Berakhot 42b — the Talmud in English

If wine was brought to them during the meal,

and they had not already recited a blessing over wine before the meal—

each person recites a blessing for himself,

as the reason will be explained in the Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna.

But if wine was brought to them

after the meal,

before the blessing after the meal—

one person recites a blessing for everyone.

And he,

the one who recited the blessing over the wine,

recites

also the blessing

over the incense.

For it was customary to bring before them after eating ground aromatic spices, place them in firepans over the fire to produce a pleasant fragrance, and recite over them the blessing: “Who creates aromatic wood.”

And even though the incense is brought only after

the

meal,

that is, after the blessing after the meal, and there is a significant interruption between the blessing over the wine and the incense, since the blessing after the meal is recited in the meantime, nevertheless, the one who recited the blessing over the wine is also the one who recites the blessing over the incense, because one who began the concluding blessings completes them.

Gemara:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The statement that

wine before the meal exempts wine after the meal [before the blessing after the meal]

was taught only with regard to Shabbat and Festivals,

since a person establishes his meal around wine,

and he is accustomed to drinking wine even after the meal. Therefore, it is assumed that when he recited the blessing, he intended to exempt this wine as well.

But during the rest of the year,

when it is not customary to drink wine after the meal, he

recites a blessing over each cup,

since he did not have these cups in mind at the beginning, when he recited the blessing over the wine before the meal.

It was also stated: Rabba bar Mari said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The statement was taught only with regard to Shabbat and Festivals, and when a person leaves the bathhouse, and at the time of bloodletting, since a person establishes

his

meal around wine at these times. But

during the rest of the year, he recites a blessing over each cup.

Rabba bar Mari happened to come to Rava’s house on

a

weekday. He saw

Rava

reciting a blessing

over the wine that came

before the meal, and then reciting a blessing

over the wine that came

after the meal

[before the blessing after the meal].

Rabba bar Mari said to him,

Rabba bar Mari said to Rava:

Well done;

you acted correctly.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi likewise said

that one should act this way.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef happened to come to Abaye’s house on a Festival. He saw

Abaye

reciting a blessing over each and every cup.

He said to him,

to Abaye: Is it possible that

the Master does not accept the teaching of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

that on a Festival, since people are accustomed to drinking wine even after the meal, one’s intention at the time of the blessing extends to this wine as well, and he need not recite another blessing?

Abaye said to him,

Abaye said:

I changed my mind!

I am not accustomed to establishing my meal around wine, even on a Festival, and I had not intended to drink more. Therefore, each time I drink, I must recite another blessing.

They raised a question: If wine was brought to them during the meal

and they recited a blessing over it, but they did not drink wine before the meal—

does its blessing exempt

by virtue of that blessing

the wine after the meal?

The two sides of the question are as follows:

If you should say

that a proof may be brought from our Mishna, which states:

“If one recited a blessing over wine before the meal, he exempts wine after the meal,”

that is not a proof.

Because

there, in the Mishna, the two cups are alike in this respect:

This one

comes in order

to drink

and for enjoyment, and

that one

comes in order

to drink

and for enjoyment. Therefore, the wine before the meal exempts, through its blessing, the wine after the meal.

But here,

in the case before us,

this one,

the wine after the meal, comes in order

to drink, whereas

if

this one,

the wine during the meal, came only in order

to help digest

the food in his stomach,

it would not

be sufficiently significant to exempt through its blessing the wine after the meal, which is more significant than it.

Or perhaps, there is no difference.

Rav said:

Wine during the meal

exempts

wine after the meal.

And Rav Kahana said: It does not exempt.

Rav Naḥman said: It exempts.

And Rav Sheshet said: It does not exempt.

Rav Huna, Rav Yehuda, and all of Rav’s students said: It does not exempt.

Rava raised an objection from a source to Rav Naḥman,

who had said that it exempts:

But we learned in our Mishna:

If wine was brought to them during the meal,

and they had no wine before the meal—

each person recites a blessing for himself.

But if the wine was brought to them

after the meal, one person recites a blessing for everyone.

Rava understood that the second case taught in our Mishna, in which one person recites a blessing for everyone over wine brought after the meal, concerns a situation in which they had already recited a blessing over wine during the meal. Thus, this case follows the first case, in which wine was brought during the meal, and it proves that wine during the meal does not exempt wine after the meal.

The Gemara responds:

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to him: The second case in our Mishna does not follow the first case. Rather,

this is what

the tannaitic author of our Mishna

is saying: If wine did not come to them during the meal, but only

after the meal—

after the meal—

one person recites a blessing

for everyone.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one recited a blessing over bread, he exempted

the dessert; if he recited a blessing over the dessert, he did not exempt the bread.

The House of Shammai say: He did not even exempt cooked food.

They raised a question:

Do

the House of Shammai

refer in their statement to the first law in the Mishna, and

do they disagree with the first clause, or perhaps

do they refer in their statement to the second law in the Mishna, and

do they disagree with the latter clause?

The question is explained as follows: Do the House of Shammai refer to what

the first tanna says: “If one recited a blessing over bread, he exempted the dessert,”

even though the dessert does not come as food for the meal to fill the stomach, but to conclude the eating and for pleasure? Nevertheless, it is exempted by the blessing over the bread because it is subordinate to it.

And

it follows that

all the more so, cooked food,

which comes as actual nourishment and to provide satiety, is certainly exempted by the blessing over the bread.

And

regarding this law,

the House of Shammai came

to disagree and

to say: It is not necessary to say that the dessert does not exempt the bread; rather, even cooked food

which comes as nourishment and to provide satiety

is also not exempted

by the bread.

Or perhaps

the House of Shammai

disagree with the latter clause,

but in the first clause, bread exempts everything.

As it teaches

in the latter clause:

If one recited a blessing over the dessert, he did not exempt the bread,

since bread is important and is not subordinate to the dessert.

It follows from this that only

bread,

because of its importance,

is not exempted

by the blessing that he recited over the dessert,

but cooked food,

which is not as important as bread,

is exempted

by the blessing that he recited over the dessert.

And

regarding this law,

the House of Shammai came

to disagree and

to say

that not only does the dessert not exempt the bread, but

even cooked food,

which is not as important,

is also not exempted

by the blessing over the dessert.

The Gemara concludes:

The question remains without a resolution.

We learned in the Mishna:

If they were sitting—

each person

recites a blessing for himself. If they reclined, one recites a blessing for everyone.

The Gemara infers:

If they reclined,

yes,

only then does one person recite a blessing for everyone; but if they

did not recline,

no,

one person does not recite a blessing for everyone. Rather, each person recites a blessing for himself.

They raised a contradiction

from what is stated in a

beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

Ten

people who were traveling on the road, even though they were all eating from one loaf,

this is not enough to join them into a single group. Therefore,

each person recites a blessing for himself.

But if they

sat down to eat,

their sitting together is capable of joining them to one another and making them a single group,

even though each person eats from his own loaf,

which is designated for him. Therefore,

one person recites a blessing for everyone.

It teaches: “They sat down,”

one person recites a blessing for everyone,

even though they did not

recline,

whereas our Mishna implies that they join one another into a single group only through reclining.

The Gemara responds:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The beraita, which considers their sitting to make them a single group, concerns a case

such as when they said, “Let us go and eat bread at such-and-such a place,”

that is, they designated a place for their meal by saying, “Let us go and eat bread at a particular place.” In such a case, their sitting is considered an established arrangement even without reclining. But the Mishna concerns a case in which they sat together on their own, without initially designating a place for themselves, and in such a case their sitting does not join them together unless they reclined.

When Rav died, his students went after him

to accompany his bier to the place of his burial.

When they returned

from his funeral,

they said: “Let us go and eat bread by the river of Dank,” [

let us go and eat bread beside the river whose name was “Dank”].

After they had eaten [

after they ate]

they sat [

they sat],

and they were uncertain

with regard to the blessing after the meal: Should each one recite the blessing for himself, since only in the case where

“they reclined” is it specifically taught

in the Mishna that one recites the blessing for all of them,

but if they sat, no,

even though from the outset they had designated a place for themselves to sit together?

Or perhaps: Since they said, “Let us go and eat bread in such-and-such a place,” it is like they reclined [

it is as though they reclined], and one exempts them all .

It was not in their hands,

for they did not know how to resolve the uncertainty.

Rav Adda bar Ahava arose,

who was among Rav’s students.