MISHNAH: These are the matters between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel about meals. The House of Shammai say, one pronounces the benediction of the day of Friday night and holidays that has to precede the meal. and then the one over wine. But the House of Hillel say, one pronounces the benediction over wine and aftewards the one of the day.
HALAKHAH: What 10:2 (with a slightly better text). The content of this paragraph is paralleled in Babli Berakhot 51b and, in language very close to the Babli, in Tosephta Berakhot 5:25 . Both Babli and Tosephta add that “practice follows the House of Hillel,” a seemingly unnecessary statement since practice always follows the House of Hillel (except if noted otherwise.) It seems that the Tosephta is very old, from before the times of Rabban Gamliel. The Yerushalmi either suppressed the note that was no longer relevant or quotes another source which never had that statement. is the reason of the House of Shammai? The Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served; he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day 20:8 ): “Remember the Sabbath Day to declare it holy” and this obligation starts immediately at nightfall, whereas the meal is held later for technical reasons. The laws of Qiddush are discussed in Chapter 10 of Pesaḥim and reviewed in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 209–227. before the wine was served. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited may also be recited over the Sabbath bread but this is not the preferred way, at least not in the Land of Israel where wine was and is abundant.) . Another explanation: The wine is frequent, Sanctification is less frequent 2:3 , Šeqalim 8:6 , Sukkah 5:6 . Taäniot 4:5 . The principle is implied by the Yerushalmi here. Both Houses have two reasons for their positions. Wine is more frequent since it is also used during weekdays and it may also be used for Havdalah. .
Rebbi Yose said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah starts at the very moment of nightfall. , the wine comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that the Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served? But here, Havdalah does not cause the wine to be served may be recited over any alcoholic beverage (in the opinion of the Babli, over any beverage, other than water, that is common in the country.) Qiddush may be recited only over wine or possibly the Sabbath bread. ; wine therefore has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine is frequent, Sanctification of the Day is less frequent? Also here, wine is frequent and Havdalah is less frequent: the wine has precedence. Rebbi Mana said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah , Havdalah comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine came? Also here, since he is obligated for Havdalah before the wine came, Havdalah has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited? But here, the wine does not cause Havdalah to be recited: Havdalah has precedence may be recited over any alcoholic beverage (in the opinion of the Babli, over any beverage, other than water, that is common in the country.) Qiddush may be recited only over wine or possibly the Sabbath bread. .
Rebbi Zeïra said: One infers from the words of both of them that one may make Havdalah without wine but one may not make Qiddush without wine 106b ) allows one to make Qiddush over bread, at least in Babylonia where wine is hard to come by. . That is the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra since Rebbi Zeïra said: One makes Havdalah on alcoholic beverages107a ), but the practice there is spelled out that any alcoholic beverage common in a country may be used for Havdalah. Current practice allows even non-alcoholic beverages, except water, as long as they are commonly used ( Oraḥ Ḥayyim 296(2)). but one goes from one place recited over wine has precedence. to another to hear Qiddush.
The Great Rebbi Yose said: Over there, they have the custom that at a place without wine, the reader stands before the Ark Normally, evening prayers are communal without a reader. , recites one benediction that contains seven: “(1) Shield of the Patriarch, (2) He Who revives the dead by His command, (3) the Holy God, (4) Who gives rest to His people, (5) before Him we shall serve (6) and give thanks to His name, God of thanksgiving, (7) Master of peace.” Today, the benediction is recited always except the first night of Passover when everybody is required to drink four cups of wine; thus, there is no reason to replace Qiddush by public prayer. In Babylonian sources, the benediction is not mentioned explicitly; in Medieval sources, a different reason is given for the benediction. , and closes by “He Who sanctifies Israel and the Sabbath Day.”
It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Shammai, how to proceed on Friday evening if someone was sitting and eating on Friday afternoon, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine 1:2) but one may start earlier and continue until nightfall. The Talmud (Babli Pesaḥim 100a , Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 10:1, fol. 37b) reports that R. Yehudah bar Illai requires one to stop before nightfall, but R. Yose bar Ḥalaphta lets him continue, and practice follows R. Yose. It is assumed here that even the House of Shammai will accept the position of R. Yose. ? You must say that he reserves the cup until after the recitation of Grace and includes all other benedictions. Obviously, if he would want to pronounce the benediction for the day, Grace has precedence. If he wants to recite the benediction over wine, the day has precedence. One may infer this from the following ( Mishnah 8:9 ): “If wine was brought to them after the meal and there was only one cup. ” Rebbi Abba said: Because it is a very short benediction, he might forget and drink. But here, he connects everything with the cup of wine and he will not forget. How should he proceed according to the House of Shammai? He should recite Grace first, after that he makes Qidddush, and only after that he recites the benediction over the wine.
It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Hillel, how may one proceed at the end of the Sabbath if someone was sitting and eating on Sabbath, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine? You say, he reserves it until after the meal and connects everything to it. What can you say? Shall he recite the benediction for the wine, Grace has precedence. Shall he recite Grace, the light has precedence but with it a benediction for man-made fire (that was forbidden on the Sabbath and now can be kindled anew) and spices (to make up for the loss of the intensified pleasure one derives from the Sabbath that now is being lost.) The invention of man-made fire is traditionally attributed to Adam at the end of his first Sabbath, see Halakhah 6 . The problem here is that one must make the benediction for the light as soon as one profits from newly lit fire. . Shall he recite for the light, Havdalah has precedence. We may infer from the following 5:30 , Babli Berakhot 52a . In both of these sources, the House of Shammai is reported to require light before spices and the House of Hillel spices before light. R. Arieh Leib Yellin in his Yephe Enayim points out that the text of the Yerushalmi is consistent with all the inferences drawn here and in Halakhah 5 . Hence, there is a genuine difference in tradition between Galilee and Babylonia. : “Rebbi Yehudah said, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel do not disagree that Grace comes first and Havdalah at the end. They disagree only over light and spices because the House of Shammai say spices and afterwards light, but the house of Hillel say light and afterwards spices.” Rebbi Abba and Rav Jehudah: Practice follows him who says spices and afterwards light. What should he do following the opinion of the House of Hillel? He should say Grace first, afterwards he should recite the benediction over wine and afterwards Havdalah.
A holiday that starts at the end of Sabbath. Rebbi Yoḥanan said YQNH, wine, Qiddush , light, Havdalah. Ḥanan bar Abba said in the name of Rav: Wine, Qiddush , light, Havdalah, sukkah , time101b ). . Rebbi Ḥanina said, NHYQ wine, Qiddush. In the Babli ( Pesaḥim 102a ), this order is attributed to R. Joshua, the early highest authority who is given his full name, R. Joshua ben Ḥananiah. It is possible that this led to the substitution of “R. Joshua ben Levi” for “Samuel” in the following parable. However, Rashbam (R. Samuel ben Meïr), in his commentary to Babli Pesaḥim, quotes R. Ḥanina as requiring YNHQ, wine, light, Havdalah, Qiddush. But this is the undisputed order of Levi here who is described as taking a middle road between R. Ḥanina and R. Yoḥanan. The Venice print of the Yerushalmi has the impossible reading YNHYQ which is a confluence of the codes attributed to R. Ḥanina in the Babli and the Yerushalmi. . Samuel follows the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina since Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A king for the holiday. Since holidays also give one spiritual ease, spices are not added at the end of a Sabbath that is the start of a holiday. leaves and a prefect comes. One accompanies the king and only afterwards does one receive the prefect. Levi said YNHQ; first the full Havdalah and then an appended Qiddush. In the Babli ( Pesaḥim 102a ), Levi is reported as requiring QNYH, in opposition to everybody mentioned here. . It seems that Levi says it both ways before Qiddush following R. Ḥanina. . Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yose: What does one do in practice? He said to him: one follows Rav and Rebbi Yoḥanan. And so it became the practice following Rav and Rebbi Yoḥanan.
When Rebbi Abbahu went to the South, he followed Rebbi Ḥanina. When he descended to Tiberias, he followed Rebbi Yoḥanan in order not to disagree with anybody in his home town.
The opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina is understandable. It is difficult to understand Rebbi Yoḥanan: Does one not pronounce the benediction over the light at all other days that one should extinguish it The light for Havdalah is preferably a torch, but the light for a meal is from a lamp. ? And here, he makes the benediction over the light so that he should not extinguish it and should precede Qiddush irrespective of the order of Qiddush and Havdalah. [In current practice, the wife lights the candles first with her own benediction and the husband then recites his benediction (after Qiddush ) over the same lights. That does not seem to be reasonable. It may be assumed that R. Ḥanina requires either husband or wife to recite the first benediction over light.] . How does Rebbi Yoḥanan handle this? Since he has wine, his light will not go out. Then he might say the benediction over the light at the end. In order not to disturb its timing from other Sabbaths as a matter of course. .
MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that one washes his hands and after that he mixes the cup, but the House of Hillel say that one mixes the cup first and then he washes his hands cup. Qiddush is followed by a meal with bread for which one must wash his hands. The details and reasons are spelled out in the Halakhah. This disagreement has nothing to do with the question whether one washes his hands before (following R. Moses Isserls) or after (following R. Joseph Caro) Qiddush ; in both cases, the cup is filled before one washes his hands. .
HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The fluids on the back of the cup should not become impure from his hands and in their turn defile the cup A Biblical source of impurity is called אב הטוּמאה “father of impurity”. The only possible objects of impurity are humans, vessels, and food. Any object that becomes impure secondarily, usually by contact, is “first in impurity.” For profane objects, the two stages are the only ones. However, by rabbinic tradition there exists a “second in impurity” for profane and “third, fourth” for certain holy objects. The general principle is that any transmitted impurity decreases by one degree. There is one important exception. Since body fluids of a person with gonorrhea are “fathers of impurity”, it was decreed that any impurity involving fluids is at least “first in impurity.” Also, unwashed hands are always assumed to be “second in impurity.” If one touches a dry cup with unwashed hands, nothing happens. But if there should be drops of wine on the outside of the cup, these drops will become “first in impurity” and defile the contents of the cup. It is the characteristic of Rabbinic (pharisaic) Judaism that one tries to eat one’s profane meals in a way reasonably consistent with rules of ritual purity. It seems that the House of Shammai assumes that a “full cup” required for Qiddush is full to the rim, kept together only by surface tension, and, hence, it is unlikely that the back of the cup will be dry. (For pottery vessels, other rules apply.) The text of the explanation is from the Tosephta ( Berakhot 5:26 ). .
What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The back of the cup is always impure. Another explanation: Washing of the hands should be as close as possible to the benediction (R. Moshe Isserls). Here also both explanations are from the Tosephta ( loc. cit. ) .
Rebbi Vivan in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: It turns out that the House of Shammai is consistent with Rebbi Yose and the House of Hillel with Rebbi Meïr, since we have stated there ( Mishnah Kelim 25:7 )3:9–10: “R. Meïr said: How is it for impure hands? If one’s hands are impure, the outside of the cup is pure; if it has moist spots then he may hold the cup by its rim without worry. R. Yose said: How is it for pure hands? If his hands were pure and moist, but the outside of the cup impure, then he may hold the cup at the rim without worrying that the moisture of his hand should become impure from the outside and then defile his hand.” It follows that for R. Yose, the hands have to be pure (i. e., washed) and for R. Meïr they may be impure. : “Rebbi Meïr said, for impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose said, they spoke only about pure hands.”
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ḥallah is the gift for the Cohen from newly kneaded dough. It has the status of holiness of Terumah ; hence, it has to be separated from the dough in purity which, in all cases, means also that in the Land of Israel one has to wash his hands before taking it. (All other countries are impure anyhow and their ḥallah must be burned.) and for washing one’s hands, he has to walk then the Babli declares in the name of the Galilean sages that one should clean his hands with sand or any other cleaning material. up to four mil. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: That is, going forward; but one does not bother him to return on his way .
How does one treat watchmen in gardens and orchards, as before them, as after them in search of water or may they clean their hands with sand or other cleansers? ? Let us hear it from this ( Mishnah Ḥallah 2:3 ): “A woman may sit down naked and separate her ḥallah needs a benediction, it may not be done if one’s genitals are visible. A woman may hide her genitals by sitting down but a man cannot do that. because she can cover herself, but a man may not.” Is that woman not sitting inside her house and you say that one does not bother her? Also here, one does not bother him.
It has been stated 5:13 . Since the Mishnah introduces laws of washing one’s hands, the details are discussed from here on. : “Water before the meal is conditional 5 (5694), pp. 97–110]. The same language is found in the Tosephta, in Tanḥuma Balaq 15, and in other Galilean Midrashim. The Tanḥuma explains the expression “conditional” for something that is required, by “it is optional in the sense that if one decides not to eat bread with his meal, he does not have to wash his hands.” , after the meal it is obligatory. Only that for the first one he takes and interrupts2:1–3 that rules, if one washed his hands with less than a revi‘it of water for each hand then he has to wash each hand twice. However, in that case it is not true that one may interrupt the washing because if he does not keep his mind concentrated on watching his hands they become impure again. As S. Lieberman points out, one might follow the interpretation of R. Isaiah I of Trani ( Pisqe RYD on Berakhot 52a ) that the Yerushalmi here stays with the previous topic of Qiddush and speaks of washing one’s hands twice, once for Qiddush for cleanliness and after that for food for ritual purity. This agrees with Tosephta Berakhot 4:8 , which requires the washing of one hand for the wine drunk as appetizer before a formal dinner. ; for the second he takes and may not interrupt.” What is: “He takes and interrupts”? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, he takes and repeats. Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac said it reads: “Rebbi Jacob bar Isaac asked: …” This language is somewhat easier but the reading R. Samuel bar Isaac is better; since it refers to an Amora also otherwise known, there is no reason to cross out the word “said” here. In the Rome ms., the reading is: רבי שמואל בר יצחק את מימר דבעי ואת אמרת רשות “R. Samuel bar Isaac: You say that it is needed and you say that it is conditional?” , I asked: “He takes and interrupts” and you say it is conditional?
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said: Because of the first 106a , the opinion of “some say” is ascribed there to Ravin (Rebbi Abin). The full story is in Tanḥuma Buber Balaq 24 [quoted also in Tanḥuma Balaq 15, Bemidbar rabba Balaq 2(20)]: In a time of persecution, when one could not show one’s Jewishness openly, a shopkeeper had both kosher and non-kosher food prepared. Since he could not ask his customers whether they were Jewish, he gave the kosher food to people who washed before eating bread and pig’s meat to customers who did not wash. When a man came in who did not wash his hands, he was taken for a Gentile and served non-kosher food. [For halakhic consequences of this story, see Šulḥan ‘Arukh Yore Deä 178, Note #4 of Śifte Cohen. ] , pork was eaten. Because of the second 83b of a man who unlawfully kept a money-pouch that was deposited with him. He did not wash his hands, so the victimized person saw that he had eaten peas, went to the wife of the thief and told her that her husband wanted her to give him the pouch and as sign of recognition he told him to tell her that their last meal was peas. The wife then gave him back the money pouch. When the husband came back, he was so incensed that he killed his wife. It seems that the Yerushalmi has a first version in which the husband simply divorced his wife and in the second version he killed his wife, the intended victim, and himself. In the Yerushalmi source, Tanḥuma Buber, quoted above, the husband was not a thief, but he was the victim of a man who tricked the wife out of a precious ring by the identification of the food of his last meal. , a woman had to leave her house; some say, three persons were killed.
Samuel went to visit Rav and saw him eating with his hands covered by cloth. He asked him, what is that to the next water source. The parallel in the Babli is Ḥulin 107a . ? He answered him, I am asthenic. When Rebbi Zeïra immigrated here, he saw Cohanim eating with their hands covered by cloth. He told them, was not that of Rav and Samuel explained away? Rebbi Yose bar bar Cahana 107a/b ), the name is Rav Taḥlifa bar Abime, a known student of Samuel. came in the name of Samuel: Handwashing is for profane food,” he must wash his hands. While this washing is taken from the discipline of terumah , one opinion allows Cohanim to eat terumah without washing but wearing gloves since a Cohen knows that eating impure terumah is a deadly sin, so he will avoid any contact between his hands and the food. But for profane food where washing is simply a matter of discipline (although taken from the rules of terumah, ) it cannot be circumvented, cf. Babli Ḥullin 106a . , not for terumah. Rebbi Yose says, for terumah and for profane food.
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and Rebbi Jonah, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Handwashing for terumah is to the wrist but for profane food it is to the finger joints. Maisha, the grandson of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: If someone wanted to eat with my grandfather and he did not rinse his hands to the wrist, he would not eat with him106a/b . Since R. Joshua ben Levi is a higher authority than Rav, practice in both Talmudim requires washing to the wrist also for profane food. The identification of פרק as wrist and קשרי אצבעות as the joint of fingers to the hand follows Raviah (R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi), not Rashi and Tosaphot in their commentaries on the Babli. .
Rav Huna said: Handwashing is only for bread. Rebbi Hoshaya stated: For anything getting dirty by a fluid 115a to explain why at the Seder ceremony one has to wash his hands before touching the vegetable that is to be dipped in fluid. For any sacred food like terumah or the Passover sacrifice, it is obvious that one has to wash his hands before touching fluids since the secondary impurity of hands causes primary impurity for the fluid. Hence, for the Seder it is only a question whether one should pronounce a benediction, as in the times of the Temple, or whether one washes his hands as a remembrance of Temple times. Here, the question is posed for everyday food, since handwashing for profane food comes from the “discipline of terumah. ” Rav is of the opinion that the Rabbinic institution of handwashing applies only to bread whereas Rebbi Hoshaya requires handwashing for profane food in all situations where it would be required for terumah. In Antiquity, in the absence of spoons most foods in sauce were scooped up with pitta bread. Hence, the real difference between Rav and R. Hoshaya was in food handling as explained by R. Zeïra. . Rebbi Zeïra said: Even when cutting lupines, he used to wash his hands.
Rav 106b/107a ), Rav is quoted as requiring an explicit declaration to make the washing of the hands valid for the entire day and Rebbi Avina seems to restrict this to desert-like conditions where water is not easily found. The latter interpretation is then rejected by the Talmud. In the Yerushalmi it seems that Rav is reported to require only one washing per day and Rebbi Avina restricts it to people like donkey drivers who cannot easily find water. Since he is the Israeli authority, it may be presumed that the Yerushalmi prefers the interpretation that is rejected in the Babli. said: If one washed his hands in the morning, one does not bother him in the evening. Rebbi Avina commanded the donkey drivers: If you find water to wash, wash your hands and condition them for the entire day.
Rebbi Zeïra went up to Rebbi Abbahu in Caesarea. When he met him he said: Come to eat. He [R. Abbahu] gave him a loaf to break and told him: Take it and recite the benediction. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The householder knows best the qualities of his loaf. After they had eaten, he [R. Abbahu] said to him: Start and recite Grace. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The rabbi knows Rav Huna who is a great man and he used to say that he who starts is the one who finishes 46a . There, the Babli adds that practice follows R. Joḥanan (in the name of R. Simeon bar Yoḥai) who declares that the head of the household should recite the benediction for the bread since he is the host but that the guest should recite Grace and add to it a public blessing for the host. Even though the two authors quoted are Israeli, it follows from the Yerushalmi here that the public blessing for the host was never accepted practice in Galilee. . A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna, as it was stated 5:6 and a different one in Babli Berakhot 46b . It seems that the three texts represent three different traditions. : “The order of washing of the hands 4:11 : “In doubtful cases involving hands to become impure, to transmit impurity, or to be pure, they are declared pure.” Hence, since the House of Shammai agree that the entire matter is one of doubt, there is no problem since the hands of the person eating remain pure. . Up to five persons, one starts with the most important personality. More than that, one starts with the least important one. In the middle of the meal one starts with the most important one 105a/b ) quotes a baraita that declares washing of hands in the middle of the meal (between courses) to be voluntary; the exact halakhic meaning of this statement is in doubt. . After the meal one starts with him who will recite Grace.” Does that not mean that he may prepare himself for reciting Grace? If you say that the one who starts is the one who finishes, he already is prepared! Rebbi Isaac said, explain it for those who come separately and do not know who will recite Grace.
MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one dries his hands with a towel and puts the latter on the table; the House of Hillel say, on the pillow.
HALAKHAH: The Mishnah deals with a table of marble or one of parts screwed together that cannot become impure 1:10 ) even states that a wooden table that contains a frame into which a marble table top is put cannot become impure since wooden implements become impure only if they enclose a volume and in this case the frame is filled with material that cannot become impure. The table whose legs are screwed in and can be unscrewed without tools is covered by the Tosephta ( loc. cit. 1:11): “Restaurant chairs, even those having holes, that have their legs screwed in are permanently pure; if legs are fixed with a nail then they may become impure.” The parallel in the Babli (52b ) states that the House of Shammai will forbid the use of a table that is ritually unclean; both Babli and Tosephta (5:27 ) note that the House of Hillel will never allow one to put the towel on the table because the fluid on the towel might touch the food and render it impure in the second degree (and by eating from it an amount greater than the volume of two eggs one’s body becomes impure in the second degree, Mishnah Ṭahorot 2:2 ). The arguments of the Babli are incompatible with those of the Yerushalmi. . What is the reason of the House of Shammai? That the fluids on the towel should not become impure from the pillow and in turn defile his hands.
What is the reason of the House of Hillel? In case of doubt, fluids and hands are considered pure 4:11 : “In doubtful cases involving hands to become impure, to transmit impurity, or to be pure, they are declared pure.” Hence, since the House of Shammai agree that the entire matter is one of doubt, there is no problem since the hands of the person eating remain pure. . Another explanation: “Hands” are not for profane food” Hence, there is no reason to follow strict rules in case of doubt since it is a principle that doubts regarding Rabbinic institutions must be resolved leniently. .
Do the House of Shammai hold that “hands” are for profane food? Explain it either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it has been stated 1:6 in the reading of Rabbenu Simson of Sens. In the printed editions and the Vienna manuscript, the reading is “hands are of primary impurity for sacrifices.” That reading is rejected by R. David Pardo in his commentary on the Tosephta. The statement is quoted several times in the Yerushalmi and also in Babli Ḥulin 33b . The interpretation here is that profane food can become impure only from the source of impurity or primary impurity. Hence, unwashed hands must be of primary impurity in order to influence profane food. In contrast, terumah becomes unusable if it was in contact with secondary impurity; hence, primary impurity causes the same result for profane food as secondary impurity for terumah. This seems to be the opinion of Maimonides (הלכוֹת אבוֹת הטוּמאה יא׃טו), who often is influenced by the Yerushalmi, also in Ḥulin ; it is incompatible with Rashi’s interpretation of the text in Ḥulin. There it is stated that hands can become primarily impure only if held into the windows of a house afflicted with leprosy. That would not make a good reason for the House of Shammai. : “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are primarily impure for profane food and secondarily for terumah. ” Or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq, as we have stated there 2:8 , quoted in Babli Ḥagigah 20a , Ḥulin 35b . Profane food can receive only primary impurity. Terumah can receive both primary and secondary impurity; the third stage is called “unusable” since it cannot be eaten, but it does not transmit the impurity further. Sacrifices become impure also in a tertiary way; only the fourth stage is “unusable.” : “Profane food that was prepared under the rules of purity of sacrifices is still profane food. Rebbi Eleazar, the son of Rebbi Ẓadoq said, it is like terumah becoming impure in two stages and unusable in a third.”
There ( Mishnah Idiut 4:6 ) we have stated: “Someone who rubbed himself with pure oil, then he became impure, he descended for purification. and immersed himself. The House of Shammai say, he is pure even if it drips, but the House of Hillel say impure cannot touch his skin where it is covered by oil. . But if the oil was impure to start out with, the House of Shammai say, up to the anointing of a small limb 8:1, Babli Šabbat 77a ) agree that “a small limb” is a small limb of a newborn. This is the maximum amount that can become pure by immersion of one’s body. ; but the House of Hillel say, moist fluid. Rebbi Yehudah says in the name of the House of Hillel, moist and making moist.” The opinions of the House of Hillel are reversed! There they say “impure” and here they say “pure.” There it is visible, here it is absorbed in the towel.
MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one sweeps the house and after that one washes his hands. But the House of Hillel say, one washes his hands and after that he sweeps the house.
HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Because of loss of food. But what is the reason of the House of Hillel? If the waiter is intelligent he removes the leftovers, even less than the volume of an olive; then one may wash his hands and after that sweep the house.
MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say: Light, Grace, spices and Havdalah is required in addition to Grace. . But the House of Hillel say, Light, spices, Grace, and Havdalah. The House of Shammai say: “He Who created illumination by fire.” But the House of Hillel say, “He Who is creating illuminations by fire. 54a ) is called “divine inspiration.” ”
HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yehudah said, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel did not disagree that Grace comes first and Havdalah at the end. They disagree only over light and spices because the House of Shammai say spices and afterwards light, but the house of Hillel say light and afterwards spices.” Rebbi Abba and Rav Yehudah: Practice follows him who says spices and afterwards light.
The 5:29 , Babli 43b . The text of the Tosephta manuscripts is close to the Yerushalmi. In the Babli and the traditional printed text of the Tosephta, the rôles of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel are reversed. The Babli starts: “When they brought to them oil and wine …” meaning that it was brought in the middle of the dinner for enjoyment. This is the opinion of R. Abraham ben David. According to Maimonides ( Berakhot 7:14), wine and spiced oil were brought after dinner, to recite Grace over them. According to Rashi, this wine was brought after Grace had already been recited. House of Shammai say, the cup in his right hand and perfumed oil in his left hand; first he says the benediction over the cup and then over the perfumed oil. The House of Hillel say, perfumed oil in his right hand and the cup in his left hand, he recites the benediction over the perfumed oil and rubs it on the head of the waiter. But if the waiter was learned, he would rub it on the wall because it does no credit to the learned to walk around perfumed.
Abba 1089(8 ); there the names are Rebbi Abba and Rav Ḥuna. This is more reasonable, but there the names do not fit either since it says that Rav Huna insulted Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Abba told him to get up and serve. This is totally impossible since both Rebbis Abba and Zeïra were students of Rav Huna. On the other hand, the reading אבוי “his father” is impossible in the Yerushalmi since R. Abba bar bar Ḥana’s full name was R. Abba bar R. Abba bar Ḥana, which shows that he was a posthumous child and his father could not get angry with him. The most reasonable scenario is that R. Abba insulted the much younger R. Zeïra and R. Huna ordered them to switch places; but this has no manuscript evidence. bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny the particular larceny committed in using Temple property for profane ends ( Lev. 5:14–16 ). . I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said ( Ezra 8:28 ): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!
According to the opinion of the House of Shammai, should one not say: “He Who created the fruit of the vine?” According to the opinion of the House of Hillel, one should say: “Creator of the fruit of the vine.” Wine is new every year; fire is not different every hour.
Fire and hybrids were not created in the six days of Creation but they were in the Divine plan of the six days of Creation 5:31 , as reason for the benediction over fire as will be explained later. In the Tosephta, R. Yose disagrees and says the fire of hell was created on the Second Day; in the opinion of the Babli ( Pesaḥim 54a ) hell and its fire precede the Creation. The Yerushalmi takes no position on this. The text of this and the following two sections are also in Bereshit rabba 82(17); there is a parallel in Babli Pesaḥim 54a . As is normal in the Talmudim, a proposition of subjects A B is discussed in order B A. . Hybrids ( Gen. 36:24 ): “These are the sons of Ẓiv‘on, Ayyah and Anah. He is the Anah who invented the yemim in the prairie.” What is yemim ? Rebbi Yehudah ben Simon said ἡμίονος (“Half she-ass, mule”) and the rabbis say ἥμισυς (“half”), half horse and half donkey. These 8:3. The reading “R. Jonah” is from the Venice print in Kil’aim, the Rome manuscript here, and Bereshit rabba. There is no Amora who is called Rebbi Jehudah (reading of the Venice print and Leyden ms.) without mention of his father’s name. In the Babli ( Ḥullin 79a ), the criterion is ascribed to Rav Papa, fifth generation Babylonian Amora. are its signs: Rebbi Jonah says, if it has small ears, its mother is a horse and its father a donkey. If they are large, its mother is a donkey and its father a horse. Rebbi Mana ordered those of the patriarch’s estate: If you want to buy a mule, i, m. “mule”. , you should buy one with small ears whose mother is a horse and whose father is a donkey.
What did has only "Anah" and is in the singular throughout, but here it starts with two persons but then in the middle of God's speech switches from plural to singular. One has to assume that there were two texts, one dealing only with Anah and the other with Ziv'on and Anah and that our text here is a confluence of both of them. Ẓiv‘on and Anah do? He prepared a female donkey and mated her with a male horse; a mule came out from them. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to them: You brought into the world a harmful thing, I shall bring over that man something that will harm him. What did the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He prepared a snake and mated her with a Ḥardaun; a brightly colored snake came out of them. Nobody will ever tell you that he was bitten by a brightly colored snake and survived, bitten by a rabid dog and survived, hit by a mule and survived (but only by a white female mule 7b ) adds that the only mule that kills with its hoof is a white one even whose hoofs are white. .)
R. Levi in the name of Bar Nazira: Thirty-six hours did Man enjoy the light that was created on the First Day of Creation 12a ). Psalm 139 is ascribed to David in the Book of Psalms, but in all of talmudic literature it is taken to describe the experiences of Adam. , twelve on Friday, twelve in the night of Sabbath, and twelve during the day of Sabbath; in this light Adam saw from one end of the world to the other. In this unending light, the entire Creation started singing God’s praise as it is said ( Job 37:2 ), “All under the heavens sing to Him, His light is on the corners of the world.” When the Sabbath ended, darkness came. Adam was afraid that this was what was said ( Gen. 3:15 ): “You will crush its head and it will crush your heel;” certainly it will crush me, so he said ( Ps. 139:11 ), “But the darkness will crush me.” R. Levi said: At this moment the Holy One, praised be He, let him find two flintstones that he knocked against each other 54a ), the discovery of man-made fire is called “a heavenly inspiration.” and made fire; that is what is said ( Ps. 139:11 ), “Now the night is light for me,” and he praised the Creator of the illuminating fire. Samuel says: Therefore we give praise for the [man-made] fire at the end of Sabbath because that was the time of its first production.
Rav Huna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: At the end of Yom Kippur one also recites the benediction since the light had rested all that day long), one does not recite the benediction over newly lit fire. .
MISHNAH: One does not recite a benediction over a lamp and spices of Gentiles, or over lamp and spices for the dead, or over lamp and spices set before an idol. Also, one does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless he has profited from its light.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: One recites a benediction over spices of Gentiles. How can he disagree? Uphold it for someone who burns spices in front of his store.
One may make the benediction over a lantern even if it did not go out. . A lamp in his bosom or in a lantern or in glass “transparence; window panes, window (adj., plur. n.)”. This term is missing in the Tosephta (5:31 ) and the parallel in the Babli (53b ). , if he sees the flame and does not use its light, or uses the light but does not see the flame, one never recites the benediction until one sees the flame and uses the light.
Five 4:7 . There is a similar baraita in Babli Beẓah 29a but it has no reference to Havdalah. things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter 29a ) declares the prohibition of its use as Rabbinic decree. The following cases all derive from the same principle. . Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries out burning charcoal into the public domain 29a ) discusses how one could possibly move the flame without the underlying coal. is guilty but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction over the flame but not over glowing charcoal. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav which specifies explicitly that glowing but not crackling coals are not to be used for the benediction. [The title “Rebbi” in the text is again a scribal error.] : If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Yoḥanan from Karẓion in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if [the flame] is jumping off.
It was stated “A Gentile who lit from a Jew and a Jew who lit from a Gentile. 5:31 . The text continues: “One recites the benediction.” In the Babli (53a ) there is a baraita that combines the two formulations of the Yerushalmi. ” One understands a Gentile who lit from a Jew, but then even a Gentile who lit from a Gentile? It was found that it was stated: “One does not recite the benediction if a Gentile [lit] from a Gentile.”
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: A dead end street of Gentiles and one Jew lives in it, if light comes from there one recites the benediction because of the one Jew who is there. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One does not recite the benediction on the spices but about the benediction that is required for the enjoyment of perfume. In the Babli (53a ), R. Joḥanan is more explicit and says that these perfumes are burned to disinfect clothes; hence, they are not produced for human enjoyment. of Friday afternoon in Tiberias, nor on the spices of Sabbath night of Sepphoris, nor on light and spices of Friday Eve in Sepphoris, because they are for other purposes.
“Nor over lamp and spices for the dead.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose, son of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is, if they are put at the head of the bier. But if they are put in front of the bier one may recite the benediction; I say they are put there for the honor of the living.
“Nor over lamp and spices set before an idol.” Is not that of Gentiles identical with that of idolatry? Explain it with the idol of a Jew.
“Also, one does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.” Rebbi Zeïra, the son of Rebbi Abbahu, preached: ( Gen. 1:4 ) “God saw the light that it was good” and after that, “God separated between the light and the darkness. one should not make Havdalah until he saw the light and that it is useful. The same paragraph is found in Bereshit rabba 3(7 ) in slightly more explicit language. ”. Rebbi Berekhiah said: The following was preached by the two greats of the world, Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “God separated,” a true separation. Rebbi Yehudah, the son of Rebbi Simon, said: He separated it for Himself . But the rabbis say, He separated it for the just in the future world. They gave a parable, to what can this situation be compared? To a king who had two generals; both of them said: “I want to command during the day.” He called the first one and told him: day shall be your domain. He called the second one and told him: night shall be your domain. That is what is written: ( Gen. 1:5 ) “God called the light ‘day’, etc.” To the light he said: day shall be your domain; but to the darkness he said: night shall be your domain. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, that it is which the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Job: ( Job 38:12 ) “Did you ever command the morning, did you inform the morning of its place?” Do you know the place where the light of the Six Days of Creation was hidden? Rebbi Tanḥuma said: I shall give its reason. ( Is. 45:7 ) “He Who fashioned the light and created darkness, He makes peace.” When it left: “From the moment that they were created, He is making peace.” , it made peace between them.
“One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.” Rav says y ’utu , and Samuel says y ‘utu (’) and ayin (‘) (and he, ḥet ); they re-acquired the differences only later under the influence of Arabic. Similarly, under the influence of Greek, in the speech of most Galileans also aleph and ayin had become silent. Since the Mishnah was transmitted orally, there was no difference in pronunciation between the two silent consonants and the interpretation of the words depended on whether one was imagining one or the other. The particular case here is not discussed in the Babli. The examples from Eruvin and Avodah zarah are discussed following these Mishnayot in the Babli where at other places one also finds examples of a silent ח ( Beẓah 35b ) and switches between ס (s) and צ (ss) ( Bava qama 116b ). In most cases, roots of Rabbinic expressions are sought in Biblical Hebrew. . He who says y ’utu , ( Gen. 34:15 ) “But with this we shall be agreeable ( nē’ôt ) to you.” He who says y ‘utu , ( Is. 50:4 ) “To know, to inform ( lā ‘ ût ) the weary of wisdom.” There ( Mishnah Erubin 5:1 ) we have stated: How does one complete cities? Rav says m ’abb rin, and Samuel says m ‘abb e rin. He who says m e ’abb e rin, one adds a limb (אבר) to it. And he who says m e ‘abb e rin, like a pregnant (עוברה) woman. There ( Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:1 ) we have stated: Before the holidays of the Gentiles 159 . Rav says ‘êdêhen and Samuel says ’êdêhen. He who says ’êdêhen , ( Deut. 32:35 ) “For the day of their misfortune (אידם) is near.” He who says ‘êdêhen , ( Is. 44:9 ) “They 2a ), the interpretation of this verse takes up several pages. are their witnesses (עידיהם), may they neither see nor know, so that they may come to naught.” How does Samuel deal with Rav’s reason? They are their witnesses, in the future they will bring to naught their worshippers on the day of judgment.
“One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless he has profited from its light.” Rav Yehudah in the name of Samuel: So that women would be able to spin by its light. Rebbi Yoḥanan said: So that his eye should see what is in the cup or in the bowl. Rav Ḥinena said, so that he should be able to distinguish between two coins (1/24 denarius ) and a dupondius (1/12 denarius ); in the opinion of Ḥizqiah, one has to distinguish between local coins of the same weight and value but different mints. Since R. Ḥinena is the student of R. Yoḥanan, it seems that he is following Ulla’s opinion. .
Rebbi Oshaia stated: Even if it was a banquet hall of ten by ten is a banquet hall in the Roman style, the “ten” probably are not Jewish cubits but Roman passus , of 4.5 feet each. Then the distance from a light kindled in one corner to the observer in the corner diagonally opposed would be about 67 feet; based on cubits it would be 48 feet, still a great distance in an otherwise dark room. , one recites the benediction. Rebbi Zeïra went close to the light. His students told him: Why does our teacher make it so difficult for us, did not Rebbi Oshaya formulate: “even if it was a banquet hall of ten by ten, one recites the benediction?”
MISHNAH: He who ate, forgot, and did not recite Grace. The House of Shammai say, he should return to his place and recite. The House of Hillel say, he should recite at the place where he remembers it. How long may he recite? Until the food is digested in his bowels.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said: Two Amoraïm, one proposed the reason of the House of Shammai and the other proposed the reason of the House of Hillel. He who proposed the reason of the House of Shammai: If he had forgotten there a wallet full of precious stones and pearls, would he not go back and retrieve his wallet? Here also, let him return to his place and recite Grace. He who proposed the reason of the House of Hillel: A worker who worked at the top of a date palm or at the bottom of a cistern, would one bother him to return and recite Grace? No, he should recite at the place where he remembers. So here also, he should recite at the place where he remembers and the argument of the House of Hillel precedes that of the House of Shammai. Hence, its implication is that the House of Shammai require the worker to return to his dangerous place and his employer to pay for the time lost. In this case, it seems that the Yerushalmi reports a deliberate change from earlier practice in order to embody a change in labor law. .
How long may he recite? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel, until the food in his bowels is digested. But the sages say, all the time that he is thirsty because of that meal. Rebbi Yoḥanan says, until he gets hungry again, 1 hour 12 min., has no parallel in the Yerushalmi. The difference between the Galilean יתאכל and the Babylonian יתעכל is dialectal; the Babylonian Mishnah has יתעכל. Since Samuel was a medical doctor, his explanation “until the food was digested” may have been practical for him; it certainly is not practical for everybody else. It is therefore not necessary to say that R. Yoḥanan is more restrictive than the Mishnah (as is the opinion of the student of Rabbenu Jonah in his commentary on Alfassi.) .
MISHNAH: If wine was brought to them after the meal and there was only one cup. The House of Shammai say, he recites the benediction over wine and afterwards says Grace, but the House of Hillel say, he recites Grace and afterwards the benediction over wine. One answers “Amen” after a Jew but one does not answer “Amen” after a Samaritan unless one has heard the entire benediction.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba said: Because it is a very short benediction, he might forget and drink. But here, he connects everything with the cup of wine and will not forget.
Hence, one answers “Amen” after a Jew even though one did not hear. Did we not formulate: If he heard but did not answer, he did his duty. If he answered but did not hear, he did not do his duty. Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, said: when he did not eat with them the volume of an olive.
Here 3:12 ; “here” refers to the discussion of Hallel in that tractate. The entire paragraph deals with the recitation of Hallel ; the parallel in the Babli is Sukkah 38b . , a baraita states: “If he heard but did not answer, he did his duty. If he answered but did not hear, he did not do his duty.” Rav in the name of Abba bar Ḥana, or, as some say, Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rav, that is only if he answered the beginnings of chapters. Rebbi Zeïra inquired, what are beginnings of chapters? ( Ps. 113:1 ) “Hallelujah, praise, you servants of the Eternal, praise the name of the Eternal. or the first sentence of every Psalm to be recited; cf. Tosaphot Sukkah 38b, s. v. מכאן . ” They asked before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, from where do we know that if somebody heard but did not answer, that he fulfilled his duty? He said, because we see great rabbis acting accordingly. They stand in the congregation where some say ( Ps. 118:26 ): “Blessed he who comes,” and the others say: “in the name of the Eternal,” and all have fulfilled their duty 38b ) and is accepted in most Jewish groups. .
Rebbi Oshaya stated: One answers “Amen” even if he did not eat, but he may not say: “Let us bless Him, of Whose bounty we ate,” except if he did eat.
It is stated 3:27 , also Babli Berakhot 47a . : “One answers neither an orphan Amen, nor a plucked Amen, nor a hurried Amen. Ben Azai said, if one answered an orphan Amen, may his children be orphans; hurried, may the end of his days be hurried; plucked, may his soul be plucked off. For a long Amen, they lengthen his days and years in a good way.” What is an orphan Amen? Rav Huna said, that is one who sits to recite a blessing, he answers Amen, and is not conscious for what he answered Amen.
It is stated: One answers Amen after a Gentile who recited a benediction for the Eternal, [but if he recited a benediction with the Name one does not answer 5:21 ). The correct interpretation seems to be that given by R. Saul Lieberman in Tosephta kifshutah : Since the Gentile is not subject to our rules, if he praises the Eternal, one answers after him Amen. But if he uses a Jewish formula, one may not answer after him Amen unless one has ascertained that he conformed with our rules. .] Rebbi Tanḥuma said, if a Gentile blesses you, answer after him Amen since it is written ( Deut. 7:14 ) “You shall be blessed by all peoples.” A Gentile met Rebbi Joshua and blessed him. He answered: The word about you has already been said. He met a second one who cursed him; he answered: The word about you has already been said. His students said to him: Rebbi, did you say to the one what you said to the other? He said to them, so it is written ( Gen. 27:29 ): “Those who curse you are cursed, but those who bless you are blessed.”