1)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses Birchos ha'Nehenin (the Brachah Rishonah over food). The B'rachah one recite over the fruit of...

1. ... a tree is - 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz'.

2. ... the ground is - 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah'.

(b)The sole exception to ...

1. ... the former is - wine.

2. ... the latter is - bread ...

(c)... due to their importance.

2)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' over Yerakos (greens). Rebbi Yehudah says - 'Borei Miynei Desha'im (herbs).

(b)According to him, one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' over - legumes.

(c)He differentiates between them - because in his opinion, every collective species of food requires its own B'rachah.

3)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the double plural form of the word "Hillulim" in the Pasuk in Kedoshim (in connection with Neta R'vai (fruit of the fourth year) "Kodesh Hillulim la'Hashem" - that one should recite a B'rachah both before and after eating.

(b)Rebbi Akiva extrapolates from there - that one is forbidden to eat something before having recited a B'rachah.

(c)We query the Beraisa however, on the grounds that "Hilulim" is needed to each us two other things; one of them is 'Achleih (with a 'Ches') ve'Hadar Achleih' (with a 'Chaf'), which means - 'Redeem it And then eat it'.

(d)We learn the first 'Achleih' from "Hilulim" - by virtue of the fact that a 'Ches' and a 'Hey' are interchangeable.

4)

(a)The second Limud teaches us that the Din of R'vai is confined to something over which one sings Shirah (in the Beis-ha'Mikdash) - wine.

(b)We learn it from there - because 'Hillul' is also an expression of Shirah.

(c)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Vatomar lahem ha'Gefen 'he'Chadalti es Tiroshi ha'Mesamei'ach Elokim va'Anahim' " - that the Levi'im sing Shirah in the Beis-ha'Mikdash over wine.

(d)He learns it from there - because otherwise, how does wine make Hash-m happy (Kevayachol)?

(e)We conclude that the Kashya on the Beraisa only applies to the text which refers to the Isur as 'Kerem R'vai'. It will fall away according to the text that refers to it as 'Neta R'vai' - which implies that the Isur is not confined to vines, in which case "Kodesh Hilulim" is open to the initial Limud (with regard to the obligation to recite a B'rachah both before and after eating).

5)

(a)The two texts constitute a Machlokes between Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi. We might learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Lehosif lachem Tevu'aso" (written in Kedoshim in connection with Kerem R'vai) from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with Kil'ayim) "u'Tevu'as ha'Kerem" - that 'R'vai is confined to a vineyard.

(b)This too, will answer the Kashya on the Beraisa - since we will then be able to learn the B'rachah after eating from "Hilulim".

(c)Assuming that the text reads 'Kerem R'vai', what still remains difficult if we ...

1. ... learn the Gezeirah-Shavah is - the B'rachah before eating (See Tosfos DH 'Teinach ... ').

2. ... don't learn it is - both the B'rachah before eating and the B'rachah afterwards.

(d)According to the former Kashya, we can learn the B'rachah before eating - via a Kal va'Chomer from the B'rachah afterwards (If one recites a B'rachah when one is satisfied, how much more so when one is hungry [See Tosfos DH 'Lefanav']).

6)

(a)We initially suggest that we learn the obligation to recite a B'rachah by other foods via a Mah Matzinu from the fruit of a vineyard - from the fact that just like the fruit of a vineyard, one derives benefit from them.

(b)We refute this suggestion however - because the fruit of a vineyard (wine) is different inasmuch as, unlike other foods, it is subject to Ol'los

(c)We cannot learn it from produce (bread, by which the Torah writes "ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ta u'Verachta") either - since unlike other foods, bread is subject to Chalah.

(d)So we learn it from a Tzad ha'Shaveh from the fruit of the vine and bread - both of which, like other foods, give benefit.

(e)We refute the Tzad ha'Shaveh too - inasmuch as both wine and wheat-flour go on the Mizbe'ach.

7)

(a)The one tree whose food we can learn from the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' of wine and bread is - olives (since olive-oil too goes on the Mizbe'ach).

(b)We query the need to learn olives from the Tzad ha'Shaveh however, based on the Pasuk in Shoftim (in connection with Shimshon) "Vayav'er mi'Gadish ve'ad Kamah ve'ad Kerem Zayis" - which indicates that "Kerem" per se includes the olive-tree.

(c)Rav Papa answers this Kashya - by differentiating between "Kerem" (which does not incorporate olive-trees) and "Kerem Zayis" (which does).

8)

(a)Left with the Kashya of 'Tzad Mizbe'ach', we try to learn a B'rachah by other food from the (Shiv'as ha'Minim) seven species ha'Minim require a B'rachah Achronah from the Pasuk that we quoted a little earlier (ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ta u'Veirachta ... ", which also pertains to them.

(b)The problem with learning other foods from them is - that if they cover other seeds that are planted, how can they also cover foods such as mea, eggs and fish, which are not planted.

(c)We reiterate the fact that can learn the B'rachah Rishonah from the B'rachah Acharonah with a Kal va'Chomer. We also ask, even according to the opinion that holds 'Neta R'vai' - how we can we have with learning all other foods (such as meat, eggs and fish) which do not grow from the ground, from grapes.

9)

(a)When we conclude that reciting a B'rachah is a S'vara (See Tosfos DH 'Ela S'vara hHu'), we mean is - that the prohibition against benefitting from this world without a B'rachah is logical (See Tosfos DH 'Ela S'vara hHu').

(b)The Beraisa says that someone who benefits from this world without a B'rachah - is guilty of Me'ilah (abusing Hekdesh).

(c)The problem we have with the suggestion that one can rectify this by going to a Chacham is - since the sin has already been performed, what will one achieve by going to a Chacham?

(d)Rava therefore amends the Tana's statement 'Yeilech Eitzel Chacham' - to read that he should go to a Chacham beforehand, in order to learn the B'rachos and refrain from sinning.

10)

(a)In similar vein to the Beraisa that we just learned, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel learn from the Pasuk in Tehilim "la'Hashem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah" - that anyone who benefits from this world without reciting a B'rachah is as if he has benfitted from Kodshei Shamayim.

(b)Rebbi Levi deals with the apparent contradiction between the aforementioned Pasuk and the Pasuk there "ha'Shamayim Shamayim la'Hashem ve'Aretz Nasan li'V'nei Adam" - by establishing the former before one has recited a B'rachah and the latter after (See Tosfos, Amud Beis, DH 'Ka'n le'Achar B'rachah').

(c)Rav Chanina bar Papa cites the Pasuk in Mishlei "Gozel Aviv - (Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu) ve'Imo - (Keneses Yisrael) ve'Omar Ein Pesha, Chaver He le'Ish Mashchis".

(d)Based on this Pasuk, he says that someone who benefits from this world without a B'rachah - is guilty of stealing from Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu and Keneses Yisrael.

(e)He has stolen the B'rachah from Hash-m - and a good harvest from Yisrael (since B'rachos result in a good harvest).

11)

(a)In connection with the previous question, Rebbi Chanina bar Papa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Ha'azinu "ha'Lo Hu Avichah Kanecha" - that Hash-m is referred to as 'our Father'.

2. ... in Mishlei "Sh'ma B'ni Musar Avicha ve'Al Titosh Toras Imecha" - that K'lal Yisrael is referred to as 'our mother'.

(b)In the earlier Pasuk in Mishlei, "Ish Mashchis" refers to -Yerav'am ben N'vat.

(c)And Rebbi Chanina bar Papa therefore explains the Pasuk to mean - that someone who benefits from this world without reciting a B'rachah is a partner of Yerav'am ben N'vat ...

(d)... because like Yerav'am, he sins and causes others to sin.

12)

(a)The problem Rebbi Chanina bar Papa has with the Pasuk in Hoshe'a "ve'Lakachti Degani be'Ito ... " (where he refers to the harvest as belonging to Him) is - that the Pasuk in Parshas Eikev writes "ve'Asafta Deganecha" (referring to it as harvest that belongs to us)?

(b)He resolves the 'discrepancy' - as establishing the former when Yisrael do not perform the will of Hash-m, and the latter when they do (See Tosfos DH 'Ka'n bi'Zeman ... ').

(c)Bearing in mind the Pasuk in Eikev that we just quoted, Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, comments on the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Lo Yamush Seifer ha'Torah ha'Zeh mi'Picha" - that it cannot be taken literally, inasmuch as the Torah expects us to till the land as well ...

(d)... because if one needs rely on people for one's sustenance, one will eventually stop learning altogether.

(e)Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai objects - in that, if someone plows, plants, reaps, threshes and winnows, each in its time - when will he learn (i.e. it clashes with the Pasuk "Lo Yamush ... ")?

13)

(a)Rebbi Shimon therefore interprets the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Amdu Zarim ve'Ra'u Tzonchem ... " to mean - that if they carry out the will of Hash-m, then all their work will be carried out by Nochrim, leaving them free to learn Torah full time (in keeping with the Pasuk "Lo Yamush ... ").

(b)The Pasuk in Eikev - he establishes when Yisrael do not perform the will of Hash-m, whereas ...

(c)... from the Pasuk in Ki Savo "ve'Avadta es Oyvecha" he learns - that, when they don't do the will of Hash-m, not only will they have to do their own work, but that even the work of others will be carried out by them.

14)

(a)Abaye commented - that the many did like Rebbi Yishmael and succeeded, whilst the many who did like Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai - did not.

(b)Rava instructed the Rabbanan (his Talmidim) that, during the months of Nisan and Tishri - they should not come to the Beis-ha'Medrash to learn ...

(c)... because ...

1. ... in Nisan - they needed to tend to the harvest, and ...

2. ... in Tishri - to producing wine and olive-oil.

(d)He insisted on that - so that, during the rest of the year, they will be able to concentrate on their leaning without being beset by Parnasah problems.

15)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan commented that whereas ...

1. ... the earlier generations - made their learning a fixture and their work casual ...

2. ... the latter generations - did the reverse.

(b)And he concluded - that whereas the earlier generations succeeded in both areas, the later ones failed.

(c)He also drew a distinction between the earlier generations - who would make a point of bringing the produce through the gates of the houses in order to render them subject to Ma'asros, and the later ones - who would bring them in via the roofs, the courtyards and the enclosures in order to exempt them from Ma'asros.

(d)In both cases, Rebbi Yochanan quoted - Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i.

16)

(a)The above statement is connected to the Machlokes regarding when Tevel becomes Chayav Ma'asros min ha'Torah. According to Rebbi Yanai (after being winnowed and the pile being flattened), produce becomes subject to Ma'asros after entering the house via the door. He learns it from the Pasuk in Ki Savo (in connection with Biy'ur Ma'asros) - "Bi'arti ha'Kodesh min ha'Bayis".

(b)Based on the Pasuk "ve'Achlu bi'She'arecha ve'Asave'u", Rebbi Yochanan says - that it is Chayav already after entering the Chatzer via the gate.

17)

(a)We initially suggest that the reason for the fact that wine requires a special B'rachah is - because it is superior to grapes.

(b)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the B'rachah one recites over olive-oil - is 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz'.

(c)According to the previous statement - seeing as olive-oil too is superior to olives, it too deserves a special B'rachah.

18)

(a)We try to answer that there is no other option by olive-oil, since 'Borei P'ri ha'Zayis' is out of the question, because Zayis is also the name of the fruit ...

(b)... and it is the manufacturer (not Hash-m) who creates olive-oil from olives.

(c)We overcome that problem however - since the option exists of reciting 'Borei P'ri Eitz Zayis'.

(d)Mar Zutra therefore suggests that one recites a special B'rachah over wine but not over olive-oil - because the former sustains, where as the latter does not.

19)

(a)We query this too, from the Mishnah in Nedarim, which rules that somebody who makes a Neder not to eat Mazon - is permitted to partake of water and salt only.

(b)And we ask that if everything else falls under the category of Mazon, we have a problem with a statement of Rav and Shmuel. Who both ruled that one only recites 'Borei Miynei Mezonos' over the five species of grain.

(c)But did we not just say that everything other than water and salt sustains (and ought therefore to fall under the category of Mezonos).

(d)Rav Huna answers that the Mishnah in Nedarim is referring, not to Mazon, but to someone who declares 'Kol ha'Zan alai' (implying even just a little), posing a Kashya on Mar Zutra's statement regarding oil - which implies that olive-oil is not 'Zan' either.

20)

(a)We conclude that wine has a special B'rachah - because it satisfies, whereas oil does not - because it doesn't.

(b)We initially query this too, from Rava - who used to drink wine throughout the day on Erev Pesach ...

(c)... to ensure that he had an appetite for the Seider.

(d)To reconcile this with what we just said (that wine satisfies) - we differentiate between a little wine (which satisfies) and a lot (which has the opposite effect).

21)

(a)We query this distinction too, from the Pasuk in Tehilim "ve'Yayin Yesamach L'vav Enosh ve'Lechem L'vav Enosh Yis'ad" - implying that bread satisfies but wine doesn't.

(b)We reinterpret the Pasuk to mean - that wine makes a person happy as well as satisfying him, whereas bread only satisfies him.

(c)Nevertheless, we do not recite Birchas ha'Mazon over it - because people do not fix a meal over it.

(d)When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asked Rava what the Din will be if one did fix a Se'udah over wine, the latter replied that when Eliyahu comes and informs us that one fixes a meal over wine then one will be able to Bensch over it. In the meantime - someone who does, is Bateil to everyone else.

22)

(a)The problem with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan, quoted earlier, who rule that one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz' over olive-oil is - that it ought not to be subject to a B'rachah at all, since it is harmful to one's health.

(b)We learn this from the Beraisa which rules that someone who anoints himself with T'rumah oil must pay the Kohen the principle plus a fifth, whereas if he drinks it - he pays the principle but not the fifth ...

(c)... like a regular Mazik (since, seeing as it is damaging, it is not considered eating).

23)

(a)We reject the suggestion that they are speaking where one ate the olive-oil together with bread from a Mishnah later in the Perek - because the Tana in the Mishnah later that if someone eats a 'secondary' (Tafeil) food together with a 'major' one (Ikar) - the B'rachah that he recites over the major food covers the secondary one ...

(b)... in which case there is no reason to recite a B'rachah over the olive-oil.

24)

(a)We conclude that, based on a statement of Rabah bar Shmuel, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel ... is speaking where he 'ate' the olive-oil via 'Anigron' - a beverage comprising water plus other things (as we shall now see) containing also olive-oil.

(b)Rabah bar Shmuel defines 'Anigron' as ...

1. ... 'Maya de'Silka' - water in which beets have been cooked, and 'Achsigron' as ...

2. ... 'Maya de'Kulhu Shalki' - the water of other kinds of cooked vegetables.

(c)We have the same problem with this answer as we had with with the previous one (That since the major food here is the beet-water, one ought to recite just 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah'.

(d)We answer - that Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel is speaking where he 'ate' the Anigron in the form of a cure (in which the olive-oil is the major food).