Berakhot 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

How does one recite a blessing over fruit

before eating it?

Over the fruit of a tree he says: “

Blessed are You, Lord, etc.,

Who creates the fruit of the tree,” except for wine, over which

because of its importance, the Sages instituted a blessing of its own, and over it

he says: “Who creates the fruit of the vine.”

And over the produce of the earth

that grows on the surface of the earth, such as watermelons, cucumbers, and the like, or varieties of legumes and grain,

he says: “Who creates the fruit of the earth,” except for bread,

for over bread

because of its importance, they instituted a blessing of its own, and over it

he says: “Who brings forth bread from

the earth.”

And

also

over vegetables,

such as cabbage, lettuce, and garlic, whose actual fruits are embedded in the earth and only the leaves growing above it are eaten,

he says: “Who creates the fruit of the earth.”

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Since each and every species requires a special blessing of its own, over them one recites

“Who creates various kinds of grasses” .

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses from where the obligation to recite a blessing over benefit is derived:

From where are these matters

derived—from where do we learn that one must recite a blessing over fruit and vegetables before eating them and afterward?

As the Sages taught:

It is stated concerning fourth-year produce (Leviticus 19:24), “And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be

holy, praises to the Lord”—

from the fact that the Torah used the plural expression “praises” [a term denoting praise and acclaim],

it teaches

that the verse

that

these fruits

require

two praises [blessings] when they are eaten:

one blessing

before them,

and

another blessing

after them. From here Rabbi Akiva said: It is prohibited for a person to taste anything before he recites a blessing .

The Gemara raises an objection:

But

why

is this phrase “holy, praises to the Lord” needed for this purpose—

to teach us that one must recite a blessing before eating and afterward? After all,

this

verse

is needed

to teach us two other laws concerning the manner in which this produce is redeemed. [“Praises” is understood as related to “redemptions.”] One praise

teaches us

teaches us

that the Merciful One said:

If you do not bring the fourth-year produce up to Jerusalem,

redeem it,

take it out of its consecrated status by redeeming it for money,

and

only

then,

after the redemption,

eat it,

you may eat it outside Jerusalem.

And the other praise,

the additional praise, teaches us that only wine, which is

a substance requiring song [that is, “praise” with which the Lord is praised in the Temple, as will be explained below], is

[that is, the praise with which the Lord is praised in the Temple, as will be explained below], is

subject to redemption

in the fourth year, and only in its case does the law of fourth-year produce apply,

whereas

every fruit other than wine, which does not require song [praise],

is not subject to redemption, and may be eaten.

and may be eaten.

That is, the law of fourth-year produce was stated only with regard to a vineyard of grapes, and not to other fruits!

And from where do we know that only “wine” is considered “a substance requiring song”?

And this is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: From where is it derived that the Levites do not

sing

song

over any “consumption” of the altar, such as at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of offerings or the pouring of the water libation,

but over

the pouring of

the wine

on the altar?

As it is stated

(Judges 9:13):

“And the vine said to them: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and men?” If men

are gladdened by wine,

God, with what

is He

gladdened?

Rather,

from here

we learn

that they sing song

in the Temple

only over

the pouring of

the wine

alone.

Since the two “praises” in the verse were needed to teach these two laws mentioned above, there is no longer an unnecessary “praise” from which it could be possible to derive the obligation to recite a blessing before eating and afterward. How, then, did the beraita derive the obligation to recite a blessing from this verse?

The Gemara explains that this question applies only according to one position in the dispute among the tannaim concerning the prohibition of fourth-year produce.

That works:

It is still possible to derive from this verse the obligation to recite a blessing

according to the one who teaches

in all the Mishnayot dealing with the prohibition of fourth-year produce

“fourth-year planting,”

that is, the law of fourth-year produce applies not only to a vineyard of grapes but to all tree fruits. According to his view, there is no need for the second “praise” to teach that only wine requires redemption, and it remains available to be expounded with regard to the obligation to recite a blessing.

But according to the one who teaches

in all the Mishnayot dealing with the prohibition of fourth-year produce

“fourth-year vineyard,”

that is, the law of fourth-year produce applies only to a vineyard of grapes, and this is learned from the second “praise” stated in the verse, that only “a substance requiring song is subject to redemption”—

what can be said?

How can the obligation to recite a blessing be derived from this verse, when no “praise” remains from which to derive this obligation?

The Gemara cites the tannaim who disagreed over this question, whether the text reads “fourth-year planting” or “fourth-year vineyard.”

As it was stated: Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi,

disagreed concerning this law.

One teaches

in all the Mishnayot

“fourth-year vineyard,”

and one teaches

in all the Mishnayot

“fourth-year planting.”

The Gemara adds that even according to the one who says “fourth-year vineyard,” the question applies only according to one position in another dispute, concerning the source for the law that fourth-year produce applies only to a “vineyard.”

And

also

according to the one who teaches “fourth-year vineyard,” that works:

It is still possible to derive from the “praise” the obligation to recite a blessing

if he derives

that fourth-year produce applies only to a “vineyard”

by means of a gezerah shavah

that will be explained shortly. According to his view, there is no need for a “praise” to teach that fourth-year produce applies only to a “vineyard.”

And who is the tanna who holds this way?

As it was taught: Rabbi says: It is stated here

(Leviticus 19:25), with regard to fourth-year produce:

“To increase its yield for you,” and it is stated there

(Deuteronomy 22:9), with regard to diverse kinds in a vineyard:

“And the yield of the vineyard.”

Since the matter of “yield” is mentioned in both verses, we learn by means of a gezerah shavah:

Just as there,

with regard to diverse kinds, the reference is to a

vineyard, so here,

with regard to fourth-year produce, the verse speaks only

of a vineyard

and not of other fruits.

It follows that even according to the one who teaches “fourth-year vineyard,”

one “praise” remains

from the two “praises” stated in the verse

for

the obligation to recite a

blessing,

and the difficulty is resolved.

But

if he does not derive

the law that fourth-year produce applies only to a “vineyard” by means of a

gezerah shavah,

it will be difficult:

From where does he derive the blessing?

The Gemara raises a further objection:

And even if he derives

the law that fourth-year produce applies only to a “vineyard” by means of a

gezerah shavah,

it is still difficult.

We find

the obligation to recite a blessing

after it,

analogous to the Grace after Meals recited over bread after eating it, but the obligation to recite a blessing

before it—from where is it derived?

The Gemara answers its last question:

This

is not difficult.

Because

it comes

to teach the obligation to recite a blessing before eating

by means of a kal va-homer

from the blessing recited afterward: If

when he is satiated

he

recites a blessing, then

when he is hungry

and feels the need for his food,

all the more so

must he recite a blessing over it?!

The Gemara continues to object: Even according to the tanna who holds that the derivation that fourth-year produce applies to a “vineyard” comes by means of a gezerah shavah [and consequently a “praise” remains for the obligation to recite a blessing], it is still difficult. Since, according to him, the verse “holy, praises” refers only to a vineyard,

we find a vineyard

over whose fruit one recites a blessing;

the other species,

which, as stated, are not included in this verse,

from where

do we know that one recites blessings over them?

The Gemara answers:

He derives it from the vineyard

by means of a “what do we find” inference:

Just as a vineyard

is

a thing from which one derives benefit

and

requires a blessing

for one’s benefit,

so too, every thing from which one derives benefit

and

requires a blessing

for one’s benefit.

The Gemara rejects this:

There is room to refute this inference: What is distinctive about a vineyard? It is that

the Torah was stringent with regard to its laws, for a vineyard

is obligated to

leave

the incompletely formed grape clusters

for the poor, and for this reason the Torah was also stringent in requiring one who derives benefit from it to recite a blessing. But regarding other fruits, with which the Torah was not stringent concerning incompletely formed grape clusters, from where do we know that one who derives benefit from them must recite a blessing?

The Gemara attempts to derive the obligation to recite a blessing over other fruits from another source:

“Standing grain”

from “grain,” from which bread is made and which is not subject to the stringency of leaving incompletely formed grape clusters [as it has no such clusters at all], and nevertheless one is obligated to recite Grace after Meals over it,

can prove

that all other fruits, although they are not subject to this stringency of leaving incompletely formed grape clusters, are nevertheless subject to an obligation to recite a blessing over them.

The Gemara rejects this:

What is distinctive about “standing grain”?

The Torah was stringent with regard to its laws,

as it is obligated to

the obligation to separate

ḥalla , and therefore the Torah was also stringent with regard to it, requiring one who derives benefit from it to recite a blessing. But regarding other fruits, which are not subject to this stringency, from where do we know that one who derives benefit from them must recite a blessing?

and therefore it was also stringent regarding it by obligating one who benefits from it to recite a blessing; but concerning other fruits, which lack this stringency, from where is one obligated to bless when benefiting from them?

The Gemara answers:

“A vineyard” can prove

that it is not obligated in ḥalla, and nevertheless one is obligated to recite a blessing over it.

And the argument returns: This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one.

The common denominator between them is that,

with regard to the vineyard and standing grain, both are

things from which one derives benefit

and

require a blessing; so too, every thing from which one derives benefit

requires a blessing.

The Gemara rejects the possibility of deriving from this common denominator that the obligation applies to the other species:

What is distinctive about the common denominator between them? It is that

it is particularly stringent, for

there is an aspect of the altar

involved: from “standing grain” they bring fine flour for meal offerings, and from a “vineyard” they bring wine for libations!

The Gemara adds that although, because of this rejection, it is no longer possible to derive the obligation to recite a blessing over the other species, it is nevertheless still possible to derive from this common denominator the obligation to recite a blessing over olives.

And the blessing

over an

olive

can also be derived from a vineyard and standing grain, because

it has

in the olive

an aspect of the altar

like them, since they bring oil for meal offerings.

The Gemara raises an objection concerning this detail [that the obligation to recite a blessing over an olive is derived from the common denominator]:

But

why should an

olive be derived

from the aspect of the altar?

Is it not explicitly written concerning it

in connection with the term

“vineyard”?

As it is written

(Judges 15:5):

“And he burned from the standing grain to the standing grain, and to the vineyard of olives.”

If so, it can be included in the verse “holy, praises,” from which the obligation to recite a blessing is derived. Why, then, is it necessary to derive its blessing from the common denominator?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said:

The olive is different, for

“olive vineyard”

is called

that, but

“vineyard” by itself

is not called that. Therefore, it is not included in the verse “holy, praises,” which refers to grapes called simply “vineyard.”

The Gemara returns to its previous objection:

In any event, it is difficult:

How can the obligation to recite a blessing over the other species be derived from a vineyard and standing grain, when this may be rejected:

What is distinctive about the common denominator between them? It is that they have an aspect of the altar,

whereas how can an obligation to recite a blessing over other species, which do not possess this stringency of “an aspect of the altar,” be derived from them?

Therefore, the Gemara retracts this derivation and brings another source for the obligation to recite a blessing over the other species:

Rather, he derives it from the seven species

over which we find that one who derives benefit from them is obligated to recite a blessing:

Just as

the fruit

of the seven species

is

a thing from which one derives benefit

and

requires a blessing

for one’s benefit,

so too, every thing from which one derives benefit

and

requires a blessing

for one’s benefit.

can it be derived?

,

as though he had benefited from consecrated property, as will be explained shortly why this is so .

Emek Berakha (Blessings over Benefits, section 1) proved that blessings over benefits contain two laws. A. Permitting the prohibition, as explained in our sugya. B. A mitzva and an obligation that the Sages imposed, obligating one to recite a blessing over eating. The later authorities investigated [see at length in the book Minchat Shlomo (part 1, responsum 18, section 8)] the root of the prohibition explained in our sugya: whether it results from the obligation to recite a blessing—that is, in order to reinforce and strengthen the obligation of the blessing, the Sages imposed a prohibition against eating so long as a person has not fulfilled the obligation—or whether the prohibition was established as a law in its own right, and its basis is not the obligation of the blessing. And from the words of the Maharshal and the Maharshal in Pesachim (102b), it appears that they disputed this matter; see their words. And from the words of the gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his gloss above (12a), it appears that he made this dependent on the dispute among the Rishonim brought in the Tosafot there (s.v. And not). Indeed, the Emek Berakha (there, section 2) proved that the prohibition results from the obligation to recite a blessing, from what is explained above (17b), that an onen [one whose dead lies before him and has not yet been buried] eats but does not recite a blessing. And if the prohibition against benefiting without a blessing is a law in its own right, how was he permitted to eat in this manner? For the exemption with which they exempted an onen is only from fulfilling mitzvot, but he was not permitted to violate prohibitions [see Pitchei Teshuva (Yoreh Deah 341), that an onen is obligated in washing the hands, because it is forbidden to eat without washing, because of “the trace of teruma”], and it is proven that the prohibition was established as a result of the obligation of the blessing; and since he is not obligated, the prohibition is consequently also removed from him. In the book Minchat Shlomo (there) he added proof of this from what is explained above (20b), that a baal keri is exempt from reciting the first blessing because of his ritual impurity; and likewise it is explained above (16a) that the Sages exempted laborers engaged in their work from reciting a blessing over their eating, so that the employer should not suffer loss. Apparently, even though there is sufficient reason to exempt laborers and a baal keri from the obligation of a blessing, nevertheless, how did they permit them to eat and transgress the prohibition that still rests upon them [for it is impossible that the ritual impurity of a baal keri should permit him to violate a prohibition against eating, and likewise it is not plausible that, for the benefit of the employer, they would permit laborers to benefit from something that is not theirs]. And it is proven that the prohibition was established as a result of the obligation of the blessing, as above.