Berakhot 52a — the Talmud in English

And

the reason it needed to inform us that the halakha follows Beit Hillel is that this beraita is the words of

Rabbi Yehoshua, who says [

Bava Metzia 59b]

“We do not heed a heavenly voice”

with regard to determining the halakha.

The Gemara challenges the reason stated by Beit Shammai, that the blessing of the sanctity of the day precedes the blessing over wine because the essence of Kiddush is in the blessing of the day:

And

if

Beit Shammai hold that the blessing of the day is superior? —

But it was taught: One who enters his home on the conclusion of Shabbat blesses over the wine, over the light, and over the spices, and afterward says

the blessing of

separation. And if he has only one cup,

and if he performs Havdalah over it, he will not be able to recite Grace after Meals at night over the cup,

he leaves it

until after the meal,

and arranges them,

arranges these blessings

all afterward.

And if the blessing of the day is superior, why does he advance the blessing over wine before the blessing of Havdalah?

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, attempts to question the very basis of the objection from the beraita:

But this

beraita,

from where do you know that it is the opinion of

the

House of Hillel? Perhaps they in fact hold that the blessing over wine precedes the blessing over the day even in the sanctification of Shabbat?

and they indeed maintain that the blessing over the wine precedes the blessing over the day even in Kiddush?

The Gemara rejects this:

It cannot enter your mind to establish the beraita as the opinion of the House of Hillel,

to establish the beraita as the opinion of Beit Hillel,

as

for

it teaches in it:

in it: “over

“over

the luminary,” and afterward “over the

spices.” And who is the one from whom you hear this view,

that the blessing over the light precedes the blessing over the spices

?

The House of Shammai!

As it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Yehuda said

The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree

about the blessing of

the blessing of

Grace after Meals, which according to

everyone is recited

first, and about the conclusion of Shabbat ceremony, which is recited last. What did they disagree about?

About the luminary and the spices: the House of Shammai says, the luminary and afterward the spices; and the House of Hillel says, the spices and afterward the luminary. Thus, the beraita that placed the blessing over the luminary before the blessing over the spices follows the opinion of the House of Shammai, and the objection remains: why did it place the blessing over wine before the conclusion of Shabbat ceremony, when that ceremony is the blessing over the day?

Итак, барайта, поставившая благословение над светом перед благовониями, придерживается метода Бейт-Шаммая, и остается трудность: почему она поставила благословение над вином перед авдалой, ведь авдала — это благословение над днем?

The Gemara continues to question the objection from the beraita:

And from where do you know that the beraita placed the luminary before the spices because it follows the opinion of

the beraita placed the light before the spices because it follows the view of

the House of Shammai according to Rabbi Yehuda, who understood their dispute with the House of Hillel as concerning precedence between the blessing over the luminary and the blessing over the spices?

who established that their dispute with Beit Hillel concerns the precedence between the blessing over the light and the blessing over the spices?

Perhaps it follows the opinion of

it is in accordance with the opinion of

the House of Hillel according to Rabbi Meir, who stated in our Mishna that everyone agrees that the blessing over the luminary precedes the blessing over the spices [and that they disagree only about precedence between the blessing of Grace after Meals and the blessing over the spices, and the beraita placed the spices first in accordance with the opinion of the House of Hillel]. It therefore also placed the blessing over wine before the conclusion of Shabbat ceremony, in accordance with the House of Hillel, which places it before the blessing over the day.

who stated in our Mishna that everyone agrees that the blessing over the light precedes the blessing over the spices [and they disagree only concerning the precedence between Birkat HaMazon and the spices, and the beraita placed the spices first in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel]. Therefore, it also placed the blessing over the wine before Havdala, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that it precedes the blessing over the day.

The Gemara rejects this:

It cannot enter your mind to establish the beraita as Rabbi Meir’s understanding of the opinion of the House of Hillel,

to establish the beraita according to Rabbi Meir’s account of the opinion of Beit Hillel,

as

for

it teaches here in the Mishna: “The House of Shammai says: the lamp, Grace after Meals, the spices, and the conclusion of Shabbat; and the House of Hillel says: the lamp, the spices, Grace after Meals, and the conclusion of Shabbat.” It follows that Rabbi Meir holds that everyone agrees that the blessing of Grace after Meals does not come first,

and it follows that Rabbi Meir maintains that everyone agrees that Birkat HaMazon is not recited first.

and

if

there, in the beraita, it teaches: “If he has only one cup, he sets it aside until after the meal and arranges all of them afterward,” this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, according to whom everyone agrees that the blessing of Grace after Meals comes first. Since the beraita lists the blessing over the luminary before the blessing over the spices,

this is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that everyone agrees that Birkat HaMazon is recited first. Since, in the order of the blessings, the beraita placed the blessing over the light before the spices,

conclude from this that it is the opinion of the House of Shammai according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And

since the possibilities of establishing the beraita as the opinion of the House of Hillel have been rejected, it follows that

in any event, there is a difficulty: there is a contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita in the opinion of the House of Shammai concerning precedence between the blessing over the day and the blessing over wine.

there is a contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita concerning the opinion of Beit Shammai regarding the precedence between the blessing over the day and the blessing over the wine.

The Gemara answers:

The House of Shammai holds that ushering in the day

the entrance of Shabbat in the sanctification of Shabbat

differs from ushering out

the day

For

with regard to ushering in the day, the earlier it is brought in, the better; therefore, in the sanctification of Shabbat, the blessing over the day must precede the blessing over wine.

But

with regard to ushering out the day, the later it is delayed, the better, so that Shabbat will not appear

as though it were

a burden to us; therefore, in the conclusion of Shabbat ceremony, the blessing over that ceremony is delayed until after the blessing over wine.

and therefore, in Havdala, the blessing over Havdala is delayed until after the blessing over the wine.

The Gemara raises another contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita in the opinion of the House of Shammai. For we learned in the beraita that if he has only one cup, he sets it aside until after the meal, which is apparently difficult:

And

and if

the House of Shammai holds that Grace after Meals requires a cup,

but in

our Mishna

we learned: “If wine was brought to them after the meal, and there is only that cup, the House of Shammai says: he recites the blessing over the wine and afterward recites the blessing over the food.” Is this not

the intention of the House of Shammai:

that he recites the blessing over it and drinks it, implying that he need not set it aside in order to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals over it, contrary to what they say in the beraita?

indicating that he need not leave it in order to recite Birkat HaMazon over it, contrary to their statement in the beraita?

The Gemara answers:

No.

The intention of the words of the House of Shammai in the Mishna is

that he recites the blessing over it and sets it aside,

in order to recite Grace after Meals over it.

The Gemara is astonished: how can he set aside the cup for Grace after Meals and not drink from it at all?

But the Master said

:

“One who recites Grace after Meals or the sanctification of Shabbat over a cup

Birkat HaMazon or Kiddush over a cup

must taste from it,”

so that his blessing is considered a blessing over a cup. All the more so, one who recites the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the vine” over it in order to drink it must taste from it.

The Gemara explains: the respondent intended to say that he sets it aside for Grace after Meals only after

he has tasted from it.

The Gemara asks again: if so, there is a difficulty:

But the Master said

,

“Taste from it

the cup of wine,

and you have blemished it,”

meaning that it will no longer be fit to serve as a cup used for a blessing. If so, since according to the House of Shammai he recites the blessing and tastes from it, how can he later recite Grace after Meals over it? The Gemara answers:

he tastes from it by pouring a small amount of wine

by pouring out a small amount of wine

into his hand, and the cup is blemished only when he tastes from the cup itself.

and the cup is considered blemished only when he tastes from the cup itself with his mouth.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

But the Master said

,

“A cup used for a blessing must contain wine in the

contain wine in the

measure

a quarter-log,

but by pouring wine out of the cup,

by pouring wine out of the cup

does he not reduce it below its required measure?

The Gemara answers: the Mishna is not discussing a cup containing precisely the required measure. Rather,

it contains more than the required measure, and even after the pouring, enough wine remains in the cup.

and even after the pouring, the cup retains the required measure of wine.

The Gemara challenges this assumption:

But it teaches in the Mishna: “If there is only that cup there,” implying that he had no more wine than was needed for the conclusion of Shabbat ceremony.

in the Mishna, which implies that he had no more wine than was needed for Havdala.

The Gemara answers: there was not enough wine for

two cups,

but

but

he did have

there was more than the measure for one cup, and it contained enough for an additional majority of a quarter-log.

measure, enough for an additional majority of a reviit.

The Gemara asks:

But Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: “The House of Shammai says: he recites the blessing over the wine and drinks it, and afterward recites Grace after Meals,”

which indicates that according to the House of Shammai he need not set aside the wine for Grace after Meals.

Rather,

the Gemara concludes:

there are two tannaim who differ in their interpretation of the opinion of the House of Shammai. Our Mishna follows the tanna in whose name Rabbi Ḥiyya taught that, according to the House of Shammai, Grace after Meals does not require a cup, whereas the tanna who taught the beraita above held that, according to the House of Shammai, Grace after Meals does require a cup.

That is, our Mishna follows the tanna in whose name Rabbi Hiyya taught that, according to Beit Shammai, Birkat HaMazon does not require a cup, whereas the tanna who taught the beraita above maintained that, according to Beit Shammai, Birkat HaMazon does require a cup.

We learned in the Mishna concerning the drinking of wine that they would customarily drink before the meal:

The House of Shammai says

first,

one washes his hands

for the meal,

and afterward one pours the cup, and drinks it immediately, before reciting the blessing “Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

and drink it immediately, before reciting the blessing over bread.

And the House of Hillel says:

first,

one pours the cup, and drinks it immediately, before washing his hands,

and drink it immediately, before washing their hands,

and afterward one washes his hands.

The Sages taught in a beraita explaining the reasons for the disputes in our Mishna:

in a beraita explaining the reasons for the disputes in our Mishna:

The House of Shammai says: one washes his hands

first,

and afterward one pours the cup. The reason is

because

if you say that one should

that they should

pour the cup first, and afterward wash his hands for the meal, we must enact a decree

that perhaps

the liquids will become impure—

because they may spill onto

they spill onto

the outside of the cup

because of his hands, which have the status of “second-degree transmitters of impurity” until he purifies them through washing. The liquids that became impure would then

which have the status of “second degree of impurity” until he purifies them through washing;

return and

the liquids that became impure

render impure the outside of

the back of

the cup, and the House of Shammai prohibits using at the meal a cup whose outside is impure. [Therefore, they require him to wash his hands before pouring the cup.]

Beit Shammai prohibit using at the meal a cup whose back is impure, as will be explained below. Therefore, they required him to wash his hands before pouring the cup.

The Gemara asks: why did they fear only that this would occur because of the liquids,

and let the hands render the cup impure

itself?

The Gemara answers: ordinary

hands are “second-degree

transmitters of impurity,”

they

are considered,

and a “second-degree

transmitter of impurity”

does not make

through contact

a “third-degree

transmitter of impurity”

with regard to non-sacred food,

except through

rendering

liquids impure. The Sages decreed that even if liquids touch only a “second-degree transmitter of impurity,” they become “first-degree transmitters of impurity,” and therefore they render the cup that touches them a “second-degree transmitter of impurity.” [In the case of teruma and consecrated offerings, there are additional levels of impurity, and they become “third-degree transmitters of impurity” through contact.]

The Sages decreed that even when liquids touch only a “second degree of impurity,” they become “first degree of impurity,” and therefore they render the cup that touches them “second degree of impurity.” [In teruma and sacrificial foods there are additional degrees of impurity, and they become “third degree of impurity” through contact.]

The Gemara brings the conclusion of the beraita’s explanation of this dispute:

And the House of Hillel says: one pours the cup

and drinks it immediately,

and afterward washes his hands,

because

if you say that one washes his hands first, we must enact a decree

a

that perhaps he will not dry his hands thoroughly, and

he fail to dry his hands thoroughly and

the liquids will become impure, namely, the water

the water

that

remained

on his hands after washing,

after washing,

because of

the outside of

the cup, and the water, which becomes a first-degree transmitter of impurity, will return and

—having become “first degree of impurity”—

render the hands impure. It would then emerge that he is eating with impure hands, whereas the purpose of the enactment requiring hand-washing is to accustom people to eating in a state of purity, so that the priests will not come to render teruma impure. [They did not, however, prohibit using a cup whose outside is impure, as explained below.]

It will then emerge that he is eating with impure hands. The purpose of the enactment of handwashing, however, is to accustom people to eat in purity, so that the priests will not come to render teruma impure. [But they did not prohibit using a cup whose back is impure, as will be explained below.]

The Gemara asks: why did the House of Hillel fear that the hands would become impure only because of the liquids remaining on the hands?

Let

the

cup

itself

render the hands impure. What did their enactment accomplish by requiring him to pour before washing, when he drinks from the cup during the meal as well? Why did they not fear that his hands would become impure then through the outside of the cup? [Why would the cup not render them impure even when he had dried them thoroughly?]

and what have they accomplished through their enactment that the cup should be poured before washing? He drinks from it during the meal as well, so why did they not fear that his hands might then become impure from the back of the cup? [And why would the cup not render them impure even when he had dried them thoroughly?]

The Gemara answers:

A vessel that became impure through a derivative of impurity

that became impure through a derivative of impurity

does not render a person impure unless it first rendered liquids impure, and those liquids then render the person impure. During the meal, we assume that he dried his hands thoroughly, because it is prohibited to eat bread with hands that are not completely dry.

unless it first renders liquids impure, and those liquids render the person impure. During the meal, we assume that he dried his hands thoroughly, because it is prohibited to eat bread with hands that are not completely dry.

The Gemara asks: how could the House of Hillel permit drinking from an impure cup?

Let

the cup

render the liquids inside it impure. Since they are concerned for the purity of the hands, it is certainly appropriate to be careful about the purity of the food itself.

and since they are concerned for the purity of the hands, certainly one should be careful concerning the purity of the food itself?

The Gemara answers:

here we are dealing with a vessel whose outside became impure

through contact

with

impure liquids.

We are dealing with a case in which the inside

of the cup remains

pure, and only

only

its outer surface is impure.

This is similar to what

we learned

:

A vessel whose outside became impure

through contact

with

impure liquids:

its outside

its base

is impure, because those parts are fit for use.

because it is fit for use.