Berakhot 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

Granted, according to the one who says

that the novellot mentioned in the Mishna in tractate Demai are

windfallen dates

, it is understandable why the tanna changed his wording

; that is, here

in our Mishna

he calls them

the tanna

“novellot” without qualification,

because here he means “bushlei kamara”

; but

if

there,

in the Mishna in tractate Demai,

he calls them

“novellot

of dates

” because there he means “windfallen dates.”

But according to the one who says

that the novellot mentioned in the Mishna in that tractate are

“bushlei kamara,”

this is difficult: Why is the designation of the dates in our Mishna different from the designation of the dates mentioned in tractate Demai?

Let him teach in both places

—in Berakhot and in Demai—

“novellot of dates,” or

let him teach

in both places: “novellot” without qualification!

For the meaning is identical in both places.

This is difficult!

We learned in the Mishna:

If there were before him

many types of food.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of them is a species of the seven species, he recites the blessing over it. And the Sages say: He recites the blessing over whichever one he wishes .

The Gemara explains the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

Ulla said: The dispute

is

concerning foods whose blessings

are

identical,

such as olives and apples, whose blessing is “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” when he intends to exempt both with a single blessing.

Rabbi Yehuda holds: A species of the seven species has precedence

and one should recite the blessing over it first,

while the Rabbis hold: The more beloved species has precedence

and one should recite the blessing over it first [and when the Sages said, “He recites the blessing over whichever one he wishes,” they mean that he should recite the blessing over the one he prefers over the other].

But when their blessings are not identical,

such as a radish and an olive, they did not disagree. Rather,

everyone agrees that he recites the blessing over this one

the one more beloved to him,

and then recites the blessing over

that one,

the second species .

From Ulla’s statement that when their blessings are not identical one recites two blessings, we learn that when two species are before him, one whose blessing is “Who creates the fruit of the ground” and the other whose blessing is “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” he recites two blessings. We do not say that he should recite “Who creates the fruit of the ground” and thereby exempt both species. Although we learned in the Mishna (40a) that if one recited “Who creates the fruit of the ground” over something whose blessing is “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact, this applies only when he mistakenly recited “Who creates the fruit of the ground” over the tree fruit itself. But when both species are placed before him and he recited “Who creates the fruit of the ground” over the food from the ground, he does not thereby exempt the tree fruit.

The Gemara raises an objection:

“If there were before him a radish and an olive,”

whose blessings are not identical,

“he recites the blessing over the radish”

the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the ground”

“and exempts”

with it

“the olive,”

as in the case of one who recites “Who creates the fruit of the ground” over something whose blessing is “Who creates the fruit of the tree.” This is difficult for Ulla’s statement, which holds that one must recite two blessings.

The Gemara answers:

“With what are we dealing here?”

With a beraita

“when the radish is primary,”

and we learned in the Mishna below (44a) that whenever a primary food and a secondary food are before him, he recites the blessing over the primary food and exempts the secondary food with this blessing. Therefore, the blessing over the radish exempts the olive. But when he wishes to eat both species independently, he recites two blessings.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

“If so,”

that the beraita is discussing a case in which the radish is primary,

“say the latter clause”

of this beraita:

“Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites the blessing over the olive”

first and then recites the blessing over the radish because

“the olive is of the seven species.”

This is difficult:

“Does Rabbi Yehuda not accept that which we learned”

in the Mishna below:

“Whenever something is primary and something secondary accompanies it, he recites the blessing over the primary food and exempts the secondary food”?!

And if you would say that this is indeed so, that he does not accept

the principle that the blessing over the primary food exempts the blessing over the secondary food,

but it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the olive is eaten because of the radish,

meaning that his primary intention in eating was the radish, and he ate the olive only to mitigate the radish’s pungency,

he recites the blessing over the radish and exempts the olive.

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree with the principle of the Mishna that the blessing over the primary food exempts the secondary food. Therefore, the beraita must necessarily not be discussing a case in which the radish is primary, since in that case Rabbi Yehuda agrees that one does not recite a blessing over the olive. The difficulty with Ulla’s statement thus recurs: Ulla holds that when tree fruit and food from the ground are before him, he recites two blessings, whereas the first tanna of the beraita says that he recites a blessing only over the radish?

The Gemara answers:

“Actually, we are dealing with a case in which the radish is primary”

and the olive is secondary

;

the beraita is discussing such a case. For this reason, the words of the first tanna do not contradict Ulla’s statement. As for the difficulty that Rabbi Yehuda cannot disagree in this matter, Rabbi Yehuda indeed did not disagree here. Rather,

“when Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree, they disagree about another matter, and the text is incomplete”

and several words are missing from the wording of the beraita.

“And this is what it teaches:”

“If there were before him a radish and an olive”—

“he recites the blessing over the radish and exempts the olive. When does this apply? When the radish is primary. But

if

the radish is not primary,

then,

“according to everyone, he recites the blessing over

one species

and then recites the blessing over

the other species

.”

“And in general, when there are two species whose blessings are identical,”

such as an olive and an apple, one of which is a species of the seven species, the first tanna holds that he

“recites the blessing over whichever one he wishes,”

that is, over the one more beloved to him. But

“Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites the blessing over the olive,”

because

“the olive”

is

“of the seven species.”

And this is also the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages in the Mishna .

And concerning this statement of Ulla,

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa disagree.

One said

that the halakha is in accordance with Ulla, namely, that the

dispute

between the tannaim in the Mishna is

“when their blessings are identical. Rabbi Yehuda holds that a species of the seven species has precedence, while the Rabbis hold that the more beloved species has precedence. But when their blessings are not identical, everyone agrees that he recites the blessing over this one and then recites the blessing over that one.”

And one said

that the halakha is not in accordance with Ulla. Rather,

“even when their blessings are not identical, there is also a dispute”

whether the more beloved species has precedence or a species of the seven species has precedence.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

“Granted, according to the one who says that the dispute is when their blessings are identical,”

“that is well,”

as it is understandable that their dispute concerns over which species one should establish the blessing and thereby exempt the other species.

“But according to the one who says that they disagree when their blessings are not identical,”

this is difficult:

“About what do they disagree?”

For it is certainly impossible to exempt both with a single blessing . The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Their dispute concerns which blessing

“to recite first!”

According to Rabbi Yehuda, one should first recite the blessing over a species of the seven species and afterward recite the blessing over the other species, whereas according to the Rabbis, one should first recite the blessing over the more beloved species and afterward recite the blessing over the other species.

The Gemara brings support for Rabbi Yirmeya’s statement, that the laws of precedence apply even when the blessings are not identical:

“As Rav Yosef said, and some say Rabbi Yitzhak: Whatever is mentioned earlier in this verse has precedence for the blessing. As it is stated”

Deuteronomy 8:8]

“A land of wheat and barley, vine, fig, and pomegranate; a land of olive oil and honey,”

It follows that the law of precedence applies even when the blessings are not identical, since the blessings of wheat and grapes are not identical, yet wheat precedes grapes .

The Gemara adds:

“And”

this statement of Rabbi Yitzhak, who said that whatever is mentioned earlier in the verse comes first for the blessing,

“disagrees with Rabbi Ḥanan.”

“For Rabbi Ḥanan said: The entire verse”

“was stated for measures”

of Torah

.”

It was stated to praise the Land of Israel, by indicating that it contains fruits upon which the measures of the Torah depend, and not to indicate the order of importance of the fruits with regard to blessings.

Wheat—

the measures of the Torah are based on it, as

we learned in tractate Nega'im

chapter 13]:

A house afflicted with a leprous plague renders a person and utensils impure in two ways: by entering it, or by remaining in it.

If a person enters an afflicted house, or utensils are brought into it, they become impure immediately by virtue of entering it. But if they did not enter the house and merely remained there, they become impure because of remaining in the house.

The period of remaining there that renders them impure is measured by “the eating of a half-loaf” (akhilat peras), the time required to eat half a loaf of bread made from wheat flour.

And so we learned: Anyone who enters an afflicted house, and his utensils,

with his garments

laid upon his shoulders,

and his sandals and rings

he carries

in his hands—

he and they become impure immediately.

Since the person carrying them is not wearing them, they become impure immediately by virtue of their own entry into the afflicted house, as it is written: “And whoever enters the house, whether person or utensil, shall be impure until evening.” Just as the person becomes impure immediately upon entering, even if he does not remain there, so too the garments become impure immediately.

But if

he was wearing his garments, with his sandals on his feet,

and his rings on his fingers—

only

he becomes impure immediately,

as is the law with regard to one who enters a house, who becomes impure immediately,

while

the

they,

the garments and utensils upon him, remain

pure,

since they do not become impure immediately upon entering the house, as they were not “brought” into the house. For their entry into the house is attributed not to them but to the person wearing them, and they are merely subordinate to him,

until he remains

inside the house

for

the period of time required for

the eating of a half-loaf,

which is half a loaf of

wheat bread,

which is eaten quickly,

and not barley bread,

which is eaten slowly. The time required to eat the bread is calculated according to the manner in which it is eaten while he is

reclining,

because bread is eaten more quickly during a reclining meal, since he is not diverting his attention to other matters.

And he eats it with relish,

which also causes the bread to be eaten more quickly. At that point they become impure because of having remained in the afflicted house.

Barley—

the measures of the Torah are based on it, as

we learned in tractate Ohalot

chapter 2:

A bone

whose size is

the

measure of

a barley-grain—

renders impure through contact and through carrying. And

it is a halakha given to Moses from Sinai that it

does not render impure through a tent .

Vine—

the measures of the Torah are based on it, for eating grape seeds and grape skins

to the

measure of

a quarter-log of wine

is prohibited

to a nazirite,

and he receives lashes for it.

Fig—

the measures of the Torah are based on it: if one carried food from one domain to another on Shabbat in the measure of

a dried fig,

which is a dried fig, he is liable, as this is the measure establishing liability for

carrying

food on

Shabbat.

Pomegranate—

the measures of the Torah are based on it—

as we learned in tractate Kelim

chapter 17: A wooden utensil in which a hole was made, as a result of which the utensil is no longer fit for use, loses its status as a utensil and does not become impure. Therefore, a craftsman's utensil intended for sale becomes pure through a hole of any size, since once a hole has been made in it, it is no longer fit for sale or use. But

all utensils belonging to householders,

who value their utensils and continue using them even after they have been perforated,

their measure

for becoming pure is only when they have been perforated by a hole as large

as pomegranates.