IT LACKS THE [REQUISITE] MEASURE? The Gemara asked: How did R’ Yochonon recite a b’rochoh when eating a salted olive? Certainly the pit had been removed and there was not a minimum amount of food equal to the size of an olive. The Gemara acknowledges the question and explains how R’ Yochonon did have food equal to the size of an olive. Since we see that the Gemara acknowledges the question we can learn from this that there is a minimum amount required in order to recite a b’rochoh. Tosfos will teach us that a minimum amount is required only for an after-b’rochoh and not for the b’rochoh before eating. See Rashi ד'ה בצר ליה שיעורא. It is exclusively for an after-b’rochoh that a minimum amount is required, but for a b’rochoh before one eats or drinks, even for less than a minimum amount a b’rochoh is recited, for it is forbidden to benefit from this world without a b’rochoh, both for the issue of eating or the issue of drinking. But for the after-b’rochoh, it is requiredthat one must drink **a cheek full. Therefore one must be careful to drink from the cup of b’rochoh,used for reciting Birchas Hamozon, a cheek full so that he will recite the b’rochoh of על הגפן afterdrinking of that cup. The requirement of a minimum amount may not apply equally to all foods.And R’I used to say that for בורא נפשות, since it is not an important b’rochoh as compared to Birchas Hamozon andעל המחיה even for less than a minimum amount we recite בורא נפשות רבות. **Tosfos rejects R’I’s opinion. And this explanation does not appearto be correct. **Since בורא נפשות was enacted to be said in place of על הגפן, just as על הגפן requires a minimum amount, so too, בורא נפשות also requires a minimum amount. **Yerushalmee has a different approach to R’ Yochonon’s salted olive. And in Yerushalmeewe find: **How did R’ Yochonon recite a b’rochoh on the olive, there was no minimum amount? And he says, because it,the olive, is a complete entity. For even if one ate only one grape or seed of a pomegranate, a b’rochoh must be recited because for a complete entity we recite a b’rochoh even for less than an olive size. And the Yerushalmee is disagreeing with our Gemara.**Since our Gemara does not offer that answer, it obviously does not agree with it. If so, the halochoh is not like the Yerushalmee.When there is a disagreement between Bavlee and Yerushalmee we follow Bavlee. Perhaps the two Talmudim can be reconciled?And HoRav Yosaif used to explain that the Yerushalmee does not argue with our Gemara. For here in Bavlee, we are speaking of when the pit was removed and it was salted, if so, it is not as it was created, but if he would eat it complete even if it was only one seed of a pomegranate one recites a b’rochoh before and after. And the Yerushalmee Gemara held that the olivethat R’ Yochonon ate was whole, and it therefore needed to answer the way it did, thatthe reason he recited an after-b’rochoh was because he ate a piece that was a whole entity. And the two Talmudim are not in disagreementabout the issue of reciting a b’rochoh on a complete entity, rather our Gemara understood that this was not the case of R’ Yochonon. Our Gemara also agrees that when one eats a complete entity, he must recite an after-brochoh even though it was less than a minimum amount. Yerushalmee deals with another issue about reciting b’rochos. And we find further in Yerushalmee, when one recited a b’rochoh on a turmus bean in order to eat it and it fell from his hands and he took anotherturmus bean in its place, he must recite a b’rochoh another time. And Yerushalmee asks: why is this different than a canal offlowing water? The explanationof the question: That one recites a b’rochoh to drinkwater and as he recites the b’rochoh, the waterthat was there when he said the b’rochoh flows away, andthe water that he actually drinks is **other water. And one does not need to recite a second b’rochoh. And the Yerushalmee answers: here,**in regard to the water, his mind initially was aware of thisreality, that the water that he would drink is not the water that was there when he recited the b’rochoh, for he knew that thewater that was in front of him when he said the b’rochoh **would go away. However,**in regard to the turmus bean that fell after he said a b’rochoh, he did not know that it would fall from his handand he recited the b’rochoh for that turmus bean, which is no longer here. What must one do to correct the situation?**And he should say: blessed is the name of his glorious kingdom forever and ever, because he said a b’rochoh in vain. And so it is proper to say on any b’rochoh in vain, blessed is the name of his glorious kingdom forever and ever.**¹

footnotes: ¹ The simplest understanding of how this corrects the sin is that the b’rochoh said in vain is a violation of “you shall not say the name of Hashem your G-d in vain”. By immediately declaring ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד one is showing that he truly does honor the name of Hashem.

[THAT WHICH HE] PREFERS [TAKES] PRECEDENCE. Tosfos discusses many factors that determine which b’rochoh one must recite first when there are many different species of food before him. And that is the halochohthat as far as upon which fruit one recites the b’rocho the favorite food takes precedence. **If one has two types of fruit before him, the favorite food takes precedence. **We have learned that the favorite takes precedence when the b’rocho to be recited is the same; both are שהכל נהיה בדברוor both are **בורא פרי האדמה.**We will now learn which food takes precedence for a b’rochoh when the b’rochos to be recited are not the same. And בורא פרי האדמה precedes שהכל נהיה בדברו because it is more specificthan **שהכל.**Since שהכלis used for a wide variety of foods and בורא פרי האדמה is used specifically for fruits of the earth. And it is called an important b’rochoh. And one should recite the b’rochoh on that food for which you recite בורא פרי האדמהeven though the other species upon which one recites a שהכל is his favorite. There is another factor that must be considered when determining upon which food to recite a b’rochoh, that the fruit is one of the species which the Torah uses to praise Eretz Yisroel. **And if one has before him fruits that have the same b’rochoh,**such as an apple and a grape, and one of them is from the seven speciesthat are used in the Torah to praise Eretz Yisroel, in this case the grape, **he should first recite the b’rochoh on the fruit which is of the seven species,**the grape, **because they take precedence.**¹

footnotes: ¹ See Shulchon Oruch 211, for a detailed discussion of the halochos.

BEET WATER [HAS THE SAME STATUS] AS BEETS. We recite on the beet soup בורא פרי האדמה even though the soup has in it only the juice of the beet and its taste; one recites a b’rochoh upon the soup as he recites on the vegetable itself. Even though we have learned earlier (38a) that fruit juice is merely sweatof the fruit and not fruit itself and we therefore recite שהכל נהיה בדברו, one can differentiatebetween the two.¹

footnotes: ¹ Much has been written about the difference between fruit juices and soups. See Artscroll note 32 for a complete list of the various differences between fruit juices and soup. Some of the more readily understood differences are as follows: a) Rashbo says that the difference is the intent of the planter. Fruits are generally planted to be eaten, not to be drunk as juice, therefore when squeezed into juice they are considered as being reduced in importance and a lesser b’rochoh is recited. Whereas vegetables are planted so that one can use them for soup. When they are made into soup they are realizing their full potential and an important b’rochoh בורא פרי האדמה is recited. According to this opinion juices that are extracted from juice oranges that are planted specifically for their juice require a בורא פרי העץ. b) Rabainu Yonoh says that fruit juices have taken a turn for the worse when squeezed for juice, whereas vegetables are improved when prepared as soup.