Berakhot 60a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara deduces:

By inference, when he purchased

vessels,

and returned

and purchased

other vessels like them [even though they are no longer in his possession]

according to everyone he need not recite the blessing over the second ones. And only when the first ones fell to him as an inheritance did Rabbi Yohanan say that he recites the blessing over the second ones, because they are the first ones that he purchased.

over the latter ones. It was only when the first utensils came to him as an inheritance that Rabbi Yohanan said that he recites a blessing over the latter ones, since they are the first ones he purchased.

Some say

the dispute differently:

Rav Huna said: They taught this only

that one recites Shehecheyanu even if he has ones like them,

but

when he

did not purchase and then purchase again,

rather the first ones fell to him as an inheritance.

But if he purchased

vessels

and then purchased again

ones like them,

he need not recite the blessing.

For even with regard to the purchase they are not new.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even if he purchased

vessels and they are still in his possession,

and then purchased again

ones like them,

he must recite the blessing

over them.

The Gemara deduces:

By inference, when he has

ones like them through inheritance,

and

again

purchased

others,

according to everyone he must recite the blessing

over them.

He objected

from a beraita:

If he built a new house and does not have

another house

like it,

he must recite Shehecheyanu. And likewise, if he

purchased new vessels and does not have

other vessels

like them, he must recite the blessing.

And if

he has ones like them, he need not recite the blessing, the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Whether so or whether so [whether he has ones like them or whether he does not have them],

[whether he has something like them or does not have one],

he must recite the blessing,

for with every additional purchase there is new benefit and new joy.

It implies that they disagreed specifically when he has ones like them through inheritance. But if he purchased and then purchased again, according to everyone he need not recite the blessing.

The Gemara concludes its objection:

Granted, according to the first formulation,

that the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yohanan is in a case where he had vessels through inheritance and then purchased others, it follows that

Rav Huna

holds

like Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yohanan

holds

like Rabbi Yehuda.

But according to the latter formulation,

that they disagreed only in a case where he purchased and then purchased again, this is difficult. For

granted, Rav Huna,

who held that in a case where he purchased, he no longer needs to recite the blessing, it is possible that this is only when he purchased; but if he inherited, he must recite the blessing,

and he follows Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that if he had them through inheritance and purchased others, he must recite the blessing.

But Rabbi Yohanan, who said

that even in a case where he purchased he must recite the blessing,

according to whom does he proceed?

For his view is

neither like Rabbi Meir,

who held that even if he inherited them he does not recite the blessing,

nor like Rabbi Yehuda,

who required a blessing only if he had them through inheritance, but if he purchased the first ones, he does not recite the blessing over the new ones.

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you: The same law applies according to Rabbi Yehuda

even when he

purchased and then purchased again, he too must recite the blessing,

and I hold like him.

And the fact that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree

specifically

in

a case in which he

has

them through inheritance

and purchased them, and they did not disagree in a case where he purchased and then purchased again, is in order

them, rather than in a case where he purchased and then purchased again, was in order

to make known the force of Rabbi Meir,

who holds

that even if he purchased and

already

has

ones like them from before through inheritance,

he need not recite the blessing,

even though the vessels he purchased are new for him with regard to the purchase.

And all the more so,

if he

purchased and then purchased again, he need not recite the blessing.

The Gemara asks:

And let them disagree over a case where he purchased and then purchased again, for

according to Rabbi Meir

he need not recite the blessing,

whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda he must recite the blessing; and there would thereby be a novelty

to make known the force

of Rabbi Yehuda, who is stringent to recite the blessing even in this case?

who is stringent and requires a blessing even in this case?

The Gemara answers:

The force of the lenient ruling

of Rabbi Meir, who held that even if they had already come to him through inheritance, he need not recite the blessing,

is preferable to him

to make known.

We learned in the Mishna:

One recites a blessing over the bad

that is similar to good: “Blessed is the true Judge.”

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances? —

For example, when the river took

the

breach [a dam]

[dam] from

in his land,

and washed away his field and damaged the produce.

For although

ultimately

it is good for him,

because

the

water

brings up

onto

the silty land [sand and mud]

[sand and mud]

and improves it,

nevertheless

at present it is bad for him, and one recites blessings only according to what is presently before us.

for him, and one recites blessings only according to what is presently before us.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

he recites a blessing

over the good

that is similar to bad, just as one recites a blessing over the good.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances? —

For example, when he found a lost object, although

ultimately

it is bad for him, for

if

the king hears of it

that he found a lost object,

he will take it from him,

nevertheless

at present

it is good

for him.

We learned in the Mishna:

If his wife was pregnant, and he said: “May it be Your will that

my wife give birth to a male,”

this is a futile prayer.

The Gemara explains: Since she is already pregnant, the sex of the fetus has already been determined,

and mercy is not effective

to change it from female to male.

Rabbi Yosef objected:

It is stated concerning Leah [Genesis 30:21]:

“And afterward she gave birth to a daughter, and she called her name Dinah,”

and they expounded:

What is “and afterward”

“she gave birth to a daughter”? And why was it not stated, “And she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter,” as it is stated concerning all the tribes?

And Rav said:

Dinah was changed into a daughter

after Leah judged herself with judgment and said: Twelve tribes are destined to issue from Jacob; six

already

issued from me,

and

four

already issued

from

the two

maidservants; behold,

they are together

ten,

and

if

this fetus

that

is in my womb will be

male,

only one tribe will remain for Rachel to give birth to,

and my sister Rachel will not be

able to give birth even

like one of the maidservants,

each of whom gave birth to two tribes.

Immediately it was changed

from a male

to a female,

as it is stated: “And she called her name Dinah.”

For it is from the expression “judgment,” which Leah judged herself. Therefore it was stated, “And afterward she gave birth to a daughter,” because before the judgment this was a male, and only afterward was it changed into a female. It follows that prayer can be effective to change the fetus. How, then, did we learn in our Mishna that it is considered “a futile prayer”?

The Gemara answers:

One does not invoke miraculous events,

such as this one that occurred to Leah, to bring proof from it for the prayer of every person, because it is not proper to pray for a miracle except for a completely righteous person.

And if you wish, say: The event concerning Leah was within the first forty days

of the pregnancy

—it was,

for at that time it is still possible to change the fetus through prayer.

As it was taught: During the first three days

of conception,

a person should request mercy that the seed not spoil,

but rather be absorbed and develop into a fetus; but if it was not absorbed within three days, it will no longer be absorbed. And afterward prayer is no longer effective for it.

And

from three

days

until forty

days,

he should request mercy that

the fetus

be male.

From forty days until three months

of pregnancy,

he should request mercy that

his wife not become pregnant with another fetus, which would press against the first fetus, and as a result

it become

like the form of a

sandal [a type of fish called “sandal”].

[a species of fish called a “sandal”].

And from three months until six

months,

he should request mercy that the fetus not be

a

miscarriage.

For if it is born during this period, it is a miscarriage.

From six

months

until nine

months,

he should request mercy that

the fetus

emerge in peace.

And since Leah prayed within forty days, it follows that her prayer was not a futile prayer, because the sex of the fetus had not yet been determined. But the Mishna is dealing with a case in which her pregnancy had already become recognizable, namely after three months of pregnancy, and then one may no longer pray concerning the sex of the fetus.

The Gemara asks:

And

until forty days,

is mercy effective

that the fetus should be male?

But Rav Yitzchak, son of Rav Ami, said: When

the man emits seed first, the woman gives birth to

the man emits seed first, the woman gives birth

a

female, whereas when

the woman emits seed first,

she

gives birth to a male,

as it is stated

[Leviticus 12:2]:

“When a woman emits seed and gives birth to a male,” and since the matter depends on the emission of seed, how can prayer be effective afterward?

Поскольку это зависит от того, кто выделил семя первым, как молитва может помочь после этого?

The Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing? For example, both of them emitted seed

[the man and the woman]

at the same time.

In such a case it was not determined at the time of emission whether the fetus would be male or female, and until forty days prayer is still effective that the fetus should be male.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he was traveling on the road

and heard a cry in the city, and said, “May it be Your will that it not be within my house,” this is a futile prayer.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who was traveling on the road and heard a cry in the city. He said: I am assured that this is not within my house.

And concerning him

[concerning Hillel]

the verse says

[Psalms 112:7]: “He will not fear bad tidings; his heart is firm, trusting in Hashem.”

“He will not fear bad tidings; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord.”

Rava said: In every manner that you expound this verse,

it is expounded well. And whether

it is expounded from its beginning to its end,

or whether

it is expounded from its end to its beginning.

And he explains how it is expounded:

“It is expounded from its beginning to its end”

as follows:

“He shall not fear an evil report”—

What is the reason?—

because

“his heart is steadfast, trusting in Hashem.”

“And it is expounded from its end to its beginning”

as follows: Whoever

“has a steadfast heart, trusting in Hashem,”

behold, he

“shall not fear an evil report.”

There was a certain student who was walking behind Rabbi

Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei in the market of Zion. He saw

Rabbi Yishmael that student

who

was

frightened, and he said to him:

Rabbi Yishmael: It is a sign that

you have sinned [

a sinner ],

you,

for fear is not a result of fear of Hashem, but rather the result of helplessness,

for

behold, it

is written [Isaiah 33:14]:

“The sinners in Zion are afraid.”

“The sinners in Zion are afraid.”

He said to him,

that student:

But it is written [Proverbs 28:14]:

“Happy is the person who is always afraid.”

Thus there is an advantage in fear, and it is not a sign of sin.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yishmael:

That

verse

is written concerning words of Torah.

And the intention is that happy is the person who is always afraid lest his learning be forgotten, and because of this he constantly returns to study it.

Yehuda bar Natan was carrying his belongings and walking behind Rav Hamnuna. He sighed.

[He groaned,] Yehuda bar Natan

said to him:

Rav Hamnuna: Is

it that

that man wants afflictions

[Yehuda bar Natan]

to bring them upon himself!?

For the sigh and the fear cause the thing about which he is worried to come upon him,

as it is written [Job 3:25]:

“For the thing I feared has come upon me

[has come to me],

and that which I dreaded has come to me.”

and what I dreaded has happened to me.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

But

fear is an advantage, for

it is written, “Happy is the person who is always afraid.”

The Gemara answers:

That

fear

is written concerning words of Torah.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who enters a large city”

prays two [prayers], one upon entering it and one upon leaving it. Ben Azzai says: Four: two upon entering it and two upon leaving it. He gives thanks for the past and cries out concerning the future.

The Sages taught: Upon entering

a large city

what does he say?—

“May it be Your will before You, Hashem, my God, that You bring me into this large city in peace.”

And this is “he cries out concerning the future.”

And after he

enters,

he

says: “I give thanks before You, Hashem, my God, that You brought me into this large city in peace.”

And this is “he gives thanks for the past.”

And when he

wishes to leave,

he cries out concerning the future, and

says: “May it be Your will before You, Hashem, my God and God of my fathers, that You bring me out of this large city in peace.”

And after he

leaves,

he gives thanks for the past and

says: “I give thanks before You, Hashem, my God, that You brought me out of this large city in peace. And just as You brought me out in peace, so lead me in peace, support me in peace, march me in peace, and save me from the hand of every enemy and ambusher on the way.”

Rav Mattana said: They taught

that they pray this way

only in a large city where

there are wicked rulers, and

they do not judge

in accordance with justice,

and

if he is found guilty

they kill him there.

Rather, they seek fabricated accusations and punish without law.

But in a large city where

they do not kill a person there without judgment, but rather

they judge, and

only if he is found guilty

do they kill him there, there is no concern,

there is no place for this prayer. Rather, he should guard himself so that he does not transgress, and consequently they will not punish him. If he has already transgressed, he should not enter this place, and he will not come into danger.

Some say,

thus

Rav Mattana said: Even in a large city where

they do not kill a person there without judgment, but rather

they judge, and

only if he is found guilty

do they kill him there,

he must also pray upon entering there. For even if he did not transgress,

sometimes

they will accuse him of having transgressed and bring him to judgment, and

it does not happen that there is a person who

will be his advocate and

will establish a merit for him.

And he may be killed despite having committed no wrong.

The Sages taught: One who enters a bathhouse [

In their time the bathhouse was a place of danger, because of the fire that they kindled beneath the place of the water, and therefore ]

says: “May it be Your will before You, Hashem, my God, that You save me from this and from anything like it, and that no mishap or sin befall me; and if a mishap or sin befalls me [

and I die ],

may my death be an atonement for all my sins.”

Abaye said: A person should not say this [

the end of the prayer, “and let no mishap, etc.”], in order

not to open his mouth to the Satan.

For Reish Lakish said, and likewise it was taught in the name of Rabbi

Yosei: A person should never open his mouth to the Satan.

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse

from which Rabbi Yosei learned not to open one’s mouth to the Satan?—

As it is written,

that Israel said to Isaiah [Isaiah 1:9]: “Had Hashem of Hosts not left us a remnant, we would have been almost like Sodom,”

“we would have been like Gomorrah.”

And

what did

the

prophet

[there, verse 10] answer them?

“Hear the word of Hashem, officers of Sodom,

give ear to the Torah of our God, people of Gomorrah.” Thus their words were fulfilled, and he called them in his prophecy “officers of Sodom,” since they compared themselves to Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Gemara returns to the laws of the prayer of one who bathes in a bathhouse:

When he exits

the bathhouse,

what

does he

say?

Rav Aha said: “I give thanks before You, Hashem, my God, that You saved me from the fire

[the fire in the bathhouse].

Rav Abbahu entered the bathhouse.

[He entered the bathhouse,]

the floor beneath him collapsed.

[The floor of the bathhouse beneath him gave way, and the pit into which the water falls opened beneath it.]

A miracle occurred for him,

and he

stood on a pillar

[He stood on a single pillar that remained from the floor,] and

saved

[rescued]

one hundred and one men

who were with him there,

with one limb.

He held one or two people with one hand, and they held other people, and so on; one hundred and one people held one another, and they did not fall into the pit.

He said

Rav Abbahu after this miracle occurred to him:

This was

the reason

that

said

Rav Aha,

that a person must give thanks upon leaving the bathhouse, “that You brought me out in peace,” so that an incident such as this one that happened to me should not occur to him.

For Rav Aha said: One who enters to have blood let says

“May it be Your will before You, Hashem, my God, that this activity be healing for me, and heal me, for You are a faithful Healer, and Your healing is true

. For it is not the way of human beings to heal, but they have become accustomed

[For in truth they should not have engaged in medicine at all, but should have sought mercy. Therefore I pray that You heal me, and my engaging in medicine is only because this is the custom].

Abaye said: A person should not say this [

“For it is not the way of human beings to heal, etc.”], for it is not correct to say that since Hashem brought illness upon a person, he has no permission to be healed by a physician,

for

behold,

the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

And they expounded the verse [Exodus 21:19]:

“And he shall surely heal”—from here it is granted permission

to a physician to heal.

When he rises

from the bloodletting,

what

does he

say?

Rav Aha said: “Blessed is the One who heals without payment.”