## Berakhot Daf 36a

###### Berakhot 36a:1
[Berakhot 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:1)

דְּכוּלְּהוּ שִׁלְקֵי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
in which **all boiled** vegetables were boiled. A certain amount of oil is added to *anigeron*.


###### Berakhot 36a:2
[Berakhot 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:2)

אִם כֵּן, הָוֵה לֵיהּ אֲנִיגְרוֹן עִיקָּר וְשֶׁמֶן טָפֵל, וּתְנַן, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא עִיקָּר וְעִמּוֹ טְפֵלָה, מְבָרֵךְ עַל הָעִיקָּר וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵלָה!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
However, **if so,** here too, ***anigeron* is primary and oil is secondary, and we learned** in a mishna: **This is the principle: Any** food **that is primary, and** it 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. One need recite a blessing only over the *anigeron*.


###### Berakhot 36a:3
[Berakhot 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:3)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּחוֹשֵׁשׁ בִּגְרוֹנוֹ. דְּתַנְיָא: הַחוֹשֵׁשׁ בִּגְרוֹנוֹ לֹא יְעָרְעֶנּוּ בְּשֶׁמֶן תְּחִלָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶן הַרְבֵּה לְתוֹךְ אֲנִיגְרוֹן וּבוֹלֵעַ.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara reconciles: **With what are we dealing here?** With **one who has a sore throat,** which he is treating with oil. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **One who has a sore throat should not, *ab initio*, gargle oil on Shabbat** for medicinal purposes, as doing so would violate the decree prohibiting the use of medicine on Shabbat. **However, he may,** even *ab initio*, **add a large amount of oil to the *anigeron* and swallow it.** Since it is common practice to swallow oil either alone or with a secondary ingredient like *anigeron* for medicinal purposes, in this case one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.


###### Berakhot 36a:4
[Berakhot 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:4)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלִרְפוּאָה קָא מְכַוֵּין לָא לְבָרֵיךְ עֲלֵיהּ כְּלָל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ הֲנָאָה מִינֵּיהּ, בָּעֵי בָּרוֹכֵי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara challenges: **This is obvious** that one must recite a blessing. The Gemara responds: **Lest you say: Since he intends** to use it **for medicinal** purposes, **let him not recite a blessing over it at all,** as one does not recite a blessing before taking medicine. Therefore, **it teaches us** that, **since he derived pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing** over it.


###### Berakhot 36a:5
[Berakhot 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:5)

קִמְחָא דְחִיטֵּי, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara clarifies: If one was eating plain **wheat flour,** what blessing would he recite? **Rav Yehuda said** that one recites: **Who creates fruit of the ground, and Rav Naḥman said** that one recites: **By Whose word all things came to be.**


###### Berakhot 36a:6
[Berakhot 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: לָא תִּפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּשְׁמוּאֵל קָיְימִי כְּווֹתֵיהּ. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁמֶן זַיִת מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״. אַלְמָא: אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי — בְּמִלְּתֵיהּ קָאֵי. הָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי — בְּמִלְּתֵיהּ קָאֵי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Do not disagree with Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Yoḥanan and Shmuel hold in accordance with his** opinion, even though they addressed another topic. **As Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitzḥak said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil. Consequently, even though** the olive **has changed** into olive oil, **the formula** of the blessing **remains as it was. This too, even though** the wheat **has changed** into flour, its blessing **remains as it was:** Who creates fruit of the ground.


###### Berakhot 36a:7
[Berakhot 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:7)

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם — לֵית לֵיהּ עִלּוּיָא אַחֲרִינָא, הָכָא — אִית לֵיהּ עִלּוּיָא אַחֲרִינָא בְּפַת.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara responds: **Is it comparable? There,** the olive oil **has no** potential for **additional enhancement,** while **here,** the flour **has** the potential for **additional enhancement as bread.** Since oil is the olive’s finished product, one should recite the same blessing over it as over the tree itself. Wheat flour, on the other hand, is used to bake bread, so the flour is a raw material for which neither the blessing over wheat nor the blessing over bread is appropriate. Only the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be is appropriate.


###### Berakhot 36a:8
[Berakhot 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:8)

וְכִי אִית לֵיהּ עִלּוּיָא אַחֲרִינָא לָא מְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״ אֶלָּא ״שֶׁהַכֹּל״? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אַקָּרָא חַיָּיא וְקִמְחָא דִשְׂעָרֵי מְבָרְכִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. מַאי לָאו דְּחִיטֵּי בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: **When it has** a potential for **additional enhancement, one does not recite: Who creates fruit of the ground; rather** one recites: By Whose word **all things** came to be? **Didn’t Rabbi Zeira say** that **Rav Mattana said** that **Shmuel said: Over a raw gourd and over barley flour, one recites the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. What, is that not to say that over wheat** flour one recites: **Who creates fruit of the ground?** Over barley flour, which people do not typically eat, it is appropriate to recite: By Whose word all things came to be. Over wheat flour, it is appropriate to recite: Who creates fruit of the ground.


###### Berakhot 36a:9
[Berakhot 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:9)

לָא, דְּחִיטֵּי נָמֵי ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
This argument is rejected: **No,** one **also** recites: **By Whose word all things came to be,** over **wheat** flour.


###### Berakhot 36a:10
[Berakhot 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:10)

וְלַשְׁמְעִינַן דְּחִיטֵּי וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דִּשְׂעָרֵי!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: **Then let** the Sages **teach us** that this *halakha* applies **with regard to wheat** flour, **and all the more so regarding barley** flour as well.


###### Berakhot 36a:11
[Berakhot 36a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:11)

אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן דְּחִיטֵּי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּחִיטֵּי, אֲבָל דִּשְׂעָרֵי לָא לְבָרֵיךְ עֲלֵיהּ כְּלָל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara responds: It was necessary to teach us that one must recite a blessing even before eating barley flour. **Had** the Sages **taught us** this *halakha* with regard to **wheat, I would have said: This applies** only with regard to **wheat** flour, **but** over **barley** flour, **let one not recite a blessing at all.** Therefore, **it teaches us** that one recites a blessing over barley flour.


###### Berakhot 36a:12
[Berakhot 36a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:12)

וּמִי גָּרַע מִמֶּלַח וְזָמִית, דִּתְנַן עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הַזָּמִית אוֹמֵר ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא מֶלַח וְזָמִית עָבֵיד אִינָשׁ דְּשָׁדֵי לְפוּמֵּיהּ, אֲבָל קִמְחָא דִשְׂעָרֵי הוֹאִיל וְקָשֶׁה לְקוּקְיָאנֵי, לָא לְבָרֵיךְ עֲלֵיהּ כְּלָל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ הֲנָאָה מִינֵּיהּ בָּעֵי בָּרוֹכֵי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation. How could one have considered that possibility? **Is it inferior to salt and salt water [*zamit*]? As we learned** in a mishna that **over salt and salt water one recites: By Whose word all things came to be,** and all the more so it should be recited over barley flour. This question is rejected: Nevertheless, **it was necessary** to teach the *halakha* regarding barley flour, as **it might enter your mind to say:** Although **one** occasionally **places salt or salt water into his mouth, barley flour, which** is damaging to one who eats it **and causes intestinal worms, let one recite no blessing over it at all.** Therefore, **it teaches us, since one derives pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing.**


###### Berakhot 36a:13
[Berakhot 36a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:13)

קוֹרָא, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
Another dispute over the appropriate blessing is with regard to the **heart of palm [*kura*],** which is a thin membrane covering young palm branches that was often eaten. **Rav Yehuda said** that one should recite: **Who creates fruit of the ground.** And **Shmuel,** Rav Yehuda’s teacher, **said** that one should recite: **By Whose word all things came to be.**


###### Berakhot 36a:14
[Berakhot 36a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:14)

רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, פֵּירָא הוּא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ״, הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rav Yehuda said: Who creates fruit of the ground; it is a fruit. And Shmuel said: By Whose word all things came to be, since it will ultimately harden** and it is considered part of the tree, not a fruit.


###### Berakhot 36a:15
[Berakhot 36a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא, כְּווֹתָךְ מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּהָא צְנוֹן סוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת וּמְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״. וְלָא הִיא: צְנוֹן נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְפוּגְלָא, דִּקְלָא לָא נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְקוֹרָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: *Shinnana*. It is reasonable** to rule **in accordance with your** opinion, as **a radish ultimately hardens** if left in the ground; nevertheless, one who eats it while it is soft **recites over it: Who creates fruit of the ground.** In any case, despite this praise, the Gemara states: **That is not so; people plant a radish with the soft** radish **in mind.** However, **people do not plant palm trees with the heart of palm in mind** and therefore it cannot be considered a fruit.


###### Berakhot 36a:16
[Berakhot 36a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:16)

וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּלָא נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא מְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ? וַהֲרֵי צָלָף, דְּנָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְפִרְחָא, וּתְנַן: עַל מִינֵי נִצְפָּה, עַל הֶעָלִין וְעַל הַתְּמָרוֹת אוֹמֵר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, וְעַל הָאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְעַל הַקַּפְרֵיסִין אוֹמֵר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
In response to this, the Gemara asks: **And whenever people do not plant with that** result **in mind, one does not recite a blessing over it?** What of the **caper-bush that people plant with their fruit in mind, and we learned** in a mishna **that with regard to the parts of the caper-bush [*nitzpa*], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.** This indicates that even over leaves and various other parts of the tree that are secondary to the fruit, the blessing is: Who creates fruit of the ground, and not: By Whose word all things came to be.


###### Berakhot 36a:17
[Berakhot 36a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:17)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: צָלָף נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְשׁוּתָא, דִּקְלָא לָא נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְקוֹרָא. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקַלְּסֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה, הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** that there is still a difference: **Caper-bushes, people plant** them **with** their **leaves in mind; palm trees, people do not plant** them **with** the **heart of palm in mind.** Therefore, no proof may be brought from the *halakha* in the case of the caper-bush to the *halakha* in the case of the of the palm. The Gemara concludes: **Although Shmuel praised Rav Yehuda, the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel.**


###### Berakhot 36a:18
[Berakhot 36a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:18)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: צָלָף שֶׁל עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ זוֹרֵק אֶת הָאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַקַּפְרֵיסִין. לְמֵימְרָא דַּאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת פֵּירֵי וְקַפְרֵיסִין לָאו פֵּירֵי? וּרְמִינְהוּ: עַל מִינֵי נִצְפָּה, עַל הֶעָלִים וְעַל הַתְּמָרוֹת אוֹמֵר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, וְעַל הָאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְעַל הַקַּפְרֵיסִין אוֹמֵר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara cites an additional *halakha* concerning the caper-bush. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: A caper-bush during the first three years of its growth [*orla*] outside of Eretz** Yisrael, when its fruits are prohibited by rabbinic and not Torah law, **one throws out the berries,** the primary fruit, **but eats the buds.** The Gemara raises the question: **Is that to say that the berries are fruit** of the caper, **and the bud is not fruit? The Gemara raises a contradiction** from what we learned in the mishna cited above: **With regard to the parts of the caper-bush [*nitzpa*], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries, and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.** Obviously, the buds are also considered the fruit of the caper-bush.


###### Berakhot 36a:19
[Berakhot 36a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:19)

הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: צָלָף מִתְעַשֵּׂר תְּמָרוֹת וַאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְקַפְרֵיסִין. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִתְעַשֵּׂר אֶלָּא אֲבִיּוֹנוֹת בִּלְבַד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara responds: Rav’s **statement is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, as we learned** in a mishna that **Rabbi Eliezer says: A caper-bush is tithed from** its component parts, **its young fronds, berries and buds,** as all these are considered its fruit. **And Rabbi Akiva says: Only the berries alone are tithed, because it** alone **is** considered **fruit.** It was in accordance with this opinion, that Rav prohibited only the eating of the berries during the caper-bush’s years of *orla*.


###### Berakhot 36a:20
[Berakhot 36a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:20)

וְנֵימָא: ״הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא״! אִי אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ בָּאָרֶץ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כׇּל הַמֵּיקֵל בָּאָרֶץ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, אֲבָל בָּאָרֶץ — לָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: If this is the case, why did Rav issue what seemed to be an independent ruling regarding *orla*? **He should have** simply **said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** from which we could have drawn a practical halakhic conclusion regarding *orla* as well. The Gemara responds: **Had** Rav **said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, I would have said** that the *halakha* is in accordance with his opinion **even in Eretz** Yisrael. Therefore, **he teaches us** by stating the entire *halakha*, that there is a principle: **Anyone who is lenient** in a dispute with regard to the *halakhot* of *orla* **in Eretz** Yisrael, **the *halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion **outside of Eretz** Yisrael, **but not in Eretz** Yisrael.


###### Berakhot 36a:21
[Berakhot 36a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:21)

וְנֵימָא: ״הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ״, דְּכׇל הַמֵּיקֵל בָּאָרֶץ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אִי אָמַר הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי גַּבֵּי מַעְשַׂר אִילָן, דְּבָאָרֶץ גּוּפָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי עׇרְלָה, דְּבָאָרֶץ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֵימָא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נָמֵי נִגְזוֹר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara questions this: If so, then **let** Rav **say: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva outside of Eretz** Yisrael **as anyone who is lenient** in a dispute with regard to the *halakhot* of *orla* **in Eretz** Yisrael, **the *halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion **outside of Eretz** Yisrael. The Gemara answers: **Had he said that, I would have said: That only applies with regard to the tithing of trees,** which even **in Eretz** Yisrael **itself is an obligation by rabbinic law; but with regard to *orla*,** which **is** prohibited **in Eretz** Yisrael **by Torah law, say that we should issue a decree** prohibiting *orla* **even outside of Eretz** Yisrael. Therefore, **he teaches us** that even with regard to *orla*, the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.


###### Berakhot 36a:22
[Berakhot 36a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:22)

רָבִינָא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי דְּקָא זָרֵיק אֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְקָאָכֵיל קַפְרֵיסִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַעְתָּךְ, כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמֵיקֵל? וְלֶעֱבֵיד מָר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי דִּמְקִילִּי טְפֵי! דִּתְנַן: צָלָף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. וּבֵית הַלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּעׇרְלָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
On this topic, the Gemara relates: **Ravina found Mar bar Rav Ashi throwing away the berries and eating the buds** of an *orla* caper-bush. Ravina **said to** Mar bar Rav Ashi: **What is your opinion,** that you are eating the buds? If it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who is lenient, then you should act in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who are even more lenient. As we learned** in a mishna with regard to the laws of forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds that **Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is** considered **a diverse kind in the vineyard,** as it is included in the prohibition against planting vegetables in a vineyard. **Beit Hillel say:** A caper-bush is **not** considered **a diverse kind in a vineyard.** Nevertheless, **these and those,** Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, **agree** that the caper-bush is **obligated in** the prohibition of ***orla*.**


###### Berakhot 36a:23
[Berakhot 36a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:23)

הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ צָלָף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם, אַלְמָא מִין יָרָק הוּא, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּעׇרְלָה, אַלְמָא מִין אִילָן הוּא!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
Before dealing with the problem posed by Ravina to Mar bar Rav Ashi, the Gemara notes an internal contradiction in this mishna. **This** mishna **itself is problematic: You said that Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is** considered **a diverse kind in a vineyard; apparently,** they hold that **it is a type of vegetable** bush, **and then you taught: These and those,** Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, **agree** that the caper-bush is **obligated in** the prohibition of ***orla*; apparently, it is a type of tree.**


###### Berakhot 36a:24
[Berakhot 36a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/36a:24)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ, וְעָבְדִי הָכָא לְחוּמְרָא וְהָכָא לְחוּמְרָא. מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי הָוֵה לֵיהּ סָפֵק עׇרְלָה, וּתְנַן: סָפֵק עׇרְלָה — בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר, וּבְסוּרְיָא מוּתָּר. וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara responds: This is **not difficult; Beit Shammai are uncertain** whether the caper-bush is a vegetable bush or a tree, **and here,** regarding diverse kinds, **they act stringently and here,** regarding *orla*, **they act stringently. In any case, according to Beit Shammai** the caper-bush has the status of **uncertain *orla*,** and **we learned** the consensus *halakha* in a mishna: **Uncertain *orla* in Eretz Yisrael is forbidden to eat, and in Syria it is permitted,** and we are not concerned about its uncertain status. **Outside of Eretz** Yisrael, the gentile owner of a field **may go down** into his field