KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Berachot Shiur #07
KMTT - Gemara Berachot #07, by Rav Yair Kahn
This is KMTT, and this is Ezra Beck, and we're back for another week of the Shurriman KMTT. Today is Monday, and today is Tu Bishvat. We will discuss the actual halakhic significance of Tu Bishvat in the Halakhayumet after this year. I can't help mentioning how Tu Bishvat brings back memories when I was a child. The menag of eating foods, dried fruits, on Tu Bishvat was basically celebrated by eating a fruit called Boxer. I'm imagining that that was the only dried fruit available in Russia, and it was carried out even when I was a child in America. Boxer is dried karib, karib in Hebrew, and being dried, very dried, it had the consistency of wood. You could break your teeth trying to eat it, and more or less taste it the same. I can't imagine anyone ever eating it willingly. We ate it on Tu Bishvat because we thought that was the menag. I've eaten fresh karib, fresh karib, since I'm in Israel. It has a somewhat softer consistency, and the flavor is only slightly better. I've never heard of anybody eating it as a snack. It is, the tree is found wild in Israel. It is an actually genuine Israeli food tree, native to Israel, which I guess is one reason why when she ate it on Tu Bishvat, although more or less today with the abundance of dried fruit, people have switched to dried apricots, apples, pears and nuts, and even dried pineapple, which is not exactly typical Israeli food. I'll be back after the share to discuss the true halakic significance of Tu Bishvat. The day's share is the share of Ravi Ayakan. In Hillhort Barakat, the share is 32 minutes after which I will be back. In the previous Shurim, we discussed the bracha that one makes on the five grains of wheat, chamechetsune, da gan. We discussed the bracha of hamot sea lachamina. Alright, if one takes those grains of wheat and makes bread out of it, we discussed the bracha of borim, and in the zone out. We discussed the bracha of al-hammika, which is the bracha akhwan, and the bracha after eating those five grains of wheat. We're going now to take a shift and discuss the bracha that one makes over fruits and vegetables. The Mishnah 35a, daflamirheem al-alat, and bracha sizzas follows. Kaitsem al-vakam al-alapiro, how does one make bracha on parot on fruit? Al-parotai-lan, and fruit of trees, who are mere borri-pray-8. The nakes, borri-pray-8, is the exception of one, vah-perotai-arets, on fruit of the ground, or what we call vegetables, who are mere borri-pray-adama. The bracha that he nakes is borri-pray-adama, hutsman-apah to the exception of pot, which is made out of wheat, even though wheat is technically a fruit of the ground, it's the vegetable. Nevertheless, on bread, one will make a mochi-vakam min-hah-arets. And then the mochi continues al-hayir-akot in ungreens, such as lettuce, who are mere borri-pray-adama, and that also one makes a borri-pray-adama-ra, you don't amir-borri ni-gisha-in, wa-rab-yudha, initiated an additional bracha, which distinguishes between vegetables and between greens, such as lettuce, and he says that ungreens, one makes a bracha-borri ni-ne-gisha-in. There are many cases where, even though one eats a fruit, either a fruit of a tree or a vegetable, there is a question as to exactly what bracha he will make. For instance, the gmara discusses the question of "make perot". What bracha does one make when one drinks the juices that come out of fruit? That's the gmara and that's lambda-de-cha-tum-de-al-if-38a. Similarly, the gmara discusses the case of apple sauce, if one takes a fruit or one takes a vegetable and smashes it up, what bracha does he make on that case? That's also a gmara and 38a, and that's known as the case of trema. There's another question, what bracha does one make if one cooks the fruit? We're going to begin with the suggest that the discuss is cooking the fruit. That's the gmara and that's lambda-de-cha-tum-de-s, that's 38b in bracha-borri. The gmara says it follows. The mission says al-irakos om eir bhoy kya-da-mah-chus-mah-pah. On vegetables one makes a bracha-borri-pah-da-mah aside from pah. So the gmara makes a duke, katani-ya-lakot, dumid-a-pah. When it talks about vegetables, it's similar to the case of bread. Ma-pah-chum-estan-aide-a-or, after your katani-shin-estan-aide-a-or, just like pah is when one takes a vegetable the week. And one changes it through the process of cooking or baking. So too, if one will take a different vegetable and change it through cooking or baking, the bracha-borri-pah-da-mah, after all the mission says, "On all vegetables one makes a bracha-borri-pah-dumah, except for the case of bread." The indication being that just like by bread one takes a week and dates it, the bracha changes in that case. The bracha-borri-pah-da-mah is so true in a similar case, in a parallel case. If one took a vegetable and baked it or cooked it, the bracha would remain borri-pri-pah-da-mah. And then the gmara has an entire discussion as to whether or not cooking changes the bracha. In order to appreciate the issue that's been discussed by this gmara, I want to focus on one specific section. The gmara says its follows. "The aniomare, the mahokachnida, this question of whether or not cooking changes the bracha of peroth, is how low is based on mahokachnida among the amorayas." The tanya, we have a bracha. Yots in bracha-borri-pah-sharo-ri-pah-dum-sharo. Shalom loa, di vera-biraya, vera-biraya is of your opinion. That regarding matza-an-pessa, one could take a piece of matza and he can cook it, and as long as it hasn't disintegrated in the zal, one can be yotsay, the mitzvah of matza. Grab yotsio-mare, yotsi-biraya-kacharo. If one took a piece of matza and he soaked it in water so that it becomes sore, then one is yotsay. Then one fulfills his application. Aba-lobimubu-sharo, afopisio-nimua. However, if one cooked the matza, even though it's not disintegrated, then one is not yotsay, the mitzvah. Then the gmara continues and says, "For loi, it's not right. It's not true. There's no comparison." The kuli al-mashla-kopi-vakanal-an-biraya-dama. Everybody agrees that on cooked vegetables, one can make a bhari-piraya-dama. The ad kain-lok-amarab-yotsi-hatam-e-limisham-de-ve-in-an-tah-am-matza-ve-lekah. And the only reason that yotsi argue and said that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of matza, with cooked bread, is because we need tah-am-matza-ve-lekah. We need the taste of matza. And if one took the matza and cooked it, then it lacks that taste. The obvious question is, what is the comparison between the issue of brachos, which relates to fruit or vegetables, and the question of matza and pessah. Regarding a matza and pessah, we want to know whether it's matza that you could fulfill the mitzvah, or you can't fulfill the mitzvah with it. Is it matza, is it not matza, without esi wa bracha, do you make? For rather, we're asking only one question, or one question only. Is this matza, which the Torah referred to? On the other hand, when we talk about the question of bracha and pessah, it's an isolated question regarding brachos, and it can't be expanded to the question of matza. What does one have to do with the other? In addition, there's another question that one can ask, and that has to do with the response of the gamara. The matter of response, that really the truth is that on matza, everybody agrees that even though it was cooked, nevertheless, the bracha would remain, in a parallel case of fruit. However, over here, the issue is a separate issue. The issue is whether one needs ta'amatsu, or one does not need ta'amatsu. If one cooked in the matza, then one does not fulfill his mitzvah. In the Quantaviosi, because ba'in and ta'amatsu, we need matza, not only that it's matza, but also as the taste of matza. And if it went through the process of cooking, it no longer has the taste of matza. This gamara is rather curious, because we have another gamara in chakin, that discusses the question of ta'amatsu, but seems to come to an opposite conclusion. The gamara in chakin, that cooked test of other days, says as follows. Amara, buala matza yata, buala maror loyata. If one swallowed matza without chewing you, then he is nevertheless fulfilled his mitzvah. buala maror loyata, but if one swallowed maror, he did not fulfill his obligation. The rasbam explains the difference between matza and maror, and he says as follows, buala matza, buala matza, buala matza, buala matza, buala matza, if he swallowed the matza and he didn't chew it, then he was also the mitzvah, shahrei achila hilo. Because this is considered, this is defined as eating. Niyu le kaprila ta'amatsu bina, however le kaprila, primarily le kaprila, he should also have the ta'amu matza. She should also have the taste of matza. Buala maror loyata, however, if he swallowed maror and he didn't taste it, even though he ate it, you didn't fulfill your obligation. The bina ta'amu maror valecha, because you need the taste of maror in your mouth, since the entire mix of maror comes to remember by the maror as jayam, that the mitzvah in the Egyptians made our lives bitter, therefore, without the time of the maror, you not yell say dekhova. So here the gamara says explicitly that regarding matza, you do not need the time of matza. However, we saw that the gamara on in rachos says that regarding rachita of rabbiosa, that if you take matza and you cook it, you're not yosa. The time matza bina and valecha, since you do need the time of matza. So it seems to be that we have a steva, a mahlokas, or a steva, a contradiction between these two different sub-yuts. So unless we assume that the gamara in rachos is only rabbiosa, and Ramere is holy, it says that you don't need the time of maror, while the gamara in sakhine is going only according to the sheeta of rabbina. We seem to have a contradiction between these two different sub-yuts. It seems to me that one could suggest the following. Regarding the question of whether one has to actually taste the matza or not taste the matza, one does not have to taste the matza. If one is eat matza, that has a taste. However, one swallowed instead of chewing it, one is yotes in the mixa of matza. But if I asked myself a different question, what kind of matza does one have to eat? The answer is that one has to eat matza, which has taste. The kefta of matza has to be one that has taste. In order to explain this point, let me take a parallel bin that we can use to explain this particular point. In other words, if the bin is referring to a case of menachos, menachos is supposed to mix together the oil and the wheat, and you need to believe it. In order to have a clea, you need a clea of a certain size, because you have a certain shear, a certain mouth of wheat that you need and you have to have a certain amount of shemin. If the clea will be too small and you would mix it, some of it would fall out of the clea, and then the mincha would be spacer, it would be missing part of the shear, it would be possible. And therefore, you could only do the leela, you could only mix it well together if you have a clea of a certain size that allows you to mix it without part of the wheat or part of the oil, spilling or pouring out of the clea. In order to mix it well together, if the clea is bigger so that you're able to mix it, then the mincha is costier, whether you do mix it or you don't mix it. However, if you put it in the clea, that does not lend itself to mixing, costier ain't a royal billo, the clea does not lend itself to mixing, the clea is not big enough, and if you're mixing someone spill out, be the mincha is possible. It seems to be contradictory. If you don't need mixing, if mixing is only required, not the clea, then why do I need to clean that lent itself to mixing? Apparently, even though the Torah held that mixing is not ma'ake, you don't necessarily need to mix the oil and the dough and oil and the wheat, nevertheless, the mincha at least has to lend itself to the possibility of bringing the mincha in its most favorable state. Therefore, the clea, the clea has to lend itself to the possibility of mixing it. Otherwise, this is not a clea that can sanctify this particular mincha. In other words, we might not need that the most favorable state is actualized, but we do indeed that the potential for those most favorable conditions does exist. Therefore, if we don't have a clea that lends itself to the possibility of belila, then we don't have the potential of having a mincha in its most favorable state under primary conditions, and therefore it's possible. On the other hand, if you have the most favorable conditions, then it doesn't make a difference, it doesn't make a difference, but it's not ma'ake. It doesn't passo if you don't meet those conditions. In the case of ma'za, even the Rashbaam admits that Lechatrilo, we need the time of ma'za, that the mitzvah is makuyam better if we actually taste the ma'za. However, if we don't taste the ma'za, if we swallow the ma'za, then be the avid we are yote, and therefore the heftza of the ma'za has to lend itself to the possibility of tasting. On the other hand, if a ma'za doesn't even lend itself to the possibility of tasting, that's ma'za, which is puzzled for the mitzvah of ma'za. Therefore, regarding the subya impsakim, the ma'za talks about a case where we have ma'za that potentially can be tasted. However, instead of chewing and tasting the ma'za, I decided to swallow it. Such a ma'za is makuyam, which is kshira, and I was yote, I fulfilled the mitzvah of the the avid, I didn't fulfill the mitzvah of Lechatrilo, and it's most favorable conditions. However, I rubbed the yote to the mitzvah of the the avid, but in our case, we have a ma'za, which doesn't even lend itself to being tasted. If I would take the ma'za and cook it, and then I would chew on it, I would not taste the taste of ma'za. And therefore, this heftza is something which is puzzled for the mitzvah of ma'za, not because I didn't taste it, but because it doesn't have the taste of ma'za. It's ma'za which lacks the taste of ma'za. That, you have yote, says is puzzled, and that does not necessarily contradict the issue discussed in wa'zaqim. That cooks taste of ma'za rays, that one does not actually have the taste of ma'za, but it's efficient if one has ma'za that it has taste and can be tasted. Returning out to the issue of cooking fruit or cooking vegetables, basically what we have seen is that the Gomari and Brakhos is discussing what is the heftza of ma'za that one can use in order to fill his obligation. And there you have ma'za between ma'za and ma'za, whether or not ma'za that lacks the taste of ma'za can be a heftza of ma'za that one can use to fulfill the mitzvah. In other words, when the Gomari thought that ma'zaq is between ma'za and ma'za was one of cooking, one Gomari was suggesting that cooking basically changes the status of object. Before I cooked it, when I took the week and I baked it and made ma'za out of it, this is ma'za. When I cook it, it has become something else, it has changed its status. That's ma'zaq's main abyose. Brahmair says, it's still ma'za. Brahmyose says, it's no longer ma'za. Gomari said, no, Rabyose agrees that it's ma'za, however, it's ma'za that lacks taste, and therefore it's possible. What did the Gomara initially think? The Gomara thought that cooking is a process whereby the heftza, went through this process of cooking, has changed its status. It's no longer the same thing. Therefore, if one takes a fruit and cooks it, it's no longer a fruit. It has become some other fruit item. If one takes a vegetable and cooks it, it is no longer a vegetable. That has become something else. In other words, what the Gomara is saying over here, that even though something once was a fruit, once was a vegetable, if this fruit or vegetable undergoes a process whereby it loses its shame pre, then it would also lose the pericosa peris. And the question is, does cooking, where the fruit or vegetable remains intact, however, it merely has undergone the process of cooking, or as well we'll say later on pickling, in such a situation, is it still considered a shame pre, is it still considered a pre-haarets, is it still considered a pericosa ylan, or has it lost its status? If I say that it's still considered a pre, then it would still get the brahka of brahka of brahka or a peri-haarets. On the other hand, if it has changed its status, then it will no longer get the brahka of brahka of brahka of brahka or a peri-haarets. Let's take a look at the Suga of Trima. Trima is one one takes fruit and mashes the brahka, the brahka of brahka is about 38 eighths as it follows. If brahka of brahka allow you brahka of brahka, if one took smart and upfronted dates and he made Trima out of it, made some kind of paste out of it, then the brahka of that one remains brahka of brahka of brahka. The brahka of brahka says something very very interesting, the brahka of brahka of brahka of brahka of brahka is not totally totally chopped up. The brahka of brahka of brahka is more explicit, the brahka says as follows. The reason that it retains brahka of brahka of brahka of brahka of brahka is because it retains its initial status. On the trasqul agamri, acha abha surasan lo, however it was totally matched up until it no longer had surasapri, then it would not have that brahka. The ail bhakan allayam ela shaqon, then the brahudhi shaqon di abidvaro. As opposed to the shita of the rah in rashi, the rambam seems to say that even it was totally smashed up, the brach would remain boi pre-heights. The rambam writes as follows, "Tamaarim Shema-Achan, dates which were smashed, the hottigari-nim and the pits were taken out, thus unkimo-isah and were made into some kind of a dough with. The rah in the rah in ri pre-heights, with the soprah-ha-has-nain-shalosh, then the brachah is shown as boi pre-heights, and the brachah-ha-chronah is Allah-itzvah pre-heights. When the rambam says, "Qayin-eats-isah," it indicates that it was told that something which is in the new saklagami was totally smashed up. And nevertheless, the rah in the rah says that the brachah is boi pre-heights. Apparently, rashi and the rambam argue on whether smashing something up totally changes its status as a pre-he. According to rashi and rah, in order to be defined as a pre-heights, it has to have the surah, the form of a pre-heights. If it were totally smashed, then it no longer has the surah of the pre-heights, and therefore it also loses its brahaka. The status has changed, because if it doesn't have the form of a pre-heights, it is no longer defined as a pre-heights. That's more or less what the rah says explicitly. However, according to the rambam, the surah does not define it as a pre-heights, in other words, it can be a pre-heights, even if it no longer has the form. As long as it is the pre-heights, even if it has changed its form, and now before it was in a solid form, and now it's smashed up, and it's some kind of a dough-like form, nevertheless the brachah remains very pre-heights, and has not lost its status, and therefore the brachah does not change. The halacha basically is like the rambam, however, the rama is called shaysh for the shita of rashi, and therefore if one has apple sauce, for instance, which is very, very fine, one should make according to the rama, one should make a shakon yubin burrow, because the shakon yubin burrow is yote bhoshita, both the shita of rashi, and as well as the shita of the rambam, the rambam will concede that if one made a shakon yubin burrow instead of burrow pates, he's yote, however, basically, now lacha is like the rambam, however, in order to be cautious, that I must suggest making a brachah of a shakon, now, that solution will help us only regarding the brachah of rishona, however, if we're dealing, for instance, with one of the zayi and minu-shana-stabha-bahan-er-chistra, one would take tomorrow and dates and smash it up totally, regarding the brachah of rishona you can solve the problem with shakon yubin burrow. So, regarding brachah, holy, you haven't solved your problem, because if you say that it's still retained, it's chain-free, then the brachah of rishadhi, ala-itsvapriya-8, and you're not used to the brachah of rishos, however, if it's lost, it's chain-free, then the brachah of rishah of rishah, and one cannot be yoteed without ala-itsvapriya-8, since, as I said, the basic khalah, is according to the rambam, however, the rama is only josh-esh for the brachah, for the brachah of rishona, therefore, regarding the brachah or the question, that ala-kha would be in accordance with rambam, that one should make and ala-8, the al-priya-8. Up until this point, we only discuss the question of when a food or a vegetable loses its status as a food or a vegetable, does cooking make it lose its status, does it smash it up, makes it lose its status, however, there's also another criteria in which is rishos, the gomara on 38d, when it discusses cooking, quotes the following. Kaushit shilaso bhori piyadamma, shakol shakon yar varo, anything which begins with the brachah bhori piyadamma, if it was cooked, guess the brachah of shakon yar varo, Kaushit shilaso shakon yar varo, however, a vegetable which initially had the brachah of shakon yar varo, shakol bhori piyadamma. In other words, the gomara over here is saying that it depends on how the food is normally eaten, if it's normally eaten in its raw form, for instance, in the tomato. If it's cooked, then it might lose its brachah, and the brachah that it would get is shakon yar varo. However, it's something which is normally eaten cooked, for instance, the potato. If one ate raw, then it would get the brachah of bhori piyadamma, and only upon being cooked with the brachah bhori shakol yar varo. What the gomara has introduced is the criterion of derakh akhiraso. The question is not only whether it has a shame pre or doesn't have a shame pre, there's another issue as well. This pre is being eaten as the pre is normally eaten, or is it being eaten in an abnormal way. If it's eaten in an abnormal way, it's normally eaten raw and it was cooked, then the brachah might change as well. However, it's being eaten in a normal way, then it also, then, and it's still, it takes the same status as the fruit, then the brachah would be the bhair kosha pre. Let's take a look at how the ramban taskings this gomara. Raman writes his follows. He wrote o yurako, shadaka ne akhir hayen, ir bishlan o shakan, vara kalayam de trillashakol, rubsafur, branifashol, fruit or vegetables that are normally eaten raw, if one cooked then, then one makes a shakol and baranifashos. When the ramban continues, the yurako, shadaka ne akhir shadaka ne akhir shadaka ne green, which are normally cooked, im akhwan hayen, vara kalayam de trillashakol. If one ate them raw, then one makes the brachah of shakol. Now what's very fascinating in the ramban is that initially the ramban talked about harot o yurako, that are normally eaten raw, if one cooked them, then the brachah is shakol. The parallel should have been, perot o yurako, that are normally eaten cooked, if one ate them raw, then the brachah is shakol. However, the ramban here distinguished between these two different halakas. In the first halakhi, talked about perot o yurako, fruit or green, while in the second halakah, he spoke only about greens. In order to appreciate the sheet of the ramban, let us recall that the gammar, the mission itself on 35A ramban haimir ala, distinguished between perot, whether perota elan or perota arats, fruit and vegetables, and yurako, the mission says, a perota aratswomir brachah gama, while yurako twomir brachah gama arab, you don't remember what they need to show you. The mission itself is distinguished between these two different categories. And basically, we have two different things totally. Perota arats are fruit, you have fruit of trees, and you have fruit of that grown ground as well. A tomato, a cucumber, those are fruit that grown on the ground, botanically, they define this fruit. They are formed from flowers, and they are fruit that grows on trees, and you have fruit that grows on the ground. On the other hand, greens are basically leaves, lettuce, scallions, cabbage, all those things are leaves. They are not fruit. The fact that one makes a burri pre-adama on things that arats fruit is a tremendous tradition. For instance, if one would eat leaves of a tree, one would not make burri pre-adama. But if one eat leaves of the ground, one makes burri pre-adama. The question is, what exactly does the term pre-adama in this case mean? If we're not dealing with something which is botanically defined as a pre-adama, apparently burri pre-adama can be defined in one of two ways. Our burri pre-adama can be defined as fruit of the ground, and that's specific to perota adama, such as tomatoes or cucumbers, as we mentioned before. That's one category. Forota adama, the burri pre-adama. However, there's another way of defining pre. Pre also is, for instance, pre-amalaimi, the fruit of our labor. Pre can be produce, not necessarily fruit, but it can be defined as produce. Pre-ahrecha, somebody's child is called the fruit of one's womb, because it's something which is produce, not necessarily fruit in the botanical sense. So the term pre, when it refers to yurakote, or when it refers to roots, for instance, a carrot is a root, an onion is a root, or a boat. It's not a pre, nevertheless, what makes a burri pre-adama. If one eats a carrot, one makes a burri pre-adama, if one eats lettuce, one makes a burri pre-adama. All these things are produce of the ground, not fruit of the ground, but produce of the ground. That's one category of burri pre-adama. This is the produce of the ground. On the other hand, a cucumber, or a tomato, is fruit that grows in the ground. It doesn't grow in a tree, but it grows in the ground. One would eat the leaf of a tree, one would not make a burri pre-adama, that's a gomara on 36A. That flammant bubble in our entire city, it deals with salaf, and the other gomara says that if one eats the leaves, then one makes a burri pre-adama, why should one make a burri pre-adama? It's not fruit of the ground, but it's the produce of the ground. It's serving that fruit of the tree. In order to get the burri pre-adama, it has to be fruit of the tree, it has to be fruit of the botanical sense. A leaf is not fruit, but nevertheless, it's the produce of the ground, and therefore if one would eat a leaf of something that grows on a tree, the burri pre-adama. In other words, burri pre-adama could be explained in two different ways. With respect to vegetables, it's fruit of the ground. However, with respect to lettuce or roots, it's produce of the ground. Based on the above, we can explain the rambam. When the rambam talks about payrolls or urakos that have undergone change, that they normally ignore, and one took them and cooked them, and therefore changed them. Therefore, their burakah is charcoal because they've been changed from their natural state, and they no longer get the burakah pre. However, in the opposite case, if you talk about something which is normally eaten cooked, however, this particular person decided to eat them raw. So if you're talking about urakos, urakos, their whole shame pre is because these are things which are the produce, and therefore they're only when they're eaten in the normal way that they're eaten, this is the produce which is taken from the ground, when it's eaten in the way that it's normally eaten. However, if one takes something which is a pre in its natural state, and the reason that it's defined as a pre is because, hypothetically, it is a pre, and one eats it in its raw state, one is eating a pre. He hasn't changed yet, and therefore there's nothing that tarnishes its status as a pre. However, something which is a urak, and it's not a pre-objectively, it's only a pre because I treat it as probus of the ground, then it's only when I use it in the way that it's meant to be used, only then does it achieve its status as a pre. So if one would take perils and urakos that are normally eaten raw, and one would change then, then it would lose its gratha of beer chasapri because it's been changed from a sacral state, and it's also not the way this promise is normally used. However, in the opposite case, if one normally eats it cooked, however this particular person eats it raw, then regarding urakos which gets a shame pre only because it's what it was grown for, it's produce, and it was grown for this purpose, it wasn't grown for the purpose of being eaten raw, and therefore urakos would get a bratha of a chakol if it's eaten raw, and only when it's cooked does it get a bratha of beer chasapri. However, if one would take a vegetable, something which is a pre, because that's its natural state, it defines the pre-objectively, and one eats it in its state as a pre, and it is still a pre, it has an app in shame, then the bratha would be a buri pre ha dama, or a buri pre ha dama, or a buri pre ha dama, takes the case of a fruit of a tree. So in other words, the ram distinguishes between these two different cases, and he says the shame pre can be tarnished if it's normally eaten raw, and then one cooked it, however, if it's the opposite case, that it's normally eaten cooked, and when it eats it raw, then it depends on how exactly we are defining this as a pre, if we're defining this as a pre, because it is a pre-objectively, botanically, this is a pre, that even if it's raw, it's a pre, nothing changes from being a pre, and therefore the bratha would be brought into its, even though it's not normally eaten in this way, however, if it's a pre, because this is proudness of the ground, then its status as a pre is only because that's what it's being grown for, and it's not being grown to be eaten raw, it's being grown to be eaten cooked, and therefore its status as proudness of the ground is only realized upon being cooked, and when eaten raw, it is not defined as a pre-hadama, and therefore, the bratha would be shakonya de burrow, however, this distinction is a deep in the Lusham de Rambam, however, regarding Saken Shokanarak, this distinction between the rakos and peros doesn't express itself at least not in this particular way. You have been listening to Abhav Yayokan, the Sheer Inhil Khot Barrokhot, tomorrow Sheer will be given by myself as Rebecca, and will be the weekly Sheer on problems in medieval philosophy. Today's Al-Achayomit, we take a break from our series on Kriyachma and Fila, today is Tubhishvat. The normal halachic memification of Tubhishvat today is that we don't say tachonya, not saying tachonya on gippen days is merely a matter of minhak, there is no actual gammara or clear definition of days you don't say tachonya, the minhak is not to say tachonya on special days, and that's why there is argumentation in most Shul's on gippen days, whether one's to say tachonya on that, Abhav Yayokanim and Shabbat, and tachonya during the week, it's a sport for Jews to argue whether one should say tachonya on different days. The minute more or less is not to say tachonya on tubhishvat because it's a special day, but there's no other specialness, halachically, for most people. The actual halachic significance of Tubhishvat, which is a roshishan al-Ilanot, makhlokitab bechame bechile, bechame says that it's on the first day of shvat, or shrolishvat, and bechile says that it's on Tubhishvat. What is roshrolish v'Ilanot? The significance is for hukhotat l'hurat v'ayrats, for those agricultural lords that deal with fruits and vegetables. There is a significance to what year a fruit belongs to. The hukhotat l'hurat v'amashot works on a seven-year cycle, the shmeter cycle. And therefore, for different halachot, you have to know what year produce belongs to. For instance, on shmeter, you have certain halachot, fruits that grew in shmeter. They're considered to be fruits of the seventh year, have hukhotat v'amashot, hukhotat v'amashot, hukhotat shmeter. For intramot as mashot as well, fruits of the first and second, fourth and fifth year, after you take mashire, and turmah, you then have mashire shini. On the third and the sixth year, instead of mashire shini, you have mashire shini, and you have to know that when you're taking off turmah to mashot, you know what you're taking mashire shini, which has a certain halachot, or mashire shini, which has different halachot, which should be given to, it should be given to aniim. How do we know to what year a fruit belongs to? So the year is not the year that begins in wasa-shana of tish-ray, or of wasa-shah-lish-ni-san, which is also kind of wasa-shana, but wasa-shana-lil-an-out for fruits is tat-vav-be-shrat, which turmah says the date when most of the veins of the year have a very fallen, most of the veins in Israel were the veins only in the winter, most of the veins of the year have generally speaking formed by that date, and that's the date of wasa-shana-lil-an-out. That means that if a fruit appeared came out before turmahot, it belongs to the previous year. The previous year was a sixth year of the cycle, and this year is the seventh year of the cycle, so those fruits are sixty of fruits, if the fruit appeared, and after turmahot, it belongs to the seventh year, what does mean a fruit appeared? The word is 'ranita', in Hebrew, it's not a hundred percent clear, it doesn't mean a flower, it means the beginning of a fruit, and after the flower falls off, you see this small little tiny fruit, that's 'ranita', if that took place before turmahot, it's the previous year after turmahot, it belongs to the next year. In actuality, being that it's in, more or less, the middle of the winter, the beginning of February, the middle of February, there normally aren't any fruits which are coming out at this time, so that you don't actually have to stand with the stopper and watch the fruits come out, the fourteenth of shvat, or the fifteenth of shvat, or the sixteenth of shvat, there really aren't any fruits which are blossoming or appearing at this time, it's theoretically perhaps in a hard house or in a different climate, it might have significance, even lemons, which do more as come out the whole year, they don't come out now, they have never seen, at least in my lemon tree, I've never seen flowers in the winter, but it sure have to pay attention because in a few months, I will have large lemons which belong to, they're very there now, they belong to the previous year, they belong to the year which began in Tafshin summer hey, and I will have small lemons which will start coming out I think in another month or two, by the size I can usually tell the difference, the difference I'm looking for is before to wish for to after to wish for, and there's some very, very special conditions, I've never heard of this, but under some very, very special conditions, I suppose it is possible to have fruits coming out in February, some before to wish for, and some after to wish for, or more or less look the same, but some will belong to one year and others to another year, so it's very, very important to anyone engaged in agriculture specifically in Eretizrael, and that's the meaning, the source of the whole institution of Tubishvat, Tubishvat is the first mission in Rosh Hashanah, is Rosh Hashanah Le Ilanot, and at some point in the middle ages, the mini gurus of celebrating Tubishvat by eating fruits which remind us of the fruits of Eretizrael, they actually found the document in the Gneesah, which means more or less the 10th century or perhaps earlier, which actually mentions the Minhaga of eating fruits on Tubishvat, the minx seems to have disappeared, practically speaking it was only recreated and re-instituted in the capitalistic circles in Svat in the 16th century, and from there the divide of the whole ceremony, kind of Haggadala Tubishvat instead of eating different fruits and drinking different wines, which has actually had a venison today in various families, I've never done it and I've never seen it, what most Jews do, and this minx also only spread after the rise of the capitalistic circles of Svat, was to eat fruits which reminded one Eretizrael, since there are not fruits in the winter, the mini became to eat dried fruits or nuts, the boxer that I mentioned in the beginning of today's program, and today dried fruits are available in enormous amounts, in fact there are also fresh fruits available, and not dried, we have apples that come out of the refrigerator and I think to end probably fruits which are more or less fresh, especially if they're imported, but the mythic people look to eat dried fruits and stores make a click of money, selling an abundance of dried fruits on this day, you eat dried fruits into Shaba'av, presumably the reason is, to in any event, feel the cash out to Eretizrael, it's a bit ironic that even I live in Eretizrael, almost all the dried fruits we eat are not even from Eretizrael, most of them come from Turkey or from other countries, and I think that probably in Russia a hundred years ago, the boxer probably didn't commit Eretizrael at all, but the very idea of eating fruits reminds one of the fact that Eretizrael was specifically described as a way and are fruits, Eretizrael, Shaba'av, geffin, utinav, remon, Eretiz, Zaid, Shemin, utvash. In Manon Israel, a dip in Minhago Rose, not necessarily in religious circles but a spread all over, of using to which part of the day for planting trees, that's a totally different concept, this is a JNF Minhago, but they've managed to convince almost everybody to partake of it, and it's not so necessarily so pleasant but often it's raining, not to which part, apparently it's raining today in many sections of Israel, people make an effort, or youngsters usually, schools make an effort, it's part of the refar station of Israel, which is one of the simanehago Ula at the hills of Yudah, the hills of the Khalil, the hills of Eretizrael are bringing forth trees, and it is indeed very appropriate to celebrate the rebirth of Eretizrael, as a live place which is lived by the planting of trees unto Bishvat and also Shandam of the Ilanate, that's it for today, tomorrow she will be in Jewish philosophy, this is Ezra Bik, wishing you a good day, and this was KMTT, Kimmityon Teetzeitora, utvara Shemir Ushalein.