לִבְרָכָה.

And according to the one who taught: A fourth year grapevine, this works out well if he derives this matter from a verbal analogy [gezera shava], and therefore need not derive this halakha from the term hillulim. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is stated here with regard to the laws of the prohibition of fruit for the tree’s first three years: “But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, so that it may increase your produce [tevuato]; I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:25). And it is stated below, with regard to the laws of diverse kinds: “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the growth of the seed that you have sown be forfeited with the produce [utevuat] of the vineyard” (Deuteronomy 22:9). Based on a verbal analogy, it can be derived: Just as below, with regard to the laws of diverse kinds, the produce is that which grows in vineyards; so too, here, with regard to the halakhot of the fruits of a sapling, the produce is that which grows in vineyards. Consequently, according to the one who holds this verbal analogy, one extra hillul remains from which to derive the blessing. Since he derives that the laws of fourth-year saplings apply only to grapes from the verbal analogy, he can derive the requirement to recite blessings before partaking of food from the word hillulim.

וְאִי לָא יָלֵיף גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, בְּרָכָה מְנָא לֵיהּ? וְאִי נָמֵי יָלֵיף גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, אַשְׁכְּחַן לְאַחֲרָיו, לְפָנָיו מִנַּיִן?

And if he does not derive this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, he must derive this halakha from the term hillulim, in which case, from where does he derive the mitzva to recite a blessing before partaking of food? And even if he derives this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, we found a source for the obligation to recite a blessing after eating, similar to the obligation stated in the verse: “And you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.” However, from where is it derived that there is an obligation to recite a blessing beforehand? From one hillul, the fundamental halakha of redemption of fourth-year saplings is derived.

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר: כְּשֶׁהוּא שָׂבֵעַ מְבָרֵךְ, כְּשֶׁהוּא רָעֵב — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.

The Gemara answers this: This is not difficult, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If when he is satiated, after eating, he is obligated to recite a blessing over food, when he is hungry, before eating, all the more so that he is obligated to recite a blessing over food.

אַשְׁכְּחַן כֶּרֶם, שְׁאָר מִינִין מִנַּיִן?

The Gemara comments: In that way, we found a source for the obligation to recite a blessing over the produce of vineyards, but from where is it derived with regard to other types of produce?

דְּיָלֵיף מִכֶּרֶם: מָה כֶּרֶם דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה וְטָעוּן בְּרָכָה, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה — טָעוּן בְּרָכָה.

The Gemara responds: It is derived by means of the hermeneutic principle: What do we find, from the produce of a vineyard: Just as the fruit of the vineyard is an item from which one derives benefit and it requires a blessing, so too, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing.

אִיכָּא לְמִפְרַךְ: מָה לְכֶרֶם שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת!

The Gemara rejects this proof: This derivation can be refuted, as a vineyard is unique: What is unique about a vineyard, that it is obligated in the mitzva requiring to give small, incomplete clusters of grapes [olelot] to the poor? That is a stringency that does not apply to other fruits. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grapes.

קָמָה תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְקָמָה שֶׁכֵּן חַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה!

The Gemara answers: In that case, standing grain can prove that the halakha of olelot is not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. One is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing after eating bread, even though the halakha of olelot does not apply to grain. The Gemara rejects this proof: What is unique about ripe grain, that it is obligated in the mitzva of separating ḥalla from the dough? That is a stringency that does not apply to other foods. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grain.

כֶּרֶם יוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין: לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן: דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה וְטָעוּן בְּרָכָה, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה — טָעוּן בְּרָכָה.

The Gemara responds: In that regard, vineyards can prove that the halakha of ḥalla is not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. In summary: And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. However, at this point the halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this is not like the aspect of that, and the aspect of that is not like the aspect of this; the common denominator is: Both are items from which one derives benefit and each requires a blessing. A general principle may be derived: So too, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing.

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בּוֹ צַד מִזְבֵּחַ. וְאָתֵי נָמֵי זַיִת דְּאִית בֵּיהּ צַד מִזְבֵּחַ.

Again, the Gemara objects: What is unique about the common denominator between grapes and grain that prevents utilizing it as a paradigm for other food items? Grapes and grain have an aspect of being offered upon the altar, and perhaps that is the reason that they require blessings. Based on that reasoning, although all other food items cannot be derived from the common denominator, an olive may also be derived as it too has an aspect of being offered upon the altar, as olive oil is one of the components of a meal offering.

וְזַיִת מִצַּד מִזְבֵּחַ אָתֵי? וְהָא בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״כֶּרֶם״, דִּכְתִיב ״וַיַּבְעֵר מִגָּדִישׁ וְעַד קָמָה וְעַד כֶּרֶם זָיִת״. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״כֶּרֶם זַיִת״ אִקְּרֵי, ״כֶּרֶם״ סְתָמָא לָא אִקְּרֵי.

The Gemara questions this point: Is an olive derived from the fact that it has an aspect of being offered upon the altar? Isn’t it written explicitly with regard to the olive listed that the orchard in which it grows is called kerem; as it is written: “And burnt up from the shocks and the standing grain and the olive yards [kerem zayit]” (Judges 15:5)? Just as the orchard in which grapes grow is called kerem, and grapes require a blessing, the olive also grows in a kerem and should require a blessing. Rav Pappa said: Nevertheless, an analogy may not be drawn between the two; where the olive grows is called kerem zayit, it is not called kerem unmodified, which is a term reserved for grapevines.

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד מִזְבֵּחַ! אֶלָּא, דְּיָלֵיף לַהּ מִשִּׁבְעַת הַמִּינִין: מָה שִׁבְעַת הַמִּינִין דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה וְטָעוּן בְּרָכָה, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה טָעוּן בְּרָכָה.

The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, noting that in any case, it is difficult: What is unique about the common denominator between grapes and grain? That they possess an aspect of being offered upon the altar. Rather, it is derived from the obligation to recite a blessing upon the seven species. After the verse speaks of the seven species, it states: “And you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.” This is a paradigm for all other foods, that they too require a blessing: Just as the seven species are items from which one derives benefit and require a blessing, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing.

מָה לְשִׁבְעַת הַמִּינִין שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין בְּבִכּוּרִים? וְעוֹד: הָתִינַח לְאַחֲרָיו, לְפָנָיו מִנַּיִן?

Again, the Gemara rejects this: What is unique about the seven species? That one is obligated in the mitzva of first fruits. However, other produce with regard to which one is not obligated in the mitzva of first fruits, from where is it derived that they require a blessing? Furthermore, even if the seven species can serve as a paradigm, this works out well with regard to the blessing thereafter; but from where is the obligation to recite a blessing beforehand derived?

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא דְּאָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר: כְּשֶׁהוּא שָׂבֵעַ מְבָרֵךְ, כְּשֶׁהוּא רָעֵב — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.

The Gemara responds to the question: This is not difficult, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If when he is satiated, after eating, he is obligated to recite a blessing over food, when he is hungry, before eating, all the more so he is obligated to recite a blessing over food.

וּלְמַאן דְּתָנֵי ״נֶטַע רְבָעִי״, הָא תִּינַח כֹּל דְּבַר נְטִיעָה. דְּלָאו בַּר נְטִיעָה, כְּגוֹן בָּשָׂר בֵּיצִים וְדָגִים מְנָא לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא סְבָרָא הוּא: אָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיֵּהָנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה.

In any case, this is not an absolute proof. Furthermore, even according to the one who taught: A fourth-year sapling in all the relevant mishnayot, it works out well with regard to everything that can be planted, that one is obligated to recite a blessing. However, with regard to items that cannot be planted, such as meat, eggs, and fish, from where does he derive the halakha that one is obligated to recite a blessing? Rather, all previous attempts at deriving this halakha are rejected. The fundamental obligation to recite a blessing over food is founded on reason: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world without a blessing.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיֵּהָנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה. וְכׇל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה מָעַל. מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? — יֵלֵךְ אֵצֶל חָכָם.

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world, which is the property of God, without reciting a blessing beforehand. And anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he is guilty of misuse of a consecrated object. The Gemara adds: What is his remedy? He should go to a Sage.

יֵלֵךְ אֵצֶל חָכָם?! מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? הָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ אִיסּוּרָא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: יֵלֵךְ אֵצֶל חָכָם מֵעִיקָּרָא וִילַמְּדֶנּוּ בְּרָכוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לִידֵי מְעִילָה.

The Gemara is puzzled: He should go to a Sage; what will he do to him? How can the Sage help after he has already violated a prohibition? Rather, Rava said, this is how it should be understood: He should go to a Sage initially, in his youth, and the Sage will teach him blessings, so that he will not come to be guilty of this type of misuse of a consecrated object in the future.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה כְּאִילּוּ נֶהֱנָה מִקׇּדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״. רַבִּי לֵוִי רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״, וּכְתִיב ״הַשָּׁמַיִם שָׁמַיִם לַה׳ וְהָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִבְנֵי אָדָם״! לָא קַשְׁיָא כָּאן קוֹדֶם בְּרָכָה,

Similarly, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he enjoyed objects consecrated to the heavens, as it is stated: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s, the world and all those who live in it” (Psalms 24:1). Rabbi Levi expressed this concept differently. Rabbi Levi raised a contradiction: It is written: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s,” and it is written elsewhere: “The heavens are the Lord’s and the earth He has given over to mankind” (Psalms 115:16). There is clearly a contradiction with regard to whom the earth belongs. He himself resolves the contradiction: This is not difficult. Here, the verse that says that the earth is the Lord’s refers to the situation before a blessing is recited,

כָּאן לְאַחַר בְּרָכָה.

and here, where it says that He gave the earth to mankind refers to after a blessing is recited.

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: כׇּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה כְּאִילּוּ גּוֹזֵל לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּכְנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גּוֹזֵל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְאוֹמֵר אֵין פָּשַׁע חָבֵר הוּא לְאִישׁ מַשְׁחִית״. וְאֵין ״אָבִיו״ אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲלֹא הוּא אָבִיךְ קָּנֶךָ״, וְאֵין ״אִמּוֹ״ אֶלָּא כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׁמַע בְּנִי מוּסַר אָבִיךָ וְאַל תִּטּוֹשׁ תּוֹרַת אִמֶּךָ״.

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: Anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he stole from God and the community of Israel, as it is stated: “Whoever robs his father and his mother and says: It is no transgression, he is the companion of a destroyer” (Proverbs 28:24). The phrase, his father, refers to none other than God, as it is stated: “Is He not your Father Who created you, Who made you and established you” (Deuteronomy 32:6). The phrase his mother refers to none other than the community of Israel, as it is stated: “Hear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the Torah of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). The mention of the Torah as emanating from the mouth of the mother, apparently means that your mother is the community of Israel.

מַאי ״חָבֵר הוּא לְאִישׁ מַשְׁחִית״? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: חָבֵר הוּא לְיָרׇבְעָם בֶּן נְבָט שֶׁהִשְׁחִית אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם.

What is the meaning of the continuation of the verse: He is the companion of a destroyer? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: He is a companion of Jeroboam ben Nevat, who corrupted Israel before their Father in heaven by sinning and causing others to sin.

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״וְלָקַחְתִּי דְגָנִי בְּעִתּוֹ וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב ״וְאָסַפְתָּ דְגָנֶךָ וְגוֹ׳״.

On a similar note, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa raised a contradiction: It is written, “I will take back My grain at its time and wine in its season” (Hosea 2:11), and it is written: “And you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil” (Deuteronomy 11:14). To whom does the grain belong: To God, or to the people?

לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם.

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, where God promises Israel that they will gather their grain, the verse refers to a time when they perform God’s will. Here, where the verse indicates that the grain belongs to God, it refers to a time when they do not perform God’s will, as then He will take back the grain, demonstrating that it belongs to Him.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאָסַפְתָּ דְגָנֶךָ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? — לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ״ — יָכוֹל דְּבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאָסַפְתָּ דְגָנֶךָ״ — הַנְהֵג בָּהֶן מִנְהַג דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

The Sages taught: What is the meaning of that which the verse states: “And you shall gather your grain”? Because it is stated: “This Torah shall not depart from your mouths, and you shall contemplate in it day and night” (Joshua 1:8), I might have thought that these matters are to be understood as they are written; one is to literally spend his days immersed exclusively in Torah study. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil,” assume in their regard, the way of the world; set aside time not only for Torah, but also for work. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: אֶפְשָׁר אָדָם חוֹרֵשׁ בִּשְׁעַת חֲרִישָׁה, וְזוֹרֵעַ בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיעָה, וְקוֹצֵר בִּשְׁעַת קְצִירָה, וְדָשׁ בִּשְׁעַת דִּישָׁה, וְזוֹרֶה בִּשְׁעַת הָרוּחַ, תּוֹרָה מַה תְּהֵא עָלֶיהָ? אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם — מְלַאכְתָּן נַעֲשֵׂית עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָמְדוּ זָרִים וְרָעוּ צֹאנְכֶם וְגוֹ׳״, וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם — מְלַאכְתָּן נַעֲשֵׂית עַל יְדֵי עַצְמָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָסַפְתָּ דְגָנֶךָ״. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּלֶאכֶת אֲחֵרִים נַעֲשֵׂית עַל יָדָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָבַדְתָּ אֶת אוֹיְבֶךָ וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Is it possible that a person plows in the plowing season and sows in the sowing season and harvests in the harvest season and threshes in the threshing season and winnows in the windy season, as grain is separated from the chaff by means of the wind, and is constantly busy; what will become of Torah? Rather, one must dedicate himself exclusively to Torah at the expense of other endeavors; as when Israel performs God’s will, their work is performed by others, as it is stated: “And strangers will stand and feed your flocks, and foreigners will be your plowmen and your vinedressers” (Isaiah 61:5). When Israel does not perform God’s will, their work is performed by them themselves, as it is stated: “And you shall gather your grain.” Moreover, if Israel fails to perform God’s will, others’ work will be performed by them, as it is stated: “You shall serve your enemy whom God shall send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness and in want of all things” (Deuteronomy 28:48).

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַרְבֵּה עָשׂוּ כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְעָלְתָה בְּיָדָן. כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, וְלֹא עָלְתָה בְּיָדָן.

Summing up this dispute, Abaye said: Although there is room for both opinions, many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and combined working for a living and learning Torah, and although they engaged in activities other than the study of Torah, were successful in their Torah study. Many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai and were not successful in their Torah study. They were ultimately forced to abandon their Torah study altogether.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא לְרַבָּנַן: בְּמָטוּתָא מִינַּיְיכוּ, בְּיוֹמֵי נִיסָן וּבְיוֹמֵי תִּשְׁרֵי לָא תִּתְחֲזוֹ קַמַּאי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּטַּרְדוּ בִּמְזוֹנַיְיכוּ כּוּלָּא שַׁתָּא.

Similarly, Rava said to the Sages who would attend his study hall: I implore you; during the months of Nisan and Tishrei, the crucial agricultural periods, do not appear before me. Engage in your agricultural work then so that you will not be preoccupied with your sustenance all year.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים דּוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. דּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עָשׂוּ תּוֹרָתָן קֶבַע וּמְלַאכְתָּן עֲרַאי, זוֹ וָזוֹ נִתְקַיְּימָה בְּיָדָן. דּוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁעָשׂוּ מְלַאכְתָּן קֶבַע וְתוֹרָתָן עֲרַאי, זוֹ וָזוֹ לֹא נִתְקַיְּימָה בְּיָדָן.

Summarizing these statements, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of the tanna Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El’ai: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations; rather they are their inferiors. The earlier generations made their Torah permanent and their work occasional, and this, Torah study, and that, their work, were successful for them. However, the latter generations who made their work permanent and their Torah occasional, neither this nor that was successful for them.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים דּוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. דּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן דֶּרֶךְ טְרַקְסְמוֹן כְּדֵי לְחַיְּיבָן בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, דּוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים מַכְנִיסִין פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת, דֶּרֶךְ חֲצֵרוֹת, דֶּרֶךְ קַרְפֵּיפוֹת, כְּדֵי לְפׇטְרָן מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵין הַטֶּבֶל מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה פְּנֵי הַבַּיִת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּעַרְתִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן הַבַּיִת״.

Along these lines, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El’ai: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations. In the earlier generations, people would bring their fruits into their courtyards through the main gate in order to obligate them in tithes. However, the latter generations bring their fruits through roofs, through courtyards and through enclosed courtyards, avoiding the main gate in order to exempt them from the mitzva of tithing. As Rabbi Yannai said: Untithed produce is not obligated in the mitzva of tithing until it sees the front of the house through which people enter and exit, and it is brought into the house that way as it is stated in the formula of the confession of the tithes: “I have removed the consecrated from the house” (Deuteronomy 26:13), as the obligation to tithe produce whose purpose has not yet been designated takes effect only when it is brought into the house.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר קוֹבַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָכְלוּ בִשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְשָׂבֵעוּ״.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even bringing it into the courtyard determines its status as having completed the production process and obligates the produce to be tithed, as it is written in the confession of the tithes: “And I have given to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow, and they shall eat in your gates and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:12).

חוּץ מִן הַיַּיִן וְכוּ׳: מַאי שְׁנָא יַיִן? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי לְעִלּוּיָא אִשְׁתַּנִּי לִבְרָכָה, וַהֲרֵי שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי לְעִלּוּיָא וְלָא אִשְׁתַּנִּי לִבְרָכָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁמֶן זַיִת מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״.

We learned in our mishna: Over fruits that grow on a tree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine that even though it originates from fruit of the tree, a separate blessing was established for it: Who creates the fruit of the vine. The Gemara asks: What is different about wine, that a separate blessing was established for it? If you say that because the fruit changed for the better into wine, therefore, the blessing changed. Olive oil changed for the better and nevertheless, its blessing did not change. As Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Over olive oil, one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, just as he does over the fruit itself.

אָמְרִי: הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר. הֵיכִי נְבָרֵיךְ? נְבָרֵיךְ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַזַּיִת״ — פֵּירָא גּוּפֵיהּ ״זַיִת״ אִקְּרִי.

The Sages said: There, in the case of oil, it is because it is impossible to find an appropriate blessing, as how shall we recite the blessing? If we recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive, the fruit itself is called olive and that is what was created. The oil is a man-made product of that fruit, rendering that formula inappropriate. Similarly, reciting a formula parallel to the blessing on wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine, is inappropriate as the grapes themselves are the fruit that was created, as opposed to oil which was not.

וּנְבָרֵיךְ עֲלֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי עֵץ זַיִת״? אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: חַמְרָא — זָיֵין, מִשְׁחָא — לָא זָיֵין.

The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, it is still possible to formulate a blessing, as we may recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive tree, which would be parallel to the blessing recited over wine. Rather, Mar Zutra offered a different rationale: The reason that no separate blessing was established over oil is because, as opposed to wine that nourishes, oil does not nourish.

וּמִשְׁחָא לָא זָיֵין? וְהָתְנַן הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמָּזוֹן — מוּתָּר בַּמַּיִם וּבַמֶּלַח. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַיִם וּמֶלַח הוּא דְּלָא אִקְּרִי ״מָזוֹן״, הָא כׇּל מִילֵּי אִקְּרִי ״מָזוֹן״.

The Gemara asks: And oil does not nourish? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One who vows that nourishment is forbidden to him is permitted to eat water and salt, as they are not considered nourishment. And we discussed this halakha: By inference, water and salt are not considered nourishment, but all other edible items are considered nourishment.

נֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמְרִי אֵין מְבָרְכִין ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״ אֶלָּא בַּחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין בִּלְבַד. וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״כׇּל הַזָּן עָלַי״.

Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rav and Shmuel, who said: One only recites: Who creates various kinds of nourishment, over the five species of grain alone, as they alone are considered nourishing. And Rav Huna said as a solution that this mishna referred to a case where he vows and says: Anything that nourishes is prohibited to me. That formula includes anything that is at all nourishing and therefore only water and salt are excluded. Olive oil is not excluded.

אַלְמָא מִשְׁחָא זָיֵין! אֶלָּא, חַמְרָא סָעֵיד, וּמִשְׁחָא לָא סָעֵיד. וְחַמְרָא מִי סָעֵיד? וְהָא רָבָא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי חַמְרָא כׇּל מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְפִסְחָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנִגְרְרֵיהּ לְלִבֵּיהּ וְנֵיכוֹל מַצָּה טְפֵי? טוּבָא — גָּרֵיר, פּוּרְתָּא — סָעֵיד.

Apparently, oil nourishes. Rather, there is another distinction between wine and oil: Wine satisfies, oil does not satisfy. Wine not only nourishes, but it is also filling. The Gemara asks: And does wine satisfy? Wouldn’t Rava drink wine all day on the eve of Passover in order to stimulate his heart, i.e., whet his appetite so that he might eat more matza at the seder? Wine does not satisfy, it whets the appetite. The Gemara answers: A lot of wine stimulates, a little satisfies.

וּמִי סָעֵיד כְּלָל?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְיַיִן יְשַׂמַּח לְבַב אֱנוֹשׁ וְלֶחֶם לְבַב אֱנוֹשׁ יִסְעָד וְגוֹ׳״ — נַהֲמָא הוּא דְּסָעֵיד חַמְרָא לָא סָעֵיד! אֶלָּא, חַמְרָא אִית בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי: סָעֵיד וּמְשַׂמַּח. נַהֲמָא מִסְעָד סָעֵיד, שַׂמּוֹחֵי לָא מְשַׂמַּח.

Again, the Gemara asks: Does wine satisfy at all? Isn’t it written: “Wine gladdens the heart of man, making the face brighter than oil, and bread fills man’s heart” (Psalms 104:15); bread is that which satisfies, wine does not satisfy. Rather, this verse is not a proof; wine has two advantages, it satisfies and gladdens. Bread, however, satisfies but does not gladden.

אִי הָכִי נְבָרֵיךְ עֲלֵיהּ שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרָכוֹת! לָא קָבְעִי אִינָשֵׁי סְעוֹדְתַּיְיהוּ עִלָּוֵיהּ.

Since wine possesses all of these virtues, the Gemara asks: If so, let us recite the three blessings of Grace after Meals over it after drinking, just as we do after eating bread. The Gemara answers: People do not base their meals on wine.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: אִי קָבַע עִלָּוֵיהּ סְעוֹדְתֵּיהּ מַאי? אָמַר לֵיהּ: לִכְשֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר אִי הָוֵי קְבִיעוּתָא. הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא בָּטְלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: If one based his meal on it, what is the ruling? Must he recite the Grace after Meals as he does after bread? He replied: When Elijah comes and says whether or not it can serve as the basis for a meal, this will be resolved. Nevertheless, now, until then, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other men and he is not required to recite the complete Grace after Meals.

גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁמֶן זַיִת מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָא שָׁתֵי לֵיהּ מִשְׁתָּא — אוֹזוֹקֵי מַזִּיק לֵיהּ. דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹתֶה שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה — מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. הַסָּךְ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה — מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וּמְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ.

Previously, the Gemara cited the halakha that one recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil. The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil just as he does over the fruit itself. What are the circumstances? If you say that he drank it plain, it causes damage to the drinker. As it was taught in a baraita: One who drinks oil of teruma, while unaware that it was teruma, pays the principal and does not pay the additional fifth which is the typical penalty for unintentional misuse of consecrated property, as in that case the individual is considered to have only damaged consecrated property without deriving benefit from it. One who anoints his body with the oil of teruma pays the principal and pays the fifth, as he derived benefit from it. Apparently, one who drinks oil derives no benefit and it even causes him damage.

אֶלָּא דְּקָא אָכֵיל לֵיהּ עַל יְדֵי פַּת. אִי הָכִי, הָוְיָא לֵיהּ פַּת עִיקָּר וְהוּא טָפֵל. וּתְנַן, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא עִיקָּר וְעִמּוֹ טְפֵלָה — מְבָרֵךְ עַל הָעִיקָּר וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵלָה! אֶלָּא דְּקָא שָׁתֵי לֵיהּ עַל יְדֵי ״אֲנִיגְרוֹן״, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״אֲנִיגְרוֹן״ — מַיָּא דְסִלְקָא, ״אַנְסִיגְרוֹן״ — מַיָּא

Rather, it is referring to a case where he eats the oil by dipping bread into it. If so, the bread is primary and the oil secondary, and we learned in a mishna: This is the principle: 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. A blessing need only be recited over the bread, not over the oil. Rather, it is referring to a case where he is drinking it by means of an anigeron, as Rabba bar Shmuel said: Anigeron is water in which a beet was boiled, ansigeron is the water