(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Berachos 36



(a) Rav Nachman holds that the appropriate Berachah over wheat-flour is 'Shehakol' - because it has changed its format. No can it be compared to olive-oil, which retains the original Berachah in spite of its changed format, because there is nothing else for olives to be changed into, whereas wheat should be made into bread. Meanwhile, it has deteriorated into a non-food, without attaining its improved status.

(b) Despite the fact that even over wheat-flour too, the appropriate Berachah is 'Shehakol', Shmuel nevertheless needed to mention 'barley-flour', because otherwise, we would have said that barley-flour requires no Berachah at all.

(c) We would indeed have said that barley-flour is even worse than salt-water (as far as the Berachah goes), because it produces worms in the stomach.

(a) According to Shmuel, one recites 'Shehakol' over young palm-branches, since they will eventually become hard.

(b) The Berachah over a radish is 'Adamah', because the radish is planted with the intention of eating it in that state (before it becomes hard), whereas the young palm-branch is planted with the intention of its growing into a palm-branch, not to eat.

(c), the Berachah over the leaves and berries of a caper-tree is 'Adamah'.

(d) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Berachah over its fruit and peel is 'ha'Eitz'.

(a) Rav permits the outer peel of a caper fruit because of Orlah according to Rebbi Akiva, because Rebbi Akiva does not consider the outer peel a fruit as regards Ma'asros.

(b) If Rav would have said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Akiva', we would have thought that the Halachah is like him even in Eretz Yisrael.

(c) And if he had said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Akiva be'Chutzah la'Aretz', we would have thought that *that* ruling is confined to Ma'aser Peyros (the case which over which Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva are arguing), because Ma'aser Peyros, even in Eretz Yisrael, is only mi'de'Rabbanan. But as far as Orlah (which in Eretz Yisrael is mi'd'Oraysa) is concerned, the Halachah will be like Rebbi Eliezer, even in Chutz la'Aretz.

(d) Ravina maintained that if Mar bar Rav Ashi follows the lenient view in Chutz la'Aretz (as we just explained), then he should have eaten the fruit of the caper-tree too. Why?
Because, as far as Orlah is concerned, we have the lenient opinion of Beis Shamai, who permits Safek Orlah (which our case is) even in Eretz Yisrael; So why did he not accept his opinion in Chutz la'Aretz?

(e) It is in order, answers the Gemara, to rule leniently in Chutz la'Aretz, like the opinion of Rebbi Akiva against Rebbi Eliezer, but under no circumstances will we contend with the opinion of Beis Shamai, when they argue with Beis Hillel - 'Beis Shamai bi'Mekom Beis Hillel, La'av Mishnah'.




(a) We learn from "va'Araltem Orlaso *es* Piryo" that, as far as Orlah is concerned, the Shomer of the fruit is forbidden like the fruit itself.

(b) With regard to Tum'as Ochlin, it is only the Shomer which combines with the food regarding Tum'as Ochlin, but not the Shomer of a Shomer, such as the hair in the crown of a pomegranate. As far as the Din Orlah is concerned, there is no difference between the Shomer and the Shomer of the Shomer.

(c) In any event, we see that the hair in the crown of a pomegranate is considered a Shomer, despite the fact that it falls out after the pomegranate has been detached.

(d) The reason that the outer peel of the caper fruit is not considered a Shomer is because it falls off before the fruit is fully grown.

(a) The Gemara initially explains that Rav Nachman, who considers the outer shell of the date to be a fruit - as regards Orlah, holds like Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion even a young grape in its earliest stages is called a fruit (and the same will apply to other fruits).

(b) 'Girua' is the equivalent to the size of Pul ha'Lavan (the minimum size for a grape to be called a fruit - according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi).

(c) Since the same Mishnah gives the minimum size of a fruit (to have the Din of a fruit) by the majority of fruits as 'mi'she'Yotzi'u' - an early stage in the fruit's development, we see that the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Yossi regarding other fruit (and that their dispute is confined to grapes). Consequently, Rav Nachman above follows not only the opinion of Rebbi Yossi, but also that of the Rabbanan.
If that is so, we are still faced with the Kashya that we asked originally: Why is the peel of the caper-fruit not considered a Shomer?

(d) The reason that the peel of the caper fruit is not considered a Shomer, is because (unlike the pomegranate without the hair) the fruit can survive without it - and a Shomer must be indispensable in order to be subject to the Din of Orlah (and the Berachah of 'ha'Eitz').

(a) Rava maintains that someone who chews peppers or ginger on Yom Kipur is Patur.

(b) The Beraisa, which learns from "Eitz Ma'achal" that peppers are called fruit with regard to Orlah, speaks about wet peppers, whereas Rava is referring to dry ones.

(c) Over wet ginger one recites 'Adamah', over dry ones, nothing.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, it is because the main ingredient is honey, that one recites 'Shehakol' over it.

(b) In Rav Kahana's opinion, the appropriate Berachah over Chavitz Kedeirah is 'Mezonos'. The Halachah is like him because we rule like Rav and Shmuel, who say that food which contains any of the five types of grain, requires the Berachah of 'Mezonos'.

(c) Had Rav and Shmuel ruled only that anything from the five types of grain requires 'Mezonos', we might have thought that that is restricted to when the five types of grain are in evidence, but not when they are mixed with other kinds. Therefore, they saw fit to add 'Anything which *contains*' etc.
And if they had issued their ruling regarding anything that contains the five types of grain, we might have thought that we only exclude rice and millet from 'Mezonos', because we are speaking when they are mixed with other foods. But when they are in evidence, they too require 'Mezonos'. Therefore, they found it necessary to add 'Anything that is from the five types of grain' etc., to exclude rice and millet.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,