Berakhot 42b (מב:) — 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 and every one recites a blessing for himself,

as the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

But if wine was brought to them

after the meal,

before Grace after Meals,

one recites a blessing on behalf of them all.

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 censers over the fire for their pleasant fragrance, and recite over them: “Who creates fragrant trees.”

And although the incense is brought only after

the

meal,

that is, after Grace after Meals, and there is a substantial interruption between the blessing over the wine and the incense, since Grace after Meals is recited in the interim, nevertheless, the one who recited the blessing over the wine is the one who also recites the blessing over the incense, because once one has begun the final blessings, he completes them.

Gemara:

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

that wine consumed before the meal exempts wine consumed after the meal [before Grace after Meals]

only with regard to Shabbatot and Festivals,

since a person establishes his meal over wine,

and he is accustomed to drinking wine even after the meal; therefore, presumably, 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 and every cup,

since he did not intend at the outset, when he recited the blessing over the wine before the meal, to include these cups.

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

his

meal over wine at these times; but

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

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

a

weekday. He saw

Rava

recite a blessing

over the wine that came

before the meal, and then recite a blessing

over the wine that came

after the meal

[before Grace after Meals].

Rabba bar Mari said to him

Rava:

Well done;

you acted properly.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi likewise said

that this should be done.

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

Abaye

recite a blessing over each and every cup.

He said to him

Abaye:

Does the Master not accept the ruling 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 includes 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 over wine, even on a Festival, and I had not intended to drink any more. Therefore, each time I drink, I must recite another blessing.

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

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

does its blessing exempt

by means of its blessing

the wine consumed after the meal?

The sides of the dilemma are:

If you would say

that proof may be brought from our Mishna, which says:

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

that is not proof.

Because

in that case in the Mishna, the two cups are equivalent in this respect:

this one

comes in order

to drink

for pleasure, and

that one

comes in order

to drink

for pleasure; therefore, the wine before the meal exempts with its blessing the wine after the meal.

But here,

in the dilemma before us,

this one,

the wine after the meal, comes in order

to drink, while

if

this one

that is consumed during the meal comes only in order

to soak

the food in his intestines.

No!

Since the wine consumed during the meal is not sufficiently significant to exempt with its blessing the more significant wine consumed after the meal.

Or perhaps, there is no difference.

Rav said:

Wine consumed during the meal

exempts

wine consumed 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 to Rav Naḥman,

who 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 and every one recites a blessing for himself.

But if the wine was brought to them

after the meal, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all.

Rava understood that the second case stated in our Mishna, in which one recites a blessing on behalf of all of them for wine brought after the meal, is referring to a case in which they had already recited a blessing over wine consumed during the meal, and that this case is a continuation of the first case, in which wine was brought during the meal. This proves that wine consumed during the meal does not exempt wine consumed after the meal.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman said to him:

The second case cited in our Mishna is not a continuation of the first case. Rather,

this is what

the tanna of our Mishna

is saying: If wine was not brought to them during the meal, but only

after the meal—

after the meal—

one recites a blessing

on behalf of them all.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one recited a blessing over bread, he exempted

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

Beit Shammai say: Nor a cooked dish.

They raised a dilemma:

Does

Beit 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 explanation of the dilemma is: Do Beit 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 for the needs of the meal, to fill the stomach, but to conclude the eating and for pleasure? Nevertheless, it is exempted by the blessing over the bread, since it is subordinate to it.

And

it follows that

all the more so a cooked dish,

which comes as actual food and for satiety, is certainly exempted by the blessing over the bread.

And

with regard to this law

Beit Shammai came to disagree and

say: It is not necessary to say that the dessert does not exempt the bread, but even a cooked dish

as well it does not exempt,

although it comes as food and for satiety,

the bread does not exempt

it.

Or perhaps

Beit 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,”

because bread is significant and is not subordinate to the dessert.

It follows from this that only

bread,

because of its significance,

is not exempted

by the blessing he recited over the dessert;

but a cooked dish,

which is not as significant as bread,

is exempted

by the blessing he recited over the dessert.

And

with regard to this law

Beit Shammai came to disagree and

say

that not only does the dessert not exempt the bread,

but

even a cooked dish,

which is not so significant,

it does not exempt

with the blessing over the dessert,

The Gemara concludes:

Teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

If they were sitting—

each and every one

recites a blessing for himself. If they reclined, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all.

The Gemara infers:

If they reclined—

yes,

only then does one recite a blessing on behalf of them all; but if they

did not recline—

no,

one does not recite a blessing on behalf of them all; rather, each one recites a blessing for himself.

But they raise a contradiction

to this from what is stated in a beraita:

Ten

people

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

this is not sufficient to join them into a single group; therefore,

each and every one recites a blessing for himself.

But if they

sat down to eat,

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

even though each and every one is eating from his own loaf

set aside for him; therefore,

one recites a blessing on behalf of them all.

It teaches: “They sat down,”

one recites a blessing on behalf of them all,

even though they did not

recline,

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

The Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The beraita, which regards their sitting as establishing them as a single group, is discussing a case

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

when they designated a place for their meal by saying, “Let us go and eat bread in a particular place.” In such a case, their sitting is considered an established meal even without reclining. But the Mishna is discussing a case in which they sat down together on their own, without initially designating a place for their meal; 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,

after accompanying him to burial,

they said: “Let us go and eat bread by the Danka River,”

[“Let us go and eat bread beside the river whose name is ‘Danka’”].

After they had eaten,

[after they had eaten,]

they sat

[they sat,]

and they were uncertain

with regard to the blessing after a meal, whether each one should recite it for himself, since only in the case where

“they reclined” specifically is it taught

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

but if they sat, no,

even though they had initially 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 equivalent to reclining

[it is as though they reclined,] and one person fulfills the obligation of them all .

It was not in their hands,

as they did not know how to resolve the uncertainty.

Rav Adda bar Ahava arose,

who was one of Rav’s students.