Berakhot 35b — the Talmud in English

Here,

the verse, “And He gave the earth to human beings,” was stated

after a blessing,

for from then on it is permitted to human beings.

Rav Hanina bar Pappa said: Whoever derives benefit from this world without a blessing—

it is as though he robs the Holy One, blessed is He,

of His blessing,

and

he robs

the Congregation of Israel

by this, for through his sins he causes their produce to be lost .

As it is stated (Proverbs 28:24): “

[A person]

who robs his father and mother and says, ‘There is no

sin

in this—

he is a companion to a destructive man.’” And “his father” can only refer to the Holy One, blessed is He, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 32:6):

“Is He not your Father, your Creator?”

And ‘his mother’ can only refer to the Congregation of Israel, as it is stated (Proverbs 1:8):

“Hear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake

the teaching of your mother.”

What is the meaning of “a companion to a destructive man”?

Rav Hanina bar Pappa said: He is a companion to Jeroboam son of Nebat, who destroyed Israel for their Father in Heaven.

Thus, too, one who derives benefit without a blessing sins and causes Israel to sin, for others see him and learn from him to do likewise.

Rav Hanina bar Pappa raises a contradiction: It is written (Hosea 2:11):

(Ошеа 2:11)

“And I will take away My grain in its time,”

so the grain belongs to the Holy One, blessed is He, and He takes it when He wishes;

but

on the other hand

it is written (Deuteronomy 11:14):

(Второзаконие 11:14):

“And you shall gather your grain,”

so the grain belongs to Israel.

It is not difficult.

Here,

the verse in which “And you shall gather your grain” is stated deals

with the time when Israel performs the will of the Omnipresent,

when their grain is theirs.

Here,

the verse in which “And I will take away My grain in its time” is stated deals

with the time when Israel does not perform the will of the Omnipresent,

when the Holy One, blessed is He, takes it and shows them that it is His.

The Sages taught: “And you shall gather your grain”—

what does it come to teach?

Since it is stated (Joshua 1:8):

(Йеошуа 1:8):

“This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth,” one might

learn the

words

of the verse

according to their literal wording,

that a person should not engage at all in his livelihood, but only in Torah study?

The verse therefore states: “And you shall gather your grain,”

teaching us that

you should conduct with them

together with the words of Torah also

the practice of the way of the world,

so that you will engage also in your livelihood ,

the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says:

And is it

possible

to say in accordance with the words of Rabbi Ishmael? Yet if

a person plows at the time of plowing, sows at the time of sowing, reaps at the time of reaping, threshes at the time of threshing, and winnows at the time of

the blowing of

the wind, what will become of Torah!?

Rather,

the matter must necessarily be resolved differently, and it must be said that the verse in which “This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” is stated is fulfilled

at the time when Israel performs the will of the Omnipresent,

when

their work is performed by others,

and they themselves can engage only in Torah,

as it is stated (Isaiah 61:5):

(Йешаягу 61:5):

“And strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks.”

And

if

at the time when Israel does not perform the will of the Omnipresent,

when, since they were not deserving,

their work is performed by themselves,

the verse

that is stated (Deuteronomy 11:14):

(Второзаконие 11:14):

“And you shall gather your grain”

is fulfilled in them, and they cannot engage only in Torah.

And not only that, but

also

the work of others is performed by them, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 28:48):

“And you shall serve your enemy.”

Abaye said: Many acted in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Ishmael,

engaging in their livelihood alongside their occupation with Torah—

and it succeeded for them.

And many acted

like Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai—

and it did not succeed for them.

Rava said to the Sages: Please, during the days of Nisan

when the grain is harvested,

and during the days of Tishrei

when the grapes are trodden in the winepresses and the oil is pressed in the olive presses—

do not appear before me,

but suspend your studies and engage in the livelihood of your households

so that

[in order that]

you will not be troubled by your food throughout the entire year

[during the entire year].

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ilai: Come and see how unlike the earlier generations are the later generations.

The earlier generations,

although they

made their Torah fixed and their work occasional,

since they were pious—

both this and that endured for them.

But

the later generations,

whose level was not like that of the earlier generations, although they

made their work fixed and their Torah occasional—

neither this nor that endured for them.

And Rabba bar Rav Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ilai: Come and see how unlike the earlier generations are the later generations.

The earlier generations,

who desired to fulfill the mitzvot of the Lord,

would bring their produce in through the vestibule

[the opening of the courtyard and the house]

so that

they would see the “face of the house,” and thereby

make it liable for tithes,

as will be explained shortly.

But

the later generations,

whose level was not like that of the earlier generations,

would bring their produce in through roofs and through courtyards

and

through enclosures, so that

they would not see the “face of the house,” and thereby

exempt it from tithes.

For Rabbi Yannai said: Untithed produce does not become liable for tithing

by Torah law —

until it sees the face of the house,

and the side where the entrance is is the face of the house .

As it is stated (Deuteronomy 26:13), concerning the removal of tithes:

(Второзаконие 26:13), относительно уничтожения десятин:

“I have removed the holy thing from the house.”

And since the removal must be from the house, it follows that its liability is not established until it enters the house .

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even

if one brought the untithed produce into

the courtyard

of the house, it

establishes

the grain and produce as liable for tithing.

As it is stated (there, verse 12):

(там, стих 12):

“And they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied.”

We learned in the Mishna: For the fruit of a tree, one says, “Who creates the fruit of the tree,”

except for wine,

for over wine one says, “Who creates the fruit of the vine.”

The Gemara asks:

What is different about wine,

that they established for it a blessing formula of its own, unlike the other fruit of the tree ?

If you say it is because it was transformed for the better,

in that it changed from a “grape” into “wine” [for wine is superior to grapes] , therefore

it was transformed

also

with regard to

the matter of

the blessing,

and they established a formula of its own for it.

But what of oil, which was transformed for the better,

in that it changed from an “olive” into “oil” [and oil is superior to olives],

and

nevertheless

it was not transformed

in the matter of

the

matter of

the blessing,

for they did not establish a formula of its own for it.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, and likewise Rabbi Yitzhak said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Over olive oil one recites, “Who creates the fruit of

the tree,”

as one recites over olives.

The Gemara answers:

They said: There,

with regard to oil, the reason they did not establish a formula of its own for it is

because it is impossible.

How shall we recite a blessing

over it?

If we recite a blessing

over it

“Who creates the fruit of the olive,”

then

the fruit itself is called “olive,”

and since the fruit itself is called “olive,” the formula “Who creates the fruit of the olive” would be understood to mean that God created the oil, which is the fruit of the olive; this is impossible, since oil is the product of human creation and not the creation of the Creator. [But with wine, since the tree is called “vine,” “the fruit of the vine” is the grape—which is the creation of the Creator—and therefore it is appropriate to recite over it “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” meaning “the grape” from which the wine is made.]

The Gemara asks:

Then let us recite over it, “Who creates the fruit of the olive tree,”

similar to the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the vine”?

Rather,

Mar Zutra said:

there is another reason to distinguish between wine and oil.

Wine,

wine,

nourishes,

and because of this importance they established a blessing formula of its own for it; but

oil,

oil,

does not nourish.

The Gemara asks:

And

why,

does oil not nourish!?

But we learned: One who vows

not to derive benefit

from nourishment—

is permitted water and salt.

And we raised it:

Since it is implied from this Mishna that

water and salt

alone

are what are not called “nourishment,” but everything else is called nourishment, shall we say that it is a refutation of Rav and Shmuel, who say: One recites “Who creates various kinds of nourishment” only over

foods made from

the five species

of grain

alone,

for only they are called “nourishment”?

And Rav Huna said

to resolve this question: The Mishna in tractate Nedarim is not dealing with one who prohibited himself by a vow from deriving benefit from “nourishment,” for “nourishment” truly includes only the five species, in accordance with the words of Rav and Shmuel.

Rather,

when he says: Everything

that

nourishes

a person is forbidden

to me

by a konam; and for this reason he is prohibited from everything except water and salt, because all things besides them nourish a person to some degree, although they are not called “nourishment.”

The Gemara returns to the matter at hand and asks:

Apparently,

we learn from this Mishna that

oil nourishes, for one who vows concerning everything that “nourishes” is prohibited from olive oil. If so, why did they not establish for oil a formula of its own, as they established for wine?

since one who vows against everything that nourishes is prohibited from olive oil. Why, then, was no separate blessing established for oil as was established for wine?

Rather,

the Gemara explains another reason for the distinction between wine and oil.

Wine satisfies,

and because of this importance they established a blessing formula of its own for it,

but

whereas

oil does not satisfy.

The Gemara asks:

But wine—

does it satisfy?

But Rava would drink wine every eve of Passover

[the eve of the Festival of Passover]

so that it would draw it toward his heart

[in order to stimulate his appetite]

and

thereby

he would eat more matza.

Thus, drinking wine does not satisfy; on the contrary, it stimulates the appetite.

The Gemara answers: When the quantity of wine is

a great deal,

it is

appetite-stimulating [

stimulates the appetite], and this is the quantity that Rava drank. But when the quantity of wine is

a small amount,

it is

satisfying, and since wine has the property of satisfying the heart [in a certain quantity], they established a blessing formula of its own for it .

and since wine has the quality of satisfying the heart [in a certain quantity], a separate blessing was established for it .

The Gemara asks again:

Does it satisfy

wine at all?

But it is written (Psalms 104:15):

(Псалмы 104:15):

“And wine

gladdens

the heart of man, and bread sustains the heart of man.”

It implies that

it is bread that satisfies,

whereas

wine does not satisfy, but only gladdens!?

but only gladdens!?

The Gemara answers: The intention of the verse is not to say that wine does not satisfy,

rather,

the intention is that

wine has two things in it—

it satisfies and gladdens ,

whereas

bread

certainly satisfies,

but

does not gladden.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

since wine is satiating,

let him recite over it

after it

the three blessings

of the “Grace after Meals,” as one recites over bread.

The Gemara answers: Even though wine is satiating, one does not recite “Grace after Meals” over it, because

people do not establish their meal upon it,

unlike “bread,” upon which people establish their meal.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: If he establishes [A0012]upon the wine[/A0012] [A0012]his meal

upon wine,

what [is the law]?

Will he recite three blessings over the wine .

He said to him: When Elijah comes and says —

whether it is an establishment.

At present, however,

since people do not establish their meal upon wine, even if one establishes his meal upon it,

his opinion is nullified in relation to all people,

and his establishment is not an establishment .

In the body of the matter: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, and likewise Rabbi Yitzḥak said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Over olive oil one recites, “Who creates the fruit of the tree” .

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances?

If we say that he is drinking it

as it is — behold,

it harms

the body and this is not eating that requires a blessing according to Rashi, however the Ritba wrote: “The explanation is: This one is ruining the oil, and it is considered as harming, and it is not considered benefit at all.” That is to say, the “harm” to which the Gemara referred is not to the person, but rather to the oil, since the oil is not intended for this, it follows that this use damages it and harms it. And this eating has no designation of “eating,” but rather the designation of “harming.” — And this appears from the wording of Maimonides ( Commentary on Terumot, chapters 8 halakha 8 and 11); see his words.

For it was taught:

A non-koen

who drinks teruma oil

unintentionally

pays

the koen only

the principal,

for he caused the koen to lose his property.

And he does not pay the fifth

as one who ate teruma that is fit for eating pays, because drinking oil is not considered eating but rather an act of harm. But a non-koen

who anoints himself with teruma oil

unintentionally, since anointing is considered “drinking,”

pays

the koen

the principal and pays

him also

the fifth. — It follows that drinking oil is not considered “eating,” and if so, one should not recite a blessing over it.

The Gemara attempts to resolve the matter:

The Gemara attempts to resolve this:

Rather, he is eating it

the oil

by means of

dipping in it

the bread,

for in such a manner the oil does not harm him, and consequently his eating is considered “eating” that requires a blessing.

The Gemara rejects this:

If so, the bread is the principal and it

the oil

is secondary,

for it comes to dip with the bread.

And we learned: This is the general rule: Every

food

that is principal and

eats

with it

another food that is

secondary —

he recites

one blessing

over the principal and exempts

with it also

the secondary.

And if so, when he eats the oil by dipping bread in it, the oil does not require a blessing at all.

The Gemara attempts to resolve it in another manner:

Rather, he is drinking it

the oil

by means of

putting it into a soup called

“anigron,”

for the manner of drinking “anigron” is by mixing oil into it, and in such a manner the oil does not harm him, and consequently his drinking is considered “eating” that requires a blessing.

For Rabba bar Shmuel said: “Anigron”

is

water of cooked vegetables [A0149]spinach soup[/A0149]

[свекольный отвар], а

“ansigron”

is

water ![](pamud.bmp "

precise location of page column")

of all cooked vegetables [A0155]vegetable soup of all kinds[/A0155].

[овощной суп из разных видов овощей].