Commentary for Berakhot 71:29

HE SHOULD NOT GARGLE. Rashi explained that one may not put oil in his mouth when he has a sore throat with the intent of leaving it there for a while so that it will soothe his sore throat.
Tosfos understands that Rashi holds that if he would swallow the oil immediately without allowing the oil to bathe the sore area in his throat, that would be permissible. And if you ask: if so, let the Tano make a distinction within the case of drinking pure oil and teach us that it is sometimes permissible in the very same case. Why did the Tano have to speak of adding oil to anigron to show us a permissible case, even pure oil is permitted if one swallows it immediately, for it is only forbidden to bathe the throat, which is to keep the oil in the throat for some time?¹See Artscroll note 3, for a defense of Rashi’s explanation. Tosfos is dissatisfied with Rashi’s explanation and offers his own. Rashi’s explanation is predicated on his translation of the word יערענו which means to bathe the throat by keeping the oil there for some time. Tosfos will explain that יערענו need not necessarily mean that one bathe the throat by keeping the oil there. Therefore R”I explains, that לא יערענו, means that it is forbidden to drink oil even if one swallows the oil immediately without keeping the oil in his throat for a while. For any drinking that is only for medicinal purposes is called ערעור even when one swallows it immediately. And this is the reason that it is forbidden because it is evident when one drinks pure oil that his intention is for medicinal purposes which is prohibited on Shabos.
Alternatively, we can defend Rashi’s explanation as follows: the first sentence of the Braiso remains the same do not bathe the throat by keeping the oil there for some time. In the second sentence of the Braiso we will have a new understanding of the words. We will divide the sentence in two. The first part of the sentence is: But he may put oil into anigron even to keep it in his throat for a while. The second part of the sentence is: Or he may swallow it unadulterated without keeping the oil in his throat.

SINCE HE DERIVED PLEASURE FROM IT, HE MUST RECITE A BLESSING. And it appears that the matter is as follows: That if one drinks liquids, if the liquid is bad to drink to the extent that he has no pleasure from it, he need not recite a b’rochoh.

When it is said oil requires a benediction.

And uses oil as a remedy.

That one may swallow oil added to an elaiogaron on the Sabbath ; so why is it mentioned ?

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."