Berakhot 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara infers:

By inference, when he purchased

utensils,

and then returned

and purchased

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

everyone agrees that he need not recite a blessing

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.

There are those who say

that the dispute was stated differently:

Rav Huna said: They taught

that one recites Sheheḥeyanu even if he has something like it

only

if he

did not purchase and then purchase again,

but the first utensils came to him as an inheritance.

But if he purchased

utensils

and then purchased again

others like them,

he need not recite a blessing.

Since even with regard to the purchase they are not new to him.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even if he purchased

utensils and they are still in his possession,

and then purchased

others like them,

he must recite a blessing

over them.

The Gemara infers:

By inference, when he has

something like them by inheritance,

and

then

purchased

others,

everyone agrees that he must recite a blessing

over them.

The Gemara raises an objection

from a beraita:

If one built a new house and does not have

another house

like it,

he must recite Sheheḥeyanu. And likewise, if

he purchased new utensils and does not have

other utensils

like them, he must recite a blessing.

But if

he has something like them, he need not recite a blessing; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case

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

he must recite a blessing,

because every additional purchase brings new enjoyment and joy.

It follows that they disagreed specifically when he has something like them by inheritance. But if he purchased and then purchased again, everyone agrees that he need not recite a blessing.

The Gemara concludes its objection:

Granted, according to the first interpretation,

according to which the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yohanan concerns a case in which he had utensils by inheritance and then purchased others,

Rav Huna

holds

like Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yohanan

holds

like Rabbi Yehuda.

But according to the latter interpretation,

according to which they disagreed only in a case where he purchased and then purchased again, the following difficulty arises:

Granted, Rav Huna,

who holds that when one purchases and then purchases again he no longer needs to recite a blessing, may have said this only when he purchased the first utensils; but if he inherited them, he must recite a blessing,

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that if he had utensils by inheritance and purchased others, he must recite a blessing.

But Rabbi Yohanan, who said

that even when he purchased and then purchased again he must recite a blessing,

in accordance with whom does he act?

For his position is

neither like Rabbi Meir,

who holds that even if he inherited the first utensils he does not recite a blessing,

nor like Rabbi Yehuda,

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

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you: The same is true according to Rabbi Yehuda:

even when he

purchased and then purchased again, he must also recite a blessing,

and I hold accordingly.

And the fact that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed

specifically

in

the case in which

he has

them by inheritance

and purchased

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

to convey the strength of Rabbi Meir’s position,

for he holds

that even if he purchased and

already

has

something like them from before by inheritance,

he need not recite a blessing,

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

And all the more so

if he

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

The Gemara asks:

Why did they not disagree in a case where he purchased and then purchased again, for

according to Rabbi Meir

he need not recite a blessing,

whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda he must recite a blessing, and there would thereby be a novel point

to convey the strength

of Rabbi Yehuda,

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

The Gemara answers:

The power of the lenient ruling

of Rabbi Meir, who holds that even if he already had them by inheritance he need not recite a blessing,

is preferable to him

to teach.

We learned in the Mishna:

One recites a blessing over bad

that is analogous to good: “Blessed is the Judge of truth.”

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

For example, when the river took

the

embankment

[dam] from

his land,

and swept away his field and ruined the produce.

For even though

in the end

it is good for him,

because

the

water

brings up

onto

the land alluvial soil

[sand and mud]

and improves

the soil thereby, nevertheless,

at present it is bad

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 good

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

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

For example, when he found a lost object, even though

in the end

it is bad for him, because

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 she give birth

to a male child,”

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 ineffective

to change it from female to male.

Rabbi Yosef raised an objection:

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 the meaning of “and afterward

she gave birth to a daughter”? Why does it not say, “And she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter,” as it says regarding all the tribes?

And Rav said:

Dinah was transformed into a daughter

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

have already

emerged from me,

and

four

have already emerged

from

the two

maidservants; behold,

together

they are ten,

and

if

this fetus

that

is in my womb will be

male,

Rachel will be left to give birth to only one tribe,

and my sister Rachel will not give birth

even

like one of the maidservants,

each of whom gave birth to two tribes.”

Immediately,

her fetus was transformed from a male

to a female,

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

The name is derived from din, the judgment that Leah passed upon herself. Therefore it says, “And afterward she gave birth to a daughter”: Before the judgment, the fetus was male, and only afterward was it transformed into a female. It follows that prayer can change the fetus. How, then, do we learn in our Mishna that such a prayer is a “futile prayer”?

The Gemara answers:

One may not cite miraculous events,

such as this one that occurred to Leah, as proof 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 instead: The event involving Leah occurred within the first forty days

of the pregnancy

and was,

at a stage when it was still possible to change the fetus through prayer.

As it was taught in a beraita: During the first three days

of conception,

a person should ask for mercy that the semen not spoil,

but that it be absorbed and develop into a fetus. If it was not absorbed within three days, it will no longer be absorbed, and prayer is no longer effective for it.

And

from three

days

until forty

days,

he should ask for mercy that

the fetus be

male.

From forty days until three months

of the pregnancy,

he should ask for mercy that

his wife not conceive another fetus, which would push against the first fetus and thereby

cause it to be

like the form of a

sandal

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

And from three months until six

months,

he should ask for 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 ask for mercy that

the fetus emerge

in peace.

Since Leah prayed within the first forty days, her prayer was not a futile prayer, because the sex of the fetus had not yet been determined. The Mishna, however, deals with a case in which her pregnancy was already recognizable, namely, after three months of pregnancy, at which point one may no longer pray concerning the sex of the fetus.

The Gemara asks:

And

if it is possible to pray until forty days,

is mercy effective

to make the fetus male?

But didn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Ami, say:

When

the man emits seed first, the woman gives birth

to

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 conceives and gives birth to a male” . Since the matter depends on which one emits seed first, how can prayer be effective afterward?

The Gemara answers:

Here we are dealing with a case in which both emitted seed

[the man and the woman]

simultaneously.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

If one 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 certain that this is not within my house.

And concerning him

[Hillel]

the verse says

[Psalms 112:7]:

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

Rava said: Wherever you expound this verse,

it is expounded well. And whether

it is expounded from its beginning to its end,

or

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 will not fear bad news”

—what is the reason?

because

“his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord.”

And it is expounded from its end to its beginning

as follows: One who

“has a steadfast heart, trusting in the Lord,”

will therefore

“not fear bad news.”

A certain student who was walking behind Rabbi

Yishmael bar Rabbi Yosei in the market of Zion; he saw him

Rabbi Yishmael saw that student

who

was

afraid, and he said to him:

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: It is a sign that

you have sinned

[that you are a sinner]

because,

fear is not a consequence of fear of the Lord, but rather the result of helplessness,

as

it is

written

[Isaiah 33:14]:

“The sinners in Zion are afraid.”

The student said to him:

That student said to him:

But it is written

[Proverbs 28:14]:

“Fortunate is the person who is always afraid.”

Thus, fear is a virtue and is not a sign of sin.

He said to him:

Rabbi Yishmael said to him:

That

verse

is written with regard to words of Torah.

The meaning is that fortunate is the person who is always afraid lest he forget his learning, and therefore he constantly reviews it.

Yehuda bar Natan was walking along behind Rav Hamnuna. He sighed,

[Yehuda bar Natan sighed]

and

Rav Hamnuna said to him: Does

that man require afflictions

[Yehuda bar Natan]

to bring them upon himself!?

For sighing and fear cause the thing about which one is anxious to come upon him,

as it is written

[Job 3:25]:

“For the thing I feared has come upon me

[has come upon me],

and what I dreaded has befallen me.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

But

fear is a virtue, as

it is written: “Fortunate is the person who is always afraid.”

The Gemara answers:

That

fear

is written with regard to words of Torah.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who enters a large town

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

The Sages taught: Upon entering

a large town,

what does he say?

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

This is “cries out concerning the future.”

And after he

enters,

he

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

This is “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, Lord my God and God of my fathers, that You take me out of this large town in peace.”

And after he

leaves,

he gives thanks for the past and

says: “I give thanks before You, Lord my God, that You took me out of this large town in peace. And just as You took me out in peace, so may You lead me in peace, support me in peace, make me proceed 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 town that

has wicked rulers, and

they do not judge

in accordance with justice,

and

if he is found guilty,

they kill him there.

Rather, they seek pretexts and punish unlawfully.

But in a large town that

does not kill a person there without a trial, but rather

they judge, and

only if he is found guilty

do they kill him there, there is no concern,

and this prayer is unwarranted. He should simply take care not to transgress, and consequently they will not punish him. If he has already transgressed, he should not enter that place, and he will not come into danger.

Some say,

the matter is as follows:

Rav Mattana said: Even in a large town that

does not kill a person there without a trial, but rather

they judge, and

only if he is found guilty

do they kill him there,

he must also pray upon entering it. For even if he has not transgressed,

sometimes

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

it may happen that he will not find a person who

will serve as his defense attorney and

find a merit on his behalf.

He may be killed despite being entirely innocent.

The Sages taught: One who enters a bathhouse

[In their time, the bathhouse was a dangerous place because of the fire they kindled beneath the area containing the water, and therefore]

says: “May it be Your will before You, Lord my God, that You save me from this and from anything similar to it, and that no mishap or sin befall me; and if a mishap or sin should befall 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 ... befall me”], in order

not to open his mouth to the Satan.

As Reish Lakish said, and likewise a tanna 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 that one should not open his mouth to the Satan?

As it is written

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

we would have become like Gomorrah.”

And

what did

the

prophet

answer them [there, verse 10]?

“Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom,

give ear to the Torah of our God, people of Gomorrah.” Thus, their words were fulfilled, and he called them “rulers of Sodom” in his prophecy because they had 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, Lord my God, that You saved me from the fire

[the fire in the bathhouse].

Rav Abbahu entered the bathhouse of Benei.

[He entered the bathhouse],

the floor beneath him collapsed

[the floor of the bathhouse collapsed beneath him, and the pit into which the water fell opened beneath it].

A miracle occurred for him,

and

he stood on a pillar

[he stood on one pillar that remained from the floor], and

he saved

[rescued]

one hundred and one men

who were with him there,

with one arm.

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

He said

Rav Abbahu said after this miracle occurred to him:

This is

the reason

that

said

Rav Aha

that a person must give thanks upon leaving the bathhouse, “that You took me out in peace,” so that an incident like the one that happened to me would not befall him.

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

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

. For people do not ordinarily heal, but they have adopted it as a practice

[for in truth, they should not engage in medicine at all, but should seek mercy. Therefore I pray that You heal me, and that my engaging in medicine is only because this is the accepted practice]].

Abaye said: A person should not say this

[“For people do not ordinarily heal, etc.”], because it is incorrect to say that since God brought illness upon a person, he has no permission to be healed by a physician,

as

it is

taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

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

“And he shall surely heal”; from here it is derived that permission was granted

to a physician to heal.

When he stands up

from having blood let,

what

does he

say?

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