Talmud - Berakhot 41a ברכות מ״א א׳

Granted, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates felled by the wind, that is why here, when our mishna speaks of ruined dates, it calls them novelot, unmodified and there, when it speaks of those that fell because of the wind, it calls them novelot temara. However, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates burned by the heat of the sun, it should have taught in this mishna here and that, the mishna in tractate Demai, novelot temara; or taught in this and that novelot, unmodified. The use of different terms indicates that the mishnayot are discussing different items. No answer was found to this question, and the Gemara notes that indeed, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates burned by the heat of the sun, it is difficult.

The mishna cited a dispute with regard to the order in which one is supposed to recite the blessings when there were many types of food before him. Rabbi Yehuda says: If there is one of the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael was praised among them, he recites the first blessing over it. And the Rabbis say: He recites a blessing over whichever of them he wants. Ulla said: This dispute is specifically in a case where the blessings to be recited over each type of food are the same, as in that case Rabbi Yehuda holds: The type of the seven species takes precedence, and the Rabbis hold: The preferred type takes precedence, and a blessing is recited over it first. However, when their blessings are not the same, everyone agrees that one must recite a blessing over this type of food and then recite another blessing over that, ensuring that the appropriate blessing is recited over each type of food.

The Gemara raises an objection to this based on what was taught in a baraita: If a radish and an olive were before him, he recites a blessing over the radish and exempts the olive from the requirement of a blessing, although their blessings are different. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the radish is the primary component for the one partaking of them, and the olive serves only to temper the taste of the radish. Therefore, he need recite a blessing only over the radish.

The Gemara continues and asks: If so, say the latter clause of the baraita where Rabbi Yehuda says: One recites a blessing over the olive, as the olive is a type of the seven species. Does Rabbi Yehuda not accept that principle which we learned in a mishna: Any food that is primary, and is eaten with food that is secondary, one recites a blessing over the primary food, and that blessing exempts the secondary from the requirement to recite a blessing before eating it? And if you say: Indeed, he does not hold that the primary food exempts the secondary, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is due to the radish that the olive comes, one recites a blessing over the radish and exempts the olive. If so, the dispute whether to recite a blessing over the radish or the olive must be in a case where the radish is not primary. This is an apparent contradiction of Ulla’s statement.

The Gemara responds: Actually, we are dealing with a case where the radish is the primary component of the meal, and when Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree, it is with regard to a different case that they disagree, and this baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: If a radish and an olive were before him, he recites a blessing over the radish and exempts the olive. In what circumstances does this apply? Specifically when the radish is primary, but when the radish is not primary, everyone agrees that one recites the appropriate blessing over this one and then he again recites the appropriate blessing over that one. However, in general, if two types of food whose blessings are identical were before him, he recites a blessing over whichever of them that he wants. Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites a blessing over the olive, as the olive is a type of the seven species.

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagreed with regard to this subject. One said: The dispute is in a case where their blessings are identical, as Rabbi Yehuda held: A type of the seven species takes precedence and the blessing is recited over it first. And the Rabbis held: The preferred type takes precedence, and a blessing is recited over it first; however, when their blessings are not identical, everyone agrees that one recites the appropriate blessing over this one and then he again recites the appropriate blessing over that one. And one said: Even when their blessings are not identical, there is also a dispute.

The Gemara discusses this: Granted, according to the one who said that the dispute is in a case where their blessings are identical, it works out well. However, according to the one who says that they disagree in a case where their blessings are not identical, then about what do they disagree? One must recite two blessings in any case. Rabbi Yirmeya said: They disagree with regard to which blessing precedes the other.

As Rav Yosef, and some say Rabbi Yitzḥak, said: Each food whose significance is manifest in that it precedes the others in this verse, which sings the praises of Eretz Yisrael, takes precedence over the others in terms of blessing as well, as it is stated: “A land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8).

The Gemara notes: And this opinion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanan. As Rabbi Ḥanan said: The entire verse was stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.

Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure by entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as we learned in a mishna: One who enters a house afflicted with leprosy of the house (see Leviticus 14:33–53) with his clothes resting on his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure. However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet and his rings on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure upon entering the house, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is made with wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not with barley bread, and with one who is reclining and eating the bread with a relish, which hastens the eating. There is, then, a Torah measurement that is connected specifically to wheat.

Barley is also used as the basis for a measure, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse that is the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not defile all of the articles in the house.

The halakhic measure determined by vines is the quantity of a quarter log of wine for a Nazirite and not the wine equivalent of a quarter log of water, which is a slightly different measure. Figs serve as the basis for the measure of a dried fig-bulk, typically the smallest unit of food for which someone will be held liable for carrying out on Shabbat from one domain to another. Pomegranates teach us a particular measurement as well, as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden utensils belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through breaking the utensil,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Berachot 41a examines the meaning of novelot temara in different mishnayot and debates the correct order for reciting blessings over multiple foods.