| 35a. מתני׳ big strongכיצד /strong /big מברכין על הפירות על פירות האילן הוא אומר בורא פרי העץ חוץ מן היין שעל היין הוא אומר בורא פרי הגפן ועל פירות הארץ הוא אומר בורא פרי האדמה חוץ מן הפת שעל הפת הוא אומר המוציא לחם מן הארץ ועל הירקות הוא אומר בורא פרי האדמה רבי יהודה אומר בורא מיני דשאים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנא ה"מ דתנו רבנן (ויקרא יט, כד) קדש הלולים לה' מלמד שטעונים ברכה לפניהם ולאחריהם מכאן אמר ר"ע אסור לאדם שיטעום כלום קודם שיברך,והאי קדש הלולים להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה חד דאמר רחמנא אחליה והדר אכליה ואידך דבר הטעון שירה טעון חלול ושאינו טעון שירה אין טעון חלול וכדר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מנין שאין אומרים שירה אלא על היין שנאמר (שופטים ט, יג) ותאמר להם הגפן החדלתי את תירושי המשמח אלהים ואנשים אם אנשים משמח אלהים במה משמח מכאן שאין אומרים שירה אלא על היין,הניחא למאן דתני נטע רבעי אלא למאן דתני כרם רבעי מאי איכא למימר דאתמר ר' חייא ור' שמעון ברבי חד תני כרם רבעי וחד תני נטע רבעי,ולמאן דתני כרם רבעי הניחא אי יליף ג"ש דתניא ר' אומר נאמר כאן (ויקרא יט, כה) להוסיף לכם תבואתו ונאמר להלן (דברים כב, ט) ותבואת הכרם מה להלן כרם אף כאן כרם אייתר ליה חד הלול לברכה,ואי לא יליף גזרה שוה ברכה מנא ליה ואי נמי יליף גזרה שוה אשכחן לאחריו לפניו מנין,הא לא קשיא דאתיא בקל וחומר כשהוא שבע מברך כשהוא רעב לא כל שכן,אשכחן כרם שאר מינין מנין,דיליף מכרם מה כרם דבר שנהנה וטעון ברכה אף כל דבר שנהנה טעון ברכה,איכא למפרך מה לכרם שכן חייב בעוללות,קמה תוכיח מה לקמה שכן חייבת בחלה,כרם יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן דבר שנהנה וטעון ברכה אף כל דבר שנהנה טעון ברכה,מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בו צד מזבח ואתי נמי זית דאית ביה צד מזבח,וזית מצד מזבח אתי והא בהדיא כתיב ביה כרם דכתיב (שופטים טו, ה) ויבער מגדיש ועד קמה ועד כרם זית אמר רב פפא כרם זית אקרי כרם סתמא לא אקרי,מ"מ קשיא מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח אלא דיליף לה משבעת המינין מה שבעת המינין דבר שנהנה וטעון ברכה אף כל דבר שנהנה טעון ברכה,מה לשבעת המינין שכן חייבין בבכורים ועוד התינח לאחריו לפניו מנין,הא לא קשיא דאתי בקל וחומר כשהוא שבע מברך כשהוא רעב לכ"ש,ולמאן דתני נטע רבעי הא תינח כל דבר נטיעה דלאו בר נטיעה כגון בשר ביצים ודגים מנא ליה אלא סברא הוא אסור לו לאדם שיהנה מן העולם הזה בלא ברכה:,ת"ר אסור לו לאדם שיהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה וכל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה מעל מאי תקנתיה ילך אצל חכם,ילך אצל חכם מאי עביד ליה הא עביד ליה איסורא אלא אמר רבא ילך אצל חכם מעיקרא וילמדנו ברכות כדי שלא יבא לידי מעילה,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה כאילו נהנה מקדשי שמים שנא' (תהלים כד, א) לה' הארץ ומלואה ר' לוי רמי כתיב לה' הארץ ומלואה וכתיב (תהלים קטו, טז) השמים שמים לה' והארץ נתן לבני אדם לא קשיא כאן קודם ברכה | 35a. strongMISHNA: /strong This mishna discusses the blessings recited over various foods. bHow does one recite a blessing over fruits? Overdifferent bfruitsthat grow on a btree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine.Although wine is produced from fruit of the tree, due to its significance, its blessing differs from other fruits of the tree. bOver wine one recites: Who creates fruit of the vine. Over fruitsthat grow from bthe earth, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, with the exception of bread.Bread, too, is significant and its blessing differs from other fruits of the ground, bas over bread one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Overherbs and leafy bvegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Rabbi Yehuda saysthat there is room to distinguish between fruits that grow from the earth, herbs, and leafy vegetables. Although they are all fruit of the ground, since they have different qualities, the blessing on the latter is: bWho creates various kinds of herbs. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong Concerning the fundamental basis for blessings, the Gemara asks: bFrom where are these matters,the obligation to recite a blessing before eating, derived? The Gemara answers: bAs the Sages taughtin the iSifra /i: With regard to saplings, it is stated that in their fourth year their fruit will be: b“…sanctified for praises before the Lord”(Leviticus 19:24). This verse bteachesthat bthey requirepraise of God in the form of a bblessingboth bbeforehand and thereafter,as the verse says praises in the plural. bFrom here, Rabbi Akiva said: A person is forbidden to taste anything before he recites a blessing,as without reciting praise over food, it has the status of a consecrated item, from which one is forbidden to derive pleasure.,The Gemara asks: bAnddid bthisverse: b“Sanctified for praises,” come for thatpurpose? bThisverse bis necessaryto derive other matters. bOnebeing bthat the Merciful One said: Redeem it and then eat it.This midrash interprets ihillul /i, praise, as iḥillul /i, redemption. bAnd the othermatter derived from this verse is: bAn object whichis offered upon the altar and brequires a songof praise when it is offered, as is the case with the libation of wine, brequires redemption. And that which does not require a songof praise, all other fruits, bdoes not require redemption. Andthis is bin accordance withthe opinion that bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said: From whereis it derived that bone only recites a songof praise in the Temple bover thelibation of bwineon the altar? bAs it is stated: “And the vine replied: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and man,and go and wave above the trees?” (Judges 9:13). bIfwine bgladdens people, in whatway bdoes it gladden God?Rather, derive bfrom here that one only recites a songof praise bover wine,as wine gladdens God when offered as part of the service in the Temple.In any case, other ihalakhothave been derived from this verse. From where, then, is the requirement to recite blessings derived?,Indeed, bthisworks out bwell according to the one who taught,as a rule: bA fourth-year saplingin the imishnayotdealing with the prohibition to eat fruits produced during the first three years of a tree’s existence and the sanctity of the fruit produced in its fourth year; as, in his opinion, fourth-year fruits that grow on all trees must be redeemed. bHowever, according to the one who taught,as a rule: bA fourth-year grapevine, what can be said?Indeed, he derives the ihalakhathat only wine that is accompanied by a song of praise requires redemption, from the interpretation of ihillulas iḥillul /i. bAs it was stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bone taughtthese imishnayotusing the term: bA fourth-year grapevine, and one taughtusing the term: bA fourth-year sapling. /b, bAnd according to the one who taught: A fourth year grapevine, thisworks out bwell if he derivesthis matter bfrom a verbal analogy [ igezera shava /i],and therefore need not derive this ihalakhafrom the term ihillulim /i. bAs it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: It is stated herewith regard to the laws of the prohibition of fruit for the tree’s first three years: “But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, bso that it may increase your produce [ itevuato /i];I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:25). bAnd it is stated below,with regard to the laws of diverse kinds: “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the growth of the seed that you have sown be forfeited bwith the produce [ iutevuat /i] of the vineyard”(Deuteronomy 22:9). Based on a verbal analogy, it can be derived: bJust as below,with regard to the laws of diverse kinds, the produce is that which grows in bvineyards; so too, here,with regard to the ihalakhotof the fruits of a sapling, the produce is that which grows in bvineyards.Consequently, according to the one who holds this verbal analogy, bone extra ihillul /iremains from which to derive bthe blessing.Since he derives that the laws of fourth-year saplings apply only to grapes from the verbal analogy, he can derive the requirement to recite blessings before partaking of food from the word ihillulim /i., bAnd if he does not derivethis ihalakhaby means of ba verbal analogy,he must derive this ihalakhafrom the term ihillulim /i, in which case, bfrom where does he derivethe mitzva bto recite a blessingbefore partaking of food? bAnd even if he derivesthis ihalakhaby means of ba verbal analogy, we founda source for the obligation to recite a blessing baftereating, similar to the obligation stated in the verse: “And you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.” However, bfrom whereis it derived that there is an obligation to recite a blessing bbeforehand?From one ihillul /i, the fundamental ihalakhaof redemption of fourth-year saplings is derived.,The Gemara answers this: This is bnot difficult, as itmay be bderived by means of an ia fortioriinference: If when he is satiated,after eating, bheis obligated to brecite a blessingover food, bwhen he is hungry,before eating, ball the more sothat he is obligated to recite a blessing over food.,The Gemara comments: In that way, bwe founda source for the obligation to recite a blessing over the produce of bvineyards,but bfrom whereis it derived with regard to bother types ofproduce?,The Gemara responds: bIt is derivedby means of the hermeneutic principle: What do we find, bfromthe produce of a bvineyard: Just asthe fruit of the bvineyard is an itemfrom bwhich one derives benefit and it requires a blessing, so too, any itemfrom bwhich one derives benefit, requires a blessing. /b,The Gemara rejects this proof: bThisderivation bcan be refuted,as a vineyard is unique: bWhatis unique about a bvineyard, that it is obligated inthe mitzva requiring to give bsmall, incomplete clusters of grapes [ iolelot /i]to the poor? That is a stringency that does not apply to other fruits. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grapes.,The Gemara answers: In that case, bstanding grain can provethat the ihalakhaof iolelotis not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. One is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing after eating bread, even though the ihalakhaof iolelotdoes not apply to grain. The Gemara rejects this proof: bWhatis unique about bripe grain, that it is obligated inthe mitzva of separating iḥalla /ifrom the dough? That is a stringency that does not apply to other foods. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grain.,The Gemara responds: In that regard, bvineyards can provethat the ihalakhaof iḥallais not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. In summary: bAnd the derivation has revertedto its starting point. However, at this point the ihalakhais derived from a combination of the two sources: bThe aspect of this is not like the aspect of that, and the aspect of that is not like the aspect of this; the common denominator is:Both are bitemsfrom bwhich one derives benefit andeach brequires a blessing.A general principle may be derived: bSo too, any itemfrom bwhich one derives benefit, requires a blessing. /b,Again, the Gemara objects: bWhatis unique about bthe common denominatorbetween grapes and grain that prevents utilizing it as a paradigm for other food items? Grapes and grain bhave an aspectof being offered upon the baltar,and perhaps that is the reason that they require blessings. Based on that reasoning, although all other food items cannot be derived from the common denominator, ban olive may also be derived as it too has an aspectof being offered upon the baltar,as olive oil is one of the components of a meal offering.,The Gemara questions this point: bIs an olive derived fromthe fact that it bhas an aspectof being offered upon the baltar? Isn’t it written explicitly with regard tothe olive blistedthat the orchard in which it grows is called ikerem /i; as it is written: “And burnt up from the shocks and the standing grain and the olive yards [ ikerem zayit /i]”(Judges 15:5)? Just as the orchard in which grapes grow is called ikerem /i, and grapes require a blessing, the olive also grows in a ikeremand should require a blessing. bRav Pappa said:Nevertheless, an analogy may not be drawn between the two; where the olive grows bis called ikerem zayit /i, it is not called ikeremunmodified,which is a term reserved for grapevines.,The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, noting that bin any case, it is difficult: Whatis unique about bthe common denominatorbetween grapes and grain? That they bpossess an aspectof being offered upon the baltar. Rather, it is derived fromthe obligation to recite a blessing bupon the seven species.After the verse speaks of the seven species, it states: “And you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.” This is a paradigm for all other foods, that they too require a blessing: bJust as the seven species are itemsfrom bwhich one derives benefit and require a blessing, any itemfrom bwhich one derives benefit, requires a blessing. /b,Again, the Gemara rejects this: bWhatis unique babout the seven species? That one is obligated inthe mitzva bof first fruits.However, other produce with regard to which one is not obligated in the mitzva of first fruits, from where is it derived that they require a blessing? bFurthermore,even if the seven species can serve as a paradigm, bthisworks out bwellwith regard to the blessing bthereafter;but bfrom whereis the obligation to recite a blessing bbeforehandderived?,The Gemara responds to the question: This is bnot difficult, as itmay be bderived by means of an ia fortioriinference: If when he is satiated,after eating, bheis obligated to brecite a blessingover food, bwhen he is hungry,before eating, ball the more sohe is obligated to recite a blessing over food.,In any case, this is not an absolute proof. Furthermore, even baccording to the one who taught: A fourth-year saplingin all the relevant imishnayot /i, bitworks out bwellwith regard to beverything that can be planted,that one is obligated to recite a blessing. However, with regard to bitems that cannot be planted, such as meat, eggs, and fish, from where does hederive the ihalakhathat one is obligated to recite a blessing? bRather,all previous attempts at deriving this ihalakhaare rejected. The fundamental obligation to recite a blessing over food is founded on breason: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world without a blessing. /b, bThe Sages taughtin a iTosefta /i: bOne is forbidden to derive benefit from this world,which is the property of God, bwithoutreciting ba blessingbeforehand. bAnd anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing,it is as if he is guilty of bmisuseof a consecrated object. The Gemara adds: bWhat is his remedy? He should go to a Sage. /b,The Gemara is puzzled: bHe should go to a Sage; what will he do to him?How can the Sage help after bhe has already violated a prohibition? Rather, Rava said,this is how it should be understood: bHe should go to a Sage initially,in his youth, bandthe Sage bwill teach him blessings, so that he will not come tobe guilty of this type of bmisuseof a consecrated object in the future.,Similarly, bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said: One who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he enjoyed objects consecrated to the heavens, as it is stated: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s,the world and all those who live in it” (Psalms 24:1). Rabbi Levi expressed this concept differently. bRabbi Levi raised a contradiction: It is written: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s,” and it is writtenelsewhere: b“The heavens are the Lord’s and the earth He has given over to mankind”(Psalms 115:16). There is clearly a contradiction with regard to whom the earth belongs. He himself resolves the contradiction: This is bnot difficult. Here,the verse that says that the earth is the Lord’s refers to the situation bbefore a blessingis recited |
