MISHNAH: Three persons who ate together are required to “invite”. If one ate demai must be eaten by a Cohen’s family in ritual purity. There is no rate set for terumah in the Torah but in times when ritual purity can be observed, the rabbinically established rate was 2 percent. Next, the tithe of 10% must be given to a Levite. This maäser again is subject to a 10% terumah of the tithe to be given to the Cohen. The remainder of this first tithe is secular private property of the Levite and need not be kept in purity. However, consumption by a non-Cohen of any food containing still terumah (and of impure terumah by a Cohen) is a deadly sin. In Temple times it was established that all Jews, educated and uneducated, observant and nonobservant alike, did separate terumah and give it to a Cohen. However, the first tithe was not given by a substantial minority of uneducated and nonobservant. Since untithed produce still contains the terumah of the tithe and its consumption would be a deadly sin, it was instituted that observant Jews have to separate at least the terumah of the tithe for produce bought from unreliable sources. Since a majority of all agricultural producers did give the tithe, the obligation to tithe is conditional and is waved for the poor. Produce sold by unreliable persons is called demai ; the rules under which demai has to be given are spelled out in a separate Tractate. In any case, since any person might give away all his property and then become poor and eat demai without tithing, demai is potentially permitted food for everybody and the person who eats it does not commit blasphemy in reciting Grace. , or first tithe of which the heave was taken, or second tithe or dedicated foods that were redeemed, or the waiter who ate the volume of an olive, or a Samaritan 17 ) who accepted the written Torah but not the oral law. [Since they did not resist the effort made by Diocletian to unify the Roman Empire in pagan rite, this statement of the Mishnah no longer applies. It does apply, however, to Karaites.] , these can be invited. But if one ate untithed produce, or first tithe of which the heave was not taken, or the second tithe or dedicated foods that were not redeemed, or the waiter who ate less than the volume of an olive, or a Gentile, these cannot be invited.
HALAKHAH: Here 45a and Talmid Rabbenu Jonah , Rosh on Mishnah 5. it has been said “they are not allowed to split” and here it has been said “they are required to ‘invite’ ”. Samuel said, one is at the start and one is at the end. What means “beginning” and what means “end”? Two Amoraïm; one said if they decided to eat together that is the start, when they ate the volume of an olive that is the end. But the other one said, if they ate the volume of an olive that is the start, when they finished their meal that is the end.
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Three are required, two have permission. Rebbi Zeïra said this before Rebbi Yasa. He said to him: I have only the Mishnah, three who ate together are required to “invite”. The rabbis of here stick by their opinion, the rabbis of there; in Babli Sanhedrin (5b/6a ) this is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Abbahu, student of R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Yoḥanan. The Babli ( Berakhot 45b ) only hints that the difference has its roots in different local traditions. stick by their opinion. Samuel said, two who judged, their judgment is valid but they are called an insolent court. Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, two who judged, their judgment is invalid.
Rav Huna said, three who ate each one by himself and then came together do “invite”. Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three groups. According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra and his group, only if all three ate together ( Berakhot 5:23 , cf. end of Halakhah 5 ) that people in a caravan, if they eat while walking, cannot recite Grace together even if they all ate from the same food, but if they sit together at a rest stop, they must recite Grace together even if everyone ate his own provisions. In contrast to the Babli, the Yerushalmi never entertains the thought that for common Grace one would have to lie down on couches. . Rebbi Jonah on that of Rav Huna: If he dipped three stalks of hyssop each one by himself and then took them together, he may sprinkle with it 19 , Mishnah Parah ). A “bunch” is a minimum of three stalks. The opinions here are attributed to the older authorities by Rebbi Jonah. . Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three bundles. According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra and his group, only if all three were dipped together. If you want to say that we do not infer rules of hyssop from rules of benedictions, do we not see the rabbis deal with sukkah and learn from pourable mud?. As we have stated ( Mishnah Sukkah 1:10 ): “If the roofing was three hand-breadths away from the walls it is invalid. is that its roof must be botanical (but only materials that cannot become ritually unclean). The branches or other material must be arranged so that there is more shadow than sun inside the sukkah . If there is a place where that condition is not satisfied for three hand-breadths horizontally from a wall, the sukkah cannot be used to fulfill the commandment “to dwell” in it ( Lev. 23:42 ). ” Hence less than that is acceptable. May one sleep under that? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashib answered, pourable mud completes a miqweh , about 135 gallons. If there is not enough clear water, the desired volume can be obtained by adding mud that is so moist that it can be poured from a bucket (Mishnah Miqwaöt 7:1). The complete argument is in Yerushalmi Sukkah 1:10 , Babli Sukkah 19a . but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the sukkah but one may not sleep under it.
Three who ate together and one wants to leave, Rav said he should recite the first benediction, then he may leave. What is the first benediction? In the Yeshivah of Rav they said, the benediction of invitation. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Jeremiah: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥanan in the name of Rav: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rav Sheshet objected, but a baraita disagrees: “Two, three are obliged to recite Grace. is according to Alfassi: If two or three people sit together and neither of them knows how to recite the entire Grace but each of them knows one or two benedictions that the others do not, then they take turns in reciting the benedictions and they all have fulfilled their obligations, the one reciting by pronouncing the benediction and the others by listening and answering “Amen”. The numbers are important to show that we require one person to recite an entire benediction; it is not permissible to split one benediction among several people. Hence, the maximal number of people who can share in reciting Grace is the number of benedictions in Grace. ” If you want to say the benediction of invitation is the first one, one should state “four.” They found stated “four.” If you want to say this is “He Who feeds all”, it is difficult. If you want to say that it is “He Who is good and does good”, you cannot do that, there is a difference because Rav Huna said that “He Who is good and does good” was fixed (Northvale NJ, 1995) p. 358–359. after permission was received to bury the slain of Betar, “He Who is good” because the dead did not decompose and “He Who does good” that they could be buried. Rav Huna said, you may explain it following Rebbi Ismael since Rebbi Ismael said Ba 16. , “He Who is good and does good” is an obligation from the Torah as it is written ( Deut. 8:10 ): You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise , that is the benediction of invitation; t he Eternal, your God , that is “He Who feeds all”; for the Land , that is the benediction over the Land; the good one , that is the benediction “builder of Jerusalem” [and so it says ( Deut. 3:25 ) “this good mountain and the Lebanon 10:34 ) “the Lebanon will fall through a powerful one” ( Babli Giṭṭin 56b ; Yerushalmi sources: Abot deR. Nathan 4, Midrash Ekha rabba 1). ”]; that He gave you , that is “He Who is good and does good”.
For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? ( Deut. 32:3 ) “For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God.” For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? ( Deut. 8:10 ): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions one has a tradition that two equal or synonymous expressions are written in the Torah for purposes of comparison and if these two words are not used for any other inference, then all laws connected with one word apply to the other and vice-versa. The derivation here does not fulfill these conditions; hence, it is labelled to follow the rules of R. Aqiba who is not known to require too much formality in case the verse is used to give a biblical base to an old tradition. . Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba on Leviticus . The problem of both Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael is that in its mishnaic-talmudic form, the rules of Jewish conduct form a logically consistent whole. It was shown earlier in this chapter, Notes 24 – 29, that rules must be consistent from one application to the next, such as rules of Grace and forming a court of law. But the basis of these laws, the words of the Torah, are unsystematic, fragmentary, and sometimes appear contradictory. Hence, one needs a method of translating the aphoristic text of the Torah in a legally consistent new language; cf. the author’s Logical problems in Jewish tradition , in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. P. Longworth, Blond, London 1966, 171–196. The rules are discussed in the medieval texts Introduction to the Talmud by R. Samuel Hanaggid and Sefer Keritut of R. Simson of Sens. . What following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference from the lesser to the greater in the name of R. Yoḥanan only and points out that the application here is not justified since it is self-contradictory. The Yerushalmi seems to be of the opinion that in the formulation given here, with “not more stringent” instead of “less stringent”, the argument is logically admissible. . If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah that needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah that needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food that needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, ( 1Sam. 9:13 ): “For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat.” ( loc. cit. ) this is given in the name of R. Nathan only. A verse from Samuel (Biblical but not Pentateuchal) cannot prove a commandment but can prove a practice. Rebbi Nathan said, ( Ex. 23:24 ) “you shall serve the Eternal, your God and give praise for your bread and your water”; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, somuch more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more this is a קל וחוֹמר of Rebbi Ismael. .
Rebbi Zeïra asked: These three that are called 21b there is a baraita : “(In reading the Torah) he who starts recites the benediction before and he who finishes recites the benediction after.” On that, the Gemara notes: But today, all recite benedictions before and after. This “today” may be long after the work on the Yerushalmi stopped. In any case, the baraita seems to represent the early Babylonian practice; we do not know of any direct Yerushalmi source that let people read the Torah without benediction. Rebbi Zeïra, the Galilean head of academy who had come from Babylonia, is the right person to ask for the reasons and the correct practice. Since his questions remain without answers, both practices might be acceptable. Both the preceding paragraph and R. Zeïra’s question presuppose that private Torah reading requires benedictions before and after, cf. מסכת סופרים Chap. 13 and Ezra Fleischer, קטעים מקובצי תפילה ארץ־ישראליים מן הגניזה, קובץ על יד יג (כג) 139–141, 188–189. , how are you treating them? As three who ate together or as three who ate each one for himself? If you treat them as three who ate together then the first one recites the benediction before, the last one recites the benediction after, and the middle one does not recite any benediction at all. If you treat them as three who ate each one for himself then even the middle one recites benedictions before and after. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, they did learn the benedictions for the Torah from Grace 4:1; the Venice print has here “benediction of ‘invitation’ ”, a scribal error הזימון for המזון. only in public 1:8 ), one benediction in the morning is enough to cover all Torah study during the day and evening; one does not have to recite a new benediction for study after an interruption. The prayer manuals of Yerushalmi type (see Note 48 ) which have benedictions after the reading of Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographs require these only for reading the Bible, not oral Torah study. . If in public, then in private one should not recite any benediction! Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said: They made it equal to other commandments of the Torah. Just as other commandments of the Torah need benedictions, this also needs a benediction 32:3 , is clearly addressed to the public and, therefore, not applicable to private study. .
“If one ate demay .” This means that, if one ate produce which perhaps was tithed and terumah of the tithe were taken so that it may be consumed without incurring guilt and perhaps was not tithed, one invites him. Rebbi Simeon, the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah: At the time when they were instituting demai , most of the unlearned brought the harvest into their houses and tithe starts when produce is brought through the door of the house (or barn). The expression here implies that most of the unlearned followed the rules and ate only produce that was in order; only because of the severity of the offense of eating ṭevel was the rule of demai decreed since a minority of uneducated did not follow the rules for produce sold; in that case the probablity of having produce that was not in order was less than 50%. There is therefore no inference possible for the problem under discussion, where the probability of things being wrong is 50%. . Which one says that? “One invites the Samaritan.” And is that Samaritan not doubtful? Rebbi Abba said, explain it following what is said for him the Mishnah simply declares that Samaritans are counted as Jews and no inference is possible for our case. The question is left without answer. : A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects.
MISHNAH: One does not ‘invite’ women, slaves, and minors. What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Yehudah says to the size of an egg.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: One makes a minor an appendix for ten services. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul was a student of Rebbi. He transmits sayings of Rebbi only. . But did we not state: One does not investigate a minor is quoted in Babli 47b : “A minor who grew two pubic hairs may take part in ‘invitation’, a minor who did not grow two pubic hairs may not take part in ‘invitation’ but one does not investigate a minor.” The other version is in Tosephta Berakhot 5:18 : “A minor who can eat an olive may take part in ‘invitation’, a minor who cannot eat an olive may not take part in ‘invitation’; one does not investigate a minor.” Most commentators refer the Yerushalmi to the version in Berakhot but it seems clear that the Yerushalmi is based on a text close to the Tosephta and emphatically disagrees with the Babli, cf. Tosephta Kifshutah , ad loc. ? Rebbi Yose said, one confirms Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi 91 ; there it says correctly “Rebbi Yose said, one confirms Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi”. The last part of the Tosephta implies that if a boy is on the threshhold of manhood ( bar miẓwah ), one can make him take part in any ceremony that needs ten adults by simply asking him if he is of age; one does not have to investigate if what he says is true. The implication here is that if one has a boy who looks younger than the age of puberty, one certainly cannot take him as tenth man. : it is needed for two minors; if he is a minor, one considers him doubtful, if he is doubtful, one considers him certain. Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose: nine that look like ten, does one “invite” only those that are certain? Also if a minor was among them?
Rebbi Berekhiah said that Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose: “What are we dealing with? There one makes him an appendix for ten, one should say that here one should make him an appendix for three. Since there one makes him an appendix for the mention of the Divine Name, here, when one does not mention the Divine Name, a fortiori should one make him an appendix.” He answered him: “It is not a fortiori ! There, since they must mention the Name, one makes him anappendix; here, since one does not recite the Name, there is no need to make him an appendix!”
It has been stated: One may take a minor and a Torah scroll as appendix. Rebbi Judan said: So is the baraita : One may take a minor as appendix for the purpose of Torah reading is close to a statement of Rav Huna in the Babli (47b ) which there is corrected differently. .
When does one start to make him an appendix? Rebbi Avina said: Rab Ḥuna and Rav Yehudah disagreed, both in the name of Samuel. One said, that he has to understand the nature of a benediction; the other one said that he has to understand to Whom one has to recite the benediction. Rebbi Nassa said, many times did I eat with my father Taḥlipha and my uncle Aninia bar Sisai and they did not recite the ‘invitation’ with me until I grew two pubic hairs.
Samuel bar Shilat asked before Rav, but some say that it was asked before Rav Samuel bar Shilat: Nine ate bread and one ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Eight ate bread and two ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Seven ate bread and two ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Rebbi Avina asked: What is the rule for half and half? Rebbi Zeïra said, as long as I was there, I would have needed that. I regret that I did not ask.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: May he who ate vegetable recite Grace? Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! It has been stated: 300 nezirim could terminate his vow only if he offered a sheep as holocaust sacrifice, a female sheep for a sin-offering, and a goat for a family sacrifice ( Num. 6 ). Most of these nezirim were poor people who relied on charity to fulfill their obligations in the Temple. came in the days of Simeon ben Shetaḥ. For 150 of them he found an opening regret his original decision to become a nazir ; this invalidates the vow retroactively so that no sacrifice may be brought. , for 150 of them he did not find an opening. He came to king Yannai and said to him: There are here 300 nezirim who need 900 sacrifices. You should give half of them from your side, I shall give half from my side. The king sent him 450 animals. An informer went around and said that the other one had not given anything from his own money. King Yannai heard about it and got angry. Simeon ben Shetaḥ feared and fled. After some time, important people from the Persian empire came to king Yannai. At the meal, they said to him: We remember that there was here an old man who gave us a rabbinic discourse. He told them what had happened. They said to him, send and bring him! He sent and gave him his word; he came and sat between king and queen. He said to him, why did you trick me? He said, I did not trick you; you with your money and I with my learning, as it is written ( Eccl. 7:12 ) “In the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money.” He said to him, why did you disappear? He said to him, I heard that my lord was angry with me and I wanted to fulfill the verse ( Is. 26:20 ) “Hide a little bit until the rage passes;” he used about himself ( Eccl. 7:12 ): “Knowledge is an advantage, wisdom lets its possessor live.” He said to him, why did you sit between king and queen? He said to him, it is written in the book of Ben Sirach: “Esteem it and it will raise you and set you between princes.” He said, bring him a cup that he may recite Grace. He took the cup and said: “Let us give praise for the food that Yannai and his company ate.” He said to him, are you still obstinate as ever? He said to him, what should I say, “for the food that we did not eat?” He said, bring him something that he may eat. They brought, he ate and recited: “For the food that we ate.” Rebbi Yoḥanan said, his colleagues disagree with Simeon ben Shetaḥ. Rebbi Jeremiah said, about the first action 51 . [In the Babli, 48a , it is R. Abba the son of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of R. Yoḥanan who declares that Grace cannot be recited by someone who did not eat bread. But the Babli cannot be used for the text of the Yerushalmi.] ; Rebbi Abba said, about the second action. Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! There he wondered about it and here it is obvious for him! He wondered following the Sages; it is obvious for him following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. We have stated about this: If one was lying on a couch and ate 5:5 , and the prints of the Midrash, this is labelled “words of the Sages.” But in the Tosephta (5:20 ) and manuscripts of the Midrash (and in the Babli 48a ), the statement is attributed to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. It seems that the attribution here to the Sages is a scribal error since the opinion attributed to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the last baraita is the one given in the Tosephta and R. Jeremiah is reported as following the latter’s opinion in the interpretation of the story of Simeon ben Shetaḥ. with them, even if he did not eat grain the volume of an olive one ‘invites’ with him, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One never ‘invites’ anyone unless he had eaten grain the volume of an olive. But did we not formulate, “two bread and one vegetable, then one ‘invites’?” This baraita follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.
MISHNAH: How does one ‘invite’? If there are three, he says: let us praise. If there are three in addition to himself, he says: praise! If there are ten, he says: let us praise our God. If there are ten in addition to himself, he says: praise! There is no difference between ten and ten myriads. If there are a hundred, he says: let us praise the Eternal, our God. If there are a hundred in addition to himself, he says: praise! If there are a thousand, he says: let us praise the Eternal, our God, the God of Israel. If there are a thousand in addition to himself, he says: praise! If there are ten thousand, he says: let us praise the Eternal, our God, the God of Israel, God of Hosts, Who thrones over the Cherubim, for the food that we ate. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the praise has to be according to the multitude of the assembled, as it is said ( Ps. 68:27 ): “In assemblies praise God, the Lord, from the root of Israel.” Rebbi Aqiba said, do we not find in the synagoge that one recites “Praise the Eternal” whether there are many or few? Rebbi Ismael says, “Praise the Eternal, the Praised One!”
HALAKHAH: Clarification. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis, were sitting and eating together. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa took the cup and said “let us praise”, he did not say: “praise!”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked him, why did you not say “praise!” He said to him, did we not state 5:18 , Babli 50a . : “One does not insist on the formulation. Whether he says ‘let us praise’, or he says ‘praise!’, one does not criticize him, but the pedants is נקרנין “nitpickers.” The Babli (50a ) interprets the Tosephta to mean that “praise!” is acceptable but not preferred; the Yerushalmi seems to accept Samuel’s statement (also Babli 49b ) at face value that “praise!” should not be used in practice. criticize him for that.” Rebbi Zeïra felt badly that Rebbi Jacob bar Abba had called Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba a pedant.
Samuel said: I do not want to exclude myself from the group. They objected: look at the benediction for the Torah where he says “praise!” Rebbi Abun said, since he will conclude by “the Praised One”, he does not exclude himself from the group.
Rebbi Abba bar Zamina waited upon Zeïra and mixed him a cup. He said to him: Old man, make the benediction, and have the intention of drinking another one, as we have stated: The waiter makes a benediction for every single cup 107b ), this baraita is a statement of Rav and is restricted there to formal dinners. The Babli also quotes an opinion of the Galilean R. Yoḥanan that for solid food also the waiter cannot make a benediction for the uncertain future; since this is not mentioned here one has to conclude that the Yerushalmi rejects the distinction made in the Babli. but not for every morsel. He answered him: Just as I have the intention of absolving you of your obligation by the benediction so you must have the intention of absolving me of my obligation but is valid for all obligations that may be fulfilled by listening.) by “Amen”. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, a Mishnah ( Rosh Hashanah 4:8) states this: The absent-minded in order to learn the technique cannot by the same act fulfill his obligation, neither can anyone who hears him. But in our application, the intended meaning is “absent-minded.” R. Abba bar Zamina’s implication is that in hearing a benediction one must answer “Amen” in order to make sure that the listener is not absent-minded either. This explains the placing of this paragraph here, following another one where also one person recites Grace in order for all others (even a hundred thousand) to be freed from their obligation. did not fulfill his obligation and he who heard from the absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation.
“If there are a hundred” etc. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jose the Galilean, but the Sages say “there is no difference between ten and ten myriads”. Rava 1:3 (fol. 60b)] as Rebbi (!) Abba bar Josef [in the parallel in the Babli, based on the Yerushalmi, his full name is given as Rava bar Rav Josef bar Ḥama in contrast to Babylonian material where his name consistently is only Rava]. In the Babli, (50a ) Rava is quoted as saying that “the people follow R. Ismael”, i. e., there is no binding ruling in the matter but a silent consensus, whereas the statement in the Yerushalmi indicates a rabbinic ruling. said, practice follows him who states that there is no difference between ten and ten myriads.
From where that “congregation” means ten people 19:2 “Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel and tell them: conduct yourselves in holiness because I, The Eternal, your God, Am Holy” and Lev. 22:32 “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel.” The same discussion is reported Megillah 4:4 , Sanhedrin 1:4. The parallel discussion in the Babli, Megillah 23a , in the name of the first generation Rebbi Ḥiyya, is based on the second verse and is intelligible only if it is understood as reference to the derivation in the Yerushalmi. ? Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: It is said here “congregation” and it says there 19:2 , “there” to Num. 14:27 : “How long for this evil congregation”, speaking of the ten spies who argued against entering the Land. There were twelve spies in all; Joshua and Caleb were in the opposition; accordingly there were ten evil persons who formed the congregation. “congregation”. Since “congregation” mentioned there means ten, so also “congregation” mentioned here must mean ten. Rebbi Simon said, it is said here “in the midst” and it is said there “in the midst” ( Gen. 42:5 ): “The sons of Israel came to buy grain in the midst of those who came.” Since “in the midst” said there means ten, so also here it must mean ten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, if you deduce from “in the midst”, there are too many of them 22:32 , “in the midst” must mean 600’000 adult males. In the Babli, Lev. 22:32 is used to establish a formal parallel, known as gezerah shawah , between this verse and the one from Genesis. The latter verse is then used to arrive at the number ten (since of the twelve tribes, Joseph and Benjamin were missing). From the Babli it seems that there was a tradition linking the two verses (since in its opinion, gezerah shawah must be based on a tradition) and, therefore, R. Simon is forced to quote a verse that in itself seems to be less adequate than the one used before. . But it is said here “the children of Israel” and it is said there “the children of Israel.” Since “children of Israel” said there means ten, so here it also must mean ten.
How do the Sages use the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? “In assemblies”, in each separate congregation. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written במקהלת to support the position of the Sages; the Masorah to Num. 32:25/26 (composed several centuries after the conclusion of the Talmudim) notes that מקהלת appears as geographical name only in Num. and that in Psalms, מקהלוֹת is a hapax legomenon . The parallel Babli (50a ) refers the verse in Psalms, in the name of R. Meir, to the choir of children at the Red Sea, a tradition more justly attributed to Rabban Gamliel in Yerushalmi Soṭa 5:6 . .
Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi rose to read in the Torah and said “Praise the Eternal,” he did not add “the Praised One!” They wanted to silence him. Rav said to them, let him, because he follows Rebbi Aqiba in reciting liturgical poems in the prayers, whereas the autochthonous Yeshivah of Pum Beditha (Nahardea) never recited them.] Rav Ḥiyya Bar Ashi became a member of Rav’s Yeshivah but kept the old Babylonian minhag following Rebbi Aqiba. Rav had to explain to his students that this way also is acceptable. The parallel in the Babli (50a ) tells a similar story about Rafrem bar Papa, a student of Rav’s student Rav Huna; there, Rava notes that even in Babylonia “the people follow Rebbi Ismaël.” This shows that common practice was settled only three generations after Rav. (The Rome ms. has “Rav Ada” instead of “Rav”. Since Rav Ada was one of Rav’s students, ranking much below Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the reading has to be rejected.) . Rebbi Zeïra rose to read as Cohen in place of a Levite and recited the benediction before and after. They wanted to silence him. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said to them, let him, because that is their way of doing it 3:1 , was that the first to read in the Torah pronounced the benediction before the reading and the last one the benediction after the reading. Even in Mishnaic times it became customary that every reader recited his own benediction. Here, Rebbi Zeïra had read his portion as Cohen; in the absence of a Levite he was called a second time to read and he started by reciting the benedictions again. It is reported in the Babli ( Avodah Zarah 16b ) that R. Zeïra studied some time in the Yeshivah of R. Ḥiyya bar Ashi after having been ordained by Rav Yehudah and before his immigration to Galilee. The action of R. Zeïra, therefore, reflects the practice of the Yeshivah of Nahardea. .
It is written ( Neh. 8:6 ): “Ezra praised the Eternal, the great God.” In what did he declare Him great? He declared Him great by the Explicit Name. Rav Mattanah said, he declared Him great by a benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why are they called the Men of the Great Assembly 3:8 ; in Babli Yoma 69b it is spelled out that Rav Mattanah means the first benediction of the ‘Amidah that contains the sentence “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God” chosen by the Men of the Great Assembly, and the observation of R. Joshua ben Levi is intended to buttress the argument of Rav Mattanah. ? Because they returned the Crown to its former status. Rebbi Phineas said, Moses fixed the formula of benediction, ( Deut. 10:17 ) “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God.” Jeremiah said ( Jer. 32:18 ): “the Great, Strong God,” but he left out “Awesome.” Why did he say “the Strong”? He may rightly be called strong because He sees the destruction and is silent. And why did he not say “the Awesome”? Awesome is only the Temple, as it is said ( Ps. 68:36 ): “Awesome is the Eternal from Your holy place.” Daniel said ( Dan. 9:4 ) 1:5 . : “the Great and Awesome God,” he did not say “the Strong”; His sons are put in neck-irons “neck-iron.” , where is His strength? Why did he say: “the Awesome?” He may well be called “the Awesome” by the wonders He did for us in the fiery oven. But when the Men of the Great Assembly came,they restituted Greatness to its former place, “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God.” Does flesh and blood have power to set limits in these matters? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, the prophets know that their God is Truth and they will not fawn before him.
MISHNAH: Three who ate together are not permitted to split, neither are four or five. Six may split and so on up to ten. Ten may not split and so on unless they are twenty.
HALAKHAH: It was stated: If one was eating sitting down on Sabbath and forgot and did not mention Sabbath, Rav said: he must repeat, and Samuel said: he need not repeat 8:10 cannot be a reason for repeating Grace. .
Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: If one is in doubt whether he mentioned the New Moon or did not mention it, one does not make him repeat Babli have “Rav” instead of “Samuel”; this seems to be the correct reading. According to the Babli, one does not have to repeat even if he is sure that he did not mention the day; according to the way the Yerushalmi quotes the formulation, one has to repeat even if there was only a doubt that he did not mention the day. . They found a dissenting statement: On every day that has a Musaph sacrifice (e. g., the day of the new moon and the intermediate days of holidays,) he must mention the occasion and if he did not mention it, one makes him repeat. But on every day that has no Musaph sacrifice (e. g., Hanukkah and Purim,) he must mention the occasion but if he did not, one does not make him repeat.
Ḥanan bar Abba and the colleagues were eating on Sabbath. After they had eaten and recited Grace he got up and left. When he returned, he found them reciting Grace. He said, did we not recite Grace already? They said to him, we recited, but now we recite again because we forgot to mention the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna (Rav Jeremiah extends it in the name of Rav) did not say so: If he forgot to mention the Sabbath, he says: He Who gave rest to His people Israel. Here if he turned his mind away, there if he did not turn his mind away.
It is stated 5:23 . In both these texts, the second sentence reads “if they sat down to eat”; this is interpreted in the Babli to mean that they are sitting together by a common decision. Hence, they form a group and have to recite Grace together. The language of the Yerushalmi, “they sat down and ate,” points to a spontaneous act that would not require Grace to be recited in common in the opinion of the Babli. : Ten people walking on the road, even if all of them eat from the same loaf, each one recites Grace for himself. If they sat down and ate, even though each one eats his own loaf, one recites Grace for all of them. Rebbi Jeremiah “invited” his colleagues at an inn.
MISHNAH: Two groups that ate in one house, if some of one group saw some of the other group they join in “invitation”; otherwise, each group recites the “invitation” for itself. One does not recite a benediction over wine unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: For two houses, there is a problem 50b read the statement as: “[The Mishnah] is only needed for two houses,” the inference being that if they see one another they can join in saying Grace. This transfers the meaning of Babylonian צריכא (“it is necessary”) to the Palestinian expression נצרכה (“it is problematic”) used here!} .
Rebbi Yoḥanan said, it applies only if they entered with that in mind.
What do you do with those at the house of the patriarch, like one house or like two houses? Let us say that if they usually walk over from one group to the other then they “invite” together; otherwise they do not “invite” together. Rebbi Berekhiah used to place his speaker in the middle of the door of the house of study and he recited the “invitation” together with both groups.
“One does not recite a benediction over wine unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer that one has to add a small amount of water into the cup used for Grace. The rabbis do so for the Qiddush cup. The statement of Rebbi Yose disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah tasted it and restored it of Friday evening, then left the rest standing in the cup and “repaired” it the next morning by filling it again with more wine. As will be explained later in this Halakhah, a cup that has been drunk from cannot be used for another benediction; hence, it has to be replenished. The question is, if R. Jonah put water into his Qiddush cup, how could he leave it standing half full through the night? . If you imply that it was mixed, did we not formulate: He who drinks mixed drinks that were standing through the night, his blood is on his head. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, that is only if it was standing in metal vessels 17a ); the baraita is very close to the text in Derekh Ereẓ Rabba, Chapter 11. Both of these sources give a list of things that are dangerous to one’s health. In the Yerushalmi, the statement of R. Yoḥanan answers the question raised: R. Jonah might add water to his wine as long as his cup was not of metal. .
Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The first generations asked whether the left hand may help the right hand with the cup used for reciting Grace. You may infer from this three things. You infer that one must hold the cup with his right hand, that one’s hand must be lifted from the table at least a hand-breadth, and that one has to look at the cup.
Rebbi Aḥa said: Three things were said about the cup of Grace: full, decorated, and washed. All three come from one verse ( Deut. 33:23 ): “Naphtali is satiated with goodwill, full of the blessings of the Eternal.” Satiated - decorated, goodwill - washed, full as its acception. Rebbi Ḥanina said, if you did so, what is written there: “West and South his inheritance,” you merit to inherit this world and the world to come.
Rebbi Eleazar said: One does not recite benedictions on a damaged cup. If one tasted from it, he damaged it. You may infer from this three things. You infer that one does not recite benedictions on a damaged cup. And that it must contain a measure. And if one tasted from it, he damaged it a quarter log ) to be valid. In the Babli ( Pesaḥim 105b/106 a), the derivation is both from the argument given here and from a baraita about Havdalah after the Sabbath. The parallel argument would have been to derive the necessity of a minimal volume of wine from the next paragraph which implies that if one does not have enough wine for Qiddush both Friday night and Sabbath morning one leaves all the wine for the morning. Otherwise, one simply could divide the wine and drink the volume of a liquor glass each time. The order of topics here does not exclude that this also is the Yerushalmi reasoning. .
Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said: The honor of the day takes precedence over the honor of the night. The Qiddush of the night takes precedence over the Qiddush of the day. What is the honor of the day? Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Eleazar bar Joseph in the name of Rav: “He Who created the fruit of the vine. is in the night. The obligation of honoring the Sabbath is mainly during the day. Hence, if there is only one cup of wine, Qiddush of the night should be recited over bread. The honor of the day, referred to in the Babli euphemistically as “great Qiddush ,” consists in reciting the benediction over wine only, without any additions, over a specially dedicated cup of wine. This is reported and endorsed in the Babli ( Pesaḥim 106a ) as the action “of an old man,” confirming a Yerushalmi practice. ”
Rebbi Zeriqan, son of the father-in-law of Rebbi Zeriqan, mentioned Ḥanukkah in “the Land” and they praised him in Halakhah 5 that Ḥanukkah should be mentioned. Here, the place of the mention is fixed in the second benediction of Grace. The Babli ( Šabbath 24a) concurs, but notes that the mention is not obligatory. . Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, mentioned “the true Judge 46b ) quotes a baraita in the name of Rebbi Aqiba which seems to imply that in a house of mourning the benediction “He Who is good” is replaced by “the True Judge”; the Talmud then reinterprets the baraita to mean that “the True Judge” is inserted in “He Who is good.” The Yerushalmi here gives a date for the re-interpretation. ” in “He Who is good and does good” and they praised him.
Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If one eats walking, he stands still for Grace. If one eats standing, he sits down for Grace. If one eats sitting, he reclines but is rejected. There it is declared that one always recites Grace sitting upright. There as here, this is the end of the Chapter; one has to see in the Babli an intentional answer to the Yerushalmi. for Grace. If one eats reclining, he wraps himself in his toga with tzitzit. for Grace. If one acts in this fashion, he is like an Angel of Service. What is the reason? ( Is. 6:2 ) “With two [wings] he would cover his face, and with two [wings] he would cover his feet.”