פירוש על ברכות 69:10

HOW DOES ONE RECITE A BLESSING? The word כיצד literally, how, is usually used when the Mishna previously spoke of a rule or a mitzvoh that one is obligated to perform. Then the Mishna leads with the question, כיצד how is that obligation to be performed? Tosfos will explain why that does not apply to the law requiring that one recite b’rochos. It is not possible to ask here; to what previously mentioned ruling is the Tano referring when asking: how, as the Gemara asks at the beginning of this Maseches (2a), because here it is logical that there is an obligation to recite a b’rochoh, as the Gemara concludes that it is forbidden to benefit from this world without reciting a b’rochoh. Since it is logical that there is an obligation, the question: how, refers to this logic. There need not be a specific ruling in the Mishna to which the question is referring.
Alternatively, we can answer, that the question, how, refers to the Mishna in Mee Shemaiso (20b) that teaches a baal keree recites a b’rochoh after a meal, and does not recite a b’rochoh before a meal. The Mishna is clearly referring to an obligation to recite a b’rochoh. It is only saying that one does not recite that b’rochoh when a baal keree. And so too, here it is feasible to recite a b’rochoh on each and every thing; therefore the Gemara asks here, how one recites a b’rochoh that he is required to recite as we have seen in Mee Shemaiso.

REDEEM IT AND THEN EAT IT. The Gemara initially said that the meaning of the double praise is that one must recite two b’rochos, one before and one after drinking wine. The Gemara rejected this, because the word הלול is needed to teach us that one must first redeem the fruit and only then is he allowed to eat them. It appears from the Gemara that the use of the word הלול for this purpose is a given and there is no alternative way of knowing this rule. The Gemara never challenges this question. Tosfos wonders why? This is bewildering. Why do we need this verse הלול, at all? For in the second perek of Kidushin (54b) we derive that an additional fifth must be added when redeeming fruits of the fourth year and that the fruit must be removed from one’s possession during the third and sixth years of the sh’meetoh cycle, via the method of a common word, from the word קדש¹בשנה הרביעת יהיה כל פריו קדש הילולים ליהוה: that appears in reference to the fruits of the fourth year and the word קדש that appears in reference to מעשר שני,²וכל מעשר הארץ מזרע הארץ מפרי העץ ליהוה הוא קדש ליהוה: the second tithe.
If so, this rule as well, that one must redeem fruits of the fourth year before eating them should be derived from מעשר שני via the same common word system. Why do we need the word הלולים at all to teach us that fruits of the fourth year must be redeemed? And we can answer: if not for the verse הלולים, I would say that the reverse is true, we should derive a stringency via the system of a common word, the word קדש that appears in reference to the fruits of the fourth year from the word קדש³כי יובל הוא קדש תהיה לכם מן הדשה תאכלו את תבואתה: that appears in reference to shmeetoh, and there should be no redemption allowed for the fruits of the fourth year. Just as there is no possible redemption of the fruits of sh’meetoh, so too, there should be no redemption of the fourth year fruits and they must be brought to Jerusalem to be eaten. It is because we have the word הלולים that we know to make the more lenient derivation from מעשר שני.
Tosfos suggests another way of answering his original question. Why is the word הלולים needed, when we have the common word קדש that can be used as a source that fourth year fruit needs to be redeemed?⁴In order to avoid confusion we must keep in mind that the term fourth year fruit means that it is the fourth year since they were planted. The nuber of the year has nothing to do with the shmeetoh cycle. Thus fourth year fruit can happen at any time of the shmeetoh cycle. It should not happen on the third year, since that would mean that it was planted during the shmeetoh year which is forbidden. Alternatively, Rabainu Chaim Kohain Said that if the source would be the redemption of מעשר שני, I would say that it is totally like מעשר שני. And only at such time that מעשר שני is in effect such as in the first, second, third and fourth years of the shmeetoh cycle is the redemption of fourth year fruits in effect. However, during the third and sixth years when there is only מעשר עני I might say that fourth year fruits cannot be redeemed, therefore the Torah taught us the word חלולים that teaches us that during all years of the shmeetoh cycle one may redeem fourth year fruits.

ONE ONLY RECITES A SONG [OF PRAISE] OVER WINE. This statement seems to be saying that there never is an instance when song is recited without wine. Tosfos shows that this is clearly untrue. We must therefore find some other possible meaning for the Gemara’s statement. What is meant is that we do not recite a song for any consumption¹מזבח אכילת literally means the eating of the altar as if the altar is capable of eating. Chazal use this metaphor because it is used in Scripture as well. What is meant is the items that are consumed by the altar. of the altar, for example, sprinkling blood or pouring water on the Sucos holiday, but certainly we find song without wine that does not involve consumption on the altar. For example, the Halel that is recited during the slaughtering of the Pesach sacrifice (Tomid Nishchat 64a) that is certainly a case of song without wine, but it does not represent a contradiction to our Gemara, because our Gemara is discussing song that is sung while something is being offered on the altar.

ACCORDING TO THE ONE WHO TAUGHT, [AS A RULE]: A FOURTH-YEAR GRAPEVINE ETC. Tosfos is showing us how this dispute affects us even today. And nowadays we hold that the status of fourth year fruits are in effect even outside of Eretz Yisroel. However, it is in effect only for vineyards and not for other trees. For whosoever is lenient in Eretz Yisroel, the Halochoh is like him outside of Eretz Yisroel. Since there is a position that maintains that even in Eretz Yisroel, only fruit of the vine is subject to the laws of the fourth year, we outside of Eretz Yisroel follow that opinion.
What do we do with vineyards of the fourth year? And the fruit of the vineyard of the fourth year nowadays, we transfer the sanctity to the amount of a p’rutah,¹The rule is that when one transfers sanctity from an item that is worth one hundred dollars to a coin worth a penny, the transfer is effective. One is initially not allowed to do this, because he is cheating the Temple Treasury fund, but if he did do it is valid. Nowadays when there is nothing one can possibly do with the fourth year fruits, it is permissible to initially transfer the sanctity to a very small coin. a very small coin, and one grinds it and throws it into a river, so that nobody should accidentally violate its sanctity. And so is it clearly stated in the Sh’iltos of Rav Achai (Parshas K’doshim Simon 100).

That a benediction is necessary.

The word is in the plural, and being unspecified is considered to mean two. There must accordingly be two praises (i.e. benedictions), one before and one after.

The fruit grown in the fourth year, of which Lev. xix. 24 speaks. That fruit is declared to be "holy" and may not be eaten, unless previously redeemed.

This will be explained as referring only to the fruit of the vineyard. Since these two teachings are drawn from the use of the plural hillullm, it cannot mean that a benediction is necessary before and after partaking of fruits.

Only when a drink-offering was brought did the choir of the Levites sing in the Temple ; and in this way the wine "cheered" God.

That hillulim refers to the benediction before and after fruits.

That Lev. xix. 24 refers to all fruit of the fourth year and not to the vine only; consequently the second deduction from hillulim need not be used to prove that only the vine requires redemption, but can be used to show that a benediction is required when partaking of fruits.

Since the second deduction from hillulim is required to prove that only the vine required redemption, how does he show that a benediction is required when partaking of fruits?

That the second hillul can also show that the benediction is required over fruits.

See p. 18 n. 5.

Cf. Deut. viii. 10.

And he is about to satisfy his hunger.

The reasoning in the preceding paragraph is based on the assumption that Lev. xix. 24 refers to a vineyard.

Cf. Lev. xix. 10. Since the gleanings have to be left behind, he must say a benediction over what he enjoys of the vineyard ; but the law of gleanings does not apply to other fruits, therefore the inference just drawn is not valid.

The law of gleanings does not apply to corn ; and yet a benediction is necessary over bread.

It is not, because Hallah does not apply to the vineyard, and yet the latter requires a benediction.

The objections having been disposed of.

Viz. gleanings and Hallah.

That they are both enjoyed.

In the drink-offering and meal-offering ; hence other fruits do not come in the same category for the purpose of the benediction.

Lit. "vineyard of olives." Since the olive is included because kerem is mentioned in connection therewith, the objection that the common factor is the altar lapses.

Cf. Deut. viii. 8.

From the common use of "land" in Deut. viii. 8 and ibid: xxvi. 2 it is deduced that the law of first-fruit applies only to the "seven species" (see Menahot 84 b). Therefore the necessity for a benediction with things outside this category has still to be proved.

This statement not only answers the question about things which are not planted, but also the question about the factor of "first-fruit" in connection with the seven species.

The word used here, ma'al, refers to the offence of utilising property belonging to the Temple by a non-priest. The Universe is regarded as the Divine Temple; but by virtue of the benediction, one becomes consecrated and permitted to partake of its produce.