וְלוֹקֵחַ — וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶנּוּ לוֹקֵט.
and take from the orla fruit, and as long as the Jew does not see him gather it, he may purchase the fruit from the gentile. If so, then outside of Eretz Yisrael, one may act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai who hold that the caper-bush has the status of uncertain orla, and eat even the berries without apprehension.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּמְקוֹם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עָבְדִינַן כְּוָתֵיהּ, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי בִּמְקוֹם בֵּית הִלֵּל — אֵינָהּ מִשְׁנָה.
The Gemara answers: The general rule that outside of Eretz Yisrael one acts in accordance with the lenient opinion in a dispute within Eretz Yisrael applies when Rabbi Akiva expresses a more lenient opinion in place of Rabbi Eliezer, and we act in accordance with his opinion. And however, when Beit Shammai express an opinion where Beit Hillel disagree, their opinion is considered as if it were not in the mishna, and is completely disregarded.
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּנַעֲשָׂה שׁוֹמֵר לַפְּרִי, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עׇרְלָתוֹ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ״, אֶת הַטָּפֵל לְפִרְיוֹ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — שׁוֹמֵר לַפְּרִי.
The Gemara approaches this matter from a different perspective: Let us derive the halakha that buds are included in the prohibition of orla from the fact that the bud serves as protection for the fruit, and the Torah says: “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit [et piryo] as orla” (Leviticus 19:23), and et piryo is interpreted to mean that which is secondary to the fruit. What is that? That section of the plant which is protection for the fruit. The buds should be prohibited as orla, since they protect the fruit.
אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן דְּנַעֲשָׂה שׁוֹמֵר לַפְּרִי — הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בֵּין בְּתָלוּשׁ בֵּין בִּמְחוּבָּר, הָכָא בִּמְחוּבָּר — אִיתֵיהּ, בְּתָלוּשׁ — לֵיתֵיהּ.
Rava said: Where do we say that a section of the plant becomes protection for the fruit? That is specifically when it exists both when the fruit is detached from the tree and when it is still connected to the tree. However, here, it exists when the fruit is connected to the tree, but when it is detached it does not, and since the protection falls off of the fruit when it is picked, it is no longer considered protection.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: פִּיטְמָא שֶׁל רִמּוֹן מִצְטָרֶפֶת, וְהַנֵּץ שֶׁלּוֹ אֵין מִצְטָרֵף. מִדְּקָאָמַר הַנֵּץ שֶׁלּוֹ אֵין מִצְטָרֵף, אַלְמָא דְּלָאו אוֹכֶל הוּא. וּתְנַן גַּבֵּי עׇרְלָה: קְלִיפֵּי רִמּוֹן וְהַנֵּץ שֶׁלּוֹ, קְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹזִים וְהַגַּרְעִינִין חַיָּיבִין בְּעׇרְלָה.
Abaye raised a challenge based on what we learned with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity: The crown of a pomegranate joins together with the pomegranate as a unified entity with regard to calculating the requisite size in order to become ritually impure. And its flower, however, does not join together with the pomegranate in that calculation. From the fact that it says that the pomegranate’s flower does not join, consequently the flower is secondary to the fruit and is not considered food. And we learned in a mishna regarding the laws of orla: The rinds of a pomegranate and its flower, nutshells, and pits of all kinds, are all obligated in the prohibition of orla. This indicates that the criteria dictating what is considered protection of a fruit and what is considered the fruit itself with regard to ritual impurity, are not the same criteria used with regard to orla, as is illustrated by the case of the pomegranate flower. Therefore, even if the buds are not regarded as protecting the fruit with regard to ritual impurity, they may still be considered fruit with regard to orla.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן דְּנַעֲשָׂה לְהוּ שׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי — הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר פֵּירָא, הַאי קַפְרֵס לֵיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר פֵּירָא.
Rather, Rava said another explanation: Where do we say that a section of the plant becomes protection for the fruit? Where it exists when the fruit is ripe. This bud does not exist when the fruit is ripe, because it falls off beforehand.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הָנֵי מְתַחֲלֵי דְעׇרְלָה אֲסִירִי, הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשׂוּ שׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי. וְשׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי אִימַּת הָוֵי — בְּכוּפְרָא, וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״שׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי״.
The Gemara challenges this explanation as well: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: Those orla date coverings are prohibited, because they became protection for the fruit. And when do these coverings serve as protection for the fruit? When the fruit is still young; and he, nevertheless, calls them protection for the fruit. This indicates that in order to be considered protection for the fruit it need not remain until the fruit is fully ripened. The question remains: Why are the buds not accorded the same status as the berries of the caper-bush?
רַב נַחְמָן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דִּתְנַן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: סְמָדַר אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי. וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ.
The Gemara explains that Rav Naḥman held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: The grape-bud, i.e., a cluster of grapes in its earliest stage, immediately after the flowers dropped from the vine, is prohibited due to orla, because it is already considered a fruit. According to this opinion, even the date coverings that exist in the earliest stage of the ripening process are nevertheless considered protection for the fruit and prohibited due to orla. The Rabbis disagree with him, explaining that fruit at that stage is not considered fruit; and, therefore, the date coverings and caper-bush buds are not considered protection for the fruit and are not prohibited due to orla.
מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: וּבִשְׁאָר אִילָנֵי מִי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ? וְהָתְנַן: מֵאֵימָתַי אֵין קוֹצְצִין אֶת הָאִילָנוֹת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הָאִילָנוֹת מִשֶּׁיּוֹצִיאוּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: הֶחָרוּבִין מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁרְשְׁרוּ, וְהַגְּפָנִים מִשֶּׁיְּגָרְעוּ, וְהַזֵּיתִים מִשֶּׁיָּנֵיצוּ, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הָאִילָנוֹת מִשֶּׁיּוֹצִיאוּ.
Rav Shimi of Neharde’a strongly objects to this halakha: Do the Rabbis disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the fruits of all other trees besides grapes, that even in the very first stage of ripening, they are considered fruit? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to fruit, which grows during the Sabbatical year, the Torah says: “And the Shabbat of the land shall be to you for eating” (Leviticus 25:6). The Sages inferred, for eating, and not for loss. Because one is prohibited from discarding fruit grown during the Sabbatical year, the question is raised: From when may one no longer cut trees during the Sabbatical year as he thereby damages the fruit? Beit Shammai say: All trees, from when the blossoms fall off and fruit begins to emerge in its earliest stage. And Beit Hillel say: There is a distinction between different types of trees. Carob trees may not be cut from when they form chains of carobs, vines may not be cut misheyegaru, explained below, olives from when they blossom, and all other trees from when fruit emerges.
וְאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הוּא בּוֹסֶר, הוּא גֵּרוּעַ, הוּא פּוֹל הַלָּבָן. פּוֹל הַלָּבָן סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: שִׁיעוּרוֹ כְּפוֹל הַלָּבָן. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר בּוֹסֶר אִין, סְמָדַר לָא — רַבָּנַן, וְקָתָנֵי שְׁאָר כׇּל הָאִילָנוֹת — מִשֶּׁיּוֹצִיאוּ?
And Rav Asi said: Sheyegaru in our mishna is to be understood: It is an unripe grape, it is a grape kernel, it is a white bean. Before this is even explained, the Gemara expresses its astonishment: Does it enter your mind that the grape is, at any stage, a white bean? Rather, say: Its size, that of an unripe grape, is equivalent to the size of a white bean. In any case, whom did you hear that said: An unripe grape, yes, is considered fruit, while a grape-bud, no, is not considered fruit? Wasn’t it the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, and it is taught that, according to these Sages, one is forbidden to cut all other trees from when fruit emerges. This indicates that even they agree that from the very beginning of the ripening process, the fruit is forbidden due to orla. The question remains: Why are the buds permitted?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן דְּהָוֵי שׁוֹמֵר לְפֵרֵי — הֵיכָא דְּכִי שָׁקְלַתְּ לֵיהּ לְשׁוֹמֵר מָיֵית פֵּירָא. הָכָא כִּי שָׁקְלַתְּ לֵיהּ — לָא מָיֵית פֵּירָא.
Rather, Rava said a different explanation: Where do we say that a section of the plant becomes protection for the fruit? Where if you remove the protection, the fruit dies. Here, in the case of the caper-bush, when you remove the bud, the fruit does not die.
הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וְשַׁקְלוּהּ לְנֵץ דְּרִמּוֹנָא, וִיבַשׁ רִמּוֹנָא, וְשַׁקְלוּהּ לְפִרְחָא דְבִיטִיתָא — וְאִיקַּיַּים בִּיטִיתָא.
In fact, there was an incident and they removed the flower of a pomegranate, and the pomegranate withered. And they removed the flower of the fruit of a caper-bush and the fruit of the caper-bush survived. Therefore, buds are not considered protection for the fruit.
(וְהִלְכְתָא כְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי דְּזָרֵיק אֶת הָאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְאָכֵיל אֶת הַקַּפְרֵיסִין. וּמִדִּלְגַבֵּי עׇרְלָה לָאו פֵּירָא נִינְהוּ, לְגַבֵּי בְּרָכוֹת נָמֵי לָאו פֵּירָא נִינְהוּ, וְלָא מְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״, אֶלָּא ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״.)
The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi, who discarded the berries and ate the buds. And since they are not considered fruit with regard to orla, they are also not considered fruit with regard to blessings, and one does not recite over them: Who creates fruit of the tree, but rather: Who creates fruit of the ground.
פִּלְפְּלֵי, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל״, רָבָא אָמַר: לָא כְלוּם. וְאָזְדָא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כַּס פִּלְפְּלֵי בְּיוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי — פָּטוּר, כַּס זַנְגְּבִילָא בְּיוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי — פָּטוּר.
The question arose with regard to the blessing over peppers. Rav Sheshet said: One who eats peppers must recite: By Whose word all things came to be. Rava said: One need not recite a blessing at all. This is consistent with Rava’s opinion that eating peppers is not considered eating, as Rava said: One who chews on peppers on Yom Kippur is exempt, one who chews on ginger on Yom Kippur is exempt. Eating sharp spices is an uncommon practice, and is therefore not considered to be eating, which is prohibited by Torah law on Yom Kippur.
מֵיתִיבִי, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עׇרְלָתוֹ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעֵץ מַאֲכָל הוּא? אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֵץ מַאֲכָל״ — לְהָבִיא עֵץ שֶׁטַּעַם עֵצוֹ וּפִרְיוֹ שָׁוֶה, וְאֵיזֶהוּ? — זֶה הַפִּלְפְּלִין. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַפִּלְפְּלִין חַיָּיבִין בְּעׇרְלָה, וּלְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֵין אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲסֵרָה כְּלוּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא בְמִסְכֵּנֻת תֹּאכַל בָּהּ לֶחֶם לֹא תֶחְסַר כֹּל בָּהּ״.
The Gemara raised an objection to this based on what was taught in a baraita, that regarding the verse: “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as orla” (Leviticus 19:23), Rabbi Meir would say: By inference from that which is stated: “You shall regard its fruit as orla,” don’t I know that it is referring to a tree that produces food? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state: “Any tree for food”? To include a tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste. And which tree is this? This is the pepper tree. And this comes to teach you that the peppers, and even the wood portions, are edible and are therefore obligated in the prohibition of orla, and to teach that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: “A land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing” (Deuteronomy 8:9). Obviously, peppers are fit for consumption.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּרַטִּיבְתָּא, הָא בְּיַבִּשְׁתָּא.
The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction between two different cases. This, where Rabbi Meir spoke of peppers fit for consumption, is referring to a case when it is damp and fresh; and this, where chewing on pepper is not considered eating on Yom Kippur and does not require a blessing, is referring to a case when it is dry.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְמָרִימָר: כַּס זַנְגְּבִילָא בְּיוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי פָּטוּר? וְהָא אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי הִמְלְתָא דְּאָתְיָא מִבֵּי הִנְדּוּאֵי — שַׁרְיָא, וּמְבָרְכִינַן עֲלַהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּרַטִּיבְתָּא, הָא בְּיַבִּשְׁתָּא.
With regard to this discussion of chewing pepper on Yom Kippur, the Gemara cites what the Sages said to Mareimar: Why is one who chews ginger on Yom Kippur exempt? Didn’t Rava say: One is permitted to eat the ginger that comes from India, and over it, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. With regard to blessing, it is considered edible; therefore, with regard to chewing on Yom Kippur, it should be considered edible as well. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This, where a blessing is recited, is referring to a case when it is damp and fresh; this, where no blessing is recited, is referring to a case when it is dry.
חֲבִיץ קְדֵרָה וְכֵן דַּיְיסָא, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״. בְּדַיְיסָא גְּרֵידָא כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּ״בוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּדַיְיסָא כְּעֵין חֲבִיץ קְדֵרָה, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר ״שֶׁהַכֹּל״, סָבַר דּוּבְשָׁא עִיקָּר. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״, סָבַר סְמִידָא עִיקָּר. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״.
The Gemara cites a similar dispute with regard to the blessing be recited over ḥavitz, a dish consisting of flour, oil, and honey cooked in a pot as well as pounded grain. Rav Yehuda said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. Rav Kahana said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. The Gemara explains: With regard to pounded grain alone, everyone agrees that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. When they argue, it is with regard to pounded grain mixed with honey, in the manner of a ḥavitz cooked in a pot. Rav Yehuda said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, as he held that the honey is primary, and on honey one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. Rav Kahana said that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, as he held that the flour, as is the case with all products produced from grain, is primary, and therefore one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. Rav Yosef said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, as Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that has of the five species of grain in it, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, even if it is mixed with other ingredients.
גּוּפָא: רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״. וְאִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת.
With regard to the halakha of the blessing recited over the five species of grain, the Gemara clarifies the matter itself. Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that has of the five species of grain in it, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. Elsewhere, it was stated that Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that is from the five species of grain, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. This is problematic, as these statements appear redundant.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן ״כֹּל שֶׁהוּא״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ, אֲבָל עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבוֹת — לָא.
The Gemara explains: Both statements are necessary, as had he taught us only: Anything that is from the five species of grain, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, I would have said that is because the grain is in its pure, unadulterated form, but if one eats it in the context of a mixture, no, one does not recite: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.