Berakhot 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

Every

food

that is of the Seven Species

and is not a type of grain [since if it is a type of grain, there is a distinction in its halakha: if one made it into bread, everyone agrees that one recites the three blessings over it],

[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 type of grain but was not made into bread—

in these two matters, namely, food that is of the Seven Species and food that is a type of grain but was not made into bread, the Sages and Rabban Gamliel disagree:

Rabban Gamliel says:

one recites after them

the three blessings.

And the Sages say:

one recites after them

one blessing

that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings בלבד.

And every

food

that is neither of the Seven Species nor

a

type of grain, such as rice bread and millet bread—

Rabban Gamliel says:

one recites after them

one blessing that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings.

And the Sages say:

one does not recite after them

anything at all,

but rather the blessing “Who creates the souls.”

On the basis 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 disagree concerning rice bread and millet bread. Consequently, it can be resolved that the beraita that stated that one recites one blessing that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings over rice was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel,

whereas the second beraita, which states that one does not recite one blessing that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings after eating rice, but rather “Who creates the souls,” was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Sages.

The Gemara rejects Rav Sheshet’s resolution:

In accordance with whom did you establish

the beraita that states that one recites one blessing that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings over rice—

in accordance with Rabban Gamliel.

If so,

say the latter clause of the first part

of this beraita, in which the halakha concerning one who baked wheat flour and made it into bread and then cooked the bread is clarified:

If the pieces

of bread

remain

because they dissolved during cooking—

at the outset, one recites over it “Who creates varieties of nourishment,” and at the end one recites over it “one blessing that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings.”

In accordance with whose opinion

was this halakha taught?

If

in accordance with the opinion of

Rabban Gamliel—

that is impossible!

Now,

what is the case if

“dates”

and

“porridge,”

which is made from grain that was never baked,

Rabban Gamliel said

that one recites after them

the three blessings.

With regard to baked bread that one cooked, even

if the pieces do not remain

and dissolved during cooking—

is it necessary

to say that one recites the three blessings over it?!

Yet in the beraita it is explicitly stated that one recites only one blessing that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings over it.

Rather, it is obvious that this beraita, in which it is stated that one recites one blessing that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings over baked bread that one cooked, was not taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, as Rav Sheshet resolved it. Rather, it was taught in accordance with the opinion of

the opinion of

the Sages,

who said that one recites “Who creates varieties of nourishment” over porridge; and this bread, which dissolved during cooking and thereby lost its status as bread, is likewise considered porridge.

If so,

the Gemara’s earlier difficulty returns to its place:

the statement of the Sages

who said in the first beraita [on the previous page] that one recites one blessing that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings over rice bread

contradicts the statement of the Sages

in the second beraita, who said that one recites over rice bread “nothing at all,” meaning the blessing “Who creates the souls”?!

The Gemara answers:

Rather, actually,

the first beraita was indeed taught in accordance with the opinion of

the Sages, and teach

in it [read into it

concerning rice: “And at the end”—

one does not recite over it anything at all.”

As stated in the second beraita.

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

]

of the villagers

[those of the villages]

in which there is much

[they use a great deal of]

flour—

]

of the villagers [of the villagers] in which they increase the flour— one recites

over it

“Who creates varieties of nourishment.”

What is the reason?

Since

the semida,

the semolina mixed into it,

is

the principal component of the food.

Whereas “pot pudding”

of Meḥoza,

of the city dwellers,

in which they do not increase the flour—

one recites over it, “Everything came into being through His word.”

What is the reason?

Because

the honey,

the honey mixed into it,

is

the principal component of the food.

And then

he returned and

Rava said: Both this and that

one recites over them

“Who creates varieties of nourishment.”

Because

Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that contains one of the five species of grain

even if the grain is the minority component of the mixture,

one recites over it, “Who creates varieties of nourishment,”

since, due to its importance, grain is always considered the principal component of the food.

Rav Yosef said: This ḥavitza,

crumbs of bread that were cooked in a pot,

in which there are crumbs

the size of

an olive-bulk—

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

of the Grace after Meals, since their measure is an olive-bulk; cooking is not capable of removing from them the designation of “bread,”

whereas “ḥavitza”

in which there are no crumbs of an olive-bulk—

at the outset one recites over it “Who creates varieties of nourishment,” and at the end, one blessing that is an abbreviated form of the three blessings,

because, since the crumbs are less than an olive-bulk, cooking is capable of removing their designation as “bread”

. Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this

that over cooked bread crumbs containing an olive-bulk one recites the Grace after Meals?

As it was taught:

An Israelite who

was standing and offering

[giving a priest the offering to offer]

meal-offerings

made in a pan or in 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 enabled us to reach this time.”

The priest took them

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 into pieces

small pieces containing only

an olive-bulk,

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 halakha of bread that was cooked [because frying is equivalent to cooking ], and since it was clarified in the beraita that one recites the blessing “Who brings forth bread from the earth” over pieces of the meal-offerings containing an olive-bulk, it follows from this that one likewise recites “Who brings forth bread from the earth” over cooked bread crumbs containing an olive-bulk [and consequently one recites the Grace after Meals after eating them].

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

But if that is so, according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says:

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

crumble them until he returns them to their flour—

according to his view,

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

because the crumbs do not contain an olive-bulk and therefore their designation as bread is removed?

And if you would say, it is indeed so,

that one does not recite “Who brings forth bread from the earth” over them because the pieces do not contain an olive-bulk—

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

from all the pieces of the meal-offerings

an olive-bulk, and ate them—

,

which were less than an olive-bulk, and combined them until together they reached the measure of an olive-bulk, and ate them— If it is leavened bread

and he eats it on Pesaḥ—

he is liable to karet.

And if it is matza—

a person fulfills his obligation with it on Pesaḥ!

It follows that although the pieces of the meal-offering are less than an olive-bulk, they are still considered bread, since in order to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza one requires “bread,” as it is written, “bread of affliction.” Consequently, it is obvious that with regard to a blessing one must recite “Who brings forth bread from the earth” over them, just as one recites over bread. Since this beraita must necessarily 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 smaller than an olive-bulk, it follows that he too maintains that one must recite “Who brings forth bread from the earth” over them. This presents a difficulty to Rav Yosef.

The Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here?—

With pieces that were kneaded together.

He kneaded the small crumbs until they reached the measure of an olive-bulk, then baked them together and made “bread” from them anew

. The Gemara asks:

If so, say the latter clause: And

in what manner is one who eats them liable to karet on Pesaḥ?—

when he ate them within

[the measure of the duration of]

the time required to eat a half-loaf.

That is, he did not pause from the beginning of eating the olive-bulk until its completion for longer than the time required to eat a “half-loaf” [half a loaf of bread, which in its entirety contains the equivalent of eight eggs, and half of it contains the equivalent of four eggs]

. And if

the case concerns

pieces that were kneaded together

and baked together into a single loaf—what is

this

that the tanna used the plural expression,

“that he ate them”?

Since the case concerns making a single loaf from them,

“that he ate it”

he should have had to say

instead!?

The Gemara retracts this answer and resolves the difficulty against Rabbi Yosef in another manner:

What are we dealing with here? With a portion that came from a large loaf!

The meal-offering was not broken into pieces completely; rather, an intact portion remained that was not broken into pieces . Since the large portion remains and contains an olive-bulk, even its small crumbs possess the significance of bread, because they are considered part of it . Only in such a case did the beraita state that one fulfills the obligation of eating matza with them and that they retain the designation of “bread.”

The Gemara concludes:

what was the ruling

regarding havitzah?

Rav Sheshet said: In the case of this havitzah, even though it does not contain pieces the size of an olive—

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

contrary to the opinion of Rav Yosef.

Rava said: And that is so

provided

there is upon it the appearance of bread,

that is, the form and appearance of bread is recognizable in it.

“Trokhnin”

which will be explained below—

are obligated in

the separation of

ḥallah.

And when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Trokhnin”—

are exempt from ḥallah .

What is trokhnin?

Abaye said: “A kova of earth.”

That is, a hollow in the earth in the cavity of the stove: one makes a hollow in the bottom of the stove, puts flour and water into it without kneading, and it is baked there.

And Abaye said: “Trita”

as will be explained shortly—

is exempt from ḥallah .

What is trita?

Some say: “Gavil martaḥ,”

where one puts water and flour into a vessel and mixes them without kneading, then places the mixture on the stove while it is heated.

And some say: “Nahama de-hendaka,”

dough that is not baked as bread, but is placed on a skewer, and while it is baking one continues to spread oil over it.

And some say: “Bread made for kutah,”

which is baked not in an oven but in the sun.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Bread made to be

placed into

“kutah,”

which is made from milk,

is exempt from ḥallah.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But was it not taught in a baraita: It is obligated in ḥallah!?

The Gemara answers:

There,

as its reason is stated:

Rabbi Yehuda says: “Its preparation

the manner in which this dough is made

demonstrates its intent,”

whether it is being made for the purpose of bread.