Abraham Cohen Footnotes to the English Translation of Masechet Berakhot

The fact that it is permitted on the Sabbath proves that legally it is something to be enjoyed, the healing property being only incidental. And further, since the mixture is taken because of the oil, this is the principal

The point at issue is whether the grinding of the corn into flour alters its nature for the purpose of the benediction. Rab Judah maintains it does not.

By being pressed from the olive.

And there is no change in the benediction.

And the benediction should be "...Who createst the fruit of the ground."

If not, why is barley-flour specified?

Which is inferior to wheaten-flour.

That one could imagine barley-flour requires no benediction, whereas salt or brine does !

Edd. read incorrectly: A Mishnaic teaching. The quotation is a Baraita; cf. fol. 40 b, p. 268.

To specify barley-flour above, despite this objection.

"A white, meaty, sweet and tasty substance" in the young palm ; Low, Aramaische Pflanzennamen, p. 116.

If not extracted while the palm is young, it become part of the tree.

Bacher, A.B. A., p. 51 n. 27 declares that the rendering "Thou keen-witted one" is not beyond dispute, and the expression may refer to his iron endurance in study.

There can be no comparison of the two.

When the heart is extracted, the palm withers; therefore it does not bear the same relation to its tree as other fruit does.

M. adds: " ...Who createst the fruit of the ground."

So Low, op. cit. p. 264. Jastrow translates "caper-flowers." Rashi explains "husks."

From this it is seen that "Who createst the fruit of the ground" is said over the leaves and shoots although the caper is not grown to obtain these; why, then, should that formula not be used for the palm-heart although the palm is not planted for the sake of the heart ?

By calling him "n-witted."

And for that reason may not be eaten when in a state of 'Orlah.

Hence the buds are regarded as fruit.

I.e. Rab, whose name M. includes in the text.

M.: Eleazar, incorrectly.

And the buds are not fruit.

If R. 'Akiba's view is the correct one.

As R. 'Akiba does.

That one may eat the buds oatside the Land even when in a state of 'Orlah.

I.e. in a state of 'Orlah.

That the tithe is only to be given of the caper-berries, and not the bads.

They would also permit the berries to be eaten.

If it were a fruit, it would not constitute Kila'im.

Because vegetables are not subject to 'Orlah.

As to the category of the caper-bush.

And declare it Kila'im in a vineyard and subject to 'Orlah.

Here Rabina's question to Mar. b. Rab Ashe is resumed.

Because Lev. xix. 23 applies the law only to "the land."

He is then in doubt whether the tree is in its fruit three years. Hence, Rabina declares, Mar would be right in eating the berries as well as the buds.

Consequently only the berries are to be regarded as fruit, and not the buds; and Mar acted accordingly.

I.e. it has no authority. Hence there is no doubt that the caper-bush is subject to 'Orlah.

That even the bud is subject to 'Orlah.

This is the literal rendering of the Hebrew, the grammatical construction of which is peculiar.

The rind, shell, etc.

The caper-bud falls from the bush when ripe; hence it cannot be regarded as a protection so that it should be subject to 'Orlah.

With the fruit to make up the minimum bulk which can contract impurity.

And the blossom bears the same relationship to the pomegranate that the caper-bud does to the berry.

If, then, the pomegranate-blossom is subject to 'Orlah, so should the caper-bud be.

See p. 244 n. 12.

That the protection must be attached to the ripened fruit.

I e. is subject to 'Orlah.

The Halakah is in agreement with the Rabbis; and since the caper-bad corresponds to the grape-bud, it too should not be subject to 'Orlah.

M. adds: b. Ashe.

See p. 74 n. 2.

I.e. other than the vine.

The year of agricultural rest; cf. Exod. xxiii. 11, Lev. xxv. 4.

M.: Ashe.

I.e. mark the same stage of growth. The Boser is the soar grape, the Garua' the grape when the stone inside is formed.

Who differ from R. Jose.

Therefore we cannot argue from one to the other. The remainder of the paragraph reads like a marginal gloss incorporated into the text.

Because it is not regarded as a food.

He has not broken the strict fast enjoined on that day.

Hence pepper is a food.

Between the view of Raba and R. Meir.

I.e. preserved, over which a benediction is required.

M.: Rabina.

To be eaten by Jews although prepared by a Gentile.

Since a benediction is necessary, it must be a food ; how, then, could the Rabbis tell Maremar that it may be chewed on the Day of Atonement?

A mixture of flour, honey and oil beaten into a pulp. It seems to resemble the Arabic Kunafeh, a sweet dish made of wheat-floor fried with clarified butter and honey; cf. Lane, p. 150, T.A. i. p. 477 n. 465.

Without honey added.

See p. 239.

See fol. 44 a, p. 286.

See Singer, p. 290.

I.e. to be regarded as such for the purpose of the benediction.

Cf. Exod. xii. 19.

He may make unleavened cakes of rice.

The benediction over bread.

The full Grace after meals.

A broth is formed.

Therefore rice cannot be in the same category as wheat.

And according to them the benediction for rice is: "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

Who maintained above that this benediction is restricted to the five species, excluding rice.

M. inserts: Rab Huna said.

Who requires a special benediction for each species ; see fol. 40 a, p. 264.

Enumerated in Deut. viii. 8.

M. adds: and R. 'Akiba.

Rabban Gamaliel expected R. 'Akiba to follow his teaching and say three benedictions.

The name of Rabban Gamaliel.

M. adds : which is an abstract of three.

In the Baraita above, it is stated "if a kind of corn it has not been made into bread" as, e.g., pounded grain.

Since they were originally bread.

According to them pounded grain only requires one benediction, and similarly boiled bread which is no longer in pieces.

The Rabbis declare above that after "for instance, bread of rice or millet" no benediction is necessary, and here they are made to hold the opinion that one benediction, the abstract of three, is required.

I.e. in the quoted Baraita, the reading should be "no benediction is required" not "one benediction which is an abstract of three."

A dish resembling the Habis, consisting of honey, flour and oil. See T. A.J. p. 107.

That pieces of bread, the size of an olive, require the benediction "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth."

A non-priest.

The priest.

Cf. Lev. ii. 6.

Since there are no pieces the size of an olive.

I.e. the benediction is unnecessary.

According to Rashi this refers to the cmmbs of the meal-offering. But Tosafot object that this cannot be, because it continaes "should it be leaven"; and the meal-offering must be unleaven. Consequently it is taken to refer to crumbs of different species, each in itself not the size of an olive.