Berakhot 52b — the Talmud in English

But those of which

the inside and its rim

[the edge of the vessel]

and its ear

[a curved handle]

and its handles

[straight handles]

are pure.

But if

its inside became impure

—

the entire vessel became impure.

And the Gemara explains:

Over what do

the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel

disagree

? The House of Shammai required that he wash his hands first, so that the hands would not render the liquids impure, and they would render the cup impure, and then it would be forbidden to use the cup, because they

hold that it is forbidden to use

at a meal

a vessel whose back became impure through liquids, as a decree on account of

the concern that

drops

[droplets] might spray from inside the vessel onto its impure back, and then return and render his hands impure; and it is forbidden to eat with impure hands.

And

since one does not use an impure vessel at a meal, it follows that

there is no reason to decree

that one pour and drink first, as the House of Hillel decreed, out of concern

lest the liquids become impure,

the water

that

remained

on the hands

after washing, through their touching

the

back of

the cup.

For there will not be an impure cup before him.

And the House of Hillel hold that it is permitted to use

at a meal

a vessel whose back became impure through liquids,

because they

say that drops are not common

to spray from inside the cup onto its back, and therefore they did not require him to wash his hands before drinking the wine.

And

on the contrary, in their view he should wash only after drinking, for if he washes first,

there is cause for concern lest the liquids on the hands become impure because of the cup,

since he can use an impure cup.

And the Gemara brings a supplement:

Alternatively,

another reason for the view of the House of Hillel that one washes his hands only after drinking the wine: it is necessary that

immediately after hand-washing there be a meal.

That is, one may not interrupt between hand-washing and eating, even by pouring the cup.

And the Gemara explains: For what purpose

why

did the House of Hillel need to say

“Alternatively”?

This is what the House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai

: Even

according to your view, that you say it is forbidden to use a vessel whose back is impure

since

we decree on account of drops, even so this is preferable

to pour and drink the cup first, before washing, because

“immediately after hand-washing there is a meal”

is a principle in the very laws of a meal, and it is not displaced because of a concern of impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

The House of Shammai say:

After washing his hands,

he dries his hands with a cloth

[towel]

and places it on the table

in order to use it during the meal.

And the House of Hillel say:

He should not place the towel on the table, but only

on the cushion

on which he reclines during the meal.

The Sages taught

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

The House of Shammai say: He dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table, for if you say

that he should place it

on the cushion,

there is concern that perhaps he will recline during the meal on an impure cushion, and it is fitting to decree

a decree

because of the concern

lest the liquids become impure,

the water

that

was not absorbed completely

in the cloth

when he dried his hands after washing,

because of the cushion, and

when he dries his hands during the meal,

they will return and render his hands impure,

and it will result that he eats with impure hands.

The Gemara objects: Why did they fear impurity only because of the liquids in the cloth,

and let the cushion render the cloth impure

itself, and the cloth render the hands impure? The Gemara answers:

One vessel does not render another vessel impure

unless the vessel that renders it impure is at the level of a primary source of impurity. Therefore they stated that the concern is only because of the liquids in the cloth, which become impure through the cushion and render the hands impure.

The Gemara returns and objects: Why did they decree concerning the manner of placing the cloth,

and

behold, there is concern that

the cushion might render the person himself impure?

If so, it would be preferable to decree that he not recline on an impure cushion, since if they are concerned for the purity of the hands during the meal, it is certainly fitting to be careful regarding the purity of the person himself?

The Gemara answers: They did not fear that the person reclining would become impure because of the cushion, because

a vessel does not render a person impure

unless the vessel that renders him impure is at the level of a primary source of impurity.

And the Gemara brings the conclusion of the beraita in explaining this dispute:

And the House of Hillel say,

after he washed his hands and dried them with the towel, he places it

on the cushion,

because

if you say

that he should place it

on the table,

one should decree

a decree lest

he eat at an impure table, and

the liquids in the cloth become impure because of the table, and

if the wet cloth touches food,

the water

in it will return

and render the food impure,

and it will result that his hand-washing caused him to eat in impurity. Therefore they decreed that the cloth with which he dried his hands should not be placed on the table at which he eats.

The Gemara objects: What did the Sages accomplish with their enactment,

and

behold, even if he feared because of the cloth, there is still

a

concern that he might

render impure

the

table

itself

the food within it?

The Gemara answers:

Here we are dealing with a table that is “second

in impurity,”

and

the rule is that

a “second

in impurity”

makes a “third

in impurity”

in ordinary food only through

rendering

liquids

impure. Regarding liquids the Rabbis decreed that even if they touched only a “second in impurity,” they become “firsts in impurity,” and therefore they make the food that touches them a “second in impurity.”

And the Gemara explains:

Over what do

the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel

disagree

? The House of Shammai preferred that he place the towel on the table, because they

hold that it is forbidden to use a table

that is

“second

in impurity” even at a meal of ordinary food. The reason they decreed

this decree

is

because of those who eat teruma,

so that they would not err and eat at such a table, since teruma becomes disqualified even through contact with a “second in impurity.” Therefore there is no concern that the water on the towel will become impure and render the food impure.

And

those

of the House of Hillel

who prohibited placing the towel on the table

hold that it is permitted to use a second-degree table,

and there is no place to decree so that those who eat teruma would not err and eat at an impure table, since

those who eat teruma are diligent.

Therefore they feared that if he placed the towel on the table, the water on it would become impure and render the food impure. The Gemara brings from a Tosefta:

“Alternatively”

—another reason for the view of the House of Hillel that one does not place the towel on the table—because

there is no

obligation of

hand-washing for ordinary food from the Torah

as will be explained below.

And the Gemara explains: For what purpose

why

did the House of Hillel need to say

“Alternatively”?

This is what the House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: And if you will say, what is different regarding food

that we prohibited placing the cloth together with it on the table, because

we are concerned

lest the water in it render the food impure,

and what is different regarding hands, for which we are not concerned

lest during the meal he dry them with the cloth on the cushion and the water in it render his hands impure? Our answer is that indeed there is also concern for the impurity of his hands, but

even so, this

—placing the cloth on the cushion—

is preferable,

because

there is no

obligation of

hand-washing for ordinary food from the Torah

but only from rabbinic law. Therefore,

it is preferable that hands become impure, which have no

[for their impurity]

essential basis in the Torah, rather than food become impure, which does have an essential basis in the Torah.

We learned in the Mishna:

The House of Shammai say: They sweep

[with brooms]

the house

of remnants of food that fell during the meal [if they were seated on the ground; and if they were seated beside a table, they clean the table],

and

only

afterward they wash

with final water

the hands. And the House of Hillel say: They wash the hands

first,

and afterward they sweep the house.

The Sages taught

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

The House of Shammai say,

they sweep the house and afterward wash the hands, for if you say that they wash the hands first,

before sweeping the house,

you are found to destroy the food,

because the remnants of food become repulsive when the “final water” splashes onto them, and it is forbidden to destroy food.

And the Gemara clarifies, that in this law the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel do not disagree completely. Rather, even according to the House of Hillel it is permitted to wash his hands after he clears the table. Their view is only that, if he wishes, he may wash first, before clearing it.

But hand-washing first, according to the House of Shammai, does not

accord with their view,

and in their opinion it is forbidden to wash his hands before clearing the table.

What is the reason?

Because

there remain

crumbs

from the food, and if he washes his hands while they are still on the table, there is concern that they will become repulsive through the water.

And the Gemara brings the conclusion of the beraita in explaining this dispute:

And the House of Hillel say

that he may wash his hands first, before clearing the table, since

if

the

servant

who serves at the meal

is a Torah scholar, he removes crumbs that contain the size of an olive, and leaves

only the

crumbs that do not contain the size of an olive,

for which there is no prohibition of destroying food. And incidentally the Gemara learns from their words:

This supports Rabbi Yohanan, for Rabbi Yohanan said: Crumbs that do not contain the size of an olive may be destroyed by hand,

since there is no prohibition of “Do not destroy” in making repulsive food that is not fit for eating.

And the Gemara explains:

Over what do

the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel

disagree

? The House of Hillel hold that it is forbidden to use an ignorant servant, who is not expert in the laws of a meal. Since the servant is a Torah scholar, he certainly cleared away the crumbs containing the measure of an olive, and it is already possible to wash with “final water” without concern that food will become repulsive.

And

those

of the House of Shammai hold that it is permitted to use an ignorant servant,

and therefore they fear that if he washes his hands before cleaning the table or the house, the water will splash onto the remnants of food and make them repulsive.

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said in the name of Rav Huna: In all

the disputes that we find in

this chapter, the halakha follows the House of Hillel, except for this one, where the halakha follows the House of Shammai

that it is permitted to use an ignorant servant, and therefore it is necessary to clear away the remnants of food before washing with final water.

And Rabbi Oshaya taught it oppositely

: “The House of Shammai say: They wash the hands and afterward sweep the house, and the House of Hillel say: They sweep the house and afterward wash the hands.”

And

therefore he said that

in this matter as well the halakha follows the House of Hillel

that it is necessary to clear away the remnants of food before washing with final water. We learned in the Mishna concerning one who has only one cup of wine on the conclusion of Shabbat, and reserves it to recite blessings over it after his meal together with havdala:

The House of Shammai say:

He should recite the blessing first over the

lamp, and

afterward the blessing of

Grace,

the blessing over

spices, and

finally

havdala, and the House of Hillel say:

The order of the blessings in this manner is

: lamp, spices, Grace, and havdala.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to Rava’s house. He saw Rava reciting

on the conclusion of Shabbat

the blessing over spices first

before reciting the blessing over the lamp.

He said to him: Since the House

of Shammai and the House of Hillel do not disagree about the blessing over the light,

the blessing

of the luminary,

for everyone agrees that it precedes the blessing over spices, as

we learned

in our Mishna

“The House of Shammai say: lamp and Grace, spices and havdala; and the House of Hillel say: lamp and spices, Grace and havdala,”

for they all mention the blessing over the lamp first.

Rava replied to him

in answer to his question:

“This

Mishna

is the words of Rabbi Meir,

but

Rabbi Yehuda says: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree

when he has only one cup of wine on the conclusion of Shabbat

about

the blessing of

Grace, which is first, and about

the blessing of

havdala, which is last. About what did they disagree?

About

the blessing of

the luminary and the spices: The House of Shammai say

that he should recite first

the blessing over the luminary and afterward

over the

spices, and the House of Hillel say: spices and afterward the luminary.”

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The people followed the House of Hillel according to Rabbi Yehuda,

and therefore I recited the blessing over the spices first.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say

that the wording of the blessing over the lamp is:

“Who created the light of the fire,” whereas Beit Hillel say: “Who creates the lights of the fire.”

Rava said: With regard to the wording “created,” everyone agrees

that it may be recited, since

“created”

is

understood as referring to the past,

and this wording is preferable when blessing God for the creation of fire, which took place in the past.

They disagree with regard to “creates.” Beit Shammai reason that “creates”

means

“will create,”

because the present tense indicates that He continues constantly to create; therefore, it is impossible to recite the blessing for the creation of fire using the wording “creates

,”

whereas

Beit Hillel reason: “creates” also means “created,”

because the present tense can include the past , and since this is the wording used in Scripture, it is preferable to recite the blessing in this wording.

Rav Yosef raises an objection

to Rava: It is stated [Isaiah 45:7]

“Who forms light and creates darkness,”

and likewise [Amos 4:13]

“Who forms mountains and creates wind,”

and likewise [Isaiah 42:5]

“Who creates the heavens and stretches them out.”

All three of these verses speak about the six days of Creation, and it is thus proven that “creates” also refers to the past.

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

Whether

with “created” or

whether

with “creates,” everyone agrees that “created”

refers to the past

and is understood

and, according to everyone, one may recite the blessing using either of these two wordings.

They disagree with regard to “light” and “lights,” as Beit Shammai reason that there is only one kind of light

[a type of light]

in the fire,

and therefore one should say “light” in the singular,

whereas

Beit Hillel

reason that there are many kinds of light

[a variety of colors of light ]

in the fire,

and therefore it is appropriate to say “lights” in the plural.

A tannaitic source also teaches this: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai

that the proper wording of the blessing over the lamp is “the lights of the fire,” because

there are many lights in the fire,

which proves that their disagreement concerns the different types of light in fire.

We learned in the Mishna:

One does not recite a blessing either over the lamp or

over the spices of gentiles, nor over the lamp

that was lit in honor of the deceased,

nor over the spices

that were used to remove the odor

of the dead, nor over a lamp or spices belonging to idolatry,

because objects used in idolatry are prohibited from benefit.

The Gemara discusses this:

Granted, with regard to a lamp

belonging to gentiles, one does not recite a blessing over it

because it did not rest

from labor on Shabbat, and a blessing is recited only over a lamp that was not used for labor on Shabbat, as stated below.

But with regard to spices, for what reason does one not

recite a blessing over them?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with

spices from a

banquet of gentiles,

and it is prohibited to recite a blessing over them

because an ordinary banquet of gentiles is for idolatry,

and the spices there are considered offerings to idolatry from which it is prohibited to derive benefit.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Since the latter clause states, “One does not recite a blessing either over the lamp or over the spices of idolatry,” by implication, the first clause is not dealing with

spices of

idolatry?

Rabbi Hanina of Sura said: “It is stating the reason,”

meaning that the purpose of the latter clause in the Mishna is to explain

why one does not recite a blessing either over the lamp or over the spices of gentiles:

“Because an ordinary banquet of gentiles is for idolatry,”

and this is also the reason why one does not recite a blessing over the lamp, rather than the reason stated above [that it did not rest].

The Sages taught: With regard to a light that rested

from labor on Shabbat,

one recites a blessing over it, whereas

a light

that did not rest, one does not recite a blessing over it.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is meant by “rested,” and what is meant by “did not rest”?