Berakhot 52b (נב:) — the Talmud in English

But

its interior and its rim

the lip of the vessel

and its curved handle

a curved handle

and its handles

straight handles

are pure.

But if

its interior becomes impure—

—

the entire vessel becomes impure.

The Gemara explains:

With regard to what do

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

disagree?—

Beit Shammai required one to wash his hands first, so that the hands would not render the liquid impure, and the liquid would then render the cup impure, in which case it would be forbidden to use the cup, because

they hold that it is forbidden to use

during a meal

a vessel whose exterior became impure through liquids, as a decree due to

the concern

that droplets

drops—might splash from the vessel onto its impure exterior and then render his hands impure again, and it is forbidden to eat with impure hands.

And

since an impure vessel is not used during a meal, it follows that

there is no need to decree

that one pour and drink first, as Beit Hillel decreed, due to the concern

lest the liquids become impure,

the water

that

remained

on the hands

after washing, through contact

with

the exterior of

the cup.

For he would not have an impure cup before him.

And Beit Hillel hold that it is permitted to use

during a meal

a vessel whose exterior became impure through liquids,

because

they say that droplets are uncommon

to splash from the cup onto its exterior, and therefore they did not require one to wash his hands before drinking the wine.

And

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

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

since he may use an impure cup.

The Gemara cites a Tosefta:

“Alternatively,”

another reason for Beit Hillel’s view that one washes his hands only after drinking the wine is that it is necessary that

the meal immediately follow the washing of the hands.

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

The Gemara explains: For what purpose

what

did Beit Hillel need to say

“alternatively”?—

This is what Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

Even

according to you, who say that it is forbidden to use a vessel whose exterior is impure,

since

we decree due to droplets, even so, this is preferable

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

“the meal must immediately follow the washing of the hands”

is itself a principle of the laws of a meal, and it is not set aside because of a concern of impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say:

After washing the hands,

he dries his hands with a cloth

a towel

and places it on the table

in order to use it during the meal.

And Beit 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:

Beit 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 he may recline during the meal on an impure cushion, and it is appropriate to decree

a decree

due to the concern

lest the liquids become impure,

the water

that

was not absorbed completely

by the cloth

when he dried his hands after washing,

because of the cushion, and

when he dries his hands during the meal,

they will render the hands impure again,

with the result that he is eating with impure hands.

The Gemara asks: Why did they express concern for impurity only because of the liquids in the cloth,

and should not the cushion render the cloth itself impure

so that the cloth would 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 from the cushion and render the hands impure.

The Gemara returns and asks: Why did they decree regarding the manner in which the cloth is placed,

and

is there not concern that

the cushion itself will render the person reclining upon it impure?

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

The Gemara answers: They did not express concern for the impurity of the person reclining on 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.

The Gemara cites the conclusion of the beraita’s discussion of this dispute:

And Beit Hillel say,

after he has washed his hands and dried them with a 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.

It would then emerge that washing his hands caused him to eat in a state of 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 asks: What did the Sages accomplish with their enactment?

And

even if he is concerned because of the cloth, there is still

a

concern that the

table itself will render

the

table

itself

impure, and the food upon it?

The Gemara answers:

Here we are dealing with a table that is “second

degree of impurity,”

and

the principle is that

a “second

degree of impurity”

does not create a “third

degree of impurity” in non-sacred food,

except through

rendering

liquids impure,

as the Sages decreed with regard to liquids: even if they merely touch a “second degree of impurity,” they become “first-degree” impurities, and therefore they render food that touches them “second-degree” impure.

The Gemara explains:

With regard to what do

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

disagree?

Beit Shammai preferred that he place the towel on the table, because

they hold that it is forbidden to use a table

that is

“second

degree of impurity” even for an ordinary non-sacred meal. The reason they decreed

this decree

was

because of those who eat teruma,

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

But

if

Beit Hillel,

who prohibited placing the towel on the table,

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

there is no reason to decree where there is reason to decree, so that those who eat teruma would not mistakenly eat at an impure table, since

those who eat teruma are vigilant.

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

“Alternatively”—

another reason for Beit Hillel’s view that the towel may not be placed on the table is

that there is no

obligation of

washing the hands for non-sacred food by Torah law,

as will be explained below.

The Gemara explains: For what purpose

what

did Beit Hillel need to say

“alternatively”?

This is what Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: And if you say, what is different with regard to food

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

we are concerned

that perhaps the water in it will render the food impure,

and what is different with regard to the hands, for which we are not concerned

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

even so, this

placing the cloth on the cushion

is preferable,

because

there is no

obligation of

washing the hands for non-sacred food by Torah law

but only by rabbinic decree. Therefore,

it is preferable that the hands become impure, which have no

basis [for their impurity]

in Torah law, rather than that food become impure, which does have a basis in Torah law.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: They sweep

sweep

the house

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

and

only

afterward do they wash

the final water

over their hands. And Beit Hillel say: They wash their hands

first,

and afterward they sweep the house.

The Sages taught

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

Beit Shammai say:

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

before sweeping the house,

you will cause the food to be lost,

because the remnants of food become spoiled when the “final water” splashes on them, and it is forbidden to cause food to be lost.

The Gemara clarifies, that in this law Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree completely. Even according to Beit Hillel, it is permitted to wash one’s hands after clearing the table. Rather, according to them, if he wishes, he may wash first, before clearing it.

But washing the hands first, according to Beit Shammai, does not

accord with their view,

and according to them it is forbidden to wash his hands before clearing the table.

What is the reason?—

Because

there remain

crumbs

of food, and if he washes his hands while they are still on the table, there is concern that they will become spoiled by the water.

The Gemara cites the conclusion of the beraita’s discussion of this dispute:

And Beit Hillel say

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

if

the

servant

who serves during the meal

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

only

crumbs that are smaller than an olive,

with regard to which there is no prohibition against causing food to be lost. And incidentally, the Gemara derives from their words:

This supports Rabbi Yohanan, for Rabbi Yohanan said: Crumbs that are smaller than an olive may be destroyed by hand,

since there is no prohibition of “You shall not destroy” in spoiling food that is not fit for eating.

The Gemara explains:

With regard to what do

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

disagree?—

Beit Hillel hold that it is forbidden to use an ignorant servant who is not familiar with the laws of a meal, and since the servant is a Torah scholar, he certainly cleared away the crumbs that were the measure of an olive, and it is already possible to wash with the “final water” without concern that food will be spoiled.

But

if

Beit Shammai held that it is permitted to use an ignorant servant,

they would therefore be concerned that if he washed his hands before cleaning the table or the house, the water would splash onto the remnants of food and spoil them.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said that Rav Huna said: Throughout all

the disputes that we find in

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

that it is permitted to use an ignorant servant, and therefore the remnants of food must be cleared away before one washes with the final water.

And Rabbi Oshaya taught the reverse: “Beit Shammai say: They wash their hands and afterward sweep the house, and Beit Hillel say: They sweep the house and afterward wash their hands,”

therefore he said that

and

therefore he said that

in this matter as well, the halakha follows Beit Hillel

that the remnants of food must be cleared away before one washes with the final water. We learned in the Mishna concerning one who has only one cup of wine on Saturday night and reserves it to recite the blessings over it after his meal together with Havdala:

Beit Shammai say:

He recites the blessing first over the

candle, and

after it the blessing of

Grace after Meals,

the blessing over

spices, and

at the end

Havdala, and Beit Hillel say:

The order of the blessings is as follows:

candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and Havdala.

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

on Saturday night

the blessing over spices first

before reciting the blessing over the candle.

He said to him: Since Beit

Shammai and Beit Hillel

the blessing over

the luminary do not disagree,

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

we learned

in our Mishna:

“Beit Shammai say: candle and Grace after Meals, spices and Havdala; and Beit Hillel say: candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and Havdala,”

so they all mention the blessing over the candle first.

Rava answered him

as an answer to his question: "

Mishna

this

is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

But

Rabbi Yehuda says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree

when one has only one cup of wine on Saturday night,

about

the blessing of

Grace after Meals being first, and about

the blessing of

Havdala being last. About what did they disagree?—

About

the blessing of

the luminary and the spices: Beit Shammai say

that one should recite first

the blessing over the luminary and afterward

over the

spices, while Beit Hillel say: Spices and afterward the luminary.”

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The people adopted the practice of following Beit 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 “created,” everyone agrees

that it may be recited, since

“created”

is in the past

tense,

and this wording is preferable when blessing over the creation of fire, which occurred in the past.

Their disagreement concerns “creates”: Beit Shammai hold that “creates”

means

“is destined to create,”

because the present tense indicates that He continually creates, and therefore it is impossible to recite the blessing over the creation of fire using the wording “creates”;

but

whereas

Beit Hillel hold that “creates” also means “created,”

since the present tense includes the past , and since this is the wording of the verse, it is preferable to recite the blessing in this form.

Rav Yosef raised 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.”

In all three of these verses, the subject is the six days of Creation, and it is thus demonstrated that “creates” also refers to the past.

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

With regard both

to “created” and

to

“creates,” everyone agrees that “created”

refers to the past,

and

according to everyone, one may recite the blessing using either of the two expressions,

and their disagreement concerns “light” and “lights”: Beit Shammai hold that there is only one type of light

[a type of light]

in fire,

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

but

whereas

Beit Hillel hold that there are many lights

[a range of colors of light ]

in fire,

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

It was taught likewise in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai

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

there are many lights in fire,

demonstrating that their disagreement revolves around the issue of 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 the lamp or the spices of idolatry,

because objects used in the service of idolatry are forbidden for benefit.

The Gemara discusses this:

Granted, concerning a lamp

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

because it did not rest

from labor on Shabbat, and one recites a blessing only over a lamp with which no labor was performed on Shabbat, as will be explained below.

But concerning 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

gentile gathering,

and it is forbidden to recite a blessing over them

because an ordinary gentile gathering is for idolatry,

and the spices there are considered an offering to idolatry from which it is forbidden to derive benefit.

The Gemara challenges this:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches, “One does not recite a blessing either over the lamp or over the spices of idolatry,” it follows that the first clause is not dealing with

spices of

idolatry?

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

meaning that the intention of the latter clause of the Mishna is to explain

“For what reason does one not recite a blessing either over the lamp or over the spices of gentiles?” —

“Because an ordinary gentile gathering is for idolatry,”

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

The Sages taught: Over a light that rested

from labor on Shabbat

one recites a blessing, but

over a light

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

The Gemara discusses this:

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