Berakhot 40b — the Talmud in English

But where, when you remove the fruit

from the tree,

there is no longer a branch that will again produce

other fruits,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

And over all of them, if he said “Everything came into being through His word,” he has fulfilled his obligation.

It was stated: Rav Huna said:

This ruling, that the blessing “Everything came into being through His word” exempts all the species, is

except for bread and wine,

for if he recited over them the blessing “Everything came into being through His word,” he has not fulfilled his obligation, because bread and wine are important.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even bread and wine

if he recited over them the blessing “Everything came into being through His word,” he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact.

Shall we say

that this dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yohanan is

like the dispute between tannaim

[dependent upon another dispute between tannaim brought in a beraita].

For it was taught:

If he saw bread and said, “How fine is this bread,”—

“Blessed is the Omnipresent who created it!” He has fulfilled

by this statement his obligation of a blessing over the bread.

And likewise, if he

saw a fig and said, “How fine is this fig,”—

“Blessed is the Omnipresent who created it!”—

he has fulfilled

his obligation of a blessing over the fig,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone who changes from the formula

[the wording]

that they formulated

[that the Sages instituted]

in the blessings—

has not fulfilled his obligation.

Shall we say that Rav Huna, who said

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

like Rabbi Yosei,

who says that anyone who changes from the formula that the Sages formulated in the blessings has not fulfilled his obligation, and therefore Rav Huna holds that one who recites “Everything came into being through His word” over bread and wine has not fulfilled his obligation?

And Rabbi Yohanan, who said

that even over bread and wine, if he recited “Everything came into being through His word,” he has fulfilled his obligation—holds

like Rabbi Meir.

For one who changes from the formula that the Sages formulated has fulfilled his obligation, and therefore even one who recites “Everything came into being through His word” over bread and wine fulfills his obligation.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Huna can say to you: I, who said

[I who say] that if he recited “Everything came into being through His word” over bread and wine he has not fulfilled his obligation, hold

even according to

the view of

Rabbi Meir,

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

Rabbi Meir said this only

in the beraita

there,

that he fulfills his obligation when he said, “How fine is this bread—blessed is the Omnipresent who created it,”

only where he mentions

[in the place where he mentions] in the blessing

the name of the bread

and says, “How fine is this bread.” For then, although he changed the rest of the wording, this is not considered a change.

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

as in the case where he recited “Everything came into being through His word” over bread and wine, for he does not mention in his blessing the name of the bread or the wine—

even Rabbi Meir concedes

that he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And

even

Rabbi Yohanan can say to you: I, who said

[I who say] that if he recited “Everything came into being through His word,” even over bread and wine he has fulfilled his obligation—hold

even according to

the view of

Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that one who changes from the formula that the Sages formulated in the blessings has not fulfilled his obligation.

For

Rabbi Yosei said this only there

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

because he said a blessing that the Sages did not institute

at all.

But if he said, “Everything came into being through His word,”

the formula of this blessing

the Sages did institute

over other foods—

even Rabbi Yosei concedes

that he has fulfilled his obligation when he recited this blessing even over bread and wine, and this is not considered a change from the formula of the blessing.

Benjamin the shepherd

[the shepherd]

cut a loaf

[bread],

and said, “Blessed is the Master of this bread.”

Rav said: He has fulfilled

Benjamin the shepherd’s obligation of the blessing of food with this blessing.

The Gemara asks: How could Rav rule this way?

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

is not a blessing!?

Yet in the wording mentioned there is no mention of the Name.

The Gemara answers:

He said

Benjamin the shepherd:

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

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

The Gemara asks: How did he fulfill his obligation of the blessing of food?

But we require

that he recite

three blessings,

and with one blessing he does not fulfill his obligation?

The Gemara answers:

What does “he has fulfilled,” which Rav said, mean?—

He has fulfilled the first blessing

of the blessing of food, but he still must recite two more blessings.

The Gemara asks:

What does Rav come to teach us

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

Lest you say that he comes to teach something novel:

even though he said it in a non-sacred language

he has fulfilled his obligation?

It is impossible to say this, for we already

learned

in tractate Sota:

And these are recited in every language: “The passage of the sota,”

which the priest would read before the woman when he made her swear; and likewise

“the confession of the tithe,”

which they recite at the time of the removal of the tithes;

“the recitation of the Shema, the prayer, and the blessing of food.”

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 fulfilled his obligation when he

said it in a non-sacred language—

because he translated it into the non-sacred language in the same manner as the Sages instituted it in the sacred language,

[that is, he translated the formula that the Sages instituted in the sacred language into a non-sacred language].

But

if he changed and

did not say it in a non-sacred language in the same manner as the Sages instituted it in the sacred language,

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

say that he does not

fulfill his obligation.

He comes to teach us

that even if he changed the formula of 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 kingship—

is not a blessing,

for besides mentioning the Name, one must mention “King of the universe.”

Abaye said: Rav’s view is more reasonable,

for even if he did not mention kingship, he has fulfilled his obligation of the blessing.

For it was taught:

It is written in Scripture, in the passage of the confession of the tithe [Deuteronomy 26]:

“I have not transgressed Your commandments and I have not forgotten.”

And we expound:

“I have not transgressed”—

by failing to bless You

with the blessing of the commandments over the separation of teruma and tithe.

“And I have not forgotten”—

by failing to mention Your Name over it!

But

mention of

“kingship” is not taught

in the beraita. Infer from this that even without mentioning kingship, one fulfills his obligation of the blessing.

And Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that every blessing requires mention of kingship, can say to you:

Revise it

[correct the wording of the beraita]:

“And I have not forgotten”—

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

Mishna:

And over something whose growth is not from the earth, one says: “Everything came into being through His word.”

Over vinegar

[wine that became spoiled and turned into vinegar], since it has descended from its status, one no longer recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” but rather “Everything came into being through His word.” And likewise

over novelot

which are inferior dates, since they became spoiled and descended from their status, one does not recite over them “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” but rather “Everything came into being through His word.”

And over locusts

[kosher locusts]

one says, “Everything came into being through His word,”

because their growth is not from the earth.

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

at all. Therefore, one should not recite a blessing over vinegar, novelot, or locusts, since they come about through a curse: vinegar is wine that became spoiled, novelot are spoiled dates, and locusts destroy the produce.

There were before him many species

and he came to eat them all,

Rabbi Judah says: if there is among them a species of the seven—

upon it

he precedes and

blesses.

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

And the Sages say:

in a case where the species that is not among the seven species is more beloved to him,

he blesses over whichever of them he wishes

that is, over the species beloved to him, because the quality of “beloved” precedes the quality of “the seven species”.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Over something whose growth is not from the earth, 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

a little and is still fit for eating ,

and over wine that has gone bad, and over a cooked dish whose appearance has passed

its appearance changed because of deterioration ,

one says: “Everything.”

Since, on account of their deterioration, their importance has been nullified, and for that reason they descend from their proper initial blessing.

Over salt and over zivmit

brine,

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” and not “Who creates the fruit of the earth”:

Does this mean

is this to be learned from it, that

truffles and mushrooms are not growths of the earth.

But it was taught: One who vows

not to derive benefit

from the fruits of the land—

is forbidden the fruits of the land, but is permitted truffles and mushrooms,

because they are not included in “the fruits of the land.”

And if he said,

the one who vows:

“All growths of the earth

are forbidden

to me! He is forbidden even truffles and mushrooms.”

It follows that truffles and mushrooms are considered growths of the earth. If so, it is puzzling: why is their blessing “Everything” and not “Who creates the fruit of the earth”?

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

Indeed, the truffles and mushrooms

grow greatly from the earth

they grow from the moisture of the earth, and therefore they are considered growths of the earth, but

they do not draw nourishment

this moisture directly

from the earth,

but rather through the air. And therefore, with regard to a blessing, they are still not considered the fruit of the earth, so as to recite over them the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the earth.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But “over

every

thing whose growth is not from the earth,” it teaches

in the beraita earlier, over which one recites “Everything.” And after this beraita stated this first, it returned and included truffles and mushrooms among those whose growth is not from the earth. And again the difficulty arises: why is one who vows that growths of the earth are forbidden to him forbidden truffles and mushrooms?

The Gemara answers:

Teach

correct the wording of the beraita

“over something that does not draw nourishment from the earth”

one recites “Everything,” and included in this are truffles and mushrooms, whose blessing is “Everything,” since they do not draw nourishment from the earth even though they are growths of the earth.

We learned in the Mishna:

And over novellot

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

The Gemara explains:

What are novellot?

They disagreed about this:

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Ilaa. One said

novellot are

buslei kamra,

dates that were burned because of the heat and dried out ,

and one said

novellot are

date-fruits of the wind,

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty: how can it be explained that novellot means dates that the wind caused to fall from the tree before their ripening? But

we learned

in the Mishna,

Rabbi Judah says: One does not recite a blessing over anything that is a species of curse.

The implication of Rabbi Judah’s words is that he comes to disagree with the first Tanna concerning all those taught in the first part of the Mishna: vinegar, novellot, and locusts. For according to the first Tanna their blessing is “Everything,” whereas according to Rabbi Judah one should not recite a blessing over them at all.

And if so:

Granted, according to the one who says

that novellot are

buslei kamra—

this is why he called it

Rabbi Judah

a species of curse,

for the fruits have deteriorated.

But according to the one who says

that novellot means

date-fruits of the wind,

there is a difficulty:

What is “a species of curse”?

For although they fell before they had fully ripened, nevertheless they are not included in the category of a species of curse, since they did not change into a deteriorated state.

The Gemara answers: according to the one who holds that novellot means “date-fruits of the wind,” Rabbi Judah does not disagree with the first Tanna except

with regard to the others,

that is, concerning vinegar and locusts, which come about through a curse. But concerning novellot, Rabbi Judah agrees that their blessing is “Everything.”

There are those who say

that the difficulty against the one who holds that novellot means “date-fruits of the wind” is from the words of the first Tanna in the Mishna:

Granted, according to the one who says

that novellot are

buslei kamra,

the reasoning of the first Tanna is understood,

that we recite over them “Everything”

and not “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” for they changed for the worse,

but according to the one who says

that the novellot mentioned in the Mishna are

date-fruits of the wind,

there is a difficulty: why do we recite

“Everything,” when he should have to recite ‘Who creates the fruit of the tree,’

for although they have not yet fully ripened, nevertheless they have not changed for the worse?

Rather,

the Gemara concludes for this reason:

concerning novellot

mentioned in the Mishna without qualification,

everyone agrees that they are buslei kamra

which changed for the worse, and therefore in our Mishna the first Tanna holds that their blessing is “Everything,” while Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that one should not recite a blessing over them at all.

When they disagree

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Ilaa

about

the interpretation of

novellot tamara

mentioned in the Mishna in tractate Demai.

For we learned: The lenient ones among the demai

the fruits concerning which the Sages were lenient, not to tithe them even if they were purchased from an am ha-aretz, because they are not important and the amei ha-aretz do not take care to tithe them, are:

the shittin, the rimin, the uzradin, benot shuah, benot shekama, gufnin, netzafa, and novellot tamara.

The Gemara clarifies what these fruits are:

“Shittin”—Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

they are

a species of figs

of the wilderness.

“Rimin”

are

kandi

a particular species of pomegranates .

“Uzradin”

are

tulshei

a species of fruit that grows on a wild shrub.

“Benot shuah”—

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

they are

white figs

white figs,

“Benot shekama”—

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

they are

duble

a fig resembling the fruit of the sycamore.

“Gufnin”

are

the ends of the grapevines,

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

“Netzafa”

is

peraha

the fruit that grows on a caper tree.

“Novellot tamara”

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

Rabbi Ilaa and Rabbi Zeira. One said

that they are

buslei kamra, and one said

that they are

date-fruits of the wind.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says

that novellot tamara are

buslei kamra,

it is satisfactory:

this is why it teaches

in the Mishna

“the lenient ones among the demai.”

Since only concerning their

doubt

that it is not known whether they were tithed

is there an exemption,

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

but their certainty,

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 novellot tamara mentioned in the Mishna are

date-fruits of the wind,

there is a difficulty: why is

their certainty

of novellot tamara, from which a tithe was not separated,

obligated?

For since the wind caused them to fall, a person’s intention is to despair of them, and if so,

they are ownerless

indeed!

And we hold 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

a granary

a heap.

For Rabbi Isaac said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob: The gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner

even though they are exempt from tithing, if

he made them

the poor person who gathers them

a granary—

they were established

through this

for tithing

by rabbinic law, as a decree because of observers who think that the poor person’s produce comes from land belonging to him. And the same law applies to all ownerless fruits that he made into a granary: through this they were established for tithing by rabbinic law.

There are those who say,

thus they raised the difficulty against the one who holds that novellot tamara are buslei kamra: