Berakhot 42a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

Wine is different

from other things, since it is important,

because it causes its own blessing

even when one does not wish to drink it, such as for kiddush, for which the Sages required that it be recited over a cup of wine. Rav Huna ate thirteen loaves

[thirteen breads] of bread that comes in the form of kיסנין,

three by three in a kav

[so that each three of them had the measure of one kav; it follows that he ate the measure of four kavs],

and he did not recite

Grace after Meals

after them.

Rav Naḥman said to him: They were for hunger

[they were eaten for satiety], for he ate a large quantity of them, in the manner of a fixed meal and not in the manner of eating for dessert, which is a small amount of eating. And in such a case, although the eater himself did not establish his meal upon it, his eating is not exempt from a blessing

but anyone

who ate the measure

upon which others establish a meal—

must recite a blessing

over it according to the law of bread: hamotzi at the beginning and Grace after Meals at the end.

Rav Yehuda was occupied with arranging his son’s marriage [engaged in his son’s marriage] with

[with the daughter of]

Rav Yehuda son of

Ḥaviva. They brought before them bread that comes in the form of kיסנין. When he came, he heard them reciting

hamotzi

over it. He said to them:

What are these sounds that I hear

[what are the sounds that I hear]?

Perhaps you are reciting, “Who brings forth bread from the earth”?

For one ought to recite over it “Borei minei mezonot.”

They said to him: Yes!

Indeed, we recited hamotzi, because

it was taught: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Bread that comes in the form of kיסנין—

one recites hamotzi over it. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Mona.

He said to them

Rav Yehuda:

The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Mona.

It was stated: They said to him

Rav Yehuda:

But was it not the master who said in the name of Shmuel: Small loaves

resembling bread that comes in the form of kיסנין

have the law of bread, and therefore

one makes an eruv with them an eruv of courtyards, even though it is necessary to place specifically bread,

and one recites hamotzi over them,

and if so, the law must likewise be that one recites hamotzi over bread that comes in the form of kיסנין.

He said to them: That is different there where one recites hamotzi, because he established his meal upon them; but where he did not establish his meal upon them, no

If so, the same law should apply: one should recite HaMotzi over this type of bread.

one recites hamotzi, but only “Borei minei mezonot.”

Rav Pappa happened to come to the house of Rav Huna son of Rav Natan. After they finished their meal, they brought before them something

to eat. Rav Pappa took it and ate.

They said to him

: But

does the master not hold

the halakha that if he

finished

his meal and then reconsidered and decided to continue eating,

it is forbidden to eat

until he recites Grace after Meals over the meal that he already ate, and recites a first blessing over what he wishes to eat from now onward? The first blessing that he recited at the beginning of the meal does not avail him for his additional eating, because once he finished eating, he diverted his attention from the meal.

He said to them: This halakha that you stated does not apply when he finished eating, for mere intention is insufficient to end his meal and obligate him in a blessing if he reconsidered and wishes to continue eating. Rather, “he removed” is what was stated; this halakha was stated only when he performed an action and removed the bread and the other foods from the table, and only then, if he reconsidered and wishes to continue eating, is it forbidden for him to do so until he recites a blessing anew. Rava and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch and ate there. After they removed the table from before them, [after they removed the table from before them],

his meal and then changes his mind and decides to continue eating,

it is forbidden to eat

until he recites Grace after Meals over the meal he has already eaten and recites a new initial blessing over what he now wishes to eat? The initial blessing he recited at the beginning of the meal does not cover his additional eating, because once he finished eating, he diverted his attention from the meal.

they sent them a portion of cooked meat

[they sent them a portion of cooked meat

from the house of the Exilarch].

this ruling applies only when he performed an action and removed the bread and the other foods from the table. Only then, if he changes his mind and wishes to continue eating, is he forbidden to do so until he recites a new blessing.

Rava and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch

Rava ate, but Rabbi Zeira did not eat.

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira to Rava: But

does the master not hold

the halakha that if he had already

removed

the bread and the other foods from the table, it is forbidden to eat!? He said to him Rava to Rabbi Zeira:

We—

rely upon the table of the Exilarch

[we rely upon the table of the Exilarch],

and therefore our intention depends upon his intention: if he continues and gives us food to eat, we will eat. Consequently, our removing [the food] is not considered a diversion of attention.

removed

the bread and the other foods from the table,

it is forbidden to eat!?

He said to him,

Rava said to Rabbi Zeira:

We

rely upon the table of the Exilarch

—we are guests at the Exilarch’s table. Therefore, our intention depends on his intention: If he gives us more food, we will eat it. Consequently, our removal of the table is not considered a diversion of attention.

Rav said: One who is accustomed to oil

to smear his hands with it after eating—

the oil holds him back! For even if he finished and removed the bread, this is not considered a distraction from his meal as long as he has not smeared his hands with oil; he may return and eat without an additional blessing.

Rav Ashi said: When we were at Rav Kahana’s, he said to us: Such as we, who are accustomed to oil—

the oil holds us back.

But the halakha is not in accordance with all these statements,

which make the conclusion of the meal depend on finishing eating, or removing the food from the table, or already smearing one’s hands with oil,

but

the conclusion of the meal depends on washing one’s hands with the last waters: if he has already washed his hands, only then is this considered the conclusion of the meal; and if he changes his mind and wishes to return and eat, it is forbidden to him unless he first recites a blessing.

As Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: There are three proximities,

there are three things whose performance must be adjacent to one another, and these are:

immediately following the laying on of hands

of the owners upon the head of the offering—

slaughter,

so that there should be no interruption between them, neither through a change of place nor through a delay of time.

Immediately following the

blessing of

“Redemption”—

prayer

of the “Eighteen.” He should not interrupt between them at all.

Immediately following the washing of the hands

with the last waters —

a blessing.

The blessing over food, so that he should not interrupt between them through eating .

Abaye said: We too shall say: Immediately following Torah scholars—

a blessing!

For one who hosts him in his house immediately merits that blessing should rest in his house,

as it is stated

concerning Laban, who said to Jacob:

“And the Lord blessed me because of you” .

If you wish, say [that it is derived] from here, as it is stated: “And the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house because of Joseph.”

Mishna:

If one recited a blessing over the wine that he

drank

before the meal

the meal—

he exempts

from a blessing

the wine that he

drinks

after the meal .

If one recited a blessing over the parperet,

such as young fowl and fish

that he

ate

before the meal—

he exempts

from a blessing

the parperet

made of bread that comes as pat haba bekisanin

that he

eats

after the meal.

If one recited a blessing over the bread—

he exempts the parperet

that he eats .

If one recited a blessing

over the parperet

that he ate before the meal—

he did not exempt the bread,

because the bread is not subordinate to the parperet; rather, it is more important than it.

The House of Shammai say:

the parperet does not exempt

even a cooked dish

[varieties of porridge],

despite the fact that their blessing is the same.

If they were sitting

and eating without reclining,

each one recites a blessing for himself,

and one cannot exempt the others with his blessing, because since they did not recline, they are not considered established together for the meal, and there is no joining between them .

But if they

reclined

to eat, then since they established themselves to eat together while reclining —

one

recites the blessing

for all of them .