פירוש על ברכות 81:2
Tosafot on Berakhot
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.
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy