Berakhot 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

And in this way he appeased the minister.

He said to him: If you were standing before a flesh-and-blood king, and your friend came and greeted you,

would you

have

exact page location

returned his greeting

?

The minister said to him:

the minister:

No!

He said to him

the pious man:

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

in the royal palace?

He said to him

the minister:

They would have cut off my head with a sword!

The pious man said to him:

the pious man:

Is this not a matter that can be derived by a kal va-homer? If you, who were standing before a flesh-and-blood king, who today

is

here, and

tomorrow

he will be

in

the grave,

were afraid

so

of his punishment that you would not return a greeting in his presence,

I,

who was standing in prayer

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

should I not have interrupted before Him and returned your greeting!

Immediately that minister was appeased, and he departed

from him,

that pious man, 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 regard to

a snake,

because it poses no danger,

but

when a

scorpion

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

interrupts

his prayer.

The following objection was raised:

If someone saw that a man

fell into a lion’s den, they may not

testify concerning him that he died,

thereby permitting his wife to marry. This is because it is not certain that he died as a result, since sometimes the lions are not hungry and do not eat him.

But if they saw that he

fell into a pit full of snakes

or

scorpions,

they may

testify concerning him that he died!

It follows 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:

That case is different

when he falls into a pit,

because on account of the pressure

[the constriction caused by his fall, which presses upon the snakes],

they harm

him!

Rabbi Yitzhak said:

If one was standing in prayer and

saw oxen

coming toward him, he

interrupts

his prayer, because even an ox that has not been established as a goring ox poses a danger. As

Rav Oshaya taught: One distances oneself from an ox that has not been established as a goring ox

[that has not been established as a gorer]

fifty cubits

because of the danger,

but from an established goring ox

[one that has gored three times] one distances oneself

as far as the eye can see!

A tanna taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: “The head of an ox is in a basket; go up to the roof and throw the ladder behind you!”

The meaning is that an ox is a dangerous living creature, to such an extent that even when it is occupied with eating from a basket of straw, one should flee from it, climb onto the roof, and throw away the ladder behind oneself so that it cannot climb after him and harm him [this was stated hyperbolically, emphasizing the need to be exceedingly careful around it].

Shmuel 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!

Since the autumn days have passed, during which the earth dried out, and now the ox sees it covered with vegetation, it becomes haughty and an evil inclination enters it.

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

a

arad

[a creature born from the interbreeding of a snake and a turtle],

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

He said to them: Show me its hole!

They showed him its hole, and

Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa

placed his heel over the mouth of the hole. The

arad

came out and bit him,

Rabbi Hanina,

and that arad died.

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

Rabbi Hanina took the arad on his shoulder and brought it to the beit-midrash. He said to them: See, my sons: It is not the arad that kills; sin kills!

At that moment they said: Woe to the person whom

an arad encounters, and woe to the arad encountered by Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa!

Mishna: We mention the powers of rain ["He makes the wind blow and the rain fall"]

in

the blessing of

the Resurrection of the dead.

And the request for rain [“Grant dew and rain”] is mentioned in the blessing of the years! And Havdala [“You have graciously granted us knowledge”], recited in the prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat and Festivals, is mentioned

[“He makes the wind blow and the rain fall”]

in

the blessing of

the blessing of the Resurrection of the Dead.

in the blessing of knowledge!

Rabbi Akiva says: He recites it for Havdala as a blessing the fourth blessing, independently, before the blessing of knowledge, and concludes it: “Blessed are You, Lord, Who distinguishes between sacred and profane.”

in the blessing of the years!

And the Havdala

[“You have graciously given us knowledge,” recited in the prayer at the conclusion of Shabbat and a Festival] is mentioned

in the blessing of knowledge!

Rabbi Eliezer says: He recites

Havdala

within

the blessing of thanksgiving!

The reason is that in it one gives thanks to God for granting us the ability to recognize and distinguish between sacred and profane.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

We mention the powers of rain

in the blessing of

the Resurrection of the dead!

The Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason? Rav Yosef said: Since the descent

of rain

is equivalent to the Resurrection of the dead, they therefore established its mention

in the blessing of

the Resurrection of the dead!

Just as the Resurrection of the dead brings life to the world, so too the descent of rain brings life to the world.

Rav Yosef said: Since the falling

of rain

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

We also learned:

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

and here too the Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason? Rav Yosef said: Since it is necessary for livelihood, they therefore established it in the blessing of

the years, which is also a request for

livelihood.

We also learned:

“Havdala in the blessing of knowledge,”

and here too the Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason?

Rav Yosef said: Since

Havdala

livelihood.

is wisdom,

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

they established it in the blessing of

the

wisdom!

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

But the Rabbis say

that the reason Havdala is mentioned in the blessing of knowledge is

since

Havdala

is

the mention of the departure from the sacred and the entry into the

profane; therefore they established it at the

beginning of the

blessing

of the

profane,

which is “You graciously grant knowledge,” since 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 profane in “You graciously grant knowledge.” And Rabbi Ami said: Great is knowledge, because it was placed between two letters [the two mentions of the Divine Name]! As it is stated

blessing

of the

ordinary,

which is the blessing of knowledge, since the first three blessings are recited even on Shabbat.

[I Samuel 2:3]:

“For God is a God of knowledge, and the Lord.”

And Rabbi Ami said: Great is knowledge,

because

And anyone who has no 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.”

“For the Lord is a God of knowledge.”

And anyone who has no knowledge, it is prohibited to have mercy on him,

as it is stated

[Isaiah 27:11]:

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 have made, Lord; the Temple of the Lord which Your hands have established.” And Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who possesses knowledge

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, are we also to say: Great is vengeance, which was placed between two letters! Since it too

was

stated

[Psalms 94:1]:

“God of vengeance, Lord.”

just as

the Temple was placed between two letters,

as stated.

Rav Aḥa of Karchinah challenged this: If that is so,

He said to him: Yes,

indeed, this is correct, for even vengeance,

in its context

[where it is necessary],

is indeed great!

“God of vengeance, Lord”?

He said to him: Yes,

indeed, this is correct, for even vengeance

in its context

[where it is necessary]

is indeed great!

And this is what Ulla said:

concerning the verse “God of retributions,” in the plural

Why are these two retributions mentioned?

One retribution

is for good, and one is for evil.

The retribution

for good:

as

it is written [Deuteronomy 33:2],

“He appeared from Mount Paran,”

“He appeared from Mount Paran,”

and they expounded [in Bava Kamma 38a]: He appeared from Paran and declared the property of the gentiles ownerless for the Jews. [Therefore, an ox belonging to a Jew that gores an ox belonging to an idolater is exempt].

And the retribution

for evil:

as

it is written: “God of retributions, Lord, God of retributions, appear,”

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva says: He recites it as the fourth blessing

separately.

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

blessings, prayers, sanctifications

and havdalot,

then what room is there for this dispute? Surely

let us see where they instituted

havdala.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Initially,

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

the Men of the Great Assembly established

havdala

in the prayer.

But after they

became wealthy

and were able to purchase wine, they abolished havdala in the prayer and

established it over a cup

of wine. At that time Ezra’s enactment establishing it in the prayer was forgotten, and afterward they again

became poor

and could not afford to purchase wine, so 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 makes havdala in the prayer,

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

must make havdala

also

over the cup!

It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Men of the Great Assembly instituted for Israel blessings, prayers, sanctifications, and havdalot. Initially they established

havdala

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

make havdala over a cup.

It was also stated: Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: One who makes havdala in the prayer must make havdala

even

over a cup.

Rabba said: And we raise an objection against this teaching

from what I said—that one must make havdala also over a cup—from what we learned in a beraita:

If one erred and did not mention the might of the rains in the blessing of the Resurrection of the Dead, or the request for rain in the Blessing of the Years, we require him to repeat the prayer.

But if he erred

and

did not mention

havdala in the blessing of Knowledge, we do not require him to repeat the prayer,

because he can recite it over a cup,

which implies that specifically when he did not recite it in the prayer, he recites it over the cup; but if he recited it in the prayer, he need not recite it again over the cup.

The Gemara answers:

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

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

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

asked

Rabbi Shimon ben Ya'akov of Tyre asked Rabbi Yoḥanan, and I heard

when he asked him:

One who makes havdala in the prayer must make havdala

also

over a cup, or not?

And he said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

He must make havdala over a cup!

They raised a dilemma: One who makes havdala over a cup

before he prayed,

what is

the law? Must he

make havdala

afterward also

in the prayer,

or not?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

He must make havdala also in the prayer, for it is a

kal va-chomer

:

from

one who made havdala in the

prayer—and what

if havdala is in the

prayer, whose primary enactment

of havdala

is

in the prayer,

the Sages said

:

“One who makes havdala in the prayer must make havdala

also

over a cup,” —

one who makes havdala over a cup, which is not the primary enactment, all the more so

should he make havdala also in the prayer in order to fulfill the primary enactment.

Rav Aḥa Arikha taught before Rav Ḥinnana: One who makes havdala in the prayer is more praiseworthy than one who makes havdala over a cup; and if he made havdala in both, blessings will rest upon his head.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

This itself is difficult. You said, “One who makes havdala in the prayer is more praiseworthy than one who makes havdala over a cup,” which indicates

that havdala in the

prayer alone suffices; and then it teaches, “If he made havdala in both, blessings will rest upon

his head,” and

apparently,

since he fulfilled his obligation with one, he is exempt, and

the second havdala

would be an unnecessary blessing;

if so, he is not more praiseworthy, since

Rav—and some say Reish Lakish—and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both said: Anyone who recites an unnecessary blessing violates the prohibition “You shall not take” [Exodus 20:7].

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

Rather, say this: If he made havdala with this one

over the cup

and did not make havdala with that one

in the prayer,

blessings will rest upon his head.

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

in the prayer

and with that one

over the cup,

what is the law?

He said to him: If he erred in this and in that, he returns to the beginning.