Berakhot 33a — the Talmud in English

And thus they appeased the officer.

He said to him: If you had been standing before a flesh-and-blood king, and your fellow came and greeted you,

would

you have ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

returned his greeting

a greeting?

He said to him

the officer:

No!

He said to him

the pious man:

And if you had returned his greeting, what would they have done to you

in the king’s palace?

He said to him

the officer:

They would have cut off my head with a sword!

He said to him

the pious man:

Is this not a kal va-chomer? And if you, who had been standing before a flesh-and-blood king, who today

is

here, and

tomorrow

he will be

in

the grave,

you would have feared

so

his punishment, and you would not have returned a greeting before him.

I,

who had been standing in prayer

before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He, who lives and endures forever and for all eternity, all the more so

should not have interrupted before Him and returned your greeting!

Immediately that officer was appeased, and

from him

that pious man departed to his home in peace.

We learned in the Mishna:

Even if a snake is coiled around his heel, he may not interrupt.

Rav Sheshet said: They taught

that “he may not interrupt”

only

with

a snake,

because there is no danger in it,

but

when there is a

scorpion

on his heel, it is dangerous, because a scorpion is more ready to sting than a snake is ready to bite, and therefore he

interrupts

his prayer.

It was objected:

If someone was seen who

fell into a den of lions, they do not

testify concerning him that he has died,

to permit his wife to marry. This is because it is not certain that he died because of this, since sometimes the lions are not hungry and do not eat him.

But if they saw him

fall into a pit full of snakes

or

scorpions,

then they

testify concerning him that he has died!

This indicates that it is certain that the snake will kill him. How, then, did Rav Sheshet say that a snake is not dangerous?

The Gemara answers:

It is different there

when he fell into a pit,

because on account of the pressure [

pressure] that presses against the snakes through his falling,

they harm

him!

Rabbi Isaac said:

If he was standing in prayer and

saw oxen

coming toward him, he

interrupts

his prayer, because even with an innocuous ox there is danger. As

Rav Oshaya taught: One distances himself from an innocuous ox

[which has not been established as a goring ox]

fifty cubits

because of the danger,

and from an ox accustomed to gore

[which gored three times] he distances himself

as far as his eyes can see!

A tanna taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: If the head of an ox is in a basket, go up to the roof and throw the ladder down from beneath you!

That is, an ox is a dangerous living creature, to such an extent that even when it is occupied with eating from a basket of straw, flee from it, go up to the roof, and throw away behind you the ladder leading up to the roof, so that it will not climb after you and harm you [and he said this by way of exaggeration, that one must be especially careful concerning it].

Samuel said:

What they said, that an ox is a dangerous living creature,

applies to a black ox, and during the days of Nisan, because

then

the Satan dances between its horns!

For once the autumn days have passed, during which the earth became dry, and now it sees it filled with vegetation, its spirits become elevated, and the evil inclination enters it.

The Sages taught: There was an incident in one place where there was

a

wild creature [

a living creature born from the crossbreeding of a snake and a tortoise],

and it was harming people. They came and informed Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa.

He said to them: Show me its hole!

They showed him its hole. He placed

Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa

his heel at the mouth of the hole; the wild creature emerged

and

bit him

Rabbi Hanina,

and that wild creature died. [

For when the wild creature bites a person: if the wild creature reaches the water first, the person dies; whereas if the person reaches the water before it, the wild creature dies. A miracle occurred for Rabbi Hanina, and a spring split open beneath his heel, and therefore the wild creature died] .

He took

Rabbi Hanina the wild creature

on his shoulder and brought it to the study hall. He said to them: See, my sons: it is not the wild creature that kills; rather, sin kills!

At that moment they said:

Woe to the person whom

a wild creature encountered, and woe to the wild creature that Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa encountered!

Mishna:

We mention the might of rains ["

He makes the wind blow and causes the rain to fall"]

in

the blessing of

the Revival of the Dead.

And the request

for rain [“Give dew and rain”] we mention

in the blessing of the years!

And the havdala ["

You have graciously granted us knowledge"] in the prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat and the Festival, we mention

in the blessing of graciously granting knowledge!

Rabbi Akiva says: He says it

for havdala as a

blessing

by itself, as the fourth blessing,

before the blessing of graciously granting knowledge, and concludes it: “Blessed are You, Hashem, who distinguishes between sacred and ordinary.”

Rabbi Eliezer says: He says

the havdala

in

the blessing of

thanksgiving!

The reason is that in it we give thanks to Hashem for granting us the merit to recognize and distinguish between sacred and ordinary.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

We mention the might of rains

in the Revival of the Dead!

The Gemara discusses:

What is the reason?

Rav Yosef said: Since the descent

of rain

is equivalent to the Revival of the Dead, therefore they established it

the Men of the Great Assembly

in the Revival of the Dead!

For just as the Revival of the Dead brings life to the world, so the descent of rain brings life to the world.

We learned further:

“And the request, in the blessing of the years,”

and here too the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason?

Rav Yosef said: Since it is

a need for

livelihood, therefore they established it in the blessing of

the years, which itself is also a request for

livelihood.

livelihood.

We learned further:

“The havdala in the blessing of graciously granting knowledge,”

and here too the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason?

Rav Yosef said: Since

the havdala

is wisdom,

for a wise person knows how to distinguish between sacred and ordinary and between impure and pure,

they established it in the blessing of

the

wisdom!

Through knowledge we recognize the importance of rest, and we know how to distinguish between sacred and ordinary.

And the Rabbis say

that the reason they mention havdala in the blessing of graciously granting knowledge is:

Since

the havdala

is

the mention of the departure of the sacred and the entrance of the

ordinary, therefore they established it at the

beginning of the

blessing

of the

ordinary,

which is “graciously granting knowledge,” for the first three blessings are recited even on Shabbat.

Rabbi Ami said: Great is “knowledge,” which was given at the beginning of the blessing of the ordinary

in “graciously granting knowledge.”

And Rabbi Ami said: Great is knowledge,

because

it was placed between two letters

[two mentions of the Name]!

As it is stated

[I Samuel 2:3]

“For a God of knowledge is Hashem.”

And anyone who does not possess knowledge, it is forbidden to have mercy upon him,

as it is stated

[Isaiah 27:11]

“For it is not a people of understanding; therefore its Maker will not have mercy upon it.”

because it was placed between two letters. As it is stated [Exodus 15:17]: “The place of Your dwelling, which You have made, Lord; the Temple of the Lord which Your hands have established.” And Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who possesses knowledge

Rabbi Elazar said: Great is the Temple,

because

it was placed

between two letters.

As it is stated [Exodus 15:17], “The place of Your dwelling,

which You made, Hashem, the Temple of Hashem

established by Your hands.”

And Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who possesses knowledge,

he is

as though the Temple were built in his days!

For

knowledge was placed between two letters,

just as

the Temple was placed between two letters,

as stated.

Rav Aha of Karkinah challenged this: If that is so,

should we also say this:

Great is vengeance, which was placed between two letters!? For

even concerning it

it is stated

[Psalms 94:1]

“God of vengeance, Hashem.”

He said to him: Yes,

indeed this matter is correct, for even vengeance,

in its matter

[in the place where it is necessary]

is great at least!

And this is what Ulla said:

concerning the verse “God of vengeance” in the plural

why are these two acts of vengeance needed? —

one act of vengeance

for good, and one for evil.

An act of vengeance

for good —

as

it is written [Deuteronomy 33:2]

“He appeared from Mount Paran,”

and they expounded [Bava Kamma 38a]: From Paran He appeared and declared the property of the gentiles ownerless for Israel. [Therefore, an ox belonging to an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to a gentile is exempt].

And an act of vengeance

for evil —

as

it is written, “God of vengeance, Lord, God of vengeance, appear,”

to exact retribution from the gentiles who did not wish to accept the Torah.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva says: He recites it as a fourth blessing

by itself.

Rav Shaman bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Since the Men of the Great Assembly instituted for Israel

blessings and prayers, sanctifications

and separations,

then what room is there for this dispute? After all,

let us see where they instituted

separation

?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

At first,

when they came up from the exile and were poor, and were unable to purchase wine,

they established it

the separation

in the prayer.

But after they

became wealthy

and were able to purchase wine, they nullified the separation in the prayer and

established it over the cup

of wine. At that time, Ezra’s enactment, which had established it in the prayer, was forgotten. Afterwards, they again

became poor

and could not afford to purchase wine, and they

reestablished it in the prayer,

and then they disputed where it had originally been established.

And they said:

when they reestablished it in the prayer —

one who separates in the prayer,

if he has the possibility of obtaining a cup of wine, initially

must separate

also

over the cup!

It was likewise stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The Men of the Great Assembly instituted for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and separations. At first they established it

for separation

in the prayer; they became wealthy, they established it over the cup; they again became poor, they established it in the prayer. And they said: One who separates in the prayer must

separate over the cup.

It was likewise stated: Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: One who separates in the prayer must separate

also

over the cup.

Rabba said: We raise an objection against our teaching

concerning what I said, that he must separate also over the cup, from what we learned in a beraita:

If one erred and did not mention the powers of rain in the Resurrection of the Dead, and [did not mention] the request [for rain] in the blessing of the years, we make him return.

But if he erred

and

did not mention

separation in “Who grants knowledge,” we do not make him return,

because he can recite it over the cup,

and it follows that specifically when he did not recite it in the prayer does he recite it over the cup; but if he recited it in the prayer, he does not need to recite it again over the cup.

The Gemara answers:

Do not say, “because he can recite it over the cup”; rather, say, “because he recites it over the cup,”

meaning that he must recite it over the cup, whether he erred in the prayer or whether he did not err.

It was likewise stated: Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said: Rabbi Yosef asked Rabbi Yoḥanan in Sidon—and some say

asked

Rabbi Shimon ben Yaakov of Tyre asked Rabbi Yoḥanan, and I heard

when he asked him:

One who separates in the prayer must separate

also

over the cup or not?

And he said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

He must separate over the cup!

They raised a question before them: One who separates over the cup

before he prayed,

what is

whether he must

separate

afterwards also

in the prayer,

or not?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

He must separate even in the prayer, for it is a

kal va-chomer

from

from

one who separated in

the prayer: What

separation in

the prayer, whose principal enactment

of separation

is

in the prayer,

they said

the Sages:

“One who separates in the prayer must separate

also

over the cup,” —

One who separates over the cup, which is not the principal enactment, certainly

can separate also in the prayer in order to fulfill the principal enactment.

Rav Aḥa Arikha taught before Rav Ḥinnana: One who separates in the prayer is more praiseworthy than one who separates over the cup, and if he separated in both this one and that one, blessings shall rest upon his head.

The Gemara asks:

This itself is difficult. You said, “One who separates in the prayer is more praiseworthy than one who separates over the cup”; evidently

separation in

the prayer alone suffices. Then it teaches, “If he separated in this one and in that one, blessings shall rest upon

his head,” and

apparently

since he has fulfilled it through one, he is exempt, and

the second separation

is an unnecessary blessing.

If so, he is not more praiseworthy, for

Rav said—and some say it was Reish Lakish, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both said: Whoever recites an unnecessary blessing transgresses because of “You shall not bear” [Exodus 20:7].

Rather, say this: If he made the distinction in this manner

Rather, say this: If he separated in this one

over the cup

and did not separate in this one

in the prayer,

blessings shall rest upon his head.

Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Sheshet: If he erred in this one

in the prayer

and in this one

over the cup,

what is the law?

He said to him: He erred in this one and in that one; he returns to the beginning.