Berakhot 41a — the Talmud in English

Granted, according to the one who says

that the novlot temara mentioned in the Mishna in tractate Demai are

windfallen dates,

it is understandable why the tanna changed his wording.

That is to say, here

in our Mishna,

he calls it

the tanna

“novlot” without qualification,

because here its meaning is “dates cooked in their own heat,”

whereas

if

there,

in the Mishna in tractate Demai,

he calls it

the tanna “novlot

of dates”

because there its meaning is “windfallen dates.”

But according to the one who says

that the novlot mentioned in the Mishna in the tractate are

dates cooked in their own heat,

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

Let it teach in both places

in Berakhot and in Demai

“novlot of dates,” or

let it teach

in both places: “novlot” without qualification!?

For in both places the meaning is the same.

It is difficult!

We learned in the Mishna:

If there were before him

many kinds.

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

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

Ulla said: The dispute

is

when their blessings

of the kinds

are the same,

such as olives and apples, whose blessing is “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” and he comes to exempt both of them with one blessing.

For Rabbi Yehuda holds: a species of the seven is preferable

to recite the blessing over it first,

and the Rabbis hold: the more beloved kind is preferable

to recite the blessing over it first [and when the Sages said, “He recites the blessing over whichever of them he wishes,” they meant that he should recite the blessing over the beloved one, which he wants more than the other].

But when their blessings are not the same,

such as a radish and an olive, they did not disagree; rather,

everyone agrees that he recites the blessing over this one

which is more beloved to him,

and he again recites the blessing over

this one,

the second kind .

From Ulla’s words, who said that when their blessings are not the same he recites two blessings, we learn that when two kinds 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 the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the ground” and thereby exempt both kinds. Even though we learned in the Mishna (40a) that if he 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 erred and recited “the ground” over the tree fruit itself. But when the two kinds are placed before him and he recited “the ground” over the kind of the ground, he does not thereby exempt the tree fruit.

The Gemara asks:

“It was objected: If a radish and an olive were before him,”

whose blessings are not the same,

“he recites the blessing over the radish”

the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the ground,”

“and exempts”

with it

“the olive,”

as is the law when one 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 words, for he 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 item and a secondary item are before him, he recites the blessing over the primary item and exempts the secondary item with this blessing. Therefore, the blessing over the radish exempts the olive. But in a situation in which he wants to eat both kinds independently, he recites two blessings.

The Gemara asks:

“If so,”

that the beraita is dealing with a situation in which the radish is primary,

“say its latter clause,”

of this beraita:

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

first and afterward recites the blessing over the radish because

“the olive is of the seven species.”

This is difficult:

“Does Rabbi Yehuda not have that which we learned”

in the Mishna below:

“Whenever something is primary and a secondary item is with it, he recites the blessing over the primary item and exempts the secondary item”?!

“And if you would say that this is indeed so, that he does not have it,”

that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept this law, that the blessing over the primary item exempts the blessing over the secondary item,

“but it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the olive came because of the radish,”

meaning that his main intention in eating was for the radish, and only in order to alleviate the sharpness of the radish did he eat an olive—

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

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree with the law of the Mishna, that the blessing over the primary item exempts the secondary item. Therefore, necessarily the beraita is not dealing with a situation in which the radish is primary, for in such a case Rabbi Yehuda agrees that one does not recite the blessing over the olive. And again, Ulla’s words will be difficult, for he holds that when a tree fruit and a ground fruit are before him, one recites two blessings, from the words of the first tanna in the beraita, who says that one recites the blessing only over the radish?

The Gemara answers:

“Actually, we are dealing

with a radish that is primary and an olive that is secondary

in

the beraita, and for this reason the words of the first tanna do not contradict Ulla’s words. And concerning the objection that it is impossible for Rabbi Yehuda to disagree in this matter, indeed Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree in this.

Rather, when Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree, they disagree concerning another matter, and the text is חסורי מחסרא

by several words in the wording of the beraita.

And this is what it teaches:

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

“he recites the blessing over the radish and exempts the olive. In what case is this statement said? When the radish is primary. But

if

the radish is not primary,

then

everyone agrees that he recites the blessing over

one

and again recites the blessing over

the other

one.”

“And two ordinary kinds whose blessings are the same,” such as an olive and an apple, one of which is a species of the seven— the first tanna holds that

According to Rabbi Yehuda, one should first recite the blessing over the type of the Seven Species and afterward recite the blessing over the other type. According to the Rabbis, one should first recite the blessing over the preferred type and afterward recite the blessing over the other type.

“he recites the blessing over whichever of them he wishes,”

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

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

because

“the olive”

is

“of the seven species.” And this is also the dispute in which Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagreed in the Mishna .

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 Nappaḥ disagree about it.

One said

like Ulla, that

the dispute

of the tannaim in the Mishna

is when their blessings are the same. Rabbi Yehuda holds that a species of the seven is preferable, and the Rabbis hold that the beloved kind is preferable; but when their blessings are not the same, everyone agrees that he recites the blessing over this one and again recites the blessing over that one.

And one said

not like Ulla, but rather

even when their blessings are not the same there is also a dispute

whether the beloved kind is preferable or a species of the seven.

The Gemara asks:

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

it is well

and the matter is understandable: their dispute concerns over which kind one should establish the blessing and thereby exempt the other kind.

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

it is difficult:

“Over what do they disagree?”

For surely it is impossible to exempt both of them with one blessing . The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Their dispute concerns which blessing

“to put first!” For Rabbi Yehuda, one should precede and recite the blessing over a species of the seven, and afterward recite the blessing over the other kind, whereas for the Rabbis one should precede and recite the blessing over the beloved kind, and afterward recite the blessing over the other kind.

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 words, that the laws of precedence were stated even when their blessings are not the same:

“For Rav Yosef said, and some say Rabbi Yitzhak: Everything that precedes in this verse precedes for the blessing. As it is stated”

[Deuteronomy 8:8]

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

it follows that there is a law of precedence even when their blessings are not the same, for the blessings of wheat and vine are not the same, and the wheat precedes the vine .

The Gemara adds:

“And

this statement of Rabbi Yitzhak, who said that everything that precedes in the verse precedes for the blessing,

disagrees with Rabbi Hanan.

For Rabbi Hanan said: The entire verse

was stated for measures

of Torah

requirements.

This is to make known the praise of the Land of Israel, in that it contains fruits upon which the measures of the Torah depend, and not to make known the order of the importance of the fruits with regard to the blessing.

Wheat —

the measures of the Torah depend upon it, as

we learned

in tractate Nega’im [chapter 13]:

A house afflicted with tsaraat imparts impurity to a person and to vessels in two ways: upon entering it, or by remaining in it.

If a person entered, or vessels were brought, into an afflicted house, they become impure immediately because of their entering it. But if they did not enter the house, but only remained in it, they become impure because of remaining in the house.

The duration of remaining that imparts impurity is measured by “the eating of a peras,” which is the time required to eat half a loaf of bread made from wheat flour.

And thus we learned: Everyone

who enters an afflicted house, with his vessels

[his garments] placed

on his shoulders, while his sandals and his rings

he carries

in his hands —

he and they are immediately impure.

For since the person carrying them is not wearing them, they become impure immediately by virtue of their own entering the afflicted house, as it is written: “And one who enters the house [whether a person or whether vessels] shall be impure until evening.” And just as the person becomes impure immediately upon entering, even if he did 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 is immediately impure,

as is the law of one who enters a house, who becomes impure immediately,

while

they

—

the garments and vessels upon him — remain

pure,

for they do not become impure immediately upon entering the house, since they were not “brought into” the house, for their entering 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 measure of time of

the eating of a peras,

which is half a loaf of

wheat bread,

which is eaten quickly,

and not barley bread

which is eaten slowly. And the time of eating the bread is estimated as it is eaten while he is

reclining,

for when the eating is done while reclining, the bread is eaten more quickly, because he does not divert his attention to other matters.

And he eats it with relish,

for then too the bread is eaten more quickly. And then they become impure because of their remaining in the afflicted house.

Barley —

the measures of the Torah depend upon it, as

we learned

in tractate Ohalot [chapter 2]:

A bone

whose size is

like

the measure of a

barley —

imparts impurity through contact and carrying. And

it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that it

does not impart impurity through a tent .

Vine —

the measures of the Torah depend upon it, for eating grape seeds and skins

to the measure of

the measure of

a quarter-log of wine

is prohibited

to a nazirite,

and he is flogged for it.

Fig —

the measures of the Torah depend upon it: if on Shabbat he carried food from one domain to another in the measure of

a dried fig-bulk,

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

for carrying out

food on

Shabbat.

Pomegranate —

the measures of the Torah depend upon it —

as we learned

in tractate Kelim [chapter 17]: A wooden vessel in which a hole was made, and as a result the vessel is no longer fit for use, loses its status as a vessel and does not receive impurity. Therefore, an artisan’s vessel that is intended for sale becomes pure through any hole at all, because after a hole was made in it, it is no longer fit for sale or use. But

every vessel belonging to householders

who have regard for their vessels and use them even after they have been perforated —

their measure

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

like pomegranates.