Berakhot 36b (לו:) — the Talmud in English

And

takes from him the fruit that the suspect gives him, despite the concern that he may bring him fruit from plantings prohibited because of orla,

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

the purchaser observing the suspect

picking

from the plantings prohibited because of orla.

Ravina therefore raises an objection: Since, according to Beit Shammai, the caper bush is a matter of uncertainty, whether it is a vegetable or a tree, it follows that by virtue of the principle, “In every case where the lenient view is followed in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha follows that view outside Eretz Yisrael,” the ruling should be decided in accordance with their opinion. Why, then, did they discard the caper berries and treat them as subject to the prohibition of orla?

Mar bar Rav Ashi resolves this for Ravina by distinguishing between deciding in accordance with the leniency of Rabbi Akiva and deciding in accordance with the leniency of Beit Shammai. The method of

Rabbi Akiva

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

in the presence of

the view of

Rabbi Eliezer,

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

we act in accordance with him,

because here the principle “In every case where the lenient view is followed in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha follows that view outside Eretz Yisrael” applies.

But with regard to the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, since

and

the view of

Beit Shammai,

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

in the presence of

the view of

Beit Hillel is not a valid view and is nullified in relation to Beit Hillel, it follows that the caper bush is considered certainly a tree. Therefore, the caper berries are prohibited because of orla even outside Eretz Yisrael.

The Gemara objects: Although it is true that according to Rabbi Akiva the capers are not obligated in maaser, because they are not “fruit,” nevertheless

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Although it is correct that according to Rabbi Akiva the caper buds are not subject to tithes because they are not “fruit,” nevertheless,

let it derive that they should be prohibited because of orla,

because

the capers become

the

a “protector” of the fruit

and protect it,

and the Torah states

with regard to orla (Leviticus 19:23):

“You shall treat its forbidden fruit as forbidden; its fruit”.

And the Sages derive from the word

“et”

that it includes also

that which is ancillary to its fruit,

which is prohibited because of orla.

And what is it

that is ancillary to the fruit?

A “protector” of the fruit.

Why, then, did Rav and Mar bar Rav Ashi permit eating the capers?

Rava said: Where do we say that something becomes a protector of the fruit? -

Where it exists

as a peel that protects the fruit

both when

the fruit is

detached

and

both when

the fruit is still

attached.

But

here, with regard to the capers, only

with the caper buds, only

when the

fruit is

attached does it exist

on the caper; but

when the

fruit is

detached, it does not exist

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

Abaye raised an objection to Rava: We learned in tractate Uktzin:

We learned in tractate Uktzin:

The blossom

[the flower] at the top

of a pomegranate

joins

with the pomegranate to complete the measure of an egg for rendering other foods impure through contact, despite the fact that the blossom itself is not edible, since it serves as a “protector” of the fruit.

And its “crown”

[the hairs that grow inside the blossom]

does not join

to complete the measure of an egg, because it is considered a “protector above a protector” [as it is located above the blossom].

Abaye inferred:

From the fact that it says, “Its crown

does not join,” it is evident that

the crown

is not “food,”

and

nevertheless

we learned with regard to orla: “The peels of a pomegranate and its crown,”

as well as

“the peels of nuts and their kernels” —

are subject to orla! Since the verse “its fruit” was expounded to include that which is ancillary to its fruit.

Yet even before the fruit is detached from the tree, the crown has already fallen from it. Thus, when the fruit is detached, the crown no longer serves as its “protector.” Nevertheless, it is subject to orla, proving that even if it does not protect the fruit after it is detached, it is nevertheless still considered a “protector” and is prohibited because of orla.

Rather, Rava said: Where do we say that something becomes

a protector of the fruit?

Where it exists at the time of the completion of the fruit,

and since, when the pomegranate ripens, the crown is still attached to it, it is considered a “protector” and is prohibited because of orla. But

this caper

[the capers]

does not exist at the time of the completion of the fruit; rather, it 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 objects:

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Is that so?

Does the fact that the protector falls from the fruit before it ripens mean that it is no longer considered a “protector”?

But didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuha said: These “matḥalei”

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

are subject to orla,

since they became a protector of the fruit!

And

these peels, which are considered

a protector of the fruit—

when do they exist

[at what stage do they protect the fruit]?

At the stage of the kufra,

when the dates are still small and the peels fall from them long before they ripen, similar to the capers on the caper berries;

and

nevertheless

he calls it a protector of the fruit

and it is prohibited because of orla!?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman

held in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who maintains that even long before the fruit ripens, it is already considered “fruit” and is prohibited because of orla. Therefore, the protector that was upon it before it ripened is also considered “the protector of the fruit” and is likewise prohibited because of orla.

As we learned: Rabbi Yosei says: The samadar

[a grape at the stage when the flowers on the vine fall and each individual grape is discernible], despite its small size, is

prohibited

because of orla

because it is

already considered

fruit.

And the Rabbis disagree with him,

maintaining that at this stage it is not yet considered fruit; consequently, its protector is not considered “the protector of the fruit,” and there is no reason to prohibit it.

And since the principle is that “when an individual and the many disagree, the halakha follows the many,” Rava held that the capers are permitted with regard to orla, since they protect the caper berries only while they are small, when they are not yet called “fruit”; consequently, they are not considered “a protector of the fruit.”

Rav Shimi of Nehardea challenged this:

But

with regard to other trees,

apart from the vine,

do the Rabbis disagree with him,

with Rabbi Yosei?

But didn’t we learn: “From when

at what stage in the growth of the fruit is it said

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

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

Beit Shammai say: All trees—

from the time they produce

the fruit, the prohibition against cutting them down already applies.

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 grapes,

and below it will be explained what measure this is.

And olive trees

may be cut down

from

the time

when they produce a crown

[when the crown grows around them];

and all other trees, from when they produce

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

The Gemara explains what measure of “gerua” was mentioned in the beraita:

And Rav Asi said:

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

it is “unripe fruit,” it is “gerua,” it is

“the white bean,”

and all three refer to the same thing. It follows that “gerua” means “unripe fruit.”

The Gemara objects: Is it conceivable

that “the white bean” should occur to you

as the measure stated with regard to grapes? After all, beans are an independent species of fruit!?

Rather, say: Its measure—

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

like

the size of

“the white bean.”

Rav Shimi therefore raises an objection to Rava:

Who is the one who taught: “Unripe fruit—

yes,”

meaning that only once the grape reaches 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 Rabbis

are the ones who hold this view, since earlier we learned, with regard to the prohibition of orla, that according to Rabbi Yosei even a samadar is considered “fruit”;

and it teaches

in the opinion of the Sages that the measure for

“all other trees”

is

from when they produce . It follows that with regard to the caper berries, even the Sages agree with Rabbi Yosei that from the very beginning of their emergence, while the capers are still upon them, they are already considered “fruit.” This refutes Rava, who maintains that the capers are not considered a “protector,” because they fall from the fruit before it ripens and acquires the status of “fruit.”

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 something is a protector of the fruit?

Where, if you remove the protector, the fruit dies,

the fruit dries out. But

here,

with regard to the capers, even

when you remove it,

the capers from the caper berries,

the fruit does not die. Therefore, it is not considered a “protector.”

and therefore it is not considered a “protector.”

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

and the pomegranate dried up; and they removed the blossom

[the capers]

of a caper bush

[from the caper berries]—

and the caper berries survived.

And the halakha follows Mar bar Rav Ashi, who discards the

caper berries and eats the capers; 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:

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

Rav Sheshet said:

Its blessing is

“by whose word everything came to be.”

Rava said:

No blessing at all

is recited over it, since it is not ordinarily eaten by itself, and there is no enjoyment in eating it.

And Rava follows his own line of reasoning,

as Rava said:

One who

chews

[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 considered “eating,”

and likewise if one

chews ginger

[a type of spice called “ginger,” which is not ordinarily eaten by itself]

on Yom Kippur—

he is exempt,

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

The Gemara raises an objection

from that which we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi

Meir said: From the implication of that which is stated

(Leviticus 19:23):

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

For it is clear that the matter under discussion is the prohibition against eating fruit that is fit for consumption;

rather, what is the meaning of the statement

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

food tree,”

when the word “food” is superfluous?

It comes to include

the prohibition of orla even with regard to fruits of a

tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste!

And what is it?—

This is pepper.

This teaches you that peppers are subject to the prohibition of orla,

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

And it teaches you

another matter:

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

(Deuteronomy 8:9):

“A land where 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 consumption, for otherwise they would not be prohibited by the prohibition of orla. This presents a difficulty for Rava, who said that peppers are not fit for eating.

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

This

beraita, which prohibits peppers as orla, is discussing

moist

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

That

Rava, who exempts one who eats them on Yom Kippur from karet and exempts one who eats them from reciting a blessing, is discussing

dry

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

The Rabbis said to Marimar:

But is it so that if one

chews ginger on Yom Kippur—

he is exempt?

But Rava said: This melta

[a food made from crushed spices, similar to ginger, 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 that it is subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, because since it is fit to eat even without cooking, cooking by a gentile does not prohibit it,

and one recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the earth.”

Apparently, from the fact that Rava did not express concern that it was food cooked by gentiles, because it is also eaten uncooked, it is proven that it is fit to eat in that 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 expressed no concern regarding food cooked by a gentile, is discussing

moist

ginger,

which

is fit to eat as it is.

That

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

dry

ginger,

which

is not fit to eat as it is.

One who eats

ḥavitz kedera,

a thick cooked dish made from flour, honey, and oil,

and likewise

one who eats

porridge,

a cooked dish made from wheat crushed in a mortar.

Rav Yehuda said:

Their blessing is

“by whose word everything came to be.”

Rav Kahana said:

Their blessing is

“Who creates various kinds of nourishment.”

With regard to plain porridge,

the Gemara explains:

Everyone agrees that

its blessing is

“Who creates

various kinds of nourishment,”

since over the types of grain that are baked or cooked in a pot one recites “Who creates various kinds of nourishment.”

When they disagree—

with regard to porridge

that is made

like ḥavitz kedera,

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

Rav Yehuda said:

Its blessing is

“by whose word everything came to be,”

because he

holds that the honey

is the

principal

ingredient of this food. It is unlike porridge whose principal ingredient is grain. Therefore, he recites a blessing over the honey, thereby exempting the wheat, which is secondary to it.

Rav Kahana said:

Its blessing is

“Who creates various kinds of nourishment,”

because he

holds that semolina

[the semolina] is the

principal

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

Rav Yosef said: Rav Kahana’s view,

who says that its blessing is “Who creates various kinds of nourishment,”

is reasonable.

As Rav and Shmuel both said: Every

food

that contains one of the five species

of grain—

one recites over it “Who creates various kinds of nourishment.”

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: Every food that contains

a mixture

of one of the five species—

one recites

over it “Who creates various kinds of nourishment”.

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

food

that is

itself

one of the five species—

one recites over it “Who creates various kinds of nourishment.”

And it is necessary

to state both teachings.

For had it been taught only: “Everything that is

of the five species,” \-

I would have said that it is because the grain is present

as grain

itself,

and therefore its blessing is “Who creates various kinds of nourishment”;

but

a type of grain that comes

through a mixture—

no

blessing of “Who creates various kinds of nourishment” is recited over it when it does not serve as the principal ingredient of the food.