Berakhot 44a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

They brought before him salted food first, with bread alongside it -

he recites a blessing over the salted food

because it is the principal item,

and exempts

also

the bread by this blessing,

because

the bread is subordinate to it .

This is the general rule: whenever one item is principal and there is a subordinate item with it -

he recites a blessing over the principal item and exempts the subordinate item .

e. Principal and subordinate items in a mixture. - The Beit Yosef ( 212), in the name of the Tashbetz, wrote that this law—that the principal item exempts the subordinate item—applies not only when each of the foods stands on its own, but also when they are mixed and one of the categories comes to improve and flavor the other category. In that case as well, the law is that the principal item exempts the subordinate item through its blessing. He added that when the foods are mixed together and both are considered “principal” by the person, the category that constitutes the majority of the mixture is considered “principal,” and the minority category is considered “subordinate.” So ruled the Rama ( there, section 1). And in a case where the quantities of the categories are equal to one another, the Pri Megadim ( 208, Magen Avraham, subsection 7) wrote that since it is impossible to make them exactly equal, one must increase one category over the other and recite the blessing of the majority. It is left uncertain in the case of a mixture composed of three equal categories, but one category’s blessing is “Who creates the fruit of the earth,” while the blessings of the other two categories are “Who creates the fruit of the tree” [for example, a mixture composed of one-third bananas, one-third pears, and one-third apples]: is the quantity of the category alone what determines the designation of principal and subordinate, and if so, in the case before us no category is considered principal in relation to its fellow; or perhaps the food category with regard to the blessing is what determines, and since most of the mixture is composed of fruit of the tree, one should recite over it “Who creates the fruit of the tree.” And see in the book Pitchei Halakha ( letters, section 19), which brought from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that he decided in accordance with the second possibility. f. Regarding principal and subordinate items that come in a mixture, it seemingly follows that here too the law is that the blessing over the principal item exempts the subordinate item only if it was before him at the time of the blessing, or if he had it in mind. Therefore, if he recited a blessing over a beverage and afterward decided to add a little milk or the like, he must recite another blessing over it. However, when he added a little sugar to the beverage, the book Shemirat Shabbat Kehilkhatah ( part II, chapter 54, note 67) brought from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that he should not recite another blessing, because the sugar is not merely subordinate to the beverage, but it is nullified to it ממש, and does not require a blessing. Gemara: The Gemara asks: And is there such a thing [ that is, can such a situation exist ] that the salted food is principal and the bread subordinate, whereas bread is more important and necessarily is the principal item? The Gemara answers: Rav Acha, son of Rav Avira, said that Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna was taught

with regard to those who eat the fruits of Ginnosar, for these fruits, which grow near the Sea of Galilee, are more important than bread. Therefore, when he recited a blessing over the fruits, he exempted the bread, which was subordinate to them. And the “salted food” mentioned in the Mishna means the “fruits of Ginnosar,” which, because of their great sweetness, are salted with salt .

Rabba bar bar Chana said: When we would go after Rabbi Yochanan to eat the fruits of Ginnosar [ when we would follow Rabbi Yochanan to eat the fruits of Ginnosar, which is a place near the Sea of Galilee and whose fruits are exceedingly sweet ], when we were one hundred [ when there were one hundred of us going after him ], we would take for him ten, ten for each and every one [ each one of us would take ten fruits for him ], and when we were ten [ and when there were ten of us going after him ], we would take for him one hundred, one hundred for each and every one [ each one of us would take one hundred fruits ],

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],

and each hundred of them [

of the hundreds of fruits ] were so large that

a basket holding three seahs could not hold them [

even a large vessel whose volume was three seahs could not hold them ].

And he ate them

Rabbi Yochanan

all of them

the fruits,

and

nevertheless

he would swear,

he would swear after the eating

“I have not tasted nourishment,”

that he had not tasted a food.

The Gemara asks: and

is “nourishment” conceivable

as his claim that he had not eaten, when fruits are certainly a food?

The Gemara answers:

Rather, say

that after eating the fruits he swore that he had not eaten

sustenance [

food that satisfies ], because these fruits do not satiate, on account of their great sweetness .

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

Rabbi Abbahu would eat

Rabbi Abbahu ate

such a great quantity of the fruits of Ginnosar

until 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 Ginnosar

until their hair fell out [

until their hair was shed ]. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish would eat of the fruits of Ginnosar until he became deranged [

until his mind became confused ],

and Rabbi Yochanan would inform the household of the Nasi [

and Rabbi Yochanan would notify the household of the Nasi ],

and Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi would send a group of people after him and bring him to his house. [

And Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi would send a group of people to bring Resh Lakish to his house ] .

to

feed the

When Rav Dimi came, he said: One city belonged to King Yannai in the King’s Mountain

that had such an abundance of fruits that

they would take sixty myriad bowls of fish [

six hundred thousand bowls filled with pieces of fish ]

to

feed with them the

fig cutters

of the

figs, from one Sabbath eve to the next Sabbath eve. And this incident proves the abundance of the fruits that grew in the King’s Mountain, to the point that so many workers were needed to gather the figs. When Ravin came, he said: One tree belonged to King Yannai in the King’s Mountain, from which they would bring down forty seahs of fledglings from three broods [

from three cycles of laying eggs ], with this quantity brought down in each cycle,

in

every

month.

When Rabbi Yitzchak 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 priests,

who were

married to eighty pairs

of

sisters who were daughters of priests.

That is, each pair of brothers who were priests, from among those eighty, was married to a pair of sisters, from among the eighty pairs, who were daughters of priests. They did so because a daughter of a priest who marries an Israelite does not have a successful marriage .

And the Sages examined from Sura to Nehardea and did not find [

and they did not find ] a priest who married an Israelite woman

except for the daughters of Rav Chisda [

apart from the daughters of Rav Chisda ],

who were married [

who were married ]

to Rami bar Chama and

his brother

Mar Ukva bar Chama. And although they were daughters of priests,

for the daughters of Rav Chisda were daughters of a priest, -

they,

the brothers who married them,

were not priests

but Israelites.

is not

considered a

meal.

Mishna:

If one ate grapes

Rav said: Any meal in which there is no salt is not

considered a

meal.

Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yochanan said: Any meal in which there is no sharif [

a moist dish ]

is not considered a meal. Mishna: If one ate grapes or

figs

or

pomegranates -

he recites three blessings afterward,

the blessings of the Birkat HaMazon,

the words of Rabban Gamliel.

And the Sages say:

For fruits of the Seven Species, he recites afterward only

one blessing resembling three.

Rabbi Akiva says: Even if one ate a boiled dish [

a boiled vegetable ],

and it is his sustenance

for which he established his meal, -

he recites three blessings over it,

the blessings of the Birkat HaMazon .

“Who creates the many living beings and their deficiencies” .

and vine and fig and pomegranate.”

One who drinks water for his thirst,

who derives enjoyment from it [for when he is not thirsty, he does not derive enjoyment from it], -

recites

before the drinking

“that everything came to be through His word.”

Rabbi Tarfon says:

He recites before the drinking

“Who creates many living beings and their deficiencies” .

in the following verse: “A land where you will eat bread without scarcity.” And

Gemara:

What is the reason of Rabban Gamliel

that he recites the Birkat HaMazon over the Seven Species?

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

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 hold that one recites the Grace after Meals only over bread, their reason is that the word

“land”

mentioned in the second verse comes to

interrupt

the

matter that was mentioned in the first verse and to open a new matter. It follows, then, that the final verse, in which the commandment to recite the Grace after Meals is mentioned, refers only to the bread mentioned in the adjacent verse.

mentioned in the first verse and to begin a new subject. Therefore, the final verse, in which the command to recite the Grace after Meals is mentioned, refers only to the bread mentioned in the immediately preceding verse .

The Gemara raises an objection:

“And Rabban Gamliel as well,”

for

“land”

mentioned in the second verse

interrupted the matter. How, then, did he derive from this that one must recite the Grace after Meals over all seven species? The Gemara answers:

that

That “land”

mentioned in the second verse

is needed to exclude one who eats wheat kernels as they are, since this is not significant eating,

and therefore he is not obligated to recite the Grace after Meals over it .

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: 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

a single blessing resembling the three.

Rabba bar Mari said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Every

fruit

that is of the seven species

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

at the beginning one recites

over it

“Who creates the fruit of

the tree,” and at the end

one recites over it

a single blessing resembling the three.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: What is

the wording of

“a single blessing resembling the three”?

He said to him: Over fruit of the 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 gave as an inheritance to our fathers, to eat

of its fruit and to be satisfied by 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 do good to all.”

And over a cooked dish

of the five species

one recites:

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

and concludes: For the land and for

the nourishment

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 for us [below, 49a] that “one does not conclude a blessing with two,” meaning that one must not include two different matters in the conclusion of a blessing, because “one does not make commandments into bundles.”

The Gemara is uncertain:

to conclude

in the blessing resembling the three,

with what does one conclude,

with what wording does one conclude the blessing resembling the three that is recited over fruits? The explanation 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 times depend upon the court that sanctifies the month according to the sighting, it follows that this is one matter: we praise the Holy One, blessed is He, Who sanctifies Israel, who sanctify the New Moons.

Therefore, the Gemara is uncertain:

here,

in the blessing resembling the three over fruits,

what—is this blessing likewise not considered a conclusion with two matters, or not?

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

The Gemara resolves [the uncertainty]:

Rav Hisda said:

that they conclude with the wording

“for the land and for its fruits.”

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

that they conclude 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 with two [themes], because one blesses for the land that produces fruits.

Rav Amram said: They do not disagree

Rav Hisda and Rabbi Yohanan.

This one,

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

for us

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

and this one,

the instruction of Rabbi Yohanan [who was in the Land of Israel] is

for them

for the people of the Land of Israel, that they should say “for the land and for the fruits.”

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak objected to this:

How is it possible that the people of Babylonia should mention in their blessing the fruits of the Land of Israel? Are

they

the people of the Land of Israel

eating

the fruits of the land,

while we

the people of Babylonia

bless

over them?!

Rather, reverse it: Rav Hisda

who was in Babylonia

said

to the people of Babylonia that the wording of the conclusion of the blessing is:

“for the land and for the fruits” .

Whereas

Rabbi Yohanan

who was in the Land of Israel

said

to the people of the Land of Israel that the wording of the conclusion of the blessing is:

“for the land and for its fruits” .