Berakhot 47
וְלֹא בְּיָדַיִם מְזוֹהָמוֹת.
nor with regard to dirty hands, i.e., with regard to washing hands at the end of a meal.
רָבִין וְאַבָּיֵי הֲווֹ קָא אָזְלִי בְּאוֹרְחָא, קַדְמֵיהּ חֲמָרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּין לִדְאַבָּיֵי וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״נֵיזִיל מָר״. אֲמַר: מִדִּסְלִיק הַאי מֵרַבָּנַן מִמַּעְרְבָא, גַּס לֵיהּ דַּעְתֵּיהּ. כִּי מְטָא לְפִתְחָא דְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֵיעַל מָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְעַד הַשְׁתָּא לָאו מָר אֲנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין מְכַבְּדִין אֶלָּא בְּפֶתַח שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מְזוּזָה.
The Gemara recounts: Ravin and Abaye were traveling along the road on donkeys. Ravin’s donkey preceded Abaye’s 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 Yoḥanan 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.
דְּאִית בַּהּ מְזוּזָה — אִין, דְּלֵית בַּהּ מְזוּזָה — לָא, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת וּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, דְּלֵית בְּהוּ מְזוּזָה, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מְכַבְּדִין? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּפֶתַח הָרָאוּי לִמְזוּזָה.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אֵין הַמְסוּבִּין רַשָּׁאִין לֶאֱכוֹל כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם הַבּוֹצֵעַ. יָתֵיב רַב סָפְרָא וְקָאָמַר: ״לִטְעוֹם״ אִיתְּמַר.
The Gemara continues with the subject of deferring to one’s 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.
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? שֶׁחַיָּיב אָדָם לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ.
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’s insistence teaches that one must say what he was taught in the precise language employed by his teacher without altering a single detail.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁנַיִם מַמְתִּינִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּקְּעָרָה, שְׁלֹשָׁה — אֵין מַמְתִּינִין. הַבּוֹצֵעַ הוּא פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ תְּחִלָּה, וְאִם בָּא לַחֲלוֹק כָּבוֹד לְרַבּוֹ אוֹ לְמִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ — הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ.
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.
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲוָה עָסֵיק לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ בֵּי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא, קָדֵים וְיָתֵיב וְקָמַתְנֵי לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ: אֵין הַבּוֹצֵעַ רַשַּׁאי לִבְצוֹעַ עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה ״אָמֵן״ מִפִּי הָעוֹנִים. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר מִפִּי רוֹב הָעוֹנִים.
The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar Ḥana engaged in preparations for his son’s 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 Ḥisda said: One need only wait until amen has ended from the mouths of the majority of those responding.
אָמַר לוֹ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מַאי שְׁנָא רוּבָּא — דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא כָּלְיָא בְּרָכָה, מִיעוּטָא נָמֵי לָא כָּלְיָא בְּרָכָה?
Rami bar Ḥama 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’t the one breaking bread need to wait in that case?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, כׇּל הָעוֹנֶה ״אָמֵן״ יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה.
Rav Ḥisda said to him: Because I say that anyone who answers an amen of excessive duration is merely mistaken.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין עוֹנִין לֹא ״אָמֵן״ חֲטוּפָה, וְלֹא ״אָמֵן״ קְטוּפָה, וְלֹא ״אָמֵן״ יְתוֹמָה, וְלֹא יִזְרוֹק בְּרָכָה מִפִּיו.
With regard to answering amen, the Sages taught: One should not respond with an abbreviated [ḥatufa] 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.
בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָעוֹנֶה ״אָמֵן״ יְתוֹמָה — יִהְיוּ בָּנָיו יְתוֹמִים, חֲטוּפָה — יִתְחַטְּפוּ יָמָיו, קְטוּפָה — יִתְקַטְּפוּ יָמָיו. וְכׇל הַמַּאֲרִיךְ בְּ״אָמֵן״ — מַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו וּשְׁנוֹתָיו.
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.
רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בִּסְעוֹדְתָּא. אֲתָא רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא, הֲוָה קָמְסַרְהֵב וְאָכֵיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: מָה דַעְתָּךְ — לְאִיצְטְרוֹפֵי בַּהֲדַן, אֲנַן אֲכִילְנָא לַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: אִלּוּ מַיְיתוּ לִי אַרְדִּילַיָּא וְגוֹזָלַיָּא לְאַבָּא, מִי לָא אָכְלִינַן?
Returning to matters of zimmun, the Gemara relates: Rav and Shmuel were sitting at a meal when, much later, Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya 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’t we eat it? Since we would still eat, we have not yet finished our meal and Rabbi Shimi bar Ḥiyya can join us in the zimmun.
תַּלְמִידֵי דְּרַב הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בִּסְעוֹדְתָּא. עָל רַב אַחָא. אָמְרִי: אֲתָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּא דִּמְבָרֵךְ לַן. אָמַר לְהוּ: מִי סָבְרִיתוּ דְּגָדוֹל מְבָרֵךְ? עִיקָּר שֶׁבַּסְּעוּדָה מְבָרֵךְ. וְהִלְכְתָא גָּדוֹל מְבָרֵךְ, אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲתָא לְבַסּוֹף.
Rav’s students were seated at a meal when Rav Aḥa entered. The students said: A great man has come who can recite the blessing on our behalf. Rav Aḥa 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.
אָכַל דְּמַאי וְכוּ׳: הָא לָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵי עָנִי, וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי, וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי.
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.
מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ: פְּשִׁיטָא? לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בַּשִּׁבֳּלִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְלֹא הִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בַּשִּׁבֳּלִים — פָּטוּר מִתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲרֵמֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳ מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״ — מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
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: “And you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe” (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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא
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:
״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ״. וּמָה רָאִיתָ? הַאי אִידְּגַן וְהַאי לָא אִידְּגַן.
“From all of that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord’s teruma” (Numbers 18:29). God’s teruma, teruma gedola, must be taken from all of the Levites’ 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: “The first of your grain” (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.
מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ: פְּשִׁיטָא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן, וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.
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.
הַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת: פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: שַׁמָּשׁ לָא קָבַע — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
וְהַכּוּתִי מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו: אַמַּאי? לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ! וְתַנְיָא אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עַל עַם הָאָרֶץ!
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’aretz, one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, and it was taught in a baraita: An am ha’aretz may not be included in a zimmun.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר בְּכוּתִי חָבֵר. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּכוּתִי עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְהָכָא בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ דְּרַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר עָסְקִינַן, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ? — כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל חוּלָּיו בְּטָהֳרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַשֵּׂר פֵּירוֹתָיו כָּרָאוּי. וְהָנֵי כּוּתָאֵי עַשּׂוֹרֵי מְעַשְּׂרִי כְּדַחֲזֵי, דִּבְמַאי דִּכְתִיב בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִזְהָר זְהִירִי. דְּאָמַר מָר כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהּ כּוּתִים — הַרְבֵּה מְדַקְדְּקִין בָּהּ, יוֹתֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
The Gemara offers several answers: Abaye said: The mishna is referring to a Kuti who is a ḥaver, 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’aretz, and here the prohibition to include an am ha’aretz in a zimmun refers to an am ha’aretz as defined by the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught in a baraita: Who is an am ha’aretz? 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’aretz 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ? — כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע עַרְבִית וְשַׁחֲרִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ צִיצִית בְּבִגְדוֹ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין מְזוּזָה עַל פִּתְחוֹ. רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר יוֹסֵף אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים וְאֵינוֹ מְגַדְּלָם לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרָא וְשָׁנָה וְלֹא שִׁמֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הֲרֵי זֶה עַם הָאָרֶץ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כַּאֲחֵרִים.
The Gemara cites a baraita with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an am ha’aretz: The Sages taught: Who is an am ha’aretz? One who does not recite Shema in the evening and morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have a mezuza on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: An am ha’aretz 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. Aḥerim 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’aretz. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim.
רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לָא אַזְמֵין עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא דְּתָנֵי סִיפְרָא וְסִפְרֵי וְהִלְכְתָא. כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, אָמַר רָבָא: לָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא אֶלָּא דְּלָא אַזְמֵין אַרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא. וְהָתַנְיָא — אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים אֲפִילּוּ קָרָא וְשָׁנָה וְלֹא שִׁמֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הֲרֵי זֶה עַם הָאָרֶץ? שָׁאנֵי רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא דִּמְשַׁמַּע לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן, וְרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא הוּא דְּלָא דָּק אַבָּתְרֵיהּ. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: דְּשָׁמַע שְׁמַעְתָּתָא מִפּוּמַּיְיהוּ דְרַבָּנַן וְגָרֵיס לְהוּ — כְּצוֹרְבָא מֵרַבָּנָן דָּמֵי.
The Gemara relates: Rami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied Sifra, Sifrei, and halakhot, in a zimmun because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. When Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a zimmun. The Gemara asks: Was it not taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an am ha’aretz? Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precise in his efforts to check after him to ascertain his actions. Another version of the Gemara’s answer: Anyone who hears halakhot from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar.
אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר וְכוּ׳: טֶבֶל פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא בְּטֶבֶל טָבוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי — בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב.
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.
מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן כּוּ׳: פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי. מַהוּ דְתֵימָא כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ.
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.
מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכוּ׳: פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְלֹא נִפְדּוּ כְּהִלְכָתָן. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי — כְּגוֹן שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי אֲסִימוֹן, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ״ — כֶּסֶף שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו צוּרָה. הֶקְדֵּשׁ — שֶׁחִלְּלוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, וְלֹא פְּדָאוֹ בְּכֶסֶף, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.
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: “And bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand” (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: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him” (Leviticus 27:19).
וְהַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת: פְּשִׁיטָא! אַיְּידִי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״כְּזַיִת״, תְּנָא סֵיפָא ״פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת״.
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.
וְהַנׇּכְרִי אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו: פְּשִׁיטָא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, בְּגֵר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ גֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּמּוֹל וְיִטְבּוֹל, וְכַמָּה דְּלָא טְבַל גּוֹי הוּא.
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 Yoḥanan 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.
נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶן. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: קָטָן הַמּוּטָּל בַּעֲרִיסָה מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו.
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.
וְהָא תְּנַן: נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶם!
The Gemara objects: Didn’t we learn in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun?
הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ קָטָן הַמּוּטָּל בַּעֲרִיסָה אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לַעֲשָׂרָה.
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’s name in a zimmun.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: תִּשְׁעָה וְעֶבֶד — מִצְטָרְפִין. מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְלֹא מָצָא עֲשָׂרָה, וְשִׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה. שִׁחְרֵר — אִין, לֹא שִׁחְרֵר — לָא. תְּרֵי אִיצְטְרִיכוּ, שַׁחְרֵר חַד וְנָפֵיק בְּחַד.
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.
וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה כׇּל הַמְשַׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״? לִדְבַר מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי: מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה הִיא! — מִצְוָה דְרַבִּים שָׁאנֵי.
With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his Canaanite slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” (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.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לְעוֹלָם יַשְׁכִּים אָדָם לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה וְיִמָּנֶה עִם עֲשָׂרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה בָּאִים אַחֲרָיו — קִבֵּל עָלָיו שְׂכַר כּוּלָּם. ״שְׂכַר כּוּלָּם״ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׂכָר כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם.
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.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תִּשְׁעָה וְאָרוֹן — מִצְטָרְפִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְאָרוֹן גַּבְרָא הוּא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תִּשְׁעָה נִרְאִין כַּעֲשָׂרָה — מִצְטָרְפִין. אָמְרִי לַהּ: כִּי מְכַנְּפִי. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: כִּי מְבַדְּרִי.
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 Naḥman 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.
אָמַר רַב אַמֵּי: שְׁנַיִם וְשַׁבָּת מִצְטָרְפִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְשַׁבָּת גַּבְרָא הוּא?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְחַדְּדִין זֶה אֶת זֶה בַּהֲלָכָה מִצְטָרְפִין. מַחְוֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת. מַחְוֵי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא.
Similarly, Rav Ami said: Two people and Shabbat join to form a zimmun. Rav Naḥman 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’s intellect in halakhic discourse join together and are considered three. The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda pointed to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: For example, me and Rav Sheshet. Similarly, Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָטָן פּוֹרֵחַ — מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: קָטָן שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, וְשֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, וְאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּקָטָן. הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — אִין, לָא הֵבִיא — לָא. וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי אֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּקָטָן. לְאֵתוּיֵי מַאי? לָאו
With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a zimmun, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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
