Yerushalmi Berakhot 6:2 ירושלמי ברכות ו׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: If he pronounced the benediction “Creator of the fruit of the soil” on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation, on fruits of the soil “Creator of the fruit of the tree”, he has not fulfilled his obligation. On all of them if he pronounced “everything was created¹¹⁶“By Whose word everything was created.” While this is not the preferred benediction, the statement is true and therefore admissible.”, he has fulfilled his obligation.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: This is Rebbi Yehuda’s since Rebbi Yehudah makes trees like straws¹¹⁷In the Babli (40a) this is the accepted opinion, in the name of Rav Naḥman. The proof is from Mishnah Bikkurim 1:8 which states that if a tree was felled, its owner may not bring the first fruits of that tree to the Temple, but Rebbi Yehudah insists that he may. Since everybody agrees that grain may be offered as first-fruits, and grain can be brought only after it was cut and separated from the straw, it follows that Rebbi Yehudah treats trees simply as stalks for their fruits.. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion since fruits of a tree are also fruits of the soil but fruits of the soil are not fruits of the tree¹¹⁸In contrast to the opinion of the Tanna R. Yose quoted in the next paragraph, every true statement about food is acceptable.. Rav Huna said¹¹⁹Babli 40b. His opinion is rejected in the Babli in favor of a dissenting one of Rebbi Yoḥanan not mentioned in the Yerushalmi. The next paragraph, which relativizes the statement of Rav Huna, requires a separate benediction for bread even if it is not the one formulated by the Men of the Great Assembly., except for bread and wine. The Mishnah (6:1) says so: Except for wine because on wine one says “Creator of the fruit of the vine;” except for bread because on bread one says “He Who produces bread from the earth.”

It has been stated¹²⁰Tosephta Berakhot 4:5.: Rebbi Yose says, anyone who changes the formula established by the Sages did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Yehudah says, everything that has been changed from the way it was created but one did not change its benediction, he did not fulfill his duty¹²¹Rebbi Yose accepts only the formulas established by the Men of the Great Assembly. Rebbi Yehudah accepts these formulas as guidelines which have to be adapted to varying circumstances and this adaptation is more important than using the approved formulas. The great number of different formulas of benediction in the Yerushalmi and fragments of Yerushalmi rite prayer books show that the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah was the dominant one in the Land of Israel. In staying with this attitude, it was even discussed at the start of this halakhah that the anonymous Mishnah should present the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. In the parallel in the Babli (40b), Rebbi Yehudah’s opinion is not even quoted; in Babylonia only the opinions of Rebbi Yose (for those who know Hebrew) and of Rebbi Meïr (for the illiterate) are accepted.. Rebbi Meïr says, even if he says: “Praised be He Who created this property, how beautiful it is,” he has fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: practice follows Rebbi Meïr. The words of Rav also say so. A Persian¹²²A Persian Jew. In the Babli (40b), he is called Benjamin the shepherd. came before Rav: “Since I am eating my piece of bread, but I do not know how to recite the benediction over it, I use to say: ‘Praise to Him Who created this piece of bread,’ did I fulfill my duty?” He said to him: yes.

Rav Yehudah in the name of Abba bar bar Ḥana¹²⁴He is Rabba bar bar Ḥana. A slightly different version is in Babli 39a as a tannaïtic statement.: Bar Qappara and two of his students were with the innkeeper at the “inn of blessings”. He brought before them partridge, orach¹²⁵A salty plant, Atriplex rosea, growing mainly in salt marshes, that was used as (relatively cheap) vegetable. [The identification of the plant (and of the bird species) is Rashi’s in the Babli, reported in the name of R. Isaac ben R. Yehudah of Worms.] The vegetable cannot be eaten raw, but must be cooked and, therefore, must have a changed benediction according to Rebbi Yehudah., and leeks¹²⁶Greek κεφαλωτός, “having a head”. The identification as leeks is from Rashi in Babli Yom Ṭov and the use of the word in Syriac.. They said, if we recite the benediction on leeks¹²⁷It seems that these leeks were raw; hence, their benediction is “Creator of the fruit of the soil” and that will serve also for the cooked vegetable by the reasoning given in the Mishnah; however, a benediction over the cooked vegetable, which is a changed one following Rebbi Yehudah, cannot serve for raw leeks., it will serve also for orach but not for the partridge¹²⁸The benediction for patridge is “everything.” The story makes two points. First, that in benedictions one did follow Rebbi Yehudah in frequently changing the wording of benedictions. [This principle, absent in the Babli, is the cause that the reports about and conclusions from this story in the two Talmudim are not comparable.] The second, more important one, is that the language of the Mishnah, “On all of them if he pronounced ‘everything’, he has fulfilled his obligation” does not mean that one may recite that benediction on anything that specifically needs it and then extend it to fruits and vegetables, only that if one recited the benediction on agricultural produce it also is valid, but not preferred.. If we recite on orach, it will not serve for anything else. One of them jumped the gun and recited “by Whose word everything was created” on the partridge. His colleague¹²⁹The Aramaic text seems to have a scribal error for חַבְרֵיהּ. laughed at him. Bar Qappara said to that one, not about that glutton but about you scoffer¹³⁰I am angry.. This one acted in his gluttony, why did you laugh? And to the other one he said, is there no rabbi here, is there no old man here? They said, within a year they both died. Rebbi Yose said, there two are gone and we did not learn anything from the incident. What is it? It is reasonable that one recites the benediction on leeks because “By Whose word everything was created” is secondary for vegetables¹³¹The meaning of the statement is that one should not start with the benediction over the quail because that benediction is also applicable to vegetables and, hence, cannot be recited a second time for the same meal without taking God’s name in vain. But, as explained earlier, the benediction “everything” is not valid for vegetables if recited on meat and, in any case, is undesirable for plants that have their own more specific benediction. Hence, the person reciting the benediction first on partridge cannot eat of the vegetables. On the other hand, if he makes the first benediction “Creator of the fruit of the soil” for the vegetables, then he can make a second benediction “that all was by His word” for the bird and all is fine..