פירוש על ברכות 118:2

WHO IS GOOD AND DOES GOOD. When changing the wine that one is drinking, he recites blessed are you Hashem our G-d king of the universe who is good and does good. Theoretically, one could be required to say this b’rochoh upon any food item. Tosfos tells is that this is not so. However, upon changing bread and upon changing meat we do not recite “He is good and does good”. For only upon wine that has two unique characteristics that it satiates and causes one to rejoice we recite “He is good and does good”, but upon meat and bread we do not recite that b’rochoh.
What type of change requires the recital of “He is good and does good”? And Rashbam explained in Arvay P’sochim (P’sochim 101a), that it is only when the second wine is superior to the first that we recite the b’rochoh “He is good and does good”, but if the second wine is the equal to the first we do not recite the b’rochoh.¹There is a change of the text mentioned on the side of the Gemara. The Tosfos should read “and so it appears from Yerushalmee”. And so it appears in Yerushalmee in perek Kaitzad M’vorchin: R’ Abo son of Rav Huno said: one must recite the b’rochoh “He is good and does good” when one is drinking new wine and changes to old wine, which is better than new wine.²The proof of Rashbam is clearly based on this understanding that the change from new to old wine is a change for the better. As we see in the Tosfos, Rabainu Tam agrees with this understanding. His disagreement is based on his understanding of the story that Yerushalmee tells us about Rebbe. It is interesting to note, that the next statement in Yerushalmee, as understood by the commentators there seems to say exactly what Rashbam said. The Yerushalmee says that upon a change of wine one does not recite a b’rochoh. According to Rashbam, we should say that the Yerushalmee is teaching that if there is no change for the better, one does not recite “He who is good and does good”. It is interesting that neither Rashbam nor Rabainu Tam mention that this latter statement of Yerushalmee indicates the truth of Rashbam’s explanation. Upon a change in wine he need not recite this b’rochoh. Upon a change in place he must recite a b’rochoh, that “He created the fruit of the vine”. Removal of intent to continue drinking is the equivalent of a change in place and one must again recite the b’rochoh “He created the fruit of the vine”.
Rashbam’s opinion is not universally held. His brother Rabainu Tam disagrees. And Rabainu Tam explained that even if the last wine is not better than the first one must recite the b’rochoh “He is good and does good”, as long as the change for the worse is not extreme. And the Yerushalmee concludes: Rebbe, on each barrel that he opened would recite “He is good and does good”. And it appears that he did not care if the second was better than the first or not. It is obvious that he could have opened a better barrel each time only if he planned to do so. The Yerushalmee that simply says he recited a b’rochoh on each barrel seems to be telling us that there was no special plan on Rebbe’s part that the next barrel be better than the first.
Rabainu Tam deals with the proof that Rashbam used to prove that the Yerushalmee insists that the second wine be better than the first. Even though it is true that old wine was mentioned second, which seems to indicate that only when one changes to better wine is he required to recite a b’rochoh, we can still say that Rebbe argues with that ruling as we see that he did not care about whether the second wine was better than the first, and we follow Rebbe’s ruling in this matter.
How does Rashbam deal with the story of Rebbe who did not care whether the second wine was better than the first? And according to the explanation of Rashbam, he will set up this story of Rebbe that he recited a b’rochoh for each barrel indiscriminately, is speaking of when he was in doubt whether the second wine was better and because of the doubt, he recited the b’rochoh on each barrel because of the possibility that perhaps it was better than the first wine.³Usually when there is a doubt whether we are required to recite a b’rochoh we are lenient and the b’rochoh is not recited. How come here the Rashbam holds that Rebbe recited a b’rochoh even when there was only a doubt that the second wine was better? See Tiferes Shmuel 3, on Rosh 15, who says that although one wine may be worse than another, there is usually one aspect in which the second wine is better. It may be sweetness or nutritional. We may recite a b’rochoh for that specific improvement, even though overall the second wine is inferior. It is rare that a second wine has absolutely no area in which it is superior to the previous wine, therefore when one is not certain that the second wine is totally inferior, a b’rochoh may be recited for the second wine. However, Rabainu Tam explains that the story of Rebbe comes to argue on the Gemara’s previous statement that the second wine must be better as we have explained.
There are those who have a totally different view of the Yerushalmee that Rashbam quoted as proof to his position that one is required to recite “He is good and does good” only when changing to a superior wine. And there are those who explain that the statement in Yerushalmee, about changing wines from new to old wine is speaking of the b’rochoh “He who created the fruit of the vine”, just as the following statement about change of place is discussing the b’rochoh “He who created the fruit of the vine”. However, we do not find this notion of reciting a second b’rochoh of “He who created the fruit of the vine” when changing wines in our Gemara, Talmud Bavli.

I.e. between Tuesday and Wednesday.

Diverting the course by numerous canals for irrigation.

The town of Sipphara; Neubauer, p. 336.

The town of Hit. Dekira is connected by Wiesner (p. 147) with kira "wax," and is so-named because of its naphtha wells. Cf. T. A. I. p. 17.

This is the reading of M. and equals "Shapor's land." Edd. : Shebistana.

A similar explanation is given by Josephus, Antiq. I. i. 3.

See p. 350 n. 4.

Shaded to keep out the sun's glare.

A figurative expression. The first rain is absorbed in the soil and requires no benediction. But when the fallen drops [the bridegroom] begin to rebound towards the falling drops [the bride], then it is required.

This passage is now included in the Sabbath Morning Service; Singer, pp. 125 f.

On the form of benediction for rain.

Therefore it was unnecessary for the Mishnah to specify "For rain and good tidings," since the latter includes the former.

Who has especially to be thankful for rain.

It follows from this that the landowner's benediction should be "Who

The child is his own, and yet he says the benediction to be uttered over something that is shared.

See p. 26 n. 5.

According to the Biblical law, the entire heritage could not pass to one son.

Went elsewhere to finish his meal.

M. omits: Joseph... Johanan, reading: And Rab said.

I.e. by inheritance or presentation, not by purchase.