benediction

MISHNAH We refer to rain in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead" and the request [for rain] in the benediction of "the Years," and the "Division" in "Thou favourest man with knowledge." R. 'Akiba says : One should say the last mentioned as a fourth benediction by itself. R. Eliezer says : [It is to be included] in the "Thanksgiving."

MISHNAH We refer to rain in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead" and the request [for rain] in the benediction of "the Years," and the "Division" in "Thou favourest man with knowledge." R. 'Akiba says : One should say the last mentioned as a fourth benediction by itself. R. Eliezer says : [It is to be included] in the "Thanksgiving."

GEMARA We refer to rain in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead." Why ?

Rab Joseph said : Because it is equal to the revival of the dead, therefore they fixed it in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead."

And the request [for rain] in the benediction of "the Years." Why ?

Rab Joseph said : Because it is sustenance, therefore they fixed it in the benediction relating to sustenance.

Rab Joseph said : Because it is wisdom, they fixed it in the benediction relating to wisdom. The Rabbis say : Because it refers to the non-holy, therefore they fixed it in the [first] benediction [of the Tefillah] for the week-day.

Rab Joseph said : Because it is wisdom, they fixed it in the benediction relating to wisdom. The Rabbis say : Because it refers to the non-holy, therefore they fixed it in the [first] benediction [of the Tefillah] for the week-day.

R. Ammi said : Great is knowledge, which is placed at the beginning of the benediction said in the week-day [Tefillah].

R. 'Akiba says : One should say the last-mentioned as a fourth benediction by itself.

Raba said : We quote against this teaching : If one erred and omitted the reference to rain in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead" or the request [for rain] in the benediction of "the Years," we make him repeat it ; but [if he omitted] the "Division" in "Thou favourest man with knowledge" we do not make him repeat it, because he is able to say it over the cup of wine !

Raba said : We quote against this teaching : If one erred and omitted the reference to rain in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead" or the request [for rain] in the benediction of "the Years," we make him repeat it ; but [if he omitted] the "Division" in "Thou favourest man with knowledge" we do not make him repeat it, because he is able to say it over the cup of wine !

But this is self-contradictory ! Thou declarest, "He who pronounces the 'Division' in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup of wine"; hence it is sufficient to say it in the Tefillah alone ! And then he teaches, "But if he says it in both, may blessings alight upon his head"; but since he has fulfilled his obligation with the former, he is exempt and [the latter] will be a superfluous benediction, and Rab has declared (another version : R. Simeon b. Lakish ; or R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish both declare) : Whoever utters a superfluous benediction commits a transgression because of [the injunction], "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Exod. xx. 7) !

But this is self-contradictory ! Thou declarest, "He who pronounces the 'Division' in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup of wine"; hence it is sufficient to say it in the Tefillah alone ! And then he teaches, "But if he says it in both, may blessings alight upon his head"; but since he has fulfilled his obligation with the former, he is exempt and [the latter] will be a superfluous benediction, and Rab has declared (another version : R. Simeon b. Lakish ; or R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish both declare) : Whoever utters a superfluous benediction commits a transgression because of [the injunction], "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Exod. xx. 7) !

GEMARA It is right that we silence him who says, "We give thanks, we give thanks," because he makes it appear as though there were two Powers; and likewise him who says, "For the good be Thy name remembered," the inference being that for the good [may it be remembered] but not for the bad ; and we have a Mishnaic teaching : A man is in duty bound to utter a benediction for the bad even as he utters one for the good. But why [do we silence him who says], "To a bird's nest do Thy mercies extend"?

MISHNAH He who says in his Tefillah "The good bless Thee" behold this is the way of error. If a man step before the Ark and make a mistake [in the Tefillah], another replaces him ; and at such a time, one may not decline. From where does the latter begin? From the commencement of the benediction where the other erred.

He who steps before the Ark should not respond "Amen" after [the benedictions of] the Kohanim because it might cause him confusion. If there be no other Kohen there but himself he does not raise his hands [for the priestly benediction] ; but if he is confident that he can raise his hands and return to the Tefillah, he is permitted.

Rab Sheshet quoted in objection : From where does the latter begin ? From the commencement of the benediction where the other erred ! This is a refutation of Rab Huna ;

but Rab Huna can reply : The middle benedictions are all one benediction.

Our Rabbis have taught : These are the benedictions at which a man bends low ; at the beginning and end of the "Patriarchs" and at the beginning and end of the "Thanksgiving." Should anyone come to bend low at the end and beginning of every benediction, we tell him not to do so.

a high priest [bends] at the end of each benediction ; a king at the beginning and end of each benediction.

a high priest [bends] at the end of each benediction ; a king at the beginning and end of each benediction.

R. Isaac b. Nahmani said : It was explained to me by R. Joshua b. Levi : The ordinary man [acts] as we have stated ; a high priest [bends] at the beginning of each benediction ; a king, when once he bends, should not straighten himself [until the end of the Tefillah] ; as it is said, "And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he arose from before the altar of the Lord from kneeling on his knees" (I Kings viii. 54).

There is no contradiction ; one referring to the beginning, the other to the end [of the benediction].

Others refer this [statement of Rab Safra] to the following Baraita: One who says the Tefillah must direct his heart to each benediction ; but if unable to do so to each one, he must at least direct his heart to one. To which?

MISHNAH What benediction do we say over fruit ? Over the fruit of trees, one says, "[Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe] Who Createst the fruit of the tree," except over wine ; for over wine ons says, "...Who createst the fruit of the vine." Over the fruits of the earth one says : "... Who createst the fruit of the ground," except over bread; for over bread one says, "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth." Over vegetables one says, "... Who createst the fruit of the ground" ; but R. Judah declares : "... Who createst divers kinds of herbs."

GEMARA Whence is this derived ? For our Rabbis have taught: "The fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise [hillulim] unto the Lord" (Lev. xix. 24) — this teaches that they require a benediction before and after partaking of them. Hence said R. 'Akiba : A man is forbidden to taste anything without previously saying a benediction. But is the phrase "holy for giving praise" intended to teach that ?

GEMARA Whence is this derived ? For our Rabbis have taught: "The fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise [hillulim] unto the Lord" (Lev. xix. 24) — this teaches that they require a benediction before and after partaking of them. Hence said R. 'Akiba : A man is forbidden to taste anything without previously saying a benediction. But is the phrase "holy for giving praise" intended to teach that ?

According to him who teaches "the vineyard of the fourth year" it is quite right if he argues by analogy of expression ; for there is a teaching : Rabbi says : It is stated here, "That it may yield unto you more richly the increase thereof" (Lev. xix. 25), and it is stated elsewhere, "the increase of the vineyard" (Deut. xxii. 9) — as in the latter passage "increase" refers to the vineyard, so also in the former passage it refers to the vineyard ; and there thus remains over one hillul to be interpreted as meaning that a benediction is required [when partaking of fruits].

But if he does not resort to this argument from analogy, whence does he derive the necessity for a benediction ? And even if he resort to this method of reasoning, we find that a benediction is required after eating ; but whence is it that a benediction is necessary before eating ?

But if he does not resort to this argument from analogy, whence does he derive the necessity for a benediction ? And even if he resort to this method of reasoning, we find that a benediction is required after eating ; but whence is it that a benediction is necessary before eating ?

But if he does not resort to this argument from analogy, whence does he derive the necessity for a benediction ? And even if he resort to this method of reasoning, we find that a benediction is required after eating ; but whence is it that a benediction is necessary before eating ?

[the produce of] the vineyard; whence is it [that a benediction is required with] other species ?

It can be derived from the instance of the vineyard — as the vineyard, a thing that is enjoyed, requires a benediction, so also everything which is enjoyed requires a benediction.

It can be derived from the instance of the vineyard — as the vineyard, a thing that is enjoyed, requires a benediction, so also everything which is enjoyed requires a benediction.

But it is possible to object : Why [is a benediction required with the fruit of] the vineyard ? Because there is the obligation of the gleanings.

Let, then, the instance of corn show [whether this point is material] ! But why [is a benediction required when partaking of food made from] corn ? Because there is the obligation of Hallah.

Then let the instance of the vineyard show [whether this point is material]! The argument has therefore to be reinstated, because the feature of the first case is not like that of the second and vice versa ; but the factor common to both is that each is something which is enjoyed and consequently requires a benediction. Hence everything which is enjoyed requires a benediction.

Then let the instance of the vineyard show [whether this point is material]! The argument has therefore to be reinstated, because the feature of the first case is not like that of the second and vice versa ; but the factor common to both is that each is something which is enjoyed and consequently requires a benediction. Hence everything which is enjoyed requires a benediction.

Nevertheless the difficulty remains, "How is this the factor common to them both ? [That they are both brought upon] the altar is likewise a common factor." One can, however, derive [the necessity for a benediction] from "the seven species" — as "the seven species" are things enjoyed and require a benediction, so everything that is enjoyed requires a benediction.

Nevertheless the difficulty remains, "How is this the factor common to them both ? [That they are both brought upon] the altar is likewise a common factor." One can, however, derive [the necessity for a benediction] from "the seven species" — as "the seven species" are things enjoyed and require a benediction, so everything that is enjoyed requires a benediction.

Nevertheless the difficulty remains, "How is this the factor common to them both ? [That they are both brought upon] the altar is likewise a common factor." One can, however, derive [the necessity for a benediction] from "the seven species" — as "the seven species" are things enjoyed and require a benediction, so everything that is enjoyed requires a benediction.

But why do "the seven species" [require a benediction]? Because they are under the obligation of first-fruits. And further, it is right [that a benediction is necessary] after partaking of them, but whence is it [that a benediction is necessary] before partaking of them ?

But why do "the seven species" [require a benediction]? Because they are under the obligation of first-fruits. And further, it is right [that a benediction is necessary] after partaking of them, but whence is it [that a benediction is necessary] before partaking of them ?

But why do "the seven species" [require a benediction]? Because they are under the obligation of first-fruits. And further, it is right [that a benediction is necessary] after partaking of them, but whence is it [that a benediction is necessary] before partaking of them ?

That is no difficulty ; because it can be derived by a fortiori reasoning — if he says a benediction when satisfied, how much more so when hungry ! According to him

who teaches "the planting of the fourth year" it is quite right [that a benediction is required] for everything that is planted; but whence [does he derive the necessity for a benediction] for things not planted, like meat, eggs, fish? It is, however, a generally held opinion that a man is forbidden to enjoy anything of this world without a benediction.

who teaches "the planting of the fourth year" it is quite right [that a benediction is required] for everything that is planted; but whence [does he derive the necessity for a benediction] for things not planted, like meat, eggs, fish? It is, however, a generally held opinion that a man is forbidden to enjoy anything of this world without a benediction.

who teaches "the planting of the fourth year" it is quite right [that a benediction is required] for everything that is planted; but whence [does he derive the necessity for a benediction] for things not planted, like meat, eggs, fish? It is, however, a generally held opinion that a man is forbidden to enjoy anything of this world without a benediction.

Our Rabbis have taught : A man is forbidden to enjoy anything of this world without a benediction, and whoever does so commits sacrilege. What is the remedy ? Let him go to a Sage.

Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel : Whoever enjoys anything of this world without a benediction is as though he had partaken of the holy things of Heaven ; as it is said, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" (Ps. xxiv. 1). R. Levi asked : t is written, "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof," and it is written, "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath He given to the children of men" (ibid. cxv. 16) ! There is no contradiction ; the former passage referring [[fol. 35 b.]] to before the benediction [has been uttered],

Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel : Whoever enjoys anything of this world without a benediction is as though he had partaken of the holy things of Heaven ; as it is said, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" (Ps. xxiv. 1). R. Levi asked : t is written, "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof," and it is written, "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath He given to the children of men" (ibid. cxv. 16) ! There is no contradiction ; the former passage referring [[fol. 35 b.]] to before the benediction [has been uttered],

the latter to after the benediction.

R. Hannina b. Pappa said : Whoever enjoys anything of this world without a benediction is as though he robbed the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Community of Israel ; as it is said, "Whoso robbeth his father or his mother and saith, It is no transgression, the same is the companion of a destroyer" (Prov. xxviii, 24) — "father" is none other than the Holy One, blessed be He ; as it is said, "Is not He thy father that hath gotten thee?" (Deut. xxxii. 6) ; and "mother" is none other than the Community of Israel ; as it is said, "Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the teaching of thy mother" (Prov. i. 8).

Except over wine, etc. Why is wine different ? Should one say because it is changed [from the grape] into something higher [in value], therefore there is a change in the benediction, but lo, oil which is changed [from the olive] into something higher [in value] has no alteration in the benediction ; for Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, and similarly said R. Isaac in the name of R. Johanan : Over olive-oil we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree" !

Except over wine, etc. Why is wine different ? Should one say because it is changed [from the grape] into something higher [in value], therefore there is a change in the benediction, but lo, oil which is changed [from the olive] into something higher [in value] has no alteration in the benediction ; for Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, and similarly said R. Isaac in the name of R. Johanan : Over olive-oil we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree" !

Except over wine, etc. Why is wine different ? Should one say because it is changed [from the grape] into something higher [in value], therefore there is a change in the benediction, but lo, oil which is changed [from the olive] into something higher [in value] has no alteration in the benediction ; for Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, and similarly said R. Isaac in the name of R. Johanan : Over olive-oil we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree" !

The answer is : In this case [of oil, the benediction is unaltered] because none other is possible. What other benediction could he say? Should he use the formula "...Who createst the fruit of the olive," the olive itself is called "fruit"!

The answer is : In this case [of oil, the benediction is unaltered] because none other is possible. What other benediction could he say? Should he use the formula "...Who createst the fruit of the olive," the olive itself is called "fruit"!

we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of food" only over the five species. Moreover Rab Huna said : [The quoted Mishnah means,] Whoever declares "Everything that nourishes [I forbid] myself" —

It was stated above : "Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, and similarly said R. Isaac in the name of R. Johanan : Over olive-oil we pronounce the benediction '...Who createst the fruit of the tree'." How is this meant? Should I say that he drinks it as a beverage, it does him harm; for there is a teaching : He who drinks the oil of an offering repays its value but not a fifth in addition ; but he who anoints himself with the oil of an offering repays its value plus a fifth!

But [perhaps it is here meant that] he eats it together with bread. If so, the bread is the principal food and the oil is only accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter ! But [perhaps what is meant is] he drinks it with elaiogaron. (Rabbah b, Samuel said : Elaiogaron is the juice of beets ; oxygaron is the juice

But [perhaps it is here meant that] he eats it together with bread. If so, the bread is the principal food and the oil is only accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter ! But [perhaps what is meant is] he drinks it with elaiogaron. (Rabbah b, Samuel said : Elaiogaron is the juice of beets ; oxygaron is the juice

If so, the elaiogaron is the principal thing and the oil an accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter !

If so, the elaiogaron is the principal thing and the oil an accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter !

This is evident! But shouldest thou imagine that because he intends it as a cure no benediction at all is necessary, therefore it informs us that since he derives enjoyment from it, he is required to pronounce a benediction.

This is evident! But shouldest thou imagine that because he intends it as a cure no benediction at all is necessary, therefore it informs us that since he derives enjoyment from it, he is required to pronounce a benediction.

Over wheaten-flour, Rab Judah says : [The benediction is] "...Who createst the fruit of the ground." Rab Nahman said : It is "...By Whose word all things exists."

Raba said to Rab Nahman : Thou shouldest not differ from Rab Judah, because R. Johanan and Samuel agree with him ; for Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, and similarly said R. Isaac in the name of R. Johanan : We pronounce over olive-oil the benediction "... Who createst the fruit of the tree" — hence infer that although it has undergone change, it still remains essentially the same; and like-wise here [with wheaten-flour] although it has undergone change, it still remains essentially the same.

But if [the wheaten-flour] have another and higher value, should we no longer use the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground," but say instead "...By Whose word all things exist"? And lo, R. Zera said in the name of Rab Mattena in the name of Samuel : Over raw cabbage and barley-flour we use the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist"; is it not then to be supposed that wheaten-flour requires the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground"?

But if [the wheaten-flour] have another and higher value, should we no longer use the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground," but say instead "...By Whose word all things exist"? And lo, R. Zera said in the name of Rab Mattena in the name of Samuel : Over raw cabbage and barley-flour we use the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist"; is it not then to be supposed that wheaten-flour requires the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground"?

But if [the wheaten-flour] have another and higher value, should we no longer use the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground," but say instead "...By Whose word all things exist"? And lo, R. Zera said in the name of Rab Mattena in the name of Samuel : Over raw cabbage and barley-flour we use the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist"; is it not then to be supposed that wheaten-flour requires the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground"?

If he had specified wheaten-flour, I might have thought that it applies only to wheat, but barley requires no benediction at all ; therefore he mentioned it for us.

Is, then, [barley-flour] of less value than salt and brine? For there is a teaching: Over salt and brine one says "...By Whose word all things exist." It was necessary ; for otherwise it might have entered thy mind to item, the rest being accessory; consequently it is established that there is a circumstance where oil requires a benediction. say that salt or brine a man is accustomed to convey to his mouth [with his food, and therefore a benediction is required], but since barley-flour is injurious by creating tape-worms no benediction should be uttered at all ; therefore he teaches us that since there is some enjoyment therefrom, it is necessary to pronounce a benediction.

Is, then, [barley-flour] of less value than salt and brine? For there is a teaching: Over salt and brine one says "...By Whose word all things exist." It was necessary ; for otherwise it might have entered thy mind to item, the rest being accessory; consequently it is established that there is a circumstance where oil requires a benediction. say that salt or brine a man is accustomed to convey to his mouth [with his food, and therefore a benediction is required], but since barley-flour is injurious by creating tape-worms no benediction should be uttered at all ; therefore he teaches us that since there is some enjoyment therefrom, it is necessary to pronounce a benediction.

Is, then, [barley-flour] of less value than salt and brine? For there is a teaching: Over salt and brine one says "...By Whose word all things exist." It was necessary ; for otherwise it might have entered thy mind to item, the rest being accessory; consequently it is established that there is a circumstance where oil requires a benediction. say that salt or brine a man is accustomed to convey to his mouth [with his food, and therefore a benediction is required], but since barley-flour is injurious by creating tape-worms no benediction should be uttered at all ; therefore he teaches us that since there is some enjoyment therefrom, it is necessary to pronounce a benediction.

Is, then, [barley-flour] of less value than salt and brine? For there is a teaching: Over salt and brine one says "...By Whose word all things exist." It was necessary ; for otherwise it might have entered thy mind to item, the rest being accessory; consequently it is established that there is a circumstance where oil requires a benediction. say that salt or brine a man is accustomed to convey to his mouth [with his food, and therefore a benediction is required], but since barley-flour is injurious by creating tape-worms no benediction should be uttered at all ; therefore he teaches us that since there is some enjoyment therefrom, it is necessary to pronounce a benediction.

Over the palm-heart, Rab Judah said: [The benediction is] "...Who createst the fruit of the ground" ; but Samuel said : It is "...By Whose word all things exist."

in every case where men do not plant specifically to obtain that article of food, we do not pronounce the benediction over it? Lo, the caper-bush men plant for the purpose of the caper-blossom ; and we have a Mishnaic teaching : In the case of the various kinds of capers, over the leaves and young shoots one says "...Who createst the fruit of the ground," but over the berries and buds "...Who createst the fruit of the tree" !

The Halakah is according to Mar b. Rab Ashe who threw away the berries and ate the buds ; and since these are not regarded as fruit for the purpose of 'Orlah, they are likewise not so regarded for the purpose of the benediction. We accordingly utter over them not "...Who createst the fruit of the tree" but "...Who createst the fruit of the ground."

Over pepper, Rab Sheshet said: [The benediction is] "...By Whose word all things exist" ; Raba said : None at all [is required]. Raba is consistent with his opinion [expressed elsewhere] ; for he has said : If one chews pepper-corns on the Day of Atonement he is free [from guilt]; if he chews ginger on the Day of Atonement he is likewise free.

The Rabbis said to Maremar : He who chews ginger on the Day of Atonement is free [from guilt]. But lo, Raba declared : The preserved ginger which comes from India is permitted, and we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground" over it! There is no contradiction; the latter referring to moist [ginger], the other to dried.

Over Habis boiled in a pot and also pounded grain, Rab Judah said : [The benediction is] "...By Whose word all things exist" ; Rab Kahana said : It is "...Who createst various kinds of food." With plain pounded grain all agree that "...Who createst all kinds of foods" is the correct benediction, the disagreement arising in connection with pounded grain made like a boiled Habis. Rab Judah maintained [that the benediction should be] "...By Whose word all things exist," being of the opinion that the honey is the principal ingredient ; whereas Rab Kahana maintained it is "...Who createst various kinds of foods," holding that the flour is the principal ingredient. Rab Joseph said : The view of Rab Kahana seems more probable, because Rab and Samuel both say that a dish which contains one of the five species requires the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

Over Habis boiled in a pot and also pounded grain, Rab Judah said : [The benediction is] "...By Whose word all things exist" ; Rab Kahana said : It is "...Who createst various kinds of food." With plain pounded grain all agree that "...Who createst all kinds of foods" is the correct benediction, the disagreement arising in connection with pounded grain made like a boiled Habis. Rab Judah maintained [that the benediction should be] "...By Whose word all things exist," being of the opinion that the honey is the principal ingredient ; whereas Rab Kahana maintained it is "...Who createst various kinds of foods," holding that the flour is the principal ingredient. Rab Joseph said : The view of Rab Kahana seems more probable, because Rab and Samuel both say that a dish which contains one of the five species requires the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

Over Habis boiled in a pot and also pounded grain, Rab Judah said : [The benediction is] "...By Whose word all things exist" ; Rab Kahana said : It is "...Who createst various kinds of food." With plain pounded grain all agree that "...Who createst all kinds of foods" is the correct benediction, the disagreement arising in connection with pounded grain made like a boiled Habis. Rab Judah maintained [that the benediction should be] "...By Whose word all things exist," being of the opinion that the honey is the principal ingredient ; whereas Rab Kahana maintained it is "...Who createst various kinds of foods," holding that the flour is the principal ingredient. Rab Joseph said : The view of Rab Kahana seems more probable, because Rab and Samuel both say that a dish which contains one of the five species requires the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

Over Habis boiled in a pot and also pounded grain, Rab Judah said : [The benediction is] "...By Whose word all things exist" ; Rab Kahana said : It is "...Who createst various kinds of food." With plain pounded grain all agree that "...Who createst all kinds of foods" is the correct benediction, the disagreement arising in connection with pounded grain made like a boiled Habis. Rab Judah maintained [that the benediction should be] "...By Whose word all things exist," being of the opinion that the honey is the principal ingredient ; whereas Rab Kahana maintained it is "...Who createst various kinds of foods," holding that the flour is the principal ingredient. Rab Joseph said : The view of Rab Kahana seems more probable, because Rab and Samuel both say that a dish which contains one of the five species requires the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

It has just been mentioned : "Rab and Samuel both say : A dish which contains one of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'." It has likewise been reported : Rab and Samuel both say: A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

It has just been mentioned : "Rab and Samuel both say : A dish which contains one of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'." It has likewise been reported : Rab and Samuel both say: A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

It was necessary [to give both these statements]. If we had been taught only the second, I might have said that [that benediction is required] because the dish has the appearance [of one of the five species], but not if mixed with other ingredients ;

therefore we are informed that a dish which contains it [requires that benediction]. If, on the other hand, we had been taught only the first, I might have said a dish containing any of the five species does [require that benediction], but not rice or millet because these are mixed with other ingredients. Should, however, it have the appearance [of one of the five species], we might say that even with rice or millet we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; therefore we are informed, "A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'," to the exclusion of rice and millet ; for even if it retain its appearance we do not say that benediction.

therefore we are informed that a dish which contains it [requires that benediction]. If, on the other hand, we had been taught only the first, I might have said a dish containing any of the five species does [require that benediction], but not rice or millet because these are mixed with other ingredients. Should, however, it have the appearance [of one of the five species], we might say that even with rice or millet we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; therefore we are informed, "A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'," to the exclusion of rice and millet ; for even if it retain its appearance we do not say that benediction.

therefore we are informed that a dish which contains it [requires that benediction]. If, on the other hand, we had been taught only the first, I might have said a dish containing any of the five species does [require that benediction], but not rice or millet because these are mixed with other ingredients. Should, however, it have the appearance [of one of the five species], we might say that even with rice or millet we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; therefore we are informed, "A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'," to the exclusion of rice and millet ; for even if it retain its appearance we do not say that benediction.

therefore we are informed that a dish which contains it [requires that benediction]. If, on the other hand, we had been taught only the first, I might have said a dish containing any of the five species does [require that benediction], but not rice or millet because these are mixed with other ingredients. Should, however, it have the appearance [of one of the five species], we might say that even with rice or millet we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; therefore we are informed, "A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'," to the exclusion of rice and millet ; for even if it retain its appearance we do not say that benediction.

therefore we are informed that a dish which contains it [requires that benediction]. If, on the other hand, we had been taught only the first, I might have said a dish containing any of the five species does [require that benediction], but not rice or millet because these are mixed with other ingredients. Should, however, it have the appearance [of one of the five species], we might say that even with rice or millet we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; therefore we are informed, "A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'," to the exclusion of rice and millet ; for even if it retain its appearance we do not say that benediction.

And over rice and millet do we not bless "...Who createst various kinds of foods"? Lo, there is a teaching : If they brought before a man bread of rice or of millet, he pronounces a benediction before and after as with any other cooked dish. And with reference to a cooked dish there is a teaching : Before partaking thereof one should bless "...Who createst various kinds of foods" and after it one benediction which is an abstract of three!

And over rice and millet do we not bless "...Who createst various kinds of foods"? Lo, there is a teaching : If they brought before a man bread of rice or of millet, he pronounces a benediction before and after as with any other cooked dish. And with reference to a cooked dish there is a teaching : Before partaking thereof one should bless "...Who createst various kinds of foods" and after it one benediction which is an abstract of three!

[Bread of rice or of millet] is like a cooked dish [in one respect] but unlike a cooked dish [in another]. It is like a cooked dish in so far as there is a benediction before and after partaking thereof. But it is unlike a cooked dish; for over a cooked dish one says at first "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and in the end one benediction which is an abstract of three. [With rice and millet], however, one first says "...By Whose word all things exist" and in the end "...Who createst many living beings with their wants," etc.

[Bread of rice or of millet] is like a cooked dish [in one respect] but unlike a cooked dish [in another]. It is like a cooked dish in so far as there is a benediction before and after partaking thereof. But it is unlike a cooked dish; for over a cooked dish one says at first "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and in the end one benediction which is an abstract of three. [With rice and millet], however, one first says "...By Whose word all things exist" and in the end "...Who createst many living beings with their wants," etc.

Do they not? Lo, there is a teaching : He who chews wheat should say the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground"; if he ground it, baked and then boiled it, should the pieces of bread be still whole, before partaking thereof he says "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth" and afterwards he says the three benedictions; but if the pieces are no longer whole, he first says "...Who createst various kinds of foods" and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

Do they not? Lo, there is a teaching : He who chews wheat should say the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground"; if he ground it, baked and then boiled it, should the pieces of bread be still whole, before partaking thereof he says "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth" and afterwards he says the three benedictions; but if the pieces are no longer whole, he first says "...Who createst various kinds of foods" and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.