My daughter Helen and I have an ongoing argument about texting. Since she is 18, texting is our main form of communication (when I receive an email or phone call from her, I know something is really wrong). Helen claims that texting is like a form of colloquial speech. Therefore, according to Helen, rules of grammar (and even spelling) do not apply to texts. I love my daughter dearly, but my whole career basically has been built on a command of written and spoken English – which means a command of grammar. I don’t agree with her at all – I don’t agree that texting is not written communication, nor do I agree that colloquial English somehow excuses a speaker from the rules of grammar. Good grammar to me infers good education and good communication (and I mean “good” not “proper”). Consequently, I am in the habit of correcting the grammar in the texts Helen sends me.

Grammar provides meaning. The classic example is to consider two sentences with identical words in an identical order, but punctuated differently – “Let’s eat, Grandma!” vs. “Let’s eat Grandma”. Same words, same order – completely different meaning. Problematically, the Torah is written without punctuation (or vowels, for that matter). The division of books of the Torah into chapters and verses is not in the original, but a later convention. Meanings can change dramatically depending on where we believe sentences begin and end, which clauses are primary and which are dependent, where a quote begins and ends, etc.

In today’s Daf our Rabbis struggle with this very issue, drawing different obligations from the same excerpt. The Rabbi’s focus on Deuteronomy 8:8-10 (” a land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey; a land where you may eat[bread] without stint, where you will lack nothing; a land whose rocks are iron and from whose hills you can mine copper. When you have eaten your fill, give thanks to the LORD your God for the good land which God has given you.”) (Punctuation courtesy of Sefaria.org, which is one of the best resources I have encountered!). The issue we examine is whether the phrase “When you have eaten your fill” applies to all of the seven species in verse 8, or only to bread and therefore, is an after-blessing required for all of the seven species or just bread?

Before addressing this important question, we introduce the first of two Mishnahs in today’s Daf. We had previously learned that bread was the primary food in a meal, so if we blessed bread, we did not need to bless the other foods included with the meal. We also learned that when we eat bread, we must say a much longer blessing after the meal. Our first Mishnah appears to contradict this rule by stating that if we are brought salted food and bread accompanies it, we bless the salted food and that discharges the obligation to bless the bread. The Mishnah goes on to say that when we have a primary food and a subordinate food (fries and catsup), we bless the primary food and that covers the subordinate food as well. The rabbis need to reconcile this Mishnah with the earlier rule, so they surmise that the salty food must refer to the fruits of Genosar, a region in Israel. These fruits were apparently so exceptional and so sweet, that they had to be eaten with salt and were obviously eaten as primary to bread. We then get a series of stories which demonstrate the superiority of the fruits of Genosar, which leads to stories about the general superiority of fruits from Israel (apparently in one city in Israel fig pickers were fed tuna sashimi). We conclude this section with two sayings about what makes a meal – “Rav said: Any meal without salt is not a meal.” and “Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Any meal without a soup is not a meal.” I will keep those sayings in mind the next time I invite company to a meal.

We then get our second Mishnah, which is the final Mishnah of Chapter Six. This Mishnah concerns when we must recite the full Bircas HaMazon after we eat and when we can say the shorter abridgement as an after blessing. Bircas HaMazon is recited after a meal in which bread is eaten. Here is where the Rabbis try to understand the three verses I mentioned earlier. Had I been a participant in this debate, I would try to diagram the sentences (a lost art) to determine which clause modified which clause. The Rabbis engage in this debate in a text without punctuation. I am not certain when the idea of diagraming sentences originates. Perhaps the Rabbis understood this idea, but printing technology of the time did not allow them to utilize it in printed texts. Perhaps the idea of sentence diagramming was really invented by middle and high school teachers to torture students in San Antonio, Texas in the 70’s and 80’s. The Rabbis do not reach a conclusion in today’s Daf, but I believe generally accepted practice is for the Bircas HaMazon to be only recited after a meal that includes bread.

We conclude Chapter 6 of the Tractate with a discussion of the health effects or defects of various foods. Upon reading this section, we learn that the Rabbis did not respect vegetarians very much. Perhaps, I thought of Helen when I read this Daf because Helen is a vegan. The Rabbis believe vegetables give the eater such bad breath that their breath becomes unhealthy to those around them. The Rabbis question whether vegetables really provide sustenance at all. The Rabbis are particularly hostile to leeks and turnips. Indeed, the Rabbis differ over whether turnips are safe only if cooked with meat or safe only if eaten with wine. I plan to only eat turnips cooked with meat and accompanied by wine just to stay extra safe! Sorry, Helen.