Granted,

<<according to the one

<<who said

<<dates

<<of the wind,

<<that is

<<why here

<<it calls

<<it

<<“novelos”

<<unspecified,

<<and there

<<it calls

<<it

<<“[novelos of] the date palm.”

<<But

<<according to the one

<<who said

<<burned

<<by the heat,

<<let it teach

<<this

<<and that

<<“novelos

<<of the date palm,”

<<or

<<this

<<and that

<<“novelos”

<<unspecified!

<<It is difficult.

“If there were

<<before him

<<kinds

<<many,

<<etc.”

<<Ulla said:

<<The dispute is

<<where their blessings

<<are the same,

<<for Rabbi Yehuda

<<holds

<<a kind of

<<the seven

<<is preferable,

<<and the Rabbis

<<hold

<<a kind

<<that is beloved

<<is preferable.

<<But

<<where are not

<<their blessings

<<the same,

<<the words of

<<all:

<<he blesses

<<over

<<this one

<<and goes back

<<and blesses

<<over

<<that one.

They raised an objection:

<<If there were

<<before him

<<a radish

<<and an olive,

<<he blesses

<<over

<<the radish

<<and exempts

<<the olive!

<<Here,

<<with what

<<are we dealing?

<<When the radish

<<is the main thing.

If so,

<<say

<<the latter clause:

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<says:

<<He blesses

<<over

<<the olive,

<<for the olive

<<is of the kind of

<<the seven.

<<Does not

<<hold

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<this

<<that we learned:

<<Anything

<<that is

<<the main thing

<<and with it

<<something secondary,

<<he blesses

<<over

<<the main thing

<<and exempts

<<the secondary?

<<And if

<<you say:

<<it is so

<<indeed,

<<that he does not

<<hold it —

<<but is it not taught:

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<says:

<<If

<<because of

<<the radish

<<comes

<<the olive,

<<he blesses

<<over

<<the radish

<<and exempts

<<the olive.

Actually,

<<with a radish

<<that is the main thing

<<are we dealing,

<<and when

<<they disagree,

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<and the Rabbis,

<<in a matter

<<another

<<do they disagree;

<<and a clause is missing,

<<and thus

<<it teaches:

<<If there were

<<before him

<<a radish

<<and an olive,

<<he blesses

<<over

<<the radish

<<and exempts

<<the olive.

<<In what [case]

<<are the words

<<said?

<<When the radish

<<is the main thing;

<<but

<<if is not

<<the radish

<<the main thing,

<<the words of

<<all:

<<he blesses

<<over

<<this one

<<and goes back

<<and blesses

<<over

<<that one.

<<And two

<<kinds

<<in general

<<whose blessings

<<are the same —

<<he blesses

<<over

<<whichever

<<of them

<<he wishes.

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<says:

<<He blesses

<<over

<<the olive,

<<for the olive

<<is of the kind of

<<the seven.

Disagree

<<about it

<<Rabbi Ami

<<and Rabbi Yitzchak Nappacha.

<<One

<<said:

<<The dispute is

<<where their blessings

<<are the same,

<<for Rabbi Yehuda

<<holds

<<a kind of

<<the seven

<<is preferable,

<<and the Rabbis

<<hold

<<a kind

<<that is beloved

<<is preferable.

<<But

<<where are not

<<their blessings

<<the same,

<<the words of

<<all:

<<he blesses

<<over

<<this one

<<and goes back

<<and blesses

<<over

<<that one.

<<And one

<<said:

<<Even

<<where are not

<<their blessings

<<the same

<<too

<<there is a dispute.

Granted,

<<according to the one

<<who said

<<where their blessings

<<are the same

<<there is a dispute,

<<it is well.

<<But

<<according to the one

<<who said

<<where are not

<<their blessings

<<the same

<<they disagree,

<<about what

<<do they disagree?!

<<Rabbi Yirmiya said:

<<To put [one] first.

For Rav Yosef said,

<<and some say

<<Rabbi Yitzchak:

<<Whatever

<<comes earlier

<<in verse

<<this

<<comes earlier

<<for a blessing,

<<as it is stated:

<<“A land of

<<wheat

<<and barley,

<<and vine

<<and fig

<<and pomegranate,

<<a land of

<<olive

<<oil

<<and honey.”

And it disagrees

<<with Rabbi Chanan,

<<for Rabbi Chanan said:

<<The entire

<<verse,

<<all of it,

<<for measures

<<was stated.

“Wheat” —

<<as we learned:

<<One who enters

<<a house

<<that is afflicted [with tzaraas],

<<with his garments

<<on

<<his shoulders,

<<and his sandals

<<and his rings

<<in his hands —

<<he

<<and they

<<are impure

<<immediately.

<<If he was

<<wearing

<<his garments,

<<and his sandals

<<on his feet,

<<and his rings

<<on his fingers,

<<he

<<is impure

<<immediately,

<<and they

<<are pure

<<until

<<he stays

<<the time

<<of eating

<<a peras —

<<bread

<<of wheat

<<and not

<<bread

<<of barley,

<<reclining

<<and eating it

<<with relish.

“Barley” —

<<as we learned:

<<A bone

<<the size of a barley grain

<<imparts impurity

<<by touch

<<and by carrying,

<<but does not

<<impart impurity

<<by a tent.

“Vine” —

<<the amount of

<<a revi’is

<<of wine

<<for a nazir.

<<“Fig” —

<<the size of a dried fig

<<for carrying out

<<on Shabbos.

<<“Pomegranate” —

<<as we learned:

<<All

<<vessels of

<<householders —