Berakhot 45a (מה.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Idi bar Avin said: To exclude one

whom a morsel of meat choked

[who was choked by a piece of meat] in the throat and drinks water in order to dislodge it from there—in this case, since he has no desire at all for the drinking of the water itself, he does not recite a blessing over it .

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Tarfon says:

recites a blessing before drinking water:

“Who creates many souls and their deficiencies.”

Rava bar Rav Hanan said to Abaye—and some say, to Rav Yosef: What is the halakha

—what is it?

Is the halakha in accordance with the first tanna, who maintains that one must initially recite Shehakol over it, or in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon, who maintains that one must initially recite Borei Nefashot over it?

He said to him: Go out and see what the people do!

Go out and see how everyone conducts himself; they have already become accustomed to reciting Shehakol initially and Borei Nefashot Rabbot afterward.

We shall return to you, chapter “How Do We Recite Blessings.”

Mishna:

Three who ate

bread and were seated at the meal

together

[as one] ,

are obligated

to convene—

to arrange themselves and join together in order to recite the Birkat HaMazon in the plural .

If

one of the three

ate demai,

whose consumption is prohibited rabbinically and which is permitted to the poor,

or

if he ate

first tithe from which

only

its teruma

[terumat ma'aser; the Gemara explains that this refers to a case exempt from teruma gedola] had been removed, or if he ate

second tithe or consecrated property that had been redeemed, and

likewise

the attendant

serving them

who ate

with them

an olive-bulk

of bread, even though he did not sit with them as an established group ,

or the Samaritan ,

any one of these who was with two others who ate bread

may be included in the zimmun,

even though one of them ate something prohibited rabbinically, or something resembling a prohibition, or was not established as part of the meal; nevertheless, he joins for zimmun.

But if one of the three

ate untithed produce,

even when the prohibition is rabbinic,

or first tithe from which its teruma had not been removed, or second tithe or consecrated property that had not been redeemed,

whose prohibitions are from the Torah ,

or the attendant who ate less than an olive-bulk, or the gentile

who is not obligated in Birkat HaMazon, even if he was with two others who ate bread,

may not be included in the zimmun.

Women, slaves, and minors

who ate together with two adult free men who ate bread

may not be included in the zimmun.

How much is required for zimmun

what is the quantity of bread that obligates the diner in zimmun ?

Until

he has eaten at least

an olive-bulk; Rabbi Yehuda says, until

he has eaten at least

an egg-bulk.

Gemara:

From where are these matters

that only when the three ate together do they join for zimmun?

Rav Asi said: The verse states [Psalms 34:4],

[Psalms 34:4,]

“Proclaim the greatness of the Lord with me, and let us exalt His Name together,”

which implies that one says to the many, “Proclaim greatness”; the minimum of a plurality is two, and together with the one who calls to them, they are three.

Rabbi Abahu said: From here

[Deuteronomy 32:3]:

“When I call the Name of the Lord, ascribe greatness to our God,”

and this verse likewise implies that one calls to the many, “Ascribe greatness.”

Rav Hanan bar Abba said: From where do we know that one who answers “amen”

to his fellow’s blessing

may not raise his voice higher than that of the one reciting the blessing?

As it is stated: “Proclaim the greatness of the Lord with me, and let us exalt His Name together,”

for the meaning of “with me” is that they should answer together with him in a similar manner, including answering in a voice equal to his recitation, his blessing.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: From where do we know that the translator

of the Torah reading

may not raise his voice higher than that of the reader?

As it is stated

[Exodus 19:19],

“Moses spoke, and God answered him with a voice.”

“With a voice” is unnecessary; what does “with a voice” teach?—

It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke

with the voice of Moses,

whose voice was as loud as the voice of the Holy One, blessed be He, so that the voice of Moses [the translator] would not be louder than His voice.

It was likewise taught: The translator may not raise his voice higher than that of the reader; and if the translator cannot raise his voice to match the reader—

the reader should lower his voice and read,

so that his voice will not be louder than the translator’s, but equal to it.

It was stated: Two who ate together,

with regard to this matter

Rav and Rabbi Yohanan disagree. One said: If they wish to convene, they may convene; and one said: If they wish to convene, they may not convene.

The Gemara seeks to prove from our Mishna the opinion that they may not convene:

We learned: Three who ate together are obligated to convene,

which implies that specifically

three—

not—

may convene, but

two may not

convene.

The Gemara rejects this:

There

in the Mishna, the issue is when Birkat HaZimmun takes effect upon them as

an obligation,

whereas

here, in the dispute between the amoraim, the issue is whether two have

in the dispute between the amoraim, the issue is whether two people have

permission

to convene on their own.

Come and hear

from a beraita supporting the opinion that two may not convene:

Three who ate together are obligated to convene and may not separate.

This implies that specifically

three—

not—

are obligated to bless, but

two may not

convene. For if two could also convene independently, why may the three not separate? Even if one of them left, the obligation of zimmun would not lapse for the remaining two. Necessarily, two do not convene, and therefore they may not separate, lest they annul the zimmun.

The Gemara rejects this:

The case there is different,

in the beraita, because the prohibition against separating is

because

they had already

established themselves

as obligated from the outset.

If they separate, their Birkat HaZimmun will become optional, and greater is the one who is commanded and performs than one who is not commanded and performs.

Come and hear

from a beraita supporting the opinion that two may not convene:

The attendant who served two eats with them, even though they did not give him permission,

and this is not considered arrogance, because they certainly want him to eat with them so that they can convene together . But if

he served three,

since they can convene without him,

he does not

eat with them unless they give him permission;

but if two could also convene independently, why should he eat with them without permission?

The Gemara rejects this:

The case there is different,

in the beraita,