Berakhot 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

and

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

Rabbi Yehoshua, who said

(Bava Metzia 59b):

“We do not pay attention to a heavenly voice”

with regard to determining the halakha.

The Gemara raises an objection to the reason stated by Beit Shammai—that the blessing over the sanctity of the day precedes the blessing over wine because the essence of Kiddush is the blessing over the day:

And

if

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

But it was taught in a beraita: One who enters his home on Saturday night recites the blessing over the wine, over the light, and over the spices, and afterward recites

the blessing of

Havdala. And if he has only one cup,

and if he performs Havdala over it, he will not be able to recite Birkat HaMazon at night over a cup,

he leaves it

until after the meal,

and strings them together,

arranging these blessings

all afterward.

And if the blessing over the day is superior, why does he give precedence to the blessing over wine over the blessing of Havdala?

The Gemara attempts to cast doubt on the very basis of the objection from the beraita:

But,

this beraita,

from where do you know that it is the opinion of Beit Shammai? Perhaps

it is in accordance with the opinion of

Beit Hillel,

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

The Gemara rejects this:

It should not enter your mind

to establish the beraita as the opinion of Beit Hillel,

as

it

teaches

in it: “over

over

the light” and afterward “

over the”

spices.” And who is it that you have heard maintain this view,

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

? —

Beit Shammai!

As it was taught, Rabbi Yehuda said:

Beit

Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning

the blessing of

food, which

everyone agrees is recited

first, and concerning Havdala, which is recited afterward. Concerning what did they disagree? —

Concerning the light and the spices: Beit Shammai say: the light and afterward the spices; and Beit Hillel say: the spices and afterward the light.” Thus, the beraita that placed the blessing over the light before the blessing over the spices follows the view of Beit Shammai. The objection therefore returns: Why did it place the blessing over the wine before Havdala, when Havdala is the blessing over the day?

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?

The Gemara still casts doubt on the objection from the beraita:

And from where do you know that

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

Beit Shammai, and according to Rabbi Yehuda,

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 is in accordance with the opinion of

Beit Hillel and according to Rabbi Meir,

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 should not enter your mind

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

as

it

teaches here in the Mishna: “Beit Shammai say: the lamp, Birkat HaMazon, spices, and Havdala; and Beit Hillel say: the lamp, spices, Birkat HaMazon, and Havdala,”

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

But

if

there, in the beraita, it teaches: “If he has only one cup, he leaves it after the meal and arranges all of them afterward,”

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,

infer from this that it is the opinion of Beit Shammai and according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And

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

in any event, there is a difficulty:

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:

They maintain that for Beit Shammai, bringing in the day

the entrance of Shabbat in the sanctification of Shabbat

differs from taking out the

day

[that is, bringing in Shabbat through Kiddush differs from the departure of Shabbat through Havdala]. For

with regard to bringing in the day, the earlier it is brought in, the better;

and therefore, in Kiddush, the blessing over the day must precede the blessing over the wine. But

with regard to taking out the day, the later it is taken out, the better, so that it will not be

regarded by

us as a burden;

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

The Gemara raises an additional contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita concerning the opinion of Beit Shammai. For we learned in the beraita that if he has only one cup, he leaves it until after the meal, and this is seemingly difficult:

And

if

Beit Shammai maintain that Birkat HaMazon requires a cup, —

but

in our Mishna

we learned: “If wine came to them after the meal, if there is only that one cup, Beit Shammai say: he recites the blessing over the wine and afterward recites the blessing over the food”—does this not mean

that the intention of Beit Shammai is

that he recites the blessing over it and drinks it,

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 Beit Shammai’s statement in the Mishna is

that he recites the blessing over it and sets it down

in order to recite Birkat HaMazon over it.

The Gemara is astonished: How can it be that he sets aside the cup for Birkat HaMazon and does not drink from it at all?

But the Master said

[Pesachim 105b]:

“One who recites

Birkat HaMazon or Kiddush over a cup

must taste it,”

so that his blessing will be considered a blessing over a cup; and certainly one who recites the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the vine” over it in order to drink it must taste it.

The Gemara explains: The one who answered meant that he leaves it for Birkat HaMazon after

he has tasted it.

The Gemara returns and asks: If so, the following difficulty arises:

But the Master said

[there]:

If he tastes

the cup of wine,

he has blemished it,

by making it unfit for a cup of blessing. If so, since according to Beit Shammai he recites the blessing and tastes it, how can he afterward recite Birkat HaMazon over it? The Gemara answers:

He tastes it

by pouring out a small amount of wine

with his hand,

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

The Gemara continues to ask:

But the Master said

[there]:

A cup of blessing must

contain wine in the

measure

[of a reviit of a log],

but

by pouring wine out of the cup

does he not reduce it below its measure?

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

it contains substantially more than its measure,

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

The Gemara challenges this assumption:

But it teaches: “If there is only that one cup,”

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

The Gemara answers: He did not have enough wine for

two

cups,

but

he did have

more than one

measure, enough for an additional majority of a reviit.

The Gemara asks:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught: “Beit Shammai say: He recites the blessing over the wine and drinks it, and afterward recites Birkat HaMazon,”

indicating that according to Beit Shammai he need not leave the wine for Birkat HaMazon?

Rather,

the Gemara concludes:

There are two tannaim in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

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:

Beit Shammai say

that first

they wash their hands

for the meal,

and afterward they pour the cup

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

And Beit Hillel say:

first

they pour the cup,

and drink it immediately, before washing their hands,

and afterward they wash their hands.

The Sages taught

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

Beit Shammai say: They wash their hands

first

and afterward pour the cup,

and the reason is

that if you say

that they should

pour the cup first,

and afterward wash their hands for the meal, then a decree must be enacted

lest the liquids become impure —

as

they spill onto

the back of the cup

because of his hands,

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

and they will return

the liquids that became impure

and render

the back of

the cup impure.

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 on account of the liquids?

Let the hands render the cup impure

itself?

The Gemara answers: Ordinarily,

hands are “second

degree of impurity

and are

considered as such,

and a “second

degree of impurity

does not render

through contact a

“third

degree of impurity

in non-sacred food,

but through

rendering

liquids impure.

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 Beit Hillel say: They pour the cup

and drink it immediately,

and afterward they wash their hands,

because

if you say that they wash their hands first,

a

decree must be enacted lest

he fail to dry his hands thoroughly and

the liquids become impure,

the water

that

remained

on the hands

after washing,

because of

the back of

the cup, and the water will return

—having become “first degree of impurity”—

and render the hands impure.

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 Beit Hillel fear that the hands would become impure only on account of the liquids that remained on the hands?

Let

the

cup

itself

render the hands impure,

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

does not render a person impure

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 did Beit Hillel permit drinking from an impure cup?

Let

the cup

render the liquids inside it impure,

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 back became impure

through contact

with

impure liquids.

Its interior

of the cup remains

pure, and

only

its exterior is impure.

This is similar to

what we learned

[Kelim 25:6]:

A vessel whose back became impure

through contact

with

impure liquids:

its back

[its bottom]

is impure,

because it is fit for use.