## Berakhot Daf 47b

###### Berakhot 47b:1
[Berakhot 47b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:1)

״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ״. וּמָה רָאִיתָ? הַאי אִידְּגַן וְהַאי לָא אִידְּגַן.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**“From all of that is given to you, you shall set apart** that which is the Lord’s *teruma*” (Numbers 18:29). God’s *teruma*, *teruma gedola*, must be taken from all of the Levites’ gifts. The Gemara asks: **And what did you see** that led you to require *teruma gedola* from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: **This,** after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and **has become grain, and that,** which remained on the stalk, **did not** yet **become grain.** The verse regarding *teruma gedola* states: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate *teruma gedola*.


###### Berakhot 47b:2
[Berakhot 47b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:2)

מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ: פְּשִׁיטָא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן, וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate **second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed,** he may be included in a *zimmun*.The Gemara remarks: **It is obvious** that if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a *zimmun*. The Gemara responds: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with **a case** where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., **where one gave** payment for **the principal,** the value of the tithe, **but he did not give** payment for **the fifth** that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; **and** the mishna **teaches us** that failure to add **the fifth does not invalidate** the redemption.


###### Berakhot 47b:3
[Berakhot 47b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:3)

הַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת: פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: שַׁמָּשׁ לָא קָבַע — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We learned in the mishna: **The waiter who ate** at least **an olive-bulk** from the meal may join in a *zimmun*. The Gemara remarks: **It is obvious.** Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say that the waiter** who stands and serves the diners **did not establish** himself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the *zimmun*, the mishna **teaches us** that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.


###### Berakhot 47b:4
[Berakhot 47b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:4)

וְהַכּוּתִי מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו: אַמַּאי? לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ! וְתַנְיָא אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עַל עַם הָאָרֶץ!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The mishna states that **a Samaritan [*Kuti*] may be included in a *zimmun*.** The Gemara asks: **Why?** Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, **let him be merely an *am ha’aretz*,** one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, **and it was taught** in a *baraita*: **An *am ha’aretz* may not be included in a *zimmun*.**


###### Berakhot 47b:5
[Berakhot 47b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:5)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר בְּכוּתִי חָבֵר. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּכוּתִי עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְהָכָא בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ דְּרַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר עָסְקִינַן, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ? — כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל חוּלָּיו בְּטָהֳרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַשֵּׂר פֵּירוֹתָיו כָּרָאוּי. וְהָנֵי כּוּתָאֵי עַשּׂוֹרֵי מְעַשְּׂרִי כְּדַחֲזֵי, דִּבְמַאי דִּכְתִיב בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִזְהָר זְהִירִי. דְּאָמַר מָר כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהּ כּוּתִים — הַרְבֵּה מְדַקְדְּקִין בָּהּ, יוֹתֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara offers several answers: **Abaye said:** The mishna is referring to a ***Kuti* who is a *ḥaver*,** one who is scrupulous in those areas. **Rava said: Even if you say** that the mishna refers to **a *Kuti*** who is an ***am ha’aretz*, and here** the prohibition to include an *am ha’aretz* in a *zimmun* refers to an ***am ha’aretz*** as defined by **the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Who is an *am ha’aretz*? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in** a state of **ritual purity.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:** An *am ha’aretz* is **anyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these *Kutim* tithe** their produce **appropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the *Kutim* embraced** and accepted upon themselves, **they are** even **more exacting in its** observance **than Jews.**


###### Berakhot 47b:6
[Berakhot 47b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:6)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ? — כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע עַרְבִית וְשַׁחֲרִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ צִיצִית בְּבִגְדוֹ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין מְזוּזָה עַל פִּתְחוֹ. רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר יוֹסֵף אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים וְאֵינוֹ מְגַדְּלָם לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרָא וְשָׁנָה וְלֹא שִׁמֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הֲרֵי זֶה עַם הָאָרֶץ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כַּאֲחֵרִים.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara cites a *baraita* with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an *am ha’aretz*: **The Sages taught: Who is an *am ha’aretz*? One who does not recite *Shema* in the evening and morning. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.** Rabbi Yehoshua says:</b> An *am ha’aretz* is **one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says:** An *am ha’aretz* is **one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says:** An *am ha’aretz* is **one who does not have a *mezuza* on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says:** An *am ha’aretz* is **one who has children but** who does not want them to study Torah, so he **does not raise them to** engage in **Torah study. *Aḥerim* say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars** to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, **that is an *am ha’aretz*. Rav Huna said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of ***Aḥerim*.**


###### Berakhot 47b:7
[Berakhot 47b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:7)

רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לָא אַזְמֵין עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא דְּתָנֵי סִיפְרָא וְסִפְרֵי וְהִלְכְתָא. כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, אָמַר רָבָא: לָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא אֶלָּא דְּלָא אַזְמֵין אַרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא. וְהָתַנְיָא — אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים אֲפִילּוּ קָרָא וְשָׁנָה וְלֹא שִׁמֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הֲרֵי זֶה עַם הָאָרֶץ? שָׁאנֵי רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא דִּמְשַׁמַּע לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן, וְרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא הוּא דְּלָא דָּק אַבָּתְרֵיהּ. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: דְּשָׁמַע שְׁמַעְתָּתָא מִפּוּמַּיְיהוּ דְרַבָּנַן וְגָרֵיס לְהוּ — כְּצוֹרְבָא מֵרַבָּנָן דָּמֵי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara relates: **Rami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied *Sifra*, *Sifrei,* and *halakhot,* in a *zimmun*** because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. **When Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a *zimmun*.** The Gemara asks: **Was it not taught** in a *baraita*: ***Aḥerim* say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an *am ha’aretz*?** Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: **Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precise** in his efforts to check **after him** to ascertain his actions. **Another version** of the Gemara’s answer: Anyone **who hears *halakhot* from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar.**


###### Berakhot 47b:8
[Berakhot 47b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:8)

אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר וְכוּ׳: טֶבֶל פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא בְּטֶבֶל טָבוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי — בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The mishna states that **one who ate untithed produce and** first **tithe etc.** is not included in a *zimmun*. The Gemara remarks: **It is obvious** as one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: **It was only necessary** to teach this *halakha* with regard to a case where it is only considered **untithed produce by rabbinic law,** although by Torah law it was permitted. **What are the circumstances?** Where the produce grew **in an unperforated flowerpot,** as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.


###### Berakhot 47b:9
[Berakhot 47b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:9)

מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן כּוּ׳: פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי. מַהוּ דְתֵימָא כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We learned in the mishna that one who ate **first tithe** from which its *teruma* was not separated may not be included in a *zimmun*. The Gemara remarks: **It is obvious.** The Gemara responds: **It was only necessary** for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case **where** the Levite **preceded** the priest after the kernels of grain were placed **in a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye,** that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate *teruma gedola*, the *tanna* of the mishna **teaches us as** Abaye **responded** to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.


###### Berakhot 47b:10
[Berakhot 47b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:10)

מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכוּ׳: פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְלֹא נִפְדּוּ כְּהִלְכָתָן. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי — כְּגוֹן שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי אֲסִימוֹן, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ״ — כֶּסֶף שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו צוּרָה. הֶקְדֵּשׁ — שֶׁחִלְּלוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, וְלֹא פְּדָאוֹ בְּכֶסֶף, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We also learned in the mishna that if one ate **second tithe** and consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a *zimmun*. The Gemara remarks: **It is obvious?** Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this *halakha*? The Gemara responds: **It was only necessary** for the mishna to teach this *halakha* with regard to a case **where they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [*asimon*],** a silver bullion that had not been engraved. **And the Torah says: “And bind up [*vetzarta*] the money in your hand”** (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: *Vetzarta* refers to **money that has a form [*tzura*]** engraved **upon it. Consecrated property;** in a case **where he redeemed it** by exchanging it **for land instead of money, and the Torah states: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him”** (Leviticus 27:19).


###### Berakhot 47b:11
[Berakhot 47b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:11)

וְהַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת: פְּשִׁיטָא! אַיְּידִי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״כְּזַיִת״, תְּנָא סֵיפָא ״פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת״.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The mishna states that **a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk** may not join a *zimmun*. The Gemara remarks: **It is obvious.** Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: **Since the first clause** of the mishna **taught** the *halakha* with regard to a waiter who ate **an olive-bulk, the latter clause taught** the *halakha* with regard to a waiter who ate **less than an olive-bulk.** Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.


###### Berakhot 47b:12
[Berakhot 47b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:12)

וְהַנׇּכְרִי אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו: פְּשִׁיטָא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, בְּגֵר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ גֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּמּוֹל וְיִטְבּוֹל, וְכַמָּה דְּלָא טְבַל גּוֹי הוּא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The mishna further states that **a gentile is not included in a *zimmun*.** The Gemara remarks: **It is obvious.** Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing **with** a case of **a convert who was circumcised but** did **not** yet **immerse** himself in a ritual bath, **as Rabbi Zeira said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One is never** considered **a proselyte until he is circumcised and immerses** himself. **As long as he did not immerse** himself, **he is a gentile.**


###### Berakhot 47b:13
[Berakhot 47b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:13)

נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶן. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: קָטָן הַמּוּטָּל בַּעֲרִיסָה מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We also learned in the mishna that **women, slaves, and minors are not included in a *zimmun*. Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a *zimmun*.**


###### Berakhot 47b:14
[Berakhot 47b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:14)

וְהָא תְּנַן: נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶם!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara objects: **Didn’t we learn** in the mishna **that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a *zimmun*?**


###### Berakhot 47b:15
[Berakhot 47b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:15)

הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ קָטָן הַמּוּטָּל בַּעֲרִיסָה אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לַעֲשָׂרָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a *zimmun*, one may make him an adjunct to** complete an assembly of **ten** people, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a *zimmun*.


###### Berakhot 47b:16
[Berakhot 47b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:16)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: תִּשְׁעָה וְעֶבֶד — מִצְטָרְפִין. מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְלֹא מָצָא עֲשָׂרָה, וְשִׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה. שִׁחְרֵר — אִין, לֹא שִׁחְרֵר — לָא. תְּרֵי אִיצְטְרִיכוּ, שַׁחְרֵר חַד וְנָפֵיק בְּחַד.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
On the subject of completing a *zimmun*, **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine** Jews **and a slave join together** to form a *zimmun* of ten. The Gemara **raises an objection:** There was an **incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find** a quorum of **ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the** quorum of **ten.** From this we may infer that if he **freed** his slave, **yes,** he may join the quorum of ten, but if he **did not free** him, **no,** he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, **two were required** to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer **freed one and fulfilled his obligation with** another **one,** who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.


###### Berakhot 47b:17
[Berakhot 47b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:17)

וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה כׇּל הַמְשַׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״? לִדְבַר מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי: מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה הִיא! — מִצְוָה דְרַבִּים שָׁאנֵי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: **How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his** Canaanite **slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated** with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; **they will serve as bondsmen for you forever”** (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of **a mitzva is different.** The Gemara asks: **It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression,** and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: **A mitzva** that benefits **the many is different,** and one may free his slave for that purpose.


###### Berakhot 47b:18
[Berakhot 47b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:18)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לְעוֹלָם יַשְׁכִּים אָדָם לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה וְיִמָּנֶה עִם עֲשָׂרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה בָּאִים אַחֲרָיו — קִבֵּל עָלָיו שְׂכַר כּוּלָּם. ״שְׂכַר כּוּלָּם״ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׂכָר כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early** to go **to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten** to complete the quorum, **as even if one hundred** people **arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all,** as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: **Does it enter your mind** that he receives **the reward of them all?** Why should he take away their reward? **Rather,** emend the statement and **say: He receives a reward equivalent to** the reward of **them all.**


###### Berakhot 47b:19
[Berakhot 47b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:19)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תִּשְׁעָה וְאָרוֹן — מִצְטָרְפִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְאָרוֹן גַּבְרָא הוּא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תִּשְׁעָה נִרְאִין כַּעֲשָׂרָה — מִצְטָרְפִין. אָמְרִי לַהּ: כִּי מְכַנְּפִי. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: כִּי מְבַדְּרִי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, **Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark** in which the Torah scrolls are stored **join** to form a quorum of ten. **Rav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man,** that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? **Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together.** There was disagreement over this: **Some said this** *halakha* as follows: Nine appear like ten **when they are gathered. And some said this** *halakha* as follows: Nine appear like ten **when they are scattered,** the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.


###### Berakhot 47b:20
[Berakhot 47b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:20)

אָמַר רַב אַמֵּי: שְׁנַיִם וְשַׁבָּת מִצְטָרְפִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְשַׁבָּת גַּבְרָא הוּא?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְחַדְּדִין זֶה אֶת זֶה בַּהֲלָכָה מִצְטָרְפִין. מַחְוֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת. מַחְוֵי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
Similarly, **Rav Ami said: Two** people **and Shabbat join** to form a *zimmun*. **Rav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person,** that it may be counted in a *zimmun*? **Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’s** intellect **in halakhic** discourse **join together** and are considered three. The Gemara relates: **Rav Ḥisda pointed** to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: **For example, me and Rav Sheshet.** Similarly, **Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda.**


###### Berakhot 47b:21
[Berakhot 47b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/47b:21)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָטָן פּוֹרֵחַ — מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: קָטָן שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, וְשֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, וְאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּקָטָן. הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — אִין, לָא הֵבִיא — לָא. וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי אֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּקָטָן. לְאֵתוּיֵי מַאי? לָאו

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a *zimmun*, **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A mature minor,** i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, **is included in a *zimmun*. That** opinion **was also taught** in a *baraita*: **A minor who grew two** pubic **hairs,** a sign of puberty, **is included in a *zimmun*; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a *zimmun*. And one is not exacting with regard to a minor.** The Gemara comments: **This** *baraita* **itself is difficult. You said that** a minor **who grew two hairs, yes,** he is included, **one who did not grow** two hairs, **no,** he is not included, **and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What** does this last clause come **to include? Is it not**