Berakhot 36b — the Talmud in English

And

takes

from him the fruits that the suspect gives him, despite the concern that he may bring him fruits from plantings forbidden because of orla,

provided that he does not see him

—the buyer does not see the suspect

picking

from the plantings forbidden because of orla.

And therefore Ravina raises an objection: Since, according to Beit Shammai, the caper bush is a doubt—whether a vegetable or a tree—it follows that, by virtue of the rule “In every case where the lenient opinion is followed in the Land, the halakha is like it outside the Land,” one must decide in accordance with them. Why, then, did they throw away the caper berries and fear the prohibition of orla concerning them?

Mar bar Rav Ashi resolves for Ravina that one must distinguish between deciding in accordance with the leniency of Rabbi Akiva and deciding in accordance with the leniency of Beit Shammai. For the method of

Rabbi Akiva

who is lenient in saying that only the caper berries are considered “fruit”

in the place of

the method of

Rabbi Eliezer,

who disagrees with him and holds that the caper buds and shoots are also considered “fruit,” is not nullified in relation to Rabbi Eliezer; therefore

we act in accordance with him,

because here the rule “In every case where the lenient opinion is followed in the Land, the halakha is like it outside the Land” applies.

But concerning the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, since

and

the method of

Beit Shammai,

who are lenient in saying that even the caper berries are not considered “fruit,” is,

in the place of

the method of

Beit Hillel, not a Mishna,

and is nullified in relation to Beit Hillel, it follows that the caper bush is considered certainly a tree; therefore the caper berries are forbidden because of orla even outside the Land.

The Gemara raises an objection: Although it is correct that according to Rabbi Akiva the caper buds are not liable for tithe because they are not “fruit,” nevertheless

let him derive

that they should be forbidden with the prohibition of orla, because

it became

the caper bud

a “protector” for the fruit

and shields it,

and the Torah said

concerning orla (Leviticus 19:23):

“And you shall treat its foreskin as foreskin, its fruit”

and they expound from the word

“et”

to include also

that which is subordinate to its fruit,

which is forbidden with the prohibition of orla.

And what is it

that is subordinate to the fruit?

A “protector” for the fruit.

And why did Rav and Mar bar Rav Ashi permit eating the caper buds?

Rava said: Where do we say that it became a protector for the fruit? -

Where it is present

—the peel that protects the fruit—

both when

the fruit is

detached

and

both when

the fruit is still

attached.

But

here,

with the caper buds, only

when the

fruit is

attached is it present

with the caper bud; but

when the

fruit is

detached it is not present

with the caper bud, because they fall off when the fruit ripens on the tree. Therefore they are not considered a “protector” for the fruit.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava:

But we learned in tractate Uktzin:

The pistil

[the flower] at its top

of a pomegranate

joins

with the pomegranate to the measure of an egg in order to render other foods impure through their contact, even though the pistil is not eaten, since it serves as a “protector” for the fruit.

And its “flower”

[the hairs that grow inside the pistil]

does not join

to complete the measure of an egg, because it is considered a “protector above a protector” [its place is above the pistil].

And Abaye inferred:

Since it says, “its flower

does not join,” it follows that

the flower

is not “food,”

and

nevertheless

we learned concerning orla: The peels of a pomegranate and its flower,

and likewise

the peels of nuts and the kernels —

are liable for orla! Since they were included through “its fruit,” that which is subordinate to its fruit was included.

But even before the fruit is detached from the tree, the “flower” has already fallen from it; thus, when the fruit is detached, the “flower” no longer serves as a “protector” for it. Nevertheless, one is liable for it because of orla. This proves that even if it does not protect the fruit while detached, it is nevertheless still considered a “protector” and is forbidden because of orla.

Rather, Rava said: Where do we say that they become

a protector for fruit?

Where it is present at the time of the completion of the fruit.

And since, at the time of the pomegranate’s ripening, the “flower” is still attached to it, it is therefore considered a “protector” and is forbidden because of orla. But

this caper bud

[the caper buds]

is not present at the time of the completion of the fruit

but falls shortly before the time when the fruit ripens; therefore it is not considered a “protector” and is permitted with regard to the prohibition of orla.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so?

Is it because the protector falls from the fruit before its ripening that it is no longer considered a “protector”?

But Rav Nahman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said: These “peels”

[the peels that protect dates at the beginning of their growth, when they are small]

of orla,

are forbidden, since they became a protector for the fruit!

And

these peels, which are considered

a protector for fruit—

when are they

[at what time are they protectors of the fruit]?

When they are in the stage of kufra,

when the dates are still small and they fall from them a long time before their ripening, like the caper buds on the caper berries;

and

nevertheless

he calls it a protector for fruit

and it is forbidden because of orla!?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Nahman

held in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that even a long time before the fruit ripens, it is considered “fruit” and is forbidden because of orla. Therefore, the protector that was upon it before its ripening is also considered a “protector of the fruit” and is likewise forbidden because of orla.

For we learned: Rabbi Yosei says: The samadar

[a grape at the stage when the flowers on the vine fall and each berry is recognizable on its own], despite its smallness,

is forbidden

because of orla

because it is

already considered

fruit.

And the Sages disagree with him,

holding that at this stage it is not yet considered fruit; consequently, its protector is also not considered “the protector of the fruit,” and there is no basis to forbid it.

And since “an individual and the many—the halakha is according to the many,” Rava held that the caper buds are permitted with regard to orla, since they protect the caper berries only while they are small, when the designation “fruit” does not yet apply to them; consequently, they are not considered a “protector of fruit.”

Rav Shimi of Nehardea challenged this: And

is it so that

with the other trees

apart from the vine,

do the Sages disagree with him

—with Rabbi Yosei?

But we learned: From when

—from what stage in the fruit’s growth—is it stated that

one may not cut down the trees during the Sabbatical year,

because of the prohibition against destroying the fruits growing upon them?

Beit Shammai say: All trees—

from the time they produce

the fruit, the prohibition against cutting them down already takes effect.

And Beit Hillel say: Carob trees

may be cut down only

from

the time

when they form chains

[when something resembling a “chain” can be seen on them],

and grapevines

may be cut down only

from when they form small berries,

and below it will be explained what this measure is.

And olive trees

may be cut down

from

the time

when they produce the pistil

[when the “flower” grows around them],

and all the other trees, from the time they produce

the fruit, in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai.

The Gemara explains the measure of “small” mentioned in the beraita:

And Rav Asi said:

In every place where the Sages taught “unripe fruit,”

it is “unripe fruit,” it is “small,” it is

“white bean,”

and all three are one thing. It follows that “small” means “unripe fruit.”

The Gemara raises an objection: Is

“white bean” conceivable

as something to be said about grapes? After all, “beans” are a species of fruit in their own right!?

Rather, say: Its measure

—the measure of the unripe fruit called “small”—is

like

the size of

“a white bean.”

Therefore Rav Shimi raises an objection to Rava:

Who is it that you heard say: “Unripe fruit—

yes,”

meaning that only when the grape has reached the stage of unripe fruit is it considered fruit, whereas when it is still at the initial stage called

“samadar”—

no,

it is not considered fruit?

The Sages are the ones who hold this, for earlier we learned concerning the prohibition of orla that according to Rabbi Yosei even samadar is considered “fruit.”

are the ones who hold this opinion, since we learned above, with regard to the prohibition of the first three years, that according to Rabbi Yosei even a “samadar” is considered “fruit.”

And it teaches

according to the Sages that the measure for

all the other trees

is

from the time they produce . It follows, then, that concerning the caper berries, even the Sages agree with Rabbi Yosei that from the very beginning of their appearance, while the caper buds are upon them, they are already considered “fruit.” This contradicts Rava, who holds that the caper buds are not considered a “protector,” because they fall from the fruit before it ripens and the designation “fruit” applies to it.

fruit. It follows that with regard to caper berries, even the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yosei that as soon as they emerge, while the caper buds are still upon them, they are already considered “fruit.” This presents a difficulty to Rava, who maintains that the caper buds are not considered a “protector,” because they fall from the fruit before it ripens and acquires the status of “fruit.”

Rather,

Rava said: Where do we say that it is a protector for the fruit?

Where, when you remove the protector, the fruit dies

[the fruit dries out]. But

here,

with the caper buds, even

when you remove it

the caper bud from the caper berries,

the fruit does not die,

and therefore it is not considered a “protector.”

An incident occurred, and they removed the flower of a pomegranate—

and the pomegranate dried up; and they removed the flower

[the caper buds]

of the caper bush

[from the caper berries]—

and the caper bush remained alive.

And the halakha is according to Mar bar Rav Ashi, who throws away the

caper berries and eats the caper buds; and since with regard to orla they are not fruit—

with regard to blessings as well they are not fruit, and we do not recite over them “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” but rather “Who creates the fruit of the ground”] .

Pepper :

which is customarily eaten in a mixture with other things—if one wishes to eat it by itself.

Rav Sheshet said:

their blessing is

“Shehakol”; Rava said: No—

one recites

nothing

over them, since it is not customary to eat them by themselves, and there is no pleasure in eating them.

And Rava followed his own reasoning,

for Rava said:

One who

bites [ [A0013]]every person who eats something in a manner unlike its usual manner of eating is called “one who bites,” and here too it is not customary to eat it by itself ]

[one who eats something in a manner other than its usual manner of eating is called a “chewer,” and here too it is not ordinarily eaten by itself]

pepper on Yom Kippur \-

is exempt

from the obligation of karet, since this is not “eating,”

and likewise if

he bites ginger [

a type of spice called “ginger,” and it is not customary to eat it by itself ]

on Yom Kippur—

he is exempt,

and Rava holds that the same is true with regard to a blessing: eating the pepper is not considered “eating”,

He raised an objection

from what we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi

Meir used to say: From the implication of what is stated (

Leviticus 19:23):

“And you shall regard its fruit as forbidden,” do I not know that it is a fruit tree?

For it is clear that the subject is the prohibition against eating fruit that is fit for eating,

but what does Scripture come to teach

at the beginning of the verse (there), “And you shall plant every

fruit tree,”

when the word “fruit” is superfluous!?

To include,

including in the prohibition of orla even the fruit of a

tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste!

And what is it?—

This is pepper.

To teach you that peppers are subject to orla,

so that we should not err and say: Since the tree is low, the peppers are not considered “the fruit of a tree,” but rather are a type of vegetable.

And to teach you

another matter,

that the Land of Israel lacks nothing, as it is stated (

Deuteronomy 8:9):

“A land in which you shall eat bread without scarcity; you shall lack nothing in it.”

We learn from the words of the beraita that peppers are considered fruit fit for eating, for otherwise they would not have been forbidden by the prohibition of orla, and this is difficult for Rava, who said that peppers are not fit for eating.

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

This—

the beraita that forbids peppers with the prohibition of orla—speaks

of moist ones [

a moist pepper, fit for eating and therefore considered fruit ].

This—

Rava, who exempts one who eats them on Yom Kippur from karet and exempts one who eats them from a blessing—speaks

of dry ones [

a dry pepper, which is not eaten by itself ].

The Rabbis said to Marimar:

But is it so that

one who bites ginger on Yom Kippur—

is exempt?

But Rava said: This multa [

a food made from crushed spices, similar to ginger, and mixed with honey ]

that comes from the land of the Indians [

which comes from the land of Cush ],

is permitted

and there is no concern about it on account of “the cooking of gentiles,” because since it is fit for eating even without cooking, the cooking of a gentile does not prohibit it ,

and one recites over it Borei pri ha-adama.

And apparently, from the fact that Rava did not have concern about “the cooking of gentiles” in its case, because it is eaten even without cooking, it is proven that it is fit for eating in this manner; if so, why did Rava exempt one who eats it raw from a blessing and from karet on Yom Kippur .

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult: this—

Rava, who permitted eating it and had no concern about the cooking of a gentile—speaks

of

ginger

that is moist,

which is fit for eating as it is.

This—

whereas Rava, who exempts one who eats it from a blessing and from karet when he eats it on Yom Kippur—

of

ginger

that is dry,

which is not fit for eating as it is.

One who eats

havitz kedera,

a congealed dish made of flour, honey, and oil,

and likewise

one who eats

porridge,

cooked, made from wheat that was crushed in a mortar.

Rav Yehuda said:

Their blessing is

“Shehakol nihyeh bidvaro.”

Rav Kahana said:

Their blessing is

“Borei minei mezonot.”

With regard to plain porridge,

the Gemara explains: [ordinary]

everyone agrees that

its blessing is

“Borei”

“minei mezonot,”

since over types of grain that are baked or cooked in a pot one recites “Borei minei mezonot.”

When they disagree—

with regard to porridge

that is made

like havitz kedera,

in which honey was mixed and it was cooked in a pot.

Rav Yehuda said:

Its blessing is

“Shehakol,”

because he

holds that the honey

is the

principal

ingredient of this food. And it is unlike porridge whose principal ingredient is grain; therefore, he recites over the honey and thereby exempts the wheat, which is subordinate to it.

Rav Kahana said:

Its blessing is

“Borei minei mezonot”—

because

he holds that semida [

the fine flour ] is

the principal

ingredient of this porridge, since it is a type of grain and is therefore always considered the principal ingredient of the food, despite the fact that in practice the person’s principal intention is for the thing mixed into this porridge, as will be explained in the words of Rav and Shmuel below .

Rav Yosef said: The view of Rav Kahana

that he said that its blessing is “Borei minei mezonot”

is reasonable.

For Rav and Shmuel both said: Any

food

that contains one of the five species

of grain—

one recites over it “Borei minei mezonot.”

For the importance of grain causes it to be considered the principal ingredient of the food in every case

In the body of the matter, Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that contains

a mixture

of the five species —

one recites

over it “Borei minei mezonot” .

And it was likewise stated: Rav and Shmuel both said: Any

food

that is

itself

of the five species—

one recites over it “Borei mezonot.”

And it is necessary

to state both sayings.

For if he had taught us “Anything that is

of the five species,” \-

I would have thought: Because the grain exists

as grain

in its own form,

therefore its blessing is “Borei minei mezonot,”

but

a type of grain that comes

by means of a mixture—

no,

one does not recite over it “Borei minei mezonot” when it does not serve as the principal ingredient of the food.