Berakhot 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara rejects this:

If so, “anigron” would be primary and the oil secondary

.

And we learned: This is the general rule: Anything

that is food

that is primary, and

one eats

with it

another food that is

secondary

—

one recites one blessing

over the primary and exempts

with it also

the secondary

, and if so, when one drinks oil by mixing it with anigron, the oil requires no blessing at all.

The Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here

? With one whose throat hurts

, and for his recovery he puts a 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

when his intention from

the outset

is to expel it from his mouth after gargling and not swallow it.

On Shabbat

, this is because it is apparent that he is doing so for medicinal purposes, and the Sages decreed that one may not perform an act for medicinal purposes on Shabbat, lest this lead him to “grinding ingredients” [grinding ingredients needed for medicine], which is prohibited on Shabbat.

But he may put

even

a large amount of oil into anigron and swallow it

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

The Gemara asks: Since we are dealing with a case where the oil does not harm him because it is mixed with anigron, and it is also “primary” for him in the mixture,

it is obvious

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

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say, since he intends for it as medicine

and not for pleasure,

one might err and say that

he should not recite a blessing over it at all,

for blessings over enjoyment were instituted only for pleasure derived from food, and not for another benefit that comes from it;

it teaches us

that since he actually has

benefit from it

, even though that 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

“that everything came to be through His word.”

Since the wheat has changed from its previous form, the “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: With regard to olive oil

—

even though the fruit has changed

it retains its status

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

Here too,

with regard to wheat flour,

even though 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 wheat itself before it has been ground.

Rav Naḥman rejects Rava’s words:

Are flour

like oil?

There,

with regard to “oil,”

there is no further improvement possible

other than its becoming “oil.” That is its purpose and intended end, and for this 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 perfection and to the purpose for which the tree was planted.

Here, however, with regard to “flour,”

it

has a further improvement possible, namely

what is made from it:

bread

. Thus, when the wheat was ground and changed, it had not yet reached the purpose for which it was grown. Therefore, this intermediate state removes from it the status of “fruit” that it had, and at this stage its blessing is “that everything came to be through His word.”

The Gemara asks:

But

, with regard to something that changed and

has a further improvement possible

—

“do we not recite over it ‘Who creates the fruit of the earth,’ but rather ‘that everything came to be through His word’? But Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Mattana in the name of Shmuel: With regard to kara

ḥayya

, which is uncooked,

and

with regard to

barley flour

[barley flour],

we recite over them ‘that everything came to be through His word.’

The Gemara analyzes this statement:

What, is it not

that Shmuel mentioned “barley flour” because it is inferior, and therefore its blessing is “that everything came to be through His word”? But wheat flour,

wheat flour

, which is superior, should require the blessing

“Who creates the fruit of the earth”!?

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Shmuel certainly agrees that wheat flour,

wheat flour also

, has the blessing

“that everything came to be through His word,”

the same blessing instituted for barley flour.

The Gemara asks: If so,

let Shmuel teach us

that one recites “that everything came to be through His word” over wheat

flour, and all the more so

would we know that one recites this blessing over barley

flour,

since it is more inferior than wheat flour?

The Gemara answers:

Had Shmuel taught us

his ruling that one recites “that everything came to be through His word” over

wheat flour, I would have said: This applies only to wheat flour, but with regard to barley flour,

since it is so inferior,

one should not recite any blessing over it at all.

Therefore,

he teaches us

that Shmuel says one does recite “that everything came to be through His word” over it.

The Gemara asks: How could one have been mistaken and said that one does not recite any blessing over barley flour?

And is

that flour

inferior to “salt” and “zumit”

[salt water ], over which one recites the blessing “that everything came to be through His word”?

As we learned: Over salt and zumit one says, “that everything came to be through His word”!

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary

for Shmuel to teach that one recites “that everything came to be through His word” over barley flour, because

it might enter your mind to say: It is specifically “salt” and “zumit” that a person is accustomed

[a person is likely]

to put into his mouth

[to take into his mouth] casually.

But with regard to barley flour, since it 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

, since it is harmful.

He teaches us

that Shmuel says:

Since he derives benefit from it

, even though it is harmful,

he must recite a blessing.

“Kora”

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

Rav Yehuda said

:

Its blessing is “Who creates the fruit of the earth,” and Shmuel said

:

Its blessing is “that everything came to be through His word.”

The Gemara explains the reasoning behind the dispute:

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

—because

it is a fruit.

And Shmuel said, “that everything came to be through His word”

—because 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 has no importance as a “fruit,” and its blessing is “that everything came to be through His word.”

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Sharp one!

[You are sharp.]

Your position is more reasonable! For

even

a radish,

if it is not pulled up 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 have recited “Who creates the fruit of the earth” over the kor, even though it will ultimately harden.

The Gemara rejects this:

That is not so.

One cannot prove Rav Yehuda’s position from a “radish,” because

people plant radishes with the intention of producing pugla

[with the intention of eating them while they are soft, at which stage they are called pugla]. Since their primary purpose is fulfilled while they are still soft, they have the status of “fruit,” even if they will eventually harden like wood.

But

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

for “kor” is not the palm tree’s primary purpose. Therefore, it has no importance in this state, and one should not recite over it “Who creates the fruit of the earth.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

and

because

whenever people do not plant [a tree] with this intention—

we do not recite over it

its appropriate blessing?

But consider the case of the caper bush [a type of tree whose fruit, as well as several other parts, are fit for eating]

which people plant with the intention of

eating

its “flower”

which is the fruit of this tree.

And we learned: over

the eating of

the various [different parts] of

the “caper bush” [the caper bush]

one recites as follows:

Over the leaves and the tendrils

that grow among the leaves—

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

and over the buds

that is, the “flower,” which is the principal fruit of the caper bush,

and over the capers

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 ground” over the leaves and tendrils, even though the caper bush was not planted for their sake.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “The caper bush”—

people do plant it

also

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

because plucking them neither diminishes nor damages the tree. But

a palm tree—

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

since plucking the “kora” from a palm tree diminishes its branches and harms the tree itself. Therefore, it has no significance, and its blessing is “by Whose word all things came to be.”

And although Samuel praised Rav Yehuda

calling him “sharp-minded”—

the halakha is in accordance with Samuel

who rules that over “kora” one recites “by Whose word all things come to be.”

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A caper bush of orla in the Diaspora—

one throws away

the buds

since according to everyone they are “fruit” and are prohibited due to the prohibition of orla,

but eats the capers

the peels, as the reason will be explained shortly.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s statement:

Does this mean that the buds are fruit

and are therefore prohibited as orla,

and

whereas

the capers are not fruit

and are therefore permitted to eat?

And he raised a contradiction: Over the various parts of the caper bush [over the parts of the caper bush]

one recites as follows:

Over the leaves

and over the tendrils

one says, “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” and over the buds and over the capers one says, “Who creates the fruit of the tree,”

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

The Gemara answers:

It is he

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

who stated his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

who disagrees with this beraita and maintains that the peels are not considered “fruit.”

As we learned: Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a caper bush—

one tithes

from it

tendrils, buds, and capers; Rabbi Akiva says: One does not tithe

from it

except buds, because

only they

are fruit.

And just as Rabbi Akiva maintains this with regard to the obligation of tithes, so does he maintain with regard to the prohibition of orla, that the capers are not considered fruit. The Gemara raises an objection:

But let

Rav

say: “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva”!

From this we would understand that with regard to orla as well, only the buds are considered “fruit.” Why, then, did Rav need to teach separately that the buds are prohibited due to orla?

The Gemara answers:

Had

Rav

said: “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,” I would have thought

that

even in Eretz Yisrael

where the prohibition of orla is from the Torah, the halakha follows him and the capers are permitted to eat.

He therefore teaches us

that Rav ruled in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only outside Eretz Yisrael, since we have an established principle that when the tanna’im disagree whether the prohibition of orla [or diverse kinds] applies to something, then

whoever is lenient

regarding the prohibition of the fruit

in Eretz

Yisrael

the halakha follows him with regard to fruit

outside

Eretz Yisrael.

But in Eretz

Yisrael,

Rav did not

rule in accordance with him.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But let

Rav

say: “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva outside Eretz Yisrael,”

and it would consequently be understood that the reason is

that whoever is lenient in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha follows him outside Eretz Yisrael!?

The Gemara answers:

Had he said this, I would have thought: This applies only

only with regard to

the tithe of a tree

about which Rabbi Akiva was speaking, because

in Eretz Yisrael itself

its obligation is

rabbinic

alone,

But

with regard

to orla in Eretz Yisrael,

its prohibition is

from the Torah—

I might say

that

we should likewise decree in the Diaspora

and prohibit the capers, so that people would not come to treat them leniently in Eretz Yisrael.

He therefore teaches us—

that they are permitted, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

Ravina found Mar bar Rav Ashi throwing away buds

of a caper bush subject to orla

and eating capers. He said to him:

Ravina

What is your reasoning

for eating these capers of orla? Is it because you maintain

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who is lenient

and does not consider capers fruit, and the principle is that “whoever is lenient in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha follows him outside Eretz Yisrael”?

If so,

let the Master act in accordance with Beit Shammai, who are even more lenient

than Rabbi Akiva and maintain that even the buds are certainly not fruit. By virtue of the principle that “whoever is lenient in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha follows him outside Eretz Yisrael,” the halakha should follow them.

As we learned

in a beraita:

The caper bush—

Beit Shammai say:

if it is grown next to a grapevine, it is prohibited as

diverse kinds in a vineyard,

and Beit Hillel say: The caper bush is not

prohibited as

diverse kinds in a vineyard.

Both

the schools

agree that it is subject to

the law of

orla,

The Gemara analyzes the meaning of the beraita:

This itself is difficult!

You said

at the beginning of the beraita:

The caper bush—

Beit Shammai say:

it is

diverse kinds in a vineyard; apparently,

the caper bush

is a type of vegetable,

since the prohibition of diverse kinds applies only to a vegetable or grain growing in a vineyard, and not to a tree growing there.

And afterward it teaches

at the end of the beraita:

Both

the schools

agree that it is subject to

the law of

orla; apparently,

the caper bush

is a type

of tree!?

The Gemara answers:

This is not difficult!

because

Beit Shammai are uncertain

whether the caper is a vegetable or a tree,

and

therefore

they apply stringency here

with regard to orlah

and here

with regard to kilayim

as a stringency.

Ravina now challenges Mar bar Rav Ashi:

In any event, according to Beit Shammai, caper should be

a

case of uncertain orlah status

since according to them it is possible that it is a vegetable,

And we learned:

an item that is

of uncertain orlah status,—

in Eretz Yisrael

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

forbidden

because “in a case of uncertainty concerning a Torah prohibition, one rules stringently,”

and in Syria

whose status is like that of outside Eretz Yisrael , it is

permitted, and outside Eretz Yisrael

[places farther from Eretz Yisrael than Syria] they were even more lenient so that even if a person suspected of disregarding orlah had an orchard containing plantings that were also forbidden because of orlah,

a person enters

who is careful to observe the prohibition of orlah, into the orchard of the suspect.