Berakhot 50a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara explains:

Say ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location") that the intention of the Mishna is that if there are three besides him, he may say

also

in the wording

“Let us bless,”

and nevertheless

the wording

“Let us bless” is preferable,

because with it he does not remove himself from the group of those who bless.

And the Gemara proves [the ruling] according to Shmuel from what

Rav

Ada bar Ahava said; they say in the academy: We have learned

[in the following Mishna]:

Six

who ate together

may divide,

and make a 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 Name. And in Rav’s academy they proved from this:

If you say that the wording

“Let us bless”

is preferable, for that reason they may divide,

because by doing so they will not forfeit the distinction of the zimmun,

but if you say that the wording

“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, is it not to be inferred

that the wording

“Let us bless” is preferable,

and this is the conclusion:

Infer from it that the wording “Let us bless” is preferable, so that he does not remove himself from the group of those who bless .

so that he does not exclude himself from the group of those blessing.

It was also taught likewise

in a beraita:

Whether he said “Bless” or whether he said “Let us bless,” they do not seize upon him

—they do not rebuke him—

for this,

because he does not commit a prohibition through this change;

but the punctilious ones

—the exacting ones—

seize upon him for this

because he removed himself from the group of those who bless.

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

Rabbi says:

One who says

“Blessed is He from whose [provision] we ate

and through whose goodness

we live

” is a Torah scholar,

whereas one who says

“and from His goodness

we live

” is an ignoramus,

because “from His goodness” means a part of His goodness, and he appears to diminish the goodnesses of the Holy One, blessed be He, as though 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 the house of Your servant be blessed

forever,”

and how is it possible that David asked only for a little of “Your goodness”? Rav Dimi answered him:

In a request

—in a plea—

it is different,

because the way of one who asks is that he does not dare raise his head and ask for a great request; therefore David asked only for a little of the blessing of God.

Abaye returned and challenged:

In a request too, is it not 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 as you desire, and I will fulfill all your requests? Rav Dimi answered him:

That verse is written concerning words of Torah,

for with regard to them it is proper to ask for much wisdom, but concerning other matters one should ask only for a little.

It was taught: Rabbi says:

One who says

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

whereas one who says “Through His goodness

they live

”—whose meaning is that others live—

is an ignoramus,

because he removes himself from the collective, since he does not include acknowledgment of his own life together with theirs.

The Nehardeans taught the reverse:

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 wording “they live” includes the entire world, whereas the wording “we live” refers only to those reclining with him.

And the halakha is not according to the Nehardeans,

but it is preferable to say “And through His goodness we live.”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

One who says in the zimmun

“Let us bless [Him] from whose [provision] we ate” is a Torah scholar,

whereas one who says

“To whom we ate from” is an ignoramus,

because “to whom” implies that there are many who feed, and he gives thanks to one of them, namely, the householder who fed him. But when he says simply “from whose [provision] we ate,” its meaning is the Holy One, blessed be He, that everyone eats from His [provision].

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

in the Passover Haggadah:

“Therefore we are obligated to give thanks, etc.

to Him who performed for our fathers and for us all these miracles,”

so it is proper to say thanksgiving in the wording “to whom”?

He said to him: There, the matter demonstrates

that his intention is to give thanks to the Holy One, blessed be He, for

who performs miracles—

the Holy One, blessed be He,

and it is not like the Grace after Meals, where it is possible to err and think that his intention is to give thanks to the householder who fed him.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

One who says in the zimmun

“Blessed is He from whose [provision] we ate” is a Torah scholar,

whereas one who says

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

because since he did not say “from whose [provision],” it appears that he blesses 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 [Him] from whose [provision] we ate” and not “For the food that we ate”

only in

a zimmun of

three

up to ten,

for there is no

mention of

the Divine Name

in the wording of the zimmun, and it is possible to err and think that he blesses the food that he ate.

But in

a zimmun of

ten

people or more,

for there is

in its wording mention of

the Divine Name, the matter demonstrates

that their intention is to give thanks to the Holy One, blessed be He, and they may answer “For the food that we ate,”

as we learned

in our Mishna:

According to the manner in which he blesses, so they answer after him: “Blessed is the Lord, God of Israel, God of the Hosts, who dwells among the cherubim, for the food that we ate.”

Thus, in a place where they mention the Divine Name, they say “For the food that we ate.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Whether ten or whether ten myriad.

This itself is difficult: You said

at the beginning

“Whether ten or whether ten myriad,” thus

there is no difference between the wording of the zimmun for ten and for ten myriad, and

they are alike, and

whereas

afterward it teaches

at the end, different wordings of the zimmun according to the increase in 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 end—

is the statement of

whereas

this

—the beginning—

is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

As we learned

at the end of the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: According to the multitude of the congregation they bless, as it is stated, “In assemblies bless God.”

And “assemblies” in the plural implies that there are several levels within a “congregation,” and for each level a blessing with a different wording was established, whereas Rabbi Akiva held that the wording does not change according to the increase in the congregation.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva said: What do we find in the synagogue, etc.

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Akiva, what does he do with this verse of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean?—

He needs it for

another exposition,

as it was taught: Rabbi Meir would say: From where [do we know] that even fetuses in their mothers’ wombs sang a song at the Sea

[at the splitting of the Sea of Reeds]?

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

That is, when the assemblies of Israel were at the Sea of Reeds, “bless the Lord” in song—even the fetuses who were in the “source.”

And the other one,

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who expounded this verse as referring to changes in the wording according to the multitude of the congregation, from where did he know that even fetuses sang a song?—

From

the word

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

whereas the word “in assemblies” is interpreted as above.

Rava said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

Ravina and Rav Hama bar Buzi happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. Rav Hama rose and was seeking one hundred

[he sought one hundred people in order to make a zimmun with the wording “Let us bless the Lord our God”].

Ravina said to him: You do not need to

seek one hundred people, for

this is what Rava said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva,

and one does not add, with one hundred, to the wording said with ten.

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

and he prolonged his meal,

we would bless in groups of three

in a low voice, and after the blessing we would wait until the Exilarch finished his meal and made a zimmun aloud with those sitting near him.

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

and let them bless

in groups of

ten?

The Gemara answers: If they had made a zimmun in groups of ten, the one leading the zimmun would have had to raise his voice, and they were concerned lest

the Exilarch hear and become angry

that they had blessed separately in public, and therefore they divided into groups of three.

The Gemara asks: Why did they bless separately,

and let them go out with the blessing of the Exilarch

and thereby gain a zimmun with mention of the Divine Name?

The Gemara answers:

Since everyone was making noise

they could not hear,

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

Rabba Tosfa’a said: These three who ate bread

—ate bread—

together, and one of them preceded [the others] and blessed privately

without a zimmun: after they finish their meal, they join him to the zimmun, and he answers with them even though he has already blessed, but only

they fulfill their obligation through his zimmun

for them,

whereas

he does not fulfill his obligation

through their zimmun

because there is no retroactive zimmun—

after the Grace after Meals.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Ishmael says:

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

“Bless the Lord who is blessed.”

Rafram bar Pappa happened to come to a synagogue

[to a synagogue]

of

a place called

“Avi Gibar.” He rose to read

the Torah reading

from the scroll, and said

when he went up to read:

“Bless the Lord,” and he was silent and did not say “who is blessed”; everyone made noise

[the entire congregation shouted]

“Bless the Lord who is blessed!”

Rava said: “Black pot

[a black earthenware vessel ],

with a dispute

—of Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva—

what need have you for it?!”

For Rabbi Akiva also agrees with Rabbi Ishmael that it is preferable to say “who is blessed,” and only does not obligate one to say it; if so, why do you refrain from saying it?

Moreover, everyone is accustomed

to say “who is blessed”

according to Rabbi Ishmael.

Mishna:

Three who ate as one,

became obligated in a zimmun, and thereafter

are not permitted to divide

and bless each one by himself,

and likewise four, and likewise five

may not divide. Even though the group’s obligation in a zimmun is fulfilled with three, even without the fourth and fifth, nevertheless they are forbidden to remove from themselves their obligation in a zimmun.

Six may divide

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

until

there are

ten. And ten may not divide,

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

until

there are

twenty,

and then, if they wish, they may make a zimmun with mention of the Divine Name in two groups of ten.

Two groups,

each of which had three people,

who were eating in one house, when some of them saw these

of this group

the

some of them

these

of the second group,

behold, these join

for a zimmun,

and if they wish, they perform the zimmun together

. But if not [-

for some of them do not see some of them]

these perform the zimmun for themselves and these perform the zimmun for themselves.

And the Mishna concludes with the law of the cup of the blessing of the zimmun

One does not recite the blessing “

who creates the fruit of the vine

” over wine

as it is, because it is not fit for drinking on account of its strength

until he puts water into it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Sages say,

also over wine as it is

one recites the blessing.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “Three who ate as one are not permitted to divide,” and the Gemara wondered:

What does this come to teach us? —

after all, it has already

been taught once

in the earlier Mishna [45a]:

“Three who ate as one are obligated to perform a zimmun,”

and it is obvious that as long as they have not fulfilled their obligation, they cannot divide?

The Gemara explains:

This comes to teach us —

like that which Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Three who sat to eat as one, and

even

if they have not yet eaten,

are not permitted to divide.

Alternatively: Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel: This is what it teaches: —

Three who sat to eat as one, even though each and every one eats

from his loaf,

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

they are not permitted to divide.

Alternatively,

the intention of the Mishna is to innovate

like that of Rav Huna, for Rav Huna said: Three who came from three groups,

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

they are not permitted to divide.

Rav Hisda said: And this is when they came from three groups of three people,

for if initially they ate in groups of two, and even after the three of them joined they did not eat together, they did not become obligated in a zimmun.

Rava said: