How can this statement be reconciled with the Gemara earlier (brochos 38a) which says that the blessing for honey that oozes from a date is "sheha'Kol," since it is merely a discharge of fluid and not a part of the fruit itself? When is fruit-juice considered a discharge of fluid, and when is it considered a part of the fruit itself?
if Eretz Yisroel is praised (a few places) as having d'vash which is translated as 'dvash temorim - how could the Gm say that D'vash is only zeah b'almo (and, therefore, only has the brocho of shehakol)?
thank you for your well researched/thought out/ and cogent answers.
aurel littmann, brooklyn, ny
I don't really see a contradiction between the Pasuk praising Eretz Yisrael for being an Eretz Zavas Chalav u'Devash and saying that this is Zei'ah b'Alma. After all, Devash is not just Dvash Temarim, but Temarim as well! We certainly include dates as one of the Shivas ha'Minim, not just their honey! However, only the honey, which is also important, can be described as flowing, which is why the Pasuk says Devash and not Temarim.
Zei'ah b'Alma means that this is not considered the primary reason that the fruit is grown, but rather a secondary purpose. For example, the Chazon Ish states that if a fruit is primarily grown in a country for its juice (51% of fruit is grown to be made into juice), one would make a Borei Pri Ha'Eitz in that country on that type of juice. (There is much discussion in the Poskim regarding this matter. See Tur O.C. Siman 202 that discuss date honey and sugar.)
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
thank you for your response.
b"H I found the topic in in a sefer: Sha'arim Metzuyonim B'halacha by Rabbi Braun ZT"L (Brochos 38)
he quotes the Rosh who quotes the Bahag (among others i.e Rashbo) who asks the same question and the Bahag confirms that the brocho is Borei Pri Hoeitz for the reason that I asked below.
Also, if 'dvash' is also Temorim - then - the possuk should say 'temorim'! just like the other minim in the possuk-- Devorim 8:8 Gefen, Rimon, and Te'ino.
Thank you again.
Aurel Littmann
The discussion involving the Bahag is exactly what I was alluding to when I said at the end of my previous response, "See Tur O.C. 202 that discusses date honey and sugar." Many Poskim disagree with the Bahag, including the Rambam (quoted by the Tur), and the Tur himself (though he differs with the Rambam in some points). This is why we do not make a Ha'eitz on date honey today.
I believe I already answered above why the Passuk does not say Temarim. Certainly both the fruit of the date, and the ability to produce great date honey from it, are great gifts from Hashem. However, the Passuk wanted to describe this gift by saying "Zavas" - "flowing," and this can only be used to describe honey, not fruit. The Passuk could not have said Eretz Zavas Chalav u'Temarim. It therefore described its secondary gift, and not its primary gift, with us clearly understanding that the primary gift is also included. Otherwise, why would we look at a date in Hilchos Berachos as one of the Shivas ha'Minim (which all the Poskim indeed do)? It is clearly a secondary gift, as today dates are used primarily for their fruit, and only in a secondary manner for their honey. This is why the Tur says that the Berachah on date honey is Shehakol.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose