Berakhot 49b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Gidel bar Minyomi:

“Why does the master act this way?”

He said to him:

because

Rabbi Sheila said in the name of Rav: “If he erred, he returns to the beginning.”

Gidel returned and asked: Why does he need to return,

for Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: “If he erred,

he says, ‘Blessed is He Who gave

to His people Israel, etc.”?

Rav Naḥman said to him:

and is it not so that

it was stated concerning it: “Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa said in the name of Rav: We taught

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

only

in a situation

that

he still

has not begun

and commenced

the

blessing of

‘the good and the beneficent,’ but

if he remembered that he had erred after he had already

begun ‘the good and the beneficent,’

he returns to the beginning!

I, too, remembered only after I had begun “the good and the beneficent,” and therefore I was compelled to return to the beginning of the Grace after Meals.

Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rav Amram, who said in the name of Rav Naḥman, who said in the name of Shmuel: If one erred and did not mention “

ya'aleh ve-yavo”

of the New Moon in prayer,

and he concluded the prayer,

they make him repeat it,

and he prays the entire prayer in order to mention it within the prayer. But if he omitted “ya'aleh ve-yavo” of the New Moon

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

Rav Avin said to Rav Amram: What is different about prayer

that they make him repeat it,

and what is different about the Grace after Meals

that they do not make him repeat it?

He said to him: This too was difficult to me, and I asked Rav Naḥman about it, and he said to me: From the master Shmuel,

who originated this ruling,

I have not heard

his reason,

but let us see

what is the reason for the distinction between them:

Prayer, since it is an obligation, they make him repeat it,

for the obligation of mentioning it in it is also an obligation, and he must return in order to fulfill his obligation. But

the blessing of sustenance,

whose obligation depends on his will,

for if he wishes, he eats

bread,

and if he wishes, he does not eat,

therefore

they do not make him repeat it.

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

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

“If that is so,

that he does not repeat it because he is not obligated to eat bread, then on

Sabbaths and Festivals, when it is impossible that he not eat,

because one is obligated to eat bread on them,

is it likewise the case that if he errs

and does not mention “retzeh” or “ya'aleh ve-yavo” —

he returns

[and repeats the blessing]

?” Rav Amram said to him:

Rav Amram:

Yes!

[Indeed, one who omits the mention on Shabbat or a Festival returns and repeats the blessing], and concerning this we find

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

Rav Idi returned and wondered:

But Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: If he erred, he says, “Blessed is He Who gave

etc.”? Rav Amram answered him: Is it not so that

it was stated concerning it: “We taught

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

only

in a situation

where he did not begin ‘the good and the beneficent,’ but

if he had already

begun ‘the good and the beneficent,’ he returns to the beginning.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Until how much does one make a zimmun?”

Until an olive-bulk; Rabbi Judah says: Until an egg-bulk. The Gemara discussed this:

Does this mean that Rabbi Meir

[who is the one who stated the “anonymous Mishna”]

considers

the measure of

“an olive-bulk,” and

whereas

Rabbi Judah

considers only the measure of

“an egg-bulk,”

and this is the reason for their dispute concerning the measure that obligates in the Grace after Meals and in a zimmun?

But the opposite was heard from them, for we learned:

[Pesahim 49a]

“And likewise

[like the law mentioned before it, that one who finds leaven on Passover must burn it, so too]

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

which became disqualified upon his leaving the city wall and requires burning, and by rabbinic law he must burn it in a place where it is fit to eat it. But they were lenient in this law, so that

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 sacred offerings], and when he burns it there he may take

from the wood of the arrangement

for the purpose of the burning.

Until what measure do they return? —

Rabbi Meir says:

both

this one

[who left with sacred meat]

and

both

this one

[who found leaven in his possession] — the measure of both is

an “egg-bulk,” and

whereas

Rabbi Judah says: This one and that one

their measure is

an “olive-bulk.”

It follows that Rabbi Judah considers the measure of “an olive-bulk,” while Rabbi Meir considers the measure of “an egg-bulk,” contrary to their positions in our Mishna.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The position is reversed —

it is necessary to reverse their statements in our Mishna, because in truth Rabbi Meir holds that the measures are “an egg-bulk,” and Rabbi Judah holds that they are “an olive-bulk.”

Abaye said: In truth, do not reverse

because it is possible to distinguish between the measures required for a zimmun and for burning leaven and sacred meat, for

here

in our Mishna,

they dispute over the verses,

Rabbi Meir holds

“and you shall eat” means eating, and “and you shall be satisfied” means drinking, and the measure of eating is

an olive-bulk

as in the other laws dependent on “eating.”

And Rabbi Judah holds

that although the measure of every “eating” is an olive-bulk, concerning the Grace after Meals it says

“and you shall eat and be satisfied,”

and its meaning is

eating that contains satisfaction; and what is that? —

An egg-bulk.

Whereas

there —

concerning returning to burn sacred meat —

they dispute on the basis of reasoning: Rabbi Meir holds

that the measure obligating

his return

is

like

the measure that causes

its impurity,

and it follows 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 found in his possession.

And Rabbi Judah holds

that the measure obligating

his return

is

like

the measure of

its prohibition

for eating on account of “disqualified sacred offerings,” and it follows that

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

Mishna:

How

is the wording with which

do they make a zimmun? —

With three

reclining, the one who leads the zimmun

says, “Let us bless

the One from Whose we have eaten,” and includes himself with them.

With three and he

[if three reclined apart from him, that is, from four to ten reclining], since even without him they would be obligated in a zimmun, he calls them to make a zimmun; therefore

he says, “Bless

the One from Whose we have eaten.”

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

from Whose we have eaten

.” With ten and he,

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

he says, “Bless

our God from Whom we have eaten.”

One

[whether there were]

ten

reclining,

or one

[whether there were]

ten myriad

[one hundred thousand] reclining, the wording of the zimmun is identical, because from ten onward there is no further change in its wording.

But some disagreed concerning this law and said that there are further changes in its wording, as follows: [and the reasons for the positions are explained later in the Mishna].

With one hundred

reclining,

he

[the one leading the zimmun]

says, “Let us bless the Lord our God

from Whom we have eaten

”; with one hundred and he, he says, “Bless.”

And 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

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

In accordance with

[similar to the wording]

what he blesses, so

the people reclining

respond after him,

and 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 words of the tanna who holds that there is a change in the wording of the zimmun even beyond ten reclining:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: According to the multitude of the congregation they bless,

and therefore in a zimmun of one hundred reclining one should add to the wording of the zimmun 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 “assemblies,” in the plural, signifies that there are several levels in a “congregation,” and for each level a blessing with a different wording was established.

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

Rabbi Akiva said:

one can learn

from what we find

from prayer

in the synagogue,

that Rabbi Yosei the Galilean likewise concedes that there is no distinction in the wording, but from ten and above

one of the many and one of the few says, “Bless the Lord,”

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

Rabbi Ishmael says:

the wording of “Bless” in prayer is thus:

“Bless the Lord, the blessed One.”

Gemara:

Samuel said:

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

a person should never exclude himself from the group

of those blessing together.

The Gemara raises an objection from our Mishna:

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

and it implies that it is preferable to say, “Bless,” because by this he honors the other diners, as though saying to them: Behold, you are numerous and can recite the zimmun even without me, and this is difficult for Samuel, for he thereby excludes himself from the group of those blessing?