MISHNAH: Which benedictions are recited on produce [Before one eats of these fruits, as will be explained in the Halakhah. All benedictions start with “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the Universe”. This formula is understood and does not have to be repeated.] ? On tree-grown fruits one says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” except for wine, because on wine one says “Creator of the fruit of the vine.” But on fruits of the land one says “Creator of the fruit of the soil” except for bread, because on bread [The words “because on bread” are not in the Venice print but since they appear in the Leyden manuscript the omission seems to be a printer’s error.] one says “He Who produces bread from the earth.” On vegetables one says “Creator of the fruit of the soil”, Rebbi Yehudah says: “Creator of kinds of vegetables [Rebbi Yehudah insists that benedictions should be exact and vegetables without seeds do not qualify as “fruits”.] .”
HALAKHAH: It is written (Ps. 24:1): “The Eternal’s are the earth and what is in it, the dry land and its inhabitants.” He who profits from the world commits larceny [Since he uses God’s property, not his own.] until good deeds will permit him [The obligation to say Grace after a meal is spelled out in Deut. 8:10. The obligation to recite blessings before one eats is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Since Grace is only treated in the next Chapter, one has to find here Biblical allusions to this duty and (in the next section) to the duty of reciting a benediction before fulfilling specified commandments. The verse appears in the Babli (35a) in the name of Samuel. R. Levi compares the verse (Ps. 115:16) “Heaven is the Eternal’s heaven but the earth He gave to mankind”, explaining that before a benediction everything is the Eternal’s property but after a benediction it becomes human property. While Rebbi Levi is a Galilean teacher, the Yerushalmi rejects his combination since in the third paragraph earthly enjoyment is only “as if one ate from one’s own”. The text of the Yerushalmi is from Tosephta Berakhot 4:1 which is identical with the Talmudic text except that there it says “until all good deeds will permit him”, meaning that only if the preparation of food is completely within the commandments of the Torah then the last step of the preparation, the recitation of the benediction, will allow the food to be given to man as his own.] . Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written (Deut. 22:9) “Lest the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard should be forbidden.” The entire world and its contents are like a vineyard. What is its redemption? The benediction [This argument is very difficult to understand and the commentators either chose to ignore it or give very incongruous explanations. The best explanation is that of R. Eliahu Fulda who in his Yerushalmi edition suppresses the word פֶּן “lest”. One would have to assume that Rebbi Abbahu’s text did not have the word but that later scribes added it from memory. By it the negative implication of the verse (which speaks about growing different kinds of plants in a vineyard) are changed to a positive one which now should be translated: “That you shall sanctify the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard.” Since the sanctity is not that of sacrifices, the sanctity may be removed by redemption (Lev. 27:11). However, there can be no monetary redemption of anything not explicitly authorized in the Torah. Hence, the redemption is non-monetary and is the traditional praise given to God in benedictions. [The simple sense of the verse is that produce grown in a vineyard becomes forbidden for private use as if it were dedicated for sacrifice.]] . Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: (Ps. 16:2) “Say to the Eternal, You are my Master [The translation follows the Biblical text, not the text written here.] , my good is only with You.” If you ate and recited the benedictions then it is as if you ate from your own. Another explanation [The verse is extremely hard to understand; the next two interpretations have nothing to do with the topic on hand; they are only added to indicate translations that might be considered if בל is not a negation but a verb form derived from בלל, which may mean either “to give food” (Jud. 19:24) or, more frequently, “mixed with fluid, moistened.”] : “My good is בל with you”, I am feeding My goodness to your body. Another explanation: “My good is בל with you”, all good things may be mixed together and come to you. Rebbi Aḥa said, what is “only with you?” I shall not bring any good things to the world without you. As it is said (Gen. 41:44) “Without you nobody may lift his hand. [Taking בל as shorthand for בִּלְעֲדֵי “without”.] ” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises”, this shows that it needs benediction before and after. From here did Rebbi Aqiba say that nobody should taste anything before he gives praise [This is also quoted in the Babli (35a); the source of both Talmudim is Sifra on the verse. The verse speaks of the fruits of a vineyard in its fourth year when the grapes can be used for the first time after having been forbidden for the first three years. This is only a hint for any other food.] .
Rebbi Ḥaggai and Rebbi Jeremiah went to the Bazaar [The translation is tentative; בית חנוותא means “the house of stores”, which might be a description of a shuq even though it is difficult to explain why the word שׁוּקָא was not used. It is not clear what kind of miẓwah the two rabbis performed in the market. In the opinion of R. Eleazar Askari they were agoranomoi, overseers of weights and measures, and Rebbi Ḥaggai recited a benediction before starting to go from stall to stall and checking the balances for correctness since that is a Biblical commandment repeated several times in the Pentateuch (Deut. 25:15, Lev. 19:36) in addition to the prohibition of fraudulent business practices. The Rome manuscript has instead of בית חנוותא the expression לְמֵי חַטָּאתָה “the water for the ashes of the read heifer”, the drawing of which certainly would need a benediction. The Talmud reports that Rebbi Ḥaggai finished his Talmud studies with Rav Ḥuna I at age 18 and lived to be 160 years old; so, as shown in the commentary to Mishnah 1:1, he still could have seen ashes of the read heifer, but these could not have been preserved at the time of Rebbi Jeremiah who lived during the third and fourth generations of Amoraïm, even if these ashes were uniquely reserved for Cohanim eating Terumah. R. Zachariah Frankel wants to emend to בֵּית חַתְנוּתָא “place of a wedding” but his reading has no basis in antique or medieval sources.] . Rebbi Ḥaggai was quick to recite a blessing. Rebbi Jeremiah said to him: You acted correctly because all commandments need a benediction. And from where that all commandments [After establishing benedictions before the consumption of food one establishes now the need for benedictions before the execution of positive commandments (by tradition, only those to be performed at specific times or occasions, not those that are always valid).] need a benediction? Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Ex. 24:12) “I want to give you the stone tablets, the Torah and the commandment [The verse really reads: “both Torah and Commandments”. The double vaw in the verse is essential for R. Eleazar’s argument.] .” It brackets Torah and commandment. Just as Torah needs a benediction, a commandment also needs benediction.
Rebbi Yoḥanan took an olive [Here starts the actual discussion of the rules given in the Mishnah. R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s report on the story appears also in the Babli (38b–39a) but there the argument and the inferences drawn are totally different. In the Babli, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba reports that the olive was salted, which seems natural since raw olives are bitter. The discussion in the Babli is whether pickling or cooking changes the applicable benediction; it is clear from this paragraph that at least for the “Seven Kinds” the Yerushalmi does not contemplate any change in benedictions.] and recited a benediction before and after. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was looking at him. Rebbi Yoḥanan said to him: Babylonian, why are you looking at me? Don’t you agree that everything from the Seven Kinds [The Seven Kinds are “the fruits for which the Land of Israel is praised”, enumerated in Deut. 8:8: “A land of wheat and barley, vine and fig, and pomegranate; a land of oil olive and (date) honey.” Since in v. 10 it is stated “when you will eat and be satiated, you must praise the Eternal, your God, for the good land that He gave you,” it follows that these kinds need a benediction afterwards that contains praise for food, land, (and Jerusalem.) This is called “one benediction in the kind of three”; the three benedictions are reserved for grain eaten in the form of bread. The benediction before is the applicable one of those mentioned in the Mishnah.] needs a benediction before and after? He agrees. What is his problem? Because its pit reduces it [In general, anything smaller than the volume of an average olive is too insignificant to require a benediction. The edible part of an olive is much smaller than the volume of an average olive.] . Does Rebbi Yoḥanan agree that its pit reduces it? What Rebbi Yoḥanan did was because of a creature [The Babli (loc. cit.) conjectures that R. Yoḥanan ate a large olive which even if pitted still has the size of an average olive. The Yerushalmi here is emphatic that any complete edible fruit needs a benediction before and after it is eaten, irrespective of size.] . The word of Rebbi Yoḥanan implies that even one berry from a pomegranate needs a benediction before and after [A pomegranate is full of seeds; each seed is surrounded by fruit flesh encased in a membrane. One such cell containing the seed and the fruit flesh is a berry. Without the seed it would not be a creature and without the fruit flesh it would not be edible but with both it needs benediction before and after if the membrane is untouched.] .
[Parallel texts in Tosephta Berakhot 4:3 and Babli 50b.] “Wine in its natural state [A heavy subtropical wine with an alcohol content of close to 15%, unmixed with any water.] , one says for it ‘Creator of the fruit of the tree’ [R. Eliezer holds that no human will want to drink such a heavy dose of alcohol or at least it is not admissible to have such unmixed wine at a formal dinner.] and one may not use it to wash his hands [Hands must be washed with water and while fruit juice is considered water, in the opinion of R. Eliezer pure wine is not.] ; when it is mixed [Standard mixing is one part wine to two parts water for an alcohol content of about 5%, Mishnah Niddah2:7.] , one says for it ‘Creator of the fruit of the vine’ and one may use it to wash his hands; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, both pure and mixed one says over it ‘Creator of the fruit of the vine’ and one may use it to wash his hands [All sources of the Tosephta read everywhere “one may not” where the Yerushalmi has “one may”, and “one may” where the Yerushalmi has “one may not”. In the Babli, all sources read “one may” the first and last time but in the second instance some manuscripts and authorities follow readings of the Tosephta and some (Munich manuscript and some Medieval authorities) the readings of the Yerushalmi.] .” Rebbi Abba said, it is not forbidden because of wasting food [In general, wilful spoiling of food is a sin. It seems that the Yerushalmi restricts the use of fruit juice for washing of the hands to the ritual washing before eating bread, since that is part of the meal, but that washing with fruit juice just for cleansing is forbidden. The Gaonic Halakhot Gedolot explains that the prohibition of the Sages (in the version of the Babli) refers to the sin of wasting food.] .
Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu [In the Babli (35b) this is a statement of R. Yoḥanan. The argument of R. Ḥiyya bar Pappus is purely Yerushalmi.] : On olive oil one recites “Creator of the fruit of the tree.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Pappus [An otherwise unknown Galilean Amora. In the Rome manuscript, his name is Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappus.] said before Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah says so. “Except for wine because on wine one says ‘Creator of the fruit of the vine’.” Is wine not mashed [Grape juice is really pressed, but so is olive oil, and only second and third pressings of oil are from ground olives. In any case, wine goes through a fermentation process and cannot be described as being “recognizable in its state.”] ? But it says only “except for wine”, hence all other things even if they are mashed are recognizable in their state.
Rebbi Abba [In the Babli (38b), Samuel is said to hold a different opinion. The Galilean authorities quoted there are those of the next paragraph. The interpretations of Babli and Yerushalmi differ.] said: Rav and Samuel both say, on cooked vegetable one says “that everything was created by His word.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel: Large cooked [שלוק “cooked in water” in contrast to מבושל “cooked in broth”.] pieces of liftan [As a plant, לפתן means “beets”, but generally it means cooked vegetables served as main dish with bread (pitta bread to be used as fork and spoon in the absence of tableware except knives.) Meat was only eaten on special occasions, such as Sabbath, holidays, visits of important people, and after bleeding.] , if they are recognizable one says on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” if one mashed them one says “He, by Whose word everything was created.” Rebbi Yose said, does the Mishnah say so? “Except for bread because on bread one says ‘He Who produces bread from the earth.’.” Is bread not mashed [Flour is ground (“mashed”) grain, one of the Seven Kinds.] ? But it says only “except for bread”, hence all other things even if they are mashed are recognizable in their state [Hence, the statement of Rebbi Abba is superior to that of Rebbi Zeïra. This conclusion is the opposite of that of the Babli.] .
[The entire paragraph is also found in Pesaḥim 2:5. One word in the current text has been corrected following that Yerushalmi text.] Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated [This is the exact meaning of the corresponding Arabic כַּבַּסַ.] olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created [The general benediction on everything not expressly mentioned in the Mishnah.] ” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: (Pesaḥim2:6) “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth [The Mishnah enumerates all herbs which qualify as “bitter herbs” on Passover, adding that these herbs are not usable if cooked or marinated. The implication is that after treatment they are no longer herbs but general food.] ”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeïra said, who understands well what Rebbi Yoḥanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? [R. Ḥiyya bar Abba studied much more intensively than R. Benjamin bar Yephet. This is the argument and conclusion of the Babli (38b). The refutation of Rebbi Zeïra’s argument is not in that Talmud.] And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines [Greek θέρμος. Raw lupines are cattle feed, too bitter for human consumption. They become edible only after long cooking. This statement supports R. Ḥiyya bar Abba.] and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you want, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said “bitter herbs”, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they [R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and R. Benjamin bar Yephet.] have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked [One must assume that roots of lupine keep their shape and general appearance in cooking just as olives do. The rule that vegetables which are inedible unless cooked require the blessing “Creator of the fruit of the earth” is the opinion of Rav Ḥisda in the Babli (loc. cit.).] .
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Neḥemiah and the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Neḥemiah said: “Who produced bread from the earth.” But the rabbis say, “Who produces bread from the earth. [In the Babli (38a), the opinion ascribed here to the rabbis is that of Rebbi Neḥemiah and vice versa. This eliminates the question which the Yerushalmi raises about the current text of the benediction. In the opinion of the Babli, the preferred version (R. Neḥemiah here, the rabbis in the Babli) takes the present participle in an atemporal sense.] ” This disagreement is like that disagreement: לפת, Rebbi Ḥinena bar Isaac [A preacher of the third generation of Galilean Amoraïm. The name of his teacher is unknown.] and Rebbi Samuel bar Immi [A Galilean Amora of the third generation who also appears as R. Samuel bar Ammi. His father and father-in-law also were rabbis.] ; one said “lefet, was it not bread? [A Galilean Amora of the third generation who also appears as R. Samuel bar Ammi. His father and father-in-law also were rabbis.] ” and the other one said “lefet, will it not be bread”? (Ps. 72:16) “There will be a piece of flour on the land, on mountain tops. [Since flour cannot form a loaf until it is baked, this means that bread will grow on mountain tops. This is a homily of R. Yoḥanan in Midrash Tehillim 92(6), which appears in the name of several other Amoraïm in Babli Šabbat 30b, Ketubot 111b.] ” Rebbi Jeremiah recited before Rebbi Zeïra “Who produced bread from the earth” and the latter praised him. Following Rebbi Neḥemiah [One is not supposed to follow a minority of one, much less to be praised for it.] ? Not to amalgamate the letters [So that הָעוֹלָם מוֹצִיא should not be pronounced ha‘ôlāmôẓî, but clearly be said in two distinct words.] ! If it is so, הַמִּין הָאָרֶץ [Since לֶחֶם מִן also has two consecutive mem and could be read together. However, the change proposed here makes no sense; nobody wants to pronounce a meaningless benediction that would be close to blasphemy. The question does not merit an answer.] ? In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥemiah [One wonders why they disagree only about the language for bread and not for wine.] , “He Who created the fruit of the vine”; in the opinion of the rabbis “Who creates the fruit of the vine.”
Rebbi Zeriqan said: Rebbi Zeïra asked: He who took a lupine and was reciting the benediction over it when it fell from his hand, does he have to recite a second benediction [Since the cooked lupine root becomes inedible when it falls into the dust, he has to take another one, not the one for which the benediction was intended.] ? What is the difference between that and a water canal [Since one has to say the benediction on water before one starts to drink, the water drops one drinks are not those that were in the same place at the moment of the benediction.] ? They said, there he intended it from the start, but here he did not intend it from the start. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One recites the benediction on bread only when one breaks it [The formulation in the Babli (39a) is: Rebbi Ḥiyya said, the benediction and the breaking of the bread must be finished simultaneously. This is accepted practice in the Yerushalmi, but is rejected in the Babli in favor of a ruling of the much later, fourth generation Babylonian Amora Rava who requires that the benediction be completely recited before one starts to break the bread.] . Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: This means that he who took a loaf [The usual expression פַּת for bread designates a pittah; עִיגוּל here is a loaf of bread; it might be a round cake of pressed figs. R. Asher ben Yeḥiel copies the passage (Chapter 6, #20) which has פּוּגְלָא “a radish” instead of “a loaf”. That reading seems to be a copyist’s error.] and pronounced the benediction on it before it came to his hand, must recite a second benediction. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan [A Galilean Amora whose time cannot be determined.] said, he must say “Praised be the Name of the Glory of His kingdom forever and ever,” in order not to utter the Name of Heaven in vain [By a statement of R. Yoḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish in the Babli (33a), any unnecessary benediction is a violation of the Fifth Commandment.] .
How far may he break [There are two connected problems here. The first one, what is the minimum size of a piece of bread (or any other food) that requires a benediction beforehand; the second, if one person makes a benediction over bread for an entire company (with the other participants answering “Amen” instead of reciting their own benedictions), what is the minimal size of a piece of bread that every participant has to receive and eat after the benediction. For Grace after meals, the situation is clear. The requirement from the Torah (Deut. 8:10) is “when you will have eaten and will be satiated then you must praise the Eternal …”; the Biblical obligation applies only after a full meal. The rabbinic obligation explicitly applies to food that fills at least the volume of an olive; smaller amounts do not require Grace and, according the preceding paragraph, one may not recite Grace for such minute amounts. But since benedictions before eating are all rabbinic institutions, the problem is whether food in an amount less than the volume of an average olive must (or may) have a benediction and, if a benediction is recited on a larger loaf, whether the piece eaten immediately after the recitation of the benediction must be the size of an olive or not. The Babli (37b) has another angle to the problem. Since bread has a separate benediction from cereal and cakes, how small may the recognizable pieces of bread in cereal or soup be so that it still falls under the category of bread rather than cereal or soup?] ? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Mana, one says down to the size of an olive, the other says even smaller than the size of an olive. He who says down to the size of an olive, as it is stated “all [This refers to Mishnah Menaḥot7:4 that all flour offerings prepared in a vessel (baked or fried) must be broken into pieces before a handful of them is burned on the altar. There are two opinions on the size of admissible pieces (also reported Babli Berakhot 37a).] are crumbled into olive-size pieces.” He who says, smaller than the size of an olive: “Rebbi Ismael stated, even if he reduced it [The baked or fried flour-offering.] to its original form of fine flour.” It has been stated [The first half of this statement appears in Tosephta Berakhot 4:7.] : “On everything that needs three benedictions at the end one says ‘He Who produces bread from the earth’ at the start, but on everything that does not need three benedictions at the end one does not say ‘He Who produces bread from the earth’ at the start.” They objected: But if it is less than the size of an olive, one does not say three benedictions at the end. Does this mean that one should not say “He Who produces bread from the earth” at the start? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is needed for other kinds [The statement does not refer to size, but to kinds of food; if it is not bread it does not receive the benediction for bread. Hence, no conclusion as to the correct practice can be drawn.] .
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Those assembled may not taste anything before the one who recited the benediction did taste. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: They may drink even if he did not drink. Do they disagree? Rav said in case all need the same loaf [Which is the normal case if there is a real loaf of bread and not pittot. But wine everybody drinks from his own glass that was filled beforehand. The question whether the one who recites the benediction should eat first and then distribute the bread or vice versa is addressed in the next paragraph. [The parallel in the Babli (47a) has only the statement of Rav; there it is explained that לטעום “to taste”, usually applied to drinking, here means “eating” as is clear from the Yerushalmi.]] but Rebbi Joshua said when each one had his own cup in his hand.
It has been stated: The one who recited the benediction takes first [From the food on his plate (Babli 47a).] but if he wants to honor his teacher or someone who is greater than himself in Torah, he has the right to do so. When Rav was breaking bread he was eating with his left hand and distributing with his right hand [To minimize the time between the benediction and the actual eating by the other participants in the meal.] . Rav Huna said: “Take and recite a benediction, take and recite a benediction” is not an interruption for the benediction [Since it is needed for the other person’s benediction, it will not cause the person who made the original benediction to forget that he made the benediction in order to eat.] ; “give hay to the oxen” is an interruption for the benediction [In the Babli (40a) this is the opinion of R. Yoḥanan (i. e., the Yerushalmi), but there practice follows R. Sheshet who quotes Rav to the effect that nobody may eat as long as his animals are hungry; hence, the order to feed the oxen is a necessary step in preparing to eat.] .
Rab Ḥuna said: On shatita [The Aramaic shatita is the same as Latin moretum, a dish made by mixing pounded roasted flour or pounded roasted pea meal with water or vinegar (and other ingredients.) Its preparation is described in the Babli Avodah zarah 36b and in great detail in the poem Moretum in Appendix Vergiliana [cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, לשוננוּ vol. 36 (5733) pp. 105–112]. In the Babli (Berakhot 31a), the rule of R. Huna applies only to watery moretum. This and the following rule are placed here to collect all formal statements of Rav Huna on benedictions for food. [An intermediate between šĕtîtā and moretum may be Greek μυττωτός “dish composed of pounded ingredients”, title of a poem by Virgil’s teacher Parthenios and model of Virgil’s moretum(E. G.).]] , which is ground moretum, one recites “that everything was created by His word”.
Rav Huna said: If one put something into his mouth and forgot to recite the benediction, if it is fluid he spits it out, if it is food he puts it to one side [In the Babli (50b–51a), Rav Yehudah, a student of Rav but mainly of Samuel, has three categories: Fluids he swallows, food that can be taken out he takes out, food that one cannot touch once it is in the mouth he puts into one cheek. In the Babli, the verse of R. Yoḥanan is quoted to prove that food which can be taken out without problems must be taken out. While the Yerushalmi states a clear difference between Babylonian and Israeli practice, the Babli harmonizes both practices.] . Rebbi Isaac bar Mari [His name appears only here. In the Babli (loc. cit.) he is called רִבִּי יִצְחָק קַסְקַסָּאָה, cf. Latin cascus “old, old-fashioned” (E. G.). [The word קסקסים that appears in Tosephta and Babli is explained by Rashi as weeds, by S. Lieberman as rock outcrops in a field, from קשקשים “fins”, by J. Levy as clumps of earth or stones hewn from a rock.]] before Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan even if it is food he takes it out since it is written (Ps. 71:8) “May my mouth be full of Your praise [This text is also in Tosephta Berakhot 4:6. It is quoted in Babli 37a where, however, the formula “Creator of kinds of seeds” is replaced by “Creator of the fruit of the earth” since the Babli does not recognize any benediction for produce not mentioned by the majority opinion in the Mishnah.] , all day long of Your glory.”
He who chews wheat kernels says on them “Creator of kinds of seeds.” If he baked or cooked them, as long as pieces are recognizable he recites on them “He Who produces bread from the earth” and afterwards three benedictions. If the pieces are not recognizable, he recites “Creator of kinds of food” and afterwards one benediction in the kind of three [This text is also in Tosephta Berakhot 4:6. It is quoted in Babli 37a where, however, the formula “Creator of kinds of seeds” is replaced by “Creator of the fruit of the earth” since the Babli does not recognize any benediction for produce not mentioned by the majority opinion in the Mishnah.] . Down to which size are there pieces? Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun, Cahana bar Malkiah [Rav Cahana bar Malkio in the Babli, whose quote of a statement of Rav is quoted by Rebbi Jeremiah. Hence, his time has to be fixed between Rav and the emigration of Rebbi Jeremiah from Babylonia. The statement here is not identical with the earlier one that dealt with pieces of bread eaten by themselves. In the interpretation of Tosaphot (37b), his statement is rejected by the Babli.] in the name of Rav: down to olive-sized bits.
He who chews rice [Greek ὄρυζα.] says for it: “Creator of kinds of seeds.” If he baked or cooked it, even if there are recognizable pieces he says for it: “Creator of kinds of food” and he does not have to recite a benediction afterwards [Tosephta Berakhot 4:7. Rebbi Jeremiah quotes the Tosephta in the Babli (37a) which also disagrees about the concluding benediction. The next paragraph will show that “no benediction afterwards” really means “no lengthy benediction afterwards”, only the short form.] . Rebbi Jeremiah said, “Creator of the fruit of the earth.” Bar Marina recited before Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba “By Whose word everything was created. [From their silence one may infer that they agreed.] ” Rebbi Simeon the pious said “Creator of all sorts of delicacies.” Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: They do not disagree. He who says “Creator of kinds of food”, if he made it into a ball. He who said “Creator of the fruit of the earth”, if it is separated [If the individual kernels are still recognizable, in contrast to the ball (Latin bulla) in which no individual kernels are visible.] . He who said “By Whose word everything was created”, if it is cooked in water a long time [If it is a mash.] . He who said “Creator of all sorts of delicacies”, if it is torn [If one bakes any kind of rice product with spices, except whole grains. [The Babli does not admit different benedictions for different cases.]] .
That is beforehand. Afterwards, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon the pious: “He Who created all sorts of delicacies to delight with them the souls of all living. Praise to You, Eternal, for the Land and its delicacies.” [It is implied that the four admissible benedictions for baked or cooked rice (and all other food not covered otherwise) requires a final benediction adapted to the corresponding intial benediction. [Again, the Babli has only one form of the short final benediction, the one given in the Yerushalmi for meat.]]
Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of the great Rebbi Isaac [He is Rebbi Isaac (Nappaḥa), Amora of the second generation. His formula is quoted in the Babli (37a) for cooked cereal but without the final doxology. [Current practice is to include the doxology without invoking the Name, cf. Tosaphot 37a, s. v. בורא.]] : When Rebbi was eating meat or an egg he used to say: “Creator of many living things to sustain with them all living souls. Praise to You, Eternal, Life of the worlds. [If the vocalization is חֵי הָעוֹלָמִים (rejected by Maimonides), the translation would be: “Eternally living.”]
That is at the end. At the start? Rebbi Ḥaggai said: “Creator of kinds of living things.” Rebbi Yose objected, does not the Mishnah (6:4) disagree? “On vinegar, on locusts, and on fallen fruits he says: “By Whose word everything was created.” And is a locust not a living thing [The Mishnah states explicitly that “on everything that is not growing from the earth one says ‘By Whose word everything was created.’ ” The mention of vinegar (soured wine) and fallen fruits is meant to show that even produce that has become almost worthless needs this benediction; (edible) locusts are a scourge and the emphasis is that nevertheless they need a benediction if roasted and eaten. Hence, the statement of Rebbi Ḥaggai has no justification. In Hebrew and Aramaic, “living” applies only to animals but not to plants.] ?
The statement of Rebbi Simeon the pious [He requires a formal “benediction in the kind of three” for delicacies made from any kind of flour. We now return to the main topic after the digression about non-vegetable food.] turns out like that of Rebbi [He requires a final doxology from “Creator of many living things.”] and both of them like Rabban Gamliel [The second statement of his is in Tosephta Berakhot 4:7. The first part of this Tosephta is quoted in Babli 37a.] , as it was stated: “The following is the principle: Rebbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabban Gamliel that on everything that is of the Seven Kinds but is not flour, or flour [Including grain flour that is not enumerated in the verse, e. g., rye and spelt.] but not baked as bread, Rabban Gamliel says that he recites afterwards three benedictions; but the Sages say, one benediction. On everything that is neither from the Seven Kinds nor a kind of flour, Rabban Gamliel says he recites benedictions before and after, but the sages say before, but not after [Meaning “Creator of all kinds of living things” without the final doxology; it is not considered a formal benediction. Rebbi Simeon the Pious and Rebbi follow Rabban Gamliel who in this case does not spell out which benediction he requires at the end.] .”
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Everything that is cereal and like dough put in boiling water and is of the Five Kinds [The five kinds of flour that are admissible for matzot on Passover because they can become sour: Wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt. Only these produce bread that needs full Grace and pastries that need “one benediction imitating three (or, in our text today, four) benedictions,” i. e., its text contains one sentence each for each benediction of full Grace.] , over it one says “Creator of kinds of foods”, and one recites after it one benediction imitating three. And everything that is cereal and like dough put in boiling water, but is not of the Five Kinds, Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Zeïra sent to those of the Yeshivah of Rebbi Yannai [Still existing two generations after the death of Rebbi Yannai.] and they told him, but I do not know what they told him. What is it? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable to assume “That everything was created by His word. [The catch-all for all food not covered by anything else and that will allow one to eat all foods.] ” Rebbi Jeremiah inquired: He who ate cereal, what does he recite at the end [“One benediction imitating three” or “Creator of many living things.”] ? Rebbi Yose said, and therefore Rebbi Jeremiah never ate any cereal [Except in a meal that was covered by the benediction over bread at the start and Grace afterwards.] . That is the only one thing about which he was in doubt [צורכא, a technical expression, frequent in the Yerushalmi in this sense, and difficult to translate verbally.] .
Why does one finish [The “benediction imitating three” is recited for wine, the Seven Fruits, and baked goods other than bread. That benediction first gives praise for the food, then for the Land of Israel, then prays for the rebuilding of Jerusalem (and adds a sentence for the Rabbinic fourth benediction of Grace, praising God as source of all good.) The question is why only the first two themes are repeated at the end since the final doxology reads in all cases: “Praise to You, Eternal, for the Land and … (here the specific food is named).”] with “the Land”? It is similar to Grace for day laborers. As has been stated [Tosephta Berakhot 5:24, Babli 16a. Day laborers who are paid by the hour and whose lunch break counts as worked time have the obligation to spend as little time as possible on their lunch and, in any case, their worship of God should not be paid by the employer except for the legal minimum.] : “Workers who were doing work with the owner shall recite the first benediction, include Jerusalem in the benediction for the Land and finish with ‘the Land.’ But if they were working for their food [Without any cash payments the employer is legally required to give them time for full standard Grace.] or if the employer was eating with them, then they recite four benedictions.” In the school of Rebbi Yannai they treated it as a formula of benediction [They formulated the fixed “benediction imitating three” and did not tolerate any deviation.] .
Does one have to mention in it the occasion [Does one have to mention the Sabbath, holidays, and the days of the New Moon in the “benediction imitating three”?] ? Rebbi Abba bar Zamina said that Rebbi Zeïra used to mention the occasion in it. Rebbi Jeremiah said: Since Rebbi Zeïra took notice of it, so we have to take notice [Hence, one has to mention Sabbath and holidays. (This was adopted as formal practice by Maimonides from the Yerushalmi, cf. Babli 39a, Tosaphot s. v. על העץ).] .
It has been stated [Tosephta Berakhot 4:15; a small part of it is quoted in Babli 39b as statement of Amoraïm. The problem is that only the first bread of a meal needs a benediction; all other foods of that meal can then be eaten without additional benedictions. The food that is chosen for benediction should be distinguished.] : “One recites the benediction on the better kind of flour. Rolls [Greek, singular κόλλιξ, “roll”.] and a full home baked loaf, one recites over a roll. A broken roll and a full home baked loaf, one recites on the full home baked loaf. Wheat bread and barley bread, one recites on wheat bread. A broken loaf of wheat bread and a full loaf of barley bread, one recites on the broken wheat bread. Barley bread and spelt bread, one recites on barley bread. But is not spelt bread better? But this is from one of the Seven Kinds, that one is not of the Seven Kinds.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This is from Rebbi Yehudah, since Rebbi Yehudah said (Mishnah 4), “if there is [On a fruit plate; one has to choose one fruit to eat first for a benediction, on the strength of which one may then eat all other fruits without additional benediction. The sages opposing Rebbi Yehudah assert that one makes the benediction over the fruit (or here, bread) one prefers, to let God’s praise come from a full heart. The Babli in practice follows the Sages but the Yerushalmi follows Rebbi Yehudah.] among them a fruit of the Seven Kinds, on it he recites the benediction.” Impure bread and pure bread, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, he recites on the pure one [In the time of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, this was a theoretical question only, since at that time nobody was free from the impurity associated with the dead. It must be assumed that the food in question is secular and impure by transfer from something that is the source of impurity; in that case, it cannot pollute the person who touches and eats it with due care.] . Impure white bread and pure coarse [Levy declares it to be from Greek κυρηβία, τά (plur.) “bran, shells of grain kernels,” Krauss and Löw from cibarius(panis) “coarse bread.”] bread, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He may recite on the one that he prefers [Since each one has good and bad qualities.] .
Young palm shoots. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: He recites on it “Creator of the fruit of the tree [In the Babli (36a), the opinion of Rav Yehudah, accepted by his teacher Samuel, is to say “Creator of the fruit of the earth” since it is a vegetable growth but cannot qualify as “fruit” of the tree, since it will turn into inedible wood.] .” Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Saul stated, “By Whose word everything was created [This is the original opinion of Samuel in the Babli, since nobody grows date palms for the few shoots one can eat each spring. Hence, it does not qualify as “fruit” of anything.] .” Rebbi Joshua stated: “Creator of kinds of grasses. [This is the only genuinly old tradition quoted, but it is rejected even by the Yerushalmi which admits a variety of formulas of benedictions, since young palm shoots cannot qualify as grasses. As the following list shows, thistles and thorny plants may qualify as grasses. While it is clear that in the Babli קורא means “heart of the palm”, in the statement of R. Joshua the word might refer to Arabic קֻרַּה “cardamine, meadow cress”] ” The baraita of Rebbi Oshaiah disagrees: “The following are the kinds of grasses: artichoke [Greek κυνάρα, κινάρα.] , ḥalimah [This plant is defined by Arukh, the talmudic dictionary of 11th cent. R. Nathan of Rome, as mallow or okra. However, the Syriac dictionaries define the word as equivalent of Latin anchusa, “ox tongue”.] , demua [An otherwise unknown grassy plant; the corresponding Arabic word دماع is explained in classical Arabic dictionaries as “seemingly the name of a plant.”] , and lycium [A spiny plant frequent in the Jordan valley.] .
MISHNAH: If he pronounced the benediction “Creator of the fruit of the soil” on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation, on fruits of the soil “Creator of the fruit of the tree”, he has not fulfilled his obligation. On all of them if he pronounced “everything was created [“By Whose word everything was created.” While this is not the preferred benediction, the statement is true and therefore admissible.] ”, he has fulfilled his obligation.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: This is Rebbi Yehuda’s since Rebbi Yehudah makes trees like straws [In the Babli (40a) this is the accepted opinion, in the name of Rav Naḥman. The proof is from Mishnah Bikkurim 1:8 which states that if a tree was felled, its owner may not bring the first fruits of that tree to the Temple, but Rebbi Yehudah insists that he may. Since everybody agrees that grain may be offered as first-fruits, and grain can be brought only after it was cut and separated from the straw, it follows that Rebbi Yehudah treats trees simply as stalks for their fruits.] . Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion since fruits of a tree are also fruits of the soil but fruits of the soil are not fruits of the tree [In contrast to the opinion of the Tanna R. Yose quoted in the next paragraph, every true statement about food is acceptable.] . Rav Huna said [Babli 40b. His opinion is rejected in the Babli in favor of a dissenting one of Rebbi Yoḥanan not mentioned in the Yerushalmi. The next paragraph, which relativizes the statement of Rav Huna, requires a separate benediction for bread even if it is not the one formulated by the Men of the Great Assembly.] , except for bread and wine. The Mishnah (6:1) says so: Except for wine because on wine one says “Creator of the fruit of the vine;” except for bread because on bread one says “He Who produces bread from the earth.”
It has been stated [Tosephta Berakhot 4:5.] : Rebbi Yose says, anyone who changes the formula established by the Sages did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Yehudah says, everything that has been changed from the way it was created but one did not change its benediction, he did not fulfill his duty [Rebbi Yose accepts only the formulas established by the Men of the Great Assembly. Rebbi Yehudah accepts these formulas as guidelines which have to be adapted to varying circumstances and this adaptation is more important than using the approved formulas. The great number of different formulas of benediction in the Yerushalmi and fragments of Yerushalmi rite prayer books show that the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah was the dominant one in the Land of Israel. In staying with this attitude, it was even discussed at the start of this halakhah that the anonymous Mishnah should present the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. In the parallel in the Babli (40b), Rebbi Yehudah’s opinion is not even quoted; in Babylonia only the opinions of Rebbi Yose (for those who know Hebrew) and of Rebbi Meïr (for the illiterate) are accepted.] . Rebbi Meïr says, even if he says: “Praised be He Who created this property, how beautiful it is,” he has fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: practice follows Rebbi Meïr. The words of Rav also say so. A Persian [A Persian Jew. In the Babli (40b), he is called Benjamin the shepherd.] came before Rav: “Since I am eating my piece of bread, but I do not know how to recite the benediction over it, I use to say: ‘Praise to Him Who created this piece of bread,’ did I fulfill my duty?” He said to him: yes.
Rav Yehudah in the name of Abba bar bar Ḥana [He is Rabba bar bar Ḥana. A slightly different version is in Babli 39a as a tannaïtic statement.] : Bar Qappara and two of his students were with the innkeeper at the “inn of blessings”. He brought before them partridge, orach [A salty plant, Atriplex rosea, growing mainly in salt marshes, that was used as (relatively cheap) vegetable. [The identification of the plant (and of the bird species) is Rashi’s in the Babli, reported in the name of R. Isaac ben R. Yehudah of Worms.] The vegetable cannot be eaten raw, but must be cooked and, therefore, must have a changed benediction according to Rebbi Yehudah.] , and leeks [Greek κεφαλωτός, “having a head”. The identification as leeks is from Rashi in Babli Yom Ṭov and the use of the word in Syriac.] . They said, if we recite the benediction on leeks [It seems that these leeks were raw; hence, their benediction is “Creator of the fruit of the soil” and that will serve also for the cooked vegetable by the reasoning given in the Mishnah; however, a benediction over the cooked vegetable, which is a changed one following Rebbi Yehudah, cannot serve for raw leeks.] , it will serve also for orach but not for the partridge [The benediction for patridge is “everything.” The story makes two points. First, that in benedictions one did follow Rebbi Yehudah in frequently changing the wording of benedictions. [This principle, absent in the Babli, is the cause that the reports about and conclusions from this story in the two Talmudim are not comparable.] The second, more important one, is that the language of the Mishnah, “On all of them if he pronounced ‘everything’, he has fulfilled his obligation” does not mean that one may recite that benediction on anything that specifically needs it and then extend it to fruits and vegetables, only that if one recited the benediction on agricultural produce it also is valid, but not preferred.] . If we recite on orach, it will not serve for anything else. One of them jumped the gun and recited “by Whose word everything was created” on the partridge. His colleague [The Aramaic text seems to have a scribal error for חַבְרֵיהּ.] laughed at him. Bar Qappara said to that one, not about that glutton but about you scoffer [I am angry.] . This one acted in his gluttony, why did you laugh? And to the other one he said, is there no rabbi here, is there no old man here? They said, within a year they both died. Rebbi Yose said, there two are gone and we did not learn anything from the incident. What is it? It is reasonable that one recites the benediction on leeks because “By Whose word everything was created” is secondary for vegetables [The meaning of the statement is that one should not start with the benediction over the quail because that benediction is also applicable to vegetables and, hence, cannot be recited a second time for the same meal without taking God’s name in vain. But, as explained earlier, the benediction “everything” is not valid for vegetables if recited on meat and, in any case, is undesirable for plants that have their own more specific benediction. Hence, the person reciting the benediction first on partridge cannot eat of the vegetables. On the other hand, if he makes the first benediction “Creator of the fruit of the soil” for the vegetables, then he can make a second benediction “that all was by His word” for the bird and all is fine.] .
MISHNAH: On food that is not grown on the soil one recites “that all was by His word.” On vinegar [Vinegar which came from wine turned sour, not vinegar that was produced as such from the start.] , on locusts, and on wind-fall fruit one recites “that all was by His word.” Rebbi Yehudah says, one does not recite a benediction on a kind that comes from a curse.
HALAKHAH: If his wine turned sour, he recites “praise to the True Judge” [The standard benediction on bad news, cf. Mishnah 9:6.] . When he consumes it, he recites “that all was by His word.” If he sees a locust [The edible locusts come in swarms which destroy crops. Hence seeing one presages disaster.] , he recites “praise to the True Judge”. When he consumes it, he recites “that all was by His word.” If he sees fallen fruit, he recites “praise to the True Judge”. When he consumes it, he recites “that all was by His word.”
MISHNAH: If there were many kinds before him [He wants to eat of all of them, they all require the same benediction, and he may recite one benediction only.] , Rebbi Yehudah said, if among them is one of the Seven Kinds [The Seven Kinds are “the fruits for which the Land of Israel is praised”, enumerated in Deut. 8:8: “A land of wheat and barley, vine and fig, and pomegranate; a land of oil olive and (date) honey.” Since in v. 10 it is stated “when you will eat and be satiated, you must praise the Eternal, your God, for the good land that He gave you,” it follows that these kinds need a benediction afterwards that contains praise for food, land, (and Jerusalem.) This is called “one benediction in the kind of three”; the three benedictions are reserved for grain eaten in the form of bread. The benediction before is the applicable one of those mentioned in the Mishnah.] that is the one over which he recites the benediction. But the Sages say, on any one that he wishes [The Babli (41a) interprets the Sages to mean that the fruit to be chosen for benediction should be the one that he likes best personally. It seems that the Yerushalmi means quite literally “any one that he wants”.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Rebbi Yehudah and the rabbis disagree only when he intended afterwards to eat bread [If the fruits are eaten as appetizers to be followed by a meal, then the benediction over bread for the main meal is a benediction over one of the Seven Kinds, even over the most important of the Seven Kinds. Hence, a benediction on some other fruit is no slight for the Land of Israel. But if the snack of fruits is not followed by bread and Grace after the meal then the fruits of the Land of Israel take precedence since they require at the end a “benediction imitating three benedictions” whereas other fruits only require the short benediction “Creator of living things” that earlier was considered to be “nothing”.] , but if he did not intend to eat bread afterwards, everybody agrees that if among them one is of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction. Rebbi Abba said, he has to recite a benediction at the end [Even if Grace is recited afterwards.] . Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba disagrees with Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Rebbi Yehudah and the rabbis disagree only when he intended afterwards to eat bread, but if he did not intend to eat bread afterwards everybody agrees that if among them is one of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction; but Rebbi Abba said, he has to recite a benediction at the end. If he did not recite a benediction at the end it [The fruit eaten as appetizer.] became an accessory and we have stated there (Mishna 7): “In every situation where there is a main course and side dishes, one recites the benediction for the main course and thereby frees the side dishes. [Hence, bread being the most important food and requiring recitation of full Grace, any fruit eaten beforehand becomes a side dish for the bread and should be covered by Grace. The Yerushalmi takes Mishnah 7 to apply also to benedictions after the meal, not only before the meal.] ”
Garizmata [The exact meaning of the word, its vocalization and etymology are unknown. It is clear from Midrashim (Lev. rabba 9, Thr. rabba introduction) that it refers to a dessert. The Arukh translates the word by Italian קוציאי which Perles misread as guscio “trestle; shell, hull”. Even coccio “potsherd” does not make much sense. The older commentaries to the Yerushalmi were misled by a scribal “correction” in the Arukh that identified gryzmth with lupines, which refers to the next word in the text. Levy’s dictionary, following Perles, derives the word from a non-existing Greek word γαρίσμη [but compare γαρισκός, ὁ, “an unknown fish”, γάρος, ὁ “paste of brine and small fish”, γάρον, τὸ “fish sauce”.] Jastrow considers the word as Par‘el from (Hebrew and Arabic) גזם “to cut in pieces”. From the usage in the next Halakhah it seems that one speaks of baked, in contrast to cooked, goods. It is possible to connect the word with Arabic جردو, גרדם “to devour voraciously” (said of worms and other pests.) The background of the remark is that this kind of dessert at a formal dinner, being extraordinary and not part of a regular meal, is not covered by the benediction over the bread at the start of the meal and, hence, needs its own benediction.] . Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi, he recites the benediction over the lupine [He may make the benediction even on lupines even though they probably are the cheapest dish on the plate.] . Rebbi Levi said, because of (Prov. 22:22) “do not rob a poor one [Of its benediction.] because he is poor.”
That is if it is his intention to eat bread [One returns to the opinion of the Sages in the Mishnah and the interpretation given by R. Joshua ben Levi.] . But if it is not his intention to eat bread, that does not apply. (Rabban) Gamliel the twin [The name of his twin brother was Hillel. He was an Amora of the third generation who usually appears asking questions from his contemporaries, not formulating his own rules. The title “Rabban” was given to him here by a thoughtless scribe; everywhere else his name appears without title.] went to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai. He saw them eat an olive [As an appetizer before a meal with bread.] and recite the benediction before and afterwards. He said to them: Does one do that? Rebbi Zeïra sent and asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Rebbi Cahana [Rebbi Cohen at other places in the Talmud.] in the name of Rebbi Avina [A student of Ganiva, also of Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah, who immigrated into Israel and was ordained in the Yeshivah of Rebbi Ammi.] : Everybody agrees that if among them was one of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction. Rebbi Zeïra said, that must be correct, since we see the rabbis assembling for the proclamation of the New Moon and eat grapes but they do not recite a benediction afterwards. That is because it is his [It is their intention to have a full meal after the formal proclamation of the New Moon.] intention to eat bread.
If there were before him of the Seven Kinds, on which one does he recite the benediction? There [In Babylonia; Babli 41a.] they say: Everything that has precedence in the verse has precedence for benediction and everything that is close to “the Land” has precedence over everything else [Hence, the orders of preference are (Deut. 8:6): “A land of (1) wheat and (2) barley, (3) grapes, and (4) figs, and (5) pomegranates; a land of (1) oil olives and (2) date honey.] .
MISHNAH: If one recited the benediction on wine before the meal [Given as an appetizer. They drank wine after the main meal but before Grace was recited. Since Grace covers all food, it is obvious that anything consumed after Grace needs a new benediction. Both wine and cookies were served before and after the meal only on festive dinners as explained in Chapter 8; they do not belong to everyday meals. Their rules need to be spelled out.] , he also covers wine after the meal. If one recited the benediction on little pieces [The verb פרר means “to break into little pieces, crumble”. It is possible that פרפר is a pilpel form of פרר. This is the opinion of the dictionaries. It is more likely that פרפרת is derived from παραφέρω “to serve, bring to one’s side” (food), or the passive “set on table, served” (definitions of Liddell & Scott). The correct translation then is “side dish before or after meal; appetizer or dessert, snacks.” The vocalization should be פָּרָפֶרֶת (E. G.).] before the meal, he also covers little pieces after the meal. If one recited the benediction on bread, he also covers little pieces; if one recited the benediction on little pieces, he did not cover bread; the House of Shammai say, neither did he cover cooked food.
HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥisda said, we stated only “if one recited the benediction on wine before the meal, he also covers wine after the meal”, but if one recited the benediction for wine during the meal [When wine serves only to wash down the food. But wine after the meal is consumed for its own sake.] , he did not cover the wine after the meal. There [In Babylonia, where wine was a rarity and only used on Sabbath and holidays. Their usual drink was beer made from date syrup. The entire discussion is Babylonian, cf. Babli 42b.] they say, even if one recited the benediction on wine before the meal, he did not cover wine after the meal. But did we not state “if one recited the benediction on wine before the meal, he also covers wine after the meal”? Rav Huna and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one of them said, if he drank spiced wine [Latin conditum (scil., vinum); this wine cannot be compared to regular wine and therefore needs an extra benediction.] , the other one said, if he drank wine after the bath [Latin balnea, -orum (plur.), a sauna. Since the first wine after return from the sauna is taken for medical reasons, its benediction does not cover wine consumed as food.] .
Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Huna, Rav, in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Bread that comes kisnīn [Rav Hai Gaon explains that kisnīn-bread is called כעכ in Arabic. This is “pastry, small baked goods” in common Arabic, “donuts” in Syrian dialect. Rabbenu Ḥananel and Rashi explain that it is a baked shell filled with candied almonds and other nuts. Since it is baked it needs a benediction, but since it is not baked as bread it is not covered by the benediction over bread. The Babli (42a) quotes only the opinion of Samuel who seems to agree with Rebbi Yoḥanan here.] needs a benediction before and after. Rebbi Ammi said that Rebbi Yoḥanan disagrees. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, in what does he disagree? When one ate from the same food [The Rome ms. has here המין, conforming to the next two sentences.] during the meal? He said to him, even if one did not eat from the same kind during the meal. Rav Ḥaggai came in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even if one did not eat from the same kind during the meal [Any baked goods eaten after the benediction over bread and before Grace are covered by these two benedictions.] .
From the Patriarch they sent Nicolaus dates [A kind of large Syrian dates, in Arabic אַנקִילַא.] to Rebbi Ḥanina bar Sisai [He is also called Ininai bar Sisai (in the Yerushalmi) and Anani bar Sason (in the Babli); Amora of the second generation and student of Rebbi Ḥanina.] . He left them for dessert after his meal and recited a benediction over them before and after. Rav Ḥuna ate dates with his bread. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, are you disagreeing with your teacher [Rav, who said that food eaten after the main meal, without bread, needs separate benedictions.] ? Leave them for dessert after your meal and you may recite a benediction over them before and after. He said to him, they are the main thing my teeth get to bite. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose went to the marriage feast of Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya. They brought before them kisnīn bread after the meal. They said, let us leave our learning and let us bring a baraita: Rebbi Mana stated in the name of Rebbi Yehudah, who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean: Bread that comes kisnīn after the meal needs a benediction before and after. They said, since they are the minority and the rabbis disagree with them, let us act following the rabbis [That bread covers all food which comes regularly with a meal, whether during the main course or as a dessert. This, as report of an action, is the final decision in the matter.] .
Marinos, the son of Rebbi Joshua [At other places in the Yerushalmi, he is called Marinos, the son of the great Rebbi Oshayah; an Israeli Amora between the first and second generations.] said: He who ate dessert [The exact meaning of the word, its vocalization and etymology are unknown. It is clear from Midrashim (Lev. rabba 9, Thr. rabba introduction) that it refers to a dessert. The Arukh translates the word by Italian קוציאי which Perles misread as guscio “trestle; shell, hull”. Even coccio “potsherd” does not make much sense. The older commentaries to the Yerushalmi were misled by a scribal “correction” in the Arukh that identified gryzmth with lupines, which refers to the next word in the text. Levy’s dictionary, following Perles, derives the word from a non-existing Greek word γαρίσμη [but compare γαρισκός, ὁ, “an unknown fish”, γάρος, ὁ “paste of brine and small fish”, γάρον, τὸ “fish sauce”.] Jastrow considers the word as Par‘el from (Hebrew and Arabic) גזם “to cut in pieces”. From the usage in the next Halakhah it seems that one speaks of baked, in contrast to cooked, goods. It is possible to connect the word with Arabic جردو, גרדם “to devour voraciously” (said of worms and other pests.) The background of the remark is that this kind of dessert at a formal dinner, being extraordinary and not part of a regular meal, is not covered by the benediction over the bread at the start of the meal and, hence, needs its own benediction.] and cereal [Cereal made from flour or flakes of grain that can be used to make bread.] , even though he recites a benediction on the dessert at the end, he did not cover cereal [Since vegetable dessert needs only a short benediction afterwards but cereal needs a “benediction imitating three.”] . Is he like the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say [In the Mishnah. Except if it is explicitly stated, practice never follows the House of Shammai; Marinos should not follow it.] , “neither cooked food?” Rebbi Yose said, this is everybody’s opinion. If one recited the benediction on bread, he also covers little pieces and cooked food; the House of Shammai say, neither did he cover cooked food. But if one first recited the benediction over little pieces, everybody agrees that he covered neither bread nor cooked food [They need the “benediction imitating three.” The Yerushalmi takes it as obvious that the remark on the House of Shammai refers to the sentence just preceding their remark. In the Babli (42b) it remains undecided whether the House of Shammai refer to the first or the second clause in the Mishnah.] . Rebbi Abba, the son of Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: He who ate cereal and he has the intention of later eating bread, does he have to recite a separate benediction for cereal at the end? The rabbis of Caesarea find it obvious that he has to recite a separate benediction at the end [In Israel, one never ate cereal with bread. R. Zeïra (himself a native Babylonian) is quoted in the Babli (Beẓa 16a) as making fun of “those stupid Babylonians who eat bread with bread” because they eat bread with cereal. Hence, in Caesarea, someone eating cereal is not presumed to have the intention to eat bread.] .
MISHNAH: If they were sitting [In a sitting room, not in a dining room, either for talk or before a meal. (Some Mishnah manuscripts have “sitting before a meal” but the addition seems irrelevant.) In Mishnaic times, a formal meal was always taken lying down on couches, supporting oneself with one’s left arm and eating with the right hand.] , every one makes the benediction for himself [For wine, pastries, or fruit.] . If they were lying on couches [Assembled to eat a meal as a company.] , one would make the benediction for everybody [On bread and/or wine. The other participants must answer “Amen” so that the benediction is counted also for them.] . If wine were served to them in the middle of the meal, everyone would make the benediction for himself [Since people may be eating, their mouth is not free to answer “Amen”.] ; after the meal one person makes the benediction for everybody, and he makes the benediction on mugmar [The Hebrew verb גּמּר, Arabic גַמַּרַ, means “to roast on burning coals”. Mugmar are spices or incense roasted on burning coals, used as air-freshener after a meal and also to perfume garments.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the Mishnah deals with a party for circumcision [And similar festive occasions when a formal dinner takes place.] . Hence, it does not apply to a man in his own house [Since all members of the household look to the head of the house to start the meal, he should make the benediction for all of them even if they are sitting and not reclining, since not every apartment has a formal dining room.] . Rebbi Ḥiyya stated [In one of his baraitot. He allows a common benediction only in a formal dining room. The disagreement between him and R. Joshua ben Levi is not resolved; both are authorities of equal standing.] , even a man in his own house.
It was stated [Tosephta Berakhot 4:8; Babli 43a. This Tosephta explains the background of the Mishnah.] : The order of a formal meal: Guests enter and sit on low benches [Latin subsellium.] or on chairs [Greek καθέδρα.] until all of them are assembled. They are served wine; everyone makes the benediction for himself. They bringthem water, everyone washes one hand. They bring them snacks, everyone makes the benediction for himself. When they entered [The dining room. הסב means “to lie on couches” in Mishnaic Hebrew.] and lie down on couches they are served wine; even though one made the benediction on the first one, he must now make the benediction on the second one; one of them makes the benediction for all of them. They bring them water; even though one had washed one hand, he now has to wash both hands. When they are served snacks, one makes the benediction for all of them. No guest may enter after three servings of snacks.
There (Mishnah Sukkah 4:5) we have stated: “Sukkah seven days, how is this [The holiday of Sukkot is seven days; the eighth day, Shemini Aẓeret, is an additional festive day, where the obligation to live in a sukkah does not apply. Since one may not add to the commandments of the Torah (Deut. 13:1), in Israel, where holidays are only one day, one may not live in the sukkah on the eighth day.] ? If he finished to eat he should not take down his sukkah [The obligation to live in the sukkah extends until nightfall of the eighth day.] , but he takes out the vessels starting from the time of afternoon prayers because of the honor due to the last holiday.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A person must make his sukkah invalid [That it would no longer qualify as sukkah. At the end of the discussion, the interpretation is that one must make the sukkah invalid as sukkah only if one intends to eat in the sukkah during the holiday of Shemini Aẓeret. One makes the sukkah invalid either by removing some of the roofing, or by putting up a sheet of cloth under the roofing, or in a similar way.] as long as it is still day. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a person must make Qiddush [The sanctification of (Sabbath and) holidays, pronounced over a cup of wine.] inside his house [On Shemini Aẓeret, irrespective of the place of the meal.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: If one made Qiddush in one house and changed his mind to eat in another house he must make Qiddush [This parallels the statement of Samuel in Babli Pesaḥim 101a that “there cannot be Qiddush except at the place of the holiday meal.”] . Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah [The Venice text reads: Rebbi Joshua; the text here is from the Rome manuscript. The correct text is in the parallel in Sukkah 4:5: Rebbi Hoshaiah in the name of Rav. In the sequel, this statement will be referred to either as Rebbi Hoshaiah’s or Rav’s.] : He who loves his sukkah makes Qiddush of the last holiday in his house and goes to eat in his sukkah [Contradicting the statement of Samuel, that Qiddush must be said at the place of the meal.] . Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. What Rav said was, if he did not have the intention to eat in another house [So that at the moment of recitation of Qiddush, his intention was valid; a valid benediction cannot be voided retroactively.] . But what Samuel said was if he had the intention to eat in another house. Rebbi Mana said [The explanation of R. Abun is impossible since then we would have two contradictory statements in the name of Rav. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in his name that one must make the sukkah invalid before the start of the eighth day if one wants to use it during that day; hence, if Rebbi Hoshaiah requires in Rav’s name that one make Qiddush in the house it is obvious that he had the prior intention to eat in the sukkah. Hence, Rav must disagree with Samuel. If Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi made his statement without reference to Rav we may refer to the Babli (Pesaḥim 100b) that Rav disagrees explicitly with Samuel but that Rav Huna, Rav’s foremost student, agrees with Samuel. Rav Huna would not have gone against Rav if not at least one of the latter’s colleagues in his Yeshivah, e. g., Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, had supported Samuel. Hence, the attribution of the statement of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi to Rav seems to be in error, even though it is supported by both manuscripts of the Yerushalmi.] , Samuel comes like Rebbi [Scribal error for “Rav”. Since Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi requires that one eat in an invalid sukkah he must require that Qiddush be in that invalid sukkah.] Ḥiyya and Rebbi Hoshaiah like Rebbi Joshua ben Levi [This seemingly unrelated topic is discussed here because it has an implicit relationship with the foregoing Tosephta and the Mishnah. According to R. Joshua ben Levi, one may make Qiddush in the house and then continue eating and drinking wine in the sukkah. This means that one may start drinking wine at one place and then continue drinking at another place without reciting a new benediction. This contradicts the previous Tosephta that the benediction over wine in the sitting room does not free one from reciting a new benediction in the dining room. Samuel (seconded by Rebbi Yoḥanan in Babli Pesaḥim 101a/b) will agree to the conclusion from the Tosephta.] .
They asked Ben Zoma [Tosephta Berakhot 4:12, Babli 43a.] : Why, if wine was served to them in the middle of the meal, everyone makes the benediction for himself? He said to them, because the place of swallowing is not empty [Talking during swallowing may bring food into one’s windpipe and cause one’s death by asphyxiation.] . Rebbi Mana said, this means that if someone sneezes during the meal one may not say to him “for health [Greek ἴασις. The Arukh reads here זפ, Greek ζήτω “for life!” The Tosephta (Šabbat 7:5) declares this to be a non-Jewish custom.] ” because of danger to one’s life.
What is the difference between mugmar and wine? Everybody smells mugmar, each person tastes wine. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Jeremiah [The entire discussion is paralleled in Babli 43a/b.] : One has to recite the benediction for mugmar as soon as the smoke rises. Rav [The text, “Rebbi”, is in error since Rebbi Zeïra was the student of Rav Jeremiah in Babylonia and the teacher of Rebbi Jeremiah in Galilee.] Jeremiah wanted to examine Rebbi Zeïra. He said to him, which benediction does one recite on perfumed oil? He said, “He Who gave pleasant fragrance in perfumed oil.” He said to him, “He Who gave pleasant fragrance in spice wood.” Isaac bar Abba from Meḥasiah [A Babylonian; twice mentioned as associate of Rav Ḥananel. Mata (“City of”) Meḥasia was the place of Rav’s Yeshivah.] and Rav Ḥananel were sitting. One said, “Praise to Him Who gave pleasant fragrance in spice wood.” The other one said, “Praise to Him Who gave pleasant fragrance in the plants of the earth.” He who said “in the plants of the earth” objected to him who said “in spice wood”: are they wood? He answered him, is it not written (Jos. 2:6) “She hid them in the hemp of wood”, are these wood? They went to the Yeshivah of Rav and heard Rav Huna [Head of the Yeshivah of Rav after Rav’s death.] in the name of Rav: “He Who gave pleasant fragrance in spice wood.” Ganiva said, he who uses oil for dirt [If the oil is used primarily for cleaning and it does not matter that it is perfumed This applies to all other cleaning fluids also.] does not have to recite a benediction. Rebbi Yudan said, even if he collects it into his hand. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He who sprinkles olentia [Latin olens, olentis “sweet smelling” (E. G.). Most authors equate the word with oleamentum, “ointment made from olive oil”; this fits neither the spelling of the word nor the context.] in his house [If the main intent is to either bind the dirt or to get rid of bad odors, not to produce the pleasant fragrance.] does not have to recite a benediction. Rav Ḥisda said, on everything he recites “He Who gave pleasant fragrance in spice wood” except for musk on which he recites “He who gave pleasant fragrance in all kinds of spices. [Musk is of animal, not vegetable, origin. The statement of Rav Ḥisda in the Babli is quoted in the name of Rav; but there the benediction for musk is accepted for everything except for balsamum.] ”
MISHNAH: If salted fish [This is the usual interpretation of “salted” and is the correct interpretation of Mishnah and Yerushalmi by the testimony of the Arukh who quotes the Mishnah Nedarim 6:3: “He who makes a vow not to eat any salted foods, is forbidden only salted fish.”] was brought before him with bread, one recites the benediction over the salted fish and frees the bread [From having to recite the benediction because salted fish cannot be eaten without bread; hence, the bread would not have been eaten were it not for the salted fish.] because the bread is accessory. The following is the principle: Anything that is the main dish and comes with a side dish, one recites the benediction on the main dish and this frees the side dish.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan [Israeli Amora of the first generation, close to R. Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Ḥiyya the Great and R. Ḥanina.] : The Mishnah was from before they learned royal meals and at a place where the salted fish is the main food, but at a place where salted fish is not the main food that does not apply [Hence, for the Babli (44a) it no longer applies.] . Rav [Again, “Rebbi” is scribal error.] Jeremiah in the name of Rav, pitta bread and morsels, one recites on the morsels at a place where the morsels are the main food [This does not contradict the stament in Halakhah 1 that one makes the benediction on a complete loaf of bread if at all possible since the morsels here are not eaten as morsels, but are collected and milk is poured over them; the whole is left standing until it gets moldy. The result was considered in Babylonia to be an exquisite delicacy called “Babylonian kutaḥ”. The authorities involved here are all Babylonian.] . But at a place where morsels are not the main food that does not apply. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, šeqizmi [An unidentified word. [Pne Mosheh (Margalit), followed by Levy in his dictionary, takes the word to mean a delicacy made from almonds (שקד) with ז replacing soft ד. Pne Mosheh (Ben Ḥabib) identifies šeqizmi as kinds of fruit.]] and bread, one recites on the šeqizmi at a place where the šeqizmi are the main food. But at a place where šeqizmi are not the main food that does not apply.
MISHNAH: One who ate figs, grapes, or pomegranates [Or any other of the “Seven Fruits” that has not been made into bread; see note 15.] recites for them three benedictions [Full grace; this Mishnah is the introduction to the subject of Grace which will occupy the next two chapters.] , the words of Rabban Gamliel; but the Sagessay, one benediction imitating three. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if one ate cooked food and that is his meal he recites for it three benedictions [Since the verse says: (Deut. 8:10) “When you will eat and will have been satiated then you must praise the Eternal, your God, for the good land that He has given you.” There is no mention of bread. The three benedictions are (1) for the food, (2) for the Land, (3) for Jerusalem.] . He who drinks water for his thirst [He drinks water for itself and not to accompany or wash down food.] says “By Whose word everything was created.” Rebbi Tarphon [Probably the Greek name Τρυφῶν. He was old enough to have served as a priest in the Temple before its destruction. The text of the Yerushalmi in the Halakhah, a manuscript of the Babli, and some quotes from Medieval authorities have “R. Yehudah” instead of “R. Tarphon”. Since the main thrust of the Mishnah is about concluding benedictions, it is not clear whether R. Tarphon/Yehudah speaks of a first benediction, contradicting R. Aqiba, or about the concluding benediction for food that needs neither “three benedictions” nor “one benediction imitating three.”] said, “Creator of many living things” [Some Mishnah manuscripts have here the full text of the minor benediction after food.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Thaddeus [Israeli Amora of the second generation. His sayings are reported either by R. Simon or by R. Abba.] , in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one ate East of a fig tree and then changed to West of it [Assuming that the fig tree is very old and large enough so that he cannot see his old place from the new one.] to eat, he must make a benediction. Abba bar Rav Huna said: old wine, new wine, he has to recite a benediction [Since the benediction, as explained later in this Halakhah, is for the quality of the wine, one would expect that the change from new to old wine should require a benediction rather than the other way around. However, one has to assume that one deals with wine stored in cheap pottery amphoras rather than in extremely expensive glass bottles. The amphoras are porous and most of the alcohol will have vanished by the time the amphora is opened and also the flavor will have deteriorated under the influence of the air seeping in from the outside. Hence, the text here is justified.] . Change of wine he does not have to make a benediction. Change of place he has to make a benediction. If he took his mind off [After some time has passed. If one then returns to drink, it is a new activity.] it is equal to change of place. Rebbi was reciting a benediction on any wine amphora that he was opening. What did he say? The old Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi: “He Who is good and does good [Benediction on getting good news.] .” When Rebbi Aqiba was making a marriage feast for his son Simeon, he said a benediction over every wine amphora that he opened and said: “Good wine for the rabbis and their students.”
“ [Quote from the Mishnah.] He who drinks water for his thirst says ‘That everything was created by His word.’” Rebbi Jonah said, except pick-axe water [As is clear from the text, this is water drunk only for medicinal purposes.] . Rebbi Yose said, on any water that he thirsts for [If somebody drinks medicinal waters for his thirst, he has to recite the benediction for water, not that for medicinal waters. If he drinks water not for his thirst (in the language of the Babli, 44b, if a piece of food is stuck in his esophagus,) he does not have to recite any benediction.] . Rebbi Abun said, he who drinks pick-axe water, what does he say? “Praise to Him Who created medicinal waters.” [The fact that a benediction is due is also noted in the Babli (38a), but the text is given only here.] Some Tannaïm state “deqarim water”, other Tannaïm state “deqalim waters”. He who said deqarim (pick-axe) waters, because they pierce the gall bladder. And he who says deqalim (date palm) waters, because they gush forth between two palm trees [Compare Latin decalicator “hard drinker”, one who is able to empty a calix, a goblet, at one draught (E. G.).] .