Pesachim 102a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location on the page")

Who is the tanna

of this beraita of

“uprootings”?

Rabbi Judah!

But the Rabbis disagree with him, and hold that with regard to things that require a blessing after them in their place, it is not necessary to recite a blessing even when they did not leave there an elderly person or a sick person, and this is in accordance with Rav Ḥisda.

For it was taught

that Rabbi Judah and the Sages disagreed concerning this:

Companions [

Torah scholars, Rashbam]

who were reclining [at a meal] and uprooted their feet to go to the synagogue or to the beit-midrash—

when they leave, they do not require a retroactive blessing, and when they return, they do not require an initial blessing.

Rabbi Judah said: In what case are these words stated? When they left there some of the companions

who remained in their place and did not go to the synagogue.

But if they did not leave there some of the companions,

then

when they leave, they require a retroactive blessing, and when they return, they require an initial blessing.

But the Sages did not distinguish in the matter, and hold that even when they did not leave some of the companions, they do not need to recite a blessing, neither retroactively nor initially [according to the rule in our possession that wherever Rabbi Judah says, “In what case are these words stated?” he comes to disagree with the words of the Sages before him], since they ate things that require a blessing after them in their place [as is implied by the expression “and they uprooted their feet,” and as we precisely inferred above].

And we examine this:

Rather, the reason is that with regard to things that require

a blessing after them in their place

we are dealing, and therefore the Rabbis hold

that when they leave, they do not require a retroactive blessing, and when they return, they do not require an initial blessing.

But with regard to things that do not require a blessing after them in their place, even according to the Rabbis,

then

when they leave, they require a retroactive blessing, and when they return, they require an initial blessing.

Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who said above that a change of place does not require a blessing, and did not distinguish in the matter? And it is implied that even with regard to things that do not require a blessing in their place, he holds that it is not necessary to recite a blessing?

And the Gemara is astonished:

But did we not already raise an objection against him once,

for we already challenged Rabbi Yoḥanan above from another beraita, and what difference is there if he is also challenged from this beraita? And the Gemara explains: there is a difference if a person comes and resolves that beraita above, or emends it and does not challenge Rabbi Yoḥanan from it. Shall we

say

that

from this

beraita

as well there is a refutation

of Rabbi Yoḥanan?

And we answer: From this beraita it is indeed not possible to challenge Rabbi Yoḥanan.

For

Rabbi Yoḥanan can say to you:

the Rabbis always hold that

the same law applies even to things that do not require a blessing after them in their place: they too do not require a blessing.

And that which it teaches

in the beraita

“they uprooted their feet,”

which implies specifically with regard to things that require a blessing after them in their place—is in order

to inform you of the force of Rabbi Judah,

that even with regard to things that require a blessing after them in their place

we say:

The reason is that they left

some of the companions, but if they did not leave some of the companions,

then

when they leave—

they require a retroactive blessing, and when they return—

they require an initial blessing.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Ḥisda: Companions who were reclining to drink wine, and uprooted their feet, and returned—

they do not need to recite a blessing!

Since wine is among the things that require a blessing after them in their place. And this is in accordance with Rav Ḥisda.

The Sages taught: Members of a group who were reclining

on the eve of Shabbat,

and the day became sanctified for them—

they are obligated to interrupt the weekday meal.

And

they bring him a cup of wine, and he recites the sanctification of the day over it,

for he performs Kiddush now, after they stopped eating the weekday meal.

And immediately they bring him a

second cup

and

he recites Birkat HaMazon over it,

since he is obligated to interrupt the weekday meal—in accordance with the view of Rabbi Judah above [100a], that one interrupts for Shabbat [and nevertheless, since the time for Kiddush has arrived, he must first recite Kiddush],

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Yosei says: He eats and continues eating until it grows dark [

and even afterward, until he completes his meal. Ran]. And Rabbi Yosei follows his position there, that one does not interrupt at all for Shabbat.