(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 40



(a) When Rav says 'Tul Baruch etc., he means that 'Here, take a piece of Motzi!', after someone has already recited a Motzi, is *not* considered a Hesech ha'Da'as (an interruption), and it is therefore not necessary to repeat the Berachah. But 'Pass the salt, pass the condiments!' *is*, and a new Berachah is required.

(b) According to Rav Sheishes, 'Feed the cows!' is not considered a Hesech ha'Da'as either, since it is forbidden to eat before having fed one's animals.

(c) The Torah writes in Devarim "ve'Nasati Eisev be'Sadcha li'Vehemtecha (first, and then) ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ata".

(a) Rava bar Shmuel had previously said that it is not permitted to recite a 'Motzi' over bread before one has salt or a condiment ready to dip into, in order to give the bread taste and enhance the quality of the Berachah. Consequently, the members of the Chief Rabbi's household were rather surprised when the same Rava bar Shmuel recited the Berachah without first asking for salt or a condiment. He answered that this bread was so good that it did not require any condiments.

(b) When someone would urinate standing, he would worry about drops dripping on to his legs, as we learnt above. Consequently, for fear that this might happen to him, he would not empty his bladder properly. If however he urinated sitting, this fear would be eliminated.
Alternatively, he could urinate (even standing) into soft earth, or from a high place on to a slope - in either case, there would be no splashing.

(c) Rava bar Shmuel suggests that one eats salt after eating and drinks water after drinking, to avoid any problems caused by eating and drinking.

(d) Someone who fails to do so, should worry about a foul smell in the day and Askara (choking) in the night.

(a) Eating lentils every day causes foul breath, and mustard every day results in a weak heart.

(b) Askarah is the result of constipation, and lentils make the bowels move.

(c) Little fish prevent stomach illness as well as causing fertility.

(d) Poppy-seed is healthy to eat, but harmful to smell.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Baruch Hashem Yom Yom" that just as the Torah prescribes each day (e.g. Shabbos and Yom-tov) with its own individual Berachah, so too, should each individual species have its own Berachah - vegetables, greens and grain.

(b) We learn from "ve'Haya Im Shamo'a" that 'if you listen once, you will (merit to) listen again' and ' if you listen from the *old* harvest, you will listen from the *new* harvest - on which Chazal comment that Hashem is not comparable to a human being, who can only fill an empty vessel, but not a full one. With Hashem, it is the opposite: The more full of Mitzvos a person is, the more Hashem gives him the opportunity to perform more.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah maintains that even if the fountain (that served as the source of one's Bikurim) dried up, or the tree (which provided the fruit) dies, one nevertheless brings Bikurim and reads the Parshah of Bikurim. Because, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the main source of the fruit is the land from which the tree grows.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah finds it necessary to inform us that one is not Yotze if one recites the Berachah of 'ha'Eitz' over fruits of the ground, because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion the *tree* from which Adam ate was wheat (so we see that wheat is called a tree - nevertheless, he is not Yotze with the Berachah of 'ha'Eitz'!

(c) The reason that one does not recite 'ha'Eitz' (even Bedieved) over wheat is because its branch does not remain intact throughout the winter - i.e. its fruit grows from a new branch the following year (and in order to be called a fruit - regarding the Berachah - it must belong to a species whose branches continue to give fruit the following year).

(d) Rebbi Meir say that the fruit from which Adam ate must have been grapes (Chavah squeezed grapes into a cup and gave it to Adam to drink.) The proof for this lies in the fact that it is wine that causes man to become drunk and to lose his power of reasoning. Whereas, according to Rebbi Nechemyah, it must have been figs, because they used fig leaves to cover themselves after the sin, and we can assume that the rectification of the sin came about through the same species as the one with which they sinned.
(Rebbi Yehudah claims that it was wheat, because the moment a baby starts to eat wheat bread, he begins to accumulate knowledge.)




(a) Rebbi Yossi maintains that one is not Yotze if one recites over bread 'Kamah Na'ah Pas Zeh' etc., because he holds 'Kol ha'Meshaneh mi'Matbei'a she'Tav'u Chachamim bi'Berachos, Lo Yatza Yedei Chovaso'.

(b) Rav Huna, who says that one is not Yotze one's obligation with a 'Shehakol' over bread, seems to hold like Rebbi Yossi, whilst Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that one *is*, follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir.

(c) However, that is not necessarily so, concludes the Gemara. It is possible that Rav Huna holds like Rebbi Meir, and the reason that one is Yotze according to Rebbi Meir (if he recites 'Kamah Na'ah Pas Zeh" etc., is because he did at least, mention bread, which is not the case when he recited 'Shehakol'.
And it is also possible that Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Yossi. Because the reason that one is not Yotze by Kamah Na'ah etc., is because he did not follow any fixed text as instituted by Chazal; but if he were to recite 'Shehakol' instead of 'ha'Motzi', which is an official text, Rebbi Yossi might well agree that he would be Yotze.

(a) According to Rav, one would have to add the word 'Berich *Rachmana*, Marei de'Hai Pita', in order to be Yotze with a Berachah, because according to him, a Berachah without the Name of Hashem, is not a Berachah.

(b) We must be speaking about a Berachah Rishonah, because if he was referring to the Berachah Acharonah, how could Rav say that he is Yotze with that alone, when Birchas ha'Mazon requires another two Berachos.

(c) Rav's Chidush is, that although the wording of the Berachah is not the exact translation of the official text of the Berachah, he is nevertheless Yotze.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, a Berachah requires not only the Name of Hashem, but also Malchus (i.e. 'Melech ha'Olam').

(b) Rebbi Yochanan adds the word 'u'Malchuscha' (i.e. 'mi'Lehazkir Shimcha *u'Malchuscha* Alav') to the wording of the Beraisa

(a) According to the Rabbanan, it is Chaviv (what he likes best) that takes precedence over the seven kinds.

1.Over moldy bread or sour wine one recites 'Shehakol'.
2. Mushrooms also require 'Shehakol', and not 'Adamah', because, although they do not feed from the ground, but from the air, they do grow from the ground.

(c) And that explains the Mishnah in Nedarim, which says that the Neder 'Kol Gidulei Karka Alai' includes mushrooms.

(d) We are therefore forced to change the Beraisa, which includes mushrooms in things which 'do not *grow* from the ground' ('she'Ein Gidulo min ha'Aretz') to things which do not *feed* from the ground ('she'Ein *Yoneik* Min ha'Aretz').

(a) Bishulei Kamra is dates which have been burnt by the sun whilst still attached to the palm. 'Tamrei de'Zika' are dates which the wind has blown off the tree after they ripened.

(b) In fact, if 'Novlos' in our Mishnah means Tamrei de'Zika, then they are *not* included in the things that are cursed (i.e. Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that one does not recite any Berachah over things that are cursed, refers to vinegar and locusts, but not to Novlos (although we will then need to understand why the Tana put Novlos in between 'Chometz' and 'Guvai'?).

(c) According to the second Lashon, our Mishnah cannot be speaking about Tamrei de'Zikah (i.e. Novlos has to mean 'Bushlei Kamra'), because then it would not be clear as to why one recites 'Shehakol' over them, and not 'ha'Eitz'.

(a) 'Kalin she'bi'Demai' means things which are not subject to the Dinim of Demai - meaning that when bought from an Am ha'Aretz, they do not need to be Ma'asered, because they are of so little value, that one does not suspect the Am ha'Aretz of not Ma'asering them.

(b) They only argue by Kalin she'bi'Demai, where the Mishnah uses the Lashon Novlos Temarah, but Novlos on its own, means 'Bushlei Kamra' according to everyone.

(a) Normally, Tamrei de'Zika are Hefker, and are indeed Patur from Ma'asros in any event. However, here we are speaking when the person who collected them stored them into a barn, which, because he now gives the impression that the crop is from the produce of his own field, the Rabbanan required him to Ma'aser.

(b) If Novlos (in Berachos) means Bushlei de'Kamra, then why did the Tana refer to them here as 'Novlos' and in Demai as 'Novlos Temarah'?

Next daf


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