in which all boiled vegetables were boiled. A certain amount of oil is added to anigeron.
אִם כֵּן, הָוֵה לֵיהּ אֲנִיגְרוֹן עִיקָּר וְשֶׁמֶן טָפֵל, וּתְנַן, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא עִיקָּר וְעִמּוֹ טְפֵלָה, מְבָרֵךְ עַל הָעִיקָּר וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵלָה!
However, if so, here too, anigeron is primary and oil is secondary, and we learned in a mishna: This is the principle: Any food that is primary, and it 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. One need recite a blessing only over the anigeron.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּחוֹשֵׁשׁ בִּגְרוֹנוֹ. דְּתַנְיָא: הַחוֹשֵׁשׁ בִּגְרוֹנוֹ לֹא יְעָרְעֶנּוּ בְּשֶׁמֶן תְּחִלָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶן הַרְבֵּה לְתוֹךְ אֲנִיגְרוֹן וּבוֹלֵעַ.
The Gemara reconciles: With what are we dealing here? With one who has a sore throat, which he is treating with oil. As it was taught in a baraita: One who has a sore throat should not, ab initio, gargle oil on Shabbat for medicinal purposes, as doing so would violate the decree prohibiting the use of medicine on Shabbat. However, he may, even ab initio, add a large amount of oil to the anigeron and swallow it. Since it is common practice to swallow oil either alone or with a secondary ingredient like anigeron for medicinal purposes, in this case one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלִרְפוּאָה קָא מְכַוֵּין לָא לְבָרֵיךְ עֲלֵיהּ כְּלָל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ הֲנָאָה מִינֵּיהּ, בָּעֵי בָּרוֹכֵי.
The Gemara challenges: This is obvious that one must recite a blessing. The Gemara responds: Lest you say: Since he intends to use it for medicinal purposes, let him not recite a blessing over it at all, as one does not recite a blessing before taking medicine. Therefore, it teaches us that, since he derived pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing over it.
קִמְחָא דְחִיטֵּי, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״.
The Gemara clarifies: If one was eating plain wheat flour, what blessing would he recite? Rav Yehuda said that one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and Rav Naḥman said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: לָא תִּפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּשְׁמוּאֵל קָיְימִי כְּווֹתֵיהּ. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁמֶן זַיִת מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״. אַלְמָא: אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי — בְּמִלְּתֵיהּ קָאֵי. הָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי — בְּמִלְּתֵיהּ קָאֵי.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Do not disagree with Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Yoḥanan and Shmuel hold in accordance with his opinion, even though they addressed another topic. As 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. Consequently, even though the olive has changed into olive oil, the formula of the blessing remains as it was. This too, even though the wheat has changed into flour, its blessing remains as it was: Who creates fruit of the ground.
מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם — לֵית לֵיהּ עִלּוּיָא אַחֲרִינָא, הָכָא — אִית לֵיהּ עִלּוּיָא אַחֲרִינָא בְּפַת.
The Gemara responds: Is it comparable? There, the olive oil has no potential for additional enhancement, while here, the flour has the potential for additional enhancement as bread. Since oil is the olive’s finished product, one should recite the same blessing over it as over the tree itself. Wheat flour, on the other hand, is used to bake bread, so the flour is a raw material for which neither the blessing over wheat nor the blessing over bread is appropriate. Only the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be is appropriate.
וְכִי אִית לֵיהּ עִלּוּיָא אַחֲרִינָא לָא מְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״ אֶלָּא ״שֶׁהַכֹּל״? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אַקָּרָא חַיָּיא וְקִמְחָא דִשְׂעָרֵי מְבָרְכִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. מַאי לָאו דְּחִיטֵּי בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה!
The Gemara asks: When it has a potential for additional enhancement, one does not recite: Who creates fruit of the ground; rather one recites: By Whose word all things came to be? Didn’t Rabbi Zeira say that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Over a raw gourd and over barley flour, one recites the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. What, is that not to say that over wheat flour one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground? Over barley flour, which people do not typically eat, it is appropriate to recite: By Whose word all things came to be. Over wheat flour, it is appropriate to recite: Who creates fruit of the ground.
לָא, דְּחִיטֵּי נָמֵי ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ״.
This argument is rejected: No, one also recites: By Whose word all things came to be, over wheat flour.
וְלַשְׁמְעִינַן דְּחִיטֵּי וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דִּשְׂעָרֵי!
The Gemara asks: Then let the Sages teach us that this halakha applies with regard to wheat flour, and all the more so regarding barley flour as well.
אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן דְּחִיטֵּי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּחִיטֵּי, אֲבָל דִּשְׂעָרֵי לָא לְבָרֵיךְ עֲלֵיהּ כְּלָל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara responds: It was necessary to teach us that one must recite a blessing even before eating barley flour. Had the Sages taught us this halakha with regard to wheat, I would have said: This applies only with regard to wheat flour, but over barley flour, let one not recite a blessing at all. Therefore, it teaches us that one recites a blessing over barley flour.
וּמִי גָּרַע מִמֶּלַח וְזָמִית, דִּתְנַן עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הַזָּמִית אוֹמֵר ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא מֶלַח וְזָמִית עָבֵיד אִינָשׁ דְּשָׁדֵי לְפוּמֵּיהּ, אֲבָל קִמְחָא דִשְׂעָרֵי הוֹאִיל וְקָשֶׁה לְקוּקְיָאנֵי, לָא לְבָרֵיךְ עֲלֵיהּ כְּלָל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ הֲנָאָה מִינֵּיהּ בָּעֵי בָּרוֹכֵי.
The Gemara challenges this explanation. How could one have considered that possibility? Is it inferior to salt and salt water [zamit]? As we learned in a mishna that over salt and salt water one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, and all the more so it should be recited over barley flour. This question is rejected: Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach the halakha regarding barley flour, as it might enter your mind to say: Although one occasionally places salt or salt water into his mouth, barley flour, which is damaging to one who eats it and causes intestinal worms, let one recite no blessing over it at all. Therefore, it teaches us, since one derives pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing.
קוֹרָא, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״.
Another dispute over the appropriate blessing is with regard to the heart of palm [kura], which is a thin membrane covering young palm branches that was often eaten. Rav Yehuda said that one should recite: Who creates fruit of the ground. And Shmuel, Rav Yehuda’s teacher, said that one should recite: By Whose word all things came to be.
רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, פֵּירָא הוּא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ״, הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת.
Rav Yehuda said: Who creates fruit of the ground; it is a fruit. And Shmuel said: By Whose word all things came to be, since it will ultimately harden and it is considered part of the tree, not a fruit.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא, כְּווֹתָךְ מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּהָא צְנוֹן סוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת וּמְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״. וְלָא הִיא: צְנוֹן נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְפוּגְלָא, דִּקְלָא לָא נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְקוֹרָא.
Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana. It is reasonable to rule in accordance with your opinion, as a radish ultimately hardens if left in the ground; nevertheless, one who eats it while it is soft recites over it: Who creates fruit of the ground. In any case, despite this praise, the Gemara states: That is not so; people plant a radish with the soft radish in mind. However, people do not plant palm trees with the heart of palm in mind and therefore it cannot be considered a fruit.
וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּלָא נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא מְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ? וַהֲרֵי צָלָף, דְּנָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְפִרְחָא, וּתְנַן: עַל מִינֵי נִצְפָּה, עַל הֶעָלִין וְעַל הַתְּמָרוֹת אוֹמֵר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, וְעַל הָאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְעַל הַקַּפְרֵיסִין אוֹמֵר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״.
In response to this, the Gemara asks: And whenever people do not plant with that result in mind, one does not recite a blessing over it? What of the caper-bush that people plant with their fruit in mind, and we learned in a mishna that with regard to the parts of the caper-bush [nitzpa], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree. This indicates that even over leaves and various other parts of the tree that are secondary to the fruit, the blessing is: Who creates fruit of the ground, and not: By Whose word all things came to be.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: צָלָף נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְשׁוּתָא, דִּקְלָא לָא נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְקוֹרָא. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקַלְּסֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה, הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that there is still a difference: Caper-bushes, people plant them with their leaves in mind; palm trees, people do not plant them with the heart of palm in mind. Therefore, no proof may be brought from the halakha in the case of the caper-bush to the halakha in the case of the of the palm. The Gemara concludes: Although Shmuel praised Rav Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: צָלָף שֶׁל עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ זוֹרֵק אֶת הָאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַקַּפְרֵיסִין. לְמֵימְרָא דַּאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת פֵּירֵי וְקַפְרֵיסִין לָאו פֵּירֵי? וּרְמִינְהוּ: עַל מִינֵי נִצְפָּה, עַל הֶעָלִים וְעַל הַתְּמָרוֹת אוֹמֵר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, וְעַל הָאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְעַל הַקַּפְרֵיסִין אוֹמֵר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״!
Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara cites an additional halakha concerning the caper-bush. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A caper-bush during the first three years of its growth [orla] outside of Eretz Yisrael, when its fruits are prohibited by rabbinic and not Torah law, one throws out the berries, the primary fruit, but eats the buds. The Gemara raises the question: Is that to say that the berries are fruit of the caper, and the bud is not fruit? The Gemara raises a contradiction from what we learned in the mishna cited above: With regard to the parts of the caper-bush [nitzpa], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries, and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree. Obviously, the buds are also considered the fruit of the caper-bush.
הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: צָלָף מִתְעַשֵּׂר תְּמָרוֹת וַאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְקַפְרֵיסִין. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִתְעַשֵּׂר אֶלָּא אֲבִיּוֹנוֹת בִּלְבַד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי.
The Gemara responds: Rav’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: A caper-bush is tithed from its component parts, its young fronds, berries and buds, as all these are considered its fruit. And Rabbi Akiva says: Only the berries alone are tithed, because it alone is considered fruit. It was in accordance with this opinion, that Rav prohibited only the eating of the berries during the caper-bush’s years of orla.
וְנֵימָא: ״הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא״! אִי אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ בָּאָרֶץ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כׇּל הַמֵּיקֵל בָּאָרֶץ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, אֲבָל בָּאָרֶץ — לָא.
The Gemara asks: If this is the case, why did Rav issue what seemed to be an independent ruling regarding orla? He should have simply said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, from which we could have drawn a practical halakhic conclusion regarding orla as well. The Gemara responds: Had Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, he teaches us by stating the entire halakha, that there is a principle: Anyone who is lenient in a dispute with regard to the halakhot of orla in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion outside of Eretz Yisrael, but not in Eretz Yisrael.
וְנֵימָא: ״הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ״, דְּכׇל הַמֵּיקֵל בָּאָרֶץ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אִי אָמַר הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי גַּבֵּי מַעְשַׂר אִילָן, דְּבָאָרֶץ גּוּפָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי עׇרְלָה, דְּבָאָרֶץ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֵימָא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נָמֵי נִגְזוֹר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara questions this: If so, then let Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva outside of Eretz Yisrael as anyone who is lenient in a dispute with regard to the halakhot of orla in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers: Had he said that, I would have said: That only applies with regard to the tithing of trees, which even in Eretz Yisrael itself is an obligation by rabbinic law; but with regard to orla, which is prohibited in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, say that we should issue a decree prohibiting orla even outside of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, he teaches us that even with regard to orla, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
רָבִינָא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי דְּקָא זָרֵיק אֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְקָאָכֵיל קַפְרֵיסִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַעְתָּךְ, כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמֵיקֵל? וְלֶעֱבֵיד מָר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי דִּמְקִילִּי טְפֵי! דִּתְנַן: צָלָף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. וּבֵית הַלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּעׇרְלָה.
On this topic, the Gemara relates: Ravina found Mar bar Rav Ashi throwing away the berries and eating the buds of an orla caper-bush. Ravina said to Mar bar Rav Ashi: What is your opinion, that you are eating the buds? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who is lenient, then you should act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who are even more lenient. As we learned in a mishna with regard to the laws of forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds that Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is considered a diverse kind in the vineyard, as it is included in the prohibition against planting vegetables in a vineyard. Beit Hillel say: A caper-bush is not considered a diverse kind in a vineyard. Nevertheless, these and those, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree that the caper-bush is obligated in the prohibition of orla.
הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ צָלָף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם, אַלְמָא מִין יָרָק הוּא, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּעׇרְלָה, אַלְמָא מִין אִילָן הוּא!
Before dealing with the problem posed by Ravina to Mar bar Rav Ashi, the Gemara notes an internal contradiction in this mishna. This mishna itself is problematic: You said that Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is considered a diverse kind in a vineyard; apparently, they hold that it is a type of vegetable bush, and then you taught: These and those, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree that the caper-bush is obligated in the prohibition of orla; apparently, it is a type of tree.
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ, וְעָבְדִי הָכָא לְחוּמְרָא וְהָכָא לְחוּמְרָא. מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי הָוֵה לֵיהּ סָפֵק עׇרְלָה, וּתְנַן: סָפֵק עׇרְלָה — בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר, וּבְסוּרְיָא מוּתָּר. וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד
The Gemara responds: This is not difficult; Beit Shammai are uncertain whether the caper-bush is a vegetable bush or a tree, and here, regarding diverse kinds, they act stringently and here, regarding orla, they act stringently. In any case, according to Beit Shammai the caper-bush has the status of uncertain orla, and we learned the consensus halakha in a mishna: Uncertain orla in Eretz Yisrael is forbidden to eat, and in Syria it is permitted, and we are not concerned about its uncertain status. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, the gentile owner of a field may go down into his field