Berakhot 40b (מ:) — the Talmud in English

But where, when you remove the fruit

from the tree,

the branch that will again produce

other fruit does not remain,

we do not recite over it: “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” but rather: “Who creates the fruit of the ground.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And over all of them, if one said: “Everything came to be through His word,” he has fulfilled his obligation.

It was stated: Rav Huna said:

This ruling, that the blessing “Everything came to be through His word” exempts all types, is

except for bread and wine,

for if one recited over them the blessing “Everything came to be through His word,” he has not fulfilled his obligation, because bread and wine are significant .

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even over bread and wine,

if one recited the blessing “Everything came to be through His word,” he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact.

Shall we say

that this dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yohanan is

a dispute between tannaim

[that it depends on another dispute between tannaim cited in a baraita]?

As it was taught:

If one saw bread and said: “How beautiful is this bread,”

“Blessed is the Omnipresent who created it!”—he has fulfilled his obligation

to recite a blessing over the bread through this statement.

And likewise, if he

saw a fig and said: “How beautiful is this fig,”

“Blessed is the Omnipresent who created it!”—

he has fulfilled

his obligation to recite a blessing over the fig,

the words of Rabbi Meir .

Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone who changes the formula

[the wording]

that

[the Sages]

established for blessings—

has not fulfilled his obligation .

Shall we say that Rav Huna, who said

that the blessing “Everything came to be through His word” does not exempt bread and wine, holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who says that anyone who changes the formula established by the Sages for blessings has not fulfilled his obligation? Therefore, Rav Huna holds that one who recites the blessing “Everything came to be through His word” over bread and wine has not fulfilled his obligation .

And Rabbi Yohanan, who said

that even over bread and wine, if one recited “Everything came to be through His word,” he has fulfilled his obligation, holds

in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who says that one who changes the formula established by the Sages has fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, even one who recites “Everything came to be through His word” over bread and wine fulfills his obligation.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Huna could have said to you: I, who say

[I who say that if one recited “Everything came to be through His word” over bread and wine he has not fulfilled his obligation, maintain this

even according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Meir,

who holds that one who changes the formula of the blessing has fulfilled his obligation.

Rabbi Meir stated his ruling there

in the baraita

there

only with regard to a case where one fulfills his obligation by saying, “How beautiful is this bread—blessed is the Omnipresent who created it,”

only where he mentions

[in the blessing]

the name of the bread

and says, “How beautiful is this bread.” In that case, even though he changed the rest of the wording, this is not considered changing the formula.

But where he does not mention the name of the bread—

as in the case where he recites “Everything came to be through His word” over bread or wine, without mentioning in his blessing the name of the bread or the wine—

even Rabbi Meir agrees

that he has not fulfilled his obligation .

And

even

Rabbi Yohanan could have said: I, who say

[I who say that if one recited “Everything came to be through His word” even over bread and wine, he has fulfilled his obligation, maintain this

even according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that one who changes the formula established by the Sages for blessings has not fulfilled his obligation.

For

Rabbi Yosei stated his ruling there

that one does not fulfill his obligation when he says, “How beautiful is this bread—blessed is the Omnipresent who created it,”

only because he recites a blessing that the Sages did not institute

at all.

But if he said: “Everything came to be through His word,”

the wording of this blessing

the Sages instituted

for other foods—

even Rabbi Yosei agrees

that he has fulfilled his obligation when he recites this blessing even over bread and wine, and this is not considered changing the formula of the blessing.

Binyamin the shepherd

[the shepherd]

sliced bread

[bread] and

said: “Blessed is the Master of this bread.”

Rav said: He has fulfilled

Binyamin the shepherd’s obligation to recite Birkat HaMazon with this blessing.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How could Rav rule this way?

But Rav said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of the Name—

is not a blessing!?

Yet the formula stated contains no mention of the Name.

The Gemara answers:

He said

Binyamin the shepherd:

“Blessed is the Merciful One, the Master of this bread,”

and since he mentioned the Name of Heaven—by saying “the Merciful One”—he fulfilled his obligation .

The Gemara raises another difficulty: How did he fulfill his obligation to recite Birkat HaMazon?

But we require

that he recite

three blessings,

and with one blessing he does not fulfill his obligation.

The Gemara answers:

What does Rav mean by “he has fulfilled”?—

He has fulfilled the first blessing

of Birkat HaMazon, but he must still recite two additional blessings .

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

What is Rav teaching us

by saying that he fulfilled his obligation when he said, “Blessed is the Merciful One, the Master of this bread”?

Perhaps he intends to teach

that although he said it in a vernacular language

he has fulfilled his obligation?

This cannot be so, for we have already

learned

in tractate Sota:

“And these may be recited in any language: ‘The passage concerning a sota,”

which the koen reads before the woman when he administers her oath. And likewise,

“the confession of the tithes,”

which is recited at the time the tithes are removed.

“And the recitation of the Shema, the prayer, and Birkat HaMazon.”

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary

for Rav to teach us this, because

it might enter your mind to say: This applies only

when he

said it in a vernacular language—

in the same manner that the Sages instituted it in the sacred language,

[that he translated into a vernacular the formula that the Sages instituted in the sacred language].

But

if he changed it and

did not say it in a vernacular language in the same manner that the Sages instituted it in the sacred language,

as here, where he did not say in a vernacular language a translation of “Who brings forth bread from the earth,” but merely mentioned the Name and the subject of the blessing,

one might say that he did not

fulfill his obligation.

He teaches us

that even if he changed the wording, since he mentioned the Name and the subject of the blessing, he has fulfilled his obligation.

The substance of the matter: Rav said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of the Name—

is not a blessing.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Any blessing that does not contain sovereignty—

is not a blessing,

because in addition to mentioning the Name, one must mention “King of the universe.”

Abaye said: Rav’s view is more plausible,

for even if one did not mention sovereignty, he has fulfilled his obligation with the blessing.

As it was taught:

It is written in the Torah, in the passage concerning the confession of the tithes [Deuteronomy 26]:

“I have not transgressed any of Your commandments, nor have I forgotten.”

And we interpret:

“I have not transgressed”—

by failing to bless You,

the blessing over the mitzva of separating teruma and tithes .

“Nor have I forgotten”—

by failing to mention Your Name over it!

Whereas

the mention of

“sovereignty” is not taught

in the baraita. Infer from this that even without mentioning sovereignty one fulfills his obligation with the blessing.

And Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that every blessing requires mention of sovereignty, could have said to you:

Read

[correct the wording of the baraita]:

“Nor have I forgotten”—

by failing to mention Your Name and Your sovereignty over it .

Mishna:

And over anything that does not grow from the ground, one recites: “Everything came to be through His word.”

Over vinegar

[wine that spoiled and became vinegar], once it has fallen from its former status, one no longer recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” but rather “Everything came to be through His word.” And likewise

over inferior dates,

which are poor-quality dates, since they have spoiled and fallen from their former status, one does not recite over them “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” but rather “Everything came to be through His word.”

And over locusts

[kosher locusts]

one recites: “Everything came to be through His word,”

because they do not grow from the ground.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Over anything that is a species of curse, one does not recite a blessing

at all. Therefore, one should not recite a blessing over vinegar, inferior dates, or locusts, since they result from a curse: vinegar is wine that spoiled, inferior dates are spoiled dates, and locusts destroy the produce,

If several types were before him

and he came to eat all of them,

Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of the seven species is among them—

it

he advances and

recites the blessing.

For the seven species are significant, since the Land of Israel was praised through them.

And the Sages say:

If the type that is not one of the seven species is more dear to him,

he recites the blessing over whichever of them he wishes

that is, over the type that is more dear to him, because the virtue of “more dear” takes precedence over the virtue of “the seven species.”

Gemara:

The Sages taught in a beraita: Over something that does not grow from the ground, such as the meat of domesticated animals, wild animals, birds, and fish, one says: “Everything came into being through His word.”

And likewise

over milk, eggs, and cheese, one says: “Everything.”

Over bread that has become moldy

somewhat but is still fit to eat ,

and over wine that has turned sour, and over a cooked dish whose appearance has changed

because its appearance changed due to spoilage ,

one says: “Everything.”

Because, as a result of their spoilage, their significance is nullified, and they therefore descend from the blessing that was properly assigned to them initially.

Over salt and brine

salt water,

and over truffles and mushrooms, one says: “Everything.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty from what we learned in a beraita, that over truffles and mushrooms one recites “Everything” rather than “Who creates the fruit of the ground”:

Does this mean

that is, can it be inferred from this, that

truffles and mushrooms are not growths of the ground?

But was it not taught in a beraita: One who vows

not to derive benefit

from the produce of the land—

is prohibited from the produce of the land, but is permitted to eat truffles and mushrooms,

because they are not included within “the produce of the land”?

And if he said

the one who made the vow:

“All growths of the ground

are prohibited

to me!—he is prohibited even from truffles and mushrooms.”

It follows that truffles and mushrooms are considered growths of the ground. If so, it is puzzling: Why is their blessing “Everything,” rather than “Who creates the fruit of the ground”?

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

Indeed, truffles and mushrooms

grow abundantly from the ground

that is, they grow from the moisture of the ground, and therefore they are considered growths of the ground; however,

they do not draw nourishment

this moisture directly

from the ground,

but through the air. Therefore, with regard to blessings, they are still not considered fruit of the ground, such that one should recite over them the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the ground.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But “over every

thing

that does not grow from the ground,” it teaches

the beraita earlier, for which one recites “Everything.” After stating this first, the beraita returned and included truffles and mushrooms among those things that do not grow from the ground. The difficulty thus remains: Why is one who vows that all growths of the ground are prohibited to him prohibited from truffles and mushrooms?

The Gemara answers:

Read

that is, emend the wording of the beraita:

“Over something that does not draw nourishment from the ground,”

one recites “Everything.” This includes truffles and mushrooms, whose blessing is “Everything,” since they do not draw nourishment from the ground, although they are growths of the ground.

We learned in the Mishna:

And over novelot

one says: “Everything came into being through His word.”

The Gemara explains:

What are novelot?

The amora’im disagreed about this.

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Ila’a; one said

that novelot are

bushlei kamara,

dates that were scorched by the heat and dried out ,

and one said

that novelot are

date fruits blown down by the wind,

dates that had not yet had time to ripen fully, and the wind caused them to fall from the tree.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can it be explained that novelot are dates blown down from the tree before they ripen?

But we learned

in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Over anything that is a type of curse, one does not recite a blessing.

The implication of Rabbi Yehuda’s words is that he comes to disagree with the first tanna regarding all those mentioned at the beginning of the Mishna: vinegar, novelot, and locusts. According to the first tanna, their blessing is “Everything,” whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda one should not recite a blessing over them at all.

If so:

Granted, according to the one who says

that novelot are

bushlei kamara—

this is why he calls it

Rabbi Yehuda

a type of curse,

for the fruit has spoiled.

But according to the one who says

that novelot are

date fruits blown down by the wind,

there is a difficulty:

What is the “type of curse”?

Although they fell before they had fully ripened, nevertheless they are not a type of curse, since they did not undergo spoilage.

The Gemara answers: According to the one who says that novelot are “date fruits blown down by the wind,” Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree with the first tanna regarding the novelot, but

with regard to the others,

that is, with regard to vinegar and locusts, which come about through a curse. With regard to novelot, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that their blessing is “Everything.”

There are those who say

that the difficulty with the one who says that novelot are “date fruits blown down by the wind” is from the words of the first tanna in the Mishna:

Granted, according to the one who says

that novelot are

bushlei kamara,

the reasoning of the first tanna

that we recite over them “Everything”

rather than “Who creates the fruit of the tree” is understandable, since they have deteriorated.

But according to the one who says

that the novelot mentioned in the Mishna are

date fruits blown down by the wind,

there is a difficulty: Why do we recite

“Everything”? It should be appropriate to recite over them “Who creates the fruit of the tree,”

for although they have not yet fully ripened, nevertheless they have not deteriorated.

Rather,

the Gemara concludes for this reason:

With regard to the novelot

mentioned in the Mishna without qualification,

everyone agrees that they are bushlei kamara.

They have deteriorated, and therefore in our Mishna the first tanna holds that their blessing is “Everything,” while Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that one should not recite a blessing over them at all.

They disagree

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Ila’a

about the

interpretation of

“novelot temara,”

mentioned in the Mishna in tractate Demai.

As we learned: “The lenient [produce] of Demai”

the fruits concerning which the Sages were lenient, ruling that they need not be tithed even if acquired from an am ha’aretz, because they are not significant and amei ha’aretz do not take care to tithe them, are:

the shittin, the rimin, the azaradin, the benot shuah, the benot shekema, the gufnin, the nitzpa, and the novelot temara.

The Gemara clarifies what these fruits are:

“Shittin”—Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

They are

a type of figs

that grow wild.

“Rimin”

are

kandi

a particular type of pomegranate .

“Azaradin”

are

tulshei

a type of fruit that grows on a wild shrub.

“Benot shuah”—

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

They are

white figs

[white-colored figs].

“Benot shekema”—

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

They are

dovlei

a fig resembling the fruit of the sycamore.

“Gufnin”

are

the late grapes

grapes that grow at the end of their season and do not ripen properly.

“Nitzpa”

is

pirḥa

the fruit that grows on a caper bush.

“Novelot temara”

which we learned in the Mishna—their interpretation is disputed by

Rabbi Ila’a and Rabbi Zeira. One said

that they are

bushlei kamara, and one said

that they are

date fruits blown down by the wind.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says

that novelot temara are

bushlei kamara,

it is understandable:

This is why it teaches

in the Mishna

“the lenient [produce] of Demai.”

Since only their

uncertain status,

when it is unknown whether they were tithed,

is exempt,

and the Sages were more lenient with them than with other fruits whose tithing is uncertain,

but their certain status,

if it is clearly known that a tithe was not separated from them,

is obligated

to tithe them.

But according to the one who says

that the novelot temara mentioned in the Mishna are

date fruits blown down by the wind,

there is a difficulty: Why

is their certain status

when a tithe was not separated from the novelot temara

obligated?

Since the wind caused them to fall, a person presumably despairs of them, and if so,

they are ownerless

indeed!

And we have an established principle that ownerless produce is exempt from tithing!?

The Gemara answers:

With what are we dealing here? With a case where he made them

the dates that fell

into a granary

a pile.

For Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: The gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field

although they are exempt from tithing, if

he made them

the poor person who gathered them

into a granary—

they become established

through this

for tithing

by rabbinic decree, as a safeguard because of observers who might think that the poor person’s produce comes from land that he owns. The same law applies to all ownerless produce that one makes into a granary: it becomes established for tithing by rabbinic decree.

There are those who say

that this is how they challenged the one who says that novelot temara are bushlei kamara: