Berakhot 53b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one does not recite the blessing over the lamp until one benefits from its light”

by using its light.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: No,

the tanna, a sage of the Mishnaic period, did not intend by saying

“benefits,”

that one must

“benefit” [

use it]

actually,

meaning that one may recite the blessing only when standing close to the lamp,

rather, any

light that is suitable for use; that is,

if

he wished,

he could stand nearby and use its light, and

then he may recite the blessing over it as long as he can see it,

even

if he is standing

far away.

And Rav Ashi likewise said: We learned this ruling with regard to a distant place.

They raise an objection from a source: If one had a lamp hidden in his bosom or in a lantern [

inside an opaque glass container] and he did not use the lamp for light, but only for warmth,

or if he saw a flame but did not use its light, or if he used its light but did not see the flame, he may not recite the blessing until he sees the flame and uses its light.

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, explains the objection:

Granted, “he used its light but did not see the flame” can be understood

in a case

where

the flame is

in a corner. But, “he saw the flame but did not use its light”—how can that be understood?

It is not that the lamp

was far away, and therefore, although he saw it, he could not use it, in which case one does not recite the blessing when far away.

The Gemara answers:

No,

the beraita, a Tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, does not mean that he did not use the flame because it was far away, but because it was not giving light in its place,

for example, when it was flickering and moving.

The Sages taught: With glowing coals

that are positioned so as to give light

one recites a blessing over them,

because they are considered like flames. But

over dim coals one does not recite a blessing,

because they contain no illuminating flame.

The Gemara explains:

What are “glowing” coals?

Rav Ḥisda said: Any coals such that, if one inserts a splinter among them, it catches fire on its own,

and they are therefore considered like flames.

They raised a dilemma:

How should the word be pronounced:

“umamot” or “ve-umemot”?

Come and hear

from this

statement of Rav Ḥisda bar Avdimi:

It is written [Ezekiel 31:8]:

“The cedars did not dim it [

they did not diminish its splendor, because it was the most exalted tree]

in the Garden of God.”

And Rava said:

One recites a blessing over the lamp only when standing close to it, because one must

actually benefit

from its light.

The Gemara clarifies:

How much

must one be near it in order to be obligated to recite a blessing for benefiting from it?

Ulla said: Enough that he can recognize

by its light

the difference between an issar and a pundeyon.

Ḥizkiya said: Enough that he can recognize

by its light

the difference between the meluzma [

a unit of weight]

of Tiberias and the meluzma of Sepphoris.

Rav Yehuda

would

recite a blessing over the lamp of [

the light in the house of a man named]

Ada the night watchman,

even though he lived far away from it, in accordance with his view that it is sufficient for the light to be suitable for use where it is located.

Rava recited a blessing over the lamp of [

the light in the house of a man named]

Gorya,

who lived near his house, in accordance with his view that one recites a blessing only over light that one can use,

while bar Ḥama, and Abaye, recited a blessing over the lamp of bar Avuha.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: One does not seek out fire as one seeks out mitzvot,

because the blessing over a lamp is not considered a blessing over a commandment, and if one has no lamp at the conclusion of Shabbat, he need not search for one .

Rabbi Zeira said: At first I would seek out

a lamp at the conclusion of Shabbat in order to recite a blessing over it.

Once I heard this statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav—

I too no longer seek one out. Rather, if one happens to come to me, I recite the blessing over it.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one ate and forgot to recite

the Grace after Meals and left the place where he ate,

Beit Shammai say: He must return to his place and recite the blessing, while Beit Hillel say:

Once he has already left, after the fact, if he wishes,

he may recite the blessing where he remembered.

Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Dimi bar Abba, said: The dispute

between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai applies only

when he forgot

and left before reciting the blessing.

But

if he left

intentionally

before reciting the blessing,

everyone agrees that he must return to his place and recite the blessing.

The Gemara expresses surprise:

It is obvious

that their dispute concerns a case in which he forgot, since

“and forgot” is what we learned in the Mishna?

The Gemara explains:

It might have been said that the same law

applies to their dispute

even

when he left

intentionally

before reciting the blessing.

And the fact that it teaches “and forgot”

would be only in order

to inform you of the force of Beit Shammai’s view

—that even if he forgot and left, he must return to his place to recite the blessing.

It teaches us

that Beit Hillel agree that when he left intentionally, he must return to his place and recite the blessing.

It was taught in a beraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your words, if one ate at the top of the building and forgot and descended without reciting the blessing,

do you really say that he must trouble himself and

return to the top of the building and recite the blessing?

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: According to your words,

that for the sake of a blessing he need not return to his place,

if one forgot his wallet at the top of the building, would he not go up and retrieve it?

Surely anyone would trouble himself to recover his money; and if

he goes up for his own honor,

should he not all the more do so for the honor of Heaven?

There were two students: One acted inadvertently in accordance with Beit Shammai

and returned to his place to recite the blessing,

and found a golden wallet,

while the other acted intentionally

in accordance with Beit Hillel

and left his place and recited the blessing elsewhere,

and a lion ate him.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana was traveling with a caravan. He ate and forgot [

that he had forgotten]

and did not recite the blessing. He said

to himself,

“What shall I do?”

If I tell them

the members of the caravan to wait for me as they continue on their way, because

I forgot [

I forgot]

to recite the blessing,

they will

say to me: Recite the blessing

here, because

wherever you recite the blessing, you recite it to the Merciful One!

Therefore,

it would be better for me to tell them, “I forgot a golden dove [

I forgot a golden dove and must retrieve it].”

He said to them: Wait for me,

wait for me because

I forgot a golden dove!

He went and recited the blessing, and found

—and a miracle happened to him, and he indeed found there—

a golden dove.

The Gemara explains:

Why is it different

that he specifically mentioned

“a dove”?

Because

the Congregation of Israel is

compared to a dove, as it is written [

Psalms 68]:

“The wings of a dove are covered with silver, and its pinions with the greenish gold.”

And the Sages interpreted this verse:

Just as a dove is not saved

like other birds, which fight with their beaks or heads,

but

fights only

with its wings [

or flies with them and escapes],

so too Israel is saved only through mitzvot.

We learned in the Mishna: Until when does he

recite the blessing?—

Until the food has been digested in his intestines.

The Gemara asks:

How much

time is the

measure of digestion?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As long as he is not hungry

because of his eating.

And Reish Lakish said: As long as he does not become thirsty because of his eating.

Rav Yemar bar Shelamya said to Mar Zutra—and some say Rav Yemar bar Shizvei said to Mar Zutra: Did Reish Lakish say this? But didn’t Rav Ami say in the name of Reish Lakish: What is the measure of digestion? Enough time to walk four mil?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult. Here,

the measure of “enough time to walk four mil” applies

when he ate a large amount.

Whereas

here,

the measure of “as long as he does not become thirsty because of his eating” applies

when he ate a small amount.

We learned in the Mishna:

When wine was brought to them, and so on, one answers “Amen” after an Israelite who recites the blessing

even if he heard only the end of the blessing,

but one does not answer “Amen” after a Samaritan who recites the blessing until one hears

him recite

the entire blessing.

The Gemara discusses this:

Does this mean that

if one heard a blessing from an

Israelite, even though he did not hear the entire blessing, he answers

“Amen”? The Gemara assumed that this concerns one of the participants who wishes to fulfill his obligation by hearing the blessing from the one leading the meal, and therefore asks:

But if he did not hear

the blessing,

how can he fulfill his obligation?

Ḥiyya bar Rav said:

The Mishna is speaking about

one

who hears

but did not eat with them.

And Rav Naḥman likewise said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

It is speaking

about one who did not eat with them.

Rav said to his son, Ḥiyya: My son,

when a cup of blessing is offered,

snatch it and recite the blessing!

You should seek out a cup of blessing so that they will give it to you and you can recite the blessing over it.

And Rav Huna likewise said to his son, Rabba: “Snatch it and recite the blessing.” The Gemara discusses this:

Does this mean that the one who recites the blessing is preferable to the one who answers “Amen,”

and therefore it is preferable for a person to recite the blessing over the cup himself rather than fulfill his obligation by hearing it from the one leading the meal? It raises an objection from a beraita:

“Rabbi Yosei says: Greater is the one who answers ‘Amen’ than the one who recites the blessing”?

Rabbi Nehorai said to him: By Heaven [

an expression of oath]

that this is so;

the one who answers “Amen” is greater than the one who recites the blessing!

Know this, for ordinary soldiers

go down

[обычные солдаты]

first

and engage

и вступают в бой

in battle,

and

only afterward

do the heroes go down and prevail,

and the entire battle is named after them. So too, the one who answers “Amen” comes after the one who recites the blessing, yet he is superior to the one who recites the blessing himself, because by answering he completes the blessing.

It is a dispute between tannaim:

For it was taught in a beraita: Both the one who blesses and the one who answers “Amen” are included in the meaning of

the verse, “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless,”

except that they hasten

to give reward

to the one who blesses more than to the one who answers “Amen.”

Thus, this beraita maintains that the one who blesses is superior to the one who answers.

Shmuel asked Rav: What is [the law] with regard to answering “Amen” after schoolchildren,

when they recite the blessings in order to learn?

He said to him: After everyone one answers “Amen,” except for schoolchildren, since they are

only

made for learning,

and they do not intend at all to bless.

And this applies when it is not the time of their haftara [

when it is not the time when they read the haftarah ],

but when it is the time of their haftara, one answers,

because then they bless properly over the reading of the Torah and the Prophets.

The Sages taught: Oil

which they were accustomed to apply at the end of the meal in order to remove the filth from the hands, as long as it has not been brought,

delays the blessing,

and it is forbidden to make the invitation until they bring it,

the words of Rabbi Zilai.

Rabbi Zivai says: It does not delay.

Rabbi Aha says:

also

fine oil

[perfumed]

delays,

for one who is accustomed to apply it to his hands after the meal .

Rabbi Zohamai says: Just as

a

defiled koen is disqualified for the service, so defiled hands are disqualified for a blessing.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I know neither “Zilai”

nor “Zivai” nor “Zohamai”; rather, I know a teaching.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, and some say that a tannai taught it in a beraita: “And you shall sanctify yourselves,”

these are the first waters. “And you shall be holy,” these are the latter waters. “For He is holy,” this is oil,

which the one who blesses applied at the end of the meal in order to remove the filth from the hands,

“I am the Lord your God,” this is a blessing.

We shall return to you, chapter ‘These are the Matters’