Berakhot 53

אי נימא לא שבת מחמת מלאכה אפילו ממלאכה דהתירא והתניא אור של חיה ושל חולה מברכין עליו

If we say that did not rest means that it did not rest from labor, even from labor that is permitted? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that over light that was kindled on Shabbat for a woman giving birth or a dangerously ill person, for whom one is permitted to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat, one may recite a blessing during havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאי שבת ששבת מחמת מלאכת עבירה תניא נמי הכי עששית שהיתה דולקת והולכת כל היום כולו למוצאי שבת מברכין עליה:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is meant by rested? Light that rested from labor of transgression on Shabbat. However, if the light burned for the entire Shabbat or was kindled on Shabbat in a permissible manner, one may recite a blessing over it. That halakha was also taught in a baraita: A lantern that was continuously burning throughout the entire day of Shabbat, one may recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat.

תנו רבנן גוי שהדליק מישראל וישראל שהדליק מגוי מברכין עליו גוי מגוי אין מברכין עליו

The Sages taught in a baraita: A gentile who lit a candle from a candle that was in the possession of a Jew or if a Jew lit a candle from a gentile, one may recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat. However, if a gentile lit a candle from a gentile, one may not recite a blessing over it.

מאי שנא גוי מגוי דלא משום דלא שבת אי הכי ישראל מגוי נמי הא לא שבת

The Gemara asks: What is different about a candle that a gentile lit from a gentile, that one may not recite a blessing over it? Because the light did not rest on Shabbat. If so, the light of a Jew who lit a candle from a gentile also did not rest on Shabbat.

וכי תימא הך איסורא אזל ליה והא אחרינא הוא ובידא דישראל קא מתילדא אלא הא דתניא המוציא שלהבת לרשות הרבים חייב אמאי חייב מה שעקר לא הניח ומה שהניח לא עקר

And if you say that this prohibited flame has gone and this flame is a new and different one which came into being in the possession of a Jew, as a flame is not a concrete, static object, but rather it constantly recreates itself; however, this halakha that was taught in a Tosefta in tractate Shabbat states: One who carries out a flame from the private to the public domain on Shabbat is liable for carrying out from one domain to another. If the flame is constantly recreating itself, why is he liable? That flame which he lifted from the private domain he did not place in the public domain and that which he placed he did not lift. One is only liable for carrying out on Shabbat if he lifted an object from one domain and placed that same object in another domain. Since one who carries out a flame on Shabbat is considered liable, evidently, despite any change that it may undergo, the flame is essentially considered a single entity.

אלא לעולם דאיסורא נמי איתיה וכי קא מברך אתוספתא דהתירא קא מברך אי הכי גוי מגוי נמי

Rather, actually that prohibited flame is also extant, and when one recites the blessing, he recites the blessing over the permitted addition to that flame. The Gemara asks: If so, even if a gentile lit a candle from a gentile as well, the flame should be considered essentially new; one should be able to recite a blessing over the addition.

אין הכי נמי גזירה משום גוי ראשון ועמוד ראשון:

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. Fundamentally, there is no reason to prohibit doing so. However, the Sages issued a decree because of the first gentile, who did not light the flame from another gentile, and the first pillar of flame that was kindled on Shabbat. Consequently, they prohibited all somewhat similar cases, including when a gentile lights a flame from another gentile.

תנו רבנן היה מהלך חוץ לכרך וראה אור אם רוב גוים אינו מברך אם רוב ישראל מברך

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one was walking outside the city, saw fire there, and wanted to recite the blessing over it as part of havdala, if the city has a majority of gentiles he may not recite the blessing over the fire, but if the city has a majority of Jews, he may recite the blessing.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת אם רוב גוים אינו מברך הא מחצה על מחצה מברך והדר תני אם רוב ישראל מברך הא מחצה על מחצה אינו מברך

The Gemara notes: The matter itself is difficult in this baraita. You said in the baraita that if the town has a majority of gentiles he may not recite the blessing. By inference, if the town population was half gentiles and half Jews, one may recite a blessing. And then you teach that if the town has a majority of Jews, he may recite the blessing. By inference, if the town population was half gentiles and half Jews, one may not recite a blessing. The inferences from two sections of the baraita are contradictory.

בדין הוא דאפילו מחצה על מחצה נמי מברך ואיידי דתנא רישא רוב נכרים תנא סיפא רוב ישראל:

The Gemara responds: By right, the baraita should have taught that even if the town population was half gentiles and half Jews, one may recite a blessing, but since in the first clause it taught: The majority of gentiles, in the latter clause it used the same expression and taught: The majority of Jews.

תנו רבנן היה מהלך חוץ לכרך וראה תינוק ואבוקה בידו בודק אחריו אם ישראל הוא מברך אם נכרי הוא אינו מברך

And the Sages taught: One who was walking outside the city at the conclusion of Shabbat and saw a child with a torch in his hand, he must check after his background. If the child is a Jew, he may recite a blessing over this flame, but if the child is a gentile, he may not recite a blessing over it.

מאי איריא תינוק אפילו גדול נמי

The Gemara asks: Why was it taught specifically with regard to a child? Even if he were an adult, one would also need to investigate whether he was a Jew or a gentile in order to determine whether or not he may recite a blessing over the torch.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הכא בסמוך לשקיעת החמה עסקינן גדול מוכחא מילתא דודאי נכרי הוא תינוק אימר ישראל הוא אקרי ונקיט:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with a case where, although it was the conclusion of Shabbat, it was still soon after sunset. Therefore, in the case of an adult, it is self-evident that he is a gentile, as a Jew would not be so quick to take fire in his hand immediately after Shabbat. In the case of a child, however, say that perhaps he is a Jew and it happened that he took the torch.

תנו רבנן היה מהלך חוץ לכרך וראה אור אם עבה כפי הכבשן מברך עליו ואם לאו אינו מברך עליו

And the Sages taught: One who was walking outside the city at the conclusion of Shabbat and saw a fire, if the fire is at least as thick as the opening of a furnace, one may recite a blessing over it, as a fire of that kind is kindled for the light it produces as well. And if it is not at least that thick, one may not recite a blessing over it.

תני חדא אור של כבשן מברכין עליו ותניא אידך אין מברכין עליו

It was taught in one baraita: During havdala, one may recite a blessing over the fire of a furnace; and it was taught in another baraita: One may not recite a blessing over the fire of a furnace. There is an apparent contradiction between the baraitot.

לא קשיא הא בתחלה הא לבסוף

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as this baraita which prohibits reciting the blessing is speaking at the beginning when the furnace was just kindled and the fire is designated solely to heat the objects in the furnace; that baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking at the end, when the fire is no longer needed to heat the objects in the furnace, and its light is used for other purposes.

תני חדא אור של תנור ושל כירים מברכין עליו ותניא אידך אין מברכין עליו

The Gemara cites a similar contradiction between baraitot: It was taught in one baraita: During havdala, one may recite a blessing over the fire of an oven or a stove; and it was taught in another baraita: One may not recite a blessing over it.

לא קשיא הא בתחלה הא לבסוף

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as a similar distinction between the baraitot may be suggested. This baraita, which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking at the beginning, when the oven or stove was just kindled and the fire is designated solely to heat the objects on the stove or in the oven; that baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking at the end, when the fire is no longer needed to heat the objects on the stove or in the oven and its light is used for other purposes.

תני חדא אור של בית הכנסת ושל בית המדרש מברכין עליו ותניא אידך אין מברכין עליו

The Gemara cites another contradiction: It was taught in one baraita: During havdala, one may recite a blessing over the light of a synagogue or a study hall; and it was taught in another baraita: One may not recite a blessing over it.

לא קשיא הא דאיכא אדם חשוב הא דליכא אדם חשוב

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as this baraita, which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is an important person in the synagogue and the fire is kindled in his honor and not to provide light; that baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is no important person present and the fire is kindled to provide light.

ואי בעית אימא הא והא דאיכא אדם חשוב ולא קשיא הא דאיכא חזנא הא דליכא חזנא

And if you wish, say instead that this baraita and that baraita are speaking in a case where there is an important person present in the synagogue, and this is not difficult because the contradiction can be resolved as follows: This baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is a caretaker in the synagogue who uses the light; that baraita, which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is no caretaker and the light is kindled for purposes of honor.

ואי בעית אימא הא והא דאיכא חזנא ולא קשיא הא דאיכא סהרא והא דליכא סהרא:

And if you wish, say instead that this baraita and that baraita are both referring to a case where there is a caretaker present in the synagogue, and this is not difficult because the contradiction can be resolved as follows: This baraita, which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is moonlight, so the caretaker did not light the fire to provide light as the moonlight is sufficient; that baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is no moonlight, and the caretaker lights the fire to provide light.

תנו רבנן היו יושבין בבית המדרש והביאו אור לפניהם בית שמאי אומרים כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו ובית הלל אומרים אחד מברך לכולן משום שנאמר ברב עם הדרת מלך

The Sages taught in a baraita: People were seated in the study hall and they brought fire before them at the conclusion of Shabbat. Beit Shammai say: Each and every individual recites a blessing for himself; and Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing on behalf of everyone and the others answer amen. Beit Hillel’s reasoning is as it is stated: “The splendor of the King is in the multitude of the people” (Proverbs 14:28). When everyone joins together to hear the blessing, the name of God is glorified.

בשלמא בית הלל מפרשי טעמא אלא בית שמאי מאי טעמא קסברי מפני ביטול בית המדרש

The Gemara asks: Granted, Beit Hillel, they explain their reasoning, but what is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai to prohibit reciting the blessing communally? The Gemara answers: They hold that it is prohibited due to the fact that it will lead to suspension of study in the study hall. Waiting for someone to recite the blessing will interrupt Torah study for several minutes.

תניא נמי הכי של בית רבן גמליאל לא היו אומרים מרפא בבית המדרש מפני ביטול בית המדרש:

This concern for disrupting Torah study was also taught in a baraita: The members of the house of Rabban Gamliel would not say good health when someone sneezed in the study hall, due to the fact that it would lead to suspension of study in the study hall.

אין מברכין לא על הנר ולא על הבשמים של מתים: מאי טעמא נר לכבוד הוא דעבידא בשמים לעבורי ריחא הוא דעבידי

We learned in the mishna: One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices designated to honor the dead. The Gemara explains: What is the reason? Because a candle of the dead is kindled for the purpose of honoring the dead, not for light; the spices are to neutralize the bad odor, not for their pleasant fragrance.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל שמוציאין לפניו ביום ובלילה אין מברכין עליו וכל שאין מוציאין לפניו אלא בלילה מברכין עליו

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any deceased before whom a candle is taken out both by day and by night, it is evident that the candle is for the purpose of honoring the deceased; therefore, one may not recite a blessing over it. And any deceased before whom a candle is taken out only by night, it is evident that the purpose of the candle is for its light alone, and one may recite a blessing over it.

אמר רב הונא בשמים של בית הכסא ושמן העשוי להעביר את הזוהמא אין מברכין עליו

Similarly, Rav Huna said: Over spices used to deodorize the bathroom and fragrant oil intended to remove filth, one may not recite a blessing as they are not used for their pleasant fragrance.

למימרא דכל היכא דלאו לריחא עבידא לא מברכין עלויה מתיבי הנכנס לחנותו של בשם והריח ריח אפילו ישב שם כל היום כולו אינו מברך אלא פעם אחד נכנס ויצא נכנס ויצא מברך על כל פעם ופעם והא הכא דלאו לריחא הוא דעבידא וקמברך

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that any case where it is not used for its pleasant fragrance, one may not recite a blessing over it? The Gemara raises an objection based on the Tosefta: One who enters the store of a perfumer, and smelled a fragrance, even if he sat there throughout the entire day, he only recites a blessing once. However, if one entered and exited, entered and exited, he recites a blessing on each and every occasion. Isn’t it a case here, where the spices are not intended for fragrance, as they are not used to improve the scent in the store, and, nevertheless, one recites a blessing?

אין לריחא נמי הוא דעבידא כי היכי דנירחו אינשי וניתו ונזבון מיניה

The Gemara responds: Yes, in this case the spices are also intended for fragrance; they are used to generate a scent in the store so that people will smell them and come and purchase from him.

תנו רבנן היה מהלך חוץ לכרך והריח ריח אם רוב נכרים אינו מברך אם רוב ישראל מברך רבי יוסי אומר אפילו רוב ישראל נמי אינו מברך מפני שבנות ישראל מקטרות לכשפים

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who was walking outside a city and smelled a scent; if the majority of the town’s residents are gentiles he may not recite a blessing over the scent, but if the majority are Jews, he may recite a blessing. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the majority are Jews, one may not recite a blessing, as the daughters of Israel burn incense to witchcraft and the spices were certainly made for witchcraft, not for their fragrance.

אטו כולהו לכשפים מקטרן הוה לה מיעוטא לכשפים ומיעוטא נמי לגמר את הכלים אשתכח רובא דלאו לריחא עביד וכל רובא דלאו לריחא עביד לא מברך

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that they all burn incense to witchcraft? Rather, there is a minority of people who burn incense to witchcraft, and a different minority who burn spices in order to perfume their garments with incense. A majority, therefore, exists that does not use it for fragrance, and in a case where the majority does not use it for fragrance, one does not recite a blessing.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן המהלך בערבי שבתות בטבריא ובמוצאי שבתות בצפורי והריח ריח אינו מברך מפני שחזקתו אינו עשוי אלא לגמר בו את הכלים

Similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who walks on Shabbat eve in Tiberias or at the conclusion of Shabbat in Tzippori, and smelled the scent of incense may not recite a blessing, as the presumption is that it was intended to perfume garments.

תנו רבנן היה מהלך בשוק של עבודה זרה נתרצה להריח הרי זה חוטא:

On a related note, the Gemara cites the following: The Sages taught in a baraita: One who was walking in the marketplace of idolators and willingly smelled the incense wafting there, he is a sinner, as he should not have the intention to smell it.

ואין מברכין על הנר עד שיאותו:

We learned in the mishna: And one does not recite the blessing over the candle until he derives benefit from its light.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא יאותו יאותו ממש אלא כל שאילו עומד בקרוב ומשתמש לאורה ואפילו בריחוק מקום וכן אמר רב אשי בריחוק מקום שנינו

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Derives benefit does not mean that the one reciting the blessing must actually derive benefit from the light of the candle. Rather, as long as if one were to stand close to the candle he could utilize its light, if he sees it he may recite a blessing over it, even if he is now standing at a distance.

מיתיבי היתה לו נר טמונה בחיקו או בפנס או שראה שלהבת ולא נשתמש לאורה או נשתמש לאורה ולא ראה שלהבת אינו מברך עד שיראה שלהבת וישתמש לאורה

The Gemara raises an objection from a Tosefta: One who had a candle hidden in his lap or placed inside an opaque lamp, or if he saw a flame and did not utilize its light, or if he utilized its light and did not see a flame, may not recite a blessing until he both sees the flame and utilizes its light.

בשלמא משתמש לאורה ולא ראה שלהבת משכחת לה דקיימא בקרן זוית אלא ראה שלהבת ולא נשתמש לאורה היכי משכחת לה לאו דמרחקא

The Gemara first clarifies the content of the Tosefta itself: Granted, a case where one utilizes its light and did not see a flame, can be found where the flame is situated around a corner, illuminating the area but hidden from his view. But how can a case where one saw a flame and did not utilize its light be found? Is it not referring to a case where one is distant? Apparently, one must actually utilize the flame; merely having the potential to utilize it is not sufficient.

לא כגון דעמיא ואזלא:

The Gemara rejects this: No. This refers to a case where the flame is gradually dimming. One sees the flame, but is unable to utilize its light.

תנו רבנן גחלים לוחשות מברכין עליהן אוממות אין מברכין עליהן היכי דמי לוחשות אמר רב חסדא כל שאילו מכניס לתוכן קיסם ודולקת מאיליה

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may recite a blessing over smoldering coals just as he does over a candle; however, over dimming [omemot] coals, one may not recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of smoldering coals? Rav Ḥisda said: Smoldering coals are any coals that, if one places a wood chip among them, it ignites on its own without fanning the flame.

איבעיא להו אוממות או עוממות

With regard to the wording of the baraita, the Gemara raises a dilemma: Does the baraita say omemot beginning with an alef, or omemot beginning with an ayin?

תא שמע דאמר רב חסדא בר אבדימי ארזים לא עממהו בגן אלהים

Come and hear a resolution, as Rav Ḥisda bar Avdimi said: The correct version is omemot beginning with an ayin, as it is stated: “The cedars in the garden of God could not dim it [amamuhu]” (Ezekiel 31:8).

ורבא אמר יאותו ממש

And with regard to the question whether or not one must actually benefit from the flame’s light in order to recite a blessing, Rava said: When the mishna said benefit, it meant that he must actually derive benefit from the light.

וכמה אמר עולא כדי שיכיר בין איסר לפונדיון חזקיה אמר כדי שיכיר בין מלוזמא של טבריא למלוזמא של צפורי

The Gemara asks: And how adjacent must one be in order to be considered to have derived benefit from the flame? Ulla said: So that he can distinguish between an issar and a pundeyon, two coins of the period. Ḥizkiya said: So that he can distinguish between a weight used in Tiberias and a weight used in Tzippori, which were slightly different.

רב יהודה מברך אדבי אדא דיילא רבא מברך אדבי גוריא בר חמא אביי מברך אדבי בר אבוה

The Gemara relates that the amora’im conducted themselves in accordance with their above-stated opinions. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rav Yehuda would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Adda, the servant, which was far from his house. Rava would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Gurya bar Ḥama, which was adjacent to his house. Abaye would recite a blessing over the light of the house of bar Avuh.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אין מחזרין על האור כדרך שמחזרים על המצות אמר רבי זירא מריש הוה מהדרנא כיון דשמענא להא דרב יהודה אמר רב אנא נמי לא מהדרנא אלא אי מקלע לי ממילא מבריכנא:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said a general halakhic principle: One need not seek out light at the conclusion of Shabbat in the manner that one seeks out other mitzvot. If no flame is available over which to recite a blessing, it does not prevent one from reciting havdala. And Rav Zeira said: Initially I would seek out light, once I heard this halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, I too do not seek out light. However, if a candle happens to become available to me, I recite a blessing over it.

מי שאכל וכו׳: אמר רב זביד ואיתימא רב דימי בר אבא מחלוקת בשכח אבל במזיד דברי הכל יחזור למקומו ויברך

Our mishna cited a dispute regarding one who ate and forgot and did not recite a blessing; Beit Shammai say: He returns to the place where he ate and recites the blessing. Beit Hillel say: That is unnecessary. He recites the blessing at the place where he remembered. Rav Zevid said and some say Rav Dimi bar Abba said: This dispute is only with regard to a case where one forgot to recite the blessing, but if he did so intentionally, everyone agrees that he must return to the place where he ate and recite a blessing.

פשיטא ושכח תנן

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. We learned in the mishna: And forgot, not if he did so intentionally.

מהו דתימא הוא הדין אפילו במזיד והאי דקתני ושכח להודיעך כחן דבית שמאי קמשמע לן

The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the same is true, that Beit Hillel permit one to recite a blessing without returning to the place where he ate, even in a case where he willfully did not recite a blessing, and that which was taught: And forgot, is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai, who require him to return to the place where he ate even if he forgot, Rav Zevid teaches us that there is no disagreement in that case.

תניא אמרו להם בית הלל לבית שמאי לדבריכם מי שאכל בראש הבירה ושכח וירד ולא ברך יחזור לראש הבירה ויברך אמרו להן בית שמאי לבית הלל לדבריכם מי ששכח ארנקי בראש הבירה לא יעלה ויטלנה לכבוד עצמו הוא עולה לכבוד שמים לא כל שכן

It was taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, one who ate atop the Temple Mount, God’s chosen place of residence, and forgot and descended without reciting a blessing, must he return to the top of the Temple Mount, God’s chosen place of residence, to recite a blessing? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Why not? And according to your statement, one who forgot his purse atop the Temple Mount, God’s chosen place of residence, would he not ascend to retrieve it? If one ascends in deference to his own needs, all the more so he should ascend in deference to Heaven.

הנהו תרי תלמידי חד עביד בשוגג כבית שמאי ואשכח ארנקא דדהבא וחד עביד במזיד כבית הלל ואכליה אריא

The Gemara relates: There were these two students who ate and did not recite a blessing. One of them did so unwittingly, and, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, returned to where he ate, and found a purse of gold. One of them did so intentionally, and, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, albeit in circumstances where they agree with Beit Shammai, did not return and a lion ate him.

רבה בר בר חנה הוה קאזל בשיירתא אכל ואשתלי ולא בריך אמר היכי אעביד אי אמינא להו אנשאי לברך אמרו לי בריך כל היכא דמברכת לרחמנא מברכת מוטב דאמינא להו אנשאי יונה דדהבא אמר להו אנטרו לי דאנשאי יונה דדהבא אזיל ובריך ואשכח יונה דדהבא

The Gemara further relates: Rabba bar bar Ḥana was once traveling with a caravan. He ate and forgot and did not recite a blessing. He said to himself: What shall I do? If I say to them: I forgot to recite a blessing, they will say to me to recite a blessing here, as wherever you recite a blessing, you recite a blessing to God. It is better that I say to them: I forgot a golden dove. Then they will wait for me while I retrieve it. He said to them: Wait for me, as I forgot a golden dove. He went and recited a blessing and found a golden dove.

ומאי שנא יונה דמתילי כנסת ישראל ליונה דכתיב כנפי יונה נחפה בכסף ואברותיה בירקרק חרוץ מה יונה אינה ניצולת אלא בכנפיה אף ישראל אינן ניצולין אלא במצות:

The Gemara asks: What is different about a dove, that he specifically said that that was the object that he forgot? The Gemara answers: Because the community of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is written: “The wings of a dove, covered in silver, and its pinions with the shimmer of gold” (Psalms 68:14). The Gemara explains the parable: Just as a dove is saved from its enemies only by its wings, so too, Israel is saved only by the merit of the mitzvot.

עד אימתי הוא וכו׳:

We learned in the mishna: And until when does he recite the blessing? Until the food is digested in his intestines.

כמה שיעור עכול אמר רבי יוחנן כל זמן שאינו רעב וריש לקיש אמר כל זמן שיצמא מחמת אכילתו

The Gemara asks: What is the duration of digestion? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As long as he is not yet hungry again. And Reish Lakish said: As long as he is thirsty due to his eating.

אמר ליה רב יימר בר שלמיא למר זוטרא ואמרי לה רב יימר בר שיזבי למר זוטרא מי אמר ריש לקיש הכי והאמר רב אמי אמר ריש לקיש כמה שיעור עכול כדי להלך ארבע מילין

Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya said to Mar Zutra, and some say that it was Rav Yeimar bar Sheizevi who said to Mar Zutra: Did Reish Lakish say that? Didn’t Rav Ami say that Reish Lakish said: What is the duration of digestion? As long as it takes to walk four mil?

לא קשיא כאן באכילה מרובה כאן באכילה מועטת:

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Reish Lakish said the duration is as long as it takes to walk four mil, is in a case where he ate a sizable meal, here, where Reish Lakish said the duration is as long as he remains thirsty, is in a case where he ate a meager meal.

בא להן יין וכו׳:

We learned in the mishna a tannaitic dispute with regard to a case where wine came before the diners after the meal, and we also learned in the mishna that one answers amen after a Jew recites a blessing even if he did not hear the entire blessing.

למימרא דישראל אף על גב דלא שמע כולה ברכה עונה וכי לא שמע היכי נפיק

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that if a Jew recites a blessing, even though one did not hear the entire blessing, he responds amen? If he did not hear the entire blessing, how did he fulfill his obligation?

אמר חייא בר רב בשלא אכל עמהן וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה בשלא אכל עמהן אמר ליה רב לחייא בריה ברי חטוף ובריך וכן אמר רב הונא לרבה בריה חטוף ובריך

Ḥiyya bar Rav said: This is not a case where one seeks to fulfill his obligation by responding amen; rather, it is a case where he did not eat with them yet still wishes to answer amen to their blessing. And so Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is a case where he did not eat with them. The Gemara relates: Rav said to his son, Ḥiyya: My son, seize the opportunity and recite a blessing quickly. And similarly Rav Huna said to his son, Rabba, seize the opportunity and recite a blessing.

למימרא דמברך עדיף ממאן דעני אמן והתניא רבי יוסי אומר גדול העונה אמן יותר מן המברך

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that one who recites a blessing is preferable to one who answers amen? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The reward of the one who answers amen is greater than the reward of the one who recites the blessing?

אמר ליה רבי נהוראי השמים כן הוא תדע שהרי גוליירין יורדין ומתגרין במלחמה וגבורים יורדין ומנצחין

Rabbi Nehorai said to him: By Heavens, an oath in the name of God, it is so. Know that this is true, as the military assistants [gulyarin] descend to the battlefield and initiate the war and the mighty descend and prevail. The amen that follows a blessing is compared to the mighty who join the war after the assistants, illustrating that answering amen is more significant than reciting the initial blessing.

תנאי היא דתניא אחד המברך ואחד העונה אמן במשמע אלא שממהרין למברך יותר מן העונה אמן

The Gemara responds: This is subject to a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita: Both the one who recites a blessing and the one who answers amen are included among those who “stand up and bless” (Nehemiah 9:5), but they hurry to reward, i.e., the one who recites the blessing, more than they hurry to reward, i.e., the one who answers amen.

בעי מיניה שמואל מרב מהו לענות אמן אחר תינוקות של בית רבן אמר ליה אחר הכל עונין אמן חוץ מתינוקות של בית רבן הואיל ולהתלמד עשויין והני מילי בדלא עידן מפטרייהו אבל בעידן מפטרייהו עונין

Shmuel raised a dilemma before Rav: What is the halakha with regard to answering amen after the blessings of schoolchildren? Rav said to him: One answers amen following everyone whom we hear recite a blessing, except for schoolchildren, as they recite blessings merely in order to learn them, not as expressions of thanksgiving. This applies specifically at a time when they are not fulfilling their obligation with the recitation of the blessing, but are simply learning. However, at a time when they are fulfilling their obligation through the recitation of a blessing, one answers amen after their blessing.

תנו רבנן שמן מעכב את הברכה דברי רבי זילאי רבי זיואי אומר אינו מעכב רב אחא אומר שמן טוב מעכב רבי זוהמאי אומר כשם שמזוהם פסול לעבודה כך ידים מזוהמות פסולות לברכה

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one does not have oil to spread on and cleanse his hands after eating, this prevents him from reciting the Grace after Meals blessing; this is the statement of Rabbi Zilai. Rabbi Zivai says: Lack of that oil does not prevent one from reciting Grace after Meals. Rav Aḥa says: Lack of fine oil prevents one from reciting Grace after Meals. One must wait until he rubs oil on his hands. Rav Zuhamai says: Just as one who is filthy is unfit for Temple service, so too are filthy hands unfit for reciting the Grace after Meals blessing.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אנא לא זילאי ולא זיואי ולא זוהמאי ידענא אלא מתניתא ידענא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא והתקדשתם אלו מים ראשונים והייתם קדשים אלו מים אחרונים כי קדוש זה שמן אני ה׳ אלהיכם זו ברכה:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said of this: I do not know of Zilai or Zivai or Zuhamai; rather, I know a baraita, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: It is stated: “And you shall sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for holy am I, the Lord your God” (Leviticus 20:26). With regard to this verse, the Sages said: And you shall sanctify yourselves, these are the first waters with which one washes his hands before the meal; and you shall be holy, these are the final waters; for holy, this is oil which one spreads on his hands; am I, the Lord your God, this is the Grace after Meals blessing.

הדרן עלך אלו דברים

May we return unto thee : The following are the points of variance !