## Berakhot Daf 52b

###### Berakhot 52b:1
[Berakhot 52b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:1)

תּוֹכוֹ וְאוֹגְנוֹ וְאׇזְנוֹ וְיָדָיו טְהוֹרִין. נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא כּוּלּוֹ.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**while its inner side, and its rim,** the edge of the vessel that protrudes outwards, **and its ear-shaped handle, and its** straight **handles** are **pure.** However, if **the inside** of the vessel **became ritually impure, it is all ritually impure.**


###### Berakhot 52b:2
[Berakhot 52b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:2)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
Although the decrees of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai are different, they are based on realistic contingencies and on concerns shared by both parties. The Gemara seeks to clarify: **With regard to what do they disagree?** What is the crux of their dispute?


###### Berakhot 52b:3
[Berakhot 52b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:3)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ אֲחוֹרָיו בְּמַשְׁקִין, גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם נִיצוֹצוֹת. וְלֵיכָּא לְמִגְזַר שֶׁמָּא יִטָּמְאוּ הַמַּשְׁקִין שֶׁבַּיָּדַיִם בַּכּוֹס.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara explains: **Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquids.** This prohibition stems from **a decree** of the Sages, due to concern **for drips** of liquid that would fall from inside the vessel to its outer side, as those drips themselves would be rendered ritually impure by virtue of their contact with the outer side of the vessel. **And** Beit Shammai hold that **there is no** reason to **issue a decree** due to the concern of Beit Hillel **lest the liquid on one’s hands will be rendered ritually impure by the cup, as** Beit Shammai hold that the use of a vessel of that kind is prohibited.


###### Berakhot 52b:4
[Berakhot 52b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:4)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ אֲחוֹרָיו בְּמַשְׁקִין, אָמְרִי נִיצוֹצוֹת לָא שְׁכִיחִי, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִטָּמְאוּ מַשְׁקִין שֶׁבַּיָּדַיִם מֵחֲמַת הַכּוֹס.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**And Beit Hillel hold: One is permitted to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquid,** as they **say: Drips are uncommon,** and decrees are not issued on the basis of an uncommon case. Because Beit Hillel permit the use of a vessel of that kind, **there is concern lest the liquid on one’s hands will be rendered ritually impure due to the cup.**


###### Berakhot 52b:5
[Berakhot 52b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:5)

דָּבָר אַחֵר: תֵּכֶף לִנְטִילַת יָדַיִם סְעוּדָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Alternatively,** Beit Hillel hold that one mixes the water with the wine in the cup and then washes his hands due to the principle: **Immediately** after **the washing of the hands** comes **the meal.** Therefore, he mixes the water and wine in the cup, then he washes his hands, and then he immediately proceeds to the meal.


###### Berakhot 52b:6
[Berakhot 52b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:6)

מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? הָכִי קָאָמְרִי לְהוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: לְדִידְכוּ דְּאָמְרִיתוּ אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שֶׁאֲחוֹרָיו טְמֵאִין דְּגָזְרִינַן מִשּׁוּם נִיצוֹצוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי הָא עֲדִיפָא, דְּתֵכֶף לִנְטִילַת יָדַיִם סְעוּדָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the point of Beit Hillel adding: **Alternatively?** The Gemara answers: **Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows:** Even **according to you, who said** that **it is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which is ritually impure as we issued a decree due to** concern for **drips, even so,** our opinion **is preferable** to yours, **as** our opinion adheres to the principle: **Immediately** after **the washing of the hands** comes **the meal.**


###### Berakhot 52b:7
[Berakhot 52b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:7)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים מְקַנֵּחַ וְכוּ׳.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over where the cloth that one used to dry his hands should be placed. **Beit Shammai say:** After washing, **one dries** his hands with a cloth and places it on the table. And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting.


###### Berakhot 52b:8
[Berakhot 52b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַנֵּחַ יָדָיו בַּמַּפָּה וּמַנִּיחָהּ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן. שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר עַל הַכֶּסֶת, גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִטָּמְאוּ מַשְׁקִין שֶׁבַּמַּפָּה מֵחֲמַת הַכֶּסֶת, וְיַחְזְרוּ וִיטַמְּאוּ אֶת הַיָּדַיִם.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
In a *Tosefta*, **the Sages taught** in greater detail: **Beit Shammai say:** After washing, **one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table, as if you say** that he should place the cloth **on the cushion,** there is room to issue a **decree lest the liquids on the cloth,** which is wet because he used it to dry his hands, **become ritually impure due to** their contact **with the cushion, and** the liquids **would in turn render the hands** of anyone who touches the towel **ritually impure.**


###### Berakhot 52b:9
[Berakhot 52b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:9)

וּנְטַמְּיַיהּ כֶּסֶת לְמַפָּה! — אֵין כְּלִי מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: Even without the liquid, **let the cushion render the towel ritually impure** directly? The Gemara answers: There is a principle: **A vessel does not render** another **vessel ritually impure.**


###### Berakhot 52b:10
[Berakhot 52b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:10)

וּנְטַמְּיֵיהּ כֶּסֶת לְגַבְרָא גּוּפֵיהּ! — אֵין כְּלִי מְטַמֵּא אָדָם.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: **Let the cushion render the man** sitting upon it **ritually impure.** The Gemara answers: There, too, there is a general principle: **A vessel does not render a person ritually impure.**


###### Berakhot 52b:11
[Berakhot 52b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:11)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַל הַכֶּסֶת. שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִטָּמְאוּ מַשְׁקִין שֶׁבַּמַּפָּה מֵחֲמַת הַשּׁוּלְחָן וְיַחְזְרוּ וִיטַמְּאוּ אֶת הָאוֹכָלִין.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**And Beit Hillel say:** One places it **on the cushion** upon which he is sitting, **as if you say** that he should place it **on the table,** there is room to issue a **decree lest the liquids on the towel might be rendered ritually impure** by their contact **with the table,** and those liquids **in turn will render the food** placed on the table **ritually impure.**


###### Berakhot 52b:12
[Berakhot 52b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:12)

וּלְטַמֵּא שֻׁלְחָן לָאוֹכָלִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ! — הָכָא בְּשֻׁלְחָן שֵׁנִי עָסְקִינַן, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי מַשְׁקִין.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: **Let the table render the food upon it ritually impure** directly. The Gemara explains: **Here we are dealing with a table** that has **second** degree ritual impurity status, and an object of **second** degree ritual impurity status **can only confer third** degree ritual impurity status **upon non-sacred items by means of liquids.** By rabbinic decree, liquids that come into contact with second degree ritual impurity assume first degree ritual impurity status and, consequently, can render non-sacred items impure.


###### Berakhot 52b:13
[Berakhot 52b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:13)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּשֻׁלְחָן שֵׁנִי, גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara seeks to clarify: **With regard to what do they disagree?** The Gemara answers: The basis of their dispute is that **Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a table** that has **second** degree ritual impurity status for purposes of eating because of **a decree due to those who eat *teruma*.** A table with that status renders *teruma* ritually impure through contact. To prevent priests who partake of *teruma* from unwittingly eating off a table of that sort, a decree was issued prohibiting its use even with non-sacred foods.


###### Berakhot 52b:14
[Berakhot 52b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:14)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּשֻׁלְחָן שֵׁנִי, אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה זְרִיזִין הֵם.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**And Beit Hillel hold: It is permitted to use a table** that has **second** degree ritual impurity status, and we are not concerned about the priests. As **those who eat *teruma* are vigilant** and would ascertain the status of a table before eating.


###### Berakhot 52b:15
[Berakhot 52b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:15)

דָּבָר אַחֵר: אֵין נְטִילַת יָדַיִם לְחוּלִּין מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Alternatively,** Beit Hillel hold that **there is no** requirement of **washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law.**


###### Berakhot 52b:16
[Berakhot 52b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:16)

מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? הָכִי קָאָמְרִי לְהוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: וְכִי תֵּימְרוּ מַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי אוֹכָלִין דְּחָיְישִׁינַן וּמַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי יָדַיִם דְּלָא חָיְישִׁינַן? אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי הָא עֲדִיפָא, דְּאֵין נְטִילַת יָדַיִם לְחוּלִּין מִן הַתּוֹרָה. מוּטָב שֶׁיִּטָּמְאוּ יָדַיִם דְּלֵית לְהוּ עִיקָּר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְאַל יִטָּמְאוּ אוֹכְלִים דְּאִית לְהוּ עִיקָּר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the point of Beit Hillel adding the additional reason introduced with: **Alternatively?** The Gemara answers: **Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: And if you say, what is the difference with regard to food that we are concerned** that it might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth on the table; **and what is the difference with regard to hands that we are not concerned** that they might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth placed on the cushion? Beit Hillel continue: We can respond that **even so, this is preferable,** as **there is no** requirement of **washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law. It is preferable that hands,** whose impurity **has no basis in Torah law, will become ritually impure** with second degree ritual impurity status, **and food,** whose impurity **has a basis in Torah law, will not become ritually impure.**


###### Berakhot 52b:17
[Berakhot 52b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:17)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים מְכַבְּדִין וְכוּ׳.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over whether cleaning the place where one ate or washing one’s hands should be performed first after the meal. **Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the** area of the **house** where the meal took place **and he washes his hands** with the final waters **thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One washes his hands and sweeps the house thereafter.**


###### Berakhot 52b:18
[Berakhot 52b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:18)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים מְכַבְּדִין אֶת הַבַּיִת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטְלִין לַיָּדַיִם, שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר נוֹטְלִין לַיָּדַיִם תְּחִלָּה, נִמְצָא אַתָּה מַפְסִיד אֶת הָאוֹכָלִין. אֲבָל נְטִילַת יָדַיִם לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי תְּחִלָּה לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? — מִשּׁוּם פֵּירוּרִין.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**The Sages taught** in a *Tosefta* where this issue is discussed in greater detail: **Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the** area of the **house** where the meal took place **and washes his hands thereafter, as if you say that one washes his hands first,** the water is liable to splash on the remaining crumbs and **you will have ruined the food. But Beit Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands is first. What is the reason? Due to** concern, lest the **crumbs** will be made disgusting.


###### Berakhot 52b:19
[Berakhot 52b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:19)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אִם שַׁמָּשׁ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הוּא, נוֹטֵל פֵּירוּרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם כְּזַיִת, וּמַנִּיחַ פֵּירוּרִין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן כְּזַיִת.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**And Beit Hillel say: If the attendant is a Torah scholar,** he **removes the crumbs that are an olive-bulk** from the table at the end of the meal **and leaves** only **crumbs that are not an olive-bulk,** as food that is less than an olive-bulk is not considered food and there is no prohibition to ruin it.


###### Berakhot 52b:20
[Berakhot 52b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:20)

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פֵּירוּרִין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם כְּזַיִת — מוּתָּר לְאַבְּדָן בַּיָּד.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
This **supports** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Crumbs that are less than an olive-bulk** in size, **one may destroy them with his hand** without violating the prohibition against ruining food.


###### Berakhot 52b:21
[Berakhot 52b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:21)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בֵּית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּשַׁמָּשׁ עַם הָאָרֶץ. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּשַׁמָּשׁ עַם הָאָרֶץ.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
Here too the Gemara poses the question: **With regard to what do they disagree?** The Gemara answers: The basis of their argument is that **Beit Hillel hold: One is forbidden to use** the services of **a waiter** who is an ***am ha’aretz*.** Therefore, there is no room for concern that food will be ruined as only crumbs remain on the table. **And Beit Shammai hold: One is permitted to use** the services of **an attendant** who is an ***am ha’aretz*.** Food will remain on the table and, therefore, there is room for concern that food will be ruined. The solution is to clean the food off the table and only then wash one’s hands.


###### Berakhot 52b:22
[Berakhot 52b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:22)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּכוּלֵּיהּ פִּרְקִין הֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, בַּר מֵהָא דַּהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא, וּבְהָא נָמֵי הֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said** that **Rav Huna said: In our entire chapter, the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel, except for this** case, **where the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai. And Rabbi Oshaya would teach the opposite** and reverse the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as they appear in our mishna, **and in this** case **as well, the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel.**


###### Berakhot 52b:23
[Berakhot 52b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:23)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נֵר וּמָזוֹן וְכוּ׳.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We learned in the mishna that **Beit Shammai say:** One recites the blessing over the **candle,** then the Grace after **Meals** blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of *havdala*. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and *havdala*.


###### Berakhot 52b:24
[Berakhot 52b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:24)

רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רָבָא. חַזְיֵיהּ לְרָבָא דְּבָרֵיךְ אַבְּשָׂמִים בְּרֵישָׁא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִכְּדִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל אַמָּאוֹר לָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּתַנְיָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נֵר וּמָזוֹן, בְּשָׂמִים וְהַבְדָּלָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נֵר וּבְשָׂמִים, מָזוֹן וְהַבְדָּלָה!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened** to come **to Rava’s house. He saw that Rava recited a blessing over the spices first.** Rav Huna bar Yehuda **said to him: Now since Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai do not disagree with regard to** the blessing over **light, as we learned** in our mishna that **Beit Shammai say:** One recites the blessing over the **candle,** then the Grace after **Meals** blessing, then the blessing over the **spices,** and finally the blessing of ***havdala*. And Beit Hillel say:** The order is **candle, and spices,** Grace after **Meals, and *havdala*,** why did you recite the blessing over the spices first?


###### Berakhot 52b:25
[Berakhot 52b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:25)

עָנֵי רָבָא בָּתְרֵיהּ: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁהוּא בַּתְּחִילָּה וְעַל הַבְדָּלָה שֶׁהִיא בַּסּוֹף, עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — עַל הַמָּאוֹר וְעַל הַבְּשָׂמִים, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים עַל הַמָּאוֹר וְאַחַר כָּךְ בְּשָׂמִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים בְּשָׂמִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָאוֹר.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rava answered after him:** Indeed, **that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda says in** a *baraita* that **Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai neither disagree with regard to** Grace after **Meals that it is** recited **first, nor with regard to *havdala*, which is** recited **last. With regard to what do they disagree?** They disagree **with regard to the light and the spices. Beit Shammai say:** One recites a blessing **over light and over spices thereafter, and Beit Hillel say:** One recites a blessing **over spices and over light thereafter.**


###### Berakhot 52b:26
[Berakhot 52b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:26)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָהֲגוּ הָעָם כְּבֵית הִלֵּל אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The people were accustomed** to conduct themselves **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel according to** the interpretation of **Rabbi Yehuda.** The blessing over the spices is recited first.


###### Berakhot 52b:27
[Berakhot 52b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:27)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים שֶׁבָּרָא כּוּ׳.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The mishna cited a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to the formula of the blessing over fire in *havdala*. **Beit Shammai say: Who created [*bara*]** the light of fire. And Beit Hillel say: Who creates [*boreh*] the lights of fire.


###### Berakhot 52b:28
[Berakhot 52b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:28)

אָמַר רָבָא: בְּ״בָרָא״ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָרָא מַשְׁמַע. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּ״בוֹרֵא״, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי ״בּוֹרֵא״ דַּעֲתִיד לְמִבְרָא, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי ״בּוֹרֵא״ נָמֵי דִּבְרָא מַשְׁמַע.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
Regarding this, Rava says: **With regard to** the word ***bara*, everyone agrees that it means created** in the past. **Where they disagree is with regard to** the word ***boreh*. Beit Shammai hold: *Boreh*** means that God **will create in the future, and Beit Hillel hold: *Boreh* also means that He has created** in the past.


###### Berakhot 52b:29
[Berakhot 52b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:29)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ״, ״יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבוֹרֵא רוּחַ״, ״בּוֹרֵא הַשָּׁמַיִם וְנוֹטֵיהֶם״. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּ״בָרָא״ וּ״בוֹרֵא״ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָרָא מַשְׁמַע, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּ״מְאוֹר״ וּ״מְאוֹרֵי״. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי חֲדָא נְהוֹרָא אִיכָּא בְּנוּרָא, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי טוּבָא נְהוֹרֵי אִיכָּא בְּנוּרָא. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: הַרְבֵּה מְאוֹרוֹת יֵשׁ בָּאוֹר.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rav Yosef raised an objection:** How can there be a dispute over the meaning of the word *boreh*? In the following verses it is clear that it refers to acts of creation in the past: **“Who forms light and creates [*boreh*] darkness”** (Isaiah 45:7), **“Who forms mountains and creates [*boreh*] wind”** (Amos 4:13), or **“Who creates [*boreh*] the heavens and stretches them out”** (Isaiah 42:5). **Rather, said Rav Yosef: With regard to both *bara* and *boreh*, everyone agrees that** they **mean created. Where they disagree is with regard to the light** of the fire or **the lights** of the fire. **As Beit Shammai hold** that **there is one light in a fire, and Beit Hillel hold** that **there are many lights in a fire,** as a flame consists of red, green, and white light. **That was also taught** in a *baraita*: **Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: There are many lights in the fire.**


###### Berakhot 52b:30
[Berakhot 52b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:30)

אֵין מְבָרְכִין כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא נֵר מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא שָׁבַת, אֶלָּא בְּשָׂמִים מַה טַּעַם לֹא?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
We learned in the mishna that **one may neither recite a blessing** over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles. The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the prohibition against the recitation of a blessing over **a candle** of gentiles in *havdala*, **as** the flame of the candle **did not rest.** Because it was burning during Shabbat, one should not recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat. **However, what is the reason that** one may **not** recite a blessing over **spices** of gentiles?


###### Berakhot 52b:31
[Berakhot 52b:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:31)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הָכָא בִּמְסִבַּת גּוֹיִם עָסְקִינַן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּתָם מְסִבַּת גּוֹיִם לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: Here we are dealing with a party** arranged by **gentiles** and the spices used at that party were prohibited because **the parties of gentiles are generally** devoted **to idolatry.**


###### Berakhot 52b:32
[Berakhot 52b:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:32)

הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא אֵין מְבָרְכִין לֹא עַל הַנֵּר וְלֹא עַל הַבְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, מִכְלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עָסְקִינַן!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: **But from that which was taught in the latter clause** of the mishna: **One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry,** infer **by implication that** in **the first clause** of our mishna **we are not dealing with idolatry?** There must be a different reason why the spices of gentiles are prohibited.


###### Berakhot 52b:33
[Berakhot 52b:33](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:33)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: ״מַה טַּעַם״ קָאָמַר: מַה טַּעַם אֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל הַנֵּר וְלֹא עַל הַבְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּתָם מְסִבַּת גּוֹיִם לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura said:** These two *halakhot* are complementary, and the mishna **states** the *halakha* employing the style of: **What is the reason.** The mishna should be understood as follows: **What is the reason that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles? Because the parties of gentiles are generally** devoted **to idolatry** and one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry.


###### Berakhot 52b:34
[Berakhot 52b:34](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/52b:34)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוּר שֶׁשָּׁבַת — מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו, וְשֶׁלֹּא שָׁבַת — אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו. מַאי ״שָׁבַת״ וּמַאי ״לֹא שָׁבַת״?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **Over fire that rested, one may recite a blessing** in *havdala*, **and over** fire **that did not rest, one may not recite a blessing.** The Gemara asks: **What is** meant by **rested, and what is** meant by **did not rest?**ב