Commentary for Berakhot 81:7

HOWEVER, WHEN THEIR BLESSINGS ARE NOT THE SAME. Rashi explained, for example a radish and an olive,¹The example Rashi uses, an olive and a radish, was not chosen randomly. The Gemara in its challenge against Ulo quotes a Braios that is discussing an olive and a radish. We see from the Gemara’s question that Ula’s statement is referring to an olive and a radish. the b’rochoh for the radish is האדמה and the b’rochoh for the olive is בורא פרי העץ. And there is no dispute between the Rabanan and R’ Yehudoh, since the b’rochoh for one does not free the other of a b’rochoh, even R’ Yehudoh agrees that there is no precedence for the seven species, rather, one recites a b’rochoh on whichever one he wants, the favorite,²This expression is a bit puzzling. Tosfos speaks of the one he want and the favorite. Arte these one and the same or are they perhaps different. The Rosh holds that the favorite means the one that he usually prefers, even though at this point in time he may want to eat the other one first. According to the Rosh one must choose the fruit that he usually prefers. The Rambam holds that חביב is the one that he wants to eat now and he need not consider what he usually prefers. and afterwards he recites a b’rochoh on the second one.³According to this explanation of the Gemara, this is a statement that when one has a choice between an olive and a radish he can choose to recite a b’rochoh on the fruit he favors. He may choose the olive or the radish. He need not consider that the olive has a b’rochoh that is more specific than the radish.
This explanation assumes that when we say that when the b’rochos are the same there is no dispute, it means that R, Yehudoh agrees that in this case the uniqueness of the seven species is not in effect and one need not consider their advantage when choosing upon which fruit the b’rochoh will be recited. One could just as easily have said that it is the Rabanan that agree with R’ Yehudoh that we do not look at the advantage of the favorite when determining which b’rochoh to recite. Tosfos explains why the approach that he took is more reasonable. And this is how we should explain the Gemara, that R’ Yehudoh agrees to the Rabanan. Since the Gemara does not tell us who agrees to whom, it is better to say that the individual agrees to the majority and not that the majority agrees to the individual.
We are working with an assumption that when the b’rochos are the same one will recite a b’rochoh on one fruit and not need recite a b’rochoh on the other fruit. When the b’rochos are not the same, one will have to recite a different b’rochoh on each fruit and that is why R’ Yehudoh agrees to the Rabanan that the seven species do not have any special significance in this situation. Rashi wonders why are we so convinced that when we have a radish and an olive that there must be two different b’rochos. And Rashi asked: he should recite a b’rochoh on the radish and free the olive of its b’rochoh, for we have learned in a Mishna, if one recites on fruits of the tree בורא פרי האדמה, he has fulfilled his obligation. If so, when one recites בורא פרי האדמה on the radish, this should cover the olive as well, since if he had recited that b’rochoh for the radish he would have fulfilled his obligation.
And Rashi answered, that there on 40a it is different, for there is only one species and he erred and recited בורא פרי האדמה instead of בורא פרי העץ. The b’rochoh was intended for that fruit and since it is in fact a פרי האדמה de facto one has fulfilled his obligation. But here when one has a radish and an olive before him when he recited בורא פרי האדמה on the radish it does not cover the b’rochoh for its associate, the olive, even de facto, because the b’rochoh was intended for the radish and not for the olive at all.
Tosfos raises another question about the laws governing which b’rochoh is to be recited first. And if you ask: but we have learned earlier (39a) by the story of Bar Kaporo that the b’rochoh of בורא פרי האדמה is more significant than the b’rochoh of שהכל because it is more specific and that is why one should recite a בורא פרי האדמה before reciting a שהכל. If so, בורא פרי העץ is more significant than the b’rochoh of בורא פרי האדמה and one should be required to recite the b’rochoh for the olive first. And we can answer: that בורא פרי העץ is not considered so much more significant than בורא פרי האדמה as בורא פרי האדמה is more significant than שהכל נהיה בדברו. שהכל נהיה בדברו essentially describes all of creation, and all the foods that were created, בורא פרי האדמה on the other hand speaks only of vegetation, a relatively narrow field as compared to all foods that are available. The difference between all of creation and vegetation is much greater than the difference between all vegetation and fruit trees.
Halochos G’dolos does insist that we must take into account that בורא פרי העץ is more specific than בורא פרי האדמה and that when a question arises as to which b’rochoh should be recited first we must give preferential treatment to the בורא פרי האדמה. Tosfos says that we cannot reconcile Halochos G’dolos with this juncture of the Gemara. And that which is written in Halochos G’dolos that בורא פרי העץ must come before בורא פרי האדמה because it is more specific, that is only true according to the conclusion later that they, the Rabanan and R’ Yehudoh, disagree even when the b’rochos on the two fruits are not the same, and we rule in accordance with R’ Yehudoh. According to that conclusion we can say that the specificity of בורא פרי העץ must be taken into account.
But according to the present version of this dispute in which we say that they only argue when the b’rochos are the same, and that when they are not the same there is no dispute the ruling of Halochos G’dolos cannot be reconciled with our Gemara’s position at this juncture, as we explained earlier.³According to this explanation of the Gemara, this is a statement that when one has a choice between an olive and a radish he can choose to recite a b’rochoh on the fruit he favors. He may choose the olive or the radish. He need not consider that the olive has a b’rochoh that is more specific than the radish.

R' YIRMIYOH SAID [IT SHOULD] PRECEDE; R' YOSAIF SAID ETC. The Gemara cites an opinion that the dispute between R’ Yehudoh and the Rabanan is even when the b’rochos to be recited are the same. The Gemara asks: what can they be arguing about if the b’rochos are not the same. R’ Yirmiyoh answers: they argue about which of the two b’rochos are to be recited first. In our text of the Gemara that Tosfos is now quoting we read: as R’ Yosaif said. The implication of this text is that R’ Yosaif’s statement is following the opinion of R’ Yehudoh and that is why he holds that the order that must be followed is the order that the Torah teaches us of the seven species. The Rabanan however, do not subscribe to this opinion of R’ Yosaif and they hold that there is no need to follow the order of the seven species at all. Tosfos presents an alternative text, not דאמר רב יוסף rather רב יוסף אמר. According to this text Rav Yosaif is not linked to R’ Yehudoh, and his statement is true even according to the Rabanan. They also agree that we must take into account the order of the seven species in the Torah.
Rashi and R’I explained that according to this text, דאמר רב יוסף this statement of Rav Yosaif that whatever is first in this verse takes precedence for reciting b’rochos, was said only according to R’ Yehudoh. The Rabanan do not agree at all that the order of the seven species has any significance in the matter of which b’rochoh is to be recited first.
Tosfos introduces a dissenting opinion. However, Rabainu Sh’mayoh’s text is רב יוסף אמר וכו' without the 'ד that connects it to R’ Yirmiyoh’s statement. It is an independent statement by Rav Yosaif and it was said even according to the Rabanan, they too agree that the order of the seven species must be taken into account when determining which b’rochoh is to be recited first. And it is speaking of when one is not more of a favorite than the other, and then we must go according to that which is first in the verse. For if there is a favorite, it is certain that the favorite is first, For even when the choice is between other species as opposed to the seven species, the Rabanan say that one recites a b’rochoh on whatever fruit he wants, the favorite, certainly when the choice is between the seven species we should have to follow the favorite. And the statement of Rav Yosaif is an independent statement, not attached to R’ Yirmiyoh’s statement.
Tosfos has a serious problem with Rabainu Sh’mayoh’s opinion that even the Rabanan agree that we must take into account the order of the seven species when that does not conflict with the favorite. And this is not clear, for it is soon evident that the proper text is דאמר רב יוסף and it was said only according to R’ Yehudoh and the Rabanan disagree. For Rav Chisdo and Rav Hamnuno were sitting at a meal, and they brought before them dates and pomegranates, Rav Hamnuno recited a b’rochoh on the dates first. Rav Chisdo said to him do you not hold of Rav Yosaif’s teaching that whatever is mentioned earlier in the verse takes precedence for a b’rochoh? This question about Rav Hamnuno’s choice makes sense if we hold that the consideration of that which is earlier in the verse takes precedence over all other considerations. Then it makes sense to ask, do you not hold of Rav Yosaif’s statement? But if Rav Yosaif’s statement is not absolute as Rabainu Sh’mayoh suggests and that when there is a favorite that overrides the order of the seven species in the Torah and one recites the b’rochoh on the favorite, why was Rav Hamnuno’s choice questioned at all? Perhaps he chose the favorite as he should and he agrees with Rav Yosaif when there is no favorite.

The term Nobelot Temarah in the Mishnaic quotation.

In the sense "Fruit scorched by the sun."

In our Mishnah and in the Mishnaic quotation.

But it has just been mentioned he says the benediction first "over that which he likes best and then...over the other."

And he only eats the olives to remove the sharp taste of the radishes; in that case, the second benediction is unnecessary.

Cf . fol. 44 a, p. 284. If R. Judah accepts this teaching, how can be demand a benediction for the olive which is only accessory to the radish?

I.e. the smith.

Viz. the dispute between R. Judah and the Rabbis.

The seven species are enumerated in this verse.

Some edd. read : Hanin.

And therefore the order in which they are mentioned does not matter. The Talmud goes on to explain what is meant by "standards."

Cf. Lev. xiv. 46. Since he is not wearing the things, they become defiled at once. As for his actual garments, they do not become defiled (requiring washing) unless he "lieth or eateth" there; cf. v. 47.

A loaf equal in size to four eggs.

Barley-bread, being coarser, would take longer to eat. Hence "wheat" sets a standard of time in connection with the contracting of defilement.

By its presence alone, without actual contact.

To constitute a breach of his vow. Cf. Num. vi. 3.

As contrasted with those of an artisan, which are exposed for sale.