Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 19, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘砖讘讟 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

Berakhot 47

The shiurim for the next month are sponsored for the refuah shleima of Ofek Yair ben Yaara.

In what scenarios is it not appropriate to give respect to important people? Why? The gemara goes over each of the cases in the mishna whereby one eats certain foods and either can or cannot join a zimmun. What is each one adding that we didn’t already know? What makes someone an am haaretz? A braita is brought with many different opinions. Rami bar Hama dies and it is believed that it is because he didn’t offer Rav Menashia to join the zimun. Why did he not allow him to? And why was he punished for it? What caused him to be mistaken? In order to get to ten, can one use a child as a tenth? Or a Caananite slave? An aron kodesh? Shabbat? How can these be options?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜诇讗 讘讬讚讬诐 诪讝讜讛诪讜转


nor with regard to dirty hands, i.e., with regard to washing hands at the end of a meal.


专讘讬谉 讜讗讘讬讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 拽讚诪讬讛 讞诪专讬讛 讚专讘讬谉 诇讚讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬讝讬诇 诪专 讗诪专 诪讚住诇讬拽 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 诪诪注专讘讗 讙住 诇讬讛 讚注转讬讛 讻讬 诪讟讗 诇驻转讞讗 讚讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬注诇 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜注讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 诪专 讗谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讻讘讚讬谉 讗诇讗 讘驻转讞 砖讬砖 讘讛 诪讝讜讝讛


The Gemara recounts: Ravin and Abaye were traveling along the road on donkeys. Ravin鈥檚 donkey preceded Abaye鈥檚 and Ravin did not say to Abaye: Let the Master go first. Abaye said to himself: Ever since this one of the Sages, Ravin, ascended from the West, Eretz Yisrael, he has become arrogant. When they reached the door of the synagogue, Ravin said to Abaye: Let the Master enter first. Abaye said to him: Until now was I not Master? Why do you only begin deferring to me now but did not do so while we were traveling? Ravin said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan said the following: One only defers to those greater than he at a doorway that has a mezuza, as only there is it appropriate to allow him to go first.


讚讗讬转 讘讛 诪讝讜讝讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛 诪讝讜讝讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 诪讝讜讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讻讘讚讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘驻转讞 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讜讝讛


The Gemara challenges: A doorway that has a mezuza, yes, one defers; a doorway that does not have a mezuza, no, one does not defer? If so, a synagogue or study hall that has no mezuza, there too, does one not defer at their doorways? Rather, say that this is the principle: One only shows deference at a doorway where it is worthy of affixing a mezuza, but not on a road or a bridge.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 砖讬诇转 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谉 讛诪住讘讬谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讟注讜诐 讛讘讜爪注 讬转讬讘 专讘 住驻专讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讟注讜诐 讗讬转诪专


The Gemara continues with the subject of deferring to one鈥檚 superior during a meal: Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: Those reclining at a meal may not eat anything until the one breaking bread has tasted the bread. Rav Safra sat and said: May not taste, was stated by Rav, and not: May not eat.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘诇砖讜谉 专讘讜


The Gemara asks: What difference does it make whether Rav said taste or eat? The Gemara explains that there is no difference and that Rav Safra鈥檚 insistence teaches that one must say what he was taught in the precise language employed by his teacher without altering a single detail.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬诐 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘拽注专讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讛讘讜爪注 讛讜讗 驻讜砖讟 讬讚讜 转讞诇讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞诇讜拽 讻讘讜讚 诇专讘讜 讗讜 诇诪讬 砖讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜


The Gemara continues to discuss the subject of honors during a meal. The Sages taught: Two people who are eating from a single dish must wait for each other, but if there are three, everyone eats when he wishes and they need not wait for each other. Generally, the one who breaks bread extends his hand to take food first, but if he wishes to defer to his teacher or to one who is greater than he, he has permission to do so.


专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讛讜讛 注住讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讘讜爪注 专砖讗讬 诇讘爪讜注 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讗诪谉 诪驻讬 讛注讜谞讬诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪驻讬 专讜讘 讛注讜谞讬诐


The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar 岣na engaged in preparations for his son鈥檚 wedding in the house of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Ketina. He arrived early and sat and taught his son the halakhot of meals: The one who breaks bread may not break the bread until amen has ended from the mouths of those responding. Rav 岣sda said: One need only wait until amen has ended from the mouths of the majority of those responding.


讗诪专 诇讜 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讜讘讗 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讻诇讬讗 讘专讻讛 诪讬注讜讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讻诇讬讗 讘专讻讛


Rami bar 岣ma said to him: What is different regarding the majority that one must wait until their amen ends before proceeding? That until then, the blessing has not yet concluded. If so, when the amen of the minority has not yet ended as well, the blessing has not yet concluded. Why doesn鈥檛 the one breaking bread need to wait in that case?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讬讜转专 诪讚讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛:


Rav 岣sda said to him: Because I say that anyone who answers an amen of excessive duration is merely mistaken.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜谞讬谉 诇讗 讗诪谉 讞讟讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪谉 拽讟讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪谉 讬转讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讬讝专讜拽 讘专讻讛 诪驻讬讜


With regard to answering amen, the Sages taught: One should not respond with an abbreviated [岣tufa] amen, in which the first syllable is not properly enunciated, and a truncated [ketufa] amen, in which the second syllable is not properly enunciated, and an orphaned [yetoma] amen, in which the respondent is unaware of the blessing to which he is responding. Similarly, one should not quickly and indifferently discharge a blessing from his mouth.


讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讬转讜诪讛 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讞讟讜驻讛 讬转讞讟驻讜 讬诪讬讜 拽讟讜驻讛 讬转拽讟驻讜 讬诪讬讜 讜讻诇 讛诪讗专讬讱 讘讗诪谉 诪讗专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 讬诪讬讜 讜砖谞讜转讬讜


Ben Azzai says: Anyone who recites an orphaned amen, his children will be orphaned; one who recites an abbreviated amen, his days will be abbreviated and incomplete; one who recites a truncated amen, his days will be truncated. One who extends his amen, they will extend his days and years for him. Nonetheless, one should not prolong it extensively.


专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讘住注讜讚转讗 讗转讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讛讜讛 拽诪住专讛讘 讜讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪讛 讚注转讱 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬 讘讛讚谉 讗谞谉 讗讻讬诇谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇讜 诪讬讬转讜 诇讬 讗专讚讬诇讬讗 讜讙讜讝诇讬讗 诇讗讘讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讬谞谉


Returning to matters of zimmun, the Gemara relates: Rav and Shmuel were sitting at a meal when, much later, Rav Shimi bar 岣yya arrived and was hurrying and eating. Rav said to him: What is your thinking? Are you rushing in order to join together with us for a zimmun? We have already eaten and finished our meal before you arrived. Shmuel said to Rav: We have not really finished our meal, as if they brought me truffles or a young pigeon for Abba, Rav, wouldn鈥檛 we eat it? Since we would still eat, we have not yet finished our meal and Rabbi Shimi bar 岣yya can join us in the zimmun.


转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讘住注讜讚转讗 注诇 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专讬 讗转讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讗 讚诪讘专讱 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 住讘专讬转讜 讚讙讚讜诇 诪讘专讱 注讬拽专 砖讘住注讜讚讛 诪讘专讱 讜讛诇讻转讗 讙讚讜诇 诪讘专讱 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗转讗 诇讘住讜祝:


Rav鈥檚 students were seated at a meal when Rav A岣 entered. The students said: A great man has come who can recite the blessing on our behalf. Rav A岣 said to them: Do you think that the greatest recites the blessing? That is not so. Rather, one of the main participants who was present from the beginning of the meal recites the blessing. The Gemara concludes: The halakha, however, is that the greatest person present recites the blessing, even if he arrived at the end of the meal.


讗讻诇 讚诪讗讬 讜讻讜壮: 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬:


In the mishna, we learned that if, among the diners, one ate doubtfully tithed produce [demai], he is included among the three to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun. The Gemara raises an objection: But demai is not fit for his consumption. He is forbidden to eat demai. The Gemara responds: He may recite Grace after Meals over it because, if he wants, he could declare all of his property ownerless [hefker] and he would be a pauper, in which case the demai would be fit for his consumption. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the impoverished demai and one may feed soldiers [akhsania], whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. And Rav Huna said: It was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished and soldiers demai.


诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛专诪转诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 讛壮 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专


We learned in the mishna: If, among the diners, one ate first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, he may be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious that if the teruma was already taken there is no problem. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach that one can join a zimmun? The Gemara explains: It was only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, and he separated the teruma of the tithes but did not separate the teruma gedola. Teruma gedola was not separated from the tithe that was eaten by the Levite. Although this should not be done ab initio, after the fact it is permitted, and one who eats first tithe produce under these circumstances may be included in a zimmun. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: First tithe in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26). This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart a tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe and not teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should not have to separate teruma gedola. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse stated:


诪讻诇 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜 讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗讬 讗讬讚讙谉 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讚讙谉:


鈥淔rom all of that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma鈥 (Numbers 18:29). God鈥檚 teruma, teruma gedola, must be taken from all of the Levites鈥 gifts. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to require teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This, after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that, which remained on the stalk, did not yet become grain. The verse regarding teruma gedola states: 鈥淭he first of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola.


诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘:


The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed, he may be included in a zimmun.The Gemara remarks: It is obvious that if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a zimmun. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the fifth that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; and the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption.


讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 砖诪砖 诇讗 拽讘注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


We learned in the mishna: The waiter who ate at least an olive-bulk from the meal may join in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the waiter who stands and serves the diners did not establish himself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the zimmun, the mishna teaches us that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.


讜讛讻讜转讬 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜: 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇 注诐 讛讗专抓


The mishna states that a Samaritan [Kuti] may be included in a zimmun. The Gemara asks: Why? Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, let him be merely an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, and it was taught in a baraita: An am ha鈥檃retz may not be included in a zimmun.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讻讜转讬 讞讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讻讜转讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讛讻讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注住拽讬谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讞讜诇讬讜 讘讟讛专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注砖专 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜讛谞讬 讻讜转讗讬 注砖讜专讬 诪注砖专讬 讻讚讞讝讬 讚讘诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讛 讻讜转讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘讛 讬讜转专 诪讬砖专讗诇


The Gemara offers several answers: Abaye said: The mishna is referring to a Kuti who is a 岣ver, one who is scrupulous in those areas. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna refers to a Kuti who is an am ha鈥檃retz, and here the prohibition to include an am ha鈥檃retz in a zimmun refers to an am ha鈥檃retz as defined by the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught in a baraita: Who is an am ha鈥檃retz? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An am ha鈥檃retz is anyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these Kutim tithe their produce appropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the Kutim embraced and accepted upon themselves, they are even more exacting in its observance than Jews.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 注专讘讬转 讜砖讞专讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 爪讬爪讬转 讘讘讙讚讜 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讜讝讛 注诇 驻转讞讜 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讙讚诇诐 诇转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讗 讜砖谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐


The Gemara cites a baraita with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an am ha鈥檃retz: The Sages taught: Who is an am ha鈥檃retz? One who does not recite Shema in the evening and morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: An am ha鈥檃retz is one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: An am ha鈥檃retz is one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: An am ha鈥檃retz is one who does not have a mezuza on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: An am ha鈥檃retz is one who has children but who does not want them to study Torah, so he does not raise them to engage in Torah study. A岣rim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, that is an am ha鈥檃retz. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim.


专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 讗讝诪讬谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讚转谞讬 住讬驻专讗 讜住驻专讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讝诪讬谉 讗专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讗 讜砖谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讗谞讬 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讚诪砖诪注 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讚拽 讗讘转专讬讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚砖诪注 砖诪注转转讗 诪驻讜诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讜讙专讬住 诇讛讜 讻爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚诪讬:


The Gemara relates: Rami bar 岣ma did not include Rav Menashya bar Ta岣ifa, who studied Sifra, Sifrei, and halakhot, in a zimmun because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. When Rami bar 岣ma passed away, Rava said: Rami bar 岣ma died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Ta岣ifa in a zimmun. The Gemara asks: Was it not taught in a baraita: A岣rim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an am ha鈥檃retz? Why, then, was Rami bar 岣ma punished? The Gemara answers: Rav Menashya bar Ta岣ifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar 岣ma who was not precise in his efforts to check after him to ascertain his actions. Another version of the Gemara鈥檚 answer: Anyone who hears halakhot from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar.


讗讻诇 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 讜讻讜壮: 讟讘诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘:


The mishna states that one who ate untithed produce and first tithe etc. is not included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious as one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: It was only necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where it is only considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, although by Torah law it was permitted. What are the circumstances? Where the produce grew in an unperforated flowerpot, as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.


诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛:


We learned in the mishna that one who ate first tithe from which its teruma was not separated may not be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. The Gemara responds: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate teruma gedola, the tanna of the mishna teaches us as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.


诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖谞驻讚讜 讜诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讻讛诇讻转谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讚讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讗住讬诪讜谉 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讻住祝 砖讬砖 (诇讜) 注诇讬讜 爪讜专讛 讛拽讚砖 砖讞诇诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讜诇讗 驻讚讗讜 讘讻住祝 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜:


We also learned in the mishna that if one ate second tithe and consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious? Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara responds: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha with regard to a case where they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon], a silver bullion that had not been engraved. And the Torah says: 鈥淎nd bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: Vetzarta refers to money that has a form [tzura] engraved upon it. Consecrated property; in a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, and the Torah states: 鈥淗e will give the money and it will be assured to him鈥 (Leviticus 27:19).


讜讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转: 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讻讝讬转 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转:


The mishna states that a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk may not join a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: Since the first clause of the mishna taught the halakha with regard to a waiter who ate an olive-bulk, the latter clause taught the halakha with regard to a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk. Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.


讜讛谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讜讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讟讘诇 讙讜讬 讛讜讗:


The mishna further states that a gentile is not included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case of a convert who was circumcised but did not yet immerse himself in a ritual bath, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One is never considered a proselyte until he is circumcised and immerses himself. As long as he did not immerse himself, he is a gentile.


谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讟谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘注专讬住讛 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜


We also learned in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun. Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a zimmun.


讜讛讗 转谞谉 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛诐


The Gemara objects: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun?


讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 拽讟谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘注专讬住讛 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 住谞讬祝 诇注砖专讛


The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a zimmun, one may make him an adjunct to complete an assembly of ten people, enabling them to invoke God鈥檚 name in a zimmun.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 转砖注讛 讜注讘讚 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪讬转讬讘讬 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 注砖专讛 讜砖讞专专 注讘讚讜 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 砖讞专专 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讞专专 诇讗 转专讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讜 砖讞专专 讞讚 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讞讚


On the subject of completing a zimmun, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine Jews and a slave join together to form a zimmun of ten. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find a quorum of ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the quorum of ten. From this we may infer that if he freed his slave, yes, he may join the quorum of ten, but if he did not free him, no, he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, two were required to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer freed one and fulfilled his obligation with another one, who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.


讜讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 讛诪砖讞专专 注讘讚讜 注讜讘专 讘注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖讗谞讬 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘专讛 讛讬讗 诪爪讜讛 讚专讘讬诐 砖讗谞讬


With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: How did he do that? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his Canaanite slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated with regard to Canaanite slaves: 鈥淵ou will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of a mitzva is different. The Gemara asks: It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: A mitzva that benefits the many is different, and one may free his slave for that purpose.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖讻讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讻讚讬 砖讬讝讻讛 讜讬诪谞讛 注诐 注砖专讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讘讗讬诐 讗讞专讬讜 拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖讻专 讻讜诇诐 砖讻专 讻讜诇诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖讻专 讻谞讙讚 讻讜诇诐


In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early to go to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten to complete the quorum, as even if one hundred people arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all, as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: Does it enter your mind that he receives the reward of them all? Why should he take away their reward? Rather, emend the statement and say: He receives a reward equivalent to the reward of them all.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转砖注讛 讜讗专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗专讜谉 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转砖注讛 谞专讗讬谉 讻注砖专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讬 诪讻谞驻讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讬 诪讘讚专讬


With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark in which the Torah scrolls are stored join to form a quorum of ten. Rav Na岣an said to him: Is an ark a man, that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together. There was disagreement over this: Some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are gathered. And some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are scattered, the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.


讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讘转 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜砖讘转 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛诪讞讚讚讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讘讛诇讻讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪讞讜讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讜专讘 砖砖转 诪讞讜讬 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗


Similarly, Rav Ami said: Two people and Shabbat join to form a zimmun. Rav Na岣an said to him: Is Shabbat a person, that it may be counted in a zimmun? Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other鈥檚 intellect in halakhic discourse join together and are considered three. The Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda pointed to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other鈥檚 intellect: For example, me and Rav Sheshet. Similarly, Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav 岣sda.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讟谉 驻讜专讞 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽讟谉 砖讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘拽讟谉 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讘讬讗 诇讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘拽讟谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜


With regard to a minor鈥檚 inclusion in a zimmun, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A mature minor, i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, is included in a zimmun. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: A minor who grew two pubic hairs, a sign of puberty, is included in a zimmun; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a zimmun. And one is not exacting with regard to a minor. The Gemara comments: This baraita itself is difficult. You said that a minor who grew two hairs, yes, he is included, one who did not grow two hairs, no, he is not included, and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What does this last clause come to include? Is it not


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Ignoramuses in Our Midst

  So much to discuss, so little time. Some days more than others. More on honor. Given the formal protocol,...

Berakhot 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 47

讜诇讗 讘讬讚讬诐 诪讝讜讛诪讜转


nor with regard to dirty hands, i.e., with regard to washing hands at the end of a meal.


专讘讬谉 讜讗讘讬讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 拽讚诪讬讛 讞诪专讬讛 讚专讘讬谉 诇讚讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬讝讬诇 诪专 讗诪专 诪讚住诇讬拽 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 诪诪注专讘讗 讙住 诇讬讛 讚注转讬讛 讻讬 诪讟讗 诇驻转讞讗 讚讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬注诇 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜注讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 诪专 讗谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讻讘讚讬谉 讗诇讗 讘驻转讞 砖讬砖 讘讛 诪讝讜讝讛


The Gemara recounts: Ravin and Abaye were traveling along the road on donkeys. Ravin鈥檚 donkey preceded Abaye鈥檚 and Ravin did not say to Abaye: Let the Master go first. Abaye said to himself: Ever since this one of the Sages, Ravin, ascended from the West, Eretz Yisrael, he has become arrogant. When they reached the door of the synagogue, Ravin said to Abaye: Let the Master enter first. Abaye said to him: Until now was I not Master? Why do you only begin deferring to me now but did not do so while we were traveling? Ravin said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan said the following: One only defers to those greater than he at a doorway that has a mezuza, as only there is it appropriate to allow him to go first.


讚讗讬转 讘讛 诪讝讜讝讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛 诪讝讜讝讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 诪讝讜讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讻讘讚讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘驻转讞 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讜讝讛


The Gemara challenges: A doorway that has a mezuza, yes, one defers; a doorway that does not have a mezuza, no, one does not defer? If so, a synagogue or study hall that has no mezuza, there too, does one not defer at their doorways? Rather, say that this is the principle: One only shows deference at a doorway where it is worthy of affixing a mezuza, but not on a road or a bridge.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 砖讬诇转 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谉 讛诪住讘讬谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讟注讜诐 讛讘讜爪注 讬转讬讘 专讘 住驻专讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讟注讜诐 讗讬转诪专


The Gemara continues with the subject of deferring to one鈥檚 superior during a meal: Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: Those reclining at a meal may not eat anything until the one breaking bread has tasted the bread. Rav Safra sat and said: May not taste, was stated by Rav, and not: May not eat.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘诇砖讜谉 专讘讜


The Gemara asks: What difference does it make whether Rav said taste or eat? The Gemara explains that there is no difference and that Rav Safra鈥檚 insistence teaches that one must say what he was taught in the precise language employed by his teacher without altering a single detail.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬诐 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘拽注专讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讛讘讜爪注 讛讜讗 驻讜砖讟 讬讚讜 转讞诇讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞诇讜拽 讻讘讜讚 诇专讘讜 讗讜 诇诪讬 砖讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜


The Gemara continues to discuss the subject of honors during a meal. The Sages taught: Two people who are eating from a single dish must wait for each other, but if there are three, everyone eats when he wishes and they need not wait for each other. Generally, the one who breaks bread extends his hand to take food first, but if he wishes to defer to his teacher or to one who is greater than he, he has permission to do so.


专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讛讜讛 注住讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讘讜爪注 专砖讗讬 诇讘爪讜注 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讗诪谉 诪驻讬 讛注讜谞讬诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪驻讬 专讜讘 讛注讜谞讬诐


The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar 岣na engaged in preparations for his son鈥檚 wedding in the house of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Ketina. He arrived early and sat and taught his son the halakhot of meals: The one who breaks bread may not break the bread until amen has ended from the mouths of those responding. Rav 岣sda said: One need only wait until amen has ended from the mouths of the majority of those responding.


讗诪专 诇讜 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讜讘讗 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讻诇讬讗 讘专讻讛 诪讬注讜讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讻诇讬讗 讘专讻讛


Rami bar 岣ma said to him: What is different regarding the majority that one must wait until their amen ends before proceeding? That until then, the blessing has not yet concluded. If so, when the amen of the minority has not yet ended as well, the blessing has not yet concluded. Why doesn鈥檛 the one breaking bread need to wait in that case?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讬讜转专 诪讚讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛:


Rav 岣sda said to him: Because I say that anyone who answers an amen of excessive duration is merely mistaken.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜谞讬谉 诇讗 讗诪谉 讞讟讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪谉 拽讟讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪谉 讬转讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讬讝专讜拽 讘专讻讛 诪驻讬讜


With regard to answering amen, the Sages taught: One should not respond with an abbreviated [岣tufa] amen, in which the first syllable is not properly enunciated, and a truncated [ketufa] amen, in which the second syllable is not properly enunciated, and an orphaned [yetoma] amen, in which the respondent is unaware of the blessing to which he is responding. Similarly, one should not quickly and indifferently discharge a blessing from his mouth.


讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讬转讜诪讛 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讞讟讜驻讛 讬转讞讟驻讜 讬诪讬讜 拽讟讜驻讛 讬转拽讟驻讜 讬诪讬讜 讜讻诇 讛诪讗专讬讱 讘讗诪谉 诪讗专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 讬诪讬讜 讜砖谞讜转讬讜


Ben Azzai says: Anyone who recites an orphaned amen, his children will be orphaned; one who recites an abbreviated amen, his days will be abbreviated and incomplete; one who recites a truncated amen, his days will be truncated. One who extends his amen, they will extend his days and years for him. Nonetheless, one should not prolong it extensively.


专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讘住注讜讚转讗 讗转讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讛讜讛 拽诪住专讛讘 讜讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪讛 讚注转讱 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬 讘讛讚谉 讗谞谉 讗讻讬诇谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇讜 诪讬讬转讜 诇讬 讗专讚讬诇讬讗 讜讙讜讝诇讬讗 诇讗讘讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讬谞谉


Returning to matters of zimmun, the Gemara relates: Rav and Shmuel were sitting at a meal when, much later, Rav Shimi bar 岣yya arrived and was hurrying and eating. Rav said to him: What is your thinking? Are you rushing in order to join together with us for a zimmun? We have already eaten and finished our meal before you arrived. Shmuel said to Rav: We have not really finished our meal, as if they brought me truffles or a young pigeon for Abba, Rav, wouldn鈥檛 we eat it? Since we would still eat, we have not yet finished our meal and Rabbi Shimi bar 岣yya can join us in the zimmun.


转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讘住注讜讚转讗 注诇 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专讬 讗转讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讗 讚诪讘专讱 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 住讘专讬转讜 讚讙讚讜诇 诪讘专讱 注讬拽专 砖讘住注讜讚讛 诪讘专讱 讜讛诇讻转讗 讙讚讜诇 诪讘专讱 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗转讗 诇讘住讜祝:


Rav鈥檚 students were seated at a meal when Rav A岣 entered. The students said: A great man has come who can recite the blessing on our behalf. Rav A岣 said to them: Do you think that the greatest recites the blessing? That is not so. Rather, one of the main participants who was present from the beginning of the meal recites the blessing. The Gemara concludes: The halakha, however, is that the greatest person present recites the blessing, even if he arrived at the end of the meal.


讗讻诇 讚诪讗讬 讜讻讜壮: 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬:


In the mishna, we learned that if, among the diners, one ate doubtfully tithed produce [demai], he is included among the three to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun. The Gemara raises an objection: But demai is not fit for his consumption. He is forbidden to eat demai. The Gemara responds: He may recite Grace after Meals over it because, if he wants, he could declare all of his property ownerless [hefker] and he would be a pauper, in which case the demai would be fit for his consumption. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the impoverished demai and one may feed soldiers [akhsania], whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. And Rav Huna said: It was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished and soldiers demai.


诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛专诪转诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 讛壮 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专


We learned in the mishna: If, among the diners, one ate first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, he may be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious that if the teruma was already taken there is no problem. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach that one can join a zimmun? The Gemara explains: It was only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, and he separated the teruma of the tithes but did not separate the teruma gedola. Teruma gedola was not separated from the tithe that was eaten by the Levite. Although this should not be done ab initio, after the fact it is permitted, and one who eats first tithe produce under these circumstances may be included in a zimmun. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: First tithe in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26). This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart a tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe and not teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should not have to separate teruma gedola. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse stated:


诪讻诇 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜 讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗讬 讗讬讚讙谉 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讚讙谉:


鈥淔rom all of that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma鈥 (Numbers 18:29). God鈥檚 teruma, teruma gedola, must be taken from all of the Levites鈥 gifts. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to require teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This, after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that, which remained on the stalk, did not yet become grain. The verse regarding teruma gedola states: 鈥淭he first of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola.


诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘:


The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed, he may be included in a zimmun.The Gemara remarks: It is obvious that if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a zimmun. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the fifth that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; and the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption.


讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 砖诪砖 诇讗 拽讘注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


We learned in the mishna: The waiter who ate at least an olive-bulk from the meal may join in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the waiter who stands and serves the diners did not establish himself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the zimmun, the mishna teaches us that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.


讜讛讻讜转讬 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜: 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇 注诐 讛讗专抓


The mishna states that a Samaritan [Kuti] may be included in a zimmun. The Gemara asks: Why? Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, let him be merely an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, and it was taught in a baraita: An am ha鈥檃retz may not be included in a zimmun.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讻讜转讬 讞讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讻讜转讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讛讻讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注住拽讬谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讞讜诇讬讜 讘讟讛专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注砖专 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜讛谞讬 讻讜转讗讬 注砖讜专讬 诪注砖专讬 讻讚讞讝讬 讚讘诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讛 讻讜转讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘讛 讬讜转专 诪讬砖专讗诇


The Gemara offers several answers: Abaye said: The mishna is referring to a Kuti who is a 岣ver, one who is scrupulous in those areas. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna refers to a Kuti who is an am ha鈥檃retz, and here the prohibition to include an am ha鈥檃retz in a zimmun refers to an am ha鈥檃retz as defined by the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught in a baraita: Who is an am ha鈥檃retz? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An am ha鈥檃retz is anyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these Kutim tithe their produce appropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the Kutim embraced and accepted upon themselves, they are even more exacting in its observance than Jews.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 注专讘讬转 讜砖讞专讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 爪讬爪讬转 讘讘讙讚讜 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讜讝讛 注诇 驻转讞讜 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讙讚诇诐 诇转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讗 讜砖谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐


The Gemara cites a baraita with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an am ha鈥檃retz: The Sages taught: Who is an am ha鈥檃retz? One who does not recite Shema in the evening and morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: An am ha鈥檃retz is one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: An am ha鈥檃retz is one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: An am ha鈥檃retz is one who does not have a mezuza on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: An am ha鈥檃retz is one who has children but who does not want them to study Torah, so he does not raise them to engage in Torah study. A岣rim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, that is an am ha鈥檃retz. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim.


专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 讗讝诪讬谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讚转谞讬 住讬驻专讗 讜住驻专讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讝诪讬谉 讗专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讗 讜砖谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讗谞讬 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讚诪砖诪注 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讚拽 讗讘转专讬讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚砖诪注 砖诪注转转讗 诪驻讜诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讜讙专讬住 诇讛讜 讻爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚诪讬:


The Gemara relates: Rami bar 岣ma did not include Rav Menashya bar Ta岣ifa, who studied Sifra, Sifrei, and halakhot, in a zimmun because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. When Rami bar 岣ma passed away, Rava said: Rami bar 岣ma died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Ta岣ifa in a zimmun. The Gemara asks: Was it not taught in a baraita: A岣rim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an am ha鈥檃retz? Why, then, was Rami bar 岣ma punished? The Gemara answers: Rav Menashya bar Ta岣ifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar 岣ma who was not precise in his efforts to check after him to ascertain his actions. Another version of the Gemara鈥檚 answer: Anyone who hears halakhot from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar.


讗讻诇 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 讜讻讜壮: 讟讘诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘:


The mishna states that one who ate untithed produce and first tithe etc. is not included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious as one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: It was only necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where it is only considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, although by Torah law it was permitted. What are the circumstances? Where the produce grew in an unperforated flowerpot, as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.


诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛:


We learned in the mishna that one who ate first tithe from which its teruma was not separated may not be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. The Gemara responds: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate teruma gedola, the tanna of the mishna teaches us as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.


诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖谞驻讚讜 讜诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讻讛诇讻转谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讚讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讗住讬诪讜谉 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讻住祝 砖讬砖 (诇讜) 注诇讬讜 爪讜专讛 讛拽讚砖 砖讞诇诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讜诇讗 驻讚讗讜 讘讻住祝 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜:


We also learned in the mishna that if one ate second tithe and consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious? Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara responds: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha with regard to a case where they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon], a silver bullion that had not been engraved. And the Torah says: 鈥淎nd bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: Vetzarta refers to money that has a form [tzura] engraved upon it. Consecrated property; in a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, and the Torah states: 鈥淗e will give the money and it will be assured to him鈥 (Leviticus 27:19).


讜讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转: 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讻讝讬转 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转:


The mishna states that a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk may not join a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: Since the first clause of the mishna taught the halakha with regard to a waiter who ate an olive-bulk, the latter clause taught the halakha with regard to a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk. Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.


讜讛谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讜讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讟讘诇 讙讜讬 讛讜讗:


The mishna further states that a gentile is not included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case of a convert who was circumcised but did not yet immerse himself in a ritual bath, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One is never considered a proselyte until he is circumcised and immerses himself. As long as he did not immerse himself, he is a gentile.


谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讟谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘注专讬住讛 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜


We also learned in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun. Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a zimmun.


讜讛讗 转谞谉 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛诐


The Gemara objects: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun?


讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 拽讟谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘注专讬住讛 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 住谞讬祝 诇注砖专讛


The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a zimmun, one may make him an adjunct to complete an assembly of ten people, enabling them to invoke God鈥檚 name in a zimmun.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 转砖注讛 讜注讘讚 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪讬转讬讘讬 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 注砖专讛 讜砖讞专专 注讘讚讜 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 砖讞专专 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讞专专 诇讗 转专讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讜 砖讞专专 讞讚 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讞讚


On the subject of completing a zimmun, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine Jews and a slave join together to form a zimmun of ten. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find a quorum of ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the quorum of ten. From this we may infer that if he freed his slave, yes, he may join the quorum of ten, but if he did not free him, no, he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, two were required to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer freed one and fulfilled his obligation with another one, who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.


讜讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 讛诪砖讞专专 注讘讚讜 注讜讘专 讘注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖讗谞讬 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘专讛 讛讬讗 诪爪讜讛 讚专讘讬诐 砖讗谞讬


With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: How did he do that? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his Canaanite slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated with regard to Canaanite slaves: 鈥淵ou will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of a mitzva is different. The Gemara asks: It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: A mitzva that benefits the many is different, and one may free his slave for that purpose.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖讻讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讻讚讬 砖讬讝讻讛 讜讬诪谞讛 注诐 注砖专讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讘讗讬诐 讗讞专讬讜 拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖讻专 讻讜诇诐 砖讻专 讻讜诇诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖讻专 讻谞讙讚 讻讜诇诐


In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early to go to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten to complete the quorum, as even if one hundred people arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all, as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: Does it enter your mind that he receives the reward of them all? Why should he take away their reward? Rather, emend the statement and say: He receives a reward equivalent to the reward of them all.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转砖注讛 讜讗专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗专讜谉 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转砖注讛 谞专讗讬谉 讻注砖专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讬 诪讻谞驻讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讬 诪讘讚专讬


With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark in which the Torah scrolls are stored join to form a quorum of ten. Rav Na岣an said to him: Is an ark a man, that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together. There was disagreement over this: Some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are gathered. And some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are scattered, the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.


讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讘转 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜砖讘转 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛诪讞讚讚讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讘讛诇讻讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪讞讜讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讜专讘 砖砖转 诪讞讜讬 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗


Similarly, Rav Ami said: Two people and Shabbat join to form a zimmun. Rav Na岣an said to him: Is Shabbat a person, that it may be counted in a zimmun? Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other鈥檚 intellect in halakhic discourse join together and are considered three. The Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda pointed to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other鈥檚 intellect: For example, me and Rav Sheshet. Similarly, Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav 岣sda.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讟谉 驻讜专讞 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽讟谉 砖讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘拽讟谉 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讘讬讗 诇讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘拽讟谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜


With regard to a minor鈥檚 inclusion in a zimmun, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A mature minor, i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, is included in a zimmun. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: A minor who grew two pubic hairs, a sign of puberty, is included in a zimmun; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a zimmun. And one is not exacting with regard to a minor. The Gemara comments: This baraita itself is difficult. You said that a minor who grew two hairs, yes, he is included, one who did not grow two hairs, no, he is not included, and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What does this last clause come to include? Is it not


Scroll To Top