Commentary for Berakhot 75:19

OVER THIS DATE HONEY ONE RECITES: BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS [CAME TO BE]. The honey that oozes out of dates is not treated as the fruit of the date and we do not recite בורא פרי העץ when eating it rather שהכל נהיה בדברו. Tosfos informs us that this is not an isolated ruling for date honey, but applies to all liquids extracted from fruit with the exception of grapes and olives. And the same is true that we recite שהכל נהיה בדברו for liquids from all species of fruit with the exception of wine and oil as we say in regard to orloh, the fruits of the first three years.¹The Mishna says in תרומות, Chapter 11, Mishna 3, One only receives lashes for ingesting orloh only on that which comes out of olives and grapes. We see that only oil and wine are considered fruits all other juices are thought of as “sweat” of the fruit and not the fruit proper.
Tosfos is taking our Gemara at face value that date honey does not have the status of fruit even though the Torah refers to dates as honey. And this opinion comes to exclude the opinion of Halochos G’dolos who explained that the date honey that we ruled requires only שהכל נהיה בדברו, is speaking of when one mixed water into the date honey. If it is undiluted the b’rochoh is בורא פרי העץ. Halochos G’dolos holds that since the Torah refers to the date itself as honey, obviously the honey must be the primary product of the date and should therefore be considered a fruit and require בורא פרי העץ.
Since we are discussing the proper b’rochos for juices and liquids extracted from various fruits, Tosfos now considers the correct b’rochoh for “our”²The beer that the Gemara generally refers to is beer that is date based. Our beer refers to European beer that is grain based. beer which is made from various grains. And our beer, even though there is a possibility that that there is the equivalent of an olive of grain in the mixture that could be drunk within the time it takes to eat a half-bread,³A half-bread is the equivalent of four cubic eggs. In certain areas of Torah law when there is the equivalent of an olive in a mixture that could be consumed within the time it takes to eat four cubic eggs of the mixture it is considered as if the olive size is still intact. Tosfos considers that we might have to establish the b’rochoh for the olive size of grain since there is enough grain in the mixture that it could be drunk in the time it takes to eat the equivalent of four cubic eggs. we do not recite בורא מיני מזונות, rather we recite שהכל נהיה בדברו. And even according to Rav and Shmuel who say that whatever has in it from the five grains we recite בורא מיני מזונות, here, the beer, does not have tangible barley in it, only a mere taste of the barley, and a taste is insufficient to cause that the b’rochoh should be בורא מיני מזונות, there must be tangible barley in the mixture.
And furthermore, בורא מיני מזונות should not be recited on beer, because it, the barley, could reach a higher level of importance if it were baked into bread. Since beer is not the ultimate use of barley, it does not warrant the more important b’rochos of מזונות מיני בורא. And furthermore, when drinking one recites שהכל נהיה בדברו.⁴The ב"חsays that Tosfos is referring to the next Gemara that speaks of two types of shattisa. The Gemara says that on loose shattisa we recite שהכל נהיה בדברו not בורא מיני מזונות. This is a bit puzzling, because the Gemara says that the reason we recite שהכל נהיה בדברו is because it is drunk for medicinal purposes. It seems that if one would drink liquidly shattisa as an enjoyable drink the b’rochoh would be בורא מיני מזונות. See Rosh, Chapter 12, and טוב יום מעדני 1, at the bottom of the page, who quotes Rabainu Yonoh. He says that the Gemara there does not mean that because something is eaten for medicinal purposes it loses its regular b’rochoh, rather the Gemara means that despite the fact that one is eating food for medicinal purposes, it is still required to recite a b’rochoh and the b’rochoh to be recited is its regular b’rochoh as a food.

So that there is the semblance of bread.

I.e. flat boards of dough.

He treated it as though it were bread.

Not "...Who createst the fruit of the tree."

Read with M. : סתוניות for ספוניות, the grapes which are left unripened in the winter, from which vinegar is made.

Cf. Lev. 5:15 f.

From the payment of the additional fifth, because he does not regard them as fruit. Mar is therefore in agreement with him.

τρῖμμα, a brew of pounded groats and spices. What benediction does it need?

Rabina's question caused Raba to understand what had been asked of him.

M. : Raba.

Flour of unripe barley mixed with honey.

A brew made from roasted wheat ; cf. Pesahim 42 b.

What becomes of the objection that the Shattit cannot be a remedy since it is not permitted to prepare a remedy on the Sabbath, whereas this may be prepared?

There was nothing more to be done to it to constitute it a remedy ; therefore it may be prepared on the Sabbath, although used as a remedy.

Respecting the correct benediction for the Shattit.

Even if eaten as food.

I.e. with the definite article omitted. It is noteworthy that in the other benedictions there is no article. A difference in tense-meaning is here associated with its inclusion or omission.

Not hammosi' otam. The words were spoken by Balaam and refer to a past event.

Accordingly even in Exod. vi. 7 upon which R. Nehemiah relied, hammosi' has the meaning "Who brought forth."

The text is corrupt, and the translation given seems to follow the correct reading; cf. D. S. ad loc. Goldschmidt reads: The Rabbis praised the father of R. Simeon b. Rab Zebid to R. Zera b. Rab.