Berakhot 50a (נ.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

Say:

if there are three besides him, he may say

even

in the formulation

“Bless,”

but in any event

the formulation

“Let us bless” is preferable,

because with it he does not exclude himself from the group of those offering the blessing.

The Gemara proves that the halakha is in accordance with Shmuel from what

Rav

Adda bar Ahava said in the academy of Rav: We learned

in the adjacent Mishna:

six

who ate together

may divide,

and recite zimmun separately in two groups of three, and they may divide

until

there are

ten,

but from ten to twenty they may not divide, so as not to forfeit the mention of the Divine Name. And in Rav’s academy they proved from this:

If you say that the formulation

“Let us bless”

is preferable, that is why they may divide,

as by doing so they do not lose the elevated status of zimmun,

but if you say that the formulation

“Bless”

is preferable, why may they divide,

for there will be only three in each group, and they will not be able to say “Bless”?

Rather, can one not conclude from this that the formulation

“Let us bless”

is preferable,

and this is the conclusion:

Conclude from this that the formulation “Let us bless” is preferable, so that one does not exclude himself from the group of those offering the blessing

.

It was likewise taught

in a beraita:

Whether he said “Bless” or whether he said “Let us bless,” they do not take him to task

—they do not rebuke him—

for this,

because he has not committed a transgression by making this change.

But the meticulous

—the exacting—

do take him to task for this,

because he excluded himself from the group of those offering the blessing.

And from a person’s blessings it can be recognized whether or not he is a Torah scholar. How so? —

Rabbi says:

One who says

“Blessed is He from whose bounty we have eaten

and through whose goodness

we live

,” he is a Torah scholar,

whereas one who says

“and from whose goodness

we live

,” he is an ignoramus,

because “from whose goodness” means from a portion of His goodness, and he appears to diminish the goodnesses of the Holy One, blessed be He, as though he were saying that He gives us only enough to sustain life and no more.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: But it is written

[II Samuel 7:29]

“And from Your blessing may Your servant’s

house be blessed forever,”

so how is it possible that David requested only a small amount of “Your goodness”? Rav Dimi answered him

: In a request

—a plea—

I am speaking,

for it is the way of one making a request that he does not dare raise his head and ask for a great request; therefore David asked only for a small amount of God’s blessing.

Abaye continued to challenge him:

But even in a request it is written

[Psalms 81:11] that the Holy One, blessed be He, says:

“Open your mouth wide and I will fill it,”

that is, ask with your full mouth for whatever you desire, and I will fulfill all your requests. Rav Dimi answered him:

That verse is written with regard to Torah,

for in Torah it is fitting to ask for abundant wisdom, but regarding other matters one should ask only for a small amount.

It was taught: Rabbi says:

One who says

“Through His goodness we live,” he is a Torah scholar,

whereas one who says “Through His goodness

they live”

—whose meaning is that others live—

he is an ignoramus,

because he excludes himself from the group, as he does not include an acknowledgment of his own life together with theirs.

The Nehardeans taught the opposite:

One who says “Through His goodness we live” is an ignoramus, whereas one who says “Through His goodness they live” is a Torah scholar, because they held that the formulation “they live” includes the entire world, whereas the formulation “we live” refers only to those reclining with him.

But the halakha is not in accordance with the Nehardeans,

rather, it is preferable to say “and through His goodness we live.”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

One who says in zimmun

“Let us bless the One from whose bounty we have eaten,” he is a Torah scholar,

whereas one who says

“To the One from whom we have eaten,” he is an ignoramus,

because “to the One” implies that there are many who feed us, and he is thanking one of them—namely, the host who fed him. But when he simply says “from whose bounty we have eaten,” this refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, from whose bounty everyone eats.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But we say

in the Passover Haggada:

“Therefore we are obligated to thank, and so on,

the One who performed for our ancestors and for us all these miracles,”

so it is apparently fitting to offer thanks using the formulation “to the One”?

He said to him: There it is evident from the matter

that one’s intention is to thank the Holy One, blessed be He, for

who performs miracles

is the Holy One, blessed be He,

whereas this is not the case with Birkat HaMazon, where one might mistakenly think that his intention is to thank the host who fed him.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

One who says in zimmun

“Blessed is He from whose bounty we have eaten,” he is a Torah scholar,

whereas one who says

“For the food that we ate,” he is an ignoramus,

because since he did not say “from whose bounty,” it appears that he is blessing the food that he ate, and not the Holy One, blessed be He.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We said

that one must say “Let us bless the One from whose bounty we have eaten” and not “for the food that we ate”

only in

zimmun of

three

through ten,

as there is no

mention of

the Divine Name

in the formulation of zimmun, and one might mistakenly think that he is blessing the food that he ate.

But in

zimmun of

ten

people or more,

as there is

in its formulation a mention of

the Divine Name, it is evident from the matter

that their intention is to thank the Holy One, blessed be He, and they may respond “for the food that we ate,”

as we learned

in our Mishna:

In the manner in which he recites the blessing, so they respond after him: “Blessed is the Lord, God of Israel, God of Hosts, Who sits upon the cherubim, for the food that we ate.”

Thus, where the Divine Name is mentioned, one says “for the food that we ate.”

We learned in the Mishna: “Whether eleven or whether eleven myriads.”

This itself is difficult: You said

at the beginning

“whether eleven or whether eleven myriads,” which indicates

that there is no difference between the formulation of zimmun for ten and that for ten myriads, and

they are equivalent, and

whereas

later it teaches

in the conclusion

different formulations of zimmun according to the number of those reclining:

“With one hundred he says,” “with one thousand he says,” “with ten thousand he says”?

Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult. This

—the conclusion—is the statement of

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

whereas

that

—the beginning—is the statement of

Rabbi Akiva.

As we learned

at the end of the Mishna:

“Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: According to the multitude of the congregation they recite the blessing, as it is stated: ‘In assemblies bless God,’”

and the plural term “assemblies” means that there are several levels of “congregation,” and a different formulation of the blessing was established for each level. Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, held that the formulation does not change according to the size of the congregation.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Akiva said: What do we find in the synagogue, and so on.”

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Akiva—what does he do with this verse cited by Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?

—

He requires it for another exposition,

as it was taught: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even fetuses in their mothers’ wombs sang a song at the Sea

[at the splitting of the Reed Sea]?

As it is stated: “In assemblies bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel.”

The meaning is that when Israel was assembled at the Reed Sea, they “blessed the Lord” in song, including even the fetuses who were in the “source.”

And the other

—Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who expounded this verse as referring to different formulations according to the size of the congregation—how did he know that even fetuses sang a song?

He derives it from

the word

“source,” whereas the word “assemblies” is expounded as above.

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva. Ravina and Rav Hama bar Buzi happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. Rav Hama rose and began seeking one hundred people

Rava said: The halakha follows Rabbi Akiva.

[to gather one hundred people in order to recite zimmun with the formulation “Let us bless the Lord our God.”]

Ravina said to him: You do not need to do so.

You do not need to seek one hundred people, since

Rava said this: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

and the formulation recited with one hundred does not add anything to the formulation recited with ten.

Rava said: When we ate bread at the house of the Exilarch,

and he prolonged his meal, we would

recite the blessing in groups of three

in a low voice, and after the blessing would wait for the Exilarch to finish his meal and recite zimmun aloud with those seated near him.

The Gemara asks: Why did they divide into groups of three, thereby forfeiting mention of the Divine Name,

The Gemara asks: Why did they divide into groups of three, thereby losing the mention of the Divine Name?

and let them recite the blessing

in groups of

ten each?

The Gemara answers: If they had recited zimmun in groups of ten, the leader of the zimmun would have had to raise his voice, and they were concerned that perhaps

the Exilarch would hear and become angry

that they had recited the blessing independently and publicly, and therefore they divided into groups of three. The Gemara asks: Why did they recite the blessing independently,

The Gemara asks: Why did they bless separately?

and let them go out with the blessing of the Exilarch

and thereby gain zimmun with mention of the Divine Name?

The Gemara answers:

Since everyone was making noise

they could not hear,

the voice of the leader of the zimmun, because his voice was swallowed up by the voices of the many people dining at the Exilarch’s table.

Rabba Tosfa'a said: These three who ate bread

—ate bread—

together, and one of them went ahead and recited Birkat HaMazon on his own,

without zimmun: after they finish their meal, they may include him in zimmun, and he may respond with them even though he has already recited the blessing, but only

they fulfill their obligation through his zimmun,

while he does not fulfill his obligation

through their zimmun,

because zimmun cannot be recited retroactively

—

after Birkat HaMazon.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yishmael says: The formulation of “Bless” in prayer is as follows:

“Bless the Lord, the blessed One.”

Rafram bar Pappa happened to come to a synagogue

—to a synagogue—

in a place

called

“Avi Gever.” He rose and read

from the Torah scroll,

and said when he went up to read:

“Bless the Lord,” and he fell silent, and did not say “the blessed One.” Everyone made noise

[the entire congregation shouted]

“Bless the Lord, the blessed One!”

Rava said: “Black pot

—

a black earthenware vessel—

why do you need a dispute

—between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva—

for?!”

Even Rabbi Akiva agrees with Rabbi Yishmael that it is preferable to say “the blessed One”; he merely does not require one to say it. If so, why do you refrain from saying it?

Furthermore, everyone is accustomed

to saying “the blessed One”

in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael.

Furthermore, everyone is accustomed

to saying “Who is blessed,”

Mishna:

Three who ate together became obligated in zimmun, and thereafter

are not permitted to divide

and recite Birkat HaMazon each on his own.

And likewise four, and likewise five

may not divide. Although the group’s obligation of zimmun is fulfilled with three, even without the fourth and fifth, nevertheless they may not divest themselves of their own obligation of zimmun.

Six may divide

to recite zimmun in groups of three, and likewise they may divide

until

there are

ten. But ten may not divide,

so that they do not forfeit mention of the Divine Name in zimmun,

until

there are

twenty,

at which point, if they wish,

they may recite zimmun with mention of the Divine Name in two groups of ten.

and then, if they wish, they may recite the invitation with the mention of the Divine Name in two groups of ten each.

Two groups,

each consisting of three people,

who were eating in one house, when some of them could see those

from this group

—

some of

those

from the second group,

these join together

for zimmun,

and if they wish, they may recite zimmun together.

But if not

—if some of them cannot see some of the others—

these recite zimmun separately, and those recite zimmun separately.

The Mishna concludes with the law concerning the cup of wine for the blessing of zimmun:

One does not recite “

“Who creates the fruit of the vine””

over wine

as it is, because it is unfit to drink on account of its strength,

until he adds water to it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Sages say,

even over wine as it is

one recites the blessing.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “Three who ate together may not divide,” and the Gemara asks:

What does this teach us?

It was already

taught once

in the earlier Mishna [45a]:

“Three who ate together are obligated to recite zimmun,”

and it is obvious that as long as they have not fulfilled their obligation, they may not divide.

The Gemara explains:

This teaches us

that which Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Three who sat down to eat together, and

even

if they have not yet eaten,

may not divide.

Another version: Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel: This is what it teaches:

Three who sat down to eat together, even though each one is eating

from his own loaf,

nevertheless join together, and the obligation of zimmun takes effect upon them; therefore

they may not divide.

Alternatively,

the Mishna’s innovation is

as in the statement of Rav Huna, for Rav Huna said: Three who came from three groups,

each of whom had come from a different group [of three, as stated below], and the three formed a separate group, even if the three had not eaten anything together, since they had already become obligated in zimmun in their original groups,

may not divide.

Rav Ḥisda said: This is when they came from three groups of three people,

because if at first they had eaten in groups of two, and even after the three joined together they had not eaten together, they had not become obligated in zimmun.

Rava said: