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

January 18, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Moed Katan 6

Today's Daf Yomi

February 24, 2020 | 讻状讟 讘砖讘讟 转砖状驻

Berakhot 52

The gemara explains the reasons for the debates between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding customs at meals and at kiddush and havdala.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖讙讬讞讬谉 讘讘转 拽讜诇

and this Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, with regard to the Divine Voice that emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the oven of akhnai (Bava Metzia 59b), that one disregards a Heavenly Voice. Just as he disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 注讚讬驻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讜注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讗讜诪专 讛讘讚诇讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讗讞专 讛诪讝讜谉 讜诪砖诇砖诇谉 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讞专讬讜

As to the substance of these statements, the Gemara asks: Do Beit Shammai hold that the blessing over the day takes precedence? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who enters his house at the conclusion of Shabbat recites a blessing over the wine, then over the candle, then over the spices, and recites havdala thereafter? And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after the last Shabbat meal and arranges all of the blessings: Grace after Meals, the blessings of havdala and the blessing over wine together thereafter. Evidently, the blessing over wine precedes the primary havdala blessing.

讜讛讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And this baraita, from where is it ascertained that it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion cannot be challenged with an unattributed baraita.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 诪讗讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诪讬诐 讜诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪讝讜谉 砖讘转讞诇讛 讜注诇 讛讘讚诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讘住讜祝 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讗讜专

The Gemara responds: It cannot enter your mind that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as it was taught at the beginning of the baraita: Light and spices thereafter. And who, did you hear, adopts that reasoning? Beit Shammai. As it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute that Grace after Meals is recited first and that havdala is recited last. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to the blessings recited in the middle of havdala, the blessings over the light and over the spices. Beit Shammai say: Light and spices thereafter; and Beit Hillel say: Spices and light thereafter. Therefore, the baraita, where it is taught that the blessing over the candle precedes the blessing over the spices, must be according to Beit Shammai and it says that wine precedes havdala.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara presents another challenge: And from where do you ascertain that this baraita is the opinion of Beit Shammai in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps it is the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Meir.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜诪讝讜谉 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讛讘讚诇讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜讘砖诪讬诐 诪讝讜谉 讜讛讘讚诇讛 讜讛转诐 讘讘专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讗讞专 讛诪讝讜谉 讜诪砖诇砖诇谉 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara responds: It cannot enter your mind that this baraita is the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Meir. As it was taught here in the mishna, which like all unattributed mishnayot is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala. And there, in the baraita, it was taught: And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after the last Shabbat meal and arranges all of the blessings: Grace after Meals, the blessings of havdala, and the blessing over wine together thereafter. According to the baraita, all of the blessings follow Grace after Meals. Since the baraita and the mishna do not correspond, conclude from here that the baraita is the opinion of Beit Shammai, in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 拽讗 住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 砖讗谞讬 注讬讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 诪讗驻讜拽讬 讬讜诪讗 注讬讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讻诪讛 讚诪拽讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚讬祝 讗驻讜拽讬 讬讜诪讗 讻诪讛 讚诪讗讞专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚讬祝 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讛讜讬 注诇谉 讻诪砖讜讬

And, nevertheless, after the Gemara has proven that the baraita corresponds to the opinion of Beit Shammai as interpreted by Rabbi Yehuda, the contradiction between Beit Shammai鈥檚 statement in the baraita and their statement in the Tosefta is difficult. The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai hold that the arrival of the day of Shabbat or a Festival is different from the departure of the day. As with regard to the arrival of the day, the more that we can advance it, the better; with regard to the departure of the day, the more we postpone it, the better, so that Shabbat should not be like a burden to us. Consequently, although Beit Shammai situate kiddush before the blessing over the wine, they agree that one should recite havdala after the blessing over the wine.

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讟注讜谞讛 讻讜住 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讘讗 诇讛诐 讬讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛诪讝讜谉 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讻讜住 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛诪讝讜谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诪讘专讱 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜砖转讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讚诪讘专讱 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诪谞讞 诇讬讛

The above discussion referred to Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion with regard to Grace after Meals recited over a cup of wine. The Gemara poses the question: And do Beit Shammai hold that Grace after Meals requires a cup of wine? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Wine came before the diners after the meal; if only that cup of wine is there, Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over the wine and recites a blessing over the food, Grace after Meals, thereafter. What? Is it not that he recites a blessing over the wine and drinks it, leaving Grace after Meals without wine? The Gemara rejects this: No. The mishna means that he recites a blessing over the cup of wine and leaves it to drink from it after Grace after Meals.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讛诪讘专讱 爪专讬讱 砖讬讟注讜诐 讚讟注讬诐 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讟注诪讜 驻讙诪讜 讚讟注讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 the Master say that one who recites a blessing is required to taste? The Gemara answers: Indeed, this refers to a case where he tasted it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 the Master say that one who tasted the cup of wine disqualified it and it is no longer suitable to be used for a cup of blessing? The Gemara answers: This does not refer to a case where he drank the wine; but rather, where he tasted it with his hand or poured a bit into another cup and drank from it.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讻讜住 砖诇 讘专讻讛 爪专讬讱 砖注讜专 讜讛讗 拽讗 驻讞讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖讬注讜专讬讛 讚谞驻讬砖 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪砖讬注讜专讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 the Master say: A cup of blessing requires a minimum measure of wine? By drinking the wine, doesn鈥檛 he diminish the cup from containing its minimum measure? The Gemara answers: This refers to a case where the cup contained more than the required measure of wine.

讜讛讗 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讻讜住 拽转谞讬 转专讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讜诪讞讚 谞驻讬砖

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly: If he has only one cup of wine? If there is more than the required measure of wine, he does not have only one cup. The Gemara responds: Indeed, there are not two cups, but there is more than one.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讜砖讜转讛讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讘专讱 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讗诇讗 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬:

The Gemara raises another difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: He recites a blessing over the wine and drinks it, and recites Grace after Meals thereafter? Evidently, according to Beit Shammai, wine is not required for Grace after Meals. Rather, it must be that two tanna鈥檌m hold in accordance with Beit Shammai and differ with regard to their opinion.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜讻讜壮:

We learned in our mishna that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree over whether the washing of the hands or mixing water with the wine takes precedence. Beit Shammai say: One washes his hands and mixes water with the wine in the cup thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One mixes water with the wine in the cup and only washes his hands thereafter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讜讝讙讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜住 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜讝讙讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜住 转讞诇讛 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讞讜专讬 讛讻讜住 诪讞诪转 讬讚讬讜 讜讬讞讝专讜 讜讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讻讜住

The Sages taught a Tosefta where this issue is discussed in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: One washes his hands and mixes water with the wine in the cup thereafter, as if you say that one mixes water with the wine in the cup first, his hands will remain ritually impure, as the Sages decreed that unwashed hands have second degree ritual impurity status as if they touched something rendered ritually impure by a creeping animal. Consequently, there is room for concern that the liquid that inevitably drips on the outside of the cup might become ritually impure due to his hands, and those liquids will in turn render the cup ritually impure. Consequently, Beit Shammai said that the hands must be washed first in order to prevent that result.

讜诇讬讟诪讜 讬讚讬诐 诇讻讜住

The Gemara asks: If the concern is with regard to ritual impurity to the cup, why mention the liquids on the outside of the cup? Let his hands render the cup ritually impure directly.

讬讚讬诐 砖谞讬讜转 讛谉 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖拽讬谉

The Gemara answers: Hands have second degree ritual impurity status, and there is a general halakhic principle that an object of second degree ritual impurity status cannot confer third degree ritual impurity status upon non-sacred items, as opposed to teruma or consecrated food, except by means of liquids. By rabbinic decree, liquids that come into contact with second degree ritual impurity assume first degree ritual impurity status and, consequently, can render non-sacred items impure.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讝讙讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 转讞诇讛 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘讬讚讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛讻讜住 讜讬讞讝专讜 讜讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐

And Beit Hillel say: One mixes water with the wine in the cup and only washes his hands thereafter, as if you say that one washes his hands first, there is a decree lest the liquid from the outside of the cup that dampened one鈥檚 hands will be rendered ritually impure due to the cup which is liable to be impure, and the liquid will in turn render his hands ritually impure.

讜谞讬讟诪讬 讻讜住 诇讬讚讬诐 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: Let the cup render his hands ritually impure directly, without any liquid? The Gemara responds that, according to a general principle in the halakhot of ritual impurity, a vessel does not render a person ritually impure. The cup alone does not render his hands ritually impure.

讜谞讬讟诪讬 诇诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讜 讛讻讗 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚转讜讻讜 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘讜 讟诪讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讗讞讜专讬讜 讟诪讗讬诐

The Gemara asks: If the back of the cup is ritually impure, let it render the liquids that are within the cup ritually impure? The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a vessel that only the outside of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquids by rabbinic law and not by Torah law. In that case, the inside of the cup is pure and the outside is impure. As we learned in a mishna: A vessel whose outer side is rendered ritually impure by liquid, only the outer side of the vessel is impure,

转讜讻讜 讜讗讜讙谞讜 讜讗讝谞讜 讜讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 谞讟诪讗 讻讜诇讜

while its inner side, and its rim, the edge of the vessel that protrudes outwards, and its ear-shaped handle, and its straight handles are pure. However, if the inside of the vessel became ritually impure, it is all ritually impure.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Although the decrees of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai are different, they are based on realistic contingencies and on concerns shared by both parties. The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree? What is the crux of their dispute?

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讙讝专 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 讛诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘讬讚讬诐 讘讻讜住

The Gemara explains: Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquids. This prohibition stems from a decree of the Sages, due to concern for drips of liquid that would fall from inside the vessel to its outer side, as those drips themselves would be rendered ritually impure by virtue of their contact with the outer side of the vessel. And Beit Shammai hold that there is no reason to issue a decree due to the concern of Beit Hillel lest the liquid on one鈥檚 hands will be rendered ritually impure by the cup, as Beit Shammai hold that the use of a vessel of that kind is prohibited.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讗诪专讬 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘讬讚讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛讻讜住

And Beit Hillel hold: One is permitted to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquid, as they say: Drips are uncommon, and decrees are not issued on the basis of an uncommon case. Because Beit Hillel permit the use of a vessel of that kind, there is concern lest the liquid on one鈥檚 hands will be rendered ritually impure due to the cup.

讚讘专 讗讞专 转讻祝 诇谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 住注讜讚讛

Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that one mixes the water with the wine in the cup and then washes his hands due to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal. Therefore, he mixes the water and wine in the cup, then he washes his hands, and then he immediately proceeds to the meal.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讞讜专讬讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讚讙讝专讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讚转讻祝 诇谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 住注讜讚讛:

The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding: Alternatively? The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: Even according to you, who said that it is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which is ritually impure as we issued a decree due to concern for drips, even so, our opinion is preferable to yours, as our opinion adheres to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽谞讞 讜讻讜壮:

We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over where the cloth that one used to dry his hands should be placed. Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table. And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讬讜 讘诪驻讛 讜诪谞讬讞讛 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注诇 讛讻住转 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘诪驻讛 诪讞诪转 讛讻住转 讜讬讞讝专讜 讜讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐

In a Tosefta, the Sages taught in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table, as if you say that he should place the cloth on the cushion, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the cloth, which is wet because he used it to dry his hands, become ritually impure due to their contact with the cushion, and the liquids would in turn render the hands of anyone who touches the towel ritually impure.

讜谞讟诪讬讬讛 讻住转 诇诪驻讛 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: Even without the liquid, let the cushion render the towel ritually impure directly? The Gemara answers: There is a principle: A vessel does not render another vessel ritually impure.

讜谞讟诪讬讬讛 讻住转 诇讙讘专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: Let the cushion render the man sitting upon it ritually impure. The Gemara answers: There, too, there is a general principle: A vessel does not render a person ritually impure.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讛讻住转 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘诪驻讛 诪讞诪转 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讜讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉

And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting, as if you say that he should place it on the table, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the towel might be rendered ritually impure by their contact with the table, and those liquids in turn will render the food placed on the table ritually impure.

讜诇讟诪讗 砖诇讞谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讜 讛讻讗 讘砖诇讞谉 砖谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖拽讬谉

The Gemara asks: Let the table render the food upon it ritually impure directly. The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and an object of second degree ritual impurity status can only confer third degree ritual impurity status upon non-sacred items by means of liquids. By rabbinic decree, liquids that come into contact with second degree ritual impurity assume first degree ritual impurity status and, consequently, can render non-sacred items impure.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘砖诇讞谉 砖谞讬 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The basis of their dispute is that Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status for purposes of eating because of a decree due to those who eat teruma. A table with that status renders teruma ritually impure through contact. To prevent priests who partake of teruma from unwittingly eating off a table of that sort, a decree was issued prohibiting its use even with non-sacred foods.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘砖诇讞谉 砖谞讬 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛诐

And Beit Hillel hold: It is permitted to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and we are not concerned about the priests. As those who eat teruma are vigilant and would ascertain the status of a table before eating.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谉 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讬讚讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗讬谉 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讟诪讗讜 讬讚讬诐 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 注讬拽专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 注讬拽专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗:

The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding the additional reason introduced with: Alternatively? The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: And if you say, what is the difference with regard to food that we are concerned that it might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth on the table; and what is the difference with regard to hands that we are not concerned that they might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth placed on the cushion? Beit Hillel continue: We can respond that even so, this is preferable, as there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law. It is preferable that hands, whose impurity has no basis in Torah law, will become ritually impure with second degree ritual impurity status, and food, whose impurity has a basis in Torah law, will not become ritually impure.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讻讘讚讬谉 讜讻讜壮:

We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over whether cleaning the place where one ate or washing one鈥檚 hands should be performed first after the meal. Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and he washes his hands with the final waters thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One washes his hands and sweeps the house thereafter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讻讘讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘讬转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 转讞诇讛 谞诪爪讗 讗转讛 诪驻住讬讚 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转讞诇讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讜专讬谉

The Sages taught in a Tosefta where this issue is discussed in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and washes his hands thereafter, as if you say that one washes his hands first, the water is liable to splash on the remaining crumbs and you will have ruined the food. But Beit Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands is first. What is the reason? Due to concern, lest the crumbs will be made disgusting.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 砖诪砖 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 驻讬专讜专讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讻讝讬转 讜诪谞讬讞 驻讬专讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讻讝讬转

And Beit Hillel say: If the attendant is a Torah scholar, he removes the crumbs that are an olive-bulk from the table at the end of the meal and leaves only crumbs that are not an olive-bulk, as food that is less than an olive-bulk is not considered food and there is no prohibition to ruin it.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讬专讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讻讝讬转 诪讜转专 诇讗讘讚谉 讘讬讚

This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Crumbs that are less than an olive-bulk in size, one may destroy them with his hand without violating the prohibition against ruining food.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘砖诪砖 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘砖诪砖 注诐 讛讗专抓

Here too the Gemara poses the question: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The basis of their argument is that Beit Hillel hold: One is forbidden to use the services of a waiter who is an am ha鈥檃retz. Therefore, there is no room for concern that food will be ruined as only crumbs remain on the table. And Beit Shammai hold: One is permitted to use the services of an attendant who is an am ha鈥檃retz. Food will remain on the table and, therefore, there is room for concern that food will be ruined. The solution is to clean the food off the table and only then wash one鈥檚 hands.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讻讜诇讬讛 驻专拽讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘专 诪讛讗 讚讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪转谞讬 讗讬驻讻讗 讜讘讛讗 谞诪讬 讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇:

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said that Rav Huna said: In our entire chapter, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, except for this case, where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. And Rabbi Oshaya would teach the opposite and reverse the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as they appear in our mishna, and in this case as well, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜诪讝讜谉 讜讻讜壮:

We learned in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讘专讬讱 讗讘砖诪讬诐 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪讗讜专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜诪讝讜谉 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讛讘讚诇讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜讘砖诪讬诐 诪讝讜谉 讜讛讘讚诇讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to Rava鈥檚 house. He saw that Rava recited a blessing over the spices first. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: Now since Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai do not disagree with regard to the blessing over light, as we learned in our mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, and spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala, why did you recite the blessing over the spices first?

注谞讬 专讘讗 讘转专讬讛 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪讝讜谉 砖讛讜讗 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜注诇 讛讘讚诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讘住讜祝 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讗讜专

Rava answered after him: Indeed, that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda says in a baraita that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai neither disagree with regard to Grace after Meals that it is recited first, nor with regard to havdala, which is recited last. With regard to what do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the light and the spices. Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over light and over spices thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over spices and over light thereafter.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讛讙讜 讛注诐 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛:

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The people were accustomed to conduct themselves in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda. The blessing over the spices is recited first.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讘专讗 讻讜壮:

The mishna cited a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to the formula of the blessing over fire in havdala. Beit Shammai say: Who created [bara] the light of fire. And Beit Hillel say: Who creates [boreh] the lights of fire.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讘专讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘专讗 诪砖诪注 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讘讜专讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讘讜专讗 讚注转讬讚 诇诪讘专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讘讜专讗 谞诪讬 讚讘专讗 诪砖诪注

Regarding this, Rava says: With regard to the word bara, everyone agrees that it means created in the past. Where they disagree is with regard to the word boreh. Beit Shammai hold: Boreh means that God will create in the future, and Beit Hillel hold: Boreh also means that He has created in the past.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讜讘讜专讗 讞砖讱 讬讜爪专 讛专讬诐 讜讘讜专讗 专讜讞 讘讜专讗 讛砖诪讬诐 讜谞讜讟讬讛诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讘专讗 讜讘讜专讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘专讗 诪砖诪注 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讗讜专 讜诪讗讜专讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讞讚讗 谞讛讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讘谞讜专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讟讜讘讗 谞讛讜专讬 讗讬讻讗 讘谞讜专讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛专讘讛 诪讗讜专讜转 讬砖 讘讗讜专:

Rav Yosef raised an objection: How can there be a dispute over the meaning of the word boreh? In the following verses it is clear that it refers to acts of creation in the past: 鈥淲ho forms light and creates [boreh] darkness鈥 (Isaiah 45:7), 鈥淲ho forms mountains and creates [boreh] wind鈥 (Amos 4:13), or 鈥淲ho creates [boreh] the heavens and stretches them out鈥 (Isaiah 42:5). Rather, said Rav Yosef: With regard to both bara and boreh, everyone agrees that they mean created. Where they disagree is with regard to the light of the fire or the lights of the fire. As Beit Shammai hold that there is one light in a fire, and Beit Hillel hold that there are many lights in a fire, as a flame consists of red, green, and white light. That was also taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: There are many lights in the fire.

讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讻讜壮: 讘砖诇诪讗 谞专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讘转 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 诪讛 讟注诐 诇讗

We learned in the mishna that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles. The Gemara asks: Granted, the prohibition against the recitation of a blessing over a candle of gentiles in havdala, as the flame of the candle did not rest. Because it was burning during Shabbat, one should not recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat. However, what is the reason that one may not recite a blessing over spices of gentiles?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讗 讘诪住讘转 讙讜讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖住转诐 诪住讘转 讙讜讬诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with a party arranged by gentiles and the spices used at that party were prohibited because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛谞专 讜诇讗 注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But from that which was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry, infer by implication that in the first clause of our mishna we are not dealing with idolatry? There must be a different reason why the spices of gentiles are prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇 讛谞专 讜诇讗 注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖住转诐 诪住讘转 讙讜讬诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rabbi 岣nina of Sura said: These two halakhot are complementary, and the mishna states the halakha employing the style of: What is the reason. The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles? Because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry and one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜专 砖砖讘转 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讗讬 砖讘转 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 砖讘转

The Sages taught in a baraita: Over fire that rested, one may recite a blessing in havdala, and over fire that did not rest, one may not recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What is meant by rested, and what is meant by did not rest?

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Ignore That Voice from Heaven Telling You What to Do

In which a bat kol tells us that the halakhah follows Beit Hillel. But we're not supposed to rely on...

Berakhot 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 52

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖讙讬讞讬谉 讘讘转 拽讜诇

and this Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, with regard to the Divine Voice that emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the oven of akhnai (Bava Metzia 59b), that one disregards a Heavenly Voice. Just as he disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 注讚讬驻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讜注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讗讜诪专 讛讘讚诇讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讗讞专 讛诪讝讜谉 讜诪砖诇砖诇谉 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讞专讬讜

As to the substance of these statements, the Gemara asks: Do Beit Shammai hold that the blessing over the day takes precedence? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who enters his house at the conclusion of Shabbat recites a blessing over the wine, then over the candle, then over the spices, and recites havdala thereafter? And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after the last Shabbat meal and arranges all of the blessings: Grace after Meals, the blessings of havdala and the blessing over wine together thereafter. Evidently, the blessing over wine precedes the primary havdala blessing.

讜讛讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And this baraita, from where is it ascertained that it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion cannot be challenged with an unattributed baraita.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 诪讗讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诪讬诐 讜诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪讝讜谉 砖讘转讞诇讛 讜注诇 讛讘讚诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讘住讜祝 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讗讜专

The Gemara responds: It cannot enter your mind that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as it was taught at the beginning of the baraita: Light and spices thereafter. And who, did you hear, adopts that reasoning? Beit Shammai. As it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute that Grace after Meals is recited first and that havdala is recited last. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to the blessings recited in the middle of havdala, the blessings over the light and over the spices. Beit Shammai say: Light and spices thereafter; and Beit Hillel say: Spices and light thereafter. Therefore, the baraita, where it is taught that the blessing over the candle precedes the blessing over the spices, must be according to Beit Shammai and it says that wine precedes havdala.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara presents another challenge: And from where do you ascertain that this baraita is the opinion of Beit Shammai in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps it is the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Meir.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜诪讝讜谉 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讛讘讚诇讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜讘砖诪讬诐 诪讝讜谉 讜讛讘讚诇讛 讜讛转诐 讘讘专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讗讞专 讛诪讝讜谉 讜诪砖诇砖诇谉 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara responds: It cannot enter your mind that this baraita is the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Meir. As it was taught here in the mishna, which like all unattributed mishnayot is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala. And there, in the baraita, it was taught: And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after the last Shabbat meal and arranges all of the blessings: Grace after Meals, the blessings of havdala, and the blessing over wine together thereafter. According to the baraita, all of the blessings follow Grace after Meals. Since the baraita and the mishna do not correspond, conclude from here that the baraita is the opinion of Beit Shammai, in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 拽讗 住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 砖讗谞讬 注讬讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 诪讗驻讜拽讬 讬讜诪讗 注讬讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讻诪讛 讚诪拽讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚讬祝 讗驻讜拽讬 讬讜诪讗 讻诪讛 讚诪讗讞专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚讬祝 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讛讜讬 注诇谉 讻诪砖讜讬

And, nevertheless, after the Gemara has proven that the baraita corresponds to the opinion of Beit Shammai as interpreted by Rabbi Yehuda, the contradiction between Beit Shammai鈥檚 statement in the baraita and their statement in the Tosefta is difficult. The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai hold that the arrival of the day of Shabbat or a Festival is different from the departure of the day. As with regard to the arrival of the day, the more that we can advance it, the better; with regard to the departure of the day, the more we postpone it, the better, so that Shabbat should not be like a burden to us. Consequently, although Beit Shammai situate kiddush before the blessing over the wine, they agree that one should recite havdala after the blessing over the wine.

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讟注讜谞讛 讻讜住 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讘讗 诇讛诐 讬讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛诪讝讜谉 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讻讜住 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛诪讝讜谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诪讘专讱 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜砖转讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讚诪讘专讱 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诪谞讞 诇讬讛

The above discussion referred to Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion with regard to Grace after Meals recited over a cup of wine. The Gemara poses the question: And do Beit Shammai hold that Grace after Meals requires a cup of wine? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Wine came before the diners after the meal; if only that cup of wine is there, Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over the wine and recites a blessing over the food, Grace after Meals, thereafter. What? Is it not that he recites a blessing over the wine and drinks it, leaving Grace after Meals without wine? The Gemara rejects this: No. The mishna means that he recites a blessing over the cup of wine and leaves it to drink from it after Grace after Meals.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讛诪讘专讱 爪专讬讱 砖讬讟注讜诐 讚讟注讬诐 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讟注诪讜 驻讙诪讜 讚讟注讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 the Master say that one who recites a blessing is required to taste? The Gemara answers: Indeed, this refers to a case where he tasted it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 the Master say that one who tasted the cup of wine disqualified it and it is no longer suitable to be used for a cup of blessing? The Gemara answers: This does not refer to a case where he drank the wine; but rather, where he tasted it with his hand or poured a bit into another cup and drank from it.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讻讜住 砖诇 讘专讻讛 爪专讬讱 砖注讜专 讜讛讗 拽讗 驻讞讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖讬注讜专讬讛 讚谞驻讬砖 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪砖讬注讜专讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 the Master say: A cup of blessing requires a minimum measure of wine? By drinking the wine, doesn鈥檛 he diminish the cup from containing its minimum measure? The Gemara answers: This refers to a case where the cup contained more than the required measure of wine.

讜讛讗 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讻讜住 拽转谞讬 转专讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讜诪讞讚 谞驻讬砖

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly: If he has only one cup of wine? If there is more than the required measure of wine, he does not have only one cup. The Gemara responds: Indeed, there are not two cups, but there is more than one.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讜砖讜转讛讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讘专讱 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讗诇讗 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬:

The Gemara raises another difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: He recites a blessing over the wine and drinks it, and recites Grace after Meals thereafter? Evidently, according to Beit Shammai, wine is not required for Grace after Meals. Rather, it must be that two tanna鈥檌m hold in accordance with Beit Shammai and differ with regard to their opinion.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜讻讜壮:

We learned in our mishna that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree over whether the washing of the hands or mixing water with the wine takes precedence. Beit Shammai say: One washes his hands and mixes water with the wine in the cup thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One mixes water with the wine in the cup and only washes his hands thereafter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讜讝讙讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜住 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜讝讙讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜住 转讞诇讛 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讞讜专讬 讛讻讜住 诪讞诪转 讬讚讬讜 讜讬讞讝专讜 讜讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讻讜住

The Sages taught a Tosefta where this issue is discussed in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: One washes his hands and mixes water with the wine in the cup thereafter, as if you say that one mixes water with the wine in the cup first, his hands will remain ritually impure, as the Sages decreed that unwashed hands have second degree ritual impurity status as if they touched something rendered ritually impure by a creeping animal. Consequently, there is room for concern that the liquid that inevitably drips on the outside of the cup might become ritually impure due to his hands, and those liquids will in turn render the cup ritually impure. Consequently, Beit Shammai said that the hands must be washed first in order to prevent that result.

讜诇讬讟诪讜 讬讚讬诐 诇讻讜住

The Gemara asks: If the concern is with regard to ritual impurity to the cup, why mention the liquids on the outside of the cup? Let his hands render the cup ritually impure directly.

讬讚讬诐 砖谞讬讜转 讛谉 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖拽讬谉

The Gemara answers: Hands have second degree ritual impurity status, and there is a general halakhic principle that an object of second degree ritual impurity status cannot confer third degree ritual impurity status upon non-sacred items, as opposed to teruma or consecrated food, except by means of liquids. By rabbinic decree, liquids that come into contact with second degree ritual impurity assume first degree ritual impurity status and, consequently, can render non-sacred items impure.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讝讙讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 转讞诇讛 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘讬讚讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛讻讜住 讜讬讞讝专讜 讜讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐

And Beit Hillel say: One mixes water with the wine in the cup and only washes his hands thereafter, as if you say that one washes his hands first, there is a decree lest the liquid from the outside of the cup that dampened one鈥檚 hands will be rendered ritually impure due to the cup which is liable to be impure, and the liquid will in turn render his hands ritually impure.

讜谞讬讟诪讬 讻讜住 诇讬讚讬诐 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: Let the cup render his hands ritually impure directly, without any liquid? The Gemara responds that, according to a general principle in the halakhot of ritual impurity, a vessel does not render a person ritually impure. The cup alone does not render his hands ritually impure.

讜谞讬讟诪讬 诇诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讜 讛讻讗 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚转讜讻讜 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘讜 讟诪讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讗讞讜专讬讜 讟诪讗讬诐

The Gemara asks: If the back of the cup is ritually impure, let it render the liquids that are within the cup ritually impure? The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a vessel that only the outside of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquids by rabbinic law and not by Torah law. In that case, the inside of the cup is pure and the outside is impure. As we learned in a mishna: A vessel whose outer side is rendered ritually impure by liquid, only the outer side of the vessel is impure,

转讜讻讜 讜讗讜讙谞讜 讜讗讝谞讜 讜讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 谞讟诪讗 讻讜诇讜

while its inner side, and its rim, the edge of the vessel that protrudes outwards, and its ear-shaped handle, and its straight handles are pure. However, if the inside of the vessel became ritually impure, it is all ritually impure.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Although the decrees of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai are different, they are based on realistic contingencies and on concerns shared by both parties. The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree? What is the crux of their dispute?

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讙讝专 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 讛诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘讬讚讬诐 讘讻讜住

The Gemara explains: Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquids. This prohibition stems from a decree of the Sages, due to concern for drips of liquid that would fall from inside the vessel to its outer side, as those drips themselves would be rendered ritually impure by virtue of their contact with the outer side of the vessel. And Beit Shammai hold that there is no reason to issue a decree due to the concern of Beit Hillel lest the liquid on one鈥檚 hands will be rendered ritually impure by the cup, as Beit Shammai hold that the use of a vessel of that kind is prohibited.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讗诪专讬 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘讬讚讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛讻讜住

And Beit Hillel hold: One is permitted to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquid, as they say: Drips are uncommon, and decrees are not issued on the basis of an uncommon case. Because Beit Hillel permit the use of a vessel of that kind, there is concern lest the liquid on one鈥檚 hands will be rendered ritually impure due to the cup.

讚讘专 讗讞专 转讻祝 诇谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 住注讜讚讛

Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that one mixes the water with the wine in the cup and then washes his hands due to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal. Therefore, he mixes the water and wine in the cup, then he washes his hands, and then he immediately proceeds to the meal.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讞讜专讬讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讚讙讝专讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讚转讻祝 诇谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 住注讜讚讛:

The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding: Alternatively? The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: Even according to you, who said that it is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which is ritually impure as we issued a decree due to concern for drips, even so, our opinion is preferable to yours, as our opinion adheres to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽谞讞 讜讻讜壮:

We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over where the cloth that one used to dry his hands should be placed. Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table. And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讬讜 讘诪驻讛 讜诪谞讬讞讛 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注诇 讛讻住转 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘诪驻讛 诪讞诪转 讛讻住转 讜讬讞讝专讜 讜讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐

In a Tosefta, the Sages taught in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table, as if you say that he should place the cloth on the cushion, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the cloth, which is wet because he used it to dry his hands, become ritually impure due to their contact with the cushion, and the liquids would in turn render the hands of anyone who touches the towel ritually impure.

讜谞讟诪讬讬讛 讻住转 诇诪驻讛 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: Even without the liquid, let the cushion render the towel ritually impure directly? The Gemara answers: There is a principle: A vessel does not render another vessel ritually impure.

讜谞讟诪讬讬讛 讻住转 诇讙讘专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: Let the cushion render the man sitting upon it ritually impure. The Gemara answers: There, too, there is a general principle: A vessel does not render a person ritually impure.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讛讻住转 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘诪驻讛 诪讞诪转 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讜讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉

And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting, as if you say that he should place it on the table, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the towel might be rendered ritually impure by their contact with the table, and those liquids in turn will render the food placed on the table ritually impure.

讜诇讟诪讗 砖诇讞谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讜 讛讻讗 讘砖诇讞谉 砖谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖拽讬谉

The Gemara asks: Let the table render the food upon it ritually impure directly. The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and an object of second degree ritual impurity status can only confer third degree ritual impurity status upon non-sacred items by means of liquids. By rabbinic decree, liquids that come into contact with second degree ritual impurity assume first degree ritual impurity status and, consequently, can render non-sacred items impure.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘砖诇讞谉 砖谞讬 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The basis of their dispute is that Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status for purposes of eating because of a decree due to those who eat teruma. A table with that status renders teruma ritually impure through contact. To prevent priests who partake of teruma from unwittingly eating off a table of that sort, a decree was issued prohibiting its use even with non-sacred foods.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘砖诇讞谉 砖谞讬 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛诐

And Beit Hillel hold: It is permitted to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and we are not concerned about the priests. As those who eat teruma are vigilant and would ascertain the status of a table before eating.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谉 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讬讚讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗讬谉 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讟诪讗讜 讬讚讬诐 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 注讬拽专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 注讬拽专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗:

The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding the additional reason introduced with: Alternatively? The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: And if you say, what is the difference with regard to food that we are concerned that it might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth on the table; and what is the difference with regard to hands that we are not concerned that they might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth placed on the cushion? Beit Hillel continue: We can respond that even so, this is preferable, as there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law. It is preferable that hands, whose impurity has no basis in Torah law, will become ritually impure with second degree ritual impurity status, and food, whose impurity has a basis in Torah law, will not become ritually impure.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讻讘讚讬谉 讜讻讜壮:

We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over whether cleaning the place where one ate or washing one鈥檚 hands should be performed first after the meal. Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and he washes his hands with the final waters thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One washes his hands and sweeps the house thereafter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讻讘讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘讬转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 转讞诇讛 谞诪爪讗 讗转讛 诪驻住讬讚 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转讞诇讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讜专讬谉

The Sages taught in a Tosefta where this issue is discussed in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and washes his hands thereafter, as if you say that one washes his hands first, the water is liable to splash on the remaining crumbs and you will have ruined the food. But Beit Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands is first. What is the reason? Due to concern, lest the crumbs will be made disgusting.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 砖诪砖 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 驻讬专讜专讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讻讝讬转 讜诪谞讬讞 驻讬专讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讻讝讬转

And Beit Hillel say: If the attendant is a Torah scholar, he removes the crumbs that are an olive-bulk from the table at the end of the meal and leaves only crumbs that are not an olive-bulk, as food that is less than an olive-bulk is not considered food and there is no prohibition to ruin it.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讬专讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讻讝讬转 诪讜转专 诇讗讘讚谉 讘讬讚

This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Crumbs that are less than an olive-bulk in size, one may destroy them with his hand without violating the prohibition against ruining food.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘砖诪砖 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘砖诪砖 注诐 讛讗专抓

Here too the Gemara poses the question: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The basis of their argument is that Beit Hillel hold: One is forbidden to use the services of a waiter who is an am ha鈥檃retz. Therefore, there is no room for concern that food will be ruined as only crumbs remain on the table. And Beit Shammai hold: One is permitted to use the services of an attendant who is an am ha鈥檃retz. Food will remain on the table and, therefore, there is room for concern that food will be ruined. The solution is to clean the food off the table and only then wash one鈥檚 hands.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讻讜诇讬讛 驻专拽讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘专 诪讛讗 讚讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪转谞讬 讗讬驻讻讗 讜讘讛讗 谞诪讬 讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇:

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said that Rav Huna said: In our entire chapter, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, except for this case, where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. And Rabbi Oshaya would teach the opposite and reverse the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as they appear in our mishna, and in this case as well, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜诪讝讜谉 讜讻讜壮:

We learned in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讘专讬讱 讗讘砖诪讬诐 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪讗讜专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜诪讝讜谉 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讛讘讚诇讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专 讜讘砖诪讬诐 诪讝讜谉 讜讛讘讚诇讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to Rava鈥檚 house. He saw that Rava recited a blessing over the spices first. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: Now since Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai do not disagree with regard to the blessing over light, as we learned in our mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, and spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala, why did you recite the blessing over the spices first?

注谞讬 专讘讗 讘转专讬讛 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪讝讜谉 砖讛讜讗 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜注诇 讛讘讚诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讘住讜祝 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖诪讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讗讜专

Rava answered after him: Indeed, that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda says in a baraita that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai neither disagree with regard to Grace after Meals that it is recited first, nor with regard to havdala, which is recited last. With regard to what do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the light and the spices. Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over light and over spices thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over spices and over light thereafter.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讛讙讜 讛注诐 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛:

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The people were accustomed to conduct themselves in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda. The blessing over the spices is recited first.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讘专讗 讻讜壮:

The mishna cited a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to the formula of the blessing over fire in havdala. Beit Shammai say: Who created [bara] the light of fire. And Beit Hillel say: Who creates [boreh] the lights of fire.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讘专讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘专讗 诪砖诪注 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讘讜专讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讘讜专讗 讚注转讬讚 诇诪讘专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讘讜专讗 谞诪讬 讚讘专讗 诪砖诪注

Regarding this, Rava says: With regard to the word bara, everyone agrees that it means created in the past. Where they disagree is with regard to the word boreh. Beit Shammai hold: Boreh means that God will create in the future, and Beit Hillel hold: Boreh also means that He has created in the past.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讜讘讜专讗 讞砖讱 讬讜爪专 讛专讬诐 讜讘讜专讗 专讜讞 讘讜专讗 讛砖诪讬诐 讜谞讜讟讬讛诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讘专讗 讜讘讜专讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘专讗 诪砖诪注 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讗讜专 讜诪讗讜专讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讞讚讗 谞讛讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讘谞讜专讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讟讜讘讗 谞讛讜专讬 讗讬讻讗 讘谞讜专讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛专讘讛 诪讗讜专讜转 讬砖 讘讗讜专:

Rav Yosef raised an objection: How can there be a dispute over the meaning of the word boreh? In the following verses it is clear that it refers to acts of creation in the past: 鈥淲ho forms light and creates [boreh] darkness鈥 (Isaiah 45:7), 鈥淲ho forms mountains and creates [boreh] wind鈥 (Amos 4:13), or 鈥淲ho creates [boreh] the heavens and stretches them out鈥 (Isaiah 42:5). Rather, said Rav Yosef: With regard to both bara and boreh, everyone agrees that they mean created. Where they disagree is with regard to the light of the fire or the lights of the fire. As Beit Shammai hold that there is one light in a fire, and Beit Hillel hold that there are many lights in a fire, as a flame consists of red, green, and white light. That was also taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: There are many lights in the fire.

讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讻讜壮: 讘砖诇诪讗 谞专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讘转 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 诪讛 讟注诐 诇讗

We learned in the mishna that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles. The Gemara asks: Granted, the prohibition against the recitation of a blessing over a candle of gentiles in havdala, as the flame of the candle did not rest. Because it was burning during Shabbat, one should not recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat. However, what is the reason that one may not recite a blessing over spices of gentiles?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讗 讘诪住讘转 讙讜讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖住转诐 诪住讘转 讙讜讬诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with a party arranged by gentiles and the spices used at that party were prohibited because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛谞专 讜诇讗 注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But from that which was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry, infer by implication that in the first clause of our mishna we are not dealing with idolatry? There must be a different reason why the spices of gentiles are prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇 讛谞专 讜诇讗 注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖住转诐 诪住讘转 讙讜讬诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rabbi 岣nina of Sura said: These two halakhot are complementary, and the mishna states the halakha employing the style of: What is the reason. The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles? Because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry and one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜专 砖砖讘转 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讗讬 砖讘转 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 砖讘转

The Sages taught in a baraita: Over fire that rested, one may recite a blessing in havdala, and over fire that did not rest, one may not recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What is meant by rested, and what is meant by did not rest?

Scroll To Top