How does "Kodesh Hilulim la'Shem" teach that one must bless before and after eating?

Rashi: The verse discusses Neta Revai. It implies that it requires two praises when you eat it in the fourth year, when it is permitted.

Why did R. Akiva say 'this teaches that one may not taste anything before blessing'? He expounded to obligate blessing also after eating!

Etz Yosef: 'Taste' is any amount. A Brachah Acharonah is only for one who ate a Shi'ur.

Why does it say 'if wine gladdens man, how does it gladden Hash-m?'

Etz Yosef: The verse says that it gladdens man and Hash-m. This implies that a similar Simchah applies to both of them. Nesachim do not gladden man. What Simchah of man applies to Hash-m? We answer that Shirah gladdens both of them.

Which Shirah is said only over wine?

Rashi: Shirah of the Leviyim over Korbanos ha'Mikdash. It is said only over Nesachim of wine.

Tosfos: Shirah over consumption of the Mizbe'ach is said only over wine, but not over Zerikas Dam or Nisuch ha'Mayim. Therefore, it is not difficult that we sing Shirah at the time of Shechitas Korban Pesach (Pesachim 64a).

NOTE: Also Zerikas Dam is done then! We must say that the Shirah is due to Shechitah, and not due to Zerikah. (PF)

Above, we brought verses to obligate blessing. What is this Tana's source?

Tosfos: It is Sevara (logical). The verses are a mere Asmachta; initially we thought that we truly learn from them.

Rav Elyashiv: Pnei Yehoshua asked, if Sevara obligates, this should be mid'Oraisa, like we find elsewhere! I answer that Sevara obligates in monetary matters - it determines who owns the money. Therefore, mid'Oraisa it is his. E.g. ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah is known from Sevara (Bava Kama 46b), and that a father is believed to permit his daughter due to 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir' (we know that she is Mekudeshes only via his mouth - therefore, he is believed to say to whom she is engaged). However, we cannot derive a Mitzvah from Sevara. Chachamim enacted it based on Sevara. Daf Al ha'Daf - Tzlach (36a) says similarly. If Sevara obligated Berachos on food, also Goyim would be obligated!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Beis Efrayim (EH 2:58) says, we rely on Sevara to permit a married woman (she would not be brazen to tell her husband 'you divorced me' if it were not true) and to make someone pay (a person does not pay his debt before it is due). However, here the Sevara (one may not benefit without blessing) is not so obvious to say that it is mid'Oraisa. Chachamim enacted it due to the Sevara. Tosfos (Shevu'os 22a, Kesuvos 9a) says that sometimes we need a verse to teach a Sevara, e.g. if the majority [of women who are Mezanah] do so willingly is not an absolute majority, and the Chazakah that one does not claim unless he is owed is not an absolute Chazakah. Therefore, it obligates a Shevu'ah only mid'Rabanan. Similarly, the Sevara here does not obligate a Berachah mid'Oraisa. I prefer to say that when the Torah explicitly discusses something, just there is a Safek about it, mid'Oraisa we follow Sevara. E.g. the Torah revealed that a father is believed to forbid his daughter; there was a Safek if he is believed to permit her - we rely on Sevara. The Torah forbade Hotza'ah from Reshus to Reshus - there was a Safek whether the same applies to Hachnasah. We rely on Sevara.

Does one transgress Me'ilah for any benefit from this world without blessing?

Rashi: It is as if he benefited from Hekdesh.

Maharsha, Iyun Yakov: The world was created for Hash-m's honor - "Kol ha'Nikra vi'Shmi v'Lichvodi Berasiv Yetzartiv Af Asisiv" (Yeshayah 43:7). If he benefits without a Berachah, this is not His honor - it is stealing from Him! When one blesses, this is His honor, so one may benefit.

What is the question 'how can he fix it?'

Etz Yosef: We do not ask how to fix the Aveirah - it cannot be fixed! Rather, how do we fix the man, so he will be able to benefit?

Rav Elyashiv: Some challenge from here Nesivos ha'Mishpat (234), who says that one who transgressed a mid'Rabanan law b'Shogeg, this is not an Aveirah at all. Here, he erred about a mid'Rabanan law, and it is considered an Aveirah! I say just the contrary - since it did not say that the Chacham will teach him to repent, this implies that he did not transgress!

Which Berachos will the Chacham teach to him?

Maharsha: Berachos of benefit. Other Berachos, is suffices to learn them once. Berachos of Hana'ah, there are many distinctions - Berachah Rishonah and Acharonah, and it varies according to the species. There are several doubts, and if he deviated, he was not Yotzei. It is as if he did not bless, and he was Mo'el. Also his Berachah was l'Vatalah! Therefore, he should go to a Chacham to learn many times, until he is expert.

What is Rav Yehudah's Chidush 'he is like one who benefits from Kodshei Shamayim'? The Beraisa already said that he was Mo'el!

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: We hold that Me'ilah applies to Konamos (one who forbade his property via a Neder), even though it is not Kodshei Shamayim. Here, it is as if he benefits from Kodshei Shamayim.

Rav Elyashiv: 'Me'ilah' here is only mid'Rabanan, to teach the severity of the Isur. R. Yonah says that one is obligated Korban Me'ilah if he ate without a Berachah. Also this is not precise. He merely teaches the severity of the Isur.

Chashukei Chemed citing Meromei Sadeh: The Beraisa discusses one who does not know to bless. He is like Shogeg; he eats b'Heter, but even so Me'ilah applies to Shogeg. (NOTE: Perhaps this is like Nesivos ha'Mishpat (234); transgressing a mid'Rabanan law b'Shogeg is called Heter. - PF) Rav Yehudah discusses one who is b'Mezid. The Mishnah Berurah forbids one who does not know how to bless to eat. He must learn the Berachah!

How does he steal from Hash-m?

Rashi: He stole His Berachah.

Rashba: He denies His Hashgachah. One who blesses, he shows that Hash-m conducts everything and is the Cause of everything. The Galgalim and land have a nature to make things grow, but their power comes from Hash-m. 'Av' hints to the first Cause, just like a father is the cause of the son.

Maharsha: This is true theft (not merely the Berachah or Hashgachah) - the produce is His! Regarding Keneses Yisrael, it is like theft.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Pardes Yosef (Beshalach) says that if it were theft of the food, also a Goy would be obligated! We do not find this. Merafsin Igri (p. 287) says that Sevara obligates thanking the One who created the food. However, after Chachamim enacted to bless, one who does not do so is Mo'el or steals. The Sevara does not obligate Goyim, for they are not obligated in Tefilah. Igros Moshe (OC 2:25) - a Goy is exempt from Tefilah, but when he has a need, he must pray. This follows from his obligation to believe in Hash-m.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Withholding Berachos diminishes Peros. When there are more Peros, there are more Berachos - he stole this.

How does he steal from Keneses Yisrael?

Rashi: When people sin, Peros are stricken.

Maharsha: After the Churban, dew did not descend for a Berachah, and the taste of Peros was removed (Sotah 48a). Berachos bring down influence from above. This is not true theft; it is like theft. Regarding Hash-m, it is true theft - the produce was His!

Rashba: When people attribute power to Ruchniyim (NOTE: presumably, this refers to Mazalos or angels - PF), Hash-m withholds good from the nation - "Lachen Ashuv v'Lakachti Degani b'Ito" (Hoshe'a 2:11), Midah k'Neged Midah. One who does not recognize the good of the one who benefits, the latter will withhold good from him! Even though an individual sins, he ruins the nation and blocks good from them. Man is judged based on his majority, and the nation is judged based on its majority (Kidushin 40b). (NOTE: i.e. if via neglecting to bless, he became a Rasha, perhaps this caused the majority of Yisrael to be Resha'im. - PF)

Iyun Yakov: Had he blessed, others would answer Amen, and one who answers Amen is greater than the Mevarech (Nazir 66b).

Above, we said that he transgresses Me'ilah. Why does it say here that he steals from Hash-m?

Iyun Yakov: Here it says that he sins also against Keneses Yisrael, to which Me'ilah does not apply.

Why does it say "Ein Pesha Chaver Hu l'Ish Mashchis"?

Rashi: He is lenient; people see him, and learn to benefit from the world without a Berachah, like him.

Maharsha: The simple meaning is "Gozel Aviv v'Imo Ein Pesha" - he says that there is no sin to steal from his parents, for in any case he will inherit them. "Chaver Hu l'Ish Mashchis" - he is like a Ben Sorer u'Moreh, who destroys and depletes his parents' money. However, it should say Gonev, for Ben Sorer u'Moreh applies only to Geneivah, but not to Gezel, i.e. taking via force (Sanhedrin 71a). Also, here it says Imo - the first Tana there holds that it suffices to steal from his father! Therefore we expound Aviv v'Imo to be Hash-m and Keneses Yisrael. We learn from "v'Al Titosh Toras Imecha" - a woman is exempt from Torah! Rather, Imecha refers to Keneses Yisrael. The Gematriya of Imecha (if we count final Chaf as 500, final Mem as 600...) is 541, like that of Yisrael.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): He tells people, there is no sin not to bless. Via this, he causes them to sin, like Yaravam did.

Rav Elyashiv: This is severe, for it is easy for people to do like him (it is light in their eyes).

What is the comparison to Yaravam?

Rashi: He sinned, and caused Yisrael to sin.

Maharsha: When the Navi told Yaravam that he will be king, it was via Bal Tashchis - he tore a cloak into pieces, and told Yaravam to take 10. This hints that that he profaned the 10 Kedushos and was Mashchis (ruined) Yisrael to their Father in Heaven. So one who does not bless on Hana'ah, he ruins the influence of Kedushah from Hash-m to Keneses Yisrael. There are 10 words in the Berachah on bread, corresponding to the 10 Kedushos.

Why did R. Chanina bar Papa say only that he steals from Hash-m and Keneses Yisrael? His verse says also "Chaver Hu l'Ish Mashchis." He should have taught also that he is a peer of Yaravam, like he himself holds!

What was difficult about "v'Lakachti Degani b'Ito" and "v'Asafta Deganecha"! The latter was written about "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a Tishme'u El Mitzvosai", and the former about "Zansah Imam Hovishah Horasam"!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The question was not why sometimes you gather it, and sometimes Hash-m takes it . Rather, why is it called here your grain, and there His grain? We can explain that even when He is angry, "Rega b'Apo Chayim bi'Rtzono" - He wants to have mercy and give some grain; it is not called theirs. He gives His grain amidst Chesed. It is His, to take it when He wants to; before taking it, he lets them have some.

Iyun Yakov: Even though we said (Amud A) that before one blesses, "la'Shem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah", since they do His will, surely they will bless, and it is called their grain. Also, one blesses from when he sees trees budding (43b, OC 226).

What is the question 'perhaps "Lo Yamush Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh mi'Picha" is literally true'?

Rashi: May one not [cease learning to] engage in income?

According to R. Yishmael, why should one engage in income?

Rashi: If he will need to be supported via people, in the end he will need to cease learning.

Etz Yosef: R. Yishmael never intended that a person engage in income and separate from engage in Torah even for a short time! He was meticulous to say 'conduct with them Derech Eretz.' i.e. at the time that you engage in income, your mind should be on Divrei Torah. (Megadim Chadashim - also Nefesh ha'Chayim 1:8 says so.) One who can do like R. Shimon, and not engage in income at all, surely he is obligated to do so. The first Parashah of Shma is in the singular, for individuals who can serve "uv'Chol Me'odecha" - they totally neglect income, and engage in Torah.

Why did R. Shimon say 'what will be with Torah?!'

Rav Elyashiv: Torah is great. One reaches perfection in Torah only if he clings to it totally, without any connection to this world. Many did not succeed, for they were not at the level of earlier generations, who made their Torah primary and their work secondary; their Torah was guarded and their work was blessed.

How can R. Shimon say that "v'Asafta Deganecha" applies when Yisrael do not do His will? In this Parashah it says "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a... Le'ahavah Es Hash-m...; v'Nasati Metar Artzechem...", and oppositely "Hishamru Lachem Pen...; v'Lo Yihyeh Matar"!

Maharsha: This is like Tosfos said - they do not do His will totally. Here it says only "b'Chol Levavchem uv'Chol Nafshechem"; the first Parashah said also "uv'Chol Me'odecha." Some people, their money is dearer to them than their lives (NOTE: they are prepared to give their lives for Him, but not to serve with all their money. - PF) Therefore, they are punished monetarily - others do not do their work for them. Others, who do not do His will at all, they are punished also bodily, like we said 'further, they must do others' work.' "Tachas Asher Lo Avadta Es Hash-m... va'Avadta Es Oyvecha." Daf Al ha'Daf citing Shalal David (Ha'azinu) - alternatively, it omits uv'Chol Me'odechem because they do not fulfill 'every Midah that He measures to you, be Modeh Lo Me'od Me'od' (thank Him greatly).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Beis Yakov (132): We cannot infer so from "uv'Chol Me'odecha." The first Parashah said so, to teach about one whose money is dearer to him than his life. The second Parashah is in the plural; we cannot expound so about the Rabim (NOTE: So said Tzeidah l'Derech Devarim 11:13. Yad ha'Melech (Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:7) says that since "uv'Chol Nafshechem" obligates the Tzibur to agree to be Moser Nefesh for Kidush Hash-m, all the more so they must forfeit their money! There was no need to write uv'Chol Me'odechem. I heard from Rav A. Lopiansky that a Tzibur need not forfeit all its money. We do not redeem captives for more than their value (Gitin 45a); this is lest the Tzibur become poor (Pardes Yosef Vayikra 14:36). - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Most do His will, but a minority do not. This is why the Parashah began in the plural "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a Tishme'u..." and switched to the singular "v'Asafta Deganecha." Also, if all were doing His will, it is unreasonable to switch to the other extreme "Hishamru Lachem... va'Avadtem Elohim Acherim"! "V'Asafta" discusses one who does not do His will so fully. For him, there is concern lest he descend and serve idolatry.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Beis Yakov (132): In Ta'anis (6a), it suggested that "Yoreh" detaches Peros and floods (ruins) crops and trees. Rashi explained, "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a Tishme'u..." - and if not, I will send damaging rain. We can answer similarly here.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Yakov Shor, in Kerem Shlomo (15:3 p.35): This Beraisa is from Sifri (Ekev 42). There, it does not bring "v'Asafta Deganecha" regarding when Yisrael do not do Hash-m's will. Even when others gather your grain, it is considered that you gathered it! These words were added to the Gemara via a Talmid who erred.

Above, we said that "v'Asafta Deganecha" applies when Yisrael do Hash-m's will (it is considered their grain). Here we say that it applies when they do not do His will (so they themselves must work)!

Tosfos #1: They do His will, but not totally. They are not absolute Tzadikim.

Rav Elyashiv: R. Shimon taught that one who recites Keri'as Shma morning and evening, he fulfilled "Lo Yamush Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh mi'Picha" (Menachos 99b). However, the primary Mitzvah is to learn constantly. This is like Tefilin. If he wore them for a moment during the day, he fulfilled the Mitzvah, but one who wears them more, he fulfills the Mitzvah every moment.

Tosfos #2: The two teachings disagree. Above, whether or not they do His will, they themselves work; the difference is whether or not it is called their grain. Below, we say that when they do His will, others do their work for them. When they do not do His will, they themselves work.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Above, some do His will and some do not. "Ashuv v'Lakachti Degani" applies only when all do not do His will, and there is no grain in the world. When some do His will, He sends for their sake; others gather for them. Those who do not, they gather their own. It says "v'Asafta Deganecha" (singular), for above discussed when Yisrael do His will - "v'Nasati Metar Artzechem"; the world is judged according to the majority. If an individual does not do His will, Hash-m will not punish the Rabim due to him. Rather, he will have grain due to the Rabim, but he will need to gather it himself - "v'Asafta Deganecha." For the others, "v'Amdu Zarim v'Ra'u Tzonechem."

Iyun Yakov: This discusses Ba'alei Batim who engage in worldly matters; they fix times for Torah. People who learn constantly, others do their work for them.

Here, R. Shimon explains "Lo Yamush Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zeh mi'Picha" simply, and R. Yishmael disagrees. In Menachos (99b), R. Yishmael explained it simply to his nephew, and R. Shimon said that one fulfills it via Keri'as Shma morning and evening!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Birkei Yosef (YD 246): A Chacham answered that in Menachos, R. Yishmael wanted to make his nephew zealous to learn; he does not really explain simply. There, R. Yochanan cited R. Shimon, i.e. his Rebbi, R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak; it is not R. Shimon ben Yochai. (So is the text of the She'altos and the Shach.) I say that there is no contradiction in R. Yishmael. Here he discusses one who needs to work for income; if he does not, all explain "Lo Yamush" literally. Also R. Shimon is not difficult. Keri'as Shma suffices for Lo Yamush, but the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah obligates knowing the entire Torah and all its details. If one will gather his grain... when will he learn the entire Torah?!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ateres Moshe (OC 44:2): R. Shimon never meant that one should not do any business. Will he say that all laws of sales, Ribis, Ona'ah... are only when Yisrael do not do His will?! Rather, they argue about "v'Asafta Deganecha." R. Yishmael infers that one may not totally cast his needs on Hash-m to engage in Torah and rely on Hash-m to finance him. He must do some Hishtadlus for income. R. Shimon permits relying on Hash-m to finance him. When we do His will, "V'Amdu Zarim v'Ra'u Tzonechem." When not, we may not rely on miracles.

What do we learn from 'many tried to follow R. Shimon and did not succeed'?

Maharsha: Surely there are Tzadikim that others did their work. However, they are few. R. Shimon said, Bnei Aliyah are few... if they are two, they are me and my son (Sukah 45b). Not everyone should rely on this, to say 'I will not work at all, for I am a total Tzadik; others will do my work.' Perhaps he errs! Many did like R. Yishmael and succeeded, for most are not total Tzadikim. Torah is good with Derech Eretz (Avos 2:2). However, in the future, "v'Amech Kulam Tzadikim" (Yeshayah 60:21); "V'Amdu Zarim v'Ra'u Tzonechem" (ibid. 61:5) will be fulfilled.

What is special about Nisan and Tishrei?

Rashi: Nisan is the time to harvest; Tishrei is the time to press grapes and olives.

Maharsha: We do not summons people to come to Beis Din in Nisan or Tishrei (Bava Kama 113a). Rashi explained that they are times of harvest... Our Gemara supports him. (NOTE: One might have thought that we do not summons in Nisan or Tishrei because people are busy preparing for Yom Tov, or restoring order after it (returning home, dismantling the Sukah, laundering clothes after a week of no laundering...). Our Gemara shows that these are the times to engage in his livelihood. - PF)

Iyun Yakov: Since the rest of the year they engage in Torah, this is called that their Torah is primary and their work is secondary. It says 'Yemei' and not 'Chodesh', for part of the month is Chagim, which is not proper for work.

Tosfos (Bava Basra 28a DH Kanas): [Grain] harvest is from mid-Nisan until mid-Sivan. The grape harvest is in Tishrei.

Megadim Chadashim citing Matzpas Eisan: 'Yemei' Nisan is not Chodesh Nisan. Rather, it is the time of the grain harvest, which begins in Nisan. Megadim Chadashim - perhaps also Rashi holds that Yemei Nisan and Tishrei are not limited to those two months. However, Magen Avos (Avos 2:2) holds that it is only those two months.

Tosfos (ibid. citing R. Chananel): One gathers grain [that dried outside in the summer] in Tishrei, and harvests olives in Shevat

What is Traksimon?

Rashi: It is the gate of the Chatzer and house.

Etz Yosef: Trak is like Teruki Gali (28a - close the doors). Simon is like Bayis. How can Rashi say that the gate of the Chatzer obligates? After this, we say that entering via the Chatzer exempts! Perhaps a guarded Chatzer is like a house, and obligates; a Chatzer that is not guarded exempts. Rav Elyashiv - some texts omit 'or Chatzer' below.

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi obligates only if it entered via the openings of both the Chatzer and the house.

Is it permitted to enter produce via the roof or Chatzer?

Me'iri: One may not scheme to do so, in order to exempt it from tithes. If he did so, and the chaff was still attached, it did not become obligated to tithe it.

Megadim Chadashim citing Yismach Moshe (Yisro 166b): In both eras, they intended l'Shem Shamayim. Early generations entered via the openings the Chatzer and the house, even if they did not need it in the house, in order to obligate it, for Metzuveh v'Oseh (one who is obligated and fulfills) is greater. Later generations, even if they needed it in the house, entered via the roof, to be exempt. They tithed it; they held that Eino Metzuveh v'Oseh is greater than Metzuveh v'Oseh. We say that the latter is greater only because the Yetzer ha'Ra incites him. This was only for early generations; they were greater, so their Yetzer ha'Ra was greater. (NOTE: We conclude that Metzuveh v'Oseh is greater; even Rav Yosef, who initially disagreed, retracted (Kidushin 31a). No one distinguishes based on the level of the person! - PF) Kedushas Yom Tov (Drush l'Shabbos ha'Gadol) says that early generations were not afraid of the Yetzer ha'Ra, even if they will be commanded. Later generations were afraid of the Yetzer ha'Ra, so they evaded being commanded. Megadim Chadashim - Eino Metzuveh v'Oseh applies when others are commanded, and he is not, e.g. a blind person or woman is exempt from Tzitzis. Peros that entered via the roof are like Peros Chutz la'Aretz (of lands near Eretz Yisrael) - the Torah exempts, and mid'Rabanan they are obligated. Eino Metzuveh v'Oseh does not apply! Ritva (Kidushin 31a citing the Ramban) says that if no one is commanded, one who is stringent is called a Hedyot (commoner; there is no Mitzvah to do so).

Megadim Chadashim: If one tithed from Peros that had Gemar Melachah on Peros before Gemar Melachah (e.g. wine on grapes), b'Di'eved it is Terumah (Terumos 1:10), for later they will be obligated. Perhaps Yismach Moshe holds that later they took the Peros out and entered them through the door, like Me'iri (31a), who holds that they become obligated, unlike those who exempt (Chazon Ish Ma'aseros 3:9, Afikei Yam 2:28, and others cited in Me'iri). (NOTE: The simple meaning of the Gemara is that they schemed to avoid tithing. It was not l'Shem Shamayim, just like they made their Torah Arai and their work Keva. - PF)

What is Pnei ha'Bayis?

Rashi: It is the opening via which people enter and leave the house.

If produce did not see Pnei ha'Bayis, is it totally exempt from Ma'aser?

Rashi: This is mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan, one may not eat Keva (in a fixed way) before tithing.