Berakhot 120

The following message has been received concerning the seifa [last section] of our mishnah, which Richard Friedman says we passed over lightly in our discussion:

It seems to me hat the positions of the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Yehudah should be explained by saying that they have different religious taxonomies for the world. On the evidence of the mishnah, it would appear that this TK [=Tanna Kamma] holds that there is an important distinction between plant produce that comes from trees and plant produce that does not – over the former, one says "fruit of the tree," and over the latter, whether it be a fruit (by which he probably means a botanical fruit – tomatoes and zucchini as well as strawberries) or some other part of the plant ("y'rakot" I take to mean stalks and leaves – celery, lettuce – , and perhaps roots and tubers – carrots, potatoes), one says "fruit of the ground." The only exceptions are Ha-motzi for bread and Pri HaGafen for wine. I infer that this TK does not recognize the blessing M'zonot. He might well recognize SheHaKol for non-plant food (meat, milk, water, perhaps juices), since that would not conflict with anything in his statement here – the statement here may well be limited to foods deriving from plants. However, to say that he recognizes M'zonot would conflict with the scheme he sets out here. (I realize, of course, that the Gemara, and I think even a later mishna, do recognize M'zonot, and I'm not suggesting rejecting that berakhah as halakhah; I'm merely trying to interpret what this particular Tanna means here. I might even consider a more audacious reading – that this TK would say Pri HaAdama only over botanical fruits like tomatoes and zucchini, but not over other plant edibles like lettuce or celery; over those he might say SheHaKol.) Rabbi Yehudah differs from the TK in that he recognizes another category – not just tree-origin and non-tree-origin, but trees, non-tree-fruits, and non-tree-non-fruit (but still a plant). So what underlies this dispute? Under my first reading of the TK, the distinction is that the TK sees only one salient division – between trees and non-trees -, while Rabbi Yehudah sees two – fruits vs. non-fruits, and trees vs. non-trees. Under my second, more audacious reading of the TK, the TK sees both divisions as does Rabbi Yehudah, but the TK treats non-fruits like other non-plant foods. That is, for the TK, the only foods that have a separate berakhah, other than SheHaKol, are fruits, while for Rabbi Yehudah, all plants have a berakhah other than SheHaKol, and fruits have an even more special berakhah. I should reiterate: I recognize that none of this is valid as halakhah l'ma'aseh (practical halakhah), but it may still be a correct reading of the mishna.

And here's a message received from Ed Frankel concerning the grammatical format of Ha-motzi:

I understand the argument and the thinking of the Tannaim and Amoraim but somehow, I also like the idea of the hey hayediah (proper identifier) used here, as it brings the concept of creation as ongoing. After all, it would be a gerund/verbal noun with that prefix. To me it has some nice touches, one of which is creation as an ongoing process. However, I believe there is a nicer touch of a midrashic sort. Bread, which is likely a poor translation of 'lechem' anyway except in modern Hebrew – as lechem, which we can tell from cognates really refers to the primary food – is a finished product. We don't see God as a manufacturer of finished products: He makes the materials which humans refine in a partnership arrangement. Each time we thank God for our prime food, bread, we thank Him not as much for the bread, but for empowering us to produce it. I stress this view, because otherwise one might think to substitute "boreh pri ha-adamah", and as noted in an earlier commentary, wine and bread are unique in that each has its special berakhah. Of course, this does nothing for the olive oil that you also mentioned a couple of days back.