## Berakhot Daf 36b

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

וְלוֹקֵחַ — וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶנּוּ לוֹקֵט.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**and take** from the *orla* fruit, and **as long as** the Jew **does not see him gather** it, he may purchase the fruit from the gentile. If so, then outside of Eretz Yisrael, one may act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai who hold that the caper-bush has the status of uncertain *orla*, and eat even the berries without apprehension.


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּמְקוֹם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עָבְדִינַן כְּוָתֵיהּ, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי בִּמְקוֹם בֵּית הִלֵּל — אֵינָהּ מִשְׁנָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara answers: The general rule that outside of Eretz Yisrael one acts in accordance with the lenient opinion in a dispute within Eretz Yisrael applies when **Rabbi Akiva** expresses a more lenient opinion **in place of Rabbi Eliezer,** and **we act in accordance with his** opinion. **And** however, when **Beit Shammai** express an opinion **where Beit Hillel** disagree, their opinion is considered as if it were **not** in the **mishna,** and is completely disregarded.


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

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּנַעֲשָׂה שׁוֹמֵר לַפְּרִי, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עׇרְלָתוֹ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ״, אֶת הַטָּפֵל לְפִרְיוֹ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — שׁוֹמֵר לַפְּרִי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara approaches this matter from a different perspective: **Let us derive** the *halakha* that buds are included in the prohibition of *orla* from the fact that the bud **serves as protection for the fruit, and the Torah says:** “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food **you shall regard its fruit [*et piryo*] as *orla*”** (Leviticus 19:23), and ***et piryo*** is interpreted to mean **that which is secondary to the fruit. What is that? That** section of the plant **which is protection for the fruit.** The buds should be prohibited as *orla*, since they protect the fruit.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן דְּנַעֲשָׂה שׁוֹמֵר לַפְּרִי — הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בֵּין בְּתָלוּשׁ בֵּין בִּמְחוּבָּר, הָכָא בִּמְחוּבָּר — אִיתֵיהּ, בְּתָלוּשׁ — לֵיתֵיהּ.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rava said: Where do we say** that a section of the plant **becomes protection for the fruit?** That is specifically **when it exists both when** the fruit **is detached** from the tree **and when it is** still **connected** to the tree. However, **here, it exists when** the fruit **is connected** to the tree, **but when it is detached it does not,** and since the protection falls off of the fruit when it is picked, it is no longer considered protection.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: פִּיטְמָא שֶׁל רִמּוֹן מִצְטָרֶפֶת, וְהַנֵּץ שֶׁלּוֹ אֵין מִצְטָרֵף. מִדְּקָאָמַר הַנֵּץ שֶׁלּוֹ אֵין מִצְטָרֵף, אַלְמָא דְּלָאו אוֹכֶל הוּא. וּתְנַן גַּבֵּי עׇרְלָה: קְלִיפֵּי רִמּוֹן וְהַנֵּץ שֶׁלּוֹ, קְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹזִים וְהַגַּרְעִינִין חַיָּיבִין בְּעׇרְלָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Abaye raised a challenge** based on what we learned with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual impurity: **The crown of a pomegranate joins** together with the pomegranate as a unified entity with regard to calculating the requisite size in order to become ritually impure. **And its flower,** however, **does not join** together with the pomegranate in that calculation. **From** the fact **that it says** that **the pomegranate’s flower does not join, consequently** the flower is secondary to the fruit and **is not** considered **food. And we learned** in a mishna regarding the laws of *orla*: **The rinds of a pomegranate and its flower, nutshells, and pits** of all kinds, **are** all **obligated in** the prohibition of ***orla*.** This indicates that the criteria dictating what is considered protection of a fruit and what is considered the fruit itself with regard to ritual impurity, are not the same criteria used with regard to *orla*, as is illustrated by the case of the pomegranate flower. Therefore, even if the buds are not regarded as protecting the fruit with regard to ritual impurity, they may still be considered fruit with regard to *orla*.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן דְּנַעֲשָׂה לְהוּ שׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי — הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר פֵּירָא, הַאי קַפְרֵס לֵיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר פֵּירָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rather, Rava said** another explanation: **Where do we say** that a section of the plant **becomes protection for the fruit? Where it exists when the fruit is ripe. This bud does not exist when the fruit is ripe,** because it falls off beforehand.


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

אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הָנֵי מְתַחֲלֵי דְעׇרְלָה אֲסִירִי, הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשׂוּ שׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי. וְשׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי אִימַּת הָוֵי — בְּכוּפְרָא, וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״שׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation as well: **Is that so? Didn’t Rav Naḥman say** that **Rabba bar Avuh said: Those *orla* date coverings are prohibited, because they became protection for the fruit. And when do** these coverings serve as **protection for the fruit? When the fruit is still young; and he,** nevertheless, **calls them protection for the fruit.** This indicates that in order to be considered protection for the fruit it need not remain until the fruit is fully ripened. The question remains: Why are the buds not accorded the same status as the berries of the caper-bush?


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

רַב נַחְמָן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דִּתְנַן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: סְמָדַר אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי. וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara explains that **Rav Naḥman held** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, as we learned** in a mishna that **Rabbi Yosei says: The grape-bud,** i.e., a cluster of grapes in its earliest stage, immediately after the flowers dropped from the vine, **is prohibited** due to *orla*, **because it is** already considered **a fruit.** According to this opinion, even the date coverings that exist in the earliest stage of the ripening process are nevertheless considered protection for the fruit and prohibited due to *orla*. **The Rabbis disagree with him,** explaining that fruit at that stage is not considered fruit; and, therefore, the date coverings and caper-bush buds are not considered protection for the fruit and are not prohibited due to *orla*.


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

מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: וּבִשְׁאָר אִילָנֵי מִי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ? וְהָתְנַן: מֵאֵימָתַי אֵין קוֹצְצִין אֶת הָאִילָנוֹת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הָאִילָנוֹת מִשֶּׁיּוֹצִיאוּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: הֶחָרוּבִין מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁרְשְׁרוּ, וְהַגְּפָנִים מִשֶּׁיְּגָרְעוּ, וְהַזֵּיתִים מִשֶּׁיָּנֵיצוּ, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הָאִילָנוֹת מִשֶּׁיּוֹצִיאוּ.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rav Shimi of Neharde’a strongly objects to this** *halakha*: **Do the Rabbis disagree with** the opinion of Rabbi Yosei **with regard to** the fruits **of all other trees** besides grapes, that even in the very first stage of ripening, they are considered fruit? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: With regard to fruit, which grows during the Sabbatical year, the Torah says: “And the Shabbat of the land shall be to you for eating” (Leviticus 25:6). The Sages inferred, for eating, and not for loss. Because one is prohibited from discarding fruit grown during the Sabbatical year, the question is raised: **From when may one no** longer **cut trees during the Sabbatical year** as he thereby damages the fruit? **Beit Shammai say: All trees, from when** the blossoms fall off and **fruit** begins to **emerge** in its earliest stage. **And Beit Hillel say:** There is a distinction between different types of trees. **Carob trees** may not be cut **from when they** form **chains** of carobs, **vines** may not be cut ***misheyegaru*,** explained below, **olives from when they blossom, and all other trees from when** fruit **emerges.**


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

וְאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הוּא בּוֹסֶר, הוּא גֵּרוּעַ, הוּא פּוֹל הַלָּבָן. פּוֹל הַלָּבָן סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: שִׁיעוּרוֹ כְּפוֹל הַלָּבָן. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר בּוֹסֶר אִין, סְמָדַר לָא — רַבָּנַן, וְקָתָנֵי שְׁאָר כׇּל הָאִילָנוֹת — מִשֶּׁיּוֹצִיאוּ?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**And Rav Asi said:** *Sheyegaru* in our mishna is to be understood: **It is an unripe grape, it is a grape kernel, it is a white bean.** Before this is even explained, the Gemara expresses its astonishment: **Does it enter your mind** that the grape is, at any stage, **a white bean? Rather, say: Its size,** that of an unripe grape, is equivalent to the size **of a white bean.** In any case, **whom did you hear that said: An unripe grape, yes,** is considered fruit, while **a grape-bud, no,** is not considered fruit? Wasn’t it **the Rabbis** who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, **and it is taught** that, according to these Sages, one is forbidden to cut **all other trees from when** fruit **emerges.** This indicates that even they agree that from the very beginning of the ripening process, the fruit is forbidden due to *orla*. The question remains: Why are the buds permitted?


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן דְּהָוֵי שׁוֹמֵר לְפֵרֵי — הֵיכָא דְּכִי שָׁקְלַתְּ לֵיהּ לְשׁוֹמֵר מָיֵית פֵּירָא. הָכָא כִּי שָׁקְלַתְּ לֵיהּ — לָא מָיֵית פֵּירָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rather, Rava said** a different explanation: **Where do we say** that a section of the plant **becomes protection for the fruit? Where if you remove the protection, the fruit dies. Here,** in the case of the caper-bush, **when you remove** the bud, **the fruit does not die.**


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

הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וְשַׁקְלוּהּ לְנֵץ דְּרִמּוֹנָא, וִיבַשׁ רִמּוֹנָא, וְשַׁקְלוּהּ לְפִרְחָא דְבִיטִיתָא — וְאִיקַּיַּים בִּיטִיתָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
In fact, **there was an incident and they removed the flower of a pomegranate, and the pomegranate withered. And they removed the flower of the fruit of a caper-bush and the fruit of the caper-bush survived.** Therefore, buds are not considered protection for the fruit.


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

(וְהִלְכְתָא כְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי דְּזָרֵיק אֶת הָאֲבִיּוֹנוֹת וְאָכֵיל אֶת הַקַּפְרֵיסִין. וּמִדִּלְגַבֵּי עׇרְלָה לָאו פֵּירָא נִינְהוּ, לְגַבֵּי בְּרָכוֹת נָמֵי לָאו פֵּירָא נִינְהוּ, וְלָא מְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָעֵץ״, אֶלָּא ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״.)

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara concludes: **The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Mar bar Rav Ashi, who discarded the berries and ate the buds. And since they are not** considered **fruit with regard to *orla*, they are also not** considered **fruit with regard to blessings, and one does not recite over them: Who creates fruit of the tree, but rather: Who creates fruit of the ground.**


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

פִּלְפְּלֵי, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל״, רָבָא אָמַר: לָא כְלוּם. וְאָזְדָא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כַּס פִּלְפְּלֵי בְּיוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי — פָּטוּר, כַּס זַנְגְּבִילָא בְּיוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי — פָּטוּר.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The question arose with regard to the blessing over **peppers. Rav Sheshet said:** One who eats peppers must recite: **By Whose word all things came to be. Rava said: One** need **not recite** a blessing **at all.** **This is consistent with Rava’s opinion** that eating peppers is not considered eating, **as Rava said: One who chews on peppers on Yom Kippur is exempt, one who chews on ginger on Yom Kippur is exempt.** Eating sharp spices is an uncommon practice, and is therefore not considered to be eating, which is prohibited by Torah law on Yom Kippur.


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

מֵיתִיבִי, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עׇרְלָתוֹ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעֵץ מַאֲכָל הוּא? אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֵץ מַאֲכָל״ — לְהָבִיא עֵץ שֶׁטַּעַם עֵצוֹ וּפִרְיוֹ שָׁוֶה, וְאֵיזֶהוּ? — זֶה הַפִּלְפְּלִין. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַפִּלְפְּלִין חַיָּיבִין בְּעׇרְלָה, וּלְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֵין אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲסֵרָה כְּלוּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא בְמִסְכֵּנֻת תֹּאכַל בָּהּ לֶחֶם לֹא תֶחְסַר כֹּל בָּהּ״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**The Gemara raised an objection** to this based on what was taught in a *baraita*, that regarding the verse: “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as *orla*” (Leviticus 19:23), **Rabbi Meir would say: By inference from that which is stated: “You shall regard its fruit as *orla*,” don’t I know that it is** referring to **a tree** that produces **food? Rather,** for **what** purpose **does the verse state: “Any tree for food”? To include a tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste. And which** tree **is this? This is the pepper** tree. **And** this comes **to teach you that the peppers,** and even the wood portions, are edible and are therefore **obligated in** the prohibition of ***orla*, and to teach that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: “A land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing”** (Deuteronomy 8:9). **Obviously,** peppers are fit for consumption.


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

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּרַטִּיבְתָּא, הָא בְּיַבִּשְׁתָּא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara responds: This is **not difficult,** as there is a distinction between two different cases. **This,** where Rabbi Meir spoke of peppers fit for consumption, **is** referring to a case **when it is damp** and fresh; **and this,** where chewing on pepper is not considered eating on Yom Kippur and does not require a blessing, **is** referring to a case **when it is dry.**


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

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְמָרִימָר: כַּס זַנְגְּבִילָא בְּיוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי פָּטוּר? וְהָא אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי הִמְלְתָא דְּאָתְיָא מִבֵּי הִנְדּוּאֵי — שַׁרְיָא, וּמְבָרְכִינַן עֲלַהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּרַטִּיבְתָּא, הָא בְּיַבִּשְׁתָּא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
With regard to this discussion of chewing pepper on Yom Kippur, the Gemara cites what **the Sages said to Mareimar:** Why **is one who chews ginger on Yom Kippur exempt? Didn’t Rava say: One is permitted** to eat **the ginger that comes from India, and over it, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground.** With regard to blessing, it is considered edible; therefore, with regard to chewing on Yom Kippur, it should be considered edible as well. The Gemara responds: This is **not difficult. This,** where a blessing is recited, **is** referring to a case **when it is damp** and fresh; **this,** where no blessing is recited, **is** referring to a case **when it is dry.**


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

חֲבִיץ קְדֵרָה וְכֵן דַּיְיסָא, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״. בְּדַיְיסָא גְּרֵידָא כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּ״בוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּדַיְיסָא כְּעֵין חֲבִיץ קְדֵרָה, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר ״שֶׁהַכֹּל״, סָבַר דּוּבְשָׁא עִיקָּר. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״, סָבַר סְמִידָא עִיקָּר. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara cites a similar dispute with regard to the blessing be recited over ***ḥavitz*,** a dish consisting of flour, oil, and honey cooked in a **pot as well as pounded grain. Rav Yehuda said** that one recites: **By Whose word all things came to be. Rav Kahana said** that one recites: **Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.** The Gemara explains: **With regard to pounded grain alone, everyone agrees that one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. When they argue, it is with regard to pounded grain** mixed with honey, **in the manner of a *ḥavitz*** cooked in a **pot. Rav Yehuda said** that one recites: By Whose word **all things** came to be, as he **held that the honey is primary,** and on honey one recites: By Whose word all things came to be. **Rav Kahana said** that one recites: **Who creates the various kinds of nourishment,** as **he held that the flour,** as is the case with all products produced from grain, **is primary,** and therefore one recites: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment. **Rav Yosef said: It is reasonable** to say **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Kahana, as Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that has of the five species** of grain **in it, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment,** even if it is mixed with other ingredients.


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

גּוּפָא: רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״. וְאִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
With regard to the *halakha* of the blessing recited over the five species of grain, the Gemara clarifies **the matter itself. Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that has of the five species** of grain **in it, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.** Elsewhere, **it was stated** that **Rav and Shmuel both said: Anything that is from the five species** of grain, **one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.** This is problematic, as these statements appear redundant.


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

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן ״כֹּל שֶׁהוּא״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ, אֲבָל עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבוֹת — לָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara explains: Both statements are **necessary,** as **had he taught us** only: **Anything that is** from the five species of grain, one recites over it: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, **I would have said** that is **because** the grain **is in its pure,** unadulterated form, **but** if one eats it **in** the context of **a mixture, no,** one does not recite: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment.