Berakhot 53a — the Talmud in English

If we say

that

“did not rest” because

work was performed in it

,

and the intention is that we do not recite the blessing over it

even

if it did not rest

from permitted work,

such as when they kindled it for the needs of a dangerously ill person,

then

it is impossible to say so, for

it was taught: “A light of a woman in childbirth

that was kindled on Shabbat for the needs of a woman in childbirth

and of

a dangerously

ill person

—one recites the blessing over it.”

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is “rest”? —

That it rested from work of transgression,

and even if permitted work was performed in it, one recites the blessing over it.

It was taught likewise

A glass vessel in which

a lamp was kindled before Shabbat, and

it was burning and continuing

in a Jew’s house

the entire day, at the conclusion of Shabbat

one recites the blessing over it,

because no transgression was performed in it.

The Sages taught: A gentile who kindled

his lamp at the conclusion of Shabbat

from

a lamp of a

Jew,

and

likewise

a Jew who kindled

his lamp

from

a lamp of a

gentile—one recites the blessing over it.

But

a gentile

who kindled his lamp at the conclusion of Shabbat

from

a lamp of

a gentile—one does not recite the blessing over it.

And the Gemara clarifies:

What is different about a gentile

who kindled

from a gentile, that one does not

recite the blessing over his lamp? — If it is

because

he kindled his lamp from a lamp that

did not rest, so too, a Jew

who kindled

from a gentile should also not

be permitted to recite the blessing over his lamp, and

it did not rest?

And should you say that this prohibition has gone away,

because the fire is renewed every moment, and it turns out that the fire which he kindled from the gentile’s fire is already gone,

but

the flame before us

is another one, and

no prohibition was performed in it, for

it is being generated by the hand of a Jew,

then this is difficult,

but that which was taught: “One who carries a flame

from the private domain

to the public domain is liable,”

and if a different fire is created every moment,

why is he liable

for carrying an object from one domain and placing it in another, when

what he lifted he did not place, and what he placed he did not lift?

Rather, really,

there is indeed

prohibited fire as well

in a lamp kindled from the gentile’s lamp, but another permitted fire is added together with it.

And when he recites the blessing

over a lamp which the Jew kindled from the gentile’s lamp —

over the added

permitted

fire he recites the blessing.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so,

since he recites the blessing over the addition of permitted fire,

a gentile

who kindled his lamp

from

a lamp of

a gentile also

should be able to recite the blessing over the permitted addition of fire in it?

The Gemara answers:

Yes, indeed,

as a matter of basic law he could recite the blessing over the addition, but they issued

a decree

that he should not recite the blessing over a lamp which a gentile kindled from his fellow’s lamp,

because

they were concerned that he might come to recite the blessing over the lamp of the

first

gentile,

and

even when permitted fire had not yet been added to it, namely, at

“the first source,”

which is the first flame burning immediately at the conclusion of Shabbat.

The Sages taught: One was walking

at the conclusion of Shabbat

outside a town, and saw a light; if the majority

of the town’s inhabitants were

gentiles, he does not recite the blessing “Who creates the luminaries of fire” over this light, because perhaps it “did not rest,”

but if the majority

of the town’s inhabitants were

Jews, he recites the blessing.

The Gemara is astonished:

This itself is difficult: You said

at the beginning

“if the majority are gentiles, he does not recite the blessing,”

which implies

that if it is half-and-half, he recites the blessing, and

but

then you taught

at the end

“if the majority are Jews, he recites the blessing,”

which implies

that if it is half-and-half, he does not recite the blessing?

The Gemara explains:

As a matter of law, even

if the town’s inhabitants are

half-and-half

Jews and gentiles,

he also recites the blessing,

and since he taught at the beginning “the majority are gentiles,” he taught at the end “the majority are Jews.”

The Sages taught: One was walking

at the conclusion of Shabbat

outside a town, and saw a child with a torch in his hand; he investigates him: if he is a Jew, he recites the blessing; if he is a gentile

he does not recite the blessing.

The Gemara asks:

Why specifically “a child,”

when

even

if the one holding the torch is

an adult, too

should the law be so?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Here we are dealing

with the beginning of the night,

close to

after

sunset,

and therefore, if they saw that the torch was in the hand of an

adult, it is evident that he is certainly a gentile,

because an adult Jew would not be holding a torch so close to the conclusion of Shabbat. Only when it is in the hand of a

child

does he need to investigate him, because

perhaps he is a Jew; an incident happened and he took it [that is, it is possible that an incident occurred and he took a torch at such a time].

that is, perhaps an unusual incident occurred and he took a torch at such a time].

The Sages taught: One was walking

at the conclusion of Shabbat

outside a town, and saw a light; if

the light was

as thick as

a furnace, he recites the blessing over it,

because a light of such a measure is kindled in order to give light,

but if not, he does not recite the blessing over it,

because certainly it was not kindled to give light, but to cook with it; and one recites the blessing only over a fire that was kindled in order to give light.

The Gemara raises a contradiction between the beraitot that brought this law:

One taught: One recites the blessing over the light of a furnace.

And another was taught: One does not recite the blessing over it?

The Gemara explains:

It is not difficult.

For

this

the beraita that says “one does not recite the blessing over it” concerns a light of the measure that they kindle in a furnace

at first [at the beginning of the process of burning the limestone in the furnace].

of the process of burning limestone in the furnace.

Whereas

this

the beraita that says “one recites the blessing over it” concerns a light of the measure that they kindle in a furnace

at the end [at the completion of the process of burning the stones], when they kindle a large fire above

and they also use it to give light.

The Gemara raises another contradiction between the beraitot:

One teaches: “For the light of an oven and of a stove, one recites a blessing over it,” and the other teaches: “One does not recite a blessing over it”?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult;

for

this—

the beraita that says, “One does not recite a blessing over it,” deals with the light that one kindles in an oven and a stove

at first

[at the beginning of the heating], whereas

this—

the beraita that says, “One recites a blessing over it,” deals with the light that one kindles in them

at the end

[after the heating, when thin pieces of wood are added at the mouth of the oven, both to preserve its heat and also to provide light]. The Gemara raises another contradiction between the beraitot:

One teaches: “For the light of a synagogue and of a beit-midrash, one recites a blessing over it,” and the other teaches: “One does not recite a blessing over it”?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult;

for

this—

the beraita that says, “One does not recite a blessing over it,” deals with a synagogue

in which there is

a

prominent person,

and the candles were kindled in his honor and not in order to provide light, whereas

this—

the beraita that says, “One recites a blessing over it,” deals with a case

in which there is no prominent person,

and the candles are burning in the synagogue in order to provide light.

And if you wish, say: This and this

the two beraitot deal with a place

in which there is a prominent person, and

nevertheless

it is not difficult,

for

this—

the beraita that says, “One recites a blessing over it,” deals with a case

in which there is a synagogue attendant

[shamash] who eats in the synagogue, and the lamp also serves for the light that he needs, whereas

this—

the beraita that says, “One does not recite a blessing over it,” deals with a synagogue

in which there is no synagogue attendant,

and the lamp that was kindled in honor of the prominent person is not intended to provide light.

And if you wish, say: This and this

the two beraitot deal with a place

in which there is a synagogue attendant, and

nevertheless

it is not difficult,

for

this—

the beraita that says, “One does not recite a blessing over it,” deals with a case

in which there is moonlight

[the light of the moon], and it illuminates the attendant who is eating in the synagogue, and he has no need for the light of the lamp that was kindled in honor of the prominent person, whereas

this—

the beraita that says, “One recites a blessing over it,” deals with a case

in which there is no moonlight,

and then the lamp is also needed in order to provide light for the attendant.

The Sages taught: If they were sitting in the beit-midrash

on the conclusion of Shabbat,

and they brought a light before them, Beit Shammai say: Each and every one recites a blessing for himself; and Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing for all of them,

because it is stated

[Proverbs 14:28]

“In the multitude of the people is the glory of the king.”

The Gemara discusses:

Granted

the position of

Beit Hillel

is understandable, because they

explain the reason; but what is the reason of Beit Shammai?

They hold

that it is preferable for each person to recite a blessing for himself

because of interruption of the beit-midrash,

for if one person recites the blessing and exempts all of them, all the students must interrupt their study in order to concentrate on fulfilling their obligation through his blessing and to answer Amen.

It was also taught so: “

The students

of the school of Rabban Gamliel would not say, ‘Healing’

to a person who sneezed

in the beit-midrash, because of interruption of the beit-midrash.”

We learned in the Mishna:

One does not recite a blessing either over the lamp or over the spices of the dead.

The Gemara discusses:

What is the reason?

The lamp

that is placed beside the dead

for the honor

of the dead

is what it is made for,

and one recites a blessing only over a lamp that was kindled in order to provide light. And likewise

the spices

that are placed beside the dead

to remove the odor

bad odor from the dead

are what they are made for,

whereas the blessing over spices was instituted only when one takes them in order to smell them.

Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav: Every

dead person

who

because of his importance they would

bring out before him

a lamp both

by day and

both

by night,

if they brought out a lamp before him at the conclusion of Shabbat,

one does not recite a blessing over it,

because it was not kindled in order to provide light, but only in honor of the dead.

And every

dead person

before whom they do not bring out

a lamp

except at night,

in order to illuminate the way, if they brought out a lamp before him at the conclusion of Shabbat,

one recites a blessing over it.

Rav Huna said: Spices

that an aesthete takes with him in order to remove the odor

of a privy,

and perfumed oil

that is perfumed

made

to apply to the hands after the meal, in order

to remove

with it

the filth, one does not

recite a blessing over it

“Who creates varieties of spices.”

The Gemara infers:

Does this mean that wherever

the spices

are not made for fragrance, one does not recite a blessing over them,

and concerning this

it raises an objection

from a beraita:

“One who enters the shop of a spice merchant

and smells a fragrance, even if he sat there the entire day, he recites a blessing only once. If he entered and left, entered and left, he recites a blessing each and every time

,” but here

in the shop of a spice merchant,

it is not made for fragrance,

but in order to sell them,

and

nevertheless

he recites a blessing?

The Gemara answers:

Yes,

the spices in the shop of a spice merchant

are also made for fragrance,

for he places them there

so that people will smell them and come and purchase from him.

The Sages taught: If one was walking outside a city and smelled a fragrance, if the majority

of the residents of the city

are idolaters, he does not recite a blessing,

because it is possible that the fragrance came from spices of idolatry;

but if the majority are Israelites, he recites a blessing.

Rabbi

Yosi says: Even if the majority are Israelites, he also does not recite a blessing, because Israelite women fumigate for

removing

sorcery

[evil spirits] from their houses, and these spices are not intended for smelling. The Gemara wonders:

Do all of them fumigate for sorcery?

But only a minority of them do so, and most of the spices are still fit for a blessing. The Gemara explains:

There was a minority for sorcery, and another minority

additional

also

is not fit for a blessing, because it was made in order

to fumigate the utensils; it is found

that the two minorities together are

a majority that is not made for fragrance, and every majority that is not made for fragrance

does not recite a blessing.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One who walks on the eve of Shabbat in Tiberias and at the conclusion of Shabbat in Sepphoris and smells a fragrance does not recite a blessing, because it is presumed to be made only to fumigate the utensils,

for in Tiberias they fumigated the garments on the eve of Shabbat, so that they would smell good on Shabbat, whereas in Sepphoris they did so at the conclusion of Shabbat, in order to console themselves over the taking of the additional soul.

The Sages taught: If one was walking in the marketplace of idolaters,

if

he desired to smell it, he is a sinner,

because he willingly benefited from idolatry.