Berakhot 36a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara rejects this:

If so, anigron would be the primary component and the oil would be secondary

.

And we learned: This is the general rule: Every

food

that is primary and

one eats

with it

another food that is

secondary—

one recites

one blessing

over the primary component, and exempts

with it

the secondary component

, and if so, when one drinks oil by mixing it with anigron, the oil does not require a blessing at all.

The Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here—

with one whose throat hurts

, who, for the purpose of curing it, places an unusually large quantity of oil into the anigron. In that case, the oil is primary, and one must recite over it the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” since it does not harm him; on the contrary, it benefits him.

As it was taught in a beraita: One whose throat hurts

on Shabbat

may not gargle it

—he may not gargle his throat

with oil

, in a situation where his intention from the

outset

is to spit it out after gargling and not swallow it.

On Shabbat

—this is prohibited because it is evident that he is doing so for medicinal purposes, and the Sages decreed that one may not perform an act for medical treatment on Shabbat, lest this lead him to grind medicinal substances, which is prohibited on Shabbat.

But he may place

even

a great deal of oil into anigron and swallow it

, because it is not evident that he is doing so for medicinal purposes; rather, it appears that he is drinking it for pleasure.

The Gemara asks: Since this concerns a case in which the oil does not harm him because it is mixed with anigron, and since it is also the “primary” component for him in the mixture,

it is obvious

that its blessing should be “Who creates the fruit of the tree.” What is Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel teaching us?

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say, since he is intending for medicinal treatment

and is not intending for pleasure

, one might mistakenly say that

he should not recite any blessing over it at all,

because blessings over enjoyment were instituted only for enjoyment that comes from food, and not for another benefit that comes from it.

It therefore teaches us that, since he does have

in fact

enjoyment from it

, even though this is not his intention,

he must recite a blessing

.

Wheat flour

—one who eats wheat flour.

Rav Yehuda said:

Its blessing is

“Who creates the fruit of the earth,”

just as one recites over wheat itself before it has been ground.

And Rav Naḥman said:

Its blessing is

“Who creates everything by His word.”

Since the wheat has changed from its previous form, this “change” removes from it the status of “fruit.”

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Do not disagree with Rav Yehuda

, because

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Shmuel support his view.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, and likewise Rabbi Yitzḥak said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Regarding olive oil—

one recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the tree.” This shows that although the fruit has changed

and become oil, nevertheless

it retains its status

; it remains in its previous standing, and its blessing is still “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” as it was before it changed.

Here, too,

wheat flour,

although it has changed

from kernels into flour,

it retains its status,

and one should recite over it “Who creates the fruit of the earth,” just as one recites over the wheat itself before it was ground.

Rav Naḥman rejects Rava’s statement:

Are flour

and oil comparable?

There

, with regard to “oil,”

there is no further improvement available to it

other than its transformation into “oil.” That is its intended purpose and function, and for that purpose the olive tree was planted. Therefore, despite the change, the “oil” is considered the “fruit” of the olive tree. Indeed, the change is what brought the fruit to its complete form and to the purpose for which the tree was planted. But

here,

with regard to “flour,”

there is further improvement available to it through

making it into

bread

. Thus, when the wheat was ground and changed, it had still not reached the purpose for which it was grown. Therefore, this intermediate state removes from it the status of “fruit” that it previously had, and at this stage its blessing is “Who creates everything by His word.”

The Gemara asks:

And is it true

that regarding something that has changed and

has further improvement available to it

we do not recite over it “Who creates the fruit of the earth,” but only “Who creates everything by His word”? But Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Mattana in the name of Shmuel: Over raw pumpkin

[a type of squash]

and

uncooked

over

with regard to

barley flour

[barley flour]—

we recite over them “Who creates everything by His word.”

The Gemara infers:

Is it not

that Shmuel specifically mentioned “barley flour” because it is inferior and therefore its blessing is “Who creates everything by His word”? But wheat flour

of wheat

, which is superior, should require

“Who creates the fruit of the earth”!?

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Shmuel certainly agrees that wheat flour

also

has the blessing

“Who creates everything by His word,”

the same blessing that was instituted for barley flour.

The Gemara asks: If so,

let Shmuel teach us

that one recites “Who creates everything by His word” over wheat flour

of wheat, and all the more so

we would know that one recites this blessing over barley flour

of barley,

since it is inferior to wheat flour.

The Gemara answers:

Had Shmuel taught us

only his ruling that one recites “Who creates everything by His word” over

wheat flour, we might have said: This applies only to wheat flour, but regarding barley flour,

since it is so inferior,

one should not recite any blessing over it at all.

Therefore,

he teaches us

that Shmuel requires one to recite “Who creates everything by His word” over it.

The Gemara asks: How could one have mistakenly thought that no blessing at all should be recited over barley flour?

And is it inferior

to that flour

than “salt” and “zimmit”

[salt water], over which one recites “Who creates everything by His word”?

As we learned: Over salt and over zimmit, one says, “Who creates everything by His word”!

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary

for Shmuel to teach us that one recites “Who creates everything by His word” over barley flour, because

it might have entered your mind to say: A person specifically makes use of “salt” and “zimmit”

[a person is accustomed]

to put them into his mouth

[to place them in his mouth] incidentally.

But since barley flour is harmful to intestinal worms

[the flour causes worms in the intestines], one might have said that

one should not recite any blessing over it

because it is harmful.

He therefore teaches us

that Shmuel says:

Since he does derive benefit from it

even though it is harmful,

he must recite a blessing.

“Kora”

—a person who eats the young branch of a palm tree during its first year, before it has had time to harden like wood.

Rav Yehuda said:

Its blessing is

“Who creates the fruit of the earth,” and Shmuel said:

Its blessing is

“Who creates everything by His word.”

The Gemara explains the reasoning behind the dispute:

Rav Yehuda said “Who creates the fruit of the earth”—

since it is

a fruit.

And Shmuel said “Who creates everything by His word”—

since ultimately

in the following year it will

harden

like wood, and then it will not be fit for eating at all. Therefore, even now, while it is soft, it does not have the importance of a “fruit,” and its blessing is “Who creates everything by His word.”

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Sharp one!

[You are clever.]

Your view is more reasonable! For

also

a radish,

if it is not uprooted at the proper time,

will ultimately harden

like wood,

and

nevertheless

we recite over it

while it is still fit for eating

“Who creates the fruit of the earth.”

If so, one should likewise recite “Who creates the fruit of the earth” over the kora, even though it will ultimately harden.

The Gemara rejects this:

That is not so.

The radish cannot be cited as proof for Rav Yehuda’s view, because

people plant radishes with the intention of producing a pugla

[intending to eat them while soft, when they are called pugla]. Since their primary purpose is to be eaten while soft, they have the importance of a “fruit,” even though they will ultimately harden like wood.

But

people do not plant palm trees with the intention of producing a “kora,”

since the kora is not the palm tree’s primary purpose. Therefore, it does not have importance in this state, and one should not recite over it “Who creates the fruit of the earth.”

The Gemara asks:

And

for

whenever people do not plant it with this intention—

we do not recite over it

its appropriate blessing?

But consider the tzalaf [a type of tree which, in addition to its fruit, has several parts that are fit for eating]

which people plant with the intention of

eating

its “perah”

, which is the fruit of this tree,

and we learned: over

eating

the types [its various parts] of

the “netzaf” [the tzalaf]

one recites as follows:

Over the leaves and over the shoots

that grow within the leaves—

one says: “Who creates the fruit of the earth,”

And over the avi onot

that is, the “perah,” which is the principal fruit of the tzalaf,

and over the kaprisin

the peel surrounding the fruit, which is customarily eaten together with it,

one says: “Who creates the fruit of the tree.”

Thus, one recites “Who creates the fruit of the earth” over the leaves and shoots, even though the tzalaf was not planted for their sake.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “The tzalaf—

people plant

also

with the intention of “shuta” [with the intention of eating its other parts, such as the leaves and shoots],

because their detachment does not diminish or damage the tree. But

the date palm—

people do not plant it with the intention of “kora,”

since detaching the “kora” from the date palm diminishes its branches and harms the tree itself; therefore it has no significance, and its blessing is “Who creates everything.”

And even though Samuel praised Rav Yehuda

by calling him “sharp-minded”—

the halakha is according to Samuel

that over the “kora” one recites “Who creates everything by His word.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A tzalaf of orla outside the Land of Israel —

one throws away

the avi onot

since they are “fruit” according to everyone and are forbidden by the prohibition of orla,

and eats the kaprisin [the peels],

as the reason will be explained shortly.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rav’s words:

Does this mean that the avi onot are fruit

and therefore forbidden as orla,

but

whereas

the kaprisin are not fruit

and therefore it is permitted to eat them?

And we raise a contradiction: over the types of netzaf [over the parts of the tzalaf] one recites as follows:

over the leaves

and over the shoots

one says “Who creates the fruit of the earth,” and over the avi onot and over the kaprisin one says “Who creates the fruit of the tree,”

which demonstrates that the peels too are considered “fruit.”

which proves that the coverings, too, are considered “fruit.”

The Gemara answers:

He

—Rav, who holds that the peels are not considered “fruit”—

speaks in accordance with Rabbi Akiva

, who disputes this beraita and holds that the peels are not considered “fruit.”

For we learned: Rabbi Eliezer says: A tzalaf—

one tithes

from it

shoots, avi onot, and kaprisin; Rabbi Akiva says: one does not tithe

from it

except avi onot alone, because

only

it is fruit.

And just as Rabbi Akiva holds this concerning the obligation of tithes, so does he hold concerning the prohibition of orla, that the kaprisin are not considered fruit. The Gemara asks:

Let Rav say

Rav

“The halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva”!

And from this we would understand that concerning orla as well only the avi onot are considered “fruit”; why did Rav need to teach us separately that the avi onot are forbidden because of orla?

The Gemara answers:

If he had said

Rav that

“the halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva,” we would have thought

that

even in the Land

of Israel, where the prohibition of orla is from the Torah, the halakha is according to him and the kaprisin are permitted to eat.

It teaches us

Rav that it is only outside the Land that he ruled according to Rabbi Akiva, since we have a principle in our possession that when the tannaim dispute whether the prohibition of orla [or mixed species] applies to something, then

whoever is lenient

concerning the prohibition of the fruits

in the Land

of Israel

the halakha is according to him

concerning fruits

outside the Land —

but in the Land

of Israel

Rav did not

rule according to him.

The Gemara asks:

Let

Rav

say: “The halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva outside the Land,”

and it would automatically be understood that the reason for this is

“for whoever is lenient in the Land, the halakha is according to him outside the Land”!?

The Gemara answers:

If he had said this, we would have thought: these words

were stated only

with regard to the tithe of a tree

, about which Rabbi Akiva spoke, because

in the Land itself

its obligation is

rabbinic

only,

But

with regard

to orla in the Land

of Israel, its prohibition is

from the Torah—

let us say

that

even outside the Land we should decree

and forbid the kaprisin, so that people will not come to be lenient with them in the Land of Israel.

It teaches us

that they are permitted, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

Ravina found Mar bar Rav Ashi throwing away avi onot

of a tzalaf of orla

and eating kaprisin. He said to him

—Ravina:

What is your view

in this, that you are eating the kaprisin of orla? Is it because you hold

like Rabbi Akiva, who is lenient

and does not consider the kaprisin fruit, and the principle is that “whoever is lenient in the Land, the halakha is according to him outside the Land”?

If so,

let the master act according to the House of Shammai, who are even more lenient

than Rabbi Akiva and hold that even the avi onot are certainly not fruit; because of the principle that “whoever is lenient in the Land, the halakha is according to him outside the Land,” the halakha should be according to them.

For we learned

in a beraita:

A tzalaf—

the House of Shammai say

: if it is grown adjacent to a grapevine, it is forbidden because of the prohibition of

mixed species in a vineyard,

and the House of Hillel say: it is not

the tzalaf forbidden because of

mixed species in a vineyard;

both these and those agree that

the tzalaf

is obligated in

the law of

orla,

The Gemara analyzes the meaning of the words of the beraita:

This itself is difficult!

You stated

at the beginning of the beraita:

A tzalaf—

the House of Shammai say

: it is

mixed species in a vineyard; consequently,

the tzalaf

is a type of vegetable

, for the prohibition of mixed species was stated only regarding a vegetable or grain growing in a vineyard, and not regarding a tree growing there.

And afterward it teaches

at the end of the beraita:

both these and those agree that

the tzalaf

is obligated in

the law of

orla; consequently,

the tzalaf

is a type

of tree!?

The Gemara answers:

This is not difficult!

For

Beit Shammai have unresolved doubt

whether the caper is a vegetable or a tree,

and

therefore

they act here

with regard to orla

stringently, and here

with regard to diverse kinds

stringently.

And from this Ravina raises an objection to Mar bar Rav Ashi:

in any event, for Beit Shammai it should have been

the caper

a doubt concerning orla

for according to their words, it is possible that it is a vegetable,

and we learned:

A thing that is

a doubt concerning orla—

in the Land of Israel,

where the prohibition of orla is from the Torah, it is

forbidden,

because “a doubt concerning a matter of Torah is treated stringently,”

and in Syria,

whose law is like outside the Land of Israel , it is

permitted, and outside the Land of Israel

[places farther from the Land of Israel than Syria] they were more lenient, for even if a person suspected concerning orla had an orchard, and there were also plantings in it that were forbidden with the prohibition of orla,

a person who is careful

about the prohibition of orla goes down to the orchard of the suspected person