Berakhot 40b:6ברכות מ׳ ב:ו
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Berakhot 40b:6"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
40bמ׳ ב

אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּכִי שָׁקְלַתְּ לֵיהּ לְפֵירֵי לֵיתֵיהּ לִגְווֹזָא דַּהֲדַר מַפֵּיק לָא מְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ אֶלָּא בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה:

However, in a situation where, when you take the fruit, the branch does not remain and again produce fruit, we do not recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, but rather: Who creates fruit of the ground.

וְעַל כּוּלָּן אִם אָמַר שֶׁהַכֹּל וְכוּ' אִתְּמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר חוּץ מִן הַפַּת וּמִן הַיַּיִן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ פַּת וְיַיִן

We learned in the mishna: And on all food items, if he recited: By whose word all things came to be, he fulfilled his obligation. It was stated that the amora’im disputed the precise explanation of the mishna. Rav Huna said: This halakha applies to all foods except for bread and wine. Since they have special blessings, one does not fulfill his obligation by reciting the general blessing: By whose word all things came to be. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One fulfills his obligation with the blessing: By whose word all things came to be, even over bread and wine.

נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי רָאָה פַּת וְאָמַר כַּמָּה נָאָה פַּת זוֹ בָּרוּךְ הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁבְּרָאָהּ יָצָא רָאָה תְּאֵנָה וְאָמַר כַּמָּה נָאָה תְּאֵנָה זוֹ בָּרוּךְ הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁבְּרָאָהּ יָצָא דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר כׇּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁטָּבְעוּ חֲכָמִים בִּבְרָכוֹת לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ נֵימָא רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר

The Gemara remarks: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a tannaitic dispute found elsewhere, as it was taught in a Tosefta: One who saw bread and said: How pleasant is this bread, blessed is the Omnipresent Who created it, fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing. One who saw a date and said: How pleasant is this date, blessed is the Omnipresent Who created it, fulfilled his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages in blessings, did not fulfill his obligation. If so, let us say that Rav Huna, who said that one who recites: By whose word all things came to be, over bread or wine, did not fulfill his obligation, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; and Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that one who recites: By whose word all things came to be, over bread or wine fulfills his obligation, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַדְכַּר שְׁמֵיהּ דְּפַת אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָא מַדְכַּר שְׁמֵיהּ דְּפַת אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֶה

The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna could have said to you: I said my statement, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir only stated his opinion, that one who alters the formula of the blessing fulfills his obligation, there, where the individual explicitly mentions the term bread in his blessing, but where he does not mention the term bread, even Rabbi Meir agrees that he did not fulfill his obligation.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לָךְ אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאָמַר בְּרָכָה דְּלָא תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן אֲבָל אָמַר שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֶה

And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: I said my statement, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei only stated his opinion, that one who alters the formula of the blessing does not fulfill his obligation, there, because he recited a blessing that was not instituted by the Sages; however, if he recited: By whose word all things came to be, which was instituted by the Sages, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that, after the fact, he fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing.

בִּנְיָמִין רָעֲיָא כְּרַךְ רִיפְתָּא וַאֲמַר בְּרִיךְ מָרֵיהּ דְּהַאי פִּיתָּא אָמַר רַב יָצָא וְהָאָמַר רַב כׇּל בְּרָכָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם אֵינָהּ בְּרָכָה דְּאָמַר בְּרִיךְ רַחֲמָנָא מָרֵיהּ דְּהַאי פִּיתָּא

Regarding blessings that do not conform to the formula instituted by the Sages, the Gemara relates that Binyamin the shepherd ate bread and afterward recited in Aramaic: Blessed is the Master of this bread. Rav said, he thereby fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rav himself say: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God’s name is not considered a blessing? The Gemara emends the formula of his blessing. He said: Blessed is the All-Merciful, Master of this bread.

וְהָא בָּעֵינַן שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרָכוֹת מַאי יָצָא דְּקָאָמַר רַב נָמֵי יָצָא יְדֵי בְּרָכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה

The Gemara asks: But don’t we require three blessings in Grace after Meals? How did he fulfill his obligation with one sentence? The Gemara explains: What is: Fulfills his obligation, that Rav also said? He fulfills the obligation of the first of the three blessings, and must recite two more to fulfill his obligation completely.

מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲמָרָהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן חוֹל

The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The Gemara answers: Although he recited the blessing in a secular language, other than Hebrew, he fulfilled his obligation.

תְּנֵינָא וְאֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָרִים בְּכָל לְשׁוֹן פָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה וִידּוּי מַעֲשֵׂר קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּתְפִלָּה וּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן אִצְטְרִיךְ סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי דַּאֲמָרָהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן חוֹל כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן בִּלְשׁוֹן קֹדֶשׁ אֲבָל לֹא אֲמָרָהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן חוֹל כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן בִּלְשׁוֹן קֹדֶשׁ אֵימָא לָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן:

This remains difficult, as we already learned this in a mishna in Sota: And these are recited in any language that one understands: The portion of the swearing of the sota, the confession of the tithes when a homeowner declares that he has given all teruma and tithes appropriately, the recitation of Shema, and the Amida prayer and Grace after Meals. If Grace after Meals is clearly on the list of matters that may be recited in any language, what did Rav teach us? The Gemara answers: Rav’s ruling with regard to Binyamin the Shepherd is necessary, as it might have entered your mind to say: This, the permission to recite Grace after Meals in any language, applies only to a case where one recited it in a secular language, just as it was instituted by the Sages in the holy tongue. However, in a case where one did not recite the blessing in a secular language, just as it was instituted by the Sages in the holy tongue, say that no, he did not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rav teaches us that, after the fact, not only is the language not an impediment to fulfillment of his obligation to recite a blessing, the formula is not an impediment either.

גּוּפָא אָמַר רַב כׇּל בְּרָכָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם אֵינָהּ בְּרָכָה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כׇּל בְּרָכָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַלְכוּת אֵינָהּ בְּרָכָה אָמַר אַבָּיֵי כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּתַנְיָא לֹא עָבַרְתִּי מִמִּצְוֹתֶיךָ וְלֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי לֹא עָבַרְתִּי מִלְּבָרֶכְךָ וְלֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי מִלְּהַזְכִּיר שִׁמְךָ עָלָיו וְאִילּוּ מַלְכוּת לָא קָתָנֵי

The Gemara considers the matter of Rav’s opinion itself and cites the fundamental dispute in that regard. Rav said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God’s name is not considered a blessing. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God’s sovereignty is not considered a blessing. Abaye said: It stands to reason in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as it was taught in a Tosefta: In the confession of the tithes, one recites, “I did not transgress your mitzvot and I did not forget” (Deuteronomy 26:13). The meaning of phrase, I did not transgress, is that I did not refrain from blessing You when separating tithes; and the meaning of the phrase, and I did not forget, is that I did not forget to mention Your name in the blessing recited over it. However, this baraita did not teach that one must mention God’s sovereignty in the blessing.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תָּנֵי וְלֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי מִלְּהַזְכִּיר שִׁמְךָ וּמַלְכוּתְךָ עָלָיו:

And Rabbi Yoḥanan would say: Emend the baraita: And I did not forget to mention Your name and Your sovereignty in the blessing recited over it; indicating that one must mention both God’s name and God’s sovereignty.

מַתְנִי' וְעַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין גִּדּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ עַל הַחוֹמֶץ וְעַל הַנּוֹבְלוֹת וְעַל הַגּוֹבַאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מִין קְלָלָה אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו

MISHNA: And over a food item whose growth is not from the ground, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. And over vinegar, wine that fermented and spoiled, and over novelot, dates that spoiled, and over locusts, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Rabbi Yehuda says: Over any food item that is a type resulting from a curse, one does not recite a blessing over it at all. None of the items listed exist under normal conditions, and they come about as the result of a curse.

הָיוּ לְפָנָיו מִינִין הַרְבֵּה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן מִין שִׁבְעָה עָלָיו הוּא מְבָרֵךְ וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְבָרֵךְ עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה:

On a different note: If there were many types of food before him, over which food should he recite a blessing first? 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.

גְּמָ' תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין גִּדּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמוֹת חַיּוֹת וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ עַל הֶחָלָב וְעַל הַבֵּיצִים וְעַל הַגְּבִינָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַכֹּל עַל הַפַּת שֶׁעִפְּשָׁה וְעַל הַיַּיִן שֶׁהִקְרִים וְעַל הַתַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁעִבֵּר צוּרָתוֹ אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַכֹּל עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הַזָּמִית וְעַל כְּמֵהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַכֹּל לְמֵימְרָא דִּכְמֵהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת לָאו גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע נִינְהוּ וְהָתַנְיָא הַנּוֹדֵר מִפֵּירוֹת הָאָרֶץ אָסוּר בְּפֵירוֹת הָאָרֶץ וּמוּתָּר בִּכְמֵהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת וְאִם אָמַר כׇּל גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע עָלַי אָסוּר אַף בִּכְמֵהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Over a food item whose growth is not from the earth, for example, meat from domesticated animals, non-domesticated animals, and fowl and fish, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. So too, over milk, and over eggs, and over cheese, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. This is not only true with regard to items that come from animals, but over moldy bread, and over wine that fermented slightly, and over a cooked dish that spoiled, one recites: By whose word all things came to be, because the designated blessing is inappropriate for food that is partially spoiled. Similarly, over salt and over brine, and over truffles and mushrooms, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that truffles and mushrooms are not items that grow from the ground? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who vows not to eat from the fruit of the earth is forbidden to eat all fruit of the earth; however, he is permitted to eat truffles and mushrooms. And if he said: All items that grow from the ground are forbidden to me, he is forbidden to eat even truffles and mushrooms. Apparently, truffles and mushrooms are items that grow from the ground.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי מִירְבָּא רָבוּ מֵאַרְעָא מֵינָקי לָא יָנְקִי מֵאַרְעָא

Abaye said: With regard to growth, they grow from the earth, but with regard to sustenance, they do not draw sustenance from the earth.

וְהָא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין גִּדּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ קָתָנֵי תְּנִי עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין יוֹנֵק מִן הָאָרֶץ:

The Gemara asks: Why is that distinction significant? Wasn’t it taught: Over a food item whose growth is not from the ground one recites the blessing: By whose word all things came to be? Even according to Abaye, mushrooms grow from the ground. The Gemara answers: Emend the mishna to read: Over a food item that does not draw sustenance from the ground, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Consequently, even over mushrooms one recites: By whose word all things came to be.

וְעַל הַנּוֹבְלוֹת מַאי נוֹבְלוֹת רַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבִּי אִילְעָא חַד אָמַר בּוּשְׁלֵי כַמְרָא וְחַד אָמַר תַּמְרֵי דְזִיקָא

We learned in the mishna that over novelot one recites: By whose word all things came to be. The Gemara asks: What are novelot? The Gemara responds that the amora’im Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Il’a disputed this. One said that the term refers to dates that, due to extreme conditions, were burned by the heat of the sun and ripened prematurely. And one said that they are dates that fell from the tree because of the wind.

תְּנַן רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מִין קְלָלָה אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בּוּשְׁלֵי כַמְרָא הַיְינוּ דְּקָרֵי לֵיהּ מִין קְלָלָה אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּמְרֵי דְזִיקָא מַאי מִין קְלָלָה

We learned later in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Over any food item that is a type resulting from a curse, one does not recite a blessing over it at all. Granted, according to the one who said that novelot are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that he considers them a type of curse; however, according to the one who said that novelot are dates that fell because of the wind, what is the reason that it is considered a type of curse? Dates that fell from the tree are no worse than other dates.

אַשְּׁאָרָא

The Gemara reconciles: Rabbi Yehuda’s statement was about the rest, the vinegar and locusts, not about the novelot.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בּוּשְׁלֵי כַמְרָא הַיְינוּ דִּמְבָרְכִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ שֶׁהַכֹּל אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּמְרֵי דְזִיקָא שֶׁהַכֹּל בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְבָרוֹכֵי

Some say that the Gemara raised the question differently: Granted, according to the one who said that novelot are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that we recite over them: By whose word all things came to be, as they are of inferior quality. However, to the one who said that novelot are dates that fell because of the wind, should we recite over them: By whose word all things came to be? We should recite: Who creates fruit of the tree.

אֶלָּא בְּנוֹבְלוֹת סְתָמָא כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבוּשְׁלֵי כַמְרָא נִינְהוּ כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּנוֹבְלוֹת תְּמָרָה דִּתְנַן הַקַּלִּין שֶׁבַּדְּמַאי הַשִּׁיתִין וְהָרִימִּין וְהָעוּזְרָדִין בְּנוֹת שׁוּחַ וּבְנוֹת שִׁקְמָה וְגוּפְנִין וְנִצְפָּה וְנוֹבְלוֹת תְּמָרָה

Rather, the conclusion is, with regard to novelot unmodified, everyone agrees that they are dates that were burned by the heat of the sun. When they argue, it is with regard to those dates known as novelot temara, as we learned in a mishna concerning the laws of doubtfully tithed produce [demai]: Although, under normal circumstances, fruits that come into one’s possession by means of an am ha’aretz must be tithed due to concern lest the am ha’aretz failed to do so, the following fruits of inferior quality are lenient with regard to demai and one need not tithe them: Shittin, rimin, uzradin, benot shuaḥ, benot shikma, gufnin, nitzpa, and novelot temara.

שִׁיתִין אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִין תְּאֵנִים רִימִּין כַּנְדֵי הָעוּזְרָדִין טוּלְשֵׁי בְּנוֹת שׁוּחַ אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּאֵינֵי חִיוָּרָתָא בְּנוֹת שִׁקְמָה אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּבְלֵי גּוּפְנִין שִׁילְהֵי גּוּפְנֵי נִצְפָּה פִּרְחָה נוֹבְלוֹת תְּמָרָה רַבִּי אִילְעָא וְרַבִּי זֵירָא חַד אָמַר בּוּשְׁלֵי כַמְרָא וְחַד אָמַר תַּמְרֵי דְזִיקָא

The Gemara identifies these plants. Shittin, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They are a type of figs. Rimin are lote. Uzradin are crabapples. Benot shuaḥ, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They are white dates. Benot shikma, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They are the fruit of the sycamore tree. Gufnin are the last grapes which remain on the tree at the end of the season. Nitzpa are the fruit of the caper-bush. Novelot temara, Rabbi Il’a and Rabbi Zeira disagreed. One said that they are dates burned by the heat of the sun, and one said that they are dates that fell because of the wind.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בּוּשְׁלֵי כַמְרָא הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי הַקַּלִּין שֶׁבַּדְּמַאי סְפֵיקָן הוּא דְּפָטוּר הָא וַדָּאָן חַיָּיב אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּמְרֵי דְזִיקָא וַדָּאָן חַיָּיב הֶפְקֵרָא נִינְהוּ

Here too, the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that novelot are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that it was taught concerning them: Their halakhot are lenient with regard to demai, meaning that it is those with regard to which there is uncertainty whether or not they were tithed that are exempt from being tithed. Those with regard to which there is certainty that they were not tithed, one is obligated to tithe those dates. However, according to the one who said that novelot are dates felled because of the wind, this is difficult: Those regarding which there is certainty that they were not tithed, one is obligated? They are ownerless, and ownerless produce is exempt from the requirement to tithe.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן גּוֹרֶן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הַלֶּקֶט וְהַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּאָה שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן גּוֹרֶן הוּקְבְּעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר

The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? With a case where he gathered the dates that fell because of the wind and made them into a pile, like a pile of threshed grain, signifying that the produce is a finished product. As Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: Even gifts to the poor such as gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corners, which are normally exempt from tithes, if a poor person gathered them and made them into a pile of threshed grain, by rabbinic law they were rendered obligated in tithes. In that case, only demai would be exempt from tithes.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי

Some say that the discussion was as follows: