Berakhot 49b (מט:) — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Giddel bar Minyomi:

Why did the Master do this?

He said to him:

Because

Rabbi Sheila said that Rav said: “If one erred, he returns to the beginning.”

Giddel returned and asked: Why must he return,

for Rav Huna said that Rav said: “If one erred,

he says, ‘Blessed is He Who gave

to His people Israel, etc.’”?

Rav Naḥman said to him:

But

was it not stated concerning this: “Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa said that Rav said: ‘They taught

that he says this blessing in place of the mention that he omitted

only

in a case

where

he has still

not begun

and started

the

blessing of

“Who is good and does good,” but

if he remembered that he had erred only after he had already

begun “Who is good and does good,”

he returns to the beginning!

I, too, remembered only after I had begun “Who is good and does good,” and therefore had to return to the beginning of the Grace after Meals.

Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Amram said that Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: If one erred and failed to mention “

Ya'aleh veyavo”

for the New Moon in the Amida,

and concluded his prayer,

they require him to repeat it,

and he prays the entire prayer in order to mention it within the prayer. However, if he forgot “Ya'aleh veyavo” for the New Moon

in the Grace after Meals, they do not require him to repeat it.

Rav Avin said to Rav Amram: What is different about the Amida

that they require him to repeat it,

and what is different about the Grace after Meals

that they do not require him to repeat it?

He said to him: This too was difficult for me, and I asked Rav Naḥman about it. He said to me: The source of this ruling is Shmuel,

who originated this halakhic ruling,

but its reason was not heard by me.

I do not know his reason.

Rather, let us examine

what accounts for the distinction between them:

The Amida, which is obligatory, requires him to repeat it,

because the obligation to mention it in the Amida is also obligatory, and he must repeat the prayer in order to complete his obligation. But

the blessing of nourishment,

whose obligation depends on his own will,

for if he wishes, he eats

bread,

and if he wishes, he does not eat,

therefore

they do not require him to repeat it.

Only if he remembered before he began to recite “Who is good and does good” does he say the blessing mentioned above.

Rav Idi bar Avin challenged the reason proposed by Rav Amram:

If that is so,

since he does not repeat the blessing because he is not obligated to eat bread, then with regard to

Shabbatot and Festivals, when it is not sufficient if he does not eat,

because one is obligated to eat bread on them,

is it likewise the case that if he erred

and failed to mention “Retzei” or “Ya'aleh veyavo,”

he returns

[he repeats the blessing]

? Rav Amram said to him:

Rav Amram replied:

Yes!

[Indeed, one who forgot the mention for Shabbat or a Festival repeats the blessing.] Concerning this, we find

that Rabbi Sheila said that Rav said: “If one erred, he returns to the beginning.”

Rav Idi returned and expressed his astonishment:

But Rav Huna said that Rav said: If one erred, he says, “Blessed is He Who gave

etc.”? Rav Amram replied to him: But

was it not stated concerning this: “They taught

—that he recites “Blessed is He Who gave, etc.”—

only

in a case

where he did not begin “Who is good and does good,” but

if he had already

begun “Who is good and does good,” he returns to the beginning.

We learned in the Mishna:

Until what measure does one recite the invitation to Grace?

Until an olive-bulk; Rabbi Yehuda says: Until an egg-bulk. The Gemara analyzes this:

Does this mean that Rabbi Meir

[who is the author of the anonymous Mishna]

considers

the measure of

“an olive-bulk,” and

that

Rabbi Yehuda

considers only the measure of

“an egg-bulk,”

and that this is the basis of their dispute regarding the measure that obligates one in the Grace after Meals and in the invitation to Grace?

But we hear the opposite of this from them, as we learned:

[Pesaḥim 49a]

“And likewise

[just as in the preceding law, concerning one who finds leavened bread on Pesaḥ and must burn it, so too]

one who left Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacrificial meat in his possession,

which became disqualified when he left the city wall and must be burned; and by rabbinic ordinance he must burn it in a place suitable for eating it. Nevertheless, the Sages were lenient in this law:

If he passed

the place called

“Tzofim”

[because only as far as this place can he see the Temple ], he shall

burn it where he is; but if not, he returns

to Jerusalem

and burns it

on the Temple Mount

before the “bira”

[the place designated for burning disqualified sacrificial meat]. When he burns it there, he may take

wood from the arrangement

for the purpose of the burning.

How far back must they return?

Rabbi Meir says:

Both

this one

who left with sacrificial meat

and

both

this one

who found leavened bread in his possession—the measure for both of them is

“an egg-bulk,” and

whereas

Rabbi Yehuda says: In both this case and that case

the measure is

“an olive-bulk.”

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda considers an olive-bulk the significant measure, while Rabbi Meir considers an egg-bulk the significant measure, contrary to their positions in our Mishna.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The positions are reversed

—the statements in our Mishna must be reversed, because in truth Rabbi Meir holds that the measures are an egg-bulk, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that they are an olive-bulk.

Abaye said: In truth, do not reverse them,

because it is possible to distinguish between the measures required for the invitation to Grace and those required for burning leavened bread and sacrificial meat.

Here,

in our Mishna,

they dispute the biblical verses.

Rabbi Meir holds

that “And you shall eat” refers to eating, while “and you shall be satisfied” refers to drinking, and the measure of eating is

an olive-bulk,

as in the other laws that depend on the definition of “eating.”

And Rabbi Yehuda holds

that although the measure for every instance of “eating” is an olive-bulk, with regard to the Grace after Meals it is stated

“And you shall eat and be satisfied,”

which means

eating that includes satisfaction; and what is that?

An egg-bulk.

Whereas

there,

with regard to returning to burn sacrificial meat,

they dispute the rationale. Rabbi Meir holds

that the measure that obligates him to

return

is

the

measure that causes

its impurity,

so that

just as its impurity

depends

on

the measure of

“an egg-bulk,” so too his return

is required only if an egg-bulk was in his possession.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds

that the measure that obligates him to

return

is

the

measure of

its prohibition

against eating it as “disqualified sacrificial meat,” so that

just as its prohibition applies with an olive-bulk, so too his return is required for an olive-bulk.

Mishna:

How

is the wording with which they

recite the invitation to Grace?

With three

reclining, the one who leads the invitation

says, “Let us bless

Him of Whose bounty we have eaten,” including himself with them.

With three and he

[that is, if three reclined apart from him, meaning that from four to ten people are reclining], since they would be obligated to recite the invitation even without him, he calls upon them to recite the invitation; therefore

he says, “Bless

Him of Whose bounty we have eaten.”

With ten, he says, “Let us bless our God

of Whose bounty we have eaten.”

With ten and he,

since they would be obligated to mention the Divine Name even without him,

he says, “Bless

our God of Whose bounty we have eaten.”

One

[whether there were]

ten

reclining,

or

[whether there were]

ten myriad

[one hundred thousand] reclining, the wording of the invitation is the same, because from ten onward no further change is made in its wording.

However, some disputed this law and said that further changes are made in its wording, as follows: [The reasons for these views are explained later in the Mishna.]

With one hundred

reclining,

he

[the leader]

says, “Let us bless the Lord our God

of Whose bounty we have eaten.”

With one hundred and he, he says, “Bless.”

With one thousand, he says, “Let us bless the Lord

our God, God of Israel”; with one thousand and he, he says, “Bless.”

With ten thousand

[ten thousand reclining],

he says, “Let us bless the Lord our God, God of Israel, God of Hosts, Who sits upon the cherubim,

for the food that we have eaten,”

and with ten thousand and he, he says, “Bless.”

In accordance with

[similar to the wording]

what he recites as a blessing, so

the reclining participants

respond after him;

therefore, at ten thousand they respond:

“Blessed is the Lord our God, God of Israel, God of Hosts, Who sits upon the cherubim, for the food that we have eaten.”

The Mishna brings the statement of the tanna who maintains that the wording of the invitation changes even when there are more than ten participants:

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: According to the size of the congregation they recite the blessing,

and therefore, in an invitation of one hundred, one adds to the wording of the invitation of ten, and likewise with one thousand and ten thousand,

as it is stated

[Psalms 68:27]

“In assemblies bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel,”

and the plural term “assemblies” indicates that there are several levels within a “congregation,” and a different wording of the blessing was established for each level.

And the Mishna cites, by contrast, the words of the tanna who holds that there is no change in the wording of the zimmun when more than ten diners are present:

Rabbi Akiva said:

It can be derived

from what we find

with regard to prayer

in the synagogue,

that even Rabbi Yosei HaGelili agrees that there is no distinction in the wording; rather, from ten and above,

whether there are many or few, one says, “Bless the Lord,”

and the same applies to the wording of the zimmun: from ten and above, there is no change in it.

Rabbi Yishmael says:

The wording of “Bless” in prayer is as follows:

“Bless the Lord, Who is blessed.”

Gemara:

Shmuel said:

Although if there are three or ten besides the person leading the zimmun, he may say to them, “Bless,” since the obligation of the zimmun, or of mentioning the Divine Name, applies even without him, nevertheless it is preferable that he say, “Let us bless,” because

a person should never remove himself from the group

that is blessing together.

The Gemara raises an objection from our Mishna:

We learned: With three, he says, “Bless,”

which implies that it is preferable to say “Bless,” because by doing so he honors the other diners, as though saying to them: You are numerous and can recite the zimmun even without me, but this poses a difficulty for Shmuel, since he thereby removes himself from the group that is blessing?