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

December 4, 2021 | ל׳ בכסלו תשפ״ב | TODAY'S DAF: Taanit 22 - Shabbat December 4

Today's Daf Yomi

February 22, 2020 | כ״ז בשבט תש״פ

Berakhot 50

What is the proper wording for a zimun? What wording is not appropriate to use? Can a group that ate together split up into a smaller group? On what does it depend? Can one throw bread? What other things must one do to treat bread with respect? Is it true only for bread or for all foods? What if one started eating without making a blessing?

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

אף ברכו ומכל מקום נברך עדיף דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמרי בי רב תנינא ששה נחלקין עד עשרה

He may even say: Bless; nevertheless: Let us bless, is preferable as Rav Adda bar Ahava said that they said in the school of Rav: We learned: A group of six to ten people may divide into two groups, each forming its own zimmun. However, a group of ten, which invokes God’s name in the zimmun, may not divide into two groups as that would negate the opportunity to invoke God’s name.

אי אמרת בשלמא נברך עדיף משום הכי נחלקין אלא אי אמרת ברכו עדיף אמאי נחלקין אלא לאו שמע מינה נברך עדיף שמע מינה

The Gemara proceeds: Granted, if you say: Let us bless is preferable, that is why six people who ate together may divide into two groups. However, if you say: Bless is preferable, why are they permitted to divide into two groups? Neither group would be able to say: Bless. Rather, mustn’t one conclude from this: Let us bless is preferable as the one reciting the zimmun does not exclude himself from the group? The Gemara sums up the discussion: Indeed, conclude from this that that is the case.

תניא נמי הכי בין שאמר ברכו בין שאמר נברך אין תופסין אותו על כך והנקדנין תופסין אותו על כך ומברכותיו של אדם ניכר אם תלמיד חכם הוא אם לאו כיצד רבי אומר ובטובו הרי זה תלמיד חכם ומטובו הרי זה בור

That was also taught in the Tosefta: Both if he said: Bless, and if he said: Let us bless, we do not reprimand him for doing so; and the punctilious reprimand him for doing so. And the Gemara says: As a rule, from the style of one’s blessings it is obvious whether or not he is a Torah scholar. How so? For example, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In a zimmun, one who recites: Blessed be the One from Whose food we have eaten and by Whose goodness we live, he is a Torah scholar. However, one who recites: Blessed be the One from Whose food we have eaten and from Whose goodness we live, he is an ignoramus, as that expression insinuates that only some of God’s goodness was bestowed upon him, which is tantamount to a denial of God’s loving-kindness.

אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי והכתיב ומברכתך יברך את בית עבדך לעולם בשאלה שאני בשאלה נמי הכתיב הרחב פיך ואמלאהו ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Isn’t it written that King David articulated his prayer in that manner: “Be pleased, therefore, to bless Your servant’s house, that it abide before You forever; for You, Lord God, have spoken. And from Your blessing may Your servant’s house be blessed forever” (II Samuel 7:29). David said: From Your blessing. The Gemara answers: In a case of request it is different, as it is inappropriate to demand the full bounty of God’s blessing. The Gemara questions this: In a case of request, too, is it not written that a request for the full bounty of God’s blessing is granted: “Open your mouth wide, that I will fill it” (Psalms 81:11)? What one receives corresponds to what he requests. The Gemara answered: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah, where it is wholly appropriate to make excessive requests.

תניא רבי אומר בטובו חיינו הרי זה תלמיד חכם חיים הרי זה בור נהרבלאי מתני איפכא ולית הילכתא כנהרבלאי

On the topic of the zimmun formula, it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who recites in a zimmun: And by His goodness we live, he is a Torah scholar. However, one who recites: And by His goodness they live, he is a fool, as he excluded himself from the collective. The Sages of Neharbela taught the opposite. In their opinion, they live is preferable because it is a more inclusive formula, whereas, we live is more limited and personal. Nonetheless, the Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Neharbela.

אמר רבי יוחנן נברך שאכלנו משלו הרי זה תלמיד חכם למי שאכלנו משלו הרי זה בור

On a similar note, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who recites in a zimmun: Let us bless the One Whose food we have eaten, he is a Torah scholar. However, one who recites: Let us bless to Him from Whose food we have eaten, he is an ignoramus, as it appears that the blessing is directed to the host of the meal.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי והא אמרינן למי שעשה לאבותינו ולנו את כל הנסים האלו אמר ליה התם מוכחא מילתא מאן עביד ניסי קודשא בריך הוא

Rabbi Aḥa the son of Rava questioned this and said to Rav Ashi: Don’t we say during the Passover seder: To He Who performed all of these miracles for our ancestors and for us, using the expression: To He Who? Rav Ashi said to him: There, in the case of miracles performed for our ancestors and for us, it is self-evident that the blessing refers to God. Who performs miracles? The Holy One, blessed be He. In the case of food, however, it is not self-evident, as the host of the meal also provided the food that was eaten.

אמר רבי יוחנן ברוך שאכלנו משלו הרי זה תלמיד חכם על המזון שאכלנו הרי זה בור

Rabbi Yoḥanan said with regard to the formula of the zimmun that one who recites in a zimmun: Blessed be the One from Whose food we have eaten, he is a Torah scholar. However, one who recites: For the food we have eaten, he is an ignoramus, as it appears that he is blessing the host of the meal. If he was blessing God, why would he restrict the blessing to food (Tosafot)?

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא אמרן אלא בשלשה דליכא שם שמים אבל בעשרה דאיכא שם שמים מוכחא מילתא כדתנן כענין שהוא מברך כך עונין אחריו ברוך ה׳ אלהי ישראל אלהי הצבאות יושב הכרובים על המזון שאכלנו:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua said: We only said this halakha with regard to a zimmun of three, where there is no mention of God’s name. In a zimmun of ten, however, where there is mention of God’s name, it is self-evident to whom the blessing refers, as we learned in our mishna: Just as he recites the blessing, so too do those present recite in response: Blessed be the Lord our God, the God of Israel, the God of Hosts, Who sits upon the cherubs, for the food that we have eaten.

אחד עשרה ואחד עשרה רבוא: הא גופא קשיא אמרת אחד עשרה ואחד עשרה רבוא אלמא כי הדדי נינהו והדר קתני במאה אומר באלף אומר ברבוא אומר

We learned in our mishna with regard to the formula of zimmun: This formula is recited both in a group of ten and in a group of one hundred thousand. The Gemara raises an objection: The mishna itself is difficult. On one hand, you said: This formula is recited both in a group of ten and in a group of one hundred thousand; consequently, the two cases are the same. On the other hand, it is then taught: In a group of one hundred people, the one reciting the zimmun says; in a group of one thousand people, the one reciting the zimmun says; in a group of ten thousand people, the one reciting the zimmun says. Evidently, the formula depends on the number of people.

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבי עקיבא דתנן רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר לפי רוב הקהל הם מברכין שנאמר במקהלות ברכו אלהים אמר רבי עקיבא מה מצינו בבית הכנסת וכו׳:

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult, as these two statements are the opinions of different Sages. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and that is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in our mishna: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: According to the size of the crowd, they recite the blessing, as it is stated: “Bless you God in full assemblies, even the Lord, you who are from the fountain of Israel” (Psalms 68:27). We also learned in our mishna that Rabbi Akiva said that there are no distinctions based on the size of the crowd: What do we find in the synagogue? Both when there are many and when there are few, as long as there is a quorum of ten, the prayer leader says: Bless the Lord. In the case of Grace after Meals as well, the formula remains the same regardless of the number of people participating in the zimmun.

ורבי עקיבא האי קרא דרבי יוסי הגלילי מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא היה רבי מאיר אומר מנין שאפילו עוברין שבמעי אמן אמרו שירה על הים שנאמר במקהלות ברכו אלהים ה׳ ממקור ישראל ואידך ממקור נפקא

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, what does he do with that verse cited by Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive that which was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that even fetuses in their mother’s womb recited the song at the Red Sea? As it is stated in the chapter of Psalms that describes the exodus from Egypt: “In assemblies, bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel,” and fetuses are included in these assemblies. The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, derive the matter of the singing of the fetuses? The Gemara answers: He derives it from “from the source of Israel,” which he interprets as an allusion to the womb.

אמר רבא הלכה כרבי עקיבא רבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי אקלעו לבי ריש גלותא קם רב חמא וקא מהדר אבי מאה אמר ליה רבינא לא צריכת הכי אמר רבא הלכה כרבי עקיבא

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara recounts that Ravina and Rav Ḥama bar Buzi happened to come to a banquet at the house of the Exilarch. At the end of the meal, Rav Ḥama rose and was seeking to gather a group of one hundred participants in the meal so that the zimmun for one hundred could be recited. Ravina said to him: You need not do so, as Rava declared the following: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva and the formula remains the same regardless of the number of people participating in the zimmun, as long as there are at least ten.

אמר רבא כי אכלינן רפתא בי ריש גלותא מברכינן שלשה שלשה וליברכו עשרה עשרה שמע ריש גלותא ואיקפד וניפקו בברכתא דריש גלותא איידי דאוושו כולי עלמא לא שמעי

The Gemara discusses Rava’s conduct at meals at the house of the Exilarch. Rava said: When we would eat bread at the house of the Exilarch, we would recite the Grace after Meals blessing in groups of three. The Gemara asks: Let them recite the blessing in groups of ten. The Gemara answers: Then the Exilarch would hear and become angry upon seeing a large group of Sages reciting Grace after Meals before he completed his meal. The Gemara asks: Why could they not satisfy their obligation with the Exilarch’s blessing? The Gemara answers: Since everyone is making noise, they do not hear and would not fulfill their obligation.

אמר רבה תוספאה הני שלשה דכרכי רפתא בהדי הדדי וקדים חד מינייהו ובריך לדעתיה אינון נפקין בזמון דידיה איהו לא נפיק בזמון דידהו לפי שאין זמון למפרע:

Rabba Tosefa’a said: These three people, who break bread together and one of them went ahead and recited Grace after Meals on his own without a zimmun, they, the other two diners, fulfill their obligation with his participation in their zimmun; he, however, does not fulfill his obligation with his participation in their zimmun because there is no retroactive zimmun, and once he recited his blessing, participating in the zimmun accomplishes nothing for him.

רבי ישמעאל אומר: רפרם בר פפא אקלע לבי כנישתא דאבי גיבר קם קרא בספרא ואמר ברכו את ה׳ ואשתיק ולא אמר המבורך אוושו כולי עלמא ברכו את ה׳ המבורך אמר רבא פתיא אוכמא בהדי פלוגתא למה לך ועוד הא נהוג עלמא כרבי ישמעאל:

The mishna states that Rabbi Akiva holds that in the synagogue, one recites: Bless the Lord, while Rabbi Yishmael said that he recites: Bless the Lord the blessed One. Rafram bar Pappa happened to come to the synagogue of Abei Givar when he rose to read from the Torah scroll and recited: Bless the Lord, and was silent, and did not recite: The blessed One. Because Rafram bar Pappa followed the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and those present were not accustomed to that ruling, everyone in the synagogue cried out: Bless the Lord the blessed One. Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: You black pot, a fond nickname for a Torah scholar who invests great effort in Torah study and worship of God, why are you involving yourself in this tannaitic dispute? Although Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree, Rabbi Yishmael’s formula, in which Rabbi Akiva’s formula is included, is acceptable to both. Furthermore, standard practice is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

מתני׳ שלשה שאכלו כאחת אינן רשאין ליחלק וכן ארבעה וכן חמשה ששה נחלקין עד עשרה ועשרה אין נחלקין עד עשרים

MISHNA: Three people who ate as one are not permitted to divide and recite Grace after Meals individually; rather, they recite the zimmun together. And the same is true of four who ate together, and the same is true of five. However, a group of six, up to but not including ten people who ate as one, may divide into two groups, each reciting its own zimmun. And a group of ten may not divide into two groups until there are twenty people present. The general principle is that a group may not divide unless the smaller groups will be able to recite the same zimmun formula that the whole group would have recited.

שתי חבורות שהיו אוכלות בבית אחד בזמן שמקצתן רואין אלו את אלו הרי אלו מצטרפין לזמון ואם לאו אלו מזמנין לעצמן ואלו מזמנין לעצמן

The mishna states a halakha with regard to two groups joining together: Two groups that were eating in one house, when some members of each group can see each other, they may combine to form a zimmun. And if not, these recite a zimmun for themselves and those recite a zimmun for themselves.

אין מברכין על היין עד שיתן לתוכו מים דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים מברכין:

The mishna also speaks of the blessing over wine: One does not recite a blessing over wine until he adds water to it, that is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Undiluted wine is too strong to drink and a blessing is inappropriate. And the Rabbis say: Since it is possible to drink undiluted wine, one recites a blessing over it.

גמ׳ מאי קא משמע לן תנינא חדא זימנא שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן

GEMARA: At the beginning of the mishna, we learned that three people who ate together may not disperse. The Gemara asks: What does this mishna teach us? We already learned this once: Three people who ate as one are required to form a zimmun.

הא קא משמע לן כי הא דאמר רבי אבא אמר שמואל שלשה שישבו לאכול כאחת ועדין לא אכלו אינן רשאין ליחלק

The Gemara answers: This teaches us that halakha which Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: Three individuals who sat to eat as one, and they have not yet begun to eat, nevertheless, they are not permitted to divide and recite Grace after Meals individually.

לישנא אחרינא אמר רבי אבא אמר שמואל הכי קתני שלשה שישבו לאכול כאחת אף על פי שכל אחד ואחד אוכל מככרו אינן רשאין ליחלק אי נמי כי הא דרב הונא דאמר רב הונא שלשה שבאו משלש חבורות אינן רשאין ליחלק

The Gemara cites another version: Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said that this is what the mishna teaches: Three individuals who sat to eat as one, even though they do not share a meal, but each and every one of them eats from his own loaf, they are considered a single group in terms of zimmun, and are not permitted to divide. Alternatively, perhaps the mishna comes to teach that halakha of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: Three individuals who came from three different groups and sat together to continue their meals also form a zimmun and are not permitted to divide.

אמר רב חסדא והוא שבאו משלש חבורות של שלשה בני אדם

Rav Ḥisda said: And that is only the halakha in a case where the three individuals came from three groups of three people each, so that each original group was independently obligated to recite the zimmun, and that obligation never lapsed.

אמר רבא

Rava qualified this, and said:

ולא אמרן אלא דלא אקדימו הנך ואזמון עלייהו בדוכתייהו אבל אזמון עלייהו בדוכתייהו פרח זימון מינייהו

We only said this halakha in a case where those members of the previous groups did not include them in the zimmun in their original place, but in a case where they included them in the zimmun in their original place, their obligation to participate in a zimmun has left them. The obligation incumbent upon these three individuals to form a zimmun stems from their obligation to form a zimmun with the members of their original groups. If their groups already included them in a zimmun, their obligation as individuals has lapsed and they can no longer form another zimmun.

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתנן מטה שנגנבה חציה או שאבדה חציה או שחלקוה אחין או שותפין טהורה החזירוה מקבלת טומאה מכאן ולהבא

In order to explain the general principle contained in this halakhic ruling, Rava said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As we learned in a mishna: A ritually impure bed, half of which was stolen or half of which was lost, or it was divided by brothers after they inherited it from their father, or was divided by partners, it is ritually pure. This is true with regard to any ritually impure utensil that was broken or divided; it is no longer a utensil and is therefore ritually pure. However, if they restored it and reattached the parts, it is susceptible to ritual impurity from here on.

מכאן ולהבא אין למפרע לא אלמא כיון דפלגוה פרח לה טומאה מינה הכא נמי כיון דאזמון עלייהו פרח זימון מינייהו:

Rava infers: From here on, yes, it is susceptible to ritual impurity, retroactively, no, it does not reassume its previous status of ritual impurity. Apparently, once they divided it, the ritual impurity left it. Although it was restored, it does not reassume its previous status of ritual impurity. Here, too, once they included them in the zimmun, their obligation left them and they do not reassume their previous obligation.

שתי חבורות וכו׳: תנא אם יש שמש ביניהם שמש מצרפן:

The mishna explained the circumstances in which two groups that were eating in one house may combine to form a zimmun. The Gemara adds: It was taught: If there is a common waiter among them, serving both groups, the waiter joins them into a single group, even if they cannot see each other.

אין מברכין על היין: תנו רבנן יין עד שלא נתן לתוכו מים אין מברכין עליו בורא פרי הגפן אלא בורא פרי העץ ונוטלין ממנו לידים משנתן לתוכו מים מברכין עליו בורא פרי הגפן ואין נוטלין ממנו לידים דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך מברכין עליו בורא פרי הגפן ואין נוטלין הימנו לידים

In the mishna, we learned: One does not recite a blessing over wine until he adds water to it, that is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: One recites a blessing over it. Regarding this, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: Over wine, until he added water to it, one does not recite: Who creates fruit of the vine; rather, he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, as it is merely fruit juice and not wine. Moreover, since it is not halakhically considered wine, one ritually washes his hands with it. Once he added water to it, however, it is considered wine, and one recites over it: Who creates fruit of the vine, and one does not ritually wash his hands with it, that is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis say: In either case, whether water has been added or not, it is considered wine for all intents and purposes, and one recites over it: Who creates fruit of the vine, and one may not ritually wash his hands from it.

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר שמואל עושה אדם כל צרכיו בפת כמאן כרבי אליעזר

In accordance with whose opinion is that halakha which Shmuel said: A person may perform all his needs with bread? He may use it for purposes other than food, and he need not be concerned that he is treating the food contemptuously. In accordance with whose opinion among the tannaitic opinions cited above? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits one to wash his hands with undiluted wine.

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מודים חכמים לרבי אליעזר בכוס של ברכה שאין מברכין עליו עד שיתן לתוכו מים מאי טעמא אמר רב אושעיא בעינן מצוה מן המובחר

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: The Rabbis agree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a cup of blessing, e.g., the cup of wine over which Grace after Meals is recited, that one does not recite a blessing over it until he adds water to it. What is the reason? Rav Oshaya said: We require that a mitzva be performed in the best possible manner.

ורבנן למאי חזי אמר רבי זירא חזי לקורייטי

With regard the issue of wine itself, the Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, for what is undiluted wine, which is virtually undrinkable, fit? Rabbi Zeira said: It is good for koraiytei, a medicinal drink made of wine and oil.

תנו רבנן ארבעה דברים נאמרו בפת אין מניחין בשר חי על הפת ואין מעבירין כוס מלא על הפת ואין זורקין את הפת ואין סומכין את הקערה בפת

The Gemara continues to discuss the topic of using food. The Sages taught: Four things were said with regard to bread: One may not place raw meat on bread so the blood will not drip onto the bread and render it inedible; and one may not pass a full cup of wine over bread lest the wine drip on it and ruin the bread; and one may not throw bread; and one may not prop up a dish with a piece of bread. The basis for these laws is the need to treat bread with respect.

אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי כרכו ריפתא בהדי הדדי אייתי לקמייהו תמרי ורמוני שקל מר זוטרא פתק לקמיה דרב אשי דסתנא אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דתניא אין זורקין את האוכלין ההיא בפת תניא והתניא כשם שאין זורקין את הפת כך אין זורקין את האוכלין אמר ליה והתניא אף על פי שאין זורקין את הפת אבל זורקין את האוכלין

The Gemara recounts: Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi ate bread together when they brought dates and pomegranates before them. Mar Zutra took fruit and threw a portion before Rav Ashi. Rav Ashi was astounded and said to him: Does the Master not hold with that which was taught in a baraita: One may not throw food? He responded: That was taught with regard to bread, not other foods. Rav Ashi challenged him again: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as one may not throw bread, so too one may not throw other foods? Mar Zutra said to him: Wasn’t the opposite taught in another baraita: Although one may not throw bread, he may throw other foods?

אלא לא קשיא הא במידי דממאיס הא במידי דלא ממאיס

Rather, that is not difficult, as the two baraitot address two different cases. This baraita, in which it is taught that one may not throw other foods, refers to a food item that becomes disgusting when thrown, whereas that baraita, in which it is taught that one may throw other foods, refers to a food item that does not become disgusting when thrown.

תנו רבנן ממשיכין יין בצנורות לפני חתן ולפני כלה וזורקין לפניהם קליות ואגוזים בימות החמה אבל לא בימות הגשמים אבל לא גלוסקאות לא בימות החמה ולא בימות הגשמים:

Similarly, the Sages taught: One may draw wine through pipes before a bride and groom as a blessed omen, and one may throw roasted grain and nuts before them in the summer, but not in the rainy season, as in the summer they can be retrieved and eaten, which is not the case in the rainy season. But one may not throw cakes, neither in the summer nor in the rainy season.

אמר רב יהודה שכח והכניס אוכלין לתוך פיו בלא ברכה מסלקן לצד אחד ומברך

Rav Yehuda said: If one forgot and put food items in his mouth without reciting a blessing, he moves them to one side of his mouth and recites the blessing.

תניא חדא בולען ותניא אידך פולטן ותניא אידך מסלקן

The Gemara notes that there are three baraitot on this topic: It was taught in one baraita: He swallows them. It was taught in another baraita: He spits them out. Another baraita taught: He moves them to the side of his mouth.

לא קשיא הא דתניא בולען במשקין והא דתניא פולטן במידי דלא ממאיס והא דתניא מסלקן במידי דממאיס

The Gemara explains: That is not difficult, as each baraita addresses a different case. This baraita in which it was taught: He swallows them refers to liquids, as there is no alternative. This baraita in which it was taught: He spits them out, refers to a food item that does not become disgusting and if he removes it from his mouth he can subsequently eat it. This baraita in which it was taught: He moves them to the side of his mouth, refers to a food item that becomes disgusting, in which case it is sufficient to move it to the side.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Transformations

The daf is still talking about zimun, but it jumps to a distant area of halakhah to help explain it...

Berakhot 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 50

אף ברכו ומכל מקום נברך עדיף דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמרי בי רב תנינא ששה נחלקין עד עשרה

He may even say: Bless; nevertheless: Let us bless, is preferable as Rav Adda bar Ahava said that they said in the school of Rav: We learned: A group of six to ten people may divide into two groups, each forming its own zimmun. However, a group of ten, which invokes God’s name in the zimmun, may not divide into two groups as that would negate the opportunity to invoke God’s name.

אי אמרת בשלמא נברך עדיף משום הכי נחלקין אלא אי אמרת ברכו עדיף אמאי נחלקין אלא לאו שמע מינה נברך עדיף שמע מינה

The Gemara proceeds: Granted, if you say: Let us bless is preferable, that is why six people who ate together may divide into two groups. However, if you say: Bless is preferable, why are they permitted to divide into two groups? Neither group would be able to say: Bless. Rather, mustn’t one conclude from this: Let us bless is preferable as the one reciting the zimmun does not exclude himself from the group? The Gemara sums up the discussion: Indeed, conclude from this that that is the case.

תניא נמי הכי בין שאמר ברכו בין שאמר נברך אין תופסין אותו על כך והנקדנין תופסין אותו על כך ומברכותיו של אדם ניכר אם תלמיד חכם הוא אם לאו כיצד רבי אומר ובטובו הרי זה תלמיד חכם ומטובו הרי זה בור

That was also taught in the Tosefta: Both if he said: Bless, and if he said: Let us bless, we do not reprimand him for doing so; and the punctilious reprimand him for doing so. And the Gemara says: As a rule, from the style of one’s blessings it is obvious whether or not he is a Torah scholar. How so? For example, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In a zimmun, one who recites: Blessed be the One from Whose food we have eaten and by Whose goodness we live, he is a Torah scholar. However, one who recites: Blessed be the One from Whose food we have eaten and from Whose goodness we live, he is an ignoramus, as that expression insinuates that only some of God’s goodness was bestowed upon him, which is tantamount to a denial of God’s loving-kindness.

אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי והכתיב ומברכתך יברך את בית עבדך לעולם בשאלה שאני בשאלה נמי הכתיב הרחב פיך ואמלאהו ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Isn’t it written that King David articulated his prayer in that manner: “Be pleased, therefore, to bless Your servant’s house, that it abide before You forever; for You, Lord God, have spoken. And from Your blessing may Your servant’s house be blessed forever” (II Samuel 7:29). David said: From Your blessing. The Gemara answers: In a case of request it is different, as it is inappropriate to demand the full bounty of God’s blessing. The Gemara questions this: In a case of request, too, is it not written that a request for the full bounty of God’s blessing is granted: “Open your mouth wide, that I will fill it” (Psalms 81:11)? What one receives corresponds to what he requests. The Gemara answered: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah, where it is wholly appropriate to make excessive requests.

תניא רבי אומר בטובו חיינו הרי זה תלמיד חכם חיים הרי זה בור נהרבלאי מתני איפכא ולית הילכתא כנהרבלאי

On the topic of the zimmun formula, it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who recites in a zimmun: And by His goodness we live, he is a Torah scholar. However, one who recites: And by His goodness they live, he is a fool, as he excluded himself from the collective. The Sages of Neharbela taught the opposite. In their opinion, they live is preferable because it is a more inclusive formula, whereas, we live is more limited and personal. Nonetheless, the Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Neharbela.

אמר רבי יוחנן נברך שאכלנו משלו הרי זה תלמיד חכם למי שאכלנו משלו הרי זה בור

On a similar note, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who recites in a zimmun: Let us bless the One Whose food we have eaten, he is a Torah scholar. However, one who recites: Let us bless to Him from Whose food we have eaten, he is an ignoramus, as it appears that the blessing is directed to the host of the meal.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי והא אמרינן למי שעשה לאבותינו ולנו את כל הנסים האלו אמר ליה התם מוכחא מילתא מאן עביד ניסי קודשא בריך הוא

Rabbi Aḥa the son of Rava questioned this and said to Rav Ashi: Don’t we say during the Passover seder: To He Who performed all of these miracles for our ancestors and for us, using the expression: To He Who? Rav Ashi said to him: There, in the case of miracles performed for our ancestors and for us, it is self-evident that the blessing refers to God. Who performs miracles? The Holy One, blessed be He. In the case of food, however, it is not self-evident, as the host of the meal also provided the food that was eaten.

אמר רבי יוחנן ברוך שאכלנו משלו הרי זה תלמיד חכם על המזון שאכלנו הרי זה בור

Rabbi Yoḥanan said with regard to the formula of the zimmun that one who recites in a zimmun: Blessed be the One from Whose food we have eaten, he is a Torah scholar. However, one who recites: For the food we have eaten, he is an ignoramus, as it appears that he is blessing the host of the meal. If he was blessing God, why would he restrict the blessing to food (Tosafot)?

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא אמרן אלא בשלשה דליכא שם שמים אבל בעשרה דאיכא שם שמים מוכחא מילתא כדתנן כענין שהוא מברך כך עונין אחריו ברוך ה׳ אלהי ישראל אלהי הצבאות יושב הכרובים על המזון שאכלנו:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua said: We only said this halakha with regard to a zimmun of three, where there is no mention of God’s name. In a zimmun of ten, however, where there is mention of God’s name, it is self-evident to whom the blessing refers, as we learned in our mishna: Just as he recites the blessing, so too do those present recite in response: Blessed be the Lord our God, the God of Israel, the God of Hosts, Who sits upon the cherubs, for the food that we have eaten.

אחד עשרה ואחד עשרה רבוא: הא גופא קשיא אמרת אחד עשרה ואחד עשרה רבוא אלמא כי הדדי נינהו והדר קתני במאה אומר באלף אומר ברבוא אומר

We learned in our mishna with regard to the formula of zimmun: This formula is recited both in a group of ten and in a group of one hundred thousand. The Gemara raises an objection: The mishna itself is difficult. On one hand, you said: This formula is recited both in a group of ten and in a group of one hundred thousand; consequently, the two cases are the same. On the other hand, it is then taught: In a group of one hundred people, the one reciting the zimmun says; in a group of one thousand people, the one reciting the zimmun says; in a group of ten thousand people, the one reciting the zimmun says. Evidently, the formula depends on the number of people.

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבי עקיבא דתנן רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר לפי רוב הקהל הם מברכין שנאמר במקהלות ברכו אלהים אמר רבי עקיבא מה מצינו בבית הכנסת וכו׳:

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult, as these two statements are the opinions of different Sages. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and that is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in our mishna: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: According to the size of the crowd, they recite the blessing, as it is stated: “Bless you God in full assemblies, even the Lord, you who are from the fountain of Israel” (Psalms 68:27). We also learned in our mishna that Rabbi Akiva said that there are no distinctions based on the size of the crowd: What do we find in the synagogue? Both when there are many and when there are few, as long as there is a quorum of ten, the prayer leader says: Bless the Lord. In the case of Grace after Meals as well, the formula remains the same regardless of the number of people participating in the zimmun.

ורבי עקיבא האי קרא דרבי יוסי הגלילי מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא היה רבי מאיר אומר מנין שאפילו עוברין שבמעי אמן אמרו שירה על הים שנאמר במקהלות ברכו אלהים ה׳ ממקור ישראל ואידך ממקור נפקא

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, what does he do with that verse cited by Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive that which was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that even fetuses in their mother’s womb recited the song at the Red Sea? As it is stated in the chapter of Psalms that describes the exodus from Egypt: “In assemblies, bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel,” and fetuses are included in these assemblies. The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, derive the matter of the singing of the fetuses? The Gemara answers: He derives it from “from the source of Israel,” which he interprets as an allusion to the womb.

אמר רבא הלכה כרבי עקיבא רבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי אקלעו לבי ריש גלותא קם רב חמא וקא מהדר אבי מאה אמר ליה רבינא לא צריכת הכי אמר רבא הלכה כרבי עקיבא

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara recounts that Ravina and Rav Ḥama bar Buzi happened to come to a banquet at the house of the Exilarch. At the end of the meal, Rav Ḥama rose and was seeking to gather a group of one hundred participants in the meal so that the zimmun for one hundred could be recited. Ravina said to him: You need not do so, as Rava declared the following: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva and the formula remains the same regardless of the number of people participating in the zimmun, as long as there are at least ten.

אמר רבא כי אכלינן רפתא בי ריש גלותא מברכינן שלשה שלשה וליברכו עשרה עשרה שמע ריש גלותא ואיקפד וניפקו בברכתא דריש גלותא איידי דאוושו כולי עלמא לא שמעי

The Gemara discusses Rava’s conduct at meals at the house of the Exilarch. Rava said: When we would eat bread at the house of the Exilarch, we would recite the Grace after Meals blessing in groups of three. The Gemara asks: Let them recite the blessing in groups of ten. The Gemara answers: Then the Exilarch would hear and become angry upon seeing a large group of Sages reciting Grace after Meals before he completed his meal. The Gemara asks: Why could they not satisfy their obligation with the Exilarch’s blessing? The Gemara answers: Since everyone is making noise, they do not hear and would not fulfill their obligation.

אמר רבה תוספאה הני שלשה דכרכי רפתא בהדי הדדי וקדים חד מינייהו ובריך לדעתיה אינון נפקין בזמון דידיה איהו לא נפיק בזמון דידהו לפי שאין זמון למפרע:

Rabba Tosefa’a said: These three people, who break bread together and one of them went ahead and recited Grace after Meals on his own without a zimmun, they, the other two diners, fulfill their obligation with his participation in their zimmun; he, however, does not fulfill his obligation with his participation in their zimmun because there is no retroactive zimmun, and once he recited his blessing, participating in the zimmun accomplishes nothing for him.

רבי ישמעאל אומר: רפרם בר פפא אקלע לבי כנישתא דאבי גיבר קם קרא בספרא ואמר ברכו את ה׳ ואשתיק ולא אמר המבורך אוושו כולי עלמא ברכו את ה׳ המבורך אמר רבא פתיא אוכמא בהדי פלוגתא למה לך ועוד הא נהוג עלמא כרבי ישמעאל:

The mishna states that Rabbi Akiva holds that in the synagogue, one recites: Bless the Lord, while Rabbi Yishmael said that he recites: Bless the Lord the blessed One. Rafram bar Pappa happened to come to the synagogue of Abei Givar when he rose to read from the Torah scroll and recited: Bless the Lord, and was silent, and did not recite: The blessed One. Because Rafram bar Pappa followed the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and those present were not accustomed to that ruling, everyone in the synagogue cried out: Bless the Lord the blessed One. Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: You black pot, a fond nickname for a Torah scholar who invests great effort in Torah study and worship of God, why are you involving yourself in this tannaitic dispute? Although Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree, Rabbi Yishmael’s formula, in which Rabbi Akiva’s formula is included, is acceptable to both. Furthermore, standard practice is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

מתני׳ שלשה שאכלו כאחת אינן רשאין ליחלק וכן ארבעה וכן חמשה ששה נחלקין עד עשרה ועשרה אין נחלקין עד עשרים

MISHNA: Three people who ate as one are not permitted to divide and recite Grace after Meals individually; rather, they recite the zimmun together. And the same is true of four who ate together, and the same is true of five. However, a group of six, up to but not including ten people who ate as one, may divide into two groups, each reciting its own zimmun. And a group of ten may not divide into two groups until there are twenty people present. The general principle is that a group may not divide unless the smaller groups will be able to recite the same zimmun formula that the whole group would have recited.

שתי חבורות שהיו אוכלות בבית אחד בזמן שמקצתן רואין אלו את אלו הרי אלו מצטרפין לזמון ואם לאו אלו מזמנין לעצמן ואלו מזמנין לעצמן

The mishna states a halakha with regard to two groups joining together: Two groups that were eating in one house, when some members of each group can see each other, they may combine to form a zimmun. And if not, these recite a zimmun for themselves and those recite a zimmun for themselves.

אין מברכין על היין עד שיתן לתוכו מים דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים מברכין:

The mishna also speaks of the blessing over wine: One does not recite a blessing over wine until he adds water to it, that is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Undiluted wine is too strong to drink and a blessing is inappropriate. And the Rabbis say: Since it is possible to drink undiluted wine, one recites a blessing over it.

גמ׳ מאי קא משמע לן תנינא חדא זימנא שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן

GEMARA: At the beginning of the mishna, we learned that three people who ate together may not disperse. The Gemara asks: What does this mishna teach us? We already learned this once: Three people who ate as one are required to form a zimmun.

הא קא משמע לן כי הא דאמר רבי אבא אמר שמואל שלשה שישבו לאכול כאחת ועדין לא אכלו אינן רשאין ליחלק

The Gemara answers: This teaches us that halakha which Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: Three individuals who sat to eat as one, and they have not yet begun to eat, nevertheless, they are not permitted to divide and recite Grace after Meals individually.

לישנא אחרינא אמר רבי אבא אמר שמואל הכי קתני שלשה שישבו לאכול כאחת אף על פי שכל אחד ואחד אוכל מככרו אינן רשאין ליחלק אי נמי כי הא דרב הונא דאמר רב הונא שלשה שבאו משלש חבורות אינן רשאין ליחלק

The Gemara cites another version: Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said that this is what the mishna teaches: Three individuals who sat to eat as one, even though they do not share a meal, but each and every one of them eats from his own loaf, they are considered a single group in terms of zimmun, and are not permitted to divide. Alternatively, perhaps the mishna comes to teach that halakha of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: Three individuals who came from three different groups and sat together to continue their meals also form a zimmun and are not permitted to divide.

אמר רב חסדא והוא שבאו משלש חבורות של שלשה בני אדם

Rav Ḥisda said: And that is only the halakha in a case where the three individuals came from three groups of three people each, so that each original group was independently obligated to recite the zimmun, and that obligation never lapsed.

אמר רבא

Rava qualified this, and said:

ולא אמרן אלא דלא אקדימו הנך ואזמון עלייהו בדוכתייהו אבל אזמון עלייהו בדוכתייהו פרח זימון מינייהו

We only said this halakha in a case where those members of the previous groups did not include them in the zimmun in their original place, but in a case where they included them in the zimmun in their original place, their obligation to participate in a zimmun has left them. The obligation incumbent upon these three individuals to form a zimmun stems from their obligation to form a zimmun with the members of their original groups. If their groups already included them in a zimmun, their obligation as individuals has lapsed and they can no longer form another zimmun.

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתנן מטה שנגנבה חציה או שאבדה חציה או שחלקוה אחין או שותפין טהורה החזירוה מקבלת טומאה מכאן ולהבא

In order to explain the general principle contained in this halakhic ruling, Rava said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As we learned in a mishna: A ritually impure bed, half of which was stolen or half of which was lost, or it was divided by brothers after they inherited it from their father, or was divided by partners, it is ritually pure. This is true with regard to any ritually impure utensil that was broken or divided; it is no longer a utensil and is therefore ritually pure. However, if they restored it and reattached the parts, it is susceptible to ritual impurity from here on.

מכאן ולהבא אין למפרע לא אלמא כיון דפלגוה פרח לה טומאה מינה הכא נמי כיון דאזמון עלייהו פרח זימון מינייהו:

Rava infers: From here on, yes, it is susceptible to ritual impurity, retroactively, no, it does not reassume its previous status of ritual impurity. Apparently, once they divided it, the ritual impurity left it. Although it was restored, it does not reassume its previous status of ritual impurity. Here, too, once they included them in the zimmun, their obligation left them and they do not reassume their previous obligation.

שתי חבורות וכו׳: תנא אם יש שמש ביניהם שמש מצרפן:

The mishna explained the circumstances in which two groups that were eating in one house may combine to form a zimmun. The Gemara adds: It was taught: If there is a common waiter among them, serving both groups, the waiter joins them into a single group, even if they cannot see each other.

אין מברכין על היין: תנו רבנן יין עד שלא נתן לתוכו מים אין מברכין עליו בורא פרי הגפן אלא בורא פרי העץ ונוטלין ממנו לידים משנתן לתוכו מים מברכין עליו בורא פרי הגפן ואין נוטלין ממנו לידים דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך מברכין עליו בורא פרי הגפן ואין נוטלין הימנו לידים

In the mishna, we learned: One does not recite a blessing over wine until he adds water to it, that is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: One recites a blessing over it. Regarding this, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: Over wine, until he added water to it, one does not recite: Who creates fruit of the vine; rather, he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, as it is merely fruit juice and not wine. Moreover, since it is not halakhically considered wine, one ritually washes his hands with it. Once he added water to it, however, it is considered wine, and one recites over it: Who creates fruit of the vine, and one does not ritually wash his hands with it, that is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis say: In either case, whether water has been added or not, it is considered wine for all intents and purposes, and one recites over it: Who creates fruit of the vine, and one may not ritually wash his hands from it.

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר שמואל עושה אדם כל צרכיו בפת כמאן כרבי אליעזר

In accordance with whose opinion is that halakha which Shmuel said: A person may perform all his needs with bread? He may use it for purposes other than food, and he need not be concerned that he is treating the food contemptuously. In accordance with whose opinion among the tannaitic opinions cited above? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits one to wash his hands with undiluted wine.

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מודים חכמים לרבי אליעזר בכוס של ברכה שאין מברכין עליו עד שיתן לתוכו מים מאי טעמא אמר רב אושעיא בעינן מצוה מן המובחר

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: The Rabbis agree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a cup of blessing, e.g., the cup of wine over which Grace after Meals is recited, that one does not recite a blessing over it until he adds water to it. What is the reason? Rav Oshaya said: We require that a mitzva be performed in the best possible manner.

ורבנן למאי חזי אמר רבי זירא חזי לקורייטי

With regard the issue of wine itself, the Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, for what is undiluted wine, which is virtually undrinkable, fit? Rabbi Zeira said: It is good for koraiytei, a medicinal drink made of wine and oil.

תנו רבנן ארבעה דברים נאמרו בפת אין מניחין בשר חי על הפת ואין מעבירין כוס מלא על הפת ואין זורקין את הפת ואין סומכין את הקערה בפת

The Gemara continues to discuss the topic of using food. The Sages taught: Four things were said with regard to bread: One may not place raw meat on bread so the blood will not drip onto the bread and render it inedible; and one may not pass a full cup of wine over bread lest the wine drip on it and ruin the bread; and one may not throw bread; and one may not prop up a dish with a piece of bread. The basis for these laws is the need to treat bread with respect.

אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי כרכו ריפתא בהדי הדדי אייתי לקמייהו תמרי ורמוני שקל מר זוטרא פתק לקמיה דרב אשי דסתנא אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דתניא אין זורקין את האוכלין ההיא בפת תניא והתניא כשם שאין זורקין את הפת כך אין זורקין את האוכלין אמר ליה והתניא אף על פי שאין זורקין את הפת אבל זורקין את האוכלין

The Gemara recounts: Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi ate bread together when they brought dates and pomegranates before them. Mar Zutra took fruit and threw a portion before Rav Ashi. Rav Ashi was astounded and said to him: Does the Master not hold with that which was taught in a baraita: One may not throw food? He responded: That was taught with regard to bread, not other foods. Rav Ashi challenged him again: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as one may not throw bread, so too one may not throw other foods? Mar Zutra said to him: Wasn’t the opposite taught in another baraita: Although one may not throw bread, he may throw other foods?

אלא לא קשיא הא במידי דממאיס הא במידי דלא ממאיס

Rather, that is not difficult, as the two baraitot address two different cases. This baraita, in which it is taught that one may not throw other foods, refers to a food item that becomes disgusting when thrown, whereas that baraita, in which it is taught that one may throw other foods, refers to a food item that does not become disgusting when thrown.

תנו רבנן ממשיכין יין בצנורות לפני חתן ולפני כלה וזורקין לפניהם קליות ואגוזים בימות החמה אבל לא בימות הגשמים אבל לא גלוסקאות לא בימות החמה ולא בימות הגשמים:

Similarly, the Sages taught: One may draw wine through pipes before a bride and groom as a blessed omen, and one may throw roasted grain and nuts before them in the summer, but not in the rainy season, as in the summer they can be retrieved and eaten, which is not the case in the rainy season. But one may not throw cakes, neither in the summer nor in the rainy season.

אמר רב יהודה שכח והכניס אוכלין לתוך פיו בלא ברכה מסלקן לצד אחד ומברך

Rav Yehuda said: If one forgot and put food items in his mouth without reciting a blessing, he moves them to one side of his mouth and recites the blessing.

תניא חדא בולען ותניא אידך פולטן ותניא אידך מסלקן

The Gemara notes that there are three baraitot on this topic: It was taught in one baraita: He swallows them. It was taught in another baraita: He spits them out. Another baraita taught: He moves them to the side of his mouth.

לא קשיא הא דתניא בולען במשקין והא דתניא פולטן במידי דלא ממאיס והא דתניא מסלקן במידי דממאיס

The Gemara explains: That is not difficult, as each baraita addresses a different case. This baraita in which it was taught: He swallows them refers to liquids, as there is no alternative. This baraita in which it was taught: He spits them out, refers to a food item that does not become disgusting and if he removes it from his mouth he can subsequently eat it. This baraita in which it was taught: He moves them to the side of his mouth, refers to a food item that becomes disgusting, in which case it is sufficient to move it to the side.

Scroll To Top