ברכות נג

ברכות נג

אִי נֵימָא לֹא שָׁבַת מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה אֲפִילּוּ מִמְּלָאכָה דְּהֶתֵּירָא, וְהָתַנְיָא: אוּר שֶׁל חַיָּה וְשֶׁל חוֹלֶה — מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו!

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?

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי ״שָׁבַת״ — שֶׁשָּׁבַת מֵחֲמַת מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֵירָה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: עֲשָׁשִׁית שֶׁהָיְתָה דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת מְבָרְכִין עָלֶיהָ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גּוֹי שֶׁהִדְלִיק מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִדְלִיק מִגּוֹי מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו. גּוֹי מִגּוֹי — אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו.

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.

מַאי שְׁנָא גּוֹי מִגּוֹי דְּלָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא שָׁבַת? אִי הָכִי, יִשְׂרָאֵל מִגּוֹי נָמֵי הָא לֹא שָׁבַת!

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.

וְכִי תֵּימָא הַךְ אִיסּוּרָא אֲזַל לֵיהּ, וְהָא אַחֲרִינָא הוּא, וּבִידָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל קָא מִתְיַלְדָא — אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹצִיא שַׁלְהֶבֶת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — חַיָּיב. אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? מַה שֶּׁעָקַר לֹא הִנִּיחַ, וּמַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לֹא עָקַר!

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.

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי אִיתֵיהּ, וְכִי קָא מְבָרֵךְ — אַתּוֹסֶפְתָּא דְּהֶתֵּירָא קָא מְבָרֵךְ, אִי הָכִי, גּוֹי מִגּוֹי נָמֵי!

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.

אֵין הָכִי נָמֵי, גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם גּוֹי רִאשׁוֹן וְעַמּוּד רִאשׁוֹן.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ חוּץ לַכְּרַךְ וְרָאָה אוּר, אִם רוֹב גּוֹיִם — אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, אִם רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל — מְבָרֵךְ.

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.

הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ אִם רוֹב גּוֹיִם — אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, הָא מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה — מְבָרֵךְ, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי אִם רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל — מְבָרֵךְ, הָא מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה — אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ!

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.

בְּדִין הוּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה נָמֵי מְבָרֵךְ, וְאַיְּידִי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״רוֹב גּוֹיִם״, תְּנָא סֵיפָא ״רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל״.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ חוּץ לַכְּרַךְ וְרָאָה תִּינוֹק וַאֲבוּקָה בְּיָדוֹ, בּוֹדֵק אַחֲרָיו; אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא — מְבָרֵךְ, אִם נָכְרִי הוּא — אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ.

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.

מַאי אִירְיָא תִּינוֹק? אֲפִילּוּ גָּדוֹל נָמֵי!

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הָכָא בְּסָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה עָסְקִינַן. גָּדוֹל, מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דְּוַדַּאי נָכְרִי הוּא. תִּינוֹק, אֵימַר יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא, אִקְּרִי וּנְקֵיט.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ חוּץ לַכְּרַךְ וְרָאָה אוּר, אִם עָבֶה כְּפִי הַכִּבְשָׁן — מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו. וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו.

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.

תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אוּר שֶׁל כִּבְשָׁן מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו!

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.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בַּתְּחִלָּה, הָא לְבַסּוֹף.

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.

תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אוּר שֶׁל תַּנּוּר וְשֶׁל כִּירַיִם מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו!

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.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בַּתְּחִלָּה, הָא לְבַסּוֹף.

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.

תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אוּר שֶׁל בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְשֶׁל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו!

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.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיכָּא אָדָם חָשׁוּב, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא אָדָם חָשׁוּב.

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.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא הָא וְהָא דְּאִיכָּא אָדָם חָשׁוּב, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיכָּא חַזָּנָא, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא חַזָּנָא.

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.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא הָא וְהָא דְּאִיכָּא חַזָּנָא, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיכָּא סֵהֲרָא, וְהָא דְּלֵיכָּא סֵהֲרָא.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְהֵבִיאוּ אוּר לִפְנֵיהֶם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מְבָרֵךְ לְעַצְמוֹ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד מְבָרֵךְ לְכוּלָּן — מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּרׇב עָם הַדְרַת מֶלֶךְ״.

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּית הִלֵּל מְפָרְשִׁי טַעְמָא, אֶלָּא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַאי טַעְמָא? קָסָבְרִי מִפְּנֵי בִּיטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.

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.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים ״מַרְפֵּא״ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, מִפְּנֵי בִּיטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.

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.

אֵין מְבָרְכִין לֹא עַל הַנֵּר וְלֹא עַל הַבְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל מֵתִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? נֵר — לְכָבוֹד הוּא דַּעֲבִידָא, בְּשָׂמִים לְעַבּוֹרֵי רֵיחָא הוּא דַּעֲבִידִי.

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כֹּל שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין לְפָנָיו בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה — אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיאִין לְפָנָיו אֶלָּא בַּלַּיְלָה — מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו.

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.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא, וְשֶׁמֶן הֶעָשׂוּי לְהַעֲבִיר אֶת הַזּוּהֲמָא — אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו.

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.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּכֹל הֵיכָא דְּלָאו לְרֵיחָא עֲבִידָא לָא מְבָרְכִין עִלָּוֵיהּ? מֵתִיבִי: הַנִּכְנָס לַחֲנוּתוֹ שֶׁל בַּשָּׂם וְהֵרִיחַ רֵיחַ, אֲפִילּוּ יָשַׁב שָׁם כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ אֶלָּא פַּעַם אַחַת. נִכְנַס וְיָצָא, נִכְנַס וְיָצָא — מְבָרֵךְ עַל כׇּל פַּעַם וּפַעַם. וְהָא הָכָא דְּלָאו לְרֵיחָא הוּא דַּעֲבִידָא, וְקָמְבָרֵךְ!

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?

אִין, לְרֵיחָא נָמֵי הוּא דַּעֲבִידָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנֵירְחוּ אִינָשֵׁי וְנֵיתוּ וְנִזְבּוֹן מִינֵּיהּ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ חוּץ לַכְּרַךְ וְהֵרִיחַ רֵיחַ, אִם רוֹב גּוֹיִם — אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, אִם רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל — מְבָרֵךְ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל — נָמֵי אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מְקַטְּרוֹת לִכְשָׁפִים.

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.

אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ לִכְשָׁפִים מְקַטְּרָן?! — הָוֵה לַהּ מִיעוּטָא לִכְשָׁפִים, וּמִיעוּטָא נָמֵי לְגַמֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים. אִשְׁתְּכַח רוּבָּא דְּלָאו לְרֵיחָא עֲבִיד, וְכׇל רוּבָּא דְּלָאו לְרֵיחָא עֲבִיד לָא מְבָרֵךְ.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְהַלֵּךְ בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת בִּטְבֶרְיָא וּבְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּצִפּוֹרִי וְהֵרִיחַ רֵיחַ, אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ אֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי אֶלָּא לְגַמֵּר בּוֹ אֶת הַכֵּלִים.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּשּׁוּק שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נִתְרַצָּה לְהָרִיחַ — הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹטֵא.

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.

וְאֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל הַנֵּר עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ.

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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא ״יֵאוֹתוּ״ יֵאוֹתוּ מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ עוֹמֵד בְּקָרוֹב וּמִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּרִיחוּק מָקוֹם. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּרִיחוּק מָקוֹם שָׁנִינוּ.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי: הָיְתָה לוֹ נֵר טְמוּנָה בְּחֵיקוֹ, אוֹ בְּפַנָּס, אוֹ שֶׁרָאָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ, אוֹ נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ וְלֹא רָאָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת — אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה שַׁלְהֶבֶת וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ.

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ וְלֹא רָאָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ — דְּקַיְימָא בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית. אֶלָּא רָאָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? לָאו דִּמְרַחֲקָא?!

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.

לָא, כְּגוֹן דְּעָמְיָא וְאָזְלָא.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֶּחָלִים לוֹחֲשׁוֹת — מְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן, אוֹמְמוֹת — אֵין מְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי לוֹחֲשׁוֹת? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ מַכְנִיס לְתוֹכָן קֵיסָם וְדוֹלֶקֶת מֵאֵילֶיהָ.

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״אוֹמְמוֹת״ אוֹ ״עוֹמְמוֹת״?

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: ״אֲרָזִים לֹא עֲמָמֻהוּ בְּגַן אֱלֹהִים״.

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).

וְרָבָא אָמַר: ״יֵאוֹתוּ״ מַמָּשׁ.

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.

וְכַמָּה? אָמַר עוּלָּא: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּכִּיר בֵּין אִיסָּר לְפוּנְדְּיוֹן. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּכִּיר בֵּין מְלוּזְמָא שֶׁל טְבֶרְיָא לִמְלוּזְמָא שֶׁל צִפּוֹרִי.

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.

רַב יְהוּדָה מְבָרֵךְ אַדְּבֵי אַדָּא דַּיָּילָא, רָבָא מְבָרֵךְ אַדְּבֵי גּוּרְיָא בַּר חָמָא. אַבָּיֵי מְבָרֵךְ אַדְּבֵי בַּר אֲבוּהּ.

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אֵין מְחַזְּרִין עַל הָאוּר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְחַזְּרִים עַל הַמִּצְוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה מְהַדַּרְנָא, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, אֲנָא נָמֵי לָא מְהַדַּרְנָא, אֶלָּא אִי מִקְּלַע לִי מִמֵּילָא — מְבָרֵיכְנָא.

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.

מִי שֶׁאָכַל וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב זְבִיד וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב דִּימִי בַּר אַבָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשָׁכַח, אֲבָל בְּמֵזִיד, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל — יַחְזוֹר לִמְקוֹמוֹ וִיבָרֵךְ.

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.

פְּשִׁיטָא, ״וְשָׁכַח״ תְּנַן.

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

מַהוּ דְתֵימָא הוּא הַדִּין אֲפִילּוּ בְּמֵזִיד, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְשָׁכַח״ — לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, מִי שֶׁאָכַל בְּרֹאשׁ הַבִּירָה וְשָׁכַח וְיָרַד וְלֹא בֵּרַךְ, יַחְזוֹר לְרֹאשׁ הַבִּירָה וִיבָרֵךְ?! אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם מִי שֶׁשָּׁכַח אַרְנָקִי בְּרֹאשׁ הַבִּירָה לֹא יַעֲלֶה וְיִטְלֶנָּה? לִכְבוֹד עַצְמוֹ הוּא עוֹלֶה, לִכְבוֹד שָׁמַיִם לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

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.

הָנְהוּ תְּרֵי תַּלְמִידֵי, חַד עֲבַד בְּשׁוֹגֵג כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי וְאַשְׁכַּח אַרְנְקָא דְּדַהֲבָא, וְחַד עֲבַד בְּמֵזִיד כְּבֵית הִלֵּל וְאַכְלֵיהּ אַרְיָא.

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.

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲוָה קָאָזֵל בְּשַׁיַּירְתָּא, אֲכַל וְאִשְׁתְּלִי וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ. אֲמַר: הֵיכִי אַעֲבֵיד? אִי אָמֵינָא לְהוּ ״אִנְּשַׁאי לְבָרֵךְ״, אָמְרוּ לִי: בָּרֵיךְ, כׇּל הֵיכָא דִּמְבָרְכַתְּ — לְרַחֲמָנָא מְבָרְכַתְּ. מוּטָב דְּאָמֵינָא לְהוּ: אִנְּשַׁאי יוֹנָה דְּדַהֲבָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִנְטַרוּ לִי, דְּאִנְּשַׁאי יוֹנָה דְּדַהֲבָא. אָזֵיל וּבָרֵיךְ וְאַשְׁכַּח יוֹנָה דְּדַהֲבָא.

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.

וּמַאי שְׁנָא יוֹנָה? דִּמְתִילִי כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְיוֹנָה. דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּנְפֵי יוֹנָה נֶחְפָּה בַכֶּסֶף וְאֶבְרוֹתֶיהָ בִּירַקְרַק חָרוּץ״ — מָה יוֹנָה אֵינָהּ נִיצּוֹלֶת אֶלָּא בִּכְנָפֶיהָ, אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן נִיצּוֹלִין אֶלָּא בְּמִצְוֹת.

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.

עַד אֵימָתַי הוּא וְכוּ׳.

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

כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּר עִכּוּל? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָעֵב. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּצְמָא מֵחֲמַת אֲכִילָתוֹ.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא לְמָר זוּטְרָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֵׁיזְבִי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: מִי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב אַמֵּי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּר עִכּוּל? — כְּדֵי לְהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע מִילִין!

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?

לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּאֲכִילָה מְרוּבָּה, כָּאן בַּאֲכִילָה מוּעֶטֶת.

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.

בָּא לָהֶן יַיִן וְכוּ׳.

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.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא שָׁמַע כּוּלָּהּ בְּרָכָה עוֹנֶה? וְכִי לָא שָׁמַע הֵיכִי נָפֵיק?

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?

אָמַר חִיָּיא בַּר רַב: בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָכַל עִמָּהֶן, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָכַל עִמָּהֶן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְחִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ: בְּרִי, חֲטוֹף וּבָרֵיךְ. וְכֵן אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא לְרַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ: חֲטוֹף וּבָרֵיךְ.

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.

לְמֵימְרָא דִּמְבָרֵךְ עֲדִיף מִמַּאן דְּעָנֵי ״אָמֵן״? וְהָתַנְיָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּדוֹל הָעוֹנֶה ״אָמֵן״ יוֹתֵר מִן הַמְבָרֵךְ.

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?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי: הַשָּׁמַיִם, כֵּן הוּא. תִּדַּע — שֶׁהֲרֵי גּוּלְיָירִין יוֹרְדִין וּמִתְגָּרִין בַּמִּלְחָמָה, וְגִבּוֹרִים יוֹרְדִין וּמְנַצְּחִין!

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.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד הַמְבָרֵךְ וְאֶחָד הָעוֹנֶה ״אָמֵן״ בַּמַּשְׁמָע, אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּמַהֲרִין לַמְבָרֵךְ יוֹתֵר מִן הָעוֹנֶה אָמֵן.

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.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַב: מַהוּ לַעֲנוֹת ״אָמֵן״ אַחַר תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַחַר הַכֹּל עוֹנִין אָמֵן, חוּץ מִתִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן, הוֹאִיל וּלְהִתְלַמֵּד עֲשׂוּיִין. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּדְלָא עִידָּן מִפְטְרַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל בְּעִידָּן מִפְטְרַיְיהוּ — עוֹנִין.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁמֶן מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַבְּרָכָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי זִילַאי. רַבִּי זִיוַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. רַב אַחָא אוֹמֵר: שֶׁמֶן טוֹב מְעַכֵּב. רַבִּי זוּהֲמַאי אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּזֹוהָם פָּסוּל לַעֲבוֹדָה, כָּךְ יָדַיִם מְזוֹהָמוֹת פְּסוּלוֹת לִבְרָכָה.

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.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֲנָא לָא זִילַאי וְלָא זִיוַאי וְלָא זוּהֲמַאי יָדַעְנָא אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתָא יָדַעְנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם״ אֵלּוּ מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים, ״וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים״ אֵלּוּ מַיִם אַחֲרוֹנִים, ״כִּי קָדוֹשׁ״ — זֶה שֶׁמֶן, ״אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״ — זוֹ בְּרָכָה.

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