(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Berachos 38



(a) One recites 'Shehakol' over liquid Shesisa, seemingly because it is basically a cure, but really because it is in liquid form, and one never recites a Mezonos over a liquid (See Tosfos, d.h. 've 'Ha Tenan').

(b) It is permitted to take liquid Shesisa on Shabbos, because it is a pleasant tasting food (despite the fact that one usually takes it as a cure).

(c) Rav nevertheless needs to inform us that we recite a Berachah over it, since initially, one takes it as a cure.

(a) "ha'Motzi Lecha Mayim mi'Tzur ha'Chalamish" was said at a time when Hashem had already produced water from the rock, and it is the source of the Chachamim who say that 'ha'Motzi' implies the past tense (which, according to everyone, is the gist of the Berachah in question).

(b) Rebbi Nechemyah proves from the Pasuk "ha'Motzi Eschem mi'Tachas Sivlos Mitzrayim" (which was said before the Exodus took place), that 'ha'Motzi' implies the present or the future tense.

(c) The Rabbanan explain the Pasuk to mean that when Hashem will take Yisrael out of Egypt, He will do something which will impress upon them that *He took them out of Egypt* (in the past) - Perhaps this refers to Keri'as Yam-Suf.

(d) "Keil Motzi'am mi'Mitzrayim" teaches us that 'Motzi' refers to the past tense, a fact with which everyone agrees.

(a) Rebbi Zeira was disappointed with bar Rav Zevid, who had been described to him as a great man and an expert in Berachos. Yet when he sat down to eat bread, he recited 'Motzi Lechem' etc., (which, as we just explained, is no Chidush), instead of 'ha'Motzi', which would have taught us that 'ha'Motzi' also implies the past tense - and, until the Halachah has been fixed, one should always demonstrate the greater Chidush in one's actions.

(b) bar Rav Zevid, on the other hand, maintained that it is preferable to avoid a Safek, so he used the terminology with which everyone agreed.




(a) Rav Chisda rules that, whatever requires 'Adamah' when it is raw (because it tastes better like that), gets a 'Shehakol' when cooked (provided it deteriorates due to cooking - see Tosfos, d.h. 'Mashkachas'). And conversely, anything over which one recites a 'Shehakol' when eaten raw, receives 'Adamah' when eaten cooked.

(b) Cooked cabbage, beets and pumpkins are not usually eaten raw. Consequently, according to Rav Chisda, one recites 'Shehakol' when they are raw, and 'Adamah' when they are cooked.

(c) Garlic and leek, on the other hand, taste better raw; consequently, one recites 'Adamah' when they are raw, and 'Shehakol' when they are cooked. (See Tosfos, d.h. 'Mashkachas', who point out that, although this appears to clash with the reality, because everybody knows that leek tastes better when cooked, that is only when they are cooked together with meat and salt, but not when they are cooked on their own.)

(a) Even those who maintain that one recites 'Adamah' over all cooked vegetables, might agree with Rebbi Yossi, that one is not Yotze with cooked Matzah, because Matzah partially loses its taste when cooked, and one is obligated to taste the full taste of Matzah.

(b) Rebbi Yossi agrees with Rebbi meir that one is Yotze with soaked Matzah.

(c) Rebbi Meir differentiates between cooked Matzah which has melted (where he is not Yotze) and cooked Matzah which did not melt (when he is).

(a) Firstly, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba was meticulous in the way he absorbed his Rebbe (Rebbi Yochanan's) teachings; secondly, he would revise everything he had learnt every thirty days in front of Rebbi Yochanan, neither of which could be said of Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes.

(b) They asked Rebbi Yochanan what Berachah to recite over a Turmus-bean.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan told them to recite 'Adamah'. This refutes Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes, who quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that the Berachah over all cooked vegetables is 'Shehakol'.

(a) The Gemara thought at first, that there is no such Berachah Acharonah as 'Borei Nefashos' (at least not over food whose Berachah Rishonah is 'Shehakol'). Consequently, if (bearing in mind that salting is like cooking) the Berachah over a salted olive is 'ha'Eitz', then the Berachah Acharonah that Rebbi Yochanan recited would have been 'Al ha'Eitz'. But if we say (like Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes) that he recited a 'Shehakol', then which Berachah Acharonah would he have recited?

(b) To refute this proof, the Gemara points out that, even over food which requires only a 'Shehakol', the Berachah Acharonah of 'Borei Nefashos' is recited, and that *that* is the Berachah which Rebbi Yochanan would have recited.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, one cannot be Yotze one's obligation with cooked Marror, because, like with Matzah, one is obligated to taste the full taste of Marror, which (again like Matzah) is not possible once it has been cooked.

(a) The size of a Kezayis (regarding Berachos) is a medium-sized olive (known as a 'Zayis Aguri'), but the olive which Rebbi Yochanan ate was in fact, a large one.
A large olive, even without the pit, could well be contain the volume of a Kezayis.

(b) The word 'Aguri' means gathered. That species of olive was called by that name because its oil, like the grape (but unlike most other fruit), was gathered inside it (not absorbed in its flesh), ready to emerge when pressed.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,