Pesachim 101b — the Talmud in English

For Rav Ḥanin bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Pedat, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: both a change of wine

When one drinks wine and in the midst of his drinking they brought him wine from another barrel, and its taste differs from the previous one, whether it is superior to it or inferior to it,

and a change of place,

if he went in the midst of his drinking to another house and did not divert his attention from the drinking, and they brought him wine there [and likewise with everything eaten],

he need not recite a blessing

again over the wine.

He raised an objection

from that which was taught:

A change of place —

requires one to recite a blessing. A change of wine —

does not require one to recite a blessing.

A refutation of Rabbi Yoḥanan

who said that even with a change of place one need not recite a blessing?!

And we conclude:

Refutation!

Rav Idi bar Avin was sitting before Rav Ḥisda, and Rav Ḥisda was sitting and saying in the name of Rav Huna: This that you said, that a change of place requires one to recite a blessing, applies only

when the change was

from house to house. But

if he changed within the same house

from place to place,

such as from the house to the upper story —

no,

it is not considered a change, and he need not recite a blessing again.

Rav Idi bar Avin said to him: This is how I learned it in the beraita of the school of Rav Hinak, and some say

that he said this to him:

In the beraita of the school of Bar Hinak —

we learned

in accordance with you!

That from place to place is not considered a change.

And we ask:

But Rav Huna,

is it so that

he teaches us a beraita?

Why does he need to teach us something explicit in the beraita?

And we answer:

Rav Huna had not heard the beraita.

And further, Rav Ḥisda was sitting and saying on his own authority: This that you said, that a change of place requires one to recite a blessing, we said it only with regard to things that do not require a blessing after them in their place,

such as water or fruit, over which one recites only “Who creates many living beings,” which is not an important blessing, and therefore it need not be recited specifically in the place where he ate.

Therefore, as soon as he stood and went to another place, this standing is the completion of his meal [for he need not return to his place in order to recite the concluding blessing]. And what he now eats in another place is a different meal, and he must recite a blessing again.

But things that require a blessing after them in their place,

such as the Seven Species, over which one recites the blessing Me-ein Shalosh [and all the more so bread], which is an important blessing and must be recited specifically in the place where he ate —

he need not recite a blessing

again if he changed his place and went to another place and continued his eating there.

What is the reason?

Because

he returns to the original established place!

Since, if he had not eaten here, he would have had to return to his first place and recite the concluding blessing there, he eats with the intention of the first establishment of the meal: he intended to complete his meal here and recite one blessing for both of them. Therefore, he need not recite a first blessing over his eating here.

And Rav Sheshet said: Both this one and that one,

both those that require a blessing after them in their place and those that do not require a blessing after them in their place —

require one to recite a blessing

again when he changed his place in the midst of his eating.

He raised an objection

from that which was taught:

A group of people who were reclining to drink, and uprooted their feet to go out to greet a bridegroom or to greet a bride.

When they go out —

they do not require a concluding blessing!

That is, they do not need to recite a concluding blessing before going out for what they drank, since they are destined to return and continue drinking.

When they return —

they do not require a first blessing

for the continuation of their drinking.

When are these words said:

when

they left there an old man or a sick person,

who did not go out with them to greet the bridegroom.

But

if

they left there neither an old man nor a sick person,

then

when they go out —

they require a concluding blessing

to first recite a concluding blessing for what they drank. And

when they return, they require a first blessing,

to recite a blessing again over the continuation of their drinking.

And we infer:

From the fact that it teaches

in the beraita

“they uprooted their feet,”

which implies that they hurried to go out to greet a bridegroom and a bride, and therefore they recite a concluding blessing on the way [when they did not leave an old man or a sick person]. But if they had not been hurrying to go out to greet a bridegroom and a bride, they would have remained in their place to recite a concluding blessing first.

By inference, we are dealing with things that require a blessing after them in their place. [

According to the Pri Megadim in Eshel Avraham, section 178, subsection 1, in the view of Rashi and Rashbam].

And the reason for leaving an old man or a sick person there is

that we say

that when they go out they do not require a concluding blessing,

and when they return they do not require a first blessing.

But if they did not leave an old man or a sick person there,

then

when they go out they require a blessing before it, and when they return they require a first blessing.

And from here

there is a difficulty against Rav Ḥisda!

For he said that with regard to things that require a blessing in their place, even if they did not return to their place but continued eating in another place, they need not recite a first blessing there; whereas here in the beraita it is explained that even when they returned to their first place, they need to recite a first blessing again, even with regard to things that require a blessing in their place.