Berakhot 47a (מז.) — the Talmud in English

And they do not

give precedence to the greater over the lesser

with regard to

the washing of the hands at the end of the meal, which is done to cleanse

soiled hands

at the conclusion of the meal.

Ravin and Abaye were traveling on the road, and Ravin’s donkey went ahead

and walked

in

front of Abaye’s donkey,

and he did not say to him

Ravin to Abaye,

“Let my master go ahead,”

and he did not honor him by allowing him to enter before him.

Abaye

said to himself:

Since this scholar has come up

from the West [that is, since Ravin had come from Eretz Yisrael],

[since Ravin had come from Eretz Yisrael],

his mind has become haughty,

and therefore he does not honor others.

When they reached the entrance to the synagogue [the synagogue],

[the house of prayer],

Ravin said to him

to Abaye:

“Let my master enter!”

He said to him

Abaye:

“And

was I

not ‘my master’ until now?”

Why did you not honor me on the road, but only here?

Ravin said to him

:

“Thus said Rabbi Yohanan: One does not honor

the greater man by allowing him to enter first

except at an entrance that has a mezuzah,”

and not on the road.

The Gemara asked: Is it specifically at an entrance

that has a mezuzah that one does not [need to honor him], whereas at an entrance

need to show honor, whereas at an entrance

that does not have a mezuzah, one does

need to honor him?

Rather,

it follows

that from now on, in a synagogue or a בית המדרש, which does not have a mezuzah,

one likewise does not honor

the greater man by allowing him to enter first. Why, then, did Ravin honor Abaye at the entrance to the synagogue?

Rather,

necessarily,

say

that Rabbi Yohanan meant that one honors [the greater man] only

at an entrance suitable for a mezuzah,

that is, at the entrance of a place that, had people lived there, would have been obligated in a mezuzah; but on the road one does not honor the greater man by allowing him to go first.

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: Those reclining at a meal are not permitted to eat anything until the one who breaks bread tastes

from the bread, because he exempts all those reclining with him through his blessing, and with regard to blessings over enjoyment, a person does not fulfill his obligation by hearing another person until the one reciting the blessing derives enjoyment.

Rav Safra was sitting and saying:

The wording is not “are not permitted

to taste,” but rather

that this was the wording transmitted in Rav’s name [and not “are not permitted to eat”]. The Gemara asked:

What practical difference is there?

For surely, according even to Rav Sheilat, who said “are not permitted to eat,” it is forbidden even to taste.

The Gemara explains: In truth, there is no practical difference between the formulations, and Rav Safra came only to quote Rav’s wording precisely, because

a person is obligated to state his teacher’s words in the language he used.

The Sages taught: Two

people eating together from one bowl

must wait for one another with regard to the bowl,

for if one of them interrupts his eating in order to drink, the other must also interrupt until the first finishes drinking and resumes eating.

Three

people eating together from one bowl, when one of them interrupts his eating in order to drink,

do not

the other two

wait

until he finishes drinking.

The one who breaks bread

and exempts all those reclining with him through his blessing, even if he is the youngest among them,

reaches out his hand first,

to take from the bowl food with which to eat the bread,

and if

the one who breaks bread

wishes to show honor to his teacher or to one greater than he

by having him take from the bowl before him,

he has permission to do so.

Rabba bar bar Hanna was arranging matters for his son

to arrange a meal for his wedding

in the בית המדרש of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Katina. He came early and sat

Rabba bar bar Hanna before the meal

and taught his son

who was to break bread for those reclining with him:

“The one who breaks bread is not permitted to break bread until ‘Amen’ has ended [in response

to the blessing over HaMotzi]

from the mouths of those who answer.”

Rav Hisda said:

The beraita does not mean that it must end from the mouths of all those who answer; it is sufficient that it end

from the mouths of the majority of those who answer,

and he need not wait for those who prolong their response.

Rami bar Hama said

to Rav Hisda:

What is different about the majority

such that one must wait until “Amen” ends from their mouths—because it is considered

that the blessing has still not ended—

if so,

the minority as well

should properly be waited for until they finish answering, since the blessing has still

not ended?

Rav Hisda said to him

:

“I say that anyone who answers ‘Amen’

at excessive length

is merely mistaken,

because the meaning of the word changes when he prolongs it.

The Sages taught: One may answer neither an abridged Amen,

in which he does not pronounce the letter alef in “Amen” with a sheva rather than with a kamatz,

nor an incomplete Amen,

in which he does not complete it clearly, so that it sounds as though he is saying “am,”

nor an orphaned Amen,

in which he answers “Amen” to a blessing that he did not hear, but merely heard others answering,

nor may he throw

a blessing from his mouth,

meaning that he should not say it hastily, thereby making it appear burdensome to him and that he blesses only out of habit.

Ben Azzai says: Anyone who answers an orphaned Amen—his children will be orphans. An abridged Amen,

his days will be cut short,

he will die before his time.

An incomplete Amen—

his days will be cut short [

shortened]

And anyone who prolongs his Amen, they prolong his days and years for him.

Rav and Shmuel were sitting at a meal. Rav Shimi bar Hiyya arrived and was hurrying [

hastening]

and eating

in order to join them for Birkat HaMazon.

Rav said to him

to Rav Shimi:

“What is your intention”—

what is the reason that you are hurrying with your eating?—if it is in order

to join us

for zimun, then

we

have already

eaten our fill,

and we finished the meal before you began it; you will not join us in creating an obligation to recite zimun.

Shmuel said

to Rav:

“If they were to bring me

now, for dessert, a food that I favor, such as

ardilya [

truffles and mushrooms]

and

likewise, if they were to bring now

guzalya [

young birds], which is the food favored

by Abba [a title of honor that he used for Rav ],

Therefore, the meal would still not be considered finished, and Rav Shimi could join them for the obligation to recite the invitation.

would we not eat it?”

Therefore, the meal is still not considered concluded, and Rav Shimi can join us in the obligation of zimun.

Rav’s students were sitting at a meal. Rav Aha

arrived and wished to join them.

They said, “A great man who will recite the blessing for us has arrived,”

for the greatest person at the meal recites zimun and exempts those reclining with him through Birkat HaMazon.

He said to them, “Do you think that

in this situation

the greatest man recites the blessing?”

This law applies only when the greatest man ate with everyone else; but when he joined the meal after it had already begun, only

the principal member of the meal [

one of those reclining who had been there from the beginning]

recites the blessing.”

But

the Gemara’s conclusion is:

The halakha is that the greatest man recites the blessing, even though he arrived last.

The Gemara asks:

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who ate demai, etc.”

The Gemara asked:

“Is it not fit for him?”

For the Sages prohibited eating it without separating tithes, and one does not recite zimun on the eating of prohibited food.

The Gemara answers: The prohibition of demai does not prevent the obligation of zimun as tevel does, because tevel causes the food itself to be unfit until it is rectified, and one cannot establish a meal with it. But the prohibition of demai can be removed without rectifying the food itself, so the food is found to be fit for eating, as

since, if he wishes, he can declare his property ownerless and become poor, and

then the demai will be

fit for him.

This is like

we learned [Demai 3:1]:

(Demai 3:1):

“The poor may be fed demai”

because the Sages were lenient with regard to it, since most common people separate tithes,

“and the billeting troops”

the king’s soldiers, whom the townspeople are obligated to supply with food when they have camped nearby, may eat

demai,

because in this context they are considered as people who have nothing to eat at present .

And Rav Huna said: It was taught: Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the poor and the

billeting troops demai.

We learned in the Mishna:

First tithe from which its teruma has been removed:

The Gemara asks:

It is obvious

that one joins for zimun over it, since once terumat maaser has been removed from it, it is permitted for everyone to eat?

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

to teach this law

only

in a case

where the Levite took precedence

over the kohen and took the first tithe from the householder before the kohen received teruma gedola. Nevertheless, the tithe is permitted for eating and is not tevel, since the grain was

in stalks,

and its processing had not yet been completed, so it had not yet become liable for teruma gedola,

and

what we learned, “from which its teruma has been removed,” means that

he separated

the Levite

from it

[from the tithe]

terumat maaser, but he did not separate teruma gedola from it,

and the novelty of the Mishna is that although the separation of the tithe took effect, it is not liable for teruma gedola; it is permitted for eating, and one joins for zimun over it.

And this is in accordance with R. Abbahu. For R. Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: First tithe that was taken while the grain was still in stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, as it is stated [Numbers 18:26]:

(Numbers 18:26):

“And you shall raise from it the teruma of the Lord, a tithe from

the tithe,”

and they expounded: Only

“a tithe from the tithe” did I tell you

to separate from the first tithe,

but I did not

obligate you to separate

teruma gedola and terumat maaser from the tithe

which would mean separating more than “a tithe” from it].

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so,

that first tithe taken before the separation of teruma is exempt from teruma gedola,

even if the Levite took precedence

over the kohen

in the pile

after the processing of the grain had been completed, and took the tithe before the separation of teruma,

also

should it not become liable for teruma gedola?

He said to him: It is incumbent upon you

to resolve your difficulty;

the verse says [there, verse 28]:

(there, verse 28):