Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth

Folio 52a

and that it represents the view of R. Joshua, who said that we pay no attention to a Bath Kol.¹

But do Beth Shammai hold that the blessing over the day is more important, seeing that it has been taught: 'When one goes into his house on the outgoing of Sabbath, he says blessings over wine and light and spices and then he says the habdalah [benediction].²  If he has only one cup, he keeps it for after the meal and then says the other blessings in order after it? — But how do you know that this represents the view of Beth Shammai? Perhaps it represents the view of Beth Hillel? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it mentions first light and then spices; and who is it that we understand to hold this view? Beth Shammai, as it has been taught: R. Judah says: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel concurred in holding that the grace after food comes first and the habdalah [benediction] last. In regard to what did they differ? In regard to the light and the spices, Beth Shammai holding that light should come first and then spices, and Beth Hillel that spices should come first and then light. And how do you know that this represents the view of Beth Shammai as reported by R. Judah? Perhaps it represents the view of Beth Hillel as reported by R. Meir!³  — Do not imagine such a thing. For it states here, BETH SHAMMAI SAY, LIGHT, GRACE AND SPICES, AND HABDALAH; WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY LIGHT, SPICES, GRACE, AND HABDALAH, and there in the Baraitha it says, 'If he has only one cup he keeps it for grace and says the others in order after it'. This shows that it represents the view of Beth Shammai as reported by R. Judah. In any case there is a difficulty?⁴  — Beth Shammai hold that the entrance of a [holy] day is different from its outgoing. At its entrance, the earlier we can make it the better, but at its exit, the longer we can defer it the better, so that it should not seem to be a burden on us.

But do Beth Shammai hold that grace requires a cup [of wine] seeing that we have learnt: IF WINE IS SERVED TO THEM AFTER THE FOOD,⁵  AND THAT IS THE ONLY CUP THERE, BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT A BLESSING IS FIRST SAID OVER THE WINE AND THEN [THE GRACE] OVER THE FOOD. Does not this mean that he says a blessing over it and drinks it?⁶  No; he says a blessing over it and puts it aside.⁷  But a Master has said: [After saying the blessing] one must taste it? — He does taste it. But a Master has said: If he tastes it he spoils it?⁸  — He tastes it with his finger. But a Master has said: The cup of benediction must have a certain quantity, and he diminishes it? — We must suppose that he has more than the prescribed quantity. But it says, 'If there is only that cup'? — There is not enough for two but more than enough for one. But R. Hiyya taught: Beth Shammai say that he says a blessing over wine and drinks it and then says grace? — Two Tannaim report Beth Shammai differently.⁹

BETH SHAMMAI SAY etc. Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say that washing of the hands precedes the filling of the cup. For should you say that the filling of the cup comes first, there is a danger lest liquid on the back of the cup will be rendered unclean through one's hands and it in turn will render the cup unclean. But would not the hands make the cup itself unclean? — Hands receive uncleanness in second degree,¹⁰  and that which has received uncleanness in the second degree cannot pass on the uncleanness to a third degree in the case of non-sacred things, save through liquids.¹¹  Beth Hillel, however, say that the cup is first filled and then the hands are washed. For if you say that the hands are washed first, there is a danger lest the liquid on the hands should become unclean through the cup¹²  and should then in turn make the hands unclean. But would not the cup make the hands themselves unclean? — A vessel does not make a man unclean. But would not [the cup] render unclean the liquid inside it? — We are here dealing with a vessel the outside of which has been rendered unclean by liquid, in which case its inside is clean and its outside unclean, as we have learnt: If the outside of a vessel has been rendered unclean by liquids, its outside is unclean

1. 'Er. 7a.
2. Which is the blessing of the day.
3. Infra.
4. That Beth Shammai seem to give precedence to the blessing over wine over that of the day.
5. But before grace has been said.
6. That is if he wishes, he can drink the wine before the grace.
7. To serve as the cup of benediction.
8. For other ceremonial purposes.
9. R. Hiyya reporting them as saying that the grace after meals does not require a cup of benediction.
10. They are rendered unclean by something which has become unclean through touching something by its nature unclean.
11. This is a Rabbinic rule enunciated in Toh. II, 3.
12. Supposing that this happens to be unclean.

while its inside, its rim, its handle and its haft are clean. If its inside has been rendered unclean, it is all unclean. What is the point at issue between them? — Beth Shammai hold that it is forbidden to use a vessel the outside of which has been rendered unclean by liquids for fear of drippings,¹  and consequently there is no need to fear that the liquid on the hands will be rendered unclean by the cup.²  Beth Hillel on the other hand hold that it is permitted to use a vessel the outside of which has been rendered unclean by liquids, considering that drippings are unusual, and consequently there is a danger lest the liquid on the [undried] hands should be rendered unclean through the cup.³  Another explanation is, so that the meal should follow immediately the washing of the hands. What is the point of this 'other explanation'? — Beth Hillel argued thus with Beth Shammai: Even from your standpoint, that it is forbidden to use a vessel the outside of which has been rendered unclean by liquids, for fear of drippings, even so our ruling is superior, because the washing of the hands is immediately followed by the meal.

BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT AFTER WIPING HIS HAND WITH THE NAPKIN etc. Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say that [the diner] after wiping his hands with the napkin places it on the table. For if you say that he places it on the cushion, there is a danger lest liquid on the napkin may be rendered unclean through the cushion and then in turn render the hands unclean. But will not the cushion make the napkin itself unclean? — One vessel does not render another unclean. But will not the cushion make the man himself unclean? — A vessel does not render a man unclean. Beth Hillel, however, say that he puts it on the cushion. For if you say that he puts it on the table there is a fear lest the liquid on the napkin should be rendered unclean through the table and should in turn render the food unclean. But will not the table render the food on it unclean? — We are dealing here with a table which is unclean in the second degree, and that which is unclean in the second degree does not pass on uncleanness to a third degree in the case of non-sacred things, save through the medium of liquids. What is the point at issue between them? — Beth Shammai hold that it is forbidden to use a table which is unclean in the second degree for fear lest it may be used by persons eating terumah,⁴  while Beth Hillel hold that it is permissible to use a table which is unclean in the second degree since persons who eat terumah are careful [to avoid such]. Another explanation is that washing of hands for non-sacred food is not prescribed by the Torah. What is the point of the 'other explanation'? — Beth Hillel argued thus with Beth Shammai: Should you ask what reason is there for being particular in the case of food⁵  and not being particular in the case of hands, even granting this, our rule is better, since washing of hands for non-sacred food is not prescribed by the Torah. It is better that hands, the rule for which has no basis in the Torah, should become unclean, rather than food, the rule for which has a basis in the Torah.

BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT THE FLOOR IS SWEPT etc. Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say: The floor is swept and then they wash their hands. For should you say that the hands are washed first, the result might be to spoil the food. (Beth Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands comes first.)⁶  What is the reason? — On account of the crumbs [of bread]. Beth Hillel, however, say that if he the attendant is a scholar, he removes the crumbs which are as large as an olive and leaves those which are smaller than an olive. This supports the dictum of R. Johanan; for R. Johanan said: It is permissible to destroy wilfully crumbs [of bread] smaller than an olive.⁷  What is the ground of their difference? — Beth Hillel hold that it is not permissible to employ an attendant who is an 'am ha-arez,⁸  while Beth Shammai hold that is is permissible to employ an attendant who is an 'am ha-arez. R. Jose b. Hanina said in the name of R. Huna: In all this chapter the halachah is as stated by Beth Hillel, save in this point where it is as stated by Beth Shammai. R. Oshaia, however, reverses the teaching⁹  and in this point also the halachah follows Beth Hillel.

BETH SHAMMAI SAY, LIGHT, GRACE, etc. R. Huna b. Judah was once at the house of Raba, and he saw Raba say the blessing over spices first.¹⁰  He said to him: Let us see. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ with respect to the light [that it should come first], as we learnt: BETH SHAMMAI SAY, [THE ORDER IS] LIGHT, GRACE, SPICES, AND HABDALAH, WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY THAT IT IS LIGHT, SPICES, GRACE AND HABDALAH! — Raba answered after¹¹  him: These are the words of R. Meir, but R. Judah said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agreed that grace comes first and habdalah last. Where they differed was in respect of light and spices, Beth Shammai maintaining that light comes first and then spices, while Beth Hillel held that spices comes first and then light; and R. Johanan has stated: The public have adopted the custom of following Beth Hillel as reported by R. Judah.

BETH SHAMMAI SAY, WHO CREATED etc. Raba said: All are agreed that the word bara¹²  refers to the past. Where they differ is with respect to the word bore.¹³  Beth Shammai maintain that bore means 'who will create in the future', while Beth Hillel hold that bore can also refer to the past. R. Joseph cited in objection [to Beth Shammai] the verses, I form the light and create [bore] darkness,¹⁴  He formeth the mountains and createth [bore] the wind,¹⁵  He that created [bore] the heavens and stretched them forth.¹⁶  Rather, said R. Joseph: Both sides are agreed that both bara and bore can refer to the past. Where they differ is as to whether ma'or [light] or me'- ore [lights] should be said. Beth Shammai are of the opinion that there is only one light in the fire, while Beth Hillel are of the opinion that there are several.¹⁷  It has been taught to the same effect: Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: There are several illuminations in the light.

A BLESSING IS NOT SAID etc. There is a good reason in the case of the light [of idolaters], because it has not 'rested'.¹⁸  But what reason is there in the case of the spices? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: We are dealing here with [spices used at] a banquet of idolaters¹⁹  because ordinarily a banquet of idolaters is held in honour of idolatry. But since it is stated further on, OR OVER THE LIGHT OR THE SPICES OF IDOLATRY, we may infer that the earlier statement does not refer to idolaters? — R. Hanina of Sura replied: The latter statement is explanatory. What is the reason why a blessing is not said over the light and the spices of idolaters? Because ordinarily a banquet of idolaters is in honour of idolatry.

Our Rabbis taught: A blessing may be said over a light which has 'rested', but not over one which has not 'rested'. What is meant by 'which has not rested'?

1. Drops from the inside may spill on to the outside, and in virtue of the uncleanness of the cup the drops would render the hands unclean.
2. Since ex hypothesi the cup may not be used. Hence it is quite safe to wash the hands before filling the cup.
3. Hence it is safer to wash the hands after the cup has been filled.
4. And terumah would be rendered unclean by a table unclean in the second degree.
5. To protect it from uncleanness.
6. This sentence seems to be an interpolation.
7. In spite of the prohibition against wasting food.
8. Who would not know the difference between crumbs of the size of an olive and those of smaller size. Probably a meal of haberim (v. Glos.) is referred to.
9. I.e., ascribes to Beth Hillel the teaching that an 'am ha-arez may be employed, and consequently the floor is swept first.
10. I.e., before the light.
11. I.e., supplemented the reading in our Mishnah as follows.
12. Past tense, 'he created'.
13. Participle, 'creating', or 'who creates'.
14. Isa. XLV, 7.
15. Amos. IV, 13.
16. Isa. XLII, 5.
17. I.e., several colours in the light-red, white, green etc.
18. I.e., forbidden work has been done by its light.
19. Lit., 'Cutheans' which throughout this passage is probably a censor's correction for 'Gentiles'.