Berakhot 44a

HE RECITES A BLESSING OVER THE SALTED [FOOD] - Essentially, the reason for this halochoh is because the b’rochoh on the primary food covers the secondary food. That principle has already been taught by the Mishna. Why does it have to be repeated here? And even though we have already been taught that the b’rochoh on bread frees one from the b’rochoh on parperes that is eaten with bread, so we have already learned the principle that the b’rochoh on a primary food frees one from reciting a b’rochoh on the secondary food, even so, it is necessary for the Mishna to teach us that sometimes the bread, which is almost always a primary food, can be a secondary food. One might think that the inherent importance of bread might prevent it from ever being designated as secondary, the Mishna had to teach us that this is not so.

[THIS] WAS TAUGHT [IN REGARD TO] THOSE WHO EAT FRUITS OF GENOSAR - Ordinarily salted fish is considered secondary to bread, and a b’rochoh is recited on the bread and the salted fish is exempt from a b’rochoh. The Gemara is searching for a practical situation where the reverse would be true. The salted fish would be the primary food and the bread secondary to it. The Gemara answers that we are speaking of people who ate fruit from the area of the Kineret. The fruit that grows there is extremely sweet and after partaking of the fruit, sometimes one need a salty food to counteract the sweetness of the fruit. At such times it is the salted fish that is the primary food and the bread is secondary. Why aren’t the fruits considered the primary food? Seemingly the b’rochoh should be recited on the fruits. For in this situation the salted fish is the primary food. For it comes to restore strength to the heart, that has been weakened because of the sweetness of the fruit. And the bread that comes after it, the salted fish, is secondary and it only comes on account of the salted fish. Therefore, the b’rochoh is recited on the salted fish and that b’rochoh covers the bread that is secondary. But isn’t the fruit actually the primary food? And if you ask: the fruit are the primary food and the salted fish is secondary to the fruit, so he should recite the b’rochoh on the fruit an cover all of them, the salted fish and the bread, with the b’rochoh on the fruit. Tosfos has two answers to this question. The first: And we can answer: that is speaking of when he did not eat the fruits at that occasion. He first ate the fruit and then later decided to eat the salted fish. A second answer to Tosfos question that the b’rochoh should be recited on the fruit: Alternatively, at the time he ate the fruit of Ginoser, the salted fish and the bread were not yet there, because he did not know that his heart would be weakened because of the sweetness. The b’rochoh on the fruit which was recited before the salted fish and bread were brought to the scene cannot cover the b’rochoh for the salted fish. Thus he must recite a b’rochoh for the salted fish which at that time is the primary food and that frees him from a b’rochoh on the bread.

FOR THE TREE AND THE FRUIT OF THE TREE - Our Gemara mentions two versions of this b’rochoh, על המחיה and על העץ. Tosfos informs us of a third version of this b’rochoh. See Rosh Chapter 42, who seems to have had a text of the Gemara, that includes what Tosfos is about to say. But upon wine, we recite על הגפן ועל פרי הגפן. Since wine has a unique b’rochoh for itself because of the special fondness for wine before one drinks wine, the same is true for the after-b’rochoh and it has its own unique after-b’rochoh על הגפן ועל פרי הגפן. Tosfos established that at the beginning of the after-b’rochoh we insert a special sentence about wine. What about the conclusion of the after-b’rochoh? And at the conclusion of the after-b’rochoh there are those who conclude with “upon the land and upon the fruits” even after drinking wine, and there are those who conclude “upon the vine and the fruit of the vine”. However, it appears that there is no need to change the conclusion, from “on the fruits” to on “the fruit of the vine”. For we only change the text at the beginning of the after- b’rochoh to say “fruit of the vine” in place of “fruit of the tree”, but elsewhere, at the conclusion of the b’rochoh, when we do not mention in the text of the b’rochoh “on the tree” but rather without any specification we say “on the land and on the fruits”, for wine as well it is not necessary to change the text to “ on the land and on the fruit of the vine”. It is sufficient to say “on the land and on the fruits”. It is only when specifying the tree, that it is necessary to replace the non-specific “tree” with the specific “vine”. Tosfos now discusses another question about the b’rochoh that is an abridgement of three. The Rambam says that on Shabos and Yom Tov we mention the special day in the text of על המחיה etc. Tosfos searches for a source for the Rambam’s ruling. And in the book of Maimonidies, he requires that one must mention something about the happening on Shabos and Yom Tov. And so too, it appears from the Yerushalmee that it is necessary to mention Shabos and Yom Tov. However, the community has not adopted that custom. Why not? And it may be that what they required that the happening be mentioned in the b’rochoh, that was exclusively in their days when it was usual for them to have a customary gathering for drinking wine and eating various fruits, but nowadays when we have no such regular gatherings and it is not necessary to mention Shabos or Yom Tov in this b’rochoh. The requirement of mentioning Shabos and Yom Tov in the b’rochoh was because the b’rochoh was commonly recited at a regular gathering, it is not the b’rochoh itself that requires mentioning the special day, it is where and when the b’rochoh is said. And Rabainu Chananel said, that when one eats a type of מזונות such as cereal, together with figs and he drinks wine at the same time, he says in his after-b’rochoh, ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם על הכלכלה ועל המחיה, for the cereal, and על הגפן ועל פרי הגפן, for the wine, and על העץ ועל פרי העץ, for the figs, and he continues with ועל תנובת השדה etc. He must mention all three versions of the b’rochoh at the beginning of the after-b’rochoh. And he concludes with ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם על הארץ ועל המחיה ועל הפירות. As we have seen before, Tosfos holds that even when reciting the b’rochoh for wine, one concludes with על הארץ ועל הפירות. And this is not concluding a b’rochoh with two distinct praises of Hashem, which is unacceptable, because the b’rochoh is on the land, which is one reason for praising Hashem, and that land brings forth two types of food that which sustains life and fruits. The conclusion of the b’rochoh thanks Hashem for giving us the land. The land feeds us with many different types of food.

THEY EAT AND WE RECITE A BLESSING? The Gemara told us that at the conclusion of the b’rochoh for fruits of the seven species, Rav Chisdo says “on the land and her fruits” and Rav Yochonon said “on the land and on the fruits” not specifically mentioning her fruits. The land refers to Eretz Yisroel. The Gemara comments that there is no dispute here between Rav Chisdo and Rav Yochonon. In Eretz Yisroel we say on the land and her fruits, referring specifically to the fruits of Eretz Yisroel that were eaten and outside of Eretz Yisroel we say “on the land and on the fruits” and we do not mention her fruits, because we have not eaten of the actual fruits of Eretz Yisroel. Rav Chisdo was Babylonian and R’ Yochonon lived in Eretz Yisroel. It seems strange that R’ Yochonon speaks of the proper text for Babylonians and Rav Chisdo mentions the text for Eretz Yisroel. The Gemara asks this question and reverses the opinions. Rav Chisdo of Babylonia, said “on the land and on the fruits” while R’ Yochonon of Eretz Yisroel said “on the land and on her fruits”. Tosfos analyzes the Gemara’s question that forced a reversal of the opinions. It appears that it does not make sense to the one who is asking the question that the amoroim of Babylonia, Rav Chisdo, would be addressing the people of Eretz Yisroel when he says that the correct text of the b’rochoh is “on the land and on her fruits”. Tosfos tells us the difficulty that he has with the Gemara’s question. For Rabainu Tam did in fact explain the Gemara (Kidushin 29b) that says, one should always marry a woman first and then learn Torah and in another Braiso we learned, he should learn Torah and afterwards marry a woman. To resolve the contradiction the Gemara there concludes, one ruling is for us in Eretz Yisroel and one ruling is for them in Babylonia. And Rabainu Tam explained that R’ Yochonon was addressing his students from Babylonia, even though he was in Eretz Yisroel. We see from Rabainu Tam that it is reasonable to say that R’ Yochonon of Eretz Yisroel was speaking specifically to his students from Babylonia. If so, why does the Gemara here ask, they are eating the fruits of Eretz Yisroel and we in Babylonia are reciting the b’rochoh for its fruits as Rav Chisdo said. Perhaps at the time Rav Chisdo stated his ruling he was speaking to his students from Eretz Yisroel and there is no need to reverse the opinions? In order to resolve this difficulty, Tosfos suggests that perhaps the Gemara was totally aware of whom Rav Chisdo was addressing. For perhaps, here it was known to the questioner that at the time that Rav Chisdo made this statement, that the correct text is “on the land and on her fruits”, there wasn’t any student from Eretz Yisroel before him. And so too, there was no disciple from Babylonia in front of R’ Yochonon when he said that the correct text is “on the land and on the fruits”. And if that is so, Rav Chisdo who was from Babylonia would only mention that which is relevant to the people of Babylonia. And because the Gemara was aware of these circumstances it asked, how the people of Babylonia can recite in their b’rochoh “on the land and on her fruits” which appears to refer exclusively to the fruits of Eretz Yisroel, and they in Babylonia are not eating those fruits. The Gemara concludes that it is necessary to reverse the opinions, because of the specific information that the questioner had at that point in time.