Berakhot 45a — the Talmud in English

Rav Idi bar Avin said: To exclude one whom ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

a piece of meat has choked

having been choked by a piece of meat in the throat, and he drinks water in order to remove it from there—in this manner, 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:

he 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: The halakha—

what

is it? Is the halakha like the first tanna, who holds that one should initially recite over it “by Whose word all things came to be,” or like Rabbi Tarfon, who holds that one should initially recite over it “Who creates many souls”?

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 initially “by Whose word all things came to be,” and afterward “Who creates many souls.”

We shall return to you, chapter “How Does One Recite Blessings”

Mishna:

Three who ate

bread, and were sitting at the meal

as one

together] ,

are obligated

to make a zimun —

to gather and join together, in order to recite the “Blessing of the zimun” in the plural .

If

one of the three ate

demai,

whose prohibition to eat is rabbinic, and which contains an allowance for the poor,

or

likewise if he ate

first tithe from which

only

its teruma

was removed [terumat ma’aser; and the Gemara explains that this refers to a case exempt from great teruma], or if he ate

second tithe and consecrated property that were redeemed, and

likewise

the attendant

who serves before them

who ate

with them

an olive-sized portion

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

and the Samaritan,

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

may be included in the zimun,

even though some of them ate something prohibited rabbinically, or something resembling a prohibition, or someone who is not established at the meal; nevertheless, he joins the zimun.

But if one of the three

ate untithed produce,

even rabbinically,

or first tithe from which its teruma was not removed, or second tithe and consecrated property that were not redeemed,

whose prohibitions are from the Torah,

or the attendant who ate less than an olive-sized portion, and the gentile

who is not obligated in the Grace after Meals, even though he was with two others who ate bread,

may not be included in the zimun.

Women, slaves, and minors

who ate together with two adult free men who ate bread

may not be included in the zimun.

Up to what amount may they make a zimun

what is the measure of bread that obligates the diner in zimun —

until

he eats at least

an olive-sized portion; Rabbi Judah says: until

he eats at least

an egg-sized portion.

Gemara:

From where are these matters

that only if all three ate as one do they join for a zimun .

Rav Asi said: For the verse says [

Psalms 34:4]

“Magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His Name together,”

and it implies that one says to the many, “Magnify,” and the minimum of the plural is two; 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, give greatness to our God,”

and in this verse as well it implies that the individual calls to the many, “Give greatness.”

Rav Hanan bar Abba said: From where is it established that one who answers “Amen”

to his fellow’s blessing

may not raise his voice higher than the one blessing —

as it is stated, “Magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His Name together,”

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

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: From where is it established that the translator

of the Torah reading

may not raise his voice higher than the reader —

as it is stated [

Exodus 19:19]

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

“With a voice” need not have been stated; and what does “with a voice” teach? —

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

with the voice of Moses,

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

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

the reader should lower his voice and read,

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

It was stated: Two who ate as one,

concerning this law

Rav and Rabbi Yohanan disagree. One says: If they wish to make a zimun, they may make a zimun; and one says: If they wish to make a zimun, they may not make a zimun.

The Gemara proves from our Mishna in accordance with the view that they should not make a zimun:

We learned: Three who ate as one are obligated to make a zimun,

and it implies that specifically

three —

no —

make a zimun, but

two do not

make a zimun.

The Gemara rejects this:

There

in the Mishna, the issue is when the blessing of the zimun applies to them as

an obligation,

whereas

here

in the dispute of the amoraim, the issue is whether two have

permission

to make a zimun on their own.

Come and hear

from a beraita in accordance with the view that two should not make a zimun:

Three who ate as one are obligated to make a zimun, and they are not permitted to separate.

And it implies that specifically

three —

no —

are obligated to bless, but

two are not

to make a zimun, for if two could also make a zimun on their own, why are the three not permitted to separate? Even if one of them leaves, the obligation of zimun would not disappear from the two remaining; necessarily, two do not make a zimun, and therefore it is forbidden to separate, so as not to annul the zimun.

The Gemara rejects this:

It is different there,

in the beraita, for the prohibition against separating is because

they

have already

established themselves

as an obligation from the outset,

and if they separate, their blessing of the zimun will become optional; and greater is the one who is commanded and performs than the one who is not commanded and performs than one who is not commanded and performs.

Come and hear

from a beraita in accordance with the view that two should not make a zimun:

The attendant who was serving two, behold, he eats with them, even though they did not give him permission,

and this does not involve arrogance, for certainly they want him to eat with them so that they can make a zimun together, but if

he was serving three,

since they can make a zimun without him,

he does not

eat with them unless they gave him permission,

but if two also make a zimun on their own, why should he eat with them without permission?

The Gemara rejects this:

It is different there,

in the beraita,