Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Berakhot

Berakhot 41 for kids: Dates and Pomegranates

ברכות מ״א

🍯 This daf teaches which blessing to say first when many foods are on the table. The Gemara uses a Torah verse listing Israel's seven special fruits to decide the order, and also asks which blessings are needed for fruit eaten during a meal.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Berakhot 41a in Daf QuestOpen Berakhot 41b 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 41

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Berakhot 41 in simple English

Rashi on Berakhot 41a, in English Tab translation (21)
  1. Granted, according to the one who said: the novelot in [the mishna of] Demai are dates fallen because of the wind, and the novelot in our mishna [in Berakhot] we explained as dates scorched by the sun — this is why there [in Demai] it calls them 'novelot temara,' while in our mishna it teaches 'novelot' unmodified.
  2. 'When their blessings are the same' — for example, olives and apples, both of which require the blessing 'Who creates fruit of the tree,' and he intends to exempt both with a single blessing.
  3. 'The preferred one takes precedence' — meaning whichever he wants; this is the implication of the mishna, that one blesses over whichever food he finds most desirable.
  4. 'However, when their blessings are not the same, all agree' — that one blessing does not exempt both, so there is no longer any dispute here. And although we learned earlier (Berakhot 40a) that if one recited 'Who creates fruit of the ground' over fruit of a tree he has fulfilled his obligation — that applies only to a single species over which he mistakenly recited that blessing. But with a radish and an olive, if he blessed over the radish, the olive is not exempted.
  5. We do not read the word 'obviously' until 'they raised an objection,' for it is not the style of the Gemara to first raise the difficulty that something is obvious and unnecessary to state, and then ask how it could be stated. Moreover, it is not obvious at all: had Ulla not taught us this, we would have thought the radish exempts the olive, since we learned that if one recited 'Who creates fruit of the ground' over fruit of a tree, he has fulfilled his obligation.
  6. 'That the radish was primary' — meaning he began the meal for its sake, and ate the olive only to counteract the sharpness of the radish, making the olive secondary. And we learned (Berakhot 44a): whenever there is a primary food accompanied by a secondary one, one blesses over the primary food and thereby exempts the secondary food.
  7. 'He blesses over this one, etc.' — and here [in this case] they did not disagree.
  8. 'And two species in general' — such as an olive and an apple, whose blessings are identical, with one of them being from the seven species — this is the point of their dispute.
  9. 'One said: the dispute is when their blessings are identical' — as we have explained.
  10. This is the correct reading: 'And one said: even when their blessings are not identical, there is also a dispute' — and the Gemara proceeds to explain this.
  11. 'About what do they disagree' — for certainly in this case they cannot both be exempted with a single blessing.
  12. 'Rabbi Yirmeya said: They disagree about which blessing takes precedence' — and we do not read 'but when their blessings are identical, he blesses over whichever he wants,' for now that even when the blessings are not identical Rabbi Yehuda insists on the order and says a species of the seven takes precedence, all the more so [would he insist on this] when it comes to exempting one food via the other [i.e., when the blessings are identical].
  13. 'As Rabbi Yitzchak said, etc.' — this shows that we are particular about order of precedence, and Rabbi Yehuda follows Rabbi Yitzchak's view; therefore all the more so when one food is not from the seven species, the one that is takes precedence. But the Rabbis do not accept Rabbi Yitzchak's view where there is a preferred food, holding instead that the preferred one takes precedence.
  14. 'And this disagrees with Rabbi Chanan' — this statement of Rabbi Yitzchak, that the food mentioned first in the verse takes precedence for the blessing, implies that the verse came to praise the Land of Israel for having these distinguished fruits, listing them in order of importance. This disagrees with Rabbi Chanan, who said the verse did not come to convey the praise or importance of the fruits by their taste, but rather to praise the Land of Israel for having fruits by which measures of Torah law are determined. Since that is so, the verse was not particular about their order, for in that respect they are all equal.
  15. 'In the house afflicted with leprosy' — it is written, 'And he who comes into the house shall be impure until evening' (Leviticus 14:47), without mentioning the laundering of garments; and separately, 'And he who eats in the house shall launder his garments' (ibid.), which requires remaining for the duration of a meal, even if he does not actually eat, since it is written afterward, 'and he who lies down in the house shall launder his garments.' Therefore, one who enters carrying his garments with him, not in the normal manner of wearing them, these are not considered 'his garments,' and he becomes impure immediately, since I apply to them too the verse 'and he who comes into the house.' But when he is wearing them normally, he requires a waiting period.
  16. 'The eating of a peras' — half a loaf; the Sages used this to measure the eiruv, which in full is the food for two meals, so half of it is the food for one meal.
  17. 'Wheat bread' — is eaten quickly.
  18. 'Reclining' — in the manner of reclining, bread is eaten quickly, since one does not turn this way and that.
  19. 'And it does not impart impurity through a tent' — this is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
  20. 'The measure of a quarter-log of wine for a nazirite' — if he ate grape seeds, skins, and tendrils equal to the measure of a quarter-log of wine, he is liable. The measure of a quarter-log of wine and a quarter-log of water are not equal, because wine is thick and water is thin, so a quarter-log of wine contains more substance than a quarter-log of water, as we say (Shabbat 77a) regarding a quarter-log of blood, which can congeal and amount to the volume of an olive-bulk because it is thick; but something thin does not have the volume of an olive-bulk within its quarter-log.
  21. 'For the measure of carrying out on Shabbat' — as we learned: one who carries out food is liable for the volume of a dried fig (Shabbat 76b), which is a dried fig.
Tosafot on Berakhot 41a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. However, when their blessings are not equal — Rashi explains this refers to a case like radish and olive, and then there is no longer any dispute, since one does not exempt the other; even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that the seven species have no precedence in such a case, but rather one blesses over whichever he prefers first, and then blesses over the other. Similarly, one should explain that Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis, since the Gemara did not explain otherwise — it is better to say that the individual (Rabbi Yehuda) concedes to the majority (the Rabbis) than that the majority concedes to the individual. Rashi raised a difficulty: let him bless over the radish and thereby exempt the olive, since we learned above that if one blessed 'Who creates the fruit of the ground' over tree fruits, he has fulfilled his obligation. He answered that there it is different, because there is only one species present and he erred in blessing 'Who creates the fruit of the ground'; but here, when he blesses 'Who creates the fruit of the ground' over the radish, he does not exempt the other item, which requires 'Who creates the fruit of the tree,' even after the fact. One might ask: didn't we say above (Berakhot 39a), regarding the incident with bar Kappara, that the blessing 'Who creates the fruit of the ground' is greater than 'shehakol' because it is more specific? If so, 'Who creates the fruit of the tree' should likewise be greater than 'Who creates the fruit of the ground.' The answer is that 'Who creates the fruit of the tree' is not as much greater than 'Who creates the fruit of the ground' as 'Who creates the fruit of the ground' is greater than 'shehakol.' And what is written in Halakhot Gedolot, that 'Who creates the fruit of the tree' precedes 'Who creates the fruit of the ground' because it is more specific, follows the conclusion below, where they disagree in a case where the blessings are not equal, and we rule like Rabbi Yehuda. But according to this version, which holds that they do not disagree when the blessings are not equal, the ruling of Halakhot Gedolot cannot be sustained, as explained above.
  2. They raised an objection: If a radish and an olive were before him, he blesses over the radish, etc. — The Gemara asks: this shows that one blesses 'Who creates the fruit of the ground' even to exempt 'Who creates the fruit of the tree,' even regarding an olive, which is one of the seven species; all the more so parched grain, which is also one of the seven species, should be exempted by blessing 'Who creates the fruit of the ground' over it, thereby exempting apples as well. Therefore, one must follow the approach explained above in cases where the blessings are not equal, such as apples and parched grain.
  3. With what do they disagree? — That is, what is Rabbi Yehuda's reasoning that the seven species take precedence? What kind of precedence applies to them, since they cannot exempt other species from a blessing? The Gemara answers that the precedence relates to which blessing is recited first.
  4. Rabbi Yirmeya said: precedence, as Rav Yosef said, etc. — Rashi explains that according to this version, Rav Yosef's statement that 'whichever is mentioned first [in the verse] takes precedence' applies specifically according to Rabbi Yehuda. However, Rabbi Shemaya's version reads simply 'Rav Yosef said, etc.,' and this applies according to the Rabbis, referring to a case where the foods are not more beloved than one another, so that we follow the order in the verse — for if one were more beloved, obviously the beloved one would take precedence, since even regarding other species compared to the seven species, the Rabbis say one blesses over whichever he wishes. Thus Rav Yosef's statement would stand as an independent teaching. But this is not convincing, since later on it is implied that the text reads 'Rav Yosef said' applying specifically according to Rabbi Yehuda, as in the incident where Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna were sitting at a meal, and one said to the other: Does the Master not hold of Rav Yosef's teaching that whichever is mentioned first takes precedence?
  5. A grapevine — the measure is a quarter-log of wine, etc. — Meaning, if one ate leaves or tendrils equal to a quarter-log of wine, he is liable; but if he ate an amount equal to a quarter-log of water, he is not liable, because water is thin and flows out easily from the vessel. But when measuring by wine, a larger quantity is required, since wine is thick and some accumulates above the rim before a quarter-log actually spills from the cup, whereas with water, more than a quarter-log would spill out.
  6. Vessels of homeowners — This is taught with reference to wooden vessels.
Rashi on Berakhot 41b, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. Their measure is pomegranates — If a basket was punctured with a hole the size through which a pomegranate could pass, it becomes pure (loses its status as a vessel). Homeowners are particular about their vessels; therefore if punctured with a hole the size of legumes, one puts it away for olives; if punctured with a hole the size of an olive, one uses it for nuts; if punctured with a hole the size of a nut, one uses it for pomegranates. But a craftsman's basket, meant for sale, is not judged by this standard.
  2. Most of its measures — This refers to the measures for eating forbidden fat, blood, notar (leftover sacrificial meat), and piggul (an invalidated offering), which are all olive-sized.
  3. Honey — That mentioned in the Torah is date honey, and a 'kotevet' is a date.
  4. This is second to 'land' — Since the verse 'a land of olive oil and honey' places the word 'land' in the middle, breaking the order and then returning to list olives and dates, this shows that olives and dates are considered more significant than figs and pomegranates. For the pomegranate is fifth counting from the word 'land' at the start of the verse, while the honey (date) is second counting from the word 'land' at the end.
  5. Who will give us iron legs — meaning legs made of iron.
  6. That we may hear you — that we may serve you and follow you always.
  7. They brought before them figs and grapes during the meal — This means not as a relish eaten together with the bread, for if so they would be secondary to the bread, and there would be no dispute that they require no blessing at all, neither before nor after. Rather, this refers to a case where one occasionally wishes to sweeten his mouth with fruit during the meal.
  8. He recites a blessing before eating them — since they are not secondary to the bread.
  9. And not after eating them — since Grace after Meals exempts them.
  10. Both before and after eating them — for Grace after Meals exempts only something that is sustaining, and these (figs and grapes) are not sustaining.
  11. Bread that comes as a sweetened pastry — this refers to after eating, that is, after Grace after Meals. It was customary to bring 'kisnin,' roasted grains, since they are beneficial for the heart, as stated elsewhere (Eruvin 29b): 'those roasted grains which are good for the heart.' Together with them they would bring bread kneaded with spices, similar to our 'oblias' (a kind of cake). Some shape them like birds and trees and eat only a small amount of them. Since much spice, nuts, and almonds are added and the amount eaten is small, the Sages did not obligate a full Grace after Meals for it, but only the threefold blessing, just as with rice bread or millet bread, about which it is stated in this chapter (37b): first one recites 'who creates various kinds of nourishment,' and afterward nothing.
  12. Bread exempts — both the foods eaten before it and after it.
  13. Foods that come due to the meal — meaning, to be eaten together with the bread as a relish.
  14. Do not require a blessing — since they are secondary to the bread; therefore anything, whether food or fruit, brought to be eaten as a relish with the bread, requires no blessing either before or after it.
  15. Not due to the meal, [eaten] during the meal — such as porridge, cabbage, or chard, which are not eaten as a relish but for nourishment and satiety.
  16. Require a blessing before them — since they are not secondary to the bread and are not included within the category of bread, which is exempted by the blessing of 'Hamotzi.'
  17. And not after them — since they are types of food, and Grace after Meals exempts them.
  18. Foods that usually come after the meal — such as fruits, even if brought during the meal, not for the purpose of being eaten as a relish.
  19. Require a blessing both before them — since they are not secondary.
  20. And after them — since Grace after Meals does not exempt them, as they are not considered sustaining foods.
Tosafot on Berakhot 41b, in English Tab translation (9)
  1. They brought before them dates and pomegranates — meaning not to eat them as a relish with the bread, for if so, the bread would be primary and they secondary, and we learned (44a) that one recites a blessing over the primary food and thereby exempts the secondary food.
  2. This is second to 'land' — In any case, wherever there is wheat and olive, or barley and dates, even though they are equally [distant] from 'land,' nevertheless the one mentioned earlier in the verse — that is, closer to the first mention of 'land' — takes precedence for the blessing.
  3. They brought before them figs and grapes during the meal — this refers to a case where they do not come as a relish for the bread, but rather as dessert at the end of the meal.
  4. Except for pastry that comes as dessert — which requires a blessing before eating it but not after, only 'who creates many souls,' just as with rice and millet, about which we said above (37b) that one first blesses 'by whose word all things came to be' and afterward nothing, since they put many almonds into it. Rashi explained this applies even if one ate it after Grace after Meals, but this is not correct — both because we said above that anything containing one of the five grains requires the threefold blessing, and also, why mention pastry specifically and not rice and millet too? Rather, it must mean during the meal, before Grace after Meals, which is the context being discussed, meaning: except for pastry eaten as dessert during the meal before Grace after Meals, which does not require a blessing after it, because Grace after Meals exempts it — even according to Rav Sheshet — since it is a small amount; but eaten without a meal, it requires the threefold blessing afterward as well. This is why bread, rice, and millet were not mentioned, since even without a meal they do not require the threefold blessing afterward.
  5. We do not rule like Rav Sheshet — but like Rav Huna and Rav Nachman, since the halakha does not follow an individual opinion against the majority. This is the correct reading of the text.
  6. And wine exempts all types of drinks — At first glance this refers to wine without a meal, for if it were with bread, one could simply say bread exempts it, as the Gemara will soon say that even wine would be exempt were it not for the reason that it causes its own blessing. Rather, it refers to wine without a meal, and even so it exempts other drinks — yet the halakha does not follow this, for since the ruling that 'bread exempts' [stated by Rabbi Chiyya] is not followed, but rather Rav Pappa's ruling is followed, so too this statement that 'wine exempts' is not followed as halakha.
  7. The halakha is that items that come during the meal on account of the meal — Rashi explained this as items eaten as a relish with bread, which do not require a blessing because they are secondary. This is not correct, for if so, it would merely restate the Mishnah (44a) that one blesses over the primary food and exempts the secondary — what would it be teaching? Also, the Gemara's subsequent question, 'let bread exempt wine too,' would make no sense, since when drinking wine it is not secondary to bread, and we are discussing things secondary to bread. Nor can one say, following Rashi, that 'let bread exempt wine' refers to dipping bread in wine, making the wine secondary, for we find no such blessing practice; it must refer to drinking. There is also a difficulty with Rashi's explanation that items not coming on account of the meal, such as porridge, beets, and cabbage — which are not relishes but come to satisfy hunger — require a blessing before them since they are not secondary, yet are exempt from Grace after Meals since they are food. This is not correct, for the Mishnah states that blessing over bread exempts the appetizer, and the Gemara explains this applies likewise to any cooked dish and to things that usually come after the meal — Rashi there explained this as fruit — and even if brought during the meal, not as a relish, they require a blessing both before (since not secondary) and after (since Grace after Meals, not being 'food,' does not exempt them) — this follows Rav Sheshet's opinion above (that figs and pomegranates brought during the meal require a blessing before and after), which is not the accepted halakha, since we rule like Rav Nachman and Rav Huna, as explained above. Therefore the Ri explained: 'items that come on account of the meal, during the meal' means things customarily eaten together with bread on account of the meal, such as meat, fish, and cooked dishes — when brought during the meal they require no blessing before or after, even if eaten by themselves without bread, since, coming on account of bread, bread exempts them. But items not usually brought during the meal, such as dates, pomegranates, and other fruits not eaten as a relish with bread, require a blessing before them, since, not coming for the sake of a relish, bread does not exempt them — this matches Rav Nachman and Rav Huna above, who said such items require a blessing before but not after.
  8. We read 'after the meal' and no more — and we do not read the words 'items that come' in this latter clause. The meaning is: if the mentioned items were brought after the meal, i.e., after the diners withdrew their hands from the bread, bread no longer exempts them at all, and it is as though they ate them without any meal at all — both items that usually come on account of the meal and those that do not require a blessing before and after, since this refers back to all the previously mentioned items. Nowadays, however, this law does not apply to us, since it is not our custom to withdraw our hands from bread at all until after Grace after Meals; rather, whenever we eat fruit or anything else before Grace after Meals, we still intend to continue eating bread, and we follow Rav Pappa's ruling.
  9. If so, let bread exempt wine as well — for certainly wine comes on account of the meal, since one drinks it multiple times, and were it not for the meal he would not drink it, so bread should exempt it. The Gemara answers that wine is different since it causes its own blessing. Rashi explained that in many contexts wine is brought and blessed even when drinking is not otherwise needed, such as at Kiddush or the betrothal blessing. The Rashba explained it is because one must bless wine with 'who creates the fruit of the vine' (and, when still grapes, 'who creates the fruit of the tree'), while other drinks are blessed with 'by whose word all things came to be.' However, Rabbeinu Tam says that for other drinks, such as water and beer that come on account of the meal, bread does exempt them, for even wine would be exempt were it not that it causes its own blessing — unlike the Machzor Vitry, which wrote that one blesses water anew each time, even during the meal, as though reconsidering. The Gemara does not raise this difficulty regarding water because wine is nourishing while water is not, as stated above (35a) regarding one who vows against 'food' — and obviously bread does not exempt them, since they are not included in the blessing over bread. However, the Ri and Rabbeinu Tam held that one should not bless at all over other drinks brought during the meal, since bread exempts everything that comes for its sake; and wine exempts all other drinks because it is the primary drink, foremost among all drinks, and so it is primary and they are secondary to it regarding blessing. Thus drinks that come on account of the meal, for the sake of the bread, to moisten the food — since eating is impossible without drinking — are exempted by bread, except for wine, as the Gemara's reasoning states. According to this, it explains why on Passover we bless only 'romaine lettuce' for eating maror, though people ask why we don't bless 'who creates the fruit of the ground' twice — since that blessing for other vegetables does not exempt, as stated there that because of the intervening Haggadah and Hallel one's attention is diverted — but in truth the reason is that since the Torah made it obligatory, as it is written 'they shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,' it is treated like items that regularly come on account of the meal, which bread exempts.

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 41.