Berakhot 38a (לח.) — the Talmud in English

If

he made them

for chewing

like

him

“thick”,

when it is arranged and trimmed, as is customary when making dough for fine pastries, he has thereby revealed his intention that he made it in order to eat it as fully fledged bread; therefore

the loaves are obligated

in the separation of challa, even if he baked them in the sun and not in an oven,

but if he made them

“like boards,”

merely as planks, without having the form of bread,

they are exempt

from challa, since he has thereby revealed his intention that they are not meant to be eaten as “bread,” but rather with koteah; therefore they are not considered “bread.”

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This earthenware cake,

which was mentioned above—

what blessing does one recite over it?

He said to him: Do you think it is bread,

[that it is bread] and its blessing is “Who brings forth”?

It is merely a mixture,

a mixture of water and flour,

and one recites over it “Who creates varieties of nourishment.”

Mar Zutra established his meal upon it and recited over it “Who brings forth bread from the earth”

before eating it,

and three

blessings

of the Grace after Meals afterward.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: And one fulfills his obligation with them on Passover.

What is the reason?—

[Deuteronomy 16:3]

It is called “the bread of affliction.”

And Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This date honey,

the honey that comes from dates [and other liquids that come from other types of fruit, except for wine and oil]

one recites over it, “Everything exists by His word.”

What is the reason

that one does not recite over it “Who creates the fruit of the tree”?

Because the honey, or the liquid that comes from the fruit,

is merely a secretion

and is not considered the fruit itself; therefore one recites over it the blessing “Everything exists by His word.”

In accordance with whom

did Mar bar Rav Ashi state this ruling?

In accordance with this tanna,

Rabbi Yehoshua.

As we learned:

A non-priest who ate or drank

date honey, apple wine, autumn-grape vinegar,

[vinegar from grapes that grow in autumn and never fully ripen ],

and other fruit liquids of teruma—

Rabbi Eliezer obligates

the one who drinks them to pay the

principal and an added fifth,

as is the law with one who eats the teruma fruit itself.

And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts

him from paying the principal and the added fifth, because he maintains that these liquids are not considered fruit, but merely a secretion; therefore the status of teruma does not apply to them.

One of the Sages said to Rava: “Trima,”

which is crushed fruit, but not completely pulverized —

what

is its blessing?

Rava did not understand what he was saying

[Rava did not understand what the Sage’s question was].

Ravina was sitting before Rava

and

said to him

to that Sage: What is your question? Did you mean

the trima of sesame seeds,

which are lightly crushed,

or did you mean that of kurtemei,

which is crushed saffron into which wine is added,

or that of purzenei,

crushed grapes into which water is added to make temed—

is that what you meant?

Meanwhile, he understood

the

Rava

from Ravina’s questions,

according to the intention

of that Sage.

He said to him: You certainly mean hashilta

[something crushed and mashed];

that is certainly what you meant

and you were asking what its blessing is,

and you have reminded me of a matter

[you have reminded me of something I heard].

And this is

that which Rav Asi said: These dates of teruma—

Shethita,

it is permitted to make trima from them,

because the slight crushing does not remove their status as fruit,

but it is forbidden to make beer from them,

because in this way one changes the teruma from “food” into “drink,” and it is forbidden to alter teruma from its original form . Thus, making dates into trima does not change the fruit from its original form, and the status of fruit still applies to it; therefore one recites over the trima, “Who creates the fruit of the tree.”

And the halakha is: If one takes dates and makes them into trima—

one recites over them, “Who creates the fruit of the tree,”

What is the reason?

Because even after they have been crushed, they still

remain in their original status, as they were at first.

Shatita,

a food made from roasted flour mixed with water, oil, and salt ,

Rav said:

its blessing is

“Everything exists by His word.”

And Shmuel said:

its blessing is

“Who creates varieties of nourishment.”

Rav Chisda said: They do not disagree; this

refers to Shmuel’s statement,

with

shatita

that is thick, whereas this

refers to Rav’s statement,

with

shatita

that is thin,

as he proceeds to explain.

Thick,

because

they make it for eating;

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

Thin,

because

they make it for medicinal purposes

and not for enjoyment; one recites over it only “Everything exists by His word.”

Rav Yosef raised an objection:

We learned in a beraita in tractate Shabbat that the tannaim disagreed over whether it is permitted to mix thick shatita on Shabbat by means of a deviation, and it is stated in the continuation of that beraita:

And they agree

these tannaim

that one stirs the shatot

[the shatita when it is thin]

on Shabbat

by means of a deviation,

and

also that

one drinks Egyptian zitum

[a laxative drink] on Shabbat, without being concerned about the prohibition against medical treatment.

And this is for the reason that will be explained below.

And if it enters your mind

that shatita

is intended for medicinal purposes,

then

is medical treatment permitted on Shabbat?

It must be that thin shatita is drunk for the purpose of eating; so why did Rav say that its blessing is “Everything exists by His word”?

Abaye said to him: And

do

you not understand

Rav’s words?

But we learned: A person may eat all foods for medicinal purposes on Shabbat, and drink all beverages,

so why are we not concerned here about the prohibition against medical treatment?

Rather, what can you say?

The reason it is permitted to be healed by them on Shabbat is that

the person intends to eat

and not for medicinal purposes.

So too

with shatita, it is permitted to make it on Shabbat because

the person intends to eat

and not for medicinal purposes.

Alternatively: Rather, what can you say—

the person intends to eat, and the medicinal effect occurs automatically;

so too—

he intends to eat, and the medicinal effect occurs automatically.

And

even though we already learned in the beraita that shatita is considered food, as is evident from the fact that they permitted making it on Shabbat,

it was necessary for Rav and Shmuel

to teach us that blessings must be recited over it.

It follows from this

beraita

I might have said

that only in the manner in which the beraita spoke, namely, that

he intends to eat it, and the healing occurs incidentally

is there an obligation to recite a blessing over it,

but here

in the case before us,

since initially he intends it for healing

one might have said that

he should not recite a blessing over it at all —

This teaches us

Rav and Shmuel: Even in this manner,

since he has

actual

benefit from it,

he must recite a blessing .

We learned in the Mishna:

“Over bread one recites: ‘Who brings forth bread from the earth.’”

The Sages taught: What does he say,

what is the wording of the blessing over bread?

“Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

Rava said: With regard to

the meaning of the word

“brings forth” —

Everyone agrees —

“brought forth”

which brought forth in the past

is implied.

As it is written

in Balaam’s words, which he said after the Exodus from Egypt [Numbers 23:22]:

“God, Who brought them forth from Egypt.”

Therefore, one who recites the blessing in this wording has recited an appropriate blessing, for this is the praise of the Всевышний: he now gives thanks to Him for this bread, which He brought forth from the earth long ago, and this is not thanks for bread that He will bring forth in the future.

Where they disagree —

is concerning

the meaning of the word

“Who brings forth”:

whether it is an expression of the future, in which case one may not recite the blessing in this wording, or whether it is also an expression of the past.

The Rabbis hold: “Who brings forth” —

“brought forth”

in the past

is implied, as it is written

in Moses’ words of rebuke, at the end of the fortieth year in the wilderness [Deuteronomy 8:15]:

“Who brings forth water for you from the flinty rock,”

and He had already brought forth water throughout all the years of their stay in the wilderness.

And Rabbi Nehemiah holds: “Who brings forth” —

“will bring forth”

in the future

is implied, as it is stated

[Exodus 6:7]:

“Who brings you out from beneath the burdens of Egypt,”

and the Всевышний said this verse to Moses in Egypt, before they left there .

And the Rabbis,

what will they answer to Rabbi Nehemiah’s proof from this verse?

That

verse

is saying this to them: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: When I bring you out

[when I bring you out of Egypt]

I will perform a deed for you

[I will do something for you]

so that you will know that I am the One Who brought you out of Egypt,

[so that you will know that I am the One Who brought you out of Egypt],

as it is written

[Exodus 6:7]:

“And you will know

in the future

that I

am

the Lord your God Who brings you out

in the past.” Thus, here too, “Who brings forth” is interpreted as referring to the past.

The Rabbis were praising before Rabbi Zeira

[the son of]

Rav

Zavid,

who was

the brother of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Zavid, for he was a great man and expert in blessings.

He said to them: When he comes into your hands —

bring him to me. Once, he happened to come to him, and they brought out bread for him,

[they brought out bread for him to eat],

he began and said, “Who brings forth

bread from the earth.”

Rabbi Zeira said

but

is this the one of whom they say that he is a great man and expert in blessings?