Previous Folio / Berakoth Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth
We are told therefore, 'anything containing an ingredient etc.'. If again I had only the statement, anything containing an ingredient etc.', I might think that this applies to the five species [of cereals], but not to rice and millet when they are mixed with other things; but when they are distinguishable the blessing even over rice and millet is 'who createst various kinds of foods'. So we are told that over anything which is made of the five species we say 'who createst various kinds of foods', excluding rice and millet, over which we do not say 'who createst various kinds of foods' even when they are distinguishable.
And over rice and millet do we not say, 'who createst various kinds of foods'? Has it not been taught: If one is served with rice bread or millet bread, he says blessings before and after it as for a cooked dish [of the five species]; and with regard to cooked dishes, it has been taught: He says before partaking, 'Who createst various kinds of foods', and after it, he says one blessing which includes three?1 — It is on a par with cooked dishes in one way and not in another. It resembles cooked dishes in requiring a benediction before and after, and it differs from cooked dishes, because the blessing before these is 'who createst various kinds of foods' and the blessing after is the one which includes three, whereas in this case the blessing before is 'by whose word all things exist', and the blessing after. 'Who createst many living beings with their wants, for all which He has created etc.'2
But is not rice a 'cooked dish'?3 Has it not been taught: The following count as cooked dishes: spelt groats, wheat groats, fine flour, split grain, barley groats, and rice? Whose opinion is this?4 That of R. Johanan b. Nuri; for it has been taught: R. Johanan b. Nuri says: Rice is a kind of corn, and when leavened it can entail the penalty of kareth,5 and it can be used to fulfil the obligation of [eating unleavened bread on] Passover.6 The Rabbis, however, do not admit this.4 But do not the Rabbis admit this? Has it not been taught: If one chews wheat, he says over it the benediction, 'who createst the fruit of the ground'. If he grinds and bakes it and then soaks it [in liquid], so long as the pieces are still whole7 he says before [partaking the blessing], 'who bringest forth bread from the earth' 'and after, the grace of three blessings;8 if the pieces are no longer whole, he says before partaking 'that createst various kinds of foods', and after it one blessing that includes three.8 If one chews rice, he says before partaking 'who createst the fruit of the ground'. If he grinds and bakes it and then soaks it, even if the pieces are still whole, he says before partaking who createst various kinds of foods', and after it the one blessing which includes three? Now whose opinion is this? Shall I say it is R. Johanan b. Nuri's? But he said that rice is a kind of corn, and therefore [according to him] the blessing should be 'who bringest forth food from the earth' and the grace the one of three blessings! It must therefore be the Rabbis'; and this is a refutation of Rab and Samuel, is it not? — It is a refutation.
The Master said [above]: 'If one chews wheat 'he says over it the blessing, "who createst the fruit of the ground"'. But it has been taught: 'Who createst various kinds of seeds'? There is no contradiction: one statement represents the view of R. Judah,9 the other that of the Rabbis, as we have learnt: Over vegetables one says, 'who createst the fruit of the ground'; R. Judah. however, says: 'Who createst various kinds of herbs'.
The Master said [above]: 'If one chews rice he says over it "Who createst the fruit of the ground". If he grinds and bakes it and then soaks it, even if the pieces are still whole, he says before it, "Who createst the various kinds of foods", and after it one blessing which includes three'. But it has been taught: After it he need not say any blessing at all?10 — R. Shesheth replied: There is no contradiction: the one statement expresses the view of R. Gamaliel, the other that of the Rabbis, as it has been taught: This is the general rule: after partaking of anything that belongs to the seven species,11 R. Gamaliel says that three blessings should be said, while the Rabbis say, one that includes three. Once R. Gamaliel and the elders were reclining in an upper chamber in Jericho, and dates12 were brought in and they ate, and R. Gamaliel gave permission to R. Akiba to say grace. and R. Akiba said quickly the one blessing which includes three. Said R. Gamaliel to him: Akiba, how long will you poke your head into quarrels?13 He replied: Master, although you say this way and your colleagues say the other way, you have taught us, master, that where an individual joins issue with the majority, the halachah is determined by the majority. R. Judah said in his [R. Gamaliel's] name:14 [After partaking of] any food from the seven species
, not being a kind of corn or which belongs to one of the kinds of corn but has not been made into bread, R. Gamaliel says that three blessings are to be said, while the Sages say, only one blessing [which includes three]. [After] anything which belongs neither to the seven species nor to any kind of corn, for instance bread of rice or millet, R. Gamaliel says that one blessing which includes three is to be said, while the Sages say, no grace at all. To which authority do you then assign this statement?1 To R. Gamaliel. Look now at the latter half of the first statement2 viz., 'if the pieces are no longer whole, he says before partaking "who createst various kinds of foods", and after partaking one blessing which includes three'. Whose view does this express? Shall I say that of R. Gamaliel? Seeing that R. Gamaliel requires a grace of three blessings after dates and pounded grain,3 is there any question that he should require it if the pieces are no longer whole?4 Hence, obviously, it must be the view of the Rabbis.5 If that is the case, there is a contradiction between two statements of the Rabbis?6 — No; I still say, it is the view of the Rabbis; and in connection with rice you should read, 'after partaking he does not say any blessing'.
Raba said: Over the rihata7 of the field workers, in which there is a large quantity of flour, the blessing said is 'who createst various kinds of foods'. What is the reason? The flour is the main ingredient. Over the rihata of the townspeople in which there is not so much flour, the blessing said is 'by whose word all things exist'. What is the reason? The main ingredient is the honey. Raba, however, corrected himself and said: Over both the blessing is 'who createst various kinds of foods'. For Rab and Samuel both laid down that over anything containing one of the five species as an ingredient, the blessing to be said is 'who createst various kinds of foods'.
R. Joseph said: If in a habiz there are pieces of bread8 as big as an olive, the blessing said before it is 'who bringest forth bread from the earth', and after it a grace of three blessings is said. If there are no pieces as big as an olive in it, the blessing said before it is 'who createst various kinds of foods', and after it one blessing which includes three. Said R. Joseph: Whence do I derive this? Because it has been taught: If one9 is in the act of offering meal-offerings in Jerusalem, he says, 'Blessed be He that hath kept us alive and preserved us and brought us to this season'. When he10 takes them up in order to eat them, he says the blessing, 'Who bringest forth bread from the earth', and it was taught in this connection. They are all11 broken into fragments of the size of an olive.12 Said Abaye to him: If that is so, then similarly according to the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael who says that he crushes them until he reduces them to flour, he should not require to say who bringest forth bread from the earth'? And should you reply that that is indeed the case, has it not been taught: If he scraped together as much as an olive from all of them13 and ate [all of] it, if it is leaven he is punished with kareth,14 and if it is unleaven a man may perform his obligation with it on Passover?15 — With what case are we dealing here?16 If he re-kneaded the crumbs.17 If so, look at the next clause: This is only if he ate them within the time which it takes to eat half [a roll].18 Now if they are re-kneaded, instead of saying 'to eat them', it should say, 'to eat it'? [Rather] with what case are we here dealing? When it comes from a large loaf.19 Now what do we decide upon this matter? R. Shesheth said: If the crumbs of bread in a habiz are even less than an olive, the benediction 'who bringest forth bread from the earth' is said over it. Raba added: This is only if they still have the appearance of bread.
Troknin20 is subject to the law of hallah. When Rabin came, he said in the name of R. Johanan: Troknin is not subject to the law of hallah. What is Troknin? — Abaye said: [Dough baked] in a cavity made in the ground.
Abaye also said: Tarita is exempt from the obligation of hallah. What is tarita? — Some say, dough just lightly baked;21 others say, bread baked on a spit;22 others again, bread used for kuttah.23 R. Hiyya said: Bread used for kuttah is not liable to hallah. But it has been taught that it is liable for hallah? — There the reason is stated: Rab Judah says that the way it is made shows what it is; if it is made
- To Next Folio -