וְלֹא מִין דָּגָן הוּא, אוֹ מִין דָּגָן וְלֹא עֲשָׂאוֹ פַּת — רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרָכוֹת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בְּרָכָה אַחַת. כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא מִשִּׁבְעַת הַמִּינִין וְלֹא מִין דָּגָן, כְּגוֹן פַּת אוֹרֶז וְדוֹחַן — רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר בְּרָכָה אַחַת מֵעֵין שָׁלֹשׁ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים וְלֹא כְלוּם. and is not a species of grain, but one of the fruits, or which is a species of grain and has not been made into bread, there is a dispute. Rabban Gamliel says that one recites the three blessings of the Grace after Meals and the Rabbis say that one recites a single blessing. And over anything that is neither one of the seven species nor a species of grain, such as rice bread or millet bread, Rabban Gamliel says that after eating, one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals, and the Rabbis say that one need not recite any blessing, i.e., Grace after Meals or one blessing abridged from three, but instead he recites: Who creates the many forms of life. If so, the Tosefta, which says that after rice one recites one blessing abridged from three, is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s version of Rabban Gamliel’s opinion.
בְּמַאי אוֹקִימְתָּא — כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? אֵימָא סֵיפָא דְּרֵישָׁא, אִם אֵין הַפְּרוּסוֹת קַיָּימוֹת — בַּתְּחִלָּה מְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״, וּלְבַסּוֹף מְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ בְּרָכָה אַחַת מֵעֵין שָׁלֹשׁ. מַנִּי: אִי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַשְׁתָּא אַכּוֹתָבוֹת וְאַדַּיְיסָא אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרָכוֹת, אִם אֵין הַפְּרוּסוֹת קַיָּימוֹת מִיבַּעְיָא?! The Gemara challenges: How did you establish the Tosefta? In accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Say the latter clause of the first section of this Tosefta, which states that even over wheat bread, when the slices are not intact, then at the start one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, and at the end one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals. Whose opinion is reflected in that section of the Tosefta? If it is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, now if over dates and pounded wheat, Rabban Gamliel said that one recites the three blessings of Grace after Meals, in a case where the slices of bread are not intact, is it necessary to say that one recites Grace after Meals?
אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא רַבָּנַן. אִי הָכִי קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן! אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, וּתְנִי גַּבֵּי אוֹרֶז: ״וּלְבַסּוֹף אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו וְלֹא כְּלוּם״. Rather, it is clear that the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. If so, there is a contradiction between one opinion of the Rabbis and a second opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara resolves the contradiction: Rather, actually, the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and emend the text and teach with regard to rice: At the end, one does not recite any blessing, consistent with their opinion in the baraita.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי רִיהֲטָא דְּחַקְלָאֵי דְּמַפְּשִׁי בֵּיהּ קִמְחָא, מְבָרֵךְ ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״. מַאי טַעְמָא? — דִּסְמִידָא עִיקָּר. דְּמָחוֹזָא, דְּלָא מַפְּשִׁי בֵּיהּ קִמְחָא, מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. מַאי טַעְמָא? — דּוּבְשָׁא עִיקָּר. וַהֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי, ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״. דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִים מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״. With regard to the blessings recited over various types of porridge, Rava said: Over the farmer’s mixture of flour and honey to which they add extra flour, one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. What is the reason? Because the flour is the primary ingredient in the mixture. Over this same dish, however, when it is prepared in the manner that it is prepared in Meḥoza where they do not add extra flour, one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. What is the reason? Because in that dish, the honey is the primary ingredient. And Rava reconsidered and said: Over both this, the mixture of the farmers, and that, the mixture of Meḥoza, one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. As 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.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי חֲבִיצָא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ פֵּרוּרִין כְּזַיִת — בַּתְּחִלָּה מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו ״הַמּוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ״, וּלְבַסּוֹף מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרָכוֹת. דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ פֵּרוּרִין כְּזַיִת — בַּתְּחִלָּה מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״, וּלְבַסּוֹף בְּרָכָה אַחַת מֵעֵין שָׁלֹשׁ. Rav Yosef said: Over this cooked dish, which contains pieces of bread that are the size of an olive-bulk, at the start one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth, and afterward one recites the three blessings of Grace after Meals as he would over bread. Over that same cooked dish, which does not contain pieces of bread that are the size of an olive-bulk, at the start one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, and at the end one recites one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals, as he would over a cooked dish.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב מְנָחוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם — אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ שֶׁהֶחֱיָינוּ וְקִיַּמְנוּ וְהִגִּיעָנוּ לַזְּמַן הַזֶּה״. נְטָלָן לְאׇכְלָן — מְבָרֵךְ ״הַמּוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ״. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: וְכוּלָּן, פּוֹתְתָן כְּזַיִת. And Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: The first time the priest would stand and offer meal-offerings in Jerusalem, he would recite: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time, as it is the first time that he fulfilled the mitzva of offering that sacrifice (Rashi). When he would take the meal-offerings in order to eat them, he would recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth. And it was taught on the topic of meal-offerings: And all of the meal-offerings, he crumbles them into pieces, approximately the size of an olive-bulk. This proves that over bread crumbs the size of an olive-bulk, one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth.
אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר פּוֹרְכָן עַד שֶׁמַּחְזִירָן לְסׇלְתָּן, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא בָּעֵי בָּרוֹכֵי ״הַמּוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ״?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: לָקַט מִכּוּלָּן כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלָן, אִם חָמֵץ הוּא — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְאִם מַצָּה הוּא — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But if what you say is so, then now, according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael who said with regard to meal-offerings: He crushes them until he restores them to the form that they were when they were flour, would you say that so too, in that case, he need not recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth? And if you say that that is so, that one does not recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth, over these meal-offerings, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who gathered an olive-bulk sized portion from all of the crumbs of the meal-offerings and ate them, if it was an offering of leavened bread like that of a thanks-offering, if he ate them on Passover he is punishable by karet. If it was an offering of unleavened bread, one fulfills his obligation to eat matza on Passover. This illustrates that bread crumbs, regardless of their size, are always considered bread.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּשֶׁעֵרְסָן. אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא, וְהוּא שֶׁאֲכָלָן בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס — וְאִי בְּשֶׁעֵרְסָן, הַאי ״שֶׁאֲכָלָן״, ״שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? Rav Yosef answered that this is not the case, and one does not recite a blessing over bread crumbs as he would over actual bread. Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a case where one mixed the bread crumbs with water and compacted them into a single mass. The Gemara challenges this: If so, say the latter clause, in which we learn that this case of one who eats the crumbs speaks specifically about when he ate them, all of the crumbs that constitute the size of an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. And if it is referring to a case where one compacted them into a single mass, that expression: When he ate them, is inappropriate. When he ate it, is what it needed to say, as it is a single loaf.
אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּבָא מִלֶּחֶם גָּדוֹל. Rather, it can be explained in another way: With what are we dealing here? With a case where each of the crumbs came from a large loaf of bread over which one is obligated to recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Over crumbs that were never part of a loaf of bread large enough to require this blessing, however, one need only recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth, if they are at least the size of an olive-bulk.
מַאי הָוֵה עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הַאי חֲבִיצָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ פֵּרוּרִין כְּזַיִת — מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו ״הַמּוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ״. אָמַר רָבָא: וְהוּא דְּאִיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ תּוֹרִיתָא דְנַהְמָא. Since all of the proofs for and against this opinion were rejected, the Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this halakha? Rav Sheshet said: Over this cooked dish, which contains bread crumbs, even though it does not contain crumbs the size of an olive-bulk, one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Rava said: This is specifically in a case where the crumbs still have the appearance of bread and did not dissolve completely.
טְרוֹקְנִין, חַיָּיבִין בַּחַלָּה. וְכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: טְרוֹקְנִין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַחַלָּה. מַאי טְרוֹקְנִין? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כּוּבָּא דְאַרְעָא. Another issue concerned terokanin, with regard to which it was said that they are obligated in the mitzva to separate ḥalla, meaning that terokanin have the halakhic status of bread. And, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Terokanin are exempt from the mitzva to separate ḥalla. The Gemara asks: What are terokanin? Abaye said: Terokanin are made of a watery mixture of flour and water roasted in a cavity in a stove in the ground and is not actually bread.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: טְרִיתָא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. מַאי טְרִיתָא? אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי גְּבִיל מְרַתַּח, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי נַהֲמָא דְהִנְדְּקָא, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לֶחֶם הֶעָשׂוּי לְכוּתָּח. And Abaye said: Terita is exempt from the mitzva to separate ḥalla. The Gemara asks: What is terita? There are several opinions: Some say, it is flour and water kneaded that is poured onto a boiling hot stove. And some say, it is bread from India, made from dough wrapped around a skewer and covered with oil or eggs before baking. And some say, it is bread made for kutaḥ, bread baked in an unusual manner so that it would become extremely leavened and could be used as an ingredient in the Babylonian spice, kutaḥ.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: לֶחֶם הֶעָשׂוּי לְכוּתָּח פָּטוּר מִן הַחַלָּה. וְהָא תַּנְיָא חַיָּיב בַּחַלָּה! הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ. עֲשָׂאָן And similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Bread made for kutaḥ; one is exempt from the mitzva to separate ḥalla. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one is obligated in the mitzva to separate ḥalla from bread made for kutaḥ? The Gemara answers: There, as the reason was taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: There is a distinction between different types of bread made for kutaḥ, as the actions taken in its preparation prove the purpose for which it was made. If he made them