Berakhot 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

If they brought before him salted food first, with bread alongside it—

he recites a blessing over the salted food,

since it is the primary food,

and exempts

through this blessing also

the bread,

because

the bread is secondary to it .

This is the general principle: Whenever something is primary and something secondary accompanies it—

he recites a blessing over the primary item and exempts the secondary item .

Gemara: The Gemara asks: Is there such a possibility that the salted food is primary and the bread secondary? The bread is more important, and must necessarily be the primary item. The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avira, said that Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna was taught with regard to those who eat the fruits of Ginosar, for these fruits, which grow near the Sea of Galilee, are more important than bread. Therefore, when one recited a blessing over the fruits, he exempted the bread, which was secondary to them. The “salted food” mentioned in the Mishna refers to the “fruits of Ginosar,” which, because of their great sweetness, were salted with salt . Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: When we would follow Rabbi Yoḥanan to eat the fruits of Ginosar [when we would follow Rabbi Yoḥanan to eat the fruits of Ginosar, a place near the Sea of Galilee whose fruits were exceedingly sweet], when we were one hundred, [when there were one hundred of us following him], we would take for him ten for each and every one, [each of us would take ten fruits for him], and when we were ten, [when there were ten of us following him], we would take for him one hundred for each and every one, [each of us would take one hundred fruits for him], and each hundred of them, [of those hundreds of fruits],

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, asks

:

Is there really such a possibility [that is, is it conceivable]

that the salted food is principal and the bread subordinate

,

since bread is more important and must necessarily be the principal food? The Gemara answers:

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avira, said that Rav Ashi said:

Our Mishna

was taught with regard to those who eat the fruit of Gennesaret, for these fruits, which grow near the Sea of Galilee, are more important than bread. Therefore, when one recited a blessing over the fruit, he exempted the bread, which was subordinate to it. The “salted food” mentioned in the Mishna refers to the “fruit of Gennesaret,” which, because of its great sweetness, was salted with salt .

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: When we would go after Rabbi Yoḥanan to eat the fruit of Gennesaret [when we would follow Rabbi Yoḥanan to eat the fruit of Gennesaret, a place near the Sea of Galilee whose fruit was exceedingly sweet], when we were one hundred [when there were one hundred of us following him],

was so large that

a basket holding three se’a could not contain them [not even a large vessel whose capacity was three se’a could hold them].

And he would eat them,

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

all of them,

the fruits,

and nevertheless he would swear,

he would swear after eating,

“I have tasted no nourishment,”

that he had tasted no food.

The Gemara asks:

Can you entertain the notion that he tasted no nourishment

—that he ate nothing? Surely fruits are certainly food.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, say

that after eating the fruits he swore that he had tasted no

sustenance, [a food that satisfies], since these fruits do not satisfy a person because of their great sweetness .

to mean that he had not eaten? After all, fruit is certainly food.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, say

Rabbi Abbahu would eat

such a large quantity of the fruits of Ginosar

that a fly would slide off his forehead [his flesh became so smooth that a fly would slide off his forehead].

And Rav Ami and Rav Asi would eat

of the fruits of Ginosar

until their hair fell out [until their hair fell out].

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish would eat

of the fruits of Ginosar

until he became delirious [until his mind became confused],

and Rabbi Yoḥanan would inform the house of the Nasi [Rabbi Yoḥanan would notify the Nasi’s household],

and Rabbi Yehuda Nesia would send a group of people after him and bring him to his home. [Rabbi Yehuda Nesia would send a group of people to bring Reish Lakish to his home] .

When Rav Dimi came, he said: King Yannai had one city in the King’s Mountain where there were so many fruits that

they would remove from it six hundred thousand bowls of salted fish [six hundred thousand bowls filled with pieces of fish]

to feed the

fig gatherers

from one Shabbat eve to the next.

This incident demonstrates the abundance of fruits that grew in the King’s Mountain, to the extent that so many workers were needed to gather the figs.

When Ravin came, he said: King Yannai had one tree in the King’s Mountain from which they would bring down forty se’a of fledglings from three broods [from three cycles of laying eggs],

with this quantity being brought down in each cycle,

every month.

When Rabbi Yitzḥak came, he said: There was one city in the Land of Israel, and Gufnit was its name, in which there were eighty pairs

of

brothers who were kohanim,

who were

married to eighty pairs

of

sisters who were daughters of kohanim.

That is, each pair of kohen brothers, from among the eighty pairs, was married to a pair of sisters, from among the eighty pairs, who were daughters of kohanim. They did so because the match of a kohen’s daughter who marries an Israelite does not prosper .

And the Sages examined from Sura to Nehardea and found no kohen who had married an Israelite woman except for the daughters of Rav Ḥisda [apart from the daughters of Rav Ḥisda]

who were married

to Rami bar Ḥama and

his brother

Mar Ukva bar Ḥama. And although they were daughters of kohanim,

since Rav Ḥisda’s daughters were daughters of a kohen,

—

they,

the brothers who married them,

were not kohanim,

but Israelites.

his brother,

Mar Ukva bar Ḥama. And although they

the daughters of Rav Ḥisda

were daughters of kohanim,

they,

the brothers who married them,

Rav said: Any meal that does not contain salt is not

considered a

meal.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any meal that does not contain a sherif [a moist cooked dish]

is not

considered a

meal.

Mishna:

If one ate grapes,

or

figs,

or

pomegranates—

he recites after them the three blessings

of Birkat HaMazon;

this is the statement of Rabban Gamliel.

And the Sages say:

For fruits of the Seven Species, one recites afterward only

one blessing that is an abridged form of the three.

Rabbi Akiva says: Even if one ate a cooked vegetable [a boiled vegetable],

and it is his sustenance, having established his meal upon it, — he recites over it the three blessings of Birkat HaMazon .

and it is his sustenance

One who drinks water to quench his thirst,

and derives pleasure from it [for when he is not thirsty, he does not derive pleasure from it],—

recites

before drinking

that everything came into being by His word.

Rabbi Tarfon says:

He recites before drinking

“Who creates many living beings and their deficiencies” .

-

recites

before drinking

Gemara:

What is the reason of Rabban Gamliel,

who recites Birkat HaMazon over the Seven Species?

As it is written: “A land of wheat and barley

and vine and fig and pomegranate.”

And it is written

in the following verse:

“A land where you will eat bread without scarcity.”

And

further, it is

written

in the verse after that:

“And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless the Lord your God.”

Rabban Gamliel maintains that the final verse, which mentions the commandment to recite Birkat HaMazon, refers to the two preceding verses: both to the bread mentioned in the second verse and to the fruits of the Seven Species mentioned in the first verse.

it is further written

in the following verse:

“And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless the Lord your God.”

Rabban Gamliel maintains that the last verse, which mentions the commandment to recite the Grace after Meals, refers to both preceding verses: both to the bread mentioned in the second verse and to the fruit of the seven species mentioned in the first verse.

and vine and fig and pomegranate.”

And it is written

in the verse after it:

“A land in which you shall eat bread not in poverty.” And further

it is written

in the verse after it:

“And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless the Lord your God.”

And Rabban Gamliel holds that the last verse, in which the commandment to recite the Birkat HaMazon is mentioned, refers to the two preceding verses: both to the bread mentioned in the second verse and to the fruits of the Seven Species mentioned in the first verse.

And the Rabbis,

who maintain that one recites Birkat HaMazon only over bread, hold this because the word

“land”

mentioned in the second verse comes to

interrupt

the

subject

mentioned in the first verse and to begin a new subject. Accordingly, the final verse, in which the commandment to recite Birkat HaMazon is mentioned, refers only to the bread mentioned in the preceding verse.

b. Rabbeinu Yonah proves that the abridged blessing resembling the three is rabbinic from what is stated above (12a): if one recited the blessing of HaZan over dates, he has fulfilled his obligation. If the abridged blessing resembling the three were Torah-mandated, how could he have fulfilled his obligation by reciting only the blessing of HaZan? It must necessarily be that the abridged blessing is only rabbinic; therefore, after the fact, since he mentioned the blessing of HaZan, it may be said that he has fulfilled his obligation. Regarding the Rishonim who maintain that the abridged blessing resembling the three is Torah-mandated, Ma'adanei Yom Tov (end of the first chapter, note 50) explained that they follow the view of Maimonides, who maintains that the number of blessings recited over bread—that is, the three blessings of Birkat HaMazon—is only rabbinic. By Torah law, it suffices to recite over bread one abridged blessing resembling the three. Accordingly, “land,” which interrupts the subject, comes to exclude the requirement to recite one abridged blessing resembling the three over the seven species; the blessing of HaZan alone suffices [and mentioning “land” and “Jerusalem” is rabbinic and does not invalidate the blessing]. Therefore, one who recited the blessing of HaZan over dates has fulfilled his obligation. [See also Nishmat Adam (47:1), who states that Rabbeinu Yonah’s proof from the passage above follows his own position; see his words.] c. The Bi'ur Halakha (208, s.v. ela) proves from the cited words of Rabbeinu Yonah that one who recited an abridged blessing resembling the three but did not mention “land” and “Jerusalem” has fulfilled his obligation after the fact. For even when one recites only the blessing of HaZan, he does not mention “land” and “Jerusalem,” and nevertheless Rabbeinu Yonah states that he has fulfilled his obligation. Necessarily, this is because these mentions do not invalidate the blessing. However, Pri Megadim (there, Eshel Avraham 16) rules that one who omits “land” and “Jerusalem” from the abridged blessing resembling the three has not fulfilled his obligation [and it is surprising that the Bi'ur Halakha did not mention him]. The reason that one who recites only the blessing of HaZan has fulfilled his obligation even though he did not mention land and Jerusalem is that the blessing of HaZan is significant. His intention requires explanation. See Chazon Ish (34:4), who likewise independently adopted the position of Pri Megadim and distinguished this case from one who recites the blessing of HaZan: one who recites an abridged blessing resembling the three and omits “land” and “Jerusalem” has thereby altered the established wording of the blessings instituted by the Sages, and therefore has not fulfilled his obligation; see there. According to him, the mentions themselves do not invalidate the blessing. Rather, the reason he has not fulfilled his obligation is that he altered the established wording of the blessing. The Gemara asks:

“And Rabban Gamliel as well,”

for

“land”

mentioned in the second verse

interrupts the subject; how, then, did he derive from this that one recites Birkat HaMazon over all seven species? The Gemara answers:

that

“land”

mentioned in the second verse

is needed to exclude one who eats wheat kernels

as they are, since this is not a significant form of eating, and he is not obligated to recite Birkat HaMazon over it.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said that Rabbi Hanina said: Every

food

that is of the five species

of grain—

at the beginning one recites over it Borei Minei Mezonot, and at the end

one recites over it

an abridged blessing resembling the three.

Rabba bar Mari said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Every

fruit

that is of the seven species

mentioned in the verse with which the Land of Israel is praised, and that is not a type of grain—

at the beginning one recites

over it

“Borei Pri”

“HaEtz,” and at the end

one recites over it

an abridged blessing resembling the three.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: What is

the wording of

“an abridged blessing resembling the three”?

He said to him: Over fruit of a tree

one recites:

“For the tree, and for the fruit of the tree, and for the produce of the field, and for the desirable, good, and spacious Land

that You granted our forefathers to eat

of its fruit and to be satisfied with its goodness” . “Have mercy, Lord our God, upon Israel Your people, and upon Jerusalem Your city, and upon Your Temple, and upon Your altar. And rebuild Jerusalem, Your holy city, speedily in our days, and bring us up into it and gladden us in it, for You, Lord, are good and beneficent to all.””

And over a cooked dish

of the five species

one recites:

“For the sustenance, and for the nourishment, and for the produce of the field, etc.,”

and concludes: “For the Land and for

the sustenance.”

The Tur ( 208) wrote that one must conclude “for the nourishment and for the sustenance,” and this is likewise the wording brought in the Magen Avraham ( there, subsection 16). However, see the Beit Yosef ( there), who cited in the name of several early authorities that one should not conclude “and for the sustenance.” [See the Sha’ar HaTziyun ( there, subsection 52), who wrote that this is the view of most of the early authorities.] As the reason for this, the Kaf HaChaim ( there, paragraph 57) cited in the name of the Chesed la-Avraham ( paragraph 11) that this is because “one does not conclude with two” [one does not conclude a blessing with two matters]. Regarding the view of those who disagree, one may say that this is not considered a “conclusion with two,” because “nourishment” and “sustenance” are one matter. So wrote Rabbi Yosef Shaul Natanzon in his glosses.

It is established law [below, 49a] that “one does not conclude a blessing with two,” meaning that one may not include two distinct matters in the conclusion of a blessing, because “one does not perform mitzvot in bundles.”

And the Gemara is uncertain:

“When concluding”

the abridged blessing resembling the three,

“with what does one conclude,”

with what wording does one conclude the abridged blessing resembling the three recited over fruits? The basis of the uncertainty is that

when Rav Dimi came, he said: Rav concluded

the blessing in the Additional Prayer

on the New Moon: “Blessed

are You, Lord,

Who sanctifies Israel and the New Moons,”

and he was not concerned that this was a conclusion with two matters, because since the appointed times depend on the court that sanctifies the month on the basis of its sighting, it emerges that this is one matter: we praise the Holy One, blessed be He, Who sanctifies Israel, who sanctify the New Moons.

Therefore, the Gemara is uncertain:

here,

with regard to the abridged blessing resembling the three over fruits,

“what”

is the law? Is this blessing likewise not considered a conclusion with two matters, or is it?

The Gemara resolves the matter:

Rav Ḥisda said:

that one concludes with the wording:

“For the land and for its fruits.”

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

that one concludes with the wording:

“For the land and for the fruits.”

Thus, despite the difference in wording between them, both agree that one must mention both the land and the fruits, and this is not a conclusion concerning two matters, since one blesses for the land that produces fruits .

Rav Amram said: They do not disagree

Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Yoḥanan.

This

is the instruction of Rav Ḥisda [who was in Babylonia]

for us

for the residents of Babylonia, that they should say “for its fruits”;

and this

is the instruction of Rabbi Yoḥanan [who was in Eretz Yisrael]

for them

for the residents of Eretz Yisrael, that they should say “for the land and for the fruits.”

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak challenged this:

How is it possible for the residents of Babylonia to mention in their blessing the fruits of Eretz Yisrael? Are

they

the residents of Eretz Yisrael

eating

the fruits of the land,

while we

the residents of Babylonia

bless

over them?!

Rather, reverse the attributions: Rav Ḥisda

who was in Babylonia

said

to the residents of Babylonia that the wording of the blessing’s conclusion is:

“For the land and for the fruits” .

Whereas

Rabbi Yoḥanan

who was in Eretz Yisrael

said

to the residents of Eretz Yisrael that the wording of the blessing’s conclusion is:

“For the land and for its fruits” .