Berakhot 47a — the Talmud in English

And not

do they give precedence to the elder over the younger

with

the taking of the latter waters, which are taken to cleanse

soiled hands

at the end of the meal.

Ravin and Abaye were walking on the road; 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,”

and he did not honor him by allowing him to enter ahead of him.

Abaye said

in his heart:

Since this scholar has come up

from the West [that is, since Ravin came from the Land of Israel],

[since Ravin had come from Eretz Yisrael],

his mind has become haughty,

and therefore he does not honor others.

When he reached the entrance of the synagogue [the synagogue],

[the house of prayer],

Ravin said to him

Ravin to Abaye:

“Let my master enter!”

He said to him

Abaye:

And

why,

“Was I not ‘my master’ until now?”

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

He said to him

Ravin:

“Thus said Rabbi Yohanan: One does not honor

the elder by entering first

except at an entrance that has a mezuzah,”

but not on the road.

And the Gemara wondered: Is it specifically at an entrance

that has a mezuzah, there is no need [to honor], whereas at an entrance

need to show honor, whereas at an entrance

that does not have a mezuzah, there is

a need to honor?

Rather,

it follows

from now on, a synagogue and a beit-midrash, which do not have a mezuzah

likewise there is no honoring

the elder by entering them first? And why did Ravin honor Abaye at the entrance of the synagogue?

Rather,

necessarily,

say

that the intention of Rabbi Yohanan is that one does not honor except

at an entrance fit for a mezuzah,

that is, at the entrance of a place which, if people lived there, would be obligated in mezuzah, but on the road one does not honor the elder by giving him precedence.

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

of the bread, because he exempts all those reclining [at the meal] through his blessing, and in blessings over enjoyment a person does not fulfill his obligation by hearing from another until the one reciting the blessing enjoys [the food].

Rav Safra sat and said:

It is not permitted—

“to taste” was stated

in the name of Rav [and not, “it is not permitted to eat”]. The Gemara wondered:

What practical difference is there,

for certainly even according to Rav Shilat, who said, “It is 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 speak in the language of his teacher.

The Sages taught: Two

who eat together from one bowl

wait for one another at 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 returns to eating.

Three

who eat together from one bowl, and one of them interrupts his eating in order to drink,

the

other two

do not wait

until he finishes drinking.

The one who breaks bread

and exempts all those reclining [at the meal] through his blessing, even if he is the youngest among them,

he reaches out his hand first,

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

and if

the one who breaks bread

wishes to honor his teacher or one greater than he

so that he takes from the bowl before him,

the choice is his.

Rabbah bar bar Hana was arranging matters for his son

to arrange a meal for his wedding

at the house of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Katina; he came early and sat

Rabbah bar bar Hana before the meal

and instructed his son

who needed to break bread for those reclining [at the meal]:

“The one who breaks bread is not permitted to break bread until the Amen

[for the blessing over ha-motzi]

has ended from the mouths of those answering.”

Rav Hisda said:

The intention of the beraita is not that it must end from the mouths of all those answering; rather, it is sufficient that it end

from the mouths of the majority of those answering,

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

Rami bar Hama said

to Rav Hisda:

What is different about the majority

that one must wait until the Amen has ended from their mouths—because it is considered

that the blessing has still not ended—

if so,

the minority also

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

has not ended?

He said to him

Rav Hisda:

I say that anyone who answers Amen

at length

more than necessary is merely mistaken,

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

The Sages taught: One does not answer either an abruptly pronounced Amen,

in which he pronounces the alef of “Amen” with a sheva instead of with a kamatz,

or a truncated Amen,

which he does not finish clearly, and it sounds as though he is saying “Am,”

or an orphaned Amen,

in which he answers Amen to a blessing that he did not hear, but only heard that others are answering,

and he shall not cast

a blessing from his mouth,

so that he should not say it hurriedly, thereby showing that it is a burden upon him and that he recites the blessing only out of habit.

Ben Azzai says: Anyone who answers an orphaned Amen—his sons shall be orphans. An abruptly pronounced Amen,

his days shall be snatched away,

he will die before his time.

A truncated Amen—

his days shall be truncated

[shortened]

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

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

and eating

and eating

in order to join them for the Grace after Meals.

Rav said to him

to Rav Shimi:

“What is your reasoning,”

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

to join us

for zimmun, then

we

have already

eaten our fill,

and we finished the meal before you began it, and you do not join us to obligate us in zimmun.

Shmuel said to him

to Rav:

“If they were to bring me

now, for the dessert of the meal, a food dear to me, such as

ardilya

[truffles and mushrooms]

and

likewise if they were to bring now

guzalya

[young pigeons], which is a food dear

to Abba

[an honorific title that he bestowed on Rav ],

would we not eat?

Therefore it is still not considered the end of the meal, and Rav Shimi can join us for the obligation of zimmun.”

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

[came] and wished to join them.

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

for the greatest at the meal performs zimmun and exempts those reclining [at the meal] through the Grace after Meals.

He said to them, “Do you think that

in this manner

the greatest recites the blessing?”—

this law applies only if the greatest ate with everyone, but when he joined the meal after they had already begun it, only

the principal one at the meal

[one of those reclining [at the meal] from its beginning]

recites the blessing.

And

however, the conclusion of the Gemara is:

The halakha is: The greatest recites the blessing, even though he came last.

The Gemara asks:

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who ate demai, etc.”

The Gemara wondered:

“But it is not fit for him,”

for the Sages prohibited eating it without separating the tithe, and one does not perform zimmun over the eating of something forbidden?

The Gemara answers: The prohibition of demai does not prevent the obligation of zimun as tevel does, because tevel causes the food itself not to be fit until it is rectified, and it is impossible to establish a meal with it; but the prohibition of demai can be removed without rectification of the food itself, and it follows that the food itself is fit for eating, for

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

then the demai will be

fit for him.

As in

we learned in the Mishna

(Demai 3:1):

“They feed the poor demai”

because they were lenient concerning it, since most ammei ha-aretz tithe,

“and the lodging troops”

the king’s soldiers, whom the inhabitants of the city are charged to supply with food when they encamp nearby, and they can eat

“demai,”

because in this place they are considered as those who have nothing to eat at present .

And Rav Huna said: A tanna taught: Beit Shammai say, They may not feed the poor and

the lodging troops demai.

We learned in the Mishna:

“First tithe from which its teruma has been removed”:

The Gemara asks:

“It is obvious”

that one performs zimun over it, since after the terumat maaser has been removed from it, it is permitted for every person to eat?

The Gemara explains:

“It is necessary”

to teach us this law

but

in a case where

the Levite preceded

the kohen and took the first tithe from the owner of the house before the kohen received the great teruma, and nevertheless the tithe is permitted for eating and is not tevel, since the case concerns produce that was

in stalks,

and its processing had not yet been completed and it had not become obligated in the great teruma,

and

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

he separated

the Levite

from it

from the tithe

the terumat maaser, and he did not separate the great teruma from it,

and the novelty of the Mishna is that even though the separation of the tithe took effect, it is not obligated in the great teruma, and it is permitted for eating, and one performs zimun over it.

And this is in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu. For Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Resh Lakish: First tithe whose taking preceded [the completion of the produce] in stalks is exempt from the great teruma, as it is stated

(Numbers 18:26):

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

tithe,”

and they expounded: Only

“a tithe from the tithe I told you”

to separate from the first tithe,

“and not”

did I obligate [you] to separate

a great teruma and a terumat maaser from the tithe

since he would thereby be separating from it more than a “tithe.”

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so,

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

even if he preceded

the kohen

in the pile

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

also

should it not become obligated in the great teruma?

He said to him: “Upon you”

in order to resolve your question

the verse says

(there, verse 28):