Berakhot 37b — the Talmud in English

Every

food

that is of the seven species ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

but is not a grain species

[for if it is a grain species, there is a distinction in its law: if he made it into bread, everyone agrees that one recites three blessings over it],

or

food that is

a grain species but he did not make it into bread —

In these two matters, namely, food that is of the seven species and food that is of a grain species that he did not make into bread, the Sages and Rabban Gamliel disagreed:

Rabban Gamliel says:

one recites after them

three blessings.

And the Sages say:

one recites after them

one blessing

resembling the three alone.

And every

food

that is neither of the seven species nor

of a

grain species, such as rice bread and millet bread —

Rabban Gamliel says:

one recites after them

one blessing resembling the three.

And the Sages say:

one does not recite after them

anything at all,

but the blessing “Who creates many living beings.”

By virtue of this beraita, Rav Sheshet resolves the contradiction between the beraitot on the previous page:

For it was clarified in this beraita that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, Rabban Gamliel and the Sages disagreed concerning rice bread and millet bread; consequently, one must resolve that the beraita which said that one must recite one blessing resembling the three over rice was taught according to Rabban Gamliel,

whereas the second beraita, which says that one does not recite one blessing resembling the three after rice, but only “Who creates many living beings,” was taught according to the Sages.

The Gemara rejects Rav Sheshet’s resolution:

According to whom did you establish

the beraita that says that one must recite one blessing resembling the three over rice —

according to Rabban Gamliel.

If so,

say the latter clause of the first clause

of this beraita, in which the law concerning one who baked wheat flour and made it into bread, and afterward cooked the bread, was clarified:

If the slices

of the bread

remain

because they dissolved during the cooking —

at the beginning he recites over it “Who creates various kinds of nourishment,” and at the end he recites over it “one blessing resembling the three.”

According to whom

[was this law taught]?

If

according to

Rabban Gamliel —

it is impossible!

Now

what if

“date cakes”

of dates

and “porridge”

made from grain that was never baked,

Rabban Gamliel said

that one recites after them

three blessings.

Baked bread that he cooked, even

if the slices do not remain

and dissolved during their cooking —

is it necessary

to say that one recites three blessings over it!?

Yet in the beraita it is explicitly stated that one recites over it only one blessing resembling the three.

Rather, it is obvious that this beraita, in which it is explained that one recites one blessing resembling the three over baked bread that he cooked, was not taught according to Rabban Gamliel, as Rav Sheshet resolved, but was taught according to

the

Sages,

who said that one must recite “Who creates various kinds of nourishment” over porridge, and this bread that dissolved through cooking and thereby lost the designation of bread is likewise considered porridge.

If so,

the Gemara’s earlier difficulty returns to its place:

the difficulty between the Sages

who said in the first beraita [on the previous page] that one recites one blessing resembling the three over rice bread

and the Sages

in the second beraita, who said that one recites over rice bread “nothing at all,” namely, the blessing “Who creates many living beings”!?

The Gemara answers:

Rather, in fact

the first beraita was taught according to

the Sages, and teach

in it [emend it

concerning rice: “And at the end

he does not recite over it anything at all.”

As explained in the second beraita.

Rava said: This rihta [“pot havitz,” a food made from flour and honey

],

of the villagers

[of the villagers]

in which they increase

[in which they increase]

flour —

]

one recites

over it

“Who creates various kinds of nourishment.”

What is the reason?

Since

the semida,

the semolina mixed into it, is

the principal

of the food.

But “pot havitz”

of Mehoza,

[of the city dwellers],

in which they do not increase flour —

one recites over it “Everything came to be through His word.”

What is the reason?

For

the honey,

the honey mixed into it, is

the principal

of the food.

And afterward

he returned and

Rava said: Both this and that

one recites over it

“Who creates various kinds of nourishment.”

Because

Rav and Shmuel both said: Everything that contains any of the five species

even though the grain is the minority in the mixture

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

because, on account of its importance, the grain is always considered the principal part of the food.

Rav Yosef said: This havitza,

crumbs of bread that were cooked in a pot

that has crumbs

the size of

an olive —

At the beginning, he recites over it “Who brings forth bread from the earth,” and at the end he recites over it three blessings

of the Grace after Meals, since their measure is an olive; the cooking does not have the power to remove from them the designation of “bread”,

whereas “havitza”

that does not have crumbs of the measure of an olive —

at the beginning he recites over it “Who creates various kinds of nourishment,” and at the end one blessing resembling the three,

because, since the crumbs are less than the measure of an olive, the cooking has the power to remove from them the designation of “bread” .

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this

that for crumbs of bread that were cooked and contain the measure of an olive one recites the Grace after Meals?

For it was taught:

An Israelite who

was standing and offering

[giving it to a kohen to offer]

meal-offerings

made in a pan or a deep pan

in Jerusalem,

if he had not brought meal-offerings for many days,

says: “Blessed

are You, etc.,

Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time.”

He took them

the kohen took these meal-offerings in order

to eat them —

he recites

over them

“Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

And it was taught concerning it: And all of them,

all types of meal-offerings —

he breaks them

into small pieces that contain only

the measure of an olive,

in order to fulfill what is written, “Break it into pieces,” so that he can take the handful from them.

Since these meal-offerings were fried in oil, they should be compared to the law of bread that was cooked [because frying is equivalent to cooking ], and since it was explained in the beraita that one recites the blessing “Who brings forth” over pieces of meal-offerings that contain the measure of an olive, one can learn from this that also over crumbs of bread that were cooked and contain the measure of an olive one recites “Who brings forth” [and consequently, afterward one must recite the Grace after Meals over them].

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

But from now on, according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who said:

it is not enough to break the meal-offerings into pieces containing an olive; rather, it is necessary to

crumble them until he returns them to their flour —

according to him,

is it likewise that one does not need to recite “Who brings forth bread from the earth”,

because the crumbs do not contain an olive and therefore the designation of bread is nullified from them?

And should you say, likewise,

that one does not recite “Who brings forth” over them because the pieces do not contain the measure of an olive?

But it was taught: He gathered from all of them,

from all the pieces of the meal-offerings , which were less than an olive and which he joined together until they reached together the measure of

an olive, and ate them —

,

If it is leaven

and he ate them on Passover —

he is liable to excision.

And if it is matza —

a person fulfills through it his obligation on Passover!

It follows that although the pieces of the meal-offering are less than the measure of an olive, they are still considered bread, for in order to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza there is a need for “bread,” as it is written, “bread of affliction”; consequently, it is obvious that with regard to a blessing one must recite “Who brings forth” over them, as one recites over bread. And since this beraita must have been taught by the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, for he is the one who holds that they must be broken into pieces less than an olive, it follows that he too holds that one must recite “Who brings forth” over them; and this presents a difficulty to Rav Yosef.

The Gemara answers:

In what are we dealing here —

with one who kneaded them.

He kneaded the small crumbs into the measure of an olive and then baked them together again and made “bread” from them anew ,

The Gemara asks:

If so, say the latter clause: And if he —

in what manner does one who eats them on Passover become liable to excision —

when he ate them within

[within a period of time equal to]

the time of eating a peras.

That is, he did not delay from the beginning of eating the measure of an olive until its end longer than the amount of time required to eat a peras [half a loaf of bread, which in its entirety contains the measure of eight eggs, and its half contains the measure of four eggs] ,

And if

the case is

with one who kneaded

the crumbs and baked them together into one loaf — what is

this

that the tanna used the plural expression

“and ate them”?

For since the case is that he made one loaf from them,

“and ate it”

he should have had to say

!?

The Gemara withdraws from this resolution and resolves the difficulty against Rabbi Yosef in another manner:

What are we dealing with here? With one who came from a large loaf!

He did not break the meal-offering completely; rather, a whole portion remained that had not been sliced, and since the large portion remains and contains the measure of an olive, even its small crumbs have the importance of bread, because they are considered part of it, and only in such a manner was it said in the beraita that one fulfills his obligation of matza through them and they have the designation of “bread.”

The Gemara concludes:

What was the conclusion

concerning havitzah?

Rav Sheshet said: As for this havitzah, even though there is not in it a fragment the size of an olive—

he recites over it, “Who brings forth bread from the earth,”

not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef.

Rava said: And this is so

on condition

that it has upon it the appearance of bread,

that its appearance as bread is recognizable .

“Teruknin”

[what they are will be explained below]—

are liable for

the separation of

challah.

And when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: “Teruknin”—

are exempt from challah .

What are teruknin?

Abaye said: “A kuba of the earth.”

[A hollow in the earth within the cavity of the stove] This means that they make a hollow in the bottom of the stove, put flour and water into it without kneading, and it is baked there.

And Abaye said: “Trita”

[as will be explained shortly]—

is exempt from challah .

What is trita?

Some say: “Gavil martah,”

that they put water and flour into a vessel and mix them without kneading, and place the mixture on the stove when it is heated.

And some say: “The bread of handaka,”

dough that is not baked as bread, but is placed on a spit, and during its baking they continue to spread oil over it.

And some say: “Bread made for kutaḥ,”

which they do not bake in an oven, but in the sun .

Rabbi Hiyya taught: Bread made to

put into

kutaḥ

made from milk

is exempt from challah.

The Gemara objects:

But it was taught in a beraita: It is liable for challah!?

The Gemara answers:

There—

as its reason is stated:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Its preparation

the manner of making this dough

proves concerning it

whether he makes it for the purpose of bread.