Berakhot 39a — the Talmud in English

But

since it was removed for its pit ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the measure is deficient!

For the measure of an olive-sized portion for the after-blessing also includes the pit, whereas Rabbi Yohanan did not eat the pit, but only the fruit!?

He said to him: Do you hold

that the measure of

an olive-sized portion that is large is required

for the after-blessing?

A medium-sized olive-sized portion is required, and that one that they brought before Rabbi Yohanan—

it was a large olive, for even though they removed its pit

[they took out the pit],

there remained

[there remained of it]

the measure

of a medium-sized olive .

For we learned: The olive that they said

to measure with—

not a small one and not a large one, but a medium one, and this is

the olive

“Aguri.”

And Rabbi Abbahu said: “Aguri” is not its name, but “Abruti” is its name; and some say: “Samrusi” is its name. And why is it called “Aguri”—

because its oil is gathered within it,

and it is destined to emerge, and it is not like mere “sweat” that emerges from other fruits that have been squeezed.

The Gemara returns and discusses the blessing over cooked vegetables:

Let us say

that the law of the blessing recited over cooked vegetables is

like the tannaim.

For those two students who were sitting before Bar Kappara brought before him cabbage and dormaskin

[a type of herb or a certain type of cabbage] which are eaten only when cooked,

and young fowl,

young birds that had been cooked.

Bar Kappara gave one of them permission to recite a blessing

and discharge those reclining there through the initial blessing .

The student leaped forward,

without asking Bar Kappara over which of them he should bless first,

and blessed over

the young fowl “

everything came into being through His word.”

His fellow mocked him

for choosing to recite first the blessing “everything came into being through His word” over the young fowl, and not first reciting “Who creates the fruit of the earth” over the cooked vegetables.

[The reasoning of these two students will be explained shortly].

Bar Kappara became angry

and

said: I am not angry at the one who recited the blessing; rather, I am angry at the one who mocked.

For even

if your fellow resembles someone who has never tasted the taste of meat,

for the young fowl were so beloved to him that he preceded their blessing, as explained in the laws of precedence, that one should precede and bless first over the food that is more beloved,

—what did you mock him for?

Bar Kappara returned

and said:

I am not angry at the one who mocked; rather, I am angry at the one who recited the blessing.

And

Bar Kappara said to explain his grievance: even

if there is no wisdom here,

that you do not think that I am the sage whom one must ask concerning what to precede and bless, but is there not

old age here?!

You should have treated me with respect and asked me over what to precede and bless .

A tanna taught: And neither of them brought about a year that Bar Kappara lived.

What, is it not that they disagreed in this matter,

the two students of Bar Kappara:

The one who recited the blessing held: cooked vegetables and young fowl

have equivalent blessings, and over both one must recite

“everything came into being through His word”;

therefore,

he blessed over the young fowl, which was more beloved to him, for

the more beloved is preferable!

And one should bless over it and exempt the less beloved species through the blessing .

And the one who mocked held: cooked vegetables,

their blessing is

“Who creates the fruit of the earth,” whereas

the

young fowl

their blessing is

“everything came into being through His word,”

therefore, since their blessings are not equal,

over a

fruit it is preferable

to precede and bless, since the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the earth” is more important than the blessing “everything came into being through His word” .

The Gemara rejects:

No,

this is not what Bar Kappara’s students disagreed about. Rather,

everyone

held that

cooked vegetables and young fowl

their blessing is

“everything came into being through His word.”

And here, they disagreed concerning this reasoning: one,

who blessed over the young fowl,

held:

since their blessings are equal, the thing that is

beloved

to him

is preferable

to bless over.

And the other,

who mocked him,

held: despite the belovedness of the young fowl,

cabbage is preferable,

because it has the advantage

of

being nourishing .

Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in the house of Rav Huna

[when we were in Rav Huna’s house of study],

he said to us: These heads of turnips,

heads of turnips that had been cut—if

they cut them with a large cutting,

cutting them into large pieces—their blessing is

“Who creates the fruit of the earth,”

and if they cut them with

a small cutting

[small pieces]—their blessing is

“everything came into being through His word.”

For this cutting changed them for the worse, and consequently the designation “fruit” was removed from them .

And when we came to Rav Judah’s house, he said to us: Both this and that

in all forms of cutting their blessing is

“Who creates the fruit of the earth.” And

the reason that

he cuts them more

is

so that

he may sweeten their taste

[to sweeten their taste]. And it emerges that the cutting changed them for the better and did not remove from them the designation “fruit”; therefore one recites over them “Who creates the fruit of the earth” .

Rav Ashi said: When we were in the house of Rav Kahana, he said to us: A dish of beet greens

[a dish of spinach]

in which there is not much flour,

for the flour mixed into it is not abundant, one recites over it

“Who creates the fruit of the earth,” whereas a dish

of turnips

in which there is more flour,

[a dish of “turnip”]

in which there is much more flour,

for the flour mixed into it is abundant, one recites over it—

“Who creates

various kinds of nourishment.”

And then he said

Rav Ashi:

Both this and that,

the dish of beet greens and the dish of turnips—their blessing is

“Who creates the fruit of the earth,” and the reason that he puts into it

in the dish of turnips

more flour

does not suffice to establish the blessing of the dish, for

he makes it merely to bind it.

[To bind the dish and not to impart flavor], and therefore it has no importance such that one should recite on its account “Who creates various kinds of nourishment” .

Rav Chisda said: A dish of spinach —

is good for the heart and beneficial for the eyes, and all the more so

that it is good

for the intestines.

Abaye said: And this is so when it sits upon the stove

on the seat of the stove and is thoroughly cooked

and makes

during its cooking a sound that can be heard, like

“tokh tokh.”

For this is the sound heard when blanched and softened spinach is boiling.

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me: the water of spinach,

the water in which the spinach was cooked and which received its flavor, its blessing is

as

the blessing of the

spinach

itself,

and

likewise

the water of turnip

its blessing is

as

the blessing of the

turnip

itself,

and

similarly

the water of all cooked vegetables

their blessing is

as

the blessing of

all cooked vegetables.

Rav Pappa inquired: The water of “sheivta” [

water in which sheivet, an aromatic plant, was cooked ] —

what

is its blessing?

The sides of the uncertainty are: Is the “sheivta” placed in the dish

to sweeten the taste

of the dish

is made

for this purpose, and therefore the blessing of the dish’s water is Borei peri ha-adama, like the blessing of the “sheivet” itself and according to the law of the rest of the water of vegetables?

Or

perhaps only

to remove filth do they make it —

the sheivet is placed in the dish only so that the “dirt” produced through the cooking should adhere to it.

The Gemara proves:

Ta shma: The

“s

e

b

et”

of teruma that was cooked,

once it has imparted flavor to the pot

its flavor is nullified from it, and from then on it is considered merely wood, and again

there is no

sanctity of

teruma and

likewise

it does not impart impurity

for that reason

with the impurity of foods,

for the designation “food” has already been nullified from it.”

And from the language of the Mishna, which said, “The sheivet, once it has imparted flavor to the pot,”

learn from this

that the “sheivet”

is made to sweeten the taste.

And the Gemara concludes:

Learn from this.

Rav Chiya bar Ashi said: Crumbled bread, [

a dry slice of bread ] that was soaked

in a bowl —

one recites “HaMotzi” over it,

and this disputes Rabbi Chiya.

For Rabbi Chiya said:

One who recites a blessing over bread

must have the blessing conclude [

must complete the blessing of HaMotzi ] together

with

the completion of breaking

the bread,

so it follows that in order to fulfill this law one must recite the blessing over a whole loaf, and not in accordance with the view of Rav Chiya bar Ashi.

Rava challenged Rabbi Chiya: What is different about crumbled bread, concerning which you said that one should not recite the blessing over it, but rather one should prefer another loaf, because when the blessing concludes [

when he recites the entire blessing until its conclusion ]

it concludes over a slice and not over a whole loaf?

а не над целым хлебом?

After all, when he recites the blessing

over the bread

that is whole,

also, when he finishes it

the blessing [when he completes the blessing]

he finishes it over a slice

and not over a whole loaf. What virtue, then, is there in reciting the blessing over a whole loaf?