Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Berakhot

Berakhot 37 for kids: Blessings Over Rice and Dates

ברכות ל״ז

🍚 This daf asks which blessing fits different foods: rice, millet, porridge, and bread crumbs. The sages compare these foods to bread and cooked dishes to figure out the right words to say.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Berakhot 37a in Daf QuestOpen Berakhot 37b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Berakhot 37

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Berakhot 37 in simple English

Rashi on Berakhot 37a, in English Tab translation (24)
  1. Therefore he teaches us 'anything that has' — meaning that even though all the ingredients must be from one of the five species of grain, if it is not from the five species, we do not recite 'Who creates the various kinds of nourishment' over it.
  2. Rice — [in Aramaic] called 'mil.'
  3. Millet — [in Aramaic] called 'panitz.'
  4. Like a cooked dish — the blessing that one recites over a cooked dish made from the five species of grain.
  5. One blessing abridged from the three — at the end of this chapter (44a) it is explained that this is 'al hamiḥya,' etc.
  6. And rice is not a cooked dish — since you remove it from the category of a cooked dish into a different blessing.
  7. These are cooked dishes — with regard to the blessing.
  8. Ḥilka, tergis, zariz, and arsan — these are explained in tractate Moed Katan (chapter 2, 13b).
  9. Ḥilka — wheat kernels crushed in a mortar, one unit split into two.
  10. Tergis — one unit crushed into three.
  11. Zariz — one unit crushed into four.
  12. Arsan — one unit crushed into five.
  13. Whose view is this — this baraita, which teaches that rice is like a cooked dish, follows the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.
  14. This is the established text: 'But the Rabbis hold not, and the Rabbis hold not, and it was taught...' — one should not read 'and the halakha is,' and this comment comes from Halakhot Gedolot.
  15. One who chews it — as it is, raw.
  16. He baked it and then cooked it — after baking it in an oven and making it into bread, he then cooked it again in water.
  17. That the slices remain intact — meaning they did not dissolve in the cooking.
  18. One blessing abridged from the three — namely, 'al hamiḥya ve'al hakalkalah,' which is explained at the end of this chapter (44a).
  19. Rather, is it not the Rabbis' view? — and it is taught that one recites 'Who creates the various kinds of nourishment,' which is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav and Shmuel.
  20. That it teaches 'Who creates various kinds of seeds,' etc. — this follows Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that each species gets a blessing corresponding to it, as is explained later in this chapter (40a). Accordingly, for vegetables one says 'Who creates various kinds of plants,' and for wheat, since it is a seed, one says 'Who creates various kinds of seeds.' But according to the Rabbis, both seeds and vegetables receive 'Who creates fruit of the ground,' and we do not require a blessing specific to each species.
  21. And nothing — meaning he is not obligated in the blessings of the fruits of the Land of Israel at all, but rather recites 'Who creates the many forms of life,' like anything that is not from the seven species.
  22. Dates — these are tamarim, and they are the 'honey' mentioned among the seven species, for honey drips from dates.
  23. He hurried and recited the blessing — afterward, [meaning Grace after Meals].
  24. In his name — in the name of Rabban Gamliel.
Tosafot on Berakhot 37a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. Who creates the many forms of life and their needs — This refers to things like bread and water, without which [life] is impossible, and [the blessing covers] everything that He created to sustain the life of every living creature — that is, everything in the world, for even if He had not created certain things the world could still survive without them, since they were created only for mere pleasure, like apples and similar items. The blessing concludes: Blessed is the Life of the worlds. In the Jerusalem Talmud the wording is: Blessed are You, Lord, the Life of the worlds.
  2. If the slices are intact — Some explain that this means the bread is not soaked in water enough [to dissolve], so that if one picks up a slice, it will not fall apart.
  3. Rashi explains that 'orez' [rice] is 'mil' [i.e., millet] — Some explain it as 'rizo' [rice]; and according to this latter interpretation, one would have to explain that 'dochan' [millet] is 'mil'.
  4. A conclusive refutation of Rav and Shmuel — This refutation applies with regard to rice, but with regard to millet it is not a refutation, and it is possible that the halakha follows their opinion regarding millet, so that one does not recite over it 'Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.'
  5. One who chews a wheat kernel must recite over it 'Who creates fruit of the ground' — For even with regard to wheat flour we said above that one recites 'Who creates fruit of the ground,' though Rav Naḥman disagrees because the flour has changed from its original state. However, regarding the blessing recited afterward, there is uncertainty as to what one recites: whether 'al hamichya ve'al hakalkala' [for the sustenance and nourishment], or whether it concludes with 'al ha'adama ve'al pri ha'adama' [for the earth and for the fruit of the earth] — for we do not find the blessing 'al hamichya ve'al hakalkala' except where the preceding blessing was 'Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.' Rabbeinu Tam had corrected the text in his own prayer book to read 'al ha'adama ve'al pri ha'adama,' but he later retracted this, since this combination is not found anywhere; below (Berakhot 44a) it explains the 'one blessing abridged from three,' stating that for the five species [the concluding words are] 'al ha'aretz ve'al hamichya,' and for the seven species, 'al ha'aretz ve'al haperot' — but it does not mention 'al ha'adama ve'al pri ha'adama' at all. Furthermore, since here it is stated that one who chews wheat recites 'Who creates fruit of the ground,' and it then explicitly states regarding one who grinds and bakes it into bread: if the slices are not intact, one recites beforehand 'Who creates the various kinds of nourishment' and afterward one blessing abridged from three — yet it does not state here, regarding one who merely chews wheat, that he recites afterward the abridged blessing. This shows that one who merely chews has no concluding blessing abridged from three. And the earlier statement, 'anything that is a type of grain that was not made into bread... and the Rabbis say one blessing abridged from three,' refers to a case where it was prepared like porridge, which is considered a significant act of eating; but one who chews raw wheat, since his eating is not considered as significant, does not recite afterward the abridged blessing, even though it is from the five species, but rather 'Who creates the many forms of life,' etc. However, the Ri says there is room for doubt, for perhaps the Rabbis included this case as well within 'any type of grain not made into bread... one blessing abridged from three.' It is therefore proper to be stringent and not eat roasted grains or boiled wheat except within a meal, so that Grace after Meals covers them — unless they have been well mashed, in which case they are considered like porridge [and the porridge rules apply]. And in the Jerusalem Talmud it appears that even the amoraim were uncertain about this, for it states: in the case of one who eats roasted grain, what does he recite afterward? Rabbi Yirmeya said: I have not eaten roasted grain in a day [implying uncertainty], etc.
  6. Rabban Gamliel gave Rabbi Akiva permission to recite the blessing — He thought that Rabbi Akiva would recite the full three blessings, in accordance with his own view. And if you ask: according to Rabban Gamliel, don't we hold that one does not recite zimmun over fruit? One can answer that Rabban Gamliel held that one recites three complete blessings specifically over all seven species, and when Rabbi Akiva recited the abridged one-blessing-of-three, he did so only for himself, since we hold that one does not recite zimmun over fruit, and the other people present each recited the blessing individually for himself. And if you ask: according to Rabban Gamliel, who says [one recites] three complete blessings and holds that one does recite zimmun over the seven species — if he holds that such a blessing requires a cup of wine, then they would need a cup, and so they would always need one? One can answer that it is possible that one need not actually drink from the cup of blessing. And if you ask: in any case, the one reciting the blessing, who does taste [the wine], would need to recite another blessing afterward, and so there would be no end to the matter — one can answer that where one does not drink in a fixed, substantial manner but only takes a mouthful, Rabban Gamliel agrees [no further blessing is required]; for otherwise, does Rabban Gamliel not hold anywhere that there is such a thing as 'one blessing abridged from three'? [See also Tosafot on Pesachim 105b, s.v. 'Shema minah.']
Rashi on Berakhot 37b, in English Tab translation (34)
  1. Nor a species of grain — Regarding a species of grain there is a distinction: if one made it into bread, all agree that three blessings must be recited after it.
  2. Or — Even if it is a species of grain but was not made into bread — about these two cases Rabban Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree.
  3. How did you establish it — Referring to that Tosefta mentioned above, which teaches that at the end one recites one blessing abridged from three.
  4. In accordance with Rabban Gamliel, say the latter clause of the first section — Referring to that same baraita which teaches about one who chews raw wheat kernels — that is its first clause — and in its latter clause it teaches 'the slices are not intact,' etc.
  5. Now — Even regarding porridge, Rabban Gamliel said in the later mishnah: 'or a species of grain not made into bread' — one recites after it the three blessings.
  6. The slices are not intact — Because at the start it was actual bread.
  7. Is it necessary to say — And once it has dissolved, is it worse than porridge?
  8. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis — Who say regarding porridge that one recites one blessing; and this case too, once it has dissolved, is no longer bread and is like porridge.
  9. And the halakha is — We do not read this phrase in the text.
  10. Reihuta — This is a stew cooked in a pot.
  11. Of the farmers — Village people.
  12. That they add extra flour to it — Meaning they increase the amount of flour in it.
  13. Of Mechoza — City people.
  14. Chavitza — Similar to the dish known as 'shelanik,' in which bread is crumbled into the pot.
  15. From where do I say this — That over bread crumbs the size of an olive-bulk, one recites 'Who brings forth bread.'
  16. He was — A Jew (an Israelite) was standing.
  17. And offers meal-offerings — And he gave it to the priest to offer it.
  18. He recites: Who has given us life — If he had not brought meal-offerings for a long time.
  19. He took them to eat them — The priest.
  20. And it was taught about this — Meaning, it was taught concerning the meal-offerings: the meal-offering of the pan and the meal-offering of the deep pan, which are offered after being baked.
  21. And all of them he crumbles — Meaning he breaks them before the taking of the handful, making them into pieces the size of an olive-bulk, as it is written, 'You shall break it into pieces' (Leviticus 2:6); this shows that over pieces the size of an olive-bulk one recites 'Who brings forth bread.'
  22. He crushes them — Referring to the baked meal-offerings of the pan and the deep pan, before the taking of the handful, until he restores them to their original flour form.
  23. So too — Does this tanna then disagree with the statement that one recites 'Who brings forth bread'?
  24. But wasn't it taught: One who gathered from all of them — The crumbs of the meal-offerings.
  25. An olive-bulk, etc. — Since it states that one fulfills his obligation thereby on Passover regarding the eating of matza, which is a positive commandment, as it is written, 'In the evening you shall eat matzot,' and there bread is required, as it is written concerning it 'bread of affliction' — this shows that it is considered bread, and one recites 'Who brings forth bread.' And this mishnah must necessarily follow Rabbi Yishmael's view, since it teaches 'one who gathered from all of them an olive-bulk,' implying that it deals with pieces smaller than an olive-bulk.
  26. When he kneaded them — meaning he gathered the crumbs, kneaded them together again, and baked them again. The word 'ersan' is related to the term 'arisoteichem' (your dough).
  27. And provided he ate them within the time of eating a half-loaf — meaning he must not delay from when he began eating an olive-bulk's worth until he finished eating that amount for longer than the time it takes to eat half a loaf made from eight eggs' worth of dough (that half being four eggs' worth), for this is the measure that allows the eating to combine into one unit. If he delayed longer, the eating does not combine, and it is as if he ate half an olive-bulk today and half an olive-bulk tomorrow, and there is no liability of karet for eating leaven in such a case.
  28. But if it refers to a case where he kneaded them together and 'he ate it' — the wording should have been in the singular.
  29. Rather, we are dealing here with a case where he did not knead them together, just as you say; and the reason it is taught that this is considered 'bread' is that it speaks of crumbs from a large loaf, from which some remained unsliced. But if the entire loaf was sliced, the resulting pieces smaller than an olive-bulk are not considered 'bread,' so one does not recite 'Who brings forth bread from the earth' over them, nor does one fulfill the obligation of eating matza with them on Passover.
  30. The appearance of bread — meaning the visual form or resemblance of bread.
  31. A pit in the ground — one makes a hollow in the hearth and places water and flour into it, similar to the way it is done in a pot.
  32. Kneaded with boiling water — one places flour and water into a vessel, stirs it with a ladle, and pours it onto the hearth while it is heated.
  33. Hendeka bread — dough that is baked on a skewer, continually basted with oil or with a mixture of egg and oil.
  34. Bread made for kutach (a dip) — it is not baked in an oven, but rather dried in the sun.
Tosafot on Berakhot 37b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. Chavitza dait beih perurin — Rashi explains this as a type of dish ("chalniyok"). Question: but wasn't it taught above that when the slices are not intact, one does not recite "Who brings forth bread" even though there is an olive-bulk present? The answer is that Rav Yosef explains that "the slices are intact" means there is an olive-bulk, and "the slices are not intact" means there is not an olive-bulk, and so it is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud as well. Question: how does Rav Yosef compare the crumbs of meal-offerings to the crumbs of chavitza? Answer: since they are fried in oil, they are considered as if cooked. But this is difficult, since "he gathered from all of them an olive-bulk" refers to the five species of grain, not to meal-offerings, as will be explained, and there too it does not discuss a case where they were cooked — so how can it be compared to chavitza, which is cooked? Therefore it seems that chavitza means crumbs that stick together through broth or milk, like the chavitza of dates, which stick together.
  2. Hayah omed u'makriv menachot — Rashi explains this as referring to a homeowner who donates a meal-offering, but this is a great forced reading, since "he would stand and offer" implies a priest doing the offering, and likewise the phrase "he took them to eat them" implies it refers to a priest. Rather, it seems to refer to the priest who stands to offer first in his priestly watch (mishmeret) — there were twenty-four watches, and each Sabbath a different watch would begin its service, so each watch serves only twice a year. Since they have a set, recurring time, one recites "Shehecheyanu," unlike Rashi's explanation about meal-offerings, which discusses a priest who had never before performed this offering.
  3. Leket mikulan — Rashi explains this as referring to meal-offerings, but this is not correct, for if so, how could it say "if it was leavened..."? We say (Menachot 52b) that all meal-offerings come as unleavened bread (matzah). Rather, it seems to refer to the five species of grain, and the meaning is: he gathered from all kinds of bread an olive-bulk, etc.
  4. Amar Rava vehu de'ika alav torita d'nahama — And so we hold like Rava's later statement, and we do not require that the crumbs contain a full olive-bulk, since as long as there is "the appearance of bread" (torita d'nahama), the blessing "Who brings forth bread" applies, even if they were cooked, according to Rashi's view. And the implication in the Jerusalem Talmud that "the slices are intact" refers to an olive-bulk is because typically the appearance of bread exists when there is an olive-bulk, but sometimes the appearance of bread exists even with less than an olive-bulk.
  5. Torita d'nahama — It appears this means: when one puts the crumbs into water, and if the water becomes whitened because of the crumbs, then the appearance of bread is gone. Rabbeinu David of Metz used to whiten crumbs in water at night in order to eat them in the morning without reciting "Who brings forth bread" or Grace after Meals, so as not to delay, so that his head would be clear and he could teach the halakha.
  6. Lechem ha'asui lekhutach patur min hachallah — This refers to when one makes it like "lemudim," which Rashi explains as dough dried in the sun. But this is difficult, since we learn in tractate Challah (chapter 1, mishnah 5) that anything whose beginning is dough and whose end is sofganin (a pastry-type food) is obligated in challah, and anything whose beginning is sofganin and whose end is dough is also obligated in challah, while anything whose beginning is sofganin and whose end is also sofganin is exempt from challah. Rabbeinu Tam ruled accordingly that for "niveilish" and "rishulash" (types of dough foods), since their beginning is dough, one recites "Who brings forth bread" over them and they are obligated in challah, even though their end is sofganin. Initially Rabbeinu Tam meant to say that they are obligated specifically in challah, since the mitzva of challah applies while it is still dough, as it is written "your dough" (arisoteichem), and since it was initially dough it is obligated in challah — but regarding "Who brings forth bread" they would be exempt, since now they are sofganin. But this does not seem correct, for above it was taught that regarding a meal-offering, "he took them to eat them" — one recites "Who brings forth bread," even though they are now sofganin, since the meal-offerings are fried in oil. And "rimshaish" (a similar food), even though obligated in challah since they were initially dough, are exempt from "Who brings forth bread," and one recites over them only "Who creates the various kinds of nourishment," since they lack the appearance of bread, followed by the "me'ein shalosh" blessing of "al hamichyah ve'al hakalkalah." Rabbi Yechiel, of blessed memory, was uncertain whether "vereshaish" are obligated in challah, due to the principle that one who divides his dough into small pieces in order to split it is exempt from challah, since it lacks the required measure — here too with "vereshaish," sometimes people divide them so that the measure of challah is not placed in one pot together. Nevertheless, he required that challah be taken without a blessing, due to the doubt. And anything whose beginning is sofganin and whose end is dough is obligated both in challah and in "Who brings forth bread," as we hold in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan in the chapter Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 37a), where Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about the case of the dish made in a pan (ma'aseh ilfas). They disagree about a loose batter — meaning its beginning is sofganin and its end is dough — as to whether it must be baked in an oven, on a stovetop, or in a pan without added water and oil to be obligated. Reish Lakish holds it is obligated only when baked in an oven, and the mishnah's ruling that "beginning sofganin, end dough" is obligated in challah refers to that case, but in a pan it would be exempt. Rabbi Yochanan, however, obligates it even in a pan, since once its end is dough it is called dough — provided there is no liquid in the pan — as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud: anything with fire directly under it is obligated in challah and one recites "Who brings forth bread" over it, but "anilish" (a thinner batter) does not get the blessing "Who brings forth bread," since it is merely a kneaded mixture. However, if one establishes his meal upon it, such as on Purim, one recites "Who brings forth bread." And anything whose beginning is sofganin and whose end is also sofganin, such as these sofganin fried in oil called "bunish," is exempt from challah.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Berachot, Brachos, Berachos, Brachot 37.