Berakhot 35a — the Talmud in English

How does one bless over fruits

before eating them?

Over the fruits of the 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 established a blessing of its own, and over it

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

And over the fruits of the ground

that grow on the surface of the ground, such as watermelons, squashes, and the like, or kinds of legumes and grain,

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

over bread

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

he says: “Who brings forth bread from

the land.”

And

also

over vegetables,

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

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

Rabbi Judah says:

Since each and every species requires a special blessing for itself, one blesses over them

“Who creates various kinds of grasses” .

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses from where the obligation to recite a blessing of enjoyment is learned:

From where are these matters

learned—from where do we learn that one must bless over fruits and vegetables before eating and afterward?

For the Sages taught:

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

sanctified, praises to the Lord”—

from the fact that the Torah used “praises” [a term of praise and glorification] in the plural,

it teaches

the verse

that

these fruits

require

two praises [blessings] when they are eaten:

a blessing

one

before them, and

another blessing

after them. From here Rabbi Akiva said: It is forbidden for a person to taste anything before he blesses .

The Gemara objects:

And

for

is this “sanctified, praises to the Lord” really coming for that purpose—to teach us that one must bless before eating and afterward? But

to teach us that one must recite a blessing before and after eating? Surely

this

verse

is needed

to teach us two other laws concerning the manner in which these fruits are redeemed. [“Praises” is in the sense of “redemptions.”] One praise

one

teaches us

that the Merciful One said,

if you do not bring the fourth-year planting’s fruits to Jerusalem,

redeem it,

take them out to ordinary status by redeeming them for money,

and

only

then,

after the redemption,

eat it,

you are permitted to eat them outside Jerusalem.

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

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

a substance requiring song [the “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

requiring redemption

in the fourth year, and only in it does the law of “fourth-year planting” apply,

and

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

it does not require redemption,

and is permitted to be eaten.

That is to say, the law of “fourth-year planting” was stated only for a vineyard of grapes and not for other fruits!

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

And as Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan, for Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: From where is it established that

the Levites

say song

over no “eating” of the altar, such as at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of offerings and the pouring of the water

but over

the pouring of

the wine

for the altar?

As it is stated (Judges 9:13):

“And the vine said to them: Shall I cease my wine, which gladdens gods and men?” If men

"'And the vine said to them: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and people?' If

—wine—

gladdens, God, with what

does it

gladden?

Rather,

from here

we learn

that they do not say song

in the Temple

but over

the pouring of

the wine

alone.

And since the two “praises” in the verse were needed to inform us of these two laws that were mentioned, there is no longer an extra “praise” here from which it could be possible to learn the obligation of a blessing before eating and afterward; so how did the beraita learn from this verse the obligation of a blessing?

The Gemara explains that this objection exists only according to one view in the dispute among the tannaim concerning the prohibition of “fourth-year.”

That works:

it is still possible to learn from this verse the obligation of a blessing

according to the one who teaches

who reads in all the Mishnayot dealing with the prohibition of “fourth-year”

“fourth-year planting,”

that is, the law of “fourth-year” applies not only to a vineyard of grapes but to all tree fruits; for according to his view there is no need for the second “praise” to teach that only wine requires redemption, and it remains available to expound it regarding the obligation of a blessing.

But according to the one who teaches

who reads in all the Mishnayot dealing with the prohibition of “fourth-year”

“fourth-year vineyard,”

that is, the law of “fourth-year” 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 requires redemption”—

what is there to say?

How can we learn the obligation of a blessing from this verse, when no “praise” remains to teach this obligation?

The Gemara brings the tannaim who disagreed in this dispute, whether one reads “fourth-year planting” or “fourth-year vineyard.”

For 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 objection exists only according to one view in the dispute concerning the source that “fourth-year” applies only to a “vineyard.”

And

also

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

it is still possible to learn from the “praise” the obligation of a blessing

if he learns

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

a gezerah shavah

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

And who is the tanna who holds this?

For it was taught: Rabbi says, it is stated here

(Leviticus 19:25), concerning “fourth-year”:

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

(Deuteronomy 22:9), concerning mixed seeds in a vineyard:

“And the produce of the vineyard.”

And since the matter of “produce” is mentioned in both, we learn by a gezerah shavah:

Just as there,

in mixed seeds, the reference is to a

vineyard, so here,

in “fourth-year,” 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 for him

from the two “praises” stated in the verse

for

the obligation of

a blessing,

and it works.

But

if he does not learn

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

a gezerah shavah,

it is difficult:

from where does he derive the blessing?

The Gemara adds and objects:

And even if he learns

the law of “fourth-year,” which applies only to a “vineyard,” from

a gezerah shavah,

it is still difficult:

we find

the obligation of a blessing

after it

similar to the blessing after bread, which is recited after eating , but the obligation of a blessing

before it—from where?

The Gemara answers its final objection:

This—

is not difficult.

Because

it comes

one can learn the obligation of a blessing before eating

by a kal va-chomer

from the blessing afterward: If,

when he is satisfied,

he

blesses,

when he is hungry

and feels the need for his food,

all the more so

that he must bless for it?!

The Gemara continues to object that even according to the tanna who holds that the teaching that “fourth-year” applies to a “vineyard” is from a gezerah shavah [and consequently a “praise” remains for the obligation of a blessing], it is still difficult: since according to him the verse “sanctified, praises” concerns only a “vineyard,” then

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 a blessing over them?

The Gemara answers:

He learns it from a vineyard

by a “what do we find” inference:

Just as a vineyard

is

a thing from which one derives benefit

and

requires a blessing

for its benefit,

so too every thing from which one derives benefit

and

requires a blessing

for its benefit.

The Gemara rejects this:

There is a refutation: What is distinctive about a vineyard, that

the Torah was stringent in its laws, for the vineyard

is liable to

leaving

the incompletely formed clusters

for the poor, and for this reason it was also stringent regarding it by obligating one who benefits from it to recite a blessing; but concerning other fruits, regarding which the Torah was not stringent concerning incompletely formed clusters, from where is one obligated to bless when benefiting from them?

The Gemara attempts to learn the obligation of a blessing for other fruits from another source:

“Standing grain”

from “grain,” from which bread is made and concerning which there is no stringency of leaving incompletely formed clusters [for there are no such clusters in it], and nevertheless one must recite the blessing after meals over it,

shall prove

for all other fruits, that although they lack this stringency of leaving incompletely formed clusters, there should be an obligation to bless over them.

The Gemara rejects this:

What is distinctive about “standing grain,”

that the Torah was stringent in its laws,

for it is liable to

the obligation of separating

“dough-offering” ,

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” shall prove

that it is not liable to dough-offering and nevertheless one is obligated to bless over it,

and the matter returns to its place: this one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one.

The common aspect between them—

in the vineyard and in the standing grain, both are

a thing from which one derives benefit

and

requires a blessing,

so too every thing from which one derives benefit requires a blessing.

The Gemara rejects that one cannot learn from this “common aspect” concerning the other species:

What is distinctive about the common aspect between them, that

it is stringent, for

there is in it an aspect of the altar

—from “standing grain” they bring flour for meal-offerings, and from a “vineyard” they bring wine for libations!

The Gemara adds that although because of this rejection it is once again impossible to learn the obligation of a blessing for the other species, nevertheless it is still possible to learn from this “common aspect” the obligation of a blessing for olives.

And likewise

the blessing over

an olive

can be derived from a vineyard and standing grain, because

there is in it

in an olive

an aspect of the altar

like theirs, for oil is brought for meal-offerings.

The Gemara objects to this detail [that the obligation of a blessing over an olive is learned from the “common aspect”]:

And

for

an olive—

is it derived from the aspect of the altar?

But it is explicitly written concerning it

concerning an olive the expression

“vineyard.”

As it is written (Judges 15:5):

(Judges 15:5):

“And he burned from the grain-stack to the standing grain and to the olive vineyard,”

and if so, it can be included in the verse “sanctified, praises,” from which the obligation of a blessing is learned; why is it necessary to learn the obligation of its blessing from the “common aspect”?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said:

The olive differs in that

“olive vineyard”

is called

but

“vineyard” unqualified

is not called [such], and therefore it is not included in the verse “sanctified, praises,” which refers to grapes called “vineyard” unqualified.

The Gemara returns to its previous objection:

In any event, it is difficult:

How can the obligation of a blessing for the other species be learned from a “vineyard” and “standing grain,” when they can be rejected:

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

and how can the obligation of a blessing be learned from them for the other species, which lack this stringency of an “aspect of the altar”?

Therefore the Gemara retracts this teaching and brings another source for the obligation of a blessing over the other species:

Rather, he learns it from the seven species

from which we find that one who benefits is obligated to bless:

Just as

the fruit

from the seven species

is

a thing from which one derives benefit

and

requires a blessing

for its benefit,

so too every thing from which one derives benefit

and

requires a blessing

for its benefit.

The Gemara rejects this:

What is [the argument] from the seven species

for which the Torah was stringent, since they are obligated in first fruits, and therefore the Torah was also stringent with regard to them, obligating one who benefits from them to recite a blessing; but as for other fruits, which do not have this stringency, from where [do we know] to obligate one who benefits from them to recite a blessing?

And furthermore,

one must raise an objection: even if it were possible to derive [the law concerning] other fruits from the seven species,

That works

to derive from them the obligation of the blessing afterward, for the obligation of the blessing stated with regard to the seven species

afterward

is as it is written: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless,” but the obligation of a blessing

before it—from where [do we know it]?

the Tzelach and the book Biur Mordekhai by the gaon Rabbi Mordekhai Banet (section 1).

The Gemara answers its last objection as it already answered this objection above:

This—

is not difficult,

because

it can be derived

that the blessing before eating is to be learned

by a kal va-chomer

from the obligation of the blessing after eating: and if, when

he is satiated,

he

recites a blessing—

when he is hungry

and feels the need for his food,

all the more so

he must recite a blessing for it?!

Tosafot (s.v. Before it) wrote that this is not a complete kal va-chomer, for if not, it would emerge that the blessing before it [such as the blessing over bread—for the blessing after it is from the Torah according to everyone] would be obligatory from the Torah, whereas above (21a) it implies that its obligation is rabbinic; and so maintained the majority of the Rishonim apart from Rabbeinu Hananel , who holds that when the obligation of an item’s final blessing is from the Torah, the obligation of its first blessing is also from the Torah]. And they explained that the reason this is not a complete kal va-chomer is that the kal va-chomer can be refuted by saying, “What is there about food, for which one benefits,” and so forth, as the Gemara indeed refuted the kal va-chomer above (there). Indeed, the Gemara’s first objection—how is it possible to derive the obligation of a blessing for other fruits from the seven species—still stands! And the Gemara adds another objection:

And

also,

according to the one who teaches

in all the Mishnayot

“neta revai”

—as was explained above, that according to him there is no need for the second “praise” to derive from it that only wine requires redemption, and if so it is possible to derive from it the obligation of a blessing for all fruits—there is still a difficulty:

This works for every item of planting

with which the verse “holy praises” is concerned, from which the source for the obligation of a blessing is derived; but food that

is not an item of planting

is

such as meat, eggs, and fish—

from where does he derive it

that there is an obligation to recite a blessing over it? And on the strength of these objections the Gemara concludes that, in truth, the obligation of a blessing is not derived from the verse “holy praises to Hashem.”

Rather, it is logical reasoning

that

it is forbidden for a person to benefit from this world

which belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He,

without

his reciting

a blessing

over his benefit and giving thanks to the One who created it .

the Tosafot (s.v. Rather) and the Rashba wrote that there is no longer any need for the derivation from “holy praises” brought above, and it is merely an asmachta. According to them, all blessings over benefits are rabbinically obligatory, apart from the Grace after Meals [and likewise the blessing over the seven species according to some of the Rishonim—their words were brought above, note 12], and this is how it was ruled in the Rambam (chapter 2, halakha 14, and chapter 8, halakha 12). Indeed, Rabbeinu Hananel holds that even according to the conclusion, one still learns from “holy praises” that there is a Torah obligation to recite a blessing over all produce of the ground [according to the one who teaches “neta revai”], and at the very least over the seven species [according to the one who teaches “kerem revai”]; likewise, their blessings before them are from the Torah by force of the kal va-chomer [and he differs from the other Rishonim, who maintained that the kal va-chomer is not a complete kal va-chomer—see note 11]. According to him, the derivation from logical reasoning is needed only for species that cannot be learned from the verse. the Rashba this logical reasoning is sufficient to obligate both the blessing before it and the blessing afterward, whereas in the opinion of the Ritva this logical reasoning is sufficient to obligate only the blessing before it [and as for the blessing afterward—in the seven species the obligation is learned from a verse, while the other species are in truth exempt from a blessing]. And their reason is that the Ritva maintained that the logical reasoning for reciting a blessing is that one must request permission before benefiting, and the blessing is a form of requesting permission; if so, this logical reasoning does not exist after one has benefited. However, the Rashba maintained that the logical reasoning is as Rashi explained (s.v. Rather): “Since he benefited, he must give thanks to the One who created them.” If so, this logical reasoning also obligates the final blessing [and in the Sefer Ha-Chinukh he too maintained, in accordance with the opinion of the Rashba, that there is an obligation of a final blessing for the other species, but he did not obligate this by force of logical reasoning; rather, he derived it from the Grace after Meals]. The Sages taught: It is forbidden for a person to benefit from this world without

his reciting

a blessing

over his benefit,

and anyone who benefits from this world without a blessing has misused sacred property—

as though he benefited from consecrated property [and the reason for this will be explained shortly] .

students of Rabbeinu Yonah and the Ritva wrote that even if one knows how to recite only the blessing Shehakol, this blessing is sufficient to remove him from the prohibition of misuse of sacred property, since after the fact he fulfills his obligation through it, as is explained below (40a) in the Mishna. And the reason one must recite a specific blessing for each species is not in order to permit what is forbidden, but to fulfill the obligation that the Sages imposed, and so maintained the Eliyah Rabbah (section 2, subsection 1). Indeed, the Abudraham (p. 312) wrote that the prohibition against benefiting “without a blessing” means without the particular blessing for that species. What is his remedy? Let him go to a Sage!

The Gemara asks: And if

he goes to a Sage

after he has already sinned,

what can he do for him

the Sage?

This

in that he already ate without a blessing

he committed a prohibition for him

and what benefit will the Sage provide him now?

Rather, Rava said:

The intention of the beraita is

that he should go to a Sage from the outset

before he sins

and teach him

the laws of

blessings, so that he will not come to misuse sacred property .

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.

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Anyone who benefits from this world without a blessing

is

as though he benefited from the sacred things of Heaven, as it is stated

(Psalms 24:1):

“To Hashem belong the earth and all that fills it,”

and since the earth and everything in it belong to the Holy One, blessed be He, if he benefits from it without giving thanks to Him for it, he is as though he benefited from the sacred things of Heaven.

Rabbi Levi raised [a contradiction],

he asked about the apparent contradiction between the words of the verses:

It is written, “To Hashem belong the earth and all that fills it,” and

on the other hand

it is written

(Psalms 115:16):

“The heavens are the heavens of Hashem, and

as for

“the earth

and all that is in it,

He gave it to human beings!”

And Rabbi Levi answered:

It is not difficult; here,

the verse “The heavens are the heavens of Hashem” was stated

before the blessing,

when it still belongs to Hashem.